STONEGATE NURSING AND REHABILITATION

4201 STONEGATE BLVD, FORT WORTH, TX 76109 (817) 924-5440
For profit - Corporation 134 Beds HMG HEALTHCARE Data: November 2025 3 Immediate Jeopardy citations
Trust Grade
2/100
#573 of 1168 in TX
Last Inspection: October 2024

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

Overview

Stonegate Nursing and Rehabilitation has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about its operations and care quality. It ranks #573 out of 1,168 facilities in Texas, placing it in the top half, but the low trust grade raises red flags for potential residents. The facility is improving its situation, as the number of reported issues has decreased from 10 in 2024 to 4 in 2025. Staffing is average, with a rating of 2 out of 5 stars and a turnover rate of 61%, which is higher than the Texas average, indicating some instability among staff. However, there have been serious incidents reported, including cases of verbal and mental abuse towards residents, which highlight ongoing concerns about resident safety and the adequacy of staff training in preventing such issues.

Trust Score
F
2/100
In Texas
#573/1168
Top 49%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Better
10 → 4 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
61% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
✓ Good
$16,801 in fines. Lower than most Texas facilities. Relatively clean record.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 29 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Texas. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
⚠ Watch
28 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★★☆☆
3.0
Overall Rating
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Staff Levels
★★★★★
5.0
Care Quality
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 10 issues
2025: 4 issues

The Good

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

Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.

The Bad

3-Star Overall Rating

Near Texas average (2.8)

Meets federal standards, typical of most facilities

Staff Turnover: 61%

15pts above Texas avg (46%)

Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity

Federal Fines: $16,801

Below median ($33,413)

Minor penalties assessed

Chain: HMG HEALTHCARE

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

Staff turnover is elevated (61%)

13 points above Texas average of 48%

The Ugly 28 deficiencies on record

3 life-threatening
Feb 2025 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0558 (Tag F0558)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure residents had the right to reside and receive services in the facility with reasonable accommodation of resident needs and preferences except when to do so would endanger the health or safety of the resident or other residents for 1 of 1 residents (Resident #3) reviewed for accommodation of needs. The facility failed to ensure Resident #3 had access to his call light. This failure could place residents at risk of not being able to call for help when needed. Findings included: Record review of Resident# 3's Quarterly MDS Assessment, dated 01/13/25, reflected a [AGE] year-old male who was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and a readmission on [DATE]. Resident #3 had diagnoses which included fractures, anemia (low blood levels) and hypertension (high blood pressure) . The resident's cognition was severely impaired with a BIMS score of 3. His Functional Status assessment reflected he needed substantial assistance with all his activities of daily living. Record review of Resident #3's care plan, dated 01/08/25, reflected Focus: [Resident #3] has hip fracture due to fall. Goal: The Surgical incision will heal without signs and symptoms of infection or breakdown by review date. Interventions: Anticipate and meet needs. Be sure call light is within reach and respond promptly to all requests for assistance. Observation on 02/19/25 at 1:00 PM revealed Resident #3 lying on his bed, and his call light cord was clipped on the ceiling suspended curtain away from the resident. Observation and interview on 02/19/25 at 2:25 PM revealed Resident #3 was lying on his bed, and his call light was clipped on the curtain. Resident #3 said he did not realize the call light was not within reach. He said he knew how to use the call light and had not called for help. Observation and interview on 02/19/25 at 2:34 PM with CNA B revealed she was assigned to Resident #3. She stated the last time she was in the room was when she was dressing him, and he did not want to get up in his chair. She stated she preferred to remain in bed, but she could not tell at what time. She said when she left him, the call light was within reach. CNA B stated she could not tell how it got clipped to the curtain. She put the call light within reach. She stated she was supposed to be checking whether the call light was within reach while doing her rounds. CNA B stated Resident #3 knew how to use the call light though he hardly called because he used a urinal. CNA B stated failure to have the call light within reach was a resident would not be able to call in case he needed help, and this could lead to a fall. Interview on 02/20/25 at 2:58 PM with the DON revealed her expectation was for the call light to be within reach at all times. The DON said some residents were able to move the call light, and she expected staff to check during rounds and place it within reach. She said the risk of the call light not being within reach was residents could not call for help. She said she did training on call lights, and the training record dated 01/02/25 was provided which showed CNA B was in attendance. Record review of the facility's Call Lights Answering policy, dated October 2010, reflected: . When the resident is in bed or confined to chair be sure the call light is within easy reach of the resident.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services (including procedures that assured the accurate acquiring, receiving, dispensing, and administering of all drugs and biologicals) to meet the needs of each resident for 1 of 2 medication carts (200 Hall) and 2 of 2 residents (Residents #1 and #2) reviewed for pharmacy services. The facility failed to ensure the 200 Hall nurses' medication cart had accurate narcotic counts for Residents #1 and #2. This failure could place residents at risk for medication errors, drug diversion, and delay in medication administration. Findings included: 1. Record review of Resident #1's Quarterly MDS Assessment, dated 02/16/25, reflected the resident was a [AGE] year-old male who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #1 had diagnoses which included fracture of other parts of the pelvis, subsequent encounter for fracture with routine healing. The resident BIMS score was not indicated. Record review of Resident #1's physician's orders, dated 2/16/25, reflected an order for the resident to receive Hydrocodone-Acetaminophen Oral Tablet 5-325 mg (narcotic pain medication), 1 tablet by mouth every 4 hours as needed for pain. Record review of Resident #1's medication February 2025 MAR reflected Hydrocodone-Acetaminophen Oral Tablet 5-325 mg was last administered on 02/19/25 at 9:02 AM. 2. Record review of Resident #2's Entry MDS Assessment, dated 02/03/25, reflected the resident was an [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #2 had diagnoses which included medically complex conditions (health issues that involve multiple body systems, often chronic). The resident cognition was intact with a BIMS score of 13. Record review of Resident #2's physician's orders, dated 02/10/25, reflected an order for the resident to receive Hydrocodone-Acetaminophen Oral Tablet 10-325 mg, 1 tablet by mouth every 6 hours as needed for pain. Record review of Resident #2's February MAR reflected Hydrocodone-Acetaminophen Oral Tablet 10-325 mg was last administered on 02/19/25 at 2:30 PM. Observation and record review on 02/19/25 at 2:43 PM of the 200 Hall nurses' medication cart and the Narcotic Administration Record with RN A revealed Resident #1's Narcotic Administration Record for Hydrocodone-Acetaminophen Oral Tablet 5-325 mg reflected a total of 54 pills remaining, while the blister pack count was 53 pills. It had last been administered on 02/18/25. Review of Resident #2's Narcotic Administration Record revealed the Hydrocodone-Acetaminophen Oral Tablet 10-325 mg had a total of 49 pills remaining, while the blister pack count was 48 pills. It had last been administered on 02/19/25 at 8:00 AM. Interview with RN A on 02/20/25 at 10:57 AM revealed he administered Resident #1's Hydrocodone-Acetaminophen Oral Tablet 5-325 mg 1 tablet every 4 hours as needed and Hydrocodone-Acetaminophen Oral Tablet 10-325 mg 1 tablet to Resident #2 as needed every 6 hours, and he had not signed off on the Narcotic Administration Record log. He said he gave the residents the medication, but he forgot to sign off on the Narcotic Administration Record. He stated he knew he was supposed to sign-out on the narcotic count sheet log after administration and on the Medication Administration Record, but he did not. RN A stated failure to sign off narcotics could lead to overdose since the person who came after him would not be able to tell when the narcotic was administered. He said he did an in-service on medication administration and narcotic signing out, and he knew better because he had been a nurse for a long time. Interview on 02/20/25 at 1:36 PM with the ADON revealed his expectation was for staff administering narcotic medications to document the medications when they were given to the resident on the MAR and to sign on the narcotic log. The ADON stated failure to document could lead to incorrect counting and forgetting when administered. He said it was his responsibility to audit the medication carts, but he did not indicate how often this was done. Interview on 02/20/25 at 2:58 PM with the DON revealed her expectation was for staff administering narcotic medications to document the medications when they were given to the resident on the MAR and to sign on the narcotic log. The DON said failure to document could lead the nurse to forgetting when medication was administered. She said it was the responsibility of the DON and the ADONs to audit the medication carts. She said the facility had completed inservices on medication administration and marcotic sign out. Record review of the training records dated 01/31/25 and 01/20/25 reflected RN A was in attendance. Record review of the facility's Controlled Substances policy, dated December 2012, reflected the following: The facility shall comply with all laws, regulations, and other requirements related to handling, storage, disposal, and documentation of Schedule 11 and other controlled substances.
Jan 2025 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store all drugs and biologicals in locked compartments for two (Medication Cart #1 and Medication Cart #2) of four medication...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store all drugs and biologicals in locked compartments for two (Medication Cart #1 and Medication Cart #2) of four medication carts and nurses' station counter (Hall 200- East Station) reviewed for medication storage. 1. The facility failed to lock Medication Cart #1 and Medication Cart #2 on 01/02/25, leaving all medications on the cart accessible on Hall 100 (West Station). 2. The facility failed to secure medications on the nurses' station counter on Hall 200 (East Station) on 01/03/25 at 5:30 AM. These failures could place residents at risk for drug diversions. Findings included: Observation on 01/02/25 at 3:30 PM revealed Medication Cart #1 was unlocked, and the top and second drawers were open completely facing a resident room. Observation of Medication Cart #2 revealed the medication cart was unlocked, and the drawers were facing the open entry way. Observation on 01/03/25 at 5:30 AM of the 200 Hall (East Station) revealed medications were left out unattended, in reach of residents, and visible at the nurses' station counter: *Theophylline ER 300 mg tab, quantity: 30 *Potassium CL Micro ER 10 meq tab, quantity: 30 *Aripiprazole 2 mg tab, quantity: 30 *Jardiance 10 mg tab, quantity: 14 *Escitalopram 10 mg tab, quantity: 30 *Atorvastatin 10 mg tab, quantity: 30 *Ezetimibe 10 mg tab, quantity: 30 *Levetiracetam 500 mg tab, quantity: 60 *Ranolazine ER 500 mg tab, quantity: 60 *Tamsulosin 0.4 mg cap, quantity: 60 *Eliquis 5 mg tab, quantity: 28 *Furosemide 20 mg tab, quantity: 30 *Isosorbide Dinitrate 20 mg tab, quantity: 90 *Metformin 1000 mg tab, quantity: 120 *Metoprolol Tartrate 75 mg tab, quantity: 60 Interview on 01/02/25 at 3:02 PM with MA H revealed medication carts were supposed to be locked when not in use. Interview on 01/03/25 at 5:35 AM with LVN G revealed the medications came in last night, and she was in the process of sorting out the medications and was putting the medications in the medication cart. Interview on 01/03/25 at 5:40 AM with LVN I, a PRN nurse, revealed medications were supposed to be put up in the medication cart or medication room when delivered. LVN I stated the medications were sorted out by name and put in the medication cart. LVN I stated residents could take the medications when left out or medication cart unlocked. Interview on 01/03/25 at 6:16 AM with LVN J revealed medication carts not being used were supposed to be locked at all times when not in use. LVN J stated residents could take medications that were left out. Interview on 01/03/25 at 6:35 AM with LVN K revealed medications could not be left out because residents could take the medications. LVN K stated medication carts could not be left unlocked when they were not being used. Interview on 01/03/25 at 11:50 AM with ADON A and ADON L revealed medications were supposed to be put up as soon as they came in. Medication carts were supposed to be locked when not being used. Interview on 01/03/25 at 1:10 PM with the DON revealed when medications were delivered the nurse should sign for the medications and put the medications away in the medication carts. DON C stated residents could take medications. Record review of the pharmacy delivery manifest dated 01/02/25 reflected the medications were delivered at 10:26 PM on 01/02/25. Record review of the facility's Security of Medication Cart, revised April 2007 reflected: The nurse must secure the medication cart during the medication pass to prevent unauthorized entry .3. The cart must be locked before nurse enters the resident's room .4. Medication carts must be securely locked at all times when out of the nurse's view.
CONCERN (F) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

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

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety for 1 of 1 kitchen, in that: The facility failed to ensure food temperatures were checked on 01/03/25 while on the steam table before serving residents between 7:00 AM to 8:30 AM. These failures could place residents, who receive food from the kitchen, at risk for food contamination and foodborne illness. Findings included: Observation on 01/03/25 in the kitchen revealed the following: 7:00 AM - a pan of oatmeal, scrambled eggs, pureed, mechanical soft meat were on the steam table uncovered; 7:23 AM - [NAME] A put omelets on the steam table; 7:25 AM - toast was taken out of the oven and place in a different pan and then put on the steam table; 7:40 AM - bacon was put on top of the steam table. [NAME] A plated food without checking the temperatures; 7:56 AM - trays for 100 Hall were completed and sent out; 7:57 AM - [NAME] A added bread to the steam table; 8:16 AM - trays for 200 Hall were completed and sent out; and 8:30 AM - trays for 300 Hall were completed and sent out. Interview on 01/03/25 at 8:35 AM with [NAME] A revealed she was running behind and did not check temperatures for the breakfast food before serving. [NAME] A stated by not checking the temperatures the residents could get food that were too cold or too hot. Interview on 01/03/25 at 8:45 AM with the Dietary Manager revealed the [NAME] was supposed to check temperatures on the steam table before food was served to the residents. She stated food could be contaminated, and the residents could be served cold food. She stated the temperatures were checked on the days that were blank on the temperature log for December and January. The Dietary Manager stated [NAME] A wrote the temperature logs and a different place. She stated the temperatures should be written down in the log book as the tempertures are checked. She stated she checked the temperature book, and she updated the temperature log to reflect those temperatures. Interview attempted to with the facility's Dietitian on 01/03/25 at 9:00 AM via telephone; however, the Dietitian did not call back prior to exit. Interview attempted with [NAME] N on 01/03/25 at 9:00 AM via telephone; however, [NAME] N did not call back prior to exit. Interview on 01/03/25 at 1:30 PM with the Administrator revealed dietary staff should be bringing trays out like 10 at a time to make sure the resident's food was hot, not setting up all the trays, and then serving the residents. Record review of the facility's Food Preparation and Service policy reflected: Cooking and holding temperatures and times: The danger zone for food temperatures is between 41 degrees and 135 degrees Fahrenheit. This temperature range promotes the rapid growth of pathogenic microorganisms that cause foodborne illness. Potentially hazardous foods include meats, poultry, seafood, cut melon, eggs, milk, yogurt, and cottage cheese. The following internal cooking temperatures/times for specific foods must be reached to kill or sufficiently inactivate pathogenic microorganisms: 5.Poultry and stuffed foods - 165 F. Ground meat, ground fish and eggs held for service - at least 115 F Fish and other meats - 145 F for 15 seconds .Food Distribution and service .3. The temperature of foods held in steam tables will be monitored by food service staff .
Oct 2024 10 deficiencies 3 IJ (2 affecting multiple)
CRITICAL (J) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure all alleged violations involving abuse or neglect were reported to the facility Administrator immediately but no later than 2 hours for 1 of 6 residents (Resident #34) reviewed for abuse and neglect. The facility failed to immediately notify their Abuse Coordinator (the Former Administrator) when the Weekend Activities Assistant had yelled at Resident #34 at the nurse's station in front of other residents and staff on 07/14/24. The noncompliance was identified as past noncompliance. The Immediate Jeopardy began on 07/14/24 and ended on 07/14/24. The facility had corrected the noncompliance before the investigation began. This failure placed residents at risk of continued abuse, trauma, and psychosocial harm. Findings included: Record review of the facility's Reporting Abuse to Facility Management policy, revised December 2009 reflected the following: It is the responsibility of our employees, facility consultants, Attending Physicians, family members, visitors etc., to promptly report any incident or suspected incident of neglect or resident abuse, including injuries of unknown source, and theft or misappropriation of resident property to facility management .3. All personnel, residents, family members, visitors, etc., are encouraged to report incidents of resident abuse or suspected incidents of abuse .9. When an incident of resident abuse is suspected or confirmed, the incident must be immediately reported to facility management regardless of the time lapse since the incident occurred. Reporting procedures should be followed as outlined in this policy. Record review of Resident #34's admission Record, dated 10/22/24, reflected the was a [AGE] year-old female who originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. Record review of Resident #34's Quarterly MDS Assessment, dated 09/13/24, reflected she had a BIMS score of 15, indicating no cognitive impairment. Her diagnoses included anxiety disorder (characterized by intense, excessive, and persistent worry and fear about everyday situations), depression (a mood disorder that causes persistent feelings of sadness and loss of interest), and psychotic disorder (a group of serious mental illnesses that all have signs of psychosis, which is characterized by an impaired relationship with reality, often including confusion, hallucinations, and delusions). Record review of Resident #34's care plan, revised on 08/22/24, reflected the following: Focus: [Resident #34 is at risk for adverse psychosocial effects related to verbal allegation .Goal: Will have no indications of psychosocial well being problems by/through review date .Interventions: Consult with: Pastoral care, Social services, Psych services .When conflict arises, remove residents to a calm safe environment and allow to vent/share feelings. Observation and interview on 10/23/24 at 9:47 AM revealed Resident #34 lying in her bed in her room. Resident #34 said she was doing okay now but was very upset about what happened between her and the Weekend Activities Assistant. Resident #34 said the Weekend Activities Assistant had yelled at her because she thought the resident said something to her friend by telling him to come to her room but she never told him to do that. Resident #34 said the Weekend Activities Assistant only wanted to believe the male resident, so she got mad at Resident #34 and hurt her feelings by yelling at her. Resident #34 said it also embarrassed her because the Weekend Activities Assistant yelled at her in front of people and put her hand on her thigh. Resident #34 said she told someone about what happened and got the Weekend Activities Assistant fired for yelling at her. Resident #34 said it made her feel really bad about herself because it was in front of people who then took the Weekend Activities Assistant's side of things. Resident #34 said the situation made her cry and not want to leave her room. Resident #34 said lots of residents loved the Weekend Activities Assistant, including herself, until she yelled at her and things changed. Telephone interview on 10/24/24 at 8:28 AM with Resident #34's family member revealed she was called one day and was told that the Weekend Activities Assistant was very rude to Resident #34 and touched her leg. Resident #34's family member said then the Weekend Activities Assistant came to Resident #34's room and told her it was all her fault, they let me go. Resident #34's family member said Resident #34 was very upset and crying over the situation. Resident #34's family member said the Weekend Activities Assistant was rude on many occasions to the residents at the facility. Record review of the facility's Provider Investigation Report, dated 07/22/24, reflected an incident date of 07/14/24 involving Resident #34 and The Weekend Activities Assistant. The Description of the Allegation section reflected: Resident alleged the activity director hit her leg and yelled at her at the nurses station for kissing another resident who is no longer her friend. The Provider Response section reflected: .Education continues for MANE . The Provider Action Taken Post-Investigation section reflected: We recommend termination of employee for violating our policy for abuse, neglect, and retaliation/fear of reprisal for any resident. We will Continue training and add the communications and inappropriate texts and messaging to the training [sic] . The facility investigation findings reflected the facility confirmed abuse had occurred. Record review of a witness statement from the Weekend Activities Assistant, dated 07/14/24 reflected: Upon arrival, I saw the grievance on the floor from [Resident #22], stating that [Resident #45] keeps coming into thier private living area uninvited, after being told to stay away- I went to [Resident #45], asked him why he can't follow our wishes to stay away from [Resident #34]. He again said 'ok, I wont go in there anymore, but tell her to quit telling me to come in.' After that, I went to [Resident #34] and asked her what happened- her story was that she doesn't want anything to do with him and he is the one that keeps pursuing her- I asked her if she knew how much this affected her Roommate- And that [Resident #22] was told by [Resident #34] that [Resident #45] had kissed her, but her story changed 3X, [Resident #34], says that I hit her leg- This is simply a bald-face lie- I did not put my hand on her, in anyway shape or form This statement is true- [signed by the Weekend Activities Assistant] [sic]. Telephone interview on 10/23/24 at 9:20 AM with the Weekend Activities Assistant revealed Resident #34 accused her of hitting and kicking her three times. The Weekend Activities Assistant said she never laid a hand on Resident #34. The Weekend Activities Assistant said she was terminated from the facility because she went to Resident #34's room and told the resident she should not have said those things. The Weekend Activities Assistant said she never retaliated against Resident #34. The Weekend Activities Assistant said when she talked to Resident #34 at the nurse's station, there were 3 nurses standing nearby and 5 other residents. The Weekend Activities Assistant said she never got loud while talking with Resident #34 but her voice was loud to begin with. The Weekend Activities Assistant said she told Resident #34 that the resident needed to decide who she wanted to be with and what she wanted to be. The Weekend Activities Assistant said she had this conversation with Resident #34 at the nurse's station with others nearby and they could hear the conversation. The Weekend Activities Assistant said she did not think the conversation would have been embarrassing to Resident #34. The Weekend Activities Assistant said she was originally suspended based on the allegation Resident #34 made. The Weekend Activities Assistant said she did not think talking to Resident #34 was abusive or went against her rights in any way. The Weekend Activities Assistant said she had called and still talked to residents at the facility but never discussed the situation regarding her being terminated. Interview on 10/23/24 at 2:05 PM with MA D revealed she knew to report any abuse or allegation immediately to the Administrator and would do so now, and that yelling at a resident was considered abuse. Interview on 10/24/24 at 8:15 AM with the WCN revealed she was standing at the nurse's station when the Weekend Activities Assistant came towards Resident #34. The WCN said apparently there was something that happened and she did not have the background information nor remembered the words that were said during the conversation between Resident #34 and the Weekend Activities Assistant. The WCN said the main thing she took away from it was that the Weekend Activities Assistant was yelling at Resident #34. The WCN said Resident #34 did not take it well trying and tried to tell the Weekend Activities Assistant that she did not do whatever she was accusing her of. The WCN said Resident #34 told the Weekend Activities Assistant you don't have to yell at me like that. The WCN said someone called the Former Administrator and the Weekend Activities Assistant was to be sent home. The WCN said after the told the Weekend Activities Assistant to go home, the Weekend Activities Assistant went to Resident #34's room and said, you got me fired. The WCN said Resident #34 told the Weekend Activities Assistant No, I didn't want to fire you. The WCN said the Weekend Activities Assistant should not have yelled at Resident #34, nor should she have had that conversation in public which made Resident #34 feel humiliated in front of people. The WCN said the situation happened at the nurse's station where other residents and staff were around. The WCN said when the Weekend Activities Assistant yelled at Resident #34, it was abuse even if that was how she talked that was not an excuse to treat a resident that way. The WCN said Resident #34 was crying a lot after the situation happened. The WCN said Resident #34 was at the nurse's station looking for her pain pill when she called her family member and told them that the Weekend Activities Assistant had humiliated and abused her. The WCN said staff should change the way they talk to a resident to remain respectful. The WCN said the Weekend Activities Assistant had yelled at Resident #34 twice at the nurse's station and then also went to her room on the way out of the building. The WCN said she did not consider the situation to be abuse at the time she witnessed it because she was new at the facility and other staff who witnessed it had said that was how the Weekend Activities Assistant normally talked but after the second time it happened that day, Resident #34 had called her family member to report it to them. The WCN said she did not like what was said to Resident #34 so she reported it to the Former Administrator. The WCN said she knew to report any abuse or allegation immediately to the Administrator and would do so now, and that yelling at a resident was considered abuse. Interview on 10/24/24 at 8:37 AM with CNA V revealed Resident #34 came up to her and said the Weekend Activities Assistant had yelled at her. CNA V said she told the nurse and Resident #34 was going to write a grievance about it. CNA V said Resident #34 was very upset and was crying about the situation. CNA V said she was not sure what happened or why the Weekend Activities Assistant had yelled at Resident #34. CNA V said Resident #34 had made an allegation of abuse but she did not report it to the Former Administrator. CNA V said she had been told to report any allegation of abuse to the Former Administrator but did not think about it at the time. CNA V said she realized that she should have immediately reported the allegation of abuse to the Former Administrator and would immediately report an allegation to the current Administrator. CNA V said she was not sure who the nurse was that told Resident #34 to file a grievance about the Weekend Activities Assistant yelling at her. CNA V said she knew to report any abuse or allegation immediately to the Administrator and would do so now, and that yelling at a resident was considered abuse. Telephone interview on 10/24/24 at 3:00 PM with the Former Administrator revealed staff called her and told her that Resident #34 made an allegation to them about the Weekend Activities Assistant, saying she cussed and yelled at her at the nurse's station. The Former Administrator told them what steps to make, including letting the Weekend Activities Assistant know she has to leave out of the building. Interview on 10/24/24 at 3:22 PM with the Administrator revealed he started at the facility on 10/03/24 and was not fully aware of the self-reports from July. The Administrator said he expected staff to treat residents with dignity and respect. The Administrator said staff were not allowed to yell at residents and that would be considered abuse. The Administrator said all staff were trained on the facility's abuse policy and were expected to follow it. The Administrator said all staff were responsible for ensuring residents were free from abuse. The Administrator said all staff knew to report abuse immediately to him, as the Abuse Coordinator. The Administrator said if a resident was abused it could destroy their emotional state, cause them to feel disrespected or belittled, or could cause them to become depressed. Record review of an in-service, dated 07/14/24, reflected staff were trained on the facility's policy regarding abuse and neglect, including when, what, and to whom abuse should be reported to; the WCN and CNA V had both signed the in-service. The Administrator was notified on 10/24/24 at 4:58 PM, that a past non-compliance IJ situation had been identified due to the above failures.
CRITICAL (K) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

Someone could have died · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from abuse for 2 of 6 resi...

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 were free from abuse for 2 of 6 residents (Residents #34 and #3) reviewed for abuse. 1. The facility failed to ensure Resident #34 had the right to be free from abuse when she was verbally and mentally abused by the Weekend Activities Assistant on 07/14/24. 2. The facility failed to ensure Resident #3 had the right to be free from abuse when he was verbally and mentally abused by CNA U on 07/08/24. The noncompliance was identified as past noncompliance. The Immediate Jeopardy began on 07/08/24 and ended on 07/14/24. The facility had corrected the noncompliance before the investigation began. These failures placed residents at risk of abuse, trauma, and psychosocial harm. Findings included: 1. Record review of Resident #34's admission Record, dated 10/22/24, reflected the resident was a [AGE] year-old female who originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. Record review of Resident #34's Quarterly MDS Assessment, dated 09/13/24, reflected she had a BIMS score of 15, indicating no cognitive impairment. Her diagnoses included anxiety disorder (characterized by intense, excessive, and persistent worry and fear about everyday situations), depression (a mood disorder that causes persistent feelings of sadness and loss of interest), and psychotic disorder (a group of serious mental illnesses that all have signs of psychosis, which is characterized by an impaired relationship with reality, often including confusion, hallucinations, and delusions). Record review of Resident #34's care plan, revised on 08/22/24, reflected the following: Focus: [Resident #34] is at risk for adverse psychosocial effects related to verbal allegation .Goal: Will have no indications of psychosocial well being problems by/through review date .Interventions: Consult with: Pastoral care, Social services, Psych services .When conflict arises, remove residents to a calm safe environment and allow to vent/share feelings. Record review of Resident #34's Psychiatric Follow Up, dated 07/17/24, reflected: Staff reports: more tearful/withdrawn since an incident with staff member .Presents: in activity room with peers agreed to leave for interview .Subjective: 'not so good' said another resident came in her room and they kissed one night next day he changed details of the event to others, [the Weekend Activities Assistant] confronted her publicly about it. It made her uncomfortable, now feels others do not like her. Wants to isolate in her room to avoid perceived shame/judgement. [arrow up] dep/stress/anx denies- SI/HI, irritability, mania psychosis, insomnia, [arrow down] appetite no other concerns reported [sic]. Record review of Resident #34's Psychological Services Progress Note, dated 07/24/24, reflected: Patient's Response to Intervention: Pt is stressed and angry today - has had some conflicts with peers and is still upset and reactive to those - she is responsive to some de escalation and redirection to coping vs over focus on recent past incidents. Followed up with staff Record review of witness statement written by the Housekeeping Supervisor for Resident #34 dated 07/14/24 reflected: Today July 14, 2024, witnessed by the [WCN] and [MA D] & Nurse, The Weekend Activities Assistant said to resident 'You told [Resident #45] to come in the room, when he is not allowed in the room, and yall are going to be seperated to different facilitys.' Resident states she was yelling at her 'for kissing [Resident #45] and asking him to come in her room, and should have told him to leave the room.', Resident called her [family member] and told her about situation. Resident states she did not hit her but did not apreciate how she yelled at her, also that The Weekend Activities Assistant came to her room after word went to The Weekend Activities Assistant about situation and states- 'The Weekend Activities Assistant told me she was going to get fired because of her lying about it and you don't even feel bad about it.' Resident states- -[Resident #22] lied to [the Weekend Activities Assistant] and thats why she was trying to tell her to not allow him in her room but yelled at her. -Resident was Asked- Do you feel like you were abused?- -Residents Answer- 'No, just yelling and did not understand why [the Weekend Activities Assistant] came in here to tell her she is going to get her fired.' witness 1) X [signed by the WCN] 2) X __[blank]_______ X Resident [signed by Resident #34] X [signed by the Housekeeping Supervisor] [sic]. Observation and interview on 10/23/24 at 9:47 AM revealed Resident #34 lying in her bed in her room. Resident #34 said she was doing okay now but was very upset about what happened between her and the Weekend Activities Assistant. Resident #34 said the Weekend Activities Assistant had yelled at her because she thought something that was not true. Resident #34 said the Weekend Activities Assistant only wanted to believe the male resident, so she got mad at her and hurt her feelings by yelling at her. Resident #34 said it also embarrassed her because the Weekend Activities Assistant yelled at her in front of people and put her hand on her thigh. Resident #34 said she told someone about what happened and got the Weekend Activities Assistant fired for yelling at her. Resident #34 said it made her feel really bad about herself because it was in front of people who then took the Weekend Activities Assistant's side of things. Resident #34 said the situation made her cry and not want to leave her room. Resident #34 said lots of residents loved the Weekend Activities Assistant, including herself, until she yelled at her and things changed. Telephone interview on 10/24/24 at 8:28 AM with Resident #34's family member revealed the family member was called one day and was told the Weekend Activities Assistant was very rude to Resident #34 and touched her leg. Resident #34's family member said then the Weekend Activities Assistant came to Resident #34's room and told her it was all her fault, they let me go. Resident #34's family member said Resident #34 was very upset and crying over the situation. Resident #34's family member said the Weekend Activities Assistant was rude on many occasions to the residents at the facility. Telephone interview on 10/23/24 at 9:20 AM with the Weekend Activities Assistant revealed Resident #34 accused her of hitting and kicking her three times. The Weekend Activities Assistant said she never laid a hand on Resident #34. The Weekend Activities Assistant said she was terminated from the facility because she went to Resident #34's room and told the resident she should not have said those things. The Weekend Activities Assistant said she never retaliated against Resident #34. The Weekend Activities Assistant said when she talked to Resident #34 at the nurse's station, there were 3 nurses standing nearby and 5 other residents. The Weekend Activities Assistant said she never got loud while talking with Resident #34 but her voice was loud to begin with. The Weekend Activities Assistant said she told Resident #34 that the resident needed to decide who she wanted to be with and what she wanted to be. The Weekend Activities Assistant said she had this conversation with Resident #34 at the nurse's station with others nearby and they could hear the conversation. The Weekend Activities Assistant said she did not think the conversation would have been embarrassing to Resident #34. The Weekend Activities Assistant said she was originally suspended based on the allegation Resident #34 made. The Weekend Activities Assistant said she did not think talking to Resident #34 was abusive or went against her rights in any way. The Weekend Activities Assistant said she had called and still talked to residents at the facility but never discussed the situation regarding her being terminated. Record review of a witness statement written by the Housekeeping Supervisor dated 07/14/24 reflected: To whom it may concern, I [Housekeeping Supervisor], I was on the west hall when I overheard Resident #34 call her [family member] to tell her the activities person [the Weekend Activities Assistant] was cussing and yelling and kicking her legs. I informed the [WCN and the Administrator] of the situation after witnessing [CNA V] tell [the Weekend Activities Assistant] that [Resident #34] is claiming abuse by her and I saw [the Weekend Activities Assistant] storm off- from investigation- it was told to me by [Resident #34] & [the Weekend Activities Assistant] 'that [the Weekend Activities Assistant] went into room to confront resident about situation because you know I did not abuse you, you will get me fired'- the [WCN] and I [the Housekeeping Supervisor] conducted investigation and sent [the Weekend Activities Assistant] home for the day per request of Admin, until investigation is completed. [sic]. Interview on 10/23/24 at 10:16 AM with the Housekeeping Supervisor revealed she did not witness anything that happened between Resident #34 and the Weekend Activities Assistant on 07/14/24. The Housekeeping Supervisor said she was cleaning and coming down the hallway when Resident #34 was on the phone at the nurse's station with her family member and said that the Weekend Activities Assistant had yelled at her, was being very rude to her, and came into her room and touched her leg. The Housekeeping Supervisor said Resident #34 told her family member that she was being neglected and abused. The Housekeeping Supervisor said she went to tell the WCN who had given Resident #34 the telephone to begin with. The Housekeeping Supervisor said she called the Previous Administrator to tell her about the allegation that Resident #34 made. The Housekeeping Supervisor said she was told to go and talk to Resident #34 to get her story which was that the Weekend Activities Assistant had yelled at her at the nurse's station and in her room. The Housekeeping Supervisor said she went to talk to the Weekend Activities Assistant who said she had gone back to Resident #34's room to confront her. The Housekeeping Supervisor said she was told to send the Weekend Activities Assistant home that day on 07/14/24. The Housekeeping Supervisor said she knew to report any abuse or allegation immediately to the Administrator and would do so now, and that yelling at a resident was considered abuse. Interview on 10/23/24 at 10:43 AM with the Social Worker revealed Resident #34 and another resident in the facility were in a relationship until the male resident ended it. The Social Worker said Resident #34 was severely affected by it emotionally until the male resident tried to start up the relationship again. She said Resident #34 was not sure what to do and asked others to help her make the decision. She said the intention the Weekend Activities Assistant had in talking with Resident #34 about the situation was that either she wanted to be with the male resident or she did not, but the Weekend Activities Assistant did not want Resident #34 presenting one way to them and then another way to the male resident regarding their relationship. The Social Worker said on the day of the incident (07/14/24), the male resident went to Resident #34's room and there was some confusion as to whether Resident #34 invited him to see her or he went in on his own. She stated Resident #34 was already in an emotional state and misconstrued what the Weekend Activities Assistant said which was probably a training issue. The Social Worker said the problem with what the Weekend Activities Assistant did was when she went back to confront Resident #34 when she said to her look what you did, you got me fired. She stated this was not true, the Weekend Activities Assistant was only suspended pending the investigation at the time. The Social Worker said the real issue was that the Weekend Activities Assistant had talked to Resident #34 about the situation in front of everyone which made the resident feel embarrassed. The Social Worker said the Weekend Activities Assistant continued to be inappropriate when she was campaigning for herself to the other residents because the lines were blurred between employee and residents. The Social Workre said while the Weekend Activities Assistant was suspended pending the investigation, she had called residents on their personal cell phones which was viewed as retaliatory. The Social Worker said she spoke with Resident #34 who blamed herself for getting the Weekend Activities Assistant fired, so she explained to the resident that the Weekend Activities Assistant was terminated based upon her own actions. The Social Worker stated she followed-up with Resident #34 to ensure she was okay. She said she knew to report any abuse or allegation immediately to the Administrator and would do so now and that yelling at a resident was considered abuse. Record review of a witness statement written by MA D, dated 07/14/24, reflected: I [MA D], on the above date, 07/14/24, and approximate time of 0900 [9:00 AM], I did witness [the Weekend Activities Assistant], Activity Director approch down the hallway towards [Resident #34], she had mentioned to me [Resident #22] had left a grievance on her desk regarding [Resident #45] and [Resident #34]. She continued down the hallway to [Resident #34] at the nursing station, she was a little loud and showing concern towards [Resident #34]. I did witness what seemed to be [the Weekend Activities Assistant] a bit angry at the situation. I did not witness additional conversation as I was busy. End of report. [sic]. Interview on 10/23/24 at 2:05 PM with MA D revealed the Weekend Activities Assistant had verbally abused Resident #34 very loudly in the hallway where everyone could hear it and she wrote a witness statement about it. MA D said the Weekend Activities Assistant was very angry with Resident #34 because there was a grievance written about her. MA D said she saw the Weekend Activities Assistant in the hallway upset and in passing said she was so mad about the grievance. MA D said the Weekend Activities Assistant was upset because it was like a soap opera in the facility and said the Weekend Activities Assistant said she was sick of [Resident #34] crying for days about her male friend in the facility. MA D said the Weekend Activities Assistant was saying she was sick of [Resident #34] going back and forth with her male friend because he upset Resident #34 so much. MA D said she was down the hallway passing medications when she saw Resident #34 at the nurse's station in front of everyone and the charge nurse intervened to take Resident #34 to her room away from the Weekend Activities Assistant who had just yelled at her. MA D said Resident #34 was bawling, crying, and extremely visibly upset at what had just happened. MA D said Resident #34 was very emotional about the situation for a long time because the other residents were giving her a hard time because they loved the Weekend Activities Assistant. MA D said Resident #34 for a while and would not come out of her room after the situation had occurred. MA D said now Resident #34 has reintegrated again and people have stopped talking about what happened, but Resident #34 was blamed for the Weekend Activities Assistant being terminated by other residents. MA D said she knew to report any abuse or allegation immediately to the Administrator and would do so now, and that yelling at a resident was considered abuse. Record review of a witness statement written by the WCN and dated 07/14/24 reflected: In the morning at the nursing station west while [Resident #34] is at the nursing station awaiting for nurse to give pain pill, [Resident #45] passed by her and where talking and I saw [the Weekend Activities Assistant] start separating them because they kissed on Thursday and she was telling them not to be in the room together, and resident was refusing, I did not let him in my room, [the Weekend Activities Assistant] replies yes he said that you called him to come. [The Weekend Activities Assistant] voice tone was really loud, and ended having resident cry- stating that she should not yell at her in the presence of many people. No touching or hitting observed. After patient talking to [family member] state she's been abused by [the Weekend Activities Assistant], who yelled at her in public and Administrator was notified. [sic]. Interview on 10/24/24 at 8:15 AM with the WCN revealed she was standing at the nurse's station when the Weekend Activities Assistant came towards Resident #34. The WCN said apparently there was something that happened and she did not have the background information nor remembered the words that were said during the conversation between Resident #34 and the Weekend Activities Assistant. The WCN said the main thing she took away from it was that the Weekend Activities Assistant was yelling at Resident #34. The WCN said Resident #34 did not take it well trying and tried to tell the Weekend Activities Assistant that she did not do whatever she was accusing her of. The WCN said Resident #34 told the Weekend Activities Assistant you don't have to yell at me like that. The WCN said someone called the Previous Administrator and the Weekend Activities Assistant was to be sent home. The WCN said after the Weekend Activities Assistant was told to go home, the Weekend Activities Assistant went to Resident #34's room and said you got me fired. The WCN said Resident #34 told the Weekend Activities Assistant No, I didn't want to fire you. The WCN said the Weekend Activities Assistant should not have yelled at Resident #34, nor should she have had that conversation in public which made Resident #34 feel humiliated in front of people. The WCN said the situation happened at the nurse's station where other residents and staff were around. The WCN said when the Weekend Activities Assistant yelled at Resident #34, it was abuse even if that was how she talked that was not an excuse to treat a resident that way. The WCN said Resident #34 was crying a lot after the situation happened. The WCN said Resident #34 was at the nurse's station looking for her pain pill when she called her family member and told them that the Weekend Activities Assistant had humiliated and abused her. The WCN said staff should change the way they talk to a resident to remain respectful. The WCN said the Weekend Activities Assistant had yelled at Resident #34 twice at the nurse's station and then also went to her room on the way out of the building. The WCN said she did not consider the situation to be abuse at the time she witnessed it because she was new at the facility and other staff who witnessed it had said that was how the Weekend Activities Assistant normally talked but after the second time it happened that day, Resident #34 had called her family member to report it to them. The WCN said she did not like what was said to Resident #34 so she reported it to the Previous Administrator. The WCN said she knew to report any abuse or allegation immediately to the Administrator and would do so now, and that yelling at a resident was considered abuse. Record review of an undated witness statement written by CNA V reflected: In the morning on [blank space] [Resident #34] was @ the Desk crying I asked her what was going on she told me [the Weekend Activities Assistant] yelled @ her. And it wasn't right and who to talk to. I told the Nurse on duty that she wanted to report [the Weekend Activities Assistant] for yelling @ her. [sic]. Interview on 10/24/24 at 8:37 AM with CNA V revealed Resident #34 came up to her and said the Weekend Activities Assistant had yelled at her. CNA V said she told the nurse and Resident #34 was going to write a grievance about it. CNA V said Resident #34 was very upset and was crying about the situation. CNA V said she was not sure what happened or why the Weekend Activities Assistant had yelled at Resident #34. CNA V said Resident #34 had made an allegation of abuse. CNA V said she was not sure who the nurse was that told Resident #34 to file a grievance about the Weekend Activities Assistant yelling at her. CNA V said she knew to report any abuse or allegation immediately to the Administrator and would do so now, and that yelling at a resident was considered abuse. Interview on 10/24/24 at 9:00 AM with Resident #34's Psychiatric NP revealed he had cared for Resident #34 before and after the incident of abuse from 07/14/24. He stated Resident #34 was very sensitive and staff had to be aware of how they said things to her and where they said them. He stated the situation made Resident #34 feel very uncomfortable at the facility. He stated the situation with the Weekend Activities Assistant easily upset Resident #34 and made her self-isolate for a few weeks but that was just his guess on the timeline. The Psychiatric NP said Resident #34 was a very anxious resident who marinated/ruminated on things easily. He stated Resident #34 self-isolated because she felt as if others did not like her due to the Weekend Activities Assistant being fired. The Psychiatric NP said Resident #34 seemed back to normal now and was out of her room enjoying activities with others. During a confidential interview with a resident, the resident revealed she talked to the Weekend Activities Assistant often on the phone. The resident stated she was not supposed to say anything but was willing to tell the surveyor what they talked about sometimes. The resident said the Weekend Activities Assistant had yelled at her before, but she never reported it to anyone. The resident said she was cleaning up the activity room one day when the Weekend Activities Assistant walked up to her face and said, Why did you do that? Now I'm not going to be able to find anything in here! The resident said she wheeled out of the room away from the Weekend Activities Assistant. The resident said she and everyone else knew that the Weekend Activities Assistant had a temper, but that did not mean she could talk to people any kind of way. The resident said it made her feel bad that the Weekend Activities Assistant yelled at her, but she figured it was related to something with the Weekend Activities Assistant's home life because she knew things were not good. The resident said she knew the Weekend Activities Assistant had yelled at a few people, but no one ever reported her. She stated she was not sure why the Weekend Activities Assistant was always yelling. The resident said she was not afraid of the Weekend Activities Assistant but did not like that she yelled at people. The resident said she overheard the Weekend Activities Assistant yelling at Resident #34 because the Weekend Activities Assistant believed the male resident over Resident #34. The resident said the Weekend Activities Assistant got upset with Resident #34 and went to talk to her at the nurses' station. The resident said she was not sure why the Weekend Activities Assistant yelled at Resident #34 in front of everyone, but it made Resident #34 very upset, made her cry, and made her not want to leave her room for a while. The resident said the Weekend Activities Assistant should not have embarrassed Resident #34 that way by yelling at her in front of everyone or yelling at her in general but the Weekend Activities Assistant let her temper get the best of her. The resident said after the Weekend Activities Assistant had to leave the facility, she said it was because she broke a rule but the Resident was not allowed to tell anyone that was what the Weekend Activities Assistant had told her. Telephone interview on 10/24/24 at 3:00 PM with the Former Administrator revealed staff called her and told her Resident #34 made an allegation to them about the Weekend Activities Assistant, saying she cussed and yelled at her at the nurse's station. The Former Administrator told them what steps to take, including letting the Weekend Activities Assistant know she had to leave the building. The Former Administrator said the Weekend Activities Assistant did talk loud, so someone could perceive things as yelling or screaming. She stated as the Weekend Activities Assistant was leaving the facilitiy she was retaliatory towards Resident #34. She stated the Weekend Activities Assistant put her hands on her hips and told Resident #34, Why did you say all those lies about me? You got me fired., as she was leaving the building. The Former Administrator said Resident #34 had psychological issues that could be perpetuated by the Weekend Activities Assistant's behavior towards her. She stated she had to ask the Weekend Activities Assistant not to call the residents anymore because it was putting fuel on the fire regarding her behavior because she made the residents worried about her after she got fired. She stated the Weekend Activities Assistant could not separate the residents as customers of hers and honor them with respect instead of treating them like they were her family members. The Former Administrator said a resident had reported to her that the Weekend Activities Assistant had talked loud and hateful to some people especially if they gossiped, and the residents talked about her like she was another resident and not like an employee. She stated a resident had reported that the Weekend Activities Assistant did get mad and raised her voice but she still loved the residents. She said she had to tell the resident that she still had a duty to fulfill as the Administrator to keep the residents safe. Record review of a witness statement from the Weekend Activities Assistant, dated 07/14/24 reflected: Upon arrival, I saw the grievance on the floor from [Resident #22], stating that [Resident #45] keeps coming into thier private living area uninvited, after being told to stay away- I went to [Resident #45], asked him why he can't follow our wishes to stay away from [Resident #34]. He again said 'ok, I wont go in there anymore, but tell her to quit telling me to come in.' After that, I went to [Resident #34] and asked her what happened- her story was that she doesn't want anything to do with him and he is the one that keeps pursuing her- I asked her if she knew how much this affected her Roommate- And that [Resident #22] was told by [Resident #34] that [Resident #45] had kissed her, but her story changed 3X, [Resident #34], says that I hit her leg- This is simply a bald-face lie- I did not put my hand on her, in anyway shape or form This statement is true- [signed by the Weekend Activities Assistant] [sic]. Record review of an undated and unsigned witness statement that was included in the facility's provider investigation report evidence reflected: .Even tho, [the Weekend Activities Assistant] has a temper. She was upset with us before, but we know, she loves us .If [the Weekend Activities Assistant] needs to control that more have her talk with someone .[sic]. Record review of the facility's Provider Investigation Report, dated 07/22/24, reflected an incident date of 07/14/24 involving Resident #34 and the Weekend Activities Assistant. For the Description of the Allegation section was: Resident alleged the activity director hit her leg and yelled at her at the nurses station for kissing another resident who is no longer her friend. The Provider Response section reflected: Activity director was sent home on suspension as a precaution on Sunday following the communication. She then alleged it was abuse on Monday and no longer inappropriate comments. Resident did say that [the Weekend Activities Assistant] never hit her. She tapped her on the leg bending down to speak to her while she was sitting in her wc at the ns. Interviews with staff and other residents was completed to determine any other witnesses possible or other information related to the investigation. Education continues for MANE. Additional training added regarding separation of employees and residents and a healthy, professional boundary. Psych services were called. MD called. Medical director informed. Planned call with [Resident #34's family member] on 7/23/2024 to review final findings of the investigation [sic]. The Investigation Summary reflected: [The Weekend Activities Assistant's] communication was witnessed at the station to be loud and with her usual deep, loud voice .The problem is that the employee was informed later about the resident's comments by another CNA. She became upset and went back to resident in her room with hands on hip saying, 'Why did you lie about me.' 'You got me fired. You don't even care.' The activity director then started calling around to other residents on their personal cell phones to discuss her being upset she got fired perpetuating the theatrics of the matter further placing [Resident #34] at risk for feeling the act director has retaliated against her for reporting the matter. The resident says she frequently pits one resident against another with comments or actions .She had been counseled on multiple occasions about toning down her voice, and remaining focused on her personal feelings or beliefs with regard to residents and their needs. We feel she struggles to separate her being the residents 'friends' and being their paid employee and understanding her responses are required to be above reproach. We found through interviews, she is still calling the residents as of this evening of this report. She told another resident via text that '[Resident #34] ruined her life.' .It is unclear why she intentionally went down to the residents' room to 'confront her'. Regardless, it was inappropriate and with disregard for or lack of true understanding of the consequences of her actions. [sic]. The Provider Action Taken Post-Investigation section reflected: We recommend termination of employee for violating our policy for abuse, neglect, and retaliation/fear of reprisal for any resident. We will Continue training and add the communications and inappropriate texts and messaging to the training. Separation is required for employees. We treat our residents like family but there is a professional line. Ongoing monitoring for resident continues to ensure there are no lasting adverse outcomes related to this incident. Counseling as necessary for support services for resident. SW and Administrator will continue checking ins. [sic]. The facility investigation findings confirmed abuse had occurred. Record review of the grievances binder and log for the last three months revealed there was no grievance on file regarding the Weekend Activities Assistant yelling at Resident #34. Record review of an undated and untitled paper provided by the facility reflected personnel information for the Weekend Activities Assistant including a position start date of 11/18/20, a termination date of 07/30/24 with a termination reason of Gross Misconduct; a last work date of 07/14/24 and comments of Discourtesy to residents .please refer to separation notice. Record review of an in-service, dated 07/14/24, reflected staff were trained on the facility's policy regarding abuse and neglect, including when, what, and to whom abuse should be reported to; the WCN and CNA V had both signed the in-service. 2. Record review of Resident #3's admission Record, dated 10/22/24, reflected the resident was a [AGE] year-old male who originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. Record review of Resident #3's Annual MDS Assessment, dated 10/04/24, reflected he had a BIMS score of 13, indicating no cognitive impairment. Further review revealed he had a diagnosis of cerebral palsy (a group of conditions that affect movement and posture. It's caused by damage that occurs to the developing brain, most often before birth). Observation and interview on 10/23/24 at 9:30 AM of Resident #3 revealed he was in his wheelchair in the dining room alone. Resident #3 was able to remember when the CNA yelled at him. Resident #3 said the CNA was very mean to him and he felt it was abusive. Resident #3 said it made him feel bad when it happened. Resident #3 said the CNA
CRITICAL (K) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Abuse Prevention Policies (Tag F0607)

Someone could have died · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement written policies and procedures ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement written policies and procedures that prohibit and prevent abuse and neglect of residents for 2 of 6 residents (Residents #34 and #3) reviewed for abuse. 1. The facility failed to protect Resident #34 from retaliation after the Weekend Activities Assistant was suspended based on an allegation of abuse on 07/14/24. 2. The facility failed to protect Resident #3 from verbal and mental abuse by CNA U on 07/08/24. The noncompliance was identified as past noncompliance. The Immediate Jeopardy began on 07/08/24 and ended on 07/14/24. The facility had corrected the noncompliance before the investigation began. These failures placed residents at risk of ongoing abuse, trauma, and psychosocial harm. Findings included: 1. Record review of the facility's policy, revised December 2016, and titled Abuse Investigation and Reporting reflected: .5. The Administrator will ensure that any further potential abuse, neglect exploitation or mistreatment is prevented. [sic]. Record review of Resident #34's admission Record, dated 10/22/24, reflected the resident was a [AGE] year-old female who originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. Record review of Resident #34's Quarterly MDS Assessment, dated 09/13/24, reflected she had a BIMS score of 15, indicating no cognitive impairment. Her diagnoses included anxiety disorder (characterized by intense, excessive, and persistent worry and fear about everyday situations), depression (a mood disorder that causes persistent feelings of sadness and loss of interest), and psychotic disorder (a group of serious mental illnesses that all have signs of psychosis, which is characterized by an impaired relationship with reality, often including confusion, hallucinations, and delusions). Record review of Resident #34's care plan, revised on 08/22/24, reflected the following: Focus: [Resident #34] is at risk for adverse psychosocial effects related to verbal allegation .Goal: Will have no indications of psychosocial well being problems by/through review date .Interventions: Consult with: Pastoral care, Social services, Psych services .When conflict arises, remove residents to a calm safe environment and allow to vent/share feelings. Record review of Resident #34's Psychiatric Follow Up, dated 07/17/24, reflected: Staff reports: more tearful/withdrawn since an incident with staff member .Presents: in activity room with peers agreed to leave for interview .Subjective: 'not so good' said another resident came in her room and they kissed one night next day he changed details of the event to others, [the Weekend Activities Assistant] confronted her publicly about it. It made her uncomfortable, now feels others do not like her. Wants to isolate in her room to avoid perceived shame/judgement. [arrow up] dep/stress/anx denies- SI/HI, irritability, mania psychosis, insomnia, [arrow down] appetite no other concerns reported [sic]. Record review of Resident #34's Psychological Services Progress Note, dated 07/24/24, reflected: Patient's Response to Intervention: Pt is stressed and angry today - has had some conflicts with peers and is still upset and reactive to those - she is responsive to some de escalation and redirection to coping vs over focus on recent past incidents. Followed up with staff Record review of witness statement written by the Housekeeping Supervisor for Resident #34 dated 07/14/24 reflected: Today July 14, 2024, witnessed by the [WCN] and [MA D] & Nurse, The Weekend Activities Assistant said to resident 'You told [Resident #45] to come in the room, when he is not allowed in the room, and yall are going to be seperated to different facilitys.' Resident states she was yelling at her 'for kissing [Resident #45] and asking him to come in her room, and should have told him to leave the room.', Resident called her [family member] and told her about situation. Resident states she did not hit her but did not apreciate how she yelled at her, also that The Weekend Activities Assistant came to her room after word went to The Weekend Activities Assistant about situation and states- 'The Weekend Activities Assistant told me she was going to get fired because of her lying about it and you don't even feel bad about it.' Resident states- -[Resident #22] lied to [the Weekend Activities Assistant] and thats why she was trying to tell her to not allow him in her room but yelled at her. -Resident was Asked- Do you feel like you were abused?- -Residents Answer- 'No, just yelling and did not understand why [the Weekend Activities Assistant] came in here to tell her she is going to get her fired.' witness 1) X [signed by the WCN] 2) X __[blank]_______ X Resident [signed by Resident #34] X [signed by the Housekeeping Supervisor] [sic]. Observation and interview on 10/23/24 at 9:47 AM revealed Resident #34 lying in her bed in her room. Resident #34 said she was doing okay now but was very upset about what happened between her and the Weekend Activities Assistant. Resident #34 said the Weekend Activities Assistant had yelled at her because she thought something that was not true. Resident #34 said the Weekend Activities Assistant only wanted to believe the male resident, so she got mad at her and hurt her feelings by yelling at her. Resident #34 said it also embarrassed her because the Weekend Activities Assistant yelled at her in front of people and put her hand on her thigh. Resident #34 said she told someone about what happened and got the Weekend Activities Assistant fired for yelling at her. Resident #34 said it made her feel really bad about herself because it was in front of people who then took the Weekend Activities Assistant's side of things. Resident #34 said the situation made her cry and not want to leave her room. Resident #34 said lots of residents loved the Weekend Activities Assistant, including herself, until she yelled at her and things changed. Telephone nterview on 10/24/24 at 8:28 AM with Resident #34's family member revealed she was called one day and was told that the Weekend Activities Assistant was very rude to Resident #34 and touched her leg. Resident #34's family member said then the Weekend Activities Assistant came to Resident #34's room and told her it was all her fault, they let me go. Resident #34's family member said Resident #34 was very upset and crying over the situation. Resident #34's family member said the Weekend Activities Assistant was rude on many occasions to the residents at the facility. Telephone interview on 10/23/24 at 9:20 AM with the Weekend Activities Assistant revealed Resident #34 accused her of hitting and kicking her three times. She stated she never laid a hand on Resident #34. She said she was terminated from the facility because she went to Resident #34's room and told the resident she should not have said those things. The Weekend Activities Assistant said she never retaliated against Resident #34. She said when she talked to Resident #34 at the nurses' station, there were 3 nurses standing nearby and 5 other residents. The Weekend Activities Assistant said she never got loud while talking with Resident #34, but her voice was loud to begin with. She said she told Resident #34 that the resident needed to decide who she wanted to be with and what she wanted to be. She said she had this conversation with Resident #34 at the nurse's station with others nearby and they could hear the conversation. The Weekend Activities Assistant said she did not think the conversation would have been embarrassing to Resident #34. She said she was originally suspended based on the allegation Resident #34 made. She said she did not think talking to Resident #34 was abusive or went against her rights in any way. The Weekend Activities Assistant said she had called and still talked to residents at the facility but never discussed the situation regarding her being terminated. Record review of a witness statement written by the Housekeeping Supervisor dated 07/14/24 reflected: To whom it may concern, I [Housekeeping Supervisor], I was on the west hall when I overheard Resident #34 call her [family member] to tell her the activities person [the Weekend Activities Assistant] was cussing and yelling and kicking her legs. I informed the [WCN and the Administrator] of the situation after witnessing [CNA V] tell [the Weekend Activities Assistant] that [Resident #34] is claiming abuse by her and I saw [the Weekend Activities Assistant] storm off- from investigation- it was told to me by [Resident #34] & [the Weekend Activities Assistant] 'that [the Weekend Activities Assistant] went into room to confront resident about situation because you know I did not abuse you, you will get me fired'- the [WCN] and I [the Housekeeping Supervisor] conducted investigation and sent [the Weekend Activities Assistant] home for the day per request of Admin, until investigation is completed [sic]. Interview on 10/23/24 at 10:16 AM with the Housekeeping Supervisor revealed she did not witness anything that happened between Resident #34 and the Weekend Activities Assistant on 07/14/24. She said she was cleaning and coming down the hallway when Resident #34 was on the phone at the nurse's station with her family member and said that the Weekend Activities Assistant had yelled at her, was being very rude to her, and came into her room and touched her leg. She said Resident #34 told her family member that she was being neglected and abused. The Housekeeping Supervisor said she went to tell the WCN who had given Resident #34 the telephone to begin with. She said she called the Former Administrator to tell her about the allegation that Resident #34 made. The Housekeeping Supervisor said she was told to go and talk to Resident #34 to get her story which was that the Weekend Activities Assistant had yelled at her at the nurse's station and in her room. She said she went to talk to the Weekend Activities Assistant who said she had gone back to Resident #34's room to confront her. She said she was told to send the Weekend Activities Assistant home that day on 07/14/24. The Housekeeping Supervisor said she knew to report any abuse or allegation immediately to the Administrator and would do so now, and that yelling at a resident was considered abuse. Interview on 10/23/24 at 10:43 AM with the Social Worker revealed Resident #34 and another resident in the facility were in a relationship until the male resident ended it. She said Resident #34 was severely affected by it emotionally until the male resident tried to start up the relationship again. The Social Worker said Resident #34 was not sure what to do and asked others to help her make the decision. She said the intention the Weekend Activities Assistant had in talking with Resident #34 about the situation was that either she wanted to be with the male resident or she did not, but the Weekend Activities Assistant did not want Resident #34 presenting one way to them and then another way to the male resident regarding their relationship. She said on the day of the incident (07/14/24), the male resident went to Resident #34's room and there was some confusion as to whether Resident #34 invited him to see her or he went in on his own. The Social Worker said Resident #34 was already in an emotional state and misconstrued what the Weekend Activities Assistant said which was probably a training issue. She stated the problem with what the Weekend Activities Assistant did was when she went back to confront Resident #34 and she said to her, look what you did, you got me fired. The Social Worker said this was not true, the Weekend Activities Assistant was only suspended pending the investigation at the time. She said the real issue was that the Weekend Activities Assistant had talked Resident #34 about the situation in front of everyone which made the resident feel embarrassed. She said the Weekend Activities Assistant continued to be inappropriate when she was campaigning for herself to the other residents because the lines were blurred between employee and residents. The Social Worker said while the Weekend Activities Assistant was suspended pending the investigation, she had called residents on their personal cell phones which was viewed as retaliatory. She said she spoke with Resident #34 who blamed herself for getting the Weekend Activities Assistant fired, so she explained that she was terminated based on her own actions. The Social Worker said she followed up with Resident #34 to ensure she was okay. She said she knew to report any abuse or allegation immediately to the Administrator and would do so now, and that yelling at a resident was considered abuse. Record review of a witness statement written by MA D, dated 07/14/24, reflected: I [MA D], on the above date, 07/14/24, and approximate time of 0900 [9:00 AM], I did witness [the Weekend Activities Assistant], Activity Director approch down the hallway towards [Resident #34], she had mentioned to me [Resident #22] had left a grievance on her desk regarding [Resident #45] and [Resident #34]. She continued down the hallway to [Resident #34] at the nursing station, she was a little loud and showing concern towards [Resident #34]. I did witness what seemed to be [the Weekend Activities Assistant] a bit angry at the situation. I did not witness additional conversation as I was busy. End of report. [sic]. Interview on 10/23/24 at 2:05 PM with MA D revealed the Weekend Activities Assistant had verbally abused Resident #34 very loudly in the hallway where everyone could hear it and she wrote a witness statement about it. MA D said the Weekend Activities Assistant was very angry with Resident #34 because there was a grievance written about her. MA D said she saw the Weekend Activities Assistant in the hallway upset and in passing said she was so mad about the grievance. MA D said the Weekend Activities Assistant was upset because it was like a soap opera in the facility and said the Weekend Activities Assistant said she was sick of [Resident #34] crying for days about her male friend in the facility. MA D said the Weekend Activities Assistant was saying she was sick of [Resident #34] going back and forth with her male friend because he upset Resident #34 so much. MA D said she was down the hallway passing medications when she saw Resident #34 at the nurse's station in front of everyone and the charge nurse intervened to take Resident #34 to her room away from the Weekend Activities Assistant who had just yelled at her. MA D said Resident #34 was bawling, crying, and extremely visibly upset at what had just happened. MA D said Resident #34 was very emotional about the situation for a long time because the other residents were giving her a hard time because they loved the Weekend Activities Assistant. MA D said Resident #34 for a while and would not come out of her room after the situation had occurred. MA D said now Resident #34 has reintegrated again and people have stopped talking about what happened, but Resident #34 was blamed for the Weekend Activities Assistant being terminated by other residents. MA D said she knew to report any abuse or allegation immediately to the Administrator and would do so now, and that yelling at a resident was considered abuse. Record review of a witness statement written by the WCN and dated 07/14/24 reflected: In the morning at the nursing station west while [Resident #34] is at the nursing station awaiting for nurse to give pain pill, [Resident #45] passed by her and where talking and I saw [the Weekend Activities Assistant] start separating them because they kissed on Thursday and she was telling them not to be in the room together, and resident was refusing, I did not let him in my room, [the Weekend Activities Assistant] replies yes he said that you called him to come. [The Weekend Activities Assistant] voice tone was really loud, and ended having resident cry- stating that she should not yell at her in the presence of many people. No touching or hitting observed. After patient talking to [family member] state she's been abused by [the Weekend Activities Assistant], who yelled at her in public and Administrator was notified. [sic]. Interview on 10/24/24 at 8:15 AM with the WCN revealed she was standing at the nurse's station when the Weekend Activities Assistant came towards Resident #34. The WCN said apparently there was something that happened and she did not have the background information nor remembered the words that were said during the conversation between Resident #34 and the Weekend Activities Assistant. The WCN said the main thing she took away from it was that the Weekend Activities Assistant was yelling at Resident #34. The WCN said Resident #34 did not take it well trying and tried to tell the Weekend Activities Assistant that she did not do whatever she was accusing her of. The WCN said Resident #34 told the Weekend Activities Assistant you don't have to yell at me like that. The WCN said someone called the Former Administrator and the Weekend Activities Assistant was to be sent home. The WCN said after the Weekend Activities Assistant was told to go home, the Weekend Activities Assistant went to Resident #34's room and said you got me fired. The WCN said Resident #34 told the Weekend Activities Assistant No, I didn't want to fire you. The WCN said the Weekend Activities Assistant should not have yelled at Resident #34, nor should she have had that conversation in public which made Resident #34 feel humiliated in front of people. The WCN said the situation happened at the nurse's station where other residents and staff were around. The WCN said when the Weekend Activities Assistant yelled at Resident #34, it was abuse even if that was how she talked that was not an excuse to treat a resident that way. The WCN said Resident #34 was crying a lot after the situation happened. The WCN said Resident #34 was at the nurse's station looking for her pain pill when she called her family member and told them that the Weekend Activities Assistant had humiliated and abused her. The WCN said staff should change the way they talk to a resident to remain respectful. The WCN said the Weekend Activities Assistant had yelled at Resident #34 twice at the nurse's station and then also went to her room on the way out of the building. The WCN said she did not consider the situation to be abuse at the time she witnessed it because she was new at the facility and other staff who witnessed it had said that was how the Weekend Activities Assistant normally talked but after the second time it happened that day, Resident #34 had called her family member to report it to them. The WCN said she did not like what was said to Resident #34 so she reported it to the Former Administrator. The WCN said she knew to report any abuse or allegation immediately to the Administrator and would do so now, and that yelling at a resident was considered abuse. Record review of an undated witness statement written by CNA V reflected: In the morning on [blank space] [Resident #34] was [at] the Desk crying I asked her what was going on she told me [the Weekend Activities Assistant] yelled [at] her. And it wasn't right and who to talk to. I told the Nurse on duty that she wanted to report [the Weekend Activities Assistant] for yelling [at] her [sic]. Interview on 10/24/24 at 8:37 AM with CNA V revealed Resident #34 came up to her and said the Weekend Activities Assistant had yelled at her. CNA V said she told the nurse and Resident #34 was going to write a grievance about it. CNA V said Resident #34 was very upset and was crying about the situation. CNA V said she was not sure what happened or why the Weekend Activities Assistant had yelled at Resident #34. CNA V said Resident #34 had made an allegation of abuse. CNA V said she was not sure who the nurse was that told Resident #34 to file a grievance about the Weekend Activities Assistant yelling at her. CNA V said she knew to report any abuse or allegation immediately to the Administrator and would do so now, and that yelling at a resident was considered abuse. Interview on 10/24/24 at 9:00 AM with Resident #34's Psychiatric NP revealed he had cared for Resident #34 before and after the incident of abuse from 07/14/24. He stated Resident #34 was very sensitive and staff had to be aware of how they said things to her and where they said it. He stated the situation made Resident #34 feel very uncomfortable at the facility. He said the situation with the Weekend Activities Assistant easily upset Resident #34 and made her self-isolate for a few weeks but that was just his guess on the timeline. Resident #34's Psychiatric NP said Resident #34 was a very anxious resident who marinated/ruminated on things easily. He said Resident #34 self-isolated because she felt as if others did not like her due to the Weekend Activities Assistant being fired. He stated Resident #34 seemed back to normal now and was out of her room enjoying activities with others. During a confidential interview with a resident, the resident revealed she talked to the Weekend Activities Assistant often on the phone and she was not supposed to say anything but was willing to tell the surveyor what they talked about sometimes. The resident said the Weekend Activities Assistant had yelled at her before, but she never reported it to anyone. The resident said she was cleaning up the activity room one day when the Weekend Activities Assistant walked up to her face and said, Why did you do that? Now I'm not going to be able to find anything in here! The resident said she wheeled out of the room away from the Weekend Activities Assistant. The resident said she and everyone else knew that the Weekend Activities Assistant had a temper but that did not mean she could talk to people any kind of way. The resident said it made her feel bad that the Weekend Activities Assistant yelled at her but she figured it was related to something with the Weekend Activities Assistant's home life because she knew things were not good. The resident said that she knew the Weekend Activities Assistant had yelled at a few people but no one ever reported her and she was not sure why the Weekend Activities Assistant was always yelling. The resident said she was not afraid of the Weekend Activities Assistant but did not like that she yelled at people. The resident said she overheard the Weekend Activities Assistant yelling at Resident #34 because the Weekend Activities Assistant believed the male resident over Resident #34. The resident said the Weekend Activities Assistant got upset with Resident #34 and went to talk to her at the nurse's station. The resident said she was not sure why the Weekend Activities Assistant yelled at Resident #34 in front of everyone but it made Resident #34 very upset, made her cry, and made her not want to leave her room for a while. The resident said the Weekend Activities Assistant should not have embarrassed Resident #34 that way by yelling at her in front of everyone or yelling at her in general but the Weekend Activities Assistant let her temper get the best of her. The resident said after the Weekend Activities Assistant had to leave the facility, she said it was because she broke a rule but the Resident was not allowed to tell anyone that was what the Weekend Activities Assistant had told her. Telephone interview on 10/24/24 at 3:00 PM with the Former Administrator revealed staff called her and told her that Resident #34 made an allegation to them about the Weekend Activities Assistant, saying she cussed and yelled at her at the nurse's station. She stated she told them what steps to take, including letting the Weekend Activities Assistant know she has to leave out of the building. She said the Weekend Activities Assistant did talk loud and so someone could perceive things as yelling or screaming. The Former Administrator said on the Weekend Activities Assistant's way out of the facility she was retaliatory towards Resident #34 when she put her hands on her hips and told Resident #34 Why did you say all those lies about me? You got me fired. while she was leaving the building. She stated Resident #34 had psychological issues that could be perpetuated by the Weekend Activities Assistant's behavior towards her. The Former Administrator said she had to ask the Weekend Activities Assistant not to call the residents anymore because it was putting fuel on the fire regarding her behavior because she made the residents worried about her after she got fired. She said the Weekend Activities Assistant could not separate the residents as customers of hers and honor them with respect instead of treating them like they were her family members. The Former Administrator said a resident had reported to her that the Weekend Activities Assistant had talked loud and hateful to some people especially if they gossiped and the residents talked about her like she was another resident and not like an employee. She said a resident had reported that the Weekend Activities Assistant did get mad and raised her voice but she still loved the residents. The Former Administrator said she had to tell the resident that she still had a duty to fulfill as the Administrator to keep the residents safe. Record review of a witness statement from the Weekend Activities Assistant, dated 07/14/24 reflected: Upon arrival, I saw the grievance on the floor from [Resident #22], stating that [Resident #45] keeps coming into thier private living area uninvited, after being told to stay away- I went to [Resident #45], asked him why he can't follow our wishes to stay away from [Resident #34]. He again said 'ok, I wont go in there anymore, but tell her to quit telling me to come in.' After that, I went to [Resident #34] and asked her what happened- her story was that she doesn't want anything to do with him and he is the one that keeps pursuing her- I asked her if she knew how much this affected her Roommate- And that [Resident #22] was told by [Resident #34] that [Resident #45] had kissed her, but her story changed 3X, [Resident #34], says that I hit her leg- This is simply a bald-face lie- I did not put my hand on her, in anyway shape or form This statement is true- [signed by the Weekend Activities Assistant] [sic]. Record review of an undated and unsigned witness statement that was included in the facility's provider investigation report evidence reflected: .Even tho, [the Weekend Activities Assistant] has a temper. She was upset with us before, but we know, she loves us .If [the Weekend Activities Assistant] needs to control that more have her talk with someone [sic] Record review of the facility's Provider Investigation Report, dated 07/22/24, reflected an incident date of 07/14/24 involving Resident #34 and the Weekend Activities Assistant. The Description of the Allegation section reflected: Resident alleged the activity director hit her leg and yelled at her at the nurses station for kissing another resident who is no longer her friend. The Provider Response section reflected: Activity director was sent home on suspension as a precaution on Sunday following the communication. She then alleged it was abuse on Monday and no longer inappropriate comments. Resident did say that [the Weekend Activities Assistant] never hit her. She tapped her on the leg bending down to speak to her while she was sitting in her wc at the ns. Interviews with staff and other residents was completed to determine any other witnesses possible or other information related to the investigation. Education continues for MANE. Additional training added regarding separation of employees and residents and a healthy, professional boundary. Psych services were called. MD called. Medical director informed. Planned call with [Resident #34's family member] on 7/23/2024 to review final findings of the investigation [sic]. The Investigation Summary reflected: [The Weekend Activities Assistant's] communication was witnessed at the station to be loud and with her usual deep, loud voice .The problem is that the employee was informed later about the resident's comments by another Cna. She became upset and went back to resident in her room with hands on hip saying, 'Why did you lie about me.' 'You got me fired. You don't even care.' The activity director then started calling around to other residents on their personal cell phones to discuss her being upset she got fired perpetuating the theatrics of the matter further placing [Resident #34] at risk for feeling the act director has retaliated against her for reporting the matter. The resident says she frequently pits one resident against another with comments or actions .She had been counseled on multiple occasions about toning down her voice, and remaining focused on her personal feelings or beliefs with regard to residents and their needs. We feel she struggles to separate her being the residents 'friends' and being their paid employee and understanding her responses are required to be above reproach. We found through interviews, she is still calling the residents as of this evening of this report. She told another resident via text that '[Resident #34] ruined her life.' .It is unclear why she intentionally went down to the residents' room to 'confront her'. Regardless, it was inappropriate and with disregard for or lack of true understanding of the consequences of her actions. [sic]. The Provider Action Taken Post-Investigation section reflected: We recommend termination of employee for violating our policy for abuse, neglect, and retaliation/fear of reprisal for any resident. We will Continue training and add the communications and inappropriate texts and messaging to the training. Separation is required for employees. We treat our residents like family but there is a professional line. Ongoing monitoring for resident continues to ensure there are no lasting adverse outcomes related to this incident. Counseling as necessary for support services for resident. SW and Administrator will continue checking ins. [sic]. The Facility Investigation Findings confirmed abuse had occurred. Record review of the grievances binder and log for the last 3 months revealed there was no grievance on file regarding the Weekend Activities Assistant yelling at Resident #34. Record review of an undated and untitled paper provided by the facility reflected personnel information for the Weekend Activities Assistant including a position start date of 11/18/20, a termination date of 07/30/24 with a termination reason of Gross Misconduct; a last work date of 07/14/24 and comments of Discourtesy to residents .please refer to separation notice. Record review of an in-service, dated 07/14/24, reflected staff were trained on the facility's policy regarding abuse and neglect, including when, what, and to whom abuse should be reported to; the WCN and CNA V had both signed the in-service. 2. Record review of Resident #3's admission Record, dated 10/22/24, reflected the resident was a [AGE] year-old male who originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. Record review of Resident #3's Annual MDS Assessment, dated 10/04/24, reflected he had a BIMS score of 13, indicating no cognitive impairment. Further review revealed he had a diagnosis of cerebral palsy (a group of conditions that affect movement and posture. It's caused by damage that occurs to the developing brain, most often before birth). Observation and interview on 10/23/24 at 9:30 AM revealed Resident #3 in his wheelchair in the dining room alone. Resident #3 was able to remember when the CNA yelled at him. Resident #3 said the CNA was very mean to him, and he felt it was abusive. Resident #3 said it made him feel bad when it happened. Resident #3 said the CNA got fired and now staff treat him very well. Record review of the facility's Provider Investigation Report dated 07/15/24 reflected the facility reported an incident involved Resident #3 on 07/08/24. The de[TRUNCATED]
CONCERN (D)

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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents who were unable to carry out activities of daily living received necessary services to maintain good grooming, and personal hygiene for 1 of 22 residents (Resident #74) reviewed for ADL care. The facility failed to ensure Resident #74's fingernails were cleaned and cut. This failure could place residents at risk for poor hygiene, dignity issues, and decreased quality of life. Findings included: Record review of Resident #74's Face Sheet, dated 10/24/24, reflected the resident was a [AGE] year-old male who admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Record review of Resident #74's MDS assessment, dated 10/03/24, reflected a BIMS score of 5 indicating severe cognitive impairment. The MDS also reflected diagnoses of stroke, hemiplegia of the right dominant side, and renal insufficiency. The MDS also reflected in Section GG that Resident #74 required substantial/maximal assistance with Activities of Daily Living. Record review of Resident #74's Care Plan, dated 10/22/24, reflected a Focus: Resident exhibits ADL Self Care Performance Deficit, requires assistance: cognitive deficit secondary to dementia disease progression, hemiplegia, impaired decision making, vision impairment. Goal: Will be cleaned, well-groomed, appropriately dressed and weight maintained through next review date. Interventions: Bathing:Bathing requires assist x 1 staff participation. Eating: requires assist x 1 staff participation. Toileting: requires assist x 1 staff participation. Transfer: requires assist x 1 staff participation assist . Bed mobility: Resident requires assist x 1 assist staff participation. Observation and interview on 10/22/24 at 10:19 AM revealed Resident #74 sitting in his wheelchair in the common in front of the nurses' station on East Hall. Resident #74's fingernails were observed to be long on both hands. The resident stated he would like his fingernails trimmed. Interview on 10/24/24 at 11:30 AM with CNA A revealed nail care was supposed to be performed on residents as needed as well as on their shower days. CNA A stated she asked the Rresident #74 earlier that day if he wanted his nails trimmed, and he told her no. She said that the evening shift had completed it the day before. She also revealed that if nails were not kept trimmed and clean that residents could get an infection because they could scratch themselves resulting in a skin tear. CNA A also stated that if she did not have time to provide nail care, she should ask the next oncoming shift or her nurse to assist with nail care. She stated she had not been in-serviced on nail care since working here in the last two months. Interview on 10/24/24 at 11:42 AM with LVN B revealed CNAs were responsible for nail care. LVN B stated the CNAs were supposed to check the resident's nails every time they were showered and/or bathed. LVN B also said that if she observed a resident's nails too long, she would cut them herself. LVN B continued and stated that she had not noticed Resident #74's nails needed to be cut. LVN B also stated she could not recall a policy on ADLs and nail care, nor could she remember the last time she was in-serviced on nail care. Interview on 10/24/24 at 11:52 AM with ADON A revealed it was everyone's responsibility to examine the residents' nails. ADON A stated CNAs were to provide nail care when they showered the residents and as needed. ADON A also said if a resident refused nail care, then it should be care planned. ADON A revealed long nails could cause trauma. ADON A further revealed CNAs performed nail care on non-diabetics and if residents were diabetic, then nurses were supposed to perform nail care. ADON A revealed he could not remember the last in-service on nail care. In addition, ADON A stated he spoke with the Therapy Director who provided a soft splint for the resident's hand. Record review of the facility's current Care of Fingernails/Toenails policy, dated April 2007, reflected the following: The purposes of this procedure are to clean the nail bed, to keep nails trimmed, and to prevent infection. General Guidelines: 1. Nail care includes daily cleaning and regular trimming. 2. Proper nail care can aide in the prevention of skin problems around the nail bed. 3. Unless otherwise permitted, do not trim the nails of diabetic residents or residents with circulatory impairments. 4. Trimmed and smooth nails prevent the resident from accidentally scratching and injuring his or her skin. 5. Watch for and report any changes in the color of the skin around the nail bed, blueness of the nail, any signs of poor circulation, cracking of the skin between the toes, any swelling, bleeding, etc. 6. Stop and report to the nurse supervisor if there is evidence of ingrown nails, infections, pain, or if nails are too hard or too thick to cut with ease.
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 respiratory care was provided consistent ...

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 respiratory care was provided consistent with professional standards of practice for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #8) reviewed for respiratory therapy. LVN Y failed to ensure Resident #8's nasal cannula was changed and dated according to doctor's orders on 10/20/24. This failure could lead to respiratory infections, poor air quality, and not having their respiratory requirements met. Findings included: Record review of Resident #8's admission Record, dated 10/24/24, reflected the resident was an [AGE] year-old female who was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. Record review of Resident #8's Quarterly MDS Assessment, dated 09/24/24, reflected she had a BIMS score of 15 indicating no cognitive impairment. Her diagnoses included Asthma, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease or Chronic Lung Disease. Resident #8's MDS did not address her use of oxygen therapy. Record review of Resident #8's Order Summary Report, dated 10/24/24, reflected the following: O2: Change and label water humidification and NC tubing weekly on _Sunday____and on___10-6___shift. One time a day every Sun with an order date of 10/16/23 and start dated of 10/22/23. Record review of Resident #8's care plan, revised 04/03/24, reflected the following: Focus: [Resident #8] has Oxygen Therapy as needed r/t Ineffective gas exchange .Goal: Will have no s/sx of poor oxygen absorption through the review date .Interventions: OXYGEN SETTINGS: O2 via nasal cannula/mask . Observation and interview on 10/23/24 at 9:10 AM with Resident #8 revealed she had her nasal cannula on her face being used and had a piece of tape with the date 10/14 [LVN Y's initials] on it. Resident #8 said she was doing good and was cared for by the staff. Observation and interview on 10/23/24 at 11:51 AM with Resident #8 revealed her nasal cannula was on her face being used and had a piece of tape with the date 10/14 [LVN Y's initials] on it. Resident #8 said she needed a new one because no one came to change it a few days ago like they were supposed to. Observation and interview on 10/23/24 at 11:50 AM with LVN X revealed she cared for Resident #8. LVN X said the night shift nurse on Sundays usually changed the nasal cannula for residents each week. LVN X said then on Mondays, ADON Z normally checks to make sure all the nasal cannulas were changed for each resident. LVN X said the purpose of the nasal cannula being changed was for sanitation and infection control reasons. LVN X said she had not noticed that Resident #8's nasal cannula was still dated 10/14/24 and was not changed this past Sunday (10/20/24). LVN X said usually the nurse who changed the nasal cannula would date and initial it to acknowledge when it was completed. LVN X saw Resident #8's nasal cannula dated 10/14 and said she would change it immediately. LVN X said she was not sure why it was not changed this past Sunday (10/20/24). Interview on 10/24/24 at 8:52 AM with ADON Z revealed he was told yesterday that Resident #8's nasal cannula was not changed. ADON Z said the night shift nurse on Sundays was responsible for changing a resident's nasal cannula. ADON Z said he usually came in on Mondays and checked to make sure all residents who used oxygen had their nasal cannula changed the day before. ADON Z said he worked on Sunday (10/20/24) and thought he had changed Resident #8's nasal cannula but thought he got distracted with something else and forgot. ADON Z said since he thought he had changed it himself, he did not need to check and ensure it was completed. ADON Z said the purpose of changing the nasal cannula every week was because of infection control. ADON Z said if a resident's nasal cannula was not changed it could become a breeding ground for something to colonize in the tubing. Attempted telepone interview on 10/25/24 at 9:21 AM with LVN Y was unsuccessful as there was not an answer. Interview on 10/25/24 at 3:09 PM with the Interim DON revealed a resident's nasal cannula was supposed to be changed weekly as ordered. Record review of the facility's Oxygen Administration policy, revised March 2004, reflected the following: .1. Verify that there is a physician's order for this procedure. Record review the physician's orders or facility protocol for oxygen administration
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure, in accordance with State and Federal laws, the facility stored all drugs and biologicals in locked compartments for 1 of 5 carts (100...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure, in accordance with State and Federal laws, the facility stored all drugs and biologicals in locked compartments for 1 of 5 carts (100 Hall Nurse cart) reviewed for storage. LVN C failed to secure the nurse medication cart for 100 Hall. This failure could place residents at risk of obtaining medications not prescribed to them. Findings included: Observation on 10/22/24 at 7:10 AM medication cart paraked at the nurse's station, identified by MA D as the nurse medication cart for the 100 Hall, was noted to be unlocked. All drawers, with the exception of the controlled substances drawer, were able to be opened. Five residents were sitting around the nurse's station in the common area. Interview on 10/22/24 at 7:13 AM with MA D revealed the day shift nurse was late arriving so she counted with LVN C. MA D stated LVN C requested MA D leave the 100 Hall nurse cart open so she could get something out before she left. MA D stated she was not aware LVN C had not locked the cart when she was done. MA D stated the risk of leaving a medication cart open was a resident getting medications not prescribed to them and having an allergic reaction, or an adverse outcome. Interview on 10/24/24 at 2:40 PM with the DON revealed all medication carts were to be locked when the staff member walked away from the cart. She stated the risks of leaving a cart unlocked included residents having access to medications that were not theirs and having unintended consequences or reactions. Interview on 10/25/24 at 9:06 AM with LVN C revealed she did not recall asking MA D to leave the cart open, did not recall why she might have asked her to do so, and did not recall if she did go back into the cart after handing over the keys. LVN C stated, I've slept since then. Record review of the facility's Storage of Medications policy, dated April 2007, reflected: .7. Compartments (including but not limited to drawers, cabinets .) containing drugs and biologicals shall be locked when not in use, and trays or carts used to transport such items shall not be left unattended if open or otherwise potentially available to others
CONCERN (D)

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

Menu Adequacy (Tag F0803)

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 the menu was followed for the lunch meal ...

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 the menu was followed for the lunch meal for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #9) reviewed for food and nutrition services. The facility failed to ensure residents on a pureed diet were served pureed bread and pureed angel food cake during the lunch meal on 10/23/24. This failure could place residents at risk for unwanted weight loss, hunger, and metabolic imbalances. Findings included: Record review of Resident #9's MDS, dated [DATE], reflected the resident was a [AGE] year-old female with primary diagnoses of dementia, stroke, and hemiplegia. Resident also was unable to complete a BIMS test. Further review reflected Resident #9 required a mechanically altered therapeutic diet. Record review of Resident #9's consolidated physician's orders, dated 10/25/24, reflected the resident had an active order for a regular diet, dysphagia advanced level 1 texture, regular consistency starting on 09/18/24. Record review of Resident #9 care plan, dated 08/20/24, reflected: Focus: Resident #9 requires a therapeutic regular diet, Dys Adv (Dysphagia Level texture. Goal: Will comply with diet through the next review date. Interventions: Alert MD/NP and document residents' inability to consume correct diet and obtain recommendations to down-grade as indicated. Offer a supplement of the resident choice when/if consumption of meal is less than 50%. Offer an alternative when/if resident does not like the meal. Provide diet as per MD order. Nurse to ensure proper diet is served. RD to evaluate and make recommendations as indicated. Record review of Order Listing Report dated 10/25/24 reflected the facility had five total residents on a pureed diet. Record review of the facility's menu for the lunch meal on 10/23/24 revealed roast turkey, honey roasted carrots, green beans, cornbread dressing, dinner roll, and brown sugar glazed angel food cake. Observation on 10/23/24 at 12:52 PM revealed Resident #9's tray ticket stated that the resident was supposed to have a dinner roll and pureed brown sugar glazed angel food cake on the tray. However, Resident #9 did not receive pureed bread nor pureed angel food cake. Resident #9 instead received applesauce instead of the cake for dessert. Observation on 10/23/24 at 1:07 PM revealed the test tray provided to survey team did not have pureed bread or pureed angel food cake. Interview on 10/23/24 at 1:10 PM with the Dietary Manager revealed the dessert and pureed bread were not served, but they were prepared. The Dietary Manager stated the [NAME] forgot to put the pureed bread and pureed angel food on the trays of the residents who received pureed trays. The Dietary Manager revealed it was the server's responsibility to put the individual items on the residents' trays and the Cook's responsibility to prepare the purees. The Dietary Manager said the residents who did not receive the same pureed food items as everyone else could get upset and would not receive the full nutritional value as the residents that received the regular texture trays. Interview on 10/23/24 at 1:31 PM with the District Dietary Manager revealed the pureed bread and pureed angel food cake were missing from the test tray delivered to survey team. The District Dietary Manager stated the dietary team simply did not place all the pureed items on the puree trays. The District Dietary Manager stated the resident would not receive all the nutritive value of the meal if they do not receive all the items on the menu. Record review of the facility's Therapeutic Diets policy, dated November 2015, reflected the following: Therapeutic diets shall be prescribed by the Attending Physician. The facility will strive for the fewest possible dietary restrictions .Routine menus are planned by the Food Services Manager and approved by a Registered Dietician for nutritional adequacy. The Food Services Manager will establish and use a tray identification system to ensure that each resident receives his or her diet as ordered.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0805 (Tag F0805)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to provide food prepared in a form designed to meet indiv...

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 food prepared in a form designed to meet individual needs for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #9) reviewed for food consistency. The facility failed to ensure Resident #9's pureed carrots were free of whole slices of carrots. This failure placed all residents, especially those with swallowing issues, at risk of aspirating or choking. Findings included: Record review of Resident #9's MDS, dated [DATE], reflected the resident was a [AGE] year-old female with primary diagnoses of dementia, stroke, and hemiplegia. Resident also was unable to complete a BIMS. Further review reflected Resident #9 required a mechanically altered therapeutic diet. Record review of Resident #9's consolidated physician's orders, dated 10/25/24, reflected the resident had an active order for a regular diet, dysphagia advanced level 1 texture, regular consistency starting on 09/18/24. Record review of Resident #9 care plan, dated 08/20/24, reflected: Focus: Resident #9 requires a therapeutic regular diet, Dys Adv (Dysphagia Level texture. Goal: Will comply with diet through the next review date. Interventions: Alert MD/NP and document residents' inability to consume correct diet and obtain recommendations to down-grade as indicated. Offer a supplement of the resident choice when/if consumption of meal is less than 50%. Offer an alternative when/if resident does not like the meal. Provide diet as per MD order. Nurse to ensure proper diet is served. RD to evaluate and make recommendations as indicated. Record review of Order Listing Report dated 10/25/24 reflected the facility had five total residents on a pureed diet. Record review of the facility's menu for the lunch meal on 10/23/24 revealed roast turkey, honey roasted carrots, green beans, cornbread dressing, dinner roll, and brown sugar glazed angel food cake. Observation on 10/23/24 at 12:45 PM revealed there were chunks of carrots in the puree portion of the puree test tray. Interview on 10/23/24 at 1:10 PM with the Dietary Manager revealed she observed the chunks of carrot slices in the pureed carrots. The Dietary Manager stated pureed foods should be smooth, like a pudding texture. The Dietary Manager said if everything was not completed pureed, the resident could choke or aspirate. The Dietary Manager stated it was the responsibility of the dietary aides and nurses to ensure the resident did not receive a puree with chunks in it. The Dietary Manager revealed she in-serviced last week on how to prepare pureed foods. Interview on 10/23/24 at 1:31 PM with the Dietary District Manager revealed he observed the chunks of carrot slices in the pureed carrots. The Dietary District Manager stated pureed foods should not have chunks in it. He stated that it could be a choking hazard. The Dietary District Manager said the responsibility was the cook's and dietary aide's responsibility to ensure the trays do not go out with the purees incorrectly processed. Record review of the facility's undated corporate recipe for Carrots reflected: 1. For Pureed: Measure out desired # of servings into food processor. Blend until smooth. Follow directions on food thickener guidelines of specific product used in your facility for liquid and thickener measurements.
CONCERN (D)

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

Medical Records (Tag F0842)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

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 medical records, in accordance with accepted professional standards and practices, were maintained on each resident that were accurately documented for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #8) reviewed for accuracy of clinical records. The facility failed to ensure LVN Y accurately documented on Resident #8's TAR that her nasal cannula was not changed on 10/20/24 as ordered. This failure could place residents at risk of inaccurate medical records that could affect monitoring and medical services provided. Findings included: Record review of Resident #8's admission Record, dated 10/24/24, reflected the resident was an [AGE] year-old female who was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. Record review of Resident #8's Quarterly MDS Assessment, dated 09/24/24, reflected she had a BIMS of 15 indicating no cognitive impairment. Her diagnosis included Asthma, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease or Chronic Lung Disease. Record review of Resident #8's Order Summary Report, dated 10/24/24, reflected the following: O2: Change and label water humidification and NC tubing weekly on _Sunday____and on___10-6___shift. One time a day every Sun with an order date of 10/16/23 and start dated of 10/22/23. Record review of Resident #8's October 2024 TAR reflected the following: O2: Change and label water humidification and NC tubing weekly on _Sunday____and on___10-6___shift. One time a day every Sun- Start Date- 10/23/2023 0000 with a check mark and LVN Y's initials for 10/20/24. Record review of Resident #8's care plan, revised 04/03/24, reflected the following: Focus: [Resident #8] has Oxygen Therapy as needed r/t Ineffective gas exchange .Goal: Will have no s/sx of poor oxygen absorption through the review date .Interventions: OXYGEN SETTINGS: O2 via nasal cannula/mask . Observation and interview on 10/23/24 at 9:10 AM revealed Resident #8 had her nasal cannula on her face being used and had a piece of tape with the date 10/14 [LVN Y's initials] on it. Resident #8 said she was doing good and was cared for by the staff. Observation and interview on 10/23/24 at 11:51 AM revealed Resident #8's nasal cannula was on her face being used and had a piece of tape with the date 10/14 [LVN Y's initials] on it. Resident #8 said she needed a new one because no one came to change it a few days ago like they were supposed to. Interview on 10/24/24 at 8:52 AM with ADON Z revealed if staff did not provide a treatment they should make a note why it was not done. ADON Z said if there was a check mark on a resident's TAR, that meant it was completed. ADON Z said if LVN Y did not change Resident #8's nasal cannula she should not have checked on the resident's TAR that it was completed. ADON Z said the purpose of accurate documentation on a resident's TAR was to inform the oncoming staff of what was accomplished and what still needed to be accomplished. ADON Z said there could be a gap in a resident's care if the information on their TAR was inaccurate. ADON Z said he only checked resident's TARs for completion, not accuracy. ADON Z said he believed that each nurse was responsible for what they documented. ADON Z said LVN Y was responsible for ensuring she documented accurately on Resident #8's TAR regarding the nasal cannula not being changed on Sunday (10/20/24). Attempted telephone interview on 10/25/24 at 9:21 AM with LVN Y was unsuccessful as there was not an answer. Interview on 10/25/24 at 3:09 PM with the Interim DON revealed staff were not supposed to document that they provided a treatment if they did not provide it. The Interim DON said staff were responsible for documenting accurately on a resident's TAR. Record review of the facility's Oxygen Administration policy, revised March 2004, reflected the following: After completing the oxygen setup or adjustment, the following information should be recorded in the resident's medical record: 1. The date and time that the procedure was performed. 2. The name and title of the individual who performed the procedure.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0800 (Tag F0800)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure each resident was provided with a nourishing, palatable, well-balanced diet that met his or her daily nutritional and ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure each resident was provided with a nourishing, palatable, well-balanced diet that met his or her daily nutritional and special dietary needs, taking into consideration the preferences of 2 of 23 residents (Residents #41 and #239) observed. The facility failed to have an adequate supply of milk for all residents. This failure had the potential to affect all facility residents who consumed food from the facility kitchen. Findings included: Observation on 10/22/24 at 7:15 AM revealed the facility milk box contained only 12 individual servings of milk. Observation and interview on 10/22/24 at 11:53 AM with Resident #41 revealed that the resident does not receive requested milk with her breakfast approximately one time per month. Resident #41 stated she was told that they were out of milk. Resident #41 stated that in the past five weeks at the facility, she had not received milk twice. Observation and interview on 10/22/24 at 11:14 AM with Resident #239 revealed that the resident did not receive milk that morning for breakfast. The resident was eating her breakfast, and there was no milk on her tray. Resident stated that she wanted milk, but she had not received it. Interview on 10/22/24 at 7:15 AM with the Dietary Aide revealed that was not enough milk for the residents who wanted milk in the mornings with their breakfast. The Dietary Aide stated approximately once a month there was not enough milk to meet the needs of the residents. The Dietary Aide said that was everyone's responsibility to report to the Dietary Manager if they observed that the facility was running low on milk so that an emergency milk order could be placed. The Dietary Aide concluded by stating that if there was not enough milk for the residents who preferred milk with their meal, the residents would become angry and upset. The Dietary Aide revealed the department was last in-serviced on reporting when dietary items were low to the Dietary Manager the previous Friday. Interview on 10/22/24 at 7:21 AM with the Dietary Manager revealed there was not enough milk for the morning's breakfast. The Dietary Manager stated there was not enough milk because she was only allowed to order milk based on census, and sometimes more milk was needed than she was allowed to order. The Dietary Manager stated this has been the company's policy since she has worked at the facility as the Dietary Manager since January 2024. The Dietary Manager stated that in emergencies she could call for an emergency delivery of milk to be delivered to the facility. The Dietary Manager also said that the regular milk delivery was scheduled for the following day. The Dietary Manager stated that in an emergency, she could use powdered milk if necessary that she kept in her emergency food supply. The Dietary Manager revealed there was not enough milk in the building for the residents who wanted milk with their breakfast. The Dietary Manager revealed it was her responsibility to ensure there was enough milk in the facility to meet the needs of the residents. The Dietary Manager stated the cooks and the dietary aides were responsible for reporting to her if the milk supply ran low. The Dietary Manager stated she had a storage of seven days of food as an emergency supply, and she received a food delivery twice a week. The storage room was observed as well. The Dietary Manager concluded by stating that she in-serviced her staff every Monday and Friday. Interview on 10/23/24 at 12:18 PM with the Dietary District Manager revealed the Dietary Manager should have called in for an emergency delivery of milk prior to the breakfast meal. The Dietary District Manager stated it was the Dietary Manager's responsibility to keep milk in-house. The Dietary District Manager also said that if residents were not given milk, it would be a dignity issue as well as a nutritional risk. The Dietary District Manager stated staff were in-serviced two times per week. Record review of the facility's current Menus policy, dated December 2008, reflected: Policy Interpretation and Implementation .8. If a food group is missing from a resident's daily diet (e.g., dairy products), the resident will be provided an alternate means of meeting the resident's nutritional needs (e.g., calcium supplement or fortified non-dairy alternatives) 11. Menu planning will consider the cultural backgrounds and food habits of residents.
Aug 2023 4 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Tube Feeding (Tag F0693)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents fed by enteral means received the appropriate treatment and services to prevent complications of enteral feedings for 2 (Resident #65 and Resident #37) of 6 residents reviewed for enteral nutrition, in that: 1. The facility failed to appropriately label formula bag for Resident #65. 2. The facility failed to follow Resident #37's physician orders for enteral feeding. These failures could affect residents receiving enteral nutrition/hydration and place them at risk of health complications and decline in health. Findings included: 1. Record review of Resident #65's face sheet dated 08/31/23, revealed the resident was [AGE] year-old male admitted on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with a diagnoses that including type 2 diabetes mellitus, moderate protein-calorie malnutrition, and gastrostomy status (g-tube). Record review of Resident #65's quarterly MDS dated [DATE], revealed the resident had moderate cognitive impairment with a BIMS score of 11. The assessment reflected Resident #65 required extensive assistance with eating, one-person physical assist, and the resident received nutrition via feeding tube and a mechanically altered diet. Record review of Resident #65's care plan revised dated 03/15/23 revealed requires tube feeding r/t dysphagia, inability to consume enough caloric intake with diagnosis of CVA and Protein Calorie Malnutrition. Goal: Will maintain adequate nutritional and hydration status aeb weight stable, no s/sx of malnutrition or dehydration through review date. Will remain free of side effects or complications related to tube feeding through review date. Record review of Resident #65's physician order dated 08/25/23 revealed GT: diabetic source or equivalent @ 70 cc /hr per GT X 12Hrs Start feeding at 6pm and remove at 6am every 12 hours: Start diabetic source or equivalent @ 70 cc/hr per GT X 12Hrs Start feeding at 6pm and remove at 6am. Observation and interview 08/29/23 at 3:48 PM revealed Resident #65 lying in bed. A feeding pump was next to Resident #65's bed, and it was not infusing. A bag of enteral feeding was hanging from the pole of the feeding pump with no time, date and without initials to indicate who administered the feeding. The formula bag had about ¾ of formula left inside. Resident #65 stated he was unsure when the bag was placed in his room. The resident refused to answer any further questions. Interview on 09/29/23 at 4:23 PM with LVN A, an agency nurse, revealed she was the nurse for Resident #65. LVN A stated she had not been to Resident #65's room today (08/29/23). LVN A stated Resident #65's feeding started at 6:00 PM and ended at 6:00 AM. LVN A stated formula bags should be dated with the time, date and the nurse's initials. LVN A stated she was unaware Resident #65 had a formula bag in his room, she stated she worked the previous night, and she was the one who provided Resident #65 with his feeding. LVN A was informed the formula bag had no time, date and initials. She stated she placed it on a sticker. LVN A stated the bag should had been removed this morning. LVN A was asked if she could show where she placed the sticker, LVN A stated, If you did not see a label or sticker, it might not have it. LVN A stated formula bags needed to have a time and date, so other nurses knew when it needed to be thrown out. Observation and interview on 08/29/23 at 4:30 PM with the ADON in Resident #65's room revealed the ADON observed the formula bag. The ADON stated formula bag did not have a time, date, and nurse initials. There was no observation of a sticker on the tubing. The ADON stated the formula bag should be labeled with the time and date. The ADON stated LVN A was the one, who hung it up last time (08/28/23), and it should have been discarded when the feeding was turned off. The ADON stated she would be removing the formula bag. She stated it was important to label the formula bag, so that staff knew when it needed to be discarded. 2. Record review of Resident #37's face sheet dated 08/31/23 revealed the resident was [AGE] year-old female admitted on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with a diagnoses that included dementia without behavioral disturbance, adult failure to thrive, and gastrostomy status. Record review of Resident #37's quarterly MDS dated [DATE] revealed the resident had moderate cognitive impairment with a BIMS score of 11. The assessment reflected Resident #37 required extensive assistance with eating, one-person physical assist, and the resident received nutrition via a feeding tube. Record review of Resident #37's care plan revised dated 07/29/23 revealed: Resident requires tube feeding r/t dysphagia. Resident also receives diet for pleasure feedings, regular dysphagia puree level 1. Goal: Will maintain adequate nutritional and hydration status aeb weight stable, no s/sx of malnutrition or dehydration through review date. Will remain free of side effects or complications related to tube feeding through review date. Interventions: The resident is able to tolerate tube feeding: Formula: Jevity 1.5 Rate: 65cc/hour x 20 hours down time of 4 hours (9am - 1pm). The resident is depended on staff for tube feeding and water flushes. Record review of Resident #37's physician order dated 06/12/23 revealed pump give Jevity 1.5 at 65 cc/hr per g-tube for 20 hours every shift. The orders reflected the g-tube feeding down time was from 9:00 AM-1:00 PM. The order start date was 06/12/23. Record review of Resident #37's physician order dated 06/12/23 revealed an order for the nutrition stop feeding one time a day at 9:00 AM. The order reflected a nurtition start feeding in the afternoon 1:00 PM. Record review on 08/30/23 at 1:15 PM of Resident #37's August 2023 MAR revealed Resident #37 had been connected at 1:00 PM. Observation on 08/30/23 at 2:00 PM of Resident #37 to be in her wheelchair. Resident #37 was not connected to her g-tube. An attempt was made to interview Resident #37; however Resident #37 would not respond to questions. Observation on 08/30/23 at 2:37 PM of Resident #37 to be in her wheelchair. Resident #37 was not connected to her g-tube. Observation on 08/30/23 at 2:42 PM revealed LVN B entering Resident #37 room and was observed to hang Resident #37 formula bottle, dated 8/30 at 3:00 PM. Observed Resident #37 to be in her wheelchair, and LVN C was observed to check Resident #37 g-tube placement, aspirated and flushed g-tube with 30 cc of water. LVN C then proceed to connect Resident #37 to her g-tube feeding. Interview on 08/30/23 at 2:52 PM with LVN B revealed she was the nurse for Resident #37. LVN B reviewed Resident #37's physician orders and stated Resident #37 had an order to connect resident at 1:00 PM. LVN B stated when she started her shift today (08/30/23) she was informed Resident #37 was not connected and was informed something about her breakfast. During the interview with LVN B, the ADON intervened by stating Resident #37 could eat by mouth as well; however, the resident refused to eat breakfast. The ADON stated they did not disconnect Resident #37 until 11:00 AM. The ADON stated she notified the physician, and the physician agreed to connect Resident #37 at 3:00 PM. The ADON stated she had documented the conversation. When LVN B was asked if she had documented in the Resident #37 MAR prior to providing Resident #37's formula feeding, the ADON intervened by stating it was a mistake by LVN B. Record review of Resident #37's Progress notes dated 08/30/23 at 14:54 [2:54 PM] by ADON revealed: Resident did not feel like eating any of her breakfast so instead of taking her feeding down at 9am to 1pm. The feeding will be taken down from 11am to 3pm today. Dr is aware. Follow-up interview on 08/30/23 at 3:26 PM with LVN B revealed she started her shift at 12:30 PM. LVN B stated the ADON was the nurse for Resident #37 this morning (08/30/23). LVN B stated the ADON had told her that she had done everything, so she assumed Resident #37 was already connected to her feeding. LVN B stated she documented on Resident #37's MAR that the feeding was already provided; however, later the ADON informed her she had not connected Resident #37 yet. LVN B stated the ADON informed her that Resident #37 did not have breakfast this morning (08/30/23), and they did not disconnect Resident #37 until 11:00 AM and would need to be connected at 3:00 PM. LVN B stated the ADON informed her Resident #37 ate 100% of her lunch. LVN B stated the ADON was the one, who contacted the doctor. She stated she was not sure of the time. LVN B stated prior to documenting she should have ensured Resident #37 was connected. LVN B stated it was not the proper thing to do. LVN B stated the risk of not following physician orders was that it could cause digestive problems. Interview via phone call on 08/30/23 at 3:46 PM with Resident #37's Physician revealed she received a text from the facility regarding Resident #37. The Physician stated the text informed her Resident #37 was disconnected at 11:00 AM because she was tired, and she had eaten all her lunch. The Physician stated she agreed to start the feeding at 3:00 PM and signed the order. When asked at what time she received the text message the Physician stated, for some reason it does not show the time. The Physician then stated she might have received a call stating resident was tired. Record review of Resident #37's physician order date 08/30/23 revealed Enteral Feed Order one time only for Enteral Feeding until 08/30/2023 23:59 [11:59 PM] May Stop the enteral feeding at 11:00 a.m. Start Date 08/30/2023 1907 [7:07PM]. Record review of Resident #37's physician order date 08/30/23 revealed Enteral Feed Order one time only for Enteral Feeding until 08/30/2023 23:59 [11:59 PM] May re-start the enteral feeding at 3:00 p.m. Start Date 08/30/2023 1907 [7:11PM]. Interview on 08/31/23 at 3:23 PM with the ADON revealed Resident #37 was not disconnected from her g-tube feeding until 11:00 AM due to refusing to eat breakfast on 08/30/23. She stated Resident ate 100% of her lunch and she notified the doctor in which the doctor agreed to connect Resident #37 until 3:00 PM. She stated she called the Physician at around 9:00 AM. The ADON stated LVN B documented by mistake on Resident #37's MAR, because it was rare that situations like this happened. The ADON stated it was the responsibility of the nurses, herself, and the DON to update resident's physician orders. She stated it was the responsibility of herself and the DON to monitor the documentation that was being recorded by staff. She stated the risk of not following physician orders was that it could cause a change in condition. Interview on 08/31/23 at 3:41 PM with the DON revealed her expectation was for her staff to follow physician orders. If there were any modifications, they must notify the physician. She stated she was made aware of Resident #37 refusing her breakfast; however, the resident ate all her lunch. She stated at times Resident #37 did eat and at times she did not. She stated her expectations were for the times Resident #37 refused to eat staff should continue the feedings and notify the physician. The DON was notified Resident #37's MAR indicated Resident #37 was provided with her feeding at 1:00 PM; however, the resident was not connected until 3:00 PM. The DON stated the best practice was for staff to follow physician orders and then document after the procedure was completed. The DON stated each formula bag should be labeled with the time, date and nurses initials. She stated the formula was good for 24 hours. The DON stated the risk of not following physician order would depend on the situation. Record review of the facility policy on medication orders, revised November 2014, reflected: The purpose of this procedure is to establish uniform guidelines in the receiving and recording of medication orders. Recording Orders: .4. Enteral Orders - When recording orders for enteral tube feedings, specify the type of feeding, amount, frequency of feeding and rationale if prn. The order should always specify the amount of flush following the feeding. Example: Isocal 250cc followed by H20 50 cc every 4hours via NG tube .
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 residents who need respiratory care were provid...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure residents who need respiratory care were provided such care, consistent with professional standards of practice for 1 (Resident #37) of 7 resident reviewed for respiratory care. The facility failed to follow the physician orders for Resident #37's oxygen. This failure placed residents who received oxygen therapy at risk of respiratory complications. Findings included: Record feview of Resident #37's face sheet dated 08/31/23, revealed the resident was [AGE] year-old female admitted on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with a diagnoses that included dementia without behavioral disturbance, adult failure to thrive, and gastrostomy status. Record review of Resident #37's quarterly MDS dated [DATE] revealed the resident had moderate cognitive impairement with a BIMS score of 11. It also revealed the resident required extensive assist with 2 to 3 staff assistance for ADL care. The MDS did not reflect the resident was on oxygen therapy. Record review of Resident #37's care plan dated 06/06/23 revealed the resident requires the use of Oxygen Therapy. Goal: Will have no s/sx of poor oxygen absorption through the review date. Interventions: Oxygen Settings: O2 via nasal cannula @ 2L continuously. Record review of Resident #37's physician order date 05/12/23 revealed an order for the resident to receive oxygen via nasal canula at 2 liters per minute continuously every shift with a start date 05/12/23. Record review of Resident #37's August 2023 MAR revealed Resident #37 was provided with her oxygen for the hours of Day, Eve, Night on 08/30/23. Record review of Resident #37's oxygen saturation levels revealed no concerns. Observation on 08/30/23 at 8:50 AM revealed Resident #37 lying in bed asleep. Resident #37 did not have her oxygen on. Observation on 08/30/23 at 2:00 PM revealed Resident #37 was in her wheelchair. Resident #37 did not have her oxygen on. An attempt was made to interview Resident #37; however, Resident #37 would not respond to questions. Record review of Resident #37's August 2023 MAR revealed Resident #37 was provided with her oxygen for the hours of Day on 08/31/23. Observation on 08/31/23 at 10:48 AM revealed Resident #37 lying in bed. Resident #37 did not have her oxygen on. Interview on 08/31/23 at 10:55 AM with LVN C revealed she was the nurse for Resident #37. LVN C stated Resident #37 received oxygen during the night. LVN C stated Resident #37's O2 stats during the day had been stable, in which Resident #37 did not need her oxygen. LVN C was asked if she had obtained new physician orders for Resident #37, since Resident #37 had an order for oxygen to be administered continuously. LVN C stated she had spoken to the physician at the end of last week about changing Resident #37's orders, and the physician agreed. LVN C stated she did not receive the orders and had not documented her conversation with the Physician. LVN C was asked regarding her documentation on the Resident #37's MAR, LVN C stated she made a mistake by documenting that Resident #37 was provided with her oxygen. Record review of Resident #37's progress notes dated 08/31/23 at 12:14 PM documented by LVN C reflected: Resident's SpO2 stable on RA. O2 sat ranging 98-100% on RA, MD notified. Order clarification for O2 to change from continuous to PRN noted. Will continue to check O2 sat routinely Q shift. Interview on 08/31/23 at 03:23 PM with the ADON revealed Resident #37's oxygen orders had not changed. The ADON stated LVN C was under the impression they wanted Resident #37 to be winged off her oxygen use. The ADON stated Resident #37 orders should have been PRN. The ADON stated LVN C made an error on Resident #37's MAR documentation. The ADON was informed Resident #37 MAR also indicated resident was provided with oxygen on 08/30/23, the ADON stated she was unaware. The ADON stated it was the responsibility of the nurses, herself, and the DON to update resident's physician orders. She stated it was the responsibility of herself and the DON to monitor the documentation that was being recorded by staff. She stated the risk of not following physician orders was that it could cause a change in condition. Interview on 08/31/23 at 3:41 PM with the DON revealed her expectation was for her staff to follow physician orders. If there were any modifications, they must notify the physician. The DON stated the best practice would be staff to follow physician orders and then document after the procedure was completed. The DON stated the risk of not following physician order would depend on the situation. A policy for oxygen administration was requested; however, it was not provided prior to exit.
CONCERN (D)

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

Medical Records (Tag F0842)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the clinical record were maintained in accorda...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the clinical record were maintained in accordance with accepted professional standards and practices and were complete and accurately documented for 1 (Resident #37) of 18 residents records reviewed for treatment documentation. 1. LVN B documented Resident #37 had been connected to her g-tube feedings at 1PM but resident was not connected to her g-tube feedings until 3PM. 2. LVN C documented Resident #37 had been receiving oxygen therapy, but observation revealed resident was not receiving oxygen therapy. These failures could affect the residents medical record not being an accurate representation of the resident's medical condition or medical needs. Findings included: 1. Record review of Resident #37's face sheet dated 08/31/23, revealed the resident was [AGE] year-old female admitted on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with a diagnoses that including dementia without behavioral disturbance, adult failure to thrive, and gastrostomy status. Record review of Resident #37's quarterly MDS dated [DATE] revealed the resident had moderately impaired cognition with a BIMS score of 11. The assessment reflected Resident #37 required extensive assistance with eating, one-person physical assist, and the resident received nutrition via feeding tube. Record review of Resident #37's care plan revised dated 07/29/23 revealed: Resident requires tube feeding r/t dysphagia. Resident also receives diet for pleasure feedings, regular dysphagia puree level 1. Goal: Will maintain adequate nutritional and hydration status aeb weight stable, no s/sx of malnutrition or dehydration through review date. Will remain free of side effects or complications related to tube feeding through review date. Interventions: The resident is able to tolerate tube feeding: Formula: Jevity 1.5 Rate: 65c/hour x 20 hours down time of 4 hours (9am - 1pm). The resident is depended on staff for tube feeding and water flushes. Record review of Resident #37's physician order dated 06/12/23 revealed pump give Jevity 1.5 @65cc/hr per GT X 20 hours every shift for G-tube feeding Down time is from 9am-1pm. Start Date: 6/12/2023. Record review of Resident #37's physician order dated 06/12/23 revealed one time a day for nutrition stop feeding at 9:00 AM and in the afternoon for nutrition start feeding at 1:00 PM. Record review on 08/30/23 at 1:15PM of Resident #37's August 2023 MAR revealed Resident #37 had been connected at 1PM. Observation on 08/30/23 at 2:00 PM of Resident #37 to be in her wheelchair. Resident #37 was not connected to her g-tube. An attempt was made to interview Resident #37; however Resident #37 would not respond to questions. Observation on 08/30/23 at 2:37 PM of Resident #37 to be in her wheelchair. Resident #37 was not connected to her g-tube. Observation on 08/30/23 at 2:42 PM revealed LVN B entering Resident #37 room and was observed to hang Resident #37 formula bottle, dated 8/30 at 3:00 PM. Observed Resident #37 to be in her wheelchair and LVN C was observed to check Resident #37 g-tube placement, aspirated and flushed g-tube with 30 cc of water. LVN C then proceed to connect Resident #37 to her g-tube feeding. Interview on 08/30/23 at 2:52 PM with LVN B revealed she was the nurse for Resident #37. LVN B reviewed Resident #37 physician orders and stated Resident #37 had an order to connect resident at 1:00 PM. LVN B stated when she started her shift today (08/30/23) she was informed Resident #37 was not connected and was informed something about her breakfast. While interviewing LVN B, the ADON intervened by stating Resident #37 could eat by mouth as well; however, the resident refused to eat breakfast and they did not disconnect Resident #37 until 11:00 AM. The ADON stated she notified the physician, and the physician agreed to connect Resident #37 at 3:00 M. The ADON stated she had documented the conversation. When LVN B was asked if she had documented on Resident #37's MAR prior to providing Resident #37 formula feeding, the ADON intervened by stating it was a mistake from LVN B. Record review of Resident #37's Progress Notes dated 08/30/23 at 2:54 PM by the ADON reflected: Resident did not feel like eating any of her breakfast so instead of taking her feeding down at 9am to 1pm. The feeding will be taken down from 11am to 3pm today. Dr is aware. Follow-up interview on 08/30/23 at 3:26 PM with LVN B revealed she started her shift at 12:30 PM. LVN B stated the ADON was the nurse for Resident #37 this morning (08/30/23). LVN B stated the ADON had told her that she had done everything, so she assumed Resident #37 was already connected to her feeding. LVN B stated she documented on the Resident #37 MAR that the feeding was already provided; however, later the ADON informed her she had not connected Resident #37 yet. LVN B stated the ADON informed her that Resident #37 did not have breakfast this morning (8/30/23) and they did not disconnect Resident #37 until 11:00 AM and would need to be connected at 3:00 PM. LVN B stated the ADON informed her Resident #37 ate 100% of her lunch. LVN B stated the ADON was the one who contacted the doctor, she stated she was not sure of the time. LVN B stated prior to documenting she should had ensured Resident #37 was connected, she stated it was not the proper thing to do. Interview via phone call on 08/30/23 at 3:46 PM with Resident #37's Physician revealed she received a text from the facility regarding Resident #37. She stated the text informed her the resident was disconnected at 11:00 AM because she was tired, and she had eaten all her lunch. The Physician stated she agreed to start the feeding at 3:00 PM and signed the order. When asked at what time she received the text message the Physican stated, for some reason it does not show the time. The Doctor then stated he might have received a call stating resident was tired. Record review of Resident #37's physician order date 08/30/23 reflected: Enteral Feed Order one time only for Eternal Feeding until 08/30/2023 23:59 [11:59 PM] May Stop the eternal feeding at 11:00 a.m. Start Date 08/30/2023 1907 [7:07PM]. Record review of Resident #37's physician order date 08/30/23 revealed Enteral Feed Order one time only for Eternal Feeding until 08/30/2023 23:59 [11:59 PM] May re-start the eternal feeding at 3:00 p.m. Start Date 08/30/2023 1907 [7:11PM]. 2. Record review of Resident #37's quarterly MDS dated [DATE] revealed the resident had moderately impaired cognition with a BIMS scored of 11. It also revealed resident required extensive assist with 2 to 3 staff assistance for ADL care. The MDS did not reflect the resident was on oxygen therapy. Record review of Resident #37's care plan dated 06/06/23 revealed the resident requires the use of Oxygen Therapy. Goal: Will have no s/sx of poor oxygen absorption through the review date. Interventions: Oxygen Settings: O2 via nasal cannula @ 2L continuously. Record review of Resident #37's physician order date 05/12/23 revealed an order for oxygen to be administered at 2 liters per minute via nasal canula continuously every shift, with a start date 05/12/23. Record review of Resident #37's August 2023 MAR revealed Resident #37 was provided with her oxygen for the hours of Day, Eve, Night on 08/30/23. Record review of Resident #37's oxygen saturation levels revealed no concerns. Observation on 08/30/23 at 8:50 AM revealed Resident #37 lying in bed asleep. Resident #37 did not have her oxygen on. Observation on 08/30/23 at 2:00 PM revealed Resident #37 was in her wheelchair. Resident #37 did not have her oxygen on. An attempt was made to interview Resident #37; however, Resident #37 would not respond to questions. Record review of Resident #37's MAR for August 2023 revealed Resident #37 was provided with her oxygen for the hours of Day on 08/31/23. Observation on 08/31/23 at 10:48 AM revealed Resident #37 lying in bed. Resident #37 did not have her oxygen on. Interview on 08/31/23 at 10:55 AM with LVN C revealed she was the nurse for Resident #37. LVN C stated Resident #37 receives oxygen during the night. LVN C stated Resident #37's O2 stats during the day had been stable, in which Resident #37 does not need her oxygen. LVN C was asked if she had obtained new physician orders for Resident #37, since Resident #37 had an order for oxygen continuously, LVN C stated she had spoken to the physician the end of last week about changing Resident #37's orders and the physician agreed. LVN C stated she did not receive the orders and had not documented her conversation with the physician. LVN C was asked regarding her documentation on the Resident #37's MAR, LVN C stated she made a mistake by documenting that Resident #37 was provided with her oxygen. Record review of Resident #37's progress notes dated 08/31/23 at 12:14 PM documented by LVN C reflected: Resident's SpO2 stable on RA. O2 sat ranging 98-100% on RA, MD notified. Order clarification for O2 to change from continuous to PRN noted. Will continue to check O2 sat routinely Q shift. Interview on 08/31/23 at 3:23 PM with the ADON revealed Resident #37 was not disconnected from her g-tube feeding until 11:00 AM due to refusing to eat breakfast on 08/30/23. She stated Resident ate 100% of her lunch and she notified the doctor in which the doctor agreed to connect Resident #37 until 3:00 PM. She stated she called the doctor at around 9AM. The ADON stated LVN B documented by mistake on Resident #37 MAR, because it rare when situations like this happen. Resident #37 oxygen orders had not changed. The ADON stated LVN C was under the impression that they wanted Resident #37 to be winged off her oxygen use. The ADON stated Resident #37 orders should had been PRN. The ADON stated LVN C made an error on Resident #37's MAR documentation. The ADON was informed Resident #37's MAR also indicated resident was provided with oxygen on 08/30/23, the ADON stated she was unaware. The ADON stated the responsiblity of the nurses, herself, and the DON to updated the resident's physician orders. She stated it was the responsibility of herself and the DON to monitor the documentation that was being recorded by staff. She stated the risk of not following physician orders was that it could cause a change in condition. Interview on 08/31/23 at 3:41 PM with the DON revealed her expectation was for her staff to follow physician orders. If there were any modifications, they must notify the physician. The DON stated best practice would be staff to follow physician orders and then document after the procedure was completed. Record review of the facility current Charting and Documentation policy revised July 2017 revealed the following: All services provided to the resident, progress toward the care plan goals, or any changes in the resident's medical, physical, functional or psychosocial condition, shall be documented in the resident's medical record. The medical record should facilitate communication between the interdisciplinary team regarding the resident's condition and response to care 3.Documentation in the medical record will be objective (not opinionated or speculative), complete, and accurate.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure all drugs and biologicals were stored securely ...

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 all drugs and biologicals were stored securely for 2 (Resident #30 and Resident #73) of 18 residents observed for medication storage. 1. Resident #30 had 1 bottle of Tums pills stored at the resident's bedside table not locked in a lock box or secured in the medication cart or medication room. 2. Resident #73 had unidentified cream at her bedside table and unidentified pills in a plastic cup on her bed not locked in a lock box or secured in the mediation cart or mediation room. This failure could place residents at risk of overmedication or adverse drug reactions. Findings included: 1. Record review of Resident #30's Face Sheet, dated 08/31/23, revealed the resident was a [AGE] year-old female who was admitted on [DATE], readmitted on [DATE]. Resident #30 had diagnoses that included hyperlipidemia (cholesterol and fats in blood), atherosclerotic heart disease of native coronary artery (build-up of fats, cholesterol, and other fats), hypertension (high blood pressure), and muscle weakness. Review of Resident #30's MDS dated [DATE] revealed the resident's cognitive was intact with a BIMS score of 14. Review of Resident #30's care plan, dated 03/21/23, revealed the resident had altered cardiovascular status related to hyperlipidemia. The care plan reflected: Goal: Will be free from signs and symptoms of complications of cardiac problems through the review date. Intervention: Observe/document/report to MD PRN any signs and symptoms of Coronary Artery Disease: chest pain or pressure especially with activity, heartburn, nausea and vomiting, shortness of breath, excessive sweating, dependent edema, changes in cap refill, color/warmth of extremities. Record review of Resident #30's order summary report dated 08/31/23 did not reveal physician's order for Tums (over-the-counter medication used to treat symptoms caused by too much stomach acid such as heartburn, upset stomach, or indigestion). Observation on interview on 08/29/23 at 11:23 AM revealed Resident #30 with a bottle of Tums on the nightstand table. According to Resident #30, her family member brought them in for her to use when she had an upset stomach or heartburn. Resident #30 stated she just had them there in case she needed them; she was not able to say when she last used them. 2. Record review of Resident #73's face Sheet, dated 08/31/23, revealed the resident was a [AGE] year-old female who was admitted on [DATE]. Resident #73 had diagnoses that included: cellulitis of the right and left lower limb (A serious bacterial infection of the skin. Usually affects the leg and the skin appears as swollen, red, and painful), psoriasis (a chronic skin condition), urticaria (skin rash), sepsis, and candidiasis. Review of Resident #73's MDS dated [DATE] revealed the resident's cognitiion was intact with a BIMS score of 15. Review of Resident #73's care plan, dated 03/21/23, revealed the resident had limited physical mobility related to compression fracture of thoracic vertebrae and cellulitis of lower extremities. The care plan reflected: Goal: Will remain free of complications related to immobility, including skin-breakdown. Intervention: Observe/document/report to physician as needed signs and symptoms of immobility: skin-breakdown. Record review of Resident #73's order summary report dated 08/31/23 revealed she had an order for: - Acidophilus Probiotic Oral Tablet (Lactobacillus) Give1 capsule by mouth one time a day for supplement; - Magnesium Oxide Oral Tablet 400 MG (Magnesium Oxide) Give 1 tablet by mouth one time a day for supplement-Multivitamin-Minerals Oral Tablet (Multiple Vitamins w/ Minerals) Give 1 tablet by mouth one time a day for wound healing; and - Ammonium Lactate External Cream 12 % (Lactic Acid (Ammonium Lactate)) Apply to bilateral lower extremity topically every day shift for dry skin. Interview with LVN D on 08/29/23 at 12:22 PM, who was the charge nurse for Hall 100, revealed the facility did not have residents who self-administered medications. She stated residents were not allowed to have medications in their rooms, and residents' families were educated not to leave over-the-counter medications with the residents. LVN D was observed going to Resident #30's room, and she asked the resident about the Tums located on nightstand. LVN D was observed removing the Tums from the nightstand. Observation and interview on 08/30/23 at 9:00 AM of Resident #73 revealed there was a medication cup of cream on her table in her room. She revealed she had been having this prescription medication in her room for a while. Resident #73 then pointed out at the bottom of both legs and ankles dry patches of skin. Resident #73 stated she compiled a collection of this leftover medication to save to apply the cream to her legs on her own. Resident #73 was observed with a small container of pills on her bed, when asked what they were, Resident #73 stated they were supplements that she puts in a cup to administer on her own daily. Resident #73 stated the prescription cream that she applied to her legs were given to her by staff after they administered cream to her legs. Resident #73 stated the pills in the cup were supplements she removed from bottles that her sister brought to her. During observation of the room, surveyor did not observe any bottles of supplements in the room. Interview with LVN D on 08/30/23 at 2:22 PM, LVN D stated she completed a room sweep and was able to observe unidentified pills in a covered cup on Resident #73's bed and a cup of cream later identified as a prescription cream that Resident# 73 gets applied to both legs. LVN D stated Resident #73 said she placed the pills in the cup herself and like to have them in the cup so that she could administer them. LVN D stated nursing staff are responsible for administering any type of medication whether it was pills, supplements, or prescription cream to residents and ensure there are no medications left in resident rooms. If resident are able to have medications in their rooms it puts them at risk of overmedicating, possible choking, or other residents could get ahold of them. LVN D stated she had not seen Resident #73 with any pills or cream in a cup when she entered the room prior to today. Interview on 08/30/23 at 9:19 AM with the ADON revealed residents should not have any medications in the room with them. The ADON stated residents would have to pass an assessment which would indicate they are capable of administrating medications on their own and none of our residents are capable of passing the assessment. The ADON stated nursing staff are responsible for ensuring resident do not have any type of medications whether over the counter or prescribed in their rooms. The ADON stated Resident #30 should not have Tums in her room because it could be a risk of Tums interacting with her medications and we need to know what she was taking at all times. The ADON stated Resident #73 should not have any loose pills or prescription medication in her room. The ADON stated Resident #73 had a prescription for her legs that nursing staff administered but was not aware of any supplements that she would take on her own. The ADON stated if she did have supplements, nursing staff should be aware so the staff could administer them to her. The nursing staff were responsible for applying any topical prescription for residents. The ADON stated she asked nursing staff to complete a sweep to ensure residents did not have any over-the-counter medications. Interview on 08/31/23 at 3:49 PM with the DON revealed residents are not supposed to have medication of any kind in their rooms. The DON stated there were no residents who were able to self-administer medications on their own. The DON stated the ADON addressed this issue with her, and the facility did a room sweep to ensure residents were without any over-the-counter or prescription medications in their rooms. The DON stated it was the responsibility of the nursing staff to remove any pills, prescriptions, or over-the-counter medications from resident rooms. The DON stated residents having medications in their rooms put them at risk of double medicating, staff not knowing what they are taking, or other residents could get ahold of them. Review of the facility's current, undated Storage of Medications policy reflected: . The facility shall store all drugs and biologicals in a safe, secure, and orderly manner. The nursing staff shall be responsible for maintaining medication storage AND preparation areas in a clean, safe, and sanitary manner
Aug 2023 1 deficiency
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program designated to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable disease and infection for four (Residents #1, #2, #3 and #4) of five residents reviewed for infection control. MA M failed to disinfect the blood pressure cuff in between blood pressure checks for Residents #1, #2, #3 and #4. These failures could place residents at-risk of cross contamination which could result in infections or illness. Findings included: Record review of Resident #1's face sheet on 08/17/23 revealed Resident #1 was an [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnosis of malignant neoplasm (form of cancerous tumor), Type 2 diabetes, hypertension (high blood pressure), disorder of water balance, and respiratory failure. Record review of Resident #2's face sheet on 08/17/23 revealed Resident #2 was an [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnosis of Type 2 diabetes, hypertension, respiratory failure, and contusion of the left knee. Record review of Resident #3's face sheet on 08/17/23 revealed Resident #3 was a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnosis of hypertension, pneumonia (inflammatory condition of the lung), and heart failure. Record review of Resident #4's face sheet on 08/17/23 revealed Resident #4 was an [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnosis of hypertension, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (progressive lung disease), and hyperlipidemia (high cholesterol). Observation on 08/17/23 between 9:45 AM-10:20 AM of MA A revealed she failed to disinfect the reusable blood pressure cuff with a disinfecting wipe between blood pressure readings on Resident #1, Resident #2, Resident #3, and Resident #4. MA A cleaned the blood pressure cuff after medication administration for Resident #4 with disinfectant wipes from her medication cart. Interview on 08/17/23 at 10:20 AM with MA A revealed she was aware of the requirement to disinfect the blood pressure cuff between residents, but the presence of the surveyor made her nervous. She revealed that not disinfecting equipment between residents could cause infections to be passed from one resident to another. Interview on 08/17/23 at 10:23 AM with the ADON revealed she and the DON were responsible for training staff on infection control, hand hygiene, and disinfecting equipment. The ADON stated staff were expected to perform hand hygiene upon exiting every resident room. If equipment was used, staff were to disinfect after every use prior to using the equipment on the next resident. The ADON stated MA A should have disinfected the blood pressure cuff after every use to ensure she was not cross contaminating or passing infection from one resident to another. Interview on 08/17/23 at 11:45 AM with the DON revealed the expectation was that staff would disinfect all reusable medical equipment between each resident use, to avoid cross contamination. The DON stated staff had disinfecting wipes available to them. She revealed she completed a staff in-service training immediately on disinfection of reusable medical equipment. Record review of training for MA A revealed an in-service dated 08/17/23 entitled Infection Control with emphasis on COVID-19, Hand Hygiene, Disinfecting Blood Pressure Equipment before and after each resident. Review of facility's Cleaning and Disinfection of Resident-Care Items and Equipment policy, dated October 2018, reflected: .Resident-Care Equipment, including reusable items and durable medical equipment will be cleaned and disinfected according to current recommendations for disinfection revealed Reusable items are cleaned and disinfected or sterilized between residents.
May 2023 1 deficiency
MINOR (C) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Staffing Information (Tag F0732)

Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that the daily nurse staffing was posted as required. The facility failed to post the daily staffing information on 0...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that the daily nurse staffing was posted as required. The facility failed to post the daily staffing information on 05/26/23. This failure could place the residents, families, and visitors at risk of not having access to information regarding the daily nurse staffing data and facility census. Findings included: Observation on 05/26/23 at 5:31 am of each of the facility's nursing stations and facility entrance revealed the daily staffing posting was not posted throughout the facility. Observation on 5/26/23 at 8:27 am of each of the facility's nursing stations and facility entrance revealed the daily staffing posting was not posted throughout the facility. Observation on 05/26/23 at 10:03 am of each of the facility's nursing stations and facility entrance revealed the daily staffing posting was not posted throughout the facility. An interview with the ADM on 05/26/23 at 10:22 am revealed she was not aware the daily nurse staffing information was not posted. The ADM emailed the form to the staffing coordinator to ensure the information was posted. The Staffing Coordinator was responsible for ensuring the information was posted daily. An interview with the DON on 05/26/23 at 11:18 am revealed that the staffing coordinator was responsible for posting the nursing staffing information. The DON stated the information was in the staffing book at each nurse station. However, residents and or visitors did not have access to that information. An interview with the Staffing Coordinator on 05/26/23 at 11:31 am revealed she had been the staffing coordinator at the facility for 2 months. She had not posted the nurse staff information for residents or visitors since being hired in the position. The Staffing Coordinator had received a document to display for the public from the ADM but had not posted the information. The Staffing coordinator only provided the information in the staffing book. She revealed the staffing book was not accessible to residents or visitors. Review of the staffing information for 05/25/23 and 05/26/23 located in the staffing book located inside of the Staffing Coordinator's office. The staffing information did not reveal staffing for each shift.
Feb 2023 1 deficiency
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, observations, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure residents with pressure ulcers received nec...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, observations, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure residents 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 one (Resident #1) of five residents reviewed for wound care, in that: 1) Resident #1 did not receive wound care treatment BID or PRN on 09/28/22, 09/29/22, 09/30/22, 10/01/22, 10/02/22, 10/14/22, 10/15/22, or 10/16/22. This failure could place residents with wounds at an increased and unnecessary risk of complications such as pain, acquiring new wounds, worsening of existing wounds, and infection. Findings included: 1) A record review of Resident #1's admission Comprehensive MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed a [AGE] year-old male admitted on [DATE]. Resident #1 had diagnoses of HTN {High blood pressure that is higher than normal}, DM2 {a group of diseases that result in too much sugar in the blood}, AKI {a sudden episode of kidney damage or kidney failure}, and CVA {a loss of blood flow caused by blood clots and broken blood vessels, which damages brain tissue in the brain}. Resident #1's BIMS score was 13, which indicated intact cognitive response. The admission Comprehensive MDS reflected one-person physical assist with ADLs and SBA with eating. Section M - Skin conditions revealed Resident #1 was at risk for developing pressure ulcers/injuries. The MDS did not indicate Resident #1 had a pressure ulcer on the coccyx on admission. The coccyx pressure ulcer was not identified as an unhealed pressure ulcer/injury or the stage. Skin ulcer and injury treatments indicated a pressure reducing device for bed and applications of ointments and medications other than to feet were required. Review of Resident #1's electronic health record indicated Resident #1 transferred to an acute care facility for gastric health concerns on 10/03/22, returned on 10/13/22; transferred to an acute care facility on 10/17/22, returned on 12/01/22; and was currently admitted to an acute care facility as of 01/21/22. A review of Resident #1's transfer clinical records sent by the discharging facility dated 09/26/22 revealed diet orders; therapy orders; consultation/referrals; medications, and wound care orders for a stage II coccygeal pressure ulcer and pannus {abdominal skin folds} fungal exanthem {a widespread rash} from admission, onward. The wound care orders indicated the following: Dress wound to Abd skin fold/pannus, groin, inner thighs, scrotum, and buttocks/coccyx areas - clean with bath wipes. Sprinkle on miconazole antifungal powder and dust away any excess. Seal the powder in with no sting skin barrier spray and fan dry. Repeat for 2 layers. Do BID and PRN incontinence episodes. Coccyx - clean with bath wipes. Apply antifungal powder and seal in with no sting skin barrier spray. Apply triad hydrophilic wound dressing in a skin protective layer. Do BID and PRN incontinence episodes. Wound nurse consultation for stage II on coccyx and wet yeast rash/excoriation under pannus A review of the nurse Admit/Re-admit Screener Skin Integrity admission details dated 09/27/22 and locked 10/13/22 by the DON reflected a Stage II coccyx pressure ulcer. The Skin Integrity Review dated 09/28/22 completed by the Tx LVN reflected an abdomen rash only. A review of the nurse skin/wound note dated 09/28/22 at 1:46 PM, entered by the Tx LVN reflected: skin assessment completed, patient admitted with rash red irritated skin under abdominal folds, received order to apply nystatin powder q shift to affected areas of abdomen, patient also has several bruises on arms, patient stated they were from blood draws and from where he had a PICC line. Pt is his own responsible party and is aware of above. The Tx LVN did not document the Stage II coccyx pressure ulcer as reflected in the admission HTT skin assessment completed by the DON on 09/27/22 or as noted in the transfer admission clinicals/orders dated 09/26/22. The Wound Physician was not consulted on admission. A review of Resident #1's clinical physician orders on admission for wound care reflected: Start date 09/28/22: Nystatin Powder 100000 unit/gm. Apply to abdominal folds topically every shift for rash. Record review of Resident #1's September 2022 TAR did not reflect treatment orders to provide wound care to Resident #1's coccyx pressure order. Record review of Resident #1's October 2022 TAR did not reflect treatment orders to provide wound care to Resident #1's coccyx pressure order. Review of Resident #1's Interim Plan of Care dated 09/27/22, completed, signed, and dated by the DON on 10/03/22, provided an overview of needs and care to be provided until a comprehensive care plan can be developed, that included: Orientation to Room - explain use of call light, bathroom, acquaint with routine Elopement Risk - determine necessary safety devices Pressure Ulcer Risk - inspect skin according to facility protocol Dehydration Risk - determine likes/dislikes, monitor signs and symptoms, offer fluids between meals Pressure Sores - BLANK Dental Problems - evaluate diet, assess for referral Nutrition - assess likes/dislikes, monitor intake, diet Diabetic Alert - monitor s/s of hypo-/hyperglycemia, FSBS: ACHS Fall Risk - encourage use of call light, assess for risk factors, safety device Toileting - continent, encourage fluids, briefs A review of the Wound Physician's initial assessment and evaluation dated 12/12/22 revealed a stage four pressure wound of the sacrum. The wound consultation request followed Resident #1's return to the facility on [DATE]. During an interview on 02/03/23 at 11:58 AM, ADON A said he oversaw the long-term care unit. ADON A said the Tx LVN transitioned from full-time to PRN in December 2022. ADON A stated Resident #1 was admitted to the skilled unit/rehab with an unstageable wound to the coccyx area before transferring to the long-term care unit in December. ADON A said the assigned nurse was currently responsible for wound care since the Tx LVN transitioned to PRN. ADON A stated entering a physician order for a wound consultation was not required. ADON A said the admitting nurse adds the Wound Physician's name to the active providers' list to prompt the Wound Physician to a consultation for a resident assessment. ADON A said Resident #1's recent transfer on 1/21/23 to an acute care facility was based on his [ADON A] nursing judgment after evaluation of Resident #1 identified increased confusion, abnormal lung sounds, and an elevated heart rate, and obtaining a physician's order for a higher level of care. During an interview on 02/03/23 at 2:43 PM, ADON B said she oversaw the skilled /Rehab unit and remember Resident #1 admitting with an open area to the coccyx/sacrum area; but was not the nurse who conducted Resident #1's admission assessment. ADON B stated the admitting nurse completed the Admit/Re-Admit Screener, a comprehensive assessment of the resident's orientation and body systems, including an HTT skin assessment when admitting a resident. ADON B stated the Tx LVN performed all wound care and HTT skin assessments on residents treated by the Tx LVN. ADON B said the Tx LVN was responsible for performing a complete HTT skin assessment following admission, communicating skin concerns with the wound physician, and obtaining wound care orders. ADON B said she remembered sending Resident #1 to the hospital for vomiting but did not remember much to give details about the wound. ADON B stated that, without a full-time wound care nurse, the admitting nurse is responsible for notifying the Wound Physician about a wound consultation. During an interview on 02/03/23 at 3:43 PM, the DON stated residents are assessed on admission for altered skin integrity and to identify PU/PI. The DON said that every resident skin is assessed weekly and documented under the 'assessments' section in the chart. The DON indicated she did not complete the actual Admit/Re-Admit Screener when Resident #1 admitted , she only locked the assessment. The DON said the Tx LVN was responsible for performing an HTT skin assessment following the admission on the next business day. The DON stated the Tx LVN was responsible for communicating with the wound physician about altered skin concerns. The DON said that she discusses new admissions the following day with the Tx LVN, ADONs, MDS nurse and NFA, during morning meeting as a collaborative effort to ensure care plan implementation and to ensure documentation was completed. The DON said it is important that the admitting staff review the admission clinical paperwork for treatment orders and assess the resident to identify potential care issues. The DON could not explain why the Tx LVN did not identify Resident #1's coccyx wound, and wound care orders were not transcribed. The DON could not justify how wound care was not provided although Resident #1's transfer clinical records sent by the discharging facility dated 09/26/22 reflected wound care orders and that she [the DON] documented Resident #1 had a pressure ulcer. The Tx LVN was unavailable for an interview to discuss awareness of Resident #1's wound, care provided, and if wound care orders were obtained. Review of the facility's Prevention of Pressure Ulcers/Injuries policy and procedure provided by the facility, revised 07/2017 indicated: - The purpose is to provide information regarding identification of pressure ulcer/injury risk factors and interventions. - Risk Assessment: Assess the resident on admission for existing pressure ulcer/injury risk factors weekly x 4 and quarterly - Conduct a comprehensive skin assessment upon admission - Use a screening tool - Inspect the skin daily
Dec 2022 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that residents who needed respiratory care were provided su...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that residents who needed respiratory care were provided such care, consistent with professional standards of practice, for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for oxygen. The facility did not have a physician order for Resident #1's oxygen. This failure could place residents at risk for errors in care and treatment. Findings included: A record review of Resident #1's electronic Face Sheet, dated 12/14/22, revealed she was a [AGE] year-old female who admitted to the facility on [DATE] and discharged on 11/27/22. Her diagnoses included COPD, congestive heart failure, and GERD . A record review of an admission MDS assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #1 required oxygen therapy. A record review of Resident #1's electronic health record revealed no documentation of a baseline care plan. A record review of Resident #1's physician orders revealed there was not an order for oxygen. In an interview on 12/14/22 at 10:55 AM, Resident #1's family member stated Resident #1 was using oxygen and the facility was aware of it, because the oxygen was delivered to the facility on [DATE]. In an interview on 12/14/22 at 2:36 PM LVN A stated Resident #1 used oxygen. She stated she was not sure how often or how much she needed to use. LVN A stated she was unaware there was not an order for Resident #1 to use oxygen. LVN A stated anytime a resident used oxygen there was supposed to be an order for it. She stated if there was no order and resident was using oxygen then that should have been reported to the ADON or DON . In an interview on 12/14/22 at 3:06 PM, the ADON stated she was on vacation during the time Resident #1 admitted to the facility. The ADON stated in Resident #1's electronic medical record, she could see Resident #1's picture, in which she was observed to have oxygen nasal tubing. The ADON stated she confirmed in Resident #1's electronic medical chart that there was not an order for Resident #1 to have oxygen. The ADON stated if a resident was using oxygen there should be a physician's order for it. She stated if the resident admitted and was using oxygen and there was no order for it, then a nurse should contact the doctor and request a PRN order for the oxygen. The ADON stated not having an order, could place resident at risk of not getting the correct treatment because the staff does not know how much or how often the resident should be using the oxygen. She stated this could cause serious health issues. A record review of the facility's policy titled Charting and Documentation, dated April 2008, revealed Policy Statement .All services provided to the resident, or any changes in the resident's medical or mental condition, shall be documented in the resident's medical record . Policy interpretation and Implementation .All observations, medications administered, services performed, etc., must be documented in the resident's clinical record.
Jul 2022 6 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0638 (Tag F0638)

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 complete a quarterly Minimum Data Set assessment was c...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to complete a quarterly Minimum Data Set assessment was completed no less than once every three months as required for 1 (Resident #57) of 14 residents reviewed for comprehensive assessments. The facility failed to ensure a quarterly assessment was completed for Resident #57. This failure could place residents at risk of not having their care and treatment needs assessed to ensure necessary care and services were provided. Findings included: Record review of Resident #57's Face Sheet dated 07/14/22, revealed the resident was a [AGE] year-old female admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including unspecified dementia with behavioral disturbance, depression, muscle weakness, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Record review of Resident #57's Annual MDS, dated [DATE] revealed a BIMS was not completed. Review of Resident #57's Electronic MDS tab revealed a Quarterly MDS assessment completed 11/29/21, and an annual MDS assessment completed on 02/28/22 and no other recent MDS quarterly completed. Observation on 07/12/22 at 10:52 AM revealed Resident #57 was in her room in bed. The resident was alert and oriented to person. Interview on 07/14/22 at 10:45 AM with the MDS Coordinator revealed he was responsible for completing the annual and quarterly MDS assessments. The MDS Coordinator stated the MDS assessments should be completed annually and quarterly or if there was a change in condition. He stated Resident #57 did not have a quarterly assessment completed. He stated a quarterly assessment should have been completed at the end of May or June 2022. The MDS Coordinator stated Resident #57's MDS was not showing as late, and the system might have a glitch. The MDS Coordinator left the room at this time did not answer any further questions. Interview on 07/14/22 at 11:36 AM with the IP revealed she reviewed Resident #57's MDS and her MDS was late. She stated there was no glitch and the MDS Coordinator had not started her quarterly assessments. She stated she contacted corporate MDS and confirmed that the resident did not have any quarterly MDS completed. The IP stated it was the MDS Coordinator's responsibility to complete the MDSs and make sure an RN reviewed them, signed them, and expedited the MDS. Interview on 07/14/22 at 11:46 AM with the MDS Coordinator revealed Resident #57 did not have quarterly MDS assessment completed after her annual MDS. He stated he might had missed her quarterly assessment. The MDS Coordinator stated there was not a risk toward the resident by not completing the MDS, and it only affects the reimbursement process. Interview on 07/14/22 at 3:28 PM with the Interim DON revealed it was her third day working at the facility. She stated it was her expectation for all MDS assessments to be completed accurately, efficiently, and timely. She stated the MDS Coordinator was responsible for completing the MDS accurately and timely. She stated the previous DON was responsible for double-checking the MDS assessments for completion and signing them. Interview with the ADON on 07/14/22 at 4:19 PM revealed she was not aware that MDS's were not being completed. She stated it was the MDS Coordinator responsibility to complete the MDS annually, quarterly and have an RN or DON sign them and get them expedited. She stated MDS was important because it provides them with the services that the resident was receiving. Review of the facility's current Care plans, Comprehensive Person-Centered policy, revised December 2016, reflected the following: A comprehensive, person-centered care plan that includes measurable objectives and timetables to meet the resident's physical, psychosocial and functional needs was developed and implemented for each resident. The Interdisciplinary Team must review and update the care plan: when there has been a significant change in the resident's condition, when the desire outcome was not met; at least quarterly in conjunction with the required quarterly MDS assessment.
CONCERN (D)

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

MDS Data Transmission (Tag F0640)

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 electronically transmit encoded, accurate, and complete MDS data to ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to electronically transmit encoded, accurate, and complete MDS data to the CMS System, including a quarterly review and subset of items upon a resident's discharge for 2 (Residents #2 and #11) of 14 residents reviewed for MDS assessments. The MDS Coordinator failed to transmit Resident #2's and #11's MDS assessments timely. This failure could place residents at risk of not having timely assessments to identify care needs. Findings included: 1. Record review of Resident #2's face sheet dated 07/14/22 revealed the resident was a [AGE] year-old male admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including unspecified dementia with behavioral disturbance, dysphagia following cerebral infarction, anxiety disorder, Type 2 diabetes mellitus without complications. Record review of Resident #2's Quarterly MDS dated [DATE] signed by MDS Coordinator on 06/02/22 with the DON/RN signature date on 07/07/22 reflected that it was Export Ready. 2. Record review of Resident #11's face sheet dated 07/14/22, revealed the resident was a [AGE] year-old female admitted on [DATE] with diagnosis including unspecified dementia with behavioral disturbance. Record review of Resident #11's Quarterly MDS was dated 06/06/22 signed by the MDS Coordinator on 06/06/22 with a DON/RN signature date on 07/07/22 reflected that it was Export Ready. Interview on 07/14/22 at 10:45 AM with the MDS Coordinator revealed he was responsible for completing the resident's MDS annually and quarterly. The MDS Coordinator stated the MDS should be completed annually and quarterly or change in condition. He stated Resident #2's and Resident #11's MDS assessments were ready to be exported, but he had not exported them yet. He stated he was not sure what was wrong with the scheduling in the system that was not updating on his end. The MDS Coordinator stated it could have a glitch. The MDS Coordinator left the room at this time and did not answer any further questions. Interview on 07/14/22 at 11:36 AM with the IP revealed she reviewed the MDS's for Resident #2 and Resident #11's, and they were late. She stated there was no glitch and the MDS Coordinator had not transmitted the MDS to the system. She stated she reviewed it and the MDS assessment were both Export Ready which meant they were ready to be exported to the system. She stated she contacted corporate MDS and confirmed that the residents MDS's were late. She stated Resident #2's MDS should had been completed on 06/02/22 and Resident #11's should had been completed on 06/06/22. The IP stated it was the MDS Coordinator's responsibility to complete the MDSs and make sure an RN reviewed them, signed them, and exported the MDS to the system. Interview on 07/14/22 at 11:46 AM with the MDS Coordinator revealed the MDS's for Resident #2 and Resident #11 were completed and waiting to be exported. He stated he was only waiting for an RN to sign the forms. He stated he communicated via email and text message to the previous DON regarding the MDS signatures, but she never responded. He stated he completed the MDS assessments, but he needed an RN to review and sign them. The MDS Coordinator stated there was not a risk toward the resident by not completing the MDS, and it only affected the reimbursement process. Interview on 07/14/22 at 3:28 PM with the Interim DON revealed this was her third day working at the facility. She stated her expectation was for all MDS assessments to be completed accurately, efficiently, and timely. She stated the MDS Coordinator was responsible for completing the MDS accurately and timely. She stated the previous DON was responsible for double-checking the MDS for completion and signing them. Interview with ADON on 07/14/22 at 4:19 PM revealed she was not aware that MDS's were not being completed. She stated it was the MDS Coordinator's responsibility to complete the MDS annually, quarterly and have an RN or DON sign them and get them expedited. She stated the MDS assessments were important because it provides them with the services that the resident was receiving. A policy was requested; however, it was not provided prior to exit.
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident that included measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident medical, nursing, mental, and psychosocial needs for 1 (Resident#63) of 14 residents reviewed for care plans. The facility failed to develop a care plan with measurable objectives and timeframes to address Resident #63's dialysis. This failure could place residents at risk of receiving inadequate interventions not individualized to their care needs. Findings included: Review of Resident #63's Face sheet, dated 07/14/22, revealed the resident was a [AGE] year-old female with an original admission date of 08/01/18 and a re-admission on [DATE]. Resident #63 had diagnoses that included end stage renal disease, type 2 diabetes mellitus with unspecified complications, essential hypertension, and heart failure. Review of Resident #63's physician orders dated 6/22/22 revealed: Dialysis 3 x/s weekly on Mon, Wed and Fri at 12 noon at Center HD: Dialysis 3 x/s weekly on Mon, Wed and Fri at 12 noon. Review of Resident #63's MDS Assessment, dated 06/24/22, reflected revealed the resident had BIMS score of 15 (cognitively intact). Resident#63's received dialysis, physical therapy, and occupational therapy. Review of Resident #63's care plan, dated 06/29/22, did not reflect Resident #63's required dialysis. Interview with Resident #63 on 07/13/22 09:26 AM revealed she goes out to dialysis Monday, Wednesday, and Friday at noon and returns to the facility around 5PM. Phone interview with the MDS Coordinator on 07/14/22 at 12:10 PM revealed he was responsible for completing resident's care plans. He stated care plans will address behaviors, dialysis, hospice, and any treatment the resident was receiving. He stated he was not aware that Resident #63's care plan was not completed, he stated he was not waiting on approval. The MDS Coordinator stated that he was not able to see the comprehensive care plan on his end. The MDS Coordinator stated he would step out and print the care plan. Follow up interview and record review with the MDS Coordinator on 07/14/22 at 3:54 PM revealed Resident #63's care plan was missing some items. The MDS Coordinator provided State Surveyor with Resident #63's care plan which reflected the care plan was revised today (07/14/22) with new focus, goals and interventions. The MDS Coordinator was asked if he updated the care plan today; however, MDS Coordinator did not answer the questions. Interview with the ADON on 07/14/22 at 4:19 PM revealed she was not aware Resident #63's care plan was not completed properly. She stated it was the MDS Coordinator's responsibility to update resident's care plan. The ADON stated her expectations were for the care plans to be accurate and complete. The ADON stated care plans were important because it give them a general idea of the resident care and they can complete their tasks. Review of the facility's current Care plans, Comprehensive Person-Centered policy, revised December 2016, reflected the following: 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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interviews, and record review the facility failed to ensure all drugs and biologicals were stored securely...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interviews, and record review the facility failed to ensure all drugs and biologicals were stored securely for one (Resident #44) of 14 resident reviewed for storage of medications. The facility failed to ensure a bottle of Nystatin was not left unsupervised in Resident #44's room. This failure could place residents at risk of consuming unsafe medications. Findings included: Review of Resident #44's Face sheet, dated 07/14/22, revealed the resident was an [AGE] year-old male with an original admission date to the facility on [DATE] and readmission on [DATE]. Resident #44's had a diagnoses included unspecified dementia with behavioral disturbance, Stage 3 chronic kidney disease, and Type 2 diabetes mellitus with unspecified complications. Review of Resident #44's MDS assessment, dated 03/02/22, reflected the resident was cognitively intact with a BIMS score of 15. Record review of Resident #44's physician order, dated 05/18/22, revealed she had an order for Nystatin Powder 100000 unit/gram, apply under the breast topically two times a day for Yeast Infection. Record Review of Resident #44 medical file revealed no documentation to show that resident could self-administer medication. Observation and interview on 07/12/22 at 12:20 PM revealed Resident #44 was in her room seating in her wheelchair . Observation revealed a bottle of Nystatin Powder 100000 unit/gram next to resident's room sink. Resident #44 stated she had the bottle of medication for a while. She stated the nurses come to her room and apply the powder under her breast. She stated the nurses were aware she had the powder medication because they leave it in her room. Interview and observation with LVN A on 07/12/22 at 12:29 PM revealed she mainly works with Resident #44. She stated when a resident has a prescribe medication the nurses keep the medication in the nurse's cart. LVN A and State Surveyor went into Resident #44's room and observed the bottle of Nystatin. LVN A stated she was not aware that she had a bottle in her room. LVN A stated they have a bottle in the nurse's cart that they use. She stated she usually placed the powder in a medication cup and took it to the resident room. She stated the risk of leaving the medication in the room was that it could cause the resident to miss use the medication, and the medication could fall into the wrong hands. Interview with the Interim DON on 07/12/22 at 12:58 PM revealed today was her first day working at this facility and was not aware if any residents who self-administer medications. She stated unless they have a physician order that stated they can keep the medications in their rooms. The Interim DON stated she was not sure if Resident #44 had an assessment done for self-administer medication. She stated her expectations was for staff to follow physician orders and lock the medications in the nurses' carts. She stated the risk of leaving medications could be harmful to residents. Record review of facility's Self-Administration of Medication policy, revised date December 2016, reflected the following: Residents have the right to self-administer medications if the interdisciplinary team has determined that it is clinically appropriate and safe for the resident to do so 8. Self-administered medication are stored in a safe and secure place, which is not accessible by other residents. If safe storage is noy possible in the resident's room the medication of residents permitted to self-administer are stored on a central medication cart or in the medication room. A licensed nurse transferers the unopened medication to the resident when the resident requests them. 9. Any medications found at the bedside that are not authorized for self-administration are turned over to the nurse in charge for return to the family or responsible party
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0700 (Tag F0700)

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 review the risks and benefits of bed rails with the res...

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 review the risks and benefits of bed rails with the resident or resident representative and obtain informed consent prior to installation of bed rails for seven (Residents #25, #30, #43, #46, #53, #167, and #169) of fourteen residents reviewed for bed rails. The facility failed to obtain consent for bed rails for Residents #25, #30, #43, #46, #53, #167, and #169. This failure could place all residents at risk for unintended entrapment of the head, neck or limb, physical restraint, and injuries. Findings included: Review of Resident #25's EHR revealed the resident was an [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included left sided paralysis, multiple contractures of her arms and legs, muscle weakness and lack of coordination. The resident's EHR revealed there was no documented evidence there was consent for the use of bed rails. Review of Resident #25's MDS, dated [DATE], revealed a BIMS score of 10 indicating the resident had moderate cognitive impairment. Her Functional Status revealed two people to assist her with bed mobility. Review of Resident #25's care plan, dated 05/10/22, revealed she was care planned for bed rails to promote independence in mobility. Review of Resident #25's Bed Rail Evaluation, dated 07/05/22, indicated use of 1/4 bed rail to aid in turning/repositioning and/or transitioning out of bed. Observation and interview on 07/12/22 at 10:58 AM of Resident #25 revealed 1/4 bed rail present on both sides of the bed. Resident stated she used them for bed mobility. Review on 07/12/22 of Resident #30's EHR revealed the resident was a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included multiple sclerosis, diabetes, weakness with lack of coordination. The resident's EHR revealed there was no documented evidence there was consent for the use of bed rails. Review of Resident #30's MDS, dated [DATE], revealed a BIMS score of 11 indicating moderate cognitive impairment. Her Functional Status indicated she required two people to assist her with bed mobility and transfer. Review of Resident #30's care plan, dated 05/19/22, revealed she was care planned for 1/4 bed rail to promote independence in mobility. Review of Resident #30's Bed Rail Evaluation, dated 01/21//22, indicated no bed rails are indicated for the resident. Observation and interview on 07/12/22 at 10:32 AM of Resident #30 revealed 1/2 bed rails present on both sides of the bed. Resident stated she used them for mobility in bed. Review of Resident #43's EHR revealed the resident was a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included left sided paralysis, contractures of left arm and leg, muscle weakness and lack of coordination. The resident's EHR revealed there was no documented evidence there was consent for the use of bed rails. Review of Resident #43's MDS, dated [DATE], revealed a BIMS score of 10 indicating the resident had moderate cognitive impairment. Her Functional Status indicated she required two people to assist with bed mobility and transfer. Review of Resident #43's care plan, dated 05/10/22, does not have her care planned for bed rails. Bed rails were added 07/06/22. Review of Resident #43's Bed rail Evaluation, dated 07/05/22, indicated use of 1/4 bed rails to aid in repositioning or transfer out of bed. Observation and interview on 07/12/22 at 11:19 AM of Resident #43 revealed 1/4 bed rails in place on both sides of the bed. Resident stated she could not use the bed rails for mobility. Review of Resident #46's EHR revealed the resident was a [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included cerebral palsy, contractures of both arms and legs, muscle weakness and lack of coordination. The resident's EHR revealed there was no documented evidence there was consent for the use of bed rails. Review of Resident #46's MDS, dated [DATE], indicated a BIMS score of 15 indicating the resident was cognitively intact. His Functional Status indicated he required two people to assist him with bed mobility and transfer. Review of Resident #46's care plan, dated 07/12/22 does not have him care planned for bed rails. Review of Resident #46's Bed Rail Evaluation dated 07/13/22 indicated no use of bed rails. Observation and interview on 07/12/22 at 10:45 AM of Resident #46 revealed 1/4 bed rails in place on both sides of the bed. Resident stated he did not use them for mobility. Review of Resident #53's EHR revealed the resident was a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included bed sore to left foot with gangrene infection requiring amputation of the toes, diabetes, muscle weakness and lack of coordination. She had a Consent for Bed Rail Use dated 06/29/22 that was incomplete, it did not indicate the type of bed rails or the frequency of use. Review of Resident #53's MDS, dated [DATE], revealed a BIMS score of 15 indicating the resident was cognitively intact. Her Functional Status indicated she required two people to assist her with bed mobility and transfer. Review of Resident #53's care plan, dated 07/12/22 revealed she was not care planned for bed rails. Bed rails were added to her care plan on 07/13/22 after speaking with the Traveling DON. Review of Resident #53's Bed Rail Evaluation dated 07/13/22 indicated no bed rail use. Observation and interview on 07/12/22 at 10:40 AM of Resident #53 revealed 1/4 bed rail present on both sides of the bed. Resident stated she used the bed rails for mobility. Review of Resident #167's EHR revealed the resident was a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included stroke with left sided paralysis, muscle weakness and lack of coordination. The resident's EHR revealed there was no documented evidence there was consent for the use of bed rails. Review of Resident #167's MDS, dated [DATE], revealed a BIMS score was not completed based on her medical condition. Her Functional Status indicated she was a total care resident, unable to perform any functions. Review of Resident #167's care plan, dated 07/11/22, revealed she was care planned for bed rails related to repositioning and transfer out of bed. Review of Resident #167's Bed Rail Evaluation, dated 07/13/22, indicated no bed rail use. Observation and interview on 07/12/22 at 10:38 AM of Resident #167 revealed 1/2 bed rails in place on both sides of the bed. Resident was not interviewable, she was non-responsive. Review of Resident #169's EHR revealed the resident was an [AGE] year-old female admitted tot he facility on 02/09/22 with diagnoses including muscle weakness, difficulty in walking, lack of coordination, and kidney failure. The resident's EHR revealed there was no documented evidence there was consent for the use of bed rails. Review of Resident #169's MDS, dated [DATE], revealed a BIMS score of 15 indicating the resident was cognitively intact. Her Functional Status indicated she required one person to assist her with bed mobility and transfer. Review of Resident #169's care plan, dated 06/30/22, indicated she was not care planned for bed rails. Review of Resident #169's Bed Rail Evaluation, dated 06/28/22, indicated no bed rail use. Observation and interview on 07/12/22 at 12:16 PM of Resident #169 revealed she had 1/4 bed rails in place on both sides of the bed. Resident stated she used the bed rails to help adjust herself in bed. Interview on 07/13/22 at 2:42 PM with the Traveling DON she stated that she had been sent to the facility on [DATE] to perform an audit and discovered missing orders and other documentation needing to be completed. She stated the previous DON had not been monitoring like she was expected. She stated she had just begun auditing bed rails this morning. She stated there was not a need for a consent for bed rail use if they were being utilized for mobility and not for restraint, therefor she had not contacted responsible parties or the residents before adding the physician order or adding it to their care plans. She stated she had been putting in physician verbal orders and adding bed rails to care plans as she discovered them missing in the resident charts. She stated there was a risk of entrapment if bed rails were not properly installed and used on the appropriate residents. Interview on 07/13/22 at 3:20 PM with Interim DON revealed she had been at the facility since 07/11/22 and she was unaware of who was responsible for monitoring bed rail use and bed rail evaluations on the residents. She stated she would expect her ADON to be responsible going forward. Interview on 07/12/22 at 11:45 AM with CNA B she stated that residents #43, #46 and #167 do not turn themselves, they require assistance with repositioning, transfers, and mobility. Review of facility's policy Proper Use of Side Rails, dated December 2007, stated: The purposes of these guidelines are to ensure the safe use of side rails as resident mobility aids and to prohibit the use of side rails as restraints unless necessary to treat a resident's medical symptoms. 3. An assessment [NAME] be made to determine the resident's symptoms and reason for using side rails. An assessment will include a review of the resident's a. Bed mobility b. Ability to change positions, transfer to and from bed or chair, and to stand and toilet 4. The use of side rails as an assistive device will be addressed in the resident's care plan. 8. Consent for side rail use [NAME] be obtained from the resident or the resident's representative after presenting potential risks and benefits.
CONCERN (E)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program designated to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable disease and infection for four (Residents #29, #3, #36 and #14) of fourteen residents reviewed for infection control. The facility failed to ensure MA C disinfected the blood pressure cuff in between blood pressure checks for Residents #29 and #3. The facility failed to ensure LVN D changed soiled gloves during wound care for Resident #14. The facility failed to ensure LVN E performed hand hygiene during blood sugar check and observe safety measure on sharps disposal for Resident #36. These failures could place residents at risk for cross-contamination and the development and spread of infection. Findings included: Review of Resident #29's quarterly MDS Assessment, dated 06/22/22 revealed the resident was a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility 06/18/2018. The resident was cognitively intact with a BIMS of 13.The resident's diagnoses included stroke and hypertension. Review of Resident #3's quarterly MDS Assessment, dated 07/04/22 revealed the resident was a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility 07/04/22.The resident had diagnoses that included essential Type 2 diabetes, acute kidney failure and essential (primary) hypertension. Review of Resident #36's quarterly MDS Assessment, dated 04/30/22 revealed the resident was a [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility 02/28/22.The resident's cognition was moderately impaired with a BIMS of 10.The resident had diagnosis that included diabetes mellitus, renal insufficiency, renal failure, or end stage renal disease and essential (primary) hypertension. Review of Resident #14's Quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident was a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE].Resident #14 had diagnoses which included stroke, fractures and other multiple trauma. Review of Resident #14's care plan dated 07/06/22 revealed Resident #14 had a skin tear to left elbow. Observation on 07/13/22 at 8:41 AM revealed MA C did not disinfect the blood pressure cuff after she checked the blood pressure for Resident #29. She went directly from Resident #29 to Resident #3 without disinfecting the blood pressure cuff. Observation on 07/13/22 at 9:39 AM revealed LVN D did not change her gloves after removing the old dressing on Resident #14's wound. She went directly from removing the old dressing on the wound to cleansing the wound with clean gauze soaked with normal [NAME]. Observation on 07/13/22 at 11:42 AM revealed LVN E did not perform hand hygiene before contact and after contact with the resident #36. She did not sanitize or wash hands before donning the gloves and after doffing the gloves while performing Resident #14 blood sugar check. She was observed wheeling the cart to the resident #36's room, did not perform hand hygiene, she donned the gloves and disinfected the glucometer and left it to dry. She doffed her gloves and put supplies together. She donned gloves and entered resident 36's room and checked the blood sugar on the resident. She left the room with gloves on, and she doffed them outside the room, and she discarded the gloves, the lancet and the glucometer strips on the trash can instead of discarding the lancet and the strip on the sharp container and did not perform hand hygiene . She doffed the gloves and donned new gloves and disinfected the glucometer machine, doffed the gloves. She did not perform hand hygiene and she wheeled her cart to the nurse's station. Interview with MA C on 07/13/22 at 8:49 AM revealed she did not disinfect the blood pressure cuff between the residents #29 and #3. She stated she was supposed to use the disinfectant wipes, to clean the blood pressure cuff between each use to prevent spread of infection but she did not have the disinfectant wipes on her cart.She stated she forgot to get one because it skipped her mind .She stated she has done trainings on infection control regarding disinfecting the blood pressure cuffs and other equipment's between each use.She stated failure to disinfect the equipment's between the resident will cause cross contamination. Interview with LVN D on 07/13/22 at 10:08 AM revealed she did not doff the gloves after removing the old dressing from Resident #14's wound. She stated she was supposed to doff and perform hand hygiene after removing the old dressing, but she got nervous and forgot. She stated by the time she remembered she had finished cleansing the wound. She stated failure to change gloves between the procedure ad performing hand hygiene would lead to contamination of the wound and spread of infection. She stated she has done a one-day training on wound care and infection prevention. Interview with LVN E on 07/13/22 at 11:49 AM revealed she was supposed to perform hand hygiene before contact and after contact with the resident and also before donning and after doffing the gloves. She stated she did not perform hand hygiene because she had performed hand hygiene earlier at the nurse's station before wheeling her cart down the hall. She stated she did not know whether she was supposed to wash hands in the resident room and she did not have hand sanitizer on her cart. She also stated she knew she was supposed to discard the lancet and the glucometer strip on the sharp container, but she got nervous, forgot, and trashed them together with the gloves on the trash can .She stated failure to perform hand hygiene before contact, during the procedure and after contact could lead to contamination and spread of infection. She stated failure to discard the lancet ad the strip on the sharp containers would lead to safety issue and other staff could get pierced and also could spread infection. She stated she had done training on infection control. Interview with the Interim DON on 07/13/22 at 10:08 AM revealed facility staff were expected to disinfect equipment between resident, and this includes the thermometer, blood pressure cuff, med cart and the glucometer using disinfectant wipes to prevent spread of infection. She stated she was new, and she did not know whether the staff had been trained on equipment disinfection. She stated the risk of not disinfecting the equipment between each use was transmission of infection between residents. Interview with the Interim DON on 07/13/22 at 10:11 AM revealed her expectation was nurses should doff gloves and perform hand hygiene after removing the old dressing before they cleanse the wound. She stated she was new, and she did not know whether the staff had been trained on wound care. She stated failure to change gloves after removal of the old dressing and performing hand hygiene would cause infection thus delaying wound healing. Interview with the Interim DON on 07/13/22 at 12:07 PM revealed her expectation was that all staff should perform hand hygiene before contact and after contact with residents, before donning, and after doffing the gloves during all procedures .She stated she expects all lancets to go to sharp container and not on trash cans. She stated failure to perform hand hygiene would lead to contamination and spread of infection. The DON stated failure to discard sharps in the sharp containers could lead to needle stick accidents and spread of infection. She stated the facility had performed skill check on nurses. Review of the facility's policy for cleaning and disinfection of resident-care items and equipment, dated July 2014, reflected: .resident care equipment, including reusable items and durable medical equipment will be cleaned and disinfected according to current center for disease control and prevention recommendations for disinfection and the occupational safety and health administration blood borne pathogens standard. Reusable items are cleaned and disinfected or sterilized between residents (stethoscopes and durable medical equipment). Review of the facility's policy for sharps disposal, dated January 2012, reflected: This facility shall discard contaminated sharps into designated containers. Whoever uses contaminated sharps will discard them immediately or as soon as feasible into designated containers. Contaminated sharps will be discarded into containers that are. a. Closable puncture resistant c. Leakproof on sides and bottom labeled or color coded in accordance with our established labeling systems; and e. Impermeable and capable of maintaining impermeability through final waste disposal. Review of the facility's policy for wound care, dated October 2010, reflected: The purpose of this procedure is to provide guidelines for the care of wounds to promote healing. 1. Wash hands and don gloves 2. Put on exam gloves .Loosen tape and remove dressing. 3. Pull glove over dressing and discard into appropriate receptacle. Wash and dry your hands thoroughly. 4. Put on gloves. 5. Pour liquid solutions directly on gauze sponges on their papers.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

  • "What changes have you made since the serious inspection findings?"
  • "What safeguards are in place to prevent abuse and neglect?"
  • "Why is there high staff turnover? How do you retain staff?"
  • "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: Federal abuse finding, 3 life-threatening violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 28 deficiencies on record, including 3 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $16,801 in fines. Above average for Texas. Some compliance problems on record.
  • • Grade F (2/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: This facility has a substantiated abuse finding. Extreme caution advised. Explore alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Stonegate Nursing And Rehabilitation's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns STONEGATE NURSING AND REHABILITATION an overall rating of 3 out of 5 stars, which is considered average nationally. Within Texas, this rating places the facility higher than 99% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This mid-range rating indicates the facility meets federal standards but may have areas for improvement.

How is Stonegate Nursing And Rehabilitation Staffed?

CMS rates STONEGATE NURSING AND REHABILITATION's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 61%, which is 15 percentage points above the Texas average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs. RN turnover specifically is 80%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.

What Have Inspectors Found at Stonegate Nursing And Rehabilitation?

State health inspectors documented 28 deficiencies at STONEGATE NURSING AND REHABILITATION during 2022 to 2025. These included: 3 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 24 with potential for harm, and 1 minor or isolated issues. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.

Who Owns and Operates Stonegate Nursing And Rehabilitation?

STONEGATE NURSING AND REHABILITATION is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by HMG HEALTHCARE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 134 certified beds and approximately 84 residents (about 63% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in FORT WORTH, Texas.

How Does Stonegate Nursing And Rehabilitation Compare to Other Texas Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Texas, STONEGATE NURSING AND REHABILITATION's overall rating (3 stars) is above the state average of 2.8, staff turnover (61%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Stonegate Nursing And Rehabilitation?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What changes have been made since the serious inspection findings, and how are you preventing similar issues?" "What safeguards and monitoring systems are in place to protect residents from abuse or neglect?" "How do you ensure continuity of care given staff turnover, and what is your staff retention strategy?" "Can you walk me through typical staffing levels on day, evening, and night shifts?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations, the substantiated abuse finding on record, the facility's high staff turnover rate, and the below-average staffing rating.

Is Stonegate Nursing And Rehabilitation Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, STONEGATE NURSING AND REHABILITATION has documented safety concerns. The facility has 1 substantiated abuse finding (meaning confirmed case of resident harm by staff or other residents). Inspectors have issued 3 Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 3-star overall rating and ranks #1 of 100 nursing homes in Texas. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.

Do Nurses at Stonegate Nursing And Rehabilitation Stick Around?

Staff turnover at STONEGATE NURSING AND REHABILITATION is high. At 61%, the facility is 15 percentage points above the Texas average of 46%. Registered Nurse turnover is particularly concerning at 80%. RNs handle complex medical decisions and coordinate care — frequent RN changes can directly impact care quality. High turnover means new staff may not know residents' individual needs, medications, or preferences. It can also be disorienting for residents, especially those with dementia who rely on familiar faces. Families should ask: What is causing the turnover? What retention programs are in place? How do you ensure care continuity during staff transitions?

Was Stonegate Nursing And Rehabilitation Ever Fined?

STONEGATE NURSING AND REHABILITATION has been fined $16,801 across 1 penalty action. This is below the Texas average of $33,247. 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 Stonegate Nursing And Rehabilitation on Any Federal Watch List?

STONEGATE NURSING AND REHABILITATION 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.