GILMER NURSING AND REHABILITATION

703 TITUS STREET, GILMER, TX 75644 (903) 843-5529
For profit - Limited Liability company 93 Beds CREATIVE SOLUTIONS IN HEALTHCARE Data: November 2025 7 Immediate Jeopardy citations
Trust Grade
0/100
#988 of 1168 in TX
Last Inspection: December 2024

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

Overview

Gilmer Nursing and Rehabilitation has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the quality of care provided. With a state ranking of #988 out of 1168 Texas facilities and being ranked #2 out of 2 in Upshur County, they are in the bottom half of options available. Although the facility's issues have improved, going from 29 problems in 2023 to 8 in 2024, the staffing level remains concerning with only 1 out of 5 stars, and a turnover rate of 53% is average for Texas. Additionally, the facility has faced $218,053 in fines, which is higher than 95% of Texas facilities, signaling ongoing compliance problems. Specific incidents reported include failure to maintain proper infection control, where residents were not separated after COVID-19 exposure, and instances of abuse, such as a staff member covering a resident's mouth to silence her, leading to serious concerns about resident safety and care standards.

Trust Score
F
0/100
In Texas
#988/1168
Bottom 16%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Better
29 → 8 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
53% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
○ Average
$218,053 in fines. Higher than 50% of Texas facilities. Some compliance issues.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 9 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Texas. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
⚠ Watch
44 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Overall Rating
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Staff Levels
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Care Quality
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2023: 29 issues
2024: 8 issues

The Good

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

Facility shows strength in fire safety.

The Bad

1-Star Overall Rating

Below Texas average (2.8)

Significant quality concerns identified by CMS

Staff Turnover: 53%

Near Texas avg (46%)

Higher turnover may affect care consistency

Federal Fines: $218,053

Well above median ($33,413)

Significant penalties indicating serious issues

Chain: CREATIVE SOLUTIONS IN HEALTHCARE

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 44 deficiencies on record

7 life-threatening 2 actual harm
Dec 2024 7 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0582 (Tag F0582)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, observations, and record review, the facility failed to ensure each resident was informed before or at the ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, observations, and record review, the facility failed to ensure each resident was informed before or at the time of admission, and periodically during the residents stay, of services available in the facility and of charges for those services, which included charges for services not covered under Medicare/Medicaid or by the facility's per diem rate for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #54) reviewed for Medicare/Medicaid coverage. The facility failed to ensure Resident #54, was given a SNF ABN (a document that informs a Medicare beneficiary that Medicare will no longer pay for skilled services) when discharged from skilled services at the facility. This failure could place residents at risk for not being aware of changes to the services provided. Findings included: Record review of a face sheet dated 12/11/24 indicated Resident #54 was admitted on [DATE] and was an [AGE] year-old male with diagnoses of dementia (a group of thinking and social symptoms that interferes with daily functioning), high blood pressure, and shock (occurs when organs do not get enough blood). Record review of an undated billing statement indicated Resident #54 was admitted on [DATE] with Medicare part A for skilled nursing care and the last day of coverage was 08/31/24. On 09/01/24, Resident #54 remained in the facility on Medicaid services. Record review of the electronic record dated from 06/19/24 to 12/11/24 indicated Resident #54's family or responsible party had not been given a SNF ABN (a document that informs a Medicare beneficiary that Medicare will no longer pay for skilled services) when discharged from skilled services at the facility. During an observation on 12/11/24 at 10:50 a.m., Resident #54 resided on the secure unit and was unable to answer questions about billing matters. During an interview on 12/11/24 12:33 p.m., the MDS nurse said she just learned she was responsible for the ABN letters and would receive training today. During an interview on 12/11/24 12:38 p.m., the Administrator said she was unable to voice negative outcomes because she was not sure if they had to complete the SNF ABN form and she said she would reach out to her corporate for training.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0655 (Tag F0655)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the baseline care plan that included the instructions for re...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the baseline care plan that included the instructions for resident care needed to provide effective and person-centered care was completed for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for new admissions (Resident #108). The facility failed to include Resident #108's diagnosis of depression and antidepressant medication the baseline care plan. This failure could place residents at risk of not receiving care and services to meet their needs. Findings included: Record review of a face sheet dated 12/10/24 indicated Resident#108 was an [AGE] year-old male admitted on [DATE]. Record review of the physician orders dated December 2024 indicated Resident #108 had a diagnosis of depression and an order dated 12/05/24 for Amitriptyline 25mg one time daily for depression. Record review of the baseline care plan dated 12/04/24 for Resident#108. There was no care plan to address his diagnosis of depression or his antidepressant medication Amitriptyline. During an interview on12/10/24 at 02:42 the DON said she and the ADON were responsible for the care plans. She said the baseline care plan information should pull from the resident's transfer papers. The DON said Resident #108 should have a care plan to address his diagnosis of depression and his antidepressant medication. She said this could cause his depression and medication not be monitored appropriately. During an interview on 12/11/24 at 10:28 a.m. the Administrator said care plans should be complete by the nursing staff assigned or their needs could be missed. Record review of an undated Base Line Care Plans policy Indicated .The baseline care plan will reflect the resident's stated goals and objectives, and include interventions that address his or her current needs. It will be based on the admission orders, information about the resident available from the transferring provider, and discussion with the resident and resident representative, if applicable. Because the baseline care plan documents, the interim approaches for meeting the resident's immediate needs, professional standards of quality care would dictate that it must also reflect changes to approaches, as necessary, resulting from significant changes in condition or needs, occurring prior to development of the comprehensive care plan. Facility staff will implement the interventions to assist the resident to achieve care plan goals and objectives
CONCERN (D)

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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services (including procedures that assure the accurate acquiring, receiving, dispensing, and administering of all drugs and biologicals) in 1 of 4 medication carts reviewed (Short Hall Nurse medication cart) (Resident #4's medication). A package of Resident #4's 14 one ml syringes filled with ABH gel (a combination medication of Ativan {antianxiety medication}, Benadryl, {medication that relieves symptoms of nausea, vomiting and dizziness, rash, and cough} and Haldol {an antipsychotic medication that calms you down}) for Resident #4 with an expiration date of 09/04/25 and a lot expiration date of 10/04/24, had been expired for 68 days and not removed from use. A package of Resident #4's 24 one ml syringes filled with ABH gel with an expiration date of 10/07/25 and a lot expiration date of 11/06/24 for Resident #4, had been expired for 35 days and not removed from use. This failure could place residents at risk for accidents, hazards, and not receiving therapeutic effects of medication. The findings included: Record review of Resident #4's face sheet dated 12/11/24 indicated a [AGE] year-old female admitted [DATE] with diagnoses included: dementia (a group of thinking and social symptoms that interfere with daily functioning) and anxiety (intense, excessive, and persistent worry and fear about everyday situations). Record review of Resident #4's quarterly MDS assessment with an ARD of 10/24/24 indicated the resident had a BIMS score of 8 indicating the resident had moderately impaired cognition. The assessment indicated she was diagnosed with dementia and anxiety. Record review of Resident #4's care plan with a revision date of 11/10/24 indicated she required antipsychotic medication and antianxiety medication with an intervention to give as prescribed by the physician and monitor for side effects and effectiveness. Record review of Resident #4's physician's order, dated 12/11/24, indicated she was prescribed ABH gel (Ativan 1mg/ Benadryl 25 mg/ Haldol 2 mg) topically to wrist every 4 hours as needed for anxiety/restlessness related to dementia with a start date of 09/04/24. During an observation and interview on 12/11/24 at 09:45 a.m., during a review of Short Hall's Nurse's medication cart with LVN C, there was a package of 14, 1 ml syringes with a white medication label indicated for Resident #4 of ABH 1mg /25 mg /2 mg gel with a drug expiration date of 09/04/25 and a yellow label indicated compounded in our pharmacy by the direction of your doctor with second yellow label indicted lot expiration date of 10/04/24. Observed a package of 24, 1 ml syringes with a white label for Resident #4 with ABH 1mg /25mg /2mg gel with a drug expiration date of 10/07/25 and a yellow label indicated compounded in our pharmacy by the direction of your doctor with second yellow label indicted lot expiration date of 11/06/24. LVN C said the medications were not expired they checked it by the white sticker indicating 09/04/25 and 10/07/25. After surveyor intervention LVN C called the pharmacy and said the medications were expired on the yellow label date, 10/04/24 and 11/06/24. She said they should have been removed from the medication cart on expiration date. She said she had been checking the medications with the expiration date label not the yellow lot expiration date label. She misunderstood the dates, but she had not administered the medication. LVN C said the nurses administrating medication off the medication cart were responsible for removing expired medication. She said she was educated in removal of expired medication from the nurse's medication cart on the expiration date. LVN C said the resident risk of expired medication not removed from the nurse's medication cart was the medication could be administered to a resident and not be as effective as prescribed. She said the Pharmacy Consultant checked monthly for expired medication. During an observation and interview on 12/11/24 at 12:19 p.m., Resident #4 was lying in bed, she said she received her medication as needed and her medication that was put on her skin helped her relax. During an interview phone on 12/11/24 at 10:37 a.m., Pharmacist B said Resident #4 had a batch of ABH gel syringes compounded on 09/04/24 that expired on 10/04/24, and a batch of ABH gel syringes compounded on 10/07/24 that expired 11/06/24. She said the compounded ABH gel expired 30 days after compounded as listed on the yellow label indicating lot expired date. Pharmacist B said the medication would decrease in effectiveness each day after the expiration date but would not hurt the resident. She said there were no studies of how much of a decrease in effectiveness. During an interview on 12/11/24 at 11:11 am the DON said the nurses were responsible for ensuring expired medication was removed from the nurse's medication carts and the Pharmacy consultant was the double check to remove expired medication. She said the Pharmacy consultant's last onsite visit was on 10/02/24, the unit nurse's medication cart was checked, and she did a computer check of medication on 12/10/24. She said the Pharmacy consultant did not check the short hall medication cart for expired medication at that time. The DON said she checked the nurse's medication carts on 12/09/24 but checked the wrong expiration date. She said the facilities' pharmacy marks out the expiration date if a medication was compound or changed to ensure staff do not check the wrong date. The DON said the expired medications were from a hospice pharmacy that did not mark out the incorrect expiration date when the medication was compounded. The DON said the nurses were educated on removal of expired medication off nurse's medication carts. She said the discrepancy of the white medication label indicated medication expired on a certain date and the yellow label indicated the lot expiration date was the reason it was overlooked. She said the resident risk was a medication administered after the expiration date may not have the proper effect of the medication on the resident. The DON said her expectation was all expired medication removed on the expiration date and when a resident expired or discharged all their medication removed immediately and properly discarded. During a phone interview on 12/11/24 at 11:24 a.m., the Pharmacy consultant said the nurses or anyone giving medication were responsible for ensuring expired medication was removed from the nurse's medication carts. She said she was a double check to remove expired medication and did periodic medication cart audits during onsite visits but did not review every cart on every visit. She said her last visit was on 10/02/24 and she only reviewed the unit nurse medication cart. The Pharmacy consultant said the resident risk of ABH gel on the nurse's medication cart after the expiration date was it could be less effective for the resident but not harmful. During an interview on 12/11/24 at 11:35 a.m., the ADON said the nurses were responsible for ensuring expired medication was removed from the nurse's medication carts. She said herself and the DON checked the medication carts weekly for expired medication. She said the discrepancy of the white medication label indicated medication expired on a certain date and the yellow label indicated the lot expiration date was the reason the expired medications were overlooked. The ADON said the nurses should have called the pharmacy and clarified the expiration date. She said the staff were educated on removal of expired medication off medication carts. The ADON said the resident risk was a medication administered after the expiration date was medication could be less effective. During an interview on 12/11/24 at 12:00 p.m., the Administrator said the nurses were responsible for ensuring expired medications were removed from their medication carts. She said the nurses were educated on removal of expired medication from the medication carts. She said the nurse managers, ADON and DON double checked to ensure expired medication was removed from the nurse medication carts. She said the treatment nurse checked the treatment cart for expired medication. The Administrator said the nurses possibly were checking the typed drug expiration date on the label like on a prescription bottle like they were used to checking. She said the nurses did not take into account the added label of the compounded date. The Administrator said the resident risk of a medication administered after the expiration date was potential lower potency of the received medication. She said her expectation was if a medication was expired to be removed from the medication cart and properly discarded. During an interview on 12/11/24 at 12:31 p.m., the Regional Compliance Nurse said the nurses giving medication were responsible for removal of expired medication off the nurse's medication carts. She said the ADON and DON were the back up to double check and ensure expired medications were removed from the nurse's medication carts. She said the nurses were educated on removal of expired medication from the medication carts. The Regional Compliance Nurse said the nurse's looked at the wrong date was the reason the expired medication was still on the medication carts. She said the facilities pharmacy marked out the expiration date if the expiration date changes so there is no misunderstanding, and the hospice pharmacy did not do that. She said she checked the medication carts on 12/09/24 for expired medication and looked at the wrong expiration date. The Regional Compliance Nurse said the resident risk was the resident may receive medication that may not be as effective as prescribed. During a phone interview on 12/11/24 at 3:20 p.m., LVN D said the nurses providing medication were responsible for ensuring expired medication was removed from their medication carts. She said the ADON and Pharmacy Consultant double checked the medication carts for expired medication monthly. LVN D said she knew to remove expired medication off her medication cart but could not remember if she had officially received an in-service over removal of expired medication off her cart. She said she usually checks every medication for the expiration date before giving it, but she did not check Resident #4's ABH gel on 12/10/24 before she gave it. LVN D said the resident risk of a medication given after the expiration date was the medication may not be as effective. Record review of a facility policy dated 2003, titled, Drug Destruction Policy, indicated, . Nursing staff will submit to Director of Nursing any controlled medication and any applicable log that has expired, been discontinued by physician or that had been prescribed to a resident who no longer resides at the facility
CONCERN (D)

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

Room Equipment (Tag F0908)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to maintain all mechanical, electrical, and patient care equipment in safe operating condition for 1 of 1 kitchen reviewed for...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to maintain all mechanical, electrical, and patient care equipment in safe operating condition for 1 of 1 kitchen reviewed for essential equipment. The facility did not ensure the gas stove was in safe operating condition with the pilot light staying lit and allowing gas to leak. This failure could place the residents at risk of a fire and not receiving their meals in a timely manner. Findings included: During an observation and interview on 12/9/24 at 8:00 a.m., [NAME] A lit the burners on the stove. 1 of the 6 burners (back left burner) did not light using the pilot light and then would not light with a long lighter. She said she would report this to the maintenance supervisor. During an interview on 12/9/24 at 10:30 a.m., the maintenance supervisor said the pilot light on the stove required to be cleaned at times and said he would check the stove today. He said if the pilot light did not light the burner the stove would not work right. During an interview on 12/10/24 at 11:00 a.m., the Administrator said her expectation was for the stove to light with the pilot light. She said the facility did not have a policy about equipment, however the stove should work properly. During an interview on 12/10/24 at 11:15 a.m., the maintenance supervisor said he had cleaned the pilot light and removed a fan in the kitchen. He said he reminded the dietary staff if any problems with the pilot lights to report it to him.
CONCERN (E)

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

PASARR Coordination (Tag F0644)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to coordinate assessments with the pre-admission screening and resident review (PASARR) program under Medicaid in subpart C of this part to the maximum extent practicable to avoid duplicative testing and effort for 1 of 6 residents reviewed for PASRR services. (Resident #1) * The facility did not have Resident #1's hospice representative present for the PASRR IDT meeting dated 04/09/24 requesting specialized PT services. * The facility did not have Resident #1's hospice representative present for the PASRR IDT meeting dated 10/25/24 requesting specialized OT services. These failures could affect the residents with intellectual and developmental disabilities by placing them at risk of a delay in or not receiving specialized services that would enhance their highest level of functioning. Findings included: Record review of a face sheet dated 12/11/24 indicated Resident #1 was a [AGE] year-old female admitted on [DATE]. Her diagnoses included seizures and intellectual disabilities. Record review of a PASRR Level 1 dated 06/10/21 indicated Resident #1 was marked yes for ID and DD. Record review of a PASRR Evaluation dated 06/23/21 indicated Resident #1 met criteria for ID and DD. 1. Record review of a letter from the PASRR Unit dated 05/01/24 indicated they were requesting more information for Resident #1 to have Nursing Facility Specialized Services of PT. Record review of a letter from the PASRR Unit dated 05/08/24 indicated they denied PT because they did not receive the information by the deadline. Record review on 12/11/24 at 11:00 a.m. with the DOR of the LTC Online Portal indicated the following entries: * on 04/30/24 at 03:44 p.m. -HHSC records indicate that the most recent IDT meeting did not include the hospice provider as a participant per IL 19-03 * on 05/01/24 at 11:39 a.m. -HHSC records indicate that the most recent IDT meeting did not include the hospice provider as a participant per IL 19-03 During an interview on 12/11/24 at 11:10 a.m. the MDS Nurse said she was not involved with the PASRR information in May 2024, but it looked like the hospice representative was not in the meeting. 2. Record review of Resident #1's PCSP dated 09/17/24 indicated Resident #1, the LIDDA, the DON, and the DOR attended the meeting. The hospice representative was not present for the meeting. Record review of a letter from the PASRR Unit dated 11/27/24 indicated they were requesting more information for Resident #1 to have Nursing Facility Specialized Services of OT. Record review on 12/11/24 at 11:00 a.m. with the DOR of the LTC Online Portal indicated on 11/20/2024 at 02:17 p.m. -HHSC records indicate that the most recent IDT meeting did not include the hospice provider as a participant per IL 19-03 During an interview on 12/11/24 at 11:00 a.m. the DOR said the MDS Nurse told him the hospice representative had not attended the meeting in October 2024, so she was having to reconduct the meeting with the hospice representative. He said who scheduled the meeting should include all persons involved in the resident's care or it could delay services. During an interview on 12/11/24 at 11:10 a.m. the MDS Nurse said she was aware of the hospice representative issue, but they could not attend a meeting until 12/15/24, after the due date of information needed to the PASRR Unit. She said it could cause a delay in or non-payment for services. During an interview on 12/11/24 at 10:28 a.m. the Administrator said she was not aware of the denial letter for Resident #1. She said she expected everything to be done for the PASRR residents so services are not delayed or denied. PASRR and Hospice Criteria: When the IDT agrees that a hospice recipient needs NF specialized services, the NF must submit prior authorization requests for all required assessments and NF specialized services via the Authorization Request for PASRR Nursing Facility Specialized Services (NFSS) form on the LTC Online Portal. SS will be discussed and can be recommended based on the individuals needs and medical condition. Specialized services for now include NF and LIDDA SS. If final approval is given, it may also include LMHA/LBHA services. Notification will be provided of any further changes. NFs will still submit requests for NF SS the same way they do now. No changes. There will be a delay in the process of holding the L TCMI for lack of IDT meetings for hospice cases. This will give providers time to schedule meetings and enter data into the portal. We expect it to take several months before any L TCMI holds for hospice-missing IDTs will be implemented
CONCERN (E)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident that included measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs that were identified in the comprehensive assessment for 3 of 15 residents. (Resident #11, #28, and #34) The facility failed to develop a care plan for Resident #11, #28, and #34's PASRR (Preadmission Screening and Resident Review) positive status. This failure could place the residents at risk of not receiving care and services to maintain their highest level of well-being. Findings included: 1. Record review of a face sheet dated 10/10/24 indicated Resident #11 was a [AGE] year-old female admitted on [DATE]. Her diagnoses included schizoaffective disorder (a mental health condition including schizophrenia and mood disorder symptoms), and bipolar type (a disorder associated with episodes of mood swings ranging from depressive lows to manic highs). Record review of Resident #11's PASRR Level 1 screen dated 11/16/22 indicated she was PASRR positive status for mental illness and intellectual disability. Record review of the most recent annual MDS assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #11 had a BIMS score of 12 indicating moderately impaired cognition and was currently considered by the state level II PASRR process to have serious mental illness and/or intellectual disability or a related condition. Level II Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) Conditions indicated serious mental illness and intellectual disability. The assessment indicated Resident #11 with a diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder and was taking an antipsychotic medication during the last 7 days. Record review of Resident #11's care plans revised 11/04/24 did not indicate Resident #11 had a PASRR positive status. Record review of Resident #11's December 2024 MAR indicated she received Abilify 10 mg daily for schizoaffective disorder and Olanzapine 10 mg daily at bedtime for schizoaffective disorder. Record review of physician's orders dated 12/10/24 indicated Resident #11 was prescribed Abilify (treats severe mental health conditions) 10 mg one time a day for schizoaffective disorder with a start date of 07/04/24 and Olanzapine (treats mental health disorders) 10 mg daily at bedtime for schizoaffective disorder with a start date of 07/03/24. During an observation 12/09/24 at 11:00 a.m., Resident #11 was lying in bed and said she was treated well and received needed care. 2. Record review of face sheet dated 12/10/24 indicated Resident #28 was admitted on [DATE] and was a [AGE] year-old female with diagnoses cerebral palsy and diabetes. Record review of the PASRR screen for Resident #28 dated 01/04/22 indicated she was PASRR positive status. Record review of the annual MDS assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #28 was currently considered by the state level II PASRR process to have serious mental illness and/or intellectual disability or a related condition. Level II Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) Conditions indicated intellectual disability. Diagnoses included cerebral palsy. Record review of the care plan dated 10/29/24 did not address Resident #28 PASRR positive status. 3. Record review of physician orders for December 2024 indicated Resident #34 was a [AGE] year-old female admitted on [DATE]. She had a diagnosis of anxiety (persistent and excessive worry that interferes with daily activities) and an order dated 11/26/24 for Buspirone (antianxiety medication) 5 mg for anxiety. Record review of the care plan indicated Resident #34 had no care plan to address that she was PASRR positive. During an interview on 12/10/24 at 9:00 a.m., the RCN said the MDS nurse was responsible for care/planning. During an interview and record review on 12/10/24 at 09:10 a.m., the MDS nurse said Resident #11 was PASRR positive and should have been care planned as PASRR positive but was not. She said it was overlooked. She said the DON and the ADON were responsible for acute care plans, but she was responsible for PASRR care plans. The MDS nurse said she was educated on care planning and was aware PASRR positive status should be care planned. She said the resident risk of a PASRR positive status not care planned was possibly missed services. During an interview on 12/10/24 at 9:15 a.m., the MDS nurse said Resident #28 did not have a care plan that addressed PASRR status. She said if the PASRR was not addressed in the care plan, services could be missed. During an interview on 12/10/24 at 9:45 a.m., the DON said her expectation was for the PASRR positive residents to be addressed on the care plan or services could be missed. During an interview on 12/10/24 at 01:30 p.m., the ADON said herself and the DON were responsible for care planning any acute care plans including antibiotics and falls. She said the MDS nurse was responsible for care planning PASRR status. The ADON said Resident #11 was PASRR positive and needed positive PASRR status care planned. She said the MDS nurse was educated on care planning. The ADON said the risk to the resident of not having a positive PASRR status care planned was potentially missed extra needed services. During an interview on 12/10/24 at 01:37 p.m., the DON said Resident #11 was PASRR positive and needed a positive PASRR status care planned. She said the MDS nurse was responsible for care planning PASRR positive status. The DON said herself and the ADON were responsible for acute care plans including antibiotics and falls. She said the MDS nurse was educated on care planning PASRR positive status. She said the resident risk of not having positive PASRR status care planned was potential missed extra needed services. The DON said her expectation was for PASRR positive status to be care planned accurately and timely for all residents. During an interview on 12/10/24 at 02:20 p.m., the Administrator said Resident #11 was PASRR positive and should have been care planned as a positive PASRR status. She said the MDS nurse was responsible for PASRR care plans, and it was overlooked. The Administrator said the MDS nurse was educated on care plans. She said the resident risk of a resident with a positive PASRR status not care planned was potential missed service opportunities. The Administrator said her expectation was all PASRR positive residents have a PASRR care plan. During an interview on 12/10/24 at 02:48 p.m. the DON and RCN said care plans should be developed to address everything with a resident. The DON said Resident #34 did not have a care plan to address her PASRR positive status. Record review of the facility undated policy titled Comprehensive Care Planning indicated The facility will develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident, consistent with the resident rights that includes measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs that are identified in the comprehensive assessment. The comprehensive care plan will describe the following - The services that are to be furnished to attain or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being; and the right to refuse treatment. Any specialized services or specialized rehabilitative services the nursing facility will provide as a result of PASAR and the resident's representative(s) .
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0727 (Tag F0727)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure there was an RN for 8 consecutive hours 7 days a week for 1 of 1 facility reviewed for RN coverage. The facility did not have RN cov...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure there was an RN for 8 consecutive hours 7 days a week for 1 of 1 facility reviewed for RN coverage. The facility did not have RN coverage for 8 consecutive hours on 11/28/24 (Thanksgiving Day). This failure could place residents at risk of lack of nursing oversight and a higher level of care. Findings included: Record review of the RN time sheets indicated there was no RN working on 11/28/24 (Thanksgiving Day). During an interview on 12/10/24 at 03:15 p.m. the DON said she did not work on Thanksgiving Day (11/28/24) and she was not sure if any other RN was assigned to work. She said there should be an RN 8 hours a day or any situation of a resident requiring an RN would not be done. During an interview on 12/11/24 at 10:15 a.m. the Administrator said the DON did not work on 11/28/24 and they did not get any RN to cover the day. She said ultimately it was her responsibility to ensure they had the RN coverage. During the exit on 12/11/24 at 02:55 p.m. the Administrator said they did not have a policy regarding RN coverage. She said they followed the regulations.
Aug 2024 1 deficiency 1 IJ
CRITICAL (J) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record review the facility failed to ensure that residents received treatment and care in accordance wit...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record review the facility failed to ensure that residents received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice for 1 of 8 (Resident #1) residents reviewed for quality of care. The facility did not ensure Resident #1 was assessed by a nurse after a fall. Resident #1 was improperly transferred to her bed by CNA G and CNA H without first being assessed by the nurse, LVN E. The noncompliance was identified as PNC. The IJ began on 1/30/24 and ended on 2/2/24. The facility had corrected the noncompliance before the investigation began. These failures could place residents at risk of serious harm, and not receiving the necessary interventions to reach their highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. Findings included: Record review of the undated face sheet revealed Resident #1 was an [AGE] year-old female that admitted [DATE]. Record review of the physician's orders dated 7/30/24 revealed Resident #1 had diagnoses that included: Alzheimer's Disease (a type of dementia that was progressive leading to loss of ability to carry on a conversation), chronic pain (long lasting or constantly recurring pain), Type 2 Diabetes (the body cannot control sugar), Osteoarthritis (flexible tissue at the ends of bones wears down), and Generalized Anxiety Disorder (severe, ongoing anxiety that interferes with daily activities), and hypertension (force of blood against the artery walls is too high). The physician's orders revealed she was on hospice services due to Alzheimer's disease at admit (9/11/23). Record review of the quarterly MDS revealed Resident #1 had no speech, rarely understood others and was sometimes understood by others. She had a BIMS score of 5 indicating severe cognitive impairment. Resident #1 required substantial/maximum assistance (staff did more than half the work) for her to go from a sitting to standing position and for her to walk 10 feet. She used a manual wheelchair. Record review of the care plan dated 10/6/23 revealed Resident #1 had impaired cognitive function/dementia or impaired thought processes. She was at risk for falls with interventions including: Anticipate and meet the resident's needs, provide a safe environment, and needs activities that minimize the potential for falls with diversion and distraction. Resident #1 was receiving hospice services due to a terminal illness. A care plan revision on 2/2/24 indicated she had a right hip fracture (break) and was totally dependent on staff for turning and repositioning in bed. Record review of an incident report dated 1/30/24 at 5:07 AM revealed Resident #1 was sitting on the couch in the common area and got up to walk, and fell onto her buttocks. Resident #1 was unable to give a description of what had happened. She was assessed with no bruises, scratches or skin tears, range of motion unchanged, voided and no complaints of pain or tenderness. Resident #1 was not taken to the hospital. The incident report indicated there were no injuries observed at the time of incident. Record review of the PIR dated 1/30/24 revealed: LVN A reported at 9:23 AM, Resident #1 was complaining of pain to her right hip/thigh area and was unable to bear weight on it. Right leg appeared to rotate outward. Resident #1 administered pain medication per PRN order. Call placed to hospice and MD with new order for x-ray of right hip/thigh with 2 views. Portable x-ray came out to perform an x-ray and the report was back at 7:16 PM indicating, There is an acute fracture of the proximal femur noted. There is not soft tissue swelling or foreign body identified. Record review of an undated, unsigned portion of the PIR indicated: Record review of a Neurological Assessment indicated Resident #1 had neurological assessments beginning 1/30/24 through 2/1/24 with no abnormal indications. Resident #1 was complaining of pain and refusing to bear weight on the morning of 1/20/24. LVN A performed an assessment and noticed possible external rotation to her right leg. LVN A notified the DON of her assessment and that the resident had a fall on the previous shift. LVN A notified the MD who gave an order for an x-ray and she administered pain medication. Resident #1 was kept in bed and monitored for the effectiveness of pain medication. The family was notified of Resident #1's status and the order for mobile x-ray, to which she agreed, rather than sending Resident #1 out to the ER due to her Alzheimer's diagnosis. X-ray results were received by LVN A around 6:00 PM on 1/30/24 confirming right femur fracture. ADM was notified of the X-ray results on 1/30/24 around 7:30 PM. Documentation was reviewed to determine how the fracture possibly occurred. Resident #1 had a fall on 1/30/24 during the early morning hours. The incident report was marked as witnessed; however, witness statements were unable to be located. LVN E, who was the charge nurse on duty at the time of the incident was interviewed to determine how the fall occurred and who witnessed the fall. LVN E stated that on 1/30/24 around 5:00 AM she was told by CNA's G and H that Resident #1 was sitting on the couch, stood up, then fell down. When she went to assess Resident #1, she was lying in bed toward her right side, she had her eyes closed with no signs or symptoms of pain or distress. LVN E pulled Resident #1's covers back and assessed her lying on her back, she noted no bruising or skin tears. She asked Resident #1 if she was hurting and her answer was no. On 1/31/24 CNA G stated that she saw Resident #1 going back into her room. She looked away for a second and when she looked back, Resident #1 kind of tripped on her foot and she went down slowly. As far as hearing anything Resident #1 didn't really make a sound. They transferred Resident #1 to her bed with CNA G holding her feet and CNA H holding her arms underneath. When they informed LVN E of the fall and what they did, it was round 4:40 AM or 4:50 AM. On 1/31/24 CNA G stated that Resident #1 was walking by herself towards her room, and she just collapsed to the ground. She was looking down at first and about 5 minutes later she looked up and heard like a thump and saw Resident #1 was on the floor. They transferred Resident #1 to bed with CNA H holding her top part and CNA G holding her feet. They got her off the floor because they didn't want to leave her there. CNA G and CNA explained to LVN E, that they didn't see her at first, so they proceeded to put her to bed together to get her off the floor. More than likely the fracture occurred from her falling to her right side. We were unable to determine when the fracture actually occurred. Therefore, the injury of unknown origin has been marked as inconclusive. Resident #1's pain will be managed. On 1/30/24 oxycodone 5 mg, 1 tab po every 4 hours PRN was added, and her codeine-acetaminophen 30 mg/300 mg 1 tab po was increased from every 6 hours to every 4 hours PRN. On 2/1/24 a new order was given for oxycodone 5 mg 1 tab every 8 hours routine. On 2/2/24 a wedge (cushion to aide in positioning for comfort) was obtained to help with the healing process and comfort. Resident #1 was placed on a low air loss mattress on 2/2/24 and received a foley catheter for comfort to help decrease the amount of time when will have to be moved for care. Record review of an Incident Statement from CNA H dated 1/31/24 indicated: Resident #1 was wearing a purple shirt, black shoes, and unsure on the pants. It was a clear area, nothing was round her (Resident #1). She was walking by herself towards her room and she just collapsed to the ground. I was looking down and at first and about 5 minutes later I looked up and heard a thump and seen Resident #1 was on the floor. Previously, before the incident she was up the majority of the night which was not normal for her. She would keep walking around and her leg was swollen. I reported to the nurse around 8-9:00 PM about Resident #1's leg being swollen when she walked into the unit. It was between 9-9:30 PM when Resident #1 was constantly keep getting up on her own, restless. Falling asleep and kept moving around and me and the other aide kept putting her in bed to give her feet some rest. CNA G seen the actual fall and I had just looked up when I heard a thump and seen Resident #1 on the ground. First when I seen her she was on the floor and me and CNA G around 2:30 AM or 3:00 AM went to the nurse station and I noticed Resident #1 wasn't there. So, me and CNA G got on both ends with CNA G holding her feet and me holding her top part we transferred Resident #1 onto the bed. We got her off the floor because we didn't want to leave her there. Resident #1 wasn't getting fussy until we had to get her in bed. We continued to do our checking through the unit and [illegible] waited on the nurse to come back. We started our actual round at 4:00 AM- 4:20 AM and did our normal routine going through residents. CNA G went in room on last round to check on Resident #1 and change her and that's when CNA G came out and notified me that Resident #1 was fussing about her side hurt. I was already getting ready to go out to B-wing to finish up my round and that's when I seen the nurse and notified what was going on. Nurse spoke and said thank you for letting me know and said she was going to go check in. Me and CNA G even explained to her and said we didn't see you at first and so me and CNA G proceeded to let her know we put her in bed together to get her off the floor. Nurse replied with thank you again. When talking to the nurse, when I seen her, it was about 4:40 AM. Record review of an Incident Statement dated 1/31/24 from CNA G indicated: Resident #1 was wearing black shoes, shirt, and pants. The area was well lit and the only thing that was round was the cart. There was no spills on the floor nor was there clutter. I saw Resident #1 going back into her room, I looked away for a second and I looked back. She kind of tripped on her foot and she went down slowly. She did not really make a sound. When we (CNA G and CNA H) transferred Resident #1 I had her feet and the other CNA had her arms underneath and we both picked her up and laid her in the bed. When informed the nurse that was working that night I let her know that while I was changing Resident #1 she was screaming in pain and she was fighting me which is not normal for her. I also informed the nurse that I did check for bruises or scars, red areas and I told the nurse I didn't see any. The nurse reply was 'Okay, that's fine and thank you for checking for bruises.' From the best of my knowledge the falfl happened around 2:00 AM and when we went to report the fall to the nurse she wasn't there but when I informed the nurse on my side of the story and I told her what I did it was around 4:40 AM or 4:50 AM . Record review of an Incident Statement dated 1/30/24 from LVN E indicated: 4:51 AM, CNA opened nurse station door and reported Resident #1 had fallen, that is all she said then left to go to B-wing to do a round. I went to assess Resident #1. Resident #1 was wearing black and white pajamas and tennis shoes. When I responded Resident #1 was in her bed. She was quiet and resting comfortably. I entered room, Resident #1 was resting, eyes closed, no signs or symptoms of pain or distress. I assessed her lying on her back. I noted no bruising or skin tears. I asked Resident #1 if she was hurting and she answered no. Record review of an Employee Disciplinary Report dated 1/30/24 indicated LVN E will be placed on an investigatory suspension pending an investigation into allegations of failure to report. The report indicated she would be suspended pending the investigation. CNA reported resident had fallen-nothing about pain, did not say they moved her to bed. Record review of an Employee Disciplinary Report dated 1/30/24 indicated LVN E will be placed on an investigatory suspension pending an investigation into allegations of delay to assess in a proper manner. Record review of an Employee Disciplinary Report indicated CNA G was suspended 1/30/24, terminated 2/7/24, and her last day to work was 1/30/24. Record review of an Employee Disciplinary Report indicated CNA H was suspended 1/30/24, terminated 2/7/24, and her last day to work was 1/30/24. Record review of an undated statement from the DON indicated: I [name], DON reviewed surveillance with the ADM after an event. A resident in the unit had a fall and it was reported that it was witnessed in the common area. I witnessed the aides transferring our resident inappropriately prior to being assessed by the nurse. The nurse was not notified until approximately 1 hour later. Record review of a statement from the ADM dated 2/6/24 indicated: I [name], ADM, reviewed surveillance with the DON after a fracture that allegedly occurred from a fall. The fall was around 3:53 AM. I witnessed CNA G and CNA H immediately take Resident #1 under her arms and drag her to her room. They notified the nurse at 4:51 AM. Record review of a Patient Report dated 1/30/24 indicated Resident #1 had a right radiologic examination, femur and the findings revealed: Acute fracture of the proximal femur notes .Acute commminuted fracture of the proximal femur is seen. During an interview on 7/29/24 at 4:16 PM, Family Member Y said Resident #1 had been on hospice since August of 2023. She said when Resident #1 fell on 1/30/24, 2 CNA's picked her up inappropriately, one by her feet and one under her arms before she was assessed by a nurse. She said the nurse, was checking in medications and did not know Resident #1 fell. She said the nurse did not know she fell until later. She said the CNA's did not follow protocol. She said Resident #1 was on a lot of narcotics but her pain was controlled. She said the staff fed her. She said Resident #1 was bed bound after the fall because she was not a candidate for surgery. She said Resident #1 passed away 5/20/24. During an interview on 7/30/24 at 12:30 PM, LVN D said she took care of Resident #1 sometimes after she came out of the secure unit. She said Resident #1 had fallen and broken her hip but she did not remember the date. She said she was bed bound after that. She said she was able feed herself until the very end and they provided cueing. She said she did not think the hip fracture led to her death, because she had a lot of comorbidities. She said Resident #1's pain was controlled with medication. She said she did not have a lot of pain meds, but she was on hospice and had scheduled pain medications. She said she did not seem groggy, and was easy to wake up if asleep. She said after the hip fracture Resident #1 could not get out of bed anymore. LVN D said when she cared for Resident #1 she was happy, talking, thriving, but she had declined mentally. She said mobility wise Resident #1 seemed happy. During an interview on 7/30/24 at 1:06 PM, the ADM said Resident #1 fell in the middle of the hall. She had been having snacks and she was coloring but not really engaging in the activity. The ADM said the CNA's moved her from the floor and should not have moved her. She said the CNA's got her back in bed and then told the nurse she had fallen. The ADM said she saw the video (no longer available-due to being recorded over). The video showed one CNA got her from behind and under the arms and the other CNA stood by. She said the CNA backed/dragged Resident #1 into her room and she did not know how they got her in the bed. She said she did not remember if Resident #1's feet were moving (as if stepping) or if dragging. She said when she saw the video she did not see anyone grab her by her feet but the video was in the hallway, not the bedroom. She said her bed was 10 feet from her fall. She said CNA's G and H were fired and both admitted they did not get the nurse (LVN E) before moving Resident #1. She said the video showed CNA G and CNA H coming out of the room after putting Resident #1 in bed. The ADM said the CNA's went to look for the nurse then when they did not see her they continued to do their rounds. As soon as the CNA's saw the nurse, in less than one hour, then they told her nurse about the fall. Resident #1 was asleep when LVN E went to assess her. When LVN E assessed Resident #1 she did not see anything [NAME]. She said LVN E reported to LVN A (the oncoming day nurse). The ADM said she thought the morning routine started then LVN A thought Resident #1 was in pain or the Resident #1 complained about pain. She said Resident #1 had multiple falls. ADM said she the CNA was behind her and got her to bed by holding her from under the arms and pulling backwards. During an interview on 7/30/24 at 1:35 PM, LVN A said she came on shift 1/30/24. She said she went to get Resident #1 up for some reason, maybe breakfast and her leg had an internal rotation. She said Resident #1 was complaining of pain when she tried to use her leg. She said she medicated her for pain and contacted the physician. She said she had an x-ray to the best of her knowledge but could not remember if they sent her out for the x-ray or if it was in-house, but the results showed a hip fracture. She said Resident #1 moved to A-wing shortly after (non-secure unit). She said they did not do surgery as she remembered. She said LVN E told her the aides had already transferred Resident #1 to the bed when she saw her, and the aides had done it wrong. She said she thought she had a femur or hip fracture. LVN A said Resident #1's hip could have broken then she fell, or fell and it caused the break, she said there was no way to know. She said prior to the fall Resident #1 needed help to walk and staff assisted her. She said she also used a wheelchair. She said she was not with it mentally, but could carry on a conversation and the subject changed repeatedly. She stated she could tell you if she was in pain. However, she was not reliable to tell you what had happened. During an interview on 7/30/24 at 3:16 PM, LVN F said she was not in the facility when Resident #1 fell and she did not work on the unit. She said after she left the secure unit she cared for her. She said after the fall Resident #1 got scheduled pain medications. She said she did not appear to be out of it and would try to get out of bed. She said she was not sedated. She said her scheduled pain medication put her in a good place. She said Resident #1 would yell sometimes from anxiety and she thought she had medication for that. She said she did not think the fall/fracture contributed to her death, because she was on hospice and lived for several months after the fall. She said CNA's cannot get residents up if they fall or are on the floor. A nurse had to assess the resident before they were moved. She said she believed all the CNA's knew that because they always went to get her to assess if a resident was found in the floor. During an attempted phone interview on 7/30/34 at 3:40 PM, called CNA G. She did not answer, and this surveyor left a message requesting a return call. During a phone interview on 7/30/34 at 3:51 PM, Resident #1's Hospice nurse said she had followed the natural progression of the Alzheimer's Disease process and did not believe the fall/fracture contributed to her death due to the time frame. After the fall her pain was well managed. She said the family and the Hospice Medical Director decided she was not a surgical candidate, so they kept her as comfortable as possible. She said Resident #1 was not groggy, had lots of visits with family and was able to hold her new grandbaby. She said her decline was natural. She said they gave her scheduled oxycodone and did a wedge (a type of pillow for positioning for comfort) positioner for her fracture. She said hospice made multiple medication changes to meet her needs regarding pain and comfort. During an interview on 7/30/24 at 6:23 PM, LVN E said CNA G and CNA H told her Resident #1 had fallen, and the CNA's had already put her back in bed. She said she told them they were not supposed to do that and did not remember their reaction. She said she was not sure how long it was from the time Resident #1 fell until she was told about it and assessed her. She said it was only a few minutes, not hours. She said the CNA's said they knew they were not supposed to transfer her until a nurse had assessed her. She did not know why they had done that. She said both CNA G and CNA H were fired. She said before the CNA's left to do their rounds on B hall they let her know that Resident #1 had fallen, and they had put her back into bed. LVN E said she went to assess Resident #1 as soon as the CNA's told her she had fallen. She said she did not take her clothes off and could not remember what she was wearing but said she could see her legs and nothing looked out of the ordinary. She said she had heavy thighs and had lost weight so she had some lose skin and she could have missed something because of that. She asked Resident #1 if she was in pain and said she denied any pain. She had no skin tears or bruising. She said she raised her top/shirt and did not see any injuries but did not remove the clothing from her bottom half and could not remember what she had on. She said either she turned Resident #1 to check her back or Resident #1 turned for her and she did not yell or appear to be in pain. She did not cry out when she turned. She said she checked leg length and bent both her legs and saw nothing out of the ordinary. She said when checking her legs and bending them Resident #1 did not appear to be in pain and did not complain of pain. During an interview on 7/31/24 at 8:14 AM, the DON said she assessed Resident #1 after LVN A. She asked her if she was having any pain and she said no, it only hurt when she moved her leg. She said she did not attempt to move her leg or her. She said she did not see a deformity of her leg. The DON said she did not remember what she was wearing or how she was able to see her legs. LVN A told her she had ordered an x-ray. She said it was hard to remember details, because it was in January. She said she did not do anything because the x-ray had been ordered. She said she did not document this assessment but was sure she made sure LVN A had given her pain medication. She said she did not have a good answer as to why she did not document her assessment. During an interview on 7/31/24 at 11:05 AM, LVN J said if a resident fell, she would assess, start neuros if unwitnessed, notify the MD, DON, family, and the ADM as soon as possible. She said she had been in-serviced on falls, X-ray's and numerous things regarding falls. She said a CNA should never transfer a resident after a fall, the nurse had to be notified to assess the resident. She said if a stat X-ray could not be done within 2 hours she would call the NP or the MD to see about sending the resident to the hospital. She said if a resident could not safely get off the floor after the nursing assessment, she would call the MD and EMS. She said if a resident was not in pain and she did not suspect a fracture, she could wait 4 hours on the X-ray. During an interview on 7/31/24 at 11:11 AM, RN B if a resident fell she would assess, do vitals, let the ADON, DON, and the nurse know. Notify the MD quickly, within 10-15 minutes. Call EMS if warranted (bleeding). She said she has been at the facility 2 weeks. She had in-services on fall prevention, X-rays, notification of MD, and numerous others. She said if a resident had a possible fracture, and the stat X-ray was not done within an hour she would call the MD to send the resident to the hospital. She said a CNA was never to transfer a resident that had fallen because they had to get the nurse to assess. She would call EMS if a resident could not safely be gotten up. During an interview on 7/31/24 at 11:12 AM, LVN T said if a resident fell she would assess the resident, take vital signs, and make sure they could move their limbs. She said a CNA would assist the nurse to move them back to bed. She said she would medicate the resident if needed, notify the doctor, family, the ADM, the ADON, and the DON. LVN T said she would do neurological assessments if the fall was unwitnessed. She said she would do a risk management Kardex and a fall note. If a fracture was suspected she would not move the resident, she would contact the MD and notify of a suspected fracture, call EMS and send the resident to the ER. Send to ER. She said she would notify the resident's family, and offer pain medication to the resident. She said for a STAT x-ray she would notify the doctor if they had not done the x-ray after a couple of hours. During an interview on 7/31/24 at 11:18 AM, LVN L said if a resident fell, she would assess the resident, then notify the the ADON, the DON, and the MD. She said she would get the resident off the floor and to their bed if fracture was not suspected. She said if a fracture was suspected she would call EMS and sent the resident to the hospital. She said she would notify all administration staff. LVN L said she would expect a STAT X-ray in 2-4 hours and if the resident did not get their x-ray timely she would notify MD to see if he wanted the resident to be sent to ER. During an interview on 7/31/24 at 11:21 AM, CNA K said if she found a resident in the floor, she would have someone stay with the resident while she found the nurse. She said if there was no one to stay with the resident she would turn the call light on and look out the door for someone to go get the nurse. She said you never ever transfer a resident that had fallen or was in the floor, no matter how long it took the nurse to get there. CNA K said you could hurt the resident worse than they were by transferring them. She said pulling a resident up by their arms or feet was improper and could hurt them and she stated staff had to use a gait belt, unless the resident required a hoyer lift then 2 staff were required. She said she had numerous in-services on resident's falling, notifying the nurse, fall prevention, etc. She said if she saw another CNA attempting to get a resident off the floor before a nurse assessment she would tell them to stop, the nurse had to assess for the safety of the resident. During an interview on 7/31/24 at 11:22AM, LVN V said if a resident fell he would do a total assessment in the location where he found the resident, check vital signs, assess for pain and medicate, check for wounds, and initiate neuros if necessary. LVN V said he would notify the DON, the ADM, family, and the MD. If a fracture was suspected, he would call 911. He said he would not wait on the X-ray company to arrive and if it was a STAT X-ray and they were not at the facility within an hour he would call the MD and send the resident to the hospital if necessary. During an interview on 7/31/24 at 11:27 AM, LVN L said if a resident fell she would assess the resident, then if no injury she would assist them to get back in bed. She said if there was an injury she would not move the resident and would call 911 for transport to the hospital. LVN L said she would notify the the MD, the DON, the ADM, and family immediately. She said 1-2 hours was too long for notification. She said 30 min-1 hour is reasonable time to give notification because you had to take care of the resident. She had in-services on fall prevention, ANE, x-rays, notification, SBAR, and many other in-services. She said 4 hours was reasonable if the resident had no suspected injury. If a resident was in pain, she felt 1 hour was reasonable. She said if a resident was in pain, and she suspected a fracture she would just send them out. She said if a resident fell or was found in the floor, a CNA had to get the nurse to assess the resident prior to moving the resident to prevent harm. During an interview on 7/31/24 at 11:48 AM, CNA W said if a resident fell she was going to get the charge nurse. She said she would stay with the resident and yell for a nurse if necessary. She said she would call someone on her phone, stick her head out the door and yell if she needed to because she could not leave the resident. If a long time passed, then they she would call EMS. Do not move the resident no matter what because you do not want to make an injury or fracture worse. It was important for the nurse to be notified so they could do a thorough assessment and ensure there were no injuries. She said she had many in-services on not moving a resident and getting the nurse as soon as possible. During an interview on 7/31/24 at 11:49 AM, CNA M said if a resident fell she would get a nurse. She said she would watch the resident and yell until she got a nurse to come. She said she could stick her head out the door and look for someone, call someone on her cell phone, but she would not leave them. She said if a nurse had not gotten there in 10 minutes she would call EMS. She said she would not move the resident no matter what. She said moving a resident before a nurse saw them could make their injury worse. The nurse had to see the resident to make sure nothing was broken or no internal injuries. She said she had numerous in-services on falls, notifying the nurse, and change in condition. No matter what the injury on the resident, or no injury, she had to get the nurse immediately. During an interview on 7/31/24 at 11:54 AM, CNA R said if a resident fell, she would notify the nurse and stay with the resident. She would attempt to find a nurse by yelling for one or using her phone to call the nurse. She would call EMS if necessary. She said the nurse had to be notified so the resident could be assessed and receive further treatment if needed. She would not move the resident. She said she had been in- serviced on residents falling and notifying the nurse. During an interview on 7/31/24 at 12:01, CNA N said she had many in-services regarding falls, change of condition, notifying the nurse, and abuse and neglect etc. She said if she found a resident in the floor, she would never move him/her or try to get them up. She said she had to get a nurse to assess the resident before touching the resident. She said she would make sure the resident was safe then stick her head out the door and holler for a nurse, call a nurse on the her phone, or have someone get a nurse. She said if the resident was screaming in pain and the nurse did not get there quickly, she would call 911. During an interview on 7/31/24 at 1:02 PM, LVN E said the night CNA's (CNA G and CNA H) never told her that Resident #1 was hurting or in pain after her fall. She said if they had, she would have reassessed her and sent her to the ER. During an interview on 7/31/24 at 1:43 PM, the ADON said the transfer with Resident #1 was an improper and dangerous transfer. She said the CNA's should not have done that. She said the risk could have been serious bodily injury. She said Resident #1 got a serious bodily injury that day, but it was unclear how. She said all staff had extensive in-services for an extended period of time and were trained and re-trained. All CNA's know that they should not ever move a resident prior to a nurse assessing them. During an interview on 7/31/24 at 1:51 PM, the DON said the CNA G and CNA H transferred Resident #1 improperly. She said that had the potential to result in serious bodily injury. She said Resident #1 had a femur fracture but it could not be determined if it occurred before the fall, after the fall, or the improper transfer. The CNA's were suspended pending investigation and then terminated after the investigation. She said LVN E was also suspended pending investigation. The DON said all staff had been in-serviced extensively regarding x-ray time expectations, reporting, change of condition, what to do in the event of a fall or a resident found in the floor, proper assessment, notifying the MD & family, all notifications, abuse and neglect, SBAR and several others. She said they did in-services for each department, some for nursing, some for CNA's and some for other departments. She said Resident #1's fracture could have possibly been prevented if the[TRUNCATED]
Nov 2023 14 deficiencies 1 IJ (1 facility-wide)
CRITICAL (L) 📢 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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Someone could have died · This affected most or all residents

⚠️ Facility-wide issue

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control progra...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for 13 (Residents #7, #31, #208, #30, #39, #45, #32, #44, #28, #15, #16 , #34, #25 ) of 15 residents and 9 employees ( LVN B, MDS nurse, Dietary staff V, CNA D, Housekeeping Supervisor, Housekeeper Y, Housekeeper EE, CNA N, and CNA H ) out of 135 employees in the facility, 1 (RN DD) of 1 contract employees and 1 (clean cart) of 3 linen carts reviewed for infection control practices and transmission-based precautions. 1. The facility failed to ensure Residents #208 and #31 were separated after Resident #31 tested positive for COVID on 10/23/23, and Resident #208 did not. 2. The facility failed to ensure Residents #39 and #30 were separated after Resident #30 tested positive for COVID on 10/23/23, and Resident #39 did not. 3. The facility failed to ensure Residents #32 and #45 were separated after Resident #45 tested positive for COVID on 10/25/23, and Resident #32 did not. 4. The facility failed to ensure Residents #28 and #44 were separated after Resident #44 tested positive for COVID on 10/25/23, and Resident #28 did not. 5. The facility failed to ensure LVN B, MDS nurse, and Dietary staff V remained off from work for the policy requirement of 10 days while having COVID-19 symptoms. 6. The facility failed to ensure and Housekeeper Y utilized PPE appropriately to prevent cross contamination between residents positive with COVID-19 and residents who were not positive for the virus. 7. The facility failed to ensure CNA D utilized PPE appropriately to prevent cross contamination between Resident #15, who was positive with COVID-19, and residents who were not positive for the virus. 8. The facility failed to ensure Contract RN DD utilized PPE appropriately to prevent cross contamination between residents positive with COVID-19 and residents who were not positive for the virus. 9. The facility failed to ensure the Housekeeping Supervisor was not working with residents when she was covid positive . 10. The facility failed to ensure Resident #16 did not acquire COVID-19 on 11/01/23. 11. The facility failed to ensure housekeeper EE was using the covid cleaner properly in the resident rooms. 12. The facility failed to ensure CNA N performed hand hygiene after she changed her gloves during Resident #25's incontinent care. 13. The facility failed to ensure CNA H Performed hand hygiene and glove change while providing Resident #7's incontinent care. 14. The facility failed to ensure failed to ensure the clean linen cart was covered. An IJ was identified on 10/31/23. The IJ template was provided to the facility on [DATE] at 5:43 PM. While the IJ was removed on 11/01/23, the facility remained out of compliance at a scope of actual harm with a potential for more than minimal harm and a severity level of widespread because all staff had not been trained according to the plan of removal and the corrective systems had not been evaluated. These failures could place residents at increased risk for serious complications from a communicable disease that could diminish the resident's quality of life including hospitalization or death. The findings included: 1.Record review of Resident #31's face sheet dated 11/1/23 indicated she was an [AGE] year-old female who admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the diagnoses of Alzheimer's (a common and devastating form of dementia that affects memory, thinking, and behavior), cerebral infarction, high blood pressure, diabetes, and cognitive communication deficit (difficulties with thinking and using language that occur after a neurological damage). Record review of Resident #31's quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] indicated she had a BIMS score of 8 which indicated she had moderate cognitive impairment. The MDS assessment also indicated she required extensive assistance with bed mobility, transfers, and toileting, total assistance with bathing, and supervision with eating. Record review of Resident #31's nursing progress note dated 10/23/23 at 23:28 (11:28 PM) indicated she tested positive for COVID-19. Record review of Resident #31's nursing progress notes dated 10/02-11/02/23 did not indicate that the resident was relocated to isolate. Record review of Resident #31's order summary report as of 11/01/23 indicated she did not have an order for isolation related to COVID-19. Record review of Resident #31's care plan initiated 11/01/23 indicated she had COVID-19 infection with interventions to ensure good infection control measures and personal protective equipment is used when working with her. During an observation on 10/30/23 at 10:24 AM Resident #31, who was positive for COVID-19, was in her bed asleep and Resident #208, who shared the room with Resident #31, was in the main dining area at a table sitting alone. 2. Record review of Resident #208's face sheet dated 11/01/23 indicated she was a [AGE] year-old female who admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the diagnoses of senile degeneration of the brain, depression, and anxiety. Record review of Resident # 208's admission MDS assessment dated [DATE] indicated she had a BIMS score of 3 which indicated severely impaired cognition. The MDS assessment also indicated she required maximal assistance with toileting, bathing, and transfers. Record review of the facility's resident COVID testing dated 10/22/23-10/27/23 indicated Resident #208 was negative for COVID on 10/23/23, 10/25/23, and 10/27/23. 3.Record review of Resident #30's face sheet dated 11/1/23 indicated she was an [AGE] year-old female who admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the diagnoses of Alzheimer's (a common and devastating form of dementia that affects memory, thinking, and behavior), major depression, and cognitive communication deficit (difficulties with thinking and using language that occur after a neurological damage). Record review of Resident #30's quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] indicated she had BIMS score of 7 which indicated severely impaired cognition. The MDS assessment also indicated she required extensive assistance from staff for bed mobility, transfers, toileting, dressing and bathing. Record review of Resident #30's nursing progress note dated 10/23/23 at 23:29 (11:29 PM) indicated she was positive for COVID-19. Record review of Resident #30's summary report as of 11/01/23 indicated she did not have an order for isolation related COVID-19. Record review of Resident #30's care plan initiated 11/01/23 indicated she had COVID-19 infection with interventions to ensure good infection control measures and personal protective equipment is used when working with her. During an observation on 10/30/23 at 10:29 AM Resident #30, who was positive for COVID-19, was in bed asleep and Resident #39, who shared a room with Resident #30, was wandering the secure unit. 4. Record review of Resident #39's face sheet indicated she was a [AGE] year-old female who re-admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the diagnoses of dementia (a term for a range of conditions that affect the brain's ability to think, remember, and function normally), Alzheimer's (a common and devastating form of dementia that affects memory, thinking, and behavior), high blood pressure, and cognitive communication deficit (difficulties with thinking and using language that occur after a neurological damage). Record review of Resident #39's quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] indicated that she had a BIMS score of 0 which indicated severely impaired cognition. The MDS assessment also indicated that she required extensive assistance with bed mobility, transfers, dressing, and toileting, and total assistance with bathing. Record review of the facility's resident COVID testing dated 10/22/23-10/27/23 indicated Resident #39 was negative for COVID on 10/23/23, 10/25/23, and 10/27/23. 5.Record review of Resident #45's face sheet dated 11/01/23 indicated he was a [AGE] year-old male who admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the diagnoses of dementia (a term for a range of conditions that affect the brain's ability to think, remember, and function normally), heart disease, high blood pressure, and cognitive communication deficit (difficulties with thinking and using language that occur after a neurological damage). Record review of Resident #45's quarterly MDS assessment date 09/13/23 indicated he had a BIMS score of 3 which indicated severely impaired cognition. The MDS assessment also indicated that he required extensive assistance with bed mobility and limited assistance with transfers, dressing, toileting, and bathing. Record review of Resident #45's nursing progress note dated 10/25/23 at 17:45 (5:45 PM) indicated he tested positive for COVID-19 and he would be placed in droplet isolation. Record review of Resident #45's nursing progress note dated 10/31/23 at 15:34 (3:34 PM), after surveyor intervention, indicated he was moved from his room to another room. Record review of Resident #45's order summary report as of 11/01/23 indicated he did not have an order for isolation related COVID-19. Record review of Resident #45's care plan initiated 11/01/23 indicated he had COVID-19 infection with interventions to ensure good infection control measures and personal protective equipment is used when working with him. During an observation on 10/30/23 at 10:30 AM Resident #45, who was positive for COVID-19, was in his room lying in bed and Resident #32, who shared a room with Resident #45), was sitting in the dining area alone at a table. 6. Record review of #32's face sheet dated 11/01/23 indicated he was a [AGE] year-old male who re-admitted to the facility 04/27/22 with the diagnoses of Alzheimer's disease (a common and devastating form of dementia that affects memory, thinking, and behavior), dementia (a term for a range of conditions that affect the brain's ability to think, remember, and function normally), cognitive communication deficit (difficulties with thinking and using language that occur after a neurological damage), and history of pulmonary embolism. Record review of Resident #32's significant change MDS assessment date 08/10/23 indicated he had a BIMS score of 4 which indicated severely impaired cognition. The MDS assessment also indicated he required supervision for transfers, bed mobility, dressing, and toileting, and extensive assistance with bathing. Record review of the facility's resident COVID testing dated 10/22/23-10/27/23 indicated Resident #32 was negative for COVID on 10/23/23, 10/25/23, and 10/27/23. 7.Record review of Resident #44's face sheet indicated he was a [AGE] year-old male who admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the diagnoses of dementia (a term for a range of conditions that affect the brain's ability to think, remember, and function normally), Parkinson's disease, high blood pressure, anxiety, and cognitive communication deficit (difficulties with thinking and using language that occur after a neurological damage). Record review of Resident #44's quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] indicated he had a BIMS score of 3 which indicated severely impaired cognition. The MDS assessment also indicated he required limited assistance from staff for bed mobility, toileting, dressing, and eating, and extensive assistance with transfers. Record review of the facility's resident COVID testing dated 10/22/23-10/27/23 indicated Resident #44 was negative for COVID on 10/23/23 but was positive for COVID on 10/25/23. Record review of Resident #44's order summary report as of 11/01/23 indicated he did not have an order for isolation related COVID-19. Record review of Resident #44's care plan initiated 11/01/23 indicated he had COVID-19 infection with interventions to ensure good infection control measures and personal protective equipment is used when working with him. Record review of Resident #44's nursing progress notes dated 10/02/23-11/02/23 did not indicate he was COVID positive nor that he was relocated after being positive with COVID-19. During an observation on 10/30/23 at 09:55 AM Resident #44 who was COVID positive was lying in bed asleep and Resident #28, who shared the room with Resident #44, had left the room wandering the secure unit. 8. Record review of Resident #28's face sheet dated 11/02/23 indicated he was an [AGE] year-old male who admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the diagnoses of dementia (a term for a range of conditions that affect the brain's ability to think, remember, and function normally), psychotic disorder with hallucinations, high blood pressure, cognitive communication deficit (difficulties with thinking and using language that occur after a neurological damage), and cerebrovascular disease. Record review of Resident #28's admission MDS assessment dated [DATE] indicated he had a BIMS assessment of 4 which indicate severely impaired cognition. The MDS assessment also indicated he required limited assistance with transfers, bed mobility, toileting, and dressing, and total assistance with bathing. Record review of the facility's resident COVID testing dated 10/22/23-10/27/23 indicated Resident #28 was negative for COVID on 10/23/23, 10/25/23, and 10/27/23. 9.Record review of Resident #16's face sheet dated 11/01/23 indicated he was an [AGE] year-old male who re-admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the diagnoses of dementia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (a type of progressive lung disease characterized by long-term respiratory symptoms and airflow limitation), and cognitive communication deficit (difficulties with thinking and using language that occur after a neurological damage). Record review of Resident #16's quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] indicated he had BIMS score of 10 which indicated moderately impaired cognition. Record review of Resident #16's order summary report as of 11/01/23 indicated he did not have an order for isolation related COVID-19. Record review of Resident #16's care plan initiated 11/01/23 indicated he had COVID-19 infection with interventions to ensure good infection control measures and personal protective equipment is used when working with him. 10.Record review of Resident #15's face sheet dated 11/07/23 indicated she was a [AGE] year-old female who admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the diagnoses of schizoaffective disorder, depression, mild intellectual disabilities, and liver disease. Record review of Resident #15's quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] indicated she had a BIMS score of 8 which indicated she had moderately impaired cognition. The MDS assessment also indicated she required limited assistance from staff for transfers, bed mobility, and toileting, total assistance for bathing, and supervision for eating. Record review of the facility's resident COVID testing dated 10/22/23-10/27/23 indicated Resident #15 was positive for COVID on 10/24/23. Record review of Resident #15's care plan initiated on 11/01/23 indicated she had COVID-19 infection with interventions to ensure good infection control measures and personal protective equipment is used when working with her. Record review of Resident #15's summary report as of 11/07/23 indicated she did not have an order for isolation related COVID-19. During an observation and interview on 10/31/23 at 09:40 AM CNA D walked into the secure unit and did not DON PPE and continued down the hall and went into Resident #15's room, turned the call light off, attempted to assist her in bed and Resident #15 told her something inside was hurting her. CNA D moved Resident #15's bed side table and offered her water and did not have on PPE for COVID isolation which included an N95 mask, a gown, gloves, and a face shield. CNA D had on a pink KN95 mask. CNA D walked out of Resident #15's room and notified LVN B of Resident #15 needing her. CNA D said she did not realize she went into the unit and the COVID room with no PPE on. She said she should have used the PPE in the box outside of the room because it could have caused the risk of spreading COVID to other residents. During an interview on 10/31/23 at 09:42 AM LVN B she said CNA D knew better ( she had been verbally informed about using PPE in COVID isolation rooms). She said she instructed her on which residents were in isolation on the morning of 10/31/23 and that if the residents are positive, she should have placed all PPE on to go in the room and change when she exited the room. 11.Record review of a face sheet dated 11/02/2023 indicated Resident #34 originally admitted on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with the diagnosis of memory deficit, anxiety, and high blood pressure. Record review of the face sheet indicated Resident #34 and #33 were in a shared room. Record review of the Annual MDS dated [DATE] indicated Resident #34 was usually understood and usually understands others. Resident #34's MDS indicated her BIMS was a 15 indicating she was cognitively intact. The MDS indicated Resident #34 required supervision of one staff to walk in the room and corridor. Record review of the consolidated physician orders dated 11/02/2023 failed to reveal Resident #34 was on droplet isolation precautions due to her exposure to Resident #33. Record review of Resident #34's comprehensive care plan dated 1/10/2022 failed to review Resident #34 was on isolation precautions for exposure to Covid 19. During an observation and interview on 10/30/2023 at 11:00 a.m., Resident #33 and Resident #34 were rooming together and on droplet precautions. Resident #33 said she tested positive for Covid 19. Resident #34 said she was Resident #33's family member and they wanted to stay together. Resident #34 was not wearing a mask while sitting beside Resident #33. Resident #34 said they hoped to be off droplet isolation soon. During an observation and interview on 10/30/23 at 11:17 AM Housekeeper EE said she had just started on 10/29/23. There was K-Quat in her cart that she said she cleaned the restroom with. She said she was unsure what the COVID cleaner was and said the only place she sprayed the K-Quat was in the restrooms. During an interview on 10/30/23 at 03:35 PM the ADON which is also the Infection Preventionist said she expected all staff in the building to wear surgical masks. She said since the increase in covid positive residents in the secured unit the facility had put in place for the staff to be donning PPE prior to going into the unit, and when they enter the covid positive rooms the staff should be changing PPE going in and exiting. She said it could have caused residents to contract covid if the staff were not wearing or changing PPE correctly. She said she was new to the facility and was continuing to learn her role. During an observation on 10/31/23 at 09:49 AM Contract RN DD presented to go in the room to see Resident #21, she had PPE on, and she did not put a shield on to the enter the room. RN DD had applied the lidoderm patch to the upper back/neck area. During an interview on 10/31/23 at 10:03 AM Contract RN DD she said she was not aware that a shield was required, but she would wear a shield next time. She said the risk to the resident was the spread of infection. Contract RN DD said she had not been in-serviced on PPE at the facility, but she had been in-serviced at her employment facility. During an observation and interview on 10/31/23 at 11:01 AM the Housekeeper Supervisor of 2 years was cleaning the hall railings. The Housekeeping Supervisor said the Covid 19 cleaner in the facility was K-Quat. The Housekeeping Supervisor said the K-Quat was to be used on high touch surfaces in the resident rooms and the kill time was 10 minutes (time lapse needed to kill the Covid 19 virus). The Housekeeping Supervisor said she was scheduled to come and in-service and train the new housekeeper on the facility's cleaning procedures, but the Housekeeping Supervisor said after she arrived at the facility, she felt so bad she left and went home. The Housekeeping Supervisor said she had bad allergies and slept with her mouth open which had caused her to feel bad. The Housekeeping Supervisor denied the notification of the nurse managers of her symptoms on 10/29/2023, 10/30/2023 and 10/31/2023 again she stated she had only bad allergies. During an interview on 10/31/2023 at 11:07 AM the RCN said she expected a sick employee to notify the nursing administration, then the facility would test the employee, and if positive determine whom they had contact with. She denied the housekeeping supervisor making her aware of her illness or about needing to go home on Sunday. During an interview on 10/31/2023 at 11:40 AM the RCN informed the surveyor that she sent the housekeeping supervisor home because she tested positive for covid-19 on 10/31/2023. During an observation on 10/31/2023 at 11:50 AM Dietary Staff V has her mask down below her nose assisting with preparing the lunch trays and dessert prep. During an interview with the Administrator on 10/31/23 at 03:56 PM she said she did not complete the IP training. The Administrator said she expected the staff to best of their ability to keep residents separated and re-direct as much as possible. She said she expected the staff to have the residents in the unit to be separated by positive and negative COVID status. The Administrator said she was made aware 10/31/23 that the facility had residents that were co-horted. She said the residents being co-horted was not their policy. She said the staff try to keep residents apart. The Administrator said the staff attempt to stop the visitors and reminded the staff and visitors to wear mask correctly per the facility policy and CDC guidelines for wearing the surgical mask and keeping distance. The Administrator said she expected all staff to DON and DOFF PPE as they were supposed to when they were entering and exiting COVID positive rooms. The Administrator said when the facility had positive staff who tested positive at home, the facility would question how long the staff had been had been having symptoms and the last time the staff had been in the facility working. She said if the staff member tests positive while in building it was considered an outbreak. The Administrator said the facility would have begun the known exposure contact testing and further testing. She said the MDS nurse was working in the secured unit, and she tested positive for COVID-19 on 10/22/23, and the residents were tested, and some were positive. The Administrator said LVN A wasn't feeling well and was tested and positive on 10/22/23 but left her shift after testing positive. LVN B just recovered but she thought there should have been 5 days from symptoms for her to return. LVN B tested positive on 10/24/23. The Administrator said Resident #34 and roommate, Resident #33, were thinking their symptoms were allergies and ended up with COVID as well. She said all staff are responsible for infection control and she expected all the staff to wear their mask the correct way. She said they needed to be stopped and reminded. The Administrator said all the failures placed the residents and staff at risk for spreading infection to other staff or other residents. During an interview on 10/31/23 at 05:30 PM Surveyor requested from RCN the isolation time required by the facility when a staff member tested positive for COVID-19. The RCN could not find the date in the policy stating the length of time for isolation of employee with COVID-19. 12. Record review of Resident #25 face sheet dated 11/02/23 indicated a [AGE] year-old female who initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. Resident #25's diagnoses included myotonic muscular dystrophy (genetic condition that causes progressive muscle weakness and wasting), intellectual disabilities (person with certain limitations in cognitive functioning and other skills), depression (persistent feeling of sadness), and heart failure (heart does not pump blood as well as it should). Record review of Resident #25's quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE], indicated she was able to make herself understood and understood others. The MDS assessment indicated Resident #25 had a BIMS score of 12, which indicated her cognition was moderately impaired. The MDS indicated Resident #25 required extensive assistance with bed mobility, transfers, walking, locomotion, dressing, toileting, and personal hygiene. The MDS indicated Resident #25 was always incontinent of urine and bowel. Record review of Resident #25's comprehensive care plan dated 10/17/22 indicated she had bladder incontinence with interventions to monitor/document for signs and symptoms of UTI : pain, burning, blood-tinged urine, cloudiness, no output, deepening of urine color, increased pulse, increased temperature, urinary frequency, foul smelling urine, fever, chills, altered mental status, change in behavior, and change in eating patterns. During an observation and interview on 10/31/23 at 09:11 AM, CNA N entered Resident #25's room to provide incontinent care. During the incontinent care process, CNA N failed to perform hand hygiene when she removed her dirty gloves and applied clean gloves. CNA N said she should have hand sanitized in between glove changes and knew that when she finished. CNA N said she forgot because she was nervous. CNA N said by not performing hand hygiene in between glove changes placed Resident #25 at risk for infections. CNA N said she was responsible for performing proper incontinent care and hand hygiene. CNA N said she had been checked off with the previous ADON on her second day of hire. Record review of CNA N's nurse aide incontinence care proficiency assessment dated [DATE], indicated she had passed her skill check off. During an interview on 11/02/23 at 5:57 PM, the ADON said she expected CNA N to have washed her hands or used hand sanitizer in between gloves changes. The ADON said failure to perform hand hygiene in between glove changes placed the resident at risk for cross contamination and infection. The ADON said the aides were responsible for ensuring proper incontinent care and hand hygiene was being performed. During an interview on 11/02/23 at 6:43 PM, the Administrator said he expected the CNA N to maintain proper infection control and perform hand hygiene when incontinent care was provided. The Administrator said she expected CNA N to have hand sanitized in between glove changes and by not doing so placed Resident #25 at risk for infection. During an interview on 11/02/23 at 7:55 PM, the Regional Compliance Nurse said she expected CNA N to have performed hand hygiene prior to applying clean gloves and failure to do so placed Resident #25 at risk for infection. The Regional Compliance Nurse said the Infection Preventionist, and the DON were responsible for checking off the staff on their skills. The Regional Compliance Nurse said they did monthly random hand hygiene check offs. 13. Record review of Resident #7's face sheet, dated 11/1/2023, revealed Resident #7 was an [AGE] year-old female who admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of hyperlipidemia (blood has too much fat), type 2 diabetes mellitus without complications ( characterized by high levels of sugar in the blood),hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction affecting right dominant side (symptom that involves one-sided paralysis), unspecified lack of coordination ( Uncoordinated movement due to a muscle control problem that causes an inability to coordinate movements). Record review of Resident # 7's MDS assessment, dated 9/15/2023, indicated Resident #7 had a BIMS score of 15, indicating Resident #7 was cognitively intact and understood others as well as being understood. The MDS revealed Resident #7 had no behaviors or rejection of care during the look-back period. The MDS revealed Resident #7 required supervision with a one-person assistance for dressing, toilet use, and personal hygiene. Record review of Resident #7's comprehensive care plan, last revised on 8/29/2023, revealed Resident #7 has an ADL self-care performance deficit. Care plan goals included maintain current level of function in bed mobility, transfers, eating, dressing, toilet use and personal hygiene. The care plan interventions include, Resident # 7 requires extensive assist of one staff. During an observation on 10/31/2023 at 9:08 AM, CNA H provided incontinent care for Resident #7. During the incontinent care CNA H put on gloves and wiped Residents # 7's buttock. CNA H gloves were soiled with feces, and she picked up barrier cream and applied it to Resident # 7 buttock and replaced the cream on the bedside nightstand. CNA H then placed a fresh brief under Resident#7 and had her roll onto her back and proceeded to clean vaginal area without changing gloves. CNA H Performed hand hygiene when finished with incontinent care. During an interview on 10/31/2023 at 9:20 AM, CNA H stated she should have removed her gloves and performed hand hygiene after removing the dirty brief, she was nervous and forgot. CNA H stated it was important to do hand hygiene to prevent cross-contamination. CNA H stated the harm in not changing gloves would be cross-contamination that caused an infection. During an interview on 11/2/2023 at 4:29 PM, LVN R stated hand hygiene should be performed before starting care, after removing gloves, and when they are finished. LVN R stated they're individually responsible, but their direct supervisor was responsible for monitoring. LVN R stated the failure was it could contaminate the cream and it was not good infection control. During an interview on 11/2/2023 at 5:31 PM, the ADON stated hand hygiene should be performed before the start of care, while providing care, and after providing care. The ADON stated hand hygiene should be performed after glove removal to prevent infection. ADON stated nurse management was responsible for making sure the CNAs performed hand hygiene. The ADON stated in-services needed to be done to ensure staff were performing hand hygiene properly. The ADON stated the failure could be cross-contamination and infection. During an interview on 11/2/2023 at 6:35 PM, the administrator stated she expected the CNAs to perform hand hygiene while providing incontinent care to ensure proper infection control. The administrator stated the staff are expected to follow the hand hygiene protocol. The administrator stated it was important to perform hand hygiene to prevent infection. During an interview on 11/2/2023 at 7:58 PM, the Corporate Compliance nurse stated she expect hand hygiene to be done. The Corporate Compliance nurse stated the charge nurse or infection preventionist was responsible for monitoring. The Corporate Compliance nurse stated hand hygiene was important for maintaining infection control. The Corporate Compliance nurse stated the failure was risk for infection. 2. During an observation on 10/30/23 at 09:45 AM, PVC plastic linen cart sitting on the short hall with cover was open. During an observation on 10/31/23 at 12:00 PM, PVC plastic linen cart sitting on the short hall with cover was open. During an observation on 11/1/23 at 10:01 AM, PVC plastic linen cart sitting on the short hall with co[TRUNCATED]
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0552 (Tag F0552)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Record review of Resident #24 face sheet dated 09/11/23, indicated an [AGE] year-old female who admitted to the facility on [...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Record review of Resident #24 face sheet dated 09/11/23, indicated an [AGE] year-old female who admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #24's diagnoses included Alzheimer's disease (memory loss), diabetes (too much sugar in the blood), high blood pressure, and depression (persistent feeling of sadness). Record review of Resident #24's order summary report dated 11/02/23, indicated she had an order for risperidone 1mg give one tablet by mouth one time a day for Alzheimer's with an order start date of 10/18/23. Record review of Resident #24's admission MDS assessment dated [DATE], indicated she was able to make herself understood and understood others. The MDS assessment indicated Resident #24 had a BIMS score of 3, which indicated her cognition was severely impaired. The MDS did not indicate Resident #24 had any behaviors, delusions, hallucinations or wandered. Resident #24 required limited assistance with bed mobility, dressing, toileting, and personal hygiene. Record review of Resident #24's comprehensive care plan dated 09/15/23, indicated Resident #24 required anti-psychotropic medications. The care plan interventions included to administer medications as ordered, monitor/document for side effects and effectiveness and consult with physician to consider dose reduction when clinically appropriate. Record review of Resident #24's EMR on 11/02/23, did not reveal a psychotropic consent was obtained for the use of risperidone. During an interview on 11/02/23 at 06:11 PM the ADON said the charges nurses were responsible for getting a consent for medication upon admission or when they received the order. The ADON said the risk to Resident #24 was for her to have received medications without wanting to take the medication. The ADON said Resident #24 also could have had a reaction to the medication and she may not have wanted the medication or not known what the medication was. During an interview on 11/02/23 at 07:38 PM the Administrator said all psychotropic medications were expected to have had the consents to be completed on admission or when medication was ordered. The Administrator said the risk to Resident #24 was for her not knowing what medication she was taking and not knowing the risks of the medications. She said the resident may be unaware of what are they were being given or they may not agree with the medication being given. The Administrator said the charge nurse was responsible for ensuring the consents were completed, and the nurse management should be monitoring to ensure consents were in place. During an interview on 11/02/23 at 08:28 PM the RCN said psychotropic medications should have had consents to have permission for the resident to have it, and for the resident and responsible party to be aware of the side effects of the medication. The RCN said charge nurse was responsible and ADON and DON should have been monitoring the consents. She said the risk to resident was the resident may not want the medication or their responsible party may not have been ok with them taking the medication. Record review of the Nursing Facility Residents' Rights policy dated November 2021 indicated the resident had the right to participate in their care Receive information about prescribed psychoactive medication from the person who prescribes the medication or that person's designee. Have the right to have any psychoactive medication prescribed and administered in a responsible manner as mandated by the Texas health and Safety Code, and to refuse to consent to the prescription of psychoactive medications. Record review of the facility's policy titled Psychotropic Drugs revised on 10/25/17, indicated . The intent of this policy is that each resident's entire drug/medication regimen is managed and monitored to promote or maintain the resident's highest practicable mental, physical, and psychosocial wellbeing . Consent . A psychotropic consent form explains the risk and benefits of psychotropic medication. The resident or their representative must provide documented consent prior to administration of a newly ordered psychotropic medication . Based on interviews, and record reviews the facility failed to ensure the residents has the right to be informed of the risks and participate in, his or her treatment which included the right to be informed in advance, by the physician or other practitioner or professional, of the risks and benefits of proposed care, of treatment and treatment alternatives or treatment options and to choose the alternative or options he or she preferred, for 2 of 5 residents (Resident #'s 24 and 106) reviewed for resident rights. 1.The facility failed to complete the psychotropic consent for Resident # 24's Risperidone (anti-psychotic) to treat Alzheimer's and Resident #106's Sertraline (antidepressant) and Buproprion (antidepressant) that treat depression. 2.The facility failed to obtain a signed informed consent based on information of the benefits, risks, and options available for Resident #24's prior to administering Risperidone and Resident #106 prior to administering Sertraline and bupropion. These failures could place residents at risk of receiving medications without their prior knowledge or consent, or that of their responsible party. Findings included: 1.Record review of Resident #106's face sheet dated 11/02/2023 indicated she was a [AGE] year-old female who admitted on [DATE] with the diagnosis of heart failure, obesity, and major depressive disorder (a persistent feeling of sadness and loss of interest and can interfere with daily living). Record review of the consolidated physician orders dated 11/02/2023 indicated Resident #106 was ordered on 10/17/2023 bupropion HCl ER (extended release) 300 milligrams one time daily for major depressive disorder on 10/17/2023. Resident #106 was also ordered Sertraline HCl 100 milligrams one tablet daily on 10/17/2023. Record review of Resident #106's October 2023 medication administration record indicated she was administered bupropion HCl 300 milligrams daily from 10/18/2023 - 10/31/2023. Resident #106 was administered Sertraline HCl 100 milligrams daily starting on 10/18/2023 - 10/31/2023. Record review of the baseline care plan was not formulated prior to the survey. Record review of the comprehensive care plan was not formulated prior to the survey. Record review of the admission MDS assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #106 was understood and understood others. Resident #106's BIMS score was 15 indicating her cognition was intact. The section of Resident Mood Interview indicated Resident #106 had not felt down, depressed or hopeless, had not had little interest or pleasure in doing things. The section of Resident #106's MDS indicated she had no physical, verbal, or other behaviors. The section of the MDS of Preferences for Customary Routine and Activities Resident #106 indicated it was very important for her family or a close friend to be involved in discussions about her care. The section of the MDS Medications indicated Resident #106 received an anti-depressant during the last 7 days. Record review of a psychotropic medication consent dated 11/01/2023 at 1:24 p.m., indicated a consent for the use of Wellbutrin (Bupropion) was obtained from Resident #106. This consent was obtained 15 days after admission and after administration of Wellbutrin to Resident #106. Record review of a psychotropic medication consent dated 11/01/2023 at 1:27 p.m., indicated a consent for the use of sertraline was obtained from Resident #106. This consent was obtained 15 days after admission and after administration of sertraline to Resident #106. During an interview on 11/02/2023 at 4:30 p.m., LVN R said all psychotropic medications require a consent prior to administration. LVN R said she would ask the resident or call the responsible party for the consent. LVN R said Resident #106's medications should not be provided until consent was obtained. LVN R said the nurse taking the order for the psychotropic medication was responsible for obtaining consent to administer. During an interview on 11/02/2023 at 5:51 p.m., the ADON said the admitting nurse was responsible for obtaining the psychotropic medication consent. The ADON said the facility was responsible for obtaining consent for liability issues (administering medications) without a consent . During an interview on 11/02/2023 at 7:31 p.m., the Administrator said psychotropic medication consents should be obtained on admission. The Administrator said the resident and responsible party need to understand and agree to the medication administration. The Administrator said the admitting nurse was responsible for ensuring the consent was obtained. The Administrator said nurse managers should be pulling up the new admission records to follow up on psychotropic medication use and need for consent. During an interview on 11/02/2023 at 8:26 p.m., the Corporate Regional Compliance nurse said nursing was required to have consents for psychotropic medications to administer the psychotropic. The Corporate Regional Compliance nurse said when the consent was obtained the side effects were discussed, and then the resident or the responsible party could agree or not agree. The Corporate Regional Compliance nurse said the DON, and ADON were responsible for monitoring the psychotropic consents.
CONCERN (D)

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

Transfer Requirements (Tag F0622)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide all necessary information and any other documentation to en...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide all necessary information and any other documentation to ensure a safe and effective discharge for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for discharge. (Resident #54) The facility failed to document Resident #54's reason for being discharged from the facility. These failures could place residents at risk for not receiving care and services to meet their needs upon discharge. Findings included: Record review of Resident #54's face sheet dated 11/02/23, indicated an [AGE] year-old female who initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. Resident #54's diagnoses included dementia with behavioral disturbance (memory loss with behaviors), psychotic disorder with delusions (mental disorder characterized by disconnection of reality often accompanied by disturbances of thought and perception), depression (persistent feeling of sadness), and anxiety. Record review of Resident #54's comprehensive care plan dated 09/25/23, indicated Resident #54 had potential to demonstrate physical behaviors with a goal she would not harm herself or others. The care plan interventions included to notify the charge nurse of any physical abusive behaviors and intervene before agitation escalates. The care plan also indicated Resident #54 had a potential to demonstrate verbally abusive behaviors and indicated a resident-to-resident altercation on 09/07/23. The care plan interventions initiated on 10/4/23, included for medication adjustment, Resident #54 was placed on one-on-one monitoring with staff and psychiatric services referral ordered for behavior management. Record review of Resident #54's discharge MDS assessment dated [DATE], indicated it was an unplanned discharge. The MDS assessment indicated Resident had severely impaired cognitive skills for daily decision making. The MDS indicated Resident #54 had verbal behavioral symptoms directed toward others which occurred 1 to 3 days within the lookback period. The MDS indicated Resident #54 wandered daily. The MDS indicated Resident #54 required substantial/maximal assistance with toileting, showering and lower body dressing. Record review of Resident #54's progress note dated 10/05/23 at 09:45 AM and signed by RN F, indicated Resident enroute with staff member to [receiving facility] with all meds and personal belonging. No behaviors this am (morning). The progress note did not indicate the reason for discharge. Record review of Resident #54's discharge summary report dated 10/05/23, under section 3, brief history, indicated . Resident responding well to staff this am. No behaviors this am. signed by RN F. The discharge summary report was not signed by Resident #54's physician and it did not contain the information about the basis for the discharge which included the specific resident needs the facility could not meet, the efforts to meet those needs, and the specific services the receiving facility would provide to meet the needs of the resident which could not be met at the current facility. Record review of Resident #54's order summary report dated 11/02/23, indicated she had an order to refer to psychiatric services due to increase behavior with a start date of 10/5/23. The order summary report also indicated Resident #54 had an order for one-on-one monitoring with an order date of 10/03/23. The order summary report did not reveal a physician's order for discharge. During an interview on 11/02/23 at 11:55 AM, the ADON said RN F was hospitalized and unable to be interviewed. During an interview on 11/02/23 at 1:48 PM, the SW said the state had come recently for a complaint regarding behaviors on the secure unit. The SW said Resident #54 was being racist towards the other residents. The SW said due to the behaviors they looked for alternate placement and sent Resident #54 to another facility. The SW said the lady from the state advised Resident #54 to be moved to another facility and that was not something they had wanted to do and felt they had no choice. The SW said they called Resident #54's family member and the ombudsman was notified. During an interview on 11/02/23 at 2:01 PM, Resident #54's family member said the facility notified her that Resident #54 was being transferred to another facility the day before she discharged on 10/4/23. Resident #54's family member said she understood what happened but did not like how quickly the discharge happened. Resident #54 said she was informed from the facility that it was an emergency transfer because of her aggressive behavior towards other people. Resident #54's family member said they had to get her out of the facility as soon as possible. Resident #54's family member said she had no choice of which facility to send her to and would have liked to have Resident #54 sent to a facility closer to her as Resident #54 was now 2 hours away. During an interview on 11/02/23 at 2:30 PM, the Ombudsman said she was notified of Resident #54's discharge regarding her behaviors. During an interview on 11/02/23 at 03:13 PM, the Administrator said Resident #54 was the aggressor and was identified as being a threat to the other residents at the facility. The Administrator said she called Resident #54's family member, and she agreed with the discharge and informed her they had found a safe placement for Resident #54. The Administrator said she notified the ombudsman of the transfer, and the transfer was done regarding the plan of correction for the previous IJ (immediate jeopardy) situation at the facility. During an interview on 11/02/23 at 6:34 PM, the Administrator said the discharge summary was completed by the nurse and should summarize the reason for discharge. The Administrator said Resident #54 should have had an order for discharge. The Administrator said the nurse discharging the resident was responsible for obtaining the order for discharge. The Administrator said Medical Records sent the discharge summary to the physician for it to be signed. The Administrator said Resident #54 discharge summary did not reflect the reason she was being discharged from the facility. During an interview on 11/02/23 at 7:55 PM, the Regional Compliance Nurse said the discharge summaries were completed by the nurse and the ADON and DON oversee that it was completed. The Regional Compliance Nurse said the discharge summary should include the summary of their care, what they needed, and the plan once they discharge. The Regional Compliance Nurse said Resident #54's discharge summary should have been more detailed and should include the reason for discharge. The Regional Compliance Nurse said they had verbally talked with the regional managers but unsure of where it was documented. The Regional Compliance Nurse said Resident #54 should have had a physician's order for discharge and since she did not have one Resident #54 should have not been discharged as it did not show release from the facility. The Regional Compliance Nurse said the physician should have had signed the discharge summary indicating he approved of the discharge. Record review of the facility's undated policy titled Discharge Planning Process Policy indicated . Nursing facility must complete discharge planning when you anticipate discharging a resident to a private residence, another Nursing Facility or Skilled Nursing Facility, or another type of residential facility Discharge summary must include: A) A recapitulation of the resident's stay that includes, but is not limited to, diagnoses, course of illness/treatment or therapy, and pertinent labs, radiology and consultant results .C) A final summary of the resident's status medical and functional status at the time of discharge .
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0655 (Tag F0655)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement a baseline care plan for each resident that included the instructions needed to provide effective and person-centered care for 1 of 6 residents reviewed for baseline care plans. (Resident #106) The facility failed to develop a baseline care plan that addressed Resident #106's risk to fall, use of psychotropic medications, use of an assistive devices, abnormal gait, history of falls, unsteadiness of feet, and muscle weakness. This failure could place residents at risk of not receiving care and services to meet their needs. Findings included: Record review of Resident #106'd#106's face sheet dated 11/02/2023 indicated she was a [AGE] year-old female who admitted on [DATE] with the diagnosis of history of falls, abnormal gait, muscle weakness and unsteadiness on feet. Record review of a fall risk assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #106 had a history of falls in the last 1-2 months, she was chair bound and required assistance with elimination, balance problem with standing, and walking, decreased muscular coordination, and required assistive devices. The fall risk assessment indicated Resident #106 had taken medications in the last 7 days that could contribute to the fall risk. The Fall-Risk assessment indicated Resident #106 was at High Risk to fall. Record review of an admission MDS assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #106 understood others and was understood. Resident #106's BIMS score was 15 indicating her cognition was intact. In section GG0120 Mobility devices the MDS indicated in the last 7 days Resident #106 used a walker and a wheelchair. The MDS indicated Resident #106 had cataracts. The MDS indicated in Section J170D Fall History Resident #106 had a fall in the last month prior to admission. During an interview on 10/31/2023 at 10:00 a.m., the MDS nurse said the baseline care plan was not initiated or completed. The MDS nurse said the admission assessment areas triggers the problem areas to be included on the baseline care plan. The MDS nurse said she had been off work with Covid 19 and had not followed up on Resident #106's baseline care plan. The MDS nurse said the base line care plan indicated the care Resident #106 required. During an interview on 10/31/2023 at 11:20 a.m., the admitting nurse LVN E said she had completed the baseline care plan for Resident #106 but was unsure why the care plan was not visible to anyone. LVN E said the baseline care plan directed Resident #106's care needs. During an interview on 11/2/2023 at 5:37 p.m., the ADON said the baseline care plan should be completed on admission by the admitting nurse. The ADON said by not completing the baseline care plan care needs could be missed. The ADON said the baseline care plan directs Resident #106's care. The ADON was unsure who monitors the completion of the baseline care plans. During an interview on 11/2/2023 at 6:50 p.m., the Administrator said the first line nurse should have completed the baseline care plan. The Administrator said the baseline care plan was a tool used to provide care to the residents. The Administrator said the baseline care plan ensured the best care was provided. During an interview on 11/2/2023 at 8:17 p.m., the Corporate Compliance nurse said nurses could care plan the items triggered from the assessment. The Corporate Compliance nurse said the nurse managers should monitor and open a baseline care plan if the admitting nurse had not done so. Record review of an undated Base Line Care Plan policy and procedure indicated completion and implementation of the baseline care plan within 48 hours of a resident's admission was intended to promote continuity of care and communication among nursing home staff, increase resident safety, and safeguard against adverse events that were most likely to occur right after admission; and to ensure ethethe resident and representative, if applicable were informed of the initial plan for delivery of care and services by receiving a written summary of the baseline care plan .The facility will provide the resident and their representative with a summary of the baseline care plan that includes but is not limited to: the initial goals of the resident, a summary of the resident's medications and dietary instructions, any services and treatments to be administered by the facility and personnel acting on behalf of the facility, and any updated information based on the details of the comprehensive care plan, as necessary. The medical record will contain evidence that the summary was given to the resident.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, and record review the facility failed to review and revise the person-centered care plan to reflect the curr...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, and record review the facility failed to review and revise the person-centered care plan to reflect the current condition for 1 of 4 (Resident #50) residents reviewed for care plan revisions. The facility failed to ensure Resident #50's care plan was updated when she moved from the secured unit to the general community. on 10/19/2023. TThe facility failed to ensure Resident #50's care plan was updated when she was no longer an elopement risk . These failures could affect residents by placing them at risk of not receiving appropriate interventions to meet their current needs. Findings included : Record review of a face sheet dated 11/02/2023 indicated Resident #50 was an [AGE] year-old female who admitted on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with the diagnoses of Alzheimer's disease (dementia), muscle weakness, and fracture of the sacrum. The face sheet indicated Resident #50 was residing in room [ROOM NUMBER]. Record review of the Quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #50 was understood, and usually understood others. The MDS indicated Resident #50's BIMS score was 7 indicating severe cognitive impairment. The MDS indicated Resident #50 required extensive assistance of two staff for bed mobility, transfers, and toileting. The MDS indicated Resident #50 required extensive assistance of one staff member for walking, dressing and personal hygiene. Record review of Resident #50's comprehensive care plan dated 3/23/2023 revealed she was at risk for wandering and had exit seeking behaviors, and she resided on the secure unit. The comprehensive care plan was not revised to indicate Resident #50 was no longer at risk to elope from the facility and Resident #50 resided in the general community of the facility. Record review of an Elopement Risk assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #50 was bed bound, or unable to propel herself. During an observation on 10/30/2023 at 3:30 p.m., Resident #50 was in her bed in room [ROOM NUMBER] B . Roo 122 B was on the general community side of the nursing facility. Resident #50 was not interviewable. During an interview on 11/02/2023 at 5:54 p.m., the ADON said the MDS Coordinator was responsible for the revision of the care plan. The ADON said the care plan should be updated to not miss care needs of the residents. The ADON was unsure how the care plan was being monitored. During an interview on 11/02/2023 at 6:50 p.m., the Administrator said the MDS Coordinator was responsible for the revision of the care plan. The Administrator said the care plan should be up to date to ensure the best care provided. The Administrator said the care plan should tell staff how to care for Resident #50. During an interview on 11/02/23 at 7:48 PM, the MDS nurse said she was responsible for the comprehensive care plans and quarterly updates. The MDS nurse said nursing was responsible for the acute care plans and baseline care plans. During an interview on 11/02/2023 at 8:27 p.m., the Regional Compliance nurse said the care plan should be revised with any changes. The Regional Compliance nurse said the MDS Coordinator was responsible for revision of the care plan. The Regional Compliance nurse said when the care plan was not revised the care plan would not reflect the resident's needs. The l Compliance nurse said Resident #50's care plan should reflect a picture of the resident. A revision of the care plan policy was requested by not provided.
CONCERN (D)

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

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 adequate supervision was provided to prevent accidents for 2 of 9 residents (Resident #'s 19, and 106) reviewed for accidents and supervision. The facility failed to ensure Resident #19 was free from 2 bottles of wound cleanser, and one plastic medication cup with a white cream at her bedside. The facility failed to implement any interventions to prevent Resident #106's fall on 10/25/2023. These failures places residents at risk for injury and serious injuries. The findings included: 1). Record review of a face sheet dated 11/02/2023 indicated Resident #19 was a [AGE] year-old female who originally admitted on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with the diagnosis of unsteadiness on her feet, muscle weakness, fainting and collapse, and paralysis to the left side. Record review of a Quarterly MDS dated [DATE] indicated Resident #19 was understood and understood others. The MDS indicated Resident #19's BIMS score was 15 indicating her cognition was intact. The MDS indicated Resident #19 received an application of ointments in Section M1200. Record review of the comprehensive care plan dated 1/09/2023 indicated Resident #19 had a traumatic injury to her left calf and required wound care until 10/21/2023 when the wound was resolved. Record review of the physician's orders dated November 2, 2023, revealed Resident #19 had an order for barrier cream as needed, and an order to cleanse a wound to the left lower extremity with normal saline, daily. During an observation and interview on 10/30/2023 at 10:05 a.m., Resident #19 was lying in her bed. Resident #19 had a medicine cup with a white colored cream in the cup and she had two bottles of wound cleanser on her bedside table. Resident #19 said she had a wound to her left leg and the nurses treated the wound daily. Resident #19 was unsure how long the white cream or the wound cleanser spray had been on her bedside table. 2). Record review of Resident #106's face sheet dated 11/02/2023 indicated she was a [AGE] year-old female who admitted on [DATE] with the diagnosis of history of falls, abnormal gait, muscle weakness and unsteadiness on feet. Record review of a fall risk assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #106 had a history of falls in the last 1-2 months, she was chair bound and required assistance with elimination, balance problem with standing, and walking, decreased muscular coordination, and required assistive devices. The fall risk assessment indicated Resident #106 had taken medications in the last 7 days that could contribute to the fall risk. The Fall-Risk assessment indicated Resident #106 was at High Risk to fall. The fall risk assessment failed to indicate interventions placed to prevent Resident #106 from falling. Record review of an admission MDS dated [DATE] indicated Resident #106 understood others and was understood. Resident #106's BIMS score was 15 indicating her cognition was intact. In section GG0120 Mobility devices the MDS indicated in the last 7 days Resident #106 used a walker and a wheelchair. The MDS indicated Resident #106 had cataracts. The MDS indicated in Section J170D Fall History Resident #106 had a fall in the last month prior to admission. Record review of an Event Nurses note dated 10/25/2023 at 4:57 p.m. indicated Resident #106 was found by the medical records staff sitting on the floor counting her money and eating. The note indicated Resident #106 said she was ambulating with her walker and fell onto the floor. The note indicated Resident #106 said she always had falls. The event note indicated in the area of interventions: check all interventions that were in place prior to this fall and the answer marked was none of the above. The note indicated Resident #106 was reminded to use the call light when needing assistance. The event note indicated the intervention put in place for this fall was bed low . The event note indicated Resident #106 had previous falls, unsteady gait, leans forward, balance problem, and lack of mobility strength. The environmental factor indicated Resident #106 was a new admission, and the cognition area indicated she had cognitive impairment. During an observation and interview on 10/30/2023 at 4:00 p.m., Resident #106 was sitting in her wheelchair in her room. Resident #106 said she had not had to use her call light for any needs. Resident #106 said she showered herself. When asked about falls Resident #106 said she had fallen prior to admission and since admission. Resident #106 was unable to recall what she was doing when she fell since admitted to the facility. During an interview on 10/31/2023 at 10:00 a.m., the MDS nurse said the Resident #106's baseline care plan was not initiated or completed. The MDS nurse said the admission assessment areas triggers the problem areas to be included on the baseline care plan. The MDS nurse said she had been off work with Covid 19 and had not followed up on Resident #106's baseline care plan. The MDS nurse said the base line care plan would have indicated the care Resident #106 required and should have indicated her risk of falls. During an interview on 11/02/2023 at 5:40 p.m., the ADON said the care plan should be updated immediately to prevent falls and further future falls. The ADON said when the baseline care plan had not been completed there were no interventions to prevent Resident #106 from falling initially. The ADON said the white colored cream, and the wound cleanser should not be stored in the resident's room. The ADON said any resident who roamed could get these medications and use inappropriately. The ADON said all staff should monitor the resident's rooms to ensure medications were not stored at bedside. The ADON said the facility completed champion rounds (rounds by department heads to monitor rooms, patients, and patient care) to help monitor for inappropriate items at bedside. During an interview on 11/02/2023 at 7:19 p.m., the Administrator said the fall risk care plans should be in place to prevent initial falls, and then care plan should be revised with other falls. The Administrator said champion rounds were used for monitoring of items at bedside or other opportunities to correct in a resident's environment. The Administrator said nothing should be stored at the bedside that was not safe to be with children therefore should not be with the elderly. The Administrator said she expected these items to be stored properly by the person who used those items. During an interview on 11/02/2023 at 8:22 p.m., the Corporate Compliance nurse said the white cream in the medication cup and the wound cleanser should not be stored in a resident's room. The Corporate Compliance nurse said keeping these medications stored properly ensures a resident would not use the medication inappropriately. The Corporate Compliance nurse said the nurses and nurse aides were responsible for monitoring the rooms for the stored medications. The Corporate Compliance nurse also said the champion rounds should have caught these stored medications in the resident's room. The Corporate Compliance nurse said the baseline care plans should be completed on admission and reflect a resident being at risk to have an initial fall and interventions to prevent a fall. Record review of an Items Not Allowed In Resident Rooms dated 4/13/2022 indicated Medications (includes all prescription and over the counter drugs except nitroglycerin, which must be ordered by the doctor through the Health Care Center). Note: a good rule of thumb has been established by the Food and Drug Administration whereby any products labeled Keep out of reach of children or carries any type of caution label is merchandise that contains ingredients which are harmful if taken without supervision or used in a way not designated. Many of our resident, due to mental impairments or poor eyesight might inadvertently drink or eat some of the above items causing irreparable harm. Record review of the undated Baseline Care plans policy indicated the baseline care plan will reflect the resident's stated goals and objectives and include interventions and address his or her current needs. It will be based on the admission orders, information about the resident available from the transferring provider, and discussion with the resident and resident representative. Because the baseline care plan documents the interim approaches for meeting the resident's immediate needs, professional standards of quality care would dictate that it must also reflect changes to approaches, as necessary, resulting rom from significant changes in condition or needs, occurring prior to development of the comprehensive care plan. Facility staff will implement the interventions to assist the resident to achieve care plan goals and objectives.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0692 (Tag F0692)

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 were offered sufficient fluid intake...

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 offered sufficient fluid intake to maintain proper hydration and health for 2 of 2 residents (Resident #'s 21 and 50) reviewed for hydration. The facility failed to ensure Resident #21, and Resident #50 received adequate hydration. This failure could place residents at risk for dehydration, electrolyte imbalance, and infections. Findings included: 1). Record review of a face sheet dated 11/01/2023 indicated Resident #21 was an [AGE] year-old female who admitted on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with the diagnoses of senile degeneration of the brain (dementia), and diabetes. Record review of the Quarterly MDS dated [DATE] indicated Resident #21 was understood and understood others. Resident #21's BIMS score was 10 indicating moderately impaired cognition. The MDS indicated Resident #21 required extensive assistance of one staff with eating. Record review of the comprehensive care plan dated 7/06/2023 indicated Resident #21 had a self-care deficit and required assistance with ADLs. The interventions included the resident required assistance with meals to eat. Record review of Resident #21's physician orders indicated do not order labs notify the hospice provider. 2). Record review of a face sheet dated 11/02/2023 indicated Resident #50 was an [AGE] year-old female who admitted on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with the diagnoses of Alzheimer's disease (dementia), muscle weakness, and fracture of the sacrum. Record review of the Quarterly MDS dated [DATE] indicated Resident #50 was understood, and usually understood others. The MDS indicated Resident #50's BIMS score was 7 indicating severe cognitive impairment. The MDS indicated Resident #50 required extensive assistance of two staff for bed mobility, transfers, and toileting. The MDS indicated Resident #50 required supervision of one staff for eating. Record review of Resident #50's comprehensive care plan dated 3/23/2023 revealed she was at risk to fall. The care plans interventions were to keep the environment safe. The ADLs care plan indicated Resident #50 had a self-care deficit and required assistance by staff to eat. Record review of Resident #20's#50's physician orders indicated on 3/20/2023 she was order to encourage fluids. Record review of a Dehydration Risk Screener dated 2/27/2023 indicated Resident #50 was at risk for dehydration. During an observation and interview on 10/30/2023 at 10:46 a.m., Resident #21 was lying in her bed. Resident #21 had no fluids available in her room for consumption. Resident #21 said she was thirsty and requested a cup of coffee. Resident #21 was in droplet isolation for Covid 19. The surveyor activated Resident #21's call light. During an observation and interview on 10/30/2023 at 10:46 a.m., Resident #50 was lying in her bed. There were no fluids available in her room for consumption. Resident #21#50 said she was thirsty. Resident #'s 21 and 50 share a room and both residents had the Covid 19 virus and was were on isolation precautions. During an observation and interview on 10/30/2023 at 11:05 a.m., CNA N indicated prior to entering the resident's room she said I bet they want their coffee now. During the observation CNA N entered the room and asked Resident #21 and Resident #50 if they were ready for their coffee and both residents answered yes. CNA N returned with two 8-ounce Styrofoam cups with coffee. During an observation and interview on 10/31/2023 at 9:30 a.m., Resident #21 and Resident #50 neither had water available in their room. CNA N said Resident #'s 21 and 50 should have had water available in their room. CNA N obtained two 8-ounce Styrofoam cups with water for both Resident #'s 21 and 50. During an observation on 11/02/2023 at 10:30 a.m., Resident #21 was lying in her bed, she had warm water on her over the bed table. The over the bed table was against the wall not within reach of Resident #21. Resident #50 had a water pitcher with warm water on her over the bed table. The over the bed table for Resident #50 was across the room near the television. Resident #50 could not access her water. During an interview on 11/02/2023 at 4:57 p.m., LVN R said the hydration assessment was completed by the dietician. LVN R said water was to be always within reach for the residents. LVN R said Resident #'s 21 and 50 were at risk of dehydration and electrolyte imbalance when water was not available or within reach. During an interview on 11/02/2023 at 5:50 p.m., the ADON said she expected the CNAs to round and provide the residents with water. The ADON said Resident #'s 21 and 50 would need more water during this time since they both were ill with Covid 19. The ADON said dehydration was a risk when water was not available for each resident. During an interview on 11/02/2023 at 7:29 p.m., the Administrator said the CNAs were responsible for hydration rounds and was were responsible for ensuring water was within reach for each resident. The Administrator said without water the residents could become dehydrated. During an interview on 11/02/2023 at 8:23 p.m., the Corporate Compliance nurse stated each resident should have fluids available for consumption. The Corporate Compliance nurse said the CNAs were responsible for hydration pass and the nurses were responsible for monitoring. The Corporate Compliance nurse said residents were at risk for dehydration when water was not available for hydration. Record review of a Hydration Policy dated 2003 indicated the facility provides each resident with sufficient fluid intake to maintain proper hydration and health. The resident will receive sufficient amounts of fluids based on assessed need to prevent dehydration and promote optimum physiological functions daily.
CONCERN (D)

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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Record review of Resident #18's face sheet, dated 11/2/2023, revealed Resident #18 was a [AGE] year-old-male who admitted to ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Record review of Resident #18's face sheet, dated 11/2/2023, revealed Resident #18 was a [AGE] year-old-male who admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) ( a disease that cause airflow blockage and breathing-related problems), hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction affecting left non dominant side (symptom that involves one-sided paralysis), unspecified lack of coordination (Uncoordinated movement due to a muscle control problem that causes an inability to coordinate movements), hyperlipidemia (blood has too much fat. Record review of Resident #18's MDS assessment, dated 9/19/2023, revealed Resident 18's BIM score was 13 indicating Resident #18 was cognitively intact, indicating he understood as well as being understood by others. The MDS assessment revealed Resident #18 did not reject care necessary to achieve the resident's goals for health or well-being. The MDS assessment indicated Resident # 18 was receiving oxygen therapy. Record review of Resident #18's care plan, revision date 8/29/2023, indicated Resident #18 received oxygen therapy at 2-4 liters per minute via nasal canula. Record review of Resident #18's order summary, dated 11/1/2023, indicated Resident #18 received oxygen therapy at 2liter per minute via nasal canula. During observation and interview on 10/30/2023 at 11:15 AM, Resident #18 was lying in bed wearing oxygen via nasal cannula. Resident #18's oxygen concentrator was set at 4 liters per minute. Resident #18 stated he wore oxygen all the time because he has COPD. During observation on 10/31/2023 at 11:00 AM, Resident #18 was lying in bed, watching TV, wearing oxygen via nasal cannula. Resident #18's oxygen concentrator was set at 4 liters per minute. During observation on 10/31/2023 at 1:14 PM, Resident #18 was lying in bed, singing, wearing oxygen via nasal cannula. Resident #18's oxygen concentrator was set at 4 liters per minute. During an interview on 10/31/2023 at 1:14 PM, LVN L confirmed Resident #18's orders for O2 to be at 2 liter per minute and Resident #18 O2 was set on 4 liters per minute. LVN L stated it was her responsibility for ensuring the O2 was on the correct settings. LVN L stated it was important for Resident #18 to be on the correct O2 setting because he had COPD and could retain CO2 (carbon dioxide). LVN L stated the risk associated with not setting the O2 at prescribed rate could potentially put residents at risk for COPD exacerbation. During an interview on 11/02/2023 at 5:31 PM, the ADON stated it was the nurse's responsibility to follow the order for O2 in the facilities computerized documentation. The ADON stated it was important for the nurses to ensure O2 was on the correct settings per the orders every shift. The ADON stated the risk to the resident was too much O2 can cause hyperoxygenation. During an interview on 11/2/2023 at 6:35 PM, the ADM stated she expects the nurses to follow the doctor's orders. The ADM stated it was the responsibility of the nurse to monitor proper O2 setting and should be checked during rounds or medication pass. The ADM stated there was probably a list of risks to the resident if the O2 setting were incorrect, but she was not sure what they were. During an interview on 11/2/2023 at 7:58 PM, the Corporate Compliance nurse stated she expected the nurses to follow the orders. The Corporate Compliance nurse stated the charge nurse was responsible for monitoring when doing rounds. The Corporate Compliance nurse stated the risk to the resident was they may not be oxygenated enough or over oxygenated. Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure respiratory care was provided with professional standards of practice for 2 of 4 resident reviewed for quality of care. (Resident #6 and Resident #18) The facility failed to administer oxygen at 3 liters via nasal cannula as prescribed by the physician for Resident #6. The facility failed to administer oxygen at 2 liters per minute via nasal cannula as prescribed by the physician for Resident #18. These failures could place residents who receive respiratory care at risk for developing respiratory complications. Findings included: 1. Record review of Resident #6's face sheet dated 11/02/23, indicated an [AGE] year-old female who admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included dementia (memory loss), depression (persistent feeling of sadness), high blood pressure, congestive heart failure (heart does not pump blood as well as it should), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (causes obstructive airflow from the lungs). Record review of Resident #6's quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE], indicated she was able to make herself understood and understood others. The MDS assessment indicated Resident #6 had a BIMS score of 10, which indicated her cognition was moderately impaired. The MDS assessment indicated Resident #6 required extensive assistance with bed mobility, locomotion, toileting, and personal hygiene. Resident #6 was totally dependent on staff for bathing. The MDS assessment had oxygen therapy checked as being received within the last 14 days of the lookback period. Record review of Resident #6's comprehensive care plan dated 09/13/23, did not indicate Resident #6 was receiving oxygen. Record review of Resident #6's order summary report dated 11/02/23, indicated she had an order for may use oxygen at 3 liters per minute via nasal cannula with a start date of 10/26/23. Record review of Resident #6's MAR for the month of October 2023, indicated she had been receiving oxygen at 3 liters per minute via nasal cannula since 10/26/23. During an observation on 10/30/23 at 11:02 AM, Resident #6 was lying in bed and receiving oxygen at 2 liters per minute via nasal cannula. During an observation on 10/30/23 at 2:28 PM, Resident #6 was lying in bed and receiving oxygen at 2 liters per minute via nasal cannula. During an observation on 10/31/23 at 8:36 AM, Resident #6 was lying in bed and receiving oxygen at 2 liters per minute via nasal cannula. During an observation on 11/01/23 at 08:40 AM, Resident #6 was sitting up in bed eating her breakfast and receiving oxygen at 2 liters per minute via nasal cannula. During an observation and interview on 11/01/23 at 3:33 PM, LVN R said oxygen was administered as per physician orders. LVN R said the TAR was completed every shift where it indicated the oxygen was checked and was set at the prescribed rate. LVN R went to Resident #6's room where she checked Resident #6's oxygen concentrator and indicated it was set at 2 liters per minute. LVN R reviewed Resident #6's orders and said Resident #6 had an order for oxygen at 3 liters per minute via nasal cannula and the oxygen should have been set at 3 liters per minute as ordered. LVN R said Resident #6 had not had complications to receiving less than the ordered amount of oxygen as her oxygen saturation was at 94%. LVN R said the nurse was responsible for ensuring the oxygen was set at the prescribed rate. LVN R said not setting the oxygen at the ordered amount could cause problems as Resident #6 could be not be receiving enough oxygen. During an interview on 11/02/23 at 5:57 PM, the ADON said oxygen should be administered as per the physician's orders. The ADON said the nurse was responsible for ensuring the resident was receiving the prescribed amount of oxygen. The ADON said Resident #6 should have been receiving oxygen at 3 liters per minute via nasal cannula. The ADON said Resident #6 not receiving oxygen as ordered could cause her to not receive enough oxygen and could cause her to have confusion. During an interview on 11/02/23 at 6:34 PM, the Administrator said she expected oxygen to be administered as ordered. The Administrator said the nurse was responsible for ensuring the oxygen was set at the ordered rate when doing their morning rounds and checking the TAR. The Administrator said she was unsure of the risks of the oxygen not being set at the correct rate. During an interview on 11/02/23 at 7:55 PM, the Regional Compliance Nurse said she expected oxygen to be administered as ordered. The Regional Compliance Nurse said the nurses were responsible for ensuring the oxygen was set at the ordered amount during their rounds. The Regional Compliance Nurse said not administering oxygen as ordered the resident was at risk for not receiving enough oxygenation or may be receiving too much oxygen.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0700 (Tag F0700)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interview, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure correct installation, use and maintenance of bedrails for 3 of 3 residents (Resident #'s 19, 20, and 50) reviewed for bedrails. 1.The facility failed to assess Resident #s 19, 20, and 50 for the risk of entrapment from bed rails prior to installation. 2. The facility failed to review the risks and benefits of bed rails with the resident or resident's representative and obtain informed consent prior to installation for Resident #'s 19, 20, and 50. 3. The facility failed to document the attempt of alternatives to meet Resident #'s 19, 20, and 50 needs. These failures could place residents at risk for entrapment with serious injury and even death. Findings included: 1). Record review of a face sheet dated 11/02/2023 indicated Resident #19 was a [AGE] year-old female who originally admitted on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with the diagnosis of unsteadiness on her feet, muscle weakness, fainting and collapse, and paralysis to the left side. Record review of a Quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #19 was understood and understood others. The MDS indicated Resident #19's BIMS score was 15 indicating her cognition was intact. The MDS indicated Resident #19 required extensive assistance of two staff for bed mobility, transfers, and personal hygiene. The MDS indicated Resident #19 required limited assistance of two staff for dressing and one staff for toileting. In section P Restraints and Alarms revealed Resident #19 was not coded as having a bed rail in use. Record review of the comprehensive care plan dated 1/09/2023 indicated Resident #19 used hypnotic therapy and was at risk to have falls. The comprehensive care plan failed to address siderails. Record review of the physician's orders dated November 2, 2023, failed to reveal any ordered siderails/bedrails. Record review of Resident #19's electronic medical record failed to provide a siderail/bedrail assessment or a consent for use. During an observation on 10/30/2023 at 10:05 a.m., Resident #19 was lying in her bed. Resident #19 had a ½ sized bed rail to the right side of her bed. 2) Record review of a face sheet dated 11/02/2023 indicated Resident #20 was an [AGE] year-old female who admitted originally admitted on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with the diagnoses of stroke, Alzheimer's disease (dementia), abnormal gait and mobility, falls, head laceration, and muscle weakness. Record review of a Quarterly MDS dated [DATE] indicated Resident #20 was usually understood, and usually understands others. The MDS indicated Resident #20 had a BIMS score of 00 indicating she had severe cognitive deficit. The MDS also indicated Resident #20 was not oriented and was not able to demonstrate any recall. The MDS indicated Resident #20 required extensive assistance of two staff with bed mobility, transfers, dressing. The MDS indicated Resident #20 required extensive assistance of one staff with eating, and personal hygiene. Section P Restraints and Alarms indicated bed rails were not used. Record review of Resident #20's comprehensive care plan dated 4/09/2023 failed to reveal any alternatives to siderails trials prior to placing the siderails in place. Record review of Resident #20's consolidated physician orders dated 11/02/2023 did not reveal physician's ordered bedrail/siderails. Record review of Resident #20's electronic medical record failed to reveal a bedrail/siderail assessment or a consent for use. During an observation on 10/30/2023 at 2:29 p.m., Resident #20 was transferred to her bed. Resident #20's bed was against the wall on the left-hand side, and she had a half rail on the right side of her bed. 3). Record review of a face sheet dated 11/02/2023 indicated Resident #50 was an [AGE] year-old female who admitted on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with the diagnoses of Alzheimer's disease (dementia), muscle weakness, and fracture of the sacrum. Record review of the Quarterly MDS dated [DATE] indicated Resident #50 was understood, and usually understood others. The MDS indicated Resident #50's BIMS score was 7 indicating severe cognitive impairment. The MDS indicated Resident #50 required extensive assistance of two staff for bed mobility, transfers, and toileting. The MDS indicated Resident #50 required extensive assistance of one staff member for walking, dressing and personal hygiene. In section P Restraints and Alarms indicated Resident #50 had not used bed rails. Record review of Resident #50's comprehensive care plan dated 3/23/2023 revealed she was at risk to fall. The care plans interventions were to keep the environment safe. The ADLs care plan indicated Resident #50 had a self-care deficit and required assistance with be mobility to turn and reposition in bed. The comprehensive care plan failed to address the use of siderails or alternatives used prior to the placement of the siderails. Record review of Resident #50's consolidated physician orders dated 11/02/2023 revealed there was no ordered siderails or bedrails. Record review of Resident #50's electronic medical record revealed there was not a bedrail/siderail assessment completed or a consent for use. During an observation on 10/30/2023 at 3:30 p.m., Resident #50 was in her bed. Resident #50 has her legs elevated in the air and appears to be stretching them. Resident #50 has ½ bedrails up on each side of her bed. During an interview on 11/02/2023 at 4:52 p.m., LVN R said they needed a physician's order, and a siderail assessment prior to placing siderails in use for a resident. LVN R said she residents could get injured from use of siderails. During an interview on 11/02/2023 at 5:48 p.m., the ADON said a siderail assessment should be completed prior to implementing a siderail for use. The ADON said siderails could cause injuries such as choking and fractures for Resident #'s 19, 20 and 50. The ADON said the DON and herself was responsible for monitoring the use of siderails. During an interview on 11/02/2023 at 7:23 p.m., the Administrator said all care and treatment requires a physician's order. The Administrator said she expected an assessment for siderail use to be done to ensure appropriateness for Resident #'s 19, 20 and 50. The Administrator said she also expected therapy to be involved to determine the need for siderails. The Administrator said she was unsure how they monitored the use of siderails but thought it was feasible in a weekly assessment. During an interview on 11/02/2023 at 8:22 p.m., the Corporate Regional Compliance nurse said she expected the siderail policy to be followed. The Corporate Regional Compliance nurse said she expected an assessment to be completed, then a physician's order and then a care plan. The Corporate Compliance nurse said siderails were a risk for injury for Resident #'s 19, 20, and 50. Record review of a Bed Rails policy dated November 8, 2016, indicated the facility will utilize bed rails for those residents that use them for bed mobility. The facility will attempt to use appropriate alternatives prior to installing a side or bed rail. If a bed or side rail was used, the facility must ensure the correct installation, use, and maintenance of bed rails, including but not limited to the following elements: *Assess for the risk of entrapment from bed rails prior to installation. *Review the risks and benefits of bed rails with the resident or resident representative and obtain an informed consent. *Ensure that the bed's dimensions are appropriate for the resident's size and weight . Assessment: *Prior to use of a bed rail the resident will be assessed to ensure the proper rail is utilized for the residents needs *The facility will re-evaluate the use of the rail on periodic basis *Based on the resident assessment, the interdisciplinary team will make the determination for the plan of care as it relates to the bed rail. Consent: The resident and/or resident representative will provide consent for the sue of rails prior to installation
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0849 (Tag F0849)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to collaborate with hospice representatives and coordinate the hospice care planning process for each resident receiving hospice services, to ensure quality of care for the resident, ensuring communication with the hospice medical director, the resident's attending physician, and others participating in the provision of care for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #10) reviewed for hospice services. The facility failed to obtain Resident #10's physician's order for hospice services and the most recent hospice plan of care. This deficient practice could place residents who receive hospice services at-risk of receiving inadequate end-of-life care due to a lack of documentation, coordination of care and communication of resident needs. Findings included: Record review of Resident #10's face sheet dated 11/02/23, indicated a [AGE] year-old male who initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. Resident #10 diagnoses included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (lung diseases that block airflow and make it difficult to breathe), diabetes (too much sugar in the blood), Alzheimer's (memory loss), and schizoaffective disorder (mental health condition characterized primarily of symptoms of schizophrenia). Record review of Resident #10's order summary report dated 11/02/23 did not reveal an order for hospice care. Record review of Resident #10's quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE], indicated he was able to make himself understood and understood others. The MDS indicated Resident #10 had a BIMS score of 12 indicating his cognition was moderately impaired. The MDS indicated under section, special treatments, procedures, and programs, had hospice care checked. Record review of Resident #10's comprehensive care plan dated 10/09/23, indicated he had a terminal prognosis and/or was receiving hospice services. The care plan interventions included if receiving hospice services, work cooperatively with hospice team to ensure the resident's spiritual, emotional, intellectual, physical, and social needs are met. Record review of Resident #10's hospice binder on 11/02/23 at 09:29 AM, indicated the last IDG comprehensive assessment was dated 08/23/23. There was not a recent plan of care update noted in the facility's hospice binder or Resident #10's EMR. Record review of Resident #10's EMR on 11/02/23 at 09:31 AM, revealed an updated hospice medication record dated 10/18/23. The orders for the hospice administration record and the facility's physician orders did not match. The following orders were noted on the hospice medication record and not in Resident #10's facility's order summary report: *Acetaminophen 650mg suppository administer one suppository rectally every 4 hours as needed for fever/temperature with an order date of 12/30/22. *Artificial tears 0.1-0.3% instill one drop in both eyes every 8 hours as needed for dry eyes with an order date of 12/30/22. *Atropine 0.01% drops administer 2 drops sublingual (under the tongue) every 2 hours as needed for secretions with an order date of 12/30/22. *Bisacodyl 10mg suppository administer one suppository rectally daily as needed for constipation with an order date of 12/30/22. *Centrum silver administer one tablet by mouth one time a day for protein calorie malnutrition with an order date of 12/30/22. *Cepacol Extra strength 15-2.6mg give one lozenge every 2 hours as needed for sore throat with an order date of 12/30/22. *Cholestyramine 4 gm packet give one packet by mouth 2 times a day for diarrhea with an order date of 10/18/23. *Gabapentin 600mg give one tablet by mouth three times a day for nerve pain with an order date of 12/30/22. *Loperamide 2mg tablet take initial dose of 2 tabs by mouth for diarrhea and then 1 tablet by mouth after each loose stool. Do not exceed 6 tablets in 24 hours. *Lorazepam 2mg/ml give 0.5ml by mouth every 2 hours as needed for agitation with an order date of 12/30/22. *Promethazine 25mg give one tablet every 4 hours as needed for nausea or vomiting with an order date of 12/30/22. During an interview on 11/02/23 at 4:28 PM, LVN R said a resident on hospice should have had an order for hospice services. LVN R said hospice was responsible for providing an updated hospice plan of care and failure to do so was poor communication with hospice. LVN R said Resident #10's hospice MAR and the facility's physician orders should match and was unsure of why they did not. During an interview on 11/02/23 at 5:57 PM, the ADON said she expected hospice to provide updated paperwork for any changes so the facility was aware for coordination of care. The ADON said if Resident #10 had an order change, and they were not aware then they would not be able to properly care for the resident. The ADON said the DON, herself, and the hospice company were responsible for ensuring the updated hospice plan of care was available at the facility for reference. The ADON said Resident #10 should have had an order for hospice services, so staff was aware Resident #10 was receiving hospice services. The ADON said Resident #10's order for hospice should have been completed when he admitted to hospice. During an interview on 11/02/23 at 6:20 PM, the Hospice PCM said the resident hospice care plan should have been updated every couple of weeks when they had their hospice care plan meeting. The Hospice PCM said Resident #10's hospice case manager was responsible for providing the updated hospice care plans to the facility. The Hospice PCM said Resident #10 recently had a change to his primary nurse about a week and a half ago. The Hospice PCM said they were having issues with Resident #10's previous hospice nurse and was not aware the updated hospice documentation was not being provided to the facility. The Hospice PCM said Resident #10's previous hospice nurse should have been updating Resident #10's hospice binder twice a month. The Hospice PCM said failure to keep Resident #10's hospice chart updated was poor communication with the facility. The Hospice PCM said they would not know of any order changes Resident #10 had unless they were notified by the facility. During an interview on 11/02/23 at 6:34 PM, the Administrator said she expected hospice to follow their policy and ensure updated orders and instructions were provided to the facility. The Administrator said she expected Resident #10 to have had an order for hospice for compliance and so they could follow the physician's orders. The Administrator said there was no risk for the resident for not having an order. The Administrator said by not having the updated hospice paperwork they were not communicating together, and Resident #10 could miss some of his services and not know. The Administrator said hospice was responsible for providing the updated hospice paperwork so Resident #10 could receive the best care. During an interview on 11/02/23 at 07:55 PM, the Regional Compliance Nurse said Resident #10's hospice emailed her and brought his most recent hospice paperwork today, 11/02/23. The Regional Compliance Nurse said not having the most current hospice plan of care could cause the continuum of care to not match. The Regional Compliance Nurse said the Hospice, nursing and medical records were responsible for ensuring the hospice binder were kept updated. The Regional Compliance Nurse said Resident #10 should have had an order for hospice and since he did not, he should not have been admitted to hospice. The Regional Compliance Nurse said a hospice order was needed to indicate Resident #10 was admitted to an extended provider for services. Record review of the facility's policy titled Hospice Services revised on February 13, 2007, indicated . 11. The DON or designee will be responsible for ensuring that documentation is a part of the current clinical record. At a minimum, the documentation will include: * The current and past Texas Medicaid Hospice Recipient Election/Cancellation Form (#3071) * Texas Medicaid Hospice-Nursing Facility Assessment Form (#3073) * Physician Certification of Terminal Illness (#3074) * Medicare Election Statement (if dual eligible) * Verification that the recipient does not have Medicare Part A * Hospice Plan of Care * Current interdisciplinary notes to include nurses' notes/summaries, physician orders and progress notes, and medications and treatment sheets during the hospice certification period. 12. The nursing facility and hospice provider must ensure that a coordinated plan of care reflects the participation of the hospice, nursing facility, the recipient, and legal representative to the extent possible. 13. The plan of care must include directives for managing pain and other uncomfortable symptoms. The plan must be revised and updated as necessary to reflect the resident's current status .
CONCERN (E)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interview, and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident, consistent with the resident rights, that includes measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, mental and psychosocial needs that are identified in the comprehensive assessment for 6 of 19 residents (Resident #'s 207, 50, 19, 20, 34, and 33) reviewed for comprehensive person-centered care plans. The facility failed to ensure Resident #207's comprehensive care plan addressed that she received olanzapine (antipsychotic medication). The facility failed to ensure Resident #50's siderails, and risk of dehydration were care planned. The facility failed to ensure Resident #19's siderail was care planned. The facility failed to ensure Resident #20's siderails were care planned. The facility failed to ensure Resident #33's Covid 19 infection was care planned. The facility failed to ensure Resident #34's risk of Covid 19 infection was care planned. These failures could place residents at risk of not receiving necessary medications and services, and decreased quality of life. Findings included: 1. Record review of Resident #207's face sheet dated 11/02/23, indicated a [AGE] year-old female who initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. Resident #207 diagnoses included dementia (memory loss), delirium (type of confusion), high blood pressure, and atrial fibrillation (irregular heart rate). Record review of Resident #207's comprehensive care plan dated 09/28/23 did not indicate Resident #207 was receiving olanzapine. Record review of Resident #207's admission MDS assessment dated [DATE], indicated she was able to make herself understood and understood others. The MDS assessment indicated Resident #207 had a BIMS score of 7 which indicated her cognition was moderatelyseverely impaired. The MDS indicated Resident #207 was taking antipsychotic medication during the last 7 days or since admission/entry or reentry if less than 7 days. Record review of Resident #207's order summary report dated 11/02/23, indicated she had the following orders: *Olanzapine 2.5mg give one tablet by mouth at bedtime for depression with an order start date of 09/24/23. *Olanzapine 5mg give one tablet by mouth at bedtime for depression with an order start date of 10/23/23. Record review of Resident #207's MAR for October 2023, indicated she had been receiving olanzapine 2.5mg at bedtime and olanzapine 5mg at bedtime since 10/24/23 after her most recent readmission to the facility. During an interview on 11/02/23 at 4:28 PM, LVN R said Resident #207's antipsychotic medications should have been care planned. LVN R said all medications should be care planned as it was part of the resident's care. LVN R said the MDS nurse was responsible for care planning the medications. During an interview on 11/02/23 at 5:43 PM, the ADON said Resident #207's antipsychotic medications should have been care planned as it was part of the resident's care. The ADON said the MDS nurse was responsible for care planning the medications. During an interview on 11/02/23 at 6:34 PM, the Administrator said Resident #207's antipsychotic medications should have been care planned. She said the comprehensive care plan was a personalized instruction book. The Administrator said Resident #207 receiving antipsychotic medication should have been reflected on her care plan. The Administrator said she was not clinical so she was unsure of the risks of why Resident #207 should have had her antipsychotic medication on her plan of care. The Administrator said the charge nurse and the DON were responsible for the acute care plans and the MDS nurse was responsible for updating the care plans quarterly and annually. During an interview on 11/02/23 at 7:48 PM, the MDS nurse said she was responsible for the comprehensive care plans and quarterly updates. The MDS nurse said nursing was responsible for the acute care plans and baseline care plans. The MDS nurse said Resident #207 should have had her antipsychotic medication care planned to monitor for side effects and behaviors. The MDS nurse said failure to care plan Resident #207's antipsychotic medication placed Resident #207 at risk for not having psychotropic monitoring. The MDS nurse said she would not have known Resident #207 was receiving antipsychotic medication until the next MDS assessment was completed. During an interview at 07:55 PM, the Regional Compliance Nurse said she expected Resident #207's antipsychotic medications to be care planned so anyone can be aware of why Resident #207 was taking the medication and the need to monitor for side effect and behaviors. The Regional Compliance Nurse said the nursing team was responsible for the acute care plans and the MDS nurse was responsible for the comprehensive care plan when she completed a significant change or quarterly MDS. The Regional Compliance Nurse said by not having Resident #207's antipsychotic medication care planned the person taking care of her would not know what to monitor for. 2. Record review of a face sheet dated 11/02/2023 indicated Resident #34 originally admitted on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with the diagnosis of memory deficit, anxiety, and high blood pressure. Record review of the Annual MDS dated [DATE] indicated Resident #34 was usually understood and usually understands others. Resident #34's MDS indicated her BIMS was a 15 indicating she was cognitively intact. The MDS indicated Resident #34 required supervision of one staff to walk in the room and corridor. Record review of the consolidated physician orders dated 11/02/2023 failed to reveal Resident #34 was on droplet isolation precautions due to her exposure to Resident #33. Record review of Resident #34's comprehensive care plan dated 1/10/2022 failed to reveal Resident #34 was on isolation precautions for exposure to Covid 19 and was at risk of contracting the virus herself. 3. Record review of a face sheet dated 11/02/2023 indicated Resident #33 admitted on [DATE] with the diagnoses of cerebral palsy (congenital disorder of movement, muscle tone, or posture. Cerebral palsy is due to abnormal brain development often before birth). The list of diagnosis failed to reveal Resident #33 was diagnosed with Covid 19. Record review of an Annual MDS dated [DATE] indicated Resident #33 was understood and understood others. The MDS indicated Resident #33's BIMS score was a 14 indicating her cognition was intact. Record review of the comprehensive care plan dated 1/10/2022 failed to reveal Resident #33 had the Covid 19 virus and was on droplet isolation precautions. Record review of the physician's orders dated October 2023, indicated Resident #33 was ordered Vitamin C 500 milligram give 6 tablets one time a day for 10 days for the diagnosis of Covid. Record review of the consolidated physician's orders dated November 2, 2023, failed to reveal Resident #33 was placed on Covid 19 droplet isolation precautions. Record review of the progress notes dated 10/22/2023 indicated Resident #33 tested positive for Covid 19. The progress note indicated Resident #33 and Resident #34 who were family also shared a room were notified of the positive test. The progress note indicated Resident #33 chose to continue to reside with her family member regardless of the risks involved. 4. Record review of a face sheet dated 11/02/2023 indicated Resident #19 was a [AGE] year-old female who originally admitted on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with the diagnosis of unsteadiness on her feet, muscle weakness, fainting and collapse, and paralysis to the left side. Record review of a Quarterly MDS dated [DATE] indicated Resident #19 was understood and understood others. The MDS indicated Resident #19's BIMS score was 15 indicating her cognition was intact. The MDS indicated Resident #19 required extensive assistance of two staff for bed mobility, transfers, and personal hygiene. The MDS indicated Resident #19 required limited assistance of two staff for dressing and one staff for toileting. In section P Restraints and Alarms revealed Resident #19 was not coded as having a bed rail in use. Record review of the comprehensive care plan dated 1/09/2023 indicated Resident #19 used hypnotic therapy and was at risk to have falls. The comprehensive care plan failed to address Resident #19's side rail. Record review of the physician's orders dated November 2, 2023, failed to reveal any ordered siderails/bedrails. Record review of Resident #19's electronic medical record failed to provide a siderail/bedrail assessment or a consent for use. During an observation on 10/30/2023 at 10:05 a.m., Resident #19 was lying in her bed. Resident #19 had a ½ sized bed rail to the right side of her bed. 5. Record review of a face sheet dated 11/02/2023 indicated Resident #20 was an [AGE] year-old female who admitted originally admitted on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with the diagnoses of stroke, Alzheimer's disease (dementia), abnormal gait and mobility, falls, head laceration, and muscle weakness. Record review of a Quarterly MDS dated [DATE] indicated Resident #20 was usually understood, and usually understands others. The MDS indicated Resident #20 had a BIMS score of 00 indicating she had severe cognitive deficit. The MDS also indicated Resident #20 was not oriented and was not able to demonstrate any recall. The MDS indicated Resident #20 required extensive assistance of two staff with bed mobility, transfers, dressing. The MDS indicated Resident #20 required extensive assistance of one staff with eating, and personal hygiene. Section P Restraints and Alarms indicated bed rails were not used. Record review of Resident #20's consolidated physician orders dated 11/02/2023 did not reveal physician's ordered bedrail/siderails. Record review of Resident #20's electronic medical record failed to reveal a bedrail/siderail assessment or a consent for use. During an observation on 10/30/2023 at 2:29 p.m., Resident #20 was transferred to her bed. Resident #20's bed was against the wall on the left-hand side, and she had a half rail on the right side of her bed. 6. Record review of a face sheet dated 11/02/2023 indicated Resident #50 was an [AGE] year-old female who admitted on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with the diagnoses of Alzheimer's disease (dementia), muscle weakness, and fracture of the sacrum. Record review of the Quarterly MDS dated [DATE] indicated Resident #50 was understood, and usually understood others. The MDS indicated Resident #50's BIMS score was 7 indicating severe cognitive impairment. The MDS indicated Resident #50 required extensive assistance of two staff for bed mobility, transfers, and toileting. The MDS indicated Resident #50 required extensive assistance of one staff member for walking, dressing and personal hygiene. In section P Restraints and Alarms indicated Resident #50 had not used bed rails. Record review of Resident #50's comprehensive care plan dated 3/23/2023 revealed she was at risk to fall. The care plans interventions were to keep the environment safe. The ADLs care plan indicated Resident #50 had a self-care deficit and required assistance with be mobility to turn and reposition in bed. The comprehensive care plan failed to indicate Resident #50 was at risk for dehydration or had siderails. Record review of Resident #50's dehydration risk screen conducted on 2/27/2023 indicated she was at risk for dehydration. Record review of Resident #50's consolidated physician orders dated 11/02/2023 revealed there was no ordered siderails or bedrails. Record review of Resident #50's electronic medical record revealed there was not a bedrail/siderail assessment completed or a consent for use. During an observation on 10/30/2023 at 3:30 p.m., Resident #50 was in her bed. Resident #50 has her legs elevated in the air and appears to be stretching them. Resident #50 has ½ bedrails up on each side of her bed. During an interview on 11/02/2023 at 4:51 p.m., LVN R said the MDS Coordinator was responsible for the care plan. LVN R said the care plans guided the care of the residents. LVN R said she had not updated the care plan as the charge nurse. During an interview on 11/02/2023 at 5:40 p.m., the ADON said the MDS Coordinator was responsible for creating the care plan. The ADON said she will refer would confer with the MDS Coordinator when she had a problem requiring care planning. The ADON said the care plan directs the residents care and should include all aspects of the resident's care. The ADON said she was unsure if the charge nurses knew how to formulate a care plan. During an interview on 11/02/2023 at 6:50 p.m., the Administrator said the care plan was a personalized instruction book for the resident. The Administrator said the MDS Coordinator was responsible for the care plans. The Administrator said she hoped to have the charge nurses trained on how to care plan care needs. The Administrator said the risk was the resident would not receive their personalized care. During an interview on 11/02/2023 at 8:19 p.m., the Corporate Compliance nurse said without the care plan staff would not know the care needs of the residents. The Corporate Compliance nurse said the MDS Coordinator was responsible for the comprehensive care plan to include the use of siderails for Resident #'s 19 ,20, and 50, risk of dehydration for Resident #50 , and isolation precautions for Resident #33 and 34 Record review the facility's undated policy titled Comprehensive Care Planning indicated . The facility will develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident, consistent with the resident rights that includes measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs that are identified in the comprehensive assessment. The comprehensive care plan will describe the following .The services that are to be furnished to attain or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being; and the right to refuse treatment
CONCERN (E)

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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to ensure a resident who is unable to carry out activities of daily living received the necessary services to maintain good nutrition, grooming, and personal and oral hygiene for 7 of 12 residents reviewed for quality of life. (Resident #'s 7, 11, 19, 20, 33, 34, and 50) The facility failed to provide facial hair removal/shaving for dependent female Resident #7. The facility failed to ensure Resident #'s 50, 33, 34, and 19 received their scheduled baths. The facility failed to ensure Resident #20's nails were clean and free of a brown colored material. The facility failed to ensure Resident #20 was free of facial hair. These failures could place residents who were dependent on staff to perform personal hygiene at risk of embarrassment, decreased self-esteem, or decreased quality of life. The findings included: 1. Record review of Resident #7's face sheet, dated 11/1/2023, revealed Resident #7 was an [AGE] year-old female who admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of hyperlipidemia (blood has too much fat), type 2 diabetes mellitus without complications ( characterized by high levels of sugar in the blood),hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction affecting right dominant side (symptom that involves one-sided paralysis), unspecified lack of coordination ( Uncoordinated movement due to a muscle control problem that causes an inability to coordinate movements). Record review of Resident # 7's MDS assessment, dated 9/15/2023, indicated Resident #7 had a BIMS score of 15, indicating Resident #7 was cognitively intact, indicating she understood others as well as being understood. The MDS revealed Resident #7 had no behaviors or rejection of care during the look-back period. The MDS revealed Resident #7 required supervision with a one-person assistance for dressing, toilet use, and personal hygiene. Record review of Resident #7's comprehensive care plan, last revised on 8/29/2023, revealed Resident #7 has an ADL self-care performance deficit. Care plan goals included maintain current level of function in bed mobility, transfers, eating, dressing, toilet use and personal hygiene. The care plan interventions include, Resident # 7 requires extensive assist of one staff toileting, dressing, transfers, mobility, and personal hygiene. During an observation on 10/30/2023 at 9:50 AM, Resident # 7 was observed with facial hair on the corners of her mouth and on her chin. During an observation on 10/31/2023 at 8:40 AM, Resident # 7 was observed with facial hair on the corners of her mouth and on her chin. During an observation and interview on 11/1/2023 at 11:20 AM, Resident # 7 was observed with facial hair on the corners of her mouth and on her chin after a shower. Resident # 7 stated she would like the facial hair removed however the staff has never offered to remove it and she didn't know they would remove facial hair. During an interview on 11/02/2023 at 3:52 PM, with CNA G stated she didn't notice Resident #7 had facial hair. CNA G stated she had been working at the facility for one month. CNA G stated she shaves the residents that want to be shaved. CNA G stated she was really scared of cutting the residents. CNA G stated she has given Resident #7 one shower and didn't notice her having facial hair. CNA G stated some people like to be shaved and some don't because it will grow back faster. CNA G stated she wouldn't want facial hair left on her. During an interview on 11/02/2023 at 4:29 PM, LVN R stated she was responsible for monitoring the CNA's. LVN R stated she expect the shower aides to shave and pluck the ladies if needed. LVN R stated it was important to remove facial hair because it was part of the grooming, if the residents want it removed. LVN R stated it could make the residents feel not very ladylike. During an interview on 11/02/2023 at 5:31 PM, the ADON stated CNAs are expected to do the task of facial hair removal and this should be offered during showers. The ADON stated it was her responsibility to monitor the CNAs. The ADON stated the importance of removing facial hair was because it could make them feel less of a woman. During an interview on 11/2/2023 at 6:35 PM, the ADM stated she expects CNAs to ensure female residents don't have hair on their chin. The ADM stated it was the responsibility of the nurse to monitor the CNAs. The ADM stated she monitors by observation. The ADM stated the importance of removing facial hair was for their dignity. During an interview on 11/2/2023 at 7:58 PM, the Corporate Compliance nurse stated she expect the CNAs to offer facial hair removal as part of ADL's and should be offered during showers. The Corporate Compliance nurse stated the charge nurses were responsible for monitoring. The Corporate Compliance nurse stated this could make female residents feel self-conscious. 7. Record review of resident #11's face sheet dated 11/02/23, indicated she was a [AGE] year-old female who initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. Resident #11's diagnoses included Alzheimer's disease (memory loss), depression (persistent feeling of sadness), anxiety, high blood pressure, and seizures. Record review of Resident #11's annual MDS assessment dated [DATE], indicated she was able to make herself understood and understood others. The MDS indicated Resident #11 had a BIMS score of 14, which indicated her cognition was intact. The MDS did not indicate Resident #11 had any behaviors or refused care. Resident #11 required substantial/maximal assistance with showering/bathing. Record review of Resident #11's comprehensive care plan dated 09/22/23, did not indicate she needed assistance with showering/bathing. During an interview and observation on 10/30/23 at 11:06 AM Resident #11 said she only received one shower last week. Resident #11 said she was scheduled to receive a shower 3 days a week. Resident #11 said she liked to receive her showers routinely because she liked her hair washed and to be clean. Resident #11 said she felt good after receiving a hot shower and felt unclean by not receiving them. Resident #11 had upper lip hair that she said did not bother her and had not asked staff to remove. During an interview on 11/01/23 at 10:44 AM, Resident #11 said she was scheduled to receive a shower yesterday, 10/31/23, and had not received one. She said not receiving a shower made her feel like they (staff) don't care. Record review of Resident #11's point of care response history for bathing self-performance dated 11/1/23, indicated Resident refused showers on 10/3/23 and 10/7/23. The point of care response did not indicate Resident #11 received or refused a shower for the following dates for the month of October 2023: 10/5/23, 10/10/23, 10/12/23, 10/14/23, 10/17/23, 10/19/23, 10/21/23, 10/24/23, 10/26/23, 10/28/23, and 10/31/23. Record review of Resident #11's showers sheets provided from the facility from 10/01/23-11/01/23, indicated Resident #11 had refused a shower on 10/3/23, 10/7/23, and 10/10/23. No further shower sheets for the month of October 2023 had been provided by the facility. Record review of Resident #11's progress note dated 10/07/23- 11/02/23, indicated on 10/7/23 resident refused her bed bath/shower 3 times stating she did not feel like it and signed the refusal. There were no further refusals documented since 10/07/23. During an interview on 11/02/23 at 3:52 PM, CNA G said she had been a shower aide for a month and worked from 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM. CNA G said she provided the morning showers and Resident #11 was scheduled for the night shift. CNA G said Resident #11 had refused her showers before but was unsure if she had been refusing her showers recently since she had not provided a shower to her. On 11/02/23 at 4:09 PM call was placed to CNA CC, who worked the night shift, with no response. Record review of the facility's shower scheduled on 11/01/23, indicated Bed A received their showers on the day shift and Bed B received their showers on the night shift. Even room numbers received their bath/shower on Monday, Wednesday, Friday, and odd room numbers received their showers on Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday. The shower schedule also indicated . any refusals should be documented by the charge nurse and all shower sheets required a signature. Resident #11 was scheduled to receive her showers on Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday on the night shift per the shower schedule. During an interview on 11/02/23 at 4:28 PM, LVN R said Resident #11 refused her showers a lot of the times and said she had discussed it with the family member the day before on 11/01/23. LVN R said Resident #11 tended to say she wanted the shower in the morning and then when they would go get her, she would refuse. LVN R said the CNA who was scheduled for that hall was responsible for providing the showers. LVN R said the charge nurse was responsible for overseeing the showers were being provided. LVN R said they usually received a shower sheet indicating the number of times the resident refused. LVN R said since Resident #11 did not have shower sheets to show shower was refused, did not have documentation on the point of care system the shower was provided or refused, and did not have documentation in the progress notes that the showers were refused, then she would take Resident #11's shower had not been provided or offered. LVN R said not providing showers as scheduled placed the residents at risk for skin issues. During an interview on 11/02/23 at 5:34 PM, the ADON said she had redone the shower schedule to know who was responsible for providing the showers. The ADON said if she had to work the floor, she did not fill out a shower sheet all the time as she just provided the showers. The ADON said she was responsible for ensuring the showers were being provided. The ADON said by not providing the showers as scheduled the residents were at risk for skin issues and neglect. During an interview on 11/02/23 at 6:34 PM, the Administrator said she expected the showers/baths to be given per the shower schedule and to accommodate personal preference and needs. The Administrator said if a resident refused her shower/bath she expected the staff to reattempt. The Administrator said if it was not documented it did not happen. The Administrator said not providing showers as scheduled placed the resident at risk for skin breakdown. The Administrator said the CNA assigned to that hall was responsible for ensuring the showers were being provided as per the shower schedule. The Administrator said the charge nurse was responsible for ensuring the CNAs were providing the showers as scheduled or charting the resident refusals. During an interview on 11/02/23 at 7:43 PM, the CNA O said she worked 6:00 PM- 6:00 AM shift and sometimes took care of Resident #11. CNA O said Resident #11 tended to refuse her showers most of the time. CNA O said she would notify the charge nurse of any refusals and fill out a shower sheet. CNA O said if it was not documented that the resident refused or that she received a shower then that indicated Resident #11 was not offered a shower. CNA O said it was their responsibility to ensure the showers or baths were being provided as scheduled. CNA O said the charge nurse was responsible for ensuring the CNAs were providing the showers/baths as scheduled. CNA O said by not providing the showers as scheduled the resident was at risk for skin breakdown. During an interview on 11/02/23 at 07:55 PM, the Regional Compliance Nurse said she expected the showers/baths to be provided as per the bathing schedule. The Regional Compliance Nurse said showers were provided 3 times a week and as needed. The Regional Compliance Nurse said the nurse was responsible for ensuring the showers/baths are provided and documenting refusals. The Regional Compliance Nurse said by not providing showers/ baths as scheduled the CNA was not following the facility's policy. The Regional Compliance Nurse said since there was no documentation of refusals or showers given then there was no way of knowing ADLS were being provided. Record review of the facility's policy titled Bath, Tub/Shower dated 2003 indicated . Bathing by tub bath or shower is done to remove soil, dead epithelial cells, microorganisms from the skin, and body odor to promote comfort, cleanliness, circulation, and relaxation . Goals . 1. The resident will experience improved comfort and cleanliness by bathing. 2. The resident will maintain intact skin integrity. 3. The resident will be free from soil, odor, dryness, and pruritus following bathing . 2. Record review of a face sheet dated 11/02/2023 indicated Resident #34 originally admitted on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with the diagnosis of memory deficit, anxiety, and high blood pressure. Record review of the Annual MDS assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #34 was usually understood and usually understands others. Resident #34's MDS indicated her BIMS was a 15 indicating she was cognitively intact. The MDS indicated Resident #34 required supervision of one staff for ambulation. The MDS indicated she required extensive assistance of one staff with bathing and supervision and setup for personal hygiene. Record review of the MDS in the section Behaviors there were no behaviors documented in the area of refusal of care. Record review of Resident #34's comprehensive care plan dated 1/10/2022 indicated Resident #34 had an ADL self-care deficit and the goal was her needs were met on a daily basis. The interventions in the care plan included Resident #34 required assistance with showering, dressing, person hygiene including oral care, and toileting. Record review of the comprehensive care plan failed to reveal any care planned rejection of care with ADLs. During an interview on 10/30/2023 at 11:06 a.m., Resident #34said she had not been showered in a week. Resident #34 said her shower days were Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. Record review of the electronic medical record for bathing indicated Resident #34 was scheduled to shower on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday after 12:00 p.m. The electronic medical record indicated for the month of October 2023 Resident #34 received one shower. The electronic medical record indicated Resident #34 missed 12 opportunities for a shower. Record review of the shower sheets for Resident #34 indicated she was showered on October 11, 2023, and October 18, 2023. There were no other shower sheets provided indicating further bathing opportunities. 3). Record review of a face sheet dated 11/02/2023 indicated Resident #33 admitted on [DATE] with the diagnoses of cerebral palsy (congenital disorder of movement, muscle tone, or posture. Cerebral palsy is due to abnormal brain development often before birth). Record review of the Annual MDS dated [DATE] indicated Resident #33 understood others and was understood. The MDS indicated Resident #33 BIMS score was 14 indicating her cognition was intact. The MDS indicated in section of Behaviors Resident #33 had not rejected care. In section GG Functional Abilities and Goals was dependent with showers and personal hygiene. Record review of the comprehensive care plan dated 1/10/2022 failed to reveal Resident #33 had an ADL deficit. Record review of the electronic medical record indicated for bathing failed to indicate any baths or showers were documented as provided for the month of October 2023. Record review of the shower sheets provided for Resident #33 indicated Resident #33 was showered on 10/11/2023 and 10/18/2023. The facility failed to provide any other shower sheets for review. Resident #33 missed 11 opportunities for showers. During an interview on 10/30/2023 at 11:06 a.m., Resident #33 said she had not been showered in a week. Resident #33 said her shower days were Monday-Wednesday-Friday. 4). Record review of a face sheet dated 11/02/2023 indicated Resident #19 was a [AGE] year-old female who originally admitted on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with the diagnosis of unsteadiness on her feet, muscle weakness, fainting and collapse, and paralysis to the left side. Record review of a Quarterly MDS dated [DATE] indicated Resident #19 was understood and understood others. The MDS indicated Resident #19's BIMS score was 15 indicating her cognition was intact. The MDS indicated Resident #19 required extensive assistance of two staff for bed mobility, transfers, and personal hygiene. The MDS indicated Resident #19 required limited assistance of two staff for dressing and one staff for toileting. The MDS indicated Resident #19 required total assistance of one staff for bathing. The MDS in the section of Behaviors failed to indicate Resident #19 had demonstrated in behaviors including rejection of care. Record review of the comprehensive care plan dated 1/09/2023 indicated Resident #19 had an ADL self-care deficit. The goal of the care plan was Resident #19 would have her needs met on a daily basis. The interventions for Resident #19 were she required assistance on the part of bathing by the staff, nail care, and dressing. Record review of the electronic medical record dated October 2023 indicated Resident #19 had been showered on October 4, 9, and 11 of 2023. There were no other days documented for showering or any other type of bathing. During an observation and interview on 10/30/2023 at 10:05 a.m., Resident #19 was lying in her bed. Resident #19 said she had not had a bed bath in 6 days. Resident #19 went on to say she had not been showered in the last two weeks. Resident #19 said I feel so nasty. Resident #19 said she had a doctor's appointment today and was hoping to have a bath provided before leaving for the appointment. Resident #19 said her shower schedule was Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday. Record review of shower sheets for Resident #19 indicated she was showered on October 2, 19, and 30 of 2023. There were no other shower sheets provided. 5). Record review of a face sheet dated 11/02/2023 indicated Resident #50 was an [AGE] year-old female who admitted on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with the diagnoses of Alzheimer's disease (dementia), muscle weakness, and fracture of the sacrum. Record review of the Quarterly MDS dated [DATE] indicated Resident #50 was understood, and usually understood others. The MDS indicated Resident #50's BIMS score was 7 indicating severe cognitive impairment. The MDS indicated Resident #50 required extensive assistance of two staff for bed mobility, transfers, and toileting. The MDS indicated Resident #50 required extensive assistance of one staff member for walking, dressing and personal hygiene. Record review of the MDS in the section G bathing indicated Resident #50's activity did not occur. Record review of Resident #50's comprehensive care plan dated 3/23/2023 revealed she had an ADL deficit for self-care. The goal indicated Resident #50 would have her daily needs met. Resident #50's care planned interventions included she required assistance with showering, and personal hygiene including oral care. During an observation on 10/30/2023 at 3:30 p.m., Resident #50 was in her bed in room [ROOM NUMBER] B. Resident #50 was not interviewable and appeared disheveled and unkempt. Record review of Resident #50's electronic medical record for bathing indicated there were no baths documented for the entire month of October 2023. Record review of Resident #50's shower sheets provided indicated Resident #50 was bathed on October 11, 16, 18, and 25 of 2023. The facility failed to provide any other bath sheets. 6) Record review of a face sheet dated 11/02/2023 indicated Resident #20 was an [AGE] year-old female who admitted originally admitted on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with the diagnoses of stroke, Alzheimer's disease (dementia), abnormal gait and mobility, falls, head laceration, and muscle weakness. Record review of a Quarterly MDS dated [DATE] indicated Resident #20 was usually understood, and usually understands others. The MDS indicated Resident #20 had a BIMS score of 00 indicating she had severe cognitive deficit. The MDS also indicated Resident #20 was not oriented and was not able to demonstrate any recall. The MDS indicated Resident #20 required extensive assistance of two staff with bed mobility, transfers, dressing. The MDS indicated Resident #20 required extensive assistance of one staff with eating, and personal hygiene. The MDS indicated Resident #20 required extensive assistance of two staff for bathing. In the section Behaviors the MDS indicated Resident #20 had no rejection of care documented. During an observation on 10/30/2023 at 10:40 a.m., Resident #20 was sitting in her Broda chair (reclining chair). Resident #30#20 had brown material underneath her fingernails. Resident #30 had facial hair in the corners of her mouth. Resident #30 was not interviewable. Record review of Resident #20's electronic medical record dated October 2023 indicated a bath on October 7, 2023. The facility failed to provide any shower sheets for Resident #20. During an interview on 11/02/2023 at 3:45 p.m., the shower aide indicated she worked the shift 8:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. when she was in the role as shower aide. The shower aide said she had been employed one month in her role. The shower aide said she often times has been moved from shower aide to working as the primary CNA and during those times she and the other CNAs would be responsible for their own shower schedule. The shower aide said the residents who have Covid 19 was were supposed to be showered on the evening shift for Resident #'s 33, 34, and 50. The shower aide said she had not removed the any female resident's facial hair unless they asked for it to be removed. The shower aide said her login for documenting was not working and she believed the other nurse aides were charting the showers. The shower aide indicated skin problems could occur without resident's receiving their baths. During an interview on 11/02/2023 at 4:00 p.m., LVN D said the shower schedule was A-bed day shift and B-bed evening shift. LVN D said the nurse aides were responsible for providing the showers and the nurses were responsible for ensuring the showers were provided. LVN D said she had been used of to receiving shower sheets for the residents who received baths. LVN D said residents should receive nail care when their nails were dirty. LVN D said the nurses monitored the nail care. LVN D said the nurse aides were responsible for removing facial hair. LVN D said female residents could feel unlike a lady with facial hair. During an interview on 11/02/2023 at 5:31 p.m., the ADON said she expected the residents to receive their baths as scheduled. The ADON said she had redone the shower schedule to ensure showers were provided. The ADON said she expected the nurses to monitor the showers and follow up when not provided. The ADON said the lack of bathing was neglect, could lead to skin issues, emotional issues, and affect their self-esteem. The ADON said she expected nail to be provided on Sundays and with showers. The ADON said she expected women with facial hair to have it removed. The ADON said facial hair on a woman could make them feel less of a woman. During an interview on 11/02/2023 at 6:52 p.m., the Administrator said she expected the CNAs to follow the bath list. The Administrator said she expected if a bath was refused this should be documented in the record. The Administrator said with missed documentation opportunities, no shower sheets provided, and residents saying they have not been bathed concluded not documented nothing happened. The Administrator said residents not receiving their scheduled bathing were at risk for skin breakdown. The Administrator said the CNAs were responsible for providing the showers and the nurses monitoringmonitored. The Administrator said the facility had attempted to ensure a shower aide was available to provide the showers but at times she had been working as the primary CNA. The Administrator said facial hair on a female would elicit individualized responses. During an interview on 11/02/2023 at 7:58 p.m., the Corporate Compliance nurse said she expected the baths to be provided according to the schedule. The Corporate Compliance nurse said she expected refusals to be documented. The Corporate Compliance nurse said not providing residents with bathing was not following their policy.
CONCERN (E)

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

Medication Errors (Tag F0758)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 4. Record review of Resident #1's face sheet, dated 11/2/2023, revealed Resident # 1 was a [AGE] year-old female with diagnoses ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 4. Record review of Resident #1's face sheet, dated 11/2/2023, revealed Resident # 1 was a [AGE] year-old female with diagnoses of seizures (burst of uncontrolled electrical activity between brain cells that causes temporary abnormalities in muscle tone or movements), unspecified intellectual disabilities (disorders characterized by an impairment to the intelligence an individual possesses) unspecified lack of coordination ( Uncoordinated movement due to a muscle control problem that causes an inability to coordinate movements). Record review of Resident # 1's MDS assessment, dated 9/4/2023, reveals Resident #1 had a BIMS score of 12, indicating Resident #1 had moderate cognitive impairment. Record review of Resident #1's order summary, dated 11/1/2023, revealed an order start date of 10/10/23 for Lorazepam intensol oral concentrate 2mg/ml. as needed. Record review of Resident # 1's EMAR didn't indicate a physician review. Resident #1 hadn't been given Lorazepam. Record review of Resident #1's care plan, revised on 6/2/2023, reveals Resident #1 used anti-anxiety medication. During an interview on 11/02/2023 at 4:29 PM, LVN R stated Resident #1 was on hospice. LVN R stated prn medication orders are good for fourteen-days. LVN R stated prn medication orders usually fall off the MAR after fourteen days. LVN R stated she would assume the bosses keep an eye on monitoring the prn medication orders. LVN R stated the failure was the resident could get a medication she didn't need. During an interview on 11/02/2023 at 5:31 PM, the ADON stated prn medication orders should be reviewed every fourteen days. The ADON stated she didn't know how they were monitoring prn medication orders before she came to work at the facility, but she would have a calendar with a stop date and have hospice to send an order every two weeks. The ADON stated the failure was someone could give the resident a medication that has been discontinued. During an interview on 11/2/2023 at 6:35 PM, the ADM stated she expects prn medication orders to be discontinued after fourteen days and reevaluated for new orders. The ADM stated it was the nurse responsibility to monitor prn medication orders. The ADM stated the failure was it could be a risk for side effects if given unnecessary medication. During an interview on 11/2/2023 at 7:58 PM, the Corporate Compliance nurse stated prn medication should be revaluated every fourteen days and reordered if needed. The Corporate Compliance nurse stated the charge nurses were responsible for monitoring. The Corporate Compliance nurse stated the failure was the resident could receive medication they didn't need. Record review of the facility's policy titled Psychotropic Drugs revised on 10/25/17, indicated . The intent of this policy is that each resident's entire drug/medication regimen is managed and monitored to promote or maintain the resident's highest practicable mental, physical, and psychosocial wellbeing, the facility implements gradual dose reductions (GDR) and non-pharmacological interventions, unless contraindicated, prior to initiating or instead of continuing psychotropic medication . A psychotropic drug is any drug that affects brain activities associated with mental processes and behavior. These drugs include, but are not limited to, drugs in the following categories: (i)Anti-psychotic; (ii) Anti-depressant; (iii) Anti-anxiety; and (iv) Hypnotic . Monitoring . Nurses will continually monitor for behaviors, adverse consequences and/or side effects and utilizing the Psychotropic Medication Behavior/Side Effect Monitoring'· forms generated by PCC, the nurse will document the behavior and/or side effect using charting by exception (only charting when the occurrence is observed or assessed.) Target Behaviors or behaviors that are being treated should be included on the Behavior Monitoring Form . If antipsychotic medications are prescribed, documentation must clearly show the indication for the antipsychotic medication, the multiple attempts to implement care-planned, non- Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure the resident's drug regimen was free from unnecessary psychotropic drugs and PRN orders for psychotropic drugs were limited to 14 days for 4 of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary psychotropic drugs (Resident #'s 207, 106, 24, and 1). The facility failed to adequately monitor Resident #207's side effects and behaviors regarding her antipsychotic medication. The facility failed to follow Resident #207's hospital discharge orders for her antipsychotic medication. The facility failed to monitor Resident #106's side effects for the use of Sertraline (Zoloft) and Bupropion (Wellbutrin). The facility failed to obtain appropriate diagnosis for Resident #24's antipsychotic medication. Resident #1 continued to have a PRN order for Lorazepam 0.5mg after 14 days without an evaluation by the physician for continued treatment. These failures could place residents at risk of receiving unnecessary psychotropic medications with possible medication side effects, adverse consequences, decreased quality of life and dependence on unnecessary medications. Findings included: 1. Record review of Resident #207's face sheet dated 11/02/23, indicated a [AGE] year-old female who initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. Resident #207 diagnoses included dementia (memory loss), delirium (confusion), high blood pressure, and atrial fibrillation (irregular heart rate). Record review of Resident #207's hospital after visit summary dated 10/19/23- 10/23/23, indicated under instructions . change how you take: Olanzapine (Zyprexa). The hospital after visit summary indicated under medication list . change olanzapine 2.5mg take 2 tablets (5mg total) by mouth nightly. Record review of Resident #207's order summary report dated 11/02/23, indicated the following orders: *Olanzapine 2.5mg give one tablet by mouth at bedtime for depression with an order start date of 09/24/23. *Olanzapine 5mg give one tablet by mouth at bedtime for depression with an order start date of 10/23/23. The order summary report did not indicate an order for side effect or behavior monitoring for Resident #207's antipsychotic medication. Record review of Resident #207's MAR for October 2023, indicated she had been receiving Olanzapine 2.5mg at bedtime and Olanzapine 5mg at bedtime since 10/24/23 after her most recent readmission to the facility. Record review of Resident #207's TAR for October 2023, did not indicate Resident #207 was being monitored for behaviors or side effects for the use of her antipsychotic medication. Record review of Resident #207's comprehensive care plan dated 09/28/23 did not indicate Resident #207 was receiving an antipsychotic medication. Record review of Resident #207's admission MDS assessment dated [DATE], indicated she was able to make herself understood and understood others. The MDS assessment indicated Resident #207 had a BIMS score of 7 which indicated her cognition was severely impaired. The MDS indicated Resident #207 was taking an antipsychotic medication during the last 7 days or since admission/entry or reentry if less than 7 days. During an interview and observation on 11/02/23 at 11:25 AM, the ADON said she was the charge nurse taking care of Resident #207. The ADON said residents who received antipsychotic medications required a consent with a proper diagnosis and should be monitored for side effects or behaviors. The ADON said the nurse who admitted the resident or who obtained the order for antipsychotic medication should have placed the orders for side effect and behavior monitoring with the appropriate diagnosis. The ADON reviewed Resident #207's physician orders and she said Resident #207 was receiving olanzapine 2.5mg and olanzapine 5mg at bedtime and were being given for depression. The ADON said Resident #207 was not being monitored for side effects or behaviors regarding her antipsychotic medication. The ADON then reviewed Resident #207's hospital after care summary where she said Resident #207 should have been only receiving Olanzapine 5mg at bedtime. The ADON said the order for Olanzapine 2.5mg should have been discontinued on 10/23/23. The ADON said depression was not an appropriate diagnosis for olanzapine. The ADON said the admitting nurse was responsible for ensuring the orders were correct and placing the order for the side effect and behavior monitoring. The ADON said RN F, the admitting nurse, was currently hospitalized . The ADON said not discontinuing the medication as ordered was considered a medication error. The ADON said the process for physician orders was as follows: the nurse obtained the order, the order or hospital discharge paperwork went to medical records, and then medical records uploaded it to the resident's chart. The ADON said she was unaware of Resident #207 being sent to the hospital or had readmitted back to the facility, so her discharge orders were not checked. The ADON said not monitoring for side effects or behaviors the nurse could miss a change. During an interview on 11/02/23 at 4:28 PM, LVN R said when a resident was receiving antipsychotic medications the order for side effect and behavior monitoring was automatically placed in the computer. LVN R said she had never placed an order for psychotropic medication side effects or behaviors as she knew they were always there. LVN R said not monitoring for psychotropic side effects or behaviors could place the resident at risk for not knowing if the medications were being effective or causing side effects such as oversedation or tardive dyskinesia (a neurological syndrome that results in involuntary and repetitive body movements). During an interview on 11/02/23 at 6:34 PM, the Administrator said residents receiving antipsychotic medications should be monitored for side effects and behaviors. The Administrator said by not monitoring for side effects and behaviors they were not going to be able to relay all information to the physician so it could be reviewed. The Administrator stated it would be poor communication with the physician. The Administrator said nursing was responsible for ensuring Resident #207 was being monitored for antipsychotic side effect and behavior monitoring. During an interview on 11/02/23 at 07:55 PM, the Regional Compliance Nurse said she expected residents receiving antipsychotic medications to be monitored for side effects and behaviors. The Regional Compliance nurse said by not monitoring the resident's behaviors or side effects for their antipsychotic mediations then they may not be managing Resident #207's effectively. The Regional Compliance Nurse said the charge nurse was responsible for inputting the order for the side effect and behavior monitoring on admission or when they obtain an order for a psychotropic medication. The Regional compliance nurse said the ADON and DON were responsible for following up on orders when they did the chart audits. 3. Record review of Resident #24 face sheet dated 09/11/23, indicated an [AGE] year-old female who admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #24's diagnoses included Alzheimer's disease (memory loss), diabetes (too much sugar in the blood), high blood pressure, and depression (persistent feeling of sadness). Record review of Resident #24's order summary report dated 11/02/23, indicated she had an order for risperidone 1mg give one tablet by mouth one time a day for Alzheimer's with an order start date of 10/18/23. Record review of Resident #24's admission MDS assessment dated [DATE], indicated she was able to make herself understood and understood others. The MDS assessment indicated Resident #24 had a BIMS score of 3, which indicated her cognition was severely impaired. The MDS did not indicate Resident #24 had any behaviors, delusions, hallucinations or wandered. Resident #24 required limited assistance with bed mobility, dressing, toileting, and personal hygiene. Record review of Resident #24's comprehensive care plan dated 09/15/23, indicated Resident #24 required anti-psychotropic medications. The care plan interventions included to administer medications as ordered, monitor/document for side effects and effectiveness and consult with physician to consider dose reduction when clinically appropriate. During an interview on 11/02/23 at 06:11 PM the ADON said the diagnosis of Alzheimer's was not a diagnosis that can be used for an antipsychotic medication. She said the charge nurse should have input an accurate diagnosis when inputting the order and the nurse should have noticed the diagnosis not being accurate when she completed the quality measures and the MDS nurse should have followed up to ensure it was correct. The ADON said she was responsible for the pharmacy recommendations. She said pharmacist noted on the recommendations and she said she called the doctor, but the Medical Director did not give a new diagnosis for the medication, so she left Alzheimer's diagnosis. The ADON said the risk to the resident was getting a medication that she did not need, and it could have caused declines, hallucinations, or possible memory loss. During an interview on 11/02/23 at 07:38 PM the Administrator said psychotic medication cannot be given for diagnosis of Alzheimer's. She said the charge nurse should have noted the incorrect diagnosis and the MDS nurse and the Management nurses should have caught that the diagnosis was not accurate. The Administrator said the risk to the resident was increased sleepiness, problems with movement, increased side effects of the medication but she is unaware of anything else. During an interview on 11/02/23 at 08:28 PM the RCN said Alzheimer's was not an appropriate diagnosis for antipsychotic medication. She said the charge nurse was responsible for entering reason for use when the medication was ordered. The ADON and DON were responsible for following up on the pharmacy recommendations to ensure they are completed. The risk to the resident was taking a medication without needing it. 2. Record review of Resident #106's face sheet dated 11/02/2023 indicated she was a [AGE] year-old female who admitted on [DATE] with the diagnosis of major depressive disorder (a mental health disorder characterized by persistently depressed mood or loss of interest in activities causing significant impairment in daily life). Record review of an admission MDS dated [DATE] indicated Resident #106 understood others and was understood. Resident #106's BIMS score was 15 indicating her cognition was intact. Record review of the consolidated physician orders dated November 2, 2023, indicated Resident #106 had ordered Bupropion ER (Wellbutrin) 300 milligrams daily for depression (Major Depressive Disorder) on 10/17/2023. The physician orders also indicated Resident #106 had ordered Sertraline (Zoloft) 100 milligrams daily for depression on 10/17/2023. The consolidated physician orders did not indicate any physician ordered behavior monitoring or side effect monitoring for the ordered Sertraline and Bupropion. Record review of the medication administration record dated October 2023 indicated on October 18, 2023, Resident #106 began receiving Bupropion ER (Wellbutrin) and Sertraline (Zoloft). The medication administration record did not indicate any behavior monitoring entries or any side effect monitoring entries for the administration of Bupropion and Sertraline. During an interview on 11/02/2023 at 4:30 p.m., LVN R said she had never entered the behavior monitoring or side effect orders for psychotropic medications to have them populate for monitoring. LVN R said psychotropic medications should be monitored to evaluate the need of the medication and whether the medication should be adjusted. During an interview on 11/02/2023 at 5:54 p.m., the ADON stated the nurses should put in the behavior monitoring and/or side effect monitoring when the order was received for a psychotropic medication. The ADON said when the monitoring was not present the nurse could miss a change, or a change be overlooked. The ADON said she and the DON were responsible for ensuring the behavior monitoring and side effect monitoring was implemented with psychotropic medication orders. During an interview on 11/02/2023 at 6:45 p.m., the Administrator said the charge nurse was responsible for entering the behavior and side effect monitoring for medications. The Administrator said without having the medications monitored a nurse would not be able to communicate the fullest information to the physician. During an interview on 11/02/2023 at 8:04 p.m., the Regional Compliance nurse indicated psychotropic medications required monitoring for behaviors and side effects. The Regional Compliance nurse indicated the medication monitoring was to ensure the medications were effective and at the right level to maintain symptoms. The Regional Compliance nurse said the charge nurse was responsible for entry of the behavior monitoring and side effect monitoring. The Regional Compliance nurse indicated the ADON and DON were responsible for monitoring for side effect monitoring and behavior monitoring during chart checks.
CONCERN (F)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

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

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety in the facility's only kitchen reviewed for food safety requirements. The facility failed to ensure a fan blowing toward the stove was free from dust like material. The facility failed to ensure the microwave was free from a light beige colored material dried to the number pad of the microwave. The facility failed to ensure the can opener blade was free from a rust-colored material. The facility failed to ensure 7 dozen boiled eggs with an expiration date of 10/25/2023 were not available for use. The facility failed to ensure the dishwasher aide was wearing a hair net. The facility failed to ensure a red cleaning bucket had sufficient sanitizing chemical for cleaning. The facility failed to ensure the cereal in the dining room dispensers were dated when filled. These failures could place residents at risk of foodborne illness, and food contamination. Findings included: During initial tour on 10/30/2023 at 9:15 a.m. - 9:46 a.m. the observations included: *An upright standing fan had gray colored material appearing to be dust blowing toward the stove. *A sanitizer bucket underneath the steam table was tested by the DM Dietary Manager using the chemical strips. The chemical strips read no sanitizer was in the cleaning bucket. *The microwave had a light beige colored material dried on the number panel of the microwave. *There was were 7 dozen, bagged 1 dozen to each bag, of boiled eggs with the expiration date of 10/25/2023 in the refrigerator. *A rust-colored material was on the can opener's blade. *The dishwasher aide was not wearing a hair net while inside the dietary department. *Cereal stored in the self-serve bins in the dining room was not dated. During an interview on 11/02/2023 at 6:03 p.m., the Dietary Manager said she was responsible for ensuring the dietary department was serving foods in a safe manner. The Dietary Manager said she expected the dietary staff monitored the dates on the foods to ensure none were expired. The Dietary Manager said she monitors by making rounds and monitoring the cleaning schedule. The Dietary Manager said by having expired foods for use could make residents sick and by not having a sanitary environment germs could be spread. The Dietary Manager said she expected all staff entering the dietary department to wear hair nets. During an interview on 11/02/2023 at 7:33 p.m., the Administrator said she expected the Dietary Manager to change the can opener blade as often as needed to prevent rusting. The Administrator said she expected expiration dates be monitored, ensure the microwave was wiped down after use, clean the fan, and follow the recommendations for the chemical guidelines for sanitation buckets. The Administrator stated these findings could pass on unsanitary items to the residents and could make them sick. Record review of the 2012 Equipment Sanitation policy and procedure indicated the facility would provide clean and sanitized equipment for food preparation. The facility will clean all food service equipment in a sanitary manner. 1. Equipment must be thoroughly sanitized between use in different food preparation tasks.
Oct 2023 7 deficiencies 2 IJ (2 affecting multiple)
CRITICAL (K) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

Someone could have died · This affected multiple residents

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure residents had the right to be free from abuse, and neglect for 3 of 18 residents reviewed for abuse and neglect (Resident #12, Resident #13, and Resident #14) in that: Resident #12 was abused when LVN C put her hand over Resident #12's mouth to stop her from screaming. LVN C also threatened to push Resident #12 into cold water if she did not stop screaming. Resident #13 was physically abused by Resident #12. Resident #12 slapped Resident #13 in the face. Resident #12 had a history of abusive behaviors. Resident #12 disliked Black people and targeted two Black residents on the secure unit, Resident #13, and Resident #14. An Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) situation was identified on 10/3/23 at 6:00 p.m. The IJ template was provided to the facility on [DATE] at 6:00 p.m. While the IJ was removed on 10/4/23 at 6:30 p.m., the facility remained out of compliance at no actual harm with potential for more than minimal harm that is not immediate jeopardy and a scope of pattern due to the facility's need to evaluate the effectiveness of the corrective systems These failures could cause emotional and physical harm and could lead to additional pain and suffering. Finding included: 1.Record review of Resident #12's face sheet indicated she was an [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Some of her diagnoses were dementia (impairment of memory) with other behavioral disturbances, psychotic disorder (a mental problem that causes people to perceive or interpret things differently from those around them), with delusions, cognitive communication deficit, and major depression. Record review of Resident #12's quarterly MDS dated [DATE] indicated her cognitive status was severely impaired. Record review of Resident #12's Care Plan dated 9/7/22 indicated a focus area of impaired cognition due to dementia or impaired thought processes. Some of the interventions were, use the residents preferred name, identify self at each interaction, face resident, and make eye contact when speaking and provide cues when necessary and stop and return, if agitated. Another focused area was Resident #12 has the potential to demonstrate physical behaviors. Some of the interventions were to analyze the time, the places, circumstances, triggers, and what escalate to behaviors and document. Communication provided with physical and verbal cues to alleviate, anxiety, give positive feedback, assist with verbalization of source of agitation, assist to set goals for more pleasant behavior, encourage seeking out of staff when agitated. When the resident becomes agitated intervene before agitation, escalated, remove from source of distress, engage calmly in conversation calmly, and if responses or aggressive staff were to walk away calmly and approach later. Resident # 12 also had a focus area of potential to demonstrate verbal abusive behaviors, with some of the same interventions in place. Record review of the facility Provider Investigation Report dated 8/10/23 indicated a Hospice CNA alleged that LVN C was unkind to Resident #12. The Report contained a statement written by LVN C that stated: The Hospice CNA asked her to assist with Resident #12 because she (Resident #12) was combative, and she (Resident #12) had slapped the aide in the face on a previous occasion. The LVN wrote they took Resident #12 into the shower room and removed her clothes. LVN C said the resident was screaming, and LVN C placed her hand over Resident #12's mouth, her intent was to distract Resident #12. LVN C said she often joked with the resident. She said she (LVN C) jokily asked the aide if the water was cold. The nurse said the Resident #12 did not present any type of respiratory distress. The report indicated LVN C said she had known the resident prior to her admission to the facility and was only joking. Record review of the Provider Investigation Report contained a statement from the Hospice CNA dated 8/10/23 at 12:43 p.m. which stated. I was prepping PT (Resident #12) for a shower, I required assistance with undressing due to PT disability. I stuck my head around the and there were no aides, so I asked the nurse. She said, Sure let's go. PT (Resident #12) was very combative and not cooperating. The nurse was a little abrasive while removing PTs, shirt, once the shirt was removed, I turned my back to PT (Resident #12) and the nurse (LVN C) to ensure safe water temp. Pt was screaming very loudly while my back was turned. Pt very abruptly stopped screaming. Approximately 10- 15 seconds. Later after PT stopped screaming, I turned back toward PT to fine nurse standing behind Pt with her hand firmly grasping PT face covering her mouth and partially covering her nose. When I (Hospice CNA) looked at the nurse, she said I'm sick of hearing this, Shit. At that point she let go of her face. I quickly checked the water temp again and reached for PT. The Nurse then aggressively shoved the PT toward the running water and said is it cold I said No! The with a sarcastic tone the nurse said Damn she then asked if I needed anything and left the room. Record review of the facility Investigation Summary indicated staff members, and all residents (on the secure unit) that LVN C cared for were interviewed on 8/10/23. They said they had never witnessed any misconduct by LVN C. There were no reported complaints, but many compliments. It was voiced that LVN C had humor and relationships with the resident she cared for. Resident #12 told LVN C I love You. The administrator checked in on Resident #12 every day since the incident and she had showed no signs of distress. The investigation findings were unfounded. An in-service was conducted with all staff on abuse and neglect. Resident #12's needs will continue to be anticipated and met and she will be treated with kindness and professionalism. The Report also had a disciplinary action indicating LVN C was suspended pending investigation findings. During an interview on 9/18/23 at 2:40 p.m. the Administrator said on the incident that was reported to the State Agency regarding LVN C and Resident #12 was unfounded. She said the Hospice aide that reported the incident had misperceived the situation. The Administrator said she had interviewed LVN C, the residents on the secured unit, and other staff about LVN C's behaviors and they all said only good things about LVN C. She said Resident #12 said she loved LVN C. The Administrator said LVN C had told her she was only playing with Resident #12 when she put her hand over her mouth, and jokingly said was that water still cold before motioning to push the resident into the water. The Administrator said Resident #12 was a dementia resident on the secured unit and did not have any effects from the incident, and she had unfounded the allegation of abuse. During an interview on 9/18/23 at 4:45 p. LVN C said she had worked at the facility for about 27 years. She said Resident #12 was not happy with herself or anyone else. She said she had been working 8 shifts a week and was tired but that was no excuse for what she did on 8/10/23. She said she worked 16 hours on MWF and on TTH she worked 8 hours. She said the Hospice aide asked for some assistance with giving Resident #12 a shower. She had gone into the shower and Resident #12 was just hollering at the top of her voice. LVN C said she put her hand over Resident #12's mouth, and she said it was wrong. LVN C said she knew she should not have put her hand over the resident's mouth and regretted it as soon as she did it. She said it did no good anyway because when she removed her hand the resident resumed screaming. She said she had jokingly asked the aide if the water was cold and pretended like she was going to push Resident #12 into the cold water. She said if she had seen an aide put their hand over any resident's mouth, she would have broken their arm trying to remove it from the resident's mouth. She said if she had seen someone doing what she did she would have reported it also, it was wrong. The nurse said Resident #12 had not hit her she was just screaming. During an interview and observation on 9/18/23 beginning at 7:30 p.m., CNA K said Resident #12 would become aggressive with staff and residents. Observation of she was speaking Resident #12 had said she wanted to go to bed. Observation showed Resident #12 sitting in the middle of the floor in her wheelchair, and she started to scream, loudly. CNA K told Resident 12 We will put you to bed in a minute and she (Resident #12) became quiet. During a telephone interview on 9/19/23 at 9:11 a.m., Hospice CNA said that on 8/10/23 Hospice CNA had asked LVN C to assist her giving Resident #12 a shower. They were in the shower room and the resident was in the chair just screaming and screaming at the top of her voice. She had her back turned and when she turned around, LVN C had her hand over Resident 12's mouth, just for a few seconds. She said LVN C did not appear to be intentionally trying to hurt the resident, it was not aggressively done or in anger. It was kind of in a playful manner. She said it was inappropriate but not abusive. She said once she took her hand off the resident, then LVN C asked if the water was still cold. The LVN told the resident she was going to put her in the cold water in a playful manner, but the water was no longer cold, and she did not put the resident in the water. During an interview on 9/19/23 at 1:30 p.m., the Administrator and HR person said LVN C was suspended one day on 8/10/23 in the middle of a shift. The Administrator said she determined no abuse occurred and LVN C retuned to work the next day. They paid her for the lost time. She was working a double that day and they had someone to finish her shift. During an interview and record review on 9/20/23 beginning at 8:47 a.m., Hospice CNA was asked about some of the things she put in her statement that she did not reveal in her interview. She said if she wrote in her statement that LVN C cursed, then she probably did. She said now that she thought back, yes LVN C did appear a little agitated at the resident on 8/10/23. However, the Hospice CNA said she felt bad about reporting what she thought was abuse at the time. She started to cry and said she really liked LVN C, but she felt it needed reporting at the time. She said now she was not sure. She said she worked with LVN C whenever she had to go to the secure unit and LVN C was always nice and friendly. She did not want to cause any issues for her. 2.Record review of Resident #13's face sheet dated 9/20/22 indicated she was a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Some of her diagnoses were dementia unspecified severity with other behavioral disturbances, memory deficit, following a stroke, cognitive, communication deficit, bipolar disorder, mixed severe with psychotic features, Alzheimer's disease, and lack of coordination. Record review of a quarterly MDS dated [DATE] indicated Resident #13's cognitive status was severely impaired. Record review of Resident #13's care plan dated 12/10/22 indicated she had a focus area of impaired cognitive function/dementia or impaired thought process. Some of the interventions were to encourage the resident in simple, structured activities that avoid being overly demanding. Keep the residence routine consistent and try to provide consistent caregivers as much as possible to decrease confusion. Record review of a facility event behavior note dated 4/12/23 indicated a housekeeper stated that Resident #13 walked up to Resident #12's wheelchair and grabbed the armrest. Resident # 12 then prided Resident # 13's hand off the chair. Then Resident #13 hit Resident # 12 in the face and Resident # 12 hit Resident # 13 back on the arm. Record review of a Provider Investigation Report dated 9/7/23 indicated Resident #13 was self-propelled by Resident #12 and Resident #12 slapped Resident #13 in the face. Resident #13 was assessed for injuries. Resident #12 was sent to the hospital for an evaluation. The staff were in in serviced on abuse and neglect. Resident #12 was discharged with no new orders and Resident #13 did not remember the incident. During an interview on 9/18/23 at 4:45 p. LVN C said Resident #12 hit Resident #13 in the face. The facility sent Resident #12 after slapping Resident #13. She said the hospital and the hospital sent Resident #12 right back without any treatment. However, Resident # 12 had dementia and there was no real way to treat that. She said they just tried to watch Resident #12 because she did get agitated easily. During an observation and interview on 9/18/23 beginning at 4:57 p.m., Resident #12 was seen sitting in a wheelchair. She said that she was doing fine and had no problems with anyone, the staff were fine and so were the residents. During an observation and interview on 9/18/23 beginning at 4:58 p.m., Resident # 13 was sitting in the common area in a wheelchair. She said she was fine, and she was fine with all people. She said she wanted to go and kept repeating, come on let's go. During an interview on 9/20/23 at 2:15 p.m., the Administrator said she did not see Resident #12 slap Resident #13. The area where it happened was hard to see on the video. She said she was told that Resident #12 slapped Resident #12 for no reason. She said the aide that had witnessed the incident was off and she could not find her statement. During an interview on 9/20/23 at 2:20 p.m., LVN C said that she did not see the incident where Resident #12 slapped Resident #13. However, the aide should have known to keep those two apart. She said Resident #12 does not like Black people and Resident #12 and Resident #13 had an altercation in the past. LVN C said Resident #12 was aggressive usually during care but would hit other residents or become verbally aggressive with them from time to time. However, as a rule Resident #12 targeted Black people. They had a Black male(Resident #14z) on the unit, and she also targeted him. She said both Black( Resident #13 and Resident #14) residents stay away from Resident #12. During an interview on 9/20/23 at 2:27 p. m. the Hospice CNA said that Resident #12 can be abusive at times. 3. Record review of Resident #14's care plan dated 8/29/23 indicated he was an [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE]. He had diagnosis of psychotic disorder with hallucinations. He had a focus area of impaired cognitive function or impaired thought process. One of the interventions was to provide the resident with necessary cues, stop and return if agitated. Resident #14 had a Focus Area of ADL self-care performance deficit. The resident required supervision with ADLs. Record review of a SW note dated 9/29/23 at 3:48 p.m. indicated Resident #12 had an altercation with another resident( not named in the note) this afternoon and was irritated. The SW spoke to LVN C who said the resident was fine after the incident. Record review of nursing note dated 9/29/23 at 11:34 p.m. indicated Resident #12 was screaming at guest and another resident earlier. The resident is resting quietly in her bed at this time. During an interview on 9/20/23 at 2:56 p.m. the Therapy Director said Resident #12 did not like Black people, and she had called him names and would try to hit him in the past. He said he had a coworker that was Black, and Resident #12 called her names and did not like her. During an interview on 10/3/23 at 5:25 p.m. LVN W said Resident #12 had some behaviors over the weekend. She said apparently Resident #12 was making racial slurs to the family members of Resident #14 and was on a tear all weekend. They informed the doctor and Resident #12's Ativan was increased, and the resident had slept most of today. The LVN said she could not say with 100 percent certainty that Resident #12 targeted Black people. LVN W said she had not personally heard Resident #12 use racial slurs, but she had gotten reports of those behaviors more than once. During an interview on 10/3/23 at 5:40 p.m., CNA E said on 9/29/23, Resident #14's family had come to visit him. She said Resident #12 was in the dining room and started out by saying why were they there. CNA E said Resident #12 continued with her racial slurs until they had to take her to her room. She said Resident #12 was calling the Black family names, yelling, and screaming. She said Resident #12 kept saying they had no business here. CNA E said Resident #12 seemed to target Resident #13 and would go after Resident #13 if she was near her. The CNA said Resident #12 usually just yelled at Resident #14, maybe because he was a man. CNA E said Resident #12 did not appear to like either one of the Black residents. She said Resident #13 did get verbally aggressive with other residents and staff. She said mostly when staff were trying to provide care. However, Resident #12 would sit at the table and glare at Resident #13 and make remarks. During an interview on 10/3/21 at 6:51 p.m., MDS LVN said Resident #12 was normally abrasive and they kept her separated from everyone. She said the resident appeared to stay mad at everyone. The MDS nurse said Resident #14 walked aground and Resident #12 yelled at him. He touched things and would make Resident #12 mad. She said Resident #12 had hit her in the past. She said Resident #12 would often swing at people. The MDS nurse said she did not think Resident #12 liked Black people. She said she had heard her yell at Resident #13 but had never heard her call her a racial slur. During an interview on 10/4/23 at 5:50 p.m. SNA D said Resident #12 did not like Black people. She said on 9/29/23 the family of Resident #14 was in the dining room and Resident #12 called them racial slurs and glared at them. She said the resident was so disruptive she took her to her room. She said she was very hateful to Resident #13. She said Resident #13 did not do anything to Resident #12 to cause her hateful behaviors but for the most part Resident #13 and #14 stayed away from Resident #12. SNA D said Resident #12 was not as bad towards Resident #14, maybe because he was a man, she would holler at him for touching her door or something. She said whenever Resident #12 got a chance she was hateful to Resident #13. The SNA said she could be hateful and aggressive with any of the residents or staff but more so with Resident #13. During an interview with Activities Assistant, she said he was sitting one on one with Resident #12 today. She said it appeared Resident #12 did not like showers and had a Black shower aide with hospice in the past. She said it was always an issue with her showers during that time. Record review of the facility Abuse/Neglect policy dated 3/29/18 indicated Residents should not be subjected to abuse by anyone, including, but not limited to, facility staff or other residents. Abuse is defined as the willful infliction of injury, unreasonable confinement, intimidation, or punishment with resulting in physical harm, pain or mental anguish. Willful as used in this definition of abuse, means the individual must have acted deliberately, not that the individual must have intended to inflict injury or harm. The policy indicated neglect was the failure of the facility employees to provide goods and services to a resident that are necessary to avoid physical harm, pain, mental anguish, or emotional distress. This was determined to be an Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) on 10/03/23 at 6:00 p.m. The facility Administrator, ADON Q, and Regional Nurse Consultant were notified. The Administrator was provided with the IJ template on 10/03/23 at 6:00 p.m. The plan of removal was accepted on 10/4/29 at 12:49 p.m. Plan of Removal Problem: F600 Abuse and Neglect Interventions: LVN C was placed on suspension as of 10/3/23. Resident #12 was placed on 1:1 monitoring for behaviors on 10/3/23.??One on one monitoring until the telehealth visit with psych services is complete and the MD is consulted. MD was notified and Resident #12's medication was adjusted as of 10/3/23. Ativan 1 mg q AM and 2mg at supper for agitation. A head-to-toe assessment was performed on Resident #12 and Resident #1 by the charge nurse on 10/3/23. No injuries or skin issues noted.?Care plans updated as needed. Resident #1 was assessed for pain by the charge nurse on 10/3/23. Resident #1 was offered a shower by the charge nurse on 10/3/23. Resident safe surveys were completed on 10/3/23 by the Administrator /designee. No further complaints of abuse were noted. All residents were checked for showers and the need for incontinent care by the regional compliance nurse and charge nurses on 10/3/23. No further issues were identified. Psychiatric services were initiated for resident #12 and resident #1 on 10/3/23. Resident #12 and Resident #1 care plans were reviewed and updated. Social Worker assessed Resident #13 and other African American Male on the Unit on 10/04/23 and no emotional distress noted from either resident. Resident #12 remains on 1:1 for monitoring and staff are aware to not have residents in the same immediate area. In-services: The following in-services were initiated on 10/3/23 and 10/4/23: Any staff member not present or in-service on 10/3/23 including new hires, agency, and PRN staff, will not be allowed to assume their duties until in-serviced.? In-services provided by Regional Compliance Nurse or Nurse Manager. All staff Abuse/Neglect Policy: what are the different types of abuse between staff to resident or resident to resident. ?? Abuse/Neglect Reporting: Abuse must be reported immediately to the Abuse Coordinator- Administrator and/or DON. Who to Report Abuse/Neglect to:??Abuse must be reported immediately to the Abuse Coordinator, Administrator and/or DON. Clinical Staff In-services provided by Regional Compliance Nurse or Nurse Manager Incontinent Care Policy?- every two-hour rounds and performing incontinent care timely. Bath/Tub/Shower Policy- following the shower schedule and offering to residents as needed. Behavior management Policy- managing residents with behaviors, de-escalation, and interventions. LVN C will be in-serviced 1:1 on the Abuse/Neglect Policy by the Regional Compliance Nurse on 10/4/23. LVN C was assigned Abuse and Neglect courses in Relias on 10/3/24. The Administrator was in-serviced 1:1 on the Abuse/Neglect Policy by Regional Compliance Nurse on 10/3/23. The medical director was notified of the immediate jeopardy situation on 10/3/23.?? An ADHOC QAPI meeting will be conducted with the IDT on 10/4/23 regarding the immediate jeopardy situation. Monitoring: The Administrator/Designee will interview 15 staff members per week if they have witnessed any abuse. Monitoring will take place 5 days per week x 6 weeks. The Administrator or designee will interview at least 5 residents daily for any indications of abuse and neglect. The Administrator or designee will interview at least 5 residents daily for completion of ADLs including showers and incontinent care. On 10/4/23 the investigator confirmed the facility implemented their plan of removal sufficiently to remove the IJ by: During an interview on 1/4/23 at 2:50 p.m., the Regional Nurse Consultant said they hired a shower aide. They had in serviced with direct care staff about showers 3 times weekly and PRN. They were in serviced on providing correct documentation. She said all were in serviced, direct and non-direct on abuse and neglect and behavior. She said LVN C received one on one with all trainings and completed 3 courses on abuse and neglect on the computer, abuse neglect and behavior and the general that all staff took. The Regional Nurse Consultant said the Administrator received a one on one training about abuse and then same one everyone. She said they also conducted a mini-QA meeting to discuss interventions put into place with the medical director about the IJ concerns. During an interview on 10/4/23 at 4:39 p.m. Administrator said hired 6 new CNAs and had a class scheduled for October 16, 2023, for the SNAs in another facility. Record review of care plans for Resident #'s 1, 12, 13, and 14 were conducted with no issues noted. There were updates to Resident #1 and #12's care plans. Record review of Resident #12's physician orders indicated Resident #12 had an order for 1 mg of Lorazepam PRN dated 9/21/23. On 10/2/23 the order indicated to give the resident 1mg of Lorazepam daily for agitation. She also had an order for 2mg once a day. Record review of the monitoring sheets for Resident #12 indicated one-to-one observation from 10/3/23 at 8:30 p.m. until present. Record review of a SW progress note dated 10/4/23 at 1:36 p.m. indicated Resident #12 was referred to psychiatric services and asked to be seen as soon as possible. Record review of a SW progress note dated 10/4/23 at 1:57 p.m. indicated Resident #1's family was consulted about Resident #1 receiving counseling services. Resident #1 declined the counseling services. Record Review of a #1's pain assessment dated [DATE] at 9:38 p.m. indicated she did not voice any pain. Record Review of an Employee Disciplinary Report dated 10/3/23 indicated LVN C was suspended due to and Investigatory Suspension. Record review of the facility policy and procedures on Abuse, Neglect, Behavior Management Policy, Bath and shower procedures, Bowel Incontinence Care and Urinary Incontinence procedures indicated the facility staff were in serviced on these policies and procedures. Record review of all residents' questionnaires dated 10/3/23 indicated none of the residents questioned had any current issues. Record review of the facility off cycle QA meeting dated 10/4/23 indicated the facility had discussed abuse neglect, behavior management, incontinence, Showers, and baths. They discussed Residents #12 and Resident #1 specifically to ensure systems were in place to prevent further abuse and neglect of residents. The form had signatures to include the Medical Director. The following Interviews were conducted on 10/4/23 between 3:51 p.m. and 7:15 p.m. At 3: 51 p.m. ADON/RN - P At 4:27 p.m. ADON/LVN Q At 4:59 LVN V worked 2 p to 10 p At 5:10 p.m. Dietary Manager, said she worked various hours At 5:25 p.m. LVN U worked 2p to 10 p At 5:40 p.m. CNA G worked 6a to 2 p At 5:50 p.m. SNA D worked 6a to 6p At 5:55 p.m. Activity Assistant said she worked various hours At 6:10 p.m. RN T worked 6a to 6 p At 6:15 p.m. SNA J said she worked 6a to 6p or 6p to 6a At 6:40 p.m. CNA S worked 6a to 6p At 6:50 p.m. SNA R worked 6p to 6a At 6:55 p.m. CNA M worked 6p to 6a Interviews with ADON P, ADON Q, RN T, LVN U, LVN V, Activities Director, and Dietary Manager indicated the staff listed above were able to verbalize knowledge and understanding of all in services provide. They said they were in serviced on showers, and ADLs. They stated they were instructed to monitor the aides' interactions with residents during care and monitor to ensure care was competed timely. They indicated they would do this by monitoring documentation of shower sheets and the facility computer programs. They indicated showers were to be completed on the designated days, MWF or TTHS, and if resident refused, they would check to see why. They said if the resident continued to refuse, they would contact the family to let them know. They indicated they would ask residents about their care and if they received showers as needed. They also indicated they would complete their own rounds on residents and on occasion assist the aide, so they were aware of their competency levels with providing care to residents. The two ADONs and the nurses said they were in served on behaviors and would monitor residents for changes in behaviors that might indicate physical problems like a UTI. They would remove the resident from other residents and try to determine the cause of the behaviors. If the resident was refusing care they would leave and approach the resident at a later time. They indicated they had been instructed to document behaviors and if the behaviors could not be resolved easily to contact the family and physician for instructions. All staff also indicated they were in serviced on abuse and neglect. They would monitor resident and staff interactions to ensure abuse and neglect did not occur and if they saw, hear, or it was reported to them they would report to the Abuse Coordinator the Administrator. Interviews with 6 aides listed above were able to verbalize knowledge and understanding of all in services provide. They indicated they were in serviced on showers, and ADLs. They stated they were instructed to complete Showers on the designated days, MWF or TTHS, and if resident refused, they would check to see if they switched persons if the resident would accept the shower or try later. If the resident continues to refuse, they would inform the nurse. They would fill out the shower sheets as they assessed for skin abnormalities and turn them in as required and complete the ADL information in the computer system. The aides indicated they would complete incontinence care rounds on residents every two hours and some residents more often. They said they would provide care as required. The aides said they were in served on behaviors and would monitor residents for changes in behaviors that might and notify the nurse of any change in behaviors. If the residents exhibited signs of aggression, they would inform the nurse. They would remove the resident from other residents. If the resident was refusing care they would leave and approach the resident at a later time. They indicated they had been instructed to document and notify the nurse of all behaviors. The staff also indicated they were in serviced on abuse and neglect. They would monitor resident and staff interactions to ensure abuse and neglect did not occur and if they saw, hear, or it was reported to them, they would report to the Abuse Coordinator the Administrator. During an interview on 10/4/23 at 7:05 p.m., the Administrator said she was in serviced on the abuse neglect policy. She said as the Abuse Coordinator it was her responsibility to identify and act on any allegation of abuse or neglect. She said she would suspend immediately the individual, follow policy, and follow the policy. She said with LVN C she did not feel that Resident #12 was abused because Resident #12 said she loved LVN C and LVN C was usually the only one that can get her to take her medications. The Administrator said she received in service on ADLs. She said as the administrator her part was to monitor the system they have that tracks ADLs. She said they conducted morning meeting have assignments discussed. They also conducted Champion Rounds (where each department head had a section of the facility, they questions residents about their care). They would ask the residents how they were treated, if they got showers, beds made, and if they were getting t[TRUNCATED]
CRITICAL (K) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Abuse Prevention Policies (Tag F0607)

Someone could have died · This affected multiple residents

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

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 implement written polices and procedures to prohibit abuse by ensuring residents had the right to be free from abuse, and neglect for 3 of 18 residents reviewed for abuse and neglect (Resident #12, Resident #13, and Resident #14). Resident #12 was abused when LVN C put her hand over Resident #12's mouth to stop her from screaming. The LVN C also threatened to push Resident #12 into cold water if she did not stop screaming. The Administrator did not follow the abuse policy when she unfounded the abuse when the LVN admitted she had abused the resident. LVN C was suspended for part of her shift and returned to work the following day. Resident #13 was physically abused by Resident #12. Resident #12 slapped Resident #13 in the face. Resident #12 had a history of abusive behaviors. Resident #12 disliked Black people and targeted two Black residents on the secure unit Resident #13 and Resident #14. The facility did not follow their abuse policy and continued to allow Resident #12 with a history of abusive behaviors to continue to abuse residents. An Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) situation was identified on 10/3/23 at 6:00 p.m. The IJ template was provided to the facility on [DATE] at 6:00 p.m. While the IJ was removed on 10/4/23 at 6:30 p.m., the facility remained out of compliance at no actual harm with potential for more than minimal harm that is not immediate jeopardy and a scope of pattern due to the facility's need to evaluate the effectiveness of the corrective systems. These deficient practices could caused emotional and physical harm and could lead to additional pain and suffering. Finding included: Record review of the facility's Abuse/Neglect policy dated 3/29/18 indicated Residents should not be subjected to abuse by anyone, including, but not limited to, facility staff or other residents. Abuse is defined as the willful infliction of injury, unreasonable confinement, intimidation, or punishment with resulting in physical harm, pain or mental anguish. Willful as used in this definition of abuse, means the individual must have acted deliberately, not that the individual must have intended to inflict injury or harm. The facility will be responsible to identify, correct, and intervene in situations of possible abuse or neglect. The policy indicated neglect was the failure of the facility employees to provide goods and services to a resident that are necessary to avoid physical harm, pain, mental anguish, or emotional distress. 1.Record review of Resident #12's face sheet indicated she was an [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Some of her diagnoses were dementia (impairment of memory) with other behavioral disturbances, psychotic disorder (a mental problem that causes people to perceive or interpret things differently from those around them), with delusions, cognitive communication deficit, and major depression. Record review of Resident #12's quarterly MDS dated [DATE] indicated her cognitive status was severely impaired. Record review of Resident #12's Care Plan dated 9/7/22 indicated a focus area of impaired cognition due to dementia or impaired thought processes. Some of the interventions were, use the residents preferred name, identify self at each interaction, face resident, and make eye contact when speaking and provide cues when necessary and stop and return, if agitated. Another focused area was Resident #12 has the potential to demonstrate physical behaviors. Some of the interventions were to analyze the time, the places, circumstances, triggers, and what escalate to behaviors and document. Communication provided with physical and verbal cues to alleviate, anxiety, give positive feedback, assist with verbalization of source of agitation, assist to set goals for more pleasant behavior, encourage seeking out of staff when agitated. When the resident becomes agitated intervene before agitation, escalated, remove from source of distress, engage calmly in conversation calmly, and if responses or aggressive staff were to walk away calmly and approach later. Resident # 12 also had a focus area of potential to demonstrate verbal abusive behaviors, with some of the same interventions in place. Record review of the facility Provider Investigation Report dated 8/10/23 indicated a Hospice CNA alleged that LVN C was unkind to Resident #12. The Report contained a statement written by LVN C that stated: The Hospice CNA asked her to assist with Resident #12 because she (Resident #12) was combative, and she (Resident #12) had slapped the aide in the face on a previous occasion. The LVN wrote they took Resident #12 into the shower room and removed her clothes. LVN C said the resident was screaming, and LVN C placed her hand over Resident #12's mouth, her intent was to distract Resident #12. LVN C said she often joked with the resident. She said she (LVN C) jokily asked the aide if the water was cold. The nurse said the Resident #12 did not present any type of respiratory distress. The report indicated LVN C said she had known the resident prior to her admission to the facility and was only joking. Record review of the Provider Investigation Report contained a statement from the Hospice CNA dated 8/10/23 at 12:43 p.m. which stated. I was prepping PT (Resident #12) for a shower, I required assistance with undressing due to PT disability. I stuck my head around the and there were no aides, so I asked the nurse. She said, Sure let's go. PT (Resident #12) was very combative and not cooperating. The nurse was a little abrasive while removing PTs, shirt, once the shirt was removed, I turned my back to PT (Resident #12) and the nurse (LVN C) to ensure safe water temp. Pt was screaming very loudly while my back was turned. Pt very abruptly stopped screaming. Approximately 10- 15 seconds. Later after PT stopped screaming, I turned back toward PT to fine nurse standing behind Pt with her hand firmly grasping PT face covering her mouth and partially covering her nose. When I (Hospice CNA) looked at the nurse, she said I'm sick of hearing this, Shit. At that point she let go of her face. I quickly checked the water temp again and reached for PT. The Nurse then aggressively shoved the PT toward the running water and said is it cold I said No! The with a sarcastic tone the nurse said Damn she then asked if I needed anything and left the room. Record review of the facility Investigation Summary indicated staff members, and all residents (on the secure unit) that LVN C cared for were interviewed on 8/10/23. They said they had never witnessed any misconduct by LVN C. There were no reported complaints, but many compliments. It was voiced that LVN C had humor and relationships with the resident she cared for. Resident #12 told LVN C I love You. The administrator checked in on Resident #12 every day since the incident and she had showed no signs of distress. The investigation findings were unfounded. An in-service was conducted with all staff on abuse and neglect. Resident #12's needs will continue to be anticipated and met and she will be treated with kindness and professionalism. The Report also had a disciplinary action indicating LVN C was suspended pending investigation findings. During an interview on 9/18/23 at 2:40 p.m. the Administrator said on the incident that was reported to the State Agency regarding LVN C and Resident #12 was unfounded. She said the Hospice aide that reported the incident had misperceived the situation. The Administrator said she had interviewed LVN C, the residents on the secured unit, and other staff about LVN C's behaviors and they all said only good things about LVN C. She said Resident #12 said she loved LVN C. The Administrator said LVN C had told her she was only playing with Resident #12 when she put her hand over her mouth, and jokingly said was that water still cold before motioning to push the resident into the water. The Administrator said Resident #12 was a dementia resident on the secured unit and did not have any effects from the incident, and she had unfounded the allegation of abuse. During an interview on 9/18/23 at 4:45 p. LVN C said she had worked at the facility for about 27 years. She said Resident #12 was not happy with herself or anyone else. She said she had been working 8 shifts a week and was tired but that was no excuse for what she did on 8/10/23. She said she worked 16 hours on MWF and on TTH she worked 8 hours. She said the Hospice aide asked for some assistance with giving Resident #12 a shower. She had gone into the shower and Resident #12 was just hollering at the top of her voice. LVN C said she put her hand over Resident #12's mouth, and she said it was wrong. LVN C said she knew she should not have put her hand over the resident's mouth and regretted it as soon as she did it. She said it did no good anyway because when she removed her hand the resident resumed screaming. She said she had jokingly asked the aide if the water was cold and pretended like she was going to push Resident #12 into the cold water. She said if she had seen an aide put their hand over any resident's mouth, she would have broken their arm trying to remove it from the resident's mouth. She said if she had seen someone doing what she did she would have reported it also, it was wrong. The nurse said Resident #12 had not hit her she was just screaming. During an interview and observation on 9/18/23 beginning at 7:30 p.m., CNA K said Resident #12 would become aggressive with staff and residents. Observation of she was speaking Resident #12 had said she wanted to go to bed. Observation showed Resident #12 sitting in the middle of the floor in her wheelchair, and she started to scream, loudly. CNA K told Resident 12 We will put you to bed in a minute and she (Resident #12) became quiet. During a telephone interview on 9/19/23 at 9:11 a.m., Hospice CNA said that on 8/10/23 Hospice CNA had asked LVN C to assist her giving Resident #12 a shower. They were in the shower room and the resident was in the chair just screaming and screaming at the top of her voice. She had her back turned and when she turned around, LVN C had her hand over Resident 12's mouth, just for a few seconds. She said LVN C did not appear to be intentionally trying to hurt the resident, it was not aggressively done or in anger. It was kind of in a playful manner. She said it was inappropriate but not abusive. She said once she took her hand off the resident, then LVN C asked if the water was still cold. The LVN told the resident she was going to put her in the cold water in a playful manner, but the water was no longer cold, and she did not put the resident in the water. During an interview on 9/19/23 at 1:30 p.m., the Administrator and HR person said LVN C was suspended one day on 8/10/23 in the middle of a shift. The Administrator said she determined no abuse occurred and LVN C retuned to work the next day. They paid her for the lost time. She was working a double that day and they had someone to finish her shift. During an interview and record review on 9/20/23 beginning at 8:47 a.m., Hospice CNA was asked about some of the things she put in her statement that she did not reveal in her interview. She said if she wrote in her statement that LVN C cursed, then she probably did. She said now that she thought back, yes LVN C did appear a little agitated at the resident on 8/10/23. However, the Hospice CNA said she felt bad about reporting what she thought was abuse at the time. She started to cry and said she really liked LVN C, but she felt it needed reporting at the time. She said now she was not sure. She said she worked with LVN C whenever she had to go to the secure unit and LVN C was always nice and friendly. She did not want to cause any issues for her. 2. Record review of Resident #13's face sheet dated 9/20/22 indicated she was a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Some of her diagnoses were dementia unspecified severity with other behavioral disturbances, memory deficit, following a stroke, cognitive, communication deficit, bipolar disorder, mixed severe with psychotic features, Alzheimer's disease, and lack of coordination. Record review of a quarterly MDS dated [DATE] indicated Resident #13's cognitive status was severely impaired. Record review of Resident #13's care plan dated 12/10/22 indicated she had a focus area of impaired cognitive function/dementia or impaired thought process. Some of the interventions were to encourage the resident in simple, structured activities that avoid being overly demanding. Keep the residence routine consistent and try to provide consistent caregivers as much as possible to decrease confusion. Record review of a facility event behavior note dated 4/12/23 indicated a housekeeper stated that Resident #13 walked up to Resident #12's wheelchair and grabbed the armrest. Resident # 12 then prided Resident # 13's hand off the chair. Then Resident #13 hit Resident # 12 in the face and Resident # 12 hit Resident # 13 back on the arm. Record review of a Provider Investigation Report dated 9/7/23 indicated Resident #13 was self-propelled by Resident #12 and Resident #12 slapped Resident #13 in the face. Resident #13 was assessed for injuries. Resident #12 was sent to the hospital for an evaluation. The staff were in in serviced on abuse and neglect. Resident #12 was discharged with no new orders and Resident #13 did not remember the incident. During an interview on 9/18/23 at 4:45 p. LVN C said Resident #12 hit Resident #13 in the face. The facility sent Resident #12 after slapping Resident #13. She said the hospital and the hospital sent Resident #12 right back without any treatment. However, Resident # 12 had dementia and there was no real way to treat that. She said they just tried to watch Resident #12 because she did get agitated easily. During an observation and interview on 9/18/23 beginning at 4:57 p.m., Resident #12 was seen sitting in a wheelchair. She said that she was doing fine and had no problems with anyone, the staff were fine and so were the residents. During an observation and interview on 9/18/23 beginning at 4:58 p.m., Resident # 13 was sitting in the common area in a wheelchair. She said she was fine, and she was fine with all people. She said she wanted to go and kept repeating, come on let's go. During an interview on 9/20/23 at 2:15 p.m., the Administrator said she did not see Resident #12 slap Resident #13. The area where it happened was hard to see on the video. She said she was told that Resident #12 slapped Resident #12 for no reason. She said the aide that had witnessed the incident was off and she could not find her statement. During an interview on 9/20/23 at 2:20 p.m., LVN C said that she did not see the incident where Resident #12 slapped Resident #13. However, the aide should have known to keep those two apart. She said Resident #12 does not like Black people and Resident #12 and Resident #13 had an altercation in the past. LVN C said Resident #12 was aggressive usually during care but would hit other residents or become verbally aggressive with them from time to time. However, as a rule Resident #12 targeted Black people. They had a Black male(Resident #14z) on the unit, and she also targeted him. She said both Black( Resident #13 and Resident #14) residents stay away from Resident #12. During an interview on 9/20/23 at 2:27 p. m. the Hospice CNA said that Resident #12 can be abusive at times. 3. Record review of Resident #14's care plan dated 8/29/23 indicated he was an [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE]. He had diagnosis of psychotic disorder with hallucinations. He had a focus area of impaired cognitive function or impaired thought process. One of the interventions was to provide the resident with necessary cues, stop and return if agitated. Resident #14 had a Focus Area of ADL self-care performance deficit. The resident required supervision with ADLs. Record review of a SW note dated 9/29/23 at 3:48 p.m. indicated Resident #12 had an altercation with another resident( not named in the note) this afternoon and was irritated. The SW spoke to LVN C who said the resident was fine after the incident. Record review of nursing note dated 9/29/23 at 11:34 p.m. indicated Resident #12 was screaming at guest and another resident earlier. The resident is resting quietly in her bed at this time. During an interview on 9/20/23 at 2:56 p.m. the Therapy Director said Resident #12 did not like Black people, and she had called him names and would try to hit him in the past. He said he had a coworker that was Black, and Resident #12 called her names and did not like her. During an interview on 10/3/23 at 5:25 p.m. LVN W said Resident #12 had some behaviors over the weekend. She said apparently Resident #12 was making racial slurs to the family members of Resident #14 and was on a tear all weekend. They informed the doctor and Resident #12's Ativan was increased, and the resident had slept most of today. The LVN said she could not say with 100 percent certainty that Resident #12 targeted Black people. LVN W said she had not personally heard Resident #12 use racial slurs, but she had gotten reports of those behaviors more than once. During an interview on 10/3/23 at 5:40 p.m., CNA E said on 9/29/23, Resident #14's family had come to visit him. She said Resident #12 was in the dining room and started out by saying why were they there. CNA E said Resident #12 continued with her racial slurs until they had to take her to her room. She said Resident #12 was calling the Black family names, yelling, and screaming. She said Resident #12 kept saying they had no business here. CNA E said Resident #12 seemed to target Resident #13 and would go after Resident #13 if she was near her. The CNA said Resident #12 usually just yelled at Resident #14, maybe because he was a man. CNA E said Resident #12 did not appear to like either one of the Black residents. She said Resident #13 did get verbally aggressive with other residents and staff. She said mostly when staff were trying to provide care. However, Resident #12 would sit at the table and glare at Resident #13 and make remarks. During an interview on 10/3/21 at 6:51 p.m., MDS LVN said Resident #12 was normally abrasive and they kept her separated from everyone. She said the resident appeared to stay mad at everyone. The MDS nurse said Resident #14 walked aground and Resident #12 yelled at him. He touched things and would make Resident #12 mad. She said Resident #12 had hit her in the past. She said Resident #12 would often swing at people. The MDS nurse said she did not think Resident #12 liked Black people. She said she had heard her yell at Resident #13 but had never heard her call her a racial slur. During an interview on 10/4/23 at 5:50 p.m. SNA D said Resident #12 did not like Black people. She said on 9/29/23 the family of Resident #14 was in the dining room and Resident #12 called them racial slurs and glared at them. She said the resident was so disruptive she took her to her room. She said she was very hateful to Resident #13. She said Resident #13 did not do anything to Resident #12 to cause her hateful behaviors but for the most part Resident #13 and #14 stayed away from Resident #12. SNA D said Resident #12 was not as bad towards Resident #14, maybe because he was a man, she would holler at him for touching her door or something. She said whenever Resident #12 got a chance she was hateful to Resident #13. The SNA said she could be hateful and aggressive with any of the residents or staff but more so with Resident #13. During an interview with Activities Assistant, she said he was sitting one on one with Resident #12 today. She said it appeared Resident #12 did not like showers and had a Black shower aide with hospice in the past. She said it was always an issue with her showers during that time. Record review of the facility Abuse/Neglect policy dated 3/29/18 indicated Residents should not be subjected to abuse by anyone, including, but not limited to, facility staff or other residents. Abuse is defined as the willful infliction of injury, unreasonable confinement, intimidation, or punishment with resulting in physical harm, pain or mental anguish. Willful as used in this definition of abuse, means the individual must have acted deliberately, not that the individual must have intended to inflict injury or harm. The policy indicated neglect was the failure of the facility employees to provide goods and services to a resident that are necessary to avoid physical harm, pain, mental anguish, or emotional distress. This was determined to be an Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) on 10/03/23 at 6:00 p.m. The facility Administrator, ADON Q, and Regional Nurse Consultant were notified. The Administrator was provided with the IJ template on 10/03/23 at 6:00 p.m. The plan of removal was accepted on 10/4/29 at 12:49 p.m. Plan of Removal Problem: F607 Abuse and Neglect Interventions: LVN C was placed on suspension as of 10/3/23. Resident #12 was placed on 1:1 monitoring for behaviors on 10/3/23.??One on one monitoring until the telehealth visit with psych services is complete and the MD is consulted. MD was notified and Resident #12's medication was adjusted as of 10/3/23. Ativan 1 mg q AM and 2mg at supper for agitation. A head-to-toe assessment was performed on Resident #12 and Resident #1 by the charge nurse on 10/3/23. No injuries or skin issues noted.?Care plans updated as needed. Resident #1 was assessed for pain by the charge nurse on 10/3/23. Resident #1 was offered a shower by the charge nurse on 10/3/23. Resident safe surveys were completed on 10/3/23 by the Administrator /designee. No further complaints of abuse were noted. All residents were checked for showers and the need for incontinent care by the regional compliance nurse and charge nurses on 10/3/23. No further issues were identified. Psychiatric services were initiated for resident #12 and resident #1 on 10/3/23. Resident #12 and resident #1 care plans were reviewed and updated. Social Worker assessed on 10/4/23 residents #13 and other African American Male on the Unit, and no emotional distress noted from either resident. Resident #12 remains on 1:1 for monitoring and staff are aware to not have residents in the same immediate area. In-services: The following in-services were initiated on 10/3/23 and 10/4/23: Any staff member not present or in-service on 10/3/23 including new hires, agency, and PRN staff, will not be allowed to assume their duties until in-serviced.? In-services provided by Regional Compliance Nurse or Nurse Manager. All staff Abuse/Neglect Policy: what are the different types of abuse between staff to resident or resident to resident. ?? Abuse/Neglect Reporting: Abuse must be reported immediately to the Abuse Coordinator- Administrator and/or DON. Who to Report Abuse/Neglect to:??Abuse must be reported immediately to the Abuse Coordinator, Administrator and/or DON. Clinical Staff In-services provided by Regional Compliance Nurse or Nurse Manager Incontinent Care Policy?- every two-hour rounds and performing incontinent care timely. Bath/Tub/Shower Policy- following the shower schedule and offering to residents as needed. Behavior management Policy- managing residents with behaviors, de-escalation, and interventions. LVN C will be in-serviced 1:1 on the Abuse/Neglect Policy by the Regional Compliance Nurse on 10/4/23. LVN C was assigned Abuse and Neglect courses in Relias on 10/3/24. The Administrator was in-serviced 1:1 on the Abuse/Neglect Policy by Regional Compliance Nurse on 10/3/23. The medical director was notified of the immediate jeopardy situation on 10/3/23.?? An ADHOC QAPI meeting will be conducted with the IDT on 10/4/23 regarding the immediate jeopardy situation. Monitoring: The Administrator/Designee will interview 15 staff members per week if they have witnessed any abuse. Monitoring will take place 5 days per week x 6 weeks. The Administrator or designee will interview at least 5 residents daily for any indications of abuse and neglect. The Administrator or designee will interview at least 5 residents daily for completion of ADLs including showers and incontinent care. On 10/4/23 the investigator confirmed the facility implemented their plan of removal sufficiently to remove the IJ by: During an interview on 1/4/23 at 2:50 p.m., the Regional Nurse Consultant said they hired a shower aide. They had in serviced with direct care staff about showers 3 times weekly and PRN. They were in serviced on providing correct documentation. She said all were in serviced, direct and non-direct on abuse and neglect and behavior. She said LVN C received one on one with all trainings and completed 3 courses on abuse and neglect on the computer, abuse neglect and behavior and the general that all staff took. The Regional Nurse Consultant said the Administrator received a one on one training about abuse and then same one everyone. She said they also conducted a mini-QA meeting to discuss interventions put into place with the medical director about the IJ concerns. During an interview on 10/4/23 at 4:39 p.m. Administrator said hired 6 new CNAs and had a class scheduled for October 16, 2023, for the SNAs in another facility. Record review of care plans for Residents 1, 12, 13, and 14 were conducted with no issues noted. There were updates to Resident #1 and #12's care plans. Record review of Resident #12's physician orders indicated Resident #12 had an order for 1 mg of Lorazepam PRN dated 9/21/23. On 10/2/23 the order indicated to give the resident 1mg of Lorazepam daily for agitation. She also had an order for 2mg once a day. Record review of the monitoring sheets for Resident #12 indicated one-to-one observation from 10/3/23 at 8:30 p.m. until present. Record review of a SW progress note dated 10/4/23 at 1:36 p.m. indicated Resident #12 was referred to psychiatric services and asked to be seen as soon as possible. Record review of a SW progress note dated 10/4/23 at 1:57 p.m. indicated Resident #1's family was consulted about Resident #1 receiving counseling services. Resident #1 declined the counseling services. Record Review of a #1's pain assessment dated [DATE] at 9:38 p.m. indicated she did not voice any pain. Record Review of an Employee Disciplinary Report dated 10/3/23 indicated LVN C was suspended due to and Investigatory Suspension. Record review of the facility policy and procedures on Abuse, Neglect, Behavior Management Policy, Bath and shower procedures, Bowel Incontinence Care and Urinary Incontinence procedures indicated the facility staff were in serviced on these policies and procedures. Record review of all residents' questionnaires dated 10/3/23 indicated none of the residents questioned had any current issues. Record review of the facility off cycle QA meeting dated 10/4/23 indicated the facility had discussed abuse neglect, behavior management, incontinence, Showers, and baths. They discussed Residents #12 and Resident #1 specifically to ensure systems were in place to prevent further abuse and neglect of residents. The form had signatures to include the Medical Director. The following Interviews were conducted on 10/4/23 between 3:51 p.m. and 7:15 p.m. At 3: 51 p.m. ADON/RN - P At 4:27 p.m. ADON/LVN Q At 4:59 LVN V worked 2 p to 10 p At 5:10 p.m. Dietary Manager, said she worked various hours At 5:25 p.m. LVN U worked 2p to 10 p At 5:40 p.m. CNA G worked 6a to 2 p At 5:50 p.m. SNA D worked 6a to 6p At 5:55 p.m. Activity Assistant said she worked various hours At 6:10 p.m. RN T worked 6a to 6 p At 6:15 p.m. SNA J said she worked 6a to 6p or 6p to 6a At 6:40 p.m. CNA S worked 6a to 6p At 6:50 p.m. SNA R worked 6p to 6a At 6:55 p.m. CNA M worked 6p to 6a Interviews with ADON P, ADON Q, RN T, LVN U, LVN V, Activities Director, and Dietary Manager indicated the staff listed above were able to verbalize knowledge and understanding of all in services provide. They said they were in serviced on showers, and ADLs. They stated they were instructed to monitor the aides' interactions with residents during care and monitor to ensure care was competed timely. They indicated they would do this by monitoring documentation of shower sheets and the facility computer programs. They indicated showers were to be completed on the designated days, MWF or TTHS, and if resident refused, they would check to see why. They said if the resident continued to refuse, they would contact the family to let them know. They indicated they would ask residents about their care and if they received showers as needed. They also indicated they would complete their own rounds on residents and on occasion assist the aide, so they were aware of their competency levels with providing care to residents. The two ADONs and the nurses said they were in served on behaviors and would monitor residents for changes in behaviors that might indicate physical problems like a UTI. They would remove the resident from other residents and try to determine the cause of the behaviors. If the resident was refusing care they would leave and approach the resident at a later time. They indicated they had been instructed to document behaviors and if the behaviors could not be resolved easily to contact the family and physician for instructions. All staff also indicated they were in serviced on abuse and neglect. They would monitor resident and staff interactions to ensure abuse and neglect did not occur and if they saw, hear, or it was reported to them they would report to the Abuse Coordinator the Administrator. Interviews with 6 aides listed above were able to verbalize knowledge and understanding of all in services provide. They indicated they were in serviced on showers, and ADLs. They stated they were instructed to complete Showers on the designated days, MWF or TTHS, and if resident refused, they would check to see if they switched persons if the resident would accept the shower or try later. If the resident continues to refuse, they would inform the nurse. They would fill out the shower sheets as they assessed for skin abnormalities and turn them in as required and complete the ADL information in the computer system. The aides indicated they would complete incontinence care rounds on residents every two hours and some residents more often. They said they would provide care as required. The aides said they were in served on behaviors and would monitor residents for changes in behaviors that might and notify the nurse of any change in behaviors. If the residents exhibited signs of aggression, they would inform the nurse. They would remove the resident from other residents. If the resident was refusing care they would leave and approach the resident at a later time. They indicated they had been instructed to document and notify [TRUNCATED]
SERIOUS (H) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

A resident was harmed · This affected multiple residents

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

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 ADLS received necessary services to maintain personal hygiene were provided for 13 of 18 residents reviewed for ADLs (Resident #1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 16, and # 18.) The facility failed to provide timely incontinent care for Resident #1, Resident #3, and Resident #15. The facility failed to provide showers for 26 residents on 9/18/23. The facility failed to provide routine showers for Resident #1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 15, 16, and # 18. This failure could place dependent residents at risk for poor hygiene, skin infections and decreased quality of life. Findings included: 1. Record review of Resident #1's face sheet dated 9/19/23 indicated she was a [AGE] year-old female initially admitted to the facility 10/4/23. Some of her diagnoses were Spinal Stenosis (narrowing of the spinal column that causes pressure on the spinal cord. Morbid obesity disease of upper respiratory tract, pain of unspecified joint, unsteadiness on feet, abnormalities of gait and mobility. She had anxiety disorder, and history of heart attack. Record review of Resident #1's quarterly MDS dated [DATE] indicated she was cognitively intact. Resident #1's bed mobility and transfer assistance were listed as extensive assistance with two people physical help. Record review of Resident #1's care plan dated 8/29/23 indicated a potential for pressure ulcer development and one of the interventions was to ensure incontinent care was provided after each episode. One Focus was the resident had the potential for uncontrolled pain. One of the interventions was to monitor the probable cause of each pain episode, remove or limit the cause if possible. Resident #1 had a focus area of desired independence in activities and would attend activities of choice. The resident loved the appetizer(snacks) program, Bingo and helping the Activity Director. She also liked therapy. Resident #1 had a focus are of bladder incontinence and one of the interventions was to apply barrier cream after each incontinent episode, and incontinence care at least every two hours. Resident #1 had a focus are of self-care performance deficit. Resident #1 required assisted of one staff for bed mobility, dressing, toileting, encourage the resident to use call light for assistance, and she used a wheelchair for ambulation. Record review of Resident #1's physician order dated 11/15/21 indicated the resident needed to be up in chair for all meals. An order dated 2/5/23 may use oxygen at 4 liters by nasal cannula, every shift. An order dated 7/23/23 for acetaminophen 500 mg give two tables by mouth as needed for pain. During an observation and interview on 9/18/23 at 2:57 p.m. Resident #1's call light was on. The Activity Director went in the room and turned the call light off. She came out and told CNA A who was at the cart gathering supplies that Resident #1 said she need assistance. The Activity said Resident # 1 was waiting on an aide to come and change her. CNA A said she was going to assist a resident in another room and then she would help Resident #1. During an observation and interview on 9/18/23 beginning at 3:02 p.m. Resident #1 was observed lying in bed. Resident #1 said she was soaking wet, her bed was wet, the sheets, the gown, and she had been laying in urine since early this morning. She said the last time she was changed was about 8:00 a.m. Resident #1 said she knew they were short staffed and doing the best they could. However, she was told before 11:00 a.m. they were going to try and get her up and then before 2:00 p.m. they were going to get up. Resident #1 said she had been waiting all day. Resident #1 started to cry. The Resident said she knew she was not the easiest person to provide care for. She said CNA A had come in her room only to turn off her call light and say they would be back. She said they had told her she was getting up by 11:00 a.m. to be a part of activities. They have appetizers at 11:00 a.m. and she had missed the appetizers, and she really enjoyed that activity. Resident #1 said she did not like to stay in bed all day and she had been made to miss all activities. Resident #1 said she was out of oxygen on her chair and aide came in and said she would bring some back. Resident #1 stated the aide brought in a brief, put it on the dresser and said they would be back. She told them to just put her in a gown because the day was mostly gone, the aide took down a gown and put it on the bed side table. Resident #1 said CNA A sit the gown on the bedside table and left and promised her they were coming back. Observation showed the brief on the dresser and the gown on the bedside table. Resident #1 said she was supposed to have a shower today. She said the aide told her she was not giving her a shower on today, because the shower aide was out. Resident #1 said she did not always get her showers like they are scheduled. She should get them on MWF and often only got two a week instead of three. She said most days they get her up and provide care like they are supposed to, but it depended on who was working or not working that day. Resident #1 said they would often come in and turn the call light off and say they would be back in a minute, and it would be a long time before they did. She said she would usually have to put the call light on again to receive assistance. Observation of Resident #1 with the ADON P revealed she had on a brief; the brief was wet and soggy. The draw sheet, and sheet had a large wet area, and her gown was wet. Resident #1 said she had to eat her lunch in a wet soiled bed, and she was very uncomfortable. She said because she had laid down so long, she was hurting and asked the ADON P for some Tylenol. During an observation and interview on 9/18/23 beginning at 3: 20 p.m. ADON P was seen with a medication cup taking medication to Resident #1's room. The ADON P said she had Resident #1 requested Tylenol. During an interview on 9/18/23 beginning at 3:47 p.m., the Interim DON said she was informed Resident #1 had been found wet and saturated. She said that should not have happened and she was getting an in service together for the staff. She said she was not aware there was only two aides in the building until a few moments ago. She was new to the facility and was only helping until they hired a new DON. During an interview on 9/18/23 at 4:12 p.m., CNA A said this was her third day on the job. She started to work at 6 a.m. this morning and it was just her and CNA B today, all day long. She said she had not given any showers and had a hard time trying to answer call lights. She said that Resident #1 had requested to get up all day and changed but she was just trying to keep up as best she could. She said she had apologized to Resident #1 but was doing the best she could. There were a few residents she had not gotten up today. She said she did not have any Hoyer lifts on that hall but Resident #1 should be a Hoyer lift transfer. She said that she had the short hall today and it had 25 residents. During an interview on 9/19/23 at 8:45 am., the Activity Director said Resident #1 liked to come to activities every day. The Activity Director said she had something called appetizers where they offered different foods and all the residents loved that. She said Resident #1 liked to be up by 11 a.m. During an interview and observation on 9/19/23 beginning at 9:00 a.m. Resident #1 was laying in her bed. She said staff had promised her today they would get her up by 10:00 a.m. She said she had to be weighed every day and would like to get a shower today since she missed yesterday. She said that it was painful for her to lay in bed all day and night. Resident #1 said she felt agitated, angry, and hopeless because she was dependent on someone else for help. She said her feelings were hurt that the staff basically lied to her all day. 2. During an observation and interview on 9/18/23 beginning at 3:13 p.m. Resident #2 was sitting on his bed, fully dressed, and said he did not get a shower today. They are short staffed, and he was supposed to get one on Saturday, but Thursday was his last shower. He said he did not know what his regular scheduled shower days were because, he may or may not get one. Resident #2 said some days they would offer, and it might be any day of the week. Resident #2 said he usually only got about two showers a week and sometimes one. Resident #2 said that was his only problem he goes to the bathroom unassisted and did not really need anything else. 3. During an observation and interview on 9/18/23 beginning at 3:24 p.m. Resident #3 was observed in bed. Resident #3 she had not been changed since early this morning, but the pads hold a lot, and they would probably be in in another hour to change her. Observation of her brief with the ADON's assistance revealed it was wet and soggy, but the sheets were not wet. Resident# 3 said she did not receive a shower today and she was supposed to have them on MWF. Resident # 3 said no one asked her if she wanted a shower today, she knew they were short staffed and at least once a week missed a shower. Resident #3 said she did get a shower on Friday. 4. During an observation and interview on 9/18/23 at 3:40 p.m. said Resident #5 said the aides did not get her up today they were short staffed. Resident #5 said she liked to eat breakfast in the dining room. She said a staff was trying to put two briefs on her and she said no. Resident #5 said the CNA had recently changed her. Resident #5 said she required a Hoyer lift and they have not gotten up since Friday. Resident #5 said she stayed in bed all weekend because they did not have staff to get her up or they were too lazy to do so. Resident #5 said she did not take a shower today said there was not anyone here to give a shower. Resident #5 said she liked to go to some of the activities and see some of her friends. Resident #5 said she had pulled her call light and told the aide she needed help to straighten up in bed. She said she was told by the aide she needed some help and did not come back. Resident #5 said the facility needed more help. During an interview and observation on 9/18/23 beginning at 3:47 p.m. the Interim DON said she was informed Resident #1 had been found wet and saturated. She said that should not have happened and she was getting an in service together for the staff. She said she was not aware there was only two aides in the building until a few moments ago. She was new to the facility and was only helping until they hired a new DON. 5. During an interview and observation on 9/18/23 at 3: 56 p.m. inidcated Resident #6 had her call light on. Resident said she had been waiting a while. She said the aide had come in at least once and turned the off the light. Resident #6 refused to allow the interim DON and the investigator to see how wet she was. She said she had a BM also. Resident #6 started to cry. During an interview on 9/18/23 at 3:58 p.m. CNA B said she had been in Resident #6's room, but had not changed her since about 11:00 a.m. She said she knew she should have been in the room more frequently to change Resident #6 and she was trying to get to her as quickly as she could. She said it was just her and another aide in the building. CNA B said she came in at 6:00 a.m. this morning and it had just been her and one other aide all day. She was trying as hard as she could to take care of all the residents, but she was overwhelmed. She had the long hall with 20 residents, she also had 17 residents on the unit. She said on the unit they had about 3 residents that went to the bathroom themselves, but all the residents needed to be assisted with toileting. She said there were 3 residents on the hall at the back that were assigned to her. CNA B said she had 9 residents that required Hoyer lift transfers or two people assist and she had gotten up who she could today. She said the administrative staff were aware they were short staffed. She said some of the office staff had helped to pass breakfast and lunch trays and pick up trays. She said all staff were answering call lights but if the residents needed changing the staff usually just turned off the light and informed her what they needed. She said she had not given any showers today. She said she had about 40 residents total to take care of. CNA B said some days they have 4 or 5 aides on the halls and some like today they were short staffed. She began to cry and said she was tired and overwhelmed. During an interview on 9/18/23 at 4:12 p.m. CNA A said it took her about 10 minutes a resident to clean them up but if they had had a large or runny BM it could take her longer and in-between, she was trying to keep most of the residents satisfied. She said by the time she got to one end of the hall it was past time to start on the other end of the hall. She said every resident that required assistance had been assisted at least once today. However, there had not been every two-hour care today. The administration was aware they were short staff. Some of the office staff had helped to pass and take up breakfast and lunch trays. If they had not done so it could have been worse. She said the administrative staff had also helped to answer call lights with small things, but if care needed to be provided. She had done the care as best she could manage. During an interview on 9/18/23 at 4:20 p.m. the ADON said short hall had 25 residents and CNA A was working that hall today. She said the long hall had 20 residents and CNA B was working that hall today. She said on the secure unit they had 17 residents and SNA H who was on restricted duty due to having a sling on her arm was on the secured unit. The ADON said when SNA H needed help, she would come and get someone. She said on the unit some were continent, but all the residents needed supervision. During an interview on 9/18/23 at 4:35 p.m. SNA H she said she had been hurt on the job while trying to assist a resident. She will not see the doctor until 10/14/23 for a release and mean while she was not supposed to lift more than 5 pounds. She had been assigned to the secured unit today. She said she was not familiar with the residents on the unit she usually worked up front. She said the only thing she could do was turn off lights, and try to make beds. During an interview on 9/18/23 at 4:45 p.m. LVN C said that all together she had worked at the facility for about 29 years. She said they had 17 residents on the unit. She said that they had about 3 that were continent, but they all required supervision, with toileting. LVN C said she helped when she could. She said they needed more staff. During an interview on 9/18/23 at 5:50 p.m. ADON said they get shower sheet check offs when showers are complete. She said there are no shower sheets for today. 6.During an interview on 9/18/23 at 6:02 p.m. Resident #18 had his call light on. He said he was wet and needed to be changed. Resident #18 said that he has no idea when his showers are scheduled. Resident #18 stated there was no rhyme or reason to when he gets a shower. He said on Saturday he got a shower because he had bad diarrhea. He did not know when he had received one before then. Two aides from day shift went to change him. During an interview on 9/19/23 at 4: 57 a.m. CNA K said she was leaving at 5a.m., she had completed her rounds, and SNA D was taking over. During an interview on 9/19/23 at 5:00 a.m. SNA J said she had not done any showers the night before. 6.During an interview and observation on 9/19/23 beginning at 5:05 p.m. SNA D said she was getting residents up on the secured unit. She said CNA K said the night shift had not gotten anyone up. Observation of Resident #15's room showed Resident #15 standing beside the bed with the aide trying to direct him. Resident #15 had his right leg behind him and could not seem to understand he needed to turn to sit in the wheelchair. He sat down on the wet bed several time before he was able to turn around and sit in the wheelchair. SNA D said the night shift staff had left the resident wet. Observation of the sheets on the bed showed they were wet, and the plastic mattress had a pool of liquid in on the mattress. SNA D said the Resident #15 was that wet with urine. Resident #15 would not speak when spoken to him, he would only smile and nod. SNA D said she was mad because the resident should not have been left in that kind of condition. Observation of the bag where Resident #15's brief was showed a wet and soggy brief. SNA D said it took her about 10 to 15 minutes to get each resident cleaned up and dressed. It depended on how soiled they were or like Resident #14 how confused they were. She said she would take the solid brief and sheets and come back later to make the bed. The beds had to be sanitized and let dry and then put the sheets on them. 7.Observation and interview on 9/19/23 beginning at 8:30 a.m. of Resident #16 showed in in the bed with his bed facing the door. He said that he had told the aides he wanted to be turned around and straightened up in the bed. They had come in and tuned off the call light and said they would be back. He said he was uncomfortable, and he could not watch his TV from the way the bed was turned. During an observation and interview on 9/19/23 beginning at 9:21 a.m. Resident #16 said he had pulled his call light again. He said the staff were supposed to be coming to turn him around but had not. At 9:31 a.m. CNA M went in to assist the resident. SNA E and CNA M said that they were aware the resident wanted to be turned but they had to do some else first. During an interview on 9/19/23 at 10:10 a.m. the Corporate RN said residents should have their showers completed according to their shower schedule. She said if the shower showed not applicable it either was not done or it was on the shower sheet tool and did not get transcribed over. She said showers should be completed in the computers under the task, and they could be scheduled or PRN showers. Reviewed bath sheets from the computer system for 9/2023 indicated: Resident #7 should have had a shower/bath on 9/6, 9/11, 9/15, 9/18/23 a shower was done on 9/13/23. PRN bath 9/8/23. Clinical alert showed no showers 3 days prior to 9/7, 9/12, and 9/16/23. Resident #4 did not received bath on 9/8/23 and 9/13/23. Resident #8 had no showers on 9/12, 9/14, 9/16/23. Last shower was 9/15/23 PRN Resident #9 had no showers noted 9/5/23-9/19/23. Showers should be TTHS Resident #10 had 1 shower on 9/16/23, no other showers. Showers should be TTHS Resident #11 had shower on 9/7/23 and 9/12/23, no other showers. Showers should be TTHS Record review of the facility Care Plan Task Listing Report indicated they had 26 residents that were to receive showers on MWF and 39 that were to receive showers on TTHS. . During an interview on 9/19/23 at 1:25pm Resident #4 was up in wheelchair at bedside. Said he does not always get his showers. He said he missed yesterday's shower because they were short staffed. He said he was supposed to take one today but because he had therapy, he opted for a quick bed bath. He said it does take a while for staff to come help him because they are short staffed a lot. He said when he pulled the call light staff would come in and turn the light off tell him they will come back but don't always come back to help him. During an interview on 9/19/23 at 1:40pm LVN C said it was hard to get showers for the secured unit due to resident cognition and behaviors, most residents received showers. LVN C said she believed Resident # 8 and Resident # 9, and Resident # 10 refused the showers today. CNAs will report when residents refused showers. During an interview on 9/19/23 at 1:45pm SNA D said Resident # 8 refused his shower today but let her shave him. She said most likely he would take a shower tomorrow. She documented refusals. She said Resident # 9 got a shower today but was unsure of the rest of the month. Resident # 10 got a shower today, but she was sure of the rest of the month- she was out (not at work) over 10 days this month. Sometimes SNA E would shower residents for her when she helped in the secure unit, but she was not sure about her documentation. During an interview on 9/19/23 at 1:50 p.m. SNA E said she worked in the secured unit sometimes. She said she gave showers to Resident #9 and Resident #10 last week, she thought she documented them on the computer. SNA E said she worked the unit with SNA D. She struggles to give showers on both units because of lack of staff. During an interview on 9/19/23 at 2:20 p.m. Corporate RN, Interim DON, and Administrator are trying to cover the schedules. She was unsure what shifts/positions the facility currently has open because she does not normally cover this facility. She said she talked with upper management today on trying to get agency in to help with staffing concerns until the facility gets stabilized. During an interview on 9/20/23 at 9:00 a.m. the Administrator and Area Director of Operations were informed of the concerns with ADL care and residents not receiving showers. They said they had gotten the ADL deficiency on 9/3/23 and had not had a chance to correct the problem. They had just received their deficiencies. They said they were aware of the problem on 9/3/23 and had conducted an in-service. They said the deficiency had already been cited; however, they could not say why the ADL issues had not been fixed. Record review of an in-service dated 9/3/23 indicated staff were informed showers are scheduled for every resident in the building. If the resident refused a shower report to the charge nurse. The nurse should ask the resident, if they still refuse, contact the responsible party and document both in the nurse's notes. If a shower was missed on the day shift it should be given on the 6p to 6a shift. It will be reported to the oncoming nurse and aide. During an interview on 9/20/23 at 11:45 Resident #4's family member said they had not gotten Resident #4 up today. The family member said the biggest concern wasis there is not enough staff. The family member said Resident #4 had not gotten a shower today and he did not get one on Monday. Family member said the way they treat the residents by making them stay in bed all day was cruel and abusive. Record review of an in serviced dated 9/18/23 indicated staff was informed shower are scheduled for every resident in the building. If the resident refused a shower report to the charge nurse. The nurse should ask the resident, if they still refuse, contact the responsible party and document both in the nurse's notes. If a shower is missed on the day shift it should be given on the 6p to 6a shift. Record review of the facility Bath Shower procedure dated 2003 indicated a daily shower is preferred and necessary for some, the aging skin can be maintained by bathing every two days or with partial bathing as needed. The goals are the resident will experience improved comfort and cleanliness by bathing, maintain intact skin integrity, be free form soil, odor, dryness and pruritus' following bathing.
SERIOUS (H) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Deficiency F0725 (Tag F0725)

A resident was harmed · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure sufficient staff to provide nursing related ser...

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 sufficient staff to provide nursing related ser ices to ensure resident safety and attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial wellbeing of each resident, for 13 of 18 residents reviewed for sufficient staff (Resident #1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 15, 16, and # 18.) The facility failed to have sufficient staff to provide timely incontinent care for Resident #1, Resident #3, and Resident #15. The facility failed to have sufficient staff to provide showers for 26 residents on 9/18/23. The facility failed to have sufficient staff to provide routine showers for Resident #'s 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 15, 16, and 18. This failure placed dependent residents at risk for poor hygiene, not receiving care in a timely manner, and decreased quality of life. Findings included: Record Review of Time Sheets 9/1-9/19/23 indicated: 9/1/23: 2 CNAs from 5:45 am-5pm, 1 CNA from 6:26 am-5:04 pm; 2 SNAs from 6 am-6 pm, 1 SNA from 8 am-3pm, 1 CNA from 4 pm-11 pm, 1 SNA from 6 pm-6:30am; 9/2/23: 1 CNA from 5:45 am-6:15p., 1 CNA from 5:54 am-4:20pm, 1 SNA from 6 am-5:21 pm, 2 SNAs from 6 am-6 pm, 5 SNAs from 6 pm-6 am, 1 CNA from 6 pm-12 am; 9/3/23: 1 CNA from 6 am-4 pm, 1 CNA from 6 am-6:45 pm, 2 SNAs from 6 am-6pm, 2 SNAs from 3:30 pm-6:30 am, 1 SNA from 4:45 pm-6:20 am, 2 SNAs from 6 pm-6 am; 9/4/23: 2 CNAs from 6am-6pm, 1 CNA from 6 am-3 pm, 2 SNAs from 6 am-6 pm, 1 CNA from 8:45 a.m-4 pm, 2 SNAs from 5 pm-6 am, 1 SNA from 5:23 pm-6:39 am, 2 SNAs from 6 pm-6 am; 9/5/23: 2 CNAs from 6 am-8 pm, 1 CNA from 6 am-6 pm, 1 SNA from 6 am-8:46 pm, 1 SNA from 8 am-6 pm, 1 CNA from 9:29 pm-2:39 am, 1 SNA from 6 pm-6 am, 1 SNA from 8 pm-10:47 pm, 2 SNAs from 8 pm-12 am; 9/6/23: 1 CNA from 5:45 am-6:10 pm, 2 CNAs from 6 am-6:10 pm, 1 SNA from 6 am-8:28 pm, 1 SNA from 6:22 am-8:07 am, 1 SNA from 7:45 am-6:14 pm, 1 SNA from 6 pm-6:17 am, 1 SNAs from 10 pm-3:22 am; 9/7/23: 2 CNAs from 6 am-6 pm, 1 CNA from 6 am-4 pm, 2 SNAs from 6 am-6 pm, 1 SNA from 7:42 am-8:17 pm, 3 SNAs from 5:45 pm-6 am, 2 SNAs from 7 pm-6 am; . 9/8/23: 1 CNA from 6 am-6 pm, 1 CNA from 6 am-4 pm, 1 SNA from 6 am-2 pm, 1 SNA from 7 am-8 am, 1 SNA from 6 am-6 pm, 1 CNA from 12:15 pm-12:35 pm, 3 SNAs from 4 pm-6 am, 2 SNAs from 5 pm-6 am; 9/9/23: 2 CNAs from 6 am-6 pm, 1 SNA from 6 am-6 pm, 1 SNA from 8 am-4 pm, 2 SNAs from 6 pm-10 pm, 1 SNA from 6 pm-6 am; 9/10/23: 2 CNAs from 6 am-6 pm, 1 SNA from 6 am-10 pm, 2 SNAs from 6 pm-6 am; 9/11/23: 2 CNAs from 6 am-6 pm, 1 SNA from 6:30 am-10 pm, 1 SNA from 7:50 am-6 pm, 2 SNAs from 6 pm-6 am, 2 SNAs from 7 pm-3 am; 9/12/23: 2 CNAs from 6 am-6 pm, 1 CNA from 6 am-4 pm, 1 SNA from 6 am-6 pm, 1 SNA from 6 am-5 pm, 2 SNAs from 6 pm-6 am, , 2 SNAs from 6 pm-10:46 pm; 9/13/23: 3 CNAs from 6 am-6 pm, 1 SNA from 6 am-6 pm, 1 SNA from 7 am-1:30 pm, 1 SNA from 6 pm-9:14 pm, 1 CNA from 6 pm-6 am, 1 SNA from 7 pm- 6am, 1 SNA from 10 pm-6 am; 9/14/23: 1 SNA from 4 am-6 pm, 3 CNAs from 6 am-6 pm, 1 SNA from 6 am-7:30 pm, 1 SNA from 8 am-6 pm, 1 CNA from 6 pm-6 am, 2 SNA from 6 pm-6 am; 9/15/23: 2 CNAs from 6 am-6 pm, 1 CNA from 10 am-2 pm, 2 SNA from 6 am-6 pm, 1 SNA from 8 am-3 pm, 2 SNAs from 6 pm-6 am, 1 SNA from 8 pm-10 pm; 9/16/23: 1 CNA from 6 am-6 pm, 2 CNAs from 6 am-7 pm, 1 SNA from 6 am-6 pm, 1 SNA from 6 am-7:30 pm, 1 SNA from 7 pm-9:45 pm, 2 SNAs from 7:30 pm-6:132 am; 9/17/23: 2 CNAs from 6 am-6 pm, 1 CNA from 6 am- 4 pm, 2 SNAs from 6 am-6 pm, 1 CNA from 6 pm-5 am, 2 SNAs from 5:45 pm-6 am; 9/18/23: 1 CNA from 5:45 am-10 pm, 1 CNA from 6 am-6:30 pm, 1 SNA from 6:16 am-6:46 pm, 1 SNA from 6:25 pm-6:31 am, 1 CNA from 6:48 pm-6 am, 1 CNA from 10 pm-6 am. Observation and record review of the facility on 9/18/23 beginning at 2:30 revealed they had a census on 65 residents. They had three nurses and 2 CNAs. They had one SNA who was acting as a hospitality aide with a shoulder sling on one arm working on the secure unit. During an interview on 9/18/23 at 6:18 p.m. the Administrator said they were supposed to have 3 nurses on days and 4 aides. On nights they had two nurses and 2 to 3 aides but then they have not fully transitioned to 12-hour shifts and some of the staff work form 6p to 2p, 2p to 10 p and 10 p to 6a, and then some staff worked from 6a to 6p and from 6p to 6a. The Administrator said they used the schedule in the book at the nurse's station that the staff sign when they come in as their staffing schedule. The Administrator said they did not have a Nurse Staff Information sheet posted. Record review of the facility Resident Census and Conditions of Residents Report-(Form 672) dated 9/18/23 indicated they had a census of 65 residents. The report indicated independent residents were 4 residents that were capable of bathing independently, 2 residents that were independent for dressing, 11 residents independent for transfers, 10 that were independent for toilet use, and 9 that were independent for eating. The report indicated the residents that required the assistance of one or two staff were 33 for bathing, 60 for dressing, 49 for transfers, 49 for toilet use and 51 for eating. The report indicated resident's dependent for assistance were 28 for bathing, 3 for dressing, 5 for transfers, 6 for toilet use, and 5 for eating. Record review of the facility Care Plan Item Task Listing Report indicated on Monday 9/18/23 they had 26 residents scheduled for showers and no resident received a shower that day or night. 1. Record review of Resident #1's face sheet dated 9/19/23 indicated she was a [AGE] year-old female initially admitted to the facility 10/4/23. Some of her diagnoses were Spinal Stenosis(narrowing of the spinal column that causes pressure on the spinal cord._ Morbid obesity disease of upper respiratory tract, pain of unspecified joint, unsteadiness on feet, abnormalities of gait and mobility. She had anxiety disorder, and history of heart attack. Record review of Resident #1's quarterly MDS dated [DATE] indicated she was cognitively intact. Resident #1's bed mobility and transfer assistance were listed as extensive assistance with two people physical help. Record review of Resident #1's care plan dated 8/29/23 indicated a potential for pressure ulcer development and one of the interventions was to ensure incontinent care was provided after each episode. One Focus was the resident had the potential for uncontrolled pain. One of the interventions was to monitor the probable cause of each pain episode, remove or limit the cause if possible. Resident #1 had a focus area of desired independence in activities and would attend activities of choice. The resident loved the appetizer program, [NAME] and helping the Activity Director. She also liked therapy. The resident had a Focus are of bladder incontinence and one of the interventions was to apply barrier cream after each incontinent episode, and incontinence care at least every two hours. Resident #1 had a Focus are of self-care performance deficit. She required assisted of one staff for bed mobility, dressing, toileting, encourage the resident to use call light for assistance, and she used a wheelchair for ambulation. Record review of Resident #1's physician order dated 11/15/21 indicated the resident needed to be up in chair for all meals. An order dated 2/523 may use oxygen at 4 liters by nasal cannula, every shift. An order dated 7/23/23 for acetaminophen 500 mg give two tables by mouth as needed for pain. During an observation and interview on 9/18/23 beginning at 2:57 p.m. Resident #1's call light was on. The Activity Director went in the room and turned the call light off. She came out and told CNA A who was at the cart gathering supplies that Resident #1 said she need assistance. The Activity said Resident # 1 was waiting on an aide to come and change her. CNA A said she was going to assist a resident in another room and then she would help Resident #1. When the ADON and the investigator went in the room to check on Resident #1 CNA A came in to see if she could help, the resident at that point. During an observation and interview on 9/18/23 beginning at 3:02 p.m. Resident #1 was observed lying in bed. Resident #1 said she was soaking wet, her bed was wet, the sheets, the gown, and she had been laying in urine since early this morning. She said the last time she was changed was about 8:00 a.m. Resident #1 said she knew they were short staffed and doing the best they could. However, she was told before 11:00 a.m. they were going to try and get her up and then before 2:00 p.m. they were going to get up. Resident #1 said she had been waiting all day. Resident #1 started to cry. The Resident said she knew she was not the easiest person to provide care for. She said CNA A had come in her room only to turn off her call light and say they would be back. She said they had told her she was getting up by 11:00 a.m. to be a part of activities. They have appetizers at 11:00 a.m. and she had missed the appetizers, and she really enjoyed that activity. Resident #1 said she did not like to stay in bed all day and she had been made to miss all activities. Resident #1 said she was out of oxygen on her chair and aide came in and said she would bring some back. Resident #1 stated the aide brought in a brief, put it on the dresser and said they would be back. She told them to just put her in a gown because the day was mostly gone, the aide took down a gown and put it on the bed side table. Resident #1 said CNA A sit the gown on the bedside table and left and promised her they were coming back. Observation showed the brief on the dresser and the gown on the bedside table. Resident #1 said she was supposed to have a shower today. She said the aide told her she was not giving her a shower on today, because the shower aide was out. Resident #1 said she did not always get her showers like they are scheduled. She should get them on MWF and often only got two a week instead of three. She said most days they get her up and provide care like they are supposed to, but it depended on who was working or not working that day. Resident #1 said they would often come in and turn the call light off and say they would be back in a minute, and it would be a long time before they did. She said she would usually have to put the call light on again to receive assistance. Observation of Resident #1 with the ADON revealed she had on a brief; the brief was wet and soggy. The draw sheet, and sheet had a large wet area, and her gown was wet. Resident #1 said she had to eat her lunch in a wet soiled bed, and she was very uncomfortable. She said because she had laid down so long, she was hurting and asked the ADON for some Tylenol. During an observation and interview on 9/18/23 beginning at 3: 20 p.m., ADON P was seen with a medication cup taking medication to Resident #1's room. ADON P said she had Resident #1's Tylenol. During an interview on 9/18/23 beginning at 3:47 p.m., the Interim DON said she was informed Resident #1 had been found wet and saturated. She said that should not have happened and she was getting an in service together for the staff. She said she was not aware there was only two aides in the building until a few moments ago. She was new to the facility and was only helping until they hired a new DON. During an interview on 9/18/23 at 4:12 p.m., CNA A said this was her third day on the job. She started to work at 6 a.m. this morning and it was just her and CNA B today, all day long. She said she had not given any showers and had a hard time trying to answer call lights. She said that Resident #1 had requested to get up all day and changed but she was just trying to keep up as best she could. She said she had apologized to Resident #1 but was doing the best she could. There were a few residents she had not gotten up today. She said she did not have any Hoyer lifts on that hall but Resident #1 should be a Hoyer lift transfer. She said that she had the short hall today and it had 25 residents. During an interview on 9/19/23 at 8:45 am., the Activity Director said Resident #1 liked to come to activities every day. The Activity Director said she had something called appetizers where they offered different foods and all the residents loved that. She said Resident #1 liked to be up by 11 a.m. During an interview and observation on 9/19/23 beginning at 9:00 a.m. Resident #1 was laying in her bed. She said staff had promised her today they would get her up by 10:00 a.m. She said she had to be weighed every day and would like to get a shower today since she missed yesterday. She said that it was painful for her to lay in bed all day and night. Resident #1 said she felt agitated, angry, and hopeless because she was dependent on someone else for help. She said her feelings were hurt that the staff basically lied to her all day. 2. During an observation and interview on 9/18/23 at 3:13 p.m. Resident #2 was sitting on his bed, fully dressed, and said he did not get a shower today. They are short staffed, and he was supposed to get one on Saturday, but Thursday was his last shower. He said he did not know what his regular scheduled shower days were because, he may or may not get one. Resident #2 said some days they would offer, and it might be any day of the week. Resident #2 said he usually only got about two showers a week and sometimes one. Resident #2 said that was his only problem he goes to the bathroom unassisted and did not really need anything else. 3. During an observation and interview on 9/18/23 at3:24 p.m. Resident #3 was observed in bed. Resident #3 she had not been changed since early this morning, but the pads hold a lot, and they would probably be in in another hour to change her. Observation of her brief with the ADON's assistance revealed it was wet and soggy, but the sheets were not wet. Resident# 3 said she did not receive a shower today and she was supposed to have them on MWF. Resident # 3 said no one asked her if she wanted a shower today, she knew they were short staffed and at least once a week missed a shower. Resident #3 said she did get a shower on Friday. 4. During an observation and interview on 9/18/23 at 3:40 p.m. said Resident #5 said the aides did not get her up today they were short staffed. Resident #5 said she liked to eat breakfast in the dining room. She said a staff was trying to put two briefs on her and she said no. Resident #5 said the CNA had recently changed her. Resident #5 said she required a Hoyer lift and they have not gotten up since Friday. Resident #5 said she stayed in bed all weekend because they did not have staff to get her up or they were too lazy to do so. Resident #5 said she did not take a shower today said there was not anyone here to give a shower. Resident #5 said she liked to go to some of the activities and see some of her friends. Resident #5 said she had pulled her call light and told the aide she needed help to straighten up in bed. She said she was told by the aide she needed some help and did not come back. Resident #5 said the facility needed more help. During an interview and observation on 9/18/23 beginning at 3:47 p.m. the Interim DON said she was informed Resident #1 had been found wet and saturated. She said that should not have happened and she was getting an in service together for the staff. She said she was not aware there was only two aides in the building until a few moments ago. She was new to the facility and was only helping until they hired a new DON. 5. During an interview and observation on 9/18/23 at 3: 56 p.m. observation showed Resident #6 had her call light on. Resident said she had been waiting a while. She said the aide had come in at least once and turned the off the light. Resident #6 refused to allow the interim DON and the investigator to see how wet she was. She said she had a BM also. Resident #6 started to cry. During an interview on 9/18/23 at 3:58 p.m. CNA B said she had been in Resident #6's room, but had not changed her since about 11:00 a.m. She said she knew she should have been in the room more frequently to change Resident #6 and she was trying to get to her as quickly as she could. She said it was just her and another aide in the building. CNA B said she came in at 6:00 a.m. this morning and it had just been her and one other aide all day. She was trying as hard as she could to take care of all the residents, but she was overwhelmed. She had the long hall with 20 residents, she also had 17 residents on the unit. She said on the unit they had about 3 residents that went to the bathroom themselves, but all the residents needed to be assisted with toileting. She said there were 3 residents on the hall at the back that were assigned to her. CNA B said she had 9 residents that required Hoyer lift transfers or two people assist and she had gotten up who she could today. She said the administrative staff were aware they were short staffed. She said some of the office staff had helped to pass breakfast and lunch trays and pick up trays. She said all staff were answering call lights but if the residents needed changing the staff usually just turned off the light and informed her what they needed. She said she had not given any showers today. She said she had about 40 residents' total. CNA B said some days they have 4 or 5 aides on the halls and some like today they were short staffed. She began to cry and said she was tired and overwhelmed. During an interview on 9/18/23 at 4:12 p.m. CNA A said it took her about 10 minutes a resident to clean them up but if they had had a large or runny BM it could take her longer and in-between, she was trying to keep most of the residents satisfied. She said by the time she got to one end of the hall it was past time to start on the other end of the hall. She said every resident that required assistance had been assisted at least once today. However, there had not been every two-hour care today. The administration was aware they were short staff. Some of the office staff had helped to pass and take up breakfast and lunch trays. If they had not done so it could have been worse. She said the administrative staff had also helped to answer call lights with small things, but if care needed to be provided. She had done the care as best she could manage. During an interview on 9/18/23 at 4:20 p.m. the ADON said short hall had 25 residents and CNA A was working that hall today. She said the long hall had 20 residents and CNA B was working that hall today. She said on the secure unit they had 17 residents and SNA H who was on restricted duty due to having a sling on her arm was on the secured unit. The ADON said when SNA H needed help, she would come and get someone. She said on the unit some were continent, but they all needed supervision. During an interview on 9/18/23 at 4:35 p.m. SNA H she said she had been hurt on the job while trying to assist a resident. She will not see the doctor until 10/14/23 for a release and mean while she was not supposed to lift more than 5 pounds. She had been assigned to the secured unit today. She said she was not familiar with the residents on the unit she usually worked up front. She said the only thing she could do was turn off lights and try to make beds. During an interview on 9/18/23 at 4:45 p.m. LVN C said that all together she had worked at the facility for about 29 years. She said they had 17 residents on the unit. She said that they had about 3 that were continent, but they all required supervision, with toileting. LVN C said she helped when she could. She said they needed more staff. During an interview on 9/18/23 at 5:50 p.m. ADON said they get shower sheet check offs when showers are complete. She said there are no shower sheets for today. 6. During an interview on 9/18/23 at 6:02 p.m. #18 had his call light on. He said he was wet and needed to be changed. He said that he has no idea when his showers are scheduled. There is no rhyme or reason to when he gets a shower. He said on Saturday he got a shower because he had bad diarrhea. He did not know when he had received one before then. Two aides from day shift went to change him. During an interview on 9/19/23 at 4: 57 a.m. CNA K said she was leaving at 5a.m., she had completed her rounds, and SNA D was taking over. During an interview on 9/19/23 at 5:00 a.m. SNA J said she had not done any showers the night before. 7. During an interview and observation on 9/19/23 at 5:05 p.m. SNA D said she was getting residents up on the secured unit. She said CNA K said on the night shad not gotten anyone up. Observation of room Resident #15 room showed him standing beside the bed with the aide trying to direct him. He had his right leg behind him and could not seem to understand he needed to turn to sit in the wheelchair. He sat down on the wet bed several time before he was able to turn around and sit in the wheelchair. SNA D said the night shift staff had left the resident wet. Observation of the sheets on the bed showed they were wet, and the plastic mattress had a pool of liquid in on the mattress. SNA D said the Resident #15 was that wet with urine. Resident #15 would not speak when spoken to him, he would only smile and nod. SNA D said she was mad because the resident should not have been left in that kind of condition. Observation of the bag where Resident #15's brief was showed a wet and soggy brief. SNA D said it took her about 10 to 15 minutes to get each resident cleaned up and dressed. It depended on how soiled they were or like Resident #14 how confused they were. She said she would take the solid brief and sheets and come back later to make the bed. The beds had to be sanitized and let dry and then put the sheets on them. 8. During an observation and interview on 9/19/23 at 8:30 a.m. of Resident #16 showed in in the bed with his bed facing the door. He said that he had told them when the aides he wanted to be turned around and straightened up in the bed. They had come in and tuned off the call light and said they would be back. He said he was uncomfortable, and he could not watch his TV from the way the bed was turned. During an observation and interview on 9/19/23 at 9:21 a.m. Resident #16 said he had pulled his call light again. He said the staff were supposed to be coming to turn him around but had not. At 9:31 a.m. CNA M went in to assist the resident. SNA E and CNA M said that they were aware the resident wanted to be turned but they had to do some else first. During an interview on 9/19/23 at 10:10 a.m. the Corporate RN said residents should have their showers completed according to their shower schedule. She said if the shower showed not applicable it either was not done or it was on the shower sheet tool and did not get transcribed over. She said showers should be completed in the computers under the task, and they could be scheduled or PRN showers. Reviewed bath sheets from the computer system for 9/2023 indicated: Resident #7 should have had a shower/bath on 9/6, 9/11, 9/15, 9/18/23 a shower was done on 9/13/23. PRN bath 9/8/23. Clinical alert showed no showers 3 days prior to 9/7, 9/12, and 9/16/23. Resident #4 did not received bath on 9/8 and 9/13/23. Resident #8 had no showers on 9/12, 9/14, 9/16/23. Last shower was 9/15/23 PRN Resident #9 had no showers noted 9/5-9/19/23. Showers should be TTHS Resident #10 had 1 shower on 9/16/23, no other showers. Showers should be TTHS Resident #11 had shower on 9/7 and 9/12/23, no other showers. Showers should be TTHS Record review of the facility Care Plan Task Listing Report indicated they had 26 residents that were to receive showers on MWF and 39 that were to receive showers on TTHS. . During an interview on 9/19/23 at 1:25 p.m. Resident #4 was up in wheelchair at bedside. Said he does not always get his showers. He said he missed yesterday's shower because they were short staffed. He said he was supposed to take one today but because he had therapy, he opted for a quick bed bath. He said it does take a while for staff to come help him because they are short staffed a lot. He said when he pulled the call light staff would come in and turn the light off tell him they will come back but do not always come back to help him. During an interview on 9/19/23 at 1:40 p.m. LVN C said it was hard to get showers for the secured unit due to resident cognition and behaviors, most residents received showers. LVN C said she believed Resident # 8 and Resident # 9, and Resident # 10 refused the showers today. LVN C stated CNAs will report when residents refused showers. During an interview on 9/19/23 at 1:45 p.m. SNA D said Resident # 8 refused his shower today but let her shave him. She said most likely he would take a shower tomorrow. She documented refusals. She said Resident #9 got a shower today but is unsure of the rest of the month. Resident # 10 got a shower today, but she was sure of the rest of the month- she was out over 10 days this month. Sometimes SNA E would shower residents for her when she helped in the secure unit, but she was not sure about her documentation. During an interview on 9/19/23 at 1:50 p.m. SNA E said she worked in the secured unit sometimes. She said she gave showers to Resident #9 and Resident #10 last week she thought she documented them on the computer. SNA E said she worked the unit with SNA D. She struggles to give showers on both units because of lack of staff. During an interview on 9/19/23 at 2:20 p.m. Corporate RN, Interim DON, and Administrator are both trying to cover the schedules. She is unsure what shifts/positions the facility currently has open because she does not normally cover this facility. She said she talked with upper management today on trying to get agency in to help with staffing concerns until the facility gets stabilized. During an interview on 9/20/23 at 9:00 a.m. the Administrator and Area Director of Operations were informed of the concerns with ADL care and residents not receiving showers. They said they had gotten the ADL deficiency on 9/3/23 and had not had a chance to correct the problem. They had just received their deficiencies. They said they were aware of the problem on 9/3/23 and had conducted an in-service. They said the deficiency had already been cited; however, they could not say why the ADL issues had not been fixed. During an interview on 9/20/23 at 11:45 Resident #4's family member said they had not gotten Resident #4 up today. The family member said the biggest concern is there is not enough staff. The family member said Resident #4 had not gotten a shower today and he did not get one on Monday. She said the way they treat the residents by making them stay in bed all day was cruel and abusive. Record review of an in-service dated 9/3/23 indicated staff were informed shower are scheduled for every resident in the building. If the resident refused a shower report to the charge nurse. The nurse should ask the resident, if they still refuse, contact the responsible party and document both in the nurse's notes. If a shower is missed on the day shift it should be given on the 6p to 6a shift. It will be reported to the oncoming nurse and aide. During an interview on 9/19/23 at 1:25pm Resident #4 was up in wheelchair at bedside. Said he does not always get his showers. He said he missed yesterday's shower because they were short staffed. He said he was supposed to take one today but because he had therapy, he opted for a quick bed bath. He said it does take a while for staff to come help him because they are short staffed a lot. He said when he pulled the call light staff would come in and turn the light off tell him they will come back but don't always come back to help him. During an interview on 9/20/23 at 9:15 a.m. Resident #17 said She said they were always short staffed, and it took long periods of time for them to answer the call light most days. During an interview on 9/20/23 at 11:28 a.m. LVN C said she had never been the only nurse in the building. She said she has occasionally had to split long hall with maybe the ADON or DON but normally she stayed on the secure unit. She said she has seen staffing be shorter here recently, but she had never been the only one here. She is unsure who worked with her on the 14th, but she is sure she wasn't the only one alone in here. She said that the short staffing had not affected her, but she is sure that it could possibly affect others getting tasks done up front. During an interview on 9/20/23 at 11:35 a.m. LVN F said she had a worked several times where she was here with only nurse in the facility. She said normally when that happens its only for a couple of hours until they get another nurse in to assist. She said the facility was frequently short staffed on CNAs and when they are short staffed with CNAs the residents did not get changed as frequently as they need or get turned/repositioned as much. During an interview on 9/20/23 at 11:45 Resident #4's family member said they had not gotten Resident #4 up today. The family member said the biggest concern is there is not enough staff. The family member said Resident #4 had not gotten a shower today and he did not get one on Monday. She said the way they treat the residents by making them stay in bed all day was cruel and abusive. Just let them lay there Record review of an in serviced dated 9/18/23 indicated staff were informed shower are scheduled for every resident in the building. If the resident refused a shower report to the charge nurse. The nurse should ask the resident, if they still refuse, contact the responsible party and document both in the nurses notes. If a shower is missed on the day shift it should be given on the 6p to 6a shift.
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 F0800 (Tag F0800)

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 a resident with a diet that met his daily nutr...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to provide a resident with a diet that met his daily nutritional and special dietary needs for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for diet (Resident # 4.) The facility did not ensure Resident #4's physician ordered diet of no bread and no pasta was followed. This negative finding could cause residents discomfort and digestive issues. Findings Included: Record review a Resident #4 face sheet dated 9/20/23 indicated he was an [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Some of his diagnoses were depression, Alzheimer's, disease, constipation, and muscle weakness. Record review of an admission MDS dated [DATE] indicated Resident #4 did not have any cognitive impairment. Resident #4 required supervision with eating with set up help only. Record review of Resident #4 care plan dated 6/8/23 indicated he had a focus area of ADL self-care performance deficit. One of the interventions were the resident required assistance by staff to turn in reposition in bed as necessary. Resident required assistance by staff with showering, the resident required assistance with a dressing and personal hygiene and toilet use. Resident #4 had a diet order for a regular diet dated 6/21/23. Record Review of Resident #4's computerized physician orders indicated he had an order dated 6/3/23 for a regular diet, regular texture, regular consistency with no bread and no pasta. Record review of a Nutritional Risk assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #4 had a regular diet served as orders. Resident #4 stated he tried to stick to a gluten free diet when possible. He stated he was not real strict. Note for no bread or pasta to be served with meals. The assessment indicated Dietary Staff aware of food preferences. During an interview on 9/20/23 at 11:45a.m. Resident #4's family member said Resident #4 was supposed to be on Gluten Free Diet and they bring him things he cannot eat like pasta and bread. During an observation and record review on 9/20/23 beginning at 12:00 p.m. observation of Resident #4's lunch tray contained some meat over rice, veggies, and egg roll. Review of the meal slip for 9/20/23 did not show any special notes restrictions, likes or dislikes During an interview on 9/2/23 at 12:20 p.m. Dietary manager was shown Resident #4's lunch slip for 9/20/23. She said that the Residents family member complained about Residenrt#4 not eat this or that, but the resident did not complain. The Dietary Manager said she did not have any information about him not getting bread or pasta. She said the dietician recommendations had not been sent to her yet. After the Dietary Manager reviewed the dietician recommendations, for July 2023. The Dietary Manager noted Resident #4 had a physician order that said no bread or pasta. The Dietary Manager said she was not aware of the diet restrictions. Record review of Resident #4's Nursing -Dietary Communication Form provided by the Dietary Manager dated 6/3/23 indicated the resident was on a regular diet. During an interview on 9/20/23 at 12:44 p.m. CNA G said that Resident #4 ate most of his food. He was served bead at times. Sometimes he got biscuits, rolls, and cornbread. She said he had never complained to her about his meals. She said sometimes he ate good and sometimes not so good. Record review of Resident #4's Nursing -Dietary Communication Form dated 9/20/23 indicated the resident was on a regular diet. With no bread and no pasta. During an interview on 9/20/23 at 12:57 p.m. the Interim DON said she had the Dietary Communication Form was fixed to include the physician order for no breads and no pasta on with Resident #4's meal. During an interview on 9/20/23 at 1:04 p.m. Resident #4 said he was having bowel issues. He said they had not been giving him the gluten free food, he hated having the diet but understood why he needed it. He was not sure if the bowel issues were because of not following his diet or because of him taking a lot of medications.
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

Deficiency F0728 (Tag F0728)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure the competency of a certified nurse aide for 6 of 13 CNA's reviewed (SNA D, I, J, L N, and O.) They failed to ensure the nurse aides ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure the competency of a certified nurse aide for 6 of 13 CNA's reviewed (SNA D, I, J, L N, and O.) They failed to ensure the nurse aides were certified, and or trained in a state approved training program. They failed to provide evidence the nurse aide had received proficiency training and passed their test for SNA D and SNA J prior to 9/10/23 as required by the waiver program. They failed to ensure SNA I, L, N, and O were certified nurse aides prior to assuming full CNA duties without the oversite of another CNA. This failure placed residents at risk of not receiving proper ADL care. Findings included: Record review of employee files indicated: SNA D had a hire date 3/10/21 had LTCR form 3767 for Nurse Aide Work Training and Work Experience indicated she had training between 5/12/22 and 6/22/22. The form was notarized on 8/24/22. SNA J had a hire date 2/25/22- had LTCR form 3767 for Nurse Aide Work Training and Work Experience indicated she had training between 5/12/22 and 6/8/22. The form was notarized on 8/24/22. SNA O had a hire date 6/30/23- SNA L had a hire date 7/20/23- only CNA training such as a proficiency of Nurse Aide Incontinence SNA N had a hire date7/21/23- SNA I had a hire date 8/23/23- only CNA training such as a proficiency of Nurse Aide Incontinence Review of Long-Term Care Regulatory Provider Letter 2023-05 dated May 8, 2023, indicated the end of Temporary Waivers during Covid Public Health Emergency. Indicated Nurse aides hired after 5/11/23 had 4 months from the date of hire to be certified. Nurse aides hired before 5/11/23 had until 9/10/23 to become certified. Nurse aides hired before 5/11/23 and worked more than 4 months had until 9/10/23 to be certified. Note this wavier did not suspend requirements for supervision or competencies. During an interview on 9/18/23 at 6:25 p.m. SNA I said she had worked at the facility one month and was not a certified CNA. She said she was working from 6a to 6p. independently. During an interview on 9/18/23 at 6:27 p.m. SNA J said she had worked at the facility for two years. She has tried to get her license two times, but they messed her paperwork up. She said she was working from 6 a to 6 p. independently. During an interview on 9/1823 at 6:55 p.m. HR said she did not keep any files related to the CNA training it was the DON that did all that and kept up with the paperwork. She said that she checked to see if they had a certification when they first started employment and passed that information on to the DON and that was all she did. During an interview on 9/18/23 at 7:40 p.m. with SNA I and SNA J said they work independently and helped each other if they need assistant with a resident. They had not been told they needed any one to watch over them when they provide care to residents. They said they did the same job as a regular CNA. During an interview on 9/19/23 at 5:00 a.m. SNA J said she was a SNA for two years. She had taken phase I, II, and III however the former DON had put her information into the system wrong on two occasions and she had not been able to test. She said they had not done any showers the night before. During an interview on 9/19/23 at 6:12 a.m. SNA L said she worked at the facility since 7/19/23 she had not scheduled to take her test. She said she had taken her the CNA training about 10 years ago but never tested. She said when she first started, she did some training on the computer and she worked with another CNA for a few days to know how to care for residents. She said she did a peri care check off with the ADON. She said she now worked independently when providing care to a resident unless she needed another aide to assist her with a resident that required two people. During an interview on 9/19/23 11:10 a.m. Corporate RN said they should not have hired the SNA I and SNA L after the waver had ended. She said according to the provider letter the waiver period had ended. They had gone back to CNAs in training prior to the pandemic. She said even if they had paperwork, it did not mean anything if they do have records they are still training. She said the SNA were not qualified to work as CNAs unsupervised. She said at least half of the facility aides were SNAs. During an interview on 9/19/23 at 1:20 p.m. HR manager said that none of the SNA had CNA certification SNA D, SNA I, SNA J, SNA L, SNA N, or SNA O. Record review of Temporary Non-Certified Nurse Aide Transition to Certification Guide for Nurse Aide Training and Working Under Waiver (113.) dated 2/3/22 Indicated once an employee's paperwork was completed. On days two and day three phase one and two competencies and the Texas curriculum for nurse aides in long term facility Section 1 introduction for long term care was completed. There should be 16 hours completed before a TNA works with a resident. On days four- phase one and two competency feeding training check off as competency in skills are mastered. Record review Phase 1 competencies for aides indicated supervisor will initial each part of the procedure if performed correctly. The competencies were hand hygiene, putting on and removing personal protective equipment, assisting with meals, feeding the dependent resident, choking, bathing, shower, incontinent care. oral care, hygiene care, dressing and undressing a resident, bedpan assistance urinal assistance, emptying Foley catheter bag, postmortem care bed mobility, assisting residents to sit on the side of the bed in pushing a resident in a wheelchair. There was no documentation SNA I, L, N, and O had taken these trainings.
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 and interview the facility failed to have a Nurse Staff Information sheet posted. The facility staff were unable to determine how many staff were supposed to be in the building f...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interview the facility failed to have a Nurse Staff Information sheet posted. The facility staff were unable to determine how many staff were supposed to be in the building for one of one facility. This negative finding did not allow staff or visitor to determine the number of staff needed to provide care to the facility residents. Findings included: During an observation of the facility on 9/18/23 at 6:17 p.m. reflected they did not have a Nurse Staff Information sheet posted. During an interview on 9/18/23 at 6:18 p.m. the Administrator said they were supposed to have 3 nurses on days and 4 aides. On nights they had two nurses and 2 to 3 aides but then they have not fully transitioned to 12 hour shifts and some of the staff work form 6p to 2p , 2p to 10 p and 10 p to 6a. and then some of her staff worked from 6a to 6p and from 6p to 6a. The Administrator said they used the schedule in the book at the nurse's station that the staff signed when they come in and they not have a Nurse Staff Information sheet posted. During an interview on 9/18/23 at 6:20 p.m. when asked for the facility Nurse Staff Information sheet that was supposed to be posted, the ADON, Interim DON, and Administrator appeared to know what the Facility Nurse Staff Information sheet was or why they needed to have one posted. The ADON said it may be one of her duties to post the staffing daily, but no one instructed her to do so, and she had not had time to complete ADON duties because of being on the floor working as a nurse. The Interim DON called cooperate to determine what needed to be on the sheet and getting it posted. During an interview and record review on 9/18/23 at 6:35 p.m. Interim DON printed out a form and tried to explain to the ADON and the administrator what went on the form but neither one knew how to fill it out. The Administrator said her former DON was the one that posted the form and she had been gone for two weeks. The Interim DON said she put the documentation on the Nurse Staff Information sheet from the daily staff sign in sheet.
Sept 2023 3 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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews the facility failed to treat residents with respect and dignity and care f...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews the facility failed to treat residents with respect and dignity and care for them in a manner and in an environment that promoted maintenance or enhancement of their quality of life for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #2) reviewed for resident rights. The facility did not ensure Resident #2 was assisted out of bed at her request on 8/27/23. This failure could place residents at risk for diminished quality of life, loss of dignity and loss of self-worth. Findings included: Record review of the face sheet for Resident #2 indicated she was [AGE] years old, admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including cerebral palsy (condition marked by impaired muscle coordination and/or other disabilities, typically caused by damage to the brain before or at birth), type II diabetes, muscle weakness, depression, anxiety, and obesity. Record review of the MDS dated [DATE] indicated Resident #2 made herself understood and understood others. The MDS indicated Resident #2 had intact cognition (BIMS of 13). The MDS indicated she had no behavior of rejecting care. The MDS indicated Resident #2 required extensive assistance with bed mobility, transfers, locomotion in her wheelchair, dressing, eating, toilet use, and personal hygiene. The MDS indicated she was totally dependent on staff for bathing. The MDS indicated Resident #2 had a functional limitation in range of motion to her right and left upper extremities as well as her right and left lower extremities. The MDS indicated she was frequently incontinent of bowel and bladder. Record review of the care plan revised on 6/14/23 indicated Resident #2 had diagnoses of cerebral palsy and paraplegia (paralysis of the legs/ lower body). The care plan interventions included, assist resident with ADLs and locomotion as required, encourage resident to perform as much as possible of these activities (ADLs). The care plan did not indicate Resident #2 resisted or refused care. During an observation and interview on 9/2/23 at 11:00 a.m., Resident #2 laid in her bed. Resident #2 said she could not get out of bed without the assistance of staff. Resident #2 said staff got her out of bed with the lift that connected to the net they put under her (Hoyer lift). Resident #2 said last Sunday (8/27/23) she did not get out of bed all day. Resident #2 said she wanted to get out of the bed and told CNA E she wanted to get out of bed a couple of times but was never assisted out of the bed into her wheelchair. During an interview on 9/2/23 at 4:00 p.m., Resident #3 said she was Resident #2's roommate. Resident #3 said she (Resident #2) had not been assisted out of the bed all day on Sunday (8/27/23). During an observation on 9/2/23 at 4:10 p.m., Resident #2 was sitting in her wheelchair. LVN C and an NA D performed a hoyer transfer from her (Resident #2's) wheelchair to her bed. There were no issues with the transfer. Resident #2 did not display any refusal of care, or behavior of swinging in the lift. Record review of the EMR ADL documentation for Resident #2 transfers for 8/26/23 did not document any transfer to or from: bed, chair, wheelchair, or standing position had taken place. Record review of the EMR ADL documentation for transfers for 8/27/23 at 3:29 a.m., indicated Resident #2 required two-person physical assistance for transfers to or from: bed, chair, wheelchair, or standing position had taken place. Record review of the EMR ADL documentation for Resident #2 transfers for 8/27/23 at 22:57 p.m., documented not applicable. Record review of the nursing notes for Resident #2 from 8/1/23 to 9/2/23 did not document any instances of refusal of care. During an interview on 9/3/23 at 9:50 a.m., Resident #2 said she could not remember if she got out of the bed on 8/26/23. Resident #2 said she did not think she had gotten out of bed last Saturday (8/26/23) because she did not get her shower on 8/26/23 but could not say for sure. Resident #2 said she knew she did not get out of bed all day on 8/27/23 because she asked multiple times and staff would say they would come back to get her up but never did. During an interview on 9/3/23 at 10:00 a.m., CNA F said dependent residents like Resident #2 should be assisted out of the bed when they request it. CNA F said it was important for dependent residents to be assisted out of the bed because it was their right to get up when they wanted to get up. CNA F said sometimes when a resident that required a hoyer lift requested to get up they might have to wait for a short time while another staff member was obtained to use the hoyer lift. CNA F said there was no reason for a resident who wanted to get up to have stayed in the bed all day long. During an interview on 9/3/23 at 11:00 a.m., LVN C said she expected nurse aides to get dependent residents up when they requested to get up. LVN C said Resident #2 should not have laid in the bed all day on 8/27/23. LVN C said it was important for Resident #2 to get up when she wanted for socialization and to feel human. During an interview on 9/3/23 at 11:56 a.m., NA E said last Saturday and Sunday (8/26/23 and 8/27/23) Resident #2 did not get out of the bed. NA E said she was the nurse aide for Resident #2 on Saturday (8/26/23) and she did not get Resident #2 out of the bed because she did not have time. NA E said Resident #2 was a hoyer lift and the hoyer lift required two staff to operate it. NA E said the other nurse aides did not have the opportunity to help her get Resident #2 up on Saturday (8/26/23). NA E said on Sunday she was not assigned to Resident #2 and was working in another area of the facility. NA E said she attempted on two instances to come assist with getting Resident #2 up out of the bed but was sent back to the unit which she had been assigned. During an interview on 9/3/23 at 12:05 p.m., the ADON said it was Resident #2's right to get out of the bed when she wanted to get out of bed. The ADON said at times a Resident that was a Hoyer lift may have to wait a little bit for the nurse aide to get another staff member to assist with the lift. The ADON said under no circumstances should Resident #2 have laid in the bed all day on 8/27/23. During an interview on 9/3/23 at 12:29 p.m. the corporate RN said Resident #2 was not always cooperative with care. The corporate RN said there were times staff offered to get Resident #2 up and she would refuse. The corporate RN said Resident #2 would then request to get up at busier times, like during meal service, when aides were not available to get her up. The Corporate RN said it was important for dependent residents like Resident #2 to be assisted out of bed and that there was no reason Resident #2 should have went all day on 8/27/23 without having been assisted out of the bed. During an interview on 9/3/23 at 12:32 p.m., the Administrator said Resident #2 refuses care and refuses to get up at times. The Administrator said the refusals were care planned. The Administrator said Resident #2 scared her with how she (Resident #2) acted in the hoyer lift sometimes. The Administrator explained she (Resident #2) had swung herself while in the lift and it caused a nurse aide to injure her (the nurse aides) hand. The Administrator said Resident #2 should be assisted out of her bed when she requested. Record review of the undated facility policy and procedure, titled Resident Rights, stated, The resident has a right to a dignified existence, self-determination . A facility must treat each resident with respect and dignity and care for each resident in a manner and in an environment that promotes maintenance or enhancement of his or her quality of life, recognizing each resident's individuality. The facility must protect and promote the rights of the resident. The facility must provide equal access to quality care regardless of diagnosis, severity of condition . (7) b. The resident's wishes and preferences must be considered in the exercise of rights by the representative. c. To the extent practicable, the resident must be provided with opportunities to participate in the care planning process. Planning and implementing care - The resident has the right to be informed of, and participate in, his or her treatment, including: . d. The right to receive the services and/or items included in the plan of care . Respect and dignity - The resident has a right to be treated with respect and dignity, including: .(3) 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 . Self-determination - The resident has the right to and the facility must promote and facilitate resident self-determination through support of resident choice. (1) The resident has a right to choose activities, schedules (including sleeping and waking times), health care and providers of health care services consistent with his or her interests, assessments, plan of care and other applicable provisions of this part. (2) The resident has the right to make choices about aspects of his or her life in the facility that are significant to the resident. (3) The resident has a right to interact with members of the community and participate in community activities both inside and outside the facility .
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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

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 a resident who was 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 a resident who was unable to carry out activities of daily living received the necessary services to maintain personal hygiene were provided for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for ADLs (Resident # 2). The facility did not provide Resident #2 with her scheduled showers/baths. This failure could place dependent residents at risk for poor personal hygiene, skin infections and decreased quality of life. Findings Included: Record review of the face sheet for Resident #2 indicated she was [AGE] years old admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including cerebral palsy (condition marked by impaired muscle coordination and/or other disabilities, typically caused by damage to the brain before or at birth), type II diabetes, muscle weakness, depression, anxiety, and obesity. Record review of the MDS dated [DATE] indicated Resident #2 made herself understood and understood others. The MDS indicated Resident #1 had intact cognition (BIMS of 13). The MDs indicated she had no behavior of rejecting care. The MDS indicated Resident #2 required extensive assistance with bed mobility, transfers, locomotion in her wheelchair, dressing, eating, toilet use, and personal hygiene. The MDS indicated she was totally dependent on staff for bathing. The MDS indicated Resident #2 had a functional limitation in range of motion to her right and left upper extremities as well as her right and left lower extremities. The MDS indicated she was frequently incontinent of bowel and bladder. Record review of the care plan revised on 6/14/23 indicated Resident #2 had diagnoses of cerebral palsy and paraplegia (paralysis of the legs/ lower body). The care plan interventions included, assist resident with ADLs and locomotion as required, encourage resident to perform as much as possible of these activities (ADLs). The care plan did not indicate Resident #2 resisted or refused care. During an observation and interview on 9/2/23 at 11:00 a.m., Resident #2 laid in her bed. Resident #2 said she could not take a shower or get a bed bath without the assistance of staff. Resident #2 said last Saturday (8/26/23) she did not receive a shower or a bed bath. Record review of the EMR ADL documentation for Resident #2 indicated her shower days were Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday on the 2:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. shift. Record review of the EMR ADL documentation for REsident #2 on 9/2/23 indicated Resident #2 had not been provided a shower or bed bath since 8/19/23. On 8/24/23 it was documented Resident #2 refused a bed bath or shower. There were no other documentations of refusal between 8/19/23 and 9/2/23. The EMR ADL documentation indicated Resident #2 did not receive a shower or bath on the following dates; 8/19/23; 8/22/23; 8/24/23 (documented refusal); 8/26/23; 8/29/23; and 8/31/23. Record review of the nursing notes for Resident #2 from 8/1/23 to 9/2/23 did not document any instances of refusal of care. During an interview on 9/3/23 at 9:50 a.m., Resident #2 said her scheduled shower days were Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday. Resident #2 said she usually received her showers in the evening. Resident #1 said she did not get her shower on Saturday. Resident #1 said she did not refuse a shower on Saturday. Resident #2 said she could not remember who the nurse aide was on Saturday (8/26/23) and thought it might have been NA E, but could not say for sure. Resident #2 said she did not get a shower on Tuesday (8/29/23) but did receive a shower on Thursday (8/31/23). Resident #2 said she could not say for sure how many showers or baths she had been given in the last 2 weeks. Resident #2 said she had maybe 3 -4 showers/baths in the past two weeks. During an interview on 9/3/23 at 10:00 a.m., CNA F said dependent residents like Resident #2 received scheduled bathing/showers in order to maintain hygiene and identify any skin changes. CNA F said the administration of showers/baths were documented in EMR record. CNA F said if a resident refused a bath, the CNA or NA should notify the nurse. CNA F said there were also shower sheets filled out by CNAs/NAs. During an interview on 9/3/23 at 11:00 a.m., LVN C said she expected CNAs to administer showers as they were scheduled. LVN C said it was important for residents to receive showers/baths to ensure good hygiene and make the resident feel better. LVN C said showers/bathing were also a good opportunity to assess a resident's skin. LVN C said if a resident refused a shower/bath the CNA or NA, should attempt at a later time in the day. LVN C said if the resident still refused the CNA or NA should notify the nurse. LVN C said the nurse should then speak to resident to see if they could identify the reason for the refusal. During an interview on 9/3/23 at 11:56 a.m., NA E said Resident #2's shower days were Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday. NA E said last Saturday (8/26/23) Resident #2 did not get a shower or bath. NA E said she was the nurse aide for Resident #2 on Saturday (8/26/23) and she did not give Resident #2 a shower because she did not have time. NA E said Resident #2 was a hoyer lift and the hoyer lift required two staff to operate it. NA E said the other nurse aides did not have the opportunity to help her get Resident #2 up for a shower on Saturday (8/26/23). Shower sheets were requested from the Administrator on 9/3/23 at 12:30 p.m. but were not provided before exit and had not been sent as of 9/7/23. During an interview on 9/3/23 at 12:05 p.m., the ADON said it was important for residents to receive their scheduled showers because it decreased their risk of skin infections. The ADON said she expected CNAs/NAs to administer residents their showers/baths as scheduled. During an interview on 9/3/23 at 12:29 p.m. the Corporate RN said Resident #2 was not always cooperative with care and would refuse showers/baths at times. The Corporate RN said if a resident refuses a shower or bath the CNA/NA should notify the nurse and the nurse should document the refusal. The Corporate RN said it was important for dependent residents like Resident #2 to be administered showers/baths three times a week to promote hygiene. During an interview on 9/3/23 at 12:32 p.m., the Administrator said Resident #2 refuses care and refuses to get up at times. The Administrator said the refusals were care planned. The Administrator said residents should be offered showers/baths when they were scheduled. The Administrator said when the DON quit on 8/31/23 she (the DON) threw a lot of items in the shred bin. The Administrator said she was going through the shred bin now trying to find shower sheet documentation. Record review of the facility policy and procedure dated 2003, titled Bath, Tub/Shower, stated Bathing by tub bath or shower is done to remove soil, dead epithelial cells, microorganisms from the skin, and body odor to promote comfort, cleanliness, circulation, and relaxation. A medicated tub bath can also be provided to treat skin conditions. The aging skin becomes dry, wrinkled, thinner and blemished with various aging spots over time and is easily affected by environmental temperature and humidity, sun exposure, soaps, and clothing fabrics. The frequency and type of bathing depends on resident preference, skin condition, tolerance and energy level. Although a daily bath or shower is preferred and necessary for some, the aging skin can be maintained by bathing every two days or with partial bathing as needed .
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 observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure necessary treatment and services, consistent w...

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 necessary treatment and services, consistent with professional standards of practice, to promote healing and prevent new pressure injuries from developing was provided for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for pressure injuries (Resident #1). The facility did not complete weekly skin assessments on Resident #1. The facility did not promptly identify and initiate treatment for the Stage II pressure injury to Resident #1's sacrum. These failures could place residents at risk for new development or worsening of existing pressure injuries, pain, and decreased quality of life. Findings included: Record review of the face sheet for Resident #1 indicated she was [AGE] years old, readmitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease, depression, anxiety, lack of coordination, High blood pressure, malnutrition, muscle weakness and unstageable pressure ulcer of the left heel. Record review of the MDS dated [DATE] indicated Resident #1 usually made herself understood and usually understood others. The MDS indicated Resident #1 was cognitively intact (BIMS of 14). The MDS indicated she had no behavior of rejecting care. The MDS indicated Resident #1 required extensive assistance with bed mobility, transfers, locomotion with her walker, dressing, toilet use, personal hygiene, and bathing. The MDS indicated she required limited assistance with walking and eating. The MDS indicated Resident #1 was always incontinent of bowel and bladder. The MDS indicated Resident #1 was at risk for developing pressure injuries and had one unhealed, unstageable deep pressure injury. The MDS indicated Resident #1 received the following skin and ulcer/Injury treatments; pressure reducing device for her bed, pressure ulcer/injury care, and application of ointments/medications (other than to feet). Record review of the care plan revised on 5/10/23 indicated Resident #1 had a DTI to the left heel with an onset date of 5/8/23. The care plan interventions included; follow the facility policies/protocols for the prevention/treatment of skin breakdown and notify the nurse immediately of any new areas of skin breakdown (open area, redness, blisters, bruises, discoloration noted during bath or daily care). Record review of the weekly ulcer assessment on 5/8/23 indicated Resident #1 had a Deep tissue injury to her Left heel measuring 4 centimeters in length, 5 centimeters in depth, and an undetermined depth. The weekly ulcer assessment indicated there were no signs or symptoms of infection. Record review of the weekly ulcer assessment on 8/31/23 indicated Resident #1 had a Deep tissue injury to her Left heel measuring 0.3 centimeters in length, 0.2 centimeters in depth, and an undetermined depth. The weekly ulcer assessment indicated there were no signs or symptoms of infection. Record review of Resident #1's skin assessments from 7/1/23 to 9/2/23 indicated Resident #1 did not have a weekly skin assessment completed on the following weeks; *the week of 7/3/23; *the week of 7/10/23; *the week of 7/31/23; and *the week of 8/13/23. Record review of the skin assessment on 7/27/23 for Resident #1 did not indicate she had a pressure injury to her sacrum. Record review of the skin assessment on 8/9/23 for Resident #1 did not indicate she had a pressure injury to her sacrum. Record review of the weekly ulcer assessment on 8/9/23 for Resident #1 did not indicate she had a pressure injury to her sacrum. Record review of the weekly ulcer assessment on 8/17/23 for Resident #1 did not indicate she had a pressure injury to her sacrum. Record review of the skin assessment on 8/20/23 for Resident #1 did not indicate she had a pressure injury to her sacrum. This skin assessment was completed by LVN A. Record review of the weekly ulcer assessment on 8/24/23 for Resident #1 did not indicate she had a pressure injury to her sacrum. This skin assessment was completed by LVN A. Record review of the skin assessment on 8/31/23 for Resident #1 did not indicate she had a pressure injury to her sacrum. This skin assessment was completed by LVN A. Record review of the weekly ulcer assessment on 8/31/23 for Resident #1 did not indicate she had a pressure injury to her sacrum. This skin assessment was completed by LVN A. During an observation on 9/2/23 at 2:08 p.m., Resident #1 laid in her bed. NA B positioned Resident #1 on her right side. When NA B removed Resident #1's incontinent brief, it was observed Resident #1 had a small area (measuring approximately 1 centimeter in length and 1 centimeter in width) of broken skin on the sacral area (the sacral spine (sacrum) are of bony prominence located below the lumbar spine and above the tailbone, which is known as the coccyx). The wound bed was bright red. There were no signs and symptoms of infection. There was no adipose (fat) tissue visible. During an interview on 9/2/23 at 2:09 p.m., Resident #1 said she didn't know she had a wound on her sacrum. Resident #1 said the area did not hurt. During an interview on 9/2/23 at 2:10 p.m., NA B said the area to Resident #1's sacrum was looking better. NA B said the area had been present a couple of weeks. NA B said she told a nurse when she found the area but could not say what nurse she notified. NA B said she had only been at the facility about a month and did not know all of the nurse's names. NA B said it was important to notify the nurses promptly when resident skin changes were identified because they would get orders for treatment. During an interview on 9/2/23 at 3:00 p.m., LVN A said she was providing care for Resident #1 this weekend and regularly took care of her on the weekends (from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.). LVN A said she was not aware Resident #1 had any wounds to her sacrum. During an interview and observation on 9/2/23 at 3:05 p.m., Resident #1 laid in her bed. LVN A and LVN C positioned Resident #1 on her left side. When LVN A removed Resident #1's incontinent brief, it was observed Resident #1 had a small area that measured 1 centimeter in length and 1 centimeter in depth of broken skin. The area was not blanchable. The wound bed was bright red. LVN A said the area was too shallow to measure a depth. There were no signs and symptoms of infection. There was no adipose (fat) tissue visible. LVN A said she could not stage the wound because she was an LVN. During an interview on 9/2/23 at 3:10 p.m., LVN A said NA B had not reported the area on Resident #1's sacrum to her. LVN A said she had not been notified by any other nurse that Resident #1 had a wound to her sacrum. LVN A said there were no treatment in orders in place for the wound to Resident #1's sacrum because the wound had not been identified. LVN A said she would obtain orders immediately. During an interview on 9/2/23 at 3:12 p.m., LVN C said NA B had not reported the area in Resident #1's sacrum to her. LVN C said all residents should have a weekly skin assessment performed. During an interview on 9/3/23 at 10:55 a.m., NA D said any CNA or NA who find an area of redness, broken skin, bruising or any type of skin changes should promptly notify the resident's nurse. NA D said it was important for nurses to be notified promptly so that any needed interventions could be put in place right away. During an interview on 9/3/23 at 11:10 a.m., LVN A said she had performed a head-to-toe skin assessment on Resident #1 last Thursday (8/31/23). LVN A said the pressure injury to Resident #1's sacrum was not present and there was no area of redness when she performed her (Resident #1's) skin assessment on 8/31/23. LVN A said the aides were the eyes and ears of the nurses because they provided so much of the direct resident care (incontinent care and bathing). LVN A said between skin assessments if a nurse aide does not notify us (nurses) of skin changes/breakdown they will not be aware until the next skin assessment was completed. LVN A said it was important that nurse aides promptly notify nurses of skin changes/breakdown so the appropriate interventions can be put in place. LVN A said if we (nurses) were not notified promptly things can spin out of control quickly. During an interview on 9/3/23 at 12:05 p.m., the ADON said nurses should complete skin assessments weekly for every resident. The ADON said nurse aides should promptly report any area of redness or skin breakdown to the nurse caring for the resident. The ADON said there had not been any procedure in place to ensure weekly skin assessments were being completed. The ADON said she performed a skin sweep (performed skin assessments on every resident in the building) last night (9/2/23-9/3/23). During an interview on 9/3/23 at 12:29 p.m. the corporate RN said nurses should complete skin assessments weekly for every resident. The corporate RN said nurse aides should promptly report any area of redness or skin breakdown to the nurse caring for the resident so that interventions could be initiated. During an interview on 9/3/23 at 12:32 p.m., the Administrator said all residents should receive skin assessments weekly. The Administrator said LVN A had performed a skin assessment on 8/31/23 and there was no wound at that time. The Administrator said NA B should have immediately communicated to the nurse taking care of Resident #1 of the area on her (Resident #1's) sacrum. The Administrator said there had not been any procedure in place to ensure weekly skin assessments were being completed or that nurse aides were communicating skin changes to the nurses, but the ADON performed skin assessments on all of the facility residents last night (9/2/23-9/3/23). Record review of the facility policy and procedure, revised on 8/12/16, titled Pressure Injury: Prevention, Assessment and Treatment, stated Procedure: (1) Nursing personnel will continually aim to maintain the skin integrity, tone, turgor and circulation to prevent breakdown, injury and infection. (2) Early prevention and/or treatment is essential upon initial nursing assessment of the condition of the skin on admission and whenever a change in skin status occurs .(9) Assess for early signs of skin breakdown and report any abnormal findings. Early signs of pressure sores include redness, tenderness and swelling of the skin . Staging definitions are per the guidelines of the National Pressure injury Advisory Panel February 2016 definitions . Stage 1 Pressure Injury: Non-blanchable erythema of intact skin: Intact skin with a localized area of non-blanchable erythema, which may appear differently in darkly pigmented skin. Presence of blanchable erythema or changes in sensation, temperature, or firmness may precede visual changes. Color changes do not include purple or maroon discoloration; these may indicate deep tissue pressure injury. Stage 2 Pressure Injury: Partial-thickness skin loss with exposed dermis: Partial-thickness loss of skin with exposed dermis. The wound bed is viable, pink or red, moist, and may also present as an intact or ruptured serum-filled blister. Adipose (fat) is not visible and deeper tissues are not visible. Granulation tissue, slough and eschar are not present .
Aug 2023 5 deficiencies 3 IJ
CRITICAL (J) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Notification of Changes (Tag F0580)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to immediately consult with the resident's primary care physician and/or resident's hospice provider/physician following a fall resulting in a hip fracture for 1 of 6 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for resident rights. The facility failed to inform the attending physician, NP, hospice physician and hospice provider for Resident #1 following a fall with injury on 07/06/2023. This failure resulted in identification of Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) on 08/09/2023 at 4:20 p.m. The IJ was removed on 8/10/2023 at 3:10 p.m. While the IJ was removed, the facility remained out of compliance at a scope of isolated and a severity level of actual harm that is not immediate, due to the facility's need to complete in-servicing and monitoring interventions. This failure could place residents at risk for not receiving appropriate care and interventions and/or death. Findings included: Record review of Resident #1's Face Sheet dated August 2023 indicated Resident #1 was a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #1's diagnoses included dementia (impaired ability to remember, think, or make decisions that interferes with doing everyday activities), cerebral infarction (damage to the brain from interruption of its blood supply), and type II diabetes (the body does not make enough insulin or cannot use it as well as it should). Record review of Resident #1's significant change MDS assessment dated [DATE], revealed Resident #1 had short- and long-term memory impairment. Resident #1wandered daily. Resident #1 ambulated with unsteady balance that was stabilized without staff assistance. Resident #1 required supervision assistance with ambulation in room and in corridor. No falls were noted on Resident #1's MDS. Resident #1 was on the secured dementia unit until 07/11/2023. Record review of Resident #1's care plan dated 01/20/2023 revealed, Resident #1 was at risk for increased falls and fractures as evidenced by: unsteady gait /cognitive impairment/ physical impairment. Intervention was listed as Resident #1 to be in wheelchair when up related to poor balance on revised on 02/19/2023. Record review of Resident #1's incident and accident report dated 07/06/2023 by RN D indicated, SN (skilled nurse) called by CNA that resident had fallen, fall was unwitnessed and in hallway of secure unit. Resident was complaining of pain on right wrist, lump has presented on right side of her forehead and small abrasion on left elbow. Resident was assessed and transferred to a wheelchair for continued observation. Hospice was called at 4:09 a.m. and fall was reported, Message sent to DON and Administrator. Contact attempted with husband but was unsuccessful. Neuros within normal limits at this time. The incident and accident report also indicated Resident #1 complained of right wrist pain at a 5 on a scale of 1-10. Record review of Resident #1's nurses notes written on 07/06/2023 at 3:57 a.m. by RN D, indicated skilled nurse called by CNA that resident had fallen, fall was unwitnessed and in hallway of secure unit. Resident complains of pain on right wrist, lump has presented to right side of her forehead and small abrasion to left elbow. Resident was assessed and transferred to a wheelchair for continued observation. Hospice was called at 4:09 a.m. and fall was reported. Message sent to DON and Administrator. Contact attempted with (Family Member) but was unsuccessful. Neuro checks within normal limits at this time. Record review of Resident #1's nurse notes revealed, no nurse notes were recorded from 07/07/2023 until 07/09/2023. Record review of Resident #1's nurse notes for 07/09/2023 written by RN D indicated, called to resident room related to resident screaming in pain, unable to verbalize location of pain but yells louder when turned toward right side, tramadol was administered per hospice pain management orders. Record review of nurse notes revealed no nurses' notes written on 07/10/2023. Record review of Resident #1's hospice communication notes for 07/10/2023 at 6:12 p.m., written by RN G indicated, Hospice Aide H, contacted this a.m. to report patient was 'very different' today. She would not stand up 'at all' today. She reported (the resident) was in wheelchair during her visit today and staff had her up in dining area for a meal. RN G asked (Hospice Aide H) if Tramadol had been given, she reported she was not aware, but wanted RN G to know of change since last Friday 07/07/2023. Hospice Aide H stated patient had 'new' bruises but staff not able to tell her if she fell or when. RN G advised patient to be seen in am and will follow up then. Record review of Resident #1's Hospice encounter notes from 07/11/2023 at 9:55 a.m., written by RN G, Last week, patient was ambulatory without use of assistive device (due to cognitive deficits); Yesterday, Hospice Aide noted patient would not bear weight when she was trying to transfer to shower chair, or change her brief. Resident 'acted like' she was having increased pain with position changes. Facility CNAs also reported this was noted since they 'returned to work' yesterday. There was no documentation over the weekend of her mobility status form facility staff. Fall was documented by facility nurse 07/06/2023 on 'night shift' with no specific information re: events surrounding fall except 'no injuries noted'. Patient (Resident #1) was seen with furrowed brows, whimpering, sitting up in wheelchair but appears uncomfortable. LVN E, was preparing Tramadol to give her (Resident #1) as staff had just informed LVN E, she was 'whimpering and acting like she was uncomfortable'. Record review of Resident #1's nurse notes for 07/11/2023 at 10:52 a.m., written by LVN E indicated, Hospice nurse here with new order noted :(1) X-ray bilateral hips today r/t pain. (2) Tramadol 50mg 1 po q 6 hours routinely. (3) D/C routine fingerstick blood sugar checks. Record review of Resident #1's nurse notes for 07/11/2023 at 1:12 p.m., written by LVN E indicated, Results of x-ray show: Interval development of an acute right subcapital hip fracture. Hospice notified and hospice nurse notified family and will consult them with hospice doctor to decide course of treatment for resident. MD F, resident's primary care physician also notified with no new orders at this time, awaiting hospice plan of treatment. Resident currently in bed with positioning pillows for comfort. Record review of Resident #1's July 2023 MARS indicated, Resident #1 was administered nothing for pain from the time of the fall until Tramadol was administered on 07/07/23, nothing on 07/08/2023, administered Tramadol on 07/09/2023, and 07/11/23.There were no assessments for effectiveness of pain medication on the MAR. During observation on 08/08/2023 at 9:10 a.m., Resident #1 was lying in bed with eyes closed. No signs or symptoms of pain noted. During observation on 08/08/2023 at 2:15 p.m., Resident #1 was lying in bed facing window. Resident #1 had eyes closed and no facial grimace was noted. During observation on 08/09/2023 at 10:10 a.m., Resident #1 was lying in bed facing door. Resident #1 was awake and talking to herself with no signs of facial grimace noted. During an interview on 08/09/2023 at 8:35 a.m., RN D stated she was the nurse in charge of Resident #1 on the morning of 07/06/2023. RN D stated the CNA on duty came and got her from the nurse's station to alert her Resident #1 was on the floor in the secured unit. RN D stated she immediately went and assessed Resident #1 for injury. RN D stated Resident #1 complained of pain to right wrist, the right side of her forehead and had a large abrasion to her left upper arm. RN D stated Resident #1 verbalized a 5 on a scale of 1-10 as her pain level after the fall. RN D stated there was no pain medication in the building for Resident #1 or she would have treated her pain. RN D stated she contacted the on-call hospice number about the fall. RN D stated she did not directly contact the MD; she left that up to hospice. RN D stated on 07/09/2023 she was called to Resident #1's room because Resident #1 was screaming in pain and administered the tramadol ordered by hospice. RN D stated it was when Resident #1 rolled to her right side that she screamed. RN D stated she did not notify the MD of the amount of pain or that it was positional pain. RN D stated hospice was already aware of Resident #1's pain and the hospice MD chose to discontinue the morphine Resident #1 had been taking and started her on tramadol. RN D stated she was unaware Resident #1 had a fractured hip because her last day to work at the facility was 07/09/2023. During an interview on 08/09/2023 at 2:00 p.m., RN G stated she was the hospice nurse that followed Resident #1's care. RN G stated she was in the facility on 07/06/2023 in the afternoon to discontinue Resident #1's morphine and start her on tramadol prn. RN G stated she was never notified Resident #1 had a fall that a.m. RN G stated Resident #1 was asleep in the bed when she was there. RN G stated she was notified about the change in condition of Resident #1 by hospice CNA H on 07/10/2023. RN G stated she was called by CNA H during the afternoon of 07/10/2023 and was told Resident #1 was in a wheelchair and was unable to bear weight when transferring from the wheelchair to the shower chair. CNA H observed new bruising to right leg and right arm on 07/10/2023. RN G stated she came to the facility the next morning (07/11/2023) to assess Resident #1 and found the resident in pain. RN G contacted the MD, and he ordered her to x ray both hips. RN G stated she asked the facility nurses about any falls, and they (the facility nurses) stated she fell on [DATE] but no injuries were reported on the incident report. RN G stated x rays were obtained on 07/11/2023, and it was noted that she had a right hip fracture. During an attempted interview on 08/09/2023 at 2:15 p.m., weekend day shift nurse was not avaiable. Message left with no returned call. During an interview on 08/09/2023 at 2:20 p.m., MD I stated he could not recall being contacted about the fall for Resident #1 on 07/06/2023. MD I stated he would have remembered being called at 4:00 a.m. MD I stated had he been contacted with the information of right wrist pain, a lump on the right forehead and an abrasion to her left arm, he would have ordered to send her to the ER (emergency room) if the family wished for her to go. If the family had not wanted her to go, or he would have ordered in house x rays. MD I stated Resident #1 was on anticoagulant medications that can cause bleeding on the brain that can lead to death. MD I stated anyone on anticoagulant therapy would be sent to the ER if they hit their heads. MD I stated anyone that complained of bone pain after a fall would get an x ray either at the facility or at the hospital. During an attempted interview on 08/09/2023 at 2:30 p.m., weekend CNA responsible for Resident #1's care had a phone number that was not inservice. During an interview on 08/09/2023 at 2:45 p.m., the DON was not available. The corporate RN stated the facility normally contacted the hospice and the hospice would immediately contact the hospice MD for orders. The corporate RN stated she was unsure of why the RN D had not ensured the hospice notified the MD by calling again and asking for orders. During an interview on 08/09/2023 at 2:50 p.m.,The Administrator stated it was in their policy to notify the MD with all changes in conditions and they used the SBAR (situation-background-assessment-recommendation) system to notify the MD and get the MD response even if the resident were on hospice. No SBAR was done on Resident #1 with the fall on 7/06/2023. During an interview on 08/09/2023 at 2:40 p.m., NP J stated she was not called about the fall for Resident #1. NP J stated she should not have been called about her because she did not follow hospice residents. During an interview on 08/09/2023 at 3:00 p.m., MD F stated he was not notified about the fall for Resident #1 by the facility or by the hospice company. Record review of the facility policy titled Notifying the Physician in a Change of Status, dated 03/11/2013 indicated the physician is notified promptly of any significant change in resident status. This failure resulted in identification of Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) on 08/09/2023 at 4:20 p.m. The Plan of Removal was accepted on 08/10/2023 at 12:00 p.m., and included the following: Plan of Removal F580 o All residents in the facility were assessed for any change of condition by the DON and Charge Nurses as of 8/9/23. No additional issues were found. o All charge nurses were in-serviced on 8/9/23 by the Compliance Nurse/DON/ADON regarding the following and all nurses including agency staff, new hires and PRN. Staff not in-serviced by 8/9/23 will not be allowed to work their assigned position until completion of these in-services: This will be ongoing. DON and ADON were in-serviced by Compliance Nurse. Notification of change of condition to the physician immediately including fractures, increased pain, decreased mobility, or a change in eating habits. A head-to-toe assessment will be performed by the charge nurse on all residents who present with a change in condition. In-services were initiated for all nursing staff on 8/9/23 by the Compliance Nurse/DON/ADON regarding the following and will be completed on 8/10/2023 by 8am. All staff not in-serviced on 8/9/23 including agency staff, new hires and PRN staff will not be allowed to work their assigned schedule until the completion of these in-services. Notification of change of condition to the charge nurse immediately including falls, injuries, increased pain and decreased mobility. MD I, Medical Director, was notified by the DON on 8/9/23 at 5:15p.m. about the Immediate Jeopardies. An AD HOC QAPI meeting will be held on 8/10/23 by the Interdisciplinary Team to discuss the Immediate Jeopardies and review the Plan of Removal. The Director of Nursing or designee will implement this written Plan of Removal and will continue to monitor completion and compliance of this written Plan of Removal. Monitoring: o The DON and/or designee will monitor Real Time clinical software and the EHR dashboard for clinical alerts for any resident change of condition including new or increased pain at least 5 days per week to ensure physician/NP were notified. Monitoring began 8/10/23 and will continue x 4 weeks. o The DON and/or designee will monitor Real Time clinical software and the EHR dashboard at least 5 days per week, to ensure any new physician/NP orders were implemented immediately. Monitoring began 8/10/23 and will continue x 4 weeks. * Resident #1 had completed pain assessments that showed no pain on 08/09/2023, 08/10/2023 and 08/11/2023. * During observation on 08/08/2023 at 9:10 a.m., Resident #1 was lying in bed with eyes closed. No signs or symptoms of pain noted. * During observation on 08/08/2023 at 2:15 p.m., Resident #1 was lying in bed facing window. Resident #1 had eyes closed and no facial grimace was noted. * During observation on 08/09/2023 at 10:10 a.m., Resident #1 was lying in bed facing door. Resident #1 was awake and talking to herself with no signs of facial grimace noted. * During an attempted interview on 08/09/2023 at 2:15 p.m., weekend day shift nurse was not avaiable. Message left with no returned call. * During an attempted interview on 08/09/2023 at 2:30 p.m., weekend CNA responsible for Resident #1's care had a phone number that was not inservice. Verification of the Plan of Removal was as follows: Reviewed in-service training dated 08/09/2023 and 08/10/23 for all nursing staff, on all shifts. The nursing staff were in-serviced on notification of change of condition to the physician immediately including fractures, increased pain, decreased mobility, or a change in eating habits. A head-to-toe assessment was performed by the charge nurse on all residents who present with a change in condition. The charge nurse performed pain assessments on all residents who presented with signs/symptoms or complaint of pain. Interviews conducted 8/10/2023 between 1:25 p.m. and 3:00 p.m. revealed CNA J, K, L, N. S, U, W, X Y and Z all stated they had received in-servicing provided by the facility as part of the plan of removal and all had knowledge and understanding of reporting changes in condition by using a Stop and Watch form and giving a copy to the charge nurse, and DON. Interviews revealed LVN M, P, R, U, T, V, and AA, as well as RN Q all stated they had received in-servicing provided by the facility as part of the plan of removal and all had knowledge and understanding of notification of change of condition to the physician immediately including fractures, increased pain, decreased mobility, or a change in eating habits and doing a head-to-toe assessment performed by the charge nurse on all residents who present with a change in condition. Notification of change of condition to the charge nurse immediately including falls, injuries, increased pain, and decreased mobility. An Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) was identified on 08/09/2023 at 4:20 p.m. The IJ was removed on 8/10/2023 at 3:10 p.m. While the IJ was removed, the facility remained out of compliance at a scope of isolated and a severity level of actual harm that is not immediate, due to the facility's need to complete in-servicing and monitoring interventions.
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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

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 residents received care and services in accordance with profe...

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 residents received care and services in accordance with professional standards of practice for 1 of 6 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for quality of care. -The facility failed to treat Resident#1 after a fall with injury and reports of pain. -The facility failed to have prescribed pain medication available for Resident #1. -The facility failed to notify the MD of the fall with injury and Resident #1 was diagnosed with a fractured right hip on 07/11/2023. This failure resulted in identification of Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) on 08/09/2023 at 4:20 p.m. The IJ was removed on 8/10/2023 at 3:10 p.m. While the IJ was removed, the facility remained out of compliance at a scope of isolated and a severity level of actual harm that is not immediate, due to the facility's need to complete in-servicing and monitoring interventions. This failure could place residents at risk for not receiving appropriate care and interventions and/or death. Findings included: Record review of Resident #1's Face Sheet dated August 2023 indicated Resident #1 was a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #1's diagnoses included dementia (impaired ability to remember, think, or make decisions that interferes with doing everyday activities), cerebral infarction (damage to the brain from interruption of its blood supply), and type II diabetes (the body does not make enough insulin or cannot use it as well as it should). Record review of Resident #1's significant change MDS assessment dated [DATE], revealed Resident #1 had short- and long-term memory impairment. Resident #1wandered daily. Resident #1 ambulated with unsteady balance that was stabilized without staff assistance. Resident #1 required supervision assistance with ambulation in room and in corridor. No falls were noted on Resident #1's MDS. No indicators of pain were noted on the MDS. Resident #1 lived on the dementia unit until 07/11/2023. Record review of Resident #1's care plan dated 01/20/2023 revealed, Resident #1 was at risk for increased falls and fractures as evidenced by: unsteady gait /cognitive impairment/ physical impairment. Intervention was listed as Resident #1 to be in wheelchair when up related to poor balance on 02/19/2023. No pain care plan was noted. Record review of Resident #1's physician orders for July 2023 revealed an order with a start date of 05/23/2023 for Morphine sulfate 20mg/ml give 0.25ml every 4 hours as needed for pain. This order for Morphine sulfate was discontinued on 07/06/2023 and restarted on 07/13/2023. An order dated 05/09/2023 for acetaminophen 325 mg give two tablets every 6 hours as needed for pain. An order for Eliquis (anticoagulant) 2.5mg twice daily was ordered 01/23/2023. Record review of Resident #1's incident and accident report dated 07/06/2023 at by RN D indicated, SN (skilled nurse) called by CNA that resident had fallen, fall was unwitnessed and in hallway of secure unit. Resident is c/o pain on right wrist, lump presented on right side of her forehead and small abrasion on left elbow. Resident was assessed and transferred to a wheelchair for continued observation. Harbor hospice was called at 4:09 a.m., and fall was reported, Message sent to DON and Admin. Contact attempted with husband but was unsuccessful. Neuros within normal limits at the time. The incident and accident report also indicated Resident #1 complained of right wrist pain at a 5 on a scale of 1-10. Record review of Resident #1's nurses notes written on 07/06/2023 at 3:57 a.m. by RN D, indicated skilled nurse called by CNA that resident had fallen, fall was unwitnessed and in hallway of secure unit. Resident complains of pain on right wrist, lump has presented to R side of her forehead and small abrasion to left elbow. Resident was assessed and transferred to a wheelchair for continued observation. Hospice was called at 4:09 a.m. and fall was reported. Message sent to DON and Administrator. Contact attempted with husband but was unsuccessful. Neuro checks within normal limits at this time. Record review of Resident #1's notes indicated, no nurse notes from 07/07/2023 until 07/09/2023. Record review of Resident #1's nurse notes for 07/09/2023 written by RN D indicated, called to resident room related to resident screaming in pain, unable to verbalize location of pain but yells louder when turned toward right side, tramadol was administered per hospice pain management orders. Record review of nurse notes revealed no nurses' notes written on 07/10/2023. Record review of Resident #1's hospice communication notes for 07/10/2023 at 6:12 p.m., written by RN G indicated, Hospice Aide H, contacted this am to report patient was 'very different' today. She would not stand up 'at all' today. She reported she was in wheelchair during her visit and staff had her up in dining area for meal. RN G asked Hospice Aide H if Tramadol had been given, she reported she was not aware, but wanted RN to know of change since last Friday. Hospice Aide H stated patient had 'new' bruises but staff not able to tell her if she fell or when. RN G advised patient to be seen in a.m. and will follow up then. Record review of Resident #1's Hospice encounter notes from 07/11/2023 at 9:55 a.m., written by RN G, Last week, patient was ambulatory without use of assistive device (due to cognitive deficits); Yesterday, Hospice Aide noted patient would not bear weight when she was trying to transfer to shower chair, or change her brief. She 'acted like' she was having increased pain with position changes. Facility CNA's also report this was noted since they 'returned to work' yesterday- there was no documentation over the weekend of her mobility status from facility staff. Fall was documented by facility nurse 07/06/2023 on 'night shift' with no specific information re: events surrounding fall except 'no injuries noted'. Patient is seen with furrowed brows, whimpering, sitting up in wheelchair but appears uncomfortable. LVN E, was preparing Tramadol to give Resident #1 as staff had just informed LVN E, she was 'whimpering and acting like she is uncomfortable'. Record review of Resident #1's nurse notes for 07/11/2023 at 10:52 a.m., written by LVN E indicated, Hospice nurse here with new order noted :(1) X-ray bilateral hips today related to pain. (2) Tramadol 50mg 1 orally every 6 hours routinely. (3) Discontinue routine fingerstick blood sugar checks. Husband present and aware of all new orders. Record review of Resident #1's nurse notes for 07/11/2023 at 1:12 p.m., written by LVN E indicated, Results of x-ray show: Interval development of an acute right subcapital hip fracture. Hospice notified and hospice nurse notified family and will consult them with hospice doctor to decide course of treatment for resident. MD F, resident's primary care physician also notified with no new orders at this time, awaiting hospice plan of treatment. Resident currently in bed with positioning pillows for comfort. Record review of Resident #1's July 2023 MARS indicated, Resident #1 was administered nothing for pain from the time of the fall until Tramadol was administered on 07/07/23, nothing on 07/08/2023, administered Tramadol on 07/09/2023, and 07/11/23.There were no assessments for effectiveness of pain medication on the MAR. During observation on 08/08/2023 at 9:10 a.m., Resident #1 was lying in bed with eyes closed. No signs or symptoms of pain noted. During observation on 08/08/2023 at 2:15 p.m., Resident #1 was lying in bed facing window. Resident #1 had eyes closed and no facial grimace was noted. During observation on 08/09/2023 at 10:10 a.m., Resident #1 was lying in bed facing door. Resident #1 was awake and talking to herself with no signs of facial grimace noted. During an interview on 08/09/2023 at 8:35 a.m., RN D stated she was the nurse in charge of Resident #1 on the morning of 07/06/2023. RN D stated the CNA on duty came and got her from the nurse's station to alert her Resident #1 was on the floor in the secured unit. RN D stated she immediately went and assessed Resident #1 for injury. RN D stated Resident #1 complained of pain to right wrist, the right side of her forehead and had a large abrasion to her left upper arm. RN D stated Resident #1 verbalized a 5 on a scale of 1-10 as her pain level after the fall. RN D stated there was no pain medication in the building for Resident #1 or she would have treated her pain. RN D stated the resident had been out of the prn morphine for 3 or 4 days and she contacted hospice herself several times for refills. RN D stated the hospice RN had not wanted the morphine given unless Resident #1 was actively dying. RN D stated she contacted the on-call hospice number about the fall. RN D stated she did not directly contact the MD; she left that up to hospice. RN D stated on 07/09/2023 she was called to Resident #1's room because Resident #1 was screaming in pain and administered the tramadol ordered by hospice to replace the morphine Resident #1 previously had ordered. RN D stated it was when Resident #1 rolled to her right side that she screamed. RN D stated she did not notify the MD of the amount of pain or that it was positional pain. RN D stated hospice was already aware of Resident #1's pain and the hospice MD chose to discharge the morphine Resident #1 had been taking and start her on tramadol. RN D stated she was unaware Resident #1 had a fractured hip because her last day to work at the facility was 07/09/2023. During an interview on 08/09/2023 at 2:00 p.m., RN G stated she was the hospice nurse that followed Resident #1's care. RN G stated she was in the facility on 07/06/2023 in the afternoon to discontinue Resident #1's morphine and start her on tramadol prn. RN G stated she was never notified Resident #1 had a fall that a.m. RN G stated Resident #1 was asleep in the bed when she was there. RN G stated she was notified about the fall by hospice CNA H on 07/10/2023. RN G stated she was called by CNA H during the afternoon of 07/10/2023 and was told Resident #1 was in a wheelchair and was unable to bear weight when transferring from the wheelchair to the shower chair. CNA H observed new bruising to right leg and right arm. RN G stated she came to the facility the next morning (07/11/2022) to assess Resident #1 and found the resident in pain. RN G contacted the MD, and he ordered a x ray of both hips. RN G stated she asked the nurses about any falls, and they stated she fell on [DATE] but no injuries were reported on the incident report. RN G stated x rays were obtained, and it was noted that she had a right hip fracture. During an attempted interview on 08/09/2023 at 2:15 p.m., weekend day shift nurse was not avaiable. Message left with no returned call. During an interview on 08/09/2023 at 2:20 p.m., MD I stated he could not recall being contacted about the fall for Resident #1 on 07/06/2023. MD I stated he would have remembered being called at 4:00 a.m. MD I stated had he been contacted with the information of right wrist pain, a lump on the right forehead and an abrasion to her left arm, he would have ordered to send her to the ER ( emergency room) if the family wished for her to go. If the family had not wanted her to go he would have ordered in house x rays. MD I stated Resident #1 was on anticoagulant medications that can cause bleeding on the brain that can lead to death. MD I stated anyone on anticoagulant therapy would be sent to the ER if they hit their heads. MD I stated anyone that complained of bone pain after a fall would get an x ray either at the facility or at the hospital. During an attempted interview on 08/09/2023 at 2:15 p.m., weekend day shift nurse was not avaiable. Message left with no returned call. During an attempted interview on 08/09/2023 at 2:30 p.m., weekend CNA responsible for Resident #1's care had a phone number that was not inservice. During an interview on 08/09/2023 at 2:40 p.m., NP J stated she was not called about the fall for Resident #1. NP J stated she should not have been called about her because she did not follow hospice residents. During an interview on 08/09/2023 at 2:45 p.m. the DON was not available. The corporate RN stated the facility normally contacted the hospice and the hospice would immediately contact the hospice MD for orders. The corporate RN stated she was unsure of why the RN D had not ensured the hospice notified the MD by calling again and asking for orders. During an interview on 08/09/2023 at 2: 50 p.m., the Administrator stated it was in their policy to notify the MD with all changes in conditions and they used the SBAR (situation-background-assessment-recommendation) system to notify the MD and get the MD response even if the resident were on hospice. No SBAR was done on Resident #1 with the fall on 7/06/2023. During an interview on 08/09/2023 at 3:00 p.m., MD F stated he was not notified about the fall for Resident #1 by the facility or by the hospice company. During an interview on 08/09/2023 at 3:20 p.m., the Administrator stated she was unaware that RN D had not contacted the MD to report Resident #1's fall and her injuries. The Administrator stated it was the job of the charge nurse to assess residents, treat their pain, contact the physicians for intervention related to injury during falls. The Administrator stated contacting the physician was required even if the resident was on hospice services for acute issues such as falls with injuries. Record review of the facility policy titled Notifying the Physician in a Change of Status, dated 03/11/2013 indicated the physician is notified promptly of any significant change in resident status. This failure resulted in identification of Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) on 08/09/2023 at 4:20 p.m. The Plan of Removal was accepted on 08/10/2023 at 12:00 p.m., and included the following: -The facility failed to notify the physician of a fall with injury that occurred on 7/6/23. -The facility failed to notify the hospice agency and hospice physician. -The facility failed to treat Resident #1's pain due to not having her prescribed pain medication available. -The facility failed to send resident #1 to the hospital or get x-rays after the resident fell and sustained a lump to the right side of her forehead, complained of right wrist pain, and an abrasion to her left elbow. -The facility failed to follow their policy on notifying physician of change condition. Interventions: o As of 8/9/23 resident # 1 was assessed for change of condition and increased pain without any new findings. Attending Physician and hospice services notified of fall, fracture, and pain. Orders received as of 8/9/23 for scheduled and PRN pain meds. o As of 8/10/23, 100% audit was completed on all resident pain medications to ensure medications are available in the facility. o All residents in the facility were assessed for any increased pain and change of condition by the DON and Charge Nurses as of 8/9/23. No additional issues were found. In-services: o In-services were initiated for charge nurses on 8/9/23 by the Compliance Nurse/DON/ADON regarding the following and will be completed on 8/10/2023 by 8am. All nurses including agency staff, new hires and PRN staff not in-serviced by 8am on 8/10/23 will not be allowed to work their assigned position until completion of these in-services: This will be ongoing. DON and ADON were in-serviced by Compliance Nurse. Notification of change of condition to the physician immediately including falls, fractures, increased pain, decreased mobility, or a change in eating habits. The Charge Nurse will follow physician's orders on transferring resident to hospital as ordered. Notification of the change of conditions to the hospice service for Residents on hospice. Implementation of physician orders immediately upon receipt including the administration of pain medications and notifying the physician if medication is not available to be administered. A head-to-toe assessment will be performed by the charge nurse on all residents who complain of increased pain. Reordering medications timely to ensure 5-7-day supply is present. Medications need to be re-ordered as indicated on the medication card. The Charge Nurse will review the order status in PCC under the residents MAR for medications needing to the reordered and reorder if needed. DON/ADON will audit all pain medication weekly to ensure medications are received. All residents on hospice services who have a fall or change in condition the Charge Nurse will notify the attending physician and hospice nurse. In-services were initiated for all nursing staff were in-serviced on 8/9/23 by the Compliance Nurse/DON/ADON regarding the following and will be completed on 8/10/2023 by 8am. All staff not in-serviced by 8am on 8/10/23 including agency staff, new hires and PRN staff will not be allowed to work their assigned schedule until the completion of these in-services. Notification of change of condition to the charge nurse immediately including falls, injuries, increased pain, and decreased mobility using the Stop and Watch. Pain: Signs and symptoms of pain verbal and non-verbal. (crying, whining, groaning, facial expressions, grimacing, frowning, protecting body movements, guarding, or clutching) Medical Director was notified by the DON on 8/9/23 at 5:15pm about the Immediate Jeopardies. An AD HOC QAPI meeting will be held on 8/10/23 by the Interdisciplinary Team to discuss the Immediate Jeopardies and review the Plan of Removal. The Director of Nursing or designee will implement this written Plan of Removal and will continue to monitor completion and compliance of this written Plan of Removal. Monitoring: o The DON and/or designee will monitor Real Time clinical software and the PCC Dashboard for clinical alerts for any resident with falls or change of condition including new or increased pain at least 5 days per week to ensure physician/NP were notified. Monitoring will begin 8/10/23 and will continue x 4 weeks. o The DON and/or designee will monitor Real Time clinical software and the PCC dashboard at least 5 days per week, to ensure any new physician/NP orders were implemented immediately. Monitoring will begin 8/10/23 and will continue x 4 weeks. The DON/designee made daily rounds on all residents. The DON/designee asked 4 nurses per week what they would do if a resident had a change of condition, or it was reported to them that a resident had a change in condition X 4 weeks. The DON/ADON audited all pain medication weekly to ensure medications are received x 4 weeks. * Resident #1 had completed pain assessments that showed no pain on 08/08/2023, 08/09/2023 and 08/10/2023. * During observation on 08/08/2023 at 9:10 a.m., Resident #1 was lying in bed with eyes closed. No signs or symptoms of pain noted. * During observation on 08/08/2023 at 2:15 p.m., Resident #1 was lying in bed facing window. Resident #1 had eyes closed and no facial grimace was noted. * During observation on 08/09/2023 at 10:10 a.m., Resident #1 was lying in bed facing door. Resident #1 was awake and talking to herself with no signs of facial grimace noted. * During an attempted interview on 08/09/2023 at 2:15 p.m., weekend day shift nurse was not avaiable. Message left with no returned call. * During an attempted interview on 08/09/2023 at 2:30 p.m., weekend CNA responsible for Resident #1's care had a phone number that was not inservice. Verification of the Plan of Removal was as follows: Reviewed in-service training on 08/09/2023 and 08/10/23 for all nursing staff, on all shifts. The nursing staff were in-serviced on notification of change of condition to the physician immediately including fractures, increased pain, decreased mobility, or a change in eating habits. Head-to-toe assessment were performed by the charge nurse on all residents who present with a change in condition. Notification of change of condition to the charge nurse immediately including falls, injuries, increased pain, and decreased mobility. The charge nurse performed pain assessments on all residents who presented with signs/symptoms or complaint of pain. Interviews conducted 8/10/2023 between 1:25 p.m. and 3:00 p.m. revealed LVN M, P, R, U, T, V, and AA, as well as RN Q all stated they had received in-servicing provided by the facility as part of the plan of removal and all had knowledge and understanding of notification of change of condition to the physician immediately including fractures, increased pain, decreased mobility, or a change in eating habits. And doing a head-to-toe assessment performed by the charge nurse on all residents who present with a change in condition. The nurses were aware of the process of notification of the change of conditions to the hospice service for Residents on hospice. They were aware to implement physician orders immediately upon receipt including the administration of pain medications and notifying the physician if medication is not available to be administered. They were aware they are responsible for completing a head-to-toe assessment on all residents who complain of increased pain. The nurses were educated on reordering medications timely to ensure 5-7-day supply is present. Medications need to be re-ordered as indicated on the medication card. The Charge Nurse will review the order status in PCC under the residents MAR for medications needing to the reordered and reorder if needed. DON/ADON will audit all pain medication weekly to ensure medications are received. The nurses know all residents on hospice services who have a fall or change in condition the Charge Nurse will notify the attending physician and hospice nurse. An Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) was identified on 08/09/2023 at 4:20 p.m. The IJ was removed on 8/10/2023 at 3:10 p.m. While the IJ was removed, the facility remained out of compliance at a scope of isolated and a severity level of actual harm that is not immediate, due to the facility's need to complete in-servicing and monitoring interventions.
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

Deficiency F0697 (Tag F0697)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure pain management was provided to residents who r...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure pain management was provided to residents who require such services consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the residents' choices for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for pain management. (Resident #1) The facility failed to ensure Resident #1 had effective pain management by failing to have pain medication available and failing to administer pain medication with complaints of pain. This failure resulted in identification of Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) on 08/09/2023 at 4:20 p.m. The IJ was removed on 8/10/2023 at 3:10 p.m. While the IJ was removed, the facility remained out of compliance at a scope of isolated and a severity level of actual harm that is not immediate, due to the facility's need to complete in-servicing and monitoring interventions. This failure could place resident at risk for increased pain causing undo suffering. Findings included: Record review of Resident #1's Face Sheet dated August 2023 indicated Resident #1 was a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #1's diagnoses included dementia (impaired ability to remember, think, or make decisions that interferes with doing everyday activities), cerebral infarction (damage to the brain from interruption of its blood supply), and type II diabetes (your body doesn't make enough insulin or can't use it as well as it should). Record review of Resident #1's significant change MDS assessment dated [DATE], revealed Resident #1 had short- and long-term memory impairment. Resident #1wandered daily. Resident #1 ambulated with unsteady balance that was stabilized without staff assistance. Resident #1 required supervision assistance with ambulation in room and in corridor. No falls were noted on Resident #1's MDS. No indicators of pain were noted on the MDS. Resident #1 lived on the secured unit until 07/11/2023, she was then moved off the secured unit because she no longer ambulated independently. Record review of Resident #1's care plan dated 01/20/2023 revealed, Resident #1 was at risk for increased falls and fractures as evidenced by: unsteady gait /cognitive impairment/ physical impairment. Intervention was listed as Resident #1 to be in wheelchair when up related to poor balance on 02/19/2023. No pain care plan was noted. Record review of Resident #1's physician orders for July 2023 revealed: An order with a start date of 05/23/2023 for Morphine sulfate 20mg/ml give 0.5ml every 1 hour as needed for pain or shortness of breath. The order for Morphine sulfate was discontinued on 07/06/2023. An order for Morphine sulfate 20mg/ml administer 0.25ml every 4 hours for pain or shortness of breath as needed was started on 07/13/2023 An order dated 05/09/2023 for acetaminophen 325 mg give two tablets every 6 hours as needed for pain. An order for Tramadol 50 mg administer one every 8 hours as needed for pain beginning on 07/06/2023 and discontinued on 07/11/2023 An order for Tramadol 50mg administer one every 6 hours routinely was began on 07/11/2023 and was discontinued on 07/13/2023. An order for Norco 5-325mg administer one every 6 hours routinely beginning on 07/13/2023. An order for Norco 5-325mg administer one every 4 hours as needed for breath through pain. Record review of Resident #1's incident and accident report dated 07/06/2023 at by RN D indicated, SN (skilled nurse) called by CNA that resident had fallen, fall was unwitnessed and in hallway of secure unit. Resident is c/o pain on right wrist, lump presented on right side of her forehead and small abrasion on left elbow. Resident was assessed and transferred to a wheelchair for continued observation. Hospice was called at 4:09 a.m., and fall was reported, Message sent to DON and Admin. Contact attempted with husband but was unsuccessful. Neuros within normal limits at the time. The incident and accident report also indicated Resident #1 complained of right wrist pain at a 5 on a scale of 1-10. Record review of Resident #1's nurses notes written on 07/06/2023 at 3:57 a.m. by RN D, indicated skilled nurse called by CNA that resident had fallen, fall was unwitnessed and in hallway of secure unit. Resident complains of pain on right wrist, lump has presented to right side of her forehead and small abrasion to left elbow. Resident is assessed and transferred to a wheelchair for continued observation. The hospice company was called at 4:09 a.m. and fall was reported. Message sent to DON and Administrator. Contact attempted with husband but was unsuccessful. Neuro checks within normal limits at this time. Record review of Resident #1's nurse notes indicated, no nurse notes from 07/07/2023 until 07/09/2023. No documented assessments of pain noted. Record review of Resident #1's nurse notes for 07/09/2023 written by RN D indicated, called to resident room related to resident screaming in pain, unable to verbalize location of pain but yells louder when turned toward R side, tramadol is administered per hospice pain management orders. Record review of nurse notes revealed no nurses' notes written on 07/10/2023. Record review of Resident #1's hospice communication notes for 07/10/2023 at 6:12 p.m., written by RN G indicated, Hospice Aide H, contacted this am to report patient was 'very different' today. She would not stand up 'at all' today. She reported she was in wheelchair during her visit and staff had her up in dining area for meal. RN G asked Hospice Aide H if Tramadol had been given, she reported she was not aware, but wanted RN to know of change since last Friday. Hospice Aide H stated patient had 'new' bruises but staff not able to tell her if she fell or when. RN G advised patient to be seen in am and will follow up then. Record review of Resident #1's Hospice encounter notes from 07/11/2023 at 9:55 a.m., written by RN G, Last week, patient was ambulatory without use of assistive device (due to cognitive deficits); Yesterday, Hospice Aide noted patient would not bear weight when she was trying to transfer to shower chair, or change her brief. She 'acted like' she was having increased pain with position changes. Facility CNA's also report this was noted since they 'returned to work' yesterday- there was no documentation over the weekend of her mobility status from facility staff. Fall was documented by facility nurse 07/06/2023 on 'night shift' with no specific information re: events surrounding fall except 'no injuries noted'. Patient is seen with furrowed brows, whimpering, sitting up in wheelchair but appears uncomfortable. LVN E, was preparing Tramadol to give Resident #1 as staff had just informed LVN E, she was 'whimpering and acting like she is uncomfortable'. Record review of Resident #1's nurse notes for 07/11/2023 at 10:52 a.m., written by LVN E indicated, Hospice nurse here with new order noted :(1) X-ray bilateral hips today related to pain. (2) Tramadol 50mg 1 orally every 6 hours routinely. (3) Discontinue routine fingerstick blood sugar checks. Husband present and aware of all new orders. Record review of Resident #1's nurse notes for 07/11/2023 at 1:12 p.m., written by LVN E indicated, Results of x-ray show: Interval development of an acute right subcapital hip fracture. Hospice notified and hospice nurse notified family and will consult them with hospice doctor to decide course of treatment for resident. MD F, resident's primary care physician also notified with no new orders at this time, awaiting hospice plan of treatment. Resident currently in bed with positioning pillows for comfort. Record review of the July 2023 MAR for Resident #1 revealed no pain medication was administered from the time she fell and complained of wrist pain at a 5 on a scale of 1-10, at 4:00 a.m. on 07/06/2023 until 07/07/2023 at 11:33 a.m. Resident #1 was administered nothing for pain from the time of the fall until Tramadol was administered on 07/07/23, nothing on 07/08/2023, administered Tramadol on 07/09/2023, and 07/11/23.There were no assessments for effectiveness of pain medication on the MAR. During observation on 08/08/2023 at 9:10 a.m., Resident #1 was lying in bed with eyes closed. No signs or symptoms of pain noted. During observation on 08/08/2023 at 2:15 p.m., Resident #1 was lying in bed facing window. Resident #1 had eyes closed and no facial grimace was noted. During observation on 08/09/2023 at 10:10 a.m., Resident #1 was lying in bed facing door. Resident #1 was awake and talking to herself with no signs of facial grimace noted. During an interview on 08/09/2023 at 8:35 a.m., RN D stated she was the nurse in charge of Resident #1 on the morning of 07/06/2023. RN D stated the CNA on duty came and got her from the nurse's station to alert her Resident #1 was on the floor in the secured unit. RN D stated she immediately went and assessed Resident #1 for injury. RN D stated Resident #1 complained of pain to right wrist, the right side of her forehead and had a large abrasion to her left upper arm. RN D stated Resident #1 verbalized a 5 on a scale of 1-10 as her pain level after the fall. RN D stated there was no pain medication in the building for Resident #1 or she would have treated her pain. RN D stated the resident had been out of the prn morphine for 3 or 4 days and she contacted hospice herself several times for refills. RN D stated the hospice RN had not wanted the morphine given unless Resident #1 was actively dying. RN D stated she thought Resident #1 had an order for Tylenol but she was unsure. RN D stated she contacted the on-call hospice number about the fall. RN D stated she did not directly contact the MD; she left that up to hospice. RN D stated on 07/09/2023 she was called to Resident #1's room because Resident #1 was screaming in pain and administered the tramadol ordered by hospice to replace the morphine Resident #1 previously had ordered. RN D stated it was when Resident #1 rolled to her right side that she screamed. RN D stated she did not notify the MD of the amount of pain or that it was positional pain. RN D stated hospice was already aware of Resident #1's pain and the hospice MD chose to discontinue the morphine Resident #1 had been taking and start her on tramadol. RN D stated she was unaware Resident #1 had a fractured hip because her last day to work at the facility was 07/09/2023. During an interview an interview on 08/09/2023 at 2:00 p.m., RN G stated she was the hospice nurse that followed Resident #1's care. RN G stated she was in the facility on 07/06/2023 in the afternoon to discontinue Resident #1's morphine and start her on tramadol prn. RN G stated MD I wanted morphine to be given as an end-of-life medication to ease the transition when a resident was actively dying. RN G stated Resident #1 was not dying, so when the morphine ran out, she advised the nurses to use acetaminophen and call if they needed something stronger for Resident #1. RN G stated Resident #1 never presented with pain before she was notified of the pain Resident #1 was experiencing on 07/10/2023 by Hospice CNA H. RN G stated no one from the facility reported pain or the fall to the hospice company. RN G stated Resident #1 was now on routine Norco and prn tramadol for breakthrough pain, and it seemed to be effective. During an attempted interview on 08/09/2023 at 2:15 p.m., weekend day shift nurse was not avaiable. Message left with no returned call. During an attempted interview on 08/09/2023 at 2:30 p.m., weekend CNA responsible for Resident #1's care had a phone number that was not inservice. During an interview on 08/09/2023 at 2:45 p.m., the DON was not available. The corporate RN stated the facility normally contacted the hospice and the hospice would immediately contact the hospice MD for orders. The corporate RN stated she was unsure of why the RN D had not ensured the hospice notified the MD by calling again and asking for orders. During an interview on 08/09/2023 at 2:50 p.m., the Administrator stated it was in their policy to notify the MD with all changes in conditions and they used the SBAR (situation-background-assessment-recommendation) system to notify the MD and get the MD response even if the resident were on hospice. No SBAR was done on Resident #1 with the fall on 7/06/2023. During an interview on 08/09/2023 at 2:20 p.m., MD I stated Morphine sulfate was an end-of-life drug and in collaboration with the hospice nurse it was decided to discontinue the Morphine sulfate for Resident #1 based on the information at the time that she was not actively dying and was not presenting with pain. MD I stated it was decided the facility would start with acetaminophen to treat pain and if that was ineffective to let hospice know and we would consider other medications. During an interview on 08/09/2023 at 3:20 p.m., the Administrator stated she was unaware that RN G had discontinued the Morphine sulfate for Resident #1. The Administrator stated the last time she talked with RN G she said she was putting the morphine on hold until Resident #1's pain was assessed, and the correct pain medication was prescribed for Resident #1. The Administrator stated it was important to have pain medication available for the residents and the facility to be communicated with about the residents' care. Record review of the policy on Pain Management dated 08/10/2021 indicated the community recognizes that a resident's response to pain is subjective and individual. The community will treat the resident under the premise that pain is present whenever the resident says that it is. The physician will order appropriate pain medications intervention both routine and PRN to address the individual's pain. This failure resulted in identification of Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) on 08/09/2023 at 4:20 p.m. The Plan of Removal was accepted on 08/10/2023 at 12:00 p.m., and included the following: -The facility failed to provide Resident #1 with pain medication following a fall with complaints of pain -The facility failed to ensure ordered pain medications was available to dispense for complaints of pain for Resident #1. -The facility failed to follow their pain policy. Interventions: o As of 8/9/23 resident # 1 was assessed for pain. Orders received as of 8/9/23 for scheduled and PRN pain meds. o As of 8/9/23, 100% audit was completed on all resident pain medications to ensure medications are available in the facility. Audit completed by DON 8/10/23 at 300am. o All residents in the facility were assessed for any increased pain by the DON and Charge Nurses as of 8/9/23. No additional issues were found. In-services: In-services were initiated for charge nurses on 8/9/23 by the Compliance Nurse/DON/ADON regarding the following and will be completed on 8/10/2023 by 8am. All nurses including agency staff, new hires, and PRN staff not in-serviced by 8am on 8/10/23 will not be allowed to work their assigned position until completion of these in-services: This will be ongoing. DON and ADON were in-serviced by Compliance Nurse. Notification of change of condition to the physician immediately including fractures, increased pain, decreased mobility, or a change in eating habits. Implementation of physician orders immediately upon receipt including the administration of pain medications and notifying the physician if medication is not available to be administered. A head-to-toe assessment will be performed every time by the charge nurse on all residents who complain of increased pain. Effectiveness of pain medication administrated i=for increased pain will be charted on the EMAR. A licensed nurse will complete a follow up assessment for effectiveness of pain. In-services were initiated for all nursing staff were in-serviced on 8/9/23 by the Compliance Nurse/DON/ADON regarding the following and will be completed on 8/10/2023 by 8am. All staff not in-serviced by 8am on 8/10/23 including agency staff, new hires and PRN staff will not be allowed to work their assigned schedule until the completion of these in-services. Notification of change of condition to the charge nurse, immediately including falls, injuries, increased pain and decreased mobility. Pain: Signs and symptoms of pain verbal and non-verbal. (crying, whining, groaning, facial expressions, grimacing, frowning, protecting body movements, guarding, or clutching) Medical Director was notified by the DON on 8/9/23 at 5:15 pm about the Immediate Jeopardies. An AD HOC QAPI meeting will be held on 8/10/23 by the Interdisciplinary Team to discuss the Immediate Jeopardies and review the Plan of Removal. The Director of Nursing or designee will implement this written Plan of Removal and will continue to monitor completion and compliance of this written Plan of Removal. Monitoring: o The DON and/or designee will monitor Real Time clinical software and the PCC Dashboard for clinical alerts for any resident change of condition including new or increased pain at least 5 days per week to ensure physician/NP were notified. Monitoring will begin 8/10/23 and will continue x 4 weeks. o The DON and/or designee will monitor Real Time clinical software and the PCC dashboard at least 5 days per week, to ensure any new physician/NP orders were implemented immediately. Monitoring will begin 8/10/23 and will continue x 4 weeks. The DON/designee will make daily rounds on all residents. The DON/designee will ask 4 nurses per week what they would do if a resident had a change of condition, or it was reported to them that a resident had a change in condition X 4 weeks. The DON/ADON/Designee will audit all resident pain medications twice per week to ensure a 4-to-7-day supply of medications are present and maintained. * Resident #1 had completed pain assessments that showed no pain on 08/08/2023, 08/09/2023 and 08/10/2023. * During observation on 08/08/2023 at 9:10 a.m., Resident #1 was lying in bed with eyes closed. No signs or symptoms of pain noted. * During observation on 08/08/2023 at 2:15 p.m., Resident #1 was lying in bed facing window. Resident #1 had eyes closed and no facial grimace was noted. * During observation on 08/09/2023 at 10:10 a.m., Resident #1 was lying in bed facing door. Resident #1 was awake and talking to herself with no signs of facial grimace noted. * During an attempted interview on 08/09/2023 at 2:15 p.m., weekend day shift nurse was not avaiable. Message left with no returned call. * During an attempted interview on 08/09/2023 at 2:30 p.m., weekend CNA responsible for Resident #1's care had a phone number that was not inservice. Verification of the Plan of Removal was as follows: Reviewed in-service training on 08/09/2023 and 08/10/23 for all nursing staff, on all shifts. The nursing staff were in-serviced on notification of change of condition to the physician immediately including fractures, increased pain, decreased mobility, or a change in eating habits. A head-to-toe assessment was performed by the charge nurse on all residents who present with a change in condition. Notification of change of condition to the charge nurse immediately including falls, injuries, increased pain, and decreased mobility. The charge nurse performed pain assessments on all residents who presented with signs/symptoms or complaint of pain. Interviews conducted 8/10/2023 between 1:25 p.m. and 3:00 p.m. revealed LVN M, P, R, U, T, V, and AA, as well as RN Q all stated they had received in-servicing provided by the facility as part of the plan of removal and all had knowledge and understanding of notification of change of condition to the physician immediately including fractures, increased pain, decreased mobility, or a change in eating habits. And doing a head-to-toe assessment performed by the charge nurse on all residents who present with a change in condition. The nurses were educated on reordering medications timely to ensure 5-7-day supply is present. Medications need to be re-ordered as indicated on the medication card. The Charge Nurse will review the order status in EHR (electronic health record) under the residents MAR for medications needing to the reordered and reorder if needed. DON/ADON will audit all pain medication weekly to ensure medications are received. An Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) was identified on 08/09/2023 at 4:20 p.m. The IJ was removed on 8/10/2023 at 3:10 p.m. While the IJ was removed, the facility remained out of compliance at a scope of isolated and a severity level of actual harm that is not immediate, due to the facility's need to complete in-servicing and monitoring interventions.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to treat each resident with respect and dignity and provide care in a manner that promoted maintenance or enhancement of his or her quality of life for 1 of 20 residents reviewed for resident rights. (Resident #2) The facility failed to pull the curtain between Resident #2 and his roommate with open window blinds while providing incontinent care to Resident #2. This failure could place residents at risk for decreased quality of life, decreased self-esteem and increase anxiety. Findings included: Record review of Resident #2's face sheet dated 8/9/23 indicated Resident #2 was a [AGE] year old male and admitted initially on 9/14/17 with diagnoses including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (constriction of the airways and difficulty or discomfort in breathing), diabetes, morbid obesity (80 to 100 pounds overweight), Alzheimer's (progressive mental deterioration due to degeneration of the brain), and schizoaffective disorder bipolar type (mental disorder with mood disorder resulting in episodes of mania (excitement) and depression (persistent sadness)). Record review of Resident #2's MDS dated [DATE] indicated Resident #2 was understood and understood others. The MDS indicated a BIMS score of 13 which indicated Resident #2 was cognitively intact. The MDS indicated Resident #2 required extensive assistance of 2 persons for most activities of daily living. Record review of Resident #2's care plan revised on 4/8/23 indicated Resident #2 was incontinent of bladder and bowels. Resident #2 required an antidepressant medication for diagnoses of depression and insomnia (unable to sleep). Resident #2 had a history of urinary tract infections. Resident #2 had a history of sepsis (severe life-threatening infection in the blood). During an observation on 8/9/23 beginning at 11:40 AM, CNA A and CNA B provided incontinent care for Resident #2. CNA A nor CNA B pulled the curtain between Resident #2 and his roommate. Resident #2's bed was located just inside the door of the room. The roommate was located across the room by the approximately 6-foot window and the blinds to a window was open leading out into the courtyard. There were no residents or staff present in the courtyard at the time. CNA A and CNA B removed all of Resident #2's cover from his bed. CNA A removed Resident #2's soiled brief and cleansed front genitalia area while he was lying on his back. CNA A and CNA B then repositioned Resident #2 onto his left side with his front side turned toward the roommate/opened window for approximately half the time. Resident #2 was fully exposed during most of the incontinent care. The curtain was not pulled between Resident #2 and his roommate with opened window blinds the entire time incontinent care was provided. During an interview on 8/9/23 at 11:50 AM, Resident #2 said his roommate was a family member. Resident #2 said he would prefer staff to close the curtain between him and his roommate. Resident #2 said the staff rarely closed the curtain between him and his roommate. Resident #2 said he did not want to see his roommate's stuff no more than his roommate wanted to see Resident #2's stuff. Resident #2 said pulling the curtain between them would give him more privacy when he had to be cleaned up. During an interview on 8/9/23 at 11:56 AM, CNA A said she had worked at the facility for 5 years. CNA A said she should have pulled the curtain between Resident #2 and his roommate while providing incontinent care. CNA A said she did not even think about it, since they were family members CNA A said she did not notice the window blinds by the roommate's bed were open to the courtyard, because she was nervous. CNA A said she always shut the door to the room, but not the curtain between Resident #2 and his roommate, because the residents were family. CNA A said by not pulling the curtain between Resident #2 and his roommate with the open window blinds, while providing incontinent care, she did not provide privacy for Resident #2. During an interview on 8/9/23 at 12:05 PM, CNA B said she had worked at the facility for 2 months. CNA B said they should have closed the curtain between Resident #2 and his roommate, even if they were family members. CNA B said they especially should have closed the curtain between Resident #2 and the roommate with the open window blinds to the courtyard on the roommate's side of the room. CNA B said they did not provide Resident #2 with privacy during incontinent care by not pulling the curtain between Resident #2 and his roommate with the open window blinds. During an interview on 8/9/23 at 12:15 PM, the DON said while staff are providing care, curtains should be pulled, and blinds should be closed. She said all residents should be provided privacy during care regardless of being family members. The DON said it was a privacy issue and the CNAs should have pulled the curtain between Resident #2 and his roommate while providing incontinent care. The DON said she was responsible for ensuring staff followed the policies and procedures of the facility and provided privacy to the residents while providing care. During an interview on 8/9/23 at 1:47 PM, the Administrator said all residents should be provided privacy during care and the CNAs should have pulled the curtain between Resident #2 and his roommate while performing incontinent care. The Administrator said they just did an in-service last week on privacy. The Administrator said all staff were responsible for providing privacy to the residents. Record review of an In-service Training Report dated 8/4/23 revealed while giving care, please ensure the window coverings were closed and that we provide the best privacy possible. The in-service was signed by CNA A and CNA B. Record review of an In-service Training Report dated 7/18/23 for direct care staff titled Nursing: Personal Care-Perineal Care revealed . maintaining resident dignity . following policy and procedures for perineal care . The in-service was signed by CNA A, but was not signed by CNA B. Record review of the facility's policy titled Perineal Care dated 4/27/22 revealed, . procedure aims to maintain the resident dignity and self-worth and reduce embarrassment by providing cleanliness and comfort to the resident . provide privacy and modesty by closing the door and/or curtain . limit resident exposure to the perineal area-provide privacy at all times . Review of the facility's undated policy titled Resident Rights indicated, .the resident had a right to a dignified existence . A facility must treat each resident with respect and dignity and care for each resident in a manner and in an environment that promoted maintenance or enhancement of his or her quality of life, recognizing each resident's individuality. The facility must protect and promote the rights of the resident . The resident has a right to personal privacy .Personal privacy includes accommodations, medical treatment, written and telephone communications, personal care .
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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe and sanitary environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for incontinent care. (Resident #2) The facility failed to ensure CNA A changed her gloves and performed hand hygiene appropriately while providing incontinent care to Resident #2. The facility failed to ensure CNA B performed hand hygiene prior to donning (putting on) gloves. The facility failed to ensure CNA A changed her gloves after providing incontinent care to Resident #2 prior to touching Resident #2's clean brief, bedding, pillow, and bed remote. The facility failed to ensure CNA A changed her gloves after providing incontinent care to Resident #2 and then using soiled gloved finger to poke unused wipes back into wipe container located on top of the resident's bed and closed lid to container. This failure could place residents and staff at risk for cross-contamination and the spread of infection. Findings included: Record review of Resident #2's face sheet dated 8/9/23 indicated Resident #2 was a [AGE] year old male and admitted initially on 9/14/17 with diagnoses including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (constriction of the airways and difficulty or discomfort in breathing), diabetes, morbid obesity (80 to 100 pounds overweight), Alzheimer's (progressive mental deterioration due to degeneration of the brain), and schizoaffective disorder bipolar type (mental disorder with mood disorder resulting in episodes of mania (excitement) and depression (persistent sadness)). Record review of Resident #2's MDS dated [DATE] indicated Resident #2 was understood and understood others. The MDS indicated a BIMS score of 13 which indicated Resident #2 was cognitively intact. The MDS indicated Resident #2 required extensive assistance of 2 persons for most activities of daily living. Record review of Resident #2's care plan revised on 4/8/23 indicated Resident #2 was incontinent of bladder and bowels. Resident #2 required an antidepressant medication for diagnoses of depression and insomnia (unable to sleep). Resident #2 had a history of urinary tract infections. Resident #2 had a history of sepsis (severe life-threatening infection in the blood). During an observation on 8/9/23 beginning at 11:40 AM, CNA A assisted by CNA B provided incontinent care for Resident #2. CNA A and CNA B donned clean gloves, but they did not perform hand hygiene (wash hands or use hand sanitizer) prior to donning gloves. CNA A nor CNA B pulled the curtain between Resident #2 and his roommate. CNA A and CNA B positioned themselves one on each side of Resident #2. CNA A placed a package of wipes on Resident #2's bed and pulled a bunch of clean wipes out of package and left sitting on top of the container. CNA A and CNA B unfastened Resident #2's brief. CNA A pushed urine soiled brief down between Resident #2's legs and then proceeded to use wipes to clean Resident #2's front genitalia area. CNA A and CNA B then repositioned Resident #2 on his left side with his front side turned toward the roommate/opened window. CNA A then used wipes to clean Resident #2's buttocks and back side of genitalia area. Without removing or changing gloves, CNA A applied a clean brief to Resident #2 and rolled Resident #2 onto his back by touching his right shoulder and right hip. CNA A secured Resident #2's clean brief with same gloves used while performing incontinent care and then proceeded to use her soiled finger to poke unused wipes back into the wipe container and closed the lid. CNA A then proceeded with the same gloves used to perform incontinent care, to place Resident #2's covers back over him, placed a pillow under both lower legs, and then used the bed remote to lower the bed and adjust the head. CNA A then removed her gloves. During an interview on 8/9/23 at 11:56 AM, CNA A said she had worked at the facility for 5 years. CNA A said she should change her gloves anytime they were soiled. CNA A said you should perform hand hygiene before putting on gloves. CNA A said she usually changed her gloves at least three times during incontinent care. CNA A said she did not realize she had not changed her gloves throughout performing Resident #2's incontinent care. CNA A said she was so nervous, and she did not even think about having the same gloves on that she performed incontinent care with, when she poked the wipes back into the wipes container or handled the residents covers and bed remote. CNA A said she could spread diseases to other residents by not performing hand hygiene or changing gloves when soiled and/or after performing incontinent care. During an interview on 8/9/23 at 12:05 PM, CNA B said she had worked at the facility for 2 months. CNA B said you should perform hand hygiene prior to putting on gloves. CNA B said you should change your gloves when going from front to back and at the end of performing incontinent care. CNA B said it was important to change your gloves after performing incontinent care prior to touching any clean items to prevent contaminating the clean items with whatever you may have on your gloves. CNA B said you could contaminate the clean items in the resident's room and then the resident or other staff could touch it and it could make them sick. During an interview on 8/9/23 at 12:15 PM, the DON said staff should be changing their gloves and performing hand hygiene any time they handle a dirty area prior to handling a clean area. The DON said staff should change the gloves and wash/sanitize their hands anytime their gloves were visibly soiled and prior to touching clean items. The DON said it was an infection control issue when CNA A did not change her gloves after performing incontinent care to Resident #2 and then applied his clean brief, poked clean wipes back into the wipe container, placed his covers on him, placed pillow under his legs, and used the bed remote to reposition the bed. The DON said if was an infection control issue when CNA A and CNA B did not perform hand hygiene prior to donning gloves to perform Resident #2's incontinent care. The DON said she was responsible for ensuring staff followed the policies and procedures of the facility to maintain effective infection control. During an interview on 8/9/23 at 1:47 PM, the Administrator said she was not clinical, but she would expect staff to change their gloves at least twice when going from soiled to clean items when performing incontinent care. The Administrator said she would expect staff to change their gloves after performing incontinent care before handling clean items in the resident's room. The Administrator said she would expect staff to follow the facility's policies and procedures to prevent the spread of infection. The Administrator said not performing proper hand hygiene and changing gloves after incontinent care and then touching multiple clean items in the resident's room, placed the residents and staff at risk for infection. Record review of an In-service Training Report for direct care staff dated 7/18/23 titled Nursing: Personal Care-Perineal Care revealed maintaining resident dignity, preventing infections and skin irritations, observe for any skin changes, following policy & procedure for perineal care. The in-service was signed by CNA A, but was not signed by CNA B. Record review of an In-service Training Report for all staff dated 3/14/23 titled Infection Control revealed topics of hand hygiene, gloving, linen and laundry, preventing infection, see attached policy. CNA A did not sign the in-service. Record review of the facility's policy titled Perineal Care dated 4/27/23 revealed . procedure aims to maintain the resident dignity and self-worth and reduce embarrassment by providing cleanliness and comfort to the resident, preventing infections and skin irritation . to start procedure . perform hand hygiene . don (put on) gloves . gently perform perineal care, wiping from clean, urethral area, to dirty, rectal area . reposition resident to their side . gently perform care to the buttocks and anal area . doff (take off) gloves . perform hand hygiene . provide resident comfort and safety by reclothing (if applicable- incontinence brief), straightening bedding, adjusting the bed and/or side rails, and placing call light with resident's reach . perform hand hygiene . doffing and discarding of gloves were required if visibly soiled . always perform hand hygiene before and after glove use .
Aug 2022 7 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Assessments (Tag F0636)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to complete a comprehensive resident-centered assessment of each resident's cognitive, medical and functional capacity in a timely manner for 1 of 13 residents (Resident #401) reviewed for accuracy of assessments. The facility did not complete Resident #401's admission MDS within 14 days of admission. This failure placed residents at risk of not having their needs met. Findings included: Record review of the face sheet and physician's orders dated 8/10/2022 indicated Resident #401 was [AGE] years old and was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of diabetes, high blood pressure, and heart failure. Record review of an MDS dated [DATE] for Resident #401 indicated Section A, Identification Information, was the only completed section. The MDS was electronically signed by the MDS nurse on 7/22/2022. A record review of Resident #401's MDS assessment log dated 8/10/2022 appeared as follows: .ARD (assessment reference date) 8/4/2022. 6 days overdue . 08/03/2022- admission - None PPS - In progress 07/22/2022- Entry - Accepted During an interview on 8/10/2022 at 2:20 p.m., the MDS nurse said she had been in the MDS nurse position for only 2 months. She said she was responsible for completing the MDSs. She said she did not realize that MDS for Resident #401 was that far behind , but she would get it done now. She said the reason she was behind was for personal reasons and she said that she could not share her personal information. During an interview on 8/10/22 at 2:48 p.m., the DON said she was the previous MDS nurse. She said MDS assessments should be completed 14 days from admission. She said an MDS not being completed by the 14th day could affect a resident by not showing an accurate picture of the care the resident needed. She said this included ADL needs and medications. She said the MDS nurse had assistance from Corporate and should have had the MDS completed within 14 days. She said she did spot checks to monitor the MDSs for the residents. She said she had a stand up meeting every morning with department heads to see if they had any needs. During an interview on 8/10/2022 at 3:45 p.m., the DON said the facility did not have an MDS timing policy and they just followed the RAI (Resident Assessment Instrument) manual. Review of the RAI manual, Chapter 2 updated 2021 stated .the admission assessment must be signed complete by the 14th day of the resident's stay.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0645 (Tag F0645)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) Level I assessment accurately reflected the resident's status for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #15) reviewed for PASRR Level I screenings. The facility failed to ensure the accuracy of the PASRR Level 1 screen for Resident #15. The PASRR 1 Level screening did not indicate a diagnosis of mental illness, although the diagnosis was present upon admission. This failure could place residents who had a mental illness at risk of not receiving a needed assessment (PASRR Evaluation), individualized care and specialized services to meet their needs. Findings included: A record review of the physician's orders dated August 2022 indicated Resident #15 admitted [DATE], was [AGE] years old, with diagnoses that included: Bipolar Disorder (a mental illness characterized by periods of depression and periods of abnormally elevated happiness lasting days to weeks), Major Depressive Disorder (a mental illness characterized by low mood and loss of interest or pleasure), and Narcolepsy (excessive daytime sleepiness). The physician's orders indicated Resident #15 was ordered: Citalopram Hydrobromide tablet, 20 mg, 1 tablet by mouth once daily for Major Depressive Disorder. Latuda tablet, 80 mg, 1 tablet by mouth once daily for Bipolar Disorder, related to Major Depressive Disorder. Mirtazapine tablet, 45 mg, 1 tablet by mouth daily for Major Depressive Disorder. The MDS dated [DATE] Section A1500 asked Is the resident currently considered by the state level II PASRR process to have serious mental illness and/or intellectual disability or a related condition? This section was marked 0 meaning No. Section A.1510 Level II Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) Conditions did not have A. Serious mental illness, B. Intellectual Disability, or C. Other related conditions checked. The MDS indicated Resident #15 had a BIMS score of 10 indicating moderate cognitive impairment. The MDS indicated she had diagnoses that included Bipolar Disorder and Depression. The undated care plan indicated Resident #15 received antidepressant medication, and side effects and effectiveness should be monitored. The care plan indicated she took antianxiety medication, and side effects and effectiveness should be monitored. The care plan indicated Resident #15 had a mood problem and patterns or symptoms of depression, anxiety, or sadness should be reported to the physician. The care plan indicated she had depression and medications should be administered as ordered by the physician, along with reporting any symptoms of hopelessness, anxiety, sadness, insomnia, sadness, anorexia, verbalizing, negative statements, repetitive anxiousness, or health-related complaints, tearfulness should be reported to the physician. A record review on 8/9/22 indicated a PASRR Level 1 Screening dated 4/28/22 was negative for Mental Illness, Intellectual Disability, and Developmental Disability for Resident #15. A record review on 8/9/22 of the hospital records dated 1/17/22 provided by the DON indicated the past medical history for Resident #15 included Bipolar Disorder and Depression. During an interview on 8/09/22 at 12:25 PM, the MDS nurse said Resident #15's PASRR was negative on 4/28/22. She said the DON was the MDS nurse at that time. She said Resident #15 is quite possibly a positive PASRR for mental illness due to her diagnoses of major depression and Bipolar Disorder. She said she might resubmit the PASSR 1 as positive for mental illness. She said Resident #15 could possibly have been getting PASRR services but was not because the PASRR 1 was coded as negative. During an interview on 8/09/22 at 12:38 PM, the DON said she had done the PASRR 1 for Resident #15. She said Resident #15 was negative for PASRR 1 because she had not been in a psychiatric facility in the last 2 years. She said she did not remember her having Bipolar Disorder. During an interview on 8/09/22 at 12:57 PM, the DON said it was an oversite that Resident #15 was marked as a negative PASRR. She said the hospital paperwork (dated 1/17/22) indicated she had Bipolar Disorder and she should have been a positive PASRR 1 for mental illness. She said the date of the negative PASRR she did was 4/28/22 but the MDS nurse must have resubmitted it because it had her name on it. She said they will resubmit it as a positive PASRR for mental illness. The DON said she could possibly have been receiving PASRR services but since the PASRR was marked as negative she was not receiving any PASRR services. During an interview on 8/09/22 at 2:29 PM, the DON said normally if a resident came in as a negative PASRR and she saw diagnoses such as Bipolar Disorder and Major Depression she would resubmit the PASRR 1 as a positive for mental illness but she had not done that because it was an oversite. She said she was ultimately responsible for the PASRR 1 being correct. During an interview on 8/09/22 at 2:30 PM, the Regional Nurse (standing in for the administrator who was out of the country) said she did not know about diagnoses and negatives or positive PASRR's. A PASRR Level 1 Screen Policy and Procedure dated 3/6/2019, provided by the DON on 8/9/21 indicated: The PASRR Program has 3 goals: 1.To identify individuals with MI (Mental Illness), ID (Intellectual Disability, or DD (Developmental Disability). 2. To ensure appropriate placement, whether in a community or in a Nursing Facility. 3. To ensure individuals receive the required services for their MI, ID, or DD . 3. The facility will review the PL1 (PASRR 1 Screening) Form for completion and correctness prior to admission and submit the PL1 form per regulations .
CONCERN (D)

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

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 treatment and care was provided in accordance with profession...

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 treatment and care was provided in accordance with professional standards of practice and the comprehensive person-centered care plan for 1 of 13 residents reviewed for quality of care. (Resident #401) The facility failed to check the blood sugar of Resident #401 before administering Lantus (a long-acting insulin). This failure could place residents at risk of harm to the physical well-being by not following professional standards of practice. Findings include: Record review of the face sheet dated 8/10/2022 indicated Resident #401 was [AGE] years old and was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of diabetes mellitus, high blood pressure, and heart failure. The face sheet indicated the Medical Director was Resident #401's primary care provider. Record review of consolidated physician's orders dated 8/10/2022 for Resident #401 indicated an open order date 7/22/2022 for Lantus SoloStar Solution Pen-injector 100 unit per milliliter, (Insulin Glargine), Inject 50 units subcutaneously two times a day for DM (Diabetes Mellitus). There were no parameters for the resident's blood sugar and there was not an order for fasting blood sugars to be checked. Record review of an MDS dated [DATE] for Resident #401 indicated Section A, Identification Information, was the only completed section. Record review of a care plan dated 7/24/2022 indicated Resident #401 had diabetes mellitus with a goal for Resident #401 to remain free of signs and symptoms of hypoglycemia (a condition in which your blood sugar (glucose) level is lower than the standard range). There was an intervention for fasting serum blood sugars as ordered by doctor. Record review of Resident #401's electronic blood sugar charting dated 8/10/2022 indicated there were no blood sugars charted since admission. Record review of Resident #401's electronic chart did not indicate results for any laboratory blood serum test since admission. During an interview on 8/10/22 at 1:29 p.m., the Regional Corporate Nurse revealed there were no blood sugars are charted in the online electronic charting program. She said blood sugars would have been charted in the online electronic charting program. She said the Lantus was a scheduled medication and there are no parameters ordered by the physician. During an interview on 8/10/22 at 1:38 p.m., LVN D revealed all blood sugars taken in the facility are charted in the online electronic chart for each resident. She said she had never checked Resident #401's blood sugar before administering Lantus because there were no parameters ordered and because the medication did not peak. During an interview on 8/10/22 at 2:10 p.m., the Medical Director revealed he had only seen Resident #401 one time. When asked if a resident being administered Lantus should have their blood sugar checked before the medication is administered he said, Well yeah. Especially someone who could become dehydrated. During an interview on 8/10/22 at 2:16 p.m., Resident #401 revealed he was admitted to the facility from home. He said he had been taking Lantus for several years. He said when he was at home he checked his blood sugar every day. During an interview on 8/10/22 at 2:34 p.m., the ADON revealed she would not want Lantus to be given without checking a blood sugar. She said it could cause his blood sugar to bottom out and could send him to the hospital. She said it could even lead to death. During an interview on 8/10/22 at 2:48 p.m., the DON revealed in the past the facility did not have parameters for Lantus because Lantus does not peak. She said as a nurse she feels blood sugars should have been checked prior to Lantus administration because of safety. She said if a resident was already hypoglycemic, and the medication was given on top of it the resident could potentially die. Review of a facility Nursing Care of the Resident with Diabetes Mellitus dated 5/7/2013 indicated, .the physician will order the frequency of glucose monitoring .those taking insulin may require more frequent monitoring . Review of Resident Rights last revised on 11/28/2016 indicated, .The facility must provide equal access to quality care . Review of an article titled, Lantus insulin glargine injection 100 units/ml, How to Use your Lantus SoloStar Pen dated 03/20 indicated, .The most common side effect of insulin, including Lantus, is low blood sugar (hypoglycemia), which may be serious and life threatening .
CONCERN (D)

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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to 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 assure the accurate acquiring, receiving, dispensing, and administering of all drugs and biologicals) to meet the needs of each resident for one (Resident #202) of five residents reviewed for medications. The facility failed to have Resident #202's medication, Lidocaine Patch 5%, available for administration. This failure placed residents at risk of not receiving their physician ordered pain patch to meet their individual needs for pain management. Findings included: Record review of Resident #202's MDS assessment dated [DATE] indicated that resident was a 91year old female who admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the diagnosis of CAD (heart disease), A-FIB (increased heart rates), hypertension (high blood pressure), hyperlipidemia (high cholesterol), non-Alzheimer's dementia, COPD (lung disease), and Spondylosis (degeneration of the spine). Her BIMS score was 12 indicating she had mildly impaired cognition. Record review of Resident #202's Order Summary Report dated 08/10/2022 indicated that Resident #202 had an order for Lidoderm Patch 5%(lidocaine) apply to skin one time a day for change every 12 hours dated 07/29/2022, and an order for Lidocaine Patch 4% apply to right back topically every 12 hours for pain dated 08/09/2022. Record review of Resident #202's Progress Notes date 08/10/2022 indicated that on 08/09/2022 at 09:46 AM LVN D charted that spoke with MD regarding resident's discomfort and 5% lidocaine unavailable at this time. New order for 4% lidocaine patch, resident aware of new order During an observation and interview on 08/09/22 at 08:18 AM Resident #202 was in bed and had a complaint that she needed a pain patch and had not had one applied since she has been here, except 1 time. Resident said she had been asking for something for the pain since first thing this morning. She said her pain level was 8 out of 10. During an observation on 08/09/22 at 08:44 AM LVN D was giving Resident #202 her morning medications and Resident #202 complained of pain in the side of her back and requested her pain patch. Resident #202 said she had not had a pain patch but one time since admitting in the facility on 07/29/2022. LVN D said Resident #202 did not have any patches on her medication cart. During an interview on 08/09/22 at 09:06 AM LVN D said that there were no lidocaine patches for Resident #202 in building. LVN D said she was going to call doctor to see if she could give a different strength, of pain patch, that the facility had on hand as an over-the-counter medication. During observation and interview on 08/09/2022 at 10:10 AM Resident #202 was in bed resting and had pain patch applied by nurse. Resident #202 said her nurse applied patch and her pain was better. During an interview on 08/10/22 at 11:23 AM a pharmacy representative for the facility pharmacy said that the Lidocaine patch 5% was ordered for Resident #202 on 07/29/2022 but the pharmacy never sent the medication to the facility. She said usually pharmacy did not send the patch if it can be changed to 4% strength and be retrieved as an OTC. During an interview on 08/10/2022 at 02:51 PM indicated that the Corporate nurse said the charge nurse is responsible for input of orders on the day of admission. The medication orders are communicated to the pharmacy by computer when they are input. She said the charge nurse should have noted that the medication was not available and called the pharmacy to see why. Corporate nurse said she expects charge nurses to follow up and get medications need by all residents and ensure they are given correctly. During an interview on 08/10/2022 at 03:06 PM LVN H said she works Monday through Friday and had just noticed the new order for the Lidocaine 4% patch on 08/09/2022. She said that was her first time placing a pain patch on Resident #202 since she admitted on [DATE]. During an interview on 08/10/2022 at 03:09 PM the DON said that charge nurses are responsible for ensuring the medications are ordered and received from the pharmacy for the residents. DON said the charge nurse should have called the pharmacy when they saw the drug was not available and seen why and got medicine in the facility. She said to ensure the medications are ordered, the charge nurse starts a drug review and the DON and ADON should have checked behind the nurse. DON said these type of medication problems could cause a resident increased pain, discomfort, or distress. During an interview on 08/10/2022 at 03:14 PM the ADON said when residents admit to the facility, she expected the charge nurses to input orders in the system and the pharmacy receives the orders when they are input. She said the pharmacy should have delivered medication in the same day and as a charge nurse they should have called the pharmacy to get the medication. She that failure could cause a resident increased pain and that is not good care. During an interview on 08/10/2022 at 03: 22 PM CNA I said that she had been the shower aide in the facility since Resident #202 admitted to the facility on [DATE] but the week of 08/08/2022 she worked as a CNA and had never seen a pain patch on Resident #202 and she never complained of pain. She said Resident received her showers on Tuesday Thursday and Saturdays. Record Review of Policy for Ordering Medications dated 2003 indicated: Medications and related products are received from the pharmacy supplier on a timely basis. The facility maintains accurate records of medication order and receipt. Procedures: 1. Medication orders are phone or faxed to the pharmacy .3. New medications,: If needed before the next regular delivery, phone the medication order to the pharmacy immediately upon receipt. Inform the pharmacy of the need for prompt delivery and request delivery. Use emergency kit when the resident needs a medication prior to pharmacy delivery. If not in the emergency kit, contact the pharmacy for possible local pharmacy to fill enough of the medication until the next scheduled delivery. Receiving a New Medication Order The nurse that receives the order is responsible for the following: $ Order received is accurate .$ Medication is ordered from the pharmacy timely. Other functions that must be performed or verified by nursing staff includes. $ Medication received in acceptable quantity $ Initial dose administered with effective results or no adverse effect
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0806 (Tag F0806)

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 food was provided that accommodated the prefere...

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 food was provided that accommodated the preferences of 1 of 13 residents reviewed for preferences. (Resident #47) The facility did not honor Resident #47's food preferences and continued to serve foods they asked not to receive. This failure could place residents at risk for dissatisfaction, poor intake, and/or weight loss. Findings included: Record review of a face sheet dated 8/8/2022 indicated Resident #47 was [AGE] years old and was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of stroke, repeated falls, and major depressive disorder. Record review of consolidated physician orders for Resident #47 dated 8/9/2022 indicated a discontinued order for a regular diet with mechanical soft ground meat texture, regular consistency, signed waiver dated 1/3/2021. There was an active order dated 3/25/2021 for a regular diet, regular consistency, regular texture. Record review of an MDS dated [DATE] indicated Resident #47 understood others and was understood. The MDS indicated Resident #10 had a BIMS (Brief Interview of Mental Status) score of 15 indicating the resident was cognitively intact. The MDS indicated Resident #47 did not require a mechanically altered diet. Record review of a care plan last revised on 7/20/22 indicated Resident #47 was on a regular diet with regular liquids. Record review of a Negotiated Risk Assessment (NRA) dated 3/11/2021 indicated Resident #47's desire or preference was to have a regular diet. The agreement indicated the facility offered Resident #47 a mechanical soft diet due to risk of aspiration. The resident chose to have a regular diet. The NRA indicated the resident had a BIMS of 15. The NRA was signed by the ADON and Resident #47. Record review of dietary slips from Resident #47's meal trays for lunch on 8/8/2022 and breakfast on 8/9/2022 indicated a regular diet and an NRA (Negotiated Risk Assessment) in PCC (online electronic charting program)/mechanical soft diet. Record review of a Dietary Profile dated 7/13/2022 indicated the current diet ordered for Resident #47 was a regular diet. Record review of an eMenuManage Resident Roster dated 8/8/2022 Lunch indicated Resident #47's diet type was regular, and the diet texture was regular. During an interview on 8/08/22 at 10:17 a.m., Resident #47 revealed his food is all crushed up. He said his doctor told him he could have a regular diet. He said he has told the aides and they told him they would get it fixed. During an observation and interview on 8/08/22 at 12:33 p.m., a lunch tray was delivered to Resident #47. The ham was chopped up and the sweet potatoes and beans were mashed. Resident #47 said, See. All chopped up like I cannot eat regular food. During an observation and interview on 8/09/22 at 7:54 a.m., Resident #47 said he was on a regular diet for the first year he lived in the facility. He said at one time he was in the hospital and when he returned his diet was changed to mechanical soft. He said he talked to his doctor approximately 3 weeks ago and the doctor told him he could have a regular diet. He said he has still been getting the mechanical soft diet. He said he has reported this to many aides, nurses and he has reported the issue to the DON, the Dietary Supervisor, and the Activity Director. He said it made the food hard to eat and made a mess. Resident #47's breakfast tray was sitting on the table at his bedside. There were scrambled eggs, chopped up sausage with gravy and a biscuit. During an interview on 08/10/22 at 9:33 a.m., the Dietary Supervisor revealed Resident #47 choked when he ate regular food. She said family did not want him to eat a regular diet. She said as far as she knew he could make his own decisions. She said she was not aware of a waiver he had ever signed concerning his diet. She said she learned of food complaints from residents or if they sent an aide to tell her. She said she then visited with the resident. She said the dietary profiles are completed quarterly. She said her records show that it was recommended to have a mechanical soft diet, but he should have a regular diet. She said the dietary slip shows NRA in PCC/Mechanical soft. She said she was not sure what the acronym NRA stood for, but she knew this meant a mechanical soft diet was recommended. She said the dietary slip indicated he should be served a regular diet. She said she guessed staff saw the mechanical soft on the slip and that was what he had been being served. She said it was the residents right to eat a diet they wanted. She said not getting the diet they want could cause the resident to be unhappy and affect their quality of life. She said food and activities were two of the things they could control. During an interview on 8/10/22 at 11:05 a.m., SNA J revealed Resident #4 7 had complained to her about not getting the correct diet and she reported this to LVN K. During an interview on 8/10/22 at 11:17 a.m., LVN K revealed she had taken care of Resident #47. She said probably at some point in time he may have complained to her about his food. She said she did not remember anything specific. She said she had not taken care of him in a long time. She said usually if someone told her something she tried to address it. She said she would have asked the DON and started researching the problem and brought it up in the morning meeting. She said a resident not getting the correct diet could make them unhappy and they might not eat as much. During an interview on 8/10/22 at 2:34 p.m., the ADON revealed Resident #47 never complained to her that he was getting the wrong diet. She said she was the one that discussed all the risk with him eating a regular diet when he signed the Negotiated Risk Assessment on 3/11/2021. She said she would have expected the diet ordered and the one he preferred to have been served to him. She said the facility was his home and him not getting the correct food could make him not want to live in the facility. She said food was a big deal to residents and could be all someone has left. During an interview on 8/10/22 at 2:48 p.m., the DON said She said the diet slip had to list the NRA (Negotiated Risk Assessment) showing the mechanical soft diet was the recommended diet, but she would have expected the diet ordered to have been the diet served to the resident. She said the resident not being served the diet he preferred could affect him psychosocially because it upsets him. On 8/10/2022 at 2:48 p.m., A request was made to the DON for a policy concerning following diets ordered by the physician and was not received prior to discharge. Review of a Resident Rights dated 11/28/2016 indicated, The resident has a right to .self-determination .the resident has the right to make choices about aspects of his or her life in the facility that are significant to the resident .
CONCERN (D)

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

Smoking Policies (Tag F0926)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to follow their own established smoking policy for 1 of 3...

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 follow their own established smoking policy for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for smoking (Resident #25). The facility did not provide a smoking apron per their smoking assessment for Resident #25. The failure could place residents at risk of an unsafe smoking environment. Findings included: A record review of the physician's orders dated August 2022 indicated Resident #25 admitted [DATE], was [AGE] years old, with diagnoses that included: Atrial fibrillation (abnormal heart rhythm characterized by rapid and irregular beating of the heart), pain, problems with memory after a stroke, osteoarthritis (pain in the joints), throat cancer, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (long term respiratory symptoms and shortness of breath). A record review of the MDS indicated Resident #15 had clear speech, was understood by others and understood others. The MDS indicated she had a BIMS score of 12 indicating moderate cognitive impairment and required the limited assistance of two staff for bed mobility and the supervision of two staff for transfer. A record review of the undated care plan indicated Resident #15 required supervision for bed mobility and used a wheelchair. The care plan indicated she was a smoker and would wear a smoking apron while smoking to prevent injury. A record review of a Safe Smoking assessment dated [DATE] on 8/9/22 indicated Resident #15 had shaking and tremors while smoking and was dropping lit cigarettes on her clothes and the ground burning holes in them. The summary of the Safe Smoking Assessment indicated The resident requires a fire-resistant smoking apron while smoking. During an observation on 8/09/22 at 8:08 AM, Resident #25 was smoking outdoors with other smokers and 2 staff present. She did not have on a smoking apron. She was in a wheelchair. She was not observed to be dropping ashes. Her hands were not shaky. She did not drop or almost drop her cigarette. During an interview on 8/09/22 at 9:28 AM, Resident #25 said the staff used to put her in a smoking apron but they did not do that much anymore. She said she thought it was because she was not dropping things on herself anymore. During an observation an interview on 8/09/22 at 10:13 AM, the AD took 6 residents out to smoke. Resident #25 was in her wheelchair, smoking without a smoking apron on. The AD said none of the residents that were smoking required a smoking apron. Resident #25 was not shaking, did not drop ashes, and put her own cigarette out. During an interview on 8/10/22 at 8:07 AM, Housekeeper A was smoking the residents. Resident #25 was observed smoking and did not have a smoking apron on. She was not shaky and did not drop ashes. Housekeeper A said the nurses always tell them if a resident was supposed to wear a smoking apron. She said there used to be a resident that wore a smoking apron but that particular resident did not smoke anymore. She said Resident #25 was not shaky and did not drop ashes. During an interview on 8/10/22 at 8:12 AM, CNA B and CNA C said they sometimes took the residents out to smoke. They said there used to be a resident that wore a smoking apron but that resident did not smoke anymore. They said if a resident was dropping ashes or almost burning themselves, they would immediately tell the nurse. They both said they had not taken Resident #25 out to smoke. During an interview on 8/10/22 at 8:35 AM, the AD said the residents she had taken out to smoke yesterday were not required to wear smoking aprons (see observation on 8/9/22 at 10:13 AM). She said if there was a resident she was not familiar with she would ask nursing if that resident was supposed to wear a smoking apron. She said she was familiar with the residents that were smoking and none of them were required to wear an apron including Resident #25. When this surveyor told her the smoking assessment indicated Resident #25 was required to wear a smoking apron for safety, the AD said she was very surprised. She said no one had told her Resident #25 was supposed to wear a smoking apron. She said Resident #25 was not shaky and did not drop ashes when she took her to smoke yesterday. She said it had been months since she had taken the residents out to smoke, that she was just helping out yesterday. During an interview on 8/10/22 at 8:42 AM, LVN D said if a resident was supposed to wear a smoking apron it should be on their care plan and on their smoking assessment. She said she did not know if Resident #25 was supposed to wear a smoking apron. She said she would have to look at her smoking assessment. She said she did not take residents out to smoke. During an interview on 8/10/22 at 8:48 AM, the DON said staff would know if a resident that smoked required a smoking apron by checking the smoking assessment. She said usually each resident that required a smoking apron had a smoking apron assigned to them. She said Resident #25 had a smoking apron assigned to her. She said there must have been a miscommunication with the departments. She said they needed to do an in-service letting all departments that take residents out to smoke (housekeeping, CNA's, nurses) know which residents required smoking aprons. She said the risk of not wearing a smoking apron when the smoking assessment indicated an apron was needed, was burns and injury to the resident. She said Resident #25 used to be very shaky and talk with her hands and would spill her ashes. She said currently she was not shaky and did not spill her ashes. She said Charge Nurses did all the smoking assessments and were responsible for letting staff know that the resident required a smoking apron. During an interview on 8/10/22 at 8:54 AM, the ADON said Resident #25 did not require a smoking apron to safely smoke. She said she did not realize that her smoking assessment indicated she needed a smoking apron for safety. She said the risk for not wearing a smoking apron if one was required would be burns and injuries to the resident. She said she had taken Resident #25 out to smoke in the past. She said she did not remember when that was, but she said she was a safe smoker without the apron. She said Resident #25 did not need an apron to smoke because she was not shaky and did not drop ashes or her cigarette. During an interview on 8/10/22 at 8:57 AM, the Regional Nurse said she would not know who should wear a smoking apron without looking at the smoking assessment. She said staff should be in-serviced on who was required to wear a smoking apron and who was not. She said the risk of not wearing an apron if one was required, was burns and injury to the resident. She said there was a communication breakdown regarding who was and who was not supposed to wear a smoking apron. During an interview on 8/10/22 at 9:05 AM, Housekeeper E said he had taken residents outside to smoke. He said the last time he took residents out to smoke was yesterday at 3:00 PM. He said the housekeeping supervisor or HR would tell him if a resident required a smoking apron. He said yesterday the HR lady told him that Resident #25 needed to wear a smoking apron so he put a smoking apron on her while she smoked yesterday. During an interview on 8/10/22 at 9:11 AM, HR said she found out from the DON yesterday that Resident #25 was supposed to wear a smoking apron when she went outside to smoke. She said she did not know Resident #25 required a smoking apron until the DON told her yesterday. She said everyone realized yesterday that Resident #25 was supposed to have a smoking apron. During an interview on 8/10/22 at 10:07 AM, the Housekeeping Supervisor said she was told by the DON about 20 minutes ago that Resident #25 was required to wear a smoking apron when she smoked. She said she did not know until 20 minutes ago that Resident #25 required a smoking apron to smoke. She said she would notify housekeeping staff. On 8/10/22 at 10:26 AM, this surveyor left a message for LVN G (one of Resident #25's day nurses). Her mailbox was full and this surveyor was unable to leave a message. During a phone interview on 8/10/22 at 10:40 AM, LVN F (nurse that did the smoking assessment on Resident #25) She said she did the smoking assessment for Resident #25. She said at the time she did the smoking assessment Resident #25 was dropping her cigarettes and burned a hole in her jacket. She said it did not burn her skin. She said after doing the smoking assessment indicating Resident #25 needed to use a smoking apron for safety she told the DON, put it on the 24-hour report, and verbally told the housekeepers, CNA's and oncoming nurse. She said that was the only process she knew she was supposed to do. She said she was new, had only worked at the facility for one month, and only worked on weekends. During an interview and record review on 8/10/22 at 11:10 AM, the Regional Nurse provided the 24-hour report dated 7/24/22. The 24-hour report indicated Resident needs to wear a smoking apron-dropping cigs/burning clothes . The Regional Nurse said Resident #25 requiring a smoking apron was written on the 24-hour report. During an interview on 8/10/22 at 11:23 AM, the DON looked at the 24-hour report dated 7/24/22. She said she had seen the 24-hour report indicating Resident #25 needed to wear a smoking apron. She said she would have seen the 24-hour report Monday, 7/25/22. She said she goes over the 24-hour report in the mornings, then they have their clinical meeting with the heads of staff. She said she did not remember seeing that Resident #25 required a smoking apron. A Smoking Policy dated 11/1/17 provided by the DON on 8/9/22 indicated: .2.A safe smoking assessment will be done regularly for each resident who smokes. 3.If the facility identifies that the resident needs assistance/supervision and/or additional protective devices for smoking, the facility includes this information in the resident's care plan, and reviews and revises the plan periodically as needed .
CONCERN (E)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interviews, and record review the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards in 1 of 1 kitchen reviewed for food serv...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interviews, and record review the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards in 1 of 1 kitchen reviewed for food service safety. The facility failed to ensure all food items were labeled and dated in two freezers, five refrigerators, and the pantry. The Director of Food and Nutrition removed an opened container of food from one refrigerator. Food was not being thawed under running water. These failures could place residents at risk of foodborne illness. Findings include: During an observation on 8/8/22 at 8:35 a.m., revealed in Refrigerator #1 - 1 package of Hawaiian Rolls with received date and 1 package of croissant rolls with no received date. Both items were clearly labeled from manufacturer. During an observation on 8/8/2022 at 8:40 a.m., in a Freezer #1 - 25 packages of round white flat dough. Twenty (20) packages with no received dates or identifying labels, 5 with no identifying labels, and 1 package opened, exposed to air, with no identifying label. During an observation on 8/8/22 at 8:45 a.m., in Refrigerator #2 - 8 packages of boiled eggs. Seven (7) packages with no received dates or identifying labels and 1 package opened, exposed to air, with no received date or identifying label. During an observation on 8/8/22 at 8:47 a.m., there were 2 packages of an unknown meat thawing in a sink with a silver food tray full of water. The water faucets were off and not running over the meat. During an observation on 8/8/22 8:49 a.m., in Refrigerator #4 - 1 jar of reduced sugar jelly with no received date . During an observation on 8/8/2022 at 8:51 a.m., in a Freezer #2 - 3 packages of brown breaded substance with no received date or identifying label and 1 package of an unknown red frozen substance with no identifying label. There was also a box of small brown round dough with no received date opened and exposed to air. During an observation on 8/8/22 8:57 a.m., in Refrigerator #5 - 1 package of frozen brown substance with no received date or identifying label. One (1) package of brown flat and oval shaped substance with no received date or identifying label. 1 package of small brown ball shaped substance with no received date or identifying label. During an observation on 8/8/22 at 9:00 a.m., in the Pantry were 12 cans of sweet, condensed milk and 4 jars of reduced sugar jelly with no received dates . During the initial walkthrough on 8/8/22 at approximately 8:47 a.m., the Director of Food and Nutrition was observed removing food from Refrigerator #5 but location of where item was placed, and the exact item could not be seen at this time. During an interview on 8/10/22 at 8:41 a.m., the Director of Food and Nutrition revealed she has been working for the facility off and on for about 20 years. She said that facility does not have a dietitian on staff, but that corporate has one and that a contracted dietitian comes to the facility monthly. She said that she has 8 staff on duty in her department. She said that she typically works Monday through Friday from 8a-5p but occasionally works later in the evening and weekends to observe kitchen staff. She said that she does inventory on Wednesdays and that delivery comes on Thursdays from a food vendor. She said that the facility uses menus created by a food vendor and they change seasonally. She said that there is an alternate menu with various items. She said that once delivery is received, she and a dietary aid check for temperatures and for damage. She said that they then label and date all food with a sharpie. They put frozen food up first and pantry last. She said that during this survey's walkthrough, she removed an opened container of cream cheese that wasn't sealed. She said that she knew she was not supposed to do so but did so anyway. She said that she discarded. She said that after the initial tour with surveyors she has implemented a new plan for labeling and dated food items. She said that she will now use freezer labels with sharpie. She said that she only used a sharpie before and that is possibly the reason the writing was no longer visible on the items in the freezer. She could not give an explanation for why things in the pantry or refrigerator were not labled. During an interview on 8/10/22 at 9:10. am., a Dietary Aide said she has been employed at the facility for about 11 months and always in dietary. She said that she works Monday through Friday from 5:30a-1pm. She said that her primary duties are to serve deserts, drinks, and help with food preparation. She said that she also does the cleaning, moping, and sanitizing after each meal during her shift. She said that she does not assist with storage or inventory of food items received. She said that she has not noticed any food item not being labeled or dated but she knows what the item is or will ask the Director of Food and Nutrition or the cook if she cannot tell. During an interview on 8/10/22 at 9:16 a.m., a [NAME] said that she has been employed at the facility for 26 years. She said that she works Wednesday through Friday from 5:30a-1pm/ She said that she is the primary cook on her shift. She said that they follow menu and recipe cards when preparing meals. She said that the dietitian approves and creates the recipes that they follow. She said that once she arrives, she begins to prepare breakfast and that she prepares lunch at varying time depending on what the item is but typically it is done at 9am. She said that they receive the resident's individual menu chart before every meal. She said that she does not assist with inventory or storage. She said the Director of Food and Nutrition and dietary aid handles that on Thursdays. She said that she has not used an item that was not dated but has used unlabeled item if she can tell what it is. She said that if she has something that is not labeled or dated, she will update the Director of Food and Nutrition so she can fix it. During an interview on 8/10/22 at 10:28 a.m., the Regional Compliance said that she is acting administrator in administrator absence. She said that her primary duty is to oversee nursing staff for all facilities. She said that she has only been acting in this position for a few days as administrator is out of the country. She said that nutritional policies were created by corporate nutrition and that is what is used by the facility. She said that is not familiar with dietary but expected that all items received should be labeled and date upon receipt. She said that she does not know how often the administrator would check for compliance, but she hopes it is at least once a week. She said that she has not received any complaints related to food since she has been acting administrator. Review of facility Storage Refrigerator policy dated 2012 indicated, .Food must be covered when stored, with a date label identifying what is in the container Review of facility Dry Storage and Supplies policy dated 2012 indicated, .Dry bulk foods (e.g., flour sugar) are stored in a seamless metal or plastic containers with tight covers or bins which are easily sanitized. Containers are labeled The website https://www.fsis.usda.gov/food-safety/safe-food-handling-and-preparation/food-safety-basics/food-product-dating accessed on 8/24/22 indicated, .Best if Used By is a type of date you might find on a meat, poultry, or egg product label .Two types of product dating may be shown on a product label. Open Dating is a calendar date applied to a food product by the manufacturer or retailer. The calendar date provides consumers with information on the estimated period of time for which the product will be of best quality and to help the store determine how long to display the product for sale . The website https://www.fsis.usda.gov/food-safety/safe-food-handling-and-preparation/food-safety-basics/big-thaw-safe-defrosting-methods accessed on 8/24/22 indicated .When thawing frozen food, it's best to plan ahead and thaw in the refrigerator where it will remain at a safe, constant temperature - at 40 °F or below. There are three safe ways to thaw food: in the refrigerator, in cold water, and in the microwave . Refrigerator Thawing: Planning ahead is the key to this method because of the lengthy time involved. A large frozen item like a turkey requires at least a day (24 hours) for every 5 pounds of weight. Even small amounts of frozen food - such as a pound of ground meat or boneless chicken breasts - require a full day to thaw. When thawing foods in the refrigerator, there are variables to take into account. Some areas of the appliance may keep food colder than other areas. Food will take longer to thaw in a refrigerator set at 35 °F than one set at 40 °F. After thawing in the refrigerator, items such as ground meat, stew meat, poultry, seafood, should remain safe and good quality for an additional day or two before cooking; red meat cuts (such as beef, pork or lamb roasts, chops and steaks) 3 to 5 days. Food thawed in the refrigerator can be refrozen without cooking, although there may be some loss of quality. Cold Water Thawing: This method is faster than refrigerator thawing but requires more attention. The food must be in a leak-proof package or plastic bag. If the bag leaks, bacteria from the air or surrounding environment could be introduced into the food. Also, the meat tissue may absorb water, resulting in a watery product. The bag should be submerged in cold tap water, changing the water every 30 minutes so it continues to thaw. Small packages of meat, poultry or seafood - about a pound - may thaw in an hour or less. A 3-to 4-pound package may take 2 to 3 hours. For whole turkeys, estimate about 30 minutes per pound. If thawed completely, the food must be cooked immediately. Foods thawed by the cold water method should be cooked before refreezing. Microwave Thawing: When thawing food in a microwave, plan to cook it immediately after thawing because some areas of the food may become warm and begin to cook during the thawing process (bringing the food to Danger Zone temperatures). Holding partially cooked food is not recommended because any bacteria present wouldn't have been destroyed and, indeed, the food may have reached optimal temperatures for bacteria to grow. After thawing in the microwave, always cook immediately after, whether microwave cooking, by conventional oven, or grilling. Foods thawed in the microwave should be cooked before refreezing .
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

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

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 7 life-threatening violation(s), 2 harm violation(s), $218,053 in fines, Payment denial on record. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 44 deficiencies on record, including 7 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $218,053 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in Texas. Major compliance failures.
  • • Grade F (0/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: This facility has 7 Immediate Jeopardy findings. Serious concerns require careful evaluation.

About This Facility

What is Gilmer Nursing And Rehabilitation's CMS Rating?

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

How is Gilmer Nursing And Rehabilitation Staffed?

CMS rates GILMER NURSING AND REHABILITATION's staffing level at 1 out of 5 stars, which is much below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 53%, compared to the Texas average of 46%.

What Have Inspectors Found at Gilmer Nursing And Rehabilitation?

State health inspectors documented 44 deficiencies at GILMER NURSING AND REHABILITATION during 2022 to 2024. These included: 7 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 2 that caused actual resident harm, 34 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 Gilmer Nursing And Rehabilitation?

GILMER 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 CREATIVE SOLUTIONS IN HEALTHCARE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 93 certified beds and approximately 59 residents (about 63% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in GILMER, Texas.

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

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Texas, GILMER NURSING AND REHABILITATION's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 2.8, staff turnover (53%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (1 stars) is much below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Gilmer 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?" "Can you walk me through typical staffing levels on day, evening, and night shifts?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations and the below-average staffing rating.

Is Gilmer Nursing And Rehabilitation Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, GILMER NURSING AND REHABILITATION has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 7 Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 1-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in Texas. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.

Do Nurses at Gilmer Nursing And Rehabilitation Stick Around?

GILMER NURSING AND REHABILITATION has a staff turnover rate of 53%, which is 7 percentage points above the Texas average of 46%. Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.

Was Gilmer Nursing And Rehabilitation Ever Fined?

GILMER NURSING AND REHABILITATION has been fined $218,053 across 3 penalty actions. This is 6.2x the Texas average of $35,259. Fines at this level are uncommon and typically indicate a pattern of serious deficiencies, repeated violations, or failure to correct problems promptly. CMS reserves penalties of this magnitude for facilities that pose significant, documented risk to resident health or safety. Families should request specific documentation of what issues led to these fines and what systemic changes have been implemented.

Is Gilmer Nursing And Rehabilitation on Any Federal Watch List?

GILMER 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.