GRANDVIEW NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER

301 W CRINER ST, GRANDVIEW, TX 76050 (817) 866-3367
Non profit - Other 82 Beds Independent Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
50/100
#478 of 1168 in TX
Last Inspection: May 2025

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

Overview

Grandview Nursing and Rehabilitation Center has a Trust Grade of C, which means it is average and sits in the middle of the pack among facilities. It ranks #478 out of 1,168 in Texas, indicating it is in the top half of nursing homes in the state, but only #6 out of 9 in Johnson County, suggesting there are better local options. Unfortunately, the facility is worsening, with issues increasing from 1 in 2024 to 8 in 2025. Staffing is a relative strength, with a turnover rate of 34%, which is lower than the Texas average of 50%, but the RN coverage is concerning, as it is less than 98% of other Texas facilities. There have been some serious issues, including failing to develop proper care plans for residents, which has led to significant weight loss for one resident, and not maintaining acceptable nutritional parameters. Additionally, residents were not made aware of where to find inspection results, which could hinder their ability to exercise their rights. While the facility has some strengths, such as good staffing levels, these serious deficiencies raise concerns about the quality of care provided.

Trust Score
C
50/100
In Texas
#478/1168
Top 40%
Safety Record
Moderate
Needs review
Inspections
Getting Worse
1 → 8 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
34% turnover. Near Texas's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
Penalties
✓ Good
$32,500 in fines. Lower than most Texas facilities. Relatively clean record.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 10 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Texas. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
⚠ Watch
13 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★★☆☆
3.0
Overall Rating
★★★☆☆
3.0
Staff Levels
★★★★★
5.0
Care Quality
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 1 issues
2025: 8 issues

The Good

  • 5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover below average (34%)

    14 points below Texas average of 48%

Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.

The Bad

3-Star Overall Rating

Near Texas average (2.8)

Meets federal standards, typical of most facilities

Staff Turnover: 34%

12pts below Texas avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

Federal Fines: $32,500

Below median ($33,413)

Moderate penalties - review what triggered them

The Ugly 13 deficiencies on record

2 actual harm
Aug 2025 1 deficiency
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

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 interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to revise comprehensive person-centered care plans for three (3) of ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to revise comprehensive person-centered care plans for three (3) of nine (9) residents (Resident #1, Resident #2, and Resident #3) reviewed for care plans. The facility failed to update the care plans for Residents #1, Resident #2, and Resident #3 to match the dietary orders. This failure could place residents at risk of not having their individualized needs met and communicated to providers in a timely manner and could result in injury and a decline in physical well-being. Findings included:Resident #1 Review of face sheet, dated 8/24/2025, revealed Resident #1 was a [AGE] year-old male, admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included: Parkinson's Disease (progressive neurological disorder of the central nervous system that affects movement), Type 2 diabetes (blood sugar regulation disorder), heart Failure, muscle weakness, and dementia (loss of cognitive memory ability).Review of Resident #1's quarterly MDS dated [DATE], reflected a BIMS of 8 suggesting mild cognitive impairment. MDS section K on nutritional status reflected resident had no swallowing difficulties but was on a therapeutic diet. Review of Resident #'1 dietary order, dated 3/28/2023, reflected: NAS, LCS diet, Regular texture, Regular consistency. Review of Resident #1's care plan dated 8/24/2025 reflected the focus: [Resident #1] is on a minced moist no addedsalt, low concentrated sweet diet related to his diagnosis of hypertension and Diabetes. Resident #2 Review of face sheet, dated 8/24/2025, revealed Resident #2 was an [AGE] year-old female, admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included: Chronic Kidney Disease, Type 2 Diabetes (blood sugar regulation disorder), Hypertension (high blood pressure), and cerebral infarction (stroke - brain attack due to bleed or blockage.) Review of Resident #2's quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], reflected a BIMS of 15, suggesting no cognitive impairment. Review of Resident #2's dietary order, dated 12/22/2023, reflected: NAS, LCS diet, Mechanical Soft texture, Regular consistency.Review of Resident #2's care plan, dated 8/24/2025, reflected the focus: She is on a Regular, no added salt, low concentrated sweets diet related to her diagnosis of hypertension and diabetes. Resident #3 Review of face sheet, dated 8/24/2025, revealed Resident #3 was a [AGE] year-old female, admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included: Sepsis (systemic infection), heart failure, Encephalopathy (brain disease that alters brain function of structure), Urinary Tract infection, and muscle weakness. Review of Resident #3's quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], reflected a BIMS of 11 suggesting mild cognitive impairment. Review of Resident #3's orders reflected she had a dietary order, dated 4/10/2025, Regular diet, Mechanical Soft texture, Regular consistency. Review of Resident #3's care plan dated, 8/254/2025, reflected the focus, She is on a Regular diet. She has avitamin D deficiency.During an interview on 8/24/2025 at 6:07 pm, the MDS coordinator stated it was her responsibility to ensure [care plans were updated to match diet orders. She stated when she reviewed the care plans for Resident's #1, #2 and #3 on 8/24/2025, they did not match the orders. She stated she did not remember how long ago the orders were changed or why they did not get updated on the care plans. She stated it was important that the care plan match the order so everybody knows what goes with each resident and how to care for them, so we care for them correctly. She stated she had reviewed Resident #1's care plan and realized his diet was not correct and then found several other care plans that were not correct. She stated she started an audit today of all the care plans to ensure the diet orders matched the care plan. During an interview on 8/24/2025 at 6:25 pm, the DON stated she was not aware the diet orders did not match the care plans. She stated he was important for care plans to match because it gives you the snapshot of what the resident needs and if the orders didn't get carried out correctly it could make them sick, worsen their condition. There could be choking, and this could end very poorly [including] in death. She stated the MDS coordinator was responsible for updating care plans but ultimately at the end of the say it is her [DON] that is responsible. During an interview on 8/24/2025 at 6:39 pm, the ADM stated she was not aware the care plans did not match the diet orders. She stated it was the MDS coordinator's responsibility to update the care plan with day-to-day changes. She said ultimately it was the DON's responsibility to ensure the care plans were correct and then herself [ADM]. She stated there was a diet order report that she would pull and give to dietary to ensure all the diet cards in the kitchen were correct. She stated a review of the dietary cards for all the residents reflected the current orders and diet cards were correct and only the care plans were not correct. She stated she would start running the diet order report and give it to the MDS coordinator to ensure the care plans are correct. ADM stated they had their annual survey the beginning of May 2025 and the facility had been cited for accuracy of their care plans. She stated they completed their plan of correction, continued their audit of the care plans, but had not yet gotten to an audit of the dietary focus areas. Review of facility policy, dated 1/6/2025, titled Comprehensive Care Plans reflected: It is the policy of this facility to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan foreach resident, consistent with resident rights, that includes measurable objectives and timeframes to meeta resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs and ALL services that are identified inthe resident's comprehensive assessment and meet professional standards of quality. 5. The comprehensive care plan will be reviewed and revised by the interdisciplinary team after each comprehensive and quarterly MDS assessment.
May 2025 7 deficiencies 2 Harm
SERIOUS (H)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

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 develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident that includes measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs and describes the services that are to be furnished to attain or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being for 27 of 27 residents (Residents #6, #7, #9, #13, #19, #22, #24, #28, #31, #32, #33, #34, #36, #39, #40, #41, #42, #43, #44, #45, #47, #50, #51, #53, #55, #57, #59) who were reviewed for care plans. 1. The facility failed to develop a person- centered care plan for Resident #55's oral care needs related to denture use and interventions for oral, and nutritional maintenance despite a system generated warning on 11/15/24 for -7.5% change (comparison weight 08/09/24, 154.2 lbs, -8.0%, 12.4 lbs) and lab results on 09/05/24, 12/06/24, and 03/13/25 which reflected low albumin levels indicating low protein resulting in a 4.9 lbs (-3.62 %) loss in a month, a 12.3 lbs (-8.62 %) loss in 6 months, and 23.9 lbs (-15.49 %) loss in the last year 04/05/24 through 04/15/25 resulting in impaired nutritional status (significant weight loss) and frustration with not having her preferences and needs met. 2. The facility failed to care plan Residents' #6, #7, #9, #13, #19, #22, #24, #28, #31, #32, #33, #34, #36, #39, #40, #41, #42, #43, #44, #45, #47, #50, #51, #53, #57, #59 for their use of dentures. This failure placed residents that wear dentures at risk of impaired nutritional status (poor intake and significant weight loss) and not having their need for assistance met. Findings included: Review of Resident #6's significant change MDS assessment dated [DATE] reflected a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included senile degeneration of the brain, vitamin B12 deficiency anemia (low levels of healthy red blood cells or hemoglobin), dental procedure status, and hypertension (high blood pressure). She had a BIMS score of 10 indicating moderate cognitive impairment. Functional abilities for oral hygiene included the ability to insert and remove dentures into and from the mouth reflected substantial/ maximal assistance. Section L Dental reflected none of the above were present when indicating if the resident had natural teeth, dentures, oral abnormalities, pain, or inability to examine oral cavity. Review of Resident #6's care plan last revised 04/21/25 reflected Resident #6's care plan did not identify oral care related to denture use. Record review of Resident #7's Annual MDS, dated [DATE], indicated Resident #7 was a [AGE] year-old male who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. He had diagnoses of Heart Failure, Atrial Fibrillation (irregular heart rhythm), Cardiac Pacemaker, lack of coordination, and muscle weakness. His MDS reflected in Section L - Oral/Dental Status an 'x' in box 'Z. None of the above were present' when indicating if the resident had natural teeth, dentures, oral abnormalities, pain, or inability to examine oral cavity. He had a BIMS score of 15 indicating cognition intact. Record review of Resident #7's care plan dated last revised 03/31/2025 revealed that his use of upper and lower dentures was not care planned. Record review of Resident #9's Annual MDS, dated [DATE], indicated Resident #9 was a [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. She had diagnoses of Cerebral Infarction (stroke), Peripheral Vascular Disease (a lack of blood flow to the lower extremities), lack of coordination, and muscle weakness. Her MDS reflected in Section L - Oral/Dental Status an 'x' in box 'Z. None of the above were present' when indicating if the resident had natural teeth, dentures, oral abnormalities, pain, or inability to examine oral cavity. She had a BIMS score of 12 indicating cognition intact. Record review of Resident #9's care plan dated last revised 03/28/2025 revealed that her use of upper and lower dentures was not care planned. Record review of Resident #13's admission MDS, dated [DATE], indicated Resident #13 was a [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. She had diagnoses of Cerebral Infarction, Peripheral Vascular Disease, lack of coordination, and muscle weakness. Her MDS reflected in Section L - Oral/Dental Status an 'X' in box 'B indicating No natural teeth or tooth fragments. She had a BIMS score of 14 indicating cognition intact. Record review of Resident #13's care plan dated last revised 04/28/2025 revealed that her use of upper and lower dentures was not care planned. Record review of Resident #19's Annual MDS, dated [DATE], indicated Resident #19 was a [AGE] year-old male who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. He had diagnoses of Heart Failure, Atrial Fibrillation , Cardiac Pacemaker, lack of coordination, and muscle weakness. His MDS reflected in Section L - Oral/Dental Status an 'x' in box 'Z. None of the above were present' when indicating if the resident had natural teeth, dentures, oral abnormalities, pain, or inability to examine oral cavity. He had a BIMS score of 10 indicating moderate cognitive impairment. Record review of Resident #19's care plan dated last revised 03/28/2025 revealed that his use of upper and lower dentures was not care planned. Record review of Resident #22's quarterly MDS assessment, dated 03/14/2025, indicated Resident #22 was an [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. She had diagnoses of high blood pressure, Alzheimer's disease (memory loss, confusion, and difficulty problem-solving), anxiety (worriness), bipolar disorder (extreme mood disorder), psychotic disorder (abnormal thinking and perceptions), edema (swelling caused by trapped fluid), disease of the pancreas, neoplasm of the digestive organs, bladder, and colon (abnormal growth of tissues in these areas). Her MDS reflected in Section GG-Functional Abilities she was dependent on staff for help with oral hygiene. Her MDS reflected in Section L - Oral/Dental Status an 'X' in box 'B indicating No natural teeth or tooth fragments. She had a BIMS score of 05, indicating severe cognitive impairment. Record review of Resident #22's care plan dated last revised 03/28/2025 revealed that her use of upper and lower dentures was not care planned. Record review of Resident #24's comprehensive MDS assessment, dated 11/15/2024, indicated Resident #24 was an [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. She had diagnoses of high blood pressure, high cholesterol, gastroesophageal reflux disease, Alzheimer's disease (memory loss, confusion, and difficulty problem-solving), anxiety, depression (extreme sadness), cataracts, and lack of coordination. Her MDS reflected in Section L - Oral/Dental Status an 'x' in box 'B. No natural teeth or tooth fragments'. She had a BIMS score of 08, indicating moderately impaired cognition. Record review of Resident #24's care plan dated last revised 04/21/2025 reflected no indication that the resident wore dentures or had no natural teeth. Review of Resident #28's quarterly MDS dated [DATE] reflected an [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis that included muscle weakness, vitamin D deficiency, and hypertension (high blood pressure). She had a BIMS score of 12 indicating moderate cognitive impairment. Functional abilities for oral hygiene including the ability to insert and remove dentures into and from the mouth reflected independent Section L Dental reflected was not assessed to indicate if the resident had natural teeth, dentures, oral abnormalities, pain, or inability to examine oral cavity. Review of Resident #28's care plan last revised 06/06/24 reflected Resident #28's care plan did not identify oral care related to denture use. Record review of Resident #31's Annual MDS, dated [DATE], indicated Resident #31 was a [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. She had diagnoses of Malignant Neoplasm of the Brain (brain cancer), Anemia (low red blood cells, Muscle Weakness, and Urinary Retention. Her MDS reflected in Section L - Oral/Dental Status an 'X' in box 'B indicating No natural teeth or tooth fragments. She had a BIMS score of 12 indicating moderate cognitive impairment. Record review of Resident #31's care plan dated last revised 04/19/2025 reflected that her use of upper and lower dentures was not care planned. Record review of Resident #32's Annual MDS, dated [DATE], indicated Resident #32 was a [AGE] year-old male who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. He had diagnoses of Seizure Disorder, Depression, Cataracts (a cloudy opacity of the natural lens inside the eye), and Unspecified Intellectual Disabilities. His MDS reflected in Section L - Oral/Dental Status an 'x' in box 'Z. None of the above were present' when indicating if the resident had natural teeth, dentures, oral abnormalities, pain, or inability to examine oral cavity. He had a BIMS score of 15 indicating cognition intact. Record review of Resident #32's care plan dated last revised 04/08/2025 reflected that his use of upper and lower dentures was not care planned. Record review of Resident #33's Annual MDS, dated [DATE], indicated Resident #33 was an [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. She had diagnoses of Heart Failure, Cerebrovascular Accident (stroke), Depression, and Muscle Weakness. Her MDS reflected in Section L - Oral/Dental Status an 'X' in box 'B indicating No natural teeth or tooth fragments. She had a BIMS score of 06 indicating severe cognitive impairment. Record review of Resident #33's care plan dated last revised 03/28/2025 reflected that her use of upper and lower dentures was not care planned. Review of Resident #34's significant change MDS dated [DATE] reflected a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis that included age related cognitive decline, hypokalemia (abnormally low potassium concentration in the blood), vitamin D deficiency, and iron deficiency. She had a BIMS score of 14 indicating cognition intact. Functional abilities for oral hygiene including the ability to insert and remove dentures into and from the mouth reflected supervision or touching assistance Section L Dental reflected none of the above were present when indicating if the resident had natural teeth, dentures, oral abnormalities, pain, or inability to examine oral cavity. Review of Resident #34's care plan last revised 04/30/25 reflected Resident #34's care plan did not identify oral care related to denture use. Record review of Resident #35's quarterly MDS dated [DATE] reflected a [AGE] year-old male who was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of high blood pressure, multiple sclerosis, macular degeneration, pain in right shoulder, and depression. In Section 'N' - Medications, there was not an 'x' in the box next to Antianxiety 'Is taking' or 'Indication noted'. In section 'GG-Functional Abilities he required touching assistance with oral hygiene. He had a BIMS score of 15, indicating intact cognition. Record review of Resident #35's care plan dated last revised 03/13/2025 had no indication the resident was on an antianxiety medication or had a diagnosis of anxiety or agitation. His care plan also reflected no indication that the resident wore dentures. Record review of Resident #36's comprehensive MDS assessment, dated 04/02/2025, indicated Resident #36 was a [AGE] year-old male who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. He had diagnoses of paralysis or severe weakness on one side of the body following damage to the brain, dementia, heart failure, lack of coordination, muscle weakness, anxiety, bipolar disorder, and irregular heart rhythm. His MDS reflected in Section L - Oral/Dental Status an 'x' in box 'Z. None of the above were present' when indicating if the resident had natural teeth, dentures, oral abnormalities, pain, or inability to examine oral cavity. He had a BIMS score of 03, indicating severe cognitive impairment. Record review of Resident #36's care plan dated last revised 03/27/2025 reflected no indication that the resident wore dentures or had no natural teeth. Record review of Resident #39's quarterly MDS assessment, dated 04/11/2025, indicated Resident #39 was an [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. She had diagnoses of heart disease, heart failure, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, lung disease, abnormality of mobility, lack of coordination, and muscle weakness. Her MDS reflected in Section GG-Functional Abilities she required touching assistance from staff for oral hygiene. She had a BIMS score of 15 indicating intact cognition. Record review of Resident #39's care plan dated last revised 04/28/2025 reflected no indication that the resident wore dentures or partials. Record review of Resident #40's comprehensive MDS assessment, dated 07/19/2024, indicated Resident #40 was an [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. She had diagnoses of high blood pressure, kidney disease, viral hepatitis, arthritis, non-Alzheimer's dementia, anxiety, bipolar disorder, depression (sadness), lack of coordination, muscle weakness, overactive bladder, and chronic pain. Her MDS reflected in Section L - Oral/Dental Status an 'x' in box 'Z. None of the above were present' when indicating if the resident had natural teeth, dentures, oral abnormalities, pain, or inability to examine oral cavity. She had a BIMS score of 15, indicating intact cognition. Record review of Resident #40's progress note dated 4/2/2025 reflected a care plan meeting was held with Resident #40 regarding her broken bottom denture. It was noted that the team had concerns about her weight loss and refusal of meals until her denture was to be fixed. Record review of Resident #40's care plan dated last revised 04/25/2025 reflected no indication that the resident wore dentures. Review of Resident #41's quarterly MDS dated [DATE] reflected a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis that included muscle weakness, vitamin D deficiency, and hypertension (high blood pressure). Her BIMS score had not been assessed. Functional abilities for oral hygiene including the ability to insert and remove dentures into and from the mouth reflected substantial/maximal assistance Section L Dental reflected not assessed to indicate if the resident had natural teeth, dentures, oral abnormalities, pain, or inability to examine oral cavity. Review of Resident #41's care plan last revised 04/04/25 reflected Resident #41's care plan did not identify oral care related to denture use. Record review of Resident #42's comprehensive MDS assessment, dated 01/03/2025, indicated Resident #42 was an [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. She had diagnoses of anemia, atrial fibrillation, heart failure, high blood pressure, kidney disease, high cholesterol, thyroid disorder, Alzheimer's disease (memory loss, confusion, and difficulty problem-solving), stroke, anxiety, depression (sadness), and respiratory failure. Her MDS reflected in Section L - Oral/Dental Status an 'x' in box 'Z. None of the above were present' when indicating if the resident had natural teeth, dentures, oral abnormalities, pain, or inability to examine oral cavity. She had a BIMS score of 13, indicating intact cognition. Record review of Resident #42's care plan dated last revised 04/28/2025 reflected no indication that the resident wore dentures. Record review of Resident #43's Annual MDS, dated [DATE], indicated Resident #43 was a [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. She had diagnoses of Hypertension (elevated blood pressure), Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease (indigestion), Thyroid Disorder, and Muscle Weakness. Her MDS reflected in Section L - Oral/Dental Status an 'X' in box 'B indicating No natural teeth or tooth fragments. She had a BIMS score of 12 indicating moderate cognitive impairment. Record review of Resident #43's care plan dated last revised 04/25/2025 reflected no indication that the resident wore dentures. Review of Resident #44's quarterly MDS dated [DATE] reflected a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis that included hypertension (high blood pressure), vitamin D deficiency, and muscle weakness. She had a BIMS score of 15 indicating cognition intact. Functional abilities for oral hygiene including the ability to insert and remove dentures into and from the mouth reflected independent Section L Dental reflected not assessed to indicate if the resident had natural teeth, dentures, oral abnormalities, pain, or inability to examine oral cavity. Review of Resident #44's care plan last revised 03/10/25 reflected Resident #44's care plan did not identify oral care related to denture use. Record review of Resident #45's Significant change in status MDS, dated [DATE], indicated Resident #45 was an [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. She had diagnoses of Hypertension (elevated blood pressure), Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease (indigestion), Lack of Coordination, and Muscle Weakness. Her MDS reflected in Section L - Oral/Dental Status an 'X' in box 'B indicating No natural teeth or tooth fragments. Staff interview reflected she had short term and long-term memory problems. Record review of Resident #45's care plan dated last revised 04/11/2025 reflected no indication that the resident wore dentures. Record review of Resident #47's comprehensive MDS assessment, dated 02/14/2025, indicated Resident #47 was an [AGE] year-old male who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. He had diagnoses of coronary artery disease, high blood pressure, gastroesophageal reflux disease (digestive disorder), benign prostatic hyperplasia (noncancerous enlargement of the prostate gland), kidney failure, diabetes, high cholesterol, thyroid disorder, seizure disorder, muscle weakness, lack of coordination, and fibromyalgia (widespread body pain). His MDS reflected in Section L - Oral/Dental Status an 'x' in box 'Z. None of the above were present' when indicating if the resident had natural teeth, dentures, oral abnormalities, pain, or inability to examine oral cavity. He had a BIMS score of 15, indicating intact cognition. Record review of Resident #47's care plan dated last revised 04/08/2025 reflected no indication that the resident wore dentures. Review of Resident #50's annual MDS dated [DATE] reflected a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis that included iron deficiency anemia (condition where the body does not have enough red blood cells and iron), hyperlipidemia (abnormally high levels of fats in the blood), and hypertension (high blood pressure). She had a BIMS score of 14 indicating cognition intact. Functional abilities for oral hygiene including the ability to insert and remove dentures into and from the mouth reflected setup of cleanup assistance Section L Dental reflected none of the above were present when indicating if the resident had natural teeth, dentures, oral abnormalities, pain, or inability to examine oral cavity. Review of Resident #50's care plan last revised 03/17/25 reflected Resident #50's care plan did not identify oral care related to denture use. Review of Resident #51's annual MDS dated [DATE] reflected a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis that included muscle weakness, secondary hypertension (high blood pressure), and vitamin B12 deficiency. She had a BIMS score of 09 indicating moderate cognitive impairment. Functional abilities for oral hygiene including the ability to insert and remove dentures into and from the mouth reflected substantial/maximal assistance Section L Dental reflected none of the above were present when indicating if the resident had natural teeth, dentures, oral abnormalities, pain, or inability to examine oral cavity. Review of Resident #51's care plan last revised 06/28/24 reflected Resident #51's care plan did not identify oral care related to denture use. Review of Resident #53's quarterly MDS dated 04.04/25 reflected an [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis that included iron deficiency anemia (condition where the body does not have enough red blood cells and iron), vitamin D deficiency, and iron deficiency. She had a BIMS score of 13 indicating cognition intact. Functional abilities for oral hygiene including the ability to insert and remove dentures into and from the mouth reflected partial/moderate assistance Section L Dental reflected was not assessed to indicate if the resident had natural teeth, dentures, oral abnormalities, pain, or inability to examine oral cavity. Review of Resident #53's care plan last revised 01/02/25 reflected Resident #53's care plan did not identify oral care related to denture use. Review of Resident #55's face sheet dated 04/30/25 revealed a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis that included cerebral aneurysm (bulge or ballooning in a blood vessel in the brain), vitamin D deficiency, depression (mental health condition causing persistent feeling of sadness and loss of interest and can interfere with daily life), hyperlipidemia (excess lipids or fats in the blood), anemia (not having enough red blood cells or when your red blood cells to not function properly), and essential (primary) hypertension (high blood pressure). Review of Resident #55's annual MDS assessment dated [DATE] reflected a BIMS score of 15 indicating cognition intact. Section GG for functional abilities reflected oral hygiene; the ability to use suitable items to clean teeth. Dentures (if applicable); the ability to insert and remove dentures into and from the mouth and manage denture soaking and rinsing with the use of equipment indicated supervision or touching assistance. Eating reflected setup or cleanup assistance. MDS assessment indicated Resident #55 was currently on a mechanically altered diet. Section L dental indicated no natural teeth or tooth fragments. Review of Resident 55's care plan last revised 03/17/25 reflected, Resident #55 is at risk for weight loss related to CVA. She is on a mechanical soft diet per her request due to her having no teeth. She had a vitamin D deficiency. Interventions included, administer vitamins as ordered by physician, allow ample time to ingest meal, health shakes three times daily (initiated 06/20/23), monitor labs, monitor monthly weights, RD/dietary to assess dietary needs, and take in consideration residents likes and dislikes. The care plan did not indicate Resident #55's use of dentures. Review of Resident #55's physician orders reflected an order with a start date of 06/16/23 for health shakes three times a day between meals. Review of Resident #55's labs dated 09/06/24 reflected a low albumin level that was flagged at 3.2 mg/dL indicating low protein. Review of Resident #55's labs dated 12/06/24 reflected a low albumin level that was flagged at 3.3 mg/dL indicating low protein. Review of Resident #55's labs dated 03/13/25 reflected a low albumin level that was flagged at 3.2 mg/dL indicating low protein. Review of Resident #55's weights reflected: 04/05/24 154.3 LBS 05/10/24 150.0 LBS 06/07/24 151.0 LBS 07/05/24 151.5 LBS 08/09/24 154.2 LBS 09/06/24 146.5 LBS 09/20/24 146.9 LBS 10/04/24 142.7 LBS 11/15/24 141.8 LBS System warning reflected, -7.5% change [Comparison Weight 08/09/24, 154.2 lbs., - 8.0%, -12.4 lbs.] 12/06/24 140.1 LBS 12/16/24 140.1 LBS 01/10/25 139.3 LBS 02/06/25 139.8 LBS 03/06/25 135.3 LBS 04/04/25 130.4 LBS 04/15/25 130.4 LBS On 03/06/25, Resident #55 weighed 135.3 lbs. On 04/04/25, the resident weighed 130.4 pounds which was a -3.62 % Loss in the last month. On 10/04/24, Resident #55 weighed 142.7 lbs. On 04/04/25, the resident weighed 130.4 pounds which was a -8.62 % Loss in the last 6 months. Review of Resident #55's progress notes reflected there were no notes indicating the system generated warning for 11/15/24 was addressed related to significant weight loss. Review of the facility's weights and dietary consultants binder reflected consultant dietician reports for 11/12/24 and 11/19/24, and weight meetings dated 11/07/24, 11/15/24, 11/22/24 which did not reflect that Resident #55's weight loss or system generated alert 11/15/24 for weight loss was addressed. Review of Resident #55's progress notes revealed the most recent quarterly nutritional review note dated 03/11/25 by RDN identified the weight trended down in the quarter and stated, 12/19 diet upgraded to mech soft with thin liquids, health shakes three times a day between meals; snacks as needed and at bedtime. Intake range 50-100. No new nutrition related labs available. Continue with current plan of care. DM will honor food preferences. Goals: abnormal lab correction, weight to stabilize, maintain skin integrity, tolerance of diet. Review of Resident #55's laminated reusable daily meal ticket provided by DM I reflected: - Mechanical soft diet - Breakfast: scrambled eggs, gravy, chocolate shake, coke - Lunch: Chicken noodle soup, tea, coke - Dinner: chicken noodle soup, tea, coke Meal ticket did not identify likes/dislikes, allergies, portion sizes, or any other additional information. Review of Resident #55's Dental notes reflected delivery of the dentures occurred on 07/30/24 after adjustments, with a follow up 11/05/24 for evaluation of mouth for lesions, red spots, and sensitive area. Adjustments made. In an interview and observation on 04/29/25 at 12:00 PM with Resident #55, while eating her lunch in the dining room which was observed to consist of chicken noodle soup, Resident #55 was observed pulling some of the noodles out of her mouth. She stated the food was good but that it was all she could eat because she didn't have any teeth. An observation of Resident #55's mouth revealed no teeth and no dentures in place. Resident #55 stated she had dentures, but that the staff did not assist with putting them on. She stated she would like to be able to eat a variety of food and expressed frustration, but stated she cannot because she doesn't have teeth. In an interview and observation on 04/29/25 at 03:07 PM with Resident #55 in her room, she was observed pointing to her dentures in a case located on a shelf near her nightstand. She once again stated she did not wear them because staff have not assisted her to use them. She again expressed frustration and stated she would like to try other food items but can't with no teeth. She stated she believed she needed to put glue on them to make them stick but simply did not know how to put them on. She stated she asked staff for assistance when she first got them, but after not getting any help she simply stopped asking. She stated if she was still hungry after her soup, she would return to her room to eat her snacks which was either chocolate or cookie cakes from a specific brand that are soft and manageable for her to break down with her gums. In an interview and observation on 04/30/25 at 05:10 PM with Resident #55 in the dining room for dinner, she was observed eating chicken noodle soup. She stated she was not wearing her dentures because nobody assisted her with them and she did not wear them for lunch that day either. She stated she was eating chicken soup once again which was not so difficult to eat. But she stated she wanted more of a variety. In an interview on 04/30/25 at 05:14 PM with CNA E working on Resident #55's hall. She stated she frequently worked with Resident #55, and that to her knowledge, she was not aware of the resident having dentures. CNA E stated she believed that Resident #55 had her own teeth. She stated that CNAs do assist the residents if they have dentures and that they are responsible for assisting the residents to put them on, take them off, brush them and add the cleaning tablets. She stated a negative outcome of a resident not getting assistance with dentures would be the resident would not be able to eat their food which could lead to weight loss. When asked how she would identify if a resident wore dentures, CNA E stated she would just ask. CNA E stated she did not look at the charts or anywhere else to identify if a resident required help with dentures. In an interview on 04/30/25 at 05:30 PM with LVN B, she stated she was the nurse for Resident #55's hall and had worked with her frequently. She stated she was aware that Resident #55 had dentures, but she has never seen the resident wear them and just assumed she did not like wearing them. She stated staff would assist residents, that have dentures, to put them on and take them off. She stated that Resident #55 required supervision and touch assistance with oral care which means she would have needed assistance with her dentures. She stated the CNA's have the primary responsibility to be the ones to assist the residents who wear dentures. She stated if a resident uses dentures, that should also be in the care plan with is updated by the MDS Coordinator. She stated a potential negative outcome of not assisting a resident with dentures would be significant weight loss. LVN B stated CNAs will get a sheet at the beginning of their shift that would tell them what the resident requires assistance with. In an interview on 05/01/25 at 09:36 AM with the MDSC revealed she had been working for the facility for 7 years. She stated that she was responsible for creating and updating most items on the care plans and that in the past they had not put dentures on the care plan, and she was not sure why they did not include them. She stated that if a resident admits with their natural teeth, then gets dentures later the social worker would be responsible for updating the care plan. She stated that it was important to include on the care plan because the CNAs are the ones who help residents take care of the dentures and insert and remove the dentures. She stated that a negative outcome of denture not being care planned is that a residents' nutrition could be hindered if the resident ha issues with their denture, as well as their self-worth. In an interview on 05/01/25 at 09:56 PM with DM I, she stated Resident #55 eats the same thing every day, she stated for breakfast she will have scrambled eggs and a shake and will have chicken noodle soup for both lunch and dinner. She stated it was her responsibility to update food preferences but had not because she believed Resident #55 enjoyed the chicken noodle soup and her family would even bring it to her. DM I stated she was not aware of Resident #55 having dentures or needing them. She stated using the dentures would allow her to have more of a variety of food options. She stated they have tried pureed meals with Resident #55, but she did not like them and is currently on a grounded-up texture. In an interview and observation on 05/01/25 at 10:11 AM with CNA F, she stated it was the responsibility of the CNAs to assist residents with their dentures which included putting them on, taking them off, and helping to clean [TRUNCATED]
SERIOUS (H)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Deficiency F0692 (Tag F0692)

A resident was harmed · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to maintain acceptable parameters of nutritional status in such as us...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to maintain acceptable parameters of nutritional status in such as usual body weight range and electrolyte balance, unless the resident's clinical condition demonstrated that this was not possible or resident preferences indicate otherwise for 1 of 4 (Resident #55) residents reviewed for weight loss. 1. The facility failed to recognize, evaluate, and address the nutritional needs of Resident #55 despite a system generated warning on 11/15/24 for -7.5% change (comparison weight 08/09/24, 154.2 lbs, -8.0%, 12.4 lbs) and lab results on 09/05/24, 12/06/24, and 03/13/25 which reflected low albumin levels indicating low protein resulting in a 4.9 lbs (-3.62 %) loss in a month, a 12.3 lbs (-8.62 %) loss in 6 months, and 23.9 lbs (-15.49 %) loss in the last year 04/05/24 through 04/15/25. 2. The facility failed to provide assistance to Resident #55 in the use of her dentures and consider her food preferences resulting in the continuation of impaired nutritional status. This failure places residents at risk for impaired nutritional status, not having their needs or preferences considered, and decreased quality of life. Finding included: Review of Resident #55's face sheet dated 04/30/25 revealed a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis that included cerebral aneurysm (bulge or ballooning in a blood vessel in the brain), vitamin D deficiency, depression (mental health condition causing persistent feeling of sadness and loss of interest and can interfere with daily life), hyperlipidemia (excess lipids or fats in the blood), anemia (when you do not have enough red blood cells or when your red blood cells to not function properly), and essential (primary) hypertension (high blood pressure). Review of Resident #55's annual MDS assessment dated [DATE] reflected a BIMS score of 15 indicating cognition intact. Section GG for functional abilities reflected oral hygiene; the ability to use suitable items to clean teeth. Dentures (if applicable); the ability to insert and remove dentures into and from the mouth and manage denture soaking and rinsing with the use of equipment indicated supervision or touching assistance. Eating reflected setup or cleanup assistance. MDS assessment indicated Resident #55 was currently on a mechanically altered diet. Section L dental indicated no natural teeth or tooth fragments. Review of Resident 55's care plan last revised 03/17/25 reflected, Resident #55 is at risk for weight loss related to CVA. She is on a mechanical soft diet per her request due to her having no teeth. She has a vitamin D deficiency. Interventions included, administer vitamins as ordered by physician, allow ample time to ingest meal, health shakes three times daily (initiated 06/20/23), monitor labs, monitor monthly weights, RD/dietary to assess dietary needs, and take in consideration residents likes and dislikes. The care plan did not indicate Resident #55's use of dentures. Review of Resident #55's physician orders reflected an order with a start date of 06/16/23 for health shakes three times a day between meals. Review of Resident #55's labs dated 09/06/24 reflected a low albumin level that was flagged at 3.2 mg/dL indicating low protein. Review of Resident #55's labs dated 12/06/24 reflected a low albumin level that was flagged at 3.3 mg/dL indicating low protein. Review of Resident #55's labs dated 03/13/25 reflected a low albumin level that was flagged at 3.2 mg/dL indicating low protein. Review of Resident #55's weights reflected: 04/05/24 154.3 LBS 05/10/24 150.0 LBS 06/07/24 151.0 LBS 07/05/24 151.5 LBS 08/09/24 154.2 LBS 09/06/24 146.5 LBS 09/20/24 146.9 LBS 10/04/24 142.7 LBS 11/15/24 141.8 LBS System warning reflected, -7.5% change [Comparison Weight 08/09/24, 154.2 lbs., - 8.0%, -12.4 lbs.] 12/06/24 140.1 LBS 12/16/24 140.1 LBS 01/10/25 139.3 LBS 02/06/25 139.8 LBS 03/06/25 135.3 LBS 04/04/25 130.4 LBS 04/15/25 130.4 LBS On 03/06/25, Resident #55 weighed 135.3 lbs. On 04/04/25, the resident weighed 130.4 pounds which was a -3.62 % Loss in the last month. On 10/04/24, Resident #55 weighed 142.7 lbs. On 04/04/25, the resident weighed 130.4 pounds which was a -8.62 % Loss in the last 6 months. Review of Resident #55's progress notes reflected there were no notes indicating the system generated warning for 11/15/24 was addressed related to significant weight loss. Review of the facility weights and dietary consultants binder reflected consultant dietician reports for 11/12/24 and 11/19/24 and weight meetings dated 11/07/24, 11/15/24, 11/22/24 which did not reflect that Resident #55's weight loss or system generated alert 11/15/24 for weight loss was addressed. Review of Resident #55's progress notes revealed the most recent quarterly nutritional review note dated 03/11/25 by RDN identified the weight trend down in the quarter and stated, 12/19 diet upgraded to mech soft with thin liquids, health shakes three times a day between meals; snacks as needed and at bedtime. Intake range 50-100. No new nutrition related labs available. Continue with current plan of care. DM will honor food preferences. Goals: abnormal lab correction, weight to stabilize, maintain skin integrity, tolerance of diet. Review of Resident #55's laminated reusable daily meal ticket provided by DM I reflected: 3. Mechanical soft diet 4. Breakfast: scrambled eggs, gravy, chocolate shake, coke 5. Lunch: Chicken noodle soup, tea, coke 6. Dinner: chicken noodle soup, tea, coke Meal ticket did not identify likes/dislikes, allergies, portion sizes, or any other additional information. Review of Resident #55's Dental notes reflected delivery of the dentures occurred on 07/30/24 after adjustments, with a follow up 11/05/24 for evaluation of mouth for lesions, red spots, and sensitive area. Adjustments made. In an interview and observation on 04/29/25 at 12:00 PM with Resident #55, revealed while eating her lunch in the dining room which was observed to consist of chicken noodle soup, Resident #55 was observed pulling some of the noodles out of her mouth. She stated the food was good but that it was all she could eat because she didn't have any teeth. An observation of Resident #55's mouth revealed no teeth and no dentures in place. Resident #55 stated she does have dentures but that she staff did not assist with putting them on. She stated she would like to be able to eat a variety of food and expressed frustration but stated she cannot because she doesn't have teeth. In an interview and observation on 04/29/25 at 03:07 PM with Resident #55 in her room, she was observed pointing to her dentures in a case located on a shelf near her nightstand. She once again stated she did not wear them because staff have not assisted her to use them. She expressed once again frustration and stated she would like to try other food items but can't with no teeth. She stated she believed she needed to put glue on them to make them stick but simply did not know how to put them on. She stated she asked staff for assistance when she first got them, but after not getting any help, she simply stopped asking. She stated if she was still hungry after her soup, she would return to her room to eat her snacks which was either chocolate or cookie cakes from a specific brand that are soft and manageable for her to break down with her gums. In an interview and observation on 04/30/25 at 05:10 PM with Resident #55 in the dining room for dinner, she was observed eating chicken noodle soup. She stated she was not wearing her dentures because nobody assisted her with them and stated she did not wear them for lunch that day either. She stated she was eating chicken soup once again which was not so difficult to eat. But she did say she wanted more of a variety. In an interview on 04/30/25 at 05:14 PM with CNA E working on Resident #55's hall. She stated she frequently worked with Resident #55 and that to her knowledge she was not aware of the resident having dentures. CNA E stated she believed that Resident #55 had her own teeth. She stated that CNA's do assist the residents if they have dentures and that they are responsible for assisting the residents to put them on, take them off, brush them and add the cleaning tablets. She stated a negative outcome of a resident not getting assistance with dentures would be the resident would not be able to eat their food which could lead to weight loss. When asked how she would identify if a resident wore dentures, CNA E stated she would just ask. CNA E stated she did not look at the charts or anywhere else to identify if a resident required help with dentures. In an interview on 04/30/25 at 05:30 PM with LVN B, she stated she was the nurse for Resident #55's hall and has worked with her frequently. She stated she was aware that Resident #55 had dentures, but she has never seen the resident wear them and just assumed she did not like wearing them. She stated that staff would assist residents that have dentures to put them on and take them off. She stated that Resident #55 required supervision and touch assistance with oral care which means she would have needed assistance with her dentures. She stated the CNA's have the primary responsibility to be the ones to assist the residents who wear dentures. She stated if a resident uses dentures, that should also be located in the care plan with is updated by the MDS Coordinator. She stated a potential negative outcome of not assisting a resident with dentures would be significant weight loss. LVN B stated CNAs will get a sheet at the beginning of their shift that would tell them what the resident requires assistance with. In an interview on 05/01/25 at 09:56 PM with DM I, she stated Resident #55 eats the same thing every day, she stated for breakfast she will have scrambled eggs and a shake and will have chicken noodle soup for both lunch and dinner. She stated it was her responsibility to update food preferences but has not because she believed Resident #55 enjoyed the chicken noodle soup and her family would even bring it to her. DM I stated she was not aware of Resident #55 having dentures or needing them. She stated using the dentures would allow her to have more of a variety of food options. She stated they have tried pureed meals with Resident #55 but she did not like them and is currently on a grounded up texture. In an interview and observation on 05/01/25 at 10:11 AM with CNA F she stated it was the responsibility of the CNA's to assist residents with their dentures which included putting them on, taking them off and helping to clean them. CNA F stated she was not sure if dentures were listed anywhere on a resident's record, but if they were verbal, she would ask if they wore dentures. She stated that at the beginning of their shift, CNA's are given a sheet which tells them a residents transfer requirements (x1 or x 2 assist etc.) she stated prior to today it did not include dentures or assistive devices listed. In an observation of the sheet CNA F was provided at the beginning of her shift for the day, it reflected the residents' names, their transfer requirements, and a section for dentures that was highlighted. CNA F stated she was not aware that Resident #55 had dentures and assumed she did not have them because she never saw them. CNA F stated a negative outcome of not assisting a resident with dentures would be the resident would not be able to chew their food which could lead to weight loss. In an interview on 05/01/25 at 10:23 AM with RDN she stated Resident #55's weight has had a downward trend but stated she did not have any notes or could say what she attributed the weight loss to. She stated after reviewing the residents' chart she saw that Resident #55's fluid intake was good, she was not on hospice, and not on Lasix, but did not see any notes related to her weight loss. RDN stated she believed Resident #55 weight loss may have been a matter of her being more active. RDN stated it was the responsibility of the DM to update any food preferences for resident meals. RDN stated she was not aware of Resident #55 wearing dentures and after reviewing her chart she could not find information on Resident #55 having dentures. She stated that if a resident had dentures and did not get assistance wearing them that it could contribute to weight loss. RDN stated she would need to in-service staff at the facility to ensure that care staff are taking care of residents who need assistance with dentures, updating food preferences, and monitoring for changes. She stated sometimes residents will say they are ok but really have concerns that need to be addressed. RDN stated she did not participate in weight meetings but does her own monitoring of weights and will also get notification from the facility of they have concerns. In an interview on 05/01/25 at 10:35 AM with Resident #55's family, she stated Resident #55 has not had teeth since her admission into the facility. She stated the reason she wanted dentures was to be able to eat a variety of food which is what initially prompted the dental consult in 2024 to get them. Resident #55's family stated that they have tried to put the resident on a puree diet to give her more of a variety but that the resident did not like that. She stated Resident #55 has told her she wants her dentures to fit so she can eat different foods. In an interview on 05/01/25 at 10:44 AM with the DON, she stated it was the responsibility of the CNAs to assist residents with their dentures to put them on and take them off or clean them, but that nurses could also assist. She stated she believed that dentures were marked on the sheets CNAs get to assist them with care but was not aware it did not indicate denture use prior to today. She stated, a lot of the residents and staff have been here so long they usually know who has them and will just ask any of the new residents if they have dentures. DON stated a negative outcome of not getting assistance with dentures would be the inability to chew food which could result in weight loss. She also stated if the resident didn't wear their dentures for an extended period of time it would result in them no longer fitting. The DON stated she has never seen Resident #55 with dentures and was not aware she had any. She stated it was the responsibility of the MDS coordinator to update the care plans with dentures and her expectation that they are accurate and that residents get the help with dentures if they need it. She stated a negative outcome of dentures not being in the care plan staff would not have the accurate information to care for the resident. In a follow up interview on 05/01/25 at 02:47 PM with the RDN she stated the overall weight the resident has lost can be seen as significant. She stated she has asked the facility to get a dental consult to get Resident #55's dentures refitted since they need readjustments after not being worn for so long. RDN stated she is at the facility 2x a month and not usually there for weight meetings. She stated she will contact the facility if she has questions and will pull monthly weights to review and discuss with the DON. She stated if the facility has concerns, they would contact her as well. When asked what interventions were in place concerning Resident #55's weight loss, she stated that they have been doing protein health shakes but was unsure when they started. She stated Resident #55 was also allowed snacks PRN and HS. In a follow up interview on 05/02/25 at 12:25 PM with DON, she stated monthly weights are monitored to determine if a resident is having significant weight loss. She stated if significant weight loss was occurring the resident should have been placed on daily or weekly weights and started on protein shakes. She stated more frequent weights are used to monitor if the protein health shakes are working to help with the weight loss. She stated other interventions could also include appetite stimulants. She stated labs are also considered to help determine nutritional status. She stated weekly weights are then documented in the weight binder. She stated if a resident is identified as having weight loss it was also her expectation that the weight trend downward was documented in the care plan with interventions. In an interview on 05/02/25 at 12:37 PM with the ADM she stated weight loss should be reflected in the care plan if it is significant and continues to decline. She stated she would expect that the interventions used should be updated if health shakes or anything else put in place was not working. The ADM stated that even if a resident is within normal weight ranges, weight should be addressed so that they do not go underweight. She stated it was her expectation that a resident's care plan is updated as needed because people's needs change. She stated, it should reflect care from head to toe and said she expects it to include dentures and assistive devices, in addition to the weight loss interventions. She stated a negative outcome of the care plan not being updated is residents would not get the care they need, and we are required to give them what they need. The ADM stated the items identified with Resident #55 did not meet her expectations and upset her. She stated weight loss should have been monitored, and that if the resident had asked for help with her dentures staff should have assisted. She stated knowing Resident #55, she would have asked for help and after not receiving it would not have felt worthy or deserving of assistance and stopped asking. Review of the facility Weight assessment and Intervention policy last revised on March 2022 reflected: Policy statement: Resident weights are monitored for undesirable or unintended weight loss or gain. 1. Undesirable weight change is evaluated by the treatment team whether or not the criteria for significant weight change has been met. The evaluation includes: a. the resident's target weight range (including rationale if different from ideal body weight); b. the resident's calorie, protein, and other nutrient needs compared with the resident's current intake; c. the relationship between current medical condition or clinical situation and recent fluctuations in weight; and d. whether and to what extent weight stabilization or improvement can be anticipated. Care Planning 1. Care planning for weight loss or impaired nutrition is a multidisciplinary effort and includes the physician, nursing staff, the dietitian, the consultant pharmacist, and the resident or resident's legal surrogate. 2. Individualized care plans shall address, to the extent possible: a. the identified causes of weight loss; b. goals and benchmarks for improvement; and c. time frames and parameters for monitoring and reassessment. Interventions 1. Interventions for undesirable weight loss are based on careful consideration of the following: a. Resident choice and preferences; b. Nutrition and hydration needs of the resident; c. Functional factors that may inhibit independent eating; d. Environmental factors that may inhibit appetite or desire to participate in meals; e. Chewing and swallowing abnormalities and the need for diet modifications; f. Medications that may interfere with appetite, chewing, swallowing, or digestion; g. The use of supplementation and/or feeding tubes; and h. End of life decisions and advance directives. 2. Interventions for undesired weight gain consider resident preferences and rights. A weight loss regimen will not be initiated for a cognitively capable resident without his/her approval and involvement. 3. If a resident declines to participate in a weight loss goal, the dietitian will document the resident's wishes, and those wishes will be respected. Review of the undated facility Provision of Quality Care policy reflected: Policy: Based on comprehensive assessments, the facility will ensure that residents receive treatment and care by qualified persons in accordance with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plans, and the residents' choices. 5. Each resident will be provided care and services to attain or maintain his/her highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. 6. A comprehensive care plan will be developed for each resident in accordance with procedures for development of the care plan. 7. Responsibility for interventions on the care plan will be clearly identified. 8. Qualified persons will provide the care and treatment in accordance with professional standards of practice, the resident's care plan, and the resident's choices. Review of the undated Care of Dentures facility policy reflected: Policy: It is the practice of this facility to provide denture care to residents in order to avoid gingival infection and irritation as per current standards of practice. 5. Determine which nursing staff member will provide denture care. It is usually the nurse aide assigned to the resident. 6. Ask the resident if they have a preference for denture care and products used. If resident is unable to care for their own dentures, dentures will be cleaned for them during routine oral care. 7. Ask the resident if the dentures feel as though they fit, and if there is any tenderness of the gums or mouth. 8. If resident is unable to remove dentures independently, perform hand hygiene and apply gloves. To remove upper denture, grasp at the front with thumb and index finger and pull downward. To remove lower denture, gently lift it from the jaw, and rotate one side downward. Place dentures in emesis basin or sink. Review of the undated Comprehensive Care Plan facility policy reflected: Policy: It is the policy of this facility to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident, consistent with resident rights, that includes measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs and ALL services that are identified in the resident's comprehensive assessment and meet professional standards of quality. 7. The comprehensive care plan will describe, at a minimum, the following: a. The services that are to be furnished to attain or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. b. Any services that would otherwise be furnished but are not provided due to the resident's exercise of his or her right to refuse treatment. 8. The comprehensive care plan will include measurable objectives and timeframes to meet the resident's needs as identified in the resident's comprehensive assessment. The objectives will be utilized to monitor the resident's progress. Alternative interventions will be documented, as needed.
CONCERN (E)

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

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interviews, and record review the facility failed to ensure the resident assessment accurately reflected t...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interviews, and record review the facility failed to ensure the resident assessment accurately reflected the resident's status for 5 (Resident #36, #40, #42, #47, #50 and Resident #167) of 15 residents reviewed for accuracy of assessments. The facility failed to ensure Resident #36 and Resident #47's admission and comprehensive MDS assessments accurately reflected their use of dentures and having no natural teeth. The facility failed to ensure Resident #40, #42, and #50's comprehensive MDS assessments accurately reflected their use of dentures and having no natural teeth. The facility failed to accurately code a fall on the MDS Assessment completed for resident #167 on 04/19/2025. This deficient practice could have placed the resident at risk for inadequate care due to inaccurate assessments. Findings included: Record review of Resident #36's comprehensive MDS, dated [DATE], indicated Resident #36 was a [AGE] year-old male who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. He had diagnoses of paralysis or severe weakness on one side of the body following damage to the brain, dementia, heart failure, lack of coordination, muscle weakness, anxiety (worries), bipolar disorder (extreme mood disorder), and irregular heart rhythm. His MDS reflected in Section L - Oral/Dental Status an 'x' in box 'Z. None of the above were present' when indicating if the resident had natural teeth, dentures, oral abnormalities, pain, or inability to examine oral cavity. He had a BIMS score of 03 which indicated severe cognitive impairment. Record review of Resident #36's admission MDS dated [DATE] reflected in Section L - Oral/Dental Status an 'x' in box 'Z. None of the above were present' when indicating if the resident had natural teeth, dentures, oral abnormalities, pain, or inability to examine oral cavity. Record review of Resident #36's progress note dated 4/25/2025 in his EHR reflected from the facility social worker that she had a meeting with the residents FM about dental services and that a dental referral was made for the resident. In an observation on 04/29/2025 of Resident #36 in his room revealed he was wearing ill-fitted upper dentures. The resident was unable to engage in meaningful conversation regarding his care with the surveyor due to his cognitive impairment. In an interview on 04/30/2025 at 2:37 PM with Resident #36's FM revealed that the resident had the dentures he was wearing for a long time (exact time unknown)., She stated he had them before he received his dementia diagnoses, which then led to weight loss. She stated that because he lost so much weight the dentures had started slipping. She stated she had a meeting with the facility on 4/25/25 to discuss getting the upper dentures better fitted through the dental services the facility used. Record review of Resident #40's comprehensive MDS assessment, dated 07/19/2024, indicated Resident #40 was an [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. She had diagnoses of high blood pressure, kidney disease, viral hepatitis (inflammation of the liver caused by viral infections), arthritis, non-Alzheimer's dementia, anxiety (worriness), bipolar disorder (extreme mood disorder), depression (sadness), lack of coordination, muscle weakness, overactive bladder, and chronic pain. Her MDS reflected in Section L - Oral/Dental Status an 'x' in box 'Z. None of the above were present' when indicating if the resident had natural teeth, dentures, oral abnormalities, pain, or inability to examine oral cavity. She had a BIMS score of 15, indicating intact cognition. Record review of Resident #40's progress note dated 4/2/2025 reflected a care plan meeting was held with Resident #40 regarding her broken bottom denture. It was noted that the team had concerns about her weight loss and refusal of meals until her denture was to be fixed . Record review of Resident #40's care plan dated last revised 04/25/2025 reflected no indication that the resident wore dentures. Record review of Resident #42's comprehensive MDS assessment, dated 01/03/2025, indicated Resident #42 was an [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. She had diagnoses of anemia, atrial fibrillation (irregular and often rapid heartbeat), heart failure, high blood pressure, kidney disease, high cholesterol, thyroid disorder, Alzheimer's disease (memory loss, confusion, and difficulty problem-solving), stroke, anxiety (worriness), depression (sadness), and respiratory failure. Her MDS reflected in Section L - Oral/Dental Status an 'x' in box 'Z. None of the above were present' when indicating if the resident had natural teeth, dentures, oral abnormalities, pain, or inability to examine oral cavity. She had a BIMS score of 13, indicating intact cognition. Record review of Resident #42's care plan dated last revised 04/28/2025 reflected no indication that the resident wore dentures. Record review of Resident #47's comprehensive MDS assessment, dated 02/14/2025, indicated Resident #47 was an [AGE] year-old male who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. He had diagnoses of coronary artery disease, high blood pressure, gastroesophageal reflux disease (digestive disorder), benign prostatic hyperplasia (noncancerous enlargement of the prostate gland), kidney failure, diabetes, high cholesterol, thyroid disorder, seizure disorder, muscle weakness, lack of coordination, and fibromyalgia (widespread body pain). His MDS reflected in Section L - Oral/Dental Status an 'x' in box 'Z. None of the above were present' when indicating if the resident had natural teeth, dentures, oral abnormalities, pain, or inability to examine oral cavity. He had a BIMS score of 15, indicating intact cognition. Record review of Resident #47's care plan dated last revised 04/08/2025 reflected no indication that the resident wore dentures. In an observation and interview on 05/01/2025 at 12:51 PM with Resident #47 he stated he did not require any assistance with his dentures, and he was able to care for them on his own. Review of Resident #50's annual MDS dated [DATE] reflected a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis that included iron deficiency anemia (condition where the body does not have enough red blood cells and iron), hyperlipidemia (abnormally high levels of fats in the blood), and hypertension (high blood pressure). She had a BIMS score of 14 indicating cognition intact. Functional abilities for oral hygiene including the ability to insert and remove dentures into and from the mouth reflected setup of cleanup assistance Section L Dental reflected none of the above were present when indicating if the resident had natural teeth, dentures, oral abnormalities, pain, or inability to examine oral cavity. Review of Resident #50's care plan last revised 03/17/25 reflected Resident #50's care plan did not identify oral care related to denture use. Record review of Resident #167's admission Record reflected she was a [AGE] year-old female, admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her diagnosis included: Encounter for surgical aftercare on the skin and subcutaneous tissue, contusion (injury) of the left lower leg, acute posthemorrhagic anemia (low red blood cells related to blood loss), and Atrial Fibrillation (an irregular heartbeat). Record review of Resident #167's Care Plan dated 01/29/2025 revised on 01/30/2025 reflected: Focus Resident #167 is at risk for falls related to her diagnosis of Parkinson's (a neurological disorder impairing a resident's movement). Interventions: Ensure resident has properly fitting nonskid shoes for transfers. Give verbal reminders to call for assistance with transfers. Keep area free of clutter and safety hazards. Keep call light within reach at all times. Observe for adverse reactions to medication which may make resident at risk for falls. Place items frequently used by resident within easy reach, to avoid resident reaching for items. Provide an environment with adequate lighting, free from glare. Record review of Resident 167's nurses progress notes dated 04/09/2025 reflected When going into resident's room noticed her sitting on her knees in front of her recliner. Resident stated she was sitting to close to the edge of her chair and slid down onto the floor. Residents left leg landed on the base of her bedside table. Noticed a hematoma 3 cm below left knee. Resident stated no pain at this time. Transferred resident up from the floor into her recliner x 2-person assist. with gait belt. Obtained vitals and notified doctor and family. Signed by LVN B Record review of Resident #167's PPS Scheduled Assessment for a Medicare Part A Stay MDS dated [DATE] revealed a BIMS score of 15, indicating he was cognitively intact. The MDS also reflected Resident #167 was not coded as having a fall anytime in the last month prior to admission. In an interview on 05/01/25 at 09:36 AM with the MDSC revealed she had been working for the facility for 7 years. She stated that when a resident admitted with dentures or with no natural teeth, the admission MDS assessment and all assessments afterwards should accurately reflect that. She acknowledged that Resident #36 had upper dentures and that his MDS assessments should have reflected them. She stated that an accurate assessment would help with accuracy of the care plan, in addition to the facility's funding. In an interview on 05/01/2025 at 10:20 AM with the DON she stated that her expectation is for all MDS assessments to be completed accurately due to the need for an accurate person-centered care plan as well as the facility's payor source. She stated that a negative outcome of inaccurate MDS assessments is that it would not trigger certain things on the care plan as well as accurate funding. In an interview with LVN B on 05/01/25 at 10:57 AM he stated sliding out of the chair is a fall. He stated it should have been noted on the fall assessment . He stated the potential negative outcomes for not assessing a fall appropriately could include repeated falls, death, major injury. In an additional interview with the MDSC on 05/01/25 at 11:34 AM, she stated a fall was when someone goes from an upper position down to a lower position without assistance. She stated MDS Coordinators were required to look at fall and fall documentation. She stated falls were evaluated by reviewing a risk management report. She stated sliding out of the chair is a fall that should have been coded on MDS. The MDS coordinator stated staff did review the progress notes when completing assessments and gathering pertinent information related to their assessments. Negative outcomes for not identifying a fall or fall history could have been that the fall could happen again. She stated department heads do go over falls, daily in the morning meeting and have a fall meeting weekly. In an additional interview with the DON on 05/01/25 at 12:34 PM she stated that falls were defined as a change from a higher point to a lower point. MDS coordinators were expected to code falls and MDS accurately. The MDS nurses can go to the risk management and review the falls, frequency, and dates for the look back period. She stated department heads do review falls in stand up and Medicare meetings. The DON stated staff were educated on fall prevention, interventions and fall assessments to identify risk for falls. She stated the potential negative effects for failure to correctly complete an assessment would be unidentified risk for the residents leading to falls. Record review of undated Facility policy titled Conducting an Accurate Resident Assessment: reflected: The purpose of this policy is to assure that all residents receive an accurate assessment, reflective of the resident's status at the time of the assessment, by staff qualified to assess relevant care areas. Definition: Accuracy of assessment means that the appropriate, qualified health professionals correctly document the resident's medical, functional, and psychosocial problems and identify resident strengths to maintain or improve medical status, functional abilities, and psychosocial status using the appropriate Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) (i.e. comprehensive, quarterly, significant change in status). Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines: 1. The Administrator will ensure that all participants in the assessment process have the requisite knowledge to complete an accurate assessment. 2. Qualified staff who are knowledgeable about the resident will conduct an accurate assessment addressing each resident's status, needs, strengths, and areas of decline. The assessment will be documented in the medical record. 3. The appropriate, qualified health professional will correctly document the resident's medical, functional, and psychosocial problems and identifies resident strengths to maintain or improve medical status, functional abilities, and psychosocial status. Record review of the Long-Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument 3.0 User's Manual, version 1.19.1, dated October 2024, reflected, The RAI process has multiple regulatory requirements. Federal regulations at 42 CFR 483.20 (b)(1)(xviii), (g), and (h) require that (1) the assessment accurately reflects the resident's status. (3) the assessment process includes direct observation, as well as communication with the resident and direct care staff on all shifts.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0757 (Tag F0757)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents' drug regimen was adequately monitore...

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' drug regimen was adequately monitored and free from unnecessary drugs for 1 (Resident's #61) of 12 residents reviewed for pharmacy services. The facility failed to provide a diagnosis for Resident #61's order for Doxycycline (an antibiotic used to treat types of infections). These failures could place residents at risk of ineffective interventions/treatments related to infections resulting in hospitalizations. Findings included: Record review of Resident #61's admission Record reflected he was a [AGE] year-old male, admitted to the facility on [DATE]. His diagnosis included: Non-ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction (a heart attack), Heart Failure, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (a group of diseases affecting the ability to breath), and non-pressure chronic ulcer of the back. Record review of Resident #61's Physicians Progress Notes dated 12/14/2024 reflected He has a chronic wound in back from multiple surgeries and the drainage was cultured for MRSA (Methicillin -resistant Staphylococcus aureus a type of staph bacteria that's resistant to many antibiotics), caution with drainage, recent MRSA bacteria wound. Record review of Resident #61's Care Plan dated 12/20/2024 revised on 10/06/2025 reflected: Focus Resident #61 is on antibiotics related to an infection in the wound on his back. Interventions/task: Administer antibiotic as per orders, administer treatment to wound as ordered by physician. Maintain contact isolation precautions when providing resident care. Monitor wound for increased redness, swelling or drainage and notify physician of any abnormal findings. The care plan also reflected Focus Resident #61 is on anticoagulant therapy related to his diagnosis heart attack. Interventions/task: Administer anticoagulant medication as ordered by physician. Monitor for blood in urine or stool and report to physician. Observe for any abnormal bleeding not resolved with pressure. Also observe for any abnormal bruising. Order blood work/lab per physician orders and report results to physician. Record review of Resident #61's quarterly MDS dated [DATE] revealed a BIMS score of 00, indicating he was cognitively impaired. The MDS also reflected Resident #61 had a surgical wound and was taking an antibiotic and anticoagulant daily. Record review of Resident #61's Physicians Order Summary dated April 2025 reflected he had an order for Contact Isolation for MRSA in wound on back dated 12/20/24. Resident #61 had an order Doxycycline Oral Tablet 100 MG, give 1 tablet by mouth one time a day for Infection dated 01/23/2025. The order did not have a related diagnosis in place of MRSA for the use of Doxycycline. The Physicians Order Summary also reflected Resident #61 had an order for Xarelto Oral Tablet 2.5 MG (an anticoagulant/blood thinner) 1 tablet by mouth two times a day related to NON-ST ELEVATION. Record review of Resident #61's April 2025 Medication Administration Record reflected Resident #61 was administered Doxycycline Oral Tablet 100 MG, 1 tablet by mouth one time a day for Infection. The MAR reflected there was no diagnosis of MRSA attached to the order. The April medication administration record also reflected Resident #61 was administered Xarelto Oral Tablet 2.5 MG 1 tablet by mouth two times a day related to NON-ST ELEVATION. Record review of Resident #61's April 2025 Treatment Administration Record reflected there was no monitoring for side effects related to anticoagulation medication. In an observation and interview with Resident #61 on 04/29/25 at 10:20 AM there was a sign reflecting he was on contact precautions on the front of his room door. Resident #61 stated he had a current infection. He stated he was not sure what type of infection he had but it was in his back. In an interview with LVN B on 05/01/25 at 10:57 AM he stated when the nurses receive an order from the physician, it is placed into the electronic medical records. He stated the nurses ensure the order reflects the right medication, right time, right dosage, and any special requirements for example blood pressure parameters. He stated there should be a specific diagnosis on the orders for antibiotics to know what is being treated. He stated anticoagulants do require monitoring, but there is no order that states the nurses are to monitor. He stated some side effects of anticoagulant could be bruising and bleeding. He stated there was no specific place for anticoagulant side effect monitoring documentation, but if the nurses were to see any bleeding or bruising, they would notify the doctor. He stated potential negative outcomes from not assessing side effects of anticoagulant medications could include low hemoglobin, or anemia. Record review of undated Facility policy titled Unnecessary Drugs reflected: It is the facility's policy 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 well-being free from unnecessary drugs. 1. The attending physician will assume leadership in medication management by developing, monitoring, and modifying the medication regimen in collaboration with residents and/or representatives, other professionals, and the interdisciplinary team. Each resident's drug regimen will be reviewed on an ongoing basis, taking into consideration the following elements: a. Dose (including duplicate therapy). b. Duration of use. c. Indications and clinical need for medication. d. Adequate monitoring for efficacy and adverse consequences.
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0577 (Tag F0577)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents were aware of where to locate the State Agency (SA) survey inspection results such as (surveys, certificatio...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents were aware of where to locate the State Agency (SA) survey inspection results such as (surveys, certifications, and complaint/incident investigations) and post in a place readily accessible to residents, family members, and legal representatives of residents for 1 of 1 facility in that: 1. The facility failed to make the survey binder readily available and easily identified to all residents. 2. The facility failed to maintain the survey binder; the binder failed to include previous state visit results from 10/04/24 and recently on 02/04/25. This failure placed residents at risk of not being able to fully exercise their rights and at risk of not being aware of the facility's past deficiencies. Findings included: In an observation and interview on 04/30/25 at 09:30 AM there did not appear to be any survey results in the lobby or common area of the facility nor a sign indicating where the survey results were posted. An interview with LVN B revealed she did not know where the survey binder was located and stated she has not ever seen it. In an observation and interview on 04/30/25 at 09:32 AM with ADM, she was observed pulling a binder from behind the nurses station underneath the desk hidden from view. She stated she was not aware that the survey binder had to be in public view and accessible but said they would make it accessible if any residents had asked for it. She stated they did not have it out because they try to keep clutter off the nurse's station. Review of the binder provided by the ADM at this time revealed it did not contain the results of the previous abbreviated surveys from 10/04/24 and 02/04/25. The ADM stated she would update the binder with the missing results. During a confidential interview on 04/30/25 beginning at 10:30 AM, eight residents stated they did not know where or how to access survey results in the facility and had never learned what the results were of any SA visit. Several of them stated they would have liked access to this information. They all stated they have never seen the information out and accessible to the public. In an interview on 05/02/25 at 12:37 PM with the ADM she stated the survey binder was now made accessible on a shelf near the entrance. She stated that it should be accessible to the residents and anyone else without having to ask for it . This was confirmed through surveyor observation. Review of the undated Facility Required Postings policy reflected: Policy: The facility will post required postings in an area that is accessible to all staff and residents. The facility must also post the following: a. Most Recent Survey Results of the Facility b. Other State specific postings.
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 observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety in 1 of 1 kitch...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety in 1 of 1 kitchen reviewed for kitchen sanitation. 1. The facility failed to ensure stored foods in 2 of 2 reach in refrigerators and 1 of 1 walk in freezer were properly labeled and dated with a use by date. 2. The facility failed to ensure food in 1 of 1 walk-in freezer was properly sealed from air-borne contamination. 3. The facility failed to ensure DC K sanitized the blender in between usage during pureed meal preparation and practiced hand hygiene during handling of pureed and regular texture foods to prevent cross contamination. These failures could place residents who received prepared meals from the kitchen at risk for food borne illness and cross-contamination. The findings included: During an initial tour on 04/29/25 beginning at 09:14 AM of the one and only kitchen revealed: - 2 of 2 three compartment refrigerators observed contained 3 bowls of potato salad, a bowl of pea salad, 6 prepared bowls of oatmeal, 6 pureed egg and 6 pureed sausage bowls with a prepared date of 04/29/25; none of the items were labeled to identify the item and did not contain the use-by date. Items were identified by DC K. - 1 of 1 walk in freezer contained a medium size vacuum sealed ground beef package with no use by date labeled, no printed manufacturer expiration date, and not in its original manufacturer packaging to identify its use by date. It also contained a medium clear zip seal bag of beef and bean burritos that was observed not properly sealed from air-borne contamination and with no use by date. In a follow up observation on 04/29/25 at 10:46 AM of the one and only kitchen revealed: DC K was observed preparing a pureed meal of chopped BBQ with bread. After removing the pureed mixture from the blender, DC K was observed setting the blender and its blade separately at the bottom of the soiled 1 compartment sink next to the food preparation area that contained other used dishes. DC K was then observed only rinsing the blender and the blade with water in the 1 compartment sink before proceeding to the second pureed item of the pureed beans which she gathered from the steamtable with the other regular textured food items. No soap or sanitizer was used on the blender. DC K was observed wearing 1 set of gloves from start to finish without changing them or washing her hands and touching the sink to rinse off equipment and participating in food preparation at the blender and the steamtable. In an interview on 04/29/25 at 11:39 AM with DC K, she stated that use by dates have not been used because staff were just trained to throw out items after 3 days. She stated it was also the procedure to wash the blender with soap and water in between pureed items. She also stated she was supposed to change her gloves and wash her hands after touching the sink before returning to food preparation due to contamination. She stated a negative outcome of not sanitizing the blender or hand hygiene with hand washing and glove use would be it could get the residents sick or spread germs. In an interview on 04/30/25 at 01:14 PM with DM I she stated use by dates have not been used for a while. She stated they were used in the past and stopped because staff were just trained to throw out items by the 3rd day after they are prepared. She stated it was her expectation that if items were removed from the manufacturers packaging, they contained the use by date from the manufacturer so staff knew when it expires by. She said all items should be sealed to prevent contamination. DM I stated it was her expectation that the blender was sanitized in between usages via the dishwasher or there could be cross contamination of the items used. She stated it was also her expectation that staff washed their hands after touching anything that contaminates them and changing their gloves as well if they switch from one task to another and the gloves touch something that could contaminate them. She stated she monitored for compliance daily. In an interview on 05/02/25 at 12:37 PM with the ADM she stated food items delivered should be labeled with a received date, a date the item was opened, and an expiration date. She said items prepared in house should be labeled with a date it was made and a use by date of 3 days from the date prepared. She said it was her expectation that all food items stored in the freezer and refrigerator were properly sealed with a tight-fitting lid or in a zip seal bag. She stated a negative outcome of not being properly sealed would be the potential for bacteria, and not having a use by date could result in expired food making it to the residents which has the potential to make them sick. She stated it was her expectation that dietary staff are washing their hands before food preparation and changing their gloves as needed to prevent cross contamination. The ADM stated the blender should be cleaned and sanitized using the dishwasher as to also prevent cross contamination and illness. Review of the undated Handwashing Guidelines for Dietary Employees policy reflected: Policy: Handwashing is necessary to prevent the spread of bacteria that may cause foodborne illnesses. Dietary employees shall clean their hands in a handwashing sink or approved automatic handwashing facility and may not clean hands in a sink used for food preparation, dishwashing, or in a service sink used for the disposal of mop water or similar waste. 1. Dietary employees shall keep their hands and exposed portions of their arms clean. 2. Frequency of Handwashing: Dietary employees shall clean their hands and exposed portions of their arms immediately before engaging in food preparation including working with exposed food, clean equipment and utensils, and unwrapped single service and single use articles and also in the following situations: a. Every time an employee enters the kitchen; at the beginning of the shift; after returning from break; after using the toilet. b. After hands have touched anything unsanitary i.e., garbage, soiled utensils/equipment, dirty dishes, etc. c. After hands have touched bare human body parts other than clean hands (such as face, nose, hair etc.). d. After coughing, sneezing, or blowing your nose, using tobacco products, eating, or drinking. e. After handling chemicals and before beginning to work with food. f. While preparing food, as often as necessary to remove soil and contamination and to prevent cross contamination when changing tasks. g. When switching between working with raw food and working with ready to eat food. h. Before donning gloves for working with food. i. After caring for or handling service animals or aquatic animals. j. After engaging in any activity that may contaminate the hands. Review of the undated Kitchen Sanitation and Cleaning policy reflected: Policy Statement: The food service area is maintained in a clean and sanitary manner. 1. All equipment, food contact surfaces and utensils are cleaned and sanitized using heat or chemical sanitizing solutions. 2. Manual washing and sanitating is a three-step process for washing, rinsing, and sanitizing: a. Scrape food particles and wash using hot water and detergent. b. Rinse with hot water to remove soap and residue; and c. Sanitize with hot water (at least 171°F for 30 seconds) or chemical sanitizing solution. Chemical sanitizing solutions (e.g. chlorine, iodine, quaternary ammonium compound) are used according to manufacturer's instructions. 3. Food preparation equipment and utensils that are manually washed are allowed to air dry whenever practical. Drying food preparation equipment and utensils with at towel or cloth may increase risks for cross contamination. Review of the undated Date Marking for Food Safety policy reflected: Policy: The facility adheres to a date marking system to ensure the safety of ready-to-eat, time/temperature control for safety food. 1. The food shall be clearly marked to indicate the date or day by which the food shall be consumed or discarded. 2. The individual opening or preparing a food shall be responsible for date marking the food at the time the food is opened or prepared. 3. The marking system shall consist of a color-coded label, the day/date of opening, and the day/date the item must be consumed or discarded. 4. The Dietary Manager, or designee, shall spot check refrigerators weekly for compliance, and document accordingly. Corrective action shall be taken as needed. Review of the 2022 U.S. Food and Drug Administration Food Code revealed: 3-501.17 Ready-to-Eat, Time/Temperature Control for Safety Food, Date Marking. (A) Except when PACKAGING FOOD using a REDUCED OXYGEN PACKAGING method as specified under § 3-502.12, and except as specified in (E) and (F) of this section, refrigerated, READY-TO-EAT, TIME/TEMPERATURE CONTROL FOR SAFETY FOOD prepared and held in a FOOD ESTABLISHMENT for more than 24 hours shall be clearly marked to indicate the date or day by which the FOOD shall be consumed on the PREMISES, sold, or discarded when held at a temperature of 5ºC (41ºF) or less for a maximum of 7 days. The day of preparation shall be counted as Day 1. (B) Except as specified in (E) - (G) of this section, refrigerated, READY-TO-EAT TIME/TEMPERATURE CONTROL FOR SAFETY FOOD prepared and PACKAGED by a FOOD PROCESSING PLANT shall be clearly marked, at the time the original container is opened in a FOOD ESTABLISHMENT and if the FOOD is held for more than 24 hours, to indicate the date or day by which the FOOD shall be consumed on the PREMISES, sold, or discarded, based on the temperature and time combinations specified in (A) of this section and: P if (1) The day the original container is opened in the FOOD ESTABLISHMENT shall be counted as Day 1; Of and (2) The day or date marked by the FOOD ESTABLISHMENT may not exceed a manufacturer's use-by date if the manufacturer determined the use-by date based on FOOD safety. 3-501.18 Ready-to-Eat, Time/Temperature Control for Safety Food, Disposition. (A) A FOOD specified in 3-501.17(A) or (B) shall be discarded if it: (2) Is in a container or PACKAGE that does not bear a date or day; or 3-302.11 Packaged and Unpackaged Food - Separation, Packaging, and Segregation. FOOD shall be protected from cross contamination by: (4) Except as specified under Subparagraph 3-501.15(B)(2) and in (B) of this section, storing the food in packages, covered containers, or wrappings.
CONCERN (F)

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

QAPI Program (Tag F0867)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to implement the facility's Quality Assessment and Performance Improvement (QAPI) plan and program, in which data was to be gathered and analy...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to implement the facility's Quality Assessment and Performance Improvement (QAPI) plan and program, in which data was to be gathered and analyzed, and plans of action were to be developed, implemented, and evaluated to address adverse events related to potential deficient practice for 1 of 1 QAPI programs reviewed. The facility failed to conduct at least one performance improvement project (PIP) annually that focused on high risk or problem prone areas identified by the facility, through data collection and analysis. This failure could place residents of the facility at risk of the facility not developing, monitoring and implementing corrective actions for identified areas of improvement. Findings include: In an interview on 05/01/2025 at 1:30 PM with the ADM and the DON regarding the facility's QAPI/QAA program, it was revealed that the facility did not conduct at least one PIP annually. The DON stated that they identify issues in their morning meetings and that issues are addressed as they come, so when an issue arises, she will conduct an in-service or CNA check-off with the staff. The ADM stated that she is responsible for the QAPI program and knows what a PIP is, but when she began with the facility, she saw how well the system [facility] was doing and did not want to change anything. Review of the facility's undated 2025- Quality Assurance & Performance Improvement (QAPI) Plan indicated, PIP and PIP Team Members The facility conducts PIPs to examine and improve care and/or services in specifically identified areas. PIPs are chosen based upon their importance and meaningfulness, in relation to the scope of services provided by the facility. The focus is on preventing problems and improving current systems and services. The facility seeks to prioritize projects in high risk, high frequency and/or problem prone areas that impact quality of care and quality of life for our residents and conducts one improvement project annually based on these areas.
Feb 2024 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record reviews the facility failed to immediately report allegations that involved abuse neglect, exploi...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record reviews the facility failed to immediately report allegations that involved abuse neglect, exploitation or mistreatment, including injuries of unknown source or misappropriation of resident property to the administrator of the facility and to HHSC, but no later than two hours after the allegation is made, if the events that cause the allegation involve abuse, or result in serious bodily injury for one of five residents (Resident #1) reviewed for injury of unknown origin. The facility's staff did not report Resident's #1's unwitnessed fall to the administrator. The facility did not report a fracture of unknown origin to Resident #1's 7th rib and punctured lung until the second day after it was identified. This failure placed residents at risk of not having abuse or neglect identified promptly and thus being subjected to further abuse or neglect. Findings included: Review of the undated face sheet for Resident #1 reflected a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of dementia (loss of thinking, remembering, and reasoning skills), cognitive communication disorder (difficulty communicating because of injury to the brain), unspecified abnormalities of gait and mobility (a change to your walking pattern), vitamin d deficiency, and unspecified osteoarthritis (a progressive, degenerative joint disease). Review of the Quarterly MDS for Resident #1 dated [DATE] reflected a BIMS score of 9, indicating a moderate cognitive impairment. It reflected she used a walker to assist with mobility. It reflected her status for moving on and off the toilet and surface-to-surface transfers required supervision or touching assistance. Review of the undated care plan for Resident #1 reflected the following: Resident #1 is at risk for falls related to her diagnosis of abnormalities of gait and mobility. She will receive no injury related to falls through the review date. Assess for change in condition. Ensure resident has properly fitting non-skid shoes for transfers. Give verbal reminders to call for assistance with transfers. Review of an un-witnessed fall incident report for Resident #1 dated [DATE] at 02:30 PM and completed by LVN A reflected Resident #1 had an unwitnessed fall at 02:30 PM. Resident #1 was found to be sitting on the floor of the doorway with her back against the wall. Per roommate resident did not hit her head. Resident #1 was assessed and assisted off the floor and to her bed. Resident #1 denied any pain or discomfort at this time. Head to toe assessment completed. No apparent injuries noted at this time. Review of the progress notes for Resident #1 dated [DATE] at 02:30 PM written by LVN A reflected, Called to room by CNA staff. Found resident to be sitting on the floor of the doorway with her back against the wall. Per roommate resident did not hit her head. This Nurse and CNA staff assisted resident up off the floor and to her bed. Resident wanted to lay down. Resident denied any pain or discomfort at this time. Vital signs obtained 141/70-66-19-97.4 O2 Sat 95% RA. Head to toe assessment completed. No apparent injuries noted at this time. Review of the progress notes for Resident #1 dated [DATE] at 05:21 PM written by LVN A reflected, 141/70-66-19-97.4 O2 Sat 95% RA. Remains on hospice service with no change in condition noted. Alert and oriented X 2. Respirations even and unlabored. Denies SOB and dyspnea. Forgetful and confused. Abdomen soft and nontender with active Bowel signs x 4 quadrants. Eats all meals in room with tray setup assist. Appetite remains good. Toilets independently often and performs own peri care. Refuses to allow staff to assist with toileting or peri care. Uses rolling walker for mobility. Requires limited assist X 1 with ADLs and transfers. Move about facility with walker. No apparent delayed injuries noted from fall. No callout of pain or discomfort noted. Eating supper with no distress noted. Review of the progress notes for Resident #1 dated [DATE] at 11:10 PM written by LVN B reflected, Resident cried out in pain. Call in to on-call Hospice and talked with on- call nurse. On-call nurse states she will call family and then call me back. Received call back from Hospice nurse and the family wanted me to call them. At approximately 11:55 PM, I called resident's family member, and explained to her what had happened. Family member states if resident is in that much pain to go ahead and call ambulance. Review of the x-ray results for Resident #1 dated [DATE] at 05:05 AM reflected the following 1. Moderate to large right pneumothorax with 5 cm of pleural separation at the right lung base anteriorly. This is not significantly changed from chest x-ray earlier today 2. Acute mildly displaced fracture of the anterolateral aspect right seventh rib. 3. Moderate scoliosis of the thoracolumbar spine. 4. Grade 1 degenerative spondylolisthesis of L2 on L3 on L4 on L5 with moderate to severe central canal stenosis. 5. There are scattered lobular hypo enhancing lesions involving liver likely cysts the largest segment 8 near the dome 3 cm., Likely cysts. Review of an HHSC 3613 Provider Investigation Report reflected the date of the incident was [DATE] at 02:30 PM. The incident was reported to the State Agency on [DATE] at 12:36 PM and reflected the following: At 2:30-3:00 PM on [DATE] Resident fell in her bathroom. This fall was unwitnessed. Resident called for help and CNA entered the room and called Nurse for help. Nurse checked Resident and with the help of CNA they got Resident up. No bruising noted. Resident was put to bed where she rested. After 10-6 PM shift started Resident began complaining of pain. Nurse contacted the on-call hospice nurse. Hospice nurse called family and they asked that Resident be sent to the hospital. It was at the hospital that the broken rib and punctured lung was identified. Nurse was suspended pending the investigation. During an interview on [DATE] at 12:00 PM, CNA A stated on [DATE] at 02:30 PM, she heard Resident's #1's roommate saying , Help, Help, Help. CNA A stated Resident #1 was sitting on the floor against the wall with her walker outside the bathroom door. CNA A stated she went to the door and called for the Nurse. CNA A stated LVN A assessed Resident #1 prior to them placing her in bed. CNA A said Resident #1 had a small skin tear on her right arm and did not call out in pain. CNA A stated after supper Resident #1 asked for 2 Tylenol. CNA A stated for the remaining of her shift, Resident #1 did not complain of pain. CNA A stated per policy, due to her being the first person to witness Resident #1, she should have been given a form to complete regardless of if there was a visible injury or not. CNA A stated the worse that could happen without reporting the resident falling, she could have something wrong, and no one was aware that she had an unwitnessed fall. During an interview on [DATE] at 12:25 PM, MA A stated she administered Resident #1 pain medication after dinner on [DATE] at 08:00 PM. MA A stated Resident #1 was acting normal and not in severe pain. MA A stated when a Resident falls, they must call the Nurse to assess and check vital signs. MA A stated staff must immediately notify the hospice, the doctor, family, and the ADM. MA A stated hospice will then send out a hospice nurse to assess the resident . MA A stated although Resident #1 appeared to be okay and was not in a lot of pain, the worse that could happen was, she could have died from no one being notified of the fall. During an interview on [DATE] at 12:50 PM, LVN A stated CNA A called her to Resident #1's room on [DATE] at 02:30 PM. LVN A stated when she arrived at the room, Resident #1 was sitting on the floor with her back against the wall in the bathroom. LVN A stated she completed a head-to-toe assessment and pain assessment. LVN A stated CNA A assisted with placing Resident #1 in bed as Resident #1 voiced that was where she wanted to go. LVN A stated Resident #1 did not complain of pain or cry out in pain. LVN A stated there was no grimacing or shortness of breath, at this time. LVN A stated Resident #1 ate dinner on the side of her bed. LVN A stated she failed in her job by not properly notifying hospice, the doctor, the family, nor the ADM immediately. LVN A stated if a CNA was a witness, or first on the scene, the CNA must complete a Witness Statement. LVN A stated she did not give a Witness Statement to CNA A to complete, CNA A told her verbally. LVN A stated if it was before 5PM, Incident Reports are given to the ADON and after 5PM to the Nurse Supervisor. LVN A stated she would then complete the Incident Report and every paper completed (Skin Assessment, X-Ray, etc.) should be faxed to the doctor. LVN A stated the DON, and the ADM would normally be notified by the ADON. LVN A stated over the weekend, any incidents should be reported to the RN Supervisor. LVN A stated the worse that could happen was Resident #1 could have potentially died. LVN A stated Resident #1 could have developed shortness of breath, internal bleeding, a break, or a fracture. LVN A stated Policy was not followed. During an interview on [DATE] at 01:20 PM, the HRN stated she was informed about the fall the next day during her morning meeting. The HRN stated the facility contacted the overnight nurse to inform them the family wanted Resident #1 sent out due to severe back pain. The HRN stated she was told Resident #1 had a fall the day prior around 02:30 PM. The HRN stated hospice was not notified until right before Resident #1 was sent out at 11:02 PM. The HRN stated they ask facilities to contact them regarding any falls or Change of Conditions. The HRN stated if no visit was required, they would still follow-up with the Resident the next day. During an interview on [DATE] at 01:45 PM, RN A stated Resident #1 fell and LVN A failed to complete an Incident Report at the time. RN A stated Resident #1 started complaining of pain during the night shift and she was sent out. RN A stated once Resident #1 was admitted to the hospital was when they learned of the fracture. RN A stated if you witness or were notified of a resident falling, or observed on the floor, you record vitals and assess prior to moving them. RN A stated you would then notify hospice, the doctor, and the family. RN A stated the doctor determines if a Resident needs to be sent out, or just monitored. RN A stated the doctor determines the next steps. During an interview on [DATE] at 02:50 PM, the DON stated although there were no injuries at the time, Hospice, the doctor, the family, nor the oncoming Charge Nurse was notified of the fall. The DON stated when Resident #1 initially fell at 2:30 PM, she was assessed and did not complain of pain. The DON stated Resident #1 complained of pain around 8:00 PM and was given Tylenol PRN. The DON stated Resident #1 complained of pain again after 10PM during the next shift and was sent out to the hospital for further assessment and was diagnosed with one fractured rib and a punctured lung. The DON stated the facility started an internal investigation and suspended LVN A for not notifying anyone and not even informing the oncoming Charge Nurse. The DON stated during their investigation, Resident #1's roommate reported everything the Nurse told them. The DON stated they did not feel it was reportable due to not knowing for certain if the fall caused the fractured rib and punctured lung. The DON stated they know Resident #1 had a fall, but at the time, the fall did not result in a visible serious injury. The DON stated LVN A attended to Resident #1, and they did not expect any abuse. The DON stated they wrote LVN A up for not notifying anyone of the fall. The DON stated their last Abuse and Neglect In-service was earlier during the day the fall occurred. The DON stated LVN A was suspended initially and now pending this investigation she is being re-suspended. The DON stated the worse that could happen was Resident #1 would not be monitored as she should. The DON stated, thank goodness Resident #1 was verbal because she would have just laid there in pain. During an interview on [DATE] at 3:25 PM, the ADM stated the DON called her on [DATE] at 11:45 PM and informed her Resident #1 had fallen earlier that day and was being sent to the hospital. The ADM stated the DON told her the fall had not been given in a report and the oncoming Nurse was not aware of the fall until Resident #1's roommate told her. The ADM stated she told the DON they need to suspend LVN A pending the investigation. The ADM stated during the investigation, they determined from speaking with LVN A she said she assessed Resident #1, got her up and placed her in bed and there were no complaints of pain. The ADM stated Resident #1 ate dinner on the side of her bed and still did not complain of pain. The ADM stated CNA A said LVN A arrived quickly to the room, and she assisted LVN A in placing Resident #1 in bed. The ADM stated CNA A said a couple hours after dinner, Resident #1 was complaining of side pain and asking for Tylenol, so she told LVN A. The ADM stated she interviewed Resident #1's roommate and she said she woke up to the resident on the floor sitting against the wall with her walker behind her. The ADM stated Resident #1's roommate did not hear her complain of pain and she got up and ate dinner. The ADM stated Resident #1's roommate said Resident #1 got up to use the restroom a second time and she told her to sit down because she should not be up. The ADM stated Resident #1's roommate said the next thing she knew Resident #1 was complaining of pain and they were sending her out. The ADM stated LVN A did not follow policy, she did not call the family, hospice, the doctor, nor inform the oncoming Nurse. The ADM stated the worse that could happen was Resident #1 could have just laid there and passed away. The ADM stated what if Resident #1 was non-verbal and could not call out for help. The ADM stated moving forward, they have in-serviced the staff on notifying hospice, doctors and re-educated them on policy. Review of facility policy titled, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation reflected the following: A. The facility will have written procedures that include: 1. Reporting of all alleged violations to the Administrator, state agency, . within specified timeframes: a. Immediately, but not later than 2 hours after the allegation is made, if the events that cause the allegation involve abuse or result in serious bodily injury, or b. Not later than 24 hours if the events that cause the allegation do not involve abuse and do not result in serious bodily injury. Review of facility policy titled, Fall Prevention Program reflected the following: 1. When any resident experiences a fall, the facility will. d. Notify physician and family. Review of facility policy titled Notification of Changes reflected the following under Compliance Guidelines: The facility must .consult with the resident's physician and/or notify the resident's family member or legal representative when there is a change requiring such notification. 1. Accidents a. Resulting in injury. b. Potential to require physician intervention. Review of facility policy titled Hospice Services Facility Agreement reflected the following: . e. A provision that the facility will immediately notify the hospice about the following: i. A significant change in the resident's physical, mental, social, or emotional status. ii. Clinical complications that suggest a need to alter the plan of care. iii. A need to transfer the resident from the facility for any condition.
Jan 2023 4 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interviews, and record review the facility failed to ensure all drugs and biologicals were stored securely in locked compartments under proper temperature controls and permitted ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interviews, and record review the facility failed to ensure all drugs and biologicals were stored securely in locked compartments under proper temperature controls and permitted only authorized personnel to have access for storage of controlled narcotics. -The facility failed to secure two controlled narcotics by storing Lorazepam and Morphine unlocked on the open counter in the nursing station. -The facility failed to ensure that the narcotic count reconciliation form was signed by authorized personnel during shift changes. These failures could place the facility's 65 residents at risk for exacerbation of disease, serious harm, or death. The findings include: 1.During an observation on 1/19/23 at 1:00p.m., LVN A was seen at the end of hall A with medication cart. LVN A proceeded to walk down the hall to the nursing station to take two unlocked boxes of liquid medication from the nursing station counter. The nursing counter is unlocked and is exposed to the facility's main entrance. The first box was labeled, Morphine Sulfate, and the second box was labeled, Lorazepam. LVN A proceeded to return to the medication cart and the end of hall A, unlocked and opened the narcotic storage section of the cart with a key, and placed the two boxes in the storage section. During an interview on 1/19/23 at 1:05p.m., LVN A was asked about the above findings. LVN A acknowledged the above findings and confirmed the medications of Morphine Sulphate and Lorazepam. When asked how this affects the facilities 65 residents, LVN A acknowledged that the medication is supposed to be always kept in a secure place. LVN A states that she has received training on narcotic administration. Record review of the facility's policy titled Narcotic-Controlled Medication, no date, revealed, .Place controlled drugs received from the pharmacy in a double locked container immediately after they have been inventoried and the form for each medication has been signed as received . 2. During an observation on 1/19/23 at 9:30 a.m., an inspection of the medication cart A/B, revealed a form titled, Change of Shift Audit Sheet, with missing signatures with the following dates: 1/13/23, 1/15/23 , and 1/16/23. Further observation on cart C/D also revealed a form titled, Controlled Box/Safe Verification Record. Cart C/D, with missing signatures on the following dates: 1/3/23, 1/6/23, and 1/12/23. Record review of the facility's policy titled, Narcotic Controlled Medication, no date, revealed, .At the change of shift the on coming and out going staff persons jointly count all controlled medications, including discounted or expired medications awaiting destruction . During an interview on 1/19/23 at 01:15 pm with Director of Nursing (DON), the Director of Nursing acknowledged the above findings and stated she has acknowledged the above findings and stated that it can be a detriment to the 65 residents and met with LVN A for counseling in regard to the unsecured controlled narcotics. During an interview on 1/19/23 at 01:15 pm with the Administrator, the above findings were discussed. The Administrator acknowledged the above findings. The Administrator acknowledged that the findings place the 65 residents at risk and met with LVN A for counseling in regard to the unsecured controlled narcotics.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to establish and maintain an IPCP designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and help prevent the deve...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to establish and maintain an IPCP designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for 33 of 65 residents (Resident #1, #2, #5, #9, #10, #12, #15, #17, #24, #25, #29, #30, #31, #33, #37, #39, #40, #41, #43, #44, #45, #49, #52, #53, #54, #55, #58, #59, #63, #66, #67, #221, and #222) reviewed for infection control. The facility failed to determine how and when to use isolation precautions for 31 of 65 residents (Resident #1, #2, #5, #9, #10, #12, #15, #17, #24, #25, #29, #30, #31, #33, #37, #39, #40, #41, #43, #44, #45, #49, #53, #54, #55, #58, #59, #63, #67, #221, and #222). 13 of 31 residents (Residents #1, #5, #9, #10, #30, #31, #33, #39, #43, #45, #49, #58, and #221) who were negative for COVID-19 were housed in rooms next to and across from 18 of 31 residents (Residents #2, #12, #15, #17, #24, #25, #29, #37, #40, #41, #44, #53, #54, #55, #59, #63, #67, and #222) who were positive for COVID-19 and on isolation precautions. While there were signs on the room doors of residents who were positive for COVID-19 indicating they were on isolation precautions, the doors were left open for all 31 residents. The facility failed to monitor and provide an accurate roster for all 65 residents. The facility failed to annually review and update, as necessary, its IPCP. These deficient practices could place residents at risk for exposure to COVID-19, which could result in spread of infectious disease, and possibly serious illness. Findings include: Record review of intake #399193 dated 01/08/23 revealed the DON reported residents #39, #49, and #66 tested positive for COVID-19. Intake #399193 was the most recent report related to infection control. Record review of the daily census dated 01/18/23 revealed residents #2, #24, #25, #52, #54, #55 and #67 tested positive for COVID-19 and were on isolation precautions. In an interview on 01/18/23 at 9:46 am, the Admin stated she and the DON notified the families of residents who were exposed to, showed symptoms and/or tested positive for COVID-19. In an interview on 01/18/23 at 10:20 AM, the DON stated there were 17 residents who tested positive for COVID-19. The DON did not identify the 17 residents who tested positive for COVID-19. Record review of the facility's COVID-19 positive list dated 01/19/23 revealed residents #2, #12, #15, #17, #24, #25, #29, #37, #40, #41, #44, #52, #53, #54, #55, #59, #63, #67, and #222 tested positive for COVID-19. Residents #52, #53 and #67 tested positive for COVID-19 on 01/09/23, residents #29, #41 and #59 tested positive for COVID-19 on 01/10/23, residents #40, #44, #59 and #63 tested positive for COVID-19 on 01/12/23, residents #2, #15 and #54 tested positive for COVID-19 on 01/13/23, resident #12 tested positive for COVID-19 on 01/14/23, residents #17 and #222 tested positive for COVID-19 on 01/15/23, and residents #24, #37 and #55 tested positive for COVID-19 on 01/16/23. Record review of the COVID-19 prevention and response policy dated 03/10/2020 revealed when COVID-19 was suspected, the facility must notify the resident's physician and family, DON, IP and local health department. In an interview on 01/19/23 at 9:14 AM, the MD stated the facility notified him of each resident who tested positive for COVID-19 via email. The MD stated he did not keep a log of residents who tested positive for COVID-19. The MD stated he did not realize there were 19 residents who tested positive for COVID-19. The MD stated he thought there were six residents who tested positive for COVID-19 until the facility contacted and updated him at night on 01/18/23. In an interview on 01/20/23 at 5:00 PM, the DON stated her expectation was that residents who tested positive for COVID-19 were immediately reported to the appropriate parties. The DON stated she reported COVID-19 positive cases every Monday and Thursday. The DON stated she forgot to report the new COVID-19 positive cases to the appropriate parties. During an observation on 01/18/23 at 9:20 AM, there were no signs on the front door related to COVID-19. Record review of the interim COVID-19 visitation policy dated 03/13/20 revealed the facility must communicate the visitation policy through multiple channels, instructing visitors to defer visitation until further notice. Channels of communication examples included signage, calls, letters, social media posts, emails, and recorded messages for receiving calls. Record review of the COVID-19 prevention and response policy dated 03/10/2020 revealed the facility must post signs at the entrance instructing visitors not to visit if they have symptoms of respiratory infection. In an interview on 01/20/23 at 5:00 PM, the DON stated her expectation was that there were signs on the front door indicating residents who were positive for COVID-19 were in the building. The DON stated she and the Admin were responsible for ensuring there were signs at the front door indicating residents who were positive for COVID-19 were in the building. The DON stated she did not know there were not signs on the front door indicating residents who were positive for COVID-19 were in the building. The DON stated having no signs at the front entrance indicating residents who were positive for COVID-19 were in the building could place visitors at risk of exposure to COVID-19. Record review of the interim COVID-19 visitation policy dated 03/13/20 revealed visitors, health care workers, and surveyors must be screened for fever or respiratory symptoms and illness prior to entry. Record review of the COVID-19 prevention and response policy dated 03/10/2020 revealed visitors of persons with known or suspected COVID-19 must be screened for symptoms of acute respiratory illness. In an interview on 01/18/23 at 9:00 AM, the DON stated residents who were positive for COVID-19 were housed in rooms on hall B. In an interview on 01/18/23 at 10:42 AM, the DON stated residents who were positive for COVID-19 and could not be housed in rooms on hall B were housed in rooms on hall A. During an observation on 01/18/23 at 11:15 AM, there were no signs indicating there were residents who tested positive for COVID-19 housed in rooms on halls A and B prior to entry. The corridors for halls A and B were also open. Record review of the daily census dated 01/18/23 revealed residents #12, #15, #17, #37, #40, #41, #44, and #222 tested positive for COVID-19, were on isolation precautions and housed in rooms on hall A. Residents #2, #24, #25, #53, #54, #55 and #67 tested positive for COVID-19, were on isolation precautions and housed in rooms on hall B. In an interview on 01/18/23 at 12:00 PM, CNA A stated the Admin and DON told staff that the facility did not have to post signs indicating residents who tested positive for COVID-19 were housed in rooms on halls A and B prior to entry. In an interview on 01/18/23 at 12:24 PM, LVN A stated the Admin told staff that the facility did not have to post signs post signs indicating residents who tested positive for COVID-19 were housed in rooms on halls A and B prior to entry. In an interview on 01/19/23 at 9:14 AM, the MD stated all residents who were positive for COVID-19 should be housed in rooms on one hallway. The MD also stated there should be a sign posted prior to entry on the hallway indicating there were residents who tested positive for COVID-19 housed in rooms on the hallway. In an interview on 01/20/23 at 5:00 PM, the DON stated her expectation was that there were signs indicating there were residents who tested positive for COVID-19 housed in rooms on halls A and B prior to entry. The DON stated not having signs indicating there were residents who tested positive for COVID-19 housed in rooms on halls A and B prior to entry placed residents and visitors at risk for exposure to COVID-19. During an observation on 01/18/23 at 11:13 AM, residents #2, #12, #15, #17, #24, #25, #29, #37, #40, #41, #44, #53, #54, #55, #59, #63, #67, and #222 were positive for COVID-19 and on isolation precautions. Residents #2, #12, #15, #17, #24, #25, #29, #37, #40, #41, #44, #53, #54, #55, #59, #63, #67, and #222 had plastic storage organizer drawers full of PPE supplies outside each of their rooms and signs posted on each of their doors indicating they were on isolation precautions. Residents #1, #5, #9, #10, #30, #31, #33, #39, #43, #45, #49, #58, and #221 were negative for COVID-19 and not on isolation precautions. Residents #1, #5, #9, #10, #30, #31, #33, #39, #43, #45, #49, #58, and #221 did not have signs posted on each of their doors and plastic storage organizer drawers full of PPE supplies outside each of their rooms. In an interview on 01/18/23 at 12:00 PM, CNA A stated there were no designated CNAs for residents who were positive for COVID-19. CNA A stated CNAs provided care and services to residents on all hallways. CNA A stated residents who tested positive for COVID-19 were moved and placed in rooms on hall B. The CNA A stated residents who tested positive for COVID-19 were cohorted with other residents who tested positive for COVID-19. CNA A stated residents who tested positive for COVID-19 were also placed in rooms on hall A when there were no more rooms available on hall B. CNA A stated residents who had signs labeled, Check at nursing station prior to entering, and yellow barrels inside their rooms were determined to be positive for COVID-19 and on isolation precautions. CNA A stated residents had their room doors left open because some of them were at risk for falling. CNA A stated there were three residents on hall B who were negative for COVID-19, placed in rooms next door to residents who were positive for COVID-19 and on isolation precautions, and had their room doors left open. CNA A did not identify who were the three residents who were negative for COVID-19 on hall B. CNA A stated whenever staff were in the hallways, they monitored residents to ensure residents do not wander into other residents' rooms. CNA A stated staff have brought the concern to the DON and Admin's attention. CNA A stated the DON and Admin were aware of the potentiality for exposure and further spread of COVID-19 in the facility. CNA A stated the Admin and DON told staff that residents who were positive for COVID-19 did not have to keep their doors closed even if they were on isolation precautions. CNA A stated there was no intervention put in place to prevent residents from wandering into other residents' rooms. CNA A stated there was a growth of residents who were exposed and tested positive for COVID-19 at the facility. CNA A stated having residents' room doors left open placed residents at risk for wandering into another resident's room who may be positive for COVID-19 and on isolation precautions and becoming exposed to COVID-19. In an interview on 01/18/23 at 12:24 PM, LVN A stated each LVN was assigned two hallways. LVN A stated residents who had signs labeled, Check at nursing station prior to entering, and plastic storage organizer drawers full of PPE supplies outside their rooms were determined to be positive for COVID-19 and on isolation precautions. LVN A stated residents who tested positive for COVID-19 were placed on isolation precautions for 14 days and until they tested negative for COVID-19. LVN A stated there were residents who were negative for COVID-19 and placed in rooms next door to residents who were positive for COVID-19 and on isolation precautions on halls A and B. LVN A did not identify who the residents were who were negative for COVID-19. LVN A stated residents' doors remained open so staff can monitor residents who were at risk for falls. LVN A stated residents who were negative for COVID-19 were required to wear their masks before exiting their rooms. LVN A stated residents who were positive for COVID-19 and on isolation precautions were redirected back to their rooms by staff if they wandered out of their rooms. LVN A stated the Admin told staff that residents who were positive for COVID-19 were not required to close their doors even if they were on isolation precautions. LVN A stated having residents' room doors left open placed residents at risk for wandering into another resident's room who may be positive for COVID-19 and on isolation precautions and becoming exposed to COVID-19. Record review of the COVID-19 prevention and response policy dated 03/10/20 revealed the facility must restrict residents with a fever or acute respiratory symptoms to their room. The policy also revealed when COVID-19 was suspected, the facility must place the resident in a private room (containing a private bathroom) with the door closed. In an interview on 01/19/23 at 9:10 AM, resident #37 stated she was positive for COVID-19 and on isolation precautions. Resident #37 stated she was concerned with the potentiality of other residents who were negative for COVID-19 wandering into her room and becoming exposed to COVID-19. In an interview on 01/19/23 at 9:22 AM, resident #54 stated she was positive for COVID-19 and on isolation precautions. Resident #54 stated she was concerned with the potentiality of other residents who were negative for COVID-19 wandering into her room and becoming exposed to COVID-19. In an interview on 01/19/23 at 9:14 AM, the MD stated, residents' doors should be closed if they are positive for COVID-19. The MD stated, residents who were negative for COVID-19 should be kept away from residents who were positive for COVID-19. In an interview on 1/19/23 at 9:45 AM, resident #40 stated she was positive for COVID-19 and on isolation precautions. Resident #40 stated she was concerned with the potentiality of other residents who were negative for COVID-19 wandering into her room and becoming exposed to COVID-19. In an interview on 01/20/23 at 5:00 PM, the DON stated she was aware that there were residents who were negative for COVID-19 placed in rooms next door and across from residents who were positive for COVID-19 and on isolation precautions on halls A and B. The DON stated she was not aware that residents on halls A and B had their room doors left open. The DON stated she was responsible for training staff on isolation precaution procedures. The DON stated having residents' room doors left open placed residents at risk for wandering into another resident's room who may be positive for COVID-19 and on isolation precautions and becoming exposed to COVID-19. Record review of the daily census dated 01/18/23 revealed residents #12, #15, #17, #37, #40, #41, #44 and #222 were positive for COVID-19 and housed on hall A. Residents #10, #31, #39, #52, #53, #66 and #221 were housed on hall B. Residents #10, #31, #39, #66, and #221 were negative for COVID-19 and residents #52 and #53 were positive for COVID-19. Record review of the daily census dated 01/19/23 and 01/20/23 revealed residents #12, #15, #17, #37, #40, #41, #44 and #222 were positive for COVID-19 and not housed on hall A. Residents #10, #31, #39, #66, and #221 were negative for COVID-19 and residents #52 and #53 were positive for COVID-19 and not housed on hall B. In an interview on 01/18/23 at 3:28 PM, the DON stated she was the IP. Record review of the COVID-19 prevention and response policy dated 03/10/20 revealed the IP must identify and monitor residents who may have been exposed if COVID-19 was confirmed. In an interview on 01/20/23 at 5:00 PM, the DON stated she was responsible for identifying and monitoring residents who were exposed to, showed symptoms for, and/or tested positive for COVID-19 and providing an accurate roster for all 65 residents at the facility. The DON stated she was not aware of the inaccuracies in the facility roster. The DON stated not identifying and monitoring residents who were exposed to, showed symptoms for, and/or tested positive for COVID-19 and accurate roster for all 65 residents at the facility placed the residents and staff at risk for exposure to COVID-19, which could result in a growth of positive COVID-19 cases and staffing shortage at the facility. Record review of the COVID-19 prevention and response policy dated 03/10/20 revealed the policy was implemented, reviewed, and revised by the DON on 03/10/20. Record review of the interim COVID-19 visitation policy dated 03/10/20 revealed the policy was implemented on 03/10/20, reviewed on 03/13/20, and revised by the DON. In an interview on 01/20/23 at 5:00 PM, the DON stated the IPCP was reviewed two or three times a week. The DON stated she was responsible for reviewing and revising the IPCP annually and as necessary. The DON stated she was not reviewing and revising the infection control policies and procedures. The DON stated she was not reviewing the infection control policies and procedures with staff. The DON stated she was responsible for providing staff with training related to infection control and reviewing the infection control policies and procedures with staff. The DON stated not reviewing and revising the IPCP placed residents, staff, and visitors at risk for exposure to COVID-19, which could result in a growth of positive COVID-19 cases and staffing shortage at the facility.
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 observations, interviews, and record reviews the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for one of one kitchen. The facility ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for one of one kitchen. The facility failed to ensure food in the walk-in freezer, walk-in refrigerator and dry storage room was properly stored, dated, and labeled. The deficient practice placed residents who were served from the kitchen at risk for health complications and foodborne illnesses. Findings included: Observation of the dry storage area in the kitchen on 01/18/2023 at 9:30 am, revealed various items; bag of chips open and not properly sealed, labeled or dated, package of what appeared to be corn tortillas opened but not labeled or dated, plastic storage containers with what appears to be dry cereal not labeled or dated, an open bag of pasta not sealed nor labeled or dated. Further observations in the dry storage area revealed boxes of supplies (appeared to be disposable cups and plates) that were stored on the floor in the dry storage area. Observation of the walk-in freezer in the kitchen on 01/18/2023 at 10:05 am, revealed multiple boxes of frozen food items stored directly on the floor of the freezer obstructing the entrance. Zip lock bag (open and not sealed) of what appears to be frozen biscuits. A 10-gallon bucket of ice cream opened but not labeled or dated. A tray of what appears to be disposable plastic cups of ice cream not covered, sealed, labeled, or dated. Zip lock bag of what appears to be frozen dinner rolls that are not labeled or dated. A zip lock bag of what appeared to be frozen chicken fried steaks that were not labeled or dated. Observation of the walk-in refrigerator in the kitchen on 01/18/2023 at10:30 am, revealed a brown bag and a Styrofoam bowl of what appears to be personal food items from a restaurant that is being stored in the resident refrigerator. A tray of beverages (Juice and milk) that were covered with plastic but not labeled or dated. An opened bottle of what appears to be prune juice that is not labeled or dated. Observation and Interview with the Dining Services Supervisor on 01/18/2023 at approximately 10:45 am, revealed that items stored in the walk-in freezer should not be stored of the floor, but they just received their shipment and have not had the time to unload. The DSS was shown all items that were open but not labeled or dated, and the DSS stated They should all be sealed, dated for discard date of expiration and labeled. The DSS was shown boxes on the floor in the dry storage area and stated they do have a storage area for those items and will place those when she gets the chance to move them but understands that these items do not store on the floor. The DSS stated that all the food in the kitchen area (dry, refrigerator and freezer) was available for resident consumption. The DSS was shown multiple bags of items in the dry storage area that were not sealed properly or labeled and dated. The DSS stated that they would make sure all items were labeled and dated. The DSS stated I recently returned to the kitchen and have been out the facility due to medical reasons, but we do have a Dietary Services Manager and we both are responsible for the kitchen. Observation and Interview with the Dietary Services Manager on 01/18/2023 at approximately 12:10PM revealed that they recently received a shipment of frozen items but understand that those items should not be stored on the floor of the freezer. The DSM was shown the items in the dry storage area that were not labeled or dated. The DSM stated that the items should be sealed, labeled, and dated but she would walk through and make sure these items are discarded and in-service staff about making sure to label and date those items once they are opened. Observation and Interview with the ADMIN on 01/20/2023 at approximately 12:07PM, revealed the ADMIN was shown the items that were still not properly sealed, dated or labeled. The ADMIN stated food should be stored and labeled properly and it is the dietary manger's responsibility to ensure this is done. The Admin stated, If food is not sealed properly, dated or labeled that there is a risk of food borne illnesses for the residents of the facility. The ADMIN was observed throwing away all items not properly sealed, labeled or dated while walking through the dry storage area. The ADMIN was shown items in the walk-in refrigerator that were not properly labeled or dated. The ADMIN was also shown what appeared to be personal drink bottles in the facility refrigerator. The ADMIN stated, That these items are not to be stored with resident food for consumption. Observation of the ADMIN which informed dietary staff that they should not store their personal items in this refrigerator, and they have a break room for personal items. The ADMIN was also shown the walk-in freezer where boxes were still on the floor blocking the entrance and being stored on the floor. Review of facility 672 form Resident census and conditions of residents dated 01/18/2023, revealed no residents were on tube feedings. Review of facility policy Date Marking for Food Safety dated: effective 2021, revealed The facility adheres to a date marking system to ensure the safety of ready-to-eat, time/temperature control for food safety. Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines for Staffing: 1. Refrigerated, ready-to-eat, time/temperature control for safety food (i.e. perishable food) shall be held at a temperature of 41 °F or less for a maximum of 7 days. The food shall be clearly marked to indicate the date or day by which the food shall be consumed or discarded. The individual opening or preparing a food shall be responsible for date marking the food at the time the food is opened or prepared. The marking system shall consist of a color-coded label, the day/date of opening, and the day/date the item must be consumed or discarded. The discard day or date may not exceed the manufacturer's use-by date, or four days, whichever is earliest. The date of opening or preparation counts as day 1. (For example, food prepared on Tuesday shall be discarded on or by Friday.) The Head Cook, or designee, shall be responsible for checking the refrigerator daily for food items that are expiring, and shall discard accordingly. The Dietary Manager, or designee, shall spot check refrigerators weekly for compliance, and document accordingly. Corrective action shall be taken as needed. Note: prepared foods that are delivered to the nursing units shall be discarded within two hours, if not consumed. These items shall not be refrigerated as the time/temperature controls cannot be verified.
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 F0882 (Tag F0882)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure a person designated as the infection preventionist worked at least part-time at the facility. The facility did not have an infec...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure a person designated as the infection preventionist worked at least part-time at the facility. The facility did not have an infection preventionist in place who worked at least part-time at the facility. The DON was the infection preventionist and did not work at least part-time in the position at the facility. This deficient practice could place residents at risk of cross contamination and infection. Findings included: In an interview on 01/18/23 at 9:46am, the Admin stated the DON was the IP for the facility. In an interview on 01/18/23 at 3:28pm, the DON stated she was the IP for the facility. The DON stated she was the IP since 01/16/23. In an interview on 01/19/23 at 10:00am, the DON stated she was the IP since CMS made it a requirement for facilities to have an IP. In an interview on 01/20/23 at 2:34pm, the DON stated she worked as the IP for 10 hours a week. The DON stated the facility hired a new IP on 01/16/23 because she was not able to dedicate at least part-time to the position. Record review of the new IP's personnel file revealed she was hired on 01/16/23 and started working at the facility on 01/17/23. Record review of the DON's timesheet dated 01/20/23 revealed the DON worked an average of 40.5 hours per week as the DON. The DON's timesheet did not indicate how many hours she worked as the IP. Record review of the COVID-19 prevention and response policy dated 03/10/20 revealed there was no mention of the amount of time required to be dedicated by the IP to monitor the facility's IPCP. In an interview on 01/20/23 at 5:00pm, the DON stated she was aware that the IP was required to work at least part-time at the facility. The DON stated the IP not working at least part-time at the facility could place the residents, staff, and visitors at risk for exposure to COVID-19, which could result in a growth of positive COVID-19 cases and staffing shortage at the facility. The DON stated she would provide a policy, procedure, and job description on infection preventionist. The facility did not provide a policy, procedure, and job description on infection preventionist.
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

  • "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
  • "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • 34% turnover. Below Texas's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 2 harm violation(s), $32,500 in fines, Payment denial on record. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 13 deficiencies on record, including 2 serious (caused harm) violations. Ask about corrective actions taken.
  • • $32,500 in fines. Higher than 94% of Texas facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
  • • Grade C (50/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Mixed indicators with Trust Score of 50/100. Visit in person and ask pointed questions.

About This Facility

What is Grandview's CMS Rating?

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

How is Grandview Staffed?

CMS rates GRANDVIEW NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 34%, compared to the Texas average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Grandview?

State health inspectors documented 13 deficiencies at GRANDVIEW NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER during 2023 to 2025. These included: 2 that caused actual resident harm and 11 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.

Who Owns and Operates Grandview?

GRANDVIEW NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER is owned by a non-profit organization. Non-profit facilities reinvest revenue into operations rather than distributing to shareholders. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 82 certified beds and approximately 69 residents (about 84% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in GRANDVIEW, Texas.

How Does Grandview Compare to Other Texas Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Texas, GRANDVIEW NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER's overall rating (3 stars) is above the state average of 2.8, staff turnover (34%) is significantly lower than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Grandview?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "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?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?"

Is Grandview Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, GRANDVIEW NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER has a clean safety record: no substantiated abuse findings (meaning no confirmed cases of resident harm), no Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death), and is not on the Special Focus Facility watch list (a federal program monitoring the lowest-performing 1% of nursing homes). The facility has a 3-star overall rating and ranks #1 of 100 nursing homes in Texas. While no facility is perfect, families should still ask about staff-to-resident ratios and recent inspection results during their visit.

Do Nurses at Grandview Stick Around?

GRANDVIEW NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER has a staff turnover rate of 34%, which is about average for Texas nursing homes (state average: 46%). Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.

Was Grandview Ever Fined?

GRANDVIEW NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER has been fined $32,500 across 1 penalty action. This is below the Texas average of $33,404. While any fine indicates a compliance issue, fines under $50,000 are relatively common and typically reflect isolated problems that were subsequently corrected. Families should ask what specific issues led to these fines and confirm they've been resolved.

Is Grandview on Any Federal Watch List?

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