HEWITT NURSING AND REHABILITATION

8836 MARS DR, HEWITT, TX 76643 (254) 420-5500
For profit - Limited Liability company 140 Beds HMG HEALTHCARE Data: November 2025 4 Immediate Jeopardy citations
Trust Grade
0/100
#1004 of 1168 in TX
Last Inspection: April 2025

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

Overview

Hewitt Nursing and Rehabilitation has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the quality of care provided. It ranks #1004 out of 1168 facilities in Texas, placing it in the bottom half, and #11 out of 17 in McLennan County, suggesting limited local options for better care. While the facility is showing signs of improvement, reducing issues from 21 in 2024 to just 3 in 2025, it still faces critical problems. Staffing is a major concern, with a low rating of 1 out of 5 stars and a high turnover rate of 68%, which is above the state average. Additionally, there have been serious incidents, such as failing to administer necessary medication to a resident and not providing required respiratory care, which raises alarm about the overall safety and well-being of residents.

Trust Score
F
0/100
In Texas
#1004/1168
Bottom 15%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Better
21 → 3 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
68% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
⚠ Watch
$33,539 in fines. Higher than 77% of Texas facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 17 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Texas. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
⚠ Watch
30 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Overall Rating
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Staff Levels
★★★☆☆
3.0
Care Quality
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 21 issues
2025: 3 issues

The Good

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

Facility shows strength in fire safety.

The Bad

1-Star Overall Rating

Below Texas average (2.8)

Significant quality concerns identified by CMS

Staff Turnover: 68%

22pts above Texas avg (46%)

Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity

Federal Fines: $33,539

Above median ($33,413)

Moderate penalties - review what triggered them

Chain: HMG HEALTHCARE

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

Staff turnover is elevated (68%)

20 points above Texas average of 48%

The Ugly 30 deficiencies on record

4 life-threatening 2 actual harm
Jun 2025 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

PASARR Coordination (Tag F0644)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to submit a completed and accurate request for nursing fa...

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 submit a completed and accurate request for nursing facility specialized services in the LTC Online Portal within 20 business days from the IDT for 1 of 1 (Resident #1) resident reviewed for delinquent PASARR processes. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1 received the services recommended by the PASARR evaluation when they failed to submit a complete and accurate request for NFSS in the LTC online Portal within 20 business days from the IDT meeting. This failure caused a delay in her Medicaid Entitled Services including physical therapy and occupational therapy. This failure placed Resident #1 at risk of not achieving or maintaining her highest practicable level of physical functioning and could potentially result in increased disability. Findings include: Review of Resident #1's undated face sheet reflected that she was a [AGE] year-old female admitted [DATE] with diagnoses of Mild Intellectual Disabilities, Diabetes Type 2, Hypertension (high blood pressure), chronic kidney disease, stage 5, and Cerebral Infarction (stroke). Review of Resident #1's 6/5/25 Quarterly MDS reflected her BIMS score was 15 which indicated she was cognitively intact. Review of resident #1's 5/5/25 Care Plan reflected a care area initiated 1/23/25 for falls related to poor balance, unrealistic sense of physical abilities with a goal to resume usual activities and interventions including physical therapy. Observation on 6/23/25 at 10:56 AM of Resident #1 revealed her using a manual wheelchair for mobility in the activities/bingo room. Interview attempted on 6/23/25 at 11:14 AM with Resident #1 but she had left the facility for dialysis and was unavailable. In an interview on 6/23/25 at 2:25 PM the MDS-RN stated, the IDT meeting for Resident #1 was held on 4/10/25. She stated that following the meeting NFSS forms were submitted on 4/24/25, 5/7/25, and 5/8/25 for physical and occupational therapy recommendations. She further stated all the forms were rejected with errors and the final form on 5/8/25 was marked as late according to PASARR timelines. In a 2nd interview on 6/23/25 at 3:49 PM the MDS-RN stated, PASARR was important because it provided residents who had intellectual and mental disabilities extra services to help them cope with their disabilities. She stated that she had recently assumed responsibility for the PASARR process and that if PASARR was not done, residents may miss extra therapy and lose strength or independence. In an interview on 6/23/25 at 4:15 PM the DT stated, if PASARR recommended services it was important to do them to maintain a resident's strength, balance, and safety. She stated the MDS-RN was responsible for handling the PASARR processes and that failure to follow the PASARR recommendations could lead to a decline in the resident's function. In an interview on 6/23/25 at 4:27 PM the DON stated, PASARR was important because it allowed residents to get additional services that they needed. She stated, the MDS-RN was responsible for doing PASARR and that if PASARR was not done then residents could miss services and not get as strong as they could. She stated that she and the MDS-RN were immediately setting up a new meeting for Resident #1. In an interview on 6/23/25 at 4:40 PM the ADM stated, PASARR was important to provide residents specialized services to meet their needs. He stated the MDS-RN was responsible for handling PASARR and that the negative outcome to residents if PASARR was not done was that the resident would not improve in areas they could have improved in. Record Review of Resident #1's undated NFSS form reflected: Submission date of 5/7/25. Physical Therapy and Occupational Therapy were requested. Denial date on 5/20/25 for incorrectly completed signature page. Record Review of the facility policy titled, PASRR Clinical Policy and dated May 2014, reflected: The MDS-RN will coordinate and deliver specialized services the facility was responsible for providing. The MDS-RN /DON will initiate delivery of specialized services. The MDS-RN/DON will monitor the LTC portal. The policy did not include a timeline from the IDT meeting.
Apr 2025 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0558 (Tag F0558)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents received services in the facility ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents received services in the facility with reasonable accommodations of resident's needs and preferences except when to do so would endanger the health and safety of the resident or other residents for 2 of 6 residents (Resident #7 and #34) reviewed for resident rights. The facility failed to ensure Resident's #7's and Resident #34's call lights were within reach on 04/15/25. This failure could place residents at risk of needs not being met. Findings included: 1. Record Review of Resident #7's face sheet dated 04/16/25 reflected the resident was an [AGE] year-old female admitted on [DATE]. Her diagnoses included hypertensive heart disease with heart failure (when high blood pressure (hypertension) weakens the heart over time, leading to heart failure), diabetes (a group of diseases that result in too much sugar in the blood), Alzheimer's disease (a neurodegenerative disease that usually starts slowly and progressively worsens), and heart failure (a serious condition that occurs when the heart can't pump enough blood to meet the body's needs). Record Review of Resident #7's Annual MDS assessment dated [DATE] reflected Resident #7 was dependent on staff for eating, toileting, bathing, and personal hygiene. MDS reflected Resident #7 had a BIMS score of 06 which indicated Resident #7 was severely cognitively impaired. Record review of Resident #7's care plan dated 10/10/24 reflected: Resident at risk for falls due to weakness. Goal: Resident #7 would not sustain serious injury through the review date. Interventions included: Be sure the resident's call light is within reach and encourage the resident to use it for assistance as needed. The resident needs prompt response to all requests for assistance. In an observation and interview on 04/15/25 at 10:38 AM, Resident #7 stated she was doing fine. She stated she could not reach her call light where it was at that time. She stated she usually could reach her call light. She stated the call light could have fallen on the floor but if she needed help, she would yell for someone to come in from the hallway. She stated she had no concerns. Observed Resident #7's call light on the floor beside resident's bed and out of resident's reach. The call light, from the other side of the room, which was intended for use by a roommate if resident had one, was placed in a drawer on the side of residents bed , and was also out of resident's reach. Resident demonstrated that she could not reach either of the call lights. In an observation on 04/15/25 at 11:00 AM, Resident #7's call light remained on the floor beside resident's bed, and the other call light remained in a drawer beside resident's bed and out of Resident #7's reach. 2. Review of Resident #34's quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE], reflected a [AGE] year-old-female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her diagnoses included heart failure, high blood pressure, end stage renal disease (loss of kidney function), diabetes, high levels of fat stored in the body, morbid obesity, non-Alzheimer's dementia, anxiety (worry), depression (sadness), lupus (when the body's immune system mistakenly attacks its own tissues and organs ), sleep apnea (interruptions in breathing during sleep), chronic pain syndrome, lymphedema (swelling caused by an accumulation of protein-rich fluid), and gout (buildup of uric acid crystals leading to severe pain commonly affecting the big toe). She was dependent on staff for almost all ADL's. She had a BIMS score of 07 indicating severe cognitive impairment. Review of Resident #34's care plan dated last revised 3/27/2025 reflected that she had a behavior problem r/t not using her call light and hollering out for help due to her cognition impairment. Her interventions included making sure her call light was within reach. Observation and interview on 04/15/2025 at 11:15 AM revealed Resident #34 was lying in bed. Her call light was resting on top of her oxygen concentrator approximately 2.5 feet from her bed. When asked, the resident stated she was unable to reach her call light if she needed it to call for help. During the interview, the resident began calling out to staff in pain related to her big toe and requested medication. CNA C entered Resident #34's room in response to the crying out. When asked, CNA C stated she was unaware of why the resident's call light was resting atop the oxygen concentrator and stated it should have been clipped to Resident #34's bed sheet. In an interview on 04/15/25 at 11:03 AM, CNA B stated Resident #7 could not reach her call light where it was at that time. CNA B stated she was going to fix the call light right then. She stated she knew how important it was for the residents to have their call lights and she was just trying to get everyone up and ready for the day. She stated the call light must have fell on the floor. She stated she had been trained on call light placement. She stated lots of things could happen and resident would not be able to call for help if their call light was out of the resident's reach. In an interview on 04/16/25 at 1:45 PM, the ADM stated it was his expectation that all residents' call lights be within reach at all times. He stated staff had been trained on call light placement and ensuring residents had their call light within reach at all times. He stated if a resident's call light was out of their reach, the resident would not have been able to call staff if they needed assistance or it could have caused a delay in care. In an interview on 04/16/25 at 3:24, the DON stated it was her expectation that all residents' call lights be within reach at all times. She stated staff had been trained on call light placement and ensuring residents had their call light within reach at all times. She stated if a residents call light was out of their reach, the resident may not have been able to call for help if they needed something. Interview on 04/17/2025 at 10:40 AM with CNA C revealed that she began working at the facility a couple of months ago and worked the 6am-2pm shift. She stated that Resident #34 could not get out of bed on her own. She stated that she believed that due to Resident #34's diagnosis, that she sometimes forgot how to use her call light and frequently yelled out for help from staff. She stated that the call light was supposed to always be in reach of the resident, but she was aware of times where the resident would throw the call light away from her body/bed. Record review of facility policy titled Answering the Call Light and dated 2001 (revised October 2010) reflected Purpose: The purpose of this procedure is to respond to the resident's requests and needs. General Guidelines: 5. When the resident is in bed or confined to a chair be sure the call light is within easy reach of the resident.
CONCERN (D)

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

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to conduct initially and periodically a comprehensive, accurate, stand...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to conduct initially and periodically a comprehensive, accurate, standardized reproducible assessment of each resident's functional capacity for 1 of 6 residents (Resident #45) reviewed for comprehensive assessments. The facility failed to complete an accurate comprehensive assessment for Resident #45 due to MDS assessment reflected resident received insulin and injections. This failure could place residents at risk of not having their care and treatment needs assessed to ensure necessary care and services were provided. The findings include: Record Review of Resident #45's face sheet dated 04/16/25 reflected the resident was a [AGE] year-old female admitted on [DATE]. Her diagnoses included acute respiratory failure with hypoxia (a serious condition where the lungs fail to adequately oxygenate the blood, leading to low blood oxygen levels), diabetes (a group of diseases that result in too much sugar in the blood), depression (feelings of severe despondency and dejection), and white matter disease - a progressive disorder that occurs when the white matter in the brain is damaged). Record Review of Resident 45's Annual MDS dated [DATE] reflected Resident #45 required set-up or clean-up assistance for eating, required supervision or touching assistance for toileting and bathing, and required partial or moderate assistance with personal hygiene. MDS reflected Resident #45 had a BIMS score of 13 which indicated Resident #45 was cognitively intact. Record review of Resident #45's Annual MDS assessment dated [DATE], reflected that resident was receiving injections and insulin. Record review of Resident #45's care plan dated 10/26/24 reflected: Resident had Diabetes Mellitus. Goal: Resident #45 would have no complications related to diabetes through the review date. Interventions included: Observe/document/report to MD PRN for s/sx of hyperglycemia: increased thirst and appetite, frequent urination, weight loss, fatigue, dry skin, poor wound healing, muscle cramps, abdominal pain, Kussmaul breathing (hyperventilating), acetone breath (smells fruity), stupor, coma. Record review of Resident #45's undated Physician's Orders reflected resident had no orders for any type of injection or insulin medications ordered. In an interview on 04/16/25 at 1:06 PM, Resident #45 stated she did not receive insulin injections and she had not ever received insulin that she could remember. She stated she had been diagnosed with pre-diabetes but never required insulin. She stated she was doing well and was on her way to the resident council meeting. In an interview on 04/16/25 at 11:55 AM, LVN A stated she and another staff member were responsible for completing the MDS assessments in the facility. She stated she was trained on completing MDS assessments accurately. She stated she was not sure if Resident #45 received insulin or any injections then or when her last annual MDS was completed on 03/11/25, and she would have to look at the resident's records. She stated she was not sure if Resident #45's MDS dated [DATE] stated resident was receiving insulin or injections or not without looking at the MDS. She stated she had completed Resident #45's MDS dated [DATE]. She stated if a resident was not receiving insulin or any type of injections, it should not have reflected that they did on the MDS. She stated if an MDS assessment was completed inaccurately, it would not affect the resident in any way, but it would have caused the MDS assessment to fall under another RUG level. She stated the RUG score determined the amount of reimbursement the facility received for caring for the residents. In an interview on 04/16/25 at 1:45 PM, the ADM stated it was his expectation that MDS assessments were completed accurately and reflected the resident individually. He stated LVN A was responsible for completing the MDS assessments and she had been trained on completing the MDS assessments accurately as far as he knew. He stated if a resident had not received injections or insulin during the lookback period that the MDS required, the MDS assessment should not have reflected that a resident received insulin or injections he believed. He stated a RUG score was used to determine the amount of reimbursement the facility received for the care they provided to the resident. He stated if an MDS was completed inaccurately, it could have caused an error in billing. In an interview on 04/16/25 at 3:24, the DON stated it was her expectation that MDS assessments were completed to accurately reflect the resident individually. She stated LVN A was responsible for completing the MDS assessments, and LVN A had been trained on completing the MDS assessments accurately. She stated if a resident had not received injections or insulin during the period for coding on an MDS, the MDS assessment should not have reflected that a resident received insulin or injections. She stated a RUG score was used to determine the amount of reimbursement the facility received for the care they provided to the resident. She stated if an MDS was completed inaccurately, it could have caused an inaccurate payment to the facility, but it would not have affected the resident. Record review of the facility's policy titled Resident Assessment Instrument and dated 2001, revised on September 2010 reflected: Policy Statement - A comprehensive assessment of a resident's needs shall be made within fourteen (14) days of the resident's admission. Policy Interpretation and Implementation - 1. The Assessment Coordinator is responsible for ensuring that the Interdisciplinary Assessment Team conduct timely resident assessments and reviews according to the following schedule: a. Within fourteen (14) days of the resident's admission to the facility; b. When there has been a significant change in the resident's condition; c. At least quarterly; and d. Once every twelve (12) months. 2. The Interdisciplinary Assessment Team must use the MDS form currently mandated by Federal and State regulations to conduct the resident assessment. Other assessment forms may be used in addition to the MDS form. 3. The purpose of the assessment is to describe the resident's capability to perform daily life functions and to identify significant impairments in functional capacity. 4. Information derived from the comprehensive assessment helps the staff to plan care that allows the resident to reach his/her highest practicable level of functioning.
Jul 2024 4 deficiencies 2 IJ (2 affecting multiple)
CRITICAL (K) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

Someone could have died · This affected multiple residents

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the residents had the right to be free from neglect for one (Resident #1) of five residents reviewed for neglect, in that: The facility failed to administer Resident #1's Levothyroxine (medication used to treat hypothyroidism) for an unknown period of time at the end of June 2024 and beginning of July 2024. This subsequently led to her TSH (Thyroid Stimulating Hormone) levels elevating to 28.62 (normal range is .450 - 5.330), resulting in a change of condition where she became fatigued, dizzy, and depressed. An Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) was identified on 07/24/24 at 4:50 PM. While the IJ was removed on 07/29/24 at 12:15 PM, the facility remained out of compliance at a severity level of no actual harm and at a scope of pattern due to the facility's need to evaluate the effectiveness of the corrective systems. This failure placed residents at risk of not receiving their ordered medications, the loss of the medication's therapeutic benefits, and changes in physical and psychological conditions. Findings included: Review of Resident #1's undated face sheet reflected a [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including hypothyroidism (a condition resulting from decreased production of thyroid hormones) and a history of thyroid cancer resulting in a thyroidectomy (complete or partial removal of the thyroid gland). Review of Resident #1's quarterly MDS assessment, dated 06/22/24, reflected a BIMS score of 15, indicating she was cognitively intact. Review of Resident #1's quarterly care plan, dated 03/26/24, reflected she had hypothyroidism with an intervention of administering thyroid replacement medication which would help restore the level of thyroid hormone produced by the thyroid gland. Review of Resident #1's physician order, dated 02/09/24, reflected Levothyroxine Sodium Oral Tablet - 150 MCG - one time a day for hypothyroidism. Review of Resident #1's progress notes, dated 06/28/24 and documented by LVN A, reflected the following: [Resident #1] had c/o nausea with small emesis . [Resident #1] was given Zofran and Tylenol for the headache . Review of Resident #1's progress notes, dated 07/09/24 and documented by LVN A , reflected the following: [Resident #1] notified this nurse and aide that she feels like her mental health is going down. She is requesting to see or speak to someone about it. She stated she just wants to give up . Note left in the social worker's office for eval . Review of Resident #1's psychiatric diagnostic assessment, dated 07/10/24, reflected the following: Reason for referral: depression, withdrawal, appetite disturbance, weight loss, refusal/low motivation to participate in rehab therapy . Review of Resident #1's physician order, dated 06/30/24, reflected Remeron Oral Tablet - 15 MG - give 1 tablet by mouth one time a day for depression. Review of Resident #1's physician order, dated 07/10/24, reflected Sertraline HCl Oral Tablet - 50 MG - give 1 tablet by mouth one time a day for depressive symptoms. Review of Resident #1's lab results, dated 07/15/24, reflected a high level of TSH32 - 28.62 (normal range is .450 - 5.330). Review of Resident #1's progress notes, dated 07/15/24 and documented by the NP, reflected the following: [Resident #1] needs to be getting her levothyroxine, spoke with ADON concerning this. Re-check TSH in 4 weeks. During a telephone interview on 07/24/24 with Resident #1's RP, she stated toward the end of June (2024), the noticed Resident #1 had a change in condition. She stated she felt weak, terrible, achy, depressed, and like she wanted to die. She stated it affected her enough that she took herself off therapy (psychological) services. She stated although she was now receiving her thyroid medication , she was still not herself as it would take months to get her levels back to normal. During an interview on 07/24/24 at 12:15 PM, Resident #1's PA stated he saw the residents one time a week and the NP saw the residents the other four days but she was on vacation. He stated he was not aware of the situation where Resident #1 went an experienced extended period of time without her thyroid medication. He stated a negative outcome of not being administered thyroid medication when you had been on it for a long period of time and were dependent on it like someone like Resident #1 could be a thyroid crisis, depression, mood problems, and there could be no thyroid hormones in the body which could cause fatigue. He stated he believed her mood could have been affected. He stated after being without the medication for an extended period of time, it could take up to six months to readjust the TSH levels. He stated checking off in the MAR that the Levothyroxine was given when it actually was not would be a huge medication error. During an interview on 07/24/24 at 1:52 PM, Resident #1 stated she had not been aware she was not receiving her thyroid medication but had noticed how much complications it had caused. She stated about three weeks prior to when they realized she had not been receiving the medication (at the beginning of July 2024, she had become really exhausted, was dizzy, had a loss of appetite, and did not even have the energy to go to therapy. She stated she still felt affected by it as she continued to be fatigued and out of it. She stated it has caused her to be scared to trust the nurses to make sure she was receiving her ordered medications. During an interview on 07/24/24 at 2:32 PM, the ADON stated the NP brought to her attention at the beginning of July (2024) that Resident #1's thyroid level was extremely elevated which indicated she had not been receiving her thyroid medications. She stated Resident #1 had been complaining of feeling down, so she looked at everything. She stated when she looked in the medication cart, she found a blister pack with only four missing pills and she could not find the previous blister back from the month prior (June 2024). She stated it was hard to say how many doses she missed but believed it could have been 5-8 doses. She stated not receiving thyroid medication for an extended period of time could lead to someone not feeling good, tired, and weak. She stated the nurse she believed that was not administering the medication (LVN B ) no longer worked there. She stated she did conduct a full cart audit on that medication cart but none of the other carts. During an interview on 07/24/24 at 4:32 PM, the DON stated on 07/12/24 the NP notified her that there were only two pills missing from Resident #1's thyroid medication blister pack. She stated the ADON looked into it and they had been delivered on 06/28/24. She stated she believed Resident #1 only could have gone 7-12 days without the medication, but it was not guaranteed. She stated a negative outcome of not receiving the medication for an extended period of time could be feeling tired or depression issues but did not believe that was the case for Resident #1 since it could have only been five days that she had gone without. During a telephone interview on 07/29/24 at 11:58 AM, Resident #1's NP stated Resident #1 had been admitted to the facility over five months ago and she was stable until her depression spiked within the last month. She stated Resident #1 was a good historian and told her at the beginning of July (2024) that for the past few weeks she had been feeling more depressed and felt it getting worse and worse. She stated it was to the point where she did not want to get out of bed. She stated once she ordered lab work and her TSH came back extremely high, it was evident that she had not been receiving her thyroid medication, especially with the symptoms she had been experiencing. She stated she could not put a number on how many doses she could have missed because everyone was different, but it had to have been more than a couple of weeks. She stated her TSH could be more normalized with in 4-6 weeks. She stated Resident #1 would not be back at her baseline, but on her medication she will have improved drastically. Review of the facility's Abuse and Neglect Policy, Revised December of 2016, reflected the following: Our residents have the right to be free from abuse, neglect . Review of the facility's Administering Medications Policy, revised December of 2012, reflected the following: Medications shall be administered in a safe and timely manner, and as prescribed. . 3. Medications must be administered in accordance with the orders, including any required time frame. The ADM and ADON were notified on 07/24/24 at 4:50 PM that an Immediate Jeopardy had been identified due to the above failures and an IJ template was provided. The following POR was accepted on 07/27/24 at 12:30 PM: Impact Statement: On 7/24/24 an abbreviated survey was initiated, and the facility was provided notification that the Survey Agency has determined that the conditions at the center constitute Immediate Jeopardy to resident health due to not keeping resident free from neglect. How were other residents at risk affected by this deficient practice identified? A. The VP of Clinical in-serviced the DON on audits of thyroid medication orders and the Medication Administration policy and ensuring residents receive their medications on 7/24/24 prior to in servicing staff. B. The facility DON/Designee completed an audit of thyroid medication orders for the residents currently residing in the facility to ensure the residents are receiving their medications. This was completed on 7/24/24. C. An Abuse/Neglect prohibition in-service was conducted by the Administrator with facility staff to include prn staff and newly hired staff on 7/24/24. The facility does not utilize agency. Any staff to include newly hired staff, prn staff not in attendance will be required to receive the in-service prior to working their next scheduled shift. What corrective actions have been implemented for the identified resident? Resident #1 Medication Error report completed, physician and RP notified by the ADON. The DON in-serviced 7/24/24 the licensed nursing staff on Medication Administration. What corrective actions were taken? 1. The following actions were initiated immediately on 7/24/24. a. Initiated in-services on 7/24/24 with licensed nurses to include prn staff and newly hired staff by Director of Nursing on Administering Medications and ensuring residents receive their medications during the hour before to hour after time frame. Newly hired licensed nurses and medication aides, prn staff will be in serviced during the on boarding process by DON/designee on Medication Administration policy. The DON/designee will complete Medication Pass Observations during orientation utilizing the medication pass observation tool. If licensed nurses or medication aides pass, competency will be demonstrated. If licensed nurses or medication aides fail, DON/Designee will retrain with return demonstration; and another Medication Pass Observation will be conducted until competency demonstrated. The facility does not utilize agency. DON/designee will conduct randomized MAR to card audits three times a week for 4 weeks, and then periodically to assure residents are getting medications. 2. The VP of Clinical in-serviced the DON on the Medication Administration policy and ensuring residents receive their medications on 7/24/24. b. On 7/24/24 the DON initiated in-services for the Medication Aides on Administering Medications and ensuring residents receive their medications during the hour before to hour after time frame. The DON/Designee will complete Medication Pass Observations with the licensed nurses and Medication Aides utilizing the medication pass observation tool. If licensed nurses or medication aides pass, competency will be demonstrated. If licensed nurses or medication aides fail, DON/Designee will retrain with return demonstration; and another Medication Pass Observation will be conducted until competency demonstrated. Random Med Pass Observations will be conducted weekly x 4 weeks with the licensed nurses and medication aides to ensure the medication administration policy is followed and that residents are receiving their medication as ordered. If discrepancies are identified, they will be addressed immediately by the DON or ADON. Starting on 7/24/24 DON/designee will conduct randomized MAR to card audits three times a week for 4 weeks, and then periodically to assure residents are getting medications. 3. Newly hired licensed nurses and medication aides, prn staff and agency staff will be in serviced during the on boarding process by DON/designee on Medication Administration policy. The DON/designee will complete Medication Pass Observations during orientation utilizing the medication pass observation tool. If licensed nurses or medication aides pass, competency will be demonstrated. If licensed nurses or medication aides fail, DON/Designee will retrain with return demonstration; and another Medication Pass Observation will be conducted until competency demonstrated. 4. The DON/Designee will complete Medication Pass Observations with the licensed nurses and Medication Aides utilizing the medication pass observation tool. If licensed nurses or medication aides pass, competency will be demonstrated. If licensed nurses or medication aides fail, DON/Designee will retrain with return demonstration; and another Medication Pass Observation will be conducted until competency demonstrated. Random Med Pass Observations will be conducted ongoing weekly with the licensed nurses and medication aides to ensure the medication administration policy is followed and that residents are receiving their medication as ordered. If discrepancies are identified, they will be addressed immediately by the DON or ADON. 5. On 7/24/24 the DON/Designee initiated in-services with licensed nurses and medication aides, on Abuse and Neglect Policy and Procedures with a pre and posttest attached; competency demonstrated as seen by test results. 6. On 7/24/24 the Administrator/Designee initiated life satisfactions surveys with no concerns noted. 7. How will the system be monitored to ensure compliance? A. DON/Administrator will review the results of the Medication Pass Observations that will be completed for the next six weeks. If discrepancies are identified, they will be addressed immediately, and physician notified. Staff will receive further training on our Medication Administration Policy and disciplinary action up to termination. Quality Assurance An impromptu Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement review of the plan of removal was completed on 7/24/24 with the Medical Director. The Medical Director has reviewed and agrees with this plan of removal. This plan will be monitored monthly during Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement meetings ongoing for any further education identified. The Surveyor monitored the POR on 07/28/24 as followed: During interviews on 07/28/24 from 11:42 AM - 2:32 PM with one RN, three LVNs, two MAs, and three CNAs from different shifts, all stated they were in-serviced before their shift. They all knew who the Abuse and Neglect Coordinator was (the ADM) and gave examples of abuse and neglect such as not changing a resident's brief in a timely manner, verbal, physical, psychosocial, and mental abuse. All stated they would never check off a MAR if they did not administer the medication. All stated the importance of residents receiving their ordered medications. Review of an in-service entitled Medication Administration, dated 07/24/24 and conducted by the VPCS, reflected the DON was reeducated on their Medication Administration policy. Review of in-services entitled Abuse and Neglect, dated 07/24/24 and 07/25/24 and conducted by the ADM, reflected all nursing staff were reeducated on the facility's Abuse and Neglect policy. Review of Abuse and Neglect Post Test Competencies, dated 07/24/24 and 07/25/24, reflected all staff took a post-test after being in-serviced and passed. Review of Life Satisfaction Surveys, dated 07/26/24, reflected all residents were interviewed with no concerns. Review of in-services entitled Medication Administration, dated 07/24/24 and 07/25/24 and conducted by the DON, reflected nurses and medication aides were reeducated on checking the MAR throughout shift for any medications due and checking the MAR/TAR at the end of the shift for any omissions. Review of the facility's Medication MAR to Card Audit, on 7/26/24, reflected the medication carts (four) had been audited on 07/24/24 and 07/25/24 to match the MAR to the medication cards. Review of Medication Pass Observations, dated 07/24/24 - 07/26/24, reflected nurses and medication aides had to conduct a medication pass check-off. While the IJ was removed on 07/29/24 at 12:15 PM, the facility remained out of compliance at a severity level of no actual harm and at a scope of pattern due to the facility's need to evaluate the effectiveness of the corrective systems.
CRITICAL (K) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

Someone could have died · This affected multiple residents

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services (including procedures that assured the accurate acquiring, receiving, dispensing, and administering of all drugs and biologicals) to meet the needs of each resident for one (Resident #1) of five residents reviewed for pharmacy services. The facility failed to administer Resident #1's Levothyroxine (medication used to treat hypothyroidism) for an unknown period of time at the end of June 2024 and beginning of July 2024. This subsequently led to her TSH (Thyroid Stimulating Hormone) levels elevating to 28.62 (normal range is .450 - 5.330), resulting in a change of condition where she became fatigued, dizzy, and depressed. An Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) was identified on 07/24/24 at 4:50 PM. While the IJ was removed on 07/29/24 at 12:15 PM, the facility remained out of compliance at a severity level of no actual harm and at a scope of pattern due to the facility's need to evaluate the effectiveness of the corrective systems. This deficient practice could place residents at risk of not receiving the intended therapeutic benefit of the medications and supplements, worsening or exacerbation of chronic medical conditions, and hospitalization. Findings included: Review of Resident #1's undated face sheet reflected a [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including hypothyroidism (a condition resulting from decreased production of thyroid hormones) and a history of thyroid cancer resulting in a thyroidectomy (complete or partial removal of the thyroid gland). Review of Resident #1's quarterly MDS assessment, dated 06/22/24, reflected a BIMS of 15, indicating she was cognitively intact. Review of Resident #1's quarterly care plan, dated 03/26/24, reflected she had hypothyroidism with an intervention of administering thyroid replacement medication which would help restore the level of thyroid hormone produced by the thyroid gland. Review of Resident #1's physician order, dated 02/09/24, reflected Levothyroxine Sodium Oral Tablet - 150 MCG - one time a day for hypothyroidism. Review of Resident #1's progress notes, dated 06/28/24 and documented by LVN A, reflected the following: [Resident #1] had c/o nausea with small emesis . [Resident #1] was given Zofran and Tylenol for the headache . Review of Resident #1's progress notes, dated 07/09/24 and documented by LVN A, reflected the following: [Resident #1] notified this nurse and aide that she feels like her mental health is going down. She is requesting to see or speak to someone about it. She stated she just wants to give up . Note left in the social worker's office for eval . Review of Resident #1's psychiatric diagnostic assessment, dated 07/10/24, reflected the following: Reason for referral: depression, withdrawal, appetite disturbance, weight loss, refusal/low motivation to participate in rehab therapy . Review of Resident #1's physician order, dated 06/30/24, reflected Remeron Oral Tablet - 15 MG - give 1 tablet by mouth one time a day for depression. Review of Resident #1's physician order, dated 07/10/24, reflected Sertraline HCl Oral Tablet - 50 MG - give 1 tablet by mouth one time a day for depressive symptoms. Review of Resident #1's lab results, dated 07/15/24, reflected a high level of TSH32 - 28.62 (normal range is .450 - 5.330). Review of Resident #1's progress notes, dated 07/15/24 and documented by the NP, reflected the following: [Resident #1] needs to be getting her levothyroxine, spoke with ADON concerning this. Re-check TSH in 4 weeks. During a telephone interview on 07/24/24 with Resident #1's RP, she toward the end of June (2024), the noticed Resident #1 had a change in condition. She stated she felt weak, terrible, achy, depressed, and like she wanted to die. She stated it affected her enough that she took herself off therapy services. She stated although she was now receiving her thyroid medication , she was still not herself as it would take months to get her levels back to normal. During an interview on 07/24/24 at 12:15 PM, Resident #1's PA stated he saw the residents one time a week and the NP saw the residents the other four days but she was on vacation. He stated he was not aware of the situation where Resident #1 went an extendedperienced period of time without her thyroid medication. He stated a negative outcome of not being administered thyroid medication when you had been on it for a long period of time and were dependent on it like someone like Resident #1 could be a thyroid crisis, depression, mood problems, and there could be no thyroid hormones in the body which could cause fatigue. He stated he believed her mood could have been affected. He stated after being without the medication for an extended period of time, it could take up to six months to readjust the TSH levels. He stated checking off in the MAR that it was given when it actually was not would be a huge medication error. During an interview on 07/24/24 at 1:52 PM, Resident #1 stated she had not been aware she was not receiving her thyroid medication but had noticed how much complications it had caused. She stated about three weeks prior to when they realized she had not been receiving the medication, she had become really exhausted, was dizzy, had a lost of appetite, and did not even have the energy to go to therapy. She stated she still felt affected by it as she continued to be fatigued and out of it. She stated it has caused her to be scared to trust the nurses to make sure she was receiving her ordered medications. During an interview on 07/24/24 at 2:32 PM, the ADON stated the NP brought to her attention that Resident #1's thyroid level was extremely elevated which indicated she had not been receiving her thyroid medications . She stated Resident #1 had been complaining of feeling down, so she looked at everything. She stated when she looked in the medication cart, she found a blister pack with only four missing pills and she could not find the previous blister back from the month prior (June 2024). She stated it was hard to say how many doses she missed but believed it could have been 5-8 doses. She stated not receiving thyroid medication for an extended period time could lead to someone not feeling good, tired, and weak. She stated the nurse she believed that was not administering the medication (LVN B ) no longer worked there. She stated she did conduct a full cart audit on that medication cart but none of the other carts. During an interview on 07/24/24 at 4:32 PM, the DON stated on 07/12/24 the NP notified her that there were only two pills missing from Resident #1's thyroid medication blister pack. She stated the ADON looked into it and they had been delivered on 06/28/24. She stated she believed Resident #1 only could have gone 7-12 days without the medication, but it was not guaranteed. She stated a negative outcome of not receiving the medication for an extended period of time could be feeling tired or depression issues but did not believe that was the case for Resident #1 since it could have only been five days that she had gone without. During a telephone interview on 07/29/24 at 11:58 AM, Resident #1's NP stated Resident #1 had been admitted to the facility over five months ago and she was stable until her depression spiked within the last month. She stated Resident #1 was a good historian and told her at the beginning of July (2024) that for the past few weeks she had been feeling more depressed and felt it getting worse and worse. She stated it was to the point where she did not want to get out of bed. She stated once she ordered lab work and her TSH came back extremely high, it was evident that she had not been receiving her thyroid medication, especially with the symptoms she had been experiencing. She stated she could not put a number on how many doses she could have missed because everyone was different, but it had to have been more than a couple of weeks. She stated her TSH could be more normalized with 4-6 weeks. She stated Resident #1 would not be back at her baseline, but on her medication she will have improved drastically. Review of the facility's Administering Medications Policy, revised December of 2012, reflected the following: Medications shall be administered in a safe and timely manner, and as prescribed. . 3. Medications must be administered in accordance with the orders, including any required time frame. Review of the Mayo Clinic website, accessed 08/12/24, hypothyroidism that is not treated can lead to goiter (a condition that may cause problems with swallowing or breathing), heart disease and heart failure, and peripheral neuropathy (nerve damage causing pain, numbness, and tingling in the arms and legs). The ADM and ADON were notified on 07/24/24 at 4:50 PM that an Immediate Jeopardy had been identified due to the above failures and an IJ template was provided. The following POR was accepted on 07/27/24 at 12:30 PM: Impact Statement: On 7/24/24 an abbreviated survey was initiated, and the facility was provided notification that the Survey Agency has determined that the conditions at the center constitute Immediate Jeopardy to resident health due to not providing pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of a resident. How were other residents at risk affected by this deficient practice identified? D. The VP of Clinical in-serviced the DON on completing an audit on thyroid medication orders and the Medication Administration policy and ensuring residents receive their medications on 7/24/24, prior to in-servicing staff. B. The facility DON/Designee completed an audit of thyroid medication orders for the residents currently residing in the facility to ensure the residents are receiving their medications. This was completed on 7/24/24. What corrective actions have been implemented for the identified resident? Resident #1 Medication Error report completed physician and RP notified by the ADON. Order to recheck thyroid lab on 8/16/24 received. Don/Designee will ensure new order is completed. The DON in-serviced 7/24/24 the licensed nursing staff on Medication Administration. What corrective actions were taken? 8. The following actions were initiated immediately on 7/24/24. c. Initiated in-services on 7/24/24 with licensed nurses by Director of Nursing on Administering Medications and ensuring residents receive their medications during the one hour before and one hour after time frame. Licenses nurses vocalized understanding and signed in-service as confirmation of education and competency. Starting on 7/24/24, DON/designee will conduct randomized MAR to card audits three times a week for 4 weeks, and then periodically to assure residents are getting medications. d. On 7/24/24 The VP of Clinical in serviced the DON on Administering Medications and ensuring residents receive their medications prior to in-servicing staff. e. On 7/24/24 the DON initiated in-services for the Medication Aides on Administering Medications and ensuring residents receive their medications during the one hour before and one hour after time frame. Medication Aides vocalized understanding and signed in-service as confirmation of education and competency. The understanding verification will be completed and documented using a Medication Administration Competency skill check list. f. Newly hired licensed nurses and medication aides will be in serviced during the on boarding process by DON/designee on Medication Administration policy. Licenses nurses and medication aides will vocalize understanding and signed in-service as confirmation of education and competency. The DON/designee will complete a Medication Pass Observation on a competency skill list document during orientation. VP of clinical trained DON on medication administration policy prior to DON in-servicing staff on 7/24/24. g. Starting on 7/25/24 the DON/Designee will complete Medication Pass Observations with the licensed nurses and Medication Aides for four weeks. Random Med Pass Observations will be conducted weekly ongoing thereafter with the licensed nurses and medication aides to ensure the medication administration policy is followed and that residents are receiving their medication as ordered. If discrepancies are identified, the DON and/or ADON will address immediately. 9. How will the system be monitored to ensure compliance? B. DON/Administrator will review the results of the Medication Pass Observations that will be completed for the next four weeks. If discrepancies are identified, they will be addressed immediately, and physician notified. Staff will receive further training on our Medication Administration Policy and disciplinary action up to termination. Quality Assurance An impromptu Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement review of the plan of removal was completed on 7/24/24 with the Medical Director. The Medical Director has reviewed and agrees with this plan of removal. This plan will be monitored monthly during Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement meetings ongoing for any further education identified. The Surveyor monitored the POR as followed: During interviews on 07/28/24 from 11:42 AM - 2:32 PM with one RN, three LVNs, two MAs, and three CNAs from different shifts, all stated they were in-serviced before their shift. All stated they would never check off a MAR if they did not administer the medication. All stated the importance of residents receiving their ordered medications. Review of an in-serviced entitled Medication Administration, dated 07/24/24 and conducted by the VPCS, reflected the DON was reeducated on their Medication Administration policy. Review of in-services entitled Medication Administration, dated 07/24/25 and 07/25/24 and conducted by the DON, reflected nurses and medication aides were reeducated on checking the MAR throughout shift for any medications due and checking the MAR/TAR at the end of the shift for any omissions. Review of the facility's Medication MAR to Card Audit, on 7/26/24, reflected the medication carts (four) had been audited on 07/24/24 and 07/25/24 to match the MAR to the medication cards. Review of Medication Pass Observations, dated 07/24/24 - 07/26/24, reflected nurses and medication aides had to conduct a medication pass check-off. An Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) was identified on 07/24/24 at 4:50 PM. While the IJ was removed on 07/29/24 at 12:15 PM, the facility remained out of compliance at a severity level of no actual harm and at a scope of pattern due to the facility's need to evaluate the effectiveness of the corrective systems.
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

Incontinence Care (Tag F0690)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure that a resident who is incontinent of bladder receives approp...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure that a resident who is incontinent of bladder receives appropriate treatment and services to prevent urinary tract infections to the extent possible for three (Resident #1, Resident #2, and Resident #3) of six residents reviewed for incontinent care. The facility failed to: 1. Change Resident #1's foley catheter after she was diagnosed with a UTI until six days later and failed to ensure the catheter bag was not continuously laying on the ground on 07/24/24. 2. Ensure Resident #2 was provided incontinent care after CNAs E and F removed her dirty brief and put on a clean one. 3. Ensure sanitary infection control practices were used when CNA G provided incontinent care to Resident #3. CNA G also failed to don PPE per EBP protocol as Resident #3 had an indwelling catheter. These failures placed residents at risk of transmission and/or spread of infection or contagious disease which could lead to further infections and hospitalization. Findings included: 1. Review of Resident #1's undated face sheet reflected a [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including stroke, hemiplegia (one-sided paralysis), retention of urine, and type II diabetes. Review of Resident #1's quarterly MDS assessment, dated 06/22/24, reflected a BIMS score of 15, indicating she was cognitively intact. Section H (Bladder and Bowel) reflected she had an indwelling catheter. Review of Resident #1's quarterly care plan, dated 03/26/24, reflected she had the inability to control urination and is incontinent with an intervention of observing/reporting to MD and any s/sx of UTI. Review of Resident #1's physician order, dated 07/21/24, reflected Foley Catheter 18 FR 10cc bulb to bedside drainage. Review of Resident #1's progress notes, dated 06/28/24 and documented by the NP, reflected the following: Family requesting UA due to cloudy urine with sediment , nausea, and vomiting . Resident #1 started antibiotics (Cefdinir) on 07/01/24 for a UTI for seven days. Review of Resident #1's physician order, dated 05/30/24, reflected Change Foley Catheter PRN for s/s of infection, obstruction or if closed system is compromised. Review of Resident #1's TAR, July 2024, reflected her foley catheter was changed on 07/07/24 . Observation on 07/24/24 at 12:15 PM revealed Resident #1's foley drainage bag lying flat on the ground under her bed. Observation on 07/24/24 at 12:50 PM revealed Resident #1's foley drainage bag lying flat on the ground under her bed. Observation on 07/24/24 at 1:52 PM revealed Resident #1's foley drainage bag lying flat on the ground under her bed. Observation on 07/24/24 at 3:06 PM revealed Resident #1's foley drainage bag lying flat on the ground under her bed. During a telephone interview on 07/24/24 at 10:28 AM, Resident #1's RP stated she noticed at the end of June (2024), that Resident #1's catheter bag looked yucky and she requested they check for a UTI. She stated she did end up having a UTI and was treated with antibiotics. She stated on 07/06/24 she noticed it was the same catheter and the tubing was full of sediment. She stated she asked for the nurse to put a fresh one in. She stated the nurse tried to flush the tubing and it was so clogged she was not able to. She stated she told the NP who elevated the concern to the ADON. She stated she was a nurse and knew that if someone tested positive for a UTI the catheter needed to be changed to ensure there was no more bacteria. 2. Review of Resident #2's undated face sheet reflected a [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including type II diabetes, chronic kidney disease, age-related physical debility, and morbid obesity. Review of Resident #2's quarterly MDS assessment, dated 06/27/24, reflected a BIMS score of 7, indicating a severe cognitive impairment. Section GG (Functional Abilities and Goals) reflected she was dependent on staff with toileting. Section H (Bladder and Bowel) reflected she was always incontinent of bladder and bowel. Review of Resident #2's quarterly care plan, dated 07/10/24, reflected she was incontinent of bowel and bladder with an intervention of providing prompt incontinent care. Review of video footage of Resident #2, dated 07/18/24 and provided by Resident #2's FM C, revealed CNAs E and F in Resident #2's room about to provide incontinent care. CNAs E and F were both wearing gloves that were not changed during the duration of the footage. CNA E opened the brief then they rolled Resident #2 on her left side and removed the brief and placed it on the floor. Without utilizing wipes or providing any incontinent care, a clean brief was placed on Resident #2. CNA F picked up the dirty brief and bed pad off the floor and used her dirty gloves to open the blinds before leaving the room. CNA E used her dirty gloves to pull Resident #2's blankets up and on top of her. 3. Review of Resident #3's undated face sheet reflected a [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including acute kidney failure, type II Diabetes, lumbago (lower back pain), and muscle weakness. Review of Resident #3's admission MDS assessment, dated 07/04/24, reflected a BIMS score of 13, indicating a intact cognition. Section GG (Functional Abilities and Goals) reflected she required substantial/maximal assistance with toileting. Section H (Bowel and Bladder) reflected she had an indwelling catheter. Review of Resident #3's admission care plan, dated 07/02/24, reflected no focus areas related to her catheter or ADL assistance. Review of Resident #3's physician order, dated 07/02/24, reflected Foley catheter care Q shift and PRN. During an observation on 07/24/24 at 11:59 AM revealed CNA G performing peri and catheter care on Resident #3. There was not a sign on the door indicating any EBP precautions were required nor was there a PPE cart near the doorway. CNA G told Resident #3 what she was going to do, then went to the bathroom and washed her hands, and donned gloves. She did not don a gown or mask per EBP precautions. She removed the front of the brief which revealed an indwelling catheter was present. CNA G removed one wipe from the package and swiped three areas at the front of the perineum with the same wipe and then threw it away. She grabbed another wipe from the package and swiped the labia twice with the same wipe and threw it away. She then picked up a trash can and placed it closer to her work area. Without changing gloves or performing hand hygiene, she took a wipe from the package and cleaned the indwelling catheter. CNA G repositioned Resident #13 on her right side, removed the soiled brief, and placed it in the trash can. She took a wipe from the package, swiped between the buttocks then folded the stool-soiled wipe and swiped again. She then took two wipes from the package, swiped, folded, and swiped between the buttocks again. She then removed another wipe from the package, swiped between the buttocks, folded the wipe, swiped between the buttocks, then folded the wipe again and swiped a third time. She then doffed soiled gloves, performed hand hygiene, and applied a clean brief. During an interview on 07/24/24 at 12:05 PM, CNA G stated she had recently been in-serviced on infection control. CNA G stated they used EBP for residents with feeding tubes or IV's but not for catheters. She stated if a resident was on precautions, there should be a PPE cart near the door. She stated when she was trained on peri care, they used wash clothes instead of disposable wipes. She stated she figured it was okay to use a couple of wipes at a time so it was thicker (like a washcloth) and then she could fold the wipe and use it more than once. She stated she had never heard of one wipe, one swipe when in-serviced on peri care. During an interview on 07/24/24 at 12:15 PM, the PA stated when performing incontinent care, he expected for the peri area to be cleaned thoroughly. He stated if it was not, it could lead to skin and yeast infections. He stated when going from dirty to clean during peri care changing gloves was best practice . He stated any infection control issues during peri care could increase UTI's. He stated when a resident tested positive for a UTI, the foley catheter should be changed to prevent the reoccurrence of a UTI. During an interview on 07/24/24 at 2:23 PM, the ADON stated a resident should be on EBP precautions (with a sign on their door) when they had a foley catheter, g-tube, or IV. She stated when performing care, staff should be donning a gown, mask, and gloves. She stated a negative outcome of not donning PPE would be the risk of infection and the staff needed to protect themselves as much as they were protecting the residents. She stated the same wipe should never be used more than once during peri care to prevent infection. During an interview on 07/24/24 at 4:23 PM, she DON stated residents with catheters, g-tubes, or IVs should be on EBP when providing care and staff should be donning the proper PPE for infection control. She stated a resident's catheter should only be changed after being diagnosed with a UTI if there was sediment present or if the urine was cloudy. During a telephone interview on 07/29/24 at 11:58 AM, the NP stated if a resident tested positive for a UTI, the catheter must be changed because the bacteria that caused the UTI would still be in there. She stated she was not aware she needed to write an order for that as it was normally facility protocol. She stated a catheter bag should never be left on the ground to prevent contamination or infection. She stated appropriate infection control procedures were important during peri care as it was an easy way to spread infection. She stated it would be unacceptable to use a wipe to swipe more than one time during peri care and would assume staff would be changing clothes gloves between going from dirty to clean. Review of the facility's Infection Control Policy, revised July of 2014, reflected the following: This facility's infection control policies and practices are intended to facilitate maintaining a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent and manage transmission of diseases and infections. Review of the facility's Catheter Care Policy, Revised April of 2010, reflected the following: .b. Be sure the catheter tubing and drainage bag are kept off the floor. .Changing Catheters 1. Changing indwelling catheters: It's recommended to change indwelling catheters and bedside drainage bags as needed for clinical indications such as infection, obstruction, or when closed system is compromised. Review of the facility's Perineal Care Policy, revised December 2011, reflected the following: The purposes of this procedure are to provide cleanliness and comfort to the resident, to prevent infections and skin irritation, and to observe the resident's skin condition. Steps in the Procedure: . Do not reuse the same disposable wipe/washcloth or water to clean the urethra or labia. Review of the facility's Enhanced Barrier Precautions Policy, dated 04/01/24, reflected the following: This policy outlines the guidelines and procedures to implement enhanced barrier precautions to prevent the spread of infectious diseases among residents and staff. 'Enhanced Barrier Precautions' (EBP) refers to an infection control intervention designed to reduce transmission of multi-drug resistant organisms that employs targeted gown and glove use during high contact resident care activities. EBP are used in conjunction with standard precautions and expand the use of PPE to donning of gown and gloves during high-contact resident care activities that provide opportunities for transfer MDRO's to staff hands and clothing. EBP are indicated for residents with any of the following: Wounds and/or indwelling medical devices even if the resident is not known to be infected or colonized with a MDRO.
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

Laboratory Services (Tag F0770)

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 obtain laboratory services to meet the needs of its re...

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 obtain laboratory services to meet the needs of its residents for one (Resident #2) of five residents reviewed for laboratory services. The facility failed to collect a urine specimen for a UA (urine analysis) for Resident #2 as ordered by the physician on 07/19/24 until 07/24/24 because they were out of UA specimen collection cups. Resident #2 was diagnosed with a UTI on 07/28/24 which required antibiotics for seven days. This failure could place residents with indwelling urinary catheters at risk of infection, renal failure, urinary tract infections, and pain. Findings Included: Review of Resident #2's undated face sheet reflected a [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including type II diabetes, chronic kidney disease, age-related physical debility, and morbid obesity. Review of Resident #2's quarterly MDS assessment, dated 06/27/24, reflected a BIMS of 7, indicating a severe cognitive impairment. Section H (Bladder and Bowel) reflected she was always incontinent of bladder. Review of Resident #2's quarterly care plan, dated 07/10/24, reflected she was incontinent of bowel and bladder with an intervention of providing prompt incontinent care. Review of Resident #2's physician order , dated 07/19/24, reflected a STAT UA. Review of Resident #2's physician order, dated 07/22/24, reflected a UA and C&S for UTI. Review of Resident #2's physician order, dated 07/24/24, reflected a UA and C&S for UTI. Review of Resident #2's MAR, July 2024, reflected a urine sample had not been collected for a UA until 07/24/24. Review of Resident #2's physician order, dated 07/28/24, reflected Ciprofloxacin HCl Tablet - 500 MG - Give 1 tablet by mouth every 12 hours for UTI for 7 days. During an interview on 07/24/24 at 12:15 PM, Resident #2's PA stated he saw the residents once a week while the NP saw them the rest of the week. He stated he had not known a UA was ordered for Resident #1 nor that the facility staff had not collected a urine sample. He stated his expectations were if a UA was ordered by either him or the NP that a urine sample be collected the same day for testing. He stated symptoms of a UTI could exacerbate if not caught and treated in an appropriate timeframe. During an interview on 07/24/24 at 2:00 PM, the DON stated they had not received the results of Resident #2's UA from 7/19/24 yet. She then stated Resident #2 was incontinent and the staffthey tried to utilize an in-and-out catheter but there had been no specimen to collect because she had already been incontinent. She stated that was why another order had been written. During an observation and interview on 07/24/24 at 2:05 PM, revealed Resident #2 in her room with FM C and FM D eating food they had brought in for her. FM C stated Resident #2's increased confusion had gotten worse the week prior and that was when she started asking for a UA because something had changed. FM C stated she visited Resident #2 over the weekend (07/20/24 - 07/21/24) and asked staff multiple times about getting the specimen and kept being told, Someone is coming to get it but no one ever came. During an interview on 07/24/24 at 2:32 PM, the ADON stated a UA was ordered for Resident #2 on 07/19/24 due to increased confusion. She stated she did not find out until earlier that week (07/22/24 ) that they were out of UA specimen collection cups and that was why it had not been collected over the weekend. She stated no one told her they were out over the weekend. She stated she then started calling around looking for some. She stated her expectation was that a urine specimen be collected the same day it was ordered. She stated if a resident was symptomatic for a UTI it could lead to a bad infection. During an observation and interview on 07/24/24 at 3:00 PM, revealed the cabinet where the UA specimen cups were stored was empty. The ADON confirmed that was where the cups were normally stored but they were out. The DON joined the conversation and stated they were not out of specimen cups. The ADON stated they had been out for several days but had recently been informed some had been delivered. During a telephone interview on 07/29/24 at 11:58 AM, Resident #2's NP stated she ordered the STAT UA on 07/19/24 due to Resident #2's increased confusion and altered mental status. She stated she was not aware the specimen was not collected until today as she was on vacation last week. She stated it was her expectation that a sample be collected and sent to the lab no longer than six hours after the order is made. She stated going five days without collecting the specimen for testing after being ordered was unacceptable. Review of the facility's Lab and Diagnostic Test Results Policy, revised April 2007, reflected the following: 1. The physician will identify and order diagnostic and lab testing based on diagnostic and monitoring needs. 2. The staff will process test requisitions and arrange for tests.
Jul 2024 2 deficiencies 1 Harm
SERIOUS (H) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

A resident was harmed · This affected multiple residents

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that residents received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the residents' choices for one (Resident #1) of four residents reviewed for quality of care, in that: The facility failed: - To obtain orders for wound care after Resident #1 was found to have several round red areas to his upper bilateral buttocks on 06/30/24. On 07/03/24, one of the areas had opened, measuring 12 mm x 12 mm, causing him pain and a burning sensation for several days. - Ensure the new skin issue, identified 06/30/2024, the wound care nurse was not informed until 07/02/2024, and failure to obtain MD orders for treatment until 07/03/2024 These failures placed residents at risk of improper wound management, the development of new pressure injuries, deterioration in existing pressure injuries, infection, and pain. Findings included: Review of Resident #1's undated face sheet reflected a [AGE] year-old male who was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including cerebral palsy (group of movement disorders that appear in early childhood), fusion of spine, contractures of left and right knee, muscle weakness, and quadriplegia (paralysis of all four limbs). Review of Resident #1's quarterly MDS assessment, dated 04/30/24, reflected a BIMS of 15, indicating he had no cognitive impairment. Section M (Skin Conditions) reflected he was at risk of developing pressure ulcers/injuries . Review of Resident #1's quarterly care plan, dated 05/08/24, reflected he had impairment to skin integrity related to fragile skin with an intervention of administering treatment as ordered. Review of Resident #1's Weekly Skin Review, dated 06/30/24, reflected the following: [Resident #1] has several round areas to upper bilateral buttocks, one with small amount of depth, no bleeding noted. Possible pressure injury and needs assessment by wound care . very high upon buttocks, nearly to lower back, each is circular. Review of Resident #1's progress notes, dated 07/01/24 and documented by LVN A, reflected the following: [MA B] came to let me know that she changed [Resident #1]'s brief and that he has redness, possible sores on his bottom, I said yes, the day nurse told me, she had already placed barrier cream on. Will have wound care nurse f/u, he currently does not have any wound care order. Will continue barrier cream for now. Review of Resident #1's progress notes, dated 07/02/24 and documented by LVN C, reflected the following : Advised wound care nurse of areas to L (butt) cheek. Review of Resident #1's progress notes, dated 07/03/24 and documented by LVN D, reflected the following: Cleaned area on left upper buttocks with NS and applied foam dressing. Review of Resident #1's Weekly Skin Review, dated 07/03/24, reflected the following : Left buttock - round red area, blanches upon touch, measures 11 mm x 10 mm; Left buttock - round red area, blanches upon touch, measures 8 mm x 9 mm; Left buttock - 12 mm x 12 mm open red area Review of Resident #1's physician order, dated 07/03/24, reflected treatment to left upper buttock open area: Clean with NS, pat dry, apply collagenase powder and cover with bordered foam dressing two times a day. During an interview on 07/03/24 at 10:10 AM, Resident #1 stated he had redness/burning to his backside for several days. He stated he had not recently been seen by the wound care nurse. He stated he did not know how often they were supposed to be applying cream/treating his backside but it was obviously not enough since it was still there, burning, and causing him pain. During a telephone interview on 07/03/24 at 2:30 PM, LVN A stated MA B informed her about the red areas to Resident #1's buttocks on 06/30/24. She stated she assessed the areas and they were not too major at that point. She stated she applied barrier cream to the area and documented it on her shift report for the oncoming nurse. She stated she worked on 07/01/24 and noted blanchable areas and one of the red spots had a top layer that was gone and it had started to open. She stated she placed a note on her shift report to have the WCN follow up and write orders for treatment. During a telephone interview on 07/03/24 at 2:46 PM, MA B stated she informed LVN A on 06/30/24 about the redness to Resident #1's buttocks. She stated there were at least three small circles that were red and she felt as though they were infected and needed treatment. She stated she was told by LVN A just to apply barrier cream to the areas. During a telephone interview on 07/03/24 at 2:53 PM, LVN C stated she notified the WCN on 07/02/24 about the red areas to Resident #1's buttocks but did not hear back or receive any orders . On 07/03/24 multiple attempts were made to contact the WCN. A returned call was not received prior to exiting. During an interview on 07/03/24 at 3:10 PM, the DON stated her expectations was that any skin integrity issues were documented by the nurses either in the residents' progress notes or by completing a skin assessment. She stated they should notify the WCN and get orders that same day, especially if there was an open area or a pressure injury. She stated LVN D informed her early that morning that it looked like an area to Resident #1's buttocks was opening. She stated the WCN has yet to assess him, but LVN D put in standard wound treatment orders until the WCN could assess him. She stated the nurse that initially identified the open area on Resident #1 should have notified the WCN or doctor. She stated it was not acceptable to just leave it in their shift reports and it did not meet her expectations. She stated areas could become infected or could worsen if treatment orders were not implemented right away . Review of the facility's undated Skin Management Policy, reflected the following: . New Skin Condition: The charge nurse will communicate findings to the RP and MD and obtain an order for treatment/dressing changes.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections, for one (Resident #2) of two residents observed for infection control practices. The facility failed to ensure staff (CNA E and CNA F) followed infection control practices while performing peri care on Resident #1. This failure placed residents at risk for cross contamination and the spread of infection. Findings included: Review of Resident #2's undated face sheet reflected a [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including stroke, unspecified dementia, age-related osteoporosis (a condition when bone strength weakens and is susceptible to fracture), multiple fractures, and a history of urinary tract infections. Review of Resident #2's quarterly MDS assessment, dated 04/09/24, reflected a BIMS of 00, indicating a severe cognitive impairment. Section GG (Functional Abilities and Goals) reflected she was independent for toileting hygiene. Section H (Bladder and Bowel) reflected she was always incontinent of bladder and bowel. Review of Resident #2's quarterly care plan, dated 05/19/24, reflected she had an ADL self-care performance deficit related to weakness and debility with an intervention of requiring 1-2 staff members for assistance with toileting. Observation on 07/03/24 at 1:56 PM, revealed CNA E entering Resident #2's room, pulling gloves out of her pocket, and donned them without washing her hands. CNA F entered the room, washed her hands and donned her gloves. CNA E pulled three wipes from the package and layered them, cleaned Resident #2's left groin, flipped the wipes and cleaned the right groin, and threw the wipes in the trash. She then pulled two wipes from the package and wiped the vaginal area from front to back then threw the wipes away. Resident #2 was turned on her right side with assistance from CNA F and CNA E pulled two wipes from the package and wiped the buttocks, folded the wipes and used them again to wipe the buttocks. The dirty brief was removed by CNA E from behind the resident and a new brief was placed under the resident (without hand hygiene or gloves changed). Resident #2 was rolled onto her back and her brief was secured. CNA E covered Resident #1, picked up oxygen tubing and call light to untangle them while still wearing the soiled gloves She attached the call light to the bed and stated she was going to wash her hands. During an interview on 07/03/24 at 3:10 PM, the DON stated her expectations during peri care were that the staff utilize hand sanitizer or soap and water before donning gloves. She stated they should then remove the dirty brief and don a new pair of gloves. She stated a wipe should never be used more than once; you should wipe once and throw it away before getting a new wipe. She stated when going from dirty to clean, gloves should be changed in between. She stated not changing gloves before going from dirty to clean or utilizing the same wipe more than once would cause opportunities to spread infection . During an interview on 07/03/24 at 3:19 PM, CNA E stated she knew she messed up during peri care with Resident #1. She stated she should not have folded the wipes to reuse them and should have changed gloves in between going from dirty to clean. She stated she knew the policy and procedure said to change gloves from dirty to clean and to utilize hand sanitizer. She stated not changing gloves and reusing wipes while cleaning a resident could lead to infection. Review of a facility in-serviced entitled Peri Care, dated 06/12/24, reflected the aides were reeducated on their Perineal Care Policy. Review of the facility's Perineal Care Policy, revised December 2011, reflected the following: The purposes of this procedure are to provide cleanliness and comfort to the resident, to prevent infections and skin irritation, and to observe the resident's skin condition. Steps in the Procedure: . 2. Wash and dry your hands thoroughly. . Do not reuse the same disposable wipe/washcloth or water to clean the urethra or labia. . 11. Discard disposable items into designated containers. 12. Remove gloves and discard into designated container. Wash and dry your hands thoroughly. 13. Put on clean gloves and place new brief and secure in place.
May 2024 1 deficiency 1 IJ
CRITICAL (J) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that residents who needed respiratory care received such care consistent with professional standards of practice for 2 of 6 residents (Residents #1 and Resident #2) reviewed for respiratory care. 1. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1 received weekly filter cleanings for her BiPAP machine (A BiPAP Machine is a respiratory machine used to provide positive airway pressure through a mask, worn while sleeping, to provide airway pressure during inhalation and exhalation to keep the user's throat open from collapsing.). 2. The facility failed to ensure Resident #2 received weekly filter cleanings for her CPAP machine (A CPAP Machine was a respiratory machine used to provide positive airway pressure through a mask, worn while sleeping, to provide airway pressure during inhalation and exhalation to keep the user's throat open from collapsing.) An IJ was identified on 5/9/2024. The IJ Template was provided to the facility on 5/9/2024 at 6:01 PM. While the IJ was removed on 5/10/2024, the facility remained out of compliance at a scope of no actual harm with potential for more than minimal harm and a severity level of isolated because all staff had not been trained on the POR. This placed residents receiving BiPAP/CPAP therapy at risk for infection and exacerbation of respiratory distress. Findings included: 1. Record review of Resident #1's Quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], indicated the resident was a [AGE] year-old female that admitted to the facility on [DATE]. She was diagnosed with both Acute, and Chronic, Respiratory failure with hypoxia (which was a life-threatening condition where the lungs could not provide enough oxygen to the body) and Obstructive Sleep Apnea (which was a medical condition marked by throat muscles having relaxed and having blocked the person's airway while sleeping.) Section C., Cognitive Patterns: Resident #1 had a BIMS Score of 14. A BIMS Score of 14 indicated the resident did not have cognitive impairment. Resident # 1 was not coded as a having a BiPAP. Record review of Resident #1's CP reflected a [Focus] area, revised 3/18/2024, evidenced by the resident having utilized a BiPAP Machine and was high-risk for infection and aspiration. The [Goal,] revised on 3/18/2024, indicated the resident would not show signs of infection. An intervention for nursing staff, initiated on 6/15/2023, indicated nursing staff was to wake resident to make sure the BiPAP was on. An [Intervention] for nursing staff, initiated on 5/31/2023, indicated staff was to ensure the BiPAP Machine was at the correct settings, per order. Record review of Resident #1's Order Summary Report, dated 5/9/2024, indicated an order, made 12/23/2023, to change BiPAP tubing every 3 months. Record review of Resident #1's vital signs in PCC at the facility, dated 3/4/2024, indicated Resident #1's O2 saturations (the amount of oxygen in her blood) was 82%. Record review of Resident #1's hospital records indicated Resident #1 admitted to the hospital, on 3/4/2024 to 3/14/2024, for Acute/Chronic hypoxic (low levels of oxygen) hypercapnic (elevated carbon dioxide) respiratory failure. Resident was admitted to the ICU and was intubated (a tube placed through the resident's airway to breathe.) She was extubated (removal of the tube placed in resident's airway) on 3/5/2024 and discharged to a regular hospital bed on 3/6/2024. The resident received her BiPAP machine, from the nursing facility, and the machine had performed well. Resident was diagnosed with pneumonia (which was an infection in the lungs caused by bacteria, viruses, or fungi) on 3/7/2024. The hospital summary stated the resident's responsible parties [alleged the nursing facility had not been successful in the correct placement of the resident's BiPAP mask.] Record review of Resident #1's Order Summary indicated an order, revised on 3/18/2024 to start 3/24/2024, to clean BiPAP mask, tubing, filter, and water canister weekly every night shift on Sunday. An order, revised on 3/18/2024 to start on 3/24/2024, indicated the residents BiPAP machine settings were supposed to be 15 IPAP and 4 EPAP. (These setting controlled positive airway pressure for inhaling and exhaling, respectfully.) Record review of Resident #1's treatment record, March 2024, indicated her BiPAP mask, tubing, filter, and water were changed/cleaned on 3/24/2024 (documented complete by LVN A.) Record review of Resident #1's hospital records indicated Resident #1 admitted to the hospital, on 3/27/2024 to 3/30/2024, for Acute/Chronic hypoxic (low levels of oxygen) hypercapnic (elevated carbon dioxide) respiratory failure. Resident expressed SOB. Her O2 saturations (the amount of oxygen in her blood) was 89 %. Resident was intubated on 3/27/2024 in the emergency room. Record review of Resident #1's treatment record, March 2024, indicated her BiPAP mask, tubing, filter, and water were changed/cleaned on 3/31/2024 (documented by LVN E). Record review of Resident #1's hospital records indicated Resident #1 admitted to the hospital, on 4/6/2024 to 4/16/2024, for Acute/Chronic hypoxic (low levels of oxygen) hypercapnic (elevated carbon dioxide) respiratory failure. Resident expressed SOB. Her O2 saturations were 78 % on the way to the hospital. Having arrived, her O2 saturations were 49%. She was noted to be cyanotic (blue or purplish skin due to deficient levels of oxygen in the blood) at the face, lips, and ears. Resident was intubated for concern for severe hypercapnia (elevated carbon dioxide.) The hospital summary indicated the resident had active bilateral pneumonia. Record review of Resident #1's treatment record, April 2024, indicated her BiPAP mask, tubing, filter, and water were changed/cleaned on 4/7/2024 (documented by LVN A,) 4/14/2024 (documented by LVN E,) 4/21/2024 (documented by LVN F,) and 4/28/2024 (documented by LVN G.) Record review of Resident #1's treatment record, May 2024, indicated her BiPAP mask, tubing, filter, and water were changed/cleaned on 5/5/2024 (documented by LVN E.) Interview and observations on 5/9/2024 at 9:30 AM with Resident #1 revealed her in bed, the back of the bed was elevated at a 45-degree angle, and she had continuous oxygen via nasal canula (oxygen delivery through a tube inserted in each nostril.) Resident # 1 stated she had been to the hospital 3 times in the last 3 months due to respiratory distress. She stated the reason for the hospitalizations was due to inconsistent use of her BiPAP mask; and that staff had not made sure she was wearing it like she should. She went to the hospital on 3/4/2024 due to low oxygen levels, while there, an RP brought her BiPAP machine from the nursing facility to the hospital. The hospital staff changed the settings and utilized the resident utilized the BiPAP machine while there. She stated she had to go to the hospital two more times due to similar instances of respiratory distress. She denied having seen nursing staff clean her BiPAP Machine or change the filter. She did not know how to check the settings on the machine, and she was not sure who to ask to make sure the settings were correct. The filter for her BiPAP Machine, which was a small rectangular mesh cloth, was designed to fit in a small rectangular compartment on the back side of the machine. The filter was designed to clean room air going into the machine used to produce the proper air pressure flow. The filter was black with discoloration. The settings on the BIPAP were 16 IPAP (Inhale) and 8 EPAP (Exhale.) She did not have any filters, masks, or tubing in her room or in her possession. Phone interview on 5/9/2024 at 11:00 AM with the facility's MD revealed Resident #1 had been to the hospital on 3 separate occasions since 3/4/2024. Her diagnoses were Pneumonia, Congestive Heart Failure (which was a long-term condition that happened when the heart could not pump blood well enough to give your body a normal supply,) and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD, which was a respiratory condition characterized by persistent breathlessness and cough.). The MD stated dirty BiPAP filters were most likely not the sole reason that was causing Resident #1's exacerbated shortness of breath and respiratory distress, but more than likely a contributor. Interview on 5/9/2024 at 12:10 PM with MSMR revealed that any replacement materials for Resident #1's BiPAP machine would come from the local BiPAP/CPAP machine company. She stated she did not have any masks, tubing, or filters on hand. She stated she had not ordered any filters. The company did come to the facility to size Resident #1 for the right mask size, but the topic of filters never came up. The facility did not have any supplies for Resident #1's BiPAP Machine on hand. Interview and observation on 5/9/2024 at 12:35 PM with the ADON in Resident #1's room revealed the BiPAP Machine filter was very dirty and did not appear to have been changed weekly. The IPAP 16 (Inhale) and EPAP 8 (Exhale) were not congruent with the orders listed in PCC. The ADON stated the orders to clean BiPAP mask, tubing, filter, and water canister weekly every night shift on Sunday were located on the treatment record but was unable to verbalize the location of the replacement filters. The ADON stated the new filters should have been requested through MSMR in medical supply. 2. Record reviews of Resident #2's Quarterly MDS, dated [DATE] indicated the resident was a [AGE] year-old female that admitted to the facility on [DATE]. She was diagnosed with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) (which was a respiratory condition characterized by persistent breathlessness and cough,) and Obstructive Sleep Apnea (which was a medical condition marked by throat muscles having relaxed and having blocked the person's airway.) Section C., Cognitive Patterns: Resident #2 had a BIMS Score of 14. A BIMS Score of 14 indicated the resident did not have cognitive impairment. Resident #2 was not coded as wearing a CPAP. Record review of Resident #2's CP reflected a [Focus] area, revised 12/14/2023, evidenced by having been at risk for ineffective airway clearance D/T COPD and Sleep Apnea. The [Goal,] revised on 12/12/2023, indicated the resident would display normal breathing. An intervention for nursing staff, initiated on 12/14/2023, indicated staff was supposed to maintain CPAP per orders. Record review of Resident #2's May 2024 treatment record, under the heading of [Schedule for May 2024,] Resident #2 was ordered to have her mask cleaned, tubing cleaned, filter cleaned, and water chamber weekly. The start date of the scheduled treatment began on 12/17/2023. Record review or Resident #2's treatment record, dated March 2024, indicated her CPAP mask, tubing, filter, and water chamber was cleaned on 3/3/2024 (documented by LVN H,) 3/10/2024 (documented by LVN I,) 3/17/2024 (documented by LVN H,) 3/24/2024 (documented by LVN I,) and 3/31/2024 (documented by LVN H.) Record review or Resident #2's treatment record, dated April 2024, indicated her CPAP mask, tubing, filter, and water chamber was cleaned on 4/7/2024 (documented by LVN I,) 4/14/2024 (documented by LVN J,) 4/21/2024 (documented by LVN I,) and 4/28/2024 (documented by LVN H.) Record review or Resident #2's treatment record, dated May 2024, indicated her CPAP mask, tubing, filter, and water chamber was cleaned on 5/5/2024 (documented by LVN I.) Interview and observation on 5/9/2024 at 3:34 PM with Resident #2 revealed her lying in her bed watching television. She stated she utilized a CPAP machine daily and pointed to it on a table next to her bed. The filter for her CPAP Machine, which was supposed to be a small rectangular mesh cloth, was designed to fit in a small rectangular compartment on the back side of the machine. The filter was designed to clean room air going into the machine used to produce the proper positive airway pressure flow. When the compartment was opened, there was not a filter in the required location. Resident #2 stated she had not observed staff having cleaned her CPAP machine or having changed the filter weekly. Resident #2 denied any exacerbation of her COPD or problems with the sleep apnea. Record review of the facility's BIPAP/CPAP policy, dated April 2010, indicated BiPAP/CPAP were used to provide the spontaneously breathing resident with continuous positive airway pressure, with or without supplemented oxygen. To improve arterial oxidization in residents with respiratory insufficiencies, obstructive sleep apneas, and restrictive/obstructive lung diseases. The purpose is to promote resident comfort and safety. Review the physician's order to determine the oxygen concentration and flow, and the pressure, such as CPAP, IPAP, and EPAP. The policy indicated filters were required for BIPAP/CPAP supply. Record review on 5/20/2024 of URL: Sleepfoundation.org; BiPAP/ CPAP machines were both forms of positive airway pressure therapy, which used compressed air to open and support the upper airway during sleep. A portable machine generated the pressurized air and directed it to the user's airway via a hose and mask system. Both systems used similar masks, hoses, and other accessories. The machines were humid and often warm, having made them the perfect home for mold, bacteria, viruses, and other harmful microbes. Having cleaned your machine components regularly washed these microbes away and prevented them from reaching dangerous levels, but having neglected your machine's hygiene could have led to both acute and chronic respiratory illnesses. Record review on 5/20/2024 of URL: National Library of Medicine, Pulse Oximetry-Stat Pearls (on-line school for physicians) - NCBI Bookshelf (nih.gov), the normal oxygen levels displayed on a pulse oximeter (a tool to measure the oxygen in the blood) were commonly supposed to range from 95% to 100%. Oxygen saturation was an essential element of patient care. Oxygen was tightly regulated within the body because hypoxemia (low levels of oxygen) could have led to many acute adverse effects on individual organ systems. These included the brain, heart, and kidneys. Interview on 5/9/2024 at 6:01 PM with the ADM revealed that Resident #1 and Resident #2 had not been receiving respiratory care per physician orders. Neither Resident #1, nor Resident #2, had been receiving BiPAP or CPAP care per physician orders. The facility did not possess replacement filters for either CPAP or BiPAP equipment, but the nursing staff was checking off treatments on the nurse's treatment record for Resident #1 and Resident #2, having indicated they had been changed/cleaned. Resident #1 had been hospitalized on [DATE] for respiratory distress, 3/27/2024 for respiratory distress, and 4/6/2024 for respiratory distress. All of which, a contributing factor could have been the result of dirty respiratory care equipment. It was determined that criteria had been met to initiate an IJ. The IJ was called and the administer was presented with the IJ template at 6:01 PM. The following POR by the facility was accepted on 5/10/2024 at 1:14 PM. The notification of IJ states as follows: Statement of deficient practice: F695: The facility failed to ensure its BiPAP/CPAP users received respiratory care in accordance with highest professional standards which placed Resident #1 at risk of exacerbation of her SOB, having resulted in Acute/Chronic hypoxic (low levels of oxygen) hypercapnic (elevated carbon dioxide) respiratory failure. Impact Statement: On 5/09/24 an abbreviated survey was initiated on 5/09/24 the facility was provided notification that the Survey Agency has determined that the conditions at the center constitute Immediate Jeopardy to resident health due to a significant medication error. 1. How were other residents at risk affected by this deficient practice identified? The facility Administrator, DON/Designee completed an audit of all Residents with BiPAP/CPAP orders ordered in the last 30 days to ensure the residents have not had an adverse effect from their normal baseline 5/09/24. Residents with BiPAP/CPAP orders have the potential to be affected by this deficient practice, 2 of the residents who were identified as having BiPAP/CPAP orders were not affected. 2. What corrective actions have been implemented for the identified resident? Resident #1's BiPAP settings were adjusted by the BiPAP/CPAP company technician, to meet physician orders, BiPAP machine filter was cleaned by facility ADON, along with the tubing. Resident #1 is currently in the facility and stable condition as of 5/9/24. On 5/9/24, replacement filters were obtained from facility DME company by central supply clerk, who will also monitor inventory of filters weekly to ensure facility has adequate stock. Regional [NAME] President in-serviced Administrator and DON/Designee on the identification of new BiPAP orders and verification of settings, as well as the proper cleaning methods and frequency of cleaning of BiPAP equipment on 5/9/24. On 5/9/24, Administrator, DON/Designee in-serviced the licensed nursing staff on the identification of new BiPAP orders and verification of settings, as well as the proper cleaning methods and frequency of cleaning of BiPAP equipment. What corrective actions were taken? 3. The following actions were initiated immediately on 5/09/2024. a. Nursing management was educated on 5/09/2024 by the Administrator, on identifying and reviewing all new orders for BiPAP/CPAP machines, during daily clinical meeting, to ensure BiPAP orders are followed per physician orders. b. Initiated in-services on 5/09/24 with licensed nurses, by Administrator, on proper cleaning methods of BiPAP equipment (masks, hoses, filters) and frequency of weekly filter changes, both to be completed by licensed nurses. c. Newly hired licensed nurses will be in serviced during the onboarding process by DON on identifying and reviewing all new orders to ensure BiPAP settings are being followed and set appropriately on BiPAP equipment. d. PRN and Agency nurses will be in-serviced by DON/Designee, prior to working designated shifts, on identifying and reviewing all new orders to ensure BiPAP settings are being followed and filters are being cleaned weekly. 4. How will the system be monitored to ensure compliance? a. DON/Designee Will review the Order List Report for newly received orders and compare it to resident new BiPAP orders daily for 4 weeks. If discrepancies are identified, we will notify the physician immediately for clarification, Quality Assurance An impromptu Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement review (quick meeting) of the plan of removal was completed on 5/09/24 with the Medical Director. The Medical Director has reviewed and agrees with this plan of removal. This plan will be monitored monthly during Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement meetings ongoing for any further education identified. Monitoring began 5/10/2024 at 1:14 PM. Interview on 5/10/2024 at 1:50 PM with LVN B revealed nursing staff was made aware of BiPAP/CPAP orders when new residents come to the facility with their orders, or they have had a sleep study while a resident. New orders were under the orders tab in PCC. Settings were found on the machine and staff needed to confirm they match the orders. Tubing and masks get cleaned every week by taking the masks apart and rinsing it. Tubing and masks get cleaned one time a week: the filter and water container 1 x week. The facility has the equipment they needed to maintain the machines. LVN B attended an in-service on 5/10/2024 given by the ADON. Interview on 5/10/2024 at 2:05 PM with LVN C revealed the nursing staff was made aware of new BiPAP/CPAP orders through PCC or paper orders. New orders in PCC would be highlighted in red. The machine had buttons for setting and those settings were supposed to match those on the orders. Nursing staff checked orders for treatments each week. Nursing staff cleaned the mask with soap and water each week and let air dry. Cleaning consisted of having disconnected the tubing from them machine and having washed it with warm soapy water weekly. The filter was rinsed and placed between two paper towels to dry. Wet filters did not go back into the machine, which would be bad. LVN C attended an in-service today, 5/10/2024 for BiPAP/CPAP care by the ADON. Day shift started cleaning the BiPAP/CPAP during the day on Tuesday. Interview on 5/10/2024 at 2:15PM with LVN D revealed nursing staff was made aware of BiPAP/CPAP orders when a resident arrived from the hospital, admitted , if ordered by the medical director, or ordered by the nurse practitioner. New orders were found in PCC; PCC to be checked daily for new orders. The settings for the BiPAP/CPAP machine were found on the machine and the settings needed to match what was in the orders. Masks were supposed to be cleaned each week with soap and water. The tubing was supposed to be rest with water each week and the filter was rinsed with water each week. The mask and the tubing were supposed to be exchanged once a month. LVN D attended an in-service earlier this week on BiPAP/CPAP care. The DON provided the training. Interview on 5/10/2024 at 2:25 PM with the RN revealed new BiPAP/CPAP orders would show up on the administration record, under new orders, or pop up under the To Do List. The settings on the BiPAP/CPAP were accessible from the machine itself. Those numbers had to match what was on the orders. Every week, nursing staff was supposed to clean the mask, the tubing, and the filter. All items needed to be air dried. The RN stated she attended an in-service today, 5/10/2024, presented by the ADON. Interview on 5/10/2024 at 2:40 PM with the ADON revealed all new BiPAP/CPAP orders were supposed to be listed on the 24-hour report, which was a report having pertained residents' medical changes. New BiPAP/CPAP users also could have had orders when they returned from the hospital or having had seen the doctor. Those new orders were listed in PCC. New orders needed confirmation, so they needed follow up. BiPAP/CPAP settings were found on the machine. New admissions were asked for paperwork regarding their BiPAP/CPAP settings. The settings on the machine needed to match those on the orders. The hoses, the mask, in the filters needed to be cleaned with soap and water weekly; and air dried as much as possible. The ADON was briefed on the BiPAP/CPAP policies by the DON; The ADON in-serviced the staff. Interview on 5/10/2024 at 2:55 PM with the DON revealed new BiPAP/CPAP orders were found on the 24-hour report, put into PCC, and flagged for confirmation and items needed to be completed while on shift. The machine settings were found on the machine itself, and those settings needed to match those that were in the order. Once a week, she cleaned the mask with soap and water. The filters were rinsed with water weekly also and patted dry before having placed them back in the machine. The DON attended an in-service for BiPAP/CPAP yesterday, 5/9/2024, by the RVP. Interview and observation on 5/10/2024 at 5:05 PM with the MRMS revealed he monitored the respiratory supplies daily and weekly. The O2 company came to the facility and serviced the machines once a month. The MRMS displayed the supply of BiPAP/CPAP hoses and various other tubing for respiratory equipment. She stated the BiPAP/CPAP filters were delivered on 5/9/2024. Record review of BiPAP/CPAP in-service, performed by the ADM to the ADONs on 5/9/2024, for BiPAP/CPAP: Identify and review all new BiPAP/CPAP orders. Record review of BiPAP/CPAP in-service performed by the ADM and the ADON to the Licensed Nursing Staff, performed on 5/9/2024, for BiPAP/CPAP: Identify and review all new orders. Cleaning. Replacement supplies. Record review of BiPAP/CPAP invoice, dated 5/9/2024 and 5/10/2024, delivering BiPAP/CPAP tubing and filters. Record review of BiPAP/CPAP in-service performed by the RVP to the ADM and DON, dated 5/9/2024. New orders, settings, cleaning, and filter replacement. Record review of ADON confirmation of cleaning Resident #1's machine, dated 5/9/2024. Record review of ADON confirmation of audit for BiPAP/CPAP filters, dated 5/14/2024. Record review of DON plans, undated, for new hires, shift workers, and PRN staff. Record review of the QAPI Team members email review, dated 5/92024, having discussed the F695 POR. Interview and observation on 5/10/2024 at 5:10 PM with Resident #1 revealed she was in bed, clean, and in no distress. The BiPAP machine was a new device; hose and mask were clean placed in a plastic bag. Resident voiced no complaints and stated she was pleased with having clean equipment now. The ADM was informed the Immediate Jeopardy was removed on 5/10/2024 at 5:30 PM. The facility remained out of compliance at a scope of no actual harm with potential for more than minimal harm and a severity level of isolated due to the facility's need to evaluate the effectiveness of the corrective systems that were put into place. Interview and record review on 5/13/2024 at 4:20 PM with LVN A revealed she had signed off treatment for Resident #1's BiPAP on 3/24/2024 and 4/7/2024. She stated the order to clean the machine, and change the filter out weekly, were on the nurse's treatment record. She recalled checking off the treatments and recalled not having clean filters to exchange. She stated she had informed the ADON. There were no filters on hand to change out the old. Interview and observation on 5/14/2024 at 11:15 AM with Resident #2 revealed she had a new CPAP machine, and the machine had a clean filter in place. She was getting used to the new mask. Interview on 5/14/2024 at 2:25 PM with the DON revealed cleaning masks, tubing, and changing filters were important to keep BiPAP/CPAP therapy equipment clean. Clean equipment reduced the risk of infection and kept the air flow optimum. The facility had a policy covering the BIPAP/CPAP therapy and the nursing staff was not following the facility policy. The residents who were using BiPAP/CPAP treatments were placed at risk for portals for infection.
Feb 2024 12 deficiencies 1 IJ
CRITICAL (J) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Deficiency F0760 (Tag F0760)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure residents were free of significant medication errors for 1 of...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure residents were free of significant medication errors for 1 of 6 residents (Resident #234) reviewed for medication errors. The facility failed to accurately transcribe amitriptyline 10mg by mouth at bedtime and instead transcribed amitriptyline 300mg by mouth twice daily. The facility administered 300mg of amitriptyline to Resident #234 which caused an overdose that sent the resident to the hospital with abnormal labs and cardiac arrhythmia. This failure could place residents at risk for complications and possible death. This failure resulted in an identification of an Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) On 2/21/2024 @ 5:25pm. While the IJ was removed on 02 /24/24 @ 6:10 PM, the facility remained at a level of no actual harm with potential for more than minimal harm that is not immediate jeopardy at a scope of pattern that is not immediate jeopardy due to the facility's need to evaluate the effectiveness of the corrective systems. The findings include: Record review of Resident #234's, undated, face sheet reflected a [AGE] year-old male who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #234 had diagnoses which included NSTEMI (heart attack), metabolic encephalopathy (a chemical imbalance of the brain causing confusion), anemia (low red blood cells), dementia, and type 2 diabetes (elevated blood sugar). Record review of Resident #234 admission MDS assessment, dated 2/5/24, reflected Resident #234 had a BIMS score of 8, which indicated Resident #234 was cognitively impaired. Resident #234 required substantial max assistance with personal hygiene upper and lower body dressing. Record review of a progress note dated 2/5/24 at 9:30 AM, by LVN W, reflected Resident #234's family member brought a medication list from home and requested Amitriptyline (an antidepressant) be given as he had previously been on medication at home. Record review of Resident #234's order recap report, dated 2/1/24-2/22/24, reflected the resident had an order received 2/5/24 by LVN W for Amitriptyline Oral Tablet 150 MG (Amitriptyline) Give 2 tablets to equal 300mg by mouth every morning and at bedtime for depression. Record review of the Medication Administration log for February 2024 reflected Resident #234 received 300mg of amitriptyline by mouth on 2/6/24 at 9 am. Record review of the facility progress notes, dated 2/6/24 at 1:30 by LVN W, reflected the resident was found slow to respond, drowsy and lethargic. The Nurse Practitioner was notified, and an order was given to transport Resident #234 to the hospital. Record review of Resident #234 census reflected the resident was sent to the hospital on 2/6/24 and readmitted [DATE]. Record review of hospital records, dated 2/6/24, reflected Resident #234 presented to the ER with an accidental drug overdose when a transcription error was created unintentionally at the nursing facility transcribing amitriptyline 300 mg by mouth twice daily. Resident #234 appeared drowsy, and speech slurred. Per records his family members stated he was finally seeming like his old self until he received his medication around 10:30 AM. Following this he became progressively somnolent and eventually slumped over. Initial assessment Resident #234 was hypertensive (elevated blood pressure) and drowsy with slurred speech with abnormal EKG . Poison control was contacted, and the resident required 2 ampules of bicarb (a medication used to assist the body in disposing of the excessive medication) and repeated EKGs and orders to maintain potassium level greater than 4. Record review of hospital labs, dated 2/6/24, reflected: potassium level of 3.4 (low level causing heart irregularity), glucose level of 171(high blood sugar), carbon dioxide level of 21 (Meaning the blood is too acidic). Hospital vital signs reflected Resident #234 had elevated blood pressure and elevated respirations. Record review of hospital medication administration, dated 2/6/24, reflected Resident #234 required potassium chloride drip via IV to maintain his potassium level greater than 4, and supplemental bicarb also IV, to counter act the effects of the amitriptyline. In a record review of hospitals After Visit Summary, dated 2/13/24, reflected Resident #234's hospital admitting diagnosis was acute drug overdose, accidental or unintentional initial encounter. The Hospital instructions were to stop amitriptyline 10mg and the medication was discontinued. During an observation on 2/21/24 at 10:10 AM revealed Resident #234's was lying in bed and was sleepy and confused Resident #234 was not interview able. In an interview on 02/21/24 at 10:32 AM with the NP revealed the facility notified the NP of a concern due to Resident #234's increased lethargy. The NP stated Resident #234s family member had concerns the resident was over sedated. The NP stated she asked if Resident #234 had his morning medications. The NP stated she pulled Resident #234's medication profile and reviewed his medications, she questioned the orders that were input on 2/5/24 for Amitriptyline 150mg 2 tabs bid. The NP stated the order should have been for 10mg by mouth at bedtime as she had given the verbal order. Resident #234 received 1 dose of 300mg of amitriptyline on 2/6/24. The NP stated she ordered the resident to be sent to the hospital for evaluation of adverse effects related to medications error. An interview was attempted with LVN W by phone on 02/21/24 at 10:45 AM was unsuccessful. In an interview on 02/21/24 at 11:15 AM with LVN X, the former ADON, she reported on February 6th Resident #234 received a dose of amitriptyline 300mg as the order was reading from the medication administration record. LVN X reported Resident #234 became lethargic and LVN W, who was on duty, notified the NP. At that time, the NP reviewed medications, she noted the amitriptyline correctly transcribed. LVN X stated Resident #234 was lethargic. The NP gave orders to send Resident #234 to the hospital. EMS was notified and the resident went to the hospital via ambulance. The Family was notified of the incident and the DON was notified of the incident. There was an internal investigation she is not sure where it is. LVN X explained the process for checking orders included checking the 24-hour report. She reported there was no order reports that they were aware of that were ran. LVN X reported occasionally nurse managers work the floor. The new admissions were double checked by another nurse not necessarily a nurse manager, but just a second set of eyes on new admit orders, there was a clinical follow up sheet where they notify the nurses of missing assessments but not necessarily orders. LVN X stated the negative effects for not checking orders would include a risk of overdose causing altered mental status hospitalization or even worse. In an interview with Resident #234s' family, on 2/21/24 at 2:29 PM revealed on 2/5/24 Resident #234 was given a new order for amitriptyline 10mg 1 tab by mouth at bedtime. On 2/6/24 Resident #234 took his morning medications and within 30 minutes became lethargic and weak. Upon notification of the Nurse Practitioner, it was discovered Resident #234 was given 300mg of amitriptyline. Resident #234 was sent to the hospital and admitted with accidental drug overdose. During an interview on 02/21/24 at 2:34 PM with the DON, she stated typically a nurse manager should review orders in the computer. There was an order listing report that could be ran for 24 hours daily to review the previous days orders and double check for correctness or clarification of orders if needed. This order report should be reviewed by nurse managers, the practitioners had the capability to input their own orders into the computer and the facility was stressing the importance of this to avoid this type of medication error Both ADONs were new, and the Administrator were new as well, the negative outcome would depend on the medications. During an interview with the Administrator n 02/21/24 at 2:48 PM, he stated he was aware of the incident with Resident #234. He stated he understood there was an investigation completed. He was not sure where the report or investigation was. He stated he was not a clinician so he was not sure what kind of negative outcome there would have been for the medication error. He stated he did not feel qualified to answer that question. Record review of a medication error report, dated 2/6/24, reflected the following corrective actions were taken: 1) An Inservice was completed to ensure verbal orders are read back for accuracy. 2) to put in orders nursing administration to check orders daily. Record review of an unsigned in service, dated 02/6/24, reflected the staff were educated in handwritten in-services with the following directions: 1) Ensure verbal orders are read back for accuracy. 2) Pay attention to what you are doing (avoid distractions) 3) Look at order being placed at a minimum of two times (when put into system and before sending to pharmacy) 4) All and any questions related to dosage ASK! In a record review of the facility policy Adverse Consequences and Medication Errors reflected a Medication Error is defined as the preparation or administration of drugs or biological which is not in accordance with the physician's order, manufacturers specifications or accepted professional standards and principles of the professionals' providing services. An example of medication error would include e) wrong dosage . This was determined to be an Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) on 02/22/24 at 5:25 PM. The ADM and DON were notified. The ADM was provided with the IJ template on 02/22/24 at 5:25 PM. The following Plan of Removal submitted by the facility was accepted on 02/23/24 at 1:08 PM : Impact Statement: On 2/21/24 an abbreviated survey was initiated on 2/21/24 the facility was provided notification that the Survey Agency has determined that the conditions at the center constitute Immediate Jeopardy to resident health due to a significant medication error. How were other residents at risk affected by this deficient practice identified? The facility DON/Designee completed an audit of all new medication orders ordered in the last 30 days to ensure the residents have not had an adverse effect from their normal baseline 2/21/22. Residents with new medication orders have the potential to be affected by this deficient practice, 68 of the residents who were identified as having new medication orders were not affected. What corrective actions have been implemented for the identified resident? Resident #234 was sent to the hospital on 2/6/24 for evaluation. Resident #234 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE] in stable condition. The previous DON in-serviced 2/6/22 the licensed nursing staff on accurate drug transcription and dosage identification when new orders are received for antidepressant medications completed 2/21/24. What corrective actions were taken? 1. The following actions were initiated immediately on 2/21/2024. a. Director of Nursing was educated on 2/21/2024 by Clinical Services Director on identifying and reviewing all new orders daily to ensure drug transcription and dosage are within the recommended range. Completed 2/21/24. b. Initiated in-services on 2/21/24 with licensed nurses by Director of Nursing identifying and reviewing all new medication orders to ensure drug transcription and dosage are within the recommended range. Completed 2/21/24. c. On 2/21/24 the DON in-serviced all Medication Aides on notifying charge nurse if discrepancies in dosages verses written orders with medications are identified and reviewing all new orders to include antidepressant medication to ensure drug transcription and dosage are within the recommended range and medication administration medications, encompassing a comprehensive review of correct medication dosages cross-referenced with orders. Completed 2/21/24. d. Newly hired licensed nurses and medication aides will be in serviced during the on boarding process by DON on identifying and reviewing all new orders to include antidepressant medication to ensure drug transcription and dosage are within the recommended range and medication administration medications, encompassing a comprehensive review of correct medication dosages cross-referenced with orders. Completion- Ongoing Licensed nurses and medication aides in serviced by DON/ Designee on Medication administration. Reviewing all new orders to include antidepressant medication to ensure drug transcription and dosage are within the recommended range and medication administration medications, encompassing a comprehensive review of correct medication dosages cross-referenced with orders prior to administering. Completed 2/21/24. 2. How will the system be monitored to ensure compliance? A. DON/Designee Will review the Order List Report for all Newly received orders and compare it to resident for 4 weeks . If discrepancies are identified, we will notify the physician immediately for clarification before administering. Staff will receive further training on our Medication Administration Policy and disciplinary action up to termination. When discrepancies with medications are identified, the CMA will notify the charge nurse, the charge nurse will notify the physician if no response from the physician within two hours, then we will notify medical director prior to medication administration. Completion- Ongoing Quality Assurance An impromptu Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement review of the plan of removal was completed on 2/21/24 with the Medical Director. The Medical Director has reviewed and agrees with this plan of removal. This plan will be monitored monthly during Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement meetings ongoing for any further education identified. Monitoring of the POR included the following: Interview and record review on 2/24/2024 at 1:00 PM with the DON revealed she and the CSD provided in-service trainings to the CMAs, RNs, and the LVNs on 2/21/2024. The in-service trainings were conducted face to face, or over the telephone. The trainings covered the facility's Administering Medication Policy as well as special instructions to ensure verbal orders were verified before entering them into the MAR and the NMAR. The DON stated she was trained one-to-one by the CSD to ensure approval orders were repeated back to the giver for verification before inputting the order into the computer. Nurses were supposed to ask questions of the provider if they did not understand the order, the order dosage, or if it looked inappropriate. New orders were supposed to be documented in the residence chart. The documentation was supposed to contain the order, who gave the order, who took the order, and that a family member, or responsible party, was notified. Lastly, the nurse was supposed to provide follow up visits for three days and document those findings in the residence medical record. Interview and record review on 2/24/2024 at 1:15 PM with CMA R, revealed she worked a 6:00 AM to 2:00 PM shift, which rotated through every day of the week. She participated in an in-service training, dated 2/21/2024, which pertained to the facility's Administering Medication Policy and if there was a discrepancy in a medication dosage versus written orders, the medication aide was to alert charge nurse for clarification. CMA R stated the training pertained to bring any discrepancy with a medication dosage, versus the written order, to the attention of the charge nurse for clarification. She was directed to question any new medication order that looked out of the ordinary. She was re-trained to verify the medication packaging was for the right resident, right medication, right dosage, right time, and right route before being administered. She was educated to report observations of lethargic residents, or residents who displayed unusual behaviors, to the nursing staff immediately. CMA R's name was annotated on the in-service document. Interview and record review on 2/24/2024 at 1:35 PM with CMA Q, revealed she worked a 6:00 AM to 2:00 PM shift, which rotated through every day of the week. She participated in an in-service training, dated 2/21/2024, which pertained to the facility's Administering Medication Policy and if there was a discrepancy in a medication dosage versus written orders, medication aide was to alert the charge nurse for clarification. CMA Q stated she was instructed to report any discrepancies with medication, or medication dosages to the charge nurse. She was re-trained to make sure the medication orders on the MAR matched the medication packaging for the right resident, the right dosage, right time, and right route before being administered. Nursing staff needed to be informed immediately if a resident was lethargic residents or displayed unusual behaviors. CMA Q's name was annotated on the in-service document. Interview and record review on 2/24/2024 at 2:15 PM with CMA S, revealed she worked a 2:00 PM to 10:00 PM shift, which rotated through every day of the week. She participated in an in-service training, dated 2/21/2024, which pertained to the facility's Administering Medication Policy and if there was a discrepancy in a medication dosage versus written orders, medication aide was to alert charge nurse for clarification. CMA S stated she was supposed to question any medication order that did not look right, or had an unusual dosage, and bring that to the attention of the charge nurse for clarification. Each medication administration was supposed to be checked 3 times for the right resident, right medication, right dosage, right time, and right route before being administered. CMA S's name was annotated on the in-service document. Interview and record review on 2/24/2024 at 2:30 PM with CMA T, revealed she worked a 2:00 PM to 10:00 PM shift, which rotated through every day of the week. She participated in an in-service training, dated 2/21/2024, which pertained to the facility's Administering Medication Policy and if there was a discrepancy in a medication dosage versus written orders, medication aide was to alert charge nurse for clarification. Any issue or concerns with a medication, or medication dosage were supposed to be brought to the attention of the charge nurse for clarification. Any observations of lethargic residents, or overly medicated residents, were to be reported the nursing staff immediately. CMA T's name was annotated on the in-service document. Interview and record review on 2/24/2024 at 3:00 PM with LVN K, revealed she worked both 6:00 AM to 6:00 PM and 6:00 PM to 6:00 AM shifts on a PRN basis. She participated in an in-service training, dated 2/21/2024, which pertained to Medication Transcription. LVN K stated the training covered medication transcription and that she was supposed to read back and verify all orders were correct before putting them into the computer. She was instructed to ask questions of the provider if she did not understand the order, or if the order and dosage did not look appropriate. The entry into the computer would state the order, who took the order, who gave the order, and that the responsible party was notified. Follow up visits for residents with new medication were to take place for three days and each follow-up needed to be documented in the resident's chart. If they had questions about a medication and were unable to contact the provider after 2 hours of attempts, she was told she could call the medical director directly. Interview and record review on 2/24/2024 at 3:27 PM with LVN L, revealed he worked 6:00 AM to 6:00 PM shifts on a PRN basis. He participated in an in-service training, dated 2/21/2024, which pertained to Medication Transcription. LVN L stated the training pertained to verifying orders by repeating them back to the provider for clarification before entering them into the computer. If an order did not look correct, or if the dosage appeared to be wrong, he was instructed to ask questions to make sure. All new orders were to be documented in the resident's chart with the order itself, the person who gave the order, the person who took the order, and that the responsible party was informed. Follow-up visits were to be conducted, and documented, for residents who received [NAME] medications for 3 days. LVN L's name was annotated on the in-service document. Interview and record review on 2/24/2024 at 3:51 PM with RN C revealed she worked the 6:00 AM to 6:00 PM. She participated in an in-service training, dated 2/21/2024, which pertained to Medication Transcription. Orders were supposed to be repeated back to the provider to make sure the order was correct before putting it into the computer. If a medication, or dosage, did not look correct, she was supposed to ask for verification from the provider. All medication orders received were supposed to be documented in the resident's chart and were to state the order itself, the person who gave the order, the person who took the order, and that the responsible party was informed. Each resident, who received a new medication, received a follow up visit for three days to document the medication and its effects. If she were unable to contact a provider with questions about medications after two hours, she was told she could contact the medical director. RN C's name was annotated on the in-service document. Telephone interview and record review on 2/24/2024 at 4:05 PM with CMA U, revealed she worked a 6:00 AM to 2:00 PM shift, which rotated through every day of the week. She participated in an in-service training, dated 2/21/2024, which pertained to the facility's Administering Medication Policy and if there was a discrepancy in a medication dosage versus written orders, medication aide was to alert charge nurse for clarification. CMA U stated the training instructed her to let the nursing staff know if she thought a medication, or a medication dose, did not look correct. She was supposed to review the medication package and verify it 3 times with the resident to make sure of the right resident, right medication, right dosage, right time, and right route before being administered. Residents who appeared lethargic or overly medicated were supposed to be reported to the charge nurse immediately. CMA U's name was annotated on the in-service document. Telephone interview and record review on 2/24/2024 at 4:31 PM with LVN J revealed, he worked 6:00 PM to 6:00 AM shifts. He participated in an in-service training, dated 2/21/2024, which pertained to Medication Transcription. LVN J explained that he was supposed to listen to the order, write it down, and repeat it back to the provider before entering it into the computer. It was ok to ask questions if he did not understand the order of if it did not make sense. New medication orders were supposed to be entered into the resident's chart and contain the order, who gave the order, who took the order, and that the family was notified. Each resident who received a new medication was supposed to receive follow-up visits for 3 days and each visit was supposed to be supported with documentation in the resident's chart. If he had a question about an order and could not reach the provider, he was told to reach to to the medical director for help. LVN J's name was annotated on the in-service document. Telephone interview and record review on 2/24/2024 at 4:38 PM with LVN I, revealed she worked 6:00 PM to 6:00 AM shifts. She participated in an in-service training, dated 2/21/2024, which pertained to Medication Transcription. LVN I stated the training covered medication order transcription and how to repeat the order to the provider for confirmation before entering it into the computer. The training instructed her to ask questions of the provider if they did not understand the order, or if the order and dosage did not look appropriate. New medication orders were documented in the residence chart and were supposed to include the order, who gave the order, who took the order, and that a family member was notified. Each resident received 3 days of follow-up visits and each visit was supposed to be documented on the medication and how it was working. If she had a question about a medication and could not reach the provider, she was instructed to reach out to the medical director for assistance. LVN I's name was annotated on the in-service document. Telephone interview and record review on 2/24/2024 at 4:50 PM with CMA V, revealed she worked a 2:00 PM to 10:00 PM shift, which rotated through every day of the week. She participated in an in-service training, dated 2/21/2024, which pertained to the facility's Administering Medication Policy and if there was a discrepancy in a medication dosage versus written orders, medication aide was to alert charge nurse for clarification. CMA V stated she was trained to question any medication order that did not look correct, or any dosage that seemed too high. Any issue or concerns with medications were supposed to be reported to the charge nurse immediately. CMA V stated she checked medications 3 times to make sure they were the right resident, right medication, right dosage, right time, and right route before being administered. Any resident who appeared groggy, or behaved out of character, was supposed to be reported to the nursing staff immediately. CMA V's name was annotated on the in-service document. Interview and record review on 2/24/2024 at 5:50 PM with LVN G, revealed she worked 6:00 PM to 6:00 AM shifts. She participated in an in-service training, dated 2/21/2024, which pertained to Medication Transcription. LVN G stated the training directed nursing staff to repeat medication orders and confirm they were correct before placing them into the computer. If something did not seem right, they were supposed to question the order for accuracy. All new orders were supposed to be entered in the resident's chart to include the order, who took the order, who gave the order, and that the family was notified. Resident with new medication orders received 3 days of follow-up visits, all documented, to check on the resident and how the medication was working. If a nurse could not reach a provider for a question about a medication, she was told to call the medical director for assistance. LVN G's name was annotated on the in-service document. Interview and record review on 2/24/2024 at 6:00 PM with LVN H, revealed she worked 6:00 PM to 6:00 AM shifts. She participated in an in-service training, dated 2/21/2024, which pertained to Medication Transcription. LVN H was trained to read back and verify medication orders before having placed them into the computer. Ask questions to the provider or if they did not understand the order, or if the order and dosage did not look appropriate; Document new orders in the residence chart to clarify which nurse received the order, who gave the order, the written order itself, and having notified the family or responsible party. Conduct follow up visits for residents for residents with new medication for 3 days and document those follow-up visits in the residence chart. If they were unable to contact a provider with questions about medications, they were instructed to reach out to the medical director. LVN H's name was annotated on the in-service document. While the IJ was removed on 02 /24/24 @ 6:10 PM, The facility remained at a level of no actual harm with potential for more than minimal harm that is not immediate jeopardy at a scope of pattern that is not immediate jeopardy due to the facility's need to evaluate the effectiveness of the corrective systems.
SERIOUS (G) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents received quality care and quality 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 residents received quality care and quality treatment in accordance with professional standards of practice for 1 of 8 residents (Resident #25) reviewed for quality of care. The facility failed to apply an anti-fungal cream, per medical orders 2/14/2024 through 2/21/2024, which resulted in itching, intermittent burning, annoyance, and anger. This failure placed the residents at the facility at risk of having their needs not met. Findings included: Record review of Resident #25's AR, dated 2/21/2024, reflected a [AGE] year-old, who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. He was diagnosed with Cerebral Palsy, Unspecified (a group of conditions that effected movement and posture caused through damage of the developing brain;) Major Depression (a mental condition characterized by a persistently depressed mood and long-term loss of pleasure or interest in life, often with other symptoms such as disturbed sleep, feelings of guilt or inadequacy, and suicidal thoughts;) and, congenital hydrocephalus, unspecified (a medical diagnosis marked by malformations, deformations, and chromosomal abnormalities.) Record review of Resident #25's Quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], reflected Section C., Cognitive Patterns; Resident #25 had a BIMS Score of 15. A BIMS Score of 15 indicated Resident #25 had no cognitive impairment. Section GG., Functional Abilities and Goals: Resident had no impairment with both sides of their upper extremities (shoulder, elbow, wrist, and hand.) Resident had impairment on both sides of their lower extremities (hip, knee, ankle, and foot.) Resident #25 utilized a wheelchair. Resident #25 was [Dependent] upon staff for: Toileting Hygiene, Shower/Bathe Self, and Personal Hygiene. With Resident #25 [Dependent] on staff, the helper did all of the effort. Section H., Bladder and Bowel indicated Resident #25 was always incontinent of bladder and bowel. Record review of Resident #25's CP reflected a [Focus] area for actual skin impairment, initiated on 1/10/2024, evidenced by fragile skin. The [Goal], initiated on 1/24/2024, stated the resident's skin would be healed by the next review. The [Intervention], initiated 1/24/2024, delegated CNA staff to observe skin injury for abnormalities, failures to heal, infections, and to report to changes to the physician. Record review of Resident #25's medical order, dated 2/13/2024, reflected an order for application of an anti-fungal cream to begin on 2/14/2024. The orders were to apply to skin every shift for 7 days, which was until 2/21/2024. The document indicated the medication was [on hand] in house stock and [on order] at the pharmacy. The order was confirmed by LVN X. Record review of Resident #25's [Weekly Skin Review,] dated 2/15/2024 at 9:25 PM, reflected redness to left flank (side)- treatment orders in place. NP aware. Record review of Resident #25's progress notes, dated 2/17/2024 at 5:14 PM, written by LVN D indicated the pharmacy did not provide the anti-fungal cream, because it was something that could be purchased OTC. Record review of Resident #25's progress notes, dated 2/18/2024 at 2:23 PM, written by LVN J indicated facility was waiting on the pharmacy to provide the anti-fungal cream. Record review of Resident #25's progress notes, dated 2/18/2024 at 5:12 PM, written by LVN D indicated the pharmacy did not provide the anti-fungal cream, because it was something that could be purchased OTC. Record review of Resident #25's progress notes, dated 2/18/2024 at 9:09 PM, written by LVN J indicated the anti-fungal cream was out of stock. Record review of Resident #25's medical order, dated 2/21/2024, reflected an order for application of an anti-fungal cream to begin on 2/22/2024. The orders were to apply to skin every shift for 7 days. Interview on 2/20/2024 at 10:24 AM with Resident #25 revealed he had a fungal infection on his left side that was supposed to be treated with an anti-fungal cream. He did not get the cream like ordered and did was not offered an alternative treatment. He stated the infection itched and burned constantly after he had an incident of incontinence. Interview and observation on 2/21/2024 at 7:51 AM with LVN D revealed the anti-fungal cream, which was ordered to begin on 2/14/2024 through 2/21/2024, had not yet begun. LVN D reviewed her nursing documentation and stated the pharmacy did not fill the medication, but it was supposed to be from house stock. LVN D's nursing cart did not contain the anti-fungal cream. LVN D stated she messaged LVN X about the anti-fungal cream on 2/18/2024, but she had not heard back. She stated she had been off the last 2 days and referenced her progress note on 2/17/2024 at 5:14 PM and 2/18/2024 at 5:12 PM, which indicated the pharmacy did not provide the anti-fungal cream, because it was something that could be purchased OTC. If the anti-fungal cream were in house, it would have been stored on the medical closet. During the interview, LVN D checked the number in her phone, and she messaged the wrong contact, not LVN X, about the anti-fungal cream. She stated she felt terrible. Interview on 2/21/2024 at 8:45 AM with LVN D revealed she called the NP and reinstated a new order for the anti-fungal cream to begin on 2/22/2024 for 7 days. She stated she retrieved the anti-fungal cream from the medical supply closet. He had already had an application of the anti-fungal cream to his left flank. Interview on 2/21/2024 at 10:00 AM with Resident #25 revealed he received an application of the anti-fungal cream to his left flank and received relief from the itching and burning. Interview on 02/22/24 at 9:41 AM with Resident #25 revealed staff had been aware of the order for the anti-fungal cream since 2/14/2024, but they did apply the anti-fungal cream per the written order. He was angry and annoyed he had to wait for the treatment. He felt relief with the start of the anti-fungal cream and was not itching or burning near as much. Interview on 2/22/2024 at 10:01 AM with LVN D reveled the reason Resident #25 he had not gotten the anti-fungal cream as ordered was because of the confusion about the medication coming from the pharmacy or from the medical closet. She stated, in good faith, that she had reached out to LVN X on 2/18/2024, but the number was incorrect, and the request was never received. She wished she had reached out the NP, since she did not get a response from LVN X. She acquired the anti-fungal cream, on 2/21/2024, from the medical closet, which was where OTC medications were stored. Interview on 2/23/2024 at 4:36 PM with MRS revealed the medication closet contained OTC medications utilized in the facility, one of which was the anti-fungal cream. She provided anti-fungal cream to LVN D on 2/21/2024 for Resident #25. She had not received any requests for the anti-fungal cream until 2/21/2024. She had not received a request for the anti-fungal cream from the time it was ordered, which was 2/14/2024, until 2/21/2024 at 8:30 AM. Interview on 2/24/2024 at 10:58 AM with ADON B revealed it was important to make sure residents get intended medication to address their medical need. OTC remedies were medical orders. When the pharmacy and OTC issues arose, the change nurse should have called someone and waited for a response. Simply charting the discrepancy in a progress note, was not effective communication. The failure for Resident #25 having not received his medication as ordered was the nurse failed to follow through with the communication. Interview on 2/22/2024 at 10:15 AM with the ADM revealed that issues or concerns with OTC and pharmacy medications were not addressed in morning report. Usually, issues with OTC and pharmacy medications were resolved with nursing staff. The failure in Resident #25 not receiving his anti-fungal cream was a failure for staff to follow up on organization and communication. Record review of the facility's [Administering Medication] Policy, dated December 2012, reflected (2) the DON would supervise and direct all nursing personnel who administered medications or had a medication related function; and (3) medications were administered in accordance with the orders, which included any required time.
CONCERN (D)

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

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, observations, and record review the facility failed to complete an assessment that accurately reflected the...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, observations, and record review the facility failed to complete an assessment that accurately reflected the resident's status for 1 of 6 residents (Resident #44) whose records were reviewed for MDS accuracy, in that: The facility failed to ensure that Resident #44's admission MDS assessment dated [DATE] reflected tobacco use. These failures by the facility placed residents at risk of not receiving the care and services to meet their needs. Findings included: A record review of Resident #44's face sheet reflected Resident #44 was a [AGE] year-old male who was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of partial intestinal obstruction (bowel is partly blocked), Pulmonary embolism without acute cor pulmonale (blockage of a pulmonary (lung) artery) Muscle weakness (reduced muscle strength), and Cardiac murmur (a blowing, whooshing, or rasping sound heard during a heartbeat). Record review of Resident #44's Admissions MDS dated [DATE] reflected the resident had a BIMS score of 13 indicating cognitive intactness. The MDS did not reflect Resident #44 used tobacco. Record review of Resident #44's smoking risk assessment dated [DATE], reflected Resident #44 was assessed for smoking and was identified as a safe smoker. Record Review of Resident #44's care plan dated 01/26/24 did not reflected Resident #44's tobacco use. Record review of the facility's smoking list not dated, revealed Resident #44 was listed as a smoker. Observation on 02/21/2024 at 11:05am, reflected Resident #44 smoked two cigarettes with staff present. Interview with Resident #44 on 02/21/24 at 11:05 am, Resident #44 stated he has been smoking since he has been at the facility. Resident stated he has been at the facility for about a month but was smoking before he came to the facility. Interview with the MDS nurse on 02/23/24 at 2:40pm, the MDS nurse stated that if a resident used tobacco, it should be reflected on the MDS assessment as well as the care plan. MDS coordinator stated if a resident's MDS assessment or care plan doesn't reflect tobacco use then the resident may have smoking materials in their room when they shouldn't, the resident may not be able to smoke, or possibly burn themselves. Interview with the DON on 02/23/24 at 3:10pm, the DON stated that if a resident was a smoker, then it should be reflected on the MDS and Care Plan. DON stated if a residents MDS did not reflect tobacco use then the care plan would be inaccurate due to the MDS being inaccurate. DON stated a negative outcome of resident that used tobacco but wasn't care plan could be the resident could injure themselves. DON stated it was the MDS coordinator's responsible to accurately complete the MDS assessment as well as the comprehensive care plan. Interview with the ADM on 02/23/24 at 3:20pm, the ADM stated that if a resident was a smoker, then it should be reflected on the MDS and Care Plan. The ADM stated if a residents MDS did not reflect tobacco use then the care plan would be inaccurate due to the MDS being inaccurate and the resident would not receive the care they need. The ADM stated a negative outcome of resident that used tobacco but wasn't care plan could be the resident could injure themselves. The ADM stated the MDS coordinator, or a nurse could complete the comprehensive care plan. The ADM stated the MDS coordinator was responsible for completing the MDS assessment. The ADM stated both the MDS assessment and comprehensive care plan should be completed accurately the ensure the resident was receiving quality care. Record review of the facility's Care Area Assessment 05/2011, reflected Care Area Assessments (CAAs) will be used to help analyze data obtained from the MDS and to develop individualized care plans. CAAs are the link between assessments and care planning. Policy Interpretation and Implementation 1. Triggered Care Areas will be evaluated by the interdisciplinary team to determine the underlying causes, potential consequences, and relationships to other triggered care areas. 2. The Care Area Assessment (CAAs) process consists of the following steps: b. Review the triggered CAAs by doing an in-depth, resident-specific assessment of the triggered condition. 1. History taking; 2. Physical assessment; 3. Gathering of relevant information (Labs, test); and 4. Sequencing of clinically significant events. c. Define the problem(s): 1. Identify the functional, physical, and/or behavioral implications of the problem(s); 2. Identity the relationship between risk factors, triggers, and problems; 3. Design interventions that address causes, not symptoms; and 4. Establish which items need further assessment or additional review. e. Document interventions
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0645 (Tag F0645)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure residents diagnosed as having a mental illness were screen...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure residents diagnosed as having a mental illness were screened and evaluated prior to admission by the local authority and receive care and services in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs for 1 of 6 residents reviewed for PASRR screening. (Resident #18). The facility failed to correctly screen on admission [DATE]), and refer, Resident #18 who was diagnosed with mental illness to the appropriate state designated mental health or ID authority for evaluation. This failure placed residents at risk and could affect other residents with psychiatric diagnoses for not being assessed by the local authority and not receiving services to prevent declines. Findings included: Record review of Resident #18's Face Sheet reflected a [AGE] year-old-male had an admission date of 10/13/2023 with diagnoses of Dementia with other behavioral disturbance (impaired ability to remember, think or make decisions along with behaviors of verbal and physical aggression), Obstructive and reflux uropathy (a disorder of the urinary tract that occurs due to obstructed urinary flow and can be either structural or functional), schizophrenia (serious mental illness that affects how a person thinks, feels, and behaves), and adjustment disorder with anxiety(excessive reaction to stress that involve negative thoughts, strong emotions and changes in behaviors). Record review of Resident #18's MDS assessment dated [DATE] reflected a BIMS score of 13 (reflecting Cognitively Intact) and section I I6000 Psychiatric/Mood Disorder was marked for schizophrenia. Record review of Resident #18's Care Plan dated 01/16/24 reflected Resident #18's was care planned for receiving psychotropic medications d/t schizophrenia, episodes of mood problem AEB psychiatric illness, and episodes of behavior problems r/t poor coping skills, psychiatric illness. Record review of the PASRR Level (1) one screening form for Resident #18 dated 02/09/2023 reflected he had evidence of mental illness and noted yes, PMHx significant for schizophrenia and dementia. Record review of the PASRR Level (1) one screening form for Resident #18 dated 04/13/2023 reflected no evidence of mental illness. During an interview with the MDS nurse on 02/23/24 at 2:40 pm, the MDS nurse stated she was unaware of Residents #18's diagnoses of schizophrenia due to her recently started working at the facility. The MDS nurse stated that if a resident had a diagnosis of schizophrenia, then the PASRR level 1 should be positive. The MDS nurse stated if the PASRR level 1 was incorrect then the resident wouldn't receive the appropriate services such as psych services, a wheelchair, or skilled services. The MDS nurse stated the MDS nurse was responsible for ensure the PASRR level one information was accurate. During an interview with the DON on 02/23/24 at 2:40 pm, the DON stated that if a resident has a diagnosis of Schizophrenia, then the resident would need a PASRR level 2. DON stated if the resident's PASRR level 1 was inaccurate the resident would not receive the specific services or the appropriate care. DON stated it's the MDS coordinators responsible to ensure the PASRR level 1 was correct. During an interview with the ADM on 02/23/24 at 2:40 pm the ADM stated that if a resident has a diagnosis of Schizophrenia, then the resident would need a PASRR level 2. Administrator stated if the resident's PASRR level one was inaccurate the resident would receive the specific services or the appropriate care. Administrator stated its the MDS coordinators responsible to ensure the PASRR level 1 was correct. Review of the facility's PASRR Clinical Policy, date May 2014, revealed The PASRR level 1 (PL1) screening is designed to identify persons who are suspected of having Mental Illness (MI), Intellectual Disability (ID) of a Developmental Disability (DD) also referred to as Related Conditions. The PASRR Evaluation (PE) is designed to confirm the suspicion of MI, ID, or DD/RC and ensure the individual is placed in the most integrated residential setting receiving the specialized services need to improve and maintain the individual's level of functioning. If the documentation entered on the PASRR Level 1 indicates MI/ID/DD, a PE must be completed.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0655 (Tag F0655)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to develop and implement a baseline care plan for each resident within 48 hours of the resident's admission that included instructions for providing effective and person-centered care for the resident and met professional standards of quality care for 1 of 6 residents (Resident #228) reviewed for care plans, in that: The facility failed to develop and implement a baseline care plan within 48 hours of admission for Resident #228 . This deficient practice could place residents at risk of not having their immediate care needs met or not receiving continuity of care. Findings included: Record review of Resident #228's undated Face Sheet reflected a [AGE] year-old female who was admitted on [DATE] with a diagnosis of Hemiplegia and Hemiparesis following cerebral infarction affecting left non-dominant side (damage to tissues in the brain due to loss of oxygen and blood to the area causing the tissue to die also called a stroke or brain attack with left sided paralysis), hypothyroidism (a thyroid hormone deficiency) , weakness, type 2 diabetes mellitus (elevated blood sugar), and heart failure. Record review of Resident #228's admission assessment dated [DATE] reflected Resident #228 was admitted from the rehab hospital with a diagnosis of Hemiplegia and Hemiparesis following cerebral infarction affecting left non-dominant side she required a wheelchair for mobility, Resident #228 required extensive assistance with bed mobility and total dependance with transfers, dressing, toileting, and bathing. Resident #228 was able to feed herself and requires regular puree diet with thin liquids. Resident #228 was alert and oriented x4 (meaning she was aware of time, event, place, and person) and had a foley catheter present on admission. Record review of Resident #228's's base line care plan initiated 2/09/2024 reflected the care plan was blank and not filled out or signed. Record review of Resident #228's incomplete admission MDS dated [DATE] reflected a BIMS score of 15, indicating cognitively intact. Resident #228 was rated always incontinent with urine and always incontinent with bowel. Resident #228 required a wheelchair for mobility and was substantial max assistance with transfers. In an interview on 02/23/24 at 12:31 PM with RN #A-she states she has been employed for 3 weeks - She stated he base line care plan was part of the admission packet. She reported the baseline care plan would have needed to be completed at the time of admission. The negative effects for the resident related to not having a base line care plan would include the risk of a residents needs not being met. In an interview on 02/23/24 at 12:45 PM with the ADON#A she stated the base line care plan should be completed within a timely manner. She stated the admitting nurse completes the base line care plan upon admission to the facility. The ADON#A reported all nurse managers should check admissions for accuracy. She reported the negative effects on a resident for not having a baseline care plan would have been a lack of communication resulting in staff not knowing how to take care of the resident. In an interview on 02/23/24 at 12:57 PM with the DON she reported the base line care plan was prepopulated when the resident was admitted to the facility. She reported the admitting nurse is responsible for completing the baseline care plan. The DON reported that the ADON is responsible for checking to ensure the admission was completed. The DON monitors the ADON to ensure the admission including the baseline care plan were completed. The DON stated the negative effects on a resident for not having a baseline care plan would be lack of communication related to care of resident. Record review of the facility's Policy and procedure for Care Plans- Baseline dated December 2016 reflected: A baseline plan of care to meet the residents' immediate needs shall be developed for each resident within forty-eight hours of admission. 1) To assure that the residents immediate care needs are met and maintained a baseline care plan will be developed within forty-eight (48) hours of residents' admission. 2) The interdisciplinary team will review the healthcare practitioner's orders (dietary needs medications, routine treatments) and implement a baseline care plan to meet the residents' immediate needs including but not limited to: Initial goals based on admission orders. Physician orders Dietary orders Therapy services Social services and Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review recommendation if applicable 3) The baseline care plan will be used until the staff can conduct the comprehensive assessment and develop an interdisciplinary person-centered care plan. 4) The resident and their representative will be provided a summary of the baseline care plan that includes but is not limited to: The initial goals of the resident A summary of the residents' medication and dietary instructions Any services and treatments to be administered by the facility and personnel acting on behalf of the facility and Any updated information based on the details of the comprehensive care plan, as necessary.
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview observations, 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 interview observations, and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident, consistent with the residents' rights, which included measurable objectives and time limits to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental, and psychosocial needs for 2 of 6 residents (Residents #35 & #44) reviewed for care plans. Resident #35's comprehensive care plan dated 02/20/2024 did not address the resident's fentanyl patch. Resident #44's comprehensive care plan dated 01/26/24 did not address the resident's smoking. These deficient practices could place residents at risk for not receiving proper care and services due to inaccurate care plans. The findings were: A record review of Resident #35's face sheet reflected Resident #35 was a [AGE] year-old male who was re-admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of cerebral infarction (occurs as a result of disrupted blood flow to the brain due to problems with the blood vessels that supply it), type 1 diabetes mellitus with ketoacidosis with coma (when your body doesn't have enough insulin to allow blood sugar into your cells for use as energy), lumbago with sciatica right side (low back pain that shoots down your leg), chronic pain (long standing pain that persists beyond the usual recovery period), lobulated fused and horseshoe kidney (two kidneys fused together at the lower end or base shaping a U), and muscle weakness (reduced muscle strength) Record review of Resident #35's Annual MDS, dated [DATE], reflected Resident 35's BIMS score was 15 which indicated resident 35 is cognitively intact. Record review of Resident #35's Care Plan, dated 02/20/2024, did not address Resident 35's fentanyl patch. Record review of Resident #35's Physician Order, dated 02/23/24 reflected Resident #35 fentanyl patch start date was 05/17/23 and was still a current order. Interview with Resident #35 on 02/22/2024 at 11:25 am, Resident #35 stated she has had the fentanyl patch for about a year. Resident #35 stated that her fentanyl patch for was for pain. A record review of Resident #44's face sheet reflected Resident #44 was a [AGE] year-old male who was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of partial intestinal obstruction (bowel is partly blocked), Pulmonary embolism without acute cor pulmonale (blockage of a pulmonary (lung) artery) Muscle weakness (reduced muscle strength), and Cardiac murmur (a blowing, whooshing, or rasping sound heard during a heartbeat). Record review of Resident #44's Admissions MDS dated [DATE] reflected the resident had a BIMS score of 13 indicating cognitive intactness. The MDS did not reflect Resident #44 used tobacco. Record Review of Resident #44's care plan dated 01/26/24 did not reflected Resident #44's tobacco use. Record review of the facility's smoking list not dated, revealed Resident #44 was listed as a smoker. Observation on 02/21/2024 at 11:05am, reflected Resident #44 smoked two cigarettes with staff present. Interview with Resident #44 on 02/21/24 at 11:05 am, Resident #44 stated he has been smoking since he has been at the facility. Resident stated he has been at the facility for about a month but was smoking before he came to the facility. Interview with MDS nurse on 02/23/24 at 2:40pm, the MDS nurse stated that if a resident used tobacco, it should be reflected on the MDS assessment as well as the care plan. MDS coordinator stated if a resident's MDS assessment or care plan doesn't reflect tobacco use then the resident may have smoking materials in their room when they shouldn't, the resident may not be able to smoke, or possibly burn themselves. The MDS nursed stated if a resident received an opioid (fentanyl patch) then that should be indicated on the care plan just like psychotropic medication would be care planned. The MDS nurse stated if resident care plans and MDS was not accurate then they might not receive the appropriate care. Interview with DON on 02/23/24 at 3:10pm, the DON stated that if a resident was a smoker, then it should be reflected on the MDS and Care Plan. DON stated if a residents MDS did not reflect tobacco use then the care plan would be inaccurate due to the MDS being inaccurate. DON stated a negative outcome of resident that used tobacco but wasn't care plan could be the resident could injure themselves. DON stated if a resident receives a fentanyl patch that should be care planned. DON stated if the resident fentanyl patch was not care planned then the resident may not receive the appropriate care. DON stated it was the MDS coordinator's responsible to accurately complete the MDS assessment as well as the comprehensive care plan. Interview with ADM on 02/23/24 at 3:20pm, the ADM stated that if a resident was a smoker, then it should be reflected on the MDS and Care Plan. The ADM stated if a residents MDS did not reflect tobacco use then the care plan would be inaccurate due to the MDS being inaccurate and the resident would not receive the care they need. The ADM stated a negative outcome of resident that used tobacco but wasn't care plan could be the resident could injure themselves. The ADM stated that if a resident received a fentanyl patch that should be care plan but if it wasn't then the resident may not receive the appropriate care. The ADM stated the MDS coordinator, or a nurse could complete the comprehensive care plan. The Administrator stated the MDS coordinator is responsible for completing the MDS assessment. The ADM stated both the MDS assessment and comprehensive care plan should be completed accurately the ensure the resident was receiving quality care. Record review of the facility's Care Plans, Comprehensive Person-Centered 12/2016, reflected A comprehensive, person-centered care plan that includes measurable objective and timetable to meet the resident's physical, psychosocial and functional needs is developed and implemented for each resident. Policy Interpretation and Implementation 1. The interdisciplinary team (IDT), in conjunction with the resident and his/her family or legal representative, develops and implements a comprehensive, person-centered care plan for each resident. 2. The care plan interventions are derived for a thorough analysis of the information gathered as part of the comprehensive assessment. 3. The IDT include: A. The attending Physician; B. A registered nurse who has responsibility for the resident; C. A nurse aide who has responsibility for the resident; D. A member of the food and nutrition services staff; E. The resident and the resident's legal representative (to the extent practicable); and F. Other appropriated staff or professionals as determined by the resident's needs or as requested by the resident. 7. The Care planning process will: A. Facilitate resident and/or representative involvement; B. Include an assessment of the resident's strengths and needs; and C. Incorporate the resident's personal and cultural preferences in developing goals of care. 8. The Comprehensive, person care plan will: A. include measurable objectives and time limits: B. Describe the services that are to be furnished to attain or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being: C. Describe services that would otherwise be provided for the above, but are not provided due to the resident exercising his or her rights, including the right to refuse treatment: D. Describe any specialized services to be provided as a result of PASARR recommendations: I. Reflect treatment goals, timetables and objectives in measurable outcomes; K. Identify the professional services that are responsible for each element of care; 13. Assessments of residents are ongoing and care plans are revised as information about the resident and the residents' condition change. 14. The interdisciplinary Team must review and update the care plan: A. When there has been a significant change in the resident's condition: B. When the desired outcome is not met: C. When the resident has been readmitted to the facility from a hospital stay: and D. At least quarterly, in conjunction with the required quarterly MDS assessment.
CONCERN (D)

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

Incontinence Care (Tag F0690)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident who was incontinent of bladder receives appropri...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident who was incontinent of bladder receives appropriate treatment and services to prevent urinary tract infections and to restore continence to the extent possible for 1 of 6 residents (Resident #228) reviewed for incontinent care. Facility failed to evaluate Resident #228 for removal of newly placed indwelling catheter or establish a rational for original placement to establish a need for an indwelling foley catheter upon admission. This deficient practice could place residents at risk by exposing them to care that could lead to infection, tissue breakdown, communicable diseases, and feelings of isolation related to poor hygiene. Findings include: Record review of Resident #228's undated Face Sheet reflected a [AGE] year-old female who was admitted on [DATE] with a diagnosis of Hemiplegia and Hemiparesis following cerebral infarction affecting left non-dominant side (damage to tissues in the brain due to loss of oxygen and blood to the area causing the tissue to die also called a stroke or brain attack with left sided paralysis), hypothyroidism (a thyroid hormone deficiency) , weakness, type 2 diabetes mellitus (elevated blood sugar), and heart failure. Record review of Resident #228's admission assessment dated [DATE] reflected Resident #228 was admitted from the rehab hospital and had a foley catheter present on admission. Record review of Resident #228's incomplete admission MDS dated [DATE] reflected a BIMS score of 15, indicating cognitively intact. Resident #228 was rated always incontinent with urine. Record review of Resident #228s History and Physical dated 02/13/24 reflected Resident #228s Genitourinary (urinary) system had been reviewed and was normal/negative indication she had no failures within her urinary system. In an interview on 02/20/24 at 3:16 PM with Resident #228 revealed she has been in the facility for 3 weeks. Resident #228 reported she has had the foley catheter since she was at the hospital. She reported the foley catheter was really bothering her with irritation. Resident #228 revealed she has never had to have a foley catheter in the past. Resident #228 stated would be discharged home soon. In an interview on 02/23/24 at 12:31 PM with RN #C-reflected he has been employed for 3 weeks at the facility. RN #C reported a resident admitted with a Foley catheter would need justification for the use or need for the catheter. RN #C reported Catheters are never used for convenience. Nurses would need to call physician to see if the catheter could be discontinued or if the facility could possibly do a voiding trial to determine if the resident would have needed to be seen by a urologist. RN #C reported the risk factors for having had a foley catheter would include infection, trauma, and urinary dependence. In an interview on 02/23/24 at 12:45 PM with the ADON #A she revealed it was her expectation for a resident who admits with a foley catheter would have been to contact the physician for trial for discontinuation of the foley catheter or get resident to urology. The ADON#A reported the facility would need to find out why resident would need a foley catheter, ask nurse practitioner to evaluate the resident for appropriate diagnosis. The ADON#A reported she is not sure there has been any training for foley catheters. The ADON#A reported the negative effects would of having a foley catheter in place would have been urinary tract infection, trauma, worsening of urinary incontinence. The ADON#A reported that nurse managers responsible for following up on orders for foley catheters and further investigation of why a resident would need one. In an interview on 02/23/24 at 12:57 PM with the DON revealed for residents admitted with a foley catheter the admitting nurse would have needed to contact the nurse practitioner or the physician to obtain an appropriate diagnosis or receive an order to remove foley. The goal would have been to find out why the foley catheter was needed. The DON revealed the resident would have needed a voiding trial or possible referral to urology for further investigation and assessment as to any abnormalities causing urinary retention. The DON reported the negative effects for a resident maintaining long term use of a foley catheter would be infection. The DON stated the ADON reviews admissions and admission orders, the DON supervises all ADONs. Record review of the facility's policy and procedure for Urinary Continence and Incontinence - Assessment Management Dated April 2010 #14 - If a resident /patient is admitted from the hospital with a newly placed indwelling catheter the attending physician and staff will evaluate the potential for removing it depending on the current condition and the rational for its original placement.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0745 (Tag F0745)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to provide medically-related social services to attain or ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to provide medically-related social services to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental and psychosocial well-being of each resident.for 1 out of 6 residents (Resident # 234) reviewed for behaviors. The facility failed to provide appropriate behavioral health services and/or interventions to prevent or improve the depressive behaviors of Resident # 234. This deficient practice could place residents at risk for causing a delay in receiving appropriate services and a deterioration in the resident's psychosocial well-being. Findings include: Record review of Resident #234's, undated, face sheet reflected a [AGE] year-old male who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #234 had diagnoses which included heart attack, metabolic encephalopathy (a chemical imbalance of the brain causing confusion), anemia (low red blood cells), dementia and type 2 diabetes (elevated blood sugar). Record review of Resident #234 admission MDS assessment, dated 2/5/24, reflected Resident #234 had a BIMS score of 8 which indicated Resident #234 was cognitively impaired. Section D Mood Interview of the same MDS reflected Resident #234 did not indicate any signs or symptoms of depression. Resident #234 required substantial max assistance with personal hygiene upper and lower body dressing. Record review of Resident #234s' care plan, initiated 2/1/24, reflected Resident #234 was taking an antidepressant medication with a goal to remain free from signs and symptoms of depression. Interventions listed reflected the facility would administer medications as ordered. Observe/document for side effects and effectiveness. Arrange psychiatric consult follow up as indicated. Record review of a LVN Ws' progress note, dated 2/5/24 at 9:30 AM, reflected Resident #234's family member brought a medication list from home and requested Amitriptyline (an antidepressant) be given as he had previously been on the medication at home. Record review of Resident #234s order recap report, dated 2/1/24-2/22/24, reflected the resident had an order received on 2/5/24 for Amitriptyline Oral Tablet 150 Milligrams Amitriptyline HCl) Give 2 tablet by mouth every morning and at bedtime for depression. Record review of the Medication Administration log for February 2024 reflected Resident #234 received 300 mg of amitriptyline by mouth on 2/6/24 at 9 AM. Record review of Resident #234 census reflected Resident #234 was sent to the hospital on 2/6/24 and readmitted to the facility 2/13/24. In a record review of the after-visit summary, dated 2/13/24, reflected Resident #234 hospital admitting diagnosis was acute drug overdose, accidental or unintentional initial encounter, The Hospital instructions were to stop amitriptyline 10mg . In an interview on 02/21/24 at 10:32 AM with the NP revealed the facility notified the NP of a concern due to Resident #234's increased lethargy. The NP reported Resident #234's family member had concerned the resident was over sedated. The NP reported she asked if Resident #234 had his morning medications. The NP stated she pulled his medication profile and reviewed his medications, she stated she questioned the orders that were input on Amitriptyline 150 mg 2 tablets twice daily. The NP stated the order written by LVN W should have been for 10 mg by mouth at bedtime and there was a mistake in the order transcription. Resident #234 received 1 dose of 300 mg of amitriptyline on 2/6/24. The NP reported she ordered the resident to be sent to the hospital for evaluation of adverse effects related to medications error.
CONCERN (D)

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

Medication Errors (Tag F0758)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure based on a comprehensive assessment of a resident, residents who had not used psychotropic drugs were not given these drugs unless the medication was necessary to treat specific condition as diagnosed and documented in the clinical record for 1 of 6 residents (Resident #230) reviewed for unnecessary psychotropic medications. The facility failed to ensure Resident #230's prescribed Bupropion (an antidepressant) was administered to treat a specific diagnosis . This failure could place residents at risk for adverse consequences such as impairment or decline in an individual's mental or physical condition or functional or psychosocial status. The findings include: Record review of Resident #230's, undated, face sheet reflected a [AGE] year-old male who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #230 had diagnoses which included: sepsis unspecified organism, hyperlipidemia (elevated cholesterol), essential hypertension (high blood pressure), Atherosclerotic heart disease of native coronary artery without angina pectoris (hardening of the arteries), peripheral vascular disease (lack of blood flow throughout the legs), cirrhosis of the liver, (Chronic liver damage) and spondylosis without myelopathy or radiculopathy (narrowing of the spin) . Record review of Resident #230's incomplete admission MDS assessment, dated 2/20/24, reflected Resident #230 had a BIMS score of 14, which indicated Resident #230 was cognitively intact. Resident #230 refused to answer Section D Mood Interview of the same MDS. Record review of Resident #230's care plan, initiated 2/17/24, reflected Resident #230 was not care planned for any antidepressant medications. In a record review of Residents #230's progress notes, dated 2/17/24 at 12:36 PM, reflected Resident #230 was hallucinating and had confusion. Record review of the Nursing Home order summary report for Resident #230 reflected an order for Bupropion HCI (XL) oral tablet extended release 24-hour 150 mg 1 tablet by mouth one time a day for indications of depression. No active diagnosis was reflected on the order. Record review of Resident #230 miscellaneous records reflected there was no medication consent on file for Bupropion. Record review of hospital medical records referral, dated 1/27/24, reflected Resident #230 had the following active diagnosis: sepsis (a blood infection), hypertensive disorder (high blood pressure), hyperlipidemia (elevated cholesterol), obesity, hydronephrosis of the right kidney (swollen kidneys). In an interview on 02/23/24 at 12:45 PM with ADON A, she reported the expectation was a consent and diagnosis for any psychotropic medication would be obtained upon admission. This was part of the admission process. The negative effects for not obtaining a consent or diagnosis for an antidepressant/ psychotropic would be lack of information, because the resident and RP would not be aware of side effects of medication. Lack of education and information related to medications. In an interview on 02/23/24 at 12:57 PM, the DON reported her expectation was consents and diagnosis should be completed on admit. The DON reported nurses were responsible for consent and diagnosis and nurses were responsible for education for psychotropic medications. Negative effects for the resident would be the family and resident were not able to make informed decision related to the type of medication and a lack of education related to side effects of the medication. The ADONs were responsible for follow up on the admission packets including reviewing diagnosis and consents. The DON was responsible for monitoring and ensuring the process was followed. Record review of the facility's policy and procedure for Medication Utilization and Prescribing, dated July 2016, reflected when a resident is prescribed in response to an identified problem, condition, or risk , the physician and staff will identify the indications (conditions or problems for which it is being given or what the medication is supposed to do or prevent), considering the residents age, condition, risks, health status, and existing medications.
CONCERN (E)

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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

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

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 residents who were unable to conduct activities of daily living received the necessary services to maintain acceptable grooming and personal hygiene for 2 of 8 residents (Resident #7 and Resident #40) reviewed for ADL Care. 1. The facility failed to provide Resident #7 with nail care, which resulted with some nails protruding past the fingertip, some nails gagged, and 8 of 10 digits had collection of dirt, stain, or debris under the nail on 02/20/2024. 2. The facility failed to provide Resident #40 with nail care, which resulted with nails protruding past the fingertip for all 10 digits. Resident's toenails on her left foot extended .5 an inch on two toes, which had begun to split and curl on 02/20/2024. This failure placed residents at risk of diminished quality of life, embarrassment, and self-consciousness of their appearance. Findings included: 1. Record review of Resident #7's AR, dated 2/20/2024, reflected a [AGE] year-old who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. He was diagnosed with chronic kidney disease (which was a gradual loss of kidney functions;) chronic diastolic heart failure (which led to decreased blood flow;) and, unspecified lack of coordination (which was a medical code that denoted difficulties with body movements.) Record review of Resident #7's Quarterly MDS, dated [DATE] reflected Section C., Cognitive Patterns, indicated the resident had a BIMS Score of 15. A BIMS score of 15 indicated the resident was not cognitively impaired. Section GG., Functional Abilities and Goals; Resident #7 required substantial/maximum assistance for personal hygiene (which meant the helper did more than half of the effort.) Record review of Resident #7's CP reflected a [Focus] for the resident having had potential impairment to skin integrity R/T fragile skin and anti-coagulation therapy, initiated 2/6/2023. The [Goal] was to be free from injury through the review date, revised 1/26/2024. The [Intervention] was for nursing staff to help Resident #7 avoid scratching and to keep fingernails short, initiated 2/6/2023. A second [Focus] for the resident having had ADL self-performance deficit R/T to limited mobility and musculoskeletal impairment, initiated on 10/6/2023. The [Goal] was to maintain current level of function in personal hygiene through the review date, initiated on 10/6/2023. The [Intervention] was for nursing staff was to check nail length and trim and clean on bath day and as necessary, initiated 10/6/2023. 2. Record review of Resident #40's AR, dated 2/20/2024, reflected a [AGE] year-old woman who admitted to the facility on [DATE]. She was diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes (which was a condition that disrupted the way her body used sugar for fuel;) chronic diastolic heart failure (which led to decreased blood flow;) discoid lupus erythematosus (which was an autoimmune disease that caused widespread inflammation;) and chronic kidney disease (which was a gradual loss of kidney function.) Record review of Resident #40's Quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], reflected Section C., Cognitive Patterns, indicated the resident had a BIMS Score of 5. A BIMS score of 5 indicated the resident had severe cognitive impairment. Section GG., Functional Abilities and Goals, indicated the resident required substantial/maximum assistance with personal hygiene (which meant the helper did more than half of the effort.) Record review of Resident #40's CP reflected a [Focus] for the resident having had potential impairment to skin integrity R/T fragile skin and discoid lupus, initiated 6/19/2023. The [Goal] was to be free from injury through the review date, revised 1/5/2024. The [Intervention] was for nursing staff to help Resident #40 avoid scratching and to keep fingernails short, initiated 12/24/2023. A second [Focus] for the resident was evidenced by chronic kidney disease, initiated 8/12/2021. The [Goal] was to be free from signs and symptoms of dehydration through the review date, revised on 1/5/2024. The [Intervention] for nursing staff was to monitor foot care needs and cut long nails, initiated on 11/16/2023. Record review of Resident #40's [Order Summary Report] reflected an active order for [Podiatry Care,] dated 6/7/2023. Record review of Resident #40's [Skin Monitoring: Comprehensive CNA Shower Review,] dated 2/13/2024, indicated Resident #40 needed her toenails cut. [Skin Monitoring: Comprehensive CNA Shower Review,] dated 2/17/2024, indicated Resident #40 needed her toenails cut. [Skin Monitoring: Comprehensive CNA Shower Review,] dated 2/20/2024, indicated Resident #40 needed her toenails cut. Observations and interview on 02/20/24 at 02:46 PM with Resident #40 reflected 4 pieces of food on her chest. Her gown, at the top of her chest, was greasy. Her fingernails, on both hands, were long and each had a collection of dirt on the underside. Resident #40 thought it was time for her nails to be cut. She had accidently scratched herself with her fingernails before and it was not pleasant. She stated, staff had not been around to cut them for a long time. She denied any pain because of her fingernails. Observations and interview on 02/20/24 at 03:26 PM with Resident #7's reflected his fingernails, on both hands, were unevenly trimmed and gagged; Each fingernail, not including the thumbs, contained dirt on the underside of the nail. 2 of his fingers on his right hand and 3 fingers on his left hand had red stains. Resident #7 stated staff have not been by recently to trim my nails. The red stains on his fingertips were smears of blood that remained after he picked at small sores on his right and left arms. He denied any pain. Observation and interview on 02/21/24 at 07:28 AM with Resident #40 reflected her fingernails, on both hands, were long and each had a collection of dirt on the underside. The skin on her right foot was dry. The skin on her left foot was dry and 3 of her toenails were long enough to curl at the end. Resident #40 stated the people who came to look at her feet had not been by to see her in a while. She denied pain associated with her fingernails or her toenails. Observations and interview on 02/21/2024 at 9:37 AM with Resident #7's reflected his fingernails, on both hands, were unevenly trimmed and gagged; Each fingernail, not including the thumbs, contained dirt on the underside of the nail. Resident #7 picked at small sores in his right arms, which left a residue of blood on his fingers. He wanted better care from the staff. Interview and observation on 02/22/24 at 9:16 AM with Resident #40 revealed someone had trimmed and painted her fingernails since the last observation on 02/21/24 at 07:28 AM. Her fingernails were appropriately trimmed and were painted pink; her feet, however, were the same as the last observation on 02/21/24 at 07:28 AM; The skin on her right foot and left foot was dry and 3 of her toenails on her left foot were long enough to curl at the end. She felt better about herself, and her appearance, with her nails done. Interview and observation on 02/22/24 at 2:10 PM with LVN Z revealed Resident #7 received medication and cream for his arms because he itched, and he scratched his arms often. LVN Z visually inspected Resident #7s fingernails during the interview, who agreed Resident #7 needed nail care; She stated she would get someone to provide his nail care. Interview and observation on 02/23/24 at 8:34 AM with Resident #7 revealed his nails had been filed even but were still dirty with red stains. He had his itch cream on his bedside table. Interview on 2/23/2024 at 2:28 PM with CNA O revealed nail care was important for the residents because residents with long, or gagged, fingernails had a greater risk of scratching themselves, as well as scratching an employee. Long nails, or gagged nails, caused deep scratches and cuts, especially those residents with fragile skin. When she observed fingernails past the length of the fingertip, or gagged nails, she reported those concerns to the charge nurse. If the nails were dirty, CNA O cleaned them with warm soapy water and a nail brush, to prevent the spread of infection. The CNAs filled out a skin condition form during a resident's shower/bath, which had an area to check off for toenail care. The forms were provided to the charge nurse for review and assessment. Residents identified having long toenails were treated by the licensed nursing staff, or they would schedule a podiatry appointment. Interview on 2/23/2024 at 2:50 PM with LVN Y revealed it was important to keep resident's fingernails trimmed, and cleaned, to protect from cuts, bleeding, and the spread of infections. CNAs were trained to observe and report all residents who required fingernail care as well as documenting the need for toenail care on the resident's shower sheet. If a resident needed nail care the licensed nursing staff would assess, treat, or call for a podiatry consult. Interview, observation, and record review on 2-23-2023 at 4:00 PM with the ADON A revealed nail care was important to avoid scratches, scrapes, and reduce the spread of infection. The ADON stated the procedure to identify the need for nail care was for CNAs to observe and identify the need for nail care and to and report those needs to the charge nurse. As well, CNAs were trained to observe, and report, the need for toenail care on the resident's shower sheet. The ADON A was provided Resident #40's last three shower sheet, dated 2/13/2024, 2/17/2024, and 2/20/2024. Each shower sheet indicated Resident #40 had long toenails. The ADON made a visual inspection of Resident #40's toenails, who stated Resident #40 required toenail care, they needed to be trimmed; The ADON made a visual inspection of Resident #7's fingernails, who stated Resident #7 required more fingernail care, they needed to be cleaned. The ADON stated the reason Resident #40 and Resident #7 did not receive nail care was a failure for nursing staff to communicate the residents' needs and follow through with shower sheet findings. Interview on 2/25/2023 at 10:15 AM with the ADM revealed the facility had a policy for nail care and a process to report resident's nail care needs to the nursing staff. The ADM expected his staff to follow the procedure so the residents could receive the care. The facility's failure to provide the appropriate nail care fell on the nursing staff not following with reports or documentation. Record Review of the facility's [Care of Fingernails/Toenails] Policy, dated April 2007, reflected (1) nail care included daily cleaning and regular trimming; (2) proper nail care aided in the prevention of skin problems around the nail bed; (4) trimmed and smooth nails prevented the resident from accidentally scratching themselves; (5) watch for, and report, any changes of skin color, poor circulation, cracking on the skin, or swelling; and, (6) to stop and report evidence of ingrown nails, infections, pain, or if nails are too hard or too thick to cut with ease to the nursing supervisor.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0919 (Tag F0919)

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 they were adequately equipped to allow residents...

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 they were adequately equipped to allow residents to call for staff assistance through a communication system which relayed the call directly to a staff member or to a centralized staff work area from each residents bedside and the toilet and bathing facilities for 3 of 8 residents (Resident #41, Resident #10 and Resident #51) reviewed for environment. 1. The facility failed to ensure Resident # 41's call light pull string, in the bathroom, was from free from entanglements and extended to its intended length and was reachable from lying on the floor. 2. The facility failed to ensure Resident # 10's call light pull string, in the bathroom, was from free from entanglements and extended to its intended length and was reachable from lying on the floor. 3. The facility failed to ensure Resident # 51's call light pull string, in the bathroom, was from free from entanglements and extended to its intended length and was reachable from lying on the floor. These failures could place residents at risk for having their needs unmet. Findings include: 1. Record review of Resident #41's AR, dated 2/20/2024, reflected a [AGE] year-old female, who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. She was diagnosed with hemiplegia and hemiparesis (which was condition that involved one-sided paralysis;) Diabetes Mellitus Type 2 (which was condition of the body's inability to use sugar for fuel;) and unspecified abnormalities of gait (which was a change in Resident #41's walking pattern.) Record review of Resident #41's CP reflected a Focus, revised on 10/1/2023, evidenced by risk for falls R/T decreased mobility. The Goal, revised on 1/22/2024, indicated the resident would not sustain any serious injuries R/T falls. The Intervention, revised on 2/28/2022, delegated CNAs to ensure Resident #41 was wearing appropriate footwear when mobilizing in her wheelchair, and ensuring the resident's call light was within reach to call for assistance. Record review of Resident #41's Annual MDS, dated [DATE], reflected Section C., Cognitive Patterns; Resident #41 had a BIMS Score of 12, which indicated Resident #41 had moderate cognitive impairment. Section GG., Functional Abilities and Goals; Resident had impairment on one side of their upper extremities (shoulder, elbow, wrist, and hand) and one side of their lower extremities (hip, knee, ankle, and foot.) Resident #41 utilized a wheelchair for ambulation. Resident #41 required substantial/maximal assistance for toileting hygiene, personal hygiene, toilet transfer, and tub/shower transfer, which meant the helper did more than half the effort. Section H., Bladder and Bowel indicated Resident #41 was always incontinent of bladder and bowel. Observation on 02/20/24 at 11:01 AM of Resident #41's call light pull string in Resident #41's bathroom revealed it was not hanging freely from the junction box in the direction of the floor. The call light pull string was connected to a junction box and attached was a long string that was supposed to hang down towards the direction of the floor. The call light pull string was knotted 4 times. The amount of string utilized in the 4 knots took slack from the call light pull string. Using a measuring tool from a state issued iPhone 13, the end of the call light pull string was 25 inches from the floor. Observation on 02/21/24 at 07:22 AM of Resident #41's call light pull string in Resident #41's bathroom reflected it was not hanging freely from the junction box in the direction of the floor. The call light pull string was connected to a junction box and attached was a long string that was supposed to hang down towards the direction of the floor. The call light pull string was knotted 4 times. The amount of string utilized in the 4 knots took slack from the call light pull string. Using a measuring tool from a state issued iPhone 13, the end of the call light pull string was 25 inches from the floor. Observations on 2/22/2024 at 8:45 AM reflected Resident #41's call light pull string in Resident #41's bathroom was not hanging freely from the junction box in the direction of the floor. The call light pull string was connected to a junction box and attached was a long string that was supposed to hang down towards the direction of the floor. The call light pull string was knotted 4 times. The amount of string utilized in the 4 knots took slack from the call light pull string. The knots were untied, and another measurement was taken; the end of the call light pull string was 25 inches from the floor. 2. Record review of Resident #10's AR, dated 2/20/2024, reflected a [AGE] year-old male, who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. He was diagnosed with Cardiac Arrhythmia, unspecified (which was an irregular heartbeat;) Unsteadiness on Feet (which was a temporary condition of an injury;) and, Unspecified fall, subsequent encounter (which was a medical code evidenced by an external cause of accidental injury.) Record review of Resident #10's CP reflected a Focus, initiated on 9/6/2023, was evidenced by a history of falls. The [Goal,] revised on 10/14/2023, stated the resident would resume usual activities without further incident. The [Intervention,] revised on 12/8/2023, delegated nursing staff to determine possible causes of the post falls and implement proper interventions. A second Focus, revised on 10/23/2023, was evidenced by falls R/T poor communication, comprehension and unsteady gait. The Goal, revised on 10/14/2023, stated the resident would not sustain falls with injury. The Intervention, initiated on 7/14/2023, delegated nursing staff to reinforce the need for the resident to call for assistance. Record review of Resident #10's Quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], reflected Section C., Cognitive Patterns; Resident #10 did not participate in a BIMS Score assessment, rather was assessed by staff having resulted in the resident's cognition level categorized as severely impaired. Section GG., Functional Abilities and Goals; Resident had no impairment for both upper (shoulder, elbow, wrist, and hand) and lower extremities (hip, knee, ankle, and foot.) Resident #10 utilized a wheelchair for ambulation. Resident #10 required partial/moderate assistance for toileting hygiene, shower/bathe self, and personal hygiene. Partial/moderate assistance indicated the helper did less than half the effort. Resident #10 required substantial/maximal assistance for toilet transfer. Substantial/maximal assistance indicated the helper provided more than half the effort. Section H., Bladder and Bowel indicated Resident #10 was always incontinent of bladder and always incontinent of bowel. Record review of Resident #10's progress note, dated 11/19/2023, reflected the resident tried to ambulate on his own; he made it to the doorway and fell. Observations on 02/20/24 at 10:45 AM of Resident #10's call light pull string in Resident #10's bathroom was not hanging freely from the junction box in the direction of the floor. The call light pull string was connected to a junction box and attached was a long string that was supposed to hang down towards the direction of the floor. The call light pull string was wrapped and knotted 1 time around a fixed support bar affixed to the wall next to the toilet. The activation of the alarm to alert staff was inoperable when pulled from the end of the string that extended past the wrap, the knot, and the fixed support bar. Using a measuring tool from a state issued iPhone 13, the end of the call light pull string was 23 inches from the floor. Observations on 02/21/24 at 07:25 AM of Resident #10's call light pull string in Resident #10's bathroom revealed it was not hanging freely from the junction box in the direction of the floor. The call light pull string was connected to a junction box and attached was a long string that was supposed to hang down towards the direction of the floor. The call light pull string was wrapped and knotted 1 time around a fixed support bar affixed to the wall next to the toilet. The activation of the alarm to alert staff was inoperable when pulled from the end of the string that extended past the wrap, the knot, and the fixed support bar. Using a measuring tool from a state issued iPhone 13, the end of the call light pull string was 23 inches from the floor. Observation on 2/22/2024 at 8:50 AM reflected Resident #10's call light pull string in Resident #10's bathroom was not hanging freely from the junction box in the direction of the floor. The call light pull string was connected to a junction box and attached was a long string that was supposed to hang down towards the direction of the floor. The call light pull string was wrapped and knotted 1 time around a fixed support bar affixed to the wall next to the toilet. Using a measuring tool from a state issued iPhone 13, the end of the call light pull string was 23 inches from the floor. 3. Record review or Resident #51's AR, dated 2/20/2024, reflected a [AGE] year-old female, who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. She was diagnosed with Rhabdomyolysis (which occurred when damaged muscle tissue released its proteins and electrolytes into the blood;) Atrial Fibrillation (which was a disease of the heart characterized by irregular and often faster heartbeat;) and, unspecified lack of coordination (which was general lack of coordination.) Record review of Resident #51's CP reflected a Focus, initiated on 7/31/2023, evidenced by high risk for falls. The Goal, revised on 7/31/2023, indicated resident would be free from falls. The Intervention, initiated on 7/31/2023, delegated CNA staff to ensure the resident was wearing appropriate footwear when ambulating or mobilizing in a wheelchair; and to ensure the resident's call light was working and within reach / encourage the resident to use it for assistance. Record review of Resident #51's Annual MDS, dated [DATE], reflected Section C., Cognitive Patterns; Resident #51 had a BIMS Score of 15, which indicated Resident #51 did not have cognitive impairments. Section GG., Functional Abilities and Goals; indicated the Resident had no impairment for both upper (shoulder, elbow, wrist, and hand) and lower extremities (hip, knee, ankle, and foot.) Resident #51 utilized a wheelchair for ambulation. Resident #51 required partial/moderate assistance for toileting hygiene, shower/bathe self, and personal hygiene. Partial/moderate assistance indicated the helper did less than half the effort. Resident #10 required substantial/maximal assistance for toilet transfer. Substantial/maximal assistance indicated the helper provided more than half the effort. Section H., Bladder and Bowel indicated Resident #10 was always incontinent of bladder and always incontinent of bowel. Section GG., Functional Abilities and Goals; Resident #51 required supervision or touching assistance for shower/bathe self and personal hygiene. Substantial/maximal assistance indicated the helper did more than half the effort. Resident #51 required setup assistance for tub/shower transfer. Setup assistance indicated the helper set up or cleaned up prior to, or following, the activity. Section H., Bladder and Bowel indicated Resident ##51 was frequently incontinent of bladder and bowel. Observations 02/20/24 at 01:27 PM of Resident #51's call light pull string in Resident #51's bathroom revealed it was not hanging freely from the junction box in the direction of the floor. The call light pull string was connected to a junction box and attached was a long string that was supposed to hang down towards the direction of the floor. The call light pull string was knotted 10 times. The amount of string utilized in the 10 knots took slack from the call light pull string. Using a measuring tool from a state issued iPhone 13, the end of the call light pull string was 27.5 inches from the floor. Observation on 02/21/24 at 07:41 AM reflected Resident #51's call light pull string in Resident #51's bathroom revealed it was not hanging freely from the junction box in the direction of the floor. The call light pull string was connected to a junction box and attached was a long string that was supposed to hang down towards the direction of the floor. The call light pull string was knotted 10 times. The amount of string utilized in the 10 knots took slack from the call light pull string. Using a measuring tool from a state issued iPhone 13, the end of the call light pull string was 27.5 inches from the floor. Interview and on 2/21/2024 at 7:45 AM with Resident #51 revealed she has used the toilet in the room's bathroom. She wondered why the call light pull string was so long and was surprised to learn it was supposed to hang to the floor in case of a fall. Resident #51 stated she would be upset if she fell in the bathroom and could not reach the call light pull string. Observation on 2/22/2024 at 9:00 AM reflected Resident #51's call light pull string in Resident #51's bathroom was not hanging freely from the junction box in the direction of the floor. The call light pull string was connected to a junction box and attached was a long string that was supposed to hang down towards the direction of the floor. The call light pull string was knotted 10 times. The amount of string utilized in the 10 knots took slack from the call light pull string. Using a measuring tool from a state issued iPhone 13, the end of the call light pull string was 27.5 inches from the floor. Interview and observation on 2/22/2024 at 11:35 AM with CNA P revealed staff were trained to ensure each resident knew how to utilize the call system located in the resident's bathroom. If a resident could not reach the call light, a resident could be lying on the floor for up to 2 hours. Residents risked anxiety, despair, pain due to injury, helplessness, and anger if they were unable to call staff for help. CNA P entered Resident #10's bathroom and noticed the call light pull string was knotted and wrapped around a fixed support bar. This investigator pulled the call light pull string and it was inoperable when pulled from the end under the fixed support bar. CNA P untied the knot and the unwrapped string, the call light pull string was tested and it was operable. This investigator, having used a measuring tool from a state issued iPhone 13, the end of the call light pull string was 1 inch from the floor. CNA P entered Resident #41's bathroom and noticed the call light pull string was knotted 4 times. CNA P untied the 4 knots. The call light pull string was tested and it was operable. This investigator, having used a measuring tool from a state issued iPhone 13, the end of the call light pull string was 3 inches from the floor. Observation on 2/22/20827 at 1:55 PM of Resident #51's call light pull string in Resident #51's bathroom revealed the 10 knots were undone and the activation of the alarm to alert staff was operable when pulled from the end of the string. This investigator, having used a measuring tool from a state issued iPhone 13, the end of the call light pull string was 3 inches from the floor. Interview on 2/24/24 at 10:35 AM with LVN F revealed the call light pull strings were in the restroom and they were extended to the floor in case a resident needed help from the floor position. Risks for residents not being able to reach and call for assistance were increased skin breakdown, prolonged pain, isolation, anger, helplessness, and loss of trust with staff. If the strings were not in their intended place the failure would lie on proper education, staff awareness, the last staff member to be in the bathroom. Interview on 2/24/2024 at 10:50 AM with ADON B revealed the call light pull strings were utilized for residents to call from help in the bathroom. The strings were long, so they were able to reach it from the floor position. Staff were trained to make sure the string was in its intended position. The failure for the call light pull strings, having not been in their intended position, was staff not recognizing and correcting the string's intended location; and, having made sure the string was accessible to the resident if they were lying on the floor. Interview on 2/25/2024 at 10:15 AM with the ADM revealed there was a facility policy to address the call light system. The ADM expected his staff to have noticed, and corrected, any issue or concerns with the call light strings operational status and location. The ADM conducted a facility wide inspection for the call light pull strings in the resident's bathrooms and stated there were no more irregularities. The ADM felt the incorrect placement and operability issues with the call light pull strings were isolated and each concern was corrected. Record review of the facility's Answering the Call Light Policy, dated September 2003, reflected (1) explain the call light to the new resident; (2) demonstrate the use of the call light; and (3) ask the resident to return the demonstration so that you will be sure that the resident can operate the system. (Explain to the resident that a call system is also located in the bathroom. Demonstrate how it works.)
CONCERN (F)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

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

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety in 1 of 1 kitchen reviewed for dietary services. 1) Dietary staff failed to effectively reseal, label and date items in the walk-in refrigerator. 2) Dietary staff failed to effectively reseal, label and date items in the walk-in freezer. These failures could place residents at risk for food contamination and foodborne illness. The findings include: During the initial tour of the kitchen on 02/20/2024 at 08:37 AM the following was observed: The walk-in freezer contained a bag labeled ravioli in a clear plastic bag with no dates documented. The walk-in freezer contained a bag labeled hamburger patties in a clear plastic bag with no dates documented. The walk-in refrigerator contained a bag labeled shredded cheese in a clear plastic bag with a prepared date of 02/16/24 with no use by date documented. The walk-in refrigerator contained a bag labeled mozzarella cheese in a clear plastic bag that was loosely opened and exposed to the air. Interview with the Dietary Manager on 02/20/24 at 9:00 AM, the dietary manager stated the cooks knew to discard opened items within 3 days of opening them. The Dietary Manager stated if food was not dated the food would be compromised. The Dietary Manager stated food items could be old, be molded, or smell if not appropriately labeled with a received, opened, and used by dates. The Dietary Manager stated the cooks were responsible for appropriately labeling the opened with items with a received, opened, and used by dates. The Dietary manager stated the walk-in refrigerator/freezer had signage instructing staff to not leave food in it opened over 3 days . Interview with [NAME] A on 02/20/24 at 9:05 AM, [NAME] A stated if items were opened, the item should be placed in a ziploc bag and labeled with an opened date and used by date. [NAME] A stated opened items should be discarded after 3 days. [NAME] A said food items that did not have a received, opened, and used by date should be thrown away. [NAME] A stated if the food items were not labeled with dates, then the food could be spoiled or old. [NAME] A stated if residents were served old food, they could get sick. [NAME] A stated it was the kitchen staff's responsibility to make sure food was labeled with the received, opened, and used by dates . Interview with the ADM on 02/23/24 at 3:20 PM, the ADM stated foods in the refrigerator and freezer should have been labeled appropriately with the received by, opened, and used by dates. The ADM said if food was not labeled appropriately then the food could be spoiled, and the facility could possibly serve spoiled food to the residents. The ADM stated whoever opened the items should appropriately date and label it. Record review of the facility's Food Storage: Cold Foods, dated 04/2018, reflected All time/temperature control for Safety (TCS ) foods, frozen and refrigerated, will be appropriately stored in accordance with guidelines of the FDA Food Code. Procedures 5. All food will be stored wrapped or in covered containers, labeled and dated, and arranged in a manner to prevent cross contamination . A record review of the FDA's 2022 Food Code reflected the following: 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-TOEAT, 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: (1) The day the original container is opened in the FOOD ESTABLISHMENT shall be counted as Day 1; 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.
Jan 2024 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0883 (Tag F0883)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure resident's medical records included documentation that indi...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure resident's medical records included documentation that indicated the resident, or their RP, received education of the benefits, and potential side effects, of the influenza or pneumococcal immunization, receipt of the influenza or pneumococcal immunization, or residents did not receive the influenza or pneumococcal immunization due to medical contraindication, or refusal, for 2 of 5 residents (RES #2 and RES #4) who were reviewed for immunizations, in that:. 1. The facility failed to document RES #2's medical records having had received education, whether by self or with RP, of the benefits, and potential side effects, of the influenza and pneumococcal immunization, receipt of the influenza and pneumococcal immunization, or having had not received the influenza and pneumococcal immunizations due to medical contraindication or refusal. 2. The facility failed to document RES #4's medical records for having had received education, whether by self or with RP, of the benefits, and potential side effects, of the influenza and pneumococcal immunization, receipt of the influenza and pneumococcal immunization, or having had not received the influenza and pneumococcal immunizations due to medical contraindication or refusal. These failures could place residents at risk of contracting a viral illness, influenza and pneumococcal, or being informed of the benefits/risk which could cause respiratory complications and potential adverse health outcomes. Findings include: Record review of RES #2's AR, dated 1/11/2024, reflected RES #2 was an [AGE] year-old male who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. He was diagnosed with Type -2 Diabetes (which was a condition that impeded the body's ability to use sugar as fuel) and a Displaced Intertrochanteric Fracture, Right Femur (which was a common type of hip fracture.) Record review of RES #2's Quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], indicated Section C., Cognitive Patterns, that RES #2 had a BIMS Score of 12. A BIMS Score of 12 indicated RES #2 had moderate cognitive impairment. RES #2's MDS Quarterly MDS, indicated, Section O., Special Treatments, Procedures, and Programs, that RES #2's influenza vaccination, Sub-Section O0250., was [not received;] RES #2 did not receive the influenza vaccination due to having had [received the influenza vaccination outside of the facility.] RES #2's MDS Quarterly MDS, indicated, Section O., Special Treatments, Procedures, and Programs, that RES #2's Pneumococcal vaccination, Sub-Section O0300., was [not up to date;] RES #2 did not receive the Pneumococcal Vaccination due to [medical contradiction.] Record review of RES #2's medical records reflected the immunization of the influenza immunization with [No Date Given] and RES #2's Consent Status was [Consent Refused.] Record review of PCC did not document a Pneumococcal Vaccination, a date given, or consent status. Record review of RES #2's Order Summary Report indicated, on 7/26/2023, an order for pneumococcal vaccine and annual influenza vaccine. Record review of RES #4's AR, dated 1/11/2024, reflected RES #4 was a [AGE] year-old male who was admitted the facility on 12/9/2023. He was diagnosed with Metabolic Encephalopathy (which was a chemical imbalance in the blood) and Muscle Weakness. Record review of RES #4's admission MDS, dated [DATE], indicated Section C., Cognitive Patterns, that RES #4 had a BIMS Score of 10. A BIMS Score of 10 indicated RES # had moderate cognitive impairment. RES #4's admission MDS, indicated, Section O., Special Treatments, Procedures, and Programs, that RES #4's influenza vaccination, Sub-Section O0250., was [not received;] RES #4 did not receive the influenza vaccination due to having had [received the influenza vaccination outside of the facility.] RES #4's admission MDS, indicated, Section O., Special Treatments, Procedures, and Programs, that RES #4's Pneumococcal vaccination, Sub-Section O0300., was [not up to date;] RES #4 did not receive the Pneumococcal Vaccination due to [having received it outside of the facility.] Record review of RES #4's medical records reflected no documentation of the [influenza Vaccination]; did not document a [Date Given] and did not document a [Consent Status.] Record review of RES #4's medical records, listed under the Immunizations Tab in PCC did not indicate [Pneumococcal Vaccination]; did not document a [Date Given] and did not document a [Consent Status.] Record review of RES #4's Order Summary Report indicated, on 7/26/2023, an order for pneumococcal vaccine and annual influenza vaccine. Interview and record review on 1/11/2024 at 2:20 PM with the ADON of RES #2's medical records resulted in a facility failure to provide documentation that pertained to (1) RES #2, or their RP, having had received education regarding the benefits and potential side effects of the influenza immunization; (2) RES #2, or their RP, having had documented the date of RES #2's influenza immunization between October 1,2023 through the date of the date of the assessment; or (3) RES #2, having been found ineligible for the influenza immunization due to medical contradiction. The only documentation found in PCC was found in a drop-down box in the influenza section, under Immunizations, which indicated RES #2 refused the influenza vaccination on 7/16/2023, prior to RES #2's admission to the facility on 7/26/2023. A search of RES #2's medical records in PCC resulted in a facility failure to provide documentation that pertained to (1) RES #2, or their RP, having had received education regarding the benefits and potential side effects of the pneumococcal immunization; (2) RES #2, or their RP, having had documented the date of RES #2's previous pneumococcal immunization; or (3) RES #2, having been found ineligible for the pneumococcal immunization due to refusal or medical contradiction. A search of RES #4's medical records resulted in a facility failure to provide documentation that pertained to (1) RES #4, or their RP, having had received education regarding the benefits and potential side effects of the influenza immunization; (2) RES #4, or their RP, having had documented the date of RES #4's influenza immunization between October 1,2023 through the date of the date of the assessment; or (3) RES #4, having been found ineligible for the influenza immunization due to refusal or medical contradiction. A search of RES #4's medical records in PCC resulted in a facility failure to provide documentation that pertained to (1) RES #4, or their RP, having had received education regarding the benefits and potential side effects of the pneumococcal immunization; (2) RES #4, or their RP, having had documented the date of RES #4's previous pneumococcal immunization; or (3) RES #4, having been found ineligible for the pneumococcal immunization due to refusal or medical contradiction. Interview on 1/11/2024 at 2:30 PM with RES #2 revealed an inability to recall if the facility offered the influenza immunization or the pneumococcal immunization since his arrival to the facility. RES #2 was unable to recall if he refused the influenza immunization on 11/16/2023. Interview on 1/11/2024 at 2:40 PM with RES #4 revealed an inability to recall if the facility offered the influenza immunization or the pneumococcal immunization since his arrival to the facility. Interview on 1/11/2024 at 2:456 PM with LVN revealed that everyone at the facility was offered the influenza and pneumococcal immunizations per facility policy. The immunizations were offered to all residents, regardless of whether they were short-term rehab patients or long-term residents. The LVN stated that information pertaining to the influenza and pneumococcal immunization, such as benefit and risk, was provided to each resident, or their RP, as to make an informed decision. The LVN stated that the facility was supposed to keep consents and refusals for influenza and pneumococcal immunization on file and that the influenza and pneumococcal immunization status was found under the immunization section of PCC. Interview on 1/11/2024 at 2:55 PM with the DON revealed the facility failure to document education, receipt, and medical contradiction for influenza and pneumococcal immunizations was due to staffing shortages. The DON stated that she, and other nursing staff, usually performed immunization audits to make sure influenza and pneumococcal immunizations were administered and properly documented, but staffing shortages took away from the time allotted for those influenza and pneumococcal audits. Interview on 1/11/2024 at 2:55 PM with the ADM revealed his expectations for influenza and pneumococcal immunizations and documentation for influenza and pneumococcal was that staff followed facility policy to avoid potential adverse health outcomes with residents. The ADM stated efforts in place to ensure accurate administration and documentation of influenza and pneumococcal immunizations were education and monitoring. The ADM stated the failure to provide accurate documentation of influenza and pneumococcal immunization administration, or reasons not to administer, was inconsistency with healthcare audits. Record review of the CDC [recommended adult, 19 years and older, immunization schedule by age group, United States, 2024] indicated the inactivated influenza (killed virus), should be administered [1 dose annually] to people between the ages of [AGE] years old to those equal, or greater, than [AGE] years old. Record review of the CDC [recommended adult immunization schedule by age group, United States, 2024] indicated the pneumococcal immunization should be administered to those equal to, or greater than, [AGE] years old. (Based on age, risk factors, and shared clinical decision making.) Record review of the facility's Influenza Vaccine Policy, dated August 2016, reflected (1) between October 1st and March 31st each year, the influenza vaccine shall be offered to residents and employees, unless the vaccine is medically contradicted or the resident or employee has already been immunized; (4) prior to the vaccination, the resident (or resident's legal representative) will be provided information and education regarding the benefits and potential side effects of the influenza vaccine. Provisions of such education shall be documented in the resident's medical record; (5) for those who received the vaccine, the date of the vaccination, lot number, expiration date, person administering, and the site of vaccination will be documented in the resident's medical record; (6) residents refusal of the vaccine shall be documented on the 'informed consent for influenza vaccine' and placed in the resident's medical record; (9) only inactivated influenza vaccine will be offered to residents; and (10) resident's may obtained their influenza vaccine from their personal physicians . Documentation of previous vaccination should be provided to the facility. Record review of the facilities Pneumococcal Vaccine Policy, dated August 2016, reflected (1) prior to or upon admission, residents will be assessed for eligibility to receive the pneumococcal vaccine series, and when indicated, will be offered the vaccine series within 30 days of admission to the facility unless medically contradicted or the resident has already been vaccinated; (2) assessments of pneumococcal vaccination shall be conducted within five working days of the residents admission if not conducted prior to the admission; (3) before receiving a pneumococcal vaccine, the resident or legal representative shall receive information and educating regarding the benefits and potential side effects of the pneumococcal vaccine; (4) pneumococcal vaccines will be administered to residents per our facility's physician-approved pneumococcal vaccination protocol; (5) residence or resident representatives have the right to refuse vaccination. If refused, appropriate entries will be documented in each residence medical record indicating the date of the refusal of the pneumococcal vaccination; and (7) administration of the pneumococcal vaccines, or revaccination, will be made in accordance with current CDC recommendations at the time of the vaccination.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0887 (Tag F0887)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record reviews, the facility failed to implement their policy to ensure the resident's, or their RP, rece...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record reviews, the facility failed to implement their policy to ensure the resident's, or their RP, received education of the benefits and risks, or potential side effects of Covid-19 immunizations, receipt of Covid-19 immunizations, or the residents did not receive the Covid-19 immunizations, due to medical contraindication, or refusal, for 2 of 5 residents (RES #2 and RES #4) who were reviewed for immunizations. 1. The facility failed to document RES #2's medical records for having had received education, whether by self or with RP, of the benefits and risk, and potential side effects, of the Covid-19 immunization, receipt of the of the Covid-19 immunization, or having had not received the Covid-19 immunization due to medical contraindication or refusal. 2. The facility failed to document RES #4's medical records for having had received education, whether by self or with RP, of the benefits and risk, and potential side effects, of the Covid-19 immunization, receipt of the of the Covid-19 immunization, or having had not received the Covid-19 immunization due to medical contraindication or refusal. This failure could place residents at risk of not being informed of complications and potential adverse health outcomes. Findings include: Record review of RES #2's AR, dated 1/11/2024, reflected RES #2 was an [AGE] year-old male who was admitted the facility on 7/26/2023. He was diagnosed with Type -2 Diabetes (which was a condition that impeded the body's ability to use sugar as fuel) and a Displaced Intertrochanteric Fracture, Right Femur (which was a common type of hip fracture.) Record review of RES #2's Quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], indicated Section C., Cognitive Patterns, that RES #2 had a BIMS Score of 12. A BIMS Score of 12 indicated RES #2 had moderate cognitive impairment. Record review of RES #2's medical records, listed under the Immunizations Tab in PCC, which was the facility's documentation platform, indicated no documentation of Covid-19 immunization education, administration, medical contradiction, or refusal. Record review of RES #4's AR, dated 1/11/2024, reflected RES #4 was a [AGE] year-old male who was admitted the facility on 12/9/2023. He was diagnosed with Metabolic Encephalopathy (which was a chemical imbalance in the blood) and Muscle Weakness. Record review of RES #4's admission MDS, dated [DATE], indicated Section C., Cognitive Patterns, that RES #4 had a BIMS Score of 10. A BIMS Score of 10 indicated RES # had moderate cognitive impairment. Record review of RES #4's medical records, listed under the Immunizations Tab in PCC, which was the facility's documentation platform, indicated no documentation of Covid-19 immunization education, administration, medical contradiction, or refusal. Interview and record review on 1/11/2024 at 2:20 PM with the ADON entailed a search of RES #2's medical records in PCC. The search of RES #2's medical records resulted in a facility failure to provide documentation that pertained to (1) RES #2, or their RP, having had received education regarding the benefits and risks, and potential side effects, of the Covid-19 immunization; (2) RES #2 receiving the Covid-19 immunization; or (3) RES #2, having been found ineligible for the Covid-19 immunization due to medical contradiction, or refusal. The search of RES #4's medical records resulted in a facility failure to provide documentation that pertained to (1) RES #4, or their RP, having had received education regarding the benefits and risks, and potential side effects, of the Covid-19 immunization; (2) RES #2 receiving the Covid-19 immunization; or (3) RES #4, having been found ineligible for the Covid-19 immunization due to medical contradiction, or refusal. Interview on 1/11/2024 at 2:30 PM with RES #2 revealed an inability to recall if the facility offered the Covid-19 immunization since his arrival to the facility. Interview on 1/11/2024 at 2:40 PM with RES #4 revealed an inability to recall if the facility offered the Covid-19 immunization since his arrival to the facility. Interview on 1/11/2024 at 2:456 PM with LVN revealed that everyone at the facility was offered the Covid-19 immunizations per facility policy. The immunization was offered to all residents, regardless of whether they were short-term rehab patients or long-term residents. The LVN stated that information pertaining to the Covid-19 immunizations, such as benefit and risk, and potential side effects, was provided to each resident, or their RP, as to make an informed decision. The LVN stated that the facility was supposed to keep consents and refusals for Covid-19 immunizations on file and that the Covid-19 immunization status was found under the immunization section of PCC. Interview and record review on 1/11/2024 at 2:55 PM with the DON revealed the facility failure to document education, receipt, and medical contradiction for Covid-19 immunization was due to staffing shortages. The DON stated that she, and other nursing staff, usually performed immunization audits to make sure Covid-19 immunizations were administered and properly documented, but staffing shortages took away from the time allotted for those Covid-19 immunizations audits. Interview on 1/11/2024 at 2:55 PM with the ADM revealed his expectations for Covid-19 immunizations and documentation for Covid-19 immunizations was that staff followed facility policy to avoid adverse health outcomes with residents. The ADM stated efforts in place to ensure accurate administration and documentation of Covid-19 immunizations were education and monitoring. The ADM stated the failure to provide accurate Covid-19 documentation of Covid-19 immunization administration, or reasons not to administer, was inconsistency with healthcare Covid-19 audits. Record review of the CDC [recommended adult immunization schedule by age group, United States, 2024] indicated the Covid-19 immunization should be provided in the form [one or more doses of updated, 2023 to 2024 formula, vaccine] from young adults at the age of [AGE] years old to those equal, or greater, than [AGE] years old. Record review of the facilities COVID-19 vaccination policy, dated August 2008, indicated (1) the COVID-19 vaccine shall be offered to residents unless the vaccination is medically contradicted or the resident has already been immunized; (3) prior to the vaccination, the resident or legal representative will be provided information and education regarding the benefits and potential side effects of the COVID-19 vaccine; (6) the resident's medical record will include documentation, at a minimum, that the resident, or resident representative, was provided education regarding the benefits and potential risks, including rare reactions; each dose of COVID-19 vaccine administered; or if the resident did not receive the COVID-19 vaccine due to medical contradiction or refusal; and (8) if the vaccine is unavailable in the facility, the facility should provide information on obtaining vaccination opportunities to the individual, however it is expected that the facility will provide evidence, upon request, of efforts made to make the vaccine available to residents. Similar to influenza vaccine, if there is a manufacturing delay, the facility should provide evidence of the delay, including efforts to acquire subsequent doses, as necessary.
Apr 2023 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** F550 Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that residents had the right to a dignifi...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** F550 Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that residents had the right to a dignified existence and were treated with respect and dignity for two of three residents (Resident #7 and #8) reviewed for resident rights. The facility failed to ensure the privacy of residents with urinary catheters was maintained by having catheter bags out of view of visitors, other residents, or staff. This failure placed residents at risk for stress, anxiety, decreased quality of life and emotional harm. Findings include. Review of Resident #7's face sheet dated 4/13/2023 reflected a [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included: Rhabdomyolysis (muscle tissue breakdown), Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia (enlargement of the Prostate Gland), Hypertension (high blood pressure), Hyperkalemia (high level of potassium in the blood), Urinary Tract Infection (infection in the urinary system) and Bradycardia (slow heart rate.) Review of Resident #7's MDS dated [DATE] reflected a BIMS of 13 indicating resident was cognitively intact. An observation on 4/13/2023 at 3:36 pm revealed a urinary catheter bag was visible from the hallway for room [ROOM NUMBER], Resident #7. During an interview with Resident #7 on 4/13/2023 at 3:37 pm, he stated he was not aware his urinary catheter bag was visible from the hall and stated, yes, that bothers me, I don't want people to see that. He stated the staff did a good job taking care of his urinary catheter bag, but they often left it on the side of the bed facing the hallway. Review of Resident #8's face sheet dated 4/13/2023 reflected a [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included: Nephritis (inflammation in the tissues of the kidneys), artificial opening of the urinary tract, urinary tract infection (infection in the urinary system,), Atrial Fibrillation (irregular heart rate), history of malignant neoplasm of male genital organs (cancer of the male genital organs), Hypertension (high blood pressure) and muscle weakness. Review of Resident #8's MDS dated [DATE] reflected a BIMS of 12 indicating resident was cognitively intact. An observation on 4/13/2023 at 3:55 pm revealed a urinary catheter bag visible from the hallway for room [ROOM NUMBER], Resident #8. During an interview with Resident #8 on 4/13/2023 at 3:55 pm, he stated he had not had any issues with his urinary catheter bag, but the staff often left it where it can be seen by others. He stated this is a privacy issue for him and it bothered him. He stated he wished they would put it on the other side of the bed so no one could see it from the doorway. During an interview on 4/13/2023 at 5:10 pm, the DON stated urinary catheter bags were to be in a privacy/dignity bag or on the other side of the resident's bed, so they are not visible from the hall. She stated she has not had any complaints regarding urinary catheter bags. She further stated the facility did training (on urinary catheter bags) before full book, but nothing recent. Review of facility's policy Emptying a Urinary Drainage Bag, revised October 2020, reflected no entry related to resident privacy or shielding the urinary collection bag from view of other residents, staff, or visitors.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Tag F761 Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that all drugs and biologicals were stored in locked compartments and inaccessible to unauthorized staff, vi...

Read full inspector narrative →
Tag F761 Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that all drugs and biologicals were stored in locked compartments and inaccessible to unauthorized staff, visitors, and residents for two (400 hallway and treatment cart) of nine medication carts reviewed for medication storage. The facility failed to prevent a medication cart on the 400 hallway and the facility treatment cart from being unattended and unlocked. This failure could place residents at risk for physical harm. Findings include: Observation on 4/13/2023 at 12:11 pm revealed the treatment cart for the facility was unlocked and unattended and one of the drawers was partially open with something hanging out of the drawer. There were no residents observed in the immediate vicinity. However, five staff were observed to have walked by the cart while it was unlocked. Observation on 4/13/2023 at 12:14 pm revealed a staff member (ADON A) came by and locked the cart. The staff was asked to unlock the cart and the staff stated she did not have a key for the cart but would get one. ADON A was asked who had keys to the treatment cart and she stated she thought there were two nurses that had keys to the cart. Observation on 4/13/2023 at 12:15 pm revealed the contents of the cart included wound care supplies, topical prescription wound medications, wound cleaning spray, wound solution, saline bottles, and wound packing strips. During an interview on 4/13/2023 at 4:22 pm, LVN C stated she had unlocked the treatment cart that morning and had left it open, so all nurses had access to the cart in order to do wound care rounds with the wound care doctor. She stated the facility had not had a wound care nurse, so each of the nurses' made rounds with the doctor while on their hall. She stated she had received training on the medication cart and medication carts have to stay locked at all times if we are not right by them. I guess it falls on me and I'll take responsibility. She stated there were medications on the cart that could overdose a person; a confused resident could eat a medication; it could cause death. She also stated she was the only one with a key to the treatment cart. Observation on 4/13/2023 at 12:35 pm revealed the medication cart on the 400 hall was unattended and unlocked. The medication cart was noted to be out of the line of site of staff at the nurse's station. Further observation revealed one visitor walked by the unlocked cart, one resident in a wheelchair rolled by the unlocked cart and multiple staff walked by the unlocked cart. Observation on 4/13/2023 at 12:46 pm revealed a staff member (ADON A) walked by the unlocked 400 hallway cart and locked it. During an interview on 4/13/2023 at 12:48 pm, LVN B stated she was the one that left the med cart unlocked. She stated she got sidetracked and forgot to lock it. LVN B stated she had received training on securing med carts, and they were supposed to keep it locked so no one can get in it. She stated if someone were to get in the cart they could get ahold of anything and put it in their mouth. She stated that bad stuff could happen including allergic reactions that could make a resident very sick. LVN B opened the cart and some of the medications observed included: blood sugar medications, breathing treatment medications, anxiety medications, blood pressure medications, anti-coagulant medications and topical pain relief patches. During an interview on 4/13/2023 at 12:52 pm ADON A stated she had walked by the cart and saw the cart was unlocked and she locked it saying it was force of habit. ADON A stated med carts were to be secured when staff walked away and when she saw them unlocked she would lock them. During an interview on 4/13/2023 at 5:10 pm, the DON stated her expectation was that medication carts would be locked, they need to be locked when they are not in use. She stated if someone got in a med cart it could make somebody sick, another resident could miss a med, or there could be a med error. She further stated that treatment carts fall under the policy of medication carts because they have medications on the cart. A review of facility policy Security of Medication Cart revised April 2007 reflected 4. Medication carts must be securely locked at all times when out of the nurses' view; 5. When the medication carts is not being used, it must be locked and parked at the nurses' station or inside them medication room.
Dec 2022 4 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0655 (Tag F0655)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to develop and implement a baseline care plan for each resident that includes the instructions needed to provide effective and person-centered care of the resident that meet professional standards of quality care for 1 (#231) resident of 4 residents reviewed for baseline care plans in that: The facility failed to address Resident #231's PICC line, IV antibiotics and Wound Vac on his baseline care plan. This deficient practice could affect residents who are admitted to the facility with specialized needs and result in missed care. The findings were: Review of Resident #231's electronic face sheet dated 12/16/2022 revealed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of sepsis (infection), acute osteomyelitis (infection in the bone caused by bacteria or fungi) of the left tibia (shin bone) and fibula (calf bone) and open wound left ankle. Review of Resident #231's clinical record dated 12/16/2022 revealed he was not at the facility long enough to have a comprehensive MDS assessment. Review of Resident #231's Interim Plan of Care dated 12/08/2022 revealed no infections, antibiotic therapy or wound vac were noted. Review of Resident #231's Active Orders As Of: 12/16/2022 revealed PICC/Midline/Central IV: Flush each lumen with 10 ml of NS Q shift. every shift Verbal Active 12/13/2022 12/13/2022 PICC/Midline/Central IV: Flush IV line with 10 ml's of NS before and after administration of IV medication one time a day Verbal Active 12/13/2022 12/14/2022 PICC/Midline/Central IV: No BP or Venipuncture to right upper arm. every shift .Wound Vac: Clean wound with NS with each dressing change and pat dry left ankle. one time a day every Mon, Wed, Fri Verbal Active 12/08/2022 12/09/2022 .Ceftriaxone (Antibiotic) Sodium Solution Reconstituted 2 GM Use 2 gram intravenously every 24 hours for infection related to ACUTE HEMATOGENOUS OSTEOMYELITIS (systemic infection), ANKLE AND FOOT (M86.07) until 01/14/2023 1:13 p.m Phone Active 12/08/2022 12/09/2022 01/14/2023. Review of Resident #231's MAR for 12/2022 printed on 12/16/2022 revealed he had received IV antibiotic from December 9th until December 16th (current date). Review of Resident #231's admission Summary Progress Note dated 12/8/2022 and written by LVN A revealed He has a wound vacc to the left ankle (patient provided his own machine) which is ordered to be changed MWF with black foam dressing at 125 mm HG suctioning. He has large scars to both his thighs on the top from skin grafts - otherwise skin is intact. He has a PICC line to the right upper inner arm which he will be receiving QD antibiotics til 01/14/2023 is the stop date. Observation on 12/13/2022 at 10:30 a.m. of Resident #231 revealed he was lying in bed with a PICC line to his right upper arm, a wound vac in place on his right ankle. Interview on 12/13/2022 at 10:35 a.m. with Resident #231, he stated he was at the facility for IV antibiotic therapy for his right ankle and gets wound vac and dressing changes to his right ankle every Monday, Wednesday and Friday. Interview on 12/16/2022 at 12:00 p.m. with LVN A revealed that she admitted Resident #231 and did his interim or baseline person-centered care plan but did not think to put his infection, intravenous antibiotics or wound vac on his baseline care plan. She stated that the baseline care plan reflected the resident's immediate needs and that he should have had the IV, wound vac and infection noted on the baseline care plan and she did not document those items. Interview on 12/16/2022 at 1:00 p.m. with the DON revealed that Resident #231 was admitted to the facility with the IV, antibiotics, wound infection and wound vac and that they should have been reflected on his baseline plan of care. She stated that if the care plan did not address the needs of the resident it could result in missed care. She stated that nurses were trained to do admissions and interim care plans and that she was ultimately accountable for the nursing care at the facility. Review of the facility policy and procedure titled Care Plans - Baseline dated revised December 2016 revealed 1. To assure that a resident's immediate care needs are met and maintained, a baseline care plan will be developed within forty eight (48) hours of admission.
CONCERN (D)

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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure that a resident who needs respiratory care, ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure that a resident who needs respiratory care, including tracheostomy care and tracheal suctioning is provided such care, consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, the residents' goals, and preferences for 1 resident (#227) of 2 residents reviewed for oxygen therapy in that: The facility failed to ensure a physician's order for oxygen therapy for Resident #227 was obtained. This deficient practice could affect residents at the facility who receive oxygen therapy by administering too much or not enough oxygen and could result in respiratory distress. The findings were: Review of Resident # 227's electronic record dated 12/16/2022 revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of obstructive sleep apnea (breathing stops during sleeping), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (lung disease) and asthma (chronic condition that affects airways in lungs making it difficult to breath). Review of Resident #227's electronic clinical record dated 12/16/2022 revealed she was not at the facility long enough to have a comprehensive MDS assessment. Review of Resident #227's care plan dated 12/07/2022 revealed Focus .is at risk for ineffective Airway Clearance r/t Asthma .Interventions .Give oxygen therapy as ordered by the physician. Review of Resident #227's Active Orders as Of: 12/16/2022 revealed she did not have an order for oxygen therapy. Review of Resident #227's progress note written by LVN A (undated) revealed O 2 2 L NC. Review of Resident #227's MAR dated December 2022 revealed she was getting pulse oxygen saturations checks daily starting on 12/06/2022. Review of Resident #227's interim plan of care dated 12/06/2022 revealed oxygen at 4 L/min. Observation on 12/13/2022 at 11:00 a.m. revealed Resident #227 lying in bed with oxygen infusing via NC and the concentrator was set at 3 L/min. Interview on 12/13/2022 at 11:10 a.m. with Resident #227 revealed she had been on oxygen therapy since her admission. Observation on 12/16/2022 at 11:05 a.m. of Resident #227 accompanied by RN B who was the charge nurse for the hall revealed Resident #227 revealed Resident #227 was lying in bed with her oxygen infusing via NC at 3 L/min. Interview on 12/16/2022 at 11:10 a.m. with RN B revealed that Resident #227 was on 2 to 3 L/min of oxygen to keep her oxygen saturations at a certain level. When the surveyor asked RN B to show them the oxygen order for Resident #227, she looked and stated there is no order. She stated it was important to have an order for oxygen because it was treated like a medication and that too much or too little could be harmful to the resident and cause difficulty breathing. She stated she did not check for an order and assumed there was one. Interview on 12/16/2022 at 11:30 a.m. with the DON revealed that Resident #227 did not have an order for her oxygen therapy and she should have. She stated she was ultimately accountable, and that he ADON must have missed it when she checked her orders. She stated too much or too little oxygen could be harmful for the resident and could result in death. Review of the facility policy and procedure titled Oxygen Administration revised October 2010 revealed 1. Verify that there is a physician's order for this procedure. Review the physician's orders or facility protocol for oxygen administration.
CONCERN (D)

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

Garbage Disposal (Tag F0814)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to dispose of garbage and refuse properly for seventy-seven (77) Residents in that, The outside garbage container was full of ref...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to dispose of garbage and refuse properly for seventy-seven (77) Residents in that, The outside garbage container was full of refuse and side doors measuring approximately 2 feet by 2 feet in length were left open. This deficient practice could place residents at risk of having an outside environment that did not prevent the harborage and feeding of pests. The findings include: Observation on 12/14/22 at 10:55am with the Dietary Director revealed the outside garbage dumpster was full of refuse and had side door coverings each measuring approximately 2 feet by 2 feet in length that were open. Interview on 12/14/22 at 11:15am with the Dietary Director stated her staff take trash out to the dumpster after every meal. The Dietary Director stated having the dumpster with open doors can attract rodents that could enter the building. Interview on 12/14/22 at 11:30am the Dietary District Manager stated the dumpster doors should be kept closed. He stated an open trash dumpster can allow pest infiltration into the building. Record review of the facility's Dining Services Policy and Procedure Manual-policy 030 dated 08/2017 stated all garbage and reuse will be collected and disposed of in a safe and efficient manner.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0745 (Tag F0745)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide medically-related social services for 4 of 77 residents (Re...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide medically-related social services for 4 of 77 residents (Residents #6, #18, #32, and #57) reviewed for provision of medically-related social services in that, The facility did not employ a social worker. This deficient practice could place residents at risk of not receiving medically related social services to attain the highest practicable physical and psychosocial wellbeing of each resident. Findings included: 1. Record review of Resident #6's face sheet, dated 12/16/22, revealed admission on [DATE] with a diagnosis of encephalopathy (a brain disease that alters brain function) and type 2 diabetes (a chronic condition that affects how the body processes blood sugar). Record review of Resident #6's MDS, dated [DATE], revealed a BIMS score of 15 (cognitively intact responses). During an interview on 12/16//22 at 9:05am Resident #6 stated she wanted to talk with a a social worker about moving out of the facility. 2. Record review of Resident #18's face sheet, dated 12/16/22, revealed admission on [DATE] with diagnoses of type 2 diabetes (a chronic condition that affects how the body processes blood sugar) and Parkinson's (a disease of the central nernous system that affects movement). Record review of Resident #18's MDS, dated [DATE], revealed a BIMS score of 15 (cognitively intact responses). During an interview on 12/16/22 at 9:30am Resident #18 stated she wanted to talk with a social worker for explanation on how the medicare advantage insurance plan would work for her. 3. Record review of Resident #32's face sheet, dated 12/16/22, revealed admission on [DATE] with diagnosis of unspecified pain and osteoarthritis of the knee ( a condition where the cartilage between the knee joints wears down). Record review of Resident #32's MDS, dated [DATE], revealed a BIMS score of 2 (severe impairment). During an interview on 12/16/22 at 9:45am Resident #32 stated she needed to talk with a social worker for help in getting in touch with a family member. 4. Record review of Resident #57's face sheet, dated 12/16/22, revealed admission on [DATE] with diagnosis of metabolic encephalopathy (a brain disease that alters brain function) and covid-19 (an infectious disease caused by the SARS-Cov-2 virus). Record review of Resident #57's MDS, dated [DATE], revealed a BIMS score of 10 (moderate impairment). During an interview on 12/16/22 at 9:55am Resident #57 stated she wanted to talk with a social worker about getting in touch with her family. During an interviewon 12/15/22 at 7:05 am Administrator stated that the facility has not hired a current social worker. He stated that having a social worker would help promote better family communication and assist in resident discharge planning. Record review of the facility's policy titled, Administrative Policies and Procedures-Social Services, revised 2005, revealed the facility provided medically-related social services to assure that each resident could attain or maintain his/her highest physical, mental, or psychosocial well-being.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

  • "What changes have you made since the serious inspection findings?"
  • "Why is there high staff turnover? How do you retain staff?"
  • "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
  • "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 4 life-threatening violation(s), 2 harm violation(s), $33,539 in fines. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 30 deficiencies on record, including 4 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $33,539 in fines. Higher than 94% of Texas facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
  • • Grade F (0/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: This facility has 4 Immediate Jeopardy findings. Serious concerns require careful evaluation.

About This Facility

What is Hewitt Nursing And Rehabilitation's CMS Rating?

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

How is Hewitt Nursing And Rehabilitation Staffed?

CMS rates HEWITT NURSING AND REHABILITATION's staffing level at 1 out of 5 stars, which is much below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 68%, which is 22 percentage points above the Texas average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs. RN turnover specifically is 83%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.

What Have Inspectors Found at Hewitt Nursing And Rehabilitation?

State health inspectors documented 30 deficiencies at HEWITT NURSING AND REHABILITATION during 2022 to 2025. These included: 4 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 2 that caused actual resident harm, and 24 with potential for harm. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.

Who Owns and Operates Hewitt Nursing And Rehabilitation?

HEWITT NURSING AND REHABILITATION is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by HMG HEALTHCARE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 140 certified beds and approximately 72 residents (about 51% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in HEWITT, Texas.

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

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Texas, HEWITT NURSING AND REHABILITATION's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 2.8, staff turnover (68%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Hewitt Nursing And Rehabilitation?

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

Is Hewitt Nursing And Rehabilitation Safe?

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

Do Nurses at Hewitt Nursing And Rehabilitation Stick Around?

Staff turnover at HEWITT NURSING AND REHABILITATION is high. At 68%, the facility is 22 percentage points above the Texas average of 46%. Registered Nurse turnover is particularly concerning at 83%. RNs handle complex medical decisions and coordinate care — frequent RN changes can directly impact care quality. High turnover means new staff may not know residents' individual needs, medications, or preferences. It can also be disorienting for residents, especially those with dementia who rely on familiar faces. Families should ask: What is causing the turnover? What retention programs are in place? How do you ensure care continuity during staff transitions?

Was Hewitt Nursing And Rehabilitation Ever Fined?

HEWITT NURSING AND REHABILITATION has been fined $33,539 across 3 penalty actions. The Texas average is $33,414. 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 Hewitt Nursing And Rehabilitation on Any Federal Watch List?

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