CASCADES AT JACINTO REHAB LP

1405 HOLLAND, HOUSTON, TX 77029 (713) 455-1744
For profit - Corporation 148 Beds CASCADES HEALTHCARE Data: November 2025 2 Immediate Jeopardy citations
Trust Grade
16/100
#666 of 1168 in TX
Last Inspection: December 2024

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

Overview

Cascades at Jacinto Rehab LP has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the quality of care provided. Ranking #666 out of 1168 facilities in Texas places them in the bottom half, and at #53 of 95 in Harris County, only a few local options are better. While the facility is showing signs of improvement, with issues decreasing from 19 in 2023 to 8 in 2024, it still faces serious challenges. Staffing is a major concern, rated at 1 out of 5 stars, and with RN coverage lower than 91% of Texas facilities, the risk of missed care is heightened. Recent inspections revealed critical issues, including failure to provide necessary care for a resident with pressure wounds, and inadequate hygiene practices, leading to poor health outcomes. Overall, while there are some strengths, such as a high rating in quality measures, the facility has significant weaknesses that families should carefully consider.

Trust Score
F
16/100
In Texas
#666/1168
Bottom 43%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Better
19 → 8 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
55% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
✓ Good
$51,586 in fines. Lower than most Texas facilities. Relatively clean record.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 10 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Texas. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
⚠ Watch
28 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Overall Rating
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Staff Levels
★★★★★
5.0
Care Quality
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2023: 19 issues
2024: 8 issues

The Good

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

Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.

The Bad

2-Star Overall Rating

Below Texas average (2.8)

Below average - review inspection findings carefully

Staff Turnover: 55%

Near Texas avg (46%)

Higher turnover may affect care consistency

Federal Fines: $51,586

Above median ($33,413)

Moderate penalties - review what triggered them

Chain: CASCADES HEALTHCARE

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 28 deficiencies on record

2 life-threatening
Dec 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

Abuse Prevention Policies (Tag F0607)

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 implement their written policies and procedures that prohibit and p...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to implement their written policies and procedures that prohibit and prevent abuse for 1 (Resident #1) of 7 residents reviewed for reporting abuse. -The facility failed to implement their written policy of abuse when facility staff failed to report to the Administrator when Resident #1 was found in bed tightening his call light wire around his neck and was sent to the hospital for a possible suicide attempt on 12/26/2024. -The facility failed to implement their written policy of abuse when the facility failed to notify the state agency of the allegation of abuse. This deficient practice could place residents at risk of continued and/or unrecognized abuse, neglect, exploitation, or mistreatment. Findings included: Record review of Resident #1's Face sheet dated 12/27/2024, he was a [AGE] year-old male originally admitted on [DATE] and most recently admitted on [DATE]. He was discharged from the facility on 12/26/2024. His medical diagnoses included stroke), Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus without complications, Hypertension (high blood pressure), Hyperlipidemia (high fat content in blood), iron deficiency, chronic pain syndrome, Dementia (unspecified without behavioral disturbance, psychotic disturbance, mood disturbance, and anxiety), sleep terrors, history of falling, Major Depressive Disorder (recurrent severe without psychotic features), Anxiety Disorder, Alzheimer's Disorder, and Metabolic Encephalopathy (a brain dysfunction due to the body's metabolism which can cause confusion, memory loss and loss of consciousness). Record review of Resident #1's Quarterly MDS (a resident assessment tool) dated 12/16/2024 revealed the resident had a BIMS score of 14, indicating cognitive intactness. Resident #1 had symptoms of feeling down, depressed, or hopeless several days in a week. Further review reflected he required maximal assistance with showering and bathing and required setup only for eating and supervision with oral hygiene. Record review of Resident #1's care plan last captured 12/27/2024 revealed: -Date Initiated: 06/19/2024 -Resident #1 was at risk for mood impairment r/t admitted with diagnosis of major depressive disorder, anxiety, Alzheimer's disease, dementia, night/sleep terrors and insomnia, with interventions including monitoring/documenting/reporting PRN any risk for harm to self, including suicidal plan and past attempt at suicide, monitoring/recording/reporting mood patterns of s/sx of depression, anxiety. -Date Initiated: 12/27/2024 - Resident #1 was at risk for suicidal impulsive/ideations of self-harm related to a recent suicide attempt, found on his room with call light around his neck, was sent out to the hospital right away, with interventions including: monitoring and reporting any behavior changes (like appetite/expression, excessive crying), provide Social Service support visits as needed, Immediately reporting if resident verbalizes thoughts of hurting themselves, and for Licensed Staff Member to perform suicide assessment if suicidal ideation is identified. Assess suicidal thoughts by asking the Resident/Patient to share suicidal history, feelings, plans and behavior. Record review of Resident #1's psychological notes revealed he was seen twice per week from 10/28/2024 to 11/25/2024. Resident #1 expressed concerns regarding a lack of adequate nursing care, feeling neglected and lonely. Resident #1 requested help finding social support and was educated on coping skills such as engaging in his environment and reframing negative feelings and experiences. There was no mention of suicidal ideation in the notes. Record review of Resident #1's SBAR (an incident report) done on 12/26/2024 by LVN B revealed Resident #1 had an altered level of consciousness, he had other types of skin condition, and did not have pain. The SBAR reflected a CNA called the nurse to Resident #1's room around 1:33am. The resident was in bed with the call light wrapped around his neck. Resident #1 was lethargic, and his breathing was even and unlabored. His call light was removed from his neck, his vital signs were stable and he was given oxygen at 2L via nasal canula as a precaution. Resident #1 was noted briefly opening his eyes, he responded to verbal and touch stimuli but would not talk. 911 was called at 1:36am; the DON was notified at 1:38am; his RP was notified at 1:42am and the MD was notified. Resident #1 was transported to the hospital by EMS. Record review of Resident #1's pain assessment completed 12/26/2024 at 5:40am by LVN B revealed he had ligature marks to the front and rear of his neck, and he was not in pain according to the faces scale (a range of faces showing no pain to severe pain). The pain assessment also noted the resident had a self-injury and was transferred to the ER. Record review of the intake online portal revealed HHSC received a self-reported intake related to Resident #1's incident on 12/27/2024 at 1:30pm. Record review of CNA C's witness statement dated and signed 12/26 (no year), reflected, at 1:15am, I saw [Resident #1], [Resident #1] had his call light on, I went in his room he wanted me to pull his blankets up on him and he went back to sleep. Interview with Resident #1's RP on 12/27/2024 at 11:28am, he stated he regularly received updates on Resident #1. The RP stated the resident had really good periods where he liked the facility and the people there and that he didn't want to leave, but when his dementia symptoms came, the resident would get suspicious of everyone and express wanting to leave. The RP said Resident #1 had a history of attempting suicide, but he was never told of any suicide attempts by the facility until 12/26/2024. Interview with CNA A on 12/27/2024 at 12:45pm, revealed she worked with Resident #1 and described him as quiet and usually in a good mood with her. She stated Resident #1 was out and about a few days ago, talking and laughing with other residents. She denied any signs of possible suicidal ideation or anything unusual, and she did not think he would have done what he did because staff could tell when he was feeling well or not. Interview with LVN A on 12/27/2024 at 1:26pm, she stated that she worked on Resident #1's hall. She read his chart which reflected he had ligatures around his neck caused by his call light. She denied him having symptoms of suicidal ideation, and that he never expressed loneliness or depressive symptoms. Resident #1 was quiet, polite and very nice. LVN A said Resident #1's roommate discharged recently so he was in his room by himself. She was aware he had a prior suicide attempt at his last facility, but that he never expressed any concerns to her. Interview with the Social Worker on 12/27/2024 at 1:43pm, she said that she was not at the facility during the incident but heard that Resident #1 had a call light wrapped around his neck and a CNA removed it and afterward the resident was conscious and responded to verbal and physical stimuli. She said he did not seem like he would attempt what he did and denied Resident #1 making an attempt at this facility. The Social Worker said he did not talk to a lot of people and did not go to activities such either. The resident and his previous roommate did not talk to each other, but the resident appeared comfortable with the room. swelling on his face, but he denied pain. Attempted to interview with CNA C on 12/27/2024 at 2:41pm, but she did not answer the phone call, and a voicemail was left. Interview with CNA B on 12/27/2024 at 2:59pm, revealed she witnessed and removed the call light around Resident #1's neck. CNA B stated she changed Resident #1's brief at 10:00pm and he was doing fine. At 11:00pm the resident was in bed. When she went back around 1:00am, his call light came on and she walked into the room where CNA B saw Resident #1 with his cord around his throat and pulling it tight. CNA B said Resident #1 was making choking sounds and his eyes looked like they were gonna pop off; she started yelling for help. CNA B was unable to pull the cord from Resident #1's hand because he held onto it tight, so she pulled the cord from the outlet and was able to go in the opposite direction and remove the cord from his neck, but the resident continued to hold onto the cord. Resident #1 did not say anything and laid in bed. The two nurses came to assess and stayed with the resident. CNA B said Resident #1 was nice and sweet, did not ask for a lot and was dependent on staff for brief changes. She said one of the nurses called 911 and Resident #1 left around 20 minutes later. CNA B denied Resident #1 mentioning suicide or wanting to commit suicide to her. Interview with LVN B on 12/27/2024 at 3:31pm, she was the charge nurse for Resident #1's hall during the incident. She said when she started her shift on 12/26/2024 at 6:00pm, the resident was sitting at the side of his bed and there were no concerns. At 1:10am , CNA B had answered Resident #1's call light but LVN B did not remember what the resident needed at that time. About 15 minutes later, LVN B heard CNA B call out. When LVN B arrived to Resident #1's room, CNA B told her that Resident #1 had a cord around his neck and was choking himself so she removed it. LVN B and LVN C were the two nurses during the night shift, so LVN C assessed Resident #1's vitals and oxygen and LVN B called 911 at 1:36am. At the time, Resident #1 did not say anything, and from what she remembered his vitals were pretty good. Resident #1's only skin abnormality was his obvious ligature marks around his neck. Resident #1e retracted when a sternum rub was performed but was not otherwise responsive, and he was not asleep. 911 arrived at 1:42am, they did assessments, questioned staff, and discussed if Resident #1 needed to be transferred or not. LVN B said she told them he needed to be transferred because it was an active suicide attempt, and they went ahead and took him. LVN B said EMS' assessments revealed normal pupil dilation, but when they attempted a blood sugar check, Resident #1 snatched his hands away. LVN B notified the DON who responded right away. Interview with the DON on 12/27/2024 at 3:41pm, she said LVN B notified her of Resident #1's incident on 12/26/2024 around 1:30am to 2:30am. The DON told LVN B to do a total assessment including a skin and pain assessment. LVN B told her she sent Resident #1 to the ER and notified the MD and family and completed a Change in Condition assessment. The DON began her investigation and found that during medication review, Resident #1 was placed on Zyrtec on 12/20/2024 which could cause suicidal ideation. The DON said Resident #1 was rolling through the hallway and she did not see any symptoms of suicidal ideation from him. She said Resident #1 was care-planned for suicidal ideation because he came to the facility from a behavioral hospital for a suicide attempt, but he never had an attempt at the facility. The family did not share his previous suicide attempt. The DON said no residents showed signs of suicidal ideation. The DON said she did not report the abuse to the State because according to the new State guidelines, Resident #1 did not have an injury of unknown origin and that he did not expire at the facility and that the facility got Resident #1 help immediately. She said that the Administrator reported when she found out today. The DON did not suspect foul play since Resident #1 was found in his room alone. Interview with the Administrator on 12/27/2024 at 4:15pm, she stated that she first heard of the incident on 12/27/2024 around 1:00pm. She stated she was concerned that no one told her because that was something she needed to report. She conducted interviews, looked at his skin and pain assessments, called the Ombudsman, and notified the family. The Administrator said from her investigation, Resident #1 was happy, and the facility did not know what happened in the 15 minutes between his call light being answered the first and second time. The Administrator said that if she knew about the incident, she would have reported it immediately, and that anything out of the ordinary should be reported. She said reporting in a timely manner was to protect the residents. Record review of the facility's Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation or Misappropriation - Reporting and Investigating policy statement revised September 2022 revealed if resident abuse, neglect, exploitation, misappropriation of resident property or injury of unknown source is suspected, the suspicion must be reported immediately to the administrator and to other officials according to state law. Record review of the facility's Identifying Neglect policy revised September 2022, the facility's employees, volunteers and contractors are expected to be able to identify neglect as it may occur against residents, and that staff and service providers are expected to report deficiencies in processes or practices that may lead to resident neglect.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

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 all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, exploitation or mistreatment, including injuries of unknown source and misappropriation of resident property, are reported immediately, but not later than 24 hours after the allegation is made, if the events that cause the allegation involve abuse or result in serious bodily injury to other officials including to the State Survey Agency in accordance with State law through established procedures for 1 (Resident #1) of 7 residents reviewed for reporting. -The facility staff failed to report to the Administrator when Resident #1 was found in bed tightening his call light wire around his neck and was sent to the hospital for a possible suicide attempt on 12/26/2024. -The facility failed to report within the required time frame to the state agency when Resident #1 was found in bed tightening his call light wire around his neck and was sent to the hospital for a possible suicide attempt on 12/26/2024. This deficient practice could place residents at risk of continued and/or unrecognized neglect. Findings included: Record review of Resident #1's Face sheet dated 12/27/2024, he was a [AGE] year-old male originally admitted on [DATE] and most recently admitted on [DATE]. He was discharged from the facility on 12/26/2024. His medical diagnoses included stroke), Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus without complications, Hypertension (high blood pressure), Hyperlipidemia (high fat content in blood), iron deficiency, chronic pain syndrome, Dementia (unspecified without behavioral disturbance, psychotic disturbance, mood disturbance, and anxiety), sleep terrors, history of falling, Major Depressive Disorder (recurrent severe without psychotic features), Anxiety Disorder, Alzheimer's Disorder, and Metabolic Encephalopathy (a brain dysfunction due to the body's metabolism which can cause confusion, memory loss and loss of consciousness). Record review of Resident #1's Quarterly MDS (a resident assessment tool) dated 12/16/2024 revealed the resident had a BIMS score of 14, indicating cognitive intactness. Resident #1 had symptoms of feeling down, depressed, or hopeless several days in a week. Further review reflected he required maximal assistance with showering and bathing and required setup only for eating and supervision with oral hygiene. Record review of Resident #1's care plan last captured 12/27/2024 revealed: -Date Initiated: 06/19/2024 -Resident #1 was at risk for mood impairment r/t admitted with diagnosis of major depressive disorder, anxiety, Alzheimer's disease, dementia, night/sleep terrors and insomnia, with interventions including monitoring/documenting/reporting PRN any risk for harm to self, including suicidal plan and past attempt at suicide, monitoring/recording/reporting mood patterns of s/sx of depression, anxiety. -Date Initiated: 12/27/2024 - Resident #1 was at risk for suicidal impulsive/ideations of self-harm related to a recent suicide attempt, found on his room with call light around his neck, was sent out to the hospital right away, with interventions including: monitoring and reporting any behavior changes (like appetite/expression, excessive crying), provide Social Service support visits as needed, Immediately reporting if resident verbalizes thoughts of hurting themselves, and for Licensed Staff Member to perform suicide assessment if suicidal ideation is identified. Assess suicidal thoughts by asking the Resident/Patient to share suicidal history, feelings, plans and behavior. Record review of Resident #1's psychological notes revealed he was seen twice per week from 10/28/2024 to 11/25/2024. Resident #1 expressed concerns regarding a lack of adequate nursing care, feeling neglected and lonely. Resident #1 requested help finding social support and was educated on coping skills such as engaging in his environment and reframing negative feelings and experiences. There was no mention of suicidal ideation in the notes. Record review of Resident #1's SBAR (an incident report) done on 12/26/2024 by LVN B revealed Resident #1 had an altered level of consciousness, he had other types of skin condition, and did not have pain. The SBAR reflected a CNA called the nurse to Resident #1's room around 1:33am. The resident was in bed with the call light wrapped around his neck. Resident #1 was lethargic, and his breathing was even and unlabored. His call light was removed from his neck, his vital signs were stable and he was given oxygen at 2L via nasal canula as a precaution. Resident #1 was noted briefly opening his eyes, he responded to verbal and touch stimuli but would not talk. 911 was called at 1:36am; the DON was notified at 1:38am; his RP was notified at 1:42am and the MD was notified. Resident #1 was transported to the hospital by EMS. Record review of Resident #1's pain assessment completed 12/26/2024 at 5:40am by LVN B revealed he had ligature marks to the front and rear of his neck, and he was not in pain according to the faces scale (a range of faces showing no pain to severe pain). The pain assessment also noted the resident had a self-injury and was transferred to the ER. Record review of the intake online portal revealed HHSC received a self-reported intake related to Resident #1's incident on 12/27/2024 at 1:30pm. Record review of CNA C's witness statement dated and signed 12/26 (no year), reflected, at 1:15am, I saw [Resident #1], [Resident #1] had his call light on, I went in his room he wanted me to pull his blankets up on him and he went back to sleep. Interview with Resident #1's RP on 12/27/2024 at 11:28am, he stated he regularly received updates on Resident #1. The RP stated the resident had really good periods where he liked the facility and the people there and that he didn't want to leave, but when his dementia symptoms came, the resident would get suspicious of everyone and express wanting to leave. The RP said Resident #1 had a history of attempting suicide, but he was never told of any suicide attempts by the facility until 12/26/2024. Interview with CNA A on 12/27/2024 at 12:45pm, revealed she worked with Resident #1 and described him as quiet and usually in a good mood with her. She stated Resident #1 was out and about a few days ago, talking and laughing with other residents. She denied any signs of possible suicidal ideation or anything unusual, and she did not think he would have done what he did because staff could tell when he was feeling well or not. Interview with LVN A on 12/27/2024 at 1:26pm, she stated that she worked on Resident #1's hall. She read his chart which reflected he had ligatures around his neck caused by his call light. She denied him having symptoms of suicidal ideation, and that he never expressed loneliness or depressive symptoms. Resident #1 was quiet, polite and very nice. LVN A said Resident #1's roommate discharged recently so he was in his room by himself. She was aware he had a prior suicide attempt at his last facility, but that he never expressed any concerns to her. Interview with the Social Worker on 12/27/2024 at 1:43pm, she said that she was not at the facility during the incident but heard that Resident #1 had a call light wrapped around his neck and a CNA removed it and afterward the resident was conscious and responded to verbal and physical stimuli. She said he did not seem like he would attempt what he did and denied Resident #1 making an attempt at this facility. The Social Worker said he did not talk to a lot of people and did not go to activities such either. The resident and his previous roommate did not talk to each other, but the resident appeared comfortable with the room. swelling on his face, but he denied pain. Attempted to interview with CNA C on 12/27/2024 at 2:41pm, but she did not answer the phone call, and a voicemail was left. Interview with CNA B on 12/27/2024 at 2:59pm, revealed she witnessed and removed the call light around Resident #1's neck. CNA B stated she changed Resident #1's brief at 10:00pm and he was doing fine. At 11:00pm the resident was in bed. When she went back around 1:00am, his call light came on and she walked into the room where CNA B saw Resident #1 with his cord around his throat and pulling it tight. CNA B said Resident #1 was making choking sounds and his eyes looked like they were gonna pop off; she started yelling for help. CNA B was unable to pull the cord from Resident #1's hand because he held onto it tight, so she pulled the cord from the outlet and was able to go in the opposite direction and remove the cord from his neck, but the resident continued to hold onto the cord. Resident #1 did not say anything and laid in bed. The two nurses came to assess and stayed with the resident. CNA B said Resident #1 was nice and sweet, did not ask for a lot and was dependent on staff for brief changes. She said one of the nurses called 911 and Resident #1 left around 20 minutes later. CNA B denied Resident #1 mentioning suicide or wanting to commit suicide to her. Interview with LVN B on 12/27/2024 at 3:31pm, she was the charge nurse for Resident #1's hall during the incident. She said when she started her shift on 12/26/2024 at 6:00pm, the resident was sitting at the side of his bed and there were no concerns. At 1:10am , CNA B had answered Resident #1's call light but LVN B did not remember what the resident needed at that time. About 15 minutes later, LVN B heard CNA B call out. When LVN B arrived to Resident #1's room, CNA B told her that Resident #1 had a cord around his neck and was choking himself so she removed it. LVN B and LVN C were the two nurses during the night shift, so LVN C assessed Resident #1's vitals and oxygen and LVN B called 911 at 1:36am. At the time, Resident #1 did not say anything, and from what she remembered his vitals were pretty good. Resident #1's only skin abnormality was his obvious ligature marks around his neck. Resident #1e retracted when a sternum rub was performed but was not otherwise responsive, and he was not asleep. 911 arrived at 1:42am, they did assessments, questioned staff, and discussed if Resident #1 needed to be transferred or not. LVN B said she told them he needed to be transferred because it was an active suicide attempt, and they went ahead and took him. LVN B said EMS' assessments revealed normal pupil dilation, but when they attempted a blood sugar check, Resident #1 snatched his hands away. LVN B notified the DON who responded right away. Interview with the DON on 12/27/2024 at 3:41pm, she said LVN B notified her of Resident #1's incident on 12/26/2024 around 1:30am to 2:30am. The DON told LVN B to do a total assessment including a skin and pain assessment. LVN B told her she sent Resident #1 to the ER and notified the MD and family and completed a Change in Condition assessment. The DON began her investigation and found that during medication review, Resident #1 was placed on Zyrtec on 12/20/2024 which could cause suicidal ideation. The DON said Resident #1 was rolling through the hallway and she did not see any symptoms of suicidal ideation from him. She said Resident #1 was care-planned for suicidal ideation because he came to the facility from a behavioral hospital for a suicide attempt, but he never had an attempt at the facility. The family did not share his previous suicide attempt. The DON said no residents showed signs of suicidal ideation. The DON said she did not report the abuse to the State because according to the new State guidelines, Resident #1 did not have an injury of unknown origin and that he did not expire at the facility and that the facility got Resident #1 help immediately. She said that the Administrator reported when she found out today. The DON did not suspect foul play since Resident #1 was found in his room alone. Interview with the Administrator on 12/27/2024 at 4:15pm, she stated that she first heard of the incident on 12/27/2024 around 1:00pm. She stated she was concerned that no one told her because that was something she needed to report. She conducted interviews, looked at his skin and pain assessments, called the Ombudsman, and notified the family. The Administrator said from her investigation, Resident #1 was happy, and the facility did not know what happened in the 15 minutes between his call light being answered the first and second time. The Administrator said that if she knew about the incident, she would have reported it immediately, and that anything out of the ordinary should be reported. She said reporting in a timely manner was to protect the residents. Record review of the facility's Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation or Misappropriation - Reporting and Investigating policy statement revised September 2022 revealed if resident abuse, neglect, exploitation, misappropriation of resident property or injury of unknown source is suspected, the suspicion must be reported immediately to the administrator and to other officials according to state law. Record review of the facility's Identifying Neglect policy revised September 2022, the facility's employees, volunteers and contractors are expected to be able to identify neglect as it may occur against residents, and that staff and service providers are expected to report deficiencies in processes or practices that may lead to resident neglect.
Dec 2024 4 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0583 (Tag F0583)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the residents' right to privacy during personal...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the residents' right to privacy during personal care for 2 of 8 residents (Resident #56 and Resident #20) reviewed for privacy in that: 1. LVN A failed to provide privacy while administering medications via g-tube (a surgically placed device used to give direct access to the stomach for supplemental feeding, hydration or medicine) to Resident #56 by not closing her privacy curtain on 12/04/2024. 2. LVN B failed to provide privacy while administering an IV flush to Resident #20 by administering his IV flush in the middle of the hallway on 12/04/2024. This failure could place residents at-risk of loss of dignity due to lack of privacy. The findings included: 1.Record review of Resident #56's face sheet dated 12/5/24 revealed a [AGE] year-old female who admitted on [DATE]. Her diagnosis included gastrostomy infection (complication of gastrostomy tube placement), gastrostomy status (presence of an artificial opening to the stomach), type 2 diabetes, cerebral infarction (stroke), unspecified dementia, altered mental status, post-traumatic stress disorder, and hemiplegia affecting right nondominant side (paralysis of one side of the body). Record review of Resident #56's quarterly MDS assessment, dated 10/14/2024, reflected the resident had a BIMS score of 0 out of 15 which indicated she had severe cognitive impairment. She had a feeding tube and was dependent on staff for ADL care. Record review of Resident #56's care plan, dated 7/16/24, revealed she required tube feeding related to dysphagia. Interventions/Tasks were that the resident was dependent with tube feeding and water flushes. See MD orders for current feeding orders. In an observation and interview on 12/4/24 at 11:44 a.m. revealed LVN A prepared to administer Resident #56's medication via g-tube. She pulled the curtain to block the open doorway but did not close the privacy curtain between Resident #56 and her roommate. LVN A raised the Resident #56's shirt and began medication administration. The resident's roommate was in the room. LVN A said she forgot to pull the privacy curtain between the residents because Resident #56's roommate gets anxious when the curtain was pulled. In an interview on 12/4/24 at 4:21 p.m. the DON said nursing staff should close the door and pull the privacy curtain to provide privacy to the residents. She said privacy was provided for the residents' dignity. 2.Record review of Resident #20's face sheet dated 12/5/24 revealed a [AGE] year-old male who admitted on [DATE]. His diagnosis included bipolar disorder, major depressive disorder, mild cognitive impairment, violent behavior and pain. Record review of Resident #20's quarterly MDS assessment, dated 10/14/2024, reflected the resident had a BIMS score of 15 out of 15 which indicated intact cognition. He required ADL assistance from staff. Record review of Resident #20's care plan, dated 11/24/24, revealed he had a current acute infection and was on IV antibiotics due to positive UA. Interventions were to provide treatments as ordered by MD/NP. In an observation and interview on 12/4/24 at 4:48 p.m. in the main hallway revealed LVN B administered Resident #20 an IV flush. There was another resident and staff in the hallway. LVN B said she administered flushes in the hallway or near the nursing station with no problem. She said she did educate the resident on privacy. In an interview on 12/5/24 at 1:17 p.m. the DON said she 99% of the time it was not ok to flush an IV in the hallway. She said the resident should be taken to the room because of privacy and dignity. She said staff should ensure they are in the right environment with no distractions. In an interview on 12/5/24 at 2:17 p.m. the Administrator said it was basic resident rights and dignity for staff to pull the curtain. She also said staff should not provide IV flushes in the hallway for dignity purposes. Record review of facility's policy titled Dignity revised February 2021 revealed Each resident shall be cared for in a manner that promotes and enhances his or her sense of well-being, level of satisfaction with life, and feelings of self-worth and self-esteem .11. Staff promote, maintain, and protect resident privacy, including bodily privacy during assistance with personal care and during treatment procedures .
CONCERN (D)

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 d...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for 2 of 8 residents (Resident #20 and #56) reviewed for infection control. -LVN A did not wear appropriate PPE when administering medication via peg-tube care (PEG tubes allow you to receive nutrition through your stomach) to Resident #56 who was on enhanced barrier precautions (an infection control intervention designed to reduce transmission of multidrug-resistant organisms in nursing homes) on 12/4/24. -LVN A de-clogged (remove or clear a blockage) Resident #56's g-tube using an oxygen key that was retrieved from her pocket on 12/4/24. -LVN B did not wear appropriate PPE when administering an IV picc line flush to Resident #20 on 12/4/24 who was on enhanced barrier precautions per facility protocol and care plan. These failures could place residents at risk of infections. Findings included: 1.Record review of Resident #56's face sheet dated 12/5/24 revealed a [AGE] year-old female who admitted on [DATE]. Her diagnosis included gastrostomy infection (complication of gastrostomy tube placement), gastrostomy status (presence of an artificial opening to the stomach), type 2 diabetes, cerebral infarction (stroke), unspecified dementia, altered mental status, post-traumatic stress disorder, and hemiplegia affecting right nondominant side (paralysis of one side of the body). Record review of Resident #56's quarterly MDS assessment, dated 10/14/2024, reflected the resident had a BIMS score of 0 out of 15 which indicated she had severe cognitive impairment. She had a feeding tube and was dependent on staff for ADL care. Record review of Resident #56's care plan revised on 8/10/24 revealed she required enhanced barrier precautions due to IV antibiotics (resolved) peg tube feedings. Interventions included: staff will wear gloves and gown (per protocol) to provide high contact care activity to include dressing, bathing/showering, transferring, hygiene, changing linens, changing briefs, assist with toileting, device care or use (PICC/central line, catheter, feeding tube, trach, vent), wound care. Her care plan revealed she required tube feeding related to dysphagia. Interventions/Tasks were that the resident was dependent with tube feeding and water flushes. See MD orders for current feeding orders, dated 7/16/24. In an observation and interview on 12/4/24 at 11:44 a.m. LVN A prepared and began the medication administration process for Resident #56's via g-tube. She donned (put on) gloves but did not don a gown. There was a sign on Resident #56's door that read, STOP Enhanced Barrier Precautions, everyone must: clean their hands, including before entering and when leaving the room. Providers and Staff must also wear gloves and gown for the following high contact resident care activities . device care or use . feeding tube .' There was also PPE on the door. LVN A said the PPE had been on the resident's door for a while, but she did not have wounds or MRSA. LVN A checked for placement and residual and then started administration via g-tube with a water flush. The water flush would not drain through the tube, LVN A used the syringe to push the water into the tube to try to declog it. After that she retrieved her keys from her pocket and used an oxygen key to strip (stretch the tube and try to dissolve the pieces) the g-tube plastic multiple times. After alternating between stripping the tube with the oxygen key and pushing the water with the syringe, LVN A was able to declog Resident #56's tube and proceed with administering the medications. In an interview on 12/4/24 at 12:06 p.m. LVN A said Resident #56 used to have a roommate with wounds who passed away and that was why the enhanced barrier precaution sign was on her door. She said the hospice providers would come in and wear PPE when providing the resident with a shower. She said gowns were not required when caring for g-tubes. She said she was in serviced on enhanced barrier precautions one month ago and the information provided on the door sign was new. She said she used an oxygen key to strip and declog Resident #56's g-tube. She said she was unsure if using the oxygen key was allowed but that was how she unclogged the tube. She said to maintain infection control she only used the key on the plastic portion on the outside of the tube, not near the resident ports. In an interview on 12/4/24 at 4:14 p.m. the DON said enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) required staff to use gloves and gown and was like contact isolation. She said she educated staff that EBP was for residents with g-tube, a wound, and was to prevent passing infections on to another resident. In an interview on 12/5/24 at 1:17 p.m. the DON said an oxygen key retrieved from the pocket should not be used on a g-tube because it could be infected with anything. She said infection or bacteria could be introduced to the patient. 2.Record review of Resident #20's face sheet dated 12/5/24 revealed a [AGE] year-old male who admitted on [DATE]. His diagnosis included bipolar disorder, major depressive disorder, mild cognitive impairment, violent behavior, and pain. Record review of Resident #20's quarterly MDS assessment, dated 10/14/2024, reflected the resident had a BIMS score of 15 out of 15 which indicated intact cognition. He required ADL assistance from staff. Record review of Resident #20's care plan, dated 11/24/24, revealed he had a current acute infection and was on IV antibiotics due to positive UA. Interventions were to provide treatments as ordered by MD/NP, Enhanced Barrier Precautions (Novel MDRO)(per protocol): use gloves and gown to provide high-contact care. Use face mask if there is a risk of splash or spray. Infection control precautions per CDC guidelines for acute infection. In an observation and interview on 12/4/24 at 4:48 p.m. in the main hallway revealed LVN B administered Resident #20 an IV flush. She donned gloves but did not have on a gown. She said the resident did not require any special PPE, only standard gloves. She said EBP was for high-risk residents who had infections such as MRSA and CDIFF. She said Resident #20 was not on precautions. In an interview on 12/5/24 at 1:17 p.m. the DON said full PPE including a face mask, gown, and gloves were required for Resident #20 because of his IV site. She said the resident had an EBP sign on his doorway. In an interview on 12/5/24 at 2:17 p.m. the Administrator said the facility provided monthly training on enhanced barrier precautions and it should have been honored by using the proper PPE and protocol. Record review of the facility's Enhanced Barrier Precautions policy revised August 2022 read in part, .Enhanced barrier precautions (EBPs) are utilized to prevent the spread of multi-drug resistant organisms (MDROs) to residents . 2. EBPs employ targeted gown and glove use during high contact resident care activities when contact precautions do not otherwise apply. A. gloves and gown are applied prior to performing the high contact resident activity . 3. Examples of high-contact resident care activities requiring the use of gown and gloves for EBPs include: .g.device care or use (central line, urinary catheter, feeding tube, .) 5. EBPs are indicated for residents with wounds and/or indwelling medical devices regardless of MDRO colonization. Record review of the facility's Administering Medications policy revised April 2019 read in part, .25. Staff follows established facility infection control procedures (e.g. handwashing, antiseptic technique, gloves, isolation precautions, etc.) for the administration of medications, as applicable .
CONCERN (E)

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

Unnecessary Medications (Tag F0759)

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 its medication error rates were not 5% or great...

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 its medication error rates were not 5% or greater. The facility had a medication error rate of 17% based on 5 errors out of 29 opportunities which involved 2 of 9 residents (Resident #34 and #20) and 2 of 4 staff (MA A and LVN B) reviewed for medication administration. MA A crushed and administered Divalproex DR (a delayed release medication used to treat seizure disorders and mental/mood conditions) and Oxybutynin ER (an extended-release medication used to reduce bladder spasms and treats overactive bladder) to Resident #34 on 12/4/24. Delayed and Extended-release formulations should not be crushed. MA A administered Resident #48's Sertraline (used to treat depression) to Resident #34 on 12/4/24. MA A administered chewable Aspirin instead of enteric coated Aspirin to Resident #34 as ordered by the Physician on 12/4/24. LVN B administered Heparin lock flush (an anticoagulant that prevents blood clots in IV catheters) instead of normal saline flush (used to help prevent IV catheters from becoming blocked) to Resident #20 as ordered by the Physician on 12/4/24. These failures could place residents at risk of incomplete therapeutic outcomes, increased negative side effects, and decline in health. Findings included: 1. Record review of Resident #34's face sheet dated 12/5/24 revealed a [AGE] year old male who admitted on [DATE]. His diagnosis included Alzheimer's disease, major depressive disorder, overactive bladder, other neuromuscular dysfunction of bladder, and persistent mood disorder. Record review of Resident#34's quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed a BIMS score of 3 out of 15, which indicated severe cognitive impairment. He required assistance from staff with ADL care. Record review of Resident #34's care plan dated 9/19/24 revealed he was on anticonvulsant therapy related to mood stabilizer. Interventions were to administer medication per orders. The care plan also indicated resident was at risk for mood impairment related to recent admission, noted with diagnosis of anxiety, bipolar, Alzheimer's, major depressive disorder, persistent mood affective disorder, and insomnia disorder. Interventions were to administer medications as ordered, dated 8/16/24. Record review of Resident #34's Physician orders for December 2024 revealed orders for: Aspirin 81 Delayed Release give 1 tablet by mouth one time a day for anticoagulant ***do not crush**, order date 8/14/24. Divalproex Delayed Release 125 mg give 1 capsule by mouth three times a day for mood, order date 8/14/24. Oxybutynin Extended Release 10 mg give 1 tablet by mouth one time a day for overactive bladder, order date 8/14/24. Sertraline 25 mg give 1 tablet by mouth one time a day related to anxiety disorder, order date 8/14/24. May crush and cocktail medications as necessary unless contraindicated, order date 8/14/24. In an observation on 12/4/24 at 8:41 a.m. MA A prepared Resident #34's medication for administration. She prepared chewable Aspirin 81 mg, Divalproex DR 125 mg, Oxybutynin ER 10 mg (the pharmacy label read do not crush), and the remainder of his medications. MA A retrieved Resident #48's Sertraline 50 mg and said she would use it for Resident #34. MA A asked LVN C to cut the Sertraline 50 mg in half. LVN C looked at the eMAR and cut the Sertraline 50 mg in half to equal 25 mg and MA A placed it in the cup with Resident #34's medications. MA A said the resident required crushed pills, she crushed all the medication and administered them to the resident. In an interview on 12/4/24 at 9:12 a.m. MA A said she used Resident #48's Sertraline for Resident #34 because she could not find his Sertraline. She said she could use another resident's medication for one time only and then call the pharmacy. She said she was taught in school to never leave a resident without their medication. She said she should check the medication room first for the medication. She said she knew which medication could or could not be crushed because she was experienced. MA A said some medications had permission to be crushed from the MD and that some of the medications did not have an alternative. She said enteric coated medications could not be crushed but she should check with the nurse prior to switching the medication. She said when preparing medication for administration she had to check the 7 rights which included the right patient, dose, time, route, and if the medication could be crushed. In an interview on 12/4/24 at 9:20 a.m. LVN C said she cut the Zoloft (Sertraline) 50 mg in half to equal 25 mg. She said she looked at the eMAR and checked the mg but could not remember if the resident's name on the eMAR matched the name on the blister pack. In an interview on 12/4/24 at 3:57 p.m. the DON said she discussed misappropriation of property with MA A. She said MA A informed her that the pharmacist who trained her said it was better to borrow another resident's medication to ensure the resident received a medication instead of not giving it. The DON said the process at the facility was to notify the nurse, call the MD, put the medication on hold, and see if the medication could be changed to something else. She said MA A could have retrieved the medication from the resident's overstock in the medication room, but she got nervous. She said staff needed to verify the right patient, dose, time, and medication. She said she educated the medication aide on medications that could be crushed and printed out the do not crush list. She said the pharmacy normally sent a label that would indicate if the medication could not be crushed. She said ER and DR formulations were meant to absorb over a specified time and could not be as effective if crushed. She said the medication aide should not decide to change medications, she should notify the nurse who could fix the order. She said medications were paid by the resident's insurance and that could be affected if someone borrowed their medicine. In an interview on 12/5/24 at 2:17 p.m. the Administrator said it was common sense in training for staff to review the directions that were on the MAR and read the information. She said a medication aide was not the physician and she had to follow policy and procedures. She said it was not tolerable to borrow other residents' medications. She said the MA was educated and her expectation was for staff to read and follow the physician orders. 2. Record review of Resident #20's face sheet dated 12/5/24 revealed a [AGE] year-old male who admitted on [DATE]. His diagnosis included bipolar disorder, major depressive disorder, mild cognitive impairment, violent behavior, and pain. Record review of Resident #20's quarterly MDS assessment, dated 10/14/2024, reflected the resident had a BIMS score of 15 out of 15 which indicated intact cognition. He required ADL assistance from staff. Record review of Resident #20's care plan, dated 11/24/24, revealed he had a current acute infection and was on IV antibiotics due to positive UA. Interventions were to provide treatments as ordered by MD/NP. Record review of Resident #20's Physician Orders for December 2024 indicated an order for: Sodium Chloride 0.9% flush 10 mL every shift for maintenance, order date 11/30/24. There were no orders for Heparin lock flush. In an observation and interview on 12/4/24 at 4:48 p.m. in the main hallway LVN B administered heparin lock flush 5 mL to one of Resident #20's lumens (a port through which IV treatments and blood transfusions can be given). LVN B attempted to flush the other lumen with Heparin lock flush but was unable to because it was clogged. LVN B placed one full flush in her pocket and discarded the empty one in the trash. LVN B said the resident was prescribed normal saline flush and did not realize the flushes were heparin lock flush. She retrieved the full flush from her pocket and this Surveyor retrieved the empty flush from the trash and both flushes were verified as Heparin flush lock 50 USP units/5 mL with LVN B. She said the ADON gave her the flushes from her pocket. She said the difference between the heparin lock and saline flush was that heparin was used for cardiac patients. She said she was pretty sure there were risks to administering heparin lock flush, but she would have to familiarize herself with them. She said she would monitor Resident #20 for side effects. In an interview on 12/4/24 at 5:01 p.m. the ADON said she did not give LVN B heparin lock flushes. Record review of LVN B's statement dated 12/4/24 at 5:54 p.m. read in part, I, [LVN B], in haste, accidentally administered 5 mL of Heparin lock flush to one port of his PICC line to left upper arm. Resident was immediately reassessed and PICC line was flushed with 10 mL of saline flush. Vital signs were within normal limits and resident reported no signs or symptoms cardiac issues. In an interview on 12/5/24 at 8:56 a.m. Resident #20 said he did not have any bleeding or bruising, and the facility removed his IV access. In an interview on 12/5/24 at 9:04 a.m. the DON said she notified Resident #20's MD about the heparin lock flush incident. She said the MD said the heparin lock flush was ok to give and there was no harm done. The MD informed her to observe for signs of bleeding and remove the PICC line. She said there was no direct scientific correlation that was harmful because heparin and saline lock were interchangeable. In an interview on 12/5/24 at 9:06 a.m. the ADON said LVN B informed her that she obtained the heparin lock flush from the back of the nursing cart. In an interview on 12/5/24 at 12:06 p.m. Resident #20's MD said it was the standard of care in the hospital to flush PICC lines with heparin. He said it was considered acceptable in the nursing home to flush with saline, but the heparin lock flush had a minute dose and would not cause anything. He said it would keep the line open but had no systemic effect. He said it was a medical error and the resident was originally prescribed normal saline flush, but the error caused no harm or risk to the patient. He said the facility notified him and he ordered for the picc line to be removed and there was no deviation from normal care. In an interview on 12/5/24 at 1:17 p.m. the DON said LVN B should have check the name of the flush against the MAR. She said the nurse should also know that heparin was blue, or orange and the normal saline was black. She said she did not know where the nurse retrieved the heparin flush from, and they could not find any more in the facility. She said nursing staff should verify the 5 rights of medication administration which included the right patient, dose, time, and medication. She said there was no risk of using heparin instead of the saline because all IVs in the hospital were flushed with heparin. She said it could be used interchangeably if there was a Physicians order. She said the LVN should have pulled the correct flush and could not answer why she pulled the heparin. She said the DON was ultimately responsible for ensuring the resident received the right medication, but the administering staff was immediately responsible for accuracy. She said she completed skills check off with LVN B. (A skills check is a practical list that details the skills an employee is required to perform and the level of performance that is expected for each skill). In an interview on 12/5/24 at 2:17 p.m. the Administrator said nursing staff should be able to check for the proper medication, right patient, and right process. Record review of the facility's Crushing Medications policy dated April 2018 read in part, .Medication shall be crushed only when it is appropriate and safe to do so, consistent with physician orders .2. The nursing staff and/or consultant pharmacist shall notify any attending physician who gives an order to crush a drug that the manufacturer states should not be crushed (for example, long acting or enteric coated medications) . Record review of Medication Crushing Guidelines dated 2001 provided by the facility read in part, .the rationale for not crushing some medications include: .D. Timed Release Tablets are designed to release medication over a sustained period, usually 8 to 24 hours. These formulations are utilized to reduce stomach irritation in some cases and to achieve prolonged medication action in other cases. In either case these tablets should not be crushed Record review of the undated document Medications not to be crushed provided by the facility revealed Divalproex Sodium: DR, ER and Oxybutynin ER were listed. Record review of the facility's Administering Medications policy dated April 2019 read in part, .Medications are administered in a safe and timely manner and as prescribed .4. Medications are administered in accordance with prescriber orders, including any required time frame . 9. The individual administering medications verifies the resident's identity before giving the resident his/her medications . 10. The individual administering the medication checks the label three times to verify the right resident, right medication, right dosage, right time and right method of administration before giving the medication . 26. Medications ordered for a particular resident may not be administered to another resident, unless permitted by State law and facility policy, and approved by the Director of Nursing Services.
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0727 (Tag F0727)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to use the services of a registered nurse for at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week for 3 of 90 days (9/21/24, 9/29/24, and 10/20/...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to use the services of a registered nurse for at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week for 3 of 90 days (9/21/24, 9/29/24, and 10/20/24) reviewed for RN coverage. The facility failed to ensure they had RN coverage for at least 8 consecutive hours on 9/21/24, 9/29/24, and 10/20/24. This failure could place residents at risk of missed nursing assessments, interventions, care, and treatment. Findings included: Record review of the staffing sign in sheets for 9/21/24, 9/29/24, and 10/20/24 revealed no RN signed in or on the schedule. Record review of the DON's electronic clock in sheet revealed she worked 4.6hrs on 9/21/24, she didn't work on 9/29/24, and worked 6.93hrs on 10/20/24. In an interview with the DON on 12/4/24 at 10:00am she said an RN must be at the facility for 8 consecutive hours a day. She said the RNs provided direct supervision, filled out incident reports, ran IVs and PICC (thin, flexible tube that's inserted into a vein in the arm and threaded into a large vein above the heart) lines, and ensured everyone was practicing inside their scope of practice. She said that she was usually the nurse who covered if they did not have an RN, but she was not sure what happened on the days in question. In an interview with the Administrator on 12/4/24 at 4:00pm, she said an RN must be in the facility for 8 consecutive hours a day. She said the DON had been working every weekend to provide that coverage, but they just hired an RN for the weekend position. She said the RN started IV lines, provided care for the PICC lines, and provided education. She said if an RN was not at the facility, one of those services would not be able to be performed. The Administrator said there were not any residents who did not receive care that she knew of. Record review of the facility's policy and procedure on Departmental Supervision, Nursing (revised August 2022) read in part: The nursing services department shall be under the direct supervision of a registered or licensed practical/vocational nurse at all times .A registered nurse provides services at least eight (8) consecutive hours every 24 hours, seven (7) days a week. RNs may be scheduled more than eight (8) hours depending on the acuity needs of the resident .
Nov 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 F0692 (Tag F0692)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents maintained acceptable parameters of ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents maintained acceptable parameters of nutritional status, such as usual body weight for 1 of 5 residents (Residents #2) reviewed for nutrition. - The facility failed to follow up on the Registered Dietitian's recommendations for Resident #2's severe weight loss. This failure could place residents at risk for weight loss and decline in health status. Findings include: Record review of Resident #2's face sheet revealed a [AGE] year-old female who readmitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her diagnoses included malignant neoplasm of head of pancreas (a type of cancer that begins as a growth of cells in the pancreas), moderate protein-calorie malnutrition, pain, type 2 diabetes, and heart failure. Record review of Resident #2's significant change in status MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed a BIMS score of 0 out of 15 which indicated severe cognitive impairment. She required partial to moderate assistance from staff with eating. She had a weight loss of 5% or more in the last month or loss of 10% or more in the last 6 months and was not on a physician-prescribed weight-loss regimen. Record review of Resident #2's hospice plan of care dated 10/24/24 indicated her oral intake was generally 100% of meals three times a day plus snacks between meals. Record review of Resident #2's weights revealed: 4/23/24 - 136.1 lbs, 4/29/24 - 135.8 lbs, 5/9/24 - 148.6 lbs, 6/6/24 - 125 lbs, 6/13/24 -125 lbs, 6/20/24 - 124 lbs, 6/25/24 -125 lbs, 7/6/24 - 125.5 lbs, 8/21/24 - 112.5 lbs, 9/16/24 - 115.8 lbs, 9/27/24 - 118.3 lbs, 10/3/24 - 113.7 lbs, 10/10/24 - 114 lbs, 10/17/24 - 113 lbs, 11/5/24 - 115.3 lbs. Record review of Resident #2's Nutrition/Dietary Note dated 10/18/2024 by the Dietitian revealed the resident had significant weight loss. Nursing reported resident ate well overall. Weight trends were: -1.8% x 30 days, -9.4% x 90 days, -16.5% x 180 days. Weight continued to trend down, significant weight loss x 90 and 180 days, BMI 21.5 (normal range). Recommend liquid protein QD 30 ml. Recommend 2.0 supplement TID 90 ml. Record review of the Dietitian's Nutrition Recommendation Form dated 10/18/24 provided by the DON reflected in part, .[Resident #2] Dietitian Recommendation 1. Recommend liquid protein QD 30 mL. 2. Recommend 2.0 supplement TID 90 mL . Record review of Resident #2's Physician's Orders dated 11/13/24 revealed there were no orders for liquid protein or 2.0 supplement. In an interview on 11/14/24 at 8:13 a.m. CNA B said Resident #2's appetite was pretty good, and she had a lot of snacks. In an observation on 11/14/24 at 8:16 a.m. revealed Resident #2 she was sitting up in bed smiling and eating breakfast. Her bedside dresser was stocked with snacks and drinks. In an interview on 11/14/24 at 10:05 a.m. the DON said she was responsible for following up on the Dietitian's recommendations. She said the Dietitian did not send Resident #2's recommendation on an individual form but on a spreadsheet instead. She said she used the individual recommendation form so the MD could sign the recommendation and it could be scanned in the resident's chart. She said she informed the Dietitian that the individual recommendation form was the format needed before her visit on 10/18/24. She said if the Dietitian did not send the recommendation on the individual form, she usually still followed up on the recommendation, but she might have been off that day and would need to follow up to see if Resident #2's recommendations were completed. In an interview on 11/14/24 at 11:36 a.m. with Resident #2 said via the interpreter line that she lost weight but had wanted to get back to her normal weight. In an interview on 11/14/24 at 1:45 p.m. the DON said she received the Dietitian's recommendations from the 10/18/24 visit but missed the recommendations on the spreadsheet because she was looking for the individualized forms. She said she did not expect to receive another set of Dietitian recommendations since another Dietitian came to the facility earlier in October 2024 and provided recommendations that were completed. She said Resident #2 had great intake and lost a lot of weight when she went into a manic phase and came back from the hospital. She said she gained some weight and then dropped again. She said the resident would not drink the supplements recommended by the Dietitian, but they could try it. She said the resident not receiving the supplements was not detrimental to her life and there was no risk because she was gaining weight. She said normally the Dietitian would send the recommendation on the form, the DON would review and give to MD and put in medical record. She said she normally followed up on dietitian recommendations the next day or Monday, if received the recommendations on Friday. In an interview on 11/14/24 at 3:03 p.m. the Administrator said the Dietitian did not follow the facility's system for submitting dietary recommendations. She said the system was to provide individualized sheets, but this time they were sent on a spreadsheet. She said Resident #2 was on hospice and she did not believe the recommendations would have helped the patient. She said her expectation was to follow the procedures set up by the facility and for the DON to follow up with the Dietitian if the individualized sheets were not received. In a telephone interview on 11/14/24 at 3:17 p.m. the Dietitian said Resident #2 had quite a bit of weight loss. She said she recommended 2.0 supplement and liquid protein because it would help with intake and nutrient support. She said she sent an email to the facility with the recommendations on 10/18/24 and it was up to the MD and facility to implement the recommendations. She said she would need to clarify with the DON if there was a certain form needed to send the recommendations, but she sent her recommendations on the nutrition form. She said no one from the facility contacted her about the 10/18/24 recommendations. She said Resident #2's weight was stable now and her wound healed but she would have to do another assessment on the resident to determine if any changes in recommendations were needed. Record review of the facility's policy titled Nutrition (Impaired)/Unplanned Weight Loss - Clinical Protocol dated September 2017 read in part, . Treatment/Management 1. The staff and physician will identify pertinent interventions based on identified causes and overall resident condition, prognosis, and wishes. 2. The physician will authorize appropriate interventions, as indicated . Monitoring 1. The physician and staff will monitor nutritional status, an individual's response to interventions, and possible complications of such interventions . Record review of the facility's policy titled, Weight Assessment and Intervention dated March 2022 read in part, .Resident weights are monitored for undesirable or unintended weight loss or gain . Weight Assessment . 3. Any weight change of 5% or more since the last weight assessment is retaken the next day for confirmation. a. If the weight is verified, nursing will immediately notify the dietitian in writing . Interventions for undesirable weight loss are based on careful consideration of the following: a. Resident choice and preferences; b. Nutrition and hydration needs of the resident; c. Functional factors that may inhibit independent eating; d. Environmental factors that may inhibit appetite or desire to participate in meals; e. Chewing and swallowing abnormalities and the need for diet modifications; f. Medications that may interfere with appetite, chewing, swallowing, or digestion; g. The use of supplementation and/or feeding tubes; and h. End of life decisions and advance directives. 2. Interventions for undesired weight gain consider resident preferences and rights .
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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services (including procedures that assure the accurate administering of all drugs and biologicals) to meet the needs of each resident for 1 of 6 residents (Resident #2) reviewed for pharmacy services. MA K administered Resident #4's Gabapentin (used to prevent and control seizures, and to relieve nerve pain) to Resident #2. This failure could place residents at risk of misappropriation of property and medication errors. Findings include: Record review of Resident #2's face sheet revealed a [AGE] year-old female who readmitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her diagnoses included malignant neoplasm of head of pancreas (a type of cancer that begins as a growth of cells in the pancreas), pain, type 2 diabetes, and heart failure. Record review of Resident #2's significant change in status MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed a BIMS score of 0 out of 15 which indicated severe cognitive impairment. She required assistance from staff with ADL care. Record review of Resident #2's Physician Orders revealed an order for Gabapentin 300 mg give 1 capsule by mouth three times a day for nerve pain, order date 10/20/24. In an observation on 11/14/24 at 8:22 a.m. MA K retrieved medication blister packs from the medication cart. She began preparing Resident #2's medications which included Clonazepam, Creon, and Divalproex. The next blister pack in her hand read Gabapentin 300 mg but had Resident #4's name on it. MA K placed Resident #4's Gabapentin 300 mg into the medication cup and continued preparing the rest of Resident #2's morning medications. After prepping all medications, MA K entered the room and administered the medications to Resident #2. In an interview on 11/14/24 at 8:35 a.m. MA K said she was unsure which Gabapentin 300 mg she administered to Resident #2 because she did not verify the resident's name while preparing the medications. She said she checked to make sure the medication and strength were correct. She said she was unsure how Resident #4's Gabapentin got mixed in with Resident #2's medications. She said they were roommates, and their medications were stored next to each other. She said she could not use another resident's medications for Resident #2 because it was prescribed for a different person, and it could be detrimental. She said she was trained to verify the right resident, medication name, dose, and route. In an interview on 11/14/24 at 1:48 p.m. the DON said nursing staff could not use another resident's medication because it could cause the other resident's supply to run out early. She said she expected nursing staff to verify the resident's name, room number, amount, and directions every time because the orders changed often. She said if a medication blister pack was stored in the wrong spot it should be stored in the right spot. She said the person who administered the medication was responsible for ensuring the resident received the right medication. In an interview on 11/14/24 at 3:03 p.m. the Administrator said she expected nursing staff to follow the medication guidelines policies and procedures and check the patient and medication name. She said the facility should not use other residents' medications because they had to follow guidelines. Record review of the facility's Administering Medications policy April 2019 read in part, .Medications are administered in a safe and timely manner, and as prescribed .10. The individual administering the medication checks the label THREE (3) times to verify the right resident, right medication, right dosage, right time and right method (route) of administration before giving the medication .
Sept 2023 16 deficiencies 2 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

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, observation, and record review the facility failed to ensure residents received care consistent with profess...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, observation, and record review the facility failed to ensure residents received care consistent with professional standards of practice, to prevent pressure ulcers, promote healing, and to prevent new ulcers from developing for 1 (Resident #3) of 18 residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. - The facility failed to perform adequate skin assessments to identify pressure injuries for Resident #3, who was non-ambulatory and wheelchair bound. - The facility failed to identify and treat Resident #3's stage 2 (wound goes through skin and looks like a blister or ulcer but does not go through deep tissues ) and stage 3 (wound goes through deep tissue and fat but does not expose bone) pressure injuries. An Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) was identified on 9/4/2023. The IJ template was provided to the facility on 9/4/2023 at 1:00pm. While the IJ was removed on 9/7/2023 at 2:10pm, the facility remained out of compliance at a severity of actual harm that is not immediate jeopardy with a scope of isolated due to the facility's need to evaluate the effectiveness of the corrective systems. These failures could place residents at risk of developing pressure ulcers/wounds, worsening pressure ulcers/wounds, and could cause pain, infection, hospitalization, or death. Findings include: Record review of Resident #3's undated face sheet revealed he was a [AGE] year-old male, who admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of dementia with other behavioral disturbance (dementia with agitation, depression, or psychosis), COPD (group of diseases that cause airflow blockage and breathing problems), seizures, major depression, schizoaffective bipolar (mental illness that can affect thoughts, mood, and behavior), cataracts (cloudy area in eye making it hard to see), right and left-hand contractures (fixed tightening of muscle, tendons, ligaments, or skin), obstructive and reflux uropathy (obstructed urinary flow), borderline intellectual functioning (below average cognition), C6 Cervical spinal cord injury (spinal cord injury near the base of the neck), and acquired absence of right and left leg (amputation of the right and left leg). Record review of Resident #3's Quarterly MDS dated [DATE] revealed, a BIMS score of 15 which indicated normal cognition. According to the MDS, Resident #3 required extensive assistance with personal hygiene, toilet use, eating, dressing, transferring, and bed mobility. He also required 1-2+ people physical assistance with the ADL's. The resident was wheelchair bound and had limitation in ROM for both his upper and lower extremities. He also was totally dependent for shower/baths and required 2+ people physical assistance. The MDS revealed the resident had an indwelling catheter and was always incontinent of bowel. According to the MDS, the resident was at risk for pressure ulcers/injuries but had none. He was using a pressure reducing device for his bed and application of ointment/medication other than to his feet. Record review of Resident #3's care plan dated 7/14/23, had a Focus: Resident #3 experienced bowel incontinence r/t severe impaired physical mobility. Interventions: Check me every two hours and assist with toileting as needed . Focus: Resident #3 had bilateral [both sides] AKAs. Interventions: Change position frequently. Alternate periods of rest with activity out of bed in order to [prevent] respiratory complications, prevent dependent edema [swelling], [prevent] flexion deformity [inability to fully straighten or extend] and skin pressure areas . Focus: Resident #3 had a (moderate) risk for skin breakdown per the Braden scale. Interventions: .Implement weekly skin checks .Turn schedule every 1-2 hours while in bed. Focus: Resident #3 had an ADL self-care performance deficit r/t amputation .Interventions: BATHING/SHOWERING: The resident requires 1-2 staff with showers/bathing. BED MOBILITY: The resident requires 2 staff to turn and reposition in bed .TOILET USE: The resident is totally dependent on (1-2) staff for toilet use .CONTRACTURES: The resident has contractures of the (admitted with bilateral hands contractures). Provide skin care (q shift) to keep clean and prevent skin breakdown .TRANSFER: The resident is totally dependent on (X2) staff for transferring. The resident requires Mechanical Lift with (X2) staff assistance for transfers . Focus: Resident #3 had a behavior problem (refused ADLs assistance .wound care . Interventions: .Document refusals of ADLs assistance, e.g., repositioning assistance, toileting assistance .wound care . Focus: Resident #3 refused to take protein supplements r/t does not like the taste of any of it. Interventions: .Weekly skin care assessment. Wound care as ordered. The 2-posterior (back) thigh/buttock wounds were not care planned. Record review of Resident #3's physician's orders revealed an order for Weekly Skin checks (Monday/AM), one time a day, every Mon. Ordered on 5/27/21 by MD A. The physician's orders did not reveal any wound treatment orders. Record review of Resident #3's Weekly Skin Review/Assessment by LPN MM dated 4/18/23 revealed Woundcare D/C'ed to R Ischium (curved bone at base of pelvis). No new skin issues noted at this time. Record review of Resident #3's Wound Treatment Note by MD B on 4/21/23, revealed the resident was being treated for a Stage III (wound goes through deep tissue and fat but does not expose bone) pressure wound to his right ischium that initially started 6/6/19, and then started again on 2/17/22. According to MD B, on 4/21/23 the right ischium pressure ulcer had resolved; however, MD B documented the resident was at increased risk of wound incidence due to his many comorbidities. Record review of Resident #3's Weekly Skin Review/Assessments, performed by different nurses, from 4/24/23 through 8/28/23 revealed No new skin issues noted. Record review of Resident #3's August 2023 TAR revealed weekly skin checks were not documented as completed on 8/14/23 and 8/21/23. Record review of Resident #3's medical record on 8/28/23 revealed no documentation indicating he refused to be turned every 2hrs, or refeused weekly skin checks. In an observation and interview with Resident #3 on 8/30/23 at 10:02am, it was revealed he was lying on his back in bed, he had both legs amputated, and there was a wheelchair next to his bed. He stated the staff put him into his wheelchair in the morning at about 8:00am or 9:00am via a Hoyer lift and then left him in it all day long, until about 8:00pm. He stated he was only supposed to be in his chair for 3-4hrs, but he was unable to find anyone to put him back into bed with the Hoyer lift in the evening. He said by the time staff put him back into bed, he would be in a lot of pain. He also said staff were not performing skin assessments on him and he had a wound they did not check on (he did not say where the wound was). In an interview with RN AA on 8/31/23 at 2:48pm, she stated she had already identified skin assessments as an issue at the facility and had already done a PIP on it. She stated she ran a report on skin assessments in their EMR and it showed skin assessments were not being completed. She also stated there was an issue in the EMR with the skin assessment tasks not popping up and alerting staff to perform them. She said she planned on doing chart audits to ensure skin assessments were being completed and if they were not done, residents could have an ulcer/wound which could lead to infection, sepsis (infection through whole body), or could die. She stated she was not going to start as the full time DON until 9/10/23 or 9/11/23. In an interview with LPN N on 9/1/23 at 10:30am, he stated Resident #3 did not have any skin issues to his buttocks or sacrum (triangular bone above the tailbone). He stated if the resident had any skin issues, it was redness to his groin area from the Foley catheter tubing rubbing him. In an interview with the RN AA on 9/1/23 at 3:55pm she stated there was not a wound care nurse and the wounds were handled in house since there were only 4. She stated she walked with MD B on Thursdays and helped assess and enter orders, and the nursing staff were responsible for wound care when she was not assisting with MD B. In an observation and interview on 9/1/23 at 4:26pm with CNA CC, CNA BB, and Resident #3, the resident was observed to have a Stage III pressure wound (wound goes through deep tissue and fat but does not expose bone) about the size of an egg, to his right posterior thigh/buttock, without a dressing. It was also observed that he had a Stage II pressure wound (wound goes through skin and looks like a blister or ulcer but does not go through deep tissues) about the size of a quarter, to his left posterior thigh/buttock area, without a dressing. Both CNAs stated they had not seen and did not know about the wounds until that day. CNA CC stated she had not worked with Resident #3 in a while. She did say that the resident had had a Stage II (wound goes through skin and looks like a blister or ulcer but does not go through deep tissues) or III (wound goes through deep tissue and fat but does not expose bone) to the same area on the right side several months ago when she last worked with him that had healed, and it looked like it had opened again in the same place. CNA BB stated she had been working with the resident but had not noticed the wounds. She stated she must have not turned him far enough to see it when she changed him. CNA BB stated now that she knew about the wounds, she was going to inform the nurse on duty which was LPN H. Record review of the facility's wound documentation list on 9/2/23, revealed there were 6 residents with wounds that were all facility acquired. Resident #3 was not listed as a resident with a wound. In an interview with LPN H on 9/2/23 at 2:30pm she stated she had only been at the facility for 10days. She said she knew skin assessments were done weekly but she did not know what day because she only did them when the task popped up in the EMR. She said she had never checked off the skin assessment task, without actually performing a skin assessment. She said if a skin assessment was missed, a wound could be missed. In an interview with LPN H on 9/3/23 at 10:38am, she stated there were concerns with the skin care system. She said sometimes the skin assessments would not pop up to tell you to perform the assessment, but she knew from being a former manager where to go in the EMR to see the task. She said something was broken with the system, but she could not put her finger on it, and she had not told anyone about it. Record review of Resident #3's Skin/Wound Note by LPN H on 9/3/23 at 10:34am revealed, Area to right hip has reopened [MD A] notified and orders given to consult with [MD B], area cleansed with NS patted dry and covered with dry dressing, until new orders are received. In an interview with the Administrator, the Regional Nurse Consultant, and RN AA on 9/3/23 at 11:23am, it was revealed RN A had been the acting DON and worked on the floor as an RN on the night shift. It was revealed RN A oversaw the nursing department but was not following through, which was why RN AA was going to be taking over as the DON. RN AA stated a skin assessment was performed on 8/28/23 and there were no wounds on Resident #3. Per the Regional Nurse Consultant, it was possible his old wound to his right buttock/ischium (curved bone at base of pelvis) opened back up in 4 days. The Regional Nurse Consultant stated Resident #3 had an old wound in the same area that used to be a Stage 3 (wound goes through deep tissue and fat but does not expose bone) or 4 (wound that goes through deep tissue and fat and exposes bone/muscle) and it could have been developing from the inside before it opened back up and it was not found on the last skin assessment. The Regional Nurse Consultant stated Resident #3 never told anyone he was having any pain or had any wounds. The Regional Nurse Consultant agreed Resident #3 was a paraplegic (no movement/feeling from waist down) and was unable to feel a lot, and it was not up to him to tell staff he had a wound. The Administrator, the Regional Nurse Consultant, and RN AA agreed staff should have been doing skin assessments and noticed the wounds during showers, brief changes, or pericare. Per the Administrator, RN A oversaw the skin assessments and accuracy of staff documentation, even though she was working as a floor nurse at night. The Administrator said the nurses had competencies that were continual and ongoing. Per RN AA, on hire the nurses had a competency sheet they had to fill out with their preceptor. Per the Regional Nurse Consultant, if issues were identified with new employees, they were re-educated, and if it seemed to be a system wide issue, they provided an in-service for the whole facility. Per the Administrator, the Regional Nurse Consultant, and RN AA, they had an issue with their EMR not popping up the skin assessment task. They said if the nurse did not do her skin assessment task, it would turn red and then the assessment would not pop up for any other later shifts. They were trying to address the problem. RN AA stated MD B would call her and ask her if there were any new residents with wounds. He would see those residents with her on Thursdays. RN AA stated she left face sheets in MD B's box at the nurse's station, for him to round on when he came. On 9/3/23 at 12:15pm, a message was left for RN A, the acting DON to call back. On 9/3/23 at 12:49pm, a message was left for MD B to call back. In an interview with the Administrator on 9/3/23 at 1:45pm, she stated RN A oversaw the nurses. The Administrator said RN A was not providing adequate supervision of the nurses and there was a complete system breakdown in the nursing department. The Administrator stated RN A was the RN 8hr coverage at night and the acting DON at night. The Administrator stated she did not have a full time DON who supervised the nursing staff during the day. In an interview with the Medical Director on 9/4/23 at 12:23pm, she stated there were some failures with oversight with the nursing staff since they did not have a DON during the day. She stated the last time they had a full time DON was for 2 weeks in July 2023. She said primarily the previous ADON took care of everything, but she quit 8/4/23. Record review of the facility's policy and procedure for Charting and Documentation (revised July 2017) read in part: All services provided to the resident, progress toward the care plan goals, or any changes in the resident's medical, physical, functional, or psychosocial condition, shall be documented in the resident's medical record. The medical record should facilitate communication between the interdisciplinary team regarding the resident's condition and response to care .2. The following information is to be documented in the resident medical record: a. Objective observations .c. Treatments or services performed; d. Changes in the resident's condition; e. Events, incidents or accidents involving the resident; and f. Progress toward of changes in the care plan goals and objectives. 3. Documentation in the medical record will be objective (not opinionated or speculative), complete, and accurate .7. Documentation of procedures and treatments will include care-specific details, including: a. The date and time the procedure/treatment was provided; b. The name and title of the individual(s) who provided the care; c. The assessment data and/or any unusual findings obtained during the procedure/treatment; d. How the resident tolerated the procedure/treatment; e. Whether the resident refused the procedure/treatment; f. Notification of family, physician or other staff, if indicated; and g. The signature and title of the individual documenting. Record review of the facility's policy and procedure on Prevention of Pressure Injuries (revised April 2020) read in part: The purpose of this procedure is to provide information regarding identification of pressure injury risk factors and interventions for specific risk factors. Review the resident's care plan and identify the risk factors as well as the interventions designed to reduce or eliminate those considered modifiable .Skin Assessment: 2. During the skin assessment, inspect: a. Presence of erythema [redness]; b. Temperature of skin and soft tissues; and c. Edema [swelling]. 3. Inspect the skin on a daily basis when performing or assisting with personal care of ADLs. A. Identify any signs of developing pressure injuries (i.e., non-blanchable erythema [redness that does not turn white when pushed]). For darkly pigmented skin, inspect for changes in skin tone, temperature, and consistency; b. Inspect pressure points (sacrum [triangular-shaped bone above the tailbone], heels, buttocks, coccyx [tailbone], elbows, ischium, trochanter [hip bone], etc.) .e. Reposition resident as indicated on the care plan .Mobility/Repositioning: 1. Repositioning all residents with or at risk of pressure injuries on an individualized schedule, as determined by the [IDT] care team. 2. Choose a frequency for repositioning based on the resident's risk factors and current clinical practice guidelines .Monitoring: 1. Evaluate, report and document potential changes in the skin. 2. Review the interventions and strategies for effectiveness on an ongoing basis. Record review of the facility's policy and procedure on Pressure Ulcers/Skin Breakdown-Clinical Protocol (Revised April 2018) read in part: Assessment and Recognition: .2. In addition, the nurse shall describe and document/report the following: a. Full assessment of pressure sore including location, stage, length, width and depth, presence of exudates [secretion] or necrotic [black/dead] tissue .d. Current treatments .4. The physician will assist the staff to identify the type .of an ulcer. 5. The physician will help identify and define any complications related to pressure ulcers. Cause Identification: 1. The physician will help identify factors contributing or predisposing residents to skin breakdown .2. The physician will clarify the status of relevant medical issues .and the impact of comorbid conditions on healing an existing wound. Treatment/Management: 1. The physician will order pertinent wound treatments, including pressure reduction surfaces, wound cleansing and debridement [removing skin] approaches, dressings .and application of topical agents. 2. The physician will help identify medical interventions related to wound management .Monitoring: 1. During resident visits, the physician will evaluate and document the progress of wound healing-especially for those with complicated, extensive, or poorly-healing wounds. 2. The physician will guide the care plan as appropriate, especially when wounds are not healing as anticipated or new wounds develop despite existing interventions . An Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) was identified on 9/4/2023. The IJ template was provided to the facility on 9/4/2023 at 1:00pm. The Plan of removal was accepted on 9/6/2023 at 12:38pm. The plan of removal reflected the following: Immediate: Resident 3 had a skin check performed by the Medical Director on 9/4/2023. The physician identified a wound present in sacral/coccyx area and instructed to continue with current treatment order in place for identified skin breakdown. The resident's Care Plan/[NAME] was updated on 9/4/2023 with individualized interventions to address/prevent skin breakdown, including turning/repositioning him at least every two hours. A facility audit of all residents to be completed by the Director of Nursing/Designee by 9/4/2023 of all residents to validate a skin check has been completed in the past 7 days. Any resident who has not had a documented skin check will have a skin check completed by 9/5/2023. Facilities Plan to ensure compliance quickly: An Ad-Hoc QAPI was conducted on 9/3/2023 when the missing skin check issue was brought up to the facility. Facility interventions were implemented: The facility skin assessment schedule was reviewed on 9/3/2023 and adjustments were made. An audit was completed on 9/3/2023 of every resident's skin check schedule in [EMR] and updates were made as needed to validate the skin check would show up in the EMAR on the date/shift that was scheduled. Education was initiated for the facility nursing staff on 9/3/2023 regarding the new skin assessment schedule. Education was initiated for Nursing Assistants on 9/4/2023 on ensuring residents at high risk for skin breakdown are turned and repositioned at least every two hours and who to notify if skin breakdown is identified. Education to be initiated by DON/Designee on 9/4/2023 with all Licensed Nurses regarding the importance of completing a thorough weekly skin assessment and reporting immediately when a resident has incurred a skin impairment. Training to also include proper technique to perform the skin check and how to document the skin check in the EMAR. This training to Licensed Nurses will be validated by completion of a post-training test, to be dated and signed by each nurse. Education to be completed with all nursing staff working 9/5/2023. Staff who did not receive the training will receive this training prior to their next shift and will not be allowed to provide direct resident care until they have completed the trainings. From 9/6/23-9/7/23 a monitoring visit was conducted to ensure the facility was following its POR. The visits revealed: On 9/6/23 at 1:00pm in an interview with the Interim DON (Regional Nurse Consultant), she said she had started in-services/trainings on 9/5/23 regarding skin assessments, and skin assessment schedule (with a quiz). She stated most of the staff had been trained. On 9/6/23 at 2:00pm in an interview with CNA CC she stated the facility had training on skin assessments on 9/4/23. She was able to re-iterate what she had learned from the skin assessment in-service. She stated it was important to monitor for skin breakdown, turn every 2 hrs, and to notify the nurse if any redness or skin breakdown was noticed. Record review of Resident #3's Wound Treatment documentation by MD B on 9/7/23, revealed the resident had a R Ischium wound that was 4.5 x 3.6 x .1 cm and a L Ischium wound that was .2 x 1.2 x .1 cm, that had reopened. He wrote orders on the paper to limit sitting to < 2hrs/time and to reposition/offload. On 9/7/23 at 11:20am in an interview with RN AA, she said she initiated a whole new skin assessment calendar by room, instead of by resident. She said, if a resident moved, the skin assessment would still be due by room and not by resident. She stated they were also starting chart audits where they would go into a resident's chart and pick a random day in the last week, to ensure the nurses were documenting the skin assessments. Also, she said every morning she would go into the EMR and see if the assessment was in red, because when it was not done it would be triggered in red. RN AA stated the facility performed a skin sweep of the facility, so every resident had a new skin assessment as of 9/6/23 and then she was going to start checking the assessments today (9/7/23). She also said she checked the shower sheets, and the staff would bring them to her if they identified something on a resident. RN AA stated she would compare the shower sheets to what she had identified on the residents in the computer. RN AA also said they were hiring a treatment nurse, so once they got a treatment nurse all the identified areas would be funneled through them, and they would only have one person looking at it. On 9/7/23 at 11:52am in an interview with the Interim DON (The Regional Nurse Consultant), she said the plan was to follow up and monitor now. She stated all the training had been completed on skin assessments, showers, shower sheets, ADLs, checking and turning the resident every 2hrs, and ANE. She stated with the skin assessments, she trained on when to do them, where to find them, what to look for, what to do if something is found, and the Stop and Watch notification. She said she also took them to the kiosk and showed them how to perform the Stop and Watch notification, and then had them perform a return demonstration. The Interim DON (The Regional Nurse Consultant) also stated staff were not allowed to work unless they had been trained, and she had gone through next week's schedule and staff that were scheduled to work had already been in-serviced. She said the PRN staff would not be allowed to work until they were in-serviced also. On 9/7/23 at 11:55am in an interview with CNA W, he said they had in-services on showers and were informed to make sure and tell the nurse if any skin concerns were found during the shower, and to document them on the shower sheet and in the EMR. CNA W said staff were in-serviced on skin assessments as well and staff needed to make sure and document anything they saw, and to fill out a Stop and Watch which would also trigger a notification. He said after filling out the Stop and Watch the staff also needed to tell the nurse verbally about any skin issues. On 9/7/23 at 12:10pm in an interview with CNA X, she said they received training on the EMR and where to go to document things, and the Stop and Watch for skin findings. She said if she were to find any skin irregularity on a resident, she was supposed to document it, enter a Stop and Watch that triggered the nurse, and verbally report it to the nurse. She stated, even if the skin irregularity was old, it was important to document it because the other staff may have not seen it before. The CNA said they were supposed to have the nurse come in and assess the resident when they were showering also, to ensure nothing was missed on the resident. She said once the shower sheets were filled out, the ADON checked them to ensure everything was filled out and there were no questions. On 9/7/23 at 2:36pm in an interview with Resident #3, he said that MD B came and saw him today. He said the doctor ordered new treatments for his wounds and staff were going to start treating his wounds. He stated that his pain was ok. He also stated that staff were not leaving him in his wheelchair for as long and putting him back in bed. Record reviews performed by the Surveyor on 9/7/23: - Record of training provided by the Interim DON (Regional Nurse Consultant) to the Nursing staff regarding new skin assessment schedule, performing a head-to-toe skin assessment with return demonstration. - Record of training provided by the Interim DON (Regional Nurse Consultant) to the CNA's regarding skin breakdown prevention, turning and repositioning for residents with high risk for skin breakdown, reporting to nurse if resident refuses to turn/reposition, and reporting to nurse any alteration in skin integrity. - Record of training provided by the ADON to the Nursing staff and CNA's regarding filling out a Stop and Watch in the EMR, for nurses to check their dashboard multiple times a shift for updates from CNA's and updating the DON/ADON about any alerts triggered in the EMR. - Record of re-education provided by the ADON on the resident's [NAME], following it, and where to find it. - Record of the staff's Skin Assessment Post Test. - Record of Resident #3's assessment and orders from MD B. - Record of training provided by the Regional Nurse Consultant regarding nursing oversite and skin program monitoring, including: - Reviewing 24hr report - Reviewing for incidents of abuse/neglect - Monitoring/performing chart audits - Following up on areas of concern - Holding nurses accountable - Maintaining clear, concise, open communication with regional support staff - Monitoring UDA schedules, ensuring assessments are being completed, and intervening when they are not completed - Monitoring for trends - Utilizing root cause analysis and QA process - Continual/ongoing in-services and training of staff An Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) was identified on 9/4/2023. The IJ template was provided to the facility on 9/4/2023 at 1:00pm. While the IJ was removed on 9/7/2023 at 2:10pm, the facility remained out of compliance at a severity of actual harm that is not immediate jeopardy with a scope of isolated due to the facility's need to evaluate the effectiveness of the corrective systems.
CRITICAL (J)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Administration (Tag F0835)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview the facility failed to be administered in a manner that enabled it to use its resources effec...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview the facility failed to be administered in a manner that enabled it to use its resources effectively and efficiently to attain or maintain the highest, practicable, physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident for 1 (Resident #3) of 18 residents reviewed for Administration. - The Administrator failed to ensure nursing staff were performing weekly skin assessments on Resident #3 and other residents at the facility, causing Resident #3 to get facility acquired Stage 2 (wounds extends through skin and looks like a blister or ulcer but does not extend through deeper tissue) and Stage 3 (wound extends through deep tissue and fat but does not expose bone) pressure wounds. - The Administrator failed to ensure staff were performing showers and daily hygiene care on Resident #3 and other residents at the facility, causing Resident #3 to go a week without a shower which can cause skin breakdown. - The Administrator failed to ensure wounds were being identified and communicated to the physician for Resident #3, which lead to late treatment of his pressure wounds. - The Administrator failed to ensure full-time DON coverage which caused lack of nursing supervision and oversight. - The Administrator failed to ensure the EMR system notified staff to perform skin assessments on Resident #3 and other residents, causing missed skin assessments and pressure wounds to Resident #3. An Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) was identified on 9/5/2023. The IJ template was provided to the facility on 9/5/2023 at 12:40pm. While the IJ was removed on 9/7/2023 at 2:10pm, the facility remained out of compliance at a severity of actual harm that is not immediate jeopardy. with a scope of isolated. due to the facility's need to evaluate the effectiveness of the corrective systems. These failures could place residents at risk for receiving substandard care, missed care, skin break down, wounds developing, and infections. Findings include: Record review of Resident #3's undated face sheet revealed he was a [AGE] year-old male, who admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of dementia with other behavioral disturbance (dementia with agitation, depression, or psychosis), COPD (group of diseases that cause airflow blockage and breathing problems), seizures, major depression, schizoaffective bipolar (mental illness that can affect thoughts, mood, and behavior), cataracts (cloudy area in eye making it hard to see), right and left-hand contractures, obstructive and reflux uropathy (obstructed urinary flow), borderline intellectual functioning (below average cognition), C6 Cervical spinal cord injury (spinal cord injury near the base of the neck), acquired absence of right and left leg (amputation of the right and left leg). Record review of Resident #3's Quarterly MDS dated [DATE] revealed, a BIMS score of 15 which indicated normal cognition. According to the MDS, Resident #3 required extensive assistance with personal hygiene, toilet use, eating, dressing, transferring, and bed mobility. He also required 1-2+ people physical assistance with the activities. The resident was wheelchair bound and had limitation in ROM for both his upper and lower extremities. He also was totally dependent for shower/baths and required 2+ people physical assistance. The MDS revealed the resident had an indwelling catheter and was always incontinent of bowel. According to the MDS, the resident was at risk for pressure ulcers/injuries but had none. He was using a pressure reducing device for his bed and application of ointment/medication other than to his feet. Record review of Resident #3's care plan dated 7/14/23, had a Focus: Resident #3 experienced bowel incontinence r/t severe impaired physical mobility. Interventions: Check me every two hours and assist with toileting as needed . Focus: Resident #3 had bilateral AKAs. Interventions: Change position frequently. Alternate periods of rest with activity out of bed in order to [prevent] respiratory complications, prevent dependent edema [swelling], [prevent] flexion deformity and skin pressure areas . Focus: Resident #3 had a (Moderate) risk for skin breakdown per Braden scale. Interventions: .Implement weekly skin checks .Turn schedule every 1-2 hours while in bed. Focus: Resident #3 had an ADL self-care performance deficit r/t amputation .Interventions: BATHING/SHOWERING: The resident requires 1-2 staff with showers/bathing. BED MOBILITY: The resident requires 2 staff to turn and reposition in bed .TOILET USE: The resident is totally dependent on (1-2) staff for toilet use .CONTRACTURES: The resident has contractures of the (admitted with bilateral hands contractures). Provide skin care (q shift) to keep clean and prevent skin breakdown .TRANSFER: The resident is totally dependent on (X2) staff for transferring. The resident requires Mechanical Lift with (X2) staff assistance for transfers . Focus: Resident #3 had a behavior problem (refused ADLs assistance .wound care . Interventions: .Document refusals of ADLs assistance, e.g., repositioning assistance, toileting assistance .wound care . Focus: Resident #3 refused to take protein supplements r/t does not like the taste of any of it. Interventions: .Weekly skin care assessment. Wound care as ordered. The 2-posterior thigh/buttock wounds were not care planned. Record review of Resident #3's physician orders revealed an order for Weekly Skin checks (Monday/AM), one time a day, every Mon. Ordered on 5/27/21 by MD A. The physician orders did not reveal any wound treatment orders. Record review of Resident #3's Weekly Skin Review/Assessments, performed by different nurses, from 4/24/23 through 8/28/23 revealed No new skin issues noted. Record review of Resident #3's August 2023 TAR revealed weekly skin checks were not documented on 8/14/23 and 8/21/23. Record review of Resident #3's August 2023 and September 2023 shower sheets revealed documentation of showers/baths only on 8/8/23, 8/19/23, and 9/2/23. In an observation and interview with Resident #3 on 8/30/23 at 10:02am, he was laying on his back in bed with both legs amputated and a wheelchair next to his bed. He stated the staff put him into his wheelchair in the morning about 8:00am or 9:00am via a Hoyer lift and then left him in it all day long, until about 8:00pm. He stated he was only supposed to be in his chair for 3-4hrs, but he was unable to find anyone to put him back into bed with the Hoyer lift in the evening. He said by the time staff put him back into bed, he would be in a lot of pain. He also said staff did not perform skin assessments on him and he had a wound that they did not check on. He also said he had not been receiving showers 3 x week like he was supposed to, and he had not had a shower in over a week. In the Resident Council meeting on 8/31/23 at 10:30am, it was revealed by the 6 residents that showers were not being given, especially on the 2-10pm shift. They stated that the odd number rooms got showers on Tue/Thu/Sat and the even number rooms got showers on Mon/Wed/Fri. They also stated that the A beds got showers in the morning and the B beds got showers at night. In an interview with RN AA on 8/31/23 at 2:48pm, she stated she was the part-time DON, then she said Interim DON. She said she did not start full time until 9/10/23 or 9/11/23. Her badge stated DON and she stated the employees called her the DON. She said she had already identified skin assessments as an issue at the facility. She had already done a PIP on it. She stated she ran a report on skin assessments in their EMR and it showed skin assessments were not being completed. She also stated there was an issue in the EMR with the skin assessment tasks not popping up and alerting staff to perform them. She said she planned on doing chart audits to ensure skin assessments were being completed and if they were not done, residents could have an ulcer/wound which could lead to infection, sepsis, and could die. She stated she was not going to start as the full time DON until 9/10/23 or 9/11/23. She stated she had already identified showers as a concern at the facility also. She stated she planned to pull a CNA to be the shower tech once she started as the full time DON. She said she was also going to ensure the documentation in the chart was clear if the resident refused a shower, and make sure staff notified the resident's RP and notified the DON if they refused. RN AA stated the reason why the 2pm-10pm shift was not getting showers was due to lack of accountability, since management was not there. In an interview with LPN N on 9/1/23 at 10:30am he stated Resident #3 had no skin concerns to his buttocks or sacrum (triangular bone above the tailbone). He stated if the resident had anything, it was just some redness to his groin from the Foley catheter tubing. He stated he never noticed any wounds on Resident #3 but had not performed a skin assessment on him before. He stated that Resident #3 had mentioned he was in pain, but the resident always had pain and exaggerated on things. In an interview on 9/1/23 at 11:00am, CNA HH said on MWF, A-Bed residents in even numbered rooms were to be showered by 6-2pm staff; B-Bed residents were showered by 2-10pm staff. On TTS, A-Bed residents in odd numbered rooms were to be showered by 6-2pm staff; B-Bed residents were showered by 2-10pm staff. In an interview with the Administrator on 9/1/23 at 1:35pm, it was revealed showers had already been identified as a concern and they were not being performed. She stated the plan was to hire a shower tech to assist with giving showers. In an interview with the RN AA on 9/1/23 at 3:55pm she stated there was not a wound care nurse and the wounds were handled in house since there were only 4. She stated she walked with MD B on Thursdays and helped assess and enter orders, and the nursing staff were responsible for wound care when she was not assisting with MD B. In an observation and interview on 9/1/23 at 4:26pm with CNA CC, CNA BB, and Resident #3, resident was observed to have a Stage III (wound extends through deep tissue and fat but does not expose bone) pressure wound to his right posterior thigh/buttock area and a Stage II (wound extends through skin and looks like a blister or ulcer but does not go through deeper tissue) pressure wound to his left posterior thigh/buttock area. Both CNAs stated they had not seen and did not know about the wounds until that day. CNA CC stated she had not worked with Resident #3 in a while. She did say that the resident had had a Stage II or III to the same area on the right side several months ago that had healed, and it looked like it had re-opened again in the same place. CNA BB stated she had been working with the resident but had not noticed the wounds. She stated she must have not turned him far enough to see it when she changed him. CNA BB stated now that she knew about the wounds, she was going to inform the nurse on duty which was LPN H. Record review of the facility's wound documentation list on 9/2/23, revealed there were 6 residents with wounds that were all facility acquired. Resident #3 was not listed as a resident with a wound. In an interview with CNA Z on 9/2/23 at 2:27pm, he stated residents received showers on alternating days. He said A beds got them in the morning and B beds got them at night. He said they documented showers in the computer and on shower sheets in a binder at the nurse's station. He also stated he felt like they had enough staff to provide adequate showers. CNA Z said RN AA was the DON and identified herself as the DON to all the staff. There were not any shower sheets in the shower binder for Resident #3 for August 2023 or September 2023. In an interview with LPN H on 9/2/23 at 2:30pm she stated she had only been at the facility for 10days. She knew skin assessments were done weekly but she did not know what day because she only did them when the task popped up in the EMR. She said she had never checked off the skin assessment task, without actually performing a skin assessment. She said if a skin assessment was missed, a wound could be missed. LPN H stated the DON was RN AA and that she identified herself as the DON to all the staff. In an interview with Resident #3 on 9/3/23 at 10:34am he said, he finally had received a shower the night before (9/2/23) and he felt much better. Record review of Resident #3's Skin/Wound Note by LPN H on 9/3/23 at 10:34am revealed, Area to right hip has reopened [MD A] notified and orders given to consult with [MD B], area cleansed with NS patted dry and covered with dry dressing, until new orders are received. In an interview with LPN H on 9/3/23 at 10:38am she stated she did not perform a head-to-toe assessment on all residents, only when the skin assessment task popped up. She stated today (9/3/23) was the first day she saw Resident #3's wound and was informed of it. She stated she had been his nurse before but had not done a skin assessment on him. In an interview with LPN N on 9/3/23 at 10:51am, he stated he had no problems with the skin assessments and had not noticed any not popping up. He also stated there were only a few wounds at the facility and he felt comfortable and had plenty of time to perform skin assessments and wound care. LPN N stated the DON was RN AA and she identified herself as such to the employees. He said he never noticed any wounds on Resident #3, but he had not performed a skin assessment on him in a long time. In an interview with the Administrator, the Regional Nurse Consultant, and RN AA on 9/3/23 at 11:23am, it was revealed RN AA was not the acting DON, even though staff identified her as such, and DON was on her name tag. Per the Administrator, RN A was the acting DON at night, and worked on the floor as an RN on the night shift. It was revealed RN A oversaw the nursing department but was not following through with oversight, which was why RN AA was going to be taking over as the DON. However, RN AA was not taking over until 9/10/23. RN AA stated a skin assessment was performed on 8/28/23 and there were no wounds on Resident #3. Per the Regional Nurse Consultant, it was possible his old wound to his right buttock/ischium (curved bone at base of pelvis) opened back up in 4 days. The Regional Nurse Consultant stated Resident #3 had an old wound in the same area that used to be a Stage 3 (wound extends through deep tissue and fat but does not expose bone) or 4 (wound extends through deep tisse/fat and muscle or bone is shown) and it could have been developing from the inside before it opened back up and it was not found on the last skin assessment. The Regional Nurse Consultant stated Resident #3 never told anyone he was having any pain or had any wounds. The Regional Nurse Consultant agreed Resident #3 was a paraplegic (no movement/feeling from waist down) and was unable to feel a lot, and it was not up to him to tell staff he had a wound. The Administrator, the Regional Nurse Consultant, and RN AA agreed staff should have been doing skin assessments and noticed the wounds during showers, brief changes, or pericare. Per the Administrator, RN A oversaw the skin assessments and accuracy of staff documentation, even though she was working as a floor nurse at night. The Administrator said the nurses had competencies that were continual and ongoing. Per RN AA, on hire the nurses had a competency sheet they had to fill out with their preceptor. Per the Regional Nurse Consultant, if issues were identified with new employees, they were re-educated, and if it seemed to be a system wide issue, they provided an in-service for the whole facility. Per the Administrator, the Regional Nurse Consultant, and RN AA, they had an issue with their EMR not popping up the skin assessment task. They said if the nurse did not do her skin assessment task, it would turn red and then the assessment would not pop up for any other later shifts. They were trying to address the problem. RN AA stated MD B would call her and ask her if there were any new residents with wounds. He would see those residents with her on Thursdays. RN AA stated she left face sheets in MD B's box at the nurse's station, for him to round on when he came. On 9/3/23 at 12:15pm, a message was left for the acting DON (RN A) to call back. On 9/3/23 at 12:49pm, a message was left for MD B to call back. In an interview with the Administrator on 9/3/23 at 1:45pm, she stated RN A oversaw the nurses. The Administrator said RN A was not providing adequate supervision of the nurses and there was a complete system breakdown in the nursing department. The Administrator stated RN A was the RN 8hr coverage at night and also the acting DON at night. The Administrator stated she did not have a full time DON who supervised the nursing staff during the day. She stated the last time there was a full time DON was for 2 weeks back in July and the previous ADON had been taking care of everything, but she left on 8/4/23. In an interview with the Medical Director on 9/4/23 at 12:23pm, she stated there were some failures with oversight since they did not have a DON during the day. She stated the last time they had a full time DON was for 2 weeks in July. She said primarily the previous ADON took care of everything, but she quit 8/4/23. In an observation and interview with Resident #64 and RN AA on 9/4/23 at 3:30pm, it was revealed the resident had a fitted sheet soaked with, what appeared to be urine, from his head all the way down to his legs. There was a foul smell in the room that got worse when his brief was opened. RN AA was there with 2 CNAs while performing a skin assessment. RN AA stated the resident had just been changed about 30min ago. She was unsure how the sheet was soaked and stated the CNA who changed him must have placed a new cloth chuck on top of the soiled sheet, without changing it. She stated it was unacceptable for them to not have changed the sheet and would investigate it. In an interview with Resident #3 on 9/6/23 at 1:30pm, he stated he had not had a shower since 9/2/23, and he was supposed to have received one on 9/5/23 but did not get one. He stated he did not receive a shower on 9/4/23, and the documentation was wrong that he had received a shower on 9/4/23. In an interview on 9/6/23 at 1:40pm, CNA W said if a resident declined to have ADLs performed, the CNA was to report it to the charge nurse who would follow up with the resident. In an interview on 9/6/23 at 1:42pm, LPN L said if a resident declined to have ADLs performed, the CNA reported it to the charge nurse. She said the charge nurse would follow up with the resident to see if the nurse could encourage the resident to accept care. She said if the resident continued to decline care, the care would be offered again later, and the nurse would document the refusal and notify the resident's RP. Record review of the facility's policy and procedure for Charting and Documentation (revised July 2017) read in part: All services provided to the resident, progress toward the care plan goals, or any changes in the resident's medical, physical, functional, or psychosocial condition, shall be documented in the resident's medical record. The medical record should facilitate communication between the interdisciplinary team regarding the resident's condition and response to care .2. The following information is to be documented in the resident medical record: a. Objective observations .c. Treatments or services performed; d. Changes in the resident's condition; e. Events, incidents or accidents involving the resident; and f. Progress toward of changes in the care plan goals and objectives. 3. Documentation in the medical record will be objective (not opinionated or speculative), complete, and accurate .7. Documentation of procedures and treatments will include care-specific details, including: a. The date and time the procedure/treatment was provided; b. The name and title of the individual(s) who provided the care; c. The assessment data and/or any unusual findings obtained during the procedure/treatment; d. How the resident tolerated the procedure/treatment; e. Whether the resident refused the procedure/treatment; f. Notification of family, physician or other staff, if indicated; and g. The signature and title of the individual documenting. Record review of the facility's policy and procedure for Change in a Resident's Condition of Status (Revised February 2021) read in part: Our facility promptly notifies the resident, his or her attending physician, and the resident representative of changes in the resident's medical/mental condition and/or status .1. The nurse will notify the resident's attending physician or physician on call when there has been a(an): .b. discovery of injuries of an unknown source .d. significant change in the resident's physical/emotional/mental condition; e. need to alter the resident's medical treatment significantly .2. A significant change of condition is a major decline or improvement in the resident's status that: a. will not normally resolve itself without intervention by staff or by implementing standard disease related clinical interventions (is not self-limiting) c. requires [IDT] review and/or revisions to the care plan . Record review of the facility's policy and procedure on CNA Expectations (undated) read in part: .Daily hygiene needed on ALL resident EVERYDAY AM/PM: Brush Hair and Teeth- Shave all facial hair unless resident requests otherwise. Trim/File Nails- clean under nails. Fresh Clothing- Morning: Fresh clothing, Night: Pjs, Skid resistant socks/footwear at all times. Rounds should be Q2H and as needed with assistance provided timely Turning and Repositioning Q2H and as needed for ALL BED BOUND residents: Heels should be offloaded on pillow (hanging off) when in bed. Wheelchair Cushions need to be provided for all resident without one .Get Up List- ALL residents should be OUT OF BED for ALL meals and Activities as tolerated: Night Shift- get up 50% of all abled residents. Day Shift- get up all abled residents .Showers: All residents showers to be completed daily as scheduled day/evening shifts- All skin abnormalities to be reported to nurse on duty. Record review of the facility's policy and procedure on Prevention of Pressure Injuries (revised April 2020) read in part: The purpose of this procedure is to provide information regarding identification of pressure injury risk factors and interventions for specific risk factors. Review the resident's care plan and identify the risk factors as well as the interventions designed to reduce or eliminate those considered modifiable .Skin Assessment: 2. During the skin assessment, inspect: a. Presence of erythema [redness]; b. Temperature of skin and soft tissues; and c. Edema [swelling]. 3. Inspect the skin on a daily basis when performing or assisting with personal care of ADLs. A. Identify any signs of developing pressure injuries (i.e., non-blanchable erythema [skin that does not turn white when pushed]). For darkly pigmented skin, inspect for changes in skin tone, temperature, and consistency; b. Inspect pressure points (sacrum [triangular bone above tailbone], heels, buttocks, coccyx [tailbone], elbows, ischium [curved bone at base of pelvis], trochanter [hip bone], etc.); c. Wash the skin after any episodes of incontinence, using pH balanced skin cleanser; d. Moisturize dry skin daily; and e. Reposition resident as indicated on the care plan. Prevention: 1. Keep the skin clean and hydrated. 2. Clean promptly after episodes of incontinence .4. Use a barrier product to protect skin from moisture .Mobility/Repositioning: 1. Repositioning all residents with or at risk of pressure injuries on an individualized schedule, as determined by the [IDT] care team. 2. Choose a frequency for repositioning based on the resident's risk factors and current clinical practice guidelines .Monitoring: 1. Evaluate, report and document potential changes in the skin. 2. Review the interventions and strategies for effectiveness on an ongoing basis. Record review of the facility's policy and procedure on Pressure Ulcers/Skin Breakdown-Clinical Protocol (Revised April 2018) read in part: Assessment and Recognition: .2. In addition, the nurse shall describe and document/report the following: a. Full assessment of pressure sore including location, stage, length, width and depth, presence of exudates or necrotic tissue .d. Current treatments .4. The physician will assist the staff to identify the type .of an ulcer. 5. The physician will help identify and define any complications related to pressure ulcers. Cause Identification: 1. The physician will help identify factors contributing or predisposing residents to skin breakdown .2. The physician will clarify the status of relevant medical issues .and the impact of comorbid conditions on healing an existing wound. Treatment/Management: 1. The physician will order pertinent wound treatments, including pressure reduction surfaces, wound cleansing and debridement [removing skin] approaches, dressings .and application of topical agents. 2. The physician will help identify medical interventions related to wound management .Monitoring: 1. During resident visits, the physician will evaluate and document the progress of wound healing-especially for those with complicated, extensive, or poorly-healing wounds. 2. The physician will guide the care plan as appropriate, especially when wounds are not healing as anticipated or new wounds develop despite existing interventions . Record review of the facility's policy and procedure for Department Supervision, Nursing (Revised August 2022) read in part: The nursing services department shall be under the direct supervision of a registered or licensed practical/vocational nurse at all times. 1. A licensed nurse (RN/LPN/LVN) is on duty twenty-four hours per day, seven (7) days per week, to provide resident care services and supervise the nursing services activities provided by unlicensed staff. A licensed nurse is designated as a charge nurse on each shift .b. A charge nurse is a licensed nurse with designated responsibilities that may include staff supervision, emergency coordination, provider or physician support and direct resident care. c. The director of nursing services (DNS) may serve as the charge nurse only when the average daily occupancy of the facility is 60 or fewer residents .3. Licensed nurses are required to supervise nurse aides/nursing assistants and are scheduled in such a way that permits adequate time to do so. 4. A registered nurse (RN) is employed as the director of nursing services (DNS). The DNS is on duty a minimum of 40 hours per week. 5. During the absence of the DNS, a nurse supervisor/charge nurse is responsible for the supervision of all nursing department activities including supervision of direct care staff . An Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) was identified on 9/5/2023. The IJ template was provided to the facility on 9/5/2023 at 12:40pm. The Plan of removal was accepted on 9/6/2023 at 12:38pm. The plan of removal reflected the following: Immediate action: A plan has been created to ensure full time Director of Nursing coverage until the part time DON is able to start full time on 9/7/2023. The RN Clinical Nurse Resource will assume DON duties, including reviewing weekly skin check assessments, ADL documentation, wound care, and physician communication. Signage will be posted throughout the facility to assist staff to know who to contact with clinical concerns. The Chief Nursing Officer provided training with the RN Clinical Nurse Resource and the facility Administrator about Director of Nursing responsibilities 09/5/23. Resident 3 had a skin check performed by the Medical Director on 9/4/2023. The physician identified wound present in sacral/coccyx area and instructed to continue with current treatment order in place for identified skin breakdown. The resident's Care Plan/Kardex was updated on 9/4/2023 with individualized interventions to address/prevent skin breakdown, including turning/repositioning him at least every two hours. Resident 3 was assessed for pain/discomfort. The resident's physician reviewed his pain management interventions. The resident's Care Plan/Kardex was updated on 9/4/2023 with individualized interventions to address/prevent pain, including turning/repositioning him at least every two hours. A facility audit of all residents to be completed by the Director of Nursing/Designee by 9/4/2023 of all residents to validate a skin check has been completed in the past 7 days. Any resident who has not had a documented skin check will have a skin check completed by 9/5/2023. Facilities Plan to ensure compliance quickly: An Ad-Hoc QAPI was conducted on 9/3/2023 when the missing skin check issue was brought up to the facility. Facility interventions were implemented: The facility skin assessment schedule was reviewed on 9/3/2023 and adjustments were made. An audit was completed on 9/3/2023 of every resident's skin check schedule in [EMR] and updates were made as needed to validate the skin check would pop up in the EMAR on the date/shift that was s cheduled. Education was initiated for the facility nursing staff on 9/3/2023 regarding the new skin assessment schedule. Education was initiated for Nursing Assistants on 9/4/2023 on ensuring residents at high risk for skin breakdown are turned and repositioned at least every two hours and who to notify if skin breakdown is identified. Education to be initiated by DON/Designee on 9/4/2023 with all Licensed Nurses regarding the importance of completing a thorough weekly skin assessment with return demonstration and reporting immediately when a resident has incurred a skin impairment. Training to also include proper technique to perform the skin check and how to document the skin check. This training to Licensed Nurses will be validated by completion of a post-training test, to be dated and signed by each nurse. Education to be initiated by Administrator/Designee on 9/4/2023 with all facility staff on the conditions that lead to neglect and who/when to report suspicion of neglect to. Education to be completed with all nursing staff working 9/5/2023. Staff who did not receive the training will receive this training prior to their next shift and will not be allowed to provide direct resident care until they have completed the trainings. Administrator and Clinical Nurse Resource to create a schedule to validate that facility has sufficient oversight of clinical systems to attain the highest, practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident while the new Director of Nursing is in training. Administrator and facility administrative nursing team educated by Regional Nurse Consultant on 9/5/23 related to their responsibilities in clinical oversight, clinical audits, and skin program. From 9/6/23-9/7/23 a monitoring visit was conducted to ensure the facility was following its POR. The visits revealed: On 9/6/23 at 11:20am in an interview with the Regional Nurse Consultant she said she was the Interim DON for the next 24hrs and had started as the Interim
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 observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure that each resident receives an accurate assessm...

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 each resident receives an accurate assessment, reflective of the resident's status at the time of the assessment for 3 of 3 (Residents #27, #40, #15) residents reviewed for accuracy of assessment. -The facility failed to accommodate Residents #27's communication deficit by providing an alternative method to accurately complete his quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE]. -The facility failed to accurately assess Resident #27 for his mental illness (qualifying diagnoses) on his quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE]. -The facility failed to accurately identify Resident #40 with mental illness which had been identified on PASRR level II evaluation on her admitting MDS assessment dated [DATE]. - The facility failed to accurately complete Resident #15's admission MDS dated [DATE]; ethnicity/race was not identified, not assessed for BIMS score, assessed as having an ostomy bag on admission when they did not have one. These failures could place residents at risk for not receiving care and services to meet their needs. Findings included: Resident #27 Record review of Resident #27's face sheet, dated 09/01/2023, reflected a-[AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE]. His diagnoses included stroke (disrupted blood flow to the brain), expressive language disorder (inability to express thoughts by talking), high blood pressure, hemiplegia (paralysis) affecting right (dominant) side, nicotine dependence (actively smokes), below the knee amputation (both legs), cognitive communication deficit (impaired communication), gastroesophageal reflux disease (backflow of stomach acid or bile that irritates food pipe lining, insomnia (sleeplessness), and anxiety disorder (feelings off worry anxiety or fear that are strong enough to interfere with daily activities). Record review of all Resident #27's psychiatry progress notes since admission revealed that he had an additional diagnosis of Major Depressive Disorder. Record review of Resident #27's Quarterly MDS assessment, dated 06/21/2023, revealed a BIMS score of 99 reflecting the resident could not complete the interview. Further review of Section B0600-Speech identified resident with clear speech- distinct intelligible words. Review of Section F Preferences for Customary Routine and Activities was not completed. Review of Section I Active Diagnoses did not include diagnosis of major depressive disorder. Review of Section L Oral/Dental Status was not completed. Record review of Resident #27's care plan dated 01/17/2023 with a revision date of 03/23/23 reflected in part: [Resident #27 has a communication problem related to Expressive Aphasia (inability to express thoughts by talking) Intervention: Allow adequate time to respond, Repeat as necessary, Do not rush, Request clarification from the resident to ensure understanding, Face when speaking, make eye contact, Turn off TV/radio to reduce environmental noise, Ask yes/no questions if appropriate, Use simple, brief, consistent words/cues, Use alternative communication tools as needed. Resident #27 has impaired cognition and decision-making related to history of stroke with cognitive deficits: Intervention: Ask yes/no questions to determine the resident's needs; Communicate with the resident/family/caregivers regarding resident's capabilities and needs. Resident #40 Record review of Resident #40's face sheet, dated 09/02/2023, revealed a-[AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her diagnoses included schizoaffective disorder, depressive type and schizophrenia (a disorder that affects ability to think, feel, and behave clearly, hearing not-present voices), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (difficulty breathing caused by impaired airflow in lungs), type 2 diabetes (impaired blood sugar regulation), chronic kidney disease, heart failure, stroke (impaired blood flow to brain), chronic pain, and unspecified dementia (decreased ability to think, remember, learn, and make decisions. Record review of Resident #40's admission MDS assessment, dated 07/25/2023 revealed a BIMS score of 7 out of 15 which reflected moderately impaired cognition. Further review of section A 1500 Preadmission Screening and Resident Review Is the resident currently considered by the state level II PASRR process to have serious mental illness and/or intellectual disability or related condition? was marked No prompting the assessment to move forward to A1550, thereby skipping question A1510 concerning Level II PASRR Conditions. Record review of Resident #40's PASRR level II evaluation dated 7/26/2023 section C0900 reflected , Based on the QMHP assessment, does this individual meet the PASRR definition of mental illness? The answer was yes. Observation on 8/31/23 at 7:40am, revealed Resident #40 was in her room yelling for someone to come get her out of the chair. Observation and interview on 08/31/23 at 9:44 AM, revealed Resident #40 propelling herself down the hall in her wheelchair. She said that she yelled a lot sometimes but couldn't help it. She said her psych doctor was working on adjusting her medications because she saw people who were not there and sometimes felt like they're trying to kill her. Resident #15 Record review of Resident #15's face sheet dated 09/03/23 revealed a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. Her diagnoses included schizoaffective disorder (A mental disorder in which a person experiences a combination of symptoms of schizophrenia and mood disorder), epilepsy (A neurological disorder that causes seizures or unusual sensations and behaviors and dementia) essential hypertension (high blood pressure), asthma (A lung disorder characterized by narrowing of the airways, the tubes which carry air into the lungs) and dementia (A group of symptoms that affects memory, thinking and interferes with daily life). Record review of Resident #15's admission MDS dated [DATE] revealed the section on Race and ethnicity was left blank. The section on ID\IDD and related conditions was not checked for epilepsy (A sub C). The section on hearing, speech and vision were all marked as 0 which indicated that Resident #15 heard very well, understood, and saw well, and was able to express herself Record review of section on Brief Interview for Mental Status was coded as 99 which indicated that Resident #15 was unable to complete the interview. Record review of section on bowel and bladder was coded and none of the above indicated that she does not have Indwelling catheter, suprapubic catheter and nephrostomy tube, external catheter, and no urostomy, ileostomy, and colostomy. Further review of section on bowel continence revealed the section was coded 9 (not rated) which indicated resident #15 had an ostomy or did not have a bowel movement for the entire 7 days. Observation and interview on 08/30/23 at 9:40AM revealed Resident #15 was in the dining room participating in an activity. She was alert and oriented. She answered all interview questions, and she said she had a bowel movement daily. During an interview on 08/31/23 at 12:30PM, LVN K said Resident # 15 was not admitted with ostomy bag and to her understanding, she never had one. Interview on 09/01/23 at 4:30 PM, the MDS Coordinator said Major Depressive Disorder was never in Resident #27's diagnoses since his 12/19/22 admission, however, she was able to locate the diagnosis under his psychiatry's notes. She was unable to answer why it was not entered under his diagnoses because the resident was admitted prior to her hire, March of 2023. She said failure to list diagnoses could impact the treatment a resident receives and possibly limit the services they receive. Interview on 09/01/23 at 4:35 PM, the Administrator said the MDS Coordinator was responsible for entering diagnoses and completing the assessments. She said the MDS assessments should be completed accurately and on time. She said failure to accurately complete assessment could affect treatment and services provided. Interview on 9/04/23 at 11am, the MDS Coordinator said that she was responsible for completing the MDS and ensuring its accuracy. She said that she completed the assessment by pulling information from the residents' charts. She said if the resident cannot verify certain information and the info is not documented in the chart, then she would leave that space blank. She said that most of the MDS data comes from the chart, and this is how she was trained to do it. Interview on 09/05/23 at 1:15pm, the Regional MDS nurse said that she must sign off on the MDS assessments prior to their completion because the facility MDS Coordinator does not have the nursing credentials to do it herself. The Regional MDS nurse said that she reviewed clinical documentation to ensure accuracy but must trust that the facility MDS Coordinator has done her due diligence in seeing the residents. She said that if the resident cannot speak for themselves, then nurses and CNAs should be interviewed, and residents should be observed to ensure accuracy of assessments. Interview on 9/6/23 at 2:30pm, the SW said staff should have communicated with Resident #27 in a way that works for him. She said she Resident #27 could understand what is said to him, but he is unable to verbally express himself. The SW said that the resident's assessments (BIMS, MDS) should have been done via paper and pen or an alternative means. She said an alternative means of completing Resident #27's assessment was not used because she did not think outside the box to figure out ways to accommodate resident's communication needs. She said neither she nor the staff, to her knowledge, was trained on how to communicate with residents with expressive aphasia. Record review of the Resident Assessments Policy dated March 2022 reflected in part the following: 1. The resident assessment coordinator is responsible for ensuring that the interdisciplinary team conducts timely and appropriate resident assessments and reviews . 6. Residents and/or their representatives are encouraged to participate in the assessment process. 7. All members of the care team, including licensed and unlicensed staff members, are asked to participate in the resident assessment process. 8. All persons who have completed any portion of the MDS resident assessment form must sign the document attesting to the accuracy of such information. 9. The results of the assessments are used to develop, review and revise the resident's comprehensive care plan.
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident that includes measurable objectives and timeframes to meet residents' medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs for 2 of 18 residents (Residents #24, and #31) whose care plans were reviewed. - Resident #24 was not care planned for PTSD. - Resident #31 was not care planned for ROM and OT. These failures could place residents at risk of not receiving care and services needed to maintain their highest practicable quality of life. 1. Record review of Resident #24's undated face sheet revealed a [AGE] year-old female, readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses of cerebral palsy (weakness or problems with using muscles), schizoaffective disorder bipolar type (hallucinations or delusions with mania and depression), conversion disorder with seizures (seizures with no neurologic cause), asthma (wheezing, breathlessness, chest tightness), PTSD (disorder caused when a person experiences/witnesses scary. Shocking, terrifying, dangerous event), borderline personality disorder (mental illness that severely impacts a person's ability to manage emotions), major depressive disorder, adjustment disorder with anxiety (disorder that includes feeling worried, anxious, overwhelmed, and having trouble concentrating) and anxiety disorder (persistent/excessive worry that interferes with daily activities). Record review of Resident #24's Quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], revealed a BIMS score of 15 which indicated normal cognition. The MDS had Resident #24 marked with a diagnosis of PTSD. Record review of Resident #24's care plan, initiated on 3/26/22 and revised on 8/28/23, revealed Focus areas for Cerebral Palsy, Schizoaffective Disorder, Anxiety, and Depression. There was not a focus for PTSD care planned, or any interventions. 2. Record review of Resident #31's, undated, face sheet revealed she was a [AGE] year-old female admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses of paraplegia (paralysis of lower body), neuromuscular dysfunction of bladder (nerves and muscles in the bladder do not work), schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type (hallucinations or delusions with mania and depression), and muscle weakness. Record review of Resident #31's Quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], revealed a BIMS score of 15 which indicated normal cognition. The resident was wheelchair dependent and required extensive assistance with personal hygiene, dressing, and bed mobility. She was totally dependent with toilet use, and transfers and required 1 to 2+ people physical assistance with ADLs. The MDS also indicated the resident had an open lesion on the foot, had application of nonsurgical dressings other than to feet, and application of dressings to feet. Resident #31 also received occupational therapy and physical therapy. Record review of Resident #31's care plan, initiated 5/25/23 and revised on 7/25/23, revealed a Focus: Resident #31 had a potential for pressure ulcer/development r/t immobility. Interventions: Follow facility policies/protocols for the prevention/treatment of skin breakdown. Inform the resident/family/caregivers of any new area of skin breakdown. Monitor nutritional status, serve diet as ordered, monitor intake and record. Teach resident/family the importance of changing positions for prevention of pressure ulcers. Encourage small frequent position changes. There was no mention of the OT and the ROM exercises. Record review of Resident #31's physician orders revealed the following orders by MD A: - Pt to be seen by skilled OT services 3-5x/wk for 90 days. Ordered on 5/21/23. - Resident will actively assist in (both legs) range of motion daily for 15 to 20 minutes 3-6 days a week. All joints involved (both legs). Ordered on 5/25/23. - Range of Motion (Active) 20 times all planes of motion daily 3-6 days a week upper extremities. Ordered on 5/25/23. - Perform BUE exercises 20x in all planes w/ 2lb weight x15 min/day 6x/week. Ordered on 6/13/23. - Side-side movements, up/down movements, knee bends: 20x's x15min/day 6x/week. Ordered on 6/12/23. In an observation of Resident #31 on 8/31/23 at 11:00am, it was revealed she was sitting in a wheelchair and had a dressing to her right outer foot. In an interview with RN AA on 9/7/23 at 11:20am, she stated the MDS Coordinator oversaw updating the care plans at the weekly care plan meeting. She said the MDS Coordinator was responsible for updating the care plans in real time at the weekly care plan meeting, when they discussed what needed to be updated. She stated the MDS Coordinator was new and was not trained adequately in her role, so the Corporate MDS Nurse was going to come back and train her properly on the areas she was lacking or not educated enough in. RN AA stated the facility failed to capture the issues at hand if they were not care planned, and the resident would not have an adequate treatment plan. Record review of the facility's policy and procedure for Care Plans, Comprehensive Person-Centered (Revised March 2022) read in part: A comprehensive, person-centered care plan that includes measurable objectives and timetables to meet the resident's physical, psychosocial and functional needs is developed and implemented for each resident. 1. The interdisciplinary team (IDT) .develops and implements a comprehensive, person-centered care plan for each resident . 7. The comprehensive, person-centered care plan: a. includes measurable objectives and timeframes; b. describes the services that are to be furnished to attain or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being, including: (1) 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; (2) any specialized services to be provided as a result of PASARR recommendations; and (3) which professional services are responsible for each element of care; c. includes the resident's stated goals upon admission and desired outcomes; d. builds on the resident's strengths; and e. reflects currently recognized standards of practice for problem areas and conditions. 8. Services for or arranged by the facility and outlined in the comprehensive care plan are: a. provided by qualified persons; b. culturally competent; and c. trauma-informed. 9. Care plan interventions are chosen only after data gathering, proper sequencing of events, careful consideration of the relationship between the resident's problem areas and their causes, and relevant clinical decision making. 10. When possible, interventions address the underlying source(s) of the problem area(s), not just symptoms or triggers. 11. Assessments of residents are ongoing and care plans are reviewed as information about the residents and the residents' conditions change. 12. The [IDT] team reviews and updates 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. 13. The resident has the right to refuse to participate in the development of his/her care plan and medical and nursing treatments. Such refusals are documented in the resident's clinical record in accordance with established policies.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

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 comprehensive care plans were reviewed and revised by the Interdisciplinary Team after each assessment for 2 (Residents #31, and #21) out of 18 residents reviewed for care plan accuracy. - Resident #31 did not have her wound care added to the care plan. - Resident #21 did not have ROM, Restorative Carrot, or his Enteral Feed (provides nutrition through a tube into the stomach) added to the care plan. These failures could place residents at risk of not receiving care and services needed to maintain their highest practicable quality of life. Findings include: 1. Record review of Resident #31's, undated, face sheet revealed she was a [AGE] year-old female admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses of paraplegia (paralysis of lower body), neuromuscular dysfunction of bladder (nerves and muscles in the bladder do not work), schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type (hallucinations or delusions with mania and depression), and muscle weakness. Record review of Resident #31's Quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], revealed a BIMS score of 15 which indicated normal cognition. The resident was wheelchair dependent and required extensive assistance with personal hygiene, dressing, and bed mobility. She was totally dependent with toilet use, and transfers and required 1 to 2+ people physical assistance with ADLs. The MDS also indicated the resident had an open lesion on the foot, had application of nonsurgical dressings other than to feet, and application of dressings to feet. Resident #31 also received occupational therapy and physical therapy. Record review of Resident #31's care plan, initiated 5/25/23 and revised on 7/25/23, revealed a Focus: Resident #31 had a potential for pressure ulcer/development r/t immobility. Interventions: Follow facility policies/protocols for the prevention/treatment of skin breakdown. Inform the resident/family/caregivers of any new area of skin breakdown. Monitor nutritional status, serve diet as ordered, monitor intake and record. Teach resident/family the importance of changing positions for prevention of pressure ulcers. Encourage small frequent position changes. There was no mention of the wound care or the OT and the ROM exercises. Record review of Resident #31's physician orders revealed the following orders by MD A: - Cleanse right outer foot with NS pat dry and apply calcium alginate (type of wound care dressing) and cover with dry dressing QD and PRN, every 8hrs PRN. Ordered 8/19/23. - Cleanse right outer foot with NS pat dry and apply calcium alginate and cover with dry dressing QD and PRN, one time a day. Ordered 8/19/23. - Cleanse right outer foot with NS pat dry and apply calcium alginate, Santyl (type of wound care ointment) and cover with dry dressing QD and PRN as needed. Ordered 8/31/23. - Cleanse right outer foot with NS pat dry and apply calcium alginate, Santyl and cover with dry dressing QD and PRN QD for pressure ulcer. Ordered 8/31/23. In an observation of Resident #31 on 8/31/23 at 11:00am, it was revealed she was sitting in a wheelchair and had a dressing to her right outer foot. 2. Record review of Resident #21's, undated, face sheet revealed a [AGE] year-old male readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses of dysphagia following cerebral infarction (trouble swallowing after a stroke), vascular dementia with behavioral disturbance (Type II diabetes mellitus, protein-calorie malnutrition, schizophrenia, anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, and psychotic disorder with delusions. Record review of Resident #21's Quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], revealed a BIMS score of 99 which indicated the resident was unable to complete the interview. When the staff assessed his mental status, they scored him a 2 which indicated moderately impaired cognitive skills for daily decision making. The resident was bedbound and required extensive assistance with all ADLs, and 1-person physical assistance. According to the MDS, the resident received ROM treatment. The MDS revealed Resident #21 had a feeding tube, received 51% or more total calories through it, and received 501 ml/day or more fluid per day through it. Record review of Resident #21's care plan, initiated on 3/2/23 and revised on 7/19/23, revealed a Focus: Resident #21 had a potential nutritional problem r/t Vitamin D deficiency, moderate protein/calorie malnutrition .Interventions: .Provide and serve diet, supplements as ordered . Focus: Resident #21 is NPO and received nutrition via g tube feedings. Interventions: Check gastric residual as ordered. Monitor tolerance of feeding. Focus: Resident #21 had an ADL self-care performance deficit .Interventions: .Provide finger foods when the resident has difficulty using utensils. Provide milkshakes or liquid food supplements when the resident refuses or has difficulty with solid food or provide nutritious foods that can be taken from a cup or a mug where appropriate . Focus: Resident #21 had limited physical mobility r/t weakness and impaired physical mobility. Interventions: .The resident uses a wheelchair for locomotion. Invite the resident to activity programs that encourage physical activity, physical mobility, such as exercise group, walking activities to promote mobility . The care plan was not updated to reflect the resident's enteral feeds and orders, and that he was NPO and could not eat anything by mouth. The care plan also was not updated to reflect the change in the resident's mobility, and did not reflect the ROM that he received. Record review of Resident #21's physician orders revealed the following orders by MD A: - Enteral Feed (provides nutrition through a tube into the stomach) Order every shift, Elevate Head of Bed > 30 degrees during feedings and for 30 min post administration of feedings or flushes. Ordered on 2/24/23. - Enteral Feed Order every shift, Check for placement and residual (drawing back on the syringe while attached to the G tube) prior to each administration, Notify MD for residual > 250ml. Ordered 2/24/23. - Enteral Feed Order every shift, Flush G-Tube with H2O @ 65ml/hr x 22hrs (off at 6am/on at 8am). Ordered on 3/9/23. - Enteral Feed Order every shift, Flush with 20-30ml water before and after each administration. Ordered on 2/24/23. - Enteral Feed Order every shift, Jevity 1.5 at 75cc per hour for 22 hrs via pump per GT tube. Ordered on 3/9/23. - Enteral Feed Order one time a day, change syringe and bag Q NOC. Ordered on 2/24/23. - Enteral Feed Order one time a day, monitor and perform site care Q 10-6 shift. Ordered 2/24/23. - Enteral Feed Order two times a day, turn G-tube pump off at 6am and back on at 8am for two-hour bowel rest daily. Ordered on 3/9/23. - Range of Motion: RCNA to encourage resident to perform BUE AROM with pole as tolerated, 20 reps in all planes, for at least 15 minutes a day and at least 6 days a week for the next 3 months, one time a day. Ordered on 6/20/23. - Range of Motion Program (Passive) with gentle stretches to Lt hand, clean res Lt hand before carrot placement, one time a day. Ordered on 6/20/23. - Splint/Brace Restorative carrot (type of wedge) is to be worn to Lt hand for 3-4 hrs a day at least 6 days a week as tolerated, one time a day. Ordered on 6/20/23. In an observation of Resident #21 on 8/30/23 at 11:41am it was revealed he was asleep on his back in bed and was receiving Jevity 1.5 via G-tube. The resident's hands were under the covers, so the restorative carrot was not seen. In an interview with CNA U on 9/1/23 at 1:00pm, it was revealed she would place the carrot in Resident #21's left hand every day. She stated he would not keep a hold of it for the full 3-4hrs and would end up dropping it, and it would be on the ground or in the bed covers. She said she would check on him every 30min or so and put it back in his hand if it had fallen out. She stated she had already performed ROM for that day. CNA U confirmed that Resident #21 was bedbound now and unable to use a wheelchair. In an interview with RN AA on 9/7/23 at 11:20am, she stated the MDS Coordinator oversaw updating the care plans at the weekly care plan meeting. She said the MDS Coordinator was responsible for updating the care plans in real time at the weekly care plan meeting, when they discussed what needed to be updated. She stated the MDS Coordinator was new and was not trained adequately in her role, so the Corporate MDS Nurse was going to come back and train her properly on the areas she was lacking or not educated enough in. RN AA stated the facility failed to capture the issues at hand if they were not care planned, and the resident would not have an adequate treatment plan. Record review of the facility's policy and procedure for Care Plans, Comprehensive Person-Centered (Revised March 2022) read in part: A comprehensive, person-centered care plan that includes measurable objectives and timetables to meet the resident's physical, psychosocial and functional needs is developed and implemented for each resident. 1. The interdisciplinary team (IDT) .develops and implements a comprehensive, person-centered care plan for each resident . 7. The comprehensive, person-centered care plan: a. includes measurable objectives and timeframes; b. describes the services that are to be furnished to attain or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being, including: (1) 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; (2) any specialized services to be provided as a result of PASARR recommendations; and (3) which professional services are responsible for each element of care; c. includes the resident's stated goals upon admission and desired outcomes; d. builds on the resident's strengths; and e. reflects currently recognized standards of practice for problem areas and conditions. 8. Services for or arranged by the facility and outlined in the comprehensive care plan are: a. provided by qualified persons; b. culturally competent; and c. trauma-informed. 9. Care plan interventions are chosen only after data gathering, proper sequencing of events, careful consideration of the relationship between the resident's problem areas and their causes, and relevant clinical decision making. 10. When possible, interventions address the underlying source(s) of the problem area(s), not just symptoms or triggers. 11. Assessments of residents are ongoing and care plans are reviewed as information about the residents and the residents' conditions change. 12. The [IDT] team reviews and updates 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. 13. The resident has the right to refuse to participate in the development of his/her care plan and medical and nursing treatments. Such refusals are documented in the resident's clinical record in accordance with established policies.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0688 (Tag F0688)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that a resident (Resident #4) with limited ran...

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 a resident (Resident #4) with limited range of motion receives appropriate treatment and services to increase range of motion and/or to prevent further decrease in range of motion for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for limited range of motion. The facility failed to ensure that RCNA U provided passive range-of-motion appropriately and for prescribed amount of time for Resident #4. These failures could place residents with contractures at risk for decrease in mobility, range of motion, and contribute to worsening of contractures. Findings included: Record review of Resident #4's face sheet dated 8/31/23 revealed she was a [AGE] year-old woman initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. Her diagnoses included unspecified dementia/unspecified severity (group of symptoms that affects memory, thinking and interferes with daily life), aphasia (loss of ability to speak) following stroke (impaired blood flow to the brain), epilepsy (nervous system disorder that causes seizures or unusual sensations/behaviors), dysphagia (inability or difficulty swallowing) following stroke, right (dominant side) hemiplegia (paralysis on one side of body) and hemiparesis (weakness on one side of body) following stroke, insomnia (sleeplessness), pseudobulbar affect (neurological condition that causes emotionally disproportionate or inappropriate bouts of crying or laughter), legal blindness, cerebrovascular disease (group of conditions that effect blood flow and blood vessels of the brain). Record review of the most recent MDS assessment for Resident #4 dated 8/3/23 revealed: C05000. No BIMS Score; G0400. Functional Limitation in Range of Motion. Impaired on 1 side Upper Extremity, Impaired on 1 side Lower Extremity. Record review of Resident #4's care plan read in part: (Resident #4) had a CVA/Stroke and was admitted with right sided hemiplegia, date initiated 6/20/21, revised10/20/21. INTEREVENTIONS: Range of motion exercises several times a day; Turn and reposition every 2 hours and PRN. Keep body in good alignment. (Resident #4) has right sided hemiplegia/hemiparesis related to stroke, date initiated 6/20/21, revised10/20/21. INTERVENTION: Range of motion (active or passive) with am/pm care daily; Reposition as tolerated and at least every 2 hours. (Resident #4) has an ADL self-care performance deficit r/t Dementia, Hemiplegia, Limited Mobility, Stroke, Date Initiated: 06/09/2021 Revision on: 06/09/2021. INTERVENTIONS: NURSING REHAB/RESTORATIVE: Splint/Brace Program #1 RCNA to clean Resident's hands and gently place palm protectors-can be rolled hand towels or carrot,- to be worn as tolerated, for at least 15 minutes a day and at least 6 days a week. Date Initiated: 08/03/2023 (Resident #4) has limited physical mobility related to Stroke, right sided hemiplegia, contractures to right upper extremity and right lower extremity, and Weakness, Date Initiated: 06/09/2021,Revision on: 08/07/2023. INTERVENTIONS: NURSING REHAB/RESTORATIVE: Passive ROM Program #1 RCNA to perform gentle stretching/PROM to bilateral (both) upper extremities and bilateral lower extremities in all planes as tolerated, for at least 15 minutes daily and at least 6 days per week. Date Initiated: 08/03/2023. Observation on 8/31/23 at 8:00 AM, revealed Resident #4 was sleeping in her bed on the right side in a fetal position; the head of her bed was partially elevated. Resident #4's head was not on pillow; The pillow was somewhat in front of the resident against 1/4 rail. Observed there was nothing in Resident #4's contracted hand. Observed that resident's bed was positioned long way against the wall. Observation and interview on 8/31/23 at 11:03 AM, Resident #4 was still asleep. Her body and pillow in the same position as in previous observation 3 hours prior. She was still lying in bed on her right side, in a fetal position. The head of the bed was partially elevated. The pillow was in front of the resident. There was nothing in contracted hand. Resident #22 (roommate, BIMS 15) said that Resident #4 had been in the same position all morning, and no one had moved her. Observation and interview on 8/31/23 at 1:40PM, Resident #4 was awake but her body and pillow were still in the same position. Resident #4 was lying in bed on her right side, in a fetal position. The head of the bed was partially elevated. The pillow was in front of the resident. There was nothing in her contracted hand. Resident #22 said that no one has come in to move the Resident #4 or do any stretches with her. She said that she has been Resident #4's roommate for a few days and has not seen anyone do stretches or exercise with her. Resident #22 said that she spends most of her time in their room and would have seen the therapist or nurse come in to work with Resident#4. Resident #22 said that she was alert and looks out for her roommate, Resident #4, who cannot speak for herself. Record review of the Range of Motion documentation for Resident #4 revealed; restorative CNA U documented that she provided 15 minutes of passive range of motion exercise to Resident #4 on 8/31/23 at 1356 (1:56 PM). The RCNA task listed at the top of this document read, RCNA to perform gentle stretching/PROM (passive range of motion) to Right hand and BLE (bilateral lower extremities) in all planes as tolerated for at least 15 minutes daily and at least 6 days a week, place pillow between knees when finished. Record review of the Splint-Brace for Resident #4 documentation revealed; restorative can U documented that she spent 15 minutes providing splint or brace assistance to Resident #4 on 8/31/23 at 1356 (1:56 PM). The RCNA task listed at the top of this documentation read, RCNA to clean Resident's RT (right) hand and gently place palm protectors- can be rolled hand towels or carrot- to be worn 3 to 5 hours as tolerated a day, for at least 6 days per week. Interview on 8/31/23 at 3:00 PM, Restorative CNA U said that she had not performed the range of motion exercises on Resident #4 or applied the splint today (8/31/23) because she was doing the monthly weights for all the residents. She said she would do it immediately. Observation on 8/31/23 at 3:10 PM revealed, Resident #4 was still lying on her right side, but her pillow had been adjusted and resident's view was no longer obstructed by the pillow. The pillow was now under her head. There was no splint on Resident #4's contracted right hand and there was no pillow between her knees, still bent in fetal position. Restorative CNA U entered Resident #4's room to perform the PROM exercises. There was only one pillow available, which was the one the resident was lying on. Restorative CNA U asked CNA CC to get her another pillow from laundry to be placed between Resident #4's knees. Restorative CNA U went to Resident #4's restroom to apply gloves and wet a washcloth. She returned to the bedside, and pulled the curtain between Resident #4 and Resident #22 for privacy. She then cleaned Resident #4's hands and in between her fingers with the wet cloth. Restorative CNA U opened each of Resident #4's nightstand drawers to look for the hand splint which was found in the bottom one. The splint looked old and dirty due to discoloration. She applied it to the Resident #4s right hand. Restorative CNA U reclined Resident #4's bed to flat position and elevated it to do the PROM exercises. Interview and observation on 8/31/23 at 3:15pm, Restorative CNA U performed PROM exercises on Resident #4's upper extremities. Restorative CNA U did not note the time or start a timer to ensure that the exercises would be performed for the minimum 15 minutes upon initiating exercise. Observed that the Restorative CNA U did not perform movements that were smooth and gentle. Resident's left arm was pulled in front of her, moved up, down, out to the side, flexed at the elbow. Observed Restorative CNA U move and adduct/abduct fingers of left hand. She held the resident's left hand and moved the arm around a little more and shook it gently. Observed the resident grimace and grunt during the process. Restorative CNA U said the grimace and grunt did not mean the resident was in pain because she does that all the time when care was being performed. She said that if the resident were really in pain, then she would yell out. Observed that the resident remained on her right side during the process. Restorative CNA U was only able to pull the resident's right arm forward (not fully straight) and moved it up and down because the position of resident's body limited her movement. Restorative CNA U did not perform any PROM to Resident #4s lower extremities. Upon completion of PROM, Restorative CNA U stuffed the pillow she requested between Resident #4's knees, lowered the bed, and elevated Resident #4's head. Observed that a total of 7 minutes was spent providing the PROM. Interview on 8/31/23 at 3:17pm, Restorative CNA U said she was done and confirmed this was the way she performs PROM with Resident #4. She said that the resident always grimaces and grunts while care was being performed. She said if the resident was really in pain, then Resident #4 would make a loud noise or yell. She said if that were to happen, she would notify the nurse that the resident was in pain so the nurse could provide pain medication. Restorative CNA U said she was trained by the DOR upon hire for this role in February 2023 on how to perform PROM exercises. She said as a restorative care aid, she was responsible for visiting the resident to do exercises and applying splint and pillow as restorative care, but nursing staff was responsible for repositioning every couple of hours periodically to prevent skin breakdown. She said failure to do so could lead to skin breakdown. She said restorative program was meant to prevent worsening contracture and should be provided for 15 minutes. Observation and Interview on 9/1/23 at 11:17 AM, the DOR said that she was responsible for training restorative aids on how to perform passive ROM exercises, however, they were overseen by nursing staff. She said that she trained Restorative CAN U by demonstration. The DOR demonstrated and explained how passive range of motion should be done. She said specifically for Resident #4, her arms should be gently stretched, and legs should be gently stretched. She said that it should be very slow and should be within resident's limits and, should not extend to any point that causes pain. She said signs of pain include grimacing and vocalization. She said Restorative CNA U should have recognized that grimacing as pain and stopped and returned to comfortable limits or notified nurse immediately if pain seemed to be lasting. Interview on 9/1/23 at 11:35am, the MDS coordinator said usually the ADON would be responsible for overseeing the Restorative Program. The facility was in transition waiting for a permanent DON and just hired a brand new ADON who was still in training, so there was no one overseeing the Restorative Care program right now. She said that her involvement was limited to checking to see the restorative aids' documentation and making sure it was being entered in the computer. She said there was no one who was monitoring to see if the restorative care was being performed or being performed properly. She said failure to provide adequate restorative care can cause residents to lose what abilities they may have and affect range of motion. Interview on 9/1/23 at 1:00 PM, Restorative CNA U said that she has been working as a restorative care aid since February 2023. She said she was trained by the DOR on how to perform ROM by demonstration. She said that she was supposed to document treatment after it was administered. She did not have a justification for why she documented having provided restorative care for Resident #4 two hours before it was given. She said, No matter what, it gets done. I promise. Interview on 9/1/23 at 1:21 PM, the Administrator said the ADON and MDS coordinator work together to implement the Restorative Care Program. She said the MDS coordinator should be checking documentation and following up because the new ADON was still in training. She said the previous ADON who no longer works at the facility was the one that would oversee the aids to ensure care was being administered properly, but she has been gone since 8-3-23. She said failure to provide restorative care as ordered can result in decline in independence or decreased mobility. Record review of Restorative Nursing Policy dated July 2017 read in part, Residents will receive restorative nursing care as needed to help promote optimal safety and independence. 1. Restorative nursing care consists of nursing interventions that may or may not be accompanied by formalized rehabilitative services. 3. Restorative goals and objectives are individualized and resident-centered and are outlined in the president's plan of care.
CONCERN (D)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain an infection control program designed to prevent the development and transmission of infection for 1 of 2 CNAs (CNA ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain an infection control program designed to prevent the development and transmission of infection for 1 of 2 CNAs (CNA Z) serving and assisting residents in the dining area. - The facility failed to ensure dining room assistant (CNA Z) sanitized his hands between providing dining room assistance. This failure could place residents at risk for cross contamination. Findings include: Observation on 9/1/23 at 12:15pm revealed, CNA Z was feeding a resident during lunch. He walked away to go cut food for a second resident without sanitizing his hands. CNA Z then went to assist a third resident with opening a package. He then sanitized his hands at the closest sanitizing station which was located outside dining area before returning to the first resident that he was initially feeding. Interview on 9/1/23 at 12:17pm, CNA Z said that he was supposed to sanitize hands between residents to prevent cross contamination and admitted that he failed to do that because he was moving quickly and trying to help . Observed the nearest sanitizer station is outside dining area. Interview on 9/1/23 at 1:00 PM, the Administrator said that she expects for all food served to residents in a sanitary manner and for all food items served to be within date. She said failure of staff to sanitize hands appropriately can possibly cause cross contamination between residents. Interview on 9/2/23 at 11:00am, CNA HH said that when feeding, assisting, or serving residents in the dining area, aides should sanitize their hands to keep from spreading germs between residents. Record review of Assistance with Meals Policy dated 3/2022 read in part: 3. All employees who provide resident assistance with meals will be trained and shall demonstrate competency in the prevention of foodborne illness, including personal hygiene practices and safe food handling.
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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** FACILITY Environment Based on observation, interview, and record, review the facility, failed to ensure maintenance services nec...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** FACILITY Environment Based on observation, interview, and record, review the facility, failed to ensure maintenance services necessary to maintain a sanitary, orderly, and comfortable interior; environment for residents in the secured unit in rooms # 145, 215, 216, 310, 312,&room [ROOM NUMBER] room [ROOM NUMBER] had scraped wall by the sink and uneven floor on the entrance from 215 room [ROOM NUMBER]'s bathroom had an uneven floor. room [ROOM NUMBER], and 303 had a strong urine smell and bathroom floor was uneven. room [ROOM NUMBER] and 311 had an uneven floor. room [ROOM NUMBER]' bathroom floor bear covering off the floor. Hole behind the door. room [ROOM NUMBER]'s bathroom floor was partially covered half of the floor covering was off. Face board off the wall. room [ROOM NUMBER]'s had a dirty drinking cup. These failures could place residents at risk for living in an unsafe, unclean, uncomfortable, and unhomelike environment which could cause a decline in resident psychosocial well-being. The findings included: Observation on 8/30/23 at 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM, revealed the bathroom floor between room's 214 and 215 had an uneven floor at the entrance from 215. The wall above the sink was scraped. room [ROOM NUMBER]' bathroom floor had an opening between the bathroom and the room [ROOM NUMBER]. The floor joint between the two floor was off. room [ROOM NUMBER]'s bathroom floor was partially covered. The floor covering was half off, and the baseboard was detached from the wall. room [ROOM NUMBER]'s bathroom floor had no floor covering, and there was a hole behind the door. room [ROOM NUMBER]'s bathroom had no floor covering and the baseboard was detached from the wall. Observation on 08/31/23 at 3:00PM, revealed room [ROOM NUMBER] and 303 had a strong urine smell. The bathroom flooring was partially off the floor . room [ROOM NUMBER] had a scraped wall above the bed. room [ROOM NUMBER] had paint peelings by the foot of the bed. Observation on 09/01/23 at 10:00AM, revealed room [ROOM NUMBER] door had scraped paint. During an interview with the facility Administrator on 08/30/23 at 3:00PM, she said the facility had gone through 6 to 8 contractors. She said the facility was aware of the repairs but having a hard time finding a good contractor to do the job. She said her Maintenance Director quit and the facility had just hired a new maintenance staff who was doing all he could to get the job done. She said she was reaching out to get contractors for the general repair as pointed by surveyors . Record review of facility's policy titled -Home like environment dated 2001 revised February 2021 reflected in part, policy statement Residents are provided with a home safe, clean comfortable and home like environment and encourage to use personal belongings to the extent possible. 2. The facility staff and management maximize , to the extent possible , the characteristic of the facility that reflect a personalized , homelike settings. Clean, sanitary, and orderly environment 3. The facility staff and management maximize, to the extent possible , the characteristic of the facility that reflect a personalized , homelike settings. These characteristics included .institutional odors
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0676 (Tag F0676)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide the necessary care and services to ensure tha...

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 the necessary care and services to ensure that a resident's abilities in activities of daily living do not diminish unless circumstances of the individual's clinical condition demonstrate that such diminution was unavoidable for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #27) reviewed for activities of daily living. The facility failed to provide communication assistance to effectively communicate with staff for Resident #27. The facility failed to provide Resident #27 with showers according to shower schedule. These failures could place residents at risk of having decreased quality of life and loss of dignity. Findings included: Record review of Resident #27's face sheet, dated 09/01/2023, reflected a-[AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE]. His diagnoses included stroke (disrupted blood flow to the brain), expressive language disorder (inability to express thoughts by talking), high blood pressure, hemiplegia (paralysis) affecting right (dominant) side, nicotine dependence (actively smokes), below the knee amputation (both legs), cognitive communication deficit (impaired communication), gastroesophageal reflux disease (backflow of stomach acid or bile that irritates food pipe lining, insomnia (sleeplessness), anxiety disorder (feelings off worry anxiety or fear that are strong enough to interfere with daily activities). Record review of Resident #27's care plan dated 01/17/2023 with a revision date of 03/23/23 read in part: [Resident #27] has a communication problem related to Expressive Aphasia. Intervention: Allow adequate time to respond, Repeat as necessary, Do not rush, Request clarification from the resident to ensure understanding, Face when speaking, make eye contact, Turn off TV/radio to reduce environmental noise, Ask yes/no questions if appropriate, Use simple, brief, consistent words/cues, Use alternative communication tools as needed. [Resident #27] has impaired cognition and decision-making related to history of stroke with cognitive deficits: Intervention: Ask yes/no questions to determine the resident's needs; Communicate with the resident/family/caregivers regarding resident's capabilities and needs. [Resident #27] has an ADL self-care performance deficit r/t Amputation, Hemiplegia. Intervention: BATHING/SHOWERING: The resident requires 1 staff assist with showers/bathing. PERSONAL HYGIENE: The resident requires 1 staff assist with personal hygiene and oral care. Monitor/document/report PRN any changes, any potential for improvement, reasons for self-care deficit, expected course, declines in function. Record review of Resident #27's Quarterly MDS assessment, dated 06/21/2023, revealed a BIMS score of 99 reflecting the resident was not assessed. Review of Section F Preferences for Customary Routine and Activities showed this section was not completed. Review of Section G0120 for bathing reflected resident as 1 person assist. Observation and interview on 8/31/23 at 8:45am with Resident #27 revealed Resident #27 attempted to write in his notebook, but writing was illegible and he shook his head and put down his pen. Resident #27 was able to communicate his concerns by answering yes (head nod), no (shaking of head), pointing to his notebook with pre-written words, and pointing at things around the room. Resident #27 was only able say one phrase tok tok but did so with various intonation in response to what was being asked to indicate whether the line of questions and response options were on the right track or not. Resident #27 communicated that he has been at this facility for 9 months, and it has been bad the whole time. He communicated that most of the staff does not take the time to understand what he was trying to express to this extent of this interview. He communicated that he changes his own briefs and uses a urinal. Observed half-full container of urine sitting on nightstand, and resident held up a package of diaper briefs sitting on his bed. He communicated that he has not had consistent showers in the 9 months that he has been at the facility. He communicated that he cleaned himself using with soap and a towel at his bathroom sink but would prefer to take showers in the evening. Interview on 9/1/23 at 10:00 AM, Resident #27 communicated he was not offered a shower on last scheduled day, the day prior 8/31/23. Interview on 9/1/23 at 10:45AM, CNA Y said she communicated with Resident #27 by gestures, making eye contact, and listening to tone of his voice. She did not know about his notebook that he used to point at words. CNA Y said she could not recall Resident #27 taking a shower but added that she has heard him refuse in the past. Interview on 9/1/23 at 11:00am, CNA HH said on MWF, A-Bed residents in even numbered rooms were to be showered by 6-2pm staff; B-Bed residents were showered by 2-10pm staff. On TTS, A-Bed residents in odd numbered rooms were to be showered by 6-2pm staff; B-Bed residents were showered by 2-10pm staff. Resident #27 assigned shower day and time TTS 2-10 pm shift. Interview on 9/6/23 at 1:40pm, CNA W said if a resident declines to have ADLs performed, the CNA was to report it to the charge nurse who will follow up with the resident. Interview on 9/6/23 at 1:42pm, LPN L said if a resident declines to have ADLs performed, the CNA reports to the charge nurse. She said the charge nurse should follow up with the resident to see if the nurse can encourage the resident to accept care. She said if the resident continues to decline care, the nurse should document refusal and notify the resident's RP if he or she has one. Interview on 9/6/23 at 1:45pm, Resident #27 communicated that he did not receive a shower on his scheduled day 9/5/23. Interview on 9/6/23 at 2:01pm, CNA CC said that Resident #27 prefers bed bath probably. She said that the resident does for himself and will call for assistance if needed. CNA CC said Resident#27 cannot talk to hold conversation because he can only say one word, taw. She said she did not know about any notebook the resident would use to help him communicate. She said that if any resident refuses ADLs she will tell the charge nurse who would then follow up. She said that she last helped the resident shower last week sometime, unable to recall the day. Interview on 9/6/23 at 2:30pm, the SW said she has been at the facility for about two years. She said staff should be communicating with Resident #27 in a way that works for him. She said she was aware that Resident #27 understands what you are saying to him, but he was unable to verbally express himself. She said an alternative means of completing Resident #27's assessment was not used because she did not think outside the box to figure out ways to accommodate resident's communication needs. She said neither she nor staff, to her knowledge, had been trained on how to communicate with residents with expressive aphasia. She was unable to identify resident's preferred means of communication. Interview on 9/6/23 2:35 PM, the Administrator said she was unaware whether staff have received training on communicating with residents with aphasia, but she said she would follow up with Director of Rehab as to find out for sure. She said she was not aware that Resident #27 had a preferred shower time but would communicate it with staff. She was not aware that the resident had a notebook of words that he points to help him communicate. She said that the residents preferred communication should be documented in the care plan. She said the social worker was responsible for ensuring the communication area was completed in the care plan and for making sure staff was following through. She said staff's inability to communicate effectively with the resident could result in dignity issues and not having his preferences accommodated. Interview on 9/7/23 at 12:10 PM, the DOR said that she entrusts speech therapy to the respective speech therapist because it was out of her scope as an occupational therapist. She said that Resident #27 and any other resident who was nonverbal should be communicated with in a way that resident was most receptive to. She said that a computerized communication had been ordered for Resident #27, however, the facility was unable to provide documentation of this order. Interview on 9/7/23 at 1:11 PM, ST M said that he was only able to spend 5 days working with resident because this was what the resident's insurance would cover. ST said 5 days was not enough time to fully explore Resident #27's capabilities. Resident #27 cannot initiate a verbal conversation. He said that staff should be offering yes/no questions and a picture board to allow resident some means to express himself. He said Resident #27 can point at what he wants. He said that he was told by the DOR the resident has an order for a computerized communication board but was not aware of the details of when it was ordered and when it will arrive. ST M expressed concern that this mode of communication may be difficult for resident. ST M said the resident should be communicated by the resident's preferred and most receptive means of communication which was not writing. He said this mode of communication can be difficult for Resident #27, so that should not be the primary way to communicate with him. ST M said that he was not aware there was problem with staff communicating Resident #27 and vice versa, but he could provide training. Record review of the shower documentation revealed Resident #27 with 3 showers/baths in the past 30 days which were documented as having occurred on 8/26/23, 8/29/23, 9/2/23. There was no additional documentation to support whether or not the resident had a shower. Record review of the progress notes revealed that Resident #27 was documented to have refused 3 showers since his admission on [DATE]. The shower refusals occurred on 2/21/23, 2/23/23, and 5/18/23. There was no additional documentation that reflected other shower refusals. Record review of the progress note dated 9/6/23 written by LPN I read: (DOR) from Therapy notified this nurse that resident (#27) refused dry erase board a pen. Stated he already had a pen. Resident did receive a new notebook. Record review of the Speech Therapy Treatment Encounter Notes dated 12/31/2022 by ST K reflected in part the following: SUMMARY OF DAILY SKILLED SERVICES: -Patient answered questions utilizing an AAC device with 90% accuracy given maximal verbal and visual cueing. -Patient utilized total communication to indicate yes/no with 100% accuracy given maximal verbal and visual cueing. RESPONSE TO TREATMENT: -He demonstrated improvement with his comprehension. Will continue to monitor to achieve goals. Record review of the Speech Therapy Discharge summary dated [DATE] performed by ST M reflected in part the following: ASSESSMENT SUMMARY: - Skilled interventions include receptive language (the ability to understand and comprehend spoken language that you hear or read) and construction of AAC picture board to allow interaction and communication with staff and fellow residents. -Patient demonstrated ability to identify target picture on picture board that will allow him communication. He is motivated and excited. -Collaboration with nursing to promote use of picture board to interact and allow wants/needs to be met. Requested policy for communicating with non-verbal residents, facility unable to provide.
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, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident who was unable to carry out activiti...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident who was unable to carry out activities of daily living received necessary services to maintain good personal hygiene for 4 (Residents #27, #3, #23, and #64) out of 18 residents reviewed for ADL care. - Facility staff failed to provide scheduled showers to Resident #27, and Resident #3. - Facility staff failed to provide services to keep Resident #23 clean, shaved, and nails trimmed. - Facility staff failed to provide timely incontinent care to Resident #64. These failures could place residents who were unable to carry out ADLs, at risk of not receiving necessary personal hygiene, showers, and incontinent care, which could lead to skin breakdown, pain, and infection. Findings include: 1. Record review of Resident #27's undated face sheet revealed a [AGE] year-old male admitted on [DATE], with diagnoses of expressive language disorder (trouble using language), acquired absence of the right and left leg below the knee (amputation of the right and left leg below the knee), hemiplegia affecting the dominant right side (paralysis of the dominant, right side), and sequelae of cerebral infarction (conditions caused after the acute phase of the stroke is over). Record review of Resident #27's Quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], revealed the BIMS score was 99. indicating the resident was unable to be assessed due to his Expressive Aphasia (understands speech but unable to speak). The resident was wheelchair dependent and required 1-person physical assist with all his ADLs. According to the MDS, the resident was occasionally incontinent of urine, and frequently incontinent of bowel. Record review of Resident #27's care plan, dated 9/17/23, revealed a focus of: ADL self-care performance deficit r/t amputation. Interventions: Bathing/showering: The resident requires 1 staff assist with showers/bathing, provide sponge bath when a full bath or shower cannot be tolerated. Focus: Resident #27 has a communication problem r/t Expressive Aphasia. Interventions: Allow adequate time to respond, repeat as necessary, do not rush .ask yes/no questions .use simple, brief, consistent, words/cues, use alternative communication tools as needed .Encourage resident to use pen and paper when trying to make needs known . Focus: Resident #27 has impaired cognition and decision-making r/t hx of CVA (stroke) with cognition deficits. Interventions: Ask yes/no questions in order to determine the resident's needs. Keep the resident's routine consistent and try to provide consistent care givers as much as possible in order to decrease confusion. Focus: Resident #27 is incontinent of bladder and requires assistance with toileting cares r/t decreased mobility and muscle control. Interventions: Check for incontinence during rounds. Wash, rinse and dry perineum. Change clothing PRN after incontinence episodes. Record review of Resident #27's August and September 2023 shower sheets revealed, resident received a shower on 8/8/23, 8/9/23, 8/21/23, 8/26/23, 8/29/23, and 9/2/23. Record review of the progress notes on 9/6/23, revealed Resident #27 refused 3 showers since his admission on [DATE]. The shower refusals occurred on 2/21/23, 2/23/23, and 5/18/23. In an observation and interview with Resident #27 on 8/30/23 at 11:33am, it was revealed the resident was in B bed, sitting up in bed and had both legs amputated. The resident was mostly independent once he was set up. The room smelled of feces. The resident revealed he waited hours to get the supplies he needed to change himself and he did not get showers 3 x week like he was supposed to. He revealed he got a shower once a week sometimes. In an interview on 9/1/23 at 8:45am, Resident #27 communicated that he could provide most of his own care. He communicated that he utilized a urinal and wore a brief but could change himself. Resident #27 communicated that he had not been able to take consistent showers in the 9 months he had been at the facility. He communicated that he kept himself clean by taking wash offs at his bathroom sink but would prefer to take showers in the evening. In an interview with CNA Y on 9/1/23 at 10:45am, she said she could not recall Resident #27 taking a shower but added that she had heard him refuse in the past. In an observation and interview with Resident #27 on 9/6/23 at 1:45pm, he was observed shaving his face in his restroom. He revealed he had not had a shower since 8/29/23 and did not receive one on 9/5/23 which was his scheduled day. He revealed he did not have a shower on 9/2/23, and that it was documented incorrectly. In an interview on 9/6/23 at 2:01pm, CNA CC said that Resident #27 prefers bed bath probably. She said the resident did for himself and would call for assistance if needed. CNA CC said Resident #27 could not talk to hold conversation because he could only say one word, taw. She said if any resident refused ADLs, she would tell the charge nurse who would then follow up. 2. Record review of Resident #3's undated face sheet revealed he was a [AGE] year-old male, who admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of dementia with other behavioral disturbance (dementia with agitation, depression, or psychosis), COPD (group of diseases that cause airflow blockage and breathing problems), seizures, major depression, schizoaffective bipolar (mental illness that can affect thoughts, mood, and behavior), cataracts (cloudy area in eye making it hard to see), right and left-hand contractures, obstructive and reflux uropathy (obstructed urinary flow), borderline intellectual functioning (below average cognition), C6 Cervical spinal cord injury (spinal cord injury near the base of the neck), acquired absence of right and left leg (amputation of the right and left leg). Record review of Resident #3's Quarterly MDS dated [DATE] revealed, a BIMS score of 15 which indicated normal cognition. According to the MDS Resident #3 required extensive assistance with personal hygiene, toilet use, eating, dressing, transferring, and bed mobility. He also required 1-2+ people physical assistance with the activities. The MDS revealed the resident required 1-person physical assistance with baths/showers and was totally dependent. The resident was wheelchair bound and had limitation in ROM for both his upper and lower extremities. Resident #3 had an indwelling catheter due to a neurogenic bladder and was always incontinent of bowel. According to the MDS, he had PT/OT which ended 6/7/23. Record review of Resident #3's care plan dated 7/14/23, he had a focus: Resident #3 experienced bowel incontinence r/t severe impaired physical mobility. Interventions: Check me every two hours and assist with toileting as needed .Provide pericare after each incontinent episode . Focus: Resident #3 used assistive devices (enabler bars, ¼ side rails) for bed mobility. Interventions: .Check on resident at least every 2 hours while in bed. Focus: Resident #3 had an ADL, self-care performance deficit r/t amputation (bilateral AKAs, bilateral hand contractures) .total dependent with all ADLS .requires total assistance most of the time .Needs a Hoyer lift and 2 staff assistance with all transfers. Interventions: The resident requires 1-2 staff with showers/bathing. The resident requires 2 staff to turn and reposition in bed .The resident requires 1-2 staff with personal hygiene and oral care. The resident is totally dependent on (1-2) staff for toilet use. Check nail length and trim and clean on bath day and as necessary. Report any changes to the nurse. The resident has contractures of the (admitted with bilateral hands contractures). Provide skin care (q shift) to keep clean and prevent skin breakdown .The resident is totally dependent on (X2) staff for transferring. The resident requires Mechanical Lift with (X2) staff assistance for transfers . Record review of Resident #3's August 2023 and September 2023 shower sheets revealed he received a shower on 8/8/23, 8/19/23, 9/2/23, and 9/4/23. In an interview and observation with Resident #3 on 8/31/23 at 8:34am it was revealed that he was in B bed and was laying on his back in bed with long, yellow fingernails, a long beard, and greasy looking, long hair. Resident #3 said, he did not get showers 3 x week like he was supposed to. He stated he was lucky to get one a week. He stated he had not had a shower in over a week and when he asked for one, he never got it. He said he tried speaking to the Administrator about it, but it did not do any good. In an interview with Resident #3 on 9/3/23 at 10:34am he said, he finally had received a shower the night before (9/2/23) and he felt much better. In an interview with Resident #3 on 9/6/23 at 1:30pm, he stated he had not had a shower since 9/2/23, and he was supposed to have received one on 9/5/23 but did not get one. He stated he did not receive a shower on 9/4/23, and the documentation was wrong that he had received a shower on 9/4/23. 3. Record review of Resident #23's face sheet, dated 8/31/2023, reflected a [AGE] year-old Male admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. His diagnoses included, moderate protein-calorie malnutrition (not getting enough protein and calories in the diet), delusional disorders (false beliefs), progressive spinal muscle atrophy (a genetic disease that cause the muscles to become weak and waste away), major depressive disorder, seizures, legal blindness, nutritional deficiency, Type II Diabetes Mellitus (problem in the way the body regulates and uses sugar as a fuel), essential hypertension (high blood pressure), and dementia. Record review of Resident #23's Significant change MDS dated [DATE], revealed Resident #23's BIMS was coded as 99 indicating he had severely impaired cognition. Record review of Resident #23's care plan initiated 06/08/21, and revised 08/22/23, revealed resident #23 was care planned as - needing Increased ADL Care Needs. Goal: resident will receive services as necessary to meet individualized needs. It also stated Resident #23 had an ADL self-care performance deficit r/t Confusion, Dementia, and Impaired balance. Goals- Resident #23 will not develop any complications d/t impaired physical mobility. Observation and interview on 08/30/23 at 10:00am revealed Resident #21 was in bed, alert, not interviewable, and murmured to himself. Observation revealed he had unkept facial hair and long dirty nails. In an interview and observation with CNA S, at this time, she looked at Resident #23's hands and nails and said he was on hospice and hospice came in three times a week and took care of the resident. In an interview with LPN K on 08/30/23 at 1:20PM, she said she would have Resident #21's nails cleaned and have him shaved. 4. Record review of Resident #64's undated face sheet revealed a [AGE] year-old male admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses of hypertensive chronic kidney disease (kidney problems from high blood pressure), dementia with other behavioral disturbance (dementia with agitation, depression, or psychosis), Alzheimer's disease, major depressive disorder, muscle wasting and atrophy, and lack of coordination. Record review of Resident #64's Comprehensive MDS, dated [DATE], revealed a BIMS score that was left blank. According to the MDS, the staff assessment for mental status revealed a score of 3 which indicated severely impaired cognitive skills for daily decision making. The MDS revealed the resident was totally dependent with personal hygiene, toilet use, locomotion on/off the unit, and with transfers. He required extensive assistance with eating, dressing, and bed mobility. Resident #64 was wheelchair bound and required 1-person physical assist with his ADLs. For baths/showers, he was totally dependent and required 1-person physical assistance. He was always incontinent of bowel and bladder. Record review of Resident #64's care plan, dated 9/7/23, revealed a Focus of: Resident #64 had a Moderate Risk for Skin Breakdown. Interventions: Change reposition frequently as tolerated .Focus: ADL Self-care performance. Interventions: The resident requires extensive assistance by 1 staff with personal hygiene and oral care. The resident requires extensive assistance by 2 staff to move between surfaces .The resident requires extensive assistance by 1-2 staff for toileting. Focus: Resident #64 had a communication problem r/t Alzheimer's. Intervention: Anticipate and meet needs . Focus: Resident #64 was at risk for bladder incontinence and required assistance with toileting cares r/t Alzheimer's, Dementia. Interventions: Clean peri-area with each incontinence episode . In an observation and interview with Resident #64 and RN AA on 9/4/23 at 3:30pm, it was revealed the resident had a fitted sheet soaked with, what appeared to be urine, from his head all the way down to his legs. There was a foul smell in the room that got worse when his brief was opened. RN AA was there with 2 CNAs while performing a skin assessment. RN AA stated the resident had just been changed about 30min ago. She was unsure how the sheet was soaked and stated the CNA who changed him must have placed a new cloth chuck on top of the soiled sheet, without changing it. She stated it was unacceptable for them to not have changed the sheet and would investigate it. In the Resident Council meeting on 8/31/23 at 10:30am, it was revealed by all 6 residents in attendance that showers were not being given, especially on the 2-10pm shift. They stated that the odd number rooms got showers on Tue/Thu/Sat and the even number rooms got showers on Mon/Wed/Fri. They also stated that the A beds got showers in the morning and the B beds got showers at night. In an interview with RN AA on 8/31/23 at 2:48pm, she stated she had already identified showers as a concern at the facility. She stated she planned to pull a CNA to be the shower tech once she started as the full time DON on 9/10/23 or 9/11/23. She stated she was also going to ensure the documentation in the chart was clear if the resident refused a shower and was going to make sure staff notified the resident's RP and notified the DON if they refused. RN AA stated the reason why the 2pm-10pm shift was not getting showers was due to the lack of accountability, since management was not there. In an interview on 9/1/23 at 11:00am, CNA HH said on MWF, A-Bed residents in even numbered rooms were to be showered by 6-2pm staff; B-Bed residents were showered by 2-10pm staff. On TTS, A-Bed residents in odd numbered rooms were to be showered by 6-2pm staff; B-Bed residents were showered by 2-10pm staff. In an interview with the Administrator on 9/1/23 at 1:35pm, it was revealed showers had already been identified as a concern and they were not being performed. She stated the plan was to hire a shower tech to assist with giving showers. In an interview with CNA Z on 9/2/23 at 2:27pm, he stated residents received showers on alternating days. He said A beds got them in the morning and B beds got them at night. He stated he felt like they had enough staff to provide adequate showers. In an interview with the Administrator on 9/3/23 at 11:23am, she stated the acting DON (RN A) was working on the floor as an RN for the night shift. She stated RN A oversaw the nursing department but was not following through, which was why they were hiring a new full time DON. Per the Administrator, RN A also oversaw the accuracy of staff documentation even though she was working as a floor nurse at night. In an interview with the Administrator on 9/3/23 at 1:45pm, she revealed RN A was not providing adequate supervision of the nurses, and there was a complete system breakdown in the nursing department. In an interview on 9/6/23 at 1:40pm, CNA W said if a resident declined to have ADLs performed, the CNA was to report it to the charge nurse who would follow up with the resident. In an interview on 9/6/23 at 1:42pm, LPN L said if a resident declined to have ADLs performed, the CNA reported it to the charge nurse. She said the charge nurse would follow up with the resident to see if the nurse could encourage the resident to accept care. She said if the resident continued to decline care, the care would be offered again later, and the nurse would document the refusal and notify the resident's RP. Record review of the facility's policy and procedure on CNA Expectations (undated) read in part: POC Documentation-should be at 100% prior to End of Shift (EOS) NO EXCEPTION . Daily hygiene needed on ALL resident EVERYDAY AM/PM: Brush Hair and Teeth- Shave all facial hair unless resident requests otherwise. Trim/File Nails- clean under nails. Fresh Clothing- Morning: Fresh clothing, Night: Pjs, Skid resistant socks/footwear at all times. Rounds should be Q2H and as needed with assistance provided timely Turning and Repositioning Q2H and as needed for ALL BED BOUND residents: Heels should be offloaded on pillow (hanging off) when in bed. Wheelchair Cushions need to be provided for all resident without one .Get Up List- ALL residents should be OUT OF BED for ALL meals and Activities as tolerated: Night Shift- get up 50% of all abled residents. Day Shift- get up all abled residents .Showers: All residents showers to be completed daily as scheduled day/evening shifts- All skin abnormalities to be reported to nurse on duty. Record review of the facility's policy and procedure for Care Plans, Comprehensive Person-Centered (Revised March 2022) read in part: A comprehensive, person-centered care plan that includes measurable objectives and timetables to meet the resident's physical, psychosocial and functional needs is developed and implemented for each resident .7. The comprehensive, person-centered care plan: .b. describes the services that are to be furnished to attain or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being, including: (1) 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; .13. The resident has the right to refuse to participate in the development of his/her care plan and medical and nursing treatments. Such refusals are documented in the resident's clinical record in accordance with established policies. Record review of the facility's policy and procedure on Activities of Daily Living (ADLs), Supporting (Revised March 2018) read in part: Residents will be provided with care, treatment and services as appropriate to maintain or improve their ability to carry out activities of daily living (ADLs). Residents who are unable to carry out activities of daily living independently will receive the services necessary to maintain good nutrition, grooming and personal and oral hygiene .2. Appropriate care and services will be provided for residents who are unable to carry out ADLs independently, with the consent of the resident and in accordance with the plan of care, including appropriate support and assistance with: a. Hygiene (bathing, dressing, grooming, and oral care) .c. Elimination (toileting) .4. If resident with cognitive impairment or dementia resist care, staff will attempt to identify the underlying cause of the problem and not just assume the resident is refusing or declining care. Approaching the resident in a different way or at a different time, or having another staff member speak with the resident may be appropriate.
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 observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure that residents received medically related social...

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 received medically related social services to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical well-being for 1 of 6 residents (Resident #27) whose records were reviewed for medically related social services, in that; Resident #27 was not assisted by a social worker with obtaining a viable means of communicating his thoughts, feelings, and preferences to staff. This deficient practice could result in loss of dignity and having unmet needs due to insufficient medically related social services. Findings included: Resident # 27 Record review of Resident #27's face sheet, dated 09/01/2023, reflected a-[AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE]. His diagnoses included stroke (disrupted blood flow to the brain), expressive language disorder (inability to express thoughts by talking), high blood pressure, hemiplegia (paralysis) affecting right (dominant) side, nicotine dependence (actively smokes), below the knee amputation (both legs), cognitive communication deficit (impaired communication), gastroesophageal reflux disease (backflow of stomach acid or bile that irritates food pipe lining, insomnia (sleeplessness), anxiety disorder (feelings off worry anxiety or fear that are strong enough to interfere with daily activities). The diagnosis of major depressive disorder was added after MDS nurse was notified that it was missing during survey on 9/1/2023. Record review of Resident #27's Quarterly MDS assessment, dated 06/21/2023, revealed a BIMS score of 99 reflecting the resident was unable to be interviewed. There was no documentation that an alternative means of assessment was provided. Review of Section F Preferences for Customary Routine and Activities was not completed. Record review of Resident #27's care plan dated 01/17/2023 with a revision date of 03/23/23 read in part: Resident #27 has a communication problem related to Expressive Aphasia. Intervention: Allow adequate time to respond, Repeat as necessary, Do not rush, Request clarification from the resident to ensure understanding, Face when speaking, make eye contact, Turn off TV/radio to reduce environmental noise, Ask yes/no questions if appropriate, Use simple, brief, consistent words/cues, Use alternative communication tools as needed. Resident #27 has impaired cognition and decision-making related to history of CVA with cognitive deficits: Intervention: Ask yes/no questions to determine the resident's needs; Communicate with the resident/family/caregivers regarding resident's capabilities and needs. Record review of Resident #27's Quarterly MDS assessment, dated 06/21/2023: Review of Section C Cognitive Patterns: C0100. Should Brief Interview for Mental Status be Conducted? (Attempt to conduct interview with all residents). [Response] 1. Yes C0200. Repetition of 3 Words. Number of words repeated after first attempt [Response] 0. None Resident #27 was given a BIMS score of 99 reflecting he was unable to complete interview. Review of Section F Preferences for Customary Routine and Activities showed this section was not completed. Record review of Resident #27's Quarterly MDS assessment, dated 03/23/2023: Review of Section C Cognitive Patterns: C0100. Should Brief Interview for Mental Status be Conducted? (Attempt to conduct interview with all residents) [Response] 0. No (resident is rarely/never understood]: No BIMS score Review of Section F Preferences for Customary Routine and Activities showed this section was not completed. Record review of Resident #27's admission MDS assessment, dated 12/27/2022: Review of Section C Cognitive Patterns: C0100. Should Brief Interview for Mental Status be Conducted? (Attempt to conduct interview with all residents) [Response] 0. No (resident is rarely/never understood]: No BIMS score Review of Section F Preferences for Customary Routine and Activities was completed. Observation and interview on 8/31/23 at 8:45am with Resident #27 revealed Resident #27 attempted to write in his notebook, but writing was illegible and he shook his head and put down his pen. Resident #27 was able to communicate his concerns by answering yes (head nod), no (shaking of head), pointing to his notebook with pre-written words, and pointing at things around the room. Resident #27 was only able say one phrase tok tok but did so with various intonation in response to what was being asked to indicate whether the line of questions and response options were on the right track or not. Resident #27 communicated that he has been at this facility for 9 months, and it has been bad the whole time. He communicated that most of the staff does not take the time to understand what he was trying to express to the extent of this interview. Interview on 9/1/23 at 10:45AM, CNA Y said she communicates with Resident #27 by gestures, making eye contact, and listening to tone of his voice. She did not know about his notebook that he uses to point at words. CNA Y said she could not recall Resident #27 taking a shower but added that she has heard him refuse in the past. Interview on 9/6/23 at 2:01pm, CNA CC said that Resident #27 prefers bed bath probably. She said that the resident does for himself and will call for assistance if needed. CNA CC said Resident#27 cannot talk to hold conversation because he can only say one word, taw. She said she did not know about any notebook the resident would use to help him communicate. She said that if any resident refuses ADLs she will tell the charge nurse who would then follow up. Interview on 9/6/23 at 2:30pm, the SW said staff should be communicating with Resident #27 in a way that works for him. She said she was aware that Resident #27 understands what you are saying to him, but he is unable to verbally express himself. The SW said that the resident's assessments (BIMS, MDS) should be done via paper and pen or an alternative means. She said she did not use an alternative means of completing Resident #27's assessment because she did not think out of the box to figure out ways to accommodate resident's communication needs. She said neither she nor staff had been trained on how to communicate with residents with expressive aphasia. Interview on 9/6/23 2:35 PM, the Administrator said she was unaware whether staff have received training on communicating with residents with aphasia, but she said she would follow up with Director of Rehab as to find out for sure. She said she was not aware that Resident #27 had a preferred shower time but would communicate it with staff. She was not aware that the resident had a notebook of words that he points to help him communicate. She said that the residents preferred communication should be documented in the care plan. She said the social worker is responsible for ensuring the communication area is completed in the care plan and for making sure staff is following through. She said staff's inability to communicate effectively with the resident could result in dignity issues and not having his preferences accommodated. Interview on 9/7/23 at 12:10 PM, the DOR said that she entrusts speech therapy to the respective speech therapist because it is out of her scope as an occupational therapist. She said that Resident #27 and any other resident who is nonverbal should be communicated with in a way that resident is most receptive to. She was not aware that Resident #27 was having any issues expressing his needs. Interview on 9/7/23 at 1:11 PM, ST M said Resident #27 cannot initiate a verbal conversation. He said that staff should be offering yes/no questions and picture board allow resident some means to express himself. He said Resident #27 can point at what he wants. He said that he was told the resident has an order with the VA for a computerized communication board but is not aware of the details of when it was ordered and when it will arrive. ST M expressed concern that this mode of communication may be difficult for resident. ST M said the resident should be communicated by the resident's preferred and most receptive means of communication which is not writing. He said this mode of communication can be difficult for Resident #27, so that should not be the primary way to communicate with him. ST M said that he was only able to spend a limited amount of time, 5 days to be exact, because this is what the resident's insurance would cover. ST said 5 days was not enough time to fully explore Resident #27's capabilities. ST M said that Resident #27 was receptive of the picture board during their therapy sessions and he would make one for him and work with SW and staff at the facility. He said he does not know if staff has ever received training on communicating with residents who have expressive aphasia. Record review of progress note dated 9/6/23 written by LPN I read: (DOR) from Therapy notified this nurse that resident (#27) refused dry erase board a pen. Stated he already had a pen. Resident did receive a new notebook. Record review of Speech Therapy Treatment Encounter Notes dated 12/31/2022 by ST K reflected in part the following: SUMMARY OF DAILY SKILLED SERVICES: -Patient answered questions utilizing an AAC device with 90% accuracy given maximal verbal and visual cueing. -Patient utilized total communication to indicate yes/no with 100% accuracy given maximal verbal and visual cueing. RESPONSE TO TREATMENT: -He demonstrated improvement with his comprehension. Will continue to monitor to achieve goals. Record review of Speech Therapy Discharge summary dated [DATE] performed by ST M reflected in part the following: ASSESSMENT SUMMARY: - Skilled interventions include receptive language (the ability to understand and comprehend spoken language that you hear or read) and construction of AAC picture board to allow interaction and communication with staff and fellow residents. -Patient demonstrated ability to identify target picture on picture board that will allow him communication. He is motivated and excited. -Collaboration with nursing to promote use of picture board to interact and allow wants/needs to be met. Requested policy for communicating with non-verbal residents, facility unable to provide.
CONCERN (E)

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

Medication Errors (Tag F0758)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

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

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 psychotropic medications were not given unless the medication was necessary to treat a specific condition as diagnosed and documented in the clinical record for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. (Resident #64) The facility failed to have an appropriate diagnosis or adequate indication for the use of Resident #64's Seroquel (antipsychotic medication used to treat certain mental/mood disorders such as schizophrenia, and bipolar disorder). This failure could place residents at risk of receiving unnecessary psychotropic medications with possible medication side effects, adverse consequences, decreased quality of life and dependence on unnecessary medications. Findings included: Record review of Resident #64's face sheet dated 09/03/23 revealed he was a [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE]. His diagnoses included Dementia (impaired ability to remember, think, or make decisions that interferes with doing everyday activities), Depression (a mood disorder that causes a persistent feeling of sadness and loss of interest and can interfere with your daily living), kidney disease, Alzheimer's disease, major depressive disorder, recurrent severe without psychotic features, essential hypertension, and lack of coordination (no movement). Record review of Resident #64's consolidated physician orders, dated 05/26/23, revealed the following orders- Seroquel Oral Tablet 25 MG (Quetiapine Fumarate) Give 1 tablet by mouth one time a day for Mood disorder and give 2 tablet by mouth at bedtime for Mood disorder. Monitor for side effect of antipsychotic medication - monitor for dry mouth, constipation, blurred vision, disorientation/confusion, difficulty urinating, hypotension, dark urine, yellow skin, n/v, lethargy, drooling, eps symptoms (tremors, disturbed gait, increased agitation, restlessness, involuntary movement of mouth or tongue). document: 'y' if side effects observed and 'n' for no side effects observed. Record review of Resident #64's MAR dated 08-01-to 08/31/23 and 09-01-to 09/01/330 revealed He he was receiving Seroquel Oral Tablet 25 MG (Quetiapine Fumarate) 1 tablet by mouth one time a day for Mood disorder and give 2 tablets by mouth at bedtime for Mood disorder. He was assessed as no sign of side effect on his monitoring sheet Record review of pharmacy recommendation for Resident # 64 dated 06/25/23 revealed According to Long-term Care Drug Monitoring Regulations, our review of the above Patient's Chart Identifies the following as requiring your attention. Please evaluate the routine use of the following psychoactive medications and consider a dose reduction. If a dose reduction is not desired, please indicate below a rationale for the continued use. This resident is prescribed the following psychoactive medications: 1. Carbamazepine 200mg every morning & 400mg QHS (mood) 2. Seroquel 25mg QAM & 50mg QHS for agitation 3. Zololt 50mg qam NOTE TO PHYSICIAN: According to CMS Interpretive Guidelines for Long Term Care Facilities, justification for NOT reducing a Psychoactive must be DOCUMENTED either on this form or within the clinical record in order to be considered Observation and attempted interview on 08/30/23 at 12:00PM revealed Resident # 64 was in bed . attempt Record review of pharmacy recommendation revealed no signature. During an interview with the facility's Medical Director on 09/04/23 at 1:00PM, she said all pharmacy recommendation were usually placed in a binder on the nurse's station for review. She said she reviewed all recommendation that were brought to her attention. She said Resident #64 was being seen by a psychiatric Dr. that over sees his Psyc medication In an interview with the facility's Administrator on 09/04/23 at 1:30PM, she said the ADON was responsible for ensuring that all medication ordered were reviewed on admission and resident's physician was consulted prior to administering any medication. She said the facility had gone through 6 DON's within a year. She said the facility had just hired a DON that would start on 9/11/23. During an interview with Resident #64's psyc NP on 09/05/23 at 2:30PM, she said Resident #64 came from the hospital with all his orders and she would consult with the physician on pharmacy recommendation. During an interview on 09/06/23 at 3:00pm, the facility RN clinical Consultant said Resident #64's psychotropic medications were reviewed, and a dosage reduction was in place as of 09/04/23 Record review of facility's policy on the use of psychotropic Medication read in part- Residents will not receive medications that are not clinically indicated to treat a specific condition. Policy Interpretation and Implementation Residents, families and/or the representative are involved in the medication management process. Psychotropic medication management includes: 1. indications for use; 2. dose (including duplicate therapy); 3. duration; 4. adequate monitoring for efficacy and adverse consequences; and 5. preventing, identifying, and responding to adverse consequences. 1. Residents who have not used psychotropic medications are not prescribed or given these medications unless the medication is determined to be necessary to treat a specific condition that is diagnosed and documented in the medical record. 2. Use of psychotropic medications (other than antipsychotics) are not increased when efforts to decrease antipsychotic medications are being implemented . 3. Consideration of the use of any psychotropic medication is based on comprehensive review of the resident. This includes evaluation of the resident's signs and symptoms in order to identify underlying causes. 4. Psychotropic medications are not prescribed or given on a PRN basis unless that medication is necessary to treat a diagnosed specific condition that is documented in the clinical record. 5. 1. PRN orders for psychotropic medications are limited to 14 days. For psychotropic medications that are NOT antipsychotics: If the prescriber or attending physician believes it is appropriate to extend the PRN order beyond 14 days, he or she will document the rationale for extending the use and include the duration for the PRN order. For psychotropic medications that ARE antipsychotics: PRN orders cannot be renewed unless the attending physician or prescriber evaluates the resident and documents the appropriateness of the medication.
CONCERN (E)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** FACILITY Kitchen Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store food in accordance with profes...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** FACILITY Kitchen Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety in 1 of 1 kitchen reviewed for food procurement in that: - The facility failed to discard expired/undated food items in the kitchen refrigerator. These failures could affect residents who ate food from the facility kitchen and place them at risk of foodborne illness. Findings include: Observation of the facility kitchen on 8/30/23 at 9:40 AM revealed food items that were expired and undated labeled ACTIVITIES: 2bottles expired OJ 7/21/2023 1 bottle sweet tea expired 6/14/2023 1 package of pre-cooked waffles labeled as received 6/2023 being kept in refrigerator rather than frozen per manufacturer's recommendation (manufacturer's recommendation was for item to be frozen) 1 package of [NAME] (unopened, date faded off) 1 package of lunch meat unopened, not labeled Interview on 8/30/23 at 8:40 AM, the DM said the activities department asked if they could store food in the kitchen refrigerator because the Activities refrigerator was not working. The DM said she did not go through the food that activities put in the fridge, andfridge and did not realize that it was expired. She said it was specifically labeled activities and they would not have used it. The DM said that it wasis ultimately her responsibility to clean out the refrigerator and make sure that food stored and prepared in the kitchen are good for residents to eat . She said that expired and outdated foods could possibly make residents sick if consumed. Observation and interview on 8/30/23 at 8:55 AM, the AD said that she moved the food from the Activities refrigerator to the kitchen because the activities refrigerator was not working. She said that she did not realize the food was expired and removed them from the refrigerator. She said that she had not served these food items to the residents recently and there had been no report of food-related illness to her knowledge. She said that expired foods could possibly cause residents to get sick. Interview on 9/1/23 at 1:00 PM, the Administrator said that she expects for all food served to residents in a sanitary manner and for all food items served to be within date. She said that she expected expired food items to be discarded. She said failure to discard outdated food can possibly cause residents to get sick from bacteria growth. Record review of Food Receiving and Storage dated October 2017 read in part: 8. All food stored in the refrigerator or freezer will be covered, labeled and dated (use by date).
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0914 (Tag F0914)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to designed or equipped resident's room in the secured unit (Room # 214, 215, 216, 304, 203, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308,309,310, 311, 312, 314 315)...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to designed or equipped resident's room in the secured unit (Room # 214, 215, 216, 304, 203, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308,309,310, 311, 312, 314 315) to have ceiling suspended curtains, which extend around the bed to provide total visual privacy in combination with adjacent walls and curtains to assure full visual privacy for each resident. All rooms in the secured unit had half visual cotton that provide partial privacy\covering to residents and responsible party that chooseice to visit. This failure could placed residents at risk of feeling insecure or uncomfortable in their rooms. Findings included: Observation on 08/30/23 from23 from 9:43 AM-11:00AM, revealed all rooms in the secured unit had half visual cotton that hunghang from the ceiling down. Observation revealed the following rooms had two residents each - Room # 302 was a two- person bedroom occupied by one resident. The visual cotton does not go around resident on B bed to provide full visual cotton bed Room # 303 was a two -person bedroom but had one resident A bed was occupied and the visual cotton was in the middle between the two. Room # 304 was a two -person bedroom and had two residents. There was half visualhalf visual cotton that didoes not provide privacy to the residents Room #s 305,; 306, and 307 had two residents each with half visual cotton that covereds the middle part only Rooms # 307, 308, 309 had towtwo residents each. There was half size cotton that covered Rooms #214, # 215, and room # 216 all had two resident each. All rooms had half visual cottons that didoes not go around the bed to provide full visual privacy. Attempt was made to have an interview with residents in the secured unit but unsuccessful. All walk around and cannot hold a manful conversation. In an interview with CNACAN S on 08/30/23 at 11:00AM, she said she did not notice the privacy cottons. In an interview with LVN K on 08/31/23 at 1:30PM, she said she had not noticed the privacy cottons till now that it was brought to her attention. During a walk round In an interview with the facility's Administrator on 08/31/23 at 2:00PM, she said she does not believe that the secured unit did not have full privacy cottons. She said she had paid for full visual cottons sometimes ago and had expected all visual cottons to be in place. She said she would call the supply company to replace all cottons in the secured unit and she would inspect others to ensure that the correct length wereare installed for privacy . Policy on full visual privacy cottons was requested but was not provided prior to exit on 09/04/23
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 allow residents to call for staff assistance through a...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to allow residents to call for staff assistance through a communication system which relays the call directly to a staff member or to a centralized staff work area for 9 (Resident bathrooms 214, 215, 217, and 218, and Resident rooms 229B, 308A, 308B, 313A, and 313B) out of 12 resident bathrooms and resident rooms reviewed for call lights. - The call light did not turn on when pushed for resident rooms 229B, 308A, 308B, 313A, and 313B. - The bathroom emergency light did not turn on when pulled for resident bathrooms 214, 215, 217, and 218. These failures could place residents at risk of falls and/or injuries if they are unable to get staff assistance when needed. The findings include: In an observation on 08/30/23 at 10:15am it was revealed the following rooms in the secured unit had call lights that did not function: - room [ROOM NUMBER], 215, 217, and 218 the bathroom emergency call light did not turn on when activated. - room [ROOM NUMBER]A, 308B, 313A, and 313B the call light did not turn on when activated. In an observation on 8/30/23 at 11:33am of room [ROOM NUMBER]B, it was revealed the call bell was wrapped around a box on the wall, and out of reach of the resident. The call light did not turn on when pushed. In interview with LPN K on 08/31/23 at 2:00pm she said she was not aware the call lights were not working. In an observation and interview with the Administrator on 8/31/23 at 3:00pm it was revealed she did not know the call lights were broken when a facility walk through was performed. She said she would get the call lights taken care of as soon as possible. She said staff were supposed to report all environmental issues to the maintenance director, but the facility had not had a permanent maintenance staff to go around and check on things. She also said the maintenance director was new. In an interview with the Administrator on 8/31/23 at 4:00pm she stated she was unaware of the call lights not working prior to today and would look into it right away. She stated a resident could get hurt if their call bell was not working. In an interview with Dietary Aide C on 9/1/23 at 8:17am, she stated she did not know the call light was not working for room [ROOM NUMBER]B. In an observation and interview with Maintenance on 9/1/23 at 8:42am it was revealed he was working on the call light outside of room [ROOM NUMBER]B. He said he was unaware of the call light not working for room [ROOM NUMBER]B, until yesterday (8/31/23) when the Administrator told him. He said he was not sure what the problem was yet, but thought it was a bad bulb. He stated he could not get to the issue right away because he had so many things on his list to fix and was the only one person to do it, and he could not do everything. In an interview with LPN H on 9/1/23 at 2:30pm, she said she did not know room [ROOM NUMBER]B's call light was not working. In an observation on 9/6/23 at 3:15pm it was revealed room [ROOM NUMBER]B's call bell was working. In an interview with RN AA on 9/7/23 at 11:20am she stated they had Angel rounds where staff were supposed to make rounds and check the rooms several times a shift. She stated this was not happening and no one was being held accountable for it. She stated if they were doing their rounds like they should have been, there would not have been so many call lights not working. She stated she took the department heads to the room and showed them how to do a round when they got there in the morning. She re-educated them on making sure to call maintenance if something was broken in the resident's room, and to always check to make sure the call light was within reach and working. Record review of the facility's policy and procedure on Call System, Resident (revised September 2022) read in part: Residents are provided with a means to call staff for assistance through a communication system that directly calls a staff member or a centralized workstation. 1. Each resident is provided with a means to call staff directly for assistance from his/her bed, from toileting facilities and from the floor .3. The resident call system remains functional at all times. If audible communication is used, the volume is maintained at an audible level that can be easily heard. If visual communication is used, the lights remain functional. 4. If the resident has a disability that prevents him/her from making use of the call system, an alternative means of communication that is usable for the resident is provided and documented in the care plan. 5. The resident call system is routinely maintained and tested by the maintenance department .
MINOR (C)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0847 (Tag F0847)

Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents

Based on record review and interview the facility failed to include in the facility's admission packets provided to residents and their representative on admission, inform regarding arbitration agreem...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview the facility failed to include in the facility's admission packets provided to residents and their representative on admission, inform regarding arbitration agreement if they chose to have one or not. The facility failed to ensure that current and potential residents were informed in a clear and understandable language about the facility's arbitration process. This failure could place the residents and their representatives at risk of being uninformed about their rights regarding binding arbitration and less able to defend their rights related to disputes, controversy or claims arising out of or related to the services provided by the nursing facility. The findings included: During the entrance conference on 08/30/23 at 9:30 AM with the ADM, a blank copy of the facility's admission packet and the binding Arbitration Agreement were requested. The facility administrator ADM provided a copy of the facility's admission packet. Record review of the facility's admission packet title admission agreement packet adopted 06-21 revised 05/24/23 no information about an arbitration agreement. During an interview on 08/31/23 at 2:30 PM, the facility Administrator said the facility used to have an arbitration agreement on their old admission packet. She said the revised admission packet does not contain any arbitration agreement. She said currently the facility does did not have an arbitration agreement and does did not utilize arbitration agreements on admission. The facility Administrator said the facility had not used arbitration agreement with any resident. The administrator said there was no arbitration policy.
Jun 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

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 d...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for 1 (Resident #1) of 3 residents reviewed for infection control, in that Facility failed to ensure Resident #1's foley bag and tubing was kept off the floor while Resident #1 was wheeling herself around in the building. This failure could place residents at risk for exposure to infections. Findings include: Record review of Resident #1's face sheet revealed Resident #1 was a [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her diagnoses included neuromuscular dysfunction of bladder (bladder dysfunction as a result of damage to nerves that connect the brain and spinal cord to the rest of the body), morbid obesity, abnormal findings in urine, muscle weakness, and lack of coordination. Record review of Resident #1's physician order dated 05/18/2023 revealed Resident #1 currently have order for indwelling supra pubic catheter due to neurogenic bladder (lack of bladder control due to a brain, spinal cord or nerve problem) Review of Resident #1's MDS (minimum data set) dated 05/23/2023, section H0100 and H0300 revealed resident has indwelling catheter. Record review of care plan dated 05/18/2023 revealed Resident #1 had a Indwelling Suprapubic Catheter due to Neurogenic bladder. On 06/23/2023 at 12:05 PM, Surveyor observed Resident #1 sitting on scooter wheelchair in the hallway. She was wheeling herself from the entrance area down the hallway towards her room. Surveyor observed resident Foley catheter hanging on the wheelchair and the tubing was dragging on the floor. On 06/23/2023 at 12:22 PM, Surveyor observed Resident #1 sitting on scooter wheelchair in her room with urinary catheter tubing on the floor. Resident #1 stated she did not like to stay in bed because she would be limited and would not be able to move around as she wanted. She stated she sits in her wheelchair during the day and she only like to get in bed when ready to sleep. On 06/23/2023 at 12:54 PM, Surveyor observed Resident #1 sitting on scooter wheelchair at the dining area, watching TV with the catheter tubing on the floor. On 06/23/2023 at 2:55 PM, Resident #1 was also observed at the entrance lobby area in her scooter wheelchair with foley bag tubing on the floor. On 06/23/2023 at 3:01 PM, in an interview with the nurse on the floor, LVN A (Licensed Vocational Nurse A) stated she was the nurse taking care of the resident (Resident #1) today (06/23/2023) she stated she had previously tried to fix the tubing but she believed the tubing became loosened from where she hooked it on Resident #1's wheelchair. She stated she had been trained about how to care for catheters, and the facility just implemented monthly training online for the staff. She stated both the catheter bag and the tubing were supposed to be kept off the floor. She stated the deficiency could expose Resident #1 to infection because germs on the floor could move up to Resident#1's urethra via the tubing and cause infection. On 06/23/2023 at 3:01 PM, in an interview with LVN B she stated she was just coming to shift and getting report from the nurse LVN A she stated the deficiency could expose resident to infection and the resident could run over the tubing and fall. On 06/23/2023 at 5:45 PM during interview with the ADON (Assistant Director of Nursing) she stated she had instructed the nurse to fix the tubing prior. She stated it was an infection control concern because the resident was exposed to infection. Record review of facility policy titled 'Catheter Care, Urinary' dated August 2022, subsection titled 'infection control' reads Be sure the catheter tubing and drainage bag are kept off the floor.
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

Safe Environment (Tag F0921)

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 provide a safe, functional, sanitary, and comfortab...

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 provide a safe, functional, sanitary, and comfortable environment for residents, staff, and the public for facility hallways reviewed for environment, in that. Facility failed to repair the bulging and chipping floor on the hallways. This deficiency could expose residents living in the facility to safety hazard. Findings include: On 06/23/2023 at 9:59 AM, observation revealed bulging and chipped flooring at the entrance lobby area by the front desk. On 06/23/2023 at 12:01 PM, observation revealed bulging and chipped floor on hallway 300 at the double door by room [ROOM NUMBER] and room [ROOM NUMBER]. On 06/23/2023 at 12:03 PM, observation revealed floor chipped and bulging at the middle of hallway 200 at the double door by the nursing station. On 06/23/2023 at 12:08 PM, observation revealed floor bulging and chipping at hallway 200 in front of room [ROOM NUMBER] towards the secure unit. On 06/23/2023 at 1:13 PM, in an interview with the ADON, surveyor walked ADON round to see the bulging and chipped floor. The ADON stated the maintenance director was responsible to fix things around the building, she stated she had called the Maintenance Director while Surveyor was walking her round, so he could come and fix the floor. ADON stated the bulging and chipping floor was a safety concern for the residents. On 06/23/2023 at 1:13 PM, during interview the Regional Nurse, Surveyor walked her round the hallway to see the bulged and chipped floor. Regional Nurse stated them round to see the bulging and chipping floor. She stated it was a safety hazard for the residents because those spots could cause the residents to trip and fall and get injured. On 06/23/2023 at 4:05 PM, in an interview with the Maintenance Director, he stated he was off today (06/23/2023) but he comes to the facility five days a week, and sometimes he comes six or seven days a week, depending on what needed to be done. He said he never noticed the bulging/ chipping floor around the building. He stated he was only aware of the middle of the hallway 200 at the double door closed to the nursing station, because the double door would not close. He said that was the only thing he was instructed to do by the fire Marshall. However, he said for the rest of the building floor, he never knew about it or noticed until today (06/23/2023) when one of the nurses (ADON) called him. He stated he will be in the building to fix it tomorrow (6/24/2023). Maintenance Director stated he did not think the bulging and chipping floor was a safety hazard to the residents in the building. He stated he had received training about resident safety, he stated in his opinion, he did not think it was a safety hazard to the residents. Record review of facility policy titled 'Maintenance Service' dated December 2022 reads Maintenance service shall be provided to all areas of the building, ground, and equipment Policy Interpretation and Implementation line 2b and h reads in part, Maintaining the building in good repair and free from hazards .Maintaining the grounds, sidewalks .in good order
Feb 2023 1 deficiency
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0921)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide a safe, functional, sanitary, orderly, and co...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide a safe, functional, sanitary, orderly, and comfortable environment for residents, staff and the public as evidenced by: Broken window blinds in Rooms 312, 313, 302, 215 Peeling paint on doors of rooms 214, 202, 205, 228, 229, 310 Hole in wall in Rooms 312, 220 Baseboard off the wall in rooms 226, 220 and Hall near 310 Restroom that service room # 212 basin was leaking. These failures have the potential to affect residents in the facility placing them at risk of accidents and poor quality of life. Findings Included: Observation of the facility on 02/22/2023 between 10:00 AM and 11:00am revealed the following: In room [ROOM NUMBER] there was a hole in the wall under the window where the baseboard was off the wall. In room [ROOM NUMBER] there was a hole in the wall behind the door. In room [ROOM NUMBER] the baseboard was off the wall under the window. The baseboard was off the wall at the back door in hallway of 300 near to room [ROOM NUMBER]. In room [ROOM NUMBER] the baseboard was not affixed to the wall near the table. There were broken window blinds in Rooms 215, 302, 313 and 312. There was peeling paint on the entrance doors of 202,205, 214, 228, 229 and 310. There was also peeling paint on the bathroom room door of 229. The basin in the bathroom of 212 was leaking. There was a brown spot in the ceiling near room [ROOM NUMBER]. The public bathroom opposite the conference room had a hole and water marks in the ceiling, multiple patches in the ceiling and exposed wire in the ceiling. In an interview conducted with an unidentified staff member on 2/22/2023 at 11:20am revealed the ceiling in the public restroom was damaged several times and the try to fix it but it was never done properly. The staff also pointed out that they had other ceiling issues, but they were working on it. He said when there were maintenance issues, they should document on a log at the nurse's [NAME] or report to the administrator. In an interview on 2/22/2023 at 1:30pm with Housekeeper B she said if she was cleaning and there were maintenance issues she would report it to maintenance. She said they usually address maintenance issues when they were bought to them. In an interview on 2/22/2023 at 3:00pm with the Maintenance A he said he was new to the facility and was working to get repairs done. He said he was currently working on the ceiling in the hallway near to the kitchen area that was worked on by the previous maintenance personnel and was not done properly. He said they were in the process of painting now. He said he started two days prior to the survey and did not get a chance to walk the building as yet. He said the head of maintenance for the company was coming to the facility the following day and they were going to address all the maintenance issues in the facility. In an interview on 2/22/2022 at 3:55pm with the Administrator she said they have a paper log at the nurse's station and when there were maintenance issues, the staff were expected to document in the book and maintenance personnel would check the book daily for repairs that needed to be done. She said there was also a section in PCC that the staff can document maintenance issues. Record review of the facility's Maintenance Service dated December 2009 read in part . Policy Statement: Maintenance service shall be provided to all areas of the building, grounds and equipment. Policy Interpretation and Implementation 1. The maintenance Department is responsible for maintaining the buildings, grounds and equipment in a safe and operable manner at all times.
Jun 2022 1 deficiency
CONCERN (E)

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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents who needed respiratory care were provided such care, consistent with professional standards of practice, for oxygen therapy for 1 of 1 residents (Resident #36) reviewed for respiratory care. The facility failed to have a physician's order for Resident #36 to administer oxygen at 1.5-2.0 liters per minute per nasal cannula. The facility failed to receive physicians order to administer oxygen to Residents #36 This failure could affect residents receiving oxygen therapy at risk of adverse impact on their health and decreased quality of life. Findings include: Record review of Resident #36's face sheet revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. She was [AGE] years old. Her admission diagnoses included: Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (a disease that is characterized by persistent respiratory symptoms like progressive breathlessness and cough), Atrial Fibrillation (a disease of the heart characterized by irregular and often faster heartbeat), Congestive heart failure (a progressive heart disease that affects pumping action of the heart muscles), Pulmonary Hypertension (a condition in which high blood pressure affects arteries of the lungs, and right side of the heart). Bipolar disorder (a serious mental illness characterized by extreme mood swings), Dementia (a group of symptoms that affects memory, thinking and interferes with daily life). Record review of Resident #36's Annual Minimum Data Set assessment (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed she was independent/ dependent for meeting emotional, intellectual, physical, and social needs. Her Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) was 14 out of 15 which indicated she was cognitively intact. Resident #36 required supervision from one staff member for her bed mobility, transfer, walking in room, locomotion on unit, locomotion off unit, eating, required extensive assistance one person assist with dressing, and toileting. Resident #36 was occasional incontinent of bowel and frequently incontinent of bladder. Section O Special Treatments, Procedures and Programs revealed Resident #36 received oxygen therapy while a resident. Record review of Resident #36's Care plan dated 5/25/2022 and revised 6/16/22 revealed in part: -Focus: Resident #36 has Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD); -Goal: The resident will display optimal breathing patterns daily through review date. Record review of Resident # 36's physician's orders dated on or after 5/24/22 revealed no order for oxygen. In an observation on of Resident #36 in her room on 6/28/2022 at 10:17 am revealed Resident #36 lying in bed with Oxygen 1.5 liters per nasal cannula in use. An observation on 6/29/2022 at 1:45 p.m. revealed Resident #36 had Oxygen 1.5 liters at bedside. An observation on 6/30/22 at 8:20 am revealed Oxygen concentrator at 2 liters with nasal cannula tubing lying on Resident #36's bed. In an interview on 6/30/22 11:36 am interview with LVN# 1. She reports oxygen is a drug and needs a physician order. She verified Resident #36 did not have an order for oxygen. When oxygen is ordered it is placed under orders and monitored on the MAR. In an interview with LVN# 2, on 6/30/2022 at 11:40 am. He reports oxygen is a drug and needs a physician order. He verified Resident #36 did not have an order for oxygen. When oxygen is ordered it is placed under orders in chart and monitored on the MAR. In an interview with 6/30/22 11:45 am interview with CNA# 1. She reports oxygen is a drug and needs a doctor's order. In an interview on 6/30/22 at 12:00 pm with Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON). She reports oxygen is a drug and needs a doctor's order. She verified Resident #36 did not have an order for oxygen. The orders need to include the type of need example: continuous or as needed (PRN). The order would be placed in orders and monitored on Medication Administration Record (MAR). Record review of the facility's policy. Oxygen Administration Level III Purpose: The Purpose of this procedure is to provide guidelines for safe oxygen administration. Preparation: 1. Verify that there is a physician's order for this procedure. Review the physician's orders or facility protocol for oxygen administration.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

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

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 2 life-threatening violation(s), $51,586 in fines, Payment denial on record. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 28 deficiencies on record, including 2 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $51,586 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in Texas. Major compliance failures.
  • • Grade F (16/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 16/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Cascades At Jacinto Rehab Lp's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns CASCADES AT JACINTO REHAB LP an overall rating of 2 out of 5 stars, which is considered 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 Cascades At Jacinto Rehab Lp Staffed?

CMS rates CASCADES AT JACINTO REHAB LP's staffing level at 1 out of 5 stars, which is much below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 55%, compared to the Texas average of 46%. RN turnover specifically is 57%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.

What Have Inspectors Found at Cascades At Jacinto Rehab Lp?

State health inspectors documented 28 deficiencies at CASCADES AT JACINTO REHAB LP during 2022 to 2024. These included: 2 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 25 with potential for harm, and 1 minor or isolated issues. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.

Who Owns and Operates Cascades At Jacinto Rehab Lp?

CASCADES AT JACINTO REHAB LP 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 CASCADES HEALTHCARE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 148 certified beds and approximately 75 residents (about 51% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in HOUSTON, Texas.

How Does Cascades At Jacinto Rehab Lp Compare to Other Texas Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Texas, CASCADES AT JACINTO REHAB LP's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 2.8, staff turnover (55%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Cascades At Jacinto Rehab Lp?

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

Is Cascades At Jacinto Rehab Lp Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, CASCADES AT JACINTO REHAB LP has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 2 Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 2-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 Cascades At Jacinto Rehab Lp Stick Around?

CASCADES AT JACINTO REHAB LP has a staff turnover rate of 55%, which is 9 percentage points above the Texas average of 46%. Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.

Was Cascades At Jacinto Rehab Lp Ever Fined?

CASCADES AT JACINTO REHAB LP has been fined $51,586 across 2 penalty actions. This is above the Texas average of $33,595. Fines in this range indicate compliance issues significant enough for CMS to impose meaningful financial consequences. Common causes include delayed correction of deficiencies, repeat violations, or care failures affecting resident safety. Families should ask facility leadership what changes have been made since these penalties.

Is Cascades At Jacinto Rehab Lp on Any Federal Watch List?

CASCADES AT JACINTO REHAB LP 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.