Avir at Kerrville

1555 BANDERA HWY, KERRVILLE, TX 78028 (830) 412-2366
For profit - Corporation 130 Beds AVIR HEALTH GROUP Data: November 2025 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation
Trust Grade
36/100
#637 of 1168 in TX
Last Inspection: June 2025

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

Overview

Avir at Kerrville has a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the quality of care provided. Ranked #637 out of 1168 facilities in Texas, this places them in the bottom half of the state's nursing homes, although they are the top option in Kerr County. Unfortunately, the facility's situation is worsening, with issues nearly tripling from 10 in 2024 to 28 in 2025. Staffing is a relative strength, with no turnover reported, but the RN coverage is concerning, being lower than 82% of facilities in Texas, which may affect patient care. Specific incidents include a failure to provide proper CPR to a resident who was a do-not-resuscitate (DNR) patient, and the activity director lacked required training, raising questions about the quality of activities offered to residents.

Trust Score
F
36/100
In Texas
#637/1168
Bottom 46%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Worse
10 → 28 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
Turnover data not reported for this facility.
Penalties
⚠ Watch
$14,020 in fines. Higher than 100% of Texas facilities. Major compliance failures.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 17 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Texas. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
⚠ Watch
38 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Overall Rating
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Staff Levels
★★★★★
5.0
Care Quality
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 10 issues
2025: 28 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

Federal Fines: $14,020

Below median ($33,413)

Minor penalties assessed

Chain: AVIR HEALTH GROUP

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 38 deficiencies on record

1 life-threatening
Oct 2025 3 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

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 observation, interview and record review the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered c...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident, consistent with the resident rights, that included measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs that were identified in the comprehensive assessment for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for care plans.The facility failed to ensure Resident #1's comprehensive care plan included information on required ADL care and assistance, interventions for cardiac diet, or interventions for nutritional status with a weight management plan. This failure could place residents at risk for not having their needs and preferences met.The findings include:Record review of Resident #1's face sheet dated 9/30/2025 revealed a [AGE] year-old male admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included: morbid (severe) obesity due to excess calories, Body mass index (BMI) [TF1] 50.0-59.9 (normal BMI for adult male was 18.5-24.9), and metabolic encephalopathy (brain disfunction with symptoms such as confusion, memory loss). Record review of Resident #1's admission MDS, dated [DATE], revealed a BIMs score of 15, which indicated the resident was cognitively intact. The assessment indicated the resident had impairment to the lower extremities with ADL requirements of total dependance for toileting, showering/bathing, lower body dressing and footwear and moderate assistance for oral hygiene, personal hygiene and upper body dressing. The assessment indicated the resident weighed 384 lbs[TF2] . Record review of Resident #1's physician orders revealed an order, dated 9/03/2025, for:Cardiac DietSemaglutide-Weight Management Subcutaneous Solution Auto-Injector 0.25 mg[TF3] //0.5 ml[TF4] one time a day every Monday for weight loss Record review of Resident #1's Care Plan, initiated on 9/04/2025, revealed: Impaired Physical Mobility was added to the care plan on 9/04/2025 with an intervention to determine level of needed assistance based on ADL evaluation that had no follow up of required ADLs. Nutrition: Cardiac Diet was added to the care plan on 9/09/2025 with no interventions.Intake more than body requirements with an intervention to evaluate exact height and no mention of weight and monitor resident's nutritional intake but no direction on what ideal intake or other interventions should be in place. The care plan did not address obesity or semaglutide or weight management program. During an observation and interview on 10/01/2025 at 1:44 p.m., revealed Resident #1 was observed in his room in a bariatric bed. The resident was obese and positioned on his back and slightly to the left side. He was unable to move from that position and had limited ability to reach across him or behind him. The resident stated he needed the assistance of 3-4 staff members for bathing, turning and positioning in bed. He stated he was unable to maneuver in bed independently. He stated he had the ability to get out of bed with a lot of assistance but preferred to remain in bed. He stated he was unable to walk. Resident #1 stated he was on a diet which included eating what he wanted when he wanted. He stated he ate his normal facility provided diet and staff would give him snacks of crackers and other items depending on what they had on hand. During the interview Resident #1 pushed his call light, when staff responded he requested repositioning, three therapy staff and 1 CNA responded to reposition the resident. During an interview on 10/01/2025 at 4:00 p.m., LVN A stated Resident #1 utilized his call light a lot and required staff assistance and attention frequently. LVN A stated Resident #1 was on Ozempic (Semaglutide) and they were trying to get him to lose weight so he would be healthier and could participate in his own care and in therapy. LVN A stated the resident could have snacks in addition to his prescribed diet. He stated staff should monitor his food intake and record it in the medical record. LVN A stated he did not have anything to do with the care plans and was not certain what should be contained in them. He stated he wasn't sure who was responsible for the care plans. During an interview on 10/01/2025 at 5:05 p.m., the MDS Coordinator stated Resident #1 was totally dependent on staff for his care and needed help with moving, sitting, etc[TF5] . She stated Resident #1's care plan did not specify what his bed mobility or other ADL requirements were, or the number of staff needed to provide his care. She stated a place holder was added to the care plan, but the care itself was not specified. The MDS Coordinator stated Resident #1's care plan also included spaces for cardiac diet with no interventions because that part of the care plan was not finished. She stated the part that indicated intake more than body requirements was created but an evaluation of the resident's weight and goals were not specified. The MDS Coordinator stated she was the only full-time MDS Coordinator at the facility. She stated care plans were primarily her responsibility. She stated they used to have weekly care plan meetings on Thursdays, and they had not occurred in one month. She stated she was new to the role of MDS Coordinator and needed more assistance. She stated complete care plans were important so the facility could meet the resident's level of care and because it was used as a reference for how nurses cared for the resident[TF6] . During an interview on 10/01/2025 at 5:32 p.m., the ADON stated the care plans were completed by the RN's and the MDS Coordinator. She stated the DON reviewed and signed them. She stated she could make suggestions for the care plans but did not edit them because she was an LVN. During an interview on 10/01/2025 at 6:00 p.m., the DON stated the facility ran into a glitch with care plans. She stated when a LVN completed an assessment it opened up a baseline care plan in the medical record. She stated she had to go into the record, delete them and reopen a care plan. She stated the computer software company was working on a solution. The DON stated the MDS Coordinator was responsible for ensuring the comprehensive care plans were complete, but again because of the glitch they were not triggering, and it was a known problem. The DON stated an accurate care plan was important, so they knew how to care for the resident. Record review of the facility's policy titled Comprehensive Person-Centered Care Plans, dated March 2022, revealed: 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, 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.
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

Medical Records (Tag F0842)

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 medical records were maintained in accordance with accepted 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 ensure medical records were maintained in accordance with accepted professional standards and practices for each resident, that were complete and accurately documented for 1 of 6 residents (Residents #2[TF1] ) reviewed for accuracy of medical records. The facility failed to ensure Resident #2's progress notes were documented accurately and according to professional standards of practice when RN B documented under LVN A's profile. This deficient practice could place residents at risk for errors in care and treatment and inaccuracies in documentation. The findings include: Record review of Resident #2's face sheet dated 9/30/2025 revealed an [AGE] year-old female admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included: retention of urine, type 2 diabetes mellitus and hypertension. [TF1] Record review of Resident #2's EMR revealed a progress note, dated 9/24/2025 at 18:10 (6:10 p.m.), of an assessment note, with RN B's typed name at the end of the note. The progress note, had a date and time stamp and electronic signature belonging to LVN A. During an interview on 10/01/2025 at 2:31 p.m., RN B stated she was a new RN, and this was her first job as a nurse. She stated she worked at the facility for two days on 9/24/2025-9/25/2025 before quitting. She stated on 9/24/2025 she was assigned LVN A to shadow and to learn the computer system. She stated she did not have her own log in to PCC. RN B stated she did not have her own assignment of patients to care for as she was supposed to be learning. RN B stated on 9/24/2025 she documented an assessment of Resident #1 using LVN A profile. She stated LVN A allowed her to use his profile to look around in the system to see how it worked. RN A stated LVN A was aware she was documenting under his profile. She stated he told her he would have to review and approve the note, but he was not with her when she entered it in the computer. RN B stated she had not been instructed to document in the EMR by any staff member. During an interview on 10/01/2025 at 4:00 p.m., LVN A stated he was training RN B on the system (PCC) on 9/24/2025. He stated she did not have any log in information, so he was training her how to use the system on his profile. LVN A stated RN B completed an assessment on Resident #2. LVN A stated RN B was doing stuff he didn't know she was doing. LVN A stated he did not know RN B had put the progress note in. He stated later that evening he saw it. He stated he did not realize she was actually writing a note in the medical record. LVN A stated RN B did not have his password. He stated he logged into PCC for her. He stated he thought she was just looking. LVN A stated after he saw the note he told the DON. He said the DON stated they were going to look over her notes. During an interview on 10/01/2025 at 5:32 p.m., the ADON stated she worked with RN B on day 1 (9/24/2025). She stated RN B would not stay with her trainer (LVN A) and was trying to do her own thing without direction of management. The ADON stated RN B had to be redirected multiple times. She stated RN B was making phone calls and charting things she was not authorized to chart. The ADON stated RN B was a new nurse and was very eager, but she was not fully trained. The ADON stated the next day, RN B called and said she would not be returning to the facility. The ADON stated she was not aware RN B had documented under LVN A's profile. She stated RN B should not have done that. The ADON stated the EMR was a permanent record of the resident. She stated another staff could not document under someone else's electronic signature because it had the appearance of something LVN A did. She stated if there was an error in documentation it would fall on LVN A[TF2] . During an interview on 10/01/2025 at 6:00 p.m., the DON stated RN B was a new nurse with no experience. She stated she was only at the facility for 12 hours and that was enough for her. She stated after the 12 hours she called and said she was not cut out for nursing and never came back. The DON stated when she found out RN B had documented under LVN A's credentials, she told RN B no that was not okay. She stated she told RN B it was never okay to document under someone else. The DON stated it was falsifying documentation and could get someone in trouble. The DON stated LVN A was not graining [TF3] RN B on any nursing skills. He was training her on the computer. She stated she told HR she did not want RN B back in the building after this occurred. Record review of the facility's policy titled Charting and Documentation, dated July 2017, revealed: 3. Documentation in the medical record will be objective (not opinionated or speculative), complete, and accurate. 4. Entries may only be recorded in the resident's clinical record by licensed personnel (e.g. RN, LPN/LVN, physicians, therapists, etc.) in accordance with state law and facility policy.
CONCERN (F) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0680 (Tag F0680)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure the activities program was directed by a qualified professional who was a qualified therapeutic recreation specialist or an activitie...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure the activities program was directed by a qualified professional who was a qualified therapeutic recreation specialist or an activities professional who was licensed or registered by the State to for 72 of 72 residents reviewed for qualifications of activity professionals.The facility failed to have a qualified Activities Professional to direct their activities program.This deficient practice could place residents at risk of not receiving approaches that were individualized to match the skills, abilities, and interests/preferences of each resident for activities.The findings include: During an interview on 10/01/2025 at 3:40 p.m., the HR [TF1] Director stated the personnel file for the Activity Director did not have any proof of education. He stated it was his understanding, the Activity Director had a year to complete training. The HR Director stated the Administrator had intentions on enrolling the Activity Director in training but as of this interview she had not yet been enrolled. During an interview on 10/01/2025 at 4:46 p.m., the Activity Director stated she was the facility Activity Coordinator. She stated she had been in the position for the past 4-5 weeks. She stated she did not have any training right now and was not currently enrolled in any training for Activity Director. She stated she was not an OT[TF2] or OTA[TF3] , and she did not have any prior experience. She stated she was doing a little trial run to see if she was interested in the position. She stated she wanted to make sure she could take the job seriously and do the position justice and do it right. The Activity Director stated she loved the job. She stated she communicated to the Administrator within the first week that she wanted to do it full time. During an interview on 10/02/2025 at 1:03 p.m., the Administrator stated the Activity Director was hired as an assistant because she worked at as CNA. The Administrator stated the facility was working on getting her certified and she was going to be enrolled in one of the training courses for Activity Director. He stated she was not currently registered for the training. The Administrator stated he did not have anyone else who met the Activity Director requirements. He stated it was important to have an Activity Director on staff who met requirements to assist with cognition, so residents' had the opportunity to express themselves and so they could flourish in their home[TF4] [TF5] . Record review of the facility's, unsigned and undated, job description for the Activity Coordinator, revealed: Qualifications: previous office experience preferred, previous nursing home experience preferred, previous supervisory experience preferred. Record review of the facility's policy titled Activity Program, dated June 2018, revealed: The Activity programs are designed to meet the interests of and support the physical, mental and psychosocial well-being of each resident. The policy did not address the Activity Director.
Jun 2025 12 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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 allegations involving abuse, neglect, and misapprop...

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 allegations involving abuse, neglect, and misappropriation were reported immediately, but no later than 2 hours after the allegation was made to the State Survey Agency for 1 of 8 residents (Resident #27) reviewed for abuse and neglect.The facility did not report to the State Survey Agency (HHSC) an incident in which Resident #27 was slapped in the face by Resident #119 on 05/17/2025. This failure could place residents at risk for abuse/neglect and could lead to a diminished quality of life and psychosocial harm. The findings included: Record review of Resident #27's Face Sheet, dated 06/27/2025, reflected an [AGE] year-old resident with an initial admission date of 02/05/2025, with diagnoses including aphasia (a language disorder that affects a person's ability to communicate), severe intellectual disabilities, and cognitive communication deficit. Record review of Resident #27's Quarterly MDS Assessment, dated 06/15/2025, reflected the resident had a BIMS score of 0, reflecting the resident had severe cognitive impairment. Resident #27's Quarterly MDS Assessment did not reflect behaviors from this resident toward others. Record review of Resident #27's Care Plan, undated, reflected, [Resident #27] has a communication problem d/t Aphasia. Rarely/never understood. With interventions including, Monitor/document for physical/nonverbal indicators of discomfort or distress, and follow-up as needed. With a date initiated of 02/28/2025. Resident #27's Care Plan did not further reflect behaviors towards other residents. Record review of Resident #27's Progress Notes, a note dated 05/17/2025 written by LVN G reflected, resident slapped by a male resident in the face. female resident began to scream. both residents were separated no visible injurys noted to female resident at this time. family notified. mgmt notified. [sic]. Record review of Resident #119's Face Sheet, dated 06/27/2025, reflected an [AGE] year-old resident with an initial admission date of 01/06/2025, with diagnoses including senile degeneration of brain, anxiety disorder (intense, excessive, and persistent worry and fear about everyday situations), and insomnia (persistent problems falling and staying asleep). Record review of Resident #119's Quarterly MDS Assessment, dated 04/12/2025, reflected the resident had a BIMS score of 0, reflecting the resident had severe cognitive impairment . Resident #119's Quarterly MDS Assessment did not reflect any behaviors towards others. Record review of Resident #119's Care Plan, undated, reflected, Problematic manner in which resident acts characterized by ineffective coping; verbal/physical Aggression related to: Cognitive impairment r/t dementia 5/18 Resident to be moved to different hall away after physical aggression incident with a date initiated 05/02/2025 and revised on 05/19/2025 with goals including, Resident will not strike others, and interventions including, Be cognizant of not invading the resident's personal space. Record review of Resident #119's Progress Notes, a note dated 05/17/2025 written by LVN G reflected, resident noted to slapped a female resident in the face. female resident began to scream. both residents were separated no visible injurys noted to female resident at this time. mgmt notified. [sic]Interview on 06/27/2025 at 9:42 AM, LVN G stated that she witnessed the incident between Resident #27 and Resident #119. LVN G stated Resident #27 was wheeling past Resident #119 and Resident #119 reached over and slapped Resident #27 in the face. LVN G stated then Resident #27 began screaming. LVN G stated she immediately separated the residents, informed the DON, Administrator, Physician, and both resident's RPs. LVN G stated that she had never seen or heard of Resident #119 having physical behaviors toward residents prior to this incident. LVN G stated there was no apparent reason Resident #119 struck Resident #27. Interview on 06/27/2025 at 11:29 AM, the DON and ADM stated that the incident was not reported to the State Survey Agency because there was no willful intent from Resident #119. The ADM stated it was not possible for Resident #119 to have willful intent, as his BIMS was 0. The DON stated that Resident #119 did not have involuntary movements. The ADM stated they were responsible for reporting incidents of abuse and neglect to the state. The ADM and DON stated Resident #119 had no behaviors towards others prior to this incident. Record review of TULIP (Texas Unified Licensure Information Portal) did not reflect a facility reported incident that corresponded to the allegations in the incident described above.Record review of facility policy titled, Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation and Misappropriation Prevention Program, dated revised 4/20212, reflected, Investigate and report any allegations within timeframes required by federal requirements.
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 observations, interviews, and records review, the facility failed to ensure the assessment accurately reflected the res...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and records review, the facility failed to ensure the assessment accurately reflected the resident's status for 1 of 9 residents (Resident #22) reviewed for MDS accuracy. The annual MDS for Resident #22 failed to accurately document the continuous compression dressings worn by the resident. This failure could lead to residents not receiving the required care and decreased quality of life. Findings included: Record review of Resident #22's face sheet, dated 6/25/2025, reflected a [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Relevant diagnoses included venous insufficiency (lack of circulation due to impaired veins) and peripheral vascular disease (impaired veins in the arms and/or legs). Review of annual MDS submitted on 5/26/2025 revealed a BIMS score of 13, indicating moderately impaired cognition. Question M1200 of the MDS (application of non-surgical dressings other than to feet) indicated no. Record review of the skin assessment dated [DATE] revealed a check mark in the box no alterations in the skin integrity noted. No documentation as present regarding the dressings. Resident #22 was observed on 6/24/2025 at 11:02 AM to have dressings on both legs, extending from mid-foot to the knee. The dressings were not dated and were observed to be discolored and dirty, with increased discoloration to the area on the bottom of the foot. The resident was not wearing socks and the dressings were in direct contact with the floor. An additional observation of the resident on 6/25/2025 at 8:54 AM revealed the dressings were in the same condition and appeared to be the same dressings as the observation made on the previous day. In an interview with MDS on 6/26/2025, she confirmed the unna boot compression dressings should have been documented in the MDS. She reported potential harm to residents was that they would not receive necessary care. In an interview with the DON on 6/26/2025 at 10:01 AM, she stated her expectation was for nursing assessments to accurately reflect the status of the resident. Review of the facility policy titled Comprehensive Assessments (dated March 2022, updated February 2025) revealed comprehensive assessments are conducted and coordinated by a registered nurse with appropriate participation of other health professionals on the interdisciplinary team.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0655 (Tag F0655)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to develop and implement a baseline care plan for each resident that includes the instructions needed to provide effective and person-centered care of the resident that meet professional standards of quality of care for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #61) reviewed for new admissions. The facility failed to develop a baseline care plan within 48 hours of admission for Resident #61. This failure could lead to residents not receiving necessary care and decreased quality of life. Findings included: Record review of Resident #61's face sheet, dated 6/26/2025, revealed a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] and discharged to an acute care hospital on 4/14/2025 (10 days total). Relevant diagnoses included traumatic subdural hemorrhage without loss of consciousness (internal head injury with bleeding of the brain) and cognitive communication deficit. Record review of Resident #61's basline care plan report, printed 6/26/2025, revealed a singular focus area indicating full code status. No other areas of care were addressed in the baseline care plan. In an interview with MDS on 6/26/2025 at 10:29 AM, she stated a baseline care plan should include anything a resident needs to receive proper care, including allergies, fall risks, skin conditions, code status, hospice (if applicable), bowel and bladder needs, pain, and nutrition. She also stated Resident #61's baseline care plan had been initiated prior to her employment at the facility, and she felt it was not sufficient to provide care. In an interview with the DON on 6/26/2025 at 10:11 AM, after reviewing Resident #61's baseline care plan together, she stated the document should have contained medications, transfer status, therapy needs, etc. She stated she was aware of the previous MDS nurse's performance issues and had addressed the deficiencies in a performance improvement plan and subsequent termination. She reported the potential harm to residents of having an insufficient care plan was that they may not receive proper care. Upon request of a policy related to care planning, the facility provided a document titled Care Plans, Comprehensive Person-Centered (revised March 2022). This policy did not address baseline care planning for residents.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0692 (Tag F0692)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents are offered a therapeutic diet when t...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents are offered a therapeutic diet when there is a nutritional problem, and the healthcare provider orders a therapeutic diet for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #20) reviewed for food and nutrition. The facility to ensure Resident #20 received nutritional supplement beverages as ordered by the physician. This failure could lead to nutritional deficits and unintended weight loss. Findings included: Record review of Resident #20's face sheet, dated 6/25/2025, revealed an [AGE] year-old female, originally admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Relevant diagnoses included nondisplaced comminuted fracture of shaft of humerus, right arm, sequela (right, upper arm bone fracture). The quarterly MDS submitted 3/12/2025 revealed a BIMS score of 09, indicating moderately impaired cognition. Review of Resident #20's documented weights did not reveal significant loss. Record review of scanned consultation reports for Resident #20 revealed nutrition recommendations signed by the RD and dated 1/8/2025. The recommendations reflected, recommend add house shake [nutritional supplement beverage] daily between BF and lunch for additional kcal/protein. Review of the active physician's orders included the following: Regular diet, regular texture, thin (regular) consistency, add whole milk daily with dinner, add house shake with breakfast (start date 1/8/2025). An observation on 6/24/2025 at 9:46 AM revealed the kitchen had no house shakes. In an observation on 6/25/2025 at 8:40 AM, Resident #20's breakfast service was observed. The printed dietary ticket indicated house shake with breakfast. The tray did not contain a house shake. A second observation on 6/25/2025 at 11:14 AM again revealed the kitchen had no house shakes. In an interview with Resident #20 on 6/25/2025 at 1:00 PM, she denied receiving a house shake after breakfast, before lunch, or during lunch. She also denied receiving a house shake at any point since admission. During an observation and interview on 6/26/2025 at 1:29 PM, the DM stated he did not have any house shakes in the kitchen and had kept the health shakes in the pantry located in the 100-hall. Further observation at 1:35 PM revealed the 100-hall pantry room was maintained behind a locked door and contained a refrigerator with approximately 10-20 bottles of 4oz health shakes. CNA F was interviewed when the breakfast tray was delivered on 6/25/2025 at 8:40 AM, and she stated the house shake was provided by dietary services and was included on the tray. She reported it was not the responsibility of the nursing staff to include the house shakes on the meal trays. In an interview with the RD on 6/27/2025 at 9:31 AM, she confirmed the recommendation of adding the house shake to Resident #20's prescribed diet to promote healing of the fracture and promote optimal nutrition, as Resident #20 occasionally had variable food intake. She was unaware Resident #20 had not been receiving the recommended house shakes, but she denied concerns about weight loss for Resident #20. In an interview with the DON on 6/27/2025 at 10:44 AM, she stated the house shakes should be delivered on the trays from dietary services, and nursing staff should verify the presence of the shake prior to giving the trays to residents. She reported an expectation that the dietary staff would adhere to physician's orders and serve the house shakes.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0760 (Tag F0760)

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 residents were free of any significant medication errors for...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents were free of any significant medication errors for 1 of 8 residents (Resident #10) reviewed for medication administration.The facility provided Resident #10 with amlodipine without assessing for blood pressure as ordered by the physician.This failure could place residents at risk for not receiving the therapeutic effects of their prescribed medications. The findings included: Record review of Resident #10's Face Sheet, dated 06/27/2025, reflected a [AGE] year-old resident with an initial admission date of 04/10/2024 and diagnoses including epilepsy (a disorder in which nerve cell activity in the brain is disturbed, causing seizures), aphasia (language disorder that affects a person's ability to communicate), and nontraumatic intracerebral hemorrhage (a type of stroke where bleeding occurs within the brain tissue). Record review of Resident #10's MDS assessment, dated 03/15/2025, reflected Resident #10 was assessed with a BIMS score of 12, indicating the resident was moderately cognitively impaired . Interview on 06/27/2025 at 1:20 PM, Resident #10 was unable to say whether they remembered their blood pressure being checked prior to medications being administered. Record review of Resident #10's comprehensive person-centered care plan, dated printed 06/27/2025, reflected that Resident #10 had hypertension and interventions to, Obtain blood pressure readings Take blood pressure readings under the same condition each time. and Give anti hypertensive medications as ordered.Record review of Resident #10's Order Summary Report, dated 06/27/2025, reflected an order for amLODIPine Besylate Oral Tablet 5 MG (Amlodipine Besylate) Give 1 tablet by mouth one time a day related to ESSENTIAL (PRIMARY) HYPERTENSION (I10) Hold for DBP < 110 SBP< 60 [sic], indicating the medication should not be provided to the resident without ensuring the residents blood pressure was within parameters, with a start date of 05/17/2025.Record review of Resident #10's Medication Administration Records for May and June 2025, dated 06/27/2025, reflected that Resident #10 was provided Amlodipine Besylate 42 times from 05/17/2025 through 06/27/2025, which was once daily since the order began. Resident #10's May and June Medication Administration Records did not reflect Resident #10's blood pressure at the time of medication administration.Record review of Resident #10's Blood Pressure Vitals Record reflected that between 05/17/2025 and 06/27/2025 his blood pressure was taken 5 times. The blood pressure vitals were as follows:1. 05/17/2025 at 9:18 AM, with a blood pressure of 111/62 mmHg taken by MA N.2. 05/18/2025 at 9:16 AM, with a blood pressure of 125/83 mmHg taken by MA N.3. 05/27/2025 at 8:26 AM, with a blood pressure of 119/83 mmHg taken by MA N.4. 06/24/2025 at 7:03 AM, with a blood pressure of 122/68 mmHg taken by LVN O.5. 06/27/2025 at 8:35 AM, with a blood pressure of 120/75 mmHg taken by LVN O.Interview on 06/27/2025 at 9:42 AM, the DON stated that the order was likely not populated in the electronic health record in a way to prompt whoever was giving the medication to input the blood pressure. The DON did not state the risk to residents for blood pressure medications such as amlodipine being given without checking parameters prior, but did state she was certain her staff checked the residents blood pressure.Interview on 06/27/2025 at 2:12 PM, LVN O stated that she checked Resident #10's blood pressure before providing their amlodipine to them. LVN O stated she was unsure why it was not showing that she had input the blood pressure previously into the resident's electronic health record, but stated she was sure she had checked it before providing it to the resident. LVN O was unable to provide evidence that Resident #10's blood pressure was taken prior to administration. Record review of facility policy titled, Administering Medications, dated Revised April 2019 reflected, The following information is checked/verified for each resident prior to administering medications: a. Allergies to medications; andb. Vital signs, if necessary.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure all drugs and biologicals were stored in accordance with currently accepted professional principles for 1 of 2 medicati...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure all drugs and biologicals were stored in accordance with currently accepted professional principles for 1 of 2 medication carts (Medication Cart for 200 hall) reviewed for storage of drugs and biologicals.The facility failed on 06/24/2025 when LVN I did not ensure the medication cart for 200 hall was locked and secured.These deficient practices could place residents at risk of medication misuse or drug diversion.The findings included:Observation on 06/24/2025 at 10:35 AM revealed a medication cart was left unlocked and unattended next to the entrance to the 200 hall closest to the resident activities room. Interview and observation on 06/24/2025 at 10:40 AM, LSW stated the cart was assigned to LVN I and 200 hall. LSW proceeded to then lock the medication cart.Interview and observation on 06/24/2025 at 10:40 AM, LVN I stated she was preparing her medications and had walked away from the cart but thought she had locked it. During an interview on 6/18/25 at 4:13 p.m., the DON who stated it was her expectation the medication carts were supposed to be locked when not in use. The DON stated unauthorized persons could have access to medications that did not belong to them and cause them harm. The DON stated the facility had residents who wandered and could have access to the medications in an unlocked cart.During an interview on 06/25/2025 at 2:30 PM, the DON who stated her expectation was for the medication carts to be locked. The DON stated there was risk of someone getting into the medication carts who was not supposed to if they were left unlocked. Record review of the facility policy titled Medication Labeling and Storage dated revised February 2023, revealed in part, Compartments (including, but not limited to, drawers, cabinets, rooms, refrigerators, carts, and boxes) containing medications and biologicals are locked when not in use, and trays or carts used to transport such items are not left unattended if open or otherwise potentially available to others.
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 ...

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 of 6 residents (Resident #14) reviewed for infection control. The facility failed to ensure staff performed proper hand hygiene and PPE utilization while performing indwelling catheter care for Resident #14. This failure could lead to infection, illness, and decreased quality of life. Findings included: Record review of Resident #14's face sheet, dated 6/26/2025 revealed a [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Relevant diagnoses included benign prostatic hyperplasic without lower urinary tract symptoms (swelling of the prostate gland causing difficulty or inability to urinate). Review of the admission MDS submitted 4/8/2025 revealed a BIMS score of 14, indicating intact cognition. Record review of Resident #14's physician orders included the following: EBP: Staff must use gown and gloves during high-contact resident care activities that could possibly result in transfer of MDROs to hands and clothing of staff (start 5/28/2025) In an observation of routine indwelling foley catheter care performed 6/26/2025 at 2:27 PM, CNA A and CNA C were observed donning disposable gowns and gloves prior to entering Resident #14's room. CNA C was observed assisting Resident #14 from his wheelchair into bed. CNA C then assisted Resident #14 with removing his clothing and disposable brief. CNA C then initiated care to the catheter without changing gloves and without performing hand hygiene. After performing initial cleansing of Resident #14's right and left thigh creases, CNA C was observed disposing of soiled gloves, CNA C did not perform hand hygiene before applying new gloves. After cleansing the catheter tubing, CNA C again disposed the soiled gloves and applied new gloves without performing hand hygiene. In an interview conducted 6/26/2025 at 2:35 PM, CNA A acknowledged she should have performed hand hygiene between all glove changes. CNA C reported the potential harm to residents was the spread of infection. In an interview with DON on 6/26/2025 at 2:45 PM, she reported her expectation of staff was to perform hand hygiene between glove changes and to change gloves appropriately. The DON reported possible harm to residents by not adhering to hand hygiene was the spread of infection. Record review of the facility policy titled Standard Precautions (revised September 2022), revealed the following: Hand hygiene is performed with ABHR or soap and water: 1. Before and after contact with the resident 2. After removing gloves
CONCERN (E)

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and records review, the facility failed to ensure that residents receive treatment and care i...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and records review, the facility failed to ensure that residents receive treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice and the comprehensive care plan for the 1 resident (Resident #22) reviewed for skin conditions. The facility failed to ensure Resident #22 received wound care treatment for over 30 days for his chronic skin impairment as ordered by the physician. This failure could lead to exacerbation of a resident's chronic condition, skin breakdown and injury, or infection. Findings included: Record review of Resident #22's face sheet, dated 6/25/2025, reflected a [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Relevant diagnoses included venous insufficiency (lack of circulation due to impaired veins) and peripheral vascular disease (impaired veins in the arms and/or legs).Record review of the annual MDS submitted on 5/26/2025 revealed a BIMS score of 13, indicating moderately impaired cognition. Review of Resident #22's active physician orders, printed 6/24/2025, revealed the following orders:1. TED hose- on in AM, off at HS at bedtime for edema [swelling] (start 5/30/2025)2. TED HOSE- on in AM, off at HS every morning and at bedtime for edema DOCUMENT REFUSAL IN NOTE [sic] (start 5/30/2025)3. TED Hose- On in AM, off at HS in the morning for edema (start 5/30/2025)Record review on 6/25/2025 of Resident #22's TAR for June 2025 revealed no application of the TED hose.Further record review revealed a physician's order for unna-flex elastic unna boot external miscellaneous dressing was discovered. Further directions included apply to BLE topically one time only for edema and skin integrity for 1 day AND apply to BLE topically one time a day every FRI for edema and skin integrity [sic]. The order was initiated on 2/17/2025 and discontinued on 5/30/2025. Resident #22 was observed on 6/24/2025 at 11:02 AM to have dressings on both legs, extending from mid-foot to the knee. The dressings were not dated and were observed to be discolored and dirty, with increased discoloration to the area on the bottom of the foot. The resident was not wearing socks and the dressings were in direct contact with the floor. An additional observation =on 6/25/2025 at 8:54 AM revealed the dressings were in the same condition and appeared to be the same dressings as the observation made on the previous day. In an interview with RN A on 6/25/2025 at 1:09 PM, she explained Resident #22 refuses to wear the TED hose, so he has the unna boot compression dressings on his legs instead. She stated the dressings are managed by the WCN and changed weekly. RN A was unable to locate Resident #22's TED hose for observation, and she stated she thought maybe they were being ordered. She reported she had not ever seen TED hose present in Resident #22's room for application. In an interview with the WCN on 6/25/2025 at 1:15 PM, she stated Resident #22 no longer wears the unna boot compression dressings and had orders for TED hose instead. She confirmed the change was effective 5/30/2025, and she was unaware the resident had compression dressings on his legs currently. She stated she had informed Resident #22's primary nurse of the order change on 5/30/2025, but they did not discuss who would remove the dressings. In an interview with Resident #22 6/25/2025 at 1:19 PM, he stated the dressings had been on his feet for about 3 weeks. He denied pain. He also denied psychosocial harm related to the state of the dressings. In a subsequent interview on 6/25/2025 at 3:43 PM, the resident denied a history of refusing to wear TED hose. He also denied the staff ever offering him the TED hose to wear. The WCN confirmed in an observation on 6/25/2025 at 1:19 PM that the dressings were unna boots compression dressings and had been applied by her on 5/23/2025. She then removed the dressings, and the resident's skin was observed to be absent of open wounds or breakdown. The resident's right foot had increased swelling. An interview was conducted with NP D on 6/25/2025 at 4:14 PM. She confirmed the unna boots compression dressing has been discontinued previously and the resident was supposed to be wearing TED hose during the day. She was unaware Resident #22 had allegedly been refusing the TED hose and not wearing them during the day. She was also not aware that the resident had been wearing the unna compressions dressings since 5/23/2025. She stated the staff should have reported any issues with orders or changes in condition to her. NP D also reported possible harm the Resident #22 from wearing the unna boots compression dressings continuously was impaired skin integrity. The DON was interviewed on 6/26/2025 at 10:01 AM. She felt the WCN should have removed the dressings. The DON confirmed the facility did not have TED hose for Resident #22 currently, and she stated he frequently refused to wear them, and staff should have been documenting this in the medical record. Record review of the facility policy titled Wound Care (dated 2011, updated July 2024) did not reveal any guidance related to the discontinuation of wound care orders.
CONCERN (E)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews the facility failed to ensure food was stored, prepared, and or distributed in accordance with professional standards for food service safety, for...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews the facility failed to ensure food was stored, prepared, and or distributed in accordance with professional standards for food service safety, for 1 of 4 kitchen refrigerators reviewed for professional standards for food service safety, in that: The facility failed on 06/25/2025 when the produce refrigerator presented with 3 boxes, all containing 20lbs. of produce past the best by: date. This failure could place residents at risk for food borne illness. The findings included: During an observation on 6/25/2025 at 11:14 AM revealed the facility's kitchen produce refrigerator contained the following foods which were stored and available for serving: 1. 1 box containing 4, 5lb. bags of salad lettuce. The distributor labeled the box, best if used by: June/20/25 sic[6/20/2025]. 2. 1 box containing 4, 5lb. bags of shred lettuce. The distributor labeled the box, best if used by: June/9/25 sic[6/9/2025]. 3. 1 box containing 4, 5lb. bags of diced green cabbage. The distributor labeled the box, best if used by: June/16/25 sic[6/16/2025]. During an interview on 6/25/2025 at 1:27 PM the FSM stated the kitchen produce refrigerator had 3 boxes of lettuce and cabbage which were beyond the best by date and was not safe to serve. The FSM stated he would dispose of the produce in the trash. The FSM stated the expectation was to review the produce daily and to throw out any produce which had a best by date past the current date. The FSM stated it was his responsibility to review the produce and the risk to residents was potential food borne illness. During an interview on 6/25/2025 at 4:10 PM the Administrator stated the expectation for the kitchen was to follow policy and not keep any foods past the expiration and or best by dates. A record review of the facility's Food Receiving and Storage policy dated November 2022 revealed, . Foods shall be received and stored in a manner that complies with safe food handling practices. Policy Interpretation and Implementation . Refrigerated/Frozen Storage1. All foods stored in the refrigerator or freezer are covered, labeled, and dated (use by date). 7. Refrigerated foods are labeled, dated, and monitored so they are used by their use-by date, frozen, or discarded.
CONCERN (E)

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

Medical Records (Tag F0842)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record reviews the facility failed to maintain medical records on each resident that were complete, accu...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record reviews the facility failed to maintain medical records on each resident that were complete, accurately documented, readily accessible, and were systematically organized, for 2 of 8 residents (Resident #6 and Resident ##42) reviewed for accurate medical records, in that:A) Resident #6's June 2025 medication and treatment administration report (MAR and TAR) had no documentation for her prescribed:1. olodaterol and tiotropium (a combination medicine used to prevent airflow obstruction and reduce flare-ups in adults with COPD [chronic obstructive pulmonary disease] on 6/8/2025.2. Apply nystatin paste to bilateral buttocks related to rash and skin prep to the left heel (a liquid that when applied to the skin forms a protective film or barrier) on 6/17/2025.3. Change oxygen tubing and administration devices weekly on 6/15/2025.4. Insulin glargine injection on 6/8/2025. 5. Insulin glulisine injection on 6/8/2025 and on 6/17/2025. B) The facility failed to obtain written consent for Resident #42's Wander guard device. These failures could place residents at risk for inaccurate and unorganized medical records.The findings included:A) A record review of Resident #6's admission record dated 6/26/2025 revealed an admission date of 6/5/2025 with diagnoses which included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD, damage to the lungs results in swelling and irritation inside the airways that limit airflow into and out of the lungs, symptoms include trouble breathing) and diabetes mellitus type II (a disease where the cells cannot utilize the sugar in the bloodstream causing high blood sugar levels which are damaging to the body's functions causing tissue damage and poor healing).A record review of Resident #6's admission MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #6 was an [AGE] year-old female admitted for rehabilitation and assessed with a BIMS score of 12 out of a possible 15 which indicated moderately impaired cognition. A record review of Resident #6's care plan dated 6/26/2025 revealed, The resident has actual impairment to skin integrity of the L heel r/t sic[related to] unstageable DTI sic[deep tissue injury]. Date Initiated: 06/06/2025 . Weekly treatment documentation to include measurement of each area of skin A record review of Resident #6's physician order summary dated 6/26/2025, revealed the physician prescribed orders which included: Apply nystatin paste (an antifungal medication used to treat various fungal infections, yeast infections, and skin infections) once per shift to bilateral buttocks for rash / skin integrity. Apply skin prep to left heel daily and as needed for unstageable DTI of left heel. Every, day shift for skin integrity. Insulin glulisine 100 units/ml inject per sliding scale before meals for type II diabetes. Insulin glargine 100 units/ml inject 5 units subcutaneously two times a day for diabetes. olodaterol and tiotropium inhalation aerosol, inhale once a day.A record review of Resident #6's June 2025 medication and treatment administration report revealed, on: 6/8/2024 LVN I did not document Resident #6 received her 4:30 PM injection of insulin glulisine. 6/8/2025 MA M did not document Resident #6 received her olodaterol and tiotropium breathing treatment. 6/15/2025 LVN L did not document Resident #6 had her oxygen nasal cannula tubing exchanged. 6/16/2025 LVN K did not document Resident #6 received her insulin glargine injection at 9:30 PM 6/17/2025 LVN J did not document Resident #6 received her insulin glulisine injection at 4:30 PM. 6/17/2025 the ADON did not document Resident #6 received her nystatin cream to her buttocks and skin prep to her heels.During an interview on at LVN I stated she reviewed Resident #6's Mar and Tar for June 2025 and identified missing medication and treatment documentations and identified them as holes in the MAR TAR. LVN I stated she had administered all of Resident #6's medication and treatments from her Nurse MAR TAR on 6/8/2025 to include Resident #6's insulin injection. LVN I stated she made an error and did not document the administration. LVN I stated she had not reviewed the MAR TAR for errors at the end of her shift. LVN I stated the risk to residents could have been inaccurate records. During an interview on 6/ at PM MA M stated she had administered all of Resident #6's medications and treatments from the MA MAR to include Resident #6's olodaterol and tiotropium breathing treatment but had not documented the administration. MA M stated the hole in the MAR was an error and she had not recognized the error. During an interview on 6/26/2025 at 4:02 PM the Administrator and the DON stated the expectation for nursing staff was to document the medication administrations and treatment administrations immediately after the medication and or treatment was provided. The DON stated she had reviewed the holes in the MAR TAR for Resident #6 and had evidenced the Resident had received the medications and treatments and the nursing staff had failed to document the medication and treatment administrations. The DON stated the risks to residents was inaccurate medical records. A policy was requested, and the Administrator and the DON stated the facility followed HHSC guidelines.A record review of the United States of America's Centers Health & Human Services website:https://psnet.ahrq.gov/primer/medication-administration-errorsaccessed 6/27/2025, titled Medication Administration Errors revealed, . medication administration is part of a complex medication use process, in which a multidisciplinary care team works together to ensure patient-centered care delivery. As such, it has been emphasized that the five rights do not ensure administration safety as a standalone process. Therefore, four additional rights were proposed to include right documentation, action/reason, form, and response. As modern healthcare delivery systems continue to evolve, emphasis on system design (i.e. technology & clinical workflows) has become a priority to complement the medication administration process. System-related causes of medication administration errors may include inadequate training, distractors, convoluted processes, and system misconfiguration B) Record review of Resident #42's face sheet, dated 6/25/2025, revealed a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Relevant diagnoses included anoxic brain damage (damage to the brain resulting from lack of oxygen), schizoaffective disorder (psychiatric disorder causing difficulty distinguishing reality from one's own thoughts), and cognitive communication deficit. A quarterly MDS submitted on 3/31/2025 reflected a BIMS score of 11, indicating moderately impaired cognition. Review of Resident #42's active physician orders included the following:Resident has exit seeking behaviors. Wander guard to be placed for resident safety. Placement location- wheelchair bottom left side (start date 4/29/2025).Record review of the resident's comprehensive care plan, printed 6/25/2025, revealed care planning for the Wander guard device. A signed consent for the Wander guard device was not found in the scanned documents of the medical record.In an observation on 6/25/2025 at 12:50 PM, the Wander guard device was visualized to be in place as indicated in the physician's order. An interview was conducted with the DON on 6/26/2025 at 10:03 AM. She stated the Wander guard device was discussed and agreed upon with Resident #42's RP, her mother. She was unsure if a signed consent was obtained. Resident #42's RP was interviewed on 6/26/2025 at 12:55 PM. She confirmed her awareness and consent for the Wander guard. She stated she had not been asked to sign any document indicating consent. Record review of the facility policy titled Restraint Policy (provided on 6/26/2025, no date on document) revealed The LVN or RN may receive a verbal order and consent from the physician and approval by the resident's responsible party but for a period not to exceed 24 hours.
CONCERN (E)

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

Room Equipment (Tag F0908)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews the facility failed to ensure maintenance of all mechanical, electrical, and patient care equipment was in safe operating condition, for 1 of 1 fa...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews the facility failed to ensure maintenance of all mechanical, electrical, and patient care equipment was in safe operating condition, for 1 of 1 facility reviewed for safe and functioning mechanical, electrical, and patient care equipment. The facility failed when the following occurred: 1. The facility's commercial electric dishwasher had a malfunctioning temperature gauge on 06/24/2025. 2. The facility did not equip 1 of 2 beds in an occupied resident room with a mattress on 06/26/2025. These failures could place residents at risk for unsafe patient care equipment. The findings included: 1. A record review of the facility's dishwasher temperature logs dated June 2025, revealed from 6/1/2025 to 6/24/2025 the temperature ranged from 100°F to 120°F. During an observation and interview on 6/24/2025 at 9:46 AM revealed the facility's kitchen dirty dish area presented with dirty breakfast dishes and an operating commercial dishwashing machine. The commercial dishwashing machine had a manufactures metal label affixed to the front of the machine which read, . commercial electric dishwasher . operating requirements 1. Water temperature 120°F minimum. Further observation revealed the soiled dishes were washed by Dietary Aide H (DA H). DA H stated she had worked in the facility since April 2025 and was assigned many duties to include washing dishes. DA H stated she worked from 6:30 AM to 2:30 PM. DA H stated the dishwasher was tested for operating temperature and chemical sanitization levels. DA H demonstrated the check logs for the dishwasher for temperatures and sanitization chemical levels. DA H stated the logs revealed a variance in washing temperatures between 110°F through 120°F. DA H stated the dishwasher manufactures' recommendation was for the temperature to reach a minimum of 120°F to effectively sanitize the dishes. DA H stated the gauge had been malfunctioning since April. DA H stated the FSM was aware of the malfunctioning gauge. DA H stated the current temperature reading was 111°F. DA H stated she believed the gauge was incorrect and the water temperature was over 120°F. During an interview and observation on 6/24/2025 at 10:08 AM revealed the dishwashing machine's temperature gauge read 110°F while the FSM checked the water temperature of the dishwasher. The handheld portable temperature gauge revealed the temperature of 126.1°F. The FSM stated the gauge was malfunctioning and was reading below 120°F. The FSM stated the contracted equipment maintenance technician had reviewed the equipment 2 weeks ago on 5/29/2025 but had no evidence of the visit and or work order for the gauge. The FSM stated his crew had been documenting the dishwasher temperatures ranging from 120°F to 110°F this past month, as evidenced by the logs. A record review of the commercial dishwashers' operating recommendations, website: https://www.autochlor.net/WPS/FileOperator.aspx?FileKey=b51d3025-69e0-403c-8f0e-80a0078a1407accessed 6/28/2025, revealed, Low temp machines provide energy and cost savings by being able to sanitize with 120°F rinse water instead of the 180°F typically required with hot water sanitizing machines. specifications: . water supply temp 120°F minimum 2. Observation on 06/24/2025 at 10:52 AM revealed a metal bed frame in a resident room. The bed frame did not have a mattress equipped. Interview and observation on 06/25/2025 at 2:08 PM, CNA P stated that she believed the bed had been without a mattress since the previous hospice resident who lived in that room had passed away. CNA P stated it had been approximately a month, as the resident had passed away on 06/25/2025, and the bed did not have a mattress because usually hospice will bring air mattresses for people they care for. CNA P stated she was uncertain why a new mattress had not been put on the bed. Interview and observation on 06/26/2025 at 2:30 PM, the bed was observed with the DON to have a mattress equipped. The DON stated she had requested that maintenance put a mattress on the bed last week, and was not sure why it had not been completed until today. The DON stated she was aware that there were risks to residents for a metal frame to be without a mattress. The DON stated someone could have fallen onto the metal frame. A record review of the facility's EQUIPMENT SAFETY AND MAINTENANCE POLICY dated 5/1/2025, revealed, . Purpose: The purpose of this policy is to establish guidelines for the safe use, maintenance, and inspection of all electrical and mechanical therapy equipment within the facility. Malfunction Reporting: Implementing a clear process for reporting any equipment malfunctions, defects, or safety concerns. This policy is part of [Facility Name]'s broader safety framework, ensuring that all therapeutic activities are conducted in a safe and controlled environment .
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 be adequately equipped to allow residents to call for...

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 be adequately equipped to allow residents to call for staff through a communication system which relays the call directly to a staff member or a centralized staff work area from toilet and bathing facilities for 11 of 15 resident rooms (rooms #101, #103, #105, #107, #111, #117, #202, #210, #308, #315, and #405) reviewed for call lights. The facility failed to ensure emergency call lights in resident room bathrooms were able to be accessed and used from the floor on 06/24/2025. This failure could place residents at risk of injury, pain, hospitalization, and a diminished quality of life.Findings included:Observation on 06/24/2025 at 10:27 AM, room [ROOM NUMBER] was observed to have the call light wrapped around the metal assistance bar next to the toilet. The call light cable was not reachable from the floor and was approximately 2 feet above the floor. If pulled, the call light did not activate, and only put tension from the call light cable onto the metal assistance bar next to the toilet. Observation on 06/24/2025 at 10:52 AM, room [ROOM NUMBER] was observed to have the call light wrapped around the metal assistance bar next to the toilet. The call light cable was not reachable from the floor and was approximately 2 feet above the floor. If pulled, the call light did not activate, and only put tension from the call light cable onto the metal assistance bar next to the toilet. On 06/25/2025 between 4:30 PM and 4:50 PM, many observations of resident rooms occurred to assess for call light accessibility in resident restrooms. The following resident rooms were observed to have the call lights wrapped around the metal assistance bar next to the toilet. When attempts to pull on the part of the call light cable closest to the ground, tension was placed on the metal assistance bar and the call light system did not register the call light being pulled due to the cord being wrapped around the bar . The resident rooms are as follows: room [ROOM NUMBER], room [ROOM NUMBER], room [ROOM NUMBER], room [ROOM NUMBER], room [ROOM NUMBER], room [ROOM NUMBER], room [ROOM NUMBER], room [ROOM NUMBER], room [ROOM NUMBER], and room [ROOM NUMBER]. Further observation revealed that so long as the call light cables were pulled appropriately, and not impeded by bars, to activate the call system, the call system was in functioning condition. During an interview on 06/26/2025 at 2:35 PM, the DON stated that the call light cables are very long, and they do not want residents to slip on them, so they wrap them around the metal bar. The DON stated that it was possible to shorten the length of the call light cables so they were able to be used as intended. The DON stated that no one had fallen and was not able to use the cable. The DON stated there could be a safety risk to residents for not being able to pull the call light in the restroom. Record review of facility policy titled, Call System, Residents dated updated January 2025, reflected, Each resident is provided with a means to call staff directly for assistance from his/her bed, from toileting/bathing facilities and from the floor.
Jun 2025 1 deficiency
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

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

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 disease and infection for 5 of 7 residents (Residents #1, #2, #3, #4, and #5) reviewed for infection control: 1. The facility failed to ensure MA-A sanitized the wrist blood pressure cuff in-between use with Residents #1 and #2 on 06/05/2025. 2. The facility failed to ensure LVN-B sanitized her hands in between feeding and assisting Residents #3, #4 and #5 with their breakfast meal on 06/05/2025. These failures could place residents at risk for infection due to improper care practices. The findings included: 1. Record review of Resident #1's admission record revealed he was an [AGE] year-old man admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included: Essential (Primary) Hypertension. Record review of Resident #1's Order Summary dated 06/05/2025 revealed an order for Labetalol HCL oral table 200mg, give one tablet by mouth three times a day for HTN. Hold for SBP less than 110 DBP less than 60 and/or pulse less than 60. Record review of Resident #2's admission record dated 06/05/2025 revealed she was an 88 -year-old woman admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included: Essential (Primary) Hypertension. Record review of Resident #2's Order Summary dated 06/05/2025 revealed an order for Irbesartan Oral Tablet 150 mg - Give one tablet by mouth one time a day for HTN give with 75mg tab to equal 225mg related to Essential (Primary)Hypertension Hold for SBP less than 110, DBP less than 60. During an observation on 06/05/2025 at 06:21 a.m. MA-A was observed to take the blood pressure for Resident #1 using a wrist blood pressure cuff, without first sanitizing the blood pressure cuff, then placed the cuff on the medication cart, proceeded to administer Resident #1 his medications, and then without sanitizing the blood pressure cuff, took Resident #2's blood pressure with that same wrist blood pressure cuff. During an interview with MA-A on 06/05/2025 at 06:42 a.m., MA-A stated she had taken the blood pressure for Residents #1 and #2 without sanitizing the wrist blood pressure cuff prior and in-between the two residents. MA-A stated she just forgot, but knew she was supposed to sanitize the blood pressure cuff in between use with different residents. She stated that not sanitizing the blood pressure cuffs in between each resident could result in the spread of germs. MA-A stated she had received training in infection control. Record review of MA-A CNA Proficiency Audit dated 05/23/2025 revealed she was satisfactory in task of prevents cross contamination and infection control awareness. 2. Observation on 06/05/2025 starting at 7:12 a.m. in the main dining room revealed LVN-B feeding Resident #3, then after Resident #3 was through eating, LVN-B pushed Resident #3's dishes/glass away and moved to sit next to Resident #4 and without sanitizing her hands started feeding Resident #4. At 7:29 a.m., when Resident #4 was finished with his meal, LVN-B was observed to clear dishes that belonged to Resident #4, and then relieve another staff member who had been feeding Resident #5, and without sanitizing her hands completed feeding Resident #5. During an interview with LVN-B on 06/05/2025 at 7:46 a.m., LVN-B stated she did not wash or sanitize her hands in-between feeding the 3 different residents because she saw Resident #4 had not been feeding himself, and she did not want him to wait, she wanted to make sure all the Residents were fed. LVN-B stated she knew she was supposed to wash/sanitizer her hands in between feeding the different residents and that she had received training in infection control. LVN-B stated that not sanitizing her hands in between feeding different residents could result in the spread of germs. Record review of LVN-B's Licensed Nurse Annual Competency dated 04/09/2025 revealed she was assessed as competent in Hand Hygiene, and Standard and Transmission Based Precautions. During an interview with the DON on 06/05/2025 at 09:23 a.m., the DON stated MA-A should have sanitized the blood pressure cuff in between usage with different residents, and that not sanitizing the cuff could result in the spread of infection. The DON also stated that LVN-B should have washed or sanitized her hands in between feeding the 3 different residents, and not sanitizing her hands could result in cross contamination and the spread of infection. The DON stated that both MA-A and LVN-B had received training in infection control. Record Review of facility policy titled Standard Precautions revised September 2022 revealed hand hygiene is performed with ABHR or soap and water: (1) before and after contact with the resident and Reusable equipment is not used for the care of more than one resident until it has been appropriately cleaned and reprocessed.
May 2025 3 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record review the facility failed to ensure the assessment accurately reflected the resident's status for 1 (Resident #1) of 4 residents reviewed for accuracy of assessments. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1 was coded on her Quarterly MDS assessment, signed as completed on [DATE], for a psychiatric/mood disorder, an anxiety disorder diagnosed [DATE]. This failure could place residents at risk of improper or incorrect care and services necessary for their physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. The findings included: Record review of Resident #1's admission Record, dated [DATE], reflected a [AGE] year-old female. She was initially admitted on [DATE] and re-admitted on [DATE]. She discharged on [DATE]. Record review of Resident #1's Diagnosis Report, dated [DATE], reflected a principle diagnosis of Alzheimer's Disease (a progressive disease that affects memory and other important mental functions) with onset dated [DATE], a diagnosis of anxiety disorder (a condition in which a person has excessive worry and feelings of fear, dread, and uneasiness) with onset dated [DATE], a diagnosis of age-related osteoporosis (brittle or fragile bones) without current pathological fracture (a type of broken bone that occurred due to a disease or condition that weakens the bone, rather than from an injury) with onset dated [DATE], and a diagnosis of cognitive communication deficit (difficulty communicating due to injury to the brain) with onset dated [DATE]. Record review of Resident #1's Quarterly MDS Assessment, dated [DATE] and signed as completed on [DATE] by the MDS Nurse and the DON, reflected assessment observation end date of [DATE]. Resident #1 had a BIMS score of 3 indicating she was severely cognitively impaired. Under Active Diagnoses in the last 7 days, she was not documented under Psychiatric/Mood Disorder as having had an anxiety disorder. Under High-Risk Drug Classes: Use and Indication, she was documented as taking with an indication noted for antianxiety medications. Record review of Resident #1's Order Recap Report, orders dated [DATE]- [DATE], reflected the order Ativan [a medication used to treat anxiety disorders] Oral Tablet 0.5 MG (Lorazepam) Give 1 tablet by mouth every 8 hours as needed for restlessness for 14 Days, start date of [DATE], and an end date of [DATE]. Record review of Resident #1's [DATE]- [DATE] MAR, dated [DATE], reflected Resident #1 was ordered Ativan Oral Tablet 0.5 MG (Lorazepam) Give 1 tablet by mouth every 8 hours as needed for restlessness for 14 Days, start date of [DATE] at 01:00 p.m., and an end date of [DATE] 02:07 p.m. Resident #1 was documented to have received the medication twice on [DATE], once at 09:37 a.m. and a second time at 07:50 p.m. Resident #1 was unavailable for observation or interview. Record review of Resident #1's Progress Note, dated [DATE] by LPN A, reflected Resident #1 had died and been pronounced by a hospice nurse on [DATE] at 08:53 a.m. During an interview on [DATE] at 03:14 p.m., Resident #1's representative revealed she was aware of Resident #1's new medications and knew Resident #1 had had a change in behavior which was expected due to her condition. During an interview on [DATE] at 03:56 p.m., the MDS Nurse revealed she believed she was responsible for the accuracy of the MDS Assessments. She stated the facility had a contracted company that would complete audits of the MDS Assessments to monitor the MDS Assessments for accuracy. She stated that after she had completed a MDS Assessment, she would let the DON know that the assessment was ready for review and to be signed. The MDS Nurse revealed her process for documenting a resident's psychiatric/mood disorder would be to review the documentation provided by the physicians, by the contracted psychiatric services company, and by hospital staff if available. She stated Resident #1 having not been documented as having had an anxiety disorder must have been an oversight on her part. She stated it would not have impacted the care provided to Resident #1, but it might have impacted the facility's reimbursement for Resident #1's care. During an interview on [DATE] at 04:46 p.m., the DON revealed the MDS Nurse was responsible for the accuracy of the MDS Assessments but that she would also review the Assessments with the MDS Nurse. She revealed the facility had a company that was auditing the MDS Assessments for accuracy and the facility had an improvement plan in place because the facility knew that the MDS Assessments' accuracy was not where they needed it to be. The DON revealed her process for reviewing a resident for psychiatric/mood disorders would be by reviewing the resident's medications. When asked about the impact on the resident for the diagnosis to not be documented, the DON responded that the facility was working diligently to get those right. Record review of the facility's policy, Resident Assessments, dated revised [DATE], reflected: 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.
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

Medical Records (Tag F0842)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure resident medical records were kept in accordance with acce...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure resident medical records were kept in accordance with accepted professional standards and practices, the facility must maintain medical records on each resident that are complete and accurately documented for 2 of 4 residents (Resident #1 and Resident #2) reviewed for clinical records. 1. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1's pain status was accurately documented on [DATE] and [DATE]. 2. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1's Medication Administration Record (MAR) reflected the administration of Tylenol (medication to treat pain) was accurately documented on [DATE] and [DATE]. 3. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1's weekly skin assessments were documented in her medical record for 2 (the weeks of: [DATE] and [DATE]) of 14 weeks. 4. The facility failed to ensure Resident #2's weekly skin assessments were documented in her medical record for 3 (the weeks of: [DATE], [DATE], and [DATE]) of 13 weeks. These failures could place residents at risk of not receiving the care and services needed due to inaccurate or incomplete clinical records. The findings included: 1. Record review of Resident #1's admission Record, dated [DATE], reflected a [AGE] year-old female. She was initially admitted on [DATE] and re-admitted on [DATE]. She discharged on [DATE]. Record review of Resident #1's Diagnosis Report, dated [DATE], reflected a principle diagnosis of Alzheimer's Disease (a progressive disease that affects memory and other important mental functions) with onset dated [DATE], a diagnosis of anxiety disorder (a condition in which a person has excessive worry and feelings of fear, dread, and uneasiness) with onset dated [DATE], a diagnosis of age-related osteoporosis (brittle or fragile bones) without current pathological fracture (a type of broken bone that occurred due to a disease or condition that weakens the bone, rather than from an injury) with onset dated [DATE], and a diagnosis of cognitive communication deficit (difficulty communicating due to injury to the brain) with onset dated [DATE]. Record review of Resident #1's Quarterly MDS Assessment, dated [DATE] and signed as completed on [DATE] by the MDS Nurse and the DON, reflected assessment observation end date of [DATE]. Resident #1 had a BIMS score of 3 indicating she was severely cognitively impaired. She had not received a pain medication regimen or received PRN pain medications. She had denied pain in the last 5 days and did not have any pressure ulcers/injuries, venous or arterial ulcers, or other ulcers, wounds, or skin problems. Record review of Resident #1's Order Recap Report, orders dated [DATE]- [DATE], reflected: - the order Pain Assessment to be completed every shift. every shift [sic], start date [DATE], and an end date of [DATE]; - the order xray [sic; procedure to generate images of the tissues and structures inside the body] of lumbar spine d/t fall, pain, order date [DATE], and an end date of [DATE]; - the order Bilateral hip and pelvic xray [sic] DX pain, order date [DATE], and an end date of [DATE]; - the order XRAY [sic] Lumbar region DX: Fall/ Complaint of pain, order date [DATE], and an end date of [DATE]; and - the order Tylenol Oral Tablet 325 MG (Acetaminophen) Give 2 tablet by mouth every 4 hours as needed for pain, order date [DATE], and an end date of [DATE]. Record review of Resident #1's Witnessed Fall Incident Report, dated [DATE] at 03:00 a.m., reflected Resident #1 had a witnessed fall, lost her balance and fell onto her bottom. She was noted to have denied pain and no injuries noted at the time of the incident. Record review of facility Day and Night Shift Schedules, dated [DATE] to [DATE] revealed the nurse staffing for Resident #1's assigned was: - LPN A worked the day shift on [DATE], [DATE], and [DATE], - LPN F worked the night shift on [DATE], - RN C worked the day shift on [DATE], - LPN D worked the night shift on [DATE] and [DATE], - the DON worked the day shift on [DATE], and - LPN E worked the night shift on [DATE]. Record review of Resident #1's Progress Notes, dated [DATE] to [DATE] only revealed the following notes regarding Resident #1 expressing pain: - the Infection Note, dated [DATE] at 08:02 a.m. by LPN A, reflected .no c/o pian [sic] or discomfort., - the Progress Note, dated [DATE] at 01:57 p.m. by the ADON, reflected IDT team met regarding resident's recent fall on [DATE]. Team decided for intervention: Nursing staff to recollect urine for follow up lab and increased confusion. Resident has no visible signs of injury, yet has complaints of pain to Left [sic] hip, Left hipXRAY [sic] negative. Resident continues to have complaint of pain to lumbar region, XRAY [sic] ordered., and - the [EMR evaluation tool] SBAR Summary for Providers note, dated [DATE] at 12:54 p.m. by LPN A, reflected The Change In Condition/s reported on this CIC Evaluation are/were: Altered mental status Pain (uncontrolled) Other change in condition .-Pain StatusEvaluation [sic]: Does the resident/patient have pain? Yes .resident noted to be tense with facial grimace and moaning with movement or touch . Record review of Resident #1's [DATE]- [DATE] NMAR, dated [DATE], reflected Resident #1 was ordered Pain Assessment to be completed every shift every shift [sic], start date of [DATE] at 06:00 p.m., and an end date of [DATE] at 08:57 a.m. Resident #1 was documented as at a pain level of 0 during every **Day shift from [DATE] to [DATE] and during every **Nig shift from [DATE] to [DATE]. LPN A documented Resident #1's pain level at 0 for the **Day shift on [DATE], [DATE], and [DATE]. RN C documented Resident #1's pain level at 0 for the **Day shift on [DATE]. The DON documented Resident #1's pain level at 0 for the **Day shift on [DATE]. LPN D documented Resident #1's pain level at 0 for the **Nig shift on [DATE] and [DATE]. LPN E documented Resident #1's pain level at 0 for the **Nig shift on [DATE]. During an interview on [DATE] at 02:33 p.m., LPN A revealed she worked the day shift on [DATE], prior to Resident #1's fall, the day shift on [DATE], the day prior to Resident #1 having been sent to the hospital, and the day shift on [DATE], the shift Resident #1 was sent to the hospital. She revealed she was the nurse that reported Resident #1 had a change in condition which resulted in the order to send Resident #1 to the hospital. LPN A revealed Resident #1 was fine on Saturday and Sunday, [DATE] and [DATE]. She revealed Resident #1 was her normal self, up and walking around on Wednesday, [DATE]. LPN A revealed when she came into work on Thursday, [DATE], Resident #1 was asleep in bed. She revealed around lunch time, she observed a change in Resident #1's status and noticed Resident #1 was hurting a lot. She revealed Resident #1 was unable to tell her where the pain was located. She revealed she received an order to send Resident #1 out to the hospital for the change in condition. LPN A did not reveal why she documented 0 for Resident #1's pain scale on [DATE] day shift NMAR. During an interview on [DATE] at 02:48 p.m., LPN E revealed she worked the night shift on Wednesday, [DATE], the shift prior to Resident #1 having been sent to the hospital. She revealed Resident #1 was her normal self-prior to her going to bed that night. She revealed Resident #1 woke up a few hours later with restlessness, which was common for her. She revealed Resident #1 seemed to have expressed that she was experiencing pain but Resident #1 was primarily restless and anxious. She revealed Resident #1 was unable to communicate where the pain was located or what it was from. LPN E did not reveal why she documented 0 for Resident #1's pain scale on [DATE] night shift NMAR. During an interview on [DATE] at 03:43 p.m., LPN F revealed she worked the shift in which Resident #1 had a fall, [DATE] night shift. She revealed the fall was witnessed by herself and a CNA. She revealed Resident #1 was awake and walking around during the night, which was typical behavior for her, and Resident #1 started to lean against the nurses' station and kind of sat down or her legs gave out. LPN F stated Resident #1 might have hit her tail bone but was kind of leaning back during the fall. She stated she and the CNA both repeatedly asked Resident #1 if she was in pain, and she said no. She stated Resident #1 replied that she was okay. She revealed no injuries were found following her visual assessment and Resident #1 was able to walk back to her room on her own. During an interview on [DATE] at 08:45 p.m., LPN D revealed he worked the night shifts for Monday and Tuesday, [DATE] and [DATE]. He revealed Resident #1 was up and walking around during his shifts and yelling out that she wanted to go home, which he revealed were common behaviors for her. He revealed Resident #1 did not have any other pain indicators that he observed. During an interview on [DATE] at 09:56 a.m., RN C revealed she worked the day shift on Monday, [DATE], the shift after Resident #1's fall. She revealed the prior shift nurse, LPN F, had reported to her that Resident #1 had had a fall and was up most of the night. She revealed Resident #1 slept most of the morning of [DATE], but she got up and walked to lunch. RN C revealed Resident #1 did not complain of pain to her and she did not observe Resident #1 having shown any indicators for pain. She revealed the CNAs for her shift did not report to her any observed injuries or indicators or complaint of pain. During an interview on [DATE] at 01:42 p.m., MD G revealed she was Resident #1's physician. She revealed she would not know without looking at her documentation if anyone reported Resident #1 had pain; however, she knew Resident #1 did not have any significant pain with deep breathing. She revealed Resident #1 did not have any breathing issues or severe pain prior to the morning of her change of condition, [DATE]. During an interview on [DATE] at 02:48 p.m., NP H revealed she worked with MD G. NP H revealed she was at the nursing facility the morning Resident #1 had her change of condition and was sent out, Thursday [DATE]. She revealed she observed Resident #1 had a change of condition, she was in a wheelchair, lethargic (having little energy), not responsive or opening her eyes, pale, and diaphoretic (excessive sweating for no apparent reason). NP H revealed she did not observe any signs Resident #1 was in pain or in respiratory distress but was told by the morning nurse that Resident #1 had pain when they got her up that morning. NP H revealed she did not recall the staff mentioning Resident #1 having had pain recently or prior to that morning, [DATE]. She revealed she was only aware of the acute change in pain for that morning. NP H revealed she did not recall when or who requested Resident #1 to have an order for PRN Tylenol for pain. During an interview on [DATE] at 04:08 p.m., the ADON revealed she did not know why the nurses had documented in the NMAR that Resident #1's pain was at 0. She revealed that perhaps they, the nurses, documented 0 because Resident #1 did not verbalize pain. She revealed for Resident #1's pain, they had x-rays taken. She revealed the x-rays were ordered due to the way Resident #1 was sitting. She revealed the hip x-ray was negative, but they also did a lumbar x-ray, which was found to be negative, for further testing. During an interview on [DATE] at 04:46 p.m., the DON revealed she did not receive reports that Resident #1 was in pain. She revealed she did not observe any difference in Resident #1's behaviors prior to the day Resident #1 was sent out, [DATE] and that Resident #1 was able to tell you if she was in pain. The DON revealed she was able to see Resident #1 on the day she was sent out, and Resident #1 was clearly different from the day prior. The DON revealed Resident #1's change was sudden, because she had observed Resident #1 up and walking around the night prior. The DON revealed the ADON put in the orders for the x-rays with the mention of pain because Resident #1 was grimacing. The DON revealed she had not seen Resident #1 grimace. The DON revealed the ADON put the orders in for pain because she, the ADON, did not know what else to put. She revealed that they use that wording for coding for insurance. The DON revealed her expectation was for the nurses to put 0 under the pain assessment in the NMAR if the resident is not in pain. 2. Record review of Resident #1's [DATE]- [DATE] MAR, dated [DATE], reflected Resident #1 was ordered Tylenol Oral Tablet 325 MG (Acetaminophen) Give 2 tablet by mouth every 4 hours as needed for pain, start date of [DATE] at 01:00 p.m., and an end date of [DATE] at 08:57 a.m. Resident #1 was not documented to have received the medication. The spaces to document the medication administration were blank or empty. During an interview on [DATE] at 02:48 p.m., LPN E- revealed she recalled administering Resident #1 Tylenol during the night shift on [DATE] due to Resident #1 indicating she was in pain. During an interview on [DATE] at 08:45 p.m., LPN D revealed he was Resident #1's nurse on the night shifts of Monday ([DATE]), Tuesday ([DATE]), Saturday ([DATE]), and Sunday ([DATE]). He revealed he had administered Tylenol to Resident #1. He revealed Resident #1 would not ask for pain medication, but she had an order and Tylenol seemed to help. He did not reveal when he had administered Tylenol to Resident #1, what specific symptom he was addressing with the administration, or how he documented that he administered Tylenol. During an interview on [DATE] at 01:42 p.m., MD G revealed she expected for any medications given, the administration would be documented on the MAR that it was given. She revealed that if the MAR was blank, she would determine that that meant no Tylenol had been provided. During an interview on [DATE] at 03:07 p.m., LPN E revealed she did not recall what time she administered Resident #1 her PRN Tylenol but because it was a PRN medication, she would have had to put in a progress note. She revealed the medication administration record would not let you close the administration documentation out without putting in a progress note. LPN E revealed that she believed she had documented the administration of the Tylenol into the EMR. During an interview on [DATE] at 03:39p.m., LPN A revealed she did not administer Tylenol or any pain medication to Resident #1 on [DATE]. She revealed Resident #1 slept the morning, through the beginning of her shift and by lunch time, they had identified Resident #1's change of condition and initiated the process for sending her to the hospital. During an interview on [DATE] at 04:08 p.m., the ADON revealed if the MAR or TAR was blank, it meant the medication or task was not administered or done. 3. Record review of Resident #1's Order Recap Report, orders dated [DATE]- [DATE], reflected the order Skin Assessment to be completed weekly and PRN every day shift every Mon for skin skin [sic], start date [DATE], and an end date of [DATE]. Record review of Resident #1's [DATE]- [DATE] NMAR, dated [DATE], reflected Resident #1 was ordered Skin Assessment to be completed weekly and PRN every day shift every Mon for skin skin [sic], start date of [DATE] at 06:00 a.m., and an end date of [DATE] at 08:57 a.m. Resident #1 was documented as the Skin Assessment was Administered on [DATE] by RN C and on [DATE] by LPN A. Record review of Resident #1's EMR Assessment tab, undated and accessed on [DATE], did not reflect a SKIN ASSESSMENT - V 2 dated for the week of [DATE] or for the week of [DATE]. The most recent SKIN ASSESSMENT - V 2 was dated [DATE]. Record review of Resident #1's Progress Notes, dated [DATE] to [DATE] only revealed the following notes regarding Resident #1's skin status: - the Progress Note, dated [DATE] at 01:57 p.m. by the ADON, reflected .Resident has no visible signs of injury ., - the [EMR evaluation tool] SBAR Summary for Providers note, dated [DATE] at 12:54 p.m. by LPN A, reflected .Skin Status Evaluation: [blank] , and - the . Clinical Admission note, dated [DATE] at 05:49 p.m. by RN C, reflected .Skin : Skin warm & dry, skin color WNL and turgor [firmness of the skin] is normal. Record review of Resident #1's Witnessed Fall Incident Report, dated [DATE] at 03:00 a.m., reflected Resident #1 had No injuries observed at time of incident. No additional information on skin condition noted on the report. During an interview on [DATE] at 03:39 p.m., LPN A revealed the skin assessments would pop up on the nurses' screen as an order, but also as a UDA. She revealed that if the UDA populated on a different day than the order, the nurse would have to go in and switch the order to the day the skin assessment was done. She revealed that she might have marked in the MAR that the skin assessment had been done because it had already been done for that week. She revealed that if the UDA and order were on different days, it might cause the MAR to be off. Resident #1 was unavailable for observation or interview. Record review of Resident #1's Progress Note, dated [DATE] by LPN A, reflected Resident #1 had died and been pronounced by a hospice nurse on [DATE] at 08:53 a.m. 4. Record review of Resident #2's admission Record, dated [DATE], reflected an [AGE] year-old female. She was admitted on [DATE]. Record review of Resident #2's Diagnosis Report, dated [DATE], reflected a principle diagnosis of Chronic Diastolic (Congestive) Heart Failure(a long-lasting condition resulting from the gradual decrease in the heart's ability to pump blood), a diagnosis of atherosclerotic heart disease (a buildup of fats in the arterial walls), and a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes Mellitus (a condition that develops with the way the body regulates and uses sugar as fuel). Record review of Resident #2's Quarterly MDS Assessment, dated [DATE] and signed as completed on [DATE] by the MDS Nurse and the DON, reflected assessment observation end date of [DATE]. Resident #2 had a BIMS score of 9 indicating she was moderately cognitively impaired. She required partial to moderate assistance to move to a standing position from sitting and to transfer from a bed to a chair, and she normally used a wheelchair. She was at risk of developing pressure ulcers/injuries, but did not have any pressure ulcers/injuries, venous or arterial ulcers, or other ulcers, wounds, or skin problems. Record review of Resident #2's Order Summary Report, active orders as of [DATE], reflected the order Skin Assessment to be completed weekly and PRN every day shift every Mon for skin skin [sic], order date of [DATE], start date of [DATE], and no end date. Record review of Resident #2's [DATE]- [DATE], [DATE]- [DATE], and [DATE]- [DATE] NMARs, dated [DATE], reflected Resident #2 was ordered Skin Assessment to be completed weekly and PRN every day shift every Mon for skin skin [sic], start date of [DATE] at 06:00 a.m., and no end date. Resident #2 was documented as the Skin Assessment was Administered on [DATE] and [DATE] by RN C and on [DATE] by RN I. Record review of Resident #2's EMR Assessment tab, undated and accessed on [DATE], did not reflect a SKIN ASSESSMENT - V 2 dated for the week of [DATE], the week of [DATE], or for the week of [DATE]. Record review of Resident #2's Progress Notes, dated [DATE] to [DATE] did not reveal notes regarding Resident #2's skin status effective on the weeks of [DATE], [DATE], or [DATE]. During an interview on [DATE] at 01:57 p.m., Resident #2 revealed she felt safe at the facility, the staff assisted her if she needed anything, and the staff were very good at answering the call lights. She revealed she had not had any skin injuries or skin concerns since living at the facility. Attempted telephone interview on [DATE] at 03:31 p.m. with RN I. No call back received and staff member not present. During an interview on [DATE] at 04:18 p.m., RN C revealed skin assessments would come up on the MAR, notifying them, the nurse, that they needed to complete the skin assessment. She stated she might have completed the skin assessments for Resident #1 and Resident #2, but then forgotten to go back and enter her findings into the assessment screens. She revealed she typically would go in during a resident's shower to look over the resident's skin and then document her observations later on during the shift. During an interview on [DATE] at 04:08 p.m., the ADON revealed the facility used a skin assessment document and her expectation for the nurses was that they did the skin assessment. She revealed that the management team; herself, the DON, and the wound care nurse, would usually look at the assessments and the UDA to verify that the actual assessment was done. She revealed that if the MAR showed that the skin assessment was administered or checked, that would indicate that the nurse checked off that they had looked at the resident's skin. If it was checked off in the MAR but not in the assessments tab, it would mean that the nurse did not put the assessment in there. She revealed she did not believe the nurse not putting in the assessment would impact the resident's care. She revealed this was because the nurse could have completed the skin assessment and because there were most likely not any abnormalities, they did not enter a skin assessment without abnormalities or changes. During an interview on [DATE] at 04: 46 p.m., the DON revealed the nurses are supposed to complete a skin assessment weekly. She revealed the facility had a plan in place, which they had started the prior week, to monitor the weekly skin assessments. She revealed the nurses were expected to go into the EMR and chart yes they completed the skin assessment. She revealed the nurses were only to chart on the progress notes if there was anything wrong, but if it was blank, that meant there were no issues. She revealed that if the MAR for a skin assessment was checked as administered by a nurse , then that meant that they did it and if there was anything wrong, the nurse would have charted that. The DON revealed that she did not believe a documented completion of a skin assessment on the MAR without a corresponding skin assessment would have impacted the resident. She revealed the facility had a treatment nurse, who looked at all the resident's skin. Record review of the facility's policy, Pain- Clinical Protocol, dated revised [DATE] and February 2025, reflected: Under Assessment and Recognition 2. The nursing staff will assess each resident for pain .whenever there is a significant change in condition, and when there is onset of new pain or worsening of existing pain. Under Monitoring .1. The staff will reassess the resident's pain and related consequences at regular intervals; at least each shift for acute pain or significant changes in levels of chronic pain .Review should include frequency, duration and intensity of pain, ability to perform activities of daily living (ADLs), sleep pattern, mood, behavior, and participation in activities. 2. The staff will evaluate and report the resident's use of standing and PRN analgesics [a group of drugs used to achieve relieve from pain]. Record review of the facility's policy, Administering Pain Medications, dated revised [DATE], reflected: Under Purpose The purpose of this procedure is to provide guidelines for assessing the resident's level of pain prior to administering analgesic pain medication. Under Steps in the Procedure 3. Conduct a pain assessment as indicated. The initial assessment is comprehensive and should follow the facility pain assessment procedure. 4. Conduct an abbreviated pain assessment if there has been no change in condition since the previous assessment. The assessment shall consist of at least the following components: a. Whether pain has improved or worsened since the last assessment; b. The general condition of the resident; c. Verbal and non-verbal signs of pain; d. Level of consciousness; and e. Evidence or reports of adverse consequences related to medications. 6. Administer pain medications as ordered. 9. Re-evaluate the resident's level of pain 30-60 minutes after administering. Under Documentation Document the following in the resident's medical record: 1. Results of the pain assessment; 2. Medication; 3. Dose; 4. Route of administration; and 5. Results of the medication (adverse or desired). A request for a facility policy on skin assessments was requested to the DON on [DATE] at 05:20 p.m. A copy of the facility policy, Resident Assessments was provided in its place. The Resident Assessments policy refers to the facility policies and procedures for comprehensive assessments and does not directly correlate with the weekly skin assessments.
MINOR (C) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Staffing Information (Tag F0732)

Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to post daily information that included the facility name, current date, total number and actual hours worked by registered nurs...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to post daily information that included the facility name, current date, total number and actual hours worked by registered nurses, licensed practical or licensed vocational nurses, certified nurse aides directly responsible for resident care per shift and the resident census for 4 days (05/10/2025, 05/11/2025, 05/12/2025, and 05/13/2025) of 4 days reviewed. The facility did not post the required current nurse staffing information from 05/10/2025 through 05/13/2025. This failure could place all residents, their families, and facility visitors at risk of not having access to information regarding staffing data and the facility census. The findings included: During an observation on 05/13/2025 at 04:17 p.m., a document labeled with the facility name and dated 05/09/2025 was posted in a plastic protector against the wall across from the nurses' station and outside the DON's office. The document included the staff titles: Registered Nurse, Licensed Vocational Nurse, Certified Nurse Aide, Treatment Nurse, and Training. The document included the number of staff under each title, the number of hours, the total number of hours worked for each staff title type, the total number of hours worked, and the daily census. The document did not include information regarding the care provided per shift. During an interview on 05/13/2025 at 04:19 p.m., LPN B revealed the location of the document was the only location she had seen it posted. She revealed the DON posted the document. During an interview on 05/13/2025 at 04:20 p.m., the DON revealed the nurse staffing and census document was posted outside her office. She stated she believed it might not be updated. She stated she had printed out the document for the current day that morning, but the facility printers had been acting up. During an interview on 05/13/2025 at 04:30 p.m., the DON revealed she knew the posted document was dated 05/09/2025. She revealed that she normally posted the document first thing in the morning and did not know why the document was not posted over the weekend. She stated with the facility having had a change in ownership, the nurses have had difficulty getting documents printed. During an interview on 05/16/2025 at 04:46 p.m., the DON revealed she was responsible for posting the daily nurse staffing and census document. She stated the weekend supervisor was responsible for posting the document on the weekends. She stated her back-up for this responsibility would be the ADON. She stated the document was not posted over the weekend due to the printers switching over to a new system and the staff did not have access to the printers. She stated the posting having not been updated would not have impacted the residents' care. She stated that the facility staffing normally stayed consistent. She stated the facility was typically overstaffed due to the resident census having frequent changes and the facility having had many skilled residents. Record review of the facility's policy, Posting Direct Care Daily Staff Numbers, dated revised August 2022, reflected: Policy Statement Our facility will post on a daily basis for each shift nurse staffing data, including the number of nursing personnel responsible for providing direct care to residents. Policy Interpretation and Implementation 1. Within two (2) hours of the beginning of each shift, the number of licensed nurses (RNs, LPNs, and LVNs) and the number of unlicensed nursing personnel (CNAs and NAs) directly responsible for resident care is posted in a prominent location (accessible to residents and visitors) and in a clear and readable format. 2. Directly responsible for rident care .Shift staffing information is recorded on a form for each shift. The information recorded on the form shall include the following: . d. Twenty-four (24)-hour shift schedule operated by the facility; e. The shift for which the information is posted; f. Type (RN, LPN, LVN, or CNA) and category (licensed or non-licensed) of nursing staff working during that shift who are paid by the facility (including contract staff); g. The actual time worked during that shift for each category and type of nursing staff; and h. Total number of licensed and non-licensed nursing staff working for the posted shift. 3. Within two (2) hours of the beginning of each shift, the charge nurse or designee computes the number of direct care staff and completes the Nurse Staffing Information form. The charge nurse completes the form and posts the staffing information in the location(s) designated by the administrator.
Apr 2025 8 deficiencies 1 IJ
CRITICAL (J) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Deficiency F0678 (Tag F0678)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, and record reviews the facility failed to ensure personnel provide basic life support, including CPR, to a ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, and record reviews the facility failed to ensure personnel provide basic life support, including CPR, to a resident requiring such emergency care prior to the arrival of emergency medical personnel and subject to related physician orders and the resident's advance directives for 1 of 4 (#1) residents in that: Resident #1 was administered CPR, 2 compressions which caused Resident #1 to moan in pain, by LVN A after found unresponsive. Resident #1 was a DNR. Resident #1 had an OOH-DNR. An IJ was identified on [DATE]. The IJ template was provided to the facility on [DATE] at 6 PM. While the IJ was removed on [DATE] at 1:26 PM. The facility remained out of compliance at a scope of isolated and severity level of no actual harm with a potential for more than minimal harm that is not immediate jeopardy due to facility's need to evaluate the plan of removal. This facility failure could place residents at risk of not having their rights honored; experiencing worsening of condition; severe injury, and hospitalization. The findings included: A record review of complaint investigation #546794, dated [DATE], revealed Resident #1 had to go to the emergency room, the addendum stated Resident #1 was unresponsive and 911 was called. The complainant stated RN A said she was sorry; I was completely unaware that Resident #1 had a DNR and I administered CPR. The complainant, not realizing that Resident #1 had no pulse and wasn't breathing which complainant took to mean unconscious, sat speechless. complainant then said, You mean she (Resident #1) didn't have a pulse? The RN A replied No. She wasn't breathing, and she did not have a pulse. When I got in there, I assessed for breath and pulse, didn't find either one, and jumped on her and yelled Starting CPR and gave her 2 compressions. At that point her chest came off the bed and she made a loud groaning sound. The nurse went on to explain that she never checked the binder on the crash cart and that there is no protocol for the order things should be done when the crash cart is needed. RN A told complainant she only knew about the DNR because the Dr called over from the hospital to discuss what happened and when the nurse got to the part about the CPR, he stated to her You realize she has a DNR. The nurse said it was after that phone call that she went and checked the binder and saw the non-hospital DNR was in there. The RN A stated that she had called her Director of Nursing, but she wanted us to hear it from her what had happened. A record review of Resident #1's admission Record dated [DATE] was documented, a [AGE] year-old, she was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses of multiple rib fractures, dementia) (a decline in mental ability severe enough to interfere with daily life), Parkinson's disease (a progressive neurological disorder that affects movement, primarily due to a decline in dopamine-producing brain cells, leading to symptoms like tremors, stiffness, and slow movement, but also impacting non-motor functions like sleep and mood.) and cognitive communication deficit. Resident #1 was at facility for 24 days and was discharged on [DATE]. A record review of Resident #1's electronic chart was documented an OOH-DNR dated [DATE]. A record review of Resident #1's consolidated physician orders for [DATE] revealed she had a code status order for DNR. A record review of Resident #1 admission MDS dated [DATE] was documented her BIMs score was 8/15 (moderate cognitive impairment), she had impairment on lower extremity on both sides, she used a walker/wheelchair to mobilize, she required supervision for self-care for eating, oral hygiene, persona hygiene, and maximum/moderate assistance with toileting, showers, and dressing. Resident #1 was incontinent of bowel/bladder, she had diagnoses of fractures, dementia, and Parkinson's. A record review of Resident #1 baseline care plan dated [DATE] was documented her code status was DNR. A record review of Resident #1's care plan conference dated [DATE] was documented her code status was OOH-DNR. A record review of Resident #1's Transfer/Discharge Report dated [DATE] at 5:15 PM was documented she was unresponsive and was transferred to hospital. A record review of Resident #1's progress note dated [DATE] by MD was documented Admitting Diagnosis: Right sided rib fractures Chief Complaint: Impaired mobility and self-care. Medical coverage provided by: MD. Interval History: The patient is undergoing rehabilitation at the skilled nursing facility and since the last visit, the patient is participating well in the therapy program. The patient is reporting any pain. New issues since last visit: The patient was assessed while sitting up in the chair with [family member] at her side. The patient reports moderate pain but tolerable with Tylenol and Lidoderm patches, per [family member] Oxycodone attempted and made the patient nauseous requiring Zofran. Patient's [family member] requesting continuation of Zofran PRN with nursing. A record review of Resident #1's progress note dated [DATE] at 4:41 PM was documented Resident #1 presents with weakness and tremors. Request labs for UTI, UA and were ordered. A record review of Resident #1's progress notes dated [DATE] at 4:48 PM Zofran ODT Tablet Dispersible 4 MG, give 1 tablet by mouth every 8 hours as needed for nausea. A record review of Resident #1's progress notes dated [DATE] at 5:43 PM was documented Zofran ODT Tablet Dispersible 4 MG, give 1 tablet by mouth every 8 hours as needed for nausea. PRN Administration was: Effective. A record review of Resident #1's progress note dated [DATE] at 6:13 PM by RN A, was documented, resident was last seen well at 1630 (4:30 PM) when I administered her evening medications. I was notified at 1705 (5:05 PM) that resident was unresponsive. when assessed resident was not breathing and did not respond to sternal chest rub. 911 was called, CPR was initiated after 1 pump of CPR resident moaned out and was now breathing. vitals where 139/78 02 88 heart rate 52. resident still would not open eyes and would not verbally respond. EMS arrived and resident was sent to hospital for further evaluation. A record of Resident #1's hospital record dated [DATE] was documented Resident #1 had an unresponsive episode at her nursing home. Resident #1 was fond by nurse the started 1 chest compression and Resident #1 started moaning so compressions were stopped. Resident #1 was more responsive and CT scan to chest showed a large pleural effusion. Resident #1 had been able to answer questions, began to moan and moving and these were stopped, EMS administer Narcan per report Resident #1 was on narcotics. Resident #1 was at her baseline status and was weaned off oxygen. CT scan was negative and was stable and read for discharge to another facility. During an interview on [DATE] at 4:47 PM, via email, the complainant stated She (LVN A) was also the one who told me she did CPR without knowing there was a DNR in place. She spoke directly to the hospital and was in charge of the ambulance upon its arrival. The last stay at hospital was a severe UTI. Attempted interview on [DATE] at 12:30 PM, [DATE] at 1:26 PM, [DATE] at 12:02 PM with RN A left a voicemail and did not return call before the exit. During an interview on [DATE] at 1:07 PM with CNA B stated that day, she was not sure of exact date, Resident #1 was not breathing, called CNA C on phone and asked her to get nurse, RN A. CNA B stated she automatically grabbed the crash cart, with code status book and went to tell RN A to go to Resident #1's room. CNA B stated RN A started CPR and did 2 compressions, and Resident #1 opened her eye. CNA B stated during the compression, she had opened the code book to Resident #1's code status and told RN A that Resident #1 was a DNR. CNA B stated she had stepped out on the hall to return to her hall, saw EMS and let them know Resident #1's room number, and she left on the stretcher awake. CNA B stated later that day, RN A stated she had looked at Resident #1's admission record and her code status was a DNR. CNA B had stated to RN A that she had told her Resident #1 was a DNR, but she did not listen. CNA B stated that RN A did not hear her. CNA B stated RN A, CNA C were in Resident #1's, but was not sure of the other staff. CNA B stated she was trained for CPR at hospital that she worked at and not at the facility. During an interview on [DATE] at 1:47 PM with LVN AE stated Resident #1 was fine and did not have a change of condition, the night before the incident with the code status. LVN AE stated she worked nights and was not involved with the code status incident with Resident #1. LVN AE stated she knew Resident #1 was a DNR. LVN AE stated she would look at the crash cart, on top had a code status log of all residents with their code states. LVN AE stated the code status was printed out every night. LVN AE stated she was not sure if she was trained at facility for code status. During interview on [DATE] at 2:56 PM with MD stated she was not aware that a CNA, had told LVN A Resident #1 was a DNR, and the LVN A continued to do compressions. During an interview on [DATE] at 11:52 AM with the current DON stated her expectations of nursing would be to document more, document a change of condition, and notify the state agency. The current DON stated the MD had access to resident labs via software system. The current ADON started working after this incident. During an interview on [DATE] at 12:23 PM with ADON stated she was not present for the incident with Resident #1. ADON stated the family had not shared any complaints and Resident #1 family member visited her daily. The ADON stated every night the residents code status's get printed by night staff and placed in a binder, on top of crash cart. The ADON stated RN A should have looked at the code status binder. The ADON stated the previous DON did educate her on the code status incident but had no documentation and she did not remember signing anything for code status training. The ADON stated she was not the boss and did not report this incident to the state agency. During an interview/observation on [DATE] at 10:51 AM with the DON showed the surveyor where they kept the code status of residents in binder, on top of the crash cart near the nurse's station. During an interview on [DATE] at 12:01 PM with the previous DON stated she worked from [DATE] through [DATE]. The previous DON stated she did not remember Resident #1 at this time. The previous DON stated she would expect a nurse to respond to an unresponsive resident, by looking at the binder with all resident code status, call 911. The previous DON stated if resident was a DNR, do not do CPR on resident and call 911. If resident a full code she would expect the nurse to start CPR until EMS came. In regard to this incident, she as a DON would train on code status and what to do, and report to the state agency. During an interview on [DATE] at 2:15 PM with Resident #1's family member/ MPOA stated he was in the room the day Resident #1 went to the hospital. Resident #1's spouse stated he was with Resident #1 in the morning, and at lunch. Family member stated Resident #1 went to lay down and she was unresponsive to him, he called out for a staff, staff grabbed the crash cart, and did see the nurse doing compressions, and went outside room, so staff can care for Resident #1. Family member of Resident #1 stated at the time it happened so fast he did not think about the code status of DNR. Family member stated EMS was able to get Resident #1 stabilized and Resident #1 went to hospital. Family member of Resident #1 stated at the hospital Resident #1 did not have any broken bones and changed her blood pressure medications due to low blood pressure. Family member stated Resident #1 was well and was taking a nap at the time. During an interview on [DATE] at 2:18 PM the previous DON stated she was the DON at the facility until mid-[DATE] when she resigned. The previous DON stated she was unaware of Resident #1's CPR event and could not recall any details of the incident. The DON stated she was employed as the DON during the month of [DATE] but was not the DON effectively stating the administrator and the ADON had cut her out of the loop and the ADON was as a result the DON. The DON stated had she known of the incident she would have reported the incident and investigated the incident. The DON stated if Resident #1 had wished to be a DNR status they should have not provided CPR. During an interview on [DATE] at 2:25 PM with CNA C stated RN A did do compressions, she was not sure who found Resident #1. CNA C stated she did not recall if Resident #1 was in pain. CNA C stated the resident code status were in a binder on the crash cart. CNA C stated she was following the nurses' instructions, and she was not sure of Resident #1's code status. During an interview on [DATE] at 5:59 PM the SW stated the residents last right/choice was to have their code status honored and staff should respect a resident choice. During interview in [DATE] at 4:17 PM with LVN L stated she was the overnight nurse that maintained the DNR binder and ensured the binder was accurate nightly and last night [DATE] at 1 AM, he printed out a new page for the binder and placed on crash cart. During an interview on [DATE] at 5:02 PM the Administrator stated he was not the administrator at the time of the allegation on behalf of Residents #1 and the previous Administrator was responsible for ensuring those allegations were heard, documented, and satisfactorily resolved for Residents #1. The Administrator stated he was the current abuse, neglect, and exploitation prevention coordinator. The Administrator stated the failure to recognize and report allegations of ANE could place residents at risk for not having their allegations of ANE reported. The Administrator stated he had begun training for his team and all the staff to ensure they all understood the ANE prevention recognizing and reporting process and expected increased documentation and recognition of allegations of ANE with reports to the state agency. Record review of Policy, Communication of Code Status dated 7/22 was documented, It is the policy of this facility to adhere to residents' rights to formulate advance directives. In accordance to these rights, this facility will implement procedures to communicate a resident's code status to those individuals who need to know this information. 4. The resident's code status should be entered into the resident physician orders in the EMR. 5. Additional means of communication of code status include: Code status will appear at the top of the resident home screen in EMR. 9. The resident's code status will be reviewed at least quarterly and documented in the medical record. The Administrator was notified of an IJ on [DATE] at 6 PM and was given a copy of the IJ Template and a Plan of Removal (POR) was requested. The Plan of Removal accepted on [DATE] at 1:26 PM and included the following: Plan of Removal (POR) for Immediate Jeopardy, dated [DATE] was documented: To Whom it may concern, Summary of Details which lead to outcomes. On [DATE], an abbreviated survey was initiated at 10 am. On [DATE], A surveyor provided an IJ Template notification that the Survey Agency has determined that the conditions at the facility constitute immediate jeopardy to resident health. The notification of the alleged immediate jeopardy states as follows: F678 The facility failed to implement a resident's advance directive on Resident #1. Identify residents who could be affected. All Residents with an advance directive have the potential to be affected. Facility census on [DATE]. Identify responsible staff/ what action taken: . Regional VPO and Regional Nurse Consultant provided education on CPR and Advance Directives honoring resident rights to Administrator and Director of Nursing on [DATE]. Director of Nursing and Assistant Director of Nursing conducted education on CPR and Advance Directives for all nurses. A mock code was performed for am and pm shifts on [DATE], with documentation on a Mock Code form. Advance Directive Binder on the crash cart was reviewed and verified to ensure residents code status were listed and correct on [DATE], by the DON. The Regional VPO educated the Administrator and Director of Nursing on reporting guidelines per PL 2014-14 dated [DATE], on [DATE]. Social Worker/designee will be responsible for updating the Advance Directive binder when there is a change in code status. New staff and agency staff (if applicable) will be educated in Advance Directives and the location of the code status binder which is located on the emergency cart by the DON/designee prior to starting their shift. Implementation of Changes Nurses can easily identify and locate the code status for residents, as the advanced directive binder is clearly marked and located on the crash cart. The location of the advance directive binder is documented in the in-service provided to the nursing staff. Nurses will only perform CPR if the resident is designated as a Full Code. Training initiated and completed on [DATE], and after the education sessions, nurses will have a better understanding of code status and the situations in which CPR should or should not be performed. Any new hires and or agency staff (if applicable) will be educated prior to the start of their shift. The Director of Nursing will conduct monthly mock code scenarios for 3 months. Monitoring Administrator, Director of Nursing, or designated staff will monitor the code status of residents daily for 4 weeks, including any changes upon admission and thereafter. Social Worker/designee will be responsible for updating the Advance Directive binder when there is a change in code status. Any negative outcomes will be reported to the QAPI Committee. Involvement of Medical Director Ad hoc QAPI held at 7:35 pm on [DATE], with the Medical Director, Director of Nursing and Administrator for discussion of Immediate Jeopardy and the plan of removal. The Medical Director, 6:28 pm was notified about the immediate Jeopardy on [DATE]. Who is responsible for the implementation of the process? Director of Nursing and/or Designee. POR verification was started on [DATE] was documented: Identify residents who could be affected. Record review of Resident list revealed 71 residents in the building During an interview on [DATE] at 1:13 PM on [DATE] the DON stated prior to [DATE] the entire census of 71 had the potential for their code statuses not being reviewed if a potential event of a resident being discovered unresponsive. Identify responsible staff/ what action taken: Record Review of CPR/Advanced Directive in-service training dated [DATE] was documented the Regional VPO and Regional Nurse Consultant provided education on CPR and Advance Directives to the Administrator and DON. During an interview on [DATE] at 1:18 PM Regional VPO stated he provided education on CPR and Advance Directives honoring resident rights to the Administrator and the Director of Nursing on [DATE],[DATE] and that the Director of Nursing and the Assistant Director of Nursing conducted education on CPR and Advance Directives for all nurses. A mock code was performed for am and pm shifts on [DATE],[DATE] with documentation on a Mock Code form. Record review of in-service training CPR code status mock code, summary: in the event of code blue, immediately delegate for a staff member to retrieve resident code status form binder on crash cart before beginning CPR. Code status binder is updated nightly by nursing staff. (mock code initiated) dated [DATE] included, LVN H, LVN P, CNA Q, PT R, CNA S, CNA T, CNA U, CNA V, and CNA W. The following staff LVN H, LVN P, CNA Q, PT R, CNA S, CNA T, CNA U, CNA V, and CNA W, who received training for supporting a residents' wishes for a code status and participated in the facility's initial Mock Code event on [DATE] training were interviewed as follows: During an interview on [DATE] at 1:46 PM LVN H stated on [DATE] she was trained by the DON for a Mock Code event designed to augment the staffs' in-service regarding a potential CPR event if a Resident was discovered unresponsive. LVN H stated the protocol in the training would have a focus in the training for the staff to identify the Resident in the DNR Binder which was maintained accurately on the cart, and to communicate the information to one and another to specify if the Resident had wishes to receive or not to receive CPR. During interviews on [DATE] from 5:45 PM to 6:33 PM LVN P, CNA Q, PT R, CNA S, CNA T, CNA U, CNA V and CNA W stated she they had received Resident code status for DNR versus CPR training via a Mock Code event on the afternoon on [DATE] when LVN H in general called out in the facility to unaware staff that a Resident #1'sSmith was discovered on the 100-hall unresponsive to which numerus staff reacted and ran down the 100- hall. LVN PThey stated she arrived to discover CNA Q was on her way with the crash cart and upon arrival of the crash cart the training was for a focus on the Code Status Binder which contained a current accurate list of all residents and their wishes to receive CPR or not. LVN PThey stated if it were a real CPR event she they would not provide CPR if the Resident had wished for a DNR Status and would communicate the residents wishes to all the staff present. During an interview on [DATE] at 5:56 PM CNA Q stated she had received Resident code status for DNR versus CPR training via a Mock Code event on the afternoon on [DATE] when LVN H in general called out in the facility to unaware staff that a Resident Smith was discovered on the 100-hall unresponsive to which numerus staff reacted and ran down the 100- hall. CNA Q stated she arrived at the 100-hall with the crash cart and upon arrival of the crash cart the training was for a focus on the Code Status Binder which contained a current accurate list of all residents and their wishes to receive CPR or not. CNA Q stated if it were a real CPR event she would not provide CPR if the Resident had wished for a DNR Status and would communicate the residents wishes to all the staff present. During an interview on [DATE] at 6:33 PM PT R stated he had received Resident code status for DNR versus CPR training via a Mock Code event on the afternoon on [DATE] when LVN H in general called out in the facility to unaware staff that a Resident Smith was discovered on the 100-hall unresponsive to which numerus staff reacted and ran down the 100- hall. PT R stated he arrived to discover CNA Q was on her way with the crash cart and upon arrival of the crash cart the training was for a focus on the Code Status Binder which contained a current accurate list of all residents and their wishes to receive CPR or not. PT R stated if it were a real CPR event he would not provide CPR if the Resident had wished for a DNR Status and would communicate the residents wishes to all the staff present. During an interview on [DATE] at 5:49 PM CNA S stated she had received Resident code status for DNR versus CPR training via a Mock Code event on the afternoon on [DATE] when LVN H in general called out in the facility to unaware staff that a Resident Smith was discovered on the 100-hall unresponsive to which numerus staff reacted and ran down the 100- hall. CNA S stated she arrived to discover CNA Q was on her way with the crash cart and upon arrival of the crash cart the training was for a focus on the Code Status Binder which contained a current accurate list of all residents and their wishes to receive CPR or not. CNA S stated if it were a real CPR event she would not provide CPR if the Resident had wished for a DNR Status and would communicate the residents wishes to all the staff present. During an interview on [DATE] at 5:50 PM CNA T stated she had received Resident code status for DNR versus CPR training via a Mock Code event on the afternoon on [DATE] when LVN H in general called out in the facility to unaware staff that a Resident Smith was discovered on the 100-hall unresponsive to which numerus staff reacted and ran down the 100- hall. CNA T stated she arrived to discover CNA Q was on her way with the crash cart and upon arrival of the crash cart the training was for a focus on the Code Status Binder which contained a current accurate list of all residents and their wishes to receive CPR or not. CNA T stated if it were a real CPR event she would not provide CPR if the Resident had wished for a DNR Status and would communicate the residents wishes to all the staff present. During an interview on [DATE] at 5:47 PM CNA U stated she had received Resident code status for DNR versus CPR training via a Mock Code event on the afternoon on [DATE] when LVN H in general called out in the facility to unaware staff that a Resident Smith was discovered on the 100-hall unresponsive to which numerus staff reacted and ran down the 100- hall. CNA U stated she arrived to discover CNA Q was on her way with the crash cart and upon arrival of the crash cart the training was for a focus on the Code Status Binder which contained a current accurate list of all residents and their wishes to receive CPR or not. CNA U stated if it were a real CPR event she would not provide CPR if the Resident had wished for a DNR Status and would communicate the residents wishes to all the staff present. During an interview on [DATE] at 5:45 PM CNA V stated she had received Resident code status for DNR versus CPR training via a Mock Code event on the afternoon on [DATE] when LVN H in general called out in the facility to unaware staff that a Resident Smith was discovered on the 100-hall unresponsive to which numerus staff reacted and ran down the 100- hall. CNA V stated she arrived to discover CNA Q was on her way with the crash cart and upon arrival of the crash cart the training was for a focus on the Code Status Binder which contained a current accurate list of all residents and their wishes to receive CPR or not. CNA V stated if it were a real CPR event she would not provide CPR if the Resident had wished for a DNR Status and would communicate the residents wishes to all the staff present. During an interview on [DATE] at 5:47 PM CNA W stated she had received Resident code status for DNR versus CPR training via a Mock Code event on the afternoon on [DATE] when LVN H in general called out in the facility to unaware staff that a Resident Smith was discovered on the 100-hall unresponsive to which numerus staff reacted and ran down the 100- hall. CNA W stated she arrived to discover CNA Q was on her way with the crash cart and upon arrival of the crash cart the training was for a focus on the Code Status Binder which contained a current accurate list of all residents and their wishes to receive CPR or not. CNA W stated if it were a real CPR event she would not provide CPR if the Resident had wished for a DNR Status and would communicate the residents wishes to all the staff present. Record review of list of nurses provided by the DON revealed at total of 10 nursing staff working in the facility. Interview on [DATE] at 12:15 PM with ADM/DON/Regional nurse stated they had 10 full time nurses working at facility with no agency staff. Record of staffing schedule for [DATE] was documented 7 nursing staff that worked on the AM and PM schedule. The Advance Directive Binder on the crash cart was reviewed and verified to ensure residents code status were listed and correct on [DATE]/4/25, by the DON. Record review of statement from DON dated [DATE] was documented, Reviewed and verified advanced directrices binder on crash cart to ensure all code status were correct. Record review of the Advance Directive Binder on the crash cart was reviewed and verified to and included 71 residents. The Regional VPO educated the Administrator and Director of Nursing on reporting guidelines per PL 2014-14 dated [DATE], on [DATE]. Record review of In-service training dated [DATE] by the Regional VPO was documented ADM and or DON will enforce state/Federal guidelines on state reporting. In addition, the ADM and/or DON will report all significant events to the Regional [NAME] President which included signatures of DON/RN, ADM and ADON. Record review of the LTC provider letter, dated [DATE]. 2024 (PL 2014-14) was attached to in-service. Social Worker/designee will be responsible for updating the Advance Directive binder when there is a change in code status. Record review of statement dated [DATE] was documented I, SW understand that it is my responsibility to update advanced directive binder when there are changes in code status. Upon each admission it will be explained to family and residents their right to make medical decisions, including the right to formulate and have respected advance directives that may be updated and changed anytime at their request, signed and dated by SW. New staff and agency staff (if applicable) will be educated in Advance Directives and the location of the code status binder which is located on the emergency cart by the DON/designee prior to starting their shift. During an interview on [DATE] at 1:13 PM the DON stated new staff and agency staff (if applicable) will be educated about Advance Directives and the location of the code status binder which was located on the emergency cart, prior to starting their shift. Implementation of Changes Record review of in-service training on Code Status/Advanced Directive, where and how do you know what code status they have, and Binder is located on the crash cart with list of resident code status dated [DATE] which included 13 nursing staff. A record review of the facility's full time nursing roster revealed 11 nurses: 1. The DON 2. LVN D 3. ADON LVN E 4. LVN F 5. LVN G 6. LVN H 7. LVN I 8. LVN J 9. LVN K 10. LVN L 11. LVN O A record review of the facility's PRN nursing roster revealed 3 nurses: 1. LVN M 2. RN N Of the facility's' 13[TRUNCATED]
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0583 (Tag F0583)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observations interviews, and record review the facility failed to ensure residents had the right to personal privacy and confidentiality of his or her personal and medical records, for 11 of ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations interviews, and record review the facility failed to ensure residents had the right to personal privacy and confidentiality of his or her personal and medical records, for 11 of 73 residents (Residents #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10, #11, #12, #13, and #14) reviewed for the right to personal privacy and confidentiality of his or her personal and medical records. Medication Aide AI left a lap top computer she was assigned unattended, unsupervised, and unlocked displaying Residents #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10, #11, #12, #13, and #14 protected health information (PHI). This failure could place residents at risk of a breach of their PHI. The findings included: During an observation and interview on 4/2/2024 at 8:27 AM revealed the medication cart parked on the facility's 300-hall. Further observation revealed the medication cart had a laptop computer atop of the cart. The lap top computer was unattended, unsupervised, and unsecured. The laptop computer was actively displaying PHI for 11 residents, Residents #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10, #11, #12, #13, and #14. Continued observations revealed housekeeper AL, driver AK and CNA AJ had alternately ambulated past the computer over 5 minutes elapsed time. At 8:37 AM the surveyor alerted LVN AM the computer was unattended, unsupervised, and unsecured. LVN AM alerted the DON who was observed to lock and close the computer. The DON stated the medication cart, and the computer were assigned to MA AI. The DON summoned MA AI and gave her a report of the computer being unsecured. During an interview on 4/2/2025 at 8:37 AM the DON stated the computer had PHI and when not attended should be secured. During an observation and interview on 4/2/2025 at 8:38 AM MA AI stated she was assigned the medication cart and computer this morning around 7:40 AM by LVN M. MA AI stated she left the cart and computer briefly but had not left the computer display open with residents PHI displayed and stated she always locked the computer when she left the cart. MA AI stated she did not understand how the computer came to be opened. MA AI stated the risk to residents' privacy was a breach of PHI. MA AI stated the PHI displayed concerned Residents #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10, #11, #12, #13, and #14. During an interview on 4/5/2025 at 5:10 PM the Administrator stated the risk for harm for residents was a breach of their PHI. A record review of the facility's HIPAA Sanctions policy dated 7/2022, revealed, Policy: It is the policy of this facility to apply sanctions against employees who fail to comply with all policies and procedures regarding the protection of personal identifiable health information of our residents. All employees are expected to comply with all policies and procedures regarding the protection of personal identifiable health information of our residents. Examples of violations include, but are not limited to: a. Accessing information that is not within the scope of the employee's duties. b. Misusing, disclosing without proper authorization, or altering confidential information. c. Disclosing to another person login codes and/or password or using another person's login code and/or password for accessing electronic or confidential information or for physical access to restricted areas. d. The intentional or negligent mishandling, altering, or destruction of confidential information or media/workstations that house such information. e. Leaving a secured application unattended while logged on.
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

Grievances (Tag F0585)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record reviews the facility failed to ensure the residents had the right to voice grievances to the faci...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record reviews the facility failed to ensure the residents had the right to voice grievances to the facility. Such grievances include those with respect to care and treatment which has been furnished as well as that which has not been furnished, the behavior of staff and of other residents, and other concerns regarding their LTC facility stay, for 1 of 8 residents (Resident #2) reviewed for grievances. 1. On February 13, 2025, the previous Administrator and the DON heard a grievance on Resident #2's behalf and failed to initiate the grievance process. 2. On February 27, 2025, the DON heard a complaint on Resident #2's behalf and failed to initiate the grievance process. 3. On February 24,2025 the DON received a complaint via an email on behalf of Resident #2 and failed to initiate the grievance process. 4. On March 3, 2025, the SW received a complaint via an email on behalf of Resident #2 and failed to initiate the grievance process. These failures could place residents at risk of not having their grievances heard. The findings included: A record review of Resident #2's admission record dated 4/3/2025 revealed an admission date of 5/31/2024 with diagnoses which included cerebrovascular disease (a group of conditions that affect blood flow and the blood vessels in the brain), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD a term for lung and airway diseases that restrict your breathing. People with COPD have airway inflammation and scarring, damage to the air sacs in their lungs or both.), and cancer of the intestines. A record review of Resident #2's quarterly MDS dated [DATE] revealed Resident #2 was an [AGE] year-old male admitted for long term care, further review revealed Resident #2 had adequate vision, hearing, could usually understand and could usually understand others. Resident #2 was assessed with mild cognitive impairment and needed assistance with activities of daily life. A record review of Resident #2's care plan dated 4/3/2025 revealed, the Resident has limited physical mobility related to tremors, exertional SOB secondary to COPD and pain. provide analgesic medication . as needed. During an interview on 4/1/2025 at 1:01 PM Resident #2's representative stated Resident #2 had lived at the facility since May 2025, and she was frustrated with the previous Administrator and the DON due to the poor communication and lack of acknowledging and resolving grievances. Resident #2's representative stated she and family had been making complaints directly to the previous administrator and the DON for months with no resolutions. Resident #2's representative stated she and family had been making complaints via text messages, emails, and verbally to the previous administrator and the DON. A record review of Resident #2's representatives text messages and emails to and from the previous Administrator and the DON between the time periods of February 2025 to March 2025 revealed: On 2/13/25 at 6:13 PM Resident #2's representative, sent a text message to the previous admin and the DON which revealed, Hi (previous Administrator), my (Resident #2) was just now needing some pain meds I told (Resident #2) lets go in and ring your bell. I was abruptly told she would not come (LVN L) if we pushed the button. (Resident #2) has told me she does not come at night, . this is gravely concerning. The DON replied, Hi ladies I am sorry this happened, and clearly this is not acceptable, so this will be addressed. who said LVN L would not come? . this is the first complaint I have ever gotten from her. The Previous Administrator responded Thank you for letting us know. We will address. An email sent to the DON from Resident #2's representative dated 2/24/2025 at 11:16 AM Hi (DON), I wanted to reach out because as you know, our (Resident #2) is extremely ill, and our (family member) has requested ambulance to come and pick him up to transfer him to the hospital. (facility's) PA is concerned also about him possibly having pneumonia. We are deeply upset and concerned about how the nursing staff, who see him daily and nightly, haven't seemed to recognize the significant changes in his condition-his inability to talk clearly, walk on his own or even transfer safely along with the horrid cough. It's especially alarming that they attempted to collect a urine sample by placing a doughnut in the toilet when he isn't even able to walk to the bathroom. This situation is unacceptable, and I'd appreciate your help in addressing it as soon as possible. Additionally, sic(name), the ADON, mentioned to my family members a couple of months ago, that your (other family members) get in the way. The reality is, if we don't advocate for our parents, things don't seem to get addressed in a timely manner. For example, I have been discussing my Resident #2's needs to restart PT with the DOR and (previous Administrator) for over a month due to his leg weakness, and now he has deteriorated to the point where he can no longer use his legs at all. We are simply trying to ensure our (Resident #2) receive the best care possible, and we need reassurance that these concerns will be taken seriously and addressed appropriately. Thank you for your time and attention to this. On Thursday 2/27/25, at 3:29 PM Resident #2's representative texted the DON with a complaint it revealed, (DON) this is (Resident #2's Representative) Tuesday morning I spoke with my (Resident #2's) hospitalist and she said that my (Resident #2) did have a bad kidney infection. There is a discrepancy here I do not understand . his symptoms of confusion, extremely slurred speech and inability to walk is the reason I requested that an ambulance be called. These symptoms were ignored. All we are asking is for you guys to acknowledge that the nurses on duty Sunday and Monday did not take care of business. The DON responded, I am not going to put blame on anyone nor sit her and argue about what a doctor did or didn't say I am simply stating (Resident #2's) labs show nothing of the sort nor did the dr. put that anywhere on his notes again if you do not feel that we can care properly for your parents I will be more than happy to send paper work to other facilities let me know thanks. An email sent on 3/3/2025 at 7:54 PM to the SW from Resident #2's representative revealed, Hi (SW) we normally get a copy of our (Resident #2) care plans at the care plan meetings. Since not receiving one last week, could we have them emailed to this email address? Record review of the facility's grievances from August 2024 to March 2025 revealed no evidence of the grievances detailed on 2/13/2025, 2/27/2025, 2/24,2025, and on 3/3/2025. During a joint interview on 4/1/2025 at 9:51 am with the Administrator and the DON, the DON stated Resident #2's representatives were not happy with the care provided to Resident #2 and would often complain, however Resident #2 was happy with his care. The administrator stated he had just begun his position of Administrator on 3/1/25. The Administrator stated he soon recognized the facility needed improvement recognizing and acting upon grievances. The Administrator stated he began working with the staff to recognize and document grievances and the administrator evidenced the grievance log to demonstrate the increased number and quality documentation of grievances during March 2025 to include the resolutions of grievances. During an interview on 4/4/2025 at 4:00 PM the DON stated she began her position as DON on 12/31/2025 and during that time Resident #2's family had made numerous complaints. The DON stated due to the investigations of complaints by the survey process she recognized she had not understood the grievance process and stated the previous Administrator had not trained her on the expectations and procedures for the grievance process. The DON stated the previous Administrator was the abuse, neglect, and exploitation prevention coordinator and believed he would oversee the grievances reported to him and believed he was responsible for the grievance process. The DON stated the previous Administrator was aware of all complaints because all complaints and the previous days business was discussed during the daily interdisciplinary team meetings. During an interview on 4/5/2025 at 5:02 PM the Administrator stated he was not the administrator at the time of the complaints on behalf of Resident #2 and the previous Administrator was responsible for ensuring those complaints were heard, documented, and satisfactorily resolved for Resident #2 and others. The Administrator stated he was the abuse, neglect, and exploitation prevention coordinator. The Administrator stated the failure to hear grievances could place residents at risk for not having their grievances heard. The Administrator stated he had begun training for his team and all the staff to ensure they all understood the grievance process and expected increased documentation and recognition of grievances with satisfactory resolutions. A record review of the facility's Resident and Family Grievances dated July 2022, revealed, Policy: It is the policy of this facility to support each resident's and family member's right to voice grievances without discrimination, reprisal or fear of discrimination or reprisal. Definitions: Prompt efforts to resolve include facility acknowledgment of a complaint/grievance and actively working toward resolution of that complaint/grievance. Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines: . The Grievance Official is responsible for overseeing the grievance process; receiving and tracking grievances through to their conclusion; leading any necessary investigations by the facility; maintaining the confidentiality of all information associated with grievances; issuing written grievance decisions to the resident; and coordinating with state and federal agencies as necessary in light of specific allegations. A resident or family member may voice grievances with respect to care and treatment which has been furnished as well as that which has not been furnished, the behavior of staff and other residents, and other concerns regarding their LTC facility stay. Procedure: a. This facility will not retaliate or discriminate against anyone who files a grievance or participates in the investigation of a grievance. b. The staff member receiving the grievance will record the nature and specifics of the grievance on the designated grievance form or assist the resident or family member to complete the form. i. Take any immediate actions needed to prevent further potential violations of any resident right. ii. Report any allegations involving neglect, abuse, injuries of unknown source, and/or misappropriation of resident property immediately to the administrator and follow procedures for those allegations. c. Forward the grievance form to the Grievance Official as soon as practicable. d. The Grievance Official will take steps to resolve the grievance, and record information about the grievance, and those actions, on the grievance form. i. Steps to resolve the grievance may involve forwarding the grievance to the appropriate department manager for follow up. ii. All staff involved in the grievance investigation or resolution should make prompt efforts to resolve the grievance and return the grievance form to the Grievance Official. Prompt efforts include acknowledgment of complaint/grievances and actively working toward a resolution of that complaint/grievance. iii. All staff involved in the grievance investigation or resolution will take steps to preserve the confidentiality of files and records relating to grievances and will share them only with those who have a need to know. e. The Grievance Official, or designee, will keep the resident appropriately apprised of progress towards resolution of the grievances. f. The facility will take appropriate action in accordance with State law if an alleged violation of resident's rights is confirmed by the facility or an outside entity, such as State Survey Agency, Quality Improvement Organization, or local law enforcement agency. g. In accordance with the resident's right to obtain a written decision regarding his or her grievance, the Grievance Official will issue a written decision on the grievance to the resident or representative at the conclusion of the investigation. The written decision will include at a minimum: i. The date the grievance was received. ii. The steps taken to investigate the grievance. iii. A summary of the pertinent findings or conclusions regarding the resident's concern(s). iv. A statement as to whether the grievance was confirmed or not confirmed. v. Any corrective action taken or to be taken by the facility as a result of the grievance. vi. The date the written decision was issued. h. For investigations regarding allegations of neglect, abuse, injuries of unknown source, and/or misappropriation of resident property, a report of the investigative results will be submitted to the State Survey Agency, and other officials in accordance with State law, within five working days of the incident. 12. The facility will make prompt efforts to resolve grievances.
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

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record reviews the facility failed to ensure all suspected violations involving abuse, neglect, exploita...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record reviews the facility failed to ensure all suspected violations involving abuse, neglect, exploitation, or mistreatment are reported to the state agency not later than 2 hours after the allegation is made, if the allegation does not concern abuse, for 2 of 8 residents (Residents #1, and #2) reviewed for reporting allegations of ANE. 1. On [DATE] LVN A, the ADON, the previous DON, and the Administrator at that time, failed to report an allegation of neglect on behalf of Resident #1 when LVN A performed CPR on Resident #1 while Resident #1 wished to not have CPR and had wished to be DNR status. 2. On [DATE] the previous Administrator and the DON heard an allegation of neglect on Resident #2's behalf and failed to report the allegation to the state agency. 3. On [DATE] the DON received an allegation of neglect via an email on behalf of Resident #2 and failed to report the allegation to the state agency. 4. On [DATE], the DON heard an allegation of neglect on Resident #2's behalf and failed to report the allegation to the state agency. These failures could place residents at risk for harm by not having allegations of ANE reported to the state agency. The findings included: Resident #1 A record reviews of the Texas Unified Licensure Information Portal website; https://txhhs.my.salesforce.com/?ec=302&startURL=%2Fvisualforce%2Fsession%3Furl%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Ftxhhs.lightning.force.com%252Flightning%252F; accessed [DATE] revealed no facility generated reports during [DATE] regarding allegations of ANE on behalf of Resident #1. A record review of Resident #1's admission Record dated [DATE] was documented, a [AGE] year-old, she was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses of multiple rib fractures, dementia) (a decline in mental ability severe enough to interfere with daily life), Parkinson's disease (a progressive neurological disorder that affects movement, primarily due to a decline in dopamine-producing brain cells, leading to symptoms like tremors, stiffness, and slow movement, but also impacting non-motor functions like sleep and mood.) and cognitive communication deficit. Resident #1 was at facility for 24 days and was discharged on [DATE]. A record review of Resident #1's chart was documented an OODNR dated [DATE]. A record review of Resident #1's consolidated physician orders for [DATE] revealed she had a code status order for DNR. A record review of Resident #1 admission MDS dated [DATE] was documented her BIMs score was 8/15 (moderate cognitive impairment), she had impairment on lower extremity on both sides, she used a walker/wheelchair to mobilize, she required supervision for self-care for eating, oral hygiene, persona hygiene, and maximum/moderate assistance with toileting, showers, and dressing. Resident #1 was incontinent of bowel/bladder, she had diagnoses of fractures, dementia, and Parkinson's. A record review of Resident #1 baseline care plan dated [DATE] was documented her code status was DNR. A record review of Resident #1's care plan conference dated [DATE] was documented her code status was OODNR. A record review of Resident #1's progress note dated [DATE] at 6:13 PM by RN A, was documented, resident was last seen well at 1630 (4:30 PM) when I administered her evening medications. I was notified at 1705 (5:05 PM) that resident was unresponsive. when assessed resident was not breathing and did not respond to sternal chest rub. 911 was called, CPR was initiated after 1 pump of CPR resident moaned out and was now breathing. vitals where 139/78 02 88 heart rate 52. resident still would not open eyes and would not verbally respond. EMS arrived and resident was sent to hospital for further evaluation RN A. Attempted interview on [DATE] at 12:30 PM, [DATE] at 1:26 PM, [DATE] at 12:02 PM with RN A left a voicemail and did not return call before the exit. During an interview on [DATE] at 1:07 PM with CNA B stated that day, she was not sure of exact date, Resident #1 was not breathing, called CNA C on phone and asked her to get nurse, RN A. CNA B stated she automatically grabbed the crash cart, with code status book and went to tell RN A to go to Resident #1's room. CNA B stated RN A started CPR and did 2 compressions, and Resident #1 opened her eye. CNA B stated during the compression, she had opened the code book to Resident #1's code status and told RN A that Resident #1 was a DNR. CNA B stated she had stepped out on the hall to return to her hall, saw EMS and let them know Resident #1 room number, and she left on the stretcher awake. CNA B stated later that day, RN A stated she had looked at Resident #1's admission record and her code status was a DNR. CNA B had stated to RN A that she had told her Resident #1 was a DNR, but she did not listen. CNA B stated that RN A did not hear her. CNA B stated RN A, CNA C were in Resident #1's in room, but was not sure of the other staff. During an interview on [DATE] at 2:25 PM with CNA C stated RN A did do compressions, she was not sure who found Resident #1. CNA C stated she did not recall if Resident #1 was in pain. CNA C stated the resident code status were in a binder on the crash cart. CNA C stated she was following the nurses' instructions, and she was not sure of Resident #1's code status. CNA C stated she thought surveyor was talking about a different resident when talked last. CNA C was not sure about the incident. During an interview on [DATE] at 2:18 PM the previous DON stated she was the DON at the facility until mid-[DATE] when she resigned. The DON stated the environment was toxic due to the Administrators poor support. The previous DON stated she was unaware of Resident #1's CPR event and could not recall any details of the incident. The DON stated she was employed as the DON during the month of [DATE] but was not the DON effectively stating the administrator and the ADON had cut her out of the loop and the ADON was in effect the DON. The DON stated had she known of the incident she would have reported the incident and investigated the incident. The DON stated if Resident #1 had wished to be a DNR status they should have not provided CPR. Record review of Policy, Communication of Code Status dated 7/22 was documented, It is the policy of this facility to adhere to residents' rights to formulate advance directives. In accordance to these rights, this facility will implement procedures to communicate a resident's code status to those individuals who need to know this information. 4. The resident's code status should be entered into the resident physician orders in the EMR. 5. Additional means of communication of code status include: Code status will appear at the top of the resident home screen in EMR. 9. The resident's code status will be reviewed at least quarterly and documented in the medical record. Resident #2 A record review of Resident #2's admission record dated [DATE] revealed an admission date of [DATE] with diagnoses which included cerebrovascular disease (a group of conditions that affect blood flow and the blood vessels in the brain), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD a term for lung and airway diseases that restrict your breathing. People with COPD have airway inflammation and scarring, damage to the air sacs in their lungs or both.), and cancer of the intestines. A record review of Resident #2's quarterly MDS dated [DATE] revealed Resident #2 was an [AGE] year-old male admitted for long term care, further review revealed Resident #2 had adequate vision, hearing, could usually understand and could usually understand others. Resident #2 was assessed with mild cognitive impairment and needed assistance with activities of daily life. A record review of Resident #2's care plan dated [DATE] revealed, the Resident has limited physical mobility related to tremors, exertional SOB secondary to COPD and pain. provide analgesic medication . as needed. Record reviews of the Texas Unified Licensure Information Portal website https://txhhs.my.salesforce.com/?ec=302&startURL=%2Fvisualforce%2Fsession%3Furl%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Ftxhhs.lightning.force.com%252Flightning%252F accessed [DATE] revealed no facility generated reports during February through [DATE] regarding allegations of ANE on behalf of Resident #2. A record review of Resident #2's representatives text messages and emails to and from the previous Administrator and the DON between the time periods of February 2025 to [DATE] revealed: On February 13, 2025, at 6:13 PM Resident #2's representative, sent a text message to the previous admin and the DON which revealed an allegation of neglect on Resident #2's behalf, Hi (previous Administrator), my (Resident #2) was just now needing some pain meds I told (Resident #2) lets go in and ring your bell. I was abruptly told she would not come (LVN L) if we pushed the button. (Resident #2) has told me she does not come at night, . this is gravely concerning. The DON replied, Hi ladies I am sorry this happened, and clearly this is not acceptable, so this will be addressed. who said LVN L would not come? . this is the first complaint I have ever gotten from her. The Previous Administrator responded Thank you for letting us know. We will address. A record review of an email sent to the DON from Resident #2's representative dated [DATE] at 11:16 AM revealed a complaint and an allegation of neglect, Hi (DON), I wanted to reach out because as you know, our (Resident #2) is extremely ill, and our (family member) has requested ambulance to come and pick him up to transfer him to the hospital. (facility's) PA is concerned also about him possibly having pneumonia. We are deeply upset and concerned about how the nursing staff, who see him daily and nightly, haven't seemed to recognize the significant changes in his condition-his inability to talk clearly, walk on his own or even transfer safely along with the horrid cough. It's especially alarming that they attempted to collect a urine sample by placing a doughnut in the toilet when he isn't even able to walk to the bathroom. This situation is unacceptable, and I'd appreciate your help in addressing it as soon as possible. Additionally, sic(name), the ADON, mentioned to my parents a couple of months ago, that your daughters get in the way. The reality is, if we don't advocate for our parents, things don't seem to get addressed in a timely manner. For example, I have been discussing my dad's need to restart PT with the DOR and (previous Administrator) for over a month due to his leg weakness, and now he has deteriorated to the point where he can no longer use his legs at all. We are simply trying to ensure our (Resident #2) receive the best care possible, and we need reassurance that these concerns will be taken seriously and addressed appropriately. Thank you for your time and attention to this. On Thursday February 27, 2025, at 3:29 PM Resident #2's representative texted the DON with a complaint and an allegation of neglect on Resident #2's behalf, (DON) this is (Resident #2's Representative) Tuesday morning I spoke with my (Resident #2's) hospitalist and she said that my (Resident #2) did have a bad kidney infection. There is a discrepancy here I do not understand . his symptoms of confusion, extremely slurred speech and inability to walk is the reason I requested that an ambulance be called. These symptoms were ignored. All we are asking is for you guys to acknowledge that the nurses on duty Sunday and Monday did not take care of business. The DON responded, I am not going to put blame on anyone nor sit her and argue about what a doctor did or didn't say I am simply stating (Resident #2's) labs show nothing of the sort nor did the dr. put that anywhere on his notes again if you do not feel that we can care properly for your parents I will be more than happy to send paper work to other facilities let me know thanks. During a joint interview on [DATE] at 9:51 am with the Administrator and the DON, the DON stated Resident #2's representatives were not happy with the care provided to Resident #2 and would often complain, however Resident #2 was happy with his care. The administrator stated he had just begun his position of Administrator on [DATE]. The Administrator stated he soon recognized the facility needed improvement recognizing and acting upon allegations of ANE. The Administrator stated he began working with the staff to recognize and report allegations of ANE. The administrator evidenced the grievance log to demonstrate the increased number and quality documentation of grievances during [DATE], which were reviewed for potential allegations of ANE. During an interview on [DATE] at 1:01 PM Resident #2's representative stated Resident #2 had lived at the facility since [DATE], and she was frustrated with the previous Administrator and the DON due to the poor communication and lack of acknowledging and resolving grievances and allegations of ANE . Resident #2's representative stated she and family had been making allegations directly to the previous administrator and the DON for months with no resolutions. Resident #2's representative stated she and family had been making allegations via text messages, emails, and verbally to the previous administrator and the DON. During an interview on [DATE] at 4:00 PM the DON stated she began her position as DON on [DATE] and during that time Resident #2's family had made numerous complaints. The DON stated due to the investigations of allegations of ANE by the survey process she recognized she understood the reporting of ANE process and stated the previous Administrator was responsible for reporting allegations of ANE to the state agency since he was aware of the allegations and was the ANE prevention coordinator. The DON stated the previous Administrator was aware of all the allegations of ANE because all allegations and the previous days business were discussed during the daily interdisciplinary team meetings. During an interview on [DATE] at 5:02 PM the Administrator stated he was not the administrator at the time of the allegations on behalf of Residents #1 and #2 and the previous The Administrator stated the failure to recognize and report allegations of ANE could place residents at risk for not having their allegations of ANE reported. The Administrator stated he had begun training for his team and all the staff to ensure they all understood the ANE prevention recognizing and reporting process and expected increased documentation and recognition of allegations of ANE with reports to the state agency. A record review of the facility's Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation policy dated [DATE], revealed, 1. The facility will develop and implement written policies and procedures that: . Include training for new and existing staff on activities that constitute abuse, neglect, exploitation, and misappropriate of resident property. Reporting procedures, and dementia management and resident abuse prevention; and . The facility will designate an Abuse Prevention Coordinator in the facility who is responsible for reporting allegations or suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation to the state survey agency and other officials in accordance with state law. Reporting/Response A. The facility will have written procedures that include: I. Reporting of all alleged violations to the Administrator, state agency, adult protective services and to all other required agencies (e.g., law enforcement when applicable) within specified timeframes: a. Immediately, but not later than 2 hours after the allegation is made, if the events that cause the allegation involve abuse or result in serious bodily injury
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

Investigate Abuse (Tag F0610)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record reviews the facility, in response to allegations of abuse, neglect, exploitation, or mistreatment...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record reviews the facility, in response to allegations of abuse, neglect, exploitation, or mistreatment, failed to ensure all alleged violations were thoroughly investigated and reported the results of all investigations to the State Survey Agency, within 5 working days of the incident, for 2 of 8 residents (Residents #1, and #2) reviewed for investigating and reporting results to the state survey agency. 1. On [DATE] LVN A, the ADON, the previous DON, and the Administrator at that time, failed to investigate an allegation of neglect on behalf of Resident #1 when LVN A performed CPR on Resident #1 while Resident #1 wished to not have CPR and had wished to be DNR status. 2. On [DATE] the previous Administrator and the DON heard an allegation of neglect on Resident #2's behalf and failed to investigate the allegation and report the results to the state agency. 3. On [DATE] the DON received an allegation of neglect via an email on behalf of Resident #2 and failed to investigate the allegation and report the results to the state agency. 4. On [DATE], the DON heard an allegation of neglect on Resident #2's behalf and failed to investigate the allegation and report the results to the state agency. These failures could place residents at risk for harm by not having allegations of ANE reported to the state agency. The findings included: 1.Resident #1 A record review of Resident #1's admission Record dated [DATE] was documented, a [AGE] year-old, she was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses of multiple rib fractures, dementia) (a decline in mental ability severe enough to interfere with daily life), Parkinson's disease (a progressive neurological disorder that affects movement, primarily due to a decline in dopamine-producing brain cells, leading to symptoms like tremors, stiffness, and slow movement, but also impacting non-motor functions like sleep and mood.) and cognitive communication deficit. Resident #1 was at facility for 24 days and was discharged on [DATE]. A record review of Resident #1's chart was documented an OODNR dated [DATE]. A record review of Resident #1's consolidated physician orders for [DATE] revealed she had a code status order for DNR. A record review of Resident #1 admission MDS dated [DATE] was documented her BIMs score was 8/15 (moderate cognitive impairment), she had impairment on lower extremity on both sides, she used a walker/wheelchair to mobilize, she required supervision for self-care for eating, oral hygiene, persona hygiene, and maximum/moderate assistance with toileting, showers, and dressing. Resident #1 was incontinent of bowel/bladder, she had diagnoses of fractures, dementia, and Parkinson's. A record review of Resident #1 baseline care plan dated [DATE] was documented her code status was DNR. A record review of Resident #1's care plan conference dated [DATE] was documented her code status was OODNR. A record review of Resident #1's progress note dated [DATE] at 6:13 PM by RN A, was documented, resident was last seen well at 1630 (4:30 PM) when I administered her evening medications. I was notified at 1705 (5:05 PM) that resident was unresponsive. when assessed resident was not breathing and did not respond to sternal chest rub. 911 was called, CPR was initiated after 1 pump of CPR resident moaned out and was now breathing. vitals where 139/78 02 88 heart rate 52. resident still would not open eyes and would not verbally respond. EMS arrived and resident was sent to hospital for further evaluation RN A. Attempted interview on [DATE] at 12:30 PM, [DATE] at 1:26 PM, [DATE] at 12:02 PM with RN A left a voicemail and did not return call before the exit. During an interview on [DATE] at 1:07 PM with CNA B stated that day, she was not sure of exact date, Resident #1 was not breathing, called CNA C on phone and asked her to get nurse, RN A. CNA B stated she automatically grabbed the crash cart, with code status book and went to tell RN A to go to Resident #1's room. CNA B stated RN A started CPR and did 2 compressions, and Resident #1 opened her eye. CNA B stated during the compression, she had opened the code book to Resident #1's code status and told RN A that Resident #1 was a DNR. CNA B stated she had stepped out on the hall to return to her hall, saw EMS and let them know Resident #1 room number, and she left on the stretcher awake. CNA B stated later that day, RN A stated she had looked at Resident #1's admission record and her code status was a DNR. CNA B had stated to RN A that she had told her Resident #1 was a DNR, but she did not listen. CNA B stated that RN A did not hear her. CNA B stated RN A, CNA C were in Resident #1's in room, but was not sure of the other staff. During an interview on [DATE] at 12:23 PM with ADON stated she was not present for the incident with Resident #1. ADON stated the family had not shared any complaints and Resident #1 spouse visited her daily. The ADON stated every night the residents code status's get printed by night staff and placed in a binder, on top of crash cart. The ADON stated RN A should have looked at the code status binder. The ADON stated the previous DON did educate her on the code status incident but had no documentation and she did not remember signing anything for code status training. The ADON stated she was not the boss and did not report this incident to the STATE. During an interview on [DATE] at 2:25 PM with CNA C stated RN A did do compressions, she was not sure who found Resident #1. CNA C stated she did not recall if Resident #1 was in pain. CNA C stated the resident code status were in a binder on the crash cart. CNA C stated she was following the nurses' instructions, and she was not sure of Resident #1's code status. CNA C stated she thought surveyor was talking about a different resident when talked last. CNA C was not sure about the incident. During an interview on [DATE] at 5:59 PM with the SW stated residents had a last choice of code status and staff should respect a resident choice. During an interview on [DATE] at 2:18 PM the previous DON stated she was the DON at the facility until mid-[DATE] when she resigned. The DON stated the environment was toxic due to the Administrators poor support. The previous DON stated she was unaware of Resident #1's CPR event and could not recall any details of the incident. The DON stated she was employed as the DON during the month of [DATE] but was not the DON effectively stating the administrator and the ADON had cut her out of the loop and the ADON was in effect the DON. The DON stated had she known of the incident she would have reported the incident and investigated the incident. The DON stated if Resident #1 had wished to be a DNR status they should have not provided CPR. Record review of Policy, Communication of Code Status dated 7/22 was documented, It is the policy of this facility to adhere to residents' rights to formulate advance directives. In accordance to these rights, this facility will implement procedures to communicate a resident's code status to those individuals who need to know this information. 4. The resident's code status should be entered into the resident physician orders in the EMR. 5. Additional means of communication of code status include: Code status will appear at the top of the resident home screen in EMR. 9. The resident's code status will be reviewed at least quarterly and documented in the medical record. Record reviews of the Texas Unified Licensure Information Portal website; https://txhhs.my.salesforce.com/?ec=302&startURL=%2Fvisualforce%2Fsession%3Furl%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Ftxhhs.lightning.force.com%252Flightning%252F; accessed [DATE] revealed no facility generated reports during [DATE] regarding allegations of ANE on behalf of Resident #1. During an interview on [DATE] at 2:18 PM the previous DON stated she was the DON at the facility until mid-[DATE] when she resigned. The DON stated the environment was toxic due to the Administrators poor support. The previous DON stated she was unaware of Resident #1's CPR event and could not recall any details of the incident. The DON stated she was employed as the DON during the month of [DATE] but was not the DON effectively stating the administrator and the ADON had cut her out of the loop and the ADON was in effect the DON. The DON stated had she known of the incident she would have reported the incident and investigated the incident. The DON stated if Resident #1 had wished to be a DNR status they should have not provided CPR 2. Resident #2 A record review of Resident #2's admission record dated [DATE] revealed an admission date of [DATE] with diagnoses which included cerebrovascular disease (a group of conditions that affect blood flow and the blood vessels in the brain), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD a term for lung and airway diseases that restrict your breathing. People with COPD have airway inflammation and scarring, damage to the air sacs in their lungs or both.), and cancer of the intestines. A record review of Resident #2's quarterly MDS dated [DATE] revealed Resident #2 was an [AGE] year-old male admitted for long term care, further review revealed Resident #2 had adequate vision, hearing, could usually understand and could usually understand others. Resident #2 was assessed with mild cognitive impairment and needed assistance with activities of daily life. A record review of Resident #2's care plan dated [DATE] revealed, the Resident has limited physical mobility related to tremors, exertional SOB secondary to COPD and pain. provide analgesic medication . as needed. Record reviews of the Texas Unified Licensure Information Portal website https://txhhs.my.salesforce.com/?ec=302&startURL=%2Fvisualforce%2Fsession%3Furl%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Ftxhhs.lightning.force.com%252Flightning%252F accessed [DATE] revealed no facility generated reports during February through [DATE] regarding allegations of ANE on behalf of Resident #2. A record review of Resident #2's representatives text messages and emails to and from the previous Administrator and the DON between the time periods of February 2025 to [DATE] revealed: On February 13, 2025, at 6:13 PM Resident #2's representative, sent a text message to the previous admin and the DON which revealed an allegation of neglect on Resident #2's behalf, Hi (previous Administrator), my (Resident #2) was just now needing some pain meds I told (Resident #2) lets go in and ring your bell. I was abruptly told she would not come (LVN L) if we pushed the button. (Resident #2) has told me she does not come at night, . this is gravely concerning. The DON replied, Hi ladies I am sorry this happened, and clearly this is not acceptable, so this will be addressed. who said LVN L would not come? . this is the first complaint I have ever gotten from her. The Previous Administrator responded Thank you for letting us know. We will address. A record review of an email sent to the DON from Resident #2's representative dated [DATE] at 11:16 AM revealed a complaint and an allegation of neglect, Hi (DON), I wanted to reach out because as you know, our (Resident #2) is extremely ill, and our (family member) has requested ambulance to come and pick him up to transfer him to the hospital. (facility's) PA is concerned also about him possibly having pneumonia. We are deeply upset and concerned about how the nursing staff, who see him daily and nightly, haven't seemed to recognize the significant changes in his condition-his inability to talk clearly, walk on his own or even transfer safely along with the horrid cough. It's especially alarming that they attempted to collect a urine sample by placing a doughnut in the toilet when he isn't even able to walk to the bathroom. This situation is unacceptable, and I'd appreciate your help in addressing it as soon as possible. Additionally, sic(name), the ADON, mentioned to my parents a couple of months ago, that your daughters get in the way. The reality is, if we don't advocate for our parents, things don't seem to get addressed in a timely manner. For example, I have been discussing my dad's need to restart PT with the DOR and (previous Administrator) for over a month due to his leg weakness, and now he has deteriorated to the point where he can no longer use his legs at all. We are simply trying to ensure our (Resident #2) receive the best care possible, and we need reassurance that these concerns will be taken seriously and addressed appropriately. Thank you for your time and attention to this. On Thursday February 27, 2025, at 3:29 PM Resident #2's representative texted the DON with a complaint and an allegation of neglect on Resident #2's behalf, (DON) this is (Resident #2's Representative) Tuesday morning I spoke with my (Resident #2's) hospitalist and she said that my (Resident #2) did have a bad kidney infection. There is a discrepancy here I do not understand . his symptoms of confusion, extremely slurred speech and inability to walk is the reason I requested that an ambulance be called. These symptoms were ignored. All we are asking is for you guys to acknowledge that the nurses on duty Sunday and Monday did not take care of business. The DON responded, I am not going to put blame on anyone nor sit her and argue about what a doctor did or didn't say I am simply stating (Resident #2's) labs show nothing of the sort nor did the dr. put that anywhere on his notes again if you do not feel that we can care properly for your parents I will be more than happy to send paper work to other facilities let me know thanks. During a joint interview on [DATE] at 9:51 am with the Administrator and the DON, the DON stated Resident #2's representatives were not happy with the care provided to Resident #2 and would often complain, however Resident #2 was happy with his care. The administrator stated he had just begun his position of Administrator on [DATE]. The Administrator stated he soon recognized the facility needed improvement recognizing and acting upon allegations of ANE. The Administrator stated he began working with the staff to recognize and report allegations of ANE. The administrator evidenced the grievance log to demonstrate the increased number and quality documentation of grievances during [DATE], which were reviewed for potential allegations of ANE. During an interview on [DATE] at 1:01 PM Resident #2's representative stated Resident #2 had lived at the facility since [DATE], and she was frustrated with the previous Administrator and the DON due to the poor communication and lack of acknowledging and resolving grievances and allegations of ANE. Resident #2's representative stated she and family had been making allegations directly to the previous administrator and the DON for months with no resolutions. Resident #2's representative stated she and family had been making allegations via text messages, emails, and verbally to the previous administrator and the DON. During an interview on [DATE] at 4:00 PM the DON stated she began her position as DON on [DATE] and during that time Resident #2's family had made numerous complaints. The DON stated due to the investigations of allegations of ANE by the survey process she recognized she understood the reporting of ANE process and stated the previous Administrator was responsible for investigating allegations of ANE and reporting the results of the investigation to the state agency since he was aware of the allegations and was the ANE prevention coordinator. The DON stated the previous Administrator was aware of all the allegations of ANE because all allegations and the previous days business were discussed during the daily interdisciplinary team meetings. During an interview on [DATE] at 5:02 PM the Administrator stated he was not the administrator at the time of the allegations on behalf of Residents #1 and #2 and the previous Administrator was responsible for ensuring those allegations were heard, documented, and investigated for Residents #1 and #2. The Administrator stated he was the current abuse, neglect, and exploitation prevention coordinator. The Administrator stated the failure to recognize and investigate allegations of ANE could place residents at risk for not having their allegations of ANE investigated. The Administrator stated he had begun training for his team and all the staff to ensure they all understood the ANE prevention investigating and reporting process and expected increased documentation and recognition of allegations of ANE with reports to the state agency. A record review of the facility's Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation policy dated [DATE], revealed, 1. The facility will develop and implement written policies and procedures that: . investigate any such allegations; and . an immediate investigation is warranted when suspicion of abuse, neglect or exploitation, or reports of abuse, neglect or exploitation occur. The Administrator will follow up with government agencies, during business hours, to confirm the initial report was received, and to report the results of the investigation when final within 5 working days of the incident, as required by state agencies.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observations and interviews, the facility failed to ensure all drugs and biologicals were in locked compartments and permitted only authorized personnel to have access, for 2 of the facility'...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations and interviews, the facility failed to ensure all drugs and biologicals were in locked compartments and permitted only authorized personnel to have access, for 2 of the facility's 7 medication carts (a treatment cart and a medication cart), reviewed for security and supervision. 1. Medication Aide AI left the medication cart unattended, unsupervised, and unlocked. 2. LVN AM left the treatment cart unattended, unsupervised, and unlocked. These failures could place residents at risk for harm by unsecured medications. The findings included: During an observation and interview on 4/2/2024 at 8:27 AM revealed the medication cart and the treatment cart were parked on the facility's 300-hall. Further observation revealed the medication cart, and the treatment cart were unlocked and unattended. Continued observations revealed housekeeper AL, Driver AK and CNA AJ had alternately ambulated past the unlocked carts over 5 minutes elapsed time. At 8:37 AM the surveyor alerted LVN AM the treatment cart, and the medication carts were unattended, unsupervised, and unsecured. LVN AM stated she was in a resident's room providing care and had unintentionally left the treatment cart unlocked. LVN AM observed the medication cart and recognized the cart was unlocked and alerted the DON. The DON approached the medication cart and locked. LVN AM reported to the DON she also had left her cart unsupervised and unlocked while she was in a resident's room. The DON stated the medication cart was assigned to MA AI and then summoned MA AI. The DON gave a report of finding the medication cart unlocked. The DON stated all carts with medications should be locked when not attended. During an observation and interview on 4/2/2025 at 8:38 AM MA AI stated she was assigned the medication cart around 7:40 AM by LVN M. MA AI stated she left the cart briefly but had not left the cart unlocked and stated she always locked the cart when she left the cart. MA AI stated she did not understand how the cart came to be unlocked. MA I stated the risk to residents' medication was unsecured medications. During an interview on 4/5/2025 at 5:10 PM the Administrator stated he had received a report MA AI had left the medication cart unlocked. The Administrator stated the risk for harm for residents was unsecured medications. A record review of the facility's Medication Storage dated 7/2022 revealed, Policy: It is the policy of this facility to ensure all medications housed on our premises will be stored in the pharmacy and/or medication rooms according to the manufacturer's recommendations and sufficient to ensure proper sanitation, temperature, light, ventilation, moisture control, segregation, and security. Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines 1. General Guidelines: a. All drugs and biologicals will be stored in locked compartments (i.e., medication carts, cabinets, drawers, refrigerators, medication rooms) under proper temperature controls. b. Only authorized personnel will have access to the keys to locked compartments.
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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews revealed the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety, for ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews revealed the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety, for 1 of 1 Resident's food / snack pantry reviewed for food safety. The facility's Resident food snack pantry located on the residents hall had a refrigerator with 15 containers of food. The containers had various food safety concerns to include old, expired food available for residents' consumption. These failures could place residents at risk for harm by food borne illnesses. The findings included: During an observation and interview on 4/1/2025 at 2:56 PM revealed the facility's Resident food and snack pantry room with CNA AN revealed the refrigerator had a temperature of 45 degrees Fahrenheit and held the following items: 1. A 32-ounce tub of yogurt with manufactures use by date of 1/13/2025 and a handwritten date of 3/25/2025 and written upon the lid was the word residents. 2. An individual sealed serving cup of a name brand yogurt with the manufactures use by date of 2/21/2025. 3. A facility made cup of pudding with the date of 3/7. 4. A 16-ounce plastic container of a grocery store's prepared fruit blend labeled best if used by 3/19/2025, perishable, (Resident #15). further observation revealed wet soft pieces of grapes, melon, blueberries, and other assorted fruits. 5. A sandwich size clear plastic zip bag contained half an avocado. The avocado had a spotted dark brown and black wet colored flesh. The bag had no markings and or label. 6. A 15-ounce plastic container of a grocery store prepared Cole slaw ready to eat. The container had a handwritten date of 3/25/2025 and Resident #18's name. 7. A small clear plastic cup of cubed watermelon. The plastic container had no label or date other than the name of (Resident #16.) 8. An approximately 3 round plastic reusable bowl with a lid. The bowl presented semi filled with soft discolored and malodorous pieces of fruit to include brown pineapple, brown spotted melon, and grapes. 9. An approximately 4 rectangle reuseable semi clear plastic food container with Resident #17's name written upon the container. Further observation revealed the container had malodorous noodles and a shriveled egg roll. 10. 2 small plastic semi clear containers of an unknown beige off white pudding sauce. The containers were within a brown paper bag with an unknown resident's name written upon the bag. The bag and the containers had no date labels. 11. A small 4-ounce fast food dairy dessert container without any labels and or names. The container revealed an of white watery slurry. 12. A small 8-ounce fast food dairy dessert container with resident's #/'s name written on the cup. The container revealed a dark brown watery slurry. 13. A half-eaten open paper plate serving of a fast-food taco meal with condiments. The was no label to indicate a Resident and or date on the meal. 14. A clear plastic container of a grocery store prepared Cranberry Pecan Turkey Salad Medium revealed a semi full container and a handwritten name of Resident #18. The containers' label revealed, packed on 3/26/2025 sell by 3/29/2025 09:58 AM. 0.775 lbs. 15. 2 restaurant plastic to-go food containers with a handwritten name of Resident #18. The containers were observed to have leftovers from a previous meal. The containers did not have any other labels other than Resident #18's name. CNA AN stated this refrigerator was for residents' snacks and foods brought by families. CNA AN stated she was unaware of labeling practices for food safety. CNA AN stated she could not say whether the foods were safe to serve. CNA AN stated some of the foods appeared not safe to serve and would report to the nurse immediately. CNA AN stated she was unaware if anyone was responsible for checking the refrigerator for food safety. During an interview on 4/1/2025 at 6:00 PM the FSM stated he had received a report about the resident's food snack pantry located on the resident's floor . The FSM stated prior to today's report he was unaware of the resident's food snack pantry and the refrigerator within. The FSM stated he was now aware the refrigerator was his responsibility for food safety. The FSM stated and demonstrated the expectations for food safety as follows: Foods made by the facility must have a label to indicate 2 dates: o A date the food was prepared. o A date the food would be thrown out. Foods brought from other sources should be presented to the FSM for food safety inspection and would receive a label to indicate: o A date the food was presented. o A date the food would be thrown out. Any foods past 3 days of preparation and or presentation would be thrown out. Any foods past the manufacture's expiration dates would be thrown out. During a joint interview on 4/5/2025 at 5:20 PM with the Administrator and the DON, the Administrator stated he had received a report of the expired foods discovered in the resident's food snack pantry. The Administrator stated the foods should have been supervised for safety by the FSM and the nursing staff. The Administrator stated he had collaborated with the IDT and developed and implemented food safety training for the dietary and nursing staff to include the food safety monitoring of resident's facility prepared foods and foods brought into the facility by families and or visitors. The Administrator stated the risk for harm for residents by the foods discovered in the pantry were food borne illnesses. The DON verbally concurred with the Administrator. A record review of the facility's Date Marking for Food Safety dated 7/2022, revealed, Policy: The facility adheres to a date marking system to ensure the safety of ready-to-eat, time/temperature control for safety food. Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines for Staffing: 1. Refrigerated, ready-to-eat, time/temperature control for safety food (i.e. perishable food) shall be held at a temperature of 41°F or less for a maximum of 7 days. 2. The food shall be clearly marked to indicate the date or day by which the food shall be consumed or discarded. 3. The individual opening or preparing a food shall be responsible for date marking the food at the time the food is opened or prepared. 4. The marking system shall consist of a color-coded label, the day/date of opening, and the day/date the item must be consumed or discarded. 5. The discard day or date may not exceed the manufacturer's use-by date, or four days, whichever is earliest. The date of opening or preparation counts as day 1. (For example, food prepared on Tuesday shall be discarded on or by Friday.) 6. The Head Cook, or designee, shall be responsible for checking the refrigerator daily for food items that are expiring, and shall discard accordingly. 7. The Dietary Manager, or designee, shall spot check refrigerators weekly for compliance, and document accordingly. Corrective action shall be taken as needed. 8. Note: prepared foods that are delivered to the nursing units shall be discarded within two hours, if not consumed. These items shall not be refrigerated as the time/temperature controls cannot be verified.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews the facility failed to ensure personnel handled, stored, processed, and transported linens so as to prevent the spread of infection, for 1 of 1 la...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews the facility failed to ensure personnel handled, stored, processed, and transported linens so as to prevent the spread of infection, for 1 of 1 laundry departments reviewed for infection prevention and control. 1. The laundry department presented with resident's clean blankets stored with soiled infectious laundry. 2. Laundry Aide AO and Laundry Aide AP donned only gloves and did not don full PPE while handling soiled infectious laundry. These failures could place residents and staff for cross-contamination of infectious diseases. The findings included: During an interview on 4/1/2025 at 9:10 AM the Administrator and the DON stated their census was 73 with some residents were on isolation for potential communicable diseases with some residents on droplet precautions due to influenza, some residents were on EBP, and others were on contact precautions. During an observation of the laundry department on 4/2/2025 at 3:22 PM revealed residents' clean blankets were stored in the soiled laundry room alongside 4 boxes of soiled infectious disease laundry. During an observation and interview on 4/2/2025 at 3:23 PM LA AO stated she was employed as a housekeeper and laundry aide at the facility for the past 8 months. LA AO stated the laundry department included 3 separate rooms connected by 2 doors. The first room was a soiled laundry room connected to the washing machine room by an open door. The third room was the dying machine room connected to the washer room by an open door. Further observation revealed the soiled laundry room contained four cardboard boxes which contained soiled laundry in plastic bags. The boxes were imprinted biohazard . caution; contains medical waste which may be biohazardous. The soiled linen room revealed numerous blankets and quilts hung upon 2 metal wheeled clothing carts. LA AO stated the blankets were clean and wet and could not go in to the dryers, so the blankets were hung upon the carts to dry out. LA AO identified the 4 cardboard boxes in the same room as laundry from residents' rooms which were under isolation precautions due to infections. LA AO stated only PPE in the laundry department were gloves. LA AO stated and demonstrated she practiced hand hygiene, wore gloves, placed soiled infectious disease laundry into the washing machine, doffed the gloves, and practiced hand hygiene. During an observation of the laundry department and joint interviews with the Housekeeping Director (HK Dir), LA AP, and LA AO on 4/3/2025 at 9:10 AM revealed the laundry department only had gloves for PPE, continued with the four biohazard boxes stored in the soiled laundry room alongside the clean blankets and continued with the doors to the soiled laundry room, washing machine room, and the dyer room were opened while soiled laundry was washed and clean laundry was dried and folded. LA AP and AO stated they were long term employees and had not been trained on how to handle soiled infectious disease laundry. LA AP stated she used common sense to handle soiled infectious disease laundry and used gloves for the handling of soiled infectious disease laundry. LA AP stated the soiled infectious disease laundry was stored in cardboard boxes and stored in the soiled laundry room. LA AP stated the laundry department was small and the clean wet blankets needed to be hung to dry in the soiled laundry room alongside of the soiled infectious disease laundry. LA AO agreed. The HK Dir stated training for infectious disease prevention and control was outside of his scope, but he had received training from the DON on general infection prevention and control measures for example donning and doffing PPE while providing direct care to residents who were under isolation precautions. The HK Dir stated soiled laundry from residents' rooms which were under infection isolation would be placed into plastic bags and then into biohazard cardboard boxes and then delivered to the soiled laundry room. The HK Dir stated he would report the lack of training, lack of PPE, and potential cross-contamination of clean and soiled laundry to the DON. During an interview on 4/5/2025 at 5:15 PM with the DON and the Administrator, the Administrator stated he had received a report of potential cross-contamination in the laundry department. The Administrator stated storing clean laundry in the soiled laundry room and not wearing full PPE while handling soiled infectious laundry placed residents and staff at risk for cross-contamination and at risk for contracting an infection; the DON concurred. A record review of the facility's Infection Prevention and Control Program dated 3/2022, revealed, Policy: This facility has established and maintains 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. Standard Precautions: a. All staff shall assume that all residents are potentially infected or colonized with an organism that could be transmitted during the course of providing resident care services. b. Hand hygiene shall be performed in accordance with our facility's established hand hygiene procedures. c. All staff shall use personal protective equipment (PPE) according to established facility policy governing the use of PPE. 5. Isolation Protocol (Transmission-Based Precautions): a. A resident with an infection or communicable disease shall be placed on transmission-based precautions as recommended by current CDC guidelines. Linens: a. Laundry and direct care staff shall handle, store, process, and transport linens to prevent spread of infection. b. Clean linen shall be separated from soiled linen at all times. A record review of the United States of America's Centers for disease Prevention and Control's website Long-term Care Facilities; Implementation of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) Use in Nursing Homes to Prevent Spread of Multidrug-resistant Organisms https://www.cdc.gov/long-term-care-facilities/hcp/prevent-mdro/ppe.html Accessed 4/5/2025, revealed, Residents in nursing homes are at increased risk of becoming colonized and developing infection with MDROs. Enhanced Barrier Precautions require staff to wear a gown and gloves while performing high-contact care activities with all residents who are at higher risk of acquiring or spreading an MDRO. These include the following residents: - Residents known to be infected or colonized with an MDRO; - Residents with an indwelling medical device including central venous catheter, urinary catheter, feeding tube (PEG tube, G-tube), tracheostomy/ventilator regardless of their MDRO status; - Residents with a wound, regardless of their MDRO status High-contact resident care activities where a gown and gloves should be used, which are often bundled together as part of morning or evening care, include: - Bathing/showering, - Changing bed linens, . Should Environmental Services (EVS) or housekeeping personnel wear gowns and gloves when cleaning and disinfecting rooms of residents on Enhanced Barrier Precautions? . The research that was the basis for the current guidance evaluated high-contact resident care activities, not specifically the risk of transmission of MDROs to the hands or clothing of Environmental Services (EVS) or housekeeping personnel. However, changing linen is considered a high contact resident care activity; gowns and gloves should be worn by EVS personnel if they are changing the linen of residents on Enhanced Barrier Precautions and could be considered for additional environmental services or housekeeping responsibilities that involve extensive contact with the resident or the resident's environment.
Feb 2025 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure, based on the comprehensive assessment of a resident, the resident received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the resident's choices for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for quality of care. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1 received wound care on 2/22/25 as ordered by the physician for cellulitis. The noncompliance was identified as PNC. The noncompliance began on 2/22/25 and ended on 2/23/25. The facility had corrected the noncompliance before the investigation began. This failure could place residents at risk of a decline in health, worsening wounds, and psychosocial harm. The findings include: Record review of Resident #1's face sheet, dated 2/28/25, reflected a [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #1 had diagnoses which included: leukemia and cellulitis (swollen skin). The RP was listed as: the resident. Record review of Resident #1's quarterly MDS, dated , 6/03/24 reflected the resident's BIMS score was 15, which indicated no impairments in cognition Record review of Resident #1's CP, dated 1/6/25, reflected the goal of wound care and interventions included: document healing of cellulitis, not to scratch, nail hygiene, antibiotics if prescribed and weekly wound care. Record review of Resident #1's MD orders, dated 2/2025, reflected: daily wound care with orders for cleaning, pat dry, apply silver alginate, cover, and wrapping. The order also reflected the antibiotic: Bactrim tablet 800-160 mg daily. Record review of Resident #1's eMAR, dated 2/2025, reflected: wound care was not given 2/22/25 [by LVN B]; and wound care given 2/23/25 [by DON]. Record review of Resident #1's Wound Nurse weekly report for February 2025 reflected no openings in the skin and skin was intact. Record review of Resident #1's skin assessment, dated 2/24/25, reflected: right leg redness; no measurements. Observation and interview on 2/28/25 at 11:40 PM, revealed Resident #1 was in their room, sitting on her W/C. The resident had no injuries; skin tears or bruises present; but had a wrapping on her right foot area. The wrapping was dated 2/27/25. Her disposition was one of anxiety; and the resident was alert and oriented to person, place and time. The Resident stated, .they (nursing service) did not give me wound care on Saturday (2/22/25) and Sunday (2/23/25) of this week. The resident stated nursing staff did not give her an explanation for the lack of ordered wound care. Resident #1 stated she complained to a CNA [could not remember the name]. Resident #1 stated her wound [cellulitis] was treated with an antibiotic. Resident #1 stated her wound [cellulitis] was getting better and there was no present pain; and did not want to miss wound treatment. During a telephone interview on 2/28/25 at 2:00 PM, the NP stated wound care was ordered daily by the physician for Resident #1 and the facility needed to follow MD orders. The NP stated orders needed to be followed to improve on the healing process. During an interview on 2/28/25 at 3:45 PM, LVN A (wound nurse) stated Resident #1 missed the wound treatment for cellulitis on 2/22/25. LVN A stated the resident did not suffer any harm because: treatment was cleaning and wrapping the skin, and the skin had no pressure injuries. LVN A stated the skin was intact on the last weekly skin assessment. LVN A stated, wound care was ordered daily; and it should have been done. LVN A stated, nurses Need to follow MD orders. LVN A stated she had no explanation for the weekend nurse [LVN B] not performing wound care on 2/22/25. During an interview on 2/28/25 at 3:55 PM, the DON stated the resident missed wound care on Saturday, 2/22/24. The DON stated LVN B did not provide an explanation why Resident #1 missed wound care; except that she got busy and forgot. The DON stated she disciplined LVN B by the issuance of written counseling. As a preventative measure for nursing staff, an in-service on wound care was conducted on 2/23/25, on the need follow MD orders. The DON stated 100% of nurses were trained who worked the floors on 2/23/25. The DON stated as part of prevention, the DON would monitor and educate nurses on following MD orders. The DON stated the resident did not suffer any harm because the condition was cellulitis. During an interview on 2/28/25 at 5:13 PM, LVN E stated she attended training on wound care and MD orders. The highlight of the training was to make sure wound care was performed to prevent complications to the resident. During an interview on 2/28/25 at 5:22 PM, LVN C stated she attended training on MD orders and wound care. The main highlights were not to falsify records and to do wound care within the prescribed period ordered by the physician. During an interview on 2/28/25 at 5:15 PM, LVN D stated: she attended training on orders and treatments. The main highlights of the training were to ensure care was done as ordered by the MD. Record review of the facility's in-service, dated 2/23/25 to 2/28/25, reflected 13 or 16 nurses were in-serviced on following MD orders and treatments: pending in-service for 3 PRN Nurses. Record review of employee file for LVN B reflected written counseling on 2/23/25. LVN B was given a written warning for not following doctor's orders and not performing wound care on 2/22/25.
Nov 2024 3 deficiencies
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Comprehensive Assessments (Tag F0636)

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 conduct an initial comprehensive assessment of each r...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to conduct an initial comprehensive assessment of each resident's functional capacity including the resident's needs, strengths, goals, life history, and preferences for 4 (Resident #1, Resident #2, Resident #3, and Resident #6) of 6 reviewed for assessments. 1. The MDS Coordinator failed to complete Resident #1's admission comprehensive assessment within 14 days after admission, 11/15/2024. 2. The MDS Coordinator failed to complete Resident #2's admission comprehensive assessment within 14 days after admission, 11/21/2024. 3. The MDS Coordinator failed to complete Resident #3's admission comprehensive assessment within 14 days after admission, 11/21/2024. 4. The MDS Coordinator failed to complete Resident #6's admission comprehensive assessment within 14 days after admission, 11/14/2024. This failure could affect newly admitted residents and result in residents not receiving the care and services as needed. The findings included: 1. Record review of Resident #1's admission Record, dated 11/25/2024, reflected Resident #1 was admitted on [DATE]. Resident #1 was noted to be [AGE] years old. Record review of Resident #1's Diagnosis Report, dated 11/25/2024, reflected Resident #1 was diagnosed with unspecified fracture of the lower end of left radius (a break in the lower end of one of the left forearm bones), acute and chronic respiratory failure (a condition where there is not enough oxygen or too much carbon dioxide in the body), and chronic kidney disease (a condition where the kidneys lose their ability to filter blood and remove wastes). Record review of Resident #1's EMR (electronic medical record) on 11/25/2024 reflected Resident #1 had two MDS Assessments, an Entry MDS dated [DATE] and noted as Accepted, and an Admission/Medicare- 5 Day MDS dated [DATE] and noted as Exported. Record review of Resident #1's MDS Admission/ Medicare- 5-day assessment, dated 11/06/2024, reflected it had been completed and signed by Consultant MDS Coordinator on 11/23/2024. Observation and attempted interview with Resident #1 on 11/26/2024 at 10:28 a.m. Resident #1 observed to be participating in therapy. 2. Record review of Resident #2's admission Record, dated 11/25/2024, reflected Resident #2 was admitted on [DATE]. Resident #2 was noted to be [AGE] years old. Record review of Resident #2's Diagnosis Report, dated 11/25/2024, reflected Resident #2 was diagnosed with depression (a mood disorder that causes a persistent feeling of sadness and loss of interest), polyneuropathy (a disorder that damages the peripheral nerves, which control the movement of the arms and legs), and wedge compression fracture of unspecified lumbar vertebra (small breaks in the a lower bone of the spine). Record review of Resident #2's EMR on 11/25/2024 reflected Resident #2 had three MDS Assessments, an Entry MDS dated [DATE] and noted as Accepted, an Admission/ Medicare- 5 Day MDS dated [DATE] and noted as In Progress, and a Discharge Return Anticipated MDS dated [DATE] and noted as In Progress. Record review of Resident #2's MDS Admission/ Medicare- 5 day assessment, dated 11/11/2024, on 11/25/2024 reflected only section F signed and noted as completed. The MDS assessment was not signed by a RN Assessment Coordinator Verifying Assessment Completion. Attempted observation and interview of Resident #2 on 11/26/2024 at 10:22 a.m. revealed resident was at a local hospital and unavailable. 3. Record review of Resident #3's admission Record, dated 11/25/2024, reflected Resident #3 was admitted on [DATE]. Resident #3 was noted to be [AGE] years old. Record review of Resident #3's Diagnosis Report, dated 11/25/2024, reflected Resident #3 was diagnosed with fibromyalgia (a disorder that affects muscle and soft tissue characterized by chronic muscle pain, tenderness, fatigue and sleep disturbances), noninfective gastroenteritis and colitis (inflammatory disorders often attributed to viruses or bacterial infections that affect the gastrointestinal tract resulting in abdominal pain and diarrhea) and urinary tract infection (UTI; infection in any part of the urinary system including the kidneys, bladder, ureters, and urethra). Record review of Resident #3's EMR on 11/25/2024 reflected Resident #3 had two MDS Assessments, an Entry MDS dated [DATE] and noted as Accepted, and an Admission/ Medicare- 5 Day MDS dated [DATE] and noted as In Progress. Observation and interview with Resident #3 on 11/26/2024 at 10:07 a.m. Resident #3 observed and interviewed in the resident's room. 4. Record review of Resident #6's admission Record, dated 11/25/2024, reflected Resident #6 was admitted on [DATE]. Resident #6 was noted to be [AGE] years old. Record review of Resident #6's Diagnosis Report, dated 11/25/2024, reflected Resident #6 was diagnosed with benign prostatic hyperplasia (enlarged prostate), peripheral vascular disease (a circulatory condition in which narrowed blood vessels reduce blood flow to the limbs), and dementia (a general term for impaired ability to remember, think, or make decisions). Record review of Resident #6's EMR on 11/25/2024 reflected Resident #6 had two MDS Assessments, an Entry MDS dated [DATE] and noted as Accepted, and an Admission/ Medicare- 5 Day MDS dated [DATE] and noted as Exported. Record review of Resident #6's MDS Admission/ Medicare- 5 Day assessment, dated 11/04/2024, reflected it had been completed and signed by Consultant MDS Coordinator on 11/23/2024. Observation and attempted interview with Resident #6 on 11/26/2024 at 10:00 a.m. Resident #6 observed self-propelling himself in a wheelchair down the hall. Resident #6 was not available for interview. During an interview on 11/26/2024 at 01:55 p.m., the Regional MDS Coordinator stated she worked for the corporate company of the nursing facility. The Regional MDS Coordinator stated she had been assisting the nursing facility with their MDS assessments since the nursing facility opened and a consulting company had just been brought on to also assist. The Regional MDS Coordinator stated that she was an LVN (licensed vocational nurse) and the MDS assessments had to be signed by an RN (registered nurse). The RN Assessment Coordinator signatures on the completed MDS assessments (Resident #1 and Resident #6) were identified as an RN from the consulting company. The Regional MDS Coordinator stated that she would typically have a weekly meeting with the facility staff; however, she had been busy with her other duties and had not been in the nursing facility building for the last couple of weeks. The Regional MDS Coordinator stated she had not been in contact with the contracted consulting company and was not knowledgeable on what the Consultant MDS Coordinator had done. The Regional MDS Coordinator stated the admission MDS was the resident's comprehensive assessment, and it should be completed within 14 days of the resident's admission. She stated that this was per the RAI (MDS Resident Assessment Instrument) manual and that the facility was to follow the RAI manual. The Regional MDS Coordinator stated she would consider the date of completion for a MDS Assessment as the date of the signature of the nurse (RN). She stated Resident #1's admission MDS was signed on 11/23/2024 and that it was late, past the 14 days. The Regional MDS Coordinator stated it was probably late due to her focusing on her other duties and her not being an RN, so she could not sign it. The Regional MDS Coordinator confirmed Resident #6's admission MDS was signed late. During an interview on 11/26/2024 at 02:42 p.m., the DON stated she did not complete the MDS assessments and did not sign the MDS assessments. The DON stated the nursing facility nursing staff were not currently inputting any information into the resident's MDS assessments. The DON stated the corporate company was entering all information into the facility resident's MDS assessments. The DON stated she did not know the process for the MDS assessments and could not identify who was responsible for monitoring the MDS assessment schedule. During an interview on 11/26/2024 at 03:33 p.m., the ADMIN stated he had weekly calls with the Regional MDS Coordinator. The ADMIN stated the Regional MDS Coordinator was scheduling and opening all the MDS assessments. The ADMIN stated he was not 100% positive who was tracking to ensure that the MDS assessments were signed but believed it would be either the Regional MDS Coordinator, the Consultant MDS Coordinator, or the company's VP of Clinical Operations. The ADMIN stated that if a MDS assessment was signed late, it would not impact the resident's care. He stated it would only impact the timeliness of the MDS assessment being completed. It would not change the orders that the facility had for the resident. Record review of facility policy, MDS 3.0 Completion, dated copyright 2024, revealed Definitions: 'OBRA Assessment' refers to an assessment mandated by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987, which specifies a Minimum Data Set (MDS) of core elements for use in assessing nursing home residents. Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines: 1. According to federal regulations, the facility conducts initially and periodically a comprehensive, accurate and standardized assessment of each resident's functional capacity, using the RAI specified by the State. 2. Types of OBRA Assessments . b. admission Assessment - completed within 14 days of admission counting the day of admission as day #1 . 4. Care Plan Team Responsibility for Assessment Completion: a. Interdisciplinary Responsibility for Completion of MDS Sections: . iii. The R.N. Coordinator signs, dates, and attests (in section Z0500A) to timely completion of the RAI, once all other disciplines have completed their sections.
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

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure the initial comprehensive assessment accurately...

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 initial comprehensive assessment accurately reflected the resident's status for 2 (Resident #4 and Resident #5) of 4 residents reviewed for accuracy of assessments. 1. The facility failed to accurately code Resident #4's bladder and bowel appliance status on her admission comprehensive assessment. 2. The facility failed to accurately code Resident #5's fall history with fracture on her admission comprehensive assessment. These failures could place residents at risk of improper or incorrect care and services necessary for their physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. The findings included: 1. Record review of Resident #4's admission Record, dated 11/25/2024, reflected Resident #4 was admitted on [DATE]. Resident #4 was noted to be [AGE] years old. Record review of Resident #4's Diagnosis Report, dated 11/25/2024, reflected Resident #4 was diagnosed with cerebral infarction (a disruption in the brain's blood flow), constipation (a problem with passing stool), and urinary tract infection (UTI; infection in any part of the urinary system including the kidneys, bladder, ureters, and urethra). Record review of Resident #4's EMR (electronic medical record) on 11/25/2024 reflected Resident #4 had two MDS Assessments, an Entry MDS dated [DATE] and noted as Accepted, and an Admission/ Medicare- 5 Day MDS dated [DATE] and noted as Accepted. Record review of Resident #4's MDS Admission/ Medicare- 5-day assessment, dated 10/31/2024 and signed as completed on 11/01/2024, reflected Resident #4 had a BIMS score of 11 indicating she was moderately cognitively impaired and required partial/moderate assistance with toileting hygiene, personal hygiene, and toilet transfers. Her bladder and bowel status was coded as Resident #4 having an indwelling catheter with her always continent for bowel and bladder. Record review of Resident #4's Indwelling Catheter Assessment, dated 10/27/2024, reflected Resident #4 was not admitted with an indwelling catheter. Observation of Resident #4 on 11/26/2024 at 10:03 a.m. Resident #4 observed to be participating in a speech therapy session. Attempted interview at 10:35 a.m., resident refused interview. 2. Record review of Resident #5's admission Record, dated 11/25/2024, reflected Resident #5 was admitted on [DATE]. Resident #5 was noted to be [AGE] years old. Record review of Resident #5's Diagnosis Report, dated 11/25/2024, reflected Resident #5 was diagnosed with orthopedic aftercare (care provided after a corrective or preventative treatment on deformities, disorders, or injuries of the bones or muscles), displaced intertrochanteric fracture of right femur (a hip fracture), and wedge compression fracture of unspecified lumbar vertebra (small breaks in the lower bone of the spine). Record review of Resident #5's EMR on 11/25/2024 reflected Resident #5 had two MDS Assessments, an Entry MDS dated [DATE] and noted as Accepted, and an Admission/ Medicare- 5 Day MDS dated [DATE] and noted as Accepted. Record review of Resident #5's MDS Admission/ Medicare- 5 day assessment, dated 10/28/2024 and signed as completed on 11/01/2024, reflected Resident #5 had a BIMS score of 03 indicating she was severely cognitively impaired, needed some help (needed partial assistance from another person to complete any activities) with self-care and indoor mobility (ambulation), and used a walker and wheelchair. Her fall history on Admission/Entry or Reentry was noted as having had a fall in the last month prior to admission/entry or reentry, no falls in the last 2-6 months prior to admission/entry or reentry, and no fracture related to a fall in the 6 months prior to admission/entry or reentry. Record review of Resident #5's Physician Progress Note, dated 10/09/2024, reflected under admission HPI [history or present illness]: admitted to SNF [skilled nursing facility] on OCT1 as she was treated at [local hospital] for rt [right] inertrochanteric [sic] fx [fracture] . Record review of Resident #5's local hospital Discharge summary, dated as signed 10/01/2024, reflected Patient sustained a mechanical fall at home resulted in severe pain. Imaging in the ED [emergency department] revealed a slightly displaced right femoral intertrochanteric fracture. Attempted observation and interview of Resident #5 on 11/26/2024 at 09:57 a.m. revealed resident was not in present in room and unavailable for interview. During an interview on 11/26/2024 at 01:55 p.m., the Regional MDS Coordinator stated she worked for the corporate company of the nursing facility. The Regional MDS Coordinator stated she had been assisting the nursing facility with their MDS assessments since the nursing facility opened and a consulting company had just been brought on to also assist. The Regional MDS Coordinator stated she or the nurse completing or signing the MDS assessment would be responsible for the assessment's completion and accuracy. She stated that an inaccuracy in the MDS assessment may impact a resident's care but was not sure. She stated it may impact care if a diagnosis was missed but it would depend on what the inaccuracy was. The Regional MDS Coordinator stated that it did not look as if Resident #4 had an indwelling catheter after reviewing the resident's nursing notes. She stated she did not see an indwelling catheter as having been present per the resident's admission notes. She stated the MDS assessment noting an indwelling catheter was an error. The Regional MDS Coordinator stated this error would not have impacted Resident #4's care because staff could not provide care for a catheter that was not present. The Regional MDS Coordinator stated she did not see Resident #5's physician note, that it was missed. She stated Resident #5's admission MDS should have been coded as Yes for having had a fracture related to a fall in the 6 months prior to admission/entry or reentry. She stated she did not believe Resident #5's care was impacted by this error because Resident #5 was very stable when she admitted to the facility and she would have had the same risks for falls regardless of the documented history of fall. During an interview on 11/26/2024 at 02:42 p.m., the DON stated she did not complete the MDS assessments and did not sign the MDS assessments. The DON stated the nursing facility nursing staff were not currently inputting any information into the resident's MDS assessments. The DON stated the corporate company was entering all information into the facility resident's MDS assessments. The DON stated Resident #4 did not have an indwelling catheter and that all of Resident #4's assessments, except for the MDS admission assessment, do not say she had an indwelling catheter. The DON stated she did not know why Resident #4's MDS assessment was coded as if she had an indwelling catheter but that the error would not have impacted Resident #4's care. The DON stated that if Resident #4 had a catheter at admission, Resident #4 would have had orders associated with catheter care. The DON stated Resident #5 was at risk for falls and had received therapy as part of her fall interventions. During an interview on 11/26/2024 at 03:33 p.m., the ADMIN revealed he was not sure who was responsible for the accuracy of the MDS assessments but that the Regional MDS Coordinator or the Consultant MDS Coordinator would be the ones to ensure that they are accurately documenting. The ADMIN stated that Resident #4 having been coded as having had an indwelling catheter on her MDS admission assessment would not have impacted the nursing care because the nurses do not necessarily look at the MDS assessments. He stated that he could not state the impact or if there would have been an impact on Resident #5's care for having not been coded as having had a fracture from a fall within the 6 months prior to her admission because he was not a clinician. Record review of facility policy, MDS 3.0 Completion, dated copyright 2024, revealed Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines: 1. According to federal regulations, the facility conducts initially and periodically a comprehensive, accurate and standardized assessment of each resident's functional capacity, using the RAI specified by the State . 4. Care Plan Team Responsibility for Assessment Completion: a. Interdisciplinary Responsibility for Completion of MDS Sections: . ii. Persons completing part of the assessment must attest to the accuracy of the section they completed by signature and indication of the relevant sections.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident that includes measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental needs that are identified in the comprehensive assessment, and services that are to be furnished to attain or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being for 4 (Resident #1, Resident #4, Resident #5, Resident #6) of 4 residents reviewed for comprehensive care plans. 1. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1, who was documented for full code status, assessed as requiring supervision or touching assistance for transfers, and had a history of falls; had a care plan regarding code status, specified how many staff members were required to transfer the resident from bed to chair, and specified her fall risk and to include interventions to prevent and/or mitigate injury from falls. 2. The facility failed to ensure Resident #4, who was documented for full code status and had a history of falls; had a care plan regarding code status and interventions to prevent and/or mitigate injury from falls. 3. The facility failed to ensure Resident #5, who was assessed as requiring partial or moderate assistance for transfers and had a history of falls; had a care plan specifying how to transfer the resident from bed to chair and specified her fall risk, fall history, and to include interventions to prevent and/or mitigate injury from falls. 4. The facility failed to ensure Resident #6, who was documented for full code status, assessed as requiring supervision or touching assistance for transfers, and had a history of falls; had a care plan regarding code status, how to transfer the resident from bed to chair, and interventions to prevent and/or mitigate injury from falls. These failures could place residents at risk for not receiving proper care and services. The findings included: 1. Record review of Resident #1's admission Record, dated 11/25/2024, reflected Resident #1 was admitted on [DATE]. Resident #1 was noted to be [AGE] years old. Resident #1's code status was noted as Full Code. Record review of Resident #1's Diagnosis Report, dated 11/25/2024, reflected Resident #1 was diagnosed with unspecified fracture of the lower end of left radius (a break in the lower end of one of the left forearm bones), acute and chronic respiratory failure (a condition where there is not enough oxygen or too much carbon dioxide in the body), and chronic kidney disease (a condition where the kidneys lose their ability to filter blood and remove wastes). Record review of Resident #1's EMR (electronic medical record) on 11/25/2024 reflected Resident #1 had two MDS Assessments, an Entry MDS dated [DATE] and noted as Accepted, and an Admission/Medicare- 5 Day MDS dated [DATE] and noted as Exported. Record review of Resident #1's MDS Admission/ Medicare- 5-day assessment, dated 11/06/2024, reflected Resident #1 had a BIMS score of 15 indicating she was cognitively intact. She was assessed as requiring supervision or touching assistance for chair/bed-to-chair transfers. Her fall history on Admission/Entry or Reentry was noted as having a fall in the last month, no falls in the last 2-6 months, and having had a fracture related to a fall in the last 6 months. Record review of Resident #1's Fall Risk Assessment, dated 11/02/2024, reflected Resident #1 required the use of assistive devices such as a cane, wheelchair, walker, or furniture. Record review of Resident #1's Care Plan, undated, accessed 11/25/2024 reflected: - Her care plan did not reflect or address Resident #1's Advance Directive status as Full Code. - Her care plan reflected Resident #1 had an ADL self-care performance deficit r/t [related to] S/P [status post] Fracture of left radius (NWB [non-weight baring]) and Left Femur, initiated and revised 11/18/2024. The interventions included TRANSFER: I require assistance with transfer with ('X' number) of care team members for assistance with transfers ., initiated 11/18/2024. - Her care plan reflected The resident is (SPECIFY High, Moderate, Low) risk for falls r/t Gait/balance problems, initiated 11/13/2024. No interventions were included in the care plan for the focus. Observation and attempted interview with Resident #1 on 11/26/2024 at 10:28 a.m. Resident #1 observed to be participating in therapy. 2. Record review of Resident #4's admission Record, dated 11/25/2024, reflected Resident #4 was admitted on [DATE]. Resident #4 was noted to be [AGE] years old. Resident #4's code status was noted as Full Code. Record review of Resident #4's Diagnosis Report, dated 11/25/2024, reflected Resident #4 was diagnosed with cerebral infarction (a disruption in the brain's blood flow), constipation (a problem with passing stool), and urinary tract infection (UTI; infection in any part of the urinary system including the kidneys, bladder, ureters, and urethra). Record review of Resident #4's EMR on 11/25/2024 reflected Resident #4 had two MDS Assessments, an Entry MDS dated [DATE] and noted as Accepted, and an Admission/ Medicare- 5 Day MDS dated [DATE] and noted as Accepted. Record review of Resident #4's MDS Admission/ Medicare- 5-day assessment, dated 10/31/2024, reflected Resident #4 had a BIMS score of 11 indicating she was moderately cognitively impaired. Her fall history on Admission/Entry or Reentry was noted as having a fall in the last month, a fall in the last 2-6 months, and a fracture related to a fall in the last 6 months. Record review of Resident #4's Fall Risk Assessment, dated 10/27/2024, reflected Resident #4 was chair bound and required the use of assistive devices such as a cane, wheelchair, walker, or furniture. Record review of Resident #4's Care Plan, undated, accessed 11/25/2024 reflected: - Her care plan did not reflect or address Resident #4's Advance Directive status as Full Code. - Her care plan did not reflect or address Resident #4's risk for falls. Observation of Resident #4 on 11/26/2024 at 10:03 a.m. Resident #4 observed to be participating in a speech therapy session. Attempted interview at 10:35 a.m., resident refused interview. 3. Record review of Resident #5's admission Record, dated 11/25/2024, reflected Resident #5 was admitted on [DATE]. Resident #5 was noted to be [AGE] years old. Record review of Resident #5's Diagnosis Report, dated 11/25/2024, reflected Resident #5 was diagnosed with orthopedic aftercare (care provided after a corrective or preventative treatment on deformities, disorders, or injuries of the bones or muscles), displaced intertrochanteric fracture of right femur (a hip fracture), and wedge compression fracture of unspecified lumbar vertebra (small breaks in the lower bone of the spine). Record review of Resident #5's EMR on 11/25/2024 reflected Resident #5 had two MDS Assessments, an Entry MDS dated [DATE] and noted as Accepted, and an Admission/ Medicare- 5 Day MDS dated [DATE] and noted as Accepted. Record review of Resident #5's MDS Admission/ Medicare- 5 day assessment, dated 10/28/2024, reflected Resident #5 had a BIMS score of 03 indicating she was severely cognitively impaired. She was assessed as requiring partial/moderate assistance for chair/bed-to-chair transfers. Her fall history on Admission/Entry or Reentry was noted as having had a fall in the last month, no falls in the last 2-6 months, and no fracture related to a fall in the 6 months. Record review of Resident #5's Fall Risk Assessment, dated 10/23/2024, reflected Resident #5 was categorized as high risk. She had intermittent confusion, 1-2 falls in the past 3 months, and had a balance problem while walking. Record review of facility report Incidents By Incident Type, date range 08/21/2024 to 11/21/2024, reflected Resident #5 had a fall on 11/14/2024. Record review of Resident #5's Care Plan, undated, accessed 11/25/2024, reflected: - Her care plan reflected Resident #5 had an ADL self-care performance deficit r/t cognitive impairment, weakness, initiated 11/18/2024. The interventions included TRANSFER: I require assistance with transfer with ('X' number) of care team members for assistance with transfers ., initiated 11/18/2024. - Her care plan did not reflect or address Resident #5's risk for falls or her history of falls. Attempted observation and interview of Resident #5 on 11/26/2024 at 09:57 a.m. revealed resident was not in present in room and unavailable for interview. 4. Record review of Resident #6's admission Record, dated 11/25/2024, reflected Resident #6 was admitted on [DATE]. Resident #6 was noted to be [AGE] years old. Resident #6's code status was noted as Full Code. Record review of Resident #6's Diagnosis Report, dated 11/25/2024, reflected Resident #6 was diagnosed with benign prostatic hyperplasia (enlarged prostate), peripheral vascular disease (a circulatory condition in which narrowed blood vessels reduce blood flow to the limbs), and dementia (a general term for impaired ability to remember, think, or make decisions). Record review of Resident #6's EMR on 11/25/2024 reflected Resident #6 had two MDS Assessments, an Entry MDS dated [DATE] and noted as Accepted, and an Admission/ Medicare- 5 Day MDS dated [DATE] and noted as Exported. Record review of Resident #6's MDS Admission/ Medicare- 5 Day assessment, dated 11/04/2024, reflected Resident #6 had a BIMS score of 09 indicating he was moderately cognitively impaired. He was assessed as requiring supervision or touching assistance for chair/bed-to-chair transfers. His fall history on Admission/Entry or Reentry was noted as having had a fall in the last month, no falls in the last 2-6 months, and no fracture related to a fall in the last 6 months. Record review of Resident #6's Fall Risk Assessment, dated 10/31/2024, reflected Resident #6 had 3 or more falls in the past 3 months and had a balance problem while walking. Record review of Resident #6's Care Plan, undated, accessed 11/25/2024, reflected: - His care plan did not reflect or address Resident #6's Advance Directive status as Full Code. - His care plan did not reflect or address Resident #6's ADL needs. - His care plan did not reflect or address Resident #6's risk for falls. Observation and attempted interview with Resident #6 on 11/26/2024 at 10:00 a.m. Resident #6 observed self-propelling himself in a wheelchair down the hall. Resident #6 was not available for interview. During an interview on 11/26/2024 at 12:09 p.m., the LCSW (Licensed Clinical Social Worker) stated the facility had a care plan meeting for Resident #1 on 11/13/2024. He stated that the attendants for that meeting included himself, the DON, the activities director, the therapy director, and the business office manager. He stated that they discussed Resident #1's advance directives, she wanted to be full code. He stated that he could not say why her code status was not on her care plan. He revealed Resident #4's care plan meeting was on 11/13/2024. He stated that during that meeting, the attending facility staff, who included himself, the DON, the director of rehab, the activity director, and the dietary supervisor, discussed Resident #4's fall history and Resident #4's advance directives, she wanted to remain full code. The LCSW stated he couldn't answer as to why Resident #4's code status was not in her care plan. He revealed Resident #5's care plan meeting was on 11/07/2024 and the attendants included himself, the dietary supervisor, the ADON, the activity director, director of rehab, and the business office manager. He did not state what was discussed during Resident #5's care plan meeting. The LCSW stated Resident #6's care plan meeting was on 11/13/2024 and attendants included himself, the activity director, the dietary supervisor, the director of rehab, and the DON. He stated that during that meeting, Resident #6's advance directives, he wanted to remain full code, was discussed. He stated he couldn't answer on why Resident #6's code status was not on his care plan. He stated that the code status was supposed to be in the care plan and that he strives to discuss the advance directives for all care plan meetings. He stated that each discipline (care team member's discipline, such as nursing, social work, therapy, etc.) would strive to ensure that their areas were covered. He stated that fall history and risk would be the clinical team and the code status would be a team effort, sometimes he would document on it and sometimes the DON or the ADON would. The LCSW stated he couldn't answer on if anyone did a final review of the care plan. The LCSW stated that even if the code status was not in the care plan, a resident's code status would be visible on their EMR chart, including on the resident's face sheet (admission Record) and a copy of the advance directives would be in the documents tab. He stated in these residents' cases, the discussion of each resident's advance directives would be documented within the care conference meeting notes. The LCSW stated that once a resident signs a DNR, the signed document was uploaded into their EMR chart, and the nurse was notified to write the order for the change in status with the document available for verification. He stated that once the order was verified, the EMR will automatically update the resident's EMR home page and the banner, which was on top of the resident's chart with their current code status. During an interview on 11/26/2024 at 01:55 p.m., the Regional MDS Coordinator stated she was involved in the development of a resident's care plan following the resident's comprehensive MDS assessment. She stated that the facility had usually seven (7) days after the completion of the MDS to do the care plan. She stated that items that should be on the care plan would include diagnoses, risk for falls, incontinence, code status, skin breakdown, and ADLs. She stated that this list of items was her personal list and that not everyone care plans the same. She stated that the ADLs should be specified but that sometimes the ADL assistance may be different from the MDS assessment because it may have changed since the resident admitted . She stated that the care plans are an IDT (Interdisciplinary Team) effort, but that she assumed it was her responsibility for ensuring that the care plans were completed and done. The Regional MDS Coordinator stated the facility staff usually do the care planning regarding fall history since she felt that they were more efficient in that. During an interview on 11/26/2024 at 02:42 p.m., the DON stated that everyone worked on the comprehensive care plans and that she tries to include the acute stuff and the diagnoses. She stated that the facility had 21 days per regulatory requirements to build the comprehensive care plan and that the review was scheduled with IDT involved. She stated that she believed the Regional MDS Coordinator reviewed the care plans but was not sure who was responsible for reviewing them for completion. The DON stated that she wouldn't say that Resident #1 was a fall risk but that she would have needed to be care planned for falls by the comprehensive and coded as being at risk for falls. She stated that Resident #4 had a history of strokes with some deficits, but she was very high functioning and tried to do things independently. She stated Resident #4 could be a fall risk and had been educated to not do things independently, which she had been very good about using her call light and waiting for assistance. The DON stated Resident #4 was not a high fall risk but in a comprehensive care plan she would be at least documented as being at risk for falls with standardized interventions. The DON stated she would expect Resident #4 to have a fall risk in her care plan by the comprehensive. The DON stated Resident #5 was a fall risk and had had a fall, which she would assume would have impacted her status. The DON stated that there was an IDT meeting to discuss Resident #5's fall interventions after her fall. The DON stated she would have been responsible for updating her care plan and it should have been in there. The DON stated that she remembered entering the information into the care plan but that it was not there (reviewing care plan during interview). The DON stated she believed that she entered the interventions on 11/18/2024 and on that same day, went in and audited all her residents with falls to ensure that none of them were missed. The DON stated Resident #5's ADL needs should have been specified in her care plan. The DON stated Resident #6's fall risk would have been the same as Resident #1 and Resident #4, he should have been care planned for being at risk for falls. The DON stated that she would think a resident's code status would be care planned. She stated that if it was not, it would not affect the resident's care because the resident's code status was displayed on every page of the resident's chart and it was on the resident's admission record. The DON stated that she would expect the care plan to include everything related to care, diagnoses, medications related to diagnoses, function, mobility, and ADLs. She stated that care plans should be specific to be person-centered. She stated fall risk was most often a separate section of the care plan. Discharge planning was not something that she care planned, social services would be responsible for that. Code status would be expected on the care plan. She stated that she had standards for care meetings that was in place for ensuring that nursing interventions were in place. She stated that social services would review code status and discharge planning and all IDT disciplines reviewed their own sections, with each being responsible for putting their own information in. She stated nursing would be responsible for fall risk with initial assessment for fall risk being the nursing department's responsibility, but the risk would also be evaluated by the IDT, which included therapy staff. She stated that if there were specific nursing tasks for fall interventions, such as please ensure the resident wears non-skid socks when ambulating or fall mats, she would put those interventions on the resident's [NAME] (a documentation system), but she did not include generalized nursing interventions on the [NAME], such as call light within reach. She stated that because the residents discussed had specific therapy fall interventions, which they were receiving versus specific nursing interventions, their fall risk not being care planned would not have impacted their care. During an interview on 11/26/2024 at 03:33 p.m., the ADMIN stated the LCSW was responsible for scheduling the care plan meetings. He stated he was not positive on who was responsible for reviewing the care plans for completion but would thing it would be the person that signed and closed them. He stated for care plans, an RN had to close them, so the DON or the VP of Clinical Operations would have to review them. Record review of facility policy, MDS 3.0 Completion, dated copyright 2024, revealed Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines: . 4. Care Plan Team Responsibility for Assessment Completion: . d. Care Area Assessments (CAA's): . viii. The care plan is completed no later than 7 days after the date in V0200C (CAA's completion date) as well as no later than 21 days from the date of admission in cases where the comprehensive assessment is the admission MDS. Record review of facility policy, Comprehensive Care Plans, dated copyright 2024, revealed It is the policy of this facility to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident, consistent with resident right, that include measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs that are identified in the resident's comprehensive assessment. Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines: . 3. The comprehensive care plan will describe, at minimum, the following: a. The services that are to be furnished to attain or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. b. Any services that would otherwise be furnished, but are not provided due to the resident's exercise of his or her right to refuse treatment . d. The resident's goals for admission, desired outcomes, and preferences for future discharge . 5. The comprehensive care plan will be reviewed and revised by the interdisciplinary team after each comprehensive and quarterly MDS assessment. 8. Qualified staff responsible for carrying out interventions specified in the care plan will be notified of their roles and responsibilities for carrying out the interventions, initially and when changes are made.
Sept 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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that a resident who needs respiratory care, including tracheostomy care and tracheal suctioning, is provided such care, consistent with professional standards of practice for 1 of 3 (Resident #1) reviewed for respiratory care. The facility failed on 09/18/2024 when Resident #1's oxygen tubing and humidifier bottle were outdated for 2 weeks; and the humidifier bottle was empty of water dated, 9/2/24. This failure could affect residents administered oxygen and could lead to infections if the tubing and humidifier bottle are not cleaned/ or replaced as ordered by the physician. The findings included: Record review of Resident #1's face sheet, dated 9/18/24, revealed, resident was a male age [AGE] with a re-admission date of 7/9/24 with diagnoses that included: cerebrovascular disease (primary), depression, heart disease, and COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease). The RP was listed as a family member. Record review of Resident#1's quarterly MDS (minimum data set), dated 7/16/24, reflected a BIMS (brief interview of mental status) Score was 14 (cognitively intact) Record review of Resident #1's physician order dated 7/10/24 reflected: Check Oxygen Concentrator filter for placement and clean filter every week and PRN (as needed) every night shift every SUN (Sunday). Further, Oxygen at 2 LPM (liters per minute) via (by) N/C (nasal canular) for SOB (shortness of breath) and to maintain pulse ox (oxygen) > (greater than) 90 % (percent) every shift.' Order dated 8/10/24 reflected Oxygen: Humidified Oxygen 0.5-5 L (liter) via (by) CN (canular nasal) PRN (as needed) . Record review of Resident # 1's MAR dated September 2024 reflected Change O2 tubing/water every week and PRN .every night shift every SUN for Facility protocol. Further review reflected documentation of change of tubing a humidifier bottle on Sunday (9/8/24) and Sunday (9/15/24). Record review of Resident #1's CP undated reflected that resident suffered from COPD and interventions included: administer medications, monitor, and promote mobility. Record review of facility's oxygen list dated 9/18/24 reflected there were three residents who had oxygen orders to include Resident #1. Record review of facility's Oxygen Concentrator policy dated 2023 reflected: Nurse responsibilities .Change humidifier bottle weekly and as needed if empty, or as recommended by the manufacture . Observation and interview on 9/18/24 at 2:50 PM revealed Resident #1 was sitting in a recliner, alert, and oriented alert and oriented to person, place, and time. Further observation revealed the resident was on continuous oxygen at 2 liters; humidifier bottle dated 9/2/24 was empty of water. Nebulizer in place; no kinks. The Resident stated, he received O2 for his COPD. During an interview on 9/18/24 at 3:35 PM, the DON who stated that the humidifier bottle was empty and dated 9/2/24 and should have been changed. The DON stated the humidifier bottle and tubing were scheduled to be changed weekly and she needed to find out what staff member forgot to change and fill the humidifier bottle with water. The DON stated that water in the humidifier bottle helped in breathing and kept the air moist for a resident on O2 therapy. The DON added: she spoke to a staff nurse and was informed by RN A that the humidifier bottles ordered were not the right fit for the concentrator for Resident #1. The DON stated, the correct bottle arrived on 9/18/24 and was placed on 9/19/24 on the concentrator after the surveyor pointed out the negative finding. The DON stated that weekly, every Sunday during the night shift, O2 tubing and humidifier bottle had to be changed. The DON stated she required that the tubing and humidifier bottle were dated because it was an aid in her auditing O2 therapy. During a telephone interview on 9/19/24 at 3:14 PM, RN A stated Resident #1's humidifier bottle had to be filled and changed on 9/2/24. RN A stated that she went into Central Supply and the bottle available was too large and she informed the DON about the difficulty in changing the humidifier. RN A stated that the Resident #1 was on PRN O2 (oxygen as needed). RN A stated that the humidifier bottle needed changing because it helped in preventing dryness to the nose mucous area. RN A stated that on 9/12/14 the resident's was breathing room air at 94% (percent). The RN stated that the humidifier bottle was empty and left empty because there was no other available humidifier bottle that fit Resident #1's concentrator. RN A stated that Resident #1's type of humidifier bottle came with fluids; and therefore she/he could not just add water to the empty humidifier bottle. Record review of facility's Oxygen Concentrator policy dated 2023 reflected: Nurse responsibilities .Change humidifier bottle weekly and as needed if empty, or as recommended by the manufacture .
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

Medical Records (Tag F0842)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, and record review, the facility failed to maintain medical records, in accordance with accepted professional standards and practices, which are complete; and accurately documented for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for completeness and accuracy: Resident #1's POC (point of care) for September 2024 did not reflect documentation of incontinent care and transfer being completed on the day shift for the dates 9/16/24 and 9/17/2024. This failure could result in the facility not documenting in the medical record residents ADL activities, experiencing accidents, injuries and/or a diminished quality of life. The findings included: Record review of Resident #1's face sheet, dated 9/18/24, reflected, resident was a male age [AGE] with a re-admission date of 7/9/24 with diagnoses that included: cerebrovascular disease (primary), depression, heart disease, and COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease). The RP was listed as a family member. Record review of Resident#1's quarterly MDS (minimum data set), dated 7/16/24, reflected a BIMS (brief interview of mental status) Score was 14 (cognitively intact). In the area of ADLs, the resident was coded: assistance in toileting and transfer by one staff member. The resident was continent for bladder and occasionally incontinent for bowel. Record review of Resident# 1's Care Plan, undated, reflected, the goals and interventions included: to provide ADLs: in toileting and transfer with one staff assistance. Record review of Resident #1's POC (point of care ADL sheets) for September 2024 reflected incontinent and transfer activities were not documented on the day shift (6 AM-2PM) for 9/16/24 and 9/17/2024 as being completed. During telephone interview on 9/19/24 at 9:00 AM, CNA B stated she did not remember documenting in the POC on 9/16/24 and 9/17/24, but stated incontinent care and transfer were provided; the transfer was helping the resident to the bathroom. During an interview on 9/19/24 at 9:40 AM, the DON who stated the skin assessment on 9/18/24 for Resident #1 was negative as proof that the non-documented incontinent care episode on 9/16/24 and 9/17/24 resulted in a skin breakdown. The DON stated that documentation had be completed every shift as scheduled; she did not know why CNA B did not document toileting and transfer for the resident on 9/16-9/17/24. During an interview on 9/19/24 at 11:07 AM LVN C (charge nurse for Resident #1) stated she had no information as to whether Resident #1 was given incontinent care on 9/16 or 9/17 24. LVN C stated that when incontinent care or transfer was given the CNAs needed to document in POC. The LVN stated that Resident #1 was at times independent for transfer and toileting and if the CNAs were aware of the latter activities the CNAs needed to document in POC. Attempted telephone interview on 8/19/24 at 2:57 PM, message was left for CNA D (night shift: 10 :00 PM to 6:00 AM) to call surveyor [CNA D participated in the incontinent care incident on 9/16-9/17/24 involving documentation in the POC] Record review of facility's Documentation in Medical Record dated 2024 reflected: Each resident's medical record shall contain an accurate representation of the actual experiences of the resident .Documentation shall be completed at the time of service .
May 2024 5 deficiencies
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0680 (Tag F0680)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews the facility failed to ensure the activities program was directed by a qua...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews the facility failed to ensure the activities program was directed by a qualified professional who is a qualified therapeutic recreation specialist or an activity professiona l for 3 of 3 residents (Residents #101, #102, and #103) reviewed for a qualified Activities Director. The facility admitted Residents #101, #102, and #103, without the services of a qualified Activities Director. This failure placed residents at risk for not receiving the serviced of a qualified Activities Director. The findings included: 1. A record review of Resident #101's admission record dated 05/07/2024 revealed an admission date of 04/10/2024 which included diagnoses of hemiplegia, epilepsy, and chronic kidney disease. A record review of Resident #101's admission MDS assessment, dated 04/16/2024, revealed Resident #101 was a [AGE] year-old male admitted for long term care and assessed with medically complex conditions and extensive assistance with activities of everyday life. A record review of Resident #101's care plan dated 05/07/2024 revealed, At risk for injury R/T seizure disorder, specify EPILEPSY. Receives anticonvulsant medications and is at risk for side effects, adverse reactions, and toxicity. Date Initiated: 04/12/2024 During daily intermittent observations on 05/07/2024 from 09:00 AM through 05/08/2024 at 04:00 PM Resident #101 was observed dining, napping, and ambulating in his wheelchair. Throughout the observations no activities were observed. During an interview on 05/08/2024 at 12:49 PM, Resident #101 stated no one was providing activities and he was bored at times. 2. A record review of Resident #102's admission record dated 05/07/2024 revealed an admission date of 04/10/2024 which included diagnoses of traumatic hemorrhage of right cerebrum (bleeding in the brain), quadriplegia, c5-c7 (inability to move the body due to an injury at the neck), and depression. A record review of Resident #102's admission MDS assessment, dated 04/15/2024, revealed Resident #101 was a [AGE] year-old male admitted for long term care and assessed with medically complex conditions and totally dependent on staff for assistance with activities of everyday life. A record review of Resident #102's care plan dated 05/07/2024 revealed, I have an infection of: Klebsiella (bacteria Klebsiella infections commonly occur among sick patients in healthcare settings who are receiving treatment for other conditions) Pneumonia and am receiving antibiotics. Date Initiated: 04/15/2024 During daily intermittent observations on 05/07/2024 from 09:00 AM through 05/08/2024 at 04:00 PM Resident #102 was observed watching television in his room, napping, and received assistance eating. Throughout the observations no activities were observed. 3. A record review of Resident #103's admission record dated 05/07/2024 revealed an admission date of 04/11/2024 which included diagnoses of late onset Alzheimer's disease, A record review of Resident #103's MDS admission assessment, dated 04/17/2024, revealed Resident #102 was an [AGE] year-old female admitted for long term care with hospice services and assessed with medically complex conditions and totally dependent on staff for assistance with activities of everyday life. A record review of Resident #103's care plan dated 05/07/2024 revealed, Resident receiving hospice services R/T (related to) terminal disease process: Alzheimer's late onset date Initiated: 04/15/2024 During an interview on 05/08/2024 at 12:20 PM, the Administrator stated the facility had not employed an Activities Director, yet. The Administrator stated the facility had hired an Activities Director, but she had not started yet due to previous obligations and was due to start within the month . A record review of the facility's policy titled Activities dated 12/16/2023, revealed, It is the policy of this facility to provide an ongoing program to support residents and their choice of activities based on their comprehensive assessment, care plan, and preferences
CONCERN (E)

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

Menu Adequacy (Tag F0803)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the menu was followed for pureed foods (1 of 2 diets served at the facility), in that: The facility failed to ensure t...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the menu was followed for pureed foods (1 of 2 diets served at the facility), in that: The facility failed to ensure the kitchen had recipes for pureed diets. These failures could place residents at risk for dissatisfaction, poor intake, and diminished quality of life. The findings were: During an interview on 05/07/24 at 06:13 PM, the FSD revealed it was important for residents who have a pureed diet to not consume regular diets to prevent choking. During an observation and interview on 05/07/24 at 04:55 PM, there were no recipes for pureed diets present. The FSD and Dietary [NAME] A revealed they did not have a recipe to follow for pureed diets but they knew what consistency to look for pureed foods. During an interview on 05/07/24 at 05:30 PM, Corporate Administrator B revealed he would want access to pureed recipes if he needed to help in the kitchen if there was an emergency. He further revealed it was important to make diets like the pureed diet appropriately for their resident. During an interview on 05/08/24 at 09:41 AM, the FSD revealed she was not aware she had access to the pureed recipes for [Food Company], but she found recipes for all the diets. During an interview on 05/08/24 at 12:33 PM, the RD revealed the kitchen staff needed to follow recipes for all diets, including pureed. She revealed this was important to get the food to be at the exact consistency and so it did not lose calorie or nutrition content, which would prevent weight loss. She further revealed if the diet was not at the correct consistency, then it could cause choking. She revealed her expectation was for the kitchen to follow recipes. Record review of facility's policy Food Preparation Guidelines, dated 2024, revealed The cook, or designee, shall prepare menu items following the facility's written menus. A request for the facility's menu and recipes policy was requested on 05/08/2024 at 01:00 PM from the Administrator both verbally and by email and as of 05/14/2024 no policy for menus and recipes were provided.
CONCERN (E)

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

Social Worker (Tag F0850)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, and record reviews the facility with more than 120 beds must employ a qualified social worker on a full-tim...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, and record reviews the facility with more than 120 beds must employ a qualified social worker on a full-time basis for 1 of 1 facility reviewed for a Social Worker. The facility did not have a full time Social Worker. This failure could place residents at risk for not receiving needed social services and place them at risk of psycho-social decline. The findings included : A record review of the facility's census, dated 05/07/2024, revealed 3 residents, Resident #101, #102, and #103. 1. A record review of Resident #101's admission record dated 05/07/2024 revealed an admission date of 04/10/2024 which included diagnoses of hemiplegia, epilepsy, and chronic kidney disease. A record review of Resident #101's admission MDS assessment, dated 04/16/2024, revealed Resident #101 was a [AGE] year-old male admitted for long term care and assessed with medically complex conditions and extensive assistance with activities of everyday life. A record review of Resident #101's care plan dated 05/07/2024 revealed, At risk for injury R/T seizure disorder, specify EPILEPSY. Receives anticonvulsant medications and is at risk for side effects, adverse reactions, and toxicity. Date Initiated: 04/12/2024 2. A record review of Resident #102's admission record dated 05/07/2024 revealed an admission date of 04/10/2024 which included diagnoses of traumatic hemorrhage of right cerebrum (bleeding in the brain), quadriplegia, c5-c7 (inability to move the body due to an injury at the neck), and depression. A record review of Resident #102's admission MDS assessment, dated 04/15/2024, revealed Resident #101 was a [AGE] year-old male admitted for long term care and assessed with medically complex conditions and totally dependent on staff for assistance with activities of everyday life. A record review of Resident #102's care plan dated 05/07/2024 revealed, I have an infection of: Klebsiella (bacteria Klebsiella infections commonly occur among sick patients in healthcare settings who are receiving treatment for other conditions) Pneumonia and am receiving antibiotics. Date Initiated: 04/15/2024 3. A record review of Resident #103's admission record dated 05/07/2024 revealed an admission date of 04/11/2024 which included diagnoses of late onset Alzheimer's disease. A record review of Resident #103's MDS admission assessment, dated 04/17/2024, revealed Resident #102 was an [AGE] year-old female admitted for long term care with hospice services and assessed with medically complex conditions and totally dependent on staff for assistance with activities of everyday life. A record review of Resident #103's care plan dated 05/07/2024 revealed, Resident receiving hospice services R/T (related to) terminal disease process: Alzheimer's late onset date Initiated: 04/15/2024 During an interview on 05/08/24 at 12:49 PM, Regional Administrator B stated the facility was applying for a license of 130 beds. Regional Administrator B stated the facility had hired a Social Worker in early April 2024 and whilst awaiting her start date the proposed Social Worker declined the employment offer. The Regional Administrator stated the facility was currently seeking a Social Worker for employment. A record review of the facility's policy titled Social Services dated 12/16/2023, revealed, the facility, regardless of size, will provide medically related social services to each Resident, to attain or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being . a facility with more than 120 beds will employ A qualified social worker on a full-time basis
CONCERN (F)

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

MDS Data Transmission (Tag F0640)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record reviews the facility failed to, within 14 days after a facility completes a resident's assessment...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record reviews the facility failed to, within 14 days after a facility completes a resident's assessment, electronically transmit encoded, accurate, and complete MDS data to the CMS System, including the admission assessment for 3 of 3 residents (Residents #101, #102, and #103) reviewed for MDS assessments. The facility failed to transmit the MDS withing 14 days of assessment for Resident's #101, #102, and #103. These failures placed residents at risk by not providing resident specific information for payment and quality measure purposes. The findings included: 1. A record review of Resident #101's admission record dated 05/07/2024 revealed an admission date of 04/10/2024 which included diagnoses of hemiplegia (partial body paralysis), epilepsy (seizures), and chronic kidney disease . A record review of Resident #101's admission MDS assessment, dated 04/16/2024, revealed Resident #101 was a [AGE] year-old male admitted for long term care and assessed with medically complex conditions and extensive assistance with activities of everyday life. A record review of Resident #101's care plan dated 05/07/2024 revealed, At risk for injury R/T seizure disorder, specify EPILEPSY. Receives anticonvulsant medications and is at risk for side effects, adverse reactions, and toxicity. Date Initiated: 04/12/2024 A record review of Resident #101's MDS admission assessment dated [DATE] revealed the MDS had not been transmitted to CMS by the required 14-day time frame. 2. A record review of Resident #102's admission record dated 05/07/2024 revealed an admission date of 04/10/2024 which included diagnoses of traumatic hemorrhage of right cerebrum (bleeding in the brain), quadriplegia, c5-c7 (inability to move the body due to an injury at the neck), and depression. A record review of Resident #102's admission MDS assessment, dated 04/15/2024, revealed Resident #101 was a [AGE] year-old male admitted for long term care and assessed with medically complex conditions and totally dependent on staff for assistance with activities of everyday life. A record review of Resident #102's care plan dated 05/07/2024 revealed, I have an infection of: Klebsiella (bacteria Klebsiella infections commonly occur among sick patients in healthcare settings who are receiving treatment for other conditions) Pneumonia and am receiving antibiotics. Date Initiated: 04/15/2024 A record review of Resident #102's MDS admission assessment dated [DATE], revealed Resident #102's MDS had not been transmitted to CMS by the required 14-day time frame. 3. A record review of Resident #103's admission record dated 05/07/2024 revealed an admission date of 04/11/2024 which included diagnoses of late onset Alzheimer's disease, A record review of Resident #103's MDS admission assessment, dated 04/17/2024, revealed Resident #102 was an [AGE] year-old female admitted for long term care with hospice services and assessed with medically complex conditions and totally dependent on staff for assistance with activities of everyday life. A record review of Resident #103's care plan dated 05/07/2024 revealed, Resident receiving hospice services R/T (related to) terminal disease process: Alzheimer's late onset date Initiated: 04/15/2024 A record review of Resident #103's MDS admission assessment dated [DATE], revealed Resident #103's MDS comprehensive admission assessment had not been transmitted to CMS by the required 14-day time frame. During a record review and interview on 05/07/2024 at 03:57 PM, the Regional MDS Nurse stated she had not transmitted the MDS assessments for Resident's #101, #102, nor Resident #103 because she did not have a National Provider Number (NPI). The Regional MDS Nurse then reviewed Residents #101's, #102's, and #103's MDS assessment records and stated the NPI numbers were there, and she had not realized the NPI numbers were there. The Regional MDS Nurse stated she would upload the MDS assessments for Residents #101, #102, and #103 now . A record review of the facility's policy titled MDS 3.0 Completion dated 07/2022, revealed, Transmission Requirements: All assessments shall be transmitted to the designated CMS system iQIES within 14 days of completion. Each assessment must be accepted into the system, as verify by validation reports A record review of CMS website; https://www.cms.gov/medicare/quality/nursing-home-improvement/resident-assessment-instrument-manual ; accessed 05/08/2024, titled, Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Manual revealed, CHAPTER 5: SUBMISSION AND CORRECTION OF THE MDS ASSESSMENTS: . 5.2 Timeliness Criteria In accordance with the requirements at 42 CFR §483.20(f)(1), (f)(2), and (f)(3), long-term care facilities participating in the Medicare and Medicaid programs must meet the following conditions: Completion Timing: .For the admission assessment, the MDS Completion Date (Z0500B) must be no later than 13 days after the Entry Date (A1600).
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0838 (Tag F0838)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews and interviews the facility failed to conduct and document a facility-wide assessment to determine what ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews and interviews the facility failed to conduct and document a facility-wide assessment to determine what resources are necessary to care for its residents competently during both day-to-day operations and emergencies for 1 of 1 facility reviewed for facility assessment. The facility failed to complete a facility-wide assessment to determine what resources was necessary to care for its residents competently during both day-to-day operations and emergencies. This failure could place residents at risk for not receiving necessary care and services required. The findings included: 1. A record review of Resident #101's admission record dated 05/07/2024 revealed an admission date of 04/10/2024 which included diagnoses of hemiplegia, epilepsy, and chronic kidney disease. A record review of Resident #101's admission MDS assessment, dated 04/16/2024, revealed Resident #101 was a [AGE] year-old male admitted for long term care and assessed with medically complex conditions and extensive assistance with activities of everyday life. A record review of Resident #101's care plan dated 05/07/2024 revealed, At risk for injury R/T seizure disorder, specify EPILEPSY. Receives anticonvulsant medications and is at risk for side effects, adverse reactions, and toxicity. Date Initiated: 04/12/2024 During daily intermittent observations on 05/07/2024 at 09:00 AM through 05/08/2024 at 04:00 PM, Resident #101 was observed dining, napping, and ambulating in his wheelchair. 2. A record review of Resident #102's admission record dated 05/07/2024 revealed an admission date of 04/10/2024 which included diagnoses of traumatic hemorrhage of right cerebrum (bleeding in the brain), quadriplegia, c5-c7 (inability to move the body due to an injury at the neck), and depression. A record review of Resident #102's admission MDS assessment, dated 04/15/2024, revealed Resident #101 was a [AGE] year-old male admitted for long term care and assessed with medically complex conditions and totally dependent on staff for assistance with activities of everyday life. A record review of Resident #102's care plan dated 05/07/2024 revealed, I have an infection of: Klebsiella (bacteria Klebsiella infections commonly occur among sick patients in healthcare settings who are receiving treatment for other conditions) Pneumonia and am receiving antibiotics. Date Initiated: 04/15/2024 During daily intermittent observations on 05/07/2024 from 09:00 AM through 05/08/2024 at 04:00 PM Resident #102 was observed watching television in his room, napping, and received assistance eating. 3. A record review of Resident #103's admission record dated 05/07/2024 revealed an admission date of 04/11/2024 which included diagnoses of late onset Alzheimer's disease. A record review of Resident #103's MDS admission assessment, dated 04/17/2024, revealed Resident #102 was an [AGE] year-old female admitted for long term care with hospice services and assessed with medically complex conditions and totally dependent on staff for assistance with activities of everyday life. A record review of Resident #103's care plan dated 05/07/2024 revealed, Resident receiving hospice services R/T (related to) terminal disease process: Alzheimer's late onset date Initiated: 04/15/2024 During an interview on 05/08/2024 at 12:20 PM, the Administrator stated the facility had not completed a facility assessment and she would immediately begin the facility assessment . A record review of the facility's policy titled Facility Systems Risk Assessment Procedure dated 07/2022, revealed, It is the policy of this facility to establish criteria for categorizing various facility systems based on risks to the residents, staff, or visitors in our facility
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: 1 life-threatening violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 38 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $14,020 in fines. Above average for Texas. Some compliance problems on record.
  • • Grade F (36/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 36/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Avir At Kerrville's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns Avir at Kerrville 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 Avir At Kerrville Staffed?

CMS rates Avir at Kerrville's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes.

What Have Inspectors Found at Avir At Kerrville?

State health inspectors documented 38 deficiencies at Avir at Kerrville during 2024 to 2025. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 36 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 Avir At Kerrville?

Avir at Kerrville 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 AVIR HEALTH GROUP, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 130 certified beds and approximately 65 residents (about 50% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in KERRVILLE, Texas.

How Does Avir At Kerrville Compare to Other Texas Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Texas, Avir at Kerrville's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 2.8 and health inspection rating (1 stars) is much below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Avir At Kerrville?

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 Avir At Kerrville Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, Avir at Kerrville has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation (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 Avir At Kerrville Stick Around?

Avir at Kerrville has not reported staff turnover data to CMS. Staff turnover matters because consistent caregivers learn residents' individual needs, medications, and preferences. When staff frequently change, this institutional knowledge is lost. Families should ask the facility directly about their staff retention rates and average employee tenure.

Was Avir At Kerrville Ever Fined?

Avir at Kerrville has been fined $14,020 across 1 penalty action. This is below the Texas average of $33,219. While any fine indicates a compliance issue, fines under $50,000 are relatively common and typically reflect isolated problems that were subsequently corrected. Families should ask what specific issues led to these fines and confirm they've been resolved.

Is Avir At Kerrville on Any Federal Watch List?

Avir at Kerrville 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.