Liberty Health Care Center

1206 N Travis St, Liberty, TX 77575 (936) 336-7247
Government - Hospital district 118 Beds HEALTH SERVICES MANAGEMENT Data: November 2025 3 Immediate Jeopardy citations
Trust Grade
0/100
#1033 of 1168 in TX
Last Inspection: August 2025

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

Overview

Liberty Health Care Center has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the quality of care provided. With a state rank of #1033 out of 1168 in Texas, this facility is in the bottom half, and it ranks #4 out of 4 in Liberty County, meaning only one local option is better. The situation appears to be worsening, as issues have increased from 4 in 2024 to 9 in 2025. Staffing is a weakness, with a rating of 2 out of 5 stars and a turnover rate of 57%, which is higher than the state average. The facility has incurred $392,920 in fines, which is concerning and higher than 98% of other Texas facilities, suggesting ongoing compliance problems. There is less RN coverage than 80% of state facilities, which can hinder the identification of potential issues. Specific incidents of concern include failure to prevent verbal abuse between staff and residents, and inadequate supervision of a resident at risk for self-harm, which underscores the facility's serious shortcomings in ensuring resident safety. While there are some strengths in quality measures rated 4 out of 5, the significant issues noted should be carefully considered by families researching this nursing home.

Trust Score
F
0/100
In Texas
#1033/1168
Bottom 12%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Worse
4 → 9 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
57% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
✓ Good
$392,920 in fines. Lower than most Texas facilities. Relatively clean record.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 16 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Texas. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
⚠ Watch
16 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Overall Rating
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Staff Levels
★★★★☆
4.0
Care Quality
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 4 issues
2025: 9 issues

The Good

  • 4-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

1-Star Overall Rating

Below Texas average (2.8)

Significant quality concerns identified by CMS

Staff Turnover: 57%

11pts above Texas avg (46%)

Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity

Federal Fines: $392,920

Well above median ($33,413)

Significant penalties indicating serious issues

Chain: HEALTH SERVICES MANAGEMENT

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

Staff turnover is elevated (57%)

9 points above Texas average of 48%

The Ugly 16 deficiencies on record

3 life-threatening
Aug 2025 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan to meet each resident's medical, nursing, mental and psychosocial needs for 2 of 17 residents reviewed for care plans. (Residents #4 & #54) 1. The facility did not have a care plan to address Resident #4's hospice care. 2. The facility did not have a care plan to address Resident #54's indwelling urinary catheter (a thin, flexible tube inserted into the bladder to drain urine) or catheter care. These failures could place residents at risk of not having their individual needs met and not receiving needed services. Findings included: 1. Record review of the face sheet dated 08/20/25 indicated Resident #4 was a [AGE] year-old male admitted on [DATE]. His diagnoses included cerebral palsy (a congenital disorder of movement, muscle tone, or postured due to abnormal brain development often before birth) and muscle wasting and atrophy (waste away, especially because of degeneration of cells). Record review of a significant change MDS dated [DATE] indicated Resident #4 had severely impaired cognition, was dependent for all ADLs, and was receiving hospice care. Record review of the care plan last updated 07/15/25 did not indicate that Resident #4 was under the care of hospice. Record review of a physician order dated 07/21/25 indicated Resident #4 was admitted to hospice services. During an observation and interview on 08/18/25 at 9:27 a.m., Resident #4 was in bed with his family member at bedside. Resident #4 was not responding to verbal or touch stimuli from his family member. The family member said the facility had called him that morning because of Resident #4's change of condition and hospice had determined he was actively dying. During an interview on 08/20/25 at 1:11 p.m., the DON said that while the facility was without an MDS Nurse that she and the ADON were responsible for writing new care plans. She said they learn of new or changed treatments and orders in the morning meeting by reviewing the 24-hour report, new orders, and incident reports. She said she reviewed Resident #4's care plan and there was no care plan for hospice care. She said it was just overlooked. She said the possible negative outcome of not having a care plan for hospice services could be the resident not receiving the appropriate care. During an interview on 08/20/25 at 1:35 p.m., the Administrator said the former MDS Nurse last day was 07/21/25. She said the DON and ADON were responsible for creating care plans until another MDS Nurse could be trained. She said she and the DON searched Resident #4's care plan for a hospice care plan and one had not been created. She said the care plan was just missed. She said there was no negative outcome for Resident #4 not having a hospice care plan because he had hospice serves in place, the order for the service, and had received the ordered care. 2. Record review of a face sheet dated 08/20/25 indicated Resident #54 was an [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her diagnosis included chronic diastolic (congestive) heart failure (a chronic condition in which the heart does not pump blood as well as it should) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (a long-term condition in which the body has trouble controlling blood sugar and using it for energy) with hyperglycemia (high blood sugar). Record review of a significant change MDS dated [DATE] indicated Resident #54 had a BIMS score of 11 indicating she had moderate cognitive impairment, was dependent for most ADLs, and was incontinent of urine and bowel. Record review of a care plan last dated 07/08/25 indicated Resident #54 had no care plan to address her indwelling urinary catheter. Record review of a physician order dated 07/30/25 indicated Resident #54 was to have an indwelling urinary catheter in place related to urinary retention. During an observation and interview on 08/19/25 at 8:35 a.m., Resident #54 was lying in bed in her room with her catheter bag hanging on the bed below bladder level. She said she had the catheter because she was having trouble urinating without it. During an interview on 08/20/25 1:11 a.m., the DON said she had reviewed Resident #54's care plans and that there was no care plan for her catheter or catheter care. She said the possible negative outcome for not having a care plan for the catheter and care could be the resident not receiving the appropriate care. During an interview on 08/20/25 1:35 p.m., the Administrator said she expected resident care plans were to be complete and address all needs, goals, and interventions for each resident. She said there was no negative outcome for Resident #54 not having a catheter care plan because the resident had the catheter and receiving the care required to maintain the catheter. Record review of the facility's undated Comprehensive Care Plans policy indicated It is the policy of this facility to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident, consistent with resident rights, that includes measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs and all services that are identified in the resident's comprehensive assessment and meet professional standards of quality.
CONCERN (D)

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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident who needed respiratory care, was provided such care, consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan and the residents' goals and preferences for 1 of 6 residents (Resident #25) reviewed for respiratory therapy. The facility failed to keep the oxygen concentrator filter clean for Resident #25. This failure could place residents at risk of receiving incorrect or inadequate oxygen support which could result in a decline in health. Findings included: Record review of Resident #25's face sheet dated 08/18/25, indicated he was a [AGE] year-old male readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (a group of lung diseases that block airflow and make it difficult to breathe), respiratory failure (a condition where the lungs are unable to adequately exchange oxygen and carbon dioxide resulting in dangerously low oxygen levels in the blood) and heart failure (condition in which the heart does not pump blood as well as it should). Record review of Resident #25's most recent quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] indicated he had a BIMS score of 12 which indicated moderately impaired cognition. The assessment indicated medical diagnoses of respiratory failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and heart failure and received oxygen therapy on during the last 14 days while a resident in the facility. Record review of Resident #25's care plan with a target date of 10/10/25 indicated he received oxygen therapy related to shortness of breath with interventions including oxygen setting at 2-4 liters per minute per nasal canula (a think flexible tube that delivers supplemental oxygen through your nose) per physician order. Record review of Resident #25's Physicians Order Summary dated 08/18/25 indicated he was prescribed oxygen at 2-4 liters per minute humidified oxygen by nasal canula continuously with an order date of 04/11/25. During an observation and interview on 08/18/25 at 08:55 a.m., Resident #25 was lying in bed with oxygen per nasal canula set at 4 liters/minute to an oxygen concentrator with two black filters. The oxygen concentrator filters were covered with a light gray powdery substance. Resident #25 said he wore his oxygen all the time and the facility changed his oxygen tubing and cleaned the filters sometimes, but he was not sure when the last time they were cleaned. During an observation and interview on 08/20/25 at 8:00 a.m., Resident #25 was lying in bed with oxygen per nasal canula set at 4 liters/minute to an oxygen concentrator with two black filters. The oxygen concentrator filters were covered with a light gray powdery substance. Resident #25 said he wore his oxygen all the time and the facility changed his tubing and cleaned the filters sometimes, but he was not sure when the last time they were cleaned. During an interview on 08/20/25 at 8:32 a.m., RN A said she was providing care for Resident #25 on 08/20/25 and 08/19/25. She said Resident #25's oxygen concentrator filters were dirty and should have been changed or cleaned. RN A said she was responsible for ensuring the oxygen concentrator filters were clean and the ADON was the back up to double check. She said she was educated on ensuring oxygen concentrator filters were cleaned but she overlooked them. RN A said the resident risk of dirty oxygen concentrator filters was possible contamination. During an interview on 08/20/25 at 8:35 a.m., the DON said the Maintenance Director was responsible for ensuring oxygen concentrator filters were cleaned and the ADON was the back up to double check. She said the charge nurses inspected oxygen concentrators daily to ensure the oxygen concentrator filters were clean, the oxygen tubing and the humidifier bottles (oxygen can be drying to your nose so some patients use a humidifier bottle to moisten the oxygen you breath) were changed weekly and dated. The DON said the Maintenance Director, ADON and charge nurses were educated on cleaning filters on oxygen concentrators. She said Resident #25's oxygen concentrator filters were overlooked. She said the resident risk of soiled oxygen concentrator filters was potentially the oxygen concentrator may not be as effective as it should be. The DON said her expectation was charge nurses inspect the oxygen concentrators daily to ensure the filters were clean and tubing changed weekly and dated, the Maintenance director clean the filters as needed and ADON ensure the concentrator filters were cleaned as needed. During an interview on 08/20/25 at 8:40 a.m., the Administrator said the Maintenance Director was responsible for ensuring oxygen concentrator filters were cleaned and the ADON was the back up to double check. She said the charge nurses inspected the oxygen concentrators daily to ensure concentrator filters were clean. She said the Maintenance director, ADON and charge nurses were educated on cleaning filters on oxygen concentrators. She said Resident #25's oxygen concentrator filers were overlooked. She said the resident risk of soiled oxygen concentrator filters was potentially the oxygen concentrator may not be as effective as it should be. She said her expectation was charge nurses inspect the oxygen concentrators daily to ensure the filters were clean, tubing changed weekly and dated and humidifier bottles not empty, dated and changed weekly, the Maintenance director clean the filters as needed and the ADON ensure the oxygen concentrator filters were cleaned as needed. During an interview on 08/20/25 at 8:48 a.m., the ADON said the Maintenance director was responsible for ensuring oxygen concentrator filters were cleaned or changed monthly and as needed. She said she was the backup and checked daily and let the Maintenance director know when a patient's oxygen concentrator filters needed to be cleaned or changed. The ADON said she was educated on cleaning filters on oxygen concentrators. She said Resident #25's oxygen concentrator filters were overlooked. The ADON said the resident risk of dirty oxygen concentrator filters was potentially improper air flow to the concentrator. During an interview on 08/20/25 at 8:55 a.m., the Maintenance Director said he was responsible for ensuring oxygen concentrator filters were cleaned or changed monthly and as needed. He said the ADON was the backup and let him know when a patient's oxygen concentrator filters needed to be cleaned or changed. He said he was educated on cleaning filters on oxygen concentrators. The Maintenance Director said Resident #25's oxygen concentrator filters were overlooked. He said the resident risk of an oxygen concentrator with dirty filters was potentially improper air flow to the concentrator. Record review of an undated facility in-service, titled, Cleaning Oxygen Concentrator Filters indicated, .Oxygen concentrator filters remove dust, dirt, and particles from the air before it reaches the resident. Keeping filters clean ensures: Safe and effective infection risk. Longer equipment life. Reduced breakdowns ad malfunctions. Cleaning Frequency Reusable filters: Weekly or as recommended by the manufacturer. Signs the Filter Needs Cleaning or Replacement Visible dust buildup. Reduced oxygen flow . Filter looks gray, brown or damaged. Record Review of a facility policy dated 2023, titled, Oxygen Concentrator indicated, .The purpose of this policy is to establish responsibilities for the care and use of oxygen concentrators. a. Follow manufacturer recommendations for the frequency of cleaning filters and servicing the device.
Jul 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

Deficiency F0760 (Tag F0760)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

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

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 its residents were free of any significant medication errors for 4 (Resident #1 Resident #2, Resident #3 and Resident #4) of 10 residents reviewed for medications. The facility failed to administer Midodrine (medication to increase blood pressure) per parameters stated in physicians' orders for a total of 10 doses in [DATE] for Resident #1.The facility failed to administer Midodrine per parameters stated in physicians' orders for a total of 11 doses in [DATE] for Resident #1.The facility failed to administer Midodrine per parameters stated in physicians' orders for a total of 1 dose in [DATE] for Resident #2.The facility failed to hold Midodrine per parameters stated in physicians' orders for a total of 5 doses in [DATE] for Resident #3.The facility failed to hold Midodrine per parameters stated in physicians' orders for a total of 3 doses in [DATE] for Resident #3.The facility failed to hold Nifedipine (medication to lower blood pressure) per parameters stated in physicians' orders for a total of 1 dose in [DATE] for Resident #4. The deficient practice placed the residents at risk of harm or not receiving desired outcomes from medications not administered according to physician's orders and manufacturer's specifications. Findings Included: Resident #1Record review of Resident #1's face sheet indicated he was a [AGE] year-old male initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include: Parkinson's disease (progressive disorder that affects the nervous system, and the parts of the body controlled by the nerves), low blood pressure, anxiety disorder, dementia (loss of cognitive functioning) and vitamin deficiency. Record review of Resident #1's Quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE], indicated he had active diagnoses in the last 7 days of orthostatic hypotension (form of low blood pressure that happens when standing after sitting or lying down) and he was moderately impaired cognitively with a BIMS score of 12. He used a manual wheelchair independently for mobility and required setup or clean-up assistance with transfer to and from a bed to wheelchair. Record review of Resident #1's Comprehensive Care Plan last revised [DATE], indicated he had hypotension related to low BP. Goal: resident will be free of s/s of hypotension. Interventions: encourage adequate fluid intake and healthy diet, give medications per orders, and monitor/document/ report prn any s/s causative factors; dehydration, allergic reactions, orthostatic or postural hypotension, trauma, septicemia (bloodstream infection), blood loss, post prandial hypotension (blood pressure drops after you eat a meal).Record review of Resident #1's physicians' orders indicated: check BP every 8 hours and administer midodrine per order as required according to bp result every 8 hours for maintaining healthy bp related to Hypotension, and Midodrine oral tablet 2.5 mg give 1 tablet by mouth every 8 hours as needed for hypotension, give for SBP less than 90 or DBP less than 60 order dated [DATE]. Record review of Resident #1's MAR for [DATE] Blood Pressure monitoring indicated: [DATE] at 10:00 p.m. BP 109/58, [DATE] at 6:00 a.m. BP 120/52, [DATE] at 2:00 p.m. BP 70/40, [DATE] at 6:00 a.m. BP 100/58, [DATE] at 2:00 p.m. BP 98/52, [DATE] at 10:00 p.m. BP 122/56, [DATE] at 10:00 p.m. BP 178/56, [DATE] at 2:00 p.m. BP 80/55, [DATE] at 2:00 p.m. BP 133/55, and [DATE] at 10:00 p.m. BP 128/59.Record review of Resident #1's MAR for [DATE] indicated Midodrine was not given on: [DATE] at 10:00 p.m. BP 109/58 by LVN B, [DATE] at 6:00 a.m. BP 120/52 by LVN C, [DATE] at 2:00 p.m. BP 70/40 by LVN D, [DATE] at 6:00 a.m. BP 100/58 by LVN E, [DATE] at 2:00 p.m. BP 98/52 by LVN D, [DATE] at 10:00 p.m. BP 122/56 by LVN F, [DATE] at 10:00 p.m. BP 178/56 by LVN B, [DATE] at 2:00 p.m. BP 80/55 by LVN D, [DATE] at 2:00 p.m. BP 133/55 by LVN D, and [DATE] at 10:00 p.m. BP 128/59 by LVN B.Record review of Resident #1's MAR for [DATE] Blood Pressure monitoring indicated: [DATE] at 10:00 p.m. BP 148/47, [DATE] at 2:00 p.m. BP 121/57, [DATE] at 10:00 p.m. BP 131/58, [DATE] at 10:00 p.m. BP 112/46, [DATE] at 2:00 p.m. BP 113/48, [DATE] at 10:00 p.m. BP 100/59, [DATE] at 10:00 p.m. BP 108/57, [DATE] at 2:00 p.m. BP 105/54, [DATE] at 2:00 p.m. BP 147/45, [DATE] at 2:00 p.m. BP 98/53 and [DATE] at 2:00 p.m. BP 75/84.Review of Resident #1's MAR for [DATE] indicated Midodrine was not given on: [DATE] at 10:00 p.m. BP 148/47 by LVN B, [DATE] at 2:00 p.m. BP 121/57 by LVN D, [DATE] at 10:00 p.m. BP 131/58 by LVN E, [DATE] at 10:00 p.m. BP 112/46 by LVN B, [DATE] at 2:00 p.m. BP 113/48 by LVN G, [DATE] at 10:00 p.m. BP 100/59 by LVN B, [DATE] at 10:00 p.m. BP 108/57 by LVN B, [DATE] at 2:00 p.m. BP 105/54 by LVN E, [DATE] at 2:00 p.m. BP 147/45 by RN H, [DATE] at 2:00 p.m. BP 98/53 by LVN E and [DATE] at 2:00 p.m. BP 75/84 by RN H.During an interview on [DATE] at 11:30 a.m., Resident #1 said he received his medications as prescribed, and they monitored his BP routinely. Resident #1 denied any signs and symptoms of low BP (dizziness, light headedness, fainting, blurred vision, and/or increased fatigue) and said if he did have any, he would notify the nursing staff. Resident #1 said he did have a history of falling but it was because he tried to ambulate without assistance. Resident #2Record review of Resident #2's face sheet indicated he was an [AGE] year-old male initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses to include: high blood pressure, end stage renal disease (last stage of long-term kidney disease), diabetes, dementia, anxiety and depression. Record review of Resident #2's annual MDS assessment dated [DATE], indicated he had active diagnoses in the last 7 days of hypertension (condition in which the force of the blood against the artery walls is too high) and orthostatic hypotension, and he was cognitively intact with a BIMS score of 15. He used a manual wheelchair for mobility but was totally dependent on staff for mobility and assistance with transfer to and from a bed to wheelchair.Record review of Resident #2's Comprehensive Care Plan last revised [DATE], indicated he had hypertension related to lifestyle choices. Goal: resident will remain free of complications related to hypertension. Interventions: Administer Midodrine if SBP is less than 110 and DBP is less than 60, Give PRN Hydralazine per MD orders if SBP is over 160 or DBP is over 110 and Monitor/record use/side effects of medication. He has hypotension. Goal: resident will remain free from signs and symptoms of hypotension. Interventions: . Educate resident/family/caregivers to change position slowly going from lying, sitting to standing, encourage adequate fluid intake and a healthy diet. and give medications as ordered. Monitor for side effects and effectivenessRecord review of Resident #2's physicians' orders indicated: Midodrine oral tablet 5 mg give 1 tablet by mouth every 12 hours as needed for SBP <100 or DBP <60 related to orthostatic hypotension; order dated [DATE].Record review of Resident #2's MAR for [DATE] indicated on [DATE] at 7:00 p.m. BP reading of 125/54 and Midodrine 5mg 1 tablet was not given by LVN L as needed for SBP <100 or DBP <60 related to orthostatic hypotension.During an interview on [DATE] at 9:00 a.m., Resident #2 said he received his medications as prescribed, and they monitored his BP routinely. Resident #2 denied any signs and symptoms of low BP (dizziness, light headedness, fainting, blurred vision, and/or increased fatigue) and said if he did have any, he would notify the nursing staff. Resident #2 said staff checked his BP frequently because he went out to dialysis, and it caused his BP to drop. He said he was to be administered Midodrine if his BP reading was low but did not recall his BP being low enough for the Midodrine to be administered. Resident #3Record review of Resident #3's face sheet indicated he was a [AGE] year-old male initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include: sepsis (potentially life-threatening condition that arises when the body's response to infection causes injury to its own tissues and organs), osteomyelitis of vertebra (infection in the vertebrae in the spine), paraplegia (injury to the spinal cord or brain that stops signals from reaching the lower body), depression, atrial fibrillation (type of irregular heartbeat) and bed confinement status. Record review of Resident #3's admission MDS assessment dated [DATE], indicated he had active diagnoses in the last 7 days of atrial fibrillation or other dysrhythmias, (abnormal or irregular heartbeats) and he was cognitively intact with a BIMS score of 14. He was bedfast and dependent on staff for mobility.Record review of Resident #3's Comprehensive Care Plan last revised [DATE], indicated he had hypotension. Goal: resident will remain free of complications related to hypotension. Interventions: . Encourage adequate fluid intake and a healthy diet and give medications as ordered. Monitor for side effects and effectiveness.Record review of Resident #3's physicians' orders indicated: Midodrine oral tablet 5 mg give 3 tablets by mouth three times a day for hypotension, hold for systolic BP greater than 120.Record review of Resident #3's MAR for [DATE] Blood Pressure monitoring indicated: [DATE] at 2:00 p.m. BP 130/79, [DATE] at 2:00 p.m. BP 126/74, [DATE] at 2:00 p.m. BP 129/68, [DATE] at 2:00 p.m. BP 122/65, and [DATE] at 2:00 p.m. BP 130/75. Record review of Resident #3's MAR for [DATE] indicated Midodrine was not held on: [DATE] at 2:00 p.m. BP 130/79 by LVN J, [DATE] at 2:00 p.m. BP 126/74 by LVN D, [DATE] at 2:00 p.m. BP 129/68 by LVN J, [DATE] at 2:00 p.m. BP 122/65 by LVN D, and [DATE] at 2:00 p.m. BP 130/75 by LVN J.Record review of Resident #3's MAR for [DATE] Blood Pressure monitoring indicated: [DATE] at 10:00 p.m. BP 128/74, [DATE] at 2:00 p.m. BP 174/94, and [DATE] at 9:00 a.m. BP 157/74.Review of Resident #3's MAR for [DATE] indicated Midodrine was not held on: [DATE] at 10:00 p.m. BP 128/74 by LVN L, [DATE] at 2:00 p.m. BP 174/94 by LVN K, and [DATE] at 9:00 a.m. BP 157/74 by RN H.During an interview on [DATE] at 11:45 a.m., Resident #3 said he received his medications as prescribed, and they monitored his BP routinely. Resident #3 denied any signs and symptoms of low BP (dizziness, light headedness, fainting, blurred vision, and/or increased fatigue) and said if he did have any, he would notify the nursing staff. Resident #4Record review of Resident #4's face sheet indicated she was an [AGE] year-old female initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include: high blood pressure, dementia, chronic pain and muscle weakness. Record review of Resident #4's Quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE], indicated she had active diagnoses in the last 7 days of hypertension, and she was able to make herself-understood and usually understood others. No BIMS score was identified. She used a manual wheelchair independently for mobility and required maximum assistance with transfer to and from a bed to wheelchair.Record review of Resident #4's Comprehensive Care Plan last revised [DATE], indicated she was on medication for hypertension related to lifestyle choices. Goal: resident will remain free of complications related to hypertension. Interventions: . give anti-hypertensive medications as ordered. Monitor for side effects such as orthostatic hypotension and increased heart rate (Tachycardia) and effectiveness. per MD order hold medication if SBP (systolic blood pressure) is less than 110, DBP (diastolic blood pressure) or pulse is less than 60.Record review of Resident #4's physicians' orders indicated: Nifedipine ER Oral Tablet Extended Release 24Hour 60 mg give 1 tablet by mouth one time a day related to hypertension; hold if SBP <110, DBP <60, order dated [DATE].Record review of Resident #4's MAR for [DATE] indicated on [DATE] at 8:00 a.m. Nifedipine ER 60 mg 1 tablet by mouth one time a day related to hypertension; hold if SBP <110, DBP <60 was administered by MA N with a blood pressure reading of 112/50. During an interview on [DATE] at 11:45 a.m., Resident #4 said she received her medications as prescribed, and they monitored her B/P routinely prior to administering BP medication. Resident #4 denied any signs and symptoms of low BP (dizziness, light headedness, fainting, blurred vision, and/or increased fatigue) and said if she did have any, she would notify the nursing staff.Record review of facility incidents for June and [DATE] did not indicate Resident #1, Resident #2, Resident #3, and Resident #4 had falls or incidents related to the medication errors.During an interview on [DATE] at 8:00 a.m., MA N observed checking BP prior to administer BP medications and said she checked resident's BP prior to administering BP medications. She said she checked the BP and then reviewed the resident's MAR to determine if the blood pressure medication was to be administered. She said some residents had parameters to hold the blood pressure medication if the BP was low. She said if the resident's BP was low, she held the medication, documented on the MAR and reported it to the resident's charge nurse. She said that the charge nurses administered medications for hypotension but if she was responsible for administering those, she would do the same process, check the BP, review and administer the medication if within acceptable parameter. She said if residents' blood pressure was low and they were still given a blood pressure medication, it could get too low or if blood pressure was low and medications were not given to increase it, that could cause hypotension symptoms. She said residents were at risk for hypotension including passing out or dizziness which could result in a fall or injury. She said she received training about administering BP medication back in [DATE].During an interview on [DATE] at 11:57 a.m., LVN D said depending on the time, a medication aide or nurse administered the resident's medications. She said the resident's blood pressure should be checked each time the blood pressure medication was due. She said the blood pressure protocol ordered by the physician should be followed. She said if residents' blood pressure was low and they were still given a blood pressure medication, it could get too low or if blood pressure was low and medications were not given to increase it, that could cause hypotension symptoms. She said residents were at risk for hypotension including passing out or dizziness which could result in a fall or injury.During an interview on [DATE] at 2:00 p.m., LVN K said depending on the time, a medication aide or nurse administered the resident's medications. She said the resident's blood pressure should be checked each time the blood pressure medication was due, and orders/MAR reviewed for parameters. She said the blood pressure protocol ordered by the physician should be followed. She said residents were at risk for hypotension symptoms (dizziness, lightheadedness, drowsy, and unresponsiveness) if medications were not administered for hypotension or if hypertension medications were administered when BP was low (out of parameters). During an interview on [DATE] at 2:45 p.m., RN H, said the BP reading of 75/84 was an error, and she did administer Resident #1's Midodrine on [DATE] for low blood pressure. She said she typically looked at the medication and parameters before administering, but she did not remember why she had not looked at the parameters on [DATE] and hold the Midodrine when BP reading was 147/45. RN H said if the blood pressure dropped too low Resident #1 could have had dizziness, passed out, or even possibly died. She stated she had been in-serviced recently regarding blood pressures, parameters and medication administration during her recent orientation. During an interview on [DATE] at 9:00 a.m., LVN L said she checked resident's BP prior to administering BP medications. She said she checked the BP and then reviewed the resident's MAR to determine if the blood pressure medication was to be administered. She said some residents had parameters to hold the blood pressure medication if the BP was low and medications to administer if BP was low. She said she checked the BP, reviewed and administered the medication if within acceptable parameters. She said if residents' blood pressure was low and they were still given a blood pressure medication, it could get too low or if blood pressure was low and medications were not given to increase it, it could cause hypotension symptoms. She said residents were at risk for hypotension including passing out or dizziness which could result in a fall or injury. She said she received training about administering BP medication back in [DATE].During an interview on [DATE] at 9:45 a.m., LVN M, said the LVNs administered Resident #1's BP medications due to his hypotension and staff checked his blood pressure every 8 hours and as needed. She said standard facility protocol was if systolic BP was less than 120 to administer the Midodrine but was unsure what to do if the diastolic BP was low. LVN M said she would probably hold the Midodrine or call the physician for clarification if the systolic BP was above 120 but the diastolic BP was below 60. She said she took the BP prior to medication administration and would review the MAR/orders to clarify parameters if medication was to be administered or held. She said she would contact the physician if she was unsure of the parameters or dosing, or if BP medication was repeatedly being held or missed. LVN M said if the blood pressure dropped too low Resident #1 could have dizziness, unresponsiveness, or even possibly die. She stated she had been in-serviced recently regarding blood pressures, parameters and medication administration during her recent in-service.During an interview on [DATE] at 12:30 p.m., the DON said she expected her nurses and medication aides to follow physicians' orders. She stated she expected them to read the MAR and follow parameters. The DON stated that anytime a resident's blood pressure was high or low she would expect staff to look to see if the resident had any standing PRN orders. She said if a resident's blood pressure was low and the blood pressure medication was administered, it could cause blood pressure to bottom out. She said if a resident's blood pressure was low and medications to increase blood pressure were not administered, it could cause blood pressure to remain low or drop. She said the resident could experience symptoms of hypotension including syncope (fainting or passing out), confusion, and even death. During an interview on [DATE] at 1:15 p.m., the Administrator said she expected her staff to following physicians' orders and to be competent enough to notice a high or low blood pressure and to check the orders for parameters. Record review of a facility's Medication Administration policy dated 2024, indicated Policy: Medications are administered by licensed nurses, or other staff who are legally authorized to do so in this state, as ordered by the physician and in accordance with professional standards of practice, in a manner to prevent contamination or infection.8. Obtain and record vital signs, when applicable or per physician orders. When applicable, hold medication for those vital signs outside the physician's prescribed parameters.
May 2025 6 deficiencies 3 IJ
CRITICAL (J) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Abuse Prevention Policies (Tag F0607)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to implement written policies and procedures that prohibit and prevent abuse of residents, for 1 of 10 residents (Resident #2) reviewed for abuse. 1. The facility failed to ensure residents were free from abuse. *On 03/29/25 HSK A had a verbally aggressive argument with Resident #2 over cigarettes. Resident #2 told HSK A she wished she would shut up and HSK A got up from her chair and told Resident #2 to make her shut up. 2. The facility failed to ensure allegations of abuse were reported to the Abuse Coordinator Immediately. *HSK B wrote a concern form and left it in the mailbox outside of the HR door on 03/29/25 about the witnessed verbal exchange between Resident #2 and HSK A. 3. The facility failed to report allegations of abuse to HHSC within two hours of being notified of the abuse allegation. *The Administrator did not report the allegation of verbal abuse on 03/31/25. The Administrator reported the allegations of verbal abuse to HHSC on 04/01/25. 4. The facility failed to implement measures to protect residents and prevent additional abuse incidents during the investigation when they did not immediately suspend HSK A. *HSK A continued to work in the facility 03/29/25, 03/30/25, 03/31/25. She was suspended on 04/01/25 and returned to work on 04/03/25, while the investigation was ongoing and continued to work on 04/04/25 and 04/05/25. *The facility confirmed the allegation of abuse on 04/07/25 but did not terminate HSK A until 04/09/25 after being directed to by their corporate management. An Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) was identified on 05/08/25 at 2:30 p.m. The IJ template was provided to the facility on [DATE] at 3:35 p.m. While the IJ was removed on 05/09/25, the facility remained out of compliance at a severity level of no actual harm with potential for more than minimal harm that is not immediate jeopardy and a scope of isolated due to the facility's need to complete in-service training and evaluate the effectiveness of the corrective systems. These failures could place residents at risk of unreported abuse, neglect, exploitation, and a decreased quality of life. Findings included: Record review of the facility's Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation policy dated 2023 indicated It is the policy of this facility to provide protections for the health, welfare and rights of each resident by developing and implementing written policies and procedures that prohibit and prevent abuse, neglect, exploitation . Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines: 1. The facility will develop and implement written policies and procedures that: a. Prohibit and prevent abuse, neglect, and exploitation of residents and misappropriation of resident property; b. Establish policies and procedures to investigate any such allegations; . 3. The facility will provide ongoing oversight and supervision of staff in order to assure that its policies are implemented as written. III. Prevention of Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation The facility will implement policies and procedures to prevent and prohibit all types of abuse, neglect, misappropriation of resident property, and exploitation that achieves: . B. Identifying, correcting and intervening in situations in which abuse, neglect, exploitation, and/or misappropriation of resident property is more likely to occur with the deployment of trained and qualified, registered, licensed, and certified staff on each shift in sufficient numbers to meet the needs of the residents, and assure that the staff assigned have knowledge of the individual residents' care needs and behavioral symptoms; C. Assuring an assessment of the resources needed to provide care and services to all residents is included in the facility assessment; D. The identification, ongoing assessment, care planning for appropriate interventions, and monitoring of residents with needs and behaviors which might lead to conflict or neglect; E. Ensuring the health and safety of each resident with regard to visitors such as family members or resident representatives, friends, or other individuals subject to the resident's right to deny or withdraw consent at any time and to reasonable clinical and safety restrictions; F. Providing residents, representatives, and staff information on how and to whom they may report concerns, incidents and grievances without the fear of retribution; and providing feedback regarding the concerns that have been expressed; G. Addressing features of the physical environment that may make abuse, neglect, exploitation, and misappropriation of resident property more likely to occur; and H. Assigning responsibility for the supervision of staff on all shifts for identifying inappropriate staff behaviors. I. Identification of Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation A. The facility will have written procedures to assist staff in identifying the different types of abuse - mental/verbal abuse, sexual abuse, physical abuse, and the deprivation by an individual of goods and services. This includes staff to resident abuse and certain resident to resident altercations.VI. Protection of Resident The facility will make efforts to ensure all residents are protected from physical and psychosocial harm, as well as additional abuse, during and after the investigation. Examples include but are not limited to: A. Responding immediately to protect the alleged victim and integrity of the investigation; . VII. Reporting/Response A. The facility will have written procedures that include: 1. 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, or b. Not later than 24 hours if the events that cause the allegation do not involve abuse and do not result in serious bodily injury. 2. Assuring that reporters are free from retaliation or reprisal; . Record review of Resident #2's face sheet dated 05/09/25 indicated Resident #2 was a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her diagnoses included dementia (a condition characterized by progressive or persistent loss of intellectual functioning, especially with impairment of memory and abstract thinking, and often with personality change, resulting from organic disease of the brain), major depressive disorder (persistent feeling of sadness and loss of interest), anxiety (persistent worry and fear about everyday situations), hemiplegia (one-sided paralysis) and hemiparesis (one-sided muscle weakness) following cerebral infarction affecting right dominant side, and cerebral infarction (stroke). Record review of Resident #2's annual MDS assessment dated [DATE] indicated she was able to make herself understood, sometimes understood others, and had moderate cognitive impairment (BIMS-8). Record review of Resident #2's care plan dated 05/08/25 indicated Resident #2 had a psychosocial well-being problem related to verbal aggression while interacting with staff. Interventions included initiate referrals as needed or increase social relationships, provide a safe environment, and and when conflict arises residents to a calm safe environment. Record review of a facility investigation dated 04/07/25 and completed by Administrator L indicated the incident occurred on 03/29/25 at 1:00 p.m. and was reported to HHS on 04/01/25 at 12:00 p.m. The AP was identified and confirmed as HSK A. The witness was identified as HSK B. The allegation was noted as HSK A was being verbally aggressive with Resident #2 over the purchase of cigarettes. HSK A was suspended during the investigation. HSK B was in-serviced on timely reporting of abuse allegation on 04/01/25. The findings were confirmed. The facility's investigation included documentation completed by Administrator L: 3/31/2025 HSK A communicated with the administrator that she bought cigarettes for a resident and she did not want the residents to share them. I let HSK A know that she should not purchase cigarettes for the residents, if the residents want cigarettes they are to ask their family to purchase them or our activity director, when she goes shopping. 4/1/2025 - On April 1, 2025 HSK A was not working in the facility. The administrator called her at home to discuss the argument that HSK A got into at the facility on 3/29/2025. HSK A was suspended until the investigation could be completed. HSK A was in serviced on abuse, conflict resolution, resident rights and purchasing items for residents 4/3/2025- HSK A returned to work and met with AIT II regarding incident that occurred on 3/29/2025. Abuse, conflict resolution, residents rights and purchasing items for residents was discussed again. was returned to her duties on the floor. The resident safe surveys included with the investigation did not address verbal abuse by staff. Record review of an Employee Concern Form dated 03/29/25 at 1:00 p.m., completed by HSK B indicated At 1:00 p.m. smoke time I was giving Resident #4 her two cigarettes and I told Resident #2 you don't have any did you call someone and she said yeah I still waiting. Couple of minutes goes by and Resident #2 goes I'm not hiding anymore give me a cigarette talking to Resident #4. HSK A turns and goes not if its the cigarettes a bought I am not buying you cigarettes to just hand them out. I said well Resident #2 when you have cigarettes and Resident #4 don't don't share with her if that's the case. That's not fair to you. HSK A gives she share with her just not the cigarettes I bought. She can do whatever she wants with the cigarettes she buys with her money. HSK A started to get loud and angry. Resident #2 had enough and told HSK A to shut up. HSK A got out of her chair and tells Resident #2 to make her shut up. You will have to get out of your chair to shut me up. Then Resident #3 told HSK A to calm down. After that HSK A left. Resident #2 said I wish I can punch her and then looked at Resident #4 and goes I want to punch you for not having my back and then Resident #2 started to cry and shake. Record review of a Service Recovery Opportunity form dated initially dated 3/31/25, (the date was amended by Administrator L on 04/01/25), completed by Administrator L on 04/05/25 indicated HSK A became verbally abusive with Resident #2 about cigarettes. HSK A was suspended during the investigation. This was the first time HSK A had an argument with a resident. HSK A was inserviced on abuse, managing conflict and resident rights. HSK A confirmed she got upset with with Resident #2. Record review of a progress note dated 04/01/25 at 10:01 a.m., completed by the SW indicated On April 1, 2025, I spoke with Resident #2 regarding the incident between she and HSK A. Resident #2 said, She apologized to me for being upset and me crying. She said, And I apologized to her for what I said. Resident #2 could not recall what she said to HSK A or what HSK A said to her. She said, I know she had never talked to me like that before. She said, I don't recall what she said, but its not the way we normally talk. Resident #2 said, my mind is not that good and I can't recall. Resident #2 continued talking to me and she eventually recalled that the incident was about the sharing of cigarettes. Resident #2 said that she asked Resident #4 for a cigarette and HSK A said no because she had purchased the cigarettes with her own money. So, Resident #2 was upset that she could not get a cigarette because she and Resident #4 shares cigarettes. She said, she (HSK A) was going on about everything under the moon. She said that she told HSK A to hush and leave her alone. She don't recall what HSK A said. Resident #2 was upset with Resident #4 for not standing up for her. She said, I was crying and Resident #4 gave me the cigarette when HSK A left. Resident #2 told me that she is not scared of HSK A. She said, She is my friend and we apologized. She feels safe here at the facility and she knows who to report abuse too. She said HSK A is a good person. Record review of a progress note dated 04/07/25 at 4:02 p.m., completed by the SW indicated On April 7, 2025, I asked Resident #2 about the interaction between her and HSK A on smoke break. Resident #2 at first said she didn't recall what it was about, but they both apologized and it's over. I inquired further and Resident #2 said, She went off on a rampage. She did not want Resident #4 to share her cigarettes with me. Resident #2 told me that HSK A purchases cigarettes for Resident #4 using her own money (HSK A's money), so she did not want Resident #4 to share the cigarettes with her. Resident #2 said, HSK A and I kept going back and forth I told HSK A to shut up. Resident #2 did not recall what HSK A said, but I told her what the witness reported. She said yes, HSK A did say make me. Resident #2 said she cried because HSK A had never spoken to her like that before. She said, We are friends and both have apologized. I thought this was over. I explained that anytime there is an incident between staff and a resident we must make sure that the resident is safe, and no harm is caused. Resident #2 said, I'm okay, HSK A and I have made up. It's over. Record review of HSK's time record indicated she worked 03/29/25, 03/30/25, 03/31/25, 04/03/25, 04/04/25/, and 04/05/25. During an interview on 05/07/25 at 10:00 a.m., Administrator L said she was the abuse coordinator. She said allegations of abuse were reportable to her or her designees immediately and to HHS C within 2 hours. She said the facility was reporting on 04/01/25 an allegation of verbal abuse by HSK A towards Resident #2 on 03/29/25. She said HSK B witnessed the verbal abuse on 03/29/25 and put a note under the HR door but did not report the incident immediately to her (Administrator L) as required. She said HSK A was suspended when the facility was made aware of the incident on 03/31/25. She said the verbal abuse was confirmed. She said AIT TT was out on FML. During an interview on 05/07/25 at 12:46 p.m., Administrator L said the allegations of abuse was reported on 04/01/25. She said she did not report on 03/31/25 because she was working on the investigation and she could not give a logical reason for not reporting. She said HSK A was supposed to be suspended pending the facility investigation. She said HSK A worked work on 03/30/25, 03/31/25, 04/03/25, 04/04/25/, and 04/05/25. HSK A did not respond to a call from the surveyor on 05/07/25 at 2:35 p.m. During an interview on 05/07/25 at 2:45 p.m., Resident #2 said HSK A made her upset and spoke to her with a mean tone about borrowing cigarettes. She said she wanted her to shut up and HSK A said she (Resident #2) would have to get up from her wheelchair to make her shut up. She said she felt sad and upset when HSK spoke to her. She said at the time it was abuse but they had made up and there was no further problems. She said HSK A was not working at the facility anymore. She said she was o.k. and no other staff ever spoke to her with a mean or mad tone. During an interview on 05/08/25 at 10:55 a.m., HR HH said she found a concern form written by HSK B, under her office door, on 03/31/25. She said she scanned the form and emailed it to Administrator L. She said she followed up with the Administrator L on 04/01/25 (but she did not recall what time) and that was when Administrator L realized the form had a second page where the verbal abuse was documented. She said Administrator L then reported the allegations of abuse to HHSC. She said the facility's protocol would include immediate suspension for staff. She said confirmed allegations of abuse could result in disciplinary action that could include termination. She said if staff were not suspended and continued to work, residents were at risk of further abuse. During an interview on 05/08/25 at 11:13 a.m., HSK Director II said she arrived to work on 03/31/25 and HSK B handed her a copy of the concern form she had left under the HR office door. She said she (HSK B) did not want to report the incident. She said she read the form and then went to Administrator L's office with HSK B. She said all staff were trained on abuse. She said HSK B said she did not know she should call the Administrator. She said HSK A's employment was handled by the administrator. She said she was not told to suspend HSK A. She said HSK worked her regular scheduled day rotation. She said if staff were not suspended and continued to work, residents were at risk of further abuse. During an interview on 05/08/25 at 12:56 p.m., HSK B said the incident of verbal abuse occurred on 03/29/25 during the 1:00 p.m. smoke break. She said the staff were advised residents were not supposed to share their cigarettes. She said HSK A had bought cigarettes for Resident #4. She said HSK A told Resident #4 not to share, that she was only buying for Resident #4. Resident #2 said she wished HSK A would shut up. HSK A got up form her chair and told Resident #2 she would have to get out of her chair to make her shut up. She said Resident #3 told HSK A to calm down. She said Resident #2 said she wished she could punch HSK A in the face. Resident #2 was upset and crying. She said she did not report the incident immediately to the abuse coordinator/Administrator L, the DON, or her supervisor. She said HSK A continued to work after the incident. She said she was scared of what HSK A would do if she knew she had reported. She said she was trained on abuse and reporting. She said residents were at risk of further abuse if it was not reported immediately. During an interview on 05/09/25 at 10:10 a.m., Resident #3 said HSK A was having words with Resident #2 over some cigarettes. He said HSK A was disrespectful and angry. He said they called each other BITCH. He said HSK A said if Resident #2 got up from her chair she would whoop her ass. He said he told HSK A she should not talk to her elders like that. He said he was not interviewed about the incident. He said he had not heard HSK A speak to residents that way before. During an interview on 05/09/25 at 12:29 p.m., Resident #4 said HSK A and Resident #2 were arguing about cigarettes. She said HSK A had purchased the cigarettes for her (Resident #3) and was mad because Resident #4 was going to share with Resident #2). She said HSK A said she wanted to whoop Resident #2's ass because she was arguing with her. She said she knew HSK A all her life and she had a temper. She said she never heard HSK A talk to residents that way before. She said she would report abuse to the Administrator or the DOM immediately. During an interview on 05/09/25 at 12:40 p.m., Administrator L said she did not conduct interviews with Resident #3 or Resident #4. She said she thought the SW would have conducted the interviews when she did the safe surveys. During an interview on 05/09/25 at 1:03 p.m., the SW said she was not sure if she wrote interviews down for Resident #3 or Resident #4. She said she remembered talking to Resident #4 but not Resident #3. She said Resident #4 did not report HSK A said she wanted to whoop Resident #2's ass. She said she would have reported the allegation to the Administrator immediately. During an interview on 05/09/25 at 1:18 p.m., HSK B said she did not hear HSK A say she wanted to whoop Resident #2's ass. She said she would still be scared to report if she did hear the threat. During an interview on 05/09/25, at 1:51 p.m., Administrator L said she was retrained on abuse on 05/08/25. She said not following the facility policy for abuse prevention, reporting, and investigation placed the residents were at risk for re-occurrence of abuse or the incident could have escalated. This was determined to be an Immediate Jeopardy on 05/08/25 at 2:30 p.m. The Administrator was notified and provided with the IJ template on 05/08/25 at 3:35 p.m. and a Plan of Removal was requested. The facility's plan of removal was accepted on 05/09/25 at 12:41 p.m. and included the following: Immediate actions after incident- Housekeeping Staff A Terminated: Although the staff member was terminated on 4/9/25, this was confirmed and documented today (5/8/25) as part of the facility's response to the identified IJ. -Housekeeping Staff B was in-serviced and educated on timely reporting by Administrator on 3-31-25 and 5-8-25. -Safe surveys on 10 residents completed on 4-1-25. All residents were presented with a safe survey on 5/9/2025 with no concerns. -Notification to the Medical Director and Ombudsman occurred on 5/8/25. Notification provided by Administrator. Resident Safety Review - 5/8/2025 -Resident #2 was assessed 5-1-25 for psychological needs by MD and was stable. --Resident #2 reassessed for psychological needs on 5-8-25 and was stable per MD. -Monitoring for emotional distress will be performed each shift for 72 hours and documented in resident's electronic medical record. -Resident assessed with PHQ9 on 5-7-25 and no depression identified. Systemic Corrections as of 5/8/25: -Policy Re-Education: Today, all department heads were re-educated on the abuse prevention policy, immediate reporting expectations, and responsibilities of supervisors in escalating concerns during ad hoc QAPI. Education Performed by: Regional Nurse. The training focused on immediate recognition and escalation of suspected abuse, the mandated timelines for reporting (immediately to the Abuse coordinator), and the proper chain of command. It reinforced that all staff are required to report abuse immediately to the Abuse Coordinator and that supervisors must act if front-line staff do not. This ensures no delay in response, removing the immediacy of the risk. -The administrator was in-serviced on reporting Abuse within an 2 hour period of learning of the allegation. We reviewed the latest provider letter (PL 2024-14) This provider letter provides guidance or reporting incidents to HHS, most importantly, reporting abuse immediately, but not later than two hours after the incident occurs or suspected. -Ad Hoc QAPI performed 5-8-25 Staff In-Service - 5/8/2025 - Completed by Admin or designee -All facility staff, including nursing, therapy, dietary, housekeeping, and administration, will receive training on Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation, Timely Reporting of Abuse to the Abuse Coordinator (by calling or in person) training provided via (named online training portal) or in person by DON or designee. The in-service included detailed instruction on recognizing signs of abuse/neglect, the importance of immediate reporting, and specific methods for doing so-either by directly notifying the Abuse Coordinator in person or via phone.(Abuse coordinator phone number is posted around the facility) It emphasized that any failure to report can result in disciplinary action. The training also outlined steps for immediately removing suspected abusers from duty to protect residents, thereby addressing the urgency of response. -A post-training exam with a required 100% passing score is required. Staff unable to attend the in-service will not be permitted to work until training is completed. All staff in serviced on 5/8/2025 via care feed or in person. Monitoring and Oversight Initiated 5/8/25: -Abuse Coordinator Duties Reinforced: The Abuse Coordinator started completing daily audits of all incident/concern reports for timely response and follow-up. -Leadership Review Process: A weekly leadership team huddle (Administrator, DON, ADON, Social Worker) was implemented on 5/8/25 to review all allegations of abuse and ensure prompt interventions. -Reporting Compliance Audit: A retrospective review of all abuse allegations from the past 30 days was initiated on 5/8/25, no abuse allegations reported in the last 30 days, confirm compliance and identified any gaps. Audit will be completed by: Administrator. Staff Accountability on 5/8/25: -Supervisory Staff Counseling: Abuse Coordinator who failed to act or report in a timely manner have been counseled and educated on policy requirements by corporate staff on 5-8-25. Counseling included a review of F607 policy requirements: mandatory reporting timelines, how and when to escalate abuse concerns, documentation expectations, and suspension protocol when allegations arise. Reinforcing these requirements ensures supervisors do not delay action, directly removing the risk of ongoing or unreported abuse. -Disciplinary Action Initiated: Disciplinary procedures for involved parties have been initiated per HR guidelines, effective 5/8/25. Sustained Prevention Measures (Beginning 5/8/25): -Ongoing Monthly Abuse Training: Scheduled for the second week of each month, beginning in May for three months. -The Administrator and DON, or designee, will review all reportable 3 times a week for 30 days, then once a week for 60 days to ensure appropriate reporting procedure was followed, and appropriate interventions were initiated. -Any discrepancies will be addressed immediately and reviewed during weekly clinical stand-ups and monthly QAPI meetings. On 05/09/24 the state surveyor confirmed the facility implemented their plan of removal sufficiently to remove the Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) by: Record review of HSK A's personnel file indicated she was terminated on 04/09/25, this was confirmed and documented on 05/08/25. Record review of HSK B's training record indicated she was in-serviced and educated on timely reporting by Administrator on 03/31/25 and 05/08/35. Record review of safe surveys indicated all cognitive residents were presented with a safe survey on 05/09/25 with no concerns identified. Record review of Resident #2's assessments indicated Resident #2 was assessed 05/01/25 for psychological needs by MD JJ and was stable. Resident #2 reassessed for psychological needs on 05/08/25 and was stable per MD JJ. Resident #2 was assessed with PHQ9 on 05-07-25 and no depression was identified. Record review of staff training indicated as of 05/08/25: -Policy Re-Education: All department heads were re-educated on the abuse prevention policy, immediate reporting expectations, and responsibilities of supervisors in escalating concerns during ad hoc QAPI by RN KK. The training focused on immediate recognition and escalation of suspected abuse, the mandated timelines for reporting (immediately to the Abuse coordinator), and the proper chain of command. All staff were required to report abuse immediately to the Abuse Coordinator and that supervisors must act if front-line staff do not. This ensured no delay in response, removing the immediacy of the risk. -The administrator was in-serviced on reporting Abuse within a 2 hour period of learning of the allegation. The latest provider letter (PL 2024-14) was reviewed. Record review of staff in-service dated 05/08/25 and 05/09/25 indicated all facility staff, including nursing, therapy, dietary, housekeeping, and administration were trained by the the Administrator or the DON or through online portal on on Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation, Timely Reporting of Abuse to the Abuse Coordinator (by calling or in person). The in-service included detailed instruction on recognizing signs of abuse/neglect, the importance of immediate reporting, and specific methods by directly notifying the Abuse Coordinator in person or via phone. (Abuse coordinator phone number was posted around the facility). It emphasized that any failure to report could result in disciplinary action. The training outlined steps for immediately removing suspected abusers from duty to protect residents and addressed the urgency of response. Record review of post-training exams indicated all staff trained passed with a required 100% passing score. Staff unable to attend the in-service would not be permitted to work until training was completed. Record review of the facility's Reporting Compliance Audit dated 05/08/25 indicated no abuse allegations reported in the previous 30 days. Record review of staff counselling indicated the Administrator/Abuse Coordinator was counselled and educated on policy requirements by corporate staff on 05/08/25. Counseling included a review of F607 policy requirements: mandatory reporting timelines, how and when to escalate abuse concerns, documentation expectations, and suspension protocol when allegations arise. Reinforcing these requirements ensures supervisors do not delay action, directly removing the risk of ongoing or unreported abuse. Disciplinary procedures were initiated per HR guidelines, effective 05/08/25. Record review of a resident list reflected 100% resident rounds was initiated on 05/08/25 and completed on 05/09/25 to determine if further allegations of abuse were alleged. No additional concerns were identified. During interview conducted on 05/08/25 and 05/09/25, there were no additional incidents of abuse reported by residents. Residents #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, and #10, indicated they would report to the Administrator or DON immediately. During interviews conducted on 05/09/25 between 12:50 p.m. and 2:50 p.m. indicated (Administrator L, DON, ADON, SW, CNA D, Receptionist O, BOA S, CMA/CNA T, MR U, CNA BB, CNA CC, DA LL, PTA MM, LS NN, RN OO, CNA PP, RN QQ, LVN RR, HSK SS ) from all shifts (6:00 a.m.-6:00 p.m., 6:00 p.m.-6:00 a.m., 6:00 a.m.-2:00 p.m., 2:00 p.m. -10:00 p.m., and 10:00 p.m.-6:00 a.m., 8:00 a.m.-4:00/5:00 p.m., and 3:00 p.m. -11:00 p.m.) were in-serviced on and could verbalize understanding of in-service on immediate notification of allegations to facility abuse coordinator or designee when not in facility or available, investigating allegations of abuse and neglect, reporting of abuse neglect and misappropriation, and notification of proper local and state entities. During an interview on 05/09/25 at 2:10 p.m. the DON was able verbalize understanding of in-service on the abuse prevention policy, immediate reporting expectations, and responsibilities of supervisors in escalating concerns. She indicated the training focused on immediate recognition and escalation of suspected abuse, the mandated timelines for reporting (immediately to the Abuse coordinator), and the proper chain of command. She said all staff were required to report abuse immediately to the Abuse Coordinator and that supervisors must act if front-line staff do not. She said this ensured no delay in response, removing the immediacy of the risk. During an interview on 05/09/25 at 1:51 p.m., Administrator L indicated she was retrained on 05/08/25 on the facility's abuse and reporting policy and the most current provider letter. She indicated the training focused on immediate recognition and escalation of suspected abuse, the mandated timelines for reporting (immediately to the Abuse coordinator), and the proper chain of command. The Administrator was notified the Immediate Jeopardy was removed on 05/09/25 at 2:50 p.m., the facility remained out of compliance at a severity level of no actual harm with potential for more than minimal harm with a scope of isolated due to the facility's need to complete in-service training and evaluate the effectiveness of the corrective systems.
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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to 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, consistent with the resident rights, which 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 10 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for care plans. The facility failed to develop and implement Resident #1's care plan to prevent suicide or self harm after she said she wanted to kill herself on 10/23/24. An Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) was identified on 05/07/25 at 4:35 p.m. The IJ template was provided to the Administrator on 05/07/25 at 4:54 p.m. While the immediacy was removed on 05/08/25 at 4:55 p.m., the facility remained out of compliance at a severity level of no actual harm with potential for more than minimal harm with a scope of isolated due to the facility's need to complete in-service training and evaluate the effectiveness of the corrective systems. This failure could place residents at risk for self-harm or death. Findings included: Record review of Resident #1's face sheet dated 05/07/25 indicated she was a [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her diagnoses included cerebral infarction (stroke), hemiplegia (one-sided paralysis) and hemiparesis (one-sided weakness) following cerebral infarction affecting right dominant side, diabetes (high blood sugar), major depressive disorder (persistent feeling of sadness and loss of interest), generalized anxiety disorder (excessive worrying), mood disorders (mental illness), persistent mood (affective) disorders (continuous long-term for of depression), and insomnia(sleep disorder). Record review of Resident #1's annual MDS assessment dated [DATE] indicated she was usually able to make herself understood and usually understood others. She was cognitively intact (BIMS-13). Her psychiatric/mood disorders included anxiety, depression and bipolar disorder (mental health disorder). Record review of Resident #1's care plan dated 08/24/24 indicated she had antidepressant medication related to major depressive disorder and insomnia. Interventions included administer medications as ordered, arrange psych consult, follow up as indicated, monitor/document/report PRN any risk for harm to self, suicidal plan, past attempt at suicide, risky actions, intentionally harming or tried to harm self, refusing to eat or drink, refusing medications or therapies, sense of hopelessness or helplessness, impaired judgment or safety awareness. There was no care plan related to major depressive disorder, suicidal thoughts or self-harm after the 10/23/24 incident. Record review of Resident #1's progress note dated 10/23/24 at 12:17 p.m., completed by LVN FF indicated Resident #1 asked if the facility had helium in the building. LVN FF asked Resident #1 why she needed helium. Resident #1 stated, So I can end it now. I just want to kill myself. My family member UU don't want anything to do with me, My family member only comes when I need something. I just want to die. Nothing to live for. LVN FF stayed with Resident #1. The SW and DON were notified. Record review of Resident #1's progress note dated 10/23/24 at 12:37 p.m., completed by the SW, indicated Resident #1 she just wanted to end it, because of her family member XX not wanting to speak with her or with the family member YY. The SW asked Resident #1 if she had a plan and Resident #1 said no, she just want to end it all. Resident #1 agreed to go to the behavior hospital due to her mood. Spoke with the DON and informed Resident #1 would go on 15 minute watch until SW was able to contact (named psychiatry) for assessment. (Named psychiatry) notified and waiting for call back. Record review of Resident #1's progress note dated 10/23/24 at 1:37 p.m., completed by LVN FF indicated (named psychiatry) on-call called facility and was given report on Resident #1's condition. (Named psychiatry) on-call stated, have SW call back and set up tel psych visit. SW notified. 15 minute checks continue. Record review of Resident #1's progress note dated 10/23/24 at 2:01 p.m. completed by SW indicated Tele-health visit attempted with on-call psychiatrist. Left message for return call. Record review of Resident #1's progress note dated 10/23/24 at 14:28, completed by LVN GG indicated LVN GG was doing 2:00 p.m. monitoring check when he noticed Resident #1 with an object in her left hand. LVN GG noticed Resident #1 had blood coming from her right wrist area. LVN GG took away the object and notified the charge nurse. The DON and ADON were notified. Resident #1 had sliced right wrist with the object. DON cleansed right wrist area and the wounds were superficial. LVN GG and and staff will continue to monitor Resident #1. Record review of Resident #1's progress note dated 10/23/24 at 2.29 p.m., completed by LVN GG indicated while the DON and ADON were giving care, Resident #1 allowed LVN GG to remove and look for sharp objects. A pencil, pen and mirror were removed from the room. Record review of Resident #1's progress note dated 10/23/24 at 2:49 p.m., completed by the DON, indicated she observed Resident #1 with small amount of blood on sheets. She assessed Resident #1's right wrist and noted two superficial cuts approximately 1 to 1.5 inches in length and less than 0.1 mm deep. The cuts were not bleeding. The DON asked Resident #1 what happened and Resident #1 stated she just wanted to the pain to stop. The DON asked Resident #1 what pain she was referring to (physical or emotional) Resident #1 stated the pain in her bladder. LVN C stated she had changed Resident #1's catheter earlier (time noted at 12:13 p.m. per progress note) due to complaints of discomfort. Resident #1 stated that it helped but the pain was back. Upon assessing resident cath noted small amount of urine in collection bag. Palpation of abdomen completed. Resident noted with tenderness. The DON removed cath in attempt to change for obstruction per MD order. Upon suprapubic catheter being removed large amount of urine. The DON removed cath in attempt to change for obstruction per MD order. Upon suprapubic catheter being removed large amount of urine flowed from suprapubic site. Resident #1 refused to have suprapubic cath re-placed back but did allow the DON to straight cath her at suprapubic site. Approximately 500 ml drained from bladder. Bladder palpated with no s/s discomfort and Resident #1 stated it does feel better. The DON and ADON spoke with Resident #1 about why she had cut herself. Resident first stated because of the pain in her bladder but upon conversation with the resident, she revealed she was having issues with her family member YY . Resident #1 stated that her family was upset with her for calling her family member YY her babies. The DON and ADON attempted to re-assure Resident #1 that although her family was upset at the moment, they would resolve their issues and her family member YY would want her to be around. Resident #1 was tearful during conversation. The DON explained to Resident #1 she would be sent to ER for evaluation not only of her mental health but also of her urinary retention. Resident #1 agreeable to go to hospital since they would be assessing her bladder. Resident #1 left in room with 1:1 sitter pending ems arrival to facility. Record review of Resident #1's progress note dated 10/23/24 at 2:29 p.m. indicated the DON assessed Resident #1 for other marks or cuts. All other skin intact. Resident #1 denied cutting self anywhere else. Record review of Resident #1's progress note dated 10/23/24 at 2:45 p.m., completed by ADON indicated Staff notified ADON & DON of Resident #1's attempt to self-harm. Upon arrival to room observed x2 staff at bedside: one nurse applying pressure to right wrist, second nurse at foot of bed. DON cleaned with NS and band aide applied to area. Resident #1 complained of pain to lower quadrant of abdomen and suprapubic catheter. Suprapubic catheter removed. Placed with 1:1 sitter. Call placed to 911 for transport to ER due to attempt to self-harm and complaint pain d/t urinary retention. Record review of Resident #1's progress note dated 10/23/24 at 2:42 p.m., completed by the DON indicated EMS arrived at facility. ADON informed EMS of Resident #1's situation. Resident #1 in room with 1:1 sitter. The DON and CNA D assisted resident to change gown and pullup. During resident changing full body skin assessment performed no redness, cuts, scratches or open areas noted except area previously noted to right wrist that was covered with clean dry dressing. Resident no longer tearful. Resident laughing with staff. Resident #1 asked EMTs if they had handcuffs because she wanted to cuff herself to her [positioning] rail so she wouldn't have to go anywhere. When the EMTs told her they were not police so they did not have cuffs she said ok and stood to transfer to stretcher. Resident #1 left with EMS. Record review of Resident #1's progress note dated 10/23/24 at 3:23 p.m., completed by the SW indicated the SW spoke with (named psychiatry provider) and informed the (named psychiatry provider) Resident #1 was transferred to ER and behavioral health due to self harm. Record review of Resident #1's progress note dated 10/23/24 at 6:33 p.m., completed by the SW indicated the hospital psychiatrist asked if Resident #1 was aware that she was going to behavioral hospital, because she was not wanting to go. He stated that resident was competent and a mental health warrant would need to be filed. The SW spoke with Resident #1 and she said, she wants to sleep in her own bed. SW explained due to her trying to harm herself it was our recommendation that she went to the behavioral hospital. She said that she only did it because she thought no one cared. SW asked if she still believed that, she answered, 'No. SW encouraged Resident#1 to go to Behavioral Hospital to get the help she needed. Resident #1 agreed to go to the behavioral hospital. Record review of Resident #1's progress note dated 11/05/25, completed by LVN E indicated Resident #1 returned to the facility in stable condition. Record review of Resident #1's behavioral hospital records dated 11/01/25 indicated she was admitted on [DATE]. Her admitting diagnoses included bi-polar disorder, current episode depressed, severe, without psychotic features. Resident #1 stated she had nothing to live for because family was not involved with her. Resident #1 indicated she had past history 4 suicide attempts b OD on pills. Resident #1 indicated she recently cut her right wrist for attention. Record review of Resident Monitoring Tool dated 10/23/24 indicated: -1:00 p.m. asking for helium -1:15 p.m. asking for helium -1:30 p.m. asking for DON -1:45 p.m. asking for helium -2:00 p.m. cut her wrist -2:15 p.m. one on one -2:30 p.m. one on one -2:45 p.m. one on one Record review of psychological services dated 11/26/25 completed by LCSW M indicated .ongoing conflict with family member UU and family member XX continued to wear on her. Sadness surrounding family betrayal.Plan: follow up next session on things discussed . Record review of the facility's staff training for Depression dated 10/23/24 indicated: What to do if a resident states they want to harm themselves or attempts to harm themselves. -If a resident states they want to harm themselves or they want to die: -Notify the charge nurse -Charge nurse should evaluate the resident: -Ask the resident what they said to the employee reporting the self harm/ideation -Ask the resident if they have intention to harm themselves -If the resident states they have intention to harm themselves, ask the resident how they plan to harm themselves. -If resident has no plan, initiate 15 minute checks to monitor resident then notify MD or psych services if following, social worker and DON/ADON -If resident has a plan, initiate 1:1 with resident (have a staff member remain with the resident) then notify MD or psych services (if following), social worker and DON/ADON. What to do if a resident states they want to harm themselves or attempts to harm themselves. -If a resident is observed harming or attempting to harm themselves. -Intervene and ensure the resident is safe -Stay with the resident and have another staff member notify the charge nurse, social worker or DON/ADON immediately. -Charge Nurse will call 911. During an interview on 05/07/25 at 10:00 a.m., the DON said on 10/23/24, Resident #1 asked LVN FF if the facility had helium because she wanted to end her life. She said Resident #1 was placed on 15 monitoring per the facility policy at the time of the incident because she did not have a plan to hurt herself. She said a room sweep to check for items she might use to herself was not completed. She said LVN GG was conducting a 15 minute check and found Resident #1 attempted to cut her right wrist with microblade razor on 10/23/24. She said staff was trained on the facility policy at the time that included 15 minute checks if the resident did not have a plan. She said she attended a corporate DON meeting in November of 2024 and the facility's policy was changed to 1-1 supervision after suicide threat or attempts. She said she believed all staff were trained on the updated policy after Resident #1 attempted to cut her wrist. She said residents were at risk of self-harm, injury or death without adequate supervision following suicide ideation or attempts. During an interview on 05/07/25 at 11:55 a.m., Resident #1 said when she asked for helium, she wanted to kill herself because of her family problems and she was very sad. She said when she when she cut her wrist, she used a microblade razor she had ordered off (named on-inline shopping provider). She said no one was listening to what she was saying. She said her family did not support her. She said she received the therapy she needed at the behavior hospital. She said she no longer had any plans to harm herself. During an interview on 05/07/25 at 12:07 p.m., LVN GG said he was completing a 15 minute check on Resident #1 and found her with blood on her wrist. He said she had a razor in her left hand. He said he removed the razor and called for assistance. He said He said he could not recall a room search was completed for additional dangerous objects. He said he did not complete the facility's depression training. He said he could not recall training on the facility's updated suicide policy. He said residents were at risk of self-harm, injury or death without adequate supervision following suicide ideation or attempts. During an interview on 05/07/25 at 1:12 p.m., the DON said Resident #1's care plan should include behaviors. She said Resident #1's care plan should address self-harm from the incident on 10/23/24. She said the SW reviewed behavior and psychiatric care plans quarterly and updated them as required. She said the IDT meeting minutes should be located in Resident #1's progress notes but was not able to locate any documentation regarding updating Resident #1's care plan. During an interview on 05/07/25 at 1:36 p.m., the SW said she was advised Resident #1 requested helium to end her life. She said Resident #1 was upset due to family stress. She said Resident #1 was placed on 15 minute checks. She said she was not sure why Resident #1 was placed on 1-1 supervision. She said Resident #1 asked for helium but could not access helium. She said she could not recall being trained on depression or suicide prevention. She said she did not recall reviewing Resident #1's care plan for follow-up care. She said residents were at risk of self-harm, injury or death without adequate supervision following suicide ideation or attempts. During an interview on 05/07/25 at 1:52 p.m., previous Administrator J said Resident #1's care plan should have been updated by the previous MDS coordinator. He said the incident was discussed in the morning meeting and the previous MDS coordinator was aware of the incident. He said weekly IDT meeting were held to discuss acute incidents that required a care plan. He said he was unaware the care plan was not updated. Record review of the facility's policy Care plan Revisions Upon Status Change dated 2023 indicated The purpose of this procedure is to provide a consistent process for reviewing and revising the care plan for those residents experiencing a status change. Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines: 1. The comprehensive care plan will be reviewed, and revised as necessary, when a resident experiences a status change. 2. Procedure for reviewing and revising the care plan when a resident experiences a status change: a. Upon identification of a change in status, the nurse will notify the MDS Coordinator, the physician, and the resident representative, if applicable. B. The MDS Coordinator and the Interdisciplinary Team will discuss the resident condition and collaborate on intervention options. c. The team meeting discussion will be documented in the nursing progress notes. d. The care plan will be updated with the new or modified interventions. e. Staff involved in the care of the resident will report resident response to new or modified interventions. f. Care plans will be modified as needed by the MDS Coordinator or other designated staff member. g. The Unit Manager or other designated staff member will communicate care plan interventions to all staff involved in the resident's care. h. The Unit Manager or other designated staff member will conduct an audit on all residents experiencing a change in status, at the time the change in status is identified, to ensure care plans have been updated to reflect current resident needs. 3. The MDS Coordinator will determine whether a Significant Change in Status Assessment is warranted. If so, the assessment will be completed according to established procedures. An Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) was identified on 05/07/25 at 4:35 p.m. The IJ template was provided to the Administrator on 05/07/25 at 4:54 p.m. The facility was asked to provide a Plan of Removal to address the Immediate Jeopardy. The following Plan of Removal (POR) submitted by the facility was accepted on 05/08/25 at 12:24 p.m.: Resident-Specific Interventions - 5/7/2025 - Completed by DON or designee -Resident #1's care plan was updated to reflect resident centered behavioral health status, including the initiation of a psychiatric virtual visit and ongoing behavioral observations. Facility-Wide Audit - 5/7/2025 - Completed by Social Worker, DON, ADON -A 100% audit of current residents using the PHQ-9 screening tool began on 5/7/2025 and will be completed by 9:00 PM. PHQ-9 is a clinically validated screening tool used to assess and monitor depression severity in individuals. No other residents identified as high risk for suicide or behavioral health needs via the PHQ-9 screening tool, question 9. -Care plans are being updated, if warranted by the PHQ- 9 screening tool, to reflect PHQ-9 results and ensure individualized, resident-centered care. Staff Training - 5/7/2025 -Nursing administration staff received in-service training on care plan update protocols, provided by the regional compliance nurse. Training will be completed by 9:00 PM. QAPI Review - 5/7/2025 -An ad-hoc QAPI meeting was held with the Medical Director, Administrator, Director of Nursing, and the interdisciplinary team to evaluate current systems related to care planning and suicide prevention. Local ombudsmen notified. -QAPI will continue to review care plan compliance and quality monthly. Ongoing Monitoring - Effective 5/7/2025 -The Director of Nursing or designee will monitor the 24-hour report (generated through Point Click Care based on progress notes entered into the residents chart) and PHQ-9 completion daily for 14 days then 5 times per week for 3 months for any depression or suicidal thoughts and care plans will be updated as needed. -Any discrepancies will be addressed immediately and reviewed during weekly clinical stand-ups and monthly QAPI meetings. Monitoring of the Plan of Removal included the following: Record review of Resident #1's care plan dated 05/07/25 indicated Resident #1 had diagnoses of major depressive disorder, insomnia, and history of suicidal thoughts/self harm. Interventions included administer medications as ordered, conduct depression questionnaire on 05/07/25. Monitor/document/report PRN any risk for harm to self: suicidal plan, past attempt at suicide, risky actions, intentionally harming or tried to harm self, refusing to eat or drink, refusing med or therapies, sense of hopelessness or helplessness, impaired judgment or safety awareness. Monitor/record/report to MD PRN risk for harming others: increased anger, labile mood or agitation, feels threatened by others or thoughts of harming someone, possession of weapons or objects that could be used as weapons. Observe/report PRN any s/sx of depression, including: hopelessness, anxiety, sadness, insomnia, anorexia, verbalizing, negative statements, repetitive anxious or health-related complaints, tearfulness. If the resident expresses suicidal thoughts or ideas, staff will be assigned one-on-one care, and the Primary Physician and Abuse Coordinator will be notified immediately for further intervention(s) and guidance. If the resident expresses suicidal thoughts or ideas, staff will inspect the immediate area/room for items that could be used for self-harm and remove such items if found upon inspection. Record review of Residents #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, and #10's care plans indicated no concerns. Record review of the facility audit completed by the DON, ADON, and SW for all residents dated 05/07/25 indicated there were no additional residents identified that required care plan updates. Record review of Staff Training dated 05/07/25 indicated nursing administration staff received in-service training on care plan update protocols, provided by the regional compliance nurse. During an interview on 05/08/25 at 3:52 p.m., the ADON said resident care plans would be updated as needed for acute events. She said the acute events would be reviewed in morning meeting During an interview on 05/08/25 at 3:48 p.m., the SW said she would review and update resident care plans as directed by the DON or designee. During an interview on 05/08/25 at 4: 22 p.m. the DON said she or her designee would monitor the 24 hour report daily and update resident care plans as needed. She said she would conduct weekly audits to ensure updated care plans were maintained. She said and identified issues would be address at the weekly IDT meeting. Interviews conducted on 05/08/25 from 2:55 p.m. through 4:54 p.m. with staff (Administrator L, LVN E, LVN P, MDS/LVN V), indicated they were aware of the facility's policy and protocols for care plans and care plan revisions. The Administrator was informed the Immediate Jeopardy was removed on 05/08/25 at 4:55 p.m. The facility remained out of compliance at a scope of isolated with the potential for more than minimal harm, due to the facility's need to evaluate the effectiveness of the corrective systems.
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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure each resident received adequate supervision to prevent accid...

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 each resident received adequate supervision to prevent accidents for 1 of 10 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for accidents and supervision. The facility failed to provide adequate supervision after Resident #1 expressed suicidal ideations on 10/23/24. Resident #1 was placed on 15 minute monitoring. She attempted to cut her right wrist with a microblade razor (used for face shaving) between the 15 minute monitoring checks. An Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) was identified on 05/07/25 at 4:35 p.m. The IJ template was provided to the Administrator on 05/07/25 at 4:54 p.m. While the immediacy was removed on 05/08/25 at 4:55 p.m., the facility remained out of compliance at a severity level of no actual harm with potential for more than minimal harm with a scope of isolated due to the facility's need to complete in-service training and evaluate the effectiveness of the corrective systems. This failure could place residents at risk of not receiving appropriate supervision and interventions for suicidal thoughts and attempts which could lead to residents sustaining serious injury or even death. Findings include: Record review of Resident #1's face sheet indicated she was a [AGE] year old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her diagnoses included cerebral infarction (stroke), hemiplegia (one-sided paralysis) and hemiparesis (one-sided weakness) following cerebral infarction affecting right dominant side, diabetes (high blood sugar), major depressive disorder (persistent feeling of sadness and loss of interest), generalized anxiety disorder (excessive worrying), mood disorders (mental illness), persistent mood (affective) disorders (continuous long-term for of depression), and insomnia(sleep disorder). Record review of Resident #1's annual MDs assessment dated [DATE] indicated she was usually able to make herself understood and usually understood others. She was cognitively intact (BIMS-13). Her psychiatric/mood disorders included anxiety, depression and bipolar disorder (mental health disorder). Record review of Resident #1's care plan dated 08/24/24 indicated she had antidepressant medication related to major depressive disorder and insomnia. Interventions included administer medications as ordered, arrange psych consult, follow up as indicated, monitor/document/report PRN any risk for harm to self, suicidal plan, past attempt at suicide, risky actions, intentionally harming or tried to harm self, refusing to eat or drink, refusing medications or therapies, sense of hopelessness or helplessness, impaired judgment or safety awareness. There was no care plan related to major depressive disorder, suicidal thoughts or self-harm. Record review of Resident #1's progress note dated 10/23/24 at 12:17 p.m., completed by LVN FF indicated Resident #1 asked if the facility had helium in the building. LVN FF asked Resident #1 why she needed helium. Resident #1 stated, So I can end it now. I just want to kill myself. My family member UU don't want anything to do with me, My sister only comes when I need something. I just want to die. Nothing to live for. LVN FF stayed with Resident #1. The SW and DON were notified. Record review of Resident #1's progress note dated 10/23/24 at 12:37 p.m., completed by the SW, indicated Resident #1 she just wanted to end it, because of her family member XX not wanting to speak with her or with the great grand children. The SW asked Resident #1 if she had a plan and Resident #1 said no, she just want to end it all. Resident #1 agreed to go to the behavior hospital due to her mood. Spoke with the DON and informed Resident #1 would go on 15 minute watch until SW was able to contact (named psychiatry) for assessment. (Named psychiatry) notified and waiting for call back. Record review of Resident #1's progress note dated 10/23/24 at 1:37 p.m., completed by LVN FF indicated (named psychiatry) on-call called facility and was given report on Resident #1's condition. (Named psychiatry) on-call stated, have SW call back and set up tel psych visit. SW notified. 15 minute checks continue. Record review of Resident #1's progress note dated 10/23/24 at 14:01, completed by SW indicated Tele-health visit attempted with on-call psychiatrist. Left message for return call. Record review of Resident #1's progress note dated 10/23/24 at 14:28, completed by LVN GG indicated LVN GG was doing 2:00 p.m. monitoring check when he noticed Resident #1 with an object in her left hand. LVN GG noticed Resident #1 had blood coming from her right wrist area. LVN GG took away the object and notified the charge nurse. The DON and ADON were notified. Resident #1 had sliced right wrist with the object. DON cleansed right wrist area and the wounds were superficial. LVN GG and and staff will continue to monitor Resident #1. Record review of Resident #1's progress note dated 10/23/24 at 2.29 p.m., completed by LVN GG indicated while the DON and ADO were giving care, Resident #1 allowed LVN GG to remove and look for sharp objects. A pencil, pen and mirror were removed from the room. Record review of Resident #1's progress note dated 10/23/24 at 2:49 p.m., completed by the DON, indicated she observed Resident #1 with small amount of blood on sheets. She assessed Resident #1's right wrist and noted two superficial cuts approximately 1 to 1.5 inches in length and less than 0.1 mm deep. The cuts were not bleeding. The DON asked Resident #1 what happened and Resident #1 stated she just wanted to the pain to stop. The DON asked Resident #1 what pain she was referring to (physical or emotional) Resident #1 stated the pain in her bladder. LVN C stated she had changed Resident #1's catheter earlier (time noted at 12:13 p.m. per progress note) due to complaints of discomfort. Resident #1 stated that it helped but the pain was back. Upon assessing resident cath noted small amount of urine in collection bag. Palpation of abdomen completed. Resident noted with tenderness. The DON removed cath in attempt to change for obstruction per MD order. Upon suprapubic catheter being removed large amount of urine. The DON removed cath in attempt to change for obstruction per MD order. Upon suprapubic catheter being removed large amount of urine flowed from suprapubic site. Resident #1 refused to have suprapubic cath re-placed back but did allow the DON to straight cath her at suprapubic site. Approximately 500 ml drained from bladder. Bladder palpated with no s/s discomfort and Resident #1 stated it does feel better. The DON and ADON spoke with Resident #1 about why she had cut herself. Resident first stated because of the pain in her bladder but upon conversation with the resident, she revealed she was having issues with her family member YY. Resident #1 stated that her family was upset with her for calling her great family member YY her babies. The DON and ADON attempted to re-assure Resident #1 that although her family was upset at the moment, they would resolve their issues and her great-grandchildren would want her to be around. Resident #1 was tearful during conversation. The DON explained to Resident #1 she would be sent to ER for evaluation not only of her mental health but also of her urinary retention. Resident #1 agreeable to go to hospital since they would be assessing her bladder. Resident #1 left in room with 1:1 sitter pending ems arrival to facility. Record review of Resident #1's progress note dated 10/23/24 at 2:29 p.m. indicated the DON assessed Resident #1 for other marks or cuts. All other skin intact. Resident #1 denied cutting self anywhere else. Record review of Resident #1's progress note dated 10/23/24 at 2:45 p.m., completed by ADON indicated Staff notified ADON & DON of Resident #1's attempt to self-harm. Upon arrival to room observed x2 staff at bedside: one nurse applying pressure to right wrist, second nurse at foot of bed. DON cleaned with NS and band aide applied to area. Resident #1 complained of pain to lower quadrant of abdomen and suprapubic catheter. Suprapubic catheter removed. Placed with 1:1 sitter. Call placed to 911 for transport to ER due to attempt to self-harm and complaint pain d/t urinary retention. Record review of Resident #1's progress note dated 10/23/24 at 2:42 p.m., completed by the DON indicated EMS arrived at facility. ADON informed EMS of Resident #1's situation. Resident #1 in room with 1:1 sitter. The DON and CNA D assisted resident to change gown and pullup. During resident changing full body skin assessment performed no redness, cuts, scratches or open areas noted except area previously noted to right wrist that was covered with clean dry dressing. Resident no longer tearful. Resident laughing with staff. Resident #1 asked EMTs if they had handcuffs because she wanted to cuff herself to her [positioning] rail so she wouldn't have to go anywhere. When the EMTs told her they were not police so they did not have cuffs she said ok and stood to transfer to stretcher. Resident #1 left with EMS. Record review of Resident #1's progress note dated 10/23/24 at 3:23 p.m., completed by the SW indicated the SW spoke with (named psychiatry provider) and informed the (named psychiatry provider) Resident #1 was transferred to ER and behavioral health due to self harm. Record review of Resident #1's progress note dated 10/23/24 at 6:33 p.m., completed by the SW indicated the hospital psychiatrist asked if Resident #1 was aware that she was going to behavioral hospital, because she was not wanting to go. He stated that resident was competent and a mental health warrant would need to be filed. The SW spoke with Resident #1 and she said, she wants to sleep in her own bed. SW explained due to her trying to harm herself it was our recommendation that she went to the behavioral hospital. She said that she only did it because she thought no one cared. SW asked if she still believed that, she answered, 'No. SW encouraged Resident#1 to go to Behavioral Hospital to get the help she needed. Resident #1 agreed to go to the behavioral hospital. Record review of Resident #1's progress note dated 11/05/25, completed by LVN E indicated Resident #1 returned to the facility in stable condition. Record review of Resident #1's behavioral hospital records dated 11/01/25 indicated she was admitted on [DATE]. Her admitting diagnoses included bi-polar disorder, current episode depressed, severe, without psychotic features. Resident #1 stated she had nothing to live for because family was not involved with her. Resident #1 indicated she had past history 4 suicide attempts b OD on pills. Resident #1 indicated she recently cut her right wrist for attention. Record review of Resident Monitoring Tool dated 10/23/24 indicated: -1:00 p.m. asking for helium -1:15 p.m. asking for helium -1:30 p.m. asking for DON -1:45 p.m. asking for helium -2:00 p.m. cut her wrist -2:15 p.m. one on one -2:30 p.m. one on one -2:45 p.m. one on one Record review of psychological services dated 11/26/25 completed by LCSW M indicated .ongoing conflict with family member UU and family member XX continued to wear on her. Sadness surrounding family betrayal.Plan: follow up next session on things discussed . Record review of the facility's staff training for Depression dated 10/23/24 indicated: What to do if a resident states they want to harm themselves or attempts to harm themselves. -If a resident states they want to harm themselves or they want to die: -Notify the charge nurse -Charge nurse should evaluate the resident: -Ask the resident what they said to the employee reporting the self harm/ideation -Ask the resident if they have intention to harm themselves -If the resident states they have intention to harm themselves, ask the resident how they plan to harm themselves. -If resident has no plan, initiate 15 minute checks to monitor resident then notify MD or psych services if following, social worker and DON/ADON -If resident has a plan, initiate 1:1 with resident (have a staff member remain with the resident) then notify MD or psych services (if following), social worker and DON/ADON. What to do if a resident states they want to harm themselves or attempts to harm themselves. -If a resident is observed harming or attempting to harm themselves. -Intervene and ensure the resident is safe -Stay with the resident and have another staff member notify the charge nurse, social worker or DON/ADON immediately. -Charge Nurse will call 911. During an interview on 05/07/25 at 10:00 a.m., the DON said on 10/23/24, Resident #1 asked LVN FF if the facility had helium because she wanted to end her life. She said Resident #1 was placed on 15 monitoring per the facility policy at the time of the incident because she did not have a plan to hurt herself. She said a room sweep to check for items she might use to herself was not completed. She said LVN GG was conducting a 15 minute check and found Resident #1 attempted to cut her right wrist with microblade razor on 10/23/24. She said staff was trained on the facility policy at the time that included 15 minute checks if the resident did not have a plan. She said she attended a corporate DON meeting in November of 2024 and the facility's policy was changed to 1-1 supervision after suicide threat or attempts. She said she believed all staff were trained on the updated policy after Resident #1 attempted to cut her wrist. She said residents were at risk of self-harm, injury or death without adequate supervision following suicide ideation or attempts. During an interview on 05/07/25 at 11:55 a.m., Resident #1 said when she asked for helium, she wanted to kill herself because of her family problems and she was very sad. She said when she when she cut her wrist, she used a microblade razor she had ordered off (named on-inline shopping provider). She said no one was listening to what she was saying. She said her family did not support her. She said she received the therapy she needed at the behavior hospital. She said she no longer had any plans to harm herself. During an interview on 05/07/25 at 12:07 p.m., LVN GG said he was completing a 15 minute check on Resident #1 and found her with blood on her wrist. he said she had a razor in her left hand. He said he removed the razor and called for assistance. He said he could not recall a room search was completed for additional dangerous objects. He said he did not complete the facility's depression training. He said he could not recall training on the facility's updated suicide policy. He said residents were at risk of self-harm, injury or death without adequate supervision following suicide ideation or attempts. During an interview on 05/07/25 at 12:52 p.m., the DON said she was not able to locate records of staff straining related to the facility updated policy for suicide prevention. During an interview on 05/07/25 at 1:12 p.m., the DON said Resident #1's care plan should include behaviors. She said Resident #1's care plan should address self-harm from the incident on 10/23/25. She said care plans were reviewed quarterly and updated. During an interview on 05/07/25 at 1:36 p.m., the SW said she was advised Resident #1 requested helium to end her life. She said Resident #1 was upset due to family stress. She said Resident #1 was placed on 15 minute checks. She said she was not sure why Resident #1 was placed on 1-1 supervision. She said Resident #1 asked for helium but could not access helium. She said she could not recall being trained on depression or suicide prevention. She said she was not aware of any changes related to the facility's suicide protocols. She said she did not recall reviewing Resident #1's care plan for follow-up care. She said residents were at risk of self-harm, injury or death without adequate supervision following suicide ideation or attempts. During an interview on 05/07/25 at 1:52 p.m., previous Administrator J said Resident #1 was not placed on 1-1 supervision on 10/23/24 after she asked if the facility had helium and indicated she wanted to end her life. He said he believed the facility spoke to the psych doctor and Resident #1 did not have an active plan. He said he could not recall if the facility conducted a search of Resident #1's room to ensure there were no items she could harm herself with. He said he believed the Medical Director recommended 15 minute checks until she was cleared by psychiatrist or they had different recommendations. He said after the incident on 10/23/24, the facility changed the policy to anytime there was an outcry, the resident would be placed on 1-1. He said he believed all the staff were trained on the facility's new suicide prevention policy. He said Resident #1's care plan should have been updated by the previous MDS coordinator. He said the incident was discussed in the morning meeting and the previous MDS coordinator was aware of the incident. He said weekly IDT meeting were held to discuss acute incidents that required a care plan. He said he was unaware the care plan was not updated. During an interview on 05/08/25 at 10:25 a.m., Activity Director K said said she did not have helium in the facility currently. She said she believed it was more than 6 months since she had a tank. She said she would keep them in her office and use it to blow up balloons. She said she did not lock her office and anyone could access the helium if they knew it was available in her office and they knew how to access it it and turn it on. Record review of the facility's Suicide Prevention policy dated 2024 indicated: It is the policy of this facility to act quickly and appropriately if a resident expresses thoughts of suicide. Definitions: Suicide - is defined as a death from injury, poisoning, or suffocation where there is evidence that the death was self-inflicted. Suicidal Ideation - is defined as self-reported thoughts about engaging in suicide-related behaviors. Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines:1. All staff members will immediately report any suicidal ideation to the resident's charge nurse and facility social worker. 2. Immediately notify the resident's physician if the resident presents with suicidal ideation, even if he or she isn't specific about a plan or intent. 3. If applicable, notify the resident's responsible party of the resident's suicidal ideation and any orders received from the resident's physician. 4. The resident will not be left alone. One on one care will be provided until arrangements can be made for the resident to receive emergency psychiatric care, or until the resident's physician determines that the risk of suicide is no longer present. 5. Objectively and thoroughly document the resident's mood and behaviors, as well as all actions taken, in the medical record. 6. If the resident requires inpatient psychiatric services, State specific guidelines and requirements will be followed. 7. All staff will be trained annually on risk factors and warning signs of suicide, as well as how to respond to a resident with suicidal ideation. Record review of the facility's Accidents and Supervision policy dated 2023 indicated: Policy: The resident environment will remain as free of accident hazards as is possible. Each resident will receive adequate supervision and assistive devices to prevent accidents. This includes: 1. Identifying hazard(s) and risk(s). 2. Evaluating and analyzing hazard(s) and risk(s). 3. Implementing interventions to reduce hazard(s) and risk(s). 4. Monitoring for effectiveness and modifying interventions when necessary. Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines: The facility shall establish and utilize a systematic approach to address resident risk and environmental hazards to minimize the likelihood of accidents. 1. Identification of Hazards and Risks- the process through which the facility becomes aware of potential hazards in the resident environment and the risk of a resident having an avoidable accident. a. All staff (e.g., professional, administrative, maintenance, etc.) are to be involved in observing and identifying potential hazards in the environment, while taking into consideration the unique characteristics and abilities of each resident. b. The facility should make a reasonable effort to identify the hazards and risk factors for each resident.3. Implementation of Interventions- using specific interventions to try to reduce a resident's risks from hazards in the environment. The process includes: a. Communicating the interventions to all relevant staff b. Assigning responsibility c. Providing training as needed d. Documenting interventions (e.g., plans of action developed through the QAA Committee or care plans for the individual resident) e. Ensuring that the interventions are put into action f. Interventions are based on the results of the evaluation and analysis of information about hazards and risks and are consistent with relevant standards, including evidence-based practice g. Development of interim safety measures may be necessary if interventions cannot immediately be implemented fully h. Facility-based interventions may include, but are not limited to: i. Educating staff ii. Repairing the device/equipment iii. Developing or revising policies and procedures i. Resident-directed approaches may include: i. Implementing specific interventions as part of the plan of care ii. Supervising staff and residents, etc. iii. Facility records document the implementation of these interventions 4. Monitoring and Modification- Monitoring is the process of evaluating the effectiveness of care plan interventions. Modification is the process of adjusting interventions as needed to make them more effective in addressing hazards and risks. Monitoring and modification processes include: a. Ensuring that interventions are implemented correctly and consistently b. Evaluating the effectiveness of interventions c. Modifying or replacing interventions as needed d. Evaluating the effectiveness of new interventions 5. Supervision- Supervision is an intervention and a means of mitigating accident risk. The facility will provide adequate supervision to prevent accidents. Adequacy of supervision: a. Defined by type and frequency b. Based on the individual resident's assessed needs and identified hazards in the resident environment. An Immediate Jeopardy was identified on 05/07/25 at 4:35 p.m. The IJ template was provided to the Administrator on 05/07/25 at 4:54 p.m. The facility was asked to provide a Plan of Removal to address the Immediate Jeopardy. The following Plan of Removal was submitted by the facility and accepted on 05/08/25 at 12:34 p.m. Supervision and Accident Prevention Resident Safety Review - 5/7/2025 -All residents identified as high risk for suicide or behavioral health needs, via the PHQ-9 screening tool, question 9, were immediately placed on 1-1, room searched, notified physician, RP notified, and initiated mental health consultation. -Question 9 - Over the last two weeks, how often have you been bothered by thoughts that you would be better off dead, or of hurting yourself in some way? -0 - not at all -1 - Several days -2 - More than half the days -3 - Nearly every day -Adjustments were made as needed, and care plans were updated accordingly. -Resident #1 received a PHQ-9 assessment, a room safety search, and a virtual psychiatric visit, all completed by 9:00 PM on 5/7/2025. Staff In-Service - 5/7/2025 - Completed by Admin or designee -All facility staff, including nursing, therapy, dietary, housekeeping, and administration, completed training on suicide prevention, including immediate reporting of suicidal ideation to the charge nurse and social worker, immediate notification of the resident's physician, and immediately initiating 1:1 supervision of the resident when suicidal ideation is expressed, provided by the Director of Nursing or designee, completed by 10:00 p.m. on 5/7/2025. -A post-training exam with a required 100% passing score was administered. Staff unable to attend the in-service will not be permitted to work until training is completed. Ongoing Monitoring - Effective 5/7/2025 -The Director of Nursing or designee will conduct weekly audits of residents identified as high risk for suicidal ideations or health needs to ensure that proper supervision, documentation, updated resident-centered care plans and interventions are maintained. -Any discrepancies will be addressed immediately and reviewed during weekly clinical stand-ups and monthly QAPI meetings. Monitoring: Record review and interviews of completed: Observation on 05/08/25 from 3:00 p.m. through 4:45 p.m. of 10 resident rooms indicated no hazardous items noted. Record review of the facility wide resident safety review dated 05/07/25 indicated there were no additional residents identified and high risk for suicide of unmet behavioral health needs. Record review of Resident #1's PHQ-9 assessment, a room safety search, and a virtual psychiatric visit, indicated all were completed by 9:00 PM on 05/07/25. There were no concerns identified. Record review of Resident #1's care plan dated 05/07/25 indicated Resident #1 had diagnoses of major depressive disorder, insomnia, and history of suicidal thoughts/self harm. Interventions included administer medications as ordered, conduct depression questionnaire on 05/07/25. Monitor/document/report PRN any risk for harm to self: suicidal plan, past attempt at suicide, risky actions, intentionally harming or tried to harm self, refusing to eat or drink, refusing med or therapies, sense of hopelessness or helplessness, impaired judgment or safety awareness. Monitor/record/report to MD PRN risk for harming others: increased anger, labile mood or agitation, feels threatened by others or thoughts of harming someone, possession of weapons or objects that could be used as weapons. Observe/report PRN any s/sx of depression, including: hopelessness, anxiety, sadness, insomnia, anorexia, verbalizing, negative statements, repetitive anxious or health-related complaints, tearfulness. If the resident expresses suicidal thoughts or ideas, staff will be assigned one-on-one care, and the Primary Physician and Abuse Coordinator will be notified immediately for further intervention(s) and guidance. If the resident expresses suicidal thoughts or ideas, staff will inspect the immediate area/room for items that could be used for self-harm and remove such items if found upon inspection. Record review of staff in-service dated 05/07/25 indicated facility staff, including nursing, therapy, dietary, housekeeping, and administration, completed training on suicide prevention, including immediate reporting of suicidal ideation to the charge nurse and social worker, immediate notification of the resident's physician, immediately initiating 1:1 supervision of the resident when suicidal ideation is expressed, and immediate search for hazards and hazardous items. Record review of staff post-training exams indicated all staff passed with a required 100% passing score. Staff unable to attend the in-service would not be permitted to work until training and testing was completed. During an interview on 05/08/25 at 1:51 p.m., Administrator L said the facility would conduct weekly audits of residents identified as high risk for suicidal ideations or health needs to ensure that proper supervision, documentation, updated resident-centered care plans and interventions are maintained. Any discrepancies would be be addressed immediately and reviewed during weekly clinical stand-ups and monthly QAPI meetings. She said residents were at risk of self-harm, injury or death without adequate supervision following suicide ideation or attempts. During an interview on 05/08/25 at 4:22 p.m., the DON said she would conduct weekly audits of residents identified as high risk for suicidal ideations or health needs to ensure that proper supervision, documentation, updated resident-centered care plans and interventions are maintained. Any discrepancies would be be addressed immediately and reviewed during weekly clinical stand-ups and monthly QAPI meetings. Interviews conducted on 05/08/25 from 2:55 p.m. through 4:54 p.m. with staff (Administrator L, DON, ADON, SW, LVN E OTR N, Receptionist O, LVN P, Dietary Director Q, LS R, BOA S, CMA T, Medical Records U, MDS/LVN V, ST W, CNA X, CNA AA, CMA BB, CNA DD, CNA EE), who represented all shifts on all days of the week (6:00 a.m.-6:00 p.m., 6:00 p.m.-6:00 a.m., 6:00 a.m.-2:00 p.m., 2:00 p.m. -10:00 p.m., and 10:00 p.m.-6:00 a.m., 8:00 a.m.-4:00/5:00 p.m., and 3:00 p.m. -11:00 p.m.) indicated they were aware of the facility's policy and protocols for suicide prevention that included immediate reporting of suicidal ideation to the charge nurse and social worker, immediate notification of the resident's physician, immediately initiating 1:1 supervision of the resident when suicidal ideation is expressed, and immediate search for hazards and hazardous items. The Administrator and DON were informed the Immediate Jeopardy was removed on 05/08/25 at 4:55 p.m. the facility remained out of compliance at a severity level of no actual harm with potential for more than minimal harm that is not immediate jeopardy and a scope of isolated due to the facility's need to complete in-service training and evaluate the effectiveness of the corrective systems.
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

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure the rights of residents to be free from abuse for 1 of 10 res...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure the rights of residents to be free from abuse for 1 of 10 residents (Resident #2) reviewed for abuse. The facility failed to ensure Resident #2 was free from verbal abuse by HSK A. On 03/29/25 HSK A had a verbally aggressive argument with Resident #2 over cigarettes. Resident #2 told HSK A she wished she would shut up and HSK A got up from her chair and told Resident #2 to make her shut up. This failure could place residents at risk for abuse, humiliation, intimidation, fear, shame, agitation, and decreased quality of life. Findings included: Record review of Resident #2's face sheet dated 05/09/25 indicated Resident #2 was a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her diagnoses included dementia (a condition characterized by progressive or persistent loss of intellectual functioning, especially with impairment of memory and abstract thinking, and often with personality change, resulting from organic disease of the brain), major depressive disorder (persistent feeling of sadness and loss of interest), anxiety (persistent worry and fear about everyday situations), hemiplegia (one-sided paralysis) and hemiparesis (one-sided muscle weakness) following cerebral infarction affecting right dominant side, and cerebral infarction (stroke). Record review of Resident #2's annual MDS assessment dated [DATE] indicated she was able to make herself understood, sometimes understood others, and had moderate cognitive impairment (BIMS-8). Record review of Resident #2's care plan dated 05/08/25 indicated Resident #2 had a psychosocial well-being problem related to verbal aggression while interacting with staff. Interventions included initiate referrals as needed or increase social relationships, provide a safe environment, and and when conflict arises residents to a calm safe environment. Record review of a facility investigation dated 04/07/25 and completed by Administrator L indicated the incident occurred on 03/29/25 at 1:00 p.m. and was reported to HHS on 04/01/25 at 12:00 p.m. The AP was identified and confirmed as HSK A. The witness was identified as HSK B. The allegation was noted as HSK A was being verbally aggressive with Resident #2 over the purchase of cigarettes. HSK A was suspended during the investigation. HSK B was in-serviced on timely reporting of abuse allegation on 04/01/25. The findings were confirmed. Record review of an Employee Concern Form dated 03/29/25 at 1:00 p.m., completed by HSK B indicated At 1:00 p.m. smoke time I was giving Resident #4 her two cigarettes and I told Resident #2 you don't have any did you call someone and she said yeah I still waiting. Couple of minutes goes by and Resident #2 goes I'm not hiding anymore give me a cigarette talking to Resident #4. HSK A turns and goes not if its the cigarettes a bought I am not buying you cigarettes to just hand them out. I said well Resident #2 when you have cigarettes and Resident #4 don't don't share with her if that's the case. That's not fair to you. HSK A gives she share with her just not the cigarettes I bought. She can do whatever she wants with the cigarettes she buys with her money. HSK A started to get loud and angry. Resident #2 had enough and told HSK A to shut up. HSK A got out of her chair and tells Resident #2 to make her shut up. You will have to get out of your chair to shut me up. Then Resident #3 told HSK A to calm down. After that HSK A left. Resident #2 said I wish I can punch her and then looked at Resident #4 and goes I want to punch you for not having my back and then Resident #2 started to cry and shake. Record review of a Service Recovery Opportunity form dated initially dated 3/31/25, (the date was amended by Administrator L on 04/01/25), completed by Administrator L on 04/05/25 indicated HSK A became verbally abusive with Resident #2 about cigarettes. HSK A was suspended during the investigation. This was the first time HSK A had an argument with a resident. HSK A was inserviced on abuse, managing conflict and resident rights. HSK A confirmed she got upset with with Resident #2. Record review of a progress note dated 04/01/25 at 10:01 a.m., completed by the SW indicated On April 1, 2025, I spoke with Resident #2 regarding the incident between she and HSK A. Resident #2 said, She apologized to me for being upset and me crying. She said, And I apologized to her for what I said. Resident #2 could not recall what she said to HSK A or what HSK A said to her. She said, I know she had never talked to me like that before. She said, I don't recall what she said, but its not the way we normally talk. Resident #2 said, my mind is not that good and I can't recall. Resident #2 continued talking to me and she eventually recalled that the incident was about the sharing of cigarettes. Resident #2 said that she asked Resident #4 for a cigarette and HSK A said no because she had purchased the cigarettes with her own money. So, Resident #2 was upset that she could not get a cigarette because she and Resident #4 shares cigarettes. She said, she (HSK A) was going on about everything under the moon. She said that she told HSK A to hush and leave her alone. She don't recall what HSK A said. Resident #2 was upset with Resident #4 for not standing up for her. She said, I was crying and Resident #4 gave me the cigarette when HSK A left. Resident #2 told me that she is not scared of HSK A. She said, She is my friend and we apologized. She feels safe here at the facility and she knows who to report abuse too. She said HSK A is a good person. Record review of a progress note dated 04/07/25 at 4:02 p.m., completed by the SW indicated On April 7, 2025, I asked Resident #2 about the interaction between her and HSK A on smoke break. Resident #2 at first said she didn't recall what it was about, but they both apologized and it's over. I inquired further and Resident #2 said, She went off on a rampage. She did not want Resident #4 to share her cigarettes with me. Resident #2 told me that HSK A purchases cigarettes for Resident #4 using her own money (HSK A's money), so she did not want Resident #4 to share the cigarettes with her. Resident #2 said, HSK A and I kept going back and forth I told HSK A to shut up. Resident #2 did not recall what HSK A said, but I told her what the witness reported. She said yes, HSK A did say make me. Resident #2 said she cried because HSK A had never spoken to her like that before. She said, We are friends and both have apologized. I thought this was over. I explained that anytime there is an incident between staff and a resident we must make sure that the resident is safe, and no harm is caused. Resident #2 said, I'm okay, HSK A and I have made up. It's over. Record review of HSK's time record indicated she worked 03/29/25, 03/30/25, 03/31/25, 04/03/25, 04/04/25, and 04/05/25. During an interview on 05/07/25 at 10:00 a.m., Administrator L said she was the abuse coordinator. She said allegations of abuse were reportable to her or her designees immediately and to HHS C within 2 hours. She said the facility was reporting on 04/01/25 an allegation of verbal abuse by HSK A towards Resident #2 on 03/29/25. She said HSK B witnessed the verbal abuse on 03/29/25 and put a note under the HR door but did not report the incident immediately to her (Administrator L) as required. She said HSK A was suspended when the facility was made aware of the incident on 03/31/25. She said the verbal abuse was confirmed. HSK A did not respond to a call from the surveyor on 05/07/25 at 2:35 p.m. During an interview on 05/07/25 at 2:45 p.m., Resident #2 said HSK A made her upset and spoke to her with a mean tone about borrowing cigarettes. She said she wanted her to shut up and HSK A said she (Resident #2) would have to get up from her wheelchair to make her shut up. She said she felt sad and upset when HSK spoke to her. She said at the time it was abuse but they had made up and there was no further problems. She said HSK A was not working at the facility anymore. She said she was o.k. and no other staff ever spoke to her with a mean or mad tone. During an interview on 05/08/25 at 12:56 p.m., HSK B said the incident of verbal abuse occurred on 03/29/25 during the 1:00 p.m. smoke break. She said the staff were advised residents were not supposed to share their cigarettes. She said HSK A had bought cigarettes for Resident #4. She said HSK A told Resident #4 not to share, that she was only buying for Resident #4. Resident #2 said she wished HSK A would shut up. HSK A got up form her chair and told Resident #2 she would have to get out of her chair to make her shut up. She said Resident #3 told HSK A to calm down. She said Resident #2 said she wished she could punch HSK A in the face. Resident #2 was upset and crying. During an interview on 05/09/25 at 10:10 a.m., Resident #3 said HSK A was having words with Resident #2 over some cigarettes. He said HSK A was disrespectful and angry. He said they called each other BITCH. He said HSK A said if Resident #2 got up from her chair she would whoop her ass. He said he told HSK A she should not talk to her elders like that. He said he was not interviewed about the incident. He said he had not heard HSK A speak to residents that way before. During an interview on 05/09/25 at 12:29 p.m., Resident #4 said HSK A and Resident #2 were arguing about cigarettes. She said HSK A had purchased the cigarettes for her (Resident #3) and was mad because Resident #4 was going to share with Resident #2). She said HSK A said she wanted to whoop Resident #2's ass because she was arguing with her. She said she knew HSK A all her life and she had a temper. She said she never heard HSK A talk to residents that way before. She said she would report abuse to the Administrator or the DON immediately. During an interview on 05/09/25 at 1:18 p.m., HSK B said she did not hear HSK A say she wanted to whoop Resident #2's ass. During an interview on 05/09/25, at 1:51 p.m., Administrator L said she was retrained on abuse on 05/08/25. She said not following the facility policy for abuse prevention, reporting, and investigation placed the residents were at risk for re-occurrence of abuse or the incident could have escalated. Record review of the facility's Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation policy dated 2023 indicated It is the policy of this facility to provide protections for the health, welfare and rights of each resident by developing and implementing written policies and procedures that prohibit and prevent abuse, neglect, exploitation . Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines: 1. The facility will develop and implement written policies and procedures that: a. Prohibit and prevent abuse, neglect, and exploitation of residents and misappropriation of resident property; . III. Prevention of Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation The facility will implement policies and procedures to prevent and prohibit all types of abuse, neglect, misappropriation of resident property, and exploitation that achieves: . I. Identification of Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation A. The facility will have written procedures to assist staff in identifying the different types of abuse - mental/verbal abuse, sexual abuse, physical abuse, and the deprivation by an individual of goods and services. This includes staff to resident abuse and certain resident to resident altercations.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure that all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, exploitation or mistreatment, including injuries of unknown source and misappropriation of resident property, were reported, immediately but not later than 2 hours after the allegation was made, if the events that caused the allegation involved abuse or bodily injury, to the administrator of the facility and to other officials, including the State Survey Agency in accordance with State law through established procedures for 1 of 10 residents (Resident #2) reviewed for reporting allegations of abuse. The facility failed to ensure allegations of abuse were reported to the Abuse Coordinator Immediately. HSK B wrote a concern form and left it in the mailbox outside of the HR door on 03/29/25 about the witnessed verbal exchange between Resident #2 and HSK A. The facility failed to report allegations of abuse to HHSC within two hours of being notified of the abuse allegation. The Administrator did not report the allegation of verbal abuse on 03/31/25. The Administrator reported the allegations of verbal abuse to HHSC on 04/01/25. These failures could place residents at risk of unreported abuse, neglect, exploitation, and a decreased quality of life. Findings included: Record review of Resident #2's face sheet dated 05/09/25 indicated Resident #2 was a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her diagnoses included dementia (a condition characterized by progressive or persistent loss of intellectual functioning, especially with impairment of memory and abstract thinking, and often with personality change, resulting from organic disease of the brain), major depressive disorder (persistent feeling of sadness and loss of interest), anxiety (persistent worry and fear about everyday situations), hemiplegia (one-sided paralysis) and hemiparesis (one-sided muscle weakness) following cerebral infarction affecting right dominant side, and cerebral infarction (stroke). Record review of Resident #2's annual MDS assessment dated [DATE] indicated she was able to make herself understood, sometimes understood others, and had moderate cognitive impairment (BIMS-8). Record review of Resident #2's care plan dated 05/08/25 indicated Resident #2 had a psychosocial well-being problem related to verbal aggression while interacting with staff. Interventions included initiate referrals as needed or increase social relationships, provide a safe environment, and and when conflict arises residents to a calm safe environment. Record review of a facility investigation dated 04/07/25 and completed by Administrator L indicated the incident occurred on 03/29/25 at 1:00 p.m. and was reported to HHS on 04/01/25 at 12:00 p.m. The AP was identified and confirmed as HSK A. The witness was identified as HSK B. The allegation was noted as HSK A was being verbally aggressive with Resident #2 over the purchase of cigarettes. HSK A was suspended during the investigation. HSK B was in-serviced on timely reporting of abuse allegation on 04/01/25. The findings were confirmed. The facility's investigation included documentation completed by Administrator L: 3/31/2025 HSK A communicated with the administrator that she bought cigarettes for a resident and she did not want the residents to share them. I let HSK A know that she should not purchase cigarettes for the residents, if the residents want cigarettes they are to ask their family to purchase them or our activity director, when she goes shopping. 4/1/2025 - On April 1, 2025 HSK A was not working in the facility. The administrator called her at home to discuss the argument that HSK A got into at the facility on 3/29/2025. HSK A was suspended until the investigation could be completed. HSK A was in serviced on abuse, conflict resolution, resident rights and purchasing items for residents 4/3/2025- HSK A returned to work and met with AIT II regarding incident that occurred on 3/29/2025. Abuse, conflict resolution, residents rights and purchasing items for residents was discussed again. was returned to her duties on the floor. The resident safe surveys included with the investigation did not address verbal abuse by staff. Record review of an Employee Concern Form dated 03/29/25 at 1:00 p.m., completed by HSK B indicated At 1:00 p.m. smoke time I was giving Resident #4 her two cigarettes and I told Resident #2 you don't have any did you call someone and she said yeah I still waiting. Couple of minutes goes by and Resident #2 goes I'm not hiding anymore give me a cigarette talking to Resident #4. HSK A turns and goes not if its the cigarettes a bought I am not buying you cigarettes to just hand them out. I said well Resident #2 when you have cigarettes and Resident #4 don't don't share with her if that's the case. That's not fair to you. HSK A gives she share with her just not the cigarettes I bought. She can do whatever she wants with the cigarettes she buys with her money. HSK A started to get loud and angry. Resident #2 had enough and told HSK A to shut up. HSK A got out of her chair and tells Resident #2 to make her shut up. You will have to get out of your chair to shut me up. Then Resident #3 told HSK A to calm down. After that HSK A left. Resident #2 said I wish I can punch her and then looked at Resident #4 and goes I want to punch you for not having my back and then Resident #2 started to cry and shake. Record review of a Service Recovery Opportunity form dated initially dated 3/31/25, (the date was amended by Administrator L on 04/01/25), completed by Administrator L on 04/05/25 indicated HSK A became verbally abusive with Resident #2 about cigarettes. HSK A was suspended during the investigation. This was the first time HSK A had an argument with a resident. HSK A was inserviced on abuse, managing conflict and resident rights. HSK A confirmed she got upset with with Resident #2. Record review of a progress note dated 04/01/25 at 10:01 a.m., completed by the SW indicated On April 1, 2025, I spoke with Resident #2 regarding the incident between she and HSK A. Resident #2 said, She apologized to me for being upset and me crying. She said, And I apologized to her for what I said. Resident #2 could not recall what she said to HSK A or what HSK A said to her. She said, I know she had never talked to me like that before. She said, I don't recall what she said, but its not the way we normally talk. Resident #2 said, my mind is not that good and I can't recall. Resident #2 continued talking to me and she eventually recalled that the incident was about the sharing of cigarettes. Resident #2 said that she asked Resident #4 for a cigarette and HSK A said no because she had purchased the cigarettes with her own money. So, Resident #2 was upset that she could not get a cigarette because she and Resident #4 shares cigarettes. She said, she (HSK A) was going on about everything under the moon. She said that she told HSK A to hush and leave her alone. She don't recall what HSK A said. Resident #2 was upset with Resident #4 for not standing up for her. She said, I was crying and Resident #4 gave me the cigarette when HSK A left. Resident #2 told me that she is not scared of HSK A. She said, She is my friend and we apologized. She feels safe here at the facility and she knows who to report abuse too. She said HSK A is a good person. Record review of a progress note dated 04/07/25 at 4:02 p.m., completed by the SW indicated On April 7, 2025, I asked Resident #2 about the interaction between her and HSK A on smoke break. Resident #2 at first said she didn't recall what it was about, but they both apologized and it's over. I inquired further and Resident #2 said, She went off on a rampage. She did not want Resident #4 to share her cigarettes with me. Resident #2 told me that HSK A purchases cigarettes for Resident #4 using her own money (HSK A's money), so she did not want Resident #4 to share the cigarettes with her. Resident #2 said, HSK A and I kept going back and forth I told HSK A to shut up. Resident #2 did not recall what HSK A said, but I told her what the witness reported. She said yes, HSK A did say make me. Resident #2 said she cried because HSK A had never spoken to her like that before. She said, We are friends and both have apologized. I thought this was over. I explained that anytime there is an incident between staff and a resident we must make sure that the resident is safe, and no harm is caused. Resident #2 said, I'm okay, HSK A and I have made up. It's over. Record review of HSK's time record indicated she worked 03/29/25, 03/30/25, 03/31/25, 04/03/25, 04/04/25, and 04/05/25. During an interview on 05/07/25 at 10:00 a.m., Administrator L said she was the abuse coordinator. She said allegations of abuse were reportable to her or her designees immediately and to HHS C within 2 hours. She said the facility was reporting on 04/01/25 an allegation of verbal abuse by HSK A towards Resident #2 on 03/29/25. She said HSK B witnessed the verbal abuse on 03/29/25 and put a note under the HR door but did not report the incident immediately to her (Administrator L) as required. She said HSK A was suspended when the facility was made aware of the incident on 03/31/25. She said the verbal abuse was confirmed. She said AIT TT was out on FML. During an interview on 05/07/25 at 12:46 p.m., Administrator L said the allegations of abuse was reported on 04/01/25. She said she did not report on 03/31/25 because she was working on the investigation and she could not give a logical reason for not reporting. She said HSK A was supposed to be suspended pending the facility investigation. She said HSK A worked work on 03/30/25, 03/31/25, 04/03/25, 04/04/25/, and 04/05/25. HSK A did not respond to a call from the surveyor on 05/07/25 at 2:35 p.m. During an interview on 05/07/25 at 2:45 p.m., Resident #2 said HSK A made her upset and spoke to her with a mean tone about borrowing cigarettes. She said she wanted her to shut up and HSK A said she (Resident #2) would have to get up from her wheelchair to make her shut up. She said she felt sad and upset when HSK spoke to her. She said at the time it was abuse but they had made up and there was no further problems. She said HSK A was not working at the facility anymore. She said she was o.k. and no other staff ever spoke to her with a mean or mad tone. During an interview on 05/08/25 at 10:55 a.m., HR HH said she found a concern form written by HSK B, under her office door, on 03/31/25. She said she scanned the form and emailed it to Administrator L. She said she followed up with the Administrator L on 04/01/25 (but she did not recall what time) and that was when Administrator L realized the form had a second page where the verbal abuse was documented. She said Administrator L then reported the allegations of abuse to HHSC. She said the facility's protocol would include immediate suspension for staff. She said confirmed allegations of abuse could result in disciplinary action that could include termination. She said if staff were not suspended and continued to work, residents were at risk of further abuse. During an interview on 05/08/25 at 11:13 a.m., HSK Director II said she arrived to work on 03/31/25 and HSK B handed her a copy of the concern form she had left under the HR office door. She said she (HSK B) did not want to report the incident. She said she read the form and then went to Administrator L's office with HSK B. She said all staff were trained on abuse. She said HSK B said she did not know she should call the Administrator. She said HSK A's employment was handled by the administrator. She said she was not told to suspend HSK A. She said HSK worked her regular scheduled day rotation. She said if staff were not suspended and continued to work, residents were at risk of further abuse. During an interview on 05/08/25 at 12:56 p.m., HSK B said the incident of verbal abuse occurred on 03/29/25 during the 1:00 p.m. smoke break. She said the staff were advised residents were not supposed to share their cigarettes. She said HSK A had bought cigarettes for Resident #4. She said HSK A told Resident #4 not to share, that she was only buying for Resident #4. Resident #2 said she wished HSK A would shut up. HSK A got up form her chair and told Resident #2 she would have to get out of her chair to make her shut up. She said Resident #3 told HSK A to calm down. She said Resident #2 said she wished she could punch HSK A in the face. Resident #2 was upset and crying. She said she did not report the incident immediately to the abuse coordinator/Administrator L, the DON, or her supervisor. She said HSK A continued to work after the incident. She said she was scared of what HSK A would do if she knew she had reported. She said she was trained on abuse and reporting. She said residents were at risk of further abuse if it was not reported immediately. During an interview on 05/09/25 at 10:10 a.m., Resident #3 said HSK A was having words with Resident #2 over some cigarettes. He said HSK A was disrespectful and angry. He said they called each other BITCH. He said HSK A said if Resident #2 got up from her chair she would whoop her ass. He said he told HSK A she should not talk to her elders like that. He said he was not interviewed about the incident. He said he had not heard HSK A speak to residents that way before. During an interview on 05/09/25 at 12:29 p.m., Resident #4 said HSK A and Resident #2 were arguing about cigarettes. She said HSK A had purchased the cigarettes for her (Resident #3) and was mad because Resident #4 was going to share with Resident #2). She said HSK A said she wanted to whoop Resident #2's ass because she was arguing with her. She said she knew HSK A all her life and she had a temper. She said she never heard HSK A talk to residents that way before. She said she would report abuse to the Administrator or the DOM immediately. During an interview on 05/09/25 at 12:40 p.m., Administrator L said she did not conduct interviews with Resident #3 or Resident #4. She said she thought the SW would have conducted the interviews when she did the safe surveys. During an interview on 05/09/25 at 1:03 p.m., the SW said she was not sure if she wrote interviews down for Resident #3 or Resident #4. She said she remembered talking to Resident #4 but not Resident #3. She said Resident #4 did not report HSK A said she wanted to whoop Resident #2's ass. She said she would have reported the allegation to the Administrator immediately. During an interview on 05/09/25 at 1:18 p.m., HSK B said she did not hear HSK A say she wanted to whoop Resident #2's *ss. She said she would still be scared to report if she did hear the threat. During an interview on 05/09/25, at 1:51 p.m., Administrator L said she was retrained on abuse on 05/08/25. She said not following the facility policy for abuse prevention, reporting, and investigation placed the residents were at risk for re-occurrence of abuse or the incident could have escalated. Record review of the facility's Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation policy dated 2023 indicated It is the policy of this facility to provide protections for the health, welfare and rights of each resident by developing and implementing written policies and procedures that prohibit and prevent abuse, neglect, exploitation . Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines: 1. The facility will develop and implement written policies and procedures that: a. Prohibit and prevent abuse, neglect, and exploitation of residents and misappropriation of resident property; b. Establish policies and procedures to investigate any such allegations; . 3. The facility will provide ongoing oversight and supervision of staff in order to assure that its policies are implemented as written. III. Prevention of Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation The facility will implement policies and procedures to prevent and prohibit all types of abuse, neglect, misappropriation of resident property, and exploitation that achieves: . B. Identifying, correcting and intervening in situations in which abuse, neglect, exploitation, and/or misappropriation of resident property is more likely to occur with the deployment of trained and qualified, registered, licensed, and certified staff on each shift in sufficient numbers to meet the needs of the residents, and assure that the staff assigned have knowledge of the individual residents' care needs and behavioral symptoms; C. Assuring an assessment of the resources needed to provide care and services to all residents is included in the facility assessment; D. The identification, ongoing assessment, care planning for appropriate interventions, and monitoring of residents with needs and behaviors which might lead to conflict or neglect; E. Ensuring the health and safety of each resident with regard to visitors such as family members or resident representatives, friends, or other individuals subject to the resident's right to deny or withdraw consent at any time and to reasonable clinical and safety restrictions; F. Providing residents, representatives, and staff information on how and to whom they may report concerns, incidents and grievances without the fear of retribution; and providing feedback regarding the concerns that have been expressed; G. Addressing features of the physical environment that may make abuse, neglect, exploitation, and misappropriation of resident property more likely to occur; and H. Assigning responsibility for the supervision of staff on all shifts for identifying inappropriate staff behaviors. I. Identification of Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation A. The facility will have written procedures to assist staff in identifying the different types of abuse - mental/verbal abuse, sexual abuse, physical abuse, and the deprivation by an individual of goods and services. This includes staff to resident abuse and certain resident to resident altercations.VI. Protection of Resident The facility will make efforts to ensure all residents are protected from physical and psychosocial harm, as well as additional abuse, during and after the investigation. Examples include but are not limited to: A. Responding immediately to protect the alleged victim and integrity of the investigation; . VII. Reporting/Response A. The facility will have written procedures that include: 1. 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, or b. Not later than 24 hours if the events that cause the allegation do not involve abuse and do not result in serious bodily injury. 2. Assuring that reporters are free from retaliation or reprisal; .
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

Investigate Abuse (Tag F0610)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based interview and record review the facility failed to have evidence alleged violations were thoroughly investigated to preven...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based interview and record review the facility failed to have evidence alleged violations were thoroughly investigated to prevent further abuse for 1 of 10 residents (Resident #2) reviewed for abuse. The facility failed to thoroughly investigate after HSK A had a verbally aggressive argument with Resident #2 over cigarettes. Resident #2 told HSK A she wished she would shut up and HSK A got up from her chair and told Resident #2 to make her shut up. This failure could place residents at risk of not having allegations of abuse, neglect or exploitation investigated properly to prevent re-occurrence. Findings included: Record review of Resident #2's face sheet dated 05/09/25 indicated Resident #2 was a [AGE] year old female admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her diagnoses included dementia (a condition characterized by progressive or persistent loss of intellectual functioning, especially with impairment of memory and abstract thinking, and often with personality change, resulting from organic disease of the brain), major depressive disorder (persistent feeling of sadness and loss of interest), anxiety (persistent worry and fear about everyday situations), hemiplegia (one-sided paralysis) and hemiparesis (one-sided muscle weakness) following cerebral infarction affecting right dominant side, and cerebral infarction (stroke). Record review of Resident #2's annual MDS assessment dated [DATE] indicated she was able to make herself understood, sometimes understood others, and had moderate cognitive impairment (BIMS-8). Record review of Resident #2's care plan dated 05/08/25 indicated Resident #2 had a psychosocial well-being problem related to verbal aggression while interacting with staff. Interventions included initiate referrals as needed or increase social relationships, provide a safe environment, and and when conflict arises residents to a calm safe environment. Record review of a facility investigation dated 04/07/25 and completed by Administrator L indicated the incident occurred on 03/29/25 at 1:00 p.m. and was reported to HHS on 04/01/25 at 12:00 p.m. The AP was identified and confirmed as HSK A. The witness was identified as HSK B. The allegation was noted as HSK A was being verbally aggressive with Resident #2 over the purchase of cigarettes. HSK A was suspended during the investigation. HSK B was in-serviced on timely reporting of abuse allegation on 04/01/25. The findings were confirmed. The facility investigation did not include interviews with other residents. The resident safe surveys included with the investigation did not address verbal abuse by staff. Record review of an Employee Concern Form dated 03/29/25 at 1:00 p.m., completed by HSK B indicated At 1:00 p.m. smoke time I was giving Resident #4 her two cigarettes and I told Resident #2 you don't have any did you call someone and she said yeah I still waiting. Couple of minutes goes by and Resident #2 goes I'm not hiding anymore give me a cigarette talking to Resident #4. HSK A turns and goes not if its the cigarettes a bought I am not buying you cigarettes to just hand them out. I said well Resident #2 when you have cigarettes and Resident #4 don't don't share with her if that's the case. That's not fair to you. HSK A gives she share with her just not the cigarettes I bought. She can do whatever she wants with the cigarettes she buys with her money. HSK A started to get loud and angry. Resident #2 had enough and told HSK A to shut up. HSK A got out of her chair and tells Resident #2 to make her shut up. You will have to get out of your chair to shut me up. Then Resident #3 told HSK A to calm down. After that HSK A left. Resident #2 said I wish I can punch her and then looked at Resident #4 and goes I want to punch you for not having my back and then Resident #2 started to cry and shake. Record review of a Service Recovery Opportunity form dated initially dated 3/31/25, (the date was amended by Administrator L on 04/01/25), completed by Administrator L on 04/05/25 indicated HSK A became verbally abusive with Resident #2 about cigarettes. HSK A was suspended during the investigation. This was the first time HSK A had an argument with a resident. HSK A was inserviced on abuse, managing conflict and resident rights. HSK A confirmed she got upset with with Resident #2. Record review of a progress note dated 04/01/25 at 10:01 a.m., completed by the SW indicated On April 1, 2025, I spoke with Resident #2 regarding the incident between she and HSK A. Resident #2 said, She apologized to me for being upset and me crying. She said, And I apologized to her for what I said. Resident #2 could not recall what she said to HSK A or what HSK A said to her. She said, I know she had never talked to me like that before. She said, I don't recall what she said, but its not the way we normally talk. Resident #2 said, my mind is not that good and I can't recall. Resident #2 continued talking to me and she eventually recalled that the incident was about the sharing of cigarettes. Resident #2 said that she asked Resident #4 for a cigarette and HSK A said no because she had purchased the cigarettes with her own money. So, Resident #2 was upset that she could not get a cigarette because she and Resident #4 shares cigarettes. She said, she (HSK A) was going on about everything under the moon. She said that she told HSK A to hush and leave her alone. She don't recall what HSK A said. Resident #2 was upset with Resident #4 for not standing up for her. She said, I was crying and Resident #4 gave me the cigarette when HSK A left. Resident #2 told me that she is not scared of HSK A. She said, She is my friend and we apologized. She feels safe here at the facility and she knows who to report abuse too. She said HSK A is a good person. Record review of a progress note dated 04/07/25 at 4:02 p.m., completed by the SW indicated On April 7, 2025, I asked Resident #2 about the interaction between her and HSK A on smoke break. Resident #2 at first said she didn't recall what it was about, but they both apologized and it's over. I inquired further and Resident #2 said, She went off on a rampage. She did not want Resident #4 to share her cigarettes with me. Resident #2 told me that HSK A purchases cigarettes for Resident #4 using her own money (HSK A's money), so she did not want Resident #4 to share the cigarettes with her. Resident #2 said, HSK A and I kept going back and forth I told HSK A to shut up. Resident #2 did not recall what HSK A said, but I told her what the witness reported. She said yes, HSK A did say make me. Resident #2 said she cried because HSK A had never spoken to her like that before. She said, We are friends and both have apologized. I thought this was over. I explained that anytime there is an incident between staff and a resident we must make sure that the resident is safe, and no harm is caused. Resident #2 said, I'm okay, HSK A and I have made up. It's over. During an interview on 05/07/25 at 10:00 a.m., Administrator L said she was the abuse coordinator. She said allegations of abuse were reportable to her or her designees immediately and to HHS C within 2 hours. She said the facility was reporting on 04/01/25 an allegation of verbal abuse by HSK A towards Resident #2 on 03/29/25. She said HSK B witnessed the verbal abuse on 03/29/25 and put a note under the HR door but did not report the incident immediately to her (Administrator L) as required. She said HSK A was suspended when the facility was made aware of the incident on 03/31/25. She said the verbal abuse was confirmed. HSK A did not respond to a call from the surveyor on 05/07/25 at 2:35 p.m. During an interview on 05/07/25 at 2:45 p.m., Resident #2 said HSK A made her upset and spoke to her with a mean tone about borrowing cigarettes. She said she wanted her to shut up and HSK A said she (Resident #2) would have to get up from her wheelchair to make her shut up. She said she felt sad and upset when HSK spoke to her. She said at the time it was abuse but they had made up and there was no further problems. She said HSK A was not working at the facility anymore. She said she was o.k. and no other staff ever spoke to her with a mean or mad tone. During an interview on 05/08/25 at 12:56 p.m., HSK B said the incident of verbal abuse occurred on 03/29/25 during the 1:00 p.m. smoke break. She said the staff were advised residents were not supposed to share their cigarettes. She said HSK A had bought cigarettes for Resident #4. She said HSK A told Resident #4 not to share, that she was only buying for Resident #4. Resident #2 said she wished HSK A would shut up. HSK A got up form her chair and told Resident #2 she would have to get out of her chair to make her shut up. She said Resident #3 told HSK A to calm down. She said Resident #2 said she wished she could punch HSK A in the face. Resident #2 was upset and crying. She said she was scared of what HSK A would do if she knew she had reported. She said she was trained on abuse and reporting. She said residents were at risk of further abuse if it was not reported immediately. During an interview on 05/09/25 at 10:10 a.m., Resident #3 said HSK A was having words with Resident #2 over some cigarettes. He said HSK A was disrespectful and angry. He said they called each other BITCH. He said HSK A said if Resident #2 got up from her chair she would whoop her ass. He said he told HSK A she should not talk to her elders like that. He said he was not interviewed about the incident. He said he had not heard HSK A speak to residents that way before. During an interview on 05/09/25 at 12:29 p.m., Resident #4 said HSK A and Resident #2 were arguing about cigarettes. She said HSK A had purchased the cigarettes for her (Resident #3) and was mad because Resident #4 was going to share with Resident #2). She said HSK A said she wanted to whoop Resident #2's ass because she was arguing with her. She said she knew HSK A all her life and she had a temper. She said she never heard HSK A talk to residents that way before. She said she would report abuse to the Administrator or the DOM immediately. During an interview on 05/09/25 at 12:40 p.m., Administrator L said she did not conduct interviews with Resident #3 or Resident #4. She said she thought the SW would have conducted the interviews when she did the safe surveys. During an interview on 05/09/23 at 1:03 p.m., the SW said she was not sure if she wrote interviews down for Resident #3 or Resident #4. She said she remembered talking to Resident #4 but not Resident #3. She said Resident #4 did not report HSK A said she wanted to whoop Resident #2's ass. She said she would have reported the allegation to the Administrator immediately. During an interview on 05/09/25 at 1:18 p.m., HSK B said she did not hear HSK A say she wanted to whoop Resident #2's ass. She said she would still be scared to report if she did hear the threat. During an interview on 05/09/25, at 1:51 p.m., Administrator L said she was retrained on abuse on 05/08/25. She said not following the facility policy for abuse prevention, reporting, and investigation placed the residents were at risk for re-occurrence of abuse or the incident could have escalated. Record review of the facility's Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation policy dated 2023 indicated It is the policy of this facility to provide protections for the health, welfare and rights of each resident by developing and implementing written policies and procedures that prohibit and prevent abuse, neglect, exploitation . Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines: 1. The facility will develop and implement written policies and procedures that: a. Prohibit and prevent abuse, neglect, and exploitation of residents and misappropriation of resident property; b. Establish policies and procedures to investigate any such allegations; .
Jun 2024 4 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident, that included measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's needs identified in the comprehensive assessment for 1 of 20 residents reviewed for following physician orders. (Resident #27) The facility did not apply Resident #27's hand splint as ordered by the physician This failure could place the residents at risk of a decline in their range of motion. Findings included: Record review of physician orders dated June 2024 indicated Resident #27, admitted [DATE], was an [AGE] year-old female with diagnoses of muscle wasting and atrophy and cerebral infarction (a condition that occurs when blood flow to the brain is disrupted causing the brain tissue to die). The orders indicated the resident was to have a resting hand splint to the right upper extremity to prevent contracture. The hand splint was to be removed every night. Record review of the quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #27 had a BIMs of 4 (Severe cognitive impairment), had an impairment in ROM to one side of the upper extremities and was dependent for personal hygiene and toileting. Record review of a care plan revised 02/16/24 indicated Resident #27 had limited physical mobility or was at risk for a decline in mobility related to a limited range of motion to the right arm/hand. Record review of an ADL task sheet dated June 2024 for Resident #27 indicated the CNAs were to apply a resting hand splint to the resident's right upper extremity each morning and remove each night to prevent contractures. During observations, Resident #27 had her right hand clenched tightly with the fingers and thumb positioned inward towards the palm of the hand but opened it when asked. The resident did not have a splint to the right hand: *on 06/23/24 at 10:48 a.m., *on 06/24/24 at 8:33 a.m., *on 06/25/24 at 2:42 p.m., and *on 06/25/24 at 9:44 a.m. During observation and interview on 06/25/24 at 9:44 a.m., Resident #27 was sitting in the common area with her right hand closed tightly. The surveyor asked the resident to open her hand and the resident was able to straighten all fingers out. The DON said the resident was supposed to have a splint in her hand as ordered. She said the possible negative outcome could be the resident's hand could become contracted. She said her expectation was for the resident to have the splint in her hand as ordered. During observation and interview on 06/25/24 at 9:53 a.m., upon entering Resident #27's room, the DON retrieved the resident's splint from the top of the chest of drawers and said here it is. The DON said the splint was not applied as ordered. She said it was the CNA's responsibility to make sure the splint was applied. During an interview on 06/25/24 at 10:50 a.m., CNA E said she worked on Hall 600, where Resident #27 resided. She said she was not aware she was supposed to apply the splint to Resident #27's right hand and no one had told her she was supposed to until then. She said she did look at the aide assignment sheet for the resident and did see the splint was to be applied to the right hand but she did not ever see a hand splint so she did not apply it. She said the possible negative outcome of not applying the splint would be the resident's hand could get to the point of not opening and she would not be able to use it. Review of the Prevention of the decline in Range of Motion policy dated 2023 indicated The facility in collaboration with the medical director, director of nurses and as appropriate, physical/ occupational consultant shall establish and utilize a systematic approach for prevention of decline in range of motion, including the assessment, appropriate care planning, and preventive care.
CONCERN (D)

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

Tube Feeding (Tag F0693)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that residents receiving enteral feeding recei...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that residents receiving enteral feeding received appropriate care and services to prevent complication of enteral feeding for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #272) reviewed for enteral feeding. The facility failed to ensure LVN A verified placement of Resident #272's G-tube by checking for tube placement before enteral administration of water and medications. The facility failed to ensure LVN A administered the flushes and medications using gravity. These failures could place residents receiving enteral nutrition and medications at increased risk of not receiving proper nutrition, infection, aspiration, and possible injury. Findings included: Record review of Resident #272's physician orders dated June 2024 indicated he was a [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE]. His diagnoses included dysphagia (difficulty or discomfort swallowing). Orders indicated he was NPO (nothing by mouth), was to receive all feedings and medications via G-tube (a tube inserted through the stomach that brings nutrition directly to the stomach) and tube placement was to be verified before each use by change in the incremental marking on tube, documented tube length, gastric residual volume, or by pH of aspirate. Record review of a care plan dated 06/21/24 indicated Resident #272 had a feeding tube. Interventions included to administer enteral feeding, medications, and water flushes as ordered. During an observation and interview during medication administration on 06/24/24 at 09:30 a.m., LVN A did not check placement of Resident #272's G-tube prior to administration of water flushes and medications through the G-tube. LVN A flushed the tube with water, she drew up the medications individually with the syringe, administered the medications using the plunger in the syringe, drew up the water between medications using the syringe, flushed the water using the plunger in the syringe, then did the final flush of the tube with water. LVN A said she would not have done anything different in the procedure. During an interview on 06/25/24 at 10:35 a.m. the DON indicated staff should follow the policy for gastrostomy tube placement check and flushes/medications should be administered via gravity. She indicated the flushes and medications should be done via gravity and not pushed through the syringe with the plunger. She indicated injury could occur from pushing fluids or medications through the gastrostomy tube. Record review of the Confirming Placement of Feeding Tubes policy and procedure revised November 2018 indicated Purpose: The purpose of this procedure is to ensure proper placement of an existing feeding tube prior to administering enteral feedings or medication.Steps in the Procedure: .To Confirm Placement of an Existing Feeding Tube at the Bedside: 1. Use one of the following methods to test whether the tube is properly positioned: a. Observe for symptoms of elevated gastric residual volume (GRV - Please see GVR Policy), or: (1) A sharp increase in residual volume may indicate that a small bowel tube has moved into the stomach; (2) Little to no residual volume may suggest that the tube has migrated from the stomach to the esophagus. b. Observe and check the pH of aspirate: (1) Fasting stomach contents will have a clear and colorless or grassy green and brown appearance. (2) Fluids from the pleural space may have a pale yellow, serous appearance. (3) Post-pyloric/small bowel contents can be bile-stained, light to dark yellow or greenish-brown. (4) Fasting stomach acid will have a pH of 5 or less. (5) Fluid from the pleural space will have a pH of 7 or higher. (6) A pH of 5 or less suggests that the tube is placed in the stomach. However, a pH of 6 or greater is not definitive of placement outside the stomach. 2. If the above suggests improper tube positioning, do not administer feeding or medication. Notify the Charge Nurse or Physician. 3. When correct tube placement has been verified, flush tubing with at least 30 mL water (or prescribed amount) Record review of the Administering Medications through an Enteral Tube policy and procedure revised November 2018 indicated Purpose: The purpose of this procedure is to provide guidelines for the safe administration of medications through an enteral tube Steps in the Procedure: 6. Verify placement of feeding tube: a. If you suspect improper tube positioning, do not administer feeding or medication. Notify the Charge Nurse or Physician. 10. Administer each medication separately. 11. Reattach syringe (without plunger) to the end of the tubing. 12. Administer medication by gravity flow: a. Pour diluted medication into the barrel of the syringe while holding the tubing slightly above the level of insertion. b. Open the clamp and deliver medication slowly. c. Begin flush before the tubing drains completely. 13. If administering more than one medication, flush with 15 mL warm purified water (or prescribed amount) between medications. 14. When the last of the medication begins to drain from the tubing, flush the tubing with 15 mL of warm purified water (or prescribed amount). 15. Quickly clamp the tubing when the flush is complete. Remove syringe
CONCERN (E)

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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure pharmacy procedures to ensure an accurate accounting of all controlled drugs and the licensed pharmacist failed to ensure the drug r...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure pharmacy procedures to ensure an accurate accounting of all controlled drugs and the licensed pharmacist failed to ensure the drug records are in order and that an account of all controlled drugs is maintained and periodically reconciled for 2 of 4 medication carts reviewed for narcotic counts. (300 Hall Nurse Cart and 200/500 Halls Medication Aide Cart) The facility did not ensure staff were conducting accounting of Controlled Drugs at shift change on the 300 Hall Nurse Cart and 200/500 Halls Medication Aide Cart. The Pharmacy Consultant did not ensure the Controlled Drugs - Count Record forms had signatures of the staff indicating the Controlled Drugs were reconciled. These failures could place residents at risk for misappropriation and drug diversion. Findings included: Record review of the June 2024 Controlled Drugs - Count Record form on the 300 Hall Nurse Cart indicated: *on the day shift the nurse going off shift did not sign the form on 1st, 5th, 6th, 10th, 12th, 13th, 19th, 20th, and 21st; *on the night shift the nurse going off shift did not sign the form on the 14 th ; *on the night shift the nurse coming on shift did not sign on 4th, 5th, 8th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 18th, and 19th; and *there were no signatures on the day shift on the 14th and 20th; and *there were no signatures on the night shift on the 20th. Record review of the June 2024 Controlled Drugs - Count Record form on the 200/500 right side Halls Medication Aide Cart indicated: *on the day shift the Medication Aide coming on shift did not sign on 4th, 5th, 10th, 18th, 19th, 21st, 22nd, 23rd, and 24th; and *on the night shift the Medication Aide going off shift did not sign on 4th, 5th, 8th, 10th, 18th, 19th, 21st, 22nd, 23rd, 24th, and 25th. Record review of the Consultant Pharmacist Activity Report dated 06/18/24 indicated Special Notes/Activities: The medication room and carts were reviewed There was no indication on the report of missing signatures on the Controlled Drugs - Count Record forms on the medication aide or the nurse carts. During an interview on 06/25/24 at 12:40 p.m., MA C indicated if the narcotics were not counted then the medications could be missing and because the sheet was not signed as to who had the cart they would not know who would be accountable for missing medications. During an interview on 06/25/24 at 01:09 p.m., MA D indicated she was not trained on the cart count sheet. During an interview on 06/25/24 at 12:39 p.m., the DON indicated she expected staff to count the narcotics on the medication carts. She indicated if the counts were not done then there could be a drug diversion and she would not know who would be accountable for missing medications. During an interview on 06/25/24 at 12:39 p.m., the DON indicated the no signature could indicated the narcotic counts were not done. Pharmacy Consultant was at the facility a few days ago and reviewed the medication aides and nurse carts. She indicated there was no report of any issues with the count sheets. During a phone interview on 06/25/24 at 01:50 p.m., the Pharmacy Consultant indicated she was supposed to check the signature count to ensure the staff are counting medications between shifts before they hand off the keys. She said she did not notice the missing signatures on the cart count sheets. She said the possible negative outcome could be a drug diversion. Record review of a Controlled Substances policy revised April 2019 indicated Policy Statement: The facility complies with all laws, regulations, and other requirements related to handling, storage, disposal, and documentation of controlled medications. Policy Interpretation and Implementation: .4. Access to controlled medications remains locked at all times and access is recorded. .8. Controlled substances are reconciled upon receipt, administration, disposition, and at the end of each shift. .12. At the End of Each Shift: a. Controlled medications are counted at the end of each shift. The nurse coming on duty and the nurse going off duty determine the count together Record review of a Pharmacy Services - Role of the Consultant Pharmacist policy revised April 2019 indicated Policy Interpretation and Implementation: 5. The consultant pharmacist will provide specific activities related to medication regimen review including: d. review of medication storage areas at least monthly, and medication carts at least quarterly, for proper storage and labeling of medications, cleanliness, and expired medications;
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store all drugs and biologicals in locked compartments under proper temperature controls, and permit only authorized personne...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store all drugs and biologicals in locked compartments under proper temperature controls, and permit only authorized personnel to have access, for 2 of 2 medications reviewed for security. The facility did not ensure clonidine (medication to treat elevated blood pressure) and a Fentanyl patch (narcotic opioid pain medication) medication was stored securely when it was left unattended at the nursing station. This failure could place residents at risk for harm by misappropriation of property and drug diversion. Findings included: During an observation on 06/23/24 at 12:28 p.m. of the nurse station, a card of clonidine (medication to treat elevated blood pressure) and a Fentanyl (narcotic opioid pain medication) patch were left on the desk unattended by a nurse or medication aide and accessible to staff, residents, and visitors. During an interview on 06/23/24 at 12:30 p.m., the Administrator was shown the card of clonidine and Fentanyl patch were on the desk of the nurse station unattended by a nurse or medication aide. He said medications were not to be left at the nurse station unattended by the staff as they could be removed by anyone walking by. During an interview on 06/23/24 at 12:32 p.m., LVN B indicated she had the card of clonidine to put on the cart and was reordering the Fentanyl patch when she got up to leave the nurse station. She said she should not have left the medications at the desk. During an interview on 06/25/24 at 02:09 p.m. during the exit, the DON indicated she was aware of the medications being left at the nurse station and medications were not to be left to where anyone could get them. Record review of a Controlled Substance policy revised April 2019 indicated Policy Statement: The facility complies with all laws, regulations, and other requirements related to handling, storage, disposal, and documentation of controlled medications. Policy Interpretation and Implementation: .3. Controlled substances are stored in the medication room in a locked container, separate from containers for any non-controlled medications. 4. Access to controlled medications remains locked at all times and access is recorded
Jul 2023 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

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 maintain clinical records on each resident that were complete and ac...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to maintain clinical records on each resident that were complete and accurately documented, in accordance with accepted professional standards and practices for 2 of 3 residents reviewed for parenteral care and services: The facility failed to ensure there was documentation of the insertion of hydrodermoclysis (fluids infused into the subcutaneous tissue for hydration) clysis, monitoring of the site and the infusion and discontinuation of therapy. for Residents #1 and #2. This failure could affect residents with parenteral care and services, placing them at risk of peripheral edema, leakage, or fluid overload from hypodermoclysis hydration infusion. Findings included: Record review of a face sheet dated [DATE] indicated Resident #1 was admitted on [DATE], was a [AGE] year-old male with diagnoses including acute respiratory failure with hypoxia (acute or chronic impairment of gas exchange between the lungs and the blood causing lack of oxygen supply), fracture right femur (broken upper leg), seizures (a sudden, uncontrolled burst of electrical activity in the brain), and stroke (damage to the brain from interruption of its blood supply). Record review of MDS dated [DATE] indicated Resident #1 had severe cognitive impairment. He required extensive assistance in performing all activities of daily living (ADLs). He was in-continent to bowel and bladder. Record review of care plan for Resident # 1 indicated Focus: Resident had a cerebral vascular accident and goals that Resident will be free from signs and symptoms of complications of stroke including dehydration through review date. Record review of Resident #1's physician orders dated [DATE], indicated an order for Dextrose-NACl Intravenous Solution 5-0.45% (Dextrose w/ Sodium Chloride) inject 3 liters subcutaneously (via clysis) one time only for dehydration until [DATE]. Record review of Resident #1's progress notes dated [DATE] - [DATE], MARs for [DATE] indicated no documentation of the clysis needle being inserted, no monitoring/assessment of infusion, the site or discontinuing of the hydration. During an observation and interview on [DATE] at 8:45 a.m., revealed Resident #1 was lying in bed, fall mat by bed. He was clean and well-groomed with no unpleasant odors. Water was available at bedside, and he did not show any visible signs of dehydration. Resident #1 was not able to recall the hydration infusion he received in [DATE]. There was no infusion at the time of the observation. During an interview on [DATE] at 9:00 a.m., LVN A recalled administering Resident #1 hypodermoclysis (subcutaneous) hydration therapy, she said Resident #1 was bad about pulling the subcutaneous needle out and that the therapy would have to be restarted. She said staff would have to stay with the resident while he was receiving his infusion. LVN A said that the procedure was supposed to be documented in the progress notes or MAR every shift, the type of fluid, location of needle, insertion site assessment, monitoring infusion, and starting or discontinuing the infusion. LVN A felt the treatment benefits the residents if they were mildly dehydrated and stated, she was comfortable and competent in performing the procedure. 2. Record review of a face sheet dated [DATE] indicated Resident #2 was admitted [DATE], was [AGE] years old and had diagnoses including cellulitis of left lower limb (a bacterial skin infection), acute embolism (blood clot or air bubble in artery), and thrombosis (blood clot) of other specified deep vein of left lower extremity, dementia (loss of cognitive functioning), developmental disorder of scholastic skills (conditions characterized by a significant discrepancy between an individuals perceived level of intellect and their ability to acquire new language and other cognitive skills), cognitive communication deficit (difficulty with thinking and how someone uses language). Resident #2 expired on [DATE]-23 Record review of MDS dated [DATE], he was alert with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 2 which indicated he was severely cognitively impaired. He required extensive assistance in performing most activities of daily living (ADLs) and supervision with eating and locomotion. He was in-continent to bowel and bladder. Record review of care plan for Resident # 2 indicated Focus: Resident is receiving IV fluids for peripheral line/PICC line/midline/central line) in the right/left arm). Decrease PO intake Date initiated [DATE]. Goals: Resident will be compliant with IV fluids thru next review. Resident will tolerate IV fluids with no complications thru next review. Record review of Resident #2's physician orders dated [DATE] indicated to infuse Sodium Chloride 0.9%, use 40 ml/hr intravenously one time for dehydration for 2 days x 2 Liters NS via clysis (1st Liter via emergency drug kit ekit) [DATE] to [DATE]. Record review of MAR and TARs [DATE] for Resident #2 indicated no documentation of insertion of the needle for the clysis, monitoring/assessment of parenteral care or discontinuation of therapy. Record review of Resident #2's progress notes for 7/2023, did not include documentation of insertion of the needle, monitoring of hypodermoclysis (subcutaneous) infusion, site care or management/monitoring. During an interview on [DATE] at 3:09 p.m., LVN C said she knew she was supposed to document insertion of the clysis needle and monitoring. She said she made sure Resident #2 had the order and just made the mistake and did not document about the administration or insertion of the clysis. During an interview on [DATE] at 3:45 p.m., LVN B said she had been checked off on inserting the clysis needle. She said the insertion was supposed to be documented, the site monitored and documented, and when the hydration is stopped, it should be documented in the medical record. During an interview on [DATE] at 8:10 p.m., LVN D said she discontinued Resident #2's clysis for hydration about 30 minutes into her shift on [DATE].She said she should have documented the discontinuation and what the site looked like. During an interview on [DATE] at 10:20 a.m., the DON said that all staff were trained upon hire and annually on the Hypodermoclysis - Subcutaneous Hydration therapy, this training/in-service included purpose, general guidelines, equipment/supplies needed, steps in procedure, documentation, and reporting. The DON and ADM stated their expectations were for staff administering subcutaneous hydration therapy to be trained and competent and to document the procedure following the facility policy in the resident's medical records. Negative outcome regarding improper or lack of documentation regarding subcutaneous hydration therapy could reflect inaccurate assessment of resident and possible complications at subcutaneous insertion site (peripheral edema, leakage of fluid, or fluid overload) - DON acknowledges that one of the reason they utilized clysis (subcutaneous) infusions for hydration therapy was the lack of potential serious complications like fluid overload and infected IV sites, states it was also easier for the residents. Record review of facility policy revised [DATE] indicated Hypodermoclysis - Subcutaneous Hydration . Purpose: . The purpose of this procedure is to provide guidelines for administration of subcutaneous hydration to the resident as ordered. General guidelines: . 2. Hypodermoclysis is a method of hydration that does not require an intravenous catheter for delivery. 3. Hypodermoclysis involves using small needles to deliver isotonic fluids (0.9 NS, lactated ringers, D%W) slowly into the subcutaneous tissue. 4. This system is designed for short-term, preventative hydration or for mild dehydration. 5. Hypodermoclysis is NOT for antibiotics, narcotics, or fluids with electrolytes (KCL, magnesium, etc.). 6. Sites for needle placement are the abdomen, stomach, and front or side of thighs. Less commonly used sites are the upper arm or upper back shoulder area. 7. The fluids infused into the subcutaneous tissue where it is absorbed slowly. While the fluid is absorbed, a fluid wheal will form. This is normal and is not an infiltration of fluids. 8. Hypodermoclysis reduces the chance of the following complications associated with intravenous therapy: a. fluid overload, CHF; b. Phlebitis; and c. infection. 9. Physician order should include: a. type and quantity of isotonic fluid; b. Rate (determined by type of delivery set); and c. length of treatment. Steps in the procedure: 1. Review physician order. 2. Explain procedure to resident. 3. Assemble fluid and kit. 4. Wash hands. [NAME] non-sterile gloves. 5. Prime tubing including attached needle set until all air is removed. 6. Do sterile site preparation and allow to air dry. 7. Pinch up skin or flatten skin. Insert needle strip flat into skin. 8. Secure needle strip to skin using transparent dressing. Tape tubing to skin. 9. Date dressing and tubing. 10. Start fluid and adjust flow rate. Make sure that the resident is comfortable. 11. Monitor for fluid wheal will form. This is normal and is not an infiltration of fluids. 12. If necessary, the site may be lightly massaged to help fluid absorption. 13. Observe for any signs of peripheral edema (not the fluid wheal), leakage or fluid overload. Monitor for line disconnection from skin. 14. If the site needs to be changed, the whole set including needles are changed as one piece. Contact pharmacy for new set. No new order is needed. Documentation . 1. Document the following in the resident's medical record upon insertion: a. procedure; b. type of fluids; and c. dressing and tubing. 2. Document the change date on the medication administration record. 3. Document the following in the resident's medical record every shift: a. the type of fluids being infused, location of needle placement, type of antiseptic used to clean skin; b. intake and output totals; c. time fluid bag was started and discontinued; d. condition of skin where needles are inserted, any leakage, peripheral edema (not fluid wheal), statement from resident regarding how they are tolerating treatment; e. date and time of tubing and needle strip site change and reason for changing site (leakage, skin irritation, 72 hour site change); and f. Any communication with physician about problems, laboratory values. Reporting . 1. Report to physician or supervisor any information about treatment. 2. Report to oncoming shift nurses the type of treatment. Needle insertion site any complications, and any objective information concerning treatment.
Apr 2023 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0694 (Tag F0694)

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 parenteral care and services were administered ...

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 parenteral care and services were administered consistent with professional standards of practice for 2 of 3 residents reviewed for intravenous fluids. (Resident #39 and 82) *The facility failed to change Resident #39 and 82's midline catheter dressing in accordance with the resident's plan of care. (Midline catheter is an ultrasound guided catheter inserted in the upper arm peripheral veins for IV access) This failure could place residents at risk of not receiving the appropriate IV care and services. Findings included: 1. Record review of physician orders dated April 2023 indicated Resident #39, admitted [DATE], was [AGE] years old with diagnoses of emphysema and COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease). Record review of a physician order dated 04/13/23 for Resident #39 indicated Midline catheter to right arm - change sterile transparent dressing to insertion site using sterile technique Q (every) weekly and PRN (as needed) if wet, soiled, or not intact. Resident #39 was to receive Cefepime HCL (hydrochloride) Intravenous solution 1 GM/50 ml. Use 1 GM intravenously every 12 hours for pneumonia for 7 days. Record review of Resident #39's TAR (treatment administration record) for April 2023 indicated Midline catheter to right arm - change sterile transparent dressing to insertion site using sterile technique Q (every) weekly and PRN (as needed) if wet, soiled, or not intact. There was no indication Resident #39's midline catheter site dressing had been changed since insertion on 04/15/23 and was not scheduled to be changed until 04/23/23. Record review of Resident #39's quarterly MDS dated [DATE] gave no indication of midline IV or IV antibiotics, as this MDS was completed prior to new orders. Observation and interview on 04/17/23 at 8:30 a.m., Resident #39 had a right upper arm midline IV with an undated, soiled transparent dressing. A piece of dried, blood-tinged gauze was under the transparent dressing. Resident #39 said the midline IV was put in a few days ago and was receiving antibiotics. He denied any pain or swelling at site. Observation and interview on 04/17/23 at 12:49 p.m., LVN C said Resident #39's midline IV was inserted 04/15/23. She said the transparent dressing was not signed and dated and it should be. She said RNs are responsible for changing the midline IV dressing weekly. LVN C said Resident #39's IV dressing needed to be changed because it had dried blood under it. She said nursing staff needed to be able to always assess the IV site, and Resident #39's site could not be assessed because of the dried, blood-stained gauze. She added a soiled dressing such as the one on Resident #39 could potentially cause an infection. LVN C said the site was to be assessed for signs of infection, which included redness, warmth, and drainage. Observation and interview on 04/18/23 at 12:00 p.m. with Regional Nurse at Resident #39's bedside. He said the midline IV catheter was inserted on 04/15/23 by an outside vendor, and the dressing site should have been dated and initialed at that time. He said the IV site should not have dried blood under the dressing, and the dressing should have been changed 24-48 hours after insertion, and it did not appear to have been changed per policy. Regional Nurse said midline IV sites should also have dressing changes when visibly soiled and PRN (as needed). He said the treatment nurse, who was an RN, was responsible for midline IV dressing changes. During an interview on 04/18/23 at 12:15 p.m., DON said her expectations were IV sites to be assessed and dressing changes performed per facility policy. She said Resident #39's midline IV site dressing should have been changed due to soiled dressing. She added this oversight could potentially lead to an infection of the site. 2. Record review of admission physician orders dated 04/10/23 indicated Resident #82, admitted [DATE], was [AGE] years old with diagnosis of Sepsis (a serious condition resulting from the presence of harmful microorganisms in the blood or other tissues). Record review of a physician order dated 04/11/23 for Resident #82 indicated Midline catheter to right arm - change sterile transparent dressing to insertion site using sterile technique Q (every) weekly and PRN (as needed) if wet, soiled, or not intact. Resident #82 was to receive cefazolin sodium (used to treat bacterial infections) intravenously. Use 2 GM intravenously every 8 hours for infection until 05/09/23. Record review of Resident #82's TAR (treatment administration record) for April 2023 indicated Midline catheter to right arm - change sterile transparent dressing to insertion site using sterile technique Q (every) weekly and PRN (as needed) if wet, soiled, or not intact. Resident #39's midline catheter site dressing had been changed on Sunday 04/16/23, however on this date Resident #82's midline RUA dressing was compromised as it was soiled with dried blood under the transparent dressing. Record review of Resident #82's admission MDS dated [DATE] indicated receiving IV antibiotic medications prior to admission to facility and while in the facility. Record review of Resident #82's care plan dated 04/12/23 gave indication of a midline IV access site. Resident #82's goal was to have no complications related to IV therapy through the next review. Interventions for Resident #82 included changing sterile transparent dressing per physician order and as needed if integrity of dressing is compromised (wet, loose, or soiled). Use a transparent dressing to ensure visualization of the IV site. During observation and interview on 04/19/23 at 2:00 p.m., Resident #82 was sitting in wheelchair visiting with spouse. Resident #82 had a RUA midline IV catheter with a soiled transparent dressing. His had dried blood visible through the transparent dressing. Resident #82 said his IV site dressing had been changed over the weekend. The initials and date were illegible. Resident #82 denied pain or swelling at site. He said he was receiving IV antibiotics for a skin condition. He said he did not know how long the dried blood had been under the transparent dressing. During an observation and interview on 04/19/23 at 2:10 p.m., LVN C acknowledged Resident #82's midline IV dressing was soiled and needed to be changed. She said she would notify the treatment nurse of the situation. During an interview on 04/19/23 at 10:20 a.m., the treatment nurse said she worked Monday-Friday and was responsible for all wound care including IV site dressing changes. She said on the weekends, the weekend RNs were responsible for wound care. The treatment nurse said she had worked at the facility for 2 years and had been the treatment nurse since August 2022. She said she had received training via online classes and hands-on training. She said the nursing staff were scheduled for an in-service training the following day (04/20/23). The treatment nurse said she was supposed to be notified of any new wound/IV orders. She also receives a daily computer print-out of new and/or current wounds and orders. Record review of training in-service indicated most recent in-service on wound care and dressing changes was December 2022 and provided by DON/Regional nurse. Record review of a facility policy dated revised April 2016 and titled, Midline Dressing Changes indicated: . Purpose: The purpose of this procedure is to prevent catheter-related infections associated with contaminated, loosened, or soiled catheter site dressings. General Guidelines. 1. Change midline catheter dressing 24 hours after catheter insertion, every 5-7 days, or if it is wet, dirty, not intact, or compromised in any way.
CONCERN (D)

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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to establish a system of records of receipt and disposit...

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 establish a system of records of receipt and disposition of all controlled drugs in sufficient detail to enable an accurate reconciliation and drug records were in order and that an account of all controlled drugs was maintained for 1 of 18 residents (Resident #46) reviewed for pharmacy services. LVN A did not destroy the used fentanyl (scheduled II controlled medication used for severe pain) patch in a sharps container per policy and with a witness for destruction after the patch was removed from Resident #46. The facility did not ensure records for Resident #46 were complete with witness signatures for 5 days on control sheet for disposition of discarded fentanyl patch. This failure could place the residents at risk of drug diversion. Findings included: Record Review of physician orders summary dated April 2023 indicated Resident #46 admitted [DATE] and was [AGE] years old with diagnoses of chronic pain and kidney cancer. The orders indicated to apply 1 fentanyl patch 75 mcg/hour every 3 days and remove patch per schedule. Record review of the significant change MDS assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #46 had chronic pain and received pain medication routinely. Record review of Resident #46 medication administration record dated April 2023 indicated a fentanyl patch 75 mcg/hour was ordered every 72 hours, applied transdermal (medication absorbed through the skin) and removed after 72 hours for pain management on the following dates: *04/6/23, *04/9/23, *04/12/23, *04/15/23, *and 04/18/23. Record review of Resident #46's count sheet dated 03/31/23 indicated a fentanyl patch was applied and no witness signatures to indicate the removed used fentanyl patch was destroyed with witnesses on the following dates: *04/6/23, nurse signature was illegible, when the patch was removed and no witness signed, *04/9/23, an unnamed agency nurse signed removing patch and no witness signed, *04/12/23, LVN B signed removing patch and no witness signed, *04/15/23, LVN B signed removing patch and no witness signed, *and 04/18/23, LVN A signed removing patch and no witness signed. During an observation on 04/18/23 at 7:43 a.m., LVN A removed the fentanyl patch from Resident #46's chest and placed in the resident's trash. She removed the resident's trash bag with the used fentanyl patch in it, brought it to the soiled linen room, and placed into the trash can. The soiled linen room was not locked. During an interview on 04/18/23 at 7:52 a.m., LVN A said she was trained to throw the fentanyl patch in the trash, bring the trash bag out of the room, and dispose the fentanyl patch in the regular trash can. She said the fentanyl patch could still have medication on the patch. LVN A said she would then sign on the control sheet- sign that she placed a new patch and disposed of the old patch. LVN A denied getting another nurse to witness her dispose of the fentanyl patch for Resident #46. She said she was not trained to use the column which was labeled witness signature. During an interview and record review on 04/18/23 at 8:15 a.m., the DON said she expected the nurses who removed the used fentanyl patch to dispose it in the sharp's container with a witness and both sign the count sheet. She pointed to the count sheet for Resident #46 and said the nurse who witnessed the patch being placed in the sharp's container should have signed in column marked witness signature. The DON said the witnesses did not sign Resident #46's sheet. She said she could not read the signature of the nurse, who removed the patch on 04/06/23. The DON said the documentation on 04/09/23 was an agency nurse. During an interview on 04/18/23 at 8:18 a.m., the administrator said he agreed with the DON about the way the control medication should be handled. During an interview on 04/19/23 at 9:00 a.m., LVN B said on 04/12/23 and 04/15/23 she disposed of the used fentanyl patch in the sharp's container on the medication cart for Resident #46. LVN B said she forgot to get someone to witness her placing the patch in the sharps container and sign the control sheet. She said if they did not get a witness, they could be accused of taking the used fentanyl patches. She said they were trained to have a witness, when disposing of a used fentanyl patch. During an interview on 04/19/23 at 2:00 p.m., the DON said per the facility's policy, the nurses must have a witness to dispose of the fentanyl patch or any controlled medications to prevent drug diversion. Record review of the policy Disposal of medications dated August 2014 . indicated Medications included in the Drug Enforcement Administration classification as controlled substances are subject to special handling, storage, disposal and recordkeeping in the facility in accordance with federal and state laws and regulations. E. The witnesses of the destruction
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

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

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 3 life-threatening violation(s), $392,920 in fines. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 16 deficiencies on record, including 3 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $392,920 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in Texas. Major compliance failures.
  • • Grade F (0/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: This facility has 3 Immediate Jeopardy findings. Serious concerns require careful evaluation.

About This Facility

What is Liberty Health Care Center's CMS Rating?

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

How is Liberty Health Care Center Staffed?

CMS rates Liberty Health Care Center's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 57%, which is 11 percentage points above the Texas average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs.

What Have Inspectors Found at Liberty Health Care Center?

State health inspectors documented 16 deficiencies at Liberty Health Care Center during 2023 to 2025. These included: 3 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death) and 13 with potential for harm. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.

Who Owns and Operates Liberty Health Care Center?

Liberty Health Care Center is owned by a government entity. Government-operated facilities are typically run by state, county, or municipal agencies. The facility is operated by HEALTH SERVICES MANAGEMENT, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 118 certified beds and approximately 62 residents (about 53% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in Liberty, Texas.

How Does Liberty Health Care Center Compare to Other Texas Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Texas, Liberty Health Care Center's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 2.8, staff turnover (57%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (1 stars) is much below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Liberty Health Care Center?

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

Is Liberty Health Care Center Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, Liberty Health Care Center has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 3 Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 1-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in Texas. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.

Do Nurses at Liberty Health Care Center Stick Around?

Staff turnover at Liberty Health Care Center is high. At 57%, the facility is 11 percentage points above the Texas average of 46%. High turnover means new staff may not know residents' individual needs, medications, or preferences. It can also be disorienting for residents, especially those with dementia who rely on familiar faces. Families should ask: What is causing the turnover? What retention programs are in place? How do you ensure care continuity during staff transitions?

Was Liberty Health Care Center Ever Fined?

Liberty Health Care Center has been fined $392,920 across 1 penalty action. This is 10.6x the Texas average of $37,008. Fines at this level are uncommon and typically indicate a pattern of serious deficiencies, repeated violations, or failure to correct problems promptly. CMS reserves penalties of this magnitude for facilities that pose significant, documented risk to resident health or safety. Families should request specific documentation of what issues led to these fines and what systemic changes have been implemented.

Is Liberty Health Care Center on Any Federal Watch List?

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