LARKSPUR

201 SOUTH JOHN REDDITT DRIVE, LUFKIN, TX 75904 (936) 632-3346
For profit - Corporation 120 Beds CANTEX CONTINUING CARE Data: November 2025 2 Immediate Jeopardy citations
Trust Grade
6/100
#753 of 1168 in TX
Last Inspection: April 2025

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

Overview

Larkspur nursing home in Lufkin, Texas, received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about care quality. It ranks #753 out of 1168 facilities in Texas, placing it in the bottom half, and #5 out of 8 in Angelina County, meaning only three local options are worse. The trend shows improvement, with issues decreasing from 11 in 2024 to 7 in 2025. Staffing is average, rated at 2/5 stars with a turnover rate of 53%, which is close to the state average. However, the facility has faced critical incidents, including failures to prevent sexual abuse for two residents and inadequate supervision during a transfer, leading to a serious fall and fracture. Although there are some positive aspects, such as a stable RN coverage, families should weigh these serious concerns carefully.

Trust Score
F
6/100
In Texas
#753/1168
Bottom 36%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Better
11 → 7 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
53% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
✓ Good
$30,928 in fines. Lower than most Texas facilities. Relatively clean record.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 29 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Texas. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
⚠ Watch
24 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Overall Rating
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Staff Levels
★★★★☆
4.0
Care Quality
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 11 issues
2025: 7 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

2-Star Overall Rating

Below Texas average (2.8)

Below average - review inspection findings carefully

Staff Turnover: 53%

Near Texas avg (46%)

Higher turnover may affect care consistency

Federal Fines: $30,928

Below median ($33,413)

Moderate penalties - review what triggered them

Chain: CANTEX CONTINUING CARE

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 24 deficiencies on record

2 life-threatening
Apr 2025 5 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the residents' environment remained as free ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the residents' environment remained as free of accident hazards as possible for 1 of 6 residents (Resident #32) reviewed for accidents/hazards. The facility failed to remove worn and damaged mechanical lift slings from service from 04/21/2025 through 04/23/2025. This failure could place residents at risk of a loss of quality of life due to injuries. Findings included: 1. Record review of a facility face sheet dated 4/21/2025 for Resident #32 indicated that she was a 65 -year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including morbid obesity due to excessive calorie intake and essential hypertension (uncontrolled blood pressure). Record review of a Quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] for Resident #32 indicated that she had a BIMS score of 15, which indicated she was cognitively intact. She was dependent for all transfers and most ADLs. Record review of a comprehensive care plan dated 3/11/2025 for Resident #32 indicated she had an ADL Self-Care Performance Deficit and required a mechanical lift for all transfers with staff assistance x 2 for transfers. During an observation and interview on 04/21/2025 at 9:30 AM, Resident #32 said the staff use the lift sling sitting on the table in her room to get her up. The straps on the Medline lift pad were faded light in color and the care tag was illegible. During an observation and interview on 04/22/2025 at 11:52 AM the Laundry Supervisor, said she had worked at the facility for two years and had not received any training regarding specific laundry requirements for the lift slings. She said she was aware if the slings have holes or are coming unsewn they should not be used. She said she had never removed a sling from service since she has worked at the facility. A Med-Line lift sling was in the dryer ready to be removed. The care tag was illegible, crinkled and the straps were faded in color light pink, light blue and light teal green. The straps were not vivid blue, bright green and bright red as other slings in the dryer. The Laundry Supervisor said she does not bleach the slings and she does place them in the dryer to dry on medium heat with other colored items. She said if a sling that was unsafe was used for residents, it could tear causing the resident to fall and get hurt. During an observation and interview on 4/23/25 at 10:00 AM the Laundry Aide said that he had worked at the facility since January 2025 and had received training to remove mechanical lift slings if the slings had rips and holes. The Laundry Aide said he washed the slings alone, in the bleach cycle and dried them in the dryer. A sling was laid in a wheelchair next to a mechanical lift on hallway 100, ready for use. The sling was dated with a marker 4/15/2022 and the care tag was crinkled, illegible and the straps were faded in color, light pink, light blue and light teal green. The Laundry Aide said it had no rips or holes, so it looked good for use to him. During an interview on 04/23/25 at 10:43 AM the Regional Nurse Consultant said staff had just performed a sweep to remove old slings and had ordered new slings. She said they will remove the faded slings and replace them. The Regional Consultant said staff would be in serviced on when to remove slings from service including old, bleached or faded slings. She said that using a sling that was no longer safe for use as indicated by manufacturers recommendations could result in a fall with injuries. During an interview on 4/23/2025 at 1:30 PM, the DON said the lift slings should be checked about every 6 months and checked every time they were washed. She said she was not aware of the manufacturer's guidelines for the lift slings that the slings should not be in use if they had been bleached and were faded. She said they planned to conduct an audit and the facility had ordered new slings for the facility. She said there could be risk for injury if the faded and unraveling slings were being used. During an interview on 4/23/2025 at 1:45 PM, the Administrator said staff knew to report any torn or ripped mechanical lift slings and to throw them away. He said it was the responsibility of the DON or ADON to make sure they were not using worn or damaged lift slings. He said he was not aware that the laundry aide was bleaching the slings. He said the faded slings could not be in use and there would be a potential risk for falls or injuries. Record review of a facility policy titled Lifting Machine, using a Mechanical, revised 07/20/2017 indicated: . Sling Care: 2. Wash and Sanitize according to manufacturer's instructions. 3. Discard any worn, frayed, or ripped slings . Record review of the manufacturer instruction for Medline full body slings undated indicated, .Full body slings are made of durable materials and are ideal for patient transferring and toileting activities. Always inspect slings prior to each use. Signs of color fading, bleached areas, indicate improper laundering which is unsafe and could result in injury. Any slings with signs of wear or improper laundering should be immediately removed from use . Record review of the manufacturer instructions for Proactive full body slings accessed https://proactivemedical.com/products/lifts-slings/patient-slings/full-body-sling/ accessed 03/18/2025 indicated, .Proactive medical products . Guideline for Identifying Deteriorated Slings Accelerated Deterioration from Bleach, High Temperature Wash or Drying Slings, especially loop straps that have been damaged from being laundered in unsuitable conditions (bleach, high heat wash or dry) may appear to be in good condition but the actual tensile strength of the material may be compromised and pose a safety risk and should not be used for lifting a patient or resident. This Guide is intended to help staff and caregivers better identify slings that have been exposed to above laundry conditions and subsequent loss of tensile strength. We encourage any sling identified with the following characteristics to be removed from service immediately as a preventive measure. Proactive Medical slings have been designed and tested for laundry wash conditions of 170F degrees and air dry or dry at low temperature. The slings should never be bleached. Commercial washer and dryers are not recommended. Care instructions on the sling label should always be followed. Laundry equipment should be properly maintained and repaired when necessary. Completely Faded / Missing / Illegible Tag while the main body of the sling fabric is still intact and in relatively good condition. Colors are not faded or show very little fading .
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 interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services, including procedures that assures...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services, including procedures that assures the accurate acquiring, receiving, dispensing, and administering of medications for 1 of 2 medication rooms (Bluebonnet) reviewed for pharmacy services. The facility failed to dispose of expired medications from the medication room for Bluebonnet on 4/22/2025 which included: *Resident #35 had a foil package of albuterol 0.083% (nebulized medication that helps with breathing) that expired February 2025. *Resident #24 had a box of albuterol 0.083% that expired February 2025. *Resident #191 had 1 box of ipratropium/albuterol 0.5 mg/3 mg (nebulized medication that helps with breathing) that expired October 2024 and 3 boxes of ipratropium/albuterol 0.5 mg/3 mg that expired February 2025. These failures could place residents at risk for adverse effects and reduced therapeutic effects of medication. 1. Record review of an admission Record for Resident #35 dated 4/22/2025 indicated she admitted to the facility on [DATE] and was [AGE] years old with diagnoses of cerebral infarction (stroke), hemiplegia (paralyzed on one side of the body), COPD (a group of lung diseases that affect breathing) and aphasia (difficulty speaking). Record review of active physician orders for Resident #35 dated 4/22/25 did not indicate an order for albuterol 0.083% 3 ml. Record review of a Quarterly MDS Assessment for Resident #35 dated 2/5/2025 indicated a BIMS score of 0 as she was rarely/never understood. She had shortness of breath or trouble breathing when lying flat and used oxygen while a resident during the 14 day look back period. Record review of a care plan for Resident #35 dated 1/23/2025 indicated she had oxygen therapy related to ineffective gas exchange. Interventions indicated to monitor for signs and symptoms of respiratory distress and report to MD prn. 2. Record review of an admission Record for Resident #24 dated 4/22/2025 indicated she admitted to the facility on [DATE] and was [AGE] years old with diagnoses of cerebral infarction (stroke), hemiplegia affecting left dominant side (paralyzed on left side), and other pneumonia (lung infection). Record review of active physician orders for Resident #24 dated 4/22/25 did not indicate an order for albuterol 0.083%. Record review of a care plan for Resident #24 dated 3/11/2025 indicated she had an ADL self-care performance deficit related to hemiplegia affecting left dominant side. Record review of a Quarterly MDS Assessment for Resident #24 dated 2/26/2025 indicated she had moderate impairment in thinking with a BIMS score of 9. She had shortness of breath or trouble breathing with exertion and when lying flat. She used oxygen therapy during the 14 day look back period. 3. Record review of an admission Record for Resident #191 dated 4/22/2025 indicated she admitted to the facility on [DATE] and discharged on 3/10/2025. She was [AGE] years old with diagnoses of sepsis (infection in the blood), UTI (infection in the urinary tract) and age-related osteoporosis (brittle bones). Record review of active physician orders for Resident #191 dated 4/22/2025 indicated an order for ipratropium/albuterol 3 ml inhale orally every 8 hours as needed for shortness of breath with a start date of 12/20/2023. Record review of a Quarterly MDS Assessment for Resident #191 dated 11/1/2024 indicated she did not have any impairment in thinking with a BIMS score of 14. During the 14 day look back period she did not require oxygen therapy. Observation on 4/22/2025 at 8:38 am, in the Bluebonnet medication room for halls 500, 600, 700, and 800 with LVN C revealed: 1. Resident # 35 had a foil package of albuterol 0.083% 3 ml inhale orally via nebulizer every 4 hours as needed for wheezing that expired February 2025. 2. Resident #24 had a box of albuterol that expired February 2025. 3. Resident #191 had four boxes of ipratropium/albuterol. Three boxes expired February 2025 and the other box expired October 2024. During an interview on 4/22/2025 at 8:51 AM, LVN C said she had been employed at the facility for 2 years. She said the nurses, medication aides, DON, ADON and unit managers were responsible for checking the medication rooms for expired medications. She said the medication boxes of nebulizer treatments were placed in the bottom cabinet for overflow. She said the medications should have been discarded when the residents discharged . She said the medication rooms should be checked daily. She said residents could have adverse reactions if they were given medications that were expired. During an interview on 4/23/2025 at 8:50 AM, ADON said the nurses were responsible for checking the medication room daily and the nurse managers were to check them weekly. She said they checked for expired and discontinued medications. She said she was made aware of the nebulizer medications being found in the medication room on yesterday 4/22/2025. She said there could be a risk of the medications not being effective if given past the expiration date. During an interview on 4/23/2025 at 9:03 AM, the DON said the medication rooms were the responsibility of all nursing staff and they should be checked weekly by the nurse managers and daily by medication aides and nurses. She said they should check for expired, damaged, or discontinued medications. She said she was not aware of any expired medications in the medication room and said it was overlooked. She said if residents were given medications that were outdated, they would not get the therapeutic effect intended. During an interview on 4/23/2025 at 2:02 PM, the Administrator said the medication aides and unit managers should be checking daily to make sure medications were stored appropriately. He said medications that were outdated should be destroyed. Record review of a facility policy titled Storage of Medications revised April 2007 indicated, .The facility shall store all drugs and biologicals in a safe, secure, and orderly manner. 4. The facility shall not use discontinued, outdated, or deteriorated drugs or biologicals. All such drugs shall be returned to the dispensing pharmacy or destroyed .
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews the facility failed to ensure drugs and biologicals were stored in locked ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews the facility failed to ensure drugs and biologicals were stored in locked compartments under proper temperature controls for 1 of 18 rooms (room [ROOM NUMBER]) reviewed for pharmacy services. The facility failed to ensure a syringe of normal saline 0.9% (a solution used to maintain hydration) and 1 syringe of heparin 500 units per 5 ml (blood thinner) was were not on a bedside table in an unoccupied room (room [ROOM NUMBER]) on 4/21/2025. These failures could place residents at risk for adverse effects and reduced therapeutic effects of medication. Findings include: During an observation on 4/21/25 at 9:21 AM, an unoccupied room (room [ROOM NUMBER]) had 1 syringe of Normal Saline 0.9% and 1 syringe of heparin 500 units per 5 ml lying on a side table. During an interview on 4/21/25 at 9:33 am, LVN E said that the resident in room [ROOM NUMBER] was discharged to the hospital last week. She said she had only worked on 300 hall for a short time and was not sure why or how the medication was left in the room. She said that the normal saline and heparin syringes came as a house stock and should never be left at the bedside. She said all medications should be stored and secured appropriately either in the medication room or medication cart. She said that improper storage of medication could affect resident health. During an interview on 4/23/2025 at 8:50 AM, ADON said medications should be stored in the medication room and in medication carts and never left at the bedside. She said there could a risk of other residents going in the room and taking the medication if they were left. During an interview on 4/23/2025 at 9:03 AM, the DON saidmedications should never be left in the resident's room unless they are being administered. She said she was made aware of the medications of heparin and normal saline being left in a room of a resident who had discharged to the hospital. She said another resident could go in the room and get the medications if they were left unattended. During an interview on 4/23/2025 at 2:02 PM, the Administrator said the medication aides and unit managers should be checking daily to make sure medications were stored appropriately and should not be left in any resident rooms. He said residents could get the medications if they were left in rooms. Record review of a facility policy titled Storage of Medications revised April 2007 indicated, .The facility shall store all drugs and biologicals in a safe, secure, and orderly manner. 4. The facility shall not use discontinued, outdated, or deteriorated drugs or biologicals. All such drugs shall be returned to the dispensing pharmacy or destroyed .
CONCERN (D)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to establish and maintain an infection prevention and c...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for 1 of 6 residents (Resident #20) and 1 of 5 staff (CNA D) reviewed for infection control. CNA D failed to wear appropriate PPE for contact isolation precautions when providing care to Resident #20 on 4/21/2025. This failure could place residents at risk of exposure to infectious diseases due to improper infection control practices. Findings included: Record review of Resident # 20's facility face sheet revealed Resident #20 was a [AGE] year-old female and admitted on [DATE] with diagnosis of memory deficit following cerebrovascular disease. Record review of Resident #20's Quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed a BIMS of 13 indicating intact cognition and required supervision with activities of daily living. Record review of Resident #20's comprehensive care plan dated 3/27/2025 revealed Resident #20 had a urinary tract infection and monitor for signs and symptoms. Record review of Resident #20's consolidated physician's order dated 4/15/2025 revealed an order for contact isolation. During an observation on 04/21/25 at 12:40 pm CNA D was in Resident 20's room setting up her meal tray. CNA D did not have on PPE and Resident #20 required contact isolation per the signs on the outside of the room. CNA D was observed handling Resident #20's over bed table and bed remote control without any gloves or gown in place and CNA D left the room without performing hand hygiene. During an interview on 4/21/25 at 12:46 pm CNA D said she knew Resident # 20 was on contact isolation and was in a hurry to pass trays and forgot to put on her PPE. She said she had been trained on contact isolation precautions and by not following isolation precautions she could spread infections. During an interview on 4/23/25 at 9:59 am the ADON said she was the infection prevention nurse and was responsible for the infection control program and training all staff. She said if a resident was in contact isolation staff should be applying PPE before entering the room. She said if CNA D entered Resident #20's room and handled any belongings she should have had on her PPE. She said staff were trained on hire and frequently throughout the year on infection control and isolation precautions. She said if staff were not following the isolation precautions, infections could spread. During an interview on 4/23/25 at 10:12 am the DON said the ADON was responsible for the infection control program, but she was responsible for the oversight of all nursing staff. She said that staff were trained on isolation precautions and expected staff to follow the isolation precautions. She said if precautions for infections were not followed infections could spread. During an interview on 4/23/25 at 1:50 pm the Administrator said the DON was responsible for oversight of the infection control program and every staff member was trained on infection control on hire and throughout the year. He said he expected staff to follow the facility infection control program to prevent spread of infections. Record review of skills checklist dated 2/27/25 indicated CNA D had been trained on isolation, proper PPE use and handwashing. Record review of a facility policy titled Contact Precautions dated August 2012 indicated, .contact precautions are designed to reduce the risk of transmission of important microorganisms by direct or indirect contact. Direct-contact transmission also can occur between two Patients (e.g., by hand contact), with one serving as the source of infectious microorganisms and the other as a susceptible host. Indirect-contact transmission involves contact of a susceptible host with a contaminated intermediate object, usually inanimate, in the Patient's environment. In addition to wearing gloves as outlined under Standard Precautions, wear gloves (clean, non sterile gloves are adequate) when entering the room. In addition to wearing a gown as outlined under Standard Precautions, wear a gown (a clean, non sterile gown is adequate) when entering the room if you anticipate that your clothing will have substantial contact with the Patient, environmental surfaces, or items in the Patient's room .
CONCERN (E)

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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident who is unable to carry out activiti...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident who is unable to carry out activities of daily living receives the necessary services to maintain personal hygiene for 2 of 6 residents reviewed for ADLs (Residents #23 and Resident #24) 1.The facility failed to clean/groom Resident #23's fingernails. Resident #23 had long fingernails that were about an inch in length with a yellow-brown substance underneath them on 4/21/2025 and 4/22/2025. 2.The facility failed to clean/groom Resident #24's fingernails that had a black substance underneath them on 4/21/2025 to 4/23/2025. These failures could place residents who required assistance from staff for ADLs at risk of not receiving care and services to meet their needs which could result in poor care. Findings included: 1. Record review of an admission Record for Resident #23 dated 4/22/2025 indicated she admitted to the facility on [DATE] and was [AGE] years old with diagnoses of parkinsonism (nervous system disorder that causes tremors and loss of motor function), hypertensive heart disease with heart failure (heart problems caused from high blood pressure), and major depressive disorder (persistent sadness or loss of interest). Record review of a Quarterly MDS Assessment for Resident #23 dated 4/3/2025 indicated she did not have any impairment in thinking with a BIMS score of 15. She required supervision or touching assistance with personal hygiene. Record review of a care plan for Resident #23 dated 3/11/2025 indicated she had an ADL self-care performance deficit related to muscle wasting and atrophy. Interventions included bathing/showering: check nail length and trim and clean on bath day and as necessary. During an observation and interview on 4/21/2025 at 9:47 AM, Resident #23 was in her room in bed awake. She said she had been at the facility since February 2025. Her fingernails were long, about an inch in length and had a yellow-brown substance underneath them. She said they needed to be cleaned. During an observation on 4/21/2025 at 2:31 PM, Resident #23 was in bed resting. Her fingernails were still long and had a yellow-brown substance underneath them. During an observation and interview on 4/22/2025 at 11:10 AM, Resident #23 was in bed awake. She said she received a bed bath earlier that day on 4/22/2025 but the nurse aide did not trim her nails. She was picking at her nails. She said she would like to have them trimmed. During an observation and interview on 4/22/2025 at 11:42 AM, CNA A said she gave Resident #23 a bed bath earlier on 4/22/2025. She said Resident #23 was not diabetic. She said the nurse aides were responsible for cleaning and trimming nails of residents if they were not diabetic. She said she did not notice Resident #23's nails that day. She said the nurse aides were to clean and trim the resident's nails every shower/bath day. She said she would be upset if she had to depend on staff to trim or clean her nails. 2. Record review of an admission Record for Resident #24 dated 4/22/2 indicated she admitted to the facility on [DATE] and was [AGE] years old with diagnoses of cerebral infarction (stroke), hemiplegia affecting left dominant side (paralyzed on left side), major depressive disorder (persistent sadness or loss of interest) and PTSD (a condition caused by an extremely stressful or terrifying event). Record review of a Quarterly MDS Assessment for Resident #24 dated 2/26/2025 indicated she had moderate impairment in thinking with a BIMS score of 9. She was dependent on staff with personal hygiene. Record review of a care plan for Resident #24 dated 3/11/2025 indicated she had an ADL self-care performance deficit related to hemiplegia affecting left dominant side. Interventions included for bathing/showering-she was totally dependent on staff for bathing/showers. There was not a care plan to indicate that she resisted nail care. During an observation and interview on 4/21/2025 at 2:19 PM, Resident #24 was in her bed awake. Her fingernails were dirty with a black a substance underneath them. She said the staff did clean her nails, but she did not like them to clean them. She said she cleaned them herself and did not want the staff to clean them. During an observation and interview on 4/22/2025 at 3:03 PM, Resident #24 was in bed awake eating food with her fingers that consisted of a banana that was cut up into pieces, an avocado cut into slices, two pieces of cheese, and 5 Vienna sausage links. Her nails had a black substance underneath them. She said she received a bed bath earlier that day on 4/22/2025 and the staff did not clean her nails. She said she did not remember who gave her a bath. During an observation on 4/23/2025 at 8:44 AM, Resident #24 was in bed awake eating breakfast with her hands instead of using utensils that were on her tray. She said she liked to eat with her hands instead of using her utensils. Her nails had a black substance underneath them. She said she used her hands all the time when she ate, and her nails stayed dirty. She said she would not care if the staff cleaned her nails. During an interview on 4/23/2025 at 8:50 AM, the ADON said she had been employed at the facility for 2 years. She said nail care was to be performed by the nurse or nurse aides. She said the nurse would take care of the diabetic residents with cutting and cleaning their nails. She said nail care should be done on shower days. She said Resident #23 was not diabetic, but Resident #24 was. She said if she were dependent on staff to clean and care for her nails and they did not, it would make her feel dirty. During an interview on 4/23/2025 at 8:58 AM, RN B said she had been employed at the facility since September 2024 She said the nurses were responsible for nail care if the residents were diabetic and the nurse aides were responsible for nail care for the other residents. She said Resident #24 would often refuse nail care but was not sure the last time Resident #24 refused care. She said they usually checked nails weekly to see if they needed to be trimmed and cleaned them daily. She said if her nails were not clean, it would make her feel dirty. During an interview on 4/23/2025 at 9:03 AM, the DON said nail care was the responsibility of the nurse and nurse aides. She said if a resident was diabetic, then the nurse would be responsible for nail care. She said nail care should be done when needed with cutting and cleaning. She said she was not aware of any residents in the facility with dirty or long nails. She said they would take care of Resident #23 and Resident #24's nails. She said if her nails were dirty or long, it would make her feel gross. During an interview on 4/23/2025 at 2:02 PM, the Administrator said nail care was to be done every Sunday by the nurse aides and they should be cleaned and trimmed, unless they were diabetic then the nurse would be responsible. He said if he were dependent on staff to clean his nails, he would tell someone because he would not like it. Record review of a facility policy titled Care of Fingernails/Toenails revised October 2010 indicated, .The purposes of this procedure are to clean the nail bed, to keep nails trimmed, and to prevent infections. General guidelines: 1. Nail care included daily cleaning and regular trimming .
Jan 2025 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0602 (Tag F0602)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents had the right to be free from misappropriation of resident property for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for misappropriation. The facility failed to prevent misappropriation of property when CNA A took money via cash app from Resident #1 in the amount of $106.00 dollars. The noncompliance was identified as PNC. The noncompliance began on 05/10/2024 and ended on 05/10/2024. The facility had corrected the noncompliance before the survey began. This failure could affect residents by putting them at risk for not being able to meet financial needs and diminished quality of life. Findings included: Record review of Resident #1's electronic face sheet, dated 01/06/2025, indicated Resident #1 was a [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and discharged from the facility to home on [DATE] with two additional shorts stays (the latest stay admitted [DATE] and discharged to home 10/03/2024). Resident #1 had diagnoses of sepsis (systemic infection), atherosclerosis of bilateral lower extremities (decreased circulation with blockage by arteries and vessels of the lower legs), pain, and nausea. Record review of Resident #1's MDS assessment, dated 09/25/2024, indicated Resident #1 was understood by others and understood others. Resident #1 had a BIMS score of 14, which indicated the resident's cognition was intact. Record Review of an incident report created on 5/10/2024 at 6:00 p.m. by LVN C, This nurse notified by CNA B that Resident #1 had reported CNA A had access to resident's phone during the same time money was stolen, $106.00 was sent from resident's cash app to an account named Nessaaaa. Reported to DON and ADON. Requested statement from CNA and nurse went to resident's room to take a statement from resident. While in room, resident received an email that the $106.00 had been refunded. A cash app tag was attached to the refund. When this nurse searched the cash app, the account came up with the first name CNA A. Notified ADON and DON. Contacted Police Department and requested officer to facility. Officer to facility and took report and gave case #. All info reported to DON ADON, MD and Administrator. Record review of facility investigation report dated 05/11/24, included copies of documentation that the Administrator reported the misappropriation of $106.00 from Resident #1's cash app account to appropriate state agency, immediately suspended CNA A pending investigation, notified police department. The facility investigation included copies of completed employee- Abuse, Neglect & Exploitation in-service 05/11/24 and 5/12/24 with emphasis on misappropriation, documentation of completed resident interviews, documentation of completed resident safety surveys that indicated no reports of misappropriation by other residents and the residents interviewed felt safe at the facility, and a copy of employee disciplinary action form for suspension of CNA A on 05/10/24 completed per phone call. During a phone interview on 01/06/25 at 2:20 p.m., Resident #1 said she was a resident at the facility last May but was currently living at home. Resident #1 said last May she was planning to be discharged , when she asked CNA A to help her look at rent houses on her phone. After they viewed a few properties, CNA A proceeded with incontinent care, and she placed Resident #1's cell phone on the bedside table behind her. Resident # 1 said that it seemed like the care was taking too long and she became suspicious of what CNA A was doing. Resident #1 said after the care was completed, she looked at her phone and she had received a notification from her cash app that a $106.00 withdrawal/ scam alert. She said the money was returned to her account in less than an hour, after she confronted CNA A and alerted facility staff CNA B and LVN C. Resident #1 said she was very pleased how the facility handled the incident. She said that she received no harm due to the incident and she has had two additional short term stays at the facility since this incident. During interview with the DON on 01/07/25 at 2:30 p.m., the DON confirmed that CNA A never acknowledged she had taken the money, never returned to work, and was terminated via a phone call 05/16/24. The DON confirmed that police were notified (case # 24-00014617). During an observation and interview on 01/07/25 at 2:30 pm, LVN C said that the incident occurred as she reported in the incident and accident report. LVC C said she was immediately summoned to Resident #1's bedside and started notification and an investigation. LVN C said CNA A become nervous when Resident #1 confronted CNA A about the cash app being accessed and CNA A left the facility when the investigation started. LVN C shared screen shots of the cash transaction of $106.00 and refund that indicated a person by the first name of CNA A had made the transaction. Administrator not available for interview at time of investigation. Phone call attempted, no return call. Interviewed attempted by phone for CNA A with messages left with no return phone call. Record Review of a police report #2400014617 indicated: Public narrative, Nurse cash app's herself money from residents cash app without consent . Officer was at facility on 05/10/24 at 7:16 p.m. Officer obtained consent from Resident #1 to view cash app statements. The officer observed Resident #1 to receive a refund for $106.00 from CNA A. Resident #1 said that when she found the money missing, she confronted CNA A. Resident #1 said that CNA A became nervous and advised she had to leave. Resident #1 said that she received a refund from CNA A through her cash app. CNA A had already left the scene prior to arrival. Resident #1 wished to pursue charges on scene while speaking with officer. Case referred for processing. Review of Employee file revealed CNA A held a current Texas Nurse Aide Certification, was hired on 04/23/24 completed orientation to include abuse, neglect, exploitation, and misappropriation, maintaining resident rights including dignity, mail, visitors, personal property and telephone. Background Profile 04/09/24 reflected clear public records; Misconduct Registry 04/11/24 reflected no results found; Criminal History Conviction search reflected no search results found and a copy of the employee termination, completed with CNA A per phone call and signed by DON post complete investigation on 05/16/2024. During interviews with staff present on morning and evening shifts from 01/07/2025 10:00 am to 5:00 p.m. to 01/08/2025 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. revealed the staff were able to identify that the abuse coordinator was the Administrator. The staff said that they would report any abuse, neglect, exploitation, or misappropriation immediately, and had been trained on exploitation and misappropriation. A record review of the facility's Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation Policy revised April 2021 reflected that was the policy of the facility to 1. Protect resident from abuse, neglect, exploitation, or misappropriation of property by anyone including, but not necessarily limited to .a. facility staff. 2. Develop and implement policies and protocols to prevent and identify . c. theft, exploitation, or misappropriation of resident property.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to establish and maintain an infection prevention and ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for 1 of 16 residents (Resident #2) reviewed for infection control. The facility failed to ensure CNA D and CNA E wore appropriate PPE for enhanced barrier precautions when providing catheter care to Resident #2 on 1/6/25. This failure could place residents at risk of exposure to infectious diseases due to improper infection control practices. Findings include: Record review of a facility face sheet dated 1/6/25 for Resident #2 indicated that she was a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis of myocardial infarction (heart attack). Record review of a 5-day MDS assessment dated [DATE] for Resident #2 indicated that she had a BIMS score of 13, which indicated that she had intact cognition. She required partial/moderate assistance with toileting hygiene. She had an indwelling catheter and was occasionally incontinent of bowels. Record review of a comprehensive care plan dated 10/3/24 for Resident #2 indicated that she required enhanced barrier precautions due to having a urinary catheter and a chronic wound. Record review of a physician's order summary report dated 1/6/25 for Resident #2 indicated that she had an order to implement enhanced barrier precautions. During an observation and interview on 1/6/25 at 1:30 pm Resident #2 was observed in her room sitting up in a wheelchair. She was observed to have a foley catheter (an indwelling urinary drainage tube to drain urine from the bladder to a bag on the outside of the body). She said that staff do not wear gowns when providing personal care to her. She said she did not know they were supposed to do that. No signage indicating EBP was observed. No PPE box was observed inside or outside the room. During an observation on 1/6/25 at 3:40 pm CNA D and CNA E were observed to provide catheter care to Resident #2 in her room without donning gowns as required for enhanced barrier precautions. During a joint interview on 1/6/25 at 4:00 pm CNA D and CNA E both said they were not aware that Resident #2 required enhanced barrier precautions. They both said they had not received training on enhanced barrier precautions or when to use it. During an interview on 1/6/25 at 4:20 pm Regional Nurse Consultant said enhanced barrier precautions should be used on any resident that had an indwelling medical device such as a foley catheter, a chronic wound, and certain infectious organisms. She said Resident #2 required enhanced barrier precautions due to having a foley catheter and a chronic wound. During a joint interview on 1/6/25 at 1:45 pm IP, Regional Nurse Consultant, and DON all said they expected staff to follow proper infection control protocol with regards to enhanced barrier precautions. DON said they had already begun to in-service staff and would continue to do so to ensure compliance. DON said Resident #2 must have just gotten missed being placed on EBP when she returned from the hospital in December. All said residents who require enhanced barrier precautions could be at risk for increased infections if protocol is not followed. Record review of a facility Annual In-Service Packet dated 9/30/24 for CNA D indicated that she had received training on enhanced barrier precautions on 9/30/24. Record review of a facility Annual In-Service Packet dated 9/30/24 for CNA E indicated that she had received training on enhanced barrier precautions on 9/30/24. Record review of a facility policy titled Enhanced Barrier Precautions dated March 2024 read: .EBP is indicated for residents with any of the following: .Chronic wounds (pressure ulcers, diabetic foot ulcers, unhealed surgical wounds and venous stasis ulcers) and/or indwelling medical devices (devices fully embedded in the body, i.e., central lines, hemodialysis catheters, urinary catheters, feeding tubes and tracheostomy tubes) even if the resident is not known to be infected or colonized with a CDC-targeted MDRO . .EBP will be used when performing the following high-contact resident care activities: .providing hygiene .changing briefs or assisting with toileting .device care or use: central line, urinary catheter, feeding tube, tracheostomy . .Residents who are on EBP will have signage placed outside their room to alert staff of those residents who require the use of EBP prior to providing high-contact care activities . and; .The PPE cart will be placed directly inside the resident's room or immediately outside the room with gown and gloves .
Jun 2024 1 deficiency 1 IJ
CRITICAL (J) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from sexual abuse for 2...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from sexual abuse for 2 of 15 residents (Resident #1 and Resident #2) reviewed for abuse. 1. The facility failed to prevent sexual abuse for Resident #1 witnessed by CNA A on 06/08/2024 at approximately 2:00 p.m. to be in her room covered with a sheet and lying in bed with the Floor Tech. 2. The facility failed to prevent sexual abuse for Resident #2 that reported to CNA B on 06/08/2024 at 2:15 p.m. that the Floor Tech approximately two weeks prior had touched her hip, rubbed his penis against her while clothed, and asked if she was interested while making sexual body gestures. The noncompliance was identified as PNC. The IJ began on 06/08/2024 and ended on 06/08/2024. The facility had corrected the noncompliance before the survey began. This failure could place residents at risk for psychosocial harm, impaired quality of life in unsafe environment, and further abuse. Findings included: 1. Review of a face sheet for Resident #1, dated 06/25/2024, indicated she was a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses including: cerebral infarction (stroke), dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), UTI, mononeuropathy (nerve damage outside of brain and spinal cord), and anorexia (eating disorder). Review of Resident #1's quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], indicated she had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 08, indicating moderate impairment, and a short-term memory score of 1 indicating she had a memory problem. Resident #1's functional status indicated she was non-ambulatory and required substantial/maximal assistance with ADL's. Review of Resident #1's care plan, dated 06/25/2024, indicated she rejects care such as skin assessments and evaluation with a suspected history of personal trauma with interventions to include identifying staff that result in least resistance, talk to resident/family about reasons for refusal of care, and ensure physical and emotional safety. Review of written interview statement by Social Worker with Resident #1, dated 06/08/2024, reflected the following: .Social Worker attempted to interview patient regarding reported sexual assault. Patient was unable to provide appropriate responses to questions asked. Patient is alert oriented with confusion, able to make her needs known. She requires total assistance of staff for ADL care and transfers. Review of hospital records for Resident #1, dated 06/08/2024, indicated she was sent to the ER after being found in bed with male staff member. Hospital records indicated Resident #1 reported she was sleeping and does not remember a staff member being in bed with her. Hospital records indicated Resident #1 denied pain or discomfort, and GU and skin exam were negative for abnormalities, pelvic pain, or vaginal bleeding. Review of progress notes signed by the ADON, dated 06/09/2024, indicated a head to toe assessment was completed 06/08/2024 on Resident #1 with no adverse findings. Review of progress notes signed by LVN C, dated 06/09/2024, indicated CNA A reported that staff member was found in the bed under the covers with Resident #1 at 2:10 p.m. Progress notes indicated staff member was fully dressed and immediately rolled out of the bed to his knees stating, it's not what it looks like. Progress notes indicated LVN C ensured patient safety by removing staff member from room, police interviewed resident, and resident was sent to the hospital. Review of Psychosocial Well-Being signed by the Social Worker, dated 06/12/2024, indicated Resident #1 was alert and oriented with confusion, no signs and symptoms of distress noted or verbalized, was sent to the ER for evaluation and treatment, and referral was warranted to psychology and psychiatry services. 2. Review of a face sheet for Resident #2, dated 06/25/2024, indicated she was a [AGE] year-old female, admitted on [DATE] and transferred to another nursing facility on 06/24/2024. Resident #2's face sheet indicated she had diagnoses including vascular dementia (impaired thought process due to brain damage from impaired blood flow to the brain), major depressive disorder, heart failure, and UTI. Review of Resident #2's discharge MDS, dated [DATE], indicated she had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 11, indicating moderate impairment. Resident #2's mood indicated she had felt down, depressed, hopeless, with little interest in doing things for several days. Review of Resident #2's care plan, dated 06/25/2024, indicated she had interventions for suspected trauma to include ensure physical and emotional safety. Review of employee statement by CNA B, dated 06/08/2024, indicated the following: To whom it may concern I went to change [Resident #2] and she told me [Floor Tech], the housekeeper had got in the bed with her and was rubbing on her body with his hand and body. The resident told me that this has been going (on) 2 weeks on the weekends. Review of hospital records for Resident #2, dated 06/08/2024, reflected she was sent to the ER for complaints of being molested for 2 weeks and stated he rubbed his penis on the outside of her clothes two weeks ago. Resident #2's GU was negative for injury, bleeding, or discharge, and skin was negative for abnormalities. Review of progress notes signed by LVN C, dated 06/09/2024, indicated CNA B reported Resident #2 needed to talk to the nurse at 2:13 p.m. and Resident #2 told LVN C that a short black man with thick rimmed glasses with a lazy eye went into her room two weeks ago and rubbed his stuff on her, kissed her neck, and touched her breasts and hips. Progress Notes indicated LVN C notified the DON and ED was aware at 2:17 p.m., head to toe assessment was completed with no adverse findings, police interview resident, and was sent to the hospital. Review of progress notes signed by the ADON, dated 06/09/2024, indicated a head to toe assessment was completed 06/08/2024 on Resident #2 with no adverse findings. Review of employee statement by CNA A, dated 06/08/2024, indicated the following: I [CNA A] walked in [Resident #1's] room and (saw) the housekeeper [Floor Tech] in the bed with her (and) [Resident #2] told me and [CNA B] that [Floor Tech] had been in the bed with her and rubbing on her body. Review of written interview statement by Social Worker with Resident #2, dated 06/12/2024, reflected the following: Patient stated that two weeks ago, a short black guy, who wore maroon clothing, wearing big and bulky glasses with a soft voice meandered into her room and said hi. Patient stated that she did not remember his name. She wasn't sure if he told her his name. The patient says she was lying down in bed, and he was standing by bedside moving his body suggestively. Patient told him that she was not interested. He then made a sarcastic statement voicing his opinion that it was ok. Patient stated that he touched her left hip and started moving his body so she would get the idea. He was moving suggestively his thing back and forth in front of her. Patient stated that this same type of incident has happened twice. Patient says he never got in bed or touched her in any other places. Review of provider investigation report, dated 06/13/2024, reflected the following: . Facility Investigation Findings: Confirmed . Investigation Summary Incident: Per staff member [CNA A] staff member [Floor Tech] was found in the bed with [Resident #1]. [Resident #2] reported that a man that wears thick glasses and a lazy eye rubbed his stuff on her and touched her . Summary of Assessments: Both resident[s] received a head-to-toe assessment with no adverse findings. Timeline 06/08/2024 1410 (2:10 p.m.) [CNA A] Nurse Aide reported to charge nurse [LVN C], that during rounds she noted [Floor Tech] lying in bed under the covers with [Resident #1]. Per [CNA A], [Floor Tech] was fully dressed and immediately rolled out of bed to his knees stating, It's not what it looks like. Nurse assessed patient with no adverse findings. 1412 (2:12 p.m.) [LVN C] reported events to [DON]. DON called [ED] to report what was reported to her. Per our [CNA A] [Floor Tech] was following her around the building repeatedly telling her it's not what you think, and it's not what it looks like. [LVN A] was instructed to get the staff together and search the building for [Floor Tech] and get him to the front of the building and away from the resident care areas. 1415 (2:15 p.m.) [CNA B], nurse aide, reported to [LVN A], that resident [Resident #2] needed to talk to her. Stating it is the same thing going on as the other one. Per [LVN A] she went directly to the room and spoke with [Resident #2] in room [Resident #2's room] while staff searched for [Floor Tech]. 1417 (2:17 p.m.) [LVN A] reported to [DON], that resident [Resident #2] reported that a shirt black man with thick rimmed glasses with a lazy eye went into her room two weeks ago and rubbed his stuff on her, kissed her neck, and touched her breasts and hips. [DON] made [ED] aware of what was reported. [Police Department] called for an officer to come to the building. 1424 (2:24 p.m.) [LVN A] escorted [Floor Tech] to the front of the building. He was not in the resident care areas and [LVN A] stayed with him one to one until police arrived. [6:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.] staff were phoned to come back to the facility to give statements and provide an interview with the police. 1434 (2:34 p.m.) [Police Department] arrived and took [Floor Tech] into the conference room for questioning and instructed [LVN A] to await questioning in the chapel. 1440 (2:40 p.m.) MD made aware of incident with noted new orders to send both residents to the ER for evaluation and treatment. 1447 (2:47 p.m.) [CNA B], nurse aide arrived back to the facility for interview and statement retrieval and was asked to await questioning in the admissions office. 1449 (2:49 p.m.) Resident families notified per [Social Worker]. Family voice understanding of information given. 1450 (2:50 p.m.) Two police officers joined [CNA B] in the admissions office for questioning and statement collection. 1455 (2:55 p.m.) [CNA A], nurse aid, arrived back to facility for statement and interview and was asked to stay at the receptionist desk area and await interviewing. Four police officers question [LVN C], as to where the residents live and she escorted them to the residents rooms. Two police officers entered the room of [Resident #1] and two others entered the room of [Resident #2] to question and take statements. [Social Worker] made aware of the situation, and she reported that she was headed to the building to start life safety rounds. 1507 (3:07 p.m.) [CNA B]' interview completed, and she was asked by police to wait in the lobby until the detective arrived. 1508 (3:08 p.m.) [LVN A] was taken into the Chapel and [CNA A] was taken into the admissions office for interview and questioning by [Police Department]. Statements retrieved and staff were asked to wait for the investigator to arrive for additional questioning. Police kept all staff separate from each other. [Social Worker] at building performing life safety rounds. 1515 (3:15 p.m.) Police reported to [LVN A] that the interview was completed at this, and she was free to go back to the floor and finish her tasks. 1526 (3:26 p.m.) [DON] and [ADON] arrived at the building and spoke to police and were escorted to the admission office. An officer came into the office and gave a summary of events and allegations. In-service education started on abuse, neglect, exploitation, reportable incident protocol, accident and incidents, abuse prevention program, abuse prohibition protocol, HIPPA and privacy laws, and media policy. 1618 (4:18 p.m.) The detective arrived at the building and entered the conference room with [Floor tech]. Noted questioning started at that time. Background checks [of] 100% of employees to be completed. The detective and two police officers approached CNA A and CNA B and asked if they would be willing to testify in court as to what they saw and what happened. Noted both said yes, that they would. 1723 (5:23 p.m.) [Floor Tech] was taken out of the building in handcuffs and transported to a police SUV. DON spoke with the detective to see if there was any other needed information or details that he could share with us. Perfect detective, [Floor Tech] will be charged with a state grade felony and taken to jail. 1733 (5:33 p.m.) Residents [Resident #1] and [Resident #2] transportation was set up via (by) [transportation service] to [hospital] for evaluation and treatment as well as SANE evaluation. 1745 (5:45 p.m.) [transportation service] arrived with two ambulances and transferred each resident x2 people to the stretcher, tolerated well. No complaints of pain/discomfort. VS stable. 1800 (6:00 p.m.) 100% audit completed on skin assessment her LVN D, LVN E, LVN F, LVN G. No new adverse findings. 2100 (9:00 p.m.) [Resident #2] return from the hospital with no new orders. SANE Visit unable to be performed due to reported event being over 180 hours ago. New suggestion for the resident to be seen at [an intermediate care facility] for counseling. Per [MD] resident can use in-house psych services instead. 0400 (4:00 a.m.) Resident [Resident #1] return from the hospital. Her hospital no new diagnosis. Wrote order for Macrobid but house MD reported that current treatment is better for UTI and not to change the treatment at this time. Resident in stable condition. 06/10/2024 0830 (8:30 a.m.) Emergency QAPI performed and in-servicing continued. Investigation continued and employee questionnaires and acknowledgements. 06/12/204 1100 (11:00 a.m.) DON called and spoke with dispatch with [Police Department] to inquire about the police report. Per dispatch the detective was out of the office and a message must be left. Message left for [Detective] at [phone number] and awaiting a call back for case number 24-18035. 06/13/2024 1030 (10:30 a.m.) [Medical records] requested hospital records for both patients' ER visit on 06/08/2024 be sent to facility. Awaiting records. 1400 (2:00 p.m.) Received records from hospital. 1500 (3:00 p.m.) DON placed follow up call to psych services regarding psychological evaluation on both patients 1515 (3:15 p.m.) DON placed follow up call to police department to request report. 06/14/2024 0840 (8:40 a.m.) [Psychologist] on site to evaluate both patients. Notes to be sent. Actions taken by facility: Reported to HHSC. Employee was immediately removed from the patient care area until police arrived. Police department notified. Both patients were sent to the ER for evaluation and treatment as indicated. 100% Abuse Questionnaires/safe surveys of interviewable patients. 100% head to toe assessments of non-interviewable patients. 100% rounds of all patients to ensure their safety. Request video footage from family to review incident, if available. Psychosocial assessments completed. Referrals to [psych service]. Abuse Questionnaire for 100% of staff. 100% audit of employee background checks. 100% of interview/statements from staff members. Note any history of unusual behaviors with the suspected employee. Sex registry check on suspect. Grievances. Completion of Accident/Incident Reports. Review of employee's schedule and time punch detail. Review of employee file and prior BGC (background check}. In-service on abuse and identify sexual abuse. In-service Abuse Prohibition Protocol. In-service on Media Police and HIPPA. Notification to RPs. Physician Notification. Notification to the Ombudsman. Conclusion: After questioning the staff and alleged perpetrator, [Floor Tech] was taken to jail by police. He was terminated from [the facility] and a criminal trespass would be issued per police officer. Review of psychiatric consult by Psychologist, dated 06/14/2024, reflected the following: .[Resident #1] Diagnostic assessment was completed with (patient) indicating informed consent. (Patient) required intermittent support to remain adequately engaged. She gestured indicating she feels depressed and anxious. Patient demonstrated poor eye contact and actively turned away at one point. When psychoeducation related to sexual assault was provided. (Patient) made eye contact and asked how anyone could possibly understand how she feels. She went on to provide she worked as a nurse in the past. Patient cried and ceased to speak in an easily understandable manner, but repeated the word 'fear' and referred to difficulty with urination. Collateral information indicates patient's communication function, as demonstrated in assessment, is typical. Additionally, (patient) reportedly demonstrates periods of agitation at times. (Patient) indicated emotions including anger, fear, depression, and anxiety difficulty with reliable and consistent communication complicates assessment and treatment. Available data indicates evidence of depression, anxiety, and PTSD. Diagnostic clarity may improve over time and (diagnosis) should be updated accordingly. As {patient} demonstrates ability to communicate effectively at times, it is recommended psychotherapy services be provided to determine whether she may benefit . Review of psychiatric consult by Psychologist, dated 06/14/2024, reflected the following: .[Resident #2] Diagnostic assessment was completed with (patient) providing informed consent and participating fully in session. She responded to rating scales in a manner consistent with interview and collateral data. (Patient) acknowledged she was sexually assaulted recently and feels angry about the violation(s). (Patient declined to discuss details of the assault(s). (Patient) commented on feeling overwhelmed by the combination of recent sexual assault with existing somatic and dependence-related stressors. (Patient_ was in favor of pursuing psychotherapy services to address affective and behavioral symptoms. Initial impressions suggest (patient) is demonstration sx (symptoms) consistent with moderate anxiety disorder, mild depression, and acute PTSD. (Patient) made no requests for changes or supports at present. She reported feeling safe in the NF (Nursing Facility) . During an interview on 06/21/2024 at 3:21 p.m., the Administrator and DON said the Administrator was the abuse coordinator and that he had been employed for one week at the facility and the DON had been employed since December 2023. The Administrator said he was aware of a sexual abuse allegation that was self reported but that it occurred prior to his employment at the facility. The DON said she was aware of the sexual abuse allegation that was a self reported incident concerning the Floor Tech. The DON said there was an allegation of sexual abuse on 06/08/2024 when CNA A was making rounds in the hallway she had noticed a residents door was shut and when she opened the door the Floor Tech was in the bed with Resident #1. The DON said there was no harm to the resident noted and she was sent to the ER for an evaluation and she came back to the facility with a suggestion for UTI and no other orders. The DON said Resident #1 was evaluated by a SANE nurse and the DON had been calling the Investigator daily to get those results because the hospital would not release them since they were under investigation. The DON said there were no concerns with the Floor Tech's background history and that he had a clear record. The DON said the Floor Tech was brought to the front of the building immediately to ensure resident safety and two staff members sat with him until the police came and he was escorted off the property. The DON said he was arrested, did not know he was currently in jail but that he got bonded out on Sunday, 06/09/2024. The DON said the family was notified and was not sure if they decided to press charges. The DON said it was important residents were free from sexual abuse to ensure their well-being and safety and in response to the incident the facility completed 100% of skin assessments on residents, social life safety rounds,and in-servicing on abuse. The DON said there was one other resident, Resident #2, identified with related concerns. The DON said Resident #2 reported about 2 weeks prior the Floor Tech had came into her room and was rubbing his private area on her body and had touched and kissed her neck. The DON said Resident #2 did not mention any other times and said it only happened once. During an interview on 06/21/2024 at 4:09 p.m., the Ombudsman said she had a concern that she received a self report that a staff member was found in the bed with a resident. During an observation on 06/21/2024 at 4:28 PM, Resident #1 was laying in bed on her left side covered with sheet, bed in low position, and the door to room was open with her television on. Resident #1 did not respond to greeting or questions and appeared in no apparent distress. During an interview on 06/25/2024 at 9:30 a.m., CNA A said she had been employed at the facility since April 2024. CNA A said on 06/08/2024 around or after 1:00 p.m., she walked in the room and saw the Floor Tech lying behind Resident #1. CNA A said Resident #1 had her eyes closed facing the door, lying on her side and the Floor Tech was lying on his side behind her under the covers. CNA A said the Floor Tech appeared to have his clothes on and when he rose up he spinned the covers around and started to act like he was cleaning her bed. CNA A said she did not notice any facial grimacing on Resident #1 at the time of the incident and could see her brief was on and it appeared to be on appropriately and there were no other individuals in the room. CNA A said Resident #1's door was closed and she was a fall risk so staff leave the door open. CNA A said when the Floor Tech rose up from the bed he put his hand across her wiping the bed off and said the bed was wet and grabbed the covers off of her and went to put it in the laundry. CNA A said it was important to protect residents from abuse to ensure their safety and told CNA B that she had to report something to the nurse and when she saw LVN C she reported to her immediately. CNA A said CNA B was a witness that saw the Floor Tech come out of the room. CNA A said LVN C checked on Resident #1 and was calling and notifying management when the Floor Tech was following CNA A around trying to persuade her she did not see anything. CNA A said after she reported to LVN C, she entered Resident #2's room with CNA B and Resident #2 began to report a related concern of staff being inappropriate with her and described the Floor tech's appearance. CNA A said after they reported Resident #2's concern to LVN C it was the end of her shift and she had to return to the facility the same day to write a statement and the police ended up taking the Floor Tech to jail. CNA A said Resident #2 reported they had the wrong people working in this facility and that the little dark man had been rubbing on her. CNA A said Resident #2 reported to CNA B that the Floor Tech had been coming in her room touching and rubbing on her. CNA A said the Floor Tech may have done it to more but no other residents have reported any related concerns that she was aware of and had not noticed any scratches or changes in behavior such as resident being withdrawn. CNA A said Resident #1 is sometimes confused and had been acting normal with no apparent changes. CNA A said Resident #2's family came to get her. CNA A said the facility put interventions in place to prevent sexual abuse by removing the Floor Tech from resident care areas, providing in-services on abuse, and completing assessments on all residents. During an interview on 06/25/2024 at 10:09 a.m., CNA B said she had been employed since November 2015 and had received training on abuse by in-services within the last month and did not suspect abuse at this facility other than the concern with the Floor Tech. CNA B said it was important for residents to be free from abuse to ensure residents safety. CNA B said she noticed the Floor Tech seemed different that day (06/08/2024) and he had his housekeeping cart on her hall and was not cleaning. CNA B said she works with CNA A and felt that the Floor tech was watching what hall they were working on because they had just finished checking on Resident #1's hall. CNA B said they decided to check on the same hall again before ending their shift and realized Resident #1's door was shut. CNA B said they never shut Resident #1's door because she was a fall risk. CNA B said CNA A came out of the room directly across from Resident #1 and when she came out of the room she saw the door was closed and thought CNA B was in there because she was a two person assist. CNA B said CNA A went in the room, came out, and told her what she saw then notified LVN C. CNA B said she finished the room she was in and went to Resident #2's room. CNA B said at that time, Resident #2 said she needed to talk and needed her help. CNA B said she reassured Resident #2 and that she could tell her anything and Resident #2 asked if CNA B could keep a man out of her room that met Floor Tech's description as a short, bald man that wears big glasses and has one eye that is lazy. CNA B said Resident #2 told her the man keeps getting in the bed with her and he was rubbing his hand and body all over her. CNA B said Resident #2 reported the Floor Tech incident always happened on the weekend when he was working and had been going on for two weeks. CNA B said she left out of the door to confront the Floor Tech and CNA A reminded her not to get angry with him and she calmed down. CNA B said the Floor Tech was following them trying to persuade CNA B and CNA A it wasn't what they saw and they told him to leave them alone. CNA B said LVN C got him in the conference room immediately following report of the incident and was instructed she could not leave until the DON and police came. CNA B said she wrote out her statement and the police cuffed him and took him out of the door. CNA B said there was one resident, Resident #3, that reported a week before that the Floor Tech had went in her room and was standing over her bed. CNA B said the facility was thinking Resident #3 was not herself because she is sometimes confused. CNA B said she felt the facility handled the situation appropriately and that there was a sweep of the facility to check on all the residents. During an interview on 06/25/2024 at 11:00 a.m., LVN C said she had been employed since January 2024. LVN C said at that the moment she did not suspect abuse and had received training on abuse by in-services with the most recent this week. LVN C said she was the charge nurse notified when the Floor Tech was found in the room with Resident #1. LVN C said CNA A notified her and she immediately went down to check on the resident and report while she had another nurse aide stay with Resident #1. LVN C said while she was reporting that incident, another aide notified her of Resident #2's similar concern. LVN C said she had that aide stay with Resident #2 and obtained the Floor Tech and notified police. LVN C said when she checked on Resident #1 she was fine and was her normal self, normally confused and disoriented with no new injuries. LVN C said Resident #1 did not know what was going on and she did not remember the Floor Tech had gotten in the bed with her. LVN C said her peri area was checked with no concerns and her diaper was fastened on all 4 contact points appropriately. LVN C said she was wearing clothes that were not disoriented at all. LVN C said Resident #2 reported that about two weeks ago, a short man with thick glasses and a lazy eye came into her room and was rubbing his junk on her and touching on her. LVN C said Resident #2 did not tell anyone and when asked why she said she was out of her mind and was not eating or drinking and had altered mental status due to a fall. LVN C said she assessed Resident #2 and she had no injuries. LVN C said Resident #2 reported she had her clothes on but he was kissing her neck and touching on her and denied that he made penetration. LVN C said Resident #2 told her he had not taken his clothes off around her and she did not say anything about her roommate. LVN C said to ensure residents were safe and free from abuse the facility did in-service training, a facility wide skin sweep, and interviews with the social worker. During an interview on 06/25/2024 at 11:38 a.m., the Social Worker said she got the report that one of the CNA's walked in the room and Floor Tech was in bed with Resident #1. The Social Worker said she interviewed the entire building that was interviewable. The Social Worker said she did have one resident, Resident #2, that stated the Floor Tech had came in her room and he was standing in front of her gesturing and saying it would be okay and rubbed her leg that occurred on two occasions and he touched her and posturing himself in front of her to put his body in her face moving his body around. The Social Worker said the facility completes background checks and checks employee history prior to hire. During an interview on 06/25/2024 at 12:00 p.m., LVN E said she had been employed off and on since 2022 and did not suspect abuse at the facility. LVN E said she received in-services on abuse and when they should report to state concerning some reportables that happened within the past couple of weeks. LVN E said it was important to ensure residents were free from abuse to ensure their safety. LVN E said she was not here when the Floor Tech was found in Resident #1's room and that no residents have reported to her of any inappropriate behavior from male staff. During an interview on 06/25/2024 at 1:54 PM, the RP said he was in the process of getting Resident #1 transferred closer to him. RP said the facility reports any problem with Resident #1 and had received a report of staff being inappropriate with Resident #1. RP said he was aware that the facility put him on administrative leave and he did not decided to press charges but has decided to move her to another facility closer to him in the central Texas area. During an interview and observation on 06/25/2024 at 4:35 p.m., Resident #2 was interviewed at her new nursing home facility. Resident #2 was laying in her bed. Resident #2 said she liked being in the new facility. Resident #2 said when she was at her old [facility] a short stocky black man molested her. Resident #2 said she reported the incident, and the facility fired him. Resident #2 said the man put his hands on her sides and rubbed himself on her stomach while she laid in her bed. When asked what she meant by he rubbed himself she said his penis. Resident #2 said he did not take his penis out and he did not take off her clothing. Resident #2 said when the man rubbed himself on her it made her feel sick and terribly dirty. Resident #2 said she was not physically hurt because she did not fight back. Resident #2 said she did not fight back because she wanted to get it over with. When asked if the man said anything to her, she said you mustn't tell anyone. When asked if he said anything else Resident #2 replied a bunch of stupid love stuff. Resident #2 said after the incident she stayed close to her roommate because if her roommate was around, he wouldn't bother her. Resident #2 said her roommate was usually in her room so she would stay in her room. Resident #2 said her roommate was not in her room at the time of the incident. Review of in-service signed by the Floor Tech, dated between 05/13/2024 through 05/16/2024, reflected education was provided to staff [NAME][TRUNCATED]
Mar 2024 9 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0553 (Tag F0553)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure the resident and the resident's representatives the right t...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure the resident and the resident's representatives the right to participate in the development and implementation of his or her person-centered plan of care for 1 of 6 residents (Resident #4) reviewed for care plans. The facility failed to invite and include the input of the resident responsible party as members of the interdisciplinary team after the completion of the comprehensive assessment for Resident #4. This failure could place the residents at risk for decreased quality of life and not having their needs met. Findings included: Record review of a facility face sheet dated 3/6/24 for Resident #4 indicated that she was a [AGE] year-old woman admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of dementia. Record review of a Quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] for Resident #4 indicated that she had a BIMS score of 5, which indicated that she had severe cognitive impairment. Record review of a Quarterly Care Plan Conference invitation letter sent to Resident #4's responsible party indicated that it was sent for the meeting scheduled on April 20, 2023. No invitations were found after this date. During a telephone interview on 3/4/24 at 4:05 pm Resident #4's responsible party said that she had not been invited to or involved in a care plan meeting in almost a year. During an interview on 3/6/24 at 11:10 am the RNC provided the letter for the April 20, 2023 conference. She said that was the last letter sent out. During an interview on 3/6/24 at 2:10 pm the SW said that they had been without an MDS nurse for nearly a year. She stated someone offsite was doing it and she was not receiving the calendar for sending the letters out. She said that she was now making her own calendar to keep up with it and would make sure that she did not miss anymore letters. She said that the facility had been holding the meetings, she just had been failing to send the letters out. She said that she could see where some residents could be at risk of not having personalized care without family input. Record review of a facility policy titled Care Planning - Interdisciplinary Team dated 2001, revised September 2013, read .The resident, the resident's family, and/or the resident's legal representative/guardian or surrogate are encouraged to participate in the development of and revisions to the resident's care plan .
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0602 (Tag F0602)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the right to be free from misappropriation o...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the right to be free from misappropriation of property for 1 of 4 residents reviewed for misappropriation of property. (Resident #124). The facility failed to prevent a diversion (misappropriation) of Resident #124's Zofran tablets (used to treat nausea and vomiting) a total of 4 tablets. This failure could place residents at risk for decreased quality of life, misappropriation of property, and dignity. Findings included: Record review of a facility face sheet dated 3/6/24 for Resident #124 indicated that she was a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of acute posthemorrhagic anemia (a condition that develops when you lose a large amount of blood quickly and it causes a low number of red blood cells or a low amount of hemoglobin in your red blood cells). Record review of a Comprehensive MDS assessment dated [DATE] indicated that Resident #124 had a BIMS score of 15 which indicated that she was cognitively intact. Record review of a physician order report dated 3/6/24 for Resident #124 indicated that she had a physician order for ondansetron (Zofran) 4mg disintegrating tablets, 1 tablet as needed every 6 hours for nausea with a starting date of 2/27/24. Record review of Medication Administration Records for Resident #124 for the months of February 2024 and March 2024 indicated that she did not receive any doses of Zofran. During an observation on 3/5/24 at 3:54 pm the state surveyor randomly chose 3 narcotic cards to compare to count book on nurse's medication cart. No discrepancies were found. During an observation on 3/6/24 at 2:00 pm 7 tablets of Zofran in individual blister packs were observed in the DON's office. These were found in LVN B's personal belongings on 3/4/24 by the DON and the Administrator. A label with Resident #124's identifying information was stuck to 2 of the tablets. Also observed was an empty package with Resident #124's prescription information indicating that it had been filled on 2/27/24 with a quantity of 4 tablets. This packaging had been found in the trash after finding the tablets in LVN B's possession. A telephone interview was attempted on 3/6/24 at 9:55 am with LVN B. No answer was received, a voicemail was left requesting a return phone call. Another attempt was made at 2:18 pm on 3/6/24, the phone rang twice, then disconnected. The state surveyor was unable to leave a voicemail at this time. No return phone call was received before exit. During a telephone interview on 3/6/24 at 2:18 pm, CNA A said that on 3/4/24 she had witnessed LVN B at the medication cart and heard a pop .pop .pop . like she was removing medications. She then witnessed LVN B go to the nurse's station and sit down. CNA A said that LVN B always kept her purse at the nurse's station. She said that she then heard what sounded like LVN B putting medications in a bottle. She said that she immediately went to the DON to report the allegation. During an interview on 3/6/24 at 2:30 pm the DON said that she had immediately went to LVN B with the RNC and the Administrator. She said that they asked her about the allegation, which LVN B denied. She said that LVN B agreed to let them look in her purse. She said that she found LVN B's personal medications along with 7 tablets of Zofran in separate blister packs along with Resident #124's identifying prescription information. She said that LVN B said that she did not know how the medication got there. The DON said that LVN B was counseled, and drug tested with permission. She said that LVN B was suspended pending investigation, but LVN B voluntarily terminated at that time. The DON said that she also found an empty package with Resident #124's prescription information in the trash on LVN B's medication cart. She said that the package was empty and had been filled with 4 tablets. She was unsure where the other 3 tablets of Zofran came from. She said that they had looked through the narcotics and did not find anything else missing. She also said that they had called the pharmacy consultant to come in and do a review. During an interview on 3/6/24 at 2:53 pm the Administrator said that the CNA had reported the allegation to the DON. He said that he went with the DON to the nurse and LVN B denied the allegations. He said that they asked to look in her purse. He said that they went into an empty resident room and emptied her bag out. He said that all of LVN B's personal medications were in there along with the Zofran tablets for Resident #124. He said that LVN B said that they weren't hers. He said that they then did a cart count with the DON, LVN B, and himself and all counts were accurate. He said that the incident was reported to the police, and they started education and in-services. He said that they will be doing random spot-checks to hopefully prevent incident from occurring again. During an interview on 3/6/24 at 3:00 pm the RNC said that she had called the consultant pharmacist regarding the incident and that he would be coming next week to do a review. Record review of a facility policy titled Identifying Exploitation, Theft ,and Misappropriation of Resident Property dated 2001, revised April 2021 read .'Misappropriation of resident property' means the deliberate misplacement, exploitation, or wrongful, temporary or permanent use of a resident's belongings or money without the resident's consent . and .Examples of misappropriation of resident property includes: .drug diversion (taking the resident's medication) .
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0638 (Tag F0638)

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 assess each resident quarterly (every 3 months or 92 days) using th...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to assess each resident quarterly (every 3 months or 92 days) using the MDS (minimum data set) form specified by the state and approved by CMS (Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services) for 1 of 6 residents (Resident # 271) reviewed for quarterly assessments. The facility failed to ensure Resident # 271 had a quarterly MDS assessment completed within 3 months or 92 days from the previous assessment that was completed on 07/26/2023. This failure could place residents at risk of not receiving necessary care or receiving inappropriate care for their conditions. Findings included: Record review of a facility face sheet dated 3/06/2024 indicated Resident #271 was a [AGE] year-old male and admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of cervical disc disorder (disorder of the bones in the neck). Record review of the MDS assessment list indicated Resident #271 had an admission MDS assessment completed on 7/26/2023 however did not receive a quarterly assessment until 12/22/2023. A quarterly MDS assessment was due on or before 10/26/2023. During an interview on 03/06/2024 at 2:29 PM the MDS coordinator stated that she started at the facility at the end of October 2023 and was not sure why Resident #271 did not have a quarterly MDS assessment completed. She stated Resident #271 was on managed care and may have been the reason it was missed. She stated that all residents should get a MDS Assessment within 14 days of admission, quarterly every 92 days and as needed for any significant change in condition, despite payor source. She stated if MDS assessments were not done accurately it could affect resident care. During an interview on 03/06/2024 at 2:42 PM the RCC (regional care coordinator) stated he oversaw the MDS nurse at the facility. He stated the previous MDS nurse missed the quarterly MDS assessment on Resident #271. He stated Resident #271 should have had an assessment within 92 days of the completion of the admission assessment. He stated the facility had not had a full time MDS nurse until October 2023 and assessments were being completed offsite. He stated when the MDS system changed in October 2023 they had software issues and that could have been the cause for it being missed. He stated if assessments were not done the care plan would not be accurate and could affect resident care. He stated he expected the MDS nurse to follow and track the assessments to ensure they were done per the regulations. During an interview on 03/06/2024 at 4:55 PM the administrator stated that the MDS coordinator was responsible but at that time the MDS assessments were done off site and he was not sure how MDS assessments were monitored. He stated the RCC assisted the MDS nurse with the assessment schedules and if a MDS assessment was not done per timeframes the care plan would not be up to date. He stated he expected the MDS nurse to follow the timeframe for all MDS assessments. He stated the facility did not have a policy for MDS timeframes and submission and followed the RAI (resident assessment instrument) manual for MDS assessment completion and submission.
CONCERN (D)

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

Incontinence Care (Tag F0690)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to ensure a resident who was incontinent of bladder received appropriate treatment and services to prevent urinary tract infections and to restore continence to the extent possible for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #63) reviewed for indwelling catheters. The facility failed to prevent Resident #63's urinary catheter drainage bag from touching the floor. These failures could place residents at risk for inappropriate placement of indwelling catheters, discomfort or injury, and urinary tract infections. Findings included: Record review of a facility face sheet dated 3/6/24 for Resident #63 indicated that he was a [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of essential hypertension (high blood pressure). Record review of a Comprehensive MDS Assessment for Resident #63 dated 1/8/24 reflected that he had a BIMS score of 7, which indicated that he had severe cognitive impairment. Section H indicated that he used a urinary catheter. Record review of a Comprehensive Care Plan dated 3/6/24 for Resident #63 indicated that it did not address the use of a urinary catheter. During an observation on 3/4/24 at 12:20 pm Resident #63 was observed sitting at a table in the dining room with his drainage bag underneath his wheelchair, touching the floor. A restorative aide was observed to remove the resident from the dining room and push him down the hallway with the drainage bag dragging on the floor. During an observation on 3/4/24 at 2:47 pm, Resident #63 was observed lying in bed asleep with his bed in low position. Urinary drainage bag was observed to be hanging from the bed with the bottom of the bag on the floor. During an observation on 3/5/24 at 9:04 am, Resident #63's drainage bag was noted to be hanging from the bed and the drainage bag touching the floor. During an interview on 3/5/24 at 9:20 am, LVN C said that she would get with the DON to see what to do about the bag being on the floor. She said that his bed needed to stay in the low position. She said that the bag should not be placed on the floor and by being on the floor, it could increase the risk for infections. During an interview on 3/5/24 at 9:25 am the DON said that she would figure out some way to keep his bag off the floor. She said that she understood that the bag being on the floor increased the risk for infection. She said that she expected her staff to follow policy of keeping the bag off the floor. During an interview on 3/6/24 at 11:00 am the DON said that they had ordered some low bed specific drainage bags and would be using a basin or a tub until they came in to keep the bag off the floor. She said that she would also be providing in-services for education for nursing staff regarding this. During an interview on 3/6/24 at 2:53 pm the Administrator said that the catheter bag should not be on the floor because it could cause infection, or the bag could tear or leak. He said that he would plan on doing observations and implementing education to help prevent this. Record review of a facility policy titled Catheter Care, Urinary dated 2001, revised September 2014 read .be sure the catheter tubing and drainage bag are kept off the floor .
CONCERN (D)

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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to ensure that residents requiring respiratory care wer...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to ensure that residents requiring respiratory care were provided care, consistent with professional standards of practices for 2 of 13 residents reviewed for respiratory care (Residents #7 and #122). 1.The facility failed to ensure Resident #7's nebulizer mask was changed per the facility's policy. 2.The facility failed to ensure Resident #122's humidifier bottle and tubing for the oxygen concentrator were changed per the facility's policy and Physician orders. These failures could place residents who require respiratory care at risk for respiratory infections, breathing in dust and allergens, decreased effectiveness of oxygen concentrators, and exacerbation of respiratory distress. Findings included: 1.Record review of a facility face sheet dated 3/6/24 for Resident #7 indicated that she was an [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of hemiplegia following cerebral infarction (weakness/paralysis due to a stroke). Record review of a Quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] for Resident #7 indicated that she had a BIMS score of 9, which indicated that she had moderately impaired cognition. Section O indicated that she had received nebulizer treatments for at least 15 minutes for 7 of the previous 7 days of the assessment reference date (2/6/24). Record review of Medication Administration Records for Resident #7 for February 2024 and March 2024 indicated that she received twice daily nebulizer medications. During an observation and interview on 3/4/24 at 10:44 am, Resident #7 was observed lying in bed. A nebulizer mask was observed on her bedside table in a bag which was dated 1/7/24. Resident #7 was unable to say if she used it often. She said that she could not remember. 2.Record review of a facility face sheet indicated Resident #122 was an [AGE] year-old female and admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of COPD (group of lung disease that make it difficult to breathe). Record review of a quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] indicted Resident #122 had an impairment in thinking with a BIMS score of 12 - and had special treatments, procedures, and programs that included oxygen therapy as a resident within the last 14 days. Record review of comprehensive care plan with revision date of 12/18/24 indicated Resident #3 had COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease that affects breathing). Record review of a consolidated physician's order list for Resident #122 indicated an order dated 01/17/2024 to administer oxygen 2-4 liters per minute by nasal cannula and change/date oxygen tubing one time weekly. During an observation and interview on 03/04/24 at 10:19 am revealed Resident #122 had oxygen on at 4 liters via nasal cannula. The oxygen tubing was not dated and humidified water bottle was dated 02/18/24 and dry. Resident #3 stated she wore her oxygen all the time and did not know when the bottle or tubing had been changed. During an observation 03/04/24 2:00 PM humidifier bottle remained dry and dated 02/18/24. During an observation on 03/06/24 10:30 AM the humidifier bottle was full of water and bubbling. The bottle and O2 tubing were dated 03/05/24 and O2 on at 4 liters per nasal cannula . During an interview on 3/06/2024 at 2:20 pm, the DON stated the charge nurses were responsible for changing the oxygen tubing and humidifier bottles weekly. She stated by not doing so could cause oxygen delivery issues or infections . The DON said she was responsible for ensuring processes are in place. During an interview on 3/06/2024 at 3:00 pm, the Administrator said nursing was responsible for cleaning the oxygen concentrators, changing the tubing and bottles every Sunday, and as needed. He said the DON was to oversee that the nursing staff were following the respiratory care policy and expected respiratory equipment to be cleaned and changed weekly. He said she would have the DON or designee do an audit to check that they were done. He said the residents could be at risk for inadequate air flow if the concentrators were not cleaned and infections. Record review of a facility policy titled Administering Medications through a Small Volume (handheld) Nebulizer dated 2001, revised October 2010, read .Change equipment and tubing every 7 days . Record review of a facility policy dated October 2010 and titled Oxygen Administration indicated, . Purpose the purpose of this procedure is to provide guidelines for safe oxygen administration .12. Check the mask, tank, humidifying jar etc., to be sure they are in good working order, and securely fastened. Be sure water in the humidifying jar and that the water level is high enough that the water bubbles as oxygen flows through.
CONCERN (D)

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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interviews 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 ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interviews 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 follow a policy to provide pharmacy services in accordance with State and Federal laws or rules of the Drug Enforcement Administration for 1 of 12 months (January 2024) reviewed for pharmacy services. The facility failed to properly inventory drugs at time of disposal on 1/31/24. This failure could put residents at risk for misappropriation and drug diversion. Findings included: Record review of facility drug destruction records dated February 2023 through February 2024 revealed that on January 31, 2024, the attached pages were only signed by the consultant pharmacist and contained no witness signatures or initials. During an interview on 3/6/24 at 11:00 am, the DON said that she had only been in this position for a couple of months, and going forward she would ensure that correct policies and procedures were followed for drug destruction. She said that without following proper procedures, there could possibly be a drug diversion. During an interview on 3/6/24 at 2:53 pm, the Administrator said that going forward he would plan to be present during drug destruction. He said that the DON was responsible for drug destruction. He said that there could be a drug diversion if not done correctly with 2 witnesses. Record review of a facility policy titled Drug Destruction dated September 2013 read .The consultant pharmacist seals the container in the presence of two authorized witnesses . Record review of 22 TAC §303.1 Destruction of Dispensed Drugs accessed online 06/07/2023 at https://texreg.sos.state.tx.us/ indicated. (a) Drugs dispensed to patients in health care facilities or institutions. (1) Destruction by the consultant pharmacist. The consultant pharmacist, if in good standing with the Texas State Board of Pharmacy, is authorized to destroy dangerous drugs dispensed to patients in health care facilities or institutions. A consultant pharmacist may destroy controlled substances as allowed to do so by federal laws or rules of the Drug Enforcement Administration. Dangerous drugs may be destroyed provided the following conditions are met. (ix) signature of the witness(es); and C) The signature of the consultant pharmacist and witness(es) to the destruction and the method of destruction specified in subparagraph (B) of this paragraph may be on a cover sheet attached to the inventory and not on each individual inventory sheet , provided the cover sheet contains a statement indicating the number of inventory pages that are attached and each of the attached pages are initialed by the consultant pharmacist and witness(es). v) any two individuals working in the following capacities at the facility: (I) facility administrator. (II) director of nursing. (III) acting director of nursing; or (IV) licensed nurse.
CONCERN (D)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to establish and maintain an infection prevention and ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for 1 of 6 residents (Resident #271) and 1 of 7 staff (CNA E) reviewed for infection control. CNA E failed to perform hand hygiene while performing incontinent care to Resident #271 on 03/05/2024. These failures could place residents at risk of exposure to communicable diseases and infections. Findings included: Record review of a facility face sheet dated 3/06/2024 indicated Resident #271 was a [AGE] year-old male and admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of cervical disc disorder (disorder of the bones in the neck). Record review of a quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #271 had a BIMS of 15 indicating intact cognition and was incontinent of urine and bowel requiring moderate assistance with toileting. Record review of the care plan dated 7/26/2023 indicated Resident #271 had an ADL (activity of daily living) function disorder and to assist with ADL's as needed. During an observation on 03/05/2024 at 9:20 AM CNA E provided incontinent care to Resident # 271. CNA E washed her hands and applied gloves. She opened Resident #271's solid brief and cleaned his front peri area with wipes. Resident #271 rolled to his right side and CNA E cleaned his buttocks and peri area with wipes. CNA E removed her soiled gloves, applied clean gloves without hand hygiene, and applied Resident #271's clean brief. CNA E then assisted Resident #271 with getting dressed and transferred him to his wheelchair. CNA E removed her gloves and washed her hands before leaving the room. During an interview on 03/05/2024 at 9:27 AM CNA E stated she had been a CNA for 29 years and had worked at the facility for 4 months. She stated she had been trained on incontinent care and hand hygiene and she should have washed her hands before applying clean gloves. She stated she had her sanitizer on the table and got nervous and forgot. She stated that by not performing hand hygiene between glove changes it could cause infections. During an interview on 03/06/2024 at 2:06 PM the DON stated CNA's were trained on hire, annually, and CNA E successfully passed skills training last week for hand hygiene and incontinent care. She stated she was responsible for oversight in the building for infection control and if infection control measures were not followed it could lead to infections. She stated she expected all staff to follow infection control measures for resident care. During an interview on 03/06/2024 at 4:53 PM the administrator stated infection control oversight was the responsibility of the DON. He stated if infection control measures were not followed it could cause infections and expected that infection control measures were followed. Record review of a skills checklist for perineal care dated 02/28/2024 indicated CNA E was trained and competent in perineal care and hand hygiene with glove use. Record review of a facility policy titled Handwashing/Hand Hygiene dated August 2019 indicated, .this facility considers hand hygiene the primary means to prevent the spread of infections. 7. use an alcohol-based hand rub or soap and water for the following situations: m. after removing gloves .
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0919 (Tag F0919)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to be equipped to allow residents to call for staff th...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to be equipped to allow residents to call for staff through a communication system which relayed the call directly to a centralized staff work area for 1 of 6 residents reviewed for call lights. (Resident #4). The facility failed to ensure Resident #4's emergency call light in the bathroom had a cord enabling it to be reachable from the floor. This failure could place residents at risk of injury, pain, hospitalization, and a diminished quality of life. Findings included: Record review of a facility face sheet dated 3/6/24 for Resident #4 indicated that she was a [AGE] year-old woman admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of dementia. Record review of a Quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] for Resident #4 indicated that she had a BIMS score of 5, which indicated that she had severe cognitive impairment. Section GG indicated that she required supervision assist with toileting. Record review of a comprehensive care plan dated 3/6/24 for Resident #4 indicated that she was at risk for falls related to generalized weakness and limited mobility. Interventions included .Place call bell/light within easy reach . Record review of a facility accident and incident log dated 12/1/23 through 3/5/24 indicated that Resident #4 had not sustained any falls within that time period. During an observation and interview on 3/4/24 at 10:28 am the call light in the bathroom was observed to have no cord. Resident #4 said that she does use the restroom. During an interview on 3/4/24 at 10:33 am GVN D said that she had been employed here for about 2 months. She said that Resident #4 does use the restroom independently at times. She said that there should be a string on the call light so that it can be used to call for help. She was unsure how long it had been that way. She said that she would report it to maintenance to have it fixed. During an interview on 3/6/24 at 11:00 am the DON said that they would be initiating administrative rounds to ensure all call lights were within reach and working properly. She said that they would also ensure that all bathroom call lights were accessible. She said that if they were not accessible, that it could lead to a delay in resident care. Record review of a facility policy titled answering the call light dated 2001, revised October 2010, read .Explain to the resident that a call system is also located in his/her bathroom . and .be sure the call light is within easy reach of the resident .
CONCERN (F)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food under sanitary conditions in the facility's only kitchen. The facility failed t...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food under sanitary conditions in the facility's only kitchen. The facility failed to date six packages of white cake mix and two packages of gelatin mix that were in the dry storage area on 3/4/2024. The facility failed to ensure the DM and [NAME] wore a hairnet effectively to cover all of their hair on 3/5/2024. These failures could place residents at risk for food-borne illnesses. Findings included: During an observation on 3/4/2024 at 9:10 AM in the kitchen, the dry storage area had six packages of white cake mix and two packages of gelatin mix that were removed from the original box that was not dated. During an interview on 3/4/2024 at 9:30 AM, the DM said everyone that worked in the kitchen were responsible for dating and labeling items and staff were aware not to put anything up without dating and labeling. During an observation and interview on 3/5/2024 at 11:15 AM, the [NAME] was pureeing food for lunch and the DM was present in the kitchen assisting as needed and both did not have their hair completely covered with the hairnet. They both had hair sticking out from underneath the hair net on the sides of both of their ears and at the back of their necks . The cook said all hair should be covered by the hairnet prior to entering the kitchen and by not doing so could cause cross contamination. During an interview on 3/5/2024 at 2:45 PM, the DM said all staff as soon as they entered the kitchen must put on a hairnet and make sure it completely covered their hair. She said they in-serviced staff on hairnets and labeling of foods on 3/5/2024. She said there could be a risk of hair falling into the food if hair was not completely covered while in the kitchen. Record review of in-service training report dated 3/5/2024 conducted by the DM indicated the kitchen staff were trained on dating and labeling: all items must have date and label before storing. Training also included hair nets: hair nets must be worn while in the kitchen. All hair must be covered. During an interview on 3/6/2024 at 11:50 AM, the Administrator said he was made aware of the items in the kitchen that were not dated and the staff not wearing hairnets appropriately. He said it was the responsibility of the DM for ensuring the foods were dated or whoever put up the food in the kitchen. He said all staff in the kitchen should be wearing hairnets when in the kitchen area. He said hair could fall into food while preparing. He said not dating items depended on the expiration dates of the items. He said going forward they would educate the staff and conduct audit checks between him, the DM, and the RD. Record review of a facility policy titled Food Storage revised 3/2019 indicated, .4. All food items should be dated with the received dated, unless labeled with a readable label from the food vendor . Record review of a facility policy titled Employee Sanitary Practices dated November 3, 2004, indicated, .All employees shall: 1. Wear hair restraints .
Feb 2024 1 deficiency 1 IJ
CRITICAL (J) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to provide adequate supervision and assistance to prevent...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to provide adequate supervision and assistance to prevent accidents for 1 of 7 residents reviewed for accidents/supervision (Resident #1). The facility failed to ensure Resident #1's wheelchair was locked during a transfer causing the resident to slide out of the wheelchair and fall. Resident #1 sustained an acute comminuted fracture (when a bone breaks into 3 or more pieces) of the right femur (bone above the knee). The noncompliance was identified as PNC. The Immediate Jeopardy began on 10/24/23 and ended on 10/26/23. The facility had corrected the noncompliance before the survey began. This failure could place all residents at risk of severe injuries or death. Findings included: Record review of Resident #1's face sheet dated 10/31/23 indicated she was a [AGE] year old female admitted to the facility 11/3/22, with diagnoses including Type 2 Diabetes with diabetic neuropathy (a type of nerve damage that can occur if you have diabetes), morbid obesity, acute kidney failure, hypertension (high blood pressure), heart disease , and absence of right leg below the knee. Record review of Resident #1's most recent MDS assessment dated [DATE] indicated she had a Brief Interview for Mental Status of 12, which indicated moderate cognitive impairment. The MDS further revealed Resident #1 required total dependence for transfers, needed 2 person assist, and extensive assist for personal hygiene and dressing with 1 person assist, and no history of falls. Record review of Resident #1's undated care plan indicated Resident #1 was at risk for falls/injury due to amputation of right lower extremity. Interventions included: monitor for proper body alignment and balance-assist with repositioning as needed. Assist with ADL's and transfers using positioning devices as needed. Record review of Resident #1's nurses notes dated 10/24/23 at 12:33 p.m., and signed by LVN A indicated the following, 10:00 CNAs report that resident was being transferred via hoyer lift x 2 nurse aides, wheels on wheelchair were not locked, and as aide was lowering her down in wheelchair resident slid out of the chair, as the aide went to catch her the aide and resident both went to the ground and that resident wanted medication, she felt nauseas. Upon entering room, resident was noted to be sitting upright in wheelchair, hoyer pad underneath her, with a clear trash bag on chest. VS assessed. No new skin injuries noted. Patient complained of pain in right leg, requested nausea medication and pain medication. PRN (2) Tylenol 325mg as ordered and Ondansetron (medication used for nausea) 4mg. administered. MD notified, new order to obtain x-ray STAT. Mobile x-ray contacted. RP, DON, and unit manager notified. Record review of a mobile x-ray radiology interpretation report dated 10/24/23 indicated Resident #1 received an x-ray of the right femur. Impression of the x-ray indicated an acute comminuted fracture. During an interview on 2/7/24 at 10:40 a.m. the DON stated she was not employed in the facility at the time of Resident #1's incident. The DON stated that staff were trained on hoyer lifts, and transfers using gait belts on hire. The DON said her expectations for staff utilizing the hoyer lift were to have 2 persons present, follow the procedures on the skilled checklist and make sure the wheelchair was in a locked position. During an interview on 2/7/24 at 10:48 am. LVN D said she had worked in the facility since August 2023. LVN D stated she was not working when Resident #1 had a fall, but all staff received mandatory training from the therapist on using the hoyer. LVN D stated all wheelchairs needed to be in a locked position prior to transferring a resident. During an interview on 2/7/24 at 11:20 a.m. the DOR stated that Resident #1 had been on therapy services 5/24/23-6/22/23. The DOR stated that after Resident #1 had her fall in October of 23, he did trainings and in-services on using the hoyer, and transfers. The DOR stated that the training was mandatory for all CNAs, MAs, nurses, and prn staff. The DOR stated that demonstrations were done on using the hoyer, as well as transfers, and staff did return demonstrations. The DOR stated he had 3 different training sessions, and checkoff sheets were reviewed and signed by him, and the employee. During an interview on 2/8/24 at 10:35 a.m. the SW stated that she was acting as interim ED at the time of Resident #1's fall. The SW stated that both CNA B and CNA C were asked to reenact what they did during the transfer of Resident #1. The SW stated she did not remember at what point they were asked to do this. The SW stated both CNA B and CNA C said they did not lock the wheelchair. The SW stated that the brakes should have been locked on the wheelchair at the time of the transfer. The SW stated neither CNA B nor CNA C said why the brakes were not on at the time. The SW stated both CNA B and CNA C were terminated. The SW stated a QA meeting was called the afternoon of the incident and training was initiated. During an interview on 2/8/24 at 11:03 a.m. GVN E stated she had worked in the facility since January of this year. GVN E stated she had received training on hoyer lifts and transfers when she hired on. GVN E stated 2 people were required for all hoyer transfers. The resident is placed on the hoyer pad while in bed, the pad is then secured to the hoyer. I always make sure the pad is intact and secured appropriately to the hoyer. One employee operates the lift and the other staff guide the resident to the wheelchair, which is to be locked and the footrests open before transfer. During an interview on 2/8/24 at 11:20 a.m. the Maintenance Supervisor stated he had worked in the facility for 14 months. The Supervisor stated he had been asked to observe all the wheelchairs in the facility in October 2023. The Supervisor stated on 10/25/23 he checked wheelchairs for any loose brakes and adjusted/tightened any that were loose, and all brakes were found to be in working order. The Supervisor stated there were 6 hoyer lifts in the facility, and there was a company that came out quarterly to do any maintenance needed. During an observation and interview on 2/8/24 at 1:05 p.m. MA/CNA F, and CNA G were observed during a hoyer transfer on Resident #2 from wheelchair to bed. There were no issues identified. Both MA/CNA F, and CNA G stated they were hired in December of 2023. Both MA/CNA F, and CNA G stated they had received training when hired on hoyer lifts and transfers. Both MA/CNA F, and CNA G stated that the wheelchair should have brakes locked when transferring a resident in the hoyer. During an observation and interview on 2/12/24 at 8:45 a.m. CNA H said she had worked in the facility 1 ½ years. During the same interview, Restorative aide M said she had worked in the facility for 14 years. CNA H and Restorative aide M were observed during a wheelchair transfer on Resident #3. Resident #3 was transferred from her wheelchair to her bed. CNA H explained what they were doing, and both washed their hands prior to transfer. The footrests were removed from the wheelchair and a gait belt was placed on Resident #3. The wheelchair was locked on both sides. Resident #3 was safely transferred to the bed with no issues. The bed was placed in a low position and call light placed near Resident #3. Both CNA H and Restorative aide M stated they had received training on transfers and using the hoyer lift and had to do hands on demonstrations and signed skills check off form. Restorative aide M stated that all staff were provided a gait belt. Resident #3 stated she felt safe during her transfer, and they do a good job. During an observation and interview on 2/12/24 at 9:05 a.m. CNA H and Restorative aide M were observed during a hoyer lift on Resident #2 from her wheelchair to her bed. No issues were identified. Resident #2 was unable to answer any questions appropriately. During an observation and interview on 2/12/24 at 9:25 a.m. CNA J said she had worked in the facility for 1 ½ months. CNA K said she had worked in the facility for 1 year. Both aides stated they had received training on using the hoyer lift and doing transfers when they were hired. CNA J and CNA K were observed doing a hoyer transfer on Resident #4. CNA J stated Resident #4 had agreed to get up in the wheelchair, and then be placed back to bed so observation could be done. The transfer to wheelchair and back to bed were observed with no findings. Resident #4 stated she always got nervous when being transferred with the hoyer but had not had any recent problems. Resident #4 stated a long time ago, I can't remember when, the pad broke while I was in the shower. Resident #4 stated she was not hurt, and the staff was good about explaining everything they did. During an observation and interview on 2/12/24 at 9:57 a.m. CNA J was observed doing a bed to wheelchair transfer, and wheelchair to bed transfer on Resident #5. There were no issues identified. Resident #5 stated he felt comfortable with staff transferring him, as he could not do it by himself. Resident #5 stated, this aide is good! Watch her, you will learn a lot from her. During an observation and interview on 2/12/24 at 10:08 a.m. CNA H and CNA L were observed doing a hoyer transfer on Resident #6. There were no issues identified. Resident #6 was non-interviewable. During an observation and interview on 2/12/24 at 10:27 a.m. CNA L was observed doing a bed to wheelchair transfer using a sliding board on Resident #7. There were no issues identified. Resident #7 stated he was receiving therapy but was not able to transfer to his wheelchair by himself at this time. Resident #7 stated he did not like using the hoyer lift as it made him nervous, and using the transfer board made it a lot easier and made him feel more comfortable. During a phone interview on 2/12/24 at 11:24 a.m. CNA B stated she remembered the incident with Resident #1. CNA B stated Resident #1 fell on CNA C and both of us were terminated. CNA B stated, the other girl admitted she did it. CNA B stated the other aide was setting Resident #1 down, and the wheelchair started to tilt and Resident #1 landed on the other CNA. CNA B stated after Resident #1 was on the floor, they grabbed Resident #1 and put her in the wheelchair. She stated Resident #1 did not complain of any pain. CNA B stated Resident #1 could feed herself but was total care. CNA B stated when she was hired, she had received training on the hoyer lift, and transfers. CNA B stated the brakes on the wheelchair were unlocked, and that the brakes to the hoyer were on. CNA B stated the wheelchair brakes should have been on. One side was locked; the other side of the chair was not. The other aide said it was her fault. CNA B stated the wheelchair moved out behind Resident #1 as they were lowering her into the wheelchair. I don't remember what caused it to move. The chair was locked on my side, but not the other side. CNA B stated, if the wheelchair was locked, this probably would not have happened. CNA B stated she knew the wheelchair should have been locked, and not sure why the other side wasn't. During a phone interview on 2/12/24 at 11:34 a.m. CNA C was contacted and voicemail was left. On 2/12/24 at 11:35 a.m. CNA C returned the call. CNA C said she remembered the incident, and stated this happened months ago, and you are just now calling me? CNA C stated she was at work and would return call when she got off around 3:30 p.m. on this date. CNA C did not return call. Record review of a Grievance Report dated 10/24/23 and signed by the SW indicated .Resident #1's RP was notified of a fall that Resident #1 had that was witnessed by the staff transferring her. Family member stated that she was on her way at that time. Upon arrival to the facility, family stated that the Resident told them that she fell during transfer and that they believe she was not transferred with the hoyer. Family then stated that they did not want the aides that did transfer in Resident #1's room. Family member went on to state that she had bail money and I am going to jail today. Both CNAs state that a hoyer transfer was completed and that the resident slipped out of the wheelchair during the transfer. Both aides provided written statements regarding the transfer Record review of an Accident/Incident Report dated 10/24/23 and signed by LVN A indicated the following: .Account of Occurrence- CNAs report that Resident was being transferred via hoyer lift x2 nurse aides, wheels on wheelchair were not locked, and as aide was lowering Resident down in wheelchair, Resident #1 slid out of the chair. As the aide went to catch her, the aide and Resident #1 both went to the ground. Upon assessment, resident complained of pain to the RLE above her amputation site. Resident denies any other pain. Resident was assisted back to wheelchair. PRN pain medicine administered. Received order from MD for STAT x-ray . Record review of a witness statement dated 10/24/23 signed by CNA B revealed the following, I was in the room with Resident #1 and CNA C and I were getting Resident #1 up to put her in the chair and as CNA C was lowering Resident #1 down, she slid out of the chair and CNA C grabbed Resident #1, and Resident #1 fell on top of CNA C, and they both fell on the floor. Record review of an undated witness statement signed by CNA C revealed the following, I CNA C was getting Resident #1 up to put her in her chair. As I was lowering Resident #1 down, she slid out of the chair and I was there to grab her, and me and Resident #1 both fell to the ground. Record review of a Personal Action Form indicated CNA B was terminated with last day worked listed as 10/24/23. Record review of a Personal Action Form indicated CNA C was terminated with last day worked listed as 10/24/23. Record review of a Mechanical Lift Competency Skills Checklist dated 2/27/07 indicated When transferring from or to a wheelchair, shower chair or bed, make sure that wheelchair, shower chair or bed is locked . Record review of the hoyer service provider Certification of Calibration forms indicated visits were made on 10/10/23, and 1/2/24. Record review of a Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement Meeting Minutes form indicated a meeting was held on 10/24/23 at 4:30 p.m. with the following members were present; DON, activity director, care plan/MDS nurse, nutritional services director, HR, interim ED, unit manager, and financial manager. Report also indicated the incident was discussed with the Medical Director over the phone. The following interventions were put in place: Steps taken regarding the incident with completion dates included: Resident assessed immediately- completed 10/24/23 Physician contacted and orders received-completed 10/24/23 PRN pain medication administered-completed 10/24/23 In-services initiated on abuse/neglect- started 10/24/23, completed 10/26/23 In-services initiated on Hoyer transfers- started 10/24/23, completed 10/26/23 In-services initiated on stand-pivot transfers and gait belts- started 10/24/23, completed 10/26/23 In-services initiated on assessment- started 10/24/23, completed 10/26/23 100% audit conducted by maintenance on wheelchair brakes-completed 10/25/23 Audit of Hoyer pads-started 10/24/23, completed 10/25/23 Audit of Hoyers in the facility- started 10/24/23, completed 10/25/23 Grievance completed-completed 10/24/23 Reported to HHSC-completed 10/24/23 Ombudsman notified-completed 10/24/23(message left) spoke to her 10/25/23 Resident sent to hospital-completed 10/24/23 Both aides suspended pending investigation-completed 10/24/23-both terminated Safe surveys initiated-completed 10/25/23 Resident interviews initiated (part of safe surveys) Psychosocial assessment completed prior to resident leaving facility-completed 10/24/23 Inservice on daily care guide- started 10/24/23, completed 10/26/23 Record Review of In-service Training Reports indicated training was done on safe transfers, Abuse/Neglect, Assessment, Activities of Daily Living-Daily Care Guide, and Accidents/Incidents. Trainings were initiated on 10/24/23 and were completed on 10/26/23. A review of Mechanical Lift Competency Skills Checklist, and Transfer Skills Checklist indicated training was initiated on 10/25/23 and completed on 10/26/23. Training records indicated 50 employees received training. The noncompliance was identified as PNC. The Immediate Jeopardy began on 10/24/23 and ended on 10/26/23. The facility had corrected the noncompliance before the survey began.
Feb 2023 5 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure drugs and biologicals used in the facility were...

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 drugs and biologicals used in the facility were labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles in 1 (Blue Bonnet) of 2 medication storage rooms reviewed during medication room for labeling and storage. The facility did not ensure the TST (TB skin test) testing vial in the Blue Bonnet medication storage room was labeled correctly with initials, date opened and that the vial was discarded after 30 days from label date on box containing vial of 12/11/22. (Discard date 01/22/23) These failures could place residents who receive medications at risk of not receiving the intended therapeutic benefit of the medications, decreased quality of life, and hospitalization. Findings included: During an observation and interview of the Blue Bonnet storage room on 02/08/23 at 9:00 a.m., with LVN A revealed a vial of TST expiration date 4/2024 with the box labeled opened 12/11/22 with no initals and the vial was labeled 8/22 with no initals (same lot #on box and vial) with no initials was found in the refrigerator (There was no way to verify when the vial was actually opened). LVN A said that she had worked there for 4 months and the nurses check medication rooms once a month for expired medications but they do not document that anywhere. LVN A said she did not know who opened the vial or when the TST expired after opening, maybe 2-3 months. LVN A said she was not sure when multi dose vials expired, maybe 60 days. LVN A said the vial was in current use and the vial did not have much solution left in it because they had recently had a lot of admissions. LVN A said TST is administered by the nurse on the floor to any resident needing a TB test. LVN A said using the TST after it had expired to residents could be adverse reactions, medication not as strong as it should be, and false readings. During an interview with the DON on 2/08/23 at 9:20 a.m. the DON said there was no way to verify if the vial had been opened on 8/22, as dated on the vial or opened 12/11/22 as on the box. The vial was expired either way and she would discard the remaining solution. She said she would conduct an inservice with the staff and expected going forward for expired medications not be used in the facility. The DON said it is the policy and standard of care for multi-dose vials to be discarded after 30 days and staff should put a date and initials on the vial. In-services have been done on expiration of multi dose vials and will be conducted again to ensure adherence to the policy of discarding after 30 days opened. The risk to residents could be adverse reactions, medication not as strong as it should be, and false readings. During an interview on 2/08/23 at 9:30 a.m. the Regional Nurse Consultant stated the charge nurse on the shift is responsible for administering TB tests to new residents that need it and are to check the vial for expiration and date open prior to administration. She said that the vial had expired in August 22 or on January 11, 2023, either way the vial was expired now. She said it is the policy and standard of care for multi-dose vials to be discarded after 30 days and staff should put a date and initials on the vial. In-services have been done on dating multi dose vials but will be conducted with staff again. The risk to residents could be adverse reactions, medication not as strong as it should be, and false readings. Her expectation is to in-service all nursing staff on the use by date versus expiration date and monitor for compliance by spot checking. During an interview on 2/8/2023 at 11:00 the ADM stated he does not know the process for TB testing as that is the DON's responsibility. The ADM said the TST should not be given after the use by date. He expects that staff are trained accordingly and will oversee the DON to ensure all staff are trained. Record review of an undated Consultant Pharmacist Services policy indicated, . 2.b. Right drug. Verify prescription dates label to MAR .note expiration dates .12.i . Date vials that are multi-dose with date opened. Record review of Tuberculin Mantoux PPD package insert states to dispose of medication 30 days after opening. Record review of https://www.fda.gov document dated 11/9/2020 reference 22. [NAME] S, et al. Effect of oxidation on the stability of tuberculin purified protein derivative (PPD) In: International Symposium on Tuberculin and BCG Vaccine. Basel: International Association of Biological Standardization, 1983. Dev Biol Stand 1986;58:545-552. (Dispose of Vial 30 days after opening)
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility did not maintain an infection prevention program designed to pr...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility did not maintain an infection prevention program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for 1 of 6 residents reviewed for infection control. (Resident #121) The facility did not ensure the Activity Director wore a N95 mask or eye protection when she entered the room of Resident #121 who was on contact precautions for COVID-19. The facility did not ensure CMA B wore a gown, gloves, N95 and eye protection when she entered the room of Resident #121 who was on contact precautions for COVID-19. These failures could place residents at risk of exposure to communicable diseases and infections. Findings included: Record review of a face sheet for Resident # 121 dated 2/8/2023 indicated he admitted to the facility on [DATE] and was [AGE] years old with diagnoses of COVID-19, BPH (enlarged prostate), and hemiplegia (weakness/paralysis on one side of the body). Record review of an admission MDS assessment dated [DATE] for Resident #121 indicated it was created on 2/6/2022 and was in progress. Record review of a care plan dated 2/8/2023 for Resident #121 indicated he was at risk for infection, signs/symptoms of COVID-19. Status: Active (Current) with an intervention to follow facility protocol for COVID-19 screening/precautions. During an observation on 2/06/2023 at 10:08 AM, Resident #121 had a sign on his door that read to stop and see the nurse before entering with the door closed. PPE was noted outside of the door in the hallway in a container. During an observation on 2/06/2023 at 10:16 AM, the Activity Director entered the room of Resident #121 wearing gloves, gown, and a surgical mask and was not wearing a N95 mask or eye protection of a face shield or goggles. Resident #121 was not wearing any source control. The Activity Director was in the room passing out the activities monthly calendar and was standing by the over bed table. She was in the room for about 2 minutes. Resident #121 did not have any symptoms of COVID-19. She doffed (removed) PPE in the room with the door open and placed the PPE in the biohazard box in the room. During an observation and interview on 2/06/2023 at 12:35 PM, CMA B was in the room of Resident #121 who was on isolation for COVID-19. The door was open, and CMA B was observed in the room only wearing a surgical mask as she placed Resident #121's lunch tray on his over bed table. CMA B was not wearing a N95 mask, eye protection of a face shield or goggles, a gown, gloves. The DON was observed outside of the door in the hallway by the food cart. CMA B said she did not know the resident was on isolation because she worked another hall and was only over there to pass lunch trays. CMA B asked the DON why the resident was on isolation, and the DON told CMA B that Resident #121 was COVID positive. CMA B said she could get COVID-19 if she entered rooms of someone who was on isolation for CoVID-19. During an interview on 2/06/2023 at 12:39 PM, the RNC asked what happened outside of Resident #121's room and she was informed about CMA B entering the room of Resident #121 who was positive for COVID without wearing appropriate PPE and she instructed the DON to do a 1 on 1 (teaching with the instructor and1 person individually) with CMA B. During an interview on 2/08/2023 at 7:58 AM, the DON said she had been employed at the facility since October 2022. She said she in-serviced the Activity Director and CMA B along with other staff on appropriate PPE for residents in isolation for COVID-19 and proper donning (to put on) on 2/8/2023. She said she instructed them about the sign on the door of Resident #121 and the reason it was there, and they should go to the nurse and ask before entering. She said a major outbreak could occur with staff not wearing appropriate PPE when going into rooms where residents were on isolation. She said she was not aware the Activity Director was not wearing the appropriate PPE. She was aware of CMA B after she exited Resident #121's room. She said all staff that enter rooms of residents in isolation should wear the appropriate PPE and for COVID-19 should include gloves, gown, N95, and eye protection of either a face shield or goggles. She said Resident #121 was admitted to the facilty on 2/3/2023 with COVID-19. She said Resident #121 had been in isolation since 2/3/2023 on the date of admission. Record review of a facility policy titled Covid Response Testing, Exposure, and PPE dated November 20, 2022, indicated, .The facility should ensure that appropriate PPE and infection control precautions are taken to decrease the risk of transmission when dedicated staff is not possible. c. Anyone entering must wear full PPE (gowns, gloves, N95 respirator or higher and eye protection). d. It is important that all infection prevention and control protocols be followed by staff, including the donning, doffing of PPE, proper hand hygiene, cleaning and disinfecting. Record review of a facility policy titled PPE Use When Caring for Residents with COVID-19 undated indicated, .HCP should wear all suggested PPE when caring for residents with COVID-19 infection and suspected COVID-19 infection, in accordance with CDC guidance. Per the CDC, all suggested PPE includes: N95 respirator, eye protection, gloves, and gown .
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0883 (Tag F0883)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

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 policies and procedures that ensure the resident's medical record included documentation that indicates the resident received education on the influenza (flu) and the pneumococcal immunizations for 4 of 4 residents reviewed for immunizations, (Resident #1, #55, #57, and #203) in that: 1.The facility failed to ensure Resident #1's medical record contained evidence of education on the influenza vaccine when the vaccine was declined by the resident. 2. The facility failed to ensure Resident #55's medical record contained evidence of education on the pneumococcal immunization when the vaccine was declined by the resident. 3. The facility failed to ensure Resident #55's medical record contained evidence of education on the influenza vaccine when the vaccine was administered to the resident. 4. The facility failed to ensure Resident #57's medical record contained evidence of education on the pneumococcal immunization when the vaccine was declined by the resident. 5. The facility failed to ensure Resident #203's medical record contained evidence of education on the influenza vaccine when the vaccine was declined by the resident. These failures could place residents at risk for not making informed decisions regarding vaccinations and placing them at risk of contracting a viral disease that could spread through the facility and cause respiratory complications, and potential adverse health outcomes. Findings included: Review of a face sheet dated 02/08/23 for Resident #1 indicated he was [AGE] years old with an admission date of 1/10/23. Diagnosis included Sepsis due to bacterial infection, osteomyelitis (bone Infection), and pain. Review of a face sheet dated 02/08/23 for Resident #55 indicated she was [AGE] years old with an admission date of 6/23/22. Diagnosis included cerebral Infarction, nausea and vomiting, and diabetes (high glucose levels in the blood). Review of a face sheet dated 02/08/23 for Resident #57 indicated he was [AGE] years old with an admission date of 1/13/23. Diagnosis included fracture of femur, overactive bladder, and muscle weakness. Review of a face sheet dated 02/08/23 for Resident #203 indicated she was [AGE] years old with an admission date of 4/11/22. Diagnoses included cognitive impairment, kidney disease, and weakness. During a record review of immunizations in the electronic medical record the 4 vaccination sampled residents reflected all had no documentation of educational material provided for Flu or Pneumonia vaccine to the family or RP in the medical record for: Resident #1 No education given before acceptance or declination of flu vaccine on 01/13/23. Resident #55 No education given before acceptance or declination of flu vaccine on 10/06/22 or pneumococcal vaccine on 12/02/22. Resident #57 No education given before acceptance or declination of pneumococcal vaccine on 01/13/23. Resident #203 No education given before acceptance or declination of flu vaccine on 10/24/22. During a Record review of an admission packet for resident or representative reflected the packet had an acknowledgment form for vaccination education but there was no education material attached. No educational material was included from the CDC as stated in policy. During a record review of an acknowledge of receipts of attachments from the admission packet for resident or resident representatives and attachments reflected a check off list for resident education containing items 1. through 38. Including: 34. Influenza (Flu) Information 35. Pneumococcal Vaccine information No Flu or Pneumonia Education was in the packet. During a record review and interview on 02/08/23 at 04:45 p.m. the admission Coordinator said she had worked at the facility since October 2022. She stated she is responsible for providing written education to the resident or the RP on admission and documentation of materials in the packet. She said the packet does not have any information or educational materials on Flu or Pneumococcal vaccine. She said she does not have and has never had the information from the CDC website outlined in the policy reviewed with this surveyor and has not given any information on vaccine to new admissions since her employment. She said she had never received education on the educational material or read the policy. During an interview on 02/08/23 at 05:00 PM the Regional Nurse Consultant, said that every resident should be getting education on Flu and Pneumonia vaccines from the CDC website. She said that she expects the admission packet to be updated with the newest information from the CDC website and all residents will receive the information as outlined in the policy. She said the risks are that the resident and family might not be able to make an informed decision concerning vaccines. She said not receiving education may result in them choosing not to get the vaccine which could result in outbreaks, infections and serious complications. During an interview on 02/08/23 at 05:05 PM the ADM said that every resident should be getting education on Flu and Pneumonia vaccines from the CDC website. She said that she expects the admission packet to be updated with the newest information from the CDC website and all residents will receive the information as outlined in the policy. The Admin said the risks are that the resident and family not receiving education may result in them choosing not to get the vaccine which could result in outbreaks, infections and serious complications. During a record review of an Infection Control Policy dated 10/2019, Vaccination of Residents reflected . Policy Statement: All residents will be offered vaccines that aid in preventing infectious diseases unless the vaccine is medically contraindicated, or the residents has already been vaccinated .Policy interpretation and Implementation: 1. Prior to receiving vaccinations, the resident or legal representative will be provided information and education regarding the benefits and potential side effects of the vaccinations. (See current vaccination information statements at https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/vis/index.html for educational materials.) 2. Provision of such education shall be documented in the resident's medical record. During a record review of a Nursing Services Policy and Procedure Manual for Long Term Care-Pneumococcal Vaccine Policy Revision October 2019 Infection Control Policy Statement reflected: All residents will be offered pneumococcal vaccines to aid in preventing pneumonia/pneumococcal infections. Policy Interpretation and Implementation . 2. Assessments of pneumococcal vaccination status will be conducted within 5 working days of the resident's admission. 3. Before receiving a pneumococcal vaccine, the resident or legal representative shall receive information and education regarding the benefits and potential side effects of the pneumococcal vaccine. (See current vaccination statements at (https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/vis/index.html for educational materials) for educational materials.) Provision of such education shall be documented in the resident's medical record.
CONCERN (E)

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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

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 establish a system of records of receipt and disposition of all cont...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on 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 follow a policy to provide pharmacy services in accordance with State and Federal laws or rules of the Drug Enforcement Administration for 12 of 12 months ([DATE] until [DATE]) reviewed for pharmacy services. The facility did not have a licensed pharmacist and witnesses initial the attached pages of medication destruction inventory sheets. The facility did not have a licensed pharmacist sign the statement for destruction of dangerous and controlled drugs for long term care facilities (cover sheet) for [DATE], [DATE] and [DATE]. And The facility failed to attach proof of destruction documents from the waste disposal company to the signed and witnessed Drug Destruction records for [DATE] until [DATE]. (12 months) This failure could put residents at risk for misappropriation and drug diversion. Findings: During a record review of the facility's drug destruction log for the last 12 months, the drug destructions dated [DATE],[DATE], and [DATE] indicated attached pages of medication destruction did not include the initials of the consultant pharmacist and witnesses. There were no proof of destruction documents from the waste disposal company attached to the signed and witnessed Drug Destruction records for [DATE] until January2023. (12 months) During an interview on [DATE] at 3:30 PM, the DON stated she oversaw the facility drug destructions and was not aware that each inventory page required initials of pharmacist and witnesses. The DON stated she had only worked there for 3 months, and she had not obtained the destruction sheets and attached them as required by policy. The DON said she was not working at the facility when the Pharmacist did not sign the coversheet last August. The DON said she did not know that the witness had to initial each page of the destruction log along with the Pharmatist since she had never read the policy. The DON stated the risk of not accounting and destroying medications per regulation could be a drug diversion. The DON stated going forward the facility would follow the regulation and reconcile the medications with initials to each inventory sheet as required. During an interview on [DATE] at 2:43 PM the ADM stated he would make sure the policy was being followed and would in-service the responsible staff to see that it was done correctly. The ADM stated the risk could vary but a drug diversion could occur if medications are not destroyed and appropriately accounted for. Record review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Drug Destruction dated 09/2018 indicated, .it is the policy of [the facility], in accordance with applicable federal and state regulations, to ensure the proper disposal of expired, discontinued, or otherwise unused medications remaining after discontinuation or a patient's discharge or death. 9. The Director of Nursing shall be responsible for attaching the pickup manifest and the proof of destruction documents from the waste disposal service company to the signed and witnessed Drug Destruction Record(s). Record review of 22 TAC §303.1 Destruction of Dispensed Drugs accessed online [DATE] at https://texreg.sos.state.tx.us/ indicated; (a) Drugs dispensed to patients in health care facilities or institutions. (1) Destruction by the consultant pharmacist. The consultant pharmacist, if in good standing with the Texas State Board of Pharmacy, is authorized to destroy dangerous drugs dispensed to patients in health care facilities or institutions. A consultant pharmacist may destroy controlled substances as allowed to do so by federal laws or rules of the Drug Enforcement Administration. Dangerous drugs may be destroyed provided the following conditions are met. (A) A written agreement exists between the facility and the consultant pharmacist. (B) The drugs are inventoried, and such inventory is verified by the consultant pharmacist. The following information shall be included on this inventory: (i) name and address of the facility or institution. (ii) name and pharmacist license number of the consultant pharmacist. (iii) date of drug destruction. (iv) date the prescription was dispensed; (v) unique identification number assigned to the prescription by the pharmacy; (vi) name of dispensing pharmacy; (vii) name, strength, and quantity of drug; (viii) signature of consultant pharmacist destroying drugs; (ix) signature of the witness(es); and (x) method of destruction. C) The signature of the consultant pharmacist and witness(es) to the destruction and the method of destruction specified in subparagraph (B) of this paragraph may be on a cover sheet attached to the inventory and not on each individual inventory sheet, provided the cover sheet contains a statement indicating the number of inventory pages that are attached and each of the attached pages are initialed by the consultant pharmacist and witness(es). v) any two individuals working in the following capacities at the facility: (I) facility administrator; (II) director of nursing; (III) acting director of nursing; or (IV) licensed nurse.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0868 (Tag F0868)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain a quality assessment and assurance committee consisting at a minimum the required committee members for 7 of 12 meetings (January ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain a quality assessment and assurance committee consisting at a minimum the required committee members for 7 of 12 meetings (January 2022, March 2022, June 2022, August 2022, October 2022, November 2022 and December 2022) reviewed for QAPI. The facility did not ensure that the medical director or designee, DON, administrator, infection preventionist and 2 other members were present at the monthly QAPI meeting. This failure could place residents at risk for quality deficiencies being unidentified, improper review of infection control program, no appropriate guidance and plans of action developed and implemented. Findings: Record review of QAPI meeting minutes and attendees for the last 12 months indicated that 7 of 12 months the committee members did not consist of the required members per regulation. On 01/14/2022 the meeting did not consist of the DON and the infection preventionist, the 3/11/2022 meeting did not consist of the medical director or designee, the 6/10/2022 meeting did not consist of the DON and the infection preventionist, the 8/12/2022 meeting did not consist of the DON and the administrator, the 10/14/2022 meeting did not consist of the DON and the infection preventionist, the 11/11/2022 meeting did not consist of the DON and the infection preventionist, and the 12/09/2022 meeting did not consist of the medical director or designee. During an interview on 02/08/23 at 01:47 PM the DON stated that QAPI meetings are held monthly and that the DON, medical director, Infection Preventionist, and administrator must be present and she was not sure on who else needed to be present. The DON stated the risk of not having all members could be the facility not developing a full comprehensive plan for improvement. The DON stated she was new in the DON position and would review facility policies and put a plan in place to ensure everyone was aware of meeting dates and that meeting was mandatory for attendance. During an interview on 02/08/23 at 01:55 PM the RNC stated she was not sure why the required members were not present at QAPI meetings. The RNC stated it was important for the required members to be present so that there was a full review and follow through with the performance improvement plan. The RNC stated the facility would educate and in-service all members on the QAPI requirements and ensure required members are present monthly. During an interview on 02/08/23 at 02:27 PM the ED stated that he expects that all QAPI members attend the meetings. He stated going forward he would see that everyone knows when the meeting was scheduled and that each member is in attendance. Record review of facility policy and procedure titled Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement, dated February 2018 indicated, 1. The QAPI committee must include at a minimum the executive director, DON, medical director, and three staff members from both line positions and management positions. 2. The QAPI committee must meet once per month. Policy and procedure did not include infection preventionist requirement per regulation.
Jan 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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure that residents received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice and the comprehensive person-centered care plan for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for treatment and services, in that: The facility failed to ensure Resident #1 received care and services: wound care including measuring, documenting and notifying nursing staff of area when identified by the facility. This failure could affect residents with skin injures and wounds and result in a wound infection, increases in wound size and severity. The findings include: Record review of a re-admission record for Resident # 1, dated 01/17/23, indicated she re-admitted on [DATE] after an acute hospital stay. Resident #1 was [AGE] years old with diagnoses of urinary tract infection, pneumonia (Infection in the lungs), dementia (decrease in cognition), and hypertension (high blood pressure). Record review of Resident #1's care plan, initiated on 12/27/22, revealed, Problem: Resident #9 hadthe potential for impairment to skin integrity. Goal: Will maintain clean and intact skin. Intervention: Educate resident and family of causative factors and measures to prevent skin injury. Record review of an admission MDS Assessment, dated 12/13/22 indicated Resident #9 understand others and was understood by others. The MDS Section C indicated Resident # 1 had a BIMS (brief interview for mental status) score of 13 which indicated Resident # 9's cognition was intact. The assessment Section E indicated Resident # 1 did not reject care necessary to achieve the resident's goals for health or well-being and exhibited no behaviors. The MDS section G indicated Resident #1 required extensive assistance with bed mobility. The MDS section G indicated, total dependence for bathing. The MDS Section M did not indicate any skin issues. During an observation and interview with resident #1 on 01/17/22 she was clean with no odors and smiled easily at this surveyor. Resident #1 was lying on a high flow air mattress with four pillows for positioning. Resident said she was comfortable and free of pain. Record review of Resident #1's skin assessment, dated 12/27/22, did not indicate any skin issues. Skin assessment dated [DATE], revealed excoriation and slough to the sacrum. Orders to consult wound care physician to follow. Record review of Braden scale for predicting pressure score risk, done on 12/27/22, revealed a score of 15 indicating, Resident #9 was at risk of developing a pressure injury. Record review of Resident #1's progress notes did not reveal any notification to the physician about the new wound identified by LVN A on 12/30/22 until 01/03/23 During an interview on 01/17/23 at 3:30p.m., LVN A said he did not measure, do a skin assessment, or notify the doctor about the new identified excoriated area with denuded area to resident on 12/30/22, after he was made aware of the area by Resident #1's RP. LVN A said he did not notify the physician because he used the physician's standing orders of barrier cream (written protocol that authorize designated members of the healthcare team to complete certain task without having to obtain a physician order). LVN A said he should have measured, documented, and notified the doctor, but he did not. During an interview on 01/18/23 at 1:00p.m., the DON said she became aware of the new skin issue on 01/03/23, during a scheduled weekly skin assessment, and she notified the doctor. The DON said the nurse who discovered the change in skin, should have documented about the wound, completed a skin assessment, and notified the doctor. The DON said failure to follow the policy could lead to a resident's skin injury to worsen or even develop new skin issues. During an interview on 01/18/22 at 2:00 p.m., the Administrator said the DON was responsible making sure the skin process was followed. The ADM said failure to follow the policy could lead to a resident's skin injury to worsen or even develop new skin issues. Record review of policy Physician Notification. It is the responsibility of the nursing staff to observe the change, make an assessment, and notify the physician as indicated based on assessment. The nurse will: Recognize the condition Change, Notify the physician, patient and patient representative of any change in condition.
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?"
  • "What safeguards are in place to prevent abuse and neglect?"
  • "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: Federal abuse finding, 2 life-threatening violation(s), $30,928 in fines. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 24 deficiencies on record, including 2 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $30,928 in fines. Higher than 94% of Texas facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
  • • Grade F (6/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: This facility has a substantiated abuse finding. Extreme caution advised. Explore alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Larkspur's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns LARKSPUR an overall rating of 2 out of 5 stars, which is considered below average nationally. Within Texas, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. A rating at this level reflects concerns identified through health inspections, staffing assessments, or quality measures that families should carefully consider.

How is Larkspur Staffed?

CMS rates LARKSPUR's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 53%, compared to the Texas average of 46%.

What Have Inspectors Found at Larkspur?

State health inspectors documented 24 deficiencies at LARKSPUR during 2023 to 2025. These included: 2 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death) and 22 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 Larkspur?

LARKSPUR is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by CANTEX CONTINUING CARE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 120 certified beds and approximately 81 residents (about 68% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in LUFKIN, Texas.

How Does Larkspur Compare to Other Texas Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Texas, LARKSPUR's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 2.8, staff turnover (53%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Larkspur?

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?" "What safeguards and monitoring systems are in place to protect residents from abuse or neglect?" "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 substantiated abuse finding on record, and the below-average staffing rating.

Is Larkspur Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, LARKSPUR has documented safety concerns. The facility has 1 substantiated abuse finding (meaning confirmed case of resident harm by staff or other residents). Inspectors have issued 2 Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 2-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in Texas. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.

Do Nurses at Larkspur Stick Around?

LARKSPUR has a staff turnover rate of 53%, which is 7 percentage points above the Texas average of 46%. Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.

Was Larkspur Ever Fined?

LARKSPUR has been fined $30,928 across 2 penalty actions. This is below the Texas average of $33,388. While any fine indicates a compliance issue, fines under $50,000 are relatively common and typically reflect isolated problems that were subsequently corrected. Families should ask what specific issues led to these fines and confirm they've been resolved.

Is Larkspur on Any Federal Watch List?

LARKSPUR 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.