ASBURY CARE CENTER OF ALAMO

8223 BROADWAY, SAN ANTONIO, TX 78209 (210) 828-0606
For profit - Limited Liability company 237 Beds Independent Data: November 2025 3 Immediate Jeopardy citations
Trust Grade
0/100
#915 of 1168 in TX
Last Inspection: January 2025

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

Overview

Asbury Care Center of Alamo has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating poor performance with significant concerns. Ranking #915 out of 1168 facilities in Texas places it in the bottom half, and at #43 out of 62 in Bexar County, only a few local options are worse. The facility is worsening, with issues increasing from 5 in 2024 to 11 in 2025. Staffing is average with a 3/5 star rating and a turnover rate of 35%, which is lower than the state average, suggesting some staff stability. However, the facility has incurred $88,642 in fines, reflecting a concerning level of compliance issues. There are serious weaknesses, including critical incidents where the facility failed to provide a safe environment, such as malfunctioning HVAC systems that left residents cold during winter and inadequate supervision for residents with memory care needs, leading to risks of wandering and self-harm. While the quality measures are rated good at 4/5 stars, the overall picture reveals significant safety and oversight concerns that families should consider carefully.

Trust Score
F
0/100
In Texas
#915/1168
Bottom 22%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Worse
5 → 11 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
35% turnover. Near Texas's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
Penalties
✓ Good
$88,642 in fines. Lower than most Texas facilities. Relatively clean record.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 9 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Texas. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
⚠ Watch
44 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Overall Rating
★★★☆☆
3.0
Staff Levels
★★★★☆
4.0
Care Quality
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 5 issues
2025: 11 issues

The Good

  • 4-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover below average (35%)

    13 points below Texas average of 48%

Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.

The Bad

1-Star Overall Rating

Below Texas average (2.8)

Significant quality concerns identified by CMS

Staff Turnover: 35%

11pts below Texas avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

Federal Fines: $88,642

Well above median ($33,413)

Moderate penalties - review what triggered them

The Ugly 44 deficiencies on record

3 life-threatening
Aug 2025 4 deficiencies 1 IJ
CRITICAL (J) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

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 ensure the resident environment remains as free of ac...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the resident environment remains as free of accident hazards as is possible; and to ensure resident receives adequate supervision to prevent accidents for 2 of 4 residents (Residents #1 and #2) reviewed for accidents and hazards. 1. The facility failed to ensure the environment was free of hazards to Resident #1 after the resident was hospitalized for suicidal ideation on 05/14/2025 and then on 08/14/2025 the resident attempted to self-infict an injury to her wrist with a razor. Resident #1 was discovered with a bleeding right wrist and a shaving razor on her bed on 08/14/2025 at 5:00 PM. 2. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1 was provide supervision the resident after being hospitalized for a suicidal ideation on 05/14/2025, resulting in the resident's attempt at self-injury on 08/14/2025.3. The facility failed to put effective measures in place to prevent Resident #2 from eloping from the memory care unit on 07/04/2025. An IJ was identified on 8/21/2025. The IJ template was provided to the facility on 8/21/2025 at 12:44 PM. While the IJ was removed on 8/23/2025 at 2:27 PM, the facility remained out of compliance at a scope of isolated and a severity level of no actual harm because the facility needed to evaluate the effectiveness of the POR and complete required staff training. These failures could place residents at risk of inadequate supervision and monitoring leading to an environment that is not free of accidents/hazards. Findings included: 1. Record review of Resident #1’s admission record (Face sheet) dated 08/19/2025 revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including cerebral infarction (a condition where brain tissue dies due to a blockage in a blood vessel), anxiety disorder (excessive and persistent worry that interferes with daily life), hemiplegia affecting right dominant side (a condition where paralysis or weakness affects the right side of the body), and depression (a serious mood disorder that affects how one thinks, feels, and acts, often making daily activities difficult). Record review of Resident #1’s quarterly MDS dated [DATE] revealed a BIMS score of 15/15 indicating the resident’s cognitive skills for daily decision making were not impaired, she felt down/depressed/hopeless several days, and she sometimes felt socially isolated. The resident was able to ambulate with the use of a walker and eat, dress, toilet, and perform personal hygiene independently. Record review of Resident #1’s comprehensive care plan, updated 08/06/2025 and reviewed on 08/19/2025, revealed a focus area indicating the resident was at risk for changes in mood related to migraines, depression, insomnia, seizures, anxiety and pain; an initial mood evaluation where she reported little interest or pleasure in doing things; feeling down, depressed or hopeless; impaired sleep pattern; little energy; feeling bad about self; and having a hard time concentrating on things (initiated 05/02/2025). The goal was for the resident to have improved mood state through the review date (initiated 05/02/2025, revised on 07/24/2025). Interventions/tasks included: Administering medications as ordered and monitoring for side effects and effectiveness; assisting the resident to identify strengths and positive coping skills; behavioral health consults as needed; monitoring/recording mood to determine if problems seem to be related to external causes; and monitoring/recording/reporting to MD prn risk for harming others; increased anger, labile mood or agitation; feeling threatened by others or thoughts of harming someone; possession of weapons or objects that could be used as weapons (all initiated 05/02/2025). The care plan also revealed focus areas for the resident's use of antidepressant medication, with the intervention/task of monitor/document/report PRN social isolation, suicidal thoughts and withdrawal (initiated 04/22/2025); and the resident's anxiety diagnosis and use of antianxiety medication, with the interventions/task of monitoring/documenting/reporting PRN any risk for harm to self: suicidal plan, past attempt at suicide, risky actions, intentionally harming or trying to harm self, refusing to eat, drink, take medications or therapies or sense of hopelessness, impaired judgment or safety awareness (initiated 04/22/2025). There was no focus area in Resident #1's comprehensive care plan indicating the resident had a history of and hospitalization for a suicidal ideation on 05/14/2025 and had also attempted to injure herself on 08/14/2025. Record review of Resident #1's electronic Physician's Orders revealed orders for: -Duloxetine HCL oral capsule delayed release sprinkle 30 mg, give one capsule by mouth one time a day for depression with an order date of 08/06/2025 and a start date of 08/07/2025 -Duloxetine HCL oral capsule delayed release sprinkle 60 mg, give one capsule by mouth one time a day for depression with an order date of 04/22/2025 and a start date of 04/23/2025 -Hydroxyzine HCL oral tablet 25 mg, give one tablet by mouth every 8 hours as needed for anxiety with an order and start date of 08/05/2025 Record review of Resident #1's Medication Administration Record from 08/01/2025 - 08/20/2025 revealed she was monitored daily for side effects to antianxiety medication but only monitored on 08/20/2025 for side effects to antidepressant medications. Record review of a progress note dated 05/14/2025 at 7:27 AM in Resident #1’s EHR revealed the resident was found crying in her bedroom by a CNA. Resident #1 stated she did not want to live and “did not want to be here anymore.” The resident’s RP and MD were contacted and the resident was transferred to the hospital. The resident returned to the facility on [DATE] to the general population. Record review of Resident #1’s psychiatric evaluation dated 05/14/2025 during her hospital admission noted the resident was physically able to harm herself, was not supervised at her current facility, and would potentially be able to do so. The psychiatrist recommended a memory care facility with closer observation. Record review of Resident #1's EHR revealed the resident received routine psychiatric care, with the most recent psychiatric assessment on 08/13/2025. The note revealed staff reported the resident seemed paranoid and delusional at times, thinking people were talking about her and she did not want to take medications from the staff. The provider spoke with the resident's sister, who confirmed the resident had a history of non-compliance with medications. The note revealed the resident was anxious but not suicidal and there was no risk of aggression. Record review of a progress note by LVN B dated 08/14/2025 at 5:00 PM in Resident #1's EHR dated 08/14/2025 at 5:00 PM revealed the resident was bleeding from her right wrist with a women's shaving razor on the bed beside her. The resident informed the nurse she wanted to die and to go to the hospital. Pressure was applied to the site, the wound was cleaned, treated with antibiotic cream, and dressed with a dry dressing. The wound was superficial and approximately 2 cm long. The resident's vital signs were taken and within normal ranges. The DON was informed, the resident's physician and RP were notified, the resident was on 1:1 watch until transport arrived, and the resident was transported to the ER. The resident returned to the facility on [DATE] to her previous room, which was not on the memory care unit. Record review of a self-reported incident filed by the administrator of the facility on 08/16/2025 revealed: “Brief narrative summary of the reportable incident: Resident sent out to hospital on [DATE] due to suicidal ideation. Returned to facility today 08/16/2025 with hospital records that resident with acute fracture to right ulnar and a healing fracture of distal radius.” During an interview on 08/19/2025 at 2:30 PM, LVN A stated Resident #1 was agitated the morning she cut her right wrist, but later relaxed and asked to speak with the ADON. She had contacted the resident’s psychiatric NP but she didn’t get back to her that day. She spoke to the resident’s family member. LVN A stated she was aware of Resident #1's suicidal ideation and hospitalization in May 2025 and informed management she believed it would be better for Resident #1 to be placed in memory care because it was safer, residents could not have glass or scissors, and staff would go through items brought by family members. During an interview on 08/19/2025 at 2:40 PM, CNA G stated she had never seen Resident #1 sad but the other CNA who cares for her reported she was occasionally depressed after coming back from an outing with her family. Her family brought her things, such as food and personal care items. She never saw the resident try to hurt herself. Residents were not allowed to have razors; if she saw one, she would report it to a nurse. Resident #1 got along well with her roommate. An observation on 08/19/2025 at 3:56 PM revealed the clean utility room was unlocked and contained ladies’ and men’s shaving razors, nail clippers and aerosol cans of deodorant. During an interview on 08/20/2025 at 8:04 AM, LVN C stated he was told in May 2025 that Resident #1 had thoughts of killing herself and did not want to live but had no plan. He contacted her physician and they sent her to the hospital for evaluation. He spoke with her family, and they reported she tended to have hallucinations. He did not know how she obtained a razor. He recalled the resident had groceries delivered that day, so it was possible it was in one of the bags. The clean utility room did not have a lock, but the staff supervised it. During an interview on 08/20/2025 at 10:05 AM, the ADON stated she had gone into Resident #1’s room sometime between 10:00 – 10:30 AM on 08/14/2025 and Resident #1 told her she was crying because she believed everyone was talking about her. At 5:00 PM, the ADON and DON received a call from LVN B that Resident #1 was having an emergency situation. They both went to Resident #1’s room and observed the resident laying on her bed and holding her right wrist with a towel. LVN B stated it looked like the resident attempted to use a razor to cut herself. The ADON remained with the resident while LVN B called psychiatric services, the resident’s doctor and the resident’s family. The resident was calm at this time. The resident was transferred to the hospital. During an interview on 08/22/2025 at 4:20 PM, the Administrator stated she had assumed the position of administrator earlier that month. She was out of town the day Resident #1 attempted to injure herself. She received a call from the DON, who described the situation as the resident having a suicidal ideation and she did not believe the resident's attempt to injure herself with the razor was a suicide attempt, and she did not believe the resident's attempt to injure herself with the razor was a suicide attempt and required reporting to the state agency. During an interview on 08/22/2025 at 4:30 PM, the DON stated he called the Administrator on 08/14/2025 and told her Resident #1 was sent to the hospital. He recalled describing the resident cutting herself but did not recall if he used the term suicide attempt, as it was an ongoing situation. He remembered Resident #1 being hospitalized in May 2025 for a suicidal ideation but was unaware of the recommendation by the hospital psychiatrist to have the resident admitted to a secure unit. The DON did not believe the resident needed a secure unit and could be managed with increased supervision. Record review of the facility policy Incidents and Accidents, revised 04/11/2025, revealed, Policy explanation: The purpose of incident reporting can include: Assuring that appropriate and immediate interventions are implemented and corrective actions are taken to prevent recurrences and improve the management of resident care. 5. The following incidents/accidents require an incident/accident report but are not limited to: self inflicted injuries; suicide or attempted suicide. Record review of the facility policy Resident Rights, updated 20252, revealed, Resident rights. The resident has the right to a dignified existence, self-determination, and communication with and access to persons and services inside and outside the facility. 8. Safe environment. The resident has a right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely. Record review of the facility’s policy, “Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation,” updated 2025, revealed, “It is the policy of this facility to provide protections for the health, welfare, and rights of each resident by developing and implementing written policies and procedures that prohibit and prevent abuse, neglect, exploitation, and misappropriation of resident property. VII. Reporting/Response. A. The facility will have written procedures that include: 1. Reporting of all alleged violations to the Administrator, state agency, adult protective services and to all other required agencies (e.g., law enforcement when applicable) within specified timeframes: a. Immediately, but not later than 2 hours after the allegation is made, if the events that cause the allegation involve abuse or result in serious bodily injury, or b. Not later than 24 hours if the events that cause the allegation do not involve abuse and do not result in serious bodily injury.” An Immediate Jeopardy was identified on 08/21/2025. The Administrator and DON were notified of the Immediate Jeopardy on 08/21/2025 at 12:44 PM and were given a copy of the Immediate Jeopardy template and a Plan of Removal (POR) was requested. The facility's POR for the Immediate Jeopardy was accepted on 08/22/2025 at 10:16 AM and reflected the following: The Medical Director was notified of the Immediate Jeopardy on 08/22/2025 at 12:34 PM. 1. Immediate Actions Taken for Those Residents Identified: Action: Resident #1 assessed, first aid administered, Primary Physician notified orders given to send to ER for evaluation and treatment. Person(s) Responsible: Charge Nurse Date: 8/14/2025 Action: Resident #1 has been receiving psychiatric services since 6/23/2025. Prior to the 8/14/2025 incident, the resident seen on 8/13/2025. Most recent visit 8/20/2025. Person(s) Responsible: The facility's contract psychology and psychiatry services. Date: 8/13/2025, 8/20/2025, on-going Action: Resident #1 placed in secure unit per resident’s request. Person(s) Responsible: Director of Nursing and Assistant Director of Nursing Date: 8/20/2025 Action: Resident #1s room cleared of all items that the resident could use to harm self. Person(s) Responsible: Director of Nursing and Assistant Director of Nursing Date: 8/14/2025 Completed on the same day Action: Resident #1 care plan updated to reflect risk for suicidal behavior and need for increased supervision. Person(s) Responsible: Director of Nursing and Assistant Director of Nursing Date: 8/21/2025 2. How the Facility Identified Other Possibly Affected Residents: Action: Conduct safe surveys with residents/family for signs of suicidal ideation. No other residents identified. If a resident expresses or exhibits signs/symptoms of suicidal ideation during a safe survey assessment: The staff member immediately notifies the Charge Nurse, DON/ADON, and Administrator. The physician and psychiatric provider are contacted immediately for further evaluation and treatment orders. The resident is placed on one-to-one monitoring until cleared by a licensed practitioner. The resident’s responsible party is notified. The care plan is updated with individualized interventions within 24 hours. Documentation is completed in PCC, including a behavior note and entry on the 24-hour report. If the DON/Administrator is unavailable, the ADON or RN Supervisor assumes responsibility to ensure no delay in intervention. Person(s) Responsible: Director of Nursing and Assistant Director of Nursing, Charge Nurse, Administrator Date: 8/22/2025 by 5 pm and ongoing Action: For Suicidal Ideation: Reviewed current resident population for diagnosis associated with suicidal Ideation and updated care plans with individualized interventions (e.g. Assess for underlying causes, consult mental health and/or psychiatric provider, individualized behavior intervention, Implement a behavior monitoring). Person(s) Responsible: Director of Nursing and Assistant Director of Nursing Date: 8/21/2025 Action: Suicidal Ideation: Conduct staff interviews to ask staff if any residents who: Have exhibited or voiced suicidal ideation: Has a plan, withdrawing from activities and family/friends, extreme mood swings, eating or sleeping pattern change, making statements like “I want to hurt myself” Person(s) Responsible: Director of Nursing and Assistant Director of Nursing Social Services Date: 8/21/2025 Action: Reviewed Incident Reports and Nursing Notes for the past 6 months to identify residents with suicidal ideation. No other residents identified. Person(s) Responsible: Director of Nursing and Assistant Director of Nursing, Social Services Date: 8/21/2025 Action: Upon admission and/or identification of suicidal ideation, the resident will be provided education regarding the importance of reporting suicidal thoughts to staff and the interventions available for support. The responsible party and family members will also receive education on recognizing signs of suicidal ideation and the importance of communicating concerns to facility staff. Education will be documented in the resident’s medical record and reflected in the individualized care plan. Person(s) Responsible: Director of Nursing and Assistant Director of Nursing, Social Services, Date: Ongoing Action: All suicidal or self-harm behaviors will be documented in PointClickCare (PCC) through: Behavior Monitoring Flowsheets, 24-Hour Report, and/or Progress notes. Staff are trained to immediately escalate any report of suicidal ideation or self-harm. If the DON/Administrator is unavailable or on leave, the ADON or designated RN Supervisor assumes responsibility for receiving notifications and ensuring interventions are implemented without delay. All incidents will be reviewed by the interdisciplinary team and integrated into the residents’ individualized care plan within 24 hours. Person(s) Responsible: Director of Nursing and Assistant Director of Nursing, RN Supervisor, Charge Nurses Action: Elopement: Conduct staff interviews: ask staff if any residents who: Have exhibited signs of attempting to exit the facility (testing door alarms, approaching doors when other staff or visitors are entering/exiting). No other residents identified. Person(s) Responsible: DON/ADON Date: 8/22/2025 by noon Action: Suicidal Ideation: Education provided to all staff on suicidal ideation and measures to take if identified (notify DON/Administrator immediately). All staff will be educated prior to working their next shift and new staff will be educated prior to working their first shift. Person(s) Responsible: Director of Nursing and Assistant Director of Nursing Date: 8/22/2025 by 5 pm Action: Review all hospital documentation on residents that admitted or re-admitted over the past 3 months for documentation related to suicidal ideation. Continue to monitor all admissions/re-admissions documentation for suicidal ideation. Updated Care plans as needed. No new residents identified. Person(s) Responsible: Director of Nursing and Assistant Director of Nursing Administrator Date: 8/22/2025 by 5 pm and ongoing Action: Ensure current staff and new hires receive Incident, accident, and management of resident behavior training during orientation before working independently and annually thereafter. All staff will be educated prior to working their next shift and new staff will be educated prior to working their first shift. Person(s) Responsible: Director of Nursing and Assistant Director of Nursing Date: 8/22/2025 by 5 pm 3. Measures Put into Place/System Changes to remove the immediacy, and what date these actions occurred: Action: Suicidal Ideation: Education provided to all staff on suicidal ideation and measures to take if identified (notify DON/Administrator immediately). All staff will be educated prior to working their next shift and new staff will be educated prior to working their first shift. Person(s) Responsible: Director of Nursing and Assistant Director of Nursing Date: 8/22/2025 by 5 pm Action: Review all hospital documentation on residents that admitted or re-admitted over the past 3 months for documentation related to suicidal ideation. Continue to monitor all admissions/re-admissions documentation for suicidal ideation. Updated Care plans as needed. No new residents identified. Person(s) Responsible: Director of Nursing and Assistant Director of Nursing Administrator Date: 8/22/2025 by 5 pm and ongoing Action: Ensure current staff and new hires receive Incident, accident, and management of resident behavior training during orientation before working independently and annually thereafter. All staff will be educated prior to working their next shift and new staff will be educated prior to working their first shift. Person(s) Responsible: Director of Nursing and Assistant Director of Nursing Date: 8/22/2025 by 5 pm 4. How the Corrective Actions Will be Monitored/Ensure Comprehension, by whom and for how long: Action: The Interdisciplinary team will conduct daily room rounds Monday through Friday on all residents observing any items that could be used for self-harm (e.g. razors, sharp objects, cords, glass). The Manager on Duty will conduct rounds on Saturday and Sunday observing any items that could be used for self-harm (e.g. razors, sharp objects, cords, glass) and immediately remove those items. All rounds will be discussed in the morning meeting. Person(s) Responsible: Interdisciplinary Team and Manager on Duty Date: 8/22/2025 by 5 pm and ongoing Action: Families will be educated on prohibited items during admission and re-educated as needed to ensure unsafe items are not brought into the facility. CNAs and nurses are trained to observe and report unsafe items daily while providing routine care. DON/ADON will review audit results weekly and document compliance in QAPI. Responsible: Director of Nursing and Assistant Director of Nursing, Charge Nurse Date: Ongoing Action: Interview 5 staff weekly x 4 weeks then monthly x 3 months to ensure no residents have voiced suicidal thoughts or attempted self-harm. With verbal comprehension of what to do in the event of resident self-harm or report of suicidal ideation. Responsible: Director of Nursing and Assistant Director of Nursing, Charge Nurse Action: Interview 5 staff weekly x 4 weeks then monthly x 3 months to ensure no residents have exhibited signs or attempts of elopement. With verbal comprehension of what to do in the event of elopement. Responsible: Director of Nursing and Assistant Director of Nursing, , Charge Nurse Date: Ongoing QAPI— Action: Medical Director informed of the deficient practice/IJ and the facility’s plan to remove the immediacy. Person(s) Responsible: Director of Nursing, Administrator, and/or Designee Date: 8/21/2025 The facility's verification of the POR was as follows: 1. Record review of progress note dated 08/14/2025 at 5:00 PM by LVN B revealed, “Pressure applied to site, cleansed with normal saline sol. patted dry, TAO, dry dressing applied, wound superficial 2cm long. T-98.8, P-105, R-20, BP-133/85. DON, NP notified. Record review of progress note dated 08/14/2025 at 8:46 PM by NP revealed, “Chief Complaint: Suicidal ideations, took shaving disposable razor and cut wrist sent to ER.” 2. Record review of Resident #1’s electronic health record revealed psychiatric notes dated 06/23/25, 06/25/25, 07/09/25, 07/30/25, 08/06/25, 08/13/25 and 08/20/25. 3. a. Record review of Resident #1’s electronic health record revealed psychiatric notes dated 08/20/2025 with the following entry: “Spoke with administrator and ADON to move patient to locked memory unit, private room, remove all sharp objects, use of plasticware for meals. Also discussed patient's desire to move to another facility which family has declined at this time. Will continue to monitor closely. Hospitalization is not necessary at this time. b. Observation on 08/21/2025 at 8:30 AM revealed Resident #1 was residing on the secure unit. 4. Observation on 08/21/2025 at 11:00 AM of Resident #1’s room and bathroom revealed there were no sharp objects or anything the resident could use to harm herself. 5. Record review of Resident #1’s care plan, updated 08/21/2025, revealed: “The resident is at risk for changes in mood r/t migraines, depression, insomnia, seizures, anxiety, pain, initial phq9 of 12 where she reported, little interest or pleasure in doing things, feeling down, depressed or hopeless, impaired sleep pattern, little energy, feeling bad about self, hard time concentrating on things. Res has hx of suicidal ideation on 5/14/2025. 8/14/2025 had a suicide attempt using a women's shaving razor. Interventions: o Move to the secured unit for decreased stimulation o Psychiatric evaluation o Staff to speak with family and educate regarding what items can be ordered for resident. Record review of Resident #1’s care plan, initiated 08/21/2025, & revised on 8/22/25 revealed: “Resident exhibits self-injurious behavior (e.g., hitting self, biting, scratching, head banging), which poses a risk to safety and physical well-being. She has a history of scraping her skin with at sharp item. Interventions: o Assess for underlying causes such as psychiatric illness, cognitive impairment, sensory processing disorder, pain, frustration, or past trauma. o Conduct regular skin assessments and medical reviews to monitor for injury and address complications promptly. o Educate staff on warning signs of escalation, de-escalation techniques, and emergency procedures for managing self-injury. o Engage family or responsible party in care plaining and to gather relevant history that may inform effective intervention strategies. o Monitor resident room to ensure no sharp objects are present. o Provide a safe environment, removing or padding items that could be used for self-harm and ensuring close supervision during high-risk periods. 6. Record review of documentation from facility revealed interviewed 48 residents on signs of suicidal ideation. After the POR was accepted, record review of Resident #10's EHR revealed the resident stated to social worker on 08/22/20225 at 11:59 AM he wanted to hurt himself with a plan (he wanted to walk out into freeway; however, resident is bed-bound and not ambulatory). Resident #10 was evaluated by the psych NP the same day and sent to the hospital. Care plan was updated in a timely manner. 7. Staff interviews were conducted on 08/21 - 08/22/2025. RN/LVN = 11; CNA = 18; Dietary = 8; Housekeeping/Laundry/Maintenance = 5; PT/OT = 7; Admin = 8. Staff not interviewed will be interviewed prior to beginning work from 08/22 - 08/25/2025. Staff was asked: o Has any resident ever expressed to you that they may want to self-harm: o Do you know of any residents that you feel would potentially be at risk of self-harm? o If you suspect any resident of self-harm, what would you do? o Who would you report this to? All staff indicated no resident expressed to them a desire for self harm, they were unaware of any residents at potential risk for self-harm, and if they suspected such a risk they would report this immediately to the charge nurse/DON. 8. Record review revealed one resident was identified with a suicidal ideation on 08/08/2025. The resident was sent to the hospital immediately and returned to the facility on [DATE]. This resident verbalized another SI on 08/21/2025 and was again sent to the hospital. 9. Record review of Resident #1’s electronic health record revealed in psych note dated 08/20/2025 the resident received education regarding the importance of reporting suicidal thoughts to staff and the interventions available for support. The resident’s RP also received education on recognizing signs of suicidal ideation and the importance of communicating concerns to facility staff. 10. Record review of resident electronic health records revealed documentation in PointClickCare of resident suicidal and self-harm behaviors for Residents #1 and Resident #10. 11. Record review 8/22/2025 at 3:50 PM of staff roster provided by Admin on 8/22 indicating staff that received in-service training/were asked about elopement behaviors. RN/LVN = 11; CNA = 18; Dietary = 8; Housekeeping/Laundry/Maintenance = 5; PT/OT = 7; Admin = 8. Staff not interviewed will be interviewed prior to beginning work from 08/22 - 08/25/2025. 12. Record review revealed facility included in Resident Welcome Packet section on Restricted Items which included unsafe items. 13. Called the facility's medical director on 08/22/2025 at 12:35 PM; left voice message requesting return call. Record review of QAPI sign-in roster revealed Psych NP was present and the medical director participated by phone. 2. Record review of Resident #2's face sheet, dated 8/19/2025, revealed a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] and discharged home on 7/8/2025. Relevant diagnoses included senile degeneration of the brain (progressive memory and cognitive decline), schizophrenia (a mental health illness that causes difficulty distinguishing reality from their own thoughts and delusions), and dementia (a progressive disorder affecting cognition and behavior). Record review of Resident #2's physician orders revealed an order dated 7/3/2025 indicating the resident was admitted to the facility for a planned, five-day hospice-respite stay. Record review of Resident #2's discharge MDS, dated [DATE] revealed a BIMS score of 00, indicating severe cognitive decline. Record review of Resident #2's baseline care plan, date printed 8/19/2025, revealed the following: Resident demonstrates wandering and/or exit-seeking behavior placing self at risk for elopement or injury, had elopement on 7/4/2025. Record review of Resident #2's progress notes revealed the following documentation, dated 7/4/2025 at 1:12 PM by LVN D: Resident was seen 5 Minutes before this nurse went into nurses station restroom, after this nurse
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 F0569 (Tag F0569)

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 convey within 30 days the resident's funds upon discharge for 1 of ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to convey within 30 days the resident's funds upon discharge for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #9) reviewed for personal funds. The facility failed to ensure Resident #9's personal funds were conveyed within 30 days of the resident's self-initiated discharge from the facility. This failure could result in loss of personal funds or decreased quality life to residents. Findings included: Record review of Resident #9's face sheet, dated [DATE], revealed an [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE] and discharged home on [DATE]. Record review of Resident #9's discharge MDS, dated [DATE] revealed a BIMS score of 15, indicating no cognitive decline. Record review of Resident #9's HHSC Form 3618, dated [DATE] and printed on [DATE], revealed Resident #9's notification to the state of discharge home (return not anticipated) was processed and accepted by HHSC and the Texas Medicaid and Healthcare Partnership on [DATE]. Record review of Resident #9's transaction record of personal funds, dated [DATE], revealed Resident #9's account had a positive balance of $1,030.01 from a deposit on [DATE] with a description that read SSA Treas [number]. The Business Office Manager position at the facility was vacant at the time of survey, so no interview was performed. In an interview with the Admin. on [DATE] at 1:50 PM, she stated she was not the Admin. of the facility when the resident discharged . She stated that when a resident is discharged and the notification of discharge (form 3618) is processed, Medicaid and the SSA are notified that the account is closed so no further funds would deposit into a resident's account. She said the deposit in Resident #9's account was likely his monthly direct deposit from the SSA, and she explained that since Resident #9's form 3618 was processed after the deposit, he should have received a refund from the facility within 30 days. She was unsure why the refund had not been processed by the facility. She stated the facility's Business Office Manager had unexpectedly and suddenly died 3 days prior, and the facility was working with their corporate office to continue to operations of the Business Office. She stated she would ensure Resident #9 received a refund for the amount in the account. In an interview with Resident #9 on [DATE] at 2:10 PM, he stated he was not aware of the funds in the account at the facility. He stated he had not been notified by the facility that there was a deposit after he discharged home. He stated he spoke with the former Business Office Manager sometime in early August regarding home health care services, but she did not mention his personal funds account. She told him she would return his call regarding his issue, but he had not heard from her since then. Record review of the facility policy titled Resident Rights (dated 2025) revealed the following: The resident has the right to receive notices orally (meaning spoken) and in writing (including Braille) in a format and a language he or she understands including: . required notices as specified in this section. The facility must furnish to each resident a written description of the legal which includes . a description of the manner in protecting personal funds.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

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 all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, exploitation or mistreatment, including injuries of unknown source and misappropriation, are reported immediately, but not later than 2 hours after the allegation is made, if the events that cause the allegation involve abuse or result in serious bodily injury, or not later than 24 hours if the events that cause the allegation do not involve abuse and do not result in serious bodily injury, to the administrator of the facility and to other officials (including to the State Survey Agency) in accordance with State law through established procedures for one resident (Resident #1) of 8 residents reviewed for abuse and neglect. The DON failed to notify the Administrator that Resident #1 intentionally cut herself on her right wrist with a shaving razor on 08/14/2025 in an attempt to inflict self-harm, and the Administrator failed to report the self-inflicted injury to the state agency. These failures had the potential to affect residents in the facility by placing them at risk for self-harm.The findings included: Record review of Resident #1's admission record (Face sheet) dated 08/19/2025 revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including cerebral infarction (a condition where brain tissue dies due to a blockage in a blood vessel), anxiety disorder (excessive and persistent worry that interferes with daily life), hemiplegia affecting right dominant side (a condition where paralysis or weakness affects the right side of the body), and depression (a serious mood disorder that affects how one thinks, feels, and acts, often making daily activities difficult). Record review of Resident #1's quarterly MDS dated [DATE] revealed a BIMS score of 15/15 indicating the resident's cognitive skills for daily decision making were not impaired, she felt down/depressed/hopeless several days, and she sometimes felt socially isolated. The resident was able to ambulate with the use of a walker and eat, dress, toilet, and perform personal hygiene independently. Record review of Resident #1's comprehensive care plan, updated 08/06/2025 and reviewed on 08/19/2025, revealed a focus area indicating the resident was at risk for changes in mood related to migraines, depression, insomnia, seizures, anxiety and pain; an initial mood evaluation where she reported little interest or pleasure in doing things; feeling down, depressed or hopeless; impaired sleep pattern; little energy; feeling bad about self; and having a hard time concentrating on things (initiated 05/02/2025). The goal was for the resident to have improved mood state through the review date (initiated 05/02/2025, revised on 07/24/2025). Interventions/tasks included: Administering medications as ordered and monitoring for side effects and effectiveness; assisting the resident to identify strengths and positive coping skills; behavioral health consults as needed; monitoring/recording mood to determine if problems seem to be related to external causes; and monitoring/recording/reporting to MD prn risk for harming others; increased anger, labile mood or agitation; feeling threatened by others or thoughts of harming someone; possession of weapons or objects that could be used as weapons (all initiated 05/02/2025). The care plan also revealed focus areas for the resident's use of antidepressant medication, with the intervention/task of monitor/document/report PRN social isolation, suicidal thoughts and withdrawal (initiated 04/22/2025); and the resident's anxiety diagnosis and use of antianxiety medication, with the interventions/task of monitoring/documenting/reporting PRN any risk for harm to self: suicidal plan, past attempt at suicide, risky actions, intentionally harming or trying to harm self, refusing to eat, drink, take medications or therapies or sense of hopelessness, impaired judgment or safety awareness (initiated 04/22/2025). There was no focus area in Resident #1's comprehensive care plan indicating the resident had a history of and hospitalization for a suicidal ideation on 05/14/2025 and had also attempted to injure herself on 08/14/2025. Record review of a progress note dated 05/14/2025 at 7:27 AM in Resident #1's EHR revealed the resident was found crying in her bedroom by a CNA. Resident #1 stated she did not want to live and did not want to be here anymore. The resident's RP and MD were contacted and the resident was transferred to the hospital. The resident returned to the facility on [DATE] to the general population. Record review of Resident #1's psychiatric evaluation dated 05/14/2025 during her hospital admission noted the resident was physically able to harm herself, was not supervised at her current facility, and would potentially be able to do so. The psychiatrist recommended a memory care facility with closer observation. Record review of a progress note by LVN B dated 08/14/2025 at 5:00 PM in Resident #1's EHR dated 08/14/2025 at 5:00 PM revealed the resident was bleeding from her right wrist with a women's shaving razor on the bed beside her. The resident informed the nurse she wanted to die and to go to the hospital. Pressure was applied to the site, the wound was cleaned, treated with antibiotic cream, and dressed with a dry dressing. The wound was superficial and approximately 2 cm long. The resident's vital signs were taken and within normal ranges. The DON was informed, the resident's physician and RP were notified, the resident was on 1:1 watch until transport arrived, and the resident was transported to the ER. The resident returned to the facility on [DATE] to her previous room, which was not on the memory care unit. Record review of a self-reported incident filed by the administrator of the facility on 08/16/2025 revealed: Brief narrative summary of the reportable incident: Resident sent out to hospital on [DATE] due to suicidal ideation. Returned to facility today 08/16/2025 with hospital records that resident with acute fracture to right ulnar and a healing fracture of distal radius. During an interview on 08/22/2025 at 4:20 PM, the Administrator stated she had assumed the position of administrator on 08/04/2025. She was out of town the day Resident #1 attempted to injure herself. She received a call from the DON, who described the situation as the resident having a suicidal ideation but he did not say the resident had injured herself, and she did not believe the resident's attempt to injure herself with the razor was a suicide attempt and required reporting to the state agency. During an interview on 08/22/2025 at 4:30 PM, the DON stated he called the Administrator on 08/14/2025 and told her Resident #1 was sent to the hospital. He recalled describing the resident cutting herself but did not recall if he used the term suicide attempt, as it was an ongoing situation. He remembered Resident #1 being hospitalized in May 2025 for a suicidal ideation but was unaware of the recommendation by the hospital psychiatrist to have the resident admitted to a secure unit. The DON did not believe the resident needed a secure unit and could be managed with increased supervision. Record review of the facility's policy, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation, updated 2025, revealed, It is the policy of this facility to provide protections for the health, welfare, and rights of each resident by developing and implementing written policies and procedures that prohibit and prevent abuse, neglect, exploitation, and misappropriation of resident property. VII. Reporting/Response. A. The facility will have written procedures that include: 1. Reporting of all alleged violations to the Administrator, state agency, adult protective services and to all other required agencies (e.g., law enforcement when applicable) within specified timeframes:a. Immediately, but not later than 2 hours after the allegation is made, if the events that cause the allegation involve abuse or result in serious bodily injury, orb. Not later than 24 hours if the events that cause the allegation do not involve abuse and do not result in serious bodily injury.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure the comprehensive care plan was reviewed and...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure the comprehensive care plan was reviewed and revised by the interdisciplinary team after each assessment including both the comprehensive and quarterly review assessments to reflect the current condition for 2 of 14 residents (Resident #8 and # 1) reviewed for care plan revisions. 1. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1's care plan was comprehensive and reflected Resident #1's history of hospitalization for suicidal ideation on 05/14/2025 and had attempted to injure herself on 08/14/2025.2. The facility failed to ensure Resident #8's care plan was comprehensive and updated to reflect Resident #8 used a geriatric chair (a large, padded chair with wheeled bases, designed to assist seniors with limited mobility) as a fall prevention. This deficient practice could place residents at risk of not receiving appropriate interventions to meet their current needs. Findings include: 1. Record review of Resident #1’s admission record (Face sheet) dated 08/19/2025 revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including cerebral infarction (a condition where brain tissue dies due to a blockage in a blood vessel), anxiety disorder (excessive and persistent worry that interferes with daily life), hemiplegia affecting right dominant side (a condition where paralysis or weakness affects the right side of the body), and depression (a serious mood disorder that affects how one thinks, feels, and acts, often making daily activities difficult). Record review of Resident #1’s quarterly MDS dated [DATE] revealed a BIMS score of 15/15 indicating the resident’s cognitive skills for daily decision making were not impaired, she felt down/depressed/hopeless several days, and she sometimes felt socially isolated. Record review of Resident #1’s comprehensive care plan, reviewed 08/06/2025, revealed a focus area indicating the resident was at risk for changes in mood related to migraines, depression, insomnia, seizures, anxiety and pain; an initial mood evaluation where she reported little interest or pleasure in doing things; feeling down, depressed or hopeless; impaired sleep pattern; little energy; feeling bad about self; and having a hard time concentrating on things (initiated 05/02/2025). The goal was for the resident to have improved mood state through the review date (initiated 05/02/2025, revised on 07/24/2025). Interventions/tasks included: Administering medications as ordered and monitoring for side effects and effectiveness; assisting the resident to identify strengths and positive coping skills; behavioral health consults as needed; monitoring/recording mood to determine if problems seem to be related to external causes; and monitoring/recording/reporting to MD prn risk for harming others; increased anger, labile mood or agitation; feeling threatened by others or thoughts of harming someone; possession of weapons or objects that could be used as weapons (all initiated 05/02/2025). There was no focus area noting the resident had a history of and hospitalization for a suicidal ideation on 05/14/2025 and had also attempted to injure herself on 08/14/2025. Record review of a progress note dated 05/14/2025 at 7:27 AM in Resident #1’s EHR revealed the resident was found crying in her bedroom by a CNA. Resident #1 stated she did not want to live and “did not want to be here anymore.” The resident’s RP and MD were contacted and the resident was transferred to the hospital. The resident returned to the facility on [DATE]. Record review of Resident #1’s psychiatric evaluation dated 05/14/2025 during her hospital admission revealed the resident was physically able to harm herself, was not supervised at her current facility, and would potentially be able to do so. The psychiatrist recommended a memory care facility with closer observation. During an interview on 08/19/2025 at 2:30 PM, Resident #1 was agitated and stated she was upset and believed the staff was talking about her behind her back and posting about her on social media. During an interview on 08/22/2025 at 4:20 PM, the Administrator stated she had assumed the position of administrator earlier that month. She was out of town the day Resident #1 attempted to injure herself. She received a call from the DON, who described the situation as the resident having a suicidal ideation. During an interview on 08/22/2025 at 4:30 PM, the DON stated he called the Administrator on 08/14/2025 and told her Resident #1 was sent to the hospital. He recalled describing the resident cutting herself but did not recall if he used the term suicide attempt, as it was an ongoing situation. He remembered Resident #1 being hospitalized in May 2025 for a suicidal ideation but was unaware of the recommendation by the psychiatrist to have the resident admitted to a secure unit. The DON did not believe the resident needed a secure unit at that time and could be managed with increased supervision. The resident’s care plan should have been updated in May 2025 to note the resident’s history of suicidal ideation and in August 2025 to note the resident’s attempt to injure herself. 2. Record review of Resident #8’s admission Record (Face sheet) dated 8/23/25, revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included Alzheimer’s diseases (progressive loss of memory and cognitive decline that impairs an individual to perform daily tasks), dementia (cognitive decline that impairs an individual to preform activities of daily living), high blood pressure, anxiety disorder (excessive and persistent worry that interferes with daily life). Record review of Resident #8’s MDS, a Significant Change assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident’s cognitive skills for daily decision making were moderately impaired, used a wheelchair for mobility, was under hospice care, and since the previous assessment had 1 fall with no injury. Record review of Resident #8’s care plan for hospice services revealed it was initiated 07/29/2025 with a goal “…to focus on comfort, dignity, and quality of life during my remaining time.” Record review of Resident #8’s care plan for “Resident #8 is at risk for falls r/t [related to] impaired mobility, impaired cognition…history of falls, use of walker and wheelchair” revealed it was initiated 8/24/24 and revised on 08/06/2025 with the addition of interventions of “care plan scheduled with family and hospice” and “up at nurses’ station while anxious”. The care plan did not have a geriatric chair listed as an intervention to prevent falls. Record review of Resident #8’s Physician Orders revealed an order dated 07/25/2025 to admit to Hospice A services. Record review of Resident #8’s Texas Medicaid Hospice Election form, dated 07/25/2025 revealed she was admitted to hospice care with terminal diagnoses of Senile Degeneration of the Brain (severe cognitive impairment that inhibits an individual’s ability to perform activities of daily living). Record review of Resident #8’s SBAR, dated 7/30/25 at 03:32 (3:32 AM), completed by the ADON revealed the resident had a fall because she tried to get up and walk without assistance, the resident’s vital signs were obtained, the responsible party was notified, and the physician was notified. Record review of Resident #8’s nurse’s note, dated 07/30/2025 at 05:23 (5:23 AM), LVN E noted “[Resident #8] at the nurses’ station still trying to get up medicated for anxiety and pain.” Record review of Resident #8’s nurse’s note, dated 07/30/2025 at 07:19 (7:19 AM), LVN E noted “Fall with swelling to right eyes [sic] family member and hospice decided to send her out to hospital ER for eval [evaluation]”. Record review of Resident #8’s nurse’s note, dated 07/31/2025 at 11:34 (11:34 AM), ADON noted the resident was in bed resting, family was at bedside, it was status post fall day 1, and the resident had bruising to forehead, nose, and lips; and the hospice nurse was in the facility. In a telephone interview on 08/22/2025 from 3:13 PM to 3:55 PM, LVN E stated he worked the night shift (11 PM – 7 AM) on the memory care unit. LVN E stated Resident #8 had recently declined, she would try to get up and walk without assistance which caused her to fall. LVN E stated fall prevention measures included being near Resident #8 when she was in a wheelchair to remind the resident to “sit back” in the chair because otherwise she would try to walk and would fall. LVN E stated Resident #8’s hospice company provided a geriatric chair for the resident to use after she was sent to the hospital for a fall in July. LVN E said Resident #8 would try to get up from the geriatric chair when in the reclined position so staff would have to be near the resident when she was in it. LVN E stated Resident #8 had 2 falls in one night in July, he wasn’t certain on the date as he didn’t have her clinical record in front of him. LVN E stated one of the falls happened in the resident’s room, fall mats were on the floor when he entered the room, he didn’t see any injuries to the resident after that fall and took the resident to the nurse’s station while he notified Hospice A of the fall. Then later when Resident #8 was sitting at the nurses’ station, she fell again because she had tried to get up and had placed her body weight to the right side of the wheelchair and fell which caused a bump above her eye. LVN E stated he obtained her vital signs, did neurological checks, notified hospice and the resident’s responsible party. Observations on 08/22/2025 from 5:33 PM to 5:43 PM revealed Resident #8 was sitting at a dining table in a wheelchair with the DON sitting next to the resident. Resident #8 tried to stand up multiple times during the meal service, and the DON reminded her in Spanish to sit back down each time as he assisted her with the evening meal. Observation on 08/23/2025 at 5:34 AM revealed Resident #8 was sitting in the geriatric chair, which was reclined back, was awake, occasionally would say something in Spanish and was not trying to get out of the geriatric chair. Observation on 08/23/2025 from 6:24 AM to 7:05 AM revealed Resident #8 was next to the nurses’ station sitting in the geriatric chair, which was reclined back, was awake, fiddling with the blanket that was on her lap, speaking Spanish at times, was not agitated and did not try to get out of the geriatric chair. Observation on 08/23/2025 from 9:24 AM to 9:45 AM revealed Resident #8 was sitting in the geriatric chair that was pushed up to the dining room table next to the nurses’ station and the chair was not reclined. The resident was dipping a spoon into a bowl of oatmeal that was on the table. She was not trying to get out of the chair and would speak in Spanish to other residents who walked by her, she was not agitated. In a telephone interview on 08/23/2025 at 11:53 AM, Hospice RN A stated Resident #8 was provided a geriatric chair from Hospice A on 07/29/2025, but she did not know the reason the chair was provided as she was the weekend on-call nurse and did not provide care to Resident #8. In an interview on 08/23/2025 at 3:41 PM, ADON stated Hospice A provided Resident #8 with the geriatric chair after she came back from the hospital after she had a fall. ADON stated she thought Resident #8’s family member wanted the resident to be up so hospice felt the geriatric chair was better for the resident so she wouldn’t fall. In an interview on 08/23/2025 at 4:09 PM, CNA F stated the geriatric chair was used as a measure to prevent Resident #8 from falling but the resident could get herself out of the geriatric chair when it was reclined and had done so the previous weekend when CNA F worked on the secured unit, so staff would be near Resident #8 when she was in the geriatric chair to ensure this did not happen. In an interview on 08/23/2025 from 3:27 PM to 3:38 PM, MDS Nurse stated Resident #8’s Risk for Falls care plan was updated on 08/06/2025 when the interventions of having the resident up at the nurses’ station when anxious and scheduled care plan with family and hospice were added. The MDS Nurse stated she did not know when Resident #8 was provided with the geriatric chair, the chair was used as in intervention for positioning to calm her down and because of her fall risk. The MDS Nurse verified the geriatric chair was not listed as an intervention and she didn’t not have a reason why it was not added to the care plan. Record review of the facility’s undated Care Plan Revisions Upon Status Change policy revealed “The purpose of this procedure is to provide a consistent process for reviewing and revising the care plan for those residents experiencing a status change. …1. The comprehensive care plan will be reviewed, and revised as necessary, when a resident experiences a status change. 2. Procedure for reviewing and revising the care plan when a resident experiences a status change: a. Upon identification of change in status, the nurse will notify the MDS Coordinator, the physician, and he resident representative, if applicable. b. The MDS Coordinator and the Interdisciplinary Team will discuss the resident condition and collaborate on intervention options…d. The care plan will be updated with the new or modified interventions…f. Care plans will be modified as needed by the MDS Coordinator or other designated staff member…”.
Jan 2025 7 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0578 (Tag F0578)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the residents' right to formulate an advance directive for 1...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the residents' right to formulate an advance directive for 1 (Resident #54) of 14 residents reviewed for advance directives. The facility failed to ensure Resident #54's desire to formulate an advance directive OOH DNR was completed and part of the record. This failure could place residents at-risk of having their end of life wishes dishonored and of having treatments that go against their personal preferences. The findings included: 1. Record review of Resident #54's face sheet dated [DATE] revealed she was an [AGE] year-old woman with an admission date of [DATE] and diagnoses which included: Dementia (general term for loss of memory, language, problem-solving and other thinking abilities); End Stage Renal Disease (final stage of chronic kidney disease where kidneys can no longer function on their own); and Dependence on Renal Dialysis (requires dialysis treatment to survive). Further review of face sheet revealed under section Advance Directive DNR/No CPR. Record review of Resident #54's Quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed a BIMS score of 03, indicating severe cognitive impairment. Record review of Resident #54's Order Summary dated [DATE] revealed an order for DNR/No CPR dated [DATE]. Record review of Resident #54's Care Plan initiated [DATE] revealed a focus area for RESIDENT/FAMILY HAVE CHOSEN DO NOT RESUSCITATE initiated [DATE] with interventions which included: - Complete out of hospital DNR form with resident /family, send to MD for signature, and place completed form in chart. - Obtain written DNR order from MD - [NAME] chart per facility policy - Review Quarterly to ensure that completed OOHDNR is on chart. Record review of Resident #54's electronic health record did not reveal an OOH DNR form. During an interview with the SW on [DATE] at 9:50am, the SW stated Resident #54 was listed as a DNR on her admission profile, but she was not able to find a DNR for Resident #54 in the electronic record, and noted obtaining a copy of a DNR was part of the admission process and would check to see if it had been included in another packet by mistake. Follow-up interview with the SW on [DATE] at 11:30 a.m. revealed she confirmed that they did not have a copy of Resident #54's DNR. During an interview with the DON on [DATE] at 10:04 a.m., the DON stated that a DNR order was entered for Resident #54 on [DATE] by MDS D. Interview on [DATE] at 10:07 a.m. with MDS D revealed she confirmed she entered the DNR order for Resident #54 on [DATE], but she stated she was unable to find a copy of the actual DNR order in the electronic health record or other files. During further interview with the DON on [DATE] at 11:01a.m., the DON stated she knew MDS D always had a hard copy of the DNR on hand before she would enter the order in the EHR, and believes what happened was that Resident #54 was sent to the ER on [DATE], the day after the DNR had been signed and believes the DNR was placed in the transfer packet to the hospital before a copy was placed in the EHR. The DON further stated that there should have a copy of the DNR available at the facility, and by not having a copy of Resident #54's DNR it could result in confusion regarding her end-of-life choice for DNR, and the DNR potentially not being followed. Record review of the facility policy titled Advance Directives revised [DATE], revealed If the resident or the resident's representative has executed one of more advance directive(s), or executes one upon admission, copies of these documents are obtained and maintained in the same section of the residents medical record and a readily retrievable by any facility staff. .
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure all drugs and biological were stored in locked compartments for 1 of 2 medication rooms (A-Hall medication room) revie...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure all drugs and biological were stored in locked compartments for 1 of 2 medication rooms (A-Hall medication room) reviewed for storage, in that: Controlled medications were not kept in a separate, permanently affixed compartment in the medication room. This deficient practice could place residents at risk of misappropriation of medications. The findings were: Observation in the A-Hall (secure unit) medication room on 01/23/2025 at 02:35 p.m. revealed a miniature refrigerator with a locked padlock on the outside of the door. The miniature fridge was not permanently affixed to the counter it was sitting on. Inside the miniature fridge was a small red lock box containing 2 containers of Morphine Sulfate 100mg in dark covers. The small red lock box was locked, but not permanently affixed inside the miniature refrigerator, and was able to be easily removed from the refrigerator. During an interview with the DON on 01/23/2025 at 05:08 p.m., the DON confirmed the small red lock box which contained the controlled medications was not permanently affixed inside the miniature refrigerator, but stated because the small red lock box was locked and the miniature refrigerator was padlocked, she felt that met the requirement of being double locked, and was not aware of the requirement for the controlled medications to be permanently affixed. Record review of the facility's policy titled, Controlled Substances,, dated April 2019, revealed, Controlled substances are stored in the medication room in a locked container, separate from containers for any non-controlled medications. There was no information contained in the policy regarding the storage of controlled substances to be in a permanently affixed compartment. Record review of the Regulation Text for 42 CFR 483.45 (h)(2) Storage of Drugs and Biologicals in the Appendix PP State Operations Manual revealed The facility must provide separately locked, permanently affixed compartments for storage of controlled drugs listed in Schedule II of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse and prevention and Control Act of 1976 and other drugs subject to abuse, except when the facility uses single unit package drug distribution systems in which the quantity stored is minimal and a missing dose can be readily detected.
CONCERN (E)

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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to treat each resident with respect and dignity and c...

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 treat each resident with respect and dignity and care in a manner and in an environment that promotes maintenance or enhancement of his or her quality of life, recognizing each resident's individuality, for 2 (Residents #29 and #68) of 4 D-Hall residents reviewed for dignity. The facility failed to ensure MA B and LVN C treated Residents #29 and #68 with dignity and respect when they referred to the residents' as feeders. This failure could place residents at risk for psychosocial harm due to diminished self-esteem and quality of life. Findings included: Record review of Resident #29's face sheet dated 01/22/2025 revealed she was a [AGE] year-old-woman with an admission date of 09/03/2016 and with diagnosis which included: Cerebral Palsy (movement disorder caused by damage or lack of development to brain areas that control muscle movement) and Dementia (general term for loss of memory, language and other thinking abilities). Record review of Resident #29's Quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed a BIMS score of 3 indicating severe cognitive impairment. Record review of Resident #29's Care Plan initiated 06/10/2022 revealed a focus area for limited physical immobility and requires assistance with self care. Interventions include eating with assist of 1, revised 12/18/2024. Record review of Resident #68's face sheet dated 01/22/2025 revealed she was a [AGE] year-old woman admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included: Cerebral Vascular Accident (stroke) and Diabetes Mellitus (long-term condition that results in too much sugar in the blood). Record review of Resident #68's admission MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed a BIMS score of 03, indicating severe cognitive impairment and assessed as needing a mechanically altered diet texture. Observation on 01/22/2025 starting at 12:20 p.m. revealed 3 residents sitting together at one dining table, and another resident sitting alone at a separate table. There was one CNA seated at the table with the 3 residents, in between residents Residents #29 and #68, and that CNA was feeding Resident #68 and assisting with the feeding of Resident #29. During an interview with MA B on 01/22/2025 at 12:53 p.m. regarding process and timeframes for distributing meal trays, MA B stated the feeders get served last because they need more assistance from staff, and she gestured towards the table where the 3 residents were seated. When asked what she meant by feeders, she stated they were the residents who needed to be fed or needed increased supervision and assistance from staff during meals During an interview with LVN C on 01/22/2025 at 12:57 p.m. regarding process for checking and distributing meal trays to the residents on D-hall, LVN C stated he was new to the facility, this was his 3rd day on the job, and described the process as the Nurse checking each tray to ensure correct order and texture and adaptive equipment was provided. When asked about information contained on the tray cards, LVN C stated the tray cards do not show which residents needed more feeding assistance, but he knew Resident #68 was a feeder. When asked if he had received training in resident rights he stated he had, both at this facility and at previous facilities he has worked. When asked about the term feeders, he stated he has always referred to residents who needed to be fed as feeders. He then asked is that wrong? Record review of MA B and LVN C's training records revealed both staff had received training in Resident Rights. During an interview with the DON on 01/23/2025 at 2:17 p.m., the DON stated that it was not acceptable or respectful of staff to refer to residents as 'feeders, as it described the residents only by their needs, not as individuals. The DON further stated the use of respectful language when speaking to and about the residents was addressed in orientation for all staff and included training in resident rights and dignity. The DON stated all staff receive periodic in-servicing on resident rights and dignity and she has already started in-servicing all the staff about need for use of respectful language when addressing or talking about the residents, including to avoid use of terms such as feeders or referring to older female residents as mama. Record review of the facility policy titled Resident Rights, revised February 2021, revealed the policy statement Employees shall treat all residents with kindness, respect, and dignity and under Policy Interpretation and Implementation Federal and state laws guarantee certain basic rights to all residents of this facility. These rights include the resident's right to: . be treated with respect, kindness, and dignity. Further review of the Resident Rights policy revealed .staff will have appropriate in-service training on resident rights prior to having direct-care responsibilities for residents.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0552 (Tag F0552)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the residents' right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the residents' right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment for 2 (Residents #38 and #20) of 14 residents reviewed for informed consent, in that: 1. The facility failed to ensure Resident #38's right to informed consent for treatment with the psychotropic medication Sertraline was provided. 2. The facility failed to ensure Resident #20's right to informed consent for treatment with the psychotropic medication Sertraline was provided. These failures could place residents at-risk of receiving treatment without having been informed of the risks and benefits of proposed care, of treatment and treatment alternatives or treatment options, and to choose the alternative or option he or she prefers. The findings included: 1. Record review of Resident #38's face sheet dated 01/22/2025 revealed he was an [AGE] year-old man with an admission date of 04/18/2024 and diagnoses which included: Metabolic Encephalopathy (brain condition that occurs where there is an imbalance of chemicals in the brain resulting in difficulty thinking clearly), Dementia (general term for loss of memory, language, problem-solving and other thinking abilities), and Unspecified Depression (mental disorder that involves prolonged low mood and loss of interest in activities). Record review of Resident #38's Quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed a BIMS score of 15, indicating intact cognition, and that he had been assessed as having a diagnosis of depression. Record review of Resident #38's Order Summary dated 01/22/2025 revealed an order for Sertraline HCL Oral Tablet 50 MG (Sertraline HCL) Give 1.5 tablet by mouth one time a day related to DEPRESSION, UNSPECIFIED with an order date of 11/15/2024. Further review of Resident #38's EHR Orders revealed Sertraline was initially ordered on 03/20/2024. Record review of Resident #38's EHR did not reveal an informed consent for Sertraline. During an interview with the DON on 01/23/2025 at 11:35 a.m., the DON noted that sometimes consents are filed in the wrong area, so she conducted a search of the EHR, and provided copy of an informed consent for Sertraline for Resident's #38, which noted verbal consent was obtained from the RP on 03/20/2024 but was not signed by LVN E until 12/20/2024. The DON stated she believed informed consent was obtained on 03/20/2024, but the LVN did not lock it in until later when the mistake was noted. The DON confirmed that verbal consents needed to have the Nurse's signature who obtained the verbal consent at the time the verbal consent was obtained, not many months later, as was the case with Resident #38's consent for Sertraline, making this consent invalid. 2. Record review of Resident #20's face sheet, dated 01/22/2025, revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including: Generalized Anxiety Disorder, Major Depressive Disorder, and Insomnia Due to Other Mental Disorder. Record review of Resident #20's Quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], revealed the resident had both short-term and long-term memory problems. Record review of Resident #20's care plan, revised 12/12/2024, revealed, The resident uses psychotropic medications. Currently prescribed: .Sertraline. Record review of Resident #20's Order Summary Report as of 01/24/2025, revealed an order dated 09/05/2024, Sertraline HCl Oral Tablet 50 MG (Sertraline HCl). Give 1 tablet by mouth one time a day related to MAJOR DEPRESSIVE DISORDER, RECURRENT, UNSPECIFIED (F33.9). Record review of Resident #20's facility clinical record as of 01/24/2025, revealed an Anti-depressant Medication Informed Consent form had been created in the EMR on 01/24/2025. Further review revealed the consent form had not been signed by the resident or her responsible party. Record review of Resident #20's Medication Administration Record from 09/06/2024 through 01/24/2025, revealed she had received the psychotropic medication, Sertraline, on a daily basis for more than four months without informed consent having been obtained. During an interview with the DON on 01/24/2025 at 10:12 a.m., the DON confirmed that informed consent for the psychotropic medication, Sertraline, had not been obtained and should have been. She stated this was due to an oversight . The DON stated the consent form had been created on 01/24/2025 following an audit of each resident's EHR due to surveyor intervention and stated the facility had attempted to contact Resident #20's responsible party to obtain informed consent for the medication and was awaiting a response at the time of the interview. The DON stated that no additional informed consent forms were missing or incomplete. Record review of the facility policy titled Psychotropic Medication Use dated July 2022 revealed Residents (and/or representatives) have the right to decline treatment with psychotropic medications The staff and physician will review with the resident/representative the risks related to not taking the medications as well as appropriate alternatives.
CONCERN (E)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

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

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety for 1 of 1 kitchen reviewed, in that: 1. Boxes of food were stored on the floor in the dry goods pantry. 2. Frost and ice accumulated on two boxes of food in the freezer. 3. An open container of jelly, labeled refrigerate after opening, was left out of the refrigerator. These failures could place residents who received meals and/or snacks from the kitchen at risk for food borne illness. The findings were: 1. Observation on 01/23/2025 at 11:24 a.m., in the dry goods pantry, revealed a four stacks of food items were in the floor and had not been placed on the pantry shelves. During an interview with the Dietary Manager on 01/23/2025 at 11:48 a.m., the Dietary Manager confirmed that stacks of food items were in the floor, had not been placed on the pantry shelves, and should have been. She stated that a delivery had recently been received and staff had not had time to properly store the food items. 2. Observation on 01/23/2025 at 11:28 a.m., in the walk-in freezer, revealed frost and ice had accumulated atop a cardboard container of onion rings and on a cardboard container of rolls. During an interview with the Dietary Manager on 01/23/2025 at 11:48 a.m., the Dietary Manager confirmed frost and ice had accumulated on the cardboard containers and confirmed the moisture could potentially seep into and contaminate the onion rings and rolls. 3. Observation on 01/23/2025 at 11:30 a.m., revealed an open container of jelly, labeled refrigerate after opening, was sitting on the lower shelf of the kitchen counter. During an interview with the Dietary Manager on 01/23/2025 at 11:48 a.m., the Dietary Manager confirmed an open container of jelly, labeled refrigerate after opening, was sitting on the lower shelf of the kitchen counter, and confirmed it should have been stored in the refrigerator. The Dietary Manager stated all dietary staff were responsible for ensuring boxes of food were appropriately stored off the floor, that frost and ice did not accumulate on food containers in the freezer, and that foods labeled refrigerate after opening should not be left out of the refrigerator and that failing to do so was an oversight. Record review of the Food Code, U.S. Public Health Service, U.S. FDA, 2017, U.S. Department of H&HS, revealed 3-305.1, Food Storage, (A) Food shall be protected from contamination by storing the food: (1) in a clean, dry location; (2) Where it is not exposited to splash, dust, or other contamination. Review of the Food Code, U.S. Public Health Service, U.S. FDA, 2017, U.S. Department of H&HS, 3-501.16, revealed, Time/Temperature Control for Safety Food, Hot and Cold Holding. (A) Except during preparation, cooking, or cooling, or when time is used as the public health control as specified under §3-501.19, and except as specified under (B) and in (C) of this section, TIME/TEMPERATURE CONTROL FOR SAFETY FOOD shall be maintained: (1) At 57oC (135oF) or above, except that roasts cooked to a temperature and for a time specified in 3-401.11(B) or reheated as specified in 3-403.11(E) may be held at a temperature of 54oC (130oF) or above; P or (2) At 5ºC (41ºF) or less. Record review of the facility policy, Food Receiving and Storage, revised October 2017, revealed .food in designated dry storage areas shall be kept off the floor .all foods stored in the refrigerator or freezer will be covered, labeled, and dated .
CONCERN (E)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain an Infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable disease and infection for 2 of 6 residents (Residents #45 and #23) reviewed for infection control, in that: 1. LVN A did not wear a gown and gloves while performing an accu-check (process of testing blood glucose level using a lancet to prick a finger to draw blood and analyze with a glucometer), and administering medication to Resident #45 who had been placed on contact isolation precaution. 2. LVN A did not wear gloves while performing an accu-check on Resident #23. These deficient practices could place residents at-risk for infection due to improper care practices. The findings include: 1. Record review of Resident #45's face sheet dated 01/23/2025 revealed he was a [AGE] year old man, initially admitted to the facility on [DATE], and re-admitted on [DATE], with diagnoses which included: Paraplegia (chronic condition that causes paralysis in the lower half of the body, usually due to a spinal cord injury); pressure ulcer of sacral region stage 4 (a severe wound that extends into deep tissues in area at base of spine where it connect to the pelvis); colostomy status (presence of an artificial opening in abdomen that allows stool to pass through), and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (chronic condition where the body has trouble controlling blood sugar and using it for energy). Record review of Resident #45's Quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed a BIMS score of 15 indicating intact cognition. Further review revealed Resident #45 was assessed as having an indwelling catheter, colostomy and Diabetes Mellitus. Record review of Resident #45's Care Plan initiated 06/08/2022 revealed a focus area for Enhanced Barrier Precautions due to Chronic Wound and Indwelling Device: Stage IV to sacrum, indwelling catheter. Record review of Resident #45's Order Summary dated 01/23/2025 revealed orders which included: - NovoLOG injection Solution 100 unit/ml (Insulin Aspart) Inject as per sliding scale .subcutaneously before meals and at bedtime for DM2. Observation on 01/23/2025 at 3:49 p.m. outside Resident #45's room revealed a Contact Precautions sign was posted to the right of the door, with a supply unit containing PPE outside the door under the Contact Precautions sign. Further observation revealed LVN A sanitized her hands and glucometer, and without putting on a gown or gloves, entered Resident #45's room, performed an accu-check on Resident #45 using a lancet to prick his finger and glucometer to assess his blood glucose reading, then stepped out of the room back to the medication cart, where she sanitized her hands and disposed of lancet in sharps container. LVN A then checked Resident #45's MAR to determine the correct amount of insulin per sliding scale to administer based on his blood sugar reading, re-entered his room without gown or gloves and administered the insulin. After LVN A administered his insulin, Resident #45 complained of pain and nausea, so LVN A then exited the room to the medication cart, sanitized her hands, and prepared two PRN medications, one for pain, and one for nausea, to administer to him. After preparing the oral medications, LVN A re-entered Resident #45's room, again without gown or gloves to administer his oral PRN medications. During an interview with LVN A on 01/23/2025 at 4:00 p.m., LVN A stated she saw the Contact Precautions Sign, and described those precautions as having to wear a gown and gloves if she was going to be working directly with him and might come into contact with bodily fluids, or he had a fever. LVN A stated that she did wear gown and gloves yesterday when she changed Resident #45's foley catheter, because that was directly working with him and involved body fluids. When asked what the difference was then between Contact Precautions and Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP), she stated EBP was basically the same, but was used when an infectious organism was possible, not confirmed and Contact Precautions were for a confirmed infection and he would probably have a fever. LVN A stated she has received training in infection control and has worked at this facility about one year. 2. Record review of Resident #23's face sheet dated 01/23/2025 revealed he was a 65- year-old man initially admitted on [DATE], and most recent re-admission on [DATE], with diagnoses which included type 2 Diabetes Mellitus with foot ulcer. Record review of Resident #23's Quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed a BIMS score of 15 indicating intact cognition, and was assessed as having diagnosis of Diabetes Mellitus. Record review of Resident #23's Order Summary dated 01/23/2025 revealed an order for NovoLOG FlexPen Subcutaneous Solution Pen-Injector 100 UNIT/ML (Insulin Aspart) Inject as per sliding scale .subcutaneously [injected into fatty tissue beneath the skin] before meals and at bedtime related to TYPE 2 DIABETES MELLITUS WITH FOOT ULCER. Observation on 01/23/2025 at 4:08 p.m. revealed LVN A sanitized hands and glucometer, then performed an accu-check on Resident #23 with her bare hands, she did not put on gloves. During an interview with LVN A on 01/23/2025 at 4:12 p.m., LVN A stated she normally does not wear gloves to do accu-checks unless the patient has AIDS or something like that. She noted Resident #23 does not have AIDS so she does not use gloves for his accu-checks. LVN A stated she had received training in infection control. Interview on 01/23/2025 at 5:11 p.m. with the DON revealed the DON confirmed that Resident #45 was under Contact Precautions and all staff needed to wear gown/gloves when entering the room, and that included when doing accu-checks and administering medications. The DON further stated that Nurse's should wear gloves whenever the possibility of coming in contact with blood or body fluids is present, and that would include when performing accu-checks for all residents. The DON confirmed that LVN A had received training in infection control. Record review of LVN A Orientation training record revealed LVN A did receive training in infection control, PPE and Contact Precautions on 05/24/2024. Record review of LVN A Performance Competency Checklist in Blood Glucose Monitoring dated 4/10/2024 revealed she was checked under Met for 2. washes hands and puts on disposable gloves. Record review of the facility policy titled Standard Precautions revised September 2022 revealed Gloves (clean, non-sterile) are worn when in direct contact with blood, body fluids, mucous membranes, non-intact skin, and other potentially infected material. Further review revealed Gloves are worn when in direct contact with a resident who is infected or colonized with organisms that are transmitted by direct contact. Record review of the facility policy titled Isolation - Categories of Transmission-Based Precautions revised September 2022 revealed Staff and visitors wear gloves (clean, non-sterile) when entering the room . Gloves are removed and hand hygiene performed before leaving the room. Further review revealed Staff and visitors wear a disposable gown upon entering the room and remove before leaving the room and avoid touching potentially contaminated surfaces with clothing after gown is removed.
CONCERN (E)

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0921)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide a safe, functional, sanitary, and comfortable environment for residents, staff and the public, in that: The lobby ar...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide a safe, functional, sanitary, and comfortable environment for residents, staff and the public, in that: The lobby area of the secure unit smelled strongly of urine. This deficient practice could result in residents living in, staff working in, and the public visiting in an unpleasant environment. The findings were: Observation on 01/24/2025 at 10:32 a.m. revealed the lobby are of the secure unit smelled strongly of urine. Further observation revealed no obvious cause for the smell and observations of the unit's residents revealed all appeared to be clean and well-groomed with no personal odors. During an interview with LVN C on 01/24/2025 at 10:32 a.m., LVN C confirmed the lobby are of the secure unit smelled strongly of urine and stated the smell resulted in an unpleasant environment for staff and residents. During attempted interviews with residents at various times on 01/24/2025, none were able to be interviewed. During an interview with a resident's visitor on 01/24/2025 at 10:48 a.m., the visitor stated she came to the facility approximately five days per week and that the lobby are of the secure unit usually had an unpleasant odor. During an interview with the Housekeeping Supervisor on 01/24/2025 at 11:12 a.m., the Housekeeping Supervisor stated she was unaware of the odor and would inspect and clean the area. Record review of the facility policy, Homelike Environment, revised February 2021, revealed, Residents are provided with a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment . 3. The facility staff and management minimizes, to the extent possible, the characteristics of the facility that reflect a depersonalized, institutional setting. These characteristics include . b. institutional odors .
Oct 2024 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident, consistent with the resident rights that includes measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs that are identified in the comprehensive assessment for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for care plans, in that: The facility failed to develop and implement a care plan related to monitoring for side effects of Resident #1's use of Aspirin (antiplatelet/blood thinner) and Ticagrelor (anti-platelet/blood thinner). This failure could place the residents at risk for delayed interventions and decline in health. Findings included: Record review of Resident #1's admission Record, dated 9/26/24, revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and re-admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included: Nontraumatic Acute Subdural Hemorrhage, Major Depressive Disorder (mental health disorder characterized by persistently depressed mood or loss of interest in activities), Atherosclerotic Heart Disease (damage in the heart's major blood vessels), Myocardial Infarction (heart attack), Hypertension (high blood pressure), Cognitive Communication Deficit (difficulty with thinking and language), Type 2 Diabetes (condition in which the body has trouble controlling blood sugar and using it for energy), Hypothyroidism (condition in which the thyroid gland doesn't produce enough thyroid hormone), Dementia (group of thinking and social symptoms that interferes with daily functioning), And Alzheimer's Disease (disease affecting memory and other important mental functions). Record review of Resident #1's optional MDS assessment, dated 9/6/24, revealed the Resident #1 had a BIMS score of 5, suggesting severely impaired cognition. Further review of this document revealed it did not include antiplatelet medication. Record review of Resident #1's Care Plan, dated 8/29/24, revealed: The resident has altered cardiovascular status r/t NSTEMI, angina pectoris, CAD, hypertension, hyperlipidemia She is prescribed aspirin for hearth [sic] health . She is prescribed Ticagrelor for hematological agent . Assess for shortness of breath and cyanosis . Diet consult as necessary . Encourage low fat, low salt intake . Further review of the document revealed it did not include monitoring for side/adverse effects of Aspirin and Ticagrelor. Record review of Resident #1's Order Summary, dated 9/26/24, revealed orders for Aspirin 81 MG chewable tablet for heart health, and Ticagrelor 90 MG oral tablet for hematological agent. Further review revealed it did not include orders for monitoring. Record review of Resident #1's Black Box Warning, dated 9/27/24, revealed: .Warning: Bleeding risk Ticagrelor, like other antiplatelet agents, can cause significant, sometimes fatal, bleeding . During an observation and interview on 9/27/24 at 9:08 a.m., Resident #1 was lying in the ICU hospital bed, alert, with purple discoloration noted to her left mandible, left side of neck, left shoulder and left side of chest. (Translated from Spanish) Resident #1 said she was doing very bad. Resident #1 said she did not fall but the refrigerator fell on top of her with the door open. During an interview on 9/27/24 at 4:10 p.m., LVN A said Resident #1 did not receive blood thinners and was not monitored for side/adverse effects of blood thinners. During an interview on 9/30/24 at 1:40 p.m., LVN B said Resident #1 received Aspirin, an antiplatelet, and Ticagrelor, it's a hematological and antiplatelet as well. LVN B further stated these medications were not considered blood thinners because they were antiplatelets. LVN B said the anti-platelet helped the blood not clot and not stick together. LVN B further stated there was a risk for bleeding with these medications, adding, she thought it had more of a risk for bruising than bleeding. LVN B said she completed the resident care plans for nursing. LVN B said she included medications in the care plans, but as far as monitoring it depended on whether the physician ordered it. LVN B further stated the facility did not necessarily need an order for monitoring; however, they usually did not monitor residents who received antiplatelet medication. LVN B said she included aspirin under cardiovascular in the care plans. LVN B further stated the care plans included a template and she chose whichever interventions she felt was good for the resident. LVN B said Resident #1 was at higher risk for bruising due to age and risk for falls. LVN B further stated she would not include monitoring in every care plan as long as it was being done, adding Resident #1 had weekly skin assessments. LVN B said if a medication had a high risk for bleeding, she would add that to the care plan. LVN b said Resident #1's care plan did not include monitoring for bleeding. LVN B said she guessed including monitoring for bleeding in the care plan was important to alert the staff if Resident #1 had bruising or, black poop, it was possibly due to the medications. LVN B further stated black stool would be considered a change in condition because it meant there could be a bleed in the gastrointestinal tract. LVN B said she did not believe omitting monitoring for side/adverse effects from Resident #1's care plan would not result in negative outcomes because the facility completed skin assessments. LVN B said she guessed she did not include monitoring in Resident #1's care plane because there were a lot if interventions and not all of them were always done. LVN B further stated if the care plan said, monitor, there should be documentation that it was being done; otherwise, there would not be evidence that the intervention was in place. LVN B said she did not know what staff would document or how they would document that monitoring was being done. LVN B said she did not know how the facility would follow up on that intervention. During an interview on 9/30/24 at 2:34 p.m., LVN C said auditing care plans was a group effort and was completed, mostly, every day by LVN B, the ADON, and the DON. LVN C said they reviewed weight on weekly basis, but the other portions of the care plan were reviewed sporadically. LVN C further stated LVN B, and the DON oversaw the care plans. During interview on 10/1/24 at 11:48 p.m., the DON said Resident #1 was on two blood thinner, Aspirin and Brilinta (Ticagrelor). The DON further stated that Resident #1 was being monitored for side/adverse effects of Aspirin and Ticagrelor. The DON said she was not sure if Resident #1's care plan included monitoring for side/adverse effects of Aspirin and Ticagrelor and would have to check. The DON said anticoagulants were care planned but all medications had potential side effects and expected medications to be in the care plan depending on the severity of the side effects. The DON further stated she expected the nurses to be familiar with medications, their side effects, and research medications they were unfamiliar with. The DON said LVN B was responsible for the nursing care plans. The DON further stated she audited care plans about once a week, but the lack of monitoring for aspirin and Ticagrelor in Resident #1's care plan did not stand out to her. The DON said it was important that monitoring for the side/adverse effects of Aspirin and Ticagrelor had been included in Resident #1's care plan so that nurses knew what to do and what to monitor for. The DON further stated this to staff not having noticed if a resident was experiencing side effects of medications and may result in a delay in response. During an interview on 10/1/24 at 1:18 p.m., the Administrator said the IDT was responsible for the resident care plans, but LVN B was responsible for the nursing portion of it. The Administrator further stated it was important that resident care plans were accurate for person-centered care and informed staff the care each resident required. Record review of the facility's policy titled Care Planning - Interdisciplinary Team, revised July 2024, revealed: .The interdisciplinary team is responsible for the development of resident care plans .2. Comprehensive, person-centered care plans are based on resident assessments and developed by an interdisciplinary team (IDT) . Record review of website Drugs.com at https://www.drugs.com/aspirin.html, last updated on March 1, 2024, revealed: .Aspirin may cause serious side effects .ringing in your ears, confusion, hallucinations, rapid breathing, seizure (convulsions); severe nausea, vomiting, or stomach pain; bloody or tarry stools, coughing up blood or vomit that looks like coffee grounds; fever lasting longer than 3 days; or swelling, or pain lasting longer than 10 days . Record review of website Drugs.com at https://www.drugs.com/mtm/ticagrelor.html, last reviewed on January 12, 2024, revealed: Ticagrelor may cause serious side effects .slow heartbeats; nosebleeds, or any bleeding that will not stop; shortness of breath even with mild exertion or while lying down; easy bruising, unusual bleeding, purple or red spots under your skin; red, pink, or brown urine; black, bloody, or tarry stools; or coughing up blood or vomit that looks like coffee grounds .
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Medical Records (Tag F0842)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure resident medical records were kept in accordance with accepted professional standards and practices, the facility must maintain medical records on each resident that are complete and accurately documented for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #4) reviewed for administration. 1. The facility failed to ensure Resident #4's EMR reflected unwitnessed falls on (2) occasions. 2. The facility failed to ensure Resident #4's EMR reflected behaviors requiring PRN medication on (2) occasions. These failures could place residents at risk for improper care due to inaccurate records. Findings included: 1. Record review of Resident #4's admission Record, dated 9/27/24, revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included: Dementia (group of thinking and social symptoms that interferes with daily functioning), Muscle Weakness, Major Depressive Disorder (mental health disorder characterized by persistently depressed mood or loss of interest in activities), Insomnia (sleep disorder that makes it difficult to fall asleep or stay asleep), Alzheimer's Disease (disease affecting memory and other important mental functions), COPD (lung diseases that block airflow and make it difficult to breathe), Cognitive Communication Deficit (difficulty with thinking and language), Hypothyroidism (condition in which the thyroid gland doesn't produce enough thyroid hormone), Hyperlipidemia (high levels of fat in the blood) and Hypertension (high blood pressure). Record review of Resident #4's quarterly MDS assessment, dated 7/14/24, revealed the resident's cognitive skills for daily decision making was severely impaired. The MDS revealed behavioral symptoms not directed toward others (such as, hitting or scratching self, pacing, rummaging, public sexual acts, disrobing in public, throwing or smashing food, screaming, disruptive sounds) occurred 1 to 3 days. The MDS further revealed Resident #4 had 1 fall since admission, re-entry, or prior assessment. Record review of Resident #4's Care Plan, revised 3/4/24, revealed: The resident is at risk for falls . Follow facility fall protocol . Record review of the facility's incident description, dated 8/3/24, revealed: RESIDENT NOTED LYING ON FLOOR BESIDE BED . Resident Unable to give description .NOT PART OF THE MEDICAL RECORD . Record review of the facility's incident description, dated 8/5/24, revealed: Resident was laying [sic] in bed when hospice CNA arrived to provide resident with shower she got resident up but resident was to [sic] drowsy to walk so she sat her down into stationary chair at the bedside then went to look for wheelchair. When she got back into the room resident was laying [sic] on the floor on her left side Resident Unable to give Description .NOT PART OF THE MEDICAL RECORD . Record review of Resident #4's Change in Condition Evaluation, dated 8/5/24 and signed by LVN on 9/27/24, revealed the resident had a fall on 8/5/24 in the afternoon. Further review of this document revealed no further details related to the fall. Record review of Resident#4's Neurological Evaluation Flow Sheet, dated 8/5/24 - 8/8/24, revealed unwitnessed fall in room [ROOM NUMBER]/5/24. Record review of the facility's incidents, dated 9/25/24, revealed Resident #4 had an unwitnessed fall on 8/3/24 in the resident's room and an unwitnessed fall on 8/5/24 in the dayroom. Record review of Resident #4's Progress Notes revealed there was no documentation regarding Resident #4's unwitnessed falls on 8/3/24 and 8/5/24. During an interview on 9/27/24 at 4:18 pm, LVN D said on 8/5/24 Resident #4 was drowsy because she had received her PRN Ativan. LVN further stated the Hospice CNA put Resident #4 in a chair in her room at the bedside, the aide said she forgot something, so she walked out of the room and when she went back into the room Resident #4 was on the floor. LVN D said the Hospice CNA told her that Resident #4 was on the floor and said she had put her in the chair and when she returned, she was on the floor. LVN B said she did a full assessment, and Resident #4 didn't have any injuries, no c/o pain, and the neurological assessment were WNL. LVN D said she was required to enter a progress note following falls. LVN D further stated the ADON and DON were responsible for ensuring documentation was completed. LVN D said the fall should have been documented immediately after it happened because they did not want to forget details, but at minimum by the end of the shift. LVN D further stated that was important so that everyone saw the details of the fall and were aware of the incident, to reference the incident or determine patterns and could determine the interventions, if any, required. During a telephone interview on 9/30/24 at 1:16 pm, LVN E said he did not remember Resident #4 falling on 8/3/24. LVN E further stated he was required to document in the progress notes if a resident had a fall but did not remember if Resident #4 had a fall on 8/3/24. 2. Record review of Resident #4's Order Summary, dated 9/27/24, revealed: AB Ativan/Benadryl topical Gel Apply to wrist topically every 6 hours as needed for agitation for 2 Weeks .Order Date 08/21/2024 . LORazepam Concentrate 2 MG/ML Give 0.5 ml by mouth every 6 hours as needed for Agitation; Anxiety for 2 Weeks .Order Date 08/02/2024 . Record review of Resident #4's EMAR progress note, dated 8/5/24 at 8:14 pm, revealed the resident was administered PRN lorazepam concentrate by LVN D at 9:52 am. Progress note did not include observed behaviors. Record review of Resident #4's August MAR revealed, on 8/5/24, for the evening shift LVN A documented NO for behaviors observed and 00 for number of episodes the targeted behavior occurred. Record review of Resident #4's August MAR revealed, on 8/5/24, for the day shift LVN D documented 0 for number of episodes the targeted behavior occurred. Record review of Resident #4's EMAR progress note, dated 8/28/24 at 5:00 pm, revealed the resident was administered PRN AB (Ativan/Benadryl) topical gel by LVN A. Progress note did not include observed behaviors. Record review of Resident #4's August MAR revealed, on 8/28/24, for the evening shift LVN A documented NO for behaviors observed and 00 for number of episodes the targeted behavior occurred. Attempted telephone interview on 9/30/24 at 1:15 pm with LVN A was unsuccessful. During an interview on 9/30/24 at 2:20 pm, LVN D said there was no documentation regarding behaviors requiring the administration of lorazepam on 8/5/24. LVN D further stated most of the time, when a PRN medication was administered, the behaviors observed were documented in the EMAR. LVN D said she did not remember what behaviors Resident #4 exhibited on 8/5/24 that required the administration of lorazepam. LVN D said No on the EMAR meant the behavior was not observed and 0 represented the number of times the behavior was observed. LVN D said staff were required to document behaviors in the EMAR or enter a progress note. LVN D further stated this was the expectation so that everyone knew what behaviors were exhibited and the physician and the psychiatrist could monitor the behaviors. LVN D said the lack of documentation could result in a negative outcome for the resident because the physician would not have all the information needed and therefore would not be able to give the appropriate care. LVN D said it was facility policy to document the behaviors observed and the efficacy of the medication. LVN D further stated if staff said the resident was combative and PRN medication was administered, then the documentation should reflect that, so the physician knew whether it was effective or not. During an interview on 9/30/24 at 2:34 pm, LVN C said falls, progress notes, and PRN medications administered were reviewed in the morning meeting Monday - Friday by the IDT. LVN C further stated the expectation was to document the behaviors observed, the reason the lorazepam was being administered. LVN C said the progress notes were reviewed for the behaviors and the reason why the PRN medication was administered; cause and effect. LVN C said when PRN medications were administered there was a place to enter a progress note detailing why the medication was administered and hoped this was what the staff were doing. LVN C further stated the nurses knew that they should be entering a progress note when a PRN medication was administered. LVN C said he did not know what the policy said but it was the facility's expectation that behaviors be documented when PRN medications were administered. LVN C said he was not aware Resident #4's behaviors were not documented, otherwise, it would have been addressed. LVN C said it was important to document behaviors observed because there was a reason for the medication. LVN C stated especially for an anti- anxiety medication, for follow-up and to see if it was effective or not, because if it was not, the resident should not be administered the medication. LVN C said it was also important for the safety of the resident. LVN C said there was a risk for a negative outcome with any medication and that's why documentation was required. LVN C said without the documentation, the facility did not know the possible cause as to why the medication was given, why were they agitated, were there other interventions that could have been provided instead of the PRN medication, what were the behaviors observed, and what other interventions were attempted prior to the administration. LVN C said the documentation was also important for trends and patterns such as sundowning and trying to limit those behaviors was what the facility was trying to achieve. During an interview on 10/1/24 at 11:48 pm, the DON said she did not see any progress notes regarding Resident #4's falls on 8/3/24 and 8/5/24. The DON said she expected the nurses to document the details of the incident in a progress note. The DON further stated the IDT and herself were responsible for ensuring documentation was complete and accurate. The DON said she reviewed documentation every day and on Mondays for the weekends. The DON said she must have missed the lack of documentation because the facility reviewed and discussed both falls and interventions. The DON said it was important to document falls for follow-up and to let everyone know what was going on. The DON further stated lack of documentation could cause a delay in resident care. The DON said her expectation was that a progress note be entered every time a PRN medication was administered, the reason it was administered, and the efficacy of the medication. The DON further stated for behaviors, the nurse should have documented the behaviors observed, what other interventions were tried prior to administering the medication, such as redirection, toileting, snack, and pain assessment. The DON said the charge nurse was responsible for ensuring the staff document why they administered the PRN medication. The DON further stated documenting the rationale for PRN medications was important so that they knew why the resident was administered the medication and whether it was effective or not. The DON said the documentation also allowed them to evaluate the root cause and go back to the drawing board if necessary. The DON further stated, how would you know if it was effective if you're not documenting why it was given. During an interview on 10/1/24 at 1:18 pm, the Administrator said the charge nurse was responsible for documentation and the DON oversaw the documentation of incidents. The Administrator further stated the accuracy of documentation was important to show an accurate picture of what was going on with the resident. The Administrator said when PRN medications were administered the expectation was that the behaviors were documented as well. Record review of the facility's policy titled Charting and Documentation, revised July 2017, revealed: .All services provided to the resident .or any changes in the resident's medical, physical, functional or psychosocial condition, shall be documented in the resident's medical record .2. The following information is to be documented in the resident medical record: a. Objective observations .d. Changes in the resident's condition; e. Events, incidents or accidents involving the resident .3. Documentation in the medical record will be objective .complete, and accurate . Record review of the facility's Clinical Protocol titled Falls, revised March 2018, revealed: .the nurse shall assess and document/report the following .details on how fall occurred .
Feb 2024 3 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0558 (Tag F0558)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide reasonable accommodation of resident needs fo...

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 reasonable accommodation of resident needs for 2 of 6 residents reviewed for call light (Residents #13 and #19) reviewed for reasonable accommodations, in that: 1. Resident #16's call light was behind the headboard of the resident's bed and not within the resident's reach on 02/21/2024. 2. Resident #17's call light was on the floor on the resident's room and not within the resident's reach on 02/21/2024. This failure could place residents who used call lights for assistance in maintaining and/or achieving independent functioning, dignity, and well-being. Findings included: 1. Record review of Resident #16's face sheet, dated 02/21/2024, revealed an [AGE] year-old female admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included: chronic kidney disease, muscle weakness, cognitive communication deficit and muscle wasting and atrophy. Record review of Resident #16's admission MDS, dated [DATE], revealed a BIMS score of 03, which indicated the resident was severely cognitively impaired. Further review revealed that under section G, showed the resident required 2-person, extensive assist with activities of daily living. Record review of Resident #16's care plan, dated 12/01/2023, revealed ADL self-care deficit: Be sure the resident's call light is within reach . Observation on 02/21/2024 at 2:50 pm revealed the call light was hanging over the headboard of resident #16's bed out of her reach. During an interview with CMA D on 2/21/2024 @ 2:52 pm, she stated the call light should not be over the headboard and she stated the resident could not reach the call light. 2. Record review of Resident #17's face sheet, dated 02/23/2024, revealed a [AGE] year-old female admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included: senile degeneration of the brain (a decrease in the ability to think, concentrate, or remember), cognitive communication deficit, and cerebral infarction (disrupted blood flow to the brain). Record review of Resident #17's Quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], revealed a BIMS score 11, which indicated the resident was moderately cognitively intact. Record review of Resident #17's care plan, dated 02/12/24, revealed The resident is dependent on staff for meeting emotional, intellectual, physical, and social needs r/t impaired memory, impaired mobility. Observation on 2/21/2024 at 2:54 pm revealed the call light was under resident #17's bed, out of her reach. During an interview on 2/21/2024 at 2:55 pm with resident # 17, she was asked if she could reach the call light and she shook her head, no. During an interview on 2/21/2024 at 2:56 pm with CMA D, she observed the call light was under the bed and that the resident could not reach it. During an interview on 2/23/2024 at 9:40 am with LVN B, she stated the call lights should be within reach. She stated not having the call light within reach could place the residents at risk for lack of care. During an interview on 2/23/2024 at 9:58 am with the DON - She stated call lights should be in reach so resident has access to request assistance. Residents could have a delay in care due to call lights not being within reach. Record review of the facility's policy, Answering the Call Light, dated 09/2022, revealed, Ensure the call light is accessible to the resident when in bed .
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Abuse Prevention Policies (Tag F0607)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to implement written policies and procedures to prohibit and prevent abuse, neglect, and exploitation for 2 of 6 staff (LVN A and CNA B) revie...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to implement written policies and procedures to prohibit and prevent abuse, neglect, and exploitation for 2 of 6 staff (LVN A and CNA B) reviewed for employee misconduct screenings, in that: The facility had failed to complete an annual Employee Misconduct Registry search for LVN A and CNA B. This failure could place residents at risk for abuse, neglect, exploitation, and misappropriation of property. The findings included: Record review of the Abuse and Neglect policy, dated Revised April 2021, reflected Conduct employee background checks and not knowingly employ or otherwise engage any individual who has . had a finding entered into the state nurse aide registry concerning abuse, neglect, or exploitation, mistreatment of residents or misappropriation of their property . No further information related to completed recurring searched of the EMR were not located within facility policy. Record review of the facility staff roster, undated, revealed LVN A's hire date to be 06/11/2015, and CNA B's hire date to be 11/04/2021. Record review of LVN A's personnel file reflected the last EMR search completed was on 02/11/2022. Record review of CNA B's personnel file reflected the last EMR search completed was on 01/21/2022. Interview on 02/23/2024 at 9:22 AM, the HRD stated she began in her role as the HRD last month (January 2024) and had discovered many personnel records to be missing or misplaced. The HRD stated the previous HRD informed the current ADM and HRD that EMR searches were completed in 2023 but could not identify where the evidence of said searches were located. The HRD stated it was within her role responsibility to ensure staff were searched for employee misconduct but could not correct a past mistake by the previous HRD. The HRD stated she could not locate any further evidence to support an annual search of the EMR for LVN A or CNA B. Interview on 02/23/2024 at 9:40 AM, the ADM stated she was not familiar with the annual EMRs for LVN A and CNA B as that role responsibility resided with the HRD. The ADM stated she began in her role last month (January 2024). The ADM stated it was her expectation that all staff be searched annually in the EMR, including existing staff prior to her assuming her role as the ADM and stated the risk to the residents remained the same, regardless of who was staffing the building. The ADM stated she intended to reach out to the previous HRD to assist in locating evidence of the annual EMR searches for LVN A and CNA B but stated she was uncertain if they were searched annually. The ADM stated the potential risk to residents could be being cared for by staff who had committed misconduct towards residents in long term care.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Menu Adequacy (Tag F0803)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, interview, and observation, the facility failed to assure that menus are developed and prepared to meet ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, interview, and observation, the facility failed to assure that menus are developed and prepared to meet resident choices including their nutritional, religious, cultural, and ethnic needs while using established national guidelines. The facility had no existing method to inform residents of substitutions to the menu. This failure could place residents at risk for dissatisfaction, poor intake, and diminished quality of life. The findings included: Record review of the menu/alternate, always available menu reflected various items like sandwiches, salad, burgers, fries, soup that residents can get at any time and can be able to request, in addition to being posted outside of the dining room. Record review of Resident #14's face sheet, dated 02/23/2024, reflected a [AGE] year-old with an original admission date of 04/06/2020 and a primary diagnosis of Type-2 Diabetes (A long-term condition in which the body has trouble controlling blood sugar and using it for energy.) Record review of Resident #14's Quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], reflected Resident #14 was evaluated to be a 15, indicating cognitively intact. Interview on 02/21/2024 at 4:15 PM, Resident #14 stated she has been at the facility for several years originally due to her husband being a former resident and has elected to remain the facility after his expiration. Resident #14 stated her concerns related to her care were that the food options made to her and other residents were poor food options and that alternates are not available to them apart from a hamburger that she did not feel was a sufficient nutritional equivalent. Resident #14 stated she had made reports about the food and being notified of alternates or substitutions to the ADM but no changes have been made. Interview on 02/22/2024 at 11:42 AM, the DM stated the always available menu includes various items like sandwiches, salad, burgers, fries, soup that residents can get at anytime and can be able to request, in addition to being posted outside of the dining room. The DM stated food options have become more diverse since the new menu has been reviewed with the RD/LD effective in the last few weeks. The DM stated the substitutions are completed on a [substitution] log that is completed near the front office of the kitchen where the changed item is on there and the new item is listed, along with the date and notification by the RD/LD. The DM stated staff are not expected to notify residents and she herself does not tell residents of a substitution and the mechanism in place to tell residents is when their plate is different. Interview and observation on 02/22/2024 at 11:58 AM, the ADM stated it is her expectation that the DM inform the residents of a potential change and believed it to be on a white board outside of the kitchen/dining room. Observation immediately following this conversation revealed no white board outside of the kitchen and the ADM stated she was not aware the DM was not informing residents of the substitutions. Interview on 02/22/2024 at 3:12 PM, the SW stated she had not received any further complaints regarding food or substitutions apart from the written grievances in the grievances' binder. The SW stated she had begun at the facility in the last month (January 2024) and was not familiar with previous changes to the food or the menus. Record review of Resident #13's face sheet, dated 02/23/2024, reflected an [AGE] year-old with an original admission date of 08/05/2022 and a primary diagnosis of Other Lack of Coordination (problems with movement). Record review of Resident #13's Quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], reflected Resident #13 was evaluated to be a 14, indicating cognitively intact. Interview on 02/22/2024 at 4:45 PM, Resident #13 stated the food served was poor, included too many carbs, and gets changed without notification. Resident #13 stated he has submitted grievances about the food and has not noticed any positive changes to the food even in the last several weeks. Resident #13 stated as he has diabetes, he watched his carb intake and had noticed he received too many carbs on his tray. Resident #13 stated his nurse assured him the trays were appropriate for his diet. Record review of Resident #12's face sheet, dated 02/23/2024, reflected a [AGE] year-old with an original admission date of 07/26/2019 and a primary diagnosis of muscle wasting and atrophy (decrease in size and wasting of muscle tissue). Record review of Resident #12's Quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], reflected Resident #12 was evaluated to be a 15, indicating cognitively intact. Interview on 02/23/2024 at 10:15 AM, Resident #12 stated the food varies in quality from meal to meal however a change to the food of the day did not get communicated to the residents, including herself. Resident #12 stated she would sometimes eat in the dining room but regardless of where she ate, there was never a notification of a change in the menu. Record review of Resident #15's face sheet, dated 02/23/2024, reflected a [AGE] year-old with an original admission date of 09/23/2015 and a primary diagnosis of hemiplegia and hemiparesis (Muscle weakness or partial paralysis on one side of the body that can affect the arms, legs, and facial muscles). Record review of Resident #15's Quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], reflected Resident #15 was evaluated to be a 15, indicating cognitively intact. Interview on 02/23/2024 at 10:32 AM, Resident #15 stated she did not enjoy the food and is sometimes served cold. Resident #15 stated she had submitted grievances related to the food quality, but no change had been made since. Resident #15 stated changes to the menu are occasionally reported to the residents but most often she only finds out the food had been changed based on what she got on her tray. Record review of grievances binder, undated, reflected: A grievance on 01/22/2024 by Resident #14 that she wanted more variety of options in snacks apart from sandwich. A grievance on 02/01/2024 by Resident #15 that the food is not diverse enough and SW responded by telling DM and they said the new menu is more diverse than before. A grievance on 02/14/2024 by Resident #13 about getting too many carbs while being a diabetic. Record review of facility policy, titled Nutritional Policies and Procedures dated Completed Revision 8/1/2020, reflected Make appropriate substitutions when items on the menu are not available. Record these substitutions and keep the records on file with the menus . No additional information related to informing residents about substitutions made was reflected within the policy.
Nov 2023 16 deficiencies 2 IJ (2 affecting multiple)
CRITICAL (K)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Someone could have died · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews the facility failed to provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike en...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews the facility failed to provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, to include maintenance services necessary to maintain comfortable and safe temperature levels, for 1 of 1 facility reviewed for a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, in that: The facility presented with 2 Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning systems [HVAC], of which 1 HVAC was not functioning causing cold interiors during the winter season. An IJ was identified on [DATE]. The IJ template was provided on [DATE] at 07:04 PM. While the IJ was removed on [DATE], the facility remained out of compliance at a scope of pattern and a severity level of no actual harm with potential for more than minimal harm that is not immediate jeopardy because the facility needed to monitor their corrective actions. This deficient practice placed residents at risk for harm by a diminished quality of life. The Finding were: The HVAC systems did not use 2 of 4 corridors (A Hall and B Hall) for a portion of the return air supply, inspected for return air supply. Air-Conditioning, Heating, Ventilating Ductwork, and Related Equipment. Air-conditioning, heating, ventilating ductwork, and related equipment. Record review revealed the facility had received a Waiver Approval letter dated [DATE] for Corridor Return Air, which had expired on [DATE] and that renewal documents had been submitted during the [DATE] survey period. Observations between on [DATE] between 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. revealed rooms on A Hall and B Hall were provided with ducted supply air but not with return air intakes. The return air intakes for the HVAC system were located in the corridors outside the rooms, causing the corridors to serve as a part of the return air system for the adjoining areas. During an exit interview on [DATE] at 5:00 p.m., when questioned as to the use of the A and B Halls being used as return air for the HVAC System, the Administrator said that she knew of the return air use in the aforementioned areas and that the facility had a waiver, as issued on [DATE] by the CMS for a three-year period (expired [DATE]). When asked if he knew the waiver had expired, the Administrator said he did and asked that it be renewed. Record review of the past air temperatures for San [NAME], Texas. In [DATE] the average high air temperature was 91-92 degrees Fahrenheit [F]. In [DATE], [DATE]-21, 2023, was 105 degrees F. The air temperature for [DATE] was 94-97 degrees F. In [DATE] the average high air temperature was 97 degrees F and with humidity was over 100 degrees F. This summer the county had 74 days of 100 degrees F, and over, ambient air temperatures. Observations on [DATE] at 9:50 AM with Maintenance Director X conducted environmental rounds of the facility and stated the temperatures should be between 71-81 degrees F. Observations were made of Residents gathered in the main dining room for the activity of Bingo. The Maintenance Director X stated the #1 HVAC unit was not working for a while, the HVAC unit serviced the A and B halls, which included the main dining room. The Maintenance Director X stated he had set the #1 HVAC unit to heat when he learned residents were going to have bingo in the main dining room. The Maintenance Director X stated he was not sure why the #1 HVAC was not at a good temperature and will notify the Administrator. Further observations and temperature records revealed the main dining room was 62.6 degrees F. At 10:20 AM the main dining the air temperature room was 54.9 degrees F. At 10:22 AM in the C end section of hall, the air temperature was 58.0 degrees F. At 10:23 AM in the C start of hall, the air temperature was 67.3 degrees F. At 10:26 AM in the D Hall, at start of hall (memory care unit), the air temperature was 69.3 degrees F. At 10:37 AM in the D Hall, at end of hall, the air temperature was 67.8 degrees F. Interview on [DATE] at 11:25 AM with the Administrator stated he was notified of the air temperature in the A and B Halls by the Life Safety Code surveyor (LSC) and was not aware that the C and D Halls were not heating for residents. No other reply. Interview on [DATE] at 10:06 AM with the ADON stated the HVAC system was having issues since earlier this year, 2023, either May or [DATE]. The ADON stated the resident families first noticed and reported the staff, that was when the facility was testing air temperatures. The facility brought in mobile Air Conditioning units. The ADON stated they discovered the A Hall (previous secure unit) was not cooling and was hot, so they moved those residents to the B Hall . Then the ADON stated the facility noticed the B Hall was not cooling, so the residents were moved to another part of the facility in May or June of 2023. They had a low census at the time. The facility moved the residents who resided on the A Hall secured unit to the first half of the D Hall and the rest of the residents moved to the second half of D Hall and other residents to the C Hall . A record review of the facility's Homelike Environment policy dated February 2021, revealed, policy statement; residents are provided with a safe, clean, comfortable and home like environment and encouraged to use their personal belongings to the extent possible. policy interpretation and implementation; the facility staff and management maximizes, to the extent possible, the characteristics of the facility that reflect a personalized, home like setting. these characteristics include; . comfortable and safe temperatures (71-81 degrees F) . This was determined to be an Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) on [DATE] at 07:04 PM. The Administrator was notified. The Administrator was provided with the IJ template on [DATE]. The following Plan of Removal was accepted on [DATE] at 03:10 PM. Immediate Jeopardy PLAN OF REMOVAL [DATE] Immediate Action: - Bids to repair the HVAC system currently out of order are being obtained from [HVAC Contractors]. The ceiling will be secured and repaired as part of the HVAC project. - Is a goal as far as a date to accept a bid by? All bids to be submitted by [DATE]. - Anticipated date of repair? Contractor will be approved to begin work on or before [DATE]. - What is being done in the meantime to ensure residents have a comfortable living environment? No residents currently reside in the area affected by the A/C outage. For the occupied areas of the building, random temperature checks will be taken twice daily (in the morning and in the afternoon/evening) to ensure temperatures are within acceptable range. If temperature is outside limits, thermostats will be adjusted (switched from cooling to heated and vice-versa) as needed. Temperature checks will be completed on regular weekdays by the maintenance director or designee, and on weekends/holidays by the receptionist. The administrator or designee will review the daily temperature logs for completeness and compliance. Plan of Removal Verification [DATE] Record review of several contract bids for HVAC repair. Record review of daily temperature logs, dated [DATE], revealed the morning temperatures were within range for all areas of the facility that were utilized and occupied, apart from the main dining room, which was 64.4 degrees F. The action documented by the facility to remedy the low temperature in the main dining room was switching the HVAC system from A/C to Heat. Further record review of the afternoon/evening temperature logs revealed all temperatures in appropriate ranges for all utilized and occupied areas of the facility. Record review of daily temperature logs, dated [DATE], revealed temperatures to be within appropriate range as required by Appendix PP. Observation on [DATE] at 11:30 AM with Administrator rounded halls for air temperatures revealed Hall D, Hall C and main dining room as required. Observation on [DATE] at 3:45 PM revealed temperatures in all utilized and occupied areas of the building to be as required by the Appendix PP. The Administrator was informed the Immediate Jeopardy was removed on [DATE] at 6:49 PM. While the IJ was removed on [DATE], the facility remained out of compliance at a scope of pattern and a severity level of no actual harm with potential for more than minimal harm that is not immediate jeopardy because the facility needed to monitor their corrective actions.
CRITICAL (K)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Someone could have died · This affected multiple residents

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews the facility failed to ensure that the residents' environment remained as free of accident hazards as is possible and each resident received adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents for 1 of 1 facility and 18 of 18 residents (Resident #1, #4 , #12, #14, #17, #23, #25, #38, #40, #41, #47, #48, #52, #56, #60, #64, #66, and #67) reviewed for accident hazards and supervision, in that: 1. Residents (Resident # 1, #4, #12, #14, #17, #23, #25, #38, #40, #41, #47, #48, #52, #56, #60, #64, #66, and #67) were residents who resided on the facility's memory care unit and needed supervision and safety monitoring due to their diagnoses of dementia and wander / elopement risks and were without staff care and or supervision, without secured entry exit doors, and without secured windows on 11/17/2023. 2. The facility developed an entrapment hazard when the facility did not effectually disable the electronic locking doors at the previous memory care unit. 3. The facility did not have a functioning call light system for the whole facility - Halls A, B, C, and D. 4. The facility did not have a secured door at the loading dock entry and exit door near Hall D. An IJ was identified on 11/17/2023. The IJ template was provided on 11/17/2023 at 07:04 PM. While the IJ was removed on 11/19/2023, the facility remained out of compliance at a scope of pattern and a severity level of no actual harm with potential for more than minimal harm that is not immediate jeopardy because the facility needed to monitor their corrective actions These failures could place residents at risk for harm by elopement, entrapment, and neglect. The findings included: 1. Resident #1 A record review of Resident #1's admission record dated 11/18/2023 revealed an admission date of 09/19/2017 with diagnoses which included dementia with behavioral disturbance [not a specific disease but is rather a general term for the impaired ability to remember, think, or make decisions that interferes with doing everyday activities]. A record review of Resident #1's quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #1 was a [AGE] year-old female admitted for long term care and assessed with a BIMS score of 03 out of a possible 15 which indicated severe cognitive impairment. A record review of Resident #1's care plan dated 11/18/2023 revealed, Resident resides on the memory care unit date Initiated: 07/24/2022, Revision on: 05/16/2023 .Resident's safety will be maintained through next review date .Monitor Resident per protocol to ensure safety . A record review of Resident #1's elopement risk assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #01 was assessed as a High Risk for elopement. A record review of Resident #1's physicians' order, dated 01/18/2023, revealed, Admit to secured unit. A record review of Resident #1's Clinical Census report dated 11/18/2023 revealed Resident #1 resided in the facility's D Hall, in the memory care unit. Resident #4 A record review of Resident #4's admission record dated 11/18/2023 revealed an admission date of 10/19/2021 with diagnoses which included dementia and schizophrenia [serious mental illness that affects how a person thinks, feels, and behaves. People with schizophrenia may seem like they have lost touch with reality]. A record review of Resident #4's quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #0 was an [AGE] year-old male admitted for long term care and assessed with a BIMS score of 06 out of a possible 15 which indicated severe cognitive impairment. A record review of Resident #4's care plan dated 11/18/2023 revealed, Resident resides on the memory care unit date Initiated: 07/17/2022, Revision on: 05/16/2023 .Resident's safety will be maintained through next review date .Monitor Resident per protocol to ensure safety . A record review of Resident #4's elopement risk assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #4 was assessed as a High Risk for elopement. A record review of Resident #4's physicians' order, dated 01/18/2023, revealed, Admit to secured unit. A record review of Resident #04's Clinical Census report dated 11/18/2023 revealed Resident #04 resided in the facility's D Hall, in the memory care unit. Resident #12 A record review of Resident #12's admission record dated 11/18/2023 revealed an admission date of 05/03/2021 with diagnoses which included Alzheimer's disease [a progressive disease beginning with mild memory loss and possibly leading to loss of the ability to carry on a conversation and respond to the environment]. A record review of Resident #12's quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #04 was an [AGE] year-old female admitted for long term care and assessed with a BIMS score of 05 out of a possible 15 which indicated severe cognitive impairment. A record review of Resident #12's care plan dated 11/18/2023 revealed, Resident resides on the memory care unit date Initiated: 07/17/2022, Revision on: 05/16/2023 .Resident's safety will be maintained through next review date .Monitor Resident per protocol to ensure safety . A record review of Resident #12's elopement risk assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #12 was assessed as a High Risk for elopement. A record review of Resident #12's physicians' order, dated 01/18/2023, revealed, Admit to secured unit. A record review of Resident #12's Clinical Census report dated 11/18/2023 revealed Resident #12 resided in the facility's D Hall, in the memory care unit. Resident #14 A record review of Resident #14's admission record dated 11/18/2023 revealed an admission date of 12/15/2021 with diagnoses which included dementia. A record review of Resident #14's quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #14 was a [AGE] year-old female admitted for long term care and assessed with a BIMS score of 04 out of a possible 15 which indicated severe cognitive impairment. A record review of Resident #14's care plan dated 11/18/2023 revealed, Resident resides on the memory care unit date Initiated: 07/24/2022, Revision on: 05/16/2023 .Resident's safety will be maintained through next review date .Monitor Resident per protocol to ensure safety . A record review of Resident #14's elopement risk assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #14 was assessed as a Moderate Risk for elopement. A record review of Resident #14's Clinical Census report dated 11/18/2023 revealed Resident #14 resided in the facility's D Hall, in the memory care unit. Resident #17 A record review of Resident #17's admission record dated 11/18/2023 revealed an admission date of 01/05/2023 with diagnoses which included dementia and Alzheimer's disease. A record review of Resident #17's quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #17 was a [AGE] year-old female admitted for long term care and assessed with a BIMS score of 03 out of a possible 15 which indicated severe cognitive impairment. A record review of Resident #17's care plan dated 11/18/2023 revealed, Resident resides on the memory care unit date Initiated: 02/07/2023, Revision on: 05/16/2023 .Resident's safety will be maintained through next review date .Monitor Resident per protocol to ensure safety . A record review of Resident #17's elopement risk assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #17 was assessed as a Moderate Risk for elopement. A record review of Resident #17's Clinical Census report dated 11/18/2023 revealed Resident #17 resided in the facility's D Hall, in the memory care unit. Resident #23 A record review of Resident #23's admission record dated 11/16/2023 revealed an admission date of 08/11/2023 with diagnoses which included dementia and bipolar disorder [a mental illness that causes unusual shifts in a person's mood, energy, activity levels, and concentration]. A record review of Resident #23's quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #23 was an [AGE] year-old female admitted for long term care and assessed with a BIMS score of 06 out of a possible 15 which indicated severe cognitive impairment. A record review of Resident #23's care plan dated 11/18/2023 revealed, Resident resides on the memory care unit date Initiated: 10/03/2023, .Resident's safety will be maintained through next review date .Monitor Resident per protocol to ensure safety . A record review of Resident #23's elopement risk assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #23 was assessed as a Moderate Risk for elopement. A record review of Resident #23's Clinical Census report dated 11/18/2023 revealed Resident #23 resided in the facility's D Hall, in the memory care unit. Resident #25 A record review of Resident #25's admission record dated 11/16/2023 revealed an admission date of 01/21/2015 with diagnoses which included dementia [not a specific disease but is rather a general term for the impaired ability to remember, think, or make decisions that interferes with doing everyday activities] and [serious mental illness that affects how a person thinks, feels, and behaves. People with schizophrenia may seem like they have lost touch with reality]. A record review of Resident #25's quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #25 was an [AGE] year-old female admitted for long term care and assessed with a BIMS score of 07 out of a possible 15 which indicated severe cognitive impairment. A record review of Resident #25's care plan dated 11/18/2023 revealed, Resident resides on the memory care unit date Initiated: 07/24/2022, .Resident's safety will be maintained through next review date .Monitor Resident per protocol to ensure safety . A record review of Resident #25's elopement risk assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #25 was assessed as a High Risk for elopement. A record review of Resident #25's Clinical Census report dated 11/18/2023 revealed Resident #25 resided in the facility's D Hall, in the memory care unit. Resident #38 A record review of Resident #38's admission record dated 11/15/2023 revealed an admission date of 04/13/2021 with diagnoses which included dementia. A record review of Resident #38's quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #38 was an [AGE] year-old male admitted for long term care and assessed with a BIMS score of 03 out of a possible 15 which indicated severe cognitive impairment. A record review of Resident #38's care plan dated 11/18/2023 revealed, The Resident [#38] has impaired cognitive function/dementia or impaired thought processes Dementia Date Initiated: 08/23/2022 .Cue, reorient and supervise as needed. A record review of Resident #38's elopement risk assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #38 was assessed as a Moderate Risk for elopement. A record review of Resident #38's Clinical Census report dated 11/18/2023 revealed Resident #38 resided in the facility's D Hall, in the memory care unit. Resident #40 A record review of Resident #40's admission record dated 11/16/2023 revealed an admission date of 05/07/2021 with diagnoses which included dementia. A record review of Resident #40's quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #40 was a [AGE] year-old female admitted for long term care and assessed with a BIMS score of 06 out of a possible 15 which indicated severe cognitive impairment. A record review of Resident #40's care plan dated 11/18/2023 revealed, Resident [#40] resides on the memory care unit Date Initiated: 06/27/2022 .Resident's safety will be maintained through next review date . Monitor Resident per protocol to ensure safety. A record review of Resident #40's elopement risk assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #40 was assessed as a High Risk for elopement. A record review of Resident #40's Clinical Census report dated 11/18/2023 revealed Resident #40 resided in the facility's D Hall, in the memory care unit. Resident #41 A record review of Resident #41's admission record dated 11/16/2023 revealed an admission date of 10/03/2023 with diagnoses which included Alzheimer's disease. A record review of Resident #41's quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #41 was a [AGE] year-old female admitted for long term care and assessed with a BIMS score of 06 out of a possible 15 which indicated severe cognitive impairment. A record review of Resident #41's care plan dated 11/18/2023 revealed, Resident [#41] resides on the memory care unit Date Initiated: 07/24/2022 .Resident's safety will be maintained through next review date . Monitor Resident per protocol to ensure safety. A record review of Resident #41's physicians' order, dated 10/04/2023, revealed, May reside on a secured unit. A record review of Resident #41's elopement risk assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #41 was assessed as a High Risk for elopement. A record review of Resident #41's Clinical Census report dated 11/18/2023 revealed Resident #41 resided in the facility's D Hall, in the memory care unit. Resident #47 A record review of Resident #47's admission record dated 11/17/2023 revealed an admission date of 06/03/2021 with diagnoses which included Alzheimer's disease and dementia with behavioral disturbance. A record review of Resident #47's quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #47 was an [AGE] year-old female admitted for long term care and assessed with a BIMS score of 02 out of a possible 15 which indicated severe cognitive impairment. A record review of Resident #47's care plan dated 11/18/2023 revealed, Resident [#47] resides on the memory care unit Date Initiated: 07/24/2022 .Resident's safety will be maintained through next review date . Monitor Resident per protocol to ensure safety. A record review of Resident #47's physicians' order, dated 01/18/2023, revealed, Admit to secured unit. A record review of Resident #47's elopement risk assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #47 was assessed as a Moderate Risk for elopement. A record review of Resident #47's Clinical Census report dated 11/18/2023 revealed Resident #47 resided in the facility's D Hall, in the memory care unit. Resident #48 A record review of Resident #48's admission record dated 11/17/2023 revealed an admission date of 06/06/2021 with diagnoses which included dementia with behavioral disturbance. A record review of Resident #48's quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #48 was a [AGE] year-old male admitted for long term care and could not complete a BIMS assessment and was assessed with disorganized thinking - ( .the resident's thinking disorganized or incoherent (rambling or irrelevant conversation, unclear or illogical flow of ideas, or unpredictable switching from subject to subject). A record review of Resident #48's care plan dated 11/18/2023 revealed, Resident [#48] resides on the memory care unit Date Initiated: 05/16/2023 .Resident's safety will be maintained through next review date . Monitor Resident per protocol to ensure safety. A record review of Resident #48's elopement risk assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #48 was assessed as a High Risk for elopement. A record review of Resident #48's Clinical Census report dated 11/18/2023 revealed Resident #48 resided in the facility's D Hall, in the memory care unit. Resident #52 A record review of Resident #52's admission record dated 11/17/2023 revealed an admission date of 11/01/2021 with diagnoses which included Alzheimer's disease. A record review of Resident #52's quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #52 was a [AGE] year-old female admitted for long term care and could not complete a BIMS assessment and was assessed with disorganized thinking - .the resident's thinking disorganized or incoherent (rambling or irrelevant conversation, unclear or illogical flow of ideas, or unpredictable switching from subject to subject). A record review of Resident #52's care plan dated 11/18/2023 revealed, Resident [#52] resides on the memory care unit for wandering and being at risk for placing self in unsafe place Date Initiated: 07/21/2022 .Resident's safety will be maintained through next review date .Initiated: 05/16/2023 .Monitor Resident per protocol to ensure safety . A record review of Resident #52's elopement risk assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #52 was assessed as a Moderate Risk for elopement. A record review of Resident #52's Clinical Census report dated 11/18/2023 revealed Resident #52 resided in the facility's D Hall, in the memory care unit. Resident #56 A record review of Resident #56's admission record dated 11/15/2023 revealed an admission date of 08/12/2022 with diagnoses which included dementia with behavioral disturbance [not a specific disease but is rather a general term for the impaired ability to remember, think, or make decisions that interferes with doing everyday activities]. A record review of Resident #56's quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #56 was a [AGE] year-old male admitted for long term care and assessed with a BIMS score of 01 out of a possible 15 which indicated severe cognitive impairment. A record review of Resident #56's care plan dated 11/18/2023 revealed, Resident [#56] resides on the memory care unit for elopement risk. He has a history of wandering into other residents' rooms and going outside unattended. Date Initiated: 07/26/2022 .Resident's safety will be maintained through next review date. Date Initiated: 05/16/2023 .Monitor Resident per protocol to ensure safety A record review of Resident #56's elopement risk assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #56 was assessed as a High Risk for elopement. A record review of Resident #56's Clinical Census report dated 11/18/2023 revealed Resident #56 resided in the facility's D Hall, in the memory care unit. Resident #60 A record review of Resident #60's admission record dated 11/17/2023 revealed an admission date of 12/02/2022 with diagnoses which included dementia [not a specific disease but is rather a general term for the impaired ability to remember, think, or make decisions that interferes with doing everyday activities]. A record review of Resident #60's quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #60 was a [AGE] year-old male admitted for long term care and assessed with a BIMS score of 05 out of a possible 15 which indicated severe cognitive impairment. A record review of Resident #60's care plan dated 11/18/2023 revealed, Resident [#60] resides on the memory care unit for elopement risk. He has a history of wandering. Date Initiated: 12/08/2022 .Resident's safety will be maintained through next review date. Date Initiated: 05/16/2023 .Monitor Resident per protocol to ensure safety A record review of Resident #60's elopement risk assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #60 was assessed as a Moderate Risk for elopement. A record review of Resident #60's Clinical Census report dated 11/18/2023 revealed Resident #60 resided in the facility's D Hall, in the memory care unit. Resident #64 A record review of Resident #64's admission record dated 11/17/2023 revealed an admission date of 11/28/2022 with diagnoses which included violent behavior, cognitive social or emotional deficit following cerebral infarction [stroke]. A record review of Resident #64's quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #64 was a [AGE] year-old male admitted for long term care and could not complete a BIMS assessment and was assessed with disorganized thinking - .the resident's thinking disorganized or incoherent (rambling or irrelevant conversation, unclear or illogical flow of ideas, or unpredictable switching from subject to subject). A record review of Resident #64's care plan dated 11/18/2023 revealed, Resident [#64] resides on the memory care unit for elopement risk. He has a history of wandering. Date Initiated: 12/12/2022 .Resident's safety will be maintained through next review date. Date Initiated: 05/16/2023 .Monitor Resident per protocol to ensure safety A record review of Resident #64's elopement risk assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #64 was assessed as a Moderate Risk for elopement. A record review of Resident #64's Clinical Census report dated 11/18/2023 revealed Resident #64 resided in the facility's D Hall, in the memory care unit. Resident #66 A record review of Resident #66's admission record dated 11/17/2023 revealed an admission date of 01/05/2023 with diagnoses which included dementia with behavioral disturbance [not a specific disease but is rather a general term for the impaired ability to remember, think, or make decisions that interferes with doing everyday activities] and delusional disorders. A record review of Resident #66's quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #66 was a [AGE] year-old female admitted for long term care and could not complete a BIMS assessment and was assessed with disorganized thinking - .the resident's thinking disorganized or incoherent (rambling or irrelevant conversation, unclear or illogical flow of ideas, or unpredictable switching from subject to subject). A record review of Resident #66's care plan dated 11/18/2023 revealed, Resident [#66] resides on the memory care unit for elopement risk. He has a history of wandering. Date Initiated: 02/03/2023 .Resident's safety will be maintained through next review date. Date Initiated: 05/16/2023 .Monitor Resident per protocol to ensure safety A record review of Resident #66's elopement risk assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #66 was assessed as a Moderate Risk for elopement. A record review of Resident #66's Clinical Census report dated 11/18/2023 revealed Resident #66 resided in the facility's D Hall, in the memory care unit. Resident #67 A record review of Resident #67's admission record dated 11/17/2023 revealed an admission date of 04/21/2023 with diagnoses which included dementia [not a specific disease but is rather a general term for the impaired ability to remember, think, or make decisions that interferes with doing everyday activities]. A record review of Resident #67's quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #67 was a [AGE] year-old male admitted for long term care and assessed with a BIMS score of 07 out of a possible 15 which indicated severe cognitive impairment. A record review of Resident #67's care plan dated 11/18/2023 revealed, Resident [#67] resides on the memory care unit for elopement risk. He has a history of wandering. Date Initiated: 05/16/2023 .Resident's safety will be maintained through next review date. Date Initiated: 10/03/2023 .Monitor Resident per protocol to ensure safety A record review of Resident #67's elopement risk assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #67 was assessed as a Moderate Risk for elopement. A record review of Resident #67's Clinical Census report dated 11/18/2023 revealed Resident #67 resided in the facility's D Hall, in the memory care unit. During an observation on 11/14/2023 at 10:10 AM revealed the memory care unit housed in the first half of the D Hall presented with 18 residents (Residents #1, #4, #12, #14, #17, #23, #25, #38, #40, #41, #47, #48, #52, #56, #60, #64, #66, and #67). The memory care unit had 2 sets of double doors which were closed without the ability to lock and no alarm. All the windows in the memory care unit were 4 ½ inches off the floor and were able to fully open. Further observations revealed the memory care unit had a malfunctioning call light system which would sometimes illuminate a call light without sounds and sometimes would sound and not illuminate. During an interview on 11/14/2023 at 10:20 AM, LVN H and CNA U stated they were the LVN and CNA for the memory care unit which occupied the beginning of the D Hall. LVN H and CNA U stated the call light system had been malfunctioning for weeks. LVN H stated the staff paid attention to the lights and would round on residents frequently. CNA U and LVN H stated the entry exit doors were kept shut but had no locks on the doors which allowed residents and staff to freely pass through. LVN H stated when residents go out of the memory care unit staff redirect the residents back into the unit. LVN H and CNA U stated the memory care unit was set up sometime in the summer of 2023, due to the previous memory care unit, housed in A-Hall, was uninhabitable due to a faulty air-conditioner unit. LVN H and CNA U stated the previous unit had secured doors and windows and a functioning call light system. LVN H and CNA U stated the facility DON had knowledge of the unsecured doors and malfunctioning call light system. During and observation and interview on 11/14/2023 at 10:38 AM, LVN H and surveyor rounded on residents' rooms and revealed no windows were secured and could fully open. LVN H stated she was unaware the windows could fully open and could pose an elopement risk for residents. During an interview on 11/16/2023 at 1:30 PM, Resident #60's representative with power of attorney stated, Resident #60 is confused, young enough, and strong enough to open a window and get out .I expected the memory care unit to be safe and secure for my [Resident #60]. During an observation on 11/17/2023 at 6:28 AM revealed the memory care unit presented without any secured doors for entry and or exit of the memory care unit. Observation revealed a malfunctioning call light system where the call light panel at the nurse station continuously alarmed. Observation revealed 18 residents, [Resident #19 had been discharged ]; Residents #1, #4, #12, #14, #17, #23, #25, #38, #40, #41, #47, #48, #52, #56, #60, #64, #66, and #67, without staff care and or supervision. Further observation revealed no staff in the memory care unit after a room-to-room search which included a census of each Resident. Continued observation revealed residents ambulating throughout the unit with some residents asleep in their bedrooms. During an observation and interview on 11/17/2023 at 6:40 AM revealed Restorative Aide S entered the memory care unit and stated she was not assigned to care for residents in the memory care unit but was just dropping by to check on residents. RA S stated there were no staff in the memory care unit and she would stay until someone would arrive. During an interview on 11/17/2023 at 6:41 AM LVN B and CNA AA stated they were scheduled to work the D Hall from 11:00 PM to 7:00 AM. LVN B stated CNA F was scheduled to work the memory care unit from 11:00 PM to 6:00 AM and CNA AA was scheduled to care for the rest of the residents on the D Hall who were not residents of the memory care unit. LVN B stated the residents on the memory care unit should have supervision by CNA U who was assigned to relieve CNA F. LVN B stated he was unaware CNA U was not working in the memory care unit. LVN B stated sometimes LVN U was late. LVN B stated no one had reported to him there was no staff in the memory care unit. LVN B stated residents could have eloped and or been injured without staff supervision. LVN B stated he could not be in 2 places and had nursing duties at the end of the non-memory care unit, D Hall. CNA AA stated she was unaware the memory care unit had no staff and was responsible for providing resident care in the non-memory care d-hall. During an observation and interview on 11/17/2023 at 7:00 AM revealed LVN H and CNA U at the facility's time clock. CNA U did not identify herself as CNA U and LVN H stated CNA U should have relieved CNA F at 6:00 AM and stated CNA U had a history of being absent for care in the memory care unit. During an interview on 11/17/2023 at 10:06 AM with the ADON stated the HVAC system was having issues since earlier this year, 2023, either May or June 2023. The ADON stated the resident families first noticed and reported the staff, that was when the facility was testing air temperatures. The facility brought in mobile Air Conditioning units. The ADON stated they discovered the A Hall (previous secure unit) was not cooling and was hot, so they moved those residents to the B Hall . Then the ADON stated the facility noticed the B Hall was not cooling, so the residents were moved to another part of the facility in May or June of 2023. They had a low census at the time. The facility moved the residents who resided on the A Hall secured unit to the first half of the D Hall and the rest of the residents moved to the second half of D Hall and other residents to the C Hall. During an interview on 11/17/2023 at 11:10 AM Staffing Coordinator G stated CNA U had not called in late and his expectation was for CNA U to relieve CNA F. During an interview on 11/17/2023 at 5:02 PM the ADON stated he was unaware the memory care unit was without staff on the morning of 11/17/2023 at 6:00 AM. The ADON stated the expectation was for a staff member to be supervising, caring, and monitoring the residents in the memory care unit and should not leave the unit until the staff member has been relieved by the next staff member. During an interview on 11/18/2023 at 2:22 PM CNA F stated she was scheduled to work 11:00 PM to 6:00 AM in the memory care unit and was usually relieved by CNA U. CNA F stated sometimes she just leaves because CNA U was not there to relieve her at 6:00 AM. CNA F stated LVN B Knows. During an interview on 11/18/2023 at 3:02 PM CNA U stated she did not call anyone to alert them of her tardiness. CNA U stated she had not seen CNA F or LVN B when she arrived on 11/17/2023 at 6:00 AM and stated she had left the memory care unit to use the bathroom. 2. During an observation on 11/16/2023 at 5:35 PM revealed the A Hall previous location of the memory care unit. The path to the unit was clear and unencumbered to any pedestrian or person who used a wheelchair and or walker. The doors to the A Hall presented closed with an electronic keypad adjacent. The doors freely opened without the use of the keypad and locked behind after entry into the unit. Further observation did not reveal any way of exit. The surveyor became entrapped and used the emergency fire exit to exit the A Hall. During an observation and interview on 11/16/2023 at 5:50 PM the Administrator and the Maintenance Director received a report from the surveyor of the entrapment incident. The Administrator and the Maintenance Director demonstrated the secured locked double doors to the A Hall and utilized the keypad to release the locked doors. The Administrator requested the Maintenance Director to enter the secured A Hall and re-set the alarming fire exit door. The Maintenance Director entered the A Hall, the secured doors locked after his entry, he reset the fire alarm door and returned to the locked doors to the A Hall, entered in the code at the keypad to release the doors and exited the A Hall. Upon the Maintenance Directors exit and after the doors shut, the Administrator, to demonstrate the function of the locked door, pushed upon the door and revealed the door op[TRUNCATED]
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0578 (Tag F0578)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record reviews the facility failed to ensure residents could request and formulate advance directives, f...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record reviews the facility failed to ensure residents could request and formulate advance directives, for 1 of 8 (Resident #59) residents reviewed for formulation of advanced directives in that: Resident #59's medical record reflected conflicting physicians' orders for Resident #59's wishes for an advance directive. This failure could result in residents not having their end-of-life choices respected. Findings included: Record review of Resident #59's admission Record, dated [DATE], revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE], was re-admitted on [DATE], and had diagnoses of legal blindness, age-related physical disability, major depressive disorder, and end stage renal disease. Record review of Resident #59's consolidated physician orders print date [DATE], revealed the physician, on [DATE], ordered Resident #59 to be a Full Code. Record review of Resident #59's Significant change MDS, dated [DATE], revealed the resident had a BIMS of 15 (which indicated the resident was cognitively intact), and received dialysis services. Record review of Resident #59's care plan, dated [DATE], revealed, resident/family had chosen DNR. Review quarterly to ensure that completed OOHDNR is on chart. Record review of Resident # 59's chart revealed the resident had an OOHDNR dated [DATE]. Interview on [DATE] at 12:46 PM with SW stated he did go to care plan meetings. The SW stated Resident #59 was able to make his own decisions and depending on his mood attend care plan meetings. The SW stated sometimes staff changed things and did not consult with the SW. The SW verified the discrepancy with Resident #59's chart in that; the physicians order was for Resident #59 to be a full Code [to receive CPR] and the care plan called for Resident #59 to be OOHDNR [Resident #59 was not to receive CPR]. The SW stated he talked to Resident #59, and the resident stated he wanted to have a DNR status at this time, [[DATE]]. Interview [DATE] at 10:41 AM with SW stated Resident # 59 had an OODNR updated order which was not corrected my nursing. Interview on [DATE] at 10:42 AM with the ADON stated he was responsible for nursing department, and had not updated the physicians' OOHDNR order and thus Resident #59 had conflicting orders for CPR. The ADON stated this placed Resident #59 at risk for not following his wishes for an advance directive. Record review of the Policy, Advanced Directive, dated [DATE], revealed, The resident had the right to formulate an advance directive, including the right to accept or refuse medical or surgical treatment. Advance Directive are honored in accordance with state law and facility policy. Definition 1. a. Advanced care planning a process of communication between individuals and their healthcare agents to understand, reflects on, discuss, and plan for future healthcare decisions for a time when individuals are not able to make their own healthcare decisions. b. Advanced Directive a written instruction, such as living will or durable power of attorney for health care, recognized by state law relating to the provisions of health care when the individual is incapacitated. 3. DNR indicates that, in case of respiratory or cardiac failure, the resident. Had directed that no cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) or other life -sustaining treatments or methods are to be used. Determining Existence of Advanced Directive 1. Prior to or upon admission of a resident, the social services director or designee inquiries of the resident, ., about the existence of any written advance directives. 9. Inquiries concerning advanced directive should be referred to the . nursing services and/or social services director.
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the facility must develop and implement a co...

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 facility must develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident, consistent with the resident rights, that includes measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs that are identified in the comprehensive assessment. The comprehensive care plan must describe the following -The services that are to be furnished to attain or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being as required for 1 of 8 (Resident #49) residents reviewed for comprehensive care plans, in that: Resident #49's comprehensive care plan did not address the resident's use of a Trapeze bar for bed mobility or the use of a seatbelt on the resident's electric wheelchair. These deficient practices could affect all residents and could result in a decrease in care for residents. The Findings were: Record review of Resident #49's admission Record, dated 11/17/2023, revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE], and re-admitted on [DATE], with diagnoses of: Acute Transverse Myelitis inn Demyelinating disease (Autoimmune and demyelinating disorders, infections, a medication, or a recreational drug can inflame tissues in spinal cord segments, causing transverse myelitis, which may progress to complete transverse sensorimotor myelopathy.), mild cognitive impairment, depression, colostomy, paraplegia,(paralysis of the legs and lower body, typically caused by spinal injury or disease) diabetes 1/II (metabolic disease, involving inappropriately elevated blood glucose levels), age-related physical debility, and need for assistance with personal care. Record review of Resident #49's Quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], revealed the resident's cognition score was 15/15 (intact), range of motion revealed the resident had impairment on both lower extremities, required the use of a wheelchair to mobilize, paraplegia, depression, colostomy, mild cognitive impairment, Acute Transverse Myelitis in Demyelinating disease, the resident's weight was 244 pounds, and the resident was indicated to have a pressure ulcer. Observation on 11/15/2023 at 11:17 AM in Resident #49's room revealed he had a trapeze bar above his bed, his electric wheelchair had a seatbelt, and he was lying on his bed. Interview on 11/15/2023 at 11:18 AM with Resident #49 revealed he used the trapeze bar to move around in bed and he stated he could release the seatbelt when he needs to on his own. Observation on at 11/18/23 at 3:18 PM in Resident #49's room revealed he had a trapeze bar above his bed, his electric wheelchair had a seatbelt, and he was lying on his bed. Record review of Resident #49's consolidated physician orders for November 2023 revealed there were no orders for a trapeze bar or electric wheelchair seatbelt. Record review of Resident #49's care plan dated 9/2/2023 revealed ADL self-care performance deficit and requires hand on assistance, resident had a physical mobility related to hemiplegia, resident is at risk for falls related to paraplegia, use of wheelchair (electric). Further review of the resident's care plan revealed the care plan did not address the resident's use of a trapeze bar for bed mobility or the use of a seatbelt on the resident's electric wheelchair. Interview on 11/18/23 at 11:24 AM with MDS revealed Resident #49 did not have a care plan for the trapeze bar and seatbelt for his wheelchair. The MDS stated she was aware Resident #49 used both of those devices. The MDS stated the risk for not adding the devices in a resident's care plan would be that staff would not provide the appropriate the type of care. The MDS stated Resident #49 was able to get out of electric wheelchair seatbelt when he wanted. Interview on 11/18/23 at 2:50 PM with DON confirmed Resident #49 used a trapeze bar above the resident's bed and used a seat belt for the resident's electric wheelchair. The DON stated the facility did not do consent forms for trapeze bar or wheelchair seatbelts. The DON stated she was not aware that those types of devices needed a consent. Record review of Facility Policy titled, Care Plans, Comprehensive Person-Centered, dated March 2022, revealed, Assessments of residents are ongoing and care plans are revised as information about the residents and the residents' conditions change.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the care plan was reviewed and revised by the interdiscipli...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the care plan was reviewed and revised by the interdisciplinary team after each assessment, including both the comprehensive and quarterly review assessments for 1 of 8 residents (Resident #65) reviewed for comprehensive care plans, in that: Resident #65's care plan was not revised to indicate significant weight loss after their Dietician Comprehensive Assessment in accordance with minimum standards. This failure could place residents at risk for not receiving appropriate interventions to meet their current needs. The findings included: Record review of Resident #65's face sheet, dated 11/17/2023, revealed an [AGE] year-old resident with diagnoses including chronic kidney disease (longstanding disease of the kidneys leading to renal failure), mild protein-calorie malnutrition (a nutritional status in which reduced availability of nutrients leads to changes in body composition and function), and Alzheimer's disease (progressive disease that destroys memory and other important mental functions). Record review of Resident #65's MDS Assessment, dated 11/6/2023, revealed, under the section labeled Weight Loss, the Code 0, indicating No, for the prompt, Loss of 5% or more in the last month or loss of 10% or more in the last 6 months. Record review of Resident #65's Dietician Comprehensive assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident had significant weight loss of 8.32% of their body weight in 30 days, and 15.84% of their body weight in 180 days. Further review of the Dietician Comprehensive Assessment revealed recommendations to add a diabetic snack every night, as well as supplement pass due to weight loss. Record review of Resident #65's Orders revealed an order dated 8/22/2023, for a house supplement three times a day for weight loss. The order was entered by the ADON. Record review of Resident #65's care plan with a review date of 9/8/2023 revealed there were no interventions for weight loss until 8/7/2023, while the Dietician Comprehensive Assessment completed on 7/13/2023 indicated the resident had lost 15.84% of their body weight in 180 days. Interview on 11/19/2023 at 10:00 AM, the ADON stated the Dietician sent facility staff an email to communicate their dietary assessments with staff. The ADON stated he was not sure whether he received the email at the time it was delivered for the Dietician Comprehensive Assessment that occurred on 7/13/2023. The ADON stated he was the one to put in the orders for Resident #65 for the supplement in August of 2023. The ADON stated the care plan should have been updated after the 7/13/2023 Dietician Comprehensive Assessment. The ADON stated they were not sure why the care plan had not been updated after the 7/13/2023 Dietician Comprehensive Assessment, and that the expectation was for care plans to be revised after any significant changes, including weight loss. The ADON stated they could not determine why Resident #65's care plan had not been updated, but that it was the responsibility of the Interdisciplinary Team to ensure care plans were revised timely. Interview on 11/19/2023 at 5:00 PM the Dietician stated she was aware of some weight loss in the facility and documented notes. The Dietitian stated interventions for residents for weight loss included high calorie meals, health shakes, and a supplement shake provided during resident's medication times. Record review of the facilty's policy titled, Weight Assessment and Intervention, dated March 2022, revealed, 1 month - 5% weight loss is significant; greater than 5% is severe. Record review of the facilty's policy titled, Care Plans, Comprehensive Person-Centered, dated March 2022, revealed, Assessments of residents are ongoing and care plans are revised as information about the residents and the residents' conditions change. Record review of the facilty's policy titled, Care Planning -IDT, dated March 2022, revealed, the interdisciplinary team is responsible for the development of resident care plans. I. Resident care plans are developed according to the timeframes and criteria established by §483.21. 2.Comprehensive, person-centered care plans are based on resident assessments and developed by an interdisciplinary team (IDT). registered nurse with responsibility for the resident; c. a nursing assist ant with responsibility for the resident; d. a member of the food and nutrition service staff.
CONCERN (D)

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 the facility must ensure that residents receive ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure the facility must ensure that residents receive treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the residents' choices for 2 of 8 (Residents #50 and #59) residents reviewed for quality of care, in that: 1. The facility provided hospice services for Resident #50 without a physicians' order. 2. The facility supported and facilitated dialysis services for Resident #59 without a physicians' order. These failures could affect all residents with contracted services and could result with inappropriate care. The Finding were: 1. Record review of Resident #50's admission Record, dated 11/17/2023, revealed she was admitted on [DATE], age [AGE], primary payer was hospice, with diagnoses of Alzheimer's disease, dementia, cognitive communications deficit. Record review of Resident #50's admission MDS assessment, dated 11/6/2023, revealed Resident #50 was assessed with a BIMS score was 2/15 (severely impaired), ADL mobility and transfers reflected the resident required substantial/max assistance, and was on hospice services. Record review of Resident #50's care plan, dated 10/12/2023, revealed Resident #50 had chosen hospice services with diagnosis of Alzheimer's and was under special instructions, please only shower Resident #50 three times a week per family request any issues with hospice, please call . Record review of Resident #50's the consolidated physician's orders for November 2023 revealed no order for hospice services. Observation on 11/15/2023 at 1:07 PM in Resident #50's room revealed she was in bed, unresponsive and her family was at her side. Interview on 11/15/2023 at 1:08 PM Resident #50's family stated the hospice staff for Resident #50 were good. Interview on 11/15/2023 at 4:02 PM with the ADON in Resident #50's chart online, confirmed no current order for hospice services and was discontinued on 4/11/2023. The ADON stated Resident #50 was on hospice services. Interview on 11/19/2023 at 10:29 AM LVN O stated Resident #50 was provided with hospice services. 2. Record review of Resident #59's admission Record revealed he was re-admitted on [DATE] age was 58, with diagnoses of legal blindness, age-related physical disability, major depressive disorder, and end stage renal disease (occurs when chronic kidney disease - the gradual loss of kidney function - reaches an advanced state). Record review of Resident #59's Significant change MDS, dated [DATE], revealed his cognition was 15/15 (intact) and he received dialysis services. Record review of Resident #59's care plan, dated 11/1/2023, revealed Resident #59 had a diagnoses of end stage renal disease. He was receiving dialysis, refused at times and went to dialysis 3 times a week. Record review of Resident #59's consolidated physician's orders print date 11/17/2023 revealed no order for dialysis. Interview on 11/18/2023 at 12:46 PM the SW stated Resident #59 went to care plan meetings. The SW stated Resident #59 made his own decisions and depending on his mood if he wanted to go to care plan meeting. SW stated at times he refused to go to Dialysis. Interview on 11/19/2023 at 10:42 AM the ADON stated he was responsible for the nursing department, and he should have made sure Resident #59 had an order for dialysis and Resident #50's had an order for hospice services. Interview on 11/17/2023 at 4:26 PM with LVN N revealed she was now aware Resident #59 had no orders for dialysis. Interview on 11/17/2023 at 4:28 PM the DON stated he would check and then discontinue orders section of chart but was not sure why Resident #59 did not have orders for dialysis. The DON stated there was a time Resident #59 did not want dialysis, then he changed his mind. The DON stated she did not re-enter the order for dialysis. When asked who was responsible for putting in resident orders was, the DON stated the charge nurse, the ADON and the DON were over all nursing department. Interview on 11/18/2023 at 11:16 AM MDS confirmed Resident #59 was on dialysis and sometimes refused the services. Interview on at 11/19/2023 at 10:30 AM LVN O stated Resident #59 went to dialysis on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays. LVN O sated she was not aware Resident #59 did not have orders for dialysis.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews the facility failed to store all drugs and biologicals in locked compartments under proper temperature controls, and permit only authorized person...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews the facility failed to store all drugs and biologicals in locked compartments under proper temperature controls, and permit only authorized personnel to have access to the keys, for 1 of 1 medication aide medication cart, reviewed for security, in that, The Medication Aide J's medication cart was unattended and unlocked. This failure placed residents at risk for harm by misappropriation of property and not receiving the therapeutic effects of their medications. The findings included: During an observation on 11/14/2023 at 4:46 PM, revealed the facility's Medication Aide J's medication cart was unattended, and unlocked. The medication cart was observed to have the lock button unengaged and unlocked. An observation revealed the Medication Aide J [MA J] was down the hall in a resident's room. During an interview on 11/14/2023 at 4:52 PM MA J stated she was the facility's medication aide and the cart she had charge of was the medication aide medication cart. MA J stated she had gone down the hall to attend to a Resident and she had left the medication cart unattended and unlocked. MA J stated she should have locked the cart and did not. During an interview on 11/14/2023 at 5:15 PM LVN AV stated she was the charge nurse for the hall and was MA J's supervisor. LVN AV stated the professional standard and her expectations for nursing staff who have control of medication carts was to have the medication cart locked when not in direct use, she [MA J] should have locked her cart when she left it. During an interview on 11/14/2023 at 5:20 PM the DON stated she had received a report MA J had left the medication cart unattended and unlocked. The DON stated her expectations were for all nursing staff who have control of medications, secure the medications and to lock medication carts when left unattended. The DON stated all nurses and / or medication aides were responsible for medication storage security. The DON stated the risk for harm to residents were varied and could include residents not receiving the therapeutic effects of their prescribed medications. A record review of the facility's undated Storage of Medications policy revealed, Policy Statement: the facility shall store all drugs and biologicals in a safe, secure, and orderly manner. Policy Interpretation and Implementation: . Compartments (including, but not limited to, drawers, cabinets, rooms, refrigerators, carts, and boxes.) containing drugs and biologicals shall be locked when not in use, and trays or carts used to transport such items shall not be left unattended if open or otherwise potentially available to others.
CONCERN (D)

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0921)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews the must provide a safe, functional, sanitary, and comfortable environment for residents, staff, and the public for 1 of 1 facility reviewed for s...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews the must provide a safe, functional, sanitary, and comfortable environment for residents, staff, and the public for 1 of 1 facility reviewed for safe, functional, sanitary and comfortable environment in that: The facility failed to maintain ceilings in the facility. This deficient practice placed residents at risk for harm by diminished health status and diminished self esteem. The Finding were: Observations during the building inspection tour on 11/14/2023 at 12:40 p.m. revealed a section of ceiling approximately 20 feet long was cracked and was separated from another piece of the ceiling. Further observation revealed the ceiling in the Therapy room was sagging and pieces of the gypsum in several areas were starting to peel and crack. During an interview at the time of the observations, the Maintenance Director stated the ceiling had been like that for a few months. The Maintenance Director stated he was aware that the ceiling needed to be repaired and that he notified management about the issue because it was unsanitary and could cause illness to spread with residents. Observation on 11/14/2023 at 2:39 p.m. revealed a section of ceiling approximately 6 ft. by 6 ft. had signs of water damage and was missing gypsum/ceiling finish exposing the inside of the attic space. In an interview at the time of the observation, the Maintenance Director stated the ceiling had been like that for 2 months due to an air conditioning leak. The Maintenance Director stated he was aware that the ceiling needed to be repaired and that he notified management about the issue because it was unsanitary and could cause illness to spread with residents. During an interview at the time of the observation, the Administrator stated the ceiling had been like that for 2 months due to an air conditioning leak. The Administrator said he was waiting on quotes from the contractor and final approval to make the repairs. A record review of the facility's Hazardous Areas, Devices and Equipment policy dated July 2017, revealed, policy statement all hazardous areas, devices and equipment in the facility will be identified and addressed appropriately to ensure residents safety and mitigate accident hazards to the extent possible. policy interpretation and implementation: as part of the facilities overall safety and accident prevention program, hazardous areas and objects in the residence environment will be identified and addressed by the safety committee. the safety committee will consist of members from the interdisciplinary team which will include a representative from the clinical, leadership, maintenance, and environmental services team. identification of hazards; a hazard is defined as anything in the environment that has the potential to cause injury or illness. examples of environmental hazards include, but are not limited to the following; equipment and devices that are left unattended or are malfunctioning; devices and equipment that are improperly used or poorly maintained; . open areas or items that should be locked when not in use; . disabled locks, latches, or alarms .
CONCERN (E)

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

Grievances (Tag F0585)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to make prompt efforts to resolve any grievances the residents may have for 11 of 30 grievances reviewed in that: The facility did not provid...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to make prompt efforts to resolve any grievances the residents may have for 11 of 30 grievances reviewed in that: The facility did not provide a response or written description of any action taken after receiving written grievances. This failure could affect residents who reside in the facility for unresolved grievances in a prompt manner. The findings included: During confidential interviews on 11/15/2023 at 10:05 AM, residents stated grievances were not always followed up on and they were concerned the grievances they wrote were not being addressed. Record review of the facility's grievance binder revealed 11 grievances written between 1/26/2023 and 2/23/2023 were left blank under the subsection of the grievance titled Grievance Official Follow-Up. Record review of document titled Grievance Form, dated 1/26/2023 revealed a grievance made by resident family members related to nursing services and assigned to the nursing department to investigate. The subsection Grievance Official Follow-Up, and Date Resolved were left blank upon exit. Record review of document titled Grievance Form, dated 1/26/2023 revealed a grievance made by a resident relating to dietary services. The subsection Person Investigating Complaint/Grievance was left blank, as was the subsection Grievance Official Follow-Up, and Date Resolved upon exit. Record review of document titled Grievance Form, dated 1/26/2023 revealed a grievance made by a resident relating to environmental services. The subsection Person Investigating Complaint/Grievance was blank as was the subsection Grievance Official Follow-Up, and Date Resolved upon exit. Record review of document titled Grievance Form, dated 2/1/2023 revealed a grievance made by a resident relating to nursing services, specifically a CNA being unkind to the resident when answering a call light. The CNA was not named. The subsection Person Investigating Complaint/Grievance were left blank, as were the subsection Grievance Official Follow-Up, and Date Resolved upon exit. Record review of document titled Grievance Form, dated 2/2/2023 revealed a grievance made by a resident family member relating to missing resident property. The subsection Person Investigating Complaint/Grievance as well as Date Resolved were left blank upon exit. Record review of document titled Grievance Form, dated 2/2/2023 revealed a grievance made by a resident family member relating to the resident's caregivers. The subsection Person Investigating Complaint/Grievance as well as Date Resolved were left blank upon exit. Record review of document titled Grievance Form, dated 2/8/2023 revealed a grievance made by a resident relating to inadequate perineal care by unnamed staff. The subsection Person Investigating Complaint/Grievance as well as Date Resolved were left blank upon exit. Record review of document titled Grievance Form, dated 2/13/2023 revealed a grievance made by a resident family member relating to ADL care as well as resident necessities. The subsection Person Investigating Complaint/Grievance as well as Date Resolved were left blank upon exit. Record review of document titled Grievance Form, dated 2/15/2023 revealed a grievance made by staff about a resident relating to a resident threatening others with their cane. The subsection Person Investigating Complaint/Grievance as well as Date Resolved were left blank upon exit. Record review of document titled Grievance Form, dated 2/21/2023 revealed a grievance made by a resident relating to receiving perineal care in a timely manner and staffing. The subsection Person Investigating Complaint/Grievance as well as Date Resolved were left blank upon exit. Record review of document titled Grievance Form, dated 2/23/2023 revealed a grievance made by a resident family member relating to facility answering family member phone calls in a timely manner. The subsection Person Investigating Complaint/Grievance as well as Date Resolved were left blank upon exit. Interview on 11/17/2023 at 4:00 PM, the ADON stated that the Administrator was responsible for Grievances when there was not a Social Worker employed at the facility. Interview on 11/17/2023 at 4:05 PM, the DON stated that she was responsible for Grievances during the time that there was not an Administrator or Social Worker employed at the facility. The DON confirmed during the months of January and February, she was responsible for Grievances and responding to them, or assigning them to other departments to respond to. The DON stated she believed a response had been given to these grievances, but that it had not been written down on the grievance paperwork. The DON stated that during the time in which grievances were not responded to, there was a lot going on at the facility. She stated the policy for responding to grievances, according to the Social Services Director, is to respond within 72 hours. Interview on 11/18/2023 at 3:45 PM, the Social Services Director stated that they had begun working at the facility at the end of May of 2023. The social worker stated that when they began working at the facility, they looked at past grievances in the grievance binder to ensure they were all responded to. The social worker stated they believe these grievances were responded to but was unsure why the follow-up was not written down. The social worker stated their expectation for grievances is to be told about them promptly from other staff, so they were able to respond to the grievances personally. The Social Services Director stated their expectation is for any grievances made in resident council meetings were to be written down by the staff member that attends resident council meetings and provided to the Social Services Director. Record review of facility policy titled, Grievances/Complaint, Filing, dated April 2017, revealed Upon receipt of a grievance and/or complaint, the grievance officer will review and investigate the allegations and submit a written report of such findings to the administrator within five (5) working days of receiving the grievance and/or complaint, and A written summary of the investigation will also be provided to the resident, and a copy will be filed in the business office. Record review of facility policy titled, Grievances, undated, revealed The grievance proves to include initiation of resolution within 72 hours of receiving grievance. Upon further review, the policy also revealed All written grievance decisions shall include the date the grievance was received, a summary statement of the Resident's grievance, the steps taken to investigate the grievance, a summary of the pertinent findings or conclusions regarding the Resident's concern, a statement as to whether the grievance was confirmed or not confirmed, any corrective action taken or to be taken by the facility as a result of the grievance, and the date the written decision was issued.
CONCERN (E)

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

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record reviews the facility failed to ensure all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, exploitation or mistreatment, including injuries of unknown source and misappropriation of resident property, are reported immediately, but not later than 2 hours after the allegation is made, if the events that cause the allegation involve abuse or result in serious bodily injury, or not later than 24 hours if the events that cause the allegation do not involve abuse and do not result in serious bodily injury, to the administrator of the facility and to other officials, including to the State Survey Agency, for 2 of 20 residents (Residents #12 and 47) reviewed for injuries of unknown source, and for 1 of 1 facility HVAC system not operating in that: 1. The DON and LVN V did not report to HHSC that Resident #47 had shoved Resident #12 against a wall on [DATE], causing Resident #12 pain. 2. The HVAC system was not operating for 8 months. This was not reported to HHSC state agency. a. Resident #54, #7, #58, and #5 stated the main dining room was cold for an activity like bingo. This deficient practice placed residents at risk for abuse. The findings included: 1. A record review of Resident #12's admission record, dated [DATE], revealed an admission date of [DATE] with diagnoses which included Alzheimer's disease [a progressive disease beginning with mild memory loss and possibly leading to loss of the ability to carry on a conversation and respond to the environment] and chronic pain due to trauma. A record review of Resident #12's quarterly MDS assessment, dated [DATE], revealed Resident #12 was an [AGE] year-old female admitted for long term care. Further review revealed Resident #12's BIMS was assessed a 5 out of a possible 15, which indicated severe cognitive impairment. A record review of Resident #47's admission record dated [DATE] revealed an admission date of [DATE] with diagnoses which included Alzheimer's disease [a progressive disease beginning with mild memory loss and possibly leading to loss of the ability to carry on a conversation and respond to the environment] and dementia with behavioral disturbance [not a specific disease but is rather a general term for the impaired ability to remember, think, or make decisions that interferes with doing everyday activities]. A record review of Resident #47's quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #47 was a [AGE] year-old female admitted for long term care and assessed with a BIMS score of 02 out of a possible 15 which indicated severe cognitive impairment. A record review of Resident #12's medical record revealed a nurse note dated [DATE] at 5:58 PM, authored by LVN V, Nursing Position: Licensed Practical Nurse Created By: LVN V Created Date : [DATE] 17:58:27 Note Text: Resident [#12] was pushed by another Resident [#47] and hit the wall then slide down to the floor. Resident said, 'She [#47] pushed me down.' [#12's Family] was notified when he came in to visit [Resident #12]. Monitoring and PRN APAP pain medication administered for c/o headache and back pain. Physician called but no one answered couldn't leave voice mail will attempt to call again later. [ADON] notified. Monitoring for injuries and any further pain. As well as monitoring for behaviors. During an interview on [DATE] at 4:07 PM the DON stated LVN V was no longer employed by the facility. The DON stated LVN V worked the evening shift from 3:00 PM to 11:00 PM. The DON stated LVN V had generated an internal incident report and she [the DON] had reviewed the incident report and signed off on it on [DATE]. The DON stated the report was reviewed in the morning meeting the next day [[DATE]] and was decided the incident was not a reportable event due to the resident did not have an injury or emotional harm. 2. Observations between on [DATE] between 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. revealed Resident rooms on A Hall and B Hall were provided with ducted supply air but not with return air intakes. The return air intakes for the HVAC system were in the corridors outside the rooms, causing the corridors to serve as a part of the return air system for the adjoining areas. Further observation revealed the A and B Halls were unoccupied by residents at the time. Observation on [DATE] at 3:45 PM with the Maintenance Director X in Halls A and B revealed the HVAC system was not operating. Interview on [DATE] at 3:45 PM with the Maintenance Director X in Halls A and B revealed the HVAC system had not been in good operation and had to move the residents to Halls C and D. The Maintenance Director X stated this had not been fixed and was not sure when it will be fixed. The Maintenance Director X further stated the facility had 2 HVAC systems for the facility, the one that was not working covered the A and B Halls and the main dining room. During an interview on [DATE] at 5:00 PM, when questioned as to the use of the A and B Halls being used as return air for the HVAC System, the Administrator said that he knew of the return air use in the afore mentioned areas and that the facility had a waiver, as issued on [DATE] by the CMS for a three- year period (expired [DATE]). When asked if he knew the waiver had expired, the Administrator said he did and asked that it be renewed. Observations on [DATE] at 9:50 AM with the Maintenance Director X in the main dining area, (had an air thermometer gun) in between Halls A and B and Halls C and D was 62.6 degrees F. Further observation revealed there were residents in the main dining room playing bingo at the time. Observation on [DATE] at 10:20 AM revealed the air temperature in the main dining room was 54.9 degrees F. Interview on [DATE] at 11:23 AM with the Administrator stated the HVAC was broken and had to move residents from A and B Halls to C and D Halls. The Administrator stated he had bids for HVAC but had not been fixed, since February 2023. The Administrator stated the HVAC system not in operating condition for residents was not called into the State Survey Agency. Interview on [DATE] at 11:35 AM with Administrator stated he was not here at time of the HVAC issues on the A and B Halls and the HVAC was not working since [DATE]. The Administrator stated he did not call it in to the State Survey Agency. The Administrator stated he would have called into the State Survey Agency the issues with the HVAC system, due to a failure of cooling for residents, and they ended up moving resident to the C and D Halls. Interview on [DATE] at 4:15 PM with MDS stated the AC unit went out in the summertime, family members were saying it was hot, and staff said it was hot. MDS stated the facility administrative staff talked about grievances in the morning meetings. MDS stated she remembered the Maintenance Supervisor going around with thermometer. The facility bought some portable AC units in the A and B Halls. Then the decision to move everyone to C and D Halls was made and staff assisted resident move to C and D Halls. MDS stated the current Administrator was here at the time. Interview on at [DATE] at 4:29 PM with Activity Director stated the AC was not working in [DATE]; it started getting hotter and that was when the temperature outside was 3 digits. The Activity Director stated residents were moved to C and D hall due AC unit did not work. Interviews on [DATE] at 12:00 PM with Resident #54 stated the main dining room was cold. Interviews on [DATE] at 1:55 PM with Resident #7 stated the main dining room was cold. Interviews on [DATE] at 1:58 PM with Resident #58 stated the main dining room was cold. Interviews on [DATE] at 3:20 PM with Resident #5 stated the main dining room was cold. Interview with Residents stated it was cold and prefer not to go to activities in main dining room. Resident #5 stated at times they would move the activity to a warmer area. A record review of the facility's policy titled, Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation, or Misappropriation - Reporting and Investigating, dated [DATE], revealed, All reports of Resident abuse (including injuries of unknown origin), neglect, exploitation, or theft / misappropriation of Resident property are reported to local, state and federal agencies (as required by current regulations) and thoroughly investigated by facility management .The Administrator serves as the Abuse Prevention Coordinator. In the absence of the Administrator, the Director of Nursing or designee will fulfill the duties of the Abuse Prevention Coordinator .
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0726 (Tag F0726)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews the facility failed to have sufficient nursing staff with the appropriate ...

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 have sufficient nursing staff with the appropriate competencies and skills sets to provide nursing and related services to assure resident safety and attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident, as determined by resident assessments and individual plans of care and considering the number, acuity and diagnoses of the facility's resident population for 18 of 18 residents reviewed for memory care (Residents #1, #4, #12, #14, #17, #23, #25, #38, #40, #41, #47, #48, #52, #56, #60, #64, #66, and #67) reviewed for memory care and nursing services, in that: 1. CNA F failed to wait her her relief, CNA U, and left her assignment resulting in the 18 residents on the memory care unit being left unattended for one hour on the morning of 11/17/2023. 2. LVN V did not provide continuation of nursing services for Resident #12's incident of peer-to-peer aggression on 07/27/2023 by not reporting to the incident to oncoming nurse for follow-up. These failures could have placed residents at risk for harm by lack of supervision, lack of nursing interventions and lack of physicians receiving reports for their residents. The findings included: 1. Record review of the facility's census for 11/17/2023 revealed 18 residents resided on the facility's memory care unit, Hall D Rooms 1-14. Observation on 11/17/2023 at 6:28 AM revealed the memory care unit presented without any secured doors for entry and or exit of the memory care unit. Further observation revealed the 18 residents (Residents #1, #4, #12, #14, #17, #23, #25, #38, #40, #41, #47, #48, #52, #56, #60, #64, #66, and #67) on the memory care unit were without staff care and or supervision. Further observation revealed no staff in the memory care unit after a room-to-room search which included a census of each resident. Continued observation revealed there were residents ambulating throughout the unit and some residents asleep in their bedrooms. During an observation and interview on 11/17/2023 at 6:40 AM revealed RA S entered the memory care unit and stated she was not assigned to care for residents in the memory care unit but was just dropping by to check on residents. RA S stated there were no staff in the memory care unit and she would stay until someone would arrive. During an interview on 11/17/2023 at 6:41 AM LVN B and CNA AA stated they were scheduled to work Hall D from 11:00 PM to 7:00 AM. LVN B stated CNA F was scheduled to work the memory care unit from 11:00 PM to 6:00 AM and CNA AA was scheduled to care for the rest of the residents on the D Hall who were not residents of the memory care unit. LVN B stated the residents on the memory care unit should have supervision by CNA U who was assigned to relieve CNA F. LVN B stated he was unaware CNA U was not working in the memory care unit. LVN B stated sometimes LVN U was late. LVN B stated no one had reported to him there was no staff in the memory care unit. LVN B stated residents could have eloped and or been injured without staff supervision. LVN B stated he could not be in 2 places and had nursing duties at the end of the non-memory care unit, D Hall. CNA AA stated she was unaware the memory care unit had no staff and was responsible for providing resident care in the non-memory care of D Hall. During an observation and interview on 11/17/2023 at 7:00 AM revealed LVN H and CNA U at the facility's time clock. CNA U did not identify herself as CNA U, and LVN H stated CNA U should have relieved CNA F at 6:00 AM and stated CNA U had a history of being absent for care in the memory care unit. During an interview on 11/17/2023 at 11:10 AM Staffing Coordinator G stated CNA U had not called in late and his expectation was for CNA U to relieve CNA F. During an interview on 11/17/2023 at 5:02 PM the ADON stated he was unaware the memory care unit was without staff on the morning of 11/17/2023 at 06:00 AM. the ADON stated the expectation was for a staff member to be supervising, caring, and monitoring the residents in the memory care unit and should not leave the unit until the staff member has been relieved by the next staff member. During an interview on 11/18/2023 at 2:22 PM CNA F stated she was scheduled to work 11:00 PM to 6:00 AM in the memory care unit and was usually relieved by CNA U. CNA F stated sometimes she just left because CNA U was not there to relieve her at 6:00 AM. CNA F stated LVN B knows. During an interview on 11/18/2023 at 3:02 PM CNA U stated she did not call anyone to alert them of her tardiness. CNA U stated she had not seen CNA F or LVN B when she arrived on 11/17/2023 at 6:00 AM and stated she had left the memory care unit to use the bathroom. 2. Record review of Resident #12's admission record, dated 11/18/2023, revealed an admission date of 05/03/2021 with diagnoses which included Alzheimer's disease [a progressive disease beginning with mild memory loss and possibly leading to loss of the ability to carry on a conversation and respond to the environment]. Record review of Resident #12's quarterly MDS assessment, dated 04/21/2023, revealed the resident was an [AGE] year-old female admitted for long term care and assessed with a BIMS score of 05 out of a possible 15 which indicated severe cognitive impairment . Record review of Resident #12's care plan, dated 11/18/2023, revealed, Resident resides on the memory care unit date Initiated: 07/17/2022, Revision on: 05/16/2023 .Resident's safety will be maintained through next review date .Monitor Resident per protocol to ensure safety Record review of Resident #12's physician's orders revealed Resident #12 was to receive clopidogrel [a blood thinner] 75 mg once a day for chest pain and was to be monitored daily for side effects of the blood thinner to include, monitor for .sudden severe headache, .bruising, sudden changes in mental status, .every shift. Record review of resident #12's nursing notes revealed a note, dated 07/27/2023 at 4:35 PM authored by LVN V, that read, acetaminophen [Tylenol] tablet 325 mg give 2 tablets by mouth every 4 hours as needed for pain, administered due to c/o [complaint of] headache and back pain post fall r/t [related to] received physical aggression from another Resident]. Record review of Resident #12's nursing notes revealed a note dated 07/27/2023 at 5:40 PM authored by LVN V, Resident was pushed by another Resident and hit the wall then slide down to the floor. Resident [#12] said she pushed me down. [Resident #12's family] was notified when he came in to visit [Resident #12] monitoring and PRN APAP pain medication administered for c/o headache and back pain. Physician called but no one would answer, could not leave voice mail, will attempt to call again later. [ADON] notified. Monitoring for injuries and any further pain, as well as monitoring for behaviors. Record review of Resident #12's medical record dated 07/27/2023 to 11/18/2023 revealed no documentation for a report to the physician for the peer-to-peer aggression on 07/27/2023 which resulted in head and back pain. During an interview with the DON and the ADON on 11/18/23 at 4:07 PM, the DON and the ADON stated LVN V was no longer employed by the facility. The DON stated LVN V worked the evening shift from 3:00 PM to 11:00 PM. The ADON stated the expectation was for continuous nursing services and if LVN V could not have reached the physician she should have given report to the next oncoming nurse and so on. The DON stated the oncoming nurse for Resident #12 was LVN C, who worked 11:00 PM to 7:00 AM, followed by LVN H who worked from 7:00 AM to 3:00 PM. The The DON stated LVN V had generated an internal incident report and she [the DON] had reviewed the incident report and signed off on it on 07/28/2023. The DON stated the report was reviewed in the morning meeting the next day and was decided the incident report was complete due to the resident did not have an injury or emotional harm. During an interview with LVN H on 11/18/23 at 4:15 PM, LVN H stated if she had received report from LVN C she would have ensured the physician would have received a report and would have documented the report in the resident's record. LVN H stated since there was no documentation, she did not receive a report from LVN C. Record review of the facility's policy titled Staffing, Sufficient and Competent Nursing, dated August 2022, revealed, Policy Statement: our facility provides sufficient numbers of nursing staff with the appropriate skills and competency necessary to provide nursing and related care and services for all residents in accordance with resident care plans and the facility assessment. Policy Interpretation and Implementation: sufficient staff: licensed nurses and certified nursing assistants are available 24 hours a day, seven days a week to provide competent resident care services including: assuring residents safety; attaining or maintaining the highest practical physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each Resident; . responding to residents needs . Competent Staff: competency is a measurable pattern of knowledge, skills, abilities, behaviors, and other characteristics that an individual needs to perform work roles or occupational functions successfully . staff must demonstrate the skills and techniques necessary to care for residents needs including but not limited to the following areas: resident rights; behavioral health; psychosocial care; dementia care; . communication; basic nursing skills; . medication management; . identification of changes in condition . licensed nurses and nursing assistants are trained and must demonstrate competency in identifying, documenting, and reporting resident changes of condition consistent with their scope of practice and responsibilities .
CONCERN (E)

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

Unnecessary Medications (Tag F0759)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews the facility failed to ensure a medication error rate below 5%. The facili...

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 a medication error rate below 5%. The facility error was 11.11% based on 3 errors out of 27 opportunities for 3 of 7 residents (Resident #13, #39, and #44) reviewed for medication administration: 1. LVN H administered expired insulin to Resident #39. 2. RN AW administered late medication for Resident #44. The medication was scheduled for administration any time between 08:00 AM and 10:00 AM. The medication was administered at 10:49 AM. 3. RN AW administered late medications for Resident #13. The medication was scheduled for administration any time between 08:00 AM and 10:00 AM. The medication was administered at 11:06 AM. These deficient practices placed residents at risk for not receiving therapeutic effects of their medications and possible adverse reactions. The findings included: 1. A record review of Resident #39's admission record, dated [DATE], revealed an admission date of [DATE] with diagnoses which included diabetes mellitus type II [a deadly disease where the body cannot process sugar]. A record review of Resident #39's quarterly MDS assessment, dated [DATE], revealed Resident #39 was a [AGE] year-old female admitted for long term care and assessed with a BIMS score of 03 out of a possible 15 which indicated severe cognitive impairment. A record review of Resident #39's care plan dated [DATE] revealed, Resident [#39] has a DX of Diabetes. Is at risk for Hypo/hyperglycemic episodes and complications related to disease process. Date Initiated: [DATE] .Observe for S/S of Hypoglycemia to include but not limited to: fatigue, dizziness, sweating, cool clammy skin, palpitations, change in mental stats. Notify Nurse Date Initiated: [DATE] LPN RN CNA o Observer for S/S of Hyperglycemia to include but not limited to: weakness, muscle cramps, tachycardia [fast heartbeat], diaphoresis [sweating], anxiety, change in mental status. Notify Nurse Date Initiated: [DATE] LPN RN .Provide insulin as ordered and scheduled Date Initiated: [DATE] LPN RN. A record review of Resident #39's physician's orders dated [DATE] revealed Resident #39 was to receive Humalog solution, 100 units per ml, insulin, per sliding scale; if [blood sugar is] 0-150 = 0 units; 151-200 = 2 units . During an observation on [DATE] at 10:50 AM revealed LVN N prepared 2 units of Humalog solution 100 units per ml and administered the injection to Resident #39. During an observation and interview on [DATE] at 10:53 AM LVN N revealed the vial of insulin Humalog solution 100 units pre ml with a handwritten date upon the vial [DATE]. LVN N stated the date was the date when the insulin vial was removed from refrigeration storage and placed into use. LVN N stated she was uncertain how many days the vial could be used until it reached the discard date, maybe 30?. LVN N stated she would find out and report back. During an interview on [DATE] at 11:09 AM LVN N stated the insulin Humalog vial could have been used for 28 days prior to the vial's discard date. LVN H stated the 28th day from [DATE] would be [DATE]. LVN H stated she administered insulin 1 day past the discard date. LVN H stated the expired insulin may not provide blood sugar control for Resident #39 as intended. LVN H stated she had placed the vial into service on [DATE] and wrote the date upon the vial and failed to write the discard date of [DATE] 28 days later. During an interview on [DATE] at 05:02 PM the ADON stated nurses were responsible for writing 2 dates on insulin vials when the vials were put into use; 1 date should be the date the vial was removed from refrigeration and the other date should be the date the insulin manufacturer stated the insulin should be discarded. The ADON stated Humalog should be discarded after 28 days off use. The ADON stated the insulin becomes less effective after the discard date and residents would be at risk for not receiving the therapeutic effects of their medication. 2. A record review of Resident #44's admission record dated [DATE] revealed an admission date of [DATE] with diagnoses which included depressive disorders [also known as depression, a common mental disorder. It involves a depressed mood or loss of pleasure or interest in activities for long periods of time]. A record review of Resident #44's quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #44 was a [AGE] year-old-male admitted for long term care and assessed with a BIMS score of 13 out of a possible 15 which indicated Resident #39 was cognitively intact. A record review of Resident #39's care plan dated [DATE] revealed, The Resident [#39] uses antidepressant medication r/t Depression .The resident will be free from discomfort or adverse reactions related to antidepressant therapy through the review date .Administer antidepressant medications as ordered by physician . A record review of Resident #39's physician's orders revealed Resident #44 was to receive divalproex sodium capsules 125 mg, give 2 capsules by mouth 2 times a day at 09:00 AM and again at 08:00 PM. During an observation from 10:42 AM to 10:49 AM on [DATE] revealed RN AW prepared and administered divalproex 125 mg two capsules to Resident #44 at 10:49 AM. 3. A record review of Resident #13's admission record dated [DATE], revealed an admission date of [DATE] with diagnoses which included hypertension [high blood pressure]. A record review of Resident #13's admission MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #13 was an [AGE] year-old female admitted for long term care and assessed with a BIMS score of 15 out of a possible 15 which indicated Resident #13 was cognitively intact. A record review of Resident #13's care plan dated [DATE] revealed, Resident has DX of Hypertension. Is at risk for Hypo-/hypertensive episodes .Resident will have no reports of complications due to Hypo/Hypertensive [low blood pressure and / or high blood pressure] episodes through next review date .Check B/P [blood pressure] as ordered and notify MD of abnormal results . A record review of Resident #13 physician's orders dated [DATE] revealed Resident #13 was to receive carvedilol 25 mg 1 table by mouth two times a day, at 08:00 AM and again at 08:00 PM, for high blood pressure. During an observation from 11:01 AM to 11:06 AM on [DATE] revealed RN AW prepared and administered to Resident #13 1 tablet of carvedilol 25 mg at 11:06 AM. During an interview on [DATE] at 11:06 AM RN AW stated she was the charge nurse on the d-hall and was scheduled from 07:00 AM to 03:00 PM. RN AW stated she was late administering medications for residents on d-hall due to the scheduled medication aide had called in unavailable. RN AW stated earlier around 08:30 AM and after the residents breakfast the DON reported to RN AW the medication aide would not be coming in and RN AW needed to administer the medications on her hall. RN AW stated she reported to the DON she had a potential to administer medications late due to her workload and the DON allowed her to continue. RN AW stated residents who received their medications late could be at risk for not receiving the therapeutic effects of their medications. RN AW stated she was responsible for residents receiving their medications as prescribed by the physician. During an interview on [DATE] at 11:20 AM the DON stated she reported to RN AW she would not have the assistance of a medication aide today and would be responsible for resident care and medication administration. The DON stated she offered to assign someone to help administer medications and RN AW refused the offer. The DON stated she left RN AW to continue administering medications. The DON stated each nurse was responsible for administering medications as prescribed. A record review of the facility's Insulin Administration policy dated [DATE] revealed, Purpose: to provide guidelines for the safe administration of insulin to residents with diabetes. Preparation: . the nursing staff will have access to specific instructions from the manufacturer if appropriate on all forms of insulin delivery system(s) prior to their use . check expiration date, if drawing from an opened multi dose vial. if opening a new vial, record expiration date and time on the vial (follow manufacturers recommendation for expiration after opening). A record review of the Lilly USA website, https://www.humalog.com/u100 , accessed [DATE], titled Humalog U-100 Insulin revealed, .Storage for Humalog U-100 KwikPens and Vials, Unopened Humalog should be stored in a refrigerator (36° to 46°F [2° to 8°C]) and can be used until the expiration date on the carton or label . Opened Humalog vials, prefilled pens, and cartridges must be thrown away 28 days after first use, even if they still contain insulin . Do not use HUMALOG past the expiration date printed on the label or 28 days after you first use it. A record review of the Institute for Safe Medication Practices website, https://www.ismp.org/resources/guidelines-timely-medication-administration-response-cms-30-minute-rule#:~:text=(Although%20it%20is%20generally%20safe,delayed%20more%20than%202%20hours.) accessed [DATE], titled Guidelines for Timely Medication Administration: Response to the CMS 30-minute rule revealed, .Establish guidelines for timely drug administration of scheduled non-time-critical medications as follows: .Medications administered more frequently than daily but not more frequently than every 4 hours (e.g., BID [twice a day], TID [three times a day], q4h [every 4 hours], q6h [every 6 hours]): Administer these medications plus or minus 1 hour from the scheduled time.
CONCERN (E)

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

Room Equipment (Tag F0908)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews the facility failed to Maintain all mechanical, electrical, and patient care equipment in safe operating condition for 1 of 1 facility in that: 1...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews the facility failed to Maintain all mechanical, electrical, and patient care equipment in safe operating condition for 1 of 1 facility in that: 1. Kitchen faucets had running water that could not be turned off by kitchen staff and caused a drip of water to be on floor on one of sinks in the kitchen. 2. There were ceiling lights with missing covers, broken, and missing lights in the kitchen and in the main dining room. 3. In the Laundry Room, there were 2 out of 3 washers and 3 out of 6 dryers were not working. These failures could affect residents and could result in residents not having clothes and light. The Findings were: 1. Observation on 11/14/2023 at 10:23 AM in the kitchen with the DM revealed a three compartment sink and a single compartment sink had running water that could not be stopped by the kitchen staff. At one of the sinks with running water was a big bucket in sink to catch water while the floor under sink had a small pool of water that dripped from the sink. Observation on 11/15/2023 at 9:50 AM with [NAME] T and Maintenance Director X in the kitchen revealed a three compartment sink and a single compartment sink had running water that could not be stopped by the kitchen staff. At one of the sinks with running water was a big bucket in sink to catch water while the floor under sink had a small pool of water that dripped from the sink. During an interview with [NAME] T on 11/15/2023 at 9:50 AM, [NAME] T stated she had tried to turn the water faucet off at the sink, but they would not turn off when she turned the knob. [NAME] T stated she had reported this to the DM a few months ago and was not sure if it would be fixed. [NAME] T stated the Maintenance Supervisor had fixed the three compartments sink at one point, but it still had running water coming from the faucet. 2. Observation on 11/14/2023 at 10:23 AM in the kitchen with the DM revealed the dish machine area had three ceiling lights. Further observation revealed the ceiling light directly over the dish machine where staff stood and the other two ceiling lights were on the side of the dish machine in staff walkways. The ceiling lights were missing bulbs, light protector covers, and a light protector cover was missing pieces. Observation on 11/15/2023 at 9:50 AM with Maintenance Director X in the dish machine area of the kitchen revealed there was one light with the protection cover broken in different places, the second light was missing a light bulb and a third ceiling light was missing pieces of the protection cover. Observation on 11/16/2023 at 9:50 AM with the Maintenance Director X in the main dining room revealed a ceiling light protection cover was coming off. 3. Observation on 11/16/2023 at 10:40 AM with the Maintenance Director X and Laundry Aide AY revealed 2 out of 3 washers were not working and 3 out of 6 dryers were not working. During an interview with Laundry Aide AY on 11/16/2023 at 10:40 AM, Laundry Aide AY stated 2 out of the 3 washers were not working and 3 out of the 6 dryers were not working. Laundry Aide AY stated they were managing with the one working washer and three working dryers, and broken washers and dryers had not worked for over one year. Laundry aide AY stated she had reported this issues to her manager. During an interview with the Housekeeping/Laundry Director W on 11/16/2023 at 11:03 AM, the Housekeeping/Laundry Director W stated she was aware of the washers and dryers not working and had no complaints from the residents. The Housekeeping/Laundry Director W stated they had a few companies that bought the facility within the last year, and they had not fixed the laundry issues for a few weeks. This was reported to the Maintenance Director and the Administrator. The Housekeeping/Laundry Director W stated she had two shifts for laundry, one shift from 5:00 AM to 2:00 PM and the next shift was from 2:00 PM to 9:00 PM. Interview on 11/14/2023 at 10:24 AM with the DM in the kitchen confirmed the kitchen issues with water faucets and ceiling lights. The DM stated she verbally reported the water faucets over sink dripping and running, and the ceiling lights to the Maintenance Director X. Interview on 11/16/2023 at 10:00 AM with Maintenance Director X stated staff verbally told him about items that needed to be fixed in the facility. The Maintenance Director X stated he had a maintenance log in front to his office door and the two nurses' stations. The Maintenance Director X confirmed the kitchen faucets had running water, water dripping on floor and the laundry issues. The Maintenance Director X further stated he had reported to the Administrator, and he did not know when the issued would be fixed. Record review of the facility's maintenance logs revealed they did not have any of the above issues to be worked on by the Maintenance Director X. Interview on 11/16/2023 at 10:02 AM with the Maintenance Director X stated the two sinks in the kitchen had been leaking water for about 1-2 weeks. The Maintenance Director X stated he fixed the first kitchen sink, but it was still leaking water. The Maintenance Director X stated the DM let him know in the kitchen the two sinks were leaking water out of faucets, and they had some missing ceiling lights that did not have protection covers on them. Interview on 11/16/2023 at 11:23 AM with the Administrator stated he was made aware of the kitchen issues after LSC and Maintenance Director X discussed the issues. The Administrator stated he was aware of the washers/dryers that were broken. Record review of the facility's policy titled, Hazardous Area, Devices and Equipment, dated July 2017, revealed, All Hazardous area, devices, and equipment in eh facility will be identified and addressed appropriately to ensure resident safety and mitigate accidents hazards to the extent possible. 1. As part of the facility's overall safety and accident prevention program, hazardous areas, and objects in the resident environment will be identified and addressed by the safety committee. Safety Committee consist of all department heads, such as maintenance. leadership, and environmental services. Identification of Hazards, 1. A hazard is defined as anything in the environment that has the potential to cause injury or illness. example. a. equipment and devices that are left unattended or are malfunctioning. b. devise and equipment that are improperly used or poorly maintained. h. insufficient lighting or glare. I. unsafe exposure of heating elements or water temperatures. Monitoring, 1. Monitoring to ensure that recommendations are implemented consistently and correctly will be a component of the safety and accident prevention program.
CONCERN (F)

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

Administration (Tag F0835)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews and record review failed to ensure facility must be administered in a manner that enables it t...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews and record review failed to ensure facility must be administered in a manner that enables it to use its resources effectively and efficiently to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident for 1 of 8 (Resident #39) residents and 1 of 1 facility, in that: 1. The facility failed to maintain and or repair the 1 of 2 Heating Ventilation Air Conditioner systems [HVAC]. 2. The facility failed to maintain and or repair the call light system. 3. The facility failed to communicate and coordinate between nursing and dietary staff which resulted in Resident #39's physician ordered House supplement was not available. 4. The facility failed to maintain and or repair the ceilings. This could affect and could result in residents diminished quality of life, diminished self-esteem and not receiving supplements for interventions to prevent weight loss. The Findings were: 1. Observations between on [DATE] between 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. revealed rooms on A Hall and B Hall were provided with ducted supply air but not with return air intakes. The return air intakes for the HVAC system were located in the corridors outside the rooms, causing the corridors to serve as a part of the return air system for the adjoining areas. During an interview on [DATE] at 5:00 p.m., when questioned as to the use of the A and B Halls being used as return air for the HVAC System, the Administrator said that she knew of the return air use in the aforementioned areas and that the facility had a waiver, as issued on [DATE] by the CMS for a three-year period (expired [DATE]). When asked if he knew the waiver had expired, the Administrator said he did and asked that it be renewed. Record review of the past air temperatures for San [NAME], Texas. In [DATE] the average high air temperature was 91-92 degrees Fahrenheit [F]. In [DATE], [DATE]-21, 2023, was 105 degrees F. The air temperature for [DATE] was 94-97 degrees F. In [DATE] the average high air temperature was 97 degrees F and with humidity was over 100 degrees F. This summer the county had 74 days of 100 degrees F, and over, ambient air temperatures. Observations on [DATE] at 9:50 AM with Maintenance Director X conducted environmental rounds of the facility and stated the temperatures should be between 71-81 degrees F. Observations were made of Residents gathered in the main dining room for the activity of Bingo. The Maintenance Director X stated the #1 HVAC unit was not working for a while, the HVAC unit serviced the A and B Halls, which included the main dining room. The Maintenance Director X stated he had set the #1 HVAC unit to heat when he learned residents were going to have bingo in the main dining room. The Maintenance Director X stated he was not sure why the #1 HVAC was not at a good temperature and will notify the Administrator. Further observations and temperature records revealed the main dining room was 62.6 degrees F. At 10:20 AM the main dining the air temperature room was 54.9 degrees F. At 10:22 AM in the C end section of hall, the air temperature was 58.0 degrees F. At 10:23 AM in the C start of hall, the air temperature was 67.3 degrees F. At 10:26 AM in the D Hall, at start of hall (memory care unit), the air temperature was 69.3 degrees F. At 10:37 AM in the D Hall, at end of hall, the air temperature was 67.8 degrees F. Interview on [DATE] at 11:25 AM with the Administrator stated he was notified of the air temperature in the A and B Halls by the Life Safety Code surveyor (LSC) and was not aware that the C and D Halls were not heating for residents. No other reply. Interview on [DATE] at 10:06 AM with the ADON stated the HVAC system was having issues since earlier this year, 2023, either May or [DATE]. The ADON stated the resident families first noticed and reported the staff, that was when the facility was testing air temperatures. The facility brought in mobile Air Conditioning units. The ADON stated they discovered the A Hall (previous secure unit) was not cooling and was hot, so they moved those residents to the B Hall. Then the ADON stated the facility noticed the B hall was not cooling, so the resident was moved to other part of the facility. They had a low census at the time. The facility moved the A Hall secure unit to the first half of the D Hall and the rest of the residents moved to the second half of D Hall and other residents to the C Hall. A record review of the facility's policy titled, Homelike Environment, dated February 2021, revealed, policy statement; residents are provided with a safe, clean, comfortable and home like environment and encouraged to use their personal belongings to the extent possible. policy interpretation and implementation; the facility staff and management maximizes, to the extent possible, the characteristics of the facility that reflect a personalized, home like setting. these characteristics include; . comfortable and safe temperatures (71-81 degrees F) . 2. During an observation on [DATE] from 10:30 to 11:00 AM revealed the call light system on D Hall was not functioning as designed. During an observation on [DATE] at 10:10 AM revealed the memory care unit presented with 19 residents (Residents #1, #4, #12, #14, #17, #19, #23, #25, #38, #40, #41, #47, #48, #52, #56, #60, #64, #66, and #67). Further observations revealed the memory care unit had a malfunctioning call light system which would sometimes illuminate a call light without sounds and sometimes would sound and not illuminate. During an interview on [DATE] at 10:20 AM LVN H and CNA U stated they were the LVN and CNA for the memory care unit which occupied the beginning of the D Hall. LVN H and CNA U stated the call light system had been malfunctioning for weeks. LVN H stated the staff paid attention to the lights and would round on residents frequently. LVN H and CNA U stated the facility DON had knowledge of the malfunctioning call light system. During an observation and interview on [DATE] at 10:59 AM revealed the call light for Residents #12 and #40 would illuminate outside of their rooms but not illuminate and or sound at the nurses' station. CNA U stated she would round on residents frequently due to the call light system did not sound and furthermore residents usually were not in their rooms. During an observation on [DATE] at 3:58 PM revealed room [ROOM NUMBER], call light was pushed and no noise on the outside of room [ROOM NUMBER]. During an observation on [DATE] at 3:50 PM revealed room [ROOM NUMBER], call light was pushed and no noise on the outside of room [ROOM NUMBER]. During an interview on [DATE] at 4:00 PM the Maintenance Director X confirmed he pushed the call light device in room [ROOM NUMBER] and 44, and no light was on the outside of the rooms with no noise. The Maintenance Director X confirmed Halls C and D call lights were not functioning. During an observation and interview on [DATE] from 9:50 AM though 11:37 AM revealed the call light system of the entire facility had malfunctioned, which included call lights were not audible in some halls and call lights didn't light above residents' rooms or at nurse's station call light panel. During an observation on [DATE] at 10:15 AM, on the B Hall (no residents) Rooms 100, 60, 68, 9, 14, 29, 21 call light was pushed, but no noise. The Maintenance Director X stated staff would walk round the halls and residents were provided small bells to ring for help for Halls B and C. During an interview on [DATE] at 10:15 AM with the Maintenance Director X confirmed Halls A and B call lights were pushed and were not audible or functioning. During an interview on [DATE] at 11:23 AM with Administrator stated he was aware of the call lights and was brought to attention after surveyor intervention. During an observation on [DATE] at 6:13 AM revealed the call light outside of room [ROOM NUMBER] was illuminated but did not sound any alert. Further observation of the call light alert board at the nurses' station was not illuminated for any room and was silent. During an observation on [DATE] at 6:28 AM revealed the memory care unit presented without any secured doors for entry and or exit of the memory care unit. Further observation revealed a malfunctioning call light system where the call light panel at the nurse station continuously alarmed. Further observation revealed 18 residents, [Resident #19 had been discharged ]; Residents #1, #4, #12, #14, #17, #23, #25, #38, #40, #41, #47, #48, #52, #56, #60, #64, #66, and #67, without staff care and or supervision. Further observation revealed no staff in the memory care unit after a room-to-room search which included a census of each Resident. Continued observation revealed residents ambulating throughout the unit with some residents asleep in their bedrooms. During an observation on [DATE] at 6:29 AM revealed the nurse all light alert board located at the nurses' station in the memory care unit was continuously sounding and was not illuminating and rooms, further observation revealed no call lights in the memory care unit were illuminated by residents' rooms. During an interview on [DATE] at 5:10 PM the ADON stated the facility had a malfunctioning call light system and as of [DATE] residents were given small wooded handled bells to use as call light alerts. During an interview on [DATE] at 1:55 PM Resident #7 stated he used the small call bell to call for help from staff. During an interview on [DATE] at 1:58 PM Resident #58 stated he was given the bell to ring for staff assistance. During an interview on [DATE] at 2:00 PM Resident #68 stated he used a small bell to ring for staff to help him. During an interview on [DATE] at 2:10 PM Resident #54 stated staff gave him a small bell to ring if he needed help from staff. During an interview on [DATE] at 3:20 PM Resident #11 stated he was given the bell to ring for staff assistance. During an interview on [DATE] 3:34 PM with Resident #5 stated he was given the bell to ring for staff assistance. During an interview on [DATE] at 6:09 PM the Medical Director stated Administrator had reported the facility's call light system had malfunctioned. The Medical Director stated the malfunctioning call light system was a danger for residents to include injurious falls and neglect, and especially to elderly confused residents. A record review of the facility's policy titled, Call System, Resident, dated [DATE], revealed, Policy Heading: residents are provided with a means to call staff for assistance through a communication system that directly calls a staff member or a centralized workstation. Policy Interpretation and Implementation: each resident is provided with a means to call staff directly for assistance from his or her bed from toileting and or bathing facilities and from the floor. call system communication may be audible or visual . the resident call system remains functional at all times. if audible communication is used, the volume is maintained at an audible level that can be easily heard. if visual communication is used, the lights remain functional . the resident call system is routinely maintained and tested by the maintenance department . 3. Record review of Resident #39's admission Record dated [DATE] revealed she was admitted on [DATE], readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses of chronic pulmonary disease diabetes II, dementia, muscle wasting and atrophy, reduced mobility, pain, nutritional deficiency, and major depressive disorder. Record review of Resident #39's chart revealed weighs for 6 months. For 1 month -[DATE] at 117.2 pounds and [DATE] at 140 pounds, with a weight loss of 16.41. For 3 months a weight loss of 23.30, on 3rd month, [DATE] was 153.3 pounds. Review of weights for [DATE] was documented 3 times. Record review of Resident #39's consolidated physician's orders dated [DATE] revealed an order for Consistent Carbohydrate diet regular texture, thin consistency related to diabetes II underlying condition of chronic kidney disease and House Supplement two times a day give 120 ml twice a day for weight loss. Record review of Resident #39's MAR for [DATE] revealed she was not administered House supplement 5 times by MA M. Record review of Resident #39's Significant change MDS dated [DATE] revealed she was cognitively severely impaired, diagnoses of nutritional deficiencies, her weight was 117, was on a therapeutic diet. Record review of Resident #39's Dietitian Summary for [DATE] was documented Resident #39 had house supplement of 120 ml, now would increase 1 to 80 ml for weight loss. Record review of Resident #39's kitchen diet cart from DM had no mention of a supplement. Interview on [DATE] at 9:50 AM with cook T stated they do run out of supplies at times and report to the DM. Observation on [DATE] at 11:35 AM with Resident #39 observed her lunch tray did not have a supplement on it. Interview on [DATE] at 12:45 PM with Dietary Aide AX stated they have run out of supplements in past, and nurses give something else. Interview on [DATE] at 2:15 PM with MA M confirmed she did not administer Resident #39's house supplement the 5 times due to no supply. MA M stated she would report this to the charge nurse on duty that day. Interview on [DATE] at 2:29 PM with ADON stated the charge nurse did not bring it to his attention and was not aware that the MA did not have the supply to administer the supplements. The ADON sated he did not see any notes from charge nurses concerning Resident #39 not administering her supplement. The ADON stated the process would be that the MA report to charge nurse, the charge nurse documents on resident chart and notifies the ADON. Interview on [DATE] at 3:06 PM with Administrator stated he was not aware not having med pass/supplement supplies, the DM Q does come to morning meetings at times. Interview on [DATE] at 3:19 PM with DON stated she was not aware of Resident #39 was not receiving med pass/House Shake for weight loss interventions. Interview on [DATE] at 3:21 PM with DM Q stated the kitchen orders the house shakes and the magic cups and Central supply orders the med pass. Interview on [DATE] at 3:30 PM with CTS stated no staff told her she was out of med pass, and when they did, she ordered, so they have some now. Central Supply stated she did not notify the DON or the Administrator Interview on [DATE] at 5:00 PM with the Dietician stated she was aware of some weight loss in the facility and documented notes. The Dietitian stated she was made aware of by nursing department that the supplies were not administered and had some interventions in place, such as, med pass and house shake supplements. The Dietitian stated there had been some supply chain issues. Interventions for resident weight loss were high call or 2.0 med pass, health shake, calories are there that they need, if continue to lose weight, will add milk shake to lunch and supper. The Dietitian stated for Resident #39 the nursing department had reported no change of condition and was stable at her weight. The Dietician stated the risk to resident would be that the weight loss would be accelerated, the med pass was the first line, 2nd was appetite stimulants. The Dietitian stated she would recommend weekly weights, she would talk to central supply to make sure they have the product. 4. Observations during the building inspection tour on [DATE] at 12:40 PM revealed a section of ceiling approximately 20 feet long was cracked and was separated from another piece of the ceiling. Further observation revealed the ceiling in the Therapy room was sagging and pieces of the gypsum in several areas were starting to peel and crack. During an interview at the time of the observations, the Maintenance Director X stated the ceiling had been like that for a few months. The Maintenance Director X stated he was aware that the ceiling needed to be repaired and that he notified management about the issue because it was unsanitary and could cause illness to spread with residents. Observation on [DATE] at 2:39 PM revealed a section of ceiling approximately 6 ft. by 6 ft. had signs of water damage and was missing gypsum/ceiling finish exposing the inside of the attic space. In an interview at the time of the observation, the Maintenance Director X stated the ceiling had been like that for 2 months due to an air conditioning leak. The Maintenance Director X stated he was aware that the ceiling needed to be repaired and that he notified management about the issue because it was unsanitary and could cause illness to spread with residents. During an interview at the time of the observation, the Administrator stated the ceiling had been like that for 2 months due to an air conditioning leak. The Administrator said he was waiting on quotes from the contractor and final approval to make the repairs. A record review of the facility's policy titled, Hazardous Areas, Devices and Equipment, dated [DATE], revealed, policy statement all hazardous areas, devices and equipment in the facility will be identified and addressed appropriately to ensure residents safety and mitigate accident hazards to the extent possible. policy interpretation and implementation: as part of the facilities overall safety and accident prevention program, hazardous areas and objects in the residence environment will be identified and addressed by the safety committee. the safety committee will consist of members from the interdisciplinary team which will include a representative from the clinical, leadership, maintenance, and environmental services team. identification of hazards; a hazard is defined as anything in the environment that has the potential to cause injury or illness. examples of environmental hazards include, but are not limited to the following; equipment and devices that are left unattended or are malfunctioning; devices and equipment that are improperly used or poorly maintained; . open areas or items that should be locked when not in use; . disabled locks, latches, or alarms .
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0919 (Tag F0919)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

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

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 be adequately equipped to allow residents to call for staff assistance through a communication system which relays the call directly to a staff member or to a centralized staff work area from each resident's bedside and toilet and bathing facilities, for 1 of 1 facility's reviewed for a functioning call light system for 4 of the facility's 4 halls (Halls A, B, C, and D) reviewed for resident call system, in that: The facility failed to have a functioning call light system for the census of 69 residents who resided on the facility's 4 halls, Halls A, B, C, and D. This failure could place residents at risk for injuries or neglect. The findings included: During an observation on 11/14/2023 from 10:30 to 11:00 AM revealed the call light system on D Hall was not functioning as designed. During an observation on 11/14/2023 at 10:10 AM revealed the memory care unit presented with 19 residents (Residents #1, #4, #12, #14, #17, #19, #23, #25, #38, #40, #41, #47, #48, #52, #56, #60, #64, #66, and #67). Further observations revealed the memory care unit had a malfunctioning call light system which would sometimes illuminate a call light without sounds and sometimes would sound and not illuminate. During an interview on 11/14/2023 at 10:20 AM LVN H and CNA U stated they were the LVN and CNA for the memory care unit which occupied the beginning of the D Hall. LVN H and CNA U stated the call light system had been malfunctioning for weeks. LVN H stated the staff paid attention to the lights and would round on residents frequently. LVN H and CNA U stated the facility DON had knowledge of the malfunctioning call light system. During an observation and interview on 11/14/2023 at 10:59 AM revealed the call light for Residents #12 and #40 would illuminate outside of their rooms but not illuminate and or sound at the nurses' station. CNA U stated she would round on residents frequently due to the call light system did not sound and that residents were usually not in their rooms. During an observation on 11/14/2023 at 3:50 PM revealed room [ROOM NUMBER], call light was pushed and no noise on the outside of room [ROOM NUMBER]. During an observation on 11/14/2023 at 3:58 PM revealed room [ROOM NUMBER], the call light was pushed and no noise on the outside of room [ROOM NUMBER]. During an interview on 11/14/2023 at 4:00 PM with the Maintenance Director X confirmed he pushed the call light device in rooms [ROOM NUMBERS], and no light was on the outside of the rooms with no noise. The Maintenance Director X confirmed Halls C and D hall call lights were not functioning. During an observation and interview on 11/16/2023 from 9:50 AM through 11:37 AM revealed the call light system of the entire facility had malfunctioned, which included call lights were not audible in some halls and call lights didn't light above residents' rooms or at nurse's station call light panel. During an interview on 11/16/2023 at 10:15 AM with the Maintenance Director X confirmed Halls A and B hall call lights were pushed and was not audible and not functioning. During an observation and interview on 11/16/2023 at 10:15 AM, on the B Hall (no residents) Rooms 100, 60, 68, 9, 14, 29, 21 call lights were pushed, but there was no noise. The Maintenance Director X stated staff would walk round the halls and residents were provided small bells to ring for help for Halls B and C. During an interview on 11/16/2023 at 11:23 AM with the Administrator stated he was aware of the call lights not functioning and was [NAME] to attention after surveyor investigtions. During an observation on 11/17/2023 at 6:13 AM revealed the call light outside of room [ROOM NUMBER]was illuminated but did not sound any alert. Further observation of the call light alert board at the nurses' station was not illuminated for any room and was silent. During an observation on 11/17/2023 at 6:28 AM revealed a malfunctioning call light system where the call light panel at the nurse station continuously alarmed. Observation revealed 18 residents, [Resident #19 had been discharged ]; Residents #1, #4, #12, #14, #17, #23, #25, #38, #40, #41, #47, #48, #52, #56, #60, #64, #66, and #67, without staff care and or supervision. Further observation revealed no staff in the memory care unit after a room-to-room search which included a census of each Resident. Continued observation revealed residents ambulating throughout the unit with some residents asleep in their bedrooms. During an observation on 11/17/2023 at 6:29 AM revealed the nurse call light alert board located at the nurses' station in the memory care unit was continuously sounding and was not illuminating and rooms, further observation revealed no call lights in the memory care unit were illuminated by residents' rooms. During an interview on 11/18/2023 at 05:10 PM the ADON stated the facility had a malfunctioning call light system and as of 11/16/2023 residents were given small wooded handled bells to use as call light alerts. During an interview on 11/19/2023 at 1:55 PM Resident #7 stated he used the small call bell to call for help from staff. During an interview on 11/19/2023 at 1:58 PM Resident #58 stated he was given the bell to ring for staff assistance. During an interview on 11/19/2023 at 2:00 PM Resident #68 stated he used a small bell to ring for staff to help him. During an interview on 11/19/2023 at 2:10 PM Resident #54 stated staff gave him a small bell to ring if he needed help from staff. During an interview on 11/19/2023 at 3:20 PM Resident #11 stated he was given the bell to ring for staff assistance. During an interview on 11/19/23 3:34 PM with Resident #5 stated he was given the bell to ring for staff assistance. During an interview on 11/19/2023 at 6:09 PM the Medical Director stated Administrator had reported the facility's call light system had malfunctioned. The Medical Director stated the malfunctioning call light system was a danger for residents to include injurious falls and neglect, and especially to elderly confused residents. A record review of the facility's policy titled, Call System, Resident, dated September 2022, revealed, Policy Heading: residents are provided with a means to call staff for assistance through a communication system that directly calls a staff member or a centralized workstation. Policy Interpretation and Implementation: each resident is provided with a means to call staff directly for assistance from his or her bed from toileting and or bathing facilities and from the floor. call system communication may be audible or visual . the resident call system remains functional at all times. if audible communication is used, the volume is maintained at an audible level that can be easily heard. if visual communication is used, the lights remain functional . the resident call system is routinely maintained and tested by the maintenance department .
MINOR (C)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0577 (Tag F0577)

Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain the availability of the most recent survey results for 1 of 1 facility reviewed for rights to survey results in that...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain the availability of the most recent survey results for 1 of 1 facility reviewed for rights to survey results in that: The facility failed to place survey results in a readily accessible location where individuals wishing to examine survey results without having to ask to review them. This failure could affect residents who reside in the facility and could result in a lack of awareness for visitors, family, and residents regarding the survey results and the plan of correction submitted by the facility. The findings included: Observation on 11/14/2023 at 9:15 AM reflected a sign on the wall stating the survey result binder was available for review below. Further observation revealed that there was not a survey binder in the area around the sign where it could be seen. During confidential interviews on 11/15/2023 at 10:05 AM, residents reported they were not familiar with what the survey inspection results were or where they were located. Interview and Observation with the Administrator on 11/15/2023 at 12:05 PM revealed he was not sure where the survey binder was but believed it to be in the lobby. The binder was found shortly after behind the receptionist's desk. The Administrator stated he intended to hang it back up on the wall but had not. Interview on 11/15/2023 at 12:15 PM, the receptionist stated that if a resident wanted to see the book, they would need to ask. She stated that this was because the binder had been stolen in the past, and residents were not able to get to the survey results binder behind her desk. Record review of policy, Survey results, Examination of dated April 2007 revealed 2. A copy of the most recent standard survey, including and subsequent extended surveys, follow up revisit's reports, etc., along with state approved plans of correction of noted deficiencies, is maintained in a 3-ring binder located in an area frequent by most residents, such as the main lobby or resident activity room.
Nov 2023 3 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure resident's had the right to be free from abuse, ...

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 resident's had the right to be free from abuse, neglect, misappropriation of resident's property, or exploitation, for 3 of 5 residents (Residents #2, #6, and #7) reviewed for abuse, in that: 1. The facility failed to ensure CNA A did not verbally abuse Resident #2 during interactions on 9/7/2023. 2. The facility failed to ensure Resident #7 was not hit by Resident #6 while sleeping, was not sent to hospital for an MRI afterward due to headaches, hearing and vision issues. Nurse assessment and progress notes did not indicate any issues with headaches or injuries from the incident. The incident was not reported to HHSC. This failure placed the resident at risk of decreased self-worth. The findings include: 1. Record review of Resident #2's face sheet, dated 11/3/2023, reflected a [AGE] year-old with an initial admission date of 12/7/2017. Resident #2's had diagnoses which included cerebral infarction (refers to damage to tissues in the brain due to a loss of oxygen to the area), and vascular dementia, unspecified severity, with other behavioral disturbance (refers to changes to memory, thinking, and behavior resulting from conditions that affect the blood vessels in the brain). Record review of Resident #2's Quarterly MDS Assessment, dated 8/13/2023, reflected a BIMS Assessment score of 3, which indicated severely impaired cognition. Record review of Resident #2's, undated, Care Plan reflected the resident had a history of being verbally abusive toward staff and others, and a history of physical behaviors directed toward others. Record review of a witness statement provided by the facility and written by CNA B, dated 9/7/2023, reflected CNA B was told by CNA A Resident #2 had hit her in the arm and she told the resident to stop hitting her or she would hit him back. Record review of a witness statement provided by the facility and written by the facility's HR Director, dated 9/7/2023 reflected CNA A stated she told the resident if he did not stop hitting her she was going to hit him back. The statement documented the decision of termination of CNA A, and CNA A refused to write a statement. Interview on 11/2/2023 at 11:50 AM with LVN C, stated she never heard any staff threaten residents, even jokingly, and if she did, she would immediately report them to the ADON and the DON. Interview and observation on 11/2/2023 at 2:10 PM Resident #2 stated he did not remember the incident. Interview on 11/3/2023 at 9:21 AM, the DON stated CNA A admitted to her she told Resident #2 she would hit him back if he hit her but was joking. The DON stated she explained it was still considered verbal abuse. The DON stated her expectation was for staff to speak with residents kindly. The DON stated when Resident #2 was interviewed the day of the incident, Resident #2 stated CNA A did not threaten to hit him. The DON stated after the incident, in-services on abuse and neglect were completed with an emphasis on verbal abuse. Interview on 11/3/2023 at 10:46 AM, LVN D stated she never heard any staff speak unkindly with residents, and if she did she would inform the DON and the Administrator. An attempt to interview CNA A was made on 11/3/2023 at 1:07 PM with no answer. Record review of in-service training documentation reflected on 9/8/2023 an in-service was completed for abuse and neglect, which included who the abuse coordinator was, and what the requirements for reporting abuse included. 2. Record review of Resident #6's admission Record dated 11/3/2023 revealed he was admitted on [DATE], he was his own responsible party with diagnosis of age-related physical debility, muscle weakness, cortical age-related cataract bilateral, altered mental status, unsteadiness on feet and cognitive communication deficit. Record review of Resident #6's Quarterly MDS dated [DATE] revealed he was had no issues with hearing/vision, he was cognitively intact, no behaviors, he required supervision for transfers, eating and dressing. Record review of complaint intake 411604 revealed about three weeks ago, 3/10/2023 revealed Resident #6's roommate, Resident #7, hit Resident #6 over the head with a shoe while he was sleeping. Further review revealed Resident #6 reported the incident to nursing staff, and staff moved Resident #7 to another room. Record review of Resident #6's care plan, dated 10/27/2023, was documented resident had limited physical mobility and needs some assistance with ADLs, resident and a hearing impairment, resident had a risk for falls vision/hearing problems, impaired cognition, impaired mobility dated initiated on 6/15/2023. Record review for care plan was documented resident had impaired visual function related to cataracts. Record review of Resident #6's progress notes, dated 2/12/2023 at 5:50 AM (22:20), was struck out due to technical error. The progress note was documented This nurse was called over to room by Resident #6 reported at 6:30 AM he woke up to roommate hitting him with his own shoe. I was asleep and Resident #7 hit me with a shoe, and I said what's wrong with you, and he said is this our shoe mother fucker and I said yes, and he started hitting e with both my shoes. I pushed him out of the way and walked out the room. Resident #6 was verbally and physically abusive. Resident #6 walked over to nurse's station and reported incident to nightshift nurse. This nurse updated on call nurse. Resident #7 was moved to unit B. Record review of Resident #6's incident report, dated 2/12/2023 at 6:30 AM, revealed Resident 36's room by LVN H documented this nurse was called over to room by Resident #6, he stated at 6:30 AM he woke up to roommate hitting him with his own shoe, while he was sleeping. Incident report stated Resident #6 stated Resident #7 started hitting him with both shoes he pushed him out of the way and walked out of room. Section: Immediate Action Taken was documented Resident #6 was verbally and physically abused. Resident #6 walked over the nurse's station. Resident #7 was moved to a different unit B. No injuries observed at time of incident. This incident was struck out due to technical error by DON. 3. Record review of Resident #7's admission Record dated 11/3/2023 revealed he was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses of dementia, muscle weakness age-related physical debility, glaucoma, cognitive communication disorder, need for assistance with personal care, and anxiety disorder. Record review of Resident #7's Quarterly MDS dated [DATE] he was severely cognitively impaired, and required extensive assistance with his ADLS, and use a wheelchair to mobilize. Record review of Resident #7's psychiatric notes dated 2/15/2023 revealed his diagnosis was anxiety dementia and insomnia. Psychiatric noted Resident #7 had a poor memory poor historian, judgment was poor, mood was neutral, risk of verbal aggression he was severely impaired for cognition and changed his psychiatric medications. Observation on 11/2/2023 at 2:13 PM with Resident #6 was in his room sitting in his bed, ambulatory, and had no injuries at the time. Further observation of Resident #6's room revealed he had no roommate at the time. Interview with Resident #6 on 11/2/2023 at 2:14 PM, Resident #6 stated Resident #7 hit him over the head with a shoe while he was sleeping. Resident #6 stated he still had headaches, hearing and vision issues. Resident #6 stated staff moved Resident #7 to another room but was not sent to hospital for an MRI. When the Surveyor asked Resident #6 if anything else happened or if he went to the hospital, Resident #6 stated he saw the MD and the MD ordered Tylenol. Interview on 11/3/2023 at 11:11 AM with Medical Records I stated she worked at facility since 2008 and was Resident #6's guardian angel at the time of incident. Interview with Medical Records I stated Resident #6 stated Resident #7 hit him while standing over him with his shoe. Resident #6 stated he reported to nurse and Resident #7 was moved to a locked unit. Medical Records I stated she was not sure if she had training after incident. Interview on 11/3/2023 at 12:45 PM with LVN H stated he remembered he was doing morning rounds and went into Resident #7's room. LVN H stated that Resident #6 had told him that Resident #7, the resident's roommate at the time, had starting to hit him on his head with his shoe and tried to push him away. LVN H stated Resident #7 was moved to another room, and he did the assessment and was not sure if Resident #6 had injuries or bruising. LVN H stated Resident #6 was not sent to the hospital on his shift. LVN H stated Resident #6 had not complained of headaches or hearing concerns from the incident and only saw Resident#6 on the weekends. LVN H stated was not sure if he received any training after the incident. Interview on 11/3/2023 at 1:00 PM with the night nurse for the date of incident with Resident #6 and Resident #7, surveyor left a voicemail. Observation on 11/3/2023 at 1:12 PM with Resident #7 lived in the secure unit and was sitting in TV room in his wheelchair. An interview with Resident #7 was attempted but the resident was not interviewable. Interview on 11/3/2023 at 3:00 PM with the DON stated she remembered the incident with Residents #6 and #7 and the interventions were to move Resident #7 form room, he had a psychiatric visit, medications change and notified the Ombudsman. The DON stated the incident was brought up to the morning meeting, but it did not go any further. The DON stated she looked at the in-service book and could not find an in-service for staff after this incident. The DON stated she was not sure why Resident #6's progress note on incident with Resident #7 was struck out by her. The DON stated the incident was not reported to HHSC because there were no injuries. Record review of the facility's policy titled, Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation or Misappropriation - Reporting and Investigating, dated September 2022, revealed, 6. upon receiving any allegations of abuse, neglect . or injury of unknown source is suspected, the suspicion must be reported immediately to the administrator and to other officials according to state law. 3. immediately is defined as: a. within 2 hours of an allegations involving abuse or result in serious bodily injury; or b. with 24 hours of an allegation that does not involve abuse or result in serious bodily injury. Record review of the facility's, undated, policy titled Abuse, Neglect, and Misappropriation Prevention, revealed, Residents have the right to be free from abuse, neglect, misappropriation of resident property and exploitation. This includes but is not limited to freedom from corporal punishment, involuntary seclusion, verbal, mental, sexual, or physical abuse, and physical or chemical restraint not required to treat the resident's symptoms.
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 abuse, neglect, misap...

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 abuse, neglect, misappropriation of resident property, and exploitation for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #4) reviewed for misappropriation of resident property. The facility failed to ensure Resident #4 was not subject to financial misappropriation of property by CNA G. CNA G misappropriated funds using the residents debit card totaling $477.54. This failure could place residents at risk for loss of money, possessions, and the feeling of loss. The findings include: Record review of Resident #4's face sheet, dated 11/2/2023, reflected a [AGE] year-old resident with an initial admission date of 8/21/2015. Resident #4 had diagnoses which included Congestive Heart Failure (A chronic condition in which the heart doesn't pump blood as well as it should), absence of left leg below knee, and type 2 diabetes. Record review of Resident #4's Quarterly MDS Assessment, dated 8/29/2023, reflected a BIMS score of 13, which indicated intact cognition. Record review of the facility provider investigation report written by the facility administrator, dated 11/3/2022, reflected the resident stated CNA G visited the resident over the weekend on her day off. The report reflected when CNA G was asked why she visited the resident over the weekend, CNA G admitted to taking Resident #4's debit card. Interview on 11/2/2023 at 11:15 AM, Resident #4 stated he did not want to talk about the incident as it had taken place so long ago and upset him. He stated he did not want the incident reported to the state or police and did not feel as though the incident should have been considered abuse. An interview of CNA G was attempted on 11/2/2023 at 1:49 PM. The phone was disconnected. Interview on 11/3/2023 at 9:19 AM, the DON stated misappropriation of resident property like this had not happened at the facility before or since the incident. The DON stated an in-service training had been completed after this in regard to abuse with a focus on misappropriation of resident property. The DON stated her expectations were that employees do not misappropriate resident property, and that it could cause feelings from residents of being taken advantage of. Record review of the facility's, undated, policy titled Abuse, Neglect, and Misappropriation Prevention, reflected Residents have the right to be free from abuse, neglect, misappropriation of resident property and exploitation. This includes but is not limited to freedom from corporal punishment, involuntary seclusion, verbal, mental, sexual, or physical abuse, and physical or chemical restraint not required to treat the resident's symptoms.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interview and record reviews the facility failed to ensure that all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, exploitation or mistreatment, including injuries of unknown source and misappropriation of resident property, are reported immediately, but not later than 2 hours after the allegation is made, if the events that cause the allegation involve abuse or result in serious bodily injury, or not later than 24 hours if the events that cause the allegation do not involve abuse and do not result in serious bodily injury, to the administrator of the facility and to other officials (including to the State Survey Agency and adult protective services where state law provides for jurisdiction in long-term care facilities) in accordance with State law through established procedures for 1 of 2 (# 6) residents in that: Resident #6 revealed Resident #7 hit him over the head with a shoe while he was sleeping. Resident #6 stated he still had headaches, hearing and vision issues. Resident #6 stated staff moved Resident #7 to another room but was not sent to hospital for an MRI. Nurse assessment and progress notes did not indicate any issues with headaches or injuries from the incident. This incident was not reported to the HHSC. This failure could affect any residents and could result in further injury or Abuse. The Findings were: 1. Record review of Resident #6's admission Record dated 11/3/2023 revealed he was admitted on [DATE], he was his own responsible party with diagnosis of age-related physical debility, muscle weakness, cortical age-related cataract bilateral, altered mental status, unsteadiness on feet and cognitive communication deficit. Record review of Resident #6's Quarterly MDS dated [DATE] revealed he was had no issues with hearing/vision, he was cognitively intact, no behaviors, he required supervision for transfers, eating and dressing. Record review of complaint intake 411604 revealed about three weeks ago, 3/10/2023 revealed Resident #6's roommate, Resident #7, hit Resident #6 over the head with a shoe while he was sleeping. Further review revealed Resident #6 reported the incident to nursing staff, and staff moved Resident #7 to another room. Record review of Resident #6's care plan, dated 10/27/2023, was documented resident had limited physical mobility and needs some assistance with ADLs, resident and a hearing impairment, resident had a risk for falls vision/hearing problems, impaired cognition, impaired mobility dated initiated on 6/15/2023. Record review for care plan was documented resident had impaired visual function related to cataracts. Record review of Resident #6's progress notes, dated 2/12/2023 at 5:50 AM (22:20), was struck out due to technical error. The progress note was documented This nurse was called over to room by Resident #6 reported at 6:30 AM he woke up to roommate hitting him with his own shoe. I was asleep and Resident #7 hit me with a shoe, and I said what's wrong with you, and he said is this our shoe mother fucker and I said yes, and he started hitting e with both my shoes. I pushed him out of the way and walked out the room. Resident #6 was verbally and physically abusive. Resident #6 walked over to nurse's station and reported incident to nightshift nurse. This nurse updated on call nurse. Resident #7 was moved to unit B. Record review of Resident #6's incident report, dated 2/12/2023 at 6:30 AM, revealed Resident 36's room by LVN H documented this nurse was called over to room by Resident #6, he stated at 6:30 AM he woke up to roommate hitting him with his own shoe, while he was sleeping. Incident report stated Resident #6 stated Resident #7 started hitting him with both shoes he pushed him out of the way and walked out of room. Section: Immediate Action Taken was documented Resident #6 was verbally and physically abused. Resident #6 walked over the nurse's station. Resident #7 was moved to a different unit B. No injuries observed at time of incident. This incident was struck out due to technical error by DON. 2. Record review of Resident #7's admission Record dated 11/3/2023 revealed he was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses of dementia, muscle weakness age-related physical debility, glaucoma, cognitive communication disorder, need for assistance with personal care, and anxiety disorder. Record review of Resident #7's Quarterly MDS dated [DATE] he was severely cognitively impaired, and required extensive assistance with his ADLS, and use a wheelchair to mobilize. Record review of Resident #7's psychiatric notes dated 2/15/2023 revealed his diagnosis was anxiety dementia and insomnia. Psychiatric noted Resident #7 had a poor memory poor historian, judgment was poor, mood was neutral, risk of verbal aggression he was severely impaired for cognition and changed his psychiatric medications. Observation on 11/2/2023 at 2:13 PM with Resident #6 was in his room sitting in his bed, ambulatory, and had no injuries at the time. Further observation of Resident #6's room revealed he had no roommate at the time. Interview with Resident #6 on 11/2/2023 at 2:14 PM, Resident #6 stated Resident #7 hit him over the head with a shoe while he was sleeping. Resident #6 stated he still had headaches, hearing and vision issues. Resident #6 stated staff moved Resident #7 to another room but was not sent to hospital for an MRI. When the Surveyor asked Resident #6 if anything else happened or if he went to the hospital, Resident #6 stated he saw the MD and the MD ordered Tylenol. Interview on 11/3/2023 at 11:11 AM with Medical Records I stated she worked at facility since 2008 and was Resident #6's guardian angel at the time of incident. Interview with Medical Records I stated Resident #6 stated Resident #7 hit him while standing over him with his shoe. Resident #6 stated he reported to nurse and Resident #7 was moved to a locked unit. Medical Records I stated she was not sure if she had training after incident. Interview on 11/3/2023 at 12:45 PM with LVN H stated he remembered he was doing morning rounds and went into Resident #7's room. LVN H stated that Resident #6 had told him that Resident #7, the resident's roommate at the time, had starting to hit him on his head with his shoe and tried to push him away. LVN H stated Resident #7 was moved to another room, and he did the assessment and was not sure if Resident #6 had injuries or bruising. LVN H stated Resident #6 was not sent to the hospital on his shift. LVN H stated Resident #6 had not complained of headaches or hearing concerns from the incident and only saw Resident#6 on the weekends. LVN H stated was not sure if he received any training after the incident. Interview on 11/3/2023 at 1:00 PM with the night nurse for the date of incident with Resident #6 and Resident #7, surveyor left a voicemail. Observation on 11/3/2023 at 1:12 PM with Resident #7 lived in the secure unit and was sitting in TV room in his wheelchair. An interview with Resident #7 was attempted but the resident was not interviewable. Interview on 11/3/2023 at 3:00 PM with the DON stated she remembered the incident with Residents #6 and #7 and the interventions were to move Resident #7 form room, he had a psychiatric visit, medications change and notified the Ombudsman. The DON stated the incident was brought up to the morning meeting, but it did not go any further. The DON stated she looked at the in-service book and could not find an in-service for staff after this incident. The DON stated she was not sure why Resident #6's progress note on incident with Resident #7 was struck out by her. The DON stated the incident was not reported to HHSC because there were no injuries. Record review of the facility's policy titled, Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation or Misappropriation - Reporting and Investigating, dated September 2022, revealed, 6. upon receiving any allegations of abuse, neglect . or injury of unknown source is suspected, the suspicion must be reported immediately to the administrator and to other officials according to state law. 3. immediately is defined as: a. within 2 hours of an allegations involving abuse or result in serious bodily injury; or b. with 24 hours of an allegation that does not involve abuse or result in serious bodily injury.
Sept 2023 1 deficiency
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Smoking Policies (Tag F0926)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to establish policies, in accordance with applicable Federal, State, and local laws and regulations, regarding smoking, smoking ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to establish policies, in accordance with applicable Federal, State, and local laws and regulations, regarding smoking, smoking areas, and smoking safety that also take into account nonsmoking residents for 1 of 1 facility reviewed for smoking, in that: The facility failed to ensure unknown staff or unknown residents were not smoking in a non-smoking designated area. This failure could place residents at risk for smoking-related injuries and fires in the facility. The findings were: During an observation, in a middle courtyard area located by B hall, on 09/01/2023 at 11:05 a.m., revealed several smoked and used cigarette butts on the ground. Further observation revealed some of the cigarette butts were just outside the right side and out front of the doorway. Many more cigarette butts were all around a sitting area in the grass and/or dirt areas. During an observation, in a middle courtyard area by B hall, and interview on 09/01/2023 at 12:57 p.m., the MA observed and confirmed the several smoked and used cigarette butts in all (mentioned) areas of this courtyard. The MA stated he had just cleaned this area several days prior of smoked and used cigarette butts. He stated was not able to state who were smoking in this area. The MA also observed and confirmed the two non-smoking signs posted; one on the doorway to walk out to this courtyard and another on the brick wall to walk back inside from this courtyard. During an interview on 09/01/2023 at 2:12 p.m., the MD stated he had, previously, seen used cigarette butts in that courtyard. He was unable to recall the last time he had walked over to that area to observe the courtyard himself. The MD stated there was not supposed to be any smoked and used cigarette butts in that courtyard. The MD stated the potential harm to residents was a fire hazard if one of those used cigarette butts were not fully extinguished. During an interview on 09/01/2023 at 8:40 p.m., the DON stated there were supposed to be no smoked and used cigarette butts on the ground in that courtyard. She further stated that location was not a smoking area and the facility was not a smoking facility. The DON believed there was not a potential harm to residents because residents with cognitive issues do not go out to that courtyard and would not pick up those smoked butts. During an interview on 09/01/2023 at 8:43 p.m., the ADMN stated there were supposed to be no used cigarette butts out in that courtyard, even on the ground. He stated that location was not a designated smoking area and neither was the facility a smoking facility. The ADMN stated the potential harm to residents was if one of those used butts were not fully extinguished then it could cause a fire. Record review of the facility's policy titled, Smoking Policy - Staff, revised 05/2019, revealed, Policy Statement. This facility is a smoke-free facility. [ .] 1. Employee smoking is permitted only in places where it is designated. Smoking is prohibited in all other areas. Record review of the facility's policy titled, Smoking Policy - Residents, revised 08/2022, revealed, Policy Statement. This facility is a smoke-free facility. [ .] 2. Smoking is only permitted in designated resident smoking areas, [ .].
Feb 2023 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0837 (Tag F0837)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that the governing body appointed an administrator who was licensed by the State, where licensing is required; responsible for manag...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that the governing body appointed an administrator who was licensed by the State, where licensing is required; responsible for management of the facility; and reports to and is accountable to the governing body for 1 of 1 facility reviewed for the governing body, in that: The governing body did not appoint a Licensed Nursing Facility Administrator who was licensed by the state. This deficient practice could result in the facility not being managed in a responsible manner, which could affect the health and safety of all residents. The findings included: Record review of the Facility Assessment last updated 11/09/2022 revealed the facility had a total of 237 beds. The document indicated based on population and care analysis the facility required one facility Administrator to meet the needs of the residents . Record review of an email dated 2/22/2023 from the HR Manager revealed the previous Administrator's termination date was 1/31/2023. During an interview on 2/22/2023 at 3:02 p.m., upon entrance to the facility, the Receptionist stated the facility did not have a facility Administrator. During an interview on 2/22/2023 at 3:23 p.m., the DON stated the facility did not have an Administrator and had not had one since 1/31/2023. The DON stated she was in charge of the facility and responsible for facility oversight. She stated she had could run things by the Corporate COO if she had questions. The DON stated an Administrator from a sister facility visited the building briefly on the date of this interview. The DON stated she was unsure what role he would play. During an interview on 2/22/2023 at 6:30 p.m., the BOM stated the facility did not have an Administrator. She stated on the business side of things she had not had any issues. During an interview on 2/23/2023 at 2:06 p.m., the DON stated confirmation that the facility did not have an Administrator. She stated she was in charge of the facility and providing facility oversight. The DON stated providing facility oversight without an Administrator was a challenge because she was not educated on all things administrative. The DON stated she had her own full clinical case load and now had the additional responsibilities that belong to an Administrator. The DON stated her point of contact was the COO of the Corporation who was last in the facility on 2/09/2023 and 2/10/2023. The DON stated she was told by the COO a new Administrator had been hired and would start on 2/06/2023. The DON stated she (DON) had announced this to the department managers, but the new Administrator had not shown up. During an interview on 2/23/2023 at 2:31 p.m., the DON stated it was important for a facility to have an Administrator because they provide oversight to all the departments such as maintenance, dietary, nursing, equipment issues, facility issues and abuse/neglect. The DON stated some families, and some residents needed a little more attention and the Administrator played an important role for the team to ensure everything was done correctly. During an interview on 2/23/2023 at 2:47 p.m., the Corporate COO stated they had hired an Administrator, but the offer was rescinded. The COO stated that the DON was providing oversight to the facility while the Corporation worked on hiring a facility Administrator. The COO stated she was not sure who the governing body for the facility was, she stated, great question. The COO stated she believed the governing body would be herself and a new CEO who was hired on 2/20/2023. The COO stated she was not a Licensed Nursing Facility Administrator. During a follow up interview with the DON on 2/23/2023 at 3:59 p.m., the DON stated she was not licensed to work as an Administrator. Record review of a facility policy, titled Administration of Facility (undated) revealed: This facility will provide policies and systems to ensure that it is administered in a manner that will focus on attaining and maintaining the highest practicable physical, mental and psychosocial well-being of each resident. 6. An appropriately licensed Administrator, in good standing with the state in which the facility resides, will be appointed by the governing body to be responsible for the management and overall operation of the facility.
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

Social Worker (Tag F0850)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interview the facility failed to employ a qualified social worker on a full-time basis for 1 of 1 Social Worker reviewed employment, in that: The facility, licensed for ove...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview the facility failed to employ a qualified social worker on a full-time basis for 1 of 1 Social Worker reviewed employment, in that: The facility, licensed for over 120 beds, did not employ a full-time, qualified social worker since 12/01/2022. This deficient practice could result in residents' social service needs not being met. The findings included: Record review of facility license revealed the facility had a licensed capacity of 237 residents. Record review of a Facility Assessment, last revised 11/09/2022 revealed under staff resources needed, based on population and care analysis, to meet the needs of the residents: one Social Services Director was listed. Record review of an email from the HR Director dated 2/22/2023 revealed the former Social Worker's termination date was listed as 12/01/2022. During an interview on 2/22/2023 at 3:25 p.m., the HR Director stated the facility did not have a Social Worker since November 2022. During an interview on 2/23/2023 at 1:45 p.m., the DON stated the facility did not have Social Worker and did not have an Administrator. The DON stated the Administrator was the person responsible for hiring a Social Worker. She stated since the facility did not have an Administrator no one at the facility was receiving emails for new applicants because the emails were going to the Administrator's file, and no one had access. The DON stated the email situation was fixed yesterday (2/22/2023) and the online job ad would be updated. During an interview on 2/23/2023 at 2:31 p.m., the DON stated the facility did not full time Social Worker and did not have a contract part time or as needed Social Worker. The DON stated having a Social Worker was preferred because without one it increased the workload for the managers. The DON stated she felt like the facility staff could meet the needs of the residents without a Social Worker. During an interview on 2/23/2023 at 4:24 p.m., the HR Director stated the Administrator was responsible for reviewing applications and conducting interviews for a Social Worker. She stated confirmation that the facility did not have an Administrator. During an interview on 2/23/2023 at 4:39 p.m., the DON stated the facility did not have a policy for Social Worker. Record review of a facility policy, titled Administration of Facility (undated) revealed: Facility will follow the accepted professional standards and principles of the various practice acts and regulations for the various licensed personnel within the facility. The facility will employ professionals necessary to carry out the provisions of requirements.
Feb 2023 1 deficiency
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide a comfortable and safe temperature levels (Fa...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide a comfortable and safe temperature levels (Facilities initially certified after October 1, 1990, must maintain a temperature range of 71 to 81°F ) for 2 of 4 Halls (Hall A and B) reviewed for environmental temperatures, in that: Hall A's and Hall B's heat temperature readings did not meet the minimum of 71 degrees Fahrenheit. This failure could lead to a diminished quality of life and could affect the resident's need to feel comfortable. The findings included: During initial tour on 02/08/23 from 11:30 AM to 12:30 PM with the Maintenance Director temperature readings of Halls A (secure unit) and Hall B revealed the air temperatures below: [temperature readings were taken by the Maintenance Director with a [NAME] temperature instrument]The average temperature for 8 rooms (rooms:112, 121,128, 113, 68, 123, 108 and 109) in Hall A was 60.18 F. The average temperature for 8 rooms (Rooms:76, 77, 91, 71,83,80,122,and 88) in Hall B was 63.37 F. During an interview on 02/03/23 at 1:13 PM, the DON stated: the heating system for Hall A and B broke down on 01/31/23. Residents in Hall A (secured unit census was 26) were moved from Hall A to Hall B on 01/31/23 and re-moved to Hall A on 2/06/23 when the outside weather became warmer The moved to Hall A 2/06/23 resulted because the outside temperature was not cold and heaters were placed in Hall A. The DON stated , 02/28/23 after 11:03 AM residents from Hall A would be moved back to Hall B after lunch, because Hall A was cold and small heaters (9) were placed in Hall A with large heating units in Hall B (5). Work order # 1013450889 was completed on 02/06/23 to address the heating issue by an outside vendor. [Surveyor reviewed the work order and it was dated 02/06/23] The vendor made a visit on 02/06/23 and made a bid to the facility which was still under review. The DON stated the alternate plan on 02/08/23 was to move the residents from Hall A to Hall B and some residents to C Hall. The Secure Unit staff would re-located to Hall B for residents with a high risk for elopement. The facility also had extra blankets for residents that required more warmth. The small warming units (total of 10) would be placed in rooms where residents required rooms to be warmer. During an interview on 02/08/23 at 1:40 PM, the Maintenance Director stated the HVAC unit for Halls A and B broke down on 01/31/23. He alerted the Administrator of the heat issue on 01/31/23 during the afternoon. The Maintenance Director did not have official logs for room air temperatures; but he had logs for water temperatures. The Maintenance Director stated: he was not routinely monitoring room air temperatures, and he could not remember exactly when the heating units were placed in Hall B and the small heaters in Hall A. Also, he stated that the small heaters on the hall floors in Hall A were not effective. During an interview on 02/08/23 at 2:10 PM, the Corporate Chief Operation Officer stated the current plan was to move residents from A Hall (secured hall (A)t; census of 24) to C Hall with the current staff from A Hall; residents from Hall B would move to Hall D. The Corporate Chief Operation Officer stated there were 26 available rooms in Hall C and 33 available rooms in Hall D; total of 59 beds (census to move from A was 24 and 29 from B; total residents to move was 53. The Corporate Chief Operation Officer stated that she did not have the details of the heating situation but had approved the leasing of heaters as a response to the cold rooms in Hall A and was reviewing bids to fix or replace the HVAC units. During an interview on 02/08/23 at 2:20 PM, the DON stated the staff from Hall A will move with the residents to Hall C to closely monitor the residents to ensure there was no elopement. Family members, RPs and residents of Hall A and B would be notified of the emergency move. Observation on 02/09/23 at 9:30 AM to 10:15 AM of facility revealed Hall A (secured unit) had no residents, Hall C and D had residents in rooms that met the minimum temperature for heat at 71 degrees. Hall B had residents that refused to be relocated to Halls C and D. During a brief interview with 12 residents that remained in Hall B they stated they did not want to move to another hall and stated they were not cold. There were four huge heaters placed in the Hall B set at a temperature of 75 degrees. rooms [ROOM NUMBER] had overhead heaters. Staff assigned to Hall B were not relocated to other halls. [Air temperatures taken by the Maintenance Director on 02/09/23 revealed Hall B rooms met the minimum of 71 degrees F.] Observation and interview on 02/09/23 at 10:36 AM , Resident #13 (resident from secured unit-Hall A) was in the activity room (Hall C) . The resident did not reveal any signs of symptoms related to the cold weather. The Resident stated, .I was cold in in Hall A .I complained, and I had blankets .I do no remember when the cold started .I am okay today. Resident could not remember why or how often he/she was moved from Hall A. Observation and interview on 02/09/23 at 10:39 AM, Resident #14 (resident from secured unit-Hall A) was in the activity room The resident did not reveal any signs of symptoms related to the cold weather. The Resident stated, .I do not remember being cold .I am safe .no complaints Resident could not remember why or how often he/she was moved from Hall A. Observation and interview on 02/09/23 at 10:50 AM, Resident #15 (resident from secured unit-Hall A) was in the activity room, sitting in a wheelchair. The resident did not reveal any signs of symptoms related to the cold weather. The Resident stated, .(nodded no to being cold in the memory unit) (nodded no to ways of staying warm) .(nodded yes to feeling safe) . nodded no to having any complaints. Resident could not remember why or how often he/she was moved from Hall A. Observation and interview on 02/09/23 at 10:54 AM, Resident # 16 (resident from secured unit-Hall A) was in the activity room The resident did not reveal any signs of symptoms related to the cold weather. The Resident stated, .I was cold in the hall (A) .I put blankets to stay warm .did not complain .[could not remember when the cold started] .yes, I feel safe .yes, I feel warm today and thank you .I have no complaints. Resident could not remember why or how often he/she was moved from Hall A. Observation and interview on 02/09/23 at 10:59 AM, Resident #17 (resident from secured unit-Hall A) was in the activity room The resident did not reveal any signs of symptoms related to the cold weather. The Resident stated, in Spanish .It was cold .cold every day .it happened about a month .do not remember how I stayed warm .I told the nurses about the cold .better today [in reference to the heat condition] .it was cold in the past I am safe . Resident could not remember why or how often he/she was moved from Hall A. During an interview on 02/09/23 at 11:12 AM, Staff A stated: the cold temperatures in Hall A started 01/31/23 during the cold spell when the heating system broke down; residents were moved to Hall B on 01/31/23 and then returned to Hall A on 02/06/23 after the weather improved. Residents were in the Hall A during the cold spell for one day on 01/31/23.; from 02/06/23 to 02/07/23 the Hall A was not cold; but turned cold on 02/08/23 during time of surveyor's entrance. we were doing extra blankets and floor heaters on the hallway .the residents complained about the cold on 01/31/23 .no complaints about the cold on 020/8/23 .no medical complications resulted to the residents .no psychosocial harm except residents were complaining about the cold .staff moved with the secured unit residents to Hall C to prevent elopement, keep them warm and meet their needs .no issues with Resident #18 (related to the past cold temperatures in Hall A) .her needs are met and she is in Hall C . During an interview on 02/09/23 at 11:40 AM, Staff B, stated: it was cold on 01/31/23 and the residents were moved to Hall B because the hall was warm and floor heaters had been placed in the fall; and remained there until 02/06/23 when the temperature outside got warmer; but it got cold on 020/8/23 and the surveyor arrived. The residents complained of being cold on 01/31/23 and I was cold too and administration made the decision to relocate the residents and lease heaters for Halls A and B. No resident was affected in terms of medication administration and medications were given on time; and no resident suffered signs or symptoms related to coldness.[monitoring was based on vital signs taken and checking on the residents every two hours] During an interview on 02/09/23 at 11:53 AM, Staff C stated the timeline was: on 01/31/23 Hall A got cold, and residents complained about the coldness and Administration moved the residents to Hall B. As the temperature got warmer outside and heaters were placed in Hall A and B, the residents returned back to the secured unit on 02/06/23 and then relocated again on 02/08/23 when the weather got cold outside and the surveyor arrived. There was no plan to move the residents from Hall A on 02/08/23 .all the residents and staff were complaining that it was cold on 02/08/23 and there were no heaters in Hall A .the Hall A staff started to get extra blankets to the residents .offering coffee .and the small floor heaters were moved to Hall A when the surveyor arrived .today the residents are warmed and safe .during the days it was cold (01/31/23, and 02/08/23) the residents nursing needs were met, no resident suffered medical complications, medications were given on time , and ADLs performed; and no resident revealed signs or symptoms related to the coldness. [monitoring involved taking vital signs and checking on residents every two hours]I was very cold .I had a jacket and sweater on 01/31/23 and 020/8/23 . today (2/9/23) the residents (from Hall A) are getting the nursing care they need and are monitored against elopement . Internet search on 02/09/23 of temperatures in [city], Texas revealed:[ AccuWeather 1/31/23 through 2/8/23] *1/31 - 37/32 (high to low) *2/1 - 37/32 *2/2 - 48/36 *2/3 - 59/32 *2/4 - 65/33 *2/5 - 76/40 *2/6 - 78/54 *2/7 - 73/58 *2/8 - 65/43 During joint interview on 02/09/23 at 2: 15 PM, Staff A and B stated: they were not aware of any plan to relocate the residents in the secured unit on 02/08/23 until the surveyor entered the facility at 11:30 AM. During an interview on 02/09/23 at 2:20 PM, LVN/ADON stated: she was aware of the plan to move the residents after lunch at the time the surveyor entered the facility. The ADON stated that the heating system failed in Hall A around 01/31/23 and residents from Hall A were moved to Hall B and then on 02/06/23 moved back to Hall A but Hall A remained cold and the small floor heaters were insufficient to keep Hall A warm. Therefore a verbal plan from the DON was to move the residents out of Hall A after lunch and coincidentally the surveyor arrived on 02/08/23 at 11:30 AM. The hall environmental temperatures were monitored by the Maintenance Director. The ADON added that the heaters in Hall A were likely placed in the Hall around 01/31/23. Residents were monitored by vital signs and the nursing practice of checking on residents every two hours. The ADON was not sure whether the two hour checks on the residents in Hall A were documented [not a usual practice to document the two hour check except by exception]. During an interview on 02/09/23 at 2:20 PM, the DON stated: she received a text message from Staff C on 02/08/23 at 11:03 AM stating that Hall A was cold and the red light breakers were triggering at the nurse station in Hall A. [light showing an electric surge in the Hall] The plan the DON developed with the Corporate Chief Operating Officer was to move the residents after lunch to Hall B once temperature readings were taken of Hall A. The DON added that it was a coincidence that the surveyor entered the facility before the plan to move the residents was executed. Once the surveyor and Maintenance Director recorded the readings to Hall A and B the decision was made to move Hall A residents to Hall C and Hall B residents to Hall D; without the need for the DON and the Corporate Chief Operation Officer to take temperature readings. Record review of text message sent by Staff C to the DON at 11:03 on 02/08/23 revealed; Hall A was cold and the breaker system triggered at the nurse station in Hall A. Record review of facility's temperature readings from the Maintenance Director's notebook dated 02/9/23 at 11:00 AM of Hall B revealed: [no readings were recorded from 01/31/23 to 02/06/23 except for a reading on 02/03/23 for Hall B which revealed the latter hall met the threshold of 71 degrees F. Record review of facility's Work Order dated 02/06/23 revealed a vendor bid to address the heating issue in Hall A. Record review of facility's lease agreement with Heater Rentals dated 01/26/23 revealed rental of 4 floor heaters. [The DON, Chief Operation Officer, and the Maintenance Director did not provide clarity as to why the leased heaters were leased on 01/26/23.] Record review of facility's Resident Environmental Quality policy dated 2022 read, It is the policy of this facility to .provide a safe, functional, sanitary and comfortable environment for residents .[the policy did not indicate an environmental temperature range.] Record review of facility's Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation policy dated 2021 read, Neglect means failure of the facility .to provide goods and services to a resident that are necessary to avoid physical harm, pain, mental anguish, or emotional distress.
Sept 2022 5 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Grievances (Tag F0585)

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 make prompt efforts to resolve grievances the resid...

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 make prompt efforts to resolve grievances the resident may have, for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #63) reviewed for grievances, in that: Resident #63 made several grievances which were not documented, not investigated, and not addressed for a resolution. This failure placed residents at risk for harm by not having their rights supported and reduced self-esteem. The findings include: A record review of Resident #63's admission record dated 9/13/2022, revealed an admission date of 7/27/2022 with diagnoses which included end stage renal disease (the kidneys permanently fail to work), Hypertension (high blood pressure), and anemia (a condition in which you lack enough healthy red blood cells to carry adequate oxygen to your body's tissues). A record review of resident #63's MDS, dated [DATE], revealed eesident #63 was admitted from the hospital, had no difficulties with vision, hearing, or making his needs known. resident #63 was assessed with a brief inerview for mental status score of 15 indicating no impairment to his cognition. A record review of Resident #63's care plan revealed a focus and intervention for care, Resident #63 receives dialysis .has a diagnosis of anemia .provide diet and fluids as ordered . the resident has nutritional problem or potential nutritional problem diet restrictions. Resident receives a liberal renal diet with thin liquids . monitor meal intakes and offer meal replacement if less than 50% . provide and serve diet as ordered . registered dietitian to evaluate and make dying change recommendations as needed. A record review of Resident #63's physician orders revealed orders dated 8/15/2022, dialysis: M-W-F at 5:45 AM (address of the dialysis facility) and liberal renal diet (a diet designed to cut out sodium, phosphorus and potassium to slow the progression of kidney disease), regular texture, thin consistency .diagnoses chronic kidney disease. Further record review revealed an order dated 8/19/2022 for Resident #63 to receive a nutritional supplement, Nepro 8 oz. (2) cartons three times a day on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays and twice a day on Monday Wednesdays and Fridays. A record review of Resident #63's Dietician Comprehensive Assessment, dated 8/3/2022, revealed Resident #63 nutritional status Pt significantly underweight with body mass index at 16.6 .plan recommendations additional comments; Resident #63 readmitted on [DATE] from acute care hospital with diagnosis of spinal stenosis and here for therapy. patient status post C2 dash 3 Laminectomy, with history of hypertension, this lipidemia, end stage renal disease on hemodialysis, and epilepsy. patient is at risk for dehydration, weight loss aspiration related to by mouth diet, and skin breakdown. patient with surgical incision to back of head, no skin breakdown noted. patient on hemodialysis on Mondays Wednesday Friday schedule . patient with varied by mouth intake and ranges between zero to 100% most meals eaten between 25 to 50% per diet records. patient with orders for Nepro . two cartoons three times a day for 3 days a week and twice a day 3 days a week (hemodialysis days). Oral supplement to provide weight gain. A record review of Resident #63's weight records revealed a 1-month weight loss of 6.7%, weighted 125 lbs. on 8/2/2022 and 116.6 lbs. on 9/5/2022. A record review of Resident #63's September 2022 medication administration record revealed Resident #63 refused the Nepro diet supplement 13 of the 28 times the Nepro was offered from 9/01 to 9/13/2022. A record review of Resident #63's progress notes revealed an entry on 9/9/2022 by MA E, Nepro 8 0z. two times a day every Monday, Wednesday, Friday patient refused nurse aware. Observation on 9/14/2022 at 10:55 AM revealed Resident #63 in his bedroom lying in bed watching television. Resident #63's room presented with a bedside table next to the bed. The table presented without any meal tray. During an interview on 9/14/2022 (Wednesday) at 10:56 AM Resident #63 stated he has a grievances for which no one has addressed. Resident #63 stated he was receiving dialysis services for 3-4 hours on Mondays Wednesdays and Fridays. Resident #63 stated he leaves the facility at 5:00 am every day to arrive at the dialysis facility by his chair appointed time of 5:45 AM. Resident #63 stated the dialysis center does not allow anyone to eat sack meals at the facility due to COVID-19 precautions. Resident #63 stated this situation means he does not eat for 18 hours, 6:00 PM dinner and the following meal is 12:00 PM noon. Resident #63 stated he was already under weight and has lost more weight and is concerned for his health. Resident #63 stated the dialysis depletes him of fluids and nutrients and when he returns to the facility, he would appreciate a hot meal. Resident #63 stated he usually arrives at the facility around 10:30 to 10:45 AM, always hungry for a hot meal. Resident #63 stated he has complained to many staff members specifically LVN C and CNA B, as a matter of fact I had a deal with CNA B to leave my breakfast meal tray here on dialysis days so I can have someone warm it up when I return, but I have had trouble having that request done .as you can see, I have no breakfast tray here. Resident #63 stated he also made his grievance to LVN B I don't like vanilla and I will not drink the vanilla Nepro. Resident #63 stated he also stated to the FSM he did not like anything vanilla flavored and specifically did not like the vanilla Nepro and would like the breakfast meal tray to be left in his room on dialysis days. Resident #63 stated he was not aware of the facility grievance policy and did not know who was in charge of the grievances. Resident #63 stated he was told by the staff, (CNA B, LVN C, and ADON D) the breakfast meal tray could not be left in his room due to food safety; the meal tray could not be warmed up due to personal safety, and he kitchen will not warm up the meal or make a new meal for him after dialysis days. During an interview on 9/14/2022 at 11:10 AM CNA B stated she worked Monday through Friday and some weekends from 6:00 am to 2:00 PM on the hall where Resident #63 resided. CNA B stated Resident #63 had complained he returned from dialysis hungry and preferred a hot meal, CNA B stated she would offer Resident a snack such as crackers, peanut butter sandwiches but he would refuse, he wants hot food. CNA B stated Resident #63 requested his breakfast meal be left at his bedside on dialysis days so she may warm it up upon his return from dialysis. CNA B stated she was restricted to leave the meal tray at the bedside and restricted to warm up the meal in the microwave by her nurse LVN C. CNA B stated she would often request the kitchen staff to warm up Resident #63's cold breakfast meal and they would refuse stating they could not accept a meal back into the kitchen. CNA B stated she reported the findings to her charge nurse LVN C on several occasions, Resident #63 has been here for a couple of months and his complains are known to staff .also he doesn't like vanilla anything. CNA B stated she had not generated a grievance report and stated she did not know where to get one, I will ask my nurse. CNA B stated, I did not make a complaint on paper cause I told my nurse. During an interview on 9/14/2022 at 11:02 AM LVN C stated she was the charge nurse for Resident #63 and usually worked Monday through Friday from 6:00 AM to 2:00 PM. LVN C stated she was aware of Resident #63's dissatisfaction with his breakfast on dialysis days (Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays). LVN C stated she and CNA B attempted to accommodate Resident #63's requests and were prohibited by her nurse leadership, we cannot keep his tray due to food safety and we cannot warm it up in the microwave due to Resident safety. LVN C stated she has reported the issue to her supervisor ADON D and has attempted to return the meal tray to the kitchen so they could warm up the meal and has met refusal from the staff who state the FSM has prohibited them from receiving meals back into the kitchen due to food safety. LVN C stated Resident also has a dislike of anything flavored vanilla and has refused his Nepro vanilla flavor dietary supplement which the facility has ordered and received the berry flavor. LVN C stated she has not generated a grievance for Resident #63's complaint about the vanilla Nepro or his complaint for wanting a hot meal after dialysis. During an interview on 9/15/2022 at 10:40 AM ADON D stated she was the ADON for Resident #63, LVN C, and CNA B. ADON D stated she was aware of Resident #63's complaint of no breakfast after dialysis and stated we cannot keep his meal after the breakfast service due to food safety. When asked if she had reported Resident #63's complaint / grievance ADON D stated she had not, I don't do that; (surveyor asked, can you tell me who does?) ADON D stated the SW does that. ADON D stated she had not reported Resident #63's complaint to the SW, he wants his coffee too hot; we cannot serve him coffee so hot. ADON D stated the SW was the grievance coordinator. During an interview on 9/15/2022 at 2:02 PM the FSM stated she cannot receive meals back into the kitchen once the meal has left. The FSM stated she was not aware of Resident #63's complaint of not having a hot meal after dialysis. The FSM stated she could accommodate Resident #63 request and would speak to Resident #63. During an interview on 9/15/2022 at 9:18 AM the SW stated she was newly hired (August 2022) as the facility's SW and included grievance coordinator duties. The SW stated the facility's policy was to support all residents' rights for making grievances. The SW stated the process is for any staff to provide a Resident a grievance form or to assist residents with making a grievance, which would involve the Resident, be investigated, resolved, and reported to the resident. The SW stated she was not aware of Resident #63's grievance and would look into his grievance. The SW stated she would post signage at each nurse's station as well as provide grievance forms and training for all the nurses. The SW provided the facility's grievance log for the last six months. A record review of the facility's grievance logbook revealed grievances for residents for the year 2022. Further review did not reveal any complaints on behalf of Resident #63. During an interview on 9/15/2022 at 4:00 PM the Administrator stated all residents are supported in their rights to make grievances and all staff should assist residents in completing a grievance form and presenting the grievance to leadership to include the SW. the Administrator stated staff would receive re-enforced training to support residents right to make grievances. The Administrator provided the facility's grievance reporting policy. The Administrator stated she was not aware of Resident #63's grievances and would address them. A record review of the facility's Grievance Resolution Guideline policy, dated 7/12/2018, revealed, this facility recognizes that residents have the right to voice grievances to the facility or other agencies or entities that here grievances without discrimination, reprisal, or fear of discrimination or reprisal. such grievances include those with respect to care and treatment that has been furnished, the behavior of staffing on the residents, and any other concern regarding the residents stay. Procedure; upon receipt of an oral, written, or anonymous grievance submitted by a Resident, the grievance official will take immediate action to prevent further potential violations of any resident right while the alleged violation is being investigated . the grievance official shall complete an investigation of the residence grievance. this may include a review of facility processes, programs and policies, as well as interviews with staff, residents, and visitors, as indicated . A record review of the Nepro manufactures website, accessed 9/23/2022, Nepro / Therapeutic Nutrition (abbottstore.com) , revealed, Nepro nutrition shakes are specially designed to help meet the nutrition needs of people on dialysis. One serving has 19 grams of protein and 420 nutritious calories to help replenish nutrients lost due to dialysis. It's low in potassium and phosphorus for patients with kidney disease. It tastes great cold and comes in three delicious flavors-Homemade Vanilla, Butter Pecan, and Mixed Berry.
CONCERN (D)

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0921)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide a safe, functional, sanitary, and comfortable environment for residents, staff, and public for 1 of 103 residents (Resident #83) reviewed for environment, in that: The bathroom door for Resident #83's bathroom had the bottom third of the door black with missing paint and four pieces of floor tile were missing in the bathroom and eight pieces of floor tile were missing in the bedroom. This deficient practice could place residents at risk of living in an environment that is not sanitary or comfortable. The findings include: Record review of Resident #83's facre sheet, undated, revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on 10/2021 with diagnoses of unspecified dementia (a cognitive disorder involving impaired memory and judgement) and hypertension (a heart condition involving high blood pressure). Record review of Resident #83's MDS, dated [DATE], revealed a BIMS score of 10, which indicated moderate cognitive impairment. Record review of Resident #83's revised care plan, dated 8/17/22, revealed the resident was at risk for impaired mobility and falls and has behaviors that resist the nursing care. Observation on 9/16/22 at 10:00 AM in the room of Resident #83 revealed resident had a bathroom door that had the lower third of the door with the paint removed and black markings over the door surface. Also noted were four missing floor tile squares in the bathroom and eight missing floor tile squares in the bedroom Interview with LVN F on 09/16/22 at 10:05 AM, LVN F stated she thought the bathroom door discoloration was from the resident's wheelchair and the missing floor tile may be due to the resident's behavior of flooding the floor with water from the toilet. Interview with the Maintenance Director on 09/16/22 at 1:15 PM, the Maintenance Director stated that there was not a preventative maintenance policy for resident room bathroom doors and floors replacement.
CONCERN (E)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to prepare and serve food in accordance with professional standards for 1 of 1 kitchen reviewed for food service safety, in that: 1. The kitchen...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to prepare and serve food in accordance with professional standards for 1 of 1 kitchen reviewed for food service safety, in that: 1. The kitchen vent hoods above the cooking service were dirty. 2. The ceiling above the dish-machine had multiple areas of cracked paint. 3. The tile floor in the dish-machine room had several areas of cracked or missing floor tiles. 4. Food serving utensils and plates were stored in a janitor's closet. This deficient practices could place residents at risk of consuming contaminated food and maintained an unsafe food sanitation environment. The findings include: Observations in the kitchen on 09/13/22 from 10:20 AM through 10:35 AM revealed two kitchen vent hoods that were black with noticeable dirt and grease buildup. The vent hoods revealed a cleaning sticker notice from Vent Hoods Inc of 03/2021 as the last date of service. Observation in the dish-machine room revealed two missing floor tiles, each measuring 6x6 inches with a piece of cardboard on top of the missing tile surface. Underneath the piece of cardboard was free standing water. Two (2) other floor tile pieces were cracked. The ceiling area above the dish machine measuring approximately 3x3 feet had several area of cracked and chipping paint. Observation on 09/14/22 at 11:30 AM revealed multiple boxes of kitchenware stored in the janitor's closet including: three (3) boxes of foam bowls, five (5) boxes of meal kits, two (2) boxes of J-cups, and two (2) boxes of cutlery kits. Interview on 09/13/22 at 10:30 AM with the DA A who stated that she placed a piece of cardboard on top of the missing floor tiles to cover the standing water at the beginning of each of her shifts. Interviews in the kitchen on 09/13/22 from 10:20 AM through 10:35 AM revealed the Dietary Manager stated she was not sure when the kitchen hoods were last cleaned but stated that dirt and grease could contaminate the food. The Dietary Manager stated that the cracked ceiling surface above the dish-machine could create a condition in which paint chips fell onto the dish machine. She stated standing water under the missing floor tiles was related to floor cleaning. She stated that it did not allow for a sanitary cleaning environment. She stated that Maintenance had been made aware of the dirty kitchen hoods, the broken kitchen floor tiles and the cracked kitchen ceiling since the previous month. Review of the facility's, Nutrition Policy and Procedure Manual, dated 08/20/22 , Section I-9 revealed, venting equipment will be clean and free of grease and Section I-34 stated that kitchen floors will be maintained in a clean and safe condition. Review of the Food Code, U.S. Public Health Service, U.S. FDA, 2017, U.S. Department of H&HS, revealed 3-305.1, Food Storage, (A) Food shall be protected from contamination by storing the food: (1) in a clean, dry location; (2) Where it is not exposited to splash, dust, or other contamination.
CONCERN (E)

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

Room Equipment (Tag F0908)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to maintain all mechanical, electrical, and patient c...

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 maintain all mechanical, electrical, and patient care equipment in safe operating condition, for 1 of 3 Automated External Defibrillators (D-hall AED) reviewed for safe operating status, in that: The facility's D-hall AED presented inoperable, evidenced by a red indicator on the face of the AED. This deficient practice placed residents at risk for not receiving the lifesaving benefits of an AED during an emergency Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) emergency. The findings are: Record review of the facility's crash cart checklist dated [DATE], for the D-hall did not reveal any checked items on the crash cart checklist for 3 days, 9/9, 9/11, 9/12,2022. An observation on [DATE] at 9:19 am revealed the facility's D-hall AED revealed the AED ready status indicator light presented red and not green. The AED presented in a white metal cabinet with a glass door. The AED cabinet was wall mounted behind the D-hall nurse's station. An interview on [DATE] at 9:20 am ADON D stated the AED designated for use on the D-hall was displaying red in the ready rescue window. ADON D stated the red indication may indicate the AED was not ready to be used. ADON D stated she had no knowledge of when the AED was used last. When Surveyor asked who checked the AED for readiness, ADON D stated the night shift nurse,10:00 pm to 6:00 am, had the responsibility to check the crash cart and AED for readiness. When asked if the safety check for readiness was documented and how often it was checked, ADON D stated she could not demonstrate where the night shift documented the review of the AED. ADON D stated she did not realize the night shift was not reviewing the readiness of the AED. ADON D stated the expectation was for the nursing staff to daily review the readiness of all emergency lifesaving equipment. ADON D stated there were many residents on D-hall who have indicated they wished to have cardiopulmonary resuscitative (CPR) services, full code in the event of a cardiac emergency. ADON D stated the AED would be used in a CPR event. ADON D stated there were two other AEDs in the facility at the other nurse stations. During an interview on [DATE] at 2:00 pm the DON stated the AED should have been checked daily by the night nursing staff and should have been documented on the crash cart checklist. The DON stated the failure occurred due to a lack of review, by the nurse assigned to the 10:00 pm to 6:00 am shift, of the safety equipment checklist to reveal the lack of functioning ready to use AED. During an interview on [DATE] at 3:40 pm the administrator stated the facility's policy and expectation for review of the emergency equipment AED should be performed daily, the administrator stated the emergency equipment also known as the crash cart was checked nightly by the night nurses, however the AED was not checked on the crash cart review checklist and could not be evidenced the AED was checked for 3 days. A record review of the facility's undated policy Automated External Defibrillator (AED) Requirement revealed, The director overseas AED activities in the center. The director of nursing maintains a vendor manual that describes proper use and maintenance of the AED unit. Maintenance checks required by the vendor manual are conducted by the nursing staff and documented. Malfunctioning equipment is reported to the director of nursing upon discovery. The director of nursing schedules any repairs with the appropriate vendor. Center employees do not perform repairs or maintenance outside of the routine checks described in the vendor manual. Receipts from all maintenance repairs are maintained with the vendor manual. A record review of the AED manufactures AED manual, dated, [DATE], revealed, Troubleshooting and Maintenance, Scheduled maintenance perform the following test per the schedule indicated: Daily maintenance; check the status indicator to ensure that it is green, when the indicator is green the AED is ready for a rescue, if the indicator is red refer to the troubleshooting table on page 53. Monthly maintenance; perform the following procedure each Monday (28 days). Open the AED lid wait for the AED to indicate status, observe the change of the status indicator to red, after approximately 5 seconds verified that the status indicator returns to green, check the expiration date on the pads, check that the battery has adequate charge, if the battery indicator is red replace the battery, listen for the voice prompts, additionally check the display shows text prompts that correspond to the audio, close the lid and observe the change of the status indicator to red, after approximately 5 seconds verify that the status indicator returns to green.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0919 (Tag F0919)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

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

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 be adequately equipped to allow residents to call for staff assistance through a communication system which relays the call directly to a staff member or to a centralized staff work area for each resident's bedside, toilet and bathing facilities, for 1 of 1 call light systems reviewed for adequate equipment. The call light system on 100-hall, located at the nurse's station, was not operating as designed. Resident #55's call light alert was not represented at the call light panel. This deficient practice could place residents at risk for harm by not responding to their calls for help. The findings include: A record review of Resident #55's admission record revealed an admission date of 7/29/2022 with diagnoses which included critical illness myopathy (a disease of the muscle in which the muscle fibers do not function properly), chronic diastolic heart failure (the heart has trouble supplying the body's organs and tissues with the oxygen-rich blood they need), and pressure ulcer of sacral region stage 4 (the most severe bedsore formation and is most difficult to treat). A record review of Resident #55's care plan, dated 9/15/2022, revealed, resident has a full code status . the resident has a stage four pressure ulcer sacrum related to history of ulcers, mobility . treat lane as per orders prior to treating or turning to ensure the residents comfort. During observations from 9/13/2022 to 9/16/2022 the facility's call light system located on 100-hall presented randomly emitting a loud monotone wail which would often last for a quarter hour. The call light panel located at the 100-hall nurse station would present without any illuminated lights during the incidents. Observation of the panel revealed a built-in speaker which was covered with duct tape to attempt to reduce the loud wail. During an observation on 9/13/2022 at 9:30 AM revealed the call light directly outside Resident #55 room was illuminated however the call light panel at the nurse's station was not illuminated. The call light panel was sounding an intermittent alert similar to the random wail except for the intermittent pause. Further observations of the call light panel revealed a labeling system to indicate room numbers below the lighted indicators. Review of the labeling system revealed room numbers from 01 to 31; with 2 separate (not adjacent) indicators for room [ROOM NUMBER]. During an interview on 9/13/2022 at 9:31 AM ADON D and LVN C stated the call light immediately above Resident #55 room was illuminated but the call light panel did not reflect the alert, ADON D the panel is not lit but we can see the call light by the room .we will check on the Resident. LVN C stated for months now the panel will randomly sound off a loud sound and randomly turn off. The ADON D and LVN B stated the call light system works and they can hear a different tone when someone needs help. ADON D and LVN C stated they have acclimated to the noise. ADON D stated she would alert the maintenance director to the faulty light for Resident #55's room on the call light panel. During an interview on 9/13/2022 at 9:43 AM the Maintenance Director stated the call light panel randomly sounds off with a monotone wail without anyone utilizing a call light and the sound often stops by itself, after about ten minutes. The Maintenance Director stated he did check the call light system for operational status but could not demonstrate any record review. The Maintenance Director stated he would replace the light bulb on the panel indicating Resident #55's room. The Maintenance Director stated he was not aware of the labeling system which indicated 2 room [ROOM NUMBER]'s and would research where the indicators originate. The Maintenance Director stated he observed the speaker on the call light panel was covered in duct tape in an attempt to lessen the loud random sound, I pulled off the tape. The Maintenance Director stated he was not aware of the last time the call light system contractor was on scene to inspect the call light. The Maintenance Director stated he would report the findings to the Administrator. During an interview on 9/13/2022 at 10:55 AM the Administrator stated the Maintenance Director reported to her the surveyor's findings. The Administrator stated the Maintenance Director was calling the nurse call light system contractor for a scheduled service. The Administrator stated the call light system was working due to the call lights are illuminating and sounding and the nursing staff can identify residents who need assistance. The Administrator stated the lights which were not illuminating can be replaced and the random wail is different from the actual call light alert to which the nurses can and do respond. The Administrator stated she would provide the facility's policy for call lights. During an interview on 9/16/2022 at 1:03 PM the facility's call light contractor stated facility's call light system was not functioning as designed, it's not supposed to randomly sound off and the wail is an indicator of a fault in the system, I get a call a week from facility's which have this old system .I walked the maintenance director through the steps to turn off the wail but it will probably come back again. A record review of the facility's undated call light policy revealed, purpose; to respond promptly to patients call for assistance and to ensure call system is in proper working order. Equipment: bedside call light in functioning order, emergency call light in functioning order . log defective call lights, with exact location, in maintenance log and notify the maintenance director.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

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

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • 35% turnover. Below Texas's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 3 life-threatening violation(s), $88,642 in fines. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 44 deficiencies on record, including 3 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $88,642 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in Texas. Major compliance failures.
  • • Grade F (0/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: This facility has 3 Immediate Jeopardy findings. Serious concerns require careful evaluation.

About This Facility

What is Asbury Of Alamo's CMS Rating?

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

How is Asbury Of Alamo Staffed?

CMS rates ASBURY CARE CENTER OF ALAMO's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 35%, compared to the Texas average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Asbury Of Alamo?

State health inspectors documented 44 deficiencies at ASBURY CARE CENTER OF ALAMO during 2022 to 2025. These included: 3 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 40 with potential for harm, and 1 minor or isolated issues. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.

Who Owns and Operates Asbury Of Alamo?

ASBURY CARE CENTER OF ALAMO is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 237 certified beds and approximately 73 residents (about 31% occupancy), it is a large facility located in SAN ANTONIO, Texas.

How Does Asbury Of Alamo Compare to Other Texas Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Texas, ASBURY CARE CENTER OF ALAMO's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 2.8, staff turnover (35%) is significantly lower than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (1 stars) is much below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Asbury Of Alamo?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What changes have been made since the serious inspection findings, and how are you preventing similar issues?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations.

Is Asbury Of Alamo Safe?

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

Do Nurses at Asbury Of Alamo Stick Around?

ASBURY CARE CENTER OF ALAMO has a staff turnover rate of 35%, which is about average for Texas nursing homes (state average: 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 Asbury Of Alamo Ever Fined?

ASBURY CARE CENTER OF ALAMO has been fined $88,642 across 2 penalty actions. This is above the Texas average of $33,965. Fines in this range indicate compliance issues significant enough for CMS to impose meaningful financial consequences. Common causes include delayed correction of deficiencies, repeat violations, or care failures affecting resident safety. Families should ask facility leadership what changes have been made since these penalties.

Is Asbury Of Alamo on Any Federal Watch List?

ASBURY CARE CENTER OF ALAMO 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.