HIGHLAND NURSING CENTER

5819 PECAN VALLEY DR, SAN ANTONIO, TX 78223 (210) 532-1911
For profit - Corporation 53 Beds Independent Data: November 2025 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation
Trust Grade
38/100
#732 of 1168 in TX
Last Inspection: January 2025

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

Overview

Highland Nursing Center has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the facility's overall care and management. It ranks #732 out of 1168 nursing homes in Texas, placing it in the bottom half, and #27 out of 62 in Bexar County, meaning only 26 others in the area perform better. The trend is worsening, with reported issues increasing from 1 in 2024 to 8 in 2025. While staffing is a relative strength with a rating of 4 out of 5 stars and a turnover rate of 44%, which is below the state average, the facility has serious deficiencies. For example, one resident eloped from the facility three times, and the staff did not follow up with adequate training or safety measures. Additionally, there were concerns about insufficient lighting and trip hazards in shower areas, which could pose safety risks for residents.

Trust Score
F
38/100
In Texas
#732/1168
Bottom 38%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Worse
1 → 8 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
44% turnover. Near Texas's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
Penalties
✓ Good
No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Texas facilities.
Skilled Nurses
○ Average
Each resident gets 35 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for Texas. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
Violations
⚠ Watch
29 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Overall Rating
★★★★☆
4.0
Staff Levels
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Care Quality
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 1 issues
2025: 8 issues

The Good

  • 4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average nurse staffing levels
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover below average (44%)

    4 points below Texas average of 48%

Facility shows strength in staffing levels, fire safety.

The Bad

2-Star Overall Rating

Below Texas average (2.8)

Below average - review inspection findings carefully

Staff Turnover: 44%

Near Texas avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

The Ugly 29 deficiencies on record

1 life-threatening
Jan 2025 8 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 interview, record review and observation, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, record review and observation, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan that includes measurable objectives and time frames to meet a resident's medical and nursing needs to be furnished to attain or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being for 1 of 12 residents [Resident #6] reviewed for care plans. The facility failed to develop the appropriate care plan intervention of implementing an abdominal binder to prevent Resident #6 from pulling out her feeding-tube per physician's order. This deficient practice could place resident at risk of trauma or injury. The findings include: Record review of Resident #6 face sheet dated 9/20/24 revealed an [AGE] year-old female originally admitted on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. Relevant diagnosis included Dementia (a general term for loss of memory, language, problem-solving and other thinking abilities that are severe enough to interfere with daily life) with behavioral disturbance, bilateral below the knee amputee. Record review of Resident #6 Quarterly MDS dated [DATE] revealed resident unable to complete BIMS assessment due to severe cognitive impairment. Resident #5 had functional limittion in rang of motion with impairment on both sides of upper extremity to include shoulder, elvow, wrist, hand. The MDS reealed resident was dependent. The BIMS assessment was unable to be completed due to Resident#6 severe cognitive impairment. Resident #6 was dependent and helper did all the effort in ADL needs. Resident did none of the effort to complete any of the ADL activities. Record review of Resident #6 Care Plan (last updated 9/24/24) revealed absence of behavioral disturbance reflecting behavior of pulling out feeding tube or potential for injury related to pulling out feeding tube. Record review of Resident #6 physician's orders reflected an order dated 1/20/16 apply abdominal binder to prevent pulling of G-tube all shifts. During observation on 01/07/2025 at 10:55 AM Resident #6 was resting in bed, eyes closed with tube feeding connected and an abdominal binder was not in place. During observation on 01/08/2025 at 11:05 AM Resident #6 was resting in bed, eyes closed with tube feeding connected and abdominal binder was not in place. During an observation on 01/09//2025 at 2:20 PM Resident #6 was resting in bed, eyes were closed, and tube feeding was not running. An abdominal binder was not in place. An interview on 01/09/25 AM with CNA A revealed Resident #6 has a tendency to pull out tube feeding which is why abdominal binder is placed on resident. CNA A stated she worked with resident on 01/08/25 and applied binder. CNA stated abdominal binders were located in the linen closets. An interview on 01/09/25 at 10:25 AM with CNA B revealed staff used a binder to prevent Resident #6 from pulling out tube feeding. CNA B stated she has not worked with Resident #6 this week. An interview on 01/10/25 at 8:00 AM with LVN E confirmed that resident had an order for an abdominal binder. LVN E stated CNA's apply binder daily and reapply after peri-care as needed. LVN confirmed Charge Nurse is responsible to ensure abdominal binder is in place. LVN stated the staff know about the binder and that she will put it on the nursing MAR so it will not be missed. An interview on 01/10/25 at 8:22 AM with the DON confirmed that Resident #6 did have an order for an abdominal binder on at all shifts. DON confirmed that adverse effects to include trauma / injury to stoma site could occur if resident pulled feeding tube out. A request for a policy on Care Plan development and implementation was made on 01/09/2025 at 9:00 AM and was not provided by the facility.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0700 (Tag F0700)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Resident #6 FTag Initiation 01/10/25 03:31 PM Initiate F700 & F656 initiated d/t order for abdominal binder and fact that abdominal binder is not identified in the care plan and use of 1/2 side rail f...

Read full inspector narrative →
Resident #6 FTag Initiation 01/10/25 03:31 PM Initiate F700 & F656 initiated d/t order for abdominal binder and fact that abdominal binder is not identified in the care plan and use of 1/2 side rail for positioning (not appropriate need for this resident).
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 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 3 medication carts (the medication aide cart) reviewed for supervision and security. The Medication cart was left unsupervised and unsecured for 25 minutes by an unknown staff member. This failure could place residents at risk for harm by not receiving the therapeutic effects of their medications. The findings included: During an observation on 1/9/2025 at 10:30 AM revealed the medication cart was left unsupervised and unsecured and positioned in the A hall by Resident #4's room. Continued observation from 10:30 AM until 10:55 AM revealed Resident #4 and Resident #20, housekeepers, and CNAs walked freely in the hallway back and forth past the unattended and unsecured medication cart. During an observation and interview on 1/9/2025 at 10:56, LVN D was alerted to the unsecured and unattended medication cart. LVN D was observed to lock the cart and stated the medication cart was not her assigned cart for the day and MA I was assigned to the medication cart. LVN D stated MA I was, on a break most likely. During an interview on 1/9/2025 at 3:00 PM, the DON stated all medication carts should be secured when not in use. The DON stated the risk for residents could be uncontrolled medications, unsecured During an interview on 1/10/2025 at 5:00 PM, the Administrator stated he agreed with the DON's expectations for secured medication carts. A policy was requested on 1/10/2025 and had not been received by exit on 1/10/2025. A record review of the CMS Review of Current Standards of Practice for Long-Term Care Pharmacy Services website: https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/Reports/Downloads/LewinGroup.pdf accessed 1/19/2025 revealed, . Medication carts must be supervised at all times by the nurse administering medications. When medication carts are not in use, they must be stored in a designated locked area with all drawers locked.
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

Based on observation and interviews, the facility failed to ensure the resident received care and services safely and that the physical layout of the facility maximized resident independence and did n...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interviews, the facility failed to ensure the resident received care and services safely and that the physical layout of the facility maximized resident independence and did not pose a safety risk, with housekeeping and maintenance services necessary to maintain a sanitary, orderly, and comfortable interior and adequate and comfortable lighting levels in all areas; for 2 of 2 shower rooms (A hall shower and B hall shower) reviewed for trip hazards and lighting. 1. The facility failed to have adequate safe lighting for the showers as evidenced by the B Hall shower having a shower stall with no light fixture within the shower stall and the A hall shower stall having no functioning light bulb in the fixture within the shower stall. 2. The facility failed to ensure there was no trip hazard in the A hall shower room as evidenced by the A hall shower stall had an inclined ramp up to the shower stall with a tile bump atop of the ramp. These failures could place residents at risk for injuries by not having adequate lighting and trip hazards. The findings included: Daily observations beginning on 1/7/2025 at 10:45 AM through 1/10/2025 at 3:00 PM revealed the facility had a census of 34 with 2 shower rooms within the facility, located in A hall and B hall. An observation of the B hall shower room revealed a shower stall with an inclined ramp up into the shower stall, the stall appeared dark and was dimly illuminated by the nearby fluorescent ceiling lamp. Further observation revealed no light fixture within the shower stall. Observation of the A hall shower room revealed a shower stall with an inclined ramp which led up into the shower stall. The ramp presented with a tiled and curved bump atop of the ramp. An observation and interview on 1/10/2025 at 11:34 AM revealed the Maintenance Director reviewed the B hall shower room. The Maintenance Director stated the shower stall did not have a light fixture. The Maintenance Director stated the shower stall had an inclined ramp up into the shower stall, the stall appeared dark and was dimly illuminated by the nearby fluorescent ceiling lamp. An observation and interview on 1/10/2025 at 11:41 AM revealed the Maintenance Director reviewed the A hall shower room. The Maintenance Director stated the shower stall did have a light fixture with a burned-out bulb and was not aware when the bulb may have burned-out. The Maintenance Director stated the shower stall had an inclined ramp which led up into the shower stall. The ramp presented with a tiled curved bump atop of the ramp. The Maintenance Director stated the curved bump tile may have been added to the top of the ramp to prevent water from draining down on to the floor when the drain may clog. The Maintenance Director stated he was not aware if this tiled bump would be a safety risk to anyone. An observation and interview on 1/10/2025 at 1:34 PM revealed hospice CNA K prepared linens and clothing for a Resident's shower in the A hall shower room and stated a light within the shower stall would allow her to better serve her residents with their skin assessments and ensure hygiene. CNA K stated the bump atop of the ramp made it difficult to push or pull residents over the bump, into the shower stall, and would often startle residents when the bump was overtaken. An observation and interview on 1/10/2025 at 2:20 PM revealed CNAs A and J reviewed the A hall shower room and stated the bump atop of the ramp had caused near trip hazards for them as they pushed or pulled residents over the bump. CNAs A and J stated there were several residents who used the shower by themselves, and the poor light and the bump could place them at risk for falling. During an interview on 01/10/2024 at 4:00 PM, the DON stated the poor lighting in the shower rooms should be corrected, and the tile curved bump atop of the A hall shower room ramp would be reviewed for safety and necessity. During an interview on 1/10/2025 at 5:00 PM, the Administrator stated he agreed with the DON assessment of the shower rooms. A policy was requested on 1/10/2025 and was not provided to the survey team before exit.
CONCERN (E)

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Resident #6 FTag Initiation 01/10/25 03:31 PM Initiate F700 & F656 initiated d/t order for abdominal binder and fact that abdomi...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Resident #6 FTag Initiation 01/10/25 03:31 PM Initiate F700 & F656 initiated d/t order for abdominal binder and fact that abdominal binder is not identified in the care plan and use of 1/2 side rail for positioning (not appropriate need for this resident). Resident #33 FTag Initiation 01/10/25 10:39 AM Thorazine consent not signed, wrong resident and theo [NAME] res was not on thorazine vns check was not on mar,
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

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%, for 27 me...

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%, for 27 medication administration opportunities with 15 errors resulting in a 55.56% medication error rate, for 4 of 4 residents (Residents #6, #7, #22, and #30) reviewed for medication administration. 1. LVN D administered Resident #6's medications by her gastronomy tube (often called a G tube, is a surgically placed device used to give direct access to a person's stomach for supplemental feeding, hydration, or medicine), contrary to professional standards by administering all the medications together rather than one by one, and late by 11 minutes. 2. LVN D administered Resident #30's medications by her gastronomy tube contrary to professional standards by administering all the medications together rather than one by one, and late by 50 minutes. 3. Medication Aide I did not administer Amlodipine 5mg to Resident #7 as prescribed by her physician. 4. Medication Aide I did not administer hydrochlorothiazide 25mg to Resident #22 as prescribed by his physician. These deficient practices placed residents at risk for not receiving therapeutic effects of their medications and possible adverse reactions. The findings included: A record review of Resident #6's admission record dated 1/9/2025, revealed an admission date of 12/17/2020 with diagnoses which included hypertension (high blood pressure), diabetes (a person's difficulty using blood sugar in their cells) and dementia (a group of symptoms that affects memory, thinking and interferes with daily life). A record review of Resident #6's quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #6 was an [AGE] year-old female admitted for long term care and was unable to participate in a BIMS assessment which indicated severe cognitive impairment. Resident #6 was assessed with the need for a feeding tube (also known as a g-tube). A record review of Resident #6's care plan dated 01/09/2025 revealed, potential for weight loss and dehydration r/t CVA, dementia, tube feeding . flush PEG tube (Feeding tubes, or PEG tubes, allow you to receive nutrition through your stomach) with water and post medication administration as ordered per physician for hydration. tube feeding . flush tube as ordered A record review of Resident #6's physicians orders dated 1/9/2025 revealed the physician prescribed Resident #6 to receive medications which included metformin 500mg 1-tab PGT daily diagnoses diabetes mellitus type 2 at 8:00 AM and acetaminophen 500mg 1-tab PGT every 8 hours diagnosis generalized pain at 8:00 AM, 4:00 PM, and at midnight. Further review revealed the physician prescribed for Resident #6 to receive a water flush before and after each medication all shifts. During an observation on 01/09/2025 at 9:11 AM revealed LVN D prepared and administered medications for Resident #6 per Resident #6's g-tube. LVN D crushed and mixed the prescribed acetaminophen, metformin, miralax, and her liquid multivitamin by flushing the medications with an unmeasured amount of water poured from a 9-ounce plastic cup. LVN D began by pouring water into the resident's G-tube, adding water to the medications, and pouring the medications together in to Resident #6's g-tube, and completed the administration by pouring the remainder of the water from the plastic cup without administering the medications individually and with a water flush in between all individual medications. 2. A record review of Resident #30's admission record dated 07/22/2024 revealed an admission date of 03/01/2022 with diagnoses which included gastronomy status (presence of a g-tube), dementia, and seizures (electrical storms of the brain). A record review of Resident #30's quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #30 was a [AGE] year-old female admitted for long term care and assessed with severely impaired cognition, could not communicate her needs. Resident #30 was assessed with the need for a feeding tube. A record review of Resident #30's care plan dated 12/13/2024 revealed Resident #30 was quadriplegic (a symptom of paralysis that affects all a person's limbs and body from the neck down), NPO (Latin for nothing by mouth) and required enteral feeding (enteral administration is food or drug administration via the human gastrointestinal tract), Tube feeding . Resident has gastronomy tube . assess feeding tube placement, patency, and residual every shift and before and after administration of any fluids or medications. A record review of Resident #30's physician order summary dated January 2025, revealed the physician prescribed Resident #30 would have her g-tube flushed with 15 ml of water before and after administration of medications. Further review revealed the physician prescribed Resident #30 to have 11 medications administered by her g-tube, at 8:00 AM, as follows: Apixaban 5mg 1-tab PGT 2x daily crush tab and suspend in 60ml water 8:00 AM, 8:00 PM. Escitalopram 5mg 1-tab PGT daily 8:00 AM. Memantine 5mg 1-tab PGT daily 8:00 AM. Tramadol 50mg 1-tab PGT 2x daily 8:00 AM / 8:00 PM. Reglan 5mg/5ml 10mg PGT 3x daily 8:00 AM, 4:00 PM, midnight. Aspirin 81 mg 1-tab PGT daily 8:00 AM. Docusate sodium 100mg 1-tab PGT 2x daily 8 AM and 8 PM. Sodium chloride 1 gram 1-tab PGT 3x daily 8:00 AM, 2:00 PM, 8:00 PM. Simethicone 80mg 1-tab PGT 2x daily (may crush med) 8:00 AM, 8:00 PM. Oxcarbazepine 300mg 1-tab PGT 2x daily 8:00 AM, 8:00 PM. Miralax 17 grams powder 1 capful 2x daily 8 ounces of water. During an observation on 1/9/2025 at 9:50 AM revealed LVN D prepared and administered medications for Resident #30 per Resident #30's g-tube. LVN D crushed, mixed, with water, and administered the following prescribed medications together and not separately - individually: Apixaban 5mg 1-tab PGT 2x daily crush tab and suspend in 60ml water 8:00 AM, 8:00 PM. Escitalopram 5mg 1-tab PGT daily 8:00 AM. Memantine 5mg 1-tab PGT daily 8:00 AM. Tramadol 50mg 1-tab PGT 2x daily 8:00 AM / 8:00 PM. Reglan 5mg/5ml 10mg PGT 3x daily 8:00 AM, 4:00 PM, midnight. Aspirin 81 mg 1-tab PGT daily 8:00 AM. Docusate sodium 100mg 1-tab PGT 2x daily 8 AM and 8 PM. Sodium chloride 1 gram 1-tab PGT 3x daily 8:00 AM, 2:00 PM, 8:00 PM. Simethicone 80mg 1-tab PGT 2x daily (may crush med) 8:00 AM, 8:00 PM. Oxcarbazepine 300mg 1-tab PGT 2x daily 8:00 AM, 8:00 PM. Miralax 17 grams powder 1 capful 2x daily 8 ounces of water. During an interview on 01/09/2025 at 9:40 AM, LVN D stated the physician's order for Resident #30 was for 15 ml of water to be flushed by the g-tube before and after medication administration. LVN D stated the 9-ounce plastic water cup was unmarked for measurement. During an interview on 01/10/2024 at 11:20 AM, LVN D stated she had administered all medications mixed without a water flush in between each individual medication for Residents #6 and #30, on 1/9/2025, and did not have a response for why nor what effect the action could have had for residents. 3. A record review of Resident #7's admission record dated 7/22/2024 revealed an admission date of 07/07/2017 with diagnoses which included hypertension (high blood pressure). A record review of Resident #7's quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #7 was an [AGE] year-old female admitted for long term care with the diagnosis of hypertension and assessed with a BIMS score of 8 out of a possible 15 which indicated mild cognitive impairment. Further review revealed Resident #7 was assessed with the ability to usually understand others and could usually make her needs known. A record review of Resident #7's care plan dated 10/18/2024 revealed Resident #7 was a fall risk with the intervention to assess medications for contributing factors. A record review of Resident #7's physician's orders, dated January 2025, revealed the physician prescribed for Resident #7 to receive amlodipine 5 g daily at 8:00 AM with the stipulation hold for systolic blood pressure less than 100 or diastolic blood pressure less than 60. During an observation and interview on 1/9/2025 at 8:54 AM revealed MA I prepared Resident #7's medications and checked Resident #7's blood pressure with a digital electronic blood pressure cuff. MA revealed the result was 102 systolic blood pressure (the pressure in your arteries when your heart beats) over 63 diastolic blood pressure (the pressure of blood in the arteries when the heart is resting between beats). MA I stated I will not give the (name brand for amlodipine) due to (Resident #7's name) low blood pressure. 4. A record review of Resident #22's admission record dated 7/22/2024 reveled an admission date of 6/29/2016 with diagnoses which included hypertension (high blood pressure). A record review of Resident #22's quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #22 was a [AGE] year-old male admitted for long term care, diagnosed with high blood pressure, and assessed with a BIMS score of 06 which indicated severe cognitive impairment. A record review of Resident #22's care plan dated 10/11/2024 revealed, evaluate medications and diet for adverse interactions. A record review of Resident #22's physician orders dated January 2025 revealed the physician prescribed for Resident #22 to receive hydrochlorothiazide 25mg daily at 10:00 AM. Further review of the order revealed no stipulations. During an observation and interview on 1/10/2025 at 9:46 AM revealed MA I prepared medications for Resident #22 and prior to medication administration MA I checked Resident #22's blood pressure and stated the result was 99 SBP over 60 DBP with a pulse of 69 beats per minute. MA I stated she would not administer the amlodipine due to a low blood pressure. During an interview on 1/10/2024 at 1:20 PM, LVN E stated she was the charge nurse and had not received a report from MA-I regarding Resident #22's low blood pressure and the resulting MA-I holding the hydrochlorothiazide. LVN E stated Resident #22 did not have stipulations on the hydrochlorothiazide administration and would assess Resident #22. During an interview on 1/10/2025 at 11:23 AM, LVN E stated she did not have any standing physician orders for g-tube medication administration to reference for enteral flushes. LVN E stated Residents #6 and #30 did have orders for each medication to be administered separately with a water flush in between each medication administration. LVN E stated all nurses should know the professional standard for medication administration per g-tube was for each medication to be administered one at a time with a water flush in between each medication. During an interview on 1/10/2025 at 1:30 PM the DON stated Residents #7 and #30 had physician orders for water flushes in between medication administration and the expectation was for all nurses to administer g-tube medications individually, flush the g-tube with 5-10 ml of water in between each medication, and to flush the g-tube with water before and after the whole medication administration. The DON stated medication aides should administer medications as prescribed by the physician and follow the parameters set by the physician. The DON stated if the medication had no stipulations / parameters then the medication should be administered per physicians' orders. The DON stated she had not received a report that Resident #22 had not received his hydrochlorothiazide this morning and stated if Resident #22's hydrochlorothiazide order did not have parameters it should have been administered with a blood pressure of 99 sbp / 63 dbp. The DON stated the risk for residents could be for residents not to receive the therapeutic effects of their medications. During an interview on 01/10/2025 at 4:40 PM, the Administrator stated he agreed with the DON on her expectations for g-tube medication administration and other medication administration practices. A policy for g-tube medication and medication errors was requested on 1/10/2025 and as of 1/16/2025 was not provided. A record review of the United States of America's National Library of Medicine website, titled Preventing Errors When Drugs Are Given Via Enteral Feeding Tubes, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3875244/#:~:text=Appropriate%20administration%20techniques%20must%20be,drugs%20through%20enteral%20feeding%20tubes accessed 01/10/2025, revealed, Preventing Errors When Drugs Are Given Via Enteral Feeding Tubes Problem: Giving medications through a feeding tube can be fraught with errors that occur more often than they are reported or recognized. These mistakes are often the result of administering drugs that are incompatible with administration via a tube, of not preparing the medications properly, and of using faulty techniques. These inaccuracies can result in an occluded feeding tube, a reduced drug effect, or drug toxicity. These potential adverse outcomes can lead to patient harm or even death. FAULTY PREPARATION - Oral medications that are intended to be taken by mouth must be prepared for enteral administration. Tablets must be crushed and diluted, capsules must be opened so the contents can be diluted, and even many commercially available liquid forms of drugs should be further diluted before being administered enterally-a practice not well known to all practitioners. WRONG ADMINISTRATION TECHNIQUE - Most nurses rely primarily on their own experience and on that of their coworkers for information about preparing and administering enteral medications. Because few nurses rely on pharmacists, nutritionists, or printed guidelines, a variety of improper techniques and an overall lack of consistency have often been the result. The most common improper administration techniques include mixing multiple drugs together to give at the same time and failing to flush the tube before giving the first drug and between giving subsequent drugs. Safe Practice Recommendation: Within each organization, an interdisciplinary team of nurses, pharmacists, nutritionists, and physicians should work together to develop protocols for administering drugs through enteral feeding tubes. Protocols should address using appropriate dosage forms; preparing the drugs for enteral administration; administering each drug separately; diluting the drugs as appropriate; and flushing the feeding tube before, between, and after drug administration. A record review of the United States of America's National Library of Medicine website, titled, Hydrochlorothiazide https://medlineplus.gov/druginfo/meds/a682571.html Accessed 1/10/2025, revealed Why is this medication prescribed? Hydrochlorothiazide is used alone or in combination with other medications to treat high blood pressure. Hydrochlorothiazide is used to treat edema (fluid retention; excess fluid held in body tissues) caused by various medical problems, including heart, kidney, and liver disease and to treat edema caused by using certain medications including estrogen and corticosteroids. Hydrochlorothiazide is in a class of medications called diuretics ('water pills'). It works by causing the kidneys to get rid of unneeded water and salt from the body into the urine. High blood pressure is a common condition and when not treated, can cause damage to the brain, heart, blood vessels, kidneys, and other parts of the body. Damage to these organs may cause heart disease, a heart attack, heart failure, stroke, kidney failure, loss of vision, and other problems. How should this medicine be used? Hydrochlorothiazide comes as a tablet, capsule, and solution (liquid) to take by mouth. It usually is taken once or twice a day. When used to treat edema, hydrochlorothiazide may be taken daily or only on certain days of the week. Follow the directions on your prescription label carefully and ask your doctor or pharmacist to explain any part you do not understand. Take hydrochlorothiazide exactly as directed. Do not take more or less of it or take it more often than prescribed by your doctor. Hydrochlorothiazide controls high blood pressure but does not cure it. Continue to take hydrochlorothiazide even if you feel well. Do not stop taking hydrochlorothiazide without talking to your doctor.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

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

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 an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections, which must include, at a minimum, the following elements: A. Standard and transmission-based precautions to be followed to prevent spread of infections, and B. The hand hygiene procedures to be followed by staff involved in direct resident contact; for 2 of 2 residents reviewed for incontinent care and medication administration (Residents #6 and #30) reviewed for standard and transmission-based precautions for infection control and prevention. 1. On 1/9/2025, CNA A and CNA J assisted Resident #6 with incontinent care and failed to change gloves with hand hygiene in between glove changes after touching handling Resident #6's soiled linens and supplies prior to touching handling Resident #6's clean linens and supplies. 2. On 1/9/2025, LVN D failed to change gloves with hand hygiene after touching handling Resident #6's clothing and furniture prior to administering Resident #6's medications. 3. LVN D failed to doff a potentially contaminated PPE gown prior to exiting Resident #6's room and wore the potentially soiled PPE gown in the hallway. 4. On 1/9/2025, LVN D failed to change gloves with hand hygiene after touching handling Resident #30's clothing and furniture prior to administering Resident #30's medications. 5. LVN D failed to doff a potentially contaminated PPE gown prior to exiting Resident #30's room and wore the potentially soiled PPE gown in the hallway. 6. The facility failed to store oxygen concentrator equipment in a clean room and stored the oxygen concentrator equipment in a bathroom. These failures could place residents at risk for harm by cross-contamination. The findings included: A record review of Resident #6's admission record dated 1/9/2025, revealed an admission date of 12/17/2020 with diagnoses which included hypertension (high blood pressure), diabetes (a person's difficulty using blood sugar in their cells) and dementia (A group of symptoms that affects memory, thinking and interferes with daily life). A record review of Resident #6's quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #6 was an [AGE] year-old female admitted for long term care and was unable to participate in a BIMS assessment which indicated severe cognitive impairment. Resident #6 was assessed with the need for a feeding tube (AKA a g-tube). A record review of Resident #6's care plan dated 01/09/2025 revealed, at risk for covid-19 virus . follow strict CDC guidelines A record review of Resident #6's physicians orders dated 1/9/2025 revealed the physicians' prognosis for Resident #6 was guarded. During an observation on 1/9/2025 at 10:57 AM revealed CNA A and CNA J assisted Resident #6 with incontinent care by donning PPE to include gowns and gloves. CNA A was observed to position and disrobe Resident #6 and continued to dispense cleansing wipes from the clean wipes package, clean Resident #6's genitalia and buttocks with multiple wipes kept atop of Resident #6's soiled under-pad, changed gloves without hand hygiene in between glove changes, and proceeded to remove the soiled linen and under pads, and then provided clean linen and adult briefs with the same soiled contaminated gloves. CNA A then doffed the gloves without performing hand hygiene and exited Resident #6 room. During an observation on 1/9/2025 at 11:17 AM, CNA A stated she changed gloves after every 3 to 4 wipes. CNA A stated she should have sanitized her hands after changing gloves, and improper hand hygiene was a risk for causing infections and cross contaminations or getting stool into Resident #6's vagina. 2. An observation and interview on 1/9/2025 at 9:11 AM revealed LVN D administered medications to Resident #6 via her g-tube. LVN D donned gloves without providing hand hygiene prior to donning, handled medication cart and keys, and entered Resident #6's room and assessed Resident #6's blood pressure, exited Resident #6 room without doffing the gloves and or performing hand hygiene, nor disinfecting the blood pressure cuff, and proceeded to prepared Resident #6's medications with the same gloves. LVN D donned PPE to include a gown and continued with the same gloves. LVN D was observed to handle Resident #6's person, clothing, furniture, and enteral piston syringe and then proceeded to administer Resident #6's medications via her g-tube while not changing gloves with hand hygiene prior to the medication administration. After the medication administration LVN D was observed to exit Resident #6's room without doffing the gown, doffed the gloves without providing hand hygiene, and continued into the hallway and entered a bathroom to wash Resident #6's enteral piston syringe and performed hand hygiene. LVN D continued in the hallway and reentered Resident #6's room to replace the piston syringe in the package, exited Resident #6's room and doffed the gown without performing hand hygiene. LVN D stated she should have changed gloves with hand hygiene before administering Resident #6's g-tube medications and stated the potential harm for residents was infections. 3. A record review of Resident #30's admission record dated 07/22/2024 revealed an admission date of 03/01/2022 with diagnoses which included gastronomy status (presence of a g-tube), dementia, and seizures (electrical storms of the brain). A record review of Resident #30's quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #30 was a [AGE] year-old female admitted for long term care and assessed with a severely impaired cognition, could not communicate her needs. Resident #30 was assessed with the need for a feeding tube. A record review of Resident #30's care plan dated 12/13/2024 revealed Resident #30 was quadriplegic (a symptom of paralysis that affects all a person's limbs and body from the neck down), NPO (Latin for nothing by mouth) and required enteral feeding (enteral administration is food or drug administration via the human gastrointestinal tract), Tube feeding . Resident has gastronomy tube . assess feeding tube placement, patency, and residual every shift and before and after administration of any fluids or medications. A record review of Resident #30's physicians orders dated 1/9/2025 revealed the physicians' prognosis for Resident #30 was guarded. During an observation on 1/9/2025 at 9:48 AM revealed LVN D donned gloves without performing hand hygiene, prepared Resident #30's medications, doffed the gloves without hand hygiene, donned new gloves, entered Resident #30's room, recognized she was missing a piston syringe and a PPE gown, exited the room while continuing with the same gloves, walked to the supply cabinet closet in the hallway, donned a gown and returned to Resident #30's bedside with the same gloves. LVN D was observed to administer Resident #30's medications with the same gloves. After LVN D administered Resident #30's medications she was observed to exited Resident #30's room, without doffing the gown and gloves, continued in the hallway to the bathroom where she doffed the gloves provided hand hygiene and washed the piston syringe. LVN D continued with the same gown in the hallway and returned to Resident #30's room to replace the piston syringe and doffed the gown. 4. During daily observations from 1/7/2025 through 1/10/2025 revealed the A Hallway public bathroom for staff and visitors. Further daily observations revealed the bathroom housed 2 clean oxygen concentrators covered with plastic translucent bags. The bags were labeled cleaned 1/6/2025 and 12/2/24. During an interview on 1/8/2025 at 1:20 PM, LVN E stated the clean oxygen concentrators were available for resident-use and were stored in the staff and visitors public restroom due to lack of space with in the facility. During an interview on 01/10/2025 at 2:00, the DON stated the expectation for infection control and prevention was for staff to follow standard precautions for all residents and enhanced barrier precautions for residents with g-tubes. The DON stated standard precautions were for staff to perform glove changes when going from a dirty to clean scenario and to perform hand hygiene in between all glove changes and when gloves are doffed. The DON continued to state all PPE must not be worn in the hallways and should be doffed in the enhanced barrier precautions room. The DON stated the nursing staff were trained per CDC guidelines for standard and enhanced barrier precautions. During an interview on 1/10/2025 at 5:00 PM, the Administrator stated he agreed with the DON's expectations for infection control and prevention. A policy for infection control was requested on 1/10/2025 and was not provided upon exit on 1/10/2025. A record review of the United States of America's Centers for Disease Control and Preventions website titled, CDC's Core Infection Prevention and Control Practices for Safe Healthcare Delivery in All Settings. https://www.cdc.gov/infection-control/hcp/core-practices/index.html Accessed 1/10/2025, revealed, Use Standard Precautions to care for all patients in all settings. Standard Precautions include: 5a. Hand hygiene 5b. Environmental cleaning and disinfection . 5f. Reprocessing of reusable medical equipment between each patient or when soiled Standard Precautions are the basic practices that apply to all patient care, regardless of the patient's suspected or confirmed infectious state, and apply to all settings where care is delivered. These practices protect healthcare personnel and prevent healthcare personnel or the environment from transmitting infections to other patients. 5a. Hand Hygiene . Use an alcohol-based hand rub or wash with soap and water for the following clinical indications: Immediately before touching a patient. Before performing an aseptic task (e.g., placing an indwelling device) or handling invasive medical devices. Before moving from work on a soiled body site to a clean body site on the same patient. After touching a patient or the patient's immediate environment. After contact with blood, body fluids or contaminated surfaces. Immediately after glove removal. Ensure that healthcare personnel perform hand hygiene with soap and water when hands are visibly soiled. Ensure that supplies necessary for adherence to hand hygiene are readily accessible in all areas where patient care is being delivered. Unless hands are visibly soiled, an alcohol-based hand rub is preferred over soap and water in most clinical situations due to evidence of better compliance compared to soap and water. Hand rubs are generally less irritating to hands and are effective in the absence of a sink. 5d. Risk Assessment with Appropriate Use of Personal Protective Equipment . Ensure proper selection and use of personal protective equipment (PPE) based on the nature of the patient interaction and potential for exposure to blood, body fluids and/or infectious material: Wear gloves when it can be reasonably anticipated that contact with blood or other potentially infectious materials, mucous membranes, non-intact skin, potentially contaminated skin or contaminated equipment could occur. Wear a gown that is appropriate to the task to protect skin and prevent soiling of clothing during procedures and activities that could cause contact with blood, body fluids, secretions, or excretions. . Remove and discard PPE . upon completing a task before leaving the patient's room or care area. Do not use the same gown or pair of gloves for care of more than one patient. Remove and discard disposable gloves upon completion of a task or when soiled during the process of care. Ensure that healthcare personnel have immediate access to and are trained and able to select, put on, remove, and dispose of PPE in a manner that protects themselves, the patient, and others
CONCERN (E)

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0921)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** FACILITY Environment 01/09/25 02:35 PM poor lighting in shower rooms. a and b, resident little stated she used shower and she co...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** FACILITY Environment 01/09/25 02:35 PM poor lighting in shower rooms. a and b, resident little stated she used shower and she could use a better light, and could be warmer, the heater in a and b were not working. 01/09/25 05:36 PM pm [NAME] stated laundry door gap ok, ok for concern and no tag for door gap, shower curtain in between dirty and clean, and toilet on pedestal, Resident #19 FTag Initiation 01/10/25 01:31 PM no light in shwr and bump on ramp.
Dec 2024 1 deficiency
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0552 (Tag F0552)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interviews, and record reviews, it was determined the facility failed to ensure each resident was provided...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interviews, and record reviews, it was determined the facility failed to ensure each resident was provided the right to a dignified existence, self-determination, for 2 of 6 residents reviewed for Resident rights (Resident #1 and #2). The facility failed ensure Resident #1 and #2's guardian the right to choose Hospice Company C to evaluate these residents for their eligibility for hospice; instead of Hospice Company D. This failure could place residents at risk of their responsible party not being involved in their medical care and treatment. Findings included: 1. Record review of Resident #1's clinical record , date not legible, revealed Resident #1 was an [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses to include dementia (a loss of cognitive functioning that interferes with daily life and activities) without behavioral disturbances. It further revealed Resident #1's guardian was Guardian A. Record review of Resident #1's BIMS, dated 09/24/2024, revealed Resident #1's BIMS score was 8 out of 15, indicating moderate cognitive impairment. Record Review of Resident #1's clinical records, dated 07/02/24 at 03:11 PM, reflected a fax to Doctor B with subject to include, As per [Guardian A] request resident evaluation for [Hospice Company C] Record Review of Resident #1's Nurse's Notes, dated 07/08/24 at 1:00 PM , author signature not legible, reflected Received call from [Doctor B] states [Hospice Company D] screened [Resident #1] and [Resident #1] doesn't qualify for hospice services . [Doctor B] states he did not give order for [Hospice Company C] 2. Record review of Resident #2's clinical record, dated 07/22/24, revealed Resident #2 was a [AGE] year-old male who was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses to include dementia (a loss of cognitive functioning that interferes with daily life and activities). It further revealed Resident #2's guardian was Guardian A. Record review of Resident #2's BIMS, dated 11/22/2024, revealed Resident #2's BIMS score was 6 out of 15, indicating severe cognitive impairment. Record Review of Resident #2's clinical records, dated 07/02/24 at 03:43 PM, reflected a fax to Doctor B with subject to include, As per [Guardian A] request resident evaluation for [Hospice Company C] Record Review of Resident #2's Nurse's Notes, dated 07/08/24 at 01:00 PM, author signature not legible, reflected Received call from [Doctor B] states [Hospice Company D] screened [Resident #2] and [Resident #2] doesn't qualify for hospice services . [Doctor B] states he did not give order for [Hospice Company C] to eval [Resident #2]. Written communication with Guardian A for both Resident #1 and #2, dated 12/04/24 at 11:48 AM, reflected, I had to have a meeting with [Doctor B] and he did not believe hospice was appropriate. I am not asking for [Doctor B] to assess or provide any services to the Ward. All [Doctor B] has to do is request [Hospice Company C] come out and assess for hospice services. Written communication with Guardian A, dated 12/06/24 at 11:16 AM, reflected, I am not aware of the visits being unofficial. I had requested hospice services for my Wards and verified that [Hospice Company C] was in contract. I am simply asking for the facility and [Doctor B] sign the order for [Hospice Company C] to evaluate. [Hospice Company C] will evaluate and determine if hospice is appropriate. During an interview and record review on 12/04/24 at 1:45 PM, LVN E revealed she remembered hearing about Resident #1's and #2's interest in hospice placement. She knew she was waiting for Hospice Company D. She did not recall anything about Hospice Company C. LVN E further revealed if the resident did not select a hospice company, they were told to use Hospice Company D, as was observed to be written on a paper that was hung up at the nurse's station . She revealed residents had the right to choose what hospice company they would like. During an interview on 12/04/24 at 3:39 PM, RN F revealed Hospice Company C came to the facility and concluded Residents #1 and #2 did not qualify for hospice services. RN F further revealed she let Guardian A know Hospice Company C came in unofficially to assess residents. RN F was aware Guardian A wanted Hospice Company C to evaluate Residents #1 and #2 instead of Hospice Company D. Record Review of the facility's policy Resident Rights, dated April 2008, reflected You have the right to make your own choices regarding personal affairs, care, benefits, and services. Record Review of the facility's policy Hospice Services, dated 12/03/24, reflected Our facility has entered into a contractual agreement for hospice services to ensure that residents who wish to participate in a hospice program may do so.
Nov 2023 14 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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 1 of 14 staff (the DOR) reviewed for...

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 1 of 14 staff (the DOR) reviewed for background screenings, in that: The facility had failed to complete an Employee Misconduct Registry search for the DOR. This failure could place residents at risk for abuse, neglect, exploitation, and misappropriation of property. The findings included: Record review of the facility Key Personnel roster, dated 11/28/2023, reflected an unknown hire date for the DOR. Record review of the DOR's Personnel File reflected no evidence of a completed Employee Misconduct Registry search. Interview on 11/30/2023 at 2:40 PM, the ADM stated the DOR was contracted with the facility and provided services onsite to the residents as a Physical Therapist. The ADM stated he was not aware that contracted staff were required to also be searched on the employee misconduct registry and stated he understood the risk associated with not searching frequent visitors providing health services on the employee misconduct registry. Record review of the Abuse and Neglect policy, dated 08/2011, reflected all staff on site prior to hire and annually are to be searched for criminal history and past misconduct.
CONCERN (D)

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

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure that all alleged violations involving resident neglect, are reported immediately, but not later than 24 hours after the allegation is made for 2 of 16 residents (Residents #8 and #17) reviewed for, reporting neglect, in that: The facility failed to report an incident to the State Survey Agency (HHSC), when Residents #8 and #17 were observed in the dining room to be using profanity toward each other after Resident #17 threw a liquid-filled cup at Resident #8. This failure could place the residents at risk for unreported allegations of abuse, neglect, and injuries. The findings were: Record review of Resident #8's face sheet reflected a [AGE] year-old female with an original admission date of 10/16/2015 and a primary diagnosis of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Without Complications. Record review of Resident #17's face sheet reflected a [AGE] year-old female with an original admission date of 05/04/2016 and a primary diagnosis of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Without Complications. Observation on 11/29/2023 at 10:41 AM revealed Resident #17 yelling in the dining room toward Resident #8 calling Resident #8 a [expletive] and a [expletive] before throwing a cup of liquid toward her. Further observation revealed Resident #8 responded by calling Resident #17 a [expletive]. Following this, the Assistant AD and LVN B were observed to separate the residents and attempt to deescalate the situation. Resident #8 was observed stating I won't take this [expletive] while being assisted by wheelchair away from the dining room. Interview on 11/30/2023 at 9:26 AM, the Assistant AD stated she has been at the facility since 2006 originally but has left and returned since then. The Assistant AD stated she was present when Resident #17 threw water at Resident #8 but did not remember what caused the event to occur. The Assistant AD stated after the water was thrown, she attended to Resident #17 attempting to calm her down before taking her to her room. The Assistant AD stated similar events such as this have occurred in the last year but never where an object was thrown but have generally included profanity on a weekly frequency. The Assistant AD stated Resident's #19, #18, and #27 had been disinterested in attending activities due to the frequency of profanity and yelling exhibited by Residents #17 and #8. The Assistant AD stated following the event, she did not inform or report the incident to anyone due to her believing LVN B would take appropriate action as LVN B was the senior staff present. Interview on 11/30/2023 at 9:40 AM, Resident #8 stated Resident #17 threw hot cocoa at her because she is crazy. Resident #8 stated Resident #17 also called her a [expletive] and a [expletive] and felt Resident #17 did not make [her] feel too good. Resident #8 stated no one had come to ask her what happened, including the ADM or the ADON. Resident #8 stated she has had arguments before with Resident #17 and no one in the facility administration has asked her about them before. Interview on 11/30/2023 at 9:46 AM, LVN B stated she was present when Resident #17 threw what she thought to be chocolate milk at Resident #8. LVN B stated Resident #17 had delusions regularly and felt emotionally threatened spontaneously. LVN B stated Resident #8 did not express any pain after the incident. LVN B stated she informed the ADON of the incident and her efforts in de-escalation and the prevention of harm. LVN B stated that she did not complete an incident report as the protocol for completing an incident report was only after an injury has occurred. LVN B stated profanity was a frequent occurrence and incident reports were not made for each instance. LVN B stated examples of reportable instances of abuse included talking ugly, threatening, or misappropriation. LVN B stated this was an example of talking ugly but felt because this occurred so frequently that no further action needed to be taken. LVN B stated the thrown beverage could not have been hot as the staff do not serve hot beverages to residents. LVN B stated the reportability of incidents are determined on a case-by-case basis. Interview on 11/30/2023 at 10:02 AM, with the ADON stated she was informed of the incident yesterday (11/29/2023) by LVN B and was told that Resident #17 and Resident #8 were speaking ugly to one another but was not informed of any thrown item or profanity. The ADON stated incident reports were only completed when actual harm occurred and that when objects are thrown it was on a case-by-case basis as to whether they are reportable. The ADON stated the expectation when incidents occurred was that staff present were to complete an incident report and inform the abuse and neglect coordinator. Attempted interview on 11/30/2023 at 10:14 AM, with Resident #17 was unsuccessful due to the resident being non-interviewable. Interview on 11/30/2023 at 10:37 AM, Resident #19 stated she was the resident council president and she decided to no longer attend activities due to feelings of discomfort due to Resident #8 using profanity and shouting during bingo. Resident #19 stated she had never been interviewed by the ADM about these instances or if she felt safe in the facility and preferred to just stay in her room during activities. Interview on 11/30/2023 at 10:42 AM, Resident #18 stated she did not like to go to activities because of the shouting and occasional anger displayed by other unnamed residents. Resident #18 stated she has never been interviewed about these instances or asked if she had ever felt safe in the facility. Interview on 11/30/2023 at 2:40 PM, the ADM stated he was informed of the incident involving Resident #17 and Resident #8 in the evening of 11/29/2023. The ADM stated he did not submit a self-reported incident to HHSC as he was not aware of the reportability of this incident. The ADM stated he was not informed of the use of profanity during the incident and that it was his expectation that instances of verbal confrontation be reported to himself so that they may be reported to HHSC. The ADM stated instances of verbal confrontation could be examples of verbal abuse and should therefore be reported to HHSC as per their facility policy. The ADM stated following the event he did not interview the victims or any other residents of their feelings of safety or for pertinent evidence pertaining to the incident. The ADM stated a report was to be made based on the findings. Record review of the Abuse and Neglect policy, dated 08/2011, reflected instances of abuse, neglect, or exploitation were to be reported to the Abuse and Neglect Coordinator so they may be reported and investigated by the ANE Coordinator.
CONCERN (D)

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

Investigate Abuse (Tag F0610)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure that all alleged violations involving resident neglect are investigated for 2 of 16 resident (Residents #8 and #17) reviewed for reporting neglect, in that: The facility failed to investigate an incident when Resident #8 and #17 were observed in the dining room to be using profanity toward each other after Resident #17 threw a liquid-filled cup at Resident #8. This failure could place the residents at risk for uninvestigated allegations of abuse, neglect, and injuries. The findings were: Observation on 11/29/2023 at 10:41 AM revealed Resident #17 yelling in the dining room toward Resident #8 calling Resident #8 a [expletive] and a [expletive] before throwing a cup of liquid toward her. Further observation revealed Resident #8 responded by calling Resident #17 a [expletive]. Following this, the Assistant AD and LVN B were observed to separate the residents and attempt to deescalate the situation. Resident #8 was observed stating I won't take this [expletive] while being assisted by wheelchair away from the dining room. Record review of Resident #8's face sheet reflected a [AGE] year-old female with an original admission date of 10/16/2015 and a primary diagnosis of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Without Complications. Record review of Resident #17's face sheet reflected a [AGE] year-old female with an original admission date of 05/04/2016 and a primary diagnosis of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Without Complications. Interview on 11/30/2023 at 9:26 AM, the Assistant AD stated she has been at the facility since 2006 originally but has left and returned since then. The Assistant AD stated she was present when Resident #17 threw water at Resident #8 but did not remember what caused the event to occur. The Assistant AD stated after the water was thrown, she attended to Resident #17 attempting to calm her down before taking her to her room. The Assistant AD stated similar events such as this have occurred in the last year but never where an object was thrown but have generally included profanity on a weekly frequency. The Assistant AD stated Resident's #19, #18, and #27 had been disinterested in attending activities due to the frequency of profanity and yelling exhibited by Residents #17 and #8. The Assistant AD stated following the event, she did not inform or report the incident to anyone due to her believing LVN B would take appropriate action as LVN B was the senior staff present. Interview on 11/30/2023 at 9:40 AM, Resident #8 stated Resident #17 threw hot cocoa at her because she is crazy. Resident #8 stated Resident #17 also called her a [expletive] and a [expletive] and felt Resident #17 did not make [her] feel too good. Resident #8 stated no one had come to ask her what happened, including the ADM or the ADON. Resident #8 stated Interview on 11/30/2023 at 9:46 AM, LVN B stated that she was present when Resident #17 threw what she thought to be chocolate milk at Resident #8. LVN B stated that Resident #17 had delusions regularly and felt emotionally threatened spontaneously. LVN B stated Resident #8 did not express any pain after the incident. LVN B stated that the incident she informed the ADON of the de-escalation and the prevention of harm. LVN B stated that she did not complete an incident report as the protocol for completing an incident report was only after an injury has occurred. LVN B stated profanity was a frequent occurrence and incident reports were not made for each instance. LVN B stated examples of reportable instances of abuse included talking ugly, threatening, or misappropriation. LVN B stated this was an example of talking ugly but felt because this occurred so frequently that no further action needed to be taken. LVN B stated the thrown beverage could not have been hot as the staff do not serve hot beverages to residents. LVN B stated the reportability of incidents are determined on a case-by-case basis. Interview on 11/30/2023 at 10:02 AM, with ADON stated she was informed of the incident by LVN B and was told that Resident #17 and Resident #8 were speaking ugly to one another but was not informed of any thrown item or profanity. The ADON stated incident reports were only completed when actual harm occurred and that when objects are thrown it was on a case-by-case basis as to whether they are reportable. The ADON stated the expectation when incidents occurred was that staff present were to complete an incident report and inform the abuse and neglect coordinator to which he would investigate the allegation to confirm findings. Attempted interview on 11/30/2023 at 10:14 AM, with Resident #17 was unsuccessful due to the resident being non-interviewable. Interview on 11/30/2023 at 10:37 AM, Resident #19 stated she was the resident council president and she decided to no longer attend activities due to feelings of discomfort due to Resident #8 using profanity and shouting during bingo. Resident #19 stated she had never been interviewed by the ADM about these instances or if she felt safe in the facility and preferred to just stay in her room during activities. Interview on 11/30/2023 at 10:42 AM, Resident #18 stated she did not like to go to activities because of the shouting and occasional anger displayed by other unnamed residents. Resident #18 stated she has never been interviewed about these instances or asked if she had ever felt safe in the facility. Interview on 11/30/2023 at 2:40 PM, the ADM stated he was informed of the incident involving Resident #17 and Resident #8 in the evening of 11/29/2023. The ADM stated he did not submit a self-reported incident to HHSC as he was not aware of the reportability of this incident. The ADM stated he was not informed of the use of profanity during the incident and that it was his expectation that instances of verbal confrontation be reported to himself so that they may be reported to HHSC. The ADM stated instances of verbal confrontation could be examples of verbal abuse and should therefore be reported to HHSC as per their facility policy. The ADM stated following the event he did not interview the victims or any other residents of their feelings of safety or for pertinent evidence pertaining to the incident as he would normally do during an investigation of abuse and neglect. The ADM stated a report was to be made based on the findings presented by the survey team. Record review of the Abuse and Neglect policy, dated 08/2011, reflected instances of abuse, neglect, or exploitation were to be reported to the Abuse and Neglect Coordinator so they may be reported and investigated by the ANE Coordinator.
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Assessments (Tag F0636)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to assess each resident annually using the Minimum Data Set form speci...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to assess each resident annually using the Minimum Data Set form specified by the state and approved by CMS for 1 of 16 residents (Resident #26) reviewed for annual assessments, in that: Resident #26's Annual MDS Assessment was not completed within 366 days of the previous annual assessment. This failure could place residents at-risk of not having their assessments completed timely. The findings were: Record review of Resident #26's face sheet reflected a [AGE] year-old resident with an original admission date of 02/08/2019 and a primary diagnosis of hemiplegia and hemiparesis following unspecified cerebrovascular disease affecting left non-dominant side (paralysis of partial or total body function on one side of the body). Record review of Resident #26's last annual MDS assessment reflected a completion date of 10/26/2022. The proceeding MDS assessment was due dated 10/27/2023, however it was dated opened on 11/20/2023. Interview on 11/29/2023 at 2:41 PM, the DON stated she had begun working at the facility on 10/26/2023 and was responsible for completing MDS assessments. The DON stated she was not sure why the MDS assessments were being completed late and was told by the ADM that she was to complete the late ones. The DON stated the expectation was for MDS assessments to be completed in the prescribed timeframes by the RAI Manual. The DON stated the risks associated with not completing the assessments timely were that changes in condition could potentially be overlooked. Interview on 11/30/2023 at 2:40 PM, the ADM stated he was aware of the Annual MDS Assessment for Resident #26 having been completed late and stated it was due to the former MDS Coordinator leaving their position at the facility. The ADM stated it was his expectation that MDS assessments be completed timely as to reduce the risk of changes in condition be overlooked. Record review of the RAI (Resident Assessment Instrument) Manual OBRA Assessment Summary, dated 10/2019, reflected, The Annual assessment is an OBRA comprehensive assessment for a resident that must be completed at least every 366 days following the previous OBRA comprehensive assessment.
CONCERN (D)

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

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

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 assessment accurately reflected the resident's status for 2 of 12 residents (Resident #4 and #20) whose assessments were reviewed in that: 1. Resident #4's most recent Quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] did not accurately reflect the resident's oral/dental status and oxygen use. 2. Resident #20's most recent annual MDS assessment dated [DATE] did not accurately reflect the resident's ability to maintain personal hygiene. This failure could place residents at-risk for inadequate care due to inaccurate assessments. The findings included: 1. Record review of Resident #4's face sheet, dated 9/6/23 revealed a [AGE] year old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] and re-admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included dementia with behavioral disturbance, hypertension (high blood pressure), angina pectoris (condition marked by severe chest pain caused by inadequate blood supply to the heart), heart failure, glaucoma (a condition of increased pressure within the eyeball causing gradual loss of sight), depressive disorder and bipolar disorder (episodes of mood swings ranging from depressive lows to manic highs). Record review of Resident #4's physician orders for November 2023 revealed the following: -Oxygen 2-5 liters via mask via concentrator all shifts with order date 3/8/22 and no end date Record review of Resident #4's comprehensive care plan, dated 9/6/23 revealed the resident required assistance with oral hygiene related to dementia and visual deficit as evidenced by missing some teeth and lack of hygiene awareness. Further review of Resident #4's comprehensive care plan revealed the resident had ineffective breathing patterns related to COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; disease that cause airflow blockage and breathing-related problems), asthma, frequent upper respiratory infections and decreased lung compliance as evidence by shortness of breath and labored respirations with interventions that included continuous oxygen therapy at 2-5 liters every shift. Record review of Resident #4's most recent quarterly MDS assessment, dated 9/6/23 revealed the resident was cognitively intact for daily decision-making skills. Further review of Resident #4's quarterly MDS assessment revealed section L - Oral/Dental Status was blank and section O - Special Treatments and Programs under oxygen treatments was blank. Observation and interview on 11/27/23 at 10:19 a.m. revealed Resident #4 sitting up in bed with the O2 concentrator operating via nasal canula at 2 liters. Resident #4 stated she always used the oxygen concentrator. Observation on 11/28/23 at 9:18 a.m. revealed Resident #4 was sitting up in a wheelchair and the O2 concentrator was operating via nasal canula at 2 liters. During a follow-up observation and interview on 11/28/23 at 9:24 a.m., Resident #4 stated she had all her teeth removed over a period of time. Resident #4 revealed she had worn dentures, but they did not fit. Resident #4 was observed with several missing teeth. Observation on 11/29/23 at 8:13 a.m. revealed Resident #4 sitting up in a wheelchair and the O2 concentrator was operating via nasal canula at 2 liters. During an interview on 11/30/23 at 11:02 a.m., the DON revealed Resident #4 had some teeth but was not aware the resident wore dentures or partials. The DON confirmed Resident #4's most recent quarterly MDS assessment, dated 9/6/23 section L - Oral/Dental Status and section O- Special Treatments and Programs under oxygen treatments were blank. The DON revealed she was responsible for completing the MDS assessments and revealed Resident #4's quarterly MDS assessment was inaccurate and did not reflect the resident. The DON revealed it was important to complete the MDS accurately because it could affect the resident's treatment management. The DON revealed the facility referred and followed the Resident Assessment Instrument to complete MDS assessments. 2. Record review of Resident #20's face sheet, dated 6/22/23 revealed a [AGE] year old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included anxiety, hypertension (high blood pressure), schizophrenia (a disorder that affects a person's ability to think, feel, and behave clearly), encephalopathy (a broad term for any brain disease that alters brain function or structure), diabetes (a chronic, long-lasting health condition that affects how your body turns food into energy), chronic viral hepatitis C (long-term infection of the liver that could lead to complications such as cirrhosis, liver failure, and liver cancer). Record review of Resident #20's most recent annual MDS assessment, dated 8/30/23 revealed the resident was cognitively intact for daily decision-making skills. Further review of Resident #20's annual MDS assessment, under Section GG - Functional Abilities and Goals, sub-section GG0130 Self-Care, I. Personal Hygiene: The ability to maintain personal hygiene, including combing hair, shaving, applying makeup, washing/drying face and hands (excludes baths, showers, and oral hygiene) was blank. Record review of Resident #20's comprehensive care plan, dated 8/30/23 revealed the resident had Activity of Daily Living impairment related to coordination deficit, upper body weakness, visual disturbance/deficit, limited endurance, activity intolerance, limited range of motion, pain, uncontrolled movements, difficulty with dressing/bathing/grooming/hygiene/toileting. During an observation and interview on 11/27/23 at 11:05 a.m., Resident #20 stated she styled her hair with a flat iron. Resident #20 was observed with a flat iron and a blow dryer at the bedside. Resident #20 stated she had burned her finger several times trying to reach the back of her hair with the flat iron. Resident #20 was observed with a round, red mark on the inner 2nd finger on the middle joint of the left hand that appeared to measure the size of a pea. Resident #20 was observed with a slight tremor to the right hand. During a follow up observation and interview on 11/28/23 at 9:35 a.m., Resident #20 stated she had used the blow dryer to dry her hair after her shower yesterday, 11/27/23. Resident #20 again stated she had been burning her finger with the flat iron and needed to get a pair of gloves or staff to help her. Resident #20 was observed with the flat iron and the blow dryer at the bedside. Resident #20 stated she had asked staff for help with the blow dryer and the flat iron but they are busy. During an interview on 11/29/23 at 1:57 p.m., LVN B revealed Resident #20 had tremors mostly to her hands, maybe the right hand. LVN B stated she was aware Resident #20 used the flat iron and the resident had revealed to her she had burnt her finger, but had not showed it to me. LVN B then stated, I did ask to see the burn but there was nothing there. LVN B revealed the resident first got the flat iron on 11/17/23, but had asked Resident #20 not to use the flat iron because of safety reasons. LVN B revealed the flat iron should have been added to Resident #20's care plan due to safety reasons. During an interview on 11/29/23 at 2:18 p.m., the DON revealed Resident #20 could not have the flat iron in her room due to safety reasons. The DON revealed she was responsible for completing the MDS assessments and revealed Resident #20's annual MDS assessment was inaccurate and did not reflect the resident. The DON revealed it was important to complete the MDS accurately because it could affect the resident's treatment management. The DON revealed the facility referred and followed the Resident Assessment Instrument to complete MDS assessments. Record review of CMA MDS 3.0 Manual dated 10/2019 revealed: The RAI process has multiple regulatory requirements. Federal regulations at 42 CVR 483.20 (b)(1)(xviii), (g) and (h) require that: 1. The assessment accurately reflects the resident's status. 2. A registered nurse conducts or coordinates each assessment with the appropriate participation of health professionals 3. The assessment process includes direct observation, as well as communication with the resident and direct care staff on all shifts. In addition, an accurate assessment requires collecting information from multiple sources .should include the resident's medical record, physician and family/guardian .
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan that includes measurable objectives and time frames to meet a resident's medical and nursing needs to be furnished to attain or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being for 2 of 12 residents (Resident #4 and #20) reviewed for comprehensive care plans in that: 1. Resident #4's comprehensive care plan did not address the resident's use of sewing needles and scissors. 2. Resident #20's comprehensive care plan did not address the resident's use of a flat iron used for styling hair. This deficient practice could place residents in the facility at risk of not being provided with the necessary care or services and having personalized plans developed to address their specific needs. The findings included: 1. Record review of Resident #4's face sheet, dated 9/6/23 revealed a [AGE] year old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] and re-admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included dementia with behavioral disturbance, hypertension (high blood pressure), angina pectoris (condition marked by severe chest pain caused by inadequate blood supply to the heart), heart failure, glaucoma (a condition of increased pressure within the eyeball causing gradual loss of sight), depressive disorder and bipolar disorder (episodes of mood swings ranging from depressive lows to manic highs). Record review of Resident #4's physician orders for November 2023 revealed the following: - Carbamazepine 100 mg two times daily for seizures/convulsions with order date 3/3/21 and no end date - Ultra Lubricant eye drops, one drop to both eyes four times daily for dry eye syndrome - Timolol maleate 0.5 % drops, one drop to both eyes two times daily, wait 5 minutes between eye drops used to treat glaucoma Record review of Resident #4's most recent quarterly MDS assessment, dated 9/6/23 revealed the resident was visually impaired and required corrective lenses. Record review of Resident #4's comprehensive care plan, dated 9/6/23 revealed the resident was visually impaired related to cataracts, glaucoma, macular degeneration, poor vision and visual field disturbance and had an activity of daily living impairment related to weakness, limited endurance, activity intolerance, limited range of motion, cognitive deficit, pain, uncontrolled movements, loss of voluntary movements and unsteady gait. Further review of Resident #4's comprehensive care plan revealed there were no interventions in place for the resident's use of a sewing needle or scissors. Observation and interview on 11/28/23 at 9:20 a.m. revealed Resident #4 sitting up in the wheelchair in her room attempting to thread a large needle. Resident #4 was observed holding the needle and the thread close to her face. Resident #4 stated she did needle point. A pair of small scissors were observed next to the resident on the nightstand. Observation on 11/29/23 at 8:13 a.m. revealed Resident #4 sitting up in the wheelchair in her room and a pair of small scissors were observed on the resident's nightstand and a bag with yarn on the empty bed next to the resident's bed. During an observation and interview on 11/29/23 at 1:52 p.m., LVN B stated she was aware Resident #4 enjoyed crocheting. Resident #4 stated to LVN B she liked to do needlepoint. LVN B stated she was unsure if Resident #4 used a needle to work on needlepoint projects and stated the scissors used by the resident had blunt ends. LVN B revealed she was not involved in the process for developing care plans and was not involved in care plan meetings. LVN B revealed the DON was tasked with informing staff on care plan changes. LVN B revealed, Resident #4 using a needle to work on needlepoint projects needed to be care planned because it would ensure the resident could do it so that the resident does not hurt herself or others. During an interview on 11/29/23 at 2:25 p.m., the DON revealed Resident #4 should have been assessed to determine if she could use a needle and scissors because the resident was visually impaired. The DON revealed Resident #4's care plan should have been updated to instruct the staff and determine if Resident #4 should have supervision when using a needle and scissors. The DON revealed she had been responsible for ensuring the comprehensive care plans were kept up to date. The DON revealed she had only been employed as the DON in the facility since October 2023. 2. Record review of Resident #20's face sheet, dated 6/22/23 revealed a [AGE] year old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included anxiety, hypertension (high blood pressure), schizophrenia (a disorder that affects a person's ability to think, feel, and behave clearly), encephalopathy (a broad term for any brain disease that alters brain function or structure), diabetes (a chronic, long-lasting health condition that affects how your body turns food into energy), chronic viral hepatitis C (long-term infection of the liver that could lead to complications such as cirrhosis, liver failure, and liver cancer). Record review of Resident #20's most recent annual MDS assessment, dated 8/30/23 revealed the resident was cognitively intact for daily decision-making skills. Further review of Resident #20's annual MDS assessment, under Section GG - Functional Abilities and Goals, sub-section GG0130 Self-Care, I. Personal Hygiene: The ability to maintain personal hygiene, including combing hair, shaving, applying makeup, washing/drying face and hands (excludes baths, showers, and oral hygiene) was blank. Record review of Resident #20's comprehensive care plan, dated 8/30/23 revealed the resident had Activity of Daily Living impairment related to coordination deficit, upper body weakness, visual disturbance/deficit, limited endurance, activity intolerance, limited range of motion, pain, uncontrolled movements, difficulty with dressing/bathing/grooming/hygiene/toileting with interventions that included to assist only as necessary and provide assistive devices if needed. Further review of Resident #20's comprehensive care plan revealed the resident had disordered thinking/awareness related to anxiety, depression, schizophrenia as evidenced by easily distracted, periods of altered perception, episodes of disorganized speech, periods of restlessness/lethargy, and mental function varies over course of the day. Further review of Resident #20's comprehensive care plan revealed there were no interventions in place for the resident's use of a flat iron. During an observation and interview on 11/27/23 at 11:05 a.m., Resident #20 stated she styled her hair with a flat iron. Resident #20 was observed with a flat iron and a blow dryer at the bedside. Resident #20 stated she had burned her finger several times trying to reach the back of her hair with the flat iron. Resident #20 was observed with a round, red mark on the inner 2nd finger on the middle joint of the left hand that appeared to measure the size of a pea. Resident #20 was observed with a slight tremor to the right hand. During a follow up observation and interview on 11/28/23 at 9:35 a.m., Resident #20 stated she had used the blow dryer to dry her hair after her shower yesterday, 11/27/23. Resident #20 again stated she had been burning her finger with the flat iron and needed to get a pair of gloves or staff to help her. Resident #20 was observed with the flat iron and the blow dryer at the bedside. Resident #20 stated she had asked staff for help with the blow dryer and the flat iron but they are busy. During an interview on 11/29/23 at 1:57 p.m., LVN B revealed Resident #20 had tremors mostly to her hands, maybe the right hand. LVN B stated she was aware Resident #20 used the flat iron and the resident had revealed she had burnt her finger, but had not showed it to me. LVN B then stated, I did ask to see the burn but there was nothing there. LVN B revealed the resident first got the flat iron on 11/17/23, but had asked Resident #20 not to use the flat iron because of safety reasons. LVN B revealed the flat iron should have been added to Resident #20's care plan due to safety reasons. During an interview on 11/29/23 at 2:18 p.m., the DON revealed Resident #20 could not have the flat iron in her room due to safety reasons. The DON revealed the flat iron should have been care planned because it would instruct the staff on how to utilize the use of the flat iron. The DON stated, the care plan is to ensure staff know how to address the situation. Record review of the facility policy and procedure titled, Care Plan Policy and Procedure, undated revealed in part, .Residents will have a current plan in their active chart .Residents care plans will be updated on a quarterly basis based on the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment and whenever there is a change in a resident's condition .
CONCERN (D)

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

Tube Feeding (Tag F0693)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure that a resident who is fed by enteral means rece...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure that a resident who is fed by enteral means receives the appropriate treatment and services to prevent complications of enteral feeding for 2 of 2 residents (Resident #1 and #13) reviewed for enteral feeding tubes in that: 1. LVN A did not rinse or discard the medication syringe after administering medications into Resident #1's enteral feeding tube. 2. LVN A did not rinse or discard the medication syringe after administering medications into Resident #13's enteral feeding tube. These failures could place residents at risk for complications of enteral feeding. The findings included: 1. Record review of Resident #1's face sheet, dated 10/27/22 revealed a [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE] and re-admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included seizures/convulsions, anxiety, cerebral palsy (physical disability that affects movement and posture), osteoporosis (condition that causes bones to become weak and brittle). Further review of Resident #1's face sheet, under the Diet section revealed the resident was a tube feeder. Record review of Resident #1's most recent quarterly MDS assessment, dated 10/20/23 revealed the resident was severely cognitively impaired for daily decision-making skills and required a feeding tube. Record review of Resident #1's physician's orders for November 2023 revealed the following: - Start Jevity 1.5, 50 cc per hour via feeding pump, up at 10:00 a.m. and down at 6:00 a.m. Flush 200 cc water every 4 hours via g-tube. Discontinue bolus of formula and water bolus, with order date 11/21/23 and no end date. - Carbamazepine 200 mg/10 ml, 15 ml via peg tube two times daily for seizure/convulsion with order date 8/2/22 and no end date. -Clonazepam 1 mg, 1 tablet via peg tube two ties daily for seizure/convulsion with order date 10/23/23 and no end date. Record review of Resident #1's comprehensive care plan, dated 7/11/23 revealed the resident required a feeding tube related to potential for aspiration with interventions that included to assess feeding tube placement, patency and residual every shift and before and after administration of any fluids or medications. Observation on 11/28/23 at 9:45 a.m., during the medication pass, revealed LVN B, after administering Resident #1's Carbamazepine and Clonazepam medication, removed the medication syringe from the resident's feeding tube and placed it back into the plastic sleeve. LVN B did not discard or rinse the medication syringe after use. 2. Record review of Resident #13's face sheet, dated 12/23/20 revealed a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] and re-admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included vascular dementia with delusion (impaired ability to remember, think, or make decisions that interferes with doing everyday activities), type 2 diabetes (a chronic, long-lasting health condition that affects how your body turns food into energy), schizoaffective disorder (a mental health problem characterized by mood symptoms), hypertension (high blood pressure) and confusion. Record review of Resident #13's most recent discharge MDS assessment, dated 8/6/23 revealed the resident was moderately impaired for daily decision-making skills. Record review of Resident #13's physician's orders for November 2023 revealed the following: - Send Resident #13 to emergency room for peg tube placement with order date 11/24/23 and no end date. - Isosource 1.5 calorie, 250 ml every 4 hours via peg tube bolus four times daily with order date 11/27/23 and no end date. - Oxcarbazepine 300 mg three times daily for mood stabilization with order date 8/9/22 and no end date. - Oxcarbazepine 150 mg three times daily for mood disorder with order date 5/16/23 and no end date. Record review of Resident #13's comprehensive care plan, dated 4/18/23 revealed the resident had a chewing problem with a potential for aspiration and weight loss related to oral abscesses, ill-fitting dentures, broken, loose, carious or missing teeth and mouth pain. Observation on 11/29/23 at 1:28 p.m., during the medication pass, revealed LVN B, after administering Resident #13's Oxcarbazepine medication, removed the medication syringe from the resident's feeding tube and placed it back into the plastic sleeve. LVN B did not discard or rinse the medication syringe after use. During an interview on 11/29/23 at 1:38 p.m., LVN B revealed the medication syringe would have been washed if it were dirty such as with residual (gastric contents.) LVN B further revealed, in the care of Resident #1 and Resident #13, the water flush used at the end of the medication administration into the medication syringe would have been enough to have cleansed the medication syringe. LVN B revealed the facility policy was once the medication syringe was flushed with water at the end of medication administration, then the medication syringe was considered clean. During an interview on 11/29/23 at 2:10 p.m., the DON revealed the medication syringe used for administering feedings and medications were to be washed after each use to remove residue and it was considered best nursing practice, it's part of the process for germs and what not. The DON further revealed, even with water flushes, the medication syringe could still have possible residue and should be rinsed after use. Record review of the facility policy and procedure titled Policy for giving medications per Peg Tube, revision date 11/29/23 revealed in part, .Clean the (medication) syringe immediately after each use - failure to do so may result in the syringe becoming contaminated with dry feed or medication which may cause problems if mix with fresh fluids .clean the barrel and plunger with warm soapy only (sic) .Rinse the barrel and plunger in cold tap water then place in a paper towel to dry .store in a dry container or zip lock bag .Note: This process will help eliminate the risks of tube obstructions, altered drug responses and chemical incompatibilities .
CONCERN (D)

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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure that a resident who needed respiratory care was provided with such care, consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the residents' goals and preferences for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #4) reviewed for respiratory care in that: The facility failed to ensure Resident #4 had an oxygen sign posted outside her bedroom. This deficient practice could place residents at risk for inadequate care. The findings included: Record review of Resident #4's face sheet, dated 9/6/23 revealed a [AGE] year old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] and re-admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included dementia with behavioral disturbance, hypertension (high blood pressure), angina pectoris (condition marked by severe chest pain caused by inadequate blood supply to the heart), heart failure, glaucoma (a condition of increased pressure within the eyeball causing gradual loss of sight), depressive disorder and bipolar disorder (episodes of mood swings ranging from depressive lows to manic highs). Record review of Resident #4's physician orders for November 2023 revealed the following: -Oxygen 2-5 liters via mask via concentrator all shifts with order date 3/8/22 and no end date Record review of Resident #4's comprehensive care plan, dated 9/6/23 revealed the resident had ineffective breathing patterns related to COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; disease that cause airflow blockage and breathing-related problems), asthma, frequent upper respiratory infections and decreased lung compliance as evidence by shortness of breath and labored respirations with interventions that included continuous oxygen therapy at 2-5 liters every shift. Record review of Resident #4's most recent quarterly MDS assessment, dated 9/6/23 revealed the resident was cognitively intact for daily decision-making skills. Observation and interview on 11/27/23 at 10:19 a.m. revealed Resident #4 sitting up in bed with the O2 concentrator operating via nasal canula at 2 liters. Resident #4 revealed she always used the oxygen concentrator. Further observation revealed there was no oxygen in use sign outside the resident's room or anywhere in the resident's room. Observation on 11/28/23 at 9:18 a.m. revealed Resident #4 sitting up in a wheelchair in her room with the O2 concentrator operating via nasal canula at 2 liters. Further observation revealed there was no oxygen in use sign outside the resident's room or anywhere in the resident's room. Observation on 11/29/23 at 8:13 a.m. revealed Resident #4 sitting up in a wheelchair and the O2 concentrator was operating via nasal canula at 2 liters. Further observation revealed there was no oxygen in use sign outside the resident's room or anywhere in the resident's room. During an observation and interview on 11/29/23 at 1:47 p.m., the charge nurse, LVN B revealed she had been responsible for ensuring the oxygen concentrators were clean and the tubing was labeled with a date and the setting on the concentrator was operating per the physician's orders. LVN B stated Resident #4 did not have an oxygen in use sign outside of the resident's room and should have had the sign because it was used to alert others about the potential for a fire hazard. During an interview on 11/29/23 at 2:26 p.m., the DON revealed it was the responsibility of the nurse to ensure the oxygen concentrators were clean, were operating per the physician's orders and a sign posted outside of the resident's room that alerted others the resident was using oxygen. The DON revealed the oxygen sign was important because it alerted those going into the resident's room that the resident was on oxygen and to use caution because it could be flammable. Record review of the facility policy and procedure titled, Policy for Oxygen Concentrators, undated, revealed in part, .A sign must be posted on the door of resident's room advising staff and visitors to not smoke while in the room .
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0868 (Tag F0868)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on an interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that the facility's infection preventionist attended the QAA/QAPI meetings, for 1 of 1 facility, reviewed for QAA/QAPI. The facil...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on an interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that the facility's infection preventionist attended the QAA/QAPI meetings, for 1 of 1 facility, reviewed for QAA/QAPI. The facility failed to ensure the infection preventionist attended their QAA and QAPI meetings for any month since the last annual survey (09/23/2022). This failure could place residents at risk for quality deficiencies being unidentified and a lack of appropriate plans of action developed or implemented. The findings included: Record review of the facility's QAA/QAPI standing members list reflected the infection preventionist was not a member. Interview on 11/30/2023 at 3:16 PM, the ADON stated the QAA/QAPI committee met quarterly and that LVN B, the Infection Preventionist, was not a part of these meetings. The ADON stated she was not aware that the Infection Preventionist was a required member of the committee. The ADON stated she understood the risk of not having the Infection Preventionist as a committee member as infection control concerns may not be brought to the committee. Interview on 11/30/2023 at 3:39 PM, LVN B stated she was the facility Infection Preventionist. LVN B stated she was not a member of the QAA/QAPI Committee and had never attended a QAA/QAPI meeting. LVN B stated she was never informed of the requirement of the Infection Preventionist being a member of the committee. Interview on 11/30/2023 at 4:16 PM, the ADM stated he was aware of the Infection Preventionist not being a QAA/QAPI committee member. The ADM stated he was not aware of the requirement of the Infection Preventionist being part of the committee. The ADM stated he was unsure of the risks posed by not having the Infection Preventionist be a member. The ADM stated the facility did not have a policy associated with QAA/QAPI, and the Plan did not state specific membership.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0638 (Tag F0638)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to assess each resident quarterly using the Minimum Data Set form spec...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to assess each resident quarterly using the Minimum Data Set form specified by the state and approved by CMS for 3 of 16 residents (Resident #12, #26, and #28) reviewed for quarterly assessments, in that: Resident #12, #26, and #28's quarterly MDS Assessment was not completed within 92 days of the previous quarterly assessment. This failure could place residents at-risk of not having their assessments completed timely. The findings were: Record review of Resident #12's face sheet reflected an [AGE] year-old resident with an original admission date of 01/17/2019 and a primary diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder (a mental health disorder that is marked by a combination of schizophrenia symptoms, such as hallucinations or delusions, and mood disorder symptoms, such as depression or mania.) Record review of Resident #12's most recent MDS Assessment, dated 7/31/2023, reflected the due date of the next Quarterly MDS Assessment was to be completed on 10/31/2023. Further review reflected the Quarterly MDS Assessment due on 10/31/2023 had not been started. Record review of Resident #26's face sheet reflected a [AGE] year-old resident with an original admission date of 02/08/2019 and a primary diagnosis of hemiplegia and hemiparesis following unspecified cerebrovascular disease affecting left non-dominant side (paralysis of partial or total body function on one side of the body). Record review of Resident #26's most recent MDS Assessment, dated 7/27/2023, reflected the due date of the next Quarterly MDS Assessment was to be completed on 10/27/2023. Further review reflected the Quarterly MDS Assessment due on 10/27/2023 had been started on 11/10/2023. Record review of Resident #28's face sheet reflected a [AGE] year-old resident with an original admission date of 01/15/2019 and a primary diagnosis of seizures/convulsions. Record review of Resident #28's most recent MDS Assessment, dated 7/28/2023, reflected the due date of the next Quarterly MDS Assessment was to be completed on 10/28/2023. Further review reflected the Quarterly MDS Assessment due on 10/28/2023 had not been started. Interview on 11/29/2023 at 2:41 PM, the DON stated she had begun working at the facility on 10/26/2023 and was responsible for completing MDS assessments. The DON stated she was not sure why the MDS assessments were being completed late and was told by the ADM that she was to complete the late ones. The DON stated the expectation was for MDS assessments to be completed in the prescribed timeframes by the RAI Manual. The DON stated the risks associated with not completing the assessments timely were that changes in condition could potentially be overlooked. Interview on 11/30/2023 at 2:40 PM, the ADM stated he was aware of the Quarterly MDS Assessment for Residents #12, #26, and #28 having been completed late and stated it was due to the former MDS Coordinator leaving their position at the facility. The ADM stated it was his expectation that MDS assessments be completed timely as to reduce the risk of changes in condition be overlooked. Record review of the RAI (Resident Assessment Instrument) Manual OBRA Assessment Summary, dated 10/2019, reflected, The Annual assessment is an OBRA comprehensive assessment for a resident that must be completed at least every 366 days following the previous OBRA comprehensive assessment.
CONCERN (E)

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the resident environment remained as free of a...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the resident environment remained as free of accident hazards as was possible for 2 of 12 residents (Residents #4 and #20) reviewed for accidents and hazards in that: 1. The facility failed to ensure Resident #4 received supervision while using a needle point needle and scissors. 2. The facility failed to ensure Resident #20 received supervision while using a flat iron to style her hair. This failure could place residents at risk of harm or injury and contribute to avoidable accidents. The findings included: 1. Record review of Resident #4's face sheet, dated 9/6/23 revealed a [AGE] year old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] and re-admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included dementia with behavioral disturbance, hypertension (high blood pressure), angina pectoris (condition marked by severe chest pain caused by inadequate blood supply to the heart), heart failure, glaucoma (a condition of increased pressure within the eyeball causing gradual loss of sight), depressive disorder and bipolar disorder (episodes of mood swings ranging from depressive lows to manic highs). Record review of Resident #4's physician orders for November 2023 revealed the following: - Carbamazepine 100 mg two times daily for seizures/convulsions with order date 3/3/21 and no end date - Ultra Lubricant eye drops, one drop to both eyes four times daily for dry eye syndrome - Timolol maleate 0.5 % drops, one drop to both eyes two times daily, wait 5 minutes between eye drops used to treat glaucoma Record review of Resident #4's most recent quarterly MDS assessment, dated 9/6/23 revealed the resident was visually impaired and required corrective lenses. Record review of Resident #4's comprehensive care plan, dated 9/6/23 revealed the resident was visually impaired related to cataracts, glaucoma, macular degeneration, poor vision and visual field disturbance and had an activity of daily living impairment related to weakness, limited endurance, activity intolerance, limited range of motion, cognitive deficit, pain, uncontrolled movements, loss of voluntary movements and unsteady gait. Further review of Resident #4's comprehensive care plan revealed there were no interventions in place for the resident's use of a sewing needle or scissors. Observation and interview on 11/28/23 at 9:20 a.m. revealed Resident #4 sitting up in the wheelchair in her room attempting to thread a large needle. Resident #4 was observed holding the needle and the thread close to her face. Resident #4 stated she did needle point. A pair of small scissors were observed next to the resident on the nightstand. Resident #4 revealed her vision was impaired due to chemical acid splashing her face and eyes and had vision problems since 1996. Resident #4 was observed with a pair of glasses on the bedside table but was not wearing them. Observation on 11/29/23 at 8:13 a.m. revealed Resident #4 sitting up in the wheelchair in her room and a pair of small scissors were observed on the resident's nightstand and a bag with yarn on the empty bed next to the resident's bed. During an observation and interview on 11/29/23 at 1:52 p.m., LVN B stated she was aware Resident #4 enjoyed crocheting, and just then Resident #4 stated to LVN B she liked to do needlepoint. LVN B stated she was unsure if Resident #4 used a needle to work on needlepoint projects and stated the scissors used by the resident had blunt ends. LVN B revealed, Resident #4 using a needle to work on needlepoint projects needed to be care planned because it would ensure the resident could do it so that the resident does not hurt herself or others. During an interview on 11/29/23 at 2:25 p.m., the DON revealed Resident #4 should have been assessed to determine if she could use a needle and scissors because the resident was visually impaired. The DON revealed Resident #4's care plan should have been updated to instruct the staff and determine if Resident #4 should have supervision when using a needle and scissors to prevent injury. 2. Record review of Resident #20's face sheet, dated 6/22/23 revealed a [AGE] year old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included anxiety, hypertension (high blood pressure), schizophrenia (a disorder that affects a person's ability to think, feel, and behave clearly), encephalopathy (a broad term for any brain disease that alters brain function or structure), diabetes (a chronic, long-lasting health condition that affects how your body turns food into energy), chronic viral hepatitis C (long-term infection of the liver that could lead to complications such as cirrhosis, liver failure, and liver cancer). Record review of Resident #20's most recent annual MDS assessment, dated 8/30/23 revealed the resident was cognitively intact for daily decision-making skills. Further review of Resident #20's annual MDS assessment, under Section GG - Functional Abilities and Goals, sub-section GG0130 Self-Care, I. Personal Hygiene: The ability to maintain personal hygiene, including combing hair, shaving, applying makeup, washing/drying face and hands (excludes baths, showers, and oral hygiene) was blank. Record review of Resident #20's comprehensive care plan, dated 8/30/23 revealed the resident had Activity of Daily Living impairment related to coordination deficit, upper body weakness, visual disturbance/deficit, limited endurance, activity intolerance, limited range of motion, pain, uncontrolled movements, difficulty with dressing/bathing/grooming/hygiene/toileting with interventions that included to assist only as necessary and provide assistive devices if needed. Resident #20's comprehensive care plan also revealed the resident had disordered thinking/awareness related to anxiety, depression, schizophrenia as evidenced by easily distracted, periods of altered perception, episodes of disorganized speech, periods of restlessness/lethargy, and mental function varies over course of the day. Further review of Resident #20's comprehensive care plan revealed there were no interventions in place for the resident's use of a flat iron. During an observation and interview on 11/27/23 at 11:05 a.m., Resident #20 stated she styled her hair with a flat iron. Resident #20 was observed with a flat iron and a blow dryer at the bedside. Resident #20 stated she had burned her finger several times trying to reach the back of her hair with the flat iron. Resident #20 was observed with a round, red mark on the inner 2nd finger on the middle joint of the left hand that appeared to measure the size of a pea. Resident #20 was observed with a slight tremor to the right hand. During a follow up observation and interview on 11/28/23 at 9:35 a.m., Resident #20 stated she had used the blow dryer to dry her hair after her shower yesterday, 11/27/23. Resident #20 again stated she had been burning her finger with the flat iron and needed to get a pair of gloves or staff to help her. Resident #20 was observed with the flat iron and the blow dryer at the bedside. Resident #20 stated she had asked staff for help with the blow dryer and the flat iron but they are busy. During an interview on 11/29/23 at 1:57 p.m., LVN B revealed Resident #20 had tremors mostly to her hands, maybe the right hand. LVN B stated she was aware Resident #20 used the flat iron and the resident had revealed she had burnt her finger, but had not showed it to me. LVN B then stated, I did ask to see the burn but there was nothing there. LVN B revealed the resident first got the flat iron on 11/17/23, but had asked Resident #20 not to use the flat iron because of safety reasons. LVN B revealed the flat iron should have been added to Resident #20's care plan due to safety reasons. During an interview on 11/29/23 at 2:18 p.m., the DON revealed Resident #20 could not have the flat iron in her room due to safety reasons. The DON revealed the flat iron should have been care planned because it would instruct the staff on how to utilize the use of the flat iron. The DON stated, the care plan is to ensure staff know how to address the situation. Record review of the policy and procedure provided by the facility titled, Accidents Critical Element Pathway, dated 5/2017 revealed in part, .Use this pathway for a resident who requires supervision and/or assistive devices to prevent accidents and to ensure the environment is free from accident hazards as is possible .If the condition or risks were present at the time of the required comprehensive assessment, did the facility comprehensively assess the resident's physical, mental and psychosocial needs to identify the risks and/or to determine underlying causes, to the extent possible, and the impact upon the resident's function, mood and cognition .
CONCERN (E)

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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services (including procedures that assure the accurate acquiring, receiving, dispensing, and administ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services (including procedures that assure the accurate acquiring, receiving, dispensing, and administering of all drugs and biologicals) to meet the needs of each resident for 1 of 4 medication carts (Treatment/Medication Cart) in that: The facility failed to ensure expired mediations were not found on the Treatment/Medication cart. This deficient practice could affect residents who received medications or treatments and could result in less potent or adverse effects. The findings included: Observation on 11/29/23 at 10:54 a.m. of the inspection of the Treatment/Medication Cart with LVN B revealed the following: - 1 open tube of moisturizing wound hydrogel with expiration date 3/29/2022 - 2 open packages of Oil Emulsion Non-Adherent Dressings with expiration date 11/2022 - 1 open box of anti-diarrheal 2 mg tablets with expiration date 9/2023 - 2 open tubes of antimicrobial skin and wound gel with expiration date 5/11/2023 - 1 bottle of sterile saline 0.9% with expiration date 1/28/2023 During an interview on 11/29/23 at 11:08 a.m., LVN B revealed she routinely checked the Treatment/Medication cart for expired medications but did not check items used for wound treatments such as gauze. LVN B revealed it was important to dispose of expired items from the Treatment/Medication cart because someone else using the cart could use the expired items and the residents would not receive the intended effect from the expired items. During an interview on 11/29/23 at 3:55 p.m., the DON revealed it was LVN B's responsibility to ensure the Treatment/Medication cart did not have any expired items in the cart because LVN B provided the treatments to the residents during the day shift as no treatments were scheduled for the night shift. The DON further revealed, LVN B was responsible for ensuring the Treatment/Medication cart was stocked for the weekend treatment nurse. The DON revealed the facility could not store expired medications in the cart or anywhere because it could cause a negative reaction or may not be therapeutic if the expired item was used on a resident. The DON revealed, anything used from a medication cart should be checked before use, including the expiration date. Record review of the facility policy and procedure titled, Policy for Medication Storage, undated, revealed in part, .All medications must be stored in a secured place, according with manufacturer .Medications must be checked at least monthly and those medications that are expired or close to be expired, must be taken to Director of Nursing's office to be destroyed when pharmacist comes to the facility, which occurs on a monthly basis .
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 for kitchen sanitation in that: The facility failed to obtain pasteurized eggs for the purpose of serving undercooked eggs for residents. These failures could place residents at risk for cross-contamination and foodborne illness. The findings included: Observation and interview on 11/29/2023 at 3:51 PM revealed four (4) cartons of unpasteurized eggs stored in the reach-in refrigerator in the kitchen. The DM stated five (5) of the thirty-three (33) residents eat fried and/or over-easy eggs for breakfast. The DM stated she was aware of the presence of the unpasteurized eggs and the risks associated with serving them undercooked to residents such as foodborne illness. The DM stated she did not have a precise reason the facility had purchased only unpasteurized eggs. Interview on 11/29/2023 at 4:12 PM, the ADM stated that he had spoken with the DM. The ADM stated he was aware of the risk associated to residents with undercooked unpasteurized eggs. Interview on 11/29/2023 at 4:29 PM, Resident #19 stated she received over-easy eggs daily and described the yolk of the egg being runny in texture. Resident #19 stated she had not had any gastrointestinal concerns or issues recently. Interview on 11/30/2023 at 2:40 PM, the ADM stated he was not aware of the usage of unpasteurized eggs in the kitchen and stated he was fearful of the potential for gastrointestinal issues developing in residents, as some eat undercooked eggs. The ADM stated he did not have an explicit expectation for egg types and stated his future expectation was that the facility would purchase both pasteurized and unpasteurized eggs, and only utilize the pasteurized eggs for undercooked eggs. The ADM stated the facility did not have a specific policy on the acquisition of food products or on food storage.
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0944 (Tag F0944)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to include as part of its QAPI program, mandatory training that outlined and informed staff of the elements and goals of the facility's QAPI p...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to include as part of its QAPI program, mandatory training that outlined and informed staff of the elements and goals of the facility's QAPI program, for 9 of the 16 staff members (the AADM, the DON, LVN C, LVN D, CNA E, CNA F, CNA G, CNA H, CNA I) reviewed for mandatory training, in that: Nine staff members (the AADM, the DON, LVN C, LVN D, CNA E, CNA F, CNA G, CNA H, CNA I) reviewed for mandatory training had not received training regarding the facility's QAA-QAPI program. This failure could place residents at risk of receiving inadequate care from staff who are unfamiliar with the facility's QAPI program. The findings included: Record review of employee files reflected the following employees had not received training regarding the QAPI program: -AADM was hired on 11/20/1986 -DON hired on 10/16/2023 -LVN C, hired on 8/22/2011 -LVN D, hired on 06/27/2016 -CNA E, hired on 04/25/2017 -CNA F, hired on 03/17/2016 -CNA G, hired on 11/20/1986 -CNA H, hired on 05/04/2005 -CNA I, hired on 01/19/2016 Interview 11/30/2023 at 3:16 PM, the ADON stated she was not aware of staff being required to be trained in any manner related to QAPI and could not find training related to QAPI for other staff. The ADON stated she had only known of the committee members to be trained on QAPI or QAA. Interview on 11/30/2023 at 4:16 PM, the ADM stated he was not the QA point-of-contact and was not aware other staff members apart from the committee members were required to be trained on QAA and QAPI. The ADM stated he believed the QA plan and associated processes related to QAPI were helpful to staff. The ADM stated he did not understand the risk associated with staff being untrained on QAPI. The ADM stated the facility did not have a policy related to QAPI training or who was required to be trained on it.
Oct 2023 2 deficiencies 1 IJ (1 affecting multiple)
CRITICAL (K) 📢 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 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 resident environment remains as free of ...

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 resident environment remains as free of accident hazards as is possible; and Each resident receives adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents for 1 of 4 (Res #1) reviewed for elopements in that: Resident #1 had eloped from facility 3 times (7/26/2023, 8/8/2023, 8/26/2023) with a wander guard on. a. staff were not in-serviced following each elopement. b. no elopement assessment was completed for Resident #1 prior to or immediately following the elopements. c.no measurable (dated) care plan for elopement risk. d. an alarm was not in place on Resident #1's window as indicated on care plan. An IJ was identified on 10/07/2023. The IJ template was provided to the facility on [DATE] at 3:28 PM. While the IJ was removed on 10/11/2023, the facility remained out of compliance at a scope of pattern and a severity level of potential for more than minimal harm because the facility is still monitoring their effectiveness of their plan of removal. This could affect residents who are elopement risks and could place them at risk for injuries. The Findings were: Record review of Resident #1's admission Record dated 8/8/2023 revealed she was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses of vascular dementia (a condition characterized by progressive or persistent loss of intellectual functioning, especially with impairment of memory and abstract thinking, and often with personality change), severe cognitive impairment, anxiety (a feeling of worry, nervousness, or unease), state and mood disorder (any of a group of mental conditions characterized by persistent disturbance of mood, especially in the form of depression or euphoria or a combination). Record review of Resident #1's admission MDS dated [DATE] revealed she was Cognitively severely impaired. Resident #1 was independent with bed mobility, transfers, walk in room/corridor, locomotion on unit, eating, toilet use and dressing. Resident #1 required limited assistance with her personal hygiene and bathing with 1-person physical assistance. Resident #1 had no impairments for range of motion. Resident #1 incontinent of urinary continence and always continent for bowels. Resident #1's height was 61 and weight was 98. Resident #1 had a restraint and alarms was for Alarms used daily wander/elopement alarm. Record review of Resident #1's baseline care plan dated 6/15/2023 revealed she was independent with walks, transfers, eating, and toileting. Resident #1 required supervision for dressing and her hearing/vision was normal. Resident #1 can verbally communicate with others, she had frequent disorientation, had a wander guard and was an elopement risk. Care plan dated 6/15/2023 revealed cognitive deficit: decision making was impaired related to Dementia. Resident #1 was severely impaired and never/rarely makes decisions. The interventions were not dated. Record review of Resident #1's Care plan dated 6/28/2023 was documented problem was wandering/elopement risk-evidence of attempts to leave facility unattended, resident wanders aimlessly, impaired safety awareness, disorientation to place. Resident #1's interventions was documented in a list that included to assess the cause and effectiveness of interventions, maintain safety, make sure all staff are aware of elopement risk, bracelet alarm for alarm doors, assess for fall risk, monitor for fatigue, and weight loss, keep picture of resident in medical record. Titled-Modify Environment included outside secure courtyard for safe walking, safe walking path Titled-Structure activities to include structured and supervise walking activity, re-orientation to person, place and time as needed, distract resident from wandering by offering pleasant diversion structured activities food, conversations, television, and book. (No dates for the new interventions). Record review of Resident #1's consent for restraint use dated 6/15/2023 was documented ordered wander guard for alert staff of elopement attempts. Record review of in-service on dementia, unsafe behaviors, exit seeking, wandering into other resident rooms dated on 7/25/2023 for twenty-two staff signed by LVN D (trainer). Record review of progress noted dated 7/26/2023 for Resident #1 revealed the ADON on call over weekend, notified the DON and the Administrator. Record review of progress noted dated 7/26/2023 for Resident #1 revealed LVN B documented resident #1 went out the laundry room gate was brought back into facility. Resident #1 was placed on 15 minutes with CNA and the monitoring. The on-call ADON notified DON, Administrator. Record review of an incident report dated 7/26/2023 at 6 PM documented Resident #1 went out the laundry room gate and was brought back by staff and Resident was placed on 15-minute observations for safety. Resident #1 was observed by staff on a continuous basis after she returned to the facility signed by LVN A. Resident #1 was gone from facility less than 30 minutes. LVN A took Resident #1 vitals and head to toe assessment was done with no injuries noted. LVN A notified the MD, Administrator. The city outside temperature was 105/77 Degrees Fahrenheit. Record review of 24-hour report dated 7/26/2023 to 7/29/2023 was documented Resident #1 back in facility every 15-minute checks elopement risk, MD notified and review medications. Record review of progress notes for 8/8/2023 at 7:25 AM was documented Resident #1 in the dining room for breakfast, not found in room, looked inside and outside the facility, no alarms were sounded, notified the DON, called police and family, APS. Resident #1 was seen in dining room for breakfast at 7:10 AM, Resident #1 stated she wanted to go home, wander guard was on her. The staff sent out to look for Resident #1 in cars. At 7:52 am police called facility that Resident #1 was found and return to facility. Staff called Administrator that Resident #1 was found by police. At 8 AM Resident #1 arrived at the facility and brought in by police, Resident #1 ate breakfast and drank fluids, assessed head to toe with no injury and updated APS, family, DON, Administrator and MD. At 8:20 AM Resident #1 wander guard was on her wrist still and tested the front alarm door and worked properly by LVN B. Record review of an incident report dated 8/8/2023 at 7:25 AM documented Resident #1 eloped from the facility last seen at 7 AM, notified police, APS (adult protective service), family no signs of point of exit. Resident #1 had her wander guard on her wrist and was brought back by police signed LVN B. Resident #1 was gone from facility less than 30 minutes. LVN B notified APS, Administrator, DON, and police. LVN B took Resident #1 vitals and head to toe assessment was done with no injuries noted. (There were other exits. 2 doors had wander alarms. The courtyard had locked fences and a back gate that alarmed. If vendors knew the code, they could have let her out by accident). The city outside temperature was 106/78 Degrees Fahrenheit. Record review of 24-hour report dated 8/8/2023 to 8/11/2023 documented Resident #1 back in facility every 15-minute checks elopement risk. Resident #1 eloped at 7:25 am to 8 AM, every 15-minute check, monitor for behaviors and elopement. Record review of Resident #1's Care Plan updated on 8/8/2023 APS and guardian notified of resident #1's elopement and safety to be in placed in a secure unit. No new intervention dated for the other 2 elopements for Resident #1. Record review of progress noted dated 8/26/2023 for Resident #1 was documented the [NAME] C called on the 6-2 PM shift, brought Resident #1 back to the facility. The [NAME] C stated Resident #1 was walking down the street away from the facility. LVN B did the head-to-toe assessment and was stable. LVN B asked Resident #1 how she got out but was too forgetful and confused to remember. LVN B notified Administrator, MD, and guardian. Resident #1's wander guard was on her wrist and the front door worked properly. LVN B noted 2-10 PM sift to state the 15-minute monitoring due to wanderer signed by LVN B. Record review of an incident report dated 8/26/2023 at 2:05 PM documented dietary manager C called the facility by phone saying that she saw Resident #1 walking down the side street away from the facility and brought her back, wander guard was on wrist and was working signed by LVN B. Resident #1 was gone from facility less than 30 minutes. The city outside temperature was 104/76 Degrees Fahrenheit. Record review of 24-hour report dated 8/26/2023 documented Resident #1 back in facility every 15-minute checks elopement risk. Resident #1 eloped at 7:25 am to 8 AM, every 15-minute check, monitor for behaviors and elopement. Record review of Resident #1's Fall risk evaluation dated 9/28/2023 revealed she was oriented x2, had 1-2 falls, was ambulatory, vision adequate, gait normal, administered 1-2 medications, predisposing disease, she scored an 8, documented a high risk would score a 10 or above. Record review of Resident #1's weekly summary dated 9/28/2023 was documented for Cognitive patterns Resident #1 had inattention, disorganized thinking, memory problem short-long-term, and severely impaired. In section for Behaviors Resident #1 wandered. Resident #1's Functional Status she was independent with transfers, bed mobility and toilet use, and did not use a mobility device. Resident #1 for active diagnoses was dementia and had a wander guard bracelet for restraints. The wonder guard bracelet was to alert staff of elopement attempts. Record review of a 30-day notice for Resident #1 dated 9/28/2023 was provided to Resident #1 and temporary guardian. Record review of List of Residents at risk for Elopement (no date) revealed 4 residents to included, Resident #1. The Administrator provided this list. Record review of Resident #1's chart revealed no elopement assessment for each elopement 7/26/2023, 8/8/2023, and 8/26/2023. No prior elopement risk assessments prior to 10/7/2023. Record review of Elopement Risk Assessment dated 10/7/2023 for Resident #1 was documented a score of 25, if the score was 5 or greater, they are at risk. (Does resident have a history of elopements/sundowning- scored 5 for both questions). Elopement precautions on care plan - wander guard bracelet in place-yes. Consider placement in a secured unit-yes. Secure unit available-No. Record review of the in-service's booklet did not have in-services that had staff signatures for elopement risk residents after Residents elopements or attempts. Record review of policy (no date) Protocol for wandering residents was attached to every 15-minute checks sheet for the 3 elopements of Resident #1. Record review of the 3 15 - minute checks were completed and signed by staff for 48 hours, per policy. Record review of Protocol for wandering Residents and Elopement reflected Place resident on a fifteen (15)-minute watch for 48 hours . The following rule states assign staff their time period on the watch and prepare the documentation that needs to be filled out. Record review of Resident #1's 15-minute checks revealed on 7/26/2023 15-minute checks began at 6 PM and ended 7/29/2023 at 5:45 PM. On 8/8/2023 resident 15-minute checks began and ended 8/9/2023. On 8/26/2023 the facility began logging 15-minute checks, on 8/27/2023, 2-10 shift began 30-minute checks. At 10 PM, 15-minute checks resumed each shift through 10/10/2023. Record review of in-service on wandering and elopement precaution care to residents and Resident #1. This included 1:1 (staff to be always close to Resident #1) care, create safe space for activities, finding resident in a timely manner, safe space for staff, document on incidents and follow facility protocol. This in-service was dated 10/6/2023 from 6:30 PM to 7 PM. There was a signature page that included all staff. Record review of list of locked units (no date) that the facility was trying to transfer for safety of Resident #1 to a secure unit. The list included 5 different locked units and denied due to lack of money and Medicaid pending. Record review of paper posted across from nurses' station (no date) near staff timecard, was typed, Attention all staff Members -Make sure that you always monitor Resident #1's whereabouts. Inform charge nurse if Resident #1 is exhibiting signs of wanting to leave facility. Observation on 9/19/2023 at 2:30 PM at entrance revealed the front door had an alarm and was locked with a number pad. Staff came to let surveyor in the facility. Observation on 9/19/2023 at 5:13 PM and 9/20/2023 at 10:14 AM of all exits with the Maintenance supervisor during environment rounds. The front door had an alarm, the smoking section had no exit, and the back door leading out to the courtyard was not locked. So, any resident could go outside and walk around the fenced doors in the courtyard had locks on them that were not easily opened. The courtyard had a back gate that vendors or staff used. This back gate was closed and had a code lock on it. The maintenance supervisor showed surveyor if the back gate stayed open for 3 minutes the alarm in the facility sounded. The back gate if opened lead to a street in neighborhood. The courtyard gate near the laundry room was locked and not easily opened. Observation on 9/19/2023 at 5:17 PM revealed Resident #1 was walking around in the halls, she had a wander guard on her wrist, she went to sit down in the dining room for a meal and saw staff was monitoring her. Observation on 9/20/2023 at 10:15 AM with Maintenance supervisor during environment rounds, in Resident #1's room observed window turn knob locked position, screen on window (window blinds difficult for surveyor to open). Resident #1 was not in room at the time. No observation of an alarm placed in the window. The maintenance supervisor turned the knob down position to open Resident #1's window and then turned the knob up position to close the window. Observations of Resident #1's window with the knob lead to the outside in front of the building, too a 4-lane street separated by middle section. The speed limit was 30 mile per hour and was a business road. Observation of Resident #1 was with staff monitoring and engaging with her in dining room sitting with her. Observation on 9/20/2023 at 10:18 AM revealed staff were with Resident #1. Resident #1 was in the dining room during activity with Activity Director. Observation on 9/20/23 at 12:38 PM with RN supervisor in Resident #1's room window had an alarm on it. Observation on 9/20/2023 at 5:32 PM revealed Resident #1 was in the dining area sitting down with staff talking with them. Observation on 9/22/2023 at 11 AM in Resident #1's room revealed she was in her room in bed sleeping and CNA F was sitting in chair in room. Observation in Resident #1's room window had an alarm on it. Observation on 10/8/2023 at 11:28 AM with Resident #1 was sitting in her wheelchair in her room and had a wander guard bracelet. Observation on 10/8/2023 at noon of sheet of paper posted on (no date) across from nurses' station near staff timecard, was typed, Attention all staff Members -Make sure that you always monitor Resident #1's whereabouts. Inform charge nurse if Resident #1 is exhibiting signs of wanting to leave facility. Interview on 9/19/2023 at 5:18 PM with Resident #1 stated she was at school now and will have to go back home near [NAME] Hwy. Resident #1 was confused when asked how she was doing and how she left the facility. Interview on 9/20/2023 at 10:35 AM with CNA E stated she had worked at facility 4 months on the 1st shift and she picks up hours at times. CNA E stated Resident #1 she remembered did leave the building in the mornings and could not recall what else happened. CNA E stated Resident #1 walked around the inside of building down the halls, but she had not seen Resident #1 get out of the building or the courtyard. CNA E stated she had not heard anyone trying to get out of the window. Interview on 9/20/2023 at 11:08 AM with RN supervisor stated the Maintenance supervisor had told her (on 9/20/23 at 10:15 AM) about the window in Resident #1 was in the locked position and the window was hard to open. The RN supervisor stated she had never seen a window to resident rooms open. Interview on 9/20/2023 at 11:12 AM with LVN D stated Resident # 1 had eloped the 1st time by the back gate, the maintenance supervisor found the gate open. The LVN D stated the maintenance supervisor had replaced the lock with a new one. Interview on 9/20/2023 at 12:14 PM with RN supervisor stated she had called the temporary guardian for Resident #1 and had discussed Resident #1 had to leave the facility and she was waiting for the temporary guardian to find placement. RN supervisor stated Resident #1 was on a 1:1 with staff for 24 hours per day, until they can find placement for her. RN supervisor stated staff had always kept an eye on Resident #1, such as on 2-10 PM the ADON keeps her at the nurse's station with her. Typically, the nurses are aware of Resident #1 and always know where she is in the building. Interview on 9/20/2023 at 1:41 PM with LVN B stated she worked the 1st shift for the last 9 years, and stated 1 nurse per shift 1 treatment nurse, 1 medication aide and 3-4 CNAs per shift. LVN B stated Resident #1 let the building two times while she was on duty (2nd and 3rd elopement). The 1st time was during breakfast, and she was in the dining room looking at her, she turned around to get check a tray, then Resident #1 was gone, LVN B said she had staff looking for her around inside and outside of building. LVN B said she notified the Administrator, and police, LVN B said staff drove around to look for Resident #1, an anonymous person from area called the police and brought her back, LVN B said nurse notified the guardian, and she was not gone for longer than 30 minutes. Resident #1 was brought back by the police, and LVN B did a head-to-toe assessment, LVN B said there were no injuries, and she had her elopement bracelet on, LVN B said she was on 15-minute checks for 3 days. LVN B stated one of the interventions were for the physician to review her medications. LVN B stated the 2nd time Resident #1 left the building was between shifts. LVN B said the nurse had received a call from [NAME] C stating she had found Resident #1 walking down the street away from the facility. [NAME] C brought Resident #1 back to the facility, LVN B stated she asked Resident #1 how she got out of the building; Resident #1 did not reply. LVN B stated she did a head-to-toe assessment with no injuries. LVN B stated she notified the Administrator, family, did an assessment and placed Resident #1 on every 15-minute check for 3 days. LVN B stated for all incidents the nurses complete an incident report, place resident on a 15-minute check for 3 days and document the monitoring on the progress notes and the 24-hour report. LVN B stated the intervention was for staff to monitor Resident#1 closely and to entertain her. LVN B stated she was not aware of any 1:1 monitoring checks for Resident #1. LVN B stated the Maintenance supervisor checked all the gates, fences, all windows to see how Resident #1 left the building, LVN B said the only assumption was that someone left the door open in the courtyard and she left out that door, or maybe out the room window. LVN B stated she checked Resident #1's room window, and it was not open and there were no signs of anyone tampering with the window. LVN B stated or maybe Resident #1 went out the front door and staff did not hear the alarm. LVN B said she was not sure how she left the building. Interview on 9/20/2023 at 2:33 PM with LVN D stated she had worked at the facility since 2014 and had worked all shifts. LVN D stated Resident #1 left the building two times. LVN D said once she was on the way to work, and staff called her to look for Resident #1 and when she arrived at work Resident #1 was in the building. LVN D stated Resident #1 was on a 1:1 for a while and she remembers documenting the monitoring. LVN D remembers every 2 hours staff would check on Resident #1. LVN D stated Resident #1 was exit seeking, and she had dementia, LVN D said Resident #1 would leave in the afternoon, and she would state she needed to go home to be with cats, LVN D said today she continues to be on 1:1 until they could find a safe place for her. Interview on 9/20/2023 at 4:55 PM with LVN A stated she worked at facility for 7 years on the 1st shift. LVN A stated Resident #1's when she left the building, she was down the road and a resident family member saw her and the nurse was able to bring her back to facility. LVN A stated she was gone about 10-15 minutes, LVN A notified the charge nurse and family. LVN A stated she did head to toe assessment with no injuries. LVN A stated she had her wander guard on, and staff were doing 15-minute checks for Resident #1. Interview on 9/22/2023 at 3:55 PM with the DON stated Resident #1 notified APS about Resident #1's safety concerns being in this non-locked facility and looking for placement. The DON stated Resident #1 meet the medical criteria, but not the financial criteria. The DON stated Resident #1 had eloped from facility 3 times and each time APS and the temporary guardian was called to notify, this was an unsafe place for her. The DON stated staff were monitoring Resident #1 on a 1:1 basis, every 15-minute for 24-hour period, since her last elopement on 8/26/2023. The DON stated Resident #1's interventions were 1:1 staff for 24 hours period, medications reviews, alarm bracelet, alarm on window and staff training. The DON stated they had in-services for dementia, incident protocol, but was not sure about elopement in-services. Interview on 10/11/2023 at 11:24 AM with the Administrator stated Resident #1's interventions of placing an alarm on her window to the outside was on 9/19/2023. The Administrator stated Resident #1 had her alarm bracelet on her every time she was brought back to the facility from an elopement. Interview on 10/11/2023 at 2:11 PM with the AA she stated she would stay and keep Resident #1 busy, and she would give her paperwork to do. AA stated Resident #1 if she was busy would take her to AD) to keep Resident #1 busy to take over the 1:1 monitoring. AA stated it has been working out ok, with alternating staff to be with resident #1 on a 1:1, staff with her for 24 hours a day. AA stated the RN supervisor is trying to find placement for Resident #1 but was having trouble because Resident #1 had no income, and she is Medicaid pending. Interview on 10/11/2023 at 3 PM with the ADON stated she had worked at the facility for 34 years. The ADON stated Resident #1 had eloped, was found with wander guard bracelet- (so staff can hear alarm when she exits the facility), had no injuries and staff, family were notified. The ADON stated staff did incidents reports after the incident occurred. The ADON stated the staff had been alternating 1:1 monitoring with Resident #1, Resident #1 wants to leave, and get sundowners (Sundowning is the name for a group of behaviors, feelings and thoughts people who have Alzheimer's or dementia can experience as the sun sets.). The ADON stated they do not usually take resident with elopement risk and the plan was to transfer Resident #1 to a facility with a secure unit. The ADON stated the interventions were medications review for moods and anxiety. This was determined to be an Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) on 10/07/2023 at 3:28 PM. Administrator was notified. Administrator was provided with the IJ template on 10/07/2023. The following Plan of Removal was accepted on 10/11/2023 at 4:30 PM. Plan of Removal Date 10/11/2023 PLAN OF REMOVAL FOR IMMEDIATE JEOPARDY To Whom it May Concern, Summary of details which leads to outcomes. On 9/19/2023 an investigation was initiated at the facility. On 10/07/2023, a surveyor provided an IJ Template notification that the Survey Agency has determined that the conditions at the center constitute immediate jeopardy to resident health. The notification of the alleged immediate jeopardy states as follows: F689 Quality of Care The facility failed to provide Quality of Care for Resident #1 in that it did not in-service staff after each time she eloped, three times, did not have elopement assessment after each elopement and care plans were not measurable for elopement risk. Problem The Facility's Deficient practice revealed facility failed to ensure the resident environment remains as free of accident hazards as is possible; and each resident receives adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents. Immediate Corrections Implemented for Removal of Immediate Jeopardy. Facility's Plan of Removal, 10/7/23 Preparation and/or execution of this Plan of Removal does not constitute admission or agreement by the provider of the truth of facts alleged or conclusions set forth in the preliminary finding in the IJ component date 10/7/23. The Plan of Removal is prepared and/or executed solely because the provisions of Federal and State laws require it. Component one: Noncompliance All Staff will be in-serviced immediately on preventing accidents and hazards, namely the risk of Resident #l's elopement from the facility. In-service started 10/7/23 at 5:00 PM. Completed 10/7/23 at 6:20 PM. We have two other residents who are wheelchair bound and even though they have never eloped, we have completed their elopement risk assessments. Resident #l's care plan has been updated with current interventions related to her elopements. The two other residents who are wheelchair bound, and have never eloped, have also had their care plans updated. Component two: Serious injury, serious harm, serious impairment, or death: Resident #1 has been placed on a one-to-one observation by staff on all three shifts (which means one employee was assigned to Resident #1 24 hours a day, seven days a week) since 09/21/2023. Before 09/21/2023, Resident #1 was on a 15-minute watch by staff. No elopement has occurred since 8/26/23 (42 days ago). When the elopements occurred, no injury was sustained by Resident #1. She was not in any danger, she was found nearby, and she was found within an hour. She did not miss any medications and there was no danger from the weather (neither heat nor cold). Resident #1 is alert enough to navigate the neighborhood (walk on sidewalks, cross streets, etc.) without endangering herself. Completed 10/7/23 at 3:28 PM Component three: Need for immediate action: The facility will ensure that all staff were trained on elopement risk patients, in particular Resident #1. The RN Consultant will monitor on a weekly basis. Resident #1 will continue to be on a one-to-one observation by staff on all three shifts (24 hours a day, seven days a week). We have been trying to place Resident #1 in a locked unit. We have been in constant contact with her Guardian about transferring her to another facility, but to no avail. We have contacted at least six facilities with locked units; however, all have refused because Resident #1 does not have any funds and is Medicaid pending. Completed 10/7/23 at 6:20 PM STAFF MEMBERS WHO ARE ON VACATION, SICK OR ARE UNABLE TO BE REACHED, WILL NOT BE ALLOWED TO COME BACK TO WORK UNTIL IN-SERVICED ON ABOVE TOPICS. In-service started 10/7/23 at 5:00 PM. Completed 10/7/23 at 6:20 PM. Plan of removal has been implemented and completed by 10/7/23 at 6:20 PM. Please, accept this plan of removal as our statement of compliance. Plan Of Removal Verification The facility RN supervisor completed a 100% audit of staff in-service and 100% of resident elopement risk assessments and care plans of elopement risk residents were completed. This audit was completed on 10/11/2023. Record review of the staff in-service with signatures by all staff at the facility. The facility RN supervisor provided the one-to-one observations by staff on all three shifts since 9/21/2023. Record review of the 1:1 sheets with staff signatures were provided form 9/21/2023 to current. The facility RN supervisor provided the form she started to monitor staff training on elopement risk residents on weekly basis. Record review of the staff monitoring sheet was started by the RN supervisor. The facility RN supervisor provided the list of facilities contacted with a secure unit but was denied to funding. Record review of a sheet of paper with a list of secure unit facilities were listed and stated denied due to funding. Record review of in-service dated 9/21/2023 from 6-6:30 PM by DON was documented Elopement, educate staff on resident with elopement risk, resident will have letter E placed on the door, Resident #1 was to wear wander guard at all times and battery check weekly, check on 1:1 status. Record review of in-service had the Wandering and Elopement Protocol with each staff person that signed and dated it. Record review of in-service dated 10/7/2023-10/10/2023 for all 3 shifts with staff signatures/phone calls was documented protocol for wandering residents and elopement prevention, Resident #1 must continue to be on 1:1 basis at all times, offer activities she likes, wander guard at all times, and check alarm bracelet. This had 65 staff. (Some staff signed multiple times- staff made sure all 3 shifts signed that they had the in-service). Record review of in-service had the Wandering and Elopement Protocol. Record review of in-service dated 10/9/2023 for 7/26/2023, 8/8/2023, 8/26/2023 by Administrator/Maintenance supervisor was documented check all exits for possible ways Resident #1 could have eloped, in case of elopement place on every 15-minute check or 1:1 status, charge nurse to notify administrator, family, or APS and medical director, and Resident elopement risk wear I badge, and picture in medical record to ID resident. This in-service had 25 staff. Record review of in-service form- meeting with Administrator, RN supervisor, temporary guardian and Ombudsman dated 10/11/2023 regarding Resident #1. They agreed that as soon as the temporary guardian was a permanent guardian. The permanent guardian will place Resident #1's assets for sale. Then Resident 1's assets will not count as a resource for Medicaid, so she can qualify for Medicaid. Temporary guardian and Ombudsman will be looking for placement as soon as possible. Record review of Resident #1's updated care plan completed by RN supervisor stated she updated the care plan with dates. Resident #1's care plan: this was the order the care plan was in. 7/26-8/82023-Staff member to monitor resident #1 every 15 minutes. 8/26/2023-continue a 1:1 intervention (a staff member accompany Resident #1 at all times. 6/16/2023-make sure resident had a wander guard on, with the name at all times. Check wonder guard daily to make sure that it works. 6/16/2023-makes sure the front door alarm is working, and that resident #1 room window was locked, and alarm is on. (This was not on the original care plan). 107/2023-complete an elopements risk assessment, 7/26/2023 document all incidents of elopement and elopement attempts. 6/16/2023-identify pattern of wandering. Is wandering purposeful, aimless, or escapist? Is resident looking for something? Does it indicate the need for more exercise? 6/16/2023-maintain log of interventions that work, offer activities and entertainment she liked: listening to music, walking outside supervised, puzzle, coloring, etc. maintained safety. 6/162023-identification on band on resident, clothing. 6/16/2023 -wander guard for alarm front door. 6/28/2023 Asses for fall risk. 6/16/20223-make staff aware of elopement risk. 7/26/2023-staff to accompany resident wen going to the patio area for activity. 10/7/2023-personalize room with clock, calendar, signs, or pictures. Structured Activates 6/16/2023-structured and supervised walking activities. Reorientation to person. Place and time. 7/26/2023- distract resident form wande[TRUNCATED]
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

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 interview and record review the facility failed to ensure that all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, exploit...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure that all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, exploitation, or mistreatment, including injuries of unknown source and misappropriation of resident property, are reported immediately, but not later than 2 hours after the allegation is made for 2 of 2 (Residents #1 and#2) residents. 1.The facility failed to report on 3 separate elopement incidents Resident #1 elopement from the facility, no injuries. 2. The facility failed to report and submit Resident #2's left knee fracture, intake #379566 allegation of unknown origin. These failures could place residents at risk for not having allegations of abuse or neglect reported to the State Agency to ensure that allegations are fully investigated. The findings were: 1. Record review of Resident #1's admission Record dated [DATE] revealed she was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses of vascular dementia (a condition characterized by progressive or persistent loss of intellectual functioning, especially with impairment of memory and abstract thinking, and often with personality change, resulting from organic disease of the brain.), severe cognitive impairment, anxiety (a feeling of worry, nervousness, or unease, typically about an imminent event or something with an uncertain outcome.) state and mood disorder (any of a group of mental conditions characterized by persistent disturbance of mood, especially in the form of depression or euphoria or a combination of these true clinical depression is a mood disorder, which can interfere with everyday life for an extended time. Record review of Resident #1's admission MDS dated [DATE] revealed section C Cognitive Patterns BIMS score 99, severely impaired. Record review of Resident #1's care plan dated [DATE] revealed resident walks, eats independently, had adequate vision, continent of bladder, communicates verbally, frequent disorientation, place, and time, wander guard, elopement risk. Record review of an incident report dated [DATE] at 6 PM documented Resident #1 went out the laundry room gate and was brought back by staff and Resident was placed on 15-minute observations for safety. Resident #1 was observed by staff on a continuous basis after she returned to the facility by LVN A. Resident #1 was gone from facility less than 30 minutes. Record review of an incident report dated [DATE] at 7:25 AM documented Resident #1 eloped from the facility last seen at 10 AM, notified police, APS (adult protective service), family no signs of point of exit. Resident #1 had her wander guard on her wrist and was brought back by police by LVN B. Resident #1 was gone from facility less than 30 minutes. Record review of an incident report dated [DATE] at 2:05 PM documented dietary manager C called the facility by phone saying that she saw Resident #1 walking down the side street away from the facility and brought her back, wander guard was on wrist and was working by LVN B. Resident #1 was gone from facility less than 30 minutes. Record review of all 3 incident reports for Resident #1 was documented she had no injures, the medical director, guardian, family, Administrator/DON, and APS were called. On one of the incidents reports the facility notified the police. All the incident reports included a head-to-toe assessment, vitals, and 15-minute checks. Wander guard check, changed locks, locked room window and continue to search for an alternate placement with a secure unit. Interview on 9/202023 at 1:41 PM with LVN B, she stated staff knew to keep a close eye on Resident #1 because she had eloped before from the building. LVN B stated Resident #1 was in the dining room ([DATE] at 7:25 AM) for breakfast and then the next minute between checking meal trays, Resident #1 was gone from her sight. LVN B stated she told staff to start looking for Resident #1 inside and outside the facility. She notified the Administrator, and police. Staff drove around the facility, and could not find Resident #1, after about 30 minutes the police brought her back to facility. LVN B stated staff monitored Resident #1 every 15 minutes and had her wander guard bracelet on her wrist. LVN B stated she was not sure how Resident #1 left the facility. LVN B stated the second time she knew Resident #1 eloped and was brought back to facility by cook C after she saw Resident #1 walking away from the facility. LVN B stated one of the new interventions were to have the psychiatrist review her medications and prescribed a mood medication that has helped. Interview on [DATE] at 4:14 PM with RN supervisor stated she had spoken to Resident #1's guardian, and they had both been searching for placement for Resident #1 in a locked unit for Resident #1's safety, since she first eloped in [DATE]. RN supervisor stated Resident #1 was monitored by staff and will continue to have 1:1 monitoring by staff 24 hours until she can be discharged to a locked unit facility. Interview on [DATE] at 4:55 PM with LVN A, stated Resident #1 left the building ([DATE] at 6 PM), she was missing for about 10-15 minutes and was found and brought back with no injuries. LVN A stated they started 15-minute check on Resident #1 and LVN A liked to keep Resident #1 with her to keep her busy. LVN A stated Resident #1's wander guard bracelet was still on her. LVN A stated Resident #1 was alert and orientated times 2-3 depending on time of day. Interview on [DATE] at 3:55 PM with the DON stated Resident #1 had eloped from the facility 3 times and had interventions in place for her, such as wander guard bracelet, 1:1 monitoring, 15-minute checks, medication reviews, psychiatrist medication review, her room window had an alarm, at night staff were right outside door while she slept and was care planned. The DON stated Resident #1 was an APS case and had brought Resident #1 to facility. The facility had reported to APS about Resident #1's elopements and being at this facility, that was not a locked unit, and was a safety risk due to her elopement. The DON stated Resident #1's guardian and administrative staff had been searching for a locked unit facility but were unsuccessful due to no finances available for her room and board. Interview on [DATE] at 5:15 PM with Administrator/DON stated Resident #1's elopements were from 15 minutes to 30 minutes. After the last elopement, the facility started to monitor Resident #1 more closely to include 1:1 supervision. Each incident the Maintenance supervisor walked around the perimeter of the building to look for clues of how Resident #1 might have left the facility. 2. Record review of Resident #2's admission Record dated [DATE] revealed she was admitted on [DATE] and was discharged on [DATE], with diagnoses of dementia, Alzheimer's disease, Breast Cancer, paranoid delusional and depressive disorder. Resident # 2 was on hospice service and died in [DATE]. Record review of Resident #2's mobile x-ray dated [DATE] of left femur finding were, A displaced fracture of the left femoral neck is present. Diffuse osteopenia is present. The age of the fracture is indeterminate. Record review of incident #379566, date of incident was [DATE] at 11:30 AM, date and time the facility first learned of the incident was [DATE] at 12:15 PM, and the incident was reported findings was on [DATE] at 5:44 PM and submitted to STATE on [DATE]. This incident involved an unwitnessed fracture to Resident #2's left femoral neck. Interview on [DATE] at 5:57 PM with the Administrator stated he was not sure why I did not report to the STATE until [DATE]. Interview with the Administrator stated when looking at his phone, to see date he should have submitted and reported Resident #2's incident, provider email from the STATE was documented [DATE]. Interview on [DATE] at 6:04 PM with the Administrator stated he used the Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation, Misappropriation of Resident property provider letter for a resource to know when to report an incident with residents. The Administrator confirmed after surveyor intervention, he was using an old provider letter on reporting Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation, Misappropriation of Resident property to the STATE. The provider letter he was using was dated 2014, this one stated if the resident was not missing for longer than 8 hours, he did not have to report to the STATE. The surveyor showed him the provider letter in reporting Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation, Misappropriation of Resident property and other Incidents dated [DATE]. The Administrator looked at his phone, (intakes list) to see which day he was supposed to submit the provider investigation and was dated for [DATE].
Sept 2022 4 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that the residents' environment remains as fre...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that the residents' environment remains as free of accident hazards as is possible and each resident receives adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents for 2 (Resident #28 and Resident #10) of 13 residents reviewed for accident hazards, in that: 1. Resident #28's fall mats were observed to be under the resident's bed rather than beside it. 2. Resident #10's fall mats were observed to be under the resident's bed rather than beside it. This failure could place residents at risk of injury or death as a result of an accident or exposure to hazardous circumstance. The findings were: 1. Record review of Resident #28's face sheet, dated 09/23/2022, revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including: dementia, generalized pain, and atrial fibrillation. Record review of Resident #28's annual MDS, dated [DATE], revealed a BIMS score of 01 which indicted severe cognitive impairment. Further review revealed Resident #28 required total assistance from staff to perform activities of daily living. Record review of Resident #28's care plan, revised 07/18/2022, revealed Resident #28 had impaired physical mobility, weakness, limited range of motion, an unsteady gait, was at risk of falling, and required fall mats at bedside for safety. Observation on 09/20/2022 at 2:00 p.m. revealed Resident #28 was lying supine in her bed with fall mats under the resident's bed rather than beside it. Further observation revealed a sign posted on the wall above the resident's bed which stated that Resident #28 required fall mats while in bed. During an interview on 09/20/2022 at 2:00 p.m., the Assistant Administrator confirmed Resident #28 was lying supine in her bed with fall mats under the resident's bed rather than beside it. The Assistant Administrator confirmed Resident #28 required fall mats for safety, to prevent injury should the resident fall from her bed. During an interview with the DON on 09/23/2022 at 9:30 a.m., the DON confirmed Resident #28 required fall mats for safety, to prevent injury should the resident fall from her bed. 2. Record review of Resident #10's face sheet, dated 09/23/2022, revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including: dementia, osteoarthritis, and anxiety. Record review of Resident #10's quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], revealed a BIMS score of 06 which indicated severe cognitive deficit. Record review of Resident #10's care plan, revised 08/15/2022, revealed Resident #10 had impaired physical mobility, limited range of motion, was at risk of falling, and required fall mats at bedside for safety. Observation on 09/23/2022 at 8:30 a.m. revealed Resident #10 was lying supine in her bed with fall mats under the resident's bed rather than beside it. Further observation revealed a sign posted on the wall above the resident's bed which stated that Resident #10 required fall mats while in bed. During an interview with the ADON on 09/23/2022 at 8:30 a.m., the ADON confirmed Resident #10 was lying supine in her bed with fall mats under the resident's bed rather than beside it. The ADON confirmed Resident #10 required fall mats for safety, to prevent injury should the resident fall from her bed. During an interview with the DON on 09/23/2022 at 9:30 a.m., the DON confirmed Resident #10 required fall mats for safety, to prevent injury should the resident fall from her bed. Record review of the facility policy, Fall Prevention Protocol, undated, revealed, High-risk falls residents will be identified .signs on the doors of residents rooms. Low beds will be used, and mats placed on the floor to help prevent injuries to falls.
CONCERN (D)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for 2 of 5 residents (Resident #13 and Resident #5) reviewed for infection control in that: CMA A did not sanitize the blood pressure wrist cuff between checking the blood pressure for Resident #13 and Resident #5. This deficient practice could affect all residents and place them at risk for infection. The findings were: Record review of Resident #13's face sheet, dated 8/18/20, revealed Resident #13 was admitted to facility on 6/11/2020 with diagnoses of hypertension, unspecified constipation, moderate intellectual disability, dementia [a general term for impaired ability to remember, think, or make decisions] without behavioral disturbance, and laceration [cut] of abdominal wall. Record review of Resident #13's Quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], revealed Resident #13 did not have a BIMS score because Resident #13 is rarely/never understood. Record review of Resident #5's face sheet, dated 3/15/22, revealed Resident #5 was admitted to facility on 7/7/17 with diagnoses of Depressive Disorder, hypertension, COPD [a group of lung diseases causing constriction of the airways and difficulty breathing], hyperlipidemia [high fat levels in the blood], and generalized pain. Record review of Resident #5's Quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], revealed Resident #5 had a BIMS score of 5, signifying severe cognitive impairment. Observation on 9/23/22 at 7:00 a.m. revealed CMA A took Resident #138's blood pressure and did not sanitize the blood pressure wrist cuff after taking the blood pressure of Resident #138. CMA A administered Resident #138's medications. Then with the same contaminated blood pressure wrist cuff, CMA A took Resident #13's blood pressure and did not sanitize the blood pressure wrist cuff after use. Following this, CMA A administered Resident #13's medications. Observation on 9/23/22 at 7:36 a.m. revealed CMA A used the same contaminated blood pressure cuff she used on Resident #138 and Resident #13 and took the blood pressure of Resident #5. During an interview on 9/23/22 at 7:50 a.m., CMA A stated ways to prevent the spread of infection during medication administration included washing hands and using hand sanitizer. CMA A stated she would use sanitizers on items for multi-patient use. CMA A stated the blood pressure cuff should be sanitized after every resident. CMA A stated she did not sanitize the blood pressure cuff because she was talking to this surveyor. When asked why it was important to sanitize the blood pressure cuff between residents, CMA A stated, So you won't contaminate the other residents. During an interview on 9/23/22 at 8:31 a.m., the DON stated the facility educated their staff annually and upon hire to perform hand-washing during medication administration. The DON stated their treatment care nurse performed hand hygiene audits during patient care. When asked what were ways for staff members to prevent the transmission of infections during medication administration, the DON stated, if using the blood pressure cuff you have to sanitize in between. A policy and procedure on hand hygiene, a policy and procedure on standard precautions, and the facility's last education in-service on infection control was requested at this time. During an interview on 9/23/22 at 8:50 a.m., the DON provided several documents including a printed document from the CDC titled How Infections Spread, and the last educational in-service on infection control. Record review of the facility's educational in-service, dated 9/19/2, revealed the facility last educated their staff members on infection control on 9/19/22. CMA A's signature was seen on the educational sign-in sheet. There was no verbiage seen specifically addressing the disinfection of items for multi-patient use. Record review of facility-provided printed document titled How Infections Spread, dated 1/7/16, revealed the following: there are a few general ways that germs travel in healthcare settings - through contact (i.e. touching), sprays and splashes, inhalation, and sharps injuries . Contact moves germs by touch . For example, healthcare provider hands become contaminated by touching germs present on medical equipment or high touch surfaces and then carry the germs on their hands and spread to a susceptible person when proper hand hygiene is not performed before touching the susceptible person. There was no verbiage seen specifically addressing the disinfection of items for multi-patient use.
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 the public, for 2 (shower/restroom [ROOM NUMBER] and #2) of 5 shower/restrooms reviewed on Hall A, in that: Two shower/restroom sinks were missing caulking and were loosely affixed to the wall. This deficient practice could place residents at risk and result in an environment that is not safe, functional, sanitary, or comfortable for residents, staff, and visitors. The findings were: During an observation on 09/20/2022 at 2:10 p.m., the sink in communal resident shower/restroom [ROOM NUMBER], near resident room [ROOM NUMBER] on Hall A, was missing caulking between the sink and the wall resulting in the sink becoming loosely affixed to the wall. Surveyor was able to move sink in an up and down motion. During an observation on 09/20/2022 at 2:12 p.m., the sink in communal resident shower/restroom [ROOM NUMBER], near resident room [ROOM NUMBER] on Hall A, was missing caulking between the sink and the wall resulting in the sink becoming loosely affixed to the wall. Surveyor was able to move sink in an up and down motion. During an interview with Housekeeper B on 09/20/2022 at 2:15 p.m., Housekeeper B confirmed the sinks in communal resident shower/restroom [ROOM NUMBER] and communal resident shower/restroom [ROOM NUMBER] were missing caulking, and were loosely affixed to the wall, and confirmed the sinks were loose enough to be moved up and down. Housekeeper B further stated she would notify the Maintenance Department of the needed repair, confirmed the sinks could come loose from the wall, and confirmed a resident, staff member, or visitor could become injured if the sinks fell. During an observation on 09/23/2022 at 8:10 a.m.,the sink in communal resident shower/restroom [ROOM NUMBER], near resident room [ROOM NUMBER] on Hall A, was missing caulking between the sink and the wall resulting in the sink becoming loosely affixed to the wall. Surveyor was able to move sink in an up and down motion. During an observation on 09/23/2022 at 8:12 a.m., the sink in communal resident shower/restroom [ROOM NUMBER], near resident room [ROOM NUMBER] on Hall A, was missing caulking between the sink and the wall resulting in the sink becoming loosely affixed to the wall. Surveyor was able to move sink in an up and down motion. During an interview with the ADON and Maintenance Director 09/23/2022 at 2:15 p.m., the ADON and Maintenance Director confirmed the sinks in communal resident shower/restroom [ROOM NUMBER] and communal resident shower/restroom [ROOM NUMBER] on Hall A were missing caulking, and were loosely affixed to the wall, and confirmed the sinks were loose enough to be moved up and down. The ADON and Maintenance Director further confirmed the sinks could come loose from the wall and that a resident, staff member, or visitor could become injured if the sinks fell. The Maintenance Director confirmed he was unaware of the needed repair prior to surveyor intervention. Observation on 09/23/2022 at 11:00 a.m. revealed the sinks had been repaired. Record review of the facility's Maintenance log, undated, revealed no notation of sinks or handrails in need of repair. Record review of the facility policy, untitled, undated, revealed, The maintenance department is responsible for maintaining the buildings, grounds, and equipment in a safe and operable manner at all times.
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0912 (Tag F0912)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record reviews, the facility failed to provide the required square footage per resident (80 square feet p...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record reviews, the facility failed to provide the required square footage per resident (80 square feet per resident) in 20 of 28 bed rooms (Rooms 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 , 6, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 23, 25, 26, 27, and 28) reviewed for square foot, in that: Rooms 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 , 6, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 23, 25, 26, 27, and 28 did not have the required 80 square feet per resident. This deficient practice could place residents who reside in those rooms at-risk for the restriction of the amount of resident care equipment and residents' personal effects that could be accommodated in these rooms. The findings were: Record review of Form 3740, dated 09/23/2022, Bed Classification Section C revealed that resident Rooms 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 , 6, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 23, 25, 26, 27, and 28 were all designated as double occupancy rooms (2 residents per room). Further review revealed rooms [ROOM NUMBER] were triple occupancy rooms (3 residents per room). During an interview with the Administrator on 09/23/2022 at 9:00 a.m., the Administrator confirmed Rooms 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 , 6, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 23, 25, 26, 27, and 28 did not provide the required 80 square feet per resident and their size measurements had not changed since the previous year. The Administrator requested for the room waiver to remain in effect. The Administrator confirmed the following size measurements for the resident rooms under the room size waiver: 1. Resident room [ROOM NUMBER] measurements were 12.04 feet by 12 feet for a total of 144.8 square feet. This was a double occupancy room which provided 72.24 square feet per resident. 2. Resident Room # 2 measurements were 12.08 feet by 11.92 feet for a total of 143.99 square feet. This was a double occupancy room which provided 72 square feet per resident. 3. Resident Room # 3 measurements were 12.08 feet by 11.92 feet for a total of 144.48 square feet. This was double occupancy room which provided 72.24 square feet per resident. 4. Resident Rooms # 4 and # 5 measurements were 12.04 feet by 11.96 feet for a total of 144 square feet. These resident rooms were double occupancy rooms which provided 72 square feet per resident. 5. Resident Room # 6 had two different size areas. The measurements of these areas were 12.3 feet by 10.6 feet for a total of 128.63 square feet and the second area was 6.7 feet by 4.5 feet for a total of 29.08 square feet. The total square footage of these two areas in resident room [ROOM NUMBER] was 157.71 square feet. This room was a double occupancy room which provided 78.86 square feet per resident. 6. Resident Room # 8 had two different size areas. The measurements of these areas were 12.4 feet by 10.4 feet for a total of 127.37 square feet and the second area was 6.8 feet by 4.9 feet for a total of 31.68 square feet. The total square footage of these two areas in resident room [ROOM NUMBER] was 159.05 square feet. This room was a double occupancy room which provided 79.53 square feet per resident. 7. Resident room [ROOM NUMBER] had two different size areas. The measurements of these areas were 12.08 feet by 10.25 feet for a total of 123.82 square feet and the second area was 6.58 feet by 4.67 feet for a total of 30.73 square feet. The total square footage of these 2 areas in resident room [ROOM NUMBER] was 154.55 square feet. This room was a double occupancy room which provided 77.28 square feet per resident. 8. Resident room [ROOM NUMBER] had 2 different size areas. The measurements of these areas were 12.2 feet by 10.3 feet for a total of 124.75 square feet and the second area was 6.8 feet by 4.6 feet for a total of 30.02 square feet. The total square footage of these 2 areas in resident room [ROOM NUMBER] was 154.77 square feet. This room was a double occupancy room which provided 77.39 square feet per resident. 9. Resident Room # 14 had two different size areas. The measurements of these areas were 12.2 feet by 10.5 feet for a total of 126.82 square feet and the second area was 6.8 feet by 4.6 feet for a total of 30.02 square feet. The total square footage of these two areas in resident room [ROOM NUMBER] was 156.84 square feet. This room was a double occupancy room which provided 78.42 square feet per resident. 10. Resident Room # 15 measurements were 12.08 feet by 11.92 feet for a total of 143.99 square feet. This was a double occupancy room which provided 72 square feet per resident. 11. Resident Rooms # 16 and # 17 measurements were 12.04 feet by 11.96 feet for a total of 144 square feet. These resident rooms were double occupancy rooms which provided 72 square feet per resident. 12. Resident Room # 18 had two different size areas. The measurements of these areas were 18 feet by 11.8 feet which equaled 210.06 square feet and the second area was 5.2 feet by 4.3 feet which equaled 21.97 square feet. The total square footage of these two areas in resident room [ROOM NUMBER] was 232.03 square feet. This room was a triple occupancy room which provided 77.34 square feet per resident. 13. Resident Room # 21 measurements were 20.67 feet by 10.34 feet for a total of 213.72 square feet. This was a triple occupancy room which provided 71.24 square feet per resident. 14. Resident Room # 23 measurements were 20.83 feet by 10.58 feet for a total of 220.4 square feet. This was a triple occupancy room which provided 73.47 square feet per resident. 15. Resident Room # 25 measurements were 12 feet by 12 feet for a total of 144 square feet. This was a double occupancy room which provided 72 square feet per resident. 16. Resident Room # 26 measurements were 12.04 feet by 11.98 feet for a total of 144 square feet. This was a double occupancy room which provided 72 square feet per resident. 17. Resident Room # 27 measurements were 12.02 feet by 11.98 feet for a total of 144 square feet. This was a double occupancy room which provided 72 square feet per resident. 18. Resident Room # 28 measurements were 12.04 feet by 12.04 feet for a total of 144.96 square feet. This was a double occupancy room which provided 72.48 square feet per resident.
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
  • • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Texas facilities.
  • • 44% turnover. Below Texas's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 29 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • Grade F (38/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 38/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Highland Nursing Center's CMS Rating?

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

How is Highland Nursing Center Staffed?

CMS rates HIGHLAND NURSING CENTER's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 44%, compared to the Texas average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Highland Nursing Center?

State health inspectors documented 29 deficiencies at HIGHLAND NURSING CENTER during 2022 to 2025. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 27 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 Highland Nursing Center?

HIGHLAND NURSING CENTER 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 53 certified beds and approximately 33 residents (about 62% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in SAN ANTONIO, Texas.

How Does Highland Nursing Center Compare to Other Texas Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Texas, HIGHLAND NURSING CENTER's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 2.8, staff turnover (44%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Highland Nursing Center?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What changes have been made since the serious inspection findings, and how are you preventing similar issues?" "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 Highland Nursing Center Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, HIGHLAND NURSING CENTER has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 2-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in Texas. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.

Do Nurses at Highland Nursing Center Stick Around?

HIGHLAND NURSING CENTER has a staff turnover rate of 44%, 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 Highland Nursing Center Ever Fined?

HIGHLAND NURSING CENTER has no federal fines on record. CMS issues fines when nursing homes fail to meet care standards or don't correct problems found during inspections. The absence of fines suggests the facility has either maintained compliance or corrected any issues before penalties were assessed. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review recent inspection reports for the full picture.

Is Highland Nursing Center on Any Federal Watch List?

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