Texoma Healthcare Center

1000 Hwy 82 E, Sherman, TX 75090 (903) 893-9636
For profit - Limited Liability company 179 Beds CREATIVE SOLUTIONS IN HEALTHCARE Data: November 2025 2 Immediate Jeopardy citations
Trust Grade
0/100
#1135 of 1168 in TX
Last Inspection: November 2024

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

Overview

Texoma Healthcare Center has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns and a poor overall rating. It ranks #1135 out of 1168 nursing homes in Texas, placing it in the bottom half of facilities in the state, and #10 out of 11 in Grayson County, meaning there is only one local option that is better. The facility's trend is improving, with issues decreasing from 10 in 2024 to 7 in 2025. However, staffing is a weakness, with a 2/5 star rating and a turnover rate of 53%, which is average but does not inspire confidence in staff continuity. There are concerning fines totaling $24,850, which is average for Texas facilities, but the presence of good RN coverage (more than 75% of state facilities) is a positive aspect, as RNs can catch issues that CNAs might miss. Specific incidents have raised alarms, such as a resident being forced to shower against her will, leading to mental anguish for both her and her roommate, highlighting a lack of respect for residents' rights. Additionally, the facility failed to properly document care plans for multiple residents, risking individualized care and overall quality of life. While there are some strengths, the serious issues raised in inspections should be carefully considered by families researching this home.

Trust Score
F
0/100
In Texas
#1135/1168
Bottom 3%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Better
10 → 7 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
53% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
✓ Good
$24,850 in fines. Lower than most Texas facilities. Relatively clean record.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 28 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Texas. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
⚠ Watch
31 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Overall Rating
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Staff Levels
★★★☆☆
3.0
Care Quality
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 10 issues
2025: 7 issues

The Good

  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record

Facility shows strength in fire safety.

The Bad

1-Star Overall Rating

Below Texas average (2.8)

Significant quality concerns identified by CMS

Staff Turnover: 53%

Near Texas avg (46%)

Higher turnover may affect care consistency

Federal Fines: $24,850

Below median ($33,413)

Minor penalties assessed

Chain: CREATIVE SOLUTIONS IN HEALTHCARE

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 31 deficiencies on record

2 life-threatening
Jun 2025 7 deficiencies 2 IJ
CRITICAL (J) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the right to a dignified existence and self-de...

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 right to a dignified existence and self-determination facility for 1 of 9 (Resident #1) residents reviewed for resident rights. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1 was treated with respect and dignity when she refused a shower on 05/21/25 around 9:30 PM and was showered despite her refusals by CNA A. This failure could place residents at risk for diminished quality of life, loss of dignity and self-worth, psychosocial harm and distrust with staff. The noncompliance was identified as Immediate Jeopardy Past Noncompliance (PNC). The Immediate Jeopardy began on 05/21/25 at 9:30 PM and ended on 05/28/25. The facility had taken actions noted in the findings that corrected the noncompliance before the incident investigation began on 06/17/25. Findings included: Review of Resident #1's Quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], reflected she was an [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. She had the diagnoses of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) with acute exacerbation (a lung disease with a sudden worsening symptoms including breathlessness, mucus, and cough), Alzheimer's disease (loss of cognition), chronic pain syndrome, and anxiety disorder (excessive or persistent worry or fear). Her BIMS score was a 5 (severely impaired cognition). Further review of Section GG-Functional Abilities reflected she usually required substantial/maximal assistance for bed to chair transfers. Record review of Resident #1's care plan reflected the resident had an activity of daily living (ADL) performance deficit and required one staff to assist with bathing and bed mobility, dated initiated 02/13/25. Further review reflected a focus area, dated initiated 05/23/25, The resident has a history of trauma that may have a negative impact. The trauma is [due to]: Feeling angry [due to] shower being done after she refused. Interventions included: .If resident refuses her shower stop immediately . If the resident has escalated, if at all possible do not touch the resident unless absolutely necessary for resident's or others safety ., dated initiated 05/23/25. Record review of Resident #2's Quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], reflected she was a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. She had the diagnoses of cancer, heart failure, stroke with paralysis on her left non-dominant side, and major depression disorder (persistent feelings of sadness). Her BIMS score was a 7 (severely impaired cognition). Record review of Resident #2's care plan reflected the resident had impaired cognitive function/dementia or impaired thought processes; interventions included .Use residents preferred name . face the resident when speaking .Provide the resident with necessary cues- stop and return if agitated ., dated initiated 10/07/24. Record review of the Provider Investigation Report (PIR) (Form 3613-A of Texas Health and Human Services) reflected an incident date and time of 05/21/25 at 9:30 PM, dated reported 05/22/25 at 10:15 AM and signed by the Administrator on 05/28/25. Further review revealed on 05/21/25 around 8:40 AM, Resident #1 told her nurse that she needed to talk to someone in charge because she was upset about her care last night. Further review revealed on 05/21/25 around 9:30 PM Resident #1 told CNA A several times she did not want a shower and without Resident #1's consent, CNA A physically lifted Resident #1 from the armpits from the bed into the shower chair and Resident #1 was given a shower by CNA A and CNA B. Resident #1 did not have a history of similar allegations and was interviewable and had the capacity to make informed decisions. Resident #1 had a head-to-toe assessment on 05/22/25 at 10 AM and had no injuries. The facility immediately suspended CNA A and CNA B and obtained interviews from both CNA's and Resident #1, completed resident safe surveys on 05/22/25 with no other concerns, and started staff monitoring for 4 weeks (05/22/25-06/18/25). Staff were in-serviced on resident rights, including a resident's right to refuse a shower, and trauma informed care on 05/22/25. Record review of Resident #1's verbal statement written by the Administrator, undated, reflected that two CNA's came to her room to take her to the shower and she told them she did not want a shower and she was cold: Two aides came into my room to take me to the shower . I told them that I am cold and don't want a shower. [CNA A] said you are getting a shower tonight. I was begging to not get a shower and told her to stop and go away. They grabbed me by my wrist and pulled me up to put me in the chair. The first shower was cold and then she put me in the other shower[,] it was fine [the shower water temperature] but I kept saying I did not want a shower. [They] put me in the shower and started washing me. Barely gave me a towel to dry off and put me in a gown took me back to my room and put me to bed. I just did not like it. Record review of CNA A's verbal statement, undated, written by the Administrator reflected the following: .(Resident #1) was like do I even have to have a shower and I said yes you will feel better. She was being like her energy was she did not want a shower . Did she have an attitude? Yes, but she got a shower and will feel better. I picked her up under her armpits slid back in chair and took her to the shower room. When asked how many times did (Resident #1) say she did not want a shower? Her response was twice and I told her she would feel better after her shower . Do you know that [residents] have the right to refuse a shower? Yes, knows about the papers and getting a nurse to assist with refusal of showers. Record review of resident safe surveys, dated 05/22/25 reflected Resident #1 safe survey: 1. Do you feel safe at this facility: 'Yes and No' 2. Has anyone mistreated you or anyone in this facility: 'Yes last night' 3. If you have been mistreated or witnessed mistreatment, would you report it to someone: 'Yes I did' 4. Who did you report it to? 'My attorney and the police' . Further review of resident safe surveys with 17 residents on 05/22/25 revealed no concerns regarding abuse, they felt safe at the facility, and knew how to report mistreatment. In an interview and observation on 06/17/25 at 11:38 AM, Resident #1 was in bed and dressed wearing a nasal cannula, she was a poor historian. She stated there was an incident about a month ago, a staff member told her she had to get up out of bed and Resident #1 did not want to get up, she had pain and was not feeling good. She stated that the staff member told her she was getting up even though she kept saying no. She stated the staff member grabbed her by the wrists and put her in her wheelchair and was not sure was else happened. She stated she felt very angry, was swinging her hands around and tried to swat at and hit the staff member away and repeated she did not want to get up and said no but they got her up anyway. She stated she told her nurse. She stated she was not able to recall anything about a shower except for a time that her hair was left wet. She stated that she did not like to get up out of bed because she had pain and declined health and preferred bed baths. She stated she was an [AGE] year-old woman in her dying days and wanted to stay in bed. She stated she felt safe at the facility knowing the staff member was not there because someone from the facility told her they were not working for the facility anymore. She stated she was aware of her resident rights including to refuse a shower. Record review of Resident #1's progress notes from 05/01/25-06/17/25, reflected the following: A nursing progress note dated 05/22/25 at 8:45 AM written by ADON D: Resident reported to Charge Nurse an incident that happened last night. Resident stated that 2 CNA Staff grabbed her by the wrist, put her on the shower chair and took her to the shower room even though res. told the CNAs that she is not feeling well multiple times. Administrator and MD notified. A nursing progress note dated 05/22/25 at 9 AM with the note text of Trauma Informed Assessment written by the ADON D reflected Resident #1 had no previous trauma or diagnosis of PTSD and reported she had not experienced or witnessed a situation that was extremely frightening, and she had felt angry: has felt angry. Description: Yes what happened last night still make me angry. A nursing progress note dated 05/22/25 at 10:42 AM, written by ADON D, reflected Resident #1 had a head-to-toe skin assessment and resident had bruising to her right forearm 3 x 2.5 cm and on the right lateral side of her abdomen. Resident #1 was asked about how they obtained bruising and stated the bruise on her abdomen was from her applying pressure to the area when she coughed and was not sure how she obtained the bruise on her forearm. A nursing progress note dated 05/22/25 at 11:18 AM written by ADON D reflected Resident #1's physician was notified about the bruising to the resident's abdomen at 11 AM and the resident was their own responsible party, and there were no new orders and the resident was encouraged to avoid grabbing or pushing on her abdomen when coughing and reminded to call nursing if she had any pain or increased coughing so that PRN medications would be given. A nursing progress note dated 05/22/25 at 12:33 PM written by ADON D reflected a title of Event-Other reflected Resident #1's vitals were checked with no concerns and her cognition was oriented/no problem, she had no pain or injury and included the following Resident reported to Charge Nurse an incident that happened last night. Resident stated that 2 CNA Staff grabbed her by the wrist, put her on the shower chair and took her to the shower room even though [resident] told the CNAs that she is not feeling well multiple times .Resident Statement: Last night 2 ladies came to my room, one of them is big, the other is tiny. They asked me to shower but I refused. They grabbed me by my wrist, put me on the chair then took me to the shower room . ADON D notified Resident #1's physician on 05/22/25 at 9 AM, and there were no new orders. Resident #1 was their own representative with a date and time of notification as 05/22/25 at 8:45 AM, and the Administrator was notified. A social services progress note, dated 05/22/25 at 3:56 PM, written by the Social Worker: This [Social Worker] met w/ resident Re: complaint of two female staff that reportedly made resident participate in a shower when she verbally declined. Resident requested that these two female staff not be assigned to her again. [The Administrator] informed this [Social Worker] that both female staff have been removed from this facility permanently. This [Social Worker] assured resident that she would not encounter these two female staff in this facility again. This [Social Worker] also reached out to [the Psychologist] to request a post trauma follow up visit with resident as soon as possible. A nursing progress note dated 05/23/25 at 11:32 AM, written by the Social Worker, reflected she assisted Resident #1 with a post trauma therapeutic call with resident and [the Psychologist]. A general progress note dated 05/23/25 at 5:23 PM written by the Psychologist: (Resident #1) is a participant in a telehealth appointment per administrator request in regard to an incident that occurred Thursday (05/22/25). This patient is consulted with via phone assisted by the facility social worker. (Resident #1) is AOx4 [alert and oriented to person, place, time, and event] and able to articulate said needs. patient reported to me that yesterday she was feeling ill and had been in pain due to her couching and COPD symptomology. she reported that two aids came in to give her a shower and she requested to be left alone today, that she did not feel up to taking shower. she proceeded to explain to me one aid grabbed my right arm, and one grabbed my left arm and pulled me out of bed and into a shower chair. I said to them, I'm hurting and do not want a shower. they said to me you will be getting one regardless. the administrator was alerted promptly that patient requested to meet with who was in charge of facility. the administrator suspended both employees immediately pending further investigation. Patient was very happy and appeased to hear employees were suspended and said she does feel safe in building. she admits the incident was very upsetting to her when it occurred. she said when she returned to her room, she was not assisted by the two employees . In an observation and interview on 06/17/25 at 11:55 AM with Resident #1's roommate, Resident # 2, she was lying in bed and stated that about a month ago, she heard a female staff member come into their room, the privacy curtain was closed so she did not see who the staff member was and could hear the exchange. Resident #2 stated the staff member told Resident #1 it was time for her shower and Resident #1 responded that she did not want to take a shower- she did not feel good and had pain, and the staff member told Resident #1 that she was getting up for a shower. She stated it was exactly as Resident #1 described it, that was what she heard. She stated she did not think it was right that Resident #1 was made to get up and shower and no one had forced Resident #2 to take a shower or forced her to get up. She stated there are shower sheets residents sign when residents refused to take a shower. She stated she felt safe at the facility and understood her rights including her right to refuse a shower. In an interview on 06/17/25 at 12:10 PM with LVN C she stated that she was a charge nurse for Resident #1's hall. She stated she was in-serviced on the types of abuse and neglect including who to report to and resident rights including the resident's right to refuse a shower on 05/22/25 and did not work with Resident #1 until a day or two after the incident and when she saw Resident #1 next, her hair was knotted, and she was upset. She said Resident #1 told her that she was made to take a shower by staff when she did not want to take a shower. She stated that Resident #1 commonly refused showers and she offered to brush out her hair and Resident #1 let her brush her hair. She stated resident's had the right to refuse a shower and physically picking up a resident and showering them despite their refusals a violation of the resident's rights. In an interview on 06/17/25 at 12:45 PM with ADON D she stated she received a phone call from staff who relayed what Resident #1 had said about being forced to take a shower and she instructed staff to also contact the Administrator immediately. ADON D stated that she completed a head-to-toe assessment of Resident #1 on 05/22/25 and there were no bruises on her wrist, a small bruise on her forearm, and she had an unrelated bruise to the side of her abdomen. ADON D stated Resident #1 told her the bruise was on her abdomen was due to Resident #1 pushing on her side while coughing and she was sent out the same day due to an increase in COPD symptoms. ADON D stated she completed a trauma assessment and Resident #1 expressed she was still very angry about the incident, and she was referred to counseling services. She stated that in a conference call with one of the CNA's and the Administrator CNA A or CNA B said something like she needed a shower anyway. ADON D stated she considered the incident to be a violation of the resident's rights because residents had the right to refuse a shower and it could have caused physical or mental harm to the resident. Attempts to interview CNA A via phone on 06/17/25 at 1:44 PM and on 06/18/25 at 12:46 PM were unsuccessful with a disconnected dial tone. In an interview on 06/17/25 at 2:10 PM with the Social Worker she stated she spoke with Resident #1 with the Administrator on 05/22/25 and told them that there were aides that got her ready for a shower despite her telling them she did not want a shower. The Social Worker stated Resident #1 was very distraught when talking about the incident and she told Resident #1 that a psychologist was going to come in and meet with her. She stated that the Administrator had said in a morning meeting that the employees were not going to come back to the facility. She stated that she considered the incident Resident #1 described as a violation of the resident's rights and residents had the right to refuse a shower. She stated that Resident #1 seemed to be fine now and she met with her about a week after on 05/30/25 and she did not indicate she was still upset about the shower. In an interview on 06/17/25 at 3:49 PM with CNA B she stated that on the evening of 05/21/25 CNA A flagged her down and asked for help with showering Resident #1. She stated did not assist CNA A in getting the resident out of bed was they were already in the shower room at the time she was asked to be a witness. CNA B states when she entered the shower room Resident #1 was in the shower room and said multiple times she was going to call her lawyers, CNA A told CNA B that Resident #1 had been saying that since CNA A had gotten her up. CNA B stated she took the residents hair out of a ponytail and washed and conditioned her hair- she had a big knot in her hair and refused CNA B to brush it and said she was going to do it herself. CNA B stated she assisted with washing Resident #1 and dried her off and CNA A took her to her room. CNA B stated she had not worked with Resident #1 before and thought she was demented. When given a scenario of a resident who did not want to get up for a shower and was showered despite their refusals, CNA A stated that would be a violation of the resident right's. She stated she would have intervened and told her nurse and the Abuse Coordinator who was the Administrator immediately. She stated residents had the right to refuse a shower. She stated she was called by the Administrator on 05/22/25, was informed she was suspended pending the investigation and gave her statement, she no longer worked at the facility. In an interview on 06/17/25 at 4:10 PM with a family member of Resident #1, she stated Resident #1 called her the day the incident happened and told her she was forced to take a shower and sounded very angry. She stated that Resident #1 is her own representative and she had not spoken with the administrator or Resident #1 about the incident since it occurred. In an interview on 06/17/25 at 4:41 PM with the Psychologist she stated she received a phone call from the Administrator last month around 05/22/25 and was told an incident had occurred and was asked to come see the resident because it seemed very important. The Psychologist stated the Social Worker assisted in a telehealth visit via phone because she was out of town an unable to visit in person. She stated Resident #1 seemed very with it, sounded alert and oriented, and told her that aides had pulled her by the wrist from her bed and one aide told her you're going to get a shower today no matter what despite her telling them that she was hurting and did not want the aides back. The Psychologist stated that their call was cut short because Resident #1 was going to the hospital related to their COPD and increased coughing and she followed up with Resident #1 the following week and Resident #1 had concerns of the aides not coming back to the facility. The Psychologist stated she reassured Resident #1 that the aides were not coming back and she felt better. She stated that a resident being showered despite their refusals was a violation of their rights because they had the right to refuse a shower. In an interview on 06/17/25 at 6:10 PM with LVN F he stated he was the charge nurse for Resident #1's hall on the evening shift (6 PM-6 AM) 05/21/25. He stated he was familiar with Resident #1 and had worked with her when she was on the rehabilitation side of the facility. He stated that Resident #1 used to be a nurse and she did not want to be a bother to anyone and was particular about her care. He stated that at the beginning of the shift on 05/21/25, he was passing medications to residents and did not hear anything at the time but did notice she was not in her room and was pleasantly surprised that she had gotten up to take a shower because she typically did not want to get out of bed- she had a cough for a while and was not feeling well. He stated that he saw her later and her hair was still a little wet and she complained that they gave her a shower and left her hair damp. He stated that Resident #1 and seemed focused on her hair and he wanted to make her comfortable so he offered to look for a hair dryer to dry her hair. He stated that CNA A only told him that she got her to take a shower. He stated Resident #1 did not disclose to him anything about what had happened and neither CNA told him anything other than she CNA A said she got a shower, and he found out the following day and was in-serviced on 05/22/25 on resident rights including the right to refuse showers, and trauma informed care. He stated that if he had known what had happened he would have immediately ensured the resident felt safe, ensured the CNA did not provide her any care, and would have contacted the Administrator who was the abuse coordinator. He stated that giving a resident a shower despite their refusals could have caused physical or mental harm to the resident. LVN F stated that residents had the right to refuse showers. He stated the facility was the residents home, and if they are home they might not want anyone to get them up or to take a shower. In an interview on 06/18/25 at 9:28 AM with the Regional Compliance Nurse, she stated that she was contacted by the Administrator on 05/22/25 regarding an allegation of abuse. She stated that she assisted the Administrator via phone to ensure they followed their abuse and neglect policy. She stated that the Administrator suspended the two employees (CNA A & CNA B) pending the investigation and she updated Resident #1's care plan due to her anger at being made to shower despite her refusals. She stated that the facility's policy was to update the resident's care plan to indicate a traumatic event occurred and did not think Resident #1 had lasting trauma due to the incident and it was care planned as a trauma event due to the resident's expression of anger and to ensure staff were aware how to care for the resident and to stop immediately if the resident refused a shower. She stated showering a resident despite their refusals was a violation of the resident rights and could have caused physical and psychosocial harm to the resident. In an interview on 06/18/25 at 11:28 AM with LVN I revealed Resident #1 typically stayed in her bed and sometimes would ask to get up. She stated on 05/22/25 during her rounds, Resident #1 appeared furious told her that the previous night (05/21/25), two girls came into Resident #1's room and told her it was her shower day, she refused, and they picked her up anyway and took her to the shower room and washed her, and said she was going to sue the aides. LVN I stated Resident #1 stated that the aides picked her up by the wrists and looked at her wrists and saw no marks or bruising, made sure she was okay, and told the resident she was going to get someone to talk to her and immediately went to get the Administrator and the Administrator and Social Worker went to talk with Resident #1. She stated that she considered it was a violation of the resident's rights and a resident could be physically or mentally harmed by being showered despite her refusals. She stated that when resident's refused a shower CNA's were supposed to let the nurse know and talk to the resident to see if they might change their mind and if the resident still refused then they have a shower refusal sheet they had them sign. In an interview on 06/18/25 at 1:45 PM with the Administrator she stated a nurse came to her at the end of morning meeting and told her she needed to speak with Resident #1. The Administrator stated she immediately spoke with Resident #1 who told her, the night before (05/21/25), she was in her bed and it was her shower day, she didn't really want to take a shower, aides grabbed her by the wrists and put her in her chair and made her take a shower even though she didn't want to. She stated that Resident #1 told the Administrator that she did not want the aides to take care of her again and the Administrator assured her that they would not take care of her anymore. The Administrator stated she interviewed Resident #1's roommate, Resident #2, and she told the Administrator that everything Resident #1 told her happened- was what Resident #2 heard happen, and the privacy curtain was closed so she did not visually see the incident. The Administrator stated that Resident #1 provided a description that fit with two aides (CNA A & B) that worked on 05/21/25 6 PM- 6 AM shift, CNA A was assigned to Resident #3's hall. She stated she called and suspended both CNA A and CNA B pending the investigation on 05/22/25, they had not come back to the facility, and she interviewed them regarding the incident. She stated that CNA A told her that she had showered Resident #1 the evening of 05/21/25 and asked CNA B to help because Resident #1 was being difficult. She stated CNA A told her that Resident #1 said several times that she did not want a shower and CNA A told Resident #1 that she had to take a shower because she would feel better and CNA A physically picked her up under her armpits, slid her back into her chair and took her to the shower room. CNA A told the Administrator that she knew that resident's had the right to refuse a shower and knew about the refusal papers and they were to involve the nurse, but the resident got a shower and would feel better. The Administrator stated when she interviewed CNA B she told the Administrator that she heard the resident did say she didn't want a shower and CNA A told Resident #1 that she would feel better after a shower. CNA A told the Administrator Resident #1 kept saying she was going to call her lawyers. CNA A told the Administrator she had not worked with Resident #1 and thought she had dementia so she did not think much of what Resident #1 said and residents needed to take showers. The Administrator stated that resident's had a right to refuse a shower. She stated she expected when resident's refused showers for CNA's to wait a little while and try again later or get someone else to ask the resident, and then informed the charge nurse so they could attempt and document it with a refusal sheet. She stated that she in-serviced all staff on trauma informed care and that resident's had a right to refuse showers. Resident #1's physician was notified. She stated she attended an AD Hoc QAPI meeting on 05/22/25 with the Regional Compliance Nurse, Regional Director of Operations, the Medical Director, regarding the incident and what the Administrator needed to do. She stated that she had psychological services speak with Resident #1 and her care plan was updated. The Administrator stated the social worker completed safe surveys of residents with no other concerns. In an interview on 06/18/25 at 6:25 PM with CNA K she stated that she worked the evening shifts on Resident #1's hall and worked the evening after the incident on 05/22/25. CNA K stated Resident #1 was able to voice her needs and had never seen her out of bed in the year she had worked at the facility. She stated she had asked Resident #1 if she wanted a shower in the past and Resident #1 would reply no I'm not taking a shower and she had the resident sign a refusal form, informed the charge nurse who also signed the sheet, and there was a box they put it in at near the ADON's office. When provided the scenario of an aide giving a resident a shower despite their refusals, she stated it was a violation of the resident's rights and the resident could have been harmed physically and mentally. She stated she would have intervened immediately and ensured the resident felt safe and report to the Abuse Coordinator who was the Administrator. She stated that resident's have rights, the facility was the residents home and what they say goes. Interviews on 06/17/25 (12:10 PM) and 06/18/25 across both shifts (6 AM- 6 PM & 6 PM-6 AM) with various staff members (ADON D, CNA E, CNA G, CNA H, CNA J, CNA K, LVN C, LVN F, LVN I, LVN L, LVN M, LVN P, MA N, and Social Worker) revealed staff had been in-serviced on resident rights on 05/22/25. When provided a scenario where a resident refused a shower and a CNA transferred them by their wrists or under their armpits and gave a resident a shower despite the resident's refusals- all stated it was a violation of the resident's right to refuse a shower and would have intervened and ensured the resident was safe and immediately report it to the Abuse Coordinator. They staff were aware of the shower refusal process of having the resident and the nurse and aide signed the refusal sheet and they were turned into a box near the ADON D's office. Record review of facility's resident rights policy titled Resident Rights, undated, reflected: The resident has a right to a dignified existence, self-determination .A facility must treat each resident with respect and dignity and care for each resident in a manner and in an environment that promotes maintenance or enhancement of his or her quality of life, recognizing each resident's individuality. The facility must protect and promote the rights of the resident . Exercise of Rights - The resident has the right to exercise his or her rights as a resident of the facility and as a citizen or resident of the United States. 1. The facility must ensure that the resident can exercise his or her rights without interference, coercion, discrimination, or reprisal from the facility. 2. The resident has the right to be free of interference, coercion, discrimination, and reprisal from the facility in exercising his or her rights and to be supported by the facility in the exercise of his or her rights as required under this subpart. Respect and dignity - The resident has a right to be treated with respect and dignity . Self-determination - The resident has the right to and the facility must promote and facilitate resident self-determination through support of resident choice. 1.The resident has a right to choose activities, schedules (including sleeping and waking times), health care and providers of health care services consistent with his or her interests, assessments, plan of care and other applicable provisions of this part. 2.The resident has the right to make choices about aspects of his or her life in the facility that are significant to the resident . Record review of the facility's Bathing/Shower Policy titled Bath, Tub/Shower, undated, reflected .The frequency and type of bathing depends on resident preference, skin condition, tolerance and energy level. Although a daily bath or shower is preferred and necessary for some, the aging skin can be maintained by bathing every two days or with partial bathing as needed . Procedure 1. The resident will receive assistance with bathing according to their resident centered plan of care. 2. Become familiar with type and pattern of bathing, assistance or aids needed, skin condition, presence of dressing or casts . Record review of CNA A's personnel file reflected she was hired on 05/01/25 with a last worked date of 05/21/25 and was terminated from employment on 05/23/25. The facility had conducted Texas Department of Public Safety Criminal History verification and Employee Misconduct Registry Employability status check without any concerns. Record review of CNA B's personnel file reflected she was hired on 04/18/25 with a last worked date of 05/21/25 and was terminated from employ[TRUNCATED]
CRITICAL (J) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record review the facility failed to ensure residents were free from abuse for two (Resident #1 and Resi...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record review the facility failed to ensure residents were free from abuse for two (Resident #1 and Resident # 2) of 9 residents reviewed for abuse. The facility failed to protect Resident #1, who was on mental health services, from mental anguish on 05/21/25 at 9:30 PM when, when despite her refusals, she was physically lifted, under her armpits, by CNA A from her bed to the shower chair was given a shower by despite her refusals. As a result, Resident #1 experienced mental anguish and anger. Resident #2 who was on mental health services experienced mental anguish/being upset after hearing her roommate being forced to shower by facility aides. This failure could place residents at risk for not having measures in place to protect them from serious harm, mental anguish, abuse, or neglect. The noncompliance was identified as Immediate Jeopardy Past Noncompliance (PNC). The Immediate Jeopardy began on 05/21/25 at 9:30 PM and ended on 05/28/25. The facility had taken actions noted in the findings that corrected the noncompliance before the incident investigation began on 06/17/25. Findings included: Review of Resident #1's Quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], reflected she was an [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. She had the diagnoses of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) with acute exacerbation (a lung disease with a sudden worsening symptoms including breathlessness, mucus, and cough), Alzheimer's disease (loss of cognition), chronic pain syndrome, and anxiety disorder (excessive or persistent worry or fear). Her BIMS score was a 5 (severely impaired cognition). Further review of Section GG-Functional Abilities reflected she usually required substantial/maximal assistance for bed to chair transfers. Record review of Resident #1's care plan reflected the resident had an activity of daily living (ADL) performance deficit and required one staff to assist with bathing and bed mobility, dated initiated 02/13/25. Further review reflected a focus area, dated initiated 05/23/25, The resident has a history of trauma that may have a negative impact. The trauma is [due to]: Feeling angry [due to] shower being done after she refused. Interventions included: .If resident refuses her shower stop immediately . If the resident has escalated, if at all possible do not touch the resident unless absolutely necessary for resident's or others safety ., dated initiated 05/23/25. Record review of Resident #2's Quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], reflected she was a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. She had the diagnoses of cancer, heart failure, stroke with paralysis on her left non-dominant side, and major depression disorder (persistent feelings of sadness). Her BIMS score was a 7 (severely impaired cognition). Record review of Resident #2's care plan reflected the resident had impaired cognitive function/dementia or impaired thought processes; interventions included .Use residents preferred name . face the resident when speaking .Provide the resident with necessary cues- stop and return if agitated ., dated initiated 10/07/24. Record review of the Provider Investigation Report (PIR) (Form 3613-A of Texas Health and Human Services) reflected an incident date and time of 05/21/25 at 9:30 PM, dated reported 05/22/25 at 10:15 AM and signed by the Administrator on 05/28/25. Further review revealed on 05/21/25 around 8:40 AM, Resident #1 told her nurse that she needed to talk to someone in charge because she was upset about her care last night. Further review revealed on 05/21/25 around 9:30 PM Resident #1 told CNA A several times she did not want a shower and without Resident #1's consent, CNA A physically lifted Resident #1 from the armpits from the bed into the shower chair and Resident #1 was given a shower by CNA A with assistance in the shower room by CNA B. Resident #1 did not have a history of similar allegations and was interviewable and had the capacity to make informed decisions. Resident #1 had a head-to-toe assessment on 05/22/25 at 10 AM and had no injuries. The facility immediately suspended CNA A and CNA B and obtained interviews from both CNA's and Resident #1, completed resident safe surveys on 05/22/25 with no other concerns, and started staff monitoring for 4 weeks (05/22/25-06/18/25). Staff were in-serviced on abuse and neglect and resident rights, including a resident's right to refuse a shower, and trauma informed care on 05/22/25. Record review of Resident #1's verbal statement written by the Administrator, undated, reflected that two CNA's came to her room to take her to the shower and she told them she did not want a shower and she was cold: Two aides came into my room to take me to the shower . I told them that I am cold and don't want a shower. [CNA A] said you are getting a shower tonight. I was begging to not get a shower and told her to stop and go away. They grabbed me by my wrist and pulled me up to put me in the chair. The first shower was cold and then she put me in the other shower[,] it was fine [the shower water temperature] but I kept saying I did not want a shower. [They] put me in the shower and started washing me. Barely gave me a towel to dry off and put me in a gown took me back to my room and put me to bed. I just did not like it. Record review of CNA A's verbal statement, undated, written by the Administrator reflected the following: .(Resident #1) was like do I even have to have a shower and I said yes you will feel better. She was being like her energy was she did not want a shower . Did she have an attitude? Yes, but she got a shower and will feel better. I picked her up under her armpits slid back in chair and took her to the shower room. When asked how many times did (Resident #1) say she did not want a shower? Her response was twice and I told her she would feel better after her shower . Do you know that [residents] have the right to refuse a shower? Yes, knows about the papers and getting a nurse to assist with refusal of showers. Record review of resident safe surveys, dated 05/22/25 reflected Resident #1 safe survey: 1. Do you feel safe at this facility: 'Yes and No' 2. Has anyone mistreated you or anyone in this facility: 'Yes last night' 3. If you have been mistreated or witnessed mistreatment, would you report it to someone: 'Yes I did' 4. Who did you report it to? 'My attorney and the police' . Further review of resident safe surveys with 17 residents revealed no concerns regarding abuse, they felt safe at the facility, and knew how to report mistreatment. In an interview and observation on 06/17/25 at 11:38 AM, Resident #1 was in bed and dressed wearing a nasal cannula, she was a poor historian. She stated there was an incident about a month ago, a staff member told her she had to get up out of bed and Resident #1 did not want to get up, she had pain and was not feeling good. She stated that the staff member told her she was getting up even though she kept saying no. She stated the staff member grabbed her by the wrists and put her in her wheelchair and was not sure was else happened. She stated she felt very angry, was swinging her hands around and tried to swat at and hit the staff member away and repeated she did not want to get up and said no but they got her up anyway. She stated she told her nurse. She stated she was not able to recall anything about a shower except for a time that her hair was left wet. She stated that she did not like to get up out of bed because she had pain and declined health and preferred bed baths. She stated she was an [AGE] year-old woman in her dying days and wanted to stay in bed. She stated she felt safe at the facility knowing the staff member was not there because someone from the facility told her they were not working for the facility anymore. Record review of Resident #1's progress notes from 05/01/25-06/17/25, reflected the following: A nursing progress note dated 05/22/25 at 8:45 AM written by ADON D: Resident reported to Charge Nurse an incident that happened last night. Resident stated that 2 CNA Staff grabbed her by the wrist, put her on the shower chair and took her to the shower room even though res. told the CNAs that she is not feeling well multiple times. Administrator and MD notified. A nursing progress note dated 05/22/25 at 9 AM with the note text of Trauma Informed Assessment written by the ADON D reflected Resident #1 had no previous trauma or diagnosis of PTSD and reported she had not experienced or witnessed a situation that was extremely frightening, and she had felt angry: has felt angry. Description: Yes what happened last night still make me angry. A nursing progress note dated 05/22/25 at 10:42 AM, written by ADON D, reflected Resident #1 had a head-to-toe skin assessment and resident had bruising to her right forearm 3 x 2.5 cm and on the right lateral side of her abdomen. Resident #1 was asked about how they obtained bruising and stated the bruise on her abdomen was from her applying pressure to the area when she coughed and was not sure how she obtained the bruise on her forearm. A nursing progress note dated 05/22/25 at 11:18 AM written by ADON D reflected Resident #1's physician was notified about the bruising to the resident's abdomen at 11 AM and the resident was their own responsible party, and there were no new orders and the resident was encouraged to avoid grabbing or pushing on her abdomen when coughing and reminded to call nursing if she had any pain or increased coughing so that PRN medications would be given. A nursing progress note dated 05/22/25 at 12:33 PM written by ADON D reflected a title of Event-Other reflected Resident #1's vitals were checked with no concerns and her cognition was oriented/no problem, she had no pain or injury and included the following Resident reported to Charge Nurse an incident that happened last night. Resident stated that 2 CNA Staff grabbed her by the wrist, put her on the shower chair and took her to the shower room even though [resident] told the CNAs that she is not feeling well multiple times .Resident Statement: Last night 2 ladies came to my room, one of them is big, the other is tiny. They asked me to shower but I refused. They grabbed me by my wrist, put me on the chair then took me to the shower room . ADON D notified Resident #1's physician on 05/22/25 at 9 AM, and there were no new orders. Resident #1 was their own representative with a date and time of notification as 05/22/25 at 8:45 AM, and the Administrator was notified. A social services progress note, dated 05/22/25 at 3:56 PM, written by the Social Worker: This [Social Worker] met w/ resident Re: complaint of two female staff that reportedly made resident participate in a shower when she verbally declined. Resident requested that these two female staff not be assigned to her again. [The Administrator] informed this [Social Worker] that both female staff have been removed from this facility permanently. This [Social Worker] assured resident that she would not encounter these two female staff in this facility again. This [Social Worker] also reached out to [the Psychologist] to request a post trauma follow up visit with resident as soon as possible. A nursing progress note dated 05/23/25 at 11:32 AM, written by the Social Worker, reflected she assisted Resident #1 with a post trauma therapeutic call with resident and [the Psychologist]. A general progress note dated 05/23/25 at 5:23 PM written by the Psychologist: (Resident #1) is a participant in a telehealth appointment per administrator request in regard to an incident that occurred Thursday (05/22/25). This patient is consulted with via phone assisted by the facility social worker. (Resident #1) is AOx4 [alert and oriented to person, place, time, and event] and able to articulate said needs. patient reported to me that yesterday she was feeling ill and had been in pain due to her couching and COPD symptomology. she reported that two aids came in to give her a shower and she requested to be left alone today, that she did not feel up to taking shower. she proceeded to explain to me one aid grabbed my right arm, and one grabbed my left arm and pulled me out of bed and into a shower chair. I said to them, I'm hurting and do not want a shower. they said to me you will be getting one regardless. the administrator was alerted promptly that patient requested to meet with who was in charge of facility. the administrator suspended both employees immediately pending further investigation. Patient was very happy and appeased to hear employees were suspended and said she does feel safe in building. she admits the incident was very upsetting to her when it occurred. she said when she returned to her room, she was not assisted by the two employees . In an observation and interview on 06/17/25 at 11:55 AM with Resident #1's roommate, Resident # 2, she was lying in bed and stated that about a month ago, she heard a female staff member come into their room, the privacy curtain was closed so she did not see who the staff member was and could hear the exchange. Resident #2 stated the staff member told Resident #1 it was time for her shower and Resident #1 responded that she did not want to take a shower- she did not feel good and had pain, and the staff member told Resident #1 that she was getting up for a shower. She stated it was exactly as Resident #1 described it, that was what she heard. She stated she did not think it was right that Resident #1 was made to get up and take a shower and no one had forced Resident #2 to take a shower or forced her to get up. She stated there are shower sheets residents sign when residents refused to take a shower. She stated she felt safe at the facility. Record review of Resident #2 progress notes from 05/01/25 to 06/18/25 reflected the following: A general note written by the Psychologist, dated 05/23/25 at 6:36 PM, (Resident #2) is seen while maintaining routine rounds at facility. (Resident #2) is on mental health services as advised by care plan team for adjustment and optimal well-being while residing in long term care. (Resident #2) was assisted with phone consult due to an incident that occurred the evening prior. (Resident #2) said she was upset because her roommate was being forced to take a shower, and she did not want to. (Resident #2) said they were rough with her which upset her even though she says she feels safe in the building. (Resident #2) gets very emotional due to her diagnosis and emotional instability . Record review of Resident #2's progress notes reflected a late entry general note written by the Psychologist, dated 05/28/25 at 3 PM, reflected: (Resident #2) is seen while maintaining routine rounds at facility. (Resident #2) is on mental health services as advised by care plan team for adjustment and optimal well-being while residing in long term care. Resident #2 was doing well, expressed no new concerns . In an interview on 06/17/25 at 12:10 PM with LVN C she stated that she was a charge nurse for Resident #1's hall. She stated she was in-serviced on the types of abuse and neglect including who to report to and resident rights including the resident's right to refuse a shower on 05/22/25 and did not work with Resident #1 until a day or two after the incident and when she saw Resident #1 next, her hair was knotted, and she was upset. She said Resident #1 told her that she was made to take a shower by staff when she did not want to take a shower. She stated that Resident #1 commonly refused showers and she offered to brush out her hair and Resident #1 let her brush her hair. She stated resident's had the right to refuse a shower and physically picking up a resident from under their armpits or wrists and showering them despite their refusals was abuse and could have caused physical harm or mental harm to the resident. In an interview on 06/17/25 at 12:45 PM with ADON D she stated she received a phone call from staff who relayed what Resident #1 had said about being forced to take a shower and she instructed staff to also contact the Administrator immediately. ADON D stated that she completed a head-to-toe assessment of Resident #1 on 05/22/25 and there were no bruises on her wrist, a small bruise on her forearm, and she had an unrelated bruise to the side of her abdomen. ADON D stated Resident #1 told her the bruise was on her abdomen was due to Resident #1 pushing on her side while coughing and she was sent out the same day due to an increase in COPD symptoms. ADON D stated she completed a trauma assessment and Resident #1 expressed she was still very angry about the incident and she was referred to counseling services. She stated that in a conference call with one of the CNA's and the Administrator CNA A or CNA B said something like she needed a shower anyway. ADON D stated she considered the incident to be abuse. She stated that physically moving a resident by lifting under their armpits, despite their refusals, from the bed to a shower chair and showering them could have resulted in physical harm or mental distress. Attempts to interview CNA A via phone on 06/17/25 at 1:44 PM and on 06/18/25 at 12:46 PM were unsuccessful with a disconnected tone. In an interview on 06/17/25 at 2:10 PM with the Social Worker she stated she spoke with Resident #1 with the Administrator on 05/22/25 and she told them that there were aides that got her ready for a shower despite her telling them she did not want a shower. The Social Worker stated Resident #1 was very distraught when talking about the incident and she told Resident #1 that a psychologist was going to come in and meet with her. She stated that the Administrator had said in a morning meeting that the employees were not going to come back to the facility. She stated they are in-serviced regularly on abuse and neglect and was able to name the types and reporting requirements. She stated that she considered the incident Resident #1 described as abuse. She stated that Resident #1 seemed to be fine now and she met with her about a week after on 05/30/25 and she did not indicate she was still upset about the shower. In an interview on 06/17/25 at 3:49 PM with CNA B she stated that on the evening of 05/21/25 CNA A flagged her down and asked for help with showering Resident #1. She stated did not assist CNA A in getting the resident out of bed, they were already in the shower room at the time she was asked to be a witness. CNA B stated when she entered the shower room Resident #1 was in the shower room and said multiple times she was going to call her lawyers, CNA B told CNA A that Resident #1 had been saying that since CNA A had gotten her up. CNA B stated she took the residents hair out of a ponytail and washed and conditioned her hair- she had a big knot in her hair and refused CNA B to brush it and said she was going to do it herself. CNA B stated she assisted with washing Resident #1 and dried her off and CNA A took her to her room. CNA B stated that she was not concerned about abuse because she had not worked with Resident #1 before and thought she was demented. When given a scenario of a resident who did not want to get up for a shower and was physically picked up by their armpits and taken to be showered despite their refusals, CNA B stated that would be abuse and the resident could have been physically harmed. She stated she would have intervened and told her nurse and the Abuse Coordinator who was the Administrator immediately. She stated she was called by the Administrator on 05/22/25, was informed she was suspended pending the investigation and gave her statement, she no longer worked at the facility. In an interview on 06/17/25 at 4:10 PM with a family member of Resident #1, she stated Resident #1 called her the day the incident happened and told her she was forced to take a shower and sounded very angry. She stated that Resident #1 is her own representative and she had not spoken with the administrator or Resident #1 about the incident since it occurred. In an interview on 06/17/25 at 4:41 PM with the Psychologist she stated she received a phone call from the Administrator last month around 05/22/25 and was told an incident had occurred and was asked to come see the resident because it seemed very important. The Psychologist stated the Social Worker assisted in a telehealth visit via phone because she was out of town an unable to visit in person. She stated Resident #1 seemed very with it, sounded alert and oriented, and told her that aides had pulled her by the wrist from her bed and one aide told her you're going to get a shower today no matter what despite her telling them that she was hurting and did not want the aides back. The Psychologist stated that their call was cut short because Resident #1 was going to the hospital related to their COPD and increased coughing. She stated she followed up with Resident #1 the following week (05/28/25) and Resident #1 had concerns of the aides not coming back to the facility. The Psychologist stated she reassured Resident #1 that the aides were not coming back and she felt better. She stated she also saw Resident #1 on 04/02/25 and she was focused on discharging from the facility which was unrealistic due to her being non-ambulatory and increased COPD symptoms. She stated she was following up with the resident today on 06/17/25. In an interview on 06/17/25 at 6:10 PM with LVN F he stated he was the charge nurse for Resident #1's hall on the evening shift (6 PM-6 AM) 05/21/25. He stated he was familiar with Resident #1 and had worked with her when she was on the rehabilitation side of the facility. He stated that Resident #1 used to be a nurse and she did not want to be a bother to anyone and was particular about her care. He stated that at the beginning of the shift on 05/21/25, he was passing medications to residents and did not hear anything at the time but did notice she was not in her room and was pleasantly surprised that she had gotten up to take a shower because she typically did not want to get out of bed- she had a cough for a while and was not feeling well. He stated that he saw her later and her hair was still a little wet and she complained that they gave her a shower and left her hair damp. He stated that Resident #1 and seemed focused on her hair and he wanted to make her comfortable, so he offered to look for a hair dryer to dry her hair. He stated that CNA A only told him that she got her to take a shower. He stated Resident #1 did not disclose to him anything about what had happened and neither CNA told him anything other than she got a shower, and he found out the following day and was in-serviced on 05/22/25 on identifying and reporting abuse and neglect, resident rights including the right to refuse showers, and trauma informed care. He stated that if he had known what had happened, he would have immediately ensured the resident felt safe, ensured the CNA did not provide her any care, and would have contacted the Administrator who was the abuse coordinator. He stated that physically transferring a resident, under their armpits, and giving them a shower despite their refusals, was abuse and could have caused physical and mental harm to the resident. In an interview on 06/18/25 at 9:28 AM with the Regional Compliance Nurse, she stated that she was contacted by the Administrator on 05/22/25 regarding an allegation of abuse. She stated that she assisted the Administrator via phone to ensure they followed their abuse and neglect policy. She stated that the Administrator suspended the two employees (CNA A & CNA B) pending the investigation and she updated Resident #1's care plan due to her anger at being made to shower despite her refusals. She stated that the facility's policy was to update the resident's care plan to indicate a traumatic event occurred and did not think Resident #1 had lasting trauma due to the incident and it was care planned as a trauma event due to the resident's expression of anger and to ensure staff were aware how to care for the resident and to stop immediately if the resident refused a shower. She stated physically moving a resident from under her armpits or wrists and showering them despite their refusals was abuse and could have caused physical and psychosocial harm to the resident. In an interview on 06/18/25 at 11:28 AM with LVN I revealed Resident #1 typically stayed in her bed and sometimes would ask to get up. She stated on 05/22/25 during her rounds, Resident #1 appeared furious told her that the previous night (05/21/25), two girls came into Resident #1's room and told her it was her shower day, she refused, and they picked her up anyway and took her to the shower room and washed her, and said she was going to sue the aides. LVN I stated Resident #1 stated that the aides picked her up by the wrists and looked at her wrists and saw no marks or bruising, made sure she was okay, and told the resident she was going to get someone to talk to her and immediately went to get the Administrator and the Administrator and Social Worker went to talk with Resident #1. She stated that she considered it to be abuse. She stated that a resident could be harmed by being picked up from her bed under her armpits or by her wrists and made to take a shower despite their refusals both psychologically and physically. She stated that when resident's refused a shower CNA's were supposed to let the nurse know and talked to the resident to see if they might change their mind and if the resident still refused then they have a shower refusal sheet they had them sign. In an interview on 06/18/25 at 1:45 PM with the Administrator she stated a nurse came to her at the end of morning meeting and told her she needed to speak with Resident #1. The Administrator stated she immediately spoke with Resident #1 who told her, the night before (05/21/25), she was in her bed and it was her shower day, she didn't really want to take a shower, aides grabbed her by the wrists and put her in her chair and made her take a shower even though she didn't want to. She stated that Resident #1 told the Administrator that she did not want the aides to take care of her again and the Administrator assured her that they would not take care of her anymore. The Administrator stated she interviewed Resident #1's roommate, Resident #2, and she told the Administrator that everything Resident #1 told her happened- was what Resident #2 heard happen, and the privacy curtain was closed so she did not visually see the incident. The Administrator stated that Resident #1 provided a description that fit with two aides (CNA A & CNA B) that worked on 05/21/25 6 PM- 6 AM shift, CNA A was assigned to Resident #3's hall. She stated she called and suspended both CNA A and CNA B pending the investigation on 05/22/25, they had not come back to the facility, and she interviewed them regarding the incident. She stated that CNA A told her that she had showered Resident #1 the evening of 05/21/25 and asked CNA B to help because Resident #1 was being difficult. She stated CNA A told her that Resident #1 said several times that she did not want a shower. CNA A told the Administrator Resident #1 kept saying she was going to call her lawyers and she had not worked with Resident #1 and thought she had dementia so she did not think much of it. The Administrator stated that resident's had a right to refuse a shower and physically moving a resident, under their armpits, to a shower chair and showering them despite their refusals could be considered abuse and could physically or psychologically harm the resident. She stated she expected when resident's refused showers for CNA's to wait a little while and try again later or get someone else to ask the resident, and then inform the charge nurse so they could attempt and document it with a refusal sheet. She stated that she in-serviced all staff on abuse and neglect including recognizing abuse and reporting to her immediately, and on trauma informed care. Resident #1's physician was notified. She stated she attended an AD Hoc QAPI meeting on 05/22/25 with corporate involvement and the Medical Director, regarding the incident and what the Administrator needed to do. In an interview on 06/18/25 at 6:25 PM with CNA K she stated that she worked the evening shifts on Resident #1's hall and worked the evening after the incident on 05/22/25. CNA K stated Resident #1 was able to voice her needs and had never seen her out of bed in the year she had worked at the facility. She stated she had asked Resident #1 if she wanted a shower in the past and Resident #1 would reply no I'm not taking a shower. She stated when resident's refused showers she had the resident sign a refusal form, informed the charge nurse who also signed the sheet, and there was a box they put it in at near the ADON's office. She was able to name types of abuse including reporting to the Abuse Coordinator. When provided the scenario of an aide physically transferring a resident by lifting under their armpits and giving them a shower despite their refusals, she stated it was abuse and the resident could have experienced physical harm. She stated she would have intervened immediately and ensured the resident felt safe and report to the Abuse Coordinator who was the Administrator. In interviews on 06/17/25 and 06/18/25 across both shifts (6 AM- 6 PM & 6 PM-6 AM) with various staff members (ADON D, CNA E, CNA G, CNA H, CNA J, CNA K, LVN C, LVN F, LVN I, LVN L, LVN M, LVN P, MA N, and Social Worker) revealed staff had been in-serviced on abuse and neglect, resident rights (including residents had a right to refuse showers), and trauma informed care on 05/22/25. The above-mentioned staff members were able to verbalize abuse and different forms of abuse and neglect including reporting to the Administrator who was the facility's abuse coordinator. The above mentioned staff members stated they had received in-services on resident rights and trauma informed care and when a resident declined showers that meant no and they did not force resident's to do something they did not want to do. When provided a scenario where a resident refused a shower and a CNA transferred them by their wrists or under their armpits and gave a resident a shower despite the resident's refusals- all stated they considered it to be abuse and would ensure the resident was safe and immediately report it to the Abuse Coordinator. They stated physically transferring a resident under the armpits from the bed to shower chair and showering the resident despite refusals could result in physical and mental harm to the resident. Record review of the facility's AD Hoc QAPI (an unscheduled, as needed meeting for a Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) program) meeting, dated 05/22/25, attended by the Administrator, Medical Director, Regional Compliance Nurse regarding the incident and what steps they needed to take next. Record review of CNA A's personnel file reflected she was hired on 05/01/25 with a last worked date of 05/21/25 and was terminated from employment on 05/23/25. The facility had conducted Texas Department of Public Safety Criminal History verification and Employee Misconduct Registry Employability status check without any concerns. Record review of CNA B's personnel file reflected she was hired on 04/18/25 with a last worked date of 05/21/25 and was terminated from employment on 06/05/25. The facility had conducted Texas Department of Public Safety Criminal History verification and Employee Misconduct Registry Employability status check without any concerns. Record review of abuse and neglect in-services conducted by the facility on 05/22/25 reflected the facility staff were trained on abuse and neglect, types of abuse, who was the abuse coordinator and when abuse should be reported. Reco[TRUNCATED]
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 F0637 (Tag F0637)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure that each resident who experiences a significant change in st...

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 each resident who experiences a significant change in status is comprehensively assessed within 14 days for 1 of 9 residents (Residents #4) reviewed for significant change. The facility failed to ensure Resident # 4 had a Significant Change Assessment completed after she had a change in vision needs. This failure could place residents at risk of not having assessments completed when there has been a significant change in their condition and could lead to failure to not provide necessary care. Findings included: Record review of Resident #4's face sheet, dated [DATE], reflected the resident was a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her diagnoses included: Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (a long-term condition in which the body has trouble controlling blood sugar and using it for energy), Hypertension (a condition in which the force of the blood against the artery walls it's too high), and Cognitive Communication Deficit (refers to difficulties with communication that arise from impairment in cognitive processes). Record review of Resident #4's physician progress note dated [DATE] reflected .Assessments: 1. Cataract, unspecified cataract type, unspecified laterality .Discussion: Patient was seen and examined. She has cataracts. Patient to FU with RGB for surgery . Record review of Resident #4's Quarterly Review MDS assessment, dated [DATE], reflected she had a BIMS score of 10, indicating she was moderately cognitively impaired. Section B1000 reflected she had adequate ability to see in adequate light and did not use corrective lenses. Record review of Resident #4's Care Plan Review dated [DATE] reflected no mention of vision issues, need for eye care or eye surgery. Record review of Resident #4's physical order summary dated [DATE] reflected an order on [DATE] May have Ophthalmologist Care. Order dated [DATE] reflected S.S. to make appt for patient cataract (a clouding or opacification of the normally clear lens of the eye that obscures the passage of light through the lens to the retina of the eye) surgery. Interview and observation of Resident #4 on [DATE] at 11:24am revealed she needed eyeglasses. She was observed wearing the eyeglasses while she was looking at her tablet. She stated she needed to go to the eye doctor because she cannot see from her left eye and had floaters in her right eye. She stated it was urgent she got to the eye doctor due to her declining vision. Interview with the Social Worker on [DATE] at 2:16pm revealed she had made several attempts to get Resident #4 to the eye doctor for a new eye exam because her previous eye exam was expired. She had an appointment for surgery on [DATE] but they had not accepted her due to her needing a new vision exam. They then scheduled her new vision exam on [DATE] but the facility was unsuccessful in transporting her to the exam due to an incident in which she fell during transport. She had continued to try and look for options to get the eye evaluation done, to include finding a provider that could do the exam at the facility or finding a provider that would accept Resident #4 on a stretcher. Resident #4 needed special transportation due to her large frame and girth. The only way to safely transport her would be by stretcher. The current provided, RGC, stated they would not accept her on stretcher. The Social Worker stated she did not have a written record of her attempts to get Resident #4 to her eye exam. Interview with MDS Nurse O on [DATE] at 3:12pm revealed quarterly MDS assessments were completed based on the resident's electronic file that included diagnoses, physician orders and physician progress notes. She stated she was responsible for updating Resident #4's MDS. She stated she did not see anything from the eye doctor that said she had cataracts and therefore did not believe it needed to be noted in the MDS . She stated Resident #4's file did not have a diagnosis of any vision impairment or cataract in her MDS or Face Sheet and the only thing they had that mentioned it was the Nurse Practitioners note on [DATE]. She stated they would typically need something from the eye doctor with the diagnosis of Cataracts to include it in the MDS. Interview with ADON Q on [DATE] at 3:31pm revealed she was aware of Resident #4's vision problem and the struggle they were having to get her to her eye evaluation. She stated she was not familiar with the expectation on what should be on MDS because she did not complete the MDS. She was aware of the resident wearing corrective lenses but did not know the resident was having vision decline. She did not know what the risk was of not having vision issues noted in the MDS because they took care of all of Resident #4's needs and the vision impairment would be knowledge passed down by word of mouth and through staff completing rounds with their residents. She noted if Resident #4's vision was improved it would improve her quality of life. Interview with the Administrator on [DATE] at 4:37pm revealed she did not know whether a vision impairment would go on an MDS. She stated cataracts did not automatically mean a vision impairment but stated it was a vision issue. She stated there would be a risk to a resident not having an up to date and accurate MDS because staff would not know exactly how to care for that resident. Interview with the DON on [DATE] at 5:25pm revealed vision impairment should be noted on a MDS assessment. The risk of not having a vision impairment on the MDS would be the resident might not have gotten the treatment she needed for her eyes. Interview with Administrator on [DATE] at 9:05 AM revealed the facility did not have a policy for MDS. The facility follows the RAI Manual . Record review of CMS's RAI Version 3.0 Manual effective [DATE] reflected .B1000 .A person's reading vision often diminishes over time. If uncorrected, vision impairment can limit the enjoyment of everyday activities such as reading newspapers, books or correspondence, and maintaining and enjoying hobbies and other activities. It also limits the ability to manage personal business, such as reading and signing consent forms. Moderate, high or severe impairment can contribute to sensory deprivation, social isolation, and depressed mood. Planning for Care Reversible causes of vision impairment should be sought. Consider whether simple environmental changes such as better lighting or magnifiers would improve ability to see. Consider large print reading materials for persons with impaired vision. For residents with moderate, high, or severe impairment, consider alternative ways of providing access to content of desired reading materials or hobbies. Steps for Assessment 1. Ask family, caregivers, and/or direct care staff over all shifts, if possible, about the resident's usual vision patterns during the 7-day look-back period (e.g., is the resident able to see newsprint, menus, greeting cards?). 2. Then ask the resident about their visual abilities. 3. Test the accuracy of your findings: o Ensure that the resident's customary visual appliance for close vision is in place (e.g., eyeglasses, magnifying glass). o Ensure adequate lighting. o Ask the resident to look at regular-size print in a book or newspaper. Then ask the resident to read aloud, starting with larger headlines and ending with the finest, smallest print. If the resident is unable to read a newspaper, provide material with larger print, such as a flyer or large textbook. o When the resident is unable to read out loud (e.g. due to aphasia, illiteracy), you should test this by another means such as, but not limited to: - Substituting numbers or pictures for words that are displayed in the appropriate print size (regular-size print in a book or newspaper) . B1200: Corrective Lenses Health-related Quality of Life o Decreased ability to see can limit the enjoyment of everyday activities and can contribute to social isolation and mood and behavior disorders. o Many residents who do not have corrective lenses could benefit from them, and others have corrective lenses that are not sufficient. o Many persons who benefit from and own visual aids do not have them on arrival at the nursing home. Planning for Care o Knowing if corrective lenses were used when determining ability to see allows better identification of evaluation and management needs. o Residents with eyeglasses or other visual appliances should be assisted in accessing them. Use and maintenance should be included in care planning. o Residents who do not have adequate vision without eyeglasses or other visual appliances should be asked about history of corrective lens use. o Residents who do not have adequate vision, despite using a visual appliance, might benefit from a re-evaluation of the appliance or assessment for new causes of vision impairment. Steps for Assessment 1. Prior to beginning the assessment, ask the resident whether they use eyeglasses or other vision aids and whether the eyeglasses or vision aids are at the nursing home. Visual aids do not include surgical lens implants. 2. If the resident cannot respond, check with family and care staff about the resident's use of vision aids during the 7-day look-back period. 3. Observe whether the resident used eyeglasses or other vision aids during reading vision test (B1000). 4. Check the medical record for evidence that the resident used corrective lenses when ability to see was recorded. 5. Ask staff and significant others whether the resident was using corrective lenses when they observed the resident's ability to see. CMS's RAI Version 3.0 Manual CH 3: MDS Items [B] [DATE] Page B-14 B1200: Corrective Lenses (cont.) Coding Instructions o Code 0, no: if the resident did not use eyeglasses or other vision aid during the B1000, Vision assessment. o Code 1, yes: if corrective lenses or other visual aids were used when visual ability was assessed in completing B1000, Vision
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 observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to label drugs and biologicals used in the facility in accordance with currently accepted professional principles, and include th...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to label drugs and biologicals used in the facility in accordance with currently accepted professional principles, and include the appropriate accessory and cautionary instructions, and the expiration date when applicable for 1 (D hall Nurses Cart) of 2 medication nurses carts reviewed for pharmacy services in that: The facility failed to ensure RN U responsible for the D hall Nurses Cart removed medications in unsecure containers from the Nurses Cart. This failure could place residents at risk of not having the medication available due to possible drug diversion. The findings included: Record review and observation on 06/17/25 at 11:58 AM of D hall Nurses Cart, with RN U revealed the blister pack for Resident #8's APAP/codeine 300-30 mg tablet (controlled medication used for pain) had 1 blister seal broken and the pill still inside the broken blister and tapped over. Interview on 06/17/25 at 12:04 PM, RN U stated the count was done at shift change and the count was correct. She stated she did not check the blister packs during the count. She stated she was unaware when the blister pack seal was broken, and she was not aware of who might have damaged the blister. She stated the risk would be a potential for drug diversion. She stated the nurses were responsible to check the medication blister packs for broken seals during the count of narcotics during the change of the shift. She stated when a broken seal was observed, she would waist the pill with another nurse. Interview on 06/17/25 at 3:49 PM, the DON stated he expected if a blister pack medication seal was broken the pill should be discarded. The DON stated it would not be acceptable to keep a pill in a blister pack that was opened. The DON stated the risk would be potential for drug diversion and infection control issue. He stated nurses were responsible for checking the medication blister packs for broken seals during the count on the change of shifts. The DON stated the ADONs were supposed to check the carts randomly for monitoring. Record review of the facility's policy titled Medication Storage in the Facility, undated, revealed in part . Outdated, contaminated, or deteriorated medications and those in containers that are cracked, soiled, or without secure closures are immediately removed from stock, disposed of according to procedures for medication destruction, and reordered from the pharmacy if a current order exists .
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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interviews, 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 kitc...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interviews, 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. The facility failed to ensure the dining room's ice machine's drip tray was cleaned and sanitized, and free from build-up of slime, mold, and an old, used and soaked paper napkin. This failure placed residents at risk of food contamination and foodborne illness. Findings included: Observation of the dining room ice machine on 06/17/25 at 09:45 AM, revealed the presence of buildup of a grayish slime/mold, and an old, used and soaked paper napkin within the drip tray of the ice machine. In an interview on 06/17/25 at 9:46 AM, the DFN looked at the ice machine drip tray and stated it looked dirty with a used paper napkin there. He stated the ice machine supposed to be cleaned daily after each meal. He was unable to recall the last time the machine had been cleaned and sanitized. He stated he had to check the daily cleaning schedule log. He stated it was his responsibility and the responsibility of the kitchen staff and the housekeeping staff to make sure the beverage bar machines was cleaned, sanitized and free of buildup. The DFN stated the importance of doing so was to keep the environment and equipment sanitary for the health and benefit of the residents, staff, and visitors. Observation of the dining room's ice machine on 06/17/25, at 1:10 PM, revealed the ice machine and its components had been effectively cleaned and sanitized and the concerning areas of grayish slime/mold were no longer present. Review of the kitchen's daily cleaning schedules revealed the ice machine under the title of Beverage Bar [Before each meal] was to be sanitized daily and the log showed the machine had been cleaned on 06/01/25-06/02/25-06/04/25-06/05/25-06/08/25-06/09/25-06/12/25 for the two weeks of June 2025 schedule. In an interview on 06/17/25, at 5:09 PM, the ADM stated that it was his expectation that the beverage bar machines were kept cleaned, sanitized and free of any build up. She stated it was the responsibility of all staff including dietary staff, housekeeping staff, and herself to make sure the beverage bar machine was kept cleaned, and sanitized. She said it was important because a clean and sanitary environment prevented residents, staff, visitors, and others from getting sick. Review of the facility's Dietary Services Policy & Procedure Manual 2012, Cleaning of the Ice Machine policy revealed the following: The ice machine shall be cleaned and sanitized according to manufacturer's instructions to maintain sanitary conditions in order to prevent food contamination and the growth of disease producing organisms and toxins . 3. Clean any hard water deposits with delimer, per manufacturer instructions for mixing and use .
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the comprehensive care plan described the serv...

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 comprehensive care plan described the services that are to be furnished to attain or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being for 4 (Residents #1, #2, #3, and #9) of 9 residents reviewed for comprehensive care plans. 1. The facility failed to create a care plan that reflected Resident #1's preference for bed baths and shower refusals. 2. The facility failed to create a care plan that reflected Resident #2's shower refusals. 3. The facility failed to create a care plan that reflected Resident #3's shower refusals. 4. The facility failed to create a care plan that reflected Resident #9's vision needs. This failure puts residents at risk of not being provided personalized care and negatively impact their quality of life. Findings included: 1. Review of Resident #1's Quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], reflected she was an [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. She had the diagnoses of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) (a sudden worsening of COPD including breathlessness, mucus, and cough), Alzheimer's disease (loss of cognition), chronic pain syndrome, and anxiety disorder (excessive or persistent worry or fear). Her BIMS score was a 5 (severely impaired cognition). Further review of Section GG-Functional Abilities reflected she required substantial/maximal assistance for bed to chair transfers and showers. In an interview on [DATE] at 11:38 AM with Resident #1 she stated that she did not like to get up out of bed because she had pain and declined health and stated she would be open to bed baths. In an interview on [DATE] at 6:10 PM with LVN F he stated that Resident #1 commonly refused showers and typically did not get out of bed. He stated when a resident refused a shower the aide was supposed get someone else to try or try at another time and then inform the charge nurse. He stated there were shower sheets that were signed by the nurse and the aide when residents still chose to refuse showers. In an interview on [DATE] at 6:25 PM with CNA K she stated Resident #1 was able to voice her needs and she had never seen Resident #1 out of bed in the year she had worked at the facility. She stated she had asked Resident #1 if she wanted a shower in the past and Resident #1 would reply no I'm not taking a shower and she had the resident sign a refusal form, informed the charge nurse who also signed the sheet, and there was a box they put it in at near the ADON's office. Record review of Resident #1's care plan reflected the resident had an activity of daily living (ADL) performance deficit and required one staff to assist with bathing and bed mobility, dated initiated [DATE]. Further review reflected a focus area, dated initiated [DATE], The resident has a history of trauma that may have a negative impact. The trauma is [due to]: Feeling angry [due to] shower being done after she refused. Interventions included: .If resident refuses her shower stop immediately . If the resident has escalated, if at all possible do not touch the resident unless absolutely necessary for resident's or others safety ., dated initiated [DATE]. Resident #1's care plan did not address she commonly refused showers. Record review of Resident #1's medical record reflected there were no shower refusal sheets. Record review of Resident #1's point of care task for bathing for the month of [DATE] ([DATE]-[DATE]) reflected she bathed on [DATE], [DATE], [DATE], and [DATE]. 2. Record review of Resident #2's Quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], reflected she was a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. She had the diagnoses of cancer, heart failure, stroke with paralysis on her left non-dominant side, and major depression disorder (persistent feelings of sadness). Her BIMS score was a 7 (severely impaired cognition). Further review of Section GG-Functional Abilities reflected she required substantial/maximal assistance for bed to chair transfers and showers. In an interview on [DATE] at 4:24 PM with Resident #2 she stated that she did refuse showers and had never been forced to get up and the facility had her sign shower refusal sheets. She stated she did not like to sign the shower refusal sheets because the wording said something about it being bad for her health. She stated she had never been forced to take a shower by staff. Record review of Resident #2's care plan reflected the resident had impaired cognitive function/dementia or impaired thought processes; interventions included .Use residents preferred name . face the resident when speaking .Provide the resident with necessary cues- stop and return if agitated ., dated initiated [DATE]. The care plan did not reflect Resident #2 refused showers and did not like to sign the shower sheets. Record review of Resident #2's point of care scheduled tasks for bathing for the month of [DATE] ([DATE]-[DATE]) reflected she bathed on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays and had bathed on [DATE], [DATE], [DATE]. Record review of Resident #2's medical record revealed a shower refusal sheet signed by Resident # 2 dated on [DATE]. In an interview on [DATE] at 12:10 PM with LVN C, she stated Resident #1 and Resident #2 commonly refused showers. She stated that if a resident refused a shower, then aides were supposed to try to ask the resident either at a different time, or get someone else to ask the resident and the resident still refused there was a shower refusal form that residents signed. In an interview on [DATE] at 11:41 AM with CNA J, she stated that she provided showers or bed bath for Resident #1, and Resident #2. She stated that Resident #1 and Resident #2 did not like to get up out of bed and commonly refused showers. She stated that when resident's refused showers there were shower refusal sheets they signed. 3. Record review of Resident #3's Quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], reflected he was a [AGE] year-old male, admitted to the facility on [DATE]. He had the diagnoses of heart failure, respiratory failure, and anxiety disorder (persistent feelings of worry) and depression disorder (persistent feelings of sadness or loss of interest) and a BIMS score of 7 (severely impaired cognition). Further review of Section GG-Functional Abilities reflected he required substantial/maximal assistance for bed to chair transfers and showers. In an observation and interview on [DATE] at 2:40 PM with Resident #3 revealed he was seated at the edge of his bed wearing oxygen via nasal cannula. He stated that he did refuse showers at times and staff respected his refusal. He stated that he signed refusal sheets when he did not want to take a shower. Record review of Resident #3's undated care plan did not reflect Resident #3 refused showers. Record review of Resident #3's point of care flow sheet for the month of June ([DATE]-[DATE]) reflected he showered on [DATE], [DATE], [DATE], and [DATE]. Record review of Resident #3's medical record revealed shower refusal sheets signed by Resident #3 dated on [DATE], [DATE], [DATE], [DATE], [DATE], [DATE], and [DATE]. In an interview on [DATE] at 12:45 PM with ADON D, she stated that Residents #1, #2, and #3 commonly refused showers and was not sure if it was care planned. She stated that the MDS Nurse was responsible for care plans. She stated shower refusal sheets were turned in and uploaded into the resident's record and was not sure why Resident #1 had no shower refusal sheets and Resident #2's record appeared to be missing some shower refusal sheets as well. She stated they might not be scanned into the system yet. She stated that sometimes Resident #2 would ask for some rags to wipe herself off instead of showering. In an interview on [DATE] at 11:28 AM with LVN I, she stated that Residents #1, #2, and #3 commonly refused showers. In an interview on [DATE] at 4:57 PM with MDS Nurse O, she stated the care plans were updated by nursing if it were something acute and she was responsible for quarterly and annual care planning with the IDT. She stated a resident's bathing preference such as bed baths and shower refusals would be typically covered on the annual and quarterly care plan meetings with the IDT. She reviewed Residents #1, #2, and #3's care plans and stated that Resident #1's shower refusals and preference for bed baths, Resident #2's and Resident #3's shower refusals, were not care planned and she was not made aware or she would have followed up with the residents to ensure their preferences were care planned. MDS Nurse O stated it was important to care plan a resident's shower preference or refusals so their preferences were honored. MDS Nurse O stated she was going to speak with the three residents (#1,#2,#3) and update their care plan. In an interview on [DATE] at 6:25 PM with CNA K, she stated that Resident #3 commonly refused showers and residents had the right to refuse showers. She stated when a resident refused showers there were shower refusal forms signed by the aide and the nurse and put in a box by the nurses' station. 4. Record review of Resident #9's face sheet, dated [DATE], reflected the resident was a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her diagnoses included: Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (a long-term condition in which the body has trouble controlling blood sugar and using it for energy), Hypertension (a condition in which the force of the blood against the artery walls is too high), and Cognitive Communication Deficit (refers to difficulties with communication that arise from impairment in cognitive processes). Record review of Resident #9's Quarterly Review MDS assessment, dated [DATE], reflected she had a BIMS score of 10, indicating she was moderately impaired cognitively. Section B1000 reflected she had adequate ability to see in adequate light, did not use corrective lenses. Record review of Resident #9's physical order summary dated [DATE] reflected an order on [DATE] May have Ophthalmologist Care. Order dated [DATE] reflected S.S. to make appt for patient cataract (a clouding or opacification of the normally clear lens of the eye that obscures the passage of light through the lens to the retina of the eye) surgery. Record review of Resident #9's physician's progress note dated [DATE] reflected .Assessments: 1. Cataract, unspecified cataract type, unspecified laterality .Discussion: Patient was seen and examined. She has cataracts. Patient to FU with [provider name] for surgery . Record review of Resident #9's Care Plan Review dated [DATE] reflected no mention of vision issues, need for eye care or eye surgery. Interview and observation of Resident #9 on [DATE] at 11:24 AM revealed she needed eyeglasses. She was observed wearing eyeglasses while she was looking at her tablet. She stated she needed to go to the eye doctor because she could not see from her left eye and had floaters in her right eye. She stated it's urgent she got to the eye doctor due to her declining vision. Interview with the Social Worker [DATE] at 2:16 PM revealed she had made several attempts to get Resident #9 to the eye doctor for a new eye exam because her previous eye exam was expired. She had an appointment for surgery on [DATE] but they had not accepted her due to needing a new vision exam. They then scheduled her new vision exam on [DATE] but the facility was unsuccessful in transporting her to the exam due to an incident in which she fell during transport. She had continued to try and look for options to get the eye evaluation done, to include finding a provider that could do the exam at the facility or finding a provider that would accept Resident #9 on a stretcher. The current provider,[provider name] stated they would not accept her on a stretcher. She stated she had not added any information about Resident #9's vision needs to the care plan. She stated she was actively working on trying to overcome the issues related to transporting her to the eye appointments. Interview with MDS Nurse O on [DATE] at 3:12 PM revealed the MDS nurses helped with the first comprehensive care plan and would add items for acute care upon request by nursing staff during meetings. Acute items were added to the care plan by the DON or ADON. Vision issues should be care planned when services were being provided or needed to be provided to the resident. Interview with ADON Q on [DATE] at 3:31 PM revealed she was aware of Resident #9's vision problem and the struggle they were having to get her to her eye evaluation. She was aware of the resident wearing corrective lenses but did not know the resident's vision was declining. She stated Resident #9's care plan should reflect limited vision but was unsure whether it was on her care plan. She did not know what the risk was of not having vision issues noted on the =care plan because the facility took care of all of Resident #9's needs and the vision impairment would be knowledge passed down by word of mouth and through staff completing rounds with their residents. She noted if Resident #9's vision was improved it would improve her quality of life. Interview with the Administrator on [DATE] at 4:37 PM revealed she did not know whether a vision impairment would go on a care plan because she was not clinical. She stated she believed Resident #9's care plan could read less vision than normal. She stated a care plan should be used to ensure residents were receiving all their services and did not believe care was involved with vision issues. The risk of not having an up-to-date care plan would be that staff would not know exactly how to take care of a resident. Interview with the DON on [DATE] at 5:25 PM revealed Resident #9's vision impairment should be noted on a care plan and the interventions or plan to care for the vision impairment should be included. The risk to the resident on not having vision impairment on their care plan would be they might not have gotten the treatment for their eyes. He stated that Residents #1, #2, and #3 shower/bathing refusals or preference for bed baths should be care planned to ensure they honored the residents' preferences. He stated that nurses should also chart in the resident's progress notes that a resident refused a shower so they were aware during the morning meetings and it would be care planned. Record review of the facility's Bathing/Shower Policy titled Bath, Tub/Shower, undated, reflected: .The frequency and type of bathing depends on resident preference, skin condition, tolerance and energy level. Although a daily bath or shower is preferred and necessary for some, the aging skin can be maintained by bathing every two days or with partial bathing as needed . Procedure 1. The resident will receive assistance with bathing according to their resident centered plan of care. 2. Become familiar with type and pattern of bathing, assistance or aids needed, skin condition, presence of dressing or casts . Record review of the facility's care plan policy, titled Comprehensive Care Planning, undated, reflected: The facility will develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident, consistent with the resident rights that includes measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs that are identified in the comprehensive assessment. The comprehensive care plan will describe the following - o The services that are to be furnished to attain or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being; and o the right to refuse treatment .
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 F0925 (Tag F0925)

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 an effective pest control program was implement...

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 an effective pest control program was implemented so the facility is free of pests and rodents for 1 of 9 residents (Resident #7), 1 out of 5 halls (hall A) and 1 out of 5 exterior perimeters of resident halls (hall A) reviewed for pest control. 1. The facility failed to effectively treat Resident #7's room for ants. 2. The facility failed to keep an effective pest control program, so the facility was free of ants on the exterior perimeter of resident hall A. 3. The facility failed to keep an effective pest control program, so the facility was free of ants in 2 rooms in the A hall. These failures placed residents at risk for the spread of infection and disease, and a reduced quality of life. Findings included: 1. Record review of Resident #7's MDS, dated [DATE], reflected she was an [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the diagnoses of Hypertension (high blood pressure), Diabetes (a condition resulting in too much sugar in the blood) and Edema (excessive accumulation of fluid in the body's tissues, leading to swelling. She had a BIMS score of 15 (little to no cognitive impairment). Resident #7 was discharged from the facility on 1/14/25. Record review of Resident #7's care plan dated 1/23/25 reflected .Resident is on enhanced barrier precautions .Resident has a surgical site to: Cutaneous abscess of abdominal wall .Resident has an ADL Self Care Performance Deficit .bed mobility requires staff X1 for assistance .The resident is at risk for falls r/t weakness . Interview with LVN T 6/17/25 at 10:50am revealed she was the nurse who found the ants in Resident #7's room. She stated she went in the room and the resident was complaining of itching, and she was completing the head-to-toe assessment when she noted ants on the bedrail coming from the window seal. Resident's bed was a few feet away from the window. When she pulled the bed covers, she saw ants on the bed. Resident #7 had opened food at the time of the observation. During the assessment she found two pinpoint bites one on each thigh. She stated Resident #7 had never complained about ants in her room. It was the first time of her complaining about itching. There were no other residents at that time complaining about itching or ant bites. Since then, she had not noted any ants or bugs at the facility. The resident was at risk of infection due to the ant bites. If she was to observe any ants or bugs in a resident room, she would make sure the resident was safe and assess the resident for bite marks. Record review Resident #7's progress note date 1/14/25 at 1:55pm reflected .Describe any injuries: 2 pinpoint non blistered areas - 1 left midthigh, 1 right midthigh, resident reported she had 2 ants in her room. Resident was moved to another facility. Skin assessment completed; doctor assessed resident . 2. Observation of the outside facility perimeter and interview with Maintenance Director on 6/17/25 at 12:59pm revealed 1 3 to 5 -inch ant hill with about 20 black ants on the southwest corner outside of the A Hall, and a resident room window was about 2 feet away from the ant hill. The Maintenance Director acknowledged the ant hill and stated he would take care of it. He stated that he had seen an increase in work orders for ants due to the weather being hot. He stated the reports were just for black sugar ants and he usually took care of it by spraying pesticide. He stated he received work orders to his phone via the app for maintenance of the building. He stated anyone, staff or residents, could scan the QR code that was posted throughout the building to put in a work order. He stated he was the only one that had access to the work orders. He reported the facility was fumigated about 2 weeks ago by their pest control company. Review of the facility invoice from the pest control company dated 1/21/25 reflected .General Comments: Pest Control on Site for additional service regarding ants and rodents. Upon arrival I met with staff member in the business office who informed me admin and DM were offsite. Staff member was able to reach out to MD (Maintenance Director) who confirmed ants in 120 and 122. I learned resident in B4 reported ants as well. I began service by inspecting resident room B4 where upon inspection no ants were observed .Moving along I came to vacant resident rooms [ROOM NUMBERS]. Both units were inspected an no pests observed at this point. A liquid residual product was applied to the perimeter of both vacant units including the restrooms. Both a dry flowable and ant bait gel may attract t more ants at first but should dissipate after four to five days .Still seeing ants after last week treatment - rooms 102, 122. Told maintenance do not spray pesticides as they interfere with, the products we use, but he can spray warm soapy water to resolve any immediate issues as they pop up until we can arrive . Review of a facility invoice from the pest control company dated 2/12/25 reflected .General Comments .I then met with MD (Maintenance Director) and located logbook finding no new entries .I follow up on rooms with ants not finding any and cleaning staff reported non seen .before leaving I met with New administrator and went over her concerns for ants and rodent explaining treatment methods and preventative measures . Review of a facility invoice from the pest control company dated 3/11/25 reflected .General Comments . Met with MD (Maintenance Director) upon arrival, he stated no reports of pest at this time. I located logbook finding no new entries .On the exterior I services all rodent stations finding no activity. I then applied a granular ant bait due to high winds . Review of a facility invoice from the pest control company dated 5/18/25 reflected .General Comments .when I arrived, I checked in with the front desk also check in with MD (Maintenance Director) . The Director of Maintenance asked if there were any issues or concerns that needed my attention . He said if I can inspect room B10's restroom stated that they were seeing cockroach activity .also checked the service journal no notes of any kind were made . Review of a facility invoice from the pest control company dated 6/6/25 reflected .General Comments . met with MD he stated no issues inside other than a snake sighting .on the interior I located logbook finding no new entries at this time . Review of Pest Control Binder reflected the following log entries: - 1/14/25 ants/mouse in MSU 121 - 1/15/25 binder checked by pest technician - no pest entries for February 2025 -2/12/25 binder checked by pest technician -no pest entries for March 2025 - 3/11/25 binder checked by pest technician - 3/17/25 binder checked by pest technician -4/10/25 B10 room roaches in restroom -4/16/25 binder checked by pest technician - no pest entries for May 2025 -5/8/25 binder check by pest technician -no pest entries for June 2025 -6/6/25 binder checked by pest technician Record review of the facility maintenance task report (from the QR code) dated 12/10/24 to 06/17/25 reflected the following reports: -5/8/25 ants in therapy room; sprayed room and did not see -5/29/25 B15 ants in room; sprayed, no ants -1/14/25 E121 ants; sprayed for ants and pest control will come tomorrow -1/17/25 B4 resident stated she had ants in her room yesterday and thinks she has bites on her arm; nurse and myself checked room for ants, none noted. -1/20/25 E120 ants at threshold; room was sprayed, pest control is scheduled. -1/20/25 B4 Ants in room; room was sprayed, pest control scheduled. -2/5/25 Microwave, ants noted on microwave; ants were on tray from another source, no ants detected on or around microwave or cabinet. -2/10/25 B7 bed B ants by bed; pest control scheduled -3/3/25 A1 ants reported in bathroom, no ants visually detected, sprayed insect repellant. -3/5/25 dining red tiny ants noted all over the dining room floor; no visual ants detected, will monitor periodically. -3/31/25 A1 ants crawling around resident's refrigerator; no visual on bugs or ants. -4/22/25 Therapy- ants by window and emergency exit door; spayed pesticide, no visual ants -4/29/25 Therapy- ants in office (sugar ants); sprayed for ants, no ants were visible. -4/29/25 Therapy really bad sugar ant problem, can't find source; sprayed for ants, no ants visible. -5/9/25 A9 need to spray for ants; sprayed pesticides for ants, did not see any -5/8/25 Therapy- ants along wall, electrical outlet and desks next to emergency exit; sprayed for ants. -5/8/25 ants in therapy room; spayed room and did not see -5/28/25 Therapy - ants by emergency exit around electrical outlets and over wall and desks; spray for ants and did not see. -5/29/25 B15 ants in room; spayed no ants -5/30/25 Chapel - ants multiple; sprayed -6/1/25 B15 Ants all around his bedside dresser; sprayed for ants. -6/4/25 C2 Ants in room by bedside table; all opened food thrown away, sprayed for ants, need to keep foods in container. -6/4/25 Chapel - ants all over trashcan; sprayed ants, did we put it in the pest control binder -6/6/25 B15 Ants in room; sprayed for ants did not visually see them -6/10/25 Chapel - lots of ants; sprayed for ants, visually checked today, no ants -6/12/25 B7 ants in bed and on wall; checked for ants did not see any, did spray baseboard and under bed -6/14/25 B15 ants all over bed and floor, residents bed window wall and floor, trash. -6/15/25 A1 ants in resident's bed yesterday, sprayed for ants no ants visually; removed the resident for 1 hour. Interview with Housekeeper R on 6/17/25 at 10:40am revealed she had not been aware of any insects or bugs in the MSU hall. She stated if she saw any bugs, ants or insects she would scan the QR code posted on the wall, which would submit a work order for maintenance. Interview with the Housekeeping Manager on 6/17/25 at 1:23pm revealed he would notify maintenance of issue with pest such as ants and would remove any open food in the resident's room. He stated he was not aware of the facility having any issues with ants. Observation and interview with the resident in room A1 on 6/17/25 at 2:41pm revealed she had history of having had ants in her bed but the facility had sprayed and took care of the problem. Observation of the room revealed no ants. Observation and interview with the resident in room A9 on 6/17/25 at 2:48pm revealed she had a history of ants in a previous room but had not had any issues with ants on her side of the room since she moved to the new room. She noted she had previously seen ants by her roommates window in her current room but the facility staff had sprayed and hadn't seen anymore ants. Observation of the room did not reveal any ants. Interview with ADON Q on 6/17/25 at 3:31pm revealed she hadn't had any resident complain in a long time about ants in their rooms. If she would receive a complaint, she would have maintenance take care of it immediately. She stated she hadn't had any residents bit by ants. When asked about Resident #7 she stated she did not recall the resident. Interview with the Maintenance Director on 6/17/25 at 3:48pm revealed the maintenance logs from the QR code were not provided to the pest control company. He stated the only way the pest control company would know about the pest control issues reported through the QR code was if the staff noted it in the pest control binder. He stated he had never provided the log to pest control and was unsure of how to print the log. He stated it would be beneficial for them to have the log and did not have a reason for not providing it to them. He did not believe providing the pest maintenance log to the pest control company posed a risk to the residents because he stated he usually handled the complaints made on the log. He stated the only time he would request for the pest control company to come out immediately was if there was an issue with something he could not catch like rats or mice. He stated the pest control company comes monthly regardless of whether he called them for emergency purposes. Interview with the Service Manager from the pest control company on 6/17/25 at 4:08pm revealed the facility was on a monthly pest control service or as needed for pest control service. If the facility called for an issue, they would come out same day or next day. If it was an issue with a pest that bit or stung, such as ants, wasps, or bees, they would come out immediately. They provided the facility a Pest Control Binder for the facility staff to log issues with pest and the technicians checked it every visit and signed off they checked it. If the facility had a separate maintenance log with pest issues, he would recommend they put a copy of it in the log. He was unsure if the facility had a separate log. He stated all his technicians would do a summary of everything they treated and would notate complaints that were relayed to them at the time of treatment. Interview with Technician S from the pest control company on 6/17/25 at 4:13pm revealed he had not provided service for the facility in the past two months and noted it was another technician. He stated when he entered a facility, he would look at the pest control binder first. He would then speak to the Administrator or the Director of Maintenance to see if they had any issues or complaints that were not noted in the binder. He stated the facility had never provided him another log of issues reported by staff and residents. He stated he had treated things that were not in the logbook if it was reported to him verbally. If something was reported to him verbally, he would include it in the service report notes. Interview with the Administrator on 6/17/25 at 4:37pm revealed she had some issues with ants since she became the administrator in late February, early March of 2025. She stated when a problem with ants arose, they cleaned the bedroom, sprayed insecticide, and had pest control come out. They have also treated the outside as necessary. If they treated and they still did not fix the problem they would have pest control come out or if it was an enormous problem they would have them come out. She stated either her or the Maintenance Director would call the pest control company in those situations. She stated there have been no residents that had complained about ant bites since she started. She was unsure if the maintenance logs were provided to the pest control company during their visits but stated they could be beneficial to help treat the pest in the facility. She stated she would teach the Maintenance Director how to print them and put them in the pest control binder. She stated there was no risk to the residents of not providing the logs to the pest control company because the Maintenance Director was taking care of the problems noted in the logs regarding the pests, the pest control company was coming out routinely and no residents had complained about ant bites. She stated ants were a risk to residents because it could lead to a massive problem with residents getting ant bites, but it's not there yet. She stated she did morning and evening rounds of the exterior daily with the Maintenance Director and he will address any ant hills observed immediately. She was informed about the ant hill observed earlier and she stated she was sure the Maintenance Director would take care of it. Interview with the Administrator on 06/18/25 at 9:05 AM revealed they did not have a policy for pest control. The facility did not submit a pest control policy by the date, 06/18/25 and time of exit.
Nov 2024 7 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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure a resident who was unable to carry out activities of daily living received the necessary services to maintain good personal hygiene for one of eight residents (Resident #82) reviewed for ADL care. The facility failed to ensure staff provided consistent showers/baths for Resident #82. This failure could place residents at risk of not receiving needed hygiene care which could cause skin breakdown, a loss of dignity and self-worth. Findings include: Record review of Resident #82's 5-day MDS assessment, dated 10/12/24, reflected an [AGE] year-old male who was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and re-admitted on [DATE]. He had a BIMS score of 10, which indicated he was moderately cognitively impaired. He had not rejected care and required substantial to maximum assistance with showers and baths. His active diagnoses included diabetes and aftercare following hip replacement surgery. Record review of Resident #82's care plan, initiated on 12/27/23, reflected, .The resident has an ADL Self Care performance deficit related to surgical aftercare .Interventions . Bathing: requires staff x 1 for assistance . Record review of Resident #82's ADL documentation survey report for November 2024 reflected showers was scheduled on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. No showers on scheduled day for 11/01/24, 11/06/04, 11/11/24 and 11/15/24. In an interview with Resident #82 on 11/18/24 at 9:50 a.m., he stated he had only received one shower last week and that was on Friday (11/15/24). He stated he received a shower this a.m. (11/18/24) after he raised cane about not getting his showers last week. He stated he wanted his scheduled showers and should not have to keep asking for them. In an interview on 11/19/24 at 01:15 p.m., CNA E stated she did not shower Resident #82 on 11/13/24. She stated she just forgot about it. She stated RN C asked her on Thursday (11/14/15) to shower him and when she was able to get to him in the afternoon, he was mad and did not want his shower at that time. She stated she did shower him first thing Monday (11/18/24) and stated another aide showered him on Friday (11/15/24) She stated she did not complete a refusal of shower for Resident #82 on (11/14/24) and stated she should had documented it in the electronic record. In an interview with ADON G on 11/19/24 at 12:30 p.m., she stated she was unable to locate any refusal of shower sheets for the month of November 2024 for Resident #82. In an interview on 11/19/24 at 01:15 p.m., RN I stated she worked last Wednesday (11/13/24) and Thursday (11/14/24). She stated Resident #82 was very upset when she made her rounds on 11/16/24 and complained about not getting his shower. She stated he told her he had not had a shower since last Friday (11/08/24). She stated she asked CNA E about it, and she told her she had forgotten him on Wednesday 11/13/24. She stated she told CNA E to give the resident a shower that day. She stated she assumed he had gotten it. She stated the CNAs were to turn in a refusal of shower sheet if a resident refused and she, the aide and the resident had to all sign off they were refusing the shower or see if they wanted a shower at a different time. She stated she did not recall getting a refusal of shower on him. She stated she was not sure what was in place for nurses to see if the showers was being provided as scheduled. She stated the CNAs were to document in the record when they provided a shower, but stated she does not see that information. In an interview with MA F on 11/20/24 at 08:46 a.m., she stated she had signed off on the electronic record on 11/13/24 that Resident #82 was provided a shower. She stated she did not shower him that day and stated she was only helping the CNAs out with their documentation. She stated no one told her they had showered him but stated the 2 CNAs who were assigned that hall were always good about providing their showers. She stated she realized now this was not a good idea because it appeared the resident received his shower when he had not. In an interview with the DON on 11/20/24 at 01:20 p.m., she stated residents was supposed to get showers according to the scheduled shower days and documented in the record, and it was the responsibility of the CNAs and the Charge nurse to make sure residents received their showers. She stated they had implemented a new system where any refusal had to be documented by the CNA, Charge nurse, and the resident to see if the resident wished for a shower at a different time or a different staff member. She stated the staff who provided the care should be documenting the care. She stated she and the ADONs was reviewing the dashboard each morning for any missed documentation of care, but if they are signing off care is provided when it is not, that will not alert them to an issue. She stated ultimately the Charge nurses need to be ensuring the care is provided. The DON stated the risk to residents not getting their showers was skin issues, hygiene, and loss of dignity. Record review of the facility's undated policy titled, Bath, Tub/shower, reflected, .The frequency and type of bathing depends on resident preference, skin condition, tolerance, and energy level. Although a daily bath or shower is preferred and necessary for some, the aging skin can be maintained by bathing every two day or with partial bathing as needed .Goal .The resident will experience improved comfort and cleanliness by bathing .The resident will maintain intact skin integrity .The resident will be free from soil, odor, dryness, and purities following bathing .
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

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 residents fed by enteral means received the ap...

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 residents fed by enteral means received the appropriate treatment and services to prevent complications for 1 (Resident #75) of 2 residents reviewed for enteral nutrition. The facility failed to ensure Resident #75's water flush administered via tube feeding pump was not being administered as ordered by the physician. This deficient practice could affect residents who receive tube feedings by not receiving the appropriate nutrition/ hydration. The findings were: Review of Resident #75's Annual MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed that Resident #75 was a [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Relevant diagnoses included Hypertension (high blood pressure), Cerebrovascular Accident ( stroke or blood flow to the brain is suddenly cut off), Gastrostomy status (surgical opening into the stomach for administering feeding , hydration, and medication), Malnutrition (inadequate amount of nutrients in the body to function properly), Respiratory Failure (lungs cannot get adequate oxygen from the blood) and Aphasia (language disorder that affects ability to understand and express language). Resident #75 had a gastrostomy tube. BIMS score for Resident #75 was not conducted indicated on the Annual MDS since Resident #75 was rarely/never understood. Review of Resident #75's comprehensive care plan revised 08/20/2024 reflected, Focus: [Resident #26] requires tube feeding related to Dysphagia. Goal: [Resident#75] will remain free of side effects or complications related to tube feeding through review date. Intervention: [Resident #75] Discuss with the resident/family/caregivers any concerns about tube feeding, advantages, disadvantages, potential complications. Review of Resident #75's Physician order dated 9/4/2024 reflected, Enteral Feed Order every shift for Enteral Feed related to gastrostomy status; start continuous enteral feeding. Isosource 1.5 [Tube feed formula] at 65ml/hr. with water flush at 50ml/hr. for 22 hours. Review of Resident #75's Physician order dated 07/25/2024 reflected, NPO (Nothing by mouth) diet related to dysphagia. In an observation on 11/18/24 at 09:42 AM, revealed Resident #75 was awake, lying in his bed in room, Resident #75 had limited verbal communication. Tube feed pump was infusing tube feed formula Isosource 1.5 at 65ml/hr. and water flush at 60ml/hr. to Resident #75. The tube feeding pump settings read water flush 60 ml/hr. The hung date on the tube feed and flush bag was 11/18/24. In an observation and interview on 11/18/24 at 2:32 PM, RN C revealed resident had tube feed pump running with water flush infusing at 60ml/hr. RN C looked up tube feed orders in the Electronic Health record and stated resident had physician orders for water flush at 50ml/hr. She stated that the current pump settings were incorrect and did not reflect correct physician orders for the water flush. She stated for all tube fed dependent residents, tube feeding infusion via pump should match physician orders. She stated nurses were responsible for programming and administering the tube feed formula and water flush via the pump. She stated that usually night nurses started the tube feedings for all pump residents, however she should have checked when she rounded on the resident when she started her shift. She stated that risk to residents for not following correct physician order for enteral water flush was hydration concerns and possible decreased quality of care, especially for tube fed dependent residents. In an interview on 11/20/24 at 09:35 AM, the DON stated that her expectation was tube feed pump setting should match physician order. She stated that all nurses were responsible for checking the accuracy of the tube feeding infusions, including checking for accuracy of water flush. She stated that the risk for residents for not following physician orders for water flush was hydration concerns and decreased quality of care. She stated that as a DON of the facility she rounded on residents daily and conducted random audits to ensure quality of care was maintained. Record review of facility policy titled Enteral nutrition revised 2/13/2007 reflected, We will provide nutritionally complete enteral or parenteral feedings as ordered by the physician for the nourishment of residents who are unable to eat by mouth.
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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services including procedures that assure th...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services including procedures that assure the accurate acquiring and administering of all medications to meet the needs of each resident for two of seven residents (Resident #15 and Resident #97) reviewed for pharmacy services. 1. LVN J failed to follow the manufacturer's instructions to prime the Lantus Insulin (Hormone) Pen prior to dialing in required amount of Insulin to be administered to Resident #15. 2. LVN J failed to follow the Physician orders and facility procedures for administering one medication at a time with water flush between each medication when she crushed Resident #97's Sertraline (antidepressant) 25 mg 1 tablet and Levothyroxine (hormone) 50 mcg 1 tab and combined them in one medication cup for administration on 11/18/24. These failures placed residents at risk of not receiving full dosage of medication and potential for drug interactions. Findings included: 1. Review of Resident #15's quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] reflected a [AGE] year-old female with an admission date of 09/16/23. Her BIMS was 13 which indicated she was cognitively intact. Active diagnoses included diabetes mellitus. Record review of Resident #15's Physicians order summary report with a start date of 09/13/24, reflected, Lantus Solostar Subcutaneous Solution Pen-injector 100 unit/ML Inject 20 units subcutaneously An observation on 11/18/24 at 08:05 a.m., of the medication pass revealed LVN J pulling Resident #15's Insulin pen from the medication cart. LVN J placed a needle on the insulin pen and dialed 20 units of Lantus insulin without priming the pen first. LVN J then entered Resident #15's room and administered the Insulin. Interview with LVN J on 11/18/24 at 08:10 a.m., she stated she was aware the insulin pen had to be primed. She stated the purpose of priming the pen was to ensure there was no air in the pen, so the resident received the full dose of medication. 2. Record review of Resident #97's admission MDS assessment, dated 09/02/24, reflected a [AGE] year-old female with an admission date 09/02/24. Staff assessment for mental status reflected resident was moderately cognitively impaired. The resident received 51% or more of total calories through a feeding tube (a tube inserted through the abdomen that delivers nutrition directly to the stomach). Diagnoses included dysphagia (difficulty swallowing food), and adult failure to thrive and anorexia (eating disorder). Record review of Resident #97's physician orders summary report with a start date of 09/02/24, reflected, every shift flush tube with 30 ml water before and after medication and feedings .Flush with at least 5 ml of water between each medication . There were no orders to cocktail (mix together) medications. An observation 11/18/24 at 08:35 a.m., revealed LVN J at the medication cart preparing Resident #97's medication for gastrostomy tube (a feeding tube inserted through the abdomen that delivers nutrition directly to the stomach) administration. LVN J placed 2 plastic medication cups on top of the medication cart. She stated she combined the medications because the resident becomes very antsy during medication administration. LVN J pulled 1 tablet of Vitamin C 500 mg, 1 tablet of Vitamin D 25 mg, 1 tablet of Zinc 50 mg (all supplements), and 1 tablet of Cetirizine (antihistamine for allergy) 10 mg and placed them in one cup. LVN J then pulled 1 tablet of Sertraline 25 mg and 1 tablet of Levothyroxine 50 mcg and placed them on the other cup. LVN J then crushed the medication in both cups. LVN J then reviewed the MAR (Medication Administration Record) and stated she was supposed to flush with 5 ml between each medication. She stated she had to re-do the medications and discarded the cup containing the vitamin supplements and allergy medication, but not the cup containing the Sertraline and Levothyroxine. LVN J re-pulled the vitamin supplements and allergy tablet and placed them in individual cups and crushed them separately. LVN J entered the resident's room and obtained a cup of water from the resident's bathroom. LVN J checked placement of the G-tube (Gastrostomy Tube) through air auscultation and checked for residual. LVN J flushed the G-tube with 30 ml of water, dissolved each of the vitamins and allergy tablet with 5 ml of water and administered them individually with 5 ml of water between each tablet. LVN J then diluted the cocktailed Sertraline and Levothyroxine with 10 ml of water and administered it via the G-tube and flushed with 10 ml of water. LVN J completed the medication administration and flushed with 30 ml of water. In an interview with LVN J on 11/18/24 at 08:50 a.m., she stated the reason she did not separate the Sertraline and the Levothyroxine was because the levothyroxine was so small it did not create much volume. She stated since she had combined the two medications, she doubled the amount of water to dilute them and flush afterwards. She stated she was not sure why the medications should be administered separately. In an interview with the facility Pharmacy Consultant on 11/20/24 at 08:31 a.m., she stated across the board it was best practice to give each medication via a G-tube separately. She stated the risk of cocktailing medication was a medication could not be compatible with another medication which could reduce its effectiveness. She stated instead of having to check each individual medication for compatibility it was just best practice to give them individually. She stated there were no compatibility issues between the Sertraline or the levothyroxine. In an interview with the DON on 11/20/24 at 09:00 a.m., she stated they follow the manufactures guidelines for Insulin pens which indicated they needed to be primed first to ensure they removed the air and ensured the resident received the required amount of Insulin. She stated the facility's policy had always been to give each medication separately with water flush between each medication when giving medication through a G-tube. She stated the only time they would not was if they had an order from the physician to combine the medications. She stated failing to follow procedures could result in residents not receiving the full amount of medication ordered. She stated each staff member is skills checked upon hire and annually thereafter. She stated they are assigned to a nurse on the floor for 3 to 5 days for training and if any new concerns arise, they are provided additional training. Record review of manufacture instructions for Lantus Insulin Pen obtained from searched on https://www.lantus.com/how-to-use/how-to-inject 11/20/24 reflected, .STEP 3. PERFORM A SAFETY TEST o Dial a test dose of 2 Units. o Hold pen with the needle pointing up and lightly tap the insulin reservoir so the air bubbles rise to the top of the needle. This will help you get the most accurate dose. Press the injection button all the way in and check to see that insulin comes out of the needle. The dial will automatically go back to zero after you perform the test. o If no insulin comes out, repeat the test 2 more times. If there is still no insulin coming out, use a new needle and do the safety test again .Always perform the safety test before each injection. Never use the pen if no insulin comes out after using a second needle . Record review of the Facilities policy titled, Enteral Medication Administration, dated January 2013, reflected, .Administer one medication at a time with a flush of 5-10 ml water or the amount ordered by the physician, between each medication and after the final medication is administered .
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 F0679 (Tag F0679)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interviews, and record review the facility failed to provide, based on the preferences of each resident, activities designed to meet the interests of and support the physical, me...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interviews, and record review the facility failed to provide, based on the preferences of each resident, activities designed to meet the interests of and support the physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident for nine of nine confidential residents reviewed for activities. The facility failed to provide activities to meet the residents' interests on Saturdays and Sundays for 9 confidential residents. These failures placed residents at risk for decline in quality of life, social and mental psychosocial wellbeing. Findings Include: During a confidential group interview on 11/19/24 at 10:02 a.m., with 9 residents, all residents stated that there are no weekend activities. They stated that they can attend church on Sundays, but no other activities are provided. They stated that they would love to have weekend activities, as it gets boring. They stated that the only time they have weekend activities is during holidays. During an interview with the Activities Director on 11/19/24 at 11:41 a.m., revealed that aides, nursing staff and the Activities Director assist residents to get to activities during the week. She stated that on the weekends the Activity Assistant would facilitate and ensure that residents get to planned activities Saturday and Sunday, however the Activities Assistant is no longer at the facility and has been gone since August 2024, which has made it difficult to offer activities during the weekend. She stated that for September and October she would put on the calendar on Saturdays and Sundays activities of Resident choice. When asked what choice of activities residents have, she stated that resident can play games. She stated that some residents have games in their room that they can share and invite others to participate in. When asked if there was any other games in the facility that anyone could use, she stated no. She stated that the residents that enjoy playing games will usually have a game in their room and invite others, but for residents that do not have games they do not have access to games unless they share with a resident that does have a game. She stated that the Solarium has puzzles and books for the residents to enjoy at any time. She stated that for November she has put some activities on the calendar and stated that last week a church group came into the facility to do a resident activity. She has been working on getting volunteers to facilitate weekend activities and stated that she comes to the facility at least one weekend a month to do activities. She reported the following activities for the month of November: November 3rd Church Group came to facility, November 2nd she facilitated Morning Coffee with fresh baked cookies, and November 16 she assisted with passing coloring sheets to residents. She stated that in September, October and November church services were provided to the residents on Sundays. She noted that the first Saturday of September she assisted with playing Bingo. She reported that not offering activities during the weekend has been temporary since losing her assistant. She stated that the negative outcomes of not having activities daily for residents would be that they can isolate themselves and their mental health can decline. The Activities Director was asked about in-room activities for those that cannot leave their room and she stated that the activities include reading, music, stimulation activities for the senses (smell, touch, textures), rubbing lotions on hands, coloring, and crafts. She stated that she meets with each resident on her schedule 3 times per week. These activities are for residents that cannot leave their room due mobility issues. During morning meetings, she will be notified of any new residents that are bed bound or not able to go to activities and will add them to her schedule. When asked how residents are notified about activities, she stated that activities calendars are posted on bathroom doors in every Resident room. She reported that staff will also remind residents what the activities will be as they are passed in the hall or if they are in the dining room. During an observation of the Solarium on 11/19/24 at 12:03 PM, revealed there were 3 shelves full of books, each shelve was about 4 foot wide and 1 foot deep. There were two 4-foot shelves full of 100-150-piece puzzles. During an interview with the Administrator on 11/19/24 at 12:07 PM, revealed that there is no plan to hire an assistant for the Activities Director, as it is not a normal practice at facilities to have an Activities Assistant. She stated that they have been working in QAPI (Quality Assurance Performance Improvement) to address the activities issue to identify activities that can be done on the weekend without an assistant like movie night, music performances and other groups coming in the facility to provide activities. The risk to the resident for not having activities on the weekend is boredom and lack of socialization. She is working with the Activities Director on finding out through residents what type of activities they are interested in that don't have to be staff directed. She stated that the expectation is that activities occur every day to include the weekends. During confidential interviews on 11/19/24 at 1:44pm with 2 bed bound residents that cannot ambulate on their own, revealed they had not been offered one on one activities in their rooms, but neither of them were interested in having in-room activities facilitated by staff members. During an observation of a bed bound resident on 11/19/24 at 1:55 PM, revealed that they had markers, word puzzles and coloring sheets available to them in their room. During a record review of the Minutes for the Resident Council Meeting dated 9/24/24 in which 10 residents attended, when asked the question Do you receive activities over the weekend? the answer was no. During a record review of the Minutes for the Resident Council Meeting dated 10/2/24 in which 6 residents attended, when asked the question Do you receive activities over the weekend? the answer was no, only during special times. During a record review of the Minutes for the Resident Council Meeting dated 11/6/24 in which an unknown number of residents attended, when asked the question Do you receive activities over the weekend? the answer was yes. During a record review of Activities Calendar for September 2024, the following dates had no activities planned and stated activities of resident choice: 9/7/24, 9/14/24, 9/21/24 and 9/28/24. During a record review of Activities Calendar for October 2024, the following dates had no activities planned and stated activities of resident choice: 10/5/024, 10/19/24, and 10/26/24. During a review of Facility's policy Activity Programming from Manual 2011, revealed the following Standard: The Activity Director and staff will provide for ongoing Activity programs. 3. Activity programs are be designed based on the resident's leisure interest and implemented to meet the needs (physical, cognitive, creative, social, spiritual, independent, and sensory) of the residents. 5. Those who cannot participate in group settings are provided individual programming. Inability to participate could include those who refuse to participate in activities, those who are in isolation, or physician ordered bed rest. Programs may take place in mornings, afternoons and/or evenings that span throughout the entire week.
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

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, observation, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that residents with pressure ulcers received n...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, observation, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that residents with pressure ulcers received necessary treatment and services consistent with professional standards of practice to promote healing, prevent infection, and prevent new ulcers from developing for three of five residents (Resident #82, Resident # 85, and Resident #21) reviewed for quality of care. The facility failed to ensure LVN H provided Resident #82, Resident #85 and Resident #21 their physician ordered wound care on 11/16/24 and 11/17/24. This failure could place residents at risk of developing infections or worsening of their wounds. Findings included: 1. Record review of Resident #82's 5-day MDS assessment, dated 10/12/24, reflected an [AGE] year-old male who was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and re-admitted on [DATE]. He had a BIMS score of 10, which indicated he was moderately cognitively impaired. He had not rejected care and required substantial to maximum assistance with ADL care and was occasional incontinent of urine and bowel and had 2 pressure ulcers upon admission. His active diagnoses included diabetes and aftercare following hip replacement surgery. Record review of Resident #82's Physician order summary report dated 11/20/24, reflected, . Wound care: Stage 2 Pressure ulcer to left distal medical (upper middle) buttock two times a day for wound treatment apply Zinc Oxide (skin protectant) to site and leave open to air . with a start date of 10/10/24. Record review of Resident #82's TAR (Treatment Administration Record) for November 2024 reflected, Wound care: Stage 2 Pressure ulcer to left distal medical buttock two times a day for wound treatment apply Zinc Oxide to site and leave open to air. No treatment was provided on the day shift on 11/16/24 and 11/17/24. Record review of Resident #82's care plan, revised on 10/01/24, reflected, .The resident has a stage 2 pressure ulcer to left buttocks .Interventions . Administer treatments as ordered and monitor for effectiveness . In an interview with Resident #82 on 11/18/24 at 9:50 a.m., he stated he was recovering from a left hip repair. He stated he had a place on his bottom they were treating, but stated the staff did not do anything to it Saturday and Sunday morning (11/16/24 and 11/17/24). He stated the staff treated it late in the day on those 2 days. On 11/18/24 at 10:00 a.m., the Treatment Nurse was observed prepping wound care supplies for Resident #82. She stated he had a stage 2 ulcer on his left buttocks that was moisture related. She stated they were cleaning the area with normal saline and applying zinc to the area and leaving it open to air. Treatment Nurse donned proper gown and gloves and cleaned the area with saline. Area was red and appeared to be an abrasion with no drainage or signs of infection. 2. Record review of Resident #21's Quarterly MDS assessment, dated 10/21/24, reflected a [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and re-admitted on [DATE]. She had a BIMS score of 14, which indicated she was cognitively intact. She had not rejected care and required substantial to maximum assistance with ADL care and was always incontinent of urine and bowel and had one stage 3 pressure ulcer and other moisture associated skin damage. Her active diagnoses included diabetes, heart failure and seizure disorder. Record review of Resident #21's Physician order summary report dated 11/20/24, reflected, . Wound care: MASD to buttocks and inner thighs every day shift cleanse site with peri wipes, apply Calazime cream (skin protectant) and anti-fungal powder to entire buttock and inner thighs, leave open to air .start date 09/19/24 .Wound Care: Right heel Stage. 3. Cleanse with normal saline, pat dry, apply collagen sheet (promotes wound healing) and then a calcium alginate (provide moist environment for wound healing) then cover with foam dressing every day shift .start date 10/30/24 . Record review of Resident #21's TAR for November 2024 reflected, Wound care: MASD to buttocks and inner thighs every day shift cleanse site with peri wipes, apply Calazime cream and anti-fungal powder to entire buttock and inner thighs, leave open to air .start date 09/19/24 .Wound Care: Right heel Stage 3. Cleanse with normal saline, pat dry, apply collagen sheet and then a calcium alginate then cover with foam dressing every day . No treatment was provided on 11/16/24 and 11/17/24. Record review of Resident #21's care plan, revised on 10/15/24, reflected, . [Resident #21] has pressure ulcer stage 3 pressure ulcer to right heel .Interventions . Administer treatments as ordered and monitor for effectiveness . In an observation and interview on 11/18/24 at 10:35 a.m., the Treatment nurse provided wound care to Resident #21's right heel. The old dressing removed from her right heel had minimal drainage. Unable to determine the date on the old dressing. Treatment nurse stated the treatment to the resident's bottom was clean with peri-wipe and Calazime cream and antifungal powder. In an interview with Resident #21 on 11/19/24 at 02:00 p.m., she stated she had the wound on her right heel for about 6 months. She stated the wound care doctor comes every Tuesday to see her. She stated she gets wound care every day but stated she does not remember getting it this past weekend (11/16/24 and 11/17/24), which was very unusual. She stated they were always good about providing her wound care. She stated she was not sure why she did not get her wound care done. 3. Record review of Resident #85's Quarterly MDS assessment, dated 09/18/24, reflected a [AGE] year-old male who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. He had a BIMS score of 14, which indicated he was cognitively intact. He had not rejected care and required substantial to maximum assistance with ADL care, had a foley catheter and was always incontinent of bowel. He was coded as high risk for pressure ulcers but had no skin condition at time of assessment. His active diagnoses included heart failure and malnutrition. Record review of Resident #85's Physician order summary report dated 11/20/24, reflected, . Wound care: Cleanse ulcer to coccyx with normal saline, pat dry, apply collagen sheet (promotes wound healing) then cover with foam dressing every day shift for wound treatment until healed . with a start date of 11/09/24. Record review of Resident #85's TAR for November 2024 reflected, Wound care: Cleanse ulcer to coccyx with normal saline, pat dry, apply collagen sheet then cover with foam dressing every day shift for wound treatment until healed. No treatment was provided on the day shift on 11/16/24 and 11/17/24. Record review of Resident #85's care plan, initiated on 11/11/24, reflected, .The resident has a potential for pressure ulcer development. Unstageable to coccyx .Interventions . Follow facility policies/protocols for the prevention/treatment of skin breakdown . In an interview with ADON G on 11/19/24 at 10:45 a.m., she stated the aides came to her yesterday morning (11/18/24) and told her Resident #85 did not have a dressing on his coccyx wound, so she went and did the wound care. She stated later that same morning the Treatment Nurse alerted her that several of the residents on B hall did not receive their wound care over the weekend. She stated she went and spoke with LVN H who had worked the day shift on 11/16/24 and 11/17/24, and she stated she had not done wound care over the weekend on some of the residents. She stated LVN H was a new nurse, and she was immediately in- serviced on the importance of providing the wound care and if she was not able to do the wound care, she had to alert another nurse, herself, or the DON. She stated the facility had a treatment nurse Monday through Friday, but on the weekends the nurses were responsible for providing the wound care. In an interview with CNA D on 11/19/24 at 11:33 a.m., she stated when she did her first morning rounds on Resident #85 on 11/18/24, he did not have a dressing on his coccyx wound. She stated he had frequent bouts of diarrhea, so she was not sure if the dressing had come off and they had just not replaced it. She stated she alerted the ADON G that he did not have a dressing on his wound, and she came and dressed it. In an interview on 11/19/24 at 01:00 p.m., Resident #85 stated he did not remember if his dressing was changed over the weekend or not. He stated they had changed it today. He denied any pain or discomfort. In an interview on 11/20/24 at 08:55 a.m., LVN H she stated worked the 6 am to 6 pm shift this past weekend (11/16/24 and 11/17/24). She stated she did some of the wound care that she was comfortable with but had not done some of the other. She stated she did not reach out to anyone or call the ADON or DON to let them know she needed some help. She stated she received counseling on 11/19/24 and they were going to send her with the treatment nurse for more training before she worked another weekend shift. She stated she understood by not doing the wound care the residents wounds could worsen or become infected. In an interview on 11/20/24 at 09:10 a.m., the DON and the new DON stated LVN H had been in serviced on the expectation of wound care provision on the weekends. She stated she would be getting some additional training on wound care before her next weekend shift. The DON stated LVN H was checked off on wound care upon hire and had not expressed to anyone she needed additional training. She stated the risk for not getting wound care is worsening of the wounds and infections. In an interview with the Treatment Nurse on 11/20/24 at 11:00 a.m., she stated she had not noticed any decline to the wounds on Resident's #82, #85 or #21. She stated the Wound care Nurse practitioner was here on 11/19/24 and stated all the wounds had shown improvement. She stated she was going to work with LVN H to ensure she was comfortable with providing the wound care on her assigned hall. Record review of LVN H's Nurse Proficiency Audit date 10/29/24 under skilled observed, Treatment Procedures .Dressing changes .Satisfactory . Record review of the Facility's policy, Pressure Injury: Prevention, Assessment and Treatment, dated August 2016, reflected, .Early prevention and/or treatment is essential upon initial nursing assessment of the condition of the skin on admission and whenever a change in skin status occurs .The treatment nurse/designee will: Notify the physician of pressure sore and obtain and follow any orders as directed by the physician .
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 F0806 (Tag F0806)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide food that accommodates resident preferences fo...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide food that accommodates resident preferences for 2 of 32 residents (Resident #76 and Resident # 31) reviewed for resident food and drink preferences. The facility failed to follow the breakfast menu and obtain resident input on changes made to the menu. This failure could affect residents by contributing to dissatisfaction, poor intake, and weight loss. Findings include: Review of the quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], revealed Resident # 76 was a [AGE] year old male admitted to the facility on [DATE]. He had a BIMS score of 11, which indicated he was moderately cognitively impaired. His active diagnosis included: Diabetes and Malnutrition (unintentional weight loss). Review revealed Resident #76 required setup assistance with meals and no chewing or swallowing issues. Review of the physician orders dated 7/10/24 revealed Resident #76 was on a regular texture diet. Review of Resident #76's care plans dated 7/11/24 revealed .Determine food preferences and provide within dietary limitations . Interview with Resident #76 on 11/18/24 at 9:09AM revealed the resident stated the food at the facility was not good, breakfast was the same thing every day (oatmeal, grits, and eggs) and he did not get a choice on his breakfast. During a sample tray testing on 11/19/24 at 12:34 PM, the lunch tray arrived with the following items: Baked BBQ chicken thigh and leg, hash brown potatoes, cheesy biscuit, banana pudding with wafers, coleslaw, tea, and butter. Chicken was cooked all the way through, and tasted like BBQ sauce, the hashbrown potatoes were difficult to chew and crunchy with no taste, the biscuit was warm and tasted appropriate. No salt or pepper was provided, coleslaw was cold, and cabbage was crunchy, banana pudding was appropriate at cool temperature, and no other concerns were noted. The tray reflected what was on the ticket. Interview with Administrator on 11/19/24 at 12:44 PM, revealed she tasted the hashbrown potatoes from the same tray . She stated the potatoes had a lot of flavors and were fully cooked and when questioned on the potatoes appearance. she stated, from what you are showing me it does not appear cooked through. Interview with Dietary Manager 11/19/24 at 01:31 PM revealed he had tasted the hashbrowns. When asked about the hashbrowns on the test tray, the Dietary Manager stated they tasted done to him. He stated that he checked their temperature, and the hash browns were 172 degrees at the time of serving. He stated that he cooked them for over 2 hours in the oven and that it was a hashbrown casserole. He stated that he put sour cream, cheese, and pimentos in the hash browns. He stated this was the first time he ever cooked them so he was unsure if they should be crunchy, but because he cooked it in the oven, the top layer might have been a little toasted. When asked about the menus and why the breakfast was the same daily, he stated that the menu items listed for breakfast were general menu items but stated that when he printed the tickets the day before it will specify on some of the tickets the type of bread and for the ones that isn't specified he will just choose the bread for them. He stated that they gave the resident choices on how they cooked eggs whether they wanted it scrambled, fried etc. He then stated that every other day they alternated the hot cereals between cream of wheat, grits, and oatmeal. He stated that all 5 cold cereals were out and available to the residents. He then stated that they typically served sausage to the residents but knew that residents got tired of it and they can give them bacon. When asked if the dietician approved the changes he made to the menu items, he stated that he usually signed off on them and then presented them to the dietician and she signed off on it. He stated at times they will give potatoes and other breakfast items to give the residents more variety. When asked how the residents were notified of any menu changes, he stated he went off what was on the tickets. Observation on 11/19/24 at 12:50 p.m., in dining room revealed daily meal posting for Breakfast, Lunch and Dinner matched the posted menu. Interview with Resident #76 on 11/20/24 at 8:54am revealed that his breakfast was different then what was on the menu, he stated that he got toast instead of a biscuit. He reported that he was never asked what he was going to eat, how he wanted his eggs or whether he was getting bacon or sausage. He stated that the ticket came with the tray in the morning, but he never selected any of it. Resident reported that had never approved any changes made to breakfast, lunch or dinner and was never notified when there was a change. He stated, we get what we get. Resident reported that lunch and dinner had gotten better. Resident stated he had no complaints about lunch yesterday. Review of Resident #76 breakfast meal ticket for 11/20/24 revealed the following: .4 fluid oz of Orange Juice, ½ Hot Cereal, @ SI Bacon, ¼ C Scrambled Egg, 2 oz Grilled Cheese Sandwich, 1 Ea Assorted Breakfast Bread, 1 Tbsp Mayonnaise, 1Tbsp Jelly, 1 ea Margarine, 8Fl oz Whole Milk Interview with CNA K on 11/20/24 at 10:40am, revealed that Resident #76 was always provided a grilled cheese with every meal, because he likes them. She reported that she has received complaints from Resident #76 about breakfast being the same food every week and the amount of food that was being given. Interview with Dietician on 11/20/24 at 11:55am, revealed that the menus were created by their parent company. She reported that regarding the breakfast menu, the Dietary Manager could switch out foods. She stated that she was not aware that residents were complaining about the same food every day. She stated that if a resident requested a change in their food, they could put in the change in the menu system. She reported that Resident's preferences were assessed when they were first admitted to the facility by the Dietary Manager. She would also ask residents when admitted about preferences for food. She reported that the Dietary Manager should touch base with residents quarterly to update preferences. She stated that she would randomly talk to residents during mealtime to see how the food was, when she was at the facility. She reported that she was unaware of how residents were notified of any changes in menu items, however she would imagine that they would post on the menu board if they changed an item. She reported that risk to the resident of them being unhappy with their meal due to it being the same menu item or being changed without them knowing would be that they may not eat as much and may lose weight. Interview with Administrator on 11/20/24 at 12:08 p.m., revealed that she had not noticed that the menu items for breakfast were the same daily. She stated breakfast was a strange meal due to a lack of breakfast options. She stated that she knew there were breakfast options for bread or eggs. She stated they must follow the menus while taking the resident preferences into account. She stated that they decided on bacon or sausage based on preference of the resident at the time that the Dietary Manager was meeting with them for their preferences. Regarding the type of bread, the facility provided to the resident, she stated that the Dietary Manager decided what to serve. She stated that any deviations from the posted menu would be on the daily meal posting board in the dining room. She reported that her expectation was that whatever they were serving should be posted. She reported that residents can ask for something different and if it becomes a pattern that they were changing an item, they will meet with the resident and update their preferences. Review of the quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], revealed Resident # 31 was a [AGE] year old female admitted to the facility on [DATE]. She had a BIMS score of 12, which indicated she was moderately cognitively impaired. Her active diagnosis included: Diabetes and Hyperlipidemia (a genetic disorder that causes high levels of cholesterol and other fats in the blood). Review revealed that resident required setup assistance with meals. Review of the physician orders dated 3/16/24 revealed Resident #31 was on a regular texture and regular consistency diet. Review of Resident #31 care plans dated/revised 10/31/24 revealed Determine food preferences and provide within dietary limitations . Interview with Resident #31 on 11/20/24 at 10:45 am, revealed that she was unhappy with her breakfast. She stated she got the same thing every day. She stated that she doesn't like sausage and had been getting sausage every day since she can remember. She stated that she will ask for bacon, and they will bring it, but she did not understand why they keep giving her sausage. Record review of Weekly Menu for the month of November 2024 revealed the same breakfast items every day. The breakfast items are as follows: choice of Juice, Hot or cold Cereal, Fresh Pasteurized Eggs, Bacon or Sausage, Breakfast Bread, Margarine/Jelly, Milk and Coffee. Record review of Facility policy named Resident Menus from the Dietary Services Policy & Procedure Manual 2012 reflects that following: We will strive to assure the resident's nutritional needs are provided based on the RDA. The standard menu will ensure nutritional adequacy of all diets, offer a variety of food in adequate amounts at each meal, and standardize food production . 3. Alternates for noon and evening meal will be planned and recorded. Alternates shall be of comparable nutritive value and the alternate food shall come from the same food group. If a resident does not want the food prepared on the menu, nor the alternate, then soup, salad, and/or sandwich will be offered. If the resident does not choose to eat any of the above, a glass of fortified milk or house supplement will be offered. If none of these is accepted, the resident will be allowed to choose not to eat the meal, and a larger snack may be offered at the next scheduled snack time 4. If any meal served varies from the planned menu, the change and reason for the change shall be noted on the substitution log
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

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

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety for the facility's only kitchen. 1. The facility failed to ensure food items in the facility walk-in refrigerator were covered, labeled, and dated. These failures could affect residents who received their meals from the facility's only kitchen, by placing them at risk for food-borne illness, and food contamination. Findings included: Observation on 11/18/24 at 7:50 AM of the walk-in refrigerator revealed: - 8 to 10 hamburger patties in a quart size Ziplock bag was not labeled or dated, - Sliced raw onions in plastic bag not labeled or dated, petite cut carrots were not covered or dated, - Cheese slices in Ziplock bag with some white mold-like growth that were not labeled or dated, and - Tortillas were not covered or dated. In an interview on 11/19/24 at 10:23 AM, the Dietary Manager stated the cooks and himself are responsible for dating and labeling all food items in the kitchen. He stated that his expectation was all food items in the kitchen should be marked with received date once they arrive at the facility and used by date for leftovers and opened food items. He stated it was his expectation that all food items should be appropriately dated, covered, and labeled by the kitchen staff. He stated he discarded the food items such as hamburger patties, sliced onions, cheese, carrots, and tortillas that was either not dated, covered, or labeled appropriately. He stated the risk of not dating, labeling, covering food items could cause cross contamination resulting in food borne illness. He added as the dietary manager, he started an in-service regarding dating, covering and labeling food items appropriately to all kitchen personnel on 11/18/24. In an interview on 11/19/24 at 1:07 PM, Dietary Aide A revealed that she had worked in the facility for about 3 months. She stated everyone working in the kitchen including cooks, dietary aide, and the dietary manager was responsible for covering, dating, and labeling food items. She stated they would add use by date to food items once the food was opened or leftover food items from previous meals. She stated the risk to the residents of not covering, labeling, dating any food items was cross contamination and could make them sick. In an interview 11/19/24 at 1:12 PM, [NAME] B revealed she had been working in the facility as a cook for about a month. She stated cooks, dietary aides, and the dietary manager was responsible for covering, dating, and labeling food items in the kitchen. She stated as a cook she was always cognizant of expiration dates and use by dates on opened food items so they can use the items before they discard them. She stated not covering, labeling, and dating food items could cause cross contamination and potentially cause illness in residents. Record review of facility policy titled Food Safety undated reflected, . We will insure all food purchased shall be wholesome and manufactured, processed, and prepared in compliance with all State, Federal, and local laws, and regulations Food is to be wrapped or sealed and covered in clean containers. Opened food shall be labeled, dated, and stored properly. Perishable opened foods shall be used within 7 days or less . Review of the Food and Drug Administration Food Code, dated 2022, reflected, .3-302.12 Food Storage Containers, Identified with Common Name of Food. Except for containers holding food that can be readily and unmistakably recognized such as dry pasta, working containers holding food, or food ingredients that are removed from their original packages for use in the food establishment, such as cooking oils, flour, herbs, potato flakes, salt, spices, and sugar shall be identified with the common name of the food 3-305.11 Food Storage.(B) .refrigerated, ready-to eat time/temperature control for safety food prepared and packaged by a food processing plant shall be clearly marked, at the time the original container is opened in a food establishment and if the food is held for more than 24 hours, to indicate the date or day by which the food shall be consumed on the premises, sold, or discarded, based on the temperature and time combinations specified in (A) of this section and: (1) The day the original container is opened in the food establishment shall be counted as Day 1; and (2) The day or date marked by the food establishment may not exceed a manufacturer's use-by date if the manufacturer determined the use-by date based on food safety
Nov 2024 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Notification of Changes (Tag F0580)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to immediately notify the resident's representative, consistent with ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to immediately notify the resident's representative, consistent with his or her authority, when there was a significant change in the resident's physical, mental, or psychosocial status for 1 (Resident #1) of 3 residents reviewed for notification of changes in condition. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1's resident representative was immediately notified when the resident had a change in condition that required Resident #1 to be transported via ambulance to the hospital due to him being unresponsive. This failure could result in resident representatives not being able to make important medical decisions regarding their family member. Findings included: Record Review of Resident #1's face sheet, dated 11/1/24, revealed the resident was a [AGE] year-old male and was admitted to the facility on [DATE] from an acute care hospital. Diagnoses included: Cerebral Infarction due to Embolism of Cerebral Artery (refers to a stroke where a blood clot (embolus) travels from another part of the body and blocks a blood vessel in the brain, causing a localized area of brain tissue to die off due to lack of oxygen supply (infarction), Metabolic Encephalopathy (a brain disorder that occurs when an underlying condition causes a chemical imbalance in the blood that affects the brain), Primary Hypertension (a condition in which the force of the blood against the artery walls is too high), Monoplegia (causes paralysis or weakness in a single limb) of Upper Limb Affecting Right Dominant Side, Post Traumatic Seizures (seizures that occur after a traumatic brain injury), Diabetes Mellitus Due to Underlying Condition with Hypoglycemia without Coma (occurs when someone with diabetes does not have enough sugar in his/her blood), Expressive Language Disorder (a condition where people can understand what others are saying but have a hard time expressing their own ideas when they speak), Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease/COPD (a group of lung diseases that block airflow and make it difficult to breathe), Chronic Kidney Disease Stage 3 (when kidneys are mildly to moderately damaged, making it harder for them to filter waste from the blood), Altered Mental Status (a general term for a change in how well the brain is working). Record Review of Resident #1's admissions MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed a BIMS score of 00 which indicated severe cognitive impairment. The MDS showed it was very important for Resident #1 to have family or a close friend involved in discussions about his care. Also, Resident #1 was unable to respond to most questions on the MDS. Furthermore, he used a wheelchair and was dependent for all ADLs and he coughed or choked during meals. Record Review of Resident #1's Care Plan dated 11/1/24 showed resident had a pressure ulcer or potential for a pressure ulcer development. Also, Resident #1 required antidepressant medication and had a communication problem. Furthermore, Resident #1 had an ADL Self Care Performance Deficit. Record Review of Resident #1's Nursing Progress Notes revealed RN-A documented on 11/8/24 at 5:13 p.m. that on 11/8/24 at 4:55 p.m. she Noted resident somulent [sic], not arousing to voice and minimally responsive to tactile stimuli . Phone call to Dr [physician's name] who agrees to 911 to hospital for evaluation of change of condition. Verbal report given to 911 paramedics at 1705 [5:05 p.m.]. Interview on 11/13/24 at 12:17 p.m. with Resident #1's RR, she stated she was not informed by the facility Resident #1 went to the hospital until Monday, 11/11/24 by email. RR stated the hospital had contacted her and let her know Resident #1 was in the hospital. She stated Resident #1 was still in the hospital and was not doing well. She said her father was put on a ventilator, his sodium and blood sugar levels were off and he had an elevated white blood count. The RR stated the hospital asked her to sign a Do Not Resuscitate Order because they did not feel Resident #1 would make it. Interview on 11/13/24 at 2:41 p.m. with RN-A stated Resident #1 was somnolent (drowsy or inclined to sleep), had a lack of response on 11/8/24. She assessed Resident #1 by checking his vital signs and she called the doctor. She stated the doctor agreed to call 911. RN-A stated Resident #1 had lunch with his needed assistance due to cognitive problems and a risk of aspiration. She stated a CNA had fed Resident #1 lunch. RN-A said Resident #1 was his usual self-prior to her finding him somnolent. RN-A stated she was responsible for notifying the family. She did usually contact the family to let them know a resident had been sent out. She would call the family by phone and leave a voice mail asking for a call back if they did not answer. However, she stated she did not contact the family regarding Resident #1 being sent out to the hospital. RN-A it was the end of her shift on a Friday, she was tired, hungry, needed to go to the bathroom and just simply forgot to notify the family. She was off Saturday and Sunday but returned on Monday and found out someone had emailed the family. RN-A said they do abuse/neglect training at least once a month. Interview on 11/13/24 at 2:52 p.m. with CNA-B stated they did abuse/neglect training once a month. She stated if a resident had a change of condition, she would report it to the charge nurse right away. Interview on 11/13/24 at 2:56 p.m. with CNA-C stated they did abuse/neglect training at least once a month or more. She would report to the head nurse if a resident had a change in condition. Interview on 11/13/24 at 4:26 p.m. with ADON-D stated Resident #1 was discharged to the hospital on [DATE]. Resident #1 was somnolent, had respiratory issues and was admitted to the hospital. The family was not notified by the facility, but they should have been that day. The hospital notified RR that Resident #1 was admitted to the hospital. ADON-D said the facility normally notified family if a resident went to the hospital. ADON stated the resident could have passed without the family knowing due the facility not notifying the family he was sent to the hospital non-responsive. Record Review of the facility's Abuse/Neglect Policy, undated stated The facility will provide and ensure the promotion and protection of resident rights. Record Review of the facility's Family Notification Policy under Social Services Manual dated 2003, revealed: Objectives: 1. To keep families informed. Procedures: 1. The family will be notified of any resident change, i.e., . 2.Health problem . 2. Each resident, and/or family representative is asked to give a list of family members who can be contacted in a case of emergency or urgency. 3. Notification will occur in a timely manner 4. All current family names, telephone numbers, and locations for notification purposes will be kept in the residents' chart. Record Review of the facility's Resident Rights Policy, undated, under Planning and implementing care revealed The resident has the right to be informed of, and participate in, his or her treatment, including .The right to be informed, in advance, of changes to the plan of care. Also, under Information and Communication Notification of changes. (i) A facility must immediately inform the resident; consult with the resident's physician; and notify, consistent with his or her authority, the resident representative (s), when there is- .A significant change in the resident's physical, mental, or psychosocial status (that is, a deterioration in health, mental, or psychosocial status in either life-threatening conditions or clinical complications); A need to alter treatment significantly (that is, a need to discontinue or change an existing form of treatment due to adverse consequences, or to commence a new form of treatment);. Record Review of the facility's Nursing Policy & Procedure Manual effective 12/2017 revised 4/10/2024, under Discharge or Transfer to another Facility and under subtitle Emergency Transfer revealed When a resident is temporarily transferred on an emergency basis to an acute care facility, this type of transfer is considered to be a facility-initiated transfer and a notice of transfer will be provided to the resident and the resident representative as soon as practicable. Record Review of the facility's SBAR (Situation, Background, Assessment and Recommendation) Policy, undated revealed the facility is to Notify the family of all new orders and changes in condition and document notification.
Aug 2024 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services (including procedures that assure ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services (including procedures that assure the accurate acquiring, receiving, dispensing, and administering of all drugs and biologicals) to meet the needs of each resident for one of three (Resident #1) residents reviewed for pharmacy services. The Facility failed to ensure Facility staff ordered medications in a timely manner for Resident #1 upon his admission on [DATE] which resulted in missed doses of Anastrozole 1 mg, Liothyronine Sodium 5 mg, Bupriopion HCL ER 150 mg, Cefadroxil 500 mg and Propranolol HCL 20 mg on 07/24/24. This failure placed the residents at risk of not receiving medications as ordered by the physician and a delay in treatment and worsening of their condition. Findings included: Review of Resident #1's Face Sheet dated 07/31/2024 reflected a [AGE] year-old male admitted on [DATE]. Relevant diagnoses included hypertension (high blood pressure) hypothyroidism (deficiency of the thyroid gland), methicillin susceptible staphylococcus aures infection (bacterial infection), and post-traumatic stress disorder(anxiety disorder that can come from a traumatic event). Review of Resident #1's 5-day MDS assessment dated [DATE] reflected Resident #1 had BIMS score of 04 which indicated he was severely cognitively impaired. The 5-day assessment reflected the resident had a personal history of malignant neoplasm. Review of Resident #1's Comprehensive Care Plan dated 04/20/2024 reflected Resident #1 had hypertension, required antidepressant medication, had hypothyroidism, had a cellulitis infection of the left knee, and took oral chemotherapy medication. The interventions all included administer medications as per MD orders. Review of Resident #1's Physician Order recap report dated 07/31/24 reflected, .Anastrozole 1mg (Hormone based chemotherapy) 1 tablet by mouth one time a day .Liothyronine sodium 5 mg (thyroid hormone) one table by mouth, Bupriopion HCL ER 150 mg (antidepressant) one tablet two times a day, Cefadroxil 500 mg (antibiotic) 1 tablet twice a day and Propranolol HCL 20 mg (antihypertensive) 1 tablet two times a day . all with a start date of 07/24/24. Record review of Resident #1's MAR for July 2024 reflected on 07/25/24 the AM administration for Anastrozole 1mg, Liothyronine sodium 5 mg, Bupriopion HCL ER 150 mg, Cefadroxil 500 mg, and Propranolol HCL 20 mg were all coded as 9 (which indicated not available) by RN B. In an interview with RN B on 07/30/24 at 12:00 p.m. stated Resident #1 admitted to the facility on [DATE] around 07:00 p.m. She stated the pharmacy closed at 05:00 p.m. so any admission after 5 p.m. they must use medications out of the E-Kit. She stated when she went to pass Resident #1's a.m. medication on 07/25/24, none of his medications had arrived at the facility. She stated she checked the E-Kit and retrieved the medication she could, but Anastrozole 1mg, Liothyronine sodium 5 mg, Bupriopion HCL ER 150 mg, Cefadroxil 500 mg, and Propranolol HCL 20 mg were not available not in the E-Kit. She stated she coded those medications as 9 on the MAR to reflect the medication was not available to be administered. She stated she contacted the pharmacy to ensure the medication had been ordered. She stated the pharmacy indicated they would be sent out later that day. She stated the medications did not come in before her shift ended at 06:00 p.m. on 07/24/24. She stated the Nurse Practitioner saw Resident #1 on 07/24/24 and she had informed her of the missed medications. In an interview with the Facility's contracted pharmacy on 07/31/24 at 8:45 a.m. it was revealed the facility had faxed orders to the pharmacy on 07/23/24 but had not called. The pharmacy representative stated the procedure for any order for new medications that was submitted after 05:00 p.m. the facility had to fax the orders as well as call to make sure the medications were filled timely. She stated they had some medications in the E-kit the facility can utilize if a medication is needed before they can get it to the facility, but stated there were a limited number of medications available through the E-Kit. She stated they also had contracted pharmacy that they can reach out to so the facility could go locally and pick up a medication. She stated if they call after hours, they can sometimes get the medication to the facility on the late evening delivery. She stated if the facility does not call then the orders were processed as a routine order and not a stat order. In an interview with RN D on 07/31/24 at 9:35 a.m. she stated on all new admission they call the MD and review the discharge orders from the hospital and verify the medications. She stated once the medications were verified by the physician, they send the orders to the pharmacy. She stated if it was after hours, she also calls the pharmacy. She stated if a resident needed a medication before the pharmacy delivered the medication, she would get it out the E-Kit if available and if it was not, she would contact the physician for further instructions. In an interview with the DON on 07/31/24 at 10:45 a.m., the DON stated the facility had recently changed pharmacy's and were still getting used to the process. She stated the pharmacy procedure for any new medication ordered after the pharmacy had closed, the staff was to fax over the orders and then call the on-call pharmacist to ensure the medication was filled timely. The DON further added if the resident did not have their medications as ordered, their condition could get worse. She stated the pharmacy procedure was posted at each of the nurse's stations and it outlines the ordering protocol. Record review of the facility's undated policy, Ordering Medications, reflected, Medications and related products are received from the pharmacy supplier on a timely basis .Medication orders are phoned or faxed to the pharmacy and written on a mediation order form provided by the pharmacy for that purpose of the physicism order form .New Medications .If needed before the next regular delivery, phone the medication order to the pharmacy immediately upon receipt. Inform pharmacy of the need for prompt delivery and request delivery. Use the emergency kit when the resident needs a medication prior to pharmacy delivery. If not in the emergency kit, contact the pharmacy for possible local pharmacy to fill enough of the medication until the next scheduled delivery .
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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure a resident who was unable to carry out activities of daily living received the necessary services to maintain good personal hygiene for two of seven residents (Residents #2 and Resident #3) reviewed for ADL care. The facility failed to ensure staff provided consistent showers/baths for Resident #2 and Resident #3. This failure could place residents at risk of not receiving needed hygiene care which could cause skin breakdown, a loss of dignity and self-worth. Findings include: 1. Record review of Resident #2's Quarterly MDS assessment, dated 07/29/24, reflected an [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. She had a BIMS score of 12, which indicated she was moderately cognitively impaired. She had not rejected care and required substantial to maximum assistance with showers and baths. Her active diagnoses included a cerebral vascular accident (stroke) and aftercare following joint replacement surgery. Record review of Resident #2's care plan, reviewed on 03/22/24, reflected, .The resident has an ADL Self Care performance deficit due to weakness, debility related to right hip arthroplasty (hip replacement) .Interventions . Bathing: requires staff x 1 for assistance . Record review of hall D's shower schedule, updated on 07/04/24, reflected Resident #2 was scheduled for a shower on Tuesday's, Thursday's, and Saturdays on the 2 p.m. to 10 p.m. shift. Record review of Resident #2's ADL documentation survey report for July 2024 reflected no showers on scheduled days for 07/02/24, 07/04/24, 07/09/24, 07/11/24, 07/13/24, 07/16/24, 07/18/24, 07/23/24,07/25/24, 07/27/24 and 07/30/24. In an interview with Resident #2 on 07/30/24 at 2:15 p.m. she stated she had gone over 2 weeks without getting a shower. She stated the aides will tell you they do not have enough towels or wash cloths or will tell you they will have to get to you later. She stated she started keeping some extra linen in her room so she could take a spit bath. She stated she did get a shower last weekend (07/27/24). She stated she had never been offered a shower three times a week since she had been here and would like to have her showers as scheduled. In a follow up interview with Resident #2 on 08/01/24 at 08:30 a.m. she stated she was not provided nor offered a shower on 07/30/24, her scheduled shower day. She stated she just sponged off the best she could. In an interview with NA H on 08/01/24 at 11:15 a.m. revealed she was assigned to Resident #2 on 07/30/24. She first stated Resident #2 had refused her shower, but then stated she was told by NA I she had refused her shower. She stated she had not asked or offered Resident #2 a shower. She stated she had not informed the Charge Nurse that Resident #2 had not received her shower. She stated they were supposed to document showers given and or refused in the electronic record and stated she thought she had documented in the resident's record. 2. Record review of Resident #3's Annual MDS assessment, dated 05/07/24, reflected a [AGE] year-old male who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. He had a BIMS score of 7, which indicated he was severely cognitively impaired. He had not rejected care and required substantial to maximum assistance with showers and baths. His active diagnoses included dementia and urgency of urination. Record review of Resident #3's care plan, reviewed on 04/15/24, reflected, .The resident has an ADL Self Care performance deficit due to weakness, debility and cognitive decline related to dementia and chronic kidney disease .Interventions . Bathing: requires staff x 1 for assistance . Record review of hall A's shower schedule, updated on 07/04/24, reflected Resident #3 was scheduled for a shower on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday on the 6 a.m. to 2 p.m. shift. Record review of Resident #3's ADL documentation survey report for July 2024 reflected no showers on scheduled days for 07/01/24, 07/03/24, 07/05/24, 07/08/24, 07/10/24, 07/12/24, 07/15/24, 07/17/24, 07/19/24, 07/22/24, 07/26/24, 07/29/24 and 07/31/24. He had received one bed bath on 07/24/24 according to the record. In an interview with Resident #3 on 07/30/24 at 02:20 p.m. he stated he was not getting his showers. He stated the last time he got a shower was last Wednesday (07/24/24). He stated he was supposed to get his showers on Monday, Wednesday, and Fridays. He stated he would like to have his showers as scheduled. In an observation and interview with Resident #3 on 07/31/24 at 02:45 p.m. resident was sitting in his wheelchair in the dining room eating popcorn. He stated he had not received his shower today on the day shift. He stated he was not sure if he was going to get a shower this evening or not. In an observation and interview with Resident #3 on 08/01/24 at 08:15 a.m. resident was observed in his room in bed. Resident was wearing the same shirt he was observed in on 07/31/24. Resident #3 stated he did not get his shower yesterday (07/31/24), but stated his roommate got his. He stated he did not know why they did not give him his shower. In an interview with NA F on 08/01/24 at 9:20 a.m. revealed she and NA G were assigned to Hall A on 07/31/24. She stated they had split the showers that were scheduled, and NA G was supposed to shower Resident #3. She stated they were supposed to let the charge nurse know if someone refused a shower or if they did not give a shower. She stated they had missed some showers in the past when they were short of linens but stated it did not happen very often. She stated if she did not get to a shower then she would let the oncoming aide know so they could try and give the shower. She stated she was not sure why Resident #3 did not get his shower. In an interview with NA G on 08/01/24 at 9:36 a.m. she stated she was assigned to Hall A on 07/31/24 but was working the opposite side and assumed NA F was giving Resident #3's shower. She stated she was not aware there had been a problem with him getting his showers. She stated she had given him showers in the past but admitted she had not documented them. She stated she could not recall when the last time she had given Resident #3 a shower. In an interview with LVN E on 08/01/24 at 11:30 a.m., she stated they were responsible for ensuring the resident's showers and ADL care were performed. She stated the CNAs were supposed to let them know if a resident refused ADL care or if they were unable to give the scheduled shower or bath. She stated she had not been notified by any of the CNAs that Resident #3 refused any of his showers or that any had been missed. In an interview with the DON on 08/01/24 at 11:40 a.m. she stated Residents were supposed to get showers according to the scheduled shower days and documented in the record, and it was the responsibility of the CNAs and the Charge nurse to make sure residents got their showers. She stated if a resident refused to take a shower it should be documented in the electronic record and should include the attempt by the staff member to find out why the resident refused a shower, and what was done about it. The DON stated the risk to Residents not getting their showers were skin issues, hygiene, and loss of dignity. Record review of the facility's undated policy titled, Bath, Tub/shower, reflected, .The frequency and type of bathing depends on resident preference, skin condition, tolerance, and energy level. Although a daily bath or shower is preferred and necessary for some, the aging skin can be maintained by bathing every two day or with partial bathing as needed .Goal .The resident will experience improved comfort and cleanliness by bathing .The resident will maintain intact skin integrity .The resident will be free from soil, odor, dryness, and purities following bathing .
Dec 2023 3 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

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 and record review, the facility failed to ensure assessments accurately reflected the resident's status for o...

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 assessments accurately reflected the resident's status for one of three (Resident #1) residents whose MDS records were reviewed for accuracy in that: Resident #1's care plan did not reflect that the resident had pneumonia. This failure could place residents at risk for inadequate care due to inaccurate assessments. The findings included: Record review of Resident #1's face sheet dated 12/06/2023 revealed a 72- year- old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a re admit date of 11/26/2023 with diagnoses that included heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary (diseases that cause airflow blockage and breathing-related problems), and type 2 diabetes. Review of Resident #1's care plan dated revised 12/01/2023 did not indicate that Resident #1 had pneumonia. Review of Resident #1 quarterly MDS completed 11/30/2023 indicated a BIMS score of 15 which indicated the resident was cognitively intact. Review of the nursing notes dated 12/02/2023 authored by LVN C revealed Received CXR results Impression shows mild pulmonary infiltrate in the lateral right lung base, significantly decreased as compared to the previous examination and a small right pleural effusion is unchanged. Findings are consistent with pneumonia versus CHF. NP notified and n/o given via phone to start resident on Zithromax 500 mg 1 po on first day, then 250 mg 1 po on day 2-5, Continue Prednisone 10 mg 1 po x7 more days and Tessalon [NAME] 200 mg TID x7 more days. Resident is own RP and is aware of n/o Review of Nursing notes dated 10/22/2023 authored by LVN D revealed Continues with ABT for TX of Pneumonia. Resident continues with moist sounding, non-productive cough. Encouraged to limit fluids D/T fluid restriction for resident's CHF Interview on 12/06/2023 at 3:21PM with Nurse practitioner revealed she completed the X ray on Resident #1 as a follow due to Resident #1 having recurrent pneumonia. The Nurse Practitioner stated she began treating Resident #1 for pneumonia a few weeks ago however she did not specify a date and it does get better however due to the resident having poor lung function the pneumonia would come back. Interview on 12/06/2023 at 3:45 PM with the Director of Nursing revealed she was not sure why the care plan did not contain information regarding Resident #1 having pneumonia. The Director of Nursing stated the care plan should have been updated to include the pneumonia when Resident #1 was first diagnosed. The Director of Nursing stated the MDS coordinator was responsible for ensuring the care plan was updated upon change in condition. The MDS Coordinator was not interviewed. The Director of Nursing stated the risk of not updating the care plan upon change in condition would be staff would not have the most updated information regarding the care the resident received. Review of the facility policy Care plans undated revealed The resident's care plan will be reviewed after each Admission, Quarterly, Annual and/or Significant Change MDS assessment, and revised based on changing goals, preferences and needs of the resident and in response to current interventions.
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 observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure all drugs and biological were stored in locked compartments of two medication carts (Med cart #1 and Med cart #2 ) rev...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure all drugs and biological were stored in locked compartments of two medication carts (Med cart #1 and Med cart #2 ) reviewed for storage, in that: The facility failed to ensure Med cart #1 and Med cart#2 was locked when left unattended. This deficient practice could place residents at risk of misappropriation of medications or harm due to accidental ingestion of unprescribed mediations. Findings include: Observation and interview on 12/06/2023 at 11:40AM the Charge Nurse left Med Cart #1 unlocked while she entered to resident room to pass medication. Med Cart #1 was visible unlocked and all routine medications for the hall were accessible. Interview with the Charge Nurse revealed the medication cart should have been locked while she was away from the cart. The Charge Nurse stated the risk of leaving the medication cart unlocked would be that staff or residents would have access to the medication. Observation and Interview on 12/06/2023 at 12:00PM Med Tech A left the Med cart #2 unlocked and unattended while he went into a resident room. The medication cart was visibly unlocked and all routine medication for the hall was accessible. Med Tech A stated he would typically lock his cart when it was not in sight however, he got sidetracked. Med Tech A stated the risk leaving the medication cart unlocked would be staff or residents would have access to the medication. Interview on 12/06/2023 at 3:30PM with the Director of Nursing revealed the medication carts should be locked when not in use during medication pass. She stated the risk of leaving the medication carts unlocked would be staff or residents would have access to the medication. Review of the facility policy Medication carts undated revealed, The carts are to be locked when not in use or under the direct supervision of the designated nurse.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0583 (Tag F0583)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to protect the confidentiality of personal health care information for two (Charge Nurse and Med Tech A ) of two staff observed f...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to protect the confidentiality of personal health care information for two (Charge Nurse and Med Tech A ) of two staff observed for confidentiality of records. The facility failed to ensure the Charge Nurse and Med Tech A locked and closed the laptop during the medication pass exposing all resident on the hall's personal information. This failure could affect residents by placing them at risk for loss of privacy and dignity. The Findings included: Observation and interview on 12/06/2023 at 11:40AM the Charge Nurse left the computer screen open and unlocked while she went into a resident room to pass medication. The computer screened displayed all resident names on the hall and if they were due to receive medication. During an interview with the Charge Nurse, she stated she had worked PRN in the facility for 3 years and was aware that the computer should have been locked. The Charge Nurse stated the risk of leaving the computer unlocked would be that resident personal information would be visible to others. Observation and Interview on 12/06/2023 at 12:00PM Med Tech A left the computer screen open and unlocked while he went into a resident room. The computer screen displayed all the resident names on the hall if they were due to receive medication. During an interview with the Med Tech A stated he had worked in the facility for 3 years. He stated the computer screen should have been locked when he was not working on the computer, but he had forgot when he stepped away. Med Tech A stated the risk of leaving the computer screen unlocked would be that resident information would be visible to others. Interview on 12/06/2023 at 3:30PM with the Director of Nursing revealed the computers should be locked when not in use during medication pass. She stated the risk of leaving the computers unlocked would be breech in resident privacy. Review of the facility policy Resident rights revised 11/28/2016 revealed The resident has a right to secure and confidential personal and medical records.
Oct 2023 6 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0557 (Tag F0557)

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 residents were treated with respect and dignity...

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 residents were treated with respect and dignity, for 1 (Resident#85) of 24 residents reviewed for dignity issues. The facility failed to ensure Resident #85 was treated with dignity. This failure could place residents at risk of feeling uncomfortable, disrespected and decline in self-worth. Findings included: Review of Resident #85's face sheet dated 10/11/23 reflected Resident #85 was an [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] to the facility with diagnoses of metabolic encephalopathy (altercation in consciousness due to brain dysfunction), diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (diseases that cause airflow blockage and breathing-related problems) and alzheimers disease. Resident #85 was her own responsible party. Review of Resident #85's quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] reflected Resident #85 had a BIMS score of 3 indicating she was severely cognitively impaired. Resident #85 required limited assistance with eating and was on a mechanically altered diet. Observation on 10/10/23 at 1:57 PM revealed Resident # 85 was sleeping in her bed with both of her hands in her lunch plate with food on it. Observation on 10/10/23 at 2:02 PM revealed Resident #85 was sleeping with both of her hands in her lunch plate with food on the plate. LVN F woke up Resident #85, assisted Resident #85 by wiping the food off of both of Resident #85 hands, and removed Resident #85's plate with lunch tray off of the bedside table out of her room. Interview on 10/10/23 at 2:03 PM with Resident #85 revealed she had fallen asleep and did not realize her hands were in the lunch plate. Interview on 10/10/23 at 2:03 PM with LVN F revealed Resident #85 should have been assisted with her lunch and needed supervision with feeding. She stated Resident #85 having her hands in her plate while sleeping was a dignity issue and a choking risk for the resident. She stated Resident #85's lunch food tray should have been removed already. Interview on 10/10/23 at 2:07 PM with LVN G revealed she was Resident #85's charge nurse and was unaware Resident #85's lunch tray was still in her room. She stated it was a dignity issue for Resident #85 to be sleeping and having her hands in her plate with food on them. She stated Resident #85 required supervision with her meals and it was a potential choking hazard for resident to be asleep with her hands in her food plate. Interview on 10/10/23 at 3:50 PM, the DON stated Resident #85 having her hands in her plate while sleeping was a dignity issue and potential choking hazard for Resident #85. Review of facility's policy Resident Rights undated reflected facility must treat each resident with respect and dignity and care for each resident in a manner an in an environment that promotes maintenance or enhancement of his or her quality of life .The facility must protect and promote the rights of the resident .Respect and dignity - The resident has a right to be treated with respect and dignity .
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

Incontinence Care (Tag F0690)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure a resident with or without an indwelling cathet...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure a resident with or without an indwelling catheter, receives the appropriate care and services to prevent urinary tract infection to the extent possible for one (Resident#7) of three residents reviewed for indwelling catheter care. The facility failed to ensure Resident #7's indwelling catheter bag was maintained off the floor. This failure could place residents at risk of infection. Findings included: Record review of Resident #7's Quarterly MDS assessment, dated 09/08/23, reflected a [AGE] year-old-female admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #7's diagnoses included anxiety disorder, high blood pressure, and depression. Her BIMS score was 09 revealing that resident has moderately impaired cognition. Her functional status reflected extensive assistance for bed mobility and hygiene. Bladder and bowel section of the MDS revealed that the resident has an indwelling catheter in place. Record review of Resident #7's comprehensive plan of care dated 08/07/23 reflected, Focus: Resident#7 has indwelling catheter .check tubing for kinks and maintain the drainage bag off the floor . Observation on 10/10/2023 at 10:35 AM of Resident #7 revealed CNA B and LVN A transferring resident to chair by Hoyer lift. Once Resident #7 was moved to chair, CNA A hung indwelling catheter bag underneath the chair. Surveyor observed catheter bag to be slightly folded due to sitting on the floor. Interview on 10/10/23 at 03:16 PM with LVN A revealed that the catheter bag should stay below the bladder, have no kinks, and should not be placed on the floor. LVN A stated she did not check to see where CNA B placed the catheter bag. LVN A was unaware CNA B placed the catheter bag on the floor. LVN A stated that placing the bag on the floor can cause cross contamination. Interview on 10/11/23 at 10:08 AM with CNA B revealed that catheter bags were not to be placed on the floor. CNA B stated the bag must have fallen and that was how it ended up on the floor. CNA B stated that leaving the catheter bag on the floor can cause cross contamination. Interview on 10/12/23 at 10:06 AM with the DON revealed that the catheter bags should remain below the bladder, should have no kinks, and should not be placed on the ground. The DON stated that the floor is dirty, so catheter bag should not be placed on the floor. A record review of the facility's policy Catheter Care, revised February 14th, 2007, reflected . Check the resident frequently to be sure he or she is not lying on the catheter and to keep the catheter and tubing free of kinks. Keep tubing off floor and minimize friction or movement at insertion site . Be sure the catheter tubing and drainage bag are kept off the floor .
CONCERN (D)

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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

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, including tracheostomy care, was provided such care, consistent with professional standards of practice for one (Resident #52) of four residents reviewed for respiratory care. The facility failed to replace/change the humidifer weekly or when the humidifer was empty. These failures could place residents at risk for hyperoxygenation, skin issues, and infection. Findings include: Review of Resident #52's quarterly MDS assessment, dated 09/08/2023, reflected that the resident was a [AGE] year-old female admitted on [DATE]. Resident #52's BIMS score was an 11 which revealed a moderately impaired cognition. Her active diagnoses included anemia, high blood pressure, and diabetes mellitus. The MDS did not have oxygen therapy checked under her specialty treatment section. Review of Resident #52's Physician orders summary dated 10/10/23 , reflected, .may use oxygen at 2-4l/m via nasal canula as needed for shortness of breath and to keep sats greater than 92% .order date 10/10/23 .start date 10/10/23 . No orders regarding humidifier. Review of Resident #52's care plan dated 10/10/23, reflected, .The resident has oxygen therapy . The resident will have no s/sx of poor oxygen absorption through the review date . An observation and interview on 10/10/23 at 10:47 AM revealed Resident #52's oxygen concentrator on and running with nasal canula sitting on the bedside table. The humidifier was empty and dated 9/17/2023. Resident #52 stated that she wore her oxygen every night. Resident #52 stated that her humidifier has been empty for a while but does not know how long. In an interview with LVN A on 10/10/23 at 03:16 PM revealed that the humidifier was to be changed when empty. LVN A stated that the humidifier and tubing should be changed regularly to prevent fungus or mold growth, dry nasal passages, and/or nose bleeds. In an interview with RN C on 10/11/23 at 09:52 AM revealed that she was the compliance review nurse. RN C revealed that she did rounds and found Resident #52 to have oxygen on and that the humidifier was empty. RN C looked further into it and realized there were no orders and called doctor for orders. RN C stated they might have standing orders, but she confirmed that the facility did not provide standing orders. RN C stated that that humidifier was to be changed weekly or when it becomes empty. In an interview with the DON on 10/12/23 at 10:06 PM revealed that orders from a doctor were required for oxygen administration. The DON stated to change humidifier as needed or every seven days. The DON stated that not having required orders could cause resident to have higher oxygen and to retain carbon dioxide. The DON stated that not replacing the humidifier could cause the resident to have dry nares. Review of the facility's policy, Oxygen Administration revised February 13th, 2007, reflected, . The resident will maintain oxygenation with safe and effective delivery of prescribed oxygen . The resident will be free from infection . Open the regulator and adjust to the desired rate. Note that the water in the humidifier bubbles .
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure that drugs and biologicals used in the facility were labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional princip...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure that drugs and biologicals used in the facility were labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles, and include the appropriate accessory and cautionary instructions, and the expiration dates for 1 (Medical Specialty medication room) of 2 medication rooms reviewed for medication storage. The facility failed to ensure one medication room on Medical Specialty Unit was free of expired medications. This failure could place residents at risk for increased or decreased potency of vaccination. Findings included: Observation on 10/11/23 at 01:16 PM of the Medical Specialty Unit medication room revealed, four vials of Shingrix with an expiration date of 10/6/23 in their refrigerator. Interview on 10/11/23 at 1:16 PM, LVN D stated she checks all medication rooms and carts weekly and as needed. LVN D missed that they were expired. LVN D thought they were labeled 10/30/23. LVN D stated they do dispose of expired medications due to changing the efficacy of the medication. The medication can either become more potent or weaker depending on the medication. Interview on 10/12/23 at 10:06 AM with the DON revealed, that the medication carts and rooms were checked weekly by LVN D. The DON stated the expired medications should be removed due to expired medications losing efficacy or not giving desired effect. Record review of the facility's policy titled Pharmacy Policy and Procedure Manual: Recommended Medication Storage revised 07/2012, did not reflect specific information regarding expired medications. Facility did not have any other policies regarding expired medications.
CONCERN (E)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

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

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety for the facility's only kitchen reviewed for kitchen sanitation. 1. The facility failed to ensure refrigerator and freezer items were dated, labeled, and sealed. 2. The facility failed to ensure Dietary Cooks H and I performed hand hygiene during lunch meal preparation on 10/11/23. 3. The facility failed to ensure Dietary [NAME] I sanitized food thermometer when checking food temperatures on 10/11/23. at lunch. These failures could place residents at risk for food contamination and food-borne illness. Findings included: 1. Observations on 10/10/23 at 9:42 AM revealed the following in the refrigerator: - a plastic bag open to air about 2 inches with cheese not dated or sealed. - a plastic bag with turkey meat not sealed. Interview with the Dietary Manager on 10/10/23 at 9:44 AM revealed the items in the refrigerator should be dated and sealed. Observation on 10/10/23 at 9:47 AM in the walk-in freezer revealed a plastic bag open to air with chicken strips not sealed or dated. Observation and Interview on 10/10/23 at 9:49 AM with the Dietary Manager revealed the chicken strips should be sealed and was observed sealing them. He stated the weekend dietary staff had probably opened them and should have sealed it along with dating it when opened. He stated all items in refrigerator and freezer should be sealed and dated when opened. Review of the facility's policy for Food Safety dated 2012 reflected Food is to be wrapped or sealed and covered in clean containers. Opened food shall be labeled, dated, and stored properly. 2. Observation on 10/11/23 at 11:37 AM with Dietary Aide I revealed she touched her face and nose with her hand, went to walk-in refrigerator, came out of walk-in refrigerator with tator tot bag, touched the refrigerator door to close it. At 11:39 AM she opened the tater tot bag and put them in the fryer to cook. She touched her apron with her hands and apron had visible stain and particles on it. She did not wash her hands and put on gloves. At 11:49 AM Dietary [NAME] I flipped grilled cheese sandwich using spatula and touched grilled cheese with her hand. Observation on 10/11/23 at 11:42 AM with Dietary [NAME] H revealed she touched her face with her hand and then continued stirring gravy on stove. At 11:46 AM, Dietary [NAME] H went to dry storage, got tomato soup cans, touched her face with her hand and did not wash hands. She got a clean pan, opened the cans, and poured the tomato soup cans into the pan. At 11:48 AM, Dietary [NAME] H washed her hands. She touched her face and glasses adjusting them. Dietary [NAME] H did not wash her hands. 3. Observation on 10/11/23 at 11:52 AM with Dietary [NAME] H revealed she checked food temperature of pureed corn with a thermometer. She used a cloth to wipe the food thermometer tip. She checked the food temperature of tomato soup by placing the thermometer tip into the soup and then wiped the thermometer using the same cloth. Dietary [NAME] H checked regular diet corn temperature with food thermometer tip placed in the corn. Interview on 10/11/23 at 11:57 AM with Dietary [NAME] H revealed she did use the same cloth to wipe the food thermometer between checking food temperatures of food. She stated she usually used the alcohol sanitizing wipes when cleaning the food thermometer each time after using it to check a food temperature and before putting it in another food item to check food temperature. She stated she should have washed her hands after she touched her face or glasses before going to the next task. Interview on 10/11/23 at 11:59 AM with Dietary [NAME] I revealed she should have washed her hands when she touched her face or apron. Interview on 10/11/23 at 12:01 PM with the Dietary Manager revealed he expected dietary staff to wash hands when touching their face, apron and anytime hands get contaminated. He stated it was important for dietary staff to wash hands to prevent cross contamination of food. He stated Dietary [NAME] H should have sanitized the food thermometer with alcohol swabs between use and not to use the same cloth to clean it. He stated not sanitizing the food thermometer properly can cause cross contamination of the food. Review of Dietary [NAME] H's training reflected she completed basics of hand hygiene on 10/08/23. Review of Dietary [NAME] I's training reflected she completed hand hygiene training on 01/19/23. Review of the facility's dietary policy Handwashing dated 2012 reflected the facility will ensure proper hand washing procedures as utilized. Employees are to frequently perform hand washing . The policy did not specify when to wash hands. Review of the facility's dietary policy Equipment Sanitation dated 2012 reflected facility will provide clean and sanitized equipment for food preparation. The facility will clean all food service equipment in a sanitary manner.
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** 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 dining room and three of five resident halls (B hall, C hall and D hall) reviewed for physical environment. 1. The facility failed to ensure D hall hallway area was maintained with floorboards in place and intact walls to preclude the entry of insects or rodents. 2. The facility failed to ensure resident rooms on B hall, C and D hall had door protection coverings that were secure to the room entry door and not impeding resident entry and egress. 3. The facility failed to ensure a resident room on C Hall RM [ROOM NUMBER], had a shower in working order. These failures could place residents at risk for an unsanitary and unsafe environment. Findings included: 1. Observations of D Hall on 10/11/23 at 12:47 PM revealed that two areas of floorboard at the end of D hall, approximates 6 inches each had peeled away from the wall exposing the drywall beneath. It was also noted that there was an approximately a 6-inch by 5-inch area of drywall that had been knocked in, exposing the interior of the wall space in which debris and dirt. 2. Observations of B, C and D halls on 10/10/23 between 11:32 AM and 11:38 AM revealed that room [ROOM NUMBER] on B hall, room [ROOM NUMBER] on C hall and room [ROOM NUMBER] on D hall, the protective covering on the doors to the residents' rooms had peeled away from the doors, [NAME] out into the entry/exit way of the room and offering a possible impediment to residents' entry and egress into their rooms. 3. Observations of C Hall room [ROOM NUMBER] on 10/10/23 at 12:07 PM revealed that the shower in the resident's room did not have hot water available in the shower. In an interview with the Maintenance Manager on 10/11/23 at 12:50 PM, he reported that he had been made aware of the complaints by the resident on C Hall room [ROOM NUMBER] that the hot water was not functioning in that shower . He stated that he had just not been able to fix it yet. He further stated that he had seen the protective coverings on the doors to Rooms 14 on B hall, room [ROOM NUMBER] on C hall and room [ROOM NUMBER] on C Hall, had peeled away from the doors and that the material [NAME] out into the entry/exit area of the doorway could pose a snagging issue for residents with wheel chairs. He stated that he had not ordered materials for those doors yet. The Maintenance Manager revealed that he did not know about the hole in the wall at the end of D Hall but intoned that it could offer an area ingress to the facility for insects. In an interview with the DON on 10/12/23 at 10:23 AM, the DON stated that the facility staff reports maintenance issues directly to the Maintenance Manager or the facility staff also had access to a computerized maintenance reporting system. She stated that if there was a maintenance issue discovered through the Grievance process that the staff could either report it to the Maintenance Manager Directly or use the computerized reporting system. She started that the door covering material that had peeled aways from the doors for room [ROOM NUMBER] on B hall, room [ROOM NUMBER] on C hall and room [ROOM NUMBER] on D hall, could offer an impediment for residents to be able to enter and egress their rooms safely and that the material sticking out could also offer a possible mechanism for the resident to suffer a skin tear. Review of facility's policy Environmental Services Safety Procedures implemented 01/01/23 reflected to ensure general safety procedures are followed in the course of performing housekeeping and/or laundry duties. The policy was not specific about housekeeping or maintenance requirements.
Aug 2023 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0583 (Tag F0583)

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 right to personal privacy for 1 of 14 samp...

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 right to personal privacy for 1 of 14 sampled residents (Resident #1). The facility failed to ensure Resident #1's dignity by closing personal curtain and/or door while using her bedside commode. The deficient practice had the potential to allow residents to be treated in undignified manner. Findings include: Review of Resident #1's face sheet, dated 08/01/23, reflected she was a [AGE] year-old female who originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her diagnoses included Anxiety Disorder, Hypertension, and Acute Kidney Failure. An observation on 08/01/2023 at 09:34 AM revealed Resident #1's door open with a clear view of Resident #1 with her brief at her ankles and sitting on the bedside commode. The curtain was not closed. During this observation, several people were walking in the hall near the resident room. An interview on 08/01/23 at 09:35 AM with Resident #1 in her room revealed that normally they do close the curtain or door. She thought they might have tried to close the door and it opened back up. It was CNA A that helped her to the bedside commode. She stated the door does stay open often. Resident #1 was smiling when speaking to surveyor. Resident #1 had no concerns with the door being left open. An interview on 08/01/23 at 09:53 AM with CNA A where she stated, I am sorry. She Stated that she did not know she was on the bedside commode until someone told her Resident #1 needed her help. CNA A stated she (self) was upset that the door was open, but she does not know who left it open. She stated that normally she does make sure the door is closed. She stated it is important to close the door for resident's dignity and privacy. An interview on 08/03/23 at 09:25 AM with the DON revealed that the expectation is for the curtain or door to be closed when a resident is on the bedside commode. She stated if she saw the door open, she would close it and notify staff to make sure to close doors. She stated this is important for privacy and dignity of resident. Review of the facility's policy, no date, and titled Resident Right's revealed, The resident has a right to a dignified existence .A facility must treat each resident with respect and dignity and care for each resident in a manner and in an environment that promotes maintenance or enhancement of his or her quality of life .Respect and Dignity- The resident has a right to be treated with respect and dignity .
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 residents receive adequate supervision and assi...

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 residents receive adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents for one (Resident #30) of one resident observed during a transfer. CNA B and CNA C failed to transfer Resident #30 safely when they failed to use a gait belt properly and lifted the resident under her armpits when transferring her from the bed to the wheelchair. These failures could place residents who require transfer assistance at risk for falls injury. Findings included: Review of Resident #30's quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE], reflected a [AGE] year-old female with an admission date of 05/29/15 and a readmission date of 03/08/19. Resident #30 was severely cognitively impaired with a BIMS of 3. She required extensive one person assistance with all ADLs and was always incontinent of bowel and bladder. Her diagnosis included Alzheimer's disease, cerebrovascular accident (stroke) and pain. Review of Resident #30's care plan revised on 07/22/22 reflected, . [Resident #30] has an ADL self-care performance deficit r/t activity intolerance, Alzheimer's, confusion, dementia, limited mobility .Interventions .requires (Extensive assistance) by (1) staff to move between surfaces as necessary . An observation on 09/06/22 at 09:35 a.m. revealed CNA B and CNA C entered Resident #30's room to transfer resident to bed and provide incontinence care. Both staff washed their hands and put on gloves. CNA B applied the gait belt around the resident's waist and then CNA B and CNA D each placed one hand on the gait belt and their other hands under the resident's arms and lifted her from the wheelchair onto the bed. The resident did not bear any weight on her legs. Both staff positioned the resident in the bed and provided incontinence care. In an interview with CNA B and CNA C on 09/06/22 at 9:55 a.m. revealed they were supposed to grab the gait belt with both hands when they transfer a resident. CNA B stated they could hurt a resident's arm if they lifted under the arms. Both staff stated they could not recall the last time they had been checked off on gait belt transfers. Review of CNA B's competency check completed on 02/18/22 reflected she met criteria for stand pivot transfer. There was no check off for a two-person gait belt transfer. Review of CNA C's competency check completed on 02/18/22 reflected she met criteria for stand pivot transfer. There was no check off for a two-person gait belt transfer. In an interview with the DON A on 09/08/22 at 08:15 a.m. she said staff were never to lift residents under the arms when transferring them, instead they were to place both hands on the gait belt and lift with the gait belt. She stated lifting under the resident's arms can cause pain and injury to a resident's shoulder. She stated they verify competency upon hire and each quarter corporate will send out what skills competency checks are to be done on the staff. She stated she and the ADONs were responsible for ensuring those quarterly competencies have been completed. She stated the Staffing manager coordinates the training for gait belt transfers. In an interview with PT E on 09/08/22 at 8:30 a.m. revealed the resident's armpits were not to be used during transfers because that could cause injury to a resident's shoulders and increase the risk of dropping the resident. He stated they assist with training when requested by the nursing staff. In an interview with the DOR on 09/08/22 at 8:35 a.m. He stated they provided education to the CNAs during orientation and anytime the facility requested a refresher. He stated they taught staff to use a gait belt for all transfers for safety and to prevent injury. In an interview with the Staffing Manager on 09/08/22 at 10:07 a.m. revealed she was the one who scheduled the gait belt training with the therapy department. She stated they will do demonstration in a lab setting. She stated the trainings were determined each quarterly by corporate and stated she could not recall the last time gait belt training was done, but stated it was always done upon hire. Review of the facility's policy titled, Gait belt use, revised on May 2021, reflected, A gait belt is a safety device .The device provides a secure grasping surface to aid with patient transfer and ambulation .Wrap the gait belt around the patient's waist .position yourself close to the patient so that you are facing each other .Grasp both sides of the gait belt using and underhand grip .While firmly gripping the gait belt, keep your back straight, bend your knees slight .Instruct the patient, on a count of three, to push off the bed or other surface .Allow the patient to stand for a moment to ensure balance .Keeping a firm grip on the gait belt, gently lower the patient onto the destination surface .
CONCERN (D)

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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services (including procedures ...

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 pharmaceutical services (including procedures that assure the accurate acquiring, receiving, dispensing, and administering of all drugs and biologicals) for one (Resident #77) of six residents observed for medication administration. Agency RN D failed to administer medications through Resident #77's G-Tube by gravity, and instead pushed the medications and water flushes with the plunger and syringe and used cold water for the water flushes. This failure could place the residents at risk of abdominal discomfort and cramping. Findings included: 1. Review of Resident #77's Significant change MDS assessment dated [DATE], reflected a [AGE] year-old female with an admission date of 04/19/22. Resident #77 was severely cognitively impaired with a BIMS of 5. She required extensive one-two person assistance with all ADLs and was always incontinent of bowel and bladder. Resident #77 received 25% or less of total calories through a G-Tube Her diagnosis included diabetes, hyponatremia (low sodium level), seizure disorder and malnutrition. Review of Resident #77's care plan revised on 08/24/22 reflected, . [Resident #77 has potential for nutritional problems r/t obesity, malnutrition and dysphagia and has a g-tube feeding and is on puree diet .Interventions .Administer medications as ordered. Observe/document for side effects and effectiveness . Review of Resident #77's Physicians Order Summary Report for September 2022 reflected, .every shift-Observe for signs of intolerance .abdominal distention/cramping, dehydration, fluid overload, aspiration .every shift Flush with 5-10 ml's H2O between each medication . with a start date of 08/15/22. An observation on 09/07/22 at 08:15 a.m. revealed Agency RN D at the medication cart pulling out: 1 tablet of Coreq (anti hypertension) 12.5mg- crushed and placed in individual cup and diluted with approximately 5 cc of water 1 tablet of Lasix (diuretic) 40 mg- crushed and placed in individual cup and diluted with approximately 5 cc of water 2 tablets of Hydrocortisone (steroid)10 mg - crushed and placed in individual cup and diluted with approximately 5 cc of water 1 tablet of Lamictal (anti-seizure) 25 mg- crushed and placed in individual cup and diluted with approximately 5 cc of water 1 tablet of Sodium chloride (electrolyte replenisher) 1 gm- crushed and placed in individual cup and diluted with approximately 5 cc of water 1 tablet of Aspirin (used to prevent heart attack) 81 mg- crushed and placed in individual cup and diluted with approximately 5 cc of water 15 ml of Potassium Chloride Solution (mineral replacement) 20 meq/ 15 ml- diluted with 5 cc of water 10 ml of Valproate Sodium Solution (anti-seizure) 250mg/5ml- diluted with 5 cc of water 30 cc of Pro-Stat (Amino Acids-Protein) diluted with 5 cc of water. Agency RN D poured a glass of ice water from the pitcher on top of her cart, gathered the medications and entered Resident #77's room. RN B performed hand hygiene and put on gloves. She retrieved the 60-cc piston syringe and placed the syringe in the end of the resident's G-tube and drew back to check for gastric residual. The resident had no residual. Agency RN D then drew up 30 cc of cold water into the 60-cc syringe, reconnected it to the G-Tube and pushed the water into the tube with the plunger rather than allowing it to flow by gravity. She then took the syringe and drew up the dissolved medication and attached the syringe to the end of the G-tube and again pushed the medication in with the plunger. Agency RN D repeated this process for all nine medications. Each time the Agency RN D plunged the cold water, Resident #77 commented she could feel the cold. After completion of the medication administration, Agency RN D pulled up 30 cc of cold water and plunged it through the G-Tube. In an interview with Agency RN D on 09/07/22 at 9:00 a.m., she stated she thought it was acceptable to administer medications by pushing them through the G-Tube. She stated she would sometimes administer by gravity if it was a new G-tube with good patency, but stated she thought it could be done either way. When asked if she was supposed to use cold water versus tap water, she stated this was her first day at the facility and she was not sure where the bathroom was. She stated she was from a state that was under a water boil notice, and they used bottled water and she stated she did not have access to bottled water. She stated she was unaware of negative side effects of pushing medications or giving cold water through the G-tube. In an interview with the DON on 09/07/22 at 9:10 a.m. revealed the facility's procedure for G-Tube medication was to always be given with gravity, never plunged, and to flush with tap water before and after the medication administration. She stated she was surprised any Nurse would not know that you could not push medications through the G-Tube or use ice water since this can cause cramping and discomfort. She stated the staffing agency was supposed to verify each staff members competency. She stated she would be contacting the staffing agency and would not be using Agency RN D anymore. She stated they do have each of the nursing procedure guides on the nurse's computer for them to access if they had any questions about a procedure. She stated going forward they would review this with any new agency nurse to ensure they followed the correct procedures. Review of https://www.in.gov/isdh/files/l52.pdf - Administering medications via the Gastrostomy Tube, searched on 09/09/22, page 3, reflected, .Flush the tube with approximately 30cc of water. Administer the medication(s); flush with 30 ccs of water after the final medication is administered. Verify that medication cups are clear of any remnants of crushed pills or liquid medication Do not force any medication or fluid into the tube. Allow gravity to work as possible. Deliver the medication slowly and steadily. Don't allow the fluid to flow in too quickly .cramping could occur . Review of the facility's procedure, Gastrostomy tube drug instillation, long-term care, revised November 2021, reflected, .After verifying proper tube placement, flush the tube with at least 15 ml of purified water. Monitor the resident closely throughout the instillation, for signs of distress .Administer the medication using a clean enteral syringe .Flush the gastrostomy tube again with at least 15 ml of purified water .Repeat the procedure for each additional prescribed medication .
CONCERN (D)

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

Laboratory Services (Tag F0770)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to obtain physician ordered laboratory test to meet the needs of its r...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to obtain physician ordered laboratory test to meet the needs of its residents for one (Resident #22) of four residents reviewed for labs. The facility failed to obtain the prothrombin time (PT) and international normalized ratio (INR) lab monthly as ordered by the physician for Resident #22 who was on Coumadin (anticoagulant) medication daily. This failure could place residents at risk for delayed lab services or treatment. Findings included: Review of Resident #22's face sheet dated 09/07/22 reflected she was a [AGE] year-old female resident admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] to the facility with diagnoses of Alzheimer's disease, cerebrovascular disease, chronic peripheral venous insufficiency, repeated falls, hypertension and dysphagia. Resident #22's primary physician was Physician H and was on hospice G services. Review of Resident #22's quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] reflected Resident #22 was on hospice services. She had diagnoses of Cerebrovascular disease and venous insufficiency (chronic) peripheral. Resident #22 required extensive to total dependence with ADLs. Resident #22 was on anticoagulant medication. Review of Resident #22's comprehensive care plan reflected Resident #22 received anticoagulant medication related to atrial fibrillation. Interventions included to administer anticoagulant medications as ordered by physician. Observe for side effects and effectiveness every shift. Review of Resident #22's Physician Orders reflected Resident #22 had the following physician orders: -dated 10/23/19 of Lab: PT/INR monthly dated 04/13/22 of Coumadin tablet (Warfarin Sodium) 1 mg - give 0.5 tablet by mouth at bedtime related to venous insufficiency (chronic) (peripheral). -dated 07/07/22 of Admit to [Hospice G] for diagnosis of cerebral atherosclerosis with [hospice physician I] .Continue current medications on MAR. No labs, diagnostic tests or transfer without hospice approval. Notify [Hospice G] for questions, concerns or change in condition. Review of Resident #22's PT/INR labs dated 06/29/22 reflected Resident #22 had a PT of 10.70 with normal range of 9.10 - 12.10 and INR 0.93. Review of Resident #22's labs reflected no PT/INR labs completed for Resident #22 since 06/29/22. Review of Resident #22's MAR/TAR for July and August 2022 reflected Resident #22 received Coumadin tablet (Warfarin Sodium) 1 mg - give 0.5 tablet by mouth at bedtime related to venous insufficiency (chronic) (peripheral). Interviews on 09/07/22 at 8:43 AM and 9:25 AM with the DON revealed Resident #22 was on Coumadin medication daily and PT/INR labs were completed monthly at least or based on the physician order. She stated she would have to contact Resident #22's physician to clarify PT/INR lab frequency for Resident #22. She stated Resident #22 was a hospice resident and Physician H was her doctor. The DON stated she was unable to find any PT/INR levels drawn for Resident #22 since end of June 2022. Interview on 09/07/22 at 11:02 AM with Hospice RN F at 11:02 AM revealed Resident #22 was admitted to hospice services and continued under the care of Physician H. She stated Resident #22 was on a low dosage of Coumadin medication daily prior to Hospice admission and was continued on the same Coumadin dosage per Physician H order. She stated hospice followed Physician H's orders to keep her on Coumadin medication due to her history of blood clots and severe atrial fibrillation. She stated Physician H would order the PT/INR lab level frequency order and the medication was not for the hospice diagnosis. She stated in her experience most of the time hospice residents were not on Coumadin medication unless physician ordered them to remain on it. She stated ADON A had contacted her on 08/25/22 about Resident #22's Coumadin and PT/INR lab order frequency to find out what hospice ordered. She stated she informed ADON A to discuss with Resident #22's physician H about the PT/INR lab frequency and Coumadin medication. She stated the last time she had seen Resident #22's PT/INR labs were end of June 2022. She stated hospice did not order for PT/INR lab levels to be discontinued or changed. Interview on 09/07/22 at 9:17 AM with Physician H revealed he expected the facility to contact him about Resident #22's PT/INR lab physician orders even though she was a hospice resident. He stated prior to today he was not contacted by facility to clarify Resident #22's PT/INR lab level frequency. He stated Resident #22 was on a low dosage of Coumadin due to history of recurrent blood clots. He stated Resident #22 had been on Coumadin mediation long term and could be monitored for PT/INR lab levels every 1 to 2 months. He stated Resident #22 's INR lab levels were usually below 1. He stated the facility must have dropped Resident #22's PT/INR lab order when resident was admitted to hospice services but he had not ordered the PT/INR lab orders to be discontinued. He stated he changed Resident #22's physician order of PT/INR labs to be drawn every 3 months instead of monthly. He stated the risk for Resident #22's PT/INR labs not drawn as prescribed could place resident at risk for bleeding and not monitored levels as ordered. He stated Resident #22 did have a history of falls. Interview on 09/07/22 at 1:23 PM with ADON A revealed she had contacted Hospice RN F about Resident #22's PT/INR lab frequency order and hospice referred her to discuss with Physician H about the PT/INR lab orders. She stated when Resident #22 was admitted to hospice services she discontinued PT/INR lab order in lab system since hospice ordered labs to be discontinued but stated they did not mention PT/INR labs. She stated she should have contacted Physician H to clarify Resident #22's PT/INR lab order and follow physician order. She stated she should not have discontinued Resident #22's PT/INR lab order unless Physician H ordered it. She stated the risk for Resident #22's PT/INR labs not being completed could place resident at risk of bruising and bleeding if PT/INR levels too high. She stated Resident #22 last PT/INR lab completed was end of June 2022. Interview on 09/07/22 at 11:45 AM with Hospice Physician I revealed normally residents on Coumadin medication had PT/INR labs drawn monthly. He stated facility should refer to Physician H about Resident #22's medication and lab orders. He stated Coumadin medication was not considered a comfort medication and hospice referred to Physician H on Coumadin medication order and PT/INR lab orders for Resident #22. Follow-up Interview on 09/08/22 at 8:44 AM with the DON revealed Resident # 22's physician should have been contacted about PT/INR lab frequency and ADON A should not have discontinued PT/INR lab orders in the lab system without Resident #22's physician approval. She stated the current physician orders on 09/07/22 revealed Resident #22 PT/INR labs should have been completed monthly. She further stated when Resident #22 was admitted to hospice G that ADON A should have clarified Resident #22's lab frequency for PT/INR levels with Physician H. She stated she contacted Physician H and informed him last time PT/INR lab levels were drawn end of June 2022 and Physician H stated Resident #22's physician order to be changed for PT/INR lab levels to be drawn every 3 months moving forward. She further stated she contacted Hospice Physician I and he was in agreement of PT/INR lab level frequency for Resident #22 to be drawn every three months. Review of the Facility's policy revised December 2021 Anticoagulant Therapy laboratory process reflected the facility will effectively monitor residents with anticoagulant therapy and reduce the risk of bleeding by maintaining therapeutic blood levels in accordance with physician orders .3. Confirm with the physician the desired INR and/or PT testing schedule and therapeutic range at the time of the anticoagulant therapy order, if necessary, for anticoagulant selected. 4. Initiate and order anticoagulant therapy labs per physician orders.
CONCERN (E)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain an Infection Prevention and Control Program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for four (Resident #30, Resident #77, Resident # 46, and Resident # 253) of five residents observed for infection control in that: 1. CNA F and CNA C failed to perform hand hygiene during incontinent care for Resident #77 and Resident #30, and CNA C failed perform hand hygiene before leaving Resident #77 and Resident #30's room. 2. ADON A failed to prevent cross contamination of the bottle of testing strips used to obtain a fingerstick blood sugar on Resident's #46 and Resident # 253. ADON A failed to sanitize the bottle of testing strips with a germicidial wipe and failed to perform hand hygiene after the administration of insulin. Theses failure could place residents at risk for infection and cross contamination. Findings included: 1. Review of Resident #77's Significant change MDS assessment dated [DATE], reflected a [AGE] year-old female with an admission date of 04/19/22. Resident #77 was severely cognitively impaired with a BIMS of 5. She required extensive one-two person assistance with all ADLs and was always incontinent of bowel and bladder. Her diagnosis included diabetes, hyponatremia (low sodium level), seizure disorder and malnutrition. Review of Resident #77's care plan revised on 08/24/22 reflected, . [Resident #77] has an ADL self-care performance deficit r/t activity intolerance .Gather and provide needed supplies .Toilet use .requires extensive assistance by (1) staff for toileting . An observation on 09/06/22 at 09:05 a.m. revealed CNA B and CNA C entered Resident #77's room to provide incontinence care. Both staff washed their hands and put on gloves. CNA B unfastened Resident #77's wet brief to reveal the resident had been incontinent of urine. CNA B then pushed the soiled brief down between the resident's legs toward her buttocks and cleaned her peri area from front to back. With the assistance of CNA C, they rolled the resident onto her side and removed the soiled brief revealing the draw sheet was also wet. CNA C then removed her gloves and left the room without performing hand hygiene, to obtain a clean draw sheet. CNA B continued to provide incontinence care, wiping from front to back and then applied barrier cream while wearing soiled gloves. CNA C re-entered the room with the clean draw sheet, put on gloves without performing hand hygiene and handed the sheet to CNA B. CNA B removed her soiled gloves and re-gloved without performing hand hygiene and pushed the wet draw sheet under the resident and placed the clean draw sheet and brief under the resident and rolled her onto her back and then on her opposite side, while CNA C pulled out the wet draw sheet and pulled the clean draw sheet and brief under the resident. Both staff then rolled the resident onto her back, straightened her bed linens, and placed a pillow under her heels. CNA B and CNA C gathered the dirty linens and trash in a plastic bag, removed their gloves and washed their hands before leaving the resident's room 2. Review of Resident #30's quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE], reflected a [AGE] year-old female with an admission date of 05/29/15 and a readmission date of 03/08/19. Resident #30 was severely cognitively impaired with a BIMS of 3. She required extensive one person assistance with all ADLs and was always incontinent of bowel and bladder. Her diagnosis included Alzheimer's disease, cerebrovascular accident (stroke) and pain. Review of Resident #30's care plan revised on 07/22/22 reflected, . [Resident #30] has bladder and bowel incontinence r/t activity intolerance, impaired mobility, cerebral infraction (stroke), pain .Interventions .Clean peri-area with each incontinence episode .hand washing before and after delivery of care . [Resident #30 is on chronic antibiotics for preventative measures for UTI .Interventions .Maintain universal precautions when providing resident care . An observation on 09/06/22 at 09:35 a.m. revealed CNA B and CNA C entered Resident #30's room to transfer resident to bed and provide incontinence care. Both staff washed their hands and put on gloves. CNA B applied the gait belt around the resident's waist and staff transferred her to bed. CNA B unfastened Resident #30's wet brief to reveal the resident had been incontinent of urine. CNA B then pushed the soiled brief down between the resident's legs toward her buttocks and cleaned her peri area from front to back and rolled the resident onto her side and removed the soiled brief revealing the draw sheet was also wet. CNA C then removed her gloves and left the room without performing hand hygiene, to obtain a clean draw sheet. CNA B continued to provide incontinence care, wiping from front to back. CNA C re-entered the room with the clean draw sheet, put on gloves without performing hand hygiene and handed the sheet to CNA B. CNA B removed her soiled gloves and re-gloved without performing hand hygiene and pushed the wet draw sheet under the resident and placed the clean draw sheet and brief under the resident and rolled her onto her back and then on her opposite side and pulled out the wet draw sheet and pulled the clean draw sheet and brief under the resident. CNA B then rolled the resident onto her back and straightened her bed linens. CNA B and CNA C gathered the dirty linens and trash in a plastic bag, removed their gloves and washed their hands before leaving the resident's room. In an interview with CNA B and CNA C on 09/06/22 at 9:50 a.m. revealed they were supposed to perform hand hygiene when they enter a resident's room, any time they change their gloves and before they leave a resident's room. CNA B stated she knew she missed a step and forgot to perform hand hygiene when she went from dirty to clean. CNA B stated she should have performed hand hygiene after she took off her gloves and left the room to get clean linens and should have washed her hands when she came back in the rooms. Both stated they knew the importance of hand hygiene to prevent infections. Review of CNA B's competency check completed on 02/18/22 reflected she met criteria for hand hygiene. In addition, she had completed online training for basics of hand hygiene on 03/04/22 and 07/31/22. Review of CNA C's competency check completed on 02/18/22 and 07/12/22 reflected she met criteria for hand hygiene. In an interview with DON A on 09/07/22 at 09:00 a.m. she stated staff were to perform hand hygiene when they entered a resident's room, after contact with any bodily fluid, and they were to change their gloves and perform hand hygiene during incontinent care when they went from dirty to clean. She stated by not following standard precautions with hand hygiene it placed residents at risk of infections and cross contamination. Review of the facility's policy titled, Perineal care of the female patient, revised May, 2022, reflected, .Perform hand hygiene .Put on glove .Help the patient into a supine position .Separate the patient's labia with one hand .Using gentle downward strokes, clean the perineal area from the front to the back of the perineum to prevent intestinal organisms form contaminating the urethra or vagina .Turn patient side to side .Using a new cloth, clean the anal are, starting at the posterior vaginal opening and wiping from front to back .discard soiled articles in the appropriate receptacle .Remove and discard your glove .perform hand hygiene . 3. Record review of Resident #46's Face Sheet dated 09/07/22, reflected a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her diagnoses included type 2 diabetes mellitus, Alzheimer's disease, and atrial fibrillation (an irregular, rapid heart rate). An observation on 09/06/22 at 11:40 a.m. revealed ADON A at the medication cart preparing to perform Resident #46's fingers stick blood sugar (FSBS). ADON A removed the glucometer from the medication cart, a lancet, and a bottle of testing strips from the medication cart and placed them on a piece of wax paper. ADON A performed hand hygiene, donned gloves, and entered the resident's room to perform the FSBS, carrying the glucometer, an alcohol wipe, a lancet, and the bottle of testing strips. ADON A opened the bottle of testing strips, pulled one strip out of the bottle, and placed the strip into the glucometer. ADON A then pricked Resident #46's finger and obtained a blood sample for FSBS. ADON A then deposited the testing strip and lancet into the sharp's container located in the room, removed her gloves, and returned to the medication cart and placed the glucometers and the bottle of testing strips on top of the medication cart. ADON A then put on gloves and pulled a germicidal wipe out of the container and sanitized the glucometer and placed it in a plastic cup to dry, but did not sanitize the bottel of testing stirps. ADON A then washed her hands, checked the computer for the amount of Insulin the resident required, and pulled out the insulin pen from the medication cart. ADON A put on gloves, primed the insulin pen, and dialed in the amount of insulin ordered and entered the resident's room. ADON A administered the insulin to the resident, removed her gloves and placed the insulin pen back in the medication cart without performing hand hygiene. ADON A then pushed her cart to the next room, Resident # 253 to obtain his FSBS. 4. Record review of Resident #253's Face Sheet dated 09/07/22, reflected a [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE]. His diagnoses included type 2 diabetes mellitus, Methicillin resistant staphylococcus aureus infection and cardiomegaly (enlarged heart). An observation on 09/06/22 at 11:50 a.m. revealed ADON A at the medication cart preparing to perform Resident #253's fingers stick blood sugar (FSBS). ADON A removed the glucometer from the medication cart, a lancet, and the same bottle of testing used in Resident #46's room and placed them on a piece of wax paper. ADON A performed hand hygiene, donned gloves, and entered the resident's room to perform the FSBS, carrying the glucometer, an alcohol wipe, a lancet, and the bottle of testing strips. ADON A opened the bottle of testing strips, pulled one strip out of the bottle, and placed the strip into the glucometer. ADON A then pricked Resident #253's finger and obtained a blood sample for FSBS. ADON A then deposited the testing strip and lancet into the sharp's container located in the room, removed her gloves, and returned to the medication cart and placed the glucometer and the bottle of testing strips on top of the medication cart. ADON A then put on gloves and pulled a germicidal wipe out of the container and sanitized the glucometer and placed it in a plastic cup to dry and once again, did not santizie the bottle of testing strips. ADON A then washed her hands, checked the computer for the amount of Insulin the resident required, and pulled out a vial of insulin and a syringe and drew up the required amount of insulin. ADON A then entered the resident's room and administered the insulin to the resident without gloves. ADON A deposited the syringe in the sharp's container in the resident's room and returned to the medication cart without performing hand hygiene. In an interview with ADON A on 09/06/22 at 11:55 a.m. she stated she should not have carried the bottle of test strips into the room and that by doing so she had contaminated the bottle of strips. She stated she was supposed to perform hand hygiene every time she removed her gloves and realized she had missed a step. She stated she just messed up all the way around. She stated she did not even realize she had not put on gloves before she gave Resident #253 his insulin. She stated she knew this failure could have the potential for cross contamination from one resident to the next. In an interview with the DON on 09/07/22 at 09:15 a.m. revealed staff were not to carry in the bottle of test strips into a resident's room for FSBS, since they were used for multiple residents. She stated by doing so, the staff had contaminated the entire bottle of test strips. He stated staff should be using one germicidal wipe per item to be cleaned. She stated staff were to always perform and hygiene before and after donning and doffing gloves. She stated failure to follow the correct procedures could lead to infections and cross contamination. Review of the CDC guidelines obtained on 09/09/22 https://www.cdc.gov/cliac/docs/addenda/cliac0313/07B_CLIAC_2013March_Glucose_Monitoring.pdf, reflected, .The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has become increasingly concerned about the risks for transmitting hepatitis B virus (HBV) and other infectious diseases during assisted blood glucose ( blood sugar) monitoring and insulin administration .Unsafe practices during assisted monitoring of blood glucose and insulin administration that have contributed to transmission of HBV or have put person at risk for infection include .Failing to change gloves and perform hand hygiene between fingerstick procedures .A simple rule for safe care .Blood glucose Meters .disinfected after every use .General .unused supplies and medications should be maintained in clean areas separate from used supplies and equipment .Do not carry supplies and medications in pockets .Hand hygiene .Perform hand hygiene immediately after removal of gloves and before touching other medical supplies intended for use on other person's Review of ADON A's skills competency skills checklist dated 02/18/22 reflected she was competent in Donning and doffing PPE and had completed online training for Basics of hand hygiene on 07/20/22. There were no skills check off provided for FSBS and Insulin administration. Review of the facility's polity titled, Blood glucose monitoring, long-term care, revised November, 2021, reflected, .Gather and prepare the necessary equipment and supplies .perform hand hygiene .put on gloves to comply with standard precautions .Insert test strip into the meter before blood sample collection according to the manufacturer's instructions .Pierce the skin sharply and quickly .Touch a drop of blood to the test area of the test strip .Read the digital display on the monitor .Remove the test strip and dispose of it .Remove and discard your gloves .perform hand hygiene . Review of the facility's policy titled, Subcutaneous injections, revised May 2022, reflected, Perform hand hygiene .Put on gloves if contact with blood or body fluids is likely or if your skin or the patients skin isn't intact. Note that gloves aren't required for routine subcutaneous infections because bleeding is unlikely and they don't protect against needlestick injury .Insert the needle quickly .Inject the medication .Discard the syringe and needle in a puncture-resistant sharps container .Remove and discard gloves, if worn .perform hand hygiene . Review of the facility's policy titled, Hand hygiene, dated August, 2021, reflected, .Washing with soap and water is appropriate when the hands are visibly soiled .Using and alcohol-based hand rub is appropriated for decontaminating the hands before direct patient contact; before putting on gloves; .after contact with a patient; when moving from a contaminated body site to a clean body site during patient care; after contact with body fluids, excretions, mucous membranes, after removing gloves; and after contact with inanimate objects in the patient's environment
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

  • "What changes have you made since the serious inspection findings?"
  • "What safeguards are in place to prevent abuse and neglect?"
  • "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
  • "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: Federal abuse finding, 2 life-threatening violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 31 deficiencies on record, including 2 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $24,850 in fines. Higher than 94% of Texas facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
  • • Grade F (0/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: This facility has a substantiated abuse finding. Extreme caution advised. Explore alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Texoma Healthcare Center's CMS Rating?

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

How is Texoma Healthcare Center Staffed?

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

What Have Inspectors Found at Texoma Healthcare Center?

State health inspectors documented 31 deficiencies at Texoma Healthcare Center during 2022 to 2025. These included: 2 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death) and 29 with potential for harm. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.

Who Owns and Operates Texoma Healthcare Center?

Texoma Healthcare Center is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by CREATIVE SOLUTIONS IN HEALTHCARE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 179 certified beds and approximately 102 residents (about 57% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in Sherman, Texas.

How Does Texoma Healthcare Center Compare to Other Texas Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Texas, Texoma Healthcare Center's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 2.8, staff turnover (53%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (1 stars) is much below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Texoma Healthcare 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?" "What safeguards and monitoring systems are in place to protect residents from abuse or neglect?" "Can you walk me through typical staffing levels on day, evening, and night shifts?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations, the substantiated abuse finding on record, and the below-average staffing rating.

Is Texoma Healthcare Center Safe?

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

Do Nurses at Texoma Healthcare Center Stick Around?

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

Was Texoma Healthcare Center Ever Fined?

Texoma Healthcare Center has been fined $24,850 across 1 penalty action. This is below the Texas average of $33,327. While any fine indicates a compliance issue, fines under $50,000 are relatively common and typically reflect isolated problems that were subsequently corrected. Families should ask what specific issues led to these fines and confirm they've been resolved.

Is Texoma Healthcare Center on Any Federal Watch List?

Texoma Healthcare 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.