THE CARLYLE AT STONEBRIDGE PARK

170 STONEBRIDGE LANE, SOUTHLAKE, TX 76092 (817) 431-5778
For profit - Corporation 112 Beds CANTEX CONTINUING CARE Data: November 2025 2 Immediate Jeopardy citations
Trust Grade
29/100
#581 of 1168 in TX
Last Inspection: October 2024

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

Overview

The Carlyle at Stonebridge Park has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns and a poor overall quality of care. They rank #581 out of 1168 in Texas, placing them in the top half of facilities, and #28 out of 69 in Tarrant County, meaning there are only a few local options that are better. The facility is improving, having reduced its issues from nine in 2024 to four in 2025, but it still has a high staff turnover rate of 68%, which is concerning compared to the Texas average of 50%. While they boast good RN coverage, exceeding 82% of state facilities, there have been serious incidents, such as a resident suffering acute kidney failure due to improper catheter placement and another being hospitalized for sepsis after inadequate care of a central line. Overall, while there are some strengths, such as good RN coverage and an improving trend, the presence of critical deficiencies raises serious concerns for families considering this nursing home.

Trust Score
F
29/100
In Texas
#581/1168
Top 49%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Better
9 → 4 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
68% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
⚠ Watch
$12,649 in fines. Higher than 80% of Texas facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
Skilled Nurses
○ Average
Each resident gets 33 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for Texas. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
Violations
⚠ Watch
29 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★★☆☆
3.0
Overall Rating
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Staff Levels
★★★★★
5.0
Care Quality
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 9 issues
2025: 4 issues

The Good

  • 5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record

Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.

The Bad

3-Star Overall Rating

Near Texas average (2.8)

Meets federal standards, typical of most facilities

Staff Turnover: 68%

22pts above Texas avg (46%)

Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity

Federal Fines: $12,649

Below median ($33,413)

Minor penalties assessed

Chain: CANTEX CONTINUING CARE

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

Staff turnover is elevated (68%)

20 points above Texas average of 48%

The Ugly 29 deficiencies on record

2 life-threatening
Aug 2025 1 deficiency 1 IJ
CRITICAL (J) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

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 that residents receive treatment and care in a...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that residents receive treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive assessment of a resident for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for quality of care. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1's catheter/catheter balloon remained in place in the bladder. On 08/04/25, the resident had a change in condition, and the NP ordered bloodwork, a UA, and a catheter change. During the catheter change, Resident #1 began to bleed from the catheter site and a few hours later, labs from the bloodwork came back critical and was sent to the hospital. Resident #1 was diagnosed with acute kidney failure and trauma to the urethra due to the catheter balloon not being in the right location. An Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) was identified on 08/21/25 at 4:55 PM. The IJ template was provided to the facility on [DATE] at 5:10 PM. While the IJ was removed on 08/22/25, the facility remained out of compliance at a scope of isolated and a severity level of potential for more than minimal harm due to the facility continuing to monitor the implementation and effectiveness of their Plan of Removal. This failure could place residents at risk for an adverse outcome to resident care or services and may also include the potential for physical and psychosocial harm.Findings included: Record review of Resident #1's quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] reflected the resident was a [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE]. His diagnoses included stroke (occurs when blood flow to the brain is blocked or a blood vessel inside or on the surface of the brain bursts), quadriplegia (partial or complete paralysis of both the arms and legs that is usually due to injury or disease of the spinal cord in the region of the neck), and nontraumatic subarachnoid hemorrhage (bleeding in the space surrounding the brain often caused by a ruptured brain aneurysm). Resident #1 had a BIMS score of 12 which indicated his cognition was moderately impaired. The MDS further reflected Resident #1 had an indwelling catheter and had impairment on both sides of his upper and lower extremities. Record review of Resident #1's care plan revised on 07/18/25 reflected he had a Foley catheter (a thin flexible catheter used especially to drain urine from the bladder) related to a neurogenic bladder (when a person lacks bladder control due to brain, spinal, or nerve problems). The goal was that Resident #1 would remain free from catheter-related trauma and interventions included change the catheter as needed and monitor/record/report signs and symptoms of UTI (an infection of any part of the urinary system), pain, burning, blood tinged urine, cloudiness, no output, deepening of urine color, increased pulse, increased temperature, altered mental status, change in behavior, and change in eating patterns. Record review of Resident #1's monthly orders for August 2025 reflected the following: Foley Catheter: 18 Fr 10cc bulb [a type of Foley catheter where the French scale indicates the size of the catheter, and the 10 cc designation indicates the size of the balloon that holds the fluid] as needed for occlusion [blockage or closing of an opening, blood vessel, or hollow organ] or leakage as needed Record review of Resident #1's May 2025, June 2025, and July 2025 TAR (a document in healthcare that tracks the administration of treatments and medications to patients) reflected the resident's catheter had not been changed. Record review of Resident #1's progress note documented by the NP reflected the following: .08/04/25 Seen at request of staff d/t AMS [a disruption in how the brain works that causes a change in behavior]. Pt is acting paranoid, thinks his food is being contaminated. Says his penis is swollen and tender.1. Altered mental status, unspecified altered mental status type STAT CBC [a blood test that measures the amounts and sizes of your red blood cells, hemoglobin, white blood cells, and platelets], BMP [a blood test that measures eight different substances in the blood], UA [a blood test that analyzes urine].await results .2. Swollen PenisSwitch out catheterGentle pericare [hygiene practice involving cleansing of the genital and anal area]Monitor closely. Record review of Resident #1's progress noted dated 08/04/25 documented by RN A reflected the following: This nurse received a new order for CBC, BMP, and UA in [lab system] and to change the Foley catheter, immediately this nurse deflated the balloon, patient began to bleed. This nurse notified the [physician], ordered not to remove the catheter but inflate it and leave in place and monitor patient and call if bleeding continues. Informed the incoming nurse to follow up. Further review of Resident #1's progress notes dated 08/05/25 documented by LVN B reflected the following: Critical lab results received. MD on-call notified. New order received to send patient to the hospital for evaluation.911 called, patient transported to the ER at [hospital]. Patient in stable condition at the time of leaving the facility. Record review of Resident #1 lab results report dated 08/04/25 reflected the following: BMP Results Reference Range Potassium 6.4 mmol/L 3.5 - 5.1BUN 103 mg/dL 6 - 25Creatinine 6.01 mg/dL 0.70 - 1.30 Potassium - (high potassium levels occur when blood potassium is too high, often caused by kidney problems, certain medications, or severe illness) BUN - (Blood Urea Nitrogen test which measures a waste product in the blood to assess kidney function) Creatinine - (a waste product from normal muscle breakdown that healthy kidneys filter from the blood and excrete in urine and measures this waste product to assess kidney function) Record review of Resident #1's hospital records dated 08/05/25 reflected the following: Assessment and Plan(Principal) Hyperkalemia [high potassium]Acute kidney injury.Gross hematuria [visible blood in the urine, making it appear pink, red, or brown] Due to Foley trauma. Balloon was noted to be in urethra. Catheter was removed. NP reports significant bleeding after catheter removed. Foley was reinserted. Patient with continued gross hematuria. No urology is available at this facility. House supervisor asked to assist with transfer to a higher level of care for urology evaluation. Hospital Labs Potassium - 5.9BUN - 94Creatinine - 4.88 Interview on 08/20/25 at 1:46 PM with RN A revealed during her shift on 08/04/25, Resident #1 refused his medications and refused to eat. She stated this was not Resident #1's baseline. She stated the NP happened to be doing her rounds that day, so she asked the NP to assess the resident. RN A said the NP ordered blood work and a UA to be done via straight catheterization. RN A said the Treatment Nurse was in the room when she (RN A) was going to remove Resident #1's catheter. RN A stated when she deflated the resident's catheter balloon, fresh blood came out on the drape under the resident and appeared to be mixed with urine. At that time, RN A said she stopped, left the catheter in place, and called the physician. The physician gave orders to leave the catheter in place, reinflate the catheter balloon, and monitor for further bleeding. RN A stated when she re-inflated the catheter balloon she did not feel resistance and the bleeding stopped. During the procedure, she said she did not notice any redness or swelling to Resident #1's penis. RN A further stated it was the end of her shift, and Resident #1's bloodwork results had not come back during her shift. She stated Resident #1 did not have issues with his catheter prior to that day. RN A said she had been trained on the insertion and removal of Foley catheters, but she did not give a date of the training. Interview on 08/20/25 at 2:40 PM with the Treatment Nurse revealed RN A got orders to change out Resident #1's catheter on 08/04/25, and she went in to assist. The Treatment Nurse said RN A deflated the catheter balloon and pulled out 10 cc of fluid via syringe. She stated blood began to come out from around the catheter on to the drape under the resident. The Treatment Nurse said she told RN A not to pull the catheter out and to leave it in place because the blood could indicate possible urethral trauma. The Treatment Nurse said RN A immediately called the physician and the physician gave orders to leave the catheter in place and re-inflate the balloon. The Treatment Nurse said there did not appear to be any resistance when RN A reinflated the balloon, and Resident #1 did not appear to be in any distress. The Treatment Nurse stated Resident #1 had urine in his bag after the attempted catheter removal. The Treatment Nurse stated she did not recall the resident having any issues with his catheter prior to that day they tried to change it. Interview on 08/20/25 at 3:57 PM with LVN B revealed he worked the night shift of 08/04/25 and Resident #1 had not been eating. He stated Resident #1 reported feeling tired which was not Resident #1's normal baseline. LVN B said he was given report to monitor the resident but had not been told blood had come out during an attempted catheter change. During his shift, he stated Resident #1's bloodwork results came back with some critical labs. He stated the physician was consulted and gave orders for Resident #1 to be sent to the hospital for further evaluation. When Resident #1 was sent to the hospital, the resident's vitals were within normal range. Prior to 08/04/05, LVN B stated Resident #1 had not had any catheter-related issues. Interview on 08/21/25 at 2:27 PM with CNA C revealed she had worked with Resident #1 around the time he had been sent to the hospital (08/05/25), but did not recall which day. CNA C said she provided care to the resident and noticed his penis was swollen, and there was blood coming from his penis around the catheter line, which she reported to LVN D. She stated LVN D was already aware of the resident's condition, and LVN D was checking on the resident. CNA C stated Resident #1 complained about discomfort to this catheter, and the resident wanted to make sure someone was checking on him during her shift. Interview on 08/21/25 at 2:35 PM with CNA E revealed she worked with Resident #1 the day he was sent to the hospital on [DATE] during the morning shift (6:00 AM to 2:00 PM), and had given the resident a bed bath. CNA E said when she changed the resident, she noticed his penis was swollen and had some dried drainage around his penis. CNA E said Resident #1 did not express he was in pain or discomfort. CNA A said she reported the drainage to RN A, who went to assess Resident #1. She stated later she saw the NP go into the resident's room. Interview on 08/21/25 at 3:16 PM with LVN D revealed he worked with Resident #1 on 08/04/25 during the 2:00 PM to 10:00 PM shift. He stated RN A reported to him that the NP ordered a UA and for Resident #1's catheter to be changed. RN A told LVN D she and another nurse (Treatment Nurse) tried to change the resident's catheter but when they had deflated the balloon and before they pulled the catheter out, blood was noted to be coming out from around the catheter. LVN D said RN A told him she had contacted the physician and he had given the orders to leave the catheter in and monitor. LVN D said he went in to see Resident #1 after getting report and there was some blood around the tip of the resident's penis, the collection bag had some urine in it but he did not see any blood in the bag. LVN D stated he did not notice any swelling to the resident's penis and there was nothing out of the ordinary during the resident of shift and the resident continued to have urine output in the bag with no blood in it. LVN D further stated Resident #1 did not have any issues with his catheter in the past. Interview on 08/21/25 at 3:45 PM with Resident #1 revealed, during his bed bath on 08/04/25, one of the aides (CNA E) told him his penis was infected and looked like it had some kind of drainage/puss to the area. The resident said the NP went in to see him and told the nurse his catheter needed to be changed. The Treatment Nurse assisted RN A and during the process, he stated he felt some pain, and it appeared something went wrong because it bled. Resident #1 said, sometime later, he was sent to the hospital, and the staff there told him something had ruptured in his urethra when they tried to change the catheter. Interview on 08/21/25 at 12:45 PM with the DON revealed the weekend of Saturday 08/02/25 and Sunday 08/03/25 Resident #1 did not want to eat and refused his medications. She stated RN A called her on Monday, 08/04/25 because said she and the Treatment Nurse tried to change the resident's catheter. RN A told her when they deflated the balloon, blood came out. RN A also told her the physician was called, and he gave orders to monitor the resident. The DON said they had ordered bloodwork and when those results came in, some of labs were critical so the resident was sent to the hospital. The DON further stated the nursing staff reported to her that Resident #1 continued to have urine output that afternoon before he was sent to the hospital. The DON said RN A had been trained on catheter insertion and removal upon hire and the training was a part of the Infection Control section. Record review of RN A's new hire training dated 09/16/25 reflected she took the Infection Control Portion. There were no other details to the training. Interview on 08/21/25 at 4:07 PM with the NP revealed she assessed the resident on 08/04/25 after staff told her Resident #1 had been acting confused and paranoid. The NP said when she assessed the resident she noticed his penis was slightly swollen so she ordered blood work, (CBC and CMP), a UA and a catheter change in case he had developed an infection (UTI). The NP said the resident's vitals were stable at the time, there was no bleeding to catheter site at the time, and there was yellow urine in the catheter bag. The NP stated she was not certain how the catheter balloon had gotten in Resident #1's urethra unless the catheter was tugged causing it to go into the urethra. Interview on 08/21/25 at 10:40 AM with the Physician revealed he cared for Resident #1, and there had not been any issues with the resident's catheter other than a couple UTIs. The last time the Physician had seen Resident #1 was on 07/30/25 for medication adjustments, and there were no issues with the resident's catheter. The Physician said, according to Resident #1's progress notes, Resident #1 had been seen by the NP on 08/04/25. He stated the NP documented that Resident #1's catheter was to be switched out because his penis was swollen. The Physician read Resident #1's hospital records and they said if it was documented that his catheter balloon was inflated in the urethra then it probably was causing bleeding from the trauma it caused the urethra. If the balloon was indeed in the urethra, the Physician stated it would explain why his BUN and Creatinine labs were critical which would indicate the resident was in acute renal failure because it would block the urine from flowing causing it to go back up into the kidneys. The Physician continued to read Resident #1's hospital records and said it appeared once the catheter was replaced his labs (Potassium, BUN, and Creatinine) began to decrease. The Physician said if the catheter balloon was in the urethra it was possibly inflated wrong or it was tugged on which would cause trauma and bleeding. Record review of the facility's policy titled Indwelling Catheter-Male and Female (Insertion and Removal of) reviewed on 06/2006 reflected the following: PurposeTo provide continuous drainage of the urinary bladder; to prevent contact of urine with open areas on the body; to obtain accurate measurement of urinary output; to obtain a sterile specimen for diagnostic purposes; and to instill medication into the bladder. Insertion of Indwelling Catheter .Procedure - .advance catheter one to one and one-half inches beyond the point of free flow or urine. - Check size of balloon; draw up sterile water to his amount (if not using pre-filled syringe), attach the syringe to the balloon port of the catheter. - Do not force water into balloon. If resistance is encountered or the patient complains of pain, deflated balloon, advance farther into the bladder and inflated. - Tug gently on catheter until you feel resistance. Removal of Indwelling Catheter.Procedure- Attach syringe to balloon port of catheter and aspirate entire amount of sterile water in balloon.- Pinch catheter and withdraw gently and slowly. Record review of the facility's policy titled Catheter Care, Urinary revised on September 2014 reflected the following: .Complications1. Observe the resident for complications associated with urinary catheters.b. Check the urine for unusual appearance (i.e., color, blood, etc.)c. Notify the physician or supervisor in the event of bleeding, or if the catheter is accidently removed. d. Report any complaints the resident may have of burning, tenderness, or pain in the urethral area. An Immediate Jeopardy was identified on 08/21/25. The Administrator, DON and the Regional Nurse Consultant were notified of the Immediate Jeopardy on 08/21/25 at 4:55 PM. The IJ template was provided to the facility on [DATE] at 5:10 PM. The facility was asked to provide a Plan of Removal to address the Immediate Jeopardy. The facility's Plan of Removal for the Immediate Jeopardy was accepted on 08/22/25 at 8:30 AM and reflected the following: Concern:F684J - Quality of Care F684 - The facility failed to ensure residents received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person -entered care plan, and the residents' choices based upon the comprehensive assessment of a resident. On 08/04/25, a [AGE] year-old male resident, who had a diagnosis of quadriplegia and who had a urinary catheter, experienced a change in condition resulting in loss of appetite and tiredness. The facility notified the Nurse Practitioner about the change in condition, and orders were given perform a straight catheter to obtain a sample for a urinalysis and for blood work to be done. When the nurse deflated the catheter balloon to remove the urinary catheter, she noticed blood coming out around the catheter. The physician was immediately notified and instructed the nurse to re-inflate the balloon and monitor for further bleeding. A few hours after this the resident's lab results arrived and showed that the resident had critical labs. The physician gave orders for the resident to be sent to the hospital. At the hospital, the hospital discovered that the catheter balloon had been inflated in the urethra causing trauma and bleeding. The resident was transferred to a higher level of care for a urology consultation. The facility failed to properly insert a urinary catheter which resulted in the resident experiencing urethral trauma and bleeding. Immediate Actions Resident #1 is no longer in the building. The Medical Director was assigned this resident. 1 The Ombudsman was notified of the content of the immediate jeopardy via email on 08/21/2025. 2 On 08/21/2025 The RDCS in-serviced the DON and the Unit Managers with test for competency on: - Following physicians' orders - Effective Documentation - Recognizing Changes in Condition - Urethral Catheter Placement with competency of test and with skill assessment checked off by nurse leadership/designee 3 On 08/21/2025 The RDCS and DON completed a 100% audit of all residents who are on catheters , who have the potential to be affected. The results of the audit yielded that no other residents were affected and were at their normal baseline. The Foley catheters were all appropriately placed and draining appropriately. Staff Training and Education Mandatory Training: Starting 08/21/2025 All licensed and registered nursing staff will undergo mandatory training on proper urinary catheter insertion and re-insertion techniques, including recognizing complications and responding appropriately. Training will be conducted by the DON/Clinical Designee. Competency Assessment: Each licensed or registered nursing staff member will be required to demonstrate competency in catheter insertion and re-insertion through hands-on evaluations. Staff who fail to demonstrate competency will not be allowed to work or perform catheter-related procedures until retraining and reassessment are completed. 4 On 08/21/2025 initiation of all in-house licensed and registered nurses and were re-inserviced with a test to validate competency on: Following physicians' orders Effective Documentation Recognizing Changes in Condition Urethral Catheter Placement with competency of test and with skill assessment checked off by nurse leadership/designee Systematic Approach 1. On 08/21/2025 A QAPI meeting was held, in attendance were the Medical Director (via TEAMS), Executive Director, DON, and the Regional Director of Clinical Services. Policy and Procedures on Physician Notification, Documentation and Changes in Condition were reviewed and found to be sufficient and met state and federal requirements. QAPI discussed the components and the interventions of this plan of removal. 2. The facility will incorporate catheter-related procedures into its annual staff training program and QAPI initiatives to ensure ongoing compliance and resident safety. Monitoring 1 DON, UMs were educated on 08/21/25 in the daily process of: a. The DON and Unit manager(s) were educated by the RDCS on 08/21/25 and will use the Grand Rounds process and 24-hour Summary to identify any and all residents who were may have been admitted with or given orders to insert a urethral catheter to ensure appropriate placement and flow. This will occur daily for 2 weeks, weekly for 2 weeks and then monthly. On the weekends and holidays, the Nurse Supervisor/Designee will complete the audit/review. The DON/ Designee will monitor daily, M-F, on the weekends and holidays, the Nurse Supervisor/Designee will complete the review. The DON/Designee will monitor this process. ******Any staff who are not present to complete the in-service by 8/21/2025 will be required to complete the in-service at the start of their next shift before beginning work. New Hires, PRN and any agency staff will also be in-serviced prior to the start of their shift. The education will be conducted and monitored by the DON/Designee. Quality Assurance: Results of all monitoring by DON and Unit Manager shall be brought to the Quality Assessment and Assurance Committee for review and any committee recommendations will be acted upon. The DON will be responsible for bringing the results of the monitoring to the QA committee. Completion Date: 08/21/2025 Monitoring the facility's Plan of Removal included the following: Observation on 08/20/25 at 9:45 AM revealed Resident #1 was no longer at the facility. Record review of the In-service Training Report dated 08/21/25 reflected 12 charge nurses were educated on Foley insertion, verify placement, documentation, physician orders, change of condition, complete transfer form. Further review of the training revealed each charge nurse was given a competency test and a skills assessment checked off by nursing management. Interviews on 08/22/25 from 11:26 AM to 3:29 PM from nurses from various shifts were the DON, ADON, Treatment Nurse, RN A, LVN B, LVN D, LVN F, LVN G, LVN H, LVN I, LVN J, RN K, RN L, and LVN M. All staff were able to identify the following: - What type of documentation is required with resident that have Foleys; (i.e. color, odor, urine output, urine retention, discomfort to area and size of catheter and balloon inflation)- How to insert a catheter using sterile technique in males and females. (insert until there is urine return and go farther if resistance is felt) - What to do if they feel resistance when inflating the catheter balloon. - How to remove a catheter (pull the same amount of fluid that was inserted in the balloon, and gently pull out)- What to do if the is blood noted upon removal (do not remove and call the physician for orders)Each charge nurse had a competency test and skill assessment as part of their in-service. Review of the audits dated 08/21/25 revealed there were 5 residents with catheters and there were no issues identified with the resident's catheters. Observation on 08/22/25 of catheter care for Residents #2, #3, and #4 from 10:15 AM to 11:06 AM revealed appropriate technique was used, clear urine was flowing in the output bags, and there were no issued noted. There were no residents that required catheter insertion or changing. The Regional Nurse Consultant and DON were notified on 08/22/25 at 3:45 PM, the Immediate Jeopardy was removed. While the IJ was removed on 08/22/25, the facility remained out of compliance at a scope of isolated and a severity level of potential for more than minimal harm due to the facility continuing to monitor the implementation and effectiveness of their Plan of Removal.
Jun 2025 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Tube Feeding (Tag F0693)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that residents who received nutrition by ent...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that residents who received nutrition by enteral means received the appropriate treatment and services to prevent complications of enteral feeding for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for enteral feeding. The facility failed to follow physician's orders of providing Resident #1 with his 22 hours of feeding intake on 05/24/25. The noncompliance was identified as PNC. The noncompliance began on 05/24/25 and ended on 05/25/25. The facility had corrected the noncompliance before the survey began. This failure could place residents at risk for a decline in health or adverse effects due to inappropriate management of G-tube care. Findings included: Record review of Resident #1's admission Record dated 06/24/25 reflected the resident was an [AGE] year-old male who admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Record review of Resident #1's admission MDS assessment dated [DATE] reflected his diagnoses included dementia (loss of memory), gastro-esophageal (stomach acid flows back up into the esophagus and causes heartburn), hypertension (high blood pressure), Parkinson's disease, and seizure disorder. Resident #1's BIMS score was not completed due to Resident was rarely/never understood. MDS Section K - Swallowing/Nutritional Status indicated the resident's nutritional approach was a feeding tube. Record review of Resident #1's care plan revised date 05/27/25 reflected: Focus: The resident requires tube feeding r/t Dysphagia. provide Isosource 1.5 70cc/hr X 22 hours. Goal: The resident will maintain adequate nutritional and hydration status aeb weight stable, no s/sx of malnutrition or dehydration through review date. Interventions: Provide care to G-Tube site as ordered and monitor for s/sx of infection. RD to evaluate quarterly and PRN. Monitor caloric intake, estimate needs. Make recommendations for changes to tube feeding as needed. The resident is dependent with tube feeding and water flushes. See MD orders for current feeding orders. Record review of Resident #1's Order Summary Report reflected Isosource 1.5 Cal Oral Liquid (Nutritional Supplements) Give 70 ml via G-Tube every shift for Nutrition. Order date: 04/22/2025. Record review of Resident #1's May 2025 MAR reflected Isosource 1.5 Cal Oral Liquid (Nutritional Supplements) Give 70 ml via G-Tube every shift for Nutrition. MAR indicated Resident #1 feeding was documented as given on 05/24/25 - day and evening. Record review of the facility's Provider Investigation Report, completed by the Administrator on 05/02/25, reflected the following: 05/24/2025 The facility initiated an investigation on 05/25/2025, after resident feeding tube was unhooked around 11:30am in order to lift him off the floor when he fell. The feeding tube was not hooked back up to his body until 11pm. Investigation Summary: Resident suffered a fall in his room. Fall did not result in any physical harm to resident. Resident feeding tube [was detached in under to lift him up off the ground]. This incident took place at approximately 11:30am. Nurse forgot to reattach the feeding to resident body once he was lifted up off of the floor. Feeding remains unattached until 11pm when resident's daughter brought it to the nurse's attention. Feeding was reattached at that time. All resident with feeding were checked to ensure it was attached to their bodies. Resident's skin assessed by Treatment Nurse. There are no skin break down, wounds on resident's body, or signs of dehydration. Resident weight checked and he was not experienced any weight lost. Physician ordered labs. Lab results shows that resident has not experience any changes from baseline. Assessment: Head to toe assessment and pain assessment completed. Resident did not have any changes of condition or any adverse effect. Provider Action: Staff in-service on Abuse/Neglect and G-Tube Attachment. Facility initially placed alleged perpetrator on suspension, pending investigation. Facility now moving forward terminating staff member, post investigation. Observation on 06/24/25 at 9:50 AM revealed Resident #1 in the common area sitting in his wheelchair. He could not answer questions. Resident #1's was connected to his feeding pump and the feeding pump was running. Interview and observation on 06/24/25 at 12:56 PM, Resident #1's Family Member revealed on 05/24/25 Resident #1 was not provided with his g-tube feedings for about 11 hours. She stated she had a camera in the room and in the footage, it showed around 10:45 PM Resident #1 had a fall in his room and landed on the right side of his bed. She stated the feeding pump was on the left side of the resident's bed, and when the resident was on the floor, she got concerned that the resident might had pulled his g-tube. Resident #1's Family Member stated when she reviewed the camera footage, she noticed Resident #1 was not connected to his feeding pump. Resident #1's Family Member stated she continued to review camera footage, and it showed Resident #1 being disconnected from his g-tube at 11:25 AM. She stated she contacted the facility, and the nurse entered the room and connected Resident #1's feeding tube at 10:54PM on 05/24/25. Observed camera video footage stamp date 05/24/25 at 11:32 AM Resident #1's feeding pump being disconnected from resident by LVN A but left feeding pump on. At 11:50 AM, LVN A observed entering the Resident #1's room due to feeding pump beeping and LVN A turned the feeding pump off. At 12:43PM, Resident #1 was transported out the room by CNAs. G-tube feeding pump was left in the room. At 7:44 PM, Resident #1 returned back to room, CNA B and LVN A transferred Resident #1 back to bed and CNA B provided incontinent care. At 7:48 PM, Resident #1 in bed resting, resident feeding pump was on the left side of Resident #1's bed turned off. Between 10:35 PM - 10:44PM, Resident was observed slowly moving towards his right side of the bed, slide off the bed and landed on his knees. Resident #1's feeding pump was off. At 10:45 PM, LVN D entered the room with another staff, resident was transferred back in bed and was connected to his feeding pump at 10:54 PM. An attempt was made to contact LVN A by phone on 06/24/25 at 2:07 PM; however, there was no answer. An attempt was made to contact CNA B by phone on 06/24/25 at 2:19 PM; however, there was no answer. Interview on 06/24/25 at 5:00 PM, Physician revealed he was made aware of Resident #1 not receiving his feeding. He stated he could not recall how many hours he was off his feeding, but the nurse forgot to connect the resident. He stated he ordered a bolus feeding and lab work. He stated he reviewed Resident #1 lab work, and everything was fine. He stated there was no risk to the resident. He stated his expectation were for nursing staff to follow the orders. Interview on 06/24/25 at 5:05 PM, the DON revealed she received a call from Resident #1's Family Member around 11:30PM/midnight regarding Resident #1's g-tube not being attached. She stated she contacted the facility but by that time Resident #1 feeding pump was already running. She stated she contacted LVN A and LVN A stated she had forgot to attach Resident #1. She stated LVN A just kept saying oh my god, oh my god. The DON stated the doctor was notified and the doctor ordered an extra bolus feeding, and lab work to ensure there was no dehydration. She stated Resident #1's lab work results were good. She stated the dietician was also informed and Resident #1's weight had been stable. The DON stated they had the nurse check on the other residents who were on g-tubes with no concerns noted. She stated all nursing staff were in-serviced on abuse and neglect and monitor feeding tubes to make sure that they are connected at all times according to the doctor orders. She stated LVN A was suspended pending investigation and once investigation was concluded she was terminated. She stated the potential risk of not following physician orders could be weight loss and dehydration. Interview on 06/24/25 at 5:20 PM, the Administrator revealed LVN A admitted to forgetting to connect Resident #1 to his feeding. He stated after concluding his investigation he substantiated the incident. He stated his expectations were for his nursing staff to complete rounds, follow physician orders and make sure residents with g-tubes are connected. He stated if a resident was on continues feedings, and the resident was taken to another place in the facility the feeding pump should go with the residents. He stated the potential risk of a resident not receiving his feedings would be skin breakdown and dehydration. Record review of facility Administration of Formula via Feeding Tube Gravity, Bolus, Pump policy, reviewed date March 2019, reflected the following: To administer nutrients to patients who are unable to eat normally without complications: to assure proper absorption of nutrients by proper administration, without side effects The facility took the following actions to correct the noncompliance: Record review of Resident #1' physician orders reflected Resident #1 had an order for Enteral Feed Order one time only for 1 Day give x 1 bolus feeding (237ml) now of isosource 1.5 cal dated 05/25/25. Record review of Resident #1's Weight reflected no weight loss. Record review of Resident #1's Un-witnessed Fall (Skin assessment, Pain assessment) and Medication Error Assessment completed on 05/24/25 and 05/25/25 documented no concerns. Record review of the facility's In Service Training, dated 05/25/25, provided by the DON, reflected all facility nursing staff were In-Serviced on Abuse and Neglect, Monitor feeding tubes to make sure that they are connected at all time according to the doctors orders, Make sure g-tube are connected. Record review of Resident #1's Lab Results Report completed on 05/28/25 reflected normal levels. Interviews on 06/24/25 from 2:46 PM to 4:00 PM with ADON C, LVN E, LVN F, LVN G, LVN H, RN I, RN J, LVN K, LVN L, ADON M who work the shift of 6:00AM - 2 PM, and 2PM - 10 PM. Facility staff were able to verify education was provided to them. Facility staff were able to verify education was provided to them. The nursing staff stated they were educated on different types of abuse/neglect and residents on g-tubes. Nursing staff stated they were inserviced on making sure residents on g-tube were connected to feeding pumps according to physician orders, if residents on continues feedings were taken out of the room the feeding pumps must go with them. Staff stated they completed rounds during shift change with the incoming staff. Staff provided the types of abuse were physical, mental, financial, and verbal. Staff revealed they would report to the Abuse Coordinator, the Administrator, immediately if they witnessed any type of abuse or neglect. The noncompliance was identified as PNC. The noncompliance began on 05/24/25 and ended on 05/25/25. The facility had corrected the noncompliance before the survey began.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Medical Records (Tag F0842)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

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

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 clinical records were maintained in accordance with accepted professional standards and practices and were complete and accurately documented for 2 of 5 residents (Resident #1 ad Resident #2) records reviewed for treatment documentation. 1. LVN A documented Resident #1 had received his g-tube feeding on 05/24/25 morning and evening, but the resident did not receive his feeding for approximately 11 hours. 2. The facility failed to document wound care treatments on the Treatment Administration Record for Resident #2 indicated by blanks on Resident #2's June 2025 TAR. These failures could affect the residents medical record not being an accurate representation of the resident's medical condition or medical needs. Findings included: Record review of Resident #1's admission Record dated 06/24/25 reflected the resident was an [AGE] year-old male who admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Record review of Resident #1's admission MDS assessment dated [DATE] reflected his dementia (loss of memory), gastro-esophageal (stomach acid flows back up into the esophagus and causes heartburn), hypertension (high blood pressure), Parkinson's disease, and seizure disorder. Resident #1's BIMS score was not complete due to Resident is rarely/never understood. MDS Section K - Swallowing/Nutritional Status indicated the resident's nutritional approach was a feeding tube. Record review of Resident #1's care plan revised date 05/27/25 reflected: Focus: The resident requires tube feeding r/t Dysphagia. provide Isosource 1.5 70cc/hr X 22 hours. Goal: The resident will maintain adequate nutritional and hydration status aeb weight stable, no s/sx of malnutrition or dehydration through review date. Interventions: Provide care to G-Tube site as ordered and monitor for s/sx of infection. RD to evaluate quarterly and PRN. Monitor caloric intake, estimate needs. Make recommendations for changes to tube feeding as needed. The resident is dependent with tube feeding and water flushes. See MD orders for current feeding orders. Record review of Resident #1's Order Summary Report reflected Isosource 1.5 Cal Oral Liquid (Nutritional Supplements) Give 70 ml via G-Tube every shift for Nutrition. Order date: 04/22/2025. Record review of Resident #1's May 2025 MAR reflected Isosource 1.5 Cal Oral Liquid (Nutritional Supplements) Give 70 ml via G-Tube every shift for Nutrition. MAR indicated Resident #1 feeding was documented as given on 05/24/25 - day and evening. Observation on 06/24/25 at 9:50 AM revealed Resident #1 in the common area sitting in his wheelchair. He could not answer questions. Resident #1's was connected to his feeding pump and the feeding pump was running. Interview and observation on 06/24/25 at 12:56 PM, Resident #1's Family Member revealed on 05/24/25 Resident #1 was not provided with his g-tube feedings for about 11 hours. She stated she had a camera in the room and in the footage, it showed around 10:45 PM Resident #1 had a fall in his room and landed on the right side of his bed. She stated the feeding pump was on the left side of the resident's bed, and when the resident was on the floor, she got concerned that the resident might had pulled his g-tube. Resident #1's Family Member stated when she reviewed the camera footage, she noticed Resident #1 was not connected to his feeding pump. Resident #1's Family Member stated she continued to review camera footage, and it showed Resident #1 being disconnected from his g-tube at 11:25 AM. She stated she contacted the facility, and the nurse entered the room and connected Resident #1's feeding tube at 10:54PM on 05/24/25. Observed camera video footage stamp date 05/24/25 at 11:32 AM Resident #1's feeding pump being disconnected from resident by LVN A but left feeding pump on. At 11:50 AM, LVN A observed entering the Resident #1's room due to feeding pump beeping and LVN A turned the feeding pump off. At 12:43PM, Resident #1 was transported out the room by CNAs. G-tube feeding pump was left in the room. At 7:44 PM, Resident #1 returned back to room, CNA B and LVN A transferred Resident #1 back to bed and CNA B provided incontinent care. At 7:48 PM, Resident #1 in bed resting, resident feeding pump was on the left side of Resident #1's bed turned off. Between 10:35 PM - 10:44PM, Resident was observed slowly moving towards his right side of the bed, slide off the bed and landed on his knees. Resident #1's feeding pump was off. At 10:45 PM, LVN D entered the room with another staff, resident was transferred back in bed and was connected to his feeding pump at 10:54 PM. An attempt was made to contact LVN A by phone on 06/24/25 at 2:07 PM; however, there was no answer. An attempt was made to contact CNA B by phone on 06/24/25 at 2:19 PM; however, there was no answer. Interview on 06/24/25 at 5:05 PM, the DON revealed she received a call from Resident #1 Family Member around 11:30PM/midnight regarding Resident #1's g-tube not being attached. She stated she contacted the facility but by that time Resident #1 feeding pump was already running. She stated she contacted LVN A and LVN A stated she had forgot to attach Resident #1. She stated LVN A just kept saying oh my god, oh my god. She stated during the investigation, she also noticed LVN A documented that the feedings were provided to Resident #1 when he did not. She stated when she questioned LVN A about the documentation LVN A got mad and ended the call. She stated LVN A was suspended pending investigation and once investigation was concluded she was terminated. She stated her expectations were for all nurses to document as they go and document what was being completed. She stated it was the responsibility of all nurses to document accurately and it was the responsibility of the ADONs and herself to ensure it was being done correctly. She stated the potential risk of not documenting correctly would be not being able to get history of what happened with the resident. Interview on 06/24/25 at 5:20 PM, the Administrator revealed LVN A admitted to forgetting to connect Resident #1 to his feeding. He stated after concluding his investigation he substantiated the incident. He stated during the investigation it was also confirmed LVN A documented the feedings were provided when they were not. He stated they took disciplinary actions and terminated LVN A. 2. Record review of Resident #2's admission Record dated 06/24/25 reflected the resident was an [AGE] year-old female who admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Record review of Resident #2's quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] reflected his diagnoses included heart failure, hypertension (high blood pressure), hypothyroidism (the thyroid gland doesn't make enough thyroid hormone), colostomy status (opening stoma in the abdominal wall). Resident #2's BIMS score was 11 indicating moderate cognitive impairment. Record review of Resident #2's care plan revised date 04/15/25 reflected: Focus: Pressure Ulcer Prevention. Goal: The resident will remain free of skin breakdown over the next through the next review date. Interventions: Therapy disciplines to screen, evaluate, and treat as indicated. Record review of Resident #2 revealed no records were recorded of Resident #2 receiving wound care treatment on right lateral leg on 06/02/25, 06/04/25, 06/06/25, 06/11/25, 06/13/25, 06/16/25, 06/18/25, 06/18/25 and on 06/23/25 as indicated by blanks on the Treatment administration record. Record Review of Resident #2 progress notes for June 2025 did not reflect alternative documentation of wound treatments of the right lateral leg. Record review of physician orders dated 05/02/25 revealed Wound Treatment - Xeroform every evening shift every Mon, Wed, Fri for Skin tear wound Cleanse wound to Right Lateral leg with Normal Saline or Skin Cleanser. Pat Dry. Apply Xeroform to wound. Cover with Island Dressing. Observation and interview on 06/24/25 at 11:40 AM revealed Resident #2 in her bed in her room. Resident #2 stated she got her wound care three times a week and before she was getting wound care daily. She denied missing wound treatment. Observation/skin assessment on 06/24/25 at 11:56 AM with LVN D revealed she explained the procedure to Resident #2, she washed hands, put on gloves and positioned the resident. Resident #2 trauma/injury right superior lateral leg dressing was observed dated 6/24/25 and the dressing was intact and clean. Interview on 06/24/25 at 12:45 PM with wound care nurse revealed she was the wound care nurse. She stated she was aware she was supposed to document on treatment administration record every time she performed wound care, but she was not aware that every time she documented it was not showing on the treatment administration record. She stated the risk of not documenting after the wound care was done would mean treatment not administered and would be hard to monitor if the wound was getting better or not because it would be hard to tell when the wound care was last provided. She stated the facility policy was to sign the treatment administration record after wound care was performed. She stated she could not recall in-service on documentation since she was newly hired. Interview on 06/24/25 at 03:32 PM with the DON revealed her expectations were that staff to document accurately on the resident's treatment administration record. The DON said wound care nurse should have documented on Resident #2's treatment administration record that she had performed wound care. She stated she was the one responsible of ensuring the wound care was done and documented on treatment administration record/Medication administration record. The DON stated she does random checks on big pressure ulcer wounds but not skin tears. She said the purpose of documenting accurately was to make sure orders were completed correctly. The DON said the risk of staff not documenting care accurately could lead to care not being provided and the wounds would deteriorate. She stated she could not recall training on documentation to the staff since she had not noticed there was an issue with documentation of wound care. Record review of facility Documentation of Medication Administration on eMAR/eTAR, dated February 2010 reflected the following: To ensure proper documentation of medication administration and treatments in the medical record.
Jan 2025 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 F0676 (Tag F0676)

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 care and services in accordance with the comp...

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 care and services in accordance with the comprehensive assessment of a resident and consistent with the resident's needs and choices for activities of daily living including toileting for one (Resident #1) of four residents reviewed for ADL assistance. CNA A failed to provide Resident #1 with a bedpan for toileting and instead told the resident to use her brief on 12/04/24. This failure could place residents at risk of feeling uncomfortable, disrespected, have a decreased self-esteem and a diminished quality of life. Findings included: Record review of Resident #1's Nursing Home Comprehensive MDS dated [DATE] reflected the resident was a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a principal diagnosis of a fracture of shaft of the left femur. The resident had a BIMS score that reflected the resident was cognitively intact. The MDS did not reflect the resident needed assistance with toileting. Record review of Resident #1's Progress Notes dated 11/29/24 reflected: Continent of bowel and bladder. Uses bedpan. Extensive assists x 1 person with ADLs, per LVN C. Interview on 01/21/25 at 1:50 PM with Resident #1 revealed she was told to use her brief when she used her call light to ask for assistance for toileting. Resident #1 stated she could not walk and required a bedpan. Resident #1 also stated CNA A came into her room to respond to her call light on 12/05/24. Resident #1 said she was told by CNA A to use her brief because she did not have time to assist her. Interview on 01/22/25 at 9:36 AM with LVN B revealed she had not personally heard any staff tell a resident to use their brief instead of assisting with toileting the resident. LVN B stated she was told by Resident #1 that CNAs told her to use her brief because the aide did not have time to get a bedpan and assist the resident. LVN B said Resident #1 did not give her a specific name of a CNA. LVN B stated she did not report the incident because Resident #1 did not give her a specific name of a CNA. LVN B stated this was not the correct protocol, and the aide should have assisted the resident by providing her with a bedpan. LVN said if a resident must use her brief as told by a CNA, this was a dignity issue and could lead to skin breakdown. LVN B revealed the last time she was in-serviced on ADLs was upon her hire. Interview on 01/21/25 at 3:33 PM with CNA A revealed she assisted Resident #1 with toileting by providing her with a bedpan. CNA A stated she would open the bathroom door and stand there while the resident used the bedpan to give her privacy. CNA A said she would not leave a resident on the bedpan for more than five minutes. CNA A revealed she had told a resident to use their brief because there was not enough staff to assist the residents. CNA A stated she did not think it was Resident #1 she told to use her brief, but she could not recall who the resident was. However, CNA A stated she knew it was a resident on the same hall as Resident #1. CNA A stated she thought she was helping the resident because it was giving them relief, that someone came to check on them. CNA A said she was last in-serviced on 01/19/25 on ADLs. Interview on 01/21/25 at 4:44 PM with the ADON revealed she was unaware a staff member had told any residents to use their briefs instead of assisting them with toileting or bringing them a bedpan. The ADON stated she expected her staff to assist a resident with toileting if the resident needed assistance. The ADON also said a nurse could assist as well as an aide. The ADON revealed if she heard this occur or if it was reported to her that a staff member told a resident to use their brief, she would conduct a one-on-one training with the staff. Interview on 01/21/25 at 4:54 PM with the DON revealed the only time a resident should wait for assistance to toilet was when staff were passing trays. The DON stated if a resident needs to be changed or assistance with toileting, the CNA or nurse should stop and change them at that time. The DON stated she was unaware a staff member had told a resident to use her brief because there was not enough staff to assist her with toileting. The DON said a resident using her brief could lead to skin break down. The DON also stated this would be a dignity issue for the resident. The DON revealed she would begin in-servicing her staff immediately on the topic. Record review of the facility's Resident Rights policy, dated November 2016, reflected: . (1) 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. (2) The facility must provide equal access to quality care regardless of diagnosis, severity of condition or payment source .
Oct 2024 4 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Transfer Notice (Tag F0623)

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 notify the resident, resident representative and send a copy to the...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to notify the resident, resident representative and send a copy to the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman, of the transfer or discharge and the reasons for the move in writing and in a language and manner they understood for 1 (Resident #) of 3 residents reviewed for discharge. The facility failed to notify Resident #74, the resident representative, and the Ombudsman in writing of the transfer/discharge of the resident to the hospital, the reason for the transfer/discharge, and the right to appeal. This failure could put residents at risk of being discharged and not having access to available advocacy services, discharge/transfer options, and appeal processes. Findings included: Review of Resident #74's facesheet printed on 10/03/24 revealed the resident was a [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE] and discharged on 08/26/24. The resident's admitting diagnoses included COVID-19, heart failure, asthma, Parkinsonism, embolism and thrombosis (A blood clot, or thrombus, forms in a blood vessel, usually in the legs) to lower extremity, anxiety and depressed mood, and pain. Review of Resident #74's progress notes dated 08/26/24 reflected the following: Resident was complaining of SOB and chest pain with his CPAP (a machine that uses air pressure to keep airways open while sleeping on) Refused breathing tx and inhaler. Notified NP. New order received - Nitroglycerin 0.4SL given X 2 but refused the 3rd dose. Called 911 .resident still complaining of SOB. Notified RP. Resident left the facility. Sending to [Hospital] .DON/RP/Administrator made aware of the transfer .Resident sent to hospital RP called to notify the resident has PNA. Will keep resident in the hospital today for monitoring Interview on 10/03/24 at 2:42 PM with the Social Worker revealed she was aware Resident #74 has been discharged to the hospital and she was not sure if any type of discharge paperwork had been sent with the resident. The Social Worker said it would have been the Administrator's responsibility to provide any type of discharge paperwork to the resident or the family. Interview on 10/03/24 at 4:28 PM with the Administrator revealed Resident #74 was transferred to the hospital and did not return to the facility. The Administrator said he was not aware he had to send anything in writing with the resident or to the responsible party regarding the reason for discharge or information for the ombudsman because they were anticipating Resident #74 to return to the facility. Review of the facility's Transfer or Discharge Notice policy revised November 2016 reflected the following: .2. The Patient/Resident's representative will be provided with the following information The reason for the transfer or discharge; .h. The effective date of the transfer or discharge; i. The location to which the Patient/Resident is being transferred or discharged ; j. A statement of the Patient/Resident's appeal rights, including the name, address, (mailing and e-mail), and telephone number of the entity which received such requests: and information on how to obtain an appeal form and assistance in completing the form and submitting the appeal hearing request. k. The name, address, and telephone number of the state long-term care ombudsman .n. The facility must send a copy of the notice to a representative of the Office of the State Long term Care Ombudsman
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 F0925 (Tag F0925)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain an effective pest control program for 1 of 2...

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 effective pest control program for 1 of 22 residents (Resident #20) reviewed for pest control. The facility failed to ensure Resident #20's room was free of ants, and the resident sustained ant bites on his arms, legs, and stomach on 08/06/24, which were treated with hydrocortisone cream. The noncompliance was identified as PNC. The noncompliance began on 08/06/24 and ended on 08/08/24. The facility corrected the noncompliance before the survey began. This failure could place residents at risk of a decreased quality of life. Findings included: Record review of Resident #20, quarterly MDS dated [DATE] reflected he was a [AGE] year-old male who was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and re-admitted on [DATE]. Resident #20 had diagnoses which included non-traumatic brain disfunction, cancer, coronary artery disease, and renal insufficiency. Record review also reflected Resident #20 had a BIMS of 11, which meant a moderate cognitive impairment. Record review of Resident #20 nursing notes written by LVN D, dated08/06/24, indicated Patient reported that he has ant bites, head to toe assessment done, ant bites noted on his hands and legs, denies pain complains of itching on the bite areas, states that he saw amts [ants] in his room, ant noted in patients room on the carpet and across the wall, MD notified new order hydrocortisone cream, cream applied on the affected areas, RP notified, ADON and ED notified, patient moved to room [ROOM NUMBER], will continue monitoring. Record review of Resident #20 nursing notes written by LVN E, dated 08/07/24, indicated New orders received from Dr [NAME] for Benadryl cream to areas of ant bites BID x 5 days. Apply to areas on both hands and knees. Review of the facility's provider investigation report dated 08/13/24 revealed the following: Head to Toe Skin Assessment & Pain Assessment completed. Resident has what appears to be ant bite marks on his arm and back. Resident stated reported [sic] that he has some itching but that he was pain free. Resident's MPOA and Facility Medical Director were immediately notified. Resident immediately relocated to a different room that is free of ants. In-services on identifying insect bites on residents and reporting insect sightings to Maintenance Director via Pest Control Log. Maintenance Director inspected resident's room. There were sightings of ants near the area where resident usually eats in his room. Skin assessment from nurse confirmed that resident had been bitten by ants on his arms and legs. 100% of residents room were inspecting for ants. There were no sightings of ants in any of the residents' room. Skins assessment completed on 100% of residents. No bite mark found on any of the residents. None of the residents reported having any bite marks or itching when asked during the skin assessment. Pest Control treated resident's room on 8/7. Pest Control treated each room in the facility, all public areas, dining room, and outside of the facility. Resident's room inspected and cleaned by Housekeeping Director, ensuring it is free of food with open containers. Maintenance Director inspected resident's room after Pest Control treatment to ensure it is free of ants. Resident monitored for by nurse, reporting no pain and itching as stopped. Interview and observation on 10/01/24 at 2:57 PM with Resident #20 revealed he woke to find about 25 bites covering on his both arms, both legs, and his stomach. Resident #20 said that the bites itched, so he went to the nurses' station to report the bites. Resident #20 stated that he went back to his room and discovered that ants crawling on the baseboard, under his bed, on his bed, and in his trash can. The facility treated his room, and he has not seen ants in his room since then. Resident #20 observed to have no visible bite marks. Interview on 10/01/24 at 2:00 PM with LVN C revealed that she came to work on 08/06/24 and was instructed to go from room to room inspecting form ants. LVN C stated that Resident #20 had large quantities of prepackaged snacks in his room. LVN C said that she assessed Resident #20 and saw 3-4 bites on both arms and both legs. LVN C revealed that the resident complained of itching. LVN C stated that she had not seen ants in the resident's room since that day. LVN C also said that at each nurses' station, there was a book that nurses document anything they need maintenance to address such as ants or pests. LVN C concluded by stating that when pests are seen and documented, then maintenance would contact the pest control company. Interview on 10/01/24 at 4:01 PM with Maintenance Director revealed he was called after hours on 08/06/24 about ants. The Maintenance Director said that he entered and inspected Resident #20's room. The Maintenance Director revealed he saw ants near the resident's window. The Maintenance Director stated he moved Resident #20 to another room that night, and then he checked the residents' rooms next to Resident #20's room. The Maintenance Director stated he saw ants in one other room, so he moved that resident that night as well so that his room could be treated for ants as well. The Maintenance Director revealed he called the after-hours pest control person on call so that he could schedule them to come out the following morning. The Maintenance Director stated the pest control company arrived about 7:00 AM on 08/07/24 and both rooms were treated. The Maintenance Director gave the staff all clear to move the residents back into their room. The Maintenance revealed that the pest control company came back out to the facility a week later and retreated the whole hallway, the two room that had active ants, and outside the facility as well. The Maintenance Director stated that he followed up weekly for three weeks by inspecting Resident #20's room for food in the waste basket. The Maintenance Director also said that he has not seen any ants since that time nor has the pest control company. The Maintenance Director revealed that until this incident with ants in the residents' rooms, no one had reported ants. The Maintenance Director also stated that he walked the grounds daily to look for things like ant piles. The Maintenance Director stated that his process was to notify the pest control company if something is reported to him, or he observed pests during his daily rounds. The Maintenance Director said the pest control company will come out the same day or the following day to treat, depending on availability when he calls them for treatment. The Maintenance Director concluded by stating that the risk to the resident for not having an effective pest control program was that a resident could get bit by a pest to which they are allergic. Interview on 10/03/24 at 2:06 PM with the Administrator revealed the pest control company came monthly and came additionally as needed to address anything that was urgent during the month as well. Administrator also said that management did angel rounds Monday through Friday while the manager on duty walked the premises on Saturday and Sunday to ensure that there were no pests or insects. Administrator also stated that direct care staff check the residents' rooms daily during their shifts as well as housekeeping. Administrator stated that it was all the staff's responsibility to check rooms for pests and report it in the maintenance logbook or the pest control book if pests are seen. Administrator stated the pest control book was at the front desk. Administrator revealed that a resident can be injured by bites from ants. Administrator stated that when Resident #20 reported the bites, he was given a head-to-toe assessment and moved to a different room so that he was not at risk for further injury. Administrator reported that his room was treated by pest control the following day and continued to be assessed for pain. Administrator stated that he maintenance director walks the grounds daily and inspects rooms as well. Administrator concluded by stating that all staff were in-serviced on looking for insects and pests and reporting insects and pests. This was completed on 08/06/24. Record review of the facility's pest control logs for 07/04/23 through 07/26/24 reflect the facility was treated for ants and pests once per month. Record review of the facility's pest control logs reflected the facility was treated for ants on 08/07/24. Observation on 10/02/24 at 10:25 AM revealed the exterior of the building including the interior courtyard and the windowsills had no ants. The porches of the facility were also observed with no ants sighted. There were no ant hills seen in the grass around the facility outside as well. There also were no ants observed in the residents' rooms or in the public areas of the facility during the investigation throughout the week. Record review of the facility's undated Pest Control Policy reflected, .1. This facility maintains an on-going pest control program to ensure that the building is kept free of insects and rodents. Review of the facility's In-service Training Report dated 08/06/24 provided by the Administrator revealed the following: Topic: If you notice any type of bug/insect infestation or you see suspected bug bites on a resident, you MUST complete the following: Complete skin assessment Move resident to a different room Complete incident report Notify maintenance and place in maintenance /pest control log Notify management, MD and RP Maintenance book-located @ each nurses' station Pest Control log-Located at Receptionist desk in front Action to be Taken Employees must follow state/company policies and procedures. Employees educated on reporting insects and pests.
CONCERN (E)

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 develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident, consistent with the resident rights, that includes measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs that are identified in the comprehensive assessment for 1 of 6 residents (Resident #15) reviewed for comprehensive care plans. The facility failed to ensure Resident #15's care plan addressed pain management and behaviors. This failure could place residents at risk of not having their individual needs met, not receiving necessary care and services, and a decreased quality of life. Findings included: Record review of Resident #15's Face Sheet, dated 10/03/24, reflected the resident was a [AGE] year-old male who admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Record review of Resident #16's quarterly MDS assessment, dated 06/19/24, reflected her diagnoses included Type 2 diabetes mellitus with foot ulcer, anxiety disorder, depression, and schizophrenia. Resident #15's had BIMS score of 09, which indicates moderate cognitive impairment. The MDS further revealed Section J - Pain Management indicated resident received scheduled pain medication regimen. Record review of Resident #13's October 2024 physician order sheet, reflected: Morphine 15 mg immediate release tablet (1) TABLET Oral, As Needed Every Six Hours Starting 06/20/2023. For Pain. Gabapentin 300 mg capsule (1) Capsule Oral, Two Times Daily Starting 10/02/2024. For Chronic Pain Syndrome. Record review of Resident #15's care plan, undated, reflected: Problems: Enhanced Barrier Precautions implemented r/t: Pressure ulcer, diabetic foot ulcers, unhealed surgical wounds, venous stasis ulcers. Goals: The spread of an MDRO will be reduced over the next 90 days. Interventions: Monitors for signs and symptoms of infections. Care plan does not address pain management or behaviors. Observation and interview on 10/01/24 at 11:40 AM with Resident #15 revealed he had concerns regarding his pain medications. Resident #15 stated he was not receiving his pain medication as scheduled. He also stated staff would not provide him with the pain medication when he requested it. Resident #15's toes had some redness around them and scabbing. Resident #15 stated he had some wounds on his toes, and he was receiving wound care. He stated he removed the scabs once the wounds healed. Resident #15 stated he liked to pick at his scabs and remove them which would caused the wounds to reopen. Record review of Resident #15's September and October 2024 MAR reflected the resident received his pain medications as ordered. Interview on 10/02/24 at 3:22 PM with LVN C revealed Resident #15 was on scheduled pain medications. She stated Resident #15 had a history of making allegations of not receiving his pain medications. She stated Resident #15 would ask for more or stronger pain medications. LVN C stated Resident #15 had wounds around his legs and feet, and he was being seen by the Wound Care Nurse. She stated Resident #15 had a behavior of picking at the scabs once the wounds healed. LVN C stated since it was a recurring problem for the resident to pick at his skin and allege he was not receiving his pain medication, and it should be care planned. LVN C reviewed Resident #15's care plan and stated pain management and behaviors were not care planned. She stated the ADON and MDS Coordinator were responsible for care plans. Interview on 10/03/24 at 3:11 PM with the MDS Coordinator revealed all nursing staff were responsible for updating care plans. She stated anything in the MDS assessments should be care planned. The MDS Coordinator stated pain management and behaviors should be cared planned. She stated the Wound Care Nurse was responsible for care planning skin/wound care concerns. She stated the potential risk of not care planning pain management and behaviors was that the resident might receive improper care. Interview on 10/03/24 at 3:16 PM with the Wound Care Nurse revealed Resident #15 was receiving wound care for the wounds on his feet, and the wounds healed. She stated due to trauma or the resident picking at the scabs, the wounds reopened. She stated Resident #15 had a history of picking at his scabs after the wounds healed. She stated the resident's wounds and behaviors should be care planned. The Wound Care Nurse reviewed Resident #15's care plan and stated the resident's wounds were not care planned. She stated she thought the wounds were care planned. The Wound Care Nurse stated there was no potential risk to the resident if his wounds were not care planned since the resident was receiving wound care. Interview on 10/03/24 at 3:36 PM with the ADON revealed the MDS Coordinators were responsible for care plans. She stated almost everything should be care planned to include pain management and behaviors. She stated she was not aware Resident #15's care plan was not updated to address pain management or behaviors regarding the resident's wounds. She stated it was her responsibility to ensure care plans were updated. She stated care plans were important because the care plans let all staff know how to care for the patient, goals, and address any issues they had. Record review of the facility's Care Plans - Comprehensive policy, dated September 2010, reflected the following: An individualized comprehensive care plan that includes measurable objectives and timetables to meet the resident's medical, nursing, mental and psychological needs is developed for each resident. .8. Assessments of residents are ongoing and care plans are revised as information about the resident and the resident's condition changes.
CONCERN (E)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food safety in the facility's only ki...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food safety in the facility's only kitchen. The facility failed to ensure various foods stored in the pantry were sealed, dated, and labeled. This failure could place all residents at risk for food contamination and food borne illness. Findings included: Observation and interview with the Dietary Manager on 10/01/24 beginning at 9:20 AM of the dry pantry revealed an unsealed and unlabeled 10-pound cardboard box dated 11/30/24 containing enriched macaroni product sitting on the bottom shelf of the dry pantry in the kitchen. There was also a 10-pound box of linguine opened, unsealed, and undated. The Dietary Manager observed the boxes and stated she was unaware the two boxes of opened, unsealed, undated, and unlabeled noodles were in the dry panty. The Dietary Manager then said it was the Cook's responsibility to store food in sealed, dated, and labeled containers. The Dietary Manager revealed the facility policy reflected all opened items were supposed to be sealed, dated, and labeled. The Dietary Manager then said she would trash both opened boxes of noodles because there was a risk that the residents could get sick if they ate the noodles. Interview on 10/01/24 at 9:49 AM with [NAME] A revealed the policy reflected all items in the dry pantry should be in sealed containers, labeled, and dated. [NAME] A stated if food was found not in a sealed container, it should be thrown away. [NAME] A was also unaware who placed the items in the pantry. [NAME] A concluded by stating if the facility policy was not followed, then residents could get sick. Interview on 10/01/24 at 9:42 AM with [NAME] B revealed the facility policy reflected if something was opened, it should be wrapped up, dated, and placed in a sealed container. [NAME] B stated if the facility policy was not followed, the residents could become sick if they were to eat those items. [NAME] B concluded by stating the Dietary Manager was responsible for ensuring all items were placed in sealed containers and properly labeled and dated. Interview on 10/03/24 at 2:38 PM with the Administrator revealed opened packages should be sealed, labeled, and dated. The Administrator stated the Dietary Manager was responsible for ensuring foods were stored safely. The Administrator declined to answer the risk to the resident if food items were not sealed, labeled and undated. Record review of the facility's Food Storage policy, dated March 2009, reflected: .Plastic containers with tight-fitting covers must be used for storing cereals, cereal products, flour, sugar, dried vegetables, and broken lots of bulk foods. All containers must [sic] legible and accurately labeled, including the date the package was opened.
Sept 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

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 #1) of one resident observed during a transfer. CNA A failed to transfer Resident #1 safely when he failed to use a gait belt and independently lifted Resident #1 under her armpits when transferring Resident #1 from her bed to her shower chair on 09/04/24. This failure could affect the residents by placing the residents at risk for discomfort, pain, and/or injury. Findings included: Review of Resident #1's Quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] reflected the resident was a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE], with the following diagnoses: osteoporosis (a condition in which bones become weak and brittle and dementia (a group of thinking and social symptoms that interferes with daily functioning). Resident #1 required substantial/maximal assistance (helper does more than half the effort) for bed to chair transfer. Resident #1's BIMS score of two indicated had severe cognitive impairment. Review of Resident #1's undated Care Plan, reflected, Resident #1's ADL functions: extensive assistance from staff with 1-2 staff members .Interventions: .Nursing: extensive/total with all transfers x2 staff members and the use of gait belt at all times . Observation and interview on 09/05/24 at 9:30 AM, the Administrator and surveyor reviewed a video provided by Resident #1's family member, Family Member B, recorded on 09/04/24 with a start time of 7:57 AM. The video revealed CNA A and Resident #1 was standing next to Resident #1's bed in Resident #1's room. CNA A transferred Resident #1 from her bed to the shower chair. CNA A placed his arms under the resident's arm pits and had Resident #1 place her arms to her side and lifted the resident from her bed to the shower chair without a gait belt or assistance of another staff member. The Administrator stated the video showed an inappropriate transfer of Resident #1 when CNA A placed his arms under the resident's arm pits and did not have another staff member assisting. The Administrator identified CNA A as the staff member in the video. The Administrator said there had been no reports or concerns regarding CNA A's care and treatment of the residents. The Administrator said the employees had received training with a competency check-off on appropriate transfer and gait belt usage and his expectation was for staff to use gait belts rather than to place their arms under a resident's arm pit to transfer a resident. The Administrator stated the risk of an inappropriate transfer could result in injury to the resident. The Administrator stated they taught staff to use a gait belt for all transfers for safety and to prevent injury to themselves and the residents. Observation and attempted interview on 09/05/24 at 8:15 AM, Resident #1 was seated in her wheelchair in her room with Family Member B present. Resident #1 was smiling and appeared to be in a good mood. Resident #1 was not able to answer questions appropriately. Interview on 09/05/24 at 8:25 AM, LVN C revealed Resident #1 was a two-person transfer at all times. Follow-up interview at 10:59 AM revealed Resident #1 was a two-person transfer with a gait belt for all transfers. LVN C was asked about the hand placement for a two-person transfer, LVN C stated you are to hold onto the gait belt during the transfer. LVN C was asked if transferring a resident by grabbing under a resident's armpit was appropriate and LVN C stated no armpit transfers are allowed you risk causing injury to a resident. Interview on 09/05/24 at 11:38 AM, CNA A revealed the observation of pictures from the video of Resident #1's transfer on 09/04/24. CNA A confirmed he was the staff member in the pictures from the video. CNA A stated he did not use a gait belt for the transfer and had been trained on safe transfers. CNA A knew Resident #1 was a two-person assist with transfers and to always use a gait belt. CNA A was asked about the placement of his arms in the pictures from the video and CNA A stated he had his arms under Resident #1's armpits which was incorrect. CNA A stated he knew he needed help with Resident #1's transfer and did not ask for help since help was not always readily available. CNA A stated he would use a gait belt for transfers and not place his arms under the Resident's armpits during transfers moving forward. CNA A stated that the risk of transferring a resident inappropriately could result in dislocation of a shoulder or bruising. Interview on 09/05/24 at 1:45 PM, PT D revealed Resident #1 was a two-person transfer with a gait belt for all transfers. PT D stated that they did not use a resident's armpit during a transfer because it was not safe for the resident and could cause an injury. Interview on 09/05/24 at 2:00 PM, the ADON revealed Resident #1 was a two-person transfer with a gait belt for all transfers. The ADON stated the staff were not supposed to place their arms in a resident's armpit during a transfer since that could pull a resident's shoulder out of socket. Interview on 09/05/24 at 2:05 PM, the DON revealed Resident #1 was always a two-person transfer with a gait belt since that was standard practice. The DON stated the staff were not supposed to use a resident's armpits during a transfer because that could result in injury to resident or staff. Review of the facility's In-Service Training Report dated 09/03/24, Topic-Transfers-Hoyer's, Gait belts reflected: .gait belts are to be used with all transfers other than Hoyer transfers. Facility is a zero-lift facility; therefore, all transfers require use of Hoyer or gait belt. No exceptions. CNA A had signed as being in attendance for the in-service listed. Review of Reference E Clinical Nursing Skills and Techniques 9th edition page 276 reflected: . Patients should never be lifted by or under their arms. Review of the facility's policy, Transfers: Method, Equipment and Preparation, dated 06/14/06, reflected, .use gait belt on all assisted transfers. Patient's shoulders or arms are not appropriate to pull, push or lift upon. Cup your hand under the gait belt for greater control .Using a Transfer Belt .Belt should be used on any Patient who requires any type of level of assistance with transfers or ambulation .Assistant's hand should always be cupped under the gait belt to ensure proper grasp and security .Transfers .Maximal Assistance .Place belt around the Patient's waist .
May 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 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) to meet the needs of each resident for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for medication administration. The facility failed to ensure LVN A gave Resident #1 the correct IV antibiotic; she was given Resident #2's antibiotic. The noncompliance was identified as PNC. The noncompliance began on 03/26/24 and ended on 03/27/24. The facility has corrected the noncompliance before the survey began. This failure placed residents at risk of not receiving medications as prescribed, decreased therapeutic effects of the medications, risk for drug diversion, delay in medication administration and worsening of their medical conditions. Findings included: Review of Resident #1's MDS dated [DATE] revealed the resident was a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility 01/25/24. The resident's diagnoses included malnutrition, bloodstream infection, recurrent enterocolitis due to clostridium difficile (a bacterium that causes an infection of the colon, the longest part of the large intestine), and delusional disorders. Resident #1 had a BIMs score of 9, indicating moderately impaired cognition. Review of Resident #1's current care plan reflected the resident was receiving parenteral/IV therapy, medication Micafungin for Candida Albicans Fungus (a naturally occurring fungus that lives on your body) until 03/24/24 and was previously on isolation for C-diff. Interventions included to maintain rate of infusion as ordered and give medications per order. Review of Resident #1's March 2024 medication's sheet revealed the resident was on micafungin 100mg intravenous solution one time daily for twenty days starting on 03/06/24 for candidiasis. Review of Resident #2's Patient Orders Report for March 2024 revealed he had an order for meropenem 1-gram intravenous solution every 12 hours for 7 days. Review of the facility's provider investigation report dated 03/28/24 revealed the following: Resident's [family] contacted Executive Director with a concern that the resident had received the wrong medication. DON and ADON entered the room and the resident had the wrong IV antibiotic. Resident received Meropenem and should have received Micafungin. Physician was immediately notified and told staff to monitor resident for adverse reactions, no adverse reactions noted. In services completed with nursing staff on the 6 rights to medication. Observation and interview on 05/22/24 at 10:07 AM of Resident #1 revealed she was in bed and stated she was cold. The resident was asked if she was getting IV antibiotics because there was a pole in her room and Resident #1 said she was and had been on several antibiotics for different ailments on and off for the past 6 weeks. Resident #1 did not appear to recall or know she had been given the wrong IV antibiotic in March. Interview on 05/22/24 at 12:14 PM with Resident 1's family revealed they had gone to visit Resident #1 on 03/26/24 and she noticed one of the IV bags hanging on the IV pole had another resident's name, so it appeared the resident had gotten another resident's IV antibiotic. The family reported their concern to the Staffing Coordinator who went to get the DON and ADON. The immediately contacted the resident's doctor who ordered IV fluids to help flush all the medication out of the resident's system and she was monitored for any negative side effects. The family further stated there were no adverse reactions that she was aware of, and Resident #1 had taken that same medication in the past. Interview on 05/22/24 at 2:20 PM with the Staffing Coordinator revealed she was called into Resident #1's room by the family and told her the resident has been given the wrong medicine, so she went to the tell the DON and ADON. Interview on 05/22/24 at 2:42 PM with the ADON revealed she was called into Resident #1's room and the resident's family had showed her and the DON that the wrong IV bag was hanging. The ADON said one of the IV bags had Resident #2's name on it and when she checked Resident #1's medications, she verified it was not the same medication. The ADON said she contacted the physician and checked Resident #1's allergies on her electronic chart. The obtained vitals which were normal, and the resident was monitored to ensure there were no adverse reactions. In-services were conducted with all nurses about ensuring all medication rights were being followed prior to giving medications that included checking the resident's name. Further interview with the ADON revealed the wrong IV antibiotic had been given by LVN A, and the LVN admitted to giving Resident #1 an IV medication , but was adamant it had been the correct one. The ADON stated the LVN denied it had been the wrong one. LVN A received a one-on-one in-service and a disciplinary action for her mistake. Interview on 05/22/24 at 4:21 PM with the DON revealed she had been called into Resident #1's room because the family had a concern the resident had been given the wrong IV antibiotic. The DON noticed there were two IV bags hanging on the pole and one of the bags had Resident #1's name on it and both bags were not the same medication. They immediately notified the physician and checked to verify the resident's allergies and started the resident on fluids to help push the medication through. All nursing staff were educated to ensure they were following the rights to medications. LVN A was given a one-on-one in-service but the LVN denied giving the wrong medication, but her initials were on the bag and again LVN A denied giving the wrong medication. The resident was monitored and there did not appear to be any adverse effects from getting the wrong IV antibiotic as it was a medication Resident #1 had taken before. The DON further stated risks of receiving the wrong medication included serious allergic reactions to the resident. Attempts to contact LVN A and the Physician on 05/22/24 were unsuccessful. Review of the facility's In-service Training Report dated 03/26/24 provided by the ADON revealed the following: Topic: Medication Administration Protocol Contents or summary of training: 1. Right Person 2. Right Medication 3. Right Dose 4. Right time 5. Right route 6. Right Reason 6. Right Documentation All rights must be confirmed prior to any administration of any medications. Review of LVN A's Employee Coaching and Counseling Record written warning dated 03/27/24 completed by the ADON revealed the following: Company/Supervisor Remarks Violation of code 701 - violation of safety and health rules. Employee must follow the 6 rights of medication per company policy. Action to be Taken Employee must follow state/company policies and procedures. Employee educated. Review of a list provided by the DON on 05/22/24 revealed there was only one resident (Resident #1) currently on IV medications. Observation on 05/22/24 at 2:29 PM revealed LVN B properly prepared and hung the correct IV antibiotic on Resident #1, and there were no concerns with the process. Review of the facility's policy titled Intravenous Therapy updated May 2024 reflected the following: Purpose To provide standards for the safe intermittent administration of drugs or solutions utilizing a saline lock; a saline lock maintains access to a vein by way of cannula with a latex injection port. .Procedure Compare label to physician's order
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 F0760 (Tag F0760)

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 free of any significant medicat...

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 free of any significant medication errors for 1 (Resident #1) of 4 residents reviewed for pharmacy services. The facility failed to ensure LVN A gave Resident #1 the correct IV antibiotic; she was given Resident #2's antibiotic. The noncompliance was identified as PNC. The noncompliance began on 03/26/24 and ended on 03/27/24. The facility corrected the noncompliance before the survey began. This failure placed residents at risk for harm and/or serious injury. Findings included: Review of Resident #1's MDS dated [DATE] revealed the resident was a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility 01/25/24. The resident's diagnoses included malnutrition, bloodstream infection, recurrent enterocolitis due to clostridium difficile (a bacterium that causes an infection of the colon, the longest part of the large intestine), and delusional disorders. Resident #1 had a BIMS score of 9, indicating moderately impaired cognition. Review of Resident #1's current care plan reflected the resident was receiving parenteral/IV therapy, medication Micafungin for Candida Albicans Fungus ( a naturally occurring fungus that lives on your body) until 03/24/24 and was previously on isolation for C-diff. Interventions included to maintain rate of infusion as ordered and give medications per order. Review of Resident #1's March 2024 medication's sheet revealed the resident was on micafungin 100 mg intravenous solution one time daily for twenty days starting on 03/06/24 for candidiasis. Review of Resident #2's Patient Orders Report for March 2024 revealed he had an order for meropenem 1-gram intravenous solution every 12 hours for 7 days. Review of the facility's provider investigation report dated 03/28/24 revealed the following: Resident's [family] contacted Executive Director with a concern that the resident had received the wrong medication. DON and ADON entered the room and the resident had the wrong IV antibiotic. Resident received Meropenem and should have received Micafungin. Physician was immediately notified and told staff to monitor resident for adverse reactions, no adverse reactions noted. In services completed with nursing staff on the 6 rights to medication. Observation and interview on 05/22/24 at 10:07 AM of Resident #1 revealed she was in bed and stated she was cold. The resident was asked if she was getting IV antibiotics because there was a pole in her room and Resident #1 said she was and had been on several antibiotics for different ailments on and off for the past 6 weeks. Resident #1 did not appear to recall or know she had been given the wrong IV antibiotic in March. Interview on 05/22/24 at 12:14 PM with Resident #1's family revealed they had gone to visit Resident #1 on 03/26/24 and she noticed one of the IV bags hanging on the IV pole had another resident's name, so it appeared the resident had gotten another resident's IV antibiotic. The family reported their concern to the Staffing Coordinator who went to get the DON and ADON. The immediately contacted the resident's doctor who ordered IV fluids to help flush all the medication out of the resident's system and she was monitored for any negative side effects. The family further stated there were no adverse reactions that she was aware of, and Resident #1 had taken that same medication in the past. Interview on 05/22/24 at 2:20 PM with the Staffing Coordinator revealed she was called into Resident #1's room by the family and told her the resident has been given the wrong medicine, so she went to the tell the DON and ADON. Interview on 05/22/24 at 2:42 PM with the ADON revealed she was called into Resident #1's room and the resident's family had showed her and the DON that the wrong IV bag was hanging. The ADON said one of the IV bags had Resident #2's name on it. When she checked Resident #1's medications, she stated she verified it was not the same medication. The ADON said she contacted the physician and checked Resident #1's allergies on her electronic chart. The resident's vital signs were checked, and they were normal. She stated the resident was monitored to ensure there were no adverse reactions. She stated in-service training was conducted with all nurses about ensuring all medication rights were being followed prior to giving medications that included checking the resident's name. Further interview with the ADON revealed the wrong IV antibiotic had administered to Resident #1 by LVN A. She stated LVN A admitted to giving Resident #1 an IV medication, but LVN A was adamant it had been the correct antibiotic. The ADON stated LVN A denied it had been the wrong antibiotic. She stated LVN A received a one-on-one in-service training and a disciplinary action for her mistake. Interview on 05/22/24 at 4:21 PM with the DON revealed she had been called into Resident #1's room because the family had a concern the resident had been given the wrong IV antibiotic. The DON noticed there were two IV bags hanging on the pole and one of the bags had Resident #1's name on it and both bags were not the same medication. The DON stated they immediately notified the physician, checked to verify the resident's allergies, and started the resident on fluids to help push the medication through. The DON stated all nursing staff were educated to ensure they were following the rights of medication administratoin. LVN A was given a one-on-one in-service, but the LVN denied giving the wrong medication. The DON stated LVN A's initials were on the bag, but LVN A denied giving the wrong medication. The resident was monitored and there did not appear to be any adverse effects from getting the wrong IV antibiotic as it was a medication Resident #1 had taken before. The DON further stated the risk of receiving the wrong medication included serious allergic reactions. Attempts to contact LVN A and the Physician on 05/22/24 were unsuccessful. Review of the facility's In-service Training Report dated 03/26/24 provided by the ADON revealed the following: Topic: Medication Administration Protocol Contents or summary of training: 1. Right Person 2. Right Medication 3. Right Dose 4. Right time 5. Right route 6. Right Reason 6. Right Documentation All rights must be confirmed prior to any administration of any medications. Review of LVN A's Employee Coaching and Counseling Record written warning dated 03/27/24 completed by the ADON revealed the following: Company/Supervisor Remarks Violation of code 701 - violation of safety and health rules. Employee must follow the 6 rights of medication per company policy. Action to be Taken Employee must follow state/company policies and procedures. Employee educated. Review of a list provided by the DON on 05/22/24 revealed there was only one resident (Resident #1) currently on IV medications. Observation on 05/22/24 at 2:29 PM revealed LVN B properly prepared and hung the correct IV antibiotic on Resident #1, and there were no concerns with the process. Review of the facility's policy titled Intravenous Therapy updated May 2024 reflected the following: Purpose To provide standards for the safe intermittent administration of drugs or solutions utilizing a saline lock; a saline lock maintains access to a vein by way of cannula with a latex injection port. .Procedure Compare label to physician's order
Mar 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

Deficiency F0635 (Tag F0635)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure at the time residents were admitted they had physician order...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure at the time residents were admitted they had physician orders for the resident's immediate care for 1 (Resident #1) of 5 residents reviewed for admission orders in that RN A failed to enter physician orders for Resident #1's wound vacuum and wound care. This failure could cause the residents to have a worsening of the condition of their wounds. Findings included: Review of Resident #1's undated admission Record revealed the resident was a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] and discharged on 01/12/24 with diagnoses that included bone infection of sacrum, open wound to left lower leg requiring skin graft and wound vacuum, and emphysema. Review of Resident #1's baseline care plan, dated 01/10/24, indicated she was admitted for diseases and disorders of the skin, and she had no special care/treatments/procedures. Resident's #1's MDS not initiated due to resident being in the facility for 2 days. Review of Resident #1's hospital discharge paperwork, dated 01/10/24, under Additional Instructions reflected: Change Dressing Upon admission to the nursing facility, that the Prevena incisional vac be removed and disposed of and then a hospital grade wound vac be applied to the wound. The vac dressing needs to be removed carefully so that the graft is not dislodged. Cleanse the wound/graft gently with saline, pat dry with gauze. Apply a contact layer over the graft (i.e. Afaptic, Silcone, Mepitel One, etc.). Apply black granufoam to the wound. Apply skin barrier to the periwound Review of RN A's admission notefor Resident #1, dated 01/10/24, reflected: [AGE] years old female patient arrived in the facility via stretcher at 1:30 pm. Patient alert and oriented x4 with forgetful. Patient history of DM, HTN, Chronic respiratory failure. Patient came from [Hospital]. Patient under the [Physician]. Head to [NAME] assessment done noted Cellulitis on bilateral lower legs. Wound vac on left lower leg. Wound Vac is working well. Redness on buttocks and me plex on for prevent further skin issue. Foley catheter intact and patent. Patient complain of pain, and pain management done by PRN medication. [Family] present in facility. Update the medication and sent to pharmacy. Patient on Heart healthy diet. Patient ate dinner and tolerated well. Call light within reach. No indication of wound care being done on admission to the facility. Review of Resident #1's physician orders revealed all medications from hospital discharge paperwork were initiated on 01/10/24. Wound vacuum and wound care orders were initiated on 01/12/24, the day the resident discharged . No indication of wound care being provided as directed in discharge paperwork. Telephone interview on 03/14//24 at 11:13 AM, RN A stated she could not recall Resident #1 in particular but stated she always inputs all hospital discharge orders, including wound care orders. RN A stated she did not know why the wound care orders were not put in for two days, unless the admitting doctor changed them. She stated the risk of not having wound care orders would be a worsening of the resident's wounds. Interview on 03/14/24 at 2:40 PM, the DON stated the admitting nurse was responsible for entering all orders from the hospital discharge paperwork allowing the attending physician to review orders and change them as needed. The DON stated there should be no reason for the admitting nurse not to put in wound care orders. The DON stated RN A's admission note indicated she applied the wound vacuum to the left lower leg. The DON agreed the note did not indicate the wound care had been done. The DON did not know how RN A would know to change the wound vacuum and provide wound care if the orders were not put in for two days. Review of the facility's policy Physician Orders, dated February 2010, reflected: Responsibility: Licensed Nursing Staff (RN/LVN) Treatment orders must contain: Agent to be used for cleansing site Medication name/strength Type of dressing Reason for use Duration Area of application.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews and interviews the facility failed to ensure that residents receive treatment and care in accordance wit...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews and interviews the facility failed to ensure that residents receive treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the residents' choices for 1 (Resident #1) of 5 residents reviewed for quality of care in that: RN-A failed to provide wound care for Resident's left lower leg wound from 1/10/24-1/12/24. This failure could lead to the resident's wound worsening. Findings included: Review of Resident #1's undated admission Record revealed she was a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] and discharged on 1/12/24 with diagnoses that included bone infection of sacrum, open wound to left lower leg requiring skin graft and wound vacuum, and emphysema. Review of Resident #1's baseline care plan, dated 1/10/24, indicated she was admitted for diseases and disorders of the skin, and she had no special care/treatments/procedures. Resident's MDS not initiated due to resident being in the facility for 2 days. Review of hospital discharge paperwork, dated 1/10/24, under Additional Instructions revealed: Change Dressing Upon admission to the nursing facility, that the Prevena incisional vac be removed and disposed of and then a hospital grade wound vac be applied to the wound. The vac dressing needs needs to be removed carefully so that the graft is not dislodged. Cleanse the wound/graft gently with saline, pat dry with gauze. Apply a contact layer over the graft (i.e. Afaptic, Silcone, Mepitel One, etc.). Apply black granufoam to the wound. Apply skin barrier to the periwound Review of Resident #1's physician orders revealed her wound care orders were not entered until 1/12/24, the day she discharged from the facility. Review of Resident #1's EHR revealed no documentation of any wound care being provided to the resident in the two days she was at the facility. Review of RN-A's admission note revealed: [AGE] years old female patient arrived in the facility via stretcher at 1:30pm. Patient alert and oriented x4 with forgetful. Patient history of DM, HTN, Chronic respiratory failure. Patient came from [Hospital]. Patient under the care of [Physician]. Head to [NAME] assessment done noted Cellulitis on bilateral lower legs. Wound vac on left lower leg. Wound Vac is working well. Redness on buttocks and me plex on for prevent further skin issue. Foley catheter intact and patent. Patient complain of pain, and pain management done by PRN medication. [Family] present in facility. Update the medication and sent to pharmacy. Patient on Heart healthy diet. Patient ate dinner and tolerated well. Call light within reach RN A's note did not indicate wound care was done upon arrival to the facility. Phone interview on 3/14/24 at 11:13 AM RN-A stated she could not recall Resident #1 in particular but stated she always enters all orders sent in the resident's hospital discharge paperwork. RN-A stated she could not say why the wound orders were not put in until two days later. RN-A stated any wound care would have been documented in nursing note. Interview on 3/14/24 at 2:40 PM the DON stated the admitting nurse was responsible for entering all admission orders from the hospital and the attending physician will modify them as needed. The DON agreed RN-A's note does not indicate wound care was done upon arrival to the facility. The DON stated it was unknown if there was any harm as the resident was only in the facility for two days. Interview on 3/14/24 at 2:50 PM the Social Worker stated Resident #1's family stated they were not happpy with the treatment and lack of care since the resident had been admitted and requested her help in transferring Resident #1 to another facility the resident had been to before. The Social Worker stated she made all the arangements and the transfer went very smoothly. The family transported the resident to the new facility. Review of the facility's policy on wound care, requeste from the Administrator, was not done, policy not provided prior to exit.
Dec 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

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

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 on...

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 four residents (Resident #1) reviewed for accuracy of assessments. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1's MDS assessment identified her accurately for the ability to make herself understood and the ability to understand others. This failure could place residents at risk of not having accurate assessments, which could compromise their plan of care. Findings included: Record review of Resident #1's electronic face sheet, dated 12/14/23, reflected a [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #1 had diagnoses which included: Wernicke's encephalopathy (neurological disorder), pain and generalized anxiety disorder. Record review of Resident #1's admission MDS assessment, dated 11/20/23, reflected the MDS identified her as being able to make self -understood and ability to understand others. Resident #1 had a BIMs score of zero, which indicated severe impairment. Record review of Hospital A's clinical notes for Resident #1 hospitalization stay from 11/03/23-11/13/23, reflected Resident #1 was nonverbal. Record review of Resident #1's SLP discharge summary for dates of service 11/15/23-12/09/23 completed by ST G on 12/12/23 reflected Resident #1 was nonverbal. Interview on 12/14/23 at 10:05 AM with COTA B and PT C revealed Resident #1 was nonverbal. Interview on 12/14/23 at 10:20 AM with LVN D revealed Resident #1 was nonverbal. Interview on 12/14/23 at 10:48 AM with CNA E revealed Resident #1 was nonverbal. Interview on 12/14/23 at 11:50 AM with the ADM revealed the MDS assessment should accurately reflect the resident including the correct information if the resident was able to make herself understood and the ability to understand others correctly and that it was the responsibility of the MDS Coordinator to complete the assessment accurately. Interview on 12/14/23 at 11:59 AM with MDS Coordinator F revealed she was responsible for the completion of Resident #1's admission MDS. When asked why Resident #1's admission MDS did not reflect her ability to make herself understood and the ability to understand others correctly, she stated she not did know why. MDS Coordinator F stated she realized it was an entry error and the MDS needed to be modified. MDS Coordinator F stated MDS accuracy was important for care planning . Interview on 12/14/23 at 1:30 PM with the DON revealed her expectation was for the MDS Coordinator to complete the MDS and the MDS assessment should accurately reflect the resident. Record review of the facility's policy titled Certifying Accuracy of the Resident Assessment, dated December 2009, revealed All personnel who complete any portion of Resident Assessment (MDS) must sign and certify the accuracy of that portion of the assessment.
Nov 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

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 record review and interview, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident that included measurable objectives and timetables to meet residents' highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial needs for 1 of 6 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for care plans. The facility failed to develop a comprehensive care plan for Resident #1. This failure could place residents at risk of not receiving the care required to meet their physical, mental, and psychosocial needs to attain or maintain their highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial outcome. Findings include: Record review of Resident #1's undated face sheet revealed an [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included bladder cancer, acute respiratory failure, low blood pressure, and acute kidney failure. Review of Resident #1's admission MDS dated [DATE] revealed a BIMS score of 14 which indicated the resident was cognitively intact. Further review of Resident #1's clinical file revealed no comprehensive assessment had been completed. Review of the baseline care plan dated 11/22/23 revealed Resident#1 was a 1 person assist. Interview on 11/22/23 at 11:57 AM with Resident #1 revealed he had been in the facility about 3-4 weeks. He stated the staff were nice and always available when needed. Interview on 11/22/23 at 3:10 PM with the MDS nurse revealed she had been working in the facility for 2 months and was responsible for completing comprehensive assessments. The MDS nurse stated she used a check list to ensure comprehensive assessments were completed 21 days after admission. The MDS Nurse stated she overlooked the Comprehensive assessment for Resident #1. The MDS Nurse stated the risk of not completing the assessment would be staff not knowing what care the resident is provided. Review of the facility policy titled Care planning dated March 2022 revealed The resident care plans are developed according to timeframes established by 483.21.
Oct 2023 2 deficiencies 1 IJ
CRITICAL (J) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Deficiency F0694 (Tag F0694)

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 administer parenteral fluids consistent with professi...

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 administer parenteral fluids consistent with professional standards of practice and in accordance with physician orders for one (Resident #1) of one resident reviewed for parenteral fluids. The facility failed to obtain physician orders to manage, provide care, and change Resident #1's CVC dressing at least every 7 days and as needed if the dressing or site appeared compromised (damp, loosened or visibly soiled). The facility failed to change Resident #1's CVC dressing at least every 7 days and ensure Resident #1's central line was maintained per professional standards and facility policy. On 10/04/23 Resident #1 was transferred to the ER and admitted for a medical emergency - Sepsis (the body's extreme response to an infection) and Septic Shock (a life-threatening condition that happens when blood pressure drops to a dangerously low level after an infection). An Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) was identified on 10/18/23. The IJ template was provided to the facility on [DATE] at 1:51 PM. While the IJ was removed on 10/19/23, the facility remained out of compliance at a scope of isolated and severity level of actual harm that is not immediate due to the facility continuing to monitor the implementation and effectiveness of the corrective systems. This deficient practice place residents at high risk or the likelihood of, serious injury, harm, impairment, or death by not having their needs met, or receiving treatment in a timely manner in accordance with professional standards of practice. Findings included: Record review of Resident #1's Face Sheet, printed on 10/12/23, revealed the resident was a [AGE] year-old male, who admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the following diagnoses: HTN (a condition in which the blood vessels have persistently raised pressure);T2DM (a chronic condition that affects the way the body processes glucose [blood sugar]) with hyperglycemia (high blood glucose [blood sugar]); DVT (when a blood clot forms in a deep vein); and CKD (kidneys have mild to moderate damage). Record review of Resident #1's undated Five-Day PPS Assessment, signed by RN J on 09/06/23, verifying assessment completion, revealed a reentry from an acute hospital on [DATE]. Resident #1 readmission diagnoses included Severe sepsis with septic shock (septicemia). Other health conditions reflected in the Five-Day PPS Assessment were fever and vomiting. Resident #1 had a BIMS Summary Score of 15 which suggested intact cognition. Resident #1's functional status required one-person physical assist with ADLs. Resident #1 had an urostomy (an opening in the abdominal wall that re-directs urine away from the bladder) and colostomy (an opening formed in the abdominal wall to bypass a damaged part of the colon). Resident #1 receive parenteral/IV feeding, TPN (via right subclavian CVC). Resident #1 returned to SNF on 10/16/23 from an acute hospital stay (10/04/23 - 10/16/23). A record review on 10/12/23 of hospital medical records (visit: 08/08/23 - 08/16/23) revealed Resident #1's CVC was placed on 08/10/2023 during hospitalization in August 2023 for admission diagnosis of severe sepsis when PICC line was the source of sepsis. Record review on 10/12/23 at 2:19 PM of Resident #1's October 2023 physician order sheet reflected: -Order date 08/25/23: Take vital signs. Frequency: By shift starting 08/25/2023 Record review of Resident #1's September [09/01/23 - 09/30/23] and October [10/01/23 - 10/31/23] TARs, print date 10/17/23 at 4:36 PM, reflected the following orders did not have assigned administration times in the Date Range Specified: - IV - Flush SASH Method by shift starting 07/11/2023 - COMPLETED - IV - Site Check by shift starting 07/11/23 - COMPLETED - IV - Tubing Change every 24-hours starting 07/11/23 - COMPLETED - PICC - Dressing Change one time weekly starting 07/11/23 - COMPLETED - IV - Dressing Change every one week starting 07/12/23 - COMPLETED CVC dressing changes were not documented as completed on the August 2023, September 2023, or October 2023 TARs following the resident's return from the hospital on [DATE]. The TARs did not reflect CVC (placed 08/10/23) dressing changes at least every 7 days beginning 08/17/23, 08/24/23, 08/31/23, 09/07/23, 09/14/23, 09/21/23, or 09/28/23. The next CVC dressing changed would have been scheduled for 10/05/23. Review of Resident #1's progress notes reflected: - On 10/03/23 at 11:49 PM, RN D entered, Dressing on the IV site changed, patient tolerated well, IV line flushing well, patient alert and oriented, able to verbalize needs, TPN running well, V/S within normal saline. continue to monitor. Record review on 10/12/23 at 2:05 PM, Resident #1's care plan (Effective: 06/06/23; Created: 06/19/23), date range: 06/06/23 - Present, did not reflect interventions for the care of CVC that included routine inspection and dressing changes at least every 7 days and as needed. Record review on 10/13/23 at 2:07 PM of Resident #1's hospital medical records, admission date 10/04/23 (still IP, no D/C date), reflected Resident #1 arrived at the ER on [DATE] at 6:51 PM. Record review of the ER Provider Note dated 10/04/23 at 7:02 PM reflected, per EMS, [Resident #1] with fever of 103 ( F), chills and diaphoresis (unusual sweating) . nausea and vomiting as well. Resident #1's vital signs revealed: BP: 100/55; HR: 127; Temp: 100.6 F; Resp: 15. The ER provider physical exam revealed Resident #1 with AMS, tachycardic (heart rate over 100 beats a minute), sleepy; drowsy, but followed commands. The ER provider assessment/plan indicated (Resident #1) with indwelling subclavian catheter for TPN, urostomy and colostomy, presented with AMS, high fever, and very likely sepsis. sepsis IVF (Resident #1) with consistent low blood pressure. A consultation with ICU provider agreed with plan to admit Resident #1 to the ICU for constant monitoring and treatment of severe sepsis. Review of Resident #1's blood labs collected in the ER on [DATE] at 7:02 PM revealed: Glucose: 163 mg/dL [Range 70 - 100] (measures the level of glucose (blood sugar) in the blood) BUN: 38 mg/dL [Range: 8 - 23] (measures the amount of urea nitrogen, a waste product, in the blood) RBC: 3.49 per mcL [Range: 4.7 - 6.1] (measures how many red blood cells circulating in the blood) HGB: 10.0 g/dL [Range: 13.8 - 17.2] (measures the amount of hemoglobin [Hgb] in the blood) HCT: 31.8% [Range: 40.7 - 50.3] (blood test that measures how much blood is made up of red blood cells) Lymphocyte, absolute: 0.35 cells/µL [Range: 0.95 - 3.07] (measures the levels of lymphocytes in an entire sample of whole blood as an absolute number instead of as a percentage) Lactate: 3.1 mmol/L [Range: 0.5 - 2.2] (blood test that measures the level of lactic acid made in the body at a given point in time) Record review of Septic Shock. (2023), accessed on 10/23/23 at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK430939/ revealed the presence of two of the four early clinical signs (fever [100.4 F]; HR more than 90 bpm; respirations more than 20 bpm; and SBP less than 100 mmHg) and laboratory findings of hyperglycemia (glucose more than 120 mg/dL), Thrombocytopenia (low platelet count), increased BUN, and/or lactic acidosis (more than 2 mmol/L) suggest severe sepsis. Severe sepsis with hypotension development progress to septic shock. A review of a hospital provider assessment and physical exam dated 10/04/23 at 11:35 PM revealed Sepsis Reperfusion Exam (a focused exam withing 6 hours of severe sepsis or septic shock presentation) was performed. Labs were notable for glucose 163 mg/dL . BUN 38 mg/dL, lactate 3.1 mmol/L . Hgb 10.0 g/dL/Hct 31.8% . CXR suggestive of early pneumonia . Repeat lactate on 10/04/23 at 9:39 PM was 2.7 mmol/L. IVF bolus of 30 mL/kg and broad spectrum abx were given. Record review of Resident #1's hospital medical records, admission date 10/04/23 (still IP, no D/C date), reflected a final diagnosis on 10/05/23 at 1:58 AM of Sepsis and Septic shock. A review of a hospital provider clinical notes dated 10/06/23 at 2:14 PM reflected fever overnight, acetaminophen x 1 . fever trending down. Blood cultures (drawn on 10/04/23 at 7:20 PM) noted positive for Staphylococcus epidermidis (bacteria cause infections), suspected source is central line . Bilateral lung infiltrates likely due to pneumonia . Plan: Repeat blood culture tomorrow (10/07/23) if (Resident #1) remains unstable or blood cultures are repeatedly positive then remove the tunneled Internal Jugular (a CVC surgically inserted into a vein in the neck). A review of a hospital provider clinical notes dated 10/09/23 at 9:27 AM reflected, Repeat blood cultures still positive for Staphylococcus epidermidis, orders placed to remove CVC . A review of a hospital provider clinical notes dated 10/09/23 at 9:34 AM reflected, tunneled catheter removal (inserted in August 2023) . tip sent for culture. A review of a hospital provider clinical notes dated 10/11/23 at 6:30 PM reflected, . Staphylococcus epidermidis bacteremia, sepsis source is central line. Record review of Resident #1's hospital medical records, admission date 10/04/23 (still IP, no D/C date), reflected CVC tunneled placement was performed 10/13/23 at 9:48 AM - 10:05 AM. During a phone interview on 10/12/23 at 12:51 PM, a family member stated concerns about Resident #1's hospitalization (on 10/04/23) for sepsis. The family member stated that they did not feel staff responded as quickly as should when Resident #1 had a change in condition. The family member stated they did not have notes in front of them to discuss the recurring issues. During an observation and interview (at the hospital) on 10/13/23 beginning at 10:49 AM, Resident #1 appeared clean, groomed, and dressed in a hospital gown. Resident #1 was observed in a full upright sitting position in bed. Resident #1 received a standard TPN solution administered through a CVC line (bandage strips and a few stitches noted at entry site) that was covered by a transparent drsg dated 10/13/23) at the right upper chest. Resident #1 had a midline abdominal colostomy with drainable ostomy pouch that drained dark brown liquid stool by gravity to a drainage bag that hung on left bed frame; and a right lower abdominal urostomy with urostomy pouch that drained pale yellow urine by gravity to a drainage bag that hung on right bed frame. Resident #1 appeared comfortable. Resident #1 was Alert, attentive, and oriented to level of awareness of self, place, time, and situation. Resident #1 was calm and cooperative. Resident #1 was reasonably responsive with purposeful movements, appropriate gestures and answered questions directly, accurately, and with relevance. Resident #1 had fair recall of immediate and past events. Resident #1 said that he was in the hospital for sepsis and the [hospital doctor(s)] said the central line was the source. Resident #1 said that he knew the CVC dressing should be changed every 7 days and he tried to stay on top of the due date to remind the nurses. Resident #1 said that there were times the CVC dressing was not changed weekly or was changed after 7 days had passed. Resident #1 said the CVC line that was currently in place was inserted that morning (10/13/23). Resident #1 said he was usually awake and alert but started feeling sluggish and slept most of the day (10/03/23). Resident #1 said he asked the nurse [later identified as LVN A] to check his temperature because he felt feverish (on 10/04/23 could not state the time for sure, but said it was sometime around 4:00 PM). Resident #1 said it took the nurse a while (described a while as 20 - 30 minutes) to return and check temperature. Resident #1 said he was told his temperature was high. Resident #1 said that [LVN A] returned after 15-20 minutes and performed a COVID test. Resident #1 said that [DNP L] was in his room around the same time LVN A informed that the COVID test was negative. Resident #1 said he did not recall exactly what happened, only remembered he was sent to the hospital. During an interview on 10/13/23 at 2:42 PM, LVN A said that she worked the 6A - 2P shift. LVN A said she was familiar with Resident #1's care needs. LVN A stated Resident #1 required staff assistance with ADLs, had a urostomy and colostomy drainage bags . received TPN via a PICC (LVN A could not recall if the central catheter line was placed in Resident #1's arm [PICC] or chest [CVC]). LVN A defined a change in condition in a resident is when their normal status changed from being alert, ability to walk, have a decline or when vital signs are outside of [physician ordered] parameters or different from measurements compared to baseline. LVN A said a CVC or PICC line dressing should be changed every seven days. LVN A said that LVNs could change the dressing if they were IV certified. LVN A said that she was IV certified and changed Resident #1's sterile dressing before, but did not know the exact date. LVN A said she worked and was assigned to Resident #1 the day he was sent to the ER [DATE]). LVN A said the cause was a fever. A record review of an email received 10/16/23 at 11:50 AM, a family member wrote, .there are a few other things not mentioned during the initial contact (10/12/23 at 12:51 PM). After [Resident #1] first round of sepsis from the PICC line on [DATE] thru [DATE] (2023) . [Resident #1] did not receive TPN until Saturday morning, August 19 (2023). They [SNF] have told [family member] that the pharmacy was so far away and if they don't get the order in early enough . delay in delivery of the order. This was not the first time had to wait several days to receive TPN. Record review on 10/18/23 at 10:44 AM of Resident #1's October 2023 physician order sheet reflected hospital discharge orders (written 10/16/23), antibiotic therapy via the CVC, vital sign measurement every shift (BP/Pain/Pulse/Pulse Oximeter/Respiration/Temperature); monitor for s/sx of complications related to TPN administration including air embolism (occurs when air is admitted into the vascular system), hypervolemia (too much fluid volume in the body), hyperglycemia (high blood sugar), hypoglycemia (low blood sugar), infections, and Pneumothorax (collection of air outside the lung but within the pleural cavity [fluid filled space that surrounds the lungs]) each shift, and CVC site check, management, and dressing change one time weekly. During record review and interview on 10/18/23 beginning at 1:35 PM, RN D said that she worked evening shifts, 2P - 10P and was familiar with Resident #1 and his care needs as the primary assigned nurse. RN D said that she recalled working on 10/04/23 and Resident #1 did not have a decline in ADLs or a change in condition. RN D defined a change in condition as anything about a resident that was different from a resident normal clinical status. RN D said that she was required to complete a Daily Skilled Assessment for Resident #1 to provide information that [Resident #1] needed daily skilled (nursing) interventions. Review of Resident #1's progress notes and a note entered by RN D on 10/03/23 at 11:49 PM revealed dressing on the IV site changed, patient tolerated well, IV line flushing well . RN D said that she did not recall the date on the old IV dressing because she did not change the dressing. RN D said that she asked LVN E (WCN) to change the IV dressing because she [RN D] was too busy. RN D said that the task to change the IV dressing did not pop up on the TAR, that she knew it needed to be changed PRN because the bottom edge of the dressing was pulled away from the skin. RN D made a hand gesture, touching her chest, to suggest the area of the IV dressing was pulled away from [Resident #1's chest]. RN D said that sterile dressings to IV/PICC/CVC sites should be changed every 7 days and was reflected on the TAR. RN D said that there should always be an order to perform care or administer medication to a resident. Review of a Daily Skilled Assessment completed by RN D on 10/03/23 at 11:56 PM indicated Resident #1 level of consciousness was Alert-Responds readily but may be confused and had new or increased confusion. RN D said that she did not recall working 2P - 10P and probably selected the wrong item when charting and did not mean to select new or increased confusion. Record review of Resident #1's Daily Skilled Nurse Assessments [Date range: 09/01/23 - 10/04/23], printed 10/18/23 at 2:31 PM, provided by the NFA to support documentation by nurses that Resident #1's CVC dressing was changed every 7 days revealed in the section Describe any other services, education or training provided: 09/05/23 at 3:09 PM, completed by LVN N, reflected the response Central line drsg patent, clean dry and intact. The Daily Skilled Nurse Assessment did not indicate the dressing was changed. 09/11/23 at 1:41 PM (6 days later), completed by LVN A, reflected the response Central line dressing changed using sterile procedure, resident tolerated the procedure no signs of infection noted. Remains intact and flushable. 09/19/23 at 1:57 AM (8 days later), completed by LVN I, reflected the response Central Line dressing change. The first and the last Daily Skilled Nurse Assessment provided with the Assessments listed above, were not dated, or signed by a nurse. The CVC (placed 08/10/23) dressing changes were expected to be changed at least every 7 days beginning 08/17/23 then, 08/24/23, 08/31/23, 09/07/23, 09/14/23, 09/21/23, and 09/28/23. The next CVC dressing change would be scheduled on 10/05/23. During Record review and interview with the RDCS and Sr. E.D. on 10/18/23 beginning at 3:42 PM, the Sr. E.D. indicated nurses documented IV/CVC dressing changes in Resident #1's Daily skilled Nurse Assessments. The RDCS stated the task to change an IV/CVC dressing did not have to reflect on the TAR and the nurse did not have to document in a progress note. Attempted phone interview with LVN E on 10/18/23 at 4:18 PM was unanswered. No return call received before exit conference on 10/19/23. During a telephone interview on 10/19/23 at 3:26 PM, the MD said that he was also the Medical Director. The MD said that he was familiar with Resident #1. The MD said that CVC central line care and maintenance was important to minimize the risk of infection. The MD said that orders were written to provide central line care and dressing changes every 7 days for every resident that has a central line in place. The MD said if a resident had a CVC/PICC line and there were no orders, it was the nurse staff/nurse manager responsibility to ensure orders were obtained and reflected in the chart. The MD said that nurses should closely monitor the CVC site, flush the line every day (or as ordered) to prevent clotting. The MD said that handling of the CVC should be minimal to reduce the risk of contamination. Record review of Maintenance and Removal of Central Venous Catheters (n.d.), accessed on 10/23/23 at https://www.cdc.gov/infectioncontrol/pdf/strive/CLABSI104-508.pdf revealed CVC dressing status should be assessed at least daily, transparent dressings changed every 7 days and whenever dressing becomes damp, loosened or soiled. Record Review of the facility policy and procedure titled Central Venous Catheter Care and Dressing Changes, revised March 2022, read in part: The purpose of this procedure is to prevent complications associated with intravenous therapy, including catheter-related infections that are associated with contaminated, loosened, soiled, or wet dressings. General Guidelines included: 1. Perform site care and dressing change at established intervals or immediately if the integrity of the dressing is compromised. 2. Maintain sterile dressing for all central vascular access devices. 3. Change the dressing if it becomes damp, loosened or visibly soiled, at least every 7 days, and immediately if the dressing or site appear compromised. 5. Assess central venous access devices with each infusion and at least daily. Assessment guideline indicated to observe insertion site and surrounding area for complications. Documentation guidelines indicated to: 1. The following information should be recorded in the resident's medical record: a. Date and time dressing was changed. b. Location and objective description of insertion site. c. Any complication, interventions that were done. d. Condition of sutures (if present). e. Any questions, education given to resident, resident's statement regarding IV therapy and response to procedure. f. Signature and title of the person recording the data. Reporting guidelines indicated to report any signs and symptoms of complications to physician, supervisor and oncoming shift; intervene as necessary. The NFA was notified of an Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) on 10/18/23 at 1:18 PM, due to the above failures and the IJ template was provided. The facility's Plan of Removal (POR) was accepted on 10/19/23 at 12:05 PM and included: Impact Statement: On 10/18/2023, the facility was provided notification that the survey agency has determined that the conditions at the center constitute an Immediate Jeopardy to resident health. The facility failed to change Resident #1's central line dressing every 7 days as ordered. Immediate Action: Please accept this as a Plan of Removal for the alleged Immediate Jeopardy related to Parenteral/IV Fluids on 10/18/2023 at 1:51 pm. The facility failed to change Resident #1's central line dressing every 7 days as ordered. Residents that can be affected are those with central lines. Systematic Approach: 1. Assessment - Resident #1 with signs and symptoms of sepsis was transferred to the hospital on [DATE] per the order of the Nurse Practitioner and was admitted to the hospital for sepsis, septic shock, and pneumonia. -The Executive Director notified the facility Medical Director of the Immediate Jeopardy on 10/18/2023 at 3:20 pm. -An emergency QAPI meeting was held on 10/16/2023. -All residents will have any central line dressings observed by Director of Nurses or Assistant Director of Nurses on 10/18/2023 to identify any current patients that are at imminent risk related to not having the dressing changed per physician orders. The observations were completed on 10/18/23 by 6:00 pm. After completion of observations, no other residents were found to be at imminent risk of central line dressing changes not having been completed. Who will be responsible: Director of Nursing/Nurse Managers Who Will monitor: Executive Director and RDCS All nursing staff were educated to notify the DON/Nurse Managers immediately upon any central line dressing changes that had not been completed per physician orders. This education was provided on 10/18/2023. This education was provided by the DON and RDCS. Staff will not be allowed to begin their shift until the education has been completed. Treatments that are physician ordered will reflect on the MAR/TAR. This will include all CVC/PICC line care including sterile dressing changes per physician orders. 2. In-Services All staff were in-serviced on CVC/PICC line care including sterile dressing changes per physician orders by the RDCS/Director of Nursing and/or Nurse Managers. All new staff will receive the education as part of the onboarding orientation process prior to being assigned tasks and providing care to residents. No licensed staff member will be allowed to work in the facility until the above required in-services are completed. The in-service with all licensed clinical staff will be completed by 10/18/2023. All staff were in-serviced by 8:00pm on 10/18/2023. Who will be responsible: DON/Nurse Managers Who Will monitor: Executive Director/RDCS A staff roster was utilized to ensure 100% of licensed nursing staff were in-serviced and tested. In-services were deemed to be effective by the in-services signatures and verbalization of understanding by all licensed facility staff. The Executive Director, DON and ADON were in-serviced by the RDCS on sterile dressing changes per physician orders on 10/18/23 by 4:00 pm. Who will be responsible: DON/Nurse Managers Who Will monitor: Executive Director/RDCS 3. Monitoring Starting 10/18/23 the Executive Director, Director of nursing and/or Nurse Managers will review all central line orders to ensure dressing changes are completed per the orders. Observations will be made to ensure dressings have been changed. The Regional Director of Clinical Services will review the documentation each week for compliance. On 10/19/23 the surveyor began monitoring for implementation of the facility's plan of removal by: During a phone interview on 10/19/23 at 3:26 PM, the medical director acknowledged notification of the Immediate Jeopardy. Record review of the QAPI meeting minutes dated 10/16/23 at 12:30 PM reflected the following members in attendance: NFA, RDCS, DON B, DON C, ADON, RVP, and the medical director was notified by phone. The special discussion items reflected CVC Dressing Change. The QAPI Plan for CVC Dressing Change reflected a systematic approach, education, monitoring, and QA beginning 10/16/23 and education will continue through the first 30 days. During an interview on 10/19/23 at 4:22 PM, DON C indicated her first day as the full-time DON at the SNF was 10/13/23. DON C said that she participated in a QAPI meeting on 10/16/23 and the topic of discussion was change of condition, physician notification, and IV/CVC management and care (included dressing change). DON C said that she and the ADON reviewed all residents for any change of condition on 10/18/23 to identify abnormal vital signs or change of condition. DON C said on 10/18/23, in collaboration with nurse managers, provided in-services and training to nursing staff (CNAs, MAs, and LVNs/RNs) that included education about what is considered a change in condition (All nursing staff), action to take (LVNs/RNs), and physician notification (LVNs/RNs), the earlier the better. DON C stated that the nurse should call the physician immediately after assessment and document in the medical record. DON C said the in-services and training was on-going. DON C said that central line care and maintenance training was scheduled for all nurses (10/20/23 or to be determined) and IV dressing change skills check off would be completed. DON C said that she expected nurses to notify the ADON/DON, MD, NP (if delegated when MD was unavailable), and RP as soon as possible after assessment of the resident. DON C said if a resident change of condition was not reported, or within a timely manner, could lead to serious outcome, medical complications, hospitalization, or death. During an interview on 10/19/23 at 4:35 PM, the NFA stated that she assumed the role of administrator in August 2023. The NFA stated the facility and nurse management were responsible for ensuring staff could access, were educated, and followed policies and procedures. The NFA was not able to speak to the process of physician notification and could not produce related policies. The NFA was not able to speak to the procedure, the necessary steps, per the facility policy, to comply with central line management. The NFA stated steps discussed in a QAPI meeting to develop a list of changes, concerns, criteria that required physician notification and that it should be comprehensive. The NFA stated there should always be a clear understanding by all staff what is considered an acceptable timeframe for physician notification. Record review of an undated in-service titled Sterile dressing changes per physician orders conducted by the RDCS was presented to the NFA, DON, and ADON. In-services conducted by the DON and ADON beginning 10/18/23 and on-going, on the topic of IV/PICC line must be changed weekly and PRN revealed a summary of training that CVC/PICC line care included sterile dressing changes per physician orders. The sign in sheet reflected the following staff participated in the in-service: LVN F, LVN N, RN D, LVN I, LVN O, LVN P, LVN Q, ADON, and RN R. Record review of the In-Service Training Sheet, dated 10/18/23 on the topic of IV/PICC line must be changed weekly and PRN revealed the following staff were notified by DON C via phone call: LVN S, LVN T, LVN U (left message), LVN V (left message), LVN W (left message), RN X, LVN A, LVN G, LVN Y, RN Z, LVN H (left message), LVN AA (left message), RN R, RN AB, LVN AC (left message), and LVN AD. Interviews conducted on 10/19/23 with nurses scheduled on the 6A - 2P shift (LVN G [at 1:09 PM], LVN F [at 1:00 PM], LVN N [at 1:51 PM], and LVN A [at 2:29 PM]); 2P - 10P shift (RN D [at 2:15 PM], LVN H [at 2:36 PM weekend double LVN], and LVN I [at 2:43 PM])indicated they participated in an in-service training about recognizing change in condition, physician notification, and monitoring and changing an IV/CVC dressing. Each nurse stated in their own words the procedure was to notify the physician about the resident's change in condition as soon as possible - after vital signs were measured and an assessment performed. Each nurse verbalized the steps of procedure to change a sterile IV/CVC dressing every 7 days and there should be an order that reflected on the TAR. On 10/18/23, an Immediate Jeopardy was identified. The NFA was notified and provided an IJ template on 10/18/23 at 1:51 PM. While the IJ was lowered on 10/19/23, the facility remained out of compliance at a scope of isolated and severity level of actual harm that is not IJ due to the facility's need to complete in-service training and evaluate the effectiveness of the corrective systems.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

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 observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to immediately inform and consult with the resident's ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to immediately inform and consult with the resident's physician of a significant change in the resident's physical, mental, or psychosocial status for one (Resident #1) of one resident reviewed for notification of changes. LVN A failed to notify the physician when Resident #1 had a change of condition in clinical status (vital signs). On 10/04/23 at 4:51 PM, LVN A notified NP K that Resident #1 had an elevated temperature [greater than 100.0 F]. On 10/04/23 at 5:00 PM, DNP L assessed and discovered (Resident #1) had a significant change in health status (a rapid heart rate and low blood pressure) during an unrelated visit. DNP L called and informed NP K of her findings and suggested Resident #1 be transferred to hospital. LVN A text NP K of DNP L findings on 10/04/23 at 5:34 PM. Resident #1 was transferred to the ER and admitted for a medical emergency - Sepsis (the body's extreme response to an infection) and Septic Shock (a life-threatening condition that happens when blood pressure drops to a dangerously low level after an infection). This deficient practice place residents at risk of not having their needs met or receiving treatment in a timely manner. Findings included: Record review of Resident #1's Face Sheet, printed on 10/12/23, revealed the resident was a [AGE] year-old male, who admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the following diagnoses: HTN (persistently raised blood pressure);T2DM (a chronic condition that affects the way the body processes glucose [blood sugar]) with hyperglycemia (high blood sugar); DVT (when a blood clot forms in a deep vein); and CKD (kidneys have chronic mild to moderate damage). Record review of Resident #1's undated Five-Day PPS Assessment, signed by RN J on 09/06/23, verifying assessment completion, revealed a reentry from an acute hospital on [DATE]. Resident #1 readmission diagnoses included Severe sepsis with septic shock (septicemia). Other health conditions reflected in the Five-Day PPS Assessment were fever and vomiting. Resident #1 had a BIMS Summary Score of 15 which suggested intact cognition. Resident #1's functional status required one-person physical assist with ADLs. Resident #1 had an urostomy (an opening in the abdominal wall that re-directs urine away from the bladder) and colostomy (an opening formed in the abdominal wall to bypass a damaged part of the colon). Resident #1 received parenteral/IV feeding, TPN (a form of nutritional support given completely in the bloodstream, intravenously). Resident #1 returned to SNF on 10/16/23 from an acute hospital stay (10/04/23 - 10/16/23). Record review on 10/12/23 at 2:19 PM of Resident #1's October 2023 physician order sheet reflected: Take vital signs. Frequency: By shift starting 08/25/2023 TPN - Base Formula (3000 mL/day) Parenteral unspecified. Frequency: By shift starting 10/01/23 Record review on 10/12/23 at 2:05 PM, Resident #1's care plan (Effective: 06/06/23; Created: 06/19/23), date range: 06/06/23 - Present, reflected diagnoses of Extended spectrum beta lactamase (ESBL) resistance, Other general symptoms and signs, Other specified sepsis, Other viral conjunctivitis, Rash, and other nonspecific skin eruption. Resident #1's care plan current focus problem(s) reflected diabetic risks; code status; antibiotic administration for 8 days (short-term; no start, completed or resolved date); impaired nutritional status and complications due to TPN; and skin issues - surgical wound to abdomen and surgical wound to left proximal thigh. Resident #1's care plan goals reflected the infection will be resolved or resolving at the end of antibiotic therapy; diabetic status will remain stable; and outcomes without complications over the next 90 days. Resident #1's care plan interventions reflected monitor for decrease in change of condition, report to MD and RP; monitor intake an output; monitor labs; monitor fluid and oral intake; encouragement; treatments; medication administration per orders; and weekly skin assessments. Review of Resident #1's progress notes reflected: On 10/04/23 at 6:17 PM, LVN A entered, [Resident #1] complained of chills, nausea and vomiting, dizziness and fever, vital signs as follows BP92/44 HR 120 R 20 TEMP 103.3 O2sat 92% RA, [NP K] notified, order to test for covid, resident negative for covid, Patient assessed by [DNP L] discussed and ordered to send patient to ER, Sent to [hospital], RP notified, DON notified. On 10/04/23 at 8:40 PM, DNP L entered, Nephrology Progress Note. Date of Service: 10/04/2023. Reason for Follow-up Visit: AKI. History of Present Illness: . 10/04/2023: [Resident #1] is seen and examined at bedside today with c/o fever and chills with N/V . Review of Systems: General: reports not feeling good, reports fever and chills . Abdomen: reports nausea and vomiting . Physical Exam: Vital Signs: BP 92/44; Temp 103.3 [ F]; HR 121 [bpm]; O2 92% RA . General: COVID test negative . Neuro: extreme drowsiness . CV: Tachy (rapid, swift, fast) at 121 [bpm] (referred to HR), PICC line right upper chest . Assessment/Plan: Hypotension/ Tachycardia/ Fever/Nausea/Vomiting. RESIDENT SENT OUT [hospital]. Discussed assessment findings with [NP K] who agreed on decision to send resident out. DNP spoke with DON to inform of decision to send resident out. A record review of Resident #1's Vitals Summary reflected (T-temperature; P-pulse; R-respiration; BP-blood pressure): - On 10/03/23 at 2:54 AM, measured by LVN M: T 98.8 F; P 78; R 20 bpm - On 10/03/23 at 8:00 AM, measured by LVN A: T 97.6 F - On 10/03/23 at 9:57 AM, measured by LVN A: T 97.4 F; P 74; R 18 bpm; BP 110/66 - On 10/03/23 at 9:44 PM, measured by RN D: T 97.5 F; P 70; R 18 bpm; BP 119/68 - On 10/04/23 at 2:23 AM, measured by LVN M: T 98.0 F; P 76; R 20 bpm - On 10/04/23 at 8:29 AM, measured by LVN A: T 97.6 F; P 74; R 18 bpm; BP 114/66 Record review of Resident #1's October 2023 MAR, print date 10/16/23 at 11:20 AM, reflected: - Tylenol 325 mg tablet, two tablets, PO, PRN, Q4H starting 09/06/23 for pain - ON HOLD Record review of Resident #1's October 2023 MAR did not indicate Tylenol was ordered for fever or elevated temperature within physician ordered parameters. The MAR did not reflect that Resident #1 was administered Tylenol on 10/04/23. Record review of Resident #1's hospital medical records, admission date 10/04/23 (still IP, no D/C date), reflected Resident #1 arrived at the ER on [DATE] at 6:51 PM. Record review of the ER Provider Note dated 10/04/23 at 7:02 PM reflected, per EMS, [Resident #1] with fever of 103 ( F), chills and diaphoresis (unusual sweating) . nausea and vomiting as well. Resident #1's vital signs revealed: BP: 100/55; HR: 127; Temp: 100.6 F; Resp: 15. The ER provider physical exam revealed Resident #1 with AMS, tachycardic (heart rate over 100 beats a minute), sleepy; drowsy, but followed commands. The ER provider assessment/plan indicated (Resident #1) with indwelling subclavian catheter for TPN, urostomy and colostomy, presented with AMS, high fever, and very likely sepsis. sepsis IVF (Resident #1) with consistent low blood pressure. A consultation with ICU provider agreed with plan to admit Resident #1 to the ICU for constant monitoring and treatment of severe sepsis. Review of Resident #1's blood labs collected in the ER on [DATE] at 7:02 PM revealed: Glucose: 163 mg/dL [Range 70 - 100] (measures the level of glucose (blood sugar) in the blood) BUN: 38 mg/dL [Range: 8 - 23] (measures the amount of urea nitrogen, a waste product, in the blood) RBC: 3.49 per mcL [Range: 4.7 - 6.1] (measures how many red blood cells circulating in the blood) HGB: 10.0 g/dL [Range: 13.8 - 17.2] (measures the amount of hemoglobin [Hgb] in the blood) HCT: 31.8% [Range: 40.7 - 50.3] (blood test that measures how much blood is made up of red blood cells) Lymphocyte, absolute: 0.35 cells/µL [Range: 0.95 - 3.07] (measures the levels of lymphocytes in an entire sample of whole blood as an absolute number instead of as a percentage) Lactate: 3.1 mmol/L [Range: 0.5 - 2.2] (blood test that measures the level of lactic acid made in the body at a given point in time) Record review of Septic Shock. (2023), accessed on 10/23/23 at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK430939/ revealed the presence of two of the four early clinical signs (fever [100.4 F]; HR more than 90 bpm; respirations more than 20 bpm; and SBP less than 100 mmHg) and laboratory findings of hyperglycemia (glucose more than 120 mg/dL), Thrombocytopenia (low platelet count), increased BUN, and/or lactic acidosis (more than 2 mmol/L) suggest severe sepsis. Severe sepsis with hypotension development progress to septic shock. A review of a hospital provider assessment and physical exam dated 10/04/23 at 11:35 PM revealed Sepsis Reperfusion Exam (a focused exam withing 6 hours of severe sepsis or septic shock presentation) was performed. Labs were notable for glucose 163 mg/dL . BUN 38 mg/dL, lactate 3.1 mmol/L . Hgb 10.0 g/dL/Hct 31.8% . CXR suggestive of early pneumonia . Repeat lactate on 10/04/23 at 9:39 PM was 2.7 mmol/L. IVF bolus of 30 mL/kg and broad spectrum abx were given. Record review of Resident #1's hospital medical records, admission date 10/04/23 (still IP, no D/C date), reflected a final diagnosis on 10/05/23 at 1:58 AM of Sepsis and Septic shock. During a phone interview on 10/12/23 at 12:51 PM, a family member stated concerns about Resident #1's hospitalization (on 10/04/23) for sepsis. The family member stated that they did not feel staff responded as quickly as should when Resident #1 had a change in condition. The family member stated they did not have notes in front of them to discuss the recurring issues. During an observation and interview (at the hospital) on 10/13/23 beginning at 10:49 AM, Resident #1 appeared clean, groomed, and dressed in a hospital gown. Resident #1 was observed in a full upright sitting position in bed. Resident #1 received a standard TPN solution administered through a CVC line (bandage strips and a few stitches noted at entry site) that was covered by a transparent drsg dated 10/13/23) at the right upper chest. Resident #1 had a midline abdominal colostomy with drainable ostomy pouch that drained dark brown liquid stool by gravity to a drainage bag that hung on left bed frame; and a right lower abdominal urostomy with urostomy pouch that drained pale yellow urine by gravity to a drainage bag that hung on right bed frame. Resident #1 appeared comfortable. Resident #1 was Alert, attentive, and oriented to level of awareness of self, place, time, and situation. Resident #1 was calm and cooperative. Resident #1 was reasonably responsive with purposeful movements, appropriate gestures and answered questions directly, accurately, and with relevance. Resident #1 had fair recall of immediate and past events. Resident #1 said that he was in the hospital for sepsis and the [hospital doctor(s)] said the central line was the source. Resident #1 said the CVC line that was currently in place was inserted that morning (10/13/23). Resident #1 said he was usually awake and alert but started feeling sluggish and slept most of the day (10/03/23). Resident #1 said he asked the nurse [later identified as LVN A] to check his temperature because he felt feverish (on 10/04/23 could not state the exact time, but said it was on or around 4:00 PM). Resident #1 said the nurse checked his temperature. Resident #1 said he was told his temperature was high. Resident #1 said that [LVN A] returned around 5:00 PM and performed a COVID test, shortly before [DNP L] entered the room. Resident #1 said that [DNP L] was in his room when LVN A informed that the COVID test was negative. Resident #1 said he did not know what occurred after DNP L assessed him and was sent to the hospital. During an interview on 10/13/23 at 2:42 PM, LVN A said that she worked the 6A - 2P shift. LVN A said she was familiar with Resident #1's care needs. LVN A stated Resident #1 required staff assistance with ADLs, had a urostomy and colostomy drainage bags . received TPN via a PICC (LVN A could not recall if the central catheter line was placed in Resident #1's arm [PICC] or chest [CVC]). LVN A defined a change in condition in a resident is when their normal status changed from being alert, ability to walk, have a decline or when vital signs are outside of [physician ordered] parameters or different from measurements compared to baseline. LVN A said she worked and was assigned to Resident #1 the day he was sent to the ER [DATE]). LVN A said the cause was a fever. LVN A said that (on 10/04/23) Resident #1 asked to check his temperature. LVN A said she could not remember what time. LVN A said that staff were supposed to check resident vital signs every shift, if required before medication was administered, and as needed. LVN A said that she checked Resident #1 vital signs that morning (10/04/23) and he did not have a fever. LVN A said that she told [NP K] and DON B that Resident #1 had a fever (over 100 F). LVN A said that NP K ordered a COVID test and labs. LVN A said that DON B told her to tell DNP L if she came to see Resident #1. During interview and record review on 10/13/23 at 2:42 PM, LVN A said that staff only charted by exception, if something changed about a resident. LVN A said that she was not required to document on Resident #1, and she filled out a SBAR (written communication tool for communication between members of the health care team about a resident's condition) when she notified NP K that Resident #1 had a fever and was sent to the hospital. LVN A said that she did not have to complete a Daily Skilled Nurse Assessment for Resident #1. LVN A read the Daily Skilled Nurse Assessment she completed on 10/03/23 during her 6AM - 2PM shift. LVN A read the progress note she wrote dated 10/04/23 at 6:18 PM. LVN A said she did not know why a Daily Skilled Nurse Assessment was not completed on 10/04/23 during the 6AM - 2PM shift or 2PM - 10PM shift. LVN A reviewed the vital signs she entered on 10/04/23 at 8:29 AM and said that Resident #1 did not have a fever when she checked his temperature and did not appear to have had a change in condition or decline. LVN A could not explain why there were no vital signs documented for the 2PM - 10PM shift. LVN A said that she did not remember if she worked a double shift (6AM - 2PM and 2PM - 10PM) on 10/04/23 and needed to check her phone to review the clock in/out log. LVN A never verified if worked 10/04/23 on the 2P - 10P shift. LVN A said that Resident #1 never had a change in condition. LVN A said that she was not the only person who took care of Resident #1 and could not document everything she did because she was too busy. During an interview on 10/13/23 at 3:56 PM, DON B said that she was the Interim DON and been at the facility for less than two months. DON B defined a change in condition as anything outside of normal for a resident's clinical status. DON B said that she expected nurses to notify the MD, ADON, DON and NFA of any resident change in condition, the cause of decline and how the cause was determined. DON B said that she would expect the nurse to report to the MD signs and symptoms, interventions, effectiveness, and to document communication with the MD. DON B said that she recalled LVN A told her that Resident #1 had a fever (10/04/23), that NP K was notified, and [NP K] ordered a COVID test and labs. DON B said she did not recall LVN A reporting other abnormal vital signs except for a fever. DON B said she asked LVN A questions to determine if Resident #1 had a significant change and LVN A did not indicate anything abnormal other than the fever. A record review of an email received 10/16/23 at 11:50 AM, a family member wrote, .there are a few other things I did not mention in my initial contact (10/12/23 at 12:51 PM). After [Resident #1] first round of sepsis from [DATE] thru [DATE] (2023) . did not receive TPN until Saturday morning, August 19 (2023). They [SNF] have told me that their pharmacy is so far away and if they don't get the order in early enough, . delay in delivery of the order. This was not the first time had to wait several days to receive TPN. During a phone interview on 10/16/23 at 3:03 PM, NP K said that she received a text from the nurse [LVN A] on 10/04/23 in the evening, during the same time [DNP L] had called to discuss Resident #1. NP K said that [LVN A] notified her that Resident #1 had a fever, over 100 F, and [NP K] ordered a COVID test (because there was active COVID in the facility) and stat labs to check if WBC count suggest an infection. NP K said that she did not learn about abnormal VS (low BP, high pulse) until she spoke with DNP L and then received a text from LVN A. NP K agreed with DNP L that Resident #1 needed to go to the ER. NP K said if LVN A measured all vital signs and assessed Resident #1 she would have had pertinent and concise information to report. NP K said that she would suspect sepsis if LVN A reported a rapid heart rate and low blood pressure in addition to the fever. NP K said that she was not informed that Resident #1 had any change or symptoms that would trigger the process to determine immediate care needs. During a follow up interview on 10/18/23 at 1:00 PM, at the NFA request (via email on 10/18/23 at 12:38 PM), LVN A said that she had proof that she immediately notified NP K that Resident #1 had a change in condition. The RDCS, Sr. E.D., and DON B were present during the follow up interview. LVN A said that she did not complete the Daily Skilled Assessment for Resident #1 on 10/04/23 (6A - 2P or 2P - 10P) because it should be completed at the end of the shift and any concerns were written on the 24Hr report. LVN A said that she remembered she worked a double shift on 10/04/23. LVN A said that she noticed change of condition in Resident #1 around 4:00 PM, acted on, and measured Resident #1's temperature, blood pressure, and pulse and notified NP K. LVN A said that the progress note dated 10/04/23 at 6:18 PM reflected the action she took. DON B prompted LVN A to show on her [LVN A] phone when NP K was notified. Review of LVN A's personal cell phone on 10/18/23 at 1:03 PM reflected a text conversation (title bar showed NP K's name): Text(s) sent (10/04/23 at 4:51 PM): [Resident #1's first and last name] temp is 101 ( F) . He has chills . Not eating. Text received (10/04/23 at 4:52 PM): COVID test Stat (immediately) cbc (A complete blood count [CBC] test measures the total number of white cells in your blood), bmp (basic metabolic panel [BMP] is a blood test that measures the body's fluid balance and electrolytes levels) Text(s) sent (10/04/23 at 5:34 PM): He (Resident #1) is negative. Vitals BP 91/45 (mmHg) he 115 (HR bpm) O2sat 97 (%) temp 101.5 ( F) Text received (10/04/23 at 5:36 PM) - Give normal saline . one liter at 80cc Give Tylenol. Recheck vitals in 30 minutes. Text received (10/04/23 at 5:42 PM) - Send him out please [hospital] In a continued interview with LVN A on 10/18/23 at 1:00 PM, LVN A indicated the cell phone was her personal cell phone and did not use a secured message app to communicate with NP K. LVN A said that she notified the NP about a resident using the facility telephone at the nurses' station. LVN A said that she followed the facility protocol when she notified NP K and completed a SBAR form. During a telephone interview on 10/19/23 at 3:26 PM, the MD said that he was also the Medical Director. The MD said that he was familiar with Resident #1. The MD said that he rounded on Resident #1 every Friday. The MD said that Resident #1 was at risk for additional hospitalizations, had sepsis before that was treated at the SNF. The MD said that physician notification would include the MD or NP because the NP was a practitioner and licensed to make decisions. The MD said if the NP had any questions, the NP would call [the MD] to discuss. The MD said that he could not give a time frame expected to be notified by the nurse and if two hours were too long to seek medical attention for a resident. The MD said that he expected staff to notify the MD or NP as soon as possible, but it depended on case by case. The MD said that was told that [LVN A] notified [NP K] in a timely manner. The MD said that he expected a nurse to assess a resident, implement nurse interventions, and to give a complete report to MD or NP to allow an informed decision about treatment or to send to hospital. The MD The MD gave an example a timeframe to notify a physician in a timely manner. The MD stated a situation of a resident with a fever was a change in condition. The MD said the nurse would implement nursing interventions (indicated Tylenol was given) and after thirty minutes to recheck if the intervention was effective or not, and then notify the physician. Upon request on 10/12/23, 10/13/23, 10/18/23, and 10/19/23, the NFA (and Sr. E.D. [on 10/18/23]) indicated the facility did not have a policy on physician notification. During a phone interview on 10/25/23 at 1:41 PM, DNP L stated she was the advanced practice provider (APP) (a licensed health care provider [not a physician] that provides medical services in collaboration with the nephrology [kidney] physician), that oversaw treatment and management of Resident #1's ARF/CKD diagnosis. DNP L said that she remembered seeing Resident #1 at the SNF on 10/04/23 around 5:00 PM during a follow-up visit. DNP L said she assessed and examined Resident #1 at bedside and recalled Resident #1 c/o not feeling good, feverish, had chills, and N/V. Upon assessment, DNP L determined Resident #1 was alert and oriented but appeared extremely drowsy. Resident #1's vital signs were measured, and HR was rapid, BP was low, and temperature was high. DNP L said that she spoke with (LVN A) about Resident #1's current clinical status and LVN A informed that [NP K] was aware and ordered a COVID test - negative, and stat labs. DNP L stated she felt that Resident #1 needed immediate medical attention and was provided [NP K] phone number to discuss assessment findings. DNP L stated NP K agreed with the plan to send Resident #1 to the hospital. Record Review of an undated policy titled Change of Condition, reflected: POLICY: To identify and evaluate a change in condition and notify the Physician/Extender and Responsible Party when indicated. A significant change in Resident's status is any sign or symptom that is: - Acute or sudden onset - A marked change (i.e., more severe) in relation to usual signs and symptoms - New or worsening symptoms - Examples include but are not limited to the following: cardiovascular, respiratory, behavioral, fall with major injury, infection, dehydration, altered mental status, pressure injury and any other condition based on professional judgment. PROCEDURE: When a change in condition occurs, the Licensed Nurse will: 1. Evaluate the signs and symptoms the Resident is experiencing and collect pertinent information to report to the Physician/Extender on the Resident's status. A. Obtain vital signs, oxygen saturation and blood sugar, if indicated. B. Review recent labs, if indicated. C. Review Resident history and diagnosis, if indicated. D. Review list of medications the Resident has taken, if indicated. 2. Notify the Physician/Extender of the change in condition and advanced directives. 3. Document date, time Physician/Extender, Responsible Party was notified of findings from the evaluation and any new orders obtained. 4. The Licensed Nurse will monitor and document the Resident's progress and response to orders given by Physician/Extender in the EMR. 5. If it is determined that there is no improvement or resolution in the Resident's condition change, the nurse will notify the Physician/Extender for further guidance and document response in the EMR. 6. If the Physician/Extender chooses to send the Resident to the hospital for further evaluation and treatment, the charge nurse will initiate the transfer process. Evaluation findings will be documented on the communication tool used to transition the Resident to the next level of care. 7. The Resident's plan of care will be updated accordingly. Record review of facility policy titled Statement of Patient's Rights provided by the facility from a blank sample admission packet revealed: 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) An accident involving the resident which results in injury and has the potential for requiring physician intervention; (B) 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); (C) A need to alter treatment significantly (that is, a need to discontinue an existing form of treatment due to adverse consequences, or to commence a new form of treatment); or (D) A decision to transfer or discharge the resident from the facility as specified in §483.15(c)(1)(ii). (ii) When making notification under paragraph (g)(14)(i) of this section, the facility must ensure that all pertinent information specified in §483.15(c)(2) is available and provided upon request to the physician.
Sept 2023 8 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Abuse Prevention Policies (Tag F0607)

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 implement written policies that prevent abuse for one (Resident #99...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to implement written policies that prevent abuse for one (Resident #99) of five residents reviewed for abuse, in that: The facility failed to suspend LVN X after Resident #99's RP #2 made an allegation of verbal abuse. These failures could place residents at risk by leaving suspected abusers in contact with facility residents. Findings included: Review of Resident #99's face sheet, dated 09/20/23, reflected the resident was a [AGE] year-old female who admitted to the facility on [DATE] and discharged on 09/17/23. Her diagnoses included depression, diabetes, and a urinary tract infection. Review of Resident #99's admission MDS Assessment reflected she had a BIMS score of 15, indicating she was cognitively intact. Review of Resident #99's Care Plan, dated 08/30/23, reflected she had verbal behavioral symptoms directed at others. Review of the Provider Investigation Report for intake #449378 reflected the following for Provider Response: ED, DON, and SW made aware. Trauma assessment completed by SW. Customer Service/Sensitivity training with staff, 1:1 sensitivity training with alleged perpetrator. Review of the undated Trauma Assessment for Resident #99 revealed it was completed. Review of in-services, dated 09/01/23, reflected staff were in-serviced on abuse/neglect and customer service and sensitivity training. Review of the sign-in sheets reflected a 1:1 (individual) in-service was provided to LVN X. In an interview on 09/20/23 at 2:40 PM, LVN X revealed she was working on 08/31/23 for the 2:00 PM to 10:00 PM shift on a different hall than Resident #99. LVN X said she was on the same hall as Resident #99 in the room next door assisting a resident and saw Resident #99's call light on. LVN X said she walked into Resident #99's room to see what the resident needed and heard Resident #99's RP #1 on the phone. LVN X said Resident #99 told her she wanted to go to bed and asked LVN X to help her. LVN X said she told Resident #99 she needed to go and get another person to help her transfer Resident #99 to bed. LVN X said Resident #99 got upset about that and both the resident and Resident #99's RP #1 started calling LVN X profane names. LVN X said she told Resident #99 she would be right back because she still needed to get another person to help transfer her to bed so she walked out of the room. LVN X said she never responded by yelling or verbally abusing Resident #99. LVN X said she was called the next day on 09/01/23 by the Administrator and was asked if LVN X yelled or verbally abused Resident #99. LVN X said she was in-serviced on 09/01/23 regarding the facility's abuse/neglect policy and then went to work. LVN X said she was never suspended or informed she was suspended. LVN X said she would never yell at or verbally abuse a resident in any way. In an interview on 09/20/23 at 3:02 PM, the Administrator revealed she was the Abuse Coordinator for the facility. The Administrator said she received a call on 09/01/23 from Resident #99's RP #2 saying that someone was verbally abusive towards the resident the night prior (08/31/23). The Administrator said she reported the allegation and began her investigation. The Administrator said Resident #99's RP #2 never said what the verbal abuse was but Resident #99 said she was not abused or yelled at by staff. The Administrator said LVN X was not Resident #99's nurse but had gone in the room to answer her call light. The Administrator said LVN X was in-serviced on the facility's abuse/neglect policy on 09/01/23 and since LVN X had no prior history of having abuse allegations made against her she felt that was sufficient. The Administrator said during her investigation, LVN X was not suspended because she concluded that LVN X was not verbally abusive towards Resident #99. The Administrator said she did not know what else she could have done during her investigation if LVN X had been suspended for one to two days. The Administrator said she was able to complete her investigation before LVN X came in for her next shift on 09/01/23 at 2 PM. The Administrator said her investigation included interviewing other staff who worked on 08/31/23 during the same shift, in-servicing staff, and completing safe surveys with other residents. The Administrator said nothing came from her investigation and the allegation was unconfirmed. The Administrator acknowledged that the facility's abuse policy specified that LVN X should have been suspended. The Administrator said the purpose of following the facility's abuse policy was to make sure that residents were safe and to not put them in any harm. The Administrator said the concern with not following the facility's abuse policy was that if someone was put back on the floor that more residents could possibly be abused. The Administrator said if another abuse allegation was made against a staff member she would follow the facility's abuse policy and suspend the employee until the investigation was completed. Review of the facility's Abuse Protocol policy, dated April 2019, reflected: .10. The Abuse Coordinator will: .b. Immediately (within 24 hours) suspend the employee for an abuse allegation until an investigation is completed
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure drugs and biologicals used in the facility were labeled and secured in accordance with currently accepted professional principles for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #30) reviewed for medication administration, in that: The faciility failed to ensure that medications (Timolol maleate, Azopt eye drops and Fluticasone & Salmeterol Inhaler), were not stored at Resident #30's bedside. This deficient practice could place residents who received medication at risk for not receiving the intended therapeutic benefit of the medication and accidentally or intentionally self-administering the medication and place all residents/others at risk of taking medication not intended for their use. Findings included: Record review of Resident #30's face sheet, dated 09/20/23, revealed the resident was a [AGE] year-old female with an admission date of 07/04/20. Review of Resident #30's MDS, dated [DATE], revealed diagnoses of Atrial Fibrillation, hypertension, Diabetes Mellitus, seizure, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and Glaucoma. Review of Resident # 30's physician orders dated 9/20/23 revealed the following orders: Timolol maleate 0.25% eye drops (works by decreasing the amount of fluid in the eye) One drop both eyes twice daily. Start date 10/11/21. Azopt 1% eye drops, suspension (Used to treat high pressure inside the eye due to Glaucoma) One drop twice daily both eyes. Start date 3/02/23. Fluticasone 100 micrograms Salmeterol 50 micrograms (inhalation treatment for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease). One puff twice daily. Start date10/11/21. There was no physician order for medications to be left at bedside. Record review of Resident #30's care plan dated 07/04/20 through present, reflected: Focus: has a diagnosis of Glaucoma Focus: has a diagnosis of Diabetes Mellitus and at risk for vision impairment. Intervention - routine eye exams. Resident was not care planned for medication(s) to be left at bedside. Observation on 09/19/23 at 8:40 AM during routine medication pass revealed LVN A unable to locate Resident #30's prescribed eye drops in the medication cart. LVN A stated the medication was kept in Resident #30's room. LVN A stated there was no physician order for medications to be kept at resident bedside and medications should always be kept in the medication cart. LVN A stated medications were kept at resident bedside through resident choice. LVN A stated Resident #30 had complained of lost eye drops in past and insisted medications be kept in Resident #30's room. Interview on 09/20/23 at 10:00 AM with LVN B stated she had been employed in facility for 1 year. LVN B stated medications should never be left in resident rooms. LVN B stated each resident must be observed to take/use medication. LVN B stated medications left unattended presented a risk for residents/others of over-dose, illness or death. LVN B stated she had received a medicationadministration in-service within the last 2 months but could not recall who presented. LVN B stated in-services were usually provided by the DON/ADON depending on the subject matter. Interview on 09/19/23 at 1:03 PM with Clinical Educator stated medications should never be left in resident rooms. The Clinical Educator stated that put residents/others at risk of overdose and illness. Interview on 09/20/23 at 12:49 PM with the DON stated medications should not be left at bedside. The DON stated unsecured meds placed all residents/others at risk of taking something not intended for their use; possible over-dose. The DON stated all staff were in-serviced 09/19/23 on medication administration/security. The DON stated she was responsible for monitoring for compliance. Interview on 9/20/23 at 8:27 AM with the Administrator stated failure to secure medications, leaving medications in resident rooms, put residents/others at risk of using medications not intended for them or taking too much of the medication(s) causing illness. The Administrator stated all nursing staff hadbeen in-serviced regarding medication administration and to never leave medications in resident rooms. The administrator stated staff were being in-serviced, again, regarding medication administration and medication security. Review of the facility's MED-PASS, Inc. policy and procedure, revised April 2007, reflected the following: Storage of Medications The facility shall store all drugs and biologicals in a safe, secure, and orderly manner. [NAME] Health https://www.[NAME].org>librariesprovider2Securing Medications reviewed 09/25/23 at 1:50 PM. All medications must be secured and locked when not in use. Never leave medications unattended; never leave any medication at the patient's bedside. If medication is found at the bedside, such as inhalers, ointments, creams, etc., return them to the nurse. RCNi https://rcni.com>opinion>expert-advice>medicines . Reviewed 09/25/23 at 2:01 PM. All medicines should be locked away in a treatment room, drug trolley or the patient's bedside locker.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0800 (Tag F0800)

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 1(Resident #52) of 6 residents reviewed for th...

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 1(Resident #52) of 6 residents reviewed for therapeutic diets received the diet ordered per physician order. The facility failed to provide Resident #52 with snacks between each meal as ordered by a physician. This failure could affect all residents who have physician orders for a specialized or therapeutic diet and could place the residents at risk for weight loss and a decline in health. Findings included: Review of Resident #52's face sheet, dated 09/20/23, reflected the resident was an [AGE] year-old male who admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included: pulmonary fibrosis (lung disease), pneumonia (infection in lungs), vitamin deficiency, and major depressive disorder (mood disorder). Review of Resident #52's admission MDS Assessment, dated 09/10/23, reflected the following: -He was cognitively intact with a BIMS score of 15. -Required supervision with one-person assist with all ADLs. -Required setup or clean-up assistance with eating. -did not require a therapeutic diet based on performance within last 7 days of assessment. Review of Resident #52's Care Plan, dated 08/30/23, reflected he was at risk for weight loss due to history of renal cancer, congestive heart failure, and aneurysm. Record review of Resident #52's current physician orders revealed an order to offer a snack in between meals and record accepted or declined, with an order date of 09/12/23 and prescribed by the NP. Record review of Resident #52's TAR, dated 09/12/23-09/20/23, reflected Resident #52 did not start receiving snacks in between meals until 09/13/23. Record review of Resident #52's weights revealed the following: On 08/30/2023, the resident weighed 166.4 lbs. On 09/20/2023, the resident weighed 153.9 pounds which is a -7.51 % Loss. Interview on 09/18/23 at 10:35 AM with Resident #52 revealed he had resided at the facility for about 3 weeks. He denied being abused or neglected but stated he had concerns for his weight. Resident #52 stated he weighed approximately 165lbs when he admitted to the facility and had already lost approximately 10lbs. in less than a month. Resident #52 stated he had a good appetite and was eating 100% of all three meals daily. He stated he had asked the RDN for extra snacks that he was not receiving unless his family brought them for him. Resident #52 stated his weight loss was either due to not receiving enough calories per day or due to his renal cancer returning. Interview and observation on 09/18/23 at 2:30 PM with Resident #52 revealed he had not been offered a snack after lunch. Interview and observation on 09/19/23 at 10:35 AM with Resident #52 revealed he had not been offered a snack after breakfast. Interview and observation on 09/19/23 at 2:35 PM with Resident #52 revealed he had not been offered a snack after lunch. Interview on 09/20/23 at 1:03 PM with the DON revealed she had worked as interim at the facility for about 2 weeks. She stated Resident #52 had an abdominal aortic aneurism and other comorbidities that put him at risk for weight loss. The DON stated Resident #52 was very ill and his medical condition was discussed during the care plan meeting with him and his family. The DON stated it was the ADON's responsibility to review recommendations and reports from the RDN. She stated she would also run reports to review them. The DON stated she did not recall Resident #52 being triggered on the report for significant weight loss; however, she acknowledged that there was a dietary recommendation put in on 09/08/23 by the RDN and the order was not put in until 09/12/23. The DON stated she had spoken with Resident #52 this date (09/20/23) and assured him that moving forward he would be receiving a snack between all meals as ordered. The DON stated putting the order in late and staff not following it could place the resident at risk for even more weight loss. Interview on 09/20/23 at 5:08 PM with the RDN revealed she had worked for the facility for 5 years. She stated during an interview with Resident #52 on 09/08/23 he reported that his current body weight was a little low for him and he requested a snack between meals, with a preference of pudding. The RDN stated it was her responsibility to put in the recommendation and then the ADON or the DON would be responsible for reading her report and getting an order from the MD. The RDN stated she discussed Resident #52's concerns about his weight with the clinical team. And recommended adding a snack in between each meal. Interview on 09/20/23 at 5:26 PM with CNA F revealed she had worked at the facility for 7 years, 2:00 PM-10:00 PM. She stated that she worked with Resident #52. CNA F stated she was aware that there were residents who had specialized diets such as extra snacks between meals but was not aware that Resident #52 had a special diet. She stated the dietary department would bring any special snacks to the halls, labeled for specific residents, and it was her job to pass them out. CNA F stated during her shift, Resident #52 never had any snacks on the tray. However, she stated all residents could ask for snacks whenever they wanted them. She stated Resident #52 would sometimes ask for a snack after dinner, but not always. Interview on 09/20/23 at 6:48 PM with the ADON revealed she worked at the facility for one year and had recently started working PRN as a floor nurse. She stated as ADON it was her responsibility to put MD orders in. The ADON stated she received the dietary recommendations for Resident #52 and the order was put in on whatever day her note stated. She was not at the facility or logged onto the system during interview; therefore, she was unable to recall the day she notified the MD and put the order in. The ADON stated anytime a new dietary recommendation was presented to the MD, the resident's weights were reviewed. She stated the MD was aware of Resident #52's weight loss. Interview on 09/20/23 at 7:10 PM with the NP revealed there was an order for Resident #52 to have snacks in between meals; however, she stated Resident #52 was at risk for weight loss due to a history of congestive heart failure and renal carcinoma and this was likely the cause and not from the missed snacks. She stated Resident #52 was last seen by the MD on 09/18/23 and was clinically stable. Review of the facility's Nutrition policy, dated July 2017, revealed in part the following: .11. Recommendations made in the Dietitian Recommendation Report must be reviewed upon exit of the Registered Dietician and follow up to all recommendations must be initiated (including obtaining any necessary physician's orders) within 72 hours of the visit. The facility's policy did not address a resident not receiving their therapeutic diet.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0727 (Tag F0727)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to use the services of a Registered Nurse for at least eight consecutive hours a day, seven days a week in the facility for five (11/19/22, 11...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to use the services of a Registered Nurse for at least eight consecutive hours a day, seven days a week in the facility for five (11/19/22, 11/20/22, 11/27/22, 12/4/22, and 12/11/22) of 60 days reviewed. The facility failed to have RN coverage in the facility for eight consecutive hours on 11/19/22, 11/20/22, 11/27/22, 12/4/22, and 12/11/22. This failure could place residents at risk of not having their nursing and medical needs met and receiving improper care. Findings included: Review of an internal email, dated 12/01/22, reflected there were no RN hours on the following dates: 11/19/22, 11/20/22, 11/27/22. Review of an internal email, dated 01/03/23, reflected there were no RN hours on the following dates: 12/04/22 and 12/11/22. In an interview on 09/19/23 at 1:51 PM, the Regional Administrator revealed they did not have any paperwork to prove that an RN worked on the following dates: 11/19/22, 11/20/22, 11/27/22, 12/4/22, and 12/11/22. In a follow-up interview on 09/19/23 at 2:10 PM, the Administrator and Regional Administrator revealed they could not provide any timesheets for the requested days. In another follow-up interview on 09/20/23 at 1:00 PM, the Regional Administrator revealed from the requested dates she confirmed that no RN worked on those dates. In an interview on 09/19/23 at 2:19 PM, the Administrator revealed the expectation was that an RN worked at least eight hours each day. The Administrator said the purpose of having an RN working at least eight hours each day was to follow the law. The Administrator said the concern with not having an RN working at least eight hours each day was because there are certain things that only an RN can do and one would not have been available. The Administrator said she was hired about a month ago and was not here at the time when there was not an RN in the building for the above mentioned dates. Review of the facility's Personnel policy, dated November 2017, reflected: [Management Company Name] Staffing Guidelines .Weekend RNs .An RN supervisor must be staffed a minimum of 8 hours per weekend day.
CONCERN (E)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food safety in the facility's only ki...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food safety in the facility's only kitchen. 1. The facility failed to ensure food items were kept away from contaminants and an unsanitary environment. 2. The facility failed to ensure food items were properly labeled, dated, and sealed. 3. The facility failed to ensure that food items were discarded before expiration date. These failures could place all residents, who receive food from the kitchen, at an increased risk for food contamination and food-borne illness. Findings included: Observation of the kitchen on 09/18/23 at 9:24 AM revealed there was a brown, sticky-looking substance splattered on the ceiling near a table where food was prepared. Observation also revealed the following: In refrigerator: -Cooked squash in plastic bag, unsealed and unlabeled. -Cooked okra in plastic bag, unlabeled. -Potato salad, undated -Container of fruit juice, unlabeled and dated 9/10 . -Cooked beans covered in a plastic container, labeled, and dated 9/12. -Container of black tea, unlabeled and undated. -Croissants, plastic wrapped in a box, unlabeled and undated Interview on 09/18/2023 at 10:38 AM with Dietary Aide D, revealed she had worked at the facility for about 4 months. She stated it was the responsibility of all kitchen staff to maintain the cleanliness and sanitation of the kitchen. She acknowledged the brown substance splattered on the ceiling and stated maintenance was responsible for cleaning the ceiling. Observation of the kitchen on 09/19/23 at 11:00 AM revealed the brown, sticky-looking substance was still splattered on the ceiling. Interview on 09/20/2023 at 2:06 PM with [NAME] F revealed he had worked at the facility for 11 years. He stated it was the responsibility of all kitchen staff to keep the kitchen clean and properly store food items. [NAME] F stated all staff were trained on kitchen sanitation and food storage. [NAME] F stated the maintenance staff were responsible for cleaning the ceiling and ice machines. Interview on 09/20/2023 at 2:18 PM with Dietary Aide D, revealed the Dietary Manager was very strict about keeping the kitchen cleaned and food items stored properly, and they had meetings about it at least once a month. She stated it was all kitchen staff's responsibility to make sure stored foods items were sealed tight, labeled, and dated before going in the refrigerator, freezer, or pantry. She stated the risk of having an unsanitary kitchen could place the residents at risk of food-borne illness. Interview on 09/19/2023 at 2:37 PM with the Dietary Manager revealed she had meetings with all staff about kitchen sanitation and food storage, but she did not document them. She stated the dietician also did a monthly sanitation audit of the kitchen. The Dietary Manager stated kitchen staff had sign-off sheets for all completed cleaning tasks and cleaning the ceiling was not a part of their tasks. The Dietary Manager stated maintenance was responsible for cleaning the ceiling and vents. She stated the brown splatter on the ceiling had been there since she started at the facility, and she had submitted a request for it to be cleaned to the previous and current maintenance director; however, it was never done. She stated her expectation was for the cooks and dietary aides to properly seal, label, and date all food items being stored. She also stated that all leftover food items should be used within 3 days and kitchen staff were expected to discard on expiration date. The Dietary Manager stated preparing food in an unsanitary kitchen due to debris on the ceiling could cause cross-contamination and place the residents at risk for food-borne illness. She also stated not properly storing, labeling, and dating food items and using expired foods could place residents at risk of allergic reactions and food-borne illness. Interview on 09/20/2023 at 5:21 PM with the Maintenance Director revealed he had worked at the facility since 04/2023. He stated it was maintenance's responsibility to clean the kitchen ceiling. He stated he had recently taken over from the previous maintenance director and was working through a backlog of projects. The Maintenance Director stated the request to clean the ceiling was not in his books; however, the Dietary Manager may have mentioned it to him. Record review of the facility's Clean Schedules, dated for August 2023 and September 2023, revealed it was current and all tasks had been signed off. Cleaning the ceiling was not listed on the schedules. Record review of the facility's sanitation audit reports revealed the following: -July 2023 report: ceiling was clean, but vents needed to be cleaned and painted. -August 2023: ceiling clean -September 2023: ceiling clean Record review of the facility's policy titled Food Storage, undated, revealed in part the following: Policy Statement: sufficient storage facilities are provided to keep foods safe, wholesome, and appetizing. Food stored, prepared, and transported at an appropriate temperature and by methods designed to prevent contamination. Procedures: . 13. Leftover food is stored in covered containers or wrapped carefully and securely. Each item is clearly labeled and dated before being refrigerated. Leftover food is used within 2-3 days or discarded. A policy for kitchen sanitation was requested from the Administrator on 09/20/23 at 3:00 PM and was not received by the time of exit. Record review of the Federal Drug Administration Food Code dated 2017 section titled Equipment, Food-Contact Surfaces, Nonfood-Contact Surfaces, and Utensils revealed (C) Nonfood-CONTACT SURFACES of EQUIPMENT shall be kept free of an accumulation of dust, dirt, FOOD residue, and other debris. Food Storage. (A) Except as specified in (B) of this section, FOOD shall be protected from contamination by storing the FOOD: (1) In a clean, dry location; (2) Where it is not exposed to splash, dust, or other contamination; During preparation, UNPACKAGED FOOD shall be protected from environmental sources of contamination. 3-307.11 Miscellaneous Sources of Contamination. FOOD shall be protected from contamination that may result from a factor or source not specified under Subparts 3-301 - 3-306. 3-602.11 Food Labels. (A) FOOD PACKAGED in a FOOD ESTABLISHMENT, shall be labeled as specified in LAW, including 21 CFR 101 - Food labeling, and 9 CFR 317 Labeling, marking devices, and containers.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for 2 staff (LVN A and MA D) of 3 staff observed during medication pass and 6 (803, 809, 808, 114, 116, and 303) of 6 Isolation rooms observed for infection control in that: 1. LVN A failed to sanitize the medication cart top after placing a contaminated blood pressure cuff on the cart top, sanitizing the cuff and then placing the cuff back on the cart top without disinfecting cart top. 2. MA D failed to sanitize the medication cart top after placing a contaminated blood pressure cuff on the cart top, sanitizing the cuff and then placing the cuff back on the cart top without disinfecting cart top. 3. The facility failed to provide Isolation Rooms 803, 809, 808, 114, 116, and 303 with hampers for soiled/contaminated PPE. These failures could affect all residents by causing cross contamination and placing them at risk for exposure to a contagious disease, infection, and possible hospitalization. Findings included: An observation on 9/19/23 at 8:40 AM revealed LVN A applied a blood pressure cuff to the arm of Resident #30, obtained vitals, removed the cuff from Resident #30's arm and placed the contaminated cuff on top of the medication cart. LVN A was observed to use a disinfectant wipe to clean the cuff and then place the cuff on top of the cart without disinfecting the cart top. LVN A was observed to use the cart top when preparing medications for Resident #30. Continuous observation of LVN A from 8:23 AM until 9:35 AM revealed LVN A did not disinfect medication cart top. An observation on 9/19/23 at 9:42 AM of MA D revealed MA D donned gloves, applied a blood pressure cuff to Resident #53's left upper arm, obtained vitals, removed cuff, and placed contaminated cuff on top of the medication cart. MA D was observed to use a disinfectant wipe to clean the blood pressure cuff and then place the cuff on the contaminated cart top. MA D was observed to utilize the contaminated cart top to prepare and administer medications for Resident #53. An observation on 9/18/23 at 1:43 PM of Isolation room [ROOM NUMBER] revealed a small wastebin in the bathroom overflowing with contaminated PPE. An observation on 9/18/23 at 2:12 PM of Isolation room [ROOM NUMBER] revealed a blue plastic gown (PPE) hanging from the top left hinge of bi-fold closet doors and a yellow gown (PPE) hanging from a top corner of the right bi-fold closet door. Observation of the bathroom revealed a small waste bin overflowing with discarded/contaminated PPE. An observation on 9/18/23 at 2:15 PM of Isolation room [ROOM NUMBER] revealed a small, unlined waste bin in the bathroom overflowing with discarded/contaminated PPE. An observation on 9/18/23 at 2:27 PM in Isolation room [ROOM NUMBER] revealed a small waste bin in the bathroom over-flowing with discarded/contaminated PPE. An observation on 9/18/23 at 2:36 PM of Isolation room [ROOM NUMBER] revealed a small waste bin in the bathroom over-flowing with contaminated PPE. An observation on 9/18/23 at 2:48 PM of Isolation room [ROOM NUMBER] revealed a small waste bin in the bathroom over-flowing with discarded/contaminated PPE. During an interview on 9/19/23 at 9:30 AM with LVN A stated she always laid the blood pressure cuff on top of her medication cart after each use, recorded the pressure readings and then disinfected the cuff. LVN A stated she sanitized the top of the medication cart at the beginning of her shift and as needed. LVN A stated she had not considered the impact of laying a contaminated cuff on the medication cart top and then preparing medications without disinfecting the cart top. LVN A stated she should have disinfected the cart top after contaminating the cart top. LVN A stated she had never been in-serviced on soiled cuff placement when managing medications. LVN A stated the DON and others had provided many Infection Control in-services - just nothing that addressed this specific problem. LVN A stated cross-contamination put residents at risk for infection/illness. During an interview on 9/19/23 at 9:48 AM with MA D stated he didn't think about Infection Control when he used the blood pressure wrist cuff to check Resident and then placed contaminated cuff on top of the medication cart, stated that was cross-contamination and could cause sickness in residents. MA D stated he should have disinfected the cuff before placing cuff on the cart . MA D stated DON/nurses provided Infection Control in-services but nothing about laying contaminated cuffs on the medication cart directly after resident use and he had just never thought about it. MA D stated he always used cart top to prepare medications and could understand the concern. Interview on 9/19/23 at 1:10 PM with CNA C stated all Isolation rooms should have red bags for disposal of soiled PPE and yellow bags for soiled linen. CNA C stated soiled PPE should be discarded in appropriate hampers prior to exit from Isolation Room. CNA C stated she had not been in-serviced on use of red/yellow bags. CNA C stated she had removed her PPE and discarded items in small waste bin in residents' bathroom, stated she didn't know why she had not placed hampers in the rooms. CNA C stated failure to dispose of soiled PPE appropriately placed residents/others at risk of infection. Interview on 9/20/23 at 10:00 AM with LVN B stated she had been employed in facility for 1 year. LVN B stated all isolation rooms should have a large hamper to dispose of soiled PPE. LVN B stated if there was no hamper she would obtain one and place in the room and then she would determine why hamper was missing. LVN B stated failure to dispose of PPE appropriately placed residents/others at risk of infection. LVN B stated isolation rooms were set up by nurses, CNA's, Central Supply staff and should always have appropriate PPE and disposal units (hampers) placed in residents' room next to the door. Interview on 9/20/23 at 3:48 PM with Central Supply clerk stated employed 6 months in facility as central supply staff. Clerk stated she was responsible for setting up all PPE supplies for individual rooms, including hampers for soiled PPE. The clerk stated she set up PPE according to type of diagnosis. The clerk stated she did not know why hampers were not placed in the rooms of residents who had COVID diagnosis. The clerk stated all isolation rooms should have a separate hamper for PPE disposal. The clerk stated she was off on weekends and was not present when some of the Residents were placed in isolation. The Central Supply clerk stated she did not check isolation rooms on Monday 9/18/23 when she reported for work. The clerk stated she didn't think she should check isolation rooms. The clerk stated she received a PPE/Isolation Room in-service 9/19/23. The clerk stated she was not given any instruction to ensure rooms were appropriately equipped. The clerk stated failure to dispose of PPE, per policy, placed residents/staff at risk for infection. The clerk stated hampers were kept in Central Supply storage room and stated all staff had access. The clerk stated plenty of PPE, Sani-wipes and disinfectant wipes. Stated all staff knew location of Central Supply. Interview on 9/20/23 at 12:49 PM with the DON stated she was aware of staff failure to clean medication cart tops appropriately after placing contaminated items, including blood pressure cuffs, glucometers, etcetera , on the medication cart tops. The DON stated all should be cleaned with a Sani Cloth or a disinfectant wipe; stated both items should be available on all carts. The DON stated extra supplies were always available in Central Supply and stated all staff had access. DON stated failure to follow the facility infection control policy put residents/others at risk of infection. DON stated she was not sure when last Infection Control in-service was provided but stated all staff were in-serviced 9/19/23 after the matter was brought to her attention. DON stated she would be monitoring staff to ensure compliance with Infection Control processes. Interview on 9/20/23 at 8:27 AM with the Administrator stated expectation that all staff would follow policy of disinfecting medication carts and any equipment used at bedside. The Administrator stated failure to disinfect could cause disease/illness. The administrator stated all staff were provided an Infection Control in-service 9/19/23 addressing the issues; stated the DON would monitor to ensure proper disinfecting was done. The administrator stated hampers to be used for contaminated PPE had been placed in all Isolation rooms and all staff were in-serviced. The Administrator stated she did not know why hampers were missing from isolation rooms. The administrator stated failure to appropriately dispose of PPE placed residents/others at risk of disease/infection/illness. The Administrator stated the DON was responsible for monitoring staff to ensure soiled PPE was disposed of appropriately. Review of Nursing Services Policy and Procedure Manual for Long-Term Care Infection Control dated 2001 (Revised July 2017) revealed the following: Cleaning and Disinfection of Resident Care Items and Equipment Policy Statement Resident-care equipment, including reuseable items and durable medical equipment will be cleaned and disinfected according to current CDC recommendations for disinfection and the OSHA Bloodborne Pathogens Standard. Policy Interpretation and Implementation d. Reuseable items are cleaned and disinfected, or sterilized, between residents (e.g., stethoscopes, durable medical equipment). Medical Waste, Handling of Purpose The purpose of this procedure is to provide a definition and guidelines for the safe and appropriate handling of medical waste. General Guidelines 1. Disposable items, which are contaminated with excretions or secretions from residents believed to be infectious, must be placed in red plastic bags . Review on 9/23/23 at 2:46 PM of https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ National Library of Medicine revealed the following: Preparation of the Isolation Room: Place appropriate waste bags in a bin. If possible, use a touch-free bin. Ensure that used (i.e. dirty) bins remain inside the isolation rooms.
MINOR (C)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Staffing Information (Tag F0732)

Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that the daily nurse staffing was posted as required each day for two (09/18/23 and 09/19/23) of three days reviewed f...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that the daily nurse staffing was posted as required each day for two (09/18/23 and 09/19/23) of three days reviewed for nursing services and postings. The facility failed to update the daily staffing information posting on 09/18/23 and 09/19/23. This failure could affect residents, their families, and facility visitors by placing them at risk of not having access to information regarding staffing data and facility census. Findings included: Observation on 09/18/23 at 11:00 AM of the building revealed the daily nursing staff posting was not posted anywhere in the facility. Observation on 09/19/23 at 11:00 AM of the building revealed the daily nursing staff posting was not posted anywhere in the facility. In an interview and observation on 09/19/23 at 11:18 AM, the Administrator revealed the Staffing Coordinator was responsible for posting the daily nursing staff information each day in the front. The Administrator acknowledged that the daily nursing staff posting was not posted at the front. In an interview on 09/19/23 at 11:23 AM, the Staffing Coordinator revealed she was responsible for posting the daily nursing staff information. The Staffing Coordinator said she had been busy and never got the chance to post the daily nursing staff information yesterday (09/18/23) or today (09/19/23). In an interview on 09/19/23 at 2:19 PM, the Administrator revealed the purpose of the daily nursing staff information being posted daily was so that everyone knew how many nurses/CNA's were in the building based on the census for the day. The Administrator said there was no concern with the Staffing Coordinator failing to post the daily nursing staff information. Review of the facility's Personnel policy, dated November 2017, reflected it did not address the daily nursing staff information being posted.
MINOR (C)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Staffing Data (Tag F0851)

Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to follow guidelines for mandatory submission of staffing information based on payroll data in a uniform format and submit to CMS complete and...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to follow guidelines for mandatory submission of staffing information based on payroll data in a uniform format and submit to CMS complete and accurate direct care staffing information, including information for agency and contract staff, based on payroll and other verifiable and auditable data in a uniform format according to specifications established by CMS for submitting accurate staffing information for four (FY Quarter 4 2023, FY Quarter 3, FY Quarter 2 2023, and FY Quarter 1 2023) of four quarters reviewed for accurate staffing information and submitting accurate RN hours for two (FY Quarter 4 2022 and FY Quarter 1 2023) of two quarters reviewed for accurate RN hours. The facility failed to submit accurate staffing information to CMS for FY Quarter 4 2022 (July 1- September 30), FY Quarter 3 2023 (April 1- June 30), FY Quarter 2 2023 (January 1- March 31), and FY Quarter 1 2023 (October 1- December 31). The facility failed to submit accurate RN hours for eight days in FY Quarter 4 2022 (July 1- September 30) and five days in FY Quarter 1 2023 (October 1- December 31). The facility's failures could place residents at risk for personal needs not being identified and met, decreased quality of care, decline in health status, and decreased feelings of well-being within their living environment. The findings included: Review of the CMS PBJ report for CMS for FY Quarter 4 2022 (July 1- September 30), FY Quarter 3 2023 (April 1- June 30), FY Quarter 2 2023 (January 1- March 31), and FY Quarter 1 2023 (October 1- December 31) indicated the facility had one star staffing triggered. Review of the CMS PBJ report for FY Quarter 4 2022 (July 1- September 30) indicated the facility had no RN hours triggered for the following dates: 07/29 (FRI), 08/07 (SU); 08/18 (TH); 08/27 (SA), 09/03 (SA). Review of the CMS PBJ report for FY Quarter 1 2023 (October 1- December 31) indicated the facility had no RN hours triggered for the following dates: 11/19 (SA); 11/20 (SU); 11/27 (SU), 12/04 (SU); 12/11 (SU). In an interview via phone on 09/19/23 at 1:32 PM with the HR Manager revealed she was responsible for submitting the PBJ staffing information and data to CMS. The HR Manager said the facility switched time keeping systems in July 2022 which resulted in staff showing up as all new staff because both of their codes from both systems needed to be put in the system and were not. The HR Manager said the data was not submitted correctly for nine months but has since been corrected so going forward the one star staffing should not be triggered on the report anymore. The HR Manager said the facility had missed quite a few days where an RN was not working in the building for the required eight hours. The HR Manager said the facility had eight days in quarter four for 2022 and five days in quarter one for 2023 where there were no RN hours to submit. In an interview on 09/19/23 at 2:19 PM with the Administrator revealed someone from Corporate submits the PBJ staffing data information for the facility. The Administrator said she heard that one star staffing was triggered for the facility and was due to how something was coded incorrectly and it was now corrected going forward. The Administrator said she was not sure why the facility had triggered for no RN hours. The Administrator said she was not responsible for any oversight on the PBJ staffing data information being submitted. In an interview on 09/20/23 at 4:16 PM with the Administrator revealed the facility did not have a policy addressing the PBJ staffing form but followed CMS guidelines.
Mar 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

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 inform the resident, consult with the resident's physici...

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 inform the resident, consult with the resident's physician, and notify, consistent with his or her authority, the resident representative when there was significant change in the resident's physical, mental, or psychosocial status for one of four residents (Resident #1) reviewed for notification of changes. RN A failed to notify the responsible party/resident representative when Resident #1 fell from her bed on 02/22/23, with multiple superficial skin tears and complained of pain in her left leg and shoulder that required treatment which included cleaning, dressing, use of steri-strips, pain medications and x-rays. This failure could place residents at risk of not having their responsible parties notified of changes in their condition and deny them the right to participate in the care and treatment of the resident. Findings included: Record review of Resident #1's Minimum Data Set Assessment, dated 12/21/22, reflected an [AGE] year-old female with an admission date of 12/14/22. Resident #1 was cognitively intact, required limited assistance one-person assistance with transfers, bed mobility and toileting. Required extensive assistance of one-person assistance with dressing. Her diagnoses included gastroesophageal reflux disease, hyponatremia, hyperlipidemia, thyroid disease, osteoporosis, osteomyelitis, hypotension. Record review of Resident #1's care plan, dated 12/14/22, reflected the resident was at risk of falls with interventions that included, keep areas free of obstructions to reduce the risk of falls or injury, place call light within easy reach, remind resident to call for assistance before moving from bed-to-chair and from chair-to-bed, scoop mattress to bed. On 2/21/23 actual fall trying to self-transfer with new intervention of fall mat at bedside. Record review of Resident #1's nurse's notes written by RN A did not reflect any notification to the responsible party/resident representative about a fall on 02/21/23 which resulted in multiple superficial skin tears on the left shoulder, elbow and hand which required treatment, dressing and left leg and shoulder pain which resulted in pain medication and x-rays ordered. Nursing note revealed the following .no telephone number was found on the patient information . Record review of the accident/incident report on 03/23/22 at 9:30 AM for Resident #1 revealed resident had an unwitnessed fall on 02/21/23. Documentation area noted for Resident Representative notified at date and time was blank. In a telephone interview on 03/21/23 at 2:45 PM with Resident #1's Family Member B stated when Resident #1 had her fall on 02/21/23 she was not notified. Family Member B stated on 02/27/23 the resident was transferred to the hospital for generalized pain. Family Member B revealed on 03/01/23 Resident #1 had left hip replacement surgery and on 03/15/23 she was discharged from the hospital and transferred to a memory care unit at another facility. Interview on 03/22/23 at 8:40 AM with the ADM and DON they both stated they were not aware Resident #1's responsible party/resident representative was not notified of the fall on 02/21/23 until Family Member C filed a grievance on 02/26/23 stating Family Member B was not notified of the fall that occurred on 02/21/23. The ADM stated it was her expectation the nurse that completed the incident report was responsible for notifying the resident's responsible party/resident representative at the time of the incident. The DON stated all the nurses were receiving training on completion of incident reports and notification of resident's responsible party/resident representative which included how to locate the responsible party/resident representative information in the electronic record. In a telephone interview on 03/22/23 at 9:16 AM with ADON D revealed it was the responsibility of the nurse who completed the incident report to contact the resident's responsible party/resident representative of the incident when it occurred. When Resident #1 fell on [DATE] it was RN A's responsibility to contact the resident's responsible party/resident representative immediately. ADON D stated she completed training with RN A after Resident #1's fall on 02/21/23 on the completion of incident reports and location of responsible party information in the electronic record. ADON D stated the risk of not notifying the resident's responsible party/resident representative would result in the family not being aware of everything that was happening to their loved one. In a telephone interview on 03/22/23 at 10:07 AM with RN A revealed she completed the incident report for Resident #1 on 02/21/23 when she fell from the bed. RN A stated she did not notify the resident's responsible party/resident representative of the fall or the interventions. RN A stated she could not locate Resident #1's responsible party/resident representative information in the electronic record. RN A stated she did not ask LVN E for help on accessing the responsible party/resident representative information from the electronic record. RN A stated it was her responsibility to contact Resident #1's responsible party/resident representative according to facility policy and not doing so was against the resident's rights. RN A stated she recently had training on the completion of incident reports and locating responsible party/resident representative information from the electronic record. Interview and record review on 03/23/22 at 10:24 AM with the ADM of the facility's Fall Management Guidelines, which stated when a resident experiences a fall notify the responsible party of the resident's fall and condition post fall along with any interventions. The ADM stated it was her expectation for the nurse completing the incident report to immediately notify the resident's responsible party/resident representative of the fall/interventions. Record review of Resident #1's x-ray results, dated 02/22/23, reflected, Left lateral shoulder X-Ray complete 2 or more views .Findings: Bones no acute fracture .joints no dislocation . soft tissues .unremarkable .Impression: No acute osseous process. Left lateral femur x-ray-2 views .Findings: Bones no acute fracture .joints no dislocation .soft tissues .unremarkable .Impression: No acute osseous process. Left lateral knee x-ray-1-2 views .Findings: Bones no acute fracture .joints no dislocation .soft tissues .unremarkable .Impression: no acute osseous process. Left lateral tibia/fibula x-ray-2 views .Findings: Bones no acute fracture .joints no dislocation .soft tissues .unremarkable .Impression no acute osseous process Record review of the Grievance Report, dated 02/26/23, revealed a text message from Family Member C which stated no one had contacted her or her sister regarding a fall that happened in the facility. Record review of the facility's policy titled Fall Management Guidelines, dated November 2022, reflected .6. When the patient experiences a fall .Notify the physician and responsible party of the patient's fall and condition post fall along with any interventions and document in the electronic health record .
Dec 2022 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 F0657 (Tag F0657)

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 review and revise the person-centered care plan to ref...

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 review and revise the person-centered care plan to reflect the current condition for 1 (Resident #5) of 6 resident reviewed for care plan revisions in that: Resident 5's care plan was not updated to reflect the resident received nutrition via a feeding tube and to reflect the resident was placed on hopsice. This failure could place residents at risk of their needs being missed and not receiving appropriate care and treatment. Findings included: Record review of Resident#5's face sheet dated 12/29/22 revealed she was a [AGE] year-old female. Resident #5 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #5's diagnoses included Pressure Ulcer, Urinary Tract infection and Metabolic encephalopathy. Review of Resident #5's MDS dated [DATE] revealed a BIMS of 08/15 indicating moderately impaired. Resident #5 had a feeding tube, she required 26%-50% of calories through tube feeding. Resident #5 received 501 cc/day of more. The MDS did not reflect Resident #5 received hospice care. Observation on 12/29/22 at 9:43 am revealed Resident #5's gastrostomy tube feeding was off. The tube feeding site was without any signs of infection no redness or drainage. The bag was dated 12/28/2022, hung at 2100 50 cc per hour x 12 hours, the bag max was 1000cc's and the bag currently had 600cc's of brown liquid. The label did not identify how much feeding was placed in the bag when hung. Review of Resident #5's care plan effective dated 10/03/22 revealed no evidence Resident #5 received hospice care. The care plan did not reflect Resident #5 received nutrition via a feeding tube. Review of Resident #'5s physician order dated 12/26/22 revealed an order for Resident #5 to be placed on hospice . Contact Hospice before any new or changed orders dated 12/17/22. An order dated 12/16/22 revealed Resident #5 to receive to nocturnal feed. An interview with PCC D on 12/28/22 at 10:47 am revealed she had recently started working at the facility. The resident care plan did not reflect Resident #5 had been admitted to hospice. She stated the facility had 14 days to complete a significate change MDS and care plan. Resident #5 care plan had not been updated since her arriving at the facility 3 weeks ago. An interview with LVN B on 12/28/22 at 2:23 pm reveaeled Resident #5 had recently been admitted to hospice. LVN B stated the hospice aide visited Resident #5, 3-4 times a week. The hospice nurse visited the facility once a week for Resident #5. Resident #5 received feeding once daily, from 8pm to 8am. She was not aware the care plan had not been updated. Review of the facility's Assessment policy dated 11/17 revealed each Care plan must be reviewed and updated by the interdisciplinary Care Plan team quarterly, upon each change in condition and upon re-admission.
Jul 2022 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0558 (Tag F0558)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the resident received services in the facility with reasonable accommodation of resident needs and preferences for one (Resident #65) of eight residents reviewed for call lights. Facility failed to equip Resident #65 with a functioning call button for an unknown amount of time. This failure could place residents at risk for delay in assistance and decreased quality of life, self-worth and dignity. Findings included: Record review of Resident #65 Intake MDS assessment dated [DATE] reflected Resident #65 admitted with Congestive heart failure, cognitive communication deficit (an impairment in organization/ thought), Constipation unspecified, Difficulty walking, Dysphagia following nontraumatic intracerebral hemorrhage, (difficulty swallowing following a stroke), Edema (Puffiness caused by excess fluid trapped in the body's tissues), Major depressive order, muscle spasms, legal blindness, and extensive needs with personal care. Resident had a BIMS of 15 score listed, meaning she was alert and oriented. Resident is classified as a two-person physical assistance with bed mobility, transfers, dressing, toilet use, personal hygiene is required. Record review of Resident #65 Comprehensive Care Plan created 2/26/2021 reflected Resident #65 was a fall risk due to weaken muscles and Interventions included to Place resident's call light is within easy reach Resident is frequently incontinent and Care Plan states that Respond promptly to calls for assistance with toilet. Record review on 7/28/2022 at 9:00 AM revealed Resident 65's Care Plan had been updated 7/28/2022 to reflect resident prefers to place her call light under her pillow. Staff will ensure that call light is functioning properly and is within her reach. Observation and interview on 7/26/2022 at approximately 11:00 AM, revealed Resident #65 was laying in bed with the call button in her right hand. During the interview, Resident revealed that she had pressed her call button to be repositioned due to her sliding down in the bed, but no one had come. Observation revealed that call button was unplugged from the wall making it inoperable and placed in between the resident's pillow and mattress. Upon further observation, it was discovered that resident call light was not connected to the wall and therefore, was not sending a signal to the nurses station that she needed assistance. DON was called into the residents room to observed the unplugged call light. DON uncoiled the call light extension and placed the appropriate end back into the wall. Call light was then illuminating outside of residents room but alarm did not sound when it was removed from the wall. It was determined that the wall plug was defective. DON alerted maintenance of the issue and wall plug was replaced. Interview on 7/26/22 at 12:00 PM, with the Resident #65 revealed that she was told by night staff that her call light was not working. Resident revealed that it was between 3am-4am, when she was notified of the call light not working but did not realized that it had not been fixed when she was pushing her button for help. Interview further revealed that the CNA A who assisted her with her morning hygiene, did not make mention of resident's light not working. Interview on 07/27/22 at 9:20 AM, with CNA A revealed that she did not observe if Resident #65 call light was working. Interview revealed that she went into resident's room for routine care and not because her call light was on. Interview revealed that CNA A believed that a resident without a working call light could place them at risk for harm or danger due to not being able to call for assistance as needed. Interview on 07/27/22 at 9:28 AM, with CNA B revealed she was not aware of Resident #65's call light not working. Interview revealed that she will sometimes go into resident's room to check on them if they have been quiet for a long amount of time typically two hours or so. Interview further revealed that if CNA B discovered a call light that was not working properly, she would alert the nurse immediately. CNA B states that a resident without a call light could place them at risk for being neglected because they are unable to call for assistance as needed. Interview on 7/27/22 at 10:28 AM, with LVN C revealed that she was assigned the resident #65 the night of 7/25/2022 and did not noticed if her call light was not working. LVN C states that she went into resident #65 room during her shift and the resident asked her name. LVN C states that she asked resident how she knew her and resident stated that the previous nurse let her know that she would be coming in next. LVN C stated that if a call light was to be unplugged from the wall, it would sound an alarm at the nurses station as if the call light had been pressed. She stated that she did not know why Resident 65's alarm did not sound. Interview revealed that LVN C states that it is never okay to unplug a residents call and if she was to find it was not working properly, she would report it to maintenance. LVN C states that it would be considered abuse and neglect if resident did not have access to a working call light because they would not be able to call for help when they need it. Interview on 7/27/22 at 11:55 AM, with LVN B revealed that he had worked with Resident 65 and did not notice her call light not working. Interview revealed that LVN B stated that resident 65 did not frequent her call button, but he routinely checks on her throughout his shift because she does not ask for a lot. LVN B states that he also encourages resident 65 to use her call light as needed. Interview revealed that LVN B did think that it could possibly be neglect if resident was unable to call for help but he feels like there was no neglect during his shift because he checks on resident periodically. Interview on 07/27/22 at 2:37 PM, with DON revealed she expected Residents to have a call button that is always operable and within reach. DON interview revealed that it is her expectation that it is all staff's responsibility to answer call lights. She stated that if a call light is found to not be working properly, she has maintenance fix it immediately. Interview revealed that resident's 65's call light was found to be malfunctioning and was replaced by maintenance. DON revealed that she could see the potential for harm with a resident not having a working call light and stated that she and maintenance has checked every resident in the building call light to ensure that they are working properly. DON further revealed that staff have been in-serviced staff on Call lights and Abuse Protocol. Observation on 7/27/2022 PM at 3:15 PM of Resident 65's call light revealed that is now working properly. Record review on 7/28/2022 at 8:00AM revealed In-service training was held on 7/26/2022. Training included Call Light. Summary of training states Please ensure that call lights are within reach of the resident at all times. Call light should not be placed where resident is unable to reach it. Ensure that all call lights are plugged into wall and in patient's reach. Record review on 7/28/2022 at 8:17 AM revealed In-service training was held 7/22/2022. Training included Abuse Protocol. Record review on 7/28/2022 at 8:30 AM revealed Answering the call light Policy and Procedure dated 3/2021. Summary of Policy includes, Be sure that call light is plugged in and functioning at all times. Some residents may not be able to use their call light. Be sure you check these residents frequently. Report all defective call lights to the nurse supervisor promptly.
CONCERN (E)

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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

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

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services (including procedures that assure the accurate acquiring, receiving, dispensing, and administering of all drugs and biologicals) to meet the needs of residents in two of two (medication rooms one and two) medication rooms reviewed for expired medications. The facility failed to ensure expired medications were removed from stock. This failure could place residents residing in the facility at risk of not receiving the intended therapeutic benefit of their medications. Findings included: Observation on 07/26/22 at 02:04 p.m. of medication room one revealed, Calcium 600 mg/20 mcg with Vitamin D-3 with expiration of 02/22. This bottle of medication was a stock medication and was not for a specific resident. Observation on 07/26/22 at 02:24 p.m. of medication room two revealed, Asper creme with Lidocaine 4% Pain Relieving Maximum Strength with expiration of 06/22. Heparin Lock Flush Solution 500 USP/5 ML with expiration of 09/30/2020. This bottle of medication was a stock medication and was not for a specific resident. Interview on 07/26/22 at 02:04 p.m. with LVN A revealed that it will be her responsibility to remove expired medications. She was recently moved to this facility to become an ADON with this responsibility. Other than the pharmacist, she does not know whose responsibility it has been. LVN A said that giving expired medications can decrease its effectiveness. Interview on 07/28/22 10:06 a.m. with the DON revealed that the responsibility was a combination of nursing team, nurse managers, and follow up central supply. DON stated that the expired medications could have been missed due to the recent transition of so many new staff. DON stated expired medications can have the effectiveness decreased. Review of the facility's policy on Administering Medications, dated April 2019, revealed the following . 4. Medication are administered .including any required time frame .12. The expiration/beyond use date on the medication label is checked prior to administering.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

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

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 2 life-threatening violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 29 deficiencies on record, including 2 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $12,649 in fines. Above average for Texas. Some compliance problems on record.
  • • Grade F (29/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 29/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is The Carlyle At Stonebridge Park's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns THE CARLYLE AT STONEBRIDGE PARK an overall rating of 3 out of 5 stars, which is considered average nationally. Within Texas, this rating places the facility higher than 99% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This mid-range rating indicates the facility meets federal standards but may have areas for improvement.

How is The Carlyle At Stonebridge Park Staffed?

CMS rates THE CARLYLE AT STONEBRIDGE PARK's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 68%, which is 22 percentage points above the Texas average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs. RN turnover specifically is 60%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.

What Have Inspectors Found at The Carlyle At Stonebridge Park?

State health inspectors documented 29 deficiencies at THE CARLYLE AT STONEBRIDGE PARK during 2022 to 2025. These included: 2 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 25 with potential for harm, and 2 minor or isolated issues. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.

Who Owns and Operates The Carlyle At Stonebridge Park?

THE CARLYLE AT STONEBRIDGE PARK is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by CANTEX CONTINUING CARE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 112 certified beds and approximately 77 residents (about 69% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in SOUTHLAKE, Texas.

How Does The Carlyle At Stonebridge Park Compare to Other Texas Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Texas, THE CARLYLE AT STONEBRIDGE PARK's overall rating (3 stars) is above the state average of 2.8, staff turnover (68%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting The Carlyle At Stonebridge Park?

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

Is The Carlyle At Stonebridge Park Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, THE CARLYLE AT STONEBRIDGE PARK has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 2 Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 3-star overall rating and ranks #1 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 The Carlyle At Stonebridge Park Stick Around?

Staff turnover at THE CARLYLE AT STONEBRIDGE PARK is high. At 68%, the facility is 22 percentage points above the Texas average of 46%. Registered Nurse turnover is particularly concerning at 60%. RNs handle complex medical decisions and coordinate care — frequent RN changes can directly impact care quality. High turnover means new staff may not know residents' individual needs, medications, or preferences. It can also be disorienting for residents, especially those with dementia who rely on familiar faces. Families should ask: What is causing the turnover? What retention programs are in place? How do you ensure care continuity during staff transitions?

Was The Carlyle At Stonebridge Park Ever Fined?

THE CARLYLE AT STONEBRIDGE PARK has been fined $12,649 across 1 penalty action. This is below the Texas average of $33,205. 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 The Carlyle At Stonebridge Park on Any Federal Watch List?

THE CARLYLE AT STONEBRIDGE PARK 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.