CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0552
(Tag F0552)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record reviews the facility failed to ensure the residents had the right to participate in, his or her t...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record reviews the facility failed to ensure the residents had the right to participate in, his or her treatment which included the right to be informed in advance, by the physician or other practitioner or professional, of the risks and benefits of proposed care, of treatment and treatment alternatives or treatment options and to choose the alternative or option he or she preferred, for 2 of 14 residents ( Resident #33 and #38) reviewed for resident rights .
The facility failed to obtain a signed informed consent based on information of the benefits, risks, and options available for Residents #33 and #38 prior to administering Lorazepam (anti-anxiety medication).
These failures could place residents at risk of receiving medications without their prior knowledge or consent, or that of their responsible party or being aware of the risk of the medications prescribed.
Findings included:
Resident #33
Record review of Resident #33's face sheet, dated 10/24/23, revealed a [AGE] year-old-female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia (low levels of oxygen in the body), COPD (lung disease), anxiety.
Record review of quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #33 was understood. The MDS revealed Resident #33 had a BIMS of 15 which indicated the resident's cognition was intact.
Record review of a care plan for Resident #33 dated 07/27/23 revealed no focus areas for the medication lorazepam.
Record review of Resident #33's order summary report dated 10/24/23 revealed the following orders:
Lorazepam - Schedule IV table; 0.5mg amt: 0.5mg oral. Special Instruction: Take 1 tablet by mouth or sublingually every 4 hours as needed for agitation, anxiety or restlessness dated 08/26/23. Stop date - open ended.
Record review of Resident #33's medication administration records for the month of August 2023 revealed resident received Lorazepam 0.5mg at 11:46 PM on 8/26/23.
Record review of Resident #33's electronic medical record scanned documents on 10/25/23 revealed no consent for Lorazepam.
During an interview on 10/26/23 at 12:40 PM with LVN D, she stated she did administer one dose of Lorazepam 0.5mg to Resident #33 on 08/26/23. She stated she did not look for a consent before administering. She stated hospice came out to evaluate resident and brought the medication. She stated a consent should have been signed before administering the medications. She stated the potential negative outcome could be giving medication against resident wishes, adverse reaction and family not being aware of the medication.
Resident #38
Record review of Resident #38's face sheet dated 10/24/23 revealed a [AGE] year-old-female was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include bipolar disorder (manic depression) and generalized anxiety (condition of excessive worry).
Record review of comprehensive MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #38 was understood. The MDS revealed Resident #38 had a BIMS of 13 which indicated the resident's cognition was intact.
Record review of a care plan for Resident #38 dated 07/06/23 and revised 10/16/23 revealed:
Category: Psychotropic Drug Use Psychotropic Drug Use: Ativan prn anxiety
Record review of Resident #38's undated physician order summary revealed an order: Ativan (lorazepam) - Schedule IV tablet; 0.5 mg; amt: one; oral dated 09/02/23 with a start date of 09/02/23 and stop date open ended.
Record review of Resident #38's Medication Administration History, dated 10/01/23-10/25/23, revealed she received Ativan (lorazepam) - Schedule IV tablet: 0.5 mg the following dates and times:
10/01/23 at 11:34 AM, 10/02/23 at 9:21 PM, 10/03/23 at 8:09 PM, 10/06/23 at 4:47 PM, 10/07/23 at 4:25 PM, 10/10/23 at 7:28 PM, 10/12/23 at 5:15 PM, 10/15/23 at 12:09 PM, 10/17/23 at 1:00 PM, 10/22/23 at 5:49 PM, 10/23/23 at 1:59 AM and 2:46 PM and 10/24/23 at 12:22 PM.
Record review of Resident #38's electronic medical record did not reveal a consent for the use of Ativan (lorazepam) - Schedule IV tablet: 0.5 mg.
During an interview on 10/25/23 at 02:13 PM with the DON, she stated there were no signed consent forms for Lorazepam for Resident #33 and #38.
During an interview on 10/26/23 at 09:59 AM with the ADON, she stated the nursing staff was responsible for obtaining psychotropic consents. She stated she was responsible for uploading the consents into the EMR. She stated the consent should be obtained when the medication was ordered. She stated Lorazepam (Ativan) was given for anxiety and requires a consent. She stated she did give Resident #38 her lorazepam (Ativan) as scheduled. She stated she did not look for a consent because the resident asks for the medication. She stated she has been trained on obtaining psychotropic consents. She stated the potential negative outcome could be giving medication without family or resident consent.
During an interview on 10/26/23 at 10:15 AM with the DON, she stated the ADON and DON were responsible for making sure consents were obtained for psychotropic medications. She stated psychotropic consents should be obtained on admission or when the medication was ordered. She stated lorazepam (Ativan) was an antianxiety and does require a consent. She stated the ADON had a misunderstanding and thought because the resident was on hospice, it did not require a consent. She stated the potential negative outcome could be given medication without resident or family consent.
During an interview on 10/26/23 at 11:18 AM with the ADM, he stated the nursing department was responsible for obtaining consents for psychotropic medications. He stated consents should be obtained before giving medications. He stated lorazepam (Ativan) was an anti-anxiety and requires a consent. He stated all nursing staff have been trained on psychotropic consents. He stated the potential negative response could be the resident not knowing what they were taking, and the resident needs to be given the right to refuse. He stated his understanding of why the consents were not obtained was because the residents were on hospice services.
Record review Long-Term Care Regulatory Provider Letter 2022-11, titled Consent for Antipsychotic and Neuroleptic Medications, dated 5-5-22, provided by facility revealed the following:
1.0 Subject and Purpose - Texas Health and Safety Code, §242.505 and Texas Administrative Code, Title 26 (26 TAC), §554.1207 require a NF to obtain written consent for treating a resident with antipsychotic or neuroleptic medication. This letter provides guidance on this requirement .
2.3 Consent for Other Psychoactive Medications - The resident's written consent is not required for psychoactive medications that are not considered antipsychotic or neuroleptic medications. The rule still requires documented consent for all other psychoactive medications, but it does not have to be written consent on Form 3713. The person prescribing the medication, the prescriber's designee, or the NF's medical director must provide the resident, and if applicable, the person authorized to consent on behalf of the resident, the following information:
o The condition being treated;
o The beneficial effects on that condition expected from the medication;
o The potential side effects of the medication;
o The associated risks of the medication; and
o The proposed course of medication.
A NF may document consent for psychoactive medications that are not considered antipsychotic or neuroleptic medications in the resident's clinical record using a form prescribed by the NF, or by a statement from the prescriber of the medication or that person's designee. The record must show how consent was obtained from the appropriate person.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medication Errors
(Tag F0758)
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 PRN orders for psychotropic drugs were limited to 14 days un...
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 PRN orders for psychotropic drugs were limited to 14 days unless the attending physician or prescribing practitioner believed, and documented, that it was appropriate for the PRN order to be extended beyond 14 days, for 2 of 14 residents (Resident #33 and #38) reviewed for PRN psychotropic medications.
Resident #33 and #38 continued to have a PRN order for Lorazepam 0.5mg after 14 days without an evaluation by the physician for continued treatment.
This failure could result in residents receiving psychotropic and antipsychotic medications when contraindicated and could also result in residents experiencing adverse drug reactions.
The findings include:
Resident #33
Record review of Resident #33's face sheet, dated 10/24/23, revealed a [AGE] year-old-female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia (low levels of oxygen in the body), COPD (lung disease), anxiety.
Record review of Resident #33's quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], revealed Section N - Medication Section N0410 - Medications Received: B - Antianxiety - Given 0 out of 7 days.
Record review Resident #33 comprehensive care plan dated 07/27/23 revealed no care plan related to Lorazepam medication.
Record review of Resident #33's physician order summary dated 10/24/23 revealed an order start date 08/26/23 with an indefinite end date for Lorazepam 0.5mg, give 1 tab every 4 hours as needed for agitation, anxiety, or restlessness.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0578
(Tag F0578)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure all residents had the right to formulate an advance directiv...
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 all residents had the right to formulate an advance directive for 4 of 16 residents (Residents #24, #33, #37, and #40) reviewed for advanced directives, in that:
Residents #24, #33, #37, and #40 were listed as a DNR (Do Not Resuscitate) but had Out-of-Hospital Do Not Resuscitate (OOH-DNR) forms that were incorrectly filled out or missing required information.
These failures could place residents at risk for not having their end of life wishes honored and incomplete records.
Findings included:
Resident #24
Record review of Resident #24's face sheet, undated, revealed an [AGE] year-old-female was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include cerebrovascular disease (conditions affecting blood flow and blood vessels in the brain), anxiety (feeling of fear and worry), major depressive disorder (mental health condition that causes a persistently low or depressed mood and loss of interest in activities) and dementia(impairments of at least two brain functions). The face sheet also revealed under the advance directive section - DNR-Do Not Resuscitate.
Record review of Resident #24's physician order summary dated 11/01/23 revealed the following order: DNR-Do Not Resuscitate dated 04/13/20.
Record review of Resident #24's care plan, dated 09/14/23, revealed care plan for DNR.
Record review of Resident #24's Out of Hospital Do Not Resuscitate form dated 04/13/20 revealed under declaration by physician statement no physician signature, no physician printed name, and no license number .
Resident #33
Record review of Resident #33's face sheet, dated 10/24/23, revealed a [AGE] year-old-female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia (low levels of oxygen in the body), COPD (lung disease), anxiety.
Record review of quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #33 had a BIMS of 15 which indicated the resident's cognition was intact.
Record review of Resident #33's physician order summary dated 10/24/23 revealed an order: Code Status: Do Not Resuscitate dated 09/20/23.
Record review of Resident #33's care plan dated 07/27/23, revealed no care plan for Resident #33's code status.
Record review of Resident #33's Out of Hospital Do Not Resuscitate form dated 09/06/23 revealed under physician statement no physician printed name and no license number.
Resident #37
Record review of Resident #37's face sheet, dated 10/24/23, revealed a [AGE] year-old-female was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses to include chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (lung disease that block airflow), type 2 diabetes (insulin deficiency), and anxiety disorder (feelings of increased worry).
Record review of Resident #37's Comprehensive Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE], revealed:
Section C Brief Interview for Mental Status score revealed a score of 15, which indicated the resident's cognition was intact.
Record review of Resident #37's physician order summary, undated, revealed an order:
Do Not Resuscitate - DNR dated 07/13/23 with a start date of 07/13/23.
Record review of Resident #37's care plan, dated 09/11/23, revealed care plan for the following:
Category: Code Status
My code status: DO NOT RECSUCITATE
Record review of Resident #37's Out of Hospital Do Not Resuscitate form dated 03/30/23 revealed no person's signature at the bottom of the document and the physician signed in the wrong spot.
Resident #40
Record review of Resident #40's face sheet, dated 10/24/23, revealed a [AGE] year-old-male was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include Non-St-elevation myocardial infarction (blockage of coronary artery causing reduction of oxygen in the blood), Long term use of opiates and hypertension (high blood pressure)
Record review of Resident #40's Comprehensive Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE], revealed:
Section C Brief Interview for Mental Status score revealed a score of 13, which indicated the resident's cognition was intact.
Record review of Resident #40's physician order summary, undated, revealed an order:
Do Not Resuscitate - DNR dated 05/10/23 with a start date 05/10/23.
Record review of Resident #40's care plan, dated 04/01/23 revised 09/14/23, revealed care plan for DNR.
Record review of Resident #40's Out of Hospital Do Not Resuscitate form dated 04/28/23 revealed under Physician's Statement revealed no printed name for the physician.
During an interview on 10/26/23 at 11:09AM with the DON, she stated OOH DNR was not valid if it was not filled out correctly. She stated the social worker was usually the one who obtained the OOH DNR and then she reviews them. She verified missing information on OOH DNR for Resident #24, #33, #37 and #40. She stated there was no system for monitoring OOH DNR for accuracy. She stated, the Social Worker reviews the DNR's as they are signed. She stated the reason the DNR's were not complete was a human oversight. She stated the potential negative outcome could be a resident's end of life wishes may not be upheld. The DON stated she had been trained on how to complete OOH DNR and her expectations were for them to be filled out completely and be accurate.
During an interview on 10/26/23 at 12:12PM with the ADM, he stated the OOH DNR was not valid if not filled out correctly. He stated the Social Worker was responsible for making sure the OOH DNR was completed accurately. He stated they do not have a system in place to monitor OOH DNR for accuracy. He stated the DON reviews them once they are completed. He verified missing information on OOH DNR for Resident #24, #33, #37 and #40. He stated he does not know why the information is missing; it was a human error. He stated the potential negative outcome could be the residents' end of life requests may not be honored. He stated his expectations were that the OOH DNR was done correctly to make sure they are valid.
Record Review of the Instructions for Issuing An OOH-DNR Order (Revised July 1, 2009) revealed the following:
INSTRUCTIONS FOR ISSUING AN OOH-DNR ORDER PURPOSE
Section A - If an adult person is competent and at least [AGE] years of age, he/she will sign and date the Order in Section A.
Section B - If an adult person is incompetent or otherwise mentally or physically incapable of communication and has either a legal guardian, agent in a medical power of attorney, or proxy in a directive to physicians, the guardian, agent, or proxy may execute the OOH-DNR Order by signing and dating it in Section B.
In addition, the OOH-DNR Order must be signed and dated by two competent adult witnesses, who have witnessed either the competent adult person making his/her signature in section A, or authorized declarant making his/her signature in either sections B, C, or E, and if applicable, have witnessed a competent adult person making an OOH-DNR Order by nonwritten communication to the attending physician, who must sign in Section D and also the physician's statement section. Optionally, a competent adult person or authorized declarant may sign the OOH-DNR Order in the presence of a notary public. However, a notary cannot acknowledge witnessing the issuance of an OOH-DNR in a nonwritten manner, which must be observed and only can be acknowledged by two qualified witnesses. Witness or notary signatures are not required when two physicians execute the OOH-DNR Order in section F. The original or a copy of a fully and properly completed OOH-DNR Order or the presence of an OOH-DNR device on a person is sufficient evidence of the existence of the original OOH-DNR Order and either one shall be honored by responding health care professionals.
Record review of the facility's policy titled Emergency Procedure Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation, revised June 2019, revealed no information regarding the OOH DNR.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0813
(Tag F0813)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain and ensure safe and sanitary storage of resi...
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 and ensure safe and sanitary storage of residents' food items for 5 of 15 refrigerators reviewed for food safety (Resident #7, #8, #13, #35 and #40) in that:
(Resident #7) room [ROOM NUMBER]contained a resident refrigerator that did not have a temperature log attached to the refrigerator. The contents of refrigerator had unlabeled food and a thermometer that displayed a temperature greater than 41 degrees Fahrenheit.
(Resident #35) room [ROOM NUMBER] contained a resident refrigerator that had temperature log attached to the refrigerator that displayed documented temperatures greater than 41 degrees Fahrenheit. The contents of refrigerator had unlabeled food. There was no thermometer in the refrigerator or the freezer.
(Resident #8) room [ROOM NUMBER] contained a resident refrigerator that did not have a temperature log attached to the refrigerator. The contents of refrigerator had unlabeled food and a thermometer that displayed a temperature greater than 41 degrees Fahrenheit.
(Resident #13) room [ROOM NUMBER] contained a resident refrigerator that did not have a temperature log attached to the refrigerator. The contents of refrigerator had unlabeled food.
(Resident #40) room [ROOM NUMBER] contained a resident refrigerator that did not have a temperature log attached to the refrigerator. The contents of refrigerator had unlabeled food.
This failure could place resident at risk for food borne illnesses.
Findings include:
Resident #7
Record review of Resident #7's face sheet, dated 10/25/23, revealed an [AGE] year-old-female was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include Hemiplegia (paralysis of one side of the body) and hemiparesis (muscle weakness)
Record review of Resident #7's Comprehensive Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE], revealed:
Section C Brief Interview for Mental Status score revealed a score of 13, which indicated the resident's cognition was intact.
Resident #8
Record review of Resident #8's face sheet, dated 10/25/23, revealed an [AGE] year-old-male was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include type 2 diabetes with autonomic (poly) neuropathy- gastroparesis (condition when the body develops insulin resistance)
Record review of Resident #8's Comprehensive Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE], revealed:
Section C Brief Interview for Mental Status score revealed a score of 12, which indicated the resident's cognition was intact.
Resident #13
Record review of Resident #13's face sheet, dated 10/25/23, revealed an [AGE] year-old-male was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include dementia (memory deficit).
Record review of Resident #13's Comprehensive Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE], revealed:
Section C Brief Interview for Mental Status score revealed a score of 14, which indicated the resident's cognition was intact.
Resident #35
Record review of Resident #35's face sheet, dated 10/25/23, revealed an [AGE] year-old-female was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include Alzheimer's (memory deficit).
Record review of Resident #35's Comprehensive Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE], revealed:
Section C Brief Interview for Mental Status score revealed a score of 10, which indicated the resident's cognition was moderately impaired.
Resident #40
Record review of Resident #40's face sheet, dated 10/24/23, revealed a [AGE] year-old-male was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include Non-St-elevation myocardial infarction (blockage of coronary artery causing reduction of oxygen in the blood), Long term use of opiates and hypertension (high blood pressure)
Record review of Resident #40's Comprehensive Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE], revealed:
Section C Brief Interview for Mental Status score revealed a score of 13, which indicated the resident's cognition was intact.
Room#2
An observation was made on 10/24/23 at 10:15 AM of a fridge in room [ROOM NUMBER]. The surveyor observed a temperature log dated October 2023. The fridge was on a small nightstand and appeared to be unstable. When the surveyor would open the fridge, she had to brace it to ensure it did not fall off. The contents of the fridge included the following: 6 Mountain Dew sodas, a jar of opened green olives, opened strawberry cream, spread, rice Krispy in plastic wrap, chocolate cake in plastic wrap, a jar of opened jelly, one bottle of coca- cola without the lid and partially drank, pickled beets and opened green chilies spread. None of the contents in the fridge was labeled. Inside the small freezer, 2 sherbet cups appeared to have been melted and refrozen (The cups were dark orange and light at the top). The freezer had build-up ice in it. There was no thermometer in the fridge or the freezer.
An observation was made on 10/25/23 at 01:18 PM of a fridge in room [ROOM NUMBER]. The surveyor observed a temperature log dated October 2023. The fridge was on a small nightstand and appeared to be unstable. When the surveyor would open the fridge, she had to brace it to ensure it did not fall off. The contents of the fridge included the following: 6 Mountain Dew sodas, a jar of opened green olives, opened strawberry cream, spread, rice Krispy in plastic wrap, chocolate cake in plastic wrap, a jar of opened jelly, one bottle of coca- cola without the lid and partially drank, pickled beets and opened green chilies spread. None of the contents in the fridge was labeled. Inside the small freezer, 2 sherbet cups appeared to have been melted and refrozen (The cups were dark orange and light at the top). The freezer had build-up ice in it. There was no thermometer in the fridge or the freezer.
During an interview on 10/25/23 at 1:18 PM, Resident #35 said that she takes care of her fridge, but staff help her. She said they put the sign on the fridge. She said all of her food in the fridge was good.
room [ROOM NUMBER]
An observation was made on 10/24/23 at 10:53 AM of a fridge in room [ROOM NUMBER]. Surveyor observed no temperature log attached to the refrigerator. The contents of the refrigerator included the following: a jar of opened mayonnaise, 1 slice of cheese, and 6 Pepsi's and a package of opened undated bologna in the fridge. None of the contents in the refrigerator was labeled. There was a thermometer in the refrigerator that read 45.5 degrees Fahrenheit.
An observation was made on 10/25/23 at 01:22 PM of a fridge in room [ROOM NUMBER]. Surveyor observed no temperature log attached to the refrigerator. The contents of the refrigerator included the following: a jar of opened mayonnaise, 1 slice of cheese, and 6 Pepsi's. None of the contents in the refrigerator was labeled. There was a thermometer in the refrigerator that read 45.5 degrees Fahrenheit.
During an interview on 10/25/23 at 1:22 PM, Resident #8 said he had made a sandwich and eaten it. He said he did not have any more bologna and needed to get some more. He said staff had not come in and checked his fridge.
room [ROOM NUMBER]
An observation was made on 10/24/23 at 10:46 AM of a fridge in room [ROOM NUMBER]. Surveyor observed no temperature log attached to the refrigerator. The contents of the refrigerator included the following: opened ranch dressing, opened ketchup, and a jug of buttermilk. In the freezer were three ice creams that were soft to the touch. None of the contents in the fridge was labeled. There was a thermometer in the refrigerator that read 40 degrees Fahrenheit. There was no thermometer in the freezer.
An observation was made on 10/25/23 at 01:23 PM of a fridge in room [ROOM NUMBER]. Surveyor observed no temperature log attached to the refrigerator. The contents of the refrigerator included the following: opened ranch dressing, opened ketchup, and a jug of buttermilk. In the freezer were three ice creams that were soft to the touch. None of the contents in the fridge was labeled. There was a thermometer in the refrigerator that read 40 degrees Fahrenheit. There was no thermometer in the freezer.
During an interview on 10/25/23 at 1:23 PM, Resident #13 said that he takes care of his fridge, but staff put his items in the fridge for him.
room [ROOM NUMBER]
An observation was made on 10/24/23 at 10:00 AM of a fridge in room [ROOM NUMBER]. Surveyor observed no temperature log attached to the refrigerator. The contents of the refrigerator included the following: a package of cupcakes (9 mini ones), spaghetti in a Tupperware container, 1 Dr pepper, pudding, and 2 sunny delights. None of the contents in the fridge was labeled. There was a thermometer in the refrigerator that read 48.4 degrees Fahrenheit.
An observation was made on 10/25/23 at 01:28 PM of a fridge in room [ROOM NUMBER]. Surveyor observed no temperature log attached to the refrigerator. The contents of the refrigerator included the following: a package of cupcakes (9 mini ones), spaghetti in a Tupperware container, 1 Dr pepper, pudding, and 2 sunny delights. None of the contents in the fridge was labeled. There was a thermometer in the refrigerator that read 48.4 degrees Fahrenheit. (These observations were the same for 10/24/23)
During an interview on 10/25/23 at 1:28 PM, Resident #7 said he had made a sandwich and ate it. He said he did not have any more bologna and needed to get some more. He said staff had not come in and checked his fridge.
room [ROOM NUMBER]
An observation was made on 10/24/23 at 10:34 AM of a fridge in room [ROOM NUMBER]. Surveyor observed no temperature log attached to the refrigerator. The contents of the fridge included the following: 2 jelly packets, 4 cups of jello, and 5 ensures. None of the contents in the refrigerator was labeled. There was a thermometer in the fridge that read 40 degrees Fahrenheit.
An observation was made on 10/26/23 at 09:45 AM of a fridge in room [ROOM NUMBER]. Surveyor observed no temperature log attached to the refrigerator. The contents of the fridge included the following: 2 jelly packets, 4 cups of jello, and 5 ensures. None of the contents in the refrigerator was labeled. There was a thermometer in the fridge that read 40 degrees Fahrenheit.
During an interview on 10/26/23 at 09:54 AM, Resident #40 said the fridge was his fridge, and he had purchased it. He said he did not mind staff checking his fridge and helping him but that it was his and that the facility did not purchase it for him. He said no one checks his fridge. He said, Housekeeping, don't come in and do shit! They have not come in and done anything in months.
During an interview on 10/26/23 at 10:50 AM the DOR stated that she had signed the refrigerator log hanging in room [ROOM NUMBER]. She said they do angel rounds, and this was where department heads go around and check the rooms and note any issues. She said she did angel rounds daily, and if there were any blanks on the log, that was an indication that she was not at work that day. She said recently that the resident refrigerators had been assigned to housekeeping and that they no longer had to monitor the resident refrigerators. She said the refrigerator in Resident #2 room was unplugged, and she said she did not think that it was unplugged for very long. She said she plugged the refrigerator back in and did not report this to anyone. She said she believed only drinks were in the refrigerator but could not officially confirm. She said she did not notice that the refrigerator was not balanced on the nightstand. She said not monitoring the refrigerator temperature correctly could place the residents at risk of getting sick and being exposed to bacteria. She said she was not responsible for labeling the food in the resident's refrigerator as she was in charge of therapy. She said she had not been instructed to label any food. She said she knows that the resident's clothing is labeled but not the food. She said the angel rounds were how they monitored the resident refrigerator.
During an interview on 10/26/23 at 11:32 AM the ADM stated the potential negative outcome of unlabeled food is that it could be spoiled and make the resident sick. He said if a fridge had a thermometer, it would be easier to determine if the refrigerator was in the right temperature range. He said they check the resident rooms weekly. He said they knew they had an issue with the resident refrigerators. He said he had bought thermometers for all the resident rooms. He said they had not discussed labeling the food in the resident refrigerators. He said he was unaware that the facility policy specifically said the log needed to be attached to the refrigerator. He said in the past, whoever checked the fridge would look in the fridge and determine if the food needed to be thrown out. He said the fridge temperature should be no higher than 41 degrees Fahrenheit. He said if the fridge was out of range, he expected the staff to report it and let the maintenance person know so it could be checked out. He said he knew one resident's fridge displaying out-of-range temperatures and remembered instructing for the fridge to be disposed of. He said he does review the temperature logs. He said he was unaware of any resident fridges with out-of-range temperatures or that any resident fridges had been unplugged. He said he expected the facility to follow the policy regarding taking temperatures and maintaining resident fridges. He said housekeeping was responsible for maintaining resident fridges.
During an interview on 10/26/23 at 09:44 AM, Housekeeper A said they were responsible for cleaning the resident's refrigerators and that they signed the paper that was on the fridge. She said they just started doing this a couple of weeks before the interview. She said she usually was in the laundry. She said she does not label or check the thermometer.
During an interview on 10/26/23 at 09:46 AM, TA C said that he checks the resident fridges when he enters the room. He said that he would make sure that it stayed cold. He said he will ask permission before he opens it. He said he had been trained to label the food with the date it came in. He could not tell the surveyor what temp the fridge should be maintained.
During an interview on 10/26/23 at 09:52 AM, Housekeeper B said they cleaned the fridge if needed and made sure it was not leaking. She said she is still learning and not 100 percent sure about everything they are supposed to do with the resident fridges. She could not tell the surveyor the temperature that the refrigerator should be maintained. She said that if the fridge does not have a temperature log or a thermometer, they would let the Housekeeping Supervisor know.
During an interview on 10/26/23 at 10:00 AM, the Housekeeping Supervisor said she was responsible for resident fridges. She said every Monday, she takes the log book and checks the fridge temperatures. She said that all food should be labeled and dated. She said that sometimes the residents will get upset and not let you in their fridge. She said that residents could get sick if the refrigerators were not maintained properly. At 12:48 PM, she stated the potential negative outcome for not maintaining the resident fridges could result in the resident experiencing food poisoning. She said she did not label the food but believed the nursing staff were responsible, but that she was not sure. She said she was not aware that there were fridges without thermometers. She said she ordered 9 thermometers. She said there was no system to monitor the resident's fridges outside of her checking every Monday. She said she received general training regarding resident fridges.
Record review of the facility roster located in the temperature log (undated) provided by the Housekeeping Supervisor on 10/26/23 revealed the following:
Hall A
Resident #7 had a refrigerator
Resident #35 had a refrigerator
Resident #8 had a refrigerator
Resident #13 had a refrigerator
Record review of the refrigerator/temperature log for room [ROOM NUMBER] (Resident #7) dated October 2023, revealed the following dates and temperatures:
10/02/23 48.5 degrees Fahrenheit
10/09/23 40 degrees Fahrenheit
10/16/23 43 degrees Fahrenheit
10/23/23 42 degrees Fahrenheit
The Housekeeper Supervisor initialed all temperatures documented.
Record review of the refrigerator/temperature log for room [ROOM NUMBER] (Resident #35) dated October 2023, revealed the following dates and temperatures:
10/2/23 46 degrees Fahrenheit
10/09/23 43 degrees Fahrenheit
10/16/23 45 degrees Fahrenheit
10/23/23 44 degrees Fahrenheit
The Housekeeper Supervisor initialed all temperatures documented.
Record review of refrigerator/temperature log for room [ROOM NUMBER] (Resident #35) dated October 2023 taken physically from the fridge revealed the following dates and temperatures:
10/4/23 33 degrees Fahrenheit
10/05/23 31 degrees Fahrenheit
10/09/23 36 degrees Fahrenheit
10/11/23 37 degrees Fahrenheit
10/12/23 34 degrees Fahrenheit
10/16/23 37 degrees Fahrenheit
10/17/23 48 degrees Fahrenheit
10/18/23 34 degrees Fahrenheit
10/19/23 40 degrees Fahrenheit
10/20/23 41 degrees Fahrenheit
The DOR initialed all temperatures documented.
Record review of refrigerator/temperature log for room [ROOM NUMBER] (Resident #8) dated October 2023 revealed the following dates and temperatures:
10/2 43 degrees Fahrenheit
10/09 43 degrees Fahrenheit
10/16 43 degrees Fahrenheit
10/23 43 degrees Fahrenheit
The Housekeeper Supervisor initialed all temperatures documented.
Record review of refrigerator/temperature log for room [ROOM NUMBER] (Resident #13) dated October 2023 revealed the following dates and temperatures:
10/02 33 degrees Fahrenheit
10/09 33 degrees Fahrenheit
10/16 33 degrees Fahrenheit
10/23 33 degrees Fahrenheit
The Housekeeper Supervisor initialed all temperatures documented.
Record review of refrigerator/temperature log for room [ROOM NUMBER] (Resident #40) dated October 2023 revealed the following dates and temperatures:
10/02 No temperature recorded. A note indicated the resident refused to let staff read. No initials are displayed on this document.
Record review of the facility policy, Food From an Approved Source (dated October 2019), revealed the following:
Policy Statement
It is the center policy to ensure all food will be procured from sources approved or considered
satisfactory by federal, state and local authorities.
Action Steps
2. If necessary, the designated Dining Services staff member obtains food products from a local
grocery store, items must be in the original container with a time stamped receipt, and dated
as appropriate.
4. Food may be brought into the center by family, visitors, or other outside sources. The center
staff will assist with proper food storage and handling as appropriate.
Record review of the facility policy, Personal Resident Refrigerators (dated 09/11/23), revealed the following:
This facility does not provide a refrigerator in a resident's room. However, it is the policy of this facility to ensure safe and sanitary use of any resident-owned refrigerators.
Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines:
1.
Dormitory-sized refrigerators are allowed in a resident's room under the following conditions:
a.
The refrigerator is inspected by maintenance personnel and deemed safe prior to use and upon routine inspections.
b.
The refrigerator maintains proper temperatures.
c.
The electrical cord is without damage and the grounding prong is intact.
d.
Sufficient space exists in the resident's room to accommodate the refrigerator without requiring the use of extension cord or multi-plug adapter.
e.
The resident complies with the facility's policy for use of the refrigerator.
2.
Maintenance staff/or designee shall record refrigerator temperatures weekly on a temperature log attached to the refrigerator.
a.
A thermometer will be placed in and remain in the refrigerator.
b.
Temperatures will be at or below 41° F, and freezers will be cold enough to keep foods frozen solid to the touch (or in accordance with state regulations).
c.
If temperatures are out of range, maintenance staff shall notify nursing department to discard any foods that require refrigeration and take measures to remedy the problem.
d.
If problems persist with maintaining proper temperatures, the refrigerator shall be removed from use and the resident/family and administrator notified.
3.
Housekeeping and/or nursing staff as assigned shall clean the refrigerator weekly and discard any foods that are out of compliance.
4.
Residents and staff will comply with safe food handling and storage principles:
a.
Perishable foods such as dairy products, meat, and processed foods made with perishable foods or eggs will be stored immediately upon receipt.
b.
Leftovers shall be dated upon receipt and discarded with in three days.
c.
Foods with use-by dates shall be discarded accordingly.
d.
Any food with potential concerns (i.e., smell, packaging, appearance, frozen foods are not solid to touch) shall be discard ed.
e.
Food shall be in covered containers or securely wrapped .
f.
Raw meat or eggs are not allowed in a resident's refrigerator. Processed meats in original containers are allowed (i.e. lunch meat).
g.
Food or beverages brought in for residents to be stored in facility refrigerators must have name and date on packaging.
5.
Accommodations shall be made for the resident to be present for temperature checks, observing food for sanitary storage, and cleaning of the refrigerator, if so desired by the resident.
6.
The resident and/ or family shall be educated on safe food storage and use of the refrigerator prior to its use, and as needed.
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety in 1 of 1 kitchen...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety in 1 of 1 kitchen reviewed for dietary services, in that:
The facility failed to ensure to date and label all food (DM).
Dietary staff failed to cover food that was not actively being served (DM, Dietary [NAME] and Dietary Aide)
Dietary staff exposed the lip of clean cups to the bottom of a tray that could potentially be contaminated and used them to serve hydration to residents (Dietary Aide)
The Dietary [NAME] did not allow the puree machine to air dry after running it through the dishwasher prior to preparing residents meal.
The Dietary [NAME] and Aide failed to wash their hands for the recommended time (20 seconds) and after glove changes.
The Dietary [NAME] failed to provide a barrier between a cooking utensil and the counter before using the same utensil to stir resident food.
The Dietary [NAME] flipped 3 of 5 lids on the steam table exposing uncovered food to the outer lid.
Dietary Aide cooking in the food preparation area without a hair net.
These failures could place residents at risk for food contamination and foodborne illness.
The findings include:
An observation was made on 10/24/23 at 9:56 AM of uncovered baked cornbread and uncovered baked rolls. The bread remained uncovered until the surveyor exited the kitchen at 10:12 AM. Lunch was actively served at 12:20 PM.
An observation was made on 10/24/23 at 10:05 AM in the facility freezer of an unlabeled/undated opened piping of white frosting.
An observation was made on 10/24/23 at 10:09 AM of two uncovered tortillas on the top of the stove.
An Observation was made on 10/24/23 at 10:10 AM of 3 trays of milk. The Dietary Aide was pouring the milk into the cups and stacking the tray directly on top of the lips of the uncovered cups. After filling the cups with milk and stacking the cups, an observation was made of the Dietary Aide covering the cups with plastic after the lips of the cups had already been exposed to the bottom of the trays.
During an interview on 10/24/23 at 10:11 AM, the Dietary Aide said the drinks were being prepared to be served the following day for breakfast.
An observation was made on 10/24/23 at 11:57 AM of the Dietary [NAME] running the puree machine through the facility dishwasher. She obtained the puree container directly from the dishwasher without allowing it to dry and added three rolls of bread and milk. She blended the contents and placed the mixture in a serving container.
An observation was made on 10/24/23 at 12:08 PM of the Dietary [NAME] using her bare hands to flip the 3/5 lids upside down on the steam table, exposing the food contents to the outer lid.
An observation was made on 10/25/23 at 09:33 AM of 42 uncovered uncooked rolls. The DM and the Dietary [NAME] were present in the kitchen. The rolls were uncovered when the surveyor exited the kitchen at 10:05 AM. Observation revealed one fly flying around in the kitchen at the time of this observation.
An observation was made on 10/25/23 at 09:36 AM of the Dietary Aide entering the kitchen and washed her hands for a total of 4 seconds. She touched the handwashing sink knob with her bare hands and then grabbed a paper towel. She obtained a cart and went back out of the kitchen.
An observation was made on 10/25/23 at 09:40 AM of the Dietary Aide reentering the kitchen. She washed her hands for a total of 10 seconds. She used her bare hands to turn off the water and then grabbed a paper towel.
An observation was made on 10/25/23 at 09:44 AM of the white frosting in the fridge with a date that read 10/15/23.
During an interview on 10/25/23 at 9:45 AM, the DM acknowledged that the frosting was not labeled the previous day.
An observation was made on 10/25/23 at 09:44 AM of uncovered peaches placed on the table in the middle of the kitchen next to two covered items. The peaches remained uncovered until 10:00 AM when the Dietary [NAME] split the peaches into the two bowls covered on the table.
An observation was made on 10/25/23 at 09:47 AM of the DM waving a fly out of her face.
An observation was made on 10/25/23 at 09:50 AM of a fly in the food prep area landing on the bottom of a serving tray and then on unwrapped silverware in a container.
An observation was made on 10/25/23 at 11:49 AM of the Dietary [NAME] washing her hands for 8 seconds. She returned with a spatula and laid the spatula on the counter without a barrier. At 11:51 AM, she used the spatula laid on the counter to stir in the pureed meat sauce.
An observation was made on 10/25/23 at 11:51 AM of the Dietary [NAME] completing the pureed process of the meat sauce. She did not cover the meat sauce after completion. The meat sauce was not actively being served and stayed uncovered until 11:59 AM. As the Dietary [NAME] poured her completed pureed noodle mixture into the final container, she held the puree container over the uncovered meat sauce, and an unknown clear liquid dripped into the meat sauce.
An observation was made on 10/25/23 at 11:57 AM of the Dietary [NAME] removing her gloves and placing another pair of gloves on without washing her hands between glove changes.
An observation was made on 10/24/23 at 1:43 PM of the Dietary Aide cooking at the stove without a hair net. She was observed walking to the container that contained hair nets to retrieve a hair net.
During an interview on 10/25/23 at 1:56 PM the DM stated the potential negative outcome of food not being covered was that flies could land on the food, and the food could potentially get cold. She said if she were a resident, she would not want cold cornbread. She said that she was aware that the food was uncovered. She said usually, when bread comes out of the oven, they cover it with tissue paper so that things will not get on the food. She said she did not see flies in the kitchen. She said she had been trained regarding covering the food when it is not actively being served to residents. She said her staff have also been trained to cover the food if not actively being served. She said she expected that all food to be covered if not actively being served to the residents. She said the Dietary [NAME] was responsible for ensuring that food not actively being served was covered. She said the potential negative outcome of not labeling food was staff may not know when the food was brought into the facility. She said she did not believe the residents could be affected negatively because she does not keep food long. She said she was not aware that the icing was in the freezer. She said she was looking for something in the freezer and noticed it had no date. She said she then wrote the date of 10/15/23 because that was the last day she could remember that a truck came in, and they needed it for dessert. She said sometimes trucks come in late, and the night staff are the ones to put the food up. She said the night staff should know to label all food items. She said she usually comes in the following day and walks through to ensure all food items are labeled while she rotates food stock. She said she expected the staff to have placed the frosting in a Ziplock bag and labeled it with the received date and opened date. She said that she, as the DM, was responsible for ensuring that all food items were labeled with a received date and open date.
She said the potential negative outcome of not properly washing hands or not washing hands at all was things in the kitchen could be contaminated. She said her system to monitor was if she noticed staff improperly washing their hands, but mostly, there are signs posted above the sink. She said she expected the staff to wash their hands for at least 20 seconds. She said she was not aware that the staff was not washing their hands for a minimum of 20 seconds and after any glove changes. She said she expected her staff to read the signs and wash their hands properly. She said everyone in the kitchen was responsible for proper hand washing. She said she was aware that the Dietary Aide had the lips of the cups exposed to the bottom of the trays. She said the Dietary Aide had only worked for 5 days. She said she did not intervene and help the Dietary Aide because she was nervous and panicked. She said she did not want to bring the surveyor's attention to it. She said she was unaware that the Dietary [NAME] had placed the spatula on the counter without a barrier and used it to stir in the resident's food. She said she was also unaware that the Dietary [NAME] had flipped the lids on the steam table, exposing the food to the outside of the lids. She said she has been trained regarding minimizing exposure to bacteria to residents.
She said she was not aware that the Dietary Aide was in the kitchen cooking without a hair net on. She said she expected and had trained staff that when they enter the food preparation area, they should wash their hands and grab a hair net. She said the potential negative outcome was that hair could get into the resident's food, and hair in the residents' food was nasty. She said she periodically checks that her staff have hair nets. She said she and her staff have been trained to wear hair nets. She said she was unaware that the Dietary [NAME] did not allow the puree machine to dry. She said the potential negative outcome of not allowing the puree machine to dry could potentially be lingering chemicals from the dishwasher in the machine, and this could potentially get into the residents' food. She said she told the Dietary [NAME] to allow the machine to dry. She said she had been trained to allow the machine to dry. She said this is challenging with having one machine. She said they did have a backup machine, but a previous staff recently broke it.
During an interview on 10/25/23 at 2:26 PM the Dietary Aide stated she did see the food uncovered. She said she should have covered the food but that she did not cover the food because she was dealing with her area. She said the cook was responsible for ensuring that the food was covered. She said the potential negative outcome was anything could happen .She said something could have gotten on their food. She said she did not see any flies in the kitchen. She said food should be covered if it is not actively being served. She said she had labeled food before. She said the DM has trained her that everything has to be dated with the received date and the open date. She said this is the protocol even if the item was opened briefly. She said that they labeled the food so that they knew what the food item was and if the food was safe for the resident. She said if food was not labeled, residents could get sick if it was expired. She said she was not aware of the frosting being unlabeled. She said all of the workers in the kitchen were responsible for labeling food items. She said she had been trained on how to wash her hands properly. She said it should have been for 20 seconds. She said she was aware that she did not wash them long enough and that she touched the knob with her bare clean hands. She said she was nervous and felt rushed because she was being monitored. She said not washing hands properly could cause cross-contamination. She said she was aware after she placed the trays on top of the bare glasses of milk. She said something could have fallen in the milk. She said she did not know what was on the bottom of the trays. She said she was unaware of her coworker laying the spatula on the counter without a barrier. She said she was unaware she did not have a hair net on. She said it may have fallen off when she was outside smoking. She said when she saw the surveyor, she felt for it and noticed it was not on. She said she ran to get a new one. She said she was actively cooking vegetable soup. She said the potential negative outcome was her hair could have fallen in the soup. She said she had been trained to wear a hair net when entering the food preparation area. She said she was responsible for ensuring she wore a hair net.
During an interview on 10/25/23 at 02:46 PM the Dietary [NAME] stated she said she was aware that the food was uncovered. She said she did not think anything of it. She said she did see flies in the food preparation area. She said the potential negative outcome for uncovered food was people could walk by, and hair, bugs, or anything could have fallen in the food. She said she did not have a system that she used but that, as the cook, it was her responsibility. She said she was unaware of the frosting being unlabeled in the freezer. She said it was the facility process that they labeled food when it was received and opened. She said as the cook; she was responsible for ensuring that all food was labeled properly. She said the potential negative outcome was that residents could have received spoiled food because staff may not know how long the food was there. She said it could make the residents sick with bacteria.
She said she had been trained on how to wash her hands properly. She said she was supposed to wash her hands for 20 seconds or sing the Happy Birthday song. She said she was aware that she did not wash her hands long enough and that she did not wash after a glove change. She said she was rushing and hurrying because she was being watched. She said every time the surveyor would write something down, she would get nervous and think, What did I do?. She said she would start sweating. She said the potential negative outcome of not washing her hands was that she could have still had bacteria on her hand and spread it to the food. She said she had never been audited but knew the signs above the sink. She said she knew she had flipped the lids upside down, exposing the food to the top of the lids. She said she also knew she had laid the spatula down without a barrier. She said she did not have a reason why she did that. She said she was not thinking about it at the time and that she was rushing. She said bacteria, germs, or bugs could have gotten in the food. She said she had no information about the bottom of the tray touching the cups as she did not see that. She said she was not paying attention to her coworker not wearing a hair net but that they had all been trained to wear a hair net in the food preparation area. She said the potential negative outcome of not wearing a hair net could put the residents at risk of having hair, bugs (lice), or even dandruff if staff have those issues. She said they try to help each other by reminding each other if they see each other without a hair net on. She said she knew she did not allow the puree machine to dry. She said she had been trained to allow the machine to dry. She said she was not thinking. She said the potential negative outcome was that if there was a chemical left in the machine, it could poison or make the resident sick.
During an interview on 10/25/23 at 03:22 PM the ADM stated that uncovered food could be exposed to anything in the air. He said this could be a sanitation concern, and bacteria could grow. He said he goes in daily, and he was not aware that they were leaving food uncovered. He said he usually goes in right when they serve. He said other than him monitoring his other system, the dietician comes in monthly. He said when he goes in, he checks off of a checklist and that they also have a regional nurse who would come in and do a walk through the kitchen. He said they mostly look for cleanliness in the kitchen when they check. He said he had had minimal training as the administrator regarding the dietary protocols but was aware that the puree machine should have been air-dried before use. He said this was not an issue because he thought they had a backup machine that the staff could have used. He said the potential negative outcome was that the machine could be unsanitary if not dried properly. He said he does not watch them do puree, but he had looked in the past at the form of the puree food. He said he expected the puree machine to be dry or for the staff to use the backup machine if available. He said he was not aware that there was unlabeled food in the kitchen. He said if the food was not labeled, it could potentially be in the kitchen too long, spoiled, and served to the resident. He said he expected all food to be labeled according to the facility policy. He said the DM was responsible for ensuring that all food was properly labeled. He said staff members not washing their hands properly that germs or bacteria could have been spread. He said he was not aware but that he had told them to make sure that they were washing their hands. He said if he noticed them not washing their hand, he would verbally intervene. He said he had not personally been trained in handwashing, but he oversees his staff. He said the DM had trained his dietary staff. He said he expected them to wash their hands for at least 20 seconds. He said himself as the administrator down to the DM, the dietician, and the dietary worker were responsible. He said having the bottom of the trays touch the bare lips of the cups of milk, flipping the steam table lids on top of the exposed food, and not having a barrier for the spatula laid on the counter potentially exposed the food and cups of milk to anything that was touching the bottom of the tray or any other surface. He said this could cause germs to get into the food. He said he was not aware that this had happened in the kitchen. He said the DM was responsible for monitoring and ensuring that none of this was happening. He said that he was unaware that he had staff that were not wearing a hair net in the food preparation area. He said when he went into the kitchen, he looked to ensure that staff were wearing a hair net. He said they had been trained. He said he had expected his staff to wear a hair net in the food preparation area. He said the DM was responsible for ensuring that all staff were wearing hair nets. He said he, as the administrator, was also responsible.
Record review of the facility policy, Staff Attire (dated October 2019), revealed the following:
Policy Statement
It is the center policy that all Dining Services employees wear approved attire for the performance
of their duties.
Action Steps
1. The Dining Services Director insures that all staff members have their hair off the shoulders,
confined in a hair net or cap, and facial hair properly restrained.
Record review of the facility policy, Food Preparation (dated October 2019), revealed the following:
Policy Statement
It is the center policy that all foods are prepared in accordance with the guidelines of the FDA Food
Code.
Action Steps
1. The Dining Services Director insures that all staff practice proper hand washing technique and
practice proper glove use.
2. The Dining Services Director or Cook(s) are responsible for food preparation procedures that
avoid contamination by potentially harmful physical, biological, and chemical contamination.
3. The Dining Services Director or Cook(s) is responsible to ensure that all utensils, food contact
equipment, and food contact surfaces are cleaned and sanitized after every use.
Record review of the facility policy, Receiving (dated October 2019), revealed the following:
Policy Statement
It is the center policy that safe food handling procedures for time and temperature control will be
practiced in the transportation, delivery, and subsequent storage of all food items.
6. All food items will be appropriately labeled and dated either through manufacturer packaging
or staff notation.
Record review of the facility policy, Food Storage: Cold (dated October 2019), revealed the following:
Policy Statement
It is the center policy to insure all Time/Temperature Control for Safety (TCS), frozen and
refrigerated food items, will be appropriately stored in accordance with guidelines of the FDA Food
Code.
5. The Dining Services Director/ Cook(s) insures that all food items are stored properly in covered
containers, labeled and dated and arranged in a manner to prevent cross contamination.
Record review of the facility policy, Meal Distribution (dated October 2019), revealed the following:
Policy Statement
It is the center policy that meals are transported to the dining locations in a manner that insures
proper temperature maintenance, protects against contamination, and are delivered in a timely and
accurate manner.
6. Proper food handling techniques to prevent contamination and temperature maintenance will be
used at point of service dining.
Record review of the 2017 FDA Food codes revealed the following:
Hair Restraints
FOOD EMPLOYEES
shall wear hair restraints such as hats, hair coverings or nets, beard restraints, and clothing that covers body hair, that are designed and worn to effectively keep their hair from contacting exposed FOOD; clean EQUIPMENT, UTENSILS, and LINENS; and unwrapped SINGLESERVICE and SINGLE-USE ARTICLES.
Drying
After cleaning and SANITIZING, EQUIPMENT and UTENSILS: (A) Shall be air-dried or used after adequate draining as specified in the first paragraph of 40 CFR 180.940 Tolerance
exemptions for active and inert ingredients for use in antimicrobial formulations (food-contact surface Sanitizing solutions), before contact with FOOD; and (B) May not be cloth dried except that utensils that have been air-dried may be polished with cloths that are maintained clean and dry.
Labeling- Use-by date
The use-by date must be listed on the principal display panel in bold type on a
contrasting background for any product sold to consumers.
Any label on packages intended for consumer sale must contain a combination of a sell-by date and use-by instructions which makes it clear that the product must be consumed within the number of days determined to be safe