HILLTOP PARK REHABILITATION AND CARE CENTER

970 HILLTOP DR, WEATHERFORD, TX 76086 (817) 599-0000
For profit - Limited Liability company 132 Beds PRIORITY MANAGEMENT Data: November 2025 2 Immediate Jeopardy citations
Trust Grade
0/100
#1006 of 1168 in TX
Last Inspection: August 2024

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

Overview

Hilltop Park Rehabilitation and Care Center has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns and poor performance overall. Ranking #1006 out of 1168 nursing homes in Texas places it in the bottom half of facilities in the state, and #8 out of 9 in Parker County means there is only one local option that is better. The facility is reportedly improving, having reduced issues from 11 in 2024 to just 3 in 2025, but it still has a concerning staffing turnover rate of 66%, which is higher than the Texas average of 50%. Additionally, the facility has accumulated $101,085 in fines, which is a red flag, as it is higher than 78% of Texas facilities, indicating potential compliance issues. Specific incidents of concern include failing to notify a resident's physician of critical health changes, leading to serious health complications, and inadequate food safety practices that could pose health risks. Overall, while there are some signs of improvement, families should weigh these significant concerns carefully.

Trust Score
F
0/100
In Texas
#1006/1168
Bottom 14%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Better
11 → 3 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
66% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
○ Average
$101,085 in fines. Higher than 62% of Texas facilities. Some compliance issues.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 19 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Texas. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
⚠ Watch
21 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Overall Rating
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Staff Levels
★★★☆☆
3.0
Care Quality
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 11 issues
2025: 3 issues

The Good

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

Facility shows strength in fire safety.

The Bad

1-Star Overall Rating

Below Texas average (2.8)

Significant quality concerns identified by CMS

Staff Turnover: 66%

20pts above Texas avg (46%)

Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity

Federal Fines: $101,085

Well above median ($33,413)

Significant penalties indicating serious issues

Chain: PRIORITY MANAGEMENT

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

Staff turnover is elevated (66%)

18 points above Texas average of 48%

The Ugly 21 deficiencies on record

2 life-threatening
Feb 2025 3 deficiencies 2 IJ (2 affecting multiple)
CRITICAL (K) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Notification of Changes (Tag F0580)

Someone could have died · This affected multiple residents

**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 physic...

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 where there was a significant change in the resident's physical, mental, or psychosocial status and when there was a need to alter treatment significantly for one of six (Resident #1) residents reviewed for notification of change in condition. The facility failed to notify Resident #1's attending physician of nausea, vomiting and diarrhea which lasted from 12/22/2024 to 12/30/2024 without improvement. An Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) situation was identified on 01/29/2025 at 4:21 pm . The IJ was removed on 01/31 /2025 at 10:24 AM. The facility remained out of compliance at a scope of a pattern with a potential for more than minimal harm, due to the facility's need to evaluate the effectiveness of the corrective systems. This failure could place residents at risk of a delay in medical intervention, decline in health, serious injury, harm, impairment, or death. Findings include: Record review of Resident #1's face sheet, dated 01/03/2025, reflected an [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #1 had relevant diagnoses which included cerebral infarct ( a condition where blood flow to the brain is interrupted, causing brain tissue to die), dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), other signs and symptoms concerning food and fluid intake, unspecified signs and symptoms involving cognitive function after stroke, speech and language deficits, hypertension ( high blood pressure), and long-term use of anticoagulants. Record review of Resident #1's Discharge MDS assessment dated [DATE], reflected she had both short-term and long-term memory problems. She was dependent for bed mobility, transfers, feeding, and maximum assistance with wheelchair mobility wheelchair for mobility. She was incontinent of both bowel and bladder and she had a feeding tube; Record review of Resident #1's Comprehensive Care Plan reflected the following, Focus: Resident has a potential fluid deficit related to tube feedings, goal - the resident will be free of symptoms of dehydration and maintain moist mucous membranes and good skin turgor, interventions - monitor and document frequency of bowel movements, monitor vital signs and report significant abnormalities to physician. Focus, G-tube feeding required due to dysphagia (feeding via a tube inserted through the abdomen surgically into the stomach due to difficulty swallowing). Interventions included: Give 150ml water every shift via gastrostomy tube to equal 450ml/24hrs, Glucerna 1.5 at 57ml/hour with 39ml/hour continuous water flush for 20 hours a day via GT = 1133 ml formula, 1700 kcals, 91gms protein, 2066ml water/24 hours (excludes med flushes), monitor/document/report PRN any signs or symptoms of aspiration, fever, shortness of breath, tube dislodgment, Infection at tube site, self-extubating, tube dysfunction or malfunction, abnormal breath/lung sounds, abnormal lab values, abdominal pain, distension, tenderness, constipation or fecal impaction, diarrhea, nausea/vomiting, or dehydration. Record review of Resident #1's active physician orders from the nursing facility, dated 12/30/2024 reflected The resident also had an order for Zofran 4 mg every 6 hours as needed for nausea and vomiting. The order had a start date of 07/13/2023. Record review of Resident's #1's MAR for the month of December 2024 revealed she did not receive Zofran 4 mg in the month of November or December until the date of 12/22/2024. Record review of Resident #1's facility nursing progress notes dated 12/22/2024 to 12/30/2024 reflected documentation in the nursing progress notes on 12/22/2024, 12/24/2024, 12/25/2024 x2, 12/27/24 2 times, and 12/30/24 showing the resident received Zofran 4 mg for nausea and vomiting. The order had a start date of 07/13/23. Record review of Resident # 1's physician progress notes authored by NP L with an encounter date 12/19/2024 reflected no evidence of nausea or vomiting and documented pharmacotherapy reviewed, patient on 23 medications. Recommendation for discontinuation of Mylanta Oral Suspension, Ondansetron (Zofran) HCL tablet, and MOM (milk of magnesia)suspension PRN medications as they have not been utilized in the past three months. Record review of Resident #1's Nursing Progress Notes, with a look-back period between 12/22/2024 - 12/30/2024, reflected no documentation related to a completed assessment or notification to a medical provider of Resident #1's continued nausea, vomiting and diarrhea nor any other concerns until 12/30/2024 when LVN A documented the primary care physician was notified. Her blood pressure was documented to be 70/46 with a pulse of 46 by LVN A. Record review of Resident #1's electronic medical record revealed no lab work had been ordered since November 2024. Her Comprehensive Metabolic Panel and Complete Blood Count were within Normal limits at that time. Throughout the course of the investigation 01/03/25 to 01/31/25), Resident # 1 was no longer at the facility and was unavailable for interview due to the decline in her condition. Record review of physician ER notes in the ER hospital records, dated 12/30/25, indicated the resident presented with nausea, diarrhea, and abdominal pain. She was diagnosed with hypovolemic shock (shock caused by major blood or fluid loss), sepsis (an extreme reaction by the body to infection) , and abdominal pain. The ER Physician stated in the note Overall, I feel the shock is multifocal, rectus sheath hematoma ( a collection of blood cause by a tear in the rectus abdominus muscle of the abdomen) with volume loses secondary to reported nausea and vomiting. Record Review of clinical chart documentation dated 12/30/24, the ER Physician stated The high probability of sudden, clinically significant deterioration in the patient's condition required the highest level of my preparedness to intervene urgently. The service I provided to this patient were to treat and/or prevent clinically significant deterioration that could result In severe disability or death. Further review of the Physician ER note, dated 12/30/24, revealed the resident required transfer to a higher level of care and hospitalization on 12/30/24 for hypovolemic shock, sepsis, and required emergency surgical intervention for treatment of a rectus abdominus hematoma, the resident was also found to have a UTI. Record review of the lab results, dated 12/30/24, from the ER Record revealed her Lactic Acid was 3.2 H ( normal range 0.5 to 2.2 millimolesa condition where the level of lactic acid in the blood is elevated indicating the liver and kidneys are not are not able to metabolize lactic avid or are producing too much), WBC's 25.31 H,( blood cells that fight infection, the normal range is 4.000 to 11,000. Her urine had many bacteria, 3-4, RBC's ( red blood cells carry oxygen to cells and tissues normal range 4.2 to 5.4) Sodium was 128 L (sodium normal range between 135 - 145 an electrolyte that helps regulate water in the body , Chloride 88 L ( normal range 96 to 106 it is an elctrolye that main tains fluid volume an acid base balance in the body), Co2 32 H( normal range between 23 and 29 regulates the respiratory rate and the affinity of hemoglobin for oxygen) , BUN 33 H (normal range 6 to 24 high BUN indicates how well the kidneys are removing urea which is a waste product from the blood), Albumin 2.9 L(normal range 3.4 to 5.4 albumin helps transport fluids throughout then body). During an interview on 01/03/2025 at 8:00 AM with Resident # 1's family member, she stated the resident had been in the facility since March of 2024. She stated Resident #1 took her medication and all fluids and nourishment through a tube in her stomach. She stated Resident #1 was in ICU at that time. She stated the resident was admitted to the hospital on [DATE]. and that was the first time the facility had let the family know how sick she was. She stated the resident was septic and severely dehydrated when she arrived at the hospital with a blood pressure of 48/28. The family member stated Resident #1's room was electronically monitored, and she could see the feeding tube was turned off intermittently from the 21st of December until the time she went to the hospital on [DATE]. She stated the ER physician told her there was a foul smell emitting from her gastrostomy tube at the time of her transfer to the hospital. She stated the ER staff told her the odor was so bad there was no way the facility staff could have not known about it. She stated her urine was so concentrated it was the color of tea or coffee. She stated on 12/29/24 she was told by a nurse at the facility ( she did not know her name) that Resident #1's color was ashen, and she was concerned about her. She stated the nurse stated she was trying to reach the physician. They finally notified her that they had received orders for transfer, and transferred her to the emergency room on the 30th of [DATE]. An attempt to interview the ER Physician was unsuccessful on 01/27/2025 at 2:30 PM and 4:30 PM, the purpose of the call and a call back number was left on voicemail. In interview with NP L, on 1/03/2025 at 1:00 PM, she stated she never saw or treated Resident #1 from 12/22/2024 until 12/30/2024 and she was not called by the facility or informed of her nausea, vomiting and diarrhea. In interview with Resident #1's primary care physician W, on 1/03/2025 at 1:40 PM, he stated he was not notified of a condition change in Resident #1 from 12/22/2024 until 12/30/2024, and was not informed of her nausea, vomiting and diarrhea over the course of 8 days. He stated he was notified on 12/30/2024 and he sent her to the hospital for evaluation. He stated he was never notified that her gastrostomy tube feedings were held. He stated he would have expected the nursing staff to notify him of the condition change after 24 hours with no improvement. He stated that he would have intervened sooner if he had been notified and ordered IV fluids and lab work. In a follow up interview with Primary care physician W on 1/27/2025 at 2:30 PM, he stated he did not know if early intervention would have prevented her hospitalization. He stated interventions such as fluids and labs might have prevented her hospitalization, but it was hard to say. He stated in his opinion in general, most elderly residents in nursing homes did suffer from some degree of dehydration. He stated he did not lay eyes on Resident #1 before he gave orders for her transfer to the hospital for evaluation, therefore he could not say what her condition was at the time of transfer. In an interview on 01/03/2025 at 1:30 PM CNA D stated she worked the 23rd and 24th of December. She stated on the 23rd she doesn't think Resident #1 had nausea or diarrhea during her shift from 6:00 AM until 2:00 PM when she worked. But on the 24th she had diarrhea and vomiting, but she's not sure how many times it occurred. She stated the diarrhea was runny and brownish, reddish in color and the vomit was brown. She stated she reported it to LVN A who also helped her clean Resident #1 up. In an interview on 01/03/2025, CNA E at 1:40 PM stated she took care of the resident 12/23/2024, 12/24/2024, 12/25/2024, 12/26/2024, 12/27/2024, and 12/30/2024. She stated the resident vomited and had diarrhea during her 8-hour shift (6am-2pm). She stated she reported this to the charge nurse ( LVN A). She stated she remembered Resident # 1 had diarrhea and vomiting for a long time and she reported it to the nurse each time the nausea, vomiting and diarrhea occurred, because it needed to be stopped. She stated she did not remember anything unusual about the color. She also stated several residents on the 500 hall had been sick, but Resident #1 had it longer than the other residents. She stated she did not notice if Resident #1's tube feeding was connected to the pump or if the charge nurse turned the pump off on the 6:00 AM - 2:00 PM shift, because that was the nurse's responsibility. She stated she did not remember how long Resident #1 the vomiting and diarrhea had, but it was for about a week. She stated several of the staff and other residents also had the diarrhea and vomiting at the same time, but Resident #1 had it longer than anyone else. CNA E was not available for a follow up interview. She did not work again during the course of the investigation, and attempts on 01/27/2025 at 2:00 PM and 5:00 PM for a phone interview were unsuccessful. During an interview with LVN A on 01/03/2025 at 2:40 PM, she stated she worked days on 12/23/2024, 12/24/2024, 12/25/2024, 12/26/24, and 12/30/2024. She stated she sent the resident to the hospital. She stated she knew the resident had the diarrhea and vomiting for several days. She stated Dr W had standing orders for Zofran as needed every 6 hours for nausea and vomiting. She stated she heard in the change of shift report given to her by LVN C that Resident #1 vomited and had diarrhea on the night shift. She stated she immediately went down to Resident #1's room to check on her. She stated Resident #1's B/P was 70/46, and she was complaining that her stomach hurt, so she immediately called the physician. She stated Resident #1 was on her way to the hospital by 7:00 Am. She stated she had been off for a few days prior to 12/30/2024 with symptoms of vomiting and diarrhea and 12/30/2024 was her first day back at work since 12/26/2024. She stated she notified the physician on 12/30/2024. She stated she did not notify the physician or the POA of Resident # 1's condition change prior to 12/30/2024 because she didn't think about doing it. In an interview on 01/03/2025 at 3:20 PM, LVN F stated she was the charge nurse and worked 2:00 PM to 10:00 PM on 12/24/2024. She stated on 12/24 /25, LVN A told her she had unhooked her from her feeding and stopped the pump due to nausea and vomiting during the 6:00 AM to 2:00 PM shift. She stated she assessed the resident, and she asked her if she felt better. She stated the resident told her she was not nauseated, and her vital signs were within normal range, so she resumed the feeding. She stated she had never seen Resident #1 have any brown or coffee ground emesis. She stated the tube flushed very well and she never noticed an odor. In a follow up interview on 1/8/2025 at 1:41 PM, LVN A stated she did not recall that Resident #1 ever had emesis of a brownish or coffee ground color as stated by CNA D . She stated it was always the color of the tube feeding. She stated Resident #1 had physician orders for her pump to be off for 4 hours each day . She reviewed her nursing progress notes and the MAR for the month of December during the interview and stated she did turn the pump off on 12/24/24 on the 6 AM -2 PM shift and also held her medications due to nausea and vomiting. She stated she did not notify the physician on 12/24/2024. In an Interview on 01/08/25 at 3:30 PM1/8/ , LVN C stated she took care of Resident #1 during the time period of 12/21/24 to 12/30/24. She stated she had turned the feeding pump off several times during that time period due to the resident's nausea, vomiting and diarrhea. She stated she did not notify the physician of the resident's condition. She stated she gave the resident Zofran for nausea through the g-tube like everyone else did. She stated, I just never thought about calling the doctor to notify him the resident was not getting better. In an interview with LVN B on 01/08/2025at 3:00 PM, she stated she worked on 12/27/2024 thru 12/29/2024. She stated she stopped Resident #1's pump, and held her medications due to nausea on 12/27/2024. She stated she did not notify the physician. She stated she did not think of notifying the physician. She stated she thought he knew because she had the Zofran ordered for nausea. Interview with the DON on 01/03/2025 at 1:15 PM, she stated she was responsible for monitoring and providing oversight for the Nursing staff of the facility. She stated she was responsible for providing in-services to the staff. She stated she was not aware of Resident #1 having had diarrhea with nausea and vomiting which continued over the course of 8 days from 12/22/2024 to 12/30/2024. She stated her expectation was that staff would notify the resident's physician, POA, or responsible party of any change of condition in a resident. She stated she would have expected a nurse to recognize the symptoms and report the changes. She stated there was a 24-hour communication book that nurses could communicate changes of condition to other shifts. She stated she had looked in the nurses' notes from 12/21/2024 - 12/30/2024 the day of transfer, and she only saw the one notification to the family which was at the time of the transfer. She stated she would have expected them to do an Interact form which should have been done to gather and communicate assessment findings . She stated the nurses were supposed to do an Interact form with a condition change which would assist in cueing the nurse to notify the physician and send them to the hospital. She stated she saw no documentation of that occurring. Review of the 24hour communication book revealed no documentation that the physician had been notified of the condition change or that feedings were held. In an interview with the Administrator on 01/06/2025 at 11:35 AM, he stated his expectations were for the nurse to have reported Resident #1's condition change to the RP and the physician. He stated it was important for facility nursing staff to notify the doctor of any change of condition that required holding of a resident's feedings and of her condition change and continued nausea and vomiting. He stated that he would have intervened sooner if he had known. In an interview with the Administrator at 9:50 AM on 1/13/25, the Administrator stated he was not aware of the situation with Resident #1 until it was brought to his attention by the surveyor. He stated he felt like it was poor nursing care. In an interview with DON on 1/13/2025 at 9:45 AM, she stated that she wanted to let me know that she had suspended LVN C on the 10:00 PM to 6:00 AM shift . She stated that the nurse should have completed an interact form and notified the physician if Resident #1 was unable to tolerate the prescribed tube feeding due to nausea and vomiting. She stated she felt like it was poor nursing care, and she suspended LVN C to investigate the circumstances. She stated she would have notified the physician if she had been the nurse during that shift. She stated she would not want her family treated in that manner. She stated the nurses that worked during that time period should have contacted the physician. She stated turning off the feeding pump could result in dehydration and malnutrition. She stated the physician, the dietician or somebody should have been contacted. She stated LVN A had also quit. She stated Dr W talked to her after talking with the surveyor and he stated that he was not notified and would have expected the nursing staff to notify him of the continued nausea and vomiting and that the feedings were held. He stated he would have intervened sooner. In an interview on 01/13/2025 at 9:15 AM, Resident # 1's POA stated Resident #1 transferred to another SNF on 01/09/2025. She stated she was still concerned with the lack of care she received from 12/22/2024 to 12/30/2024. She stated she felt they almost let her die. Record review of the facility's staffing sheets, provided by the DON, reflected: LVN A worked day shift 6:00 AM to 2:00 PM 500 hall on 12/23/2024, 12/24/2024, 12/25/2024, 12/26/2024, 12/30/24 LVN B worked 6:00 AM to 10:00 PM 500 hall on 12/27/2024, 12/28/2024, and on 12/29/2024 LVN C worked night shift 10:00 PM to 6:00 AM 500 hall on 12/24/2024, 12/25/2024, 12/26/2024, and 12/29/2024 LVN F worked evening shift on 12/25/2024, and 12/26/2024 CNA D worked 6:00 AM to 2:00 PM on 12/23/2024, 12/24/2024, 12/26/2024, and 12/30/2024 CNA E worked 6:00 AM to 2:00 PM on 12/23/2024, 12/4/2024, 12/25/2024, 12/26/2024, 12/27/2024, and 12/30/2024. Record review of the facility's policy, Change In a Resident's Condition or Status dated revised May of 2017, reflected in part: Our facility shall promptly notify the resident, his or her attending physician or Nurse Practitioner and the resident representative of changes in the resident's medical/mental condition and/or status. 1. The nurse will notify the physician or nurse practitioner or the physician on call when there has been an accident or incident involving the resident, discovery of injuries of an unknown source, adverse reaction to medication, significant change in the resident's physical/emotional/mental condition, a need to alter the resident's treatment significantly, refusal of medications or treatment 2 or more consecutive times, need to transfer the resident to a hospital, specific instruction to notify the physician of a change in the resident's condition. 2. A significant change of condition is a major decline or improvement in the resident's status that will not normally resolve itself without intervention by staff or by implementing standard disease related clinical interventions. Impacts more than 1 area of a resident's health, requires interdisciplinary review and/or revision to the care plan. This was determined to be an Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) on 01/29/2025 at 4:20 PM. The Administrator and Clinical Compliance Director were notified. The Administrator, DON, and the CCD were provided with the IJ template on 01/29/2025 at 4:20 PM and a POR was requested. The following Plan of Removal submitted by the facility was accepted on 01/30/2025 at 10:56 PM POR F580 - Notify of Changes (Injury/Decline/Room, Etc.) Resident #1 was sent to hospital on [DATE]. On 1/3/25 due to HHSC entrance of the facility that there was a complaint of resident #1. Facility began to review any other residents with G-tubes no other residents with a G-tube remains in the facility and/or changes in condition, that would result with any required changes of condition and physician notification. oThe Charge nurses reviewed for any other changes of condition, and none were identified on 1/3/25 by oversight from the DON. The underlying cause is the facility failed to ensure the Physician was notified when a resident experienced a change in condition. All residents could have been affected by this alleged deficient practice. oOn 1/3/2025 - Verbal policy review of Policy of Change of Condition or Status/SBAR change of condition was provided by the Corporate Quality Improvement Nurse to DON/ADON, (The policy was reviewed, and verbal comprehension was acknowledged via Q&A and discussion with return demonstration of Situation Background Assessment Recommendations). oIn-services were initiated by the Director of Nursing/Quality Improvement Nurse on 1/6/2025 to educate on notifying physicians immediately following detailed assessment with any resident change of condition to include the use of the SBAR/eInteract (Situation, Background, Assessment and Recommendations to enhance the communication information among team members). Completed on 1/30/2025. oOn 1/6/2025 Education/In-service was initiated to the DON, ADONs by the Corporate Quality Improvement Nurse on the morning clinical start-up process to ensure that any changes of condition would be addressed. Completed 1/6/2025 [NAME] alter the process or system failure the Stop and Watch (early warning communication tool to alert a nurse or manager if they notice something different in a person's daily care routine) was initiated, training and education started to the certified nurses' aides utilizing the alert system on 1/8/25. (Verbal instruction and application along with monitoring of use to ensure understanding and compliance of the communication system) completion date 1/30/2025. oThe SBAR/eInteract is being monitored in the clinical morning startup daily by DON/ADON/Designee. oOversight will be provided by the Administrator/DON/Designee oOn 1/6/25 LVN A resigned and then called in on 1/9, 1/10, 1/13 resignation was accepted immediately. oOn 1/13/25 LVN B resigned with resignation accepted immediately oOn 1/5/25 - LVN C was terminated. oOn 1/17/25 - LVN A, LVN B and LVN C license was referred to the Texas Board of Nursing for further review. Notification protocol and SBAR understanding will be tested by giving a test to LVNs and RNs that cover SBAR education and notification of physician regarding change of condition. Oversite of the testing will be managed by DON/ADON. (Initiated: 1/30/25) To ensure understanding. This test will be given to new nurses hired during orientation and yearly with competencies. Completion date 1/30/2025. oChange of condition will be reported from shift to shift up to nurse management by utilizing the SBAR/eInteract process and 24-hour report tool and reviewed daily in clinical start-up with oversite provided by DON/ADON/Designee. DON/ADON/Designee will be responsible for reviewing SBAR/24-hour report/nurse to nurse huddle and hand-off, daily at morning clinical start up. This will be with the oversight of the administrator. Discrepancies will be addressed immediately with root-cause analysis and brought to QAPI with the oversite with the Medical Director monthly for six months. Administrator/DON/Designee will review and ensure that understanding comprehension of the protocol. [Facility ] Medical Director notified of IJ (01/29/2025) [Facility] Monitoring of the POR Included the following: Verification of POC. 1/31/25 at 9:30 AM with DON present. Reviewed on 01/31/2025 at 9:39 am - Completed. Reviewed 01/31/2025 at 9:43 am - Completed. Reviewed 01/31/2025 at 9:50 am. Completed. On-going 3 staff left, cannot work until in-service completed. oOn 1/06/2025 LVN A resigned and then called in on 01/9, 01/10, 01/13 resignation was accepted immediately. oOn 01/13/2025 LVN B resigned with resignation accepted immediately oOn 01/05/2025 - LVN C was terminated. oOn 1/17/2025 - LVN's A, B, and C license was referred to the Texas Board of Nursing for further review. Reviewed the employee files of Nurses A, B, and C with the documentation of the disciplinary actions taken with the DON 01/31/2025 at 9:56 am. Completed. Reviewed the inservice sheet and the employee list provided by the facility with the D atat 1/31/25 at 9:57 am. The inservice efforts are on-going required for agency and new staff before they are allowed to work All nurses employed at the facility with the exception of 2 nurses on the staff list had completed the inservices. They cannot work until completed. This information stating they should not clock in before they had received the inservice and taken the competency based test. was posted on time clock by the DON. Reviewed letter of notification of Immediate Jeopardy Signed by Medical Director on 01/20/2025. Reviewed signed document with DON. Interview Verification: , On 01/30/2025 at In interviews from 2PM 12:30 AM with LVN G, Charge Nurse (6 AM-2 PM) LVN H (6 AM-2 PM) shift, LVN F(2 PM-10 PM) shift, LVN I (2 PM-10 PM) shift, CMA FF (6 Am -6 PM) shift, LVN K, (6 AM-2PM) shift, LVN L (2 PM -10 PM) shift LVN M PRN, LVN N Agency, CNA D (6am-6pm) shift, LVN O (2 PM - 10 PM) shift, CNA Q (2 PM-10 PM) shift, Agency CNA R. (2 PM - 10 PM) shift, LVN S (6 am - 2 pm )shift, LVN T (10pm-6am) shift, . LVN GG (10 AM-6 PM), RN U (10 PM- 6 AM) shift, CNA V (10 PM -6 AM) shift, CNA X (2 PM- 6 AM) shift, LVN Z (10 PM-6 AM), CNA AA, CNA CC (10am-6pm) shift, and LVN BB (10 AM-6 PM) shft all stated a change of condition was anything that is outside of resident's normal state. They stated Information can come from a CNA, Therapy, other staff and should be reported to the charge nurse immediately, who in turn should notify the physician. They stated the eInteract (SBAR) should be used to assess the resident for a change in condition because it was very specific to conditions. They were all able to demonstrate how to fill out the e-interact form, and a provided sample. They stated it would be passed on in shift report and documented on the communication sheet for each hall and the SBAR form would stay open in the electronic medical record until the physician was notified. They stated nurses go in for morning report, with management to go over any change that has occurred or new orders on a physician. They stated the inservice was held on, 01/30/2025 for e-interac (SBAR) The Inservice was mandatory. A competency based test was given to each staff member over the information in the Inservice after the inservice . Record review of In-service, Notification of Change in Condition, conducted by CCN, Admin and DON included facility definition, purpose, process for provider notification as it related to all changes or decline in condition are required to be reported to the attending physician by utilizing the facility sanctioned communication documents. Record review of In-service titled, SBAR, conducted by Corporate Nurse, included the SBAR definition, purpose, process, relevant examples, and specific procedure as it related to all surgical wounds/incisions changes or decline in condition to be reported to the surgeon and attending physician by utilizing the facility's SBAR document. Facility Administrator and DON's signatures were included. In interview with the Administrator on 01/31/2025 at 9:50 AM , he stated failure to report a change a change in condition to the resident's nurse could be considered neglect. He stated Immediate notification to a provider for any resident change in condition was important. He Knew what a change in condition was and was able to state signs and symptoms that would indicate a condition change such as change in LOC and the signs and symptoms his staff should be monitoring for infection such as fever, increased behaviors or confusion etc He further stated what and where his staff should be documenting any change in condition in the electronic medical record (EMR) and the other parties that should be notified in addition to the provider. He sufficiently defined abuse, neglect, and/or exploitation and the expectations of his staff to report any observed, reported, or suspected abuse, neglect, and/or exploitation to him immediately. In interview with the DON on 01/31/2024 at 10:00 AM, she sufficiently explained the importance of immediate notification to a provider for any resident change in condition in order to prevent further decline in health status. She sufficiently stated what would constitute a change in condition and the signs and symptoms her staff should be monitoring for infection. She further stated what and where her staff should be documenting any change in condition in the electronic medical record (EMR) and the other parties that should be notified in addition to the provider. She further stated all nurses were in-serviced and knowledgeable on facility's SBAR document and will utilize it for any change in condition. The Administrator, DON, ADO, and Corporate Nurse was informed the Immediate Jeopardy was removed on 01/31/2025 at 10:24 AM. The facility remained out of compliance at a severity level of actual harm with the potential for more than minimal harm that is not immediate and a scope of pattern due to the facility's need to evaluate the effectiveness of the corrective systems
CRITICAL (K) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Someone could have died · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide treatment and care in accordance with professional standard...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice and the comprehensive care plan for one of six (Resident #1) residents reviewed for notification of change in condition. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1's feedings were administered as ordered by the physician over a period of 8 days, from 12/22/2024 to 12/30/2024. The facility failed to notify Resident #1's attending physician of feedings being held due to nausea, vomiting and diarrhea. On 12/30/24 Resident #1 required hospitalization for hypovolemic shock, sepsis, UTI, and required emergency surgical intervention for treatment of a rectus abdominus hematoma. An Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) situation was identified on 01/29/2025 at 4:20 pm . The IJ was removed on 01/31 /2025 at 10:24 AM. The facility remained out of compliance at a scope of a pattern with a potential for more than minimal harm, due to the facility's need to evaluate the effectiveness of the corrective systems. This failure could place residents at risk of a delay in medical intervention, decline in health, serious injury, harm, impairment, or death. Findings include: Record review of Resident #1's face sheet, dated 01/03/2025, reflected an [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #1 had relevant diagnoses which included cerebral infarct ( a condition where blood flow to the brain is interrupted, causing brain tissue to die), dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), other signs and symptoms concerning food and fluid intake, unspecified signs and symptoms involving cognitive function after stroke, speech and language deficits, hypertension ( high blood pressure), and long-term use of anticoagulants. Record review of Resident #1's Discharge MDS assessment dated [DATE], reflected she had both short-term and long-term memory problems. She was dependent for bed mobility, transfers, feeding, and maximum assistance with wheelchair mobility wheelchair for mobility. She was incontinent of both bowel and bladder and she had a feeding tube; Record review of Resident #1's Comprehensive Care Plan reflected the following, Focus: Resident has a potential fluid deficit related to tube feedings, goal - the resident will be free of symptoms of dehydration and maintain moist mucous membranes and good skin turgor, interventions - monitor and document frequency of bowel movements, monitor vital signs and report significant abnormalities to physician. Focus, G-tube feeding required due to dysphagia (feeding via a tube inserted through the abdomen surgically into the stomach due to difficulty swallowing). Interventions included: Give 150ml water every shift via gastrostomy tube to equal 450ml/24hrs, Glucerna 1.5 at 57ml/hour with 39ml/hour continuous water flush for 20 hours a day via GT = 1133 ml formula, 1700 kcals, 91gms protein, 2066ml water/24 hours (excludes med flushes), monitor/document/report PRN any signs or symptoms of aspiration, fever, shortness of breath, tube dislodgment, Infection at tube site, self-extubating, tube dysfunction or malfunction, abnormal breath/lung sounds, abnormal lab values, abdominal pain, distension, tenderness, constipation or fecal impaction, diarrhea, nausea/vomiting, or dehydration. Throughout the course of the investigation, Resident # 1 was no longer at the facility and was unavailable for interview due to the decline in her condition . Record review of Resident #1's active physician orders from the nursing facility, dated 12/30/2024 reflected her attending physician as Dr W, and contained an order which stated, remove from feeding pump for 4 hours one time a day, and then reconnect to pump one time a day. The orders also stated Resident #1 was NPO (nothing by mouth). Her feeding order was give 150ml water q shift via feeding tube to equal 450ml/24hours, Glucerna 1.5 at 57ml/hour with 39ml/hour continuous water flush for 20 hours a day via g-tube to equal 1133 ml formula, 1700 kcals, 91 gm's protein, and 2066 ml water/24 hours (excludes med flushes). The order had a start date of 07/13/2023. Record review of Resident #1's active physician orders from the nursing facility, dated 12/30/2024 reflected The resident also had an order for Zofran 4 mg every 6 hours as needed for nausea and vomiting. The order had a start date of 07/13/2023. Record review of Resident's #1's MAR for the month of December 2024 revealed she did not receive Zofran 4 mg in the month of November or December until the date of 12/22/2024. Record review of Resident #1's facility nursing progress notes dated 12/22/2024 to 12/30/2024 reflected documentation in the nursing progress notes on 12/22/2024, 12/24/2024, 12/25/2024 x2, 12/27/24 2 times, and 12/30/24 showing the resident received Zofran 4 mg for nausea and vomiting. The order had a start date of 07/13/23. Record review of Resident # 1's physician progress notes authored by NP L with an encounter date 12/19/2024 reflected no evidence of nausea or vomiting and documented pharmacotherapy reviewed, patient on 23 medications. Recommendation for discontinuation of Mylanta Oral Suspension, Ondansetron (Zofran) HCL tablet, and MOM (milk of magnesia)suspension PRN medications as they have not been utilized in the past three months. Record review of Resident #1's Nursing Progress Notes, with a look-back period between 12/22/2024 - 12/30/2024, reflected no documentation related to a completed assessment or notification to a medical provider of Resident #1's continued nausea, vomiting and diarrhea nor any other concerns until 12/30/2024 when LVN A documented the primary care physician was notified. Her blood pressure was documented to be 70/46 with a pulse of 46 by LVN A. Record review of Resident #1's electronic medical record revealed no lab work had been ordered since November 2024. Her Comprehensive Metabolic Panel and Complete Blood Count were within Normal limits at that time. Throughout the course of the investigation 01/03/25 to 01/31/25), Resident # 1 was no longer at the facility and was unavailable for interview due to the decline in her condition. Record review of physician ER notes in the ER hospital records, dated 12/30/24, indicated the resident presented with nausea, diarrhea, and abdominal pain. She was diagnosed with hypovolemic shock (shock caused by major blood or fluid loss), sepsis (an extreme reaction by the body to infection) , and abdominal pain. The ER Physician stated in the note Overall, I feel the shock is multifocal, rectus sheath hematoma ( a collection of blood cause by a tear in the rectus abdominus muscle of the abdomen) with volume loses secondary to reported nausea and vomiting. Record Review of clinical chart documentation dated 12/30/24, the ER Physician stated The high probability of sudden, clinically significant deterioration in the patient's condition required the highest level of my preparedness to intervene urgently. The service I provided to this patient were to treat and/or prevent clinically significant deterioration that could result In severe disability or death. Further review of the Physician ER note, dated 12/30/25, revealed the resident required transfer to a higher level of care and hospitalization on 12/30/24 for hypovolemic shock, sepsis, and required emergency surgical intervention for treatment of a rectus abdominus hematoma, the resident was also found to have a UTI. Record review of the lab results, dated 12/30/24, from the ER Record revealed her Lactic Acid was 3.2 H ( normal range 0.5 to 2.2 millimoles, a condition where the level of lactic acid in the blood is elevated indicating the liver and kidneys are not are not able to metabolize lactic avid or are producing too much), WBC's 25.31 H,( blood cells that fight infection, the normal range is 4.000 to 11,000. Her urine had many bacteria, 3-4, RBC's ( red blood cells carry oxygen to cells and tissues normal range 4.2 to 5.4) Sodium was 128 L (sodium normal range between 135 - 145 an electrolyte that helps regulate water in the body , Chloride 88 L ( normal range 96 to 106 it is an elctrolye that main tains fluid volume an acid base balance in the body), Co2 32 H( normal range between 23 and 29 regulates the respiratory rate and the affinity of hemoglobin for oxygen) , BUN 33 H (normal range 6 to 24 high BUN indicates how well the kidneys are removing urea which is a waste product from the blood), Albumin 2.9 L(normal range 3.4 to 5.4 albumin helps transport fluids throughout then body). During an interview on 01/03/2025 at 8:00 AM with Resident # 1's family member, she stated the resident had been in the facility since March of 2024. She stated Resident #1 took her medication and all fluids and nourishment through a tube in her stomach. She stated Resident #1 was in ICU at that time. She stated the resident was admitted to the hospital on [DATE]. and that was the first time the facility had let the family know how sick she was. She stated the resident was septic and severely dehydrated when she arrived at the hospital with a blood pressure of 48/28. The family member stated Resident #1's room was electronically monitored, and she could see the feeding tube was turned off intermittently from the 21st of December until the time she went to the hospital on [DATE]. She stated the ER physician told her there was a foul smell emitting from her gastrostomy tube at the time of her transfer to the hospital. She stated the ER staff told her the odor was so bad there was no way the facility staff could have not known about it. She stated her urine was so concentrated it was the color of tea or coffee. She stated on 12/29/24 she was told by a nurse at the facility ( she did not know her name) that Resident #1's color was ashen, and she was concerned about her. She stated the nurse stated she was trying to reach the physician. They finally notified her that they had received orders for transfer, and transferred her to the emergency room on the 30th of [DATE]. An attempt to interview the ER Physician was unsuccessful on 01/27/2025 at 2:30 PM and 4:30 PM, the purpose of the call and a call back number was left on voicemail. In interview with NP L, on 1/03/2025 at 1:00 PM, she stated she never saw or treated Resident #1 from 12/22/2024 until 12/30/2024 and she was not called by the facility or informed of her nausea, vomiting and diarrhea. In interview with Resident #1's primary care physician W, on 1/03/2025 at 1:40 PM, he stated he was not notified of a condition change in Resident #1 from 12/22/2024 until 12/30/2024, and was not informed of her nausea, vomiting and diarrhea over the course of 8 days. He stated he was notified on 12/30/2024 and he sent her to the hospital for evaluation. He stated he was never notified that her gastrostomy tube feedings were held. He stated he would have expected the nursing staff to notify him of the condition change after 24 hours with no improvement. He stated that he would have intervened sooner if he had been notified and ordered IV fluids and lab work. In a follow up interview with Primary care physician W on 1/27/2025 at 2:30 PM, he stated he did not know if early intervention would have prevented her hospitalization. He stated interventions such as fluids and labs might have prevented her hospitalization, but it was hard to say. He stated in his opinion in general, most elderly residents in nursing homes did suffer from some degree of dehydration. He stated he did not lay eyes on Resident #1 before he gave orders for her transfer to the hospital for evaluation, therefore he could not say what her condition was at the time of transfer. In an interview on 01/03/2025 at 1:30 PM CNA D stated she worked the 23rd and 24th of December. She stated on the 23rd she doesn't think Resident #1 had nausea or diarrhea during her shift from 6:00 AM until 2:00 PM when she worked. But on the 24th she had diarrhea and vomiting, but she's not sure how many times it occurred. She stated the diarrhea was runny and brownish, reddish in color and the vomit was brown. She stated she reported it to LVN A who also helped her clean Resident #1 up. In an interview on 01/03/2025, CNA E at 1:40 PM stated she took care of the resident 12/23/2024, 12/24/2024, 12/25/2024, 12/26/2024, 12/27/2024, and 12/30/2024. She stated the resident vomited and had diarrhea during her 8-hour shift (6am-2pm). She stated she reported this to the charge nurse ( LVN A). She stated she remembered Resident # 1 had diarrhea and vomiting for a long time and she reported it to the nurse each time the nausea, vomiting and diarrhea occurred, because it needed to be stopped. She stated she did not remember anything unusual about the color. She also stated several residents on the 500 hall had been sick, but Resident #1 had it longer than the other residents. She stated she did not notice if Resident #1's tube feeding was connected to the pump or if the charge nurse turned the pump off on the 6:00 AM - 2:00 PM shift, because that was the nurse's responsibility. She stated she did not remember how long Resident #1 the vomiting and diarrhea had, but it was for about a week. She stated several of the staff and other residents also had the diarrhea and vomiting at the same time, but Resident #1 had it longer than anyone else. CNA E was not available for a follow up interview. She did not work again during the course of the investigation, and attempts on 01/27/2025 at 2:00 PM and 5:00 PM for a phone interview were unsuccessful. During an interview with LVN A on 01/03/2025 at 2:40 PM, she stated she worked days on 12/23/2024, 12/24/2024, 12/25/2024, 12/26/24, and 12/30/2024. She stated she sent the resident to the hospital. She stated she knew the resident had the diarrhea and vomiting for several days. She stated Dr W had standing orders for Zofran as needed every 6 hours for nausea and vomiting. She stated she heard in the change of shift report given to her by LVN C that Resident #1 vomited and had diarrhea on the night shift. She stated she immediately went down to Resident #1's room to check on her. She stated Resident #1's B/P was 70/46, and she was complaining that her stomach hurt, so she immediately called the physician. She stated Resident #1 was on her way to the hospital by 7:00 Am. She stated she had been off for a few days prior to 12/30/2024 with symptoms of vomiting and diarrhea and 12/30/2024 was her first day back at work since 12/26/2024. She stated she notified the physician on 12/30/2024. She stated she did not notify the physician or the POA of Resident # 1's condition change prior to 12/30/2024 because she didn't think about doing it. In an interview on 01/03/2025 at 3:20 PM, LVN F stated she was the charge nurse and worked 2:00 PM to 10:00 PM on 12/24/2024. She stated on 12/24 /25, LVN A told her she had unhooked her from her feeding and stopped the pump due to nausea and vomiting during the 6:00 AM to 2:00 PM shift. She stated she assessed the resident, and she asked her if she felt better. She stated the resident told her she was not nauseated, and her vital signs were within normal range, so she resumed the feeding. She stated she had never seen Resident #1 have any brown or coffee ground emesis. She stated the tube flushed very well and she never noticed an odor. In a follow up interview on 1/8/2025 at 1:41 PM, LVN A stated she did not recall that Resident #1 ever had emesis of a brownish or coffee ground color as stated by CNA D . She stated it was always the color of the tube feeding. She stated Resident #1 had physician orders for her pump to be off for 4 hours each day . She reviewed her nursing progress notes and the MAR for the month of December during the interview and stated she did turn the pump off on 12/24/24 on the 6 AM -2 PM shift and also held her medications due to nausea and vomiting. She stated she did not notify the physician on 12/24/2024. In an Interview on 01/08/25 at 3:30 PM, LVN C stated she took care of Resident #1 during the time period of 12/21/24 to 12/30/24. She stated she had turned the feeding pump off several times during that time period due to the resident's nausea, vomiting and diarrhea. She stated she did not notify the physician of the resident's condition. She stated she gave the resident Zofran for nausea through the g-tube like everyone else did. She stated, I just never thought about calling the doctor to notify him the resident was not getting better and not able to tolerate her feedings. In an interview with LVN B on 01/08/2025at 3:00 PM, she stated she worked on 12/27/2024 thru 12/29/2024. She stated she stopped Resident #1's pump, and held her medications due to nausea on 12/27/2024. She stated she did not notify the physician. She stated she did not think of notifying the physician. She stated she thought he knew because she had the Zofran ordered for nausea. Interview with the DON on 01/03/2025 at 1:15 PM, she stated she was responsible for monitoring and providing oversight for the Nursing staff of the facility. She stated she was responsible for providing in-services to the staff. She stated she was not aware of Resident #1 having had diarrhea with nausea and vomiting which continued over the course of 8 days from 12/22/2024 to 12/30/2024. She stated her expectation was that staff would notify the resident's physician, POA, or responsible party of any change of condition in a resident. She stated she would have expected a nurse to recognize the symptoms and report the changes. She stated there was a 24-hour communication book that nurses could communicate changes of condition to other shifts. She stated she had looked in the nurses' notes from 12/21/2024 - 12/30/2024 the day of transfer, and she only saw the one notification to the family which was at the time of the transfer. She stated she would have expected them to do an Interact form which should have been done to gather and communicate assessment findings . She stated the nurses were supposed to do an Interact form with a condition change which would assist in cueing the nurse to notify the physician and send them to the hospital. She stated she saw no documentation of that occurring. Review of the 24hour communication book revealed no documentation that the physician had been notified of the condition change or that feedings were held. In an interview with the Administrator on 01/06/2025 at 11:35 AM, he stated his expectations were for the nurse to have reported Resident #1's condition change to the RP and the physician. He stated it was important for facility nursing staff to notify the doctor of any change of condition that required holding of a resident's feedings and of her condition change and continued nausea and vomiting. He stated that he would have intervened sooner if he had known. In an interview with the Administrator at 9:50 AM on 1/13/25, the Administrator stated he was not aware of the situation with Resident #1 until it was brought to his attention by the surveyor. He stated he felt like it was poor nursing care. In an interview with DON on 1/13/2025 at 9:45 AM, she stated that she wanted to let me know that she had suspended LVN C on the 10:00 PM to 6:00 AM shift . She stated that the nurse should have completed an interact form and notified the physician if Resident #1 was unable to tolerate the prescribed tube feeding due to nausea and vomiting. She stated she felt like it was poor nursing care, and she suspended LVN C to investigate the circumstances. She stated she would have notified the physician if she had been the nurse during that shift. She stated she would not want her family treated in that manner. She stated the nurses that worked during that time period should have contacted the physician. She stated turning off the feeding pump could result in dehydration and malnutrition. She stated the physician, the dietician or somebody should have been contacted. She stated LVN A had also quit. She stated Dr W talked to her after talking with the surveyor and he stated that he was not notified and would have expected the nursing staff to notify him of the continued nausea and vomiting and that the feedings were held. He stated he would have intervened sooner. In an interview on 01/13/2025 at 9:15 AM, Resident # 1's POA stated Resident #1 transferred to another SNF on 01/09/2025. She stated she was still concerned with the lack of care she received from 12/22/2024 to 12/30/2024. She stated she felt they almost let her die. Record review of the facility's staffing sheets, provided by the DON, reflected: LVN A worked day shift 6:00 AM to 2:00 PM 500 hall on 12/23/2024, 12/24/2024, 12/25/2024, 12/26/2024, 12/30/24 LVN B worked 6:00 AM to 10:00 PM 500 hall on 12/27/2024, 12/28/2024, and on 12/29/2024 LVN C worked night shift 10:00 PM to 6:00 AM 500 hall on 12/24/2024, 12/25/2024, 12/26/2024, and 12/29/2024 LVN F worked evening shift on 12/25/2024, and 12/26/2024 CNA D worked 6:00 AM to 2:00 PM on 12/23/2024, 12/24/2024, 12/26/2024, and 12/30/2024 CNA E worked 6:00 AM to 2:00 PM on 12/23/2024, 12/4/2024, 12/25/2024, 12/26/2024, 12/27/2024, and 12/30/2024. Record review of the facility's policy, Change In a Resident's Condition or Status dated revised May of 2017, reflected in part: Our facility shall promptly notify the resident, his or her attending physician or Nurse Practitioner and the resident representative of changes in the resident's medical/mental condition and/or status. 1. The nurse will notify the physician or nurse practitioner or the physician on call when there has been an accident or incident involving the resident, discovery of injuries of an unknown source, adverse reaction to medication, significant change in the resident's physical/emotional/mental condition, a need to alter the resident's treatment significantly, refusal of medications or treatment 2 or more consecutive times, need to transfer the resident to a hospital, specific instruction to notify the physician of a change in the resident's condition. 2. A significant change of condition is a major decline or improvement in the resident's status that will not normally resolve itself without intervention by staff or by implementing standard disease related clinical interventions. Impacts more than 1 area of a resident's health, requires interdisciplinary review and/or revision to the care plan. Record review of facility's policy, titled, Enteral Tube feeding via Continuous Pump, with a revised date of 10/04/2019 reflected the following: The purpose of this procedure is to provide a guideline for the use of a pump for internal feedings. Verify the physicians order for this procedure, review the residence care plan, and provide for any special needs of the resident. Report complications such as diarrhea gastric distension, and respiratory distress promptly to the supervisor and the attending physician. Report negative consequences of tube feeding such as agitation, depression, self extubation, and infections to the supervisor and attending physician. This was determined to be an Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) on 01/29/2025 at 4:20 PM. The Administrator and Clinical Compliance Director were notified. The Administrator, DON, and the CCD were provided with the IJ template on 1/29/2025 at 4:20 PM and a POR was requested. The following Plan of Removal submitted by the facility was accepted on 01/30/2025 at 10:56 PM POR F580 - Notify of Changes (Injury/Decline/Room, Etc.) Resident #1 was sent to hospital on [DATE]. On 1/3/25 due to HHSC entrance of the facility that there was a complaint of resident #1. Facility began to review any other residents with G-tubes no other residents with a G-tube remains in the facility and/or changes in condition, that would result with any required changes of condition and physician notification. oThe Charge nurses reviewed for any other changes of condition, and none were identified on 1/3/25 by oversight from the DON. The underlying cause is the facility failed to ensure the Physician was notified when a resident experienced a change in condition. All residents could have been affected by this alleged deficient practice. oOn 1/3/2025 - Verbal policy review of Policy of Change of Condition or Status/SBAR change of condition was provided by the Corporate Quality Improvement Nurse to DON/ADON, (The policy was reviewed, and verbal comprehension was acknowledged via Q&A and discussion with return demonstration of Situation Background Assessment Recommendations). oIn-services were initiated by the Director of Nursing/Quality Improvement Nurse on 1/6/2025 to educate on notifying physicians immediately following detailed assessment with any resident change of condition to include the use of the SBAR/eInteract (Situation, Background, Assessment and Recommendations to enhance the communication information among team members). Completed on 1/30/2025. oOn 1/6/2025 Education/In-service was initiated to the DON, ADONs by the Corporate Quality Improvement Nurse on the morning clinical start-up process to ensure that any changes of condition would be addressed. Completed 1/6/2025 [NAME] alter the process or system failure the Stop and Watch (early warning communication tool to alert a nurse or manager if they notice something different in a person's daily care routine) was initiated, training and education started to the certified nurses' aides utilizing the alert system on 1/8/25. (Verbal instruction and application along with monitoring of use to ensure understanding and compliance of the communication system) completion date 1/30/2025. oThe SBAR/eInteract is being monitored in the clinical morning startup daily by DON/ADON/Designee. oOversight will be provided by the Administrator/DON/Designee oOn 1/6/25 LVN A resigned and then called in on 1/9, 1/10, 1/13 resignation was accepted immediately. oOn 1/13/25 LVN B resigned with resignation accepted immediately oOn 1/5/25 - LVN C was terminated. oOn 1/17/25 - LVN A, LVN B and LVN C license was referred to the Texas Board of Nursing for further review. Notification protocol and SBAR understanding will be tested by giving a test to LVNs and RNs that cover SBAR education and notification of physician regarding change of condition. Oversite of the testing will be managed by DON/ADON. (Initiated: 1/30/25) To ensure understanding. This test will be given to new nurses hired during orientation and yearly with competencies. Completion date 1/30/2025. oChange of condition will be reported from shift to shift up to nurse management by utilizing the SBAR/eInteract process and 24-hour report tool and reviewed daily in clinical start-up with oversite provided by DON/ADON/Designee. DON/ADON/Designee will be responsible for reviewing SBAR/24-hour report/nurse to nurse huddle and hand-off, daily at morning clinical start up. This will be with the oversight of the administrator. Discrepancies will be addressed immediately with root-cause analysis and brought to QAPI with the oversite with the Medical Director monthly for six months. Administrator/DON/Designee will review and ensure that understanding comprehension of the protocol. [Facility ] Medical Director notified of IJ (01/29/2025) [Facility] Monitoring of the POR Included the following: Verification of POC. 1/31/25 at 9:30 AM with DON present. Reviewed on 01/31/2025 at 9:39 am - Completed. Reviewed 01/31/2025 at 9:43 am - Completed. Reviewed 01/31/2025 at 9:50 am. Completed. On-going 3 staff left, cannot work until in-service completed. oOn 1/06/2025 LVN A resigned and then called in on 01/9, 01/10, 01/13 resignation was accepted immediately. oOn 01/13/2025 LVN B resigned with resignation accepted immediately oOn 01/05/2025 - LVN C was terminated. oOn 1/17/2025 - LVN's A, B, and C license was referred to the Texas Board of Nursing for further review. Reviewed the employee files of Nurses A, B, and C with the documentation of the disciplinary actions taken with the DON 01/31/2025 at 9:56 am. Completed. Reviewed the inservice sheet and the employee list provided by the facility with the D atat 1/31/25 at 9:57 am. The inservice efforts are on-going required for agency and new staff before they are allowed to work All nurses employed at the facility with the exception of 2 nurses on the staff list had completed the inservices. They cannot work until completed. This information stating they should not clock in before they had received the inservice and taken the competency based test. was posted on time clock by the DON. Reviewed letter of notification of Immediate Jeopardy Signed by Medical Director on 01/20/2025. Reviewed signed document with DON. Interview Verification: , On 01/30/2025 at In interviews from 2PM 12:30 AM with LVN G, Charge Nurse (6 AM-2 PM) LVN H (6 AM-2 PM) shift, LVN F(2 PM-10 PM) shift, LVN I (2 PM-10 PM) shift, CMA FF (6 Am -6 PM) shift, LVN K, (6 AM-2PM) shift, LVN L (2 PM -10 PM) shift LVN M PRN, LVN N Agency, CNA D (6am-6pm) shift, LVN O (2 PM - 10 PM) shift, CNA Q (2 PM-10 PM) shift, Agency CNA R. (2 PM - 10 PM) shift, LVN S (6 am - 2 pm )shift, LVN T (10pm-6am) shift, . LVN GG (10 AM-6 PM), RN U (10 PM- 6 AM) shift, CNA V (10 PM -6 AM) shift, CNA X (2 PM- 6 AM) shift, LVN Z (10 PM-6 AM), CNA AA, CNA CC (10am-6pm) shift, and LVN BB (10 AM-6 PM) shft all stated a change of condition was anything that is outside of resident's normal state. They stated Information can come from a CNA, Therapy, other staff and should be reported to the charge nurse immediately, who in turn should notify the physician. They stated the eInteract (SBAR) should be used to assess the resident for a change in condition because it was very specific to conditions. They were all able to demonstrate how to fill out the e-interact form, and a provided sample. They stated it would be passed on in shift report and documented on the communication sheet for each hall and the SBAR form would stay open in the electronic medical record until the physician was notified. They stated nurses go in for morning report, with management to go over any change that has occurred or new orders on a physician. They stated the inservice was held on, 01/30/2025 for e-interac (SBAR) The Inservice was mandatory. A competency based test was given to each staff member over the information in the Inservice after the inservice . Record review of In-service, Notification of Change in Condition, conducted by CCN, Admin and DON included facility definition, purpose, process for provider notification as it related to all changes or decline in condition are required to be reported to the attending physician by utilizing the facility sanctioned communication documents. Record review of In-service titled, SBAR, conducted by Corporate Nurse, included the SBAR definition, purpose, process, relevant examples, and specific procedure as it related to all surgical wounds/incisions changes or decline in condition to be reported to the surgeon and attending physician by utilizing the facility's SBAR document. Facility Administrator and DON's signatures were included. In interview with the Administrator on 01/31/2025 at 9:50 AM , he stated failure to report a change a change in condition to the resident's nurse could be considered neglect. He stated Immediate notification to a provider for any resident change in condition was important. He Knew what a change in condition was and was able to state signs and symptoms that would indicate a condition change such as change in LOC and the signs and symptoms his staff should be monitoring for infection such as fever, increased behaviors or confusion etc He further stated what and where his staff should be documenting any change in condition in the electronic medical record (EMR) and the other parties that should be notified in addition to the provider. He sufficiently defined abuse, neglect, and/or exploitation and the expectations of his staff to report any observed, reported, or suspect[TRUNCATED]
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain an infection and prevention control program that included, at a minimum, a system for preventing and controlling infections for 2 of 2 residents (Resident #2 and Resident #7) reviewed for infection control (incontinent Care). 1. The facility failed to ensure CNA J washed or sanitized her hands before and during incontinent care for Resident #2. 2. The facility failed to ensure CNA D washed or sanitized her hands before and during incontinent care for Resident #7 This deficient practice placed residents at risk for cross contamination and/or acquiring an infection. Findings include: 1. Review of Resident 2's Significant Change in Status MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #2 was an [AGE] year-old female originally admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her cognitive skills for daily decision making were severely impaired with a BIMS score of 2. Resident #2 required maximum assistance with the staff providing over one half of the support of toileting. Resident #2 was always incontinent of bladder and occasionally incontinent of bowel. Review of Resident #2' s Face sheet included the following diagnoses: dementia with behavioral disturbance, urinary tract infection with an onset date of 01/08/2025, diarrhea with an onset date of 01/06/2025 Review of the Care Plan dated revised on 01/04/2025 for Resident #2 revealed the following focus: resident has bowel and bladder incontinence and interventions: check every 2 hours and wash and dry peri area as necessary for incontinent episodes. Report and document for signs and symptoms of UTI pain, burning, blood-tinged urine, deepening of urine color or foul-smelling urine. During an observation and interview on 01/07/2025 at 1:15 PM, CNA J provided incontinent care to Resident #2. CNA J entered Resident #2's room, but did not wash her hands before applying gloves. She donned a gown which was due to the resident requiring contact precautions. The gown was improperly donned . The front of the gown hanging down off of her shoulders in the front and not tied in the back leaving her upper back and the backs of her legs exposed. She used one pair of gloves throughout the entire procedure while cleaning the front and the back of Resident #2's perineum. She removed the urine soiled brief and placed a clean brief on the resident, wearing the same gloves that she used to clean the resident's perineal area. She then removed the gloves and saw there was no hand sanitizer in the room. She stated she just realized the resident's room did not have a sink to wash her hands. She then shrugged her shoulders and disposed of the gloves and soiled linen in the trash and left the room. She stated she had an in-service on infection control during her orientation and was competency checked. She stated she had been employed at the facility for 2 months. When asked if she would have done anything differently during the procedure she replied I'm not worried about itand walked away. 2. Review of Resident #7's quarterly MDS dated [DATE] revealed Resident #7 was a [AGE] year-old female originally admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her cognitive skills for daily decision making were moderately impaired with a BIMS score of 11. Resident #2 required maximum assistance with the staff providing over one half of the support of toileting. Resident #2 was always incontinent of bladder and bowel. Review of Resident #7s Face sheet included the following diagnoses: Muscle wasting and atrophy, Huntington's Disease ( a progressive inherited neurologic disease that causes involuntary body movements, memory problems and damages the brain cells), and hypertension (high blood pressure). Review of the Care Plan dated revised on 08/22/2024 for Resident #7 revealed the following focus: resident has bowel and bladder incontinence and interventions: check every 2 hours and wash and dry peri area as necessary for incontinent episodes. Report and document for signs and symptoms of UTI pain, burning, blood-tinged urine, deepening of urine color or foul-smelling urine. During an observation on 01/07/2025 at 1:45 PM, CNA D provided incontinent care to Resident #7 using the proper technique for cleaning the perineal area. CNA D did not remove and change her gloves, and sanitize her hands before touching the clean brief after she removed, and disposed of the urine soiled brief. She washed her hand before leaving the room. In an interview at 1:50 PM on 01/07/2025, CNA D stated she did not sanitize her hands and change her gloves before touching the clean brief that she applied to Resident #7 . She stated the failure to sanitize and change gloves could result in the spread of infection. She stated the reason she made a mistake was because she was so nervous. 3. During an interview on 01/07/2025 at 2:30 PM, the DON stated she expected staff to remove their gloves and either wash or sanitize their hands after touching a dirty area prior to moving to a clean area when performing incontinent care, and that all staff had been trained on this procedure. She stated she did not know why CNAs J and D failed to perform hand hygiene at the appropriate time. She stated all staff had been instructed on hand washing and infection control. She stated she did competency checks on all CNAs yearly and CNAs J and D had passed a competency check. She revealed that she would do additional in-service training with staff regarding Infection Control and Incontinent Care. She stated the failure to perform hand hygiene during resident care placed the residents at risk for infection. During an interview on 02/07/2025 at 2:25 PM , CNA D stated she normally washed her hands after completing incontinent care and changed her gloves when moving from a dirty area to the clean area. She stated that she was just nervous and didn't remember with the surveyor watching. She stated that she had been trained and checked off on incontinent care by the ADON. Review of the facility's policy titled Perineal Care, revised October 2010, revealed the following elements in part: The purposes of this procedure are to provide cleanliness and comfort to the resident, to prevent infection and skin irritation, and to observe the resident's skin condition .Steps in the procedure . 2. Wash and dry your hands thoroughly. 6. Put on gloves. 9. Remove gloves and discard into designated container. 10. Wash and dry hands thoroughly. 14. Wash and dry hands thoroughly . Review of the facility's policy titled Handwashing/Hand Hygiene dated December 22, 2023, revealed the following elements in part: The facility considers hand hygiene the primary means to prevent the spread of infection. Use an alcohol-based hand rub containing at least 65 % alcohol, or alternatively soap and water: before going from a contaminated body site to a clean site, after contact with a resident's intact skin, after removing gloves.e.
Aug 2024 6 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

PASARR Coordination (Tag F0644)

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 coordinate the assessment for one of four residents (R...

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 coordinate the assessment for one of four residents (Resident #74) with the pre-admission screening and resident review (PASRR) program, of resident assessments reviewed for PASRR evaluations. The facility did not identify Resident #74 as having a mental illness with a with diagnoses of Paranoid schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and dementia that would require a PASRR 1012 form or a new PL1 form to initiate a PASSR evaluation by the local intellectual and developmental disability authorities. This failure could affect residents with mental illness who may not be evaluated for PASRR services and place them at risk of not receiving services needed for care and treatment. The findings included: Review of Resident #74s Face Sheet and Orders dated 08/21/2024 reflected she a was a [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #74's diagnoses included: dementia with behavioral disturbance (impaired though processes that affect the ability to function independently) onset date 07/03/2023, mood disturbance (altered mood) onset date 11/30/2023, paranoid schizophrenia ( a mental disorder that causes suspicion, fear and distrust of others accompanied by a belief in things that are not real) onset date 07/03/2023, and bipolar disorder ( an alteration in mood that is characterized by extreme and inappropriate highs and lows) onset date 07/03/2023. Review of Resident #74's active Physician Orders dated 08/21/2024, reflected an order for Lamictal (a mood stabilizer) 50 mg by mouth at bedtime for a diagnosis of bipolar disorder, and Seroquel 25 mg at bedtime (an antipsychotic medication) for paranoid schizophrenia. Review of Resident 74's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS dated [DATE], reflected Resident #74 could usually understand others and was usually understood by others; had a moderate cognitive impairment with a BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status) score of 6 severe cognitive impairment. No mood or behavior concerns were documented. Review of Resident #74's Care Plan dated revised 07/11/2024 reflected the following: Focus: The resident uses psychotropic medications - Seroquel for diagnosis of Paranoid Schizophrenia Goal: The resident will be/remain free of drug related complications, including movement disorder, discomfort, hypotension, gait disturbance, constipation/impaction, or cognitive/behavioral impairment through review date. Review of Resident #74's PASRR Level One Screening Form dated 07/03/2023 completed by the transferring facility reflected Resident #74 had no diagnosis of mental illness, intellectual disability, or developmental disability. Review of Resident #74's PL 1 form dated 7/3/24 which was viewed in Resident 74's electronic records and the long-term care portal. These records reflected there was not a 1012 form or a new PL1 completed. An interview on 08/21/2024 at 6:10 PM with MDS Coordinator #1 who stated that the resident #74 should have a yes for mental illness documented on his PL1 form in section C. She stated she had forty years' experience as an MDS Coordinator but had just been at this facility for about three months. She stated she and MDS Coordinator #2 were both hired at the same time. She stated she asked MDS Nurse Coordinator #2 to complete a Form 1012 or a new PL1 for Resident #74 but did not check to ensure to that it was done correctly. Stated she had been given the responsibility of monitoring the forms for accuracy. She stated she had been in the process of doing an audit to check diagnoses on all residents. In an interview on 08/21/24 at 6:16 PM, MDS Coordinator #2 stated she completed a 1012 form and had the physician sign it, but she did not check to see that a New PL1 should have been completed instead. In an interview on 8/21/24 at 2:30 PM the Regional Clinical Reimbursement Specialist stated she reviewed Simple LTC, diagnosis and dates of onset and PL1 dated 7/3/23. She said Section C on the PL1 was not coded correctly for Mental Illness and stated the Schizophrenia diagnosis dated 7/3/23 and Bipolar diagnosis dated 07/03/23 would make Resident #74 positive for Mental Illness. She also stated the administrator, or the DON should monitor to see that diagnosis are monitored for changes that would affect PASRR eligibility. She stated the failure occurred because of the prior MDS Nurses failing to monitor diagnosis routinely. Review of the facilities policy and procedures titled: Preadmission screening for MI dated 04/26//2016 reflected the following in part: The intent of the management group is to meet and abide by all state and federal regulations that pertain to resident preadmission and screening resident review rules (PASRR). The intent of the guideline is to identify residents with Mental Illness Intellectual Disability or Developmental Disability. And to ensure they are properly placed, whether in the community or in a Nursing facility and to ensure they receive the services they require for their MI or ID/DD The social worker or designee will input the PL1 into the long-term care portal. If the PE is positive the social worker or designee will notify the LIDDA or LMHA within two calendar days to schedule the IDT and initiate the PE process.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0700 (Tag F0700)

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 obtain informed consents for bed rails, prior to inst...

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 obtain informed consents for bed rails, prior to installation, for 1 (Resident (R#49) of 8 residents reviewed for bed rails, in that: The facility did not have consent or orders for the use of bed rails for Resident #49. This failure could put residents at risk for injuries or entrapment. The findings included: Record review of R#49's admission Record, dated 8/20/2024, revealed R#49 was a [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. R#49's diagnoses included Acute Respiratory Failure, Lack of Coordination, Muscle wasting, Muscle Weakness, Unspecified Dementia, and History of falling. Review of the Physician's Orders for R#49 dated 08/20/2024 reflected there was no orders for the use of bed rails. Record review of R#49's electronic health record from 02/14/2024 through 08/20/2024 reflected no informed consent for the use of bed rails. Record review of R#49's care plan last revised 08/19/2024 revealed: no record regarding use of bed rails. Record review of Incident and Accident Tracking logs for 06/01/2024 through 08/20/2024 revealed Resident #49 has falls dated: 7/2/2024, 7/10/2024, 7/11/2024 and 7/23/2024. In an observation on 08/20/2024 at 08:15 AM revealed R#49's bed rails up on both sides of the bed. Resident was in dining hall. In an observation on 8/22/2024 at 09:30 AM Resident #49 was in room, up in recliner and side rails were up on head of bed. Resident was not interviewable. In an interview on 08/22/2024 at 8:55 AM ADON said Resident #49 had poor safety awareness. In an interview on 08/22/2024 at 11:22 AM with DON, said Resident # 49 had no side rail assessment found. DON said her expectations were that an assessment for side rails would be done and they should be done quarterly for each resident. DON said the negative outcome could be entrapment for a resident. In a record review of Facility Policy for Proper Use of Side Rails dated 1/16/2024 reflected: (Level II) Under: Purpose in part: the safe use of rails. Under General Guidelines reflected in part: 3. Upon admission, readmission, with quarterly or significant change therapy/designee will complete the Side Rail Utilization Assessment, or equivalent form to determine the resident's symptoms, risk of entrapment and rationales for using side rails prior to implementation. When used for mobility or transfer, the assessment will include a review of the resident's: A. Bed Mobility C. Risk of entrapment from the use of side rails 4. Consent for use of side rail will be obtained from Resident or legal representative, after presenting potential benefits and risks using the Informed Consent for use of bed rails. 10. The resident will be checked at least every shift for safety and proper functioning of the side rail use.
CONCERN (D)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to establish and maintain an infection control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development of communicable diseases and infections for 1 (Resident #18) of 8 residents reviewed for infection control, in that: On 08/20/2024 at 07:36 AM the facility failed to ensure nurse put on proper personal protective equipment for resident on isolation precautions including gown, gloves, and mask while providing care to resident. Facility also failed to ensure that staff used proper hand hygiene. This failure could affect residents and place them at risk for cross contamination and infections. The findings included: Record review of Resident #18's Face Sheet dated, 08/20/2024, indicated a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility initially on 06/06/2024. Her diagnoses included: Enterocolitis due to clostridium difficile (stomach cramping and diarrhea due to a germ), Parkinson's Disease (nervous system disease), dehydration (not enough water and fluids in body). Record review of Resident #18's active physician orders dated included an order dated 8/11/2024 at 1:48 PM which stated: Isolation precautions for 3 months (84 days) for Sepsis, C-Diff (clostridium difficile). Record review of Resident #18's comprehensive person-centered care plan reflected a initiated date of 06/06/2024 reflected Focus: Resident #18 is on isolation - strict single room strict contact isolation related to C. Diff (clostridium difficile). Goal: Will remain in isolation until no longer contagious to others. Interventions: provide proper protective equipment. During an observation on 08/20/2024 at 07:36 AM of Resident #18's room who had Isolation Precautions sign noted on door and donning station outside room. Station to remove personal protective equipment noted inside room. LVN C was in Resident # 18 room giving medications. LVN C does not have on PPE on. LVN C exited room, walked to gel hand sanitizing station. In an interview with LVN C on 8/20/2024 at 7:39 AM regarding isolation precaution posting, LVN C stated she (Resident #18) was on isolation precautions for C-Diff (clostridium difficile), she takes vancomycin and I forgot to put on my gown and stuff. When asked about hand hygiene regarding C-Diff (clostridium difficile), LVN C then stated that she would go back into room after talking and wash her hands soap and water. LVN C further stated that you must wash your hands with soap and water because hand gel was not effective on C-Diff (clostridium difficile). In an interview on 08/20/2024 at 11:38 AM with ADON, who stated regarding residents with diagnosis of C-Diff (clostridium difficile) with C-Diff (clostridium difficile) you have to use soap and water for hand hygiene, you can't use alcohol gel. The proper PPE was gown and gloves, you can wear goggles if you want. It's contact isolation. It is effective every time you go in the room. ADON further stated when not following proper contact precautions infection transmitted to myself or throughout the building. In an interview on 8/20/2024 at 12:05 PM regarding expectation for infection control and residents with C-Diff (clostridium difficile), DON stated Residents would be on Isolation precautions, I think they should use all of those precautions which include, a gown, gloves and mask. DON further stated they need to use soap and water for hand hygiene. DON stated that an adverse outcome of not following proper infection control it could contaminate others. In an interview on 08/22/24 at 11:54 AM with Director of Operations regarding expectation of infection control specifically regarding isolation precautions and C-Diff (clostridium difficile). Director of Operations stated my expectation is to wear proper PPE and follow policy. When asked by regarding expectation of hand hygiene regarding resident with C-diff (clostridium difficile), Director of Operations stated to follow proper hand washing techniques. Director of Operations further stated, I can't really speculate on that. Regarding possible negative outcome for not following proper policy and procedure regarding infection control technique. Record review of the facility policy and procedure for Implementation of Standard of Transmission-Based Precautions reflected the following [in-part]: 2. Contact Precautions: are used with a known infection that is spread by direct or indirect contact with the resident or the resident's environment. Record review of the facility policy Infection Prevent and Control Program revealed the following [in-part]: Policy Statement: 2. The elements of the infection prevention and control program consist of coordination/oversight .outbreak management, prevention of infection. 6. Outbreak Management: (3) preventing spread to other residents; 7. Prevention of Infection: (6) implementing appropriate isolation precautions when necessary; and (7) following established general disease-specific guidelines such as those of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) Review of website https://www.cdc.gov/c-diff/hcp/clinical-guidance on 3/8/24, reflected the following: Isolate and initiate contact precautions for suspected or confirmed Clostridioides (formerly known as Clostridium) difficile infection (CDI).
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 interview and record review, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident 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 2 of 20 residents (Residents #26 and #61) reviewed for comprehensive care plans. 1. Resident #26 had orders for the antipsychotic medication Seroquel and the mood stabilizing medication Nuedexta. The medications were not included in the resident's comprehensive care plan. 2. Resident #61 received an order dated 6/11/24 to be admitted to hospice care services with a diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease. A significant change MDS assessment dated [DATE] was completed due to the resident being admitted to hospice care services. The resident's comprehensive care plan did not address the hospice care services. These failures placed the residents at risk for not receiving necessary care and services to meet their individual needs and to promote a feeling of wellbeing during daily life within their living environment. The findings included: 1. Review of Resident #26's admission Record, dated 8/21/2024, reflected an [AGE] year-old male initially admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The resident's diagnoses included: unspecified dementia; anxiety disorder; major depressive disorder, recurrent; bipolar disorder (a mental health condition that causes extreme mood swings); psychotic disorder with delusions; pseudobulbar affect (nervous system disorder that causes inappropriate involuntary laughing and crying); insomnia; post-traumatic stress disorder (a mental health condition that's caused by an extremely stressful or terrifying event with symptoms including flashbacks, nightmares, or severe anxiety); and delusional disorder. Review of Resident #26's active medication orders reflected the following: - Nuedexta Oral Capsule 20-10 mg - give 1 capsule by mouth two times a day related to pseudobulbar affect, with an order date of 7/10/24. - Seroquel Tablet - give 200 mg by mouth in the morning for psychotic disorder with delusions, with an order date of 8/15/24. - Seroquel Tablet - give 200 mg by mouth at bedtime for psychotic disorder with delusions, with an order date of 8/15/24. Review of Resident #26's Quarterly MDS Assessment, dated 8/07/24, reflected the resident had received antipsychotic medication. Review of Resident #26's comprehensive care plan, dated 6/18/24, reflected it addressed the use of psychotropic medication, with the approach to administer psychotropic medications as ordered by the physician. The care plan did not specify the antipsychotic medication of Seroquel or the indication for use. The comprehensive care plan did not address mood state, mental health services, and the administration of Nuedexta for mood stabilization. In an interview on 8/22/24 at 4:07 PM, the ADON for the secure unit stated Resident #26 had received psychiatric/mental health services since he was admitted to the facility during 2014. She stated the resident had a lot of anger when he first came and was doing much better now. The ADON stated he had been seen by the psychiatrist and the nurse practitioner. She stated Resident #26 had received counseling services, and now was mostly seen for evaluation of medication and medication management by the psychiatric practitioner. During an interview and record review on 8/22/24 at 5:33 PM, MDS Coordinator #1 reviewed Resident 26's care plan dated 6/18/24 and stated usually she would be a lot more specific and would include the category of antipsychotic medication and the indication for use. She stated the resident's care plan was done by a traveling nurse for the company and was completed before she started employment in the facility on 5/20/24. 2. Review of Resident #61's admission Record, dated 8/21/2024, reflected an [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The resident's diagnoses included: Alzheimer's disease; anxiety; depressive disorder; insomnia; and pain. Review of Resident #61's active physician orders reflected an order dated 6/11/24 to admit to hospice with the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease. Review of Resident #61's Significant Change of Condition MDS Assessment, dated 6/23/24, reflected the resident received hospice care. Review of Resident #61's comprehensive care plan, dated 7/19/24, reflected it addressed his terminal condition related to Alzheimer's disease. The care plan did not address the resident's admission to hospice care services. In an interview and record review on 8/22/24 at 12:48 PM, the ADON stated if a resident was receiving hospice care services it should be included in the care plan. She reviewed Resident #61's care plan and stated she did not see a care plan for Hospice services. The ADON stated the Hospice nurse's attendance during the care plan conference would be documented in the progress notes. The ADON reviewed Resident #26's progress notes and stated she did not find documented evidence of the care plan conference in the progress notes. Review of the facility's policy and procedure for Care Plans, Comprehensive Person-Centered, dated as revised December 2016, reflected the following [in part]: Policy Statement A comprehensive, person-centered care plan that includes measurable objectives and timetables to meet the resident's physical, psychosocial and functional needs is developed for each resident. Policy Interpretation and Implementation 2. The care plan interventions are derived from a thorough analysis of the information gathered as part of the comprehensive assessment. 3. The IDT includes: f. Other appropriate staff or professionals as determined by the resident's needs or as requested by the resident. 8. The comprehensive person-centered care plan will: b. Describe the services that are to be furnished to attain or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being .
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 and 1 of 2 resident nourishment rooms, in that: 1. Knife blades and serving utensils were stored on a rack and suspended in the air with their sanitized food surfaces exposed to contaminants in the air. 2. Appliances and equipment were soiled with grease and food. 3. A cardboard case with diced potatoes was stored on the floor in the walk-in freezer. 4. The ice scoop was placed on top of the ice inside the ice machine. 5. The dishwasher recorded the water temperature and sanitizer level for the low temperature dish machine on the daily dish machine log prior to running the dish machine for two meals on 8/20/24. 6. The refrigerator-freezer in the secured unit resident nourishment room was observed on 8/20/24. The refrigerator did not have an interior thermometer and resident food was not dated. The freezer compartment door gasket was loose. These failures placed the residents at risk for foodborne illness and a decline in health status. The findings included: Observations on 8/20/24 at 7:04 AM during the initial tour of the facility kitchen revealed the following: - Knives with their blades on a magnetic strip and serving utensils (whisk, spoons, scoops, tongs) were hanging from a metal frame above the food preparation counter in the middle of the room. The sanitized food surface of the utensils were exposed to potential contaminants in the air from the ceiling air duct vent near the frame. - A Cambro warmer cart was plugged into an electrical outlet and used to keep food warm. The top exterior surface was greasy and sticky to touch. - A manual can opener was mounted to the end of a stainless steel counter. The food contact surface was soiled with a dried red colored substance. - The deep fryer unit contained dark colored cooking oil; the fryer baskets were in holders and had fried food and breading crumbs stuck to them; fried food crumbs were on interior surface of the deep fryer unit. - The walk-in freezer unit had a cardboard box containing diced potatoes stored directly on the floor of the walk-in freezer; a large plastic resealable bag containing what appeared to be boneless/skinless chicken breasts was not labeled/dated. - The ice scoop was inside the ice machine and was laying on top of the ice. A holder for the ice scoop was on a counter to the side of the ice machine. During an interview and record review on 8/20/24 at 7:42 AM, Dishwasher A stated the dish machine was a low temperature machine with sanitizer. He stated the water temperature and sanitizer were checked every meal 3 times daily. He stated he would check the water temperature and sanitizer level before starting to wash dishes after breakfast that morning. Dishwasher A stated the water temperature and sanitizer were documented on a daily dish machine log. A dish machine log was not observed in the dish machine room. Dishwasher A stated it was kept in a notebook binder in a cabinet in the kitchen. Dishwasher A walked to a cabinet, located outside the Dietary Manager's office, and he opened the doors and pulled out a red notebook binder used for the dish machine log. The form was dated August 2024 and documented the dish machine water temperature and chlorine sanitizer daily. The water temperature was documented at 120 degrees F and the chlorine sanitizer was documented at 100 ppm for 8/20/24 at 8:00 AM and 8/20/24 at 12:00 PM. Dishwasher A stated he had not yet run the dish machine and had not checked the water temperature and chlorine sanitizer today, but he would after breakfast and after lunch. He stated he wrote down the water temperature and sanitizer ppm in advance because he would get busy later and might forget to write down the temperatures and sanitizer levels. Observation on 8/20/24 at 4:57 PM revealed the Memory Care Nourishment Room had a residential style refrigerator/freezer unit. The gasket around the top freezer compartment door was loose and hanging down. There were small icicles hanging down from the top interior surface of the freezer. The lower refrigerator compartment did not have a thermometer dial and a thermometer was not located inside the refrigerator. The refrigerator compartment contained undated food containers with residents' names. During an observation and interview on 8/20/24 at 5:05 PM, LVN B entered the Memory Care Nourishment Room. She opened the top freezer compartment and saw the loose gasket. The LVN stated she would write a note in the Maintenance book regarding the freezer gasket being loose. She looked for a thermometer inside the refrigerator and did not find one. She opened the top freezer compartment and stated there were two thermometers in the freezer and one needed to be in the refrigerator. She removed one thermometer from the freezer compartment and placed it inside the refrigerator. The LVN stated there needed to be a cleaning schedule for the refrigerator. She proceeded to remove and throw away a few food items. In an interview on 8/21/24 at 4:40 PM, the Dietary Manager stated she had a family situation the prior day (8/20/24) and was not able to be at work. The findings from the initial tour of the kitchen on 8/20/24 were discussed with the Dietary Manager. She stated she would need to do inservice training with the dietary staff. She stated she would provide policies and procedures for kitchen sanitation and the low temperature dish machine operation. She stated the nourishment room refrigerator was the responsibility of the housekeeping department. In an interview on 8/22/24 at 9:56 AM, the Registered Dietician Consultant stated inservice training would be done with the dishwashers regarding temperatures. She stated the utensils were being removed from the halo utensil rack above the island shelf unit and going into bins. The Registered Dietician Consultant stated she had been at the facility the night before the survey (8/19/24) and everything was just fine in the kitchen. In an interview on 8/22/24 at 10:46 AM, the Registered Dietician Consultant provided copies of the policy and procedure for kitchen sanitation and cleaning. She stated the nursing department was responsible for the nourishment room and they may have a policy and procedure for refrigerators and resident food storage. In an interview on 8/22/24 at 11:19 AM, the ADON for the secure unit stated she would look for a policy and procedure for maintaining temperatures in the refrigerator in the nourishment room. She stated the nursing staff monitored the thermometer. The ADON stated she had the gasket on the freezer compartment door repaired in the secured unit. Review of the facility's policy and procedure for Foods Brought by Family/Visitors, dated as revised July 2017, reflected [in part]: Policy Statement Food brought to the facility by visitors and family is permitted . Policy Interpretation and Implementation . 4. Food brought by family/visitors that is left with the resident to consume later will be labeled and stored in a manner that it is clearly distinguishable from facility-prepared food. b. Perishable foods must be stored in containers with lids in a refrigerator. Containers will be labeled with the use by date (usually 3 days after the food was prepared or purchased). Review of the facility's policy and procedure for Refrigerators and Freezers, dated as revised December 2014, reflected [in part]: Policy Statement This facility will ensure safe refrigeration and freezer maintenance, temperatures, and sanitation, and will observe food expiration dates. Policy Interpretation and Implementation 1. Acceptable temperature ranges are 35 degrees F to 40 degrees F for refrigerators and less than 0 (zero) degrees for freezers 7. All food shall be appropriately dated Use by dates will be completed with expiration dates on all prepared food in refrigerators . 9. Supervisors will inspect refrigerators and freezer monthly for gasket condition, fan condition, presence of rust, excess condensation, and any other damage or maintenance needs. Necessary repairs will be initiated immediately. Maintenance schedules per manufacturer guidelines will be scheduled and followed . The Food and Drug Administration Food Code 2022 specified [in part]: Chapter 3 Food 3-202.15 Package Integrity. FOOD packages shall be in good condition and protect the integrity of the contents so that the FOOD is not exposed to ADULTERATION or potential contaminants. Chapter 4 Equipment, Utensils, and Linens 4-903.11 Equipment, Utensils, Linens, and Single-Service and Single-Use Articles. (A) Except as specified in (D) of this section, cleaned EQUIPMENT and UTENSILS, laundered LINENS, and SINGLE-SERVICE and SINGLE-USE ARTICLES shall be stored: (1) In a clean, dry location; (2) Where they are not exposed to splash, dust, or other contamination; and (3) At least 15 cm (6 inches) above the floor. (B) Clean EQUIPMENT and UTENSILS shall be stored as specified under (A) of this section and shall be stored: (1) In a self-draining position that allows air drying; and (2) Covered or inverted.
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 post the actual hours worked by the licensed and unlicensed nursing (RN, LVN and CNA) staff directly responsible for resident...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to post the actual hours worked by the licensed and unlicensed nursing (RN, LVN and CNA) staff directly responsible for resident care per shift daily. The daily nursing staffing information was posted on 08/20/2024 and 08/22/2024 but did not include the total numbers of actual hours worked for RNs, LVNs, and CNAs. The facility's failure could affect the residents and/or visitors to the facility who may desire to know how many nursing staff were present and on duty and the actual time worked per each shift daily. The findings included: In an observation on 08/20/2024 at 9:45 a.m. revealed the facility's daily nursing posting failed to indicate the actual hours worked for each direct care staffing type. In an observation on 08/22/2024 at 10:00 a.m. revealed the facility's daily nursing posting failed to indicate the actual hours worked for each direct care staffing type. In an interview on 08/22/2024 at 3:00 pm the DON who stated she was not aware that the actual hours worked by licensed and unlicensed staff had to be posted until today when it was brought to her attention. She further stated the staffing was done daily by her ADON. In an interview on 08/22/2024 at 3:30 pm the ADON who stated she was responsible for the staffing and daily staffing posting and has never put the actual hours worked by licensed and unlicensed on the posting. In an interview on 08/22/2024 at 4:10 PM, the Administrator who stated his expectation was to follow policy and that the policy was not followed due to the total numbers of actual hours worked for RN's, LVN's and CNA's, and the census at beginning of each shift were not on the posting. He further stated that they would modify the form to include the requirement. Record review of the facility's policy Posting Direct Care Daily Staffing Numbers, dated 2001, reviewed July 2016 reflected the following [in part]: I. Within two (2) hours of the beginning of each shift, the number of Licensed Nurses (RNs, LPNs, a d LVNs) and the number of unlicensed nursing personnel (CNAs) directly responsible for resident care will be posted in a prominent location (accessible to residents and visitors) and in a clear and readable format. 2. Directly responsible for resident care means that individuals are responsible for residents' total care or some aspect of the residents' care including, but not limited to, assisting with activities of daily living (ADLs), performing gastrointestinal feeds, giving medications, supervising care given by CNAs, and performing nursing assessments to admit residents or notify physicians of changes of condition form for each shift. The information recorded on the form shall include: a. The name of the facility. b. The date for which the information is posted. c. The resident census at the beginning of the shift for which the information is posted. d. Twenty-four (24)-hour shift schedule operated by the facility. e. The shift for which the information is posted. f Type (RN, LPN, LVN, or CNA) and category (licensed or non-licensed) of nursing staff working during that shift. g. The actual time worked during that shift for each category and type of nursing staff. h. Total number of licensed and non-licensed nursing staff working for the posted
May 2024 4 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

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 have assessments that accurately reflect the status of 1 of 2 reside...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to have assessments that accurately reflect the status of 1 of 2 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for resident assessments. Resident #1's admission MDS assessment did not reflect her skin integrity issues, treatments and impairment in lower extremities accurately. This failure puts residents at risk of a decreased quality of care and not having their individualized needs met or communicated accurately to staff. Findings include: Record review of Resident #1's face sheet dated 05/22/2024, revealed a [AGE] year-old female admitted on [DATE] with the following diagnoses: Sepsis (infection in the bloodstream), cellulitis of right lower limb (bacterial skin infection on the right leg) and local infection of the skin and tissue. Record review of Resident #1's admission MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed the following: Section C- Cognitive patterns reflected the following: BIMS score of 13 which indicated the resident was cognitively intact. Section GG- Functional Abilities and Goals: Resident did not have an impairment with her lower extremities. Section M- Skin Conditions reflected the following skin conditions: Resident #1 had an Unstageable - Slough and/or eschar pressure wound that was present upon admission. Resident #1 did not have moisture associated skin damage. Resident #1 did not have treatments that reflected pressure reducing devices for chair. Record review of Resident #1's Initial skin assessment, dated 05/03/2024 revealed the following: Site 1) Lymphedema wound on the right, lower calf. Site 2) Stage 3 Pressure Wound Sacrum, full thickness. Site 3) Candidiasis rash of the abdomen, apply antifungal. Record review of Resident #1's Skilled Evaluation dated, dated 05/05/2024 revealed the resident had Lower extremity ROM: Impairment on both sides. Record review of Resident #1's treatment record for May 2024 revealed the following order: May have pressure reducing device in wheelchair as tolerated. Monitor for placement every shift -Start Date- 05/03/2024. Record review of Resident #1's May 2024 TAR revealed the following wound care orders: 1) Clean left lower abdominal fold with n/s, pat dry with gauze, cover with dry dressing one time a day. Start date of 05/05/2024. 2) Clean RLE with N/S, pat dry with gauze, place xero-form dressing over wound bed, and wrap with bandage one time a day. Start date 05/05/2024. 3) Clean coccyx with n/s, pat dry with gauze, lay anti-sept cream and collagen. Cover with bordered dressing one time a day. Start date 05/05/2024. Interview with the Wound Care Nurse on 05/22/2024 at 2:49 PM, revealed that Resident #1 did not have an unstageable pressure ulcer. She revealed that based on her observations since admission the resident had the following skin integrity issues: Stage 3 pressure ulcer on her sacrum, a lymphademic wound on her right lower extremity and a candidiasis rash of the abdomen that was moisture associated. She revealed that the resident was using a pressure reducing device while in her chair. She stated that the resident did have an impairment in her lower extremities. Interview with the DON on 05/22/2024 at 3:00 PM, revealed that she delegated the wound care to the Wound Care Nurse and that she had received all of her training. She revealed that the wound care interview and observations were correct for Resident #1. She stated that Resident #1 did not have an unstageable pressure ulcer while in the facility. She revealed that Resident #1 had a pressure reducing device while in her chair. She revealed that she had signed off on Section Z of the MDS assessment for completion, but she had not completed the MDS. She stated that the MDS nurse that had completed the MDS was unavailable for an interview since she was no longer employed by the facility. She stated that they were opening the MDS assessment and correcting the inaccuracies to reflect an accurate depiction of Resident #1. She said that the MDS nurse's failure could cause issues with the careplan, but not the resident's care, since they were already completing that. Record review of the facility's policy and procedure covering Accuracy of Assessments was requested on 05/22/2024.
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 F0655 (Tag F0655)

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 develop and implement a base line care plan for each resident that ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement a base line care plan for each resident that included the instructions needed to provide effective and person-centered care of the resident within 48 hours of the resident's admission for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #1) whose records were reviewed in that: 1. Resident #1 did not have a Baseline Care Plan developed and implemented or reviewed by an RN following admission to the facility on [DATE]. This failure could place the residents at risk for not receiving care and services required to meet their individual needs from the date and time they were admitted to the facility. The findings included: Record review of Resident #1's face sheet dated 05/22/2024 revealed a [AGE] year-old female admitted on [DATE] with the following diagnoses: Sepsis (infection in the bloodstream), cellulitis of right lower limb (bacterial skin infection on the right leg) and local infection of the skin and tissue. Record review of Resident #1's admission MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed the following: Section C- Cognitive patterns reflected the following: BIMS score of 13 which indicated the resident was cognitively intact. Section GG- Functional Abilities and Goals: Resident did not have an impairment with her lower extremities. Section M- Skin Conditions reflected the following skin conditions: Resident #1 had an Unstageable - Slough and/or eschar pressure wound that was present upon admission. Resident #1 did not have moisture associated skin damage. Resident #1 did not have treatments that reflected pressure reducing devices for chair. Review of Resident #1's clinical record revealed a baseline care plan had not been completed within 48 hours following the resident's initial admission to the facility on [DATE]. In an Interview with the DON on 05/22/2024 at 3:00 PM, she stated the form titled Baseline care plan in the Resident's EMR's were not completed. She stated that she was responsible for delegating the task, but she was unsure who was assigned to complete it for Resident #1. She stated the failure could put residents at risk for not getting needed care. Review of the facility's policy and procedure titled Care Plans- Baseline dated - November 14,2023, revealed the following [in part]: Policy Statement A baseline plan of care to meet the resident's immediate needs shall be developed for each resident within 48 hours of admission. Policy Interpretation and Implementation 1) To assure that the residents immediate care needs are met and maintained, a baseline care plan will be developed within 48 hours of the residence admission. 2) The interdisciplinary team will review the health care practitioner's orders and implement a baseline care plan to meet the residents immediate care needs including but not limited to: a. Initial goals based on admission orders. b. Physician orders. c. Dietary orders. d. Therapy services. e. Social services. 3) The baseline care plan will be used until the staff can conduct the comprehensive assessment and develop an interdisciplinary person-centered care plan. 4) The resident and the representative will be provided a copy of the baseline care plan that includes but is not limited to: a. The initial goals of the resident. b. The summary of the residence medication and dietary instructions. c. Any services and treatments to be administered by the facility and personnel acting on behalf of the facility and, d. Any updated information based on the details of the comprehensive care plan, as necessary.
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

Medical Records (Tag F0842)

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 clinical records that were complete and accura...

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 clinical records that were complete and accurate for 1 of 3 (Resident #1) residents reviewed for clinical records in that: The facility did not maintain accurate and current nursing documentation related to wound treatments. The facility did not maintain accurate and current shower records. The facility did not maintain accurate and current bladder records. This failure could place residents at risk for inaccurate records. The findings were: Record review of Resident #1's face sheet dated 05/22/2024 revealed a [AGE] year-old female admitted on [DATE] with the following diagnoses: Sepsis (infection in the bloodstream), cellulitis of right lower limb (bacterial skin infection on the right leg) and local infection of the skin and tissue. Record review of Resident #'1s admission MDS dated [DATE] revealed the following: Section C- Cognitive patterns reflected the following: BIMS score of 13 which indicated the resident was cognitively intact. Section GG- Functional Abilities and Goals: Resident did not have an impairment with her lower extremities. Section H- Bowel and bladder reflected resident was occasionally incontinent with bladder. Section M- Skin Conditions reflected the following skin conditions: Resident #1 had an Unstageable - Slough and/or eschar pressure wound that was present upon admission. Resident #1 did not have moisture associated skin damage. Resident #1 did not have treatments that reflected pressure reducing devices for chair. Record review of Resident #1's May 2024 TAR revealed the following wound care orders that were not completed on May 7, 2024: 1) Clean left lower abdominal fold with n/s, pat dry with gauze, cover with dry dressing one time a day. Start date of 05/05/2024. 2) Clean RLE with N/S, pat dry with gauze, place xero-form dressing over wound bed, and wrap with bandage one time a day. Start date 05/05/2024. 3) Clean coccyx with n/s, pat dry with gauze, lay anti-sept cream and collagen. Cover with bordered dressing one time a day. Start date 05/05/2024. Record review of Resident #1's daily Skilled Nursing Evaluation, dated 05/04/2024 revealed the following: Urostomy intact. Resident is always incontinent (no episodes of continent voiding). Record review of Resident #1's electronic record dated May 2024 did not show showers scheduled in their point of care. Record review of the facility's paper shower sheets for May 2024 revealed that Resident #1 was scheduled for showers on Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday. Record review of the facility's individual paper shower sheets for May 2024, revealed that Resident #1 did have showers completed on the opposite days that were given on Monday, Wednesday, and Fridays. Interview on 05/22/2024 at 2:45 PM, The Wound Care Nurse stated that she did complete Resident #1's Wound Care on 05/07/2024, once she returned from wound care at 2:30 PM. She said that she had forgotten to document it in the electronic treatment record. She said this failure could result in inaccurate documentation. Interview on 05/22/2024 at 3:00 PM, the DON stated that upon her review there was electronic documentation reflecting the resident's showers being completed. She said that it should have been scheduled in the point of care records for the CNA's, but somehow it got missed. She said that it was scheduled on the paper sheets for Tuesday, Thursdays, and Saturdays, but that the resident was not there on those days due to dialysis. She said that they just did it on the other days and the CNA's put in on paper but did not ever document it electronically or notify her that it was not triggering or scheduled on their electronic documentation records. She said that the resident was occasionally incontinent but was never always incontinent. She stated that the Daily Skilled Evaluation from 05/04/2024 was inaccurate and not documented correctly. She stated that Resident #1 received wound care every day, and that the 05/07/2024 documentation that showed it was missed was inaccurate and incomplete documentation. She said that all nursing staff has been trained on documentation and following orders. She revealed that she was responsible for ensuring that documentation was entered and that she will be working with staff on this. She revealed this failure could result in inaccurate documentation. A record review of the facility's policy titled; Charting and Documentation dated 07/2017 revealed the following: All services provided to the resident, progress toward the care plan goals, or any changes in the residence medical, physical, functional, or psychosocial condition, shall be documented in the residence medical record. The medical record should facilitate communication between the interdisciplinary team regarding the resident's condition and response to care.
MINOR (C) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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 information, including the facility name, current date, total number and actual hours wor...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure that the daily nurse staffing information, including the facility name, current date, total number and actual hours worked by Registered Nurses, Licensed Practical Nurses or Licensed Vocational Nurses, Certified Nurse Aides, and the resident census, was posted on a daily basis at the beginning of each shift in a prominent place readily accessible to residents and visitors for 1 of 1 facility. The facility failed to update the daily staffing information posting. 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 05/22/2024 at 8:45 AM, revealed the daily staffing pattern was posted on the wall by the copier room and the DON's office, however the date was for 05/16/2024. During an interview with the DON on 05/22/2024 at 9:00 AM, She stated, that the staffing had not been updated or posted and that the last posting was for 05/16/2024. She stated that she was responsible for putting the staffing sheets out. She said that it had not been posted outside of the door, but it was in a binder book. She stated that someone had been removing that and the schedule, so they put it in a binder that was supposed to have been located at the front desk. She further stated, the failure could cause confusion on staffing and resident care issues. During an interview with the ADON on 05/22/2024 at 10:00 AM, she stated that the staffing sheets were being placed in a binder book and that it was supposed to have been kept at the front desk. She said that anyone can request or view the staffing sheets. She stated that it was not posted. She stated that employee time schedule was also taken over the weekend and she had to come up and reprint it. A copy of the facility's policy and procedure titled Posting Direct Care Daily Staffing Numbers dated July 2016 revealed the following: Policy Statement: Our facility will post on a daily basis for each shift, the number of nursing personnel responsible for providing direct care to residence. Policy interpretation and implementation. 1) Within two hours the beginning of each shift, the number of licensed nurses (RN's LPN's and LVN's) and the number of unlicensed nursing personnel (CNA's) directly responsible for resident care it will be posted in a prominent location accessible to residence and 2visitors and in a clear and readable format. 2) Directly responsible for resident care means that individuals are responsible for resident's total care or some aspect of the residence care including, but not limited to, assisting with activities of daily living (ADL's) performing gastrointestinal feeds, giving medication, supervising care given by CNA's, and performing nursing assessments to admit residents or notifying physicians of change of condition.
Feb 2024 1 deficiency
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

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 that a resident who needs respiratory care, is ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure that a resident who needs respiratory care, is provided such care, consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, the residents' goals, and preferences for 3 of 3 residents (Resident #'s 1, 3 and 5) reviewed for respiratory care. The facility failed to ensure Residents #1, #3, and #5's nebulizer mask was kept in a bag while not in use. These failures could place residents at risk for infections and transmission of communicable diseases. Findings include 1. Record review of Resident #1's face sheet, dated 02/01/23, revealed an [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #1 had diagnoses which included dislocation of right hip, muscle wasting, cognitive communication deficit, dysphagia (swallowing difficulty), cough, asthma (inflammatory disease of the airways of the lungs). Record review of Resident #1's MDS Quarterly Assessment, dated 1/22/24, revealed a BIMS score of 15, which indicated the resident was cognitively intact. Record review of Resident #1's Care Plan, dated 01/25/24, revealed the resident had an impaired respiratory status, her nebulizer therapy should administer as ordered by MD. Albuterol Sulfate Nebulization Solution, 3 milliliter inhales orally vis nebulizer three times a day for shortness of breath for 5 days. Start date 1/31/24. In an interview and observation on 02/01/24 at 9:40 a.m., Resident #1 was sitting in her wheelchair drawing, observed nebulizer cup and mask sitting on dresser not bagged. Resident #1 stated she had her last treatment last night, could not recall time. Resident #1 stated she never seen nurse bag the nebulizer cup and mask, stated it was just always placed on desk. 2. Record review of Resident #3's face sheet, dated 02/01/24, revealed a [AGE] year-old male who was admitted on [DATE] and re-admitted on [DATE]. Resident #3 had diagnosis which included acute respiratory failure (inadequate gas exchange), hypoxia (the body is deprived of adequate oxygen supply), shortness of breath. Record review of Resident #3's MDS Quarterly Assessment, dated 01/10/24 revealed a BIMs score of 15, which indicated the resident was cognitively intact. Record review of Resident #3's Care Plan, dated 01/15/24, revealed the resident received Oxygen therapy for ineffective gas exchange. Albuterol Sulfate Nebulization Solution, 3 milliliter inhales orally vis nebulizer three times a day for shortness of breath for 5 days. Start date 1/31/24. In an interview and observation on 2/1/24 at 10:20 a.m., Resident #3 was sitting in wheelchair visiting with a friend. Nebulizer was observed sitting on the nightstand, cup and mask not bagged. Resident #3 stated he had received his last treatment early this morning at 7:00 a.m Resident #3 stated that the staff never has bagged nebulizer cup and mask while not in use. 3.Record review of Resident #5's face sheet, dated 2/1/24, revealed a [AGE] year-old male, who was admitted on [DATE]. Resident #5 had diagnosis which included, Acute upper respiratory infection. Record review of Resident #5's MDS Quarterly Assessment, dated 01/18/24 revealed a BIMs score of 99, which indicated the resident is severely cognitively impaired. Non interview able. Record review of Resident #5's Care Plan dated 10/14/23, revealed the resident receives Ipratropium-Albuterol Sulfate Nebulization Solution, 3 milliliter inhales orally vis nebulizer every 4 hours for shortness of breath, and wheezing. Start date 10/16/23. Observation on 2/1/24 at 11:10 a.m., Resident #5 was sleeping in bed, observed Nebulizer on nightstand, cup and mask lying on floor next to nightstand not bagged. In an interview with the ADON on 02/01/23 at 4:00 PM, she revealed it was the policy and procedure for the floor nurse after administering treatment to wash nebulizer cup and mask after each use and place cup and mask in plastic bag. ADON stated the failure to store nebulizer cup and mask properly could result in infection control issues. Record review of the facility's policy Infection Control Considerations Related to Medication Nebulizer/Continuous Aerosol, dated November 2011, revealed in part: 1) Store circuit and nasal canula or mask in plastic bag between uses. 2) Change disposable parts (set-up) every seven (7) days and label with date.
Jul 2023 3 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

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 complete an assessment that accurately reflected the resident's status for 1 of 24 sampled residents (Residents #79) whose records were reviewed for MDS accuracy, in that: The facility failed to ensure Resident #79's MDS Assessment accurately reflected her limited range of motion on her left upper and lower extremities. This failure could place residents at risk for not receiving care and services to meet their needs. Findings include: Review of Resident #79's electronic Face Sheet dated 07/14/2023 revealed she was a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility 03/05/23. She had diagnoses which included cerebral infarct (stroke), current long-term use of anticoagulants, and left side hemiplegia and hemiparesis (paralysis and weakness with loss of muscle control to the left side of the body). Observation and interview on 07/11/2023 revealed Resident #79 had a rolled washcloth in her left hand. The fingers of her left hand were curled around the rolled wash cloth. Resident #79 was on a low bed and was leaning to the left side and her left shoulder and hand were against the wall. She stated she was un- comfortable because she had a stroke on her left side and could not move herself. Review of Resident #79's admission MDS dated [DATE], section G revealed Resident #79 had limited range of motion in both her upper and lower extremities. Review of Resident #79's Quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed: Section C Cognitive Patterns BIMS Score of 9 indicating moderate cognitive impairment; Section G functional status indicated the resident required extensive assistance with toileting, dressing, hygiene, and bathing but required total assistance with transfers. G0400 reflected she had no impairment in range of motion in her upper or lower extremities. Section O of the residents Quarterly MDS indicated the resident received speech therapy and occupational therapy for 5 days, and physical therapy for 6 days during the last week. Review of Resident #79's care plan revealed she required assistance with activities of daily living. Her interventions included: assess resident for weakness and contractures, in all extremities and assess needs for braces and support. In an interview on 07/14/2023 at 2:16 PM, the Regional Reimbursement nurse stated she had completed Resident #79's MDS. She revealed she had completed the MDS because the MDS Nurse was on vacation at the time the assessment was due. She stated the inaccuracy occurred because she did not see documentation in her medical record that Resident #79 had limited range of motion or contractures. She stated the inaccuracy could result in the resident not receiving needed care. In an interview on 07/14/2023 at 2:30 PM the MDS-LVN stated she was the nurse responsible for doing MDS assessments. She stated She completed the admission MDS for Resident #79 which was dated 03/05/2023. She stated she was on vacation at the time the Quarterly MDS dated [DATE] and Section G of Resident #79's Quarterly MDS dated [DATE] was not accurate. She stated the resident had left sided weakness and limited range of motion in both her upper and lower extremities ON THE LEFT SIDE documented as a diagnoses on admission. She stated the nurse completing the assessment was responsible for the accuracy of the MDS. She stated an inaccuracy on the residents MDS could lead to the resident not receiving necessary care and services. In an interview on 2/24/23 at 4:47 PM, MDS-LVN stated she referred to MDS 3.0 RAI Manual provided by CMS for instructions on how to complete assessments. She stated the facility did not have a written policy regarding resident assessment. Review of CMS'S RAI Version 3.0 Manual version 1.17.1 dated October 2019 revealed: The RAI process has multiple regulatory requirements. Federal regulations at 42 CFR 483.20 (b)(1)(xviii), (g), and (h) require that (1) the assessment accurately reflects the resident's status (2) a registered nurse conducts or coordinates each assessment with the appropriate participation of health professionals (3) the assessment process includes direct observation, as well as communication with the resident and direct care staff on all shifts. Nursing homes are left to determine (1) who should participate in the assessment process (2) how the assessment process is completed (3) how the assessment information is documented while remaining in compliance with the requirements of the Federal regulations and the instructions contained within this manual.
CONCERN (D)

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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure that a resident who needs respiratory care, is provided such care, consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, the residents' goals, and preferences for 1 of 1 Resident (Resident #10) reviewed for respiratory care. A. The facility failed to ensure Resident #10's nebulizer was kept in a bag and dated while not in use. This failure could place the resident at risk for infections and transmission of communicable diseases. Findings included: Record review of Resident #10's Face Sheet dated 07/14/2023 revealed an [AGE] year-old female, who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #10's diagnoses included dementia (memory loss) Hypertension (high blood pressure), and Dysphagia (difficulty swallowing). Record review of Resident #10's MDS quarterly assessment dated [DATE] revealed a BIMS score of 99 (severe cognitive impairment). Section I: Active diagnosis revealed chronic pulmonary disease, or chronic lung disease. Section O: Respiratory Treatments was unmarked. Record review of Resident #10's Care Plan, 04/13/2023, revealed a care plan for [Resident #10] has COPD (obstructive pulmonary disease) nebulizer treatments every six hours prn. The Care Plan did not address interventions regarding when the nebulizer tubing and mask needed to be changed. Record review of Resident #10's Physician's Orders dated 07/14/2023 revealed an order for nebulizer treatments every six hours as needed. In an observation and interview on 07/11/2023 at 09:45 AM during initial rounds, revealed Resident #10 was lying in her bed resting. Her nebulizer was sitting on her nightstand and the tubing and mask were lying on the floor. She was unable to answer to answer any questions regarding whether her oxygen tubing had been changed. In an Interview on 07/14/2023 at 3:45 PM the DON stated the nebulizer mouthpiece and tubing should be changed per doctor's orders and should be stored in a plastic bag with the date on it when not in use to prevent cross contamination and infection. If the plastic bag was not dated, she stated she would discard them and replace them with a new tubing and mask. Record review of the facility policy Respiratory Therapy -Prevention of Infection, dated 2001 revised November 2011, revealed the following [in part]: Purpose: The purpose of this procedure is to guide prevention of infection associated with respiratory therapy tasks and equipment, including ventilators, among residents and staff. Procedure: Product: Oxygen delivery devices (no-aerosol producing) Ex: venturi masks, nasal cannulas, oxygen supply tubing. Infection Control Considerations Related to Medication Nebulizers/Continuous Aerosol: 7. Store the circuit in plastic bag between uses. 9. Discard the administration set-up every seven (7) days as needed.
CONCERN (E)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety in one of one 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 service safety in one of one kitchen observed, by failing to ensure: Facility staff cleaned or sanitized their hands during meal services when three nursing staff members (LVN1, CNA2 and CNA3) failed to sanitize hands between serving plates to residents in the dining room. LVN1 was observed placing ice in a drinking glass and then placing the ice scoop into the ice bucket, burying the scoop up to the handle. This failure by the facility places all residents at risk of acquiring a foodborne illness. Findings included: Observation on 07/11/2023 from 12:05 PM to 12:15 PM, revealed three nursing staff members, LVN1, CNA2 and CNA3, serving residents their meals without sanitizing between residents plates, instead they would place plates in front of residents, return back to the serving line and grab another resident's plate. At no time were they observe washing their hands prior to or during the meal. Observed LVN1 taking ice from a clear, square plastic container with an ice scoop and then burying the ice scoop back into the container up to the handle. In an interview on 07/12/2023 at 01:40 PM the DON said she was aware of staff not using hand sanitizer the previous day and had already in-serviced staff on hand sanitizing during meal service. She said she did not know why her staff would put the ice scoop into the ice when not removing ice from the bucket. The DON said residents could get sick from contaminated food. In an interview on 07/12/2-23 at 02:30 PM CNA3 said she just didn't think about using hand sanitizer between serving residents their lunch and knew she should have. In an interview on 07/12/2023 at 02:39 PM LVN1 said she was nervous with the state being in the building and did not want to mess anything up. LVN1 said residents could get sick if she spread an illness between them. In an interview on 07/13/2023 at 3:10 PM, the ADM said he was aware of what happened that day in the facility and the facility in-serviced their staff about proper use of hand sanitizing during meals. The ADM declined to offer a resident outcome. Record review of a document titled Hand Antiseptic, undated, revealed the following: Policy: Hand antiseptic or antimicrobial gel used by staff will be limited to situations that involve no direct contact with food by the bare hands. Hand antiseptic may be applied between washing hands as long as hands are not visibly soiled. Procedure 3. Hand antiseptic use should be limited to situations where direct contact of food with bare hands does not occur.
May 2022 4 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

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 comprehensive care plans to meet a resident's medical and nursing needs for 1 of 19 residents (Resident ID #55) reviewed for care plans, by failing to ensure: A. Resident #55's care plan was revised to include her diagnoses of fractured let humorous, and interventions ordered for a sling to her left arm during waking hours for 6 weeks, B. Resident #55's care plan was revised to include her diagnoses of chronic pain and the interventions for pain ordered by her physician. This failure could place the residents at risk for not having their individual needs met according to their comprehensive assessments and potentially cause a physical and/or mental decline in health and well-being. The findings included: Review of Resident #55's Face Sheet, dated 05/26/22, revealed she was a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the following diagnoses: dementia, chronic pain, hypertension, and muscle wasting and atrophy, Review of Resident #55's Annual MDS assessment, dated 04/07/22, revealed Section J1800, documented: no, the resident had not had any falls since admission, reentry or prior assessment. Record review of nurse's progress notes on 05/20/22 at 6:40 Am revealed resident sustained a fall in the common room of the locked unit. Record review of progress note dated 05/20/22 at 5/20/22 at 6:35 pm revealed the x-ray diagnosed a fracture of the left humeral neck. Record review of nurse's progress note dated 05/20/22 to at 7:58 PM to place a sling on the residents left arm to immobilize it for 6 weeks. Review of Resident #55's order summary report dated 05/26/22 revealed the following orders: keep the left arm immobilized in a sling during waking hours, assess for pain using pain aide scale every shift, and hydrocodone/[NAME] 10mg-325 mg three times a day by mouth ( order date 05/21/22), hydrocodone 5mg-325mg one by mouth every six hours as needed for pain (ordered0 4/08/22), and morphine sulfate 20 mg/ ml give 0.25 ml - 1 ml sublingual for pain (order date 04/07/22). Review of the comprehensive care plan last updated revealed that the care plan had last been reviewed updated on 04/07/22. It had not been revised on 5/20/22 to include the diagnosis of left humorous fracture (diagnoses date 5/20/22) or include the physician orders to keep the left arm in a sling during waking hours for 6 weeks (ordered 05/24/22). It also did not address her diagnoses of Chronic Pain (onset 04/08/21). In an interview on 05/26/22 at 1:30 PM the MDS Nurse stated that resident #55's care plan had not been updated since the fall on 05/20/22. The MDS nurse stated she was responsible for updating the resident' and stated It hasn't really been all that long since the fall happened. She stated she did not realize the resident's chronic pain was not addressed in the care plan. She stated that the facility's failure of not updating the care plan could result in the resident not receiving treatment ordered by her physician and increased pain. Review of the facility's policy and procedure for Falls and Fall Risk, Managing, dated as revised March 2018, documented [in part]: Policy Statement Based on previous evaluations and current data, the staff will identify interventions related to the resident's specific risks and causes to try to prevent the resident from falling and to try to minimize complications from falling. Resident-Centered Approaches to Managing Falls and Fall Risk 1. The staff, with the input of the attending physician, will implement a resident-centered fall prevention plan to reduce the specific risk factor(s) of falls for each resident at risk or with a history of falls . Monitoring Subsequent Falls and Fall Risk 1. The staff will monitor and document each resident's response to interventions intended to reduce falling or the risks of falling. 2. If interventions have been successful in preventing falling, staff will continue the interventions of reconsider whether these measures are still needed if a problem that required the intervention (e.g., dizziness or weakness) has resolved. 3. If the resident continues to fall, staff will re-evaluate the situation and whether it is appropriate to continue or change current interventions. As needed, the attending physician will help the staff reconsider possible causes that may not previously have been identified . In an interview on 05/26/22 at 1:45 PM with the DON , a request was made for a policy on Care Planning. It was not received before exiting the facility.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to review and revise the comprehensive care plans for 2 o...

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 comprehensive care plans for 2 of 19 residents (Resident ID #s 26, and 43) reviewed for care plans, by failing to ensure: A. Resident ID #26's care plan was individualized to include interventions for heel protector at all times to both heels, and skin prep daily to the left heel. B. Resident ID #43's care plan was revised to include the resident's use of a merry walker for ambulation and risk factors associated with use of the merry walker. This failure could place the residents at risk for not having their individual needs met according to their comprehensive assessments and potentially cause a physical and/or mental decline in health and well-being. The findings included: Resident ID #26 Review of Resident ID #26's Face Sheet, dated 5/26/22, revealed he was an [AGE] year-old male who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. His diagnoses included: Alzheimer's Disease, atherosclerotic heart disease (plaque buildup on the blood vessels of the heart), hypertension, abnormal weight loss, and decreased mobility and range of motion. Review of the most current MDS, dated [DATE], revealed Resident #26 had a BIMS score of 03 which indicated he had severe cognitive deficit. The MDS indicated Resident #26 required extensive assistance of two person for bed mobility, was at high risk for developing a pressure injury, but did not have a pressure injury. This MDS indicated Resident #26 was not on a turning and repositioning program, did not have a pressure relieving device in his chair, but that he did have a pressure relieving mattress on his bed. Record review of Resident #26's physician orders revealed the following orders: Apply skin prep to left heel one time a day, (start date 01/22/22), heel protectors to be worn at all times (start date 01/22/22). Review of the comprehensive care plan revealed that the care plan had last been reviewed on 03/10/22 In an interview on 05/26/22 at 1:30 PM the MDS Nurse stated that the resident #26 care plan had last been updated with the Quarterly MDS on 03/10/22. The MDS nurse stated she was responsible for updating the resident's care Plan and. When asked why the care plan of # 26 had not been updated, she stated she did not see the physician orders for the heel protectors or for the daily treatment with skin prep to his left heel. She stated that not updating the care plan could result in the resident not the treatment ordered by her physician, and result in the development of a pressure ulcer. Resident ID #43 Review of Resident #43's resident profile information revealed a [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The information documented a principal diagnosis of Alzheimer's Disease. Review of Therapy Screening Form, dated 5/05/21, revealed Resident #43 was to be screened due to fall risk. The form documented the resident had been walking on her own, increasing risk of fall and injury. The form documented the Therapy Evaluation Recommended was for Occupational Therapy and for a trial use of a merry walker. Review of the Occupational Therapy Evaluation and Plan of Treatment, dated 5/07/21, revealed Objective Progress/Short-Term Goals included the resident: - will be introduced/trailed with the Merry [NAME] for increased independence with mobility and decreased fall risk (Target: 5/20/21). - will utilize the merry walker for functional mobility at will with decreased fall risk and supervision (Target: 6/05/21). Review of Resident #43's Comprehensive Care Plan dated 1/19/16 and dated as most recently reviewed/revised on 12/11/21 and 3/13/22, revealed it had not been updated to address the resident's use of the merry walker and risk factors associated with use of the merry walker. Observation on 5/24/22 at 11:07 AM revealed Resident #43 was seated in merry walker in the hallway. The resident was unsteady while ambulating and sat down on the seat to rest when she got tired. Observation on 5/26/22 at 3:25 PM revealed Resident #43 was resting in a low bed with floor mattress at the beside. The merry walker was in room. The merry walker was made from white PVC pipe with a bar across the front of the walker with a pull-pin to release the bar and raise it. A seatbelt strap for between the resident's legs connected under the back of the seat of the walker and connected to the cross bar in the front of the walker and had seatbelt buckle with a push button release. In an interview and record review on 5/26/22 at 3:30 PM, LVN C stated she had worked as a charge nurse in the Memory Care secured unit for the past 17 years. She stated Resident #43 had been in the Memory Care Unit, had declined in condition, and was using a wheelchair. She stated the resident was moved to the front to either Hall 400 or Hall 500. She stated Resident #43 started using the merry walker in the front and had used it for a long time. The LVN stated Resident #43 started wandering into other residents' rooms and that upset them, so she was moved back to the Memory Care Unit. The LVN stated the merry walker was the safest way for the resident to be mobile. She stated Resident #43 was still unsteady on her feet, but she was going to try to walk. The LVN stated she thought the resident had fallen less since she had used the merry walker. The LVN stated she did not know how long the resident had used the merry walker. She reviewed the resident's physician orders and did not find one for the use of the merry walker. She stated, We don't usually write orders for merry walkers; we don't write orders for wheelchairs. The LVN stated therapy would have approved the use of a merry walker. She stated she thought the facility already had the merry walker. The LVN reviewed Resident #43's nursing notes and stated the resident moved from RM [ROOM NUMBER] in the front to RM [ROOM NUMBER] in the Memory Care secured unit on 7/13/21. In an interview on 5/26/22 at 4:25 PM, the DON and ADON stated Resident #43 would try to stand up from the wheelchair and walk. They stated she was not safe and was falling. They stated the therapist said the merry walker would make her legs stronger. The DON stated the resident was safer in the merry walker than she was out of it. The ADON stated Resident #43 could not get out of the merry walker by herself. The ADON stated the merry walker was not really considered a restraint. In an interview and record review on 5/26/22 at 4:49 PM, the ADON reviewed Resident #43's care plan the electronic health record. She stated there was a care plan for fall risk and it was being edited. She stated an approach had been added for the resident to use a merry walker for ambulation and help maintain independence. The ADON stated the approach was created and added today (5/26/22) by the DON. Review of the facility's policy and procedure for Falls and Fall Risk, Managing, dated as revised March 2018, documented [in part]: Policy Statement Based on previous evaluations and current data, the staff will identify interventions related to the resident's specific risks and causes to try to prevent the resident from falling and to try to minimize complications from falling. Resident-Centered Approaches to Managing Falls and Fall Risk 1. The staff, with the input of the attending physician, will implement a resident-centered fall prevention plan to reduce the specific risk factor(s) of falls for each resident at risk or with a history of falls . Monitoring Subsequent Falls and Fall Risk 1. The staff will monitor and document each resident's response to interventions intended to reduce falling or the risks of falling. 2. If interventions have been successful in preventing falling, staff will continue the interventions of reconsider whether these measures are still needed if a problem that required the intervention (e.g., dizziness or weakness) has resolved. 3. If the resident continues to fall, staff will re-evaluate the situation and whether it is appropriate to continue or change current interventions. As needed, the attending physician will help the staff reconsider possible causes that may not previously have been identified . In an interview on 05/26/22 at 1:45 PM with the DON , a request was made for a policy on Care Planning. It was not received before exiting the facility. Review of the facility's policy for Pressure Ulcers provided by the DON, dated as revised March 2020, revealed [in part]: Develop the resident person-centered care plan and interventions based on the risk factors identified in the assessment, the condition of the resident's skin, the overall clinical condition and the resident's stated wishes or goals. The care plan must be modified as the resident's condition change, or if current interventions are deemed inadequate.
CONCERN (D)

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

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

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 the necessary treatment and services, based o...

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 the necessary treatment and services, based on the comprehensive assessment and consistent with professional standards of practice, to prevent development of pressure injuries for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for risk of pressure injuries. (Resident #26). The facility did not provide treatment to prevent the development of a potential pressure injury for Resident #26. This failure could place residents at risk for new development or worsening of existing pressure injuries. Findings included: Undated face sheet for Resident #26 reflected an [AGE] year-old admitted to the facility on [DATE], the following diagnosis: Alzheimer's disease, dementia, hypertension, anxiety, abnormal weight loss, lack of coordination, limited range of motion, and dermopathy (a disease of the spine caused by impaired nutrition and blood supply to the vertebrate and tissues. The most current MDS dated [DATE] indicated Resident #26 had a BIMS score of 03 which indicated he had severe cognitive deficit. The MDS indicated Resident #26 required extensive assistance of two person for bed mobility's. The MDS indicated Resident #26 was a high risk for developing a pressure injury but did not have a pressure injury. This MDS indicated Resident #26 was not on a turning a repositioning program, did not have a pressure relieving devise in his chair, but that he did have a pressure relieving mattress. Observation of Resident #26 on 05/24/22 at 12:00 PM revealed he was laying in the right lateral position. The head of his bed was elevated, and he was on a pressure relieving mattress. His heel protectors were lying on top of his chest of drawers in his room. Observation of Resident #26 on 05/24/22 at 3:43 PM revealed he was laying in the right lateral position. The head of his bed was 30 degrees, and his heel protectors were laying on top of his chest of drawers. Observation of Resident # 26 on 05/25/22 at 09:31 AM Resident #26 heel protectors were on top of the chest of drawers in his room. He was laying in the right lateral position. Observation of Resident # 26 on 05/25/22 at 11:31 AM Resident #26 heel protectors were on his chest of drawers in his room. He was laying in the right lateral position. Observation on 5/26/22 at 1:30 PM revealed Resident 26 heel protectors on top of his chest of drawers. He was laying in the supine position. Record review of Resident #26's physician orders revealed the following orders: Apply skin prep to let heel one time a day, (order start date 01/22/22), heel protectors to be worn at all times (order start date 01/22/22). Record review of Resident #26's care plan revealed the following problem: Resident is at risk for pressure ulcers related to immobility. The intervention was to following facility policies/protocols for the prevention /treatment of pressure ulcers. Record review of Resident #26 treatment administration record revealed he had no documentation on his TAR for May or April 0f 2022 for heel protectors to be applied at all times, or for skin prep to be applied to his left heel. Resident # 26 was not interviewable due to severe cognitive impairment. In an interview on 05-26-22 at 2:25 pm LVN C she was asked who was responsible for administering treatments. She stated the charge nurse on each side of the hall. She stated she was not aware of the orders for the skin prep and the heel protectors on Resident #26. She stated he was recently moved to her unit. She stated the order for the skin prep was not entered into the electronic medical record correctly and that is why the treatment did not appear on the treatment administration record. She stated she did not know how she missed seeing the orders for the heel protectors. She stated this oversight by the nurses could result in Resident # 26 developing a facility acquired pressure ulcer. She stated the charge nurse was responsible for monitoring to see that the resident had his heel protectors, and The CNAs were responsible for putting them on the residents. She stated the CNAs would know to put the heel protectors on by looking at the resident's care plan if it had been correctly entered into the care plan when it was ordered. In an interview on 5/25/22 at 2:35 pm CNA stated she cared for Resident # 26. She stated she did not know that Resident #26 was supposed to wear heel protectors. She stated she had not seen them on top of his chest of drawers. In an interview on 05/26/22 at 2:50 pm the DON stated she expected care plan to individualize and accurately document the resident's problems and the care they were to receive. She stated the pressure ulcer prevention measures should have been included in the care plan to guide the staff. She stated it was the MDS nurse and the nurse's responsibility to review and update the care plans. Record review of the facility provided policy and procedure dated March 2020 and titled Pressure Injury Risk Assessment reflected the following in part: Purpose: The purpose of this procedure is to provide guidelines for the structured assessment and identification of residents at risk of developing new pressure injuries or worsening of existing pressure injuries (PIs). Risk factors that increase a resident's susceptibility to develop or to not heal pressure injuries include but are not limited to: Under nutrition, malnutrition, and hydration deficits. Decreased mobility and decreased functional ability, cognitive impairment, resident refusal of care or some aspects, impaired perfusion, oxygenation or circulatory deficit, and advanced age.
CONCERN (D)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain an infection and prevention control program that included, at a minimum, a system for preventing and controlling infections for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #21) reviewed for infection control (incontinent Care). - CNA A failed to wash her or sanitize her hands before and during incontinent care for Resident #21. This deficient practice placed residents at risk for cross contamination and/or acquiring an infection. Findings include: Resident 21: Review of Resident 21's quarterly MDS dated [DATE] revealed Resident #21 was an [AGE] year-old male originally admitted to the facility on [DATE]. His cognitive skills for daily decision making were severely impaired. Resident #12 required extensive assistance with the support of staff for toileting. Resident #12 was always incontinent of bowel and bladder. Review of Resident #21's diagnoses report included the following diagnoses: dementia with behavioral disturbance, edema, and respiratory failure. Review of the Care Plan dated 03/04/22 for Resident #21 revealed the following interventions: Clean peri-area with each incontinence episode, check as required for incontinence. wash, rinse, and dry perineum change clothing PRN after incontinence episodes, monitor/document for signs and symptoms urinary tract infection including pain, burning, blood-tinged urine, cloudiness, no output, deepening of urine color, increased pulse, increased temp, urinary frequency, foul smelling urine, fever, chills, altered mental status, change in behavior, change in eating patterns. During an observation on 05/24/22 at 2:15 PM, CNA A provided incontinent care to Resident #21. CNA'S A and B entered Resident #21's room and donned gloves without washing or sanitizing their hands. CNA B assisted with the transfer . CNA A removed Resident #1's brief, which was soiled with urine. CNA A did not change gloves or wash or sanitize her hands. CNA A then cleaned Resident #21's perianal area with wipes. CNA A did not change gloves or wash or sanitize her hands before placing a clean brief on the resident or adjusting his clean clothing while wearing the same gloves. During an interview on 05/24/22 at 2:25 PM, CNA A stated she normally washes her hands after completing incontinent care and changes her gloves when moving from a dirty area to the clean area. She stated that she was just nervous and didn't remember with the surveyor watching. She stated that she had been trained and checked off on incontinent care by the ADON. During an interview on 05/10/22 at 10:39 AM, the DON stated she expected staff to remove their gloves and either wash or sanitize their hands after touching a dirty area prior to moving to a clean area when performing incontinent care and that all staff had been trained on this procedure. She stated she did not know why CNA A and B failed to perform hand hygiene at the appropriate time. She stated all staff had been instructed on hand washing and infection control. She stated she does competency checks on all CNA'S's yearly and CCNA A and B had passed a competency check. She revealed that she would do additional in-service training with staff regarding Infection Control and Incontinent Care. She stated failure to perform hand hygiene during resident care places the resident at risk for infection. Review of a policy titled Perineal Care dated, February 2018 revealed the following elements in part: The purposes of this procedure are to provide cleanliness and comfort to the resident, to prevent infection and skin irritation, and to observe the resident's skin condition .Steps in the procedure . 2. Wash and dry your hands thoroughly. 6. Put on gloves. 9. Remove gloves and discard into designated container. 10. Wash and dry hands thoroughly. 14. Wash and dry hands thoroughly . Review of the facility policy titled Handwashing/Hand Hygiene dated August 2019, revealed the following elements in part: The facility considers hand hygiene the primary means to prevent the spread of infection. Use an alcohol-based hand rub containing at least 65 % alcohol, or alternatively soap and water: before going from a contaminated body site to a clean site, after contact with a resident's intact skin, after removing gloves. Hand hygiene. Review of the Texas Curriculum for Nurse Aides in Long Term Care Facilities (Third Edition 2000), Procedural Guideline #24-Perineal Care/Incontinent Care Female (with or without catheter), revealed the following elements: B 1. a. Wash hands 6. Wash hands and put on clean gloves for perineal care. 11. Closing steps b. If gloved, remove and discard gloves following facility policy at the appropriate time to avoid environmental contamination. Wash Hands.
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), $101,085 in fines. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 21 deficiencies on record, including 2 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $101,085 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in Texas. Major compliance failures.
  • • Grade F (0/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 0/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Hilltop Park Rehabilitation And's CMS Rating?

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

How is Hilltop Park Rehabilitation And Staffed?

CMS rates HILLTOP PARK REHABILITATION AND CARE CENTER's staffing level at 1 out of 5 stars, which is much below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 66%, which is 20 percentage points above the Texas average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs.

What Have Inspectors Found at Hilltop Park Rehabilitation And?

State health inspectors documented 21 deficiencies at HILLTOP PARK REHABILITATION AND CARE CENTER during 2022 to 2025. These included: 2 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 17 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 Hilltop Park Rehabilitation And?

HILLTOP PARK REHABILITATION AND CARE CENTER is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by PRIORITY MANAGEMENT, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 132 certified beds and approximately 94 residents (about 71% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in WEATHERFORD, Texas.

How Does Hilltop Park Rehabilitation And Compare to Other Texas Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Texas, HILLTOP PARK REHABILITATION AND CARE CENTER's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 2.8, staff turnover (66%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (1 stars) is much below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Hilltop Park Rehabilitation And?

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 Hilltop Park Rehabilitation And Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, HILLTOP PARK REHABILITATION AND CARE CENTER 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 1-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in Texas. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.

Do Nurses at Hilltop Park Rehabilitation And Stick Around?

Staff turnover at HILLTOP PARK REHABILITATION AND CARE CENTER is high. At 66%, the facility is 20 percentage points above the Texas average of 46%. 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 Hilltop Park Rehabilitation And Ever Fined?

HILLTOP PARK REHABILITATION AND CARE CENTER has been fined $101,085 across 1 penalty action. This is 3.0x the Texas average of $34,090. Fines at this level are uncommon and typically indicate a pattern of serious deficiencies, repeated violations, or failure to correct problems promptly. CMS reserves penalties of this magnitude for facilities that pose significant, documented risk to resident health or safety. Families should request specific documentation of what issues led to these fines and what systemic changes have been implemented.

Is Hilltop Park Rehabilitation And on Any Federal Watch List?

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