West Rest Haven

503 Meadow Drive, West, TX 76691 (254) 826-5354
For profit - Corporation 120 Beds Independent Data: November 2025 2 Immediate Jeopardy citations
Trust Grade
16/100
#1162 of 1168 in TX
Last Inspection: June 2025

Inspected within the last 6 months. Data reflects current conditions.

Overview

West Rest Haven in West, Texas has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating poor quality and significant concerns about its care. Ranking #1162 out of 1168 facilities in Texas places it in the bottom half of nursing homes in the state, and #16 out of 17 in McLennan County means only one local option is better. The facility is worsening, with issues increasing from 8 in 2024 to 17 in 2025. Staffing is average with a 3/5 rating and a turnover rate of 46%, which is slightly better than the state average. However, there is less RN coverage than 88% of Texas facilities, raising concerns about adequate supervision. Despite having no fines, which is a positive, the facility has reported critical incidents, including failing to develop personalized care plans for residents and not providing sufficient supervision during transfers, resulting in serious injuries like rib fractures for one resident. Overall, while there are some strengths in staffing and no fines, the increasing number of issues and critical incidents highlight significant weaknesses that families should consider.

Trust Score
F
16/100
In Texas
#1162/1168
Bottom 1%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Worse
8 → 17 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
46% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
✓ Good
No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Texas facilities.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 14 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Texas. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
⚠ Watch
30 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Overall Rating
★★★☆☆
3.0
Staff Levels
★★★★☆
4.0
Care Quality
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 8 issues
2025: 17 issues

The Good

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

Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.

The Bad

1-Star Overall Rating

Below Texas average (2.8)

Significant quality concerns identified by CMS

Staff Turnover: 46%

Near Texas avg (46%)

Higher turnover may affect care consistency

The Ugly 30 deficiencies on record

2 life-threatening
Sept 2025 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0658 (Tag F0658)

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 services provided by the facility met professio...

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 services provided by the facility met professional standards of quality for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for professional standards.The facility failed to ensure RN A provided services that met professional standards of care when she practiced outside her scope of practice and ordered/administered an antibiotic for Resident #1 without obtaining a physician's order on 08/14/25This failure could place residents at risk of inadequate care, possible adverse drug reaction or hospitalization. Findings included:Record Review of admission Record reflected Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis of anxiety, unspecified psychosis, urinary tract infection, and nausea.Record review of Lab Results Report reflected Resident #1 had a urinalysis completed on 08/13/25. The urinalysis results were received on 08/13/25 and showed positive leukocytes (white blood cells indicating the fight of an infection) and blood within the urine indicating further testing was required to determine an antibiotic to correctly treat the Urinary tract infection. Record review of Physicians Order Recap Report for date 08/14/25 reflected an order for Resident #1 to be administered Ceftriaxone Sodium Injection Solution Reconstituted (Ceftriaxone Sodium) Inject 1 gram intramuscularly one time only for UTI (urinary tract infection) for 1 Day Signed by RN A Record review of the medication administration record dated 08/14/25 reflected resident received the medication Ceftriaxone Sodium Injection 1 gram intramuscularly one time for UTI. Signed by RN ARecord review of Nursing Progress Note reflected on 8/14/25 @ 3:11am Fax was received yesterday and forwarded to Dr by LVN B regarding patient UA with 3+ blood & 3+ leukocyte. Ceftriaxone 1gram intramuscularly given from emergency kit to prevent patient from becoming septic/and/or worsening of condition. Signed by RN ARecord review of facility incident investigation reflected that RN A was reported to the Texas state board of nursing for practicing medicine without a license on 8/14/25, by the Director of Nurses. Record review of Inservice documentation reflected All staff were educated on 8/14/25 on Texas scope of practice, and falsifying orders.Record review of Resident #s Quarterly MDS dated [DATE] reflected a BIMS score of 4 indicating Resident #1 had moderate cognitive impairment. The MDS reflected Resident #1 required partial moderate assistance with activities of daily living such as shower/bathing, toileting, upper and lower body dressing. In an interview on 09/16/25 at 11:58 with the DON stated the order that was written by RN A was reading different It did not state RN A had talked to the DR. and she was aware the urinalysis culture from 08/13/25 was still pending from the lab. This led her to further investigate the order. The DON stated she called the medical director who is also the primary Dr for Resident #1, and he confirmed he had not been contacted by RN A and he did not give an order for an injectable antibiotic to be administered. The DON stated she then called RN A, and the nurse confirmed she did not speak to the Dr to receive an order for the medication. The DON stated that RN A stated she felt like the resident could benefit from the medication. Resident #1 was immediately assessed by the DON for any abnormal reactions to the medication. Her RP was notified of the incident as well as her DR who was also the medical director of the facility. The DR gave an order to monitor Resident #1 for 24 hours and report any negative findings to him. The DON stated RN A was immediately suspended and then was terminated the facility on 08/14/25. The DON then educated all nursing staff on scope of practice and falsifying order on 08/14/25. She then reported RN A to the State Board of Nursing on 08/14/25. The DON stated Resident #1 did not have any negative outcomes related to the incident. In an interview on 9/16/25 12:30 RN A stated she had given Resident #1 the Antibiotic injections without calling the DR. She stated she would normally call the dr and obtain an order for any medication, but she was trying to be respectful since the Urinalysis came in the middle of the night. RN A stated the resident was not feeling well, Resident #1 had been treated with Ceftriaxone in the past and she had assumed it would have been ok. RN A stated negative effects for treating residents with unnecessary medications could include reactions to the medication or creation of a superbug in the urine by using the wrong type of antibiotics. In an interview on 9/16/25 at 12:45pm The facility Medical Director stated he expects all nurses to call him for an order prior to administration. He stated he was shocked that a nurse took it upon herself to administer medications without an order. The Medical Director stated there were no ill effects related to the administration of the antibiotic to Resident #1. He stated Resident #1 has had frequent urinary tract infections. He stated the nurse was terminated almost immediately and the staff were educated on calling him or any DR for orders prior to administering any medications. Record review of undated facility policy titled PHARMACY POLICY AND PROCEDURE'S reflected The purpose of this Pharmacy Policy and Procedure Manual is to: Ensure that drugs are prescribed, administered, and handled in this facility in a manner that protects the safety and welfare of the patient. No Medication shall be administered to a patient without a written order by the patients attending physician and if unnecessary.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents were free of any medication errors for 1 of 5 (Res...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents were free of any medication errors for 1 of 5 (Resident #1) residents reviewed for medication errors.The RN ordered and administered an antibiotic Ceftriaxone (an antibiotic used to treat infection) 1gram intramuscularly without a physician's order to Resident #1 on 08/14/25.These failures could place residents at risk of being administered medications that have not been prescribed.Findings included:Record Review of admission Record reflected Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis of anxiety, unspecified psychosis, urinary tract infection, and nausea.Record review of Lab Results Report reflected Resident #1 had a urinalysis completed on 08/13/25. The urinalysis results were received on 08/13/25 and showed positive leukocytes (white blood cells indicating the fight of an infection) and blood within the urine indicating further testing was required to determine an antibiotic to correctly treat the Urinary tract infection. Record review of Physicians Order Recap Report for date 08/14/25 reflected an order for Resident #1 to be administered Ceftriaxone Sodium Injection Solution Reconstituted (Ceftriaxone Sodium) Inject 1 gram intramuscularly one time only for UTI (urinary tract infection) for 1 Day Signed by RN A Record review of the medication administration record dated 08/14/25 reflected resident received the medication Ceftriaxone Sodium Injection 1 gram intramuscularly one time for UTI. Signed by RN ARecord review of Nursing Progress Note reflected on 8/14/25 @ 3:11am Fax was received yesterday and forwarded to Dr by LVN B regarding patient UA with 3+ blood & 3+ leukocyte. Ceftriaxone 1gram intramuscularly given from emergency kit to prevent patient from becoming septic/and/or worsening of condition. Signed by RN ARecord review of facility incident investigation reflected that RN A was reported to the Texas state board of nursing for practicing medicine without a license on 8/14/25, by the Director of Nurses. Record review of Inservice documentation reflected All staff were educated on 8/14/25 on Texas scope of practice, and falsifying orders.Record review of Resident #s Quarterly MDS dated [DATE] reflected a BIMS score of 4 indicating Resident #1 had moderate cognitive impairment. The MDS reflected Resident #1 required partial moderate assistance with activities of daily living such as shower/bathing, toileting, upper and lower body dressing. In an interview on 09/16/25 at 11:58 with the DON stated the order that was written by RN A was reading different It did not state RN A had talked to the DR. and she was aware the urinalysis culture from 08/13/25 was still pending from the lab. This led her to further investigate the order. The DON stated she called the medical director who is also the primary Dr for Resident #1, and he confirmed he had not been contacted by RN A and he did not give an order for an injectable antibiotic to be administered. The DON stated she then called RN A, and the nurse confirmed she did not speak to the Dr to receive an order for the medication. The DON stated that RN A stated she felt like the resident could benefit from the medication. Resident #1 was immediately assessed by the DON for any abnormal reactions to the medication. Her RP was notified of the incident as well as her DR who was also the medical director of the facility. The DR gave an order to monitor Resident #1 for 24 hours and report any negative findings to him. The DON stated RN A was immediately suspended and then was terminated the facility on 08/14/25. The DON then educated all nursing staff on scope of practice and falsifying order on 08/14/25. She then reported RN A to the State Board of Nursing on 08/14/25. The DON stated Resident #1 did not have any negative outcomes related to the incident. In an interview on 9/16/25 12:30 RN A stated she had given Resident #1 the Antibiotic injections without calling the DR. She stated she would normally call the dr and obtain an order for any medication, but she was trying to be respectful since the Urinalysis came in the middle of the night. RN A stated the resident was not feeling well, Resident #1 had been treated with Ceftriaxone in the past and she had assumed it would have been ok. RN A stated negative effects for treating residents with unnecessary medications could include reactions to the medication or creation of a superbug in the urine by using the wrong type of antibiotics. In an interview on 9/16/25 at 12:45pm The facility Medical Director stated he expects all nurses to call him for an order prior to administration. He stated he was shocked that a nurse took it upon herself to administer medications without an order. The Medical Director stated there were no ill effects related to the administration of the antibiotic to Resident #1. He stated Resident #1 has had frequent urinary tract infections. He stated the nurse was terminated almost immediately and the staff were educated on calling him or any DR for orders prior to administering any medications. Record review of undated facility policy titled PHARMACY POLICY AND PROCEDURE'S reflected The purpose of this Pharmacy Policy and Procedure Manual is to: Ensure that drugs are prescribed, administered, and handled in this facility in a manner that protects the safety and welfare of the patient. No Medication shall be administered to a patient without a written order by the patients attending physician and if unnecessary.
Jun 2025 15 deficiencies 2 IJ (2 affecting multiple)
CRITICAL (K)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Someone could have died · This affected multiple residents

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident 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 6 (Residents #36, #39, #43, #15, #10, and #8) of 25 residents reviewed for care plans. A) The facility failed to ensure Residents #36, #39, and #43's care plans addressed the specific individualized method of transfer needed (etc. use of a gait belt, mechanical lift, stand aid) for resident transfers. An Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) was identified on 6/25/2025. The IJ template was provided to the facility on 6/25/2025 at 12:24pm. While the IJ was removed on 6/27/2025, the facility remained out of compliance at a scope of pattern and a severity level of no actual harm with potential for more than minimal harm that was not immediate jeopardy due to the facility's need to evaluate the effectiveness of the corrective systems. B) The facility failed to ensure Resident #15's comprehensive care plan reflected a plan of care for her left-hand contracture (A permanent tightening of the muscles, tendons, skin, and surrounding tissues that causes the joints to shorten and stiffen and a decrease in ROM). C) The facility failed to ensure Resident #10's Comprehensive Care Plan reflected triggers and individualized interventions for her diagnosis of PTSD (condition that develops following a traumatic event characterized by intrusive thoughts about the incident, recurrent distress/anxiety, flashbacks, and avoidance of similar situations). D) The facility failed to ensure Resident #8 comprehensive care plan reflected a plan of care for Resident #8's recurrent UTI's and prophylactic antibiotic use. The failures placed resident at risk of harm, hospitalization, psychosocial distress, and care needs not being identified.Findings included: A) Review of Resident #43's admission MDS assessment dated [DATE] reflected a [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included heart failure, osteoporosis (bone disease which causes weakened bones and increased fractures), depression (sadness), and mild cognitive impairment. In Section GG-Functional Abilities, for the tasks of sit to stand and chair/bed-to-chair transfer, she was coded as needing substantial/maximal assistance. Her BIMS score was a 10, indicating she had mildly impaired cognition. Review of Resident #43's comprehensive MDS assessment dated [DATE] reflected a [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included heart failure, renal failure (where the kidney's lose their ability to filter waste), other fracture, unspecified fracture of fourth cervical vertebra, repeated falls, osteoporosis, depression, and mild cognitive impairment. In Section GG-Functional Abilities, for the tasks of sit to stand and chair/bed-to-chair transfer, she was coded as needing substantial/maximal assistance. Her BIMS was a 14, indicating she was cognitively intact. Review of Resident #43's comprehensive care plan dated last revised 4/3/2025 reflected the resident was care planned for falls and had been care planned for requiring extensive assistance by 1 staff to move between surfaces and as necessary but did not indicate if she needed a gait belt, stand aide machine, mechanical lift, or touch assistance. Review of an incident report dated 4/14/2025 documented by CNA Q revealed a statement, Was taking {Resident #43} to the restroom using the bedrails to stand up as I stood by the wheelchair to help guide her to her chair as she went to turn to sit her ankle twisted, I believe, and she fell over head first and hit the wall. I could not catch her and try to keep her from falling. Review of Resident #43's physical therapy evaluation dated 3/25/2025 revealed that she was a moderate assistance with transfers. In an interview on 6/24/2025 at 2:50pm with Resident #43, she stated that she had a fall a couple of months ago that resulted in her having to have surgery at the hospital. She stated that she required assistance for almost everything from staff and that during her fall CNA Q was helping her get out of bed, and was holding onto the back of her wheelchair, and she was getting herself into it. She stated that her shoe must have gotten stuck, and she fell straight forward into the wall/baseboard and there was blood everywhere (indicating a laceration). She stated that CNA Q did not have her hands on her during the transfer, and that prior to that fall she was able to get out of bed by herself most of the time. She stated that was how they always did transfers, meaning the staff would hold onto the chair for her. In an interview on 6/24/2025 at 3:15pm with CNA Q, she stated that Resident #43 was transferring from her wheelchair into bed, and she (CNA Q) was holding onto the resident's wheelchair while the resident transferred herself into bed. She stated she was not using a gait belt. She stated that the resident was pivoting from the chair toward the bed when her foot got caught on the floor and she fell straight ahead into the wall and CNA Q called for help. She stated that they were doing their transfer the way they always did it, where CNA Q was standing by, and not touching the resident for assistance. Review of Resident #36's comprehensive MDS assessment dated [DATE], reflected an [AGE] year-old male who was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including heart failure, high blood pressure, benign prostatic hyperplasia (noncancerous enlargement of the prostate gland), arthritis (inflammation of the joints), hemiplegia (total or nearly complete paralysis on one side of the body), seizure disorder, neuropathy (nerves do not function normally), and amnesia (loss of memories). His BIMS score was a 14, indicating intact cognition. Review of Resident #36's care plan last revised 3/7/2025 indicated he was a high risk for falls related to balance problems and hemiplegia. He was care planned for using the stand aide assistive device to maximize independence with transferring, but it was not indicated if a gait belt was to be used or if staff were to provide touch assistance during transfers. During an interview and observation on 6/25/25 at 2:49 PM with Resident #36 and their family, the resident stated that CNA Q would not use a gait belt, and she would just grip under his arms when getting him off the shower chair, and when transferring him out of his recliner and into the stand-aid she would pull on his belt loop/belt on his pants. He stated that recently the CNAs would have a gait belt around their waists when they would enter his room, but would not always use it, and they would still pull on his belt loops to transfer him into the stand aide. During an observation on 6/25/25 at 3:17 PM with CNA V revealed she informed Resident #36 of what she was going to be doing. The aide washed her hands and put on gloves. She did not use a gait belt when transferring the resident out of his recliner and into the stand aid. In an interview on 6/25/25 at 3:20 PM with CNA V she stated they were to put a gait belt on the residents for transfers. She stated she should have gotten a gait belt for the transfer, but she did not. She pulled out a slip of paper which indicated what kind of assist the residents she was assigned to were to receive, but Resident #36 was not on her list. She stated a negative outcome could be that the resident could fall. CNA V stated she was handed a gait belt by her nursing supervisor but was provided no instruction on how to use it, nor was she asked if she knew how to use one. Record review of Resident #39's comprehensive MDS assessment dated [DATE], reflected a [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including anemia (not having enough healthy red blood cells to carry oxygen to the body's tissues), high cholesterol, arthritis (swelling and tenderness of one or more joints), depression (sadness), cataracts (clouding of the lends in the eye), mild cognitive impairment, vitamin D deficiency, and legal blindness. Resident #39 had a BIMS score of 11 which indicated she had moderately impaired cognition. Review of Resident #39's care plan dated last revised 5/14/2024 revealed that the resident required limited assistance by 1 staff using a stand aid to move between surfaces as necessary but did not indicate if a gait belt was to be used or if staff were to provide touch assistance during transfers. In an observation on 06/25/25 at 10:34 AM CNA O was observed assisting Resident #39 to transfer using the stand aid to get into bed. CNA O was not using a gait belt to assist the resident during the transfer, nor was the resident wearing slip resistant footwear, she was wearing fuzzy socks. A gait belt was observed lying on the shelf of the resident's bookcase. In an interview on 06/25/25 at 11:19 AM with CNA O, she stated that she knew what kind of assistance Resident #39 required based on the CNA assignment sheet at the nurse's station. She stated that when using the stand aid, the CNAs were also supposed to be supporting the residents by using a gait belt, but she had forgotten to use the gait belt because she was answering the call light for one of her coworkers who was tending to another resident at that time. She stated without the use of a gait belt and slip resistant footwear the resident could fall and injure themselves. In an interview on 6/25/25 at 3:20 PM with CNA V she stated that they were basically to always put a gait belt on the residents for transfers. She stated that she should have gotten a gait belt for the transfer, but she did not. She pulled out a slip of paper which indicated what kind of assist the residents she was assigned to were, but Resident #36 was not on her list. She stated that a negative outcome could be that the resident could fall. During a follow-up interview with CNA V, she stated that she was handed a gait belt by her nursing supervisor but was provided no instruction on how to use it, nor was she asked if she knew how to use one. In an interview on 6/24/2025 at 3:28pm with the DOR he stated that Resident #43 was a contact guard assist at the time of her fall, meaning that a staff member was to have had a hand on her for assistance. In an interview on 6/24/2025 at 3:45pm with the DON she stated that Resident #43 needed moderate assistance with transfers and that meant they needed hands on assistance. Her expectation was that for all transfers with Resident #43 staff had hands on her for assistance. Review of Resident #15's face sheet dated 06/26/2025 reflected a [AGE] year-old female admitted on [DATE] with the following diagnoses: psychotic disorder with delusions (characterized by unshakable belief in something that is not true or based on reality), hemiplegia and hemiparesis (one-sided paralysis) following cerebral infarction (the pathologic process that results in an area of necrotic tissue in the brain. It is caused by disrupted blood supply (ischemia) and restricted oxygen supply (hypoxia).) Review of Resident #15's annual MDS assessment dated [DATE] reflected she was assessed to have a BIMS score 14 indicating she was cognitively intact. Resident #15 was assessed to have functional limitations in range of motion on one side for her upper and lower extremities. Review of Resident #15's comprehensive care plan reflected a focus area for ADL self-care performance deficit related to hemiplegia to left side initiated on 08/07/2023. Interventions included Contractures: The resident has contractures of the left upper extremity. Provide skin care on shower days and PRN (as needed). Further review of her care plan reflected no other entries or plans for her left-hand contracture. Observation on 06/24/2025 at 10:00 AM revealed Resident #15 up in wheelchair in room. Resident #15 was observed to have a left-hand contracture with her fingers fixed into a closed position toward her palm. No palm guard or device was observed in her left hand. Review of definition of contracture in the [NAME] dictionary reflected a condition of shortening and hardening of muscles, tendons, or other tissue, often leading to restricted joint mobility. Observation and interview on 06/26 2025 at 1:00 PM revealed Resident #15 in her room. Resident #15 was observed to have two therapy carrots, one on the floor and the other on a shelf. (The therapy carrot is an inflatable cone-shaped orthosis used for hand contractures. It gradually reduces sever contractures and provides painless positioning for severely contracted hands.) Resident #15 stated she could not open her left hand and using her right hand tried to open her left hand. Resident #15's left hand opened slightly to reveal long fingernails on her contracted fingers (middle finger to pinky finger). Resident #15 stated they did not really help her with her hand or trim her fingernails. Resident #15 further stated the hand these things (pointing to a therapy carrot) that they were supposed to put in her hand, but the staff rarely got around to it. In an interview on 06/26/2025 at 1:23 PM the DOR stated that Resident #15 was currently on therapy services for strengthening and stated Resident #15 was not on services for contracture management. The DOR stated Resident #15 was discharged from services on 01/29/2025. He stated a contracture management plan was not given to restorative in writing. He stated they just discussed it verbally in the morning meetings. The DOR further stated he did not provide the nursing staff with discharge notes. In an interview on 06/26/2025 at 1:45 PM the DON stated, after handing the surveyor a restorative plan for Resident #15 dated 07/28/2024, that Resident #15 was not currently getting restorative care for her left-hand contracture and should be. She further stated her contracture management was not on her care plan, and it should be. The DON stated Resident #15 should not have come off of restorative care but stayed on for contracture management to ensure her contracture did not worsen. Review of Resident #15's Restorative: hand program dated 07/28/2024 reflected the plan was active and included Restorative: Hand Program for LUE 1) Hygiene to hand, dry well. File and Trim Nails; 2) PR0M/AR0M to each joint of finger, hand and wrist joint of hand; 3) Assist resident to place hand on flat surface and stretch fingers while lightly pressing down X 10 reps; 4) Assist resident to squeeze and release ball X 10 reps; 5) Apply soft splint to hand. In an interview on 06/26/2025 at 2:00 PM CNA R stated Resident #15's left hand was contracted, and she has a carrot to put in her hand and they use it when they think about it. She stated there was no plan in her medical record or anywhere to document the use of the carrot or when they are supposed to put it in her hand. She stated since Resident #15 was not diabetic that any staff can trim her fingernails and that fingernails are usually done on the weekends. In an interview on 06/27/2025 at 12:34 PM the Administrator stated it was her expectation that residents with contractures should be seen by therapy then sent to restorative for maintenance. She stated the resident should remain on restorative and if not being seen by restorative the resident should be getting treatment from floor staff and should have a plan of care for contracture management. She stated failure of staff not doing this could result in worsening of the contracture and other complications. Review of the undated facility policy Plan of care for contracture management reflected Goals: First you want to reduce the risk of development/progression of contractures of fingers, hands or wrist. Improve range of motion of fingers hands or wrist. Improve hand hygiene. Approaches: Hygiene to right/left hand. Dry hands well and file and trim nails as needed. PROM/AROM to each joint of finger hand and wrist joint of right/left hand. Assist resident to place hand on flat surface and stretch fingers while lightly pressing down. Assist resident to squeeze and release ball. Apply soft splint to right/left hand. Review of Resident #10's face sheet, printed on 06/27/25, reflected a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her diagnoses included acute respiratory failure with hypoxia (not enough oxygen in the blood), post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), schizoaffective disorder (a mental health disorder that is marked by a combination of schizophrenia symptoms, such as hallucinations or delusions, and mood disorder symptoms, such as depression or mania), and low back pain. Review of Resident #10's quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE], reflected a BIMS score of 12 which indicated moderately impaired cognition. The MDS reflected Resident #10 had a diagnosis of PTSD. Review of Resident #10's comprehensive care plan, revised on 12/11/24, reflected in part, [Resident #10] has lived a long life and has potentially suffered a traumatic event as some time in her life. Goal - [Resident #10] will remail calm/stress free during their stay in the facility. Interventions - Always approach resident calmly and speak clearly by announcing what is happening prior to performing task; Do not sneak up behind and try not to startle resident; Get to know resident and his/her preferences or triggers; Given resident choices when possible . There were no triggers identified. Review of Resident #10's Psychiatric Subsequent Assessment, dated 06/13/25, reflected a previous mental health diagnosis included PTSD. During an observation and an attempted interview on 06/25/25 at 09:30 AM, Resident #10 was observed in her bed. She stated she was comfortable, but her feet hurt. When asked about trauma, she stated she just wanted to rest, and she closed her eyes. In an interview on 06/27/25 at 10:33 AM, the Social Worker stated she asked residents about trauma when she completed the resident's social history. She stated she completed the care plans for residents with trauma. She stated she did not remember if Resident #10 had a diagnosis of PTSD. After looking into the electronic medical record, she stated she did not have any information about PTSD or triggers on the social history from when the resident was admitted . She stated if triggers were not on the care plan, staff could do something to upset or scare the resident and put them back in the situation that caused their trauma. In an interview on 06/27/25 at 10:49 AM, the DON stated she expected care plans to be accurate, individualized, and completed timely. She stated the Social Worker was responsible for completing some care plans including trauma related care plans. She stated if triggers were identified, staff would be able to avoid retriggering the resident. The DON stated she tried to monitor the care plans, and the care plans were reviewed in the quarterly IDT meetings. The DON stated if the care plan was not accurate or individualized, the resident may not receive appropriate care or support. In an interview on 06/27/25 at 12:40 PM, the Assistant Administrator stated she expected the care plans to be individualized, accurate, and completed timely. She stated the residents may not have their needs met if care plans were inaccurate. D) Review of Resident #8 face sheet dated 06/27/2025 reflected a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the following diagnoses acute pulmonary edema (fluid on the lungs), urinary tract infection (bladder infection) and congestive heart failure (heart failure). Review of Resident #8's quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] reflected Resident #8 was assessed to have a BIMS score of 11 indicating moderate cognitive impairment. Resident #8 was assessed to always be incontinent of urine. Resident #8 was assessed to not have any infections and was assessed to be on antibiotics. Review of Resident #8's consolidated physician's orders dated 06/26/2025 reflected an order dated 08/15/2024 Keflex 500mg give one capsule by mouth at bedtime for prevention. Review of Resident #8's UTI's from 08/15/2024 through 06/26/2025 reflected she was diagnosed with a UTI on three separate occasions: -01/10/2025 reflected an individual resident infection surveillance report dated 01/08/2025. Symptoms listed: AMS (altered mental status) Culture: Yes; Organism: Pseudomonas Aeruginosa >100,00 CFU/ml. Medication Cipro 500 mg BID x 7 days. Further review of the infection surveillance report reflected no other symptoms were documented. -04/25/2025 reflected an individual resident infection surveillance report dated 04/25/2025. Symptoms listed: increased confusion: Culture yes: organism Enterococcus faecium 50-100,00 CFU/ml. Medication: Amoxicillin 500 mg TID x 10 days. -05/29/2025 reflected an individual resident infection surveillance report dated 05/28/2025. Symptoms listed: Resident not feeling well. antibiotics orders for ciprofloxacin HCL 250 mg one tablet two times daily for 7 days. Review of Resident #8's culture report reflected Pseudomonas Aeruginosa >100,00 CFU/ml. Review of Resident #8's comprehensive care plan initiated on 12/20/2023 and last revised on 04/23/2025 reflected no entries related to urinary tract infections or antibiotic use. In an interview on 06/27/2025 at 11:00 am the DON stated residents should have care plans for all UTIs and if a resident was on routine antibiotics a care plan should be done with a plan for monitoring for SE. She stated the facility has been without a MDS coordinator and they have just hired one moving forward she stated they will ensure the development of care plans to ensure the residents receive appropriate care to resolve UTI's. Review of the facility's undated policy Resident Care Plan reflected 1. To develop a comprehensive care plan for each resident that includes measurable short-term and long-term objectives and timetables to meet a resident's medical, nursing, mental and psychosocial needs that are identified in the comprehensive assessment . 2. A comprehensive care plan should be oriented towards . 5) Applying current standards of practice in the care planning process. 6) Evaluating treatment of measurable objectives, timetables, and outcomes of care.7) Respecting the resident's right to decline treatment. 8) Offering alternative treatments, as applicable. 9) Using an appropriate interdisciplinary approach to care plan development to improve the resident's functional abilities. 10) Involving resident, resident's family, and other resident representatives as appropriate. 11) Assessing and planning for care to meet the resident's medical, nursing, mental and psychosocial needs. 12) Involving the direct care staff with the care planning process relating to the resident's expected outcomes. 13) Addressing additional care planning areas that are relevant to meeting the resident's need in the long-term care setting . The assistant ADM and DON were notified on 6/25/2025 at 12:15pm that an Immediate Jeopardy had been identified due to the above failure and an IJ template was provided. The following POR was accepted on 6/26/2025 at 12:35pm: On 06/25/2025 the surveyor provided an Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) Template notification that the Regulatory Services has determined that the condition at the facility constitutes an immediate threat to resident health and safety. The notification of the Immediate Threat states as follows: F656- The facility must develop and implement 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. The facility failed to ensure Resident #43's care plan addressed the specific individualized method of transfer needed (etc. use of a gait belt, mechanical lift, stand aid) for resident transfers. Action: All resident care plans will be updated and individualized with specific patient care needs. MDS Coordinator will review all care plans and individualize. Director of Nursing will monitor and assist as needed, and update with 72 hours. Care Plans will be individualized to the resident's specific needs. Start Date: 06-25-2025 Completion Date: 06-25-2025 Responsible: Director of Nursing Action: Assistant Administrator In-Serviced Director of Nursing and MDS Coordinator on the importance of updating and individualizing the care plans within 72 hours. Informed them this would be discussed during morning meeting and if there were any status changes or new orders, the care plan would need to be updated within 72 hours. Assistant Administrator or Administrator will do a visible audit to ensure care plans are being updated, once a week for four weeks, then monthly for 6 weeks, then quarterly thereafter. Care Plan policy will be updated to reflect all new practices adopted. Start Date: 06-25-2025 Completion Date: 06-25-2025 Responsible: Administrator Action: The MDS Coordinator will be responsible for reviewing the most recent comprehensive assessments to ensure they match the individualized resident care plan. The DON or ADON will monitor for accuracy. Start Date: 06-25-2025 Completion Date: 06-25-2025 Responsible: Director of Nursing The surveyor monitored the POR on 6/27/2025 as follows: Review of Resident #36's care plan last updated on 6/25/2025 revealed that his care plan was changed to The resident uses stand aide assistive device with gait belt to maximize independence with transferring. Review of Resident #39's care plan last updated on 6/25/25 revealed that her care plan was changed to The resident requires assistance by 1 staff using stand aid and gait belt to move between surfaces as necessary. Review of Resident #43's care plan last updated on 6/25/25 revealed that her care plan was changed to The resident requires extensive assistance by 1 staff with stand aide and gait belt to move between surfaces and as necessary. Review of a list of residents was provided to the state surveyors on 6/27/25, revealing that all residents had their care plans reviewed and updated if applicable. Review of the facility's updated policy titled; Resident Care Plan revealed the following updates: Addressing additional care planning areas that are relevant to meeting the resident's need in the long-term care setting. Any changes in condition that are reported by the nursing staff will be updated within 72 hours of notification. Review of an in-service titled Care Plan Updates In-Service conducted by the ADM on 6/25/25, revealed that the DON and MDS coordinator were counseled on the timely updates of care plans to be individualized, the importance of recognizing when a resident had a change in their specific care needs and method of transfer had changed. It reflected those things would be discussed during each morning meeting held and that care plans needed to be updated accordingly and timely, if needed. The signatures of the ADM, DON, and MDS were reflected. In an interview on 6/27/2025 at 12:29 PM with the DON she stated she had the nursing supervisors to pass out the gait belts to all staff and placed them at nurses' station to ensure a gait belt was available to each CNA. She stated the IDT would bring up any issues in morning meetings to ensure access to gait belts. She stated she had the nursing supervisors print out current transfer status and had each resident assessed and care plans were updated to reflect resident specific transfers. She stated that she would be responsible for monitoring the accuracy of resident assessments and care plans. In an interview on 6/27/2025 at 12:40 PM with the ADM she stated that she in-serviced the DON and MDS Coordinator on the importance of updating and individualizing resident care plans within 72 hours. She informed them it would be discussed during morning meetings and if there were any status changes or new orders, the care plan would need to be updated within 72 hours. She stated she would do a visible audit to ensure care plans were being updated once a week for four weeks, then monthly for 6 weeks, then quarterly thereafter. She further stated the care plan policy was updated to reflect the new procedures. In an interview on 6/27/2025 at 12:47 PM with the MDS Coordinator she stated that she was going to be responsible for reviewing all resident's most recent comprehensive MDS assessments and would ensure that the comprehensive care plan would reflect the same. She stated that she recently received in-service training from the ADM regarding this. Review of the facility's updated on 6/27/2025 Care Plan policy revealed, A comprehensive care plan should be oriented towards managing risk factors to the extent possible or indicating the limits of such interventions. Involving the direct care staff with the care planning process relating to the resident's need in the long-term care setting. The ADM and DON were notified the IJ was removed on 06/27/25 at 3:30PM. However, the facility remained out of compliance at a scope of pattern and a severity level of no actual harm with potential for more than minimal harm that was not immediate jeopardy due to the facility's need to evaluate the effectiveness of the corrective systems.
CRITICAL (K)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Someone could have died · This affected multiple residents

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

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 each resident received adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents for 4 (Residents #19, #36, #39, and #43) of 24 residents reviewed for accidents and hazards. A) The facility failed on [DATE] to ensure Resident #43 was provided contact guard assistance during sit to stand transfers which resulted in an actual fall which resulted in 9th, 10th and 11th right rib fractures, C4 spinous process fracture, T10 compression fracture, and a frontal scalp hematoma/laceration. An Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) was identified on [DATE]. The IJ template was provided to the facility on [DATE] at 6:00pm. While the IJ was removed on [DATE], the facility remained out of compliance at a scope of pattern and a severity level of no actual harm with potential for more than minimal harm that was not immediate jeopardy due to the facility's need to evaluate the effectiveness of the corrective systems. B) The facility failed to on [DATE] and [DATE] ensure there was appropriate assistance provided to Residents #19, #36, and #39 while utilizing the stand aide (mechanical lift to assist the resident into a standing position). These failures could place residents at risk for falls, injuries, hospitalization, or death. Findings include: A) Resident #43 Review of Resident #43's comprehensive MDS assessment dated [DATE] reflected a [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included other fracture, unspecified fracture of fourth cervical vertebra, repeated falls, osteoporosis, and mild cognitive impairment. In Section GG-Functional Abilities, for the tasks of sit to stand and chair/bed-to-chair transfer, she was coded as needing substantial/maximal assistance. Her BIMS was a 14, indicating she was cognitively intact. Review of Resident #43's comprehensive care plan dated last revised [DATE] reflected the resident was care planned for falls and had been care planned for requiring extensive assistance by 1 staff to move between surfaces and as necessary. Review of Resident #43's physical therapy evaluation dated [DATE] revealed that she was a moderate assistance with transfers. Review of an incident report dated [DATE] documented by CNA Q revealed a statement, Was taking {Resident #43} to the restroom using the bedrails to stand up as I stood by the wheelchair to help guide her to her chair as she went to turn to sit her ankle twisted, I believe and she fell over head first and hit the wall. I could not catch her and try to keep her from falling. Review of Resident #43's hospital record dated [DATE] revealed: 9th, 10th and 11th right rib fractures, C4 spinous process fracture, T10 compression fracture, and a frontal scalp hematoma/laceration. In an interview on [DATE] at 2:50pm with Resident #43 she stated she had a fall a couple of months ago that resulted in her having to have surgery at the hospital. She stated that she required assistance for almost everything from staff and that during her fall CNA Q was helping her get out of bed, and was holding onto the back of her wheelchair, and she was getting herself into it. She stated that her shoe must have gotten stuck, and she fell straight forward into the wall/baseboard and there was blood everywhere. She stated that CNA Q did not have her hands on her during the transfer, and that prior to that fall she was able to get out of bed by herself most of the time. She stated that was how they always did transfers, meaning the staff would hold onto the chair for her. In an interview on [DATE] at 3:15pm with CNA Q she stated that Resident #43 was transferring from her wheelchair into bed, and she (CNA Q) was holding onto the resident's wheelchair while the resident transferred herself into bed. She stated she was not using a gait belt. She stated that the resident was pivoting from the chair toward the bed when her foot got caught on the floor and she fell straight ahead into the wall and CNA Q called for help, the nurse assessed the resident, began neurological checks, and called the EMS. She stated that they were doing their transfer the way they always did it, where CNA Q was standing by, and not touching the resident for assistance. In an interview on [DATE] at 3:28pm with the DOR he stated that Resident #43 was a contact guard assist at the time of her fall, meaning that a staff member was to have a hand on her for assistance. In an interview on [DATE] at 3:45pm with the DON she stated that Resident #43 needed moderate assistance with transfers and that meant they need hands on assistance. Her expectation was that for all transfers with Resident #43 staff have hands on her for assistance. Review of CNA Q's in-service record revealed she was last in-serviced on resident fall prevention on [DATE]. B) Resident #19 Record review of Resident #19's comprehensive MDS assessment dated [DATE] reflected an [AGE] year-old female who admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including osteoporosis (bone disease which causes weakened bones and increased fractures), muscle weakness, lack of coordination, and a history of falling. In Section GG-Functional Abilities, for the tasks of sit to stand and chair/bed-to-chair transfer, she was coded as needing supervision or touching assistance. She had a BIMS score of 12, which indicated she had moderately impaired cognition. Review of Resident #19's care plan revealed she had limited physical mobility due to weakness. She was care planned for being on diuretic therapy and had an intervention for being monitored for an increased risk of falls. She was care planned for being a moderate risk for falls related to mobility abnormality, lack of coordination, muscle weakness, falls. Interventions included to make sure the resident's call light was within reach, follow facility fall protocol. Review of Resident #19's weekly skin assessment dated [DATE] revealed a note that stated, Resident has multiple purple bruises to bilateral arms. Review of Resident #19's weekly skin assessment dated [DATE] revealed the answer to question 1. Skin intact with no visible injury, discoloration, or change from previous assessment was marked as (a. Yes). Further review revealed there were no notes indicating the resident still had bruising. In an observation and interview on [DATE] at 1:34 PM with Resident # 19 she stated the large bruises on her arm near her left elbow crease was from the metal nut that held the bars together on the stand aid. She stated her arm hit the nut on the stand aid and bruised her and she told her CNA, (CNA D), and sometimes a nurse would look at it. She stated sometimes the CNA's used a gait belt but not all the time. She stated the RN had looked at the bruises but there was not much they could do about it. In an interview on [DATE] at 1:45 PM with CNA M she stated that Resident # 19 had told her the bruising on her arm was from the stand aid and she (CNA M) had verbally told her charge RN, but at that time she was unable to say which charge RN it was, just that it was whichever one was working at the time of the report. In an observation on [DATE] at 1:10pm of the 2 of 2 stand aides in the shower room of station 2 revealed 3 of the 4 nuts/bolts that protruded from the outsides of the stand aide machine (where a resident would reach up to begin grabbing onto the bars) were missing their plastic caps. In an interview on [DATE] at 1:47 PM with Nurse Supervisor A she stated that Resident # 19 took a blood thinner and bruised easily and that she had not been informed that the resident was being bruised by the stand aid. When shown the stand aid nut cover on 1 of the 4 nuts, she stated that they could put in a maintenance request for them to order more covers to prevent more residents from being bruised or cut. In an interview on [DATE] at 1:49PM with the MS he stated he would get the handwritten maintenance requests from the nurses' stations but that no one had ever requested the plastic caps to be replaced before. He stated it was maintenances responsibility to inspect the stand aid machines to look for wear and tear on the kneepads, seat pads, and they would replace the bolts, but it was not their practice to look at the plastic caps. Resident #36 Review of Resident #36's comprehensive MDS assessment dated [DATE], reflected an [AGE] year-old male who was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses arthritis (inflammation of the joints), hemiplegia (total or nearly complete paralysis on one side of the body neuropathy (nerves do not function normally), and amnesia (loss of memories). His BIMS score was a 14, indicating intact cognition. Review of Resident #36's care plan indicated he was a high risk for falls related to balance problems and hemiplegia. He was care planned for using the stand aide assistive device to maximize independence with transferring. During an interview an observation on [DATE] at 2:49 PM with Resident #36 and their family, the resident stated that CNA Q would not use a gait belt and she would just grip under his arms when getting him off the shower chair, and when transferring him out of his recliner and into the stand-aid she would pull on his belt loop/belt on his pants. He stated that recently the CNA's would have a gait belt around their waists when they would enter his room, but would not always use it, and would still pull on his belt loops to transfer him into the stand aid. During an observation on [DATE] at 3:17 PM with CNA V she informed the resident of what she was going to be doing, washed her hands, and put on gloves. She did not use a gait belt when transferring the resident out of his recliner and into the stand aid. In an interview on [DATE] at 3:20 PM with CNA V she stated they were to put a gait belt on the residents for transfers. She stated she should have gotten a gait belt for the transfer, but she did not. She pulled out a slip of paper which indicated what kind of assist the residents she was assigned to were to receive, but Resident #36 was not on her list. She stated a negative outcome could be that the resident could fall. CNA V stated she was handed a gait belt by her nursing supervisor but was provided no instruction on how to use it, nor was she asked if she knew how to use one. Resident #39 Record review of Resident #39's comprehensive MDS assessment dated [DATE], reflected a [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including arthritis (swelling and tenderness of one or more joints), , cataracts (clouding of the lends in the eye), mild cognitive impairment, and legal blindness. Resident #39 had a BIMS score of 11 which indicated she had moderately impaired cognition. Review of Resident #39's care plan revealed the resident required limited assistance by 1 staff using stand aid to move between surfaces as necessary. During an observation on [DATE] at 10:34 AM CNA O was observed assisting Resident #39 transfer using the stand aide to get into bed. CNA O was not using a gait belt to assist the resident during the transfer, nor was the resident wearing slip resistant footwear, she was wearing fuzzy socks. A gait belt was observed lying on the shelf of the resident's bookcase. In an interview on [DATE] at 11:19 AM with CNA O, she stated she knew what kind of assistance Resident #39 required based on the CNA assignment sheet at the nurse's station. She stated when using the stand aid, the CNAs are also supposed to be supporting the resident's by using a gait belt, she had forgotten to use the gait belt because she was answering the call light for one of her coworkers who was tending to another resident at that time. She stated without the use of a gait belt and slip resistant footwear the resident could fall and injure themselves. Review of the Stand Assist Assembly and Operation Manual dated [DATE] revealed that plastic caps were a part of the pictured fasteners and tools that came with the machine. Review of the facility's undated Transfer Activities Assisting Resident to Transfer to Chair or Wheelchair policy reflected under 'Purpose': To assist the resident to transfer from bed to chair, toilet, or other surface safely or without trauma or avoidable pain. Review of the facility's undated Resident Falls Protocol policy reflected under 'Fall Prevention': Assist residents with ADLs as needed. Inservice staff as needed over Fall Prevention. The assistant ADM and DON were notified on [DATE] at 5:45pm that an Immediate Jeopardy had been identified due to the above failure and an IJ template was provided. The following POR was accepted on [DATE] at 4:44pm: On [DATE] an abbreviated survey was initiated at facility. On [DATE] the surveyor provided an Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) Template notification that the Regulatory Services has determined that the condition at the facility constitutes an immediate threat to resident health and safety. The notification of Immediate Threat states as follows: F689 - The facility must ensure each resident receives adequate supervision and assistant devices to prevent accidents. The facility failed to ensure Resident #43 was provided contact guard assistance during sit to stand transfers with resulted in an actual fall with injuries including multiple rib fractures, a closed nondisplaced fracture of the fourth cervical vertebrae, and a frontal scalp laceration that required sutures on [DATE]. Action: All nursing staff verbally and by in-service were made aware of how to find a resident's transfer status and level of assistance needed. Start Date: 06-25-2025 Completion Date: 06-26-2025 Responsible: Administrative Nursing and Training Coordinator Action: Nursing Administration ensured there are adequate gait belts available on each station for each CNA. Charge nurses will show CNAs at the beginning of each shift where they can locate a gait belt and when to properly use one. Nursing Supervisors distributed a gait belt to each nursing staff member on duty to use and showed them on their group assignment how to locate a resident's transfer status. The Training Coordinator in-serviced all nursing staff on proper transfers and the use of all transfer devices in the facility. Training will be completed upon hire, yearly and as needed for retention to ensure ongoing proper use of equipment and in-services will be provided to all nursing staff. Charge nurses will be responsible for educating/in-servicing agency staff to ensure they are aware of a resident's level of assistance and will ensure proper transfers and use of all transfer devices in the facility. A test will be required at the end of each in-service for proof of retention. Start Date: 06-25-2025 Completion Date: 06-26-2025 Responsible: Administrative Nursing and Training Coordinator Action: In-Service on proper transfers for nursing staff and neglect for all staff. Training coordinator is a Licensed Vocational Nurse as well as a NATCEP Instructor, as well as 40 years as a LVN at our facility. Her NATCEP was completed on 02-14-2024 and skills review was completed on 05-10-2024. In-service will be completed quarterly and as needed for retention; a test will be required at the end of each in-service for proof of retention. Upon hire, quarterly and as needed for retention, to ensure ongoing proper transfers and education on neglect in-services will be provided to all staff; a test will be required at the end of each in-service for proof of retention. All staff, including agency will be required to attend all in-services and will be checked off quarterly for retention, a test will be required at the end of each in-service for proof of retention. Start Date: 06-25-2025 Completion Date: 06-26-2025 Responsible: Training Coordinator Action: New protocol in place to complete an interdisciplinary post fall investigation within 72 hours on each fall in this facility. Form will be completed by nursing supervisor and kept electronically on our shared computer drive that is accessible on any computer in our facility. The Interdisciplinary post fall investigation will be reviewed at the following QAPI meeting. Administrative nursing will follow up on all interdisciplinary post fall investigations every 6 months. Administrator will monitor investigation is being performed within 72 hours. Pending outcome of investigation will warrant if further action is needed. Start Date: 06-25-2025 Completion Date: 06-25-2025 Responsible: Director of Nursing Action: QAPI Committee met to discuss new implementations and new QAPI processes of reviewal of the interdisciplinary post fall investigation monthly at each meeting. All members agreed form was a good addition and to implement. DOR suggested that someone from therapy coordinate with the training coordinator and when we hire a new CNA, a therapist would demonstrate on the proper use transfer aides. Attendees of QAPI: Assistant Administrator, Director of Nursing, Assistant Director of Nursing, Director of Rehab, MDS, Business Office Manager, Dietary Manager, Social Services, Environmental Services Manager and Activity Director. Dr. [name] met with Assistant Administrator and Director of Nursing separately due to not being able to attend the QAPI meeting to go over his expectations of the importance of recognizing neglect and investigating falls appropriately. Start Date: 06-25-2025 Completion Date: 06-25-2025 Responsible: Administrator Action: Director of Rehab will coordinate with Training Coordinator on all new hires for CNAs to train for proper use of transfer aides. To ensure completion added to Nurse Aide performance record check off list for new hires. A therapist from the therapy department will demonstrate the proper use of transfer aides with the new hires. The new hire will then demonstrate back the proper use of transfer aides. This will be checked off in their new hire packet. Start Date: 06-25-2025 Completion Date: 06-25-2025 Responsible: Training Coordinator Action: Charge Nurse will be responsible for ensuring agency staff will be made aware of the resident's level of assistance and proper use of transfer devices. Form will be signed off showing they have been educated on the different levels of assistance and proper use of transfer devices. We will in-service agency quarterly and as needed for retention. All care plans will be updated to be individualized with their specific transfer needs and levels of assistance needed. A detailed legend that describes the definition of each level of care will be posted explaining different levels of assistance required at all CNA monitors and nursing monitors at all stations. Start Date: 06-25-2025 Completion Date: 06-25-2025 Responsible: Nursing Supervisors The surveyor monitored the POR on [DATE] as follows: An observation on [DATE] at 9:15 AM nurses' station #2 was observed to have multiple gait belts lying on the countertop, and majority of the nursing staff were observed wearing a gait belt draped around them or on their person. A CNA assignment sheet dated [DATE] revealed what type of assistance the residents on the halls required and if a gait belt was required for their transfers. An observation on [DATE] at 11:04 AM CNA M assisted Resident #43 out of her bed and onto the stand aid. She washed her hands and then applied gloves to her hands. The CNA put shoes on the resident. CNA M put a gait belt around the resident's waistline and tightened it, she checked with the resident to make sure it was not too tight. She informed the resident where to grab the stand aid and lifted the resident's bed to help her into the stand aid, they then helped lower her into her wheelchair. The resident's knees were not buckling, there were no signs of stress, and she assisted the aide in getting herself into the stand aid. An observation on [DATE] at 11:55 AM PTA was assisting Resident #36 into his w/c from his recliner. PTA was using a gait belt that was placed at the resident's waistline, and the PTA assisted the resident out of his recliner and the resident pivoted to sit down into his wheelchair. The resident appeared steady with no weakness in his knees and was wearing tennis shoes. An observation on [DATE] at 1:25 PM revealed CNA K and CNA L transferred Resident # 100 from the wheelchair to the bed using the mechanical lift. The CNAs explained the procedure to the resident before they initiated the transfer and throughout the transfer. The CNAs adjusted the lift in front of the resident and connected the purple loops on the sling to the lift. CNA L pushed the buttons to raise the resident and CNA K held the handle on the back of the sling and steadied the resident. When the resident was at the proper height, the CNAs adjusted the position of the lift until the resident was properly centered over the bed. They lowered the resident on to the bed then disconnected the sling from the lift. The CNAs moved the lift away from the bed and positioned the resident for comfort. In an interview on [DATE] at 11:17 AM with CNA M she stated that she was in-serviced on using a gait belt during all transfers for residents who were indicated as needing a gait belt on their CNA assignment sheet. They report ANE to the ADM or charge RN or the DON. She stated they could locate a gait belt at the nurse's station at the beginning of each shift. In an interview on [DATE] at 11:18 AM with Nurse Supervisor A she stated that she was taught how to implement gait belts during transfers for patient safety, during the in-services they went over types of ANE and to report it to their ADM, or their assistant ADM, or the DON. She stated that the CNA's were to pick up a gait belt at the RN station at the beginning of their shifts and the CNAs were to have the gait belt on their person during their shift and what kind of assistance a resident needed was mentioned on the assignment sheet at the nurse's station. In an interview on [DATE] at 11:25 AM with Agency LVN Y she stated she worked at the facility a lot. She stated on [DATE] they were given an in-service to sign, and a book was left at the nurse's station that she signed to acknowledge that she understood safe resident transfer devices, when to use a gait belt, who required the use of gait belts, and what method of transfer to use for which residents. In an interview on [DATE] at 11:30 AM with CNA P she stated he had 2 - 3 in-services in the last 2 days on safe transfers and preventing and reporting ANE. She was told that at the beginning of her shift she should go to the nurse's station and obtain a gait belt to keep on her for resident transfers. She stated if a gait belt was not available, she would ask the charge nurse or supervisor to get one for her. She stated she was in-serviced on ANE and provided examples to the state surveyor. She stated she was in-serviced on proper transfers to include gait belt, mechanical lifts and stand aide. In an interview on [DATE] at 11:58 AM with PTA he stated that he was recently in-serviced, a situation of ANE was when lights are ignored, therapy always uses gait belts for standing, transfers, anything pertaining to standing, he stated they will start showing new employees how to use gait belts. They report ANE to ADM or DON. In an interview on [DATE] at 11:59 AM with CNA N she stated she recently received in-servicing where she was informed they always had to have the stand aid and wheelchairs locked, then put the gait belts on residents who require them (indicated on the CNA assignment sheet), if the resident was a 2 person assist, 2 people must assist. The only time they do not use a gait belt was during a mechanical lift or for a resident who was independent. She stated that a gait belt was a part of their uniform to assist with the resident. She stated the training coordinator provided training on how to properly put the gait belt on the residents. She took a posttest after doing receiving the in-service. In an interview on [DATE] at 12:01 PM with CNA I she stated she had been trained [DATE] on proper transfers. She stated she was told to ensure the resident had shoes on and to make sure the gait belt was on the resident and fitted properly before a transfer. She stated she was told to use her leg to block or steady the resident's legs then she would hold the gait belt to assist the resident to stand. She stated she had received training on the stand aid and the mechanical lift. She was told if the resident required assistance of two staff for transfers, there had to be two staff there for the transfer. She stated she was told that ANE had to be reported immediately to the ADM who is the abuse coordinator. She stated she was told to report to the nurse if the ADM was not available. In an interview on [DATE] at 12:05 PM with CNA L stated she had been trained this morning on transfers and she took a test. She stated she was told their daily assignment sheets had the information on the type of assist each resident required. She had a copy of the assignment sheet in her pocket. She stated she was told that the gait belts were located behind the nurse's station. She stated she was told if a resident required two staff for transfers, two staff had to do the transfer. She stated she had training on how to use the stand aid and the mechanical lift and was told were they were located. She stated she was told to immediately report any ANE to the ADM who was the abuse coordinator. In an interview on [DATE] at 12:08 PM with LVN G he stated that he had received training on transfers [DATE]. He stated the transfer information was located on the assignment sheets at the nurses station. He stated he learned the gait belts were kept behind the nurse's station and that gait belts were used for all transfers except for mechanical lift transfers or independently ambulatory residents. He stated he was told any suspected ANE was to be reported immediately to the ADM. In an interview on [DATE] at 12:12 PM, with CNA K she stated on [DATE], she was trained on proper transfers. She stated she learned how and when to use a gait belt for transfers. She stated the gait belts were kept behind the nurse's station and that the daily assignment sheet told her what type of assistance each resident required. She stated she learned two staff were required to perform a mechanical lift transfer. She stated in the training she learned all ANE was reported to the abuse coordinator who was the ADM. In an interview on [DATE] at 12:20 PM with the Restorative Aide, she stated that she was trained by the training coordinator on how to identify what kind of assistance a resident required, and she was in-serviced on ANE and provided examples to the state surveyor. In an interview on [DATE] at 12:29 PM with the DON she stated she instructed the nursing supervisors to pass out gait belts to all staff and placed them at nurses' station to ensure a gait belt was available to each CNA. She stated the IDT will bring up any issues in the morning meetings to ensure access to gait belts. She stated she had the nursing supervisors print out current transfer status and had each resident assessed and care plan updated. In an interview on [DATE] at 12: 32 PM with HK X she stated that she was in-serviced recently on ANE being that anything like not answering call lights, raising her voice or and talking ugly was not meeting resident's needs, and should report to the Administrator immediately. In an interview on [DATE] at 12:45 PM with CNA Z. She stated she was in-serviced on ANE recently, and on the different transfer devices to include mechanical lift and stand aide. She stated the assignment sheets were located at the nursing station and it indicated if a resident was independent, or required 2-person transfer, stand aid with gait belt or mechanical lift. She stated gave examples of ANE and that she would report any ANE to her ADM or designee. In an interview on [DATE] at 1:47 PM with Nurse Supervisor A she stated she had just been trained on the new post fall protocol and was given a copy of the fall protocol form. She stated she was told the form must be completed within 72 hours of any fall, witnessed and unwitnessed and that the completed forms were to be given to the DON. She stated she was told the forms would be reviewed at the QAPI meetings. In an interview on [DATE] at 01:48 PM with Nurse Supervisor B. She stated that she was in-serviced by the DON, informing her that she was going to be responsible for the newly implemented post fall forms. She stated she would be notified by the nurse of a fall, and she would have up to 72 hours. to complete the post fall form and turn it into the DON or ADON so it could be discussed in their QAPI. She stated if she was off or if the fall happened during the weekend, another nurse supervisor would complete the post fall form and ensure it was turned in within 72 hours. In an interview on [DATE] at 02:27 PM with the DOR he stated that rehab would coordinate with the Training Coordinator on all new hires for CNAs to receive training on proper use of transfer assistive devices (mechanical lifts, stand aide, gait belts). He stated that a therapist from the therapy department would demonstrate the proper use of transfer aides and that the new hire would return demonstration. Observation on [DATE] at 9:25 AM and 9:37 AM of the 2 nurses stations revealed CNA assignment sheets revealed what kinds of assistance each resident required. Review of Resident #43's care plan last updated on [DATE] revealed that her care plan was changed to The resident requires extensive assistance by 1 staff with stand aide and gait belt to move between surfaces and as necessary. Review of a list of residents was provided to the state surveyors on [DATE], revealing that all residents had their care plans reviewed and updated if applicable. Review of the facility's updated policy titled; Resident Care Plan revealed the following updates: Addressing additional care planning areas that are relevant to meeting the resident's need in the long-term care setting. Any changes in condition that are reported by the nursing staff will be updated within 72 hours of notification. Review of an in-service titled Care Plan Updates In-Service conducted by the ADM on [DATE], revealed that the DON and MDS coordinator were counseled on the timely updates of care plans to be individualized, the importance of recognizing when a resident had a change in their specific care needs and method of transfer had changed. It reflected those things would be discussed during each morning meeting held and that care plans needed to be updated accordingly and timely, if needed. The signatures of the ADM, DON, and MDS were reflected. Review of the Resident Transfer in-service dated [DATE] reflected the in-service covered before beginning work, make sure you have a resident assignment sheet to see how each resident transfers. This is provided in a notebook at the nurses station if you need further assistance, see charge nurse. The in-service covered the Mechanical lift transfer, stand aide transfer and the procedural guideline for assisting resident to transfer to chair or wheelchair. The signatures of CNA's I, K, L, M, N, O, P, PTA, LVN G, LVN H, Agency LVN Y, Nurse Supervisor A and B, restorative aide, HK X, and the DOR were observed. Review of in-service posttests revealed tests for CNA's I, K, L, M, N, O, P, PTA, LVN G, LVN H, Agency LVN Y, Nurse Supervisor A and B, restorative aide, HK X, and the DOR. Review of an Employee Status Report dated [DATE] revealed that CNA Q was terminated[TRUNCATED]
CONCERN (D)

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

Grievances (Tag F0585)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record reviews the facility failed to ensure the residents had the right to voice grievances to the faci...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record reviews the facility failed to ensure the residents had the right to voice grievances to the facility, make prompt efforts by the facility to resolve grievances the resident may have, and make information on how to file a grievance or complaint available to the resident for 1 of 12 residents (Resident #11 ) reviewed for grievances. 1. On an unknown date and time, the SW heard a grievance on Resident #11's behalf and failed to initiate the grievance process. 2. On an 06/26/2025 at unknown time, LVN I heard a grievance on Resident # 11's behalf and failed to initiate the grievance process. These failures could place residents at risk of not having their grievances heard and a diminished quality of life. Findings included : Record review of Resident #11's face sheet dated 06/26/2025 indicated she was a [AGE] year-old female who re-admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus with Diabetic Chronic kidney disease (body do not produce enough insulin kidney disease that develops as a complication of diabetes), malignant neoplasm of the uterus refers (cancerous tumors that develop within the uterus),major depressive disorder (mental health condition), hypertension (high blood pressure), heart failure . Record review of Resident #11's quarterly MDS dated [DATE] indicated she made herself understood and was able to understand others. The MDS also indicated she had a BIMS score of 12 which meant she was cognitively intact. Section B- Hearing, Speech and vision reflected, Minimal difficulty - difficulty in some environments ( e.g., when person speaks softly, or setting is noisy. Record review of Resident #11's care plan dated 01/04/2025 indicated she had an ADL self-care performance deficit r/t Impaired balance, Limited Mobility and had a communication problem r/t a Hearing deficit. Record review of the facility grievances dated 01/01/2025 - 06/28/2025 indicated there was not a grievance filed for Resident #11 in the last 6 months. During an interview on 06/25/25 at 11:57 AM Resident #11 said about 6 months ago an aide (name unknown), helped her with a shower, and told her she would give her hearing aids to the nurse. She stated every night the nurses would come to her room and pick up her hearing aids for charging . She stated the next morning she went to the nursing station to get her hearing aids and she was told by a nurse ( name unknown) her hearing aids was not there. She stated she told the SW, and she told her she could not have replaced them because her insurance would not pay for them. During an interview on 06/26/25 at 09:44 AM the SW said Resident #11 did report her hearing aids were missing but she did not remember when . She stated once Resident # 11 told her about the hearing aids she looked for a provider to help with replacement, but no one would accept her Medicaid or Medicare. She stated if a resident had a complaint, she or a staff member should make sure a grievance was filed. She said although Resident #11 did say her hearing aids were lost, she did not complete a grievance form and she was not sure if another staff did. She stated grievances should be completed by the resident , staff or family and addressed by the Administrator. She stated a potential risk for a resident not having their hearing aids could be a decrease in activities, not hearing properly which would lead to communication problems , and the resident's needs and grievances would not be given to the correct person to address the issues. During an interview on 06/26/25 at 1:12 PM LVN I stated the nurses are responsible for getting the hearing aids from the resident and charge them at night . She stated, If the hearing aids are lost, I think we would tell the case manager , but I am not sure. She stated once personal property is reported to the nurse they would try to find the lost items, such as hearing aids , and if they cannot find something they would report it to the nurse supervisor , family and provider. She stated she was not aware of Resident #11 hearing aids being lost until today. She was asked by the Surveyor if she reported it to her Supervisor and she stated , I have not but I will do so before I leave today. During an interview on 06/26/25 at 02:42 PM with the LVN Supervisor, she stated she was not informed Resident #11's hearing aids were missing until Resident #11's family member informed her on 06/25/2025, and she told her she would see what she could do. The LVN Supervisor was asked to explain see what she can do we meant and she stated , If a Resident is missing their hearing aids , they will contact dietary and laundry services to see if the hearing aids was found, and if not found she or any nurse would contact the Administrator or Assistant Administrator . She stated the resident could write a grievance or have a staff help them. She stated an adverse effect of not having their hearing aids would be not being able to hear or understand what other people are saying and if a grievance was not completed a resident's concern would not be addressed appropriately . An interview 06/26/25 at 02:32 PM with the Assistant Administrator, she stated if hearing aids were lost for any resident , the go to the SW to discuss the concerns in their morning meeting. She stated in order to find hearing aids a staff would go to the rooms to look for the items , and if found they would give their personal item back to resident; or if not found they would start the grievance form. She stated the resident can start the grievance form or a staff member can do so. She sated a potential risk for Resident #11 not having her hearing aids can lead to her being unable to hear clearly and being unhappy. She stated if grievances are not completed the resident can become upset and lose trust in the facility. Record review of the facility policy Grievance policy, undated, revealed, Any resident or the resident representative has the right to voice grievances orally or in writing without fear of discrimination or reprisal. Any resident or resident representative may file a grievance anonymously. They have the right to expect review of the grievance and a written decision regarding the grievance within 7 working days. 1. Any employee, while on duty, may receive a grievance from a resident, resident representative, family member, or visitor on behalf of a resident employee will report the grievance to their department head or charge nurse. A written report will be initiated, and the Grievance Official will be notified. 3.The Grievance Official is responsible for overseeing the grievance process, receiving and tracking grievances through their conclusion, leading any necessary investigations by the facility, maintaining the confidentiality of all information associated with grievances, and issuing written grievance decisions to the resident. Coordinating, as necessary, with state and federal agencies in light of specific allegations, as appropriate in accordance with state law. 4. If a potential violation of a resident right is identified, the Grievance Official, will take immediate action to prevent further potential violations while the investigation is in progress. The Grievance Official will ensure any corrective action needed, is taken. 5. The Grievance Official will maintain grievance forms and tracking records for a minimum of three years of the issuance of the grievance decision residents will be notified through postings at each nurse's station of their right to file grievances. Blank Grievance forms are available at each nurse's station, the social service office, and receptionist desk.
CONCERN (D)

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

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

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 all alleged violations involving mistreatment, neglect, abuse, or misappropriation of resident property were reported immediately, but not later than 2 hours if the alleged violation involved abuse or resulted in serious bodily injury, to other officials (including to the State Agency) for one resident (Resident #43) of eight reviewed for abuse and neglect. The facility failed on 4/14/2025 to immediately report to the State Agency (within 2 hours) Resident #43's witnessed fall which resulted in 9th, 10th and 11th right rib fractures, C4 spinous process fracture, T10 compression fracture, and a frontal scalp hematoma/laceration. This failure placed residents at risk of further potential neglect. Findings include: Review of Resident #43's admission MDS assessment dated [DATE] reflected a [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included heart failure, osteoporosis (bone disease which causes weakened bones and increased fractures), depression (sadness), and mild cognitive impairment. In Section GG-Functional Abilities, for the tasks of sit to stand and chair/bed-to-chair transfer, she was coded as needing substantial/maximal assistance. Her BIMS score was a 10, indicating she had mildly impaired cognition. Review of Resident #43's comprehensive MDS assessment dated [DATE] reflected a [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included heart failure, renal failure (where the kidney's lose their ability to filter waste), other fracture, unspecified fracture of fourth cervical vertebra, repeated falls, osteoporosis, depression, and mild cognitive impairment. In Section GG-Functional Abilities, for the tasks of sit to stand and chair/bed-to-chair transfer, she was coded as needing substantial/maximal assistance. Her BIMS was a 14, indicating she was cognitively intact. Review of Resident #43's comprehensive care plan dated last revised 4/3/2025 reflected the resident was care planned for falls and had been care planned for requiring extensive assistance by 1 staff to move between surfaces and as necessary but did not indicate if she needed a gait belt, stand aide machine, mechanical lift, or touch assistance. Review of an incident report dated 4/14/2025 documented by CNA Q revealed a statement, Was taking {Resident #43} to the restroom using the bedrails to stand up as I stood by the wheelchair to help guide her to her chair as she went to turn to sit her ankle twisted, I believe, and she fell over head first and hit the wall. I could not catch her and try to keep her from falling. Review of Resident #43's physical therapy evaluation dated 3/25/2025 revealed that she was a moderate assistance with transfers. Review of a Nurse Practitioner visit dated 5/21/2025 revealed that the primary issues included for that visit were: Concerns per nursing staff: Depression Concerns per patient: Patient reports depression due to her fall. She is scared and anxious due to her fall. Review of Resident #43's hospital record dated 4/14/2025 revealed: 9th, 10th and 11th right rib fractures, C4 spinous process fracture, T10 compression fracture, and a frontal scalp hematoma/laceration. Review of an incident report dated 4/14/2025 titled, 'Witnessed Fall' with a note added at the bottom dated 4/24/2025 revealed, Resident was initially transported to ER via EMS. Later noted by family with cervical FX and rib fx. She then gave up bed hold and went to [Hospital] in patient comp rehab documented by the DON. In an interview on 6/24/2025 at 2:50pm with Resident #43, she stated that she had a fall a couple of months ago that resulted in her having to have surgery at the hospital. She stated that she required assistance for almost everything from staff and that during her fall CNA Q was helping her get out of bed, and was holding onto the back of her wheelchair, and she was getting herself into it. She stated that her shoe must have gotten stuck, and she fell straight forward into the wall/baseboard and there was blood everywhere (due to a forehead laceration). She stated that CNA Q did not have her hands on her during the transfer, and that prior to that fall she was able to get out of bed by herself most of the time. She stated that was how they always did transfers, meaning the staff would hold onto the chair for her. She stated that after the fall she was taken by ambulance to the hospital, and during the wait time the nurses conducted neurological checks on her. In an interview on 6/24/2025 at 3:15pm with CNA Q, she stated that Resident #43 was transferring from her wheelchair into bed, and she (CNA Q) was holding onto the resident's wheelchair while the resident transferred herself into bed. She stated she was not using a gait belt. She stated that the resident was pivoting from the chair toward the bed when her foot got caught on the floor and she fell straight ahead into the wall and CNA Q called for help. She stated that they were doing their transfer the way they always did it, where CNA Q was standing by, and not touching the resident for assistance. She stated she got her nurse, and they began neurological checks until EMS arrived and the resident was transported to the hospital. In an interview on 6/24/25 at 3:45 PM with the DON she stated that Resident #43 needed moderate assistance (meaning staff were to have a hand on her during transfers) with transfers and that she didn't know about the fractures until the resident re-admitted on [DATE]. She stated that it was her practice during fall investigations to obtain the hospital records to find out the extent of someone's injuries, but in this case, she did not request them. In an interview on 6/25/25 at 9:43 AM with Nurse Supervisor A she stated that she had provided CNA Q with a verbal reprimand on 4/15/2025. Nurse supervisor A revealed that she did not look at the fall that Resident #43 had from a neglect standpoint, she looked at it as CNA Q failing to transfer the resident appropriately. She stated CNA Q was never suspended due to the fall, or not permitted to work with residents. She stated that negative outcomes could have been physical injury, psychological harm, residents could feel as though their needs were not being met, and it could have caused an overall decline in their well-being. She stated that Resident #43 had experienced depression and anxiety from the fall and that the facility referred her to psych services after she was re-admitted . She also had the in-house physician start the resident on SSRI's. She stated that her expectations for resident transfers were communicated through a shift book and transfer statuses were in there but that things changed rapidly. She stated she encouraged dayshift to give report to the ongoing shift. She stated she did a lot of verbal in-servicing for her staff. In an interview on 06/27/25 at 12:36 PM with the DON, she stated that her expectation regarding witnessed falls was that the charge nurse would do an investigation to determine how the resident fell. She stated that Resident #43 was supposed to discharge home the day after the fall occurred and they didn't have any definitive documents stating the extent of the resident's injuries until the hospital records came in with the resident's re-admittance on 5/05/2025. She stated she did not realize she needed to report the fall/injuries to HHSC. She stated that at the time she thought that CNA Q made a mistake and needed more training, which they tried to educate her. She stated that after the fall they were focused on sending the Resident #43 out to the hospital. The DON stated that residents could be susceptible to continuous improper transfers, injuries, or death if falls were not properly investigated. Review of an Employee Disciplinary Record dated 4/15/2025 and addressed to CNA Q revealed under the heading, 'Describe the action that made it necessary to prepare this report. Include dates and events.' Nurse supervisor A typed, Multiple complaints from families, transfer safety. Resident safety. Grooming during showers. Under the heading, 'Describe the counseling received by the employee and the corrective action given and what will happen if not followed' Nurse supervisor A typed Appropriate transfers. Importance of gait belts for weakness. Pivot transfers. Answer lights in a timely manner. Review of an Employee Status Report dated 6/24/25 revealed that CNA Q was terminated from her employment on 6/24/25 due to Employee was counseled many times on failure to provide adequate care to residents. She continues to refuse care to residents. She was terminated for neglect. Review of the facility's Abuse, Neglect, and Misappropriation of Resident Property policy dated last revised 1/2022 revealed, Neglect-the failure to provide goods and services necessary to avoid physical harm, mental anguish, or mental illness. Recognizing potential signs of abuse: fear and anxiety. As members of the health team, nurse aides are legally and ethically responsible for reporting actual or suspected abuse, neglect, or misappropriation of resident property.
CONCERN (D)

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

MDS Data Transmission (Tag F0640)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to transmit encoded, accurate, and complete MDS data to the CMS syste...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to transmit encoded, accurate, and complete MDS data to the CMS system for 1 of 3 discharged residents (Resident #16) reviewed for closed records. The facility failed to complete and transmit a discharge MDS assessment for Resident #16, who discharged on [DATE], within 14 days of the discharge date . This failure could place residents at risk of not having assessments completed and submitted in a timely manner as required. The findings included: Review of Resident #16's face sheet dated [DATE] reflected a [AGE] year-old female admitted on [DATE] with the following diagnoses dementia (A group of symptoms that affects memory, thinking and interferes with daily life.) and Alzheimer's disease (A type of brain disorder that causes problems with memory, thinking and behavior. This is a gradually progressive condition.). Review of Resident #16's Discharge summary dated [DATE] reflected Resident #16 expired in the facility. Further review reflected .She did have a change in condition and family signed palliative care on [DATE]. Resident expired in facility on [DATE]. Review of Resident #16's MDS list in PCC on [DATE] reflected Resident #16's last transmitted MDS was her admission MDS dated [DATE]. Review of the warnings associated with Resident #16's MDS transmission reflected discharged -ARD complete by [DATE]- 141 days overdue. In an interview on [DATE] at 11:00 am the DON stated the facility has been without a MDS coordinator and they have just hired one and moving forward she would ensure MDSs were completed on time. She stated Resident #16's MDS should have been done on discharge. The DON stated she was responsible for the missed assessment and would complete and transmit the MDS as soon as possible. She stated it was important to do a discharge MDS assessment so that CMS and insurance would be notified of changes. In an interview on [DATE] at 12:34 PM the Administrator stated it was her expectation that MDS assessments be done timely and accurately to ensure the residents are being provided with care that is up to date with their conditions. Review of the facility's undated MDS policy reflected Prepare, implement, and evaluate Resident assessment and Comprehensive Care Plan and MDS according to facility guidelines . Correctly and timely record and document any forms on resident care, personnel, and training. Follow all guidelines for MDS set by state and federal. Refer to the RAI manual for interpretation of any and all MDS questions. Record review of the RAI (Resident Assessment Instrument) Manual OBRA Assessment Summary, dated [DATE], revealed OBRA Discharge assessments -Return Not Anticipated (A0310F = 10) Must be completed when the resident is discharged from the facility and the resident is not expected to return to the facility within 30 days. Must be completed (item Z0500B) within 14 days after the discharge date (A2000 + 14 calendar days). Must be submitted within 14 days after the MDS completion date (Z0500B + 14 calendar days.
CONCERN (D)

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

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

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 assessments accurately reflected the resident's status for 1 (Resident #39) of 8 residents reviewed for accuracy of assessments. The facility failed to ensure the MDS accurately reflected Resident #39's broken natural teeth. This deficient practice could place residents at risk of inadequate care due to inaccurate assessments. Findings include: Record review of Resident #39's comprehensive MDS assessment dated [DATE], reflected a [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including anemia (not having enough healthy red blood cells to carry oxygen to the body's tissues), high cholesterol, arthritis (swelling and tenderness of one or more joints), depression (sadness), cataracts (clouding of the lends in the eye), mild cognitive impairment, vitamin D deficiency, and legal blindness. Resident #39 had a BIMS score of 11 which indicated she had moderately impaired cognition. In Section L - Oral/Dental Status the box Z. None of the above were present was checked, indicating the resident had no dental issues. Review of Resident #39's care plan, updated on 6/26/2025 revealed that the resident refused dental care. Review of Resident #39's psychosocial note dated 6/10/2025 revealed, She [Resident #39] has broken teeth but they do not hurt her at this time, and she does not want them fixed. Observation/interview on 6/25/2025 at 10:45am of Resident #39 in her room revealed that she had black and broken teeth. When asked, she stated that they did not bother her, the CNAs helped her with oral care, and she stated that she should probably go to the dentist, but she didn't want to bother with it. In an interview on 6/26/2025 at 9:20am with CNA N, she stated that she worked with Resident #39 a lot and provided dental care to the resident which included brushing the resident's teeth and reporting any new or worsening dental concerns to the RN. In an interview on 6/26/2025 at 9:45am with the DON she stated that the person who completed Resident #39's comprehensive MDS assessment no longer worked at the facility, but that they [the facility] could go in and modify it up to 2 years after completion. She stated that she [the MDS coordinator] would have been the person to sign off on the MDS assessment as complete and accurate at that time. She stated that negative outcomes of inaccurate assessments could be overall inaccuracy of the person, possibly the care provided, any kind of payments, and that they want to try and code it as accurate as possible. Review of the facility's undated 'MDS Policy' revealed, Resident information will be as accurate and truthful as possible and may be collected and documented in multiple areas.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0645 (Tag F0645)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) Leve...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) Level I assessment accurately reflected the resident's status for one (Resident #74) of three residents reviewed for PASRR Level 1 screenings.The facility's failed to ensure the accuracy of the PASRR Level 1 Screening for Resident #74. The PASRR Level 1 Screening dated 01/22/25 did not indicate a diagnosis of mental illness, although the diagnoses of psychotic disorder with hallucinations, major depressive disorder, and anxiety disorder were present upon Resident #74's admission on [DATE].This failure could place residents with mental illness of not receiving a PASRR Evaluation, individualized care, or special services to meet their needs.Findings included:Review of Resident #74's face sheet, printed on 06/27/25, reflected an [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her diagnoses included psychotic disorder with hallucinations (the perception of something not present) due to known physiological condition, major depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (a lung disease limiting air flow from the lungs).Review of Resident #74's quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE], reflected a BIMS score of 6 which indicated severely impaired cognition. Resident #74's active diagnoses included anxiety, depression, and psychotic disorder (mental health conditions that cause abnormal thinking and perceptions). No neurological diagnoses (disease that affects the brain or nerves), including dementia, were identified.Review of Resident #74's comprehensive care plan, revised 05/01/25, reflected in part, Focus - [Resident #74] has Major depression disorder. Goals - The resident will remain free of s/sx of distress, symptoms of depression, anxiety, or sad mood . Interventions - Administer medications as ordered. Monitor/document side effects and effectiveness .Review of Resident #74's PASRR Level 1 Screening completed on 01/22/25 by the referring nursing facility reflected Resident #74 did not have a primary diagnosis of dementia and no indicator of mental illness.In an interview on 06/26/25 at 12:40 PM, the DON stated Resident #74 had a mental illness diagnosis, thus the PASRR screening was positive, not negative as reflected on the screening form. She stated a corrected screening should have been completed and sent to the local authority for evaluation. The DON stated she was responsible for PASRRs as the new MDS nurse was still being trained.In an interview on 06/26/25 at 1:06 PM, the DON stated she had completed and transmitted a corrected PASRR Level 1 Screening. The facility's PASRR policy was requested from the DON. A policy was not received prior to exit from the survey.In an interview on 06/27/25 at 10:49 AM, the DON stated she expected the PASRRs to be accurate and timely. She stated if an error in a PASRR was later found, a corrected form was sent. She stated residents may not have received the benefits or treatments they needed or were entitled to if the PASRR screenings was inaccurate.In an interview on 06/27/25 at 12:40 PM, the Assistant Administrator stated she expected the PASRR Level 1 Screening was completed correctly upon admission. She stated if a resident had a positive screening, they may have been entitled to extra services. She stated if an error was found, she expected it to be corrected immediately.Review of the Texas Health and Human Services Detailed Item by Item Guide for Local Authorities and Nursing Facilities to Complete the PASRR Level 1 Screening Form, revised June 2023, and accessed at PASRR Forms and Instructions | Texas Health and Human Services reflected in part, The PASRR Level I (PL1) Screening Form is designed to identify individuals who are suspected of having mental illness (MI), intellectual disability (ID) or a developmental disability (DD). Developmental disabilities are also referred to as related conditions.If documentation entered on the PL1 Screening Form indicates a suspicion of MI, ID, or DD, a PASRR Evaluation (PE) must be completed to confirm PASRR eligibility. The PE is designed to confirm the suspicion of MI, ID or DD and ensure an individual is placed in the most integrated residential setting receiving the specialized services needed to improve and maintain an individual's level of functioning.Examples of MI diagnoses are:SchizophreniaMood Disorder (Bipolar Disorder, Major Depressive Disorder, or other mood disorder)Paranoid DisorderSevere Anxiety DisorderSchizoaffective DisorderPost-Traumatic Stress Syndrome What is not considered an MI:Neurocognitive Disorders, such as Alzheimer's disease, other types of dementia, Parkinson's disease, and Huntington's. (DSM-5*), Depression, unless diagnosed as Major Depression; and Anxiety, unless diagnosed as severe anxiety disorder.*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition
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 observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to review and revise the person-centered, comprehensi...

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 review and revise the person-centered, comprehensive care plan for 1 (Resident #89) of 6 residents reviewed for comprehensive care plan revisions. The facility failed to update Resident #89's care plan to reflect the current need for extensive assistance for transfers. This failure could put residents at risk of not receiving the appropriate care, services, or treatments they need. Findings included: Review of Resident #89's face sheet, printed 06/27/25, reflected a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her diagnoses included essential hypertension (high blood pressure), major depressive disorder, muscle weakness, difficulty walking, unsteadiness on feet, other abnormalities of gait and mobility, and unspecified pain. Review of Resident #89's quarterly MDS assessment, dated 05/28/25, reflected both short- and long-term memory impairment. A BIMS assessment was not attempted. Resident #89 was assessed to need partial/moderate assistance with sit to stand, chair/bed to chair transfers, and toilet transfers. Review of Resident #89's comprehensive care plan, initiated on 04/24/25, reflected in part, Focus - [Resident #89] has an ADL self-care performance deficit . Goal - The resident will maintain current level of function through review date. Interventions - Transfer: The resident requires limited assistance by 1 staff to move between surfaces, as necessary. Review of Resident #89's Order Summary Report, for active orders as of 06/24/24, reflected the following orders: May transfer with Stand Aid or Mechanical lift PRN. Date ordered 01/08/24. May use Stand Aid for transfers if weight bearing. Date ordered 01/08/24. Review of Resident #89's transfer task documentation from 05/27/25 through 06/25/25, revealed the resident required limited assistance two times, extensive assistance 31 times, and total dependence 25 times. An observation on 06/24/25 at 9:29 AM, revealed Resident #89 sitting up in a wheelchair in the activity room. A blue sling, used with a mechanical lift, was observed in place between the resident and the wheelchair. An observation on 06/25/25 at 12:13 PM revealed Resident #98 sitting up in a wheelchair in the dining room. A blue sling was observed between the resident and the wheelchair. In an interview on 06/25/25 at 12:15 PM, CNA J stated she had worked at the facility for about two years as a CNA. She stated she frequently provided care to Resident #89. CNA J stated Resident #89 at one time used the Stand Aid for transfers but for the last several weeks, they used the mechanical lift to transfer the resident in and out of bed. She stated two staff were required for the mechanical lift. In an interview on 06/27/25 at 1049 AM, the DON stated she expected care plans to be accurate and individual. She stated she was responsible for most care plans, but the facility recently hired a new MDS coordinator who would be responsible. She stated other disciplines such as dietary and social services contributed to making the care plans. She stated they reviewed a report daily in the morning meeting and care plans were updated when there was a change. She stated the care plans were updated and revised in the IDT meetings. The DON stated if care plans were not accurate, residents may not receive the appropriate care. In an interview on 06/27/2025 at 12:34 PM, the Assistant Administrator stated she expected care plans were completed accurately and updated timely with care that is up to date with the resident's conditions. Review of the facility's undated Resident Care Plan policy reflected in part, 1. The comprehensive care plan must be: .2) prepared by an interdisciplinary team that includes the attending physician, a registered nurse with responsibility for the resident and other appropriate staff in disciplines as determined by the resident's needs, and, to the extent practicable, with the participation of the resident, the resident's family or legal representative; 3) periodically reviewed and revised by a team of qualified persons after each assessment; .10) Assessing and planning for care to meet the resident's medical, nursing, mental and psychosocial needs.To update the resident's care plan: For EMR care plans: (using the electronic records program) resolve, edit, or add any focus, goal, or intervention as needed based on the resident's needs.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0688 (Tag F0688)

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 1of 2 residents reviewed with limited range of ...

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 1of 2 residents reviewed with limited range of motion (Resident #15), received appropriate treatment and services to prevent a decrease in range of motion. The facility failed to ensure Resident #15 had interventions in place for her left- hand contracture (A permanent tightening of the muscles, tendons, skin, and surrounding tissues that causes the joints to shorten and stiffen and a decrease in ROM) to prevent further decline of the range of motion in her left hand. This deficient practice could place residents with contractures at risk for decrease in mobility, range of motion, and could contribute to worsening of contractures. Findings Include: Review of Resident #15's face sheet dated 06/26/2025 reflected she was admitted on [DATE] with the diagnoses of hemiplegia and hemiparesis (one-sided paralysis) . Review of Resident #15's annual MDS assessment dated [DATE] reflected she was assessed to have a BIMS score 14 indicating she was cognitively intact. Resident #15 was assessed to have functional limitations in range of motion on one side for her upper and lower extremities. Review of Resident #15's comprehensive care plan reflected a focus area for ADL self-care performance deficit related to hemiplegia to left side initiated on 08/07/2023. Interventions included Contractures: The resident has contractures of the left upper extremity. Provide skin care on shower days and PRN (as needed). Further review of her care plan reflected no other entries or plans for her left-hand contracture. Review of Resident #15's consolidated physician orders dated 06/26/2025 reflected no orders or treatments for a left- hand contracture. Review of Resident #15's Occupational therapy evaluation and plan of treatment for the certification period of 4/15/2025 through 05/14/2025 reflected .She propels herself in wheelchair, has had frequent falls, has contracture to LUE . The OT evaluation did not give a specific treatment plan for her left-hand contracture. Observation on 06/24/2025 at 10:00 AM revealed Resident #15 up in wheelchair in room. Resident #15 was observed to have a left-hand contracture with her fingers fixed into a closed position toward her palm. No palm guard or device was observed in her left hand. Observation and interview on 06/26 2025 at 1:00 PM revealed Resident #15 in her room. Resident #15 was observed to have two therapy carrots one on the floor and the other on a shelf. (The therapy carrot is an inflatable cone-shaped orthosis used for hand contractures. It gradually reduces sever contractures and provides painless positioning for severely contracted hands.) Resident #15 stated she could not open her left hand and using her right hand tried to open her hand. Resident #15's left hand opened slightly to reveal long fingernails on her contracted fingers (middle finger to pinky fingers). Resident #15 stated they do not really help her with her hand or trim her fingernails. Resident #15 stated she had these things (pointing to a therapy carrot) that they are supposed to put in her hand, but the staff rarely get around to it. In an interview on 06/26/2025 at 1:23 PM the DOR stated Resident #15 was currently on therapy services for strengthening and stated Resident #15 was not on services for contracture management. The DOR stated Resident #15 was discharged from services on 01/29/2025. He stated a contracture management plan was not given to restorative in writing, he stated they just discussed it verbally in the morning meetings. The DOR further stated he does not provide the nursing staff with discharge notes. In an interview on 06/26/2025 CNA O (Restorative Aide) stated they were not currently seeing Resident #15 for her left-hand contracture. She stated she was discharged a long time ago. She stated she was not sure if they had any documentation of the ROM or contracture management she would have to check. She stated to her knowledge when restorative stops seeing the residents they do not turn over care to the nursing staff. Observation and interview on 06/26/2025 at 1:30 PM the DON stated after observation of Resident #15's left hand that her hand was contracted, and her nails were long and needed to be trimmed. The DON stated she was not sure if Resident #15 hand a contracture management plan or if she was being seen by therapy, but she would look into it. Review of Resident #15's Restorative: hand program dated 07/28/2024 reflected the plan was active and included Restorative: Hand Program for LUE l) Hygiene to hand, dry well. File and Trim Nails; 2) PR0M/AR0M to each joint of finger, hand and wrist joint of hand; 3) Assist resident to place hand on flat surface and stretch fingers while lightly pressing down X 10 reps; 4) Assist resident to squeeze and release ball X 10 reps; 5) Apply soft splint to hand. In an interview on 06/26/2025 at 1:45 PM the DON stated, after handing surveyor a restorative plan for Resident #15 dated 07/28/2024, that Resident #15 was not currently getting restorative care for her left-hand contracture and should be. She further stated her contracture management was not on her care plan, and it should be. The DON stated Resident #15 should not have come off of restorative care but stayed on for contracture management to ensure her contracture did not worsen. In an interview on 06/26/2025 at 2:00 PM CNA R stated Resident #15's left hand was contracted, and she has a carrot to put in her hand and they use it when they think about it. She stated there was no plan in her medical record or anywhere to document the use of the carrot or when they are supposed to put it in her hand. She stated since Resident #15 was not diabetic that any staff can trim her fingernails and that fingernails are usually done on the weekends. In an interview on 06/27/2025 at 12:34 PM the Administrator stated it was her expectation that residents with contractures should be seen by therapy then sent to restorative for maintenance. She stated the resident should remain on restorative and if not being seen by restorative the resident should be getting treatment from floor staff and should have a plan of care for contracture management. She stated failure of staff not doing this could result in worsening of the contracture and other complications. Review of definition of contracture in the [NAME] dictionary reflected a condition of shortening and hardening of muscles, tendons, or other tissue, often leading to restricted joint mobility. Review of the undated facility policy Plan of care for contracture management reflected Goals: First you want to reduce the risk of development/progression of contractures of fingers, hands or wrist. Improve range of motion of fingers hands or wrist. Improve hand hygiene. Approaches: Hygiene to right/left hand. Dry hands well and file and trim nails as needed. PROM/AROM to each joint of finger hand and wrist joint of right/left hand. Assist resident to place hand on flat surface and stretch fingers while lightly pressing down. Assist resident to squeeze and release ball. Apply soft splint to right/left hand.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0699 (Tag F0699)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents who were trauma survivors receive culturally comp...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents who were trauma survivors receive culturally competent, trauma-informed care in accordance with professional standards of practice and accounting for residents' experiences and preferences to eliminate or mitigate triggers that may cause re-traumatization of the resident for 1 (Resident #10) of 6 reviewed for trauma-informed care. The facility failed to identify possible triggers when Resident #10 had a history of trauma. This failure could place residents at risk for severe psychological distress due to re-traumatization, decreased quality of life and psychosocial emotional harm. Findings include: Review of Resident #10's face sheet, printed on 06/27/25, reflected a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Review of Resident #10's quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE], reflected a BIMS score of 12 which indicated moderately impaired cognition. The MDS reflected Resident #10 had a diagnosis of PTSD. Review of Resident #10's comprehensive care plan, revised on 12/11/24, reflected in part, Resident #10 has lived a long life and has potentially suffered a traumatic event as some time in her life. Goal - Resident #10 will remain calm/stress free during their stay in the facility. Interventions - Always approach resident calmly and speak clearly by announcing what is happening prior to performing task; Do not sneak up behind and try not to startle resident; Get to know resident and his/her preferences or triggers; Given resident choices when possible . Further review revealed there were no triggers identified in the care plan. Review of Resident #10's Psychiatric Subsequent Assessment, dated 06/13/25, reflected previous mental health diagnosis included PTSD. During an observation and an attempted interview on 06/25/25 at 09:30 AM, Resident #10 was observed in her bed. She stated she was comfortable, but her feet hurt. When asked about stressors or trauma, she stated she just wanted to rest, and she closed her eyes. In an interview on 06/27/25 at 10:33 AM, the Social Worker stated staff had been in-serviced about trauma informed care and she asked residents about trauma when she completed the resident's social history upon admission. She stated the regulations on trauma and PTSD had recently changed. She stated she did not remember if Resident #10 had a diagnosis of PTSD. She stated she could not remember if she had assessed or screened the resident after the regulations changed. The Social Worker, after looking into the electronic medical record, she stated she did not have any information about PTSD or triggers on the social history from when the resident was admitted in 2015. She stated she did not see an assessment for trauma. Stated it was important to identify a resident's triggers, so staff were aware. She stated if staff were not aware, staff could do something to upset or scare the resident and put them back in the situation that caused their trauma. In an interview on 06/27/25 at 10:49 AM, the DON stated she expected residents with a diagnosis of PTSD were assessed for trauma. She stated they usually referred residents with PTSD to psychological services. She expected care plans to include triggers specific to the resident. She stated residents may reexperience the trauma if staff were not aware of each resident's triggers. In an interview on 06/27/25 at 12:40 PM, the Assistant Administrator stated, You have to know what the trauma was, so we know how to prevent it from happening again. She stated she expected residents were assessed and the triggers identified on the care plan. A policy for trauma informed care was requested but not received prior to exit from the survey.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0757 (Tag F0757)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure each resident's drug regimen was free from unnecessary medic...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure each resident's drug regimen was free from unnecessary medications when used in excessive doses (including duplicate therapy); or for excessive duration; or without adequate monitoring; or without adequate indication for its use; or in the presence of adverse consequences which indicate the dose should be reduced or discontinued for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #8) reviewed for unnecessary medications. The facility failed to ensure Resident #8 did not received Keflex (is used to treat urinary tract infections (is a bacterial infection in the urinary system)) for prophylactic use. This failure could place residents receiving antibiotics at risk for unnecessary antibiotic use, inappropriate antibiotic use, and increased antibiotic-resistant infections (happens when germs like bacteria and fungi develop the ability to defeat the drugs designed to kill them). Findings included: Review of Resident #8 face sheet dated 06/27/2025 reflected a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of urinary tract infection (bladder infection). Review of Resident #8's quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] reflected Resident #8 was assessed to have a BIMS score of 11 indicating moderate cognitive impairment. Resident #8 was assessed to always be incontinent of urine. Resident #8 was assessed to not have any infections and was assessed to be on antibiotics. Review of Resident #8's comprehensive care plan initiated on 12/20/2023 and last revised on 04/23/2025 reflected no entries related to urinary tract infections or antibiotic use. Review of Resident #8's consolidated physician orders dated 06/26/2025 reflected an order dated 08/15/2024 Keflex 500mg give one capsule by mouth at bedtime for prevention. Review of Resident #8's UTI's from 08/15/2024 through 06/26/2025 reflected she was diagnosed with a UTI on three separate occasions: -01/10/2025 reflected an individual resident infection surveillance report dated 01/08/2025. Symptoms listed: AMS (altered mental status) Culture: Yes; Organism: Pseudomonas Aeruginosa >100,00 CFU/ml. Medication Cipro 500 mg BID x 7 days. Further review of the infection surveillance report reflected no other symptoms were documented. -04/25/2025 reflected an individual resident infection surveillance report dated 04/25/2025. Symptoms listed: increased confusion: Culture yes: organism Enterococcus faecium 50-100,00 CFU/ml. Medication: Amoxicillin 500 mg TID x 10 days. -05/29/2025 reflected an individual resident infection surveillance report dated 05/28/2025. Symptoms listed: Resident not feeling well. antibiotics orders for ciprofloxacin HCL 250 mg one tablet two times daily for 7 days. Review of Resident #8's culture report reflected Pseudomonas Aeruginosa >100,00 CFU/ml. In an interview on 06/26/2025 the ADON IP stated the only form she used for antibiotics was infection surveillance report. She stated she did not have any other form to document symptoms or track infections. She stated the facility did not track symptoms that she was aware of. In an interview on 06/26/2025 at 1:40 PM the DON stated with Resident #8 the family was requesting she be on antibiotics. She stated she thought the pharmacist was reviewing antibiotic use. The DON stated the facility used the McGeer Criteria for UTI's but did not have a form the staff used at the onsite of UTI symptoms. In an interview on 06/26/2025 at 4:08 pm the Medical Director stated the facility pharmacist did a review of the resident medications monthly. He stated he was not sure if he was looking at antibiotics. He stated the pharmacist should review every 6 months. He stated he could not recall if the pharmacist sent anything on Resident #8. He stated he felt like the routine antibiotic on Resident #8 was helping with her UTI's to decrease frequency and further stated she has had several UTI's since being on the prophylactic antibiotic. In an interview on 06/26/2025 at 4:56 PM the Pharmacy Consultant stated he had not been reviewing the residents on prophylactic antibiotics or sending the MD recommendations regarding this. He stated he would check the antibiotics in use against the cultures to ensure the right antibiotic was being used if stated if the lab was available for review. He stated he looked at new antibiotics prescribed but does not necessarily review the ones the residents have been on as prophylactic. In an interview on 06/27/2025 at 12:34 PM the Administrator stated it was her expectation that residents should be care planned and monitored for antibiotic use. She stated the pharmacy consultant should be monitoring antibiotic use and follow up and send recommendations to the MD's during monthly reviews to ensure the medication is monitored to see if the medication is working and to make sure they are on the right medication which could lead to untreated infections in residents or medication SE. Review of the facility undated policy McGeers Criteria reflected The McGeer criteria developed in collaboration with CDC, are a set of surveillance definitions used in long term care facilities to standardize the identification of infections. These criteria help in consistently tracking and reporting healthcare associated infections. The criteria focus on specific signs and symptoms, considering both infectious and non-infectious causes, and aim to distinguish between new or worsening infections and pre-existing conditions. Standardized Definitions: The McGeer criteria provide a uniform set of definitions for various infections ensuring consistency in surveillance and reporting across different facilities. Focus on New or Worsening Symptoms: The criteria emphasize the importance of identifying new or acutely worsening signs and symptoms, as opposed to relying solely on chronic conditions. Consideration of Alternative Causes: Clinicians are encouraged to consider non-infectious causes of symptoms before attributing then to an infection. Multifaceted Approach: The criteria recommend considering both clinical presentation (signs and symptoms) and laboratory findings (microbiological or radiological) when determining if and infection is present. Application in Long-Term Care: The McGeer criteria are particularly relevant n long term care facilities for tracking and managing HA's For urinary tract infections, at least two of the following signs or symptoms are required: fever, chills, new flank or suprapubic pain or tenderness, and a change in the character of urine. Review of the facility's undated policy Antibiotic Stewardship reflected Antibiotics are among the most commonly prescribed drugs in long-term care settings, yet reports indicate that a high proportion of antibiotic prescriptions are unnecessary. The goal of this procedure can help reduce unnecessary prescribing and lead to fewer antibiotic failures and/or adverse events. A. The Antibiotic Stewardship Committee will: 1.Support and promote antibiotic use protocols which include: a. Assessment of residents for infection using standardized tools and criteria. b. Therapeutic decisions regarding antibiotic prescriptions based on evidence (eg, guidelines and consensus statements from clinical and academic societies) that is appropriate for the care of long-term care facility residents. c. Specifying a dose, duration and indication on all antibiotic prescriptions. d. Reassessment of empiric antibiotics after 2-3 days for appropriateness and necessity, factoring in results of diagnostic tests, laboratory reports and/or changes in the clinical status of the resident. e. Whenever possible, choosing narrow-spectrum antibiotics that are appropriate for the condition being treated. Develop and maintain a system to monitor antibiotic use, which includes a. Review antibiotics prescribed to residents upon their admission or transfer to the facility and those during the course of evaluation by an outside prescribing practitioner (example ER). b. Periodically review a subset of antibiotic prescriptions for inclusion of dose, duration and indication (or for length of therapy, documentation of an antibiotic time-out, appropriateness based on antibiotic use protocols and written documentation of clinical justification for antibiotic use that does not comply with the facility antibiotic use protocols). c. Periodically review rates of prescriptions for any antibiotics or conditions identified by the committee as being of special interest.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0813 (Tag F0813)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety for the facility's nourishment refrigerators for 2 (Station #1, and Station #2) of 2 nourishment room refrigerators reviewed for food and nutrition services. 1. The facility failed to ensure the nourishment room refrigerator temperature log was maintained in station #2's nourishment room. 2. The facility failed to ensure station #2's refrigerator stayed within a temperature range to maintain effective refrigeration. 3. The facility failed to ensure all items in station #1's refrigerator was labelled and dated. These failures could place residents at risk for health complications, foodborne illnesses and decreased a quality of life. Findings include: Observation of the station #2's nourishment room refrigerator on 6/26/2025 at 10:07am revealed, on the outside, a temperature log that had been maintained up until 6/23/2025. Inside, a thermometer read 52 degrees, and 7 nutritional shakes that felt a little cooler than room temperature were observed. Observation of the station #1's nourishment room refrigerator on 6/26/2025 at 10:12am revealed, on the outside a sign that read, Attention family members! If you bring in any outside food or drink you must put the resident's name, date you brought it, and product name on the label provided. On the inside there was a small container of cut up watermelon that was not labeled or dated, a medium sized container that contained an unknown white/yellow substance with chunks of granola or oat like substance, and a carton of almond milk that had no label. In an interview on 6/26/2025 at 10:20am with HK X she stated that housekeeping was responsible for maintaining the cleanliness of the nourishment room, refrigerator, and ensuring all items were labeled and dated, and if they were not, she reported it to her supervisor, who would report it to nursing. In an interview on 6/26/2025 at 11:00am with Nurse Supervisor A she stated that she was responsible for checking off on the thermometer log for the nourishment refrigerator for station 2. She stated that she thought the refrigerator door may have been left open for a period because the refrigerator had been maintaining the correct temperature. Review of the facility's undated 'Use and storage of foods brought to residents' policy revealed, Refrigerated food or drink must be labeled with the resident's name, the date it was brought, and product name.
CONCERN (D)

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

Antibiotic Stewardship (Tag F0881)

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 promote antibiotic stewardship by ensuring the appropr...

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 promote antibiotic stewardship by ensuring the appropriate use of antibiotic therapy and providing written rational, by the provider, when an antibiotic was used despite criteria, to determine the appropriate use of an antibiotic for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for antibiotic stewardship. (Resident #8). The facility failed to ensure they were using an established and accepted criteria to determine if her UTI met the criteria for antibiotic use and failed to ensure she was not receiving a prophylactic antibiotic without written justification for use regards to Resident #8's prophylactic antibiotic Keflex. This failure could place residents at risk of inappropriate antibiotic use, medication side effects and increased antibiotic-resistant infections. Findings Included: Review of Resident #8 face sheet dated 06/27/2025 reflected a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the diagnosis of urinary tract infection (bladder infection). Review of Resident #8's quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] reflected Resident #8 was assessed to have a BIMS score of 11 indicating moderate cognitive impairment. Resident #8 was assessed to always be incontinent of urine. Resident #8 was assessed to not have any infections and was assessed to be on antibiotics. Review of Resident #8's comprehensive care plan initiated on 12/20/2023 and last revised on 04/23/2025 reflected no entries related to urinary tract infections or antibiotic use. Review of Resident #8's consolidated physician orders dated 06/26/2025 reflected an order dated 08/15/2024 Keflex 500mg give one capsule by mouth at bedtime for prevention. Reivew of Resident #8's MAR dated June 2025 reflected she was getting Keflex 500 mg one capsule by mouth at bedtime. Review of Resident #8's UTI's from 08/15/2024 through 06/26/2025 reflected she was diagnosed with a UTI on three separate occasions: -01/10/2025 reflected an individual resident infection surveillance report dated 01/08/2025. Symptoms listed: AMS (altered mental status) Culture: Yes; Organism: Pseudomonas Aeruginosa >100,00 CFU/ml. Medication Cipro 500 mg BID x 7 days. Further review of the infection surveillance report reflected no other symptoms were documented. -04/25/2025 reflected an individual resident infection surveillance report dated 04/25/2025. Symptoms listed: increased confusion: Culture yes: organism Enterococcus faecium 50-100,00 CFU/ml. Medication: Amoxicillin 500 mg TID x 10 days. -05/29/2025 reflected an individual resident infection surveillance report dated 05/28/2025. Symptoms listed: Resident not feeling well. antibiotics orders for ciprofloxacin HCL 250 mg one tablet two times daily for 7 days. Review of Resident #8's culture report reflected Pseudomonas Aeruginosa >100,00 CFU/ml. In an interview on 06/26/2025 the ADON IP stated the only form she used for antibiotics was infection surveillance report. She stated she did not have any other form to document symptoms or track infections. She stated the facility did not track symptoms that she was aware of. In an interview on 06/26/2025 at 1:40 PM the DON stated with Resident #8 the family was requesting she be on antibiotics. She stated she thought the pharmacist was reviewing antibiotic use. The DON stated the facility used the McGeer Criteria for UTI's but did not have a form the staff used at the onsite of UTI symptoms. In an interview on 06/26/2025 at 4:08 pm the Medical Director stated the facility pharmacist did a review of the resident medications monthly. He stated he was not sure if he is looking at antibiotics. He stated the pharmacist should review every 6 months. He stated he could not recall if the pharmacist sent anything on Resident #8. In an interview on 06/26/2025 at 4:56 PM the Pharmacy Consultant stated he had not been reviewing the residents on prophylactic antibiotics or sending the MD recommendations regarding this. He stated he would check the antibiotics in use against the cultures to ensure the right antibiotic is being used if stated if the lab was available for review. He stated he looks at new antibiotics prescribed but does not necessarily review the ones the residents have been on as prophylactic. In an interview on 06/27/2025 at 12:34 PM the Administrator stated it was her expectation that residents should be care planned and monitored for antibiotic use. She stated the pharmacy consultant should be monitoring antibiotic use and follow up and send recommendations to the MD's during monthly reviews to ensure the medication was monitored to see if the medication was working and to make sure they are on the right medication which could lead to untreated infections in residents or medication SE. Review of the facility undated policy McGeers Criteria reflected The McGeer criteria developed in collaboration with CDC, are a set of surveillance definitions used in long term care facilities to standardize the identification of infections. These criteria help in consistently tracking and reporting healthcare associated infections. The criteria focus on specific signs and symptoms, considering both infectious and non-infectious causes, and aim to distinguish between new or worsening infections and pre-existing conditions. Standardized Definitions: The McGeer criteria provide a uniform set of definitions for various infections ensuring consistency in surveillance and reporting across different facilities. Focus on New or Worsening Symptoms: The criteria emphasize the importance of identifying new or acutely worsening signs and symptoms, as opposed to relying solely on chronic conditions. Consideration of Alternative Causes: Clinicians are encouraged to consider non-infectious causes of symptoms before attributing then to an infection. Multifaceted Approach: The criteria recommend considering both clinical presentation (signs and symptoms) and laboratory findings (microbiological or radiological) when determining if and infection is present. Application in Long-Term Care: The McGeer criteria are particularly relevant n long term care facilities for tracking and managing HA's For urinary tract infections, at least two of the following signs or symptoms are required: fever, chills, new flank or suprapubic pain or tenderness, and a change in the character of urine. Review of the facility's undated policy Antibiotic Stewardship reflected Antibiotics are among the most commonly prescribed drugs in long-term care settings, yet reports indicate that a high proportion of antibiotic prescriptions are unnecessary. The goal of this procedure can help reduce unnecessary prescribing and lead to fewer antibiotic failures and/or adverse events. A. The Antibiotic Stewardship Committee will: 1.Support and promote antibiotic use protocols which include: a. Assessment of residents for infection using standardized tools and criteria. b. Therapeutic decisions regarding antibiotic prescriptions based on evidence(eg, guidelines and consensus statements from clinical and academic societies) that is appropriate for the care of long-term care facility residents. c. Specifying a dose, duration and indication on all antibiotic prescriptions. d. Reassessment of empiric antibiotics after 2-3 days for appropriateness and necessity, factoring in results of diagnostic tests, laboratory reports and/or changes in the clinical status of the resident. e. Whenever possible, choosing narrow-spectrum antibiotics that are appropriate for the condition being treated. Develop and maintain a system to monitor antibiotic use, which includes a. Review antibiotics prescribed to residents upon their admission or transfer to the facility and those during the course of evaluation by an outside prescribing practitioner (example ER). b. Periodically review a subset of antibiotic prescriptions for inclusion of dose, duration and indication (or for length of therapy, documentation of an antibiotic time-out, appropriateness based on antibiotic use protocols and written documentation of clinical justification for antibiotic use that does not comply with the facility antibiotic use protocols). c. Periodically review rates of prescriptions for any antibiotics or conditions identified by the committee as being of special interest. Review of the CDC's Criteria for defining non-catheter associated symptomatic UTI dated 01/2025 reflected, Resident without an indwelling catheter (Meets criteria 1 OR 2 OR 3): Criteria 1: Either of the following: 1. Acute dysuria; 2. Acute pain, swelling, or tenderness of the testes, epididymis or prostate. Criteria 2: Either of the following: 1. Fever; 2. Leukocytosis and ONE or more of the following: Costovertebral angle pain or tenderness; New or marked increase in suprapubic tenderness; Gross hematuria; New or marked increase in incontinence, New or marked increase in urgency; New or marked increase in frequency. OR Criteria 3: TWO or more of the following: Costovertebral angle pain or tenderness; New or marked increase in suprapubic tenderness; Gross hematuria; New or marked increase in incontinence; New or marked increase in urgency; New or marked increase in frequency. AND A positive urine culture with no more than 2 species of microorganisms, at least one of which is a bacterium of greater than 105 CFU/ml. NOTE: Yeast and other microorganisms, which are not bacteria, are not acceptable UTI pathogens.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0552 (Tag F0552)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** B) Review of Resident #10's face sheet, printed on 06/27/25, reflected a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DAT...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** B) Review of Resident #10's face sheet, printed on 06/27/25, reflected a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her diagnoses included acute respiratory failure with hypoxia (not enough oxygen in the blood), post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD - a mental health condition caused by a traumatic event), schizoaffective disorder (a mental health disorder that is marked by a combination of schizophrenia symptoms, such as hallucinations or delusions, and mood disorder symptoms, such as depression or mania), and low back pain. Review of Resident #10's quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE], reflected a BIMS score of 12 which indicated moderately impaired cognition. The MDS reflected Resident #10 received antipsychotic, antidepressant, antianxiety, and anticonvulsant medications. Review of Resident #10's comprehensive care plan, revised on 12/11/24, reflected in part, Focus - [Resident #10] uses antidepressant medication related to depression. Goal - [Resident #10] will be free from discomfort or adverse reactions related to antidepressant therapy . Interventions - Administer antidepressant medications . Focus - The resident uses psychotropic medications related to major depression. Goal - The resident will be/remain free of psychotropic drug related complications . Interventions - Administer psychotropic medications . Focus - [Resident #10] uses anti-anxiety medications. Goal - The resident will be free from discomfort or adverse reactions related to anti-anxiety therapy . Interventions - Administer anti-anxiety medications . Focus - [Resident #10] has a mood problem related to disease process. Goal - Resident #10 will have improved mood state . Interventions - Administer medications as ordered .: Review of Resident #10's Order Summary Report for active orders as of 06/27/25 reflected the following: Depakote Sprinkles (an anti-seizure medication used to stabilize mood) oral capsule delayed release sprinkle 125 mg. Give 2 capsules by mouth two times a day related to psychotic disorder with delusions due to known physiological condition. Do not crush. Order date 02/17/25. Review of Resident #10's Medication Administration Record (MAR) for June 2025, reflected the Depakote Sprinkles were administered twice daily as ordered. Review of Resident #10's electronic medical record and the paper medical record, reflected no signed consent for the Depakote Sprinkles. C) Review of Resident #71's face sheet, printed on 06/27/25, reflected an [AGE] year-old female originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. Her diagnoses included unspecified dementia, depression, anxiety disorder, and altered mental status, and unspecified psychosis not due to a substance or known physiological condition. Review of Resident #71's admission MDS assessment, dated 05/24/25, reflected a BIMS score of 7 which indicated severely impaired cognition. The MDS reflected Resident #71 had inattention and disorganized thinking. Resident #71 rejected care and wandered. The MDS reflected she received antipsychotic, antianxiety, and antidepressant medications. Review of Resident #71's comprehensive care plan, revised on 05/29/25, reflected in part, Focus - [Resident #71] has impaired cognitive function or impaired thought process . Goal - The resident will be able to communicate basic needs . Interventions - Administer medications as ordered. Monitor for side effects and effectiveness . Focus - [Resident #71] uses anti-anxiety medications . Goal - The resident will be free from discomfort or adverse reactions related to anti-anxiety therapy . Interventions - Administer anti-anxiety medications as ordered . Review of Resident #71's Order Summary Report for active orders as of 06/27/25 reflected the following: Seroquel (an antipsychotic medication) oral tablet 50 mg give 2 tablets by mouth at bedtime for psychosis related to unspecified psychosis not due to a substance or known physiological condition. Order date 05/28/25. Review of Resident #71's MAR for June 2025, reflected the Seroquel was administered at bedtime as ordered except on four occasions when the resident refused. Review of Resident #71's electronic medical record and the paper medical record, reflected no signed consent for the Seroquel. D) Review of Resident #78's face sheet, printed on 06/26/25, reflected a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her diagnoses included anxiety disorder, unspecified dementia - unspecified severity - with other behavioral disturbance, and mood disorder due to known physiological condition with depressive features. Review of Resident #78's quarterly MDS assessment, dated 03/28/25, reflected a BIMS score of 3 which indicated severely impaired cognition. The assessment reflected inattention and disorganized thinking. The MDS reflected Resident #78 rarely felt lonely or isolated. No signs or symptoms of depression or behavioral symptoms were identified. The assessment reflected Resident #78 took antipsychotic, antianxiety, and antidepressant medications. Review of Resident #78's comprehensive care plan, revised on 02/21/25, reflected in part, Focus - The resident uses psychotropic medications . Goal - The resident will be/remain free of psychotropic drug related complications . Interventions - Administer psychotropic medications as ordered . Focus - The resident uses antidepressant medication . Goal - The resident will be free from discomfort or adverse reactions . Interventions - Administer antidepressant medications as ordered . Monitor/document side effects and effectiveness . Review of Resident #78's Order Summary Report for active orders as of 06/27/25 reflected the following: Sertraline HCl (an antidepressant medication) oral tablet 25 mg give 1 tablet by mouth one time a day related to unspecified dementia. Order Date 02/21/24. Seroquel (an antipsychotic medication) oral tablet 50 mg give 1 tablet by mouth two times a day related to mood disorder. Order date 11/07/23. Review of Resident #78's MAR for June 2025 reflected the Sertraline was administered as ordered. The MAR reflected the Seroquel was administered as ordered except for five doses that were refused. Review of Resident #78's electronic medical record and the paper medical record, reflected no signed consent for Sertraline or Seroquel. In an interview on 06/26/25 at 10:05 AM, Nurse Supervisor A stated consents for psychotropic medications were obtained on admission or when a new psychotropic medication was ordered. She stated usually the nurse would notify the responsible party to get consent. If the consent was obtained over the phone, the nurse would document that on the form. She stated during the phone call, the nurse would let the family know the consent for was at the nurse's station and needed to be signed on the next visit to the facility. Nurse Supervisor A searched for the signed consents for Residents #10, #71, and #78. In an interview on 06/26/25 at 10:10 AM, LVN F stated she did not have any psychotropic consent forms at the nurse's station or on the clip board waiting for signatures. In an interview on 06/27 /25 at 10:49 AM, the DON stated the nurse who received the order was responsible for obtaining the consent for psychotropic medications. She expected the nurse told the responsible party the consent needed a signature on the next visit. She stated some responsible parties lived out of town so consents were mailed or emailed for signature. She stated some consents had not been signed and returned. The DON stated the nursing supervisors were responsible to monitor the psychotropic consents. She stated without a consent in place, a resident may have received a medication the family or responsible party did not want given for a variety of reasons. She stated the facility was unable to find any other consents for Residents #10, #71, and #78. Review of the undated Informed Consent for Antipsychotic Medication Therapy Policy reflected in part, It is the policy of this facility to obtain informed consent for psychoactive medication prior to administration, except in the event of a psychiatric emergency. 1. Upon receiving a physician's order for a psychoactive medication, the resident's responsible party will be notified to obtain informed consent for the medication before initiation of therapy, except in the event of a psychiatric emergency 2. Informed consent may be obtained in person or by telephone . 8. If the resident's responsible party is at the facility when informed consent is obtained, have them sign the consent form. If the consent is obtained by telephone, the responsible party may sign the form on their next visit to the facility. If the consent is mailed to the responsible party for signature, a copy will be kept on the chart until the original is returned. 9. The signed consent is to be filed in the resident's chart. Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure that the resident has the right to be informed of, and participate in, his or her treatment, including the right to be informed in advance of the risks and benefits of proposed care, of treatment and treatment alternatives or treatment options and to choose the alternative or option he or she prefers for 4 of 5 residents (Resident #15, Resident #10, Resident #71, and Resident #78,) reviewed for resident rights. A) The facility failed to obtain informed consent for the use of Risperdal (an antipsychotic medication) Divalproex Sodium (a mood stabilizer) duloxetine HCL (an antidepressant medication) and Xanax (an antianxiety medication) for Resident #15. B) The facility failed to obtain signed consent for Resident #10's psychotropic medication Depakote Sprinkles (an anti-seizure medication used for mood stabilization). C) The facility failed to obtain signed consent for Resident #71's psychotropic medication Seroquel (an antipsychotic medication). D) The facility failed to obtain signed consent for Resident #78's psychotropic medications Sertraline (an antidepressant medication) and Seroquel (an antipsychotic medication). These failures could place residents who receive psychotropic medications at risk of receiving medications without consent, knowledge of possible side effects of the medications, or other treatment options. Findings included: A) Review of Resident #15's face sheet dated 06/26/2025 reflected a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the following diagnoses psychotic disorder with delusions (characterized by unshakable belief in something that is not true or based on reality), hemiplegia and hemiparesis (one-sided paralysis) following cerebral infarction (the pathologic process that results in an area of necrotic tissue in the brain. It is caused by disrupted blood supply (ischemia) and restricted oxygen supply (hypoxia).) Review of Resident #15's annual MDS assessment dated [DATE] reflected she was assessed to have a BIMS score 14 indicating she was cognitively intact. Resident #15 was assessed to have verbal and other behavioral symptoms 1 to 3 days week. Resident #15 was assessed to have Psychiatric/ mood disorder: anxiety disorder, depression, and psychotic disorder (other than schizophrenia). Resident #15 was further assessed to be on an antipsychotic, antianxiety and antidepressant medication. Review of Resident #15's comprehensive care plan reflected a focus area initiated on 08/07/2023 Resident uses antidepressant medication related to depression. The medication was not listed. Interventions included educate the resident/family/ caregivers about risks, benefits and the side effects and/or toxic symptoms. Further review reflected a focus area initiated on 06/04/2025 uses anti-anxiety mediations Diazepam related to anxiety disorder Interventions included educate the resident/family/ caregivers about risks, benefits and the side effects and/or toxic symptoms. Resident #15's comprehensive care plan further reflected a focus area initiated 06/04/2025 Resident uses antipsychotic medication related to bipolar disorder: Risperdal Interventions included discuss with MD, family regarding ongoing need for use of medication Review of Resident #15's consolidated physician's orders dated 06/26/2025 reflected an order for Divalproex Sodium 125 mg give 5 capsules to =625 mg twice daily for bipolar disorder dated 11/02/2024; an order for Duloxetine HCL 60 mg one capsule by mouth one time day related to major depression; and an order for Risperdal 0.25mg one tablet by mouth two times a day related to psychotic disorder with delusions dated 03/28/2025. Further review reflected an order for Xanax 0.25 mg give one table by mouth every 8 hours as needed for anxiety/ agitation/mood for 14 days with an order date of 06/19/2025 and end date of 07/03/2025. Review of Resident #15's Psychiatric Subsequent assessment dated [DATE] reflected a list of her current psychotropic medications that included Duloxetine, Depakote, Xanax and Risperdal. Review of Resident #15's MAR dated June 2025 reflected Resident #15's psychotropic medications Duloxetine, Depakote, Xanax and Risperdal were administered daily as ordered. Review of Resident #15's electronic medical record and the paper medical record, reflected no signed consent for the Duloxetine, Depakote, Xanax or Risperdal. In an interview on 06/26/2025 at 2:26 PM the DON stated the unit nurse supervisors were in charge of getting consents for psychotropic medications. In an interview on 06/26/2025 at 2:52 PM Nursing Supervisor B stated after reviewing Resident #15's EMR and paper chart she did not see any consents for her psychotropic medications and the consents should have been signed on admission. NS B stated the consents should have been done on admission and/or when the medications were started. NS B stated Resident #15 should have had a consent for each medication she was on. She stated by not having the consents it could lead to the resident getting medications that the family or resident did not want. In an interview on 06/26/2025 at 4:56 PM the Pharmacist Consultant stated when he did his medication review for psychotropic drugs he did not check to see if consent forms were in place. He stated he could if it was something he needed to do. In an interview on 06/27/2025 at 12:34 PM the Administrator stated she expected that consents be signed prior to administration of psychotropic medication to ensure the family's and residents have been informed of the SE and to ensure a resident was not getting a medication they did not want. She stated the pharmacist should be reviewing that on his visit as it was part of unnecessary medication.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure all drugs and biologicals were labeled and ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure all drugs and biologicals were labeled and stored in accordance with currently accepted professional principles for 4 (Station 1 south-hall, Station 1 east-hall, Station 2 south-hall, Station 2 north-hall, of 5 medication carts reviewed for medication storage. - The facility failed to ensure an undated bottle of Systane eye drops without a resident name or label were removed from the Station 1 South-hall medication cart. - The facility failed to ensure the Station 1 east-hall med cart did not contain three loose pills, the Station 2 south-hall med cart did not contain one loose pill, and the Station 2 north-hall med cart did not contain 18 loose pills. - The facility failed to ensure an expired bottle of magnesium oxide, best by 02/2025, was removed from the Station 2 north-hall med cart. These failures could place residents at risk for not recceiving prescribed medications as ordered and adverse effects of medicaitons due to incorrect labeling. Findings included: An observation of the Station 1 south-hall medication cart on [DATE] at 4:11 PM revealed an opened bottle of Systane eye drops. The bottle did not have a label, name, or date when opened. In an interview on [DATE] at 4:26 PM, RN C stated she did not know who the Systane eye drops belonged to. She stated the nurses were responsible for keeping the medication carts in order. She stated she cleaned her cart before and after use. She stated multi-dose vials or bottles were dated when opened. An observation of the Station 1 east-hall medication cart on [DATE] at 4:34 PM revealed three loose, unidentified pills in the bottom of a drawer. In an interview on [DATE] at 4:35 PM, LVN W stated there should not have been loose pills in the cart. LVN W stated dropping pills may lead to needing to reorder the medication from the pharmacy. She stated it was their practice that medication bottles were dated when opened. An observation of the Station 2 south-hall med cart on [DATE] at 9:47 AM revealed one loose unidentified white pill in the bottom of a drawer . An observation of the Station 2 north-hall med cart on [DATE] at 9:56 AM revealed 18 loose, unidentified pills. In an interview on [DATE] at 10:00 AM, LVN E stated if a pill was dropped in the cart, it should have been removed immediately. In an interview on [DATE] at 10:49 AM, the DON stated each nurse and the nursing supervisor on the station were responsible to ensure the medication carts were clean, free from loose. She stated it did not meet her expectations that there were loose on the carts. In an interview on [DATE] at 12:40 PM, the Assistant Administrator stated she expected medications were stored properly. Review of the facility's undated Procedure for Medication Room reflected in part, 1. Drugs shall be stored in an orderly manner in cabinets, cubicles, drawers, or carts . 11. The medication of each patient shall be kept and stored in their originally received containers .
May 2024 8 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0558 (Tag F0558)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews the facility failed to ensure residents received services in the facility ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews the facility failed to ensure residents received services in the facility with reasonable accommodations of resident's needs and preferences except when to do so would endanger the health and safety of the resident or other residents for 1 of 6 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for resident rights; in that: The facility failed to ensure Resident #1's call lights was within reach. This failure could place residents at risk of needs not being met. Findings included: Record review of Resident #1's admission record, dated 05/15/24, reflected a [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #1 had diagnoses which included: type 2 diabetes mellitus (a chronic condition that affects the way the body processes the blood sugar), ventricular tachycardia (cardiovascular disorder in which fast heart rate occurs in the ventricles of the heart), dementia (a syndrome associated with many neurodegenerative diseases which is characterized by general decline in cognitive abilities that impacts a person's ability to perform everyday activities), and heart failure (a syndrome caused by impairment in the hearts ability to fill with and pump blood). Record review of Resident #1's quarterly MDS assessment, dated 03/21/24, reflected Resident #1 had a BIMS score of 12, which indicated the resident was moderately cognitively impaired. The MDS reflected resident had active diagnoses of osteoarthritis and a history of falling. Record review of Resident #1's care plan, initiated 02/21/18, reflected Resident #1 was care planned for ADL self-care performance deficit r/t Dementia with a goal of maintain current level of function through the review date. and had an intervention of The resident requires extensive assistance) by (X 1) staff for toileting. and Encourage the resident to use call light to call for assistance. assist bar for assistance with bed mobility. In an observation on 05/14/24 at 10:34 AM, Resident #1's call light was out of the resident's reach. Resident #1's call light was lying in between the mattress and bed frame and slightly hanging down. Call light was not visible to the eyes unless bending all the way down to see under the head of the bed. Resident #1 was sitting up in her wheelchair close to the foot of her bed. Resident #1 demonstrated that she could not find or reach the call light. In an interview on 05/14/24 at 10:35 AM, Resident #1 stated she was wonderful, and the staff treated her great and could not have been better. She stated the staff helped her with everything. She stated she did not have her call light and could not find it. She stated she usually had it where she could get to it, but she could not find it at that time. In an observation on 05/14/24 at 12:15 PM, revealed Resident #1's call light was lying in between the mattress and bed frame and slightly hanging down and out of Resident #1's reach. In an interview on 05/14/24 at 11:19 AM, RN A stated she had been trained on call lights recently. She stated she could not remember when the last in-service was, but it had not been too long ago. She stated if a residents call light was out of reach, the resident would not be able to call for help if needed. She stated sometimes Resident #1 moved things around in her room but when she saw the call light under the mattress, she knew resident could not have done that. She stated she removed call light from under mattress and placed call light in residents reach. In an interview on 05/15/24 at 10:44 AM, the ADON stated all staff had been trained on call lights and making sure call lights were in residents reach at all times. She stated they just recently had an in-service on call lights. She stated call lights should have been in residents reach at all times. She stated if a call light was not in a residents reach, it could cause falls, angry residents or families, or many other negative things. In an interview on 05/16/24 at 12:11 PM, the ADM stated staff had been in-serviced and trained on call light placement and response. She stated call lights should be in residents reach at all times. She stated if a residents call light was not in reach it could cause the resident to have a fall and the resident would not be able to call for help. In an interview on 05/16/2024 at 12:32 PM, the DON stated staff was in-serviced recently on call light placement and response. She stated residents' call lights should always be in reach. She stated if a resident's call light was out of reach the resident could possibly be at risk of falls, choking, or not getting the help they need. She stated if a call light was not in reach, it could possibly be detrimental to a residents' health or even lead to death. Record review of undated facility policy titled Call Light revealed Licensed nurse and nurse aide 1. To respond promptly to resident's call for assistance, 2. To assure call light system is functioning properly, Procedure: 1. All nursing personnel must be aware of call lights at all times. 6. When providing care to residents, be sure to position the call light conveniently for the resident to use. Tell the resident where the resident is and show him/her how to use the call light. Record review of the facility's in-service titled Resident Care and Call Lights dated 04/22/24 revealed staff had been in-serviced regarding call lights and in-service stated Residents must be able to contact staff at all times. When they are in their room it is important that they have access to their call bell. All staff are to make sure that call lights are within reach of the resident when they are in their rooms. If a resident is in bed and then transferred to a chair or wheelchair, make sure the call light is also transferred.
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** Citation Text for Tag 0641, Regulation FF14 [NAME], [NAME] Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Citation Text for Tag 0641, Regulation FF14 [NAME], [NAME] Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure assessments accurately reflected the resident's status for 3 of 10 residents (Residents #83) reviewed for resident assessments. The facility failed to ensure the MDS assessment accurately reflected: Resident #83's moderately impaired vision. This deficient practice could place residents at risk for inadequate care due to inaccurate assessments. Findings include: A record review of Resident #83's face sheet dated 05/16/24 reflected a [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #83's diagnoses included sudden visual loss, left eye (loss of the ability to see well or to see at all), anxiety disorder (excessive nervousness, fear, apprehension, and worry), muscle weakness (lack of physical or muscle strength), visual hallucinations (seeing things that aren't real, like objects, shapes, people, animals, or lights), and dementia (loss of cognitive functioning, thinking, remembering, and reasoning) A record review of Resident #83's Quarterly MDS assessment, dated 04/23/24, reflected the resident had a BIMS score of 08, which indicated mildly impaired. Resident #83's Quarterly MDS assessment reflected Resident #83 had moderately impaired vision (limited vision, not able to see newspaper headlines but can identify objects). A record review of Resident #83's Quarterly MDS assessment, dated 03/26/24, reflected the resident had a BIMS score of 05, which indicated severe impaired. Resident #83's Quarterly MDS assessment reflected Resident #83 had highly impaired vision (object identification in question, but eyes appear to follow objects). A record review of Resident #83's Annual MDS assessment, dated 02/11/24, reflected the resident had a BIMS score of 11, which indicated moderately impaired. Resident #83's Annual MDS assessment reflected Resident #83 had severely impaired vision (no vision or sees only light, colors or shapes; eyes do not appear to follow objects). A record review of Resident #83's care plan, dated 03/21/2024, reflected Resident #83 was care planned for impaired visual function r/t sudden complete visual loss. In an interview on 05/16/24 at 10:52 a.m., LVN A stated that Resident #83's vision is severely impaired. LVN A stated she would consider Resident #83's vision as blind. An interview with the DON on 05/16/24 at 12:55 p.m., the DON stated that the MDS coordinator was responsible for completing the MDS assessment. The DON stated that she was very familiar with Resident #83 and would consider Resident #83's vision to be severely impaired. The DON stated that if a resident was missing teeth, then that should be reflected on the residents' MDS assessment. The DON stated that if the MDS assessment was not accurate then there could be money penalties and they resident might not receive the appropriate care. An interview with the MDS Coordinator on 05/16/24 at 1:05 p.m., the MDS Coordinator stated that she was responsible for completing the MDS assessment accurately. MDS Coordinated stated that the SW was responsible for completing the hearing, speech, and vision section of the MDS assessment. MDS Coordinator stated that if the MDS assessment was not completed accurately then the resident might not receive the appropriate care needed. An interview with the SW on 05/16/24 at 1:35 p.m., the SW stated that she was responsible for completing vision section of the MDS assessment. The SW stated she was familiar with Resident #83 and would consider her vision moderately impaired. The SW stated that Resident #83 could see big objects with her glasses on. An interview with the ADM on 05/16/24 at 2:00 p.m., the ADM stated that Resident #83's vision was highly or severely impaired. ADM stated that Resident #83 has little to no vision in her left eye. The ADM stated that if a resident was missing teeth, then that should be reflected on the residents' MDS assessment. The ADM stated that if a resident MDS assessment was incorrect then that could cause the resident's care plan to be incorrect and the resident may not receive the appropriate care needed. A record review of the facility's MDS Policy, not dated, reflected, Prepare, implement, and evaluate Resident assessments and comprehensive care plan and MDS according to facility guidelines. Correctly and timely record and document any forms on resident care, personnel, and training. Follow all guidelines for MDS set by state and federal. Refer to the RAI manual for interpretation of any and all MDS questions! MDS' will be performed upon admission and every 92 days thereafter at minimum. Resident information will be as accurate and truthful as possible and may be collected and documented in multiple areas.
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 implement a comprehensive care plan to meet the medica...

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 implement a comprehensive care plan to meet the medical and nursing needs and the services to be furnished to attain or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of 1 (Resident #67) of 6 residents reviewed for care plans. The facility failed to implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for Resident #67's risk for falls resulting in no fall interventions in place for this resident. This failure could place residents of risk for not receiving appropriate care and treatment, lack of fall interventions, a delay in treatment, a decline in health, and hospitalization. Findings included: Record review of an undated face sheet reflected Resident #67 was an [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #67 had the following diagnoses of metabolic encephalopathy (a brain dysfunction caused by problems with brain metabolism), Diabetes Mellitus (elevated blood sugar), Polyneuropathy (nerve damage), and Anemia (low red blood cells). Record review of Resident #67s MDS dated [DATE] reflected he had a BIMs score of 11 indicating resident had moderate cognitive impairment. The MDS also reflected Resident #67 required assistance with dressing and grooming and used a manual wheelchair for mobility. Record review of care plan dated 02/20/24 for Resident #67 reflected a care plan with the focus of resident having actual falls on dates 02/09/24, 03/22/24 and 04/12/24. The care plan goal was that resident would resume his usual activity without further incidents through review date. Interventions was to continue interventions on the at risk for falls care plan. There was no care plan reflecting at risk for falls. Record review of Morse Fall Scale (an assessment to determine if a resident is at risk for falling) dated 5/9/24 reflected Resident #67 scored a 65 indicating he was high risk for falls. In an interview and observation on 05/14/24 at 2:17 PM, Resident #67 was sitting in his wheelchair with no shoes on his feet. He stated he had about 5 falls since his admission. Resident #67 stated the floor was to slick in his room. In an interview on 05/16/24 at 12:00PM, MDS Coordinator A revealed it is the responsibility of the two MDS coordinators to work together to ensure the Care Plans are completed and updated with each fall. She stated the supervising staff (ADM, DON, ADON, MDS) do go over the incidents and accidents daily in the morning meeting. Then the team discuss fall interventions appropriate for that resident. The care plan was updated according to the interventions agreed upon by the team. There should be a risk for falls care plan, and an actual fall care plan to evaluate what interventions work and do not work. The negative effects related to not placing interventions or have a fall care plan would be increased falls with possible injury. In an interview on 05/16/24 at 01:35 PM, MDS Coordinator B stated that interventions on the care plan for falls were updated with each fall. He stated incidents accidents were reviewed in the morning meeting. The care plan then would be updated with a new intervention to assist in the prevention of future falls. He stated there was a list of interventions to choose from depending on the type of fall to add to the resident's fall plan of care. He stated this is how they evaluate what interventions worked and what did not. MDS B stated the risk for the resident for not having interventions in place on the plan of care would be that the resident would continue falling . In an interview on 05/16/24 at 01:43 PM, the DON stated all resident falls were reviewed quarterly by a fall committee. She stated each new falls was reviewed in the morning meeting, and interventions are communicated to the MDS coordinators for documentation on the care plan of interventions to prevent falls. Fall interventions would include things such as fall matts, low beds, physical therapy, or occupational therapy and should be documented on the care plan. The DON stated the risk to residents for not updating interventions would be continued falls, major injury head trauma, and brain bleeds . A record review of and undated facility policy and procedure titled Resident Falls Protocol reflected: The Care Plan will be updated with each new fall.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0757 (Tag F0757)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents' drug regimen was adequately monitored and free fr...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents' drug regimen was adequately monitored and free from unnecessary drugs for 1 (Resident #16) of 6 residents reviewed for pharmacy services. The facility failed to monitor Resident #16 for side effects/adverse reactions for the use of Xarelto (an anticoagulant medication- blood thinner). These failures could place residents at risk of bruising, and bleeding. Findings included: Record review of undated face sheet reflected Resident #16 was a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #16 had the following diagnoses of acute respiratory failure, unspecified severe protein calorie malnutrition, chronic heart failure, and hypotension (low blood pressure). Record review of Resident #16s MDS dated [DATE] reflected she had a BIMs score of 14 indicating resident was cognitively intact. The MDS also reflected Resident #16 required assistance with dressing and grooming and used a manual wheelchair for mobility. Record review of Physicians Order Summary Report dated 05/15/24 for Resident #16 reflected an order for Xarelto (a blood thinner) to be given daily. Record review of the Order Summary also reflected there was no order for monitoring of the Xarelto. Record review of Medication Administration Record (MAR) for the month of April reflected resident had received Xarelto daily. The MAR also reflected there was no monitoring for side effects in place related to the use of the Xarelto. In an interview on 05/16/24 at 11:33 AM, RN A (charge nurse) stated residents are assessed for bleeding by visual assessments daily by the staff. If bruising or bleeding is noted nurses would document and notify the doctor. Nurses also complete weekly skin assessments and nurse aides would notify charge nurses of anything unusual that is found on the skin. There should be an order reflecting the need to monitor daily for bleeding, bruising, black tarry stools all the side effects from an anticoagulant. The risk to residents for not monitoring an anticoagulant for side effects would be low blood count, or unnoticed injuries . In an interview on 05/16/24 at 1:43 PM, the DON stated all residents taking an anticoagulant should be monitored for side effects. The daily documentation for monitoring would be noted on the MAR. The physicians' orders would reflect an order to monitor for side effects if a resident were on an anticoagulant. Side effects would include bruising, bleeding, blood in stools, or bleeding gums. The DON stated the ADON normally reviews orders for residents, and the DON spot check orders for accuracy at least 1 x weekly. The Pharmacist then reviews residents' orders monthly. The negative effects for the resident for not monitoring for side effects of the medication Xarelto would have included risk for bleeding bruising, side effects from medication. A record review of and undated facility policy and procedure titled Pharmacy and Procedures Purpose. Reflected 1. Ensure that drugs are prescribed, administered, and handled in this facility in a manner that protects the safety and welfare of the patient.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0790 (Tag F0790)

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 assist residents in obtaining routine dental services ...

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 assist residents in obtaining routine dental services for 2 of 6 (Resident #47 and Resident #107) residents reviewed for dental services. The facility failed to assist Resident #47 and Resident #107 in obtaining dental services since their admission to the facility to assess for dental care needs. This deficient practice could affect residents by placing them at risk of not receiving necessary care and services to maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being which could result in a decreased quality of life. Findings include: Record review of Resident #47's face sheet dated 5/16/2024 reflected diagnoses of nonrheumatic aortic stenosis (heart valve disease), mild cognitive impairment, ventricular premature depolarization (dysfunction of left ventricular), legal blindness, anemia (lack of red blood cells), disorientation and muscle weakness. Record review of admission MDS dated [DATE] for Resident #47 reflected a BIMS score of 13 which indicated no cognitive impairment at the time of the assessment. Further review of functional abilities reflected Resident #47 was independent for eating and performing oral hygiene. Review also reflected Resident #47 received a mechanically altered diet. MDS also reflected no weight loss of 5% in last month or 10% or more in last 6 months under the swallowing/nutritional status section for Resident #47. Review of care plan dated 3/11/2024 for Resident #47 reflected she had a potential nutritional risk due to poor dentition, chewing difficult that affected her ability to feed herself that included an intervention to serve a mechanical soft diet with ground meat texture. Review of social services initial assessment for Resident #47 dated 3/13/2024 reflected resident was to be put on list for routine services under social service referrals section which included dental, vision, psychological, podiatry and hearing services. Review of physician orders dated 03/07/2024 for Resident #47 reflected an order for a regular mechanical soft diet with ground meat texture. Review of nutrition assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #47 had broken, lose or carious teeth. Review of Resident #107's face sheet dated 5/16/2024 reflected diagnosis of acute respiratory failure (when there is not enough oxygen or too much carbon dioxide in your body), dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), anemia (lack of red blood cells), mild cognitive impairment, congestive heart failure (when the heart does not pump blood well enough into the body), essential hypertension (high blood pressure), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (a condition that constricts airways and causes difficulty breathing). Review of quarterly MDS dated [DATE] for Resident #107 reflected BIMS score of 8 which indicated moderate cognitive impairment. Review also reflected Resident #107 was independent for eating and required set up or clean up assistance with oral hygiene. Further review reflected Resident #107 had complaints of difficulty or pain with swallowing. Quarterly MDS also reflected no weight loss of 5% in last month or 10% or more in last 6 months in swallowing/nutritional status. Review reflected Resident #107 required a mechanically altered diet on admission through assessment date. Review of Resident #107's care plan reflected she had a potential nutritional problem related to difficulty chewing. Review of social services initial assessment for Resident #107 dated 2/2/2024 reflected resident was to be put on list for routine services under social service referrals section which included dental, vision, psychological, podiatry and hearing services. Review of physician orders dated 1/27/2024 for Resident #107 reflected an order for a regular mechanical soft diet with ground meat texture. Review of nursing note dated 1/31/2024 reflected dietician requested diet change to mechanical soft due to resident not having bottom teeth. Review of dental list of residents who were seen for dental services for months of January 2024 through April 2024 indicated Resident #47 and Resident #107 were not listed as seen by the facility dental provider. During observation and interview on 05/14/2024 at 1:28 PM, Resident #47 was observed to have missing and broken teeth. Resident #47 stated she had a lot of missing teeth and several that are broken and stated she had not been seen by a dentist. Resident #47 stated she did not have issues eating. During observation and interview on 5/15/2024 at 9:44 AM, Resident #107 stated her top teeth started to become crooked and she asked to see a dentist previously. Resident #107 stated she has not seen a dentist. Resident #107 stated that she has some trouble eating items but usually her food is chopped. During an interview on 5/15/2024 at 3:24 PM, LVN B stated that would inform the social worker when a resident needed to see the dentist. LVN B stated that if a resident told her they wanted to see the dentist she would tell the social worker. LVN B stated if a resident stated something bothered them in their mouth, she would assess the resident and may contact the doctor or depending on the outcome of the assessment let the social worker know if the resident needed to see a dentist. During an interview on 05/15/2024 at 3:41 PM, CNA A stated that when she provided oral care daily to residents, she looked for inflamed gums. CNA A stated that she also looked if the resident had gums there were irritated, swollen or if they bled during oral care. She stated she would report any changes or concerns to the nurse and would report broken teeth to the nurse. During an interview on 05/16/2025 at 3:41 PM, LVN A stated that she was able to know if a resident needed to see a dentist if they complained their mouth hurts. LVN A stated she looked for swelling or bleeding and she was aware of any mouth discomfort residents had. She stated that she would assess the resident and was aware of any discomfort when she provided oral care. She stated that she would let the social worker know when a resident needed to see the dentist so they can be put on a list if it is something that could wait. She stated that she would also inform the doctor so the resident could be sent out sooner. During an interview on 5/16/2024 at 10:43 AM, CNA B stated that she looked to see if a resident's intake had declined to determine if she thought a resident needed to see the dentist. CNA B stated that during oral care she also looked for any discomfort, if the resident complained of pain or if their face was swollen and stated she would report any of these changes to the nurse. During an interview on 5/16/2024 at 11:29 AM, the SW stated dental services are offered to residents upon admission. She stated that the nurse will let her know if there is any kind of pain and then the referral would be sent. She stated that most residents use the provide that comes to the facility. The SW stated that once the resident is on the list to be seen, the dental provide reaches out to the resident and their family twice a year to ensure they want to remain on the list. The SW sated that the dentist comes twice a month, but if the resident is having pain they can be seen sooner. The SW stated that if residents are having trouble chewing, they can also be seen because of this. She stated that Resident #107 is on the list to be seen but is on hold because she was on skilled services. She stated that Resident #107 is not able to be seen while she is on skilled services. She stated that she does not know if Resident #47 is on the list. During an interview on 05/16/2024 at 1:00 PM, the SW stated a referral was not sent for Resident #47 due to the resident being on skilled services. The SW stated the resident is not able to be seen by the dentist due to being on skilled services. During an interview on 5/16/2021 at 2:28 PM, the DON stated that dental/oral services are carried out by referring the resident to a dentist if anyone complains of dental pain or if anything is noted by nursing staff. The DON stated that occasionally residents prefer to see an outside dentist. The DON stated that depending on when the referral was sent is when the resident would be seen by the dentist. She stated that the process of referring a resident to the dentist is that nursing that notifies the social worker if there are dental concerns such as a tooth ache or broken tooth. The DON stated that nursing staff assess if the resident needs a referral or if they need an emergency visit prior to the next scheduled dentist visit. The DON stated that oral care is expected every day. She stated that the facility provides one time use toothbrushes with premeasured tooth paste and denture supplies. During an interview on 05/16/2024 at 2:33 PM, the ADM stated that the social worker is responsible for setting up dental services for residents. The ADM stated that residents should be referred to a dentist within 3 days of after requested or an identified need. The ADM stated that normally the SW refers the resident as soon as she finds out about it and emails the dentist they are contracted with. When asked how the facility ensures that a dentist is available for residents, the ADM stated that she ensures they have a contact dentist and if a need arises the facility obtains another dentist. The ADM stated that a resident is able to see a dentist in the community if they want. When asked if a resident being on skilled services should prevent them from being able to see a dentist the ADM stated no. Review of undated facility policy titled Dental Policy reflected that residents have a choice of using an in-house dentist or they may go to a dentist of their choice. The policy also reflected that upon admission through the social services initial assessment residents are asked if they are having any trouble chew or pain, and if so, they are referred to the dentist. If a resident reports a lost or broken tooth nursing staff notified social service and a dental referral is made. If there is pain or an emergency dental need, out in-house provider is available via phone and in-person within 3 days. The facility will assist the resident if necessary or requested in making a prompt referral to a dental provider within 3 business days. If the referral cannot occur within 3 business days, the facility, must provide documentation as to why the delay occurred.
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 establish and maintain an infection prevention and con...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infection for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #61) reviewed for infection. The facility failed to ensure LVN A performed hand hygiene prior to medication administration for Resident # 61. The facility failed to ensure LVN A performed hand hygiene after glove use during medication administration for Resident #61. The facility failed to ensure LVN A performed cleaning and disinfecting of blood pressure cuff after use on Resident #61. These failures could lead to the spread of infection to residents, residents illness, and /or resident distress. Findings include: Record review of the admission sheet dated 5/17/24 for Resident #61, revealed an [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included T11-T12 Vertebra fracture (Spinal vertebra fracture), Schizoaffective Disorder Bipolar type (A rare mental illness that occur when someone experiences both schizophrenia and bipolar disorder), Atrial Fibrillation (A disease of the heart characterized by irregular and often faster heartbeat.), Acute Respiratory Failure (is a life-threatening condition where the lungs cannot provide enough oxygen to the body or remove enough carbon dioxide.), Type 2 Diabetes w/ other Circulatory Complications i.e. Foot Ulcer (A condition results from insufficient production of insulin, causing high blood sugar). Record review of Resident #61's Quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], revealed he had a BIMS score of 12 out of 15, indicative of moderately impaired cognitively. Observation on 05/15/24 at 9:15 AM, revealed LVN A provided Resident #61 with medication administration. LVN A failed to perform hand hygiene prior to starting medication administration for Resident #61. During review of Resident #61 medications LVN A determined Resident #61 required a blood pressure reading prior to administration of medication. LVN A donned gloves and took Resident #61's blood pressure. After completing blood pressure reading LVN A doffed gloves and failed to complete hand hygiene prior to continuing medication administration for Resident # 61. Upon completion of medication administration LVN A failed to complete disinfection of blood pressure cuff used on Resident #61. In an interview on 05/16/24 at 2:37 PM, the DON said during medication administration that hand hygiene is expected to be performed between residents, when hands are visibly soiled, after glove use, and after medications are touched. The DON further said during medication administration blood pressure cuff disinfection/sanitization is to be performed after each use between each resident. The DON said training for medication administration, hand hygiene, and infection control are done yearly as a skills check-off and after incidents have occurred. Record review of facility's Medication Administration policy (undated) revealed All Licensed nurses will administer medications as ordered by physician, All Licensed nurses will follow the 6 rights of medication administration. Licensed nurses will also: 2. Administer medications and treatments and perform procedures safely. Record review of facility's Handwashing/Hand Hygiene policy (undated) revealed under Responsibility: All Nursing Staff Purpose: 1. To thoroughly cleanse/sanitize the hands. 2. To control infection through medical asepsis 3. To reduce transmission of organisms from resident to resident 4. To reduce transmission of organisms from staff to resident 5. To reduce transmission of organisms from resident to staff General Instructions: Hands should be thoroughly washed / sanitized before and after providing care. Hands should be thoroughly washed / sanitized after changing gloves. Proper hand hygiene must be always followed. Equipment: 1. Soap 2. Comfortably warm water 3. Paper towels 4. Alcohol based hand sanitizer Procedure: Soap and water technique 1. Stand so clothing does not touch sink. 2. Place hands under water. 3. Apply soap and work up lather. Using friction (rubbing), wash entire surface of hands for at least 20 seconds. Wash hands thoroughly, including wrists, palms, back of hands, and under the fingernails. 4. Clean soil from under fingernails. 5. With hands below wrists, rinse the soap from your hands. Do not splash water onto clothing. Do not allow hands to touch sink. 6. Dry hands completely with a clean paper towel. 7. Using paper towel to turn off water. Discard paper towel in trash can. Alcohol based hand sanitizer technique 8. Apply sanitizer to the palm of one hand. 9. Rub hands together. 10. Rub sanitizer over all surfaces of hands and fingers until hands are dry. Remember: If soap and water are not available, use alcohol-based hand sanitizer. If visible soil is present on the hands, wash hands with soap and water. Record review of facility's Cleaning, Disinfecting, and Sterilization policy dated 2009 revealed under Purpose: To provide supplies and equipment that are adequately cleaned, disinfected, or sterilized. Policy: I. Cleaning: A. Supplies and equipment will be cleaned immediately after use. Gross blood, secretions, and debris will be removed as soon as possible. Cleaning may be done in the resident's room or the soiled utility room. II. Disinfection/Sterilization: A. Resident care equipment that enters normally sterile tissue or the vascular system, or through which blood flows, will be sterile. B. Respiratory therapy equipment that touches mucous membranes should be subjected to sterilization before each use; if not feasible, it will receive high-level disinfection. III. Classification of Devices, Processes, and Germicidal Products Noncritical (touches intact skin): low-level disinfection using hospital disinfectant without label claim for tuberculocidal activity Record review of LVN A's personnel file revealed a hire date of 01/18/16. Initial orientation check-off including hand hygiene, universal precautions, and infection control dated 01/18/16. Record review of LVN A's annual competency skills check-off dated 05/07/24 revealed a check of satisfactory for hand hygiene, universal precautions, and infection control practices.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0561 (Tag F0561)

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 to ensure that the residents had the right to and that the facil...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility to ensure that the residents had the right to and that the facility promoted and facilitated resident self-determination through support of resident choice for 26 (Resident #'s 1, 3, 6, 10, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 25, 28, 36, 37, 41, 42, 46, 47, 67, 68, 79, 83, 92, 96, 105, 107, and 362) of 26 residents whose care was reviewed, in that: 1) The facility denied Resident #16 the right to sell her car by declaring her incompetent to make her own decisions. 2) The facility was applying an order for all (Resident #'s 1, 3, 6, 10, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 25, 28, 36, 37, 41, 42, 46, 47, 67, 68, 79, 83, 92, 96, 105, 107, and 362) residents upon admission related to their resident rights that stated, It is my determination that this resident is not capable of understanding and exercising his/her rights d/t their medical diagnosis. signed by the physician. This deficient practice could place residents with the ability to make choices at risk of having their rights violated, resulting in diminished quality of life, unmet needs, and unable to have wishes met in the event of a life threatening emergency . The finding include: Resident #16 Record review of an undated face sheet reflected Resident #16 was a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #16 had the following diagnoses of acute respiratory failure, unspecified severe protein calorie malnutrition, chronic heart failure, and hypotension (low blood pressure). Record review of Resident #16's MDS dated [DATE] reflected she had a BIMs score of 14 indicating she was cognitively intact. The MDS also reflected Resident #16 required assistance with dressing and grooming and used a manual wheelchair for mobility. Record review of a Physicians Order Summary Report dated 05/15/24 for Resident #16 reflected an order related to their resident rights that stated, It is my determination that this resident is not capable of understanding and exercising his/her rights d/t their medical diagnosis. signed by the physician. In an interview with on 05/14/24 at 10:45 a.m., Resident #16 was not aware of this order stating that this resident is not capable of understanding and exercising his/her rights d/t their medical diagnosis. Resident #16 stated she attempted to sell her car with the help of her family and was unable to do so. Resident #16 stated the facility informed me at that time I was not competent to sell my car. She stated, she has her right mind to make her decisions. Her family member in the room stated we had no idea she had been declared medically incompetent. Resident #1 Record review of Resident #1's MDS dated [DATE] reflected Resident #1 had impaired short-term and long-term memory . Record review of Resident #1's Physicians Order Summary Report dated 05/15/24 had an order related to their resident rights that stated, It is my determination that this resident is not capable of understanding and exercising his/her rights d/t their medical diagnosis. signed by the physician. Resident #3 Record review of Resident #3's MDS dated [DATE] reflected Resident #3 had a BIMS score of 15 indicating Resident #3 was cognitively intact. Record review of Resident #3's Physicians Order Summary Report dated 05/15/24 had an order related to their resident rights that stated, It is my determination that this resident is not capable of understanding and exercising his/her rights d/t their medical diagnosis. signed by the physician. In an interview on 05/14/24 at 09:12 a.m., Resident #3 was alert and able to indicate was not aware of this order stating that this resident is not capable of understanding and exercising his/her rights d/t their medical diagnosis. Resident #3 states she can make her own decisions. Resident #6 Record review of Resident #6's MDS dated [DATE] reflected Resident #6 had a BIMS score of 10 indicating Resident #6 had moderate cognitive impairment. Record review of Resident #6's Physicians Order Summary Report dated 05/15/24 had an order related to their resident rights that stated, It is my determination that this resident is not capable of understanding and exercising his/her rights d/t their medical diagnosis. signed by the physician. Resident #10 Record review of Resident #10's MDS dated [DATE] reflected Resident #10 had a BIMS score of 12 indicating Resident #10 had moderate cognitive impairment. Record review of Resident #10's Physicians Order Summary Report dated 05/15/24 had an order related to their resident rights that stated, It is my determination that this resident is not capable of understanding and exercising his/her rights d/t their medical diagnosis. signed by the physician. Resident #14 Record review of Resident #14's MDS dated [DATE] reflected Resident #14 had a BIMS score of 15 indicating Resident #14 was cognitively intact. Record review of Resident #14's Physicians Order Summary Report dated 05/15/24 had an order related to their resident rights that stated, It is my determination that this resident is not capable of understanding and exercising his/her rights d/t their medical diagnosis. signed by the physician. Resident #15 Record review of Resident #15's MDS dated [DATE] reflected Resident #15 had a BIMS score of 13 indicating Resident #15 was cognitively intact. Record review of Resident #15's Physicians Order Summary Report dated 05/15/24 had an order related to their resident rights that stated, It is my determination that this resident is not capable of understanding and exercising his/her rights d/t their medical diagnosis. signed by the physician. Resident #17 Record review of Resident #17's MDS dated [DATE] reflected Resident #17 had a BIMS score of 14 indicating Resident #17 was cognitively intact. Record review of Resident #17's Physicians Order Summary Report dated 05/15/24 had an order related to their resident rights that stated, It is my determination that this resident is not capable of understanding and exercising his/her rights d/t their medical diagnosis. signed by the physician. Resident #20 Record review of Resident #20's MDS dated [DATE] reflected Resident #20 had a BIMS score of 2 indicating Resident #20 was cognitively impaired. Record review of Resident #20's Physicians Order Summary Report dated 05/15/24 had an order related to their resident rights that stated, It is my determination that this resident is not capable of understanding and exercising his/her rights d/t their medical diagnosis. signed by the physician. Resident #25 Record review of Resident #25's MDS dated [DATE] reflected Resident #25 had a BIMS score of 12 indicating Resident #25 had moderate cognitive impairment. Record review of Resident #25's Physicians Order Summary Report dated 05/15/24 had an order related to their resident rights that stated, It is my determination that this resident is not capable of understanding and exercising his/her rights d/t their medical diagnosis. signed by the physician. Resident #28 Record review of Resident #28's MDS dated [DATE] reflected Resident #28 had a BIMS score of 10 indicating Resident #28 had moderate cognitive impairment. Record review of Resident #28's Physicians Order Summary Report dated 05/15/24 had an order related to their resident rights that stated, It is my determination that this resident is not capable of understanding and exercising his/her rights d/t their medical diagnosis. signed by the physician. Resident #36 Record review of Resident #36's MDS dated [DATE] reflected Resident #36 had short-term and long-term memory problems. Record review of Resident #36's Physicians Order Summary Report dated 05/15/24 had an order related to their resident rights that stated, It is my determination that this resident is not capable of understanding and exercising his/her rights d/t their medical diagnosis. signed by the physician. Resident #37 Record review of Resident #37's MDS dated [DATE] reflected Resident #37 had a BIMS score of 15 indicating Resident #37 was cognitively intact. Record review of Resident #37's Physicians Order Summary Report dated 05/15/24 had an order related to their resident rights that stated, It is my determination that this resident is not capable of understanding and exercising his/her rights d/t their medical diagnosis. signed by the physician. Resident #41 Record review of Resident #41's MDS dated [DATE] reflected Resident #41 had a BIMS score of 15 indicating Resident #41 was cognitively intact. Record review of Resident #41's Physicians Order Summary Report dated 05/15/24 had an order related to their resident rights that stated, It is my determination that this resident is not capable of understanding and exercising his/her rights d/t their medical diagnosis. signed by the physician. Resident #42 Record review of Resident #42's MDS dated [DATE] reflected Resident #42 had had short-term and long-term memory problems. Record review of Resident #42's Physicians Order Summary Report dated 05/15/24 had an order related to their resident rights that stated, It is my determination that this resident is not capable of understanding and exercising his/her rights d/t their medical diagnosis. signed by the physician. Resident #46 Record review of Resident #46's MDS dated [DATE] reflected Resident #46 had a BIMS score of 5 indicating the resident was cognitively impaired. Record review of Resident #46's Physicians Order Summary Report dated 05/15/24 had an order related to their resident rights that stated, It is my determination that this resident is not capable of understanding and exercising his/her rights d/t their medical diagnosis. signed by the physician. Resident #47 Record review of Resident #47's MDS dated [DATE] reflected Resident #47 had a BIMS score of 10 indicating Resident #47 had moderate cognitive impairment. Record review of Resident #47's Physicians Order Summary Report dated 05/15/24 had an order related to their resident rights that stated, It is my determination that this resident is not capable of understanding and exercising his/her rights d/t their medical diagnosis. signed by the physician. Resident #67 Record review of Resident #67's MDS dated [DATE] reflected Resident #67 had a BIMS score of 11 indicating Resident #67 had moderate cognitive impairment. Record review of Resident #67's Physicians Order Summary Report dated 05/15/24 had an order related to their resident rights that stated, It is my determination that this resident is not capable of understanding and exercising his/her rights d/t their medical diagnosis. signed by the physician. Resident #68 Record review of Resident #68's MDS dated [DATE] reflected Resident #68 had short-term and long-term memory problems. Record review of Resident #68's Physicians Order Summary Report dated 05/15/24 had an order related to their resident rights that stated, It is my determination that this resident is not capable of understanding and exercising his/her rights d/t their medical diagnosis. signed by the physician. Resident #79 Record review of Resident #79s MDS dated [DATE] reflected Resident #79 had short-term and long-term memory problems. Record review of Resident #79's Physicians Order Summary Report dated 05/15/24 had an order related to their resident rights that stated, It is my determination that this resident is not capable of understanding and exercising his/her rights d/t their medical diagnosis. signed by the physician. Resident #83 Record review of Resident #83's MDS dated [DATE] reflected Resident #83 had a BIMS score of 8 indicating Resident #83 had moderate cognitive impairment. Record review of Resident #83's Physicians Order Summary Report dated 05/15/24 had an order related to their resident rights that stated, It is my determination that this resident is not capable of understanding and exercising his/her rights d/t their medical diagnosis. signed by the physician. Resident #92 Record review of Resident #92's MDS dated [DATE] reflected Resident #92 had a BIMS score of 9 indicating Resident #92 had moderate cognitive impairment. Record review of Resident #92's Physicians Order Summary Report dated 05/15/24 had an order related to their resident rights that stated, It is my determination that this resident is not capable of understanding and exercising his/her rights d/t their medical diagnosis. signed by the physician. Resident #96 Record review of Resident #96's MDS dated [DATE] reflected Resident #96 had a BIMS score of 13 indicating Resident #96 was cognitively intact. Record review of Resident #96's Physicians Order Summary Report dated 05/15/24 had an order related to their resident rights that stated, It is my determination that this resident is not capable of understanding and exercising his/her rights d/t their medical diagnosis. signed by the physician. Resident #105 Record review of Resident #105's MDS dated [DATE] reflected Resident #105 had a BIMS score of 5 indicating Resident #105 was cognitively impaired. Record review of Resident #105's Physicians Order Summary Report dated 05/15/24 had an order related to their resident rights that stated, It is my determination that this resident is not capable of understanding and exercising his/her rights d/t their medical diagnosis. signed by the physician. Resident #107 Record review of Resident #107's MDS dated [DATE] reflected Resident #107 had a BIMS score of 8 indicating Resident #107 had moderate cognitive impairment. Record review of Resident #107's Physicians Order Summary Report dated 05/15/24 had an order related to their resident rights that stated, It is my determination that this resident is not capable of understanding and exercising his/her rights d/t their medical diagnosis. signed by the physician. Resident #362 Record review of Resident #362's MDS dated [DATE] reflected Resident #362 had a BIMS score of 7 indicating Resident #362 was cognitively impaired. Record review of Resident #362's Physicians Order Summary Report dated 05/15/24 had an order related to their resident rights that stated, It is my determination that this resident is not capable of understanding and exercising his/her rights d/t their medical diagnosis. signed by the physician. In an interview on 05/14/24 at 09:30 a.m., Resident #362 was not aware of this order stating that this resident is not capable of understanding and exercising his/her rights d/t their medical diagnosis. Resident # 362 states he can make his own decisions. In an interview on 05/14/24 at 09:34 a.m., Resident #37 was not aware of this order stating that this resident is not capable of understanding and exercising his/her rights d/t their medical diagnosis. Resident #37 states she can make her own decisions. In an interview on 05/14/24 09:58 a.m., Resident #14 was not aware of this order stating that this resident is not capable of understanding and exercising his/her rights d/t their medical diagnosis. Resident #14 states she can make her own decisions. In an interview on 05/14/24 at 10:45 a.m., Resident #16 was not aware of this order stating that this resident is not capable of understanding and exercising his/her rights d/t their medical diagnosis. Resident Stated she attempted to sell her care with the help of her son and was unable to do so. The facility informed me at that time I was not competent to sell my car. She stated she has her right mind to make her decisions. In an interview on 05/14/24 at 02:10 p.m., Resident #67 was not aware of this order stating that this resident is not capable of understanding and exercising his/her rights d/t their medical diagnosis. Resident #67 states he can make his own decisions. In an interview on 5/15/24 at 10:15 a.m., the DON stated every resident received this physician statement order upon admission. Staff do determine and reevaluate yearly the physician's statement accuracy. The facility puts the physician statement in place mostly for resident protection to prevent family members from changing POA, taking money, writing checks those types of things. She stated for residents even with a BIMS score of 15 (indicating the resident is cognitively intact) the facility applies the physician statement order. This is because a residents BIMS score may fluctuate from day to day. The ADON is responsible for completing the yearly evaluations and updating the order within the chart. The physician is the one who determines if the resident is or is not capable of making their own decisions. The DON stated this order also was used to assist for making medical necessity for Medicaid services. The DON stated there is no policy to monitor this form provided by the medical director. In an interview on 05/15/24 at 10:41 a.m., MDS A she stated she does all the MDS assessments. She helps with looking at LTMN for Medicaid residents. She stated she looks to see if the resident had cognitive issues, memory issues based off their BIMS, visual problems for meeting long-term care qualifications. MDS A stated she would reach out to the physician to see if there are any additional records or get additional information if needed. She was aware there was an order on the chart that residents are not able to make their own decisions and it says that they are or not able to make their own decisions- whichever they meet. That order also helps with getting LTMN and it falls under the cognitive area when looking for LTMN. MDS A stated the facility had not gone through the court system to get a guardian for residents who cannot make their own decisions not to her knowledge. In an interview on 05/15/24 11:08 a.m., the Medical Director said he was aware of the blanket order stating, It is my determination that this resident is not capable of understanding and exercising his/her rights d/t their medical diagnosis. He stated that the order is generally determined upon admission by physical assessment on rounds, visual assessment, not being able to answer simple questions, or by completing a mini mental assessment. The Medical Director stated that to take away a resident right is a broad statement. We as a facility could probably do a better job of determining what is considered not capable of understanding. A resident could have just intermittent confusion that may resolve within a few days such as an acute infection not necessarily making the order valid. On 05/15/24 at 11:21 a.m., in a Confidential meeting attending residents were asked if their physician told them they are not able to make their own decisions, 9 /9 residents verbalized no they were not told. Residents stated they could make their own decisions. A record review of the Medical Practice Agreement for Attending Physicians dated 4/25/19 reflected under admission requirements that the Medical Director will provide a physician statement regarding a resident's ability to understand and exercise their rights. A record review of an undated Admissions Agreement for residents titled Your Rights as a Resident reflected: You have the right to be informed, make your own decisions, and have your information kept private. A record review of and undated facility policy and procedure titled Facility Policy Relating to Self-Determination reflected: A. Provides all individuals, at the time of admission to the nursing facility, with information relating to the individuals' rights under Texas law to make decisions concerning medical care, including the right to accept or refuse medical or surgical treatment and the right to formulate advanced directives, Physicians and family or surrogates medical power of attorney and declaration for mental health.
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 1 of 1 kitche...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety in 1 of 1 kitchen reviewed for dietary services. Dietary staff failed to effectively reseal, label and date items in the walk-in freezer. These failures could place residents at risk for food contamination and foodborne illness. The findings include: During the initial tour of the kitchen on 05/14/2024 at 08:37 AM, the following was observed in the walk-in freezer. a bag appeared to be opened French fries in a clear plastic bag with no label or no dates documented, and a bag appeared to be opened meat patties in a clear plastic bag with no label or no dates documented. Interview with [NAME] A on 05/14/24 at 9:05 AM, [NAME] A stated that it would be the cook or the assist cook's responsible to label and date items that they had opened for a meal. [NAME] A stated she had not opened the unlabeled and undated items and did not know the items was not labeled and dated. [NAME] A stated if food was not labeled or dated then residents could get sick from the unlabeled and undated food. Interview with [NAME] B on 05/14/24 at 9:15 AM, [NAME] B stated that it would be the cook or assist cook is responsible to label and date items that they have opened for a meal. [NAME] B stated if an item in the freezer was not labeled or dated then the items could be old. [NAME] B stated if the items were old that would put the residents at risk of getting sick. Interview with the Dietary Manager on 05/14/24 at 9:25 AM, the DM stated the unlabeled and undated items were French fries and chicken patties. The DM stated the cook and assistant cooks were responsible for labeling or dating items that they have opened. The DM stated that all opened items should be labeled and dated. The DM stated food items could be old if not appropriately labeled with a received, opened, and used by dates. The DM stated if food was outdated then that would possibly put residents at risk for getting sick. Record review of the facility's Food Storage policy, dated 2005, reflected Policy: Sufficient storage facilities are provided to keep food safe, wholesome, and appetizing. Food is stored, prepared, and transported at an appropriate temperate and by methods designed to prevent contamination. Procedures 13. Leftover food is stored in covered container or wrapped carefully and securely. Each item is clearly labeled and dated before refrigerated. Leftover food is used within 3 days or discarded. A record review of the FDA's 2022 Food Code reflected the following: 3-501.17 Ready-to-Eat, Time/Temperature Control for Safety Food, Date Marking. (A) Except when PACKAGING FOOD using a REDUCED OXYGEN PACKAGING method as specified under § 3-502.12, and except as specified in (E) and (F) of this section, refrigerated, READY-TOEAT, TIME/TEMPERATURE CONTROL FOR SAFETY FOOD prepared and held in a FOOD ESTABLISHMENT for more than 24 hours shall be clearly marked to indicate the date or day by which the FOOD shall be consumed on the PREMISES, sold, or discarded when held at a temperature of 5ºC (41ºF) or less for a maximum of 7 days. The day of preparation shall be counted as Day 1. (B) Except as specified in (E) -(G) of this section, refrigerated, READY-TO-EAT TIME/TEMPERATURE CONTROL FOR SAFETY FOOD prepared and PACKAGED by a FOOD PROCESSING PLANT shall be clearly marked, at the time the original container is opened in a FOOD ESTABLISHMENT and if the FOOD is held for more than 24 hours, to indicate the date or day by which the FOOD shall be consumed on the PREMISES, sold, or discarded, based on the temperature and time combinations specified in (A) of this section and: (1) The day the original container is opened in the FOOD ESTABLISHMENT shall be counted as Day 1; and (2) The day or date marked by the FOOD ESTABLISHMENT may not exceed a manufacturer's use-by date if the manufacturer determined the use-by date based on FOOD safety.
Apr 2023 4 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store drugs and biologicals in locked compartments, permit only authorized personnel to have access to the keys, and labeled ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store drugs and biologicals in locked compartments, permit only authorized personnel to have access to the keys, and labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles, and include the appropriate accessory and cautionary instructions for two (Nurses' Station Two Medication Cart #1 and #2) of five medication carts reviewed for security. 1. The facility failed to ensure staff maintain medication cart keys in a safe and secure manner. This failure placed the residents at risk for diversion of controlled substances. Findings included: An observation and interview on 04/05/2023 beginning at 6:50AM at Nurses' Station Two, revealed medication cart #1 positioned at the nurses' station facing outwards with the keys on top of the cart. LVN F, LVN G and RN B were observed behind the desk with their backs to the cart. Residents were observed ambulating in the area around the nurses' station. An interview with LVN F revealed she was an agency nurse, and the cart was assigned to her. She stated the medication cart keys need to be secured at all times. She said they should not be left on the cart because anyone could get them. She said securing medication carts was important to prevent the risk of drug diversions. In interview on 04/05/2023 at 11:20AM with the Administrator, she stated agency staff are oriented to the facility's policies and are provided with a list of basic job expectations. She said nursing management were responsible for the orientations. She said her expectation is for nurses transferring possession of the med carts and secure the med cart keys to minimize the risk of drug diversion. An interview on 04/05/2023 at 11:37AM with the DON revealed the medication cart keys need to be on the nurses' person. She said that is what the facility's policy reflects. She said the purpose was to limit or prevent medication errors and/or drug diversions. She stated agency staff are monitored like any other staff member through in services and audits. She said they get a verbal mini orientation of the facility's protocols when they come to work at the facility. She said this was provided by herself of the charge nurses. An interview on 04/05/2023 at 11:55AM with the ADON/IP revealed nurses are expected to ensure medication carts are secured at all times. She stated this meant to ensure keep cart keys on them at all times. She said not doing this could result in a drug diversion. She stated nursing management was responsible for checking that these were being done. Record review of the facility's undated policy titled, Controlled Medication, revealed .the key to the med cart and locked box is to be carried by the licensed nurse or CMA at all times. The keys may not be left on the desk or in a drawer. Failure to secure the keys will result in disciplinary action
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

Based on interview and record review the facility failed to develop a Comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident, consistent with the resident rights set forth at §483.10(c)(2) and...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to develop a Comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident, consistent with the resident rights set forth at §483.10(c)(2) and §483.10(c)(3), that includes any services that would otherwise be required but are not provided due to the resident's exercise of rights including the resident right to refuse treatment for 10 (Resident #29, 49, 13, 92, 43, 14, 65, 93, 60, 99) of 20 resident Care Plans reviewed in that: The facility failed to address Resident's #29, #49, #13, #92, #43, #14, #65, #93, #60 and #99 Code Status on their comprehensive person-centered care plan. This failure could affect residents and could result in resident's needs not being met. Findings included: Review of Resident's #29, #49, #13, #92, #43, #14, #65, #93, #60 and #99 revealed no care plan for their code status. Review of Resident #29's Face sheet revealed Code Status was left blank. Review of Resident #49's Face sheet revealed Code Status was left blank. Review of Resident #13's Face sheet revealed a Code Status of Do Not Resuscitate (DNR). Review of Resident #92's Face sheet revealed a Code Status of DNR. Review of Resident #43's Face sheet revealed Code Status was left blank. Review of Resident #14's Face sheet revealed Code Status was left blank. Review of Resident #65's Face sheet revealed Code Status was left blank. Review of Resident #93's Face sheet revealed Code Status was left blank. Review of Resident #60's Face sheet revealed Code Status was left blank. Review of Resident #99's Face sheet revealed Code Status was left blank . Interview on 4/06/23 at 10:11 AM with RN/MDS Coordinator stated the purpose of a Care Plan was to meet with Resident/Responsible Party to determine current health status, short-term and long-term goals. The MDS/RN stated all Care Team staff developed specific portions of the Plan of Care; stated Plan of Care was implemented so all staff were on same page and actively involved in achievement of set/stated goals. The MDS/RN stated MDS Coordinators were responsible for placing Code Status in Resident Plan ofCare. The MDS/RN stated the DON was responsible for getting orders signed and providing them to the MDS Coordinator(s). The MDS/RN stated no excuse for failure to include Code Status in Plan of Care. Interview on 4/06/23 at 10:37 AM with the LVN/MDS Coordinator stated the resident Plan of Care was designed to provide information about the resident. The LVN/MDS Coordinator stated the Plan of Care provided information to staff of the type of care needed, short-term goals and long-term goals. The MDS/LVN Coordinator stated MDS Coordinators gathered information from various members of the care team as well as resident chart. The LVN/MDS Coordinator stated if portions of care were omitted from plan of care it would affect the resident and stated care plan was accessible to all care staff. The LVN/MDS Coordinator stated the purpose of Code Status was to provide staff with information on how to react to resident death and stated code status information was needed very quickly. The LVN/MDS Coordinator stated facility policy made inclusion of Code Status essential. The LVN/MDS Coordinator stated he just failed to include Code Status in the resident Care Plan. Interview on 4/06/23 at 11:07 AM with facility Social Worker (SW) stated the MDS Coordinators started the Resident Plan of Care and she just added elements to that. The SW stated she performed Advance Directive in the admission process. The SW stated the Care Plan informed staffof how to care for a resident; stated care plan were updated quarterly and with residentchange. The SW stated she frequently reviewed physician orders for changes. The SW statedthe Code Status should be on the Care Plan because that directed staff what to do if a resident quit breathing; stated that was important. The SW stated the MDS Coordinators were responsible for checking Care Plan to insure completeness. Interview on 4/06/23 at 12:02 PM with the DON stated a Care Plan was used by staff to provide needed/preferred care. The DON stated failure to complete a resident Care Plan might prevent resident from receiving specific care. The DON stated all staff were responsible for insuring MDS staff received needed know how to respond to sudden arrest - whether resident received Full Code or did not receive services. The DON stated failure to follow code preferences could affect resident in many ways and facility in legal ways. The DON stated Code Status should be in all care plans. Interview on 4/06/23 at 12:14 PM with Administrator stated information for care plans were provided by the resident, family, lab results, doctor orders and medical records as well as therapy, nursing, dietary, etc. The Administrator stated Code Status should be included in all care plans. The Admistrator stated having code status on the Care Plan alerted staff to how to proceed in an emergency. The Administrator stated it was very important for staff to know code status. Review of facility Advance Directive Policy, undated, reflected the following: Resident Care Plan: The resident's Advance Directive and Do Not resuscitate status will be addressed in the resident's care plan.
CONCERN (E)

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure each resident's environment remains as free of accident hazards as is possible for 2 of 4 used sharps (used to store sh...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure each resident's environment remains as free of accident hazards as is possible for 2 of 4 used sharps (used to store sharp medical instruments) containers on treatment carts reviewed for accidents and hazards. The facility failed to ensure the storage of contaminated sharps bins on two treatment carts on Station One were secured and safe. These failures placed residents at risk of being exposed to contaminated sharps and possible bloodborne pathogens. Findings included: An observation on 04/06/2023 at 8:30AM revealed one treatment cart behind Nursing Station One and one treatment cart in the entranceway to Nursing Station One. Both carts had plastic sharps bin inserts, approximately half full, were set on top of the cart. The metal locking mechanism on the side of the cart behind the nurses' station was taped closed with duct tape. Residents were observed ambulating in the halls and around the nurses' station. An interview on 04/06/2023 at 8:32AM with RN A revealed there were two treatment carts on Nursing Station One. She stated the plastic sharps bins should be secured in the locking holder on the side of the carts, however, they did not fit into the holders. She said the inserts were too large for the locking holders. She stated she told the DON about it a while ago and was told they were working on it. She said the sharps bins should be secured to ensure they did not spill their contents causing a hazard to staff and residents. In an interview on 04/06/2023 at 8:38AM LVN C stated the sharps bins should be secured to ensure they do not spill. She stated the unsecured bins on top of the two treatment carts could tip over and spill needles or contaminated liquids placing residents at risk of harm. An interview on 04/06/2023 at 8:43AM with LVN D revealed she was the nursing supervisor. She stated she was aware the sharps bin inserts did not fit in to the securing bin on the side of the treatment carts. She said it had been that way since December of 2022. She said the DON was made aware and was looking into getting bin inserts that fit into the securing bin on the side of the carts. She said the securing bin on the side of one cart was taped closed to prevent staff from putting used sharps in the bin when there was no plastic insert in the bin. She said the sharps bins need to be secured to ensure they do not spill causing a safety hazard. In an interview on 04/06/2023 at 8:53AM LVN E stated she was a charge nurse and usually worked on Nurse' Station Two. She stated she had seen the sharps bins on top of the treatment carts on Station One and knew they should be attached to the cart to prevent a safety hazard. An interview on 04/06/2023 at 8:57AM with the DON revealed the facility had 4 treatment carts (two on each Nurse' Station One and Two). She said the facility changed supply companies and could not get the sharps insert bins that fit into the two treatment carts on Station One. She said she was aware, and the sharps bins had been like that for a couple months. She stated she had been working on getting the proper inserts. She stated the sharps bins on top of the treatment carts were a safety hazard for residents and staff since they could spill. An interview on 04/06/2023 at 9:55AM with the ADON/IP revealed the sharps bins need to be secured to the cart to ensure they do not spill causing a safety hazard to residents and staff. She stated the DON had been actively looking for the correct size sharps bin insert but had not been successful to date. She stated she was not sure if the facility had a policy that addressed how sharps gins were stored. She only provided the following policy: Record review of the facility's undated policy titled, Sharps and Needles Disposal, revealed .Sharps will be placed directly into impervious, leak-prof and puncture resistant containers to eliminate the hazard of physical injury
CONCERN (E)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain an Infection Prevention and Control Program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to he...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain an Infection Prevention and Control Program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for three (Memory Care, 1East Hall, and 2North Hall) of six clean linen closets and one of one mecanical lifts reviewed for infection control. The facility failed to ensure clean linen closets were kept free of equipment that had not been sanitized before and after use. The facility failed to ensure CNAs K and L sanitized the mechanical lift (equipment used to lift residents) between use on two residents. This failure could place residents at risk of infections. Findings included: Observation and interview on 04/05/2023 beginning at 12:40PM with the Laundry Supervisor revealed three (Memory Care, 1East Hall, and 2North Hall) of six clean linen closets with Hoyer and stand-up lift in them. The Laundry Supervisor stated all mechanical lifts should be sanitized before being placed in the clean linen closets by staff who used them, but she could not be sure that they were. She stated the clean linen closets should only contain clean linen. She said having equipment or anything else in the closets pose a risk of cross-contamination and infection to the residents. In interviews on 04/05/2023 at 2:30PM with CNAs H, I, and J they revealed they stored the mechanical lifts in the clean linen closets because there was nowhere else to store them. They said the Administrator did not want them stored in the halls. They all stated they did not always disinfect the lifts between use on residents or prior to placing them into the clean linen closets. They said they had been trained in infection control policy and knew this was a risk of spreading infection to residents but often get busy and forget. An interview on 04/05/2023 at 3:23PM with the ADON/IP revealed she had been made aware that staff were storing lifts in the clean linen closets. She stated staff had been in-serviced on infection control and sanitizing equipment but there was no guarantee that staff were sanitizing doing it. She said this was a risk of spreading infection between residents. She said as the IP she tracked infections and currently had one resident with a wound infection and two with UTIs. She said although there were no current major infections in the facility, there had been in the past. She said she was working on finding alternate storage arrangements for the lifts. An interview on 04/05/2023 at 3:28PM with the Administrator revealed she told staff they could not store lifts in the halls and as a result they had been storing them in the clean linen closets. She stated although she expected equipment to be sanitized between use on residents, she could not be sure this had been done consistently. She said storing equipment in the clean linen closets posed a risk of the spread of infection to residents. An observation and interview on 04/06/2023 beginning at 7:57AM in the Secured Unit revealed CNAs K and L took a mechanical lift into Resident #25's room. A few minutes later, CNA K exited the room with the lift and entered Resident #76's room. An interview with CNA K revealed she and CNA L had used the lift on Resident #25 then to lift Resident #76. CNA K stated she had not sanitized the lift between residents. Both CNAs K and L stated all equipment needed to be sanitized between use on residents to limit the risk of spreading infections. They stated they were not allowed to leave the lifts in the halls and the storage rooms were full, so they stored them in the clean linen closets. They said this was a risk of cross-contamination. An interview on 04/06/2023 at 7:46AM with LVN G revealed her expectation for CNAs was to sanitize equipment between uses. She said she reminded them frequently but believed they do not do it every time. She said clean linen closets should only contain clean linen. She said storing lifts in the closet could spread infection to residents because all residents come into contact with linen from the clean linen closets. A review of the facility's in-service records dated 11/04/2022 and 01/11/2023 and titled COVID-19 signs and symptoms, revealed staff were in serviced on infection control including sanitizing equipment. An in serviced dated 06/02/2022 and titled Stop the Spread: In service on Infection Control, also addressed disinfecting equipment. Record review of the facility's undated policy titled, Linen Room Storage Process, states To prevent the spread of virus and bacteria within the facility .Linen rooms are to be used exclusively for the storage of clean linen Record review of the facility's undated policy titled, Cleaning Equipment, states Nursing staff will clean and sanitize all equipment after each use. This includes Standaides, Mechanical Lifts, blood pressure equipment, pulse oximeters, thermometers, shower chairs, stethoscopes.
Feb 2023 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0563 (Tag F0563)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to allow a resident the right to receive visitors of his or her choo...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to allow a resident the right to receive visitors of his or her choosing at the time of his or her choosing, subject to the resident's right to deny visitation when applicable, for 1 of 5 (Resident #1) residents reviewed for visitors. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1 was allowed visitors in her room at the time of her choosing. This failure could affect residents and place them at risk of loss of dignity and diminished quality of life in addition to denying the resident the additional care that visiting family may have provided. Findings included: Review of Resident #1's face sheet reflected a [AGE] year-old female admitted on [DATE]. Diagnoses included Syncope (dizziness) and Collapse, COVID-19 (positive on the day of admission), other specified depressive disorders, heart failure, and history of falling. Review of Resident #1's most recent MDS assessment, dated 01/30/2023, reflected a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of 4, which is severely impaired cognition. Review of Resident #1's Physical Therapy Plan of Care, dated 01/27/23, reflected the resident was alert and oriented to person, place, and time (called x3). In an interview on 02/10/23 at 1:30 PM, FM 2 stated she had concerns about visitation. She stated when she was visiting on Saturday 01/28/23, LVN A told FM 2 that she could not stay with the resident over night and that visiting hours ended at 10:00 pm, so she had to leave the facility. FM 2 left the facility. Record review of Resident #1's progress note, dated 01/29/23 at 3:19 am entered by LVN A, revealed that FM 2 informed LVN A she intended to spend the night on the quarantine unit and was told she could not stay. The progress note went on to say that LVN A called the DON to be certain about the information that was given her about facility rules about this situation, and was told that visitor's hours are over at 10:00 pm. In an interview on 02/10/23 at 2:00 pm with the DON, she stated that FM 2 was asked to leave by LVN A, who then called DON and she confirmed that FM 2 could not stay and that visiting hours ended at 10:00 pm. In an interview on 02/10/23 at 3:30 pm with the ADM, she stated that the facility did not have restricted visiting hours. She stated the facility's visitation policy is to allow visitors of a resident's choosing at times the resident chooses. She stated that inability to have visitors harmed residents during covid, when visits were restricted due to the pandemic and that the facility encourages visitation. Record review of the facility's undated policy, titled Visitation Policy, stated Residents have the right to receive visitors of his or her choosing at the time of his or her choosing, subject to the resident's right to deny visitation when applicable, and in a manner that does not impose on the rights of another resident. It further stated that the facility does not have any set visitation hours . except after 10:00 pm, once the roommate goes to bed, your visitor(s) will be asked to move to a different location, other than the shared room as to not disturb the roommate. It further specifies the evening/night nurse has the authority to ask a visitor to leave if the visitor is disruptive, causing a health or safety concern, or infringing upon the rights of roommates or other residents.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

  • "What changes have you made since the serious inspection findings?"
  • "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
  • "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Texas facilities.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 2 life-threatening violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 30 deficiencies on record, including 2 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • Grade F (16/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 16/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is West Rest Haven's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns West Rest Haven 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 West Rest Haven Staffed?

CMS rates West Rest Haven's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 46%, compared to the Texas average of 46%. RN turnover specifically is 67%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.

What Have Inspectors Found at West Rest Haven?

State health inspectors documented 30 deficiencies at West Rest Haven during 2023 to 2025. These included: 2 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death) and 28 with potential for harm. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.

Who Owns and Operates West Rest Haven?

West Rest Haven is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 120 certified beds and approximately 109 residents (about 91% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in West, Texas.

How Does West Rest Haven Compare to Other Texas Nursing Homes?

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

What Should Families Ask When Visiting West Rest Haven?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What changes have been made since the serious inspection findings, and how are you preventing similar issues?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations.

Is West Rest Haven Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, West Rest Haven 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 West Rest Haven Stick Around?

West Rest Haven has a staff turnover rate of 46%, which is about average for Texas nursing homes (state average: 46%). Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.

Was West Rest Haven Ever Fined?

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

Is West Rest Haven on Any Federal Watch List?

West Rest Haven 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.