South Davis Specialty Care

481 South 400 East, Bountiful, UT 84010 (801) 295-2361
For profit - Partnership 95 Beds THE ENSIGN GROUP Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
85/100
#19 of 97 in UT
Last Inspection: November 2023

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

Overview

South Davis Specialty Care in Bountiful, Utah, has a Trust Grade of B+, meaning it is above average and recommended for families considering care options. It ranks #19 out of 97 facilities in Utah, placing it in the top half, and #2 out of 7 in Davis County, indicating that only one local option is better. The facility is improving, with issues decreasing from four in 2021 to just one in 2023. Staffing is a strength here, rated 4/5 stars with a turnover of 48%, which is below the state average of 51%, and they have more RN coverage than 97% of state facilities. However, there are some weaknesses, including a serious incident where a resident sustained a fracture during therapy and did not receive timely treatment, as well as concerns about food safety practices and infection control measures that were not adequately followed. Overall, while there are areas for improvement, the facility demonstrates strong staffing and care quality.

Trust Score
B+
85/100
In Utah
#19/97
Top 19%
Safety Record
Moderate
Needs review
Inspections
Getting Better
4 → 1 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
48% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
✓ Good
No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Utah facilities.
Skilled Nurses
✓ Good
Each resident gets 216 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than 97% of Utah nursing homes. RNs are the most trained staff who catch health problems before they become serious.
Violations
○ Average
10 deficiencies on record. Average for a facility this size. Mostly minor or procedural issues.
★★★★★
5.0
Overall Rating
★★★★☆
4.0
Staff Levels
★★★★★
5.0
Care Quality
★★★★☆
4.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2021: 4 issues
2023: 1 issues

The Good

  • 4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average nurse staffing levels
  • 5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record

Facility shows strength in staffing levels, quality measures, fire safety.

The Bad

Staff Turnover: 48%

Near Utah avg (46%)

Higher turnover may affect care consistency

Chain: THE ENSIGN GROUP

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 10 deficiencies on record

1 actual harm
Nov 2023 1 deficiency
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. Specifica...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. Specifically, multiple food items were open to air, not dated and not labeled in the kitchen. Findings include: 1. During an initial walk-through of the kitchen on 11/6/23 at 9:07 AM the following was observed. a. Plastic clear container of frozen peas did not have a date or label. 2. During the follow-up visit to the kitchen on 11/8/23 at 11:40 AM the following was observed. a. Multiple sheets of uncooked bacon in the refrigerator was not dated or labeled and the food was not covered. b. Salad in plastic container with tomatoes and lettuce in the refrigerator was not dated or labeled. c. Mixed salad in a large plastic tray with plastic wrap over it was not dated or labeled. d. Coconut pie was observed thawing in the walk in refrigerator. The label stated to thaw whole sliced pie 8 hours or over night in fridge. There was no date when the pie was pulled from freezer. e. A container of frozen peas in freezer with no visible date. f. Chopped mixed fruit in refrigerator with no date or label. g. Prepared deli sandwich in the refrigerator with no date or label. h. Open bag of French fries in freezer with no date or label. i. Container of chopped broccoli in the freezer with no date or label. On 11/8/23 at 11:50 AM an interview with the Dietary Manager (DM) was conducted. The DM stated that the food items that were not dated or labeled were most likely prepared this morning. On 11/8/23 at 12:44 PM an interview with the Chef was conducted. The Chef stated that all the food that was prepared and went into the refrigerator or freezer should have been dated and labeled. On 11/8/23 at 12:48 PM an interview with the Culinary Specialist was conducted. The Culinary Specialist stated that all the food that was prepared should be wrapped, dated, and labeled.
Dec 2021 4 deficiencies 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review it was determined, for 1 out of 31 sampled residents, that the facility did not ensure that...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review it was determined, for 1 out of 31 sampled residents, that the facility did not ensure that the resident received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the residents' choices. Specifically, a resident sustained a fracture while receiving Passive Range of Motion (PROM) therapy services and did not receive an x-ray to diagnose the injury or treatment for two additional days after the injury occurred. This was cited at a harm. Resident identifier 25. Findings included: Resident 25 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which consisted of quadriplegia Cervical (C)1-C 4 complete, Pressure Ulcer (PU) right heel stage 3, PU left elbow stage 2, PU right elbow stage 2, gastrostomy, hypotension, polyneuropathy, muscle spasms, insomnia, gastro-esophageal reflux disease, functional dyspepsia, pain, tracheostomy, chronic respiratory failure, adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood. On 11/29/21 at 2:36 PM, an interview was conducted with resident 25. Resident 25 stated that his shoulder was fractured during range of motion (ROM) exercises that was provided by Restorative Nurse Aide (RNA) 1. Resident 25 stated that this incident occurred sometime last year. Resident 25 stated that RNA 1 was stretching him and his arms were tight and she pushed too hard. Residents 25 stated that it caused him pain, and he knew it was broken because it crunched immediately at the time of the incident. Resident 25 stated that RNA 1 was telling everyone that it needed to be x-ray, and she thought that she had broken something. Resident 25 stated that they continued to stretched him the next day and the shoulder crunched again. Resident 25 stated that at that point he had to request to have an x-ray done on the shoulder. Resident 25 stated that they made an appointment with orthopedic physician, and the treatment that was ordered was an abdominal binder to straighten and secure the arm. Resident 25 stated that the shoulder took a long time to heal because staff would continued to reinjure the arm. Resident 25 stated that during showers the staff would remove the binder and then not secure his arm. Resident 25 stated that because he was paralyzed his arm was dead weight and would fall during the showers off the shower chair. Resident 25 stated that he had increased pain from the fracture and had requested an increase in his pain medication. Resident 25 stated that he had always been on oxycodone 10 milligrams and Tylenol for back pain, but after the incident he requested an increase in the pain medication. Resident 25 stated that he was receiving the medication every 6 hours and he asked for it to be given every 4 hours. Resident 25 stated that he was told that he needed to go see a pain specialist. Resident 25 stated that he had pain in the right side of his back due to a titanium bar. Resident 25 stated that the oxycodone provided pain relief for approximately 2 hours. Resident 25 stated that he usually had pain at a score of 7/10 on a scale of 1 to 10, and the pain medication dropped it to about a 6/10. Resident 25 stated that it took 2 weeks before they increased his pain medication. Resident 25 stated that he believed that the arm was fractured a second time during repositioning, but that the staff made excuses that it just was taking a long time to heal. Resident 25 stated that the injury took 7-8 months to heal, but believed that the delayed healing was partially due to the staff reinjuring the arm and not securing it properly during cares. Resident 25's medical records were reviewed. Review of resident 25's progress notes revealed the following entries: a. On 9/5/2020 at 5:35 PM, RESTORATIVE CARE:30 min. (minutes) of prom (passive range of motion) to bue (bilateral upper extremities) and ble (bilateral lower extremities) completed i heard a loud pop sound in pt. (patients) left shoulder, I notify charge nurse immediately. The note was authored by RNA 1. b. On 9/6/2020 at 1:05 PM, PAIN:c/o (complained of) continuous pain, last prn (as needed) oxy (oxycodone) given @ 1300 (1:00 PM), will continue to assess. c. On 9/6/2020 at 5:06 PM, RESTORATIVE CARE:30 min. of prom to bue and ble completed. The note was authored by RNA 1. d. On 9/7/2020 at 11:00 AM, PAIN:(moderate pain) shoulder/neck e. On 9/7/2020 at 11:09 AM, MUSC (muscle)/SKELETAL COND (condition):experiencing pain in shoulder weakness f. On 9/7/2020 at 11:39 AM, The following was texted to MD: Restorative aide was doing ROM exercises on him yesterday and [resident 25] said he heard a popping sound and some pain. He states that it feels like his shoulder/scapula feel sprained. Then today another Restorative aide went in and did his ROM. She states when she moved his arm she could hear like a grinding sound and his arm moved more freely than it usually does. [Resident 25] told her to be careful with his arm after she was done. The aide states his shoulder is not usually that easy to move. MD RESPONSE: X-ray for that shoulder/upper arm please. g. On 9/7/2020 at 1:55 PM, RESTORATIVE CARE:30 minutes of PROM to BLE (bilateral lower extremities) and BUE (bilateral upper extremities) completed. h. On 9/7/2020 at 6:26 PM, INJURY: Right Humerus fracture POSSIBLE CAUSE: Pt has osteopenia INTERVENTIONS New devices: abdominal binder wrapped around arm to keep close to body. STAFF INVOLVED:CNA (Certified Nursing Assistant) WITNESSES: staff i. On 9/8/2020 at 2:27 PM, MUSC/SKELETAL COND: experiencing pain contractures weakness numbness j. On 9/8/2020 at 3:41 PM, TT (tiger texted) [Physicians name omitted] regarding patient wanted more pain medication stating that he feels increased pain in the Right side of neck due to the fractured right shoulder. MD (medical doctor) did not respond. Patient re-assessed stating pain has decreased with regular prn (as needed) analgesic but would still like more medication. MD TT stating he did not want to increase patients pain medication due to complications with over sedation in the past. k. On 9/9/2020 5:57 PM, Late Entry: On 9/5/20 [RNA 1] came to me with a concern about something that happened while doing restorative therapy with [resident 25]. She reported that while doing ROM exercises, she heard a 'loud cracking noise' that sounded like something had broken or was 'not normal'. I proceeded to assess [resident 25] for s/s (signs and symptoms) of a broken bone. Upon my assessment, I did not see any discoloration, swelling, or warmth of his right arm. [Resident 25] did not report any pain but he did report to have heard the loud noise. Upon my assessment, I determined that we should continue to monitor for signs and symptoms of a break and I asked [resident 25] to notify his nurse of any changes to his pain level. I also asked his nurse to continue to monitor for changes. l. On 9/10/2020 at 6:56 PM, patient refused to turn, stated 'I have pain everywhere. [Physician's name omitted] will be getting a call from my lawyer. They have to give me more pain meds (medications). One more is not going to hurt anything.' Patient expressed frustration that MD would not increase oxycodone higher than 40mg milligrams per 24h (hour) period at his request. This nurse reminded patient that MD decreased oxycodone in June and has Rx (prescription) other drugs to help with spasms and neuropathic pain. m. On 9/14/2020 at 5:44 PM, Late Entry: 9/7/20 Xray results of humerus and shoulder show an acute appearing fracture of the right humeral neck with mild displacement. MD notified and ordered his right arm to immobilized and MD will work on Ortho appt. (appointment) Will continue to monitor pt. n. On 9/14/2020 at 5:52 PM, Pt stated he would like the nurse to chart saying, 'I lost 4 pounds in a week, I am not eating because the pain is bad in the right neck and shoulder. If I eat, then the pain medication wont work'. Nurse communicated his concerns with the charge nurse. WCTM (will continue to monitor) o. On 9/14/2020 at 6:03 PM, The following was texted to MD: [Resident 25]. He is having increase in pain on his neck and clavicle. He would like an xray of his neck and one more oxycodone in a 24 hour period. He is currently getting 40 mg in a 24 hour period. He has been doing quite well with this but since his arm is broken the pain is worse in his neck. MD RESPONSE: Ok to both. Review of resident 25's incident report documented the date of the incident on 9/5/2020, made aware on 9/7/2020, and was documented by the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) 1. Pt states restorative aide was doing ROM. When performing ROM on right arm pt heard a popping sound in shoulder. After his shoulder felt 'stiff'. Today RA (restorative aide) was doing ROM, before pt made anyone aware still having issues with shoulder, and RA states could hear 'grinding' at shoulder and shoulder moved more than usual. The assessment of the resident documented that the neck, chest, arm, shoulder, and scapula were evaluated. There is no edema, bruising, abrasions and/or any abnormalities appreciated. Assessment is unremarkable. The report documented that the resident was not seen by the physician. The physician was notified on 9/7/2020 at 11:00 AM and ordered to Immobilize shoulder. Bed rest for now. MD will contact ortho surgeon to discuss possible tx. (treatment) (prior ordered x-ray) Review of resident 25's physician orders at the time of the incident (September 2020) revealed the following medications: a. Oxycodone 5 mg Tablet (2 tablet / 10 mg) enteral tube four times a day as needed (PRN). Can be given every 4 hours. DO NOT EXCEED 40MG IN 24HR PERIOD. The order was initiated on 7/22/2020 and discontinued on 9/14/2020. b. Oxycodone 5 mg Tablet (2 tablet / 10 mg) enteral tube five times a day as needed. Can be given every 4 hours. DO NOT EXCEED 50 MG IN 24HR PERIOD. The order was initiated on 9/14/2020 and discontinued on 12/7/2020. c. Tylenol 325 mg Tablet (2 tablet / 650 mg) by mouth every 6 hours as needed. Not to exceed 3000 mg/24 hrs. The order was initiated on 4/12/2020 and discontinued on 1/16/2021. d. NURSING ORDER: Ab (abdominal) binder to immobilize right arm check every 2 hours for skin breakdown, edema, bruising, and any other abnormalities. The order was initiated on 9/07/2020 and discontinued on 10/4/2020. e. NURSING ORDER: LOG ROLL patient when turning to protect right arm. The order was initiated on 9/07/2020 and discontinued on 12/09/2020. Review of resident 25's Restorative Program orders provided by the Physical Therapy Department revealed the following: a. On 9/9/2020 GENTLE P.R.O.M. (passive range of motion) in prolonged stretch to bilateral lower extremity(s) daily 7a-7p b. On 11/1/2021 GENTLE P.R.O.M. in prolonged stretch to BILATERAL upper extremities. Pt. has ostopenia (sic), be mindful of gentle stretching and not pushing past capabilities. daily 7a-7p Review of resident 25's Restorative Program orders provided by the Director of Nursing (DON) revealed the following: a. On 1/17/2020 Restorative to perform UE (upper extremity) PROM in all ranges in prolonged strength (i.e. > (greater than) 20-30 seconds) 5x/week Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday 7a (AM)-7p (PM) start on: 01/31/2020 The order was discontinued on 4/23/2020. b. On 4/23/2020 P.R.O.M. in prolonged stretch to bilateral upper extremity (s) daily 7a-7p The order was discontinued on 9/9/2020. c. On 9/9/2020 GENTLE P.R.O.M in prolonged stretch to right upper extremity daily 7a-7p The order was discontinued on 9/10/2020. d. On 9/9/2020 GENTLE P.R.O.M. in prolonged stretch to LEFT upper extremity daily 7a-7p The order was discontinued on 11/1/2021. e. On 11/1/2021 GENTLE P.R.O.M. in prolonged stretch to bilateral upper extremities. Pt. has ostopenia (sic), be mindful of gentle stretching and not pushing past capabilities. daily 7a-7p Review of resident 25's x-ray of the right shoulder on 9/7/2020 revealed there was an acute fracture of the right humeral neck with mild displacement. There was osteopenia. Review of resident 25's x-ray of the cervical spine on 9/14/2020 revealed evidence of a posterior cervical fusion from c2-c6 with mild straightening of cervical lordosis. No compression deformities or subluxation. Mild osteopenia. Review of resident 25's the September 2020 Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed that the Oxycodone 10 mg was administered 52 times from 9/1/2020 to 9/13/2020 for pain scores, when documented, that ranged from 3 to 9 out of 10 (on a scale of 1 to 10 with 10 being the highest pain possible) before the medication administration. The post administration pain scores were documented as pain reduced with the exception of one administration on 9/11/2020 at 10:39 AM as pain unchanged with a score of 8/10. The documented actions were to continue to observe and encourage rest and reposition. There were 5 administrations of the Oxycodone from 9/6/2020 to 9/14/2020 without a documented pain assessment either prior to administration or after administration for follow-up. On 9/14/2020 the Oxycodone order was changed to 10 mg 5 times a day as needed. On 7/20/2020 resident 25's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment documented under Section G for Functional Status that resident 25 was a total dependence with a 2 person physical assist for bed mobility, transfers, and toilet use. Resident 25 was documented as a total dependence with a 1 person physical assist for eating, dressing, and personal hygiene. Resident 25 had documented functional limitations in ROM in both upper extremity (shoulder, elbow, wrist, hand) and lower extremity (hip, knee, ankle, foot) with impairments on both sides (G0400 A&B). On 10/17/2020 resident 25's Quarterly MDS Assessment documented under Section G for Functional Status that resident 25 was a total dependence with a 2 person physical assist for bed mobility, dressing, and toilet use. Resident 25 was documented as a total dependence with a 1 person physical assist for eating and personal hygiene. Review of resident 25's care plan revealed the following: a. On 1/24/2020 a focus area of Comfort, Alteration: in pain, MANIFESTED BY: Communication of pain was initiated. The goals identified were episodes of pain will decrease within 1 hour of intervention, signs and symptoms (s/s) of pain and discomfort will be relieved within 1 hour of intervention, and expressed feelings of comfort or of pain relief. Interventions included nurses administer pain medication as ordered, document pain level, notify MD as needed, monitor/record: medication effectiveness, medication side effects, note characteristics of pain, and note characteristics of respiratory status. Nurse Aide interventions included position for comfort, provide quiet dark environment, offer cool washcloth, and report pain to the nurse. b. On 1/24/2020 a focus area of Impaired physical mobility, RELATED TO: Quadriplegia, Decrease in muscle strength, Weakness/fatigue, Decreased endurance, Decreased ROM, Increased muscle tone. Muscle Spasms, Decreased Mobility, and Neuromuscular impaired MANIFESTED BY: Unsteadiness was initiated. The goals identified were maintain mobility, no s/s of complications, activity participation, no falls or injury, no contractures, safety maintained, and propels self in wheelchair. Interventions included Nurse Aide identify factors that increase resident's potential for injury i.e.: obstacles, unmet needs, etc. Eliminate factors that may increase resident's potential for injury. Reposition minimum every 2 hours, AND/OR PER ACUITY, Utilize pillows for positioning, Report refusals, Check skin during care, Call light in reach, and Use adaptive wheelchair. c. On 11/1/2021 Restorative - Gentle Daily PROM to bilateral upper and bilateral lower extremities for contracture management and joint mobility. On 1/22/2020 resident 25's History and Physical completed by the physician upon admission documented under physical examination for neurologic: consistent with C4 tetraplegia with some diminished light touch sensation. C5 absent below. Slight shoulder shrug. No significant increased tone noted. The assessment and plan documented that the resident had no functional upper extremity motor. Resident 25 had significant neuropathic pain, was on multiple medications, and also felt his spasticity interfered with his pain. Review of RNA 1's competency skills checklist completed on 4/30/2020 documented that RNA 1 had verbalized and demonstrated proper technique for upper extremity range of motion and lower extremity range of motion. The performance criteria was signed by an unknown evaluator and RNA 1. It should be noted that RNA 1 had been performing RNA services for only 5 months prior to the incident with resident 25. On 12/02/21 at 11:17 AM, an interview was conducted with Physical Therapist (PT) 1. PT 1 stated that at times they would create a plan for the RNA services if it was other than basic PROM. PT 1 stated that if it was just basic PROM exercises they would not necessarily put together a RNA program because that would be something that the CNAs would have had training on already. PT 1 stated that they did not put together a plan for resident 25 prior to 9/9/2020. PT 1 stated that all RNA services go through the DON and were coordinated with her. PT 1 stated that the RNA order was provided to the DON to give to the RNAs. PT 1 stated that he did not provide any training to the RNAs for resident 25's program because it was basic PROM exercises. The RNA orders provided for resident 25 were initiated on 9/9/2020 and stated GENTLE P.R.O.M. in prolonged stretch to bilateral lower extremity(s) daily 7a-7p. PT 1 stated that the orders changed on 11/1/2021 to GENTLE P.R.O.M. in prolonged stretch to BILATERAL upper extremities. Pt. has osteopenia, be mindful of gentle stretching and not pushing past capabilities. daily 7a-7p. PT 1 stated that resident 25 did not have an order for an RNA program prior to 9/9/2020. PT 1 stated that the only change to the orders was that the first order just included lower extremities and the second order included the bilateral upper extremities. PT 1 stated that, in general, if we do an order for a patient we would have both upper and lower extremities. PT 1 stated that I don't think that they do things that are not in the order. I think that they would come and ask for clarification before they would add something extra. On 12/02/21 at 12:00 PM, an interview was conducted with RNA 2 and RNA 3. RNA 2 stated that she had worked at the facility for 6 years and had been an RNA for approximately 3 years. RNA 3 stated that she had worked at the facility for 5 years and had been an RNA for approximately 3 years also. RNA 2 stated that the training for the RNA program was through the physical therapy department with a packet that had to be completed. The packet contained information on motions, movements, resistance, and ambulating. RNA 2 stated that the PT would pass them off on the packet. RNA 2 stated that they would go over each new resident's care plan with new orders. RNA 3 stated that each resident would have orders for PT, OT (occupational therapy), and ST (speech therapy), and directions for what that resident's program was. RNA 3 stated that the PT would accompany them for first time with a resident and they could go ask them questions if anything should change and they would reassess. RNA 3 stated that the PT would let them know what the resident's baseline was. RNA 2 stated for PROM they performed exercises with adduction, abduction, repetitive motion, holding, and stretching out. RNA 2 stated that they work all of the extremities including the neck unless otherwise specified. Just whatever is in their order. RNA 2 stated they would not do any PROM exercises that were not specified in an order. RNA 2 and RNA 3 both stated that there were no residents on RNA services that do not have an order. RNA 2 stated that while providing PROM she would support the resident's dead weight for that extremity and feel for resistance and not push past the resistance. RNA 2 stated that she would look for any signs and symptoms of distress or pain and not push past that. RNA 2 stated for the residents that were quadriplegics some could feel and some could talk to us. RNA 3 stated that they would also look for indicators of distress with an elevated blood pressure as some of the residents were continuously monitored. RNA 3 stated that the long term residents on the 2nd and 3rd floor did not have their blood pressures continuously monitored. RNA 3 stated that other indicators of distress with quadriplegics were that they would have muscle spasms a lot if they were in pain or more tense. RNA 3 stated that they would check the resident's pulse oximeter for a elevated heart rate and oxygen saturation for any signs of distress. RNA 3 stated they also watched the resident's facial expression for any tension or anything out of the norm. RNA 3 stated that if we see any abnormal behavior we notify the nurse, notify the PT, and notify their supervisor the DON. RNA 2 stated that most of the time they just notify the nurse and the resident would get PRN pain medication, and they would come back later. RNA 2 stated if it was an ongoing issue or something more severe then they would take it to their supervisor or PT for evaluation before going back to provide services. If we find something abnormal we notify the nurse, then notify the supervisor and she will send out a email to everyone to notify them. RNA 2 stated that she would also call the next shift to notify them that there was a resident change in condition and to alert them to check their email. RNA 2 stated that they were supposed to check their email daily anyway's. RNA 2 stated that all of their documentation was completed under restorative nursing. On 12/02/21 at 3:08 PM, a telephone interview was conducted with RNA 1. RNA 1 stated that she had worked at the facility for 9 years, and had been an RNA for the last 2 years. RNA 1 stated that her training was in ROM therapy and was provided by other RNAs and the Physical Therapy department. RNA 1 stated that the training consisted of ROM exercises, ambulation with a resident, communication, and sign language with a book. RNA 1 stated that with ROM we hold the arms and legs. We bend the shoulders and legs, bend the arms, bend the knees, hips, all the way to the feet and ankles. RNA 1 stated that each resident had specific treatment and different orders. RNA 1 stated that the first time she provided a treatment to the resident another RNA would accompany her and if it was a new resident the Physical Therapist (PT) would show them how to do the exercises. RNA 1 stated she did not provide RNA services to residents without an order. RNA 1 stated that during ROM exercises she supported the arm with the left hand and made sure that she could see the resident's face to see if they were crying, or making faces in distress. RNA 1 stated that for residents who could talk they would tell her when to stop. If they moan we stop. RNA 1 stated that she looked for facial expressions or noises to see when she needed to stop. RNA 1 stated that she always did slow ROM exercises. RNA 1 stated that sometimes she can feel when the bone can bend this much, you can feel when you need to stop. RNA 1 stated that they [residents] don't have the flexibility to open their arms, we don't open it more than they can, we know their limit. RNA 1 stated that she was doing ROM with resident 25. RNA 1 stated that if you did not do what resident 25 wanted he called you names. RNA 1 stated that she was working on resident 25's right arm and was grabbing his arm and was pushing his shoulder up and down, and when she pushed it up it cracked. RNA 1 stated that she heard a cracking sound. RNA 1 stated that resident 25 was telling her during the PROM exercise that it could go more. RNA 1 stated that from her experience with working with resident 25 that she could feel that she was meeting resistance, but that she pushed past the resistance due to resident 25's prompting. RNA 1 stated that when she did this the arm cracked and she said see [resident 25's name] it cracked. RNA 1 stated that resident 25 then laughed at her. RNA 1 stated that resident 25's ROM order stated to do gentle ROM to both the upper and lower extremities. RNA 1 stated that after the injury occurred she went and told Charge Nurse (CN) 1 right away that they needed an x-ray to know if it was broken, because she heard it crack and pop. RNA 1 stated that was all she said and that they would take care of it. RNA 1 stated that she did not report the incident to anyone other than CN 1. RNA 1 stated that she believed that CN 1 then called her supervisor, the DON. RNA 1 stated that she filled out an incident report that day. It should be noted that an incident report completed by RNA 1 was not provided by the facility. RNA 1 stated that she went back the following day and provided resident 25 ROM exercises. RNA 1 initially stated that she did not provide ROM exercises in resident 25's right upper extremity on 9/6/2020. When asked about the documentation on 9/06/2020 at 5:06 PM, RESTORATIVE CARE:30 min. of prom to bue and ble completed. RNA 1 confirmed that it was documented by her. RNA 1 then stated that she only performed PROM exercises on resident 25 right extremity up to his elbow and did not go to the shoulder. RNA 1 stated that she did not document correctly, that the charting did not indicate this, and that she should have provided more detail. On 12/02/21 at 4:00 PM, an interview was conducted with Registered Nurse (RN) 3. RN 3 stated that if it was reported to her that a resident had sustained a suspected injury during ROM exercises she would assess the resident then report it to the charge nurse. RN 3 stated that she would follow-up the physician to make sure that there were no new orders and continue to monitor the resident for any change in condition. RN 3 stated that she would also follow up with the RNA to make sure that this was not a trend and that there were no other residents with injuries. RN 3 stated that she would definitely notify the doctor or make sure that the charge nurse notified the doctor. On 12/02/21 at 4:04 PM, an interview was conducted with RN 4. RN 4 stated that if an RNA reported a suspected injury during ROM exercises she would assess the resident, and report it to the charge nurse. RN 4 stated that the charge nurse would alert the physician and the charge nurse would initiate the incident report. RN 4 stated she would make sure that the physician was notified and assess the resident. RN 4 stated that she would conduct a CMS check (circulation, motor, and sensory check). RN 4 stated that if the resident was a quadriplegic she would rely on the resident's baseline status. RN 4 further elaborated and said that she would rely on what the resident/witness had said had happened and not necessarily what they feel with regards to sensory as the sensory could be diminished with a quadriplegic. RN 4 stated that she would definitely do an x-ray on the affected area that was injured. RN 4 stated that it would be appropriate to notify the physician right away, and that they could text the physician. RN 4 stated that if the change in condition was more serious or urgent the charge nurse would call the physician directly. On 12/02/21 at 4:13 PM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON) and the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) 1. The DON stated that the RNA training was done with training packets and assessed by the PT to pass off all the skills. After they have their pass off they can go by themselves to provide RNA services, but most go 2 by 2. The DON stated that the RNA should be providing services based on the order provided from PT. Each resident should have specific orders from PT. They may alter it from active to passive ROM, but not the other way around without an evaluation. The DON stated that if they were to see that the resident was getting stronger they would get an order to have PT evaluate the resident again. The DON stated that they do not provide any ROM services to residents without orders. The DON stated that if the patient was alert and oriented the patient was the best advocate, and I would assume that the RNA would not push it and push past the point to do harm. I would still expect it to be within safe parameters. The DON confirmed that there was an element of clinical judgement with RNA 1 and experience with resident 25, and RNA 1 should have known what the capabilities were of resident 25. The DON stated that RNA 1 reported the incident with resident 25 to CN 1 and he assessed the patient. The DON stated that CN 1 determined that there was no pain and redness and that they were going to monitor resident 25. The DON stated that they spoke to CN 1 and educated him that they needed to be informed immediately because they would have taken a different route than he took that day. The DON stated that they would have obtained an x-ray that day. The DON stated that this was not their protocol at the facility. The DON stated that resident 25 was not complaining of pain the day of the incident, but was not aware that CN 1 had documented that resident 25 had reported to have heard the loud noise. The DON stated that it was fair to say that resident 25 had some sensory deficit with his diagnosis of quadriplegia. The DON stated that CN 1 did not notify anyone of the incident, and that they became aware of the incident on Monday when another RNA reported it again. The DON stated that she was not aware that CN 1 had entered a late entry note and did not know that he had documented that the RNA had reported, a 'loud cracking noise' that sounded like something had broken or was 'not normal' . The DON stated that CN 1 should have notified the physician first and then notified the her. On 12/06/21 at 10:35 AM, a follow-up interview was conducted with PT 1. PT 1 stated that PROM was moving a joint through full ROM and was passive. PT 1 stated that the patient could not contribute and the expectation was that the caregiver would go joint to join and move through the motion. PT 1 stated that each PROM program was patient specific and wi[TRUNCATED]
CONCERN (D)

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

Notification of Changes (Tag F0580)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review it was determined, for 1 of 31 sample residents, that the facility did not immediately cons...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review it was determined, for 1 of 31 sample residents, that the facility did not immediately consult with the resident's physician when there was an accident involving the resident which resulted in an injury and had the potential for requiring the physician's intervention. Specifically, a resident sustained a fracture during Passive Range of Motion (PROM) exercises and the physician was not notified for two days following the incident. Resident identifier 25. Findings included: Resident 25 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included quadriplegia Cervical (C)1-C4 complete, Pressure Ulcer (PU) right heel stage 3, PU left elbow stage 2, PU right elbow stage 2, muscle spasms, insomnia, functional dyspepsia, pain, tracheostomy, chronic respiratory failure, adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood. On 11/29/21 at 2:36 PM, an interview was conducted with resident 25. Resident 25 stated that his shoulder was fractured during range of motion (ROM) exercises that was provided by the Restorative Nurse Aide (RNA) 1. Resident 25 stated that this incident occurred sometime last year. Resident 25 stated that RNA 1 was stretching him and his arms were tight and she pushed too hard. Residents 25 stated that it caused him pain, and he knew it was broken because it crunched immediately at the time of the incident. Resident 25 stated that RNA 1 was telling everyone that it needed to be x-ray, and she thought that she had broken something. Resident 25 stated that they continued to stretched him the next day and the shoulder crunched again. Resident 25 stated that at that point he had to request to have an x-ray done on the shoulder. Review of resident 25's progress notes revealed the following entries: a. On 9/05/2020 at 5:35 PM, RESTORATIVE CARE:3 0 min. of prom to bue (bilateral upper extremities) and ble (bilateral lower extremities) completed i heard a loud pop sound in pt. (patients) left shoulder, I notify charge nurse immediately. The note was authored by RNA 1. b. On 9/07/2020 at 11:39 AM, The following was texted to MD (medical doctor): Restorative aide was doing ROM exercises on him yesterday and [resident 25] said he heard a 'popping' sound and some pain. He states that it feels like his shoulder/scapula feel sprained. Then today another Restorative aide went in and did his ROM. She states when she moved his arm she could hear like a grinding sound and his arm moved more freely than it usually does. [Resident 25] told her to be careful with his arm after she was done. The aide states his shoulder is not usually that easy to move. MD RESPONSE: X-ray for that shoulder/upper arm please. c. On 9/07/2020 at 6:26 PM,EQUIP. (equipment) INVOLVED: none INJURY: Right Humerus fracture POSSIBLE CAUSE: Pt has osteopenia INTERVENTIONS: New devices: abdominal binder wrapped around arm to keep close to body. STAFF INVOLVED:CNA (Certified Nursing Assistant) WITNESSES: staff d. On 9/09/2020 at 5:57 PM, Late Entry: On 9/5/20 [RNA1] came to me with a concern about something that happened while doing restorative therapy with [resident 25]. She reported that while doing ROM exercises, she heard a 'loud cracking noise' that sounded like something had broken or was 'not normal'. I proceeded to assess [resident 25] for s/s (signs and symptoms) of a broken bone. Upon my assessment, I did not see any discoloration, swelling, or warmth of his right arm. [Resident 25] did not report any pain but he did report to have heard the loud noise. Upon my assessment, I determined that we should continue to monitor for signs and symptoms of a break and I asked [resident 25] to notify his nurse of any changes to his pain level. I also asked his nurse to continue to monitor for changes. Review of resident 25's x-ray of the right shoulder on 9/7/2020 revealed there was an acute fracture of the right humeral neck with mild displacement. On 12/02/21 at 3:08 PM, a telephone interview was conducted with RNA 1. RNA 1 stated that she had worked at the facility for 9 years, and had been an RNA for the last 2 years. RNA 1 stated that she was doing ROM with resident 25. RNA 1 stated that if you did not do what resident 25 wanted he called you names. RNA 1 stated that she was working on the resident 25's right arm and was pushing his shoulder up and down, when she pushed it up she heard a cracking sound. RNA 1 stated that after the injury occurred she went and told Charge Nurse (CN) 1 right away that resident 35 needed an x-ray to know if it was broken, because she heard it crack and pop. On 12/02/21 at 4:00 PM, an interview was conducted with Registered Nurse (RN) 3. RN 3 stated that if it was reported to her that a resident had sustained a suspected injury during ROM exercises she would assess the resident then report it to the charge nurse. RN 3 stated that she would follow-up with the physician to make sure that there were no new orders and continue to monitor the resident for any change in condition. RN 3 stated that she would definitely notify the doctor or make sure that the charge nurse notified the doctor. On 12/02/21 at 4:04 PM, an interview was conducted with RN 4. RN 4 stated that if an RNA reported a suspected injury during ROM exercises she would assess the resident, and report it to the charge nurse. RN 4 stated that the charge nurse would alert the physician and the charge nurse would initiate the incident report. RN 4 stated she would make sure that the physician was notified and assess the resident. RN 4 stated that she would definitely do an x-ray on the affected area that was injured. RN 4 stated that it would be appropriate to notify the physician right away, and that nurses could text the physician. RN 4 stated that if the change in condition was more serious or urgent the charge nurse would call the physician directly. On 12/02/21 at 4:13 PM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON) and the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) 1. The DON stated that RNA 1 reported the incident with resident 25 to CN 1 and he assessed the patient. The DON stated that there was no pain and redness and they were going to monitor resident 25. The DON stated that they spoke to CN 1 and educated him that they needed to be informed immediately because they would have taken a different route than he took that day. The DON stated that they would have obtained an x-ray that day. The DON stated that this was not their protocol at the facility. The DON stated that resident 25 was not complaining of pain the day of the incident, but was not aware that CN 1 had documented that resident 25 had reported to have heard the loud noise. The DON stated that CN 1 did not notify anyone of the incident, and that they became aware of the incident on Monday when another RNA reported it again. The DON stated that she was not aware that CN 1 had entered a late entry note and did not know that he had documented that the RNA had reported, a 'loud cracking noise' that sounded like something had broken or was 'not normal' . The DON stated that CN 1 should have notified the physician first and then notified the her.
CONCERN (D)

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

Medication Errors (Tag F0758)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review it was determined, for 1 of 31 sample residents, that the facility did not ensure that resi...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review it was determined, for 1 of 31 sample residents, that the facility did not ensure that residents who used psychotropic drugs received a gradual dose reduction (GDR) unless clinically contraindicated, in an effort to discontinue these drugs. Specifically, a resident received an anti-anxiety medication for approximately 21 months without an attempted GDR or a physician documented rationale for why any attempted dose reduction would likely impair the resident's function or exacerbate an underlying medical or psychiatric disorder. Resident identifier 28. Findings included: Resident 28 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included chronic respiratory failure, morbid obesity, major depressive disorder, tracheostomy, type 2 diabetes mellitus, anxiety disorder, metabolic encephalopathy, hypertension, and chronic pain. On 12/6/21 resident 28's medical records were reviewed. Review of resident 28's physician orders revealed an order for Alprazolam 0.5 milligram (mg) Tablet by mouth two times per day for generalized anxiety disorder. The order was initiated on 3/7/2020. Review of resident 28's psychotropic review revealed that the Alprazolam 0.5 mg order had not had a GDR since the order was initiated on 3/7/2020. On 12/6/21 at 1:28 PM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated that resident 28 had not had a GDR for the Xanax (Alprazolam) due to her air hunger and ventilator needs and her associated anxiety. The DON stated that they do clinical contraindications for the PRN (as needed) orders and would document this on the progress notes. The DON stated they did monthly psychotropic reviews and the physician either agreed or disagreed with the recommendations to continue or decrease the medication based on the committees recommendation.
CONCERN (E)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review it was determined that the facility did not maintain an infection prevention a...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review it was determined that the facility did not 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. Specifically, visitors were not screened upon entrance to the facility, a laundry services staff member was observed to not perform hand hygiene between resident rooms, a staff member was observed in a resident care area without personal protective equipment (PPE), and the blood glucometer machine was not sanitized according to manufacturer requirements. Findings Include: 1. On 12/1/21 at 7:00 AM, the state agency surveyor entered the facility. No staff were present at the entrance, and screening was not conducted of the state agency surveyors. An N95 mask and eye protection was donned by the surveyor and entrance was obtained to the 2nd floor resident care area. Shift change was in progress and occurred at 7:00 AM. Multiple staff were observed to enter the facility and proceed to the resident floors. No screening was observed of the facility staff. On 12/2/21 at 7:45 AM, the state agency surveyor entered the facility through the front door and was granted access by a facility staff member. The staff member did not asked any questions prior to allowing entrance into the facility. There were no staff were present at the front desk and no screening was obtained upon entrance. On 12/2/21 at 8:00 AM, an observation was made of the entrance to the facility. The entrance was unlocked. There were no staff members at the front desk. The surveyors entered the facility without being screened. On 12/6/21 at 8:00 AM, an observation was made of the entrance to the facility. The entrance was unlocked. The receptionist was at the desk. The receptionist was was observed to obtain the surveyors temperature. The staff member did not ask screening question regarding possible symptoms of COVID-19. On 12/6/21 at 10:42 AM, an interview conducted with the receptionist. The receptionist stated that screening visitors included hand hygiene and obtain a temperature. The receptionist stated that the visitors name, date, time, address, reason for visit and temperature were entered into a computer program. The receptionist stated that the after normal business hours visitors entered through the north door to be screened. The reception stated that the front entrance was locked after normal business hours. On 12/6/21 at 10:56 AM, an interview with the Infection Preventionist (IP). The IP stated that the screening process for visitors when entering the building included hand hygiene and temperatures. The IP stated that the receptionist asked questions regarding exposure to COVID-19, fever, cough, shortness of breath and congestion. 2. On 12/6/21 at 10:59 AM, an observation of a laundry services staff (LSS) 1 was conducted. LSS 1 was observed to remove clean personal linen from a covered cart, enter room [ROOM NUMBER] without performing hand hygiene. LSS 1 was observed to open a drawer in room [ROOM NUMBER] and place clothing inside the drawer. LSS 1 was observed to close the drawer. LSS 1 was not observed to perform hand hygiene. On 12/6/21 at 11:10 PM, LSS 1 was to remove clean clothing from clean cart. LSS 1 was observed to enter room [ROOM NUMBER] without hand hygiene. LSS 1 opened a drawer in room [ROOM NUMBER], placed clothing in drawers, left room [ROOM NUMBER], and did not perform hand hygiene. LSS 1 returned to clean clothing cart, removed clean clothing from clean cart, knocked on 316 door, entered room [ROOM NUMBER], placed clothing in the opened drawers, closed the drawer and returned to clean cart outside room [ROOM NUMBER]. LSS 1 was not observed to perform hand hygiene. LSS 1 removed clean clothing from clean cart, knocked on 318 door, entered room [ROOM NUMBER], opened drawers, placed clean clothing in drawers and closet, shut the drawers and closet, and returned to clean cart. LSS was not observed to perform hand hygiene. On 12/06/21 at 11:20 AM, an interview conducted with the LSS 1. LSS 1 stated that she was unsure when to perform hand hygiene. LSS 1 stated that she probably should perform hand hygiene before entering a resident room. LSS 1 stated that she did not use hand sanitizer because she was unsure when to use it. On 12/6/2021 at 2:30 PM, an interview was conducted with Laundry Manager and Support Services Director. The Laundry Manager stated that there was a proper and sanitary process for the delivery and handling of linens that each staff member must follow. The process was posted in areas laundry service staff members were able to see. The posted process was reviewed and stated: Hand hygiene when delivering personal clothing: First before going to the floors to deliver clean personal clothing. Wash your hands with soap and water. Rooms not on precautions. 1. Sanitize your hands before entering 2. Deliver clothes to patient 3. If more than one patient is in that room sanitize your hands before going to the next patient. Sanitize your hands before leaving the room 4. Sanitize your hands before leaving room When going into precaution rooms (door will have yellow caddy) 1. Wear eyewear 2 Sanitize hand before putting on gown 3. Put on gown and gloves 4. Then take off gown and sanitize your hands before going to next patient if there is more than one in that same room 5. If both patients are on precautions put on new gown for the other patient in room 6. Repeat step 1-4 7. Sanitize hand before leaving the room 8. Change mask if there is mask provided for you in the yellow caddy. 3. On 12/6/21 at 11:20 AM, an observation of Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 1 in a patient care area with a resident. CNA 1 was observed to be performing patient care within 6 feet of the resident. CNA 1 was not wearing goggles. On 12/6/21 at 11:28 AM, an interview with the IP. The IP stated that with the current county positivity rate being high all staff must wear eye protection when in a patient care area and when performing patient care. 4. On 12/1/21 at 12:24 PM, an observation was made of Registered Nurse (RN) 5 during medication administration. RN 5 was observed to clean the glucometer with an alcohol prep pad after use. RN 5 stated that he used an alcohol prep pad to clean the glucometer, and sometimes he used a Sani Cloth Disinfectant Wipe. RN 5 stated he was not sure if the alcohol prep pad would kill all blood borne pathogens and he was not sure what the facility policy was for cleaning the glucometers. On 12/2/21 at 7:54 AM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated that the glucometer should be cleaned with a alcohol prep wipe, a purple top disinfectant wipe or a bleach wipe if c-diff (Clostridioides difficile) was suspected in the resident room. The DON stated that the purple top was the gold standard, but that she believed that an alcohol prep wipe was sufficient to clean the device. It should be noted that the purple top disinfectant wipe was the Sani Cloth Germicidal Wipe. The DON stated that she did not know how long the wet time was for the device to be considered clean with an alcohol prep wipe, 70% alcohol, and would have to look it up. The DON stated that the cleaning of the device was based on the manufacturer guidelines and that she would provide me with the documentation along with the facility policy for cleaning. The DON stated that she was just glad that they were being cleaned. Review of the facility policy for Glucometer Testing documented under procedure to 12. Clean the glucometer with an approved disinfectant wipe PRIOR to re-using on another resident or storing in the med cart. The policy was effective July 1, 2017. Review of the Manufacturer Cleaning and Disinfecting Guide for Multiple - Patient Use Facilities documented that All meters that are shared between patients must be cleaned and disinfected after use with each patient to help prevent the transmission of bloodborne pathogens To clean and disinfect the meter, we recommend using CaviWipes Disinfecting Towelettes. On 12/2/21 at 9:00 AM, a follow-up interview was conducted with the DON and the IP. The IP stated that an alcohol prep wipe was sufficient to clean the glucometer device, and that there was not a wet time for an alcohol wipe to clean the glucometer. The DON and IP stated that they believed they were following the manufacturer recommendations for cleaning the glucometers. The manufacturer recommendations were reviewed with the DON and IP and the recommendations stated to clean the device with a CaviWipes Disinfecting Towelettes. Review of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidance on Infection Prevention during Blood Glucose Monitoring and Insulin Administration documented that If blood glucose meters must be shared, the device should be cleaned and disinfected after each use, per manufacturer's instructions, to prevent carry-over of blood and infectious agents. https://www.cdc.gov/injectionsafety/blood-glucose-monitoring.html The above CDC guidance provided a link to the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) Communication: Letter for Manufacturers of Blood Glucose Monitoring Systems Listed with the FDA [PDF - 39 KB] which documented that the disinfectant solvent that was chosen should be effective against HIV, Hepatitis C, and Hepatitis B virus. However, of the two, Hepatitis B virus is the most difficult to kill. Please note that 70% ethanol solutions are not effective against viral bloodborne pathogens http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ProductsandMedicalProcedures/InVitroDiagnostics/ucm227935.htm Review of the List E: EPA's (Environmental Protection Agency) Registered Antimicrobial Products Effective Against Mycobacterium tuberculosis, Human HIV-1 and Hepatitis B Virus listed CaviWipes 1 registration number 46781-13, Sani - Cloth Germicidal Disposable Wipes registration number 9480-4, and Sani - Cloth Bleach Wipes registration number 9480-8 as approved products. https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-registration/list-d-epas-registered-antimicrobial-products-effective-against-human-hiv-1
Nov 2019 5 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0559 (Tag F0559)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review it was determined that for 1of 29 sample residents the facility did not provide the right t...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review it was determined that for 1of 29 sample residents the facility did not provide the right to receive written notice, including the reason for the change, before the residents room in the facility is changed. Specifically one resident that was moved rooms did not receive written notice prior to room change. Resident identifier: 199. Findings include Resident 199 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included debility, cardiorespiratory conditions, hypertension, gastro esophageal reflux disease, diabetes mellitus, anxiety disorder, depression, respiratory failure, morbid obesity, edema, pneumonitis due to inhalation of food and vomit, and encounter for attention to tracheostomy. In an interview conducted on 11/18/19 at 2:45 PM, resident 199 stated that she was moved to her current room from another room down the hall. Resident 199 stated staff had come in one day and told her you get to move today. Resident 199 stated she did not want to move and asked why she was being moved. Resident 199 stated that she was told she was being moved to another treatment team and needed to move rooms. On 11/20/19 at 10:00 AM, an interview was conducted with Licensed Clinical Social Worker (LCSW) 1 and Unit Manager (UM) 1 The LCSW stated that when resident 199 changed rooms, it was UM 1 that gave verbal notice to the resident of the resident's room change. When asked if resident 199 was provided a written notice regarding the room change, both LCSW 1 and UM 1 stated that written notice was not provided to the resident. LCSW 1 stated that written notice is not provided to any residents prior to room changes. LCSW 1 then phoned the social services director, who stated that no residents are provided written notification of room changes, and that all notifications were only verbal. On 11/20/19 at 10:05 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed that the facility was not providing written notices to any residents prior to room changes.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0906 (Tag F0906)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview it was determined that for 1 of 29 sample residents the facility did not ensure that when lif...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview it was determined that for 1 of 29 sample residents the facility did not ensure that when life support systems are used, the facility must provide emergency electrical power with an emergency generator that is located on the premises. Specifically one resident ventilator was plugged into a power strip, and the power strip was plugged into a non-emergent plug that was not powered by the generator. Resident identifier: 15. Findings include. Resident 15 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis that included anemia, seizure disorder, psychotic disorder, respiratory failure, encounter for attention to tracheostomy, hypopituitarism, insomnia, adjustment disorder, unspecified intellectual disabilities, unspecified mood disorder, diabetes insipidus, unspecified pulmonary fibrosis, congenital malformation syndrome, and constipation. On 11/20/19 at 10:11 AM, an observation of resident 15's ventilator revealed the ventilator was turned on, plugged into a power strip and the power strip was plugged into a white plug on the wall. On 11/20/19 at 1:14 PM, an interview was conducted with the maintenance supervisor. The maintenance supervisor stated that the only plugs that were supported by the generators emergency power were the red plugs. On 11/20/19 at 3:06 PM, an observation was made with resident 15 hooked up to the ventilator. The ventilator was plugged into a power strip and the power strip into a white plug in the wall. On 11/20/19 at 3:26 PM, an interview was conducted with Registered Nurse (RN) 1. RN 1 stated that when the power goes out that the red plugs are powered the generator. RN 1 stated that the ventilators do not get unplugged and should be plugged into the red plugs. On 11/2/19 at 3:26 PM, an interview was conducted with unit manager 2 (UM). UM 2 stated that the red plugs are powered by the generator when the power goes out. UM 2 stated that the medical equipment was supposed to be on a red plug.
CONCERN (E)

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation and interview it was determined that the facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment. Specifically resident shower rooms where not maintained, and...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interview it was determined that the facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment. Specifically resident shower rooms where not maintained, and maintenance was being done in rooms with residents present in rooms. Resident identifiers: 45, 40, 36, and 15. Findings include On 11/18/19 at 10:24 AM, an observation was made of a maintenance staff member in resident 45's room, changing a ceiling tile over the foot of the bed, while the resident was in the bed and that ceiling tile debris had fallen down on to the resident, and onto the floor around the bed. While the maintenance staff member was in the resident's room an observation was made of a cart that was in the hall with ceiling tiles, spray paint and caulk on it, and debris was on the floors in the hallway. On 11/18/19 at 10:47 AM, an observation was made of a maintenance staff member in resident 40's room changing a ceiling tile in the room while resident 40 was in the room. A maintenance staff member was observed spray painting ceiling tiles in resident 40's room while resident 40 was in the room. On 11/18/19 at approximately 11:00 AM, in resident 36 room an observation was made of a fan in the room with a large amount of dust collected on the fan. On 11/19/19 at 9:35 AM it was observed for resident 15 to have rips in the gerichair. On 11/20/19 at 9:55 AM, an observation of a broken piece of tile on the wall, scuffed doorways, and a black and brown substance on tiles along edges and corners of the floor and walls was made in the bathroom of resident 36. On 11/20/19 at 10:00 AM, an observation of scuffed doorways, brown and black built up substance in doorways and along the edges and corners of the floor and walls in the bathroom of resident 15. An observation of the shower handle in the bathroom of resident 15 revealed the shower handle had built up black substance around edges and had a white material on it, that appeared to be a putty type substance for patching. On 11/20/19 at 1:25 PM, an observation was made of the hand rails by the shower room door revealing that the handrails were scratched and scuffed. On 11/20/19 at 1:14 PM, an interview was conducted with the maintenance supervisor of the facility. The maintenance supervisor stated that if maintenance needed to be done in a resident room that it would depend on what needed to be done whether the patient would need to be moved out of the room. Maintenance supervisor stated that if anything major needed to be done the patient should be moved, due to dust or debris affecting the patient. Maintenance supervisor stated that if a ceiling tile needed to be changed over a patient that the facility would absolutely want the patient out of the room. Maintenance supervisor stated that the broken tile in the bathroom should be fixed. Maintenance supervisor did not know what the black or brown substance on the tiles in the bathroom was and stated housekeeping should be cleaning it. Maintenance supervisor did not know what the white substance was on the shower handle.
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 interview and observation, the facility did not store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. Specifically, foods were not label...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and observation, the facility did not store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. Specifically, foods were not labeled or covered appropriately and the floors were soiled. Findings include: On 11/20/19 at 2:00 PM, the following observations were made in the facility kitchen: a. The walk-in freezer contained a package of corn that was not completely covered, which left the corn open to air and possible contamination. b. The reach-in refrigerator contained three bowls of what appeared to be fruit. However the bowls were not labeled or dated. c. There was a pair of glasses on a food preparation area. d. The ceiling in the dry storage area had an area approximately 2 feet long that was torn and peeling. The area that was peeling was directly above where food was stored. e. The floors throughout the kitchen were excessively soiled with dried spills and debris. This was especially evident in the areas where the walls met the floor. In these areas, there was black grime. f. Multiple walls throughout the kitchen were noted to have grime and spills on them. g. There were two metal cans under a food preparation area that contained hardened grease. The cans were not covered. h. The handles and front surfaces of the reach in refrigerators were soiled and sticky to the touch. On 11/20/19 at 2:15 PM, an interview was conducted with the Assistant Dietary Manager (ADM). The ADM stated that all foods should be labeled, dated and covered appropriately. The ADM stated that personal items such as glasses should not be placed on a food preparation area. The ADM stated he was aware of the torn area in the ceiling of the dry storage area, and had plans to rearrange items in the dry storage area. The ADM stated that he was unsure why there were uncovered cans of hardened grease under the food preparation area. The ADM stated that the floors and walls were soiled, and confirmed that the level of debris was not consistent with daily use. The ADM stated that he was going to schedule a cleaning party for the upcoming weekend, where staff members were going to deep clean the kitchen, including the floors.
CONCERN (E)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview it was determined that the facility did not ensure that the facility's infection prevention a...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview it was determined that the facility did not ensure that the facility's infection prevention and control program was maintained to provide a safe and sanitary environment. Specifically one resident had fecal matter on ventilator supplies, the use of equipment that could not be sanitized, and a housekeeper touched and cleaned resident rooms with dirty gloves. Resident identifiers: 30, 198, 15, and 43. Findings include: On 11/18/19 at 12:28 PM an observation was made of resident 30 and 198's room. In the middle of the room under the suction canisters for A & B bed there was a table. On the table was multiple different items. Resident 198 stated that the items on the table that belonged her roommate's resident 30. On the table there was a box of normal saline bullets, and a Ziploc bag with ventilator supplies. On the box and the Ziploc bag a brown dried substance was observed. Directly above the table a suction canister containing what appeared to be fecal material of resident 198. Resident 198 stated the box of saline bullets and Ziploc bag with ventilator supplies belonged to her roommate resident 30. On 11/20/19 at 10:00 AM, a white baby bath with a yellow foam liner was observed in the shared shower room for hall 300. The yellow lining on the baby bath was a foam lining that could not be sanitized in between uses. On 11/20/19 at 10:05 AM, and observation was made of a housekeeper cleaning in resident room [ROOM NUMBER]. The housekeeper cleaned bathroom and toilet with gloves, then returned to cart , and placed her hand in her pocket, removed some keys, and opened a cabinet with dirty cloves. The housekeeper then retrieved a mop. The housekeeper then was observed touching items on both sides of room with the same dirty gloves used to clean the bathroom and toilet. On 11/20/19 at 1:25 PM, an observation was made in the bathroom of resident 15, with hair on the floor in the drain. On 11/20/19 at 2:36 PM, an observation was made of resident 43 in the hall with a ripped wheelchair cushion in several places, most of the right side of the cover was missing and the foam pad was exposed. Where the foam pad was exposed there was noted chunks of foam pad missing. On 11/20/19 at 2:23 PM, an interview as conducted with the housekeeping supervisor. The housekeeping supervisor stated that the housekeeper's gloves should have been changed after cleaning the bathroom before cleaning anything else. On 11/20/19 at 2:35 PM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated it is not the facility protocol to have residents sharing a nightstand and that should not be happening and is not the facility's standard of care to have fecal matter on supplies. The DON stated the ripped wheelchair cushion should have been replaced.
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

  • "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
  • "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • Grade B+ (85/100). Above average facility, better than most options in Utah.
  • • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Utah facilities.
Concerns
  • • 10 deficiencies on record, including 1 serious (caused harm) violation. Ask about corrective actions taken.
Bottom line: Generally positive indicators. Standard due diligence and a personal visit recommended.

About This Facility

What is South Davis Specialty Care's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns South Davis Specialty Care an overall rating of 5 out of 5 stars, which is considered much above average nationally. Within Utah, this rating places the facility higher than 99% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This rating reflects solid performance across the metrics CMS uses to evaluate nursing home quality.

How is South Davis Specialty Care Staffed?

CMS rates South Davis Specialty Care's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 48%, compared to the Utah average of 46%.

What Have Inspectors Found at South Davis Specialty Care?

State health inspectors documented 10 deficiencies at South Davis Specialty Care during 2019 to 2023. These included: 1 that caused actual resident harm and 9 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.

Who Owns and Operates South Davis Specialty Care?

South Davis Specialty Care is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by THE ENSIGN GROUP, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 95 certified beds and approximately 48 residents (about 51% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in Bountiful, Utah.

How Does South Davis Specialty Care Compare to Other Utah Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Utah, South Davis Specialty Care's overall rating (5 stars) is above the state average of 3.4, staff turnover (48%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting South Davis Specialty Care?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "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?"

Is South Davis Specialty Care Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, South Davis Specialty Care has a clean safety record: no substantiated abuse findings (meaning no confirmed cases of resident harm), no Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death), and is not on the Special Focus Facility watch list (a federal program monitoring the lowest-performing 1% of nursing homes). The facility has a 5-star overall rating and ranks #1 of 100 nursing homes in Utah. While no facility is perfect, families should still ask about staff-to-resident ratios and recent inspection results during their visit.

Do Nurses at South Davis Specialty Care Stick Around?

South Davis Specialty Care has a staff turnover rate of 48%, which is about average for Utah 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 South Davis Specialty Care Ever Fined?

South Davis Specialty Care 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 South Davis Specialty Care on Any Federal Watch List?

South Davis Specialty Care 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.