Monument Healthcare Brigham City

775 North 200 East, Brigham City, UT 84302 (435) 723-7777
For profit - Limited Liability company 84 Beds MONUMENT HEALTH GROUP Data: November 2025 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation
Trust Grade
33/100
#57 of 97 in UT
Last Inspection: April 2024

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

Overview

Monument Healthcare Brigham City has received a Trust Grade of F, which indicates significant concerns about the facility's operations and care quality. Ranking #57 out of 97 in Utah means it is in the bottom half of nursing homes in the state, and it holds the #2 position out of 3 in Box Elder County, indicating that only one local option is better. Unfortunately, the facility is experiencing a worsening trend, with the number of issues increasing from 6 in 2022 to 8 in 2024. Staffing is average with a 3/5 rating and a turnover rate of 54%, which is close to the state average. While the facility has not incurred any fines, which is a positive sign, there are serious concerns highlighted in recent inspections, including a critical incident where a resident was potentially subjected to abuse and a serious issue regarding inadequate monitoring of medication that led to hospitalization. Overall, while there are some strengths like good RN coverage, the weaknesses and recent incidents raise significant red flags for families considering this facility for their loved ones.

Trust Score
F
33/100
In Utah
#57/97
Bottom 42%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Worse
6 → 8 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
54% 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 75 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
⚠ Watch
19 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★★☆☆
3.0
Overall Rating
★★★☆☆
3.0
Staff Levels
★★★★★
5.0
Care Quality
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2022: 6 issues
2024: 8 issues

The Good

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

Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.

The Bad

3-Star Overall Rating

Near Utah average (3.3)

Meets federal standards, typical of most facilities

Staff Turnover: 54%

Near Utah avg (46%)

Higher turnover may affect care consistency

Chain: MONUMENT HEALTH GROUP

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 19 deficiencies on record

1 life-threatening 1 actual harm
Apr 2024 8 deficiencies 1 IJ
CRITICAL (J) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility did not ensure that the resident had the right to be free from abuse, neglect...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility did not ensure that the resident had the right to be free from abuse, neglect, misappropriation of resident property, and exploitation. Specifically, for 1 out of 27 sampled residents, staff were unable to locate a resident for a period of time. There was an area of the facility that was locked an unaccessable to staff. There was a facility staff member in the locked area that the resident was observed to exit from. The resident made statements that the staff member engaged in sexual actions with her. In addition, the staff member had been talked to about not remaining in the facility after dinner time. This example was cited at Immediate Jeopardy. Resident identifiers: 4, 6, 12, 23, 28, 31, 36, 90 and 141. Findings included: Notice: On 4/11/24 at 12:15 PM, Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) was identified when the facility failed to implement Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services recommended practices to prevent various forms of abuse. Notice of the IJ was given verbally and in writing to the facility Administrator, Chief Operating Officer, [NAME] President of Clinical Services, Director of Nursing (DON), and Regional Nurse Consultant (RNC). On 4/11/24 at 3:02 PM, the facility Administrator provided the following abatement plan for the removal of the IJ effective on 4/11/24 at 4:00 PM. [Facility name] is providing the following information to demonstrate that the immediacy of the cited deficiency F600 has been removed. Summary of Actions Take: Resident: Resident [31] Resident and staff member were separated immediately Police contacted immediately upon suspicion Resident assessed; no injury noted Notification to Physicians, POA [Power of Attorney] Incident reported by administrator to DHS [Department of Health Services], APS [Adult Protective Services], Ombudsman Resident interviewed with administrator Hospital evaluation completed, no trauma noted Resident care plan reviewed and updated as needed Provider to assess/evaluate residents including medication review SS [Social Services] wellness visits to be completed for resident x 2 and PRN [as needed] Behavioral health visit requested with [local mental health] provider Therapy: Therapy Staff Member (ST) Therapy staff member was immediately placed on administrative leave, facility keys/badge provided to administrator Therapy staff member was questioned and released by the police, pending potential charges Employee file was reviewed Therapy staff member will not return to the facility RDO [Regional Director of Operations] spoke to Therapy Regional Director and informed him that staff are not to stay in the facility after normal business hours without the approval of the facility administrator Facility will ensure the therapy staff working in the facility have background checks (DACS) [Direct Access Clearance System] that are connected to the facility. Other Residents at Potential Risk: All residents interviewed by administrator/designee to assess potential for abuse/neglect allegations Systemic Changes and Education Facility will ensure all staff working in the facility have background checks (DACS) that are connected to the facility. Locks will be removed from all doors and/or Master Key accessible to charge nurse on medication cart Staff Members will not remain in the facility after normal business hours without the approval of the facility administrator Administrator, DON and RNC reviewed Abuse & Neglect Policy Administrator, DON and IDT [Interdisciplinary team] were educated by RNC regarding Abuse & Neglect Policy Administrator/DON/designee will complete Abuse & Neglect education with all staff Education including post-test initiated immediately for all facility staff on Abuse/Neglect All employees will be educated at start of their next shift or if no scheduled shift by all staff meeting on 4/16/24 Monitoring and Quality Improvement Measures: The DON/designee will review incidents of sexually inappropriate behavior weekly x 4 weeks then monthly x3 months to ensure appropriate interventions are implemented and no trends are noted The Administrator/designee will conduct 5 random resident & staff interviews weekly x 4 weeks and then monthly thereafter x 3 months to ensure the Abuse & Neglect Policy have been followed and allegations have been investigated and reported timely The facility administrator/designee will do random facility visits during off hours 2x/week x 4 weeks and then monthly thereafter x 3 months to ensure that only staff clocked in and assigned to be working are in the facility and that the charge nurse has a Master Key to all locked doors in the facility The Administrator/designee will review 5 employee files (including contracted therapist) weekly x 4 weeks and then monthly thereafter times 3 months to ensure they have completed abuse training, verification of license and background checks (DACS) is connected to the facility. Medical Director was informed of the incident and QAA [Quality Assurance and Assessment] Review & Recommendations Results will be reported to the QAA committee from monitoring and follow-up The administrator is responsible for substantial compliance of this Plan of Action. The facility alleges the immediacy with deficient practice has been removed on April 11, 2024 by 4:00 PM. Findings included: Immediate Jeopardy Resident 31 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included rheumatoid arthritis, muscle weakness, dementia of unspecified severity without behavioral disturbance, psychotic disturbance, mood disturbance and anxiety, protein-calorie malnutrition, immunodeficiency, and chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia. On 4/9/24, between 9:50 AM and 10:05 AM, separate interviews were held with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 1 and resident 4. During these interviews, LPN 1 informed the surveyor that late the previous evening, resident 31 had gone missing. LPN 1 reported that as staff searched for the resident, they noticed the therapy gym doors were locked. LPN 1 stated the therapy gym was the only location in the facility staff were unable to access to search for the resident. LPN 1 stated staff had been searching for resident 31 for about 20 minutes, when resident 31 was observed walking in the hall with therapy paperwork. LPN 1 stated resident 31 had vomited and had been incontinent of stool. Resident 4 informed the surveyor that on the evening of 4/8/24, there were five police officers in the facility. The resident stated she was uncertain why law enforcement was in the facility. On 4/9/24 an interview was conducted with resident 31. Resident 31 stated that she knew why police were at the facility last night but did not want to say anything. On 4/9/24 at approximately 11:00 AM, an interview was conducted with the Administrator. The Administrator stated that there was an allegation of abuse on 4/8/24, that she reported to the State Survey Agency (SSA). The Administrator provided the 358 report to surveyors. The 358 revealed on 4/8/24 at 9:40 PM, staff became aware that resident 31 stated that she wanted to have sex with a male staff member, but she did not have sex. A Physical Therapist was identified on the form as the alleged perpetrator. The steps taken immediately to ensure residents were protected revealed [Resident 31] was brought to her room by staff members. When resident stated that she wanted to have sex with a male staff member, the only male staff member on shift was placed on administrative leave pending investigation. RN [Registered Nurse] performed full body assessment and noted no injuries. BIMS [Brief Interview of Mental Status] was performed showing 14/15 cognitively intact. Physician notified, family notified. The incident was reported to law enforcement, APS, and Ombudsman. Resident 31's medical record was reviewed 4/8/24 through 4/11/24. On 8/18/23, a hospital History and Physical from the local hospital revealed resident 31 had a diagnosis of dementia. It was documented that resident 31 was oriented to person and place but not time, she knew it was August but thought it was the year 2080. Resident 31 was told the story from the St. Louis Mental Status testing, she was unable to recall any details. The assessment/plan for dementia revealed that resident 31 had significant dementia that had progressed. On 1/8/24, a state optional Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment revealed resident 31 had a BIMS score of 15. The MDS further revealed resident 31 required supervision with bed mobility, transfers, and toilet use. A care plan dated 8/22/23 and revised on 9/4/23, revealed The resident has impaired cognitive function/dementia or impaired thought processes r/t [related to] Dementia and cognitive communication deficit. The goal was The resident will be able to communicate basic needs on a daily basis through the review date. Interventions included Communicate with the resident/family/caregivers regarding residents capabilities and needs and COMMUNICATION: Use the resident preferred name. Identify yourself at each interaction. Face the resident when speaking and make eye contact. Reduce any distractions- turn off TV, radio, close door etc. The resident understands consistent, simple, directive sentences. Provide the resident with necessary cues- stop and return if agitated. A care plan dated 9/4/23, revealed The resident has a communication problem and does not always understand others d/t [due to] dementia and cognitive communication deficit. The goal was The resident will be able to make basic needs known on a daily basis through the review date. Interventions included Anticipate and meet needs; Be conscious of resident position when in groups, activities, dining room to promote proper communication with others; and COMMUNICATION: Allow adequate time to respond, Repeat as necessary, Do not rush, Request clarification from the resident to ensure understanding, Face when speaking, make eye contact, Turn off TV/radio to reduce environmental noise, Ask yes/no questions if appropriate, Use simple, brief, consistent words/cues, Use alternative communication tools as needed. A progress note dated 3/26/24 at 4:02 PM, revealed Patient requires help with the following ADLs [activities of daily living]: dressing up to extensive assistance and showers up to extensive assistance. Patient has a diagnosis of dementia. At times patient can be very forgetful and need cueing and reminders. Patient has a history of falling and fell at home prior to coming to our facility r/t confusion and trying to do things on her own. Patient has a history of hallucinating and reports seeing dogs and cats doing various things around her. Patient takes medications to help with hallucinations and medications are managed by [local behavioral health company]. A progress note dated 4/8/24 at 9:40 PM, revealed Nursing staff found resident standing in the hallway with her walker. Resident was pale and nauseated. Full body assessment performed. No injuries noted. Resident was assisted to the bathroom and had a large BM [bowel movement]. She was assisted back to bed where she vomited x1 into her garbage can. MD [Medical Doctor], Administrator and family notified. A progress note dated 4/9/24 at 5:49 PM, revealed Admin [Administrator] had several interactions with resident this day. Resident joking and conversing with staff throughout shift. Resident denies any pain or emotional distress. Resident alert and oriented x 4 [person, place, time, and situation] with ability to recall facts and participate in conversations appropriately. On 4/9/24 at 3:25 PM, an observation was made of resident 31. Resident 31 was observed to be assisted by staff members into the facility van. On 4/9/24 at 3:46 PM, an interview was conducted with the DON. The DON stated resident 31 requested to go to the emergency room (ER). The DON stated she was unable to tell anyone why resident 31 was going to the ER. The DON stated it was still under investigation and she needed to talk to the Administrator prior to sharing information. On 4/9/24 at 4:17 PM, an interview was conducted with the Administrator. The Administrator stated that the facility was in the middle of an investigation with PTA [Physical Therapy Assistant] 1 and resident 31. The Administrator stated she talked to resident 31's family and the family wanted resident 31 evaluated at the emergency room. The Administrator stated resident 31's family stated to the Administrator that if anything happened between resident 31 and PTA 1 it would have been consensual from resident 31. The Administrator stated resident 31 had a history of dementia but her BIMS score on 4/8/24, was 14 out of 15. The Administrator stated she was not sure if resident 31 had a Montreal Cognitive Assessment test completed. The Administrator stated she was made aware of the situation at 9:42 PM on 4/8/24. The Administrator stated RN 1 informed her that facility staff found resident 31 in the hallway and that staff took resident 31 back to her room. The Administrator stated that RN 1 told her that resident 31 stated she wanted to have sex with someone but had not had sex with anyone. The Administrator stated she was not aware of any other statements made by resident 31. The Administrator stated there was no history of allegations against PTA 1. The Administrator stated she completed the exhibit 358 form to report to the allegation to the SSA. The Administrator stated she wrote that the alleged perpetrator was a Physical Therapist but it was actually a Physical Therapy Assistant. The Administrator stated PTA 1 worked four hours per day Monday through Friday, usually in the mid afternoon. The Administrator stated after talking to the Therapy Coordinator (TC), the TC reported she had a complaint last week that residents would rather do therapy earlier. The Administrator stated PTA 1 worked at another building first and then came to the facility later in the day. On 4/10/24 at 11:19 AM, a telephone interview was held with a facility medication aide certified, who was also Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 2. This staff member stated she had worked in the facility more than nine years and that she was very familiar with all the residents. CNA 2 stated on the evening of 4/8/24, she was completing the medication pass on the North end of the building when RN 1 approached her and stated she was unable to locate resident 31. CNA 2 stated six staff members began searching for resident 31, looking in all rooms, bathrooms, the family room, and shower rooms. CNA 2 stated a nursing student, precepting at the facility, searched outside the facility, as did CNA 1 and CNA 2. CNA 2 stated PTA 1's motorcycle was still parked at the facility. CNA 2 stated all staff then went to the two doors of the therapy room, which were locked and the lights in the room were off. CNA 2 stated the therapy room were usually unlocked and open. CNA 2 stated a light in an office within the therapy room was on, but the door was closed to the office area. CNA 2 stated she first observed resident 31 as she came back in through the south door and walked toward the east hallway. CNA 2 stated resident 31 looked sick, clammy, and like she was going to pass out. CNA 2 stated resident 31 told staff she did not want to talk about it. CNA 2 stated that she and CNA 1 stayed with resident 31 in her room, as they had established a rapport with her. CNA 2 stated resident 31 said she was sick to her stomach and she had spit up mucus two times in the trash. CNA 2 stated resident 31 said she had a crush on someone but did not want to say who because she did not want him to lose his job. CNA 2 stated she and CNA 1 asked resident 31 what had happened and resident 31 replied that they, resident 31 and the male staff member, wanted to try something. CNA 2 stated she asked resident 31 if her clothes were off, to which CNA 2 stated the resident replied they were off, for the most part. CNA 2 stated she asked resident 31 if the male staff member's clothes were off. CNA 2 stated resident 31 responded, yes. CNA 2 stated resident 31 told CNA 2 and CNA 1 that resident 31 and the male staff member were trying to have sex and it did not work. CNA 2 stated she asked resident 31 what she meant. CNA 2 stated resident 31 replied that it was like her crotch was sewn shut because it had been 25 years since she did something and pointed to her pelvic area. CNA 2 stated resident 31 further replied that they could not get it in. CNA 2 stated RN 1 was outside the room with a medication cart and CNA 2 told RN 1 to call the cops. CNA 2 stated resident 31 told her this was not the first time it had happened, but that resident 31 did not say when it had happened before. On 4/9/24 at 6:58 PM, a telephone interview was conducted with CNA 1. CNA 1 stated she worked in the facility since 2017 and was familiar with all the residents. CNA 1 stated she started a shift at 6:00 PM on 4/8/24, and should have been off at 10:00 PM. CNA 1 stated she left the facility between 12:00 AM and 12:30 AM on 4/9/24. CNA 1 stated on the evening of 4/8/24, she was working on the South end of the building and there were three other CNA's on duty. CNA 1 stated there was a nursing student who asked if she knew where resident 31 was. CNA 1 stated she had seen resident 31 about 30 minutes before which was about 8:30 PM, because she rubbed lotion on the resident's feet. CNA 1 stated it was common for resident 31 to walk around the facility with a walker in the evening. CNA 1 stated that the Student Nurse stated she must have missed her in the hallway. CNA 1 stated that the Student Nurse made another lap around the facility and stated to CNA 1 she could not find her. CNA 1 stated resident 31 had moved rooms a few times and had dementia, so she thought maybe resident 31 was in an old room or bathroom. CNA 1 stated she began looking through her previous rooms and bathrooms. CNA 1 stated the search expanded to every room and bathroom. CNA 1 stated the only area staff were unable to get into was the therapy gym. CNA 1 stated she looked into the therapy gym through the window on the door and it was dark. CNA 1 stated she thought resident 31 was in there, so she banged on the door and no one opened the door and did not see anyone in the gym. CNA 1 stated staff looked downstairs, even though that area had been locked. CNA 1 stated she had come upstairs and by the East entrance and turned the corner to the East hallway and saw resident 31 in the hallway. CNA 1 stated she went up to resident 31 and stood in front of her walker and asked where she was and what happened. CNA 1 stated resident 31 appeared white in color and was disoriented. CNA 1 stated resident 31 stated she did not want to talk to her. CNA 1 stated resident 31 pushed by her and sat down on her bed. CNA 1 stated resident 31 stated she was getting sick and then observed resident 31 vomit. CNA 1 stated resident 31 looked at the staff members in her room, because everyone was there at that time. CNA 1 stated she asked for everyone to step out of the room except for CNA 2. CNA 1 stated she and CNA 2 remained with resident 31 to discuss what had occurred. CNA 1 stated resident 31 told them she had a crush on someone but stated she did not want that person to be fired. CNA 1 stated resident 31 explained that she and a male staff member tried to have sex but he could not get it in. CNA 1 stated resident 31 pointed toward her private area. CNA 1 stated CNA 2 asked resident 31 if her clothing was off, to which resident 31 replied yes. CNA 1 stated CNA 2 asked resident 31 if the male staff member's clothing was off, to which resident 31 replied yes. CNA 1 stated resident 31 explained the male staff member was very gentle with her. CNA 1 stated resident 31 explained she and the male staff member had tried before and could not get it in before either. CNA 1 stated that resident 31 told her it was consensual. CNA 1 stated resident 31 did not have cognition to understand what had happened. CNA 1 stated PTA 1 was at the facility after 8:00 PM, at night sometimes and he started being there later within the last few weeks. CNA 1 stated other staff members were concerned about him being at the facility later. CNA 1 stated she did not know exact times PTA 1 was at the facility because they were usually really busy working with residents. On 4/9/24 at 5:20 PM, a telephone interview was conducted with the Student Nurse (SN). The SN stated on 4/8/24 shortly after 9:00 PM, she was unable to locate resident 31 and asked other facility staff to assist in finding her. The SN stated there were alarms on the exit doors but staff looked outside anyway's thinking maybe the alarms had glitched. The SN stated staff checked all the resident rooms, empty rooms, and the bathrooms in the resident rooms. The SN stated resident 31 was not known to be a flight risk or go outside. The SN stated the lights were off in the therapy room. The SN stated there were windows on the doors to the therapy room. The SN stated that she was not familiar with the vehicles of the staff but a staff member mentioned that PTA 1's motorcycle was in the parking lot. The SN stated staff went back to the therapy room and she noticed the light in the therapy office was on. The SN stated staff had knocked and yelled resident 31's name thinking resident 31 was in the office or therapy room and had fallen. The SN stated there were codes to the basement but staff looked in the basement for resident 31. The SN stated staff had gone to the basement and she remained on the main floor looking for resident 31. The SN stated she was near resident room [ROOM NUMBER] and started walking toward the South side of the facility when she observed resident 31 come out of the therapy room through the East door. The SN stated she yelled resident 31's name and resident 31 turned her head and started walking towards the SN. The SN stated she knocked on the basement door and yelled that she found resident 31. The SN stated that resident 31 looked pale, confused, and altered. The SN stated resident 31 was usually bubbly and smiley and resident 31 had a look on her face like she did not know what was going on, like a deer in the headlights. The SN stated that resident 31 did not look like her usual self. The SN stated it was approximately 20 minutes that staff had been looking for resident 31. The SN stated they started looking for resident 31 at approximately 9:10 PM. The SN stated that she asked resident 31 where she was and resident 31 stated I am okay why do you want to know. The SN stated that she told resident 31 that everyone had been looking for her but resident 31 did not want to answer the questions. The SN stated that resident 31 looked overwhelmed, pale, and asked to sit down. The SN stated that resident 31 started to vomit when they got her to sit down. The SN stated that resident 31 was comfortable with CNA 1 and CNA 2. The SN stated that the CNA's stayed in the room with resident 31 and asked resident 31 where she was. The SN stated that CNA 1 came out of resident 31's room crying and stated that resident 31 told her everything and they needed to call the police. The SN stated we called the police and ran to the therapy gym to see if PTA 1 was still in the room. The SN stated that PTA 1 came out of the therapy room and was trying to leave. The SN stated that PTA 1 went back into the therapy gym and slammed the door. The SN stated the staff stood by the therapy doors so PTA 1 could not leave the facility. The SN stated when the police arrived at the facility PTA 1 left the therapy room with his motorcycle gear on. The SN stated the police put PTA 1 in handcuffs. The SN stated when the staff were confronting PTA 1, resident 31 came out of her room and defecated on herself in the hallway. On 4/9/24 at 3:00 PM, a telephone interview was conducted with RN 1. RN 1 stated on 4/8/24 at about 9:00 PM, she was looking for resident 31 to Administer her medications. RN 1 stated resident 31 had asked for pain medication about five minutes before that. RN 1 stated resident 31 was not in her room or bathroom. RN 1 stated resident 31's roommate said she went out in the hallway. RN 1 stated she had the SN with her and asked her to look for resident 31. RN 1 stated the SN was unable to locate resident 31 after about five to 10 minutes. RN 1 stated the SN had looked in hallways and rooms near resident 31's room. RN 1 stated she asked the CNA's to help them look for resident 31. RN 1 stated the staff looked in all of the resident rooms, even the empty ones, and all the bathrooms. RN 1 stated the staff looked in any room they could get into and then looked outside. RN 1 stated staff looked in the basement. RN 1 stated it was not like resident 31 to be gone that long. RN 1 stated resident 31 had dementia but had not tried to elope or leave the facility. RN 1 stated after not being able to find her, there were a couple rooms that were locked like the activity room, the social services room, and the therapy gym. RN 1 stated staff looking outside and noticed PTA 1's motorcycle was there. RN 1 stated that PTA 1 was usually at the facility from 6:00 PM to 8:30 or 9:00 PM. RN 1 stated the therapy gym was usually not locked and the office light would be on. RN 1 stated after about 30 minutes staff found resident 31 in the hallway by the therapy gym that was next to the family room. RN 1 stated resident 31 had therapy handouts in her hand. RN 1 stated resident 31 looked really pale and she said she had been in the family room. RN 1 stated resident 31 said she needed to sit down. RN 1 stated resident 31 sat down on the bed and threw-up. RN 1 stated at that point, resident 31 appeared overwhelmed with everyone. RN 1 stated CNA 1 and CNA 2 stayed with resident 31. RN 1 stated that resident 31 had a large bowel movement and her periarea was assessed and there were no concerns or redness. RN 1 stated CNA 1 and CNA 2 talked with resident 31 and exited resident 31's room and was told to call the police at about 9:30 PM. RN 1 stated resident 31 did not provide any information to her directly. RN 1 stated staff were banging on the therapy gym doors and there was no answer. RN 1 stated she contacted resident 31's family members, the physician, and the administrator. RN 1 stated resident 31 was not physically injured and was not in any pain. RN 1 stated resident 31 was not in distress but had a deer in the headlights look. RN 1 stated that the SN was the first person to find resident 31. RN 1 stated that the SN told her resident 31 came out of the therapy gym. RN 1 stated she was not sure if a sexual assault exam was completed. RN 1 stated she did not remember seeing PTA 1 with resident 31 in the past and did not know if she was receiving therapy services. RN 1 stated she saw PTA 1 working with resident 28 and resident 36. RN 1 stated PTA 1 was usually at the facility between 6:00 PM to 6:30 PM until 9:00 PM. RN 1 stated the therapy gym was never locked. RN 1 stated the Maintenance Director had a key to the therapy gym. RN 1 stated the light in the therapy office was visible around the door frame through the windows in the therapy gym door. RN 1 stated the lights were turned off when she looked in there. RN 1 stated she was not sure where therapy paperwork was stored. RN 1 stated she had not seen therapy paperwork before. RN 1 stated she completed a full body assessment on resident 31. RN 1 stated when she performed the assessment resident 31 stated he never forced himself on her. RN 1 stated the Administrator directed her to not be specific with her charting and to keep it very clinical in resident 31's nursing progress notes. RN 1 stated she was able to document that resident 31 was pale, had a large bowel movement, and threw-up once. RN 1 stated she was able to document there was no trauma. RN 1 stated she was able to document details in the incident report. On 4/10/24 at 8:30 AM, an interview was conducted with the TC. The TC stated PTA 1 had been suspended as of 4/8/24. The TC stated PTA 1 clocked in and out on the computer. The TC stated she had talked to PTA 1 about how he was coming in too late in the evenings on 3/15/24. The TC stated residents were refusing therapy because it was so late. The TC stated PTA 1 was coming in late about 3:10 PM, and left between 6:00 PM and 8:00 PM. The TC stated she reminded PTA 1 that they want him to leave before 7:00 PM. The TC stated she thought he was having long days at another facility but after talking to the director of the other facility, that was not the case. The TC stated she left the therapy room doors open and unlocked with the light out. The TC stated she came in the morning a few times and one of the doors was locked to the therapy room. On 4/10/24 at 9:56 AM, a follow-up interview was conducted with the TC. The TC stated she did not know why PTA 1 would clock out at 6:45 PM, and still be at the facility after 9:00 PM. The TC stated she was not aware PTA 1 had stayed later than he had when clocked out. On 04/10/24 at 12:39 PM, an interview was conducted with the TC. The TC stated she left the facility between 2:00 PM and 4:00 PM, and PTA 1 was usually not at the facility when she left. The TC stated the staff completed point of care documentation. The TC stated that documentation should be completed as therapy was provided to the resident. The TC stated when PTA 1 signed out then he should be done with his day. The TC stated if PTA 1 was not done with his day then he should stay on the clock and the time would go toward patient care. On 4/10/24 at 4:16 PM, a follow-up interview was conducted with the TC. The TC stated she was unable to find therapy notes from PTA 1 for treatments that should have been provided on 4/8/24, for four additional residents. The TC stated she was only able to locate therapy notes for resident 6. On 4/11/24 at 8:08 AM, an interview was conducted with the TC. The TC stated PTA
CONCERN (D)

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

Abuse Prevention Policies (Tag F0607)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review, the facility did not develop and implement written polices and procedures that prohibited and prevented abuse, neglect, and exploitation of residents. Specificall...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility did not develop and implement written polices and procedures that prohibited and prevented abuse, neglect, and exploitation of residents. Specifically, a staff member was not connected to the facility through the Direct Access Clearance System (DACS). Findings included: Physical Therapy Assistant (PTA) 1's employee file was reviewed on 4/10/24. The file revealed an offer letter for another facility. There was no information regarding PTA 1 being employed with the facility being surveyed. The information provided was from a contract rehabilitation company. On 4/9/24 at 4:17 PM, an interview was conducted with the Administrator. The Administrator stated prior to a staff member working with residents a background screening was completed. The Administrator stated PTA 1 had a background screening completed and there were no problems. On 4/11/24 at 9:08 AM, an interview was conducted with the Background Processing Manager (BPM) at the State Survey Agency. The BPM checked PTA 1 in the DACS. The BPM stated that PTA 1 was eligible for work but PTA 1 had not been connected to the facility being surveyed. The BPM stated the employee should be linked upon engagement with the facility. The facility policy Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Preventing and Prohibiting Abuse was dated 11/2017 and revised on 9/13/2022. The policy documented: PURPOSE: To keep residents free from abuse, neglect, and exploitation of residents and misappropriation of resident property. POLICY: The facility's policy is to prohibit and prevent abuse, neglect, exploitation of residents, and misappropriation of resident property. The facility will establish procedures to investigation any such allegations. The facility will investigate and report such allegations and provides training on abuse, neglect, exploitation, and misappropriation of resident property for facility staff. The facility completes reporting of abuse allegations, including crimes occurring in the facility, in accordance with Federal regulation. Facility staff are educated and informed of their employee rights and reporting responsibilities and are protected from retaliation. The facility establishes methods to facilitate communication and coordination for situations of abuse, neglect, misappropriation of resident property, and exploitation with the Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) program. GUIDELINES: 1. The facility will maintain and implement policies and procedures to prohibit and prevent abuse, neglect, exploitation of residents and misappropriation of resident property. 2. The policies and procedures will include the following components: a. Screening b. Training c. Prevention d. Identification e. Investigation f. Protection g. Reporting and response 3. The abuse prevention policies and procedures will be in coordination with the QAPI program. SCREENING 1. Potential employees should receive an interview prior to hire and employment history will be screened. 2. Potential employees will be screened with the appropriate licensing/certification boards, in various/multiple states when applicable. 3. When possible, previous and/or current employers should be contacted to obtain a reference for a potential employee. 4. Facility will conduct a criminal background check on potential employees who have been deemed qualified for hire. 5. The facility will not employ an individual whose pre-employment screening indicates a criminal or licensing/certification board history of abuse, neglect, or misappropriation of property. 6. The facility will report to the state nurse aide registry or other licensing authorities any knowledge of actions by a court of law against an employee, which would indicate unfitness for service as a nurse aide or other facility staff. 7. Contracted staff, temporary staff and students will be screened by the third-party agency or academic institution according the same or substantially similar guidelines as stated above. 8. The facility screens prospective residents to determine if the facility has the capability and capacity to provide the necessary care and services for residents admitted to the facility. TRAINING 1. Staff will receive training related to: a. Prohibiting and preventing any form of abuse, neglect, misappropriation of resident property and exploitation b. Identifying what constitutes abuse, neglect, exploitation, and misappropriation of resident property c. Recognizing signs of abuse, neglect, exploitation, and misappropriation of resident property, such as physical or psychosocial indicators d. Reporting abuse, neglect, exploitation, and misappropriation of resident property, including injuries of unknown sources and when and to whom to report alleged violations without fear of reprisal e. Understanding behavioral symptoms of residents which may increase the risk of abuse and neglect and how to respond. PREVENTION 1. Staff will be informed of the individual residents' care needs and behavioral symptoms. 2. Staff will identify, assess, develop care plan interventions, and monitor residents with needs and behaviors which might lead to conflict or neglect, such as: a. Verbally aggressive behavior b. Physically aggressive behavior c. Sexually aggressive behavior d. Taking, touching, or rummaging through another's property e. Wandering into other's room/space f. History of self-injurious behaviors g. Communication disorders or language barriers h. Extensive nursing care needs or totally dependent residents 3. The facility will provide a safe environment that supports, as much as possible, a resident's desire to engage in a consensual sexual relationship between residents with the capacity to consent. 4. The facility will provide for the health and safety of residents regarding visitors. 5. The facility will provide residents and resident representatives information related to how and to whom they may report concerns, incidents, and grievances without fear of retribution. 6. Staff will be deployed in a manner to meet the needs of the residents. 7. Staff supervision will help to identify staff behaviors that may indicate potential for abuse or neglect. IDENTIFICATION 1. Facility staff will be trained to identify the different types of abuse. 2. Administration and staff will monitor for signs of abuse. These, include a. A suspicious injury b. Sudden or unexplained changes in the resident's behavior, such as fear of a person or place or feeling of guilt or shame. INVESTIGATION 1. Allegations of abuse, neglect, misappropriation and exploitation will be investigated, including: a. Identifying staff responsible for the investigation. b. Exercising caution in handling potential evidence. c. Identifying and interviewing involved persons, witnesses, and others who may have knowledge to the extent possible d. Determining whether abuse, neglect, exploitation and/or mistreatment occurred and, is so the extent and cause. e. Documenting the investigation. PROTECTION 1. During an investigation of alleged abuse, neglect, exploitation, and/or misappropriation, the facility will, to the extent possible, protect residents from harm during and after the investigation to include (as appropriate): a. Responding quickly to protect the alleged victim and integrity of the investigation. b. Examining the alleged victim for sign of injury if needed. c. increased supervision of the alleged victim and residents. d. Room or staff changes if necessary. e. Protection from retaliation. f. Providing emotional support and counseling to the resident, as needed REPORTING OF ALLEGATIONS OR SUSPICIONS 1. Staff will immediately report alleged violations to the Administrator, state agency, adult protective services, and other required agencies (i.e., law enforcement when applicable) within specified timeframes as required by law. 2. Reporters will not be subject to retaliation or reprisal, by the facility or any agent of the facility. 3. The facility will post a conspicuous notice informing employees of their rights. The facility will take necessary actions as a result of the investigation. 4. The facility will report to the State licensing and/or certification agencies any knowledge of any actions by a court of law which would indicate an employee is unfit for employment. 5. Staff will be trained regarding changes that are implemented. (Cross refer to F600)
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 interview and record review, the facility did not develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for e...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility did not develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident that included measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental, and psychosocial needs. Specifically, for 1 out of 27 sampled residents, a resident did not have an intervention implemented from his care plan which resulted in multiple falls, a skin tear, and hip pain. Resident Identifier: 9. Findings included: Resident 9 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included, but not limited to, surgical amputation, diabetes mellitus, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, coronary artery disease, and chronic pain syndrome. Resident 9's medical record was reviewed on 4/9/24. A review of Resident 9's care plan initiated on 2/20/24, showed that the resident is at risk for falls and has had an actual fall r/t [related to] gait/balance problems. Resident 9's care plan was revised on 3/6/24, with interventions to include a bed change to a bariatric bed. On 3/6/24 at 6:33 AM, a Nursing Note documented Resident had an unwitnessed fall. No injuries noted. Neuro [neurological] checks started. Resident was angry with staff for wanting to assist him back into bed. He swore at staff, swatted staff away and stated 'I'm tired. Leave me alone.' Staff encouraged resident to allow staff to help him. Resident allowed staff to assist him back into bed using hoyer lift. Call light within reach, bed in low position, door left open. DON [Director of Nursing] and MD [Medical Doctor] notified. On 3/6/24 at 3:19 PM, a Nursing Note documented Patient reviewed in IDT [interdisciplinary team] meeting r/t fall on 3/6 [24]. Staff walked by patients room and noticed they were not in their bed. Staff walked into room and found patient on the ground in between their bed and the wall with a pillow under their head. Nurse assessed patient. No injuries noted. Patient reports not knowing how they fell and states they just woke up on the floor. Staff attempted to get patient back into bed and at first patient refused and swatted staff away. Eventually patient agreed to be hoyer liftedback [sic] into bed. Bed was put in lowest position and call light within reach. This nurse talked to patient about their fall later in the day and patient still reported they did not know what happened. Patient reports having a bigger bed may help prevent it in the future. Intervention: Bed changed from regular size to bariatric. On 4/1/24 at 7:15 AM, a Nursing Note documented this LN [licensed nurse] called into resident room due to resident being found sitting on the floor on the side of his bed. no clutter, or wet on floor. non skid socks not applicable as resident has bilat [bilateral] amputation. call light in use. resident states he was sleeping and rolled out of bed. skin assessment shows no new injuries. neuros and vitals [vital signs] implemented per facility policy. Md and DON notified. On 4/5/24 at 9:36 AM, a Nursing Note documented Patient reviewed in IDT meeting r/t unwitnessed fall. Staff found patient sitting on the ground next to their bed. Patient reports they just rolled out of bed in their sleep. Nurse assessed patient. No injuries noted. VSS [vital signs stable] Neuros WNL [within normal limits]. Staff assisted patient back into bed. Provider notified. Patient own responsible party. Intervention: Pharmacist to review medications. On 4/6/24 at 10:11 PM, a Nursing Note documented . had an unwitnessed fall where he obtained a pin sized abrasion to his right elbow. Cleansed with wound cleanser - steri strips applied. No other injuries observed. Neuro checks started. Resident was assisted back into bed. Bed in low position. Call light within reach. PRN [as needed] pain medication administered. He is alert and oriented x4 [person, place, time and event]. MD, DON notified. On 4/7/24 at 3:36 PM, a Nursing Note documented res [resident] had a recent fall, no latent injuries noted. continues to have pain in hip. PRN oxy [oxycodone] given with good effect. vitals and neuros WNL. On 4/7/24 at 11:09 PM, an Alert Note documented Continues on post fall charting. Res c/o [complaining of] Hip pain throughout shift. PRN oxycodone administered for pain with effective pain relief per resident. Res denies further concerns. Call light within reach. On 4/8/24 at 10:18 AM, a Nursing Note documented Pharmacist reviewed medications r/t falls. Recommended changing Prozac to Lexapro. In house provider reviewed recommendation and did not want to implement changes. States its [sic] too soon to contribute to medication side effects. On 4/8/24 at 12:54 PM, a Nursing Note documented Patient reviewed in IDT meeting r/t unwitnessed fall on 4/6 [24]. Patient reports he just rolled out of bed. Nurse assessed patient. Abrasion to R [right] elbow found. Nurse cleansed site and applied steri strips. Staff assisted patient back into bed. Patient given PRN pain meds [medications]. Provider notified. Patient own responsible party. Intervention: Fall matt placed next bed. On 4/8/24 at 10:26 AM, an interview was conducted with resident 9. Resident 9 stated that he had recently fallen out of bed a couple of times and cut his arm and hurt his left hip. Resident 9 stated that he refused to go to the hospital after the last fall. Resident 9 stated that he requested a bigger bed because he believed that was the reason that he kept falling or rolling out of bed. Resident 9 stated that he had not received a bigger bed. On 4/9/24 at 1:22 PM, an interview was conducted with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 3. CNA 3 stated that resident 9 did not have a bariatric bed. CNA 3 stated that resident 9 had a fall not too long ago and that a fall mat was placed on the floor next to the resident's bed. CNA 3 stated that if a resident was a fall risk, then the resident's bed was usually lowered closer to the floor. On 4/9/24 at 1:30 PM, an interview was conducted with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 1. LPN 1 stated that she was aware that resident 9 had a couple of falls in the past two weeks. LPN 1 stated that the last fall resident 9 sustained a skin tear to his right arm and had left hip pain. LPN 1 stated that the pharmacist was going to review resident 9's medications for a possible reason for the falls. LPN 1 stated that she was unaware of any interventions in place for resident 9 prior to the fall on 4/6/24. LPN 1 stated that after the fall on 4/6/24, a floor mat was placed on the floor next to the resident's bed. On 4/9/24 at 1:35 PM, an interview was conducted with the DON. The DON stated that resident 9 did receive a bariatric bed after his fall on 3/6/24. The DON stated that there were several interventions put in place for the resident which included the bariatric bed, pharmacy review of medications, and a floor mat. The DON stated that she would have maintenance check to see if the resident had a bariatric bed. On 4/16/24 at 8:11 AM, an interview was conducted with CNA 4 regarding care plans. CNA 4 stated that when she received report at the beginning of her shift she also received an update regarding changes in care plans for residents. CNA 4 stated that she reviewed the [NAME] of residents every shift for any updated change in information. CNA 4 stated that she was not familiar with Resident 9's care plan. On 4/16/24 at 8:15 AM, an interview was conducted with LPN 1. LPN 1 stated that care plans got updated regularly by the nursing administration staff. LPN 1 stated that when changes were made to a resident's care plan she received those changes through a report from the previous nurse before beginning her shift. LPN 1 stated that the intervention for the bariatric bed for resident 9 was not known to her until questioned by survey member. On 4/16/24 at 8:20 AM, an interview was conducted with the DON. The DON stated that if there was a change in a resident's care plan then usually an inservice was done regarding the change and the [NAME] would reflect the change. The DON stated that she reached out to maintenance regarding the intervention for the bariatric bed in March 2024, and was told that the resident had a bariatric bed. The DON stated that she found out the bed was not a bariatric bed during the survey.
CONCERN (D)

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility did not ensure that the resident environment remains free of ac...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility did not ensure that the resident environment remains free of accident hazards as is possible; and each resident receives adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents. Specifically, for 1 out of 27 sampled residents, a resident did not have an assistance device to prevent falls which resulted in multiple falls. Resident Identifier: 9. Findings included: Resident 9 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included, but not limited to, surgical amputation, diabetes mellitus, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, coronary artery disease, and chronic pain syndrome. Resident 9's medical record was reviewed on 4/9/24. A review of Resident 9's care plan initiated on 2/20/24, showed that the resident is at risk for falls and has had an actual fall r/t [related to] gait/balance problems. Resident 9's care plan was revised on 3/6/24, with interventions to include a bed change to a bariatric bed. On 3/6/24 at 6:33 AM, a Nursing Note documented Resident had an unwitnessed fall. No injuries noted. Neuro [neurological] checks started. Resident was angry with staff for wanting to assist him back into bed. He swore at staff, swatted staff away and stated 'I'm tired. Leave me alone.' Staff encouraged resident to allow staff to help him. Resident allowed staff to assist him back into bed using hoyer lift. Call light within reach, bed in low position, door left open. DON [Director of Nursing] and MD [Medical Doctor] notified. On 3/6/24 at 3:19 PM, a Nursing Note documented Patient reviewed in IDT [interdisciplinary team] meeting r/t fall on 3/6 [24]. Staff walked by patients room and noticed they were not in their bed. Staff walked into room and found patient on the ground in between their bed and the wall with a pillow under their head. Nurse assessed patient. No injuries noted. Patient reports not knowing how they fell and states they just woke up on the floor. Staff attempted to get patient back into bed and at first patient refused and swatted staff away. Eventually patient agreed to be hoyer liftedback [sic] into bed. Bed was put in lowest position and call light within reach. This nurse talked to patient about their fall later in the day and patient still reported they did not know what happened. Patient reports having a bigger bed may help prevent it in the future. Intervention: Bed changed from regular size to bariatric. On 4/1/24 at 7:15 AM, a Nursing Note documented this LN [licensed nurse] called into resident room due to resident being found sitting on the floor on the side of his bed. no clutter, or wet on floor. non skid socks not applicable as resident has bilat [bilateral] amputation. call light in use. resident states he was sleeping and rolled out of bed. skin assessment shows no new injuries. neuros and vitals [vital signs] implemented per facility policy. Md and DON notified. On 4/5/24 at 9:36 AM, a Nursing Note documented Patient reviewed in IDT meeting r/t unwitnessed fall. Staff found patient sitting on the ground next to their bed. Patient reports they just rolled out of bed in their sleep. Nurse assessed patient. No injuries noted. VSS [vital signs stable] Neuros WNL [within normal limits]. Staff assisted patient back into bed. Provider notified. Patient own responsible party. Intervention: Pharmacist to review medications. On 4/6/24 at 10:11 PM, a Nursing Note documented . had an unwitnessed fall where he obtained a pin sized abrasion to his right elbow. Cleansed with wound cleanser - steri strips applied. No other injuries observed. Neuro checks started. Resident was assisted back into bed. Bed in low position. Call light within reach. PRN [as needed] pain medication administered. He is alert and oriented x4 [person, place, time and event] MD, DON notified. On 4/7/24 at 3:36 PM, a Nursing Note documented res [resident] had a recent fall, no latent injuries noted. continues to have pain in hip. PRN oxy [oxycodone] given with good effect. vitals and neuros WNL. On 4/7/24 at 11:09 PM, an Alert Note documented Continues on post fall charting. Res c/o [complaining of] Hip pain throughout shift. PRN oxycodone administered for pain with effective pain relief per resident. Res denies further concerns. Call light within reach. On 4/8/24 at 10:18 AM, a Nursing Note documented Pharmacist reviewed medications r/t falls. Recommended changing Prozac to Lexapro. In house provider reviewed recommendation and did not want to implement changes. States its [sic] too soon to contribute to medication side effects. On 4/8/24 at 12:54 PM, a Nursing Note documented Patient reviewed in IDT meeting r/t unwitnessed fall on 4/6 [24]. Patient reports he just rolled out of bed. Nurse assessed patient. Abrasion to R [right] elbow found. Nurse cleansed site and applied steri strips. Staff assisted patient back into bed. Patient given PRN pain meds [medications]. Provider notified. Patient own responsible party. Intervention: Fall matt placed next bed. On 4/8/24 at 10:26 AM, an interview was conducted with Resident 9. Resident 9 stated that he had recently fallen out of bed a couple of times and cut his right arm and hurt his left hip. Resident 9 stated that he refused to go to the hospital after the fall. Resident 9 stated that he requested a bigger bed because he believed that this was the reason that he kept falling or rolling out of bed. Resident 9 stated that he had not received a bigger bed. On 4/9/24 at 1:22 PM, an interview was conducted with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 3. CNA 3 stated that resident 9 did not have a bariatric bed. CNA 3 stated that resident 9 had a fall not too long ago and that a fall mat was placed on the floor next to the resident's bed. CNA 3 stated that if a resident was a fall risk, then the resident's bed was usually lowered closer to the floor. On 4/9/24 at 1:30 PM, an interview was conducted with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 1. LPN 1 stated that she was aware that resident 9 had a couple of falls in the past two weeks. LPN 1 stated that with the last fall resident 9 sustained a skin tear to his right arm and had left hip pain. LPN 1 stated that the pharmacist was going to review resident 9's medications for a possible reason for the falls. LPN 1 stated that she was unaware of any interventions in place for resident 9 prior to the fall on 4/6/24. LPN 1 stated that after the fall on 4/6/24, a floor mat was placed on the floor next to the resident's bed. On 4/9/24 at 1:35 PM, an interview was conducted with the DON. The DON stated that resident 9 did receive a bariatric bed after his fall on 3/6/24. The DON stated that there were several interventions put in place for the resident which included the bariatric bed, pharmacy review of medications, and a floor mat. The DON stated that she would have maintenance check to see if the resident had a bariatric bed. On 4/9/24 at 1:55 PM, an observation was made of the DON and a member of the maintenance staff in resident 9's room measuring the resident's bed. On 4/9/24 at 1:58 PM, an interview was conducted with the DON. The DON stated that resident 9 did not have a bariatric bed and that maintenance would be getting one for the resident. On 4/10/24 at 7:40 AM, an observation was made of resident 9's old bed being removed from the room by the DON and Administrator. Resident 9 was observed in a bariatric bed.
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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview, the facility did not provide a clean, comfortable, homelike environment. Specifically, there...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview, the facility did not provide a clean, comfortable, homelike environment. Specifically, there were odors throughout the facility. Findings included: On 4/8/24 at 8:57 AM, an observation was made in the hallway between room [ROOM NUMBER] to room [ROOM NUMBER]. There was a strong urine odor. On 4/8/24 from 11:45 AM to 11:52 AM, an observation was made in the hallway between room [ROOM NUMBER] to room [ROOM NUMBER]. There was a strong urine odor. On 4/9/24 at 9:08 AM, an observation was made in the hallway between room [ROOM NUMBER] to room [ROOM NUMBER]. There was a strong urine, bowel movement, and body odor through the hallway. On 4/9/24 at 11:54 AM, an observation was made in the hallway outside room [ROOM NUMBER] and into the dining room. There was a strong urine odor. On 4/9/24 at 12:04 PM, an observation was made in the dining room and the hallway between room [ROOM NUMBER] to room [ROOM NUMBER]. There was a strong urine odor. On 4/10/24 at 7:40 AM, an observation was made of a strong smell of urine in the north hallway between room [ROOM NUMBER] and room [ROOM NUMBER]. On 4/10/24 at 8:26 AM, an observation was made in the hallway between room [ROOM NUMBER] to room [ROOM NUMBER]. There was a strong urine and body odor. There were wheelchairs in the atrium observed. One of the wheelchairs was observed to have a brown substance on the seat and up the back of the seat. On 4/11/24 at 3:37 PM through 3:55 PM, there was an observation of the hallway outside room [ROOM NUMBER] to room [ROOM NUMBER]. There was a strong urine odor outside room [ROOM NUMBER] that increased in strength to room [ROOM NUMBER]. On 4/11/24 at 3:51 PM, an observation was made of a strong smell of urine in the north hallway between room [ROOM NUMBER] and room [ROOM NUMBER]. On 4/15/24 at 11:47 AM, an observation was made in the hallway outside room [ROOM NUMBER] to room [ROOM NUMBER]. There was a strong urine odor in the hallway outside room [ROOM NUMBER], the urine odor was stronger outside rooms [ROOM NUMBERS]. The odor continued to room [ROOM NUMBER]. The urine odor was observed in the dining room. At 12:05 PM, an observation was made in the dining room and atrium. There was a strong urine odor. At 12:56 PM, there was a strong urine odor in the hallway outside room [ROOM NUMBER] to room [ROOM NUMBER] and in the dining room. On 4/15/24 at 11:48 AM, an observation was made of a strong smell of urine in the north hallway between room [ROOM NUMBER] and room [ROOM NUMBER]. On 4/16/24 at 8:05 AM, an observation was made of a strong smell of urine in the north hallway between room [ROOM NUMBER] and room [ROOM NUMBER]. On 4/16/24 at 9:49 AM, an observation was made outside room [ROOM NUMBER] in the hallway. There was a strong urine odor. On 4/16/24 at 9:42 AM, an interview was conducted with Registered Nurse (RN) 2. RN 2 stated she noticed a urine odor that morning when she first got to the facility. RN 2 stated she had not noticed a urine odor any other day. RN 2 stated she did not look to find where the odor was coming from. On 4/16/24 at 9:44 AM, an interview was conducted with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 3. CNA 3 stated there was usually an odor in the hallway from room [ROOM NUMBER] to room [ROOM NUMBER]. CNA 3 stated there was a resident with really stinky bowel movements that caused an odor through the hallway. CNA 3 stated staff tried to spray air freshener. CNA 3 stated there was a resident in room [ROOM NUMBER] with hemorrhoids that had a discharge that smelled through the hallway. On 4/16/24 at 9:47 AM, an interview was conducted with Housekeeper (HK) 1. HK 1 stated there was normally an odor in room [ROOM NUMBER]. HK 1 stated there were certain rooms that had odors. HK 1 stated the urine odor came from room [ROOM NUMBER]. HK 1 stated the residents in room [ROOM NUMBER] had incontinent issues and refused to be changed at times so their beds and wheelchairs smelled of urine. HK 1 stated anytime the residents were out of their beds or wheelchairs the equipment was cleaned. HK 1 stated sometimes room [ROOM NUMBER] had urine odors. HK 1 stated if there was a urine odor it was usually a wet brief in the trash can in the bathroom. HK 1 stated some residents who were more self sufficient, put their briefs in the trash can. On 4/16/24 at 10:23 AM, an interview was conducted with CNA 5. CNA 5 stated she noticed odors outside room [ROOM NUMBER] because the resident refused to be changed. CNA 5 stated sometimes residents have commented, That's a little smelly. CNA 5 stated the hallway between room [ROOM NUMBER] and room [ROOM NUMBER] had a urine odor at times. On 4/16/24 at 10:26 AM, an interview was conducted with CNA 6. CNA 6 stated Oh yeah when asked if she noticed odors in the hallways. CNA 6 stated she knew where the odor came from because a resident refused to get out of bed in room [ROOM NUMBER]. CNA 6 stated she thought the wheelchair in the atrium with the brown substance on the seat and up the back was from room [ROOM NUMBER]-2. CNA 6 stated Um yeah when she observed the brown substance on the wheelchair.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0804 (Tag F0804)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility did not provide food that was palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature. Specifically, for 4 out of 27 sampled re...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility did not provide food that was palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature. Specifically, for 4 out of 27 sampled resident, residents complained of food quality and a test tray was bland. Resident identifiers: 4, 9, 15, and 27. Findings included: On 4/8/24 at 10:44 AM, an interview was conducted with resident 27. Resident 27 stated the food was unappealing and unappetizing. On 4/8/24 at 9:32 AM, an interview was conducted with resident 15. Resident 15 stated she was sensitive to spices and strong flavors. Resident 15 stated lately the food had been pretty spicy. Resident 15 stated most foods had peppers of some kind added to them. On 4/8/24 at 10:24 AM, an interview was conducted with resident 9. Resident 9 stated the food was not good and there were no substitutes. On 4/8/24 at 10:49 AM, an interview was conducted with resident 4. Resident 4 stated we need better food. Resident 4 stated she was not allowed to have more than four ounces of juice per day. On 4/9/24 at 12:24 PM, an observation was made of the facility tray line. The last hall trays were plated at 12:24 PM. A test tray was requested at 12:25 PM. The Dietary Manager (DM) stated that she was out of Spaghetti. The DM stated if someone wanted seconds, sometimes they could get it. The DM stated she had pureed broccoli, turkey, and dessert. The DM was observed to put marinara sauce over the turkey and ham cubes. The test tray was observed to have cubes of ham and turkey with marinara sauce on top. There was pureed broccoli and a dessert dish with a yellow colored dessert. The pureed broccoli was bland and with chunks in it. The turkey and ham were bland to the taste with a slimy texture. The dessert had fruit on the bottom and raw cake on top of it. On 4/9/24 at 1:06 PM, an interview was conducted with the DM. The DM stated the ham and turkey were the alternative meal. The DM stated the alternate meal was not served to any residents and everyone was served Spaghetti. The DM stated the turkey and ham were served two to three days prior. The DM stated the dessert was a fruit crisp. The DM stated the turkey and ham should have had gravy on top. The DM stated three residents were served pureed food. The DM stated there was only one resident that wanted seconds of spaghetti and that resident was provided a sandwich because he was already served large portions. On 4/15/24 at 12:38 PM, the last lunch tray was served. Another test tray was requested. The residents were served meat, stuffing, cake, broccoli, and a roll. The temperatures were in degrees Fahrenheit. The pork was 116.5, the stuffing was 120.5, the broccoli was 119.4, the coffee was 114.2. The pork was tough to chew and bland to the taste. The stuffing was mushy and bland to the flavor. The chocolate cake was dry. The roll was sweet with a strong seasoning. On 4/16/24 at 10:00 AM, an interview was conducted with the Vendor Consultant. The Vendor Consultant stated she was at the facility monthly to consult for the DM. The Vendor Consultant stated the cook ran out of gravy for the pork and stuffing. The Vendor Consultant stated after the stuffing had been sitting on the steam table, the cook added water before serving the test tray. The Vendor Consultant stated she did not obtain a test tray with the pork so she did not know how it tasted.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0809 (Tag F0809)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

On 4/16/24 at 11:13 AM, an interview was conducted with Resident 6 regarding food and snacks. Resident 6 stated that there were always saltines offered and there were other times fruit and other crack...

Read full inspector narrative →
On 4/16/24 at 11:13 AM, an interview was conducted with Resident 6 regarding food and snacks. Resident 6 stated that there were always saltines offered and there were other times fruit and other crackers were offered, but not on a consistent basis. Resident 6 stated that at bedtime she was sometimes asked if she would like a snack when the staff refill her water cup, but never on a regular basis. On 4/16/24 at 11:17 AM, an interview was conducted with Resident 31 regarding food and snacks. Resident 31 stated that she was not told when new snacks had been put out and that most of the snacks were taken by the time she walked around the facility. Resident 31 stated that she had gotten snacks at bedtime, but was uncertain if there was a routine regarding when snacks were given. Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to provide a suitable, nourishing alternate meals and snacks for residents wanting to eat at non-traditional times, or outside of scheduled meal service times. Specifically, for 5 out of 27 sampled residents, residents were only offered saltine crackers for snacks. Resident identifiers: 3, 4, 6, 31, and 141. Findings included: On 4/8/24 at 9:00 AM and 2:30 PM, an observation was made of a container at the south nurses station. There were saltine crackers in the container. On 4/8/24 at 9:15 AM and 2:35 PM, an observation was made of a container at the north nurses station. There were saltine cracker in the container and one of the saltine crackers was open to air. On 4/9/24 at 9:30 AM, an observation was made of the north nurses station. There were saltine crackers in a container on the counter and one of the saltine crackers was open to air. On 4/9/24 at 2:00 PM and 4:00 PM, an observation was made at the south nurses station. There were saltine crackers in a container on the counter. On 4/10/24 at 12:33 PM, an observation was made of the north nurses station. There was a container with a use by 4/10/24 label. In the container there were apples, crackers and peanut butter, pretzels, and saltine crackers. On 4/9/24 at 9:52 AM, an interview was conducted with resident 4. Resident 4 stated she was offered saltine crackers for snacks usually. Resident 4 stated sometimes there were oranges, pudding, apples, bananas, and cookies but the snacks were filled once a week at the nurses station. Resident 4 stated if the Dietary Manager knew someone important was coming to the facility she loaded up the snacks. Resident 4 stated the snacks were usually filled on Fridays. Resident 4 stated the south nurses station usually had better snacks. On 4/9/24 at 4:12 PM, an interview was conducted with resident 3. Resident 3 stated she was only offered crackers for snacks unless her family brought in snacks. Resident 3 stated she was not offered a snack on a regular basis unless her family had brought in a snack. Resident 3 stated she would like to have snacks offered at night because Who wants to go to bed hungry? On 4/16/24 at 11:12 AM, an interview was conducted with resident 141. Resident 141 stated if he went to the nurses station there were snacks available before bed. Resident 141 stated there were not to many snacks available at the nurses station. On 4/16/24 at 10:00 AM, an interview was conducted with a Vendor Consultant. The Vendor Consultant stated there were refrigerators at each nurses station for snacks and a basket on the counter. The Vendor Consultant stated the baskets were to be filled daily with crackers and other snacks. On 4/16/24 at 10:17 AM, an interview was conducted with [NAME] 1. [NAME] 1 stated the snacks were restocked during the evening shift. [NAME] 1 stated that he worked days and did not stock snacks. On 4/16/24 at 10:18 AM, an interview was conducted with Dietary Aide (DA) 1. DA 1 stated snacks were restocked during the evening shift so she did not stock snacks.
CONCERN (F)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility did not store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. Specifically, the ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility did not store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. Specifically, the dish machine washing temperature was not manufacture required temperature and there were no sanitizer strips available to test the solution. Findings included: 1. On 4/8/24 at 9:03 AM, an initial tour of the kitchen was conducted. The following observation was made of the dish machine [Note: All temperatures were in degrees Fahrenheit.] a. The washing temperature was 110 and the rinse temperature was 120. There were 11 plates, five cups, one dessert dish, and a lid that were in the dish machine. An observation was made of the Dietary Manager (DM) replacing the dishes with the clean dishes. b. The washing temperature was 110 and the rinse temperature was 120. The dish machine basket had seven trays in it and were replaced with clean dishes. An interview was immediately conducted with the DM. The DM stated the dish machine was between 100 and 200 degrees and was usually over 140. The DM stated that the dish machine needed to be run a few times. The DM stated that she had been running the dish machine and was finishing dishes. The DM stated with resident showers sometimes the temperature fluctuated. A log titled Dish Machine -PPM (Part Per Million) Sanitizer Record Log revealed the dish machine sanitizer was checked in the morning and afternoon. There were no temperatures on the log. The logs were reviewed for January 2024, February 2024, and April 2024. On 4/8/24, during the initial kitchen tour, an observation was made of the sanitizer buckets. The DM stated she had just changed the sanitizer solution. The DM was observed to put the sanitizer strip for quats into the solution and it did not change color. The DM stated she needed a new container of strips. The DM stated she was unable to locate strips. 2. On 4/16/24 at 9:57 AM, a follow-up tour of the kitchen was conducted. The following observation was made of the dish machine [Note: All temperatures were in degrees Fahrenheit.] a. The washing cycle temperature was 115 and the rinse cycle temperature was 119. Sanitizer was 100. b. The washing cycle temperature was 100 and the rinse cycle temperature was 115. c. The washing cycle temperature was 100 and the rinse cycle temperature was 119. A log titled Low Temperature Dish Machine Log for April 2024 revealed time, initials, wash temperature > (greater than) 120, rinse temperature > 120, sanitizer > 50 PPM for each day of April for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. The last temperature recorded was 4/14/24. On 4/16/24 at 9:52 AM, an interview was conducted with Dietary Aide (DA) 1. DA 1 stated the dish machine temperatures should be around 120. DA 1 was observed to look at the dish machine temperature and confirmed the washing cycle was 100 and the rinsing cycle was 115. DA 1 stated she checked the temperatures of the dish machine and sanitizer every morning. DA 1 stated it was the 16th but she documented the temperatures on the 14th. DA 1 stated she was not sure why the log changed for the dish machine. On 4/16/24 at 10:00 AM, an interview was conducted with the Vendor Consultant. The Vendor Consultant stated she was at the facility once a month to consult for the DM. The Vendor Consultant stated the DM was not working that day. The Vendor Consultant stated the dish machine log was changed because it needed to have breakfast, lunch, and dinner temperatures on the logs. The Vendor Consultant stated she suggested changing the logs for the dish machine. The Vendor Consultant stated she checked the dish machine on 4/15/24. The Vendor Consultant stated the washing cycle temperature should be 120 and the rinsing cycle temperature should be 120. The Vendor Consultant stated the dish machine needed to be run a few cycles to get to temperature above 120 for the wash and rinse.
Jun 2022 6 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0637 (Tag F0637)

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, the facility did not comprehensively assess a resident within 14 days a...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, it was determined, the facility did not comprehensively assess a resident within 14 days after determining, or should have determined, that there has been a significant change in the resident's physical or mental condition. Specifically, for 1 out of 31 sampled residents, a resident that was discharged from Hospice services did not have a significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment completed. Resident identifier: 2. Findings included: Resident 2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included, but not limited to, type 2 diabetes mellitus without complications, chronic pain, major depressive disorder, long term use of opiate analgesic, urinary tract infection, encounter for palliative care, and mild protein-calorie malnutrition. Resident 2's medical record was reviewed on 6/22/22. A physician's order for Hospice services was discontinued on 6/2/22. Resident 2's significant change MDS assessment was reviewed, and it was revealed that the target date for completion for the significant change MDS assessment was 6/15/22. The significant change MDS assessment was not completed, and the status was marked as In Progress. On 6/27/22 at 10:40 AM, an interview with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) was conducted. The ADON stated that it was her responsibility to complete the MDS assessments. The ADON described her process of completing the MDS assessments. The ADON stated that the computer system the facility used created a list of resident names to indicate that the residents were due for an updated MDS assessment. The ADON stated that department heads in the facility entered information as needed in the resident's MDS assessment, and the ADON was the person responsible for finalizing the MDS assessment. Once the MDS assessments were updated and complete, the ADON stated that staff members from corporate would export the completed MDS assessments. The ADON acknowledged that resident 2 had a significant change MDS assessment that was overdue.
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 interview and record review, it was determined, the facility assessments did not accurately reflect the resident's stat...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, it was determined, the facility assessments did not accurately reflect the resident's status. Specifically, for 1 out of 31 sampled residents, a resident's discharge Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment was coded incorrectly by indicating that a resident was discharged to a hospital when the resident was actually discharged home. Resident Identifier: 40. Findings Included: Resident 40 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included type 2 diabetes mellitus, difficulty in walking, muscle weakness, and arthritis. On 6/23/22, resident 40's medical record was reviewed, and it was revealed that the discharge MDS assessment indicated that resident 40 had been discharged to an acute hospital. A progress note dated 4/16/22 at 9:13 AM, was reviewed. The progress note documented, Discharge Summary: Pt [Patient] admitted to facility on 4-12-22. Pt's stay was largely uneventful and pt is discharging to home today. On 6/23/22 at 10:40 AM, an interview with the Social Services Director (SSD) was conducted. The SSD stated that resident 40 was discharged to his home and did not go to the hospital. On 6/23/22 at 10:55 AM, an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) was conducted. The DON confirmed that resident 40 was discharged to home on 4/16/22. On 6/27/22 at 10:40 AM, an interview with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) was conducted. The ADON stated that it was her responsibility to complete the MDS assessments. The ADON described her process of completing the MDS assessments. The ADON stated that the computer system the facility used created a list of resident names to indicate that the residents were due for an updated MDS assessment. The ADON stated that department heads in the facility entered information as needed in the resident's MDS assessment, and the ADON was the person responsible for finalizing the MDS assessment. Once the MDS assessments were updated and complete, the ADON stated that staff members from corporate would export the completed MDS assessments. The ADON acknowledged that residents 40's MDS assessment was incorrectly coded as being discharged to a hospital and that the assessment should have reflected that resident 40 was discharged to home.
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, it was determined, the facility did not ensure that each resident's drug regimen was free ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, it was determined, the facility did not ensure that each resident's drug regimen was free from unnecessary drugs. An unnecessary drug is any drug when used in excessive dose; or for excessive duration; or without adequate monitoring; or without adequate indications for its use; or in the presence of adverse consequences which indicate the dose should be reduced or discontinued; or any combinations of the reasons above. Specifically, for 1 out of 31 sampled residents, a resident's medications to treat high blood pressure were held without physician ordered parameters. Resident identifier: 30. Findings included: Resident 30 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included, but not limited to, cervical disc disorder with myelopathy, speech disturbances, mild protein-calorie malnutrition, neuromuscular dysfunction of bladder, left knee contracture, major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, type 2 diabetes mellitus, essential hypertension, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia. Resident 30's medical record was reviewed on 6/22/22. A physician's order dated 1/11/22, documented hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 milligrams (mg). Give 12.5 mg by mouth one time a day related to essential hypertension. A review of the June 2022 Medication Administration Record (MAR) documented the following entries when resident 30's hydrochlorothiazide was held due to the blood pressure (BP) reading outside of parameters. a. On 6/7/22, BP 104/61. b. On 6/8/22, BP 113/64. c. On 6/10/22, BP 97/53. d. On 6/12/22, BP 111/54. e. On 6/16/22, BP 101/63. f. On 6/17/22, BP 103/58. g. On 6/19/22, BP 109/62. h. On 6/22/22, BP 93/53. A physician's order dated 1/11/22, documented losartan potassium 50 mg. Give 50 mg by mouth one time a day related to essential hypertension. A review of the June 2022 MAR documented the following entries when resident 30's losartan potassium was held due to the BP reading outside of parameters. a. On 6/3/22, BP 116/59. b. On 6/5/22, BP 106/45. c. On 6/7/22, BP 104/61. d. On 6/8/22, BP 113/64. e. On 6/10/22, BP 97/53. f. On 6/12/22, BP 111/54. g. On 6/16/22, BP 101/63. h. On 6/17/22, BP 103/58. i. On 6/19/22, BP 109/62. j. On 6/22/22, BP 93/53. On 6/23/22 at 11:49 AM, an interview was conducted with Registered Nurse (RN) 1. RN 1 stated if a medication had physician ordered parameters the parameters would be noted on the medication within the electronic MAR. RN 1 stated that she was told by the Director of Nursing (DON) that it was okay to give the medication because there were no physician ordered parameters. RN 1 stated that she did not feel comfortable administering the medication if the resident had a systolic blood pressure (SBP) less than 100. RN 1 stated if the SBP was less than 100 she would not give the medication and she would notify the Medical Director (MD). RN 1 stated the MD contact would be documented in a progress note and RN 1 could message the MD through a secured text message system within the electronic MAR. On 6/23/22 at 12:10 PM, an interview was conducted with RN 2. RN 2 stated that some residents had physician ordered parameters on the physician's order. RN 2 stated if the resident was running low on their blood pressure she would ask the MD or the Nurse Practitioner (NP) for standing order parameters. RN 2 stated the facility did not have standing orders for blood pressures. On 6/23/22 at 1:00 PM, an interview was conducted with the DON. The DON stated the facility did not have standing orders. The DON stated the facility was the residents home and they want the facility to mimic a home like environment. The DON stated if a resident was frequently low on their blood pressure or more sensitive with their blood pressure medications the staff would call the MD for parameters until the resident's blood pressures were stable. The DON stated the physician ordered parameters would be embedded in the actual medication order for the blood pressure medication. The DON stated the nurse would have to input the BP into the electronic MAR prior to administering the medication. The DON stated a resident had a low BP today and the RN held the medication and notified the MD. The DON stated that holding a resident medication would be a nursing judgement. On 6/23/22 at 1:25 PM, a follow up interview was conducted with the DON. The DON stated that the nurse that was holding resident 30's hypertensive medications was holding them based on nursing judgement and did not notify the MD consistently. The DON stated the NP was going to evaluate resident 30 based on consistent low blood pressures. The DON stated that additional education would be provided to staff.
CONCERN (E)

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

Comprehensive Assessments (Tag F0636)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, it was determined, the facility did not conduct comprehensive assessments of residents in ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, it was determined, the facility did not conduct comprehensive assessments of residents in accordance with the timeframe's specified. Specifically, for 3 out of 31 sampled residents, comprehensive assessments of residents were not completed at least once every 12 months. Resident identifiers: 13, 90, and 91. Findings included: 1. Resident 13 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which include polyosteoarthritis, contracture of muscle, anoxic brain damage, muscle wasting and atrophy, fistula of stomach and duodenum, and adult failure to thrive. On 6/23/22, resident 13's medical record was reviewed. Resident 13's annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment was reviewed, and it was revealed that the target date for completion of the most recent annual MDS assessment was 4/7/22. The annual MDS assessment was not completed, and the status was marked as In Progress. 2. Resident 91 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included type 2 diabetes mellitus, chronic respiratory failure, left ventricular failure, gastro-esophageal reflux disease, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. On 6/23/22, resident 91's medical record was reviewed. Resident 91's annual MDS assessment was reviewed, and it was revealed that the target date for the completion of the most recent annual MDS assessment was 6/6/22. The annual MDS assessment was not completed, and the status was marked as In Progress. 3. Resident 90 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included cerebral palsy. On 6/21/22, resident 90's medical record was reviewed. Resident 90's annual MDS assessment was reviewed, and it was revealed that the target date for completion of the annual MDS assessment was 6/3/22. The annual MDS assessment was not completed, and the status was marked as In Progress. On 6/27/22 at 10:40 AM, an interview with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) was conducted. The ADON stated that it was her responsibility to complete the MDS assessments. The ADON described her process of completing the MDS assessments. The ADON stated that the computer system the facility used created a list of resident names to indicate that the residents were due for an updated MDS assessment. The ADON stated that department heads in the facility entered information as needed in the resident's MDS assessment, and the ADON was the person responsible for finalizing the MDS assessment. Once the MDS assessments were updated and complete, the ADON stated that staff members from corporate would export the completed MDS assessments. The ADON acknowledged that the resident comprehensive MDS assessments were overdue.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0638 (Tag F0638)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, it was determined, the facility did not assess residents using the quarterly review instru...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, it was determined, the facility did not assess residents using the quarterly review instrument specified by the State and approved by Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services not less frequently than once every 3 months. Specifically, for 13 out of 31 sampled residents, quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments were not completed every 3 months. In addition, quarterly MDS assessments were not completed no later than 14 days after the assessment reference date (ARD). Resident identifiers: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 13, 16, 26, 30, 89, 90, and 142. Findings included: 1. Resident 89 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included acute osteomyelitis, iron deficiency, rheumatoid arthritis, essential hypertension, major depressive disorder, and osteoarthritis. On 6/23/22, resident 89's medical record was reviewed. Resident 89's quarterly MDS assessment was reviewed, and it was revealed that the ARD target date for completion of the quarterly MDS assessment was 5/25/22. The quarterly MDS assessment was not completed, and the status was marked as In Progress. Resident 89's quarterly MDS assessment was reviewed, and it was revealed that the ARD target date for completion of the quarterly MDS assessment was 3/7/22. The quarterly MDS assessment was completed, and the status was marked as Export Ready. 2. Resident 9 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included type 2 diabetes mellitus, difficulty in walking, weakness, chronic kidney disease, and adult failure to thrive. On 6/23/22, resident 9's medical record was reviewed. Resident 9's quarterly MDS assessment was reviewed, and it was revealed that the ARD target date for completion of the quarterly MDS assessment was 5/13/22. The quarterly MDS assessment was not completed, and the status was marked as In Progress. 3. Resident 6 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included rheumatoid arthritis, muscle weakness, altered mental status, essential hypertension, hypoxemia, contractures, and hemiplegia. On 6/23/22, resident 6's medical record was reviewed. Resident 6's quarterly MDS assessment was reviewed, and it was revealed that the ARD target date for completion of the quarterly MDS assessment was 4/15/22. The quarterly MDS assessment was not completed, and the status was marked as In Progress. 4. Resident 4 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included hypotension, acute kidney failure, chronic kidney disease, type 2 diabetes mellitus, essential tremor, difficulty in walking, unsteadiness on feet, and adult failure to thrive. On 6/23/22, resident 4's medical record was reviewed. Resident 4's quarterly MDS assessment was reviewed, and it was revealed that the ARD target date for completion of the quarterly MDS assessment was 4/26/22. The quarterly MDS assessment was not completed, and the status was marked as In Progress. 5. Resident 26 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included chronic embolism and thrombosis of left lower extremity, muscle weakness, difficulty in walking, cognitive communication deficit, generalized anxiety disorder, dementia, and localized edema. On 6/23/22, resident 26's medical record was reviewed. Resident 26's quarterly MDS assessment was reviewed, and it was revealed that the ARD target date for completion of the quarterly MDS assessment was 5/13/22. The quarterly MDS assessment was not completed, and the status was marked as In Progress. 6. Resident 16 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included wedge compression fracture of unspecified thoracic vertebra, fracture of unspecified part of right clavicle, and nondisplaced fracture of glenoid cavity of scapula, right shoulder. On 6/27/22, resident 16's medical record was reviewed. Resident 16's quarterly MDS assessment was reviewed, and it was revealed that the ARD target date for completion of the quarterly MDS assessment was 11/24/21. The quarterly MDS assessment was completed by facility staff on 12/15/21. [Note: The quarterly MDS assessment was completed 21 days after the ARD.] Resident 16's quarterly MDS assessment was reviewed, and it was revealed that the ARD target date for completion of the quarterly MDS assessment was 2/24/22. The quarterly MDS assessment was completed by facility staff on 4/12/22. [Note: The quarterly MDS assessment was completed 47 days after the ARD.] Resident 16's quarterly MDS assessment was reviewed, and it was revealed that the ARD target date for completion of the quarterly MDS assessment was 5/26/22. The quarterly MDS assessment was not completed, and the status was marked as In Progress. 7. Resident 2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included type 2 diabetes mellitus without complications, chronic pain, major depressive disorder, long term use of opiate analgesic, urinary tract infection, encounter for palliative care, and mild protein-calorie malnutrition. On 6/22/22, resident 2's medical record was reviewed. Resident 2's quarterly MDS assessment was reviewed, and it was revealed that the ARD target date for completion of the quarterly MDS assessment was 3/30/22. The quarterly MDS assessment was completed by facility staff on 6/21/22. [Note: The quarterly MDS assessment was completed 83 days after the ARD.] 8. Resident 30 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] diagnoses which included cervical disc disorder with myelopathy, speech disturbances, mild protein-calorie malnutrition, neuromuscular dysfunction of bladder, left knee contracture, major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, type 2 diabetes mellitus, essential hypertension, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia. On 6/22/22, resident 30's medical record was reviewed. Resident 30's quarterly MDS assessment was reviewed, and it was revealed that the ARD target date for completion of the quarterly MDS assessment was 5/24/22. The quarterly MDS assessment was not completed, and the status was marked as In Progress. 9. Resident 3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, emphysema, chronic atrial fibrillation, type 2 diabetes mellitus, hypertension, hypothyroidism, heart failure, and adult failure to thrive. On 6/23/22, resident 3's medical record was reviewed. Resident 3's quarterly MDS assessment was reviewed, and it was revealed that the ARD target date for completion of the quarterly MDS assessment was 4/2/22. The quarterly MDS assessment was completed by facility staff on 6/21/22. [Note: The quarterly MDS assessment was completed 80 days after the ARD.] 10. Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included paranoid schizophrenia, muscle weakness, cognitive communication deficit, essential hypertension, and insomnia. On 6/23/22, resident 1's medical record was reviewed. Resident 1's quarterly MDS assessment was reviewed, and it was revealed that the ARD target date for completion of the quarterly MDS assessment was 3/19/22. The quarterly MDS assessment was completed by facility staff on 6/21/22. [Note: The quarterly MDS assessment was completed 94 days after the ARD.] 11. Resident 13 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which include polyosteoarthritis, contracture of muscle, anoxic brain damage, muscle wasting and atrophy, fistula of stomach and duodenum, and adult failure to thrive. On 6/23/22, resident 13's medical record was reviewed. Resident 13's quarterly MDS assessment was reviewed, and it was revealed that the ARD target date for the completion of the quarterly MDS assessment was 2/14/22. The quarterly MDS assessment was completed by facility staff on 4/12/22. [Note: The quarterly MDS assessment was completed 57 days after the ARD.] 12. Resident 142 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included ileus, cognitive communication deficit, muscle weakness, difficulty in walking, anorexia, major depressive disorder, and repeated falls. On 6/23/22, resident 142's medical record was reviewed. Resident 142's quarterly MDS assessment was reviewed, and it was revealed that the ARD target date for the completion of the quarterly MDS assessment was 3/14/22. The quarterly MDS assessment was completed by facility staff on 6/17/22. [Note: The quarterly MDS assessment was completed 95 days after the ARD.] 13. Resident 90 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included cerebral palsy, muscle weakness, obesity, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and hypothyroidism. On 6/23/22, resident 90's medical record was reviewed. Resident 90's quarterly MDS assessment was reviewed, and it was revealed that the ARD target date for the completion of the quarterly MDS assessment was 3/5/22. The quarterly MDS assessment was completed by staff on 6/14/22. [Note: The quarterly MDS assessment was completed 101 days after the ARD.] On 6/27/22 at 10:40 AM, an interview with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) was conducted. The ADON stated that it was her responsibility to complete the MDS assessments. The ADON described her process of completing the MDS assessments. The ADON stated that the computer system the facility used created a list of resident names to indicate that the residents were due for an updated MDS assessment. The ADON stated that department heads in the facility entered information as needed in the resident's MDS assessment, and the ADON was the person responsible for finalizing the MDS assessment. Once the MDS assessments were updated and complete, the ADON stated that staff members from corporate would export the completed MDS assessments. The ADON acknowledged that the resident quarterly MDS assessments were overdue.
CONCERN (E)

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

MDS Data Transmission (Tag F0640)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record, it was determined, the facility did not encode discharge Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment data w...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record, it was determined, the facility did not encode discharge Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment data within 7 days after a facility completes a resident's assessment. Specifically, for 3 out of 31 sampled residents, discharge assessments were not completed and transmitted. Resident identifiers: 5, 11, and 14. Findings included: 1. Resident 5 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included Guillain-Barre syndrome, muscle weakness, type 2 diabetes mellitus, cognitive communication deficit, and unsteadiness on feet. On 6/23/22, resident 5's medical record was reviewed. Resident 5's face sheet was reviewed, and revealed that resident 5 was discharged from the facility on 5/28/22. Resident 5's discharge Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment was reviewed, and it was revealed that the target date for the completion of the discharge MDS assessment was 5/28/22. The discharge MDS assessment was not completed, and the status was marked as In Progress. 2. Resident 11 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included fibromyalgia, morbid obesity, chronic kidney disease, generalized anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, and difficulty in walking. On 6/23/22, resident 11's medical record was reviewed. Resident 11's face sheet was reviewed, and revealed that resident 11 was discharged from the facility on 5/3/22. Resident 11's discharge MDS assessment was reviewed, and it was revealed that the target date for the completion of the discharge MDS assessment was 5/3/22. The discharge MDS assessment was not completed, and the status was marked as In Progress. 3. Resident 14 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included emphysema, urinary tract infection, repeated falls, osteoporosis, hypothyroidism, and metabolic encephalopathy. On 6/23/22, resident 14's medical record was reviewed. Resident 14's face sheet was reviewed, and revealed that resident 14 was discharged on 5/1/22. Resident 14's discharge MDS assessment was reviewed, and it was revealed that the target date for the completion of the discharge MDS assessment was 5/1/22. The discharge MDS assessment was not completed, and the status was marked as In Progress. On 6/27/22 at 10:40 AM, an interview with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) was conducted. The ADON stated that it was her responsibility to complete the MDS assessments. The ADON described her process of completing the MDS assessments. The ADON stated that the computer system the facility used created a list of resident names to indicate that the residents were due for an updated MDS assessment. The ADON stated that department heads in the facility entered information as needed in the resident's MDS assessment, and the ADON was the person responsible for finalizing the MDS assessment. Once the MDS assessments were updated and complete, the ADON stated that staff members from corporate would export the completed MDS assessments. The ADON acknowledged that the resident discharge MDS assessments were not completed and submitted.
Feb 2020 5 deficiencies 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Deficiency F0757 (Tag F0757)

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 that for 1 of 24 sample residents, 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 that for 1 of 24 sample residents, the facility did not ensure that residents' drug regimen was free from unnecessary drugs. An unnecessary drug is any drug when used in excessive dose; or for excessive duration; or without adequate monitoring; or without adequate indications for its use; or in the presence of adverse consequences which indicate the dose should be reduced or discontinued; or any combinations of the reasons above. Specifically, a resident receiving anti-coagulation medication did not receive timely monitoring and was subsequently hospitalized . In addition, a resident who was supposed to receive a taper of medication did not receive this in a timely manner. Resident identifier: 88. This deficiency was cited at past non-compliance. The facility, upon determining that a lab had been missed and a resident was hospitalized , determined the cause of the missed lab. They put a Four Step action plan into place, including audits, staff education, identifying other potential residents at risk, a process change for lab orders, and follow up in Quality Assurance meetings. The compliance date for this deficiency is 12/4/19. Findings include: 1. Resident 88 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included cellulitis and atrial fibrillation. Resident 88's medical record was reviewed on 2/19/20. Resident 88's admission orders indicated that the resident was to receive 5 milligrams (mg) of Coumadin each day, and that facility staff should check the resident's Prothrombin Time/International Normalized Ratio (PT/INR) on 11/21/19. Resident 88's November 2019 Medication Administration Record (MAR) indicated that on 11/21/19 resident 88's INR was 3.7. Resident 88's physician orders were reviewed. They indicated to hold resident 88's Coumadin on 11/21/19 and 11/22/19 due to the elevated INR level. The orders also indicated that resident 88's PT/INR was to be rechecked on 11/23/19. Resident 88's November 2019 MAR indicated that resident 88's Coumadin was held on 11/21/19 and 11/22/19, and then restarted on 11/23/19. Neither the MAR nor the progress notes indicated that resident 88's PT/INR had been checked on 11/23/19 as ordered. Physician orders were reviewed and indicated that resident 88's PT/INR level was to be checked on 11/28/19. Progress notes dated 11/28/19 indicated . Verbal order received for stat (immediate) INR. RN (Registered Nurse) preformed (sic) INR by finger stick with a result of [greater than] 8.0 This finding was also reported to [name of physician] new order received for venous draw to verify INR result. No indication could be found in resident 88's medical record that the follow up INR was completed. Progress notes dated 11/29/19 indicated that Resident had some blood clot (sic) produced in his nose and then stated he coughed up some blood on a tissue about the size of a nickel coin. Progress notes dated 12/2/19 at 11:24 AM indicated that Lab draw (PT/INR) was drawn this morning and taken to [name of local hospital] lab. [Name of physician] is aware that it wasn't drawn on the 28th and it was drawn this morning. He has no new orders at this time. laboratory results dated [DATE] indicated that the PT/INR was collected on 12/2/19 at 12:30 PM. The results also indicated that the INR was 30.2 and that the reference range was 1.5 to 3.5. The lab results revealed Panic result called to [name of Director of Nursing] at [3:09 PM]. Any INR [greater] than 5.0 is considered a CRITICAL value and will be called to the Doctor. Resident 88's INR was 30.2 according to the lab results sheet. Progress notes dated 12/2/19 a 3:28 PM indicated that the local hospital called and reported critical high for the recent lab that was drawn this morning. INR 30.2 PT 246.7 [Name of physician] was called and gave order to ship to the [name of local hospital]. Progress notes dated 12/3/19 indicated that resident 88 had been admitted to the hospital and was on telemetry, taking vit (Vitamin) K. On 2/19/20 at 1:30 PM, an interview was conducted with the facility Administrator (ADM) and Director of Nursing) DON. The ADM stated that the Monday after the resident was hospitalized , the DON had identified the missed lab on 11/28/19. The MD stated that a 4 step action plan had been put into place as part of a Quality Assurance Process Improvement (QAPI) initiative by the facility. The ADM provided a copy of the facility investigation, including the QAPI. The investigation confirmed that resident 88's follow up INR had not been drawn on 11/23/19 or 11/28/19, and the resident was subsequently hospitalized .
CONCERN (D)

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

Transfer Notice (Tag F0623)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident 25 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted [DATE] with diagnoses with included nausea with vomiting, o...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident 25 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted [DATE] with diagnoses with included nausea with vomiting, obesity, falls and pressure ulcers. Resident 25's progress notes revealed on 10/25/19 at 8:05 AM, that resident 25 was transferred to the local hospital. On 2/19/20 at 1:30 PM, an interview was conducted with the Administrator. The Administrator stated that if a resident was sent to the hospital with an allegation of abuse, then the ombudsman was notified. The Administrator stated that Typically, we don't notify the Ombudsman when residents are discharged to the hospital. Based on interview and record review, it was determined for 2 of 24 sample residents, that the facility did not notify a representative of the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman of the transfer or discharge and the reasons for the move in writing. Specifically, when residents were discharged to the hospital, the facility Ombudsman was not notified. Resident identifiers: 25 and 35. Findings include: 1. Resident 35 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included coronary artery disease, heart failure, type 2 diabetes mellitus, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, anxiety and depression. Resident 35 passed away at the facility on 8/18/19. Resident 35 had been hospitalized for a change in condition with his respiratory system and pneumonia prior to passing away in the facility. That hospitalization had not been called into the State Long Term Care Ombudsman office.
CONCERN (D)

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

Laboratory Services (Tag F0770)

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 2 of 24 sampled residents, that the facility did not provide or obta...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review it was determined, for 2 of 24 sampled residents, that the facility did not provide or obtain laboratory services to meet the needs of its residents. Specifically, the facility physician ordered a Valproic Acid level and a Urinalysis (UA) for two residents and they were not obtained. Resident identifiers: 5 and 19. Findings include: 1. Resident 5 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included hypertensive heart disease, left ventricular failure, diabetes mellitus type 2, major depressive disorder, persistent mood disorder, anxiety disorder, malignant neoplasm of the left breast, and pain. On 2/19/20 resident 5's medical records were reviewed. Review of resident 5's pharmacy recommendation on 4/15/19 documented to check a valproic acid level now and again in 6 months. On 4/17/19, the physician accepted the pharmacist's recommendation and ordered to implement as written by the pharmacist. Review of the laboratory results in resident 5's medical records did not reveal any documentation for the repeat valproic acid 6 months later that was due in October 2019. On 2/19/20 at 2:58 PM, an interview was conducted with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 2. LPN 2 stated that when she received a lab order she would enter it in the medical records for the date that it was ordered. LPN 2 stated that the valproic acid that was ordered on April 18, 2019 did not have an order to repeat in 6 months. LPN 2 stated that it was entered as a one time order only on 4/18/19. LPN 2 stated that if the order should have had been repeated again in 6 months it would have been due in October 2019. LPN 2 stated that resident 5 did not have an order for a valproic acid level in October 2019. On 2/20/20 at 9:38 AM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated she was responsible for entering the orders from the pharmacy recommendations. The DON confirmed that the original order that was drawn in April 2019 did not have a repeat order to be drawn in 6 months. The DON stated that the order to draw a valproic acid in October 2019 was not initiated. 2. Resident 19 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included epilepsy, dysphagia, atherosclerosis, dysuria, cerebral palsy, and thyroid atrophy. Resident 19's medical record was reviewed on 2/18/20. Resident 19's physician orders revealed that resident 19 was to have a urinalysis (UA) on 11/8/19. This order was entered into the resident ' s electronic health record on 11/1/19. Review of resident 19's medical record revealed that no UA had been completed on 11/8/19. On 2/20 at 10:43 AM, the ADM confirmed that the UA was not done on 11/8 as ordered for resident 19.
CONCERN (E)

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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 6. Resident 33 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included sepsis, perforation of intestine, chronic re...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 6. Resident 33 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included sepsis, perforation of intestine, chronic respiratory failure, ileostomy, pleural effusion, stage 3 pressure ulcer, and anorexia. On On 2/20/20 resident 33's medical records were reviewed. Review of resident 33's orders revealed the following: a. Morphine Sulfate (Concentrate) Solution 20 milligram (mg)/milliliter (ml), Give 0.25 ml by mouth every 2 hours as needed for moderate Pain or air hunger AND Give 0.5 ml by mouth every 2 hours as needed for pain not controlled with 0.25 ml dose AND Give 1 ml by mouth every 2 hours as needed for severe pain. The order was initiated on 2/12/20 b. Oxycodone Hydrochloride Capsule 5 mg Give 1 tablet by mouth every 6 hours as needed for pain. The order was initiated on 1/17/20. c. Oxycodone Immediate 5 mg, take 1 capsule by mouth every 6 hours as needed for pain. The order was initiated on 1/27/20. d. On 2/5/20 an order was initiated to refer to hospice for evaluation and treatment. Resident 33's Medication Administration Record (MAR) for February 2020 was reconciled with the Resident Controlled Substance Record/Log. The following entries had documented discrepancies between the MAR and the log for the Morphine 0.25-0.5 ml: a. On 2/12/20 at 2:09 AM, the log documented 0.25 ml was administered, the MAR was not documented. b. On 2/12/20 at 7:08 PM, the MAR documented 0.5 ml was administered, the log documented 0.25 ml was administered. c. On 2/12/20 at 10:00 PM, the MAR documented 0.5 ml was administered, the log documented 0.25 ml was administered. d. On 2/14/20 at 5:15 AM, the log documented 0.25 ml was administered, the MAR was not documented. e. On 2/14/20 at 10:45 PM, the log documented 0.25 ml was administered, the MAR was not documented. f. On 2/15/20 at 1:00 AM, the log documented 0.25 ml was administered, the MAR was not documented. g. On 2/16/20 at 1:12 PM, the log documented 0.25 ml was administered, the MAR was not documented. h. On 2/18/20 at 7:00 PM, the log documented that 0.5 ml was administered, the MAR was not documented. i. On 2/19/20 at 12:00 AM, the log documented that 0.5 ml was administered, the MAR was not documented. j. On 2/20/20 at 5:00 AM, the log documented that 0.5 ml was administered, the MAR was not documented. Resident 33's Medication Administration Record (MAR) for January and February 2020 were reconciled with the Resident Controlled Substance Record/Log. The following entries had documented discrepancies between the MAR and the log for the Oxycodone 5 mg: a. On 1/20/20 at 3:15 PM, the log documented that 5 mg was administered, the MAR was not documented. b. On 1/29/20 at 8:35 AM, the log documented that 5 mg was administered, the MAR was not documented. c. On 2/7/20 at 10:30 AM, the log documented that 5 mg was administered, the MAR was not documented. d. On 2/7/20 at 4:44 PM, the MAR documented 5 mg was administered, the log was not documented. e. On 2/7/20 at 6:30 PM, the log documented that 5 mg was administered, the MAR was not documented. It should be noted that the administration time was 1 hour and 46 minutes after the last documented administration and not every 6 hours as ordered by the physician. f. On 2/8/20 at 12:00 AM, the log documented that 5 mg was administered, the MAR was not documented. g. On 2/8/20 at 3:58 AM, the MAR documented that 5 mg was administered, the log was not documented. It should be noted that this was approximately 4 hours after the last documented administration and not every 6 hours as ordered by the physician. h. On 2/8/20 at 5:00 AM, the log documented that 5 mg was administered, the MAR was not documented. It should be noted that the administration time was approximately 1 hour after the last documented administration and not every 6 hours as ordered by the physician. i. On 2/8/20 at 7:00 PM, the log documented that 5 mg was administered, the MAR was not documented. It should be noted that the administration time was 2 hours after the last documented administration and not every 6 hours as ordered by the physician. j. On 2/8/20 at 8:17 PM, the MAR documented that 5 mg was administered, the log was not documented. It should be noted that the administration time was 1 hour and 17 minutes after the last documented administration and not every 6 hours as ordered by the physician. k. On 2/9/20 at 1:00 PM, the log documented that 5 mg was administered, the MAR was not documented. l. On 2/12/20 at 4:50 AM, the log documented that 5 mg was administered, the MAR was not documented. m. On 2/15/20 at 9:00 AM the log documented that 5 mg was administered, the MAR was not documented. n. On 2/15/20 at 1:04 PM, the MAR documented that 5 mg was administered, the log was not documented. On 2/20/20 at 12:42 PM, a telephone interview was conducted with the facility consultant pharmacist. The pharmacist stated that he conducted random audits of the narcotics monthly and selected 2-3 as needed (PRN) and scheduled narcotic orders. The pharmacist stated that he compared the Resident Controlled Substance Record/Log book against the actual medication count located in the medication cart and then looked for any abnormalities. The pharmacist stated that rarely was the narcotic count not in compliance with what was in the cart. The pharmacist stated that the facility nurses conduct shift to shift medication counts. The pharmacist stated that he had access to the resident electronic medical records and would compare the PRN orders with the MAR entries. The pharmacist stated that he would look for any discrepancies and would check to see if there was a pattern or if the same nurse was administering the medication. The pharmacist stated that if a discrepancy was identified he would notify the Director Of Nursing (DON). The pharmacist stated that he did not recall any concerns at this facility. On 2/20/20 at 1:06 PM, an interview was conducted with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 1. LPN 1 stated that when a narcotic medication was administered she would verify the resident and the medication in the MAR to the narcotic log, and verify that the amount was correct. LPN 1 stated that when the medication was administered she would document the time in the log book and computer so they match. LPN 1 stated that the date and timestamp in the resident MAR and log book should be the same. LPN 1 stated that every shift the narcotics in the medication cart were reconciled with the log by 2 nurses. LPN 1 stated that if a discrepancy was identified, the nurse going off shift needed to account for the medication discrepancy. LPN 1 stated that usually the error was that someone forgot to sign the medication out in the log book and would have to look it up in the MAR to verify. LPN 1 stated that the MAR in the computer would show what time it was documented, so if a discrepancy was identified she would check the MAR. LPN 1 stated that the nursing staff did not reconcile the log book with the MAR and that she thought the DON reconciled the log book with the MAR. On 2/20/20 at 1:16 PM, an interview was conducted with the DON and Corporate Resource Nurse (CRN). The DON stated that the process for narcotic reconciliation was that the nurses on the floor would conduct a shift count and if they identified a problem she will look at them. The DON stated that she did not conduct periodic random audits to reconcile the narcotic medication, and that she did not reconcile the log with the MAR. The DON stated that she had a destruction log book of residents that had discharged and she would reconcile the log with the count and destroy the medication when a resident was discharged . Based on interview and record review it was determined, for 6 of 24 sample residents, that the facility did not provide pharmaceutical services including procedures that assure the accurate acquiring, receiving, dispensing, and administering of all drugs and biologicals to meet the needs of each resident. Specifically, six residents did not have medications available for administration. Resident identifiers: 7, 8, 9, 21, 31 and 33. Findings include: 1. Resident 9 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included cerebrovascular accident, hypertension, vascular dementia, congestive heart failure, aortic valve insufficiency, type 2 diabetes mellitus and anxiety. On 2/19/20 resident 9's medical record was reviewed. Nursing progress notes revealed the following entries: a. 12/1/2019 19:02 (7:02 PM), Orders - Administration Note Note Text: Atorvastatin Calcium Tablet 20 MG (milligrams) Give 1 tablet by mouth at bedtime for Hx (history) of stroke on reorder. b. 12/6/2019 18:45 (6:45 PM), Orders - Administration Note Note Text: Atorvastatin Calcium Tablet 20 MG Give 1 tablet by mouth at bedtime for Hx of stroke on order. c. 12/7/2019 18:31 (6:31 PM), Orders - Administration Note Note Text: Atorvastatin Calcium Tablet 20 MG Give 1 tablet by mouth at bedtime for Hx of stroke on order. d. 12/7/2019 18:32 (6:32 PM), Orders - Administration Note Note Text: TraMADol HCl Tablet 50 MG Give 1 tablet by mouth two times a day for generalized pain, low back pain, lumbar facet arthroplasty on order. e. 12/8/2019 11:23 Orders - Administration Note Note Text: TraMADol HCl Tablet 50 MG Give 1 tablet by mouth two times a day for generalized pain, low back pain, lumbar facet arthroplasty not available from hospice. f. 12/8/2019 17:57 (5:57 PM), Nursing Note Note Text: this nurse called hospice to remind that patient is out of tramadol, losartan and plavix, they responded that they ordered the medications last week and thought they had arrived. they will assure that they arrive tomorrow. Patient has denied pain today. g. 12/8/2019 18:48 (6:48 PM), Orders - Administration Note Note Text: Atorvastatin Calcium Tablet 20 MG Give 1 tablet by mouth at bedtime for Hx of stroke husband to bring, he is aware. h. 12/8/2019 18:49 (6:49 PM), Orders - Administration Note Note Text: TraMADol HCl Tablet 50 MG Give 1 tablet by mouth two times a day for generalized pain, low back pain, lumbar facet arthroplasty on order. i. 12/9/2019 10:42 Orders - Administration Note Note Text: TraMADol HCl Tablet 50 MG Give 1 tablet by mouth two times a day for generalized pain, low back pain, lumbar facet arthroplasty awaiting delivery. j. 12/9/2019 10:42 Orders - Administration Note Note Text: TraMADol HCl Tablet 50 MG Give 1 tablet by mouth two times a day for generalized pain, low back pain, lumbar facet arthroplasty awaiting delivery. k. 12/9/2019 20:44 (8:44 PM), Orders - Administration Note Note Text: Atorvastatin Calcium Tablet 20 MG Give 1 tablet by mouth at bedtime for Hx of stroke resident is out of medication husband is aware and he is bringing it in. l. 12/12/2019 23:14 (11:14 PM), Nursing Note Note Text: Notified [Name of Hospice] that resident needs her plavix 75 mg PO (by mouth) QHS (every evening) refilled. They said they will bring it tomorrow. m. 12/13/2019 19:05 (7:05 PM), Orders - Administration Note Note Text: Clopidogrel Bisulfate Tablet 75 MG Give 1 tablet by mouth in the evening for History of stroke on order hospice aware. n. 12/13/2019 19:05 (7:05 PM), Orders - Administration Note Note Text: Atorvastatin Calcium Tablet 20 MG Give 1 tablet by mouth at bedtime for Hx of stroke on order. o. 12/14/2019 18:38 (6:38 PM), Orders - Administration Note Note Text: Atorvastatin Calcium Tablet 20 MG Give 1 tablet by mouth at bedtime for Hx of stroke Waiting for Hospice to deliver. p. 12/14/2019 18:39 (6:39 PM), Orders - Administration Note Note Text: Clopidogrel Bisulfate Tablet 75 MG Give 1 tablet by mouth in the evening for History of stroke waiting for Hospice to deliver. q. 12/15/2019 19:19 (7:19 PM), Orders - Administration Note Note Text: Atorvastatin Calcium Tablet 20 MG Give 1 tablet by mouth at bedtime for Hx of stroke hospice to bring. r. 12/15/2019 19:20 (7:20 PM), Orders - Administration Note Note Text: Clopidogrel Bisulfate Tablet 75 MG Give 1 tablet by mouth in the evening for History of stroke hospice to bring in. s. 12/16/2019 10:47 Orders - Administration Note Note Text: [Resident's physician] office notified that Plavix has still not been delivered. Re-start when it is available. t. 12/16/2019 20:29 (8:29 PM) Orders - Administration Note Note Text: Clopidogrel Bisulfate Tablet 75 MG Give 1 tablet by mouth in the evening for History of stroke resident out of plavix hospice notified. u. 1/3/2020 18:50 (6:50 PM), Orders - Administration Note Note Text: Atorvastatin Calcium Tablet 20 MG Give 1 tablet by mouth at bedtime for Hx of stroke husband is to bring, has been notified and has meds on hand, hasn't made it here yet. v. 2/18/2020 19:20 (7:20 PM), Orders - Administration Note Note Text: KlonoPIN Tablet 0.5 MG Give 1 tablet by mouth at bedtime for anxiety waiting for delivery. 2. Resident 31 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included type 2 diabetes mellitus, acquired absence of left leg below the knee, hemiplegia, hypertension, transient ischemic attacks, benign prostatic hypertrophy and glaucoma. On 2/19/20 resident 31's medical record was reviewed. Nursing progress notes revealed the following entries: a. 12/31/2019 20:24 (8:24 PM), Orders - Administration Note Note Text: Latanoprost Solution 0.005 % Instill 1 drop in both eyes one time a day for glaucoma on reorder. b. 2/5/2020 10:02 Orders - Administration Note Note Text: Finasteride Tablet Give 5 mg by mouth one time a day for urinary retention related to BENIGN PROSTATIC HYPERPLASIA WITH LOWER URINARY TRACT SYMPTOMS awaiting delivery. c. 2/12/2020 08:52 Orders - Administration Note Note Text: Finasteride Tablet Give 5 mg by mouth one time a day for urinary retention related to BENIGN PROSTATIC HYPERPLASIA WITH LOWER URINARY TRACT SYMPTOMS awaiting delivery. d. 2/14/2020 11:23 Orders - Administration Note Note Text: Finasteride Tablet Give 5 mg by mouth one time a day for urinary retention related to BENIGN PROSTATIC HYPERPLASIA WITH LOWER URINARY TRACT SYMPTOMS Pharmacy being called to ask if the medication will be arriving. e. 2/15/2020 10:36 Orders - Administration Note Note Text: Finasteride Tablet Give 5 mg by mouth one time a day for urinary retention related to BENIGN PROSTATIC HYPERPLASIA WITH LOWER URINARY TRACT SYMPTOMS awaiting delivery. f. 2/17/2020 10:11 Orders - Administration Note Note Text: Finasteride Tablet Give 5 mg by mouth one time a day for urinary retention related to BENIGN PROSTATIC HYPERPLASIA WITH LOWER URINARY TRACT SYMPTOMS awaiting delivery. 3. Resident 8 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included cerebral infarction, hemiplegia, hypertension, hypothyroidism, Alzheimer's disease, osteoporosis, atrial fibrillation, anxiety and a mental disorder with known physiological condition. On 2/19/20 resident 8's medical record was reviewed. Nursing progress notes revealed the following entries: a. 1/16/2020 08:41 Orders - Administration Note Note Text: LORazepam Solution 2 MG/ML(milliliter) Give 0.5 ml by mouth three times a day for Dx. severe anxiety On order, start when delivered from hospice pharmacy. b. 1/24/2020 20:03 (8:03 PM), Orders - Administration Note Note Text: Alaway Solution 0.025 % Instill 1 drop in both eyes two times a day for eye waiting for delivery. c. 1/24/2020 21:42 (9:42 PM), Orders - Administration Note Note Text: ZyPREXA Tablet 5 MG Give 1 tablet by mouth at bedtime for hallucinations waiting for pharmacy to deliver. 4. Resident 21 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included sepsis, bacteremia, hypoxemia, hypertension, heart failure, morbid obesity, Alzheimer's Disease, history of falls and major depressive disorder. On 2/19/20 resident 21's medical record was reviewed. Nursing progress notes revealed the following entries: a. 1/16/2020 23:29 (11:29 PM), Orders - Administration Note Note Text: TraMADol HCl Tablet 50 MG Give 1 tablet by mouth every 6 hours for Pain waiting for medication to be delivered from pharmacy. b. 2/16/2020 23:27 (11:27 PM), Orders - Administration Note Note Text: TraMADol HCl Tablet 50 MG Give 1 tablet by mouth every 6 hours for Pain on order. c. 2/18/2020 06:48 Orders - Administration Note Note Text: TraMADol HCl Tablet 50 MG Give 1 tablet by mouth every 6 hours for Pain waiting for delivery. 5. Resident 7 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included dementia, edema, pain, Parkinson's Disease, hypertension, heart failure, anxiety disorder and major depressive disorder. On 2/19/20 resident 7's medical record was reviewed. Nursing progress notes revealed the following entries: a. 1/12/2020 11:56 Orders - Administration Note Note Text: Spironolactone Tablet 50 MG Give 50 mg by mouth two times a day related to GENERALIZED EDEMA medication on order. b. 1/12/2020 20:39 (8:39 PM), Orders - Administration Note Note Text: Spironolactone Tablet 50 MG Give 50 mg by mouth two times a day related to GENERALIZED EDEMA on order. c. 2/14/2020 20:11 (8:11 PM), Orders - Administration Note Note Text: clonazePAM Tablet 0.5 MG Give 0.5 mg by mouth one time a day related to MAJOR DEPRESSIVE DISORDER, SINGLE EPISODE, UNSPECIFIED MANIC EPISODE WITHOUT PSYCHOTIC SYMPTOMS, UNSPECIFIED ANXIETY DISORDER DUE TO KNOWN PHYSIOLOGICAL CONDITION on order. d. 2/15/2020 18:20 (6:18 PM), Orders - Administration Note Note Text: clonazePAM Tablet 0.5 MG Give 0.5 mg by mouth one time a day related to MAJOR DEPRESSIVE DISORDER, SINGLE EPISODE, UNSPECIFIED MANIC EPISODE WITHOUT PSYCHOTIC SYMPTOMS, UNSPECIFIED ANXIETY DISORDER DUE TO KNOWN PHYSIOLOGICAL CONDITION on order. e. 2/16/2020 19:55 (7:55 PM), Orders - Administration Note Note Text: clonazePAM Tablet 0.5 MG Give 0.5 mg by mouth one time a day related to MAJOR DEPRESSIVE DISORDER, SINGLE EPISODE, UNSPECIFIED MANIC EPISODE WITHOUT PSYCHOTIC SYMPTOMS, UNSPECIFIED ANXIETY DISORDER DUE TO KNOWN PHYSIOLOGICAL CONDITION on order. On 2/20/20 at 8:37 AM, an interview was conducted with the facility Director of Nursing (DON). The facility DON stated that she did not know why the medications were not available for administration for the residents. The facility DON stated that she would look into the matter and get back to me. On 2/20/20 at 11:57 PM, an interview was conducted with the facility DON. The facility DON did not offer reasons as to why the medications were not available for administration. The facility DON stated that she was working on a correction for not having the medications available for the residents.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0775 (Tag F0775)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. Resident 5 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included hypertensive heart disease, left ventricular ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. Resident 5 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included hypertensive heart disease, left ventricular failure, diabetes mellitus type 2, major depressive disorder, persistent mood disorder, anxiety disorder, malignant neoplasm of the left breast, and pain. On 2/19/20 resident 5's medical records were reviewed. Review of resident 5's laboratory orders revealed the following: a. On 7/28/19 a Urinalysis (UA) was ordered. No documentation of the laboratory result could be located in resident 5's medical records. b. On 11/7/19 a Complete Blood Count (CBC) and a Comprehensive Metabolic Panel (CMP) was ordered. No documentation of the laboratory results could be located in resident 5's medical records c. On 1/22/20 a UA was ordered. No documentation of the laboratory result could be located in resident 5's medical records. On 2/19/20 at 12:35 PM, an interview was conducted with the Assistant Director Of Nursing (ADON). The ADON stated that she reprinted the lab results directly from the laboratory for the CBC and CMP on 11/7/19. The ADON stated she would obtain the UA results for the resident, and that none of the results were located in resident 5's medical records. The ADON stated that the staff would document a progress note on the results and she believed that was sufficient documentation. The ADON stated that not all nursing staff had access to the laboratory to look up test results. 4. Resident 34 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included personality disorder, dysthymic disorder, major depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, emotional lability, insomnia, cellulitis, hyperkalemia, hyperlipidemia, osteoarthritis, cerebrovascular disease, and pain. On 2/19/20 resident 34's medical records were reviewed. Review of resident 34's laboratory orders revealed the following: a. On 12/26/19 a UA was ordered. No documentation of the laboratory result could be located in resident 34's medical records. b. On 12/27/19 a CBC, CMP and a C-reactive protein (CRP) was ordered. No documentation of the laboratory results could be located in resident 34's medical records. On 2/19/20 at 2:25 PM, an interview was conducted with the ADON. The ADON stated that she reprinted the lab results from the laboratory today. The ADON stated that the results were entered in a progress note and were not located in resident 34's medical records. Based on interview and record review it was determined, for 4 of 24 sample residents, that the facility did not file laboratory reports in resident's clinical record. Specifically, residents did not have laboratory results in their medical records. Resident identifiers: 5, 19, 25, and 34. Findings include: 1. Resident 25 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included cervical disc disorder, osteonecrosis, obesity, and pressure ulcers. Resident 25's medical record was reviewed on 2/19/20. A physician's order dated 12/5/19 revealed Urine Analysis with culture and sensitivity if indicated to be completed. A nursing progress note revealed on 12/5/19 at 4:46 PM that there was a new order to re-check resident 25's urine because the previous one was possibly contaminated. There were no laboratory results in resident 25's medical record for 12/5/19. On 2/19/20 at 2:35 PM, an interview was conducted with Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated that the urine analysis for 12/5/20 was in the medical record now. The DON provided a copy of the urinalysis. A review of resident 25's medical record revealed urine analysis results for 12/5/19. The urine analysis was scanned into resident 25's medical record on 2/19/20. 2. Resident 19 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included epilepsy, dysphagia, atherosclerosis, dysuria, cerebral palsy, and thyroid atrophy. Resident 19's medical record was reviewed on 2/18/20. Resident 19's physician orders revealed that resident 19 was to have the following labs drawn: a. On 10/2/19, a Basic Metabolic Panel (BMP), and Complete Blood Count (CBC) to be done every 6 months, beginning in October 2019. b. On 10/2/19, a Thyroid Stimulating Hormone (TSH) to be done every October, beginning in October 2019. Review of resident 19's medical record did not reveal the laboratory results for the above lab orders. On 2/20/20 at 9:30 AM, an interview was conducted with the facility Administrator (ADM). The ADM provided the laboratory results for resident 19's BMP, CBC and TSH, and showed that the labs were completed in October 2019 as ordered, but were not in resident 19's medical record. The ADM confirmed that the laboratory results should have been in resident 19's medical record.
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?"
  • "What safeguards are in place to prevent abuse and neglect?"
  • "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 Utah facilities.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: Federal abuse finding, 1 life-threatening violation(s), 1 harm violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 19 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • Grade F (33/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: This facility has a substantiated abuse finding. Extreme caution advised. Explore alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Monument Healthcare Brigham City's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns Monument Healthcare Brigham City an overall rating of 3 out of 5 stars, which is considered average nationally. Within Utah, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This mid-range rating indicates the facility meets federal standards but may have areas for improvement.

How is Monument Healthcare Brigham City Staffed?

CMS rates Monument Healthcare Brigham City's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 54%, compared to the Utah average of 46%.

What Have Inspectors Found at Monument Healthcare Brigham City?

State health inspectors documented 19 deficiencies at Monument Healthcare Brigham City during 2020 to 2024. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 1 that caused actual resident harm, and 17 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 Monument Healthcare Brigham City?

Monument Healthcare Brigham City 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 MONUMENT HEALTH GROUP, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 84 certified beds and approximately 29 residents (about 35% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in Brigham City, Utah.

How Does Monument Healthcare Brigham City Compare to Other Utah Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Utah, Monument Healthcare Brigham City's overall rating (3 stars) is below the state average of 3.3, staff turnover (54%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Monument Healthcare Brigham City?

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?" "What safeguards and monitoring systems are in place to protect residents from abuse or neglect?" "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?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations and the substantiated abuse finding on record.

Is Monument Healthcare Brigham City Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, Monument Healthcare Brigham City has documented safety concerns. The facility has 1 substantiated abuse finding (meaning confirmed case of resident harm by staff or other residents). Inspectors have issued 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 3-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in Utah. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.

Do Nurses at Monument Healthcare Brigham City Stick Around?

Monument Healthcare Brigham City has a staff turnover rate of 54%, which is 8 percentage points above the Utah average of 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 Monument Healthcare Brigham City Ever Fined?

Monument Healthcare Brigham City 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 Monument Healthcare Brigham City on Any Federal Watch List?

Monument Healthcare Brigham City 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.