CRITICAL
(K)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation
Free from Abuse/Neglect
(Tag F0600)
Someone could have died · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, it was determined for 8 out of 40 sampled residents, that the facility failed...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, it was determined for 8 out of 40 sampled residents, that the facility failed to protect residents form abuse. Specifically, residents were sexually abused without ongoing interventions to prevent further abuse. Additionally, the facility had prior knowledge of the alleged perpetrators sexual behaviors and the facility failed to provide protection for the residents thereby allowing ongoing access to the residents by the alleged perpetrator. Finally, victims of the sexual abuse exhibited crying and expressed recurring fear of the perpetrator. Based on the resident(s) behavior, it can be determined that the resident(s) experienced psychosocial harm as a result of the sexual abuse. This identified deficient practice was found to have occurred at the Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) Level. Resident identifiers: 3, 10, 18, 24, 26, 31, 34, and 136.
NOTICE
On 7/12/23 at 5:00 PM, an Immediate Jeopardy was identified when the facility failed to implement Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) recommended practices to prevent abuse. Notice of the IJ was given verbally and in writing to the facility Administrator (ADM), Director of Nursing (DON), Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), Clinical Resource Staff (CRS) 1, Minimum Data Set (MDS) Staff 1, Case Manager (CM) 1, and the Director of Therapy (DOT) and they were informed of the findings of IJ pertaining to F600 and F610 for residents 3, 10, 18, 24, 26, 34, and 136.
On 7/13/23, the ADM provided the following abatement plan for the removal of the Immediate Jeopardy effective on 7/13/23 at 12:00 PM.
Immediate Plan of Correction for F600 and F610
The facility submits this Plan of Correction to address the Immediate Jeopardy identified by the Survey Team on 7/12/2023. The facility feels that abatement outlined below will be in place as of 07/13/2023 by 12:00 pm.
·
Medical Director was notified of IJ 7/12/2023 at 5:35 pm
·
An aide/appointed designee that feels comfortable around [resident 10] will be one on one with [resident 10] 24 hours while he is up for the day. The aide/appointed designee will accompany him throughout the day to make sure he has no contact with any female residents. When resident is in bed, the assigned 1 on 1 staff can be doing other duties. This is because resident cannot get out of bed on his own. This started at 4:00 pm on 7/12/23
·
Additional education/training was done with all staff working with above resident. Education will be provided for on-going shifts. 7/13/2023
·
Q [every] shift charting of behaviors was adding to the resident record in PCC [point click care]. 7/13/2023
·
All residents were interviewed regarding concerns, abuse reporting, inappropriate contact or conversations. See attached form. Completed 7/12/23 and 7/13/2023
·
Social Services will conduct a Psychosocial assessment on the residents that have been affected and appropriate referrals for psychosocial follow up care will be made when indicated. 07/13/2023
·
Social Services will continue to attempt to find appropriate alternative placement for resident and will document attempts and outcomes.
·
Social Services to help resident get on the New Choices waiver per resident request. This will be submitted no later than July 20, 2023
·
Behavioral Education was done with staff on 07/11/2023.
·
Abuse education was done with all staff at an emergency all staff meeting on 7/13/2023. This also included education on facility wide communication regarding updates on residents
·
The in-service includes the following information from the Abuse Prevention and Prohibition Policy:
·
Prohibiting and preventing all forms of abuse, neglect, misappropriation of resident property, and exploitation. We prevent by screening employees, training (upon hire, annually and with any allegation of abuse and neglect), investigating and reporting.
·
Identifying what constitutes abuse, neglect, exploitation, and misappropriation of resident property;
·
Recognizing signs of abuse, neglect, exploitation and misappropriation of resident property, such as physical or psychosocial indicators;
·
Reporting abuse, neglect, exploitation, and misappropriation of resident property, including injuries of unknown sources, and to whom and when staff and others must report their knowledge related to any alleged violation without fear of reprisal;
·
Procedures for reporting incidents
·
Education on reading the Kardex and Communication board to keep staff updated with resident information will be done. Department heads will be designated to inform their staff on updates in daily Stand Up meeting. Completed 7/13/2023
·
New hires will be educated on information in Orientation and upon hire.
·
A QAPI [Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement] was held and IJ findings were addressed. 7/13/2023
·
The Abuse Coordinator will provide a summary of any investigations related to abuse/neglect/exploitation monthly at the QAPI meeting for review and recommendations weekly until facility is deemed to be in substantial compliance.
F610
Abuse reporting training for the ED [Executive Director}, DON, ADON, Social Service will be completed by Governing Body on 7/13/23.
The Administrator will review all current abuse allegation investigations with a member of the Governing Body to ensure timely reporting and completion of thorough investigations. This review will be weekly for 1 month, then monthly for 3 months.
On 7/13/23, while completing the recertification survey, surveyors conducted an onsite revisit to verify that the Immediate Jeopardy had been removed. The surveyors determined that the Immediate Jeopardy was removed as alleged on 7/13/23.
Findings included:
IMMEDIATE JEOPARDY
1. Resident 10 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which consisted of but was not limited to type 2 diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney disease, cognitive communication deficit, morbid obesity, glaucoma, acquired absence of right leg above the knee, hypertensive heart disease, polyneuropathy, heart failure, hypertension, major depressive disorder, insomnia, anxiety disorder, and contracture of the left hand.
On 7/10/23, resident 10's records were reviewed.
On 7/7/22, resident 10's Pre-admission Screening Applicant/Resident Review (PASRR) Level I documented psychiatric diagnoses as chronic anxiety and depression.
On 10/15/22, the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment documented a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 12/15, which would indicate a moderate cognitive impairment.
On 2/17/23, the Quarterly MDS Assessment documented a BIMS score of 7/15, which would indicate a severe cognitive impairment.
On 5/20/23, the Quarterly MDS Assessment documented a BIMS score of 10/15, which would indicate a moderate cognitive impairment.
On 7/27/22, a St. Louis Mental Status (SLUMS) exam documented a score of 10/24 which would place the resident at the cognitive level of dementia.
On 9/6/22, the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) documented a score of 26 out of 30, which would indicate a normal cognitive function.
On 1/11/23, resident 10 had a physician order to monitor for sexual tendencies every 15 minutes to ensure safety of resident and others was initiated.
Review of resident 10's behavior tracking for the last 30 days documented on 7/2/23 at 12:17 AM sexually inappropriate, and on 7/6/23 at 4:39 AM sexually inappropriate with grabbing.
Review of resident 10's Kardex information for the aides revealed no documentation regarding sexual behaviors or monitoring.
Resident 10's care plan revealed a focus area for had a behavior problem of touching female staff and female residents inappropriately. The care plan was initiated on 10/2/22. Interventions identified were:
Administer medications as ordered; Approach in a calm manner; Assist to develop more appropriate methods of coping and interacting encourage to express feelings appropriately; Document behaviors, and resident response to interventions; If reasonable, discuss behavior and explain/reinforce why behavior is inappropriate; Intervene as necessary to protect the rights and safety of others; Divert attention and remove from situation and take to alternate location as needed; and Monitor behavior episodes and attempt to determine underlying cause. All interventions were initiated on 10/2/22. On 10/12/22, the care plan added an intervention to Notify Police, ombudsman, and families of behaviors, and the resident to eat in his room or be provided alternative social dining options away from female residents and staff provide supervision while out and about.
Multiple allegations/incidents of sexual abuse by resident 10 were made as follows:
A. On 10/2/22 at 1:38 PM, nursing progress notes for resident 10 revealed that the resident has been touching female patient's breasts during meal times. The progress note documented that the ADM/Abuse Coordinator, Medical Doctor, DON, and resident family members were notified of the incident.
On 10/02/22 at 5:14 PM, the nursing progress note for resident 10 documented that the local police department was notified of the incident.
On 10/03/22 at 6:24 PM, the social service progress note for resident 10 documented that the local police department informed the facility that none of the families wanted to press charges.
On 10/2/22 at 2:57 PM, the State Survey Agency (SSA) was notified of an incident between resident 10 and resident 24. The entity report documented that a resident notified staff that resident 10 was inappropriately touching [resident 24] during lunch. The report documented that resident 10 touched resident 24's breast when she bent over to get her napkin from the floor. The report documented that residents 3, 18, and 24 were involved in the incident. However, no information regarding residents 3 and 18 was listed on the entity report.
On 10/2/22 at 2:50 PM, the Adult Protective Service (APS) confidential report documented that A resident notified staff that [resident 10], A male LT (long term) resident, touched [resident 24] inappropriately during lunch on Sunday 10/2/2022. as reported, [resident 24] apparently dropped her napkin from the table, and while she was trying to recover it, [resident 10] 'touched' her (resident 24) breasts. The staff immediate (sic) moved [resident 10] to another table, and spoke with [resident 24] about it. [Resident 24] did not confirm or contradict what the other resident claimed. Until an investigation is completed, the facility will make sure that [resident 10] only sits at tables with other male residents, and that the staff will put him on 15 min (minute) checks.
An incident report dated 10/2/22 did not provide any additional information regarding the event in question or the investigation.
It should be noted that no final investigation into this allegation of sexual abuse was included in the facility's abuse file, nor was it submitted to the State Survey Agency. No evidence could be located to indicate that an investigation into the allegation was conducted.
i. Resident 24 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and again on 4/2/22 with medical diagnoses that included Parkinson's disease, history of transient ischemic attack, hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction affecting left non-dominant side, ileus, generalized abdominal pain, major depressive disorder, dementia, cognitive communication deficit, dysphagia, and generalized anxiety disorder.
On 9/20/22, the Quarterly MDS Assessment documented a BIMS score of 2/15, which would indicate a severe cognitive impairment.
On 12/21/22, the Quarterly MDS Assessment documented a BIMS of 2/15, which would indicate a severe cognitive impairment.
On 3/23/23, the Quarterly MDS Assessment documented a BIMS of 0/15, which would indicate a severe cognitive impairment.
On 6/21/23, the Annual MDS Assessment documented a BIMS score of 9/15, which would indicate a moderate cognitive impairment.
On 4/4/22, a SLUMS exam documented a score of 6/25, which would place the resident at the cognitive level of dementia.
On 11/3/2020, resident 24 began receiving hospice services.
On 10/6/22 at 2:16 PM, a nursing progress note documented, LN [Licensed Nurse] reports to DON that Hospice aide reported some minimal vaginal bleeding during resident shower this afternoon. LN and DON in to assess resident, vaginal bleeding is noted in very minimal amounts (appears 'splotchy' on the brief) the labia nor vaginal entry show any visual signs of trauma, redness, bruising, or irritation. There are no skin tears noted, resident reports that she has had a hx [history] of hemorrhoids but the bleeding appeared to be coming from the vaginal canal. Resident doesn't report any pain or irritation in the vaginal area, but did state that she sometimes has lower abdominal pain that comes and goes. When asked if resident had had any type of sexual intercourse with her husband [name redacted] or anyone else, she stated no. Resident does not appear in any distress at this time, and also notes that shes previously had a hysterectomy and is curious to know why she would be experiencing some bleeding. Hospice Nurse has been notified, NO [new order] to monitor as he will be in to see her tomorrow. COC [change of condition] completed, and monitoring in place.
On 10/8/22 at 9:04 AM, a progress note documented, Resident is on alert charting for vaginal bleeding. She is still bleeding. It is a bit heavier and more consistent than yesterday. DON, Hospice and residents husband aware. Will continue to monitor.
It should be noted that there was no sexual assault forensic exam conducted to determine the causative factors of the vaginal bleeding, or if trauma had occurred.
ii. Resident 3 was initially admitted on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included intracranial injury, aphasia, cognitive communication deficit and major depressive disorder.
On 6/28/22, the Quarterly MDS Assessment documented a brief interview for mental status was conducted and resident was rarely or never understood.
On 9/28/22, the Quarterly MDS Assessment documented a brief interview for mental status was conducted and resident was rarely or never understood.
On 11/22/22, the Annual MDS Assessment documented a brief interview for mental status was conducted and resident was rarely or never understood.
On 1/20/23, the Quarterly MDS Assessment documented a brief interview for mental status was conducted and resident was rarely or never understood.
On 4/22/23, the Quarterly MDS Assessment documented a brief interview for mental status was conducted and resident was rarely or never understood.
Resident 3's progress notes did not document any investigation or follow up with regard to the incident with resident 10.
iii. Resident 18 was admitted to facility on 5/29/18 and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included but not limited to subdural and subarachnoid hemorrhage, aphasia, dysphagia, cognitive communication deficit, apraxia, seizures, anxiety, muscle weakness, speech disturbances, lack of coordination, hypotension, history of falls, pseudobulbar affect, abnormal gait and mobility, and hypothyroidism.
Resident 18's medical record was reviewed on 7/12/22.
On 3/16/22, the Annual MDS Assessment documented a Brief Interview for Mental Status was conducted and resident 18 was rarely or never understood.
On 9/20/22, the Quarterly MDS Assessment documented a Brief Interview for Mental Status was conducted and resident 18 was rarely or never understood.
On 3/16/23, the Annual MDS Assessment documented a Brief Interview for Mental Status was conducted and resident 18 was rarely or never understood.
On 6/16/23, the Quarterly MDS Assessment documented a Brief Interview for Mental Status was conducted and resident 18 was rarely or never understood.
Resident 18's progress notes did not document any investigation or follow up with regard to the incident with resident 10.
B. On 12/14/22 at 5:47 PM, resident 10's progress note documented, CNA [Certified Nurse Assistant] notified the nurse that the male resident inappropriately touched a female resident's breasts in the dining room without her consent. Male resident was immediately removed from the dining room. Resident was placed on q [every]15 checks.
On 12/16/22 at 10:55 AM, the social service note documented, Resident asked if he wanted to be evaluated by [local] mental health as to be able to visit with them regarding things. [Resident 10] said no as he feels like he has done nothing wrong.
On 12/14/22 at 5:28 PM, the initial facility entity report (Form 358) documented that resident 10 was witnessed to touch resident 34's breast in the dining room. The residents were separated, and resident 34 was provided emotional support and was able to calm down. The report documented that resident 34 was alert and oriented times 2. Resident 34 was initially distraught and did report that resident 10 had inappropriately touched her breasts without her consent. The report documented that resident 10 was alert and oriented times 4, and was educated on inappropriate behavior. The local police department was notified of the incident. Resident 10 was placed on 15-minute checks. The final investigation report (Form 359) documented that resident 34 reported that a male resident had been helping her get to the dining room by pushing her wheelchair with his powerchair. When they got to the dining room he brought her to the wrong side of the table, sat next to her, and proceeded to grope her breasts without her consent. Resident 34 reported that she told resident 10 to stop and he did. A CNA walked into the dining room and noticed that resident 34 was seated on the wrong side of the table. Resident 34 then reported the incident to the CNA who then reported it to the Licensed Nurse. The Licensed Nurse asked resident 10 to exit the dining room for victim safety. The report documented that resident 10 was educated to stay away from resident 34 and he would not be allowed to be alone with any other female residents. Review of the facility video footage revealed that the residents were alone in the dining room together, but both residents' backs were facing the camera. The report documented that the video footage did not determine whether the accusation actually occurred. The final report documented that the abuse allegation was unable to be confirmed by video footage and was deemed inconclusive. The report documented that the corrective action taken by the facility was to implement 15-minute checks, then every 1 hour check on resident 10. Resident 34 was provided Psychosocial follow up and was referred to behavioral health services.
i. Resident 34 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which consisted of but were not limited to unspecified dementia, mild cognitive impairment, morbid obesity, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, cognitive communication deficit, bipolar disorder, anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, and insomnia.
On 7/10/23 at 11:03 AM, an interview was conducted with resident 34. Resident 34 stated that about 3 months ago resident 10 touched her breast. Resident 34 stated that it scared her and she panicked when this happened. Resident 34 stated that she did not feel safe from resident 10 unless she was with one of the aides or nurses that she knows. Resident 34 stated that when resident 10 passed her in the hallway he looked at her with a scowl crossed eyed. Resident 34 stated that the incident with resident 10 had caused her a lot of stress and worry.
Resident 34's medical records were reviewed on 7/11/23.
On 12/4/22, the Quarterly MDS Assessment documented a BIMS score of 7/15, which would indicate a severe cognitive impairment.
On 3/6/23, the Quarterly MDS Assessment documented a BIMS score of 3/15, which would indicate a severe cognitive impairment.
On 6/5/23, the Annual MDS Assessment documented a BIMS score of 15/15, which would indicate that the resident was cognitively intact.
On 6/2/22, a SLUMS exam documented a score of 11/30, which would indicate a cognitive level consistent with dementia.
On 6/7/23, a SLUMS exam documented a score of 14/30 which would indicate a cognitive level consistent with dementia.
On 11/23/22, the MoCA exam documented a score of 23/20, which would indicate a mild cognitive impairment.
On 6/28/22, resident 34's Preadmission Screening Resident Review (PASRR) Level II assessment documented an extensive history of mental health concerns since childhood. Resident 34 also struggled with a mild intellectual disability. The history of psychiatric symptoms documented that resident 34 had a long history of depression and anxiety, and that medications were helpful. Resident 34 reported she was in 3 marriages, all of which were abusive. Resident 34 reported that in her first marriage she found out that her husband and his mother were trying to poison her. Her husband was abusive and that was where her Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) diagnosis came from.
Resident 34's Progress notes revealed the following:
a. On 12/14/22 at 4:58 PM, the social service note documented, Visited with patient. regarding incident of Another resident touching her innaproiatelym(sic). It caused the resident to be very upset. Says she felt violated. Administrator and DON made me aware. Resident assured that we will do all we have to, to take care of her.
b. On 12/14/22 at 5:36 PM, the note documented, CNA notified the nurse that the resident was inappropriately touched by a male resident. The male inappropriately touched the patient's breasts without the patient's consent. Nurse removed the male patient from contact from the patient. Male patient was placed on q [every]15 checks. Facility DON, ADON, administrator, and [local] PD notified.
c. On 12/15/22 at 10:12 AM, the social service note documented, Psychosocial follow up with patient. Still very upset and scared of another resident. We assured her we are watching him and keeping a close eye on him. Asked if she was feeling safe, being here? she replied yes as staff have been good to help and guide her as needed, reassure her and this has helped a lot. [Resident 34] expressed she was grateful.
d. On 12/16/22 at 12:00 AM, the provider note documented, She reported that one of the residents had touched her breasts and that she has been raped 5 times in the past. She stated it was very scary. She has already reported the breast touching and it is being investigated.
e. On 12/16/22 at 11:01 AM, the note documented, Alert charting r/t [related to] potential for trauma due. Resident c/o [complained of] having nightmares about being touched by male resident. Emotional support given and is stable. Social services notified of nightmares.
f. On 12/16/22 at 1:15, the social service note documented, [Resident 34] said she is feeling sad and a little scared today. Saw the other resident in the hall and this caused her to be scared. I assured her everything would be ok. We are not going to let anything happen to her. Referral was made to [local mental health services] for some counseling. [Resident 34] felt this may help.
g. On 12/16/22 at 9:01 PM, the note documented, Patient is on alert due to being inappropriately touched by a male resident. Frequent checks are continuing to be made to ensure that resident's wellbeing and mental health are WNL [within normal limits]. Patient tearful today, expressed some small amount of anxiety this evening.
h. On 12/17/22 at 7:45 PM, the note documented, Patient is on alert due to being inappropriately touched by a male resident. Frequent checks are continuing to be made to ensure that resident's wellbeing and mental health are WNL. Patient tearful today, is cooperative with cares. Expresses how she is feeling.
i. On 12/19/22 at 3:18 PM, the social service note documented, pyscho social follow up on patient. [Resident 34] has been getting out and coming to activities. [Resident 34] says she likes being involved and being able to participate. It also has been good for her to stay busy. Resident states she is still scared as well as nervous when she sees him, that it takes her to a not happy place. Has been having trouble sleeping.
j. On 12/20/22 at 4:39 PM, the social service note documented, Psychosocial follow up . Resident is doing ok. Today during activity time, the resident came into to participate and the other resident that had touched her innapproiately (sic) also came in, this caused [Resident 34] to be upset. She began to cry, became very upset. We assured her we are here for her. The other patient left saying he was sorry. [Resident 34] was calmed down, reassured. she expressed she has a history of being attacked and not being treated nice, so this was very upsetting to her. I asked her if there was anything we could do while providing lots of love and support. [Resident 34] said no she was just glad we were there.
k. On 12/22/22 at 11:06 AM, the social service note documented that resident 34 had stated that she was trying to be brave and hang in there.
l. On 12/31/22 at 11:44 AM, the social service note documented, Resident is doing ok, will still get upset when she sees the patient that touched her,.
m. On 1/11/23 at 1:48 PM, the social service note documented, Met with resident to evaluate resident and provide psychotherapy. Resident states she is still upset about the incident with the male resident that happened about 3 weeks ago. She states it brought up memories of sexual trauma that happened with her ex husband. Resident has done therapy in the past at [local mental health provider] for PTSD but she is not interested counseling any longer. Resident avoids resident and male resident has not interacted with her since the incident. Resident states she would also feel more comfortable if her bedroom door is closed whenever she is in the room. Resident states she cannot always verbalize when she is anxious but if she starts crying if staff approach her and talk to her that often helps her calm down. Will update care plan. No further needs at this time. Resident was calm and didn't appear to be in any distress at the moment.
n. On 01/11/23 at 5:34 PM, the social service note documented, Police met with [resident 34] regarding innaproitness (sic) with another resident, she related to the officer that she was fondled on her front chest and was not happy. Resident cried and expressed that she just did not want to see him. Her family did decide to press charges, so the officer was going to be submitting everything to the attorney. Ombudsman was notified as well as patients family and nursing.
o. On 01/23/23 at 3:20 PM, the social service note documented, Resident isa [sic] doing well. Says as long as she does not see the patient that touched her, she will be fine.
C. On 1/11/23 at 12:36 PM, the social service progress notes for resident 10 documented that resident 10 was being sent to a local emergency room to be evaluated by crisis worker and medically cleared. We believe he could benefit from a mental health evaluation and possible inpatient psych (psychiatric) stay. Resident exhibiting hypersexual behavior. Resident has been treated in the past for bipolar and may be experiencing a hypomanic episode.
On 1/11/23 at 6:05 PM, the social service progress notes for resident 10 documented that the resident had been placed on 15 minute checks and all staff aware to monitor for hypersexuality and potential for inappropriate behavior.
On 1/12/23 at 8:06 AM, the social service progress note for resident 10 documented, Resident returned last night from ER [emergency room] visit, expressed he had no idea why he was even sent there as he is doing well with no issues and denied any problems. Said he is not sure why he went to begin with.
On 1/17/23 at 12:15 PM, the social service note for resident 10 documented, Is still denying he did anything wrong. I said well it is important to not touch anyone and keep our hands to ourself. [Resident 10] said he does and has no idea why the cops were called or who called them.
On 1/23/23 at 12:00 AM, the provider note for resident 10 documented, The patient has had reported interactions with other residents that were deemed inappropriate touching. I did discuss this with the patient and he does report that he has had no sexual conduct but has had episodes of inappropriate touching with other residents. We did discuss this and the patient states that he has been feeling increasingly depressed.
On 1/11/23 at 10:34 AM, an initial facility entity (Form 358) was completed by facility staff. The form indicated that resident 26 reported to the local police department investigator while he was in the building conducting a separate investigation against [resident 10], that she had also been inappropriately touched by [resident 10]- another resident residing within the facility. [Resident 26] indicated that about a month ago, [resident 10] came into her room after dinner time, and placed his hand under her blankets and proceeded to run his hand up her thigh, then asked her if he could touch her breasts in which she told him 'No' and then he left. Facility to conduct formal investigation. It was also reported by investigator that reside[TRUNCATED]
CRITICAL
(K)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation
Investigate Abuse
(Tag F0610)
Someone could have died · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** POTENTIAL FOR HARM
2. Resident 9 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included hemiplegia and hemiparesis...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** POTENTIAL FOR HARM
2. Resident 9 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction affecting left non-dominant side, type 2 diabetes mellitus with diabetic neuropathy, other chronic pain, bipolar II disorder, borderline personality disorder, antisocial personality disorder, and dementia in other disease classified elsewhere with anxiety.
Review of records was completed on 7/17/23.
A quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed that resident 9 had a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 11 which indicated moderately impaired cognition.
A Facility Reported Incident (FRI) dated 2/10/23 at 5:37 PM stated that on 2/10/23 at 11:30 AM, it was reported that during a fentanyl patch change resident 9's Tegaderm dressing was still on, but the fentanyl patch was cut out. An investigation has been initiated.
An interview was conducted on 7/18/23 at 3:36 PM with Director of Nursing (DON). DON stated that Licensed Practical Nurse 3 (LPN 3) reported to her about missing fentanyl patch. The DON stated the facility used the hospice investigation as their investigation regarding the missing fentanyl patch. DON stated that there was not an additional investigation conducted with the facility staff.
An interview was conducted on 7/18/23 at 3:36 PM with Corporate Resource Nurse 2 (CRN 2). CRN 2 stated that the facility requested an interview with Hospice Certified Nurse Assistant 1 (HCNA 1) at which time the Hospice Director of Nursing 1 (HDON 1) told her they would talk to the HCNA 1
regarding the missing fentanyl patch. CRN 2 stated they ended the investigation after receiving the hospice's findings.
Based on interview and record review it was determined, for 9 out of 40 sampled residents, that in response to allegations of abuse the facility failed to have evidence that all alleged violations were thoroughly investigated and further potential abuse was prevented. Specifically, the facility initial entity reports and final investigation reports filed with the State Survey Agency (SSA) contained incomplete summaries of incidents of sexual abuse, and the facility did not have supporting documentation of the summaries that were provided to the SSA. Additionally, not all reported incidents of alleged sexual abuse had evidence that suggested they were investigated by the facility. Multiple instances of resident to resident sexual abuse occurred with an insufficient investigation. This identified deficient practice was found to have occurred at the Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) Level. Furthermore, the facility did not conduct an independent investigation into a resident's missing Fentanyl patch but instead relied on the hospice companies investigation. Resident identifiers: 3, 9, 10, 18, 24, 26, 31, 34, and 136.
NOTICE
On 7/12/23 at 5:00 PM, an Immediate Jeopardy was identified when the facility failed to implement Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) recommended practices to prevent abuse. Notice of the IJ was given verbally and in writing to the facility Administrator (ADM), Director of Nursing (DON), Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), Clinical Resource Staff (CRS) 1, Minimum Data Set (MDS) Staff 1, Case Manager (CM) 1, and the Director of Therapy (DOT) and they were informed of the findings of IJ pertaining to F600 and F610 for residents 3, 10, 18, 24, 26, 34, and 136.
On 7/13/23, the ADM provided the following abatement plan for the removal of the Immediate Jeopardy effective on 7/13/23 at 12:00 PM.
Immediate Plan of Correction for F600 and F610
The facility submits this Plan of Correction to address the Immediate Jeopardy identified by the Survey Team on 7/12/2023. The facility feels that abatement outlined below will be in place as of 07/13/2023 by 12:00 pm.
·
Medical Director was notified of IJ 7/12/2023 at 5:35 pm
·
An aide/appointed designee that feels comfortable around [resident 10] will be one on one with [resident 10] 24 hours while he is up for the day. The aide/appointed designee will accompany him throughout the day to make sure he has no contact with any female residents. When resident is in bed, the assigned 1 on 1 staff can be doing other duties. This is because resident cannot get out of bed on his own. This started at 4:00 pm on 7/12/23
·
Additional education/training was done with all staff working with above resident. Education will be provided for on-going shifts. 7/13/2023
·
Q [every] shift charting of behaviors was adding to the resident record in PCC [point click care]. 7/13/2023
·
All residents were interviewed regarding concerns, abuse reporting, inappropriate contact or conversations. See attached form. Completed 7/12/23 and 7/13/2023
·
Social Services will conduct a Psychosocial assessment on the residents that have been affected and appropriate referrals for psychosocial follow up care will be made when indicated. 07/13/2023
·
Social Services will continue to attempt to find appropriate alternative placement for resident and will document attempts and outcomes.
·
Social Services to help resident get on the New Choices waiver per resident request. This will be submitted no later than July 20, 2023
·
Behavioral Education was done with staff on 07/11/2023.
·
Abuse education was done with all staff at an emergency all staff meeting on 7/13/2023. This also included education on facility wide communication regarding updates on residents
·
The in-service includes the following information from the Abuse Prevention and Prohibition Policy:
·
Prohibiting and preventing all forms of abuse, neglect, misappropriation of resident property, and exploitation. We prevent by screening employees, training (upon hire, annually and with any allegation of abuse and neglect), investigating and reporting.
·
Identifying what constitutes abuse, neglect, exploitation, and misappropriation of resident property;
·
Recognizing signs of abuse, neglect, exploitation and misappropriation of resident property, such as physical or psychosocial indicators;
·
Reporting abuse, neglect, exploitation, and misappropriation of resident property, including injuries of unknown sources, and to whom and when staff and others must report their knowledge related to any alleged violation without fear of reprisal;
·
Procedures for reporting incidents
·
Education on reading the [NAME] and Communication board to keep staff updated with resident information will be done. Department heads will be designated to inform their staff on updates in daily Stand Up meeting. Completed 7/13/2023
·
New hires will be educated on information in Orientation and upon hire.
·
A QAPI [Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement] was held and IJ findings were addressed. 7/13/2023
·
The Abuse Coordinator will provide a summary of any investigations related to abuse/neglect/exploitation monthly at the QAPI meeting for review and recommendations weekly until facility is deemed to be in substantial compliance.
F610
Abuse reporting training for the ED [Executive Director}, DON, ADON, Social Service will be completed by Governing Body on 7/13/23.
The Administrator will review all current abuse allegation investigations with a member of the Governing Body to ensure timely reporting and completion of thorough investigations. This review will be weekly for 1 month, then monthly for 3 months.
On 7/13/23, while completing the recertification survey, surveyors conducted an onsite revisit to verify that the Immediate Jeopardy had been removed. The surveyors determined that the Immediate Jeopardy was removed as alleged on 7/13/23.
Findings included:
IMMEDIATE JEOPARDY
1. Resident 10 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which consisted of but was not limited to type 2 diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney disease, cognitive communication deficit, morbid obesity, glaucoma, acquired absence of right leg above the knee, hypertensive heart disease, polyneuropathy, heart failure, hypertension, major depressive disorder, insomnia, anxiety disorder, and contracture of the left hand.
On 7/10/23, resident 10's records were reviewed.
Multiple allegations/incidents of sexual abuse by resident 10 were made as follows:
a. On 10/2/22 at 2:57 PM, the State Survey Agency (SSA) was notified of an incident between resident 10 and resident 24. The entity report documented that a resident notified staff that resident 10 was inappropriately touching [resident 24] during lunch. The report documented that resident 10 touched resident 24's breast when she bent over to get her napkin from the floor. The report documented that residents 3, 18, and 24 were involved in the incident. However, no information regarding residents 3 and 18 was listed on the entity report, and no information was obtained to identify the resident who reported the incident.
On 10/2/22 at 2:50 PM, the Adult Protective Service (APS) confidential report documented that A resident notified staff that [resident 10], A male LT (long term) resident, touched [resident 24] inappropriately during lunch on Sunday 10/2/2022. as reported, [resident 24] apparently dropped her napkin from the table, and while she was trying to recover it, [resident 10] 'touched' her (resident 24) breasts. The staff immediate (sic) moved [resident 10] to another table, and spoke with [resident 24] about it. [Resident 24] did not confirm or contradict what the other resident claimed. Until an investigation is completed, the facility will make sure that [resident 10] only sits at tables with other male residents, and that the staff will put him on 15 min (minute) checks.
It should be noted that no final investigation into this allegation of sexual abuse was included in the facility's abuse file, nor was it submitted to the State Survey Agency. No evidence could be located to indicate that an investigation into the allegation was conducted.
b. On 12/14/22 at 5:28 PM, the initial facility entity report (Form 358) documented that resident 10 was witnessed to touch resident 34's breast in the dining room. The residents were separated, and resident 34 was provided emotional support and was able to calm down. The report documented that resident 34 was alert and oriented times 2. Resident 34 was initially distraught and did report that resident 10 had inappropriately touched her breasts without her consent. The report documented that resident 10 was alert and oriented times 4, and was educated on inappropriate behavior. The local police department was notified of the incident. Resident 10 was placed on 15-minute checks. The final investigation report (Form 359) documented that resident 34 reported that a male resident had been helping her get to the dining room by pushing her wheelchair with his powerchair. When they got to the dining room he brought her to the wrong side of the table, sat next to her, and proceeded to grope her breasts without her consent. Resident 34 reported that she told resident 10 to stop and he did. A CNA walked into the dining room and noticed that resident 34 was seated on the wrong side of the table. Resident 34 then reported the incident to the CNA who then reported it to the Licensed Nurse. The Licensed Nurse asked resident 10 to exit the dining room for victim safety. The report documented that resident 10 was educated to stay away from resident 34 and he would not be allowed to be alone with any other female residents. Review of the facility video footage revealed that the residents were alone in the dining room together, but both residents' backs were facing the camera. The report documented that the video footage did not determine whether the accusation actually occurred. The final report documented that the abuse allegation was unable to be confirmed by video footage and was deemed inconclusive. The report documented that the corrective action taken by the facility was to implement 15-minute checks, then every 1 hour check on resident 10.
c. On 1/11/23 at 10:34 AM, an initial facility entity (Form 358) was completed by facility staff. The form indicated that resident 26 reported to the local police department investigator while he was in the building conducting a separate investigation against [resident 10], that she had also been inappropriately touched by [resident 10]- another resident residing within the facility. [Resident 26] indicated that about a month ago, [resident 10] came into her room after dinner time, and placed his hand under her blankets and proceeded to run his hand up her thigh, then asked her if he could touch her breasts in which she told him 'No' and then he left. Facility to conduct formal investigation. It was also reported by investigator that resident [136] made an allegation to him as well - however resident out to dialysis at time of self-report and unable to be interviewed until she returns. [Resident 10] was sent to [local hospital] for Crisis Eval [evaluation] event that [resident 10] is not admitted [or transferred to another facility] he will be placed on [every 15 minute] checks to ensure that he is not potentially perpetuating other female residents within the facility.
On 1/17/23 at 2:00 PM, a follow up investigation report (Form 359) was completed by facility staff. The form indicated that resident 10 denied any inappropriate actions were taken by him. The corrective actions taken documented, We have moved [resident 10] to another hall within the building, that at this time is consisting of more male in its residents. Staff has been educated for continual monitoring of [resident 10] in public spaces in the building, and [resident 10] is not allowed in any female resident's rooms unsupervised. We are alos (sic) trying to find placement for [resident 10] in a facility that is more appropriate for him. The form 359 indicated that the investigation was Inconclusive. The form 359 did not include any documentation of interviews with the alleged victims, or other residents who may have been at risk.
It should be noted that no facility investigation into the allegation of sexual abuse of resident 136 was included in the facility's abuse file, nor was it submitted to the State Survey Agency. No evidence could be located to indicate that an investigation into the allegation with resident 136 was conducted.
d. On 6/30/23, the facility initial entity report (Form 358) was completed by facility staff. The form documented that Victim [resident 31] alleged that [resident 10] inappropriately touched her breast. She grabbed his hand and pushed it away. No other interactions occurred. Made sure [resident 31] felt safe and out of harms way. Addressed inappropriate behavior with [resident 10]. He agreed it was not ok.
On 7/7/23, a follow up investigation report (Form 359) was completed by facility staff. The form indicated that resident 10 denied the allegation, and stated that he had only touched her arm. The form also indicated that two staff members witnessed the interaction, and also indicated that resident 10 touched resident 31's arm, but did ask to touch resident 31's breast. After interviews with staff and review of the incident on camera, the facility determined that the allegation was not verified.
On 7/11/23 at 1:39 PM, an interview was conducted with Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) 3. CNA 3 stated that the dining room was used for residents who required assistance with dining. CNA 3 stated that resident 10 was not allowed into the dining room during meal times because resident 34 was in there, and this was due to resident 10 being inappropriate with resident 34. CNA 3 stated that resident 10 had touched resident 34's breast. CNA 3 stated that resident 10 goes into the dining room to obtain coffee and energy drinks. CNA 3 stated that resident 10 utilized a motorized wheelchair for mobility and that he was able to independently operate the wheelchair. CNA 3 stated that resident 10's room was located on the same hallway as resident 34. CNA 3 stated that resident 10 moved to another hallway away from resident 34 in January. CNA 3 stated that resident 10 had been sexually inappropriate with other residents and staff, but she was not aware of who those individuals were.
On 7/11/23 at 2:08 PM, an interview was conducted with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 3. LPN 3 stated that none of the residents on his hallway ate their meals in the dining room. LPN 3 stated that resident 10 was not allowed to eat in the dining room because he had behaviors of being sexually inappropriate with women. LPN 3 stated that resident 10 had reached or touched resident 31's breasts, but he was not aware of resident 10 sexually abusing any other residents. LPN 3 stated that they conducted behavior monitoring for resident 10 every 30 minutes for any behaviors. LPN 3 stated that resident 10 was independent with mobility in his motorized wheelchair, and was social and in and out of his room. LPN 3 stated that resident 10 was not allowed to be around resident 31, but LPN 3 was not aware of any other resident restrictions.
On 7/12/23 at 2:11 PM, an interview was conducted with the DON. The DON stated that resident 10 had inappropriate behaviors with women, and had touched resident 34's breast. The DON stated that there was a second incident in June with resident 10 and resident 31. The DON stated that the video footage did not reveal much, that you see resident 10's hand touch resident 31's arm and she shoos him away. The DON stated that resident 31 stated that resident 10's back of the hand touched her breast, but resident 10 said he just touched her arm, and they could not tell from the video. The DON stated that somebody laid eyes on resident 10 every 15 minutes and reported to the nurse any behaviors. The DON stated that this had been implemented since the incident with resident 34 and they had a physician order for it. It should be noted that the incident between resident 10 and resident 34 occurred on 12/14/22 and the order for 15-minute checks was initiated on 1/11/23, almost a month later.
On 7/12/23 at 3:08 PM, an interview was conducted with the Administrator (ADM). The ADM stated that for any allegations of abuse they immediately reported it to the SSA and APS and then started the investigation process. The ADM stated that the investigation included calling staff and obtaining interviews. The ADM stated they also notified the resident's family and Ombudsman. The ADM stated that during the facility investigation they interviewed staff and residents who were noted to be present during the incident. The ADM stated that he did not document those interviews, but rather kept a mental note about the interview. The ADM stated that sometimes he kept an outline of the interview on his phone and he referenced this when writing the final investigation. The ADM stated that they did not have documentation or other notes from the investigation other than what was in the initial SSA notification (Form 358) and the final SSA investigation (Form 359). The ADM stated that not all investigation were expanded to interview other residents. The ADM stated that if it was a sexual abuse allegation they should expand the investigation to interview other residents. The ADM stated that they were not really consistent with the interview process. The ADM stated that he spoke with the previous ADM about the incident between resident 10 and resident 34. The ADM stated that the previous ADM reported that they had interviewed all the residents and asked if they had any interactions with resident 10. The ADM stated he was not sure if there was documentation of those interviews.
On 7/12/23 at 3:32 PM, an interview was conducted with the MedTech. The MedTech stated she observed resident 10 grab resident 31's left forearm around the antecubital area, and his hand started to move up and down in a stroking movement with his fingertips. The MedTech stated that resident 10 asked resident 31, can I touch your breast while stroking with his fingertips. The MedTech stated that resident 10 was inappropriate with resident 34 and he groped her breast in the dining room. The MedTech stated that she was alerted to the incident when she heard resident 34 let out a blood curdling scream. The MedTech stated that resident 10 knows how to position himself without the cameras viewing what he was doing. The MedTech stated that she also witnessed an incident occur between resident 10 and resident 5. The MedTech stated that resident 10 groped resident 5's breast and it was an open handed stroke/caress. The MedTech stated that resident 5 stated, stop that, and when the MedTech asked her if she was okay she replied ya. The MedTech stated that she informed the previous ADM of the incident via text message. It should be noted that no documentation could be found of an investigation into the incident between resident 10 and resident 5. The MedTech stated that she had also heard that resident 10 had put his hand up resident 24's skirt, but her husband did not want to press charges. The MedTech stated that she did not recall when this incident occurred. The MedTech stated that she had also heard that resident 3 and resident 18 were also victims of resident 10, but she was not aware of the details of the incident.
On 7/12/23 at 4:32 PM, a telephone interview was conducted with the previous ADM. The previous ADM stated that in October 2022 there was an incident with resident 10 touching resident 24's breast. The previous ADM stated that resident 3 and resident 18 were seated at the same table as resident 24 and resident 10. The previous ADM stated that he only had the initial entity report and he would have to locate his notes. The previous ADM stated that his investigation notes were located in the notebooks and were a part of the abuse investigation. It should be noted that no additional note documentation was found in the facility abuse investigation. The previous ADM stated that he would send to the SSA the final investigation report and that he did not have any notes outside of Form 359. The previous ADM stated that he did not document the date and times or who the other residents were that he interviewed, and that was something he needed to get better at documenting. The previous ADM stated that when he had an allegation of abuse he would talk to at least 2 other staff and 2 other residents on the same hallway as the victim. The previous ADM stated that the final investigation report documented that another resident who was not identified was interviewed and had stated she had seen resident 10 touch other residents. The previous ADM stated that those other potential victims were not identified nor investigated. The previous ADM stated that there was a second incident between resident 10 and resident 34. The previous ADM stated that the incident with resident 34 was unwitnessed, and that a CNA had reported to a LN that resident 10 was feeling up resident 34's breasts without her consent in the dining room. The previous ADM stated that it was his practice to talk to other residents, but he did not know if he documented it. The previous ADM stated that both resident 136 and resident 26 reported to the police similar incidents of sexual abuse. The previous ADM stated that at the time of the incidents resident 10, resident 34, resident 136, and resident 26 were all residing in the same hallway. The previous ADM stated that he did not interview all the residents on that hallway to determine if there were any other incidents of abuse, but instead focused on the residents that went to the dining room for meals.
[Cross-refer to F600]
SERIOUS
(G)
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Administration
(Tag F0835)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility was not administered in a manner that enables it to use its resources effectively and efficiently to attain or maintain the highest practicable physi...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility was not administered in a manner that enables it to use its resources effectively and efficiently to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident. Specifically, multiple residents were identified to be in Immediate Jeopardy for allegations of sexual abuse. Resident identifiers: 3, 10, 18, 24, 26, 31, 34, and 136.
Findings included:
1. Based on observation, interview and record review, it was determined for 8 out of 40 sampled residents, that the facility failed to protect residents form abuse. Specifically, residents were sexually abused without ongoing interventions to prevent further abuse. Additionally, the facility had prior knowledge of the alleged perpetrators sexual behaviors and the facility failed to provide protection for the residents thereby allowing ongoing access to the residents by the alleged perpetrator. Finally, victims of the sexual abuse exhibited crying and expressed recurring fear of the perpetrator. Based on the resident(s) behavior, it can be determined that the resident(s) experienced psychosocial harm as a result of the sexual abuse. This identified deficient practice was found to have occurred at the Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) Level. Resident identifiers: 3, 10, 18, 24, 26, 34, and 136.
[Cross-refer F600]
2. Based on interview and record review it was determined, for 8 out of 40 sampled residents, that in response to allegations of abuse the facility failed to have evidence that all alleged violations were thoroughly investigated and further potential abuse was prevented. Specifically, the facility initial entity reports and final investigation reports filed with the State Survey Agency (SSA) contained incomplete summaries of incidents of sexual abuse, and the facility did not have supporting documentation of the summaries that were provided to the SSA. Additionally, not all reported incidents of alleged sexual abuse had evidence that suggested they were investigated by the facility. Multiple instances of resident to resident sexual abuse occurred with an insufficient investigation. This identified deficient practice was found to have occurred at the Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) Level. Resident identifiers: 3, 10, 18, 24, 26, 31, 34, and 136.
[Cross-refer F610]
SERIOUS
(G)
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
QAPI Program
(Tag F0867)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility did not establish and implement written policies and procedures for feedback, data collections systems, and monitoring, including adverse event monit...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility did not establish and implement written policies and procedures for feedback, data collections systems, and monitoring, including adverse event monitoring. The facility did not develop and implement policies addressing how they would use a systematic approach to determine underlying causes of problems impacting larger systems; how they would develop corrective actions that would be designed to effect change at the systems level to prevent quality of care, quality of life, or safety problems; and how the facility would monitor the effectiveness of its performance improvement activities to ensure that improvements were sustained. Specifically, multiple residents were identified to be in Immediate Jeopardy for allegations of sexual abuse. Resident identifiers: 3, 10, 18, 24, 26, 31, 34, and 136.
Findings included:
1. Based on observation, interview and record review, it was determined for 8 out of 40 sampled residents, that the facility failed to protect residents form abuse. Specifically, residents were sexually abused without ongoing interventions to prevent further abuse. Additionally, the facility had prior knowledge of the alleged perpetrators sexual behaviors and the facility failed to provide protection for the residents thereby allowing ongoing access to the residents by the alleged perpetrator. Finally, victims of the sexual abuse exhibited crying and expressed recurring fear of the perpetrator. Based on the resident(s) behavior, it can be determined that the resident(s) experienced psychosocial harm as a result of the sexual abuse. This identified deficient practice was found to have occurred at the Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) Level. Resident identifiers: 3, 10, 18, 24, 26, 34, and 136.
[Cross-refer F600]
2. Based on interview and record review it was determined, for 8 out of 40 sampled residents, that in response to allegations of abuse the facility failed to have evidence that all alleged violations were thoroughly investigated and further potential abuse was prevented. Specifically, the facility initial entity reports and final investigation reports filed with the State Survey Agency (SSA) contained incomplete summaries of incidents of sexual abuse, and the facility did not have supporting documentation of the summaries that were provided to the SSA. Additionally, not all reported incidents of alleged sexual abuse had evidence that suggested they were investigated by the facility. Multiple instances of resident to resident sexual abuse occurred with an insufficient investigation. This identified deficient practice was found to have occurred at the Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) Level. Resident identifiers: 3, 10, 18, 24, 26, 31, 34, and 136.
[Cross-refer F610]
On 7/18/23 at 11:55 AM, an interview was conducted with the Administrator (ADM). The ADM stated that the entire Interdisciplinary Team along with the Medical Director met one time a month for a Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) meeting. The ADM stated that for any identified concern they would identify interventions and track and monitor the progress until it was resolved. The ADM stated that if a concern was not resolved they would revise the plan, obtain everyone's input on what they could change or do better, and then set up a new time period of tracking. The ADM stated that they had identified the allegations of sexual abuse through the process and they thought they had identified and implemented enough interventions through the QAPI process.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0561
(Tag F0561)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review it was determined, for 1 of 40 sampled residents, that the facility did not ensure that the...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review it was determined, for 1 of 40 sampled residents, that the facility did not ensure that the resident had the right to self-determination through support of the resident's choices. Specifically, a resident requested a bathing schedule that would provide three showers a week and the facility did not accommodate the request. Resident identifier 34.
Findings included:
Resident 34 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which consisted of but were not limited to unspecified dementia, mild cognitive impairment, morbid obesity, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hypertension, polyneuropathy, pain, cognitive communication deficit, bipolar disorder, anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, and insomnia.
On 7/10/23 at 11:19 AM, an interview was conducted with resident 34. Resident 34 stated that her showers were scheduled for Tuesdays and Fridays. Resident 34 stated that she would like a shower three times a week. Resident 34 stated that she felt dirty and that she sweated a lot. Resident 34 stated that the facility would not provide her with more showers.
Review of the facility shower schedule revealed that resident 34 was scheduled to received a shower on Tuesdays and Fridays.
Review of resident 34's bathing task for the last 30 days revealed the following:
a. On 6/16/23 at 12:24 PM, a shower was provided.
b. On 6/20/23 at 1:35 PM, a shower was provided.
c. On 6/23/23 at 11:30 AM, a shower was provided.
d. On 6/27/23 at 4:49 PM, a shower was provided.
e. On 6/30/23 at 5:56 PM, a shower was provided.
f. On 7/4/23 at 5:42 PM, a shower was provided.
g. On 7/7/23 at 5:48 PM, a shower was provided.
h. On 7/11/23 at 3:13 PM, a shower was provided.
i. On 7/14/23, a shower sheet documented that a shower was provided.
On 7/18/23 at 9:34 AM, a follow-up interview was conducted with resident 34. Resident 34 stated that the aides would not listen to her when she requested more showers. Resident 34 stated that the aide told her that she didn't know if they could give it [a shower] to her 3 times a week. Resident 34 stated that she breaks out in rashes under her breasts from sweat.
On 7/18/23 at 9:54 AM, an interview was conducted with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 1. LPN 1 stated that the shower binder contained the resident shower schedule for the aides. LPN 1 stated that the aides filled out a shower sheet for each shower provided and the licensed nurse reviewed and signed them. LPN 1 stated that they looked for any skin issues or care refusals that were documented on the shower sheet. LPN 1 stated that resident 34 was a one person assist with a sit to stand for transfers and mobility. LPN 1 stated that he was not aware that resident 34 had requested more showers than the scheduled 2 per week. LPN 1 stated that he did not think that the aides would give resident 34 more showers than the schedule because the schedule was set in stone and it was already a heavy load. LPN 1 stated that if resident 34 had requested more showers it would depend on the aide and if they had time to add any additional showers. LPN 1 stated that he did not think they could add another shower day to resident 34's schedule without talking to the Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) supervisor.
On 7/18/23 at 10:01 AM, an interview was conducted with CNA 1. CNA 1 stated that resident 34 was transferred with 2 staff by using the sit to stand mechanical lift. CNA 1 stated that she provided resident 34 with a shower today. CNA 1 stated that sometimes they did not have enough staff to provide extra showers and it was busy. CNA 1 stated that resident 34 had not requested more showers from her.
On 7/18/23 at 11:18 AM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated that the resident shower schedule was 2 times a week with a possible 3rd day as needed. The DON stated that if a resident wanted more showers they would be given if the staff could accommodate it. The DON stated that the scheduled showers had to be completed first and then any additional request may be accommodated. The DON stated that there was no reason why a resident could not get additional showers if requested. The DON stated she was not aware if resident 34 had requested to have showers 3 times a week, but she should be able to get them. The DON stated that Sundays were supposed to be the day to provide additional requested showers.
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0602
(Tag F0602)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, it was determined, for 1 of 40 sampled residents, that the facility failed to protect the ...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, it was determined, for 1 of 40 sampled residents, that the facility failed to protect the residents from the right to be free from misappropriation of property. Specifically, a staff member at the facility used a resident's credit card for multiple personal purchases. Resident identifier: 1.
Findings included:
Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included multiple sclerosis, borderline personality disorder, bipolar disorder, severe protein-calorie malnutrition, dysarthria and anarthria, muscle weakness, cognitive communication deficit, need for assistance with personal care, chronic pain syndrome, major depressive disorder, difficulty in walking, neuromuscular dysfunction of bladder, hypothyroidism, anxiety disorder, insomnia, gastro-esophageal reflux disease, dry eye syndrome, and muscle spasms.
On 7/10/23 resident 1's medical record was reviewed.
A quarterly Minimum Data Set from 5/6/23 revealed that resident 1 had a BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status) of 14 which suggests resident 1 was cognitively intact.
On 7/10/23, a Form 358, also called a Facility Reported Incident (FRI), was reviewed. The FRI was reported to the state agency on 6/2/23. The submission reported that the alleged victim was resident 1 and the allegation type was marked as misappropriation of resident property/exploitation. The detailed account of the incident stated, During Medicaid Audit review, [Business Office Manager (BOM)] discovered suspicious transactions on resident's bank statement. The alleged perpetrator was identified as the previous Resident Advocate (PRA). The FRI stated, staff was suspended immediately, compliance notified and investigation started. The report revealed that the law enforcement agency was notified.
On 7/10/23 at 11:32 AM, an interview with resident 1 was conducted. Resident 1 stated that she was happy with the care provided at the facility. Resident 1 stated that she does not have any concerns about the facility. Resident 1 stated that she did not have any issues regarding her personal finances. Resident 1 stated that she worked with the business office to talk about personal finances, and she received $45 a month from the facility. Resident 1 stated that most of the staff were able to help her with all her needs. Resident 1 stated that she hoped to return to assisted living once she regained her strength.
Form 359, the follow-up investigation, was reported to the state agency on 6/9/23. Form 359 included the summary of the interview with the alleged perpetrator (the PRA). The interview stated, [The PRA] was interviewed extensively by facility administration in connection with the allegations. In response to specific questions posed to her, [the PRA] provided the following information: [The PRA] hypothesized that she may have mixed up her credit card with [resident 1's] credit card when presented with evidence of charge for purchases that would not have made sense for the resident to make. She further hypothesized that this 'mix up' may have happened more than once. [The PRA] stated that she accessed the vending machine for the resident several times a week. However, she could not be specific as to the actual number of times and had no explanation for individual days where there were as many as six (6) charges to the vending machine posted to the resident's credit card. [The PRA] admitted to withdrawing $100 in cash from the ATM in May, using [resident 1's] card. She was able to access the cash because [resident 1] provided her with the PIN [Personal Identification Number]. [The PRA] denied making any other ATM withdrawals beyond the one in May, and offered no explanation for the additional withdrawals from the resident's account in the amounts of $200, $300, and $500 dollars, respectively. [The PRA] had no explanation for credit card charges associated with clothing purchases, where the size of the clothing purchased was not the same size as that regularly worn by the resident. [The PRA] confirmed that she lives in [City name redacted], UT; however, and when asked about a $437 payment from the resident' account to [City name redacted] Utilities, [the PRA] was unable to provide an explanation. Likewise, [the PRA] had no explanation for charges to the resident's account in the amount of $537 (to [TV provider]) or for various restaurant charges ranging from $20-$100. [The PRA] asserted that she mistakenly used [resident 1's] card to pay her own car payment in the amount of $1,905.16. She stated that she will repay [resident 1] for this error.
Form 359 reported a summary of the interview with other residents who may have had contact with the alleged perpetrator. The report stated, Facility conducted interviews with other residents who visited [the PRA's] office on a regular basis. They were asked about who they ask to help them when they need items purchased for them as well as if they have ever asked a staff member to use their card for purchases. All interviewed residents replied that they go to Rec [Recreation] Therapy, who are the designated shoppers in our segregations of duties. None of them have every [sic] asked staff to use their cash or debits cards besides through our authorized process.
Form 359 revealed that the facility verified the allegation. Form 359 stated, Based on all of the information presented and analyzed secondary to the investigation, document review, and interviews, the Facility has concluded that there is evidence to support the allegation of misappropriation of resident funds. Included in the basis for this determination is documentary evidence (bank statements, receipts, etc.) as well as [The PRA's] admission that she improperly accessed and used the resident's funds. Although [the PRA] denies the extent of the claimed misappropriation, the evidence supports that she is responsible for more than she is admitting to.
Form 359 revealed actions that were taken as a result of the investigation. The report stated, [1. [The PRA] has been terminated from her position. 2. The Facility is performing audits of all other resident accounts to which [The PRA] had access to ensure the absence of additional incidents of misconduct. 3. The Facility is validating the final amount owed to the resident in connection with the misappropriation, and will have her fully repaid and a deposit made to her account no later than Monday, June 12, 2023. 4. The Facility has prepared and is delivering education and in-services to its staff on the issues of financial abuse and misappropriation, and on the procedures surrounding the management of the resident accounts (including cash). 5. The Facility will partner with external resources to ensure that its internal processes and methods of accounting as related to the resident credit card use are reinforced and consistent with applicable standards in this area.
The facility's investigation stated that $8,155.98 was the total amount that resident 1 needed to be repaid.
On 7/17/23 at 10:00 PM, an interview with the Business Office Manager (BOM) was conducted. The BOM stated that she discovered the suspicious credit card activity when completing a financial review for resident 1. The BOM stated that there were charges that did not line up with resident 1's activities. The BOM stated that there was a charge to a car dealership and the BOM knew that resident 1 did not own a car. The BOM stated that she alerted the Administrator (ADM) right away. The BOM stated that she believed resident 1 asked the PRA to help her with making online purchases, and resident 1 gave the PRA her credit card and PIN number. Resident 1's credit card was found in the PRA's desk. The BOM stated that no other credit cards belonging to other residents were found in the PRA's desk. The BOM stated that the PRA was never supposed to have access to any resident's money. The BOM stated that the police were involved and took a report. The BOM stated that the facility added up all of the suspicious charges on resident 1's account, which totaled up to about $8,155. The BOM stated that the facility paid resident 1 that full amount. The BOM stated that she informed resident 1 of the incident, and resident 1 was confused by the situation.
On 7/17/23 at 10:40 AM, an interview with the Administrator (ADM) was conducted. The ADM stated that the facility found out about the misappropriation of funds when the BOM was conducting a financial audit for resident 1. The ADM stated that the BOM notified him immediately. The ADM stated that the PRA was suspended right away. The ADM stated that staff and residents were interviewed to determine if the fraud went beyond resident 1. The ADM stated that they did not find any concerns with any other residents funds. The ADM stated that the facility totaled up the amount of money that appeared to be suspicious on resident 1's account and the facility paid resident 1 that amount. The ADM stated that if the facility was unable to prove if the charges were from the PRA or resident 1, the facility counted that as the PRA's spending, and included that as money to be paid back to resident 1. The ADM stated that the facility back resident 1 $8,155.98. The ADM stated that the PRA wrote a check for around $4,000 to the facility and the PRA claimed that was the amount she owed. The ADM stated that the PRA told the facility that all of the purchases on resident 1's card were accidents. The ADM stated that the PRA was never supposed to oversee resident's money. The ADM stated that the facilities protocol for handling money included a segregation of duties and a paper trail that showed exactly who had resident's money and what the money was used for. The ADM stated that the segregation of duties for handling funds was to prevent one person from being in charge, and it held multiple staff members accountable for the resident's money. The ADM stated that the facility informed resident 1 about what happened and resident 1 seemed confused. The ADM stated that she understood that there was an issue with her money and the facility fixed it. The ADM stated that resident 1 told staff that she asked the PRA for help with online purchases. The ADM stated that when resident 1 asked the PRA for help with purchases, the PRA should have explained that she was not in charge of helping residents with their shopping, and the PRA should have followed the facility policy on shopping for residents and contacted the appropriate staff members who were in charge of shopping for residents to assist resident 1. The ADM stated that the facility interviewed residents who were known to be frequently in contact with the PRA. The ADM stated that in-services regarding resident's money were provided to all staff members.
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Report Alleged Abuse
(Tag F0609)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review it was determined, for 2 of 40 sampled residents, that the facility did not ensure that all...
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 40 sampled residents, that the facility did not ensure that all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, and misappropriation of resident property were reported immediately, but not later than 2 hours after the allegation was made to the State Survey Agency (SSA) and Adult Protective Services (APS). Specifically, the facility did not notify the SSA and APS of an allegation of sexual abuse within the two hours of becoming aware of the the incident. Resident identifier 26 and 10.
Findings included:
Resident 26 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included multiple sclerosis, type 2 diabetes mellitus, paraplegia, chronic kidney disease, polyneuropathy, major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, insomnia, hyperlipidemia, gastro-esophageal reflux disease, hypertension, and flaccid neuropathic bladder.
On 7/10/23 at 10:14 AM, an interview was conducted with resident 26. Resident 26 stated that she had a problem with another resident and she reported it to the police when they were already at the facility. Resident 26 stated that resident 10 got close to talk to her. Resident 26 stated that her leg fell off the foot rest of the wheelchair and resident 10 placed her foot back on the foot rest. Resident 26 stated that resident 10 then began to touch her upper thigh and was patting her leg while moving towards her genitals. Resident 26 stated that she stopped resident 10 by brushing his hand away. Resident 26 stated that resident 10 then asked her if he could touch her breast.
On 7/11/23, the facility abuse investigation documentation was reviewed.
On 1/11/23 at 10:34 AM, the facility initial report, Form 358, documented that the facility staff became aware of the incident between resident 26 and resident 10.
On 1/11/23 at 3:30 PM, the APS report documented that they were notified of the incident between resident 26 and resident 10. It should be noted that the notification to APS was 5 hours after the facility staff became aware of the incident.
On 1/11/23 at 4:11 PM, the SSA intake notes documented that the SSA was notified of the incident between resident 26 and resident 10. It should be noted that the notification to the SSA was approximately 5.5 hours after the facility staff became aware of the incident.
On 7/12/23 at 3:08 PM, an interview was conducted with the Administrator (ADM). The ADM stated that with any allegations of abuse he would start the investigation process and immediately report the incident to the SSA and APS.
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, it was determined for 1 of 40 sampled residents that the facility did not ensure the compr...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, it was determined for 1 of 40 sampled residents that the facility did not ensure the comprehensive care plan included the services needed to achieve the highest practicable physical, mental and psychosocial well-being. Specifically, a resident was found to be taking medications not prescribed by a physician on 3 different occasions which was not addressed in the comprehensive care plan. Resident identifier: 41.
Findings included:
Resident 41 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included but were not limited to traumatic subdural hemorrhage, cerebral infarction with right sided hemiplegia and hemiparesis, psychoactive substance dependence, depression, anxiety disorder, epilepsy, and hypertension.
On 7/11/23 resident 41's medical records were reviewed.
A. Suspected Self Harm
On 1/16/23 a Change in Condition Evaluation indicated resident 41 had a change of condition with behavioral symptoms. The behavioral evaluation indicated social withdrawal and a danger to self or others with a described dangerous behavior of possible self harm to left leg and described behavioral changes of patient has been secluding herself. The document further indicated resident 41 was displaying a new skin condition described as a laceration not requiring sutures and without other symptoms. It was documented the new skin condition site was on the front of the right thigh, however, the description of the new skin condition documented, multiple lacerations to side of left thigh. It further indicated that patient denies self harm causing lacerations, could be in her sleep.
A physician order dated 1/16/23 indicated resident 41 had lacerations to her right thigh.
On 1/16/23 a Discharge Handout from an outside facility indicated resident 41 was seen in the emergency department on 1/16/23 with the diagnosis of History of non-suicidal self-harm which included Suicide Prevention Education Materials.
Resident 41's care plan dated 1/17/23 revealed potential for .Self harm/scratching or cutting self. The goal was Will have no evidence of self harm by review date. An intervention was to assist to develop more appropriate methods of coping and interacting [and] encourage to express feelings appropriately.
On 7/13/23 at 10:01 AM, an interview was conducted with Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) 2. CNA 2 stated she looked for injuries when assisting residents with bathing and did not notice any bruising, cuts or pressure injuries on resident 41's skin during her shower on 7/13/23. CNA 2 stated that if she found any injuries or wounds on a resident's skin she would immediately tell the nurse and document the findings.
On 7/13/23 at 10:30 AM, an interview was conducted with resident 41. Resident 41 nodded yes or no, mumbled simple words, and used other bodily gestures during interview to answer questions. Resident 41 nodded no when asked if she felt depressed, felt like hurting herself, or had felt like hurting herself in the past. Resident 41 indicated she remembered the incident when staff noticed scratches on her right thigh. Resident 41 pointed to her right thigh with her left arm, lifted up her right arm with her left arm, and gestured her scratching her right thigh with her fingernails on her right hand. Resident 41 indicated she scratched her right thigh with her right hand and she denied doing it on purpose.
On 7/13/23 at 12:28 PM, an interview was conducted with Registered Nurse (RN) 1. RN 1 stated she knew to watch for self harm with resident 41. RN 1 stated a whole body assessment was completed every week for each resident.
B. Taking non-prescribed medications from roommate
On 8/1/22 a Preadmission Screening Resident Review (PASRR) Level II was completed. The screening recommended for the facility to be aware of resident 41's substance use history and advised to make sure medications were not left out where resident would have access to them. The PASRR Level II revealed a recommendation for Specialized Services for mental illness treatment which included to monitor and assess mental health symptoms, monitor changes in mood and respond appropriately with medication and/or therapy if needed.
On 5/31/23 an encounter progress note indicated, It has been found that patient [resident 41] has been receiving one 8-2mg [milligrams] film of Suboxone [a prescribed medication used to treat opioid addiction] every night for the last six months. This medication is not prescribed to her, but instead is prescribed her for roommate and the roommate has been giving this to the [sic] patient for the last six months. It further indicated that a non-prescribed anti-histamine sleeping medication was found in resident 41's room. The progress note also indicated, Patient appears to be in distress and begins to cry.
On 7/2/23 a nursing progress note indicated resident 41 was found to have non-prescribed diphenhydramine (an antihistamine medication).
On 7/9/23 a nursing progress note indicated an Advil PM [a sleep relief medication] gel cap was found on resident 41's floor and resident stated it was hers. The note further indicated resident 41 opened her backpack and pulled out 11 more gel capsules.
On 7/10/23 at 1:51 PM, an interview was conducted with resident 5. Resident 5 stated that she used to share her Suboxone with her previous roommate, resident 41. Resident 5 stated that she used to receive two dissolvable films of Suboxone, and she would put one in her mouth and save the other one for her roommate. Resident 5 stated that she was able to do this without the nurses knowing. Resident 5 stated that resident 41 used to get upset and angry at her if she did not share the Suboxone. Resident 5 stated that it was easier to give resident 41 the Suboxone so resident 41 did not get angry at her. Resident 5 stated that, after a while of sharing the medication, she confessed to the nurses that she had been sharing her Suboxone with resident 41.
On 7/13/23 at 10:01 AM, an interview was conducted with CNA 2. CNA 2 stated she was aware of resident 41's drug seeking behaviors. CNA 2 further stated that resident 41 got angry, frustrated, and went to her room when she was not understood by staff.
On 7/13/23 at 10:30 AM, an interview was conducted with resident 41. Resident 41 nodded yes or no, mumbled simple words, and used other bodily gestures during interview to answer questions. Resident 41 indicated that she asked for, received, and ingested medications from her previous roommate, resident 5. Resident one further denied that she had asked for medications from any other residents. Resident 41 indicated the facility talked with her about the incident and that she agreed to not take any medications without the knowledge of the facility.
On 7/13/23 at 12:28 PM, an interview was conducted with RN 1. RN 1 stated that she did a mouth check after administering Suboxone to ensure the resident took the medication.
On 7/18/23 at 9:50 AM, an interview was conducted with the Licensed Clinical Social Worker (LCSW) Corporate Resource. The LCSW Corporate Resource stated that resident 41 was not receiving any mental health services. The LCSW Corporate Resource stated that if the PASRR Level II recommended services then the resident should be receiving those services. The LCSW Corporate Resource further stated that offering mental health services like 12-step meetings and substance abuse treatment should be considered if a resident was found to be taking non-prescribed medications from another resident. The LCSW Corporate Resource stated if there was a referral for mental health services there should be a progress note in the medical record.
No documentation of mental health services was located in resident 41's medical record.
On 7/18/23 at 10:02 AM, an interview was conducted with the Administrator (ADM). The ADM stated no psychiatric referrals were made based on the physician's recommendation. The ADM stated that if a social worker was involved and met with the resident it should be documented in a progress note.
On 7/18/23 at 10:15 AM, an interview was conducted with Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioner (ARNP) 2. ARNP 2 stated she did not refer resident 41 to any mental health services because she was focused on resident 41's clinical health because of the medications. ARNP 2 stated she did not remember what resident 41's PASRR Level II recommended. ARNP 2 further stated she needed to consult with Social Work Services about resident 41 taking non-prescribed medications from another resident. ARNP 2 stated when resident 41 was suspected of cutting herself in January, an Interdisciplinary Team meeting should have been done to determine what resident 41 needed for overall health.
On 7/18/23 at 11:40 AM, an interview was conducted with LCSW corporate resource. The LCSW corporate resource stated that the Resident Advocate completed the care plans and the consultant LCSW reviewed the care plans.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Incontinence Care
(Tag F0690)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review it was determined, for 1 of 40 sampled residents, that the facility did not ensure a reside...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review it was determined, for 1 of 40 sampled residents, that the facility did not ensure a resident with urinary incontinence was provided appropriate treatment and services to prevent urinary tract infection (UTI). Specifically, a resident reported staff did not perform sanitary incontinence care and caused a UTI. Resident identifier: 21.
Findings include:
Resident 21 was admitted to the facility 4/28/23 and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included UTI, acute kidney failure, type 2 diabetes mellitus, pressure ulcer, unsteady on feet, atrial fibrillation, and dorsalgia.
On 7/11/23 at 11:17 AM, an interview was conducted with resident 21. Resident 21 stated she went to the hospital recently and was told she had e-coli in her urine. Resident 21 stated she was incontinent of both bowel and bladder, and required the assistance of staff for brief changes. Resident 21 stated that when staff were changing her incontinence briefs, they were wiping her periarea from back to front, and she felt like this caused her hospitalization.
Resident 21's medical record was reviewed on 7/17/23.
An admission Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] revealed that resident 21 was always incontinent of urine. Resident 21 was frequently incontinent with bowel movements.
A care plan dated 5/8/23 and updated on 7/10/23 revealed INCONTINENCE Has bowel/bladder incontinence
[Resident 21] was added to the Bowel and Bladder retraining program on 5/23/23 to help manage incontinence. Document findings, interventions, and resident's response and make changes as needed. Patient was removed from program on 5/31/2023. The goals were Risk for septicemia will be minimized/prevented via prompt recognition and treatment of symptoms of UTI through the review date. and Will remain free from skin breakdown due to incontinence and brief use through the review date. Interventions included BRIEF USE: uses disposable briefs. Change Q2 [every 2 hours] and prn [as needed]; INCONTINENT: Check as required for incontinence. Wash, rinse and dry perineum. Change clothing PRN after incontinence episodes; Monitor/document for s/sx [signs and symptoms] UTI: pain, burning, blood tinged urine, cloudiness, no output, deepening of urine color, increased pulse,increased temp, Urinary frequency, foul smelling urine, fever, chills, altered mental status, change in behavior, change in eating patterns; and Monitor/document/report to MD possible medical causes of incontinence: bladder infection, constipation, loss of bladder tone, weakening of control muscles, decreased
bladder capacity, diabetes, Stroke, medication side effects.
Resident 21's progress notes revealed the following:
a. On 7/6/23 at 11:00 PM, Patient has a change in condition, is very lethargic, has new productive cough . on call NP notified. Order given to send patient to the emergency room. [Name of ambulance company] service called, and patient transferred to [local hospital] per ambulance.
b. On 7/6/23 at 11:55 PM, Family notified at time of transfer out.
Resident 21's hospital record dated 7/7/23 revealed that resident's chief complaint was shortness of breath. The Diagnosis, Assessment and Plan revealed 1. Acute exacerbation of congestive heart failure, 2. UTI with urine cultures and blood cultures pending.
Urine and blood cultures were collected on 7/6/23 at 11:56 PM and were verified on 7/9/23 at 7:27 AM. Organism 1 was escherichia coli and organism 2 streptococcus viridans.
A physicians order from the hospital dated 7/8/23 revealed Cefepime 1 gram intravenously twice a day. The order revealed to dispense 26 doses.
On 7/18/23 at 1:25 PM, an interview was conducted with Nursing Assistant (NA) 1. NA 1 stated when performing pericare on a resident, she wiped the residents from clean area to dirty which was front to back. NA 1 stated she used a new wipe each time. NA 1 stated if pericare was not performed by wiping from front to back for women, it could cause a UTI. NA 1 stated that resident 21 was alert and oriented and was able to make her needs known. NA 1 stated she thought resident 21 was able to feel how CNA's wiped her periarea. NA 1 stated resident 21 had not complained of being wiped incorrectly to her. NA 1 stated she would think that resident 21 would know how she was being wiped.
On 7/18/23 at 1:31 PM, an interview was conducted with CNA 6. CNA 6 stated she performed pericare from front to back using a new wipe with every wipe. CNA 6 stated if a female resident was not wiped from front to back they could develop a UTI. CNA 6 stated she had not worked with resident 21.
On 7/18/23 at 1:35 PM, an interview was conducted with CNA 4. CNA 4 stated pericare was done every 2 hours. CNA 4 stated she wiped female residents from from front to back. CNA 4 stated that she used a wipe and folded it to wipe again. CNA 4 stated if there was bowel movement on the wipe she did not use it again. CNA 4 stated resident 21 was alert and Oriented. CNA 4 stated resident 21 was incontinent. CNA 4 stated resident 21 urinated frequently and needed changed every hour. CNA 4 stated resident 21 had feeling in periarea. CNA 4 stated resident 21 had not complained of being wiped from back to front. CNA 4 stated a resident could get a UTI quickly if females were not wiped from front to back.
On 7/18/23 at 1:41 PM, an interview was conducted with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 5. LPN 5 stated she was resident 21's nurse once. LPN 5 stated resident 21 was alert and oriented without confusion. LPN 5 stated if a resident had signs and symptoms of a UTI then a urine analysis was completed after contacting the physician for an order. LPN 5 stated a culture and sensitivity was done if the urine analysis was positive. LPN 5 stated the physician was then contacted for an antibiotic order.
On 7/18/23 at 1:43 PM, an interview was conducted Registered Nurse (RN) 4. RN 4 stated resident 21 was alert and oriented. RN 4 stated resident 21 used a brief. RN 4 stated resident 21 was aware when she had an incontinent episode and asked staff to change her. RN 4 stated she did not know about resident 21's UTI diagnosis.
On 7/18/23 at 1:46 PM, an interview was conducted with LPN 3. LPN 3 stated resident 21 was receiving IV antibiotics for a UTI. LPN 3 stated resident 21 was incontinent of urine. LPN 3 stated resident 21 did not have paralysis and was able to feel when she was wiped. LPN 3 stated resident 21 had e. coli in her urine. LPN 3 stated e. coli was from bowel movement getting into the urethra.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0694
(Tag F0694)
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, it was determined for 1 of 40 sampled residents that the facility did not en...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined for 1 of 40 sampled residents that the facility did not ensure parental fluids were administered consistent with professional standards of practice and in accordance with physician orders. Specifically, parental fluids were administered without a documented physician order and the intravenous fluid (IV) tubing was not labeled per facility policy. Resident identifier: 327.
Findings included:
Resident 327 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included non-infective gastroenteritis and colitis, type 2 diabetes mellitis, mild cognitive impairment, benign prostatic hyperplasia, atherosclerotic heart disease, weakness, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia.
On 7/10/23 at 11:05 AM, resident 327 was observed to have IV fluids infusing into an IV line located on resident 327's right forearm. There was no name, date or time labeled on the IV solution bag or tubing.
On 7/10/23 at 11:17 AM, resident 20 was observed to have medications infusing and being administered to resident through IV tubing that was not labeled with a date or time.
On 7/11/23 resident 327's medical records were reviewed.
On 7/10/23 a Change in Condition Evaluation indicated resident 327 had a change of condition identified as an altered mental status and was subsequently reported to the Medical Director (MD) on 7/10/23 at 10:30 AM. It further indicated the recommendation received from the MD was 1L [liter] of IV fluid.
On 7/10/23 at 3:08 PM, a nursing progress note indicated that resident 327 became unresponsive in the therapy gym with a blood pressure of 71/55. It also indicated that the physician was notified and a liter of fluids was ordered for resident 327.
On 7/11/23 resident 327's physician orders were reviewed. No orders for IV fluids were located.
On 7/10/23 at 11:15 AM, an interview was conducted with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 1. LPN 1 stated the facility had a policy which indicated the IV needs to be labeled and dated.
On 7/11/23 at 9:35 AM, an interview was conducted with resident 327. Resident 327 stated his IV was started on 7/10/23. An observation of resident 327 was made. Resident 327 no longer had IV fluids infusing but had a locked IV to his right forearm.
On 7/11/23 at 2:32 PM, a follow-up interview was conducted with LPN 1. The electronic medical record was reviewed with LPN 1 during the interview. LPN 1 stated the IV fluid order was not in the physician orders and that, I did not put the order in there. LPN 1 further stated when a physician was called and a telephone order was received, the order had to be verified by reading it back to the physician, and the order needed to be put in the physician orders.
On 7/17/23 at 12:58 PM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated that IV tubing needed to be labeled with a date and time. The DON stated the IV bag did not need to be labeled if it was a one-time dose. The DON stated a physician's order should be obtained before administering medications, unless it was an emergent situation. The DON further stated that in an emergent situation the order should still be put in but one day later is too late.
The Policy and Procedure for Nursing Clinical Medication Administration for IV-Solutions revised January 2023 was reviewed. The policy indicated under the titled section, IV Tubing, that All IV tubing is dated and timed when hung. The policy further indicated under the section for Candidacy for IV Therapy, that A physician must initiate the order and be available for complications and emergencies.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0740
(Tag F0740)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, it was determined for 1 of 40 sampled residents that the facility did not ensure the neede...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, it was determined for 1 of 40 sampled residents that the facility did not ensure the needed behavioral health care services were provided to achieve the highest practicable physical, mental and psychosocial well-being. Specifically, a resident was not offered behavioral health care services after she was suspected of self harm and was found taking another residents medication. Resident identifier: 41.
Findings included:
Resident 41 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included but were not limited to traumatic subdural hemorrhage, cerebral infarction with right sided hemiplegia and hemiparesis, psychoactive substance dependence, depression, anxiety disorder, epilepsy, and hypertension.
On 7/11/23 resident 41's medical records were reviewed.
A. Suspected Self Harm
On 1/16/23 a Change in Condition Evaluation indicated resident 41 had a change of condition with behavioral symptoms. The behavioral evaluation indicated social withdrawal and a danger to self or others with a described dangerous behavior of possible self harm to left leg and described behavioral changes of patient has been secluding herself. The document further indicated resident 41 was displaying a new skin condition described as a laceration not requiring sutures and without other symptoms. It was documented the new skin condition site was on the front of the right thigh, however, the description of the new skin condition documented, multiple lacerations to side of left thigh. It further indicated that patient denies self harm causing lacerations, could be in her sleep.
A physician order dated 1/16/23 indicated resident 41 had lacerations to her right thigh.
On 1/16/23 a Discharge Handout from an outside facility indicated resident 41 was seen in the emergency department on 1/16/23 with the diagnosis of History of non-suicidal self-harm which included Suicide Prevention Education Materials.
Resident 41's care plan dated 1/17/23 revealed potential for .Self harm/scratching or cutting self. The goal was Will have no evidence of self harm by review date. An intervention was to assist to develop more appropriate methods of coping and interacting [and] encourage to express feelings appropriately.
On 7/13/23 at 10:01 AM, an interview was conducted with Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) 2. CNA 2 stated she looked for injuries when assisting residents with bathing and did not notice any bruising, cuts or pressure injuries on resident 41's skin during her shower on 7/13/23. CNA 2 stated that if she found any injuries or wounds on a resident's skin she would immediately tell the nurse and document the findings.
On 7/13/23 at 10:30 AM, an interview was conducted with resident 41. Resident 41 nodded yes or no, mumbled simple words, and used other bodily gestures during interview to answer questions. Resident 41 nodded no when asked if she felt depressed, felt like hurting herself, or had felt like hurting herself in the past. Resident 41 indicated she remembered the incident when staff noticed scratches on her right thigh. Resident 41 pointed to her right thigh with her left arm, lifted up her right arm with her left arm, and gestured her scratching her right thigh with her fingernails on her right hand. Resident 41 indicated she scratched her right thigh with her right hand and she denied doing it on purpose.
On 7/13/23 at 12:28 PM, an interview was conducted with Registered Nurse (RN) 1. RN 1 stated she knew to watch for self harm with resident 41. RN 1 stated a whole body assessment was completed every week for each resident.
B. Taking non-prescribed medications from roommate
On 8/1/22 a Preadmission Screening Resident Review (PASRR) Level II was completed. The screening recommended for the facility to be aware of resident 41's substance use history and advised to make sure medications were not left out where resident would have access to them. The PASRR Level II revealed a recommendation for Specialized Services for mental illness treatment which included to monitor and assess mental health symptoms, monitor changes in mood and respond appropriately with medication and/or therapy if needed.
On 5/31/23 an encounter progress note indicated, It has been found that patient [resident 41] has been receiving one 8-2mg [milligrams] film of Suboxone [a prescribed medication used to treat opioid addiction] every night for the last six months. This medication is not prescribed to her, but instead is prescribed her for roommate and the roommate has been giving this to the [sic] patient for the last six months. It further indicated that a non-prescribed anti-histamine sleeping medication was found in resident 41's room. The progress note also indicated, Patient appears to be in distress and begins to cry.
On 7/2/23 a nursing progress note indicated resident 41 was found to have non-prescribed diphenhydramine (an antihistamine medication).
On 7/9/23 a nursing progress note indicated an Advil PM [a sleep relief medication] gel cap was found on resident 41's floor and resident stated it was hers. The note further indicated resident 41 opened her backpack and pulled out 11 more gel capsules.
On 7/10/23 at 1:51 PM, an interview was conducted with resident 5. Resident 5 stated that she used to share her Suboxone with her previous roommate, resident 41. Resident 5 stated that she used to receive two dissolvable films of Suboxone, and she would put one in her mouth and save the other one for her roommate. Resident 5 stated that she was able to do this without the nurses knowing. Resident 5 stated that resident 41 used to get upset and angry at her if she did not share the Suboxone. Resident 5 stated that it was easier to give resident 41 the Suboxone so resident 41 did not get angry at her. Resident 5 stated that, after a while of sharing the medication, she confessed to the nurses that she had been sharing her Suboxone with resident 41.
On 7/13/23 at 10:01 AM, an interview was conducted with CNA 2. CNA 2 stated she was aware of resident 41's drug seeking behaviors. CNA 2 further stated that resident 41 got angry, frustrated, and went to her room when she was not understood by staff.
On 7/13/23 at 10:30 AM, an interview was conducted with resident 41. Resident 41 nodded yes or no, mumbled simple words, and used other bodily gestures during interview to answer questions. Resident 41 indicated that she asked for, received, and ingested medications from her previous roommate, resident 5. Resident one further denied that she had asked for medications from any other residents. Resident 41 indicated the facility talked with her about the incident and that she agreed to not take any medications without the knowledge of the facility.
On 7/13/23 at 12:28 PM, an interview was conducted with RN 1. RN 1 stated that she did a mouth check after administering Suboxone to ensure the resident took the medication.
On 7/18/23 at 9:50 AM, an interview was conducted with the Licensed Clinical Social Worker (LCSW) Corporate Resource. The LCSW Corporate Resource stated that resident 41 was not receiving any mental health services. The LCSW Corporate Resource stated that if the PASRR Level II recommended services then the resident should be receiving those services. The LCSW Corporate Resource further stated that offering mental health services like 12-step meetings and substance abuse treatment should be considered if a resident was found to be taking non-prescribed medications from another resident. The LCSW Corporate Resource stated if there was a referral for mental health services there should be a progress note in the medical record.
No documentation of mental health services was located in resident 41's medical record.
On 7/18/23 at 10:02 AM, an interview was conducted with the Administrator (ADM). The ADM stated no psychiatric referrals were made based on the physician's recommendation. The ADM stated that if a social worker was involved and met with the resident it should be documented in a progress note.
On 7/18/23 at 10:15 AM, an interview was conducted with Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioner (ARNP) 2. ARNP 2 stated she did not refer resident 41 to any mental health services because she was focused on resident 41's clinical health because of the medications. ARNP 2 stated she did not remember what resident 41's PASRR Level II recommended. ARNP 2 further stated she needed to consult with Social Work Services about resident 41 taking non-prescribed medications from another resident. ARNP 2 stated when resident 41 was suspected of cutting herself in January, an Interdisciplinary Team meeting should have been done to determine what resident 41 needed for overall health.
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 that for 1 of 40 sampled residents, the facility did not ensure that res...
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 40 sampled residents, the facility did not ensure that resident's drug regimen was free from unnecessary drugs. An unnecessary drug was 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, the facility administered blood pressure medications when the blood pressure was outside of physician ordered parameters. Resident identifier: 21.
Findings include:
Resident 21 was admitted to the facility 4/28/23 and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included UTI, acute kidney failure, type 2 diabetes mellitus, pressure ulcer, unsteady on feet, atrial fibrillation, and dorsalgia.
Resident 21's medical record was reviewed 7/18/23.
1. A physician's order dated 4/28/23 and reordered on 7/8/23 Metoproplol Succinate ER [extended release] oral tablet extended release 24 hour. Give 12.5 mg [milligrams] by mouth one time a day for HTN [hypertension]. Hold if BP [blood pressure] [less than] 110/55 and/or HR [heart rate] [less than] 55 and notify MD [Medical Doctor].
Resident 21's July 2023 Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed Metoprolol was administered the following days with blood pressure outside the physician ordered parameters:
a. On 7/4/23 a blood pressure was 119/54 and a pulse of 68.
b. On 7/13/23 a blood pressure was 113/50 and a pulse of 84.
c. On 7/17/23 a blood pressure was 116/51 with a pulse of 64.
2. A physician's order dated 4/28/23 and restarted on 7/8/23 Entresto Oral Tablet 24-26 MG. Give 1 tablet by mouth two times a day for [sic]. Hold if BP [less than] 110/55 and notify MD.
Resident 21's July 2023 Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed Entresto was administered on On 7/4/23 a blood pressure of 119/54 with a pulse of 68.
On 7/18/23 at 1:10 PM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated that blood pressure medication should be held if the blood pressure or pulse are outside of parameters. The DON stated Metoprolol and Entresto should have not been administered.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medication Errors
(Tag F0758)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review it was determined, for 1 out of 40 sampled residents, that the facility did not ensure that...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review it was determined, for 1 out of 40 sampled residents, that the facility did not ensure that an as needed (PRN) order for a psychotropic drug was limited to 14 days unless the attending physician documented a rationale to extend the order with a duration for use. Specifically, a resident was prescribed a PRN order for Lorazepam that exceeded the 14 day limit and there was no documentation for a rationale to extend the order nor a duration for use. Resident identifier 24.
Findings included:
Resident 24 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and was re-admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included but were not limited to Parkinson's disease, palliative care, hemiplegia and hemiparesis, hypertension, cognitive communication deficit, major depressive disorder, dementia, anxiety disorder, polyneuropathy, and insomnia.
On 7/18/23 resident 24's medical records were reviewed.
On 10/29/22, an order for Lorazepam Concentrate 2 milligrams (mg)/milliliter (ml), give 0.5 ml by mouth every 4 hours as needed for anxiety was prescribed.
Resident 24's May Medication Administration Record (MAR) documented that the Lorazepam PRN order was administered 11 times during the month.
Resident 24's June MAR documented that the Lorazepam PRN order was administered 9 times during the month.
Resident 24's July MAR documented that the Lorazepam PRN order was administered 4 times during the month.
No documentation could be found to indicate that the provider documented that the PRN Lorazepam order be extended beyond 14 days with a rationale to extend the order and a duration for the PRN use.
On 7/17/23 at 2:20 PM, an interview was conducted with the Medical Director (MD). The MD stated that the hospice provider wrote the order for resident 24's Lorazepam. The MD stated that the hospice provider managed resident 24's medications.
On 7/17/23 at 2:48 PM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON) and the Corporate Resource Nurse (CRN) 1. The DON stated that any hospice patient had a hospice provider that prescribed and reviewed the resident's medications. The DON stated that the hospice company would send the orders to the facility, and the nurse on shift was responsible for reconciling any new orders. The DON stated that during the psychotropic meetings the medications were reviewed. The DON stated that if a provider wrote an order for a PRN psychotropic medication that extended past 14 days then the provider should document a note with a reason why they are extending the order. The DON stated that she did not know if they had documentation by resident 24's provider for the Lorazepam PRN order that extended past 14 days. The DON stated that she was not sure where that documentation would be located.
On 7/18/23 at 8:39 AM, an interview was conducted with CRN 2. CRN 2 stated that resident 24's hospice provider wrote a rationale for the continued use of Lorazepam PRN order yesterday, but the documentation did not stipulate the duration for use of that PRN order.
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0760
(Tag F0760)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident 45 was initial admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included Parkinson's...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident 45 was initial admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included Parkinson's disease, schizoaffective disorder, depressive type, fibromyalgia, other chronic pain, and other speech disturbances.
Review of resident 45's medical records was completed on 7/17/23.
An annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed that resident 45 had a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 9 out of 15, which indicated moderate cognitive impairment.
Resident 45's physician orders indicated that resident 45 had an order for Percocet Tablet 5-325 millgrams (mg). Give 1 tablet by mouth every 6 hours as needed for pain.
Resident 45's Medication Administration Record (MAR) note dated 6/10/23 at 4:07 PM indicated that the resident had received Percocet. The MAR also revealed that the resident 45 received a second dose on 6/10/23 at 5:49 PM.
A Nursing Progress Note dated 6/10/23 at 6:49 PM revealed a double dose of Percocet 5/325mg was given to resident 45. Nurse Practitioner (NP), nurse manager on call, DON, and resident 45 were notified. Resident 45 was put on 72-hour monitoring.
A Medication Error Report dated 6/10/23 at 4:00 PM revealed resident 45 had a medication order of Percocet 5/325mg every 6 hours as needed for pain. LPN 4 thought she did not give resident 45 her 4:00 PM dose. Corrective action taken stated resident 45 was put on 72-hour monitoring.
On 7/18/23 at 4:46 PM, an interview with LPN 4 was conducted. LPN 4 stated that once she identified the double dosing Percocet 5/325 mg she notified the NP, manager on call, DON, and resident 45. LPN 4 stated orders from NP were to monitor for levels of sedation. LPN 4 stated she completed a Medication Error Report. LPN 4 stated she monitored resident 45 until the end of her shift. LPN 4 stated she conveyed the information of the medication error and needed monitoring at shift change.
On 7/18/23 at 2:48 PM, an interview with DON was conducted. The DON stated when there was a medication error the physician, DON, and resident should be notified. The DON stated alert charting on the resident should be started. The DON stated alert charting included vital signs, looking for any change of status, or change of mental condition. The DON stated alert charting should be documented in the resident's medical record. The DON stated she was unable to locate any alert charting or monitoring regarding the medication error on 6/10/23 for resident 45.
Based on interview and record review, it was determined that for 3 of 40 sampled residents, that the facility did not ensure that its residents were free of significant medication errors. Specifically, a resident was sharing her Suboxone with another resident, and a nurse administered a resident a double dosage of Percocet. Resident identifiers: 5, 41, and 45.
Findings include.
1. Resident 5 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included borderline personality disorder, morbid obesity, major depressive disorder, difficulty in walking, need for assistance with personal care, bipolar disorder, unsteadiness on feet, chronic pain syndrome, constipation, localized edema, psychoactive substance abuse, unilateral primary osteoarthritis of left knee, weakness, insomnia, and nicotine dependence.
Resident 41 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included traumatic subdural hemorrhage, cerebral infarction with right sided hemiplegia and hemiparesis, psychoactive substance dependence, depression, anxiety disorder, epilepsy, and hypertension.
On 7/10/23, the Facility Reported Incidents (FRIs) were reviewed. On 5/31/23 a Form 358 was reported to the state survey agency. The FRI stated, [Resident 5] told LPN [licensed practical nurse 4], that she has been sharing her Suboxone with [resident 41], her roommate. The FRI listed that the steps taken immediately to ensure residents were protected were, MD [medical director] notified, medications reviewed, started suboxone to taper off, rooms changed immediately.
On 7/10/23, the Follow-Up Investigation Report, Form 359, was reviewed. The follow-up investigation was submitted to the state survey agency on 6/2/23. The report revealed that there were no additional outcomes to the residents, including physical and mental harm. The summary of interviews with the alleged perpetrator (resident 5) stated, Interviewed [resident 5]. She admitted to palming one of her Suboxone films with nurses present while [resident 41] would sometimes distract the nurse. She demonstrated to us how she would put one in her mouth and the other would stay in her palm. The summary of interviews with the alleged victim (resident 41) stated, interviewed, no signs of distress. The conclusion on form 359 was marked as Not Verified - the allegation was refuted by evidence collected during the investigation. Indicate and describe why the allegation was unable to be verified during the investigation, the facility's response was, Both parties voluntarily engaged in sharing the medication.
On 7/10/23, resident 5's medical record was reviewed.
On 5/31/23 at 5:23 PM, a Nursing Progress Note stated, Resident approached nurse and stated that her anxiety is really bad. She was crying and upset. She then stated that she has been sharing her medication with her roommate for months now, and that she is concerned about roomate [sic] due to her sleeping all thetime [sic] and taking the other medication she is taking. PCP [Primary Care Physician], DON [Director of Nursing], ADON [Assistant Director of Nursing] and administrator notified. Room change was made and medication changes were made. WCTM [will continue to monitor] resident for her anxiety and the changes made to medication and living arrangments [sic].
On 6/1/23 at 9:22 PM, a Nursing Progress Note stated, Patient on alert medication changes .Decrease suboxone to 1 strip every HS [bedtime]. Patient tolerating changes well, no adverse side effects noted. Patient rating pain at a 3 this evening. Will continue to monitor.
On 7/10/23, resident 41's medical record was reviewed.
On 5/31/23 at 1:00 AM, an Encounter progress note in resident 41's medical record indicated, It has been found that patient [resident 41] has been receiving one 8-2mg film of Suboxone [a prescribed medication used to treat opioid addiction] every night for the last six months. This medication is not prescribed to her, but instead is prescribed for her roommate [resident 5] and the roommate [resident 5] has been giving this tothe [sic] patient [resident 41] for the last six months.
On 7/10/23 at 1:51 PM, an interview with resident 5 was conducted. Resident 5 stated that she was taking Suboxone for pain. Resident 5 stated that she used to share her Suboxone with her previous roommate (resident 41). Resident 5 stated that she used to receive two dissolvable films of Suboxone, and she would put one in her mouth and save the other one for her roommate. Resident 5 stated that she was able to do this without the nurses knowing. Resident 5 stated that resident 41 used to get upset and angry at her if she did not share the Suboxone. Resident 5 stated that it was easier to give resident 41 the Suboxone so resident 41 did not get angry at her. Resident 5 stated that, after a while of sharing the medication, she confessed to the nurses that she had been sharing her Suboxone with resident 41. Resident 5 stated that it was wrong to share her Suboxone and believed that if resident 41 required more pain medication, then resident 41 should talk to her doctor about the pain rather than using medications that were not prescribed to her. Resident 5 stated that once she confessed to the staff, resident 41 was moved to a different room. Resident 5 stated that she was not scared of resident 41 and believed that they were on good terms with each other.
On 7/13/23 at 10:30 AM, an interview was conducted with resident 41. Resident 41 nodded yes or no, mumbled simple words, and used other bodily gestures during the interview to answer questions. Resident 41 indicated that she asked for, received, and ingested medications from her previous roommate, resident 5. Resident 41 further denied that she had asked for medications from any other residents. Resident 41 indicated the facility talked with her about the incident and that she agreed to not take any medications without the knowledge of the facility.
On 7/13/23 at 12:28 PM, an interview was conducted with Registered Nurse (RN) 1. RN 1 stated that she does a mouth check after administering Suboxone to ensure the resident took the medication.
On 7/13/23 at 12:37 PM, an interview was conducted with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 5. LPN 5 stated that she had never administered Suboxone but when a controlled substance medication, like Suboxone, was administered she ensured that the resident had taken and swallowed it before she would leave the room.
On 7/13/23 at 12:39 PM, an interview was conducted with RN 2. RN 2 stated she had not administered Suboxone at this facility but stated she would ensure the medication would have melted in the resident's mouth before leaving the room.
On 7/17/23 at 12:51 PM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON), Corporate Resource Nurse (CRN) 1, and the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON). The ADON stated that resident 5 was on the suboxone for pain and had a history of drug abuse. The DON stated that she administered both films together and did not give them separately and verify after each. The DON stated that she had no indication that she would cup one film and they had no other residents on the medication to reference administration practice. The DON stated that moving forward it would be good practice to verify that each medication dissolved before moving on to the next film.