Orem Rehabilitation and Nursing Center

575 East 1400 South, Orem, UT 84097 (801) 225-4741
For profit - Corporation 120 Beds THE ENSIGN GROUP Data: November 2025 2 Immediate Jeopardy citations
Trust Grade
1/100
#61 of 97 in UT
Last Inspection: May 2025

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

Overview

Orem Rehabilitation and Nursing Center has received an F grade for its trust score, indicating significant concerns regarding resident safety and care. Ranking #61 out of 97 in Utah means it is in the bottom half of facilities, and its situation is worsening, with issues increasing from 2 in 2024 to 10 in 2025. While staffing is relatively stable with a turnover rate of 46%, which is better than the state average, the facility has concerning RN coverage, falling below 77% of other facilities in Utah. Recent inspections revealed critical incidents, including failures to protect residents from abuse, which caused psychosocial harm, and a serious incident involving a resident being denied the right to exit a room. Overall, while there are some strengths in staffing stability, the serious safety issues present significant risks for potential residents.

Trust Score
F
1/100
In Utah
#61/97
Bottom 38%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Worse
2 → 10 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
46% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
✓ Good
$38,357 in fines. Lower than most Utah facilities. Relatively clean record.
Skilled Nurses
✓ Good
Each resident gets 51 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for Utah. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
Violations
⚠ Watch
29 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★★☆☆
3.0
Overall Rating
★★★☆☆
3.0
Staff Levels
★★★★★
5.0
Care Quality
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 2 issues
2025: 10 issues

The Good

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

Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.

The Bad

3-Star Overall Rating

Near Utah average (3.3)

Meets federal standards, typical of most facilities

Staff Turnover: 46%

Near Utah avg (46%)

Higher turnover may affect care consistency

Federal Fines: $38,357

Above median ($33,413)

Moderate penalties - review what triggered them

Chain: THE ENSIGN GROUP

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 29 deficiencies on record

2 life-threatening 3 actual harm
May 2025 10 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0558 (Tag F0558)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to provide reasonable accommodations of needs and preferen...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to provide reasonable accommodations of needs and preferences except when to do so would endanger the health or safety of resident or other residents for 1 of 28 sampled residents. Specifically, a resident was not provided timely appointments to referred specialists for hand contractures and foot drop. Resident identifier: 41. Findings include: On 4/28/25 at 2:27 PM, an interview was conducted with resident 41. Resident 41 stated that she had to ask three different times to get an appointment with a specialist, she just barely got an appointment for the orthopedic hand surgeon. Resident 41 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included hemiplegia and hemiparesis, type 2 diabetes mellitus, other reduced mobility, and major depressive disorder. Review of resident 41's records was completed on 4/28/25 through 5/1/25. A Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed that resident 41 had a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 which indicated intact cognition. On 2/3/25, an encounter note revealed, resident 41 was seen for hand and feet contractures. Resident 41 states that she is having significant and worsening contractures in her left hand and bilateral feet. She requested to see a specialist to see if there is anything that could be done from their standpoint. A referral requested that resident 41 follow up with an orthopedic hand specialist as well as a podiatrist to see if there are any surgical releases that could be done to help with these contractures. Diagnosis, Assessment and Plan: A referral placed to orthopedic hand as well as podiatry to see if there is any surgical releases that can happen with her contractures. Plan: Referrals placed to orthopedic and as well as podiatry. On 2/10/25, an encounter note revealed, resident 41 was seen for a follow-up for anxiety. Diagnosis, Assessment and Plan: A referral placed to orthopedic hand as well as podiatry to see if there are any surgical releases that can happen with resident 41's contractures. On 3/6/25, an encounter note for a follow-up visit revealed, resident 41 was seen for a follow-up visit for multiple specialist referral requests. Resident 41 presents today for a follow-up, expressing concerns regarding multiple specialist referral needs. Resident 41 specifically requests referrals to a orthopedic hand surgeon for evaluation of contractures and podiatry for drop foot management. Resident 41 reports these referral requests have been pending for some time. Diagnosis, Assessment and Plan: A referral placed to orthopedic hand as well as podiatry to see if there are any surgical releases that can happen with her contractures. Follow-up Plan: Hand contractures will refer to orthopedic hand surgery for evaluation and management. Pending specialist assessment for potential interventional options. Drop foot, referral to podiatry for comprehensive evaluation and management. On 3/11/25, an encounter note for an acute visit revealed, resident 41 was seen for follow-up visit for multiple specialist referral requests. Resident 41 presents with multiple complaints that have developed over recent weeks. Primary concerns included, hand issues requiring surgical evaluation, and drop foot. Resident 41 also demonstrated difficulty with ambulation due to drop foot, which is significantly impacting mobility. Diagnosis, Assessment and Plan: A referral placed to orthopedic hand as well as podiatry to see if there are any surgical releases that can happen with her contractures. Follow-up Plan: Hand contractures will refer to orthopedic hand surgeon for evaluation and management. Pending specialist assessment for potential interventional options. Drop foot, referral to podiatry for comprehensive evaluation and management. Follow-up Plan: Hand Condition, referral to hand surgeon for evaluation and treatment planning. Will request detailed documentation of specific hand symptoms and functional limitations. Drop foot, referral to podiatrist/orthopedist for evaluation and management. May need assistive devices or orthotics for ambulation safety. Follow-up: Schedule return visit after specialty consultations to coordinate care plan and monitor progression of symptoms. On 3/24/25, an encounter note for an acute visit revealed, resident 41 was seen for foot drop and macular degeneration. Resident 41 requested to see a podiatrist to evaluate her foot drop to see if surgical repair could be done. Resident 41 also requested to see an orthopedic hand surgeon for a finger contracture that she has been developing. Diagnosis, Assessment and Plan: A referral placed to orthopedic hand as well as podiatry to see if there are any surgical releases that can happen with her contractures. Follow-up Plan: A request for ortho and podiatry follow-ups. On 3/24/25 a physician's order was started for a referral to an orthopedic hand surgeon for an evaluation. One time only for finger deformity for 1 Day. On 3/24/25 a physician's order was started for a referral to outside podiatry for an evaluation related to drop foot. One time only for drop foot for 1 Day. On 3/24/25 at 5:20 PM, a nursing progress note revealed new patient orders for resident 41 for orthopedic hand for evaluation related to finger deformity. On 3/24/25 at 5:22 PM, a nursing progress note revealed that resident 41 to refer to outside podiatry for evaluation related to drop foot. On 3/24/25 at 6:00 PM, a nursing progress note revealed that medical doctor assessed resident 41 and wrote referral orders for outside podiatry evaluation related to drop foot. Also orders for orthopedic hand related to finger deformity. On 4/3/25, an encounter note for a follow-up visit revealed, resident 41 was seen for a follow-up visit for multiple specialist referral requests. Resident 41 expressed desire for multiple specialty referrals, specifically requesting evaluations from podiatry and orthopedics for assessment of bilateral foot contractures, and orthopedic evaluation for hand contractures. Diagnosis, Assessment and Plan: A referral placed to orthopedic hand as well as podiatry to see if there are any surgical releases that can happen with her contractures. Follow-up Plan: For hand contractures: Orthopedic referral initiated for evaluation and management. Continue the current physical therapy regimen. For foot contractures: Dual specialty approach with podiatry and orthopedic referrals initiated. Continue current physical therapy protocol. For general management: Transportation arrangements in process for specialty appointments. On 4/25/25 at 1:13 PM, an appointment/procedure note revealed that resident 41 was scheduled an appointment on 5/2/25 at 10:00 AM regarding referral for consult hand contractures and possible surgery options. Resident 41 and family notified. On 4/30/25 at 1:32 PM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Transportation (DT). The DT stated that she was the one who scheduled appointments and set up transportation for the residents. The DT stated that when a referral to a specialist was needed, the in-house physician would order it. The nurses would then create the order and print it out for the ordering physician to sign. The DT stated that when she received the signed order, she attempted to schedule an appointment as soon as possible, which could take from 24 to 72 hours. The DT stated that there could be delays during the scheduling process such as no prior relationship with the provider, getting the necessary documents sent over to the referred office, or finding a provider that would take the resident's insurance. The DT stated that she recalled getting the signed order for resident 41's referral to the orthopedic hand surgeon and was able to schedule her an appointment. On 5/1/25 at 9:30 AM, an interview was conducted with Registered Nurse (RN) 2. RN 2 stated the in-house physician would give the floor nurse an order for the referral. RN 2 stated that she could find the orders in the communications tab in the electronic medical record. RN 2 stated she would then enter the order into the resident's medical chart. RN 2 stated that she was unaware if the order needed to be printed out. RN 2 stated that the DT would then look for any entered orders that needed to be scheduled and would schedule the appointment. On 5/1/25 at 11:03 AM, an interview was conducted with RN 1. RN 1 stated the in-house physician would let the floor nurse know that they had a referral request for a resident. RN 1 stated the floor nurse would enter the order and then printed the order out to have physician sign. RN 1 stated the signed order would then go to the transportation department. RN 1 stated that if they were not able to get the physician to sign the order prior to them leaving the building, the DT will follow up with the physician to get the order signed. On 5/1/25 at 11:26 AM, a request was made to Director of Nursing (DON) for the signed order for the referral to the orthopedic hand specialist. The DON provided the signed order dated 3/24/25. On 5/1/25 at 11:59 AM, an interview was conducted with the DON and Regional Nurse Consultant (RNC). The RNC stated that the DT needed to have a signed order before she could schedule an appointment with an outside provider. The DON stated that the floor nurse got the order from the physician when they were rounding on the residents. The DON stated that the floor nurse would enter the order then print the order to place it into the physician's box. The DON stated the physician would sign any orders that were in their box, once signed it was then placed in the transportation orders box located at the front nursing station. The DON stated that the DT looked in the box at least daily when she was in the facility. The RNC stated that only new appointments or referrals need to have a signed order. The RNC stated that residents that were already established with an outside provider did not need signed orders for any follow-up visits.
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 that the facility did not prevent misappropriation of a resident's medic...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility did not prevent misappropriation of a resident's medications for 1 of 28 sampled residents. Specifically, a resident had a nurse tell him he was getting his pain medication but was replacing it with another medication on multiple occasions. Resident identifier: 170. Findings included: Resident 170 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and discharged on 9/27/24 with diagnoses which included cerebral infarction due to embolism, acute and chronic respiratory failure, and chronic pain syndrome. Review of resident 170's records was completed on 4/28/25 through 5/1/25. A comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed that resident 170 had a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 14 which indicated intact cognition. A grievance placed on 9/9/24, by resident 170 to the Director of Social Services (DSS) revealed, [Resident 170] states that he has some concerns about his medications, he feels that he is being given the wrong medications from a particular nurse, [Registered Nurse (RN) 3]. The grievance was resolved on 9/10/24, by the Director of Nursing (DON), the DSS and the Administrator (ADM). After further investigation, it was determined that this grievance will be a self-report. On 9/13/24 at 6:06 PM, the ADM submitted Form 358 to the State Agency (SA) which revealed the following. On 9/13/24 at 4:15 PM, During a scheduled Care Conference with [resident 170] and his Daughters, [sic] they alleged that [RN 3] had given a different colored pill when requesting his narcotic. The alleged incident happened on 8/31/24 at 12:30 PM. Adult Protective Services (APS) was notified on 9/13/24 at 6:08 PM. On 5/6/24, a physician's order for oxycodone hydrochloride (HCl) Tablet 20 milligram (mg), give 20 mg by mouth every 4 hours as needed (PRN) for pain related to chronic pain syndrome was started. On 9/20/24 at 4:55 PM, the ADM submitted Form 359 - Follow-Up Investigation Report to the SA which revealed the following: Resident 170 was interviewed and claimed that on 8/31/24, he was getting ready to go out with his family and ask for his pain pill. What RN 3 gave him was not the correct color of his oxycodone, it was a tiny white pill. Resident 170 said That's not my Oxy. RN 3 said Yes it was. RN 3 made a comment about not needing these, they are bad for you. Resident 170 stated that he did not report the first incident on 8/31/24, to anyone because he did not want to get the nurse in trouble. Resident 170 just thought it was off and did not realize at that time that it could be foul play. When a second incident happened on 9/9/24, he talked to his daughter over the phone. Resident 170 and his daughter requested a care conference. On 9/13/24, resident 170 reported the two incidents to the facility. On 9/17/24, resident 170 stated that he would notice an upset stomach when RN 3 worked and he had forgotten to ask for the PRN oxycodone. Resident 170 denied any uncontrollable or increased pain during the reported incidents. Resident 170's daughter claimed she had witnessed RN 3 giving resident 170 a white pill on 8/31/24, when he asked for his pain meds. Resident 170's daughter thought it was weird but did not think much about it until resident 170 claimed it happened again on 9/9/24. Resident 170's daughter then asked for a meeting. On 9/13/24, resident 170's daughter made the concern known to the Interdisciplinary team (IDT). An interview with the suspected perpetrator on 9/20/24 documented the following, RN 3 stated she was instructed to put the medications into separated pill packs and label when to take them and put his pain medication into a separate pack with six pills that would last for the requested 24 hours. RN 3 stated she did as was instructed and had another nurse sign to verify the pain pills and the number she was sending, and we both signed for them, I explained the medication to resident 170's daughter, who seemed confused as to why I was not just sending cards of meds. RN 3 stated she explained to resident 170's daughter that it was just easier to keep track of what resident 170 was taking. RN 3 stated that resident 170's daughter seemed upset but finished signing out Resident 170's daughter went to resident 170 room to get him, and they left. RN 3 stated I believe I only took care of resident 170 one more time after that and did not have any interactions with resident 170's daughter. That day, resident 170 did not express any concerns, confusion or have questions about the medications given throughout the shift. RN 3 stated the next time she worked, I was approached by several staff telling me that resident 170's daughter was filling a complaint about his pain medication, saying that I had been giving him heart medication and not his pain medication, and that resident 170's daughter had witnessed this. RN 3 stated that I was also told that resident 170's daughter and resident 170 were telling other staff they were out to get my license. RN 3 stated that on these days, I do not recall resident 170's daughter ever being present when medications were administered. The facility verified the allegation of misappropriation of resident 170's medications. During the investigation, camera footage was reviewed by the DON and CNA (Certified Nursing Assistant) coordinator. It was determined that it is probable that Resident 170 was not administered his narcotic as alleged. RN 3 was observed accessing the narcotic drawer, withdrawing a bubble pack of medication, placing medication into her hand and then placing her hand in her pocket. On 9/13/24 RN 3 was placed on suspension pending investigation. On 9/17/24, RN 3 was reported to Division of Professional Licensing (DOPL). On 9/18/24, RN 3 was involuntary terminated due to a Code of Conduct Violation for Drug Diversion. On 1/24/25, APS submitted a completed investigation to SA which revealed the following: The facility the [sic] [resident 170] is at, gave him the wrong medications. He was told by the nurse she was getting pain meds, but she was just giving him more of his heart medications. The bottle of pills went empty before it should have, His doctor stated that overdose of heart medication was messing with his heart rate. They said they were giving him pain meds. She [sic] gave him something else. It [sic] is messing with his heart rate a lot. [Resident 170] has also been on pain meds for 20 years and has been experiencing withdrawals, he is not being given his pain meds. Closure Statement Narrative: The allegation of financial exploitation is being supported. [Resident 170] is a vulnerable adult who at the time of the visit has full capacity as it relates to the allegation . On 5/01/25 at 12:11 PM, an interview with the DON was conducted. The DON stated that resident 170 and his daughter had an IDT meeting about resident 170's missing his medications. The DON stated that as soon as the allegations were known they placed RN 3 on suspension pending an investigation. The DON stated that her and the CNA coordinator reviewed hours of video footage to see if they were able to see any suspicious activity. The DON stated that there was video footage showing RN 3 accessing the locked narcotic drawer, pulling out a blister pack, placing medication in her hand, then placing her hand in her pocket. The DON stated that they reported RN 3 to DOPL, and they came and did an investigation. The DON stated that the incident was also reported to APS and the Police Department, they both came and did an investigation. The DON stated that once the investigation was completed it was decided that RN 3 needed their employment terminated and that was done on 9/18/25.
CONCERN (D)

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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility did not ensure that each resident who needed respiratory care wa...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility did not ensure that each resident who needed respiratory care was provided such care consistent with professional standards of practice. Specifically, 1 out of 28 sample residents, did not have an order to change the oxygen tubing and humidifier. Resident identifier: 47 Findings included: Resident 47 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included, acute respiratory failure with hypoxia, epilepsy, and subarachnoid hemorrhage. On 4/28/25 at 9:57 AM, a concurrent interview and observation was made with resident 47. Resident 47 was observed in bed with a nasal cannula attached to an oxygen concentrator delivering 3 liters of oxygen. The nasal cannula was undated. Resident 47's portable oxygen tank had a nasal cannula attached that was undated and wrapped around the left wheel of the resident's wheelchair. Resident 47 stated that she did use oxygen. On 4/29/25 at 10:46 AM, an observation was made of resident 47's oxygen cannulas. Resident 47's nasal cannula connected to the concentrator was undated. Resident 47's nasal cannula attached to the portable oxygen tank was undated and placed on the seat of the wheelchair. On 4/30/25 at 8:29 AM, an interview was conducted with Registered Nurse (RN) 1. RN 1 stated that resident 47 did use oxygen. RN 1 stated that resident 47 had both an oxygen concentrator and a portable oxygen tank. RN 1 stated that facility nurses were responsible for changing and dating the nasal cannulas. RN 1 stated that the medical record for resident 47 should contain orders for the nurse to change the nasal cannulas; however, RN 1 was unable to locate the order for weekly changes. On 4/30/25 at 12:00 PM, an interview was conducted with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 1. CNA 1 stated that CNA's were only permitted to replace oxygen tanks and adjust nasal cannulas that were already in place on the residents. CNA 1 stated that nurses were in charge of changing out the nasal cannulas. On 4/30/25 at 12:03 PM, an interview was conducted with the Regional Nurse Consultant (RNC). The RNC stated that nurses were expected to change out nasal cannulas every Sunday and that there should be a physician's order to support that practice. The RNC stated that she would locate the order for changing the nasal cannulas for resident 47. It should be noted that no order for oxygen supplies was located in the medical record. On 4/30/25 at 12:04 PM, an interview was conducted with the Unit Manager (UM). The UM stated that the nursing night shift changed nasal cannulas on Sundays. The UM stated that all nasal cannulas should be dated. On 5/1/25 at 10:49 AM, a follow-up interview was conducted with the RNC. The RNC stated she had just entered the order for resident 47's nasal cannula to be changed. The RNC stated that the changes had not been occurring because no prior order was in the medical record.
CONCERN (D)

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

Staffing Information (Tag F0732)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation and interview, the facility did not have the nurse staffing information posted. The facility must post the nurse staffing data on a daily basis at the beginning of each shift and ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interview, the facility did not have the nurse staffing information posted. The facility must post the nurse staffing data on a daily basis at the beginning of each shift and maintain the posted daily nurse staffing data for a minimum of 18 months. Specifically, nurse staffing information was out of date and not posted on weekends. Findings include: On 4/28/25 at 8:31 AM, during the initial tour of the facility, the nurse staff posting was dated 4/23/25. On 4/30/25 at 11:52 AM, an interview was conducted with the Administrator (ADM). The ADM stated that the nurse staffing information was posted by the receptionist. On 4/30/25 at 11:55 AM an interview was conducted with the receptionist. The receptionist stated that she was out sick on 4/24/25 and 4/25/25 and no one else posted the daily staffing information during her absence. The receptionist stated that she worked Monday through Friday and that the daily nurse staffing information was not posted on weekends because the weekend receptionist did not know how. On 5/1/25 at 8:15 AM, a follow-up interview was conducted with the receptionist. The receptionist stated that for any weekend censuses or other daily censuses that were not posted, she completed them the following Monday and kept them in a binder.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0775 (Tag F0775)

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 28 sample residents, that the facility did not file, in 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 out of 28 sample residents, that the facility did not file, in the resident's clinical record, laboratory reports that were dated and contained the name and address of the testing laboratory. Specifically, a resident's laboratory results were not located in the electronic medical records. Resident identifier: 30 Findings included: Resident 30 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included type 2 diabetes, congestive heart failure, essential hypertension, schizoaffective disorder, bell's palsy, anxiety disorder, and depression. Resident 30's medical record was reviewed 4/28/25 through 5/1/25. A physician's order, dated 9/9/24, ordered a Complete Blood Count (CBC) every day shift starting on the 10th and ending on the 10th every month for Plavix/Eliquis Use. A physician's order, dated 4/16/25, ordered a CBC one time only related to . possible UTI [urinary tract infection]. No laboratory results could be located on resident 30 ' s electronic medical record for the CBC ordered on 11/10/24, 4/10/25, and 4/16/25. On 4/30/25 at 12:09 PM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON) and Medical Records. The DON stated that the laboratory utilized two electronic health record (EHR) applications. The DON stated the laboratory uploaded the laboratory results to both EHR applications. Medical Records stated that he had access to one of the EHR applications, but not the other EHR application. Medical Records stated he filed the laboratory results on the facility's electronic medical records when the laboratory results were uploaded to the EHR application that he had access to. The DON stated that the missing laboratory results for resident 30 were uploaded by the laboratory to only one of the EHR applications, and it was the EHR application that Medical Records did not have access to.
CONCERN (D)

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

Antibiotic Stewardship (Tag F0881)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, it was determined, for 2 or 28 sampled residents, the facility failed to keep an antibioti...

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 or 28 sampled residents, the facility failed to keep an antibiotic stewardship program that included antibiotics use protocols and a system to monitor all antibiotic use for all residents. Specifically, residents with orders for prophylaxis antibiotics were not monitored for their antibiotic use. Resident identifier: 23 and 28. Findings include: 1. Resident 23 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted [DATE] with diagnoses which included acquired deformity of left lower leg, type 2 diabetes mellitus, bipolar disorder, and personal history of urinary tract infections (UTI). Review of resident 23's records was completed on 4/29/25 through 5/1/25. A physician's order dated 10/20/24 documented, Keflex Oral Capsule 500 milligrams (mg) (Cephalexin) Give 1 capsule by mouth at bedtime for Prophylaxis for UTI. 2. Resident 28 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted [DATE] with diagnoses which included borderline personality disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, and long term use of antibiotics. Review of resident 28's records was completed on 4/29/25 through 5/1/25. A physician's order dated 3/29/23 documented, Cephalexin Oral Capsule 250 mg. Give 250 mg by mouth one time a day for prophylaxis for history (hx) of chronic UTI related to long term use of antibiotics. On 5/01/25 at 12:35 PM, an interview was conducted with the Infection Preventionist (IP). The IP stated that he did an antibiotic review for resident 28 about a year ago. The IP stated that resident 23 was recently put on prophylaxis antibiotics but unsure of when that was. The IP stated that when a resident was placed on a prophylaxis antibiotic he placed them on the infection tracking sheet for that month and that he did not carry the tracking over to future months. The IP stated that he did not have a tracking system for residents that are on long term antibiotics use. On 5/01/25 at 12:19 PM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated that she did not do any of the infection control monitoring. The DON stated the IP took care of all of the antibiotic stewardship.
CONCERN (E)

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review it was determined, for 2 of 28 sample residents, that the facility failed to ...

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 2 of 28 sample residents, that the facility failed to ensure that the resident environment remained as free of accident hazards as was possible and each resident received adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents. Specifically, two high fall risk residents did not have interventions put in place after multiple falls. Resident identifiers: 18 and 69. Findings included: Resident 69 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included but were not limited to dementia, hypotension, muscle weakness, morbid obesity, unsteadiness on feet, and need for assistance with personal care. Resident 69's medical record was reviewed 4/28/25 through 5/1/25. A Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] documented resident 69 was a one person physical assist with transfers, toileting and bed mobility. On 12/30/24, resident 69 was documented as a High Fall risk. A care plan focus dated 6/19/21 with a revision date of 2/16/25 revealed, [resident 69] has ADL [Activities of Daily Living] Self Care Performance Deficit r/t [related to]generalized weakness, obesity, confusion, forgetfulness, unspecified lack of coordination, need for assistance with personal care, unsteadiness on feet. ADL assistance level needs vary at times depending on resident behavior and needs. Resident 69's progress notes were reviewed and revealed the following: a. 1/31/25 at 11:40 PM, Pt [patient] was found lying next to bed requesting help to get up at 2320 [11:20 PM] on 01/31/2025. 4 employees assisted Pt back into bed where a skin and neurological assessment was performed. No skin alterations noted at the moment. Pt stated I'm okay when questions about pain. Pt is currently resting in bed with call light and water within reach. Neuros were restarted with current vitals of BP [blood pressure]: 146/77, Pulse: 100, Temp [temperature]: 97.9, Oxygen saturations of 93/3L [liters] and Respirations of 18. Family and Provider notified with no new orders at the moment. b. 2/1/25 at 6:50 PM, CNA [Certified Nursing Assistant] found resident on floor in his room. CNA reported that resident was trying to get from wheelchair to bed. RN [registered nurse] assessed resident, no injuries observed. Resident denies any pain. Helped resident back into bed. Vital sign monitoring started, neuro checks started. AAOx2 [alert and oriented times 2].PERRLA [pupils equal round reactive and accommodating]. VSS [vital signs stable]. c. 2/2/25 at 7:11 AM, Resident was yelling out this morning at 0605 [6:05 AM], RN went to assess resident and a second prior to walking in, RN heard a smack and found resident lying on the floor next to his bed. It appeared resident hit his head hard. RN and CNA's quickly helped resident back into bed. No injuries observed. Resident denied any head pain. HR [heart rate] was elevated at 124 and oxygen was 78% [percent] on 2L of O2 [oxygen]. RN increased oxygen to 3L and gave resident 1 dose of albuterol. Oxygen increased to 85%. On call provider [name omitted] notified, given that resident has fallen 4x in the last 40 hours provider wanted resident sent out to the hospital . No new fall prevention interventions were documented in the medical record after each of these falls. On 4/30/25 at 2:41 PM, an interview was conducted with RN 4. RN 4 stated she was the nurse who entered resident 69's room right after he had fallen o 2/1/25. RN 4 stated resident 69 was fighting a cold and was not feeling well. RN 4 stated resident 69 had fallen a couple of times the day before and she was unaware of any new interventions that had been put into place after the falls. RN 4 stated the resident was not on continuous observation. RN 4 stated resident 69 was a full assist at that time during his stay. On 4/30/25 at 2:54 PM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON) and the Corporate Resource Nurse (CRN) who stated neuro checks were done on any resident who fell and hit their head or had an unwitnessed fall. They stated the resident's was already in a low bed and in a room near the nurses station. They stated staff were always in resident 69's room but did not provide any new interventions that were put into place for the falls on 1/31/25 and 2/1/25. Per the resident record, resident 69's was in a room down the hallway from the nurses station. On 5/1/25 at 10:27 AM, a follow up interview as conducted with the DON and the CRN who stated resident 69 was sent to the hospital for a change of condition not for the falls. They stated they just did not have time to update the care plan since his falls happened so closely together. 2. Resident 18 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included, epilepsy, other deformity of the brain, unsteadiness on feet, difficulty walking, and muscle weakness. On 5/4/24 a fall risk assessment was completed in resident 18. Resident 18 scored a 12 which indicated a high risk for falls. A review of resident 18's medical records revealed the following falls and interventions: a. On 5/30/24 resident 18 slipped while in the shower and was assisted to the ground. The intervention that was put in place was to apply a non-slip shower mat in shower room. b. On 10/10/24 resident 18 was trying to reach for his electric razor and fell down. The intervention that was put into place was education on using the call light and proper footwear. c. On 11/12/24 resident 18 slipped out of his wheelchair while reaching for something on the ground. The intervention that was put into place was to have occupational therapy (OT) assist resident 18 with dynamic sitting and the use of a reacher. d. On 12/26/24 resident 18 fell out of his wheelchair while bending over to grab something. The intervention that was put into place was education on the use of the reacher that was previously given to him and to lock the brakes on his wheelchair. It should be noted that the use of the reacher was the intervention for the fall that occurred on 11/12/24. e. On 2/7/25 resident 18 experienced a fall when he ambulated on his own and slipped on the floor. The intervention that was put into place was to provide education on the use of non-skid socks and proper footwear. It should be noted that proper footwear was the intervention for the fall that occurred on 10/10/24. f. On 3/29/25 resident 18 experienced a fall while trying to reach for a garbage bag. The intervention that was put in place was to increase OT to focus on reaching out base of support. g. On 4/16/25 resident 18 experienced a fall he stood up and bent down to reach his activities punch card from under his wheelchair. The intervention that was put into place was to not store his punch care under the wheelchair and to have a rubber band provider for storage to the arm of the chair. On 4/30/25 at 11:09 AM, an interview was conducted with RN 1. RN 1 stated that resident 18 had undergone a brain procedure that caused cognitive delays. RN 1 stated that resident 18 was a fall risk and experienced multiple falls while at the facility. RN 1 stated that the resident often attempted to act independently, had difficulty following instructions, and struggled to retain education. RN 1 stated that resident 18 frequently forgot to use his call light and often fell while trying to bend over. On 5/1/25 at 8:31 AM, an interview was conducted with the DON. The DON stated that resident 18 required frequent prompting and was impulsive, which had contributed to some of his falls. The DON stated that resident 18 was unaware of his physical limitations and would often lean forward and fall. The DON stated that resident 18 liked to get up quickly and valued his independence, but needed constant reminders. On 5/1/25 at 8:42 AM, an interview was conducted with the Regional Nurse Consultant (RNC). The RNC stated that resident 18 had the right to fall, but interventions needed to be done to prevent falls rather than be repeated. The RNC stated that resident 18 needed constant reminders because of his poor impulse control. On 5/1/25 at 10:31 AM, a follow-up interview was conducted with the RNC. The RNC stated that the facility should have implemented different interventions and resident 18's Plan of Care was not enough to prevent falls.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0728 (Tag F0728)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on interview and record review, the facility did not ensure that any individual working in the facility as a nurse aide for more than 4 months, on a full-time basis, was competent to provide nur...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility did not ensure that any individual working in the facility as a nurse aide for more than 4 months, on a full-time basis, was competent to provide nursing and nursing related services; and completed a training and competency program, or a competency evaluation program approved by the State. Specifically, Nurse Aides (NA) were employed at the facility, for over 4 months without completion of training and competency evaluation program. Findings include: On 4/30/25 NA 1's employee record was reviewed. NA 1 was hired on 9/3/24 as a NA. NA 1 was still employed as a NA and the last day worked was on 4/29/25. On 4/30/25 NA 2's employee record was reviewed. NA 2 was hired on 9/9/24 as a NA. NA 2 was still employed as a NA and the last day worked was on 4/11/25. On 4/30/25 NA 3's employee record was reviewed. NA 3 was hired on 5/3/25 and received his certification on 3/18/25. NA 3's last day of work as a NA at the facility was 3/16/25. On 4/30/25 NA 4's employee record was reviewed. NA 4 was hired on 9/4/24. NA 4 was still employed as a NA and the last day worked was on 4/10/25. NA's 1, 2, and 4 were not certified as nursing assistants. On 5/1/25 at 8:23 AM, an interview was conducted with the Administrator (ADM). The ADM stated that the CNA (Certified Nursing Assistant) Coordinator was responsible for scheduling the Certified Nurse Assistants and the NA's. On 5/1/25 at 9:59 AM, an interview was conducted with the CNA Coordinator. The CNA Coordinator stated that NA's have 120 days from their hire date to become certified. The CNA Coordinator stated that she had to take some of the NA's off the schedule for this week because they were not certified and had worked past their 120 days.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0804 (Tag F0804)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility did not provide food that was palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature. Specifically, for 7 out of 28 sampled re...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility did not provide food that was palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature. Specifically, for 7 out of 28 sampled resident, residents complained of the quality and temperature of the food, food was being fortified with a squirt of cold milk or splash of butter on the already prepared food, a test tray was not palatable and the food was cold. Resident identifiers: 19, 29, 35, 39, 41, 47 and 59. Findings include: 1. On 4/28/25 at 9:57 AM, an interview was conducted with resident 47. Resident 47 stated that she was on a specialized diet of minced and moist food. Resident 47 stated that the food tasted pretty gross. Resident 47 stated that she was given mashed potatoes in the shape of a hot dog that tasted bad and looked awful. 2. On 4/28/25 at 10:00 AM, an interview was conducted with resident 59 who stated the food was usually cold. 3. On 4/28/25 at 10:29 AM, an interview was conducted with resident 39. Resident 39 stated that sometimes the food served at the facility was pretty bad. 4. On 4/28/25 at 10:40 AM, an interview was conducted with resident 35 who stated the food is almost always cold, many times it doesn't have the heated plate underneath it. The chicken and the potatoes are ice cold, anything fried is never, ever warm. For breakfast the toast is not warm and the butter is not put onto the toast. 5. On 4/28/25 at 10:54 AM, an interview was conducted with resident 19. Resident 19 stated that the food was not that great and tasted very bland. 6. On 4/28/25 at 1:48 PM, an interview was conducted with resident 29. Resident 29 stated that the food was often cold. 7. On 4/28/25 at 2:27 PM, an interview was conducted with resident 41. Resident 41 stated that the food that is served is not the best and sometimes comes cold. During tray line service on 4/30/25 at 12:53 PM, [NAME] 1 was observed to squirt cold milk onto the prepared food that was already plated. An immediate interview was conducted with [NAME] 1 who stated a squirt of milk was put on those plates of the residents who needed fortification. [NAME] 1 stated the milk was kept cold in water while waiting to be used. On 5/1/25 at 12:30 PM, the DM was observed to serve the lunch tray line. The DM was observed to drizzle butter on the plates of those residents who needed fortification. On 5/1/25 at 12:22 PM, an observation was made of resident 47 tray. Resident 47 was given couscous, pureed chicken with gravy and pureed broccoli. The DM was observed to use a brush and drizzle butter over the meat two different times. The butter could be observed to pool on the plate around the meat and broccoli. On 5/1/25 at 8:09 AM, an interview was conducted with the DM. The DM stated they add butter, milk and sugar for fortification that is added while we are preparing the food. The DM gave the example that they would add a spoonful of butter for a cup of oatmeal. The DM stated for lunch or dinner they would add it over the top of the prepared food because they did not have enough space to add it prior. The DM stated they had a bottle of cold milk that they would squirt a little on the fortified plates. The DM stated it was not measured so they did not know exactly how many calories the residents were receiving. On 5/01/25 at 9:25 AM, a follow up interview was conducted with the DM. The DM stated for pureed diets they processed the chicken in the blender, resident 47 could not have rice so couscous was substituted, the vegetables were also processed in the blender. The DM stated the couscous would have added butter and the chicken will have whole milk added. The DM stated they had a bottle of the milk and they would squirt some milk over the food, the milk was not measured out. On 5/1/25 at 12:56 PM, an observation was made of the hall trays exiting the kitchen. A fortified pureed test tray was requested. At 12:59 PM, the following foods temperatures were obtained [Note: All temperatures were in degrees Fahrenheit.]: a. Chicken - 98.2 b. Couscous - 132.1 c. Broccoli - 100.8 The pureed chicken was cold to the taste and oily from the butter that was used for fortification. The couscous was bland. The broccoli was cool to the taste. On 5/1/25 at 1:25 PM, an interview was conducted with the DM. The DM stated that milk was not used as fortification today, only butter. The DM stated she was unaware that the residents did not like some of the food and that they thought the food was not warm enough.
CONCERN (E)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation and interview, it was determined that the facility did not store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. Specificall...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interview, it was determined that the facility did not store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. Specifically, there were unlabeled and undated food items stored in the kitchen, there was food stored on the floor in the kitchen, meat was improperly stored in the walk-in refrigerator, staff cellphones and beverages were stored in food preparation areas, and staff did not serve food in a hygienic manner. Findings Include: On 4/28/25 at 8:41 AM, an initial observation of the kitchen was conducted. On 4/28/25 at 8:47 AM, an observation was made of the walk in refrigerator. There was an undated, unlabeled liquid in a 22 quart container. There was an opened box of bacon stored on a shelf above open boxes of bananas and oranges. There were multiplied carafes of juice that were not labeled or dated on the top shelf of the refrigerator. On 4/28/25 at 8:50 AM, an observation was made of the kitchen's dry storage room. There was a #10 can of beets sitting on the floor of the dry storage. There was a large rolling storage bin full of dry rice. The bin was not labeled or dated. On 4/28/25 at 8:52 AM, an observation was made of the food preparation area of the kitchen. There were 5 plastic bins full of cereal. The bins were labeled, cherios [sic], mini wheat, raisin brand, corn flakes, and rice crispy. None of the 5 bins were labeled with dates. There was a cellphone stored on top of a food preparation table. There were also two staff drink cups with no lids stored on a food preparation table. On 4/30/25 at 11:51 AM, a follow up observation of the kitchen was conducted. There was a cellphone and two staff drink cups stored on a food preparation table. There were cleaning supplies stored in the same room as potatoes, onions, and sweet potatoes. On 4/20/25 at 12:07 PM, an observation was made of staff plating meals for the lunch time meal service. [NAME] 1 was observed touching plates used to serve meals to residents with dirty gloves that had touched other surfaces. [NAME] 1 was observed touching food on the plates, the plate covers, meal tickets, and the faces of the plates. On 4/30/25 at 12:09 PM, water was observed dripping from a ceiling vent onto the plate warmer. On 4/30/25 at 12:25 PM, [NAME] 1 was observed touching a shelf that scoops were stored on, then touched the faces of several plates. [NAME] 1 then touched an electrical cord that was plugged into the ceiling and then touched the faces of several plates. On 5/1/25 at 8:01 AM, an interview was conducted with the Dietary Manager (DM). The DM stated that when food is delivered to the facility, a staff member will date and label items with the received date. The DM stated that kitchen staff should not have drinks or personal items in cooking or preparation areas of the kitchen. The DM stated that food should not be stored on the floor of the kitchen. The DM stated that that meat should never be stored above produce in the refrigerator and that it should always be stored below everything. The DM stated that bins of rice or cereal should be dated and labeled. The DM stated that staff should not touch other surfaces before touching food or surfaces of plates.
May 2024 2 deficiencies 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Deficiency F0603 (Tag F0603)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review it was determined, for 1 of 7 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 7 sampled residents, that the facility did not ensure that the resident had the right to be free from abuse including involuntary seclusion. Specifically, the resident was seeking egress from a room and was denied the right to exit by facility staff. Resident identifier 2. Findings included: Resident 2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included Parkinson's disease, congestive heart failure, atrial flutter, type II diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney disease, morbid obesity, chronic pain, difficulty with walking, polyneuropathy, hypertension, obstructive sleep apnea, and thrombocytopenia. Resident 2 was discharged from the facility on 3/30/24. On 12/30/23, resident 2's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment documented that the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, which would indicate that the resident was cognitively intact. The assessment documented that resident 2 required an extensive one-person assist for bed mobility, transfers, and toilet use. Resident 2's progress notes revealed the following: a. On 2/16/24 at 12:08 PM, the social service (SS) note documented, SS followed up with the pt [patient] about the recent self-report that the pt has opened. During this follow up, the pt mentioned that the incident triggered a deeper trauma for her. SS offered a safe space for the pt to share her thoughts and feelings. The pt proceeded to open up to SS about her past traumatic experiences. SS explained that it is standard practice for SS to update a pt's care plans (in PCC) when informed about pt's trauma triggers. The pt then requested that SS not document the trauma in her medical records. The pt stated she did not want to discuss this trauma with anyone else. SS offered the pt mental health counseling services, the pt declined the offer. Pt has not mentioned to SS previously about her trauma, pt has denied having trauma during her quarterly SS assessments. b. On 2/17/24 at 9:58 AM, the SS note documented, SS checked in on [resident 2]. She has been emotional the past few days. Discussed her feelings and her personal healing journey. Pt seems to be improving emotionally. Wants to move forward with forgiveness. On 2/14/24 at 11:00 AM, the facility reported an incident of mental/verbal abuse had occurred between resident 2 and the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON). The facility abuse investigation documented that the ADON brought resident 2 into his office on 2/14/24 to address a concern brought up by a Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA). The concern was that [resident 2] was asking staff about a staff member who may have received disciplinary action that is not appropriate to discuss with a resident. [Registered Nurse (RN) 1] was present during the conversation between [ADON] and the resident. During this discussion, [resident 2] voiced she attempted to leave the office. [ADON] stood up and stood in front of the door stating , 'No we need to finish this conversation' [Resident 2] reported feeling distress as a result of this event. On 2/15/24, the Administrator (ADM) documented an interview with resident 2. Resident 2 stated that the ADON asked her to come into his office. He was talking over her and not letting her speak. She told him that if he wasn't going to let her talk then she was leaving. She said she started opening the door and he shut it. He blocked her from leaving. He told her she couldn't leave until they finished their conversation. She brought up her past trauma with her ex-husband and [ADON's] posture and demeanor reminded her of him and it triggered it to resurface. She stated [ADON] called her a 'gossip' and 'busybody.' She stated that [ADON] threatened he would give her a room change if she couldn't stop her gossiping. On 2/15/24, the ADM typed statement from the ADON documented, On 2/14/24 [Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) 1] came to my office, visibly upset, and stated that the resident [resident 2] had been going around asking staff about an incident she was involved in. She said that another CNA, [CNA 2] had come to her and told her the information that the resident was asking about. [CNA 1] said that the resident was telling others that she should have been fired. I told her that I would speak with the resident. I asked the resident to come to my office. I had also asked [RN 1], another nurse manager, to attend with me. Because of the nature of the conversation, I closed the office door. The resident was in a power wheelchair and was sitting next to the door. [RN1] and I were in office chairs at the desks in the office. I started explaining to the resident that she is a resident here and anything that happens with staff discipline at the facility is not of concern to her. At this point, the resident was trying to interject and tell her side of the story, but I was not finished speaking and she felt that I was not letting her talk. She said she was done talking with us and wanted to leave. Not knowing her history of trauma, I stood up to go to the door to stop her from leaving so we could finish the conversation. I then sat back down, and she informed us that we were 'kidnapping me' and 'holding me against my will.' I told her I just wanted to finish the conversation so she could understand that disciplinary action of the staff cannot be discussed with the residents. She admitted that she asked the CNA for information. We also asked about her reasoning for asking staff for more information. [Resident 2] expressed that she felt like since she had been with us for so long, we were all like family and that she should be able to know what's going on in the facility. At that point, I got up out of my chair and assisted her in opening the office door. It was not my intention to upset [resident 2], I was only trying to address the concern that was upsetting to the staff member. I did not call her a 'gossip' or 'busybody.' We discussed gossip and the potential negative impact it can have. We discussed a possible room change as she referred to 'hearing nurses talk' if this was something she wanted to do. I did not threaten her with a room change because she gossips. On 2/15/24, the facility investigation documented an interview with RN 1 that was conducted by the Social Services Director (SSD). The interview documented that RN 1 reported, that the conversation was relatively passionate on both sides. She said that [ADON] was being stern and blunt in an attempt to address the above-mentioned staff concern. [Resident 2] responded in a verbally aggressive manner. Defensiveness on both sides was observed, due to both wanted to be heard. When asked about the conversation, contrary to what [resident 2] reported, [RN 1] said that [ADON] gave [resident 2] adequate time to respond and was not talking over her as [resident 2] reported. [Resident 2] felt like she wasn't being listened to and moved to leave out the door. [RN1] confirmed that [ADON] did move to stand in front of the door but reported it wasn't for more than 10 seconds and it wasn't done in a way to trap [resident 2], but to convey that he was hoping for resolution to the concern. She confirmed the door was shut as they entered the office due to the conversation's confidential nature. [RN 1] stated that at no time did she feel [ADON's] intentions were to cause distress to [resident 2]. She denied that [ADON] called [resident 2] a 'gossip' or 'busybody' as per [resident 2's] statement. [RN 1] also denied that [ADON] threatened [resident 2] with a room change if she can't control her gossiping. She stated that [ADON] offered a room change as an option if [resident 2] was concerned about staff conversations at the nurse's station. On 2/14/24, the facility investigation documented an interview with the SSD. The documentation did not specify who was conducting the interview. The interview documented that the Social Services Administrative Assistant (SSAA) was present as a witness. The interview documented, [Resident 2] came in and said she had a grievance. SS asked what was going on. She explained that she had an interaction with [ADON] that was uncomfortable and that she did not like his demeanor. From her report, the conversation got heated (she didn't go into many details during this first meeting), and voices were raised. At one point she tried to leave the conversation and [ADON] went to the door and said something along the lines of, 'No we're going to finish this conversation.' From there, she felt triggered because it reminded her of past trauma she has had with her son and her ex-husband. The posture [ADON] had reminded her of her ex-husband and standing in front of the doorway reminded her of why her son went to prison. The conclusion of the facility abuse investigation was not verified. The actions taken by [ADON] were found to be inappropriate. The investigation did not support, however, that his actions were malicious or that he intended to cause distress to the resident. Further, it is not supported that [ADON] called the residents names or that he threatened the resident with a room change if she cannot stop gossiping. On 5/22/24 at 11:40 AM, an interview was conducted with the SSD. The SSD stated that resident 2 reported the incident with the ADON to her. The SSD stated that the incident with the ADON had triggered resident 2 about an incident in her personal life with her ex-husband. The SSD stated that she offered resident 2 resources such as counseling, a trauma care plan, and informing other staff. The SSD stated that resident 2 mentioned a deeper trauma with her ex-husband, but the SSD refused to disclose what resident 2 stated to her. The SSD stated that the ADM was present when resident 2 reported her past trauma. The SSD stated that the incident with the ADON was when he stood in front of the door blocking her exit, and this action made resident 2 recall her husband's mannerisms. The SSD stated that resident 2 reported that the ADON blocked her from leaving the room. Her interpretation was that she was being held in the room and not allowed to go out. That is what triggered her PTSD [Post Traumatic Stress Disorder] about her husband. The SSD stated she asked resident 2 if she needed counseling services. The SSD stated that resident 2 had never mentioned in past assessments that she had this previous trauma, and she did not have any past mental health services. The SSD stated that she thought resident 2 felt frustrated by the situation and wanted to be able to express her feelings. The SSD stated that resident 2 was tearful when she talked about her ex-husband. The SSD stated that resident 2 reported that the interaction with the ADON made her feel trapped and she was being forced to stay in the room. The SSD stated that the deeper problem was that the incident triggered her past history of trauma and abuse. On 5/22/24 at 1:13 PM, an interview was conducted with RN 1. RN 1 stated that the ADON pulled her into the office to be a witness to the conversation with resident 2. RN 1 stated that the ADON shut the door to the office during the discussion with resident 2. RN 1 stated that resident 2 was asking about a staff member, and resident 2 wanted to get an aide fired because of an incident. RN 1 stated that the ADON told resident 2 that it was none of her business and why was she asking about it. RN 1 stated that resident 2 stated she was leaving, and the ADON stood in the doorway and said you're not leaving until we talk about this. RN 1 stated that the ADON stood in the doorway blocking resident 2 for maybe 3 seconds and then he sat back down. RN 1 stated that resident 2 and the ADON were both upset and talking loudly. RN 1 stated that they were not yelling but talked in raised voices. RN 1 stated that resident 2 seemed upset, she was uneasy and frustrated. RN 1 stated that at the end of the conversation resident 2 asked if she could go and the ADON opened the door for her to exit. RN 1 stated that in her opinion the ADON prevented resident 2 from leaving when she wanted to leave. RN 1 stated that the whole thing made her feel uncomfortable, and she did not like how either of them were talking to each other. RN 1 stated that the ADON meant business, but it was inappropriate for him to talk to her in that manner. RN 1 stated that she was not sure if resident 2 felt threatened but maybe intimidated. RN 1 stated that the ADON was trying to get his point across very seriously that it was not the resident's business to dig around in other people's business. RN 1 stated that resident 2 seemed upset. RN 1 stated that later that same day she asked resident 2 how she was and the resident replied by calling the ADON an expletive. RN 1 stated that resident 2's room was across from the nurse's station, and she was nosey and would ask about what she heard said. RN 1 stated that the ADON did call resident 2 a busybody. RN 1 stated that resident 2 responded with something like I want to know what's going on with the people taking care of me, and that it was her home. RN 1 stated that resident 2's excuse was that she knows things because her room was across from the nurse's station and he said okay we'll move your room. RN 1 stated that she did not think resident 2 would have wanted to move rooms, and it was possible that resident 2 could have interpreted that as a form of punishment. RN 1 stated that resident 2 had lived there for a while, and it would have been an inconvenience to move rooms. On 5/22/24 at 2:09 PM, an interview was conducted with the ADM. The ADM stated that it was reported that resident 2 was asking staff about situations with other residents and another staff, and she was trying to gossip. She liked to go around and know what was going on. The ADM stated that the ADON pulled resident 2 aside with RN 1 to address it. The ADM stated that the ADON reported he explained that he was addressing the situation with the resident to understand privacy and how it impacted other people. The ADM stated that the ADON basically stated what had happened, stood up and redirected resident 2, and sat back down and they talked. The ADM stated that resident 2 went to SSD to file a grievance against the ADON. The ADM stated that resident 2 told him about her ex-husband and how the ADON's posture reminded her of him. It resurfaced some past trauma. The ADM stated that resident 2 reported that the ADON had called her a gossip and busybody, and he threatened to move rooms if she did not stop gossiping. The ADM stated that resident 2 reported that the ADON had blocked her from leaving the room. The ADM stated, I don't believe they were yelling but there were raised voices. It was a conversation with some emotion. The ADM stated that the ADON's demeanor and how he was communicating with resident 2 triggered some past trauma responses of verbal abuse. The ADM stated that resident 2 had said that they were kidnapping her and this was in response to him blocking her exit and standing in front the door. The ADM stated that RN 1 reported that the ADON did step in front of the door to stop the resident from leaving but it was no more than 10 seconds. The ADM stated that he spoke with resident 2 afterwards and she wanted to know that it was being handled and investigated. The ADM stated that he told resident 2 that the ADON was suspended, and they were providing education based on the situation. On 5/22/24 at 2:36 PM, an interview was conducted with the ADON. The ADON stated that he had heard that resident 2 was going around talking about an incident that she was not involved in. The ADON stated that a staff member came to him upset and crying, she had heard on the floor that resident 2 was talking about her. The ADON stated that he brought resident 2 into the office to talk to her and it did not go well. The ADON stated that he had learned after the fact that resident 2 had been in an abusive relationship. The ADON stated that during his conversation with resident 2 he had the door shut and the resident felt trapped with the door closed. The ADON stated that resident 2 had said it was entrapment. She knew it because her son was in prison for it. The ADON stated that resident 2 did not want to stay, she wanted to go. The ADON stated that when he got up to go to the door resident 2 thought he was blocking her. The ADON stated he should have stopped the conversation and let her out. The ADON stated that resident 2 was name calling, and called him an asshole. The ADON stated that at the time he did not think to stop the conversation. The ADON stated that the conversation appeared to bother resident 2. The residents demeanor was fine when she entered, it changed when they told her what they were talking about. The ADON stated that he did not recall calling resident 2 a busybody. The ADON stated that resident 2's room was across from the nurse's station, and they talked about a room change so she would not be close to the nurses station. The ADON stated he did not tell her he would move her room if she did not stop gossiping, no I don't believe so. The ADON stated that while he spoke to resident 2 the tone of his voice was stern, and it could have been taken the wrong way. The ADON stated that he did not think his voice was threatening. The ADON stated that he should have left it for someone else to talk to her, and probably should not have done it in a closed area. The ADON stated that when resident 2 said she felt entrapped they should have ended the conversation and let her out. The ADON stated that he did not end the conversation because it was a problem they had with her since she had been there, the gossiping and wanting to know everything. The ADON stated that this situation had nothing to do with resident 2. I didn't feel like it was none of her business (sic). The ADON stated that resident 2 was probably not receptive to the conversation after she said that she was entrapped, stating I should have let her go. The ADON stated that resident 2 went and talked to SSD about it, and they came and talked to him. The ADON stated that the SSD told him that resident 2 had a previous history of an abusive relationship. The ADON stated that he was suspended the day of the incident and returned to work 3 to 5 days later. The ADON stated that he had training on the types of abuse and it covered involuntary seclusion. The ADON stated that involuntary seclusion was if you put someone in their room or locked them in a room but nothing covered a resident being held against their will. The ADON stated that management suggested that he write a letter of apology to resident 2, and he explained where he was coming from and why it may have gone the way it did. Review of the facility Policy and Procedure on Reporting Alleged Violations of Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation or Mistreatment documented It is the policy of the Facility that each resident has the right to be free from abuse, neglect, misappropriation of resident property, exploitation and mistreatment. This includes but is not limited to freedom from corporal punishment, involuntary seclusion and any physical or chemical restraint not required to treat the resident's medical symptoms. The policy further defined involuntary seclusion as Separation of a resident from other residents or from his/her room or confinement to his/her room (with or without roommates) against the resident's will, or the will of the resident's representative. The policy was last revised on 11/28/17.
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 1 of 7 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 1 of 7 sampled residents, that the facility did not ensure that all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, exploitation or mistreatment, were reported immediately, but not later than 2 hours after the allegation was made if the events that cause the allegation involved abuse to the administrator of the facility, the State Survey Agency (SSA) and Adult Protective Services (APS). Specifically, an allegation of abuse was not reported to the SSA or APS within 2 hours of the allegation being made. Resident identifier 2. Findings included: Resident 2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included Parkinson's disease, congestive heart failure, atrial flutter, type II diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney disease, morbid obesity, chronic pain, difficulty with walking, polyneuropathy, hypertension, obstructive sleep apnea, and thrombocytopenia. Resident 2 was discharged from the facility on 3/30/24. On 2/14/24 at 11:00 AM, the facility reported an incident of mental/verbal abuse had occurred between resident 2 and the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON). The facility abuse investigation documented that the ADON brought resident 2 into his office on 2/14/24 to address a concern brought up by a Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA). The concern was that [resident 2] was asking staff about a staff member who may have received disciplinary action that is not appropriate to discuss with a resident. [Registered Nurse (RN) 1] was present during the conversation between [ADON] and the resident. During this discussion, [resident 2] voiced she attempted to leave the office. [ADON] stood up and stood in front of the door stating , 'No we need to finish this conversation' [Resident 2] reported feeling distress as a result of this event. On 2/15/24 at 2:30 PM, the SSA was notified of the allegation of abuse on form 358 Facility Reported Incidents. It should be noted that the incident was reported to the SSA 27.5 hours after the allegation was made. On 2/22/24 at 1:11 PM, APS was notified of the allegation of Suspected Dependent Adult/Elder Abuse. It should be noted that the incident was reported to APS eight days after the allegation was made. On 5/22/24 at 2:09 PM, an interview was conducted with the Administrator (ADM). The ADM stated that he believed that he submitted the initial report to the SSA timely according to regulations. The ADM stated that he thought he had 24 hours to report because the allegation did not result in serious bodily injury. [Cross-refer F603]
Jul 2023 14 deficiencies 2 IJ (2 affecting multiple)
CRITICAL (K) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

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.
Feb 2022 3 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, it was determined for 1 of 33 sample residents, that the facility did not dev...

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 33 sample residents, that the facility did not develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan consistent with the resident rights that included measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs that were identified in the comprehensive assessment. Specifically, a resident's care plan was not current regarding falls and pain. Resident identifier: 49. Findings include: Resident 49 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included epilepsy, convulsions, seizures, schizoaffective disorder, borderline personality disorder, anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, and need for assistance with personal care. On 2/7/22 at 11:16 AM, an interview was conducted with Resident 49. Resident 49 stated she had fallen while in the facility, but could't remember when because her seizures had caused the falls. Resident 49 stated she had current pain in her left hip up to her spine. Resident 49 stated she rated her pain at an 8 out of 10. [A pain score of 1, being minimal pain and a score of 10, being very intense pain.] Resident 49 stated she receives Tylenol for pain, which she stated she received at about 10:00 AM. Resident 49 stated the Tylenol helped some, but she stated that Tylenol didn't work as well to relieve her pain as when she was receiving Tramadol for pain. Resident 49's medical record was reviewed on 2/8/22. Since Resident 49's most recent admission on [DATE], Resident 49 had falls on 6/21/21, 7/2/21, 7/7/21, 8/1/21, 8/3/21, 10/20/21, and 12/2/21. Resident 49's care plan included actual fall Focus areas, Goals and Interventions for each of the falls listed above, however, they were all marked RESOLVED. Resident 49's care plan included an unresolved Focus for FALL RISK: [Resident 49] is At risk for falls r/t (related to) Antidepressant use and seizure activity. It was initiated on 1/2/18 with a revision on 12/10/21. The Goal was, Will be free of falls through the review date. It was initiated on 1/2/18 with a target date of 4/26/22. There were six Interventions listed that were initiated 1/2/18 and only one additional intervention initiated on 10/22/21. Note: There were no other current active interventions following Resident 49's falls listed above, except for her fall on 10/20/21. On 2/9/22 at 9:54 AM, an interview was conducted with Registered Nurse (RN) 2. RN 2 stated that all falls from the previous day are reviewed by the Falls IDT (Interdisciplinary Team). RN 2 stated that the Falls IDTreviewed and discussed each fall to determine what fall prevention intervention are appropriate for each resident to reduce falls or injuries. RN 2 stated she participated in the Falls IDT and when fall prevention interventions are decided on, she updates the residents' care plans with those fall prevention interventions. RN 2 stated that the new fall prevention interventions are communicated to staff during shift change report or during shift huddles that occur during a shift where the unit manager gathers all staff to discuss important resident care issues. On 2/8/22 at 1:39 PM, an interview was conducted with Resident 49. Resident 49 stated she currently had back pain and stated the Tylenol was not enough to relieve the pain in her back. On 2/8/22 at 1:42 PM, an interview was conducted with RN 1. RN 1 stated that Resident 49 was having frequent seizures, multiple times per week. RN 1 stated that when their facility's new Medical Director (MD) took over Resident 49's care in December 2021, he discontinued the opioid, Tramadol for pain. RN 1 stated that Resident 49's seizures reduced dramatically following that change. On 2/9/22 at 9:21 AM, an interview was conducted with the facility's MD. The MD stated that after reviewing resident 49's medications, that Resident 49 didn't have a condition requiring an opioid, like Tramadol so he discontinued it hoping that she would have less seizures. The MD stated the seizures did decrease after discontinuing the Tramadol. The MD stated he had been following Resident 49's use of PRN (as needed/requested) Tylenol and pain scores. The MD stated that the Resident 49's pain scores remained low and that she was not requesting it as frequently as it was available. The MD stated he thought the Tylenol was adequately managing Resident 49's pain. Resident 49's current care plan included an unresolved Focus for OPIOID: Is currently prescribed an Opioid for pain; potential for adverse outcomes from opioid use +traMADol HCI (hydrochloride) Tablet 50 MG (milligrams) -Increased risk for falls It was initiated on 9/30/21. Residents 49's opioid medication, Tramadol HCl 50 MG by mouth every 6 hours as needed for pain was discontinued 12/16/21. Note: Resident 49's care plan for opioid us was not modified or resolved. Resident 49's care plan included an unresolved Focus for PAIN: Has chronic pain r/t generalized pain-chronic headaches It was initiated on 1/2/18 and revised on 4/26/18. The Goal was, Will verbalize adequate relief of pain or ability to cope with incompletely relieved pain through the review date. It was initiated on 1/2/18 with a target date of 4/26/22. It included five interventions that were all initiated 1/2/18 with no updates or revisions. On 2/9/22 at 11:24 AM, an interview was conducted with the facility's Director of Nursing (DON). Resident 49's care plan was reviewed with the DON. The DON stated she did not know why all of the Fall prevention interventions for actual falls were marked as RESOLVED. The DON stated she did not know why the Focus area for Opioid use had not been resolved following resident's Tramadol being discontinued. The DON acknowledged that the MD had been adjusting resident 49 pain medications and stated there should have been more current nursing interventions for Resident 49's pain.
CONCERN (D)

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

Medical Records (Tag F0842)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, it was determined, for 1 of 33 sample residents, that the facility did not maintain medica...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, it was determined, for 1 of 33 sample residents, that the facility did not maintain medical records on each resident that were complete and accurately documented. Specifically, a notification of room change document was missing from a resident's medical record. Resident identifier 48. Findings include: Resident 48 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and again on 1/6/22 with diagnoses that included spina bifida, neuromuscular dysfunction of bladder, type 2 diabetes mellitus, pulmonary hypertension, morbid obesity, generalized anxiety disorder, and major depressive disorder. On 2/7/22 at 11:20 AM an interview was conducted with resident 48. Resident 48 stated that he was moved to his current room due to a COVID-19 exposure with a plan to return to his original room after he isolated for two weeks. Resident 48 stated that after his isolation time was over, staff members told resident 48 that he was to stay in this new room permanently. Resident 48 stated that he was upset by this sudden room change. Resident 48 stated that he never agreed to be moved to this room permanently. Resident 48 stated that he never signed a notification of room change document. A document provided by the facility titled, Policy/Procedure [;] Section: Resident Rights [;] Subject: Room to Room Transfer was reviewed on 2/7/22. a. The policy stated, Where feasible, and with the consent of the involved residents, the Facility will make room to room transfers when requested by the resident or as may become necessary to meet the resident's physical, mental, or psycho-social needs. b. The procedures stated, .4. Prior to the room transfer, the resident, his or her roommate (if any), and the resident's representative will be provided with information concerning the decision to make the room transfer . Resident 48's medical record was reviewed on 2/7/22. a. A progress note dated 1/19/22 11:09 stated, .Resident placed on isolation precautions and will be moved to isolation unit per facility protocol. b. No documentation regarding if Resident 48 was notified or agreed to permanently move rooms after isolating was found in Resident 48's medical record. On 2/9/22 at 2:00 PM an interview with the Administrator (ADM) was conducted. The ADM stated that the facility did inform resident 48 of the permanent room change. The ADM stated that the facility provided resident 48 with a notification of room change document which was signed by resident 48 and given to resident 48. The ADM stated that the Social Services Director (SSD) was responsible for making a copy of resident 48's notification of room change document. The ADM stated that the notification of room change document was not added to resident 48's medical records because the SSD failed to make a copy and add it to resident 48's medical records. The ADM stated that he tried to find resident 48's original copy of the notification of room change document, but he was unable to locate it. On 2/10/22 at 9:40 AM an interview with the SSD was conducted. The SSD stated that she was new to the position of Social Services Director. The SSD stated that she did not realize at the time that she was responsible for making a copy and adding resident 48's notification of room change document to resident 48's medical record.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0882 (Tag F0882)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based upon interviews and record review, it was determined that the facility did not ensure that the certified Infection Preventionist (IP) attended the facility's quality assessment and assurance com...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based upon interviews and record review, it was determined that the facility did not ensure that the certified Infection Preventionist (IP) attended the facility's quality assessment and assurance committee meetings on a regular basis. Specifically, the IP had not attended any quality assessment and assurance committee meetings in the past 6 months. Finding include: On 02/09/22 09:44 AM an interview was conducted with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 1. He stated he is transitioning into the role of the IP for the facility. He stated he had not completed the formal IP training but is in the process of completing the training. LPN 1 stated the former IP had overseen his training and answered questions as needed. He stated the former IP does not attend the facility's quality assessment and assurance committee meetings. On 02/09/22 09:46 AM an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated the former IP had completed the formal IP training. The DON also stated that the former IP continues to work for the facility on an as needed (PRN) basis. Records showed that the former IP had completed the formal IP training and was certified. Records showed that the facility held regular quality assessment and assurance committee meetings. Records showed that according to the sign in sheets for the facility's quality assessment and assurance committee meetings, the former IP had not attended any of the quality assessment and assurance committee meetings held in the past six months.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

  • "What changes have you made since the serious inspection findings?"
  • "What safeguards are in place to prevent abuse and neglect?"
  • "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
  • "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: Federal abuse finding, 2 life-threatening violation(s), 3 harm violation(s), $38,357 in fines. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 29 deficiencies on record, including 2 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $38,357 in fines. Higher than 94% of Utah facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
  • • Grade F (1/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: This facility has a substantiated abuse finding. Extreme caution advised. Explore alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Orem Rehabilitation And Nursing Center's CMS Rating?

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

How is Orem Rehabilitation And Nursing Center Staffed?

CMS rates Orem Rehabilitation and Nursing Center's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 46%, compared to the Utah average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Orem Rehabilitation And Nursing Center?

State health inspectors documented 29 deficiencies at Orem Rehabilitation and Nursing Center during 2022 to 2025. These included: 2 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 3 that caused actual resident harm, and 24 with potential for harm. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.

Who Owns and Operates Orem Rehabilitation And Nursing Center?

Orem Rehabilitation and Nursing Center is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by THE ENSIGN GROUP, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 120 certified beds and approximately 72 residents (about 60% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in Orem, Utah.

How Does Orem Rehabilitation And Nursing Center Compare to Other Utah Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Utah, Orem Rehabilitation and Nursing Center's overall rating (3 stars) is below the state average of 3.3, staff turnover (46%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Orem Rehabilitation And Nursing Center?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What changes have been made since the serious inspection findings, and how are you preventing similar issues?" "What safeguards and monitoring systems are in place to protect residents from abuse or neglect?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations and the substantiated abuse finding on record.

Is Orem Rehabilitation And Nursing Center Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, Orem Rehabilitation and Nursing Center has documented safety concerns. The facility has 1 substantiated abuse finding (meaning confirmed case of resident harm by staff or other residents). Inspectors have issued 2 Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 3-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in Utah. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.

Do Nurses at Orem Rehabilitation And Nursing Center Stick Around?

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

Was Orem Rehabilitation And Nursing Center Ever Fined?

Orem Rehabilitation and Nursing Center has been fined $38,357 across 1 penalty action. The Utah average is $33,462. While any fine indicates a compliance issue, fines under $50,000 are relatively common and typically reflect isolated problems that were subsequently corrected. Families should ask what specific issues led to these fines and confirm they've been resolved.

Is Orem Rehabilitation And Nursing Center on Any Federal Watch List?

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