Rocky Mountain Care - Maple Dell

55 South Professional Way, Payson, UT 84651 (801) 465-9211
For profit - Corporation 76 Beds ROCKY MOUNTAIN CARE Data: November 2025 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation
Trust Grade
1/100
#95 of 97 in UT
Last Inspection: August 2024

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

Overview

Rocky Mountain Care - Maple Dell has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the facility's quality and care. It ranks #95 out of 97 nursing homes in Utah, placing it in the bottom half of state facilities, and #13 out of 13 in Utah County, showing that there are no better local options. The facility's trend is worsening, with the number of identified issues increasing from 6 in 2023 to 12 in 2024. While staffing is rated average with a 3/5 star rating and a turnover rate of 59%, which is near the state average, there is good RN coverage, exceeding that of 85% of Utah facilities. However, families should be concerned about specific incidents, such as a critical finding where a resident on isolation was allowed to leave their room unsupervised, and serious issues where residents experienced delays in medical attention and pain management, suggesting a need for improvement in care and responsiveness.

Trust Score
F
1/100
In Utah
#95/97
Bottom 3%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Worse
6 → 12 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
59% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
✓ Good
$21,568 in fines. Lower than most Utah facilities. Relatively clean record.
Skilled Nurses
✓ Good
Each resident gets 74 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than 97% of Utah nursing homes. RNs are the most trained staff who catch health problems before they become serious.
Violations
⚠ Watch
85 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Overall Rating
★★★☆☆
3.0
Staff Levels
★★★☆☆
3.0
Care Quality
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2023: 6 issues
2024: 12 issues

The Good

  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record

Facility shows strength in fire safety.

The Bad

1-Star Overall Rating

Below Utah average (3.3)

Significant quality concerns identified by CMS

Staff Turnover: 59%

13pts above Utah avg (46%)

Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity

Federal Fines: $21,568

Below median ($33,413)

Minor penalties assessed

Chain: ROCKY MOUNTAIN CARE

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

Staff turnover is elevated (59%)

11 points above Utah average of 48%

The Ugly 85 deficiencies on record

1 life-threatening 4 actual harm
Aug 2024 12 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident 156 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included fracture of right ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident 156 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included fracture of right femur neck, acute respiratory disease, atrial fibrillation, metabolic encephalopathy, rhabdomyolysis, hypertension, and major depressive disorder. Resident 156's medical record was reviewed on 8/25/24 through 8/28/24. An Event Report Safety Events Fall Event dated 1/10/24 at 9:40 AM indicated resident 156 had an unwitnessed fall in his room. It further indicated, Nursing Description: Patient found on the floor. He fell trying to get his catheter back through his pant leg. Resident Description: He said he fell trying to balance on left leg and thread his Foley through his pant leg and lost balance and landed on his right hip. It further indicated, Injury Type: Other: - unable to move r (right). leg. Location Of Injury: Right Hip. Range of Motion [ROM]: Unable to Complete ROM (If unable- why?) - 10/10 pain right hip. Describe, if necessary. Possible fx [fracture] right hip. X-ray to rule out. It further indicated that the resident was, Sent to ED [emergency department] for evaluation. A Progress Note dated 1/16/24 at 4:03 PM indicated, While at the facility, he had a fall in which he landed on his right hip. He was transported to the hospital for further evaluation. He was found to have a subcapital right hip fracture with mild displacement and rotation of the proximal femur. He was taken to the operating room on one/11/24 [sic] by [physician] for a right hip cemented bipolar hemi arthroplasty . Review of the Form 358: Facility Reported Incidents indicated the Allegation Type, Fall w (with)/fracture. It further indicated administration was notified on 1/10/24 at 5:30 PM. It should be noted that the State Agency received the Form 358 on 1/11/24 at 12:06 PM. On 8/28/24 at 3:24 PM, an interview was conducted with the DON. The DON stated that any unwitnessed fall should have been investigated for possible neglect. The DON further stated that reporting facility reported events timely was something that they could have done better. Based on observation, interview, and record review, for 2 of 42 residents sampled, the facility did not ensure that all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, exploitation or mistreatment, including injuries of unknown source, were reported immediately, but not later than 2 hours after the allegation was made, to the State Survey Agency. Specifically, a resident had a fall while in a mechanical lift and was not reported to the State Survey Agency and a resident had a fall which resulted in a fracture and the State Survey Agency was not notified within 2 hours after the allegation was identified. Resident identifiers: 28 and 156. Findings include: 1. Resident 28 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included wedge compression fracture of lumbar vertebra, calculus of ureter, bladder neck obstruction, urinary incontinence, fall on same level, weakness, spondylosis, malignant neoplasm of prostate, type II diabetes, atherosclerotic heart disease of native coronary artery. Resident 28's medical record was reviewed 8/25/24 through 8/28/24. On 8/25/24 at 1:45 PM, an interview was conducted with resident 28. Resident 28 stated he had no complaints about the facility but that he had fallen out of the sit to stand because the band around his chest was not tight enough. Resident 28 stated there was only one CNA (certified nursing assistant) helping him when he was using the sit to stand. Resident 28 stated it had happened a few weeks ago. A Physician's Note dated 8/6/24 documented, [Resident 28] he was seen today after having a fall. He had a fall yesterday, using the lift, states he did hit his left shoulder and felt a pop but states today it is not necessarily painful . There was no additional information regarding the incident or an investigation into the incident provided. On 8/27/24 at 1:30 PM, an interview was conducted with the Administrator (ADM). The ADM stated he was the abuse coordinator and the staff were to report all suspected abuse or neglect directly to him. The ADM stated they had been working on making this process better and was aware it was lacking. The ADM stated he was unaware of any falls that resident 28 had experienced with the sit to stand. The ADM stated he would look into it. On 8/28/24 at 12:55 PM, an interview was conducted with CNA 1. CNA 1 stated resident 28 needed a mechanical lift to help him stand because his legs were weak. CNA 1 stated resident 28 refused to use the Hoyer lift, which would have been safer. CNA 1 stated resident 28 had fallen out of the sit to stand a few times that he was aware of and 1 time that he had witnessed. CNA 1 stated he did not report the incident because he was just assisting the other worker. CNA 1 stated he was unsure how to report something like that. On 8/28/24 at 2:45 PM, a follow up interview was conducted with the ADM and the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated the resident did not fall out of the sit to stand, he just fell to his knees. The DON he was unaware it had happened more than one time. The ADM stated an investigation had not been done for the fall from the sit to stand. The ADM stated this is an ongoing issue the facility was working on.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0697 (Tag F0697)

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 pain management was provided to residents w...

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 pain management was provided to residents who required such services, consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the residents' goals preferences. Specifically, for 1 out of 42 sampled residents, a resident was observed to complain about pain and pain medications were not available. Resident identifier: 16. Findings include: Resident 16 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included type II diabetes mellitus, protein calorie malnutrition, morbid obesity with alveolar hypoventilation, vascular dementia, mood disorder, opiod dependence, anxiety disorder, obstructive sleep apnea, Bell's palsy, chronic pain, muscle weakness, unsteadiness on feet and lack of coordination. On 8/27/24 at 8:09 AM, an observation was made of Registered Nurse (RN) 3 during morning medication pass. RN 3 stated it now looked like resident 16 had 2 Fentanyl patches and that they had decreased his dose and stated that he would not like that. RN 3 was observed to call over his ADON (Assistant Director of Nursing) to assist. The ADON was observed to look over the order and stated that is the new order for resident 16 and she did not know why it had changed but thought there was something to do with insurance. On 8/27/24 at 8:15 AM, an observation was made as resident 16 received his morning medications. Resident 16 was observed to ask RN 3, Do you have my Fentanyl patch because it has been out for a week and I have been hurting? RN 3 informed resident 16 he did have his Fentanyl patch but it was now 2 patches instead of just one because the dosage had changed. Resident 16 stated, They told me it was because if my insurance? RN 3 was observed to put the 2 Fentanyl patches on the upper left side of resident 16's back and tell resident 16 he would check into it. Resident 16's medical record was reviewed 8/25/24 through 8/28/24. A care plan dated 6/28/24 revealed, [Resident 16] has pain. [Resident 16] is at risk for pain secondary to poor bed mobility. The goal was [Resident 16] will have no unaddressed pain, through next review. The intervention included Offer non-pharmacological approaches to pain management [massage ice, reposition, etc.]. Monitor for side effects of pharmacological pain interventions and notify physician with positive signs or symptoms of side effects. Medications as prescribed. Monitor pain as prescribed. The physician's order dated 8/10/24, revealed Fentanyl patch 72 hour; 37.5 mcg (microgram)/hr (hour); amt (amount) 1 patch; quantity: 10; transdermal. Special instructions: Apply 1 patch every 72 hrs (hours). Once a day every 3 day. With a start date of 8/10/24 and an end date of 8/19/24. The same physician order for the Fentanyl 37.5 mcg was started on 8/19/24 and dc' d (discontinued) on 8/19/24 the restarted on 8/19/24 and dc' d on 8/20/24. The physician's order dated 8/20/24, revealed Fentanyl patch 72 hour; 25 mcg/hr; amt 1; quantity: 10; transdermal. Special instructions: Apply 1 patch every 72 hrs. Apply on the same day/time as the 12 mcg patch. A physician progress note revealed on 8/6/24, He has chronic low back pain that is currently being treated with fentanyl 37.5 mg patches and Gabapentin 600 mg (milligram) Q (every)6 hrs. He was on Percocet QID (four times a day) for many years but felt that it was no longer effective. He was switched to Fentanyl patches about a month ago. He is unable to determine the efficacy d/t (due to) new patches being late by a day each time. APC (Advanced Provider of Care) spoke with RN about the reason for patches not being changed on time, and we may have fixed the MAR (Medical Administration Record) issue. The August MAR revealed on 8/21/24, 8/22/24, 8/23/24, 8/24/24, 8/25/24, and 8/26/24 Fentanyl patch 72 hour; 12 mcg/hr was not administered: drug/item unavailable. The August MAR revealed on 8/21/24 and 8/22/24 Fentanyl patch 72 hour; 25 mcg/hr was not administered: drug/item unavailable. On 8/23/24 and 8/24/24 Fentanyl patch 72 hour; 25 mcg/hr was not administered: other comment: waiting to get 12 mcg patch. On 8/25/24 and 8/26/24 Fentanyl patch 72 hour; 25 mcg/hr was not administered: on hold comment: Will apply when the 12 mcg patch is available. On 8/27/24 at 8:25 AM, an interview was conducted with RN 3. RN 3 stated he was unsure why the resident was changed from the 37.5 mcg Fentanyl patch to the 2 other patches that equal 37 mcg. RN 3 was observed to look at the August MAR with this surveyor and was unable to determine why the resident had not received his patches from 8/20/24 through 8/26/24. RN 3 stated the process for getting medications that were needed was to call the pharmacy and they would deliver them. RN 3 stated the pharmacy came to the facility multiple times a day to deliver needed medications. RN 3 stated they did keep a supply of medications in a locked machine in the medication room but he was unsure if Fentanyl patches were in that supply. The pain history for resident 16 was reviewed and revealed, on a number pain scale from 0-10, with number 0 being no pain and number 10 being extreme pain, that resident 16's pain ranged from 2 to 10. No significant increased in pain was noted in the medical record for resident 16 during the time frame the Fentanyl patches were not available. On 8/27/24 at 11:17 AM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated there was an issue with resident 16's Fentanyl patch and his insurance. The DON stated the pharmacy could no longer get the original dose of 37.5 mcg so the provider was in agreeance to change the order to 37.0 mcg. The medication did not come so the nurses kept ordering it but the pharmacy thought they had already sent it, so they did not send a new supply. The DON stated the resident did not have increased pain during the time the Fentanyl patches were not available because the provider had changed resident 16's opiod to scheduled and changed another medication. The DON stated no one checked with the pharmacy to determine what was going on with the medication. The DON stated it was a process that needed correction. And that it was ultimately the responsibility of the facility to ensure each resident got the medications that they needed.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation and interview it was determined that the facility did not label all drugs and biological's used in the facility in accordance with currently accepted professional principles, and ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interview it was determined that the facility did not label all drugs and biological's used in the facility in accordance with currently accepted professional principles, and include appropriate accessory instructions and the expiration date when applicable. Specifically, medication carts were left unlocked and unattended, insulin pens were open and available for use past the expiration date. In addition, narcotics were repackaged into the narcotic cards. Resident Identifiers: 4, 5, 15, 21, 23, 34, 38, 39 and 48. Findings included: During morning medication pass the following was observed: 1. On 8/27/24 at 7:45 AM, an observation was made of the 300 hallway. Registered Nurse (RN) 2 was observed with a medication cart. RN 2 was observed to walk away from the unlocked medication cart and enter a resident's room. The medication cart was observed to be unlocked, have a drawer open and the computer screen was open to a resident's identifying information. Two residents were observed to be in the dayroom and within viewing distance of the medication cart computer. 2. On 8/27/24 at 8:00 AM, an observation was made of the 300 hallway. RN 2 was observed to leave the unlocked medication cart unattended and the computer screen was open with resident's identifying information in view of other residents. 3. On 8/27/24 at 8:10 AM, an observation was made of the 100 hallway. RN 3 was observed to leave the medication cart unlocked and go into the medication storage room. 4. On 8/27/24 at 7:15 AM, an observation was made of the 400 hallway medication cart with Registered Nurse (RN) 1, the following medications were located inside: a. A pre-filled pen of Lispro Injection Kwikpen 100 unit/ml (milliliters). Medication was opened and available for use and labeled with an open date of 7/26/24 and resident 48's name. b. A pre-filled pen of Admelog Injection 100 unit/ml. Medication was opened and available for use and labeled with an open date of 7/26/24 and resident 5's name. 5. On 8/27/24 at 7:45 AM, an observation was made of the 300 hallway medication cart with Registered Nurse (RN) 2, the following medications were located inside: c. A pre-filled pen of Lispro Injection Kwikpen 100 unit/ml. Medication was opened and available for use and labeled with an open date of 7/26/24 and resident 34's name. On 8/27/24 at 7:30 AM, an interview was conducted with RN 1. RN 1 stated she was unsure how long insulin was good for after it was opened. RN 1 stated when a new insulin pen was removed from the fridge the residents name should be on the pen and an open date was written on the pen. RN 1 stated the insulin's in the medication cart for the 400 hallway were the ones that they were currently using for the residents. On 8/27/24 at 7:50 AM, an interview was conducted with RN 2. RN 2 stated insulin was good for 30 days. RN 2 stated the insulin's in the medication cart for the 300 hallway were the insulin's that were currently being used for the residents. 6. On 8/27/24 at 7:18 AM, an observation was made of the 400 hallway medication cart with RN 1, the following medications were located inside: d. A medication card which held Oxycodone 10 mg (milligram) for resident 4 had the back of pocket number 27, 36 and 37 taped, no medication was located inside the pockets. e. A medication card which held Tramadol 50 mg for resident 38 had the back of pocket number 18 taped, a white tablet was observed to be taped into the pocket. 7. On 8/27/24 at 8:25 AM, an observation was made of the 100 and 200 hallways medication cart with RN 3, the following medications were located inside: f. A medication card which held Clonazepam 1 mg for resident 15 had the back of pocket number 5, 8, 11, 17, and 22 taped; a tablet was observed to be taped into pocket number 5 the other pockets were observed to have no medications in them. g. A medication card which held Tramadol 50 mg for resident 15 had the back of pocket number 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 41 and 50 taped; 2 white tablets were observed to be taped into pocket number 15 and 1 white tablet was observed to be taped into pocket 16. The other taped pockets were observed to have no medications in them. h. A medication card which held Gabapentin 100 mg for resident 23 had the back of pocket number 39 taped; 1 capsule was observed to be taped into pocket number 39. i. A medication card which held Pregamblin 200 mg for resident 21 had the back of pocket number 9 taped, a medication was observed to be in pocket number 9. j. A medication card which held Temasepam 30 mg for resident 39 had the back of pocket number 15 taped with a Band-Aid, a medication was observed to be in the pocket. On 8/27/24 at 7:30 AM, an interview was conducted with RN 1. RN 1 stated narcotics should not be retaped into the narcotic cards. RN 1 stated it makes it difficult to see what medication is in the card and the nurse would not know if the correct medication had been put back into the card. On 8/27/4 at 7:56 AM, an interview was conducted with RN 2. RN 2 stated that is was fine to retape medications and narcotics back into the cards if they were not dirty, if the nurse knew what the medication was and if a resident refused the medication. On 8/27/24 at 8:35 AM, an interview was conducted with RN 3. RN 3 stated that is was never appropriate to retape medications back into the medication cards. RN 3 stated, There was so much wrong with that! RN 3 stated the resident could get the wrong medication or the wrong dose. RN 3 stated you just would have no way of knowing what the medication was that was put back into the card. On 8/27/24 at 10:00 AM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated insulin was good for 28 days. The DON stated the insulin in the drawers should have been discarded after the 28 days. The DON stated the staff were supposed to label and date all insulin before they were put into the medication carts. The DON stated the nurses were expected to lock the computers and medication carts if they left them. The DON stated it was unsafe to leave the medication carts unlocked and computer screens were locked to ensure resident privacy. The DON stated the nurses were supposed to waste narcotics with another nurse and never retape a medication back into a medication card, they were supposed to waste or destroy the medication.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0801 (Tag F0801)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview, the facility did not employ a clinically qualified full-time dietitian or another clinically qualified nutrition professional to serve as the director of nutrition services. Specif...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview, the facility did not employ a clinically qualified full-time dietitian or another clinically qualified nutrition professional to serve as the director of nutrition services. Specifically, the facility did not employ a full time Registered Dietitian (RD) and the Dietary Manager (DM) did not meet the requirements to serve as the Director of Nutrition Services. Findings include: On 8/26/24 at 8:40 AM, an interview was conducted with the DM who stated she had not completed the required certification to work as the dietary manager. The DM stated the RD came to the facility once per week on Thursday, and if she had questions she could call the RD at any time. On 8/28/24 at 12:17 PM, an interview was conducted with the RD who stated the DM was still going through the training plan, and that she had just started in the position 2-3 weeks ago. The RD confirmed that the DM did not have the required certification yet. The RD stated the goal was to provide DM with a list of who offered approved training. The RD stated the DM could call her any time if she had questions or concerns.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Investigate Abuse (Tag F0610)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, it was determined, for 5 of 42 sampled residents, that the facility, in response to allega...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, it was determined, for 5 of 42 sampled residents, that the facility, in response to allegations of abuse, neglect, exploitation, or mistreatment, failed to provide evidence that all alleged violations were thoroughly investigated. Specifically, allegations of neglect resulted in emergency department visits and hospitalizations, two of which resulted with surgical intervention, and one allegation of abuse by a staff member were not thoroughly investigated. Resident identifiers: 15, 53, 156, 158, and 161. Findings include: 1. Resident 156 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included fracture of right femur neck, acute respiratory disease, atrial fibrillation, metabolic encephalopathy, rhabdomyolysis, hypertension, and major depressive disorder. Resident 156's medical record was reviewed on 8/25/24 through 8/28/24. An Event Report Safety Events Fall Event dated 1/10/24 at 9:40 AM indicated resident had an unwitnessed fall in his room. It further indicated, Nursing Description Patient found on the floor. He fell trying to get his catheter back through his pant leg. Resident Description He said he fell trying to balance on left leg and thread his Foley through his pant leg and lost balance and landed on his right hip. It further indicated, Injury Type: Other: - unable to move r(right). leg. Location Of Injury Right Hip. Range of Motion [ROM] Unable to Complete ROM (If unable- why?) - 10/10 pain right hip. Describe, if necessary. Possible fx [fracture] right hip. X-ray to rule out. It further indicated that the resident was, Sent to ED [emergency department] for evaluation. A Progress Note dated 1/16/24 at 4:03 PM indicated, While at the facility, he had a fall in which he landed on his right hip. He was transported to the hospital for further evaluation. He was found to have a subcapital right hip fracture with mild displacement and rotation of the proximal femur. He was taken to the operating room on one/11/24 [sic] by [physician name] for a right hip cemented bipolar hemi arthroplasty . On 8/28/24 at 3:24 PM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated that any unwitnessed fall should have been investigated for possible neglect. On 8/28/24 at 4:42 PM, an email was provided by the Administrator (ADM). Exhibit 359 was attached. The email indicated, .Not knowing the case number prevented the completion of the 359. No other documentation was provided regarding an investigation. 3. Resident 15 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included myasthenia gravis, pain, essential hypertension, opiod use, acute kidney failure, seizures, herpesviral vulvovaginits, muscle spasm, constipation, anxiety disorder, hypothyroidism, edema, muscle weakness, major depressive disorder, and major depressive disorder. Resident 15's medical record was reviewed 8/25/24 through 8/28/24. The exhibit 358 revealed that staff became aware of the incident on 8/24/23 at an 3:00 PM. The exhibit revealed that resident 15 alleged, The CNA did not deliver meals, not answer call lights, and left the resident. Immediate action to protect resident was documented as, Alleged perpetrator was immediately asked to leave facility on leave until investigation is completed. Exhibit 359 was not located in the abuse log provided by the facility. For the allegation no investigation was provided by the facility. On 8/26/24 at 9:41 AM, an interview was conducted with resident 15. Resident 15 stated the incident did take place but she could not remember all the details since it happened so long ago. Resident 15 stated there was a lot of neglect that went on in the facility back then. Resident 15 stated the facility had gotten better with the new management team and if she had problems she would let the administration know. Resident 15 stated that they take good care of her. On 8/27/24 at 2:25 PM, an interview was conducted with the ADM. The ADM stated the incident with resident 15 occurred before his time at the facility and he was unable to find an investigation or 359 for the incident. 4. Resident 53 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses with included atherosclerotic heart disease of native coronary artery, fracture of superior rim o fright pubis, wedge compression fracture of T(thoracic)11-T12 vertebra, fall on same level, chronic viral hepatitis C, altered mental status, hepatic failure, weakness, anxiety disorder type II diabetes and hyperlipidemia. Resident 53's medical record was reviewed 8/25/24 through 8/28/24. The exhibit 358 revealed that staff became aware of the incident on 8/1/24 at 4:30 PM. The exhibit revealed that resident 11 alleged, Staff responded to [resident 53's]room to find pt. (patient) on the mat again with further injury. and Immediate action to protect resident was documented as, [Resident 53] was sent to hospital again for further evaluation in the day with arm in sling and information indicated of a potential ' current or former ' injury. The exhibit 359 revealed that Determined that [resident 53's] fall was an unfortunate event and while staff checked on her frequently, she became mobile and appeared to have fallen while in a stare of confusion. A summary on interviews with alleged perpetrator revealed, Staff indicated that resident received frequent checks and appeared at current baseline. And no concerns noted. A summary of information from the investigation revealed, n/a. The allegation was not verified and marked as inconclusive, Determined that [resident 53's] fall was an unfortunate event and while staff checked on her frequently, she became mobile and appeared to have fallen while in a stare of confusion. Progress notes dated 8/1/24 revealed, Patient was found on floor by CNA. CNA went in to check on patient and found patient on the floor in extreme pain. CNA ran to get nurse to assess patient. Upon assessment Nurse noticed that left arm was limp and looked to be dislocated. Nurse looked for any other injuries and no other injuries were noted. Patient was helped back into bed and vitals taken. Nurse notified family and Hospice of the fall, family did not want patient to get sent out to the hospital since patient was on hospice. Nurse gave patient PRN morphine to help with the pain. Hospice nurse is coming to evaluated patient. For the allegation no investigation was provided by the facility 5. Resident 161 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included osteomyelitis, pressure ulcer of sacral region, stage 4, enterocolitis due to Clostridium difficile, paraplegia, autoimmune hepatitis, cirrhosis of liver, acute metabolic acidosis, bradycardia, bacteremia, thrombocytopenia, pain, disorder of kidney and ureter, neuromuscular dysfunction of bladder, obstructive sleep apnea, hypertension, and gastro-esophageal reflux disease. Resident 161's medical record was reviewed 8/25/24 through 8/28/24. The exhibit 358 revealed that staff became aware of the incident on 3/22/24 at 3:00 PM. The exhibit revealed that the local hospital staff alleged, Adult Protective Services (APS) contacted the Resident Advocate (RA) to inquire further regarding a case called in to their office. RA alerted the facility Administrator of the report. The administrator and staff investigated the incident further to determine that [local hospital] staff contacted APS with an allegation of neglect for [resident 161]. The claim alleges that [resident 161] was sent to [local hospital] following concerns with heart-rate and respiratory issues. [Resident 161] had been at [facility] for a couple of months for variety of care needs. [Local hospital] Emergency Department alleges that [resident 161] arrived and presented disheveled and rough appearance. Upon being contacted from APS and further contact with [local hospital], it was determined than an allegation was made and the facility is now reporting the alleged event per the facility's reporting steps and measures. Immediate action to protect resident was documented as, Resident [161] was admitted to [local hospital] for further cares. Resident was transferred to [specialty hospital] for further treatment with plans to return to [facility] and Rehabilitation following his stay there. The facility will continue its investigation process and review to determine the details of the allegation, review the findings, make any necessary recommendations or changes, report to the facility's QAPI [Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement] Committee for analysis and necessary action steps. The exhibit 359 revealed that on 3/14/24 at an unknown time, [Resident 161] was interviewed following his transfer to [local hospital]. He reported that he did not remember much about the transfer and admission to the ER [emergency room] and [local hospital] and indicated he was told afterwards about the details and transfer. A summary on interviews of the staff revealed, Interview Wound Nurse (WN) and the DON regarding the event and they provided further information regarding attempts made to send [resident 161] to the hospital that he denied, but did admit to the hospital for the low O2 [oxygen] levels and explained that the there may have been a leak in his colostomy and. may have caused further alarm and issues upon review. The allegation was not verified, [Facility] continues to work and improve our clinical care practices, systems, and review processes. While there is a lot to learn from this situation and additional review and corrective actions have been reported to the operations QAPI committee for further evaluation, implementation of corrective actions, and necessary review and oversight processes. On 8/27/24 at 11:25 AM, an interview was conducted with the ADM. The ADM stated there was no other investigative notes for the incidents. The ADM stated they had talked to the staff involved with resident 53 and 161 but did not have the documentation. The ADM stating improving this process was part of the QAPI plan that was in place. The ADM stated they started the new process in April of this year and they were still working on it. The ADM stated he was the abuse coordinator and it was his responsibility to ensure the investigations were completed appropriately. 2. Resident 158 was admitted on [DATE] and was readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included acute respiratory distress syndrome, pulmonary embolism, sepsis, laceration without foreign body, lower left leg, and polyneuropathy. Resident 158's medical record was reviewed between 8/25/24 and 8/28/24. An entity 358 revealed that on 9/5/23 at 12:19 PM, resident 158 sustained a laceration to his shin from an unknown origin. The resident was assessed and a pressure bandage was applied. Resident 158 was transported via EMS (emergency medical services) to the hospital. The 358 entity report revealed resident 158 appeared to be shaking, pale, and had pinpoint pupils. Police were notified. An entity 359 was received on 9/12/23 at 11:45 AM, and revealed resident 158 had cut his leg on the side of his bed while using a power wheel chair. The 359 report stated, Injury was of known source from scraping against the bed frame. The investigation portion of the 359 report revealed, Interviews were done with staff working that hall. The summary of the interviews included, Nurse assisted resident who was stuck against the bed by the night stand. She applied pressure and called ems. The other interview summaries contained N/A [not applicable]. The conclusion included, Not verified this was injury of known source. It should be noted that no additional investigation documents were provided that included interviews, evaluations or education that was provided after the incident. It should also be noted that the 359 entity report was submitted after 7 days.
CONCERN (E)

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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review it was determined, for 1 of 42 sampled residents, that the facility did not provide routine...

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 42 sampled residents, that the facility did not provide routine and emergency drugs and biological's to its residents. Specifically, a resident was not administered medications as ordered by the physician due to the medications not being available by the pharmacy. Resident identifier: 16 Findings Included: Resident 16 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included type II diabetes mellitus, protein calorie malnutrition, morbid obesity with alveolar hypoventilation, vascular dementia, mood disorder, opiod dependence, anxiety disorder, obstructive sleep apnea, Bell's palsy, chronic pain, muscle weakness, unsteadiness on feet and lack of coordination. On 8/27/24 at 8:15 AM, an observation was made as resident 16 received his morning medications. Resident 16 was observed to ask RN (Registered Nurse) 3, Do you have my fentanyl patch because it has been out for a week? RN 3 informed resident 16 he did have his fentanyl patch but it was now 2 patches instead of just one because the dosage had changed. Resident 16 stated, They told me it was because if my insurance? RN 3 was observed to put the 2 fentanyl patches on the upper left side of resident 16's back and tell resident 16 he would check into it. Resident 16's medical record was reviewed 8/25/24 through 8/28/24. On 8/21/24, an order administration note documented, Fentanyl patch 72 hour; 25 mcg [microgram]/hr [hour] . Administer: 1 patch transdermal. Not Administered: Drug/Item Unavailable. On 8/22/24, an order administration note documented, Fentanyl patch 72 hour; 25 mcg/hr . Administer: 1 patch transdermal. Not Administered: Drug/Item Unavailable. On 8/23/24, an order administration note documented, Fentanyl patch 72 hour; 25 mcg/hr . Administer: 1 patch transdermal. Not Administered: Other Comment: Waiting to get the 12 mcg patch. On 8/24/24, an order administration note documented, Fentanyl patch 72 hour; 25 mcg/hr . Administer: 1 patch transdermal. Not Administered: Other Comment: Waiting to get the 12 mcg patch. On 8/25/24, an order administration note documented, Fentanyl patch 72 hour; 25 mcg/hr . Administer: 1 patch transdermal. Not Administered: Other Comment: Waiting for the 12 mcg patch to use together. On 8/26/24, an order administration note documented, Fentanyl patch 72 hour; 25 mcg/hr . Administer: 1 patch transdermal. Not Administered: On Hold Comment: Waiting for the 12 mcg patch to use together. On 8/27/24 at 8:25 AM, an interview was conducted with RN 3. RN 3 stated he was unsure why the resident was changed from the 37.5 mcg Fentanyl patch to the 2 other patches that equaled 37 mcg. RN 3 was observed to look at the August MAR (Medication Administration Record) with this surveyor and was unable to determine why the resident had not received his patches from 8/20/24 through 8/26/24. RN 3 stated the process for getting medications that were needed was to call the pharmacy and they would deliver them. RN 3 stated the pharmacy came to the facility multiple times a day to deliver needed medications. RN 3 stated they did keep a supply of medications in a locked machine in the medication room but he was unsure if Fentanyl patches were in that supply. On 8/28/24 at 1:16 PM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated there was a error with the pharmacy and that was the reason resident 16 had not received his medication. The DON stated resident 16 was originally getting 37.5 mcg of Fentanyl and then the pharmacy stated they could no longer provide that dose but could provide 37.0 mcg in 2 separate patches, so the provider changed the order to equal this amount. The DON stated the pharmacy had not sent the medication, and the nurses kept ordering it so the pharmacy thought they had already sent it. But no one was checking to see where the medication actually was. The DON stated the nurses had one of the Fentanyl patches, either the 25 mcg or the 12 mcg the DON was unsure, but the nurses were waiting to have both of them before they administered anything to the resident. The DON stated the resident should not have gone without his pain medication and that he was aware the process needed some clarification and follow through to ensure the residents did not go without the medications they needed.
CONCERN (E)

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

Menu Adequacy (Tag F0803)

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, for 4 of 42 sampled residents, the facility did not have menus that met the n...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, for 4 of 42 sampled residents, the facility did not have menus that met the nutrition needs of residents in accordance with established nutrition guidelines. In addition, the menus were not followed. Specifically, residents complained about the portion sizes being too small. Resident identifiers: 8, 12, 34, and 167. Findings include: On 8/25/24 at 12:00 PM lunch service was observed on the 100 and 200 hallways and the following was observed: Resident 8 was observed to be sitting in the dining room eating his lunch. A piece of chicken was observed to be on resident 8's plate. The chicken was observed to be the size of a silver dollar. Resident 8 stated the amount of chicken was small and he would have liked it to be bigger. Resident 12 was observed to be in bed with his bedside table in front of him. Resident 12 was observed to have a piece of chicken on his plate that was the size of silver dollar. Resident 12 stated the food was no good, and the meat was too small. Resident 167 was observed to be sitting in bed with his bedside table in front of him. Resident 12 was observed to be holding a knife and fork and attempted to cut the piece of chicken. Resident 12 said he could cut it but stated the piece was small. Resident 34 was admitted on initially on 6/3/21 and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included cerebral palsy, diabetes mellitus, hyponatremia, malnutrition and depression. On 8/25/24 at 2:53 PM, an interview was conducted with resident 34 who stated the meals received the day before were garbage. Resident 34 stated the lunch meal on the day before were broccoli and rice casserole for lunch and beef stroganoff for dinner that consisted of noodles with watery brown gravy and very little meat. Resident 34 stated the cook apologized for the meal yesterday evening and provided doughnuts to the residents to make up for it. The Daily Spreadsheet was reviewed prior to the lunch meal. The meal consisted of pork medallions, herbed buttered pasta, broccoli florets, a dinner roll with butter, choice of beverage, and a piece of pumpkin cake with cream cheese frosting. Portion sizes were as follows: a. Pork Medallions: Regular portion was 3 oz (ounces) of meat with 1 oz of gravy; large portion was 4 oz of meat with 1 oz of gravy; small portion was 2 oz of meat with 1 oz of gravy. Mechanical soft (3 and 2) was a # (number) 8 scoop (1/2 cup) of ground meat with 1 oz and 2 oz of gravy respectively. b. Herbed buttered pasta: Regular portion was a #8 scoop of pasta; large portion was #6 scoop (2/3 cup); small portion was a #16 scoop (1/4 cup); Mechanical soft 3 was a #8 scoop of pasta; Mechanical soft 2 was to receive soft and chopped pasta with 2 oz of gravy or sauce of choice. c. Broccoli florets: Regular portion was #8 scoop of broccoli; Large portion was #6 scoop of broccoli; Small portion was a #12 scoop (1/3 cup) of broccoli; Mechanical soft 3 was a #8 scoop of broccoli, soft and chopped into smaller pieces; Mechanical soft 2 was #12 scoop of broccoli pureed. d. Dinner roll with butter: Regular portion was 1 roll with 1 serving of butter; Large portion was 2 rolls with 2 servings of butter; Small portion was 1 roll with 1 serving of butter; Mechanical soft 3 was a soft roll with 1 serving of butter; Mechanical 2 was #16 scoop of pureed roll. e. Choice of beverage: Regular, large, small, and mechanical 3 and 2 diet were to receive 1 cup. f. Pumpkin cake with cream cheese frosting: Regular, large, small and mechanical 3 and 2 diets were to receive a 3 x 2 inch piece. On 8/27/24 at 11:50 AM, an observation was made of the tray line. The cook (CK) 1 was interviewed and stated she was using a #8 scoop for the noodles, a 1oz ladle for the gravy, a #10 scoop for the chopped meat, and a #8 scoop for the broccoli. The pork medallions were roughly 3 x 2.5 inches and 1/2 inch thick. During tray line, Dietary Aide (DA) 2 was observed to call out the diet order and CK 1 plated the meal. For a regular portion, the resident received 1 piece of meat with 1 oz of gravy, 1 #8 scoop of pasta, 1 #8 scoop of broccoli florets, 1 dinner roll with 1 serving of butter, and a 3 x 2 piece of cake. For a large portion meal, the resident received 2 pieces of meat with 1 oz of gravy, 1 #8 scoop of pasta, 1 #8 scoop of broccoli florets, 1 dinner roll with 1 serving of butter and a 3 x 2 piece of cake. No small portions were observed to be served. For the mechanical 3 meal, residents received a #10 scoop (3/8 cup) of ground meat with 1 oz of gravy, a #8 scoop of chopped broccoli, and 1 dinner roll with a serving of butter and a 3 x 2 piece of cake. No puree meals were observed to be served. It should be noted that the portion size of the meat did not appear to be 3 oz. It should so be noted that for residents that disliked green vegetables or broccoli, steamed carrot cubes were served. On 8/28/24 at 12:17 PM, an interview was conducted with the Registered Dietitian (RD) who stated she conducted food quality audits on a weekly basis when she was in the building. The RD stated she did not know if she had a record of the test trays. On 8/28/24 at 1:52 PM an interview was conducted with the Dietary Manager (DM) who stated that one of the cooks needed a lot more training, and especially with food presentation, following the menus and spreadsheets. The DM stated she had complaints from residents about the portion sizes of the food.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0804 (Tag F0804)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** On 8/25/24 at 11:32 AM, an interview was conducted with resident 4. Resident 4 stated the dinner last night was nasty and that h...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** On 8/25/24 at 11:32 AM, an interview was conducted with resident 4. Resident 4 stated the dinner last night was nasty and that he could not even tell what the food was. On 8/25/24 at 12:21 PM, an interview was conducted with resident 206. Resident 206 stated he was served 2 slices of untoasted bread with gravy on it and it was supposed to be biscuits and gravy. Resident 206 stated, It was bad. On 8/25/24 at 1:14 PM, an observation was made of the Resident Advocate (RA). The RA brought donuts out to three residents who were sitting outside in the smoking area. The RA told the residents that the new dietary manager heard how bad the food was yesterday so she had gotten the residents donuts to let them know that she was aware. An interview with resident 36 was conducted after the RA went back inside the facility. Resident 36 stated they brought them [NAME] Taco one day for the same reason. Resident 36 stated the dinner last night was called, Turkey Surprise, and that it was so bad that she did not even eat one meal yesterday. On 8/26/24 at 8:29 AM, an interview was conducted with resident 45. Resident 45 stated the food quality had gone down since the previous dietary manager left about three weeks ago. Resident 45 stated the quality was affected, the portion size had gotten smaller, what they serve did not match the menu, the food was served cold, and items would be missing from the meal and not supplemented. Resident 45 stated he was served two pieces of sliced bread with gravy on it yesterday for breakfast. Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility did not provide food prepared by methods that conserve flavor and appearance or provide food and drink that is palatable, attractive, and at an appetizing temperature. Specifically, there were multiple complaints from residents about the quality of the food, and when surveyors pulled a test tray during the lunch meal, the food was found to be lacking in flavor and appearance. Resident identifiers: 4, 8, 9, 12, 19, 29, 30, 32, 34, 36, 39, 45, 166 and 206. Findings include: On 8/25/24 at 11:19 AM, an interview was conducted with resident 8. Resident 8 stated he did not like the food and that he wouldn't feed this food to his dogs. On 8/25/24 at 11:25 AM, an interview was conducted with resident 166. Resident 166 stated the food was usually cold when it was brought to her and that it did not taste very good. On 8/25/24 at 11:47 AM, an interview was conducted with family member (FM) of resident 19. FM stated the food was not good, the portions were for children and they did not give them what they asked for. On 8/25/24 at 11:52 AM, an interview was conducted with resident 12. Resident 12 stated the food was usually cold then it got to him. Resident 12 stated the food was worse than prison food. On 8/25/24 at 12:03 PM, an interview was conducted with resident 39. Resident 39 stated the food was inedible and that they got a new kitchen person and it was just bad. Resident 39 stated she was not sure she had ever tasted food so bad. On 8/25/24 at 10:38 AM, an interview was conducted with resident 9 who stated the food was not very good. On 8/25/24 at 11:05 AM, an interview was conducted with resident 29 who stated the food was terrible. Resident 29 stated residents filled out a menu for the week and the kitchen did not follow the menu. On 8/25/24 at 1:30 PM, an interview was conducted with resident 32 who stated dinner on the previous day was a casserole. Resident 32 stated the meal was cold and not good. On 8/25/24 at 2:53 PM, an interview was conducted with resident 34 who stated some of the meals were garbage. Resident 34 stated the lunch on the previous day was beef stroganoff which consisted of noodles in watery brown gravy with very little meat. Resident 34 stated dinner on the previous day was a broccoli and rice casserole. On 8/26/24 at 8:12 AM, an interview was conducted with the wife of resident 19 who stated the food quality was very poor. Resident 19's wife stated her husband ate very little of what was served because it was really bad. On 8/26/24 at 9:41 AM, an interview was conducted with resident 30 who stated the food was not always warm when it should be warm, or cold when it should be cold. On 8/27/24 at 11:53 AM, the trayline for the lunch meal was observed. At 12:17, a test tray was requested and sent out with the last meal cart. The results of the test tray included: a. Pork chop, approximately 3 inches x 2.5 inches and .5 inches thick. The temperature of the meat was 117.5 degrees Fahrenheit, slightly tough, but could be chewed. The gravy on the meat tasted like cream of chicken soup. b. Noodles were tri-colored and had no flavor. The temperature was 111.0 degrees Fahrenheit. c. Broccoli was mushy and overcooked. There was no salt or seasoning. The temperature was 124.3 degrees Fahrenheit. d. Also on the menu was a dinner roll and pumpkin cake with cream cheese frosting. These menu items were not provided to the surveyor. On 8/28/24 at 12:17 PM, an interview was conducted with the Registered Dietitian (RD) who stated she conducted food quality audits weekly while she was in the building. The RD stated she did not know if she kept a record from her food audits. The RD stated she had spoken to one of the newer cooks after her last audit because there were a lot of palatability issues. On 8/28/24 at 1:52 PM, an interview was conducted with the Dietary Manager (DM) who stated she started a food council shortly after she was hired to address resident's immediate concerns. The DM stated she wanted to make sure the residents were happy. The DM stated one of the cooks needed some better training, especially for food presentation, following the menus and following the spreadsheets. The DM stated she had received complaints about the portion sizes of the food.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

QAPI Program (Tag F0867)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on interview, record review, and observation, the facility did not establish and implement written policies and procedures for feedback, data collections systems and monitoring to include advers...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview, record review, and observation, the facility did not establish and implement written policies and procedures for feedback, data collections systems and monitoring to include adverse event monitoring. Specifically, on the previous recertification survey conducted on 10/3/22, F609, F697, F755, F761, F804, F812, F867, and F880 were cited. These deficiencies were cited again during the current recertification survey. Resident identifiers: 4, 5, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, 16, 19, 21, 23, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34, 36, 38, 39, 45, 48, 53, 156, 158, 161, 166, and 206. Findings include: a. Based on observation, interview, and record review, for 2 of 42 residents sampled, the facility did not ensure that all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, exploitation or mistreatment, including injuries of unknown source, were reported immediately, but not later than 2 hours after the allegation was made, to the State Survey Agency. Specifically, a resident had a fall while in a mechanical lift and was not reported to the State Survey Agency and a resident had a fall which resulted in a fracture and the State Survey Agency was not notified within 2 hours after the allegation was identified. Resident identifiers: 28 and 156. Reference [609] b. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility did not ensure that pain management was provided to residents who required such services, consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the residents' goals preferences. Specifically, for 1 out of 42 sampled residents, a resident was observed to complain about pain and pain medications were not available. Resident identifier: 16. Reference [697] c. Based on interview and record review it was determined, for 1 of 42 sampled residents, that the facility did not provide routine and emergency drugs and biological's to its residents. Specifically, a resident was not administered medications as ordered by the physician due to the medications not being available by the pharmacy. Resident identifier: 16 Reference [755] d. Based on observation and interview it was determined that the facility did not label all drugs and biological's used in the facility in accordance with currently accepted professional principles, and include appropriate accessory instructions and the expiration date when applicable. Specifically, medication carts were left unlocked and unattended, insulin pens were open and available for use past the expiration date. In addition, narcotics were repackaged into the narcotic cards. Resident Identifiers: 4, 5, 15, 21, 23, 34, 38, 39 and 48. Reference [761] e. Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility did not provide food prepared by methods that conserve flavor and appearance or provide food and drink that is palatable, attractive, and at an appetizing temperature. Specifically, there were multiple complaints from residents about the quality of the food, and when surveyors pulled a test tray during the lunch meal, the food was found to be lacking in flavor and appearance. Resident identifiers: 4, 8, 9, 12, 19, 29, 30, 32, 34, 36, 39, 45, 166 and 206. Reference [804] f. Based on observation and interview, the facility did not store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. Specifically, food items in the walk-in freezer and walk-in refrigerator were not labeled and were open to air, personal items of kitchen staff were observed to be in the food preparation area, kitchen staff were handling food with bare hands, and the dish machine was not operating with water temperatures necessary to ensure the dishware was properly sanitized. Reference [812] g. Based on interview, record review, and observation, the facility did not establish and implement written policies and procedures for feedback, data collections systems and monitoring to include adverse event monitoring. Reference [867] h. Based on observation and interview it was determined, the facility did not establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections. Specifically, for 2 out of 42 sampled residents, a staff member was observed to touch a resident medications with bare hands with each medication administration. Reference [880] On 8/28/24 at 3:54 PM, an interview was conducted with the Administrator (ADM). The ADM stated the medical director, leadership personnel, administration, medical records, the MDS [minimum data set] coordinator, the Dietary Manager (DM), therapy staff, activities director, and maintenance attended the Quality Assessment and Performance Improvement {QAPI) meetings. The ADM stated the committee met on Wednesday of every month. The ADM stated documentation of the meetings were on signature pages that were placed in the QAPI binder and meeting notes that were kept in the computer. The ADM stated during a meeting an agenda was followed to cover areas of importance. The ADM stated a quick base program was being used to look for trends, and the reporting system was used to keep track of issues. The ADM stated action plans or PIPs (performance improvement plans) were established for issues that needed to be addressed at the time. The ADM stated that audit tools and check systems were reviewed at every QAPI meeting. The ADM stated that between QAPI meetings administrative staff followed up on things. The ADM stated staff education was provided on the third Tuesday of every month. The ADM stated in the previous month a lot of time was spent on abuse and reporting. The ADM stated actions that were currently being taken to ensure quality care for the residents were addressing staffing issues and training of staff. The ADM stated the PIP that was currently being worked on was abuse and reporting, specifically identifying the causes, asking questions, and obtaining statements from staff and other residents during the investigations. The ADM stated falls, care plans, charting and communications were also being worked on. The ADM also stated better management of labs, being consistent on getting results and reviewing them, cleaning resident rooms, obtaining POLST (Provider Order for Life-Sustaining Treatment) forms and advanced directives, decreasing Urinary Tract Infections (UTIs), and better infection control measures. The ADM stated nothing specific had been done to address medication administration.
CONCERN (E)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation and interview it was determined, the facility did not establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary and comfortable envir...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interview it was determined, the facility did not establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections. Specifically, for 2 out of 42 sampled residents, a staff member was observed to touch a resident medications with bare hands with each medication administration. Findings include: On 8/27/24 at 7:45 AM, during morning medication pass the following was observed: a. At 7:48 AM, Registered Nurse (RN) 2 was observed to not use hand hygiene prior to starting medication pass. RN 2 was observed to use push a medication through the medication pack with his right hand into the palm of his left hand before he placed the medication into the medication cup using bare fingers. The medication was administered to resident 14. b. At 7:50 AM, RN 2 was observed to pour a medication out of a bottle into his left palm and use bare fingers to pick up the medication and place it into the medication cup. No hand hygiene was observed to be used. The medication was administered to resident 14. c. At 8:05 AM, RN 2 was observed to pour an over the counter medication from a bottle into the palm of his hand and pick up the medication and place it into a medication cup. No hand hygiene was observed to be used. The medication was administered to a resident. On 8/27/24 at 8:08 AM, an interview was conducted with RN 2. RN 2 stated that hand hygiene should be done before and after each medication pass. RN 2 stated touching the medications bare handed was not supposed to happen. On 8/27/24 at 8:35 AM, an interview was conducted with RN 3. RN 3 stated hand hygiene should be used all the time during medication pass. RN 3 stated touching the medications with bare hands was not ok and should not be done. On 8/27/24 at 9:18 AM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated the staff are expected to use hand hygiene during medication pass. The DON stated the nurses should not touch the medications with bare hands and can wear gloves if they were clean and used only for one patient at a time.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0925 (Tag F0925)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation and interview it was determined the facility did not maintain an effective pest control program so that the facility was free of pests. Specifically, residents complained of and w...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interview it was determined the facility did not maintain an effective pest control program so that the facility was free of pests. Specifically, residents complained of and were observed to have flies around and on them. Resident identifiers: 2, 5, 6, 24, 37 and 40. Findings include: On 8/25/24 at 10:24 AM, an observation and interview was conducted with resident 24. Resident 24 was in her room sitting in a wheelchair next to her bed, a fly swatter was observed in her room. Two flies were observed in her room, one was on resident 24's knee. Resident 24 stated that staff knew about the flies and that the flies were a pain. Resident 24 stated the flies had been bad for months and that she was going to buy some bug spray. On 8/25/24 at 10:43 AM, an observation and interview was conducted with resident 2. Resident 2 was laying in bed in her room. Two flies were observed on resident 2's feet during the interview. Resident 2 stated there were a lot of flies at the facility and that they needed to spray. One fly was observed to land on resident 2's face. On 8/25/24 at 11:10 AM, an interview was conducted with resident 37. Resident 37 stated she could hear her roommate, resident 2, yell at the flies. On 8/25/24 at 11:42 AM, an interview was conducted with resident 6. A fly swatter was observed within reach of the resident and resident 6 stated there were flies everywhere and he had been trying to get rid of them. On 8/25/24 at 1:31 PM, an observation and interview was conducted with resident 5. Resident 5 was in her room. During the interview two flies were observed to fly around the resident's face and land on her arm. Resident 5 stated she had a fly swatter to help with the flies and that the facility was supposed to put stuff on the walls to attract the flies but that the flies were pretty bad. Resident 5 stated the doors are opened constantly. On 8/26/24 at 1:11 PM, an observation was made in the dining area near 400 hall. There were 3 flies observed, 2 of which landed on a dining table. On 8/26/24 at 1:40 PM, an interview was conducted with Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) 2. CNA 2 stated the flies are worse near the 400 hall because a lot of smokers go inside and outside in this area. CNA 2 stated one of the prizes for bingo was a fly swatter. CNA 2 stated he tried to keep the doors and windows closed. CNA 2 stated he would swat flies when residents asked him to. On 8/28/24 at 8:20 AM, an interview was conducted with the Maintenance Director (MD). The MD stated the residents do not like the flies and that the flies had increased because the smokers go outside and opened the doors. The MD stated a fly light had been placed over the fridge in long term and resident's had bought their own fly swatters and lights for their rooms. On 8/26/24 at 11:11 AM, an observation and interview was conducted with resident 40 who stated she hated the flies that were in her room. Resident 40 stated she thought the flies were disgusting. Resident 40 stated it was rude to not resolve the problem. Resident 40 stated , residents do not like eating with flies all over the place.
CONCERN (F)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

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

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interview, the facility did not store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. Specifically, food items in the walk-in freezer and walk-in refrigerator were not labeled and were open to air, personal items of kitchen staff were observed to be in the food preparation area, kitchen staff were handling food with bare hands, and the dish machine was not operating with water temperatures necessary to ensure the dishware was properly sanitized. Findings Include: On 8/25/24 at 9:25 AM, an initial walk-through was conducted in the kitchen. In the walk-in refrigerator, 4 packages of a green substance were found with no label and no date. In the walk-in freezer, a box of beef patties was open to air, and a box of cookie dough was open to air. An observation was made of the dish machine wash cycle during clean up from the breakfast meal. During the first observation, the wash temperature was 158 degrees Fahrenheit and the rinse temperature was 130 degrees Fahrenheit. In a second observation, the wash temperature was 154 degrees Fahrenheit and the rinse temperature was 130 degrees Fahrenheit. In a third observation, the was temperature was 150 degrees Fahrenheit and the rinse temperature was 130 degrees Fahrenheit. In a fourth observation, the wash temperature was 150 degrees Fahrenheit and the rinse temperature was 130 degrees Fahrenheit. An observation was made of the required temperatures posted on the dish machine. The wash temperature was required to be 160 degrees Fahrenheit or higher, and the rinse temperature was required to be 180 degrees Fahrenheit or higher. An observation was made of the dish machine temperature log. For the month of August, there were multiple days when the water temperature was not meeting the required temperature. The documentation was as follows, with all temperatures being in degrees Fahrenheit: a. On 8/1/24, for the lunch meal, the rinse temperature was 175. b. On 8/3/24, for the dinner meal, the wash temperature was 158 and the rinse temperature was 139. c. On 8/5/24, there were no temperatures documented for the dinner meal. d. On 8/7/24, for the breakfast meal, the rinse temperature was 177. For the dinner meal, the rinse temperature was 120. e. On 8/8/24, for the breakfast meal, the rinse temperature was 177. For the dinner meal, the rinse temperature was 174. f. On 8/9/24, for the breakfast meal, the rinse temperature was 160. For the lunch meal, the rinse temperature was 165. For the dinner meal, the wash temperature was 155 and the rinse temperature was 150. g. On 8/10/24, for the breakfast meal, the wash temperature was 135 and the rinse temperature was 150. For the dinner meal, the wash temperature was 151 and the rinse temperature was 135. h. On 8/11/24, for the breakfast meal, the wash temperature was 155 and the rinse temperature was 165. For the lunch meal, the rinse temperature was 155. For the dinner meal, the rinse temperature was 165. i. On 8/12/24, for the breakfast meal, the rinse temperature was 171 degrees. For the lunch meal, the rinse temperature was 177 degrees. For the dinner meal, the wash temperature was 150 and the rinse temperature was 130. j. On 8/13/24, for the breakfast meal, the rinse temperature was 170. For the lunch meal, the rinse temperature was 175. For the dinner meal, the rinse temperature was 150. k. On 8/14/24, for the breakfast meal, the rinse temperature was 155. For the lunch meal, the rinse temperature was 155. For the dinner meal, the wash temperature was 149 and the rinse temperature was 130. l. On 8/15/24, for the breakfast meal, the rinse temperature was 173. For the dinner meal, the wash temperature was 155 and the rinse temperature was 163. m. On 8/16/24, for the breakfast meal, the rinse temperature was 155. For the lunch meal, the rinse temperature was 160 degrees. For the dinner meal, the rinse temperature was 160. n. On 8/17/24, for the breakfast meal, the rinse temperature was 170. There were not temperatures taken during the lunch meal. For the dinner meal, the wash temperature was 148 and the rinse temperature was 128. o. On 8/18/24, for the breakfast meal, the rinse temperature was 170. For the lunch meal, the rinse temperature was 170. For the dinner meal, the wash temperature was 155 and the rinse temperature was 129. p. On 8/19/24, for the breakfast meal, the rinse temperature was 175. For the dinner meal, the wash temperature was 156 and the rinse temperature was 143. q. On 8/20/24, for the breakfast meal, the rinse temperature was 177. For the dinner meal, the wash temperature was 155 and the rinse temperature was 165. r. On 8/21/24, for the breakfast meal, the rinse temperature was 176. s. On 8/22/24, for the breakfast meal, the rinse temperature was 175. t. On 8/23/24, for the breakfast meal, the rinse temperature was 170. For the dinner meal, the wash temperature was 140 and the rinse temperature was 158. u. On 8/24/24, there were no temperature taken for the breakfast and lunch meals. For the dinner meal, the wash temperature was 156 and the rinse temperature was 133. v. On 8/25/24, for the breakfast meal, the rinse temperature was 165. There were no temperatures taken for the lunch and dinner meals. It should be noted that while making the first observations of the dish machine temperatures, Dietary Aide (DA) 1 was observed to take the plate covers as they came out of the dish machine and put them on the shelf in preparation for the next meal. On 8/25/24 at 10:01 AM, an observation was made of a soda can and a small clutch bag sitting on the surface next to the griddle. A small office caddy was also on that surface with a pad of sticky notes in it. On 8/27/24 at 11:16 AM, an observation was made of the morning/afternoon cook (CK) 1 who was pulling apart dinner rolls for the lunch meal with her bare hands. CK 1 placed some of the dinner rolls into a bag, went to the sink to wash her hands, and then took the bag to the meal cart and placed a dinner roll on each tray within the dinner cart. CK 1 then returned to the tray of rolls and began pulling them apart with her bare hands. On 8/27/24 at 11:29 AM, an observation was made of the dish machine while cleaning dishes. The wash temperature was 145 degrees Fahrenheit, and the rinse temperature was 175 degrees Fahrenheit. On 8/27/24 at 11:34 AM, an observation was made of 2 large drinking cups sitting on the area right next to the griddle. Also on that surface was an office cup with large clips, an office tray with sticky notes, kitchen gloves, a clip board and a dietary form. On 8/27/24 at 11:37 AM, an observation was made of the stove in the kitchen which had food splatter on it. The griddle had crumbs on the area under the knobs and where the griddle was turned on and off. On 8/27/24 at 12:09 PM, an observation was made of CK 1 who was filling small cups with brown sugar. CK 1 was observed with a small cup of brown sugar in her hand and with a bare finger, smoothed off and patted down the brown sugar in the cup before putting a lid on it and obtaining another small cup of brown sugar. On 8/28/24 at 1:19 PM, a second walk-through of the kitchen was conducted. In the walk-in freezer, a box of Salisbury steak patties was open to air, a box of meat patties was open to air, a box with chocolate chip cookie dough was open to air, a box of sugar cookies was open to air. There were 7 individual pot pies stacked on a shelf that were not dated. In the walk-in refrigerator, a box of bacon was open to air. A container of lime juice with a best by date of 4/7/24. Additionally, a 5 gallon bucket of dill pickle spears had a lid on top, but it was not sealed and was open to air. On the surface next to the griddle, a bag of candy was observed, a drinking cup was observed as well as a box of gloves, an office tray with sticky notes, a cup containing highlighters, pens and pencils, and a labeling gun. On a shelf above the stove, a box of creamy wheat cereal was observed to be open to air. In the dry storage room, a container of long grain rice was open to air. A white substance was observed to have dripped into a large mixing bowl and was hardened. The ovens were observed to have crumbs outside the doors on the flat surfaces. The stove had dried food around the burners and the grill was greasy on top. On 8/25/24 at 9:56 AM, an interview was conducted with DA 1 who stated if there was a problem with dish machine temperatures, she would notify the dietary manager who would then call and have it repaired. DA 1 stated the temperatures were checked before running the dishes through the dish machine and were not checked again until the next meal. The DA stated she did not monitor the temperatures on the machine while the dishes were being cleaned. On 8/26/24 at 8:40 AM, an interview was conducted with the DM who stated the dish machine was a high temperature machine. The DM stated temperatures were taken before each set of dishes started. The DM stated she was unsure what the temperatures were supposed to be. The DM looked on her computer and was unable to find what the temperatures should be. The DM stated if the temperatures were not meeting the required temperatures, she would call (company name) to fix it. During the interview an observation was made of the dishwasher during a cycle. The wash temperature was observed to be 160 degrees Fahrenheit, and the rinse temperature was 142 degrees Fahrenheit. On 8/27/24 at 11:41 AM, an interview was conducted with DA 2 who stated she checked the temperature of the dish machine right after the breakfast meal. DA 2 stated the dish machine had to be run a few times before running the dishes so it would get to the proper temperature. DA 2 showed the surveyor the thermometer on the dish machine where the temperatures were taken. DA 2 stated the wash cycle was supposed to be above 160 degrees Fahrenheit, DA 2 stated the temperature required for the rinse cycle was 180-185 degrees Fahrenheit. DA 2 stated if the temperatures were not meeting required levels, the maintenance manager was supposed to be called to fix the machine. DA 2 stated it was her opinion that the staff running the machine at night were just turning the machine on and running the dishes. DA 2 stated she thought the DM checked the temperature logs. DA 2 stated the reason for having temperature controls was to ensure the dishes were being sanitized and to prevent food bourne bacteria. DA 2 stated the temperatures documented at the dinner meal the night before were not adequate to sanitize the dishes. The temperatures for the dinner meal on 8/26/24 were 140 degrees Fahrenheit for the wash cycle and 130 degrees Fahrenheit for the rinse cycle. On 8/28/24 at 12:17 PM, an interview was conducted with the RD. The RD stated she completed a monthly kitchen audit, and completed a more in-depth quarterly audit of the kitchen that included sanitation, budget and meal service. The RD stated she looked at the dish machine and other temperature logs monthly and had been checking weekly while they did not have a DM. The RD stated she had noticed, last year, that the dish machine temperatures were not meeting the requirements, and was told by kitchen staff that the machine had been fixed. The DM stated she was told the machine was fixed in April 2024. The RD stated she did not keep copies of the temperature logs, but that they should be kept in a binder in the kitchen. The RD stated previously when the temperatures were not meeting requirements, she and the administrator were notified and the repair company came and fixed the machine. The RD stated she did not believe the facility maintenance manager did any maintenance on the machine. On 8/28/24 at 1:46 PM, an interview was conducted with CK 2 who stated the new DM had not yet made up cleaning schedules yet, so the kitchen staff were just cleaning up after themselves and when they saw something that needed to be done. On 8/28/24 at 1:52 PM, an interview was conducted with the DM who stated she had been notified about the dish machine temperatures. The DM stated (company name) should have come on 8/27/24 and fixed the dish machine. The DM stated she would call the repair man to see what was found. The DM stated food items in the freezer should have a date when it was opened and used within the next week. The DM stated the food in the freezer and the refrigerator should be sealed. The DM stated food open to air can result in residents becoming sick, and affects the quality of food. The DM stated she would have to get back to the surveyor regarding a cleaning schedule.
Jan 2023 6 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Transfer Requirements (Tag F0622)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review, the facility did not ensure that a transfer or discharge was documented in the resident's medical record and that appropriate information was communicated to the ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility did not ensure that a transfer or discharge was documented in the resident's medical record and that appropriate information was communicated to the receiving health care institution or provider. Specifically for 1 out of 22 sampled residents, residents that were transferred to the hospital did not have a transfer assessment or a reason for the transfer documented in the medical record. In addition, no documentation was found in the resident's medical record to indicate the receiving provider was provided contact information of the practitioner responsible for the resident's care, resident representative contact information, advance directive information, all special instructions for care, a discharge summary and any other documentation necessary for a safe and effective transition of care. Resident identifier: 8. Findings included. Resident 8 was admitted to the facility for respite care on 11/10/22 with diagnoses which included hypertensive heart, chronic kidney disease with heart failure, anxiety, frequent pain, agitation, insomnia, and end of life care. Resident 8's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) was reviewed on 1/5/23. Resident 8's progress notes included the following entries: 11/10/22 12:56 PM ADMIT NOTE: [Resident 8] admitted to [facility] on a 5 day respite stay. She is on hospice with [hospice agency]. 11/12/22 19:42 PM Patient (pt). complained of stroke like symptoms, has a history of stroke, and described how she felt as being a stroke like with her past 6 strokes. She had a bp (blood pressure) of 215/125, and was very shaky, hands were equal grasp but weak. After finding out her blood pressure and talking with her we contacted (sig) the DON (Director of Nursing) asking what we should do, and she said to send her next door, to be checked out at the hospital. I talked with the daughter a little later, and she told me she was on hospice, and that in the past she has had a big spikes in blood pressure related to anxiety. I apologized to her for sending her when I should have contacted hospice before doing so. I posted a sign in her room that reads in case of emergency contact her hospice nurse and her number. I hope that will help if this scenario happens again. She is at the hospital now, I sent her with the required paperwork and contacted her family, I have report to oncoming nurse about what happened and about her day if she comes back tonight, she can take care of her. She knows about the history of anxiety now and we try a couple other things next time to bring that down instead of shipping her and contact the hospice nurse. 1700 we got the high blood pressure she was shipped by 1730, I contacted family after report and getting the oncoming nurse ready to take on the other patients. [Note: Resident 8's progress notes did not include information relayed to the facility from the hospice agency regarding resident 8's care needs.] The Documents file in resident 8's EMR included a Respite Stay Referral dated 11/10/22 that included a list of resident 8's medications, a list of resident 8's diagnoses, medication allergies, activity level, functional limitations, mental, psychosocial, and cognitive status, safety measures to be aware of, and a list of supplies needed for care. The documents also included notes from the Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) caring for resident 8. A care plan created on 11/10/22 included end of life services with a goal that resident 8 would be able to express feelings about health and life as desired and will experience death with dignity and physical comfort. Intervention approaches included coordinate with ancillary partners to ensure comfort, safety, and cares are being met, PRN (as needed). A hospital discharge note dated 11/12/22 revealed that resident 8 was treated with an EKG (electrocardiogram), neurological consultation, treatment for blood pressure elevation, a CT (continuous tomography) scan, an MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging), and laboratory tests. The note stated After initial evaluation including CT, MRI, and hypertensive management the patient was found to be on hospice. Family and hospice did not want her admitted and requested discharge back to hospice. The patient was transported back to hospice. On 1/5/22 surveyors were provided with a Communication between [facility], [hospice organization] &[hospital]. A communication chain included the following events: a. Floor nurse called [Director of Nursing(DON)] the night of the 11/12/22 with concerns about a patient's vital signs. The DON was given an incorrect room number, to which the DON agreed to have the resident sent to the hospital thinking it was a different patient. b. The floor nurse charted the event and her communication with family and/or hospital/hospice company and realized the mistake. c. [Hospice organization] called one of the facility PCC's (Primary Care Clinicians) [name provided] to discuss what the options were. d. [PCC's name] called [Facility Administrator] and he called the [DON] to have her reach out to family and the hospital. e. [DON] spoke with both the patient's family member and the hospital to confirm the patient was NOT to be admitted to the hospital. f. The transport driver was contacted, and arrangements were made to pick resident 8 up from the hospital. The [PCC name] and the hospice team to let them know the patient was being taken back to the facility before hospital admission. g. Patient arrived back at the building around 11:00 pm the same night. On 1/4/23 at 11:32 AM, an interview was conducted with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON). The ADON stated if a resident had an event the nurse on duty would assess the resident, message the medical director or the nurse practitioner (NP) and report what was going on with the resident. The ADON stated the nurse would get a full set of vitals, and if needed, a urinalysis. The ADON stated nurses had a standing orders to obtain a urinalysis. The ADON stated the nurses followed the providers orders. The ADON stated if STAT (immediate) laboratory tests were ordered, they could be drawn and sent to the hospital. The ADON stated if vital signs were not stable, the physician would be notified and the resident would be sent to the hospital. The ADON stated a progress note would be completed after the resident was sent. The ADON stated that an event form should be filled out when a resident was discharged to the hospital that included why the resident was sent, the time they were sent, and who was contacted. The ADON stated a progress note should be completed when the resident returned from the hospital. The ADON stated if a resident went to the hospital and did not stay overnight, a packet would be returned to the facility with the resident. The ADON stated the nurse on duty would look through the documentation sent back with the resident to see if there were any new orders or medication changes, then the nurse would give the documents to the medical records clerk to scan into the resident's EMR. The ADON stated the process for communication between the facility staff and the hospice staff was that orders were faxed to the facility and the facility would notify the physician. The ADON stated if a resident was admitted on hospice, an order would be provided with the resident's paperwork. The ADON stated that the hospice agency staff were good about going over a verbal regimen with the nurse on duty, and that information should be documented in the progress note. The ADON stated the contact information for hospice staff was kept at the nurses station and should also be in the resident's chart. The ADON stated the hospice agency caring for the resident should be in the physician orders. On 1/5/23 at 1:49 PM, an interview was conducted with the DON. The DON stated nurses should be charting daily on each shift. The DON stated anything out of the ordinary should be charted, calls to the doctor, progress or lack thereof, or change of conditions should be included in progress notes. The DON stated if a resident had a change in condition, the nursing staff should call her (the DON), the physician, and the family and include that information in a progress notes. The DON also stated the progress notes should include what was sent to the hospital with the resident. The DON stated a lot of communication went on in the Tiger Text, the facilities communication application, that was accessible to all staff and providers. The DON stated information regarding hospice orders and communication was transmitted through the tiger text, progress notes and the EMR. The DON stated a progress note should be completed when there was any communication between hospice and the facility staff. The DON stated that baseline information, including oxygen use, normal vital signs, resident behaviors, and nutritional information, was obtained from the hospice staff. The DON stated contact numbers for hospice staff should be in the resident's EMR. The DON stated when a resident had a problem the hospice staff should be notified first, then the hospice physician, then family. The DON stated the hospice physician would make necessary changes. The DON stated nurses always refer to the hospice team.
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 F0761 (Tag F0761)

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 drugs and biologicals used in the facility w...

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 drugs and biologicals used in the facility were labeled in accordance with accepted professional principles, included the accessory and cautionary instructions and the expiration date when applicable, and were stored in locked compartments. Specifically, the facility did not have a process where a missing narcotic dose could be readily detectable, the medication cart was left unlocked when unattended, and a computer was left on with resident information viewable. Resident identifiers: 5, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22. Findings included: 1. Resident 5 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included displaced fracture of olecranon process, multiple pelvis fractures, chronic kidney disease stage III, type II diabetes, and pneumonia. 2. Resident 17 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included anemia, urinary tract infection, hypertension, and thyroid disease. 3. Resident 18 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included anemia, orthostatic hypotension, renal insufficiency, hyperlipidemia, and seizure disorder. 4. Resident 19 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included renal insufficiency, hyponatremia, and hip fracture. 5. Resident 20 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included hypertension, renal insufficiency, diabetes mellitus, hyperlipidemia, and anxiety. 6. Resident 21 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included spinal stenosis, disorder of phosphorus metabolism, heart disease, hypomagnesium and thrombocytopenia. 7. Resident 22 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included hypertension, benign prostatic hyperplasia, renal insufficiency, diabetes mellitus and depression. On 1/4/23, an observation was made of the four medications carts that were in the facility. It was observed that in each locked narcotic drawer there were narcotic cards that had sections on the backside of the card with tape over the part where a pill had been pushed through. The following narcotic cards were found with the backside taped: a. 100-hallway medication cart: For Resident 18, duct tape was observed on the back of pocket number 6 of the Hydrocodone 5/325 milligrams (mg) medication card. b. 200-hallway medication cart: For Resident 19, tape was observed on the back of pocket number 13 of the Tramadol 50 mg medication card. c. 300-hallway medication cart: For Resident 20, tape was observed on the back of pockets 55 through 60. A horizontal piece of tape across pocket number 55 and a vertical piece of tape covering numbers 55 through 60 of the Lorazepam 1mg medication card. d. 400-hallway medication cart: For Resident 21, tape was observed on the back of pocket number 52 of the Oxycodone 10mg medication card. Resident 22, tape was observed on the back of pockets number 32 through 34, 14 through 24, and pocket number 17 of the Tramadol 50 mg medication card. And tape was observed on the back of pocket number 26 of the Hydrocodone 10 mg medication card. On 1/4/23 at 10:30 AM, an interview was conducted with Registered Nurse (RN) 1. RN 1 stated the narcotic count was done each change of shift with the oncoming nurse. Each medication cart had a narcotic drawer that needed to be counted. If there was a discrepancy, we look it up on the computer to see if the medication was administered and then call the Director of Nursing (DON) to see what she wanted us to do. We could not leave the building until the narcotic count was correct. But I have never had anything gone missing, so I have never had to worry about that. RN 1 stated the policy was if you remove a narcotic from the bubble pack then you need to waste it with another nurse. RN 1 was observed to make air quotes with her fingers and stated, Well that was what was supposed to happen. It doesn't always happen, that was why you are seeing the backs of the cards being taped. RN 1 stated she was unsure who was doing it, but it seemed to happen quite often. RN 1 stated it was weird how often it happened. RN 1 stated the pharmacy brings the narcotics to the facility and they are supposed to give them to a licensed nurse who puts them in the narcotic drawer in the medication cart or refrigerator. On 1/4/23 at 10:55 AM, an observation was made of Registered Nurse (RN) 1. RN 1 left the medication cart in the 300-hallway unlocked, walked away, and sat down at the nurse's desk. Resident 17 sat near the unlocked medication cart. On 1/4/23 at 10:58 AM, an interview was conducted with resident 17. Resident 17 stated she was able to move around with the assistance of her walker. Resident 17 was alert and oriented. On 1/4/23 at 11:00 AM, an interview was conducted with RN 1. RN 1 stated only the nurse had keys to the medication cart and the medication cart should be always locked when not in use for the safety of the residents. On 1/4/23 at 11:05 AM, an observation was made of the main narcotic sign out sheet for the 100-hallway titled Narcotic Count Sign Off. The Narcotic Count Sign Off sheet had columns across the top labeled with Date, Out Going Nurse, Units +/-, Total Units, Oncoming Nurse, Out Going Nurse, Units +/-, Total Units, and Oncoming Nurse. An immediate interview was conducted with RN 2. RN 2 stated when a narcotic card was added to the drawer or removed from the drawer it was written under the Units +/- column and then added or subtracted from the total. RN 2 stated the outgoing nurse would tell the oncoming nurse how many cards were added or removed and then both nurses would sign the narcotic count sheet. RN 2 stated there was no process in place to verify what happened to the narcotic cards that had been removed from the narcotic drawer when the master narcotic count was done at change of shift. RN 2 stated the nurses were supposed to put the narcotic sheet on the DON's desk when it was empty and then write minus the number of cards that were removed from the drawer on the Narcotic Count Sign Off sheet. RN 2 stated But we just trust the nurse leaving that they did what was right and put the used cards on the DON's desk. RN 2 stated that probably was not the best practice to be doing, and she could see how narcotics could go missing easily. An observation was then made of a narcotic that had been placed back into the bubble pack for resident 19. RN 2 stated she was unaware that narcotic had been taped back in and would waste it with the DON. RN 2 stated when a narcotic was not given it was supposed to be wasted, not taped back into the bubble pack. On 1/4/23 at 11:25 AM, an interview was conducted with the DON. The DON stated each nurse for the hallway will sign for the narcotics when the pharmacy brings them to the facility. The narcotic count happens at change of nurses, usually at change of shift. The DON stated the process for a narcotic that was not administered was, the medication was supposed to be wasted, a line drawn through the entry, the entry initialed by both nurses, a note entered in the margin explaining why the narcotic was wasted and the nurses are to make the DON aware of the waste. The DON stated this was not happening. The DON stated the risks associated with an incorrect narcotic count could result in missing narcotics. An observation was made as RN 2 showed the DON the taped medication in the narcotic card. The DON stated none of the medication packs should be taped, especially not the narcotic packs. Unless told to do so by management, and this would only happen if there were global dire need to save medications. The DON stated there was no secure process in place to ensure the master narcotic count was verified or correct when count was done between nurses. The DON stated the lack of this process could increase the chances of narcotics being misplaced or misused. On 1/4/23 at 2:58 PM, an observation was made of the computer on top of the medication cart in the 100-hallway. The computer was left on with resident 5's information on the screen. Paperwork with resident 5's information was left on top of the medication cart. Residents that were not in the sample were observed in the hallway near the medication cart. On 1/4/23 at 3:05 PM, an interview was conducted with RN 2. RN 2 stated the medication cart should be locked all the time unless it is being used and the computer should not have resident information on it when not being used. On 1/4/23 at 3:15 PM, an interview was conducted with the DON. The DON stated the medication carts and narcotic drawers should be locked when not in use by the nurse. The DON stated all resident information should be kept covered to protect the privacy of the residents.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Medical Records (Tag F0842)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain medical records on each resident in accordance with accept...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain medical records on each resident in accordance with accepted professional standards and practices that are complete, accurately documented, readily accessible and systematically organized Specifically, for 5 out of 22 sampled residents, immunization information was not available in the resident's medical records. Resident Identifiers: 2, 3, 5, 9 and 10. Findings included: 1. Resident 2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included type 2 diabetes, hypertension, pain, and urinary tract infection. Resident 2's electronic medical record (EMR) was reviewed on 1/5/23. Resident 2 had physician orders for COVID-19 vaccinations, first and second doses. Physician orders also included providing the Influenza vaccination and the Pneumococcal vaccination on the first day of the month. A review of resident 2's Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed that a COVID-19 or a pneumonia vaccination were not administered. Resident 2's MAR also revealed that resident 2 had already received the Influenza vaccine. A review of resident 2's progress notes revealed no consent or refusal documentation for the COVID-19, the Influenza, or the Pneumococcal vaccine. No documentation was found of COVID-19, Influenza, or Pneumococcal education that was provided to resident 2. A review of resident 2's EMR revealed no signed consents or refusals for the COVID-19 vaccine, the Influenza vaccine, or the Pneumococcal vaccine. 2. Resident 3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included type 2 diabetes, anemia, coronary artery disease, peripheral vascular disease, osteomyelitis, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, malnutrition, transient ischemic attack, and pain. Resident 3's EMR was reviewed on 1/5/23. Physician orders dated 12/5/22 revealed an order to provide the Influenza vaccine and the Pneumococcal vaccine on the first day of the month. Physician orders also included providing the first and second dose of the COVID-19 vaccinations. Resident 3's MAR was reviewed and revealed that resident 3 refused the Influenza vaccine on 12/5/22. Additionally, the MAR revealed that resident 3 was not provided the Pneumococcal vaccination on the first day of the month as ordered. The MAR also revealed that no COVID-19 vaccination was administered. A document created on 1/4/23 (during the complaint investigation) regarding the COVID-19 vaccine revealed that resident 3 had been offered the COVID-19 vaccine and had refused with conscientious objection. Further, the document revealed that the resident was not provided any education regarding the COVID-19 vaccination. Resident 3's progress notes had no documentation of education provided to resident 3 about the Influenza or the Pneumococcal vaccinations. A review of resident 3's medical documentation revealed no signed refusals for the COVID-19, Influenza, or the Pneumococcal vaccinations. 3. Resident 5 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included type 2 diabetes, history of deep vein thrombosis, coronary artery disease, seizures, pneumonia, pain, depression, and gastroesophageal reflux disease. Resident 5's EMR was reviewed on 1/5/23. Physician orders for resident 5, dated 12/16/22, included a Pneumococcal vaccination on the first day of the month. A review of resident 5's MAR revealed that resident 5 was not provided the Pneumococcal vaccination. No education was documented in resident 5's progress notes regarding the COVID-19, Influenza, or the Pneumococcal vaccinations. A review of resident 5's medical documentation revealed no signed refusals were available for the Pneumococcal vaccination. A document obtained by the facility on 1/6/23, after the conclusion of the complaint investigation, revealed that resident 5's last Pneumococcal vaccination was on 10/13/16. 4. Resident 9 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included COVID-19, atrial fibrillation, frequent pain, and hypokalemia. Resident 9's EMR was reviewed on 1/5/23. Physician orders dated 12/31/22 the Influenza and Pneumococcal vaccinations. The COVID-19 vaccine was not ordered as resident 9 was admitted with the COVID-19 virus. A review of resident 9's MAR revealed that resident 9 refused the Influenza vaccination on 12/31/22. The MAR also revealed that resident 9 was not provided the Pneumococcal vaccination. Resident 9's progress notes revealed no documentation that education was provided regarding the Influenza or the Pneumococcal vaccinations. A review of resident 9's medical documentation revealed no signed refusals for the Influenza or the Pneumococcal vaccinations, or if resident 9 had already received vaccination for the COVID- 19 virus. A document obtained by the facility on 1/6/23, after the conclusion of the complaint investigation, revealed that resident 9 had received the Influenza vaccination on 11/12/20, and the Pneumococcal vaccination on 9/29/15. The document also included information that resident 9 had received the COVID-19 vaccinations on 2/1/21, 2/22/21, and a booster on 10/7/21. 5. Resident 10 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included hypertension, hyperlipidemia, type 2 diabetes, benign prostatic hyperplasia, dementia, gout, atrial fibrillation, frequent pain, depression, and respiratory failure. Resident 10's EMR was reviewed on 1/5/23. Physician orders for resident 10, dated 8/1/22, included the Influenza and the Pneumococcal vaccinations. In resident 10's preventive health care information, located in the EMR, documentation revealed that resident 10 received the Influenza vaccine on 10/21/22 and 11/17/22 at the facility. No information was found about the Pneumococcal vaccination. In resident 10's medical documentation, no signed refusals or consents were found for the Influenza or the Pneumococcal vaccinations. A document obtained by the facility on 1/6/23, after the completion of the complaint survey, revealed that resident 10 received an Influenza vaccination on 9/13/22 and that resident 10's last Pneumococcal vaccination was on 10/13/16. On 1/4/23 at 10:55 AM, an interview was conducted with the facility Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), who also serves as the infection preventionist. The ADON stated the information would be found in the preventive care tab in the resident's EMR. The ADON stated if a resident was unable to provide the information a family member would be contacted for the information. The ADON stated consent forms were kept in the human resource office. The ADON stated he thought the consents or refusals were scanned into the resident's EMR. The ADON stated that if a resident could not answer about vaccinations, staff would contact a family member. The ADON also stated that staff had access to the State vaccination records and should document the information that was found on the web site. On 1/5/23 at 1:29 PM, an interview was conducted with the medical records clerk (MR). The MR stated that in the past immunization consents were obtained on paper. The MR stated when the facility switched to a different medical records program, obtaining consents were part of the nursing admission assessment and everything is done electronically. The MR stated nurses did not get copies of the resident vaccination information. The MR stated that staff were able to download vaccination documents into the resident's chart with information about vaccines. On 1/5/23 at 1:49 PM, an interview was conducted with the facility Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated now that the facility was moving to electronic only records, the resident would sign the consent or refusal, the nurse would sign it and it would be scanned into the resident's chart. The DON stated after the consent or refusal was signed, it would be sent to medical records and scanned into the resident's EMR. The DON stated every resident had a paper file within the medical records office. The DON stated if the information was not scanned into the resident's EMR, it would be in the paper file. The DON stated education was provided verbally and no written information is provided. The facility COVID-19 vaccination policy included the following statements: a. Residents or their representatives and staff will sign the consent form prior to administration of the COVID-19 vaccine. The information will be retained in the resident's medical record or the staff's medical file. b. The resident's medical record will include documentation of the following: 1. Education to the resident or resident representative regarding the risks, benefits, and potential side effects of the COVID-19 vaccine; 2. Each dose of the vaccine administered to the resident, or; 3. If the resident did not receive the COVID-19 vaccine due to medical contraindication or refusal. 4. Follow-up monitoring of the resident post vaccination.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview, for 1 of 22 sampled residents, the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and c...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview, for 1 of 22 sampled residents, the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections. Specifically, staff did not wear appropriate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) when entering a resident's room with a confirmed COVID-19 infection, there was conflicting information about what PPE should be worn when entering a COVID-19 positive room, what to do with the PPE after use, and there was not adequate information posted to indicate there was a COVID-19 infection in the building. Resident Identifier: 9. Findings included: On 1/4/23 at 10:30 AM, an interview was conducted with RN 1. RN 1 stated the staff should wear full PPE when they enter a COVID-19 positive room. RN 1 stated she was unsure if there was any COVID-19 in the building at the current time. RN 1 stated full PPE meant gown, eye protection, N-95 mask and gloves. RN 1 stated staff were supposed to wear a surgical mask while in the facility and it was ok to pull the mask down under the chin or remove it while at the nurses station. RN 1 stated residents were tested for COVID-19 when they came into the facility and then, when the second test was due, it would come up in the medication administration record (MAR) so the nurses would know when to perform the test. On 1/4/23 at 11:21 AM, an interview was conducted with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 1. CNA 1 stated the only resident in the facility that was COVID-19 positive was tested and confirmed to be positive before admission. CNA 1 stated that for residents that were on isolation, staff should wear a gown, gloves, and N-95 masks. CNA 1 stated when exiting the resident's room, the PPE should be doffed and placed in the containers outside the resident's room. CNA 1 stated she would sanitize her face shield and let it air dry outside the resident's room. On 1/4/23 at 11:35 AM, an observation was made of room [ROOM NUMBER]. This room had a small alcove outside of the resident's room that met up with the hallway. The door at the hallway was open and did not have signage that indicated the resident was on droplet precautions. A PPE cart stood inside the alcove and contained gloves, N-95 masks, gowns, sanitizing wipes, red biohazard bags, and a box of unused face shields. The door to the resident's room was also open. A red sign, that could not be seen from the hallway, was on the resident's door, that stated the resident was in isolation and before entering the room a visitor should check with a nurse at the nurse's station. No signage was observed that indicated what PPE should be worn when entering the room. On 1/4/23 at 11:37 AM, an observation was made of CNA 2 inside room [ROOM NUMBER] where the resident had a confirmed case of COVID-19. CNA 2 wore a gown, gloves, and a surgical mask. When CNA 2 exited the room, she was observed to doff the gown and gloves and place them in a covered container outside the resident's room. An immediate interview was conducted with CNA 2. CNA 2 stated when entering the room of a resident with the COVID-19 virus the Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) that should be worn was a gown, gloves, and a face mask. CNA 2 stated she did not think eye protection was required. CNA 2 stated she did not don any PPE when she brought in the resident's breakfast tray. On 1/5/23 at 10:55 AM, an interview was conducted with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) who also serves as the infection preventionist. The ADON stated the PPE that should be worn when entering the room of a COVID-19 positive resident was an N-95 mask, a face shield, a gown and gloves. The ADON stated there was a sign on the resident's door that said to contact a nurse before entering the resident's room. The ADON stated there should be a list of what PPE should be worn in the resident's room. The ADON stated the sign that was on the door of the resident's room before he was moved to a different room did not get moved to the new room. (Note: The resident's previous room was observed not to have any signage on or around the door.) The ADON stated when staff left the COVID-19 positive room, they should doff the gown and gloves and dispose of them in the bin outside the door. The ADON stated the N-95 mask should be saved and put on a hook outside the resident's room. The ADON stated face shields should be sanitized with bleach wipes. The ADON stated the area outside the resident's room had a clean site and a dirty site and face shields should be left there. The ADON stated staff should wash and sanitize their hands. The ADON stated the resident's door should be always closed. The ADON stated staff should be donning all PPE when entering the resident's room to bring meals in. The ADON stated the service-wear was Styrofoam and should be thrown away. [Note: A clean and dirty side were not observed to be in the alcove outside the resident's room.] The facility policy regarding infection control Standard Precautions, last revised in June 2022, included the following: a. Wear gloves (clean, non-sterile) when touching blood, body fluids, secretions, excretions, and contaminated items. b. Remove gloves promptly after use, before touching noncontaminated items and environmental surfaces, and before going to another resident, and wash hands immediately to avoid transfer of microorganisms to other residents or environments. c. Wear a mask and eye protection or a face shield to protect mucous membranes of the eyes, nose, and mouth during procedures and resident-care activities that are likely to generate splashes or sprays of blood, body fluids, secretions, and excretions. d. Wear a gown (clean, nonsterile) to protect skin and prevent soiling of clothing during procedures and resident care activities that are likely to generate splashes or sprays of blood, body fluids, secretions, or excretions or cause soiling of clothing .Remove a soiled gown as promptly as possible and wash hands to avoid transfer of microorganisms to other residents or environments. The facility policy regarding Isolation Precautions, last revised in July 2022, included the following: a. Facility staff will apply Transmission-Based Precautions, in addition to standard precautions, to residents who are known or suspected to be infected or colonized with certain infectious agents requiring additional controls to prevent transmission. b. The facility will use standard approaches, as defined by the CDC, for transmission-based precautions: airborne, contact, and droplet precautions. The category of transmission-based precautions will determine the type of personal protective equipment to be used. c. The rationale for the selected transmission-based precautions will be documented in the medical record. d. Information regarding the particular type of precaution to be utilized will be communicated through verbal reports, written in-house communication forms, and signage. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidance (September 2022) included using visual alerts such as signs and posters at the entrance and in strategic places that include Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) recommendations. Personal Protective Equipment guidance for Healthcare Professionals (HCP) included: HCP who enter the room of a patient with suspected or confirmed SARS-Cov-2 infection should adhere to standard precautions and use a NIOSH approved particulate respirator with N95 filters or higher, gown, gloves, and eye protection (i.e. goggles or a face shield that covers the front and sides of the face.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0883 (Tag F0883)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, for 5 of 5 sampled residents the facility did not ensure that each resident was offered an...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, for 5 of 5 sampled residents the facility did not ensure that each resident was offered an influenza and/or pneumococcal immunization and that the medical record included documentation that the resident either received the immunization or did not due to medical contraindications or refusal. Specifically, residents did not have influenza and/or pneumococcal immunization documentation in their medical records. Resident identifiers: 2, 3, 5, 9, 10. Findings included: 1. Resident 2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included type 2 diabetes, hypertension, pain, and urinary tract infection. Resident 2's electronic medical record (EMR) was reviewed on 1/5/23. Physician orders dated 12/31/22 revealed, an Influenza vaccination was to be administered every year between October 1 and March 31. The physician orders also revealed a Pneumonia vaccination was to be administered on the first day of the month PRN (as needed). Resident 2's Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed that on 12/31/22, the Influenza immunization was not administered because the resident had already had the vaccination. The MAR also revealed that the Pneumonia vaccine was not provided on the first day of the month as ordered. No signed refusal documents were found in resident 2's EMR. 2. Resident 3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included type 2 diabetes, anemia, coronary artery disease, peripheral vascular disease, osteomyelitis, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, malnutrition, transient ischemic attack, and pain. Resident 3's EMR was reviewed on 1/5/23. Physician orders dated 12/5/22 revealed, an Influenza vaccination was to be administered every year between October 1 and March 31. The physician orders dated 12/5/22 also revealed that the Pneumonia vaccination was to be administered on the first day of the month PRN. Resident 3's MAR revealed that resident 3 refused the Influenza vaccine on 12/5/22. No signed refusal was found in resident 3's EMR. The MAR also revealed that no Pneumonia vaccination was provided or offered on the first day of the month as ordered. 3. Resident 5 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included type 2 diabetes, history of deep vein thrombosis, coronary artery disease, seizures, pneumonia, pain, depression, and gastroesophageal reflux disease. Resident 5's EMR was reviewed on 1/5/23. Physician orders for resident 5 dated 12/16/22 revealed, a Pneumonia vaccination was to be administered on the first day of the month PRN. Resident 5's MAR revealed that resident 5 did not receive the Pneumonia vaccination on the first day of the month. A document obtained and provided on 1/6/23 (after survey exit), revealed that resident 5's last Pneumonia vaccination was on 10/13/26. No information was found in resident 5's EMR indicating the resident had been offered the Pneumonia vaccination, and no refusal form was found. 4. Resident 9 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included COVID-19, atrial fibrillation, frequent pain, and hypokalemia. Resident 9's EMR was reviewed on 1/5/23. Physician orders dated 12/31/22 revealed, an Influenza vaccination and a Pneumococcal vaccination were to be administered on the first day of the month PRN. A review of resident 9's MAR revealed that resident 9 refused the Influenza vaccination on 12/31/22. The MAR also revealed that the Pneumococcal vaccination was not provided on the first day of the month as ordered. There was no documentation in resident 9's EMR indicating refusal of the Influenza vaccination or if the resident had already received the Pneumococcal vaccination. On 1/6/23, post survey, the facility obtained and provided documentation that resident 9 had received the Influenza vaccination last on 11/12/20, and the Pneumococcal vaccine was received on 9/29/15. 5. Resident 10 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included hypertension, hyperlipidemia, type 2 diabetes, dementia, benign prostatic hyperplasia, depression, and respiratory failure. Resident 10's EMR was reviewed on 1/5/23. Physician orders for resident 10 dated 8/1/22 revealed, the Influenza vaccination was to be administered every year between October 1 and March 31. The physician orders dated 12/5/22 also revealed that the Pneumonia vaccination was to be administered on the first day of the month PRN. In resident 10's preventive health care information, located in the EMR, documentation revealed that resident 10 received the Influenza vaccine on 10/21/22 and 11/17/22 at the facility. No information was found regarding the Pneumococcal vaccination. A document was obtained from the State website on 1/6/23 and provided post survey on 1/6/23, revealed that resident 10 had received an Influenza vaccination on 9/13/22. And resident 10's last Pneumococcal vaccination was on 10/13/16. No consents or refusals for Influenza or Pneumonia were found in resident 10's EMR. On 1/4/23 at 10:55 AM, an interview was conducted with the facility Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), who also serves as the infection preventionist. The ADON stated influenza and pneumococcal vaccinations are offered September through December. The ADON stated documentation could be found in the preventative health care area of the resident's EMR. The ADON stated staff documented if a resident refused or if they had already received the vaccination. The ADON stated residents were educated about the risks and benefits of immunizations, and consent or refusal forms were signed by the resident. The ADON stated consent forms were kept in the human resource office. The ADON stated he thought the consents or refusals were scanned into the resident's EMR. The ADON stated that if a resident could not answer about vaccinations, staff would contact a family member. The ADON also stated that staff had access to the State vaccination records and should document the information that was found on the web site. On 1/5/23 at 1:29 PM, an interview was conducted with the Medical Records (MR) clerk. The MR stated in the past immunization consents were on paper. The MR stated that in August 2022 the facility switched to a new medical records program. The MR stated that now everything is done electronically. The MR stated paper copies were no longer obtained with the resident's vaccination information. The MR stated staff were able to download vaccination information into the resident's EMR. On 1/5/23 at 1:49 PM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated if a resident came from the hospital, they usually have had the influenza and pneumococcal vaccination. The DON stated the facility used the hospital records for information. The DON stated the hospital should include vaccination in the discharge paperwork. The DON stated if a resident refused or consented for a vaccination it should be documented. The DON stated no written education was provided to residents. The DON stated a progress note should be completed if a resident was verbally educated about vaccines. The facility Influenza vaccination policy, last reviewed on 7/1/21, stated Residents are protected from the Influenza virus by receiving the vaccine annually. The policy stated, The Infection Control and Prevention Officer maintains a file of residents and their vaccination status. Additionally, the policy stated, Residents have the right to refuse vaccination .The date and injection site is recorded on the Medication Administration Record. The facility Pneumococcal vaccination policy, last reviewed on 7/1/2021, stated All residents are provided the opportunity and encouraged to receive pneumococcal vaccinations. The policy further stated, The infection control nurse maintains a file of current residents showing status of vaccination. Additionally, the policy stated, After a new resident has been vaccinated, record vaccination date in the MAR .For new residents previously vaccinated, record vaccination date in the problem list.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0887 (Tag F0887)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record review, it was determined, the facility did not ensure the resident's medical record included doc...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record review, it was determined, the facility did not ensure the resident's medical record included documentation that indicates, at a minimum, the following: that the resident or resident representative was provided education regarding the benefits and potential risks associated with Coronavirus Disease - 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine; each dose of COVID-19 vaccine administered to the resident; or if the resident did not receive the COVID-19 vaccine due to medical contraindications or refusal. Specifically, for 4 of the 5 sampled residents, the facility did not keep documentation within the residents' medical record regarding the residents' COVID-19 vaccination refusal or education of the benefits and potential risks associated with COVID-19 vaccination. Resident identifiers: 2, 3, 9, and 10. Findings include: 1. Resident 2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included type 2 diabetes, hypertension, pain, and urinary tract infection. Resident 2's electronic medical record (EMR) was reviewed on 1/5/23. Physician orders dated 12/31/22 included COVID-19 vaccinations, first and second doses. A review of resident 2's Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed that no COVID-19 immunizations were administered. No consent or refusal documentation was found in resident 2's EMR. 2. Resident 3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included type 2 diabetes, anemia, coronary artery disease, peripheral vascular disease, osteomyelitis, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, malnutrition, transient ischemic attack, and pain. Resident 3's EMR was reviewed on 1/5/23. Physician orders included first dose and second dose COVID-19 vaccination as needed. Resident 3's MAR revealed that no COVID-19 immunizations were administered. A document created during the complaint investigation on 1/4/23 regarding the COVID-19 vaccine revealed that the vaccine was not administered. The reason documented was resident refused with conscientious objection. The document also revealed that the resident was not provided any education regarding COVID-19 vaccination. No signed refusal was found in the resident 3's EMR. 3. Resident 9 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included COVID-19, atrial fibrillation, frequent pain, and hypokalemia. Resident 9's EMR was reviewed on 1/5/23. A review of resident 9's MAR revealed that resident 9 was not provided the COVID-19 vaccination. Resident 9's EMR had no signed documents refusing the COVID-19 vaccination or if the resident had already received the COVID-19 vaccinations. Provided after exit: On 1/6/23 the facility obtained and provided documentation that resident 9 had received the COVID-19 vaccinations on 2/1/21, 2/22/21, and a booster on 10/7/21. 4. Resident 10 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included hypertension, hyperlipidemia, type 2 diabetes, depression, and respiratory failure. Resident 10's EMR was reviewed on 1/5/23. Physician orders dated 8/1/22 did not include an order for the COVID-19 vaccination. A preventive health document that was created during the complaint investigation on 1/4/23 revealed that resident 10 had been administered a COVID-19 vaccination on 3/4/22. The document does not include which dose of the COVID-19 vaccine was administered, the manufacturer, the administrator of the vaccination, or if any education was provided to the resident regarding the COVID-19 vaccination. No signed consents were found in resident 10's EMR for the COVID-19 vaccination. On 1/4/23 at 10:30 AM, an interview was conducted with Registered Nurse (RN) 1. RN 1 stated when a resident was admitted the form to give consent or decline immunizations was in that admit packet. RN 1 stated she had not seen a consent for the COVID-19 vaccination. RN 1 stated it was the nurse on duty's responsibility to make sure the consents were signed. On 1/4/23 at 10:55 AM, a interview was conducted with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), who is also the infection preventionist. The ADON stated if a resident had been vaccinated for COVID-19 prior to admission the floor nurse would get the resident's COVID-19 vaccination information as part of the admission packet. The ADON stated the information would be found under the preventive care tab in the resident's EMR. The ADON stated if a resident was unable to provide the information a family member would be contacted for the information. The ADON stated that staff should have access to State vaccination records and that staff should document their findings from the web site in the resident's EMR. The ADON stated if the resident had a vaccination card, a copy would be taken and put into the resident's EMR. On 1/5/23 at 1:29 PM, an interview was conducted with the medical records clerk (MR). The MR stated that in the past immunization consents were obtained on paper. The MR stated when the facility switched to a different medical records program, obtaining consents were now part of the nursing admission assessment and everything was done electronically. The MR stated nurses did not get copies of the resident vaccination information. The MR stated that staff were able to download vaccination documents into the resident's chart. On 1/5/23 at 1:49 PM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated that when a resident was admitted , the resident was asked if they had a card documenting their COVID-19 vaccinations. If the resident had a card, it would be copied and scanned into the resident's chart. The DON stated that if the resident knew they had received the COVID -19 vaccination, the facility would call to obtain the information. The DON stated they would also ask a family member about the COVID vaccination if the resident did not know. The DON stated if a resident did not want the COVID vaccination they would sign a refusal form, or they would sign a consent form if they did want to receive the COVID vaccine. The DON stated the consent would then be scanned into the resident's EMR. The DON stated now that the facility was moving to electronic only records, the resident would sign the consent or refusal, the nurse would sign it and it would then be scanned into the resident's chart. The DON stated if the resident was unable to consent or refuse, staff would talk with the resident's family member for consent. The DON stated sometimes if the resident refused, staff would revisit the subject with the resident to be sure the resident did not want the vaccine. The DON stated every resident had a paper file in the medical records office. The DON stated if the information was not scanned into the resident's EMR, it would be in the paper file. The DON stated education was provided verbally and no written information is provided. The DON stated staff would recommend the resident to have the vaccination, but would do what the resident prefered. The DON stated that progress notes would document that the resident was verbally educated about the vaccine. On 1/5/23 at 3:35 PM, an additional interview was conducted with the MR. The MR stated the only thing in the resident's paper chart that was not in the EMR was the narcotic records. The facility COVID-19 vaccination policy was reviewed and included the following statements: a. Prior to offering the COVID-19 vaccine, staff, residents, or the resident's representative, will be educated regarding the risks, benefits, and potential side effects associated with the vaccine in a form and manner that can be accessed and understood. b. A copy of Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for recipients and caregivers for the specific vaccination brand will be given to staff ,residents or resident representatives prior to administration and in conjunction with education. c. Residents or their representatives and staff will sign the consent form prior to administration of the COVID-19 vaccine. The information will be retained in the resident's medical record or the staff's medical file. d. The resident's medical record will include documentation of the following: 1. Education to the resident or resident representative regarding the risks, benefits, and potential side effects of the COVID-19 vaccine. 2. Each dose of the vaccine administered to the resident, or; 3. If the resident did not receive the COVID-19 vaccine due to medical contraindication or refusal. 4. Follow-up monitoring of the resident post vaccination.
Oct 2022 34 deficiencies 4 Harm
SERIOUS (G)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Incontinence Care (Tag F0690)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident 44 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included, but not limited to...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident 44 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included, but not limited to, acute kidney failure, diabetes mellitus type 2, anxiety disorder, essential hypertension, and UTI. Resident 44's medical record was reviewed on 9/28/22. On 7/22/22 at 4:04 PM, a Nurses Note documented LAB - Called [name of lab removed] to pick up a urine swab for the pt [patient] who thinks that she may have a UTI. Left swab and order with paperwork at the nurses station and let them know to pick it up there. They said that they will come today or tomorrow. On 7/22/22 at 11:14 PM, a Nurses Note documented Pt has been crying on and off throughout shift. Pt requests Ativan frequently, nurse has contacted MD multiple times, MD has not responded, nurse told pt about communication with MD, pt seems really upset and frustrated, pt said 'I hope he gets COVID [Coronavirus Disease-2019] real bad.' Pt c/o [complains of] urinary tract pain, asked for pain med [medication], asked about results of UA. Will cont [continue] to monitor throughout shift. On 7/24/22, a urinalysis report documented that resident 44 had a UTI. The common organisms detected were candida species, Enterococcus faecium, Enterococcus faecalis, Escherichia coli, and Peptostreptococcus prevotti. The report further documented the antibiotic of choice as Amoxicillian 875/125 mg by mouth twice a day for 7 days for possible acute UTI. On 7/26/22, a physician's order documented Amoxicillin-Pot [Potassium] Clavulanate Tablet 875-125 MG Give 1 tablet by mouth two times a day for UTI for 7 Days. A review of the July 2022 MAR revealed that resident 44 received the first dose of Amoxicillian on 7/27/22 at 7:00 AM. [Note: The first dose of Amoxicillin was administered three days after the UA report was received.] A review of the August 2022 MAR revealed that resident 44 did not receive a dose of Amoxicillian on 8/1/22 between 6:00 AM to 10:00 AM. [Note: Resident 44 received the last dose of Amoxicillian on 8/2/22 between 6:00 PM to 10:00 PM. Resident 44 missed one dose of Amoxicillian.] On 8/5/22 at 4:08 AM, a Nursing progress note documented Pt has been tearful for most of shift. Pt c/o R [right] abd [abdomen] pain, described as 'stretching,' guarding upon assessment, reports increased pain on laying down, passing gas, last BM 8/4 [22] AM. Pt then c/o 'kidney pain,' when nurse percussed flank, pt c/o pain. DON and provider notified, tylenol given (see emAR [electronic Medication Administration Record]), will get a UA. Pt called multiple times about Ativan, nurse said she couldn't give d/t [due to] med d/c'd [discontinued] and provider hasn't answered yet. Pt hears screaming, staff asked pt what was wrong, pt c/o bilat [bilateral] foot pain, nurse assessed, feet looked baseline, pt c/o 'feel like they are going to explode,' pt said it was d/t increased sodium in diet, nurse explained that pt was getting renal diet so this would not be the reason. Pt requested ice packs and lotion rubbed into feet, staff applied both. Pt reported treatment effective. Pt has been tearful and c/o different pains/ailments throughout shift. Provider and DON notified. [Note: A physician's order and the results of the UA were unable to be located.] On 8/6/22 at 5:37 PM, a Nursing progress note documented Pt was found calling out for people that weren't there in her room around 4pm today. I checked her vitals [vital signs]. Her oxygen was at 60, RR [respiratory rate] 18 Temp [temperature] 98 bp [blood pressure] 122/88. I put oxygen on her and it wouldn't get to 90 until I put it to about 5 Liters. I informed NP and Dr [doctor] of the facility via tiger text. There was no response back on the matter. Kept her on oxygen because when I take it off, she dips back down to below 90. She stopped calling out to unseen others after I put the oxygen on. Its almost end of shift, she is at 93 and has oxygen on. I will give this information in report at the end of shift. Lungs sounds clear in all lobes. Pt stated that even though I was giving her, her blood sugar, that she didn't feel like taking her self administered insulin. Her bs [blood sugar] around 5pm was 497. She gave me permission to give her 10 units of fast acting insulin. On 8/8/22 at 3:01 AM, a Nursing progress note documented 8/7/22 2200 [10:00 PM]-This Nurse called non emergency transport to send Pt to [name of hospital removed] to be evaluated d/t change in condition .such as: increase in oxygen therapy, is a feeder, edematous, and change in mentation. 2220 [10:20 PM]-EMS [Emergency Medical Services] arrived to facility 2228 [10:28 PM]-Pt left facility on Stretcher Family notified and MD 8/8/22 0217 [2:17 AM]- UPDATE- admitted to ICU [Intensive Care Unit] On 8/7/22, the hospital notes documented . The patient presents by ambulance from a nursing home with acute confusion. She is unable to provide a thorough history. Her exam is concerning for diffuse anasarca with depleted intravascular volume, including dry mucous membranes. She has a history of prior urinary tract infections. She was treated with IV [intravenous] and Rocephin shortly after arrival. Labs are notable for severe anemia. The patient also apparently has liver disease, and she has hypoalbuminemia, which could contribute to the interstitial edema. Her chemistry panel is concerning for significant elevations of the BUN [blood urea nitrogen], creatinine, and potassium. She was immediately started on treatment for hyperkalemia, including calcium gluconate, insulin and dextrose, and albuterol. I spoke with the nephrologist, who states that he knows the patient has chronic renal insufficiency, she is now in acute renal failure and will likely require dialysis. The patient will go to the ICU for emergent management of her renal failure and hyperkalemia with metabolic encephalopathy. On 8/8/22, the hospital notes documented . The patient is conversant but not oriented to year or situation. Per report, she has been having worsening confusion over the past two days. She has had a dry mouth and decreased UOP [urinary output] over this timeframe as well. She has generalized swelling. She reports nausea and vomiting over the last few days as well, and non-bloody diarrhea. She is unsure what her renal disease is from but follow with [name of doctor removed]. On 8/25/22 at 1:50 PM, a NP progress note documented . SUBJECTIVE: [Name of resident 44 removed] is seen today as a readmit. She has a medical history significant for T2DM [type 2 diabetes mellitus] on insulin, CKD [chronic kidney disease], HTN [hypertension], HLD [hyperlipidemia], and multiple wounds. She was sent to [name of hospital removed] with nausea and decreased by mouthintake [sic] where she was found to have hyperkalemia and a GFR [glomerular filtration rate]< [less than] 10. She was started on dialysis, is followed by Nephrology. On 10/3/22 at approximately 12:40 PM, an interview was conducted with RN 1. RN 1 stated that she was an agency nurse and it was her first day working at the facility. RN 1 stated she had no knowledge regarding the circumstances of resident 44's hospitalization. On 10/3/22 at 12:58 PM, an interview was conducted with the ADON. The ADON stated that resident 44 was diagnosed at the hospital with a urinary tract infection. The ADON stated when resident 44 was readmitted to the facility resident 44 had a new diagnoses of renal failure and was put on dialysis. The ADON stated that resident 44 was possibly sent out to the hospital due to a change in mental status. On 10/3/22 at 1:59 PM, an interview was conducted with the DON. The DON stated she had no knowledge regarding the circumstances of resident 44's hospitalization. On 10/3/22 at 3:43 PM, a follow up interview was conducted with the DON. The DON stated that she could not see that the UA was completed for resident 44 on 8/5/22. Based on interview and record review it was determined, for 2 out of 34 sampled residents, the facility did not ensure residents who were incontinent of bladder received appropriate treatment and services to prevent urinary tract infections and to restore continence to the extent possible. Specifically, a resident had a urinalysis (UA) test completed with no follow up and the resident went to hospital for treatment. In addition, a resident with signs and symptoms of a urinary tract infection (UTI) went to the hospital for treatment. Resident identifiers: 29 and 44. Findings included: 1. Resident 29 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included low back pain, injury to left lower leg, hypothyroidism, edema, chronic pain, and nausea. Resident 29's medical record was on 9/28/22. An admission Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE], revealed that resident 29 was occasionally incontinent of bowel and bladder and was not on a toileting program. The MDS further revealed resident 29 required two plus person extensive assistance with toileting. A care plan dated 8/1/22, revealed Infection. [Resident 29] is at risk for infection secondary to presence in a skilled nursing facility. The goal was [Resident 29] will have no untreated s/s [signs and symptoms] of infection through next review. The approaches included Monitor labs as prescribed, Notify MD [Medical Director] of s/s of infection, Universal precautions. A physician's order dated 8/19/22, written by Registered Nurse (RN) 3 revealed resident 29 was to have a UA, urine culture, and urine culture and sensitivity. The Laboratory Analysis results collected on 8/19/22, were received on 8/21/22. The laboratory (lab)results revealed resident 29 had Escherichia Coli, Peptostreptococcus prevotti, and Staphylococcus aureus. The form revealed that Macrobid 100 milligrams (mg) twice daily for 5 to 7 days was the appropriate treatment. Resident 29's August 2022 Medical Administration Record (MAR) revealed there were no antibiotics administered. There were no progress notes from 8/16/22 until 8/21/22. The progress notes revealed the following entries: a. On 8/21/22 at 3:25 AM, PT (patient) kept complaining about pain, and requested to talk to the doctor's about her medication regimen, she feels her current regimen isn't working. Pt was extremely upset. Pt did state she was at a 9 out of 10 and was still able to sleep. On the 1800 [6:00 PM] - 0600 [6:00 AM] shift, the CNA's [Certified Nursing Assistant] went to do their rounds and the pt was wearing the same brief from the previous night, stamped 0425 [4:25 AM] and when the CNA changed her, there was evidence of a BM [bowel movement], but not actual BM present, the pt wasn't cleaned well, and she was upset about it. b. On 8/21/22 at 10:28 AM, Resident 29 complained of pain and was requesting to go to the hospital emergency room. Resident 19 was angry narcotics had been spaced further out and Tramadol had been discontinued. Resident 19's vital signs were taken and as needed pain medication had been administered. The Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) was notified and resident 19 was transferred to the hospital. c. On 8/21/22 at 11:55 AM, Resident 29 was taken by ambulance to the hospital emergency room. d. On 8/21/22 at 4:16 PM, Resident 29 returned to the facility with new orders for Tramadol 100 mg every 6 hours. e. On 8/24/22 at 12:35 PM, Resident 29 informed the nurse of the hospital situation. Resident 29 was happy to have her pain medication back. Resident 29 was frustrated that she had not gotten any results back from the hospital. An Emergency provider report dated 8/21/22 at 11:48 AM, revealed Resident 29 was in increased pain over the last day or so and she coordinates this with increasing urination and dysuria. The patient apparently had a catheter urine specimen obtained a day or 2 ago and they do not have the results as of yet. She is worried she has a kidney infection. According to the lab results interpretation section resident 29 had trace of leukocyte esterase, 1-3 bacteria per high-power field (hpf), [NAME] Blood Cells, and a few bacteria. The Discussion/Course section revealed complaints of a possible UTI and pain radiating into the right hip and knee. The lab tests were fairly unremarkable. The section revealed that she did not have evidence of a UTI today. Medications administered included Ceftriaxone Sodium 1 gram on 8/21/11 at 11:51 AM, through Intravenous route. [Note: There was no culture and sensitivity completed according to the lab results from the emergency department.] A Nurse Practitioner (NP) note dated 8/26/22, revealed that resident 29 was in pain over the weekend and she went to the hospital to have her Tramadol increased to every 6 hours. [Note: There was no information regarding resident 29's UA that was collected on 8/19/22.] On 9/29/22 at 10:44 AM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated symptoms of a UTI were increased urination, frequent urination, change in vital signs, fever, and a lot more. The DON stated if a resident had symptoms the a UA would be obtained. The DON stated there should be documentation in the progress notes as to why a UA was obtained. The DON stated physician's were notified through the UA results being placed in the box for the physician when they came to the facility. The DON stated nurses also sent a tiger text to the physician with the results. The DON stated the NP was at the facility on Mondays and Thursdays and the physician on Wednesdays. The DON stated she was unable to obtain the tiger texts unless she was in on the text, so she would not be able to provide information that the physician was notified. The DON stated when the physician was notified the nurse should write a progress note. On 9/29/22 at 11:00 AM, an interview was conducted with RN 3. RN 3 stated when a lab value or UA was ordered, she would contact the NP, an order was placed in the residents electronic medical record, and the lab company was contacted. RN 3 stated that the results of the laboratory were faxed to the facility or the lab contacted the NP. RN 3 stated that sometimes the lab did not send results so the nurse had to follow up with the lab. RN 3 stated if the nurse who ordered the labs was gone for a week the nurse on shift may not be aware of what labs had been ordered and which results had been sent to the facility. RN 3 stated the lab process had resulted in missed lab results. RN 3 stated that she tried to document in the progress notes when a lab was obtained. RN 3 stated on 8/19/22, she obtained a UA for resident 29 because she was probably acting confused or had a symptom like pain or burning when urinating. RN 3 stated she did not know if the physician was notified of the UA results. RN 3 stated she did not know if there was follow up because if it was not written in the medical record it was not done. RN 3 observed the UA results from 8/19/22, and stated it was a 6 on a scale of 1 to 7 which indicated resident 29 had an infection. RN 3 stated the results revealed resident 29 had a UTI that needed to be treated with Macrobid. RN 3 stated that things get very busy and I forget to get everything done. RN 3 stated there were not enough staff in the building. RN 3 stated there needed to be a nurse for each hallway because it's just crazy. RN 3 stated It's so stressful for me, because at the end of the day I sent the order and did not follow up on it and did not get treatment. RN 3 stated there were so many things to do and follow up on and with almost 40 residents it was impossible to get everything done. RN 3 stated that charting did not get done. On 9/29/22 at 12:38 PM, a follow up interview was conducted with the DON. The DON stated she did not have any notes about the UA. The DON stated according to the UA in the medical record, Macrobid was the antibiotic that should have been used to treat resident 29's UTI. On 9/29/22 at 1:00 PM, an interview was conducted with resident 29. Resident 29 stated that the facility obtained a UA on 8/19/22, but she did not know the results. Resident 29 stated she got a shot at the hospital because of her UTI on 8/21/22. Resident 29 stated she was in a lot of pain at the facility, so she had to go to the hospital to get treatment. Resident 29 stated she wonders if the facility ever received the results because she had asked a bunch of times and no staff knew about the results. On 10/3/22 at 12:01 PM, an interview was conducted with the ADON. The ADON stated lab results were sent to the main fax line in the facility. The ADON stated that the physician then provided medication orders and nurses had access to antibiotics in the pixus system.
SERIOUS (G)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Deficiency F0697 (Tag F0697)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. Resident 45 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included major depressive di...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. Resident 45 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included major depressive disorder, adult failure to thrive, abdominal pain, hydroureter, anemia, opioid dependence, and anxiety disorder. On 9/26/22 at 10:57 AM, an interview was conducted with resident 45. Resident 45 stated that she had pain in the left foot. Resident 45 stated that she wrapped the foot herself with an ace bandage to help alleviate the pain. Resident 45 stated that the foot pain had been present since May. Resident 45 also reported chronic pain all over her body with diagnoses of fibromyalgia and complex regional pain syndrome. Resident 45 appeared calm, no facial grimacing noted, and no outward signs and symptoms of pain were noted. Resident 45 never stated their current pain score when asked multiple times. Resident 45 stated that they were taking gabapentin, Norco 5 mg every 6 hours, and a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug for pain relief. Resident 45 stated that they had their pain managed by an outside provider at a pain clinic. Review of resident 45's physician orders revealed: a. Acetaminophen tablet 325 mg, give 2 tablets (650 mg) by mouth every 6 hours as needed (PRN) for pain - Not to Exceed 3 gram in 24 hours from all sources. The order was initiated on 8/1/22. b. Butrans (buprenorphine) - Schedule III patch, apply 20 micrograms (mcg)/hour (hr) transdermal patch once a week. Take one transdermal patch to a different site each week prn pain. Remove old patch before applying new one. Special Instructions: per pain clinic [name of provider] will be in charge of controlling and refilling all pain medication. The order was initiated on 9/2/22. c. Endocet (oxycodone-acetaminophen) tablet 10-325 mg, give 10-325 mg by mouth every 4 hours PRN for pain. Special Instructions: per pain clinic [name of provider] will be in charge of controlling and refilling all pain medication. The order was initiated on 8/30/22. d. Gabapentin tablet 600 mg, give one tablet by mouth three times a day. Special Instructions: per pain clinic [name of provider] will be in charge of controlling and refilling all pain medications. The order was initiated on 9/2/22. e. Meloxicam tablet 7.5 mg, give one tablet by mouth one time a day. Special Instructions: per pain clinic [name of provider] will be in charge of controlling and refilling all pain medications. The order was initiated on 9/3/22. Review of resident 45's September 2022 MAR revealed the Butrans 20 mcg patch weekly was not administered on 9/7/22, 9/14/22, 9/21/22, 9/28/22 and was documented as Not Administered: Drug/Item Unavailable. It should be noted that the Butrans patch was not available the entire month of September, and resident 45 did not have one dose administered since the medication was ordered. The Endocet 10-325 mg every 4 hours was administered 147 times out of 174 opportunities during September 2022. The Endocet was documented as somewhat effective for 14 of the documented administrations, and 31 of the documented administrations were for left foot pain. Review of resident 45's progress notes revealed the following: a. On 6/27/22 at 6:39 AM, the note documented, Narcotics were found in pts [patients] room. Pt states that they are the norco that was administered by NOC [night] shift this morning. Nurse verified that they were norco. Pt stated that she was refusing to take the norco until she got her alprazolam. Administered both norco and alprazolam per MD [Medical Director] orders. b. On 7/1/22 at 5:59 PM, the note documented, Pt. constantly complaining telling staff that she is upset that her MRI [magnetic resonance imaging ] on her L [left] foot was cxl [canceled] even after nurse explained twice why it was. Notified pt. that hospital was called, note was sent to physician in box and waiting for clinical note to be filled out. Pt. also asked for print out of all her meds [medications]. Was given. She requests physician to see her to change pain meds because they are not working. c. On 7/8/22 at 12:24 PM, the note documented, Walked in the room to give the patient her noon meds. Pt. stated she is upset that she is on Clonazepam for anxiety instead of Alprazolam. She is also upset that she has still not had her MRI. Her and her mother stated that they feel that we are not working on doing what we need to do to take care of her foot. I told her that we are doing everything we can to get an MRI approved through the insurance and scheduled. They stated that they don't believe that we are. I assured her that we are doing everything to care for her needs. d. On 7/9/22 at 2:25 PM, the note documented, I called [name of pharmacy] to follow up on the patients Norco RX [prescription]. They told me that they accidentally made a discrepancy with the amount that they put in the computer for that medication. They said that they would text the DON of the facility and explain the mistake that they made on their end. They said that they would charge the facility until they can straighten out the error with the patients insurance and then refund us for what they change (sic) us on this medication. They will send it to us asap [as soon as possible]. e. On 7/10/22 at 1:35 PM, the note documented, Pulled two norco from the pixus while waiting on order from the pharmacy to come through. f. On 8/10/22 at 7:56 PM, the note documented, pt still refusing all meds except narcotics and gabapentin, copies made of mri report from august 4, 2022 dx [diagnosis] of well defined 3 cm [centimeter] hemangioma in left foot and biopsy to be scheduled, pt states another follow up end of this week g. On 8/12/22 at 1:40 PM, the note documented, Pt. returned from doctor [name omitted] for f/u [follow-up] MRI on L foot. Physician progress notes state: Patient has chronic pain in L foot. She has atrophy of musculature L leg. No external signs of trauma. MRI shows arthritis & Hemangioma but these do not seem to be the main cause of pain. Physician states he feels she has CRPS [complex regional pain syndrome]. New Orders: Return to [name of pain clinic omitted] for CRPS Evaluation & Treatment. h. On 8/20/22 at 7:49 AM, the note documented, Notified physician/NP on 8/18 [22] that pt. wanted to meet with her to reevaluate her meds and get clonazepam d/c [discontinued] and get back xanax, ambien, tramadol for breakthrough pain, and to get her hydrocodone scheduled instead of prn. Physician stated no. Notified pt. of physician answer. Pt. was verbally upset. i. On 8/24/22 at 12:48 PM, the note documented, that resident 45 had two prescriptions from the pain clinic, one for Butrans 20 mcg/hr transdermal patch weekly, dispense 4 patches and Endocet 10-325 mg tablet every 4 hours as needed for pain, dispense 180 tablets. The note documented that the pharmacy had reported that Medicaid would only authorize 7 tablets to be dispensed initially, then afterwards they would allow more. The pharmacy reported that the Butrans needed a prior authorization. The NP was notified and replied that resident 45 needed to go through the pain clinic provider for all medication refills and prior authorizations. The nurse notified the DON that the order could not be entered into the computer due to the pain clinic provider's information not being available. The pharmacy sent a prior authorization notice to the pain clinic provider. j. On 8/25/22 at 4:59 PM, the note documented, at this time ordered with original rx from pain clinic [name of provider omitted]. butrans transdermal patch and endocet to begin after midnight with a start date of 8/26/2022 and when available from pharmacy the nurse is to DC [discontinue] hydrocodone STAT [immediately] r/t [related to] new pain rx, no refills available and pt to f/u [follow-up] monthly with pain dr [doctor]. k. On 8/28/22 at 5:03 PM, the note documented, butrans patch that was ordered 8-25 [22] with endocet from pharmacy still has not arrived (endocet has arrived) and lidocaine cream ordered at this time from pharmacy r/t not on med cart but order in emar [electronic medication administration record], pt has multiple behavior r/t she wants all her old pain rxs [prescriptions] reinstated as well as the pain drs orders and educated with new orders came to dc [discontinue] old pain orders, pt unhappy and cont [continue] to have multiple behavior issues she states are r/t pain constantly and cont to refuse all other routine regular meds besides narcotivs (sic). l. On 8/29/22 at 9:45 AM, the NP note documented, . is seen today to followup on her pain. She was seen by pain management who changed her pain medication regimen. Everything previously ordered for pain from the facility was discontinued which made [resident 45's name] very upset. She has been very verbal and unkind to staff demanding her medications. Discussed with her her pain needs are to be managed by pain management. She also has continued to complain of pain to her L foot. MRI completed, hemangioma, referred to podiatry for further evaluation/biopsy. m. On 8/30/22 at 10:52 AM, the note documented, The pt's pain clinic nurse called me this morning at 0830 [8:30 AM], and told me that i needed to give the pt her gabapentin 3x [times] a day, and her meloxicam 1x a day. Went and talked to [DON name omitted], because I was unsure of what was going on, [DON name omitted], informed me, [NP name omitted] stopped all prescriptions due to the changed medication regimen. [DON name omitted], advised me to call the pain management clinic and get written orders, then let [NP name omitted] review them and decide whether or not they should be added to the pt's current medication regimen. Called [pain provider's name] clinic and asked to speak to him, or one of the nurses, and they were all in clinic and unavailable. I left a message with [receptionist name omitted], the receptionist, that I need written orders for the facilities (sic) provider to review. n. On 9/2/22 at 4:00 PM, the note documented, Spoke w/ [with] [name of pharmacy] per pt. request to see why Butran patches had not arrived, and to get gabapentin and meloxicam back. Facility physician states pt. needs to go through pain clinic. Tried calling [name of] Pain clinic about meds and they were closed . states they were supposed to get a prior auth [authorization] for Butran and instead d/c it. Notified them of the written order and put it back in computer. They stated it was reactivated on their side as well. notified pt. of status. o. On 9/8/22 at 8:38 AM, the NP note documented, . is seen today to follow up on her anxiety and depression. She is laying in bed, said she's waiting for her Percocet. All of her pain management is now being completed by [name of pain provider omitted], who manages her Percocet, gabapentin, meloxicam, and any other pain related medication. She asked me today about getting a Butrans patch, again explain to her that this would have to be approved through [name of pain provider]. She states that her anxiety has been improved since she started back on her pain medication, she also states her depression is better. Resident 45's pain scores for August 2022 were reviewed. Out of 126 recorded pain scores, on a scale from 1 to 10, the resident averaged a score of 8 out of 10. No documentation could be found of a pain assessment for resident 45. On 9/26/22, a care plan for chronic pain was initiated. Interventions identified were educate the resident on newly prescribed medications; monitor for side effects of pharmacological pain interventions and notify physician; monitor pain as prescribed; and offer non-pharmacological approaches to pain management. On 9/27/22 at 10:22 AM, an interview was conducted with RN 4. RN 4 stated that she was an agency nurse. RN 4 stated that this was her first full shift at the facility and she had worked one other time for half a shift. RN 4 stated that she had noticed that all the staff today were agency. On 9/27/22 at 1:28 PM, a follow-up interview was conducted with RN 4. RN 4 stated that when she came on shift she was handed a piece of paper to write down any medications that were out of stock. RN 4 stated that she was not informed of the process for ordering medication for a resident. RN 4 stated that she thought the facility had a Pyxis machine, that is how it is at all the facilities. RN 4 stated that she did not have an access code for the Pyxis dispensary, only the facility nurses were granted access. RN 4 stated that she had not been provided any instructions at this facility. On 9/27/22 at 10:03 AM and again at 1:57 PM, an interview was conducted with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 1. LPN 1 stated that she was an agency nurse, and had worked at the facility prior to becoming an agency staff. LPN 1 stated that if medications were running low they would order them from the pharmacy. LPN 1 stated that when the blister pack had only the last row or column remaining she would pull the reorder sticker and place on the refill sheet, or check to make sure that it was not too early to refill the medication. LPN 1 stated that she had the ability to reorder some medications through the electronic medical records, but not for all residents. LPN 1 stated that she could also fax the order to the pharmacy. LPN 1 stated that she could also call the pharmacy with any orders. LPN 1 stated a Pyxis was available to pull medication from, and that she had the ability to access the Pyxis. LPN 1 stated that if medications were not available she would document in the MAR, and include a note that stated she contacted pharmacy. LPN 1 stated that medications would usually arrive at the facility the same day if it was scheduled for a refill, they will put it on the next run. LPN 1 stated sometimes if the medication was not due to be reordered then it would not be refilled. LPN 1 stated that occasionally medications were misplaced or located in another cart and she would have to locate the medication to administer it. On 9/27/22 at 2:40 PM, an interview was conducted with the DON. The DON stated that the process for reordering medication was to pull the reorder stickers from the blister pack, order through the electronic medical records, or call the pharmacy directly. The DON stated that the electronic medical records reorder was available for all residents, and that they had been training the agency staff on reordering medication for the last two weeks. The DON stated that medications were available in the Pyxis system, but not all staff had access to the medication dispensing system. The DON stated that the pharmacy was coming out this week to give access to all licensed nurses at the facility, including the agency staff. The DON stated that there was usually a nurse at the facility that had Pyxis access and the ADON lived nearby and could run over to get medication from the Pyxis for staff. The DON stated that since she had been at the facility, which was the last two weeks, she had made sure that someone was on shift who had access to the Pyxis. The DON stated that staff should contact the pharmacy to obtain a refill, and notify the provider if a medication was not administered. The DON stated that the documentation was located on the MAR or in a progress note. The DON stated that the pharmacy had three deliveries a day and they were very responsive. The DON stated that she had worked a couple of shifts and the pharmacy had medication delivered within two hours yesterday. The DON stated that the licensed nurses should contact the pharmacy to obtain a refill or contact the provider to obtain a new prescription. On 10/3/22 at 11:04 AM, an interview was conducted with the ADON. The ADON stated that resident 45 had her own pain provider. The ADON stated that when resident 45 was first admitted , the facility provider was managing the pain medications. The ADON stated that resident 45 did not like the regimen provided by the facility physician so she went to her own pain clinic provider. The ADON stated that the pain clinic provider would send the pain medication orders to the facility for them to administer. The ADON stated that the pain clinic provider ordered Percocet and Gabapentin for resident 45. The ADON stated that he was not familiar with the Butrans patch. The ADON stated that once they received the order they sent it directly to the pharmacy. The ADON stated that the coordination of care for resident 45's pain management was to call the pain clinic directly to ask questions. The ADON stated that the facility providers wanted the staff to refer to the pain clinic provider for resident 45's pain medication management. The ADON stated that if a medication needed a prior authorization, such as the Butrans, they should have contacted the pain clinic for the authorization. The ADON stated that documentation of the communication with the pain clinic should be in a progress note. The ADON stated that staff should have documented any communication with the pain clinic, and if it was not authorized for any reason then they should have the documentation for that. Based on observation, interview, and record review it was determined, for 3 out of 34 sampled residents, that the facility did not ensure that pain management was provided to residents who required such services, consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person centered care plan, and the resident's goals and preferences. Specifically, residents complained of uncontrolled pain with no interventions or physician follow up. In addition, a resident went to the hospital in pain after pain medications were adjusted. Resident identifiers: 25, 29, and 45. Findings included: 1. Resident 29 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included low back pain, injury to left lower leg, hypothyroidism, edema, chronic pain, and nausea. On 9/26/22 at 12:32 PM, an interview was conducted with resident 29. Resident 29 stated she was unable to stand her pain last night and was groaning. Resident 29 stated there was no nurse on her hallway from 12:00 AM until 6:00 AM. Resident 29 stated she needed Tramadol at 2:00 AM but the nurse told resident 29 it was not her problem because she would not be there. Resident 19 stated the nurse continued to tell her she would not be the nurse to administer the Tramadol. Resident 29 stated she had scoliosis that made a hole in her spine and she has no control over her left lower extremities. Resident 29 stated she needed her Tramadol regularly because her pain never quit. Resident 29 stated her Tramadol was not administered at 2:00 AM when she wanted it. Resident 29 stated that her pain was at a 10 and she was crying and sick to her stomach. Resident 29 stated the nurse administered three pills to her early in the morning that morning and she did not know what the medications were. Resident 29's medical record was reviewed on 9/28/22. An admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessemnt dated 7/14/22, revealed that resident 29 frequently experienced pain. The MDS revealed resident 29 had pain that made it hard for her to sleep at night and limited her day-to-day activities. The MDS revealed resident 29 had as needed pain medications and no scheduled pain medications. A care plan created on 9/19/22, with a problem start date of 8/1/22, revealed resident 29 was at risk for pain secondary to chronic pain. The goal was resident 29 would have no unaddressed pain, through next review. The approaches included educate resident on newly prescribed medications, monitor for side effects, medications as prescribed, monitor pain as prescribed, and other non-pharmacological approaches to pain management. A current physician's order dated 8/1/22, revealed acetaminophen 650 milligrams (mg) three times per day. A current physician's order dated 8/2/22, revealed Lidocaine adhesive patch, medicated; 5%; topical apply patch to back daily. The Medication Administration Record (MAR) for August 2022 revealed Lidocaine adhesive patch was not administered on the following dates: a. On 8/23/22, Drug/Item Unavailable: Could not find b. On 8/24/22, Drug/Item Unavailable c. On 8/25/22, Drug/Item Unavailable d. On 8/26/22, Drug/Item Unavailable: Notified DON [Director of Nursing] - DON is getting more e. On 8/27/22, Drug/Item Unavailable: Waiting for delivery f. On 8/28/22, Drug/Item Unavailable g. On 8/29/22, Drug/Item Unavailable A current physician's order dated 8/1/22, revealed Naprosyn (Naproxen) tablet 500 mg twice daily for lower back pain. A current physician's order dated 8/1/22, revealed Voltaren Arthritis Pain (Diclofenac sodium) gel; 1%; topical administered three times per day. The instructions were to apply to knees and ankles. The diagnosis associated with the gel was low back pain. The MAR for August 2022 revealed Voltaren gel was not administered on the following dates: a. On 8/9/22, No nurse b. On 8/30/22, Drug/Item unavailable c. On 8/31/22, Drug/Item unavailable A physician's order dated 8/1/22, revealed cyclobenzaprine tablet 5 mg oral once a day as needed for muscle spasms. A physician's order dated 8/1/22, and discontinued on 8/11/22, revealed Oxycodone 5 mg tablet every 12 hours as needed for low back pain. On 8/11/22, the oxycodone 5 mg was scheduled every 12 hours for low back pain. A physician's order dated 8/1/22, and discontinued on 8/11/22, revealed Tramadol 50 mg 2 tablets every 6 hours as needed for low back pain. The Tramadol was changed to Tramadol 50 mg 2 tablets scheduled every 12 hours on 8/11/22, and discontinued on 8/21/22. The Tramadol order was changed to 100 mg every 4 hours as needed for pain on 8/21/22, through current. Progress notes revealed the following entries: a. On 8/15/22 at 11:06 AM, the physician documented resident 29 had chronic back pain with medications listed. b. On 8/16/22 at 4:07 PM, resident 29 complained about pain and said that today was worse than normal and she kept up with pain medications and provided as needed pain medications. Resident 29 was unable to walk since she was at another nursing facility when she was walking and heard three pops. Resident 29 had since had pain radiating from her back into her legs. Pain was controlled with the medication she was on now. c. On 8/21/22 at 3:25 AM, PT [patient] kept complaining about pain, and requested to talk to the doctor's about her medication regimen, she feels her current regimen isn't working. Pt was extremely upset. Pt did state she was at a 9 out of 10 [pain scale] and was still able to sleep. On the 1800 [6:00 PM] - 0600 [6:00 AM] shift, the CNA's [Certified Nursing Assistant] went to do their rounds and the pt was wearing the same brief from the previous night, stamped 0425 [4:25 AM] and when the CNA changed her, there was evidence of a BM [bowel movement], but not actual BM present, the pt wasn't cleaned well, and she was upset about it. d. On 8/21/22 at 10:28 AM, Resident 29 complained of pain and was requesting to go to the hospital emergency room. Resident 19 was angry narcotics had been spaced further out and Tramadol had been discontinued. Resident 29's vital signs were taken and her as needed pain medication had been administered. The Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) was notified and resident 19 was transferred to the hospital. e. On 8/21/22 at 11:55 AM, Resident 29 was taken by ambulance to the hospital emergency room. f. On 8/21/22 at 4:16 PM, Resident 29 returned to the facility with new orders for Tramadol 100 mg every 6 hours. g. On 8/24/22 at 12:35 PM, Resident 29 informed the nurse of the hospital situation. Resident 29 was happy to have her pain medication back. Resident 29 was frustrated that she had not gotten any results back from the hospital. An Emergency provider report dated 8/21/22 at 11:48 AM, revealed Resident 29 .presents with complaints of constellation of symptoms including right leg, right knee, and right hip pain that she has had for more than 3 months but has increased over the last day or so. She coordinates this with increasing urination and dysuria. In addition this week the patient's narcotic dose apparently was dropped in half and since that time the patient has had increasing pain in her back and legs. The patient tells me that the initial injury to her lower back was approximately 3 months ago and was worsened by her underlying scoliosis. The Discussion/Course section revealed no new fractures and The patient was aggressively treated upon arrival and underwent a full diagnostic workup. The patient did receive IV [intravenous] fluids and medications here in the department. The patient felt much better. The patient's primary concern was that she wanted to have her narcotics return back to where they were before. I talked with [physician from facility] and he will contact them back and readjust her medications back to where she had been. A Nurse Practitioner (NP) note dated 8/26/22, revealed that resident 29's Tramadol had been changed to every 12 hours and was in pain over the weekend. The NP wrote she went to the hospital to have her Tramadol increased to every 6 hours, she stated that worked much better for her. The MAR for September 2022 revealed the following: a. Acetaminophen 650 mg three times per day were not administered on 9/6/22, 9/7/22, and 9/8/22 because the Drug/Item was unavailable and on order. b. Lidocaine patch adhesive patch 5% topical once per day was not administered on 9/1/22, 9/2/22, 9/26/22, and 9/27/22 because the Drug/Item was unavailable and needed to order more. The MAR for September 2022 further revealed that resident 29 was administered Tramadol on 9/25/22 at 10:27 PM, and was not administered the next dose until 3:45 AM. [Note: Resident 29 stated she wanted her Tramadol around 2:00 AM and it was not administered until 1 hour and 15 minutes after the time she was allowed to have it.] On 10/3/22 at 11:57 AM, an interview was conducted with the ADON. The ADON stated if the medication was not available then it was because the pharmacy did not have a supply. The ADON stated medications like Tramadol were in the Pyxus system and he was not sure why the medication was not administered on 8/9/22, because there was always a nurse at the facility. The ADON stated when a resident was in pain and the pain medications and gels were not available, then the pain would be increased. 2. Resident 25 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included hypothyroidism, hyperlipidemia, depression, hypertension, borderline personality disorder, pain, and edema. On 9/26/22 at 12:32 PM, an interview was conducted with resident 25. Resident 25 stated she saw a physician once at the facility, who came into her room and said how are you and looked at her. Resident 25 stated she had not seen one since. Resident 25 stated she was not able to tell the physician what she needed. Resident 25 stated she had asked for a referral to the pain clinic because she needed a shot in her lower back. Resident 25 stated she had pain in her lower back and the shot really helped her pain. Resident 25's medical record was reviewed on 9/29/22. An admission MDS dated [DATE], revealed resident 25 had a Brief Interview of Mental Status score of 11 which indicated moderate cognitive impairment. The MDS further revealed that resident 25 did not have scheduled pain medication but had pain medication as needed. Resident 25 did not have non-medication interventions for pain. The MDS revealed that a pain assessment interview should be conducted and there was no pain according to the resident interview. A care plan with a problem start date of 7/19/22, and created on 7/31/22, revealed resident 29 was at risk for pain secondary to limited mobility. The goal was resident 25 would not have any unaddressed pain through the next review. The approaches included education on new prescribed medications, monitor for side effects, medications as prescribes, monitor pain as prescribed, and offer non-pharmacological approaches to pain management. A physician's note dated 8/15/22 at 10:35 AM, revealed resident 25 had chronic back pain and to refer to a local pain clinic physician. Resident 25 wished to continue to be treated with her back pain at a pain clinic. Otherwise her medical conditions were well controlled at this time. An NP note dated 9/1/22 at 7:16 AM, revealed [Resident 25] is seeing today to follow up on her back and lake (sic) pain. She states that she still would like to see a physician who could do injections to her back as she states she will have weakness in her lower extremities. An NP note dated 9/21/22 at 3:52 PM, revealed, Subjective: [Resident 25] is seen today for a follow up visit. She states she continues to have pain in her back, appointment with pain specialist is pending. She denies any increased numbness or tingling to her lower extremities. The treatment plan was Chronic Pain Syndrome - Continue Tylenol - Refer to spinal interventions or similar for spinal injections. An NP note dated 9/27/22 at 8:05 AM, revealed SUBJECTIVE: [Resident 25] is in today at her request wanting to follow up on an appointment for spinal injections. Discuss this with facility staff, who have been working to make appointments. She said she has done this for many years, and reports that it helps so that she can ambulate better. She reports she would still like to pursue this. The treatment plan was Chronic Pain Syndrome - Continue Tylenol - Refer to spinal interventions or similar for spinal injections. Progress notes revealed [TRUNCATED]
SERIOUS (G)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Deficiency F0725 (Tag F0725)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 22. Nursing and CNA schedules were provided by the facility Administrator for the previous 30 days. On 8/28/22, for the rehabil...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 22. Nursing and CNA schedules were provided by the facility Administrator for the previous 30 days. On 8/28/22, for the rehabilitation hallway (100 and 200 hallway) for the shift 6:00 AM to 6:00 PM, there were no CNA's scheduled. On 8/29/22, for the Long Term Care (LTC) 300 and 400 Hallway the CNA shift from 6:00 PM to 6:00 AM, was unassigned. On 8/30/22, for the LTC hallway the CNA shift from 6:00 AM to 6:00 PM, was unassigned. On 8/31/22, for the night shift for LTC hallway the CNA shift from 6:00 PM to 6:00 AM, was unassigned. On 9/2/22, for the LTC hallway there were two CNA's unassigned that day and one CNA unassigned for the rehabilitation hallway. The nursing shift from 6:00 PM to 6:00 AM, was unassigned. On 9/3/22, for the LTC hallway there were two CNA's unassigned. On 9/5/22, there was no CNA scheduled for the rehabilitation hallway from 6:00 PM until 6:00 AM. On 9/6/22, for the LTC hallway no CNA's were assigned to work from 6:00 AM to 6:00 PM. There was one CNA scheduled for the entire building from 10:00 PM to 6:00 AM. On 9/7/22, for the LTC hallway the CNA from 6:00 PM to 6:00 AM, was unassigned. There was one CNA scheduled from 10:00 PM to 12:00 AM. On 9/8/22, for the LTC hallway there was one CNA scheduled from 6:00 AM to 6:00 PM, and one CNA for the rehabilitation hallway. The shift for the 6:00 PM to 6:00 AM, the CNA was unassigned. The nursing position from 6:00 PM to 6:00 AM, was unassigned. There were no unassigned shifts from 9/18/22 through 9/30/22. On 10/1/22, there were two CNA's for the entire building scheduled from 10:00 PM to 6:00 AM. On 9/28/22 at 12:48 PM, an interview was conducted with the Administrator. The Administrator stated that he guessed an unassigned was picked up by a staff member but not written on the schedule. The Administrator stated that other staff members that filled in for CNA shifts were the RA, Housekeepers who were Nursing Assistants and other staff. The Administrator stated that he signed a contract with another agency service on 9/15/22, when he started as the Administrator. The Administrator stated there were not enough staff so that was his first thing as an Administrator to get better staffing. 18. Resident 23 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included fracture of right femur, congestive heart failure, gastro-esophageal reflux disease, deep vein thrombosis, insomnia, hypothyroidism, alcohol dependence, major depressive disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorder. On 9/26/22 at 12:22 PM, an interview was conducted with resident 23. Resident 23 stated that the weekend staff were kind of stretched, with only one licensed nurse and two CNA's on shift. Resident 23 stated she had to wait two hours for pain medicine to be administered, and this occurred her last night. Resident 23 stated that there was just one nurse on shift. Resident 23 stated that the medication can only be administered every six hours and then she had to wait an additional two hours after that before it was administered. Resident 23 stated that her pain was located in the femur and feet. Resident 23 stated that no one could help me because they were so busy. Resident 23 stated that the pain was a 10/10, on a scale of 1 to 10. Resident 23 stated that it made her mad as hell, and no one provided help. Resident 23 stated that they have had to wait for assistance usually between 6:00 PM to 10:00 PM, and the last couple of nights it had been really bad. 19. On 09/27/22 at 10:03 AM, an interview was conducted with Restorative Nurse Assistant (RNA) 1. RNA 1 stated that she was the only RNA for the facility, and she worked Monday through Friday. RNA 1 stated that she was trying to work on getting the RNA program going. RNA 1 stated that she started providing RNA services at the beginning of September 2022, and prior to September they were working on rebuilding the program. RNA 1 stated that she began working at the facility in January 2022, and that there was not a RNA program until she began doing it. RNA 1 stated that in April or May 2022 there was one other RNA who was providing RNA services Monday through Friday. 20. On 10/3/22 at 9:06 AM, an interview was conducted with RN 6. RN 6 stated that she worked for an agency, and that this was the third shift at the facility. RN 6 clarified that this was her third shift working as an agency nurse period. RN 6 stated that she was an emergency room (ER) nurse and working agency in Long Term Care settings was new to her. RN 6 stated that when a resident had a change in condition she was not sure what the process would be, but she called the DON. RN 6 provided an example of a resident who had sustained a fall the prior day. RN 6 stated that the resident was on an anticoagulant and believed that they should be evaluated in the ER after the fall. RN 6 stated that they attempted to contact the resident's provider. RN 6 stated that they had left a voicemail for the NP, but never heard a response back. RN 6 stated that she then notified the DON and they agreed to send the resident to the hospital. RN 6 stated that the DON instructed her to document the incident in a fall report. RN 6 stated stated she would have liked to do a progress note, but that she did not know how to use the electronic medical records system. RN 6 stated that she was not provided any instructions on how to use the medical records system and she had not used it prior to coming to this facility. RN 6 stated that she had received no orientation to the facility. RN 6 stated she was provided the DON's phone number and login credentials for the electronic medical records. RN 6 stated that the previous nurse gave her the medical records website to login and access the Medication Administration Record (MAR). RN 6 stated that she was able to navigate the system, but it took longer to educate herself on the system. RN 6 stated that she would have liked to have had some sort of orientation. RN 6 stated that she did not know how to navigate beyond the MAR. RN 6 stated that she did not know how to access the resident's care plan until today when another nurse showed her. RN 6 stated she would have liked to know the patients diagnoses and plan of care. 21. On 10/3/22 at 9:28 AM, an interview was conducted with CNA 2 and RN 8. CNA 2 stated that resident 7 was off of transmission based precautions (TBP) two days ago. CNA 2 stated that a stool sample was sent on Thursday, and they were waiting for results. CNA 2 stated that resident 7 had some stools that contained mucous. RN 8 stated that she was informed in report that resident 7 came off TBP two days ago, and that he was on precautions for Clostridioides difficile. RN 8 stated that she did not know how to look up lab reports in the electronic medical records. RN 8 stated that she worked for an agency company, just started at the facility yesterday, and was only shown how to access the MAR. RN 8 stated that this was the first time using this electronic medical records system. CNA 2 stated that none of staff were trained on the new electronic medical records system and they had been figuring out as they go. 15. On 9/26/22 at 2:09 PM, an interview was conducted with resident 36. Resident 36 stated that she had been told by staff that she had to wait an additional two hours for nausea medication because the facility was short staffed and a new admission came in. Resident 36 stated that she could request her nausea medication every two hours. Resident 36 stated that facility was always short staffed. On 9/29/22 at 12:34 PM, an interview was conducted with CNA 7. CNA 7 stated that most of the call lights for resident 36 were a request for a nausea shot. CNA 7 stated that she had never been on shift when resident 36 did not get a nausea shot. CNA 7 stated that sometimes resident 36 may have to wait because the nurse was with other residents. CNA 7 stated that sometimes it may be a little while before the staff were able to get to resident 36. CNA 7 stated that resident 36 has had to wait up to 45 minutes from request for a nausea shot. CNA 7 stated that the nurse may be busy or the staff put resident 36 off because she pushes the call light frequently. CNA 7 stated that there was a staffing issue. 16. On 10/3/22 at 11:58 AM, an interview was conducted with resident 1. Resident 1 stated that last night she had pressed her call light and waited for over an hour for staff to respond. Resident 1 stated while she was waiting for staff she went out to the hallway and yelled for help. Resident 1 stated when she got no response she called the facilities main telephone number to get help. Resident 1 stated that a gentlemen on the other side of the facility answered the phone and came to help her. Resident 1 stated that the staff member told her that he was the only CNA for the entire facility. 17. On 9/26/22 at 1:08 PM, an interview was conducted with resident 156. Resident 156 stated the facility was short staffed. Resident 156 stated that weekends were usually staffed with one nurse and one CNA. Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined, the facility did not have sufficient nursing staff with the appropriate competencies and skills sets to provide nursing and related services to assure resident safety and attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident. Specifically, for 13 out of 34 sampled residents, resident's complained of not having enough staff to meet there needs, staff complained there were not enough staff to complete their job duties, residents laboratory (lab) results were not followed up with after a urinalysis (UA) was completed, showers were not completed, residents administered their own medications because there were not enough staff, there were no grievances, residents sustained falls, resident's complained of pain, and medications were not administered according to physician's orders. Resident identifiers: 1, 7, 8, 16, 22, 23, 25, 29, 36, 38, 45, 53, and 156. Findings included: 1. On 9/29/22 at 11:00 AM, an interview was conducted with Registered Nurse (RN) 3. RN 3 stated when a lab value or UA was ordered, she would contact the Nurse Practitioner (NP), an order was placed in the residents electronic medical record, and the lab company was contacted. RN 3 stated that the results of the laboratory were faxed to the facility or the lab contacted the NP. RN 3 stated that sometimes the lab did not send results so the nurse had to follow up with the lab. RN 3 stated if the nurse who ordered the labs was gone for a week the nurse on shift may not be aware of what labs had been ordered and which results had been sent to the facility. RN 3 stated the lab process had resulted in missed lab results. RN 3 stated that she tried to document in the progress notes when a lab was obtained. RN 3 stated on 8/19/22, she obtained a UA for resident 29 because she was probably acting confused or had a symptom like pain or burning when urinating. RN 3 stated she did not know if the physician was notified of the UA results. RN 3 stated she did not know if there was follow up because if it was not written in the medical record it was not done. RN 3 observed the UA results from 8/19/22, and stated it was a 6 on a scale of 1 to 7 which indicated resident 29 had an infection. RN 3 stated the results revealed resident 29 had a urinary tract infection that needed to be treated with Macrobid. RN 3 stated that things get very busy and I forget to get everything done. RN 3 stated there were not enough staff in the building. RN 3 stated there needed to be a nurse for each hallway because it's just crazy. RN 3 stated It's so stressful for me, because at the end of the day I sent the order and did not follow up on it and did not get treatment. RN 3 stated there were so many things to do and follow up on and with almost 40 residents it was impossible to get everything done. RN 3 stated that charting did not get done. [Cross Reference F690 and F773] 2. On 9/26/22 at 10:31 AM, an interview was conducted with resident 22. Resident 22 stated that her shower days were every Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday. This surveyor observed a sign in resident 22's room with the posted shower days. Resident 22 stated that sometimes she did not get showered due to there not being enough staff. On 9/26/22 at 12:32 PM, an interview was conducted with resident 25. Resident 25 stated she should get a shower today, but did not get one because staff did not show up. Resident 25 stated she got a shower on 9/24/22, but did not have one for two weeks prior to that. Resident 25 stated she took showers by herself because she became very disgusted by herself. On 9/29/22 at 12:34 PM, an interview was conducted with CNA 7. CNA 7 stated that the facility was short on staff. CNA 7 stated that she had seven showers to complete today with two CNAs on the 100 and 200 hallway. CNA 7 stated that five of the seven residents were a two person extensive assistance. CNA 7 stated that the 100 and 200 hallway did not have a shower CNA and sometimes the showers got missed. CNA 7 stated that two showers had been completed today and one resident refused. CNA 7 stated that her goal was to get three showers completed each day. CNA 7 stated if a shower was missed she would pass it on in report and see if the next shift could complete the showers. CNA 7 if the next shift could not the showers completed she would try and complete the showers the next day. CNA 7 stated that resident 22 was a set up for showers. CNA 7 stated that after she set resident 22 up for a shower she would leave and give resident 22 privacy. CNA 7 stated that resident 22 needed assistance to wash her back and get dressed. CNA 7 stated that resident 22 was very involved in her care. CNA 7 stated that the shower sheets were getting missed because a lot of the staff did not know that they had to complete a shower sheet. CNA 7 further stated that the shower book did not have any shower sheets available and staff did not have a master copy to make copies. CNA 7 stated that she had a hard time answering resident call lights when there were only two CNAs staffed because most of the residents were a two person assistance. CNA 7 further stated the willingness of other staff to answer call lights was also a concern. [Cross Reference F676] 3. On 9/26/22 at 12:32 PM, an observation was made of resident 25. Resident 25 had an inhaler in a box on her over bed table. Resident 25 was interviewed. Resident 25 stated she needed the inhaler off and on. Resident 25 stated she had the inhaler in her purse and brought it out so she had it when she needed it. Resident 25 stated she could not rely on staff to provide the inhaler when she needed it because there were not enough staff. [Cross Reference F554] 4. The grievance log was reviewed. There was a grievance dated 5/2/22, regarding call lights. There were two grievances dated 9/12/22, regarding call lights not being answered and meal cards not being followed. There were no grievances between 5/3/22 through 9/12/22. The Administrator provided Resident Council Minutes dated 4/5/22, 5/3/22, 6/7/22, 7/12/22, 8/2/22, and 9/12/22. The Resident Council Minutes dated 9/12/22, revealed long call light times and there was no follow-up documented. On 10/3/22 at 9:49 AM, an observation was made of resident 16 talking to Physical Therapy Assistant (PTA) 1 and Occupational Therapist (OT) 1. Resident 16 stated the facility was so short staffed on Saturday night that a CNA came in and told him she did not have time to change him. Resident 16 stated a nurse came in later and he told the nurse that if he was not changed, he would call the police. Resident 16 stated he told staff it was their choice on what he did. Resident 16 stated the CNA came in and changed him very quickly. Resident 16 stated he hated to be that kind of a guy, but he had no other choice. Resident 16 stated he was looking at other facilities because of staffing. On 10/3/22 at 12:31 PM, an interview was conducted with PTA 1. PTA 1 stated she did not remember talking to resident 16. After being reminded of the conversation, PTA 1 stated that resident 16 stated there was one CNA and one nurse working. PTA 1 stated resident 16 was worried because he had to teach the CNA how to use the Hoyer lift to transfer him. PTA 1 stated resident 16 said when it got to the point that he did not feel safe he would call the police. PTA 1 stated resident 16 said he needed to have a brief change, and someone went in to change him but said they needed to come back. PTA 1 stated that resident 16 said the nurse came into his room and he told the nurse if he did not get changed, he would call the police. PTA 1 stated she had not reported the information to management. PTA 1 stated she was planning on talking to the Director of Nursing (DON) about it. On 10/3/22 at 12:31 PM, an interview was conducted with OT 1. OT 1 stated that resident 16 claimed that every time that he had a new CNA working with him, the CNA did not know how to transfer him. OT 1 stated if resident 16 was not in the exact right spot then he did not think the CNA knew what they were doing. OT 1 stated some of resident 16's complaints might be warranted. OT 1 stated resident 16 was very sensitive to any new staff. OT 1 stated there had been times when staffing was poor over the weekends, and it feeds into the fact that it had not been fixed and might not be going away. OT 1 stated he usually talked to the Resident Advocate (RA), DON, and Administrator and the concerns were discussed in the morning meeting throughout the day. [Cross Reference F585] 5. On 9/26/22 at 2:33 PM, an interview was conducted with resident 53. Resident 53 stated he was transferring from the wheelchair to bed and his ankle gave out and he fell to the ground. Resident 53 stated his left shoulder always hurts but it hurt more since the fall. Resident 53 stated he was waiting for staff but staff did not come. Resident 53 stated he waited for 15 to 20 minutes and was tired from returning from a doctors appointment so he transferred himself. Resident 53 stated it took 20 to 30 minutes for someone to come and he did not want to wait. On 9/28/22 at 9:45 AM, an interview with CNA 2 was conducted. CNA 2 stated that there was not enough staff at the facility to prevent residents from falling. CNA 2 stated that the facility often staffed two or three CNAs for the entire building, which was not enough to adequately supervise residents who were a fall risk. CNA 2 stated that in addition to not having enough staff, communication between nurses and CNAs was lacking, and CNA's were often not aware if resident were a fall risk. On 9/28/22 at 10:00 AM, an interview with CNA 8 was conducted. CNA 8 stated that on some shifts there were only two CNAs in the facility. CNA 8 stated that the facility needed more CNAs to supervise residents who were a fall risk because there was not enough staff to prevent residents from falling. On 10/3/22 at 11:26 AM, an interview was conducted with CNA 9. CNA 9 stated there was a CNA chart that had which residents fell and which residents were a high fall risk. CNA 9 stated the residents had signs inside their rooms and it was in the electronic charting system. CNA 9 stated she had no idea how Agency staff knew a residents transfer status or if the resident was a fall risk. CNA 9 stated Agency had a binder but she did not know what was in the binder. CNA 9 stated resident 53 required one person assistance with transfers, bed mobility, and showering. CNA 9 stated there was no reason that three people would be providing bed mobility. [Cross Reference F689] 6. On 9/26/22 at 10:47 AM, an interview was conducted with resident 45. Resident 45 stated she had a seizure and was transferred to the hospital. Resident 45 stated that she was having issues with staffing, and getting assistance. Resident 45 stated that she had a stress induced seizure. Resident 45 also stated that she had pain in the left foot. Resident 45 stated that she wrapped the foot herself with an ace bandage to help alleviate the pain. Resident 45 stated that the foot pain had been present since May. Resident 45 also reported chronic pain all over her body with diagnoses of fibromyalgia and complex regional pain syndrome. On 9/26/22 at 12:32 PM, an interview was conducted with resident 29. Resident 29 stated she was unable to stand her pain last night and was groaning. Resident 29 stated there was no nurse on her hallway from 12:00 AM until 6:00 AM. Resident 29 stated she needed Tramadol at 2:00 AM but the nurse told resident 29 it was not her problem because she would not be there. Resident 19 stated the nurse continued to tell her she would not be the nurse to administer the Tramadol. Resident 29 stated she had scoliosis that made a hole in her spine and she has no control over her left lower extremities. Resident 29 stated she needed her Tramadol regularly because her pain never quit. Resident 29 stated her Tramadol was not administered at 2:00 AM when she wanted it. Resident 29 stated that her pain was at a 10 and she was crying and sick to her stomach. Resident 29 stated the nurse administered three pills to her early in the morning that morning and she did not know what the medications were. [Cross Reference F697] 7. On 9/26/22 at 10:32 AM, an interview was conducted with resident 22. Resident 22 stated that staff were not bringing her medications timely. Resident 22 stated that she would ask for her anxiety medication and it would take along time for the staff to bring the medication. Resident 22 stated the staff would tell her there was only one nurse. Resident 22 stated that some staff were better than others. Resident 22 stated that she did not always get her diabetic medications before meals. On 9/26/22 at 12:32 PM, an interview was conducted with resident 29. Resident 29 stated she was unable to stand her pain last night and was groaning. Resident 29 stated there was no nurse on her hallway from 12:00 AM until 6:00 AM. Resident 29 stated she needed Tramadol at 2:00 AM but the nurse told resident 29 it was not her problem because she would not be there and there was not a nurse to administer the medication. Resident 29 stated she had scoliosis that made a hole in her spine and she had no control over her left lower extremities. Resident 29 stated she needed her Tramadol regularly because her pain never quit. Resident 29 stated her Tramadol was not administered at 2:00 AM when she wanted it. Resident 29 stated that her pain was at a 10 and she was crying and sick to her stomach. Resident 29 stated the nurse administered three pills to her early that morning and she did not know what the medications were. [Cross Reference F755 and F757] 8. On 10/3/22 at 11:26 AM, an interview was conducted with CNA 9. CNA 9 stated there was a CNA chart that had which residents fell and which residents were a high fall risk. CNA 9 stated the residents had signs inside their rooms and it was in the electronic charting system. CNA 9 stated she had no idea how Agency staff knew a residents transfer status or if the resident was a fall risk. CNA 9 stated Agency had a binder but she did not know what was in the binder. CNA 9 stated staffing was a hit and miss. CNA 9 stated she was unable to complete showers, rounds were usually over the two hour mark, vital signs were hard to get done, sometimes she was unable to get the meal trays out of the rooms, and garbages were not taken out till the end of shift. CNA 9 stated that she talked to the old DON and Administrator about staffing and they were very aware of the problem. CNA 9 stated she was told they were working on it. CNA 9 stated she talked to the CNA coordinator, who did CNA scheduling because she left her shift and there was only one CNA for the whole building and the CNA was on the rehabilitation side. CNA 9 stated that CNA was agency and the CNA was very upset and said she was leaving also. CNA 9 stated there were complaints from residents regarding staffing and she was not sure what to do with that information. CNA 9 stated there was a nurse and four CNA's that were very upset and filed complaints with the state survey agency regarding staffing because management was not listening to them. 9. On 9/27/22 at 12:01 PM, an interview was conducted with RN 5. RN 5 stated she had worked at the facility for two years and was currently an agency nurse. RN 5 stated she thought there were three to four CNAs for the 300 and 400 hallways and one and half nurses during the day. RN 5 stated staffing was the reason she left and started working for an agency. RN 5 stated with the staffing at four CNA's on the 300 and 400 hallways she felt like they were able to give proper care, rather than just give care. RN 5 stated the 300 and 400 hallways needed four CNAs and a shower CNA to be ideal. RN 5 stated that when there were only two CNA's for the 300 and 400 hallway, she was unable to obtain vital signs or complete charting because the residents came first. 10. On 9/28/22 at 9:29 AM, an interview was conducted with RN 3. RN 3 stated that Staffing is a mess. RN 3 stated staffing had gotten better in the last few weeks. RN 3 stated the previous Administrator felt that one nurse and one CNA was enough for the full facility at night. RN 3 stated not enough staff caused a lot of issues, like resident's were not getting changed and getting butt rashes. RN 3 stated one nurse was not enough. RN 3 stated she did not have enough time to complete a full head to toe assessment on everyone, pass medications, and it was impossible to do everything each day. RN 3 stated on the 300 and 400 hallways the work load was more manageable but she still did not have enough time to adequately care for residents herself. On 9/29/22 at 11:00 AM, a follow up interview was conducted with RN 3. RN 3 stated things get very busy and she forgets to get everything done. RN 3 stated a nurse was leaving at noon and going to the other side. RN 3 stated she still had a ton of things to note. RN 3 stated there was not enough staff, and there needed to be one nurse for the 300 hallway and one nurse for the 400 hallway. RN 3 stated it's just crazy. RN 3 stated It's so stressful for me, RN 3 stated I just have so many things to note and follow up on but with almost 40 residents it's impossible to get everything done especially charting. 11. On 9/26/22 at 11:20 AM, an interview was conducted with resident 16. Resident 16 stated there were just not enough staff. Resident 16 stated when using agency it was hard for them to know the residents routine and what they need. Resident 16 stated it was hard because you have a lot of people working hard to do their job and then one to two people who were just dead weight. Resident 16 stated there have been times when he pulled the call light and it was on for two hours before he even get a response. Resident 16 stated when he has a bowel movement, he will push his call light and sometimes he had to sit in his feces for hours. Resident 16 stated usually the day crew was very good, the night crew needed a lot of help. Resident 16 stated there was absolutely no reason that someone hit their call light and wait for two hours. Resident 16 stated it made him feel unvalued, like a commodity, it was like staff were trying to do the minimum to not get fired. Resident 16 stated that the day shift staff changed resident briefs and did vital signs because night shift did not do their jobs. Resident 16 stated just sitting here for 15 months hearing it will be better by three different Administrators and it gets better for a little while and then it goes back. Resident 16 stated he did not trust management because issues were not being solved. 12. Resident 29 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included low back pain, injury to left lower leg, hypothyroidism, edema, chronic pain, and nausea. On 9/26/22 at 12:32 PM, an interview was conducted with resident 29. Resident 29 stated the 300 and 400 hallway did not have a nurse last night from 12:00 PM until 6:00 AM. Resident 29 stated that there was only one CNA on duty one night so she was unable to get changed. Resident 29 stated she called the police one night because there were not enough staff. Resident 29 stated that the Assistant Director of Nursing would not allow the police to talk to her. Resident 29 stated that the police told him to wait outside and she talked to the police. Resident 29 stated that her stomach gets upset easily and when there were not enough staff her stomach feels worse. Resident 29's medical record was reviewed on 9/29/22. Resident 29's progress note revealed on 8/21/22 at 3:25 AM, . On the 1800-0600 [6:00 PM to 6:00 AM] shift, the CNA's went to do their rounds and the pt [patient] was wearing the same brief from the previous night, stamped 0425 am [4:25 AM] and when the CNA changed her, there was evidence of a BM [bowel movement], but not actual BM present, the pt wasn't cleaned well, and she was upset about it. 13. On 9/26/22 at 12:32 PM, an interview was conducted with resident 25. Resident 25 stated there were not enough staff to help her to the bathroom when she had to go. Resident 25 stated she has had bowel movements waiting for staff. Resident 25 stated it made her very upset. Resident 25 stated that the new Administrator had not introduced himself. Resident 25 stated Administration were the ones cutting nursing hours. Resident 25 stated she did not feel like she should have to pay since there were not enough staff to meet her needs. 14. On 9/26/22 at 11:00 AM, an interview was conducted with resident 38. Resident 38 stated there were not enough staff. Resident 38 stated she did not need help from staff very often, but other residents had bigger problems and needed help. Resident 38 stated resident 47 required more help because her mind did not work and she was going downhill. Resident 38 stated that sometimes temporary employees did not show up to work. Resident 38 stated it took a while for call lights to be answered. Resident 38 stated at night and on the weekend CNA's just sat around. Resident 38 stated there was one nurse for the 300 and 400 hallway. Resident 38 stated she should be administered medications at about 6:00 PM but did not get them till 10:00 PM because staff were not available. Resident 38 stated there was an emergency with another resident in the 300 hallway the other night and there was not a nurse around to administer her pain medications. Resident 38 stated the facility had been short staffed for a while and agency staff did not show.
SERIOUS (G)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Deficiency F0745 (Tag F0745)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review it was determined, for 1 out of 34 sampled residents, that the facility did not provide med...

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 34 sampled residents, that the facility did not provide medically-related social services to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. Specifically, a resident had expressed desires to die by refusal of treatment for diabetes and was not evaluated and seen by social services. Resident identifier: 20. Findings included: Resident 20 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included tinea cruris, repeated falls, hyperkalemia, hypertension, type 2 diabetes mellitus, neuropathy, multiple rib fractures, and osteomyelitis. On 9/28/22, resident 20's medical record was reviewed. Review of resident 20's physician's orders revealed: a. Lantus Insulin (insulin glargine) insulin pen; 100 unit/milliliter (mL); inject 35 units subcutaneously two times a day. The order was initiated on 8/4/22. b. Blood Glucose Checks two times a day. The order was initiated on 8/4/22. c. A regular diet was ordered on 8/1/22. d. Duloxetine capsule, delayed release 60 milligram by mouth one time a day for nerve pain. The order was initiated on 8/2/22. On 4/18/22, a Pre-admission Screening Applicant/Resident Review (PASRR) documented that resident 20 had medical diagnoses only and no psychiatric or intellectual disability diagnoses. On 7/6/22, a Provider Order for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST) order documented that resident 20's advance directives were do not attempt or continue any resuscitation. The medical interventions documented were Limited Additional Interventions: Treating medical conditions while avoiding burdensome measures. Medical care may include treatment of airway obstruction, bag/valve/mask ventilation, monitoring of cardiac rhythm, Intravenous (IV) fluids, IV antibiotics and other medications as indicated. On 7/9/22, the resident signed a Risk verses (vs.) Benefit form for a diabetic diet. The form listed the benefits of following the diet were controlled blood sugar, controlled weight, glycated hemoglobin (A1C) lab values within normal range, and increased energy. The risks of not following the diet were possible increased blood sugar and A1C, possible weight gain, complications such as retinopathy, neuropathy, and nephropathy, stroke, and lethargy. On 7/19/22, the resident signed a Risk vs. Benefit for a treatment refusal of a diabetic diet. It should be noted that no documentation could be found for a risk vs. benefit for the refusal of treatment of hypoglycemia. Review of resident 20's progress notes revealed the following: a. On 7/8/22 at 10:50 PM, the nurse documented, At 2130 [9:30 PM] [resident 20] BG [blood glucose] level was high, we check it twice, I gave him 12 units of insulin and asked him if I could check it in 15 minutes. Twenty minutes later, a CNA [Certified Nurse Assistant] went to check him and he was rude to her. I was going to check on him, heard him and offered to check his BG. I pocked (sic) him but he did not bleed enough and he refused to get him blood glucose check. I educated him on the risks, he stated that he didn't care. b. On 7/10/22 at 10:35 AM, the nurse documented, . he yelled at me and refused to let me take his blood sugar. I explained the importance of taking insulin and he still declined and yelled at me to get out of his room. c. On 7/31/22 at 3:17 AM, the nurse documented, Pt [patient] refused insulin. Educated about the importance of diabetic management and still refused insulin. d. On 8/1/22 at 4:16 AM, the nurse documented, Pt has been refusing all medication and care regimens throughout the shift. Educated about the importance of regulating blood sugar levels with the use of insulin and antibiotic therapy. Pt has been presenting anger towards the staff. e. On 8/2/22 at 12:54 AM, the nurse documented, Patient stated that he is not taking any antibiotic or accepting any txs [treatments] today. He stated that the doctor were treating him as a [NAME] pig> he has refused to get his blood glucose checked, refused to take any insulin but he stated that he would the (sic) some long acting insulin in the morning. f. On 8/2/22 at 10:18 AM, the nurse documented that the wound physician educated resident 20 about his diabetes and the importance of keeping his blood sugars down, taking his medication, and eating a well balanced diet. g. On 8/3/22 at 2:36 PM, the nurse documented, Pt is noted refusing all medications besides IV abx [antibiotics]. Pt refused for BGL [blood glucose level] to be checked and is also refusing insulin. Notified MD [Medical Doctor]. h. On 8/8/22 at 5:01 PM, the nurse documented, Pts BGLs have been low these last couple of mornings. Yesterday it was 60 and today it was 52. Notified MD. Pt refused lantus this morning and refuses to lower the dose, says he wants to give it a couple of days. Notified MD. i. On 8/8/22 at 9:26 PM, the nurse documented, PT HAD LOW BG THIS AM. IT WAS REPORTED TO ME THAT PT HAD RECENT INCREASE OF LANTUS DOSE GIVEN BID [two times a day]. PT REFUSED TO LET ME CHECK BG BEFORE GIVIN (sic) HS DOSE OF LANTUS. IT WAS REPORTED TO ME THAT HE DID NOT EACH MUCH OF HIS DINNER. I ATTEMPTED TO EDUCATE THE PATIENT ABOUT WHY I WOULD LIKE TO CHECK HIS BLOOD SUGAR BEFORE GIVING THE HS [bedtime] DOSE. PT REFUSED THE GLUCOSE CHECK AND REFUSED HIS OTHER HS MEDICATIONS INCLUDING A PAIN MEDICATION WHICH HE REQUESTED STATING 'IF HE HAS TO BEG FOR HIS LANTUS HE WANTS NOTHING' I AGAIN ATTEMPTED TO EDUCATE HIM ON THE REASON FOR CHECKING HIS BLOOD SUGAR BEFORE GIVING A HIGH RISK MEDICATION. I ALSO ATTEMPTED TO HAVE HIM SIGN A RISK V BENEFIT DOCUMENT. HE ALSO REFUSED TO SIGN. j. On 8/10/22 at 10:09 PM, the nurse documented, Pt refused glucose check, stating 'I only get that twice a day and I already got it the second time today.' Nurse told pt that he didn't get his glucose checked twice today, just once, pt still refused. k. On 8/20/22 9:15 PM, the nurse documented, Patient was rude and refused all his medications and treatments for the night. Nurse charted his refusal. 10 minutes later he came out and apologized to the nurse. He accepted his long lasting insulin, Glargine. 35 unites (sic) was administered to thigh. His blood glucose was 153. l. On 8/22/22 at 2:29 PM, the nurse documented Pt would not wake up this morning for breakfast, tried to wake pt vigorously. Pt was drenched in sweat, whole bed was wet. Took pts BS [blood sugar] and BS was 42. Immediately gave pt spoonful's of honey until glucagon shot was found. Administered glucagon, notified NP [Nurse Practitioner] who was in building. Was able to get pt to wake up a bit- able to put small amount of Orange Juice in mouth so he could swallow it down. Continues to check BS- went up to 54, 109, 132 and 160. As the day went on pt continued to sleep in bed. Pt refused to eat breakfast and lunch. Staff including Nurse, CNA, and NP went to check on patient every 30 minutes to ensure pt was still okay. After 1100 pt would not allow Nurse (me) or CNA to take blood sugar or do ANY cares. Pt was offered food, drink, and any snacks he wanted but pt yelled at staff to get out of room and leave him alone. Was unable to take blood sugar again due to pt refusal. m. On 8/22/22 at 4:40 PM, the nurse documented Today around noon I was called to help inject the patient with glucagon because his blood sugar was 64 and he was unconsious (sic). I injected him in the left deltoid muscle and he came too, two minutes later. He got mad and told me that hes (sic) upset that he was brought back and wants to die. Around 1600 [4:00 PM] I was called over again because his blood sugar was 69 and he wasn't responding or waking up. I tried glucagon15 gel and he couldn't swallow. I gave him a second injection of glucagon after notifying NP and DON [Director of Nursing] of facility. He came back and refused to eat. He said he will eat later. I explained that he needs to eat or his blood sugar can go too low and he could die. He yelled at me and said that he doesn't care. n. On 8/22/22 at 9:00 PM, the nurse documented, Pt alert and oriented x4 [person, place, time, and situation.]. Currently resting quietly in room. Has been refusing all medications and BS checks. Has not eaten anything tonight. o. On 8/25/22 at 1:45 PM, the NP documented, . seen today after he walked over to the hospital to get some lunch. He states that the food at the facility he does not enjoy, so he walked to the hospital to get some better food. Facility staff reports he continues to be fairly noncompliant with his antibiotics and wound changes, then will demand it when it is convenient for him. He hasn't had any further hypoglycemia after his episode on Monday, staff to discuss hospice with him, he states that he does not want to do that, he just did not feel good that day. He states he continues to have pain to his foot, refuses further amputation. He is cantankerous and defiant, in all aspects. Reports he can't wait to discharge. No needs today, he is making little progress. p. On 8/29/22 at 9:55 AM, the NP documented, He had another episode of hypoglycemia, which required with a gun. He continues to state that he wants to be a DNR [Do Note Resuscitate], is resistant to treatments and cares. He states he does not decline treatment, facility staff report he will refuse his wound care. Diet is very irregular, he states the food is not good so he will not eat often. It should be noted that no documentation was found of the episode of hypoglycemia that was reported by the NP. q. On 9/6/22 at 9:10 AM, the nurse documented, i worked Sunday 09042022 and pt stated next nurse who gave him glucagon was being sued by him and that he is purposely not eating causing his blood sugar to go low so he can die, at this time myslef (sic) and [nurse name omitted] noticed accucheck 48 and pt refusing glucagon and gel and he shakes his head no and mumbles no to medicine, he is now at 38 with same response, pt is a dnr and able to make his own decisions, adament (sic) about not getting glucagon, will cont [continue] to monitor. r. On 9/6/22 at 9:15 AM, the nurse documented BS was 46 at 0730 [7:30 AM] . is now 38 at 0900 [9:00 AM]. Will barely respond to me/sternal rub but mumbles when I ask if he wants glucose gel or not. Is breathing heavy, [nurse name omitted] LPN [Licensed Practical Nurse] notified me that he said to not give glucose again this past Sunday after the nurse administered. Will not take meds [medications], drink anything, or swallow applesauce. Will continue to monitor. s. On 9/6/22 at 9:31 AM, the nurse documented that the NP was notified of resident 20's hypoglycemia and refusal of glucagon. t. On 9/6/22 at 12:40 PM, the nurse documented, called [name of hospital emergency room] and spoke with charge nurse [name omitted] who stated if pt is making his own decisions and refusing glucagon, he has his right to refuse, at this time pt is breathing and laying down in bed with employees checking on him multiple times per hour. u. On 9/6/22 at 1:09 PM, the nurse documented, pt has been educated multiple times on nutrition and hypogylcemia (sic) and ase [adverse side effects] over his stay here including this morning when he refused glucagon from other nurse and on Sunday 9-4-22 by myself,care team also notified of pts status today. v. On 9/6/22 at 1:56 PM, the nurse documented, pt talking and awake with blood sugar at 52 and states he wants to smoke and still refusing glucagon but is also eating a brownie for lunch. w. On 9/6/22 at 2:30 PM, the nurse documented, pt given glass of pepsi and also wound arnp [Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioner] here and pt gave her permission for glucose injection which she gave in luq [left upper quadrant] without ase, glucose cont at 58 and still eating brownie and able to make needs known. x. On 9/6/22 at 2:47 PM, the nurse documented, pts arnp and nurse here to see his foot wound and have discussed with him his options again and they report he wants to go by ambulance to [name of hospital omitted], medics called and transporting him and current blood sugar is now 70, have not heard the pt say he has changed his mind and asked him but he doesn't answer that question and arnp states he gave her permission and is cooperating with ems [emergency medical services], face sheet, dnr polst and med list given to ems y. On 9/6/22 at 5:13 PM, the nurse documented, after ems responded to arnp wound dr [doctor] calling them, pt refused transport and refused any further treatment for hypoglycemia and states he will sign risks and benefits for not being treated in the future for hypoglycemia and also signed new post form for NO treatment including diabetes tx [treatment] with interim DON, blood sugar wnl [within normal limits] rest of this shift and will pass on report. z. On 9/7/22 at 3:41 PM, the nurse documented, Called and spoke with [name omitted] (resident's podiatrist) to inquire about Vanco and give him status update on resident request to decline glucagon and non-compliance with treatments and assistance with cares in general. Discussion also completed with resident regarding wishes as it pertains to POLST status. Resident continues to request to be changed from limited DNR to DNR comfort measures, but does not wish to sign updated POLST to reflect this and won't state rationale for not wanting to sign it. Resident continues to be alert and oriented and able to make his decisions and was educated upon the risks of not signing updated POLST that show his current wishes and that he would have to be treated with his previous limited DNR if we don't get a signed update version. He stated, 'No, I won't take glucagon ever again.' Resident has been approached regarding possible benefits to hospice. Resident refuses hospice assessment at this time. Social work is aware of resident status. Resident denies any thoughts or plans of self-harm Nurse practitioner notified of all of the above and resident made aware of new orders. aa. On 9/11/22 at 10:21 PM, the nurse documented, Resident requested to have duloxetine discontinued after refusing it. States that he doesn't need to take those psycho meds. Discussed with NP, order given to discontinue medication. Resident aware. bb. On 9/12/22 at 941 AM, the NP documented, He is adamant on his insulin dose, and refuses any changes. He did sign a risk versus benefit regarding this. He is quite particular about his diet, and will often not eat if he does not like the food, which will then cause him to be hypoglycemic. He also frequently refuses his blood sugar checks and other cares from staff. Antibiotics have been completed, he is anxious to be able to discharge, unable to do so until wounds heal. cc. On 9/13/22 at 835 PM, the nurse documented, Nurse entered resident's room to administer morning medications. Nurse found resident with labored and increased respirations, extremely diaphoretic and using accessory muscles to breathe. Also noted a congested sound in resident's chest. Nurse assessed blood glucose level which was 42. Also assessed oxygen saturations which were 72% on room air. Nurse attempted to wake resident, who was only responsive with grunts and slight groaning. Nurse and CNAs pulled resident up in his bed and elevated the HOB [head of bed] to 45 degrees. Per conversations with previous nurses and management team, resident has adamantly stated that he is DNR and absolutely does not want glucagon IM [intramuscular] administered. This nurse was informed that he would accept oral glucose gel. Nurse pulled oral gel from pixis [sic] and administered the tube to resident's buccal pouch a small amount at a time. At one point, resident swallowed the gel, and more was administered. Entire contents of tube were given. Oxygen sats were again assessed and found to be fluctuating between 88 and 93% on room air. Approx. 15 minutes after oral glucose gel was administered, resident is still unresponsive. dd. On 9/13/22 at 8:48 AM, 15 minutes after glucose gel administration, blood glucose reassessed and remains at 42. Resident continues to be unresponsive but is loudly moaning with breathing. ee. On 9/13/22 at 8:53 AM, the nurse documented resident 20's vital signs as: blood pressure 121/89, respiratory rate 32, oxygen saturation 91% on room air, heart rate 111, and temperature was 97.4 degrees Fahrenheit. ff. On 9/13/22 at 9:09 AM, the nurse documented, Blood glucose is now 36 and resident continues with moaning while breathing. Respirations have come down to 12 per minute with periods of apnea. Oxygen continues to fluctuate from high 89-95% on room air. gg. On 9/13/22 at 9:45 AM, the nurse documented, MD and management have been notified of resident's status via tiger text. hh. On 9/13/22 at 10:05 AM, the nurse documented, Blood glucose is now 38. Resident continues to be unresponsive when nurse speaks to him, also unresponsive with sternal rub. Moaning with breathing remains. No next of kin contacts listed to call and update. ii. On 9/13/22 at 10:13 AM, the nurse documented, Nurse heard louder moaning coming from resident's room. Nurse entered to find resident with is (sic) eyes wide open and looking around his room. Nurse said , 'Hi, [resident 20's name omitted]!' Nurse asked him if he was comfortable. [Resident 20's name omitted] looked at nurse and shook his head no. Nurse asked if he wanted her to reposition him. He looked at her and he shook his head no again. Nurse told him his blood sugar was low and asked if he would like glucagon. [Resident 20's name omitted] looked at nurse, furrowed his eyebrows and shook his head very hard no again. Nurse told him that his oxygen had been getting low and asked if he would like oxygen. He again looked at nurse with furrowed eyebrows and shook his head with a hard no. Nurse told him that she would respect his wishes and would not do anything he didn't want done. He then closed his eyes and started moaning again. Nurse updated management. jj. On 9/13/22 at 10:50 AM, the nurse documented, Nurse entered resident's room to reassess. Noted no breathing. Nurse auscultated for heart sounds-none present. Management notified of resident's passing. Review of resident 20's Care Plans revealed no focus areas that addressed diabetes, insulin, nutrition, or refusal of cares. On 9/27/22 at 10:03 AM, an interview was conducted with LPN 1. LPN 1 stated that she was an agency nurse, had worked at the facility prior, and was familiar with the residents. LPN 1 stated that if she had a resident with a low BS, she would give them juice or sugar if they were able to have oral intake. LPN 1 stated if the resident was not able to take anything by mouth then they should have standing orders for glucagon or glucagel. LPN 1 stated that all sliding scale orders for insulin also stated to contact the physician if the BS was less than 80. LPN 1 stated that there was usually an order for glucagon as needed or the physician would order it when they were contacted. LPN 1 stated that if a resident refused the glucagon then she would contact the physician to see what should be done next. LPN 1 stated that it would also depend on if the resident was coherent and able to refuse the medication. LPN 1 stated that if they were unable to get a hold of the provider they would transfer the resident to the hospital for further evaluation and treatment. LPN 1 then stated that she would still need an order to transfer the resident, so she would wait for an order from the provider. In my experience diabetic patients have an order for glucagon. LPN 1 stated that she would verify the glucagon order in the Medication Administration Record. LPN 1 stated that if it was passed off in report that the resident was refusing treatment and was not able to provide that information for themselves then she would still contact the provider. LPN 1 stated that she would not direct her care and treatment based off of nurse's notes if the resident could not speak for themselves. LPN 1 stated that she would refer to a POLST form which would indicate the resident's preferred resuscitation status and preference for medical treatment. LPN 1 stated that if the resident was unresponsive and there were questions about the resident refusing treatment in the past it would be helpful to look at that document. LPN 1 stated that she was familiar with resident 20. LPN 1 stated that resident 20's cognitive status was alert and oriented times 3, person, place, and time. LPN 1 stated that resident 20 was able to make his own decisions. LPN 1 stated she recalled caring for him and having him refuse BS checks in the morning. LPN 1 stated she was informed that resident 20's BS dipped a lot. LPN 1 stated that she was careful with resident 20's insulin administration and would not administer if he did not allow a BS check. LPN 1 stated that resident 20 thought the BS should be checked before breakfast but he would not wake until lunch. LPN 1 stated that she would obtain the BS check before lunch to accommodate the resident. LPN 1 stated that resident 20 did not eat well, and he did not like what was being served. That was a compliant of his. LPN 1 stated she knew he liked oatmeal so she would make him oatmeal so he had something to eat. LPN 1 stated that the insulin was scheduled for morning administration, but they would not administer the medication until they had a BS check. LPN 1 stated that a lot of time resident 20 was upset with her for not administering the medication. LPN 1 stated that resident 20 refused a lot of care and medication, and was opinionated on what he should and should not have. LPN 1 stated that resident 20 always refused his Duloxetine for depression, saying I'm not taking that crap. LPN 1 stated that the one time resident 20 was hypoglycemic she could not recall if she notified the physician. LPN 1 stated she recalled being told in report that resident 20's BS was low the previous day, that he was administered glucagon on a previous shift, and that he refused going to the hospital for hypoglycemia. LPN 1 stated that she was never informed that resident 20 had refused treatment with glucagon. On 9/27/22 at 12:31 PM, an interview was conducted with Registered Nurse (RN) 5. RN 5 stated that the resident would refuse wound care, most of his medication and his psych pills. RN 5 stated that resident 20 would take his blood pressure medication and the long acting insulin. RN 5 stated that resident 20's BS typically ran high. RN 5 stated she would educate resident 20 on his BS, and he would say I know, but didn't care. RN 5 stated that if resident 20's BS was 500 she would ask if she could administer the short acting insulin. RN 5 stated resident 20 wanted the long acting insulin and refused the short acting insulin. RN 5 stated that when resident 20's BS was low it was not that bad, and she would give the resident milk and a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. RN 5 stated that the low BS that she recalled for resident 20 were 60 or 70, and maybe 55 one day. RN 5 stated that resident 20 was alert and oriented times 4 and could communicate his needs. RN 5 stated that resident 20 was able to make decisions about his care. RN 5 stated that after she provided the milk and peanut butter sandwich she would recheck the BS in an hour. RN 5 stated sometimes resident 20 would tell her to come back in 30 minutes if he was sleeping. He wanted to run his own show. RN 5 stated the process for a resident who was hypoglycemic was to first notify the NP, treat the resident with milk and a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, applesauce or juice, then monitor the BS. RN 5 stated that if the BS did not increase she would give more of the listed foods. RN 5 stated that if the resident was unresponsive and the BS was low she would administer glucagon intramuscular or administer the glucose gel. RN 5 stated that she never had to administer glucagon or glucose gel to resident 20, but thinks that it was administered by another nurse. RN 5 stated that resident 20 never refused cares with her. RN 5 stated, sometimes if he didn't like a person he wouldn't do what they asked. RN 5 stated that resident 20 was not on hospice services, but he did have a DNR order to not perform compressions. RN 5 stated that she would continue to provide resident 20 with care and treatments until he no longer had a pulse. RN 5 stated that if resident 20 no longer wanted treatment for diabetes then it should have been documented on the POLST form in the notes. RN 5 stated that resident 20 had the short acting insulin discontinued, but that he had standing orders for glucagon. RN 5 stated that glucagon was automatically in the orders on the previous medical records system. RN 5 stated that if she found resident 20 unresponsive with a low BS she would have administered glucagon. RN 5 stated that there should have been a care plan that addressed resident 20's diabetes. RN 5 stated that for any refusals of care she was not sure if that was documented in a care plan. RN 5 stated that for refusals of care they usually completed a risk vs. benefits. RN 5 stated she was not sure if this was done for resident 20, but that it was discussed. RN 5 stated that she was aware that the NP gave orders in a tiger text communication that a Risk vs. Benefit needed to be completed for the discontinuation of the short acting insulin. RN 5 stated that resident 20's mood depended on the day and who you were. RN 5 stated that resident 20 was good with her, and if she asked him to please do something he would. RN 5 stated that if resident 20 did not like a staff member he would tell them no to everything. RN 5 stated that resident 20 had signs and symptoms of depression and would isolate himself in his room and have everything dark. RN 5 stated that resident 20 refused his medication for depression. RN 5 stated she was not aware if resident 20 saw anyone with behavior health or a Social Service Worker (SSW) about his depression. RN 5 stated that she believed that the resident advocate (RA) took over for the SSW. RN 5 stated that they had a SSW from behavioral health that came to the facility 1 to 2 times a month, but she was not sure if resident 20 was seen by them. On 9/27/22 at 2:02 PM, a follow-up interview was conducted with LPN 1. LPN 1 stated that resident 20 was on Duloxetine for depression. LPN 1 stated that resident 20's signs and symptoms of depression were that he slept all the time. He wasn't happy about being here. LPN 1 stated she was not sure if resident 20 saw the SSW at the facility or any contracted behavioral health services. LPN 1 stated that the RA was the SSW. On 9/28/22 at 9:58 AM, an interview was conducted with RN 3. RN 3 stated that she recalled resident 20, and he was a DNR with limited interventions. RN 3 stated that resident 20 has since passed but recalled that the resident did not want the medication glucagon. RN 3 stated that for residents who were DNR, she would verify on the POLST for if it was limited interventions or comfort measures. RN 3 stated that she administered glucagon to resident 20 in the past and recalled looking at the POLST and it said DNR with limited interventions. RN 3 stated that she recalled working with an agency nurse that day who was resident 20's nurse. RN 3 stated that the agency nurse told her that the POLST documented DNR, but she was confused on if she should resuscitate resident 20 because it said limited interventions. RN 3 stated that she educated the other nurse that limited interventions meant that they should still provide treatment. RN 3 stated that if the BS was low they could give glucagon or any other interventions to keep resident 20 stable. RN 3 stated that after this incident she believed that resident 20 signed a new POLST form for DNR with comfort measures only. RN 3 stated that resident 20 had an episode of hypoglycemia and they honored his wishes and did not administer glucagon and he passed. RN 3 stated that on the day of resident 20's passing she called the DON. RN 3 stated that she did not see the updated POLST form with comfort measures only. RN 3 stated that on the day that resident 20 died, they administered the glucagon gel, but not the glucagon IM. RN 3 stated that she did not administer the gel, but that she pulled it from the Pyxis and gave it to the other nurse. RN 3 stated that the other nurse was an agency nurse and she wanted to give the glucagon gel. RN 3 stated that she was the only nurse who had access to the Pyxis and she pulled the gel. On 9/28/22 at 10:18 AM, and interview was conducted with the RA and the Corporate Social Service Worker (CSSW). The RA stated that her duties included the following: scheduling resident appointments; conducting a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) exam; conducting Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) screening to assess for depression; obtaining a social history; conducting Interdisciplinary Team conferences; discharge planning; arranging home health services; assisting with New Choice Waiver paperwork; and referrals to mental health if needed. The RA stated that the PHQ-9 were based off the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment and she completed them for all the MDS assessments. The RA stated that she had been doing them for the past 8 weeks. The RA stated that she was transitioning from the business office to the RA. The RA stated that they had a contracted mental health service that the facility referred residents to. The CSSW stated that the facility had a Licensed Clinical Social Worker available, but that she was at the facility more often. The CSSW stated that the RA would initially talk to the residents and would ask if they wanted to see someone from mental health services. The CSSW also[TRUNCATED]
CONCERN (D)

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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

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 out of 34 sampled residents, that the facility did n...

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 out of 34 sampled residents, that the facility did not ensure that the resident could exercise their rights without interference, coercion, discrimination, or reprisal from the facility. Specifically, a resident was denied access to their cigarettes and had their quantity of cigarettes limited when the resident asked for more. Resident identifier: 8. Findings included: Resident 8 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included dementia without behavioral disturbance, hypokalemia, type 2 diabetes mellitus, chronic pain syndrome, hypertension, hypothyroidism, urinary tract infection, muscle weakness, abnormalities of gait and mobility, and hyperlipidemia. On 6/16/22, resident 8's admission Minimum Data Set assessment documented a Brief Interview of Mental Status of 8/15, which indicated moderately cognitively impaired. The assessment did not address the short-term and long-term memory. The assessment documented that resident 8 was a limited one person assistance for walking in room and in the corridor and was supervision with setup assistance for locomotion on and off the unit. The mobility devices used were documented as a walker and wheelchair. On 8/15/22, a Smoking Risk assessment was completed for resident 8. Resident 8's assessment documented that resident 8 borrowed cigarettes and a lighter from others and smoked every few hours. The assessment documented that resident 8 scored a 1, which indicated a minimal problem for the following areas: smoking in unauthorized areas; was careless with smoking materials - drops cigarette butts or matches on floor, furniture, self or others; burns finger tips; burns clothes; smokes near oxygen; smokes in the facility; inappropriately provided smoking materials to others; general awareness and ability to understand the facility safe smoking policy; and capability to follow the safe smoking policy. The assessment documented that resident 8 scored a 3 or severe problem with begging or stealing smoking materials from others. The assessment documented a total score of 10 which indicated a potentially unsafe smoker. A second undated smoking assessment documented that resident 8's total score of 6, which would indicate safe to smoke. The assessment documented that resident 8 scored a 3 or moderate problem for smokes cigarettes/butts from the ash tray and begs or steals smoking materials from others. The assessment documented a score of 1 which indicated a minimal problem for general behavior and interpersonal interaction, and mobility. The assessment documented that resident 8 was not ready to accept smoking cessation materials. No documentation could be found that indicated that resident 8 had a Power of Attorney (POA). Review of resident 8's progress notes revealed the following: a. On 8/25/22 at 1:25 PM, the nurse practitioner's (NP) note documented that resident 8 was pleasantly confused. will often forget where she's going or where she is at. b. On 8/25/22 at 5:21 PM, the nurse's note documented, pt [patient] given baggie of 7 cigarettes this morning at 0700 [7:00 AM] and within two hours had smoked all 7 and trying to borrow cigarettes' from other patients and redirected multiple times, other patients stating she only gets two cigarettes a day and pt educated again on how many she gets and counted baggies in med [medication] cart with her with 7 in each bag for the week days. c. On 9/4/22 at 10:31 AM, the nurse's note documented, pt is out of cigarettes since Friday and son will not bring her cigarettes or money for cigarettes, patient notified and appears not happy. circling the outside building and outside trash cans looking for cigarette butts and unable to re-direct, tiger text sent to all staff r/t [related to] the above. d. On 9/9/22 at 10 :56 AM, the nurse's note documented, Cigarettes in nursing cart. Pt. has had 2 as of 11am; one at 8:30am, one at 10:30am. e. On 9/15/22 at 5:35 AM, the NP note documented, . remains confused. she continues to lack her own safety awareness. no new falls or other events. f. On 9/18/22 at 3:58 PM, the nurse's note documented, pts [family member] came in and brought one pack of cigarettes labeled and in top drawer and try to space them out he said one every few hours and pt educated again, pts [family member] says he plans on taking her home soon but trying to figure out logistics first and then will notify social worker and facility. Review of resident 8's care plan revealed a care area for tobacco use that was initiated on 9/27/22. Interventions identified were to distract with an activity or conversation of choice when it was not smoking time; offer cessation information as desired; involve support person or Ombudsman as needed; praise the resident for being safe and responsible; resident will be able to follow the smoking policy with staff assistance; and resident will not share or borrow tobacco products or paraphernalia from other. On 9/26/22 at 10:21 AM, an interview was conducted with Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) 1. CNA 1 stated that resident 8 was confused and had some short-term memory deficits. CNA 1 stated that resident 8 knew where she was at and understood what was going on. CNA 1 stated that resident 8 wandered and went for walks around the building. CNA 1 stated that resident 8 used a cane for a mobility device. CNA 1 stated that resident 8 was frequently outside smoking and would wander to the other side of the building to look at the baby horse. On 9/27/22 at 1:30 PM, an observation was made of resident 8 asking the Registered Nurse (RN) for a cigarette. The RN was observed to tell resident 8 that they just had one and that they had to wait until 4:00 PM for the next one. On 9/27/22 at 1:32 PM, an interview was conducted with RN 4. RN 4 stated that resident 8 asked for a cigarette and was told that she had to wait until 4:00 PM because she had one at 1:00 PM already. RN 4 stated that she told resident 8 that she had nine cigarettes remaining. RN 4 stated that resident 8's cigarettes were kept inside the medication cart, but not the lighter. RN 4 stated that resident 8 went through packs of cigarettes fast so they were trying to limit the amount she smoked. RN 4 stated that resident 8 had a cigarette at 1:00 PM and then returned immediately to ask for a second one. RN 4 stated that she reminded resident 8 that she had just smoked a cigarette and that she needed to wait until 4:00 PM for the next one. RN 4 stated that she was told in report by the previous nurse that resident 8 was to only have one cigarette every three hours. RN 4 stated that resident 8 smoked independently and that she was alert and oriented to person and place. RN 4 stated she was not sure if resident 8 was able to make her own decisions, or if she had that capacity. RN 4 stated that resident 8 did not have all her faculties. RN 4 stated that she was not sure if resident 8 was her own responsible party or if she had a POA. RN 4 stated that resident 8 wandered and went outside to smoke. On 9/28/22 at 8:41 AM, an interview was conducted with RN 5. RN 5 stated that resident 8 could only have one cigarette every two hours. RN 5 stated that resident 8 would forget that she had smoked. RN 5 stated that resident 8's family were in control of the cigarettes and had set the schedule for smoking. On 9/29/22 at 8:27 AM, an interview was conducted with CNA 2 and Restorative Nurse Assistant (RNA) 1. CNA 2 stated that resident 8 had a fall outside three or four months ago. CNA 2 stated the staff made sure to keep an eye on where resident 8 was going and made sure she did not go into the construction site that was nearby. CNA 2 stated that the staff would keep track of resident 8 by looking out the windows to find her. CNA 2 stated that resident 8 had wandered into the construction area before to ask for cigarettes. CNA 2 stated that this had happened multiple times within a two week period. CNA 2 stated that this occurred before resident 8 had her own cigarettes. CNA 2 stated that since resident 8 had access to her own cigarettes she had not wandered back over to the construction site. CNA 2 stated that resident 8 was an independent smoker and had her lighter in her possession. RNA 1 stated that resident 8's routine was to walk around the parameter of the building. RNA 1 stated that resident 8's family made the smoking schedule and limited her cigarettes. RNA 1 stated that resident 8 would smoke the whole pack because she forgets. RNA 1 stated she was not aware of resident 8's POA status. On 9/29/22 at 11:06 AM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated that resident 8's cognitive status was that she was alert and able to answer questions. The DON stated that resident 8 had aphasia and had difficulty with her speech. The DON stated that resident 8 was able to ask for things that she needed, could speak using more than one word, but did not talk with full sentences. The DON stated that resident 8 frequently asked for Pepsi but did not necessarily mean Pepsi when asked if that was what she wanted. The DON stated that the staff would then have to go through other items that may be wanted. The DON stated that resident 8 was able to make decisions about her care and could express her wants and needs. The DON stated that she was not sure if resident 8 had a POA. The DON stated that the family were involved in resident 8's care but did not know if they made decisions about resident 8's care for her The DON stated she did not know if the family directed the smoking schedule for resident 8. The DON stated she was not aware of any smoking schedule or cigarette limitations for resident 8. The DON stated that every resident who smoked should have a smoking assessment completed. On 9/29/22 at 12:36 PM, a follow-up interview was conducted with the DON, the Corporate Social Service Worker (CSSW), and the Resident Advocate (RA). The DON stated that she had observed that the second smoking assessment was not dated. The DON stated that the smoking assessment with a score of 6 was dated on 7/14/22, and the most recent assessment was on 8/15/22. The DON stated that the smoking assessment that scored a 10, which indicated that resident 8 was potentially an unsafe smoker, was the most recent assessment. The CSSW stated that the RA conducted resident 8's smoking assessments. The DON stated that it should be an Interdisciplinary Team decision on resident 8's interventions for smoking. The DON stated that the biggest challenge was that resident 8 tried to get smoking materials from others and the ashtrays. The DON stated that resident 8 would seek cigarettes when they were not available. The CSSW stated that resident 8 did not have a POA. The CSSW stated that a family member had said they were resident 8's POA, but they had not provided the documents for it. The CSSW stated that the family purchased the cigarettes for resident 8 and had asked the facility to limit the amount that was provided to resident 8. The RA stated that she conducted the smoking assessment and observed resident 8 to safely light, smoke, and dispose of the cigarette. The RA stated that based on the observation she determined that resident 8 would need staff supervision for smoking to ensure that she did not dig through the ashtray seeking more cigarettes. The RA stated that she educated the staff to manage resident 8's cigarettes, so she was not blowing through them. The RA stated that a family member requested that they manage resident 8's cigarettes because they could not afford to bring her packs every day. The RA stated that the family member would bring two packs in and say that they needed to last until a certain day. The RA stated that resident 8 would be able to recall that those two packs had to last a certain amount of time. The RA stated, I don't think we restricted them. The RA stated that per the family request if resident 8 smoked them all in two days so be it.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0554 (Tag F0554)

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, the facility did not ensure that the resident's right 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, the facility did not ensure that the resident's right to self-administer medications was evaluated and determined to be safe. Specifically, for 2 out of 34 sampled residents, resident's had medications stored in their rooms without an evaluation to determine if the resident's were safe to self-administer medications. Resident identifiers: 25 and 48. Findings included: 1. Resident 25 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included hypothyroidism, hyperlipidemia, depression, hypertension, borderline personality disorder, gastroesophageal reflux disease, pain, and edema. On 9/26/22 at 12:32 PM, an observation was made of resident 25. Resident 25 had an inhaler in a box on her over bed table. Resident 25 was interviewed. Resident 25 stated she needed the inhaler off and on. Resident 25 stated she had the inhaler in her purse and brought it out so she had it when she needed it. Resident 25 stated she could not rely on staff to provide the inhaler when she needed it because there were not enough staff. Resident 25's medical record was reviewed on 9/28/22. There was no self administration assessment located in resident 25's medical record to determine if resident 25 was able to administer her own medications safely. 2. Resident 48 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included alcoholic hepatitis without ascites, metabolic encephalopathy, respiratory failure, hypokalemia, severe protein-calorie malnutrition, and anxiety disorder. On 9/26/22 at 11:00 AM, an interview was conducted with resident 48. Resident 48 stated that she administered her own pain patches and menthol cream that were in her night stand. Resident 48 stated that she experienced pain and those helped with her pain. On 9/28/22 at 9:42 AM, a follow up interview was conducted with resident 48. Resident 48 stated that she had Salonpas patches and pain relief cream from a local store. Resident 48 stated she did not apply the patches very often. Resident 48 stated if she had a cramp or something then she used them. Resident 48 was observed to open the top drawer of her night stand. There was a box of Salonpas and pain relief cream observed in the night stand. An observation was made of Artificial tears eye drops on resident 48's over bed table. Resident 48 stated that she applied her eye drops and then gave them back to the nurse. Resident 48's medical record was reviewed on 9/28/22. There was no self administration assessment located in resident 48's medical record to determine if resident 48 was able to administer her own medications safely. There was no information on resident 48's care plans regarding self administration of medications. On 9/28/22 at 9:25 AM, an interview was conducted with Registered Nurse (RN) 3. RN 3 stated residents should not have medications at the bedside. RN 3 stated if a resident wanted to administer medications then a waiver needed to be signed. RN 3 stated medication would be kept in the medication cart. RN 3 stated the nurse would write a note that the resident administered the medication. RN 3 stated the Director of Nursing (DON) took care of the waivers and then put them in the resident's medical record. RN 3 stated there were no residents with waivers. On 9/28/22 at 2:48 PM, an interview was conducted with the DON. The DON stated there should be an evaluation done to see if a resident was able to administer their own medications and then it should be care planned. The DON stated that medications were stored on a case by case basis. The DON stated some residents kept the medications in their night stands or in a lock box in the resident's room. The DON stated over the counter medications were treated the same as prescription medications. The DON stated the facility was unable to search resident belongings so staff would ask about medications. On 9/29/22 at 10:30 AM, a follow up interview was conducted with the DON. The DON stated resident 48 and resident 25 did not have an assessment to evaluate if the residents were able to self administer medications.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0578 (Tag F0578)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, it was determined, the facility did not ensure the resident's right to request, refuse, an...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, it was determined, the facility did not ensure the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, and to formulate an advance directive. Specifically, for 1 out of 34 sampled resident, a resident did not have an advance directive accessible to the nursing staff. Resident identifier: 48. Findings included: Resident 48 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included Alcoholic hepatitis without ascites, metabolic encephalopathy, respiratory failure, hypokalemia, severe protein-calorie malnutrition, and anxiety disorder. Resident 48's medical record was reviewed on 9/26/22. There was no advance directive located in resident 48's medical record. On 9/28/22 at 9:44 AM, an interview was conducted with resident 48. Resident 48 stated that she had a Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) that she provided the facility when she was admitted . On 9/28/22 at 9:58 AM, an interview was conducted with Registered Nurse (RN) 3. RN 3 stated for a resident's code status, she would look at the resident's Physician Orders for Life Sustaining Treatment (POLST) form. RN 3 stated that the dashboard in the resident's medical record also listed the code status. RN 3 stated she was not aware of where the POLST form was located in the new electronic medical record. RN 3 stated that she would look at the dashboard in the event of an emergency and then would verify later with the POLST form. RN 3 stated some of the resident's rooms had red fishes on door that meant to not resuscitate. On 9/28/22 at 12:17 PM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated if a resident came to the facility with an advance directive than that advance directive was used by facility staff. The DON stated if the resident did not have an advance directive, then a POLST form was completed upon admission. The DON stated that the physician had to sign if the POLST was a DNR. The DON stated the resident was a full code until a DNR was signed by the physician. On 9/28/22 at 12:28 PM, an interview was conducted with RN 3. RN 3 stated that she was not aware of a POLST book at the nurse's station. The binder labeled POLST at the nurses station did not have a POLST form for resident 48. On 9/29/22 at 10:46 AM, an interview was conducted with the DON. The DON stated resident 48 completed a POLST form last night and resident 48 chose to be a full code. The DON stated she was unable to find a POLST.
CONCERN (D)

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

Grievances (Tag F0585)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review it was determined, for 2 out of 34 sampled residents, that the resident did n...

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 out of 34 sampled residents, that the resident did not have the right to voice grievances to the facility or other agencies or entity that hears grievances without discrimination or reprisal and without fear of discrimination or reprisal. In addition, the facility did not maintain evidence demonstrating the results of all grievances for a period of no less than three years from the issuance of the grievance decision. Specifically, there were no grievances for a period of time during transition of staff into the Resident Advocate position. In addition, residents reported grievances that were not followed up. Resident identifiers: 16 and 29. Findings included: The grievance log was reviewed. There was a grievance dated 5/2/22, regarding call lights. There were two grievances dated 9/12/22, regarding call lights not being answered and meal cards not being followed. There were no grievances between 5/3/22 through 9/12/22. The Administrator provided Resident Council Minutes dated 4/5/22, 5/3/22, 6/7/22, 7/12/22, 8/2/22, and 9/12/22. The Resident Council Minutes dated 9/12/22, revealed long call light times and there was no follow-up documented. 1. Resident 29 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included low back pain, injury to left lower leg, hypothyroidism, edema, chronic pain, and nausea. An admission Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE], revealed resident 29 had a Brief Interview of Mental Status score of 15 which revealed resident 29 was cognitively intact. On 9/26/22 at 12:32 PM, an interview was conducted with resident 29. Resident 29 stated she was missing fifteen dollars and had reported to staff but no one had followed-up with her about it. On 10/3/22 at 10:30 AM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated there should be a grievance or complaint process. The DON stated that she heard about something with resident 29 a week ago. The DON stated it was something about being provided a lock box for her things. On 10/3/22 at 9:21 AM, an interview was conducted with the Administrator. The Administrator stated that his best guess was that the Resident Advocate (RA) was training the Business Office Manager (BOM) so there might have not been enough time to complete grievances. The Administrator stated that the Resident Council Minutes were used to address grievances between 5/3/22 and 9/12/22. On 10/3/22 at 10:04 AM, an interview was conducted with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 2. CNA 2 stated if a resident reported missing items, then she looked for the missing item. CNA 2 stated if she was unable to find the item, then she notified the RA. CNA 2 stated that the RA then went through her process. On 10/3/22 at 12:12 PM, an interview was conducted with the RA. The RA stated she obtained grievance forms in care conference meeting, resident council, and through the staff. The RA stated residents had her phone extension so they could call her to tell her about any grievances they have. The RA stated recently staff got resident 29 a lock box because resident 29 was concerned her things were going missing. The RA stated resident 29 was provided a lock box for her own security. The RA stated she had not heard that resident 29 was missing fifteen dollars. The RA stated when staff gave resident 29 the lock box, resident 29 was educated on keeping funds in her room. The RA stated that the admission agreement stated that the facility was not responsible for missing items and that money should be stored in the personal funds account. The RA stated that the previous RA that was here left. The RA stated she was the BOM and had to train a new BOM before being trained to be the RA. The RA stated she trained the BOM for about a month and the Corporate Social Service Worker (CSSW) helped remotely daily and was at the facility once a week. The RA stated she was not sure who was handling grievances before she became the RA full time. The RA stated if she received staffing grievances so took them to the nursing leadership, who pulled call light reports, and educated staff on importance of answering a call light. The RA stated she had a few complaints regarding staffing when she transitioned into the RA position. On 10/3/22 at 12:21 PM, an interview was conducted with the CSSW. The CSSW stated the previous RA was at the facility until about June 2022. The CSSW stated that the current RA transitioned to the RA from being the BOM. The CSSW stated the prior BOM left after a couple months and the current RA had to train a new BOM. The CSSW stated she helped out at the facility when she could because she had other facilities to oversee. The CSSW stated she was not over the grievances, but if a resident stopped her facility staff would work on them. The CSSW stated she filled out one grievance during the time she was helping. The CSSW stated grievances were generated through, Interdisciplinary team meetings, resident council, residents knew where the RA's offices was, there were some forms at the nurses station, and there was a pocket to put the form in for the RA. The CSSW stated there were no grievances from resident 29. The CSSW stated that the RA told her that resident 29 called her phone the other day and asked for another pill from the nurse. The CSSW stated she did not know resident 29 very well but that she did not come out of her room. 2. Resident 16 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included cellulitis of left lower limb, severe protein-calorie malnutrition, lymphedema, anemia, and hypertension. On 10/3/22 at 9:49 AM, an observation was made of resident 16 talking to Physical Therapy Assistant (PTA) 1 and Occupational Therapist (OT) 1. Resident 16 stated the facility was so short staffed on Saturday night that a CNA came in and told him she did not have time to change him. Resident 16 stated a nurse came in later and he told the nurse that if he was not changed he would call the police. Resident 16 stated he told staff it was their choice on what he did. Resident 16 stated the CNA came in and changed him very quickly. Resident 16 stated he hated to be that kind of a guy but he had no other choice. Resident 16 stated he was looking at other facilities because of staffing. On 10/3/22 at 12:31 PM, an interview was conducted with PTA 1. PTA 1 stated she did not remember talking to resident 16. After being reminded of the conversation, PTA 1 stated that resident 16 stated there was one CNA and one nurse working. PTA 1 stated resident 16 was worried because he had to teach the CNA how to use the hoyer lift to transfer him. PTA 1 stated resident 16 said when it got to the point that he did not feel safe he would call the police. PTA 1 stated resident 16 said he needed to have a brief change and someone went in to change him but said they needed to come back. PTA 1 stated that resident 16 said the nurse came into his room and he told the nurse if he did not get changed he would call the police. PTA 1 stated she had not reported the information to management. PTA 1 stated she was planning on talking to the DON about it. On 10/3/22 at 12:31 PM, an interview was conducted with OT 1. OT 1 stated that resident 16 claimed that every time that he had a new CNA working with him, the CNA did not know how to transfer him. OT 1 stated if resident 16 was not in the exact right spot then he did not think the CNA knew what they were doing. OT 1 stated some of resident 16's complaints might be warranted. OT 1 stated resident 16 was very sensitive to any new staff. OT 1 stated there had been times when staffing was poor over the weekends and it feeds into the fact that it had not been fixed and might not be going away. OT 1 stated he usually talked to the RA, DON, and Administrator and the concerns were discussed in the morning meeting throughout the day.
CONCERN (D)

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

Transfer Requirements (Tag F0622)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident 45 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included major depressive di...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident 45 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included major depressive disorder, adult failure to thrive, abdominal pain, hydroureter, anemia, opioid dependence, and anxiety disorder. On 9/26/22 at 10:47 AM, an interview was conducted with resident 45. Resident 45 stated she had a seizure and was transferred to the hospital. On 6/10/22 at 1:30 AM, the hospital History & Physical documented the resident had a history of major depressive disorder with psychotic symptoms with altered mental status. The report documented, The patient is unable to provide a history, and comes with very sparse records. The report documented that resident 45 reported having difficulty finding words and was staring off into space. The resident then had a tonic clonic seizure with tongue biting in the emergency department, and was treated with Keppra and Ativan. A computerized tomography brain scan without contrast revealed no acute intracranial abnormality. Review of resident 45's progress notes revealed the following: a. On 6/10/22 at 12:34 AM, the nurse note documented, Med [medication] pass nurse sent out resident to [name of hospital omitted] around 2230 [10:30 PM], and then med pass nurse left facility around 2300 [11:00 PM]. Before end of shift, will follow up with [name of hospital omitted] for update. b. On 6/10/22 at 2:01 AM, the nurse note documented, Called [name of hospital omitted], nurse reported that resident was admitted to Med/Surg [medical/surgical] floor with seizure diagnosis. No other information was received. No documentation could be found of a transfer assessment or reason for the transfer. No documentation was found of the medical records that were provided to the receiving provider. On 10/3/22 at 9:06 AM, an interview was conducted with RN 6. RN 6 stated that she was an agency nurse and was not familiar with the facility protocol when a resident had a change in condition. RN 6 stated that she had worked yesterday, had a resident who had fallen and was on a anticoagulant. RN 6 stated that she wanted to transfer the resident to the emergency department (ED). RN 6 stated that she attempted to notify the provider, left a voicemail, and never heard a response back from the NP. RN 6 stated that she called the DON and was told to complete a fall report on the incident and send the resident to the hospital. RN 6 stated that she would have liked to document the incident in a progress note, but she did not know how to use the electronic medical records. RN 6 stated that she was not provided any instruction on how to use the electronic medical records and she had not used this system prior to this facility. RN 6 stated that she was not provided any orientation to the facility and was only given the DON's phone number and login information for the computer. RN 6 stated that the previous nurse gave her the medical records website to log on for the Medication Administration Record (MAR) RN 6 stated that she was able to navigate the system, but it took her longer to educate herself on the system. RN 6 stated that she was not able to navigate beyond the MAR. RN 6 stated she would have liked to know how to find the patient's diagnosis and plan of care. On 10/3/22 at 9:16 AM, an interview was conducted with the ADON. The ADON stated that with a change in condition the staff were to contact the provider to explain the change in condition. The ADON stated that if they did not hear back from the provider they would call the family or ask the resident what they would like to do. The ADON stated that the staff were to notify the DON, medical provider, and family if a resident was transferred to the ED. The ADON stated that the nurse on shift was to call the ED and provide a verbal report and should send a copy of the resident's face sheet with demographics, medication list, any progress notes explaining the incident or situation and a copy of the resident's Physician Ordered for Life-Sustaining Treatment. The ADON stated that the nurse should document in the progress notes the incident and need for a transfer to the hospital. The ADON stated that with the previous medical records system they had an e-interact transfer form assessment to fill out. The ADON stated that the nurse may not document what paperwork was sent to the receiving provider in the progress notes, but that it would most likely be located on the daily nurse report sheet. The ADON stated that the information that was sent to the receiving provider was not documented in the resident's medical record. The ADON stated that the agency binder, located at the nurse's station, would have information on the procedure for a resident change in condition and transfers. The ADON reviewed resident 45's medical record and stated that there was no transfer form for the resident's transfer to the hospital on 6/10/22. The ADON stated that the e-interact transfer form should have been completed by the nurse who was sending the resident to the ED. The ADON stated that resident 45's progress notes did not document what had occurred at the facility that initiated a transfer to the ED. The ADON stated that it looked like the staff needed some education on this process. On 10/3/22 at approximately 9:25 AM, an observation was made of the agency binder located at the nurse's station on the 300 and 400 hallways. The agency binder did not have any documentation or instructions on what staff should complete during the transfer process. Based on interview and record review it was determined, the facility did not ensure that a transfer or discharge was documented in the resident's medical record and that appropriate information was communicated to the receiving health care institution or provider. Specifically, for 2 out of 34 sampled residents, residents that were transferred to the hospital did not have a transfer assessment or a reason for the transfer documented in the medical record. In addition, no documentation was found in the resident's medical record to indicate the receiving provider was provided contact information of the practitioner responsible for the resident's care, resident representative contact information, advance directive information, all special instructions for care, a discharge summary, and any other documentation necessary for a safe and effective transition of care. Resident identifiers: 44 and 45. Findings included: 1. Resident 44 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included, but not limited to, acute kidney failure, diabetes mellitus type 2, anxiety disorder, essential hypertension, and urinary tract infection. Resident 44's medical record was reviewed on 9/28/22. On 8/6/22 at 5:37 PM, a Nursing progress note documented Pt [Patient] was found calling out for people that weren't there in her room around 4pm today. I checked her vitals [vital signs]. Her oxygen was at 60, RR [respiratory rate] 18 Temp [temperature] 98 bp [blood pressure] 122/88. I put oxygen on her and it wouldn't get to 90 until I put it to about 5 Liters. I informed NP [Nurse Practitioner] and Dr [Doctor] of the facility via tiger text. There was no response back on the matter. Kept her on oxygen because when I take it off, she dips back down to below 90. She stopped calling out to unseen others after I put the oxygen on. Its almost end of shift, she is at 93 and has oxygen on. I will give this information in report at the end of shift. Lungs sounds clear in all lobes. Pt stated that even though I was giving her, her blood sugar, that she didn't feel like taking her self administered insulin. Her bs [blood sugar] around 5pm was 497. She gave me permission to give her 10 units of fast acting insulin. On 8/6/22 at 8:37 PM, resident 44 had a documented oxygen saturation of 91%. [Note: There were no oxygen saturations documented for resident 44 on 8/7/22.] On 8/8/22 at 3:01 AM, a Nursing progress note documented 8/7/22 2200 [10:00 PM]-This Nurse called non emergency transport to send Pt to [name of hospital removed] to be evaluated d/t [due to] change in condition .such as: increase in oxygen therapy, is a feeder, edematous, and change in mentation. 2220 [10:20 PM]-EMS [Emergency Medical Services] arrived to facility 2228 [10:28 PM]-Pt left facility on Stretcher Family notified and MD [Medical Director] 8/8/22 0217 [2:17 AM]- UPDATE- admitted to ICU [Intensive Care Unit] No documentation could be found of a transfer assessment or reason for the transfer. No documentation was found of the medical records that were provided to the receiving provider. On 9/27/22 at 3:12 PM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated if a resident needed to be transferred out of the facility staff should complete a change of condition transfer form. On 10/3/22 at approximately 12:40 PM, an interview was conducted with Registered Nurse (RN) 1. RN 1 stated that she was an agency nurse and it was her first day working at the facility. RN 1 stated she had no knowledge regarding the circumstances of resident 44's hospitalization. On 10/3/22 at 12:58 PM, an interview was conducted with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON). The ADON stated that resident 44 was diagnosed at the hospital with a urinary tract infection. The ADON stated when resident 44 was readmitted to the facility resident 44 had a new diagnoses of renal failure and was put on dialysis. The ADON stated that resident 44 was possibly sent out to the hospital due to a change in mental status. On 10/3/22 at 1:59 PM, an interview was conducted with the DON. The DON stated she had no knowledge regarding the circumstances of resident 44's hospitalization.
CONCERN (D)

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, it was determined, the facility did not ensure that residents received treatment and care ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, it was determined, the facility did not ensure that residents received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan and the residents' choice. Specifically, for 1 out of 34 sampled residents, a resident was admitted with two different admission orders, a chest x-ray revealed congestive heart failure with edema and no interventions were provided, a cardiologist had different medication orders, and laboratory services were not provided according to physician's orders. Resident identifier: 160. Findings included: Resident 160 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and discharged on 4/5/22 with diagnoses which included hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and atrial fibrillation. On 9/27/22 at 9:21 AM, a phone interview was conducted with resident 160's family member. Resident 160's family member stated resident 160's medications were all messed up when she was admitted . Resident 160's family member stated resident 160 should have had Torsemide as needed when she was having edema in her lungs. Resident 160's family member stated resident 160 was provided oxygen and another medication for her heart rhythm instead of the Torsemide. Resident 160's family member stated she took resident 160 to the cardiologist and resident 160 was not receiving the same medications. Resident 160's family member stated she talked to the previous Director of Nursing (DON) about the medications. Resident 160's medical record was reviewed on 9/29/22. An admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], revealed resident 160 received an anticoagulant six days out of the previous seven days. A care plan dated 1/5/22, revealed [Resident 160] has atrial fibrillation and takes anticoagulant medications. The goal was The resident will be free from discomfort or adverse reactions related to anticoagulant use through the review date. The approaches were Administer ANTICOAGULANT medications as ordered by physician. Monitor for side effects and effectiveness Q [every]-SHIFT. and Resident/family/caregiver teaching to include the following: Take/give medication at the same time each day, Use soft toothbrush, Use electric razor, Avoid activities that could result in injury, Take precautions to avoid falls, Signs/symptoms of bleeding, Avoid foods high in Vitamin K. These include greens such as spinach and turnips, asparagus, broccoli, cabbage, Brussels sprouts, milk and cheese. and Review medication list for adverse interactions. Avoid use of aspirin or NSAIDS [Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug]. There were two admission orders in resident 160's medical record. One was generated on 1/4/22, with an admission date to the hospital of 8/2/21. The other was dated 12/24/21. The medications that were printed on 1/4/22, revealed to have Torsemide 20 Milligrams (mg) orally daily, Ferrous Sulfate 325 mg every day, Vitamin B12 1000 mg/milliliter injection every 30 days, and Potassium Citrate 540 mg with an unknown dose. Resident 160's January 2022 Medication Administration record (MAR) was reviewed. Resident 160 was not provided Torsemide, Ferrous Sulfate, Vitamin B12, and Potassium Citrate. There was no information that the physician was contacted regarding the double admission orders and which medications to administer. A chest x-ray obtained on 3/22/22, revealed resident 160 had Bilateral infiltrates. Left pleural effusion, Question congestive heart failure with edema. There were no nurses notes regarding why a chest x-ray was obtained or that the results were received. There was a scribble at the bottom of the form and no other information located in resident 160's medical record. A form titled Referral to Physicians and Clinics dated 3/23/22, revealed that resident 160 went to a cardiology appointment. The physician ordered to have a complete blood count, comprehensive metabolic panel, Lipids, B-type natriuretic peptide, and a thyroid stimulating hormone to be obtained. In addition, the cardiologist wrote Please give Furosemide and potassium in the AM [morning] so she isn't peeing all night. The cardiologist listed resident 160's current medications which included Vitamin D3 50 micrograms (mcg) daily and Metoprolol Tartrate 50 mg twice daily. A basic metabolic panel dated 3/23/22, was located in resident 160's medical record. There were no other laboratory results located. Resident 160's March 2022 MAR was reviewed and resident 160 was administered Vitamin D 1000 International Unit (IU) by mouth once daily since 1/6/22. Metoprolol Succinate capsule Extended release (ER) 24 hour sprinkle 50 mg was administered twice daily. The Furosemide Tablet 40 mg was not administered from 3/23/22, until resident 160 was discharged . It should be noted that Vitamin D3 50 mcg and Vitamin D 1000 IU were not the same dosage. The March 2022 MAR revealed that resident 160 was not administered Metoprolol Succinate Capsule ER 24 hour sprinkle 50 mg on the following dates: a. On 3/6/22, 7:00 PM dose. b. On 3/8/22, 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM doses. c. On 3/9/22, 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM dose. d. On 3/10/22, 7:00 PM dose. e. On 3/11/22, 7:00 AM dose. f. On 3/12/22, 7:00 PM dose. g. On 3/13/22 7:00 AM dose. The progress notes revealed on 3/6/22, the drug was not on hand. On 3/8/22, the medication was pending delivery. On 3/9/22, Medication was not available. Notified pharmacy. Refill is too soon, notified DON and MD [Medical Doctor] and Pending Delivery. On 3/10/22, Unable to locate. Ordered more. On 3/11/22, Drug not available. On 3/12/22, medication not on hand pharm [pharmacy] notified. On 3/13/22, Medication cannot be filled until the 16th. Notified DON of issue. Notified MD. Progress notes revealed the following entries: a. On 4/6/22 at 1:14 PM, Social Services Note: Spoke with [resident 160's] daughter [name removed] She let me know her mom will be going to another facility for rehab [rehabilitation] and then hopefully to the assssited (sic) living. Her daughter was concerned over medications and if she maybe was not getting them. [Name removed] [NAME] was spoke to and looked into things her mom was getting meds [medications]. [Name removed] said she still feels better just starting somewhere fresh. Has been speaking with [physician's name removed] at the hospital who also is here and it has been good as he knows her mom. I told her to please let us know if she needs anything and we hope she gets better. b. On 4/6/22 at 1:48 PM, Social Services Note: Called and spoke to daughter with [name removed] [NAME] and [name removed] the nurse. Went over her meds and that concern. Letting her know she was getting them, addressed the concern with her low blood pressure, explaining that ambulance came and gave her ketsmine (sic) for pain and sedation which most likely caused blood pressure and heart rate to drop. Daughter was appreciative of our call. On 9/27/22 at 12:01 PM, an interview was conducted with Registered Nurse (RN) 5. RN 5 stated she had worked at the facility for two years and was currently an agency nurse. RN 5 stated that nurses had to track down admission paperwork. RN 5 stated admission orders were double checked with the admission staff member. RN 5 stated that outside appointments were made by Transportation. RN 5 stated that Transportation gave the orders to the nurse, and the nurse inputted the orders into the electronic medical record. RN 5 stated a lot of times the resident's returned with no new orders or information from the appointments. RN 5 stated the laboratory came Monday and Friday to get the samples. RN 5 stated if the sample was sent to hospital, then the nurse had to call the hospital to check because the hospital did not notify the facility staff of the results. RN 5 stated if a resident continued to complain of symptoms of a urinary tract infection, then nurses made sure a urinalysis was done and then called for results. RN 5 stated she believed there was a difference between Metoprolol Tartrate and Succinate but would have to verify which medication and ask the pharmacy which one should be used. RN 5 stated if medication was not available nurses would have to write it down on a sheet and then call into pharmacy. RN 5 stated the new system had a button to push to reorder the medications. RN 5 stated that the night shift nurse went through and re-ordered the medications before the medication ran out. RN 5 stated if a resident was not administered Metoprolol, then she would want to make sure their blood pressures were not high. RN 5 stated sometimes Metoprolol was not given because the blood pressure was too low. RN 5 stated sometimes the physician provided parameters to hold the medication depending on the resident's blood pressure. On 9/27/22 at approximately 1:00 PM, an interview was conducted with the Corporate MDS Coordinator (CMDSC). The CMDSC stated she was unable to locate laboratory results for resident 160. On 9/27/22 at 2:50 PM, an interview was conducted with the DON. The DON stated admission orders were faxed to the pharmacy from the hospital and the pharmacy filled medications based on the physician's orders. The DON stated there was a central intake team that entered in all of the admission physician's orders from the hospital referral. The DON stated the central intake team called to verify if there were conflicting orders. The DON stated a nurse and the DON then verified the orders. The DON stated there was a concern about not updating orders with what the physician wanted. The DON stated she would have to see if there was a difference between Metoprolol Succinate and Tartrate. The DON stated that families were not always notified of chest x-ray results. The DON stated she did not know resident 160 and would not know if the results should have been reported to the family. The DON stated she had to look into why the Metoprolol was not administered and why there was not clarification with the Cardiologist after the appointment. The DON stated she would need to look at the laboratory results to see if the labs were obtained. On 9/29/22 at 1:00 PM, a follow up interview was conducted with the DON. The DON stated that the two different admission medications, should have been clarified with the physician. The DON stated that she would have used the orders from 12/24/21. The DON stated that she would not expect her nurses to review the cardiologist medications when the resident returned from the appointment because staff should have sent a copy of their current medications to the appointment. At 2:11 PM, the DON stated with the continue current medications list from the Cardiologist, she would not expect the nurse to change the orders but to reach out and make sure the Cardiologist knew what medications the resident was receiving.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0698 (Tag F0698)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, it was determined, the facility did not ensure that residents who require dialysis receive...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, it was determined, the facility did not ensure that residents who require dialysis receive such services, consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the resident's goals and preferences. Specifically, for 1 out of 34 sampled residents, a resident who was receiving dialysis services did not have a physician's order for dialysis services or monitoring of the fistula. The resident did not receive ongoing assessments and oversight before and after dialysis treatments. In addition, ongoing communication and collaboration with the dialysis facility regarding the residents dialysis care and services was not completed by facility staff. Resident identifier: 44. Findings included: Resident 44 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included, but not limited to, acute kidney failure, diabetes mellitus type 2, anxiety disorder, essential hypertension, and urinary tract infection. On 9/26/22 at approximately 10:00 AM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated that resident 44 would be leaving the facility soon for dialysis. The resident Matrix For Providers was provided by the facility upon entrance and was reviewed. Resident 44 was not checked for receiving Dialysis services. Resident 44's medical record was reviewed on 9/28/22. On 8/23/22, the Discharge Summary from the hospital documented that resident 44 had end stage renal disease. A temporary dialysis catheter was placed on admission and a tunneled dialysis catheter was placed on 8/15/22. Resident 44 continues on scheduled hemodialysis per Nephrology. The Discharge Instructions included, but not limited to, hemodialysis per Nephrology orders. Tunneled hemodialysis catheter care per Nephrology. Discharge to Skilled Nursing Facility. On 8/24/22 at 9:05 AM, an admission Assessment and Skin Check was reviewed. The form was blank. An admission Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE], did not document that resident 44 was receiving dialysis services while not a resident and while a resident. The August 2022 Medication Administration Record (MAR) was reviewed. There were no physician's orders documenting that resident 44 was receiving dialysis. On 8/25/22 at 1:50 PM, a Nurse Practitioner (NP) progress note documented . SUBJECTIVE: [Name of resident 44 removed] is seen today as a readmit. She has a medical history significant for T2DM [type 2 diabetes mellitus] on insulin, CKD [chronic kidney disease], HTN [hypertension], HLD [hyperlipidemia], and multiple wounds. She was sent to [name of hospital removed] with nausea and decreased by mouthintake [sic] where she was found to have hyperkalemia and a GFR [glomerular filtration rate]< [less than] 10. She was started on dialysis, is followed by Nephrology. On 8/29/22 at 10:02 AM, a NP progress note documented . SUBJECTIVE: [Name of resident 44 removed] is seen this morning to followup on her renal failure and weakness. She has been participating in physical therapy and is continuing dialysis. On 9/3/22 at 8:33 PM, a Dietary progress note documented INITIAL [Name of resident 44 removed] is here with AKF [acute kidney failure], UTI [urinary tract infection], hyperlipidemia, DM2 [diabetes mellitus type 2], and anxiety. Diet order is Renal,CCHO [Consistent Carbohydrate Diet]/Regular consistency. Meal intakes are good with mostly 76-100%. She is going to dialysis 3x [times]/week at [name of dialysis center removed]. I called [name of dialysis center removed] to obtain most recent dry weight and labs [laboratory], although they have not taken any labs for her yet; they will be available at the end of next week. I adjusted her weight for obesity. She is taking a renal vitamin. When I visited with her, she stated that her eating and appetite are okay. She states she is allergic to artificial sweeteners. I gave her some papers with information about foods high and low in sodium, potassium, and phosphorus so she can more easily make food choices that will keep her levels WNL [within normal limits]. Will recommend that she is weighed weekly for the first four weeks, then monthly after that. I will also continue to monitor labs [laboratory] as they are available at the dialysis center. [Note: Lab results were unable to be located in the medical record. Resident 44 was not weighed weekly for the first four weeks as recommended.] Resident 44's vital signs for Weight were reviewed. The following were documented: a. On 9/14/22 at 4:49 PM, 252.5 pounds. b. On 9/17/22 at 9:32 AM, 252 pounds. A care plan Problem created on 9/3/22, documented Category: Nutritional Status [Name of resident 44 removed] is at risk for nutritional deficits secondary to morbid obesity and need for dialysis. A care plan Goal created on 9/3/22, documented Long Term Goal Target Date: 12/03/2022 [Name of resident 44 removed] will not experience any untreated weight variances through next review. The care plan interventions created on 9/3/22, included: a. Assist with dental appliances; provide dental supplies; Make dental referrals, as needed. b. Diabetic medication and treatments as prescribed. c. Dietitian and nutritional assessment or evaluation, as needed. d. Honor food preferences. e. If resident 44 was not satisfied with the meal, offer alternative meal. f. Monitor blood glucose levels as prescribed. g. Monitor, document, and report signs or symptoms of dysphagia: pocketing; choking; coughing; drooling; holding food in mouth; several swallowing attempts; refusing to eat; concerned appearance during meals. h. Obtain labs and monitor as prescribed. i. Provide diet and snacks as prescribed. j. Weight monitoring as prescribed. On 9/12/22 at 6:59 AM, a NP progress note documented . SUBJECTIVE: ., she has dialysis today. On 9/20/22 at 2:18 PM, a Nursing progress note documented [Name of resident 44 removed returned from a Left arm AV [arteriovenous] fistula surgery today around 1:45pm. Res. [Resident] has ACE [all cotton elastic] bandage on surgical site that is to be left on for 48hrs [hours]. Fistula should be auscultated for bruit and thrill. Was last given Norco at 12:40pm by hospital. The September 2022 MAR was reviewed. There were no physician's orders documenting that resident 44's fistula should be auscultated for bruit and thrill. On 9/28/22 at 11:27 AM, an interview was conducted with Registered Nurse (RN) 2. RN 2 stated that she was told that resident 44 was receiving dialysis for renal failure. RN 2 stated that resident 44 went to dialysis on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday each week. RN 2 stated that resident 44 had a physician's order in the medical record for dialysis. RN 2 stated that the facility Transportation would keep a record of each resident on dialysis and post the appointments weekly. RN 2 stated the resident's on dialysis were on the report sheet and the information was passed on in report. RN 2 stated a resident on dialysis had daily monitoring to check for bruit and thrill of the fistula and any signs and symptoms of infection. RN 2 stated that she had never changed resident 44's dressing. RN 2 stated the monitoring and dressing change would be documented on the MAR. RN 2 stated that all residents received monthly weights and if ordered by the physician the resident would receive weekly weights. RN 2 stated if a resident was on diuretic medications the resident would receive daily weights. RN 2 stated that all residents got a full set of vital signs twice a day. RN 2 stated that resident 44 was on a 2000 milliliter a day fluid restriction. RN 2 stated the fluid restriction would be documented on the MAR and the Certified Nursing Assistants would chart the fluid restriction also. RN 2 stated if there was a problem or question she would call the dialysis center or the dialysis center would call the facility. RN 2 stated there was a dialysis book that each resident had that contained the pre-dialysis and post-dialysis notes. RN 2 stated the floor nurses did not create care plans. RN 2 stated the DON and the administration would complete their individual assessments of the resident. [Note: The August and September 2022 MAR was reviewed. There were no physician's orders documenting that resident 44 was on a fluid restriction.] On 9/29/22 at 8:12 AM, an interview was conducted with resident 44. Resident 44 stated that she could not remember when she started dialysis. Resident 44 stated that she did not have a dialysis binder that she took with her to the dialysis center. On 9/29/22 at 8:17 AM, an interview was conducted with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 1. LPN 1 stated that resident 44 had been going to dialysis as long as LPN 1 had been working with resident 44 at the facility. LPN 1 stated usually there was a binder and usually transportation would bring the paper for LPN 1 to sign and complete prior to resident 44 going to dialysis. LPN 1 stated that since this surveyor brought up the form, transportation had not been bringing LPN 1 the form to complete. LPN 1 stated that she was surprised the dialysis clinic had not made a big deal about not receiving the form. On 9/29/22 at 9:55 AM, an interview was conducted with the Transportation staff member. The Transportation staff member stated that when she reported to work at the facility she would ask the resident if they were going or would like to go to dialysis that day. The Transportation staff member stated she would remind the resident of their dialysis time and would take the resident to dialysis. The Transportation staff member stated that prior to leaving the dialysis clinic she would weigh the resident because weights were important. The Transportation staff member stated that she did not take any paper work with her prior to leaving the facility for dialysis or returning. The Transportation staff member stated that in the past she would take paper work with her to the resident's dialysis appointment but the prior DON told her that she did not need to do that. The Transportation staff member stated that the dialysis clinic would document on the paper work she brought back to the facility any new physician orders or what was happening with the resident. The Transportation staff member stated she would also take a list of the residents medications to the dialysis clinic. The Transportation staff member stated that she took the form once to the dialysis clinic and the prior DON told her that she did not need the form because the residents go to dialysis so frequently. The Transportation staff member stated that she quit taking the form and was only doing what she was told to do. The Transportation staff member further stated that she did not feel like that should be the process. On 9/29/22 at 10:33 AM, an interview was conducted with the DON. The DON stated there was a transportation form that was to be sent with the resident to dialysis. The DON stated that the dialysis clinic would send back the form with new orders or communication regarding the resident. The DON stated the facility had a transportation form but the DON was not sure if staff were using the form. The DON stated if a resident was receiving dialysis there should be a physician's order. The DON stated the care plan should include items for transportation, and anything specific to the resident that they would want outside of medication. The DON stated that vital signs and weights should be done on the resident. The DON stated that she was not sure what resident 44's physician's orders were for weights and the DON thought resident 44 was on daily weights. [Note: Resident 44 had two documented weights in the medical record.] On 10/3/22 at 12:58 PM, an interview was conducted with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON). The ADON stated that resident 44 was diagnosed at the hospital with a urinary tract infection. The ADON stated when resident 44 was readmitted to the facility resident 44 had a new diagnoses of renal failure and was put on dialysis.
CONCERN (D)

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

Unnecessary Medications (Tag F0759)

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 that the facility did not ensure that the medication error ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review it was determined that the facility did not ensure that the medication error rates was not 5 percent or greater. Observations were made of 28 medication opportunities, on 9/28/22, revealed two medication errors which resulted in a 7.14 percent medication error rate. Specifically, an enteric coated Aspirin (ASA) was administered instead of a chewable and Omeprazole was substituted for Pantoprazole. Resident identifier: 53. Findings included: Resident 53 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included surgical aftercare of the digestive system, edema, type 2 diabetes mellitus, morbid obesity, obstructive sleep apnea, anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, insomnia, hypertension, benign prostatic hyperplasia, and chronic kidney disease. Review of resident 53's physician's orders revealed the following: a. ASA tablet 81 milligrams (mg), chewable by mouth one time a day. b. Pantoprazole tablet 40 mg by mouth one time a day. On 9/28/22 at 8:15 AM, observations were made of Registered Nurse (RN) 3 during morning medication administration. RN 3 was observed to dispense and administer ASA 81 mg tablet, enteric coated (EC) and Omeprazole 20 mg tablet, two tablets to resident 53. On 9/28/22 at approximately 8:15 AM, an interview was conducted with RN 3. RN 3 confirmed that she administered ASA EC instead of a chewable. RN 3 stated that the Omeprazole was the same drug classification as Pantoprazole but was not the same drug. RN 3 was observed to look up the medication Omeprazole and stated that Omeprazole generic was Prilosec and not Pantoprazole.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0773 (Tag F0773)

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 34 sampled residents, the facility must obtain laboratory servi...

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 34 sampled residents, the facility must obtain laboratory services only when ordered by a physician, physician assistant, nurse practitioner, or clinical nurse specialist. In addition, the facility must promptly notify the ordering physician of laboratory results that fall outside of clinical reference ranges. Specifically, a resident's laboratory (lab) tests were obtained without a provider order. In addition, a resident's urinalysis (UA) results were not obtained from the lab and reported to the ordering physician. Resident identifiers: 29 and 30. Findings included: 1. Resident 30 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included cerebral infarction, abscess of perineum, muscular dystrophy, hypertension, type 2 diabetes mellitus, anxiety disorder, gastro-esophageal reflux disease, major depressive disorder, and cellulitis of the buttocks. On 9/28/22, resident 30's medical record was reviewed. On 9/20/22, a Complete Blood Count with differential, a Comprehensive Metabolic Panel, a Thyroid Stimulating Hormone, a Vitamin B 12, a 25-hydroxy Vitamin D, and a Hemoglobin A1C were obtained. On 9/28/22 at 11:09 AM, an interview was conducted with the Corporate Minimum Data Set Coordinator (CMDSC). The CMDSC stated that she did not have a physician's order for the laboratory results that were obtained on 9/20/22. 2. Resident 29 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included low back pain, injury to left lower leg, hypothyroidism, edema, chronic pain, and nausea. Resident 29's medical record was on 9/28/22. A physician's order dated 8/19/22, written by Registered Nurse (RN) 3 revealed resident 29 was to have a UA, urine culture, and urine culture and sensitivity. The Laboratory Analysis results collected on 8/19/22, and completed on 8/21/22, were reviewed. The lab results revealed resident 29 had Escherichia Coli, Peptostreptococcus prevotti, and Staphylococcus aureus. The form revealed that Macrobid 100 milligrams twice daily for five to seven days was the appropriate treatment. Resident 29's August 2022 Medical Administration Record revealed there were no antibiotics administered. There were no progress notes from 8/16/22 until 8/21/22, regarding why there was a physician's order for a UA. An Emergency provider report dated 8/21/22 at 11:48 AM, revealed Resident 29 was in increased pain over the last day or so and she coordinates this with increasing urination and dysuria. According to the lab results interpretation section resident 29 had trace of leukocyte esterase, 1-3 high power field [NAME] Blood Cells, and a few bacteria. The Discussion/Course section revealed complaints of a possible urinary tract infection (UTI) and pain radiating into the right hip and knee. The laboratory tests were fairly unremarkable. Medications administered included Ceftriaxone Sodium 1 gram on 8/21/11 at 11:51 AM, through Intravenous route. A Nurse Practitioner (NP) note dated 8/26/22, revealed that resident 29 was in pain over the weekend and she went to the hospital to have her Tramadol increased to every six hours. [It should be noted there was no information regarding resident 29's US that was collected on 8/19/22.] On 9/29/22 at 10:44 AM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated symptoms of a UTI were increased urination, frequent urination, change in vital signs, fever, and a lot more. The DON stated if a resident had symptoms the a UA would be obtained. The DON stated there should be documentation in the progress notes as to why a UA was obtained. The DON stated physicians were notified through the UA results being placed in the box for the physician when they came to the facility. The DON stated nurses also sent a tiger text to the physician with the results. The DON stated the NP was at the facility on Mondays and Thursdays and the physician on Wednesdays. The DON stated she was unable to obtain the tiger texts unless she was in on the text, so she would not be able to provide information that the physician was notified. The DON stated when the physician was notified the nurse should write a progress note. On 9/29/22 at 11:00 AM, an interview was conducted with the RN 3. RN 3 stated when a lab value or UA was ordered, she would contact the NP, an order was placed in the residents electronic medical record, and the lab company was contacted. RN 3 stated that the results of the lab were faxed to the facility or the lab contacted the NP. RN 3 stated that sometimes the lab did not send results to the facility so the nurse had to follow up with the lab. RN 3 stated if the nurse who ordered the labs was gone for a week, the nurse may not be aware of what labs had been ordered and which results had been sent to the facility. RN 3 stated the lab process had resulted in missed lab results. RN 3 stated that she tried to document in the progress notes when a lab was obtained. RN 3 stated on 8/19/22, she obtained a UA for resident 29 because she was probably acting confused or had a symptom like pain or burning when urinating. RN 3 stated she did not know if the physician was notified of the UA results. RN 3 stated she did not know if there was follow up because if it was not written in the medical record it was not done. RN 3 observed the UA results from 8/19/22, and stated it was a 6 on a scale of 1 to 7 which indicated resident 29 had an infection. RN 3 stated the results revealed resident 29 had a UTI that needed to be treated with Macrobid. RN 3 stated that things get very busy and I forget to get everything done. RN 3 stated there were not enough staff in the building. RN 3 stated there needed to be a nurse for each hallway because it's just crazy. RN 3 stated It's so stressful for me, because at the end of the day I sent the order and did not follow up on it and did not get treatment. RN 3 stated there were so many things to do that follow up with almost 40 residents was impossible to get everything done. RN 3 stated that charting did not get done. On 9/29/22 at 12:38 PM, a follow up interview was conducted with the DON. The DON stated she did not have any notes about the UA. The DON stated according to the UA in the medical record, Macrobid was the antibiotic that should have been used to treat the UTI. On 9/29/22 at 1:00 PM, an interview was conducted with resident 29. Resident 29 stated that the facility obtained a UA on 8/19/22, but she did not know the results. Resident 29 stated she got a shot at the hospital because of her UTI on 8/21/22. Resident 29 stated she was in a lot of pain at the facility, so she had to go to the hospital to get treatment. Resident 29 stated she was curious if the facility ever received the results of the UA because she had asked a bunch of times and no staff knew about the results. On 10/3/22 at 12:01 PM, an interview was conducted with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON). The ADON stated lab results were sent to the main fax line in the facility. The ADON stated that the physician then provided medication orders and the nurses had access to antibiotics in the Pyxus system.
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 1 out of 34 sampled residents, the facility did not establish an inf...

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 34 sampled residents, the facility did not establish an infection prevention and control program that included antibiotic use protocols and a system to monitor antibiotic use. Specifically, a resident was receiving a prophylactic antibiotic without a diagnosis to treat. Resident identifier: 53. Findings included: Resident 53 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included surgical aftercare of the digestive system, edema, type 2 diabetes mellitus, morbid obesity, obstructive sleep apnea, anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, insomnia, hypertension, benign prostatic hyperplasia, and chronic kidney disease. On 10/3/22, resident 53's medical record was reviewed. Review of resident 53's physician's orders revealed an order for Macrobid capsule 100 milligrams by mouth at bedtime. The order was initiated on 8/1/22. No documentation could be found for the rationale for the use of the prophylactic antibiotic Macrobid. On 10/3/22 at 2:47 PM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated she was still looking for the rationale for the use of the Macrobid. No additional information was provided by the DON for the prophylactic antibiotic.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0883 (Tag F0883)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review, it was determined, the facility did not ensure that each resident's medical record included documentation that indicated that the resident or resident's represent...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, it was determined, the facility did not ensure that each resident's medical record included documentation that indicated that the resident or resident's representative was provided education regarding the benefits and potential side effects of the influenza and pneumococcal immunizations; and that the resident either received the influenza and pneumococcal immunizations or did not receive the influenza and pneumococcal immunizations due to medical contraindications or refusal. Specifically, for 1 out of 34 sampled residents, a resident's pneumococcal vaccine was not documented as administered after the resident's responsible party consented to the pneumococcal vaccine. Resident identifier: 10. Findings included: Resident 10 was admitted to the facility 6/8/22 with diagnoses which include, but not limited to, cerebral infarction, gastrointestinal hemorrhage, delirium die to known physiological condition, essential hypertension, and chronic diastolic congestive heart failure. Resident 10's medical record was reviewed on 10/3/22. A Consent To Administer Pneumococcal Vaccine was reviewed. Resident 10's responsible party gave verbal consent to receive the vaccination. A physician's order dated 6/8/22, documented Pneumococcal Vac [vaccine] Polyvalent Injectable Inject 0.5 ml [milliliters] intramuscularly as needed for Pneumo [Pneumococcal] Vacc [vaccine]. The June, July, August, and September 2022 Medication Administration Records were reviewed. The Pneumococcal vaccine was not documented as administered to resident 10. On 10/3/22 at 1:54 PM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated the staff should be completing the immunization consents on admission. The DON stated the vaccine should be administered at the time the consent was signed.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0888 (Tag F0888)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review, it was determined, the facility did not ensure that all staff including contracted staff were fully vaccinated for Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19), except for...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, it was determined, the facility did not ensure that all staff including contracted staff were fully vaccinated for Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19), except for those staff who had been granted exemptions to the vaccination. Specifically, for 2 out of 8 sampled staff members (SM), who were not temporarily delayed, had not completed the vaccination series for a multi-dose COVID-19 vaccine. Staff identifiers: SM 1 and SM 2. Findings included: 1. The COVID-19 Staff Vaccination Status for Providers was reviewed. The following were documented: a. SM 1 had received one dose of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine on 1/11/22. b. SM 2 had received one dose of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine on 2/4/21. [Note: Staff members were not fully vaccinated and did have a pending or granted exemption or a temporary delay per the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.] On 10/3/22 at 10:47 AM, an interview was conducted with SM 1. SM 1 stated that she had received the first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine on 1/11/22. SM 1 stated that she had not received the second dose of a COVID-19 vaccine yet. SM 1 stated that she had contracted COVID-19 three days after the first dose was administered. SM 1 stated that she was told there would be a wait period before she could get the second dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. SM 1 stated that she had been cleared and just had not gotten the shot. On 10/3/22 at 10:59 AM, an interview was conducted with the ADON. The ADON stated that himself and the prior DON would work as a team to ensure the staff were vaccinated. The ADON stated that he was unsure if the current DON was assisting with the vaccination effort. The ADON stated that the Human Resources Director (HRD) would ask the new hire staff what their vaccination status was. The ADON stated that the HRD would track the COVID-19 vaccination status of staff and would report to the State. On 10/3/22 at 11:42 AM, an interview was conducted with the HRD. The HRD stated when the new hire staff came in for on boarding she would get a copy of their COVID-19 vaccination card. The HRD stated if the staff member was not vaccinated for COVID-19 she would have the staff member complete the exemption form. The HRD stated the exemption form was sent to the corporate Human Resources and they would approve the exemptions. The HRD stated that she would check in with the staff that were employed by the facility and tracked updates regarding the COVID-19 vaccine. The HRD stated that she would usually check in with staff every month or so but there was no time line. The HRD stated that she had been trying to work on getting SM 2's COVID-19 vaccination. The HRD stated that when she first asked SM 2 about the COVID-19 vaccination the HRD tried to get SM 2 to complete the exemption form but SM 2 did not want to complete the exemption form. The HRD stated that SM 2 told her that she would just get the COVID-19 vaccination. The HRD stated that SM 2 still had not completed the second dose of a COVID-19 vaccine or the exemption. The HRD stated that she would check in with SM 2 today and encourage SM 2 to either complete the exemption form or get the second dose of a COVID-19 vaccine.
CONCERN (E)

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview, the facility did not provide housekeeping and maintenance services necessary to maintain a s...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview, the facility did not provide housekeeping and maintenance services necessary to maintain a sanitary, orderly, and comfortable interior. Specifically, the carpets in the facility had multiple stains and the couches were worn and had holes in the cushions. Findings included: On 9/27/22 at 10:15 AM, a walk through of the facility was conducted. The following observations were made; a. Multiple large stains were observed on the carpet between the 300 and 400 hallway. b. Multiple large stains were observed on the carpet in the 300 hallway near the dining room area. c. Multiple large stains were observed on the carpet outside of room [ROOM NUMBER]. d. Multiple large stains were observed on the carpet outside of room [ROOM NUMBER] and 408. e. Multiple large stains were observed on the carpet in the 200 hallway near the dining room. f. Multiple large stains were observed on the carpet in the 100 hallway. g. A couch in the lounge area in between the 300 and 400 hallway had multiple small tears in the cushion. h. The couches in the lounge area between the 300 and 400 hallway were darkened and worn in the seats and the armrests. On 10/3/22 at 9:15 AM, an interview with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 2 was conducted. CNA 2 stated that the stains on the carpet have been there since she started working at the facility approximately five months ago. CNA 2 stated that the carpet occasionally got shampooed, but the stains always remained on the carpet. On 10/3/22 at 9:35 AM, an interview with the Housekeeping Supervisor (HS) was conducted. The HS stated that the couches get disinfected daily, and once a month the couches get a deep clean. The HS stated that the couches would get a deep clean if they become soiled for any reason. The HS stated that the couches were darkened and had tears because the couches were old, and need replaced. On 10/3/22 at 9:23 AM an interview with the Administrator (ADMIN) was conducted. The ADMIN stated that the facility was planning on a remodel which would include replacing the floors. The ADMIN stated that he was not sure when the remodel was going to happen.
CONCERN (E)

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

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

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 3 out of 34 sampled residents, 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 3 out of 34 sampled residents, the facility did not ensure that residents were free from abuse, neglect, misappropriation of resident property, and exploitation. Specifically, a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) was observed to verbally abuse a resident and two other residents reported the same CNA verbally abused them. In addition, the CNA was able to finish her shift with the residents. Resident identifiers: 16, 36, and 37. Findings included: A facility abuse investigation dated 9/15/22, revealed that resident 16, 36, and 37 alleged abuse from CNA 3. CNA 3 was identified as an agency CNA. The investigation revealed that Registered Nurse (RN) 7 reported that CNA 3 had verbally abused resident 16, 36, and 37. Resident 16 reported that after dinner he was waiting to be changed and when CNA 3 came into change him and pulled off his brief she said eww you smell like a pig and had a disgusted look on her face. Resident 37 was not interviewable but RN 7 reported, she witnessed an interaction between CNA 3 and resident 37. RN 7 indicated that when resident 37 moved his arms, CNA 3 screamed at the patient, don't hit me, I will hit you back, and then I am going to call the police, and you will spend the rest of your life in jail, and old people don't last in jail. Resident 36 reported that CNA 3 made some remarks to her like you are acting like a kid and playing in your poop and I will not change you unless you wear this type of brief. The Summary of Evidence revealed it was clear, given witness and resident statements that these allegations were true, even though CNA 3 denied ever saying any of those things. The Corrective Action was CNA 3 was removed from any scheduled shifts at the facility and was not allowed to pick up any future shifts. The residents were notified that CNA 3 would no longer work at the facility in the future. Based on the findings during the investigation, the facility substantiated the allegations of verbal abuse. 1. Resident 16 was admitted to the facility 6/3/21 with diagnoses which included cellulitis of left lower limb, severe protein-calorie malnutrition, lymphedema, anemia, and hypertension. Resident 16's medical record was reviewed on 9/29/22. An annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], revealed a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 which indicated resident 16 was cognitively intact. The MDS further revealed that resident 16 required two plus person extensive assistance with toileting. On 9/28/22 at 11:20 AM, an interview was conducted with resident 16. Resident 16 stated CNA 3 had lost her license. Resident 16 stated that CNA 3 went into his room waiting to go to bed and his brief was not in great shape, but had not soaked through yet. Resident 16 stated it took the staff so long to change his brief that he had another accident and then he was even more wet. Resident 16 stated CNA 3 placed him in bed and took off his pants. Resident 16 stated that CNA 3 stated Eww you smell like a pig and something like I'm doing all I can to not vomit right now. Resident 16 stated another agency CNA laughed. Resident 16 stated he was silent for the rest of the brief change because he felt really low. Resident 16 stated staff had never made him feel bad about being changed or his smells. Resident 16 stated CNA 3 may have entered his room another time during her shift. Resident 16 stated RN 7 filled a complaint for him and the Resident Advocate (RA) had him give a statement. Resident 16 stated he had worked with CNA 3 prior to the incident and she was extremely rude. Resident 16 stated CNA 3 made him feel like she did not care. Resident 16 stated this was where people came to get help and hoped that people treated them with respect and dignity. 2. Resident 37 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included cerebral infarction, acute kidney failure, severe protein-calorie malnutrition, urinary tract infection, diabetes mellitus, anxiety disorder, and atherosclerotic heart disease. Resident 37's medical record was reviewed on 9/29/22. A quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE], revealed a BIMS score of 3 which indicated resident 37 had severe cognitive deficit. On 9/28/22 at 11:45 AM, an observation was made of resident 37. Resident 37 was not interviewable. 3. Resident 36 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included, but not limited to, viral pneumonia, chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia, pulmonary hypertension, anemia, hyperkalemia, pain, and essential hypertension. Resident 36's medical record was reviewed on 9/29/22. A quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE], revealed a BIMS score of 9 which indicated moderately impaired cognition. On 10/3/22 at 12:25 PM, an interview was conducted with resident 36. Resident 36 stated the incident with CNA 3 happened during shift change. Resident 36 stated that she had been dealing with diarrhea for a day or two prior to the incident. Resident 36 stated that CNA 3 asked resident 36 why she had pooped on the floor and if resident 36 had been playing in her poop again. Resident 36 stated that she was trying to clean herself up so there was not such a mess. Resident 36 stated that the wipes she was using were on the floor because she had missed the garbage can while trying to clean herself up. Resident 36 stated that she was in her right mind and did not play in her poop. Resident 36 stated that CNA 3 told resident 36 that she would not change resident 36 unless resident 36 put on a tab brief. Resident 36 stated that CNA 3 told resident 36 that CNA 3 did not like resident 36. Resident 36 stated that she wore a pull-up brief with an insert and she did not want to wear a tab brief. Resident 36 stated that CNA 3 told resident 36 that CNA 3 had to be at the facility until 10:30 PM, and CNA 3 was not coming back into resident 36's room. Resident 36 stated that CNA 3 might have come back to her room once after the incident. Resident 36 stated that she had reported the incident to the floor nurse. Resident 36 stated that a CNA from the other side of the facility took care of her the rest of the night. Resident 36 further stated that CNA 3 was rough cleaning her up and it hurt. Resident 36 stated that she felt abused by CNA 3. Resident 36 stated that the incident with CNA 3 happened on a Saturday or a Sunday and no one at the facility questioned her about the incident until Thursday of that week. Resident 36 stated that she had informed the Social Services Director that she was scared. Resident 36 stated that CNA 3 had been complaining about how long she had to be at the facility that night and CNA 3 looked filthy and ungroomed. On 9/28/22 at 12:28 PM, a phone interview was conducted with RN 7. RN 7 stated she was provided abuse training through her agency when she was hired in April 2022. RN 7 stated she was in the dining area by the medication cart and she heard screaming from resident 37's room. RN 7 stated she went into resident 37's room to see what was going on because resident 37 usually screamed but it was worse than usual. RN 7 stated there were two CNA's in the room and CNA 3 was yelling back at resident 37. RN 7 stated that resident 37 would not hit anyone even if he was yelling. RN 7 stated she heard CNA 3 say something like Don't hit me, I'll hit you back, and then I'm going to call the police, and you'll spend the rest of your life in jail and old people don't last in jail. RN 7 stated she stood there for a minute because she had never heard anything like that. RN 7 stated the other CNA in the room, was shocked and her face was bright red. RN 7 stated that the other CNA tried to console resident 37. RN 7 stated she texted her Agency regarding the incident the next day. RN 7 stated she did not report to anyone at the facility because she was not aware of who was in charge because management was always changing. RN 7 stated that CNA 3 finished her shift that night. RN 7 stated that she assessed resident 37 for bruising or anything that looked like physical abuse. RN 7 stated resident 37 did not have any signs of physical abuse. RN 7 stated her agency asked for her to email them what happened and was asked by her agency if it was okay that Adult Protective Services (APS) was contacted. RN 7 stated there were no staff that interviewed her or talked to her about the incident. RN 7 stated that CNA 3 continued to work the remainder of her shift that night. RN 7 stated that she was the medication pass nurse so she worked a half a shift and left early before CNA 3. RN 7 stated the next day resident 16 told her that he was very upset about having to wait to be changed. RN 7 stated that resident 16 told her that CNA 3 said to him Eww you smell like a pig when he was getting his brief changed. On 9/28/22 at 1:25 PM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated if she received an allegation of abuse, she reported it to APS, reported it to the State Survey Agency, made sure that the abuse coordinator (Administrator) was notified, reported to police, and ombudsman. The DON stated she would report to the State Survey Agency within two hours or 24 hours depending on the allegation. The DON stated the facility would start with their own internal investigation, talk to the resident about the occurrence, ask other residents in the near by locations to see if there were similar situations. The DON stated staff would be interviewed about what they witnessed or if they knew anything about the situation. The DON stated the RA and Administrator conducted interviews. The DON stated she did not know the details of the abuse investigation involving resident 16, 36, and 37. The DON stated she knew it was an agency staff member that made the allegation. The DON stated the staff member reported to her agency and the agency reported to APS. The DON stated that somehow the Administrator got the APS report number. The DON stated that the RA conducted interviews. The DON stated she was not sure who were interviewed. The DON stated the agency staff member told the Administrator what happened in a letter. The DON stated she was not sure of the findings of the investigation. The DON stated that the agency staff member who was accused of abuse was asked not to return to protect the residents. The DON stated the facility had an agreement that the agency would provide abuse training prior to sending a staff member to the facility. The DON stated the agency staff member should report abuse allegations to someone at the facility. The DON stated she did not have documentation of abuse education for agency staff but would contact the agency for their training. On 9/29/22 at 9:00 AM, an interview was conducted with the Human Resource Director (HRD). The HRD stated she did not check the CNA registry or obtain Direct Access Clearance System (DACS) screening for agency CNA's prior to working in the facility. The HRD stated that she checked the CNA registry and obtained DACS screening for CNA's that were employed at the facility. On 9/29/22 at 10:45 AM, a follow-up interview was conducted with the DON. The DON stated she contacted CNA 3's agency company for her abuse training. The DON stated she would ask about the CNA registry check and DACS screening. [Note: No additional information was provided.] On 9/29/22 at 11:36 AM, an interview was conducted with the RA and Corporate Social Service Worker. The RA stated that she had been working at the facility for about eight weeks as the RA. The RA stated if a resident notified her of abuse, then she would notify the DON and the Administrator. The RA stated a thorough investigation would be completed. The RA stated that interviews would be conducted to determine if abuse occurred. The RA stated that if there was abuse, then she would report to the State Survey Agency within two hours. The RA stated if there was no actual harm, like verbal abuse or misappropriation then she would report within 24 hours. The RA stated that resident 16 had a couple of allegations of abuse. The RA stated one of them was reported on 9/9/22. The RA stated resident 16 reported that he pushed his call light, was waiting to get changed, while waiting he had another incontinent episode. The RA stated resident 16 reported CNA 3 went in his room and changed him, when she pulled down his brief CNA 3 said Eww you smell like a pig. The RA stated that the DON and previous Administrator were aware, so they had already submitted the report to the State Survey Agency. The RA stated that she completed interviews with a couple other residents. The RA stated that resident 36 was interviewed. The RA stated that resident 36 told her that she had a bowel movement and she pushed the call light. The RA stated resident 36 stated she tried to clean herself up, tried to throw her wipes in the trash but missed. The RA stated that resident 36 said CNA 3 said why did you do that, that she was acting like a little kid, and asked why she made a mess. The RA stated that resident 36 told her she felt very belittled by it. The RA stated that she was not asked to do anything beyond the interviews with the residents. The facility Abuse- Prevention, Investigation and Reporting policy and procedure revised on 7/1/21, was reviewed and revealed the following: Purpose: 1. Educate employees to issues of abuse, neglect and exploitation. 2. To prevent abuse, neglect, and exploitation of resident. 3. TO ensure prompt reporting of actual or suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation to the appropriate authorities. Policy: [Name of company] prohibits any abuse of resident from any source. This includes staff abuse, peer resident abuse, .[Name of company] seeks to promote the well being of its residents by providing a safe supportive environment. Every resident has the right to be free from verbal, sexual physical and mental abuse, corporal punishment and involuntary seclusion. Definitions: . VERBAL ABUSE: Means the use of oral, written, or gestured language that willfully includes degrading or derogatory terms to residents or their families, or within their hearing distance, regardless of their age, ability to comprehend, or their disability. Threats of harm Saying things to frighten a resident Making fun of a resident Saying something that would make the resident uncomfortable, or others uncomfortable. .MENTAL ABUSE: Includes but is not limited to humiliation, harassment, . PROCEDURE: 1. Screening: All potential employees will be screened as part of the application process. A Criminal Background Investigation will be completed on every new employee. Reference checks on new employees will include a minimum of two references, and should include contact with current, and past employers. Licensure (where applicable) will be verified to ensure licensed employees are in good standing. If anything in the employees screening process indicates a history of abuse or misappropriation of property, the individual will be referred to administrator. Where applicable by State law, yearly Criminal Background Investigations will be completed on all staff at the time the facility applies for a license renewal. Continued employment is contingent upon Criminal Background investigation. 2. Training: All employees will be trained at hire and annually thereafter as to what would constitute abuse, neglect and misappropriation of resident property. 3. Prevention: New employees will be trained to identify potential signs and symptoms of abuse including behavior changes and injuries of unknown origin. Annual training to employees will be given to identify incidents or allegations, which need investigated. Residents that are assessed to be at risk will have appropriate monitoring and behavioral approaches developed as part of their Care Plan. Prospective residents will be screened to determine if there is a history of abusive behavior. If it is determined that the facility can adequately meet the needs of a potential resident who has a history of abusive behavior, a care plan will be developed to include approaches to prevent the potential resident from engaging in abusive behavior. A drug free work place is enforced. A background check will be performed on all direct care volunteers. Residents will be educated at admit and during Resident Council meetings of their right to be free from abuse. 4. Identification: Any employee, consultant, or any other person affiliated with the operation of this facility that has reason to believe that a resident has been subject to abuse, neglect, or exploitation, shall immediately notify the facility Administrator, Director of Nursing, or their designee, so that appropriate action may be taken. Obtain the name of any witnesses Complete an Incident Report immediately which shall include a complete description of the circumstances and details of the incident relating to the abuse, neglect, or exploitation. The descriptions should include names of all persons involved, time, place, and all other pertinent information and evidence related to the occurrence in question. 'A person who is required to report suspected abuse, emotional or psychological abuse, neglect or exploitation of a resident and who willfully fails to do so is guilty of a class B misdemeanor.' 5. Investigation: . Other Suspected Abuse Incidents: ? Any person who suspects that abuse, neglect or misappropriation of property may have occurred, will immediately report the alleged violation to the attending nurse who immediately notifies the Administrator, Director of Nursing, or patient Advocate. The Administrator or his designee will initiate an investigative process as soon as possible, but not to exceed 24 hours after discovery of the incident. This investigation may consist of: a. Review of completed incident report, and any supporting documents. b. Interviews with the person or persons reporting the incident. c. Interview with any witnesses to the incident. d. Review of the resident's medical record. e. Interview with staff members (on all shifts) having contact with the resident during the period of the alleged incident. f. Interview with the resident's roommates, family members, and visitors who might have knowledge of the resident. g. Interviews with other residents who have been cared for by the staff member in suspicion. h. A review of all the circumstances around the incident. General Investigative Procedures: Witness reports shall be documented and signed by the witness . 6. Protection: Following an allegation of abuse, the facility will immediately implement increased monitoring of any residents deemed to be at risk for further abuse. If the alleged perpetrator is a resident, necessary revisions will be implemented in order to ensure the safety of other residents. This may include change of roommates, close monitoring, etc. If the complaint alleges abuse be a staff member, that staff member will be suspended or removed from direct patient care (whichever is appropriate to protect the resident) until an investigation had been completed There will be no reprisal to staff for reporting abuse allegations. 7. Reporting: All alleged violations and all substantiated incidents, injuries of unknown source will be reported to the appropriate State Survey Agency as immediately as possible with the results of its findings within five (5) working days. The Director of Nursing or designee will be responsible to notify the resident's attending physician. The Administrator, Director of Nursing, Resident Advocate, or designee will be responsible to notify the resident and his/her, legal representative. Any actions by a court of law against an employee, which would indicate unfitness for service as a nurse aide or other facility staff will be reported by [Name of company] to the: a. State nurse aide registry. b. Appropriate State Licensing Agency If appropriate: Notify the Ombudsman Adult Protective Services (APS) or law enforcement must be notified for: a. alleged violations b. injuries of unknown origin when abuse is suspected All substantiated abuse reports will be forwarded to the [Name of company] Management Office, Chief Operating Officer (COO). If it is determined that abuse may have occurred, the Policy Committee will review the finding and determine if any changes in current policies and procedures are required to prevent further potential for abuse.
CONCERN (E)

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

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

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 3 out of 34 sampled residents, in response to an alleg...

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 3 out of 34 sampled residents, in response to an allegation of abuse, neglect, exploitation, or mistreatment the facility did not ensure that all alleged violations were reported immediately, but not later than two hours after the allegation was made, if the events that caused the allegation involve abuse or resulted in serious bodily injury. Specifically, the State Survey Agency was not notified until five days after an abuse allegation was made. Resident identifiers: 16, 36, and 37. Findings included: A facility abuse investigation dated 9/15/22, revealed that resident 16, 36, and 37 alleged abuse from Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 3. CNA 3 was identified as an agency CNA. The investigation revealed that Registered Nurse (RN) 7 reported that CNA 3 had verbally abused resident 16, 36, and 37. Resident 16 reported that after dinner he was waiting to be changed and when CNA 3 came into change him and pulled off his brief she said eww you smell like a pig and had a disgusted look on her face. Resident 37 was not interviewable but RN 7 reported, she witnessed an interaction between CNA 3 and resident 37. RN 7 indicated that when resident 37 moved his arms, CNA 3 screamed at the patient, don't hit me, I will hit you back, and then I am going to call the police, and you will spend the rest of your life in jail, and old people don't last in jail. Resident 36 reported that CNA 3 made some remarks to her like you are acting like a kid and playing in your poop and I will not change you unless you wear this type of brief. The Summary of Evidence revealed it was clear, given witness and resident statements that these allegations were true, even though CNA 3 denied ever saying any of those things. The Corrective Action summary revealed that the facility was notified on 9/9/22, from the staffing agency. In addition, CNA 3 was removed from any scheduled shifts at the facility and was not allowed to pick up any future shifts. The residents were notified that CNA 3 would no longer work at the facility in the future. Based on the findings during the investigation, the facility substantiated the allegations of verbal abuse. A letter from RN 7 stated that there were two incidents that took place on 9/4/22. 1. Resident 16 was admitted to the facility 6/3/21 with diagnoses which included cellulitis of left lower limb, severe protein-calorie malnutrition, lymphedema, anemia, and hypertension. Resident 16's medical record was reviewed on 9/29/22. An annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], revealed a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 which indicated resident 16 was cognitively intact. The MDS assessment further revealed that resident 16 required two plus person extensive assistance with toileting. On 9/28/22 at 11:20 AM, an interview was conducted with resident 16. Resident 16 stated CNA 3 had lost her license. Resident 16 stated that CNA 3 went into his room waiting to go to bed and his brief was not in great shape, but had not soaked through yet. Resident 16 stated it took the staff so long to change his brief that he had another accident and then he was even more wet. Resident 16 stated CNA 3 placed him in bed and took off his pants. Resident 16 stated that CNA 3 stated Eww you smell like a pig and something like I'm doing all I can do to not vomit right now. Resident 16 stated another agency CNA laughed. Resident 16 stated he was silent for the rest of the brief change because he felt really low. Resident 16 stated staff had never made him feel bad about being changed or his smells. Resident 16 stated CNA 3 may have entered his room another time during her shift. Resident 16 stated RN 7 filled a complaint for him and the Resident Advocate (RA) had him give a statement. Resident 16 stated he had worked with CNA 3 prior to the incident and she was extremely rude. Resident 16 stated CNA 3 made him feel like she did not care. Resident 16 stated this was where people came to get help and hoped that people treated them with respect and dignity. 2. Resident 37 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included cerebral infarction, acute kidney failure, severe protein-calorie malnutrition, urinary tract infection, diabetes mellitus, anxiety disorder, and atherosclerotic heart disease. Resident 37's medical record was reviewed on 9/29/22. A quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE], revealed a BIMS score of 3 which indicated resident 37 had severe cognitive deficit. On 9/28/22 at 11:45 AM, an observation was made of resident 37. Resident 37 was not interviewable. 3. Resident 36 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included, but not limited to, viral pneumonia, chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia, pulmonary hypertension, anemia, hyperkalemia, pain, and essential hypertension. Resident 36's medical record was reviewed on 9/29/22. A quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE], revealed resident 36 had a BIMS score of 9 which indicated moderately impaired cognition. On 10/3/22 at 12:25 PM, an interview was conducted with resident 36. Resident 36 stated the incident with CNA 3 happened during shift change. Resident 36 stated that she had been dealing with diarrhea for a day or two prior to the incident. Resident 36 stated that CNA 3 asked resident 36 why she had pooped on the floor and if resident 36 had been playing in her poop again. Resident 36 stated that she was trying to clean herself up so there was not such a mess. Resident 36 stated that the wipes she was using were on the floor because she had missed the garbage can while trying to clean herself up. Resident 36 stated that she was in her right mind and did not play in her poop. Resident 36 stated that CNA 3 told resident 36 that she would not change resident 36 unless resident 36 put on a tab brief. Resident 36 stated that CNA 3 told resident 36 that CNA 3 did not like resident 36. Resident 36 stated that she wore a pull-up brief with an insert and she did not want to wear a tab brief. Resident 36 stated that CNA 3 told resident 36 that CNA 3 had to be at the facility until 10:30 PM, and CNA 3 was not coming back into resident 36's room. Resident 36 stated that CNA 3 might have come back to her room once after the incident. Resident 36 stated that she had reported the incident to the floor nurse. Resident 36 stated that a CNA from the other side of the facility took care of her the rest of the night. Resident 36 further stated that CNA 3 was rough cleaning her up and it hurt. Resident 36 stated that she felt abused by CNA 3. Resident 36 stated that the incident with CNA 3 happened on a Saturday or a Sunday and no one at the facility questioned her about the incident until Thursday of that week. Resident 36 stated that she had informed the Social Services Director that she was scared. Resident 36 stated that CNA 3 had been complaining about how long she had to be at the facility that night and CNA 3 looked filthy and ungroomed. On 9/28/22 at 12:28 PM, a phone interview was conducted with RN 7. RN 7 stated she was provided abuse training through her agency when she was hired in April 2022. RN 7 stated she was in the dining area by the medication cart and she heard screaming from resident 37's room. RN 7 stated she went into resident 37's room to see what was going on because resident 37 usually screamed but it was worse than usual. RN 7 stated there were two CNA's in the room and CNA 3 was yelling back at resident 37. RN 7 stated that resident 37 would not hit anyone even if he was yelling. RN 7 stated she heard CNA 3 say something like Don't hit me, I'll hit you back, and then I'm going to call the police, and you'll spend the rest of your life in jail and old people don't last in jail. RN 7 stated she stood there for a minute because she had never heard anything like that. RN 7 stated the other CNA in the room, was shocked and her face was bright red. RN 7 stated that the other CNA tried to console resident 37. RN 7 stated she texted her Agency regarding the incident the next day. RN 7 stated she did not report to anyone at the facility because she was not aware of who was in charge because management was always changing. RN 7 stated that CNA 3 finished her shift that night. RN 7 stated that she assessed resident 37 for bruising or anything that looked like physical abuse. RN 7 stated he did not have any signs of physical abuse. RN 7 stated her agency asked for her to email them what happened and was asked by her agency if it was okay that Adult Protective Services (APS) was contacted. RN 7 stated there were no staff that interviewed her or talked to her about the incident. RN 7 stated that CNA 3 continued to work the remainder of her shift that night. RN 7 stated that she was the medication pass nurse so she worked a half a shift and left early before CNA 3. RN 7 stated the next day resident 16 told her that he was very upset about having to wait to be changed. RN 7 stated that resident 16 told her CNA 3 said to him Eww you smell like a pig when he was getting his brief changed. On 9/28/22 at 1:25 PM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated if she received an allegation of abuse then, she reported it to APS, reported it to the State Survey Agency, made sure that the abuse coordinator (Administrator) was notified, reported to police and the ombudsman. The DON stated she would report to the State Survey Agency within two hours or 24 hours depending on the allegation. The DON stated the facility would start with their our own internal investigation, talk to the resident about the occurrence, ask other residents in the near by locations to see if there were similar situations. The DON stated staff would be interviewed about what they witnessed or if they knew anything about the situation. The DON stated the RA and Administrator conducted interviews. The DON stated she did not know the details of the abuse investigation involving resident 16, 36, and 37. The DON stated she knew it was an agency staff member that made the allegation. The DON stated the staff member reported to her agency and the agency reported to APS. The DON stated that somehow the Administrator got the APS report number. The DON stated that the RA conducted interviews. The DON stated she was not sure who were interviewed. The DON stated the agency staff member told the Administrator what happened in a letter. The DON stated she was not sure of the findings of the investigation. The DON stated that the agency staff member who was accused of abuse was asked not to return to protect the residents. The DON stated the facility had an agreement that the agency would provide abuse training prior to sending a staff member to the facility. The DON stated the agency staff member should report abuse allegations to someone at the facility. The DON stated she did not have documentation of abuse education for agency staff but would contact the agency for their training. On 9/29/22 at 9:00 AM, an interview was conducted with the Human Resource Director (HRD). The HRD stated she did not check the CNA registry or obtain Direct Access Clearance System (DACS) screening for agency CNA's prior to working in the facility. The HRD stated that she checked the CNA registry and obtained DACS screening for CNA's that were employed at the facility. On 9/29/22 at 10:45 AM, a follow-up interview was conducted with the DON. The DON stated she contacted CNA 3's agency company for her abuse training. The DON stated she would ask about the CNA registry check and DACS screening. [Note: No additional information was provided.] On 9/29/22 at 11:36 AM, an interview was conducted with the RA and Corporate Social Service Worker. The RA stated that she had been working at the facility for about eight weeks as the RA. The RA stated if a resident notified her of abuse, then she would notify the DON and the Administrator. The RA stated a thorough investigation would be completed. The RA stated that interviews would be conducted to determine if abuse occurred. The RA stated that if there was abuse, then she would report to the State Survey Agency within two hours. The RA stated if there was no actual harm, like verbal abuse or misappropriation then she would report within 24 hours. The RA stated that resident 16 had a couple of allegations of abuse. The RA stated one of them was reported on 9/9/22. The RA stated resident 16 reported that he pushed his call light, was waiting to get changed, while waiting he had another incontinent episode. The RA stated resident 16 reported CNA 3 went in his room and changed him, when she pulled down his brief CNA 3 said Eww you smell like a pig. The RA stated that the DON and previous Administrator were aware, so they had already submitted the report to the State Survey Agency. The RA stated that she completed interviews with a couple other residents. The RA stated that resident 36 was interviewed. The RA stated that resident 36 told her that she had a bowel movement and she pushed the call light. The RA stated resident 36 stated she tried to clean herself up, tried to throw her wipes in the trash but missed. The RA stated that resident 36 said CNA 3 said why did you do that, that she was acting like a little kid, and asked why she made a mess. The RA stated that resident 36 told her she felt very belittled by it. The RA stated that she was not asked to do anything beyond the interviews with the residents. The facility Abuse- Prevention, Investigation and Reporting policy and procedure revised on 7/1/21, was reviewed and revealed the following: Purpose: 1. Educate employees to issues of abuse, neglect and exploitation. 2. To prevent abuse, neglect, and exploitation of resident. 3. TO ensure prompt reporting of actual or suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation to the appropriate authorities. Policy: [Name of company] prohibits any abuse of resident from any source. This includes staff abuse, peer resident abuse, .[Name of company] seeks to promote the well being of its residents by providing a safe supportive environment. Every resident has the right to be free from verbal, sexual physical and mental abuse, corporal punishment and involuntary seclusion. Definitions: . VERBAL ABUSE: Means the use of oral, written, or gestured language that willfully includes degrading or derogatory terms to residents or their families, or within their hearing distance, regardless of their age, ability to comprehend, or their disability. Threats of harm Saying things to frighten a resident Making fun of a resident Saying something that would make the resident uncomfortable, or others uncomfortable. .MENTAL ABUSE: Includes but is not limited to humiliation, harassment, . 7. Reporting: All alleged violations and all substantiated incidents, injuries of unknown source will be reported to the appropriate State Survey Agency as immediately as possible with the results of its findings within five (5) working days. The Director of Nursing or designee will be responsible to notify the resident's attending physician. The Administrator, Director of Nursing, Resident Advocate, or designee will be responsible to notify the resident and his/her, legal representative. Any actions by a court of law against an employee, which would indicate unfitness for service as a nurse aide or other facility staff will be reported by [Name of company] to the: a. State nurse aide registry. b. Appropriate State Licensing Agency If appropriate: Notify the Ombudsman Adult Protective Services (APS) or law enforcement must be notified for: a. alleged violations b. injuries of unknown origin when abuse is suspected All substantiated abuse reports will be forwarded to the [Name of company] Management Office, Chief Operating Officer (COO). If it is determined that abuse may have occurred, the Policy Committee will review the finding and determine if any changes in current policies and procedures are required to prevent further potential for abuse.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0638 (Tag F0638)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility did not assess residents using the quarterly review instrument specified by t...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility did not assess residents using the quarterly review instrument specified by the State and approved by Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services not less frequently than once every three months. Specifically, for 3 out of 34 sampled residents, quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments were not completed every three months. In addition, quarterly MDS assessments were not completed no later than 14 days after the assessment reference date (ARD). Resident identifiers: 3, 4, and 7. Findings included: 1. Resident 3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included Alzheimer's disease, atherosclerotic heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, essential hypertension, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and major depressive disorder. Resident 3's quarterly MDS assessment was reviewed, and it was revealed that the ARD target date for completion of the quarterly MDS assessment was 8/12/22. The quarterly MDS assessment which was due on 8/12/22, was not started and the ARD date was 32 days overdue. 2. Resident 4 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included fracture of superior rim of left pubis, glaucoma, age-related osteoporosis, and mood disorder due to known physiological condition with depressive features. Resident 4's quarterly MDS assessment was reviewed, and it was revealed that the ARD target date for completion of the quarterly MDS assessment was 8/13/22. The quarterly MDS assessment which was due on 8/13/22, was not started and the ARD date was 31 days overdue. 3. Resident 7 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included type 2 diabetes mellitus, repeated falls, muscle weakness, unspecified dementia, weakness, essential hypertension, major depressive disorder, sleep apnea, atrial fibrillation, insomnia, idiopathic gout, and hyperlipidemia. Resident 7's quarterly MDS assessment was reviewed, and it was revealed that the ARD target date for completion of the quarterly MDS assessment was 8/28/22. The quarterly MDS assessment was not completed, and the status was marked as In Progress. On 9/28/22 at 11:25 AM, an interview with the MDS Coordinator (MDSC) was conducted. The MDSC stated that he was currently in training for the MDSC position, and the Assistant Director of Nursing was responsible for the MDS assessments before the MDSC started. The MDSC explained that a report was generated each day and it indicated which MDS assessments were due. The MDSC was able to see that resident 3, resident 4, and resident 7 had late quarterly MDS assessments. On 9/28/22 at 11:45 AM, an interview with the Corporate MDS Coordinator (CMDSC) was conducted. The CMDSC confirmed that resident 3, resident 4, and resident 7 had late quarterly MDS assessments.
CONCERN (E)

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

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, it was determined that for 3 out of 34 sampled residents, the facility assessments did not...

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 3 out of 34 sampled residents, the facility assessments did not accurately reflect the resident's status. Specifically, two resident's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments were coded incorrectly by indicating that the two residents were on an anticoagulant when the residents were not, and a resident who was receiving dialysis was not coded as receiving dialysis. Resident identifier: 8, 36, and 44. Findings include: 1. Resident 8 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included dementia, hypokalemia, type 2 diabetes mellitus, chronic pain syndrome, essential hypertension, hypothyroidism, and muscle weakness. On 9/27/22, resident 8's medical record was reviewed. Resident 8's most recent MDS assessment from 6/29/22, reported that resident 8 was receiving an anticoagulant. Resident 8's current and recent discharged physician ordered medications were reviewed, and it was revealed that resident 8 was not receiving an anticoagulant. 2. Resident 36 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included viral pneumonia, chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia, pulmonary hypertension, anemia, and hyperkalemia. On 9/27/22, resident 36's medical record was reviewed. Resident 36's most recent MDS assessment from 7/29/22, reported that resident 36 was receiving an anticoagulant. Resident 36's current and recent discharged physician ordered medications were reviewed, and it was revealed that resident 36 was not receiving an anticoagulant. On 9/28/22 at 11:25 AM, an interview with the MDS Coordinator (MDSC) was conducted. The MDSC stated that he was currently in training for the MDSC position, and the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) was responsible for the MDS's before the MDSC started. The MDSC was able to see that resident 8 and resident 36 were not receiving anticoagulants and confirmed that the MDS assessments were incorrect. On 9/28/22 at 11:45 AM, an interview with the Corporate MDS Coordinator (CMDSC) was conducted. The CMDSC confirmed that resident 8 and resident 36 had incorrect MDS assessments regarding anticoagulant usage. 3. Resident 44 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included, but not limited to, acute kidney failure, diabetes mellitus type 2, anxiety disorder, essential hypertension, and urinary tract infection. On 9/26/22 at approximately 10:00 AM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated that resident 44 would be leaving the facility soon for dialysis. The resident Matrix For Providers was provided by the facility upon entrance and was reviewed. Resident 44 was not checked for receiving Dialysis services. Resident 44's medical record was reviewed on 9/28/22. An admission MDS assessment dated [DATE], did not document that resident 44 was receiving dialysis services while not a resident and while a resident. On 8/23/22, the Discharge Summary from the hospital documented that resident 44 had end stage renal disease. A temporary dialysis catheter was placed on admission and a tunneled dialysis catheter was placed on 8/15/22. Resident 44 continues on scheduled hemodialysis per Nephrology. The Discharge Instructions included, but not limited to, hemodialysis per Nephrology orders. Tunneled hemodialysis catheter care per Nephrology. Discharge to Skilled Nursing Facility. On 8/25/22 at 1:50 PM, a Nurse Practitioner progress note documented . SUBJECTIVE: [Name of resident 44 removed] is seen today as a readmit. She has a medical history significant for T2DM [type 2 diabetes mellitus] on insulin, CKD [chronic kidney disease], HTN [hypertension], HLD [hyperlipidemia], and multiple wounds. She was sent to [name of hospital removed] with nausea and decreased by mouthintake [sic] where she was found to have hyperkalemia and a GFR [glomerular filtration rate]< [less than] 10. She was started on dialysis, is followed by Nephrology. On 9/3/22 at 8:33 PM, a Dietary progress note documented INITIAL [Name of resident 44 removed] is here with AKF [acute kidney failure], UTI [urinary tract infection], hyperlipidemia, DM2 [diabetes mellitus type 2], and anxiety. Diet order is Renal,CCHO [Consistent Carbohydrate Diet]/Regular consistency. Meal intakes are good with mostly 76-100%. She is going to dialysis 3x [times]/week at [name of dialysis center removed]. On 9/29/22 at 8:12 AM, an interview was conducted with resident 44. Resident 44 stated that she could not remember when she started dialysis. On 9/29/22 at 11:45 AM, an interview was conducted with the ADON. The ADON stated that he was the MDS coordinator prior to 9/27/22. The ADON stated that central intake would provide him with a quick base on new admissions that included a history and physical from the hospital, physical therapy notes, and doctor notes. The ADON stated when resident 44 was at the facility prior to the most recent admission resident 44 was not on dialysis. The ADON stated that he missed the dialysis on the MDS assessment when resident 44 was readmitted on [DATE].
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0655 (Tag F0655)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 6. Resident 155 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included unspecified fracture of left femur, hyperka...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 6. Resident 155 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included unspecified fracture of left femur, hyperkalemia, nonrheumatic aortic stenosis, and acute on chronic combined systolic and diastolic heart failure. On 9/27/22, resident 155's medical record was reviewed. Resident 155's care plan was reviewed, and it revealed that there was no baseline care plan related to falls. On 9/7/22 at 5:19 PM, a Nursing Progress Note revealed, Res [Resident] had fall, called to shower by CNA [Certified Nursing Assistant] res was lying on back. Res said he slipped. Fall was not witnessed. Res denied pain at this time. Assessed, no apparent injury at time. Neuro [neurological] checks started and were wnl [within normal limits] . On 9/11/22 at 3:33 PM, a progress note revealed that resident 155 was here with a L [Left] hip fx [fracture] after a fall. On 9/27/22 at 3:18 PM, an interview with the DON was conducted. The DON stated that if a resident came to the facility with recent falls, the resident should have a baseline care plan for falls. Based on observation, interview, and record review it was determined, for 8 out of 34 sampled residents, that the facility did not develop and implement a baseline care plan for each resident that included instructions needed to provide effective and person-centered care to meet professional standards of quality care. Specifically, residents did not have a baseline care plan developed within 48 hours of admission, and the baseline care plan did not include the minimum healthcare information necessary to properly care for the residents. Resident identifiers: 8, 20, 23, 29, 44, 45, 49, and 155. Findings included: 1. Resident 8 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included dementia without behavioral disturbance, hypokalemia, type 2 diabetes mellitus, chronic pain syndrome, hypertension, hypothyroidism, urinary tract infection, muscle weakness, abnormalities of gait and mobility, and hyperlipidemia. Review of the facility's New admission Checklist revealed that baseline care plans should be initiated for admission on any specific care plans needed such as infection, wound, skin, falls, pain, activities of daily living function, and nutrition. On 9/26/22, resident 8's medical record was reviewed. Review of resident 8's care plans revealed no documentation of a baseline care plan. 2. Resident 20 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included tinea cruris, repeated falls, disorder of kidney and ureter, hyperkalemia, hypertension, type 2 diabetes mellitus, diabetic mellitus with foot ulcer, diabetic neuropathy, multiple rib fractures, and osteomyelitis. On 9/27/22, resident 20's medical record was reviewed. On 7/6/22, resident 20's care plan had the following focus areas initiated: a. Required skilled nursing at this time with and would like to return to the community when able. b. At risk for psychosocial well being issues secondary to Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. c. At risk for psychosocial well being issues secondary to need for skilled nursing care. d. Uses tobacco products, cigarettes, independently and safe with use. On 9/28/22 at 11:30 AM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON) and the Corporate Minimum Data Set Coordinator (CMDSC). The DON confirmed that there was no care plan for diabetes, and stated that she would have liked to see a care plan that addressed resident 20's diabetes. The CMDSC stated that diabetes should have been addressed on the baseline care plan because it was an admitting diagnosis. The DON stated that the Assistant Director of Nursing was the previous Minimum Data Set (MDS) coordinator and was responsible for completing the baseline and comprehensive care plan. The DON stated that the baseline care plan should be completed within 48 hours after admission. The DON stated that the baseline care plan should include pain, fall, nutrition, and skin. The DON stated that she had a check list that addressed the focus areas that needed to be included in a baseline care plan. The DON stated that she wanted the staff to use the check list, but she did not know if it was implemented. The DON stated that it would be done now. 3. Resident 23 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included fracture of right femur, congestive heart failure, gastro-esophageal reflux disease, deep vein thrombosis of lower extremity, insomnia, hypothyroidism, alcohol dependence, major depressive disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorder. On 9/26/22 at 12:22 PM, an interview was conducted with resident 23. Resident 23 stated that she had pain in her femur and feet. Resident 23 stated that the pain was a 10/10, on a scale of 1 to 10. Resident 23 stated that the pain in her feet was due to neuropathy and was so painful that she could hardly touch her feet to the ground. On 9/27/22, resident 23's medical record was reviewed. On 4/3/22, resident 23's care plan had the following focus areas initiated: a. At risk for adjustment/psychosocial well being issues secondary to need for skilled nursing care. b. At risk for psychosocial well being issues related to COVID-19 pandemic. c. Required skilled nursing at this time with and would like to return to the community when able. 4. Resident 45 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included major depressive disorder, adult failure to thrive, abdominal pain, hydroureter, anemia, opioid dependence, and anxiety disorder. On 9/27/22, resident 45's medical record was reviewed. Review of resident 45's care plans revealed no documentation of a baseline care plan. 7. Resident 44 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included, but not limited to, acute kidney failure, diabetes mellitus type 2, anxiety disorder, essential hypertension, and urinary tract infection. On 9/26/22 at approximately 10:00 AM, an interview was conducted with the DON. The DON stated that resident 44 would be leaving the facility soon for dialysis. The resident Matrix For Providers was provided by the facility upon entrance and was reviewed. Resident 44 was not checked for receiving Dialysis services. Resident 44's medical record was reviewed on 9/28/22. On 8/23/22, the Discharge Summary from the hospital documented that resident 44 had end stage renal disease. A temporary dialysis catheter was placed on admission and a tunneled dialysis catheter was placed on 8/15/22. Resident 44 continues on scheduled hemodialysis per Nephrology. The Discharge Instructions included, but not limited to, hemodialysis per Nephrology orders. Tunneled hemodialysis catheter care per Nephrology. Discharge to Skilled Nursing Facility. Review of resident 44's care plan revealed that the baseline care plan was initiated on 8/23/22, for the care areas of diabetes, infection, respiratory, pain, falls, activities of daily living function and rehabilitation potential, skin integrity, psychotropic drug use, discharge plan return to the community, psychosocial well-being, and adjustment to placement. [Note: The facility did not develop and implement a baseline care plan for resident 44 that included dialysis services.] On 9/28/22 at 11:27 AM, an interview was conducted with Registered Nurse (RN) 2. RN 2 stated the floor nurses did not create care plans. RN 2 stated the DON and the administration would complete their individual assessments of the resident. On 9/29/22 at 10:33 AM, an interview was conducted with the DON. The DON stated if a resident was receiving dialysis there should be a physician's order. The DON stated the care plan should include items for transportation, and anything specific to the resident that they would want outside of medication. 8. Resident 49 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included, but not limited to, hemorrhage of anus and rectum, dementia, history of falling, type 2 diabetes mellitus with hyperglycemia, displaced fracture of second cervical vertebra, major depressive disorder, systolic congestive heart failure, secondary hypertension, and edema. On 9/26/22 at 12:04 PM, an interview was conducted with resident 49. Resident 49 stated that he had fallen three times since he was admitted to the facility. Resident 49 was unable to give any details regarding the three falls and resident 49 could not remember if he had any injuries with the three falls. Resident 49 stated that he had fallen at home and was in a back brace when he admitted to the facility. Resident 49 stated that recently he was taken out of the back brace and given a neck brace. Resident 49 was observed to have a neck brace on. Resident 49's medical record was reviewed on 9/27/22. On 6/30/22, the Discharge Summary from the hospital documented that resident 49 had discharge diagnoses which included, but not limited to, C (cervical vertebrae) 1 and C2 cervical fractures. Review of resident 49's care plan revealed that the facility did not develop and implement a baseline care plan. On 7/6/22 at 12:59 PM, a Social Services Note documented Admit Note: [Name of resident 49 removed] is an 80 YO [year old] widower who admitted from [name of hospital removed] on 6/30 [22] after sustaining an unwitnessed fall resulting in a C1-2 fx. On 9/27/22 at 3:12 PM, an interview was conducted with the DON. The DON stated that the MDS coordinator would help get baseline care plans started. The DON stated that baseline care plans were basic care plans. The DON stated the comprehensive assessment Care Area Assessment summary areas should be care planned by the MDS coordinator. The DON stated the nursing team should be looking at resident change of condition or something specific to the resident that needed to be care planned. The DON stated that the administrative nursing team would complete the care plan updates. The DON stated if a resident came from the hospital with a fall she would expect the fall to be care planned. 5. Resident 29 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included low back pain, injury to left lower leg, hypothyroidism, edema, chronic pain, and nausea. Resident 29's medical record was on 9/28/22. An admission MDS dated [DATE], revealed that resident 29 had a Brief Interview of Mental Status of 15 which indicated cognitively intact. Resident 29 was occasionally incontinent of bowel and bladder and was not on a toileting program. The MDS further revealed resident 29 required two plus person extensive assistance with toileting. The MDS further revealed resident 29 frequently had pain which limited her day-to-day activities and made it hard for her to sleep at night. There was no baseline care plan developed for urinary incontinence or pain.
CONCERN (E)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident 8 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included dementia without behavioral disturbance, hypo...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident 8 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included dementia without behavioral disturbance, hypokalemia, type 2 diabetes mellitus, chronic pain syndrome, hypertension, hypothyroidism, urinary tract infection, muscle weakness, abnormalities of gait and mobility, and hyperlipidemia. Review of the facility's New admission Checklist revealed that baseline care plans should be initiated for admission on any specific care plans needed such as infection, wound, skin, falls, pain, activities of daily living (ADL) function, and nutrition. On 9/26/22, resident 8's medical record was reviewed. On 6/16/22, an admission MDS assessment was completed. The CAA Summary triggered care plans for cognitive loss/dementia, ADL functional/rehabilitation potential, urinary incontinence and indwelling catheter, falls, pressure ulcer/injury, pain, and return to community referral. Review of resident 8's care plans revealed the following: a. On 9/27/22, a care plan for cognitive Loss/dementia, was created. The problem start date documented 9/27/22. It should be noted that there was no care plan developed for cognitive loss prior to 9/27/22, even though it was identified on the CAA Summary on 6/16/22. b. On 9/27/22, a care plan for tobacco use was edited. The problem start date documented 8/15/22. It should be noted that there was no care plan developed for tobacco use prior to 9/27/22. c. On 9/26/22, a care plan for infection was edited. The problem start date documented 6/9/22. It should be noted that there was no care plan developed for infection prior to 9/26/22, even though a urinary tract infection was identified upon admission. d. On 9/26/22, a care plan for pain was edited. The problem start date documented 6/9/22. It should be noted that there was no care plan developed for pain prior to 9/26/22, even though it was identified on the CAA on 6/16/22. e. On 9/26/22, a care plan for falls was edited. The problem start date documented 6/9/22. It should be noted that there was no care plan developed for falls prior to 9/26/22, even though it was identified on the CAA on 6/16/22. f. On 9/26/22, a care plan for ADL functional/rehabilitation was edited. The problem start date documented 6/9/22. It should be noted that there was no care plan developed for ADLs prior to 9/26/22, even though it was identified on the CAA on 6/16/22. On 9/29/22 at 11:06 AM, an interview was conducted with the DON. The DON stated that she was not aware if resident 8 had a history of falls. The DON stated that if resident 8 had a history of falls the care plan interventions would be specific for at risk for falls. The DON stated that she was not aware of any interventions to prevent accidents or wandering, but she would expect to see a care plan specific to wandering if interventions were identified and needed. [Cross-reference F689] 3. Resident 20 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included tinea cruris, repeated falls, disorder of kidney and ureter, hyperkalemia, hypertension, type 2 diabetes mellitus, diabetic mellitus with foot ulcer, diabetic neuropathy, multiple rib fractures, and osteomyelitis. On 9/27/22, resident 20's medical record was reviewed. On 4/25/22, an admission MDS assessment was completed. The CAA Summary triggered care plans for cognitive loss/dementia, ADL functional/rehabilitation potential, psychosocial well-being, and falls. Review of resident 20's care plans revealed the following: a. On 7/6/22, a care plan for required skilled nursing but would like to return to the community was initiated. b. On 7/6/22, a care plan for at risk for psychosocial well-being issues secondary to need for skilled nursing care was initiated. c. On 7/6/22, a care plan for used tobacco products was initiated. d. On 7/12/22, a care plan for wounds on left heel and amputation of left big toe was initiated. It should be noted that the care plan did not have any interventions documented. e. On 7/29/22, a care plan for alteration in thought process was initiated. It should be noted that no care plans were developed for ADL functional/rehabilitation potential and falls as identified on the CAA Summary. Additionally, no care plans were developed that addressed resident 20's diabetes, insulin, and nutrition. On 9/28/22 at 11:30 AM, an interview was conducted with the DON and the Corporate Minimum Data Set Coordinator (CMDSC). The DON confirmed that there was no care plan for diabetes and stated that she would have liked to see a care plan that addressed resident 20's diabetes. The CMDSC stated that diabetes should have been addressed on the baseline care plan because it was an admitting diagnosis. The DON stated that the Assistant Director of Nursing was the previous MDS coordinator and was responsible for completing the baseline and comprehensive care plans. [Cross-reference F745] 4. Resident 23 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included fracture of right femur, congestive heart failure, gastro-esophageal reflux disease, deep vein thrombosis of lower extremity, insomnia, hypothyroidism, alcohol dependence, major depressive disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). On 9/26/22 at 12:22 PM, an interview was conducted with resident 23. Resident 23 stated that she had pain in her femur and feet. Resident 23 stated that the pain was a 10/10, on a scale of 1 to 10. Resident 23 stated that the pain in her feet was due to neuropathy and was so painful that she could hardly touch her feet to the ground. On 9/27/22, resident 23's medical record was reviewed. On 4/8/22, an admission MDS assessment was completed. The CAA Summary triggered care plans for delirium, cognitive loss/dementia, ADL functional/rehabilitation potential, urinary incontinence and indwelling catheter, falls, pain, and return to community referral. Review of resident 23's care plans revealed the following: a. On 6/3/22, a care plan for alteration in thought process manifested by moderate cognitive impairment was initiated. It should be noted that the care area was identified on the CAA Summary on 4/8/22. b. On 9/29/22, a care plan for substance abuse was created. The problem start date documented 8/1/22. It should be noted that there was no care plan developed for substance abuse prior to 9/29/22, even though alcohol dependence was identified upon admission on [DATE]. c. On 9/29/22, a care plan for trauma was created. The problem start date documented 9/29/22. It should be noted that there was no care plan developed for trauma prior to 9/29/22, even though PTSD was identified upon admission on [DATE]. d. On 9/29/22, a care plan for Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) Level II was developed. The problem start date documented 9/29/22. It should be noted that there was no care plan developed for mental health diagnosis of major depressive disorder prior to 9/29/22, even though it was identified upon admission on [DATE]. e. On 9/26/22, a care plan for pain was created. The problem start date documented 8/1/22. It should be noted that there was no care plan developed for pain prior to 8/1/22, even though it was identified on the CAA Summary on 4/8/22. f. On 9/26/22, a care plan for falls was created. The problem start date documented 8/1/22. It should be noted that there was no care plan developed for falls prior to 8/1/22, even though it was identified on the CAA Summary on 4/8/22. g. On 9/26/22, a care plan for ADL function was created. The problem start date documented 8/1/22. It should be noted that there was no care plan developed for ADLs prior to 8/1/22, even though it was identified on the CAA Summary on 4/8/22. 5. Resident 45 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included major depressive disorder, adult failure to thrive, abdominal pain, hydroureter, anemia, opioid dependence, and anxiety disorder. On 9/27/22, resident 45's medical record was reviewed. On 5/9/22, an admission MDS assessment was completed. The CAA Summary triggered care plans for cognitive loss/dementia, ADL functional/rehabilitation potential, urinary incontinence and indwelling catheter, psychosocial well-being, behavioral symptoms, falls, nutritional status, psychotropic drug use, pain, and return to community referral. Review of resident 45's care plans revealed the following: a. On 9/26/22, a care plan for mood state was created. The problem start date documented 8/10/22. It should be noted that there was no care plan developed for mood prior to 8/10/22, even though major depressive disorder was identified upon admission on [DATE]. b. On 9/26/22, a care plan for psychosocial well-being was created. The problem start date documented 8/1/22. It should be noted that there was no care plan developed for psychosocial well-being prior to 8/1/22, even though it was identified on the CAA Summary on 5/9/22. c. On 9/26/22, a care plan for behavioral symptoms was created. The problem start date documented 8/23/22. It should be noted that there was no care plan developed for behavioral symptoms prior to 8/23/22, even though it was identified on the CAA Summary on 5/9/22. d. On 9/26/22, a care plan for substance abuse was created. The problem start date documented 8/1/22, but opioid dependence was an admitting diagnosis on 5/3/22. It should be noted that there was no care plan developed for substance abuse prior to 8/1/22, even though opioid dependence was identified upon admission on [DATE]. e. On 9/26/22, a care plan for PASRR Level II was created. The problem start date documented 8/1/22. It should be noted that there was no care plan developed for PASRR Level II prior to 9/29/22, even though major depressive disorder was identified upon admission on [DATE]. f. On 9/26/22, a care plan for pain was created. The problem start date documented 8/1/22. It should be noted that there was no care plan developed for pain prior to 8/1/22, even though it was identified on the CAA Summary on 5/9/22. g. On 9/26/22, a care plan for nutritional status was created. The problem start date documented 8/1/22. It should be noted that there was no care plan developed for nutritional status prior to 8/1/22, even though it was identified on the CAA Summary on 5/9/22. h. On 9/26/22, a care plan for falls was created. The problem start date documented 8/1/22. It should be noted that there was no care plan developed for falls prior to 8/1/22, even though it was identified on the CAA Summary on 5/9/22. i. On 9/26/22, a care plan for ADL functional/rehabilitation was created. The problem start date documented 8/1/22. It should be noted that there was no care plan developed for ADLs prior to 8/1/22, even though it was identified on the CAA Summary on 5/9/22. j. On 9/26/22, a care plan for psychotropic drug use was created. The problem start date documented 8/1/22. It should be noted that there was no care plan developed for psychotropic drug use prior to 8/1/22, even though it was identified on the CAA Summary on 5/9/22. k. On 9/23/22, a care plan for discharge plan was created. The problem start date documented 9/23/22. It should be noted that there was no care plan developed for discharge planning prior to 9/23/22, even though it was identified on the CAA Summary on 5/9/22. On 9/27/22 at 2:40 PM, an interview was conducted with the DON. The DON stated that the process for developing care plans was that the MDS coordinator initiated baseline care plans and developed the comprehensive care plans from the CAA Summary. The DON stated that the nursing team should be looking at any change in conditions or anything specific that needed to be added to the care plan. The DON stated that medication changes or new therapies should be updated in the care plan. The DON stated that the nursing administration (DON, Assistant Director of Nursing, or MDS coordinator) should be updating the nursing care plans. The DON stated that other departments could care plan a condition also. The DON stated that any care refusals could be care planned. The DON stated that with refusals of care if there was a pattern identified they would talk to the Social Service Worker, have an Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) meeting and then care plan the refusals. The DON stated that if the resident was admitted from the hospital after a fall she would expect there to be a care plan for falls. Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined, the facility did not develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident. Specifically, for 7 out of 34 sampled resident, residents that had care areas trigger on the Minimum Data Set (MDS) Care Area Assessment (CAA) Summary did not have care plans developed and implemented in a timely manner. In addition, residents with identified concerns did not have care plans developed and implemented in a timely manner. Resident identifiers: 8, 20, 23, 29, 45, 49, and 53. Findings included: 1. Resident 49 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included, but not limited to, hemorrhage of anus and rectum, dementia, history of falling, type 2 diabetes mellitus with hyperglycemia, displaced fracture of second cervical vertebra, major depressive disorder, systolic congestive heart failure, secondary hypertension, and edema. On 9/26/22 at 12:04 PM, an interview was conducted with resident 49. Resident 49 stated that he had fallen three times since he was admitted to the facility. Resident 49 was unable to give any details regarding the three falls and resident 49 could not remember if he had any injuries with the three falls. Resident 49 stated that he had fallen at home and was in a back brace when he admitted to the facility. Resident 49 stated that recently he was taken out of the back brace and given a neck brace. Resident 49 was observed to have a neck brace on. Resident 49's medical record was reviewed on 9/27/22. The MDS CAA Summary dated 7/13/22, documented a Care Area Triggered for falls. In addition, the CAA Summary documented that falls were addressed in the care plan. [Note: A fall care plan was not created until 9/22/22.] On 7/29/22 at 2:21 AM, a Nurses Note documented Patient had an injury fall this shift at 0130 [1:30 AM], assisted to the fall by CNA [Certified Nursing Assistant]. CNA notified this Nurse. Pt [Patient] states he lost his balance. Denies pain at this time. Offered medication. Skin tear on right elbow (1cm [centimeter] X [by] 1xcm) and abrasion on right knee (3.5cm X 2cm). New injuries cleansed with wound cleanser, pat dry, and bacitracin applied. MD [Medical Director] Notified. [Note: The MDS CAA Summary dated 7/13/22, documented a Care Area Triggered for falls. A fall care plan was not created until 9/22/22.] On 9/1/22 at 8:45 PM, a Nursing progress note documented Patient fell on his back while attempting to get off the toilet. The fall was unwitnessed. Patient has a skin tear R [right] wrist. His neuro [neurological] check are normal and vitals [vital signs] are at baseline. Physician and family has been contacted. Patient is complaining of back pain but is refusing to get checked at the hospital. [Note: The MDS CAA Summary dated 7/13/22, documented a Care Area Triggered for falls. A fall care plan was not created until 9/22/22.] On 9/5/22 at 10:26 PM, a Nursing note documented Resident had an assisted fall at 2200 [10:00 PM]. CNA was with resident in the bathroom. Resident was transferring to the toilet. CNA had already pulled wheelchair away. Resident had decided to sit down, not on the toilet. CNA caught resident and helped resident to the floor. 2 cnas and nurse helped resident get back into bed using hoyer lift. Resident did not hit head nor any other parts of his body. Resident is resting in bed. Vitals wnl [within normal limits]. [Note: The MDS CAA Summary dated 7/13/22, documented a Care Area Triggered for falls. A fall care plan was not created until 9/22/22.] A care plan Problem created on 9/22/22, documented Category: Falls [name of resident 49 removed is at risk for falls secondary to Weakness. A care plan Goal created on 9/22/22, documented Long Term Goal Target Date: 12/22/2022 [Name of resident 49 removed] will have no untreated injuries r/t [related to] falls, through next review. The care plan interventions created on 9/22/22, included: a. One on one activities evaluation and treatments if appropriate. b. Assist resident 49 with visual needs and visual appliance application and removal, as needed. c. Encourage the use of the call light. d. Evaluate the need to pace activities and plan rest periods, as tolerated. e. Keep room free of clutter and tripping hazards. f. Low bed without mat. g. Non-skid socks on at all times, as tolerated. h. Resident 49 had been educated on the call light function and use. A care plan Problem edited on 9/26/22, documented a Problem start date of 9/5/22. Category: Falls [Name of resident 49 removed] had an actual fall 9/1/22 and 9/5/22. A care plan Goal created on 9/26/22, documented Long Term Goal Target Date: 12/05/2022 [Name of resident 49 removed] will have no unaddressed complication or injury r/t fall through next review. The care plan interventions created on 9/26/22, documented an Approach start date of 9/5/22. The interventions included: a. Encourage resident 49 to use call light for assistance. b. Lowered to floor: continue plan of care with staff assistance with cares and toileting. On 9/27/22 at 3:12 PM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated that the MDS coordinator would help get baseline care plans started. The DON stated that baseline care plans were basic care plans. The DON stated the comprehensive assessment CAA Summary areas should be care planned by MDS coordinator. The DON stated the nursing team should be looking at resident change of condition or something specific to the resident that needed to be care planned. The DON stated that the administrative nursing team would complete the care plan updates. The DON stated if a resident came from the hospital with a fall she would expect the fall to be care planned. 6. Resident 29 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included low back pain, injury to left lower leg, hypothyroidism, edema, chronic pain, and nausea. Resident 29's medical record was on 9/28/22. An admission MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed that resident 29 had a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) of 15 which indicated cognitively intact. Resident 29 was occasionally incontinent of bowel and bladder and was not on a toileting program. The MDS further revealed resident 29 required two plus person extensive assistance with toileting. The MDS CAA section revealed that resident 29 had urinary incontinence and it was addressed in a care plan. There was no care plan regarding urinary incontinence. 7. Resident 53 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included surgical aftercare following surgery, muscle weakness, lack of coordination, diabetes mellitus, sleep apnea, and generalized anxiety. On 9/26/22 at 2:33 PM, an interview was conducted with resident 53. Resident 53 stated he was transferring from wheelchair to bed and his ankle gave out and fell to the ground. Resident 53 stated his left shoulder always hurts but it hurt more since the fall. Resident 53 stated he was waiting for staff but staff did not come. Resident 53 stated he waited for 15 to 20 minutes and was tired from returning from a doctors appointment so he transferred himself. Resident 53 stated it took 20 to 30 minutes for someone to come and he did not want to wait. Resident 53's medical record was reviewed on 9/29/22. A quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE], revealed resident 53 had a BIMS score of 14 which indicated he was cognitively intact. The MDS revealed the resident 53 required extensive assistance with two plus person physical assistance. The MDS revealed resident 53 had not had a fall in the last month, the last 2 to 6 months, or since admission. A care plan dated 5/10/19, and revised on 10/5/21, revealed resident 53 was at risk for fall related to impaired mobility, morbid obesity, and weakness. The goal was the resident would be free of falls through the review date. Approaches included anticipate and meet the resident's needs; call light within reach; resident needs prompt response to all requests for assistance; educate what to do if a fall occurs; and review information on past falls and attempt to determine cause of fall. An approach dated 9/22/20, revealed change position slowly to reduce change of hypotensive episodes. An updated fall care plan with a problem start date of 8/1/22, and created on 9/19/22, revealed that resident 53 was at risk for falls secondary to limited mobility and weakness. The goal was resident 53 would have no untreated injuries related to falls through next review. The approaches included encourage the use of call light and keep room free of clutter and tripping hazards. Progress notes revealed the following entries: a. On 6/3/22 at 12:20 PM, (Incident Report) Three CNA's were trying to reposition the patient in bed around 11am. [CNA name] and [CNA name] where pulling the patient in one direction and the agency CNA was pulling the patient in another. During the transition, I was told by [CNA name] that he fell off of the bed. I went in and assessed him. He didn't have any skin tares (sic) or abnormalities. He was oriented times four. He said his left hip hurts when he moves. He said it was an achy muscle pain. I checked it out and there was no bruise present at the time. I informed the other agency nurse working on his hall to continue to check on him by the hour even though I was told that he didn't hit his head. I notified [Nurse Practitioner's name] via tiger text and havent heard a response back as of yet. b. On 6/3/22 at 12:24 PM, CNA and 300 hall nurse reported that patient fell while transferring from his w/c [wheelchair] to his bed. Pt returned back from the appointment and got helped by CNA to his bed and slid down on his buttocks to the ground. physical assessment completed that no changes of cognitively, no skin issues noted without redness or bruise, no changes ROM [range of motion], but pt c/o [complains of] pain 6 out of 10 to left hip, scheduled norco 2 tablets given. notified 300 hall nurse about the assessment including pain and she will notify to NP [Nurse Practitioner]today, will continue to monitor any changes. c. On 7/29/22 at 6:57 PM, Note Text: Pt had Dr [doctor] appt [appointment] today., after returning CNA was getting him into bed via hoyer and pt slipped out of chair. Pt did not report any pain from the fall and did not hit head. Has no new pain from the witness fall and bs [blood sugar] & vitals are normal for pt post fall. Event report was made and signed. There were no incident reports for 6/3/22. There was a incident report completed for the fall on 7/29/22 at 5:53 PM. The report revealed resident 53 had a witnessed fall. Resident 53 slipped out of chair onto the floor onto his buttocks. The immediate action taken was nurse and additional two CNA's assisted patient back into bed with a hoyer lift. No issues and patient reported to be fine. Vitals were obtained and all were normal. There were no interventions developed after the fall on the incident report. On 10/3/22 at 11:37 AM, an interview was conducted with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON). The ADON stated if a resident fell, nurses completed a risk management report, assessed the resident, obtained vital signs, assessed for injuries, then started a neurological check sheet, contact the DON, physician, and family. The ADON stated once the fall was reported to the physician, the staff would send the resident to the hospital if there was a major injury. The ADON stated if it was a minor fall then the staff would complete neurological checks, a change of condition, progress note, and the risk management report. The ADON stated that agency staff were made aware at shift change about resident falls. The ADON stated there was also a binder at the nurses station for agency staff members but mostly information was provided from the nurse to nurse report. The ADON stated the management team completed an Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) meeting with the family, nursing team, social services, and therapy. The ADON stated the IDT team looked for fall trends and then referred to the Restorative Nursing Assistant program or therapy. The ADON stated new interventions were care planned. The ADON stated that resident 53 had a new care plan dated 8/1/22, in the new electronic medical record. The ADON observed the previous care plans and stated there were no interventions after the two falls on 6/3/22. The ADON stated for the fall on 7/29/22, the CNA was transferring resident 53 to his wheelchair when his legs gave out. The ADON stated resident 53 usually used the sit to stand lift and not a hoyer lift for transfers. The ADON stated the CNA could have used the hoyer if resident 53 was to weak to stand up on his own. The ADON stated according to the incident report resident 53 slid out of his chair and onto the floor. The ADON stated that they used a hoyer to get him off the floor and into bed. [It should be noted the nursing progress note on 7/29/22 revealed .after returning CNA was getting him into bed via hoyer and pt slipped out of chair.] On 10/3/22 at 11:26 AM, an interview was conducted with CNA 9. CNA 9 stated there was a CNA chart that had which residents fell and which residents were a high fall risk. CNA 9 stated the residents had signs inside their rooms and it was in the electronic charting system. CNA 9 stated she had no idea how Agency staff knew a residents transfer status or if the resident was a fall risk. CNA 9 stated Agency staff had a binder but she did not know what was in the binder. CNA 9 stated resident 53 required one person assistance with transfers, bed mobility, and showering. CNA 9 stated there was no reason that three people would be providing bed mobility.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0676 (Tag F0676)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 5. Resident 8 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included dementia without behavioral disturbance, hypo...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 5. Resident 8 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included dementia without behavioral disturbance, hypokalemia, type 2 diabetes mellitus, chronic pain syndrome, hypertension, hypothyroidism, urinary tract infection, muscle weakness, abnormalities of gait and mobility, and hyperlipidemia. On 9/26/22 at 12:42 PM, an interview was conducted with resident 8. Resident 8 stated yah when asked if she received assistance with showers, but was not able to recall or state what days they were scheduled for. An observation was made of a black/brown substance packed under all of resident 8's fingernails on the left hand. On 9/26/22, resident 8's medical record was reviewed. On 6/16/22, resident 8's admission MDS assessment documented a BIMS of 8/15, which indicated moderately cognitively impaired. The assessment documented that the resident was a limited one person assistance for walking in room and in the corridor and was supervision with setup assist for locomotion on and off the unit. The resident was an extensive one person assistance for toileting, a one person limited assistance for personal hygiene, and required a one person assistance with physical help in bathing. The mobility devices used were documented as a walker and wheelchair. Review of resident 8's care plan revealed a care area for at risk for altered ADL function secondary to limited mobility and cognitive deficits and was initiated on 9/26/22. Interventions included assist in completing ADL tasks each day; provide dignity and respect and encourage independence; and encourage use of call lights when ADL assistance was needed. Review of resident 8's shower sheets revealed the following: a. On 7/4/22, resident 8 refused a shower. b. On 7/21/22, the shower sheet documented that oral care, nail care, shaving, lotion application, comb hair out, and a shower was provided. c. On 8/12/22, the shower sheet documented that oral care, nail care, shaving, lotion application, comb hair out, and a shower was provided. It should be noted that 22 days had lapsed since the last documented shower. d. On 8/15/22, the shower sheet documented that oral care, nail care, shaving and a shower were provided. e. On 9/7/22, the shower sheet was dated but did not document if any bathing or hygiene was provided. It should be noted that 22 days had lapsed since the last documented shower. f. On 9/15/22, the shower sheet documented that oral care, nail care, shaving, lotion application, comb hair out, and a shower was provided. It should be noted that 8 days lapsed since the last documented shower. g. On 9/26/22, resident 8 refused a shower. It should be noted that 11 days had lapsed since the last documented shower was offered. h. On 9/28/22, resident 8 refused a shower. On 9/28/22 at 8:28 AM, resident 8's fingernails on the left hand were observed dirty and packed with a black/brownish substance underneath. On 9/29/22 at 8:13 AM, an interview was conducted with Registered Nurse (RN) 5. RN 5 stated that the facility had a shower CNA Tuesday through Saturday. Resident 8 was observed talking to RN 5. Resident 8 was observed wearing the same shirt that was worn since 9/27/22. On 9/29/22 at 8:14 AM, an interview was conducted with CNA 4. CNA 4 stated that she was the shower CNA on Tuesdays through Saturday. CNA 4 stated that resident 8 was scheduled for showers on Monday, Wednesday, and Fridays. CNA 4 stated that resident 8 required limited assistance with showers, and she provided the resident with towels and supplies. CNA 4 stated that she assisted with washing resident 8's back, legs and hair, and then assisted the resident with dressing after the shower was completed. CNA 4 stated that sometimes if resident 8 refused a regular shower then a bed bath would be offered. CNA 4 stated that resident 8 usually refused showers but they would approach a few times a day. CNA 4 stated that documentation of showers that were provided and any refusals were completed on the shower sheet. CNA 4 stated that when she assisted with the showers she cleaned the resident's hands with a wash cloth and also cut the resident's fingernails. A shower sheet was observed taped to the nurse's station, and was dated 9/25/22 to 10/2/22. Resident 8's shower schedule was documented as a morning shower on Sunday, Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. The form documented that resident 8 refused on Monday (9/26/22) and Wednesday (9/28/22). Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined, the facility did not provide the necessary care and services to ensure that a resident's abilities in activities of daily living do not diminish unless circumstances of the individual's clinical condition demonstrate that such diminution was unavoidable. Specifically, for 5 out of 34 sampled residents, residents did not receive the bathing assistance they required and showers were missed. In addition, a resident with dirty fingernails did not receive the assistance they required to clean their fingernails. Resident identifier: 8, 22, 25, 47, and 53. Findings included: 1. Resident 22 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included, but not limited to, nontraumatic intracerebral hemorrhage, hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction affecting right dominant side, type 2 diabetes mellitus, essential hypertension, muscle weakness, and chronic pain syndrome. On 9/26/22 at 10:31 AM, an interview was conducted with resident 22. Resident 22 stated that her shower days were every Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday. This surveyor observed a sign in resident 22's room with the posted shower days. Resident 22 stated that sometimes she did not get showered due to there not being enough staff. Resident 22's medical record was reviewed on 9/27/22. An admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], documented that resident 22 required physical help in part of the bathing activity by two persons physical assistance. Resident 22's shower sheets were reviewed and the following showers were documented: a. On 7/11/22, a shower was provided. b. On 7/23/22, a shower was provided. [Note: Resident 22 went 11 days without a shower.] c. On 7/30/22, a shower was provided. [Note: Resident 22 went 6 days without a shower.] d. On 8/6/22, the shower sheet provided was blank. e. On 8/9/22, a shower was provided. [Note: Resident 22 went 9 days without a shower.] f. On 9/7/22, a shower was provided. [Note: Resident 22 went 28 days without a shower.] g. On 9/15/22, a shower was provided. [Note: Resident 22 went 7 days without a shower.] h. On 9/27/22, a shower was provided. [Note: Resident 22 went 11 days without a shower.] On 9/27/22 at 1:35 PM, an interview was conducted with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 5. CNA 5 stated that resident showers were documented in the resident medical record and a shower sheet would be completed for each shower. CNA 5 stated that the shower sheets were signed off by the nursing staff. CNA 5 stated after the nursing staff signed the shower sheets they were uploaded into the resident's medical record by the Medical Record staff member. CNA 5 stated that a shower sheet would be completed after every shower and refusal. On 9/27/22 at 2:26 PM, an interview was conducted with CNA 6. CNA 6 stated that resident 22 had never refused a shower for her. CNA 6 stated that resident 22 was showered three times a week on Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday. CNA 6 stated that resident 22 was able to complete approximately 75% of the shower on her own. CNA 6 stated that most days there was enough staff to complete showers. CNA 6 stated if the hallway was short staffed she would find someone to help with call lights so she could make sure that the residents were taken care of. On 9/29/22 at 12:34 PM, an interview was conducted with CNA 7. CNA 7 stated that the facility was short on staff. CNA 7 stated that she had seven showers to complete today with two CNAs staffed on the 100 and 200 hallway. CNA 7 stated that five of the seven residents were a two person extensive assistance. CNA 7 stated that the 100 and 200 hallway did not have a shower CNA and sometimes the showers got missed. CNA 7 stated that two showers had been completed today and one resident refused. CNA 7 stated that her goal was to get three showers completed each day. CNA 7 stated if a shower was missed she would pass it on in report and see if the next shift could complete the showers. CNA 7 stated if the next shift could not complete the showers she would try and complete the showers the next day. CNA 7 stated that resident 22 was a set up for showers. CNA 7 stated that after she set resident 22 up for a shower she would leave and give resident 22 privacy. CNA 7 stated that resident 22 needed assistance to wash her back and get dressed. CNA 7 stated that resident 22 was very involved in her care. CNA 7 stated that the shower sheets were getting missed because a lot of the staff did not know that they had to complete a shower sheet. CNA 7 further stated that the shower book did not have any shower sheets available and staff did not have a master copy to make copies. CNA 7 stated that she had a hard time answering resident call lights when there were only two CNAs staffed because most of the residents were a two person assistance. CNA 7 further stated the willingness of other staff to answer call lights was also a concern. 2. Resident 25 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included hypothyroidism, hyperlipidemia, depression, hypertension, borderline personality disorder, pain, and edema. On 9/26/22 at 12:32 PM, an interview was conducted with resident 25. Resident 25 stated she should get a shower today, but did not get one because staff did not show up. Resident 25 stated she got a shower on 9/24/22, but did not have one for two weeks prior to that. Resident 25 stated she took showers by herself because she became very disgusted by herself. Resident 25's medical record was reviewed on 9/29/22. An admission MDS assessment dated [DATE], revealed resident 25 had a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 11 which revealed mild cognitive impairment. The MDS further revealed resident 25 required one person limited assistance to transfer only and physical assistance with bathing. A care plan with a problem start date of 7/29/22, and created on 7/31/22, revealed [Resident 25] is at risk for altered ADL [activities of daily living] function secondary to limited mobility. The goal was to not have any unaddressed complications secondary to decreased ADL self-performance, through next review. Approaches included assistance in completing ADL tasks each day, provide dignity and respect, and encourage independence; encourage us of call lights when ADL assistance was needed. There were shower sheets in resident 25's medical record dated 8/15/22 and 9/9/22. On 10/3/22 at 9:53 AM, an interview was conducted with CNA 2, CNA 9, and CNA 8. The CNA's stated there were shower schedules and a shower CNA that worked Tuesday through Saturday. CNA 2 stated there were shower sheets completed and charted in the computer after a shower was completed. CNA 8 stated they were out of shower sheets and the printer was not working to print out the shower sheets. CNA 2 stated there was a tab to document when ADLs were performed in the electronic medical record. On 10/3/22 at 12:08 PM, an interview was conducted with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON). The ADON stated resident 25 required two person supervision assistance with showers. The ADON stated there were enough staff to help resident 25 get a shower. The ADON stated for supervised residents, the staff provided the towels and if the resident wanted someone in the shower room the staff stayed in the shower room. 3. Resident 47 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included convulsions, severe intellectual disabilities, major depressive disorder, and dementia. On 9/26/22 at 10:41 AM, an observation was made of resident 47. Resident 47 was in the hallway with messy hair. Resident 47 stated she combed her hair on her own. At 12:05 PM, resident 47 was observed in the dining room with messy hair and with what appeared to be mucus on her chest. At 3:07 PM, resident 47 was observed with what appeared to be mucus on her shirt sitting in the television area. On 9/28/22 at 9:30 AM, an observation was made of resident 47. Resident 47 was observed in the salon getting her hair done. Resident 47's medical record was reviewed on 9/29/22. A quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE], revealed resident 47 had a BIMS score of 4 which revealed severe cognitive impairment. The MDS further revealed resident 47 required one person physical assistance with physical help in part of bathing activity. A care plan with a problem start date of 1/31/22, revealed resident 47 was at risk for altered ADL function secondary to cognitive deficit and limited mobility. The goal was resident 47 would not have any unaddressed complications secondary to decreased ADL self-performance, through the next review. The approaches included to assist resident 47 to apply ankle foot orthosis to bilateral legs when out of bed; assist in completing ADL tasks each day; and encourage to use call lights when ADL assistance was needed. According to shower sheets in resident 47's medical record. Resident 47 was provided a shower on 7/5/22, 8/27/22, 9/10/22, 9/17/22, and 9/24/22. On 10/3/22 at 12:04 PM, an interview was conducted with the ADON. The ADON stated resident 47 did not usually refuse showers. The ADON stated resident 47 was good about getting into the shower. The ADON stated resident 47 required one person assistance with showers. 4. Resident 53 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included surgical aftercare following surgery, muscle weakness, lack of coordination, diabetes mellitus, sleep apnea, and generalized anxiety. On 9/26/22 at 2:41 PM, an interview was conducted with resident 53. Resident 53 stated he was scheduled for showers on Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday but he did not always get his shower. Resident 53 stated he asked for a bed bath sometimes. Resident 53's medical record was reviewed on 9/29/22. A quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE], revealed resident 53 required one person physical assistance in part of bathing. The MDS further revealed resident 53 had a BIMS score of 14 which revealed he was cognitively intact. A care plan dated problem onset of 8/1/22, and created on 9/19/22, revealed resident 53 was at risk for altered ADL function secondary to limited mobility and obesity. The goal was to not have any unaddressed complications secondary to decreased ADL self-performance, through the next review. Approaches included assistance bars to bed as least restrictive turning and repositioning device; assist in completing ADL tasks each day; encourage PT/OT [Physical Therapy/Occupational Therapy] services as prescribed. not applicable; encourage use of call lights when ADL assistance was needed. According to shower sheets in resident 53's medical record. Resident 53 was provided a shower on 1/26/22, 9/10/22, and 9/24/22. Resident 53's progress notes revealed the following entries: a. On 8/4/22, Pt [patient] complaining of not getting showered today and shower aide [CNA] has left for the day but will pass on report to be done tomorrow. b. On 8/26/22 at 2:00 PM, .got shower aide to help and give him a thorough shower. c. On 9/15/22 at 3:38 PM, the patient took a shower today. On 10/3/22 at 10:25 AM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated she knew staff had a shower schedule for residents and a shower CNA worked Tuesday through Saturday. The DON stated there were shower sheets that CNA's documented on after a shower was completed. On 10/3/22 at 12:04 PM, an interview was conducted with the ADON. The ADON stated residents had scheduled shower days. The ADON stated the Restorative Nursing Assistant (RNA) provided showers to residents if she had RNA services to provide to the resident that day. The ADON stated there was also a shower CNA. The ADON stated there had been times the shower CNA had been pulled to the floor to help with call lights instead of showers. The ADON stated CNA's fill out a shower sheet and would check off if there were any skin problems. The ADON stated if a resident refused a shower, it was offered three times, different CNA's offered, the CNA would let the nurse know, and the CNA charted the resident refused.
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 5 out of 34 sampled residents, that the facility faile...

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 5 out of 34 sampled 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, multiple residents did not receive preventative interventions and/or adequate supervision to prevent future falls. In addition, a resident with a history of wandering did not receive adequate supervision to prevent accidents and the resident did not receive adequate supervision due to being an unsafe smoker. Resident identifiers: 8, 43, 49, 53, and 155. Findings included: 1. Resident 155 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included unspecified fracture of left femur, hyperkalemia, nonrheumatic aortic stenosis, and acute on chronic combined systolic and diastolic heart failure. On 9/27/22, resident 155's medical record was reviewed. A progress note dated 9/11/22 at 3:33 PM, revealed that resident 155 was here with a L [Left] hip fx [fracture] after a fall. Resident 155's care plan was reviewed, and it revealed that there was no care plan related to falls. On 9/7/22 at 5:19 PM a Nursing Progress Note revealed, Res [resident] had fall, called to shower by CNA [Certified Nursing Assistant] res was lying on back. Res said he slipped. Fall was not witnessed. Res denied pain at this time. Assessed, no apparent injury at time. Neuro [neurological] checks started and were wnl [within normal limits] . [Note: A fall care plan was not developed.] On 9/27/22 at 3:18 PM, an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) was conducted. The DON stated that if a resident came to the facility with recent falls, there should be a baseline care plan for falls. 2. Resident 43 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included dehydration, major depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, orthostatic hypotension, muscle weakness, and abnormalities of gait and mobility. On 9/27/22, resident 43's medical record was reviewed. A care plan dated 8/20/22, and revised 8/30/22, revealed that resident 43 was at risk for falls related to a history of falls, history of Parkinson's Disease, and hypertension. The goal was the resident would have no unaddressed falls through next review. Approaches included monitoring for orthostatic hypotension which was created on 8/20/22, encourage to use the call light and ask for assistance when transferring or ambulating which was created on 8/24/22, and to encourage resident to increase fluid intake which was created on 8/25/22. A progress note dated 8/19/22 at 6:42 PM, revealed, Res is fall risk, uses walker, unsteady gait. Resident has confusion and is scared and afraid to be here without family . A progress note dated 8/20/22 at 10:46 AM, revealed, Pt [patient] was in room this morning on own, staff was doing regular duties when housekeeping told CNA that pt had fallen in room and was bleeding. Upon staff entering room pt was back in bed. With further inspection a pool of blood was noted on bathroom floor but pt was able to get self into bed. Upon initial assessment pt was confused on where he was or why he was here but knew who he was. Wound on right back of head was bleeding - nurse cleaned up and notified DON [Director of Nursing] . Neuro checks are in place and pt is in front sitting room in view of nursing station to be watched until further information is gained. A progress note dated 8/24/22 at 11:12 AM, revealed, Aid [CNA] went into residents room to check on him, resident was found in bed, resident was on the phone with his wife who told aid that he had fallen. Neuros started. A progress note dated 8/25/22 at 11:59 PM, revealed, Patient was found on the floor. He stated that he did not hit his head. He has an abrasion on lower back. Nurse did an assessment before he was transferred to his bed. Patient is alter and oriented. Resident 43's face sheet revealed that resident 43 was discharged to home on 9/10/22. On 9/28/22 at 9:45 AM, an interview with CNA 2 was conducted. CNA 2 stated that there was not enough staff at the facility to prevent residents from falling. CNA 2 stated that the facility often staffed two or three CNAs for the entire building, which was not enough to adequately supervise residents who were a fall risk. CNA 2 stated that in addition to not having enough staff, communication between nurses and CNAs was lacking, and CNA's were often not aware if resident were a fall risk. On 9/28/22 at 10:00 AM, an interview with CNA 8 was conducted. CNA 8 stated that on some shifts there were only two CNAs in the facility. CNA 8 stated that the facility needed more CNAs to supervise residents who were a fall risk because there was not enough staff to prevent residents from falling. 5. Resident 8 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included dementia without behavioral disturbance, hypokalemia, type 2 diabetes mellitus, chronic pain syndrome, hypertension, hypothyroidism, urinary tract infection, muscle weakness, abnormalities of gait and mobility, and hyperlipidemia. On 9/26/22 at 10:21 AM, an interview was conducted with CNA 1. CNA 1 stated that resident 8 was confused and had some short-term memory deficits. CNA 1 stated that resident 8 knew where she was and understood what was going on. CNA 1 stated that resident 8 wandered and went for walks around the building. CNA 1 stated that resident 8 used a cane for a mobility device. CNA 1 stated that resident 8 was frequently outside smoking and would wander to the other side of the building to look at the baby horse. On 9/26/22, resident 8's medical record was reviewed. On 8/15/22, a Smoking Risk assessment was completed for resident 8. Resident 8's assessment documented that the resident borrowed cigarettes and a lighter from others and smoked every few hours. The assessment documented that resident 8 scored a 1, which indicated a minimal problem for the following areas: smoking in unauthorized areas; was careless with smoking materials - drops cigarette butts or matches on floor, furniture, self or others; burns finger tips; burns clothes; smokes near oxygen; smokes in the facility; inappropriately provided smoking materials to others; general awareness and ability to understand the facility safe smoking policy; and capability to follow the safe smoking policy. The assessment documented that resident 8 scored a 3 or severe problem with begging or stealing smoking materials from others. The assessment documented a total score of 10 which indicated a potentially unsafe smoker. A second undated smoking assessment documented that resident 8's total score of 6, which would indicate safe to smoke. The assessment documented that resident 8 scored a 3 or moderate problem for smokes cigarettes/butts from the ash tray and begs or steals smoking materials from others. The assessment documented a score of 1 which indicated a minimal problem for general behavior and interpersonal interaction, and mobility. The assessment documented that resident 8 was not ready to accept smoking cessation materials. On 6/16/22, resident 8's admission MDS assessment documented a BIMS of 8/15, which indicated moderately cognitively impaired. The assessment did not address the short term and long-term memory. The assessment documented that resident 8 was a limited one person assistance for walking in room and in the corridor and was supervision with setup assistance for locomotion on and off the unit. The mobility devices used were documented as a walker and wheelchair. Review of resident 8's progress notes revealed the following: a. On 7/9/22 at 5:56 PM, the nurse's note documented, Resident noted with bright red sunburn and purple areas to both arms. Resident enjoys spending a lot of time outside and was asked if she would like to come in and give her skin a rest for a little while. She refused. Nurse offered to bring her a long sleeve shirt to protect her arms which she also refused. Ointment applied to both arms. Resident denies pain. Nurse requested Sunscreen for resident. b. On 8/10/22 at 3:34 PM, the nurse's note documented, Patient doing well after her fall on 8/9/22. She has not had any signs of neurological issues and all her vitals have been normal. c. On 8/13/22 at 10:31 AM, the nurse's note documented, No change since pt. had fall on 8/9/22. Pt. asking staff for help when needed and using cane for mobility when walking. Will continue to monitor. d. On 8/20/22 at 10:15 AM, the nurse's note documented, Pt's family member pointed out a bruise on the pt's right shoulder, assuming it's from the fall. it's a god (sic) size bruise. e. On 8/25/22 at 1:25 PM, the NP note documented that resident 8 was pleasantly confused. will often forget where she's going or where she is at. f. On 8/25/22 at 5:21 PM, the nurse's note documented, pt given baggie of 7 cigarettes this morning at 0700 [7:00 AM] and within two hours had smoked all 7 and trying to borrow cigarettes' from other patients and redirected multiple times, other patients stating she only gets two cigarettes a day and pt educated again on how many she gets and counted baggies in med cart with her with 7 in each bag for the week days g. On 9/4/22 at 10:31 AM, the nurse's note documented, pt is out of cigarettes since Friday and [family member] will not bring her cigarettes or money for cigarettes, patient notified and appears not happy. circling the outside building and outside trash cans looking for cigarette butts and unable to re-direct, tiger test sent to all staff r/t the above h. On 9/15/22 at 5:35 AM, the NP note documented, . remains confused. she continues to lack her own safety awareness. No new falls or other events. On 7/11/22, the Physical Therapy discharge summary documented that resident 8 had met the goal of decreased risk for falls as evidenced by (AEB) decreased score on the Timed Up and Go test to 18 seconds. The resident was safely able to ambulate 300 feet with supervision and occasional verbal and tactile cues. The patient was independent with supervision times one for walking after donning shoes, able to ambulate inside and outside of facility and navigate around obstacles with supervision. Discharge recommendations were to continue to walk with supervision and use of quad cane. On 8/9/22 at 1:43 PM, an incident report documented that resident 8 had an unwitnessed fall. The form documented that the patient was out in the courtyard alone. A resident noticed resident 8 and notified staff that she had fallen. Resident 8 stated that she did not hit her head nor have any wounds. Factors identified at the time of the fall were that resident 8 had lost balance, and was attempting to self-transfer. The report documented that resident 8 did not complain of pain and no injuries were noted. No documentation was found of an elopement or wander risk assessment for resident 8. Review of resident 8's care plans revealed the following: a. On 9/27/22, a care area of cognitive loss/dementia was initiated. The care plan documented that resident 8 had memory/recall problems related to dementia AEB a poor BIMS score. Interventions identified were engage resident in conversations or activity of choice; and reorient as tolerated and do not criticize. b. On 9/27/22, a care area of exhibits alteration in thought process manifested by cognitive impairment r/t dementia; needs reminders/prompts/cues to choose activities was initiated. Interventions identified were to invite, encourage and involve resident 8 in activities of importance; post calendar in room; provide with opportunities to recall long/short term memories during activities; and provide adaptations to activities as needed. c. On 9/27/22, a care area for tobacco use initiated. Interventions identified were to distract with an activity or conversation of choice when it was not smoking time; offer cessation information as desired; involve support person or Ombudsman as needed; praise resident 8 for being safe and responsible; resident will be able to follow the smoking policy with staff assist; and resident will not share or borrow tobacco products or paraphernalia from others. d. On 9/26/22, a care area for at risk for falls secondary to limited mobility, poor balance and poor safety awareness was initiated. Interventions identified were encourage to utilize cane when ambulating, encourage to use the call light, keep room free of clutter and tripping hazards. It should be noted that no care plan or interventions were developed for resident 8's wandering. On 9/27/22 at 1:32 PM, an interview was conducted with Registered Nurse (RN) 4. RN 4 stated that resident 8 asked for a cigarette and was told that she had to wait until 4:00 PM because she had one at 1:00 PM already. RN 4 stated that she told resident 8 that she had nine cigarettes remaining. RN 4 stated that resident 8's cigarettes were kept inside the medication cart, but not the lighter. RN 4 stated that resident 8 went through packs of cigarettes fast so they were trying to limit the amount she smoked. RN 4 stated that resident 8 had a cigarette at 1:00 PM and then returned immediately to ask for a second one. RN 4 stated that she reminded resident 8 that she had just smoked a cigarette and that she needed to wait until 4:00 PM for the next one. RN 4 stated that resident 8 smoked independently and that she was alert and oriented to person and place. RN 4 stated she was not sure if resident 8 was able to make her own decisions, or if she had that capacity. RN 4 stated that resident 8 did not have all of her faculties. RN 4 stated that resident 8 wandered and went outside to smoke. On 9/28/22 at 8:41 AM, an interview was conducted with RN 5. RN 5 stated that resident 8 could only have one cigarette every two hours. RN 5 stated that resident 8 would forget that she had smoked. 09/29/22 at 8:13 AM, a follow-up interview was conducted with RN 5. Resident 8 was observed to ask RN 5 for a cigarette. RN 5 stated that she did not have any cigarettes left in the medication cart and told resident 8 that she would go look for more. On 9/29/22 at 8:27 AM, an interview was conducted with CNA 2, RNA 1, and RN 5. CNA 2 stated that resident 8 had a fall outside the facility three or four months ago. CNA 2 stated they made sure to keep an eye on where resident 8 was going and made sure she did not go into the construction site that was nearby. CNA 2 stated that they would keep track of resident 8 by looking out the windows to locate her. CNA 2 stated that resident 8 had wandered into the construction area before to ask for cigarettes. CNA 2 stated that this had happened multiple times within a two-week period. CNA 2 stated that this occurred before resident 8 had her own cigarettes. CNA 2 stated that since resident 8 had access to her own cigarettes she had not wandered back over to the construction site. CNA 2 stated that resident 8 was an independent smoker and had her lighter in her possession. RNA 1 stated that resident 8's routine was to walk around the parameter of the building. RNA 1 stated that resident 8 would smoke the whole pack because she forgets. RN 5 stated that she had called resident 8's family member to inform them that resident 8 did not have anymore cigarettes at the facility. RN 5 stated that the family member was not going to bring anymore to resident 8 because she would be discharging home on Saturday. On 9/29/22 at 10:16 AM, an interview was conducted with RN 5. RN 5 stated that resident 8 had not had any falls in the last week. RN 5 stated that they were not aware of resident 8 having had any falls previously, and were not aware of any fall preventions or interventions in place to prevent falls for resident 8. RN 5 stated that resident 8 had called their family member and they were going to bring the resident some more cigarettes. On 9/29/22 at 11:06 AM, an interview was conducted with the DON. The DON stated that resident 8's cognitive status was that she was alert and able to answer questions. The DON stated that resident 8 had aphasia and had difficulty with her speech. The DON stated that resident 8 was able to ask for things that she needed, could speak using more than one word, but did not talk with full sentences. The DON stated that resident 8 frequently asked for Pepsi but did not necessarily mean Pepsi when asked if that was what she wanted. The DON stated that the staff would then have to go through other items that may be wanted. The DON stated that resident 8 was able to make decisions about her care and could express her wants and needs. The DON stated that resident 8 could smoke independently. The DON stated that every resident who smoked should have a smoking assessment completed. The DON stated she was not aware of any elopement/wander assessment for resident 8 and it should have been completed upon admission. The DON stated that the floor nurse was responsible for completing that assessment. The DON stated she was not aware of resident 8 having had any falls within the last two weeks. The DON stated if resident 8 had a history of falls the interventions should be resident specific to prevent falls. The DON stated that she was not aware of any interventions to prevent accidents or wandering for resident 8. The DON stated she would expect to see a care plan specific to wandering if interventions were identified and needed. On 9/29/22 at 12:36 PM, a follow-up interview was conducted with the DON, the Corporate Social Service Worker (CSSW), and the Resident Advocate (RA). The DON stated that she had observed that the second smoking assessment was not dated. The DON stated that the smoking assessment with a score of 6 was dated on 7/14/22, and the most recent assessment was on 8/15/22. The DON stated that the smoking assessment that scored a 10, which indicated that resident 8 was potentially an unsafe smoker, was the most recent assessment. The CSSW stated that the RA conducted resident 8's smoking assessments. The DON stated that it should be an IDT decision on resident 8's interventions for smoking. The DON stated that the biggest challenge was that resident 8 tried to get smoking materials from others and the ashtrays. The DON stated that resident 8 would seek cigarettes when they were not available. The RA stated that she conducted the smoking assessment and observed resident 8 to safely light, smoke, and dispose of the cigarette. The RA stated that based on the observation she determined that resident 8 would need staff supervision for smoking to ensure that she did not dig through the ashtray seeking more cigarettes. 4. Resident 49 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included, but not limited to, hemorrhage of anus and rectum, dementia, history of falling, type 2 diabetes mellitus with hyperglycemia, displaced fracture of second cervical vertebra, major depressive disorder, systolic congestive heart failure, secondary hypertension, and edema. On 9/26/22 at 12:04 PM, an interview was conducted with resident 49. Resident 49 stated that he had fallen three times since he was admitted to the facility. Resident 49 was unable to give any details regarding the three falls and resident 49 could not remember if he had any injuries with the three falls. Resident 49 stated that he had fallen at home and was in a back brace when he admitted to the facility. Resident 49 stated that recently he was taken out of the back brace and given a neck brace. Resident 49 was observed to have a neck brace on. Resident 49's medical record was reviewed on 9/27/22. An admission MDS assessment dated [DATE], documented that resident 49 had a BIMS score of 3. A BIMS score of 0 to 7 indicates severely impaired cognition. In addition, resident 49 was documented as requiring extensive assistance of two persons for bed mobility. Resident 49 required extensive assistance of one person for transfers, locomotion on and off the unit, dressing, toilet use, and personal hygiene. Resident 49 required limited assistance of one person for walk in room and walk in corridor. Resident 49 was not steady moving from a seated to standing position, walking, turning around and facing the other direction while walking, moving on and off the toilet, and surface to surface transfers between bed and chair or wheelchair. Resident 49 was only able to stabilize with human assistance. The MDS Care Area Assessment (CAA) Summary dated 7/13/22, documented a Care Area Triggered for falls. In addition, the CAA Summary documented that falls were addressed in the care plan. [Note: A fall care plan was not created until 9/22/22.] On 7/6/22 at 12:59 PM, a Social Services Note documented Admit [Admission] Note: [Name of resident 49 removed] is an 80 YO [year old] widower who admitted from [name of hospital removed] on 6/30 [22] after sustaining an unwitnessed fall resulting in a C1-2 [cervical vertebrae] fx. On 7/29/22 at 1:30 AM, a Morse Fall Scale was completed and resident 49 was assessed as High Risk for falling with a score of 65. A Morse Fall score 45 or higher indicates a high risk for falls. [Note: Additional fall risk assessments were unable to be located for resident 49.] On 7/29/22 at 2:21 AM, a Nurses Note documented Patient had an injury fall this shift at 0130 [1:30 AM], assisted to the fall by CNA. CNA notified this Nurse. Pt states he lost his balance. Denies pain at this time. Offered medication. Skin tear on right elbow (1cm [centimeter] X [by] 1xcm) and abrasion on right knee (3.5cm X 2cm). New injuries cleansed with wound cleanser, pat dry, and bacitracin applied. MD [Medical Director] Notified. [Note: A care plan was not created addressing falls after resident 49 had a fall on 7/29/22.] On 9/1/22 at 8:45 PM, a Nursing progress note documented Patient fell on his back while attempting to get off the toilet. The fall was unwitnessed. Patient has a skin tear R [right] wrist. His neuro check are normal and vitals [vital signs] are at baseline. Physician and family has been contacted. Patient is complaining of back pain but is refusing to get checked at the hospital. [Note: A care plan was not created addressing falls after resident 49 had a fall on 9/1/22.] On 9/5/22 at 10:26 PM, a Nursing note documented Resident had an assisted fall at 2200 [10:00 PM]. CNA was with resident in the bathroom. Resident was transferring to the toilet. CNA had already pulled wheelchair away. Resident had decided to sit down, not on the toilet. CNA caught resident and helped resident to the floor. 2 cnas and nurse helped resident get back into bed using hoyer lift. Resident did not hit head nor any other parts of his body. Resident is resting in bed. Vitals wnl. [Note: A care plan was not created addressing falls after resident 49 had a fall on 9/5/22.] A care plan Problem created on 9/22/22, documented Category: Falls [name of resident 49 removed is at risk for falls secondary to Weakness. A care plan Goal created on 9/22/22, documented Long Term Goal Target Date: 12/22/2022 [Name of resident 49 removed] will have no untreated injuries r/t [related to] falls, through next review. The care plan interventions created on 9/22/22, included: a. One on one activities evaluation and treatments if appropriate. b. Assist resident 49 with visual needs and visual appliance application and removal, as needed. c. Encourage the use of the call light. d. Evaluate the need to pace activities and plan rest periods, as tolerated. e. Keep room free of clutter and tripping hazards. f. Low bed without mat. g. Non-skid socks on at all times, as tolerated. h. Resident 49 had been educated on the call light function and use. A care plan Problem edited on 9/26/22, documented a Problem start date of 9/5/22. Category: Falls [Name of resident 49 removed] had an actual fall 9/1/22 and 9/5/22. A care plan Goal created on 9/26/22, documented Long Term Goal Target Date: 12/05/2022 [Name of resident 49 removed] will have no unaddressed complication or injury r/t fall through next review. The care plan interventions created on 9/26/22, documented an Approach start date of 9/5/22. The interventions included: a. Encourage resident 49 to use call light for assistance. b. Lowered to floor: continue plan of care with staff assistance with cares and toileting. On 9/27/22 at 1:35 PM, an interview was conducted with CNA 5. CNA 5 stated that he had only worked at the facility for four days but CNA 5 was familiar with resident 49's cares. CNA 5 stated that resident 49 would use the call light if he needed to use the bathroom. CNA 5 stated that resident 49 was a one person assistance with toileting. CNA 5 stated that resident 49 required a boost to get off the toilet but resident 49 would use the safety bar for stability. CNA 5 stated that resident 49 thought that he was continent and more often then not resident 49 was soaked. CNA 5 stated that staff check on resident 49 every two hours so that resident 49 was not soaked through his clothes but resident 49 usually was. CNA 5 stated that resident 49 required meal set up and finding where everything was on the tray. CNA 5 stated that he would assist resident 49 with opening small items. CNA 5 stated that resident 49 would ask the same question over and over. CNA 5 stated that resident 49 was a fall risk but resident 49 wound not try to get up on his own. CNA 5 stated that if resident 49 did get up on his own resident 49 would fall. CNA 5 stated there was nothing posted in resident 49's room regarding fall interventions. CNA 5 stated that resident 49 would always ask for help and was previously a fall risk. On 9/27/22 at 3:12 PM, an interview was conducted with the DON. The DON stated that the MDS coordinator would help get baseline care plans started. The DON stated that baseline care plans were basic care plans. The DON stated the comprehensive assessment CAA Summary areas should be care planned by the MDS coordinator. The DON stated the nursing team should be looking at resident change of condition or something specific to the resident that needed to be care planned. The DON stated that the administrative nursing team would complete the care plan updates. The DON stated if a resident came from the hospital with a fall she would expect the fall to be care planned. The DON stated if a resident had a fall or change in elevation, the staff were to assess the resident prior to moving the resident off what ever surface they were on. The DON stated staff were to look for obvious injuries, conduct range of motion prior to moving the resident, and complete a pain assessment. The DON stated that staff were to notify the practitioner if the resident had complaints of pain to see if anything additional should be implemented for the resident. The DON stated that staff were to notify the responsible party. The DON stated that the responsible party could be the resident or a family member. The DON stated that staff were to notify the practitioner, and an Event or incident report should be documented, and any new orders should be implemented. The DON stated the Event or incident report should have documentation of notification. The DON stated if the resident had an unwitnessed fall the staff should be doing neuro checks on the resident. The DON further stated if a resident needed to be transferred out of the facility staff should complete a change of condition transfer form. 3. Resident 53 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included surgical aftercare following surgery, muscle weakness, lack of coordination, diabetes mellitus, sleep apnea, and generalized anxiety. On 9/26/22 at 2:33 PM, an interview was conducted with resident 53. Resident 53 stated he was transferring from the wheelchair to bed and his ankle gave out and he fell to the ground. Resident 53 stated his left shoulder always hurts but it hurt more since the fall. Resident 53 stated he was waiting for staff but staff did not come. Resident 53 stated he waited for 15 to 20 minutes and was tired from returning from a doctors appointment so he transferred himself. Resident 53 stated it took 20 to 30 minutes for someone to come and he did not want to wait. Resident 53's medical record was reviewed on 9/29/22. A quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], revealed resident 53 had a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 14 which indicated he was cognitively intact. The MDS revealed that resident 53 required extensive assistance with two plus person physical assistance. The MDS revealed resident 53 had not had a fall in the last month, the last two to six months, or since admission. A care plan dated 5/10/19, and revised on 10/5/21, revealed resident 53 was at risk for falls related to impaired mobility, morbid obesity, and weakness. The goal was the resident would be free of falls through the review date. Approaches included anticipate and meet the resident's needs; call light within reach; resident needs prompt response to all requests for assistance; educate what to do if a fall occurs; and review information on past falls and attempt to determine cause of fall. An approach dated 9/22/20, revealed change position slowly to reduce change of hypotensive episodes. An updated fall care plan with a problem start date of 8/1/22, and created on 9/19/22, revealed that resident 53 was at risk for falls secondary to limited mobility and weakness. The goal was resident 53 would have no untreated injuries related to falls through next review. The approaches included encourage the use of call light and keep room free of clutter and tripping hazards. Progress notes revealed the following entries: a. On 6/3/22 at 12:20 PM, [Incident Report] Three CNA's were trying to reposition the patient in bed around 11am. [CNA name] and [CNA name] where pulling the patient in one direction and the agency CNA was pulling the patient in another. During the transition, I was told by [CNA name] that he fell off of the bed. I went in and assessed him. He didn't have any skin tares (sic) or abnormalities. He was oriented times four. He said his left hip hurts when he moves. He said it was an achy muscle pain. I checked it out and there was no bruise present at the time. I informed the other agency nurse working on his hall to continue to check on him by the hour even though I was told that he didn't hit his head. I notified [Nurse Practitioner's name] via tiger text and havent heard a response back as of yet. b. On 6/3/22 at 12:24 [TRUNCATED]
CONCERN (E)

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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 5. Resident 30 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included cerebral infarction, abscess of perineum, mu...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 5. Resident 30 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included cerebral infarction, abscess of perineum, muscular dystrophy, hypertension, type 2 diabetes mellitus, anxiety disorder, gastro-esophageal reflux disease, major depressive disorder, and cellulitis of the buttocks. On 9/28/22, resident 30's medical record was reviewed. Review of resident 30's physician's orders revealed the following: a. Escitalopram oxalate tablet 5 mg by mouth one time a day. The order was initiated on 8/2/22 and was discontinued on 9/26/22. b. Metoprolol tartrate tablet 100 mg by mouth one time a day. The order was initiated on 8/2/22. Review of resident 30's September 2022 MAR revealed the following: a. On 9/23/22 at 6:00 AM to 10:00 AM, the Escitalopram 5 mg was documented as Not Administered: Drug/Item Unavailable. b. On 9/7/22 and 9/9/22 at 6:00 AM to 10:00 AM, the Metoprolol 100 mg was documented as Not Administered: Drug/Item Unavailable. 6. Resident 53 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included surgical aftercare of the digestive system, edema, type 2 diabetes mellitus, morbid obesity, obstructive sleep apnea, anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, insomnia, hypertension, benign prostatic hyperplasia, and chronic kidney disease. On 9/28/22 at 7:38 AM, an observation was made of RN 3 during the morning medication administration. RN 3 was dispensing medication for resident 53 and stated that the resident's Nystatin cream was not available and needed to be reordered. RN 3 stated she would document the medication as not administered. On 9/28/22 at 9:25 AM, RN 3 stated she was going to fax the Nystatin refill to the pharmacy and would expect to receive it around 2:00 PM. On 9/28/22 at 3:18 PM, RN 3 stated that she had just received the Nystatin cream from the pharmacy. On 9/29/22 at 11:03 AM, an interview was conducted with the DON. The DON stated that she was not sure if the Nystatin cream was stock item. The DON stated that staff should contact the pharmacy and have the medication reordered before it runs out. The staff should be aware of how much was remaining in the tube. On 10/3/22, resident 53's medical records were reviewed. Review of resident 53's physician's orders revealed the following: a. Daily Multivitamin-Minerals (multivitamin with minerals) one tablet by mouth one time a day. The order was initiated on 8/2/22. b. Macrobid capsule 100 mg by mouth at bedtime. The order was initiated on 8/1/22. c. Pantoprazole tablet 40 mg by mouth one time a day. The order was initiated on 8/2/22. Review of resident 53's September 2020 MAR revealed the following: a. On 9/14/22 and 9/15/22, the multivitamin was documented as Not Administered: Other Comment: ON ORDER. b. On 9/19/22, the Macrobid 100 mg medication was documented as Not Administered: Drug/Item Unavailable. c. On 9/26/22 and 9/27/22, the Pantoprazole 40 mg was documented as Not Administered: Drug/Item Unavailable. On 10/3/22 at 1:42 PM, an interview was conducted with the DON. The DON stated she would have to research why the medications were documented as not administered. The DON stated that if there was a reason to hold the medication, she would expect there to be a progress note documenting why. The DON stated that Multivitamins were a stock item and should be available. 7. Resident 23 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included fracture of right femur, congestive heart failure, gastro-esophageal reflux disease, deep vein thrombosis of lower extremity, insomnia, hypothyroidism, alcohol dependence, major depressive disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorder. On 9/26/22 at 12:22 PM, an interview was conducted with resident 23. Resident 23 stated that she had pain in her femur and feet. Resident 23 stated that the pain was a 10/10, on a scale of 1 to 10. Resident 23 stated that the pain in her feet was due to neuropathy and was so painful that she could hardly touch her feet to the ground. On 9/27/22, resident 23's medical record was reviewed. Review of resident 23's physician's orders revealed the following: a. Buspirone tablet 5 mg by mouth three times a day. The order was initiated on 8/1/22 and discontinued on 9/26/22 b. Buspirone tablet 10 mg by mouth three times a day. The order was initiated on 9/26/22. c. Furosemide tablet 40 mg by mouth two times a day. The order was initiated on 8/2/22. d. Gabapentin tablet 600 mg by mouth three times a day. The order was initiated on 8/1/22. e. Amoxicillin tablet 500 mg by mouth three times a day. The order was initiated on 8/22/22 and discontinued on 8/29/22. Review of resident 23's August 2020 MAR revealed the following: a. On 8/29/22 at the 6:00 PM to 10:00 PM, administration time, the Amoxicillin 500 mg was documented as Not Administered: Drug/Item Unavailable. b. On 8/16/22 at the 6:00 PM to 10:00 PM, on 8/17/22 at the 6:00 AM to 10:00 AM, and at the 10:00 AM to 2:00 PM, administration time, the Buspirone 5 mg was documented as Not Administered: Drug/Item Unavailable c. On 8/16/22 at the 6:00 PM to 10:00 PM, on 8/17/22 at the 6:00 AM to 10:00 AM, and at the 10:00 AM to 2:00 PM, administration time, the Gabapentin 600 mg was documented as Not Administered: Drug/Item Unavailable Review of resident 23's September 2022 MAR revealed the following: a. On 9/14/22 at the 6:00 PM to 10:00 PM, administration time, the Buspirone 5 mg was not administered due to Drug/Item Unavailable b. On 9/21/22, 9/22/22, and 9/23/22 at the 6:00 AM to 10:00 AM and at the 10:00 AM to 2:00 PM, administration time, the Furosemide 40 mg was documented Not Administered: Drug/Item Unavailable. On 9/27/22 at 10:22 AM, an interview was conducted with RN 4. RN 4 stated that she was an agency nurse. RN 4 stated that this was her first full shift at the facility, and she had worked one other time for half a shift. RN 4 stated that she had noticed that all the staff today were agency. On 9/27/22 at 1:28 PM, a follow-up interview was conducted with RN 4. RN 4 stated that when she came on shift, she was handed a piece of paper to write down any medications that were out of stock. RN 4 stated that she was not informed of the process for ordering medication for a resident. RN 4 stated that she thought the facility had a Pyxis machine, that is how it is at all the facilities. RN 4 stated that she did not have an access code for the Pyxis dispensary, only the facility nurses were granted access. RN 4 stated that she had not been provided any instructions at this facility. On 9/27/22 at 10:03 AM and again at 1:57 PM, an interview was conducted with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 1. LPN 1 stated that she was an agency nurse and had worked at the facility prior to becoming an agency staff. LPN 1 stated that if medications were running low, they would order them from the pharmacy. LPN 1 stated that when the blister pack had only the last row or column remaining, she would pull the reorder sticker and place on the refill sheet or check to make sure that it was not too early to refill the medication. LPN 1 stated that she had the ability to reorder some medications through the electronic medical records, but not for all residents. LPN 1 stated that she could also fax the order to the pharmacy. LPN 1 stated that she could also call the pharmacy with any orders. LPN 1 stated a Pyxis was available to pull medication from, and that she had the ability to access the Pyxis. LPN 1 stated that if medications were not available, she would document in the MAR, and include a note that stated she contacted pharmacy. LPN 1 stated that medications would usually arrive at the facility the same day if it was scheduled for a refill, they will put it on the next run. LPN 1 stated sometimes if the medication was not due to be reordered then it would not be refilled. LPN 1 stated that occasionally medications were misplaced or located in another cart, and she would have to locate the medication to administer it. On 9/27/22 at 2:40 PM, an interview was conducted with the DON. The DON stated that the process for reordering medication was to pull the reorder stickers from the blister pack, order through the electronic medical records, or call the pharmacy directly. The DON stated that the electronic medical records reorder was available for all residents, and that they had been training the agency staff on reordering medication for the last two weeks. The DON stated that medications were available in the Pyxis system, but not all staff had access to the medication dispensing system. The DON stated that the pharmacy was coming out this week to give access to all licensed nurses at the facility, including the agency staff. The DON stated that there was usually a nurse at the facility that had Pyxis access and the ADON lived nearby and could run over to get medication from the Pyxis for staff. The DON stated that since she had been at the facility, which was the last two weeks, she had made sure that someone was on shift who had access to the Pyxis. The DON stated that staff should contact the pharmacy to obtain a refill and notify the provider if a medication was not administered. The DON stated that the documentation was located on the MAR or in a progress note. The DON stated that the pharmacy had three deliveries a day and they were very responsive. The DON stated that she had worked a couple of shifts and the pharmacy had medication delivered within two hours yesterday. The DON stated that the licensed nurses should contact the pharmacy to obtain a refill or contact the provider to obtain a new prescription. Based on interview and record review, it was determined, that the facility did not provide routine and emergency drugs and biologicals to its residents. Specifically, for 7 out of 34 sampled residents, resident medications were not administered as ordered by the physician due to the medications not being available by the pharmacy. Resident identifiers: 22, 23, 29, 30, 49, 53, and 160. Findings included: 1. Resident 22 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included, but not limited to, nontraumatic intracerebral hemorrhage, hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction affecting right dominant side, type 2 diabetes mellitus, essential hypertension, muscle weakness, and chronic pain syndrome. On 9/26/22 at 10:32 AM, an interview was conducted with resident 22. Resident 22 stated that staff were not bringing her medications timely. Resident 22 stated that she would ask for her anxiety medication and it would take along time for the staff to bring the medication. Resident 22 stated the staff would tell her there was only one nurse. Resident 22 stated that some staff were better than others. Resident 22 stated that she did not always get her diabetic medications before meals. Resident 22's medical record was reviewed on 9/27/22. The September 2022 Medication Administration Record (MAR) was reviewed. The following entries were documented: a. On 9/3/22 at 6:00 PM - 10:00 PM, heparin solution; 5,000 unit/milliliter twice a day was not administered due to Drug/Item Unavailable. b. On 9/17/22 at 6:00 AM - 10:00 AM, duloxetine capsule delayed release 30 milligrams (mg) was not administered due to Other Comment: medication not available, Pharmacy notified. c. On 9/18/22 at 6:00 AM - 10:00 AM, Acidophilus 1 capsule was not administered due to Drug/Item Unavailable. d. On 9/19/22 at 6:00 AM - 10:00 AM, duloxetine capsule delayed release 30 mg was not administered due to Drug/Item Unavailable. e. On 9/19/22 at 6:00 AM - 10:00 AM, fluoxetine capsule 40 mg was not administered due to Drug/Item Unavailable. f. On 9/20/22 at 6:00 AM - 10:00 AM, duloxetine capsule delayed release 30 mg was not administered due to Drug/Item Unavailable. g. On 9/20/22 at 6:00 AM - 10:00 AM, fluoxetine capsule 40 mg was not administered due to Drug/Item Unavailable. h. On 9/21/22 at 6:00 AM - 10:00 AM, fluoxetine capsule 40 mg was not administered due to Drug/Item Unavailable. 2. Resident 49 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included, but not limited to, hemorrhage of anus and rectum, dementia, history of falling, type 2 diabetes mellitus with hyperglycemia, displaced fracture of second cervical vertebra, major depressive disorder, systolic congestive heart failure, secondary hypertension, and edema. Resident 49's medical record was reviewed on 9/27/22. The September 2022 MAR was reviewed. The following entries were documented: a. On 9/5/22 at 6:00 AM - 10:00 AM, Anusol-hydrocortisone acetate suppository 25 mg twice a day was not administered due to Drug/Item Unavailable Comment: MD [Medical Director] and pharm [pharmacy] notified. b. On 9/6/22 at 6:00 PM - 10:00 PM, Miconazorb powder 2% topical twice a day was not administered due to Drug/Item Unavailable Comment: MD and pharm notified. c. On 9/8/22 at 6:00 PM - 10:00 PM, Miconazorb powder 2% topical twice a day was not administered due to Drug/Item Unavailable Comment: MD and pharm notified. d. On 9/23/22 at 5:00 AM, levothyroxine 175 micrograms was not administered due to Drug/Item Unavailable. e. On 9/23/22 at 6:00 AM - 10:00 AM, potassium chloride 10 milliequivalent was not administered due to Drug/Item Unavailable. f. On 9/24/22 at 6:00 AM - 10:00 AM, metoprolol tartrate 25 mg twice a day was not administered due to Drug/Item Unavailable. g. On 9/26/22 at 6:00 AM - 10:00 AM, metoprolol tartrate 25 mg twice a day was not administered due to Drug/Item Unavailable. h. On 9/27/22 at 6:00 AM - 10:00 AM, metoprolol tartrate 25 mg twice a day was not administered due to Drug/Item Unavailable. 3. Resident 29 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included low back pain, injury to left lower leg, hypothyroidism, edema, chronic pain, and nausea. On 9/26/22 at 12:32 PM, an interview was conducted with resident 29. Resident 29 stated she was unable to stand her pain last night and was groaning. Resident 29 stated there was no nurse on her hallway from 12:00 AM until 6:00 AM. Resident 29 stated she needed Tramadol at 2:00 AM but the nurse told resident 29 it was not her problem because she would not be there and there was not a nurse to administer the medication. Resident 29 stated she had scoliosis that made a hole in her spine and she had no control over her left lower extremities. Resident 29 stated she needed her Tramadol regularly because her pain never quit. Resident 29 stated her Tramadol was not administered at 2:00 AM when she wanted it. Resident 29 stated that her pain was at a 10 and she was crying and sick to her stomach. Resident 29 stated the nurse administered three pills to her early that morning and she did not know what the medications were. Resident 29's medical record was on 9/28/22. An admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], revealed that resident 29 frequently experienced pain. The MDS revealed resident 29 had pain that made it hard for her to sleep at night and limited her day-to-day activities. The MDS revealed resident 29 had as needed pain medications and no scheduled pain medications. A care plan created on 9/19/22, with a problem start date of 8/1/22, revealed resident 29 was at risk for pain secondary to chronic pain. The goal was resident 29 would have no unaddressed pain, through next review. The approaches included educate resident on newly prescribed medications, monitor for side effects, medications as prescribed, monitor pain as prescribed, and other non-pharmacological approaches to pain management. A current physician's order dated 8/2/22, revealed Lidocaine adhesive patch, medicated; 5%; topical apply patch to back daily. The MAR for August 2022 revealed Lidocaine adhesive patch was not administered on the following dates: a. On 8/23/22, Drug/Item Unavailable: Could not find b. On 8/24/22, Drug/Item Unavailable c. On 8/25/22, Drug/Item Unavailable d. On 8/26/22, Drug/Item Unavailable: Notified DON [Director of Nursing] - DON is getting more e. On 8/27/22, Drug/Item Unavailable: Waiting for delivery f. On 8/28/22, Drug/Item Unavailable g. On 8/29/22, Drug/Item Unavailable A current physician's order dated 8/1/22. revealed Voltaren Arthritis Pain (Diclofenac sodium) gel; 1%; topical administered three times per day. The instructions were to apply to knees and ankles. The diagnosis associated with the gel was low back pain. The MAR for August 2022 revealed Voltaren gel was not administered on the following dates: a. On 8/9/22, No nurse b. On 8/30/22, Drug/Item unavailable c. On 8/31/22, Drug/Item unavailable The MAR for September 2022 MAR revealed the following: a. Acetaminophen 650 mg three times per day were not administered on 9/6/22, 9/7/22, and 9/8/22 because the Drug/Item was unavailable and on order. b. Lidocaine patch adhesive patch 5% topical once per day was not administered on 9/1/22, 9/2/22, 9/26/22, 9/27/22 because the Drug/Item was unavailable and needed to order more. On 10/3/22 at 11:57 AM, an interview was conducted with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON). The ADON stated if the medication was not available then it was because the pharmacy did not have a supply. The ADON stated medications like Tramadol were in the Pyxus system and he was not sure why the medication was not administered on 8/9/22, because there was always a nurse at the facility. 4. Resident 160 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and discharged on 4/5/22 with diagnoses which included hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and atrial fibrillation. On 9/27/22 at 9:21 AM, an interview was conducted with resident 160's family member. Resident 160's family member stated resident 160's medications were all messed up when she was admitted . Resident 160's family member stated she talked to the previous DON about the medications but nothing was done. Resident 160's medical record was reviewed on 9/29/22. The February 2022 MAR revealed resident 160 was not administered Lipitor Tablet 40 mg at bedtime on 2/12/22, 2/14/22, 2/16/22, and 2/23/22. A progress note dated 2/12/22, revealed the medication was Unavailable, pharmacy contacted. On 2/14/22, 2/16/22, and 2/23/22, the medication was pending delivery. The February 2022 MAR further revealed resident 160 was not administered Hydralazine Hydrochloride 25 mg three times a day for hypertension on the following days: a. On 2/11/22 at 7:00 AM. b. On 2/12/22 at 7:00 AM. c. On 2/13/22 at 7:00 AM, 12:00 PM, and 7:00 PM. d. On 2/14/22 at 7:00 PM, e. On 2/15/22 at 7:00 AM and 12:00 PM. The progress notes revealed on 2/11/22, the medication was Not available. On 2/12/22, Not available, pharmacy contacted. On 2/13/22, medication unavailable Pharmacy contacted. On 2/14/22, Pending delivery. On 2/15/22, Not available pharmacy notified. The February 2022 MAR further revealed resident 160 was not administered Metoprolol Succinate Extended Release (ER) 24 hour sprinkle 50 mg twice daily for hypertension on the following days: a. On 2/2/22 at 7:00 AM. b. On 2/3/22 at 7:00 PM. c. On 2/4/22 at 7:00 PM. d. On 2/14/22 at 7:00 PM. e. On 2/15/22 at 7:00 AM. f. On 2/16/22 at 7:00 AM. The progress notes revealed on 2/2/22, Medication not available. Notified pharmacy. On 2/3/22, Unable to locate medication. On 2/4/22, unable to locate ordered more. On 2/14/22, the medication was pending delivery. On 2/15/22, the medication was not available pharmacy notified. 2/16/22, Medication not available, notified pharmacy. The March 2022 MAR revealed resident 160 was not provided Metoprolol Succinate Capsule ER 24 hour sprinkle 50 mg on the following dates: a. On 3/6/22, at 7:00 PM dose. b. On 3/8/22, at 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM doses. c. On 3/9/22, at 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM dose. d. On 3/10/22, at 7:00 PM dose. e. On 3/11/22, at 7:00 AM dose. f. On 3/12/22, at 7:00 PM dose. g. On 3/13/22, at 7:00 AM dose. The progress notes revealed on 3/6/22, the drug was not on hand. On 3/8/22, the medication was pending delivery. On 3/9/22, Medication was not available. Notified pharmacy. Refill is too soon, notified DON and MD [Medical Director] and Pending Delivery. On 3/10/22, Unable to locate. Ordered more. On 3/11/22, Drug not available. On 3/12/22, medication no on hand pharm notified. On 3/13/22, Medication cannot be filled until the 16th. Notified DON of issue. Notified MD. The March 2022 MAR further revealed resident 160 was not provided Loradine 10 mg by mouth one time a on 3/11/22. The progress notes revealed on 3/11/22, Drug not available. On 9/27/22 at 12:01 PM, an interview was conducted with Registered Nurse (RN) 5. RN 5 stated she had worked at the facility for two years and was currently an agency nurse. RN 5 stated if medication was not available nurses wrote it down on a sheet and then called the pharmacy. RN 5 stated the new system had a button to push to reorder medications. RN 5 stated that the night shift nurse went through and re-ordered the medications before the medication ran out. RN 5 stated if a resident was not administered Metoprolol, then she would want to make sure their blood pressures were not high. RN 5 stated sometimes Metoprolol was not given because the blood pressure was too low. RN 5 stated the physician provided parameters to hold the medication depending on the blood pressure. On 9/29/22 at 2:11 PM, an interview was conducted with the DON. The DON stated she did not have any additional information on resident 160's medications not being unavailable.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0757 (Tag F0757)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 4. Resident 30 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included cerebral infarction, abscess of perineum, mu...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 4. Resident 30 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included cerebral infarction, abscess of perineum, muscular dystrophy, hypertension, type 2 diabetes mellitus, anxiety disorder, gastro-esophageal reflux disease, major depressive disorder, and cellulitis of the buttocks. On 9/28/22, resident 30's medical record was reviewed. Review of resident 30's physician's orders revealed an order for Metoprolol tartrate tablet 100 mg by mouth one time a day. Special Instructions: Hold for systolic blood pressure (SBP) of less than (<) 100 OR diastolic blood pressure (DBP) < 60. The order was initiated on 8/2/22. Review of resident 30's September 2022 MAR revealed on 9/24/22 at 7:07 AM, the blood pressure was documented as 135/55. The Metoprolol Tartrate 100 mg was documented as administered with physician ordered parameters to hold for a SBP < 100 and a DBP of < 60. On 9/27/22 at 2:40 PM, an interview was conducted with the DON. The DON stated that she would call the NP and verify that the parameters for the Metoprolol were for DBP and not heart rate. The DON stated that based on the parameters in the order the medication should not have been administered. Based on interview and record review, it was determined, the facility did not ensure that each resident's drug regimen was free from unnecessary drugs. An unnecessary drug is any drug when used in excessive dose; or for excessive duration; or without adequate monitoring; or without adequate indications for its use; or in the presence of adverse consequences which indicate the dose should be reduced or discontinued; or any combinations of the reasons above. Specifically, for 4 out of 34 sampled residents, a resident's beta blocker medication to treat high blood pressure was not monitored according to the physician ordered parameters. A resident's alpha-adrenergic agonists medication to treat low blood pressure was held without physician's orders. In addition, resident medications were not administered per physician's orders due to nursing staff not completing the task. Resident identifiers: 22, 30, 36, and 49. Findings included: 1. Resident 22 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included, but not limited to, nontraumatic intracerebral hemorrhage, hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction affecting right dominant side, type 2 diabetes mellitus, essential hypertension, muscle weakness, and chronic pain syndrome. On 9/26/22 at 10:32 AM, an interview was conducted with resident 22. Resident 22 stated that staff were not bringing her medications timely. Resident 22 stated that she would ask for her anxiety medication and it would take along time for the staff to bring the medication. Resident 22 stated the staff would tell her there was only one nurse. Resident 22 stated that some staff were better than others. Resident 22 stated that she did not always get her diabetic medications before meals. Resident 22's medical record was reviewed on 9/27/22. The September 2022 Medication Administration Record (MAR) was reviewed. The following entries were documented: a. On 9/5/22 at 6:00 AM - 10:00 AM, Acidophilus 1 capsule was not administered due to Other Comment: Morning nurse did not administer, or complete task. b. On 9/17/22 at 4:30 PM, insulin lispro solution; 100 unit/milliliters per sliding scale was not administered due to Other Comment: Previous shift task. 2. Resident 49 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included, but not limited to, hemorrhage of anus and rectum, dementia, history of falling, type 2 diabetes mellitus with hyperglycemia, displaced fracture of second cervical vertebra, major depressive disorder, systolic congestive heart failure, secondary hypertension, and edema. Resident 49's medical record was reviewed on 9/27/22. The September 2022 MAR was reviewed. On 9/5/22 at 6:00 AM - 10:00 AM, Anusol-HC (hydrocortisone acetate) suppository 25 milligrams (mg) twice a day was not administered due to Other Comment: Morning nurse did not administer, or complete task. A physician's order dated 8/12/22, documented midodrine tablet; 5 mg; Amount to Administer: 2 tabs (10 mg); oral Three Times A Day for low blood pressure. [Note: There were no physician ordered parameters to hold the midodrine.] The September 2022 MAR was reviewed. The following entries were documented when the midodrine was not administered: a. On 9/6/22 at 6:00 PM - 10:00 PM, Not Administered: On Hold Comment: B/P [blood pressure] ABOVE PARAMETERS. [Note: A B/P was not documented.] b. On 9/7/22 at 6:00 PM - 10:00 PM, Not Administered: Due to Condition. [Note: Resident 49's documented B/P was 126/70.] c. On 9/8/22 at 6:00 PM - 10:00 PM, Not Administered: Due to Condition. [Note: A B/P was not documented.] d. On 9/10/22 at 6:00 AM - 10:00 AM, Not Administered: Other Comment: outside parameters. [Note: Resident 49's documented B/P was 100/68.] e. On 9/11/22 at 6:00 PM - 10:00 PM, Not Administered: Due to Condition Comment: B/P above parameters. [Note: A B/P was not documented.] f. On 9/12/22 at 6:00 PM - 10:00 PM, Not Administered: Due to Condition [Note: Resident 49's documented B/P was 137/74.] On 9/27/22 at 2:10 PM, an interview was conducted with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 1. LPN 1 stated that she would check the resident's blood pressure prior to administering the midodrine. LPN 1 stated that there were usually parameters in the physician's orders. LPN 1 stated she would contact the Medical Director if no parameters were included with the physician's order. LPN 1 stated that midodrine was administered to increase blood pressure. On 9/27/22 at 3:49 PM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated that Midodrine did not consistently have hold parameters. The DON clarified that midodrine should not be taken after the evening meal within three to four hours before bedtime. The DON stated that the evening administration time would need to be adjusted. 3. Resident 36 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included, but not limited to, viral pneumonia, chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia, pulmonary hypertension, anemia, hyperkalemia, pain, and essential hypertension. On 9/26/22 at 2:13 PM, an interview was conducted with resident 36. Resident 36 stated that her pain medication was scheduled. Resident 36 stated that most of the time she received her medications timely. Resident 36's medical record was reviewed on 9/29/22. On 12/20/21, a Pain Interview documented that resident 36 had frequent pain the last five days. Resident 36 had a pain intensity of 5/10, and received percocet every four hours for pain management. A care plan Problem started on 7/29/22, documented Category: Pain [Name of resident 36 removed] is at risk for pain secondary to decreased mobility, hx [history] pain. The care plan interventions included: a. Created on 7/29/22, monitor pain as prescribed. b. Created on 7/29/22, offer non-pharmacological approaches to pain management. c. Created on 9/28/22, resident 36 requests to use a heat pack at times. Disposable heat packs provided to her. The September 2022 MAR was reviewed. The following entries were documented: a. On 9/24/22 at 5:00 AM, oxycodone-acetaminophen 10-325 mg every three hours was not administered due to Other Comment: Noc [night] nurse did not give. b. On 9/28/22 at 11:00 AM, oxycodone-acetaminophen 10-325 mg every three hours was not administered due to Other Comment: Last nurse did not give med. NP [Nurse Practitioner] notified.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview, it was determined, the facility did not ensure that all drugs and biologicals were stored in...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview, it was determined, the facility did not ensure that all drugs and biologicals were stored in locked compartments, and were labeled in accordance with currently acceptable professional principles and included the appropriate accessory and cautionary instructions, and the expiration date when applicable. Specifically, observations were made of medications left on top of the medication cart unattended, the medication cart was observed unlocked and unattended, and medications located in the locked medication fridge were expired and still available for use. Resident identifiers: 9, 12, 29, and 53. Findings included: 1. On [DATE] at 7:38 AM, observations were made of Registered Nurse (RN) 3 during morning medication administration. RN 3 was located at the medication cart on the 400 hallway between room [ROOM NUMBER] and room [ROOM NUMBER]. RN 3 was observed to walk away from the medication cart to the nurse's station to obtain a Kleenex, leaving resident 53's dispensed medications on top of the cart and the medication cart unlocked. At approximately 8:00 AM, RN 3 entered resident 53's room to administer the morning medication. Resident 53's Fluticasone nasal spray was left on top of the medication cart while RN 3 was inside resident 53's room. On [DATE] at approximately 8:11 AM, an interview was conducted with RN 3. RN 3 stated that she normally did not walk away from the medication cart while leaving medication on top of the cart. On [DATE] at 11:03 AM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated that medication should not be left unattended and the cart left unlocked while unattended. 2. On [DATE] at 10:19 AM, the medication storage room on the 300/400 hallway was inspected. The following medications were located in the fridge with expired dates: a. Resident 9's bottle of Metoprolol suspension 10 milligrams (mg)/milliliter (ml) with approximately 110 ml remaining in a bottle of 150 ml. The expiration date was [DATE]. b. Resident 9's bottle of Metoprolol suspension 10 mg/ml with approximately 120 ml remaining in a bottle of 200 ml. The expiration date was [DATE]. c. Resident 9's bottle of Omeprazole suspension 4 mg/ml with with approximately 10 ml remaining in a bottle of 100 ml. The expiration date was [DATE]. The last number of the year was missing from the label. d. Resident 9's bottle of Omeprazole suspension 4 mg/ml with 30 ml remaining in a bottle of 100 ml. The expiration date was [DATE]. e. Resident 12's bottle of Lorazepam 2 mg/ml was observed with no expiration date noted on the label. f. Resident 29's bottle of Magic mouthwash suspension with 90 ml remaining in a bottle of 150 ml. The expiration date was [DATE]. g. Resident 29's bottle of Magic mouthwash suspension with approximately 125 ml remaining in a bottle of 200 ml. The expiration date was [DATE]. On [DATE] at 10:32 AM, an interview was conducted with RN 3. RN 3 stated that resident 9, resident 12, and resident 29 were still in the facility and the medication was available for use. RN 3 confirmed that the medication was either expired or did not contain an expiration date on the label. RN 3 stated that if the medication was expired they needed to discard them and reorder more. On [DATE] at 10:47 AM, an interview was conducted with the DON. The DON stated that the medication fridges should be checked weekly for expired medication, but she was not aware of who was responsible for the task.
CONCERN (E)

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

Laboratory Services (Tag F0770)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review it was determined, for 4 of 34 sampled residents, that the facility did not provide or obta...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review it was determined, for 4 of 34 sampled residents, that the facility did not provide or obtain laboratory services to meet the needs of the residents. Specifically, residents had laboratory tests ordered by the provider and the facility did not obtain them. Resident identifiers: 23, 30, 53, and 160. Findings included: 1. Resident 23 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included fracture of right femur, congestive heart failure, gastro-esophageal reflux disease, deep vein thrombosis of lower extremity, insomnia, hypothyroidism, alcohol dependence, major depressive disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorder. On 9/27/22 resident 23's medical record was reviewed. Review of resident 23's laboratory (lab) orders revealed the following: a. On 4/25/22, a Complete Blood Count (CBC) and a Comprehensive Metabolic Panel (CMP), were ordered. No documentation could be found of the laboratory reports in resident 23's medical record. b. On 4/28/22, a CBC, a CMP, and an ammonia level were ordered. No documentation could be found of the laboratory reports in resident 23's medical record. On 9/27/22 at 2:15 PM, an interview was conducted with the Corporate Minimum Data Set Coordinator (CMDSC). The CMDSC stated that stacks of lab reports were located in the Director of Nursing (DON) office and were not scanned into the resident's medical record. The CMDSC stated that another stack of records were located in the medical records office. The CMDSC stated that she did not know why the records were not scanned into each resident's electronic medical record, but they should have been. The CMDSC stated that after review of the paperwork they did not find lab results for the orders on 4/25/22 and 4/28/22, and the tests were not obtained. 2. Resident 30 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included cerebral infarction, abscess of perineum, muscular dystrophy, hypertension, type 2 diabetes mellitus, anxiety disorder, gastro-esophageal reflux disease, major depressive disorder, and cellulitis of the buttocks. On 9/28/22, resident 30's medical record was reviewed. Review of resident 30's lab orders revealed the following: a. On 3/4/22, a CBC, CMP, Thyroid Stimulating Hormone (TSH), Free Thyroxine, Hemoglobin A1C, 25-hydroxy Vitamin D, and a Vitamin B 12 were ordered. No documentation could be found of the laboratory reports in resident 30's medical record. b. On 3/25/22, a CBC, CMP, and Magnesium were ordered. No documentation could be found of the laboratory reports in resident 30's medical record. On 9/28/22 at 11:09 AM, an interview was conducted with the CMDSC. The CMDSC stated that she verified with the laboratory and the orders were not obtained. 3. Resident 53 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included surgical aftercare of the digestive system, edema, type 2 diabetes mellitus, morbid obesity, obstructive sleep apnea, anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, insomnia, hypertension, benign prostatic hyperplasia, and chronic kidney disease. On 10/3/22, resident 53's medical record was reviewed On 9/22/22, a Vitamin D and a Parathyroid Hormone were ordered for resident 53. No documentation could be found of the laboratory reports in resident 53's medical record. On 10/3/22 at 1:42 PM, an interview was conducted with the DON. The DON stated she would locate the lab results ordered on 9/22/22. No further information or results were provided. 4. Resident 160 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and discharged on 4/5/22 with diagnoses which included hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and atrial fibrillation. Resident 160's medical record was reviewed on 9/29/22. A form titled Referral to Physicians and Clinics dated 3/23/22, revealed that resident 160 went to a cardiology appointment. The physician ordered to have a complete blood count, comprehensive metabolic panel, Lipids, B-type natriuretic peptide, and TSH to be obtained. In addition, the cardiologist wrote Please give Furosemide and potassium in the AM [morning] so she isn't peeing all night. A basic metabolic panel dated 3/23/22, was located in resident 160's medical record. There were no other laboratory results located. On 9/27/22 at 12:01 PM, an interview was conducted with Registered Nurse (RN) 5. RN 5 stated the laboratory came Monday and Friday to get the samples. RN 5 stated if the sample was sent to the hospital, then the nurse had to call the hospital to check because the hospital did not notify the facility staff of the results. RN 5 stated if a resident continued to complain of symptoms of a urinary tract infection, then nurses made sure a urinalysis was done and then called for results. On 9/27/22 at approximately 1:00 PM, an interview was conducted with the CMDSC. The CMDSC stated she was unable to locate laboratory results for resident 160.
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 observations, interview, and record review it was determined, the facility did not provide food prepared by methods that conserve nutritive value, flavor, and appearance; food and drink that ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, interview, and record review it was determined, the facility did not provide food prepared by methods that conserve nutritive value, flavor, and appearance; food and drink that was palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature. Specifically, for 9 out of 34 sampled residents, multiple residents complained about the palatability and temperature of the food, and a sample test tray revealed that the food was not palatable. Resident identifiers: 7, 16, 20, 23, 29, 38, 45, 48, and 53. Findings Included: 1. On 9/26/22 at 11:00 AM, an interview was conducted with resident 48. Resident 48 stated that the food was getting better. Resident 48 stated that there was an alternative menu which she ordered from. Resident 48 stated she ordered a hamburger and received a bun, lettuce, cucumber, and no hamburger patty. 2. On 9/26/22 at 11:00 AM, an interview was conducted with resident 38. Resident 38 stated the food was getting better than it used to be but on the weekends the food was not good. Resident 38 stated that this last weekend the cook added white pepper to macaroni and cheese. Resident 38 stated it was too spicy and she was unable to eat it. 3. On 9/26/22 at 11:19 AM, an interview was conducted with resident 45. Resident 45 stated the food did not arrive warm. Resident 45 stated the eggs were cold and staff had to warm them up. Resident 45 stated it was not worth the time to call for assistance with the food. 4. On 9/26/22 at 11:20 AM, an interview was conducted with resident 16. Resident 16 stated the food was better but still was not good on the weekends. Resident 16 stated on Saturday night he ordered french fries and a hamburger. Resident 16 stated the kitchen sent him lasagna and a wilted salad. Resident 16 stated he asked for what he ordered, and the kitchen staff brought him a piece of sausage, bun, and lettuce. 5. On 9/26/22 at 12:30 PM, an interview was conducted with resident 23. Resident 23 stated the food needed some help. Resident 23 stated that the new cook was trying. Resident 23 stated she was tired of getting the same food every day because there was no variety. Resident 23 stated there were substitutions, but it was hard to get them after dinner was served. Resident 23 stated that sometimes there was a soup or sandwich available. 6. On 9/26/22 at 12:35 PM, an interview was conducted with resident 29. Resident 29 stated the food tasted awful. 7. On 9/26/22 at 2:48 PM, an interview was conducted with resident 53. Resident 53 stated he needed a diabetic diet and was told he had a diabetic diet but then his hemoglobin A1c was really high. Resident 53 stated he would like better options for high protein and low carbohydrate foods. Resident 53's lunch meal was observed on his over bed table. Resident 53 had shredded chicken and gravy with no other foods. Resident 53 stated the vegetables were kind of yucky. Resident 53 stated he wished the kitchen staff served seasonal vegetables. Resident 53 stated that some of the way the vegetables were prepared were really bad so he did not usually eat them. 8. On 9/26/22 at 3:05 PM, an interview was conducted with resident 7. Resident 7 stated the food was not good. 9. A progress note dated 8/25/22 at 1:45 PM, located in resident 20's electronic medical record documented, [Resident] is seen today after he walked over to the hospital to get some lunch. He states that he does not enjoy the food at the facility, so he walked to the hospital to get some better food. On 8/29/22 at 9:55 AM, the Nurse practitioner documented, He had another episode of hypoglycemia,. Diet is very irregular, he states the food is not good so he will not eat often. On 7/14/22, resident 20's Interdisciplinary Team care plan meeting documented, food is cold and not good. 10 On 9/27/22, the Resident Council Minutes were reviewed. The Resident Council Minutes dated 9/12/22, documented, meals are still being served cold. Rolls are soggy. Meal cards are not being filled out properly. 11. On 9/27/22 at 12:13 PM, a lunch test tray was obtained. The items served for lunch were garlic marinated pork chops, orzo with lemon and herbs, basil zucchini sauté, and a roll. The pork chop texture was chewy with a bland flavor. The orzo with lemon and herbs was bland, mushy, overcooked, and did not have any lemon or herb flavor. The zucchini sauté was overcooked, mushy, and very bland with no seasoning. The temperature of the food on the test tray was adequate.
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, the facility did not store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. Specifically, ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interview, it was determined, the facility did not store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. Specifically, food items were not labeled and dated, trash was found on the floor, food splatter on the cooking equipment, and food items were left open to the air. Findings included: 1. On 9/26/22 at 10:10 AM, an initial tour of the kitchen was conducted. The following observations were made: a. A fry sauce cup and four butter packets were on the floor in the walk-in refrigerator. b. Whipped topping with no date was in the refrigerator and the label stated unopened thawed shelf life: 2 weeks. c. A white substance was on the wall by the door of the refrigerator. d. Styrofoam cups and caps to the soda machine were on the floor around the soda machine. e. Food splatter was on the front of the steamer. f. The griddle and the drawers under the griddle had food splatter. g. A cup was on the floor between the steamer and the griddle. h. The front of the stove/oven had flood splatter. i. There was dust and debris on the vents above the stove, oven, griddle, and steamer. j. Seasoned salt on top of the stove was open to air. k. There was trash outside the door that was not covered. l. The refrigerator/deli table had food splatter on it. m. A bowl of mac and cheese found in the refrigerator was dated 9/12. n. A supplement found in the refrigerator was not dated and had instructions to use within 14 days after thawing. o. Honey ham found in the refrigerator was open to air. p. Turkey breast in the refrigerator was open to air and not dated. q. Oven roasted turkey in the refrigerator was open to air and not dated. r. The microwave was soiled with black and brown substance on the outside. s. Ground oregano, dill weed, basil leaves, poultry seasoning, ground nutmeg, and paprika seasonings were all open to air. t. A refrigerator at the nurses station had 23 supplements with no date and had instructions to use within 14 days after thawing. 2. On 9/27/22 at 11:35 AM, a second tour of the kitchen was conducted. The following observations were made. a. A dessert cake in the walk-in refrigerator was not dated or labeled. b. Individual butter cups and onion skin was on the floor in the walk-in refrigerator. c. The walk-in freezer floor was dirty and had spilled liquid frozen to the floor. d. Styrofoam cups and caps to the soda machine were on the floor around the soda machine. e. The griddle and the drawers under the griddle had food splatter. f. Food splatter was on the front of the steamer. g. Food splatter was on the wall behind the food preparation area. h. There was dust and debris on the vents above the stove, oven, griddle, and steamer. On 9/27/22 at 12:50 PM, and interview with the Dietary Manager (DM) was conducted. The DM acknowledged the observations made in the kitchen as stated above. The DM stated that the vents above the stove, oven, griddle, and steamer were scheduled to be cleaned by the end of September 2022.
CONCERN (E)

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

QAPI Program (Tag F0867)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on interview and record review, it was determined, the facility did not ensure that the Quality Assessment and Assurance (QAA) committee developed and implemented appropriate plans of action to ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, it was determined, the facility did not ensure that the Quality Assessment and Assurance (QAA) committee developed and implemented appropriate plans of action to correct identified quality deficiencies. Specifically, the facility was found to be in non-compliance with F584, F655, F656 and F880 which were cited within the facility's 2019 and 2021 recertification survey. The facility was also found to be in non-compliance with F755, F757, F759, and F812 which were cited within the facility's 2018, 2019, and 2021 recertification survey. In addition, the facility was found to be in non-compliance and cited at a harm level with F690, F697, F725, and F745. Findings included: An annual recertification survey was completed on 2/27/18. The following deficiencies included, but not limited to, F755, F757, F759, and F812. An annual recertification survey was completed on 4/4/19. The following deficiencies included, but not limited to, F584, F655, F656, F755, F757, F759, F812, and F880. An annual recertification survey was completed on 7/21/21. The following deficiencies included, but not limited to, F584, F655, F656, and F880. 1. Based on observation and interview, the facility did not provide housekeeping and maintenance services necessary to maintain a sanitary, orderly, and comfortable interior. Specifically, the carpets in the facility had multiple stains and the couches were worn and had holes in the cushions. [Cross Reference F584] 2. Based on observation, interview, and record review it was determined, for 8 out of 34 sampled residents, that the facility did not develop and implement a baseline care plan for each resident that included instructions needed to provide effective and person-centered care to meet professional standards of quality care. Specifically, residents did not have a baseline care plan developed within 48 hours of admission, and the baseline care plan did not include the minimum healthcare information necessary to properly care for the residents. Resident identifiers: 8, 20, 23, 29, 44, 45, 49, and 155. [Cross Reference F655] 3. Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined, the facility did not develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident. Specifically, for 7 out of 34 sampled resident, residents that had care areas trigger on the Minimum Data Set Care Area Assessment Summary did not have care plans developed and implemented in a timely manner. In addition, residents with identified concerns did not have care plans developed and implemented in a timely manner. Resident identifiers: 8, 20, 23, 29, 45, 49, and 53. [Cross Reference F656] 4. Based on interview and record review it was determined, for 2 out of 34 sampled residents, the facility did not ensure residents who were incontinent of bladder received appropriate treatment and services to prevent urinary tract infections and to restore continence to the extent possible. Specifically, a resident had a urinalysis test completed with no follow up and the resident went to hospital for treatment. In addition, a resident with signs and symptoms of a urinary tract infection went to the hospital for treatment. Resident identifiers: 29 and 44. [Cross Reference F690] 5. Based on observation, interview, and record review it was determined, for 3 out of 34 sampled residents, that the facility did not ensure that pain management was provided to residents who required such services, consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person centered care plan, and the resident's goals and preferences. Specifically, residents complained of uncontrolled pain with no interventions or physician follow up. In addition, a resident went to the hospital in pain after pain medications were adjusted. Resident identifiers: 25, 29, and 45. [Cross Reference F697] 6. Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined, the facility did not have sufficient nursing staff with the appropriate competencies and skills sets to provide nursing and related services to assure resident safety and attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident. Specifically, for 13 out of 34 sampled residents, resident's complained of not having enough staff to meet there needs, staff complained there were not enough staff to complete their job duties, residents laboratory (lab) results were not followed up with after a urinalysis was completed, showers were not completed, residents administered their own medications because there were not enough staff, there were no grievances, residents sustained falls, resident's complained of pain, and medications were not administered according to physician's orders. Resident identifiers: 1, 7, 8, 16, 22, 23, 25, 29, 36, 38, 45, 53, and 156. [Cross Reference F725] 7. Based on interview and record review it was determined, for 1 out of 34 sampled residents, that the facility did not provide medically-related social services to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. Specifically, a resident had expressed desires to die by refusal of treatment for diabetes and was not evaluated and seen by social services. Resident identifier: 20. [Cross Reference F745] 8. Based on interview and record review, it was determined, that the facility did not provide routine and emergency drugs and biologicals to its residents. Specifically, for 7 out of 34 sampled residents, resident medications were not administered as ordered by the physician due to the medications not being available by the pharmacy. Resident identifiers: 22, 23, 29, 30, 49, 53, and 160. [Cross Reference F755] 9. Based on interview and record review, it was determined, the facility did not ensure that each resident's drug regimen was free from unnecessary drugs. An unnecessary drug is any drug when used in excessive dose; or for excessive duration; or without adequate monitoring; or without adequate indications for its use; or in the presence of adverse consequences which indicate the dose should be reduced or discontinued; or any combinations of the reasons above. Specifically, for 4 out of 34 sampled residents, a resident's beta blocker medication to treat high blood pressure was not monitored according to the physician ordered parameters. A resident's alpha-adrenergic agonists medication to treat low blood pressure was held without physician's orders. In addition, resident medications were not administered per physician's orders due to nursing staff not completing the task. Resident identifiers: 22, 30, 36, and 49. [Cross Reference F757] 10. Based on observation, interview, and record review it was determined that the facility did not ensure that the medication error rates was not 5 percent or greater. Observations were made of 28 medication opportunities, on 9/28/22, revealed two medication errors which resulted in a 7.14 percent medication error rate. Specifically, an enteric coated Aspirin was administered instead of a chewable and Omeprazole was substituted for Pantoprazole. Resident identifier: 53. [Cross Reference F759] 11. Based on observation and interview, it was determined, the facility did not store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. Specifically, food items were not labeled and dated, trash was found on the floor, food splatter on the cooking equipment, and food items were left open to the air. [Cross Reference F812] 12. Based on observation and interview, it was determined, the facility did not maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections. Specifically, observations were made during a meal service and assisted dining without hand hygiene being performed. Additionally, observations were made of bare handed contact during medication dispensing and administration. Resident identifiers: 3, 6, 12, 23, and 53. [Cross Reference F880] On 10/3/22 at 11:32 AM, an interview was conducted with the Administrator. The Administrator stated they facility held a QAA meeting monthly, and the Administrator ensured the Medical Director (MD) was there at least quarterly, but the Administrator would try to get the MD to attend as much as he could. The Administrator stated that pretty much all the department head teams would attend. The Administrator stated that he would have each department bring issues to the QAA meeting and the team would run a root cause analysis for each of the problems, then come up with a plan to solve the issue at the root of the problem. The Administrator stated the team would do a root cause analysis for each department. The Administrator stated that the team would also pull quality measures. The Administrator stated the nursing department was based on quality measures, so that would cover falls, infections, and wounds.
CONCERN (E)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview, it was determined, the facility did not maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections. Specifically, observations were made during a meal service and assisted dining without hand hygiene being performed. Additionally, observations were made of bare handed contact during medication dispensing and administration. Resident identifiers: 3, 6, 12, 23, and 53. Findings included: 1. On 9/26/22, the following observations were made during the lunch meal service by Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) 2: a. At 12:01 PM, CNA 2 delivered the meal tray to resident 6. CNA 2 did not perform hand hygiene prior to or after delivery of the food tray. b. At 12:01 PM, CNA 2 delivered resident 3's tray to the dining room table. Resident 3 was not seated at the table. CNA 2 placed a straw in the cup of milk touching the tip of the straw with bare hands, and then uncovered the plate of food. The dessert was observed uncovered. CNA 2 did not perform hand hygiene. c. At 12:03 PM, CNA 2 delivered the meal tray to room [ROOM NUMBER]-2. CNA 2 was observed to move a grabber tool and water mug on the bedside table. CNA 2 then placed the meal tray on the bedside table, removed the meal ticket from the tray, and placed it at the nurse's station. CNA 2 did not perform hand hygiene upon exit of the room. d. At approximately 12:05 PM, CNA 2 was observed to walk to the kitchen. CNA 2 was observed to open a door leading to the kitchen hallway. CNA 2 then entered the kitchen, walked past the food prep/service area and entered the fridge to obtain a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. CNA 2 was not wearing a hair net when entering the kitchen. e. At 12:07 PM, CNA 2 delivered the meal tray to room [ROOM NUMBER]. CNA 2 was observed to move and adjust the height of the bedside table. CNA 2 did not perform hand hygiene upon exit of the room. f. At 12:09 PM, CNA 2 delivered resident 23's meal tray to the dining room table. CNA 2 placed a straw in the cup of milk touching the tip of the straw with bare hands. The dessert was observed uncovered. CNA 2 did not perform hand hygiene. g. At 12:10 PM, CNA 2 provided dining assistance to resident 12. CNA 2 was observed to provide resident 12 with a bite of potatoes. CNA 2 did not perform hand hygiene. It should be noted that during the entire meal tray delivery and dining assistance CNA 2 did not perform hand hygiene. On 9/27/22 at 12:05 PM, an observation of the lunch service was observed. The food cart which contained resident food trays was placed at the nurse's station between the 100 and 200 halls. Staff members were observed carrying the lunch trays from the nurse's station through the hallway to the resident rooms. The main course and the drinks were observed to be covered. The brownie dessert on the resident food trays were not covered. On 10/3/22 at 3:53 PM, an interview was conducted with CNA 8. CNA 8 stated that hand hygiene should be performed after all meal trays were passed. CNA 8 stated that hand hygiene should also be performed between tray delivery if items were touched in the environment. CNA 8 stated that all food items coming off the meal cart should be covered. CNA 8 stated that they were allowed inside the kitchen but if they passed the yellow line they needed to put on a hair net. 2. On 9/28/22 at 7:38 AM, observations were made of Registered Nurse (RN) 3 during morning medication administration for resident 53. RN 3 was observed to dispense two tablets of Omeprazole into their bare hand and then placed inside a cup with their fingers. At 8:11 AM, an interview was conducted with RN 3. RN 3 stated that she tried not to bare handed touch the medication, but she did occasionally have to touch pills. On 9/29/22 at 11:03 AM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated that medications should not be touched with bare hands by staff.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0887 (Tag F0887)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, it was determined, the facility did not ensure the resident's medical record included docu...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, it was determined, the facility did not ensure the resident's medical record included documentation that indicates, at a minimum, the following: that the resident or resident representative was provided education regarding the benefits and potential risks associated with Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19) vaccine; each dose of COVID-19 vaccine administered to the resident; or if the resident did not receive the COVID-19 vaccine due to medical contraindications or refusal. Specifically, for 4 out of 34 sampled residents, the facility did not provide the resident or resident representative with education of the benefits and potential risks associated with the COVID-19 vaccination. In addition, the resident's medical record did not include documentation regarding the residents' COVID-19 vaccination refusal or acceptance. Resident identifiers: 10, 13, 45, and 49. Findings included: 1. Resident 13 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included, but not limited to, hemiplegia affecting right dominant side, essential hypertension, and type 2 diabetes mellitus. Resident 13's medical record was reviewed on 10/3/22. A review of the Immunization section of the medical record revealed no documentation regarding resident 13's COVID-19 immunization status. No documentation was located indicating that resident 13 or the resident representative was provided education regarding the benefits and potential risks associated with the COVID-19 vaccination. 2. Resident 45 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included, but not limited to, major depressive disorder, adult failure to thrive, unspecified abdominal pain, anemia, opioid dependence, and anxiety disorder. Resident 45's medical record was reviewed on 10/3/22. A review of the Immunization section of the medical record revealed no documentation regarding resident 45's COVID-19 immunization status. No documentation was located indicating that resident 45 or the resident representative was provided education regarding the benefits and potential risks associated with the COVID-19 vaccination. 3. Resident 10 was admitted to the facility 6/8/22 with diagnoses which include, but not limited to, cerebral infarction, gastrointestinal hemorrhage, delirium die to known physiological condition, essential hypertension, and chronic diastolic congestive heart failure. Resident 10's medical record was reviewed on 10/3/22. A review of the Immunization section of the medical record revealed no documentation regarding resident 10's COVID-19 immunization status. No documentation was located indicating that resident 10 or the resident representative was provided education regarding the benefits and potential risks associated with the COVID-19 vaccination. 4. Resident 49 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included, but not limited to, hemorrhage of anus and rectum, dementia, history of falling, type 2 diabetes mellitus with hyperglycemia, displaced fracture of second cervical vertebra, major depressive disorder, systolic congestive heart failure, secondary hypertension, and edema. Resident 49's medical record was reviewed on 9/27/22. A review of the Immunization section of the medical record revealed no documentation regarding resident 49's COVID-19 immunization status. No documentation was located indicating that resident 49 or the resident representative was provided education regarding the benefits and potential risks associated with the COVID-19 vaccination. On 10/3/22 at 1:54 PM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated the staff should be completing the immunization consents on admission. The DON stated the vaccine should be administered at the time the consent was signed.
Jul 2021 33 deficiencies 1 IJ (1 facility-wide)
CRITICAL (L)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Someone could have died · This affected most or all residents

⚠️ Facility-wide issue

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 28. On 7/16/21 at 1:17 PM, resident 186, who was on isolation, walked outside of her room to place an old, dirty lunch tray on t...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 28. On 7/16/21 at 1:17 PM, resident 186, who was on isolation, walked outside of her room to place an old, dirty lunch tray on the plastic folding table near her front door. [Note: This plastic folding table was present outside of resident 186's room was used to assist staff with donning and doffing PPE.] On 7/16/21 at 1:45 PM, CNA 7 gathered the used meal tray from the plastic folding table outside of 186's room. CNA 7 walked down the 100 hall with the uncovered, used food tray and placed the used tray on a table in dining area. On 7/16/21 at 1:46 PM, CNA 7 collected three, used meal trays from 185's room, who was also on isolation precautions. CNA 7 placed all 4 used trays on one table in dining area. At this time the used meal trays from isolation rooms were not covered and included used plates with lids, Styrofoam cups, napkins, utensils, and an empty yogurt containers. On 7/16/21 at 1:47 PM, CNA 7 rolled an open sided food cart to the dining area near the 100 hall and placed the 4 used trays, from isolation rooms, on the open cart. CNA 7 took the cart from the 100 hall to the kitchen through the door at the end of the hall. CNA 7 brought the cart with used meal trays from the isolation rooms into the kitchen through the door next to the stove. On the stove at that time were three pots currently uncovered and simmering. The cart, containing used, isolation room meal trays, sat in the doorway near stove for 1 minute. Diet Aide 4 then walked the open-sided cart, containing used meal trays from isolation rooms, through the kitchen to the dish room. 29. On 7/18/21 at 8:41 PM, CNA 5 was observed to answer a call light for resident 185, who was on isolation precautions. Resident 185 asked CNA 5 to take his meal tray away. CNA 5 exited the room, and did not clean her face shield after exiting. CNA 5 emerged from the room holding the meal tray with her bare hands. There were several uncovered items on the tray, including a bowl and cup. CNA 5 walked directly to the back hallway, opened the door, and then used her bare hands to put the items in various containers outside of the kitchen door. CNA 5 then walked out of the back hallway, and out to the nurses station without sanitizing her hands. At no time during the observation, did CNA 5 perform hand hygiene. 30. On 7/18/21 from 8:15 PM to 9:56 PM, there was a face shield placed on a treatment cart in the 100/200 nurses station. The face shield appeared to be soiled, and was not labeled. 31. On 7/18/21 from 9:54 PM to 9:56 PM, CNA 5 was observed to be walking throughout the 100 hall with her surgical mask below her nose. 32. Resident 85 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included atrial fibrillation, malignant neoplasm of the colon, chronic kidney disease, diabetes mellitus, heart failure, rhabdomyolysis, and weakness. Resident 85's medical record was reviewed on 7/19/21. Resident 85's progress notes indicated that resident 85 was unvaccinated and taken off of isolation precautions after 7 days. 33. Resident 86 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included cerebral palsy, cellulitis of lower left and right lower limb, severe protein calorie malnutrition, lymphedema, anemia, electrolyte and fluid disorder, lack of coordination, and weakness. Resident 86's medical record was reviewed on 7/12/21. A progress note for resident 86 dated 6/10/21 indicated that resident 86 was taken off of isolation precautions, even though he was admitted on [DATE] and was unvaccinated. 34. On 7/14/21 at 10:45 AM, an interview was conducted with the Infection Preventionist (IP). The IP stated that he had started working as the IP at the facility the previous week. The IP stated that if a resident had not been vaccinated, they were put on isolation for up to 7 days to see if they have symptomsof COVID-19. The IP stated that after 7 days, if a resident tested negative for COVID-19, the resident could go off of isolation. The IP stated that they would not test residents during the 7 days for COVID-19 unless they showed symptoms of COVID-19. The IP stated that if a resident had a CPAP machine in use, then staff members needed to don full PPE (gowns, gloves, face shields, and N95 masks before entering the resident's room. The IP stated that as soon as the CPAP was turned off, staff could enter the resident's room without PPE. The IP stated that if a resident was using a nebulizer on a scheduled basis, then staff would need to don full PPE. The IP stated that if a resident was using a nebulizer on an as needed basis, then PPE was not required, nor were signs placed on the resident's door. The IP stated that if a resident was on isolation precautions for possible COVID-19, then all staff should be donning full PPE, even if they were just delivering trays for dietary. The IP stated that after a staff member came out of an isolation room, they should doff gowns and gloves inside the resident room, and then wash and sanitize their hands. The IP stated that staff should not use the same face shields in the isolation room as on the hall without cleaning them first. The IP stated that after leaving a room on isolation precautions, masks should be thrown away, and face shields should be cleaned with alcohol wipes or the red-lidded disinfectant wipes. The IP stated that he was responsible for stocking the items in the isolation cart, such as gowns, gloves, disinfectant wipes, etc. The IP stated that after staff had cleaned the face shields, and/or needed to throw their masks away, they were throwing those things away in the garbage by the nurses station. The IP stated that anyone who entered the facility needed to complete the screening process of answering questions, taking their temperature, etc. 35. On 7/14/21 at 11:50 AM, an interview was conducted with the facility Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated that she had started working at the facility in January of 2021, but was not certified as an IP. The DON stated that the previous IP had been terminated in February and the facility did not have an IP between February and July 2021. The DON stated that when someone was admitted to the facility who was not vaccinated, the resident was placed on isolation and was tested for COVID-19 on days 1, 5, and 7 after their admission. The DON stated that if residents had a negative test on day 7, they were taken off of isolation precautions. The DON was informed of the CDC guidance to place residents on isolation for 14 days. The DON stated she was unaware of that recommendation. The DON stated that if a resident had a CPAP machine in use, then staff members needed to don full PPE (gowns, gloves, face shields, and N95 masks before entering the resident's room. The DON stated that as soon as the CPAP was turned off, staff could enter the resident's room without PPE. The DON stated that staff were not supposed to share face shields, or gowns. The DON stated that full PPE should be donned prior to entering an isolation room. The DON stated that there should be a garbage can next to the isolation carts. The DON stated that staff should be sanitizing their hands after leaving an isolation room. The DON stated that all staff and visitors should complete the screening process upon entrance to the facility. The facility's COVID-19 Policy and Procedure was reviewed, and indicated the following . Screening staff . All staff will be screened at the beginning of their shift for fever and signs and symptoms of illness . . Infection Control .The facility will comply with any new or updated restrictions as provided by the CDC or the Utah health department . . All residents admitted shall be in isolation monitoring for 14 days, which can include their hospitalization days, to assure they are not positive for Covid-19 and have no signs and symptoms before they are allowed to interact with other residents . . For the duration of the state of emergency in Utah, all long-term care facility personnel shall wear a facemask while they are in the facility . . Full PPE shall be worn, per CDC guidelines, for the care of any resident with known or suspected Covid-19; and per CDC guidance for the conservation of PPE . .Cleaning and Disinfecting . Practice proper hand hygiene often . . Dedicated trash bins should be used for Covid-19 positive or suspected cases . . Disposable dishes and utensils shall be used whenever possible and discarded in biohazard bin in residents room after use .For potentially contaminated meal trays and associated dishware: Nursing staff to deliver potentially contaminated meal trays and associated dishware, wrapped and fully contained in a plastic bag . .PPE Status Requirements .Covid-19 suspected PPE requirements: N-95 masks, Goggles or face shields, Gowns and gloves on staff when performing personal cares . .Isolation . Use dedicated equipment for resident in isolation . 3. On 7/12/21 at 11:55 AM, an observation was made of Dietary Aide (DA) 1 delivering lunch trays on the 100 hallway, which was the hallway designated for residents in isolation. DA 1 did not put on a gown or gloves to enter multiple resident rooms on the isolation hall. DA 1 was wearing a face mask and eye protection. DA 1 did not clean her eye protection upon exiting the resident rooms. An interview was immediately conducted with DA 1. DA 1 stated staff were only required to wear gowns and gloves when they anticipated coming in contact with residents. Per review of the CDC guidance at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/using-ppe.html, appropriate PPE donning steps for staff were to: identify and gather the proper PPE to don, perform hand hygiene using hand sanitizer, put on isolation gown, put on NIOSH-approved N95 filtering face respirator or higher, put on face shield or goggles, and put on gloves. The guidance also stated that appropriate doffing steps for staff were to: remove gloves, remove gown, exit patient room, perform hand hygiene, remove face shield or goggles, remove mask, and perform hand hygiene after removing the mask and before putting it on again if the workplace was practicing reuse. 4. On 7/13/21 at approximately 12:00 PM, an observation was made on the 100 hallway outside of room [ROOM NUMBER]. A disposable gown was observed draped over the Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) cart and on top of a box of clean gloves. There was a glove on the floor next to the PPE cart. No disinfectant or alcohol based hand rub (ABHR) was observed to be on the PPE cart. There were 2 face shields tucked in the hand railing behind the PPE cart. There were no additional disposable gowns in the PPE cart, and no extra face masks. Another PPE cart in the same hallway had extra PPE in the cart. On 7/13/21 at approximately 12:15 PM an interview was conducted with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 6. CNA 6 stated the gown on the cart was for donning before entering the resident's room. CNA 6 stated the gown outside the resident room was used by any staff that went into the resident's room. CNA 6 stated the visors were shared by staff. CNA 6 stated staff were not required to change their mask when going into the resident room. CNA 6 stated resident meal trays were delivered by kitchen staff and CNAs. CNA 6 stated whoever does the 100 hallway has to put on the gown. CNA 6 stated after delivering the meal trays the staff member would have to reach inside the resident's room for hand sanitizer. CNA 6 stated one disposable gown was used for the whole shift. CNA 6 stated clean gowns were kept in the storage room and either the CNAs or the nurses stocked the PPE carts. CNA 6 stated extra masks were kept in the medication room or the stock room. CNA 6 stated she cleaned her goggles with wipes after leaving an isolation room. CNA 6 stated she had worked at the facility for 3 months and was trained by another CNA. CNA 6 stated the Infection Preventionist did a little bit of the training on the floor. CNA also stated she received some training from the Director of Nursing (DON). CNA 6 stated she would go ask a nurse if she didn't know what to do. On 7/13/21 at 1:08 PM, an observation was made of CNA 6 donning the gown outside of room [ROOM NUMBER] that was draped over the PPE cart. CNA 6 entered the resident's room to answer the call light. Soon after she exited the resident's room. CNA 6 doffed the disposable gown and placed it back over the clean gloves on the PPE cart. CNA 6 did not change her mask, and was not observed sanitizing her hands after doffing the used gown. Review of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidance on Interim Infection Prevention and Control Recommendations to Prevent SARS-CoV-2 Spread in Nursing Homes documented under Personal Protective Equipment that Facilities should have policies and procedures addressing: Which PPE is required in which situations (e.g., residents with suspected or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, residents placed in quarantine) and Recommended sequence for safely donning and doffing PPE. Additionally, Any reusable PPE must be properly cleaned, decontaminated, and maintained after and between uses. The guidance further recommended under Implement Universal Use of Personal Protective Equipment that HCP (Health Care Personnel) working in areas with minimal to no community transmission should continue to adhere to Standard and Transmission-Based Precautions based on anticipated exposures and suspected or confirmed diagnoses. This might include use of eye protection, an N95 or equivalent or higher-level respirator, as well as other PPE. The guidance also recommended under New Admissions and Residents who Leave the Facility documented, In general, all other new admissions and readmissions should be placed in a 14-day quarantine, even if they have a negative test upon admission. The guidance was last updated on March 29, 2021. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/long-term-care.html#ppe Review of the CDC guidance on Strategies for Optimizing the Supply of Isolation Gowns, documented under Crisis Capacity Strategies that The risks to HCP and patient safety must be carefully considered before implementing a gown reuse strategy. Disposable gowns generally should NOT be re-used, and reusable gowns should NOT be reused before laundering, because reuse poses risks for possible transmission among HCP and patients that likely outweigh any potential benefits. Similar to extended gown use, gown reuse has the potential to facilitate transmission of organisms (e.g., C. auris) among patients. However, unlike extended use, repeatedly donning and doffing a contaminated gown may increase risk for HCP self-contamination. If reuse is considered, gowns should be dedicated to care of individual patients. Any gown that becomes visibly soiled during patient care should be disposed of or, if reusable, laundered. The guidance further stated, Once gown availability returns to normal, healthcare facilities should promptly resume conventional practices. The guidance was last updated on January 21, 2021. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/ppe-strategy/isolation-gowns.html# Review of the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidance on Personal Protective Equipment documented on questions about PPE, In general, most PPE cleared by the FDA is intended to be used only one time and by one person. Sharing PPE is not advised. The protective capabilities of single use PPE cannot be assured when it is reused by the same person or used by more than one person. Sharing PPE that is intended for single use may expose another person to infectious materials. PPE should be removed promptly after use and disposed of properly. The content was current as of March 11, 2020. https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/personal-protective-equipment-infection-control/questions-about-personal-protective-equipment-ppe 5. On 7/13/21 at 1:18 PM, therapy staff were observed to be in room [ROOM NUMBER]. The therapist was heard asking the resident if he wanted to get dressed, brush his teeth and comb his hair. The therapy staff member said he would get the resident a comb, a razor and a tooth brush. The therapy staff member doffed the gown he was wearing and put it on top of the used disposable gown on the PPE cart. When the staff member returned with the care items, he re-donned the disposable gown and re-entered the resident's room. The therapy staff was wearing a surgical mask and eye protection. Soon after, the same therapy staff member was observed exiting the resident's room again, this time without doffing his gown, and walked down the hall to the storage closet to get the resident some towels. The therapy staff member then re-entered the resident's room and closed the door. 6. On 7/13/21 at approximately 1:25 PM, an observation was made outside of another resident's room on the 100 hallway. There was a used disposable gown laying across the PPE cart outside of room [ROOM NUMBER], and on top of the clean gloves. 7. On 7/13/21 at 3:00 PM, an observation was made of CNA 5 going into room [ROOM NUMBER]. CNA 5 got a clean disposable gown out of the PPE cart. CNA 5 put on clean gloves and then donned the gown up to her elbows and entered the resident's room. The gown was observed not to be donned appropriately, as it only covered the staff member's elbows and part of her lower torso. The gown was not covering the upper rib and chest area of the CNA. 8. On 7/14/21 at 7:30 AM, an observation was made of Registered Nurse (RN) 3 entering the building. RN 3 walked past the front desk in the lobby area where screening was done, without screening in. An interview was conducted with RN 3 at the nursing station on the 300/400 hallway. RN 3 stated she usually waited a few minutes before taking her temperature so it normalized. RN 3 stated staff took their temperatures 3 times per day. RN 3 stated staff do one to two COVID tests weekly depending on the county infection rate. RN 3 stated all staff were supposed to screen at the front desk upon arriving to work. RN 3 stated everyone coming into the building fills out the screening sheet, every day. RN 3 stated if staff left the building for any reason, they were required to re-screen before going to their work stations. RN 3 stated she had been at the facility for 1 year and 9 months. RN 3 stated the screening protocol had changed so much depending on the state requirements. RN 3 stated currently surgical masks and eye protection were required for all staff. RN 3 stated full PPE is required on the 100 hallway. Review of the CDC's guidance on Interim Infection Prevention and Control Recommendations for Healthcare Personnel During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic documented under Screen and Triage Everyone Entering a Healthcare Facility for Signs and Symptoms of COVID-19 stated .symptom screening remains an important strategy to identify those who could have COVID-19 so appropriate precautions can be implemented. The guidance further stated to Establish a process to ensure everyone (patients, healthcare personnel, and visitors) entering the facility is assessed for symptoms of COVID-19 and Properly manage anyone with suspected or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection or who has had contact with someone suspected or confirmed with SARS-CoV-2 infection: Healthcare personnel (HCP) should be excluded from work The guidance was last updated on February 10, 2021. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/infection-control-recommendations.html 9. On 7/14/21 at 2:37 PM an observation was made of a used disposable gown laying on a chair outside of room [ROOM NUMBER]. A disposable gown was also hanging inside the doorway at room [ROOM NUMBER], where there were no residents residing. Observations were made of the three PPE carts in the 100 hallway. The cart outside of room [ROOM NUMBER] had masks, gowns, and gloves. There was no hand sanitizer and no disinfectant wipes. There was no garbage receptacle near the cart in which staff could dispose of their used PPE or used disinfectant wipes. A pair of goggles was observed on the floor next to the PPE cart. The cart outside of room [ROOM NUMBER] had no gowns and masks. There was a box of clean gloves sitting on top. No ABHR or disinfectant wipes were observed. The PPE cart outside of room [ROOM NUMBER] had no masks and no gowns. Clean gloves were observed to be on top of the cart, and visors were tucked into the hand railing behind the cart. No garbage receptacle was observed for used PPE. 10. On 7/14/21 at 2:44 PM, an interview with CNA 5 was conducted about donning PPE. CNA 5 stated she first put on gloves, then a gown and stated she already had on a mask and eye protection. When asked if she needed additional eye protection or face shield she stated I already have eye protection on (pointing to her glasses). CNA 5 stated she had hand sanitizer in her pocket and she would put the used gown in the red bin in the resident's bathroom before exiting the room. An observation was then made of CNA 5 donning PPE to enter a resident room. CNA 5 put a gown on, then put gloves on and entered the resident room. Upon exiting the resident's room, she had already taken off her gown and gloves. CNA 5 was not observed sanitizing her hands. CNA 5 left the gown that was lying across the PPE cart where it was and did not throw it away. Review of the CDC guidance regarding eye protection indicated that Workers should understand that regular prescription eyeglasses and contact lenses are not considered eye protection https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/eye/eye-infectious.html Review of the current county positivity rates at https://data.cms.gov/covid-19/covid-19-nursing-home-data, the county positivity rate for the week of 7/6/21 was 9.3 percent in Utah county. Per https://coronavirus.utah.gov/recommendations-for-providers/, in communities with moderate to high transmission, universal eye protection and additional precautions are advised. 11. On 7/14/21 at 2:52 PM, an observation was made of the facility Infection Preventionist (IP) exiting room [ROOM NUMBER] with a container of vitals equipment. When exiting the resident room the IP put his visor on the hand railing with the other visors outside the resident's room, without cleaning it. The IP then walked over the nurse's station, removed his mask, put the vitals container on the counter and went to the sink to wash his hands. The IP was not observed to clean the vitals equipment that had just been used in room [ROOM NUMBER]. It should also be noted that the PPE cart outside of the resident's room had no cleaning supplies on it, nor did it have ABHR on the cart. 12. On 7/14/21 at 3:08 PM, an observation was made of CNA 5 walking through the 200 hallway to the nurse's desk with her mask below her chin. Review of the CDC guidance on Interim Infection Prevention and Control Recommendations for Healthcare Personnel During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic under Implement Universal Source Control Measures stated that Source control refers to use of well-fitting cloth masks, facemasks, or respirators to cover a person's mouth and nose Patients and visitors should wear their own well-fitting form of source control upon arrival to and throughout their stay in the facility. The guidance was last updated on February 23, 2021. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/infection-control-recommendations.html?CDC_AA_refVal=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cdc.gov%2Fcoronavirus%2F2019-ncov%2Finfection-control%2Fcontrol-recommendations.html 13. On 7/14/21 at 3:14 PM, an observation was made of RN 2 with her eye protection on top of her head. 14. On 7/14/21 at 3:16 PM, an interview was conducted with RN 2. RN 2 stated when she worked on the 100 hallway she used her eye protection, put on a gown and gloves and entered the room. RN 2 stated when she doffed her gown, she would hang it on the door to use again. RN 2 stated she did not put her name on the gown to know which gown was hers. After exiting the resident's room, RN 2 stated she would put her eye protection back on top of her head because of having poor eyesight. RN 2 stated she put her gloves in the garbage in the hallway. She was asked to show what garbage she was referring to, and she walked over to the 100 hallway and there was no garbage. RN 2 stated there was usually a garbage in the 100 hallway. RN 2 stated residents on the 100 hallway were not allowed to leave their rooms during isolation. 15. On 7/14/21 at 3:46 PM, an interview was conducted with CNA 5. CNA 5 stated she had been in an automobile accident and had been out of the facility for some time. CNA 5 stated upon her return to the facility she was not tested prior to starting work again. CNA 5 stated she was not tested because she did not ask to be tested so it's on me, not the facility. I did not ask to be tested when I came back. 16. On 7/15/21 at 7:49 AM, an observation was made of Dietary Aide (DA) 1 serving breakfast in the 200 hallway. She was observed sanitizing her hands upon exiting each room. DA 1 then pushed the food cart to the 100 hallway. Before entering room [ROOM NUMBER], DA 1 put on a gown and gloves. She had a mask and eye protection on. She brought the meal into the resident room. Upon exiting, DA 1 put the disposable gown she was wearing on the chair outside of the room, where 2 other gowns were already lying across the chair. An interview was immediately conducted with DA 1. DA 1 stated the gown she put on the chair with the other gowns was one that she was going to use later. DA 1 was asked if anyone else would use her gown and she stated no, we know which ones are ours. DA 1 did not change her mask or eye protection, nor did she clean her eye protection upon exiting the room. DA 1 then proceeded to room [ROOM NUMBER] to deliver a meal tray. DA 1 put on a new gown and entered the room. Upon exiting room [ROOM NUMBER] she put her used gown over the PPE cart and went to get the resident a banana from the kitchen. When DA 1 returned, she put the used gown on again, donned new gloves and entered the room. When DA 1 exited the room again, she put her used gown over the PPE cart and rearranged the face shields by the door, then left. The PPE cart was observed to have no ABHR or disinfectant wipes. 17, On 7/15/21 at 8:10 AM, an observation was made of the PPE carts on the 100 hallway. The PPE cart next to room [ROOM NUMBER] still did not have any gowns or masks, nor was there any ABHR or disinfectant wipes on the cart. There was no garbage by the door. The PPE cart next to room [ROOM NUMBER] had masks and some gowns, but no ABHR and no disinfectant wipes, and no garbage can. 18. On 7/17/21 at 5:56 AM, an observation was made of RN 6 reporting to her work station. RN 6 was not wearing a mask. 19. On 7/17/21 at 6:05 AM, an observation was made of CNA 8 performing hand hygiene incorrectly. CNA 8 rinsed her hands in the sink without using soap, then she dried her hands and turned the water off. On 7/17/21 at 6:13 AM, another observation was made of CNA 8 performing hand hygiene incorrectly. CNA 8 rinsed her hands off under the water and dried them before turning off the water. 20. On 7/18/21 at 8:35 PM, an observation of RN 2 was made going into a resident room. RN 2 came out soon after and got some gloves off of the wall inside the door and re-entered the room. Upon exiting the room again, RN 2 took off the gloves and tucked them under her arm while she used ABHR. She then took the gloves back into her hands and walked toward the nurse's cart while rolling the used gloves in her hands. When she reached the nurse's cart she threw the gloves into the garbage by the cart. RN 2 then went over to the sink and rinsed her hands under the water, not using soap. RN 2 dried her hands and then turned off the water. At 8:39 PM, RN 2 exited the resident's room again, came into the hallway and donned a gown before going back into the resident's room. 21. On 7/18/21 at 8:40 PM, an observation was made of CNA 9 walking out of the 300 hallway with her mask below her chin. The mask stayed below her chin until she started talking with a resident, at which time she pulled it up over her nose. 22. On 7/18/21 at 8:44 PM, an observation was made of RN 2 coming out of a resident room with the equipment to take vital signs. RN 2 set the equipment down briefly, then picked it up and took it to another resident's room without sanitizing the equipment. Shortly after, she exited the room with gloves on, took the gloves off, went into the medication room and then went back to the resident room. 23. On 7/18/21 at 8:49 PM, an observation was made of CNA 9 improperly washing her hands at the sink. She put soap on her hands, then turned the water on, washed her hands and turned off the water before drying her hands. 24. On 7/18/21 at 8:51 PM, an observation was made of RN 2 exiting a resident room on the 400 hallway with the vitals equipment. RN 2 put the vitals equipment on the dining table and went to the sink to wash her hands. RN 2 then picked up the vitals equipment and took it to the medication room without cleaning it. 25. On 7/18/21 at 9:04 PM, an observation was made of CNA 9 opening the refrigerator in the dining area and took out some sliced meat from a bag with her bare hands. CNA 9 placed the meat on a paper towel and put it in the microwave for a few seconds. CNA 9 then took the meat out and carried it on the paper towel to the resident's room. Upon exiting the resident's room, CNA 9 went to the sink and washed her hands with soap and water. CNA 9 turned off the water and then dried her hands. 26. On 7/18/21 at 9:45 PM, CNA 9 was observed to enter a resident's room that had a sign on the door indicating that PPE should be worn when entering the resident room if the resident was using his Continuous Positive Air Pressure (CPAP) machine. At 9:55 PM when CNA 9 exited the resident's room an interview was conducted. CNA 9 stated she did not know what the sign was for. CNA 9 stated that she read through it. CNA 9 stated that it says to put PPE on, but nobody does. CNA 9 stated that the resident in that room put his CPAP machine on by himself and when the staff did rounds they checked to see if it is on correctly and working. Review of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidance on Interim Infection Prevention and Control Recommendations to Prevent SARS-CoV-2 Spread in Nursing Homes documented under Implement Universal Use of Personal Protective Equipment that .HCP should use PPE as described below: N95 respirator or equivalent or higher-level respirators should be used for All aerosol generating procedures The guidance was last updated on March 29, 2021. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/long-term-care.html#ppe Review of the CDC guidance on Clinical Questions about COVID-19: Questions and Answers, documented under Which procedures are considered aerosol generating procedures in healthcare setting?, stated Some procedures performed on patients are more likely to generate higher concentrations of infectious respiratory aerosols than coughing, sneezing, talking, or breathing. These aerosol generating procedures (AGPs) potentially put healthcare personnel and others at an increased risk for pathogen exposure and infection. The guidance further identified non-invasive ventilation (e.g., BiPAP, CPAP) as AGPs. The guidance was last updated on March 4, 2021. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/faq.html?CDC_AA_refVal=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cdc.gov%2Fcoronavirus%2F2019-ncov%2Fhcp%2Finfection-control-faq.html 27. On 7/21/21 at 7:05 AM, an observation was made of one of the facility's van drivers pulling away from the building with a resident in the back. The van driver was not wearing a mask.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0554 (Tag F0554)

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 that for 1 of 32 sample residents the facility interdiscipli...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review it was determined that for 1 of 32 sample residents the facility interdisciplinary care team (IDT) did not determine a resident to be safe for self-administration of medication before the resident exercised the right to do so. Specifically, an unlicensed staff member was provided medication by a licensed nursing staff to administer to a resident, and the resident did not have a self-administration evaluation. Resident identifier: 187. Findings include: Resident 187 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included spinal stenosis, spondylolisthesis, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, encephalopathy, history of falling, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, hypokalemia and cirrhosis of the liver. On 7/15/21 at 8:18 AM an observation was made of resident 187 wheeling himself to the nurse cart. Resident 187 was observed to ask Registered Nurse (RN) 4 for his medications because he was going to an appointment. RN 4 was observed to administer resident 187's medications, and then stayed with resident 187 until he had swallowed his medications. RN 4 then asked resident 187 if he was in pain. RN 4 was observed to review resident 187's medical record and then told the resident he was not due for pain medication yet. Resident 187 was then observed to wheel himself to the front entrance to get ready to leave. Resident 187 was immediately interviewed as he was near the front entrance. Resident 187 stated the nurse was going to give the van driver (VD) taking him to his appointment a pain pill for later. The surveyor then walked back to the nurses station, where RN 4 was giving the facility Van Driver (VD) a white pill in a plastic bag. The VD then left the nurses station. An interview was immediately conducted with RN 4 about the medication she had given to the VD. RN 4 stated that the medication was a pain pill that the VD was going to give to resident 187 while he was out for the appointment. RN 4 stated that she had written the time for the medication to be administered on the bag. RN 4 stated she did not know if the VD was qualified or licensed to administer medication. RN 4 stated she was unsure if the resident had been assessed to take his own medication. RN 4 also stated the facility physician had said it was acceptable for the VD to give medications when residents went out for visits or appointments. On 7/15/21 at approximately 9:00 AM, a record review was conducted on resident 187's medical record. A self-administration assessment was initiated for resident 187 on 7/15/21 at 7:26 AM. However, the form had not been completed. There was no Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) evaluation for resident 187 to self-administer medications in the medical record. On 7/19/21 at approximately 11:30 AM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated resident 187 was approved for self-administration of medication on 7/15/21 with supervision. The DON confirmed that resident 187 had not been assessed prior to 7/15/21 to self-administer medications. The DON stated that the facility VD had no qualifications to give medications to residents. The DON stated she did not like to send residents out with pain medication. The DON stated she found out about resident 187 was being sent out with medications after the event had happened. The DON then stated the facility physician gave approval for the medication to be given to the resident while he was away from the facility, after the VD had already been given the pain pill. The DON stated that the nurse should not have sent the pain pill with the VD. On 7/21/21 at 10:51 AM, an interview was conducted with RN 4. RN 4 stated she told the VD the specific time resident 187 could have the medication. RN 4 stated she wrote the time the medication should be given on the envelope containing the pain medication. RN 4 stated she did not follow-up on when the medication was given to resident 187. RN 4 stated when she saw the VD he stated that he administered the medication to resident 187 and resident 187 took the medication. RN 4 stated the resident also told her that he received the medication. RN 4 stated that she was supposed to chart when the medication was given, but did not go back and chart it. RN 4 stated she thought the DON was going to put something in resident 187's chart. RN 4 stated she did not go back to the Medication Administration Record (MAR) and document when the medication was taken or a follow-up pain score. RN 4 stated resident 187 got his pill ok and was glad to get it because it was a long trip. On 7/21/21 at 11:12 AM, an interview was conducted with the VD regarding resident 187 and administering pain medication on his visit out of the facility. The VD stated he gave the pain medication to resident 187 at 10:45 AM and witnessed resident 187 take the medication. The VD stated he did not assess resident 187 for side effects or effectiveness. The VD stated upon return he thought RN 4 had asked him if the resident took the medication. The VD stated he was not asked any other questions about the resident taking the medication. The VD stated that he did not have any qualifications to dispense medications, and stated you have to be a nurse or something like that.'
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 that the facility did not develop and implement a comprehensive person-ce...

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 develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for 1 of 32 sample residents, consistent with the resident right that included measurable objectives and time frames to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs that were identified in the comprehensive assessment. Specifically, a fall care plan was not developed as required. Resident identifier: 29. Findings include: 1. Resident 29 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included combined systolic and diastolic heart failure, atrial fibrillation, diabetes mellitus, iron deficiency anemia, hyperlipidemia, cardiomyopathy, heart failure, major depressive disorder, long QT syndrome, chronic fatigue, and thyrotoxicosis. Resident 29's medical record was reviewed on 7/12/21 and again on 7/19/21. An admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] for resident 29 was reviewed. The MDS indicated on the Care Area Assessment Summary (CAAS) that resident 29 should have a falls care plan developed. Review of resident 29's care plan revealed that a falls care plan was not developed after the admission MDS Assessment was completed. In addition, review of the care plan revealed that resident 29 experienced an actual fall on 6/3/21, however a care plan was not developed for falls until 7/12/21, approximately six weeks after the resident experienced a fall.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0661 (Tag F0661)

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 complete a discharge summary for 1 of 32 sampl...

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 complete a discharge summary for 1 of 32 sample residents. When the facility anticipates a discharge, a resident must have a discharge summary that includes, but is not limited to, the following: (a) A recapitulation of the resident's stay that includes but is not limited to, diagnoses, course of illness/treatment or therapy, and pertinent lab, radiology and consultation results. (b) A final summary of the resident's status at the time of discharge that is available for release to authorized persons and agencies, with the consent of the resident or resident's representative. (c) Reconciliation of all pre-discharge medications with the resident's post discharge medications (both prescribed and over-the-counter). (d) A post-discharge plan of care that is developed with the participation of the resident and, with the resident's consent, the resident representative(s), which will assist the resident to adjust to his or her new living environment. The post-discharge plan of care must indicate where the individual plans to reside, any arrangements that have been made for the resident's follow-up care and any post-discharge medical and non-medical services. Resident identifier: 193. Findings include: Resident 193 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included acute kidney failure, chronic atrial fibrillation, hypotension, essential hypertension, anemia, elevated white blood cell count, and major depressive disorder. On 7/12/21 at 3:45 PM, an interview was conducted with resident 193. Resident 193 stated she was going home that day. Resident 193 was discharged against medical advice (AMA) on 7/12/21 at approximately 5:00 PM. On 7/13/21 resident 193's medical record was reviewed. No interdisciplinary team (IDT) discharge plan was found for resident 193. No discharge assessment, plan of care, recapitulation of stay, final summary of the resident's status, or reconciliation of pre and post discharge medications could be located for resident 193. Resident 193's progress notes documented the following: a. On 7/12/21, 4:32 PM, Social Service Note Note text: Patient is choosing to go home with no home health. Says she feels like she does not need it and is doing better. Patient said she was supposed to go home from hospital saying they misunderstood, her needs. Im like I am so sorry, but the hospital sent you paperwork to us and felt you should be here. [Resident 193] said well I feel like I am better off at home. The nurse explained that she would be going AMA [resident 193] said that was fine, she has already called her daughter in law and she is coming to pick her up. On 7/14/21 at 3:45 PM, an interview was conducted with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 5, who was caring for resident 193 on the day of her discharge. CNA 5 stated the nurse gave the resident paperwork when she left. CNA 5 stated she did not remember who the nurse was. On 7/19/21 at approximately 11:30 AM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated resident 193 signed out AMA on her papers. The DON stated resident 193 did not take her medications with her. The DON stated education should have been provided to resident 193. The DON stated normally the resident gets a summary but stated she did not think resident 193 got a summary. The DON stated that usually they give the resident their medications, except for narcotics, to take home. On 7/19/21 at 1:40 PM, an interview was conducted with the medical records staff member (MR). The MR was observed to review resident 193's chart and stated there was no discharge documentation, including discharge summary or instructions that would have been provided to resident 193 when she left.
CONCERN (D)

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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

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 the facility did not ensure that 2 of 32 sample residents ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined the facility did not ensure that 2 of 32 sample residents who were unable to carry out activities of daily living, received the necessary services to maintain good nutrition, grooming, and personal and oral hygiene. Specifically, one resident did not receive a shower after asking for one several times, and one resident did not receive the feeding assistance she needed at meal time. Resident identifiers: 136 and 193. Findings include: 1. Resident 193 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included acute kidney failure, chronic atrial fibrillation, hypotension, essential hypertension, anemia, elevated white blood cell count, and major depressive disorder. On 7/12/21 at 3:45 PM, resident 193 was interviewed. Resident 193 was observed to be wearing a hospital gown. Resident 193 stated she had not had a shower since her admission. Resident 193 stated she had asked for a shower but that the staff keep putting it off. During the interview, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 5 came into resident 193's room to tell resident 193 that she had a visitor and she wanted to take her to the front lobby area to meet with the visitor. Resident 193 stated she did not want to see anyone as she was not dressed and had not showered. She told CNA 5 that she had asked for a shower several times but had not been able to get one. On 7/13/21 at 11:45 AM, an interview was conducted with CNA 6. CNA 6 stated residents could choose their shower days, and could choose mornings or afternoons. CNA 6 stated if a resident has an accident they can request a shower. CNA 6 stated that the CNAs showered the residents. CNA 6 stated the CNAs asked residents if they needed help with activities of daily living (ADLs) on a regular basis. On 7/13/21 at 3:06 PM, an interview was conducted with CNA 5. CNA 5 stated resident 193 never asked me to shower her. On 7/14/21 at 3:45 PM, an interview was conducted with CNA 5. CNA 5 stated it is the resident's choice if they want to get dressed or get out of bed .if they say no they mean no. CNA 5 stated resident 193 did not want to get out of bed the whole time she was here. Every time I went in (her room) she wanted medication. On 7/19/21 a review of resident 193's medical record was conducted. No documentation could be located to indicate resident 193 had received a shower during her stay. On 7/19/21 at approximately 11:30 AM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated showers days were determined based on the room the resident was in. The DON stated all residents have an as needed shower task for staff to document showers in the medical record. The DON stated resident 193 came to the facility on a Saturday and discharged on the following Monday so her shower days had not been put in yet. The DON stated in general residents get their first shower the day after their admission. The DON stated the expectation was to get residents up for the day at their preferred time. The DON stated the CNAs had a communication book to document requests from residents and information to each other. The DON stated the CNAs were also briefed about resident showers upon hire. 2. Resident 136 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included acute kidney failure, cognitive communication deficit, and major depressive disorder. On 7/12/21 at 3:12 PM, resident 136 was observed lying in bed with an untouched meal tray on her bedside tray table. Resident 136 was immediately interviewed and stated, I can't sit up, and I hate eating in bed. Resident 136 stated she would like to eat at a table but staff dropped off meals and then left without inviting her to eat in the main dining hall. Resident 136 stated she was unable to feed herself while lying in bed. On 7/12/21 at 3:30 PM resident 136's medical record was reviewed. There was no care plan or assessment found that might indicate if resident 136 required help eating. On 7/12/21 at 3:53 PM, resident 136's daughter was interviewed over the phone. The daughter stated, I'm worried they're (the facility) not making sure she gets enough fluids and food. When I saw her last she looked dehydrated. The daughter stated that she had voiced concerns about resident 136 not getting sufficient help eating to the DON but the DON had stated that they did not have sufficient staff to sit and help feed every resident. The daughter stated that resident 136 had dementia and simply took a long time to finish meals and required help and prompts. On 7/13/21 at 1:05 PM, an untouched meal tray was observed on resident 136's bedside tray table. On 7/13/21 at 3:03 PM, a cup of what appeared to be water was observed on resident 136's bedside tray table. When asked if she was able to reach it, resident 136 twisted and tried to reach the table but was unable to. She stated, I can't reach it. On 7/14/21 at 4:34 PM, CNA 2 was interviewed regarding which residents required help eating. CNA 2 stated, I know the residents pretty well so I know who needs help. CNA 2 stated there was a list of residents who needed assistance kept at the nurses' station. CNA 2 was unable to produce this list when asked. Two other CNAs were also unable to produce the list when CNA 2 asked them for help. On 7/21/21 at 9:40 AM, the facility occupational therapist (OT) was interviewed. He stated that therapy instructed the CNAs and Registered Nurses (RNs) to assume every admit is an extensive assist until the resident proved they were not. The OT stated, Since [resident 136] is here for long term and not rehab (rehabilitation) we don't asses her ability to feed herself. We would only look at that if she was referred to us by nursing. On 7/21/21 at 9:47 AM, CNA 7 was interviewed. CNA 7 stated, Who's a feeder, it's in their charts. And the nurses tell us who needs help. CNA 7 stated resident 136 fed herself. [Note: Feeder is a label that facility staff inappropriately used to describe residents who needed assistance with eating at this facility.] On 7/21/21 at 10:02 AM, RN 4 was interviewed. When asked if resident 136 required help eating, RN 4 stated, She feeds herself. Sometimes we have to cue her or remind her. RN 4 stated the CNAs had a list they looked at to know what type of assistance each resident needed. RN 4 looked around the nurses' station but was unable to find it. RN 4 asked another CNA and RN to help her find it. They were unable to find anything until 10:10 AM when they it in found a binder in a drawer at the nurses' station. At 10:13 AM, RN 1 stated, I've never even seen anyone use these books. This stuff is pretty outdated. The folder contained a sheet of paper that said resident 136 was a two-person extensive assist and needed to be repositioned every two hours. It said nothing about feeding assistance. On 7/21/21 at 10:36 AM, an untouched breakfast tray was observed sitting on resident 136's bedside tray table.
CONCERN (D)

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident 29 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included combined systolic and diastolic heart failure...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident 29 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included combined systolic and diastolic heart failure, atrial fibrillation, diabetes mellitus, iron deficiency anemia, hyperlipidemia, cardiomyopathy, heart failure, major depressive disorder, long QT syndrome, chronic fatigue, and thyrotoxicosis. Resident 29's medical record was reviewed on 7/12/21 and again on 7/19/21. On 7/14/21 at approximately 1:00 PM, an observation was made of resident 29. Resident 29 was being wheeled by the Van Driver (VD) onto the wheelchair scale. The front wheels of the wheelchair were observed to catch on the lip of the scale, causing the resident to jerk forward. Resident 29's feet were observed to drag under the frame of the wheelchair as the resident was being wheeled onto the scale. The VD was observed to reach down and reposition the resident's feet. On 7/15/21 at approximately 9:30 AM, an interview with the VD was conducted. When asked if the VD had received training on transfers and wheelchair safety, the VD stated No, but I'm just the van driver. On 7/21/21 at 10:25 AM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). When asked if she was aware that resident 29's feet were dragged under the wheelchair on 7/14/21, she stated she was not aware of the incident. Based on interview, observation, and record review, the facility did not ensure that 2 of 32 sample residents received adequate supervision to prevent accidents. Specifically, two residents were transferred onto the scale by staff inappropriately, one of whom experienced a fall. Resident identifiers: 29 and 86. Findings include: 1. Resident 86 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included cerebral palsy, cellulitis of lower left and right lower limb, severe protein calorie malnutrition, lymphedema, anemia, electroyte and fluid disorder, lack of coordination, and weakness. On 7/13/21 at 3:35 PM, an interview was conducted with resident 86. Resident 86 stated that on the day he was admitted to the facility, he was seated in a manual wheelchair, and they were pushing me up the scale to weigh me, and there was no one in front of me, and my wheelchair got stuck on the lip of the scale, and I fell forward. Resident 86 stated that he was not injured at that time. Resident 86's medical record was reviewed on 7/12/21. A. Resident 86's nursing progress notes were reviewed. The progress notes indicated that on 6/3/21 at 3:46 PM, Resident arrived via wheelchair . upon arrival to residents room resident fell out of wheelchair while aide was obtaining his weight. Resident did hit his nose when he feel out of wheelchair, and obtained a little gash on his nose. An incident report dated 6/3/21 at 6:00 PM for resident 86 was reviewed. The incident report indicated that Patient was getting weighted (sic) and when they got on the scale CNA (Certified Nursing Assistant) went to move the wheelchair and patient fell forward. Patient got an injury on base of nose. Despite resident 86's fall, resident 86 did not have a baseline care plan completed within 48 hours of admission to the facility. On 7/20/21 at 5:45 PM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated that she did not do any staff training after resident 86 fell out of his wheelchair while being weighed by staff. B. Resident 86's progress notes were reviewed. The progress notes indicated that on 6/11/21 at 1:48 PM, Resident was doing an activity in the activity room, and had a fall out of his chair. Resident hit his nose causing it to have laceration, and by the looks of it it looked broken. Resident agreed to be sent to hospital to have his nose checked out. The progress notes later indicated that resident 86 was diagnosed with a fractured nose and required stitches for the nose laceration. Resident 86's care plan was reviewed. No care plan was initated for resident 86 regarding falls until 7/12/21, approximately one month after resident 86 experienced the fall that resulted in a fractured nose.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0692 (Tag F0692)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. On 7/12/21 at 3:45 PM, an interview was conducted with resident 193. Resident 193 was observed to have a small empty glass on...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. On 7/12/21 at 3:45 PM, an interview was conducted with resident 193. Resident 193 was observed to have a small empty glass on the bedside table. Resident 193 stated she had to ask staff for fluids and that she got thirsty. On 7/13/21 at 11:45 AM, an interview was conducted with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 6. CNA 6 stated that residents were supposed to have water at their bedsides at all times. CNA 6 stated residents got fresh water at every meal time and that CNAs and kitchen staff dispense water. CNA 6 stated residents could ask for more water if they wanted it. On 7/13/21 a review of resident 193's medical record was conducted. Resident 193 had a dehydration risk screening on 7/10/21 at 1:45 PM. The score on the dehydration risk screening was 8.0. On 7/13/21 at 1:53 PM an interview was conducted with Registered Nurse (RN) 1 and RN 5. RNs 1 and 5 were asked what a dehydration risk score of 8.0 meant. RN 5 stated high risk for dehydration was considered to be a score of 10.0 or higher. Based on interviews, observation, and record review, it was determined the facility failed to offer sufficient fluid intake to maintain proper hydration and health to 2 of 32 sample residents. Specifically, two residents who were at risk for dehydration were not consistently provided fresh drinking water. Resident identifiers: 136 and 193. Findings include: 1. Resident 136 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included acute kidney failure, cognitive communication deficit, and major depressive disorder. Resident 136's medical record was reviewed on 7/12/21. The record revealed a Dehydration Risk assessment was 35 days overdue. The record also contained a nurses' note dated 7/8/21 described resident 136 having a recent visit to the hospital. The note stated, Pt (patient) returned from hospital at 1530 (3:30 PM). Pt was found to have a UTI (Urinary Tract Infection) and was given IV (intravenous) antibiotics. On 7/12/21 at 3:12 PM, resident 136 was observed lying in bed with an untouched meal tray and cup of water on her bedside tray table. Resident 136 was then interviewed and stated, I cant sit up .staff drops off food and leaves. On 7/12/21 at 3:53 PM, resident 136's daughter was interviewed over the phone. The daughter stated, My mom was here (the facility) for only 2 weeks, she was severely dehydrated and got a UTI. Resident 136's daughter stated that she was concerned the staff were not ensuring her mother received sufficient fluids. On 7/13/21 at 3:03 PM, resident 136 was observed lying in her bed. Two Styrofoam cups were observed on the bedside tray table, next to the bed. The cups contained what looked to be water and lemonade. There were no straws in either cup or anywhere on the tray table. Resident 136 was then interviewed and asked if she was thirsty, to which she replied yes. When asked if she was able to reach either cup, resident 136 twisted and tried to reach the table but was unable to. Resident 136 stated, I can't reach them, but even if I could they don't have straws so I couldn't even drink anything. On 7/14/21 at 3:15 PM, resident 136 was observed lying in her bed. Three Styrofoam cups were observed on the bedside tray table, next to the bed. One cup was empty and had a straw. Two cups were half full with water, however, neither cup had a straw. On 7/21/21 at 10:26 AM, the director of Nursing (DON) was interviewed. Regarding the dehydration risk assessment, the DON stated it was supposed to be done for every resident when they were admitted . The DON stated it was the admitting nurse's job to complete the assessment.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0729 (Tag F0729)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, record review and observation, the facility did not ensure that a staff member was currently registered to w...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, record review and observation, the facility did not ensure that a staff member was currently registered to work as a Certified Nursing Assistant. Findings include: On [DATE], the Director of Nursing (DON) was asked to provide a copy of Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 1's current certification. The DON provided a copy of a card that indicated that CNA 1's certification had expired on [DATE]. On [DATE], the Utah Nurse Aide Registry (UNAR) was checked to verify the current certification of CNA 1. The UNAR indicated that CNA 1's certification expired on [DATE]. On [DATE], CNA 1 was observed to be assisting residents with the lunch meal in the 400 hall dining room. Review of the CNA schedule for the facility revealed that from [DATE] through [DATE], CNA 1 was scheduled to work 9 times. On [DATE] at 5:45 PM, an interview was conducted with the DON. The DON stated that she was unaware that CNA 1's certification had expired until she was asked to provide a copy of the certification. The DON stated that the Human Resources staff member was responsible for ensuring those certifications were current. The DON stated that CNA 1 had been working at the facility since [DATE]. On [DATE] at 10:28 AM, CNA 1 was observed to be working with residents as a CNA. CNA 1 confirmed that his certification had expired, and stated that he had completed the paperwork to renew it the previous day.
CONCERN (D)

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

Laboratory Services (Tag F0770)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility did not provide or obtain laboratory services to meet the needs of 1 of 32 sa...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility did not provide or obtain laboratory services to meet the needs of 1 of 32 sample residents. Resident identifier: 29. Findings include: Resident 29 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included combined systolic and diastolic heart failure, atrial fibrillation, diabetes mellitus, iron deficiency anemia, hyperlipidemia, cardiomyopathy, heart failure, major depressive disorder, long QT syndrome, chronic fatigue, and thyrotoxicosis. Resident 29's medical record was reviewed on 7/12/21 and again on 7/19/21. Resident 29's physician orders were reviewed. The physician orders indicated that resident 29 was to have a Complete Blood Count (CBC), Comprehensive Metabolic Panel (CMP) and B-type Natriuretic (BNP) drawn every day shift every Wed (Wednesday), Thu (Thursday), Fri (Friday) for Cardiac monitoring. Resident 29's June and July 2021 CBC, CMP and BNP laboratory results and nursing progress notes were reviewed and revealed the following: a. On 6/2/21, the BNP was not drawn, and no progress notes were entered. b. On 6/3/21, the labs were not drawn, and no progress notes were entered. c. On 6/4/21, the labs were not drawn, and no progress notes were entered. d. On 6/10/21, the labs were not drawn, and no progress notes were entered. e. On 6/11/21, the labs were not drawn, and no progress notes were entered. f. On 6/16/21, the labs were not drawn, and no progress notes were entered. g. On 6/18/21, the labs were not drawn, and no progress notes were entered. h. On 6/23/21, the labs were not drawn, and no progress notes were entered. i. On 6/24/21, the labs were not drawn, and no progress notes were entered. j. On 6/30/21, the labs were not drawn, and no progress notes were entered. k. On 7/9/21, the labs were not drawn, and no progress notes were entered. l. On 7/14/21, the labs were not drawn, and no progress notes were entered. m. On 7/15/21, the labs were not drawn, and no progress notes were entered. n. On 7/16/21, the labs were not drawn, and no progress notes were entered. On 7/20/21 at 5:45 PM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). When asked about the missing laboratory results, the DON stated that she had entered the order for three times a week because the resident is a hard stick. The DON stated that the intention was to have cardiac labs drawn once a week, but that she had entered the order for three times a week so that if facility nurses were unable to obtain a blood sample, they could attempt again the next day.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0887 (Tag F0887)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility did not develop policies and procedures to ensure that 1 of 32 sample residen...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility did not develop policies and procedures to ensure that 1 of 32 sample residents was educated about and offered the COVID-19 vaccine. Resident identifier: 86. Findings include: Resident 86 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included cerebral palsy, cellulitis of lower left and right lower limb, severe protein calorie malnutrition, lymphedema, anemia, electrolyte and fluid disorder, lack of coordination, and weakness. On 7/12/21 at 11:05 AM, an interview was conducted with resident 86. Resident 86 stated that he had not been vaccinated for COVID-19. Resident 86 stated that when he was admitted to the facility no one talked to me about the vaccine or offered it. Resident 86 stated that he asked staff about receiving the vaccine but they just told me they don't do that here. I would like to know how to get one. On 7/21/21 at 10:30 AM, a second interview was conducted with resident 86 regarding a separate issue. Resident 86 redirected the surveyor's questions and stated I'm not interested in that stuff. What I want is a COVID shot. I don't care if I need to take a bus to [the local pharmacy] or get it here, I just really want that COVID vaccine. Resident 86 stated that he had asked facility staff for the vaccine on three separate occasions and was turned down each time. Resident 86's medical record was reviewed on 7/12/21. Resident 86's medical record indicated that he had not been vaccinated for COVID-19. On 7/14/21 at 10:45 AM, an interview was conducted with the Infection Preventionist (IP). The IP stated that if a resident was admitted who was not vaccinated, the facility would offer the vaccine when its available. The IP stated that residents were not allowed to leave the facility, so residents could not get vaccinated unless facility staff provided it. On 7/14/21 at 11:50 AM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated that when a resident was admitted who was not vaccinated, the admitting nurse would educate and offer the vaccine. The DON stated that if a resident refused a vaccine, the admitting nurse would document in a progress note about the refusal. The DON stated that if a resident would like to receive the COVID-19 vaccination, facility staff could transport the resident to the county health department or local pharmacy. The DON confirmed that resident 86 did not receive the COVID-19 vaccination while at the facility, and was unsure why. The facility's Policy and Procedure for COVID-19 About COVID-19 . There is currently no vaccine to protect against Covid-19. The policy did not address education and offering the vaccine to residents.
CONCERN (E)

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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

2. On 7/12/21 at 12:11 PM, CNA 3 was interviewed regarding a resident's eating habits. CNA 3 stated, He's a feeder. This was spoken in the main dining hall, in the presence of other nearby residents s...

Read full inspector narrative →
2. On 7/12/21 at 12:11 PM, CNA 3 was interviewed regarding a resident's eating habits. CNA 3 stated, He's a feeder. This was spoken in the main dining hall, in the presence of other nearby residents seating themselves for lunch. 3. On 7/14/21 at 4:34 PM CNA 2 was interviewed regarding resident's eating habits. CNA 2 stated, I know the residents pretty well For new staff or agency we have papers up front that tells us who's a feeder. This was spoken in front of the nurses' station with 5 residents sitting in wheelchairs within hearing distance. 4. On 7/21/21 at 9:47 AM CNA 7 was interviewed regarding which residents required assistance eating. CNA 7 stated, The feeders, it's in their charts. This was spoken in a resident hallway in the presence of two other residents. On 7/21/21 at 11:39 AM the Director of Nursing (DON) was interviewed. When asked about calling residents feeders, the DON stated, No, that's something we should never be doing. 5. On 7/14/21 at 2:30 PM, an interview was conducted with 5 residents from the resident council. Residents stated that they did not feel they were treated with dignity and respect. When asked to clarify, the residents stated that when they brought issues up in resident council, those issues did not get resolved, such as the visitation policy and residents being able to go outside. In addition, the residents stated that they waited extended periods of time for their call lights to be answered. One male resident stated that he had had accidents because they didn't answer my call light, and its embarrassing for me to have a woman come clean me up like that. A second resident stated that call lights sometimes took 2 hours to answer, and she had pooped my pants because I couldn't get into the bathroom. Based on interview and observation, the facility did not treat residents with respect and dignity and care for each resident in a manner and in an environment that promotes maintenance or enhancement of his or her quality of life, recognizing each resident's individuality. Specifically, residents were referred to as feeders, and residents reported having to wait for extended periods of time for their call lights to be answered. Findings include: 1. On 7/15/21 at 8:15 AM, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 4 was observed to be at the 300/400 hall nurses station, speaking with other staff members. CNA 4 stated that staff needed to help the feeders with their meals. There were three residents in the 300 hall dining room, and within earshot of CNA 4.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0561 (Tag F0561)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

4. On 7/13/21 at 3:05 PM, an interview was conducted with the facility's resident advocate (RA). The RA stated, Just while the pandemic has been going on it's my understanding from [the Director of Nu...

Read full inspector narrative →
4. On 7/13/21 at 3:05 PM, an interview was conducted with the facility's resident advocate (RA). The RA stated, Just while the pandemic has been going on it's my understanding from [the Director of Nursing] and [the Administrator] that we aren't allowing people to go outside. 5. On 7/13/21 at 3:20 PM an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated, With COVID and everything going on, we aren't letting anyone outside-just for infection control you know? We'll need to look at our policy though. On 7/13/21 at approximately 4:00 PM, the DON stated, I guess we don't have a policy on outside time. 6. On 7/14/21 at 10:45 AM, an interview was conducted with the Infection Preventionist (IP). The IP stated we don't allow the residents to leave the building. They can't leave the building because then they can get exposed to COVID-19. Based on interview and record review, the facility did not ensure that residents had the right to make choices about aspects of his or her life in the facility that were significant to the resident; nor did the facility ensure that residents had the right to choose activities consistent with his or her interests. Specifically, residents were not allowed to leave the facility. Resident identifiers: 8, 12, and 18. Findings include: 1. On 7/12/21 at 9:50 AM, an interview was conducted with resident 12. When asked if resident 12 had any concerns about his care at the facility, resident 12 stated that he was upset about not being able to leave the facility when he wanted. When asked to clarify, resident 12 stated that if residents wanted to go outside, they were only allowed to go out the back door and then out to the fenced area. Resident 12 stated that if residents wanted to sit outside in the front area of the building, they were not allowed to do so without staff supervision. Resident 12 stated that residents were not allowed to leave the building to spend time with family or friends. Resident 12 stated that this was a new policy that was initiated at the facility approximately six to seven months prior. 2. On 7/12/21 at approximately 11:00 AM an interview was conducted with resident 18. Resident 18 stated, I've been stuck inside here since I got here. They've got nothing for me to do and I can't even go outside. Why can't we go outside if the COVID is over? 3. On 7/14/21, at 2:30 PM, an interview was conducted with members of the resident council. One resident stated that if he wanted to go outside, staff would tell him that 'the state says we can't', so they don't let us. Resident 12 stated that the fence bothers us, and we can't go outside of it. we've brought it up multiple times in resident council, and when we ask why, they said the state can't allow us. Resident 12 stated that not being able to go outside unsupervised when he wanted had affected him tremendously. It's a difficulty. Resident 18 stated, we used to go on walks on the sidewalk around the building, but not anymore. Resident 18 then stated whenever we want to do anything, its always 'the State won't let us'. Resident 18 stated it would be nice if they trusted us. I feel like I'm worse off here than in prison. I can't go outside. Resident 18 later stated, this place is gonna explode because everyone is getting on each others nerves. Resident 8 stated I've always been an outside guy, so if the weather is good it'd be nice to go out. I don't see why they have to restrict us.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0563 (Tag F0563)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 4. On 7/12/21 at approximately 11:00 AM, an interview was conducted with resident 18. Resident 18 stated, I've got nobody to com...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 4. On 7/12/21 at approximately 11:00 AM, an interview was conducted with resident 18. Resident 18 stated, I've got nobody to come visit me and they have these crazy rules about visitors and who can come when and for how long. I've been stuck inside here since I got here. They've got nothing for me to do and I can't even go outside. Why can't we go outside if the COVID is over? 5. On 7/14/21, at 2:30 PM, an interview was conducted with members of the resident council. The residents were asked about the facility visitation policy. Resident 192 stated that he could have visitors up to three times a week for 30 minutes at a time. Resident 192 also stated I'd like to see my wife every day of the week, and 30 minutes go fast if you got a lot to talk about. Resident 18 stated that We have people who can't have family come on the weekday, so that's not fair to them. Resident 12 stated that the scheduled visitation times were not convenient for visitors. He stated that during resident council, they had asked about changing the visitation policy but nothing happens. 6. On 7/14/21 at 10:30 AM, an interview was conducted with the Therapeutic Recreation Technician (TRT) 1. TRT 1 stated that visitors were only allowed to see residents by appointment Monday through Friday from 12:30 PM to 4:30 PM. 7. On 7/13/21 at 3:05 PM, an interview was conducted with the facility's Resident Advocate (RA), who stated that visits were permitted up to 3 times per week, but visitors have to have arranged a scheduled visit ahead of time, and visits were only allowed to take place in a large conference/activity room near the front desk. The RA stated that visitation hours were weekdays from 12:30 PM to 4:30 PM, and visits could last for 30 minutes. The RA also stated, The reason we do 12:30 PM to 4:30 PM is because of the way we schedule that room and lots of times we have meetings there in the morning. 8. On 7/14/21 at 10:45 AM, an interview was conducted with the Infection Preventionist (IP). The IP stated we don't allow the residents to leave the building. They can't leave the building because then they can get exposed to COVID-19. The IP stated that visitors needed to call ahead and get on the visitation schedule if they wanted to see a loved one. The IP stated that residents could not have more than two visitors at a time, and no children were allowed. The IP stated that loved ones could only visit their loved ones for a maximum of 30 minutes at a time. The IP stated that if visitors were only allowed if there are enough time slots. The IP stated that there were 5 to 6 appointments available each day for visitation. The IP stated that with regard to visitors we have to make sure they aren't going throughout the building so visitors were only allowed in the activities room. The IP stated that visitors were not allowed to visit residents in resident rooms, even if the resident was in a private room. The IP stated that if visitors show up without an appointment, we turn them away, but if appointments were available staff would try to fit them in the schedule. 9. On 7/14/21 at 11:50 AM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated that residents could only have visitors a maximum of 3 times's a week. The DON stated that the previous Administrator had implemented that policy. The DON stated that visitors were not allowed in resident rooms if the resident had a roommate. The DON stated that there were some exceptions to the rule after the current Administrator changed his mind and is letting [name of resident] have in room visits. The DON stated that visitors could only come in from 12:30 to 4:30 PM on weekdays to accommodate the staff schedule. 10. The facility policy for visitation was reviewed. The policy was undated and indicated the following: . 2. Due to staffing, and in consideration of all patient's safety, Visiting Hours are currently limited to Monday-Friday, which a scheduled appointment, between the hours of 9:30 am - Noon and 1:00pm to 6:00pm. 3. In order to reduce the risk of exposure, to residents, staff and visitors, we have a maximum number of visitors allowed in at Parkway Health Center. In the event we reach the maximum number of visitors you may be asked to wait a period of time before entering the facility, or to leave so others may visit. A second visitation policy was reviewed. The policy was undated and indicated the following: We are happy to announce the state is opening up visits again starting Monday the 15th. We will begin the visits Starting Tues. (Tuesday) March 16th. The times will be from 12:30-4:30 Monday - Friday. For 30 minutes at a time. Only 2 at a time per visit. You are allowed to visit up to 3 times a week. (All visits must be scheduled thru (sic) [name of staff member]). 3. Resident 136 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included acute kidney failure, cognitive communication deficit, and major depressive disorder. On 7/12/21 at 9:20 AM, an interview was conducted with resident 136. Resident 136 stated she was too tired to get up to go out to the meeting room, and when she did get out of bed it was via the hoyer lift which was very uncomfortable. On 7/12/21 at 3:53 PM, resident 136's daughter was interviewed over the phone. The daughter stated that she was not allowed to visit her mother in her room and that her mother was not allowed to leave the facility for an outdoor visit. The daughter stated she was told by facility management that the visitation restrictions were due to the Covid-19 virus. On 7/13/21 at 2:12 PM, resident 136's sister was interviewed over the phone. The sister stated that often times resident 136 was too tired to get up into a wheel chair and come down to the meeting room to visit. The sister stated she had asked facility management to be allowed to go see resident 136 in her room but management would not let her. The sister also stated that another family member had driven all the way down from Montana to visit resident 136 and had left the facility crying because facility management would not allow her into resident 136's room to visit. Based on interview and observation, the facility did not allow residents to receive visitors of their choosing at the time of their choosing. Specifically, the facility did not allow residents to leave the building and did not allow immediate family to visit residents in their rooms. Residents and families were made to schedule appointments during the week to visit each other in a facility meeting room. Resident identifiers: 12, 18, 26, 86, 136, and 192. Findings include: 1. On 7/12/21 at 11:05 AM, an interview was conducted with resident 86. Resident 86 stated that he could only have visitors during the day on weekdays during certain hours. Resident 86 stated that visitors were not allowed on weekends. Resident 86 stated that my best friend of 30 years has only been able to see me twice because of the visitation rules, and its been hard. Resident 86 stated that visitors were only allowed to stay for 30 minutes. 2. On 7/12/21 at 12:15 PM, an interview was conducted with resident 26. Resident 26 stated that the facility would only allow him one to two vists a week with his family, and it has to be by appointment. Resident 26 stated that appointments could only be scheduled from 12:00 PM to 5:00 PM on weekdays, and no visitors were allowed on weekends. Resident 26 stated that visits could only last for 30 minutes. Resident 26 stated that visits were not allowed to happen in his room, but instead had to happen outside or in a meeting room by the lobby. It should be noted that resident 26 was in a room by himself.
CONCERN (E)

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on interview and observation, the facility did not provide housekeeping and maintenance services necessary to maintain a sanitary, orderly, and comfortable interior. Specifically, dead and livin...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and observation, the facility did not provide housekeeping and maintenance services necessary to maintain a sanitary, orderly, and comfortable interior. Specifically, dead and living insects were observed in 3 residents' rooms, a resident complained of poor housekeeping, couches were observed to be soiled, tablecloths were observed to be sticky, and areas of the facility had odors of feces and urine. Resident identifiers: 188, 191, 192, and 193. Findings include: 1. On 7/13/21 at 10:39 AM an interview was conducted with resident 192. Resident 192 stated, I've been killing earwigs all over in here. I've killed them crawling out of my sheets, I've killed them in the bathroom, I've seen them on the wall, and there's always one at the bathroom sink, almost every morning! Resident 192 was asked if he had alerted facility staff and he stated, Oh sure, I let them know, but what good would it do? They are more scared than I am of bugs. I've always killed them first by the time they come around to check it out. 2. On 7/12/21 at approximately 3:30 PM, an interview was conducted with resident 188. Resident 188 stated he had seen earwigs in his bathroom. An observation was immediately made of the resident's bathroom and 2 earwigs were visualized crawling on the floor. On 7/13/21 at 10:45 AM, an interview with Resident 188 was conducted. Resident 188 stated, I've seen earwigs here. I'll kill them if I can get to them. 3. On 7/12/21 at 12:01 PM, an interview was conducted with resident 191. Resident 191 stated he has been seeing earwigs all over the place for about 3 to 4 days. Resident 191 stated he told a Certified Nursing Aide (CNA) about it but she did not listen to him. On 7/13/21 at 10:50 AM an interview with Resident 191 was conducted. Resident 191 stated, I've had some earwigs in here . I've already told you guys everything about these damn bugs. 4. On 7/13/21 at 10:55 AM, an interview with CNA 6 was conducted. CNA 6 stated that if she saw bugs then she killed the bugs, threw the bugs away, and cleaned the area. CNA 6 was asked about a reporting process for pest control, to which she replied, I'm not aware of anything, but I guess I should tell [the maintenance supervisor] too. 5. On 7/13/21 at 11:00 AM an interview with CNA 4 was conducted. CNA 4 stated, If I saw a bug, the first thing I'd do is kill it, and then I'd let [the maintenance supervisor] know as soon as I could. 6. On 7/13/21 at 11:15 AM an interview with housekeeping was conducted. Housekeeping stated- We let [maintenance] handle all the bugs, but if any of my team sees them we kill them and let [maintenance] know. 7. On 7/12/21 at 3:46 PM, an interview was conducted with resident 193. Resident 193 stated she had seen lots of earwigs in her room. Resident 193 also stated she had an episode of diarrhea in her bathroom on 7/11/21 and it had not been cleaned up. An observation was immediately made of resident 193's bathroom. An earwig was seen crawling on the floor. A shower chair was also observed to have what appeared to be dry stool on it. 8. On 7/12/21 at 9:30 AM, an initial tour was conducted of the 300 hall. The hall smelled of urine and feces. The dining area had couches that were black, soiled, and worn with tears. The carpets throughout the hall had stains. The tablecloths on the tables were sticky and grimy to the touch. 9. On 7/20/21 at 2:30 PM, there was a smell of urine and feces in the 300/400 hall nurses station, as well as the lobby area. On 7/13/21 at 11:05 AM an interview with the Maintenance Supervisor (MS) was conducted. The MS stated, I'll spray for bugs when we have them, but that doesn't happen very often, just if someone lets me know. We have a professional guy come in once or twice a year to spray the outside. On 7/21/21 at 10:13 AM, an interview was conducted with the facility administrator (ADM). The ADM stated the facility had recently renewed the contract with a pest control company to provide regular pest control services. The ADM stated the maintenance manager had been handling issues for a few months. The ADM stated one resident complained about there being earwigs in the facility, but that the resident was confused. The ADM stated that the facility had plans to replace the carpets and remodel the facility, but that plan had been put on hold several months prior.
CONCERN (E)

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

Transfer Notice (Tag F0623)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility did not send a copy of the transfer notice to a representative of the Office ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility did not send a copy of the transfer notice to a representative of the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman for 3 of 32 residents. Specifically, three residents were transferred to the hospital for overnight stays and the Ombudsman was not notified. Resident identifiers: 7, 23, and 136. Findings include: 1. Resident 7 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included cerebral infarction, type 2 diabetes, and anxiety disorder. On 4/27/21 at 10:25 AM, resident 7 was sent to the local hospital due to abdominal pain and possible blood in vomit. The resident returned to the facility the next day. 2. Resident 23 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included chronic kidney disease, type 2 diabetes, and dementia. On 7/8/21 at 3:45 PM, resident 23 was sent to the local hospital due to low blood sugar and unresponsiveness. The resident returned to the facility the next day. 3. Resident 136 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included acute kidney failure, cognitive communication deficit, and major depressive disorder. On 7/7/21 at approximately 4:00 PM, resident 136 was sent to the local hospital for an altered level of consciousness and bleeding from an unknown source. The resident returned to the facility the next day. On 7/15/21 at 1:18 PM, the local county Long-Term Care Ombudsman was interviewed over the phone. The Ombudsman stated, They (the facility) just recently sent me a list for last June; this is the first one I've received in a long time. I have not received any notification for [residents 7, 23, or 136]. On 7/21/21 at 11:39 AM the Director of Nursing (DON) was interviewed. The DON stated, I don't handle Ombudsman notification. We just started someone doing that in June.
CONCERN (E)

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

Comprehensive Assessments (Tag F0636)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 5. Resident 189 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE], with diagnoses that included pyogenic arthritis...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 5. Resident 189 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE], with diagnoses that included pyogenic arthritis, opioid abuse, chronic pain, chronic respiratory failure, atherosclerotic heart disease, major depressive disorder and muscle weakness. On 7/13/21 at 11:00 AM, resident 189's medical record was reviewed. The MDS assessments for resident 189 were reviewed. The only MDS that was completed for the 6/21/21 admission was the entry MDS. No other assessments were completed after that date as of 7/21/21. On 7/15/21 at 11:30 AM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated that she had been completing the MDS Assessments, but that she was behind and she was sure there were some that weren't complete. 3. Resident 136 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included acute kidney failure, cognitive communication deficit, and major depressive disorder. Resident 136's medical record was reviewed on 7/12/21. Review of resident 136's MDS Assessments in the facility electronic medical record revealed that an admission assessment was not completed within 14 days of resident 136's admit date . The admission MDS dated [DATE] had a status of in progress and was not completed. 4. Resident 135 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included cerebral infarction, atrial fibrillation, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Review of resident 135's MDS Assessments in the facility electronic medical record revealed that an admission assessment was not completed within 14 days of resident 135's admit date . The admission MDS dated [DATE] had a status of in progress and was not completed. Based on interview and record review, the facility did not conduct initially and periodically a comprehensive, accurate, standardized reproducible assessment of each resident's functional capacity for 5 of 32 sample residents. Resident identifiers: 85, 86, 135, 136, and 189. Findings include: 1. Resident 86 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included cerebral palsy, cellulitis of lower left and right lower limb, severe protein calorie malnutrition, lymphedema, anemia, electrolyte and fluid disorder, lack of coordination, and weakness. Resident 86's medical record was reviewed on 7/12/21. Review of resident 86's Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessments in the facility electronic medical record revealed that a a 5 day MDS dated [DATE], and an admission MDS dated [DATE] were in progress and were not yet complete. Review of the State Survey Agency (SSA) program revealed that there was not a 5 day MDS or admission MDS completed for resident 86. 2. Resident 85 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included atrial fibrillation, malignant neoplasm of the colon, chronic kidney disease, diabetes mellitus, heart failure, rhabdomyolysis, and weakness. Resident 85's medical record was reviewed on 7/19/21. Review of resident 85's MDS Assessments in the facility electronic medical record revealed that no MDS Assessments had been completed for resident 85. Review of the SSA program revealed that no MDS Assessments had been completed for resident 85.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0655 (Tag F0655)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, it was determined for 5 of 32 sample residents, the facility did not develop and implement...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, it was determined for 5 of 32 sample residents, the facility did not develop and implement a baseline care plan for each resident that included instructions needed to provide effective and person-centered care of the resident to meet professional standards of quality care within 48 hours of a resident's admission. Specifically, several residents had unfinished baseline care plans that were not completed until weeks after admission, and others had not yet been completed. Resident identifiers: 29, 36, 86, 187, and 189. Findings include: 1. Resident 189 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included pyogenic arthritis, opioid abuse, chronic pain, chronic respiratory failure, atherosclerotic heart disease, major depressive disorder and muscle weakness. On 7/12/21 at 4:14 PM, resident 189 was interviewed. Resident 189 had concerns about the timing of his pain medication and stated he had had no communication about his care. Resident 189 stated he had not had communication about how long he would be staying or when he would be discharged . On 7/13/21 resident 189's medical chart was reviewed. A baseline care plan was initiated on 6/21/21, but had not been completed as of 7/13/21. On 7/19/21 at approximately 11:30 AM, an interview was conducted with the facility Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated that the nurses were the staff responsible for completing the baseline care plan. The DON stated the nurses usually waited until the alert came up on the computer to do the baseline care plans. The DON stated the alert in the system did not appear until 3 days after the resident was admitted . The DON stated she had educated the nurses recently about doing the baseline care plans within 48 hours of a resident admission. 2. Resident 86 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included cerebral palsy, cellulitis of lower left and right lower limb, severe protein calorie malnutrition, lymphedema, anemia, electrolyte and fluid disorder, lack of coordination, and weakness. On 7/13/21 at 3:35 PM, an interview was conducted with resident 86. Resident 86 stated that on the day he was admitted to the facility, he was seated in a manual wheelchair, and they were pushing me up the scale to weigh me, and there was no one in front of me, and my wheelchair got stuck on the lip of the scale, and I fell forward. Resident 86 stated that he was not injured at that time. Resident 86's medical record was reviewed on 7/12/21. Resident 86's nursing progress notes were reviewed. The progress notes indicated that on 6/3/21 at 3:46 PM, Resident arrived via wheelchair . upon arrival to residents room resident fell out of wheelchair while aide was obtaining his weight. Resident did hit his nose when he fell out of wheelchair, and obtained a little gash on his nose. An incident report dated 6/3/21 at 6:00 PM for resident 86 was reviewed. The incident report indicated that Patient was getting weighted (sic) and when they got on the scale CNA (Certified Nursing Assistant) went to move the wheelchair and patient fell forward. Patient got an injury on base of nose. Despite resident 86's fall, resident 86 did not have a baseline care plan completed within 48 hours of admission to the facility. 3. Resident 36 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included chorea, encounter for palliative care, paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, anxiety disorder, and cardiomyopathy. Resident 36's medical record was reviewed on 7/12/21. Review of resident 36's record indicated that a baseline care plan had not been developed for resident 36 until 7/13/21. It should be noted that resident 36 was discharged from the facility on 5/28/21. 4. Resident 29 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included combined systolic and diastolic heart failure, atrial fibrillation, diabetes mellitus, iron deficiency anemia, hyperlipidemia, cardiomyopathy, heart failure, major depressive disorder, long QT syndrome, chronic fatigue, and thyrotoxicosis. Resident 29's medical record was reviewed on 7/12/21. Resident 29's baseline care plan was reviewed. The baseline care plan was not completed until 6/19/21, approximately 6 weeks after resident 29 was admitted . 5. Resident 187 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included spinal stenosis, spondylolisthesis, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, encephalopathy, history of falling, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, hypokalemia and cirrhosis of the liver. Resident 187's medical record was reviewed on 7/12/21. Resident 187's baseline care plan was reviewed. There was no care plan in resident 187's medical record. On 7/13/21 at 1:27 PM, an interview was conducted with Registered Nurse (RN) 1. RN 1 confirmed there was not a baseline care plan in resident 187's medical record. On 7/13/21 at 1:30 PM, an interview was conducted with the DON. The DON confirmed there was not a baseline care plan in resident 187's medical record. The baseline care plan was not completed until 2:15 PM on 7/13/21, approximately 2 weeks after resident 187 was admitted .
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0680 (Tag F0680)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review and interview, the facility did not have an activities program that was directed by a qualified professional who is a qualified therapeutic recreation specialist. Specifically, ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility did not have an activities program that was directed by a qualified professional who is a qualified therapeutic recreation specialist. Specifically, the facility did not employ a Certified Therapeutic Recreation Specialist. Findings include: On 7/15/21, Therapeutic Recreation Technician (TRT) 1 provided the consultant notes from the facility Certified Therapeutic Recreation Specialist (CTRS). The consultant notes indicated that the CTRS had not provided oversight since November 2020. On 7/15/21 at 1:50 PM, an interview was conducted with TRT 1. TRT 1 stated that the CTRS had not provided oversight since December 2020. On 7/15/21 at 11:30 AM, an interview was conducted with the Administrator (ADM). The ADM confirmed that the CTRS had not provided oversight since November 2020. The ADM stated he was not aware that the CTRS was not currently providing oversight.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0725 (Tag F0725)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, observation, and record review, the facility did not have sufficient nursing staff with the appropriate comp...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, observation, and record review, the facility did not have sufficient nursing staff with the appropriate competencies and skills sets to provide nursing and related services to assure resident safety and attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident, as determined by resident assessments and individual plans of care and considering the number, acuity and diagnoses of the facility's resident population. Specifically, residents voiced concern with the level of staffing at the facility, and the wait times for call lights to be answered. In addition, staff were observed to not respond timely to a resident who subsequently fell out of bed. Also, review of the facility's call light logs revealed patterns of extended wait times. Resident identifiers: 12, 18, 26, 29, 135, 136, 185, 189, 191, and 192. Findings include: 1. On 7/12/21 at 1:22 PM, resident 185 stated that sometimes it takes a while to answer call lights. 2. On 7/12/21 at 2:23 PM, resident 29 stated that there was not enough staff at the facility. 3. On 7/12/21 at approximately 10:00 AM, resident 135 was observed to laying sideways on her bed, attempting to get to her wheelchair. The surveyor pressed the resident's call light at 9:49 AM to get the staff's attention. After 5 minutes, the surveyor attempted to locate staff members in the hallway because no one had responded to resident 135's call light. The surveyor encountered Registered Nurse (RN) 4, and returned to resident 135's room with RN 4. Upon return to the resident's room, the resident was on her knees on the floor. RN 4 checked the resident's hand grip and had the resident wave her arms in a circle. Despite this being an unwitnessed fall, RN 4 did not do any further assessment of resident 135. 4. On 7/12/21 at 2:45 PM, resident 191 stated that there was not enough staff at the facility, and that he typically waited 30 minutes for call lights to be answered. 5. On 7/13/21 at 7:00 AM, resident 189 stated he felt the facility was understaffed 6. On 7/12/21 at 12:15 PM, resident 26 stated that he waited for 30 minutes on average for staff to answer his call lights. Resident 26 stated that he had spoken with the administrator about it but that nothing had been changed. Resident 26 also stated that there weren't enough staff members to provide him a shower when he wanted one. 7. On 7/14/21 at 2:30 PM, an interview was conducted with 5 residents from the resident council. Residents stated that they did not feel they were treated with dignity and respect. When asked to clarify, the residents stated that they waited extended periods of time for their call lights to be answered. One male resident, resident 192, stated that he had had accidents because they didn't answer my call light, and its embarrassing for me to have a woman come clean me up like that. some of the problem is they aren't staffed enough. Resident 192 stated that call light times averaged out to about 30 minutes . it's not the staff, they are doing the best they can. Resident 192 stated that sometimes he was assigned a nurse that worked both sides of the building, so he couldn't locate his nurse. A second resident, resident 18, stated that call lights sometimes took 2 hours to answer, and she had pooped my pants because I couldn't get into the bathroom. Resident 18 also stated that sometimes she had to wait to have a shower because they just need more people to do the showers. Resident 18 stated that residents would often ask her to help them locate a staff member if the residents needed help, because resident 18 used an electric wheelchair, and could locate staff members more quickly. Resident 18 stated that I shouldn't have to have residents stop me and have me help them find staff. Resident 12 stated that the facility was understaffed, and he thought it was because they don't want to spend the money. Resident 12 stated that sometimes agency staff were called in to help, and they are horrible. Resident 12 also stated that a typical wait time for a call light was at least 10 to 15 minutes. 8. Resident 136 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included acute kidney failure, cognitive communication deficit, and major depressive disorder. On 7/12/21 at 3:12 PM, resident 136 was observed lying in bed with an untouched meal tray on her bedside tray table. Resident 136 was immediately interviewed and stated, I can't sit up, and I hate eating in bed. Resident 136 stated she would like to eat at a table but staff dropped off meals and then left without inviting her to eat in the main dining hall. Resident 136 stated she was unable to feed herself while lying in bed. On 7/12/21 at 3:53 PM, resident 136's daughter was interviewed over the phone. The daughter stated, I'm worried they're (the facility) not making sure she gets enough fluids and food. When I saw her last she looked dehydrated. The daughter stated that she had voiced concerns about resident 136 not getting sufficient help eating to the Director of Nursing (DON) but the DON had stated that they did not have sufficient staff to sit and help feed every resident. The daughter stated that resident 136 had dementia and simply took a long time to finish meals and required help and prompts. On 7/13/21 at 1:05 PM, an untouched meal tray was observed on resident 136's bedside tray table. On 7/13/21 at 3:03 PM, a cup of what appeared to be water was observed on resident 136's bedside tray table. When asked if she was able to reach it, resident 136 twisted and tried to reach the table but was unable to. She stated, I can't reach it. On 7/21/21 at 10:36 AM, an untouched breakfast tray was observed sitting on resident 136's bedside tray table. 9. On 7/14/21, the facility Administrator provided surveyors with call light logs. Review of the logs revealed the following: a. On 7/13/21, there were 15 call lights with wait times of over 10 minutes. Three of those call light wait times were between 24 and 29 minutes. b. On 7/12/21, there were 26 call lights with wait times of over 10 minutes. Two of those call light wait times were between 24 and 27 minutes. c. On 7/11/21, there were 35 call lights with wait times of over 10 minutes. Five of those call light wait times were between 20 and 28 minutes. d. On 7/10/21, there were 13 call lights with wait times of over 10 minutes. Two of those call light wait times were between 21 and 29 minutes. e. On 7/9/21, there were 35 call lights with wait times of over 10 minutes. Twelve of those call light wait times were between 21 and 29 minutes. f. On 7/8/21, there were 52 call lights with wait times of over 10 minutes. Thirteen of those call light wait times were between 21 and 29 minutes. g. On 7/7/21, there were 22 call lights with wait times of over 10 minutes. Four of those call light wait times were between 20 and 28 minutes.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0726 (Tag F0726)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident 29 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included combined systolic and diastolic heart failure...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident 29 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included combined systolic and diastolic heart failure, atrial fibrillation, diabetes mellitus, iron deficiency anemia, hyperlipidemia, cardiomyopathy, heart failure, major depressive disorder, long QT syndrome, chronic fatigue, and thyrotoxicosis. Resident 29's medical record was reviewed on [DATE] and again on [DATE]. On [DATE] at approximately 1:00 PM, an observation was made of resident 29. Resident 29 was being wheeled by the Van Driver (VD) onto the wheelchair scale. The front wheels of the wheelchair were observed to catch on the lip of the scale, causing the resident to jerk forward. Resident 29's feet were observed to drag under the frame of the wheelchair as the resident was being wheeled onto the scale. The VD was observed to reach down and reposition the resident's feet. On [DATE] at approximately 9:30 AM, an interview with the VD was conducted. When asked if the VD had received training on transfers and wheelchair safety, the VD stated No, but I'm just the van driver. On [DATE] at 10:25 AM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). When asked if she was aware that resident 29's feet were dragged under the wheelchair on [DATE], she stated she was not aware of the incident. 3. On [DATE], the Director of Nursing (DON) was asked to provide a copy of Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 1's current certification. The DON provided a copy of a card that indicated that CNA 1's certification had expired on [DATE]. On [DATE], the Utah Nurse Aide Registry (UNAR) was checked to verify the current certification of CNA 1. The UNAR indicated that CNA 1's certification expired on [DATE]. On [DATE], CNA 1 was observed to be assisting residents with the lunch meal in the 400 hall dining room. Review of the CNA schedule for the facility revealed that from [DATE] through [DATE], CNA 1 was scheduled to work 9 times. On [DATE] at 5:45 PM, an interview was conducted with the DON. The DON stated that she was unaware that CNA 1's certification had expired until she was asked to provide a copy of the certification. The DON stated that the Human Resources staff member was responsible for ensuring those certifications were current. The DON stated that CNA 1 had been working at the facility since [DATE]. On [DATE] at 10:28 AM, CNA 1 was observed to be working with residents as a CNA. CNA 1 confirmed that his certification had expired, and stated that he had completed the paperwork to renew it the previous day. 4. On [DATE] at approximately 10:00 AM, resident 135 was observed to laying sideways on her bed, attempting to get to her wheelchair. The surveyor pressed the resident's call light at 9:49 AM to get the staff's attention. After 5 minutes, the surveyor attempted to locate staff members in the hallway because no one had responded to resident 135's call light. The surveyor encountered Registered Nurse (RN) 4, and returned to resident 135's room with RN 4. Upon return to the resident's room, the resident was on her knees on the floor. RN 4 checked the resident's hand grip and had the resident wave her arms in a circle. Despite this being an unwitnessed fall, RN 4 did not do any further assessment of resident 135. 5. Resident 187 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included spinal stenosis, spondylolisthesis, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, encephalopathy, history of falling, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, hypokalemia and cirrhosis of the liver. On [DATE] at 8:18 AM an observation was made of resident 187 wheeling himself to the nurse cart. Resident 187 was observed to ask Registered Nurse (RN) 4 for his medications because he was going to an appointment. RN 4 was observed to administer resident 187's medications, and then stayed with resident 187 until he had swallowed his medications. RN 4 then asked resident 187 if he was in pain. RN 4 was observed to review resident 187's medical record and then told the resident he was not due for pain medication yet. Resident 187 was then observed to wheel himself to the front entrance to get ready to leave. Resident 187 was immediately interviewed as he was near the front entrance. Resident 187 stated the nurse was going to give the van driver (VD) taking him to his appointment a pain pill for later. The surveyor then walked back to the nurses station, where RN 4 was giving the facility Van Driver (VD) a white pill in a plastic bag. The VD then left the nurses station. An interview was immediately conducted with RN 4 about the medication she had given to the VD. RN 4 stated that the medication was a pain pill that the VD was going to give to resident 187 while he was out for the appointment. RN 4 stated that she had written the time for the medication to be administered on the bag. RN 4 stated she did not know if the VD was qualified or licensed to administer medication. RN 4 stated she was unsure if the resident had been assessed to take his own medication. RN 4 also stated the facility physician had said it was acceptable for the VD to give medications when residents went out for visits or appointments. On [DATE] at approximately 9:00 AM, a record review was conducted on resident 187's medical record. A self-administration assessment was initiated for resident 187 on [DATE] at 7:26 AM. However, the form had not been completed. There was no Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) evaluation for resident 187 to self-administer medications in the medical record. On [DATE] at approximately 11:30 AM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated resident 187 was approved for self-administration of medication on [DATE] with supervision. The DON confirmed that resident 187 had not been assessed prior to [DATE] to self-administer medications. The DON stated that the facility VD had no qualifications to give medications to residents. The DON stated she did not like to send residents out with pain medication. The DON stated she found out about resident 187 was being sent out with medications after the event had happened. The DON then stated the facility physician gave approval for the medication to be given to the resident while he was away from the facility, after the VD had already been given the pain pill. The DON stated that the nurse should not have sent the pain pill with the VD. On [DATE] at 10:51 AM, an interview was conducted with RN 4. RN 4 stated she told the VD the specific time resident 187 could have the medication. RN 4 stated she wrote the time the medication should be given on the envelope containing the pain medication. RN 4 stated she did not follow-up on when the medication was given to resident 187. RN 4 stated when she saw the VD he stated that he administered the medication to resident 187 and resident 187 took the medication. RN 4 stated the resident also told her that he received the medication. RN 4 stated that she was supposed to chart when the medication was given, but did not go back and chart it. RN 4 stated she thought the DON was going to put something in resident 187's chart. RN 4 stated she did not go back to the Medication Administration Record (MAR) and document when the medication was taken or a follow-up pain score. RN 4 stated resident 187 got his pill ok and was glad to get it because it was a long trip. On [DATE] at 11:12 AM, an interview was conducted with the VD regarding resident 187 and administering pain medication on his visit out of the facility. The VD stated he gave the pain medication to resident 187 at 10:45 AM and witnessed resident 187 take the medication. The VD stated he did not assess resident 187 for side effects or effectiveness. The VD stated upon return he thought RN 4 had asked him if the resident took the medication. The VD stated he was not asked any other questions about the resident taking the medication. The VD stated that he did not have any qualifications to dispense medications, and stated you have to be a nurse or something like that.' Based on interview, observation, and record review, the facility did not have sufficient nursing staff with the appropriate competencies and skills sets to provide nursing and related services to assure resident safety and attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident, as determined by resident assessments and individual plans of care and considering the number, acuity and diagnoses of the facility's resident population in accordance with the facility assessment. Specifically, two residents were transferred onto the scale by staff inappropriately, one of whom experienced a fall. In addition, a staff member's certification had expired, a resident had an unwitnessed fall but was not appropriately assessed, and a pain pill was given to an unlicensed staff member to administer to a resident. Resident identifiers: 29, 86, 135, and 187. Findings include: 1. Resident 86 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included cerebral palsy, cellulitis of lower left and right lower limb, severe protein calorie malnutrition, lymphedema, anemia, electrolyte and fluid disorder, lack of coordination, and weakness. On [DATE] at 3:35 PM, an interview was conducted with resident 86. Resident 86 stated that on the day he was admitted to the facility, he was seated in a manual wheelchair, and they were pushing me up the scale to weigh me, and there was no one in front of me, and my wheelchair got stuck on the lip of the scale, and I fell forward. Resident 86 stated that he was not injured at that time. Resident 86's medical record was reviewed on [DATE]. Resident 86's nursing progress notes were reviewed. The progress notes indicated that on [DATE] at 3:46 PM, Resident arrived via wheelchair . upon arrival to residents room resident fell out of wheelchair while aide was obtaining his weight. Resident did hit his notes when he feel out of wheelchair, and obtained a little gash on his nose. An incident report dated [DATE] at 6:00 PM for resident 86 was reviewed. The incident report indicated that Patient was getting weighted (sic) and when they got on the scale CNA (Certified Nursing Assistant) went to move the wheelchair and patient fell forward. Patient got an injury on base of nose. On [DATE] at 5:45 PM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated that she did not do any staff training after resident 86 fell out of his wheelchair while being weighed by staff.
CONCERN (E)

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

Staffing Information (Tag F0732)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation and interview, it was determined that the facility did not have the nurse staffing information posted. The facility must post the following information on a daily basis: Facility ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interview, it was determined that the facility did not have the nurse staffing information posted. The facility must post the following information on a daily basis: Facility name, the current date, the total number and the actual hours worked by the following categories of licensed and unlicensed nursing staff directly responsible for resident care per shift: Registered Nurses, Licensed practical nurses, Certified Nurse aides, and resident census. 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. Additionally, the information must be displayed in a prominent place readily accessible to residents and visitors. Findings include: On 7/12/21, an initial tour was conducted of the facility. The nurse staff posting could not be located. On 7/13/21, a tour was conducted of the facility. The nurse staff posting could not be located. On 7/13/21, at 12:10 PM, an interview was conducted with Receptionist 1. When asked where the nurse staff posting was posted, Receptionist 1 stated that she did not know what the nurse staff posting was, nor where it was located. Receptionist 1 stated that a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) schedule was posted behind the nursing station. On 7/14/21, a tour was conducted of the facility. The nurse staff posting could not be located. On 7/15/21, a tour was conducted of the facility. The nurse staff posting could not be located. On 7/15/21 at 11:30 AM, an interview was conducted with the facility Administrator (ADM). When asked about the nurse staff posting, the ADM stated that the CNA schedule was posted at the nursing station. The ADM stated he was not aware that more information needed to be posted on a daily basis.
CONCERN (E)

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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of 4 of 32 sample residents. Specifically, the 4 residents were not given scheduled medication due to it not being available. Resident identifiers: 4, 10, 29, and 136. Findings include: 1. Resident 4 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Alzheimer's disease, hypertension, and atrial fibrillation. Resident 4's medical record and physician orders were reviewed on 7/12/21. A physician order indicated that resident 4 was to be administered Midodrine HCl Tablet 5 milligrams (mg) once daily for low blood pressure, severe dizziness and fainting. Resident 4's July 2021 Medication Administration Record (MAR) was reviewed. Review of the MAR revealed that resident 4 was not administered Midodrine on 7/8/21, 7/9/21, 7/10/21, or 7/14/21. Resident 4's nursing progress notes were reviewed and revealed the following: a. On 7/8/21, the Midodrine was not administered due to Drug unavailable/pending. b. On 7/9/21, the Midodrine was not administered due to Drug unavailable/pending. c. On 7/10/21, the Midodrine was not administered due to Drug unavailable/pending. d. On 7/14/21, the Midodrine was not administered due to Drug unavailable/pending. 2. Resident 136 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included acute kidney failure, cognitive communication deficit, and major depressive disorder. Resident 136's medical record and physician orders were reviewed on 7/12/21. A physician order indicated that resident 136 was to be administered eliquis tablet 5 milliequivalent(mEq) twice daily for blood clot prevention as well as lasix 40 mg once daily for swelling. Resident 136's July 2021 MAR was reviewed. Review of the MAR revealed that resident 136 was not administered eliquis or the lasix on 7/9/21 and 7/11/21. Resident 136's nursing progress notes were reviewed and revealed the following: a. On 7/9/21, the Eliquis was not administered due to Drug unavailable/pending. b. On 7/9/21, the lasix was not administered due to Drug unavailable/pending. c. On 7/11/21, the Eliquis was not administered due to Drug unavailable/pending. d. On 7/11/21, the lasix was not administered due to Drug unavailable/pending. On 7/14/21 at 8:07 AM, Registered Nurse (RN) 4 was interviewed regarding resident 4's missing Midodrine. RN 4 stated, When a med (medication) is missing like this we notify the pharmacy and see how soon they can get it in and we'll let the doctor to see when we can give it, like how late we can give it when it gets here. 3. Resident 10 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included diabetes mellitus, falls, muscle weakness, dementia, hypertension, and major depressive disorder. Resident 10's medical record was reviewed on 7/12/21. Resident 10's physician orders were reviewed. The physician orders indicated that resident 10 was to be administered Allopurinol 300 milligrams (mg) once daily for a diagnosis of gout. Resident 10's July 2021 MAR was reviewed. Review of the MAR revealed that resident 10 was not administered allopurinol on 7/2/21, 7/3/21, or 7/4/21. Resident 10's nursing progress notes were reviewed and revealed the following: a. On 7/2/21, the Allopurinol was not administered due to Drug unavailable/pending. b. On 7/3/21, the Allopurinol was not administered due to Drug unavailable/pending. c. On 7/4/21, the Allopurinol was not administered due to Drug unavailable/pending. 4. Resident 29 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included combined systolic and diastolic heart failure, atrial fibrillation, diabetes mellitus, iron deficiency anemia, hyperlipidemia, cardiomyopathy, heart failure, major depressive disorder, long QT syndrome, chronic fatigue, and thyrotoxicosis. Resident 29's medical record was reviewed on 7/12/21. Resident 29's physician orders were reviewed. The physician orders indicated that resident 29 was to be administered Mexiletine 150 mg twice daily for a diagnosis of atrial fibrillation. Resident 29's July 2021 MAR was reviewed. Review of the MAR revealed that resident 29 was not administered Mexiletine on 7/6/21 in the evening or on 7/7/21 in the morning. Resident 29's nursing progress notes were reviewed and revealed the following: a. On 7/6/21, the Mexiletine was not administered due to not available. b. On 7/7/21, the Mexiletine was not administered due to Drug available/pending. On 7/20/21 at 5:45 PM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). When asked about medications being unavailable for residents 10 and 29, the DON stated that she had instructed the facility nurses to pull from the automated dispensing system, if they were out of a medication.
CONCERN (E)

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

Drug Regimen Review (Tag F0756)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review it was determined that for 3 of 32 sample residents, the facility did not ensure that the m...

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 3 of 32 sample residents, the facility did not ensure that the monthly drug regimen recommendations by a licensed pharmacist were implemented in a timely manner. Resident identifiers: 16, 20, and 29. Findings include: 1. Resident 29 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included combined systolic and diastolic heart failure, atrial fibrillation, diabetes mellitus, iron deficiency anemia, hyperlipidemia, cardiomyopathy, heart failure, major depressive disorder, long QT syndrome, chronic fatigue, and thyrotoxicosis. Resident 29's medical record was reviewed on 7/12/21 and again on 7/19/21. The Pharmacist Consultant Therapeutic Recommendation (PCTR) for resident 29 dated 7/3/21 was reviewed. The PCTR indicated that the pharmacist stated resident 29 is receiving Novolog 70/30 Mix insulin four times a day on a sliding scale. Sliding scale is not very effective when using a mixed or long-acting insulin. His blood sugars are consistently elevated in high 100s-300s. Recommendation(s): 1. Schedule Novolog 70/30 Mix insulin 18 units with breakfast and 12 hours with evening meal, and continue to monitor. 2. Continue fingerstick glucose checks QID (four times a day), before meals and bedtime for now. 3. Discontinue current sliding scale order. The PCTR indicated that the physician agreed with the pharmacist's recommendations, but did not sign or date the document. Review of resident 29's physician orders revealed that the above listed recommendations were not implemented until the evening of 7/19/21, more than 2 weeks after the pharmacist made the recommendation. 2. Resident 16 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included dementia, generalized anxiety disorder and hypertension. Resident 16's medical record was reviewed on 7/12/21 and again on 7/19/21. The PCTR dated 5/26/21 for resident 29 was reviewed. The PCTR indicated that the pharmacist stated Consider memantine, duloxetine, or escitalopram for anxiety and agitation. The PCTR indicated that the physician agreed with the pharmacist's recommendations as of 6/21/21. Review of resident 16's physician orders revealed that the above recommendations were not implemented until 6/14/21, approximately 19 days after the pharmacist made the recommendation, when a verbal order for escitalopram 5 milligrams was entered into the electronic health record. 3. Resident 20 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Alzheimer's disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and major depressive disorder. Resident 20's medical record was reviewed on 7/12/21 and again on 7/19/21. a. The PCTR dated 1/23/21 for resident 20 was reviewed. The PCTR indicated that the pharmacist stated that resident 20 has more frequent blood glucose checks below 100 mg/dl (milligrams per deciliter). Blood sugars are still fairly high at bedtime. Recommendation: Decrease glargine insulin 40 units down to 36 units daily to avoid hypoglycemia. This will allow further up-titration of his prandial insulin once stable. The PCTR indicated that the physician agreed with the pharmacist's recommendations as of 2/8/21. Review of resident 20's physician orders revealed that the above recommendations were not implemented until 2/10/21, approximately two weeks after the pharmacist made the recommendations. b. The PCTR dated 3/23/21 for resident 20 was reviewed. The PCTR indicated that resident 20's blood glucose is frequently [less than] 80 mg/dl on 36 units of glargine insulin. Recommendation: Decrease glargine dose to 32 units daily. The PCTR indicated that the physician agreed with the pharmacist's recommendations as of 4/5/21. Review of resident 20's physician orders revealed that the above recommendations were not implemented until 4/7/21, approximately two weeks after the pharmacist made the recommendations. c. The PCTR dated 5/26/21 for resident 20 was reviewed. The PCTR indicated that resident 20 still has a few episodes of hyper- to hypoglycemia. Recommendation: Decrease glargine dose to 28 units daily, and continue to monitor. The PCTR indicated that the physician agreed with the pharmacist's recommendations as of 6/21/21. Review of resident 20's physician orders revealed that the above recommendations were not implemented until 6/15/21, approximately two weeks after the pharmacist made the recommendations. On 7/21/21 at 11:15 AM, an interview was conducted with the Consultant Pharmacist (CP). The CP stated that the facility Director of Nursing (DON) was emailed a copy of his recommendations within 24 hours of making the recommendations. The CP also stated that a physical copy of his recommendations within 3 to 4 hours of making the recommendations. On 7/21/21, an interview was conducted with the DON. The DON stated she did not know why there was a delay in the implementation of the CP recommendations.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0757 (Tag F0757)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure each resident's drug regimen was free from unnecessary drugs. Specifically, 3 of 32 residents were given medication outside of ordered parameters. Resident identifiers: 3, 135, and 136. Findings include: 1. Resident 3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included type 2 diabetes, diabetic neuropathy, end edema. Resident 3's medical record and physician orders were reviewed on 7/12/21. A physician order indicated that resident 3 was to be administered Insulin Lispro Solution 100 UNIT/Milliliters (ML) before meals and at bedtime for elevated blood glucose. The order contained the following the following caveat: Call MD (Medical Director) for BG (blood glucose) [greater than] 450 for additional orders. Resident 3's May, June, and July 2021 Medication Administration Record (MAR) and nursing progress notes were reviewed and revealed the following: a. On 5/24/21, BG was 475, max dose was given, will check in one hour. b. On 5/27/21, BG was 472, max dose was given, will check in 1 hour. c. On 6/18/21, too high for reader max dose given, will recheck in an hour. d. On 6/25/21, BG=Hi, Max dose was given, will recheck in an hour. e. On 7/8/21, blood sugar at 551. max dose given. f. On 7/12/21, BG=485. Max dose given, will recheck in one hour. On 7/13/21 at 11:23 AM, Registered Nurse (RN) 1 was interviewed. RN 1 stated, If someone's blood sugar is outside parameters we give the max dose and notify the Doctor. RN 1 stated that there would always be a nursing progress note indicating the doctor was called and that the BG was rechecked in one hour. There was no record of the MD being contacted or of the BG being rechecked for the above examples. 2. Resident 135 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included hypertension, major depressive disorder, and atrial fibrillation. Resident 135's medical record and physician orders were reviewed on 7/12/21. A physician order indicated that resident 135 was to be given Metoprolol succinate capsule ER (extended release) 24 Hour Sprinkle 100 MG (milligrams) one time a day for AFIB (atrial fibrillation). The order contained the following the following caveat: Do not give if HR (heart rate) [less than] 70. Resident 135's July 2021 MAR and nursing progress notes were reviewed and revealed the medication was given on the following days when resident 135's HR was less than 70: a. 7/15/21 at 8:12 AM - 63 bpm (beats per minute) b. 7/15/21 at 5:17 AM - 63 bpm c. 7/15/21 at 12:13 PM - 59 bpm d. 7/14/21 at 8:30 PM - 59 bpm e. 7/14/21 at 6:23 PM - 59 bpm f. 7/14/21 at 4:19 PM - 63 bpm g. 7/12/21 at 12:39 PM - 60 bpm h. 7/10/21 at 8:45 AM - 67 bpm i. 7/9/21 at 1:21 AM - 68 bpm j. 7/8/21 at 9:16 AM - 68 bpm k. 7/8/21 at 4:15 AM - 68 bpm l. 7/7/21 at 1:27 PM - 68 bpm m. 7/7/21 at 5:47 AM - 68 bpm n. 7/3/21 at 11:53 PM - 63 bpm o. 7/3/21 at 6:03 PM - 63 bpm p. 7/2/21 at 8:45 PM - 62 bpm q. 7/2/21 at 5:14 PM - 62 bpm r. 7/2/21 at 6:31 AM - 62 bpm s. 7/2/21 at 2:01 AM - 67 bpm t. 7/1/21 at 3:25 PM - 67 bpm u. 7/1/21 at 2:45 AM - 67 bpm 3. Resident 136 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included acute kidney failure, cognitive communication deficit, and major depressive disorder. Resident 136's medical record and physician orders were reviewed on 7/12/21. A physician order indicated that resident 136 was to be given hydralazine HCL tablet 50 mg by mouth every 6 hours as needed for HTN (hypertension) for systolic blood pressure greater (SBP) than 160 and/or diastolic blood pressure (DBP) greater than 90. Resident 136's July 2021 MAR and nursing progress notes were reviewed and revealed the medication was not given on the following days when resident 136's SBP was greater than than 160 and/or DBP was greater than 90: [Note: This first number is systolic pressure and the second number is diastolic pressure.] a. 7/2/2 - 167/92 b. 7/3/21 - 167/124 c. 7/4/21 - 181/96 d. 7/10/21 - 194/86 e. 7/11/21 - 139/74 f. 7/12/21 - 164/81 g. 7/13/21 - 184/90 h. 7/14/21 - 180/91
CONCERN (E)

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

Unnecessary Medications (Tag F0759)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure that it's medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater for 3 of 32 sample residents. Specific...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure that it's medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater for 3 of 32 sample residents. Specifically, 2 residents did not have scheduled medication available, and 1 resident was given the incorrect dose of insulin. This resulted in a 12 percent medication error rate. Resident identifiers: 4, 19, and 34. Findings include: 1. On 7/14/21 at 7:45 AM, Registered Nurse (RN) 3 was observed during the morning medication pass. When RN 3 was withdrawing medication for resident 19, it was discovered that resident 19's scheduled Clopidogrel was not available in the Pyxis dispensing unit. [Note: Clopidogrel is a blood thinner that can prevent stroke, heart attack, and other heart problems.] RN 3 was immediately interviewed. She stated, When we have a missing med we'll call the pharmacy and let the doctor know. At 3:44 PM, RN 3 was interviewed regarding the missing AM medication for resident 19. RN 3 stated, The doc didn't reply but he usually won't if it's something he's ok with. 2. On 7/14/21 at 8:10 AM, RN 4 was observed during the morning medication pass. When RN 4 was withdrawing medication for resident 4, it was discovered that resident 4 did not have his scheduled Midodrine available in the Pyxis dispensing unit. [Note: Midodrine can treat a kind of low blood pressure that causes severe dizziness and fainting.] RN 4 was immediately interviewed and asked about the facility procedure for missing medication. RN 4 stated, When a med is missing like this we notify the pharmacy and see how soon they can get it in and we'll let the doctor know to see when we can give it, like how late we can give it when it gets here. On 7/21/21 at 10:03 AM RN 4 was interviewed regarding the missing medication for resident 4. RN 4 stated. He finally got it. It came on one of their (pharmacy) last deliveries. We ended up skipping it because he gets it three times a day. 3. On 7/19/21 at 11:48 AM, RN 2 was observed during afternoon medication pass. RN 2 checked the blood glucose level of resident 34 and obtained a reading of 448. RN 2 then administered 14 units of insulin to resident 2. A record review of resident 2's insulin orders revealed the following: Insulin Aspart Solution 100 UNIT/ML (milliliter) Inject as per sliding scale: if 80 - 140 = 0; 141 - 200 = 6; 201 - 250 = 8; 251 - 300 = 10; 301 - 350 = 12; 351 - 400 = 14; 401 - 500 Call MD (Medical Director) The order indicates that the MD should have been contacted as opposed to being given 14 units.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0760 (Tag F0760)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident 4 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Alzheimer's disease, hypertension, and atrial ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident 4 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Alzheimer's disease, hypertension, and atrial fibrillation. Resident 4's medical record and physician orders were reviewed on 7/12/21. A physician order indicated that resident 4 was to be administered Midodrine HCl Tablet 5 milligrams (mg) once daily for low blood pressure, severe dizziness and fainting. Resident 4's July 2021 MAR was reviewed. Review of the MAR revealed that resident 4 was not administered Midodrine on 7/8/21, 7/9/21, 7/10/21, or 7/14/21. Resident 4's nursing progress notes were reviewed and revealed the following: a. On 7/8/21, the Midodrine was not administered due to Drug unavailable/pending. b. On 7/9/21, the Midodrine was not administered due to Drug unavailable/pending. c. On 7/10/21, the Midodrine was not administered due to Drug unavailable/pending. d. On 7/14/21, the Midodrine was not administered due to Drug unavailable/pending. 3. Resident 136 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included acute kidney failure, cognitive communication deficit, and major depressive disorder. Resident 136's medical record and physician orders were reviewed on 7/12/21. A physician order indicated that resident 136 was to be given hydralazine HCL tablet 50 mg by mouth every 6 hours as needed for HTN (hypertension) for systolic blood pressure greater (SBP) than 160 and/or diastolic blood pressure (DBP) greater than 90. Resident 136's July 2021 MAR and nursing progress notes were reviewed and revealed the medication was not given on the following days when resident 136's SBP was greater than than 160 and/or DBP was greater than 90: [Note: This first number is systolic pressure and the second number is diastolic pressure.] a. 7/2/2 - 167/92 b. 7/3/21 - 167/124 c. 7/4/21 - 181/96 d. 7/10/21 - 194/86 e. 7/11/21 - 139/74 f. 7/12/21 - 164/81 g. 7/13/21 - 184/90 h. 7/14/21 - 180/91 4. On 7/14/21 at 7:45 AM, Registered Nurse (RN) 3 was observed during the morning medication pass. When RN 3 was withdrawing medication for resident 19, it was discovered that resident 19's scheduled Clopidogrel was not available in the Pyxis dispensing unit. [Note: Clopidogrel is a blood thinner that can prevent stroke, heart attack, and other heart problems.] RN 3 was immediately interviewed. She stated, When we have a missing med we'll call the pharmacy and let the doctor know. At 3:44 PM, RN 3 was interviewed regarding the missing AM medication for resident 19. RN 3 stated, The doc didn't reply but he usually won't if it's something he's ok with. 5. On 7/14/21 at 8:10 AM, RN 4 was observed during the morning medication pass. When RN 4 was withdrawing medication for resident 4, it was discovered that resident 4 did not have his scheduled Midodrine available in the Pyxis dispensing unit. [Note: Midodrine can treat a kind of low blood pressure that causes severe dizziness and fainting.] RN 4 was immediately interviewed and asked about the facility procedure for missing medication. RN 4 stated, When a med is missing like this we notify the pharmacy and see how soon they can get it in and we'll let the doctor know to see when we can give it, like how late we can give it when it gets here. On 7/21/21 at 10:03 AM RN 4 was interviewed regarding the missing medication for resident 4. RN 4 stated. He finally got it. It came on one of their (pharmacy) last deliveries. We ended up skipping it because he gets it three times a day. 6. On 7/19/21 at 11:48 AM, RN 2 was observed during afternoon medication pass. RN 2 checked the blood glucose level of resident 34 and obtained a reading of 448. RN 2 then administered 14 units of insulin to resident 2. A record review of resident 2's insulin orders revealed the following: Insulin Aspart Solution 100 UNIT/ML (milliliter) Inject as per sliding scale: if 80 - 140 = 0; 141 - 200 = 6; 201 - 250 = 8; 251 - 300 = 10; 301 - 350 = 12; 351 - 400 = 14; 401 - 500 Call MD (Medical Director) The order indicates that the MD should have been contacted as opposed to being given 14 units. Based on interview and record review, the facility did not ensure that 5 of 32 sample residents were free of significant medication errors. Specifically, residents were not administered medications due to the medications being unavailable, were administered the incorrect dose, and/or were administered medications outside of physician prescribed parameters. Resident identifiers: 4, 19, 29, 34, and 136. Findings include: 1. Resident 29 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included combined systolic and diastolic heart failure, atrial fibrillation, diabetes mellitus, iron deficiency anemia, hyperlipidemia, cardiomyopathy, heart failure, major depressive disorder, long QT syndrome, chronic fatigue, and thyrotoxicosis. Resident 29's medical record was reviewed on 7/12/21. Resident 29's physician orders were reviewed. The physician orders indicated that resident 29 was to be administered Mexiletine 150 mg twice daily for a diagnosis of atrial fibrillation. Resident 29's July 2021 MAR was reviewed. Review of the MAR revealed that resident 29 was not administered Mexiletine on 7/6/21 in the evening or on 7/7/21 in the morning. Resident 29's nursing progress notes were reviewed and revealed the following: a. On 7/6/21, the Mexiletine was not administered due to not available. b. On 7/7/21, the Mexiletine was not administered due to Drug available/pending. On 7/20/21 at 5:45 PM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). When asked about medications being unavailable for residents 10 and 29, the DON stated that she had instructed the facility nurses to pull from the automated dispensing system, if they were out of a medication.
CONCERN (E)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview and record review it was determined that the facility did not store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards of food service safet...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review it was determined that the facility did not store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards of food service safety. Specifically, food in the freezer was not dated and open to air, food items in the dry storage room were not sealed and open to air, staff members entered the kitchen during tray line without hair nets, and food was plated for a resident's lunch tray without checking the temperature. Findings include: 1. On 7/12/21 at 9:08 AM, an initial observation of the kitchen was conducted. The following observations were made: a. The steam table was dirty with food particles and spills. b. A bag of [NAME] Krispies cereal in the dry storage room was open to air. c. Panko bags in the dry storage room were open to air. d. A bag of grits in the dry storage room was open to air. e. A box of sugar cookies in the freezer was open to air. f. A bag of frozen vegetables in the freezer was open to air. g. A box of frozen rolls in the freezer was open to air. h. A box of Salisbury steak patties in the freezer was open to air. In addition, the box was not dated. 2. On 7/13/21 at 12:15 PM, an observation was made of Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 6 walking into the kitchen, past the yellow lines indicating a hair net was required, two separate times to speak to the kitchen staff. CNA 6 did not put on a hair net before entering the kitchen. 3. On 7/13/21 at 3:45 PM, an observation was made of the freezer in the kitchen. The following food items were observed in the facility freezer: a. A box of frozen rolls was open to air. b. A box of Salisbury steak patties was open to air. In addition, the box was not dated. c. A box of chicken cordon bleu cutlets were open to air. In addition, the box was not dated. d. A box of corn dogs was open to air. 4. On 7/16/21 at 11:52 AM a lunch service tray line was observed. During tray line, the following observations were made: a. On 7/16/21 at 12:14 PM Diet Aide 5 took a plate with 2 fillets of fish from the oven. Diet Aide 5 then placed the plate onto a lunch service cart without checking the temperature of the fish. Upon this observation, Diet Aide 5 was interviewed. Diet Aide 5 stated the temperature of the fish was not checked. The Diet Aide 5 then reported, Usually [Diet Aide 4] is the one who puts the food on the trays. I just did it today because [Diet Aide 4] is running late. b. On 7/16/21 at 12:18 PM, CNA 11 entered the kitchen without wearing no hairnet. CNA 12 then followed CNA 11 into the kitchen. While not wearing hairnets, CNA's 11 and 12 walked past tray line where open pans of food were located for plating. As CNA's 11 and 12 continued to stand near open pans of food next to the tray line service area the Dietary Manager stated to the CNA's, You can't be in here without hairnets. Following the observation the DM stated, This has been an issue with staff entering the kitchen without hairnets. On 7/14/21 at 8:54 AM an interview was conducted with the dietary manager (DM) in the dry storage room. The DM stated I need to throw stuff away because it has been here since before I came. The DM stated I hate to waste food, and I don't know what to do with it. The DM stated she was aware that her staff were not marking items after they were received and were putting them away in the freezer, refrigerator, and dry storage. The DM stated she had done education with them, the Registered Dietitian (RD) had done trainings with them and they still were not doing it. The DM stated she was thinking of putting signs on the doors of the dry storage, refrigerator and freezer to remind staff to put dates on the items. On 7/14/21 at 4:07 PM, a telephone interview was conducted with the facility RD. The RD stated that she did not oversee the kitchen, but performed audits. The RD stated one audit she performed was in the refrigerator and freezer for rotation of food. The RD stated she had not done a full audit on the kitchen since the COVID pandemic began, which was April or May of 2020. Despite the RD saying she had not completed a kitchen audit since April or May 2020, she did provide a kitchen audit dated 3/3/21. The audit documented open boxes/containers/bags in freezer not secured after removing some contents.: Additionally, the RD documented on the audit that mandatory in-services should be provided for organize freezer, discard any expired or freezer burned food, secure open bags in freezer and boxes.
CONCERN (E)

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

Administration (Tag F0835)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, record review and interview the facility was not administered in a manner that enabled it to use its resources effectively and efficiently to attain or maintain the highest pract...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review and interview the facility was not administered in a manner that enabled 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, the facility was found to be in non-compliance with F880, which was cited at an Immediate Jeopardy, scope and severity of L. In addition, several deficiencies were cited during the 2019 recertification survey, and again during the 2021 survey. Resident identifiers: 85, 86, 185, 186 and 187. Findings include: 1. Based on observation, interview, and record review it was determined that the facility failed to establish an infection prevention and control program designed to prevent the development and transmission of COVID-19. Specifically,with regard to residents who were on Transmission Based Precautions (TBP), staff were observed to not fully don gowns, wear soiled gowns throughout the facility, not wear appropriate eye protection, not clean face shields after exiting the room, not store face shields appropriately, not clean vital signs equipment between resident use, contaminate isolation carts, contaminate syringes by placing them on top of isolation carts, clean and store syringes inappropriately, not clean glucometers between residents, not perform appropriate hand hygiene, not wear masks appropriately, not don gowns or gloves to deliver meal trays, not have isolation carts that were adequately supplied, and not isolate unvaccinated residents for 14 days. Resident identifiers: 85, 86, 185, 186 and 187. 2. During the recertification survey with an end date of 4/4/19, the facility was cited for non-compliance with regulations F584, F655, F656, F755, F756, F757, F759, F760, F812, F842, F866, and F880. These same tags were cited on the survey completed on 7/22/21.
CONCERN (E)

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

Medical Records (Tag F0842)

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 32 sample residents that the facility did not main...

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 32 sample residents that the facility did not maintain medical records on each resident that were complete and accurately documented. Specifically, a newly admitted resident's COVID testing results were not included in the medical record. Additionally, facility staff failed to keep resident medical records confidential and out of public view, and a resident's hospital records were not in the electronic health record. Resident identifiers: 86 and 193. Findings include: 1. Resident 193 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included acute kidney failure, chronic atrial fibrillation, hypotension, essential hypertension, anemia, elevated white blood cell count, and major depressive disorder. On 7/13/21, a review of resident 193's medical records was conducted. No vaccination information regarding COVID-19 was found in resident 193's medical chart. In addition, no COVID-19 testing results were found in resident 193's medical chart. On 7/14/21 at approximately 9:45 AM, an interview was conducted with the facility Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated that resident 193 was transferred to the facility from the local hospital. The DON stated the hospital sent a text message to the Resident Advocate (RA) with the dates of vaccination from a local pharmacy. The DON stated the dates of vaccination were not recorded in resident 193's medical record. 2. On 7/18/21 at 8:20 PM, an observation was made of a sheet of paper containing residents' vital signs sitting on top of the medication cart on the 100/200 hallway. The document contained residents' names and blood pressure information. Information was openly visible until 10:10 PM, at which time the surveyor left. Two of the facility's residents were standing near the medication cart within sight of the information. 3. On 7/18/21 from 8:28 PM to 8:42 PM, an observation was made on the 400 hallway of the nurses lap top unattended, and open with resident information visible. Registered Nurse (RN) 2 was observed to be passing medication to residents on the 400 hallway and left the information open to view several times. 4. Resident 86 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included cerebral palsy, cellulitis of lower left and right lower limb, severe protein calorie malnutrition, lymphedema, anemia, electroyte and fluid disorder, lack of coordination, and weakness. Resident 86's medical record was reviewed on 7/12/21. Resident 86's progress notes were reviewed. The progress notes indicated that on 6/11/21 at 1:48 PM, Resident was doing an activity in the activity room, and had a fall out of his chair. Resident hit his nose causing it to have laceration, and by the looks of it it looked broken. Resident agreed to be sent to hospital to have his nose checked out. The progress notes later indicated that resident 86 was diagnosed with a fractured nose and required stitches for the nose laceration. Resident 86's medical record was reviewed in an attempt to locate the emergency room notes for the incident that occurred on 6/11/21. No notes could be located. On 7/13/21, the facility Director of Nursing (DON) was asked to provide those notes. On 7/13/21 at 4:16 PM, the DON provided the notes to the surveyor. The notes indicated that the hospital had faxed them to the facility on 7/13/21. The DON confirmed that these notes were not part of resident 86's medical record prior to 7/13/21.
CONCERN (E)

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

QAPI Program (Tag F0867)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on interview and record review, the facility did not ensure that the Quality Assessment and Assurance (QAA) committee developed and implemented appropriate plans of correction to correct identif...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility did not ensure that the Quality Assessment and Assurance (QAA) committee developed and implemented appropriate plans of correction to correct identified quality deficiencies. Specifically, the facility was found to be in non-compliance with F880, which was cited at an Immediate Jeopardy, scope and severity of L. In addition, several deficiencies were cited during the 2019 recertification survey, and again during the 2021 survey. Resident identifiers: 85, 86, 185, 186 and 187. Findings include: 1. Based on observation, interview, and record review it was determined that the facility failed to establish an infection prevention and control program designed to prevent the development and transmission of COVID-19. Specifically,with regard to residents who were on Transmission Based Precautions (TBP), staff were observed to not fully don gowns, wear soiled gowns throughout the facility, not wear appropriate eye protection, not clean face shields after exiting the room, not store face shields appropriately, not clean vital signs equipment between resident use, contaminate isolation carts, contaminate syringes by placing them on top of isolation carts, clean and store syringes inappropriately, not clean glucometers between residents, not perform appropriate hand hygiene, not wear masks appropriately, not don gowns or gloves to deliver meal trays, not have isolation carts that were adequately supplied, and not isolate unvaccinated residents for 14 days. Resident identifiers: 85, 86, 185, 186 and 187. 2. During the recertification survey with an end date of 4/4/19, the facility was cited for non-compliance with regulations F584, F655, F656, F755, F756, F757, F759, F760, F812, F842, F866, and F880. These same tags were cited on the survey completed on 7/22/21. This demonstrated the inability to maintain compliance.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0885 (Tag F0885)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on interview and record review, the facility did not inform residents, their representatives, and families of those residing in facilities by 5 p.m. the next calendar day following the occurrenc...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility did not inform residents, their representatives, and families of those residing in facilities by 5 p.m. the next calendar day following the occurrence of either a single confirmed infection of COVID-19, or three or more residents or staff with new-onset of respiratory symptoms occurring within 72 hours of each other. Specifically, the facility experienced two positive staff members/residents, and did not inform residents, their representatives, and families of the outbreaks. Findings include: On 7/14/21 at 10:45 AM, an interview was conducted with the facility Infection Preventionist (IP). The IP stated that he had started working as the IP the previous week. The IP stated that he had completed the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) IP training, and had received additional training from the Director of Nursing (DON). The IP was asked about the facility policy regarding notification of families when a resident or staff member tested positive for COVID-19. The IP stated that if a staff member or resident tested positive for COVID-19, they would notify all staff members but not the residents, resident representatives or family members. The IP stated that notifying the residents and their responsible parties would be a violation of privacy for those who tested positive. On 7/14/21 at 11:50 AM, an interview was conducted with the facility DON. The DON stated that the previous IP was terminated on 2/4/21. The DON stated that the facility had not had an IP from 2/4/21 until the first week of July 2021 when the new IP started working. The DON stated she was not certified as an IP. The DON was asked about the facility policy regarding notification of families when a resident or staff member tested positive for COVID-19. The DON stated that the Resident Advocate (RA) was responsible for notifying residents, resident representatives or family members when a staff member or resident tested positive for COVID-19. The DON stated that the last staff member that had tested positive was in February 2021, and the last resident that tested positive was in November 2020. The DON stated that she had started working at the facility in January 2021, so she was not aware if the appropriate parties had been notified of the positive case in November 2020. The DON stated she had not notified residents, resident representatives or family members when the staff member tested positive in February 2021. The DON stated that residents, resident representatives or family members would probably be notified of a positive staff member or resident via a phone call or email. On 7/14/21 at approximately 4:30 PM, an interview was conducted with the facility RA. The RA stated she was not responsible for notifying families, residents, or resident representatives She stated, No, I don't do anything with notifying family. That's [the DON and Administrator], but if they asked me for help then I'll help. The facility's Policy and Procedure regarding notification of families was reviewed. It stated, . In the event of a suspected case (of COVID-19), we identify if there are signs or symptoms present. If present the Resident Advocate will notify residents individually and testing of residents will begin. The Resident Advocate will also email the designated primary contact for each resident and inform them.
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0801 (Tag F0801)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility did not employ a clinically qualified full-time dietitian or other clinically qualified nutrition professional to serve as the...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility did not employ a clinically qualified full-time dietitian or other clinically qualified nutrition professional to serve as the director of food and nutrition services. Specifically, the facility did not employ a full time Registered Dietitian (RD) and the Dietary Manager (DM) did not meet the requirements to serve as the director of food and nutrition services. Findings include: On 7/12/21 at 9:08 AM, an interview was conducted with the facility Dietary Manager (DM). The DM stated that she was not a Certified Dietary Manager (CDM). The DM stated she had been taking the courses to become a CDM for 2 years. The DM stated her qualifications included experience working in the kitchen at another facility and being a mom. On 7/13/21 at 3:45 PM, an interview was conducted with the facility DM. The DM stated the facility Registered Dietitian (RD) approved the menus and helped with meal planning. The DM stated that the RD spends a lot of time at the facility, and comes in when she needs to. The DM stated the RD came in to the facility if she needed help, and for skin and weight meetings that were held on Tuesday or Wednesday. The DM stated that the RD did resident assessments and made dietary changes if there was a problem. The DM stated that the RD was available to the facility whenever they needed her. On 7/15/21 at 4:07 PM, a telephone interview was conducted with the facility RD. The RD stated her time in the facility varied from week to week depending on trainings that occurred 1 to 2 times per week, sometimes more. The RD stated there was no office for her to work out of in the facility so she did the majority of her charting and assessments at home. The RD stated she did not oversee the kitchen, but performed audits and did education with staff. The RD stated she educated staff on texture modification, menu substitutions, and educated staff on findings she had during kitchen audits. The RD stated she did these trainings with staff while she was at the facility for meetings. The RD stated that she had no schedule for monitoring meal service and infection control in the kitchen. The RD stated the DM had lots of experience but did not know what her qualifications were. The RD stated she knew the DM had been taking certification classes but did not know for how long. The RD stated she was aware that the DM had to apply for an extension for taking the courses. The RD stated she had not done a full audit on the kitchen since the COVID pandemic began, which was April or May of 2020. On 7/19/20 at approximately 1:30 PM, the Administrator provided a job description for the DM. Bullet point 6 under staff development stated Attend and participate in continuing educational programs designed to keep you abreast of changes in you (sic) profession, as well as maintain you (sic) license on a current status. Under Educational Requirements, the second requirement stated Be a graduate of an accredited course in dietetic training approved by the American Dietetic Association.
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0882 (Tag F0882)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on interview, the facility did not designate one or more individual as the infection preventionist who was responsible for the facility's Infection Control Policy. Specifically, the facility did...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview, the facility did not designate one or more individual as the infection preventionist who was responsible for the facility's Infection Control Policy. Specifically, the facility did not have an infection preventionist for approximately 5 months. Findings include: On 7/14/21 at 10:45 AM, an interview was conducted with the current Infection Preventionist (IP). The IP stated that he had started working as the IP the previous week. The IP stated that he had completed the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) IP training, and had received additional training from the Director of Nursing (DON). On 7/14/21 at 11:52 AM, an interview was conducted with the DON. The DON stated that the previous IP was terminated on 2/4/21. The DON stated that the facility had not had an IP from 2/4/21 until the first week of July 2021 when the new IP started working. The DON stated she was not certified as an IP. The DON stated that she was acting as the IP between February and July, but had not completed more than 3 courses with the CDC.
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?"
  • "Why is there high staff turnover? How do you retain staff?"
  • "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: 1 life-threatening violation(s), 4 harm violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 85 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $21,568 in fines. Higher than 94% of Utah facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
  • • Grade F (1/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 1/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Rocky Mountain Care - Maple Dell's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns Rocky Mountain Care - Maple Dell an overall rating of 1 out of 5 stars, which is considered much below average nationally. Within Utah, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. A rating at this level reflects concerns identified through health inspections, staffing assessments, or quality measures that families should carefully consider.

How is Rocky Mountain Care - Maple Dell Staffed?

CMS rates Rocky Mountain Care - Maple Dell's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 59%, which is 13 percentage points above the Utah average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs.

What Have Inspectors Found at Rocky Mountain Care - Maple Dell?

State health inspectors documented 85 deficiencies at Rocky Mountain Care - Maple Dell during 2021 to 2024. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 4 that caused actual resident harm, and 80 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 Rocky Mountain Care - Maple Dell?

Rocky Mountain Care - Maple Dell 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 ROCKY MOUNTAIN CARE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 76 certified beds and approximately 52 residents (about 68% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in Payson, Utah.

How Does Rocky Mountain Care - Maple Dell Compare to Other Utah Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Utah, Rocky Mountain Care - Maple Dell's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 3.3, staff turnover (59%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (1 stars) is much below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Rocky Mountain Care - Maple Dell?

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?" "How do you ensure continuity of care given staff turnover, and what is your staff retention strategy?" "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 facility's high staff turnover rate.

Is Rocky Mountain Care - Maple Dell Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, Rocky Mountain Care - Maple Dell has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 1-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in Utah. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.

Do Nurses at Rocky Mountain Care - Maple Dell Stick Around?

Staff turnover at Rocky Mountain Care - Maple Dell is high. At 59%, the facility is 13 percentage points above the Utah average of 46%. High turnover means new staff may not know residents' individual needs, medications, or preferences. It can also be disorienting for residents, especially those with dementia who rely on familiar faces. Families should ask: What is causing the turnover? What retention programs are in place? How do you ensure care continuity during staff transitions?

Was Rocky Mountain Care - Maple Dell Ever Fined?

Rocky Mountain Care - Maple Dell has been fined $21,568 across 3 penalty actions. This is below the Utah average of $33,295. 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 Rocky Mountain Care - Maple Dell on Any Federal Watch List?

Rocky Mountain Care - Maple Dell 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.