Monument Healthcare Taylorsville

6246 South Redwood Road, Salt Lake City, UT 84123 (801) 969-1420
For profit - Corporation 120 Beds MONUMENT HEALTH GROUP Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
53/100
#36 of 97 in UT
Last Inspection: November 2023

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

Overview

Monument Healthcare Taylorsville has a Trust Grade of C, which means it is average and ranks in the middle of the pack among nursing homes. In Utah, it ranks #36 out of 97 facilities, placing it in the top half, and #14 out of 35 in Salt Lake County, indicating that only a few local options are better. The facility is improving, with a decrease in issues from 8 in 2023 to 3 in 2024. However, staffing is a concern with a rating of 2 out of 5 stars and a high turnover rate of 65%, above the state average; this suggests that staff may not stay long enough to build strong relationships with residents. While the facility has average RN coverage, it has had some serious issues, including instances where residents did not receive adequate supervision to prevent falls, resulting in serious injuries. Additionally, there have been complaints about the handling of grievances, with many unresolved issues regarding food and resident interactions. Despite these weaknesses, the facility's overall rating of 4 out of 5 stars for quality measures shows some aspects of care are being handled well.

Trust Score
C
53/100
In Utah
#36/97
Top 37%
Safety Record
Moderate
Needs review
Inspections
Getting Better
8 → 3 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
65% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
✓ Good
$7,525 in fines. Lower than most Utah facilities. Relatively clean record.
Skilled Nurses
✓ Good
Each resident gets 59 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for Utah. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
Violations
⚠ Watch
23 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★★★☆
4.0
Overall Rating
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Staff Levels
★★★★★
5.0
Care Quality
★★★☆☆
3.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2023: 8 issues
2024: 3 issues

The Good

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

Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.

The Bad

Staff Turnover: 65%

19pts above Utah avg (46%)

Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity

Federal Fines: $7,525

Below median ($33,413)

Minor penalties assessed

Chain: MONUMENT HEALTH GROUP

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

Staff turnover is elevated (65%)

17 points above Utah average of 48%

The Ugly 23 deficiencies on record

2 actual harm
Mar 2024 3 deficiencies 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident 4 was admitted [DATE], readmitted [DATE] with diagnoses including: fracture of unspecified part of neck of right fem...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident 4 was admitted [DATE], readmitted [DATE] with diagnoses including: fracture of unspecified part of neck of right femur subsequent encounter for closed fracture with routine healing, anterior cord syndrome at c [cervical] 3 level of cervical spinal cord subsequent encounter, complete lesion at c4 level of cervical spinal cord subsequent encounter, complete lesion at c5 level of cervical spinal cord subsequent encounter, complete lesion at c6 level of cervical spinal cord subsequent encounter, unspecified intracranial injury without loss of consciousness subsequent encounter, and major depressive disorder recurrent in partial remission. Resident 4's medical record was reviewed from 3/11/24 through 3/12/24. Resident 4's most recent Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score on 2/18/24 from his significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment was a 10, indicating a moderate cognitive impairment. Prior to this, a quarterly assessment had been completed on 1/22/24. Resident 4's BIMS score from this assessment was a 9, indicating a moderate cognitive impairment Resident 4's nursing care plan was reviewed. A care plan dated 6/5/20 revealed a focus area of, FALL RISK [Resident 4] is at risk for falls r/t [related to] deconditioning, gait/balance problems, psychoactive drug use and paraplegia in all extremities. This focus was revised on 9/15/20 The goal documented for this focus area was, [Resident 4] will have no unaddressed falls. This goal was initiated on 6/5/20 and was revised on 2/26/24. The interventions for this care area were documented as: a. Anticipate and meet [Resident 4]'s needs. b. Be sure [Resident 4]'s call light is within reach and encourage [Resident 4] to use it for assistance as needed. c. Encourage the [Resident 4] to participate in activities that promote exercise, physical activity for strengthening and improved mobility. d.Encourage/remind [Resident 4] to use mobility aides [sic] (walker, cane, crutches, etc.) when ambulating/transferring to aide with fall prevention. e. Ensure commonly used items (ice water, glasses if applicable, call light, phone, remote) are within reach of resident prior to leaving room. A care plan dated 6/5/20 revealed a focus area of, ACTUAL FALL [Resident 4] has had an actual fall with no [sic] r/t [related to] poor balance, unsteady gait and hemiplegia in all extremities. This focus was revised on 11/17/23. The goal documented for this focus area was,[Resident 4] will resume usual activities without further incident within 90 days. This goal was initiated on 6/15/20 and revised on 2/26/24. The interventions for this care area were documented as: a. 1/15/24 fall Therapy to room eval [evalute] with OT [occupational therapy] r/t [related to] room transfer. b. 2/9/24 offered room change resident refused loves room [ROOM NUMBER]/9/24 fall education with staff 2/9/24 call light also attached to dresser. c. FALL 2/20/24 asked resident to move closer to nursing station refused again educated use of call light and using and NWB [non-weight bearing] status talked to sister he is very adamant to maintain independence. d. Fall 6/4/22 - OT [occupational therapy] to eval [evaluate] and treat for safety awareness. e. Fall 9/13/22- PT [physical therapy] to eval [evaluate] and treat for leg strength for safety and positioning when in wheelchair. Staff education provided to encourage [Resident 4] to use leg rests when in wheelchair. f. [Resident 4] will not be left unattended in bathroom (pt [patient] at times toilets self) d/t [due to] safety awareness. g. Monitor/document/report PRN [as needed] x 72h [hours] to MD [doctor of medicine] for s/sx [signs/symptoms]: pain, bruises, change in mental status, new onset: confusion, sleepiness, inability to maintain posture, agitation. h. OT [occupational therapy] to eval [evaluate] and treat for use of self releasing seat belt to assist with autonomy. i. Provide activities that promote exercise and strength building where possible. Provide 1:1 [one on one] activities if bedbound. An incident report dated 2/9/24 revealed, At 0645 res [resident] was trying to reach for his call light to be helped out of bed and slipped to the floor hurting R [right] hip. Nurse was called to evaluate, res was in grimacing pain and guardian R hip. Res was helped to his chair, he insisted on going to the dining room for breakfast. Res was then helped back into bed. Xray [sic] ordered. Dr notified, Sister [name redacted] called but left message. The incident report also noted that at the time of Resident 4's fall, his pain was rated as a 4 out of 10. A nursing progress note dated 2/9/24 revealed, At 0645 res [resident] was trying to reach for his call light to be helped out of bed and slipped to the floor hurting R [right hip]. Nurse was called to evaluate, res was in grimacing pain and guarding R hip. Res was helped to his chair, he insisted on going to the dining room for breakfast. Res was then helped back into bed. Xray [sic] ordered. Dr notified, Sister [name redacted] called but left message. A nursing progress note dated 2/9/24 revealed, Xray [sic]results reviewed, orders rec'd [recommend] to send res to hospital to more [sic] evaluation on the femual [sic] head Fx [fracture]. Res does not want any family called r/t [related to] his mother being in the hospital right now and doesn't want to [NAME] [sic] out his family further. Res took no personalitems [sic] with him. [Ambulance company redacted] transported to [hospital named redacted]. At 4:45 PM, ER called. An interdisciplinary team progress note dated 2/15/24 revealed, Event: Fall with hip injury 2/9/24 Resident status prior to event: Sleeping in bed reached for call light fell and slipped out of bed fell with hip pain Risk factors: Epilepsy, Hemiplegia, C3-C6 spinal cord injury, language barrier, immobility, Bipolar disorder Preventive measures prior to event: Bed to be placed in lowest position for safety r/t to seizure hx [history] and mattress to be placed next to his bead. Medications routinely reviewed with pharmacy Care plan risk factors and interventions: [resident 4] is atrisk [sic] for fall r/t Deconditioning, Gait/balance problems, Psychoactive drug use and paraplegia in all extremities; Anticipate and meet [Resident 4]'s needs. Be sure [Resident 4]'s call light is within reach and encourage [Resident 4] to use it for assistance as needed. New device to hook to [Resident 4] [sic] dresser to help hold call light. The following areas reviewed - -Medication Review Regimen: Senna, Miralax, Flomax, Phenobarbital, Melatonin, Carbamazepine, Tylenol - Weight Loss: no weight loss - Dehydration: Average fluid intake 1500ml (millileter)/day -Pain: Resident reported pain to hip after fall. Sent out to ER -ADL [activities of daily living]: Requires one person extensive assistance with bed mobility, transfers and toileting. Set up and supervision for meals. Resident insist [sic] on transferring self often to toilet. -Decline in mobility: Dependent on w/c [wheelchair] for mobility -Psychotropic Drug Use: Sertraline Root Cause Analysis. After further investigation this incident has been reasonably r/t call light falling and resident reaching for. Offered resident to movecloser [sic] to nursing station on main hall 100 and resident declined. Offered to hook call light to dresser also as a back up and resident liked this idea. New interventions implemented: Continue working with therapy, sat with resident on ideas to help and came up with new way to help hook cord to dresser and than [sic] bed. Attendees: ED [executive director], DON [director of nursing], ADON [assistant director of nursing], Therapy, MDS [minimum data set], Resident Advocate. A pain assessment dated [DATE] revealed that at the time of Resident 4's fall, his pain was rated as a 6 out of 10. A change in condition evaluation dated 2/9/24 revealed that at the time of assessment that Resident 4's pain was rated as a 7 out of 10. A grievance filed 1/16/24 revealed, [Resident 4] was told, [sic] in order to eat meals in the dining area, [sic] that he would have to wheel himself down. [Resident 4] is unable to do this safely, he is a fall risk. [Resident 4] stated this happened two weeks ago with the CNA's [sic] in 200 hall as well as the nurse in 200. The corrective action for the grievance dated 1/18/24 revealed, Coaching and teaching staff - (CNA's [sic]) about when the resident needs something they need to do it in a timely manner. The findings of the investigation of the grievance dated 1/18/24 revealed, The resident did indeed ask for help down to the dining room, but was told he could wheel himself down to go eat. The recommendation for corrective action for the grievance dated 1/18/24 revealed, When residents ask certain things (tasks) to be done and they need help, staff members need to act accordingly in a timely respectful manner. The results of the action taken for the grievance dated 1/18/24 revealed, Staff members (cna's [sic], nurses) know to help the resident down to the dining room when they ask for help. On 2/10/24, the facility provided an in-service on fall safety for Resident 4. The training stated, [Resident 4] Fall Training C.N.A updated reminders 1. Bed to be placed in low position at all times r/t safety and seizures 2. Floor mat next to bed 3. Seat Belt is safely in place 4. Call light placement (prefers on pillow) education on new clips if needed. (can get from maintenance) 5. Encourage [Resident 4] when rounding to let you help toilet him if needed. Management Side 1. Review chart of all previous care plan items noted in past 2. Do education with staff regarding the care plan item in place 3. Speak with [Resident 4] regarding how we can better team up with him to prevent falls 4. Follow up on seat belt orders, can be released, being used, still needs to be used 5. Offer change in room to 101 busy hall with lots of eyes on resident. On 2/24/24, the facility provided an in-service with topics including, Fall prevention: call lights close, bed side tables close, ask if we can do anything else to help, anticipate needs, ask questions, non skid socks, talk to managers if you see a risk. The training summary revealed, Falls training prevention 1. Ensure call lights are always next to resident 2. Bed side tables are close to residents 3. Anticipate needs 4. Non ski socks for resident getting up and out of bed. 5. Always say before leaving a room is there anything else I can get you 6. If you suspect some one has a change in condition or is a high fall risk please notify nurse, if no change happens notify Nurse manager. If a fall happens you are required to Nurse 1. Complete incident report, get a set of ortho static [sic] vitals and record in Progress note (updated 3/11) 3. Complete fall and pain assessment 4. Start neuro (all falls not witnessed BY STAFF 5. PN [progress note] what happened, what you did to keep resident safe, notification family, MD, Text on call manager 6. Any wound orders if required 7. Notify your abuse coordinator ASAP [name redacted] administrator if you suspect fracture or abuse in any way. C.N.A. 1. Get a nurse to assess patient 2. Start Vital signs on Neuro sheet 3. Get a set or [sic] ortho static [sic] vitals with nurse if your [sic] not trained on this please see nurse or ADON [assistant director of nursing]. The facility conducted fall audits. The audit form revealed, DON/designee will conduct random audits on 5 residents and fall preventions interventions in place weekly x 4 weeks, then monthly x 3 months or until substantial compliance has been maintained to ensure decrease in falls. For the week of 2/19/24 through 2/25/24, Resident 4 was selected to be audited. The audit form stated that Resident 4 had his fall precautions in place when facility staff entered his room. Per the audit form, Resident 4 had the comment, seatbelt, call light. For the week of 2/26/24 through 3/3/24, Resident 4 was selected to be audited. The audit form stated that Resident 4 had his fall precautions in place when facility staff entered his room. Per the audit form, Resident 4 had the comment, low bed, call light pillow. For the week of 3/4/24 through 3/10/24, Resident 4 was selected to be audited. The audit form stated that Resident 4 had his fall precautions in place when facility staff entered his room. Per the audit form, Resident 4 had the comment, seatbelt/safety reminder. For the week of 3/11/24 through 3/17/24, Resident 4 was selected to be audited. The audit form stated that Resident 4 had his fall precautions in place when facility staff entered his room. Per the audit form, Resident 4 had the comment fall mat - behind bed pt [patient] up [sic]. On 3/11/24 at 12:39 PM, an interview was conducted with Resident 4. Resident 4 stated that he remembered his fall that resulted in his hip fracture. Resident 4 stated that the night of the fall, his call light had dropped onto the floor and that the remote control for his bed had also dropped onto the floor. Resident 4 stated that he was unable to lower his bed further. Resident 4 stated that he tried to reach for his call light and fell out of bed. On 3/11/24 at 12:39 PM, an observation was made of Resident 4's room. The call light was taped to the side of his nightstand and clipped to the right side of his pillow. On 3/12/24 at 1:17 PM, an additional observation was made of Resident 4's room. Resident 4's bed was in the low position and his fall mat was behind his bed. On 3/12/24 at 1:17 PM, an interview was conducted with Resident 4. Resident 4 stated that staff stopped putting the fall mat on the floor at bedtime when he was moved from the 200 hall to the 400 hall. A review of Resident 4's room history revealed that Resident 4 was moved from the 200 hall to the 400 hall on 1/15/24. On 3/12/24 at 9:31 AM, an interview was conducted with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 1. CNA 1 stated that residents should be checked on every 2 hours. CNA 1 stated that he should check a resident's call light position every time he enters their room. CNA 1 stated that Resident 4 was not a high fall risk. CNA 1 stated that he has never heard of Resident 4 having experienced a fall. CNA 1 stated that he can see what fall interventions a resident had in place by looking at notes in the Resident's electronic medical record. On 3/12/24 at 1:23 PM, an additional interview was conducted with CNA 1. CNA 1 stated that to his knowledge, Resident 4 did not use a fall mat at night. CNA 1 stated that Resident 4's bed should have been in the low position. On 3/12/24 at 9:38 AM, an interview was conducted with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 1. LPN 1 stated that CNAs should check on residents every 2 hours. LPN 1 stated that each time a CNA completed their rounds they should check the position of each resident's call light. LPN 1 stated that Resident 4 was a high fall risk. LPN 1 stated that information about a resident's fall interventions could be found in the electronic medical record. LPN 1 stated that Resident 4 needed to be checked on more frequently due to him having an independent mindset and that he frequently tried to self transfer. On 3/12/24 at 11:28 AM, an interview was conducted with Registered Nurse (RN) 2. RN 2 was the nurse on duty the day Resident 4 fell. RN 2 stated that another staff member called her into Resident 4's room. RN 2 stated that she examined the resident and lifted him onto his bed. RN 2 stated that she notified Resident 4's physician and facility administration. RN 2 stated that an x-ray was ordered and that the x-ray staff confirmed that Resident 4 had a hip fracture. RN 2 stated she could not recall what Resident 4's fall interventions were at the time of the fall. RN 2 stated that she could not recall the location of Resident 4's call light when she entered his room. RN 2 stated that CNAs should check on residents at least every 2 hours and that anytime a CNA enters a resident's room they should check the positioning of the resident's call light. On 3/12/24 at 2:24 PM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated that staff should check on residents at least every 2 hours. The DON stated that staff should check the position of a resident's call light each time they enter a resident's room. The DON stated that staff can check to see what a resident's fall interventions were by looking at the [NAME] in the electronic medical record. The DON stated that Resident 4 was a fall risk due to him wanting to maintain his independence. The DON stated that Resident 4 used a fall mat at night. The DON stated that Resident 4's fall mat should have been on his care plan. (Note: the usage of a fall mat was not documented on Resident 4's care plan). The DON stated that she had interviewed Resident 4 and Resident 4 had stated that he was not sure if he had knocked his call light out of place. On 3/12/24 at 2:24 PM, an interview was conducted with the facility administrator (ADM). The ADM stated that the facility does not track exact times that facility staff exit and enter a resident's room. The ADM stated that Resident 4's call light had been attached to the bar on Resident 4's bed and had fallen onto the ground prior to Resident 4's fall. Based on observation, interview, and record review it was determined that for 2 of 7 sampled residents, that the facility did not ensure that the resident environment remains as free of accident hazards as was possible and that each resident received adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents. Specifically, the facility did not ensure that a resident transported to a dialysis appointment was properly secured with a seatbelt, and subsequently sustained fractures of both of his legs. In addition, the facility did not ensure that a resident's call light was within reach and the resident reached for the call light, fell out of bed, and fractured his hip. This will be cited at a HARM. Resident Identifiers: 4, 7. Findings included: 1. Resident 7 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis which included encephalopathy, end stage renal disease, spinal stenosis, weakness, limitation of activities due to disability, need for assistance with personal care, and adult failure to thrive. On 3/12/24 at 9:38 AM, an interview was conducted with resident 7. Resident 7 stated that on 12/28/23 he was going to be transported to dialysis. He stated that the van driver was new and it was the van drivers 3rd or 4th day. Resident 7 stated that the van driver strapped him in the van ok, with two straps at the front of his chair and two in the back. When resident 7 was asked about a lap and shoulder seat belt, he stated he did not have one on and did not remember the van diver attempting to put a shoulder or lap seat belt on him. He stated that he did not refuse to have the seatbelts put on. Resident 7 stated that they were on the freeway, the van driver was using a GPS [Global Positioning System] map to drive to the location, the van driver said that the exit should be coming up soon. Resident 7 stated he was looking out the window and told the van driver that they were about to miss the exit, and the van driver braked had but not so hard the van squealed and darted over to the emergency lane. He stated the braking did pull him out of his chair feet first and he slammed into the back of the van drivers chair and could tell his legs were broken. Resident 7 stated he was then taken to the hospital and was told his femur bones were shattered. On 11/30/23 a quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment documented, resident 7 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of 15. The MDS also documented, resident 7 required extensive two person assistance with bed mobility, transfers, and toileting. On 9/14/21, a care plan documented resident 7 was at risk for falls related to deconditioning, gait/balance problems. Interventions included, ensure that resident 7 was wearing appropriate footwear when ambulating or mobilizing in w/c[wheelchair]. On 12/29/23 at 6:30 AM, an incident report documented, Van driver came back to facility saying [resident 7] did not make it to dialysis. Van dirvier[sic] stated that he did not fasten the safety belt because [resident 7] declined and stated he didn't need it. He stated while on highway, the driver had missed the turn off so [resident 7] shouted out and startled him so he braked. He stated [resident 7] slipped forward out of geri chair and landed on the van floor. Van driver called 911 and he was taken to [a local hospital]. Can driver called dialysis and updated dialysis center that he would not be at dialysis today due to hospital admission . Resident unable to give description. The document stated No injuries observed at time of incident. On 12/29/23 at 9:51 AM, a nursing note documented, Van driver came back to facility saying [resident 7] did not make it to Dialysis. He stated while on highway, he had missed the turn off, [resident 7] yelled at him and then he suddenly braked. He stated [resident 7] slipped forward out of geri chair and landed on the van floor. 911 was called and he was taken to [a local hospital]. Van driver called Dialysis and stated he would not be at dialysis today. On 12/29/23 at 4:33 PM, a nursing note documented, Contacted [local hospital] to see if res [resident] had been admitted to hospital. He is in the ICU [Intensive Care Unit], is receiving dialysis there, bilat [bilateral] LE [lower extremities] were affected and they both will be needing surgery. His stay will be awhile. On 1/1/24 at 8:35 AM, an administration note documented, in hospitalized [sic] A review of resident 7's hospital history and physical reports dated 12/29/23 documented, the patient is found to have bilateral femur fractures and other associated soft tissue injuries . On 3/12/24 at 10:40 AM, an interview was conducted with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 2. CNA 2 stated that she had not worked with resident 7, but knew that he was a full assist and required 2 people with transfers. On 3/12/24 at 10:43 AM, interview was conducted with Registered Nurse (RN) 3. RN 3 stated that resident 7 was preferably a 2 person assist with transfers and that he did not have much leg strength. She stated that he was typically transferred into a geri chair and transferred in that to dialysis. She stated she was unsure how he was typically strapped into the van. On 3/12/24 at 11:08 AM, an interview was conducted with the Regional Nurse Consultant (RNC). The RNC stated that she had worked with resident 7 and that he was extremely difficult in a lot of incidences. She stated that he had depression and was frustrated and he would lash out at care givers and would refuse to cooperate. She stated that she was not present at the time he was being transported and can not say what happened. On 3/12/24 at 1:22 PM, an interview was conducted with the Van Driver (VD). The VD stated that he was new and had not received training, the only training received was to ride with another driver a couple of times. He stated that the other driver showed him how to strap a wheelchair into the van but never a geri chair. The VD stated that he arrived at the facility and a nurse brought resident 7 out to the van in the geri chair. The VD stated he thought resident 7 should not be transported like that but that he was new and was not sure. The VD stated he loaded resident 7 into the van and tied his chair down, then tried to put a shoulder strap and waist belt on resident 7, but that resident 7 refused the shoulder and waist belt. The VD stated he did not know the policy and was told that the customer was always right, and decided to transport the resident. The VD stated that on the freeway he was in the wrong land and the exit was difficult to get to. The VD stated that resident 7 told him they missed the exit. He stated he panicked and that resident 7 slid out of his chair onto the van floor. The VD stated he tried to help resident 7 back into his chair but that resident 7 refused and said to call 911 stating his legs were broken. The VD stated that the geri chair did not move, it was strapped to the van and the brakes were on. The VD stated he tried to call his supervisor and could not get a hold of him, then called dispatch to inform them of the incident. The VD stated that during his training no one said that it was mandatory to be strapped by the shoulder and lap belt and no one had informed him of the policy. The VD stated that he wanted to put the seatbelts on the resident but that the resident refused. The VD then terminated the interview. On 3/12/24 at 2:26 PM, an follow up interview was conducted with the RNC. The RNC stated that best practice was for a resident to be buckled when being transported. The RNC stated that if a resident refused, they must look at the things that were important, the residents have the right to choose. The RNC stated that with this situation the driver did attempt to do what he could with a reasonable attempt to buckle, and opted not to per resident 7's request. The RNC stated that for resident 7 dialysis was vital and that he had complications due to refusing dialysis. The RNC stated that ultimately it was best practice to secure residents in transport. On 3/13/24 at 9:22 AM, a follow up interview was conducted via telephone with the VD. The VD again stated that when he picked up resident 7, resident 7 was in a geri chair. The VD stated that technically you're not supposed to transport people in a geri chair. The VD stated that he loaded the resident in the geri chair into the van, and secured the wheels of the chair, making sure it didn't move. The VD stated that the resident refused to wear the shoulder lap belt. The VD stated that resident 7's exact words were 'I don't need it and I don't want it.' The VD stated that he had never transported someone without securing them completely. The VD stated that it was 5:00 in the morning, and I couldn't get a hold of my supervisor. The VD stated that the only training he had received prior to working alone was riding along with other van drivers. The VD stated that he was not trained on what to do if a resident refused to be secured, and was unsure if there was a specific company policy. The VD stated that he was terminated for transporting the resident without properly securing the resident. The VD stated that during the drive, resident 7 yelled out, and I reacted to his yelling, and he slid out when I hit the brakes. The VD stated that after he braked, the resident began screaming. The VD stated that he pulled over, and checked on the resident. The VD stated that the resident had slid out of the geri chair completely, and was sitting with his legs crossed in the space between the drivers seat and the geri chair, behind the driver. The VD stated that resident 7 told him to call 911.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, it was determined, that for 2 of 7 sampled residents, that the facility did not ensure tha...

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 2 of 7 sampled residents, that the facility did not ensure that all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, exploitation or mistreatment, including injuries of unknown source and misappropriation of resident property, are reported immediately, but not later than 2 hours after the allegation is made, if the events that cause the allegation involve abuse or result in serious bodily injury, or not later than 24 hour if the events that cause the allegation do not involve abuse and do not result in serious bodily injury, to the administrator of the facility and to other officials (including to the State Survey Agency and adult protective services where state law provides for jurisdiction in long-term care facilities) in accordance with State law through established procedures. Specifically, the facility did not report two instances of potential neglect related to serious bodily injury to the State Survey Agency (SSA). Resident Identifiers: 4,7. Findings Included: 1. Resident 4 was admitted [DATE], readmitted [DATE] with diagnoses including: fracture of unspecified part of neck of right femur subsequent encounter for closed fracture with routine healing, anterior cord syndrome at c (cervical) 3 level of cervical spinal cord subsequent encounter, complete lesion at c4 level of cervical spinal cord subsequent encounter, complete lesion at c5 level of cervical spinal cord subsequent encounter, complete lesion at c6 level of cervical spinal cord subsequent encounter, unspecified intracranial injury without loss of consciousness subsequent encounter, and major depressive disorder recurrent in partial remission. Resident 4's medical record was reviewed from 3/11/24 through 3/12/24. Resident 4's most recent Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score on 2/13/24 from his significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment was a 10, indicating a moderate cognitive impairment. Prior to this, a quarterly assessment had been completed on 1/22/24. Resident 4's BIMS score from this assessment was a 9, indicating a moderate cognitive impairment. An incident report dated 2/9/24 revealed, At 0645 res [resident] was trying to reach for his call light to be helped out of bed and slipped to the floor hurting R [right] hip. Nurse was called to evaluate, res was in grimacing pain and guardian R hip. Res was helped to his chair, he insisted on going to the dining room for breakfast. Res was then helped back into bed. Xray [sic] ordered. Dr notified, Sister [name redacted] called but left message. The incident report also noted that at the time of Resident 4's fall, his pain was rated as a 4 out of 10. A nursing progress note dated 2/9/24 revealed, At 0645 res [resident] was trying to reach for his call light to be helped out of bed and slipped to the floor hurting R [right hip]. Nurse was called to evaluate, res was in grimacing pain and guarding R hip. Res was helped to his chair, he insisted on going to the dining room for breakfast. Res was then helped back into bed. Xray [sic]ordered. Dr notified, Sister [name redacted] called but left message. A nursing progress note dated 2/9/24 revealed, Xray [sic] results reviewed, orders rec'd [recommend] to send res to hospital to more [sic] evaluation on the femual [sic] head Fx [fracture]. Res does not want any family called r/t [related to] his mother being in the hospital right now and doesn't want to [NAME] [sic] out his family further. Res took no personalitems [sic] with him. [Ambulance company redacted] transported to [hospital named redacted]. At 4:45 PM, ER called. [It should be noted that no documentation could be found of a facility investigation into the incident as documented in the progress note on 2/9/24, and reporting to the SSA and Adult Protective Services (APS) was not completed.] Review of a facility policy titled, Abuse Reporting and Responsibilities of Covered Individuals revised 5/4/23, revealed, The facility will report alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, exploitation, or mistreatment, including injuries of unknown source and misappropriation of resident property, and submit investigation results, according to regulatory guidelines and in accordance with State law and within the time frames required by federal and state law. The policy also revealed, 5. In response to allegations of abuse, neglect, exploitation, or mistreatment, the facility will: a. Report immediately, but not later than 2 hours, all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, exploitation, or mistreatment, including injuries of unknown source and misappropriation of resident property, if the events that caused the allegation involve abuse or result in serious bodily injury. On 3/12/24 at 11:28 AM, an interview was conducted with Registered Nurse (RN) 2. RN 2 was the nurse on duty the day Resident 4 fell. RN 2 stated that another staff member that she cannot remember the name of called her into Resident 4's room. RN 2 stated that she examined the resident and lifted him onto his bed. RN 2 stated that she notified Resident 4's physician and facility administration after the fall. RN 2 stated that an x-ray was ordered and that the x-ray staff confirmed that Resident 4 had a hip fracture. RN 2 stated she could not recall what Resident 4's fall interventions were at the time of the fall. RN 2 stated that she could not recall the location of Resident 4's call light when she entered his room. RN 2 stated that CNAs should be checking on residents at least every 2 hours and that anytime a CNA enters a resident's room they should check the positioning of the resident's call light. On 3/12/24 at 2:30 PM, an interview was conducted with the facility administrator (ADM). The ADM stated that the fall was not reported to the state agency because it was investigated fully internally and it was determined that the resident did not experience neglect. On 3/12/24 at 2:32 PM, an interview was conducted with the Regional Nurse Consultant (RNC). The RNC stated that the reason the fall was not reported to the stage agency was because multiple staff members had questioned the resident about whether or not he thought he had experienced abuse or neglect and the resident had provided the same answer to each staff member. The RNC stated that Resident 4 did not feel like he had experienced abuse or neglect. 2. Resident 7 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis which included encephalopathy, end stage renal disease, spinal stenosis, weakness, limitation of activities due to disability, need for assistance with personal care, and adult failure to thrive. On 3/12/24 at 9:38 AM, an interview was conducted with resident 7. Resident 7 stated that on 12/29/23 he was going to be transported to dialysis. He stated that the van driver was new and it was the van drivers 3rd or 4th day. Resident 7 stated that the van driver strapped him in the van ok, with two straps at the front of his chair and two in the back. When resident 7 was asked about a lap and shoulder seat belt, he stated he did not have one on and did not remember the van diver attempting to put a shoulder or lap seat belt on him. He stated that he did not refuse to have the seatbelts put on. Resident 7 stated that they were on the freeway, the van driver was using a GPS [Global Positioning System] map to drive to the location, the van driver said that the exit should be coming up soon. Resident 7 stated he was looking out the window and told the van driver that they were about to miss the exit, and the van driver braked hard but not so hard the van squealed and darted over to the emergency lane. He stated the braking did pull him out of his chair feet first and he slammed into the back of the van drivers chair and could tell his legs were broken. Resident 7 stated he was then taken to the hospital and was told his femur bones were shattered. On 11/30/23 a quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment documented, resident 7 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of 15. The MDS also documented, resident 7 required extensive two person assistance with bed mobility, transfers, and toileting. On 9/14/21 a care plan documented resident 7 was at risk for falls related to deconditioning, gait/balance problems. Interventions included, ensure that resident 7 was wearing appropriate footwear when ambulating or mobilizing in w/c[wheelchair]. On 12/29/23 at 6:30 AM, an incident report documented, Van driver came back to facility saying [resident 7] did not make it to dialysis. Van dirvier[sic] stated that he did not fasten the safety belt because [resident 7] declined and stated he didn't need it. He stated while on highway, the driver had missed the turn off so [resident 7] shouted out and startled him so he braked. He stated [resident 7] slipped forward out of geri chair and landed on the van floor. Van driver called 911 and he was taken to [a local hospital]. Van driver called dialysis and updated dialysis center that he would not be at dialysis today due to hospital admission . Resident unable to give description. The document stated No injuries observed at time of incident. On 12/29/23 at 9:51 AM, a nursing note documented, Van driver came back to facility saying [resident 7] did not make it to Dialysis. He stated while on highway, he had missed the turn off, [resident 7] yelled at him and then he suddenly braked. He stated [resident 7] slipped forward out of geri chair and landed on the van floor. 911 was called and he was taken to [a local hospital]. Van driver called Dialysis and stated he would not be at dialysis today. On 12/29/23 at 4:33 PM, a nursing note documented, Contacted [local hospital] to see if res [resident] had been admitted to hospital. He is in the ICU [Intensive Care Unit], is receiving dialysis there, bilat [bilateral] LE [lower extremities] were affected and they both will be needing surgery. His stay will be awhile. [It should be noted that for the 12/29/23 incident, reporting to the SSA and Adult Protective Services (APS) was not completed.] On 3/12/24 at 11:08 AM, an interview was conducted with the Regional Nurse Consultant (RNC). The RNC stated that the incident was not reported to the state agency because there was not an injury of an unknown source and did not feel that there was outright neglect or anything that could insinuate neglect. The RNC stated she had worked with resident 7 and that he was extremely difficult in a lot of incidence. She stated that he had depression and was frustrated and he would lash out at care givers and would refuse to cooperate. She stated that she was not present at the time he was being transported and can not say what happened. On 3/12/24 at 11:56 AM, an interview was conducted with the Previous Director of Nursing (PDON). The PDON stated that, she was notified of the incident by a nurse, and was told resident 7 had come out of his chair in transport and was taken to the hospital. The PDON stated that the transportation coordinator interviewed the Van Driver (VD) and stated that the VD said he was trying to fasten resident 7. The VD stated that resident 7 refused the safety belt, and during transport resident 7 slid off of he chair. The PDON stated that they did not report the event because resident 7 refused the seat belt and nothing was done purposeful to cause harm to the resident. The PDON stated that the risk of not having the waist and shoulder seatbelt on could cause a higher risk of falling out of a chair, a risk of injury such as skin injury or broken bones. On 3/12/24 at 2:26 PM, an follow up interview was conducted with the RNC. The RNC stated that best practice was for a resident to be buckled when being transported. The RNC stated that if a resident refused, they must look at the things that were important, and the residents had the right to choose. The RNC stated that with this situation the driver did attempt to do what he could with a reasonable attempt to buckle, and opted not to per resident 7's request. The RNC stated that for resident 7 dialysis was vital and that he had complications due to refusing dialysis. The RNC stated that ultimately it was best practice to secure residents in transport. [Cross refer F 689]
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

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, for 1 of 7 sampled residents, that the facility did not ensure that resi...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review it was determined, for 1 of 7 sampled residents, that 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' choices. Specifically, a resident with heart failure had hospital discharge orders for daily weights, the order was not implemented at the facility until 6 days after the resident was admitted . Resident Identifier: 1. Findings included: Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included heart failure, peripheral vascular disease, presence of prosthetic heart valve, and tricuspid stenosis. A review or resident 1's hospital discharge paperwork documented a discharge order, Monitor weight and record . Please weigh and record your weight: Daily. Call the provider if you have gained or lost pounds: 7-10. Resident 1's care plan did not include any focus areas involving daily weights. A physicians order dated 2/8/24 documented, DAILY WEIGHT R/T [related to] CARDIAC. [It should be noted that resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and daily weights were not initiated until 2/8/24.] Resident 1's weights were reviewed from 2/2/24 through 3/2/24. a. On 2/2/24 at 4:59 PM, Resident 1's admission weight was 311.2 lbs. (pounds) b. On 2/8/24 at 11:55 AM, resident 1's weight was 299.2 lbs. [It should be noted there is a 12 pound weight loss during the 5 day period of not being weighed, and no documentation of notification to the provider was found.] c. On 2/8/24 at 1:50 PM, resident 1 was re-weighed 299.2 lbs. Resident 1 had weights missing on 2/3/24, 2/4/24, 2/5/24, 2/6/24, 2/7/24, 2/19/24 and 2/25/24. [Note: Resident 1 had a total of 7 weights missing in a 31 day period.] On 3/12/24 at 2:44 PM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated that daily weights would be important for a resident with heart failure because the weights can make a huge difference. The weight can tell you what the cardiac volume and function and how they are doing. The DON stated that resident 1 was discharged with an order for daily weights from the hospital. The DON stated she was unable to find any documentation of weights for the missing days and stated that the facility missed putting the order in when resident 1 was admitted to the facility.
Nov 2023 8 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

Deficiency F0552 (Tag F0552)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, it was determined for 1 of 40 sampled residents, that the facility did not inform the resi...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, it was determined for 1 of 40 sampled residents, that the facility did not inform the resident in language that could be understood, of the care to be furnished, of the risks and benefits of the proposed care, of the treatment and treatment alternatives or options and to choose the option that he or she prefers. Specifically, one resident was not aware of the change in their diet order. Resident identifier: 68. Findings include: Resident 68 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included end stage renal disease, encephalopathy, protein calorie malnutrition and adult failure to thrive. On 11/15/23 an interview was conducted with resident 68. Resident 68 stated that in the past, he was prescribed a renal diet, but the food provided was horrible and he did not want to eat it. Resident 68 stated that since he did not like the taste of the food served at the facility, he would often order take out food to eat instead. He stated that the facility allowed him to sign a risk vs. benefit form and his diet was then changed to a regular diet. Resident 68 stated that he knew what foods he could and cold not eat. He stated that he would like to have a small fridge in his room so that he could supplement his food choices on the days the regular diet meal contained too many foods he should not eat. Resident 68 stated that he had been a renal patient for a long time and knew which foods to avoid and understood the consequences of eating foods that were not good for his diet. He stated he had not been informed of a diet change from regular to renal. Resident 68 stated that he was still currently on a regular diet. Resident 68's medical record was reviewed on 11/15/23. A Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) dated 8/29/22 documented a score of 15, revealing resident 68 to be cognitively intact. A care plan dated 9/6/21 and revised on 9/11/23 revealed, Resident 68 has a nutritional problem or potential problem r/t [related to] ESRD [end stage renal disease]. [Resident 68] is on a regular diet which has improved PO [by mouth] intake, but knows many foods to avoid r/t ESRD. [Resident 68] sometimes refuses meals and gets fast food. A risk vs. benefits form dated 11/9/22 documented: 1. Area of concern: [resident 68] would like to eat foods outside of his renal diet and move to a regular, no added salt diet. 2. Benefits: [Resident 68] will get more control of what he eats. 3. Risks related to noncompliance: Risks are mitigated related to use of a phosphate/potassium binder. Renal RD[registered dietitian] and [RD 1]have collaborated on this. However, this diet could lead to increased potassium and phosphorus level in the blood and could adversely affect the health of a patient with end stage renal disease. 4. Date MD [medical director] notified: 11/09/22 5. Care plan needs: Focus: the resident is resistive to care. Intervention: Allow the resident to make decisions about treatment regime, to provide sense of control. Intervention: Provide resident with opportunities for choice during care provision. The form was signed by resident 68 and RD 1. On 2/23/23 resident 68 filled out a diet requisition form for a regular no added salt diet. The diet requisition form was then signed by the Registered Dietitian (RD)1. On 6/18/23 a review of resident 68's hospital discharge paperwork revealed resident 68's discharge diet was a regular diet. On 7/6/23 a nutrition/dietary progress note revealed resident 68 is on a regular diet, resident 68 can make good dietary choices r/t potassium and phosphorus. Says he has binders for both . Will CTM [continue to monitor] as potassium has improved somewhat. On 9/19/23 a physician/Practicioner progress noted revealed in a follow up visit resident 68 reports he is doing ok, eating ok, no concerns. On 11/8/23 resident 68's regular diet order was discontinued, and a new order for a renal diet was started. On 11/10/23 a nutrition/dietary note revealed, RD 1 spoke with resident 68's renal RD concerning updates with resident 68's diet. Resident 68 was saying he can't order takeout much anymore because of the lack of funds. So we are trying to feed him more at the facility is the most likely reasoning for doubling protein portions. [Resident 68] is now also on a Renal diet, regular texture, thin liquids. [Renal RD] and I don't think he will be happy with renal diet again. This change happened because of new company policy that the resident may not sign a risk vs. benefit form to be able to choose their own diet. On 11/16/23 at 10:08 AM, an interview was conducted with RD 1. RD 1 stated that he can educate risk vs. benefits for residents and that often it is better for the residents' mental health to change a diet. RD 1 stated that if a resident requests a different diet he will make a recommendation to the physician. RD 1 stated that he did not know who switched resident 68's diet and that resident 68 wanted to be on a regular diet and has lab values that show he can be on a regular diet. RD 1 stated that he was not sure if resident 68 was informed verbally about the diet change. RD 1 stated that he informed the physician that the resident would not be happy about the diet change. RD 1 stated that a new policy regarding diets had just started, that with the previous policy it was the residents' choice and now the residents don't have much control of their diet. RD 1 stated that the new corporate policy has been communicated verbally and he has not see a written policy. RD 1 stated that if a resident on a renal diet asked for a glass of orange juice the resident would have to get a physicians order for that. RD 1 stated that resident 68 was ordering a lot of take out when he was on the renal diet and once he was switched to the regular diet he was ordering less, and that resident 68 was probably healthier on the regular diet. On 11/16/23 12:57 PM and interview with the Director of nursing (DON). The DON stated resident 68's diet was changed for his safety, that he had been gaining fluid and the physician felt the renal diet was safer. The DON stated that she did not inform resident 68 of his diet change but thought RD 1 was going to inform resident 68 that he was changed to a renal diet.
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 F0561 (Tag F0561)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, it was determined for 1 of 40 sampled residents, that the facility did not inform the resi...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, it was determined for 1 of 40 sampled residents, that the facility did not inform the resident in language that could be understood, of the care to be furnished, of the risks and benefits of the proposed care, of the treatment and treatment alternatives or options and to choose the option that he or she prefers. Specifically, one resident was not aware of the change in their diet order. Resident identifier: 68. Findings include: Resident 68 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included end stage renal disease, encephalopathy, protein calorie malnutrition and adult failure to thrive. On 11/15/23 an interview was conducted with resident 68. Resident 68 stated that in the past, he was prescribed a renal diet, but the food provided was horrible and he did not want to eat it. Resident 68 stated that since he did not like the taste of the food served at the facility, he would often order take out food to eat instead. He stated that the facility allowed him to sign a risk vs. benefit form and his diet was then changed to a regular diet. Resident 68 stated that he knew what foods he could and cold not eat. He stated that he would like to have a small fridge in his room so that he could supplement his food choices on the days the regular diet meal contained too many foods he should not eat. Resident 68 stated that he had been a renal patient for a long time and knew which foods to avoid and understood the consequences of eating foods that were not good for his diet. He stated he had not been informed of a diet change from regular to renal. Resident 68 stated that he was still currently on a regular diet. Resident 68's medical record was reviewed on 11/15/23. A Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) dated 8/29/22 documented a score of 15, revealing resident 68 to be cognitively intact. A care plan dated 9/6/21 and revised on 9/11/23 revealed, Resident 68 has a nutritional problem or potential problem r/t [related to] ESRD [end stage renal disease]. [Resident 68] is on a regular diet which has improved PO [by mouth] intake, but knows many foods to avoid r/t ESRD. [Resident 68] sometimes refuses meals and gets fast food. A risk vs. benefits form dated 11/9/22 documented: 1. Area of concern: [resident 68] would like to eat foods outside of his renal diet and move to a regular, no added salt diet. 2. Benefits: [Resident 68] will get more control of what he eats. 3. Risks related to noncompliance: Risks are mitigated related to use of a phosphate/potassium binder. Renal RD [registered dietitian] and [RD 1]have collaborated on this. However, this diet could lead to increased potassium and phosphorus level in the blood and could adversely affect the health of a patient with end stage renal disease. 4. Date MD [medical director] notified: 11/09/22 5. Care plan needs: Focus: the resident is resistive to care. Intervention: Allow the resident to make decisions about treatment regime, to provide sense of control. Intervention: Provide resident with opportunities for choice during care provision. The form was signed by resident 68 and RD 1. On 2/23/23 resident 68 filled out a diet requisition form for a regular no added salt diet. The diet requisition form was then signed by the Registered Dietitian (RD)1. On 6/18/23 a review of resident 68's hospital discharge paperwork revealed resident 68's discharge diet was a regular diet. On 7/6/23 a nutrition/ dietary progress note revealed resident 68 is on a regular diet, resident 68 can make good dietary choices r/t potassium and phosphorus. Says he has binders for both . Will CTM [continue to monitor] as potassium has improved somewhat. On 9/19/23 a physician/practitioner progress noted revealed in a follow up visit resident 68 reports he is doing ok, eating ok, no concerns. On 11/8/23 resident 68's regular diet order was discontinued, and a renal diet was started. On 11/10/23 a nutrition/dietary note revealed, RD 1 spoke with resident 68's renal RD concerning updates with resident 68's diet. Resident 68 was saying he can't order takeout much anymore because of the lack of funds. So we are trying to feed him more at the facility is the most likely reasoning for doubling protein portions. [Resident 68] is now also on a Renal diet, regular texture, thin liquids. [Renal RD] and I don't think he will be happy with renal diet again. This change happened because of new company policy that the resident may not sign a risk vs. benefit form to be able to choose their own diet. On 11/16/23 at 10:08 AM, an interview was conducted with RD 1. RD 1 stated that he can educate risk vs. benefits for residents and that often it is better for the residents' mental health to change a diet. RD 1 stated that if a resident requests a different diet he will make a recommendation to the physician. RD 1 stated that he did not know who switched resident 68's diet and that resident 68 wanted to be on a regular diet and has lab values that show he can be on a regular diet. RD 1 stated that he was not sure if resident 68 was informed verbally about the diet change. RD 1 stated that he informed the physician that the resident would not be happy about the diet change. RD 1 stated that a new policy regarding diets had just started, that with the previous policy it was the residents choice and now the resident don't have much control of their diet. RD 1 stated that the new corporate policy has been communicated verbally and has no see a written policy. RD 1 stated that if a resident on a renal diet asked for a glass of orange juice the resident would have to get a physicians order for that. RD 1 stated that resident 68 was ordering a lot of take out when he was on the renal diet and once he was switched to the regular diet he was ordering less, and that resident 68 was probably healthier on the regular diet. On 11/16/23 12:57 PM and interview with the Director of nursing (DON). The DON stated resident 68's diet was changed for his safety, that he had been gaining fluid and the physician felt the renal diet was safer. The DON stated that she did not inform resident 68 of his diet change but thought RD 1 was going to be telling him that he was changed to a renal diet. On 11/16/23 at 2:28 PM, an interview was conducted with the regional nurse consultant (RNC). The RNC stated that the new food policy was currently being made and that verbal education was given regarding the policy. She stated the policy was currently being put in place in the facility in order to do what is most safe for the residents. The RNC stated that they understood that the facility was the residents home, but that they have an obligation to provide what is most safe and that includes feeding them the most diagnostically safe diet. She stated that the facility will allow the residents to obtain their own food or have family bring in food that does not follow the ordered diet, but that the facility will only offer the resident food from their prescribed diet order. She stated that resident 68 gets excessive in his choices and that facility staff can help him manage that.
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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

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 provide a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, allowing the residents to use his or her personal belongings to the extent possible. Specifically, a resident requiring a specialized diet was not allowed to bring in his mini refrigerator to store his food. Resident identifier: 68. Findings include: Resident 68 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included end stage renal disease, encephalopathy, protein calorie malnutrition and adult failure to thrive. On 11/15/23 an interview was conducted with resident 68. Resident 68 stated that in the past, he was prescribed a renal diet, but the food provided was horrible and he did not want to eat it. Resident 68 stated that since he did not like the taste of the food served at the facility, he would often order take out food to eat instead. He stated that the facility allowed him to sign a risk vs. benefit form and his diet was then changed to a regular diet. Resident 68 stated that he knew what foods he could and cold not eat. He stated that he would like to have a small fridge in his room so that he could supplement his food choices on the days the regular diet meal contained too many foods he should not eat. Resident 68 stated that he had been a renal patient for a long time and knew which foods to avoid and understood the consequences of eating foods that were not good for his diet. Resident 68 stated that he has used the communal fridge for residents, but had issues with his food being thrown away and unopened drinks going missing. He stated that he did file a grievance for missing food and it was replaced but on a separate occasion his food was not replaced. He stated that his friends bought him a fridge and brought it to the building to reduce the issues he was having with food going missing and being unable to supplement the meals he could not eat. Resident 68 stated that he would like to have cool drinks, his own butter, and personal snacks. He stated that the administrator told him that mini fridges were a fire hazard and residents who had a fridge prior to the new policy are grandfathered in and can have their own personal fridge. [It should be noted resident 68 has lived in the facility since 9/7/21 and the fridge policy started 5/4/23.] Resident 68's medical record was reviewed on 11/15/23. A Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) dated 8/29/22 documented a score of 15, revealing resident 68 to be cognitively intact. A care plan dated 9/6/21 and revised on 9/11/23 revealed, Resident 68 has a nutritional problem or potential problem r/t [related to] ESRD [end stage renal disease]. [Resident 68] is on a regular diet which has improved PO [by mouth] intake, but knows many foods to avoid r/t ESRD. [Resident 68] sometimes refuses meals and gets fast food. A risk vs. benefits form dated 11/9/22 documented: 1. Area of concern: [resident 68] would like to eat foods outside of his renal diet and move to a regular, no added salt diet. 2. Benefits: [Resident 68] will get more control of what he eats. 3. Risks related to noncompliance: Risks are mitigated related to use of a phosphate/potassium binder. Renal RD[registered dietitian] and [RD 1]have collaborated on this. However, this diet could lead to increased potassium and phosphorus level in the blood and could adversely affect the health of a patient with end stage renal disease. 4. Date MD [medical director] notified: 11/09/22 5. Care plan needs: Focus: the resident is resistive to care. Intervention: Allow the resident to make decisions about treatment regime, to provide sense of control. Intervention: Provide resident with opportunities for choice during care provision. This was signed by resident 68 and RD 1. On 2/23/23 resident 68 filled out a diet requisition form for a regular no added salt diet. The diet requisition form was then signed by the Registered Dietitian (RD)1. On 7/6/23 a nutrition/dietary progress note revealed resident 68 is on a regular diet, resident 68 can make good dietary choices r/t potassium and phosphorus. Says he has binders for both . Will CTM [continue to monitor] as potassium has improved somewhat. On 11/10/23 a nutrition/dietary note revealed, RD 1 spoke with resident 68's renal RD concerning updates with resident 68's diet. Resident 68 was saying he can't order takeout much anymore because of the lack of funds. So we are trying to feed him more at the facility is the most likely reasoning for doubling protein portions. [Resident 68] is now also on a Renal diet, regular texture, thin liquids. [Renal RD] and I don't think he will be happy with renal diet again. This change happened because of new company policy that the resident may not sign a risk vs. benefit form to be able to choose their own diet. On 11/16/23 at 10:08 AM, an interview was conducted with RD 1. RD 1 stated that he can educate risk vs. benefits for residents and that often it is better for residents' mental health to change a diet. RD 1 stated that if a resident requests a different diet he will make a recommendation to the physician. RD 1 stated that he did not know who switched resident 68's diet and that resident 68 wanted to be on a regular diet and has lab values that show he can be on a regular diet. RD 1 stated that he was not sure if resident 68 was informed verbally about the diet change. RD 1 stated that he informed the physician that the resident would not be happy about the diet change. RD 1 stated that a new policy regarding diets had just started, that with the previous policy it was the residents choice and now the resident don't have much control of their diet. RD 1 stated that the new corporate policy has been communicated verbally and has not see a written policy. RD 1 stated that if a resident on a renal diet asked for a glass of orange juice the resident would have to get a physicians order for that. RD 1 stated that resident 68 was ordering a lot of take out when he was on the renal diet and once he was switched to the regular diet he was ordering less, and that resident 68 was probably healthier on the regular diet. On 11/15/23 at 3:12 PM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated that the fridge policy is a new policy with the company that just took over the building. She stated that the personal fridges are a risk for infection since staff are to manage the food in the fridge, making sure they are clean and in compliance. She stated that resident who had a fridge prior to the new policy are grandfathered in and may keep their personal fridge. On 11/16/23 at 8:26 AM, an interview was conducted with resident 68. Resident 68 stated that he had received breakfast this morning but that it was something he did not want, he stated he did not want the alternative option either. Resident 68 stated that he would not be eating anything for breakfast but that if he had a personal fridge he would have food that he could eat for breakfast to supplement the breakfast meal he was missing. On 11/16/23 at 2:09 PM, an interview was conducted with the administrator (ADM). The ADM stated that the concern with the personal fridges was the amperage load of non patient equipment brought into the facility. He stated that the facility has a common refrigerator that residents can use to keep their food and staff will assist with getting to food the resident has in it. He stated that residents are aware of the policy when the are admitted and that the policy is in the admission packet.
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

Medication Errors (Tag F0758)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review it was determined, for 1 of 40 sampled residents, that the facility did not ensure that a r...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review it was determined, for 1 of 40 sampled residents, that the facility did not ensure that a resident who received psychotropic drugs were not given these drugs unless the medication was to treat a specific condition as diagnosed and documented in the clinical record. Specifically, a resident who was prescribed a psychotropic medication was given the medication daily with out adequate monitoring. Resident identifier 18. Findings include: Resident 18 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included unspecified dementia with behavioral disturbance, major depressive disorder, and anxiety disorder. Resident 18's medical record was reviewed on 11/15/23. A physician's order revealed orders dated 10/11/23 for the following: a. Clonazepam oral tablet 0.25 MG (milligrams) to be given two times a day related to anxiety disorder. b. Seroquel oral tablet, give 100 MG by mouth two times a day for major depressive disorder. c. Trazodone Oral Tablet 50 MG to be given by mouth at bedtime for insomnia. A Psychotropic Medication Review form for resident 18 dated 11/9/23 recommended behaviors to monitor including restlessness, hours of sleep, tearfulness, and anxious statements or thoughts. The Medication Administration Record (MAR) and Task Administration Record (TAR) revealed the following: a. Clonazepam was given twice a day from 10/11/23 through 11/14/23. b. Seroquel was given two times a day from 10/11/23 through 11/14/23. c. Trazodone was given once a day from 10/11/23 through 11/14/23. Note: No behaviors were monitored for the medications given from 10/11/23 through 11/14/23. On 11/15/23 at 9:45 AM an interview with the Director of nursing (DON) was conducted. The DON stated that behavior monitoring is documented on anyone receiving a psychotropic medication. The DON stated that medication orders are audited the day after they are put into the system. If behavior monitoring is not placed with the psychotropic medication order it would be caught by one of the nurse managers in the order audit done the day after the order is placed. The DON stated that the behavior monitoring for resident 18 was just missed.
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 F0565 (Tag F0565)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility did not consider the views of a resident or family group and act promptly upon the grievances and the recommendations of such ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility did not consider the views of a resident or family group and act promptly upon the grievances and the recommendations of such groups concerning issues of resident care and life in the facility. Specifically, the facility did not follow up on grievances filed by residents. Findings include: On 11/16/23, the facility grievance long was reviewed for the past year. The following grievances were found with no resolutions: On 1/26/23, a grievance was filed about food at the facility. No resolution or follow up on the grievance was documented in the grievance log. On 2/26/23, a grievance was filed about a resident to staff interaction. No resolution or follow up on the grievance was documented in the grievance log. On 4/27/23, two separate grievances were filed about food at the facility. No resolution or follow up on the grievances was documented in the grievance log. On 5/22/23, a grievance was filed by the resident council about food at the facility. No resolution or follow up on the grievance was documented in the grievance log. During the survey, non-compliance was identified with regard to F804, which had been a concern voiced with the residents in resident council 10 months prior. On 11/16/23, at 1:59 PM, an interview was conducted with the Activities Director (AD). The AD stated that grievances filed go in the grievance binder and that the facility Social Worker investigates the grievance or forwards it to the department of concern. The AD stated that prior to the facility being purchased by another company, complaints were not getting resolved. On 11/16/23 at 2:20 PM, an interview was conducted with the facility Social Worker (SW). The SW stated that she started in August of 2023 and was unsure of the grievance resolution process prior to that date. On 11/16/23 at 2:14 PM, an interview was conducted with the facility administrator (ADM). ADM stated that he and the SW are the grievance officers. The ADM stated that he signs off on grievances and then passes them off onto the corresponding department. [Cross refer to F804]
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

MDS Data Transmission (Tag F0640)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility did not transmit to the Centers for Medicare/Medicaid (CMS) System informatio...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility did not transmit to the Centers for Medicare/Medicaid (CMS) System information for each resident contained in the Minimum Data Set (MDS) within 7 days after completion. Resident identifiers: 2, 4, 28, 38, 48, 61, and 78. Findings include: 1. Resident 38 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included chronic kidney disease, atrial fibrillation, and congestive heart failure. Resident 38's record was reviewed on 11/14/23. Resident 38's record indicated that an MDS dated [DATE] indicated in the Electronic Health Record (EHR) was export ready. Review of the CMS System indicated that the 8/31/23 MDS for resident 38 had not been transmitted as of 11/14/23. 2. Resident 2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included cerebral infarction, bell's palsy and liver transplant status. Resident 2's record was reviewed on 11/14/23. Resident 2's record indicated that an MDS dated [DATE] in the EHR was export ready. Review of the CMS System indicated that the 8/29/23 MDS for resident 2 had not been transmitted as of 11/14/23. 3. Resident 61 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included acute kidney failure, congestive heart failure, and muscle weakness. Resident 61's record was reviewed on 11/14/23. Resident 61's record indicated that an MDS dated [DATE] in the EHR was export ready. Review of the CMS System indicated that the 8/16/23 MDS for resident 61 had not been transmitted as of 11/14/23. 4. Resident 78 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included femur fracture and severe protein-calorie malnutrition. Resident 78's record was reviewed on 11/14/23. Resident 78's record indicated that an MDS dated [DATE] in the EHR was export ready. Review of the CMS System indicated that the 8/18/23 MDS for resident 78 had not been transmitted as of 11/14/23. 5. Resident 28 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included metabolic encephalopathy and acute kidney failure. Resident 28's record was reviewed on 11/14/23. Resident 28's record indicated that an MDS dated [DATE] in the EHR export ready. Review of the CMS System indicated that the 8/19/23 MDS for resident 28 had not been transmitted as of 11/14/23. 6. Resident 48 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included spinal stenosis and diabetes mellitus. Resident 48's record was reviewed on 11/14/23. Resident 48's record indicated that an MDS dated [DATE] in the EHR was export ready. Review of the CMS System indicated that the 8/17/23 MDS for resident 48 had not been transmitted as of 11/14/23. 7. Resident 4 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included cerebral palsy, diabetes mellitus, and dysphagia. Resident 4's record was reviewed on 11/14/23. Resident 4's record indicated that an MDS dated [DATE] in the EHR was export ready. Review of the CMS System indicated that the 8/26/23 MDS for resident 4 had not been transmitted as of 11/14/23. On 11/15/23 at 10:14 AM, an interview was conducted with the Minimum Data Set Coordinator (MDSC). The MDSC confirmed that the MDS assessments listed above were not transmitted to the CMS System. The MDSC stated that after some investigation she determined that the previous MDSC left at the end of August 2023, prepared the MDS assessments listed above but did not transmit them. The MDSC stated that she was unaware of the untransmitted assessments, and stated that she would be transmitting the missing assessments on 11/15/23.
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 F0688 (Tag F0688)

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, the facility did not ensure that each resident with limit...

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 each resident with limited mobility received appropriate services, equipment, and assistance to maintain or improve mobility with the maximum practicable independence unless a reduction in mobility was demonstrably unavoidable. Specifically, for 3 out of 40 sampled residents, a resident with bilateral hand contractures was not being provided the ordered device to hold in the contracted hand during the day for comfort and prevention. In addition, residents did not received RNA (Restorative Nursing Services). Resident identifiers: 22, 68 and 73. Findings include: 1. Resident 22 was initially admitted on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included, hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction affecting left and right sides, muscle weakness, contracture of hand and joint, quadriplegia, and limitation of activities due to disability. A review of resident 22's medical records was conducted on 11/13/23 through 11/16/23. On 11/14/23 at 9:06 AM an observation was made that resident 22 had contractures in both hands. Physician's order states, splints to be placed on bilateral hands for 4 hours as tolerated for contractures management. Directions stated, every day shift for contractures. On 11/16/23 at 10:16 AM an observation was made that resident 22 did not have splints placed on her hands. On 11/16/23 at 10:25 AM an interview with resident 22 was conducted. Resident 22 stated that she usually gets her splints placed on her about 10:00 AM. Resident 22 stated that the nurse that usually puts her hand splints on is not here today. On 11/16/23 at 12:09 PM an observation was made that resident 22 was in bed and no splints placed on her hands. On 11/16/23 at 12:24 PM a review of the Treatment Administration Record (TAR) for November 2023 revealed treatment had been provided for 3 hours on Thursday, 11/16/23 and checked off as completed. On 11/16/23 at 1:17 PM an interview with Registered Nurse (RN) 1 was conducted. RN 1 stated that she will put resident 22's hand splints on the resident daily. RN 1 stated that resident 22 goes to activities in the morning so it is usually best for her to put the splints on in the afternoon. On 11/16/23 at 3:01 PM an observation was made that resident 22 was in bed and no splints placed on her hands. On 11/16/23 at 3:19 PM a follow up interview with RN 1 was conducted. RN stated that she marked the TAR as putting the splints on resident 22 that morning. RN 1 stated that when she went in to the resident's room to place the splints on resident 22, resident was sleeping, so she did not put the splints on. A Nursing Care Plan initiated on 5/26/16 for resident 22 revealed a focus of Limited Physical Mobility and the intervention to Provide gentle range of motion (ROM) as tolerated with daily care. An optional state Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] indicated the following: A. Section G (functional status) revealed that resident 22 required extensive assistance with bed mobility, personal hygiene, and toilet use. Resident 22 required total dependence with transfers. The RNA Program List dated 10/2/23 revealed resident 22 was on the list for RNA services. 2. Resident 73 was initially admitted on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included, traumatic subdural hemorrhage without loss of consciousness, bipolar disorder, history of falling, and limitation of activities due to disability. On 11/14/23 at 9:51 AM an interview with resident 73 was conducted. Resident 73 stated that no one performs Range of Motion (ROM) exercises on her. Resident 73 stated that she feels like she is just lying around and growing weaker since she is not able to move herself very well. A review of resident 73's medical record was conducted on 11/13/23 through 11/16/23. A Nursing Care Plan initiated on 2/1/22 revealed resident 73 has limited physical mobility and staff were to provide gentle ROM as tolerated daily. An optional state Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] A. Section G (functional status) revealed that resident 22 required extensive assistance with bed mobility, personal hygiene, and toilet use. Resident 22 required total dependence with transfers. RNA Program List dated 10/2/23 revealed resident 73 was on the list for RNA services. On 11/16/23 at 9:43 AM an interview was conducted with Minimum Data Set Coordinator (MDSC). The MDSC stated she has been at the facility since September, and she oversees the Restorative Nurses Assistant (RNA) program. The MDSC stated she is in the process of training eligible Certified Nurses Assistants (CNA) into RNAs. The MDSC stated only a few of the CNA staff have been fully trained. The MDSC stated, No residents have gotten RNA services. 3. Resident 68 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included end stage renal disease, spinal stenosis, muscle weakness, limitation of activities due to disability, need for assistance with personal care, protein calorie malnutrition and adult failure to thrive. Resident 68's medical record was reviewed on 11/15/23. A quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed: A. Section G (functional status) revealed that resident 68 required extensive assistance with bed mobility, personal hygiene, and toilet use. Resident 68 required total dependence with transfers. A care plan dated 9/6/21 documented a focus area, resident 68 has limited physical mobility. Intervention dated 1/21/22 revealed, provide supportive care, assistance with mobility as needed. Document assistance as needed. A document titled Restorative nursing program inservice was completed by two staff members and signed on 10/18/23. A document titled RNA (restorative nursing assistant) dated 10/2/23 revealed residents on RNA services. Resident 68 was included in the list. On 11/15/23 an interview was conducted with resident 68. Resident 68 stated that he feels he has gotten weaker since he moved to the facility. He stated that he is interested in becoming more independent but needed more therapy in order to do that. Resident 68 stated that his tendons behind his knees are so tight it is difficult to extend his legs. On 11/15/23 at 11:20 AM an interview was conducted with certified nursing assistant (CNA) 2. CNA 2 stated that she had been trained as an RNA but had not been scheduled to perform RNA duties. CNA 1 stated that she had only been scheduled as a CNA since she completed training. On 11/16/23 at 9:43 AM an interview was conducted with the minimum data set coordinator (MDSC). The MDSC stated the RNA program was designed to assist residents with functional maintenance. She stated that the RNA's should be charting in the residents chart if they preformed any RNA service.
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 F0804 (Tag F0804)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined that the facility did not provide food prepared by methods that conserve nutritive value, flavor, and appearance or palatable, att...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined that the facility did not provide food prepared by methods that conserve nutritive value, flavor, and appearance or palatable, attractive, and at a safe temperature. Specifically, 13 residents complained of food to surveyors, numerous residents filed grievances about the quality of the food served, multiple resident council notes complained of food quality, and a test tray pulled by surveyors was not palatable. Resident identifiers: 1, 2, 6, 12, 27, 41, 53, 54, 55, 61, 71, 86, and 156. Findings include; 1. On 11/14/23 at 1:08 PM, an interview was conducted with Resident 1. Resident 1 stated that the food served by the facility was sickening. Resident 1 stated that when she was admitted to the facility, the admissions coordinator told her husband that he should consider bringing her outside food because the food served by the facility was not great. 2. On 11/14/23 at 9:09 AM, an interview was conducted with Resident 86. Resident 86 stated that he is not allowed to eat eggs or dairy, but that he is frequently served meals that contain both eggs and dairy. 3. On 11/14/23 at 9:45 AM, an interview was conducted with Resident 12. Resident 12 stated that chicken served is frequently cold and tough to chew. 4. On 11/14/23 at 11:09 AM, an interview was conducted with Resident 2. Resident 2 stated that the food is terrible. Resident 2 stated that the eggs served are powdered, nasty shit. 5. On 11/14/23 at 10:04 AM, an interview was conducted with Resident 61. Resident 61 stated that the food sometimes sucks. 6. On 11/14/23 at 1:05 PM, an interview was conducted with Resident 6. Resident 6 complained of the food quality. 7. On 11/14/23 at 9:11 AM, an interview was conducted with Resident 54. Resident 54 stated that the food served to her is often half cooked and still half frozen. Resident 54 also stated that she frequently receives the wrong food. 8. On 11/14/23 at 1:25 PM, an interview was conducted with Resident 41. Resident 41 stated that the the food is nasty and all pretty bad. 9. On 11/14/23 at 9:33 AM, an interview was conducted with Resident 27. Resident 27 stated that the chicken served is dry and that she keeps getting sent chocolate even though she is allergic to chocolate. 10. On 11/14/23 at 10:13 AM, an interview was conducted with Resident 71. Resident 71 stated that the food served is mediocre. 11. On 11/14/23 at 11:00 AM, an interview was conducted with Resident 156. Resident 156 stated that the food served is terrible. 12. On 11/14/23 at 11:51 AM, an interview was conducted with Resident 55. Resident 55 stated that the food served is not good, it is badly prepared, and the food that should be hot is not hot when it arrives. Resident 55 stated that sometimes the food served is ice cold when it should be hot. 13. On 11/14/23 at 9:35 AM, an interview was conducted with Resident 53. Resident 53 stated that the menu does not always correspond to the actual food served. Resident 53 stated that the food served is cold. 14. On 11/15/23 at 12:40 PM, an interview was conducted with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 1. CNA 1 stated that she double checks each meal and compares it with the meal ticket because the kitchen frequently serves the wrong items. She stated that residents with egg allergies are often served eggs or that residents on a puree diet receive fruit that is not pureed. 15. On 11/16/23 at 1:59 PM, an interview was conducted with the Activities Director (AD). The AD stated that a frequent complaint of residents is that snacks come out in 2 oz cups and are only half full, while the lids of the containers say there is a ½ cup of food contained inside. 16. On 11/16/23, the facility grievance log and resident council notes were reviewed for the past year. The following grievances were found with no resolutions: On 1/26/23, a grievance was filed about food at the facility. No resolution or follow up on the grievance was documented in the grievance log. On 4/27/23, two separate grievances were filed about food at the facility. No resolution or follow up on the grievances was documented in the grievance log. On 5/22/23, a grievance was filed by the resident council about food at the facility. No resolution or follow up on the grievance was documented in the grievance log. 17. On 11/15/23, a test tray was pulled from the tray line. The test tray was the last meal to be plated at 12:34 PM. The tray was followed until all other trays were finished being delivered at 12:47 PM. The test tray was then sampled by surveyors. The meal consisted of a half slice of wheat bread, apple stuffing, sliced carrots, ham, and pineapple gelatin. The apple stuffing had an unpalatable flavor and the apple pieces in the stuffing felt cold to the mouth. The sliced carrots were found to be mushy, cold, and had a metallic flavor.
Sept 2019 12 deficiencies 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

A resident was harmed · 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 3 of 38 sample residents, that the facility did not en...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review it was determined, for 3 of 38 sample residents, that the facility did not ensure that the resident's environment remained as free of accident hazards as was possible and each resident received adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents. Specifically, the facility did not provide adequate supervision, implement interventions nor complete interventions in an effort to prevent falls from occurring. One resident fractured each wrist, one week apart and one resident, had a fall after no interventions and fractured a wrist. Resident identifiers: 3, 30 and 41. Findings include: 1. Resident 3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], she was discharged to the hospital and returned on 8/28/19, with diagnoses which included fracture of right wrist and hand, cystitis, fracture of left wrist and hand, acute respiratory failure, dementia, bipolar disorder, neuromuscular dysfunction of bladder, need for assistance with personal care, neuropathy, glaucoma, gastro-esophageal reflux disease, restless legs syndrome, osteoarthritis, dissociative identity disorder, pseudobulbar affect, pain in left knee, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, encephalopathy, abnormalities of gait and mobility, dysphagia, cognitive communication deficit, sciatica, pain in right leg, generalized anxiety disorder, repeated falls, muscle weakness, hypoxemia, hyperglycemia, insomnia, obstructive sleep apnea, hypothyroidism, hyperlipidemia, and asthma. On 9/9/19 at 12:15 PM, an interview was conducted with resident 3. Resident 3 stated that she had had multiple falls at the facility, and had hit her head at least once. Resident 3's medical record was reviewed on 9/10/19 and revealed the following falls: a. On 12/28/18 resident 3 had a fall with no noted injury. A nurse's note documented Nurse was assisting resident's roommate and saw this resident standing up after using the restroom and slipped and fell into a sitting position on the floor. Resident stated that her feet started to slide and she fell to a sitting position. An intervention documented on the facility incident report and the nurse's note stated Encouraged resident to wear nonskid socks when walking or transferring. [Note: this fall and intervention were not documented on resident 3's care plan.] b. On 12/30/18 resident 3 had a fall and hit her head. A nurse's note documented Res (resident) roommate used call light, CNA (certified nurse assistant) answer and found res in rest room res was sitting on floor. Res did not have traction socks on. Ask res what happens? res stated that she was on toilet, reach for walker then started to slipping. Res stated she hit her R (right) side of head on wall, and R arm on the floor. An intervention documented on the facility incident report and the nurse's note stated educate res to used traction socks and put on for res. [Note: this was the same intervention documented for the fall that happened 2 days prior. Additionally, this fall and intervention were not documented on resident 3's care plan.] c. On 1/12/19 resident 3 had a fall and hit her head which caused a scalp hematoma. A nurse's note documented Recreation notified this nurse that she was in resident's room helping her and saw her fall to the floor and her back was leaning against the bed frame. Resident stated she was standing up and was reaching for her walker but it was too far and lost her balance and fell. She said she hit her back and her head on the bed frame. An intervention documented on the facility incident report and the nurse's note stated Encourage resident to ask for assistance. [Note: this fall and intervention were not documented on resident 3's care plan.] d. On 1/14/19 resident 3 had a fall with no noted injury. A nurse's note documented Res stated that she was in her recliner, try to get up to her walker and slipped to floor. Res was next to her recliner.Res (sic) stated she did not hit her head, and denied pain. An intervention documented in the nurse's note stated Educate res to use call light, and help res to used rest room. Another intervention documented as an Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) note stated Staff to remind and assist resident in keeping her walkerclose (sic) by. [Note: this fall and intervention were not documented on resident 3's care plan.] e. On 5/27/19 resident 3 had a fall and hit her head which caused a laceration. A nurse's note documented [Resident 3] fell in her room at approx. (approximately) 1100 (11:00 AM). She was standing and trying to sign a piece of paper for [NAME] the housekeeper. she (sic) said all of a sudden I just felt myself going down. She hit her head on the left side and has a small laceration to her left ear. An intervention documented on 5/28/18 as an IDT note stated Resident is currently on OT (occupational therapy). OT to instruct to keep one hand on a solid surface. [Note: the fall and interventions were not documented on resident 3's care plan. Additionally, an interview with staff indicated that there was not a housekeeper named Jack, nor was anyone trying to obtain a signature from resident 3.] f. On 6/29/19 resident 3 had a fall with no noted injury. A nurse's note on 6/30/19 documented [Resident 3] was using her 4 wheeled walker as a wheelchair and another resident brought her dog in. [Resident 3] leaned over to pet the dog forgetting to lock the brakes on her walker. The walker then rolled out from under her causing her to slide to her bottom. No injury noted and was witnessed by 3 other people, she did not hit her head. An intervention documented on resident 3's care plan stated Re-educate [resident 3] to use her walker as a walker and apply the brakes when moving. [Note: this was the first fall intervention documented on resident 3's care plan since 2017, which was prior to these most recent falls.] g. On 7/9/19 resident 3 had a fall with no injury noted. A nurse's note on 7/10/19 documented ~1930 (7:30 PM) Resident was found on the floor sitting on her buttock by CNA. Res stated she was going to the restroom and her legs gave out. Then she butt walked forward to let staff know. She did not hit her head, No skin injuries upon assessment. An intervention documented on resident 3's care plan stated Repair [resident 3's] electric wheelchair so she will no longer use walker as a wheelchair and remind to use call light for assistance. On 9/11/19 at 9:32 AM, an observation was made of resident 3 sitting in her recliner. Resident 3's call light was clipped to her bed and was not within reach. h. On 7/19/19 resident 3 had a fall in which she hit her head and had a change in her vital signs and level of consciousness. A nurse's note on 7/20/19 documented Res was found in he (sic) bathroom sitting on floor. Res stated she feel (sic) while standing up reaching for her wheel walker. Res wheel walker was not lock. Res has two lumps on right skull, res stated pain in R shoulder, R side of head, and R breast. Res initial vitals were WNL (within normal limits), after second vital res BP (blood pressure), O2 (oxygen) sat (saturation) begin to decline. Res become more confused. [Nurse Practitioner] gives the OK to send res toER (sic) (emergency room). Res came back from [name of hospital] at 0400 (4:00 AM), with no new orders. An intervention documented resident 3's care plan stated Putting her walker closer to her while in the bathroom and ensuring the brake is engaged. An intervention documented on the facility incident report and the nurse's note stated She continues to use her walker as a wheelchair and has had falls rt (related to) not using her walker appropriately. Resident educated regarding walker use and to call staff for assistance. [Note: this was the 2nd time these interventions were used.] i. On 7/30/19 resident 3 had a fall and hit her head. A nurse's note documented CNA heard a call for help and found [resident 3] on the floor in her room. She stated she was getting up to go to the bathroom and slipped on some water she spilled. Denies any pain. No physical injuries noted. States she slightly hit her head. An intervention documented on resident 3's care plan stated Provide [resident 3] new grippy socks for traction. [Note: this was the 3rd time this intervention was used, but the 1st time it was documented on the care plan.] On 9/10/19 at 3:12 PM, an observation was made of resident 3 with no grippy socks on. On 9/11/19 at 8:04 AM, resident 3 was observed sitting on the side of her bed with no grippy socks on. There were no grippy socks on her bed or anywhere near her to indicate that she had them on recently. On 9/11/19 at 11:26 AM, an observation was made of resident 3 in her recliner with no grippy socks on. Resident 3's spouse was in the room at that time and stated that staff never put grippy socks on resident 3 unless she requested it. j. On 8/5/19 resident 3 had a fall and hit her head which caused a laceration, she also had a left wrist fracture. A nurse's note documented This nurse and two other staff members heard resident yelling for help and went in room to find resident on ground face down at 1900 (7:00 PM) this evening. Staff members helped resident back up into her recliner. She stated she was on her way to the bathroom and tripped on her side table. She has a bump on her forehead with a small laceration, cleaned and dressed with a bandaid. She had increased pain in her left arm rated 10/10 with decreased ROM. Pain medication and ice given. MD notified and ordered x-ray for left shoulder and wrist. X-ray performed and showed fracture to left wrist. MD notified and ordered to send out for further treatment in ER. An intervention documented on resident 3's care plan stated Install grippy tape to the bathroom floor for traction in the event there is water inadvertently splashed on the floor.Install grippy tape to the foot of [resident 3's] recliner. An intervention documented on the facility incident report and the nurse's note stated Staff to apply brightly colored tape on her bedside table to assist with visual cues. On 9/10/19 at 3:12 PM, an observation was made of resident 3's bathroom with no grip tape on the floor. Resident 3's roommate stated that to her knowledge, there had never been any grip tape on the floor in the bathroom. On 9/11/19 at 9:32 AM, an observation was made of resident 3's bedside table without any brightly colored tape for visual cues. k. On 8/10/19 resident 3 had a fall with no noted injuries. A facility incident report documented CNA found res is room sitting on floor by her recliner. Res stated she slid out of recliner onto floor, and did not hit her head. An intervention documented on the facility incident report and the nurse's noted stated Grippy tape to be placed at the foot of her recliner. [Note: this was the 2nd time this intervention was used. Additionally, no updates were made to resident 3's care plan.] l. On 8/16/19 resident 3 had a fall with no noted injuries. A nurse's note documented Res more alert today, however she tried once to get up on her own at 1100 (11:00 AM), nurse found res on floor, examined res, found no injury. An intervention documented on resident 3's care plan stated PT (physical therapy) eval (evaluation) for strength and training to use bedside commode and ambulate. An intervention documented on the facility incident report and the nurse's note stated Resident educated regarding call light use. Bedside commode placed by bedside to assist resident. On 9/11/19 at 9:32 AM, an observation was made of resident 3's room with no bedside commode. m. On 8/18/19 resident 3 had a fall with a right wrist fracture. A nurse's noted documented Around 0330 (3:30 AM) CNA found res on the floor in prone position, bed was on the lowest position. Res stated she tried to get up and some how rolled out of bed. [Note: there was no intervention documented for this fall on resident 3's care plan, in the nurse's note, or in a facility incident report.] n. On 8/22/19 resident 3 had a fall with no noted injuries. A facility incident report documented RES found on floor have way to bathroom, res on R side, bed was in the lowest position r/t res trying 2 other times that morning to get out of bed. An intervention documented on the facility incident report stated that resident 3 was sent to the hospital for a psychiatric evaluation. [Note: this fall and intervention were not documented on resident 3's care plan.] A review of resident 3's care plan revealed the following interventions were initiated prior to the fall on 12/28/18: a. Resident referred to pt (physical therapy) for proper walker usage and eval (evaluation) for front wheeled walker. Initiated on 9/17/17 b. Anticipate and meet [resident 3's] needs. Initiated on 6/13/16 c. Be sure [resident 3's] call light is within reach and encourage [resident 3] to use it for assistance as needed. [Resident 3] needs prompt response to all requests for assistance. Initiated on 6/13/16 d. Pt (physical therapy) evaluate and treat as ordered or PRN (as needed). Initiated on 6/13/16 e. [Resident 3] given education to let staff help her with toileting to prevent further falls. Initiated on 5/8/17 f. Education given to [resident 3] to ensure that she asks for assistance with bed mobility Initiated on 3/20/173 g. Staff education to check with [resident 3] frequently for toileting needs and if she needs any assistance with toileting to prevent falls. Initiated on 5/8/17 [Note: the intervention to remind resident 3 to ask for assistance and use her call light for mobility and transfers was used seven times.] On 9/9/19 at 12:15 PM, an interview was conducted with resident 3's spouse. Resident 3's spouse stated that resident 3 usually fell when trying to get up to go the bathroom because staff did not answer call lights very quickly. [Note: seven of the fourteen falls were going to or from the bathroom.] A review of call light times around resident 3's falls found: a. On 12/28/19, just prior to resident 3's fall, her call light was on for 11 minutes and 4 seconds. b. On 12/30/19, just prior to resident 3's fall, her call light was on for 8 minutes and 56 seconds. c. On 1/12/19, just prior to resident 3's fall, her call light was on for 3 minutes and 33 seconds. d. On 1/14/19, just prior to resident 3's fall, her call light was on for 4 minutes and 45 seconds. e. On 7/9/19, just prior to resident 3's fall, her call light was on for 10 minutes and 30 seconds. f. On 8/5/19, call light times surrounding this fall were not provided by the facility. g. On 8/10/19, just prior to resident 3's fall, her call light was on for 6 minutes and 42 seconds. h. On 8/16/19, call light times surrounding this fall were not provided by the facility. i. On 8/18/19, call light times surrounding this fall were not provided by the facility. j. On 8/22/19, call light times surrounding this fall were not provided by the facility. A review of the Medicare Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessments for the previous year documented that resident 3 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 13-15 which would indicate resident 3 was cognitively intact. Additionally, resident 3's functional status was documented as requiring one person, extensive assistance for toilet use and transfers. On 9/11/19 at 8:04 AM, an observation was made of resident 3 sitting on the side of her bed. Resident 3 stated she had a headache and was trying to call the nurse but could not figure out how to push her call light. Resident 3 was observed holding her oxygen tube in her hand and trying to push it as if it were a call light. When told that it was her oxygen tubing in her hand, resident 3 insisted it was the call light. On 9/11/19 at 10:08 AM, an interview was conducted with resident 3's Physical Therapist (PT). The PT stated that resident 3 was only oriented to person and her room. The PT stated that resident 3 was not able to retain education that was completed with her, even with practice and repetition. The PT stated that PT and OT would work with residents that were high risk for falls to identify causes. The PT stated that one of resident 3's issues was the clutter in her room. The PT stated that he assisted in initiating interventions, stated that he would talk to the floor staff about implementing those interventions. The PT stated that there was no paperwork or documentation that they use to communicate with the floor staff, stated that all communication was word of mouth. On 9/11/19 at 7:31 AM, an interview was conducted with CNA 6. CNA 6 stated that resident assistance needs were listed on their CNA report sheets. [Note: resident 3 was documented needing 2 person assistance.] CNA 6 stated that the CNA's had to ask the nurses if a resident had any fall interventions ordered. CNA 6 stated that the CNA's did not have access to any of that information. CNA 6 stated that she was very familiar with resident 3, stated that she did not know of any fall prevention interventions that were supposed to be used for resident 3. CNA 6 stated that resident 3 never refused interventions. On 9/11/19 at 7:36 AM, an interview was conducted with Registered Nurse (RN) 1. RN 1 stated that new interventions were entered into the care plan by nurse management, stated that the interventions were also entered into the electronic charting system as an order to communicate the interventions to the staff. RN 1 stated that some examples of interventions ordered for falls were to put the resident beds in the lowest position, place fall mats on the floor by the bed, and use pressure alarms; RN 1 verified that resident 3 had no orders for fall prevention interventions. RN 1 stated that resident 3 required frequent reminders to use her call light, stated that resident 3 often forgot. RN 1 reviewed resident 3's care plan and stated that resident 3's fall interventions were to keep her room free of clutter and provide prompt nursing care. RN 1 was unable to verbalize what prompt nursing care was. RN 1 stated that resident 3 was very compliant with cares and interventions, stated that resident 3 never refused. On 9/11/19 at 11:37 AM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated that all falls were followed up on by the clinical team on the next business day. The DON stated that the team tried to identify root cause and trends, stated that no trends had been identified for resident 3. The DON stated that interventions were usually entered into the resident care plans during the fall follow up meeting by the nurse management, stated the interventions were also entered as an order to communicate to the nurses. The DON stated that the CNA Coordinator would also document the interventions on the CNA report sheets immediately following the meeting. The DON stated that interventions were also documented on the resident's Kardex. The DON stated that during the fall follow up meeting past interventions were re-evaluated for effectiveness. The DON verified that the intervention of prompt nursing care for resident 3, as verbalized by the floor nurse was kind of vague and was unable to provide further clarification. The DON was unable to explain the discrepancies between the incident reports and care plan interventions. The DON stated that all of those interventions should have been implemented; the DON was unable to explain why resident 3 did not have grippy socks, the call light was not within reach, there was no grip tape on the bathroom floor, no bedside commode, nor bright tape on the bedside table. A review of resident 3's Kardex documented the following interventions: a. Anticipate and meet [resident 3's] needs. b. Be sure [resident 3's] call light is within reach and encourage [resident 3] to use it for assistance as needed. [Resident 3] needs prompt response to all requests for assistance. c. Ensure that [resident 3's] floor is free from tripping hazards and personal items. On 9/11/19 at 12:00 PM, an interview was conducted with CNA 7. CNA 7 stated that the CNA report sheets did not have any interventions documented on them. CNA 7 stated that he was very familiar with resident 3, stated that resident 3 was only oriented to person and place. CNA 7 stated that resident 3 could not remember to use her call light and ask for assistance despite reminders from staff. CNA 7 stated that CNA's could not access the nurse's notes or incident reports for any interventions documented in those places. CNA 7 stated that he did not know where to find the Kardex to review it for interventions. [Note: A copy of a CNA report sheet was obtained and verified there were no interventions listed for any residents.] On 9/11/19 at 2:57 PM, a follow up interview was conducted with RN 1. RN 1 stated that resident 3 was continent of bowel and bladder but that resident 3 had urinary urgency and could not always get to the bathroom in time. RN 1 stated that education was not effective with resident 3 because despite constant safety reminders, resident 3 never remembered them. RN 1 stated that the facility had not tired a toileting program for resident 3, stated that a toileting program would probably be a good option for resident 3 because of her urinary urgency. RN 1 stated that she did not review past nurse's notes or incident reports for interventions documented in those places. On 9/16/19, further information was provided by the facility via e-mail. A Risk vs. Benefits form dated and signed by resident 3 on 8/9/19 documented: 1. Area of concern: Using [NAME] in place of wheelchair to sit on. 2. Benefits: Autonomy in decision making. [Resident 3] had the ability to sit if she becomes fatigued when walking and has episodes of SOB (shortness of breath) or anxiety. 3. Risks related to noncompliance: [Resident 3] falls when trying to sit down on walker seat. [Resident 3] forgets to lock the brakes when using walker as appropriate, this could lead to further broken bones and critical/severe injuries up to and including death. [Note: resident 3's walker was not a factor in her falls that occurred after 8/9/19 when this form took effect.] A note from MD 1 provided by the facility stated [Resident 3] also suffered from complex psychiatric diagnoses, which include Bipolar Disorder and Dissociative Identity Disorder which was evidenced by frequent changes in her mood, cognition and tangential responses, often multiple times throughout the day. This complexity of [Resident 3's] mental health status ultimately resulted in a psychiatric crisis which made fall prevention impossible as she was impulsive, reactionary, and extremely labile in her moods and actions. MD 1 also indicated that no matter what the facility implemented to prevent a fall with [resident 3], her constant mood changes and flight of ideas would have still resulted in falls. The complexity of her Dissociative Identity Disorder would have also complicated the ability of the facility to identify an intervention because the person for which the intervention was directed to would not be effective for one of [Resident 3's] alternate personalities. Review of the facility behavior monitoring and nurse's notes did not document that the facility floor staff was aware of, or monitoring for mood changes, cognition, or tangential responses. Resident 3's Pre-admission Screening Resident Review (PASRR) Level II was provided by the facility as further information. Documented under Current Psychiatric Functioning the Licensed Clinical Social Worker (LCSW), that evaluated resident 3, documented: Pt's (patient's) husband reported pt (patient) having 5 or 6 personalities. Pt's husband stated that pt has not had many exacerbations in regards to dissociative identity disorder since admission into the SNF (skilled nursing facility). Pt was evaluated by [mental health facility] in July 2019 for counseling and medication management; pt is getting counseling ever (sic) couple weeks and medication management every few months. On 9/19/19 at 1:50 PM, a phone interview was conducted with MD 1. MD 1 stated that resident 3 arrived at the inpatient geriatric psychiatric unit on 8/22/19 very agitated and had impulsivity. MD 1 stated he was the attending physician that treated her. MD 1 stated that based on her previous information from resident 3's mental health facility he believed this psychiatric issue was an acute exacerbation and could only be a contributing factor in the most recent fall. MD 1 stated that the cases where resident 3 fell while going to and from the bathroom were not psychiatric issues. MD 1 stated that he treated resident 3's impulsivity and agitation, not tripping over things. MD 1 stated that regardless of the reason for the falls, the facility should have attempted to keep resident 3 safe with continued interventions. MD 1 stated that resident 3 required a one-on-one staff assignment to keep resident 3 safe while in the hospital. 3. Resident 30 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disorder (COPD), muscle weakness, Alzheimer disease, Gastro-Esophageal Reflux Disease (GERD) without esophagitis, dementia, dysphagia oral phase, and cognitive communication deficit. On 9/9/19 at 7:54 AM an observation was made of resident 30. Resident 30 was was observed to have a bruise above her left eye brow. On 9/11/19, resident 30's medical record was reviewed. Nursing progress notes revealed the following: a. 8/26/2019, CNA found res [resident 30] on floor in fetal position by her bathroom. Res [resident 30] was confused thinking the floor was her bed. Did skin checks, res [resident 30] have a bump and bruise on back of head, a small cut on left of ring finger. Res [resident 30] initial vitals are BP (blood pressure) 131/81, P (pulse) 63, Resp (respiration)18, Temp (temperature) 96.7, O2 (oxygen saturation) 96 RA. Res [resident 30] is in a lot of pain, clutching her hands on her head, and grimacing. Administer prn Tramadol 50 mg, cleaned res [resident 30] ring finger with wound cleanser and applied bandaid. Contact Hospice and talked to [hospice nurse] she wants us to keep an eye on her, and let Tramadol have a chance to work. If her condition changes then call back. Notify [resident 30's son][phone on file]. b. 9/3/2019, Resident had an unwitnessed fall with head injury. Staff noted a bump on her left forehead with redness, and dried blood around her lips this am. Bruising is beginning to appear on resident's right forehead. Neuro checks have been initiated and are at baseline for resident. Hospice and family notified. Supervisor also notified. c. 9/5/2019, IDT (interdisciplinary team) team met regarding residents recent falls. Social work, PT, nursing and administration present. While CNA's were doing rounds the CNA noticed [resident 30] walking around holding her blankets. At that time [resident 30] stated to the CNA that she fell out of bed. The resident bit her lip when she fell. Staff to place night light for better visualization in room. Staff also to give resident a thicker blanket so she wont get tangled in her blankets. Neuro checks were started. Resident was not complaining of any pain. Nurse and CNA were interviewed regarding residents fall. Time and situation were confirmed. Will monitor. Resident 30's medical record revealed that resident 30 had falls on 6/28/19, 6/30/19, 8/26/19 and 9/3/19. Incident reports revealed the following: a. 6/28/19, CNA found resident on the floor in her bedroom. When a nurse came to asses her, she was asleep on the floor with little bump on her head. Per the incident report, the facility initiated routine neurochecks, did assessment and informed all responsible parties. b. 6/30/19, resident 30 had another unwitnessed fall. She was found lying on the floor in her bedroom with no apparent injury. Per the incident report, the facility started the neurochecks, assessed resident 30 head to toe and notified responsible parties. c. 8/26/19, resident 30 was found on the bathroom floor in fetal position with no apparent injury. Per the incident report, the facility performed head to toe assessment, started vitals and neurochecks and informed responsible parties. d. 9/3/19, resident had unwitnessed fall with a head injury. The facility did a head to toe assessment, initiated neurochecks and notified all responsible parties. No neurological checks could be located in resident 30's medical record for the fall on 9/3/19 when she sustained an injury to the left side of her forehead. A care plan for resident 30 dated 2/19/16 with revision date of 6/14/19, revealed that resident 30 is a wanderer r/t (related to) Dementia, Impaired safety awareness, Disoriented to place. [Resident 30] has had an actual fall r/t dementia and poor safety awareness, with head injury. [Resident 30] is Moderate risk for falls r/t Confusion, weakness and hx (history) of fall. The interventions on the care plan included were for staff to ensure that resident 30 wore [TRUNCATED]
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0561 (Tag F0561)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview it was determined, for 1 of 38 sample residents, that the resident or her family were not abl...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview it was determined, for 1 of 38 sample residents, that the resident or her family were not able to make choices about aspects of residents life in the facility, that were significant to the resident. Specifically, the facility did not provide requested liquids to the resident after the request had been made and risk versus benefit form had been signed by the resident's family. Resident identifier: 46. Findings include: Resident 46 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included Type II diabetes, Cerebral Palsy, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), vascular dementia, cognitive communication deficit, muscle weakness, Gastro-Esophageal Reflux Disease (GERD) with esophagitis, Dysphagia, oropharyngeal phase and tremor. On 9/9/19 at 8:47 AM an observation was made of resident 46 as she was seated in the dining room in the 200 hall. Resident 46's breakfast tray was observed to be at the table and the food and drinks were observed to be untouched. On 9/9/19 at 8:47 AM, an interview was conducted with resident 46. Resident 46 was hard to understand, but appeared to be anxious and frustrated. Resident 46 stated that her food reminded her of poop and that she was thirsty, but wanted water instead of juice. No staff were observed to assist resident 46 with her requests. At 8:50 AM, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA)1 was observed cleaning the tables in the dining room. CNA 1 was observed taking resident 46's tray without asking any questions. Resident 46 stayed sitting at the table with her head between her hands. On 9/9/19 at 8:55 AM, an observation was made of resident 46's room. The wall above the chest of drawers had a sheet of paper with free water protocol instructions on it. The paper had a date of 6/14/19 on it and a note that resident 46 was on free water protocol per her own preference. No observation was made of a water mug or cup available for resident 46 in her room. On 9/9/19 at 11:28 AM, an observation was made of resident 46's sister in the room with resident 46. Resident 46 was observed sitting in the wheelchair next to her bed. On 9/9/19 at 11:28 AM, an interview was conducted with resident 46's sister. Resident 46's sister stated that she was resident 46's power of attorney. Resident 46's sister stated that a few months ago, she signed a risk vs benefits for her sister regarding the water and thin liquids. Resident 46's sister stated that her sister was thirsty and that the facility did not serve water to her sister. Resident 46's sister stated that resident 46 was evaluated by speech therapy and was found to be at risk for aspiration so they recommended thickened liquids. Resident 46's sister stated that resident 46 did well with thin liquids too, but more importantly, she needed water. Resident 46's sister stated that she talked to the nurses and the Director of Nursing (DON) about the risk vs benefits form that she had signed and that every time she visits her sister, there was no water available at her bedside nor with her meals. Resident 46's sister stated that the problem in the facility was that the nurses and aides did not talk to each other and that she believed that her request to serve thin liquids and water to her sister was not communicated to all staff and so they continued to serve only thickened milk and juice to resident 46. During this interview, resident 46 stated that she was thirsty and that she had stomach cramps. On 9/9/19 at 12:54 PM, an observation was made of resident 46 as her lunch tray was served. No observation was made of water available on resident 46's tray. There was no water available on the cart with drinks. On 9/11/19 at 12:46 PM, an observation was made of resident 46 as her lunch was served. Resident 46 received a puree diet, a thickened cup of milk, a thickened cup of coffee and a thickened shake. No observation was made of water being available on her tray. On 9/11/19 at 12:57 PM the cart with the drinks was observed by the wall. There was a coffee mug, the hot chocolate mug, and the bottle of juice on it. No water was available. [Note: No observation was made of water available on the drink cart for the residents in the 200 hall on 9/9/19, 9/10/19 nor on 9/11/19.] On 9/11/19, resident 46's medical record was reviewed. Resident 46's medical record revealed that resident 46 was on hospice. Physician orders revealed that resident 46's physician prescribed consistent carbohydrate diet (CCD) and honey thick liquids for resident 46. [Note: the medical record revealed that on 9/11/19 the facility made an adjustment to this order and added a note that resident 46's sister signed risk vs benefits form for thin liquids.] A care plan dated 12/19/17 and revised on 7/24/19 revealed that resident 46 had a Nutritional problem or Potential Nutritional Problem r/t (related to) swallowing difficulty AEB (as evidenced by) dysphagia and the need for puree texture diet with honey thick liquids .Requires set up assist and supervision with meals. Adaptive equipment includes 2 handled cup with spouted lid for increased independence with drinking. Supplements and fortified food in placer to aid in calorie intake. The interventions listed on the care plan included provide and serve supplements and snacks as ordered, provide, serve diet as ordered. Monitor intake and record q (every) meal. RD (Registered Dietitian) to evaluate and make diet change recommendations PRN (as needed). Speech therapy notes revealed the following: a. 6/18/19, Pt [resident 46] seen with puree texture for skilled dysphagia tx (treatment). Pt [resident 46] with noted tremors, however wished to independently self feed. Pt [resident 46] sister present for portion of the session. ST educated on importance of adhering to diet recommendations and risks of aspiration. Pt sister signed a risk vs benefits for thin liquids. Pt exhibit coughing with thin liquids. Pt sister expresses knowledge of risk. b. 6/20/19, Pt seen in her room for skilled dysphagia services with her sister present. ST assisted with feeding as pt's tremors were significant. ST educated pt sister on risk of aspiration and we discussed [NAME] Free water protocol. Pt nurse began administering med's via apple sauce with water (thin) to follow. ST educated nurse on Free Water protocol and that pt should take all med's with apple sauce only. We reviewed specifics of water protocol and nurse expressed understanding. Pt sister also expressed understanding. Resident 46's medical record revealed that the risk vs benefits form was signed by resident 46's sister on 5/16/19 for resident 46 to change honey thickened liquids to thin liquids. The benefit listed that resident will have autonomy of choice in water that she drinks. Resident 46's physician signed the risk vs benefits on 6/14/19. On 9/11/19 at 1:40 PM, CNA 4 was interviewed. CNA 4 stated that the staff served water to residents in 200 hall twice daily and when they requested the water. CNA 4 stated that residents who were allowed to drink water, the aides offered the water regularly. CNA 4 stated that for residents who were on thickened liquids, the drinks were mixed with the thickening powder in the kitchen or at the nursing station. CNA 4 stated that resident 46 received thickened liquids from the kitchen and did not know if resident 46 had water pitcher in her room. On 9/11/19 at 1:44 PM, CNA 5 was interviewed. CNA 5 stated that they offer water to residents who were allowed to drink at lease twice per shift. CNA 5 stated that most of their residents were on dysphagia diet and they provided only thickened liquids to them. CNA 5 stated that thickening powder was added to the drinks in the kitchen or at the nursing station. She stated that if the dietary slip did not say water, then water was not served with the meals. CNA 5 stated that every time she went to residents room she asked if they needed water. CNA 5 stated that some residents were allowed to have water pitchers in their rooms and they were the ones who did not have behavioral issues. She stated that some residents throw the water pitcher on the staff or other residents when they became anxious. CNA 5 stated that resident 46 received thickened liquids so her water would need to get mixed with thickening powder before they would give it to her. On 9/11/19 at 2:02 PM CNA 3 was interviewed. CNA 3 stated that resident 46 was on thickened liquid diet and that she never asked her for water. CNA 3 stated that they would only offer water to residents in 200 hall if they were allowed to drink thin liquids. CNA 3 stated that resident 46 did not have a pitcher in her room because she had behavioral issues in the past and threw her pitcher at the staff. On 9/11/19 at 2:02 PM the Clinical Resource Nurse (CRN) was interviewed. The CRN stated that resident 46's sister signed the risk vs benefits form for resident 46 to be able to receive thin liquids and water a few months ago, but that they never communicated this to the dietary and other staff on the floor. On 9/11/19 at 2:21 PM, Registered Nurse (RN) 4 stated that a few residents had water mugs in their rooms. RN 4 stated that the aides fill the ice and water in the morning and in the afternoon. RN 4 stated that water was not served during the meal; only juices, milk, coffee and hot chocolate were given before the meals. RN 4 stated that for residents who were on a dysphagia diet, they mixed water with thickening powder at the nursing station in the smaller plastic cups. RN 4 stated that she just heard about the risk vs benefits form that resident 46's sister signed a few months ago today, and that she was doing new dietary requisition form to add water and to change from thickened liquids to thin liquids.
CONCERN (D)

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

Incontinence Care (Tag F0690)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record review, it was determined for 1 of 38 sample residents, that the facility failed to ensure a resi...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record review, it was determined for 1 of 38 sample residents, that the facility failed to ensure a resident received treatment and services for a catheter. Specifically, the facility did not follow physician orders for changing the catheter and they did not use the correct size catheter. Resident identifier 18. Findings include: Resident 18 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a catheter in place and a diagnosis of a Neurogenic bladder. On 9/10/19 resident 18's medical record was reviewed. Resident 18 had a physician's order dated 3/19/19 for a catheter 16 Fr (French) and 10 cc (cubic centimeters) balloon to be changed on the 1st of each month. The treatment administration record (TAR) documented that the catheter was changed on 4/1/19 and 5/1/19. A Nursing progress note dated 5/20/19 documented that LPN 3 changed the catheter on 5/20/19. The progress note documented that the nurse used a 14 Fr catheter 10cc catheter. The Nursing progress note documented the nurse attempted a catheter placement 2 times and on the second attempt the nurse only had blood return in the catheter line. A Nursing progress note dated 5/20/19 at 1646 (4:46 PM) revealed that LPN 3 notified the nurse practitioner (NP) of resident 18's b/p (blood pressure) 78/52, heart rate 126, temperature 99.2, Oxygen saturation of 88 on 3 liters and of the catheter change at 1530 with only blood return. The NP ordered for resident 18 to go to the Emergency Room. Resident 18 was admitted to the hospital on [DATE]. On 9/10/19 at 2:30 PM, an interview was conducted with LPN 2. LPN 2 stated that you would find information for catheters in the orders, and in the orders you would find the size of catheter and how and when the catheter should be changed. LPN 2 stated this then populates to the TAR and that most catheters are changed every 30 days, and some have as needed orders. LPN 2 stated when changing a catheter she would follow the orders for the size of the catheter and balloon of catheter. On 9/11/19 at 1:14 PM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated that if a patient needed a catheter change and there was not a prn (as needed) physician order, the nurse would be expected to obtain a physician order. Resident 18 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE]. Upon return a new physician's order from the Hospital stated, Foley exchanges per urology clinic. The physician order to change the Foley catheter in urology clinic was not transcribed to the facility active physician orders. The facility physician documented a note dated 6/18/19 that stated urology to see as outpatient in the future for monthly Foley exchanges. It was documented in resident 18 's TAR that the catheter was changed on 7/25/19 by LPN 1. During an interview with the DON on 9/12/19 at 7:27 a.m., she stated that she interviewed the nurse who documented insertion of the catheter on 7/25/19 and resident 18. The DON stated that LPN 1 and Resident 18 both stated that the catheter was not changed on 7/25/19. The DON stated that the catheter should only be changed by urology and that this order has been entered into system as of 9/12/19. On resident 18's August 2019 TAR, documentation for a catheter change on 8/25/19, was coded as 9. Code 9 means see the nurse note. The Nursing progress note dated 8/25/19 documented Resident 18 had refused the catheter change stating that his urologist is supposed to change his catheter.
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** Based on observation, interview, and record review it was determined, for 1 of 38 sample residents, that the facility did not en...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review it was determined, for 1 of 38 sample residents, that the facility did not ensure that residents maintained acceptable parameters of nutritional status unless the resident's clinical condition demonstrated that this was not possible. Specifically, one resident who had experienced a significant weight loss did not have interventions put in place for 4 months. Additionally, facility staff were not assisting the residents with eating. Resident identifier: 41. Findings include: Resident 41 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included acute urinary tract infection, altered mental status, fracture of left ulna, orthopedic aftercare, dementia without behaviors, protein calorie malnutrition, dysphagia, osteoarthritis, malignant neoplasm of the vulva, asthma, hypertension, type 2 diabetes mellitus, glaucoma and an anxiety disorder. On 9/9/19 at 7:50 AM, an observation was made as resident 41's breakfast meal was placed in front of her. No observation was made of any utensils in place for resident 41 to use to eat her meal. On 9/9/19 at 8:13 AM, an observation was made as resident 41 started to feed herself using her fingers. Resident 41 was observed to attempt to open her milk cup for approximately 3 minutes without success. Resident 41 was then observed to finally open her milk and drink 2 sips of her milk. Resident 41 was observed to drink half of her orange juice. Resident 41 was observed to eat 2 small bites of her food with her fingers. On 9/9/19 at 8:20 AM, resident 41 was observed to inform the staff that she needed to use the bathroom. CNA 1 was observed to take resident 41 to her room to use the bathroom. On 9/9/19 at 8:30 AM, CNA 1 was observed to return to the dining room, clean resident 41's breakfast meal and clean the rest of the dining room tables. By 8:40 AM, the dining room tables had been cleaned and resident 41 had not returned to the dining room to finish her breakfast. On 9/10/19 resident 41's medical record was reviewed. The Annual MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed that resident 41 required Limited Assistance, resident highly involved in activity; staff provided guided maneuvering of limbs or other non-weight-bearing assistance. The MDS Assessment revealed that resident 30 required One person physical assist for eating her meals. A care plan dated 7/14/19 revealed that resident 41 had a Nutritional problem or potential nutritional problem, altered mental status, dementia, dehydration, HTN (hypertension), UTI (urinary tract infection), dehydration, anxiety, and DM (diabetes mellitus). BMI (body mass index) normal range. Resident has a hx (history) of weight loss, snacks in place to aid in calorie intake. No significant weight loss of 5% in 30 days or 10% in 180 days. The goal was [Resident 41] will maintain adequate nutritional status as evidenced. The interventions for resident 30 included Provide and serve supplements/snacks as ordered, Provide, serve diet as ordered. Monitor intake and record q meal. by maintaining weight, no s/sx (signs/symptoms) of malnutrition within next 90 days. RD to evaluate and make diet change recommendations PRN (as needed). Weigh per facility policy. No specifics were made to the care plan to assist resident as needed with eating her meals per the one person assistance required as documented in the MDS. On 9/9/19 at 8:30 AM, an interview was conducted with CNA 1. CNA 1 stated that resident 41 had difficulty at times eating her meals. CNA 1 stated that resident 41 did not want to come back to the dining room. CNA 1 stated that no alternative meal had been offered and that she had not asked resident 41 if she wanted her meal in her room. Resident 41's weights revealed the following: a. 3/4/2019 08:19 144.8 Lbs b. 4/1/2019 09:14 147.0 Lbs c. 5/6/2019 08:57 142.6 Lbs d. 6/3/2019 09:20 138.8 Lbs e. 7/1/2019 09:22 136.0 Lbs f. 8/5/2019 09:46 131.0 Lbs g. 8/13/2019 08:07 131.2 Lbs h. 8/19/2019 09:16 129.0 Lbs i. 9/3/2019 09:14 124.0 Lbs j. 9/9/2019 09:56 125.0 Lbs Resident 41 had a 20 pound weight loss for a 13.79% weight loss in 6 months which was determined to be significant. On 9/12/19 at 9:36 AM, an interview was conducted with the facility Registered Dietitian (RD). The facility RD stated that she relied on the facility Online Medical Record to alert her to significant weight loss and that the program had not alerted her to resident 41's significant weight loss. The facility RD stated that somehow this one slipped through my fingers. The facility RD stated that she attended the weekly weight meetings but that facility staff had not alerted her to the weight loss either. The facility RD stated that looking now at the 20 pound weight loss and the fact that resident 41 was averaging 50% for eating meals, she would have and should have fortified her diet prior to the significant weight loss. The facility RD stated that she placed resident 41 on a magic cup rather than med pass due to resident 41 having dysphagia, then the facility staff did not have to thicken the med pass. The facility RD stated that the magic cup had been implemented on 9/3/19 and that there should have been more timely interventions. On 9/12/19 at 10:04 AM, an interview was again conducted with the facility RD. The facility RD stated that she had fortified resident 41's diet in April but that there was a period from April through September 3 2019 without any interventions.
CONCERN (D)

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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review it was determined, for 1 of 38 sample residents, that the facility did not est...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review it was determined, for 1 of 38 sample residents, that the facility did not establish a system of records of receipt and disposition of all controlled drugs in sufficient detail and enable an accurate reconciliation and determine that drug records were in order and that an account of all controlled drugs was maintained and periodically reconciled. Specifically, a resident narcotic record log did not match the Medication Administration Records (MAR) for narcotic administration. Resident identifier: 50. Findings include: 1. Resident 50 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included injury of left quadriceps muscle and tendon, left artificial knee joint, muscle weakness, osteoarthritis, gastro-esophageal reflux disease, asthma, encephalopathy, hypo-osmolality and hyponatremia, anemia, major depressive disorder, recurrent, bipolar disorder, acute osteomyelitis, open wound of left great toe, acquired absence of other right toes, chronic pain, allergic rhinitis, bacteremia, cellulitis of left lower limb, thrombocythemia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, gout, convulsions, neuropathy, benign prostatic hyperplasia, insomnia, obstructive sleep apnea, hypothyroidism, and polymyositis. On 9/12/19 resident 50's medication records were reviewed. Review of resident 50's physician orders revealed the following: a. On 5/23/19, an order was entered into the electronic medication order system for Oxycodone HCl (hydrochloride) 5 MG (milligrams) by mouth every four hours as needed for pain. This order was discontinued on 8/15/19. b. On 5/23/19, an order was entered into the electronic medication order system for Oxycodone HCl 10 MG by mouth every four hours as needed for pain. This order was discontinued on 8/15/19. c. On 5/22/19, an order was entered into the electronic medication order system for Tramadol HCl 50 MG by mouth every six hours as needed for pain. Review of the narcotic record log entries with the corresponding Medication Administration Record for Oxycodone 5 MG revealed that the medication was documented signed out of the narcotic log, but the medication was not documented on the MAR as being administered on the following dates: 6/4/19 at 1:20 AM and 6/20/19 at 8:00 PM. Review of the narcotic record log entries with the corresponding MAR for Oxycodone 10 MG revealed that the medication was documented signed out of the narcotic log, but the medication was not documented on the MAR as being administered on the following dates: 6/4/19 at 8:10 PM, 6/5/19 at 8:00 AM, 6/5/19 at 12:00 PM, 6/5/19 at 10:20 PM, 6/6/19 at 11:35 PM, 6/8/19 at 12:00 PM, 6/10/19 at 5:30 AM, 6/10/19 at 10:30 AM, 6/11/19 at 6:40 PM, 6/12/19 at 6:00 PM, 6/12/19 at 10:00 PM, 6/13/19 at 2:00 AM, 6/13/19 at 10:00 PM, 6/14/19 at 2:00 AM, 6/14/19 at 10:00 AM, 6/15/19 at 4:00 AM, 6/16/19 at 6:05 AM, 6/19/19 at 7:00 AM, 6/20/19 at 1:00 AM, 6/22/19 at 7:00 AM, 6/22/19 at 12:00 PM, 6/22/19 at 8:00 PM, 6/23/19 at 10:00 PM, 6/26/19 at 8:00 AM, 6/26/19 at 6:30 PM, 6/28/19 at 9:00 PM, 6/29/19 at 4:00 PM, 7/1/19 at 12:00 PM, 7/3/19 at 12:00 PM, 7/3/19 at 6:00 PM, 7/4/19 at 1:30 AM, 7/4/19 at 6:00 PM, 7/4/19 at 11:50 PM, 7/6/19 at 8:30 AM, 7/6/19 at 12:00 PM, 7/7/19 at 7:30 AM, 7/8/19 at 12:30 PM, 7/8/19 at 8:30 PM, 7/9/19 at 12:55 PM, 7/10/19 at 7:00 PM, 7/11/19 at 8:30 PM, 7/12/19 at 2:45 AM, 7/13/19 at 8:00 AM, 7/13/19 at 12:00 PM, 7/13/19 at 8:00 AM, 7/13/19 at 8:00 AM, 7/13/19 at 12:00 PM, 7/13/19 at 4:00 PM, 7/14/19 at 11:30 PM, 7/15/19 at 7:00 AM, 7/15/19 at 7:00 PM, 7/16/19 at 12:30 AM, 7/16/19 at 10:15 AM, 7/17/19 at 6:00 AM, 7/17/19 at 10:00 AM, 7/17/19 at 2:00 PM, 7/17/19 at 6:00 PM, 7/17/19 at 11:00 PM, 7/18/19 at 6:00 PM, 7/19/19 at 12:00 AM, 7/20/19 at 8:00 AM, 7/22/19 at 2:00 PM, 7/22/19 at 3:45 PM, 7/22/19 at 10:00 PM, 7/23/19 at 2:00 AM, 7/24/19 at 11:00 PM, 7/25/19 at 8:00 AM, 7/25/19 at 7:00 PM, 7/25/19 at 11:00 PM, 7/26/19 at 12:00 PM, 7/27/19 at 12:15 PM, 7/27/19 at 7:00 AM, 7/27/19 at 12:00 PM, 7/29/19 at 7:00 AM, 7/29/19 at 12:00 PM, 7/29/19 at 4:00 PM, 7/30/19 at 10:00 AM, 7/30/19 at 4:00 PM, 7/30/19 at 8:00 PM, 7/31/19 at 7:00 AM, 7/31/19 at 8:00 PM, 8/1/19 at 2:00 PM, 8/1/19 at 8:00 PM, 8/2/19 at 12:00 AM, 8/2/19 at 1:45 AM, 8/5/19 at 7:00 PM, 8/6/19 at 2:00 AM, 8/6/19 at 8:00 PM, 8/7/19 at 7:30 AM, 8/8/19 at 4:00 AM, 8/8/19 at 1:00 PM, 8/8/19 at 7:00 PM, 8/9/19 at 12:30 AM, 8/9/19 at 4:30 AM 8/9/19 at 8:00 PM, 8/10/19 at 8:00 AM, 8/10/19 at 12:00 PM, 8/10/19 at 4:00 PM, 8/11/19 at 1:00 PM, 8/12/19 at 8:00 PM, 8/14/19 at 12:00 AM. Review of the narcotic record log entries with the corresponding MAR for Tramadol 50 MG revealed that the medication was documented signed out of the narcotic log, but the medication was not documented on the MAR as being administered on the following dates: 6/4/19 at 3:00 AM, 6/8/19 at 4:00 AM, 6/10/19 at 10:15 AM, 6/14/19 at 10:00 AM, 6/22/19 at 2:20 AM, 7/3/19 at 8:00 AM, 7/12/19 at 1:00 AM, 7/27/19 at 12:00 PM, 8/17/19 at 1:00 AM, 8/19/19 at 5:15 AM, 8/22/19 at 9:30 PM, 8/23/19 at 9:45 PM, 8/28/19 at 8:15 AM, 8/29/19 at 9:30 PM. It should be noted that from June 2019 through August 2019, resident 50 had: a. Two doses of Oxycodone 5 MG were documented signed out of the narcotic log, but the medication was not documented on the MAR as being administered. b. One hundred one doses of Oxycodone 10 MG were documented signed out of the narcotic log, but the medication was not documented on the MAR as being administered. c. Fourteen doses of Tramadol 50 MG were documented signed out of the narcotic log, but the medication was not documented on the MAR as being administered. d. Oxycodone 10 MG was signed out of the narcotic log three times on 7/13/19 at 8:00 AM, and two times on 7/13/19 at 12:00 PM. On 9/12/19 at 8:53 AM, in interview was conducted with Registered Nurse (RN) 1. RN 1 stated that when she administered narcotic pain medication she reviewed the MAR and the narcotic log book to see when the resident last had a dose, which determined if the resident could have another dose at that time. RN 1 stated that sometimes the previous nurse would sign the medication out in the narcotic log book, but would forget to document in the MAR. RN 1 stated that all nurses were supposed to count the narcotics against the log book at the beginning and end of each shift. On 9/12/19 at 9:25 AM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated that she randomly reconciled the narcotic log against the MAR, stated that any discrepancies found were discussed one-on-one with the nurse at fault. The DON stated that she would be very concerned with the large amount of discrepancies between the MAR and the narcotic log, stated that it would affect resident pain assessments and monitoring of effectiveness of pain medication. The DON stated that the nurses should have signed out all of the narcotics in the narcotic log book, as well as documented in the MAR when the narcotic was administered.
CONCERN (D)

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

Drug Regimen Review (Tag F0756)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review it was determined for 1 of 38 sample residents, that the facility did not act upon pharmacy...

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 38 sample residents, that the facility did not act upon pharmacy recommendations in a timely manner. Specifically, one recommendation was not implemented for more than 60 days after the recommendation was made. Resident identifier 46. Findings include: Resident 46 readmitted on [DATE] with the diagnoses of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, Atrial fibrillation, Other Cerebral Palsy, Hypertension, Hypothyroidism, Gastro-Esophageal Reflux Disease (GERD), Dysphagia, Unspecified Dementia with behavioral disturbance, anxiety disorder due to known physiological condition, psychotic disorder due to known physiological condition, and tremors. On 11/21/19, a recommendation from the Pharmacist was made to monitor for involuntary movements by using of the available scales AIMS (abnormal involuntary movement scale), or DISCUS (dyskinesia identification system: condensed user scale). The physician signed this recommendation on 12/3/18, and a nurse noted and signed the recommendation on 2/18/19. However, no record could be found of completion of the assessments in resident 46's medical record. During an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 9/12/19, she stated that the physician signature at the bottom of the pharmacy recommendation dated 12/3/18 indicated that he is agreeing with the recommendations to be implemented. The DON also stated she does not know why this recommendation has not been completed, and she has initiated for this to be completed today and scheduled regularly thereafter. On 11/27/19, a recommendation from the pharmacist was made to reduce Seroquel to 25mg QHS (nightly) for 2 weeks then discontinue, discontinue Paxil, start Depakote 125mg BID (two times daily), and to clarify the diagnosis for the Ativan. The physician signed this recommendation on 12/3/18, and a nurse noted recommendations on 2/18/19. Depakote 125mg BID was not implemented per medical record until 1/30/19. Paxil per medical record was not discontinued until 1/30/19. Seroquel was not tapered to 25mg QHS x 2 weeks and then discontinued. The Seroquel was increased to 25mg TID (three times daily) on 1/30/19. During an interview with the DON on 9/12/19 at 1:00 p.m., the DON stated that the physician signature at the bottom of the pharmacy recommendation dated 12/3/18 indicated that he is agreeing with the recommendations. The DON did not know why the recommendations were not implemented in a timely manner.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0757 (Tag F0757)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, it was determined for 1 of 38 sample residents, that the facility did not monitor psychoti...

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 38 sample residents, that the facility did not monitor psychotic medication side effects and indications for use. Specifically, medications being monitored on the medication administration record (MAR) did not match the physician ordered medications resident 46 was receiving or resident drug class of medication. Monitoring of medications were omitted, a recommendation for an Abnormal Involuntary Movements Scale (AIMS) or formal assessment to monitor extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS) were not implemented. Resident identifier 46. Findings include Resident 46 readmitted on [DATE] with the diagnoses of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, Atrial fibrillation, Other Cerebral Palsy, Hypertension, Hypothyroidism, Gastro-Esophageal Reflux Disease (GERD), Dysphagia, Unspecified Dementia with behavioral disturbance, anxiety disorder due to known physiological condition, psychotic disorder due to known physiological condition, and tremors. On 9/12/19 resident 46's medical record was reviewed. Resident 46 had physician orders for Seroquel 50mg TID (three times daily) dated 9/6/19 and Buspirone 5mg BID (two times daily) dated 7/25/19. Resident 46 ' s MAR documented the monitoring for behaviors and side effects for the medications Divaloproex and Olanzapine which were discontinued medications. No monitoring for side effects or efficacy for Seroquel or buspirone could be located in the medical record. On 9/12/19 at 1:00 PM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated that side effects and behavior monitoring was monitored by nurses in the MAR. When asked why the monitoring for resident 46 was for Divaloproex and Olanzapine and not Seroquel and Buspirone, the DON stated it had not been updated with the recent medication change. On 11/21/18 a recommendation from the Pharmacist was made to monitor for involuntary movements due to the use of psychotropic medications. The physician signed this recommendations on 12/3/18, and a nurse noted recommendations 2/18/19. However no record could be found of completion of assessments in resident 46's medical record. During an interview with the director of nursing (DON) on 9/12/19 at 1:00 p.m., she stated that she did not know why this recommendation has not been completed. During an observation on 9/12/19 at 7:53 a.m., resident 46 was sitting in his room at a bedside table and chair eating breakfast with a CNA in room. It was observed that resident 46 had abnormal movements including; heel rocking, toe tapping, abnormal arm and hand movements, and rocking of head. During another observation on 9/12/19 at 9:00 a.m., resident 46 was lying in bed and it was noted he had abnormal movements toe tapping, and abnormal jaw/mouth movements. During an interview with RN 2 at 9:13 a.m., she stated that resident 46 has EPS (extrapyramidal symptoms) from years of antipsychotics. Record review revealed that on 7/16/19, 7/23/19 and 7/30/19 the hospice physician documented that resident 46 was having EPS and should consider tapering of Seroquel or possible introduction of the medication Mysoline. There was no evidence of any follow up with the physician recommendations for EPS symptoms after that date. This was confirmed by the DON and she did not have any further documentation of any follow up regarding EPS management.
CONCERN (D)

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** On [DATE] at 10:42 AM the wound treatment cart by the nursing station and hall 200 was observed to be unlocked and unattended. ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** On [DATE] at 10:42 AM the wound treatment cart by the nursing station and hall 200 was observed to be unlocked and unattended. The treatment cart contained the following: a. 20 little packets of Vitamin A and D ointment, b. More that 100 little packets of Hydrocortisone cream 1%, c. 20 little packets of Bacitracin with Zinc cream, d. One 1.75 oz tube of Plurogel burn and wound dressing and one 1.75 oz tube of Silver Sulfadiazene cream, e. 4- 1.5 oz tubes of Therahoney gel, f. 1-1.5 oz tube of Antifungal cream, g. 2-4 oz tubes of Calmoseptine, h. 3-4 oz tubes of Skin Integrity Hydrogel, i. 10 individually packed pliers, scissors and nail clippers, j. 4-8 oz spray bottles of Skin Integrity Wound Cleanser. At 10:53 AM, the treatment cart was locked, leaving the treatment cart unlocked and unattended for 11 minutes. On [DATE] at 8:42 AM registered nurse (RN) 3 was interviewed. She stated that the wound treatment cart always stayed in the middle of the halls, between the nursing station and next to hall 200. RN 3 stated that at the end of the day she would make sure that it was fully stocked and then the nurses were in charge. RN 3 stated that in hall 200 they had residents with confusion and that the treatment cart needed to stay locked at all times. On [DATE] at 9:00 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 2 was interviewed. LPN 2 stated that their wound treatment cart was mainly used by the wound nurse during the day, but that other nurses had a key as well and that they used it in afternoon and as needed. She stated that because this cart contained medications such as antibiotics or wound cleansers/ topical ointments they were supposed to be locked at all times. Based on observation and interview it was determined that the facility did not ensure safe and secure storage of drugs and biologicals in accordance with accepted professional principles; or include the appropriate accessory and cautionary instructions, and the expiration date on the medication. Specifically, medications were on the medication cart without a pharmacy label, a multidose vial of Tuberculin had two different open dates and enteral feedings were expired. Findings include: On [DATE] at 7:40 AM, an observation was made of the 100 hall med cart. The 100 hall med cart had a Novolog SS Insulin Pen for a resident that did not have a pharmacy label. On [DATE] at 8:45 AM, an observation was made of the 500 hall medication room refrigerator. The 500 hall medication room refrigerator had an open multidose vial of Tuberculin with a date on the box of [DATE] and a date on the bottle of [DATE]. The 500 hall medication room had 29 cans of Two Cal HN Calorie and Protein Dense Nutrition 8 oz with an expiration date of [DATE]. The 500 hall medication room had 14 individual boxes of Peptamen AF Complete Nutrition with an expiration date of [DATE]. On [DATE] at 9:20 AM, an interview was conducted with the facility Director of Nursing (DON). The facility DON stated that the Tuberculin should not have had either of those dates since she thought that they were out and had ordered new Tuberculin in. The DON stated that they would remove the enteral feedings from the med room.
CONCERN (D)

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

Medical Records (Tag F0842)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Resident 18 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a catheter in place and a diagnosis of a Neurogenic bladder. Resident 18...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Resident 18 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a catheter in place and a diagnosis of a Neurogenic bladder. Resident 18 had a physician order initiated on 7/1/19 that stated change foley catheter and drainage bag monthly on the 25th of the month. It was documented in resident 18 ' s TAR that the catheter was changed on 7/25/19 by LPN 1. During an interview with the DON on 9/12/19 at 7:27 a.m., she stated that she interviewed the nurse who documented insertion of the catheter on 7/25/19 and resident 18. The DON stated that LPN 1 and Resident 18 both stated that the catheter was not changed on 7/25/19. Based on interview and record review it was determined, for 2 of 38 sample residents, that the facility did not maintain accurate documentation of medical records for each resident. Specifically, a resident's Medication Administration Record (MAR) and narcotic record log did not match. Additionally, a nurse charted that a resident's urinary catheter was changed when it was not. Resident identifiers: 18 and 50. Findings include: 1. Resident 50 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included injury of left quadriceps muscle and tendon, left artificial knee joint, muscle weakness, osteoarthritis, gastro-esophageal reflux disease, asthma, encephalopathy, hypo-osmolality and hyponatremia, anemia, major depressive disorder, recurrent, bipolar disorder, acute osteomyelitis, open wound of left great toe, acquired absence of other right toes, chronic pain, allergic rhinitis, bacteremia, cellulitis of left lower limb, thrombocythemia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, gout, convulsions, neuropathy, benign prostatic hyperplasia, insomnia, obstructive sleep apnea, hypothyroidism, and polymyositis. On 9/12/19 resident 50's medication records were reviewed. Review of resident 50's physician orders revealed the following: a. On 5/23/19, an order was entered into the electronic medication order system for Oxycodone HCl (hydrochloride) 5 MG (milligrams) by mouth every four hours as needed for pain. This order was discontinued on 8/15/19. b. On 5/23/19, an order was entered into the electronic medication order system for Oxycodone HCl 10 MG by mouth every four hours as needed for pain. This order was discontinued on 8/15/19. c. On 5/22/19, an order was entered into the electronic medication order system for Tramadol HCl 50 MG by mouth every six hours as needed for pain. Review of the narcotic record log entries with the corresponding Medication Administration Record for Oxycodone 5 MG revealed that the medication was documented signed out of the narcotic log, but the medication was not documented on the MAR as being administered on the following dates: 6/4/19 at 1:20 AM and 6/20/19 at 8:00 PM. Review of the narcotic record log entries with the corresponding MAR for Oxycodone 10 MG revealed that the medication was documented signed out of the narcotic log, but the medication was not documented on the MAR as being administered on the following dates: 6/4/19 at 8:10 PM, 6/5/19 at 8:00 AM, 6/5/19 at 12:00 PM, 6/5/19 at 10:20 PM, 6/6/19 at 11:35 PM, 6/8/19 at 12:00 PM, 6/10/19 at 5:30 AM, 6/10/19 at 10:30 AM, 6/11/19 at 6:40 PM, 6/12/19 at 6:00 PM, 6/12/19 at 10:00 PM, 6/13/19 at 2:00 AM, 6/13/19 at 10:00 PM, 6/14/19 at 2:00 AM, 6/14/19 at 10:00 AM, 6/15/19 at 4:00 AM, 6/16/19 at 6:05 AM, 6/19/19 at 7:00 AM, 6/20/19 at 1:00 AM, 6/22/19 at 7:00 AM, 6/22/19 at 12:00 PM, 6/22/19 at 8:00 PM, 6/23/19 at 10:00 PM, 6/26/19 at 8:00 AM, 6/26/19 at 6:30 PM, 6/28/19 at 9:00 PM, 6/29/19 at 4:00 PM, 7/1/19 at 12:00 PM, 7/3/19 at 12:00 PM, 7/3/19 at 6:00 PM, 7/4/19 at 1:30 AM, 7/4/19 at 6:00 PM, 7/4/19 at 11:50 PM, 7/6/19 at 8:30 AM, 7/6/19 at 12:00 PM, 7/7/19 at 7:30 AM, 7/8/19 at 12:30 PM, 7/8/19 at 8:30 PM, 7/9/19 at 12:55 PM, 7/10/19 at 7:00 PM, 7/11/19 at 8:30 PM, 7/12/19 at 2:45 AM, 7/13/19 at 8:00 AM, 7/13/19 at 12:00 PM, 7/13/19 at 8:00 AM, 7/13/19 at 8:00 AM, 7/13/19 at 12:00 PM, 7/13/19 at 4:00 PM, 7/14/19 at 11:30 PM, 7/15/19 at 7:00 AM, 7/15/19 at 7:00 PM, 7/16/19 at 12:30 AM, 7/16/19 at 10:15 AM, 7/17/19 at 6:00 AM, 7/17/19 at 10:00 AM, 7/17/19 at 2:00 PM, 7/17/19 at 6:00 PM, 7/17/19 at 11:00 PM, 7/18/19 at 6:00 PM, 7/19/19 at 12:00 AM, 7/20/19 at 8:00 AM, 7/22/19 at 2:00 PM, 7/22/19 at 3:45 PM, 7/22/19 at 10:00 PM, 7/23/19 at 2:00 AM, 7/24/19 at 11:00 PM, 7/25/19 at 8:00 AM, 7/25/19 at 7:00 PM, 7/25/19 at 11:00 PM, 7/26/19 at 12:00 PM, 7/27/19 at 12:15 PM, 7/27/19 at 7:00 AM, 7/27/19 at 12:00 PM, 7/29/19 at 7:00 AM, 7/29/19 at 12:00 PM, 7/29/19 at 4:00 PM, 7/30/19 at 10:00 AM, 7/30/19 at 4:00 PM, 7/30/19 at 8:00 PM, 7/31/19 at 7:00 AM, 7/31/19 at 8:00 PM, 8/1/19 at 2:00 PM, 8/1/19 at 8:00 PM, 8/2/19 at 12:00 AM, 8/2/19 at 1:45 AM, 8/5/19 at 7:00 PM, 8/6/19 at 2:00 AM, 8/6/19 at 8:00 PM, 8/7/19 at 7:30 AM, 8/8/19 at 4:00 AM, 8/8/19 at 1:00 PM, 8/8/19 at 7:00 PM, 8/9/19 at 12:30 AM, 8/9/19 at 4:30 AM 8/9/19 at 8:00 PM, 8/10/19 at 8:00 AM, 8/10/19 at 12:00 PM, 8/10/19 at 4:00 PM, 8/11/19 at 1:00 PM, 8/12/19 at 8:00 PM, 8/14/19 at 12:00 AM. Review of the narcotic record log entries with the corresponding MAR for Tramadol 50 MG revealed that the medication was documented signed out of the narcotic log, but the medication was not documented on the MAR as being administered on the following dates: 6/4/19 at 3:00 AM, 6/8/19 at 4:00 AM, 6/10/19 at 10:15 AM, 6/14/19 at 10:00 AM, 6/22/19 at 2:20 AM, 7/3/19 at 8:00 AM, 7/12/19 at 1:00 AM, 7/27/19 at 12:00 PM, 8/17/19 at 1:00 AM, 8/19/19 at 5:15 AM, 8/22/19 at 9:30 PM, 8/23/19 at 9:45 PM, 8/28/19 at 8:15 AM, 8/29/19 at 9:30 PM. It should be noted that from June 2019 through August 2019, resident 50 had: a. Two doses of Oxycodone 5 MG were documented signed out of the narcotic log, but the medication was not documented on the MAR as being administered. b. One hundred one doses of Oxycodone 10 MG were documented signed out of the narcotic log, but the medication was not documented on the MAR as being administered. c. Fourteen doses of Tramadol 50 MG were documented signed out of the narcotic log, but the medication was not documented on the MAR as being administered. d. Oxycodone 10 MG was signed out of the narcotic log three times on 7/13/19 at 8:00 AM, and two times on 7/13/19 at 12:00 PM. On 9/12/19 at 8:53 AM, in interview was conducted with Registered Nurse (RN) 1. RN 1 stated that when she administered narcotic pain medication she reviewed the MAR and the narcotic log book to see when the resident last had a dose, which determined if the resident could have another dose at that time. RN 1 stated that sometimes the previous nurse would sign the medication out in the narcotic log book, but would forget to document in the MAR. On 9/12/19 at 9:25 AM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated that when the medical team conducted at pain assessment on a resident the team would review the current orders, reports of uncontrolled pain, and the frequency of 'as needed' pain medication use. The DON stated that she would be very concerned with the large amount of discrepancies between the MAR and the narcotic log, stated that it would affect resident pain assessments and monitoring of effectiveness of pain medication.
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** Based on observation, interview and record review, it was determined for 2 of 38 sample residents, that the facility did not dev...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, it was determined for 2 of 38 sample residents, that the facility did not develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident that included measurable objectives and timeframes to meet the resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs that were identified in the comprehensive assessment. Specifically, care plans were not updated with interventions after resident falls and interventions and/or assessments were not carried out. Resident identifiers: 3 and 41. Findings include: 1. Resident 3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], she was discharged to the hospital and returned on 8/28/19, with diagnoses which included fracture of right wrist and hand, cystitis, fracture of left wrist and hand, acute respiratory failure, dementia, bipolar disorder, neuromuscular dysfunction of bladder, need for assistance with personal care, neuropathy, glaucoma, gastro-esophageal reflux disease, restless legs syndrome, osteoarthritis, dissociative identity disorder, pseudobulbar affect, pain in left knee, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, encephalopathy, abnormalities of gait and mobility, dysphagia, cognitive communication deficit, sciatica, pain in right leg, generalized anxiety disorder, repeated falls, muscle weakness, hypoxemia, hyperglycemia, insomnia, obstructive sleep apnea, hypothyroidism, hyperlipidemia, and asthma. On 9/9/19 at 12:15 PM, an interview was conducted with resident 3. Resident 3 stated that she had had multiple falls at the facility, and had hit her head at least once. Resident 3's medical record was reviewed on 9/10/19 and revealed the following falls: a. On 12/28/18 resident 3 had a fall with no noted injury. A nurse's note documented Nurse was assisting resident's roommate and saw this resident standing up after using the restroom and slipped and fell into a sitting position on the floor. Resident stated that her feet started to slide and she fell to a sitting position. An intervention documented on the facility incident report and the nurse's note stated Encouraged resident to wear nonskid socks when walking or transferring. [Note: this fall and intervention were not documented on resident 3's care plan.] b. On 12/30/18 resident 3 had a fall and hit her head. A nurse's note documented Res (resident) roommate used call light, CNA (certified nurse assistant) answered and found res in rest room res was sitting on floor. Res did not have traction socks on. Ask res what happened? res stated that she was on toilet, reach for walker then started to slipping (sic). Res stated she hit her R (right) side of head on wall, and R arm on the floor. An intervention documented on the facility incident report and the nurse's note stated educate res to used traction socks and put on for res. [Note: this was the same intervention documented for the fall that happened 2 days prior. Additionally, this fall and intervention were not documented on resident 3's care plan.] c. On 1/12/19 resident 3 had a fall and hit her head which caused a scalp hematoma. A nurse's note documented Recreation notified this nurse that she was in resident's room helping her and saw her fall to the floor and her back was leaning against the bed frame. Resident stated she was standing up and was reaching for her walker but it was too far and lost her balance and fell. She said she hit her back and her head on the bed frame. An intervention documented on the facility incident report and the nurse's note stated Encourage resident to ask for assistance. [Note: this fall and intervention were not documented on resident 3's care plan.] d. On 1/14/19 resident 3 had a fall with no noted injury. A nurse's note documented Res stated that she was in her recliner, try (sic) to get up to her walker and slipped to floor. Res was next to her recliner.Res (sic) stated she did not hit her head, and denied pain. An intervention documented in the nurse's note stated Educate res to use call light, and help res to use rest room. Another intervention documented as an Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) note stated Staff to remind and assist resident in keeping her walkerclose (sic) by. [Note: this fall and intervention were not documented on resident 3's care plan.] e. On 5/27/19 resident 3 had a fall and hit her head which caused a laceration. A nurse's note documented [Resident 3] fell in her room at approx. (approximately) 1100 (11:00 AM). She was standing and trying to sign a piece of paper for [Name of Housekeeper] the housekeeper. she said all of a sudden I just felt myself going down. She hit her head on the left side and has a small laceration to her left ear. An intervention documented on 5/28/18 as an IDT note stated Resident is currently on OT (occupational therapy). OT to instruct to keep one hand on a solid surface. [Note: the fall and interventions were not documented on resident 3's care plan.] f. On 6/29/19 resident 3 had a fall with no noted injury. A nurse's note on 6/30/19 documented [Resident 3] was using her 4 wheeled walker as a wheelchair and another resident brought her dog in. [Resident 3] leaned over to pet the dog forgetting to lock the brakes on her walker. The walker then rolled out from under her causing her to slide to her bottom. No injury noted and was witnessed by 3 other people, she did not hit her head. An intervention documented on resident 3's care plan stated Re-educate [resident 3] to use her walker as a walker and apply the brakes when moving. [Note: this was the first fall intervention documented on resident 3's care plan since 2017, which was prior to these most recent falls.] g. On 7/9/19 resident 3 had a fall with no injury noted. A nurse's note on 7/10/19 documented ~1930 (7:30 PM) Resident was found on the floor sitting on her buttock by CNA. Res stated she was going to the restroom and her legs gave out. Then she butt walked forward to let staff know. She did not hit her head, No skin injuries upon assessment. An intervention documented on resident 3's care plan stated Repair [resident 3's] electric wheelchair so she will no longer use walker as a wheelchair and remind to use call light for assistance. On 9/11/19 at 9:32 AM, an observation was made of resident 3 sitting in her recliner. Resident 3's call light was clipped to her bed and was not within reach. h. On 7/19/19 resident 3 had a fall in which she hit her head and had a change in her vital signs and level of consciousness. A nurse's note on 7/20/19 documented Res was found in he (sic) bathroom sitting on floor. Res stated she feel (sic) while standing up reaching for her wheel walker. Res wheel walker was not lock. Res has two lumps on right skull, res stated pain in R shoulder, R side of head, and R breast. Res initial vitals were WNL (within normal limits), after second vital res BP (blood pressure), O2 (oxygen) sat (saturation) begin to decline. Res become more confused. [Nurse Practitioner] gives the OK to send res to ER (emergency room). Res came back from [name of hospital] at 0400 (4:00 AM), with no new orders. An intervention documented resident 3's care plan stated Putting her walker closer to her while in the bathroom and ensuring the brake is engaged. An intervention documented on the facility incident report and the nurse's note stated She continues to use her walker as a wheelchair and has had falls rt (related to) not using her walker appropriately. Resident educated regarding walker use and to call staff for assistance. [Note: this was the 2nd time these interventions were used.] i. On 7/30/19 resident 3 had a fall and hit her head. A nurse's note documented CNA heard a call for help and found [resident 3] on the floor in her room. She stated she was getting up to go to the bathroom and slipped on some water she spilled. Denies any pain. No physical injuries noted. States she slightly hit her head. An intervention documented on resident 3's care plan stated Provide [resident 3] new grippy socks for traction. [Note: this was the 3rd time this intervention was used, but the 1st time it was documented on the care plan.] On 9/10/19 at 3:12 PM, an observation was made of resident 3 with no grippy socks on. On 9/11/19 at 8:04 AM, resident 3 was observed sitting on the side of her bed with no grippy socks on. There were no grippy socks on her bed or anywhere near her to indicate that she had them on recently. On 9/11/19 at 11:26 AM, an observation was made of resident 3 in her recliner with no grippy socks on. Resident 3's spouse was in the room at that time and stated that staff never put grippy socks on resident 3 unless she requested it. j. On 8/5/19 resident 3 had a fall and hit her head which caused a laceration, she also had a left wrist fracture. A nurse's note documented This nurse and two other staff members heard resident yelling for help and went in room to find resident on ground face down at 1900 (7:00 PM) this evening. Staff members helped resident back up into her recliner. She stated she was on her way to the bathroom and tripped on her side table. She has a bump on her forehead with a small laceration, cleaned and dressed with a bandaid. She had increased pain in her left arm rated 10/10 with decreased ROM. Pain medication and ice given. MD notified and ordered x-ray for left shoulder and wrist. X-ray performed and showed fracture to left wrist. MD notified and ordered to send out for further treatment in ER. An intervention documented on resident 3's care plan stated Install grippy tape to the bathroom floor for traction in the event there is water inadvertently splashed on the floor.Install grippy tape to the foot of [resident 3's] recliner. An intervention documented on the facility incident report and the nurse's note stated Staff to apply brightly colored tape on her bedside table to assist with visual cues. On 9/10/19 at 3:12 PM, an observation was made of resident 3's bathroom with no grip tape on the floor. Resident 3's roommate stated that to her knowledge, there had never been any grip tape on the floor in the bathroom. On 9/11/19 at 9:32 AM, an observation was made of resident 3's bedside table without any brightly colored tape for visual cues. k. On 8/10/19 resident 3 had a fall with no noted injuries. A facility incident report documented CNA found res is room sitting on floor by her recliner. Res stated she slid out of recliner onto floor, and did not hit her head. An intervention documented on the facility incident report and the nurse's noted stated Grippy tape to be placed at the foot of her recliner. [Note: this was the 2nd time this intervention was used. Additionally, no updates were made to resident 3's care plan.] l. On 8/16/19 resident 3 had a fall with no noted injuries. A nurse's note documented Res more alert today, however she tried once to get up on her own at 1100 (11:00 AM), nurse found res on floor, examined res, found no injury. An intervention documented on resident 3's care plan stated PT (physical therapy) eval (evaluation) for strength and training to use bedside commode and ambulate. An intervention documented on the facility incident report and the nurse's note stated Resident educated regarding call light use. Bedside commode placed by bedside to assist resident. On 9/11/19 at 9:32 AM, an observation was made of resident 3's room with no bedside commode. m. On 8/18/19 resident 3 had a fall with a right wrist fracture. A nurse's noted documented Around 0330 (3:30 AM) CNA found res on the floor in prone position, bed was on the lowest position. Res stated she tried to get up and some how rolled out of bed. [Note: there was no intervention documented for this fall on resident 3's care plan, in the nurse's note, or in a facility incident report.] n. On 8/22/19 resident 3 had a fall with no noted injuries. A facility incident report documented RES found on floor have (sic) way to bathroom, res on R side, bed was in the lowest position r/t res trying 2 other times that morning to get out of bed. An intervention documented on the facility incident report stated that resident 3 was sent to the hospital for a psychiatric evaluation. [Note: this fall and intervention were not documented on resident 3's care plan.] A review of resident 3's care plan revealed the following interventions were initiated prior to the fall on 12/28/18: a. Resident referred to pt (physical therapy) for proper walker usage and eval (evaluation) for front wheeled walker. Initiated on 9/17/17 b. Anticipate and meet [resident 3's] needs. Initiated on 6/13/16 c. Be sure [resident 3's] call light is within reach and encourage [resident 3] to use it for assistance as needed. [Resident 3] needs prompt response to all requests for assistance. Initiated on 6/13/16 d. Pt (physical therapy) evaluate and treat as ordered or PRN (as needed). Initiated on 6/13/16 e. [Resident 3] given education to let staff help her with toileting to prevent further falls. Initiated on 5/8/17 f. Education given to [resident 3] to ensure that she asks for assistance with bed mobility Initiated on 3/20/17 g. Staff education to check with [resident 3] frequently for toileting needs and if she needs any assistance with toileting to prevent falls. Initiated on 5/8/17. [Note: the intervention to remind resident 3 to ask for assistance and use her call light for mobility and transfers was used seven times.] On 9/11/19 at 10:08 AM, an interview was conducted with resident 3's Physical Therapist (PT). The PT stated that he assisted in initiating interventions, stated that he would talk to the floor staff about implementing those interventions. The PT stated that there was no paperwork or documentation that they use to communicate with the floor staff, stated that all communication was word of mouth. On 9/11/19 at 7:31 AM, an interview was conducted with CNA 6. CNA 6 stated that the CNA's had to ask the nurses if a resident had any fall interventions ordered. CNA 6 stated that the CNA's did not have access to nurse's notes or incident reports. CNA 6 stated that she was very familiar with resident 3, stated that she did not know of any fall prevention interventions that were supposed to be used for resident 3. On 9/11/19 at 7:36 AM, an interview was conducted with Registered Nurse (RN) 1. RN 1 stated that new interventions were entered into the care plan by nurse management. RN 1 stated that the interventions were also entered into the electronic charting system as an order to communicate the interventions to the staff. RN 1 verified that resident 3 had no orders for fall prevention interventions. On 9/11/19 at 11:37 AM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated that all falls were followed up on by the clinical team on the next business day. The DON stated that interventions were usually entered into the resident care plans during the fall follow up meeting by the nurse management. The DON stated the interventions were also entered as an order in the electronic charting system to communicate to the nurses. The DON stated that during the fall follow up meeting past interventions were also re-evaluated for effectiveness. The DON was unable to explain the discrepancies between the incident reports and care plan interventions. The DON stated that all of those interventions should have been implemented; the DON was unable to explain why resident 3 did not have grippy socks, the call light was not within reach, there was no grip tape on the bathroom floor, no bedside commode, nor bright tape on the bedside table. On 9/11/19 at 2:57 PM, a follow up interview was conducted with RN 1. RN 1 stated that she did not review past nurse's notes or incident reports for interventions documented in those places. 2. Resident 41 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included acute urinary tract infection, altered mental status, fracture of left ulna, orthopedic aftercare, dementia without behaviors, protein calorie malnutrition, dysphagia, osteoarthritis, malignant neoplasm of the vulva, asthma, hypertension, type 2 diabetes mellitus, glaucoma and an anxiety disorder. On 9/11/19 resident 41's medical record was reviewed. Nursing progress notes revealed the following entries: a. 7/4/2019 10:46 (AM) Nursing Note Late Entry: Note Text: Pt (patient) was in the bathroom when staff heard her yelling for help. Pt was sitting on the floor, stated she was pulling her pants up, when she lost her balance and fell to her knees and then sat on the floor. No injuries noted, neuro (neurological) checks started. MD (medical doctor) and family notified. b. 7/5/2019 19:37 (7:37 PM) Nursing Note Note Text: FALL: Resident denies any pain/discomfort r/t (related to) fall in restroom yesterday. This RN (Registered Nurse) encountered her toileting herself unsafely in restroom this afternoon and mentioned her fall yesterday, to which she replied I didn't fall, did I? No visible injuries/bruising/redness r/t fall yesterday. Neuro checks are continuing per facility protocol and vital signs remain WNL (within normal limits) for resident. She did request assistance (extensive given) from this RN to get her legs up onto her bed to lie down early in shift, which shows a substantial decline in her strength over last couple of months. c. 7/31/2019 04:39 (AM) Nursing Note Note Text: Resident was using her wheeled walker to bathroom with gripper socks on and felt dizzy and sat down per resident. Nurse assessed resident and no injuries noted at this time. Floor with (sic) clean and dry and there was a sign for wet floor by the door. Resident stated she was dizzy and sat down and hit the sign. When asked if she hit her head she stated NO. Nurses helped resident up off the floor and sat her on her walker. She stated she needed to use the bathroom. She was helped on the toilet, nurse was able to assess her for injuries at this time, no redness no injuries noted. [Nurse Practitioner] notified of fall and nurse left message for her nephew to call facility when he gets the message. Vital signs completed; T (temperature):97.6, BP(blood pressure):142/89, P (pulse):76, R (respirations) :14, O2 (oxygen) Sat (saturations): 97% on room air. Staff will continue to monitor for 3 day on fall charting. d. 7/31/2019 09:54 (AM) Nursing Note Note Text: IDT (interdisciplinary) team met regarding residents recent fall. Social work, PT (physical therapy), nursing and administration present. Resident was found down by her room. Resident stated she felt dizzy and sat down on the floor. Resident was assessed by nurse and no injuries were noted. Resident is currently on OT (occupational therapy) Orthostatic BP to be completed the next three days. Will monitor. e. 8/18/2019 18:17 (6:17 PM) Nursing Note Note Text: Staff answered call light and found resident laying on her back on the floor next to her bed. Resident stated she was standing to go to the bathroom and she fell backwards. Resident denies hitting her head. Two staff members assisted resident up and she ambulated to the bathroom. Resident is able to move all extremities. No apparent injuries noted upon assessment. Neuro checks have been initiated and are at baseline for resident. Resident was wearing non-slip socks. Family called and message left. MD and supervisor notified. f. 8/19/2019 09:58 (AM) Nursing Note Note Text: IDT team met regarding residents recent fall. Social work, PT, nursing and administration present. Resident was found down in her room by her bed. Resident stated she was trying to walk to the restroom when she fell backwards. No injuries noted and resident denies hitting her head. Resident was helped to the restroom. Resident had non-slip footwear on. PT to eval (evaluate). Will monitor. g. 8/19/2019 13:17 (1:37 PM) Nursing Note Note Text: Resident is alert and oriented to self with confusion. Resident is complaining of left hand and left wrist pain s/p (status post) fall. Some bruising noted this morning on left hand and left forearm area. Resident received prn (as needed) pain med (medication) this am with positive effect. Resident took a nap after taking her pain meds. Left hand and left wrist are tender when touched. MD has been notified and order received for X-ray of the left hand and left wrist. [X-ray company] has been notified to perform x-ray. Resident is currently sitting in the dining room eating lunch. She's pleasant. h. 8/19/2019 22:33 (10:33 PM) Nursing Note Note Text: Hand 2 views - Left 8/19/19 Impression: Displaced fracture of the distal left ulna. [Resident 41's physician] notified. Res (resident) was sent out to [Name of Hospital] for further evaluation. Report was given to ER (emergency room) Charge nurse. Nephew [Name of nephew] notified. Res reported pain in her Left wrist and received tramadol at bedtime w (with)/effectiveness. Res stated the pain decreased a little bit. Res's Left hand was wrapped with ACE wrap for stability. i. 8/20/2019 03:49 (AM) Nursing Note Note Text: [Resident 41] returned to this facility at approx. 0200 (2:00 AM) from [Name of Hospital]. She arrived via stretcher and accompanied by EMT (emergency medical technician) in [Name of Ambulance] ambulance. She was transferred to ED (emergency department) following a fall with UE (upper extremity) ulnar fx (fracture). She was in good spirits when she came back, she is wearing a cast/splint on her fractured arm, and she returns with new orders to schedule acetaminophen 1000mg (milligrams) q (every) 6 [hours] PO (by mouth) PRN (as needed) x (times) 3 days for pain. No other changes were made to her meds, she reported pain after being transferred to her bed and was given PRN dose of hydrocodone. She also returned with order to schedule a f/u (follow up) with [Orthopedic physician]. She is currently lying in bed resting quietly, no new complaints at this time. The Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed that resident 41 had impaired memory and a BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status) revealed that resident 41 had a score of 7, indicating that resident 41 had severe cognitive impairment. A care plan dated 7/14/19 revealed that resident 41 was at Risk for Falls: [Name of Resident] is at risk for falls r/t Weakness, Deconditioning, Hx (history) Dehydration, Hx UTIs (urinary tract infections). The goal for resident 41 was [Name of Resident] will be free of minor injury within next 90 days. The interventions for resident 41 included Be sure [Name of Resident] call light is within reach and encourage her to use it for assistance as needed. [Name of Resident] needs prompt response to all requests for assistance. Educate [Name of Resident] her family and caregivers about safety reminders and what to do if a fall occurs. Encourage [Name of Resident] to participate in activities that promote exercise, physical activity for strengthening and improved mobility. Ensure that [Name of Resident] is wearing appropriate footwear (non-skid shoes, nonskid socks, etc.) prior to any transfers or ambulating. Follow facility fall protocol. Pt (physical therapy) evaluate and treat as ordered or PRN. A care plan dated 7/14/19 revealed that resident 41 had an Actual Fall - [Name of Resident] has had an actual falls without injury and with minor injury. *7/4/19 - [Name of Resident] had an actual fall without injury r/t (related to) unsteady gait and poorly fitting slacks. 7/30/19 pt (patient) had fall no injuries noted. The goal for resident 41 was [Name of Resident] will resume usual activities without further incident within next 90 days. The interventions for resident 41 included 7/9/19 - [Name of Resident] clothes will be altered to fit her more properly. Alterations to [Name of Resident] existing slacks/clothing and replacement with new properly fitting slacks/clothing. Do orthostatic blood pressure in the AM for 3 days to see if we need to make changes to meds (medications), cares, etc. Notify MD (Medical Doctor) of any concerns. Monitor/document/report PRN (as needed) x (times) 72h (hours) to MD for s/sx (signs/symptoms): confusion, sleepiness, inability to maintain posture, agitation. Neuro-checks x 72 hours. PT consult for strength and mobility. No documentation could be located in the medical record to show that new interventions had been put in place in resident 41's care plan after the fall on 7/31/19 prior to the fall on 8/18/19 when resident 41 sustained the left distal ulnar fracture. On 9/11/19 at 3:32 PM, an interview was conducted with the facility Director of Nursing (DON). The facility DON stated that she did not know why there were no interventions between the fall on 7/31/19 and the fall on 8/18/19. The facility DON stated that the unit managers were to update the care plans when falls occurred. The facility DON stated that she would check for further information regarding interventions. On 9/12/19 at 9:18 AM, an interview was conducted with the facility DON. The facility DON stated that the OT (Occupational Therapy) note dated 8/1/19 was a great note that could have been considered an intervention. The facility DON stated that in the note, OT was providing resident 41 with patient education. The facility DON stated that even though resident 41 had a BIMS of 7, she is able to comprehend. The facility DON stated that the use of OT was never implemented on resident 41's care plan. [NOTE: According to the MDS, resident 41 had a BIMS of 7, indicating that there was severe cognitive impairment. According to documentation in the incident reports, resident 41 had confusion and impaired memory.]
CONCERN (E)

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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

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 of 38 sample residents, that the facility did not en...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined for 3 of 38 sample residents, that the facility did not ensure that 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, three residents were not assisted or cued during the meal times. Residents identifier: 30, 41 and 46. Findings include: 1. Resident 30 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disorder (COPD), muscle weakness, Alzheimer disease, Gastro-Esophageal Reflux Disease (GERD) without esophagitis, dementia, dysphagia oral phase, and cognitive communication deficit. On 9/9/19 at 7:54 AM, an observation was made of resident 30 as her breakfast tray was served. Resident 30 was observed to be seated in the chair with her eyes closed. On 9/9/19 at 7:56 AM, an observation was made of resident 30 as she opened her eyes, and reached toward the plate. Resident 30 was observed to use her fingers to reach for the food and then brought her empty fingers toward her mouth. Resident 30 was observed to be eating the air. No observation was made of any staff members approaching resident 30 to assist her with cuing, to put utensils into her hands nor to assist her to eat her meal. On 9/9/19 at 8:10 AM, an observation was made as resident 30 was able to reach a little plastic cup with the butter and tried to drink the butter from the cup. On 9/9/19 at 8:15 AM, an observation was made of resident 30 as she was able to grab the cup with the hot chocolate and in her attempt to drink it, she spilled the hot chocolate on her self and on the table. No observation was made of staff approaching resident 30 to assist her to clean the spill or to assist resident 30 with eating her meal. During this observation, resident 30 was observed to attempt to open her milk several times without success. On 9/9/19 at 8:30 AM, an observation was made of Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 2 as she assisted resident 30 to her room to change her clothes. On 9/9/19 at 8:37 AM, an observation was made as resident 30 was brought back to the dining room and seated by the window. Resident 30's breakfast meal had already been picked up by CNA 1. No observation was made of any attempt by facility staff to assist or to feed resident 30. On 9/9/19 at 12:56 PM, an observation was made as the lunch tray was served to resident 30. It was observed that CNA 3 sat down with resident 30 and fed her. Resident 30 ate 100% of her meal. On 9/11/19, resident 30's medical record was reviewed. The Change of Condition Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], revealed that resident 30 required Limited Assistance, resident highly involved in activity; staff provided guided maneuvering of limbs or other non-weight-bearing assistance. The MDS Assessment revealed that resident 30 required One person physical assist for eating her meals. A care plan dated 2/19/16 and revised on 12/5/19 for resident 30 revealed that resident 30 had an ADL (Activities of Daily Living) self-care performance deficit r/t (related to) Alzheimer's. The interventions listed by the facility included Limited to extensive assist of 1 staff for eating. Will participate with restorative nursing assistance (RNA) on self feeding. RNA to encourage resident 30 to adequately eat her meal and increase independence with eating. She will be offered the program at least 15 minutes during one meal per day. Resident 30's weights revealed that she was trending down with a 9.76 % loss since January. Nursing progress notes revealed the following: a. 5/5/19, Resident (30) has poor oral intake of foods and fluids, she requires lots of cuing during meals and at times she refuses to eat even when staff offers to assist her. Resident does have very poor vision and she sometimes holds the spoon in the wrong direction. b. 5/6/19, Resident (30) has poor safety awareness and she does not know what to do when her food is placed in-front of her. Resident needs frequent cuing and encouragement in order to eat. Resident has very poor vision. c. 6/1/19, Resident was confused at dinner and was unable to understand staff directions. She was able to take her medications crushed in applesauce and med pass once nurse told her pain medications were in it. d. 9/1/19, total dependence with hygiene care, moderate assistance with transfer, and extensive assistance with meal. e. 9/6/19, Set up, supervision and cuing for meals. RNA daily notes were reviewed and revealed following: a) 5/18/19-The pt (patient) [resident 30] was able to eat by (sic) own, but she needs encourage (sic), and her appetite is low. b) 5/26/19-Pt. [resident 30] was cooperative with eating with no problems, pt ate 50%. c) 6/22/19-cooperative with eating her lunch meal, she ate 25% with assist and cue. d) 7/17/19-pt [resident 30] was cooperative when eating, pt ate 15%. e) 8/24/19-pt [resident 30] has low appetite and she needs encourage (sic) to focus to eat f) 8/31/19-pt [resident 30] needs encourage (sic) and extensive assistance to eat. her appetite is low and she gets distracted easily. On 9/11/19 at 7:32 AM, an interview was conducted with CNA 3. CNA 3 stated that resident 30 required assistance with eating and that resident was able to feed herself but she did not remember to eat. CNA 3 stated that resident 30 was very confused and that she was better if she was fed by someone. CNA 3 stated that all residents who required assistance would be fed as soon as they delivered food trays to the rest of residents in the hall 200. On 9/12/19 at 7:47 AM , resident 30 was observed to be seated in 200 hall dining room. She talked to another resident and drank her coffee. Her breakfast tray was served to her at 7:52 AM. She was fed by an aide. No issues were noted; resident ate 100% of her meal. 3. Resident 46 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included Type II diabetes, Cerebral Palsy, COPD, vascular dementia, cognitive communication deficit, muscle weakness, GERD with esophagitis, Dysphagia, oropharyngeal phase and tremor. On 9/9/19 at 8:00 AM, an observation was made of resident 46 as her breakfast tray was served. On 9/9/19 at 8:47 AM, an observation was made of resident 46's breakfast meal. Observation of the meal revealed that resident 46 had not eaten her meal, but had drank a few sips of juice and milk. No observation was made of facility staff assisting or cueing resident 46. On 9/9/19 at 8:47 AM, an interview was conducted with resident 46. Resident 46 was hard to understand, and appeared anxious and frustrated. Resident 46 stated that she did not like her food. On 9/9/19 at 8:50 AM, an observation was made as CNA 1 cleaned the tables in the dining room. CNA 1 was observed to take resident 46's tray without asking any questions. Resident 46 was observed to stay sitting at the table with her head between her hands. On 9/9/19 at 11:28 AM, an observation was made of resident 46's sister in the room with resident 46. Resident 46 was observed sitting in the wheelchair next to her bed. On 9/9/19 at 11:28 AM, an interview was conducted with resident 46's sister. Resident 46's sister stated that she was resident 46's power of attorney. Resident 46's sister stated that a few months ago, she signed a risk vs benefits for her sister regarding the water and thin liquids. Resident 46's sister stated that her sister was thirsty and that the facility did not serve water to her sister. Resident 46's sister stated that resident 46 was evaluated by speech therapy and was found to be at risk for aspiration so they recommended thickened liquids. Resident 46's sister stated that resident 46 did well with thin liquids too, but more importantly, she needed water. Resident 46's sister stated that she talked to the nurses and the Director of Nursing (DON) about the risk vs benefits form that she had signed and that every time she visits her sister, there was no water available at her bedside nor with her meals. Resident 46's sister stated that resident 46 had severe tremors in both of her hands and sometimes she was not able to feed herself. She stated that resident 46 had difficulty drinking from her cups because her hands were shaking and she spilled the drinks which made her more frustrated and anxious. On 9/11/19 at 12:46 PM, an observation was made as lunch was served to resident 46. Resident 46 received a pureed diet, cup of milk, cup of coffee and a healthshake. An observation was made of resident 46 and noted that she had a severe tremor in her hands. Resident 46 was observed to have a difficult time drinking with the straw and required constant cuing or assistance from facility staff. It was observed that it took her 3 attempts to reach the straw. For each bite of food that she ate, resident 46 made 2-3 attempts to grab the food and she spilled half of the food due to the tremor. No observation was made of special utensils provided to resident 46. On 9/11/19, resident 46's medical record was reviewed. The medical record revealed that resident 46 was on hospice. The Change of Condition MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed that resident 46 required extensive one person assistance for eating her meals. A care plan dated 12/19/17 with a revision date of 10/23/19 revealed that resident 46 had an ADL self-care performance deficit. The interventions listed on resident 46's care plan included that the facility would provide extensive assist from staff for eating and that they would also provide weighted utensils to assist with eating due to tremors. On 9/12/19 at approximately 9:00 AM, an interview was conducted with CNA 2. CNA 2 stated that resident 46 was able to feed her self. She stated that resident 46 had shaky hands and that she did not like to be fed by others. CNA 2 stated that if they noticed that resident 46 or any other resident needed assistance with feeding, the aides would then assist them. On 9/11/19 at 1:44 PM, an interview was conducted with CNA 5. CNA 5 stated that resident 46 had some behavioral issues. CNA 5 stated that resident 46 needed assistance with feeding, but she preferred to feed herself. CNA 5 stated that resident 46's hands were shaky and that she spilled half of her food and her drinks. CNA 5 stated that resident 46 was confused and if not assisted or at least cued she would not eat. On 9/11/19 at 2:02 PM, an interview was conducted with CNA 3. CNA 3 stated that resident 46 was 1 to 2 person assist with all activities of daily living. CNA 3 stated that resident 46 preferred to eat on her own. CNA 3 stated that resident 46 was confused and that she did not eat and drink if she did not receive the assistance or cuing from staff. CNA 3 stated that resident 46 had a tremor in both hands, that she had difficult time to keep her head still and when she drank or ate she spilled half of it if she was not assisted. CNA 3 stated that this made resident 46 even more frustrated and then she yelled or screamed at the staff and other residents. 3. Resident 41 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included acute urinary tract infection, altered mental status, fracture of left ulna, orthopedic aftercare, dementia without behaviors, protein calorie malnutrition, dysphagia, osteoarthritis, malignant neoplasm of the vulva, asthma, hypertension, type 2 diabetes mellitus, glaucoma and an anxiety disorder. On 9/9/19 at 7:50 AM, an observation was made as resident 41's breakfast meal was placed in front of her. No observation was made of any utensils in place for resident 41 to use to eat her meal. On 9/9/19 at 8:13 AM, an observation was made as resident 41 started to feed herself using her fingers. Resident 41 was observed to attempt to open her milk cup for approximately 3 minutes without success. Resident 41 was then observed to finally open her milk and drink 2 sips of her milk. Resident 41 was observed to drink half of her orange juice. Resident 41 was observed to eat 2 small bites of her food with her fingers. On 9/9/19 at 8:20 AM, resident 41 was observed to inform the staff that she needed to use the bathroom. CNA 1 was observed to take resident 41 to her room to use the bathroom. On 9/9/19 at 8:30 AM, CNA 1 was observed to return to the dining room, clean resident 41's breakfast meal and clean the rest of the dining room tables. By 8:40 AM, the dining room tables had been cleaned and resident 41 had not returned to the dining room to finish her breakfast. On 9/10/19 resident 41's medical record was reviewed. The Annual MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed that resident 41 required Limited Assistance, resident highly involved in activity; staff provided guided maneuvering of limbs or other non-weight-bearing assistance. The MDS Assessment revealed that resident 30 required One person physical assist for eating her meals. A care plan dated 7/14/19 revealed that resident 41 had a Nutritional problem or potential nutritional problem, altered mental status, dementia, dehydration, HTN (hypertension), UTI (urinary tract infection), dehydration, anxiety, and DM (diabetes mellitus). BMI (body mass index) normal range. Resident has a hx (history) of weight loss, snacks in place to aid in calorie intake. No significant weight loss of 5% in 30 days or 10% in 180 days. The goal was [Resident 41] will maintain adequate nutritional status as evidenced. The interventions for resident 30 included Provide and serve supplements/snacks as ordered, Provide, serve diet as ordered. Monitor intake and record q meal. by maintaining weight, no s/sx (signs/symptoms) of malnutrition within next 90 days. RD to evaluate and make diet change recommendations PRN (as needed). Weigh per facility policy. No specifics were made to the care plan to assist resident as needed with eating her meals per the one person assistance required as documented in the MDS. On 9/9/19 at 8:30 AM, an interview was conducted with CNA 1. CNA 1 stated that resident 41 had difficulty at times eating her meals. CNA 1 stated that resident 41 did not want to come back to the dining room. CNA 1 stated that no alternative meal had been offered and that she had not asked resident 41 if she wanted her meal in her room.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0802 (Tag F0802)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, it was determined that the facility did not employ sufficient support personn...

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 employ sufficient support personnel competent to carry out the functions of the dietary service. Specifically, meals were served later than the scheduled times. Resident identifiers: 2, 30, 37, 41 and 46. Findings include: 1. The facility provided the following dining schedule: a. Breakfast: Halls 500/400/200- 7:00 AM-7:35 AM. Main dining room [ROOM NUMBER]:35 AM-7:45 AM. Halls 100/300-7:45 AM-8:00 AM. b. Lunch: Halls 500/400/200-12:00 PM-12:35 PM. Main dining room-12:35 PM-12:45 PM. Halls 100/300-12:45 PM-1:00 PM. 2. During breakfast service on 9/09/19, the following observations were made in hall 200: a) At 7:44 AM, the first hall tray was served. [Note: This was 9 minutes after the posted start time.] b) At 7:58 AM, resident 37 had the breakfast tray served at the assisted table. At 7:59 AM resident 2, who was seated at the same table, had his breakfast tray served. Both of these residents required assistance with the feeding. [Note: The trays were served 23 and 24 minutes after the posted start time.] c) At 8:00 AM, resident 46 had her breakfast tray served. No observation was made of resident 46 receiving any assistance for eating her meal. On 09/09/19 at 11:28 AM resident 46's sister was interviewed. She stated that her sister needed cuing with meals. She stated that resident 46 did not want to eat puree diet because it did not look good to her. She stated that resident 46 did receive assistance with her meals from time to time. [Note: The tray was served to resident 46, 25 minutes after the posted start time.] d) Residents 30 and 41 were seated at the regular table. It was observed that resident 41 had her breakfast tray served at 7:50 AM. Resident 30 had her breakfast tray served at 7:54 AM. [Note: this was 15 and 19 minutes after posted start time.] e) Resident 30 reached out for the food and drinks in a front of her. It was observed that she moved her fingers toward her mouth, looked like she was eating the air or pretending to eat. At 8:10 AM, resident 30 picked up the little cup with the butter and tried to drink from it. At 8:15 AM, resident 30 grabbed the cup with the hot chocolate, in attempt to drink she spilled the drink on her self and on the table. At 8:30 AM, certified nursing assistant (CNA) 2 helped resident 30 to go to her bedroom to change her clothes. Resident 30 was brought back to the dining room at 8:37 AM; she was seated to the chair by the window. CNA 1 already picked up resident 30's tray. No one was observed offering the food to resident 30. f) After resident 41 had her tray served at 7:50 AM, no one assisted her with eating. Resident 41 was observed not to have utensils served on her tray. At 8:13 AM resident 41 started to eat with her fingers. Resident 41 tried to take the lid off of her milk cup for 3 minutes. At 8:17 AM, she was able to opened it and had 2 sips of milk. She also took 2 small bites of her food (eating with her fingers). At 8:20 AM she wanted to go to the bathroom. CNA 3 helped resident 41 to the bathroom. Resident 41 was brought back at 8:30 AM, was seated down at the table. Resident 41's tray was gone. No offer of the breakfast to resident 41 was observed. During breakfast observation, a metal bowl with the snacks was observed to be in the cabinet in the dining room of 200 hall. The bowl contained 3 bananas, 2 apples, 8 packs of crackers and 6 individually packed sandwiches. The sandwiches were not dated or labeled. On 9/09/19 at 9:10 AM, CNA 3 was interviewed. CNA 3 stated that majority of residents in their unit were confused and had some mental health disorders. CNA 3 stated that few of residents required assistance with feeding. She stated that resident 2 and 37 were always assisted with their meals because they had weight loss and were not able to feed themselves. CNA 3 stated that resident 30 and 41 needed cuing, but that they were able to feed themselves. She stated that resident 46 had behavioral issues and some times she was able to eat on her own and other times she required cuing. 3. During lunch time on 9/09/19 at 12:12 PM the cart with coffee and juice (cranberry or punch) was brought into the hall 200. a) At 12:54 PM resident 46 had her lunch tray served. CNA 3 started to feed resident 46 at 12:56 PM. [Note: Lunch was served 19 minutes after posted start time.] b) At 12:56 PM resident 30 had her lunch tray served. Restorative Nursing Assistant (RNA) assisted resident 30 with feeding at 12:58 PM. [Note: Lunch was served 21 minute after posted start time.] c) At 12:30, resident 41 was observed to have her hot chocolate served. It was observed that her lunch tray was served at 12:47 PM. [Note: Lunch was served 12 minutes after posted start time.] d) At 12:25 PM resident 37 was brought into a dining room and was seated at the assist table. At 12:52 PM, resident 37 had her lunch tray served. CNA 2 started to feed resident 37 at 12:55 PM. [Note: lunch tray was served 17 minutes after posted start time.] e). At 12:33 PM resident 2 was brought into a dining room. He received his coffee at 12:48 PM. It was observed that he received his lunch tray at 12:53 PM and that CNA 3 started to feed him at 12:55 PM. [Note: resident 2 had his lunch tray served 18 minutes after posted start time.]
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

  • "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
  • • 23 deficiencies on record, including 2 serious (caused harm) violations. Ask about corrective actions taken.
  • • Grade C (53/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
  • • 65% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Bottom line: Mixed indicators with Trust Score of 53/100. Visit in person and ask pointed questions.

About This Facility

What is Monument Healthcare Taylorsville's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns Monument Healthcare Taylorsville an overall rating of 4 out of 5 stars, which is considered above average nationally. Within Utah, this rating places the facility higher than 99% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This rating reflects solid performance across the metrics CMS uses to evaluate nursing home quality.

How is Monument Healthcare Taylorsville Staffed?

CMS rates Monument Healthcare Taylorsville's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 65%, which is 19 percentage points above the Utah average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs. RN turnover specifically is 62%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.

What Have Inspectors Found at Monument Healthcare Taylorsville?

State health inspectors documented 23 deficiencies at Monument Healthcare Taylorsville during 2019 to 2024. These included: 2 that caused actual resident harm and 21 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.

Who Owns and Operates Monument Healthcare Taylorsville?

Monument Healthcare Taylorsville is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by MONUMENT HEALTH GROUP, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 120 certified beds and approximately 97 residents (about 81% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in Salt Lake City, Utah.

How Does Monument Healthcare Taylorsville Compare to Other Utah Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Utah, Monument Healthcare Taylorsville's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 3.4, staff turnover (65%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Monument Healthcare Taylorsville?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "How do you ensure continuity of care given staff turnover, and what is your staff retention strategy?" "Can you walk me through typical staffing levels on day, evening, and night shifts?" "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 high staff turnover rate and the below-average staffing rating.

Is Monument Healthcare Taylorsville Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, Monument Healthcare Taylorsville has a clean safety record: no substantiated abuse findings (meaning no confirmed cases of resident harm), no Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death), and is not on the Special Focus Facility watch list (a federal program monitoring the lowest-performing 1% of nursing homes). The facility has a 4-star overall rating and ranks #1 of 100 nursing homes in Utah. While no facility is perfect, families should still ask about staff-to-resident ratios and recent inspection results during their visit.

Do Nurses at Monument Healthcare Taylorsville Stick Around?

Staff turnover at Monument Healthcare Taylorsville is high. At 65%, the facility is 19 percentage points above the Utah average of 46%. Registered Nurse turnover is particularly concerning at 62%. RNs handle complex medical decisions and coordinate care — frequent RN changes can directly impact care quality. 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 Monument Healthcare Taylorsville Ever Fined?

Monument Healthcare Taylorsville has been fined $7,525 across 1 penalty action. This is below the Utah average of $33,154. 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 Monument Healthcare Taylorsville on Any Federal Watch List?

Monument Healthcare Taylorsville 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.