Mt. Olympus Rehabilitation Center

2200 East 3300 South, Salt Lake City, UT 84109 (801) 486-2096
For profit - Corporation 100 Beds CASCADES HEALTHCARE Data: November 2025 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation
Trust Grade
18/100
#60 of 97 in UT
Last Inspection: May 2024

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

Overview

Mt. Olympus Rehabilitation Center has a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns and a poor overall reputation among nursing facilities. It ranks #60 of 97 in Utah, placing it in the bottom half of facilities statewide, and #21 of 35 in Salt Lake County, meaning there are better local options available. However, the facility is trending towards improvement, as issues decreased from 25 in 2023 to 7 in 2024. Staffing is a significant concern, with a rating of 2/5 stars and a high turnover rate of 65%, which is above the state average, indicating difficulty in retaining staff who know the residents well. The facility has also faced serious compliance issues, including a critical incident where a resident fell from their wheelchair due to an improperly secured seatbelt, and another case where a resident who attempted suicide was not receiving necessary behavioral health services despite multiple recommendations. While there are some strengths, such as a high rating of 5/5 for quality measures, families should weigh these issues carefully when considering care for their loved ones.

Trust Score
F
18/100
In Utah
#60/97
Bottom 39%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Better
25 → 7 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
65% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
✓ Good
$108,807 in fines. Lower than most Utah facilities. Relatively clean record.
Skilled Nurses
✓ Good
Each resident gets 45 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for Utah. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
Violations
⚠ Watch
56 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★★☆☆
3.0
Overall Rating
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Staff Levels
★★★★★
5.0
Care Quality
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2023: 25 issues
2024: 7 issues

The Good

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

Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.

The Bad

3-Star Overall Rating

Near Utah average (3.3)

Meets federal standards, typical of most facilities

Staff Turnover: 65%

18pts above Utah avg (46%)

Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity

Federal Fines: $108,807

Well above median ($33,413)

Significant penalties indicating serious issues

Chain: CASCADES HEALTHCARE

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 56 deficiencies on record

1 life-threatening 2 actual harm
May 2024 7 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 F0655 (Tag F0655)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record review, the facility did not develop and implement a baseline care plan for 2 of 38 sample reside...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record review, the facility did not develop and implement a baseline care plan for 2 of 38 sample residents that included the instructions needed to provide effective and person-centered care of the resident that meet professional standards of quality care, and be developed within 48 hours of the resident's admission. Specifically, a care plan was initiated 7 days after admission for two residents. Resident identifiers: 55 and 167. Findings include: 1. Resident 55 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included Parkinson's disease with dyskinesia, dysphagia, difficulty walking, reduced mobility, repeated falls, dementia, visual hallucinations, major depressive disorder and neuromuscular dysfunction of the bladder. Resident 55's medical record was reviewed on 5/6/24. The care plans developed for resident 55 were reviewed. The 48 hour care plan was not developed until 2/15/24, this was 7 days after admission. 2. Resident 167 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included right hip osteoarthritis, chronic lymphocytic leukemia of b-cell type, morbid obesity, type II diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, muscle weakness and hypertension. Resident 167's medical record was reviewed on 5/6/24. The care plans developed for resident 167 were reviewed. The 48 hour care plan was not developed until 4/30/24, this was 7 days after admission. On 5/09/24 at 9:23 AM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated when a resident was admitted there is an assessment that should be done by the admitting nurse that would populate the baseline care plan. The DON stated after a week the Minimum Data Set (MDS) coordinator would do the comprehensive care plan. The DON stated if the resident did not have that admission assessment completed then it would not populate the baseline care plan. The DON stated the nursing administration were in charge of making sure the base line care plans were completed. The DON stated there was not an admission assessment completed for either resident 55 or 167 so neither had a baseline care plan completed.
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 F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility did not ensure that care plans for 2 of 38 sample residents were developed wi...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility did not ensure that care plans for 2 of 38 sample residents were developed within 7 days after the completion of the comprehensive assessment, or revised by the interdisciplinary team after each assessment. Resident identifiers: 121 and 127. Findings include: 1. Resident 121 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included traumatic brain injury, vascular dementia, traumatic brain hemorrhage, cognitive communication deficit, and anxiety disorder. Resident 121's medical record was reviewed from 5/6/24 through 5/9/24. On 9/11/23, resident resident 121's BIMS on the admission MDS assessment was an 8, indicating moderate cognitive impairment. The MDS also indicated the the resident had wandered 1 to 3 days in the look back period. The MDS triggered behaviors on the Care Area Assessment Summary, however no wandering care plan was developed until 9/29/23. It should be noted that this was after the resident had eloped multiple times. Resident 121's care plan was reviewed. A care plan dated 9/29/23 indicated that the resident was an elopement risk/wanderer that eloped on 9/29/23 r/t (related to) Impaired safety awareness, Resident wanders aimlessly, resident wanting to just get out of here. A Wandering Risk Scale quarterly assessment for resident 121 was completed on 9/4/23. The assessment indicated that resident 121 was at a low risk to wander. Resident 121's progress notes were reviewed and revealed the following: a. On 9/10/23, Very restless and agitated today. Redirected and reoriented frequently paranoid. Exited facility 2 times today and brought back. The nurses note did not give additional details about the 2 elopements from the facility that were referenced. b. On 9/23/23 at 8:52 AM, Very agitated and restless difficult to redirect. Attempting to walk to road. c. On 9/23/23 at 2:58 PM, LCSW (Licensed Clinical Social Worker) provided emotional support. He was tearful . reports feelings of uncertainty with not being able to leave the building. d. On 9/23/23 at 2:58 PM, Continues to wander. e. On 9/23/23 at 4:19 PM, Displays paranoia startles easily. Becomes agitated when people invade his personal space. f. On 9/23/23 at 10:18 PM, Resident continued agitated and exit-seeking behavior. This Nurse needed to run out to stop Resident from either trying to get on bus at bus stop in front of facility, and then to stop him from heading east on sidewalk, on two separate incidents. Resident has been checked on frequently by Nurse and by CNA staff. Staff acted to dissuade him from entering Lobby or trying to leave building via front door. Resident set off alarms at more than one of the other doors, press on on bar but not know the code. g. On 9/29/23 at 7:39 PM, At [5:15 PM] resident was not in his room to receive his dinner. floor nurse and CNA's, initiated Building check. Resident was last seen at [4:45 PM] by the lobby. Resident was not located after the building wide check.Floor nurse received call at [5:45 PM] from paramedics resident was found a few blocks from facility, no injuries noted. Resident was agitated . performing 15 minute checks. h. On 9/30/34 at 12:02 AM, Resident continued to attempt to leave numerous times until resident agreed to let the CNAs get him in bed . i. On 10/3/23, Resident continues on one on one supervision for behaviors. Resident restless and impulsive. On 9/29/23, the facility submitted a form 358 to the State Survey Agency, indicating that the resident had eloped at 4:50 PM, and was found outside the facility by a concerned citizen. On 5/8/24 at 10:36 AM, an interview was conducted with the RA. The RA stated that resident 121 had repeatedly removed his wanderguard, and that he had broken at least three. The RA stated that there was not order for resident 121 to have a wanderguard. [Note: No physician's order or assessment for the resident's wanderguard was located in the resident's medical record, even though staff had placed a wanderguard on the resident per documentation in the progress notes.] No information could be located in resident 121's medical record to indicate other interventions the facility had implemented in order to prevent the resident from eloping, after the resident was able to remove his wanderguard. On 5/9/24 at 9:45 AM, an interview was conducted with the facility DON. The DON stated that she remembered that resident 121 had been placed on one on one a few times but was unable to describe other interventions that had been put into place to prevent resident 121 from eloping again. 2. Resident 127 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included heart failure, palliative care, senile degeneration of brain, degenerative disease of nervous system, dementia, major depressive disorder, bipolar, and anxiety. Resident 127's medical record was reviewed from 5/6/24 through 5/9/24. On an annual MDS assessment dated [DATE], staff indicated that resident 127's BIMS was unable to be determined because the resident was severely cognitively impaired. On 10/11/22, a care plan was developed that indicated resident 127 is a wanderer r/t (related to) History of attempts to leave facility unattended, Impaired safety awareness. [Note: The care plan had not been updated since 10/11/22, even though resident 127 had eloped or attempted to elope multiple times after that.] On 2/10/23, resident 127's wander risk assessment indicated that the resident was a high risk to wander, due to poor safety awareness and cognition as well as a history of wandering the facility. The assessment also indicated that the resident was unsafe for independent community visits. Resident 127's progress notes were reviewed and indicated the following: a. On 4/14/23, Pt confused at times. Tries to wander out of building, wander guard on and working . b. On 5/16/23 at 4:05 PM, Res (resident) Was very anxious today and trying to escape. c. On 5/16/23 at 5:00 PM, Res had been trying to leave the building all day. As the day went on he was getting more nervous and agitated. I administered scheduled doses of lorazepam and called Hospice to get PRN lorazepam ordered as well. Offered several different ways to help Rescalm (sic) down in addition to PRN anti-anxiety medications including calling family, watching TV, eating snacks, listening to music, walking with resident. Res had Wander guard on and it was working throughout the day when he would approach a door. Around 1700 (5:00 PM) I moved Res to the dining area so that he could be occupied by eating dinner. I left as the kitchen staff were setting a place for him. not too much longer, around 1730 (5:30 PM) the police arrived the [resident 127] sic saying they had found him around 2700 E. Talking with nursing staff, Wander guard alarm was not heard. Administered additional PRN dose of Ativan and helped res settle in bed. Preformed (sic) skin check and found no new open areas. Advised Nursing staff to keep a very close eye on him andto (sic) monitor if his wander guard is working appropriately next time he gets up. Res was tired and quick to fall to sleep once returning to facility. On the facility submitted a form 359 to the State Survey Agency regarding the incident on 5/16/23. The facility determined that the front doors were malfunctioning [name of company] is repairing and servicing door on 5/24/23. d. On 6/12/23, Pleasant, mostly cooperative. Wander-Guard D/T (due to) exit-seeking behavior during the daytime into the early evening.Resident sleeping restfully at present, but attempted to go out the front door x2 early in the shift, and was stopped by staff and wanderguard device. e. On 7/16/23, Resident is alert and oriented x 1, is able to follow some of simple command (sic) at times, mood is stable, had episode of exit seeking, stopt (sic) by set off alarm of the door by a wander guard which is placed on his ankle, refused to eat breakfast at times, ate lunch and dinner, ate double tray at times. Resident has pain to knees, worse on right knee currently, has difficult time to walk. Staffs (sic) encouraged resident to use w/c (wheelchair) and call for help to assist him to use toilet, but resident is unableto (sic) redirect, had an episode of setting on the floor when was walking self to use toilet noted . f. On 8/17/23, Resident is alert and oriented x 1, is able to follow some of simple command (sic) at times, mood is stable, had episode of exit seeking, stop by set off alarm (sic) of the door by a wander guard which is placed on his ankle . [Note: No physician's order or assessment for the resident's wanderguard was located in the resident's medical record, even though staff had placed a wanderguard on the resident per documentation in the progress notes.] No information could be located in resident 127's medical record to indicate other interventions the facility had implemented in order to prevent the resident from eloping. On 5/9/24 at 9:45 AM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON confirmed that the care plans for residents 121 and 127 had not been developed and/or revised in a timely manner. [Cross refer to F689]
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 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 sampled residents, that the facility did not ensure that eac...

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 sampled residents, that the facility did not ensure that each resident's drug regimen was free from unnecessary drugs. An unnecessary drug was any drug when used in excessive dose; or for excessive duration; or without adequate monitoring; or without adequate indication for its use; or in the presence of adverse consequences which indicated that the dose should be reduced or discontinued. Specifically, a resident's blood pressure (B/P) medication was administered outside of physicians ordered parameters. Resident identifier: 4. Findings include: Resident 4 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included Parkinson's disease with dyskinesia, traumatic subdural hemorrhage, severe protein calorie malnutrition, type II diabetes, dysphagia, chronic kidney disease stage 3, hypothyroidism, gastro-esophageal reflux disease and hypertension. Resident 4's medical record was reviewed on 5/6/24. Review of resident 4's physician orders revealed the following: a. Chlorthalidone Oral Tablet give 12.5 mg (milligrams) by mouth one time a day for HTN (hypertension). Hold for systolic less than 110. b. Amlodipine Besylate Oral tablet 5 MG Give 1 mg by mouth one time a day for hypertension. Hold for systolic less than 110. Review of resident 4's March, April and May 2024 Medication Administration Records (MARs) revealed the following: c. Chlorthalidone 12.5 mg was administered when it should have been held for a blood pressure of 102/65 on 3/17/24. d. Amlodipine 5 mg was administered when it should have been held for a blood pressure of 105/62 on 4/7/24. e. Chlorthalidone 12.5 mg was administered when it should have been held for a blood pressure of 96/68 on 5/5/24. On 5/8/24 at 8:06 AM, an interview was conducted with Registered Nurse (RN) 1. RN 1 stated some residents have blood pressure parameters that the physician has ordered. RN 1 stated the nurses are supposed to check the residents blood pressure to make sure it is at an ok level before administering their blood pressure medications so their blood pressure does not drop too low. On 5/9/24 at 9:26 AM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated the facility did have blood pressure parameters that were ordered by the physician and the nurses were expected to follow those parameters when administering medications. If the blood pressure was under the parameter the nurses were expected to hold the medication, make the physician aware and await further orders. The DON stated there are parameters in place to keep the residents safe.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation and interview, the facility did not label all drugs and biologicals used in the facility in accordance with currently accepted professional principles and included appropriate acc...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interview, the facility did not label all drugs and biologicals used in the facility in accordance with currently accepted professional principles and included appropriate accessory instructions and the expiration date when applicable. Specifically, narcotics were repackaged into the narcotic medication cards. Findings include: On 5/8/24 at 8:35 AM, an observation was made of the facility medication cart for the Quail hallway serving rooms 31 - 42. The following medication was located inside: a. A medication card which held Tramadol 50 mg (milligrams) had the back of pockets numbered 10 and 20 taped, there was a white tablet observed to be in each of the pockets. On 5/8/24 at 8:45 AM, an interview was conducted with Registered Nurse (RN) 2. RN 2 stated that 2 nurses are supposed to waste narcotics, and they are usually placed in the sharps container then both nurses sign the narcotic book. RN 2 stated the narcotics are not supposed to be taped back into the narcotic card. On 5/9/24 at 9:17 AM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated the nurses are expected to waste narcotics with another nurse and sign it as completed in the narcotic book. The DON stated the nurses are not supposed to re-tape any medication back into the medication cards as this could increase the chance of infection and the wrong medication being placed in the medication card.
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

Transfer Notice (Tag F0623)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

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

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 sampled residents, that the facility did not notify a representative of the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman of the transfer or discharge and the reasons for the move in writing. Specifically, when a resident was discharged to the hospital, the Ombudsman was not notified. Resident identifier: 21. Findings include: Resident 21 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included peripheral vascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary failure, type 2 diabetes mellitus with diabetic neuropathy, left and right leg above knee amputation, adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood, and hypertension. Resident 21's medical record was reviewed on 5/6/24 through 5/9/24. The medical record revealed resident 21 was discharged to the hospital for a change in condition on 2/18/24. Resident 21 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE]. A Hospital Progress Note dated 2/18/24 at 10:07 AM, indicated resident was admitted for Acute Hypoxic Respiratory Failure. On 5/8/24 at 2:31 PM, an interview was conducted with the Resident Advocate (RA). The RA stated that the facility did not notify the Ombudsman when resident 21 was admitted to the hospital in February. The RA further stated that she was not aware that she needed to inform the Ombudsman when a resident was transferred to the hospital or discharged from the facility, and had not been doing so.
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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

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 ensure that 4 of 38 sample residents were provided adequate supervisi...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility did not ensure that 4 of 38 sample residents were provided adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents. Specifically, residents had a wanderguard placed without a physician order or assessment. In addition, residents were able to elope from the facility multiple times without additional interventions put into place. Resident identifiers: 120, 121, 125, and 127. Findings include: 1. Resident 120 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included traumatic brain injury, memory deficit, schizophrenia, psychosis, Addison's disease, and diabetes mellitus. Resident 120's medical record was reviewed from 5/6/24 through 5/9/24. On 10/6/24, resident 120's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) on the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment was an 8, indicating moderate cognitive impairment. Resident 120's care plan was reviewed. A care plan dated 10/7/23 indicated that the resident was at risk for impaired safety related to Wandering. HE HAS IMPAIRED INSIGHT. A Wandering Risk Scale quarterly assessment for resident 120 was completed on 10/6/23. The assessment indicated that resident 120 could not follow instructions, and was at a high risk to wander. Resident 120's progress notes were reviewed and revealed the following: a. On 10/29/23, pt (patient) agitated. wanted wander guard off, says he was told he only had to wear it for a couple of days. arguing with staff. Quieter after meds (medications) taken and pt had a slice of pizza. b. On 11/1/23 at 12:26 AM, At change of shift (approx (approximately) [6:00 PM]) nurses informed Resident was outside (wanderguard removed by resident) and attempting to climb over fence in rear of the premises. CNA (Certified Nursing Assistant) had also informed ADON (Assistant Director of Nursing) who contacted Nurse while he was responding to the situation. Nurse and Guardian . spoke with Resident at length, attempting to convince him to come inside. Resident told Guardian he might rather be injail (sic) . However, he decided to return inside with staff. PRN (as needed) Ativan prepared, but Resident did not want to accept shot. c. On 11/1/23 at 6:50 AM, At approximately [5:40 AM] Resident was noted missing. He was last seen just before that time. Nurse organized a search, both inside and outside the building. On search, noted that part of the rear fence was broken out. [Note: No physician's order or assessment for the resident's wanderguard was located in the resident's medical record, even though staff had placed a wanderguard on the resident per documentation in the progress notes.] On 5/9/24 at 9:45 AM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated that resident 120 had a wanderguard placed but he took it off repeatedly. The DON stated that resident 120 was delusional about the reasons a wanderguard had been placed on him. The DON stated that she was unsure if there was a specific wanderguard assessment, and that there should be a physician's order for a wanderguard to be placed on a resident. The DON stated that resident 120's guardian wanted the wanderguard placed, so facility staff followed the guardian's wishes. The DON stated that after the first time resident 120 left the facility, she was unsure if the wanderguard was placed on the resident again. The DON stated that after the resident left the faciity on [DATE] the second time, he was later located and taken to a different facility. The DON stated that if a resident repeatedly removed their wanderguard, staff would try a different intervention to ensure a resident's safety, however she was unsure if any other interventions were attempted for resident 120. The DON confirmed that resident 120 was on a one to one status with facility staff when he eloped from the facility on 11/1/23. The DON stated that on 11/1/23, the staff member, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 1 left resident 120 to walk into the kitchen but came right back and the resident was gone. On 5/9/24 at 11:55 AM, an interview was conducted with CNA 1. CNA 1 stated that on 11/1/23 he was supposed to be with resident 120 on a one on one basis. CNA 1 stated that he entered the kitchen to get some ice water for another resident, closed the door, and left resident 120 by the door of the kitchen. CNA 1 stated that resident 120 was supposed to be standing next to the door of the kitchen. CNA 1 stated that when he opened the kitchen door to exit the kitchen, resident 120 was gone. CNA 1 stated that he had only closed the door for like 8 seconds. CNA 1 stated that resident 120's wanderguard was on at the time the resident eloped, because they had put it on because he kept trying to escape. CNA 1 stated that resident 120 had removed the wanderguard two or three times prior to 11/1/23. On 11/1/23, the facility submitted a form 358 to the State Survey Agency (SSA). The form documented that on 11/1/23 at 5:45 AM, a facility nurse went to check on resident 120 and was unable to locate him. On 11/2/2023 at 1:35 PM, a phone call was placed to the facility. A conversation was completed with the Resident Advocate (RA). The RA confirmed the Resident had not returned to the building but stated that they had received a phone call from him this morning requesting a ride back to the facility from the homeless shelter. When facility staff arrived at the shelter, the resident was gone. The facility gave the shelter and the police their contact information in case he returned so they could take him back to the facility. The RA stated that due to the Resident's health history, he was placed under guardianship. The RA stated that when the Resident was admitted , he did not want to stay. The RA stated the resident was doing well until his roommate had to go to the hospital. The facility staff and his guardian feel this triggered the resident and made him want to leave. The Resident was assessed as needing a wander guard upon admission but did not want to wear it and had taken it off multiple times and liked to trigger the door alarms. The RA confirmed the Resident did not have a wander guard in place when he eloped on 11/1/2023 because he took it off. The RA stated the guardian stated it was not uncommon for the resident to leave a facility, and he had a history of doing this but always showed back up. The RA stated that approximately three minutes before the resident eloped, an aide was with him walking the building because he was having trouble sleeping. The aide left the resident to get ice for another resident, and when he returned, the resident was gone. The RA stated staff immediately called administration and the police, who all began searching for the Resident. 2. Resident 121 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included traumatic brain injury, vascular dementia, traumatic brain hemorrhage, cognitive communication deficit, and anxiety disorder. Resident 121's medical record was reviewed from 5/6/24 through 5/9/24. On 9/11/23, resident resident 121's BIMS on the admission MDS assessment was an 8, indicating moderate cognitive impairment. The MDS also indicated the the resident had wandered 1 to 3 days in the look back period. The MDS triggered behaviors on the Care Area Assessment Summary, however no wandering care plan was developed until 9/29/23. It should be noted that this was after the resident had eloped multiple times. Resident 121's care plan was reviewed. A care plan dated 9/29/23 indicated that the resident was an elopement risk/wanderer that eloped on 9/29/23 r/t (related to) Impaired safety awareness, Resident wanders aimlessly, resident wanting to just get out of here. A Wandering Risk Scale quarterly assessment for resident 121 was completed on 9/4/23. The assessment indicated that resident 121 was at a low risk to wander. Resident 121's progress notes were reviewed and revealed the following: a. On 9/10/23, Very restless and agitated today. Redirected and reoriented frequently paranoid. Exited facility 2 times today and brought back. The nurses note did not give additional details about the 2 elopements from the facility that were referenced. b. On 9/23/23 at 8:52 AM, Very agitated and restless difficult to redirect. Attempting to walk to road. c. On 9/23/23 at 2:58 PM, LCSW (Licensed Clinical Social Worker) provided emotional support. He was tearful . reports feelings of uncertainty with not being able to leave the building. d. On 9/23/23 at 2:58 PM, Continues to wander. e. On 9/23/23 at 4:19 PM, Displays paranoia startles easily. Becomes agitated when people invade his personal space. f. On 9/23/23 at 10:18 PM, Resident continued agitated and exit-seeking behavior. This Nurse needed to run out to stop Resident from either trying to get on bus at bus stop in front of facility, and then to stop him from heading east on sidewalk, on two separate incidents. Resident has been checked on frequently by Nurse and by CNA staff. Staff acted to dissuade him from entering Lobby or trying to leave building via front door. Resident set off alarms at more than one of the other doors, [NAME] on bar but not know the code. g. On 9/29/23 at 7:39 PM, At [5:15 PM] resident was not in his room to receive his dinner. floor nurse and CNA's, initiated Building check. Resident was last seen at [4:45 PM] by the lobby. Resident was not located after the building wide check.Floor nurse received call at [5:45 PM] from paramedics resident was found a few blocks from facility, no injuries noted. Resident was agitated . performing 15 minute checks. h. On 9/30/34 at 12:02 AM, Resident continued to attempt to leave numerous times until resident agreed to let the CNAs get him in bed . i. On 10/3/23, Resident continues on one on one supervision for behaviors. Resident restless and impulsive. On 9/29/23, the facility submitted a form 358 to the State Survey Agency, indicating that the resident had eloped at 4:50 PM, and was found outside the facility by a concerned citizen. On 5/8/24 at 10:36 AM, an interview was conducted with the RA. The RA stated that resident 121 had repeatedly removed his wanderguard, and that he had broken at least three. The RA stated that there was not order for resident 121 to have a wanderguard. [Note: No physician's order or assessment for the resident's wanderguard was located in the resident's medical record, even though staff had placed a wanderguard on the resident per documentation in the progress notes.] No information could be located in resident 121's medical record to indicate other interventions the facility had implemented in order to prevent the resident from eloping, after the resident was able to remove his wanderguard. On 5/9/24 at 9:45 AM, an interview was conducted with the facility DON. The DON stated that she remembered that resident 121 had been placed on one on one a few times but was unable to describe other interventions that had been put into place to prevent resident 121 from eloping again. 3. Resident 125 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included schizoaffective disorder, delusional disorder, pneumonia, severe protein calorie malnutrition, psychoactive substance abuse, and altered mental status. Resident 125's medical record was reviewed from 5/6/24 through 5/9/24. An MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident had a BIMS of 9, indicating moderate cognitive impairment. On 5/27/23, a wander risk assessment for resident 125 indicated that she was a low wander risk. On 5/28/23, a care plan was developed for resident 125 indicating that she was at risk for impaired safety related to Wandering. On 6/5/23, a wander risk assessment for resident 125 indicated that she was a high wander risk. Resident 125's progress notes were reviewed and revealed the following: a. On 5/31/23, resident 125 later escorted back into Mt. Olympus by [name of local transport company] guard, pt had gotten on the bus wanting to get to Seattle. Pt room close to nurse station, staff monitoring pt as closely as possible. b. On 6/12/23 at 11:48 PM, Staff discovered Resident absent from the facility. The lat apparent time that she was seen was approximately an hour ago. Another Resident reported to staff that he had seen her crossing the street to bus stop. c. On 6/13/23, the resident returned from the hospital, and Wanderguard placed on right ankle and working . d. On 7/2/23, Day nurse (2 July 2023) reported Resident had removed wanderguard at some point. Resident has awakened and left her room from time to time, and staff are being watchful for attempts to leave. [Note: No physician's order or assessment for the resident's wanderguard was located in the resident's medical record, even though staff had placed a wanderguard on the resident per documentation in the progress notes.] No information could be located in resident 125's medical record to indicate other interventions the facility had implemented in order to prevent the resident from eloping, after the resident was able to remove her wanderguard. 4. Resident 127 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included heart failure, palliative care, senile degeneration of brain, degenerative disease of nervous system, dementia, major depressive disorder, bipolar, and anxiety. Resident 127's medical record was reviewed from 5/6/24 through 5/9/24. On an annual MDS assessment dated [DATE], staff indicated that resident 127's BIMS was unable to be determined because the resident was severely cognitively impaired. On 10/11/22, a care plan was developed that indicated resident 127 is a wanderer r/t (related to) History of attempts to leave facility unattended, Impaired safety awareness. [Note: The care plan had not been updated since 10/11/22, even though resident 127 had eloped or attempted to elope multiple times after that.] On 2/10/23, resident 127's wander risk assessment indicated that the resident was a high risk to wander, due to poor safety awareness and cognition as well as a history of wandering the facility. The assessment also indicated that the resident was unsafe for independent community visits. Resident 127's progress notes were reviewed and indicated the following: a. On 4/14/23, Pt confused at times. Tries to wander out of building, wander guard on and working . b. On 5/16/23 at 4:05 PM, Res (resident) Was very anxious today and trying to escape. c. On 5/16/23 at 5:00 PM, Res had been trying to leave the building all day. As the day went on he was getting more nervous and agitated. I administered scheduled doses of lorazepam and called Hospice to get PRN lorazepam ordered as well. Offered several different ways to help Rescalm (sic) down in addition to PRN anti-anxiety medications including calling family, watching TV, eating snacks, listening to music, walking with resident. Res had Wander guard on and it was working throughout the day when he would approach a door. Around 1700 (5:00 PM) I moved Res to the dining area so that he could be occupied by eating dinner. I left as the kitchen staff were setting a place for him. not too much longer, around 1730 (5:30 PM) the police arrived the [resident 127] sic saying they had found him around 2700 E. Talking with nursing staff, Wander guard alarm was not heard. Administered additional PRN dose of Ativan and helped res settle in bed. Preformed (sic) skin check and found no new open areas. Advised Nursing staff to keep a very close eye on him andto (sic) monitor if his wander guard is working appropriately next time he gets up. Res was tired and quick to fall to sleep once returning to facility. On the facility submitted a form 359 to the State Survey Agency regarding the incident on 5/16/23. The facility determined that the front doors were malfunctioning [name of company] is repairing and servicing door on 5/24/23. d. On 6/12/23, Pleasant, mostly cooperative. Wander-Guard D/T (due to) exit-seeking behavior during the daytime into the early evening.Resident sleeping restfully at present, but attempted to go out the front door x2 early in the shift, and was stopped by staff and wanderguard device. e. On 7/16/23, Resident is alert and oriented x 1, is able to follow some of simple command (sic) at times, mood is stable, had episode of exit seeking, stopt (sic) by set off alarm of the door by a wander guard which is placed on his ankle, refused to eat breakfast at times, ate lunch and dinner, ate double tray at times. Resident has pain to knees, worse on right knee currently, has difficult time to walk. Staffs (sic) encouraged resident to use w/c (wheelchair) and call for help to assist him to use toilet, but resident is unableto (sic) redirect, had an episode of setting on the floor when was walking self to use toilet noted . f. On 8/17/23, Resident is alert and oriented x 1, is able to follow some of simple command (sic) at times, mood is stable, had episode of exit seeking, stop by set off alarm (sic) of the door by a wander guard which is placed on his ankle . [Note: No physician's order or assessment for the resident's wanderguard was located in the resident's medical record, even though staff had placed a wanderguard on the resident per documentation in the progress notes.] No information could be located in resident 127's medical record to indicate other interventions the facility had implemented in order to prevent the resident from eloping. [Cross refer to F657]
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

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

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interview it was determined, the facility did not establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections. Specifically, for 1 out of 38 sampled residents, a staff member was observed to touch a resident medications with bare hands with each medication administration. Also medications were dropped on and in the medication cart and then administered to the residents Findings include: On 5/8/24 at 8:20 AM, during morning medication pass the following was observed: a. At 8:32 AM Registered Nurse (RN) 2 was observed to not use hand hygiene prior to starting medication pass. RN 2 was observed to use her right index finger to retrieve a medication placed in the medication cup in error. After RN 2 had stuck her finger into the cup she was observed to then remove her finger and obtain a spoon to retrieve the medication from the cup. RN 2's finger was observed to have already touched the medications and sides of the medication cup. b. At 8:36 AM RN 2 was observed to obtain a tablet from a bottle with her bare fingers and place the tablet on the pill cutter. RN 2 was observed to cut the medication, pick up half of the tablet with bare fingers and place the half tablet into the medication cup. The medication cup was then administered to a resident. On 5/8/24 at 8:40 AM, an interview was conducted with RN 2. RN 2 stated hand hygiene was done when passing medications and medications were not supposed to be touched with bare hands to keep them clean for the residents. On 5/9/24 at 9:17 AM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated the nurses are expected to use hand hygiene when administering medications. The DON stated the nurses are not supposed to touch the medications, and if they do they are expected to start the medication pass over for that resident. The DON stated medication pass education needed to be completed.
Feb 2023 25 deficiencies 1 IJ (1 affecting multiple)
CRITICAL (K)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Someone could have died · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** HARM 9. Resident 47 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included but not limited to spina bifida, type tw...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** HARM 9. Resident 47 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included but not limited to spina bifida, type two diabetes mellitus with hyperglycemia, muscle weakness, bladder disorder, anxiety disorder, chronic pain, essential hypertension and a colostomy. On 2/6/23 at 12:31 PM, an interview was conducted with resident 47. Resident 47 stated he fell from his wheel chair onto his buttocks when he was transported to this doctor's appointment. Resident 47 stated he fell in the van right before his doctor's appointment. Resident 47 stated it happened because his seat belt was not secured properly. Resident 47 stated he had a new driver that day and they were aware on how to secure his wheelchair in the van and tighten his seat belt. Resident 47 stated that on his way to the appointment, he kept slipping out of his wheelchair every time the driver had to brake. Resident 47 stated when they made it to his doctor's appointment, he fell out of his wheelchair and had to have paramedics lift him back into it. Resident 47 stated he received a skin tear on his buttocks from the fall. Resident 47 stated the transport driver only notified the transport company about his fall and did not notify facility staff about the fall. Resident 47 stated he had to tell his nurse what happened to him. Resident 47's medical record was reviewed on 2/7/23 A Quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] documented resident 47 was total 2 person physical assist for transfers and bed mobility. Nursing progress notes documented the following: a. Nursing note on 1/24/23 documented that resident 47 was a total dependent 2 person assist with mechanical life transfer and was an extensive 1 person assist with all other activities of daily living (ADLs). b. Nursing note on 2/1/23 stated, Resident states that he was sitting in the van in his wheelchair and the driver pushed on her brakes and he slid out of his chair onto the van floor. Therapist at appointment tried to help him up and ended up having to call EMS [Emergency Medical Services] to get him up and in his chair. He states that he did not hit his head. The transportation company was called and waiting for driver to call and give us report on the fall and what had happened. This was not reported to the facility when he was transported back after appt [appointment]. Resident is the one that told staff he had a fall. Skin check complete. Resident stated that he feel [sic] on his buttocks. Increased blood on bandages from wound. Wound nurse was notified and talked with resident. He denies increased generalized pain. No areas of concerns on complete skin check. Will continue to monitor for bruising or increased pain. Full body assessment completed with no areas of concerns. No abrasions, redness, bruising and/or new open areas noted on assessment. He denies pain at the time of assessment. ROM [range of motion] is baseline for him. Frequent checks initiated. Increased monitoring for 72 hours initiated. Frequent checks and rounds to ensure resident is getting his needs met. MD/NP [medical doctor/nurse practitioner] notified and DON. Resident states that he does not want a phone call to his emergency contact. He states that he will notify her at his convenience. Transportation company called to get statement from driver. [Name of hospital omitted] called to see if they were aware of the fall and did not report. Called and messages left. We will continue to follow up. c. Nursing note on 2/2/23 stated, Fall increased tissue damage to wound on buttocks. Increased size of wound, very red and swollen with new areas of open skin. Wound nurse was notified to ensure proper orders are in place. Will get proper measurements when able to assess. Increased pain to site. PRN [as needed] oxycodone 5mg [milligrams] Q4 hours given with good result. Wound care completed new dressing in place. d. Nursing note on 2/3/23 stated, Transportation company called to get statement from the staff member on the event from 2/1/23 when [resident 47's name omitted] fell from wheelchair due to not being properly strapped in the transportation vehicle. Transportation company states they will have a statement from driver faxed to the facility. Requested that the company also send us proper education with the driver to ensure residents are always properly secured in the vehicle during transport. No incident report regarding resident 47's fall during transport was located. On 2/7/23 at 12:43 PM, an interview was conducted with the Wound Care Nurse (WCN). The WCN stated resident 47's buttocks wound was assessed at the clinic right after he had fallen. The WCN stated that resident 47 had not allowed her to check his wounds when he arrived to the facility after the fall. The WCN stated she assessed his wounds yesterday and they looked better than what was described to her. The WCN stated resident 47 skin was very fragile and due to the trauma of the fall, resident 47 developed a skin tear on his left thigh and buttocks. On 2/8/23 at 1:05 PM, an interview was conducted with the Transportation Driver (TD). The TD stated he was not the driver that day but knew what had happened. The TD stated the driver had noticed that resident 47 had the hoyer sheet underneath and believed that was what made resident slide off of his wheelchair and fall. The TD stated resident 47 was not strong enough to hold himself onto the chair with the hoyer sheet underneath him. The TD stated the facility had forgotten to remove the hoyer sheet from underneath resident 47. The TD stated the facility either applied something in between the hoyer sheet and the wheel chair to provide more traction for the resident or removed the hoyer sheet from underneath the resident. The TD stated that resident 47 slid down his wheelchair with every bump and stop made along the way to his doctor's appointment. The TD stated that resident 47's driver had asked him if he wanted to stop along the way to be repositioned but resident 47 insisted, they continued to drive straight there. The TD stated when the driver arrived to the clinic, they noticed resident 47 was barely holding on to his wheelchair and attempted to reposition him but was unable to. The TD stated they had four buckles that were attached to wheelchair and one buckle that goes across the resident's waist when they were secured in the transportation van. The TD stated resident 47 had all the seat belts secured but he slid off. The TD stated that the waist was not able to be tightened. The TD stated the waist seat belt needed to go in between the wheelchair armrest and with resident 47 there was a gap in between the seat belt and the resident 47's waist. The TD stated the waist seat belt was secured above the armrest and not in between them. The TD stated that was why resident 47 fell out of his wheelchair. The TD stated resident 47 slide out of his chair when his waist seat belt was unbuckled. The TD stated the driver had to unbuckle resident 47 because he was no longer seated upright in the wheelchair and the choking risk the seatbelt presented to resident 47. The TD stated the driver had to call additional people to help put resident 47 back on his wheelchair after he fell on the floor. The TD stated the driver was not aware it was unsafe to transport a resident with just a hoyer sheet on the wheelchair because of the potential sliding hazard it presented to the resident. The TD stated staff should have communicated with the driver to have prevented the incident with resident 47. The TD stated the driver's responsibility was to drive resident 47 to his appointment. The TD stated the facility was responsible for the resident's safety. The TD stated the facility had not kept resident 47 safe since they had not applied a cushion in between the hoyer sheet and the wheel chair. The TD stated that resident 47 scratched his bed sore due to the fall and caused him to bleed. The TD stated he was unsure if the driver had told the facility nurse about resident 47 incident when they arrived back to the facility. On 2/8/23 at 2:52 PM, an interview was conducted with Registered Nurse (RN) 1. RN 1 stated usually the person who had done the transport found the nurse and gave them a packet and reported if anything happened. RN 1 stated that day, the transporter just dropped resident 47 off in his room and had not told staff about what had occurred. RN 1 stated that resident 47 was the one to tell her of his fall. RN 1 stated once she found out, she tried to call the transportation company to obtain a statement from them of what happened to resident 47. RN 1 stated she wanted to make sure the transportation company provided education to their employees so residents were safe for future transports. RN 1 stated that they had used an outside transportation company for resident 47 that day since they were unable to use their own transportation staff member. RN 1 stated that resident 47 obtained a new skin tear from his fall. RN 1 stated when they assessed his buttocks wounds, they had increased bleeding but resident 47 denied any increased pain. RN 1 stated they offered resident 47 pain medications but stated he did not take any. On 2/13/23 at 2:16 PM, an interview was conducted with the ADM and the DON. The ADM and DON stated they were aware that resident 47 had fallen during his transport a couple of weeks ago. The ADM and DON stated they had called the transportation company to provide them education on patient safety throughout the transport process but stated they had not heard anything back from the transportation company. The DON stated they had not done an incident report since resident 47 had not fallen in the facility. The DON stated the transport company needed to do an incident report since the fall happened during the transport. 7. Resident 231 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included sepsis, gangrene, non-pressure chronic ulcer of foot with necrosis, acquired absence of foot right and left, paranoid schizophrenia, anxiety disorder, stimulant abuse, homelessness, protein-calorie malnutrition, alcohol abuse, tobacco use, and major depressive disorder. A Smokerlist [sic] was provided by the facility. Resident 231 was on the list. On 2/8/23 resident 231 refused to be interviewed. Resident 231's medical record was reviewed. An MDS admission assessment dated [DATE] revealed that resident 231 had a BIMS score of 15, which would indicate that the resident was cognitively intact. The assessment also revealed that resident 231 required one person physical assistance when moving to and returning from off-unit locations. A smoking safety evaluation dated 1/28/23 revealed that resident 231 demonstrated one or more of the following cognitive impairments: Poor safety awareness impaired short-term memory, impulsiveness. The evaluation scoring section documented that resident 231 may smoke independently. The evaluation was incomplete and did not confirm that resident 231 had been deemed independent with smoking or safely have smoking paraphernalia on person. Additional documentation stated, Pt unable to care for herself properly prior to admission-infection of post metatarsal amputation bilateral feet. Needs further eval [evaluation] concerning smoking at this time. Resident 231's care plan dated 2/6/23, revealed that [resident's name] uses tobacco smokes: cigarettes. Interventions included: a. Instruct resident about smoking risks and hazards and about smoking cessation aids that are available. b. Notify charge nurse immediately if it is suspected resident has violated smoking policy. c. The resident can smoke UNSUPERVISED. Resident 231 had an updated smoking assessment completed on 2/10/23. The assessment included Resident demonstrates one or more of the following cognitive impairments: Poor safety awareness, impaired short-term memory, and impulsiveness. Also included was Resident has a history of unsafe smoking practices. The evaluation scoring was marked as Resident is unable to smoke independently. Resident requires supervision while smoking. Care plan required. Review for need of behavioral program. Completion of Risk vs. Benefits needed. Provide and document education for identified safety needs. The resident was then evaluated as resident has been deemed independent with smoking and can safely have smoking paraphernalia on person. Additional documentation included, Patient has paranoid schizophrenia with impulsiveness. On assessment patient demonstrates safe smoking practices and the ability to follow smoking rules and be an independent smoker. On 2/8/23 at 2:22 PM, an interview was conducted with Registered Nurse (RN) 3. RN 3 stated when he conducted an admission assessment, he used the standard admission documents to assess a resident. RN 3 stated he did the smoking evaluation and if the resident was a smoker, he would pull up a pre-populated form and ask the residents questions. RN 3 stated based on that smoking assessment, interventions would be added for how the resident could smoke safely or not smoke. RN 3 stated if the assessment, which was based on a point system, had anything above a zero score, the resident required assistance to smoke. RN 3 stated things that would indicate the need for supervision included impaired orientation, neuropathy, cognitive impairment, short term memory loss, and non-compliance. On 2/8/23 at 3:53 PM, an interview was conducted with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 3. LPN 3 stated resident 231 had smoking materials at the nurse's station. LPN 3 stated resident 231 could get cigarettes from other people and she thinks they do that quite a bit. LPN 3 stated staff took residents out sometimes so they could watch residents. LPN 3 stated any staff member could go out with residents to smoke. LPN 3 stated the residents know if they need help, they will ask to go out and smoke. Residents ask all day long if they can go out. LPN 3 stated if she was unable to go out with a resident or it was not a smoking time the resident will have to wait. Regarding how staff knew which resident's needed assistance while smoking, LPN 3 stated the residents know if they need help. On 2/11/23 at 3:48 PM, an interview was conducted with LPN 2. LPN 2 stated a binder had been placed at every nurse's station. LPN 2 stated the residents information in the binder was for residents who were not independent smokers. LPN 2 stated smoking times smoking times remained at 9, 1, 4 and 8. On 2/11/23 at 3:56 PM, an observation was made at the doorway leading to the smoking area. New signage had been posted stated No oxygen outside in smoking area. Another sign stated Do not assist any smokers unless the nurse is notified first. On 2/13/22 at 8:32 AM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated she was unaware that resident 231 had a history of unsafe smoking practices. The DON stated if something specific was noted, it could be added to the resident's care plan. The DON stated she would find out who completed resident 231's most current smoking evaluation and clarify the documentation, but the information was never provided. 8. Resident 77 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included but not limited to aftercare following joint replacement surgery, unspecified fracture of right femur, age-related osteoporosis with current pathological fracture, presence of right artificial hip joint, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, difficulty in walking, muscle weakness and history of falling. On 2/8/23 at 2:35 PM, an interview was conducted with resident 77. Resident 77 stated since he had been here, he had only smoked twice. Resident 77 stated the he had not smoked because of his throat problems. Resident 77 stated he has tried to quit smoking for 35 years. Resident 77 stated he kept his smoking supplies with him and had a couple of cigarettes in his pocket. Resident 77 stated staff only helped him light his cigarettes. Resident 77 stated when he did smoke, he turned his oxygen off and stated that the designated smoking times did not apply to him. Resident 77 stated this was a rehab and not a jail and he did not want to be controlled. Resident 77 stated a lot of residents were going to be pissed off if the smoking policy was changed. A Smokerlist [sic] was provided by the facility. Resident 77 was on the list. Resident 77's medical records were reviewed on 2/22/23 A smoking care plan was not located for resident 77. An admission MDS assessment dated [DATE] documented that resident 77 was a one person limited assist. A smoking safety evaluation dated 2/1/23 documented resident 77 as a smoker and had scored a 0 which deemed he was safe to smoke independently. The smoking safety evaluation stated that resident 77 was safe to smoke unsupervised and was allowed to keep his smoking paraphernalia with him. An updated smoking safety evaluation dated 2/9/23 documented resident 77 needed assistance coming in and out of the building for smoking with staff assistance. In the smoking safety assessment section documented that resident 77 had a diagnosis of neuropathy or other neurological impairment. That documented diagnosis gave resident 77 a score of 1 point. The evaluation section which added up the scoring documented that resident 77 had scored 0 points which stated a resident can smoke independently. On 2/9/23 at 8:47 AM, an interview was conducted with CNA 5. CNA 5 stated that resident 77 required stand by or limited assistance depending on his strength when he walked. CNA 5 stated they had to watch resident 77 transfer because he was shaky at times. CNA 5 stated they were not aware that resident 77 was a smoker. A form titled Assisted Smoking Times: was observed throughout the facility and was provided upon entrance. The times were listed as 9:00 AM, 1300 with hand written 1:00 PM, 1600 with hand written 4:00 PM, and 2000 with hand written 9:00 PM. It should be noted that 2000 was 8:00 PM. The facility Policy/Procedure - Nursing Administration for smoking adopted 10/2017 revealed the following: Purpose: To provide a safe and healthy living environment with respect for the health and well-being needs of each resident, staff member and visitor. It is also the objective of this policy to communicate to each resident/POA (Power of Attorney) that they are responsible for following each rule and on-going compliance with the Resident Smoking Policy. Policy: It is the policy of this facility to ensure smoking policies and procedures have not been established to restrict any residents' right to smoke. Our policies have been developed as a matter of health and safety to all our residents, staff and visitors. All smoking will occur in a designated smoking area at designated times. All resident who desire to smoke will be evaluated to see if they can do so safely. A Smoking Behavior Contract must be completed, signed and followed by each resident/POA who smokes. Noncompliance with the Smoking Behavior Contract and this Resident Smoking Policy will be taken seriously with appropriate facility response to violation of this policy up to including involuntary discharge of the individual violating the terms and conditions of the Resident Smoking Policy and Smoking Behavior Contract. Notice of Smoking Policy 1. At the time of admission each resident and legal representative shall be informed of and receive a written copy of the facility's Resident Smoking Policy. 2. Each resident who desires to smoke shall receive and have explained the Smoking Behavior Contract. The resident/POA is required to complete, sign and follow the Smoking Behavior Contract. Smoking safety - Resident Assessment 1. Resident who desire to smoke will be assessed using a smoking risk assessment (see separate document) for their ability to smoke safely at the time of admission, quarterly and at the time any condition or behavioral change impacts their ability to smoke safely. 2. The smoking risk assessment score serves as guideline to the interdisciplinary team who are responsible for using this information, as well as other information, to make a recommendation regarding the amount of assistance that a resident requires to smoke safely. A plan of care shall be developed consistent with the resident's smoking risk assessment. 3. Residents who are determined by the interdisciplinary team as safe for independent smoking will request smoking materials when desiring to smoke and are required to return them upon completion of the smoking session. Residents assessed as independent smokers may only smoke in designated smoking areas when choosing to smoke on facility premises. 4. Residents who are determined by the interdisciplinary team as needing supervision will be within eyesight of facility staff, family, or other resident representative during the time of the smoking session. 5. Residents who are determined by the interdisciplinary team as needing assistance with smoking will receive assistance from facility staff, family or other resident representative. Smoking Safety - General Guidelines 1. Smoking is only allowed in designated area(s) established by management. The facility's designated smoking area is: ___________________________________. 2. The designated smoking area shall be maintained with appropriate safety devices including, but no limited to, available smoking aprons, extinguishing blanket or fire extinguisher, and ashtrays made of noncombustible material and safe design. Metal containers with self-closing covers into which ashtrays can be emptied shall be readily available. 3. Oxygen use is prohibited in smoking areas for the safety of all parties at smoking times. No resident may smoke near/around oxygen. 4. Smoking for residents assessed as unsafe for independent smoking is only allowed during designated times in the designated smoking area(s). The facility's designated smoking times shall be posted in public view. Residents will be informed of any changes in regularly scheduled smoking times through the Resident Council. 5. Residents assessed as independent smokers may only smoke in designated smoking area(s) when choosing to smoke on facility premises. 6. Residents assessed as independent smokers, who choose to leave the facility premises to smoke, must sign themselves out. 7. Facility staff will be present in the designated smoking area during designated smoking times to supervise and assist those residents requiring this according to their plan of care. 8. Facility staff is prohibited from smoking when assigned to be present for a designated smoking time for the residents. 9. Reasonable accommodations for residents who wish to smoke and who require supervision and/or assistance will be made based on available resources and, in no case, will resident care be jeopardized in order to provide supervised smoking. 10. Residents who desire to smoke may not keep smoking related materials (i.e., cigarettes, cigars, pipes, tobacco, lighter, lighter fluid, matches, etc) in their possession. Smoking materials must be given to the nurse for safekeeping and stored by staff at the time of admission, when purchased by the resident, and/or received from family or other visitors. 11. Residents should not give away, sell, share or trade smoking materials due to resident safety concerns. 12. 13. The facility staff has the right to temporarily suspend all residents' smoking privileges if there are unsafe weather conditions. 14 . Smoking Safety - Resident Noncompliance/Unsafe Conditions Individuals who are noncompliant, potentially dangerous, exercise poor judgement and show a lack of concern for the welfare of others will be counseled according to the Smoking Behavior Contract. Smoking privileges will be suspended or revoked if there is a pattern of persistent, hazardous behavior. The following behaviors and/or conditions may restrict, suspend, cause revocation of resident's smoking privileges (1st and 2nd offenses) and/or results in an Involuntary discharge: 1. Smoking in an non-designated area, such as resident rooms, bathrooms, hallways, elevators, stairways and/or smoke-free courtyard. 2. Cognitive impairment, poor judgement, compromised manual dexterity and/or mobility. 3. Self-harmful behaviors, such as burning clothing, hands, fingers, face or lips. This category including residents who are generally 'careless' while smoking and may present a significant risk of fire setting. If needed, a risk vs. benefits will be done. 4. Short attention span, poor safety awareness, wandering/pacing and becoming easily distracted making smoking dangerous for the individual and those are him/her. 5. Inconsiderate behaviors such as not respecting the right of others while smoking. 6. Engaging in any type of trading/bartering/begging/panhandling or other behaviors deemed unsafe by facility staff. Consequences/ corrective action for noncompliance and/or unsafe conditions: 1. Residents/POA will be instructed and educated in regards to the facility Resident Smoking Policy via the Smoking Behavior Contract. 2. Incidents of noncompliance will follow the Smoking Behavior contract (see separate document). 3. Behavior determined to be potentially harmful may jeopardize the person's ability to remain in health care facility. The facilty may exercise its right to involuntarily discharge such individuals. 4. The facility recognizes the potential harm that may result from careless, hazardous smoking and has implemented this policy to maintain a safe living environment. Violation of this policy will be taken seriously and appropriate action will be forthcoming from facility management. Smoking Safety - Periodic checks for smoking articles 1. The facility shall have the authority to make periodic checks to determine if residents who smoke have any smoking articles that are in violation of the Resident Smoking Policy. 2. Articles found should be given to the on-duty nurse who in turn will store them for the resident and shall make appropriate documentation in the resident's medical record of such articles found. Based on observation, interview, and record review it was determined, for 9 out of 41 sampled residents, that the facility failed to ensure that the resident environment remained as free of accident hazards as was possible and each resident received adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents. Specifically, a resident received second degree burns to the face, scapula area, and thigh when his oxygen cannula ignited while smoking a cigarette unsupervised. Additionally, multiple residents who were identified as requiring staff supervision while smoking were observed smoking without staff present, and residents were not assessed for their smoking assistance/supervision needs. These identified deficient practices were found to have occurred at the Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) Level. Another resident sustained a skin tear when he was not secured in the transportation van. This example was cited at a harm level. Resident identifiers: 4, 17, 18, 47, 56, 77, 134, 181, and 231. NOTICE On 2/9/23 at 2:00 PM, an Immediate Jeopardy was identified when the facility failed to implement Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) recommended practices to identify hazard(s) and risk(s); evaluate and analyze the hazard(s) and risk(s); implement interventions to reduce hazard(s) and risk(s); and monitor for effectiveness and modify the interventions when necessary. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure that residents were evaluated for smoking safety, that interventions were identified, and that monitoring for safe smoking was implemented. Notice of the IJ was given verbally to the facility Administrator (ADM), Director of Nursing (DON), and the Corporate Resource Nurse (CRN), and they were informed of the findings of IJ pertaining to F689 for residents 4, 17, 56 and 134. On 2/13/23, the facility provided the following written abatement plan for the removal of the Immediate Jeopardy effective on 2/13/23 at 6:15 PM: The facility seeks to ensure that each resident is free from accidents hazards and that each resident receives adequate supervision and assistive devices to prevent accidents. Immediate Interventions: Resident 17: Resident was assessed and found to require full assistance with smoking. He was placed on supervised smoking program where staff will assist him out to the smoking area (without his oxygen) and the staff will light his cigarette, stay and supervise him, extinguish cigarette and assist him back into the facility. If Resident 17 is observed asking for smoking materials from others, nursing staff will redirect him. A Smoking Assistance Form will be initiated by the Licensed Nursing Staff on 2/10/23 to provide guidance for staff to ensure they provide the appropriate level of assistance when he wishes to smoke. This form will be stored in the Smoking Binder at the Nurses Station for CNA's [Certified Nurse Assistants] and other staff to know what level of assistance to provide. The Care Plan will be updated on 2/10/23 to match the interventions contained on the Smoking Assistance Form. Resident 56 Resident will be assessed quarterly and as needed to ensure his smoking plan meets his cognitive/physical level. He currently has been assessed as needing supervision with smoking. Resident 56 chews tobacco most of time. The IDT [Interdisciplinary Team] will review the resident's condition by 2/10/2023 to ensure Resident 56 is safe to have his own smoking materials and has an appropriate place to secure the materials. A Smoking Assistance Form will be initiated by the Licensed Nursing Staff on 2/10/23 to provide guidance for staff to ensure they provide the appropriate level of assistance when he wishes to smoke. This form will be stored in the Smoking Binder at the Nurses Station for CNA's [sic] and other staff to know what level of assistance to provide. When the resident expresses desire to smoke, monitoring will be provided based on the level of assistance indicated on the Smoking Assistance Form. Resident 4 A new smoking evaluation was completed using the Smoking Safety Evaluation in Point Click Care, and Resident 4 was found to require supervision while smoking. The staff will assist the resident outside without oxygen, staff will light cigarette, stay and supervise them, extinguish cigarette, and [TRUNCATED]
SERIOUS (G)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Deficiency F0740 (Tag F0740)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, it was determined, the facility failed to provide the necessary behavioral health care and...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, it was determined, the facility failed to provide the necessary behavioral health care and services to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being, in accordance with the comprehensive assessment and plan of care. Specifically, for 1 out of 41 sampled residents, a resident who attempted suicide in the facility was not receiving behavioral health services when there were multiple recommendations for behavioral health services prior to the incident. Resident identifier: 134. Findings included: Resident 134 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which include nontraumatic chronic subdural hemorrhage, chronic pulmonary edema, pneumonia unspecified organism, epilepsy, acute and chronic respiratory failure, dementia, other specified peripheral vascular diseases, adult failure to thrive, plantar fascial fibromatosis, muscle weakness, repeated falls, multiple fractures of ribs, right side, subsequent encounter for fracture, dysphagia (oropharyngeal phase), vitamin B deficiency, vitamin D deficiency, alcohol dependence in remission, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), major depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, suicidal ideations, and obesity. A record review was conducted on 2/7/23. The most recent quarterly Minimum Data Set assessment completed on 12/7/22 revealed the following; a. Resident 134 answered Yes to Feeling down, depressed, or homeless for 2-6 days. b. Resident 134 answered Yes to Feeling tired or having little energy for 7-11 day. c. Resident 134 answered Yes to Poor appetite or overeating for 2-6 days. d. Resident 134 answered Yes to Trouble concentrating on things, such as reading the newspaper or watching television for 7-11 days. e. Resident 134 answered Yes to Moving or speaking so slowly that other people could have noticed. Or the opposite - being so fidgety or restless that you have been moving around a lot more than usual for 7-11 days. On 1/18/23 at 2:46 PM, a Nurses Note stated CNA [Certified Nursing Assistant] this am to check Res [resident] B/P [blood pressure], Res tongue protruding making gurgling noises, no nasal cannula in place, Res pointed at neck and found his 02 [oxygen] tubing wrapped around his neck several times knotted in different areas, nurse in with scissors cut cannula off. Res vitals taken 02 put in place. [Ambulance] called to ambulate to hospital for medical and psych [psychological] eval [evaluation]. Prior to resident 134's suicide attempt on 1/18/23, a progress note from 1/3/23 at 4:45 PM, stated .Resident is a vet [veteran] and has reported suffering multiple traumatic events during time of service . Per LEVEL 2 [preadmission screening resident review]: resident would benefit from SRS [specialized rehabilitation services] program. Resident 134's Preadmission Screening Resident Review (PASRR) Level II completed on 10/12/22, was reviewed. The PASRR's recommendation for specialized services for mental illness treatment stated, Pt [patient] would benefit from supportive therapy through SRS or other service while at SNF [Skilled nursing facility]. Resident 134's Care Plan dated 11/3/22, prior to being hospitalized due to a suicide attempt, included the following; a. The Focus area stated, PASRR Level 2 of MDD [major depressive disorder] recurrent, and PTSD chronic was initiated 11/5/22. b. The Goal stated, Resident's emotional needs will be met through the review date. was initiated 11/6/22. c. The Interventions/Tasks stated, Recommendations per Level 2 PASRR: Recommendations for services to be provided by the Nursing Facility: PT [physical therapy], OT [occupational therapy], medication management, assistance with ADLS [activities of daily living], would care and, Recommendation for Specialized Services for mental illness treatment: Pt would benefit from supportive therapy through SRS or other services while at SNF was initiated 11/5/22. [Note: The recommendations for behavioral health services were found in resident 134's progress notes, PASRR II, and in the care plan prior to resident 134's suicide attempt.] On 2/8/23 at 11:13 AM, an interview with the Resident Advocate (RA) was conducted. The RA reported that the previous social worker, who worked from July 2022 to January 2023, did not refer any residents to any behavioral health services. The RA reported that resident 134 was not receiving behavioral health services while at the facility prior to the resident attempting suicide. The RA reported that resident 134 was supposed to be referred and evaluated for behavioral health services. The RA stated that unfortunately resident 134 was sent to the hospital due to a suicide attempt before the facility was able to set the resident up with behavioral health services. The RA stated that resident 134 had since returned and the facility started 15-minute checks for the resident. The RA stated that resident 134 was moved to a room directly across from the nurses station. The RA stated since resident 134 had returned from the hospital, she was working on resident 134's behavioral health services referral. On 2/9/23 at 9:14 AM, a follow up interview was conducted with the RA. The RA stated that she had been making referrals for behavioral health services for residents since the previous social worker stopped working at the facility. The RA stated that she was visiting with residents daily, made referrals to behavioral health services as needed, and met with staff to go over any behavioral concerns of residents to provide the necessary care. On 2/9/23 at 2:20 PM, an interview with resident 134 was attempted. Resident 134 declined the interview. On 2/13/23 at 10:01 AM, an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) was conducted. The DON stated that she believed that resident 134 had been seen by behavioral services prior to his suicide attempt on 1/18/22. The DON stated that she would provide a copy of resident 134's referral with the date. The DON stated that the PASRR II recommendations should have gone to the social worker and all of the recommendations should have happened. A document titled Specialized Rehabilitation Services (SRS) Referral Packet for resident 134 was reviewed. The date of the referral for behavioral health services was 2/9/23, which was after resident 134 returned from the hospital due to his suicide attempt.
SERIOUS (H)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

QAPI Program (Tag F0867)

A resident was harmed · This affected multiple residents

On 2/14/23 at 1:39 PM, an interview was conducted with the Administrator (ADM). The ADM stated that the QAPI meeting was held one time a month. The ADM stated that they had agenda items that were disc...

Read full inspector narrative →
On 2/14/23 at 1:39 PM, an interview was conducted with the Administrator (ADM). The ADM stated that the QAPI meeting was held one time a month. The ADM stated that they had agenda items that were discussed every time. The ADM stated that they identified issues that needed to be focused on, or areas that they felt needed improvement. The ADM stated then they would look at any associated documentation, convert it to an action plan for improvement and then assign it to a staff to track and look at performance indicators. The ADM provided examples of falls and infection control that were discussed in QAPI. The ADM stated that all the department heads were present during the meeting to ensure that they covered all topics that may affect resident care. The ADM stated that the medical director attended one time per quarter, but he planned on having him attend the meetings monthly. The ADM stated that they would re-assess any items at the following meeting, and any items that were being tracked would have daily flash meeting discussions. The ADM stated that the daily flash meeting was 30 to 40 minutes long, and all department heads attended the daily flash meetings including human resources and therapy. The ADM stated that any deficiencies identified from survey were put through the QAPI process and they would identify what needed to be reviewed and improved. The ADM stated that the practice moving forward would be to review deficiencies in QAPI the meetings. Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to develop and implement appropriate plans of action to correct identified quality deficiencies; and regularly review and analyze data, including data collected under the QAPI (Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement) program, and act on available data to make improvements. Specifically, deficient practices identified during the survey included repeat deficiencies in the areas of prevention of accident hazards, physician notification in changes of condition, quality of care related to hospice services, resident's free from unnecessary medications, and maintaining laboratory reports in the resident records. Resident identifiers: 4, 11, 17, 18, 20, 31, 32, 47, 56, 68, 77, 134, 181, and 231. Findings included: 1. Based on observation, interview, and record review it was determined, for 9 out of 41 sampled residents, that the facility failed to ensure that the resident environment remained as free of accident hazards as was possible and each resident received adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents. Specifically, a resident received second degree burns to the face, scapula area, and thigh when his oxygen cannula ignited while smoking a cigarette unsupervised. Additionally, multiple residents who were identified as requiring staff supervision while smoking were observed smoking without staff present, and residents were not assessed for their smoking assistance/supervision needs. These identified deficient practices were found to have occurred at the Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) Level. Another resident sustained a skin tear when he was not secured in the transportation van. This example was cited at a harm level. Resident identifiers: 4, 17, 18, 47, 56, 77, 134, 181, and 231. [Cross-refer F689] 2. Based on interview and record review, it was determined, the facility did not immediately consult with the resident's physician when there was need to alter the residents treatment. Specifically, for 1 out of 41 sampled residents, the facility nursing staff did not notify the provider when a resident's blood sugar (BS) was greater than the indicated amount as per the physician order. Resident identifier: 47. [Cross-refer F580] 3. Based on interview and record review it was determined, for 1 out of 41 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 resident's choices. Specifically, hospice communication notes were not contained within the resident's medical records and staff reported difficulty with communication between the hospice providers. Resident identifier 32. [Cross-refer F684] 4. Based on interview and record review it was determined, for 4 of 41 residents sampled, that the facility did not ensure that each resident's drug regimen was free from unnecessary drugs. An unnecessary drug was any drug when used in excessive dose; or for excessive duration; or without adequate monitoring; or without adequate indication for its use; or in the presence of adverse consequences which indicated that the dose should be reduced or discontinued. Specifically, residents' medications were not administered or held per the physician ordered parameters. Resident identifier: 11, 31, 32, and 47. [Cross-refer F757] 5. Based on interview and record review, it was determined, the facility did not file in the resident's clinical record laboratory (lab) reports that were dated and contained the name and address of the testing laboratory. Specifically, for 3 out of 41 sampled residents, a resident that had a UA completed did not have the sensitivity report at the facility or filed in their medical record. In addition, a resident that had a Troponin and Creatine Kinase (CK) ordered for chest pain did not have the report at the facility or filed in their medical record, and a resident that had an influenza nasal swab ordered did not have the report at the facility or filed in their medical record. Resident identifiers: 11, 20, and 68. [Cross-refer F775] It should be noted that deficient practice was identified in the following areas during the facility's recertification survey in 2021: F-582, F-584, F-600, F-610, F-644, F-655, F-656, F-740, F-758, F-842, and F-880. The deficient practices identified, for the above mentioned areas, during the current recertification survey were the same areas of concern identified on the last recertification survey.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0554 (Tag F0554)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident 79 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and discharged on 12/1/22 from the facility with diagnoses that included C...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident 79 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and discharged on 12/1/22 from the facility with diagnoses that included Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, nondisplaced fracture of greater trochanter of left femur, localization-related (focal) (partial) symptomatic epilepsy and epileptic syndromes with complex partial seizures, polyneuropathy, cognitive communication deficit, major depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, insomnia, and nicotine dependence. Resident 79's medical record was reviewed on 2/7/23. There was no self-administration assessment located in resident 79's medical record to determine if resident 25 was able to administer her own medications safely. A Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) completed on 11/30/22 documented resident 79 scored a 13. This indicated the resident was cognitively intact. Nursing progress notes documented as followed: a. A nursing note dated 11/29/22 stated, At 2300 when giving scheduled pain med as indicated, noted pt [patient] was holding can of alcoholic drink. advised pt unable to admin [administer] controlled substance concurrently w/ [with] ETOH [alcohol] use, NP [nurse practitioner] notified w/ order to hold controlled med [medication]. pt educated on importance of medication safety and ETOH cessation, DON notified. b. A nursing note dated 11/30/22 at 12:21 AM documented, . pt stated is going to be leaving since he is 'unable to drink and take meds they way [he] always does', pt educated on policy of not having concurrent consumption of either, ongoing discussion of NP w/ N/O [new order] for hour wait after ETOH before giving any sedating medications; pt advised of this to ensure effective pain management and patient safety, pt cont [continued] to express wish to d/c [discharge] AMA [against medical advise], pt educated on AMA policy and will have documentation for signature; NP notified. c. A nursing note with a date of 11/30/22 at 2:45 AM stated, ordered PRN [as needed] pain med given >2hr [hours] post ETOH consumption, will f/u [follow up] or effectiveness, noted OTC [over the counter] bottle on bedside table [appeared to be benadryl], educated PT on medication safety and proper storage per facility policy, pt refused to allow this nurse to remove med from room; ADON [Assistant Director of Nursing] notified for f/u, pt stated will have friend pick him up for AMA d/c in a.m., advised pt is w/in rights to d/c AMA and will report to nursing management and day LN [Licensed Nurse] WCTM [will continue to monitor]. d. A late entry nursing note dated 11/30/22 at 11:22 AM stated, This nurse was notified that pt would like to leave today and has lots of medication in pt room in bag . Educated resident that I need all medications so that he isn't taking some meds that we are also giving him this could cause adverse effects and possible overdose and could even lead to his death. Resident refuses to give any meds to nurse but does allow nurse to see inside a black backpack where multiple/several bottles of medication he was storing and confirmed he is self-medicating. Pt reports that he does not have any oxycodone. Educated we could reconcile his med list and ensure he is getting all medications he wants and when and pt refuses to discuss or give bottles of meds to nursing staff for reconciliation .Pt educated that MD [medical doctor]/NP were asked if he could have order for beer, no order given per dangerous side effects with alcohol and several medications that he takes MD/NP report not safe to drink with current med list. e. A nursing note dated 11/30/22 at 1:00 PM stated, Contacted pt son who reports that his dad did call him for alcohol, and he asked staff if he could bring some in and he was told no so he isn't bringing in .At this point we need to take a buck knife and bottles of meds from pt and son reports all I can say is 'take it while he is sleeping'. f. A nursing note dated 12/1/22 at 10:45 AM stated, This nurse and the floor nurse went to talk with resident and ask for all his bottles of medicines, OTC and prescribed, for us to hold. Resident stated that this was enough and he requested to go to [local Emergency Room]. g. A discharge summary recap of stay noted dated 12/1/22 stated, Resident very non-compliant when trying to get paperwork signed or give us his medications, both OTC and RX [prescribed], to staff to hold until discharge. On last request for medications resident holding, resident requested to go to [local Emergency Room]. h. A social service note dated 1/12/23 stated, .resident was noncompliant with staff. Nursing provided resident with education about the risks of alcohol and medication. Resident 79's physician orders revealed the following narcotic and pain medication orders for resident 79: a. Oxycodone HCL Tablet 20 mg (milligrams); Give 20 mg by mouth every 8 hours for pain. This order was started on 11/29/22. b. Oxycodone HCL Tablet 5 mg; Give 5 mg by mouth every 8 hours as needed for pain. The order stated use APAP (Acetaminophen) first. This order was started on 11/29/22. c. Acetaminophen Tablet 325 mg; Give 975 mg by mouth every 8 hours as needed for pain. This order was started on 11/29/22. [Note: Resident 79 had not received any Tylenol throughout his 3 day admission even though he was given his prn order of oxycodone.] Resident 79's Medication Administration Record (MAR) and the Treatment Administration Record (TAR) for the months of November and December 2022 revealed the following: a. On 11/29/22, resident 79 received a 20 mg dose of his scheduled oxycodone. Resident 79 also received his anti-seizure medication. b. On 11/30/22, resident 79 received the following narcotic medications: two doses of his scheduled 20 mg oxycodone at 8:00 AM and 4:00 PM; two doses of his 5 mg PRN oxycodone at 2:43 AM and 12:49 PM. Resident 79 also received medications for his seizure, anxiety and depression disorders. [Note: Resident 79 received a total of 50 mg of oxycodone from the facility while he still had access to his own medications.] c. On 12/1/22, resident 79 two doses of his scheduled 20 mg oxycodone at 12:00 AM and 8:00 AM. Resident 79 also received a dose of his seizure and depression medication before he discharged from the facility on 12/1/22. On 2/13/23 at 2:30 PM, an interview was conducted with the DON. The DON stated the first day resident 79 arrived to the facility, they were not aware he had access to his own medications. The DON stated that resident 79 never let the staff see his belongings or his medications and they were not able to inventory what medications resident 79 had with him. The DON stated they did not want resident 79 to administer his own medications. The DON stated resident 79 was told if he did not allow staff to see the medications he had, he was not going to be given any medication by the facility. The DON stated resident 79 had not received any medications while he was at the facility. The DON stated they watched resident 79 closely while he was there since staff had no way of knowing what medications resident 79 was taking since he never told staff. On 2/14/23 at 11:45 AM, a follow up interview was conducted with the DON. The DON stated a self-administration assessment needed to be completed for residents that wanted to self-administer their own medications. The DON stated the MD added a physician order which allowed the resident to self-administer their own medications since they were deemed safe to do so. The DON stated if a resident was not safe to administer their own meds and refused to give their medications over to the facility, then the resident would not get any medication from facility to prevent double dosing. Based on observation, interview, and record review it was determined, for 2 out of 41 sampled residents, that the facility did not ensure that the resident right to self-administer medications was determined by the interdisciplinary team (IDT) as clinically appropriate and safe. Specifically, residents reported self administration of medications and no evaluation was completed to determine if this was a safe practice. Resident identifiers: 32 and 79. Findings included: 1. Resident 32 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), heart failure, hypertension, cerebral infarction, dysphagia, unsteadiness on feet, cognitive communication deficit, asthma, dorsalgia, pain in bilateral knees, and encounter for palliative care. On 2/6/23 at 12:29 PM, an interview was conducted with resident 32. Resident 32 was observed to have a Wiexla Metered Dose Inhaler (MDI) and Spiriva MDI located at bedside. Resident 32 stated that at first the nurse kept the inhalers, but sometimes they would forget to bring them. Resident 32 stated that the hospice nurse spoke to the facility nurse and now he kept the inhalers at the bedside to self administer. Resident 32 stated that he self administered the inhalers when needed, and he took both MDI's one time a day which was usually when he first woke up. On 2/7/23 resident 32's medical records were reviewed. Review of resident 32's physician orders revealed the following: a. On 10/19/22, an order for Medication Reconciliation -Has Been Performed With The Appropriate Level Of Detail To Review The Prior Care Setting Discharge Medications For This Resident was initiated. b. On 12/5/22, an order for Ok for resident to keep Inhalers by his bedside, resident is capable of using it, needs supervision by nurse every shift for f/u [follow-up] was initiated. c. On 10/19/22, an order for Salmeterol Xinafoate Aerosol Powder Breath Activated 50 MCG [micrograms]/DOSE 1 puff inhale orally one time a day for copd was initiated. d. On 10/19/22, an order for Tiotropium Bromide Monohydrate Aerosol Solution 2.5 MCG/ACT 2 puff inhale orally one time a day for COPD was initiated. The January 2023 and February 2023 Medication Administration Record (MAR) documented that the Salmeterol Xinafoate and the Tiotropium Bromide Inhalers were administered per the physician orders. No documentation could be found of a self administration evaluation for resident 32's MDIs. On 2/9/23 at 11:33 AM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated that she was not aware of any medication that resident 32 was self administering and a self administration assessment had not been completed for resident 32. On 2/14/23 at 10:43 AM, a follow-up interview was conducted with the DON. The DON confirmed that resident 32 did not have an evaluation to determine if he could safely self administer medication. The DON stated that she removed the inhalers from resident 32's bedside and informed him that she would need to look into the orders. The DON stated that she called resident 32's hospice proved and requested medication orders for reconciliation. The DON stated that she informed resident 32 that they would need to conduct a self administration assessment to determine if he was safe enough to self administer. The DON stated that the nurses had reported that they had never seen the inhalers at resident 32's bedside. The DON stated that she located resident 32's inhalers on the bedside table on top of his laptop.
CONCERN (D)

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

Notification of Changes (Tag F0580)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, it was determined, the facility did not immediately consult with the resident's physician ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, it was determined, the facility did not immediately consult with the resident's physician when there was need to alter the residents treatment. Specifically, for 1 out of 41 sampled residents, the facility nursing staff did not notify the provider when a resident's blood sugar (BS) was greater than the indicated amount as per the physician order. Resident identifier: 47. Finding Included: Resident 47 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included but not limited to spina bifida, type two diabetes mellitus with hyperglycemia, muscle weakness, bladder disorder, anxiety disorder, chronic pain, essential hypertension, and a colostomy. Resident 47's medical record was reviewed on 2/7/23 Resident 47's care plan was reviewed and revealed a care area with a focus area stating resident has diabetes mellitus type 2 with hyperglycemia. Interventions were identified and included as follows: 1. Diabetes medication as ordered by doctor. Monitor/document for side effects and effectiveness. 2. Monitor/document/report as needed any signs and symptoms of hyperglycemia. The care plan was initiated on and revised on 10/14/22. Physician insulin orders read as follows: a. Insulin Lispro Solution Inject as per sliding scale: . 301-999 = 11 units; for BG [blood glucose] greater than 300 give 11 u [units] and notify MD [Medical Doctor] for any additional units. Start date of 12/20/22 and a discontinue date of 1/28/23. b. Insulin Lispro Solution Inject as per sliding scale: . 301-999 = 13 units; for BG greater than 300 give 11 u and notify MD for any additional units. Start date of 1/28/23 and a discontinue date of 2/1/23; restarted on 2/1/23 and discontinued on 2/5/23. Resident 47's blood sugar summary was reviewed for January and February 2023. The following bs were noted: a. On 1/1/23, 393 milligrams (mg)/deciLiter (dL), 585 mg/dL, 390 mg/dL, and 314 mg/dL b. On 1/2/23, 335 mg/dL, 324 mg/dL, and 339 mg/dL c. On 1/3/23, 318 mg/dL, 339 mg/dL, 400 mg/dL, and 337 mg/dL d. On 1/7/23, 308 mg/dL e. On 1/8/23, 316 mg/dL and 336 mg/dL f. On 1/9/23, 324 mg/dL g. On 1/12/23, 323 mg/dL h. On 1/13/23, 335 mg/dL i. On 1/14/23, 350 mg/dL and 362 mg/dL j. On 1/15/23, 393 mg/dL k. On 1/16/23, 327 mg/dL l. On 1/23/23, 322 mg/dL m. On 1/24/23, 343 mg/dL and 356 mg/dL n. On 1/25/23, 319 mg/dL and 358 mg/dL o. On 1/27/23, 341 mg/dL and 315 mg/dL p. On 1/29/23, 368 mg/dL q. On 1/30/23, 382 mg/dL, 362 mg/dL, 364 mg/dL, and 377 mg/dL r. On 2/1/23, 490 mg/dL s. On 2/2/23, 344 mg/dL and 413 mg/dL t. On 2/3/23, 321 mg/dL Resident 47's Medication Administration Record (MAR) and Treatment Administration Record (TAR) for January and February 2023 revealed that resident 47 had received the maximum amount of units ordered per the sliding scale but no physician documentation was located to indicate the physician was notified of resident 47's high blood sugars. Progress notes for resident 47 were reviewed. No evidence was located to indicate that resident 47's blood sugar levels were reported to the physician at any time between 1/1/23 and 2/14/23. On 2/8/23 at 11:54 AM, an interview was conducted with Registered Nurse (RN) 1. RN 1 stated the nurses were the ones to check the residents blood sugars. RN 1 stated the physician would be notified on the resident blood sugars based on the parameters they had set on the sliding scale order for the resident. RN 1 stated they notified the physician when a resident's blood sugar was above 400. RN 1 stated the physician was aware of resident 47's high blood sugars because they had ordered new insulin for resident 47. RN 1 stated that resident 47 was a noncompliant diabetic. RN 1 stated they normally added a progress note stating the physician was notified and what additional orders were given if the physician was notified. RN 1 was unable to locate any documentation to indicate resident 47's physician was notified of his high blood sugars for the months of January and February 2023. On 2/13/23 at 3:15 PM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated that when a nurse contacted the physician, they normally added a progress note. The DON stated she was unsure if resident 47's physician was notified of his high blood sugars since there was no documentation of it. The DON stated the nurses added notes in the MAR and TAR if the physician was notified or if additional things were done. The DON stated the nurses followed the orders as set forth by the provider but was unsure why there was no documentation indicating the provider had been notified.
CONCERN (D)

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

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review it was determined, for 2 out of 41 sampled residents, that the facility did not ensure that...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review it was determined, for 2 out of 41 sampled residents, that the facility did not ensure that residents had the right to be free from abuse, neglect, and misappropriation of property. Specifically, the facility did not protect two residents from abuse by another resident. Resident identifier 2, 3, and 183. Findings included: 1. Resident 31 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and re-admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included but were not limited to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), sepsis, dementia, type 2 diabetes mellitus, anxiety disorder, unspecified disorder of personality and behavior, schizoaffective disorder, viral hepatitis C, glaucoma, delirium, history of malignant neoplasm, chronic pain syndrome On 2/6/23 at 10:55 AM, an interview was conducted with resident 31. Resident 31 reported having fallen on a couple of occasions while attempting to use the toilet. On 2/7/23 resident 31's medical records were reviewed. Review of resident 31's progress notes revealed the following: a. On 3/27/22 at 6:13 PM, the nursing note documented, Patient continues to be very sexually inappropriate with comments and continues to attempt and touch individuals. Patient is not easily redirected and becomes upset and calls names when asked to not continue with comments. Becomes easily upset and verbally lashes out. Will continue to educate patient on the importance of being appropriate with comments. It should be noted that review of the facility abuse investigations revealed no investigation documentation for this incident. b. On 8/24/22 at 1:57 PM, the nursing note documented, patient made an inappropriate comment to another resident (sexual in nature) Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) team met with resident and explained the seriousness of the situation and that it is not acceptable for him to continue with any inappropriate comments or gestures to others. Pt [patient] verbalized agreement that it did happen and it was inappropriate and showed remorse. Discussed behavioral contract with pt and pt verbalizes some boredom, offered pt participation in activities and some activity ideas that would interest pt. Pt educated that we would send referral for him to meet with [name of mental health provider] for an evaluation and pt verbalizes agreement. NP [Nurse Practitioner] notified of pt sexual behaviors with a new order to increase Seroquel to 25mg [milligram] QAM [every morning] from 12.5mg. Pt given a care plan with goals that resident was educated on by SW [social worker] that pt would need to meet goals to assist with Protecting the Rights, Safety, and Health of other residents and educated that he needs to meet these goals as a requirement to remain a resident with us, pt verbalizes agreement. Pt will be reminded frequently as pt does have diagnosis of dementia and does forget things throughout the day. Pt placed on 1:1 for continuous monitoring of patient's behaviors to assist with the prevention of any further incidents and the safety of all residents, pt educated on this intervention and verbalizes understanding. Pt behaviors to be monitored 24h [hours] daily and IDT to meet in future weeks to discuss and change current treatment and plan as needed or necessary. The note was authored by the DON [Director of Nursing]. c. On 9/8/22 at 3:56 PM, the Social Service Note documented, Resident was involved in a verbal resident to resident incident on 8/23/2022 Resident made an inappropriate comment to another resident. After consulting as a team and reporting to the state, it was determined that resident should be put on a 1:1 to protect other residents. Entity report number is: UT00032562 Resident was asked to maintain physical distance from the resident whom he made a comment to. IDT meeting was held with resident, ADON [Assistant Director of Nursing], DON, CSW-I [Clinical Social Worker], and administrator on 8/24/2022. During this meeting, resident was informed of the 1:1 that would be in place. Resident and staff spoke about his comments and what needed to change in order to keep other residents safe and comfortable. Resident was monitored 24 hours a day for 2 weeks. Notes were taken every hour, if behaviors arose, staff was instructed to chart them. No behaviors were charted during the the [sic] 2 weeks. On 9/8/2022 another IDT meeting was held to discuss taking resident off of the 1:1. The IDT decided resident was ready to be taken off. The IDT then met with resident to take him off of the 1:1 and explain the expectations for him going forward. Nursing was then informed of the decision to take resident off 1:1. Care plan for resident was updated to reflect the expectations of staff and resident to prevent future behaviors. On 7/28/22, resident 31's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment documented a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 6, which would indicate a severe cognitive impairment. The assessment documented no behaviors of delusions or hallucinations. The assessment documented that resident 31 required supervision with set up assistance for bed mobility, walking in room, locomotion on and off the unit, and eating. Resident 31 was assessed as requiring a one person limited assist for transfers and toilet use. Review of resident 31's care plan revealed the following: a. A care area for Behavioral Symptoms, resident makes sexual comments to others. The interventions identified were to redirect resident away from people resident had made sexual comments to in the past; encourage resident to attend activities to reduce anxiety; social services will meet with resident regularly; compliment resident when improvement was shown; and staff redirect conversation when inappropriate comments were made. The care plan and all interventions were initiated on 10/28/22. It should be noted that the care plan was initiated approximately 7 months after the first incident was reported and 2 months after the second incident was reported. b. A care area for Behavioral symptoms, the resident had a behavior problem of making inappropriate sexual comments or gestures towards others related to diagnosis of dementia with behaviors, mood (affective) disorder, personality disorder, tickles and touches others without permission. The interventions identified were RESOLVED 1:1; administer medications as ordered, monitor/document side effects and effectiveness; anticipate and meet resident's needs; assist the resident to develop more appropriate methods of coping and interacting with others without inappropriate comments; encourage the resident to express feelings appropriately; caregivers to provide opportunity for positive interactions; stop and talk with him/her as passing by; if reasonable discuss the resident's behavior; explain/reinforce why behavior was inappropriate and/or unacceptable to the resident; help resident understand more appropriate way to express himself; intervene as necessary to protect the rights and safety of others; approach/speak in a calm manner; divert attention; remove from situation and take to alternate location as needed; monitor behavior episodes and attempt to determine underlying cause; consider location, time of day, persons involved, and situations; document behavior and potential causes; praise any indication of the resident's progress /improvement in behavior and document in progress notes; provide a program of activities that is of interest and accommodates residents status; and reward the resident for appropriate behavior by positive reinforcement. The care plan was initiated on 10/28/22. It should be noted that the care plan was initiated approximately 7 months after the first incident was reported and 2 months after the second incident was reported. Review of resident 31's behavior monitoring revealed the following: a. On 8/24/22 at 6:00 PM, hourly behavior monitoring was initiated. The hourly description of events summarized the resident's location at the time recorded. The documentation tracked hourly monitoring until 8/26/22 at 2:00 PM. b. On 8/27/22 at 12:00 AM through 6:00 AM, hourly behavior monitoring was documented. Monitoring was not documented from 7:00 AM through 1:00 PM. Hourly monitoring was documented again on 8/27/22 at 2:00 PM through 7:00 PM. Hourly monitoring was not documented from 8:00 PM until 10:00 PM. c. On 8/28/22 at 6:00 AM through 6:00 PM, hourly behavior monitoring was documented. Hourly monitoring was not documented prior to 6:00 AM or after 6:00 PM. At 2:00 PM, the documentation recorded the resident stated, My home is in Heaven. d. On 8/29/22, no behavior monitoring was documented. e. On 8/30/22 at 3:10 PM through 11:00 PM, hourly behavior monitoring was documented. Hourly monitoring was not documented prior to 3:00 PM. f. On 8/31/22 at 12:00 AM through 11:35 PM, behavior monitoring was documented. At 10:49 AM, the documentation recorded, Resident talking about nasty content with roommate. At 12:13 PM, the documentation recorded, Resident calling everyone baby. g. On 9/1/22 at 12:01 AM through 4:25 AM, behavior monitoring was documented. Monitoring was not documented from 4:25 AM through 11:00 PM. h. On 9/2/22 at 6:00 AM through 10:45 PM, behavior monitoring was documented. Monitoring was not documented from 12:00 AM through 6:00 AM. i. On 9/3/22 at 12:15 AM through 12:00 PM, behavior monitoring was documented. Monitoring was documented again at 6:15 PM through 11:28 PM. Monitoring was not documented from 12:00 PM until 6:15 PM. j. On 9/4/22 at 12:00 AM through 6:10 AM, behavior monitoring was documented. Monitoring was documented again at 6:00 PM until 11:45 PM. Monitoring was not documented from 6:10 AM through 6:00 PM. k. On 9/5/22 at 12:00 AM through 9:45 AM, behavior monitoring was documented. Monitoring was documented again at 4:00 PM through 6:00 PM and 10:15 PM through 11:45 PM. Monitoring was not documented from 9:45 AM through 4:00 PM and from 6:00 PM through 10:15 PM. l. On 9/6/22 at 12:00 AM through 11:45 PM, behavior monitoring was documented. m. On 9/7/22 at 12:00 AM through 3:00 PM, behavior monitoring was documented. The form documented that resident 31's behavior monitoring stopped at 3:00 PM. On 3/30/22, resident 31's Preadmission Screening Resident Review (PASRR) Level II assessment was completed. The assessment documented that resident 31 was noted to struggle with cognition; his short term memory is poor, and pt's [patients] orientation is also impaired. He scored 3/15 on the BIMS cognitive screen. Pt was referred for a PASRR evaluation due to increased agitation, behaviors towards SNF [Skilled Nursing Facility] staff and possible mania. The history of psychiatric symptoms documented that the evaluator met with the facility social worker and resident advocate to discuss the behaviors. They reported behaviors including throwing soda at the nurses, saying sexually inappropriate and explicit things to staff, getting agitated/angry/upset at nurses to the point of threatening them, using other resident's credit cards to buy food or soda for himself, inappropriately touching staff, and turning off his roommate's oxygen concentrator at night. He is noted to be impulsive and will have outbursts of anger and then can be calm. He is noted to be forgetful (some notes state he can be 'very forgetful'), and this was evident during this evaluation. When asked about his behaviors (agitation, throwing things, touching people, saying inappropriate things) or if he had been having problems with staff he stated he did not know what this evaluator was talking about, that he had not had these behaviors. He stated 'If I ever touched anyone it's at the waistline'. He also stated he did not feel he had any problems with his memory when s/t [short term] memory deficits were evident. The evaluation documented the current psychiatric functioning as . it appears pt has multiple maladaptive personality traits which cause interpersonal dysfunction/impairment. It is unclear if pt truly does not remember things like the meeting with the Ombudsman or doing some of the things staff reports he has done, or if he is saying he doesn't recall this to protect himself. The evaluation recommendations for specialized services for mental illness treatment documented, Pt might benefit from psychological testing to better determine the extent of pt's cognitive limitations/impairment, and to clarify pt's MH [mental health] diagnoses. This might help to direct a more effective treatment/management approach given pt's behaviors. 2. Resident 183 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which consisted of but were not limited to trochanteric fracture of right femur, cerebral infarction, hemiplegia and hemiparesis, atrial septal defect, asthma, hypertension, generalized anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, cognitive communication deficit, fibromyalgia, insomnia, peripheral neuropathy, and tremor. Review of resident 183's progress notes revealed the following: a. On 8/15/22 at 8:53 PM, the admission summary documented that resident 183 was alert and oriented times 4 to person, place, time, and situation. b. On 8/23/22 at 10:32 AM, the nursing note documented that resident 183 was alert and oriented times 4 and was able to make all needs known. c. On 8/28/22 at 11:32 AM, the nursing note documented that resident 183 was observed crying in the hallway while walking with the use of a forward wheeled walker. Resident 183 stated, I'm in so much pain, I've been asking for my Xanax and pain pills all night. I just want to go to the hospital now because nothing works! The note documented that the nurse administered resident 183 her as needed medications with documented pain relief. It should be noted that no documentation was found in resident 183's progress notes related to the allegation of sexual abuse by resident 31 towards resident 183. On 8/21/22, resident 183's admission MDS Assessment documented a BIMS score of 15, which would indicate that resident 183 was cognitively intact. The assessment documented that resident 183 did not have any hallucinations but did have delusions. Verbal behavioral symptoms directed towards others was documented as having occurred 1 to 3 days. Resident 183 was assessed as requiring limited one-person physical assist for transfers, ambulating in the corridor, locomotion on and off the unit, dressing, toilet use, and personal hygiene. Review of resident 183's care plan revealed the following: a. A care area for resident had a behavior problem with episodes of yelling at others was initiated on 8/28/22. Interventions identified were anticipate and meet the resident's needs; provide opportunity for positive interaction and attention; intervene as necessary to protect the rights and safety of others; speak in a calm manner; divert attention; remove from situation and take to alternate location as needed; monitor behavior episode and attempt to determine underlying cause; provide a consistent daily routine with choices in care; redirect, reassure, and validate feelings; and monitor behavior to evaluate effectiveness of interventions. It should be noted that the care plan was initiated 5 days after the incident with resident 31. b. A care area for resident had delirium or an acute confused episode was initiated on 8/28/22. The focus documented that resident 183 was easily distracted, had difficulty keeping track of what was being said, and had disorganized thinking. The goal was that resident 183 would be free of signs and symptoms (s/sx) of delirium (changes in behavior, mood, cognitive function, communication, level of consciousness, and restlessness) through review date. Interventions identified were use resident's preferred name; identify self at each interaction; make eye contact; reduce distractions; educate the resident to observe for any report any s/sx of delirium, encourage friends/family/caregivers to be at bedside during acute episodes in order to provide familiarity and support; ensure toileting routine was informed; monitor and document intake and output per facility policy; and monitor for environmental factors. It should be noted that the care plan was initiated 5 days after the incident with resident 31. c. A care area for resident had a psychosocial well-being problem related to anxiety was initiated on 8/28/22. Interventions identified were encourage participation to make own decisions; increase communication about care and living environment; monitor/document response to problems; offer choices in daily routine; and when conflict arises, remove resident to a calm safe environment and allow to vent/share feelings. It should be noted that the care plan was initiated 5 days after the incident with resident 31. On 8/22/22 resident 183's PASRR Level II was completed. The history of psychiatric symptoms documented that resident 183 had experienced recurring symptoms of depression and anxiety since childhood but for the past 10-11 months both had increased significantly after the death of her spouse of 33 years. She reported that after her husband's death she lost significant weight d/t [due to] near total loss of appetite as part of her increased depression; pt was still noted to be extremely thin, . She reported sxs [signs and symptoms] including depressed mood, anhedonia, significant loss of appetite, poor sleep, loss of energy and motivation, loss of interest in activities, feelings of worthlessness, and hopelessness, and impaired concentration. She also endorsed a longstanding history of excessive anxiety, chronic worry, difficulty controlling feelings of worry, feeling tense/restless, irritable often, and difficulty sleeping and concentrating d/t her anxiety. The current psychiatric functioning documented that resident 183 reported that her psychotropic medications were reduced at the hospital, and that was difficult for her, but that they are back up where they need to be. Resident 183 stated that she had spent the last 6 months getting the medications right with her psychiatrist in order to manage her psychiatric symptoms. Resident 183 stated that she has had to cancel her counseling appointments via telehealth since she was hospitalized . The evaluation documented the recommendations for specialized services for mental health treatment was for resident 183 to follow-up with her outpatient therapist and psychiatrist as needed. 3. Resident 2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which consisted of but were not limited to hemiplegia and hemiparesis following a cerebrovascular disease affecting right dominant side, type 2 diabetes mellitus, chronic respiratory failure, chronic pain syndrome, aphasia, dysphagia, cognitive communication deficit, schizoaffective disorder depressive type, borderline personality disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety disorder, and unspecified dementia. On 2/6/23 at 1:39 PM, an interview was conducted with resident 2. Resident 2 was asked if anyone had been mean to her, anyone rude to her, do if she felt safe with all the residents. Resident 2 replied staff treated her fine and everyone here was okay. Review of resident 2's progress notes revealed the following: a. On 8/30/22 at 4:37 PM, the nursing note documented, spoke with pt about if she feels safe and comfortable facility resident states yes she does. Asked resident about a time she felt uncomfortable that was mentioned to me, she reports 'yes a long time ago I think i felt uncomfortable, i told RA [Resident Advocate] about other pt when she asked about if that pt had ever said something to me.' When asked what other pt said or what made her feel uncomfortable Pt states 'I cannot recall anything that was said' she also states she can't remember how long ago or a time frame at all just that it was 'a long time ago'. Pt educated that she should always feel safe and she can/should report anything immediately if pt feels anyway she doesn't like. On 7/5/22, resident 2's Quarterly MDS Assessment documented a BIMS score of 15, which would indicate that resident 2 was cognitively intact. The assessment documented that resident 2 did not have any hallucinations, delusions, or behavioral symptoms. Resident 2 was assessed as requiring 2-person extensive assist for bed mobility and dressing; two person total dependence for transfers and toilet use; and supervision one person assist for locomotion on and off the unit. Review of resident 2's care plan revealed the following: a. A care area for cognitive loss/dementia was implemented on 11/18/18. Interventions identified were to ask yes/no questions; use the resident's preferred name; identify self at each interaction; make eye contact when speaking; reduce any distractions; provide cues; allow time to de-escalate; cue, reorient and supervise as needed; monitor/document/report any changes in cognitive function; and review medications and record possible causes of cognitive deficit. Interventions were identified on 11/18/18 and revised on 6/19/19. On 8/10/15, resident 2's PASRR Level II was completed. The history of psychiatric symptoms documented a diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder, cognitive disorder, and borderline personality disorder. Resident 2 endorsed hallucinations but would not provide any details other than to say that she received Risperdal injection monthly and it kept the hallucinations under control. The recommendations were to continue therapies and psychotropic medications as ordered. On 8/23/22 at 10:00 AM (time of incident), the facility initial entity report documented that resident 183 reported that resident 31 had . on several occasions made sexual comments and gestures to her. [Resident 183] reports that [resident 31] held a sausage up to his genital area and invited [resident 183] to eat his sausage. [Resident 183] stated that this is not the first instance of something like this happening to her by [resident 31]. [Resident 31] has been asked to stop making comments like this to residents and staff. However, he continues to do so. The facility abuse investigation documentation was completed by the facility's previous Master of Social Work (MSW) and contained the following interviews: a. On 8/23/22 at 10:05 AM, resident 183 was interviewed by the MSW. Resident 183 reported that on her way outside to smoke resident 31 approached her in the lobby holding a breakfast sausage up to his genital area. Resident 183 stated that she was not afraid and could handle [resident 31] but was reporting the incident because she was worried this would happen to other residents if the behavior didn't stop. b. On 8/23/22 at 10:30 AM, the MSW interviewed the Director of Nursing (DON). I spoke with [DON] who had spoken both to [resident 31] and [resident 183]. [The DON] reported she was given the same story from [resident 183]. [Resident 183] reported to [DON], again that she wasn't bothered by the incident. Rather that she was more concerned about the other residents. When [DON] spoke with [resident 31], he reported that he meant nothing by the comment, that he was bored and was just making a joke. c. On 8/23/22 at 10:20 AM, the MSW interviewed the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON). I spoke with [ADON] who works regularly with [resident 31]. She spoke with [resident 31] and he reports that he was only joking, and didn't mean to hurt anyone. d. On 8/23/22 at 10:35 AM, the MSW interviewed the previous Administrator (PADM). I spoke with [PADM] who had spoken with [resident 183]. [PADM] stated he was given the same story about the sausage and sexual comments. [PADM] stated he asked [resident 183] if she was okay and not hurt by what was said. [Resident 183] stated that she was not afraid and not hurt. [PAMD] also told [resident 183] that actions would be taken to ensure the safety of her and others. e. On 8/28/22 at 7:40 PM, the MSW interviewed resident 2. I spoke with [resident 2] and asked her if [resident 31] has ever said anything inappropriate or sexual to her. She stated that on multiple occasions he has said inappropriate things that have made her feel uncomfortable. She stated on one occasion she told him 'I hope this is a joke' and [resident 31] answered that it wasn't a joke. She said she then asked him to stop and her [sic] persisted at which point she changed the conversation. f. On 8/28/22 at 7:30 PM, the MSW interviewed Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 5. I spoke with [LPN 5] who is an LPN who works with [resident 31]. She stated that she has heard [resident 31] on multiple occasions say inappropriate things and that is 'his baseline'. The investigation summary and outcome documented that after conversations with both residents it was determined that the event had happened and was substantiated. Precautionary measures have been taken to ensure that resident does not continue to make inappropriate comments or gestures towards residents or staff. Staff discussed with resident the modifications to his care plan. That included a behavior contract, evaluation of medications, evaluation of recreational activities to incorporate his interests, and a 1:1 staff with him 24 hours a day. Resident [31] has been asked to maintain physical distance from [resident 183]. The care plan was printed and signed by resident 31 on 8/26/22. The care plan had a handwritten note that stated, My signature certifies that I have read my care plan and understand that if I continue to persist in exhibiting sexual behaviors, I may subject to discharge to another facility. On 8/28/22 at 7:40 PM (time of incident), the facility initial entity report documented that the MSW was investigating a suspected abuse allegation of another resident who reported that resident 31 had made inappropriate sexual comments/jokes to her, and as part of this process interviewed resident 2. Resident 2 reported to the MSW that on multiple occasions resident 31 said inappropriate things to her that made her feel uncomfortable. It should be noted that no other investigation documentation was found for the incident reported by resident 2. Review of the facility Policy on Abuse - Prohibiting defined sexual abuse as, Includes, but is not limited to: sexual harassment, sexual coercion or sexual assault. Review of the facility Policy on Identifying Types of Abuse documented sexual abuse as non-consensual sexual conduct of any type with a resident, and further documented that consent that was obtained through intimidation, coercion or fear was not valid. The policy documented, Any person who suspects that abuse, neglect, or the misappropriation of property may have occurred must immediately report the alleged violation to their immediate supervisor or the Administrator of the facility, State Survey Agencies and Law Enforcement. The policy further documented that if it was determined that a resident had a history of abusive behavior/aggression, the IDT would assess the needs of the resident. If the IDT determines that the facility was able to adequately meet the potential resident's needs without negatively impacting its current residents, the IDT will develop a care plan with behavioral approaches designed to prevent the potential resident from engaging in any abusive behavior. Both policies were last revised on 11/2015. On 2/13/23 at 2:29 PM, an interview was conducted with LPN 4. LPN 4 stated that resident 31 was on 1:1 with the aides for sexually inappropriate behaviors with another female resident. LPN 4 stated that resident 31 had mentioned something sexually inappropriate to another resident and the aide reported it to the DON. LPN 4 stated that it happened again and that was when resident 31 was placed back on 1:1 again. LPN 4 stated that resident 4 usually made inappropriately sexual comments to the aides. On 2/13/23 at 2:35 PM, an interview was conducted with Nurse Assistant (NA) 2. NA 2 stated that depending on the day resident 31 had behaviors of screaming and saying inappropriate things constantly such as sexual comments towards aides or residents. NA 2 stated that resident 31 grabbed a sausage and said look at my sausage so they moved his room, and then he was on 1:1 after the incidents. NA 2 stated that resident 31 has told her before that there were other aides that would perform sexual favors for him. NA 2 stated that when resident 31 said that she reported it to the DON and the floor nurse. NA 2 stated that he has had no other inappropriate behaviors since he was on 1:1 with staff. On 2/14/23 at 11:08 AM, an interview was conducted with the DON. The DON stated that she was aware of the sexual abuse allegations because she was a part of the IDT team. The DON stated that the MSW handled a lot of that investigation with the PADM. The DON stated that resident 31 made a comment to a female resident and they told therapy. The DON stated that they submitted an initial entity report to the SA. The DON stated that resident 31 was placed on 1:1 monitoring with a staff member present outside his door. The DON stated that they met with him as a team and educated him on what was appropriate, did a lot of education and monitoring. The DON stated that this was a spike of this behavior. The DON stated that they had made medication changes and realized that they may have affected his behaviors. The DON stated that they did a gradual dose reduction of resident 31's Seroquel prior to the incident and realized that the behaviors increased afterwards. The DON stated that they started resident 31's Seroquel again. The DON stated that they met as a team and decided when to take him off monitoring, and that the physician and nurse practitioner were a part of the IDT discussion. The DON stated that since they restarted Seroquel at a low dose resident 31's behaviors have stabilized, and he has had no other sexually inappropriate behaviors since then. The DON stated that she was only aware of the one resident involved in the investigation and something was said about a hotdog in reference to his genitals towards another resident. The DON stated that there was an additional allegation between resident 31 and resident 2, but she was not sure what the allegation was. The D[TRUNCATED]
CONCERN (D)

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

PASARR Coordination (Tag F0644)

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 41 sampled residents, the facility failed to coordinate assessm...

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 41 sampled residents, the facility failed to coordinate assessments with the pre-admission screening and resident review (PASARR) program under Medicaid in subpart C of this to the maximum extent practicable to avoid duplicative testing and effort. Specifically, a resident who was assessed as needing a PASARR Level II evaluation did not have a PASARR Level II evaluation. Resident identifier: 50 Findings Include: Resident 50 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and again on 12/21/22 with diagnoses which included end stage renal disease, encounter for palliative care, holiday relief care, chronic viral hepatitis C, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, dysphagia, memory deficit following other cerebrovascular disease, dependence on renal dialysis, atherosclerotic heart disease, restless legs syndrome, nicotine dependence, panic disorder, delusional disorders, general anxiety disorder, bipolar disorder, essential hypertension, dysphagia, protein-calorie malnutrition, repeated falls, and hyperlipidemia. A record review was conducted on 2/8/23 A document titled Pre-admission Screening Applicant/Resident Review dated 12/21/22 revealed, Level I Screen indicates referral for Level II evaluation SMI (Serious Mental Illness) is needed. A PASARR Level II was not found in resident 50's medical record. On 2/08/23 at 11:05 AM, an interview was conducted with the Resident Advocate (RA). The RA stated that the facility had not had a social worker from April 2022 to July 2022, and since then they had 2 social workers. The RA stated that the last social worker was a Master of Social Worker (MSW). The RA stated that the MSW was behind in her resident case load and the Director of Nursing (DON) had her complete an audit on the MSW's work. The RA stated that she determined that the MSW had not been entering in the resident records any admission or quarterly notes, and there was no documentation of her resident assessments. The RA stated that the plan was that she would help the MSW catch up and then they were going to terminate her at the beginning of January. The RA stated that the MSW just had no back bone. The RA stated that the residents with behaviors would get mad, be loud, and have a lot to say. The RA stated that if the residents talked loud to the MSW she would cry and have a panic attack. The RA stated that now the goal was to get everything current and then hire a new Social Service Worker (SSW). The RA stated that the MSW was supposed to make the referrals to the mental health provider. The RA stated that the mental health provider would determine what services were needed based on the PASARR level I and then have someone evaluate the residents for a PASARR level II. The RA stated that the person responsible for the level II evaluations was quick to come to the facility for an evaluation once they were informed. The RA stated that she did not have any documentation that showed that the MSW had made any referrals to the mental health provider for PASARR level II evaluations. The RA stated that the MSW was the person responsible for ensuring that those evaluations were completed.
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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, it was determined, the facility did not provide the necessary services to maintain good nu...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, it was determined, the facility did not provide the necessary services to maintain good nutrition, grooming, and personal and oral hygiene to residents who were unable to carry out activities of daily living (ADLs). Specifically, for 2 of 41 sampled residents, two dependent residents did not receive showers or bathing assistance in a timely manner and according to the facility schedule for showers. Resident identifiers: 24 and 133. Findings included: 1. Resident 24 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and re-admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included peripheral vascular disease, type 2 diabetes mellitus with neuropathy, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia, chronic pain, hypothyroidism, obesity, benign prostatic hyperplasia with lower urinary tract symptoms, adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood. On 2/6/23 at 1:56 PM, an interview was conducted with resident 24. Resident 24 stated he was getting at least one shower per week. Resident 24 stated showers were scheduled by room number. Resident 24 stated he was not receiving regularly scheduled showers and would like to shower more often. Resident 24's medical record was reviewed. Resident 24's initial annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], revealed that it was very important to choose between a tub bath, shower, bed bath, or sponge bath. Resident 24's quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE], revealed that resident 24 required one-person physical assistance for transferring with showers. Resident 24's Point of care (POC) documentation revealed that, for the 30 days prior to the review, resident 24 received showers on 1/14/23, 1/21/23, 2/2/23, and 2/6/23. Refusals were documented for 1/12/23, 1/17/23, 1/19/23, 1/24/23, 1/28/23, and 1/31/23 was marked as not applicable. Shower sheets were provided by the Director of Nursing (DON). According to the shower sheets for January 2023 and February 2023, resident 24 received showers on 1/11/23 and 2/13/23. There were no shower refusal form for resident 24. [Note: No documentation for resident 24's showers was found for 1/3/23, 1/5/23, 1/7/23, 2/9/23 and 2/11/23. No refusal sheets were found for 1/12/23, 1/17/23, 1/19/23, 1/24/23, 1/26/23, 1/28/23, and 1/31/23.] On 2/8/23 at 10:51 AM, an interview was conducted with Nursing Assistant (NA) 3. NA 3 stated that resident 24's shower days were on Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday. NA 3 stated resident 24 did not refuse showers very often and got showers most of the time. NA 3 stated resident 24 required assistance by one person. NA 3 stated sometime we have a hard time getting to everyone. NA 3 stated the staff tried to get residents showered first who required only set-up assistance and then they would shower other residents. NA 3 stated resident 24 was getting showers twice per week. NA 3 stated if the staff were unable to finish showers on one day, they would finish on the following day. On 2/9/23 at 2:34 PM, an interview was conducted with CNA 2. CNA 2 stated that if a resident refused a shower, the CNAs had been instructed to tell the nurse. CNA 2 stated the resident was required to sign the shower sheet and state why they did not want a shower. CNA 2 stated the floor nurse and CNA were also required to sign the shower sheet. CNA 2 stated the DON and Registered Nurse (RN) 2 collected the shower sheets from the nurse's station. On 2/14/23 at 10:03 AM, an interview was conducted with RN 2. RN 2 stated residents had scheduled shower days and should be offered showers on those days, and assisted if needed. RN 2 stated residents could also request a shower at other times if they wanted one. RN 2 stated when a resident was provided a shower, the CNA would fill out a shower sheet. RN 2 stated if a resident refused a shower, the CNA would notify the nurse and continue to follow-up during the day. RN 2 stated they should offer a shower at a different time, try to encourage the resident to shower, offer an alternative to a shower, and try to figure out why the resident was refusing. RN 2 stated CNAs also completed skin observations when assisting with showers and documented any findings on the shower sheet. RN 2 stated shower sheets were kept at the nurses station near the resident's room in a folder. RN 2 stated that when evening showers were completed, those shower sheets went into a pocket outside the DON office. RN 2 stated shower sheets should be always completed when a resident showered. RN 2 stated if a resident refused a shower, there were refusal sheets the CNAs would fill out and sign along with the resident. RN 2 stated she was unsure if the RN was required to sign the refusal sheet. RN 2 stated if a shower sheet or refusal sheet was not filled out, the POC should have documentation. RN 2 stated CNAs were expected to document in the POC for every shower and every refusal. RN 2 stated CNAs received education about showers during their new hire orientation. RN 2 stated they also obtained education while training, and during daily huddles. RN 2 stated information was posted on the what's app that was used by staff to communicate. RN 2 stated the facility had shower CNAs come in occasionally if they were behind on things or if they needed more staff. 2. Resident 133 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included, but were not limited to, Parkinson's disease, urinary tract infection, severe sepsis with septic shock, acute kidney failure, hydronephrosis with renal and ureteral calculous obstruction, cognitive communication deficit, difficulty in walking, and dementia. Resident 133's medical record was reviewed on 2/9/23. A care plan Focus included The resident has an ADL self-care performance deficit r/t [relate to] Dementia, PARKINSON'S DISEASE. [Name of resident 133 removed] IS AT RISK FOR LOSS OF DIGNITY AND INDEPENDENCE R/T HIS ADL DEFICITS. HE IS CURRENTLY WORKING W/[with]SKILLED OT [occupational therapy], PT [physical therapy] TO IMPROVE HIS LEVEL OF FUNCTION, DIGNITY, AND INDEPENDENCE. INCLUDE HIM IN DECISION MAKING R/T HIS CARE. ENCOURAGE HIM TO PERFORM AS MANY ADLS AS POSSIBLE. Date Initiated: 11/27/2021 Revision on: 12/02/2021. The care plan Interventions initiated on 11/27/21, included: a. Discuss with resident/family/POA [Power of Attorney] care any concerns related to loss of independence, decline in function. b. Encourage the resident to discuss feelings about self-care deficit. c. Encourage the resident to participate to the fullest extent possible with each interaction. d. Encourage the resident to use bell to call for assistance. e. Monitor/document/report PRN [as needed] any changes, any potential for improvement, reasons for self-care deficit, expected course, declines in function. f. Praise all efforts at self care. g. PT/OT evaluation and treatment as per MD [Medical Director] orders. The 5-day MDS assessment dated [DATE], documented that resident 133 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 10. A BIMS score of 8 to 12 suggests moderately impaired cognition. In addition, resident 133 required extensive assistance of one person for dressing and total dependence of one person for bathing. The ADL task Bathing was reviewed for December 2021. Resident 133 had received four showers for the month of December. The ADL task Bathing was reviewed for January 2022, resident 133 had received three showers for the month of January. The ADL task Bathing was reviewed for February 2022, resident 133 had not received any showers for the month of February. [Note: Resident 133 should have received showers three times a week.] On 1/30/22 at 9:16 PM, a Nurses Note documented Pt [Patient] is alert and oriented. Pt is able to make needs known. Pt requires extensive assist with adl's, transfers toileting bathing dressing meals grooming mobility bed mobility. On 2/1/22 at 11:32 PM, a Nurses Note documented Pt is alert and oriented. Pt is able to make needs known. Pt requires extensive assist with adl's, transfers toileting bathing dressing meals grooming mobility bed mobility. On 2/13/23 at 12:48 PM, an interview was conducted with Nursing Assistant (NA) 1. NA 1 stated that she would assist the CNA Coordinator. NA 1 stated there were CNA books at each nursing station. NA 1 stated resident showers were based off of the resident room number and were scheduled three times a week. NA 1 stated there were forms in the CNA book that indicated the days of the week the resident shower was to be completed. NA 1 stated that the CNAs would fill out a shower sheet or a refusal form and would put the form in the front of the CNA book. NA 1 stated the nurses would then sign the forms and would review the forms for skin changes.
CONCERN (D)

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review it was determined, for 1 out of 41 sampled residents, that the facility did not ensure that...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review it was determined, for 1 out of 41 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 resident's choices. Specifically, hospice communication notes were not contained within the resident's medical records and staff reported difficulty with communication between the hospice providers. Resident identifier 32. Findings included: Resident 32 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), heart failure, hypertension, cerebral infarction, dysphagia, unsteadiness on feet, cognitive communication deficit, asthma, dorsalgia, pain in bilateral knees, and encounter for palliative care. On 2/06/23 at 12:21 PM, an interview was conducted with resident 32. Resident 32 stated that his hospice nurse came into the facility 2 times a week and the hospice Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) came 3 times a week to provide him showers. On 10/19/22 at 10:35 AM, resident 32's physician orders documented an order for Resident is admitting on [name of provider omitted] Hospice. On 11/4/22, resident 32's hospice plan of care documented the benefit period for hospice services as 9/30/22 through 12/28/22. Review of resident 32's medical records revealed no documentation of visit notes from the hospice nurse or hospice CNA. On 10/22/22, a care plan for terminal prognosis and hospice was initiated for resident 32. Interventions identified included: a. the resident's comfort will be maintained through the review date; b. hospice services provided by nurse to address pain/shortness of breath/functional status/medical management/education; c. the resident's dignity and autonomy will be maintained at highest level through the review date; d. Masters of Social Work (MSW) to evaluate social needs and provide community resources as needed; e. hospice chaplain to evaluate spiritual needs and provide emotional support; f. hospice aide to assists with all personal cares; activities of daily living (ADL's) through music and massage therapy; g. Medical Director oversees all care provided; h. patient and family involved in creation of plan of care/goals/interventions as much as cognitively possible; i. received emotional support; j. medication record updated and reconciliation performed; k. adjust provision of ADLS to compensate for resident's changing abilities; l. encourage participation to the extent the resident wishes to participate; m. assess resident coping strategies and respect resident wishes; n. encourage resident to express feelings, listen with non-judgmental acceptance, compassion; o. encourage support system of family and friends; p. keep the environment quiet and calm; keep linens clean, dry and wrinkle free; q. keep lighting low and familiar objects near; and r. observe resident closely for signs of pain, administer pain medications as ordered and notify physician immediately if there is breakthrough pain. On 2/07/23 at 12:52 PM, an interview was conducted with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 4. LPN 4 stated that if a resident was admitted on hospice the hospice nurse would give them a business card and the admission nurse would put the contact information on the Medication Administration Record (MAR). LPN 4 stated that the hospice nurses came into the facility usually 2 to 3 times a week depending on the hospice company. LPN 4 stated that the hospice CNA visited daily or 3 times a week to provide the residents showers. LPN 4 stated that if a resident had a behavior she would call the hospice provider to inform them, but the facility staff would provide most of the resident's care. LPN 4 stated that the hospice aides provided the residents with showers only and then they left, and they were only at the facility for approximately 30 minutes. LPN 4 stated that when resident 32 was admitted the hospice nurse didn't immediately come for a visit. LPN 4 stated that she found the hospice information on the admitting paperwork, Googled the company to obtain the phone number, and called the hospice nurse. LPN 4 stated that she informed the hospice nurse that resident 32 had been admitted 2 weeks ago, and the hospice nurse stated that she did not know that resident 32 was at the facility. LPN 4 stated that it took a long time to find the hospice information. LPN 4 stated that the information should be in the chart and easy to locate. LPN 4 stated that when resident 32's hospice nurse came to the facility she gave LPN 4 a fridge magnet with the company contact information. LPN 4 stated that she thought that the information was located in resident 32's chart. LPN 4 was observed to look at resident 32's orders and facesheet and stated that the contact information for resident 32's hospice provider was not there. LPN 4 stated that she kept the phone number on the fridge, but she did not think the other nurse's knew about it. LPN 4 stated that she noticed that the aides were not coming to the facility when they were scheduled to, which was on Monday, Wednesdays, and Fridays. LPN 4 stated that the hospice aides did not communicate with her and let her know that they were at the facility and had provided cares. LPN 4 stated that the hospice nurse did not have a communication book with notes for the facility nurse, and they just talked to them when they were at the facility if they were available. LPN 4 stated that if she did not see the hospice nurse or hospice aide then there was no method of communication. On 2/09/23 at 11:42 AM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated that all hospice visit notes should be located in the resident's medical records. The DON stated that resident 32's hospice notes could be in medical records, but they should be in the chart. The DON stated that sometimes it might take a few days for the records to be scanned into the electronic medical records. The DON confirmed that resident 32 had been on hospice services since admission. The DON stated that resident 32 should have some of his visit notes in his chart available. On 2/13/23 at 12:41 PM, a follow-up interview was conducted with the DON and the Regional Dietary Manager (RDM). The DON and RDM delivered a stack of hospice visit notes by the licensed nurse and CNAs. The RDM stated that all the notes were obtained from medical records and the oldest note was dated from November 2022. The DON stated that ideally hospice would send the hospice notes and medical records would scan them into the resident's record. The DON stated that if they were not submitted weekly then medical records should follow-up with the hospice company. The DON stated that the hospice nurse should check in with the facility nurse at each visit. The DON stated that the staff should have a collaboration of care with the hospice provider and the visit notes helped with that. The DON stated that having the notes in the record would facilitate that communication, absolutely yes.
CONCERN (D)

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

Medication Errors (Tag F0758)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review it was determined, for 2 out of 41 sampled residents, that the facility did not ensure that...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review it was determined, for 2 out of 41 sampled residents, that the facility did not ensure that residents who have not used a psychotropic drug were not given the drug unless the medication was necessary to treat a specific condition diagnosed and documented in the clinical record, and residents do not receive psychotropic drugs pursuant to a as needed (PRN) order for greater than 14 days unless the prescribing practitioner has documented a rationale to extend the use with a documented duration for the PRN order. Specifically, a resident received psychotropic medications and monitoring was not documented and another resident had a PRN order for Ativan that extended past 14 days without a documented rationale to extend the use and monitoring was not documented. Resident identifiers: 6 and 11. Findings Included: 1. Resident 6 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included but no limited to moderate protein-calorie malnutrition, dementia, history of falling, and personal history of a traumatic brain injury. Resident 6's medical records were reviewed on 2/7/23. Resident 6's care plan was reviewed and revealed a care area with a focus area stating resident uses anti-anxiety medications [Lorazepam] r/t [related to] agitation and anxiety. Interventions were identified and included as follows: 1. Administer anti-anxiety medications as ordered by the physician. Monitor for side effects and effectiveness Q [every] - shift. 2. Monitor/document/report PRN any adverse reactions to anti-anxiety therapy: Drowsiness, lack of energy, clumsiness, slow reflexes, Slurred speech, confusion and disorientation, depression, dizziness, lightheadedness, impaired thinking and judgment, memory loss, forgetfulness, nausea, stomach upset, blurred or double vision. Unexpected side effects: Mania, hostility, rage, aggressive or impulsive behavior hallucinations. The care plan was initiated and revised on 11/28/22. Review of resident 6's physician orders revealed the following: a. Lorazepam Concentrate 2 milligrams [mg] / milliliter [ml], give 0.25 ml by mouth every 4 hours as needed for anxiety or terminal agitation for 90 days. The medication was initiated on 11/17/22 and to be discontinued on 2/15/23 b. Lorazepam Concentrate 2mg/ml, give 0.5 ml by mouth every 4 hours as needed for anxiety and terminal agitation for 14 days. The medication was initiated on 1/19/23 and discontinued on 2/2/23 A review of resident 6's Medication Administration Record (MAR) and Treatment Administration Record (TAR) was done for the months of November 2022, December 2022, January 2023 and February 2023 which documented the following: a. November 2022 MAR and TAR had a PRN order for lorazepam that read as follows: Lorazepam Concentrate 2 mg/ml, give 0.25 ml by mouth every 4 hours as needed for anxiety or terminal agitation for 90 days. The medication was initiated on 11/17/22 and discontinued on 11/28/22. Resident 6 received a total of 3 doses while this was ordered. No documentation for monitoring episodes of behaviors or adverse side effects for the use of Lorazepam was located. b. December 2022 MAR and TAR had a PRN order for lorazepam that read as follows: Lorazepam Concentrate 2 mg/ml, give 0.5 ml by mouth every 4 hours as needed for anxiety or terminal agitation. [Note: There was no duration noted on the PRN order to indicate a timeframe for use.] The medication was initiated on 12/23/22 and discontinued on 12/26/22 and restarted again on 12/26 and ordered to be discontinued on 1/19/23. Resident 6 received a total of 3 doses for the duration of both orders. No documentation for monitoring episodes of behaviors or adverse side effects for the use of Lorazepam was located. c. January 2023 MAR and TAR had a PRN order for lorazepam that read as follows: Lorazepam Concentrate 2 mg/ml, give 0.5 ml by mouth every 4 hours as needed for anxiety or terminal agitation for 14 days. The medication was initiated on 1/19/23 and discontinued on 2/7/23. [ It should be noted that the order was active for 19 days instead of the 14 days as stated per the order.] No documentation for monitoring episodes of behaviors or adverse side effects for the use of Lorazepam was located. d. February 2023 MAR and TAR documented that on February 7, resident 6 began to be monitored for episodes of behaviors or adverse side effects for the use of Lorazepam. [Note: this monitoring began 2.5 months after the first initial PRN order of Lorazepam and a day after the facility survey began on 2/6/23.] Review of resident 6's medical records revealed no documentation of a physician assessment with a documented rationale for the extended use of the PRN Ativan past 14 days. On 2/9/23 at 11:01 AM, an interview was conducted with Registered Nurse (RN) 1. RN 1 stated that resident 6 was on hospice and received lorazepam and morphine for comfort. RN 1 stated that without the ordered lorazepam, resident 6 developed anxiety. RN 1 stated a few reasons a resident received lorazepam included a diagnoses of terminal agitation or if a hospice resident was transitioning. RN 1 stated that resident 6 received scheduled lorazepam and had not needed her prn order of lorazepam. On 2/9/23 at 11:46 AM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated resident 6 was a hospice resident diagnosed with terminal agitation. The DON stated that it was normal for a resident to have lorazepam prescribed to treat the terminal agitation. The DON stated a resident should be monitored for any side effects in regards to the lorazepam. The DON stated that monitoring was documented in the TAR. The DON stated she was unsure why resident 6 had not been monitored for adverse side effects in regards to Lorazepam up until February 7. 2. Resident 11 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included encephalopathy, hemiplegia and hemiparesis, type 2 diabetes mellitus, alcoholic cirrhosis, schizoaffective disorder bipolar type, major depressive disorder, alcohol induced pancreatitis, paranoid schizophrenia, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), anxiety disorder, insomnia, hyperlipidemia, atrial fibrillation, Gastro-Esophageal Reflux Disease (GERD), chronic pain, thrombocytopenia, obstructive sleep apnea, congestive heart failure, neuropathy, and repeated falls. On 2/7/23 resident 11's medical records were reviewed. Review of resident 11's physician orders revealed the following: a. Lithium Carbonate Capsule 600 mg, give 1 capsule by mouth one time a day for major depressive disorder related to SCHIZOAFFECTIVE DISORDER, BIPOLAR TYPE. The order was initiated on 10/7/22. b. Trazodone HCl (hydrochloride) Tablet 100 mg, give 1 tablet by mouth one time a day for insomnia. The order was initiated on 10/6/22. c. Sertraline HCl Tablet 100 mg, give 1 tablet by mouth one time a day for depression. The order was initiated on 10/7/22. Review of resident 11's January 2023 and February 2023 MARs and TARs revealed monitoring for side effects of the antidepressant, episodes of behavior associated with the antidepressant, and monitoring of hours of sleep. No documentation could be found for non-pharmacological interventions that were attempted for the antidepressant and antipsychotic medication. Additionally, no documentation could be found for monitoring for side effects and episodes of behavior for the antipsychotic medication. On 2/09/23 at 11:24 AM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated that the non-pharmacological interventions for psychotropic medications were talking to the resident, provide reassurance, provide a quiet environment, and listening. The DON stated that if it was not located in the TAR then it was not documented as being completed.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0779 (Tag F0779)

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 41 sampled residents, that the facility did not file in the res...

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 41 sampled residents, that the facility did not file in the resident's clinical record signed and dated reports of radiological and other diagnostic services. Specifically, a resident had a venous doppler and electrocardiogram (EKG) ordered and the results were not located in the residents medical records. Resident identifier 20. Findings included: Resident 20 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which consisted of alcohol withdrawal, dysphagia, alcohol induced pancreatitis, cirrhosis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, type 2 diabetes mellitus, congestive heart failure, cognitive communication deficit, viral hepatitis C, supraventricular tachycardia, stimulant abuse, abdominal pain, osteoporosis, hypertension, thrombocytopenia, hyperlipidemia, anxiety disorder, gastro-esophageal reflux disease, anemia, opioid abuse, sensorineural hearing loss, major depressive disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, intervertebral disc degeneration, vitiligo eye, and tobacco use. On 2/7/23, resident 20's medical records were reviewed. On 12/16/22, resident 20's physician ordered to an EKG stat [immediately] and a bilateral leg venous doppler. On 12/16/22 at 7:13 PM, the physician progress note documented that resident 20's EKG showed tachycardia. The physician documented under plan of care to obtain a bilateral leg venous doppler ultrasound as soon as possible. On 2/13/22 at 1:15 PM, the Corporate Resource Nurse (CRN) provided the laboratory results for the EKG and bilateral leg venous doppler by email. The results were followed by a fax transmittal report that was dated 2/13/23 and the doppler report contained a fax date of 2/13/22 at 7:36 PM. The results did not contain any hand written notation that the reports were received or that notification had been made to the provider. On 2/14/23 at 11:41 AM, an interview was conducted with the DON. The DON stated that the diagnostic results were faxed to the facility by the company. At 11:55 AM, a follow-up interview was conducted with the DON. The DON stated that sometimes diagnostic reports did not get faxed to them, but within 24 hours staff should follow-up with results of orders. The DON stated that sometimes nurses would ask the DON or ADON to follow-up with results of diagnostic tests.
CONCERN (D)

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

Dental Services (Tag F0791)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, it was determined, the facility did not provide or obtain routine dental services. Specifi...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, it was determined, the facility did not provide or obtain routine dental services. Specifically, for 1 out of 41 sampled residents, a resident stated her dentures did not fit and needed to be adjusted. In addition, a dental appointment revealed the resident needed her dentures realigned. Resident identifier: 10. Findings included: Resident 10 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnose which included cerebrovascular disease, mononeuropathy, chronic respiratory failure with hypercapnia, caervicalgia, urinary tract infection, and chronic pain due to trauma. On 2/6/23 at 12:35 PM, resident 10 was interviewed. Resident 10 stated her dentures did not fit and were too big. Resident 10 stated she was unable to get new dentures because it was too soon. Resident 10's medical record was reviewed on 2/8/23. A significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], revealed resident 10 had no broken or loosely fitting full or partial dentures. The MDS further revealed resident 10 had no natural teeth or tooth fragments, no abnormal mouth tissue, no broken or cavity teeth, no inflamed or bleeding gums, and no mouth or facial pain. A care plan dated 10/6/22 and revised on 11/9/22, revealed The resident has Full Dentures. [Resident 10] denies having any dental issues [with] dentures. She stated that they fit properly. The goal was The resident will be free of infection, pain or bleeding in the oral cavity by review date. Interventions included The resident will comply with mouth care at least daily through review date; Coordinate arrangements for dental care, transportation as needed/as ordered; Monitor/document/report PRN [as needed] any s/sx [signs or symptoms] of oral/dental problems needing attention: Pain (gums, toothache, palate), Abscess, Debris in mouth, Lips cracked or bleeding, teeth missing, loose, broken, eroded, decayed, Tongue (black, coated, inflamed, (white, smooth), Ulcers in mouth, Lesions and; Provide mouth care as per ADL [activities of daily living] personal hygiene. A physician progress note dated 7/2/19, revealed pt [patient] was scheduled for denture exam/cleaning/IO [intraosseous injection] pt declined denture cleaning/IO, did not want to take dentures out, just ate and did not want IO. pt is wearing old dentures, new dentures do not fit, would like a reline. pt stated that she's already had new dentures relined 3 times and is concerned that her bottom denture is too small, hurts when she wears it. TX [treatment] NEEDED: reline lower denture. A weekly nursing assessment on 2/5/23, revealed that resident 10 had upper and lower dentures. On 2/8/23 at 9:23 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 3 was interviewed. LPN 3 stated there was a dentist that came into the facility. LPN 3 stated the Assistant Director of Nursing added residents names to a list to see the dentist. LPN 3 stated the front desk staff member made dental appointments outside the facility. LPN 3 stated she checked residents dentures and asked if they were having pain regularly. On 2/8/23 at 9:34 AM, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 3. CNA 3 stated she was not aware of any chewing or swallowing problems with resident 10. CNA 3 stated resident 10 had not complained of her dentures not fitting. CNA 3 stated if a resident complained of mouth pain or dentures not fitting she would report it to the nurse. On 2/8/23 at 9:41 AM, Registered Nurse (RN) 3 was interviewed. RN 3 stated resident 10 had upper and lower dentures. RN 3 stated resident 10 had not complained of her dentures. On 2/8/23 at 9:55 AM, the Resident Advocate (RA) was interviewed. The RA stated that all dental visit documentation was in the miscellaneous section of the medical record. The RA stated nurses also made progress notes when a resident had a dental appointment. The RA stated she was not sure when resident 10 had a dental visit. At 11:06 AM, the RA stated that resident 10 had dentures and did not have a dental visit since the dentist recommended realignment. The RA stated that resident 10 would probably refuse. The RA was unable to provide documentation that resident 10 was offered and refused dental visits.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0839 (Tag F0839)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, it was determined, the facility did not ensure all professional staff were licensed, certi...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, it was determined, the facility did not ensure all professional staff were licensed, certified, or registered in accordance with applicable State laws. Specifically, for 1 out of 41 sampled residents, a nurse with a suspended license was providing patient care and was not following the restrictions on their license. Resident Identifier: 47. Finding included: Resident 47 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included, but were not limited to, spina bifida, type two diabetes mellitus with hyperglycemia, muscle weakness, bladder disorder, anxiety disorder, chronic pain, essential hypertension, and a colostomy. On 2/6/23 at 12:31 PM, an interview was conducted with resident 47. Resident 47 stated that the Patient Care Coordinator (PCC) was a nurse that provided care for him until he was injured by the PCC. Resident 47 stated that the PCC yanked him up in bed by himself and made the wounds on his buttocks start to bleed. Resident 47 stated that the PCC intentionally yanked him up really hard. Resident 47 stated the Wound Care Nurse (WCN) told him that the PCC was no longer allowed to do wound care on him. Resident 47 stated he felt safe here because he knew that the PCC would never work with him again since the PCC was a part of administration now. Resident 47's medical record was reviewed on 2/7/23. A grievance report filed on 1/5/23, stated that the PCC no longer worked with resident 47. An initial abuse report was filed on 2/6/23 at 5:05 PM, regarding the same incident that had happened between resident 47 and the PCC in January 2023. It was documented that resident 47 and the PCC had not had any contact with each other and that the PCC had not assisted with wound care on resident 47 in the past 30 or more days. The PCC's license number 7427577-3101 was looked up on The Division of Occupational and Professional licensing website. It documented that on 5/3/22, the PCC surrendered his license to practice as a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) in the State of Utah along with all residual rights pertaining to said license. It stated that the PCC agreed to not reapply for licensure as any type of nurse in the State of Utah until one year had elapsed from the effective date of the stipulation and order on 5/5/22. On 2/7/23 at 12:53 PM, an interview was conducted with the WCN. The WCN stated the PCC assisted her during wound care by holding and positioning the residents. The WCN stated the PCC assisted the floor nurses when they required help with wound care on their residents. On 2/8/23 at 8:52 AM, an interview was conducted with the Resident Advocate (RA). The RA stated that she checked in with resident 47 every day and filed a grievance report for resident 47 once she found out about the incident with resident 47 and the PCC. The RA stated that initially resident 47 said the PCC had not done his wound care right and he no longer wanted the PCC to do it. The RA stated she asked resident 47 what the PCC had not done right and resident 47 stated he did not like the way the PCC had done his wound care. The RA stated they filed an entity report on 2/6/23. The RA stated that resident 47's story had changed and stated resident 47 recalled the PCC had come in to do wound care and the PCC snatched him up and made his buttocks bleed a little. The RA stated it sounded like abuse and as soon as they were informed, they started an investigation. On 2/13/23 at 10:14 AM, an interview was conducted with the PCC. The PCC stated that his jobs at the facility were to assist with wound care when the WCN needed help, assist with rolling residents, order supplies, and helped coordinate resident appointments. The PCC stated that with wound care, he held wound dressings in place and helped wrap dressings with the WCN. The PCC stated he did not go into resident's rooms by himself. The PCC stated he was a LPN but he had to surrender his license. The PCC stated he received his training in nursing school and was taught all the proper body mechanics while in school. The PCC stated that he was getting his license back in May of this year. The PCC stated he was not allowed to practice medicine and stayed within his scope of practice. The PCC stated he had been resident 47's nurse for two years before the incident happened. The PCC stated he had not heard that resident 47 was upset with the care he had provided him and said he was told two or three weeks later about it. The PCC stated he apologized to resident 47 and stated he was not aware he had hurt resident 47. The PCC stated that at the time of the incident, he needed to slide resident 47 up in bed and had another Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) help him. The PCC stated him and the other CNA had the bed at chest height and used the drawsheet underneath resident 47 to pull him up. The PCC stated he had never pulled resident 47 up in bed by himself. The PCC stated he was told by the WCN that resident 47 was mad at him. The PCC stated that he took it upon himself to not go back into resident 47's room. The PCC stated he had never had any issues with resident 47 before the incident. The PCC stated he had not worked with resident 47 since he found out about resident 47's anger towards him. On 2/14/23 at 11:45 AM, an interview was conducted with Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated the job duties of the PCC included marketing, recruiting, interviewing and hiring new employees, helped with transportation, screened potential residents while at the hospital, assisted the wound care nurse, and sometimes drew blood work at the facility. The DON stated she was informed by the Corporate Nurse that no type of certification was needed to draw blood and they only needed to provided training. The DON stated they looked into the PCC's license restrictions and determined he was able to draw blood since they had provided him education on how to do it.
CONCERN (D)

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

Antibiotic Stewardship (Tag F0881)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident 68 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included, but were not limited to, paraplegia incompl...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident 68 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included, but were not limited to, paraplegia incomplete, fracture of neck, spinal stenosis, extradural and subdural abscess, surgical aftercare, moderate protein-calorie malnutrition, pressure ulcer of left buttock stage 3, aneurysm of heart, mood disorder due to known physiological condition with major depressive-like episode, abrasion left ankle, reduced mobility, pressure induced deep tissue damage of right heel and left heel, pressure-induced deep tissue damage of right ankle, essential hypertension, psychoactive substance use and abuse, neurogenic bowel, neuromuscular dysfunction of bladder, and muscle spasm. Resident 68's medical record was reviewed on 2/9/23. On 12/28/22 at 5:52 PM, a Nurses Note documented Note Text: NP [Nurse Practitioner] reviewed recent lab results wn/o [with new order] to give Rocephin 1GM [gram] QD [daily] IM [intramuscular] x [times] 5days, UA w [with] C&S [culture and sensitivity], . On 12/28/22 at 11:50 PM, an Infection Note documented Late Entry: Note Text: Pt [Patient] on IM Rocephin for possible UTI. pt tolerated administration of med w/o [without] any pain. No s/s [signs or symptoms] adverse reaction noted. On 12/29/22 at 4:00 AM, an Infection Note documented Note Text: Rocephin 1 gm IM started r/t [related to] possible UTI - urine collected and sent to lab, cloudy brown. Pt tolerated IM shot w/o pain. No s/s adverse reaction noted. A Labs Results Report collected on 12/28/22 and reported on 12/29/22 at 9:22 AM, documented the following: [Note: A staff member noted on the report to wait for the C&S.] a. [NAME] Blood Cells (WBC), urine were greater than 30, High. b. Red Blood Cells, urine were greater than 30, High. c. Bacteria, urine 2 plus d. Mucus, urine 1 plus On 12/29/22 at 10:29 AM, a Nurses Note documented Note Text: Res [Resident] cont [continues] on antbs [antibiotics] for elevated wbc, UTI, no adverse side effects noted, Res with no temp [temperature] 98.6, Res c/o [complains of] no pain. On 12/29/22 at 2:40 PM, a Lab Note documented Note Text: NP reviewed UA results, waiting for C&S no new orders. A Labs Results Report collected on 12/28/22 and reported on 12/30/22 at 8:58 AM, documented a Microbiology report. The result on the report was documented as gram-negative bacillus Identification and susceptibility studies to follow. [Note: A staff member documented on the form bactrim DS, Rocephin, and florastor. Instructions for the medications were included on the form.] On 12/30/22 at 1:51 PM, a Lab Note documented Note Text: MD [Medical Director] reviewed lab results for UA, STARTED bactrim DS PO [by mouth] BID [twice daily] for 10 days, START florastor 1 capsule BID 14 days. for UTI. On 1/1/23 at 12:48 PM, a Nurses Note documented Note Text: Patient taking IV [intravenous] Ceftriaxone and PO Doxycycline for Leukocytosis/Osteomyelitis. Also taking ABX [antibiotic] Bactrim for UTI. On 1/1/23 10:00 PM, an Infection Note documented Note Text: Resident on 2 PO ABX Bactrim DS and Doxycycline and IM Ceftriaxone for UTI. No adverse side effect noted. Afebrile tonight. Foley to down drain w/ [with] dark brown color urine noted. Fluids encouraged. A laboratory Microbiology form collected on 12/28/22 and faxed to the facility on 2/13/23 at 10:53 AM, documented the following urine culture. a. Cefepime - susceptible b. Ceftazidime - susceptible c. pseudomonas aeruginosa, susceptible to Ceftazidime Avibactam d. Ciprofloxacin - resistant e. Gentamicin - susceptible f. pseudomonas aeruginosa, susceptible to Imipenem, Meropenem, piperacillin/tazobactam, and tobramycin. Resistant to levofloxacin. [Note: The susceptibility study was not available at the facility or filed in resident 68's medical record. Resident 68 was treated with two antibiotics that were not included on the susceptibility study.] On 2/14/23 at 9:40 AM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated that the facility would send labs to two different local laboratories. The DON stated that resident labs were drawn in house by staff and the courier would pick up the labs and deliver them to the laboratory. The DON stated that the turn around time on the labs was usually 48 to 72 hours. The DON was unsure if the sensitivity report for resident 68 was available for the MD to review and determine which antibiotics resident 68 should be receiving. Based on interview and record review, it was determined, the facility did not establish an infection prevention and control program that included, an antibiotic stewardship program that included antibiotic use protocols and a system to monitor antibiotic use. Specifically, for 2 out of 41 sampled residents, a resident with a urinary tract infection (UTI) was not treated for a pathogen that was listed on the urinalysis (UA). In addition, a resident with a UTI was treated with two antibiotics that were not listed on the susceptibility laboratory report. Resident identifiers: 15 and 68. Findings included: 1. Resident 15 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included multiple sclerosis, influenza, pneumonia, Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, UTI, kiebsiella penumoniae, polyneuropathy, dysphagia, and super pubic catheter. On 2/7/23 at 9:30 AM, an interview was conducted with resident 15. Resident 15 stated he went to the hospital for a UTI. Resident 15 stated he had signs of a UTI for about three to four days before going to the hospital. Resident 15 stated he had burning, weakness, and blurred vision prior to admission to the hospital. Resident 15 stated he told the facility staff to send him to the hospital. Resident 15's medical record was reviewed on 2/9/23. A urinalysis was collected from resident 15 on 11/21/22, and reported to the facility on [DATE]. Resident 15 had Enterococcus species, Klebsiella pneumonia, proteus vulgaris, and psudomonas aeruginosa pathogens detected. It was hand written Acidophilus 1 orally twice daily for 21 days, Bactrim DS (double strength) orally twice daily for 10 days, and Macrobid 100 milligrams orally twice daily for 10 days. There was no antibiotic to cover the pseudomonas aeruginosa pathogen. There were no progress notes regarding why a urinalysis was collected for resident 15. An infection note dated 12/3/22 at 2:16 AM, revealed that resident 15 completed oral Bactrum and Macrobid to treat UTI. Pt [patient] upset, thinks he was supposed to be on a long term antibiotic to prevent UTI from returning. Will discuss [with] am [morning] nurse to see if she knows anything about it. A nurses note dated 12/5/22 at 2:19 PM, revealed there were no signs or symptoms of an infection in resident 15. There were no nursing notes until 12/11/22 at 1:53 PM, Around 7:20 am, floor nurse went to answer resident's call light. Resident was laying (sic) bed with head up 45-60 degree, is alert and oriented x 4 [someone who was alert and oriented to person, place, time, and event] and said 'I want to go to the ER [emergency room]. I had not sleep (sic) all night. I cannot breath.' Resident was very anxious/panic atthis (sic) time. Resident VS [Vital signs] was taken with BP [blood pressure] 150/100, T [temperature] 98.7, P [pulse] 118 (manual), R [respirations] 20, o2stat [oxygen saturations] 92%. ABD [abdomen] was tender noted, had a large soft/loose stool noted at this time, denied chest pain, SP [suprapubic] catheter is in place with amber clear urine in tube noted. Floor nurse called [name of transportation company] and call [name of physician] for resident. Resident was transferred to ER of [local hospital] by the transportation around 08:00am, Floor nurse just call the ER to update for resident. Resident is admitted d/t [due to] septic. Resident's wife .was notified. The hospital history and physical dated 12/11/22 at 1:25 PM, revealed that resident 15 had sepsis. Resident 15 had a history of recurrent UTI's and had a fever of 101 upon admission to the ER. Resident 15 had complained of insomnia for two days and was found to have influenza, and signs of a UTI on urinalysis. Resident 15 was administered meropenem and started on Zosyn. No additional information was provided regarding why resident 15 was not treated for the third pathogen detected in the urine.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** On 2/13/23 at 12:38 PM, an interview was conducted with Housekeeper (HK) 1. HK 1 stated that she worked Thursday through Monday....

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** On 2/13/23 at 12:38 PM, an interview was conducted with Housekeeper (HK) 1. HK 1 stated that she worked Thursday through Monday. HK 1 stated that she was assigned resident rooms 23 through 31. HK 1 stated that the resident rooms were cleaned daily. HK 1 stated she would clean the shower rooms on her route and the nursing stations. HK 1 stated the facility cleaning was split with another Housekeeper. HK 1 stated that yesterday she cleaned the front lobby and the dining room with the other housekeeper. On 2/13/23 at 1:16 PM, an interview was conducted with the Resident Advocate (RA). The RA stated that she did the housekeeping schedules. The RA stated when the facility was fully staffed the facility had one housekeeper for each hallway, a part time housekeeper, and two laundry staff. The RA stated the facility was not fully staffed with housekeepers. The RA stated Monday through Friday the facility should have three and a half housekeepers plus one laundry worker. The RA stated Saturday and Sunday there should be three housekeepers and one laundry staff. The RA stated the housekeepers would rotate assignments. The RA stated that resident rooms were cleaned daily and some resident rooms could be cleaned two to three times a day. The RA stated that staff would try and clean those rooms as often as they could. The RA stated the back hallway housekeeper was also responsible for the social services room. The middle hallway housekeeper was also responsible for the dining room, Restorative Nursing Aide room, and the therapy room. The front hallway housekeeper was also responsible for the front lobby, activities room, break room, and the offices. On 2/13/23 at 2:46 PM, an interview was conducted with the Maintenance Director. The Maintenance Director stated the facility had a computer system that all staff had access to and could input a work order. The Maintenance Director stated that staff could indicate on the work order how urgent the request was. The Maintenance Director stated the entire facility was going to be painted and they were going to paint four rooms a month. The Maintenance Director stated the front lobby and the offices had been painted. The Maintenance Director stated as soon as the resident rooms were open he would call the painter. The Maintenance Director stated the facility was full right now with residents. The Maintenance Director stated the plan was to have a HK or himself complete a room inspection form prior to the resident moving in. The Maintenance Director reviewed the work orders in the computer system and stated that he did not have work orders for resident 10 or resident 36. Based on observation and interview, it was determined, the facility did not provide a clean, comfortable homelike environment. Specifically, for 5 out of 41 sampled residents, resident rooms were dirty, a sit to stand lift was dirty, resident wheelchairs were dirty, and furniture was broken. Resident identifiers: 10, 15, 36, 54, and 72. Findings included: 1. On 2/6/23 at 10:04 AM, an observation was made of resident 36's room. Resident 36 had gashes behind the bed in the dry wall. Resident 36 stated the gashes had been in the wall since she had moved to the room. 2. On 2/6/23 at 10:14 AM, an observation was made of resident 54's room. Resident 54's room had laundry on the floor, a ripped gift bag on the floor, and a can of soda on the floor. Resident 54 stated sometimes her room was cleaned but she would like to have her room cleaned more often. 3. On 2/6/23 at 12:13 PM, an observation was made of a sit to stand lift in the hallway across from resident room [ROOM NUMBER]. There was dust and debris observed on the foot rest area. 4. On 2/6/23 at 12:17 PM, an observation was made of resident 72's jazzy chair. Resident 72's chair was observed to have debris including cigarette butts on the foot area. Resident 72 stated he would like his jazzy chair cleaned but it was so bad, it probably needed it to be pressure washed. 5. On 2/6/23 at 12:30 PM, an observation was made of resident 10's room. The front of resident 10's shoe drawer was missing. Resident 10 stated she wanted the front of the drawer to be fixed. Resident 10 stated she thought her shoes came up missing because the front of the drawer was missing. 6. On 2/6/23 at 1:06 PM, an observation was made of resident 36's room. There was a plastic bag containing fabrics at the foot of the bed. 7. On 2/6/23 at 1:21 PM, an observation was made of resident 15's room. Resident 15's room was soiled with crumbs and debris on the floor. There were crumbs and debris under the bed. Resident 15 stated he would like to have his room cleaned. On 2/7/23 at 9:20 AM, a follow up observation was made of resident 15's room. There were crumbs and debris under the bed and on the floor. 8. On 2/6/23 at 1:27 PM, an observation was made of a dresser in room [ROOM NUMBER]. The pull handle on the dresser was observed to be broken. 9. On 2/7/23 at 8:52 AM, an observation was made of a sit to stand lift outside resident room [ROOM NUMBER]. There was debris and dust observed on the foot rest area.
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

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 4. Resident 3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included but not limited to schizoaffective disorder, P...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 4. Resident 3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included but not limited to schizoaffective disorder, Parkinson's disease, major depressive disorder, insomnia, cognitive communication deficit, and type 2 diabetes mellitus. Resident 3's medical records were reviewed on 2/7/23 Resident 3's progress notes revealed the following: a. Nursing note dated 12/6/22 documented as followed: rec'd [received] call from 911 dispatch stating resident called saying that she had been strangled. upon entering room, res [resident] was noted to be laying on bed, talking on the phone w/ [with] 911 dispatch. res handed phone to this nurse, confirmed that emergency response not needed. asked resident what happened, res then responded stating 'I only have 1/4 of a brain', res redirected to statement to dispatch that 'someone strangled her'. res said she was and showed this nurse her neck saying 'look at the marks'. neck assessed w/no marks/discolorations/wounds to be found. told res no marks are visible. res then said 'well then the results are negative with you and now the results are positive'. asked res if she saw someone come into the room, res replied 'no, I was sitting on my bed with my coat on and my eyes were closed'. asked res if she heard anything, res said 'no' then stated 'I don't want to talk to you anymore'. res encouraged to make needs known WCTM [will continue to monitor]. b. Nursing note dated 1/11/23 documented as followed: at 0445 [4:45 AM], this nurse rec'd call from [local police department] officer r/t [related to] res calling into dispatch stating that this nurse entered room hour prior and 'pulled or punched her in the arm and it is now fractured'. events of shift discussed w/ [local police department] officer w/ no events, hour prior resident was coming into facility after smoking outside and requested assistance by this nurse to be pushed in w/c back to room, res was assisted to door of room then res entered room alone and in stable condition and no event occurring at that time. [Local police department] officer came into bldg [building] and discussed the events w/ resident, per the officer res stated she 'now doesn't know who woke her up and hurt her arm'. res can be seen in bed lying on her side propping her head up w/ the 'affected' arm. nurse from other unit came and assessed res w/ officer monitoring and found no apparent injury, no swelling, no wincing/grimacing w/ movement, no limb shortening. c. Nursing note dated 1/15/23 documented as followed: medication administrations and cares completed during this shift w/ staff having other staff members present r/t recent abuse accusations. res is compliant w/ meds/cares; tolerated well. res noted to be in pleasant mood w/ behavioral disturbances WCTM [will continue to monitor]. d. Nursing note dated 1/28/23 documented as followed: noted increased behavioral disturbances during shift w/ res, res has made several statements of staff 'hitting' her then changes her statements to staff waking her up and taking her 'out there'. res reporting that she is 'blind' from 'everything people here have done to her'. res able to track movements w/ eyes during conversation. then res reports staff 'stealing money and clothes' from her. res unable to describe missing clothing items, behaviors reported to DON [Director of Nursing], grievance completed per facility policy. all cares/interactions/medications completed w/ other staff present, staff encouraged to aid resident w/ other staff present. res currently refusing to take medications as indicated, c/o [complaining of] pain; ordered PRN [as needed] APAP [Tylenol] given, will f/u [follow up] w/ effectiveness, refuses to have VS [vital signs] & BG [blood glucose] checked at this time, will cont [continue] to encourage compliance. e. Nursing note dated 1/29/23 documented as followed: rec'd phone call from res mother, mother reports that res called crying stating someone entered her room and 'hit her over the head', mother reassured of res's safety; staff checked on res w/ nothing [NAME], no s/sx of crying/distress, res requested snack which was given, res denies problem WCTM. The Facility Reported Incidents (FRIs) filed with the State Survey Agency (SSA) were reviewed and revealed only the incident on 1/11/23 had been reported. No FRIs were located for the incidents that happened on 12/6/22 and 1/29/23. No abuse investigations were located for the following dates: 12/6/22, 1/11/23 and 1/29/23. On 12/13/23 at 12:35 PM, an interview was conducted with Registered Nurse (RN) 1. RN 1 stated resident 3 was alert and oriented to herself. RN 1 stated resident 3 experienced hallucinations and delusions. RN 1 stated resident 3 was on her own time line. RN 1 stated resident 3 made up scenarios if she was not comfortable who she was working with. RN 1 stated the Administrator (ADM) was notified for any instances of abuse. On 2/13/23 at 2:53 PM, a phone interview was conducted with Registered Nurse (RN) 4. RN 4 stated that resident 3 was alert and oriented to herself. RN 4 stated resident 3 experienced delusional thinking at times and tended to accuse staff of things that had not a happened. RN 4 stated the DON was notified every time they believed resident 3 had been hurt. RN 4 stated resident 3 constantly changed her stories when she was asked to expanded on what happened. RN 4 stated they always had another CNA when they had to enter resident 3's room. RN 4 said she notified the abuse coordinator and the DON for any allegations of abuse. On 2/13/23 at 2:16 PM, an interview was conducted with the ADM. The ADM stated he was the abuse coordinator and he was the one responsible for the abuse investigations. The ADM stated that resident 3 regularly called the cops or ems. The ADM stated sometimes ems did not respond right away when resident 3 called them. The ADM stated that resident 3 had a history of schizophrenia and was very paranoid. The ADM stated that resident 3 was very wishy washy; one minute resident 3 wanted to do something and then the next minute she changed her mind. The ADM stated they immediately investigated any situation where resident 3 made any accusations towards staff or of being injured. The ADM was asked what was done for resident 3 on 1/11/23 when she called the cops and he replied they had immediately investigated the situation and ruled out any abuse. The ADM stated that resident 3 had not exhibited any distress and had no physical injuries and stated that resident 3 had changed her story. The ADM was unable to provide the abuse investigation. The ADM stated they had not done a formal investigation since they had been able to rule out abuse right away. On 2/13/23 at 3:02 PM, an interview was conducted with the DON. The DON stated they always made sure that resident 3 was doing okay mentally and physically. The DON stated an investigation needed to be done every time resident 3 stated she had been injured, even if it was a hallucination or delusion she had. The DON stated they needed to take every accusation of abuse seriously and it needed to be investigated and reported. The DON stated they had done an investigation and believed they had turned it in. The DON stated staff had not notified her of what happened to resident 3 on 1/29/23. The DON stated if she had known, they would have turned in an entity report. Based on interview and record review it was determined, for 4 out of 41 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, were reported immediately, but not later than 2 hours after the allegation was made, if the events that caused the allegation involved abuse or resulted in serious bodily injury, to the administrator of the facility and to other officials. Specifically, an accident in which a resident sustained second degree burns when his oxygen ignited while smoking a cigarette unsupervised was not reported to the State Survey Agency (SSA) or Adult Protective Services (APS). Two allegations of resident abuse were not reported to the SSA or APS. Lastly, a Silver Alert was issued for a missing resident and this was not reported to the SSA or APS. Resident identifiers: 3, 17, 31, and 131. Findings included: 1. Resident 17 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included but not limited to encephalopathy, type 2 diabetes mellitus with neuropathy, congestive heart failure, major depressive disorder, mild cognitive impairment, obstructive sleep apnea, hypertension, sensorineural hearing loss, and tobacco use. On 2/6/23 at 2:06 PM, an interview was conducted with resident 17. Resident 17 stated that he lit his cigarette while he had his oxygen on, and it caught on fire. Resident 17 stated that it taught him a lesson not to have the oxygen on while smoking. Resident 17 stated that at the time of the accident he did not have staff accompany him while smoking. Resident 17 stated that now staff go out with him while he smoked. Resident 17 stated that at the time of the accident he had his lighter and cigarettes with him in his room. On 1/27/23 at 5:22 PM, resident 17's nursing progress note documented, Returned from ER [emergency room] awake alert no sob [shortness of breath] on RA [room air] sat [saturation] 91%. Face and hands cleaned with lotion on skin. Small burn on To [sic] small burns [sic] on right upper back all oTA [open to air]. No c/o [complaints of] pain asking for a cigarette before he was in bed. Explained to resident he will be on assisted smoking and will be taken out by staff at scheduled times. Call light within reach also instructed to call for assist getting out of bed. States he understands. No new orders from ER. On 1/27/23 at 12:37 PM, resident 17's incident report documented, Called by CNA to assist a resident outside smoking on ramp outside bldg. [building]. Found [resident 17] on the ramp. Nasal cannula was on fire in residents lap and side of w/c [wheelchair] was also burning. The incident report documented burns to the right finger and right shoulder. The report documented predisposing factors as confused, gait imbalance, and impaired memory. On 1/30/23, the incident report documented that the resident was educated on assisted smoking times, supervision required, PRN [as needed] use of lozenges for smoking cessation, and that cigarettes and lighter must be kept at nurse's station. On 1/27/23, the Hospital History and Physical documented a second degree, partial thickness burns of resident 17's face. The triage note documented that resident 17 was transferred to the emergency room due to smoking a cigarette while on baseline 4 liters of oxygen per nasal cannula (NC). The NC caught on fire and singed the tubing approximately 1.5 to 2 feet. Right sided nasal/cheek and right scapula blisters. Soot present in bilateral nares and dusting of soot to top of tongue. Patient arrived with second-degree burns to nares bilaterally, breathing was unlabored. Patient with singed nares and secondary burn to right upper lip and cheek, no evidence of oropharyngeal involvement. Review of the facility Policy on Identifying Types of Abuse documented any person who suspects that abuse, neglect, or misappropriation of property may have occurred must immediately report the alleged violation to their immediate supervisor or the Administrator of the facility, State Survey Agencies and Law Enforcement. The policy documented the time period for reporting in the case of Serious Bodily Injury - 2 Hour Limit: If the events that cause the reasonable suspicion result in serious bodily injury to a resident, the covered individual (owner, operator, employee, manager, agent, or contractor) shall report the suspicion immediately, to State Survey Agencies and Law Enforcement, but no later than 2 hours after forming the suspicion. The policy was last revised on 11/2015. On 2/8/23 at 4:47 PM, an interview was conducted with the Administrator (ADM). The ADM stated that at the time of the accident resident 17's cigarettes were stored with the nurse. The ADM stated We don't know who he got the cigarette from. The ADM stated that when resident 17 went outside to smoke he stayed right on the landing outside the doors. The ADM stated that at the time of the accident resident 17 was not a supervised smoker. The ADM stated that he did not report the incident to the state agency (SA). The ADM stated that he asked the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) if the incident needed to be reported, and the ADON was responsible to document all the details of the incident. The ADM stated that if the incident was not abuse then he delegated it to staff to investigate. The ADM stated that if it was abuse related, he would be the person responsible for reporting it to the SA. The ADM stated that he assumed that the ADON documented it all and reported anything to the state if it needed to be reported. On 2/8/23 at 5:12 PM, an interview was conducted with the ADON. The ADON stated that she was present the day that the accident occurred with resident 17. The ADON stated that resident 17 burned his nose and scorched his shoulder. The ADON stated that the biggest injury was the burn to the face. The ADON stated that when the emergency medical technicians (EMT) were present they noted that there was soot in the nares and mouth and took resident 17 to the hospital to be evaluated. The ADON stated that when she saw resident 17 his face was raw. The ADON stated that resident 17 had said, I'm so sorry I screwed up. The ADON stated that she did not report the incident to the SA and was not instructed to. On 2/9/23 at 9:08 AM, a follow-up interview was conducted with the ADM. The ADM stated he was the facility abuse coordinator. The ADM stated that for any abuse investigations, the previous Social Service Worker (SSW) would take the abuse report allegations and would work them up for the initial investigation, complete a quick investigation, and then would bring it to him for review. The ADM stated that he would still be notified, but as far as the notification to agencies it did not have to be conducted by him. The ADM stated that the notification to the stated agency (SA) had to be within 2 hours. The ADM stated that he looked at the burn accident with resident 17 for a possible neglect situation and determined that it was not neglect. Specifically, when it happened, he was called down and he inquired how it happened. The ADM stated that resident 17 had a wheelchair with supplemental oxygen and he was free to come and go as he wanted. The ADM stated that resident 17's cigarettes and lighter were kept at the nurse's station, and if he wanted to go out the staff should be ensuring that the oxygen was not on the wheelchair. The ADM stated that resident 17 was free to come and go and there was nothing abnormal about him going outside, nor was there an order for him not to. The ADM stated that at the time of the incident resident 17 was located right outside the back door. The ADM stated that the nurse reported that he did not have his cigarettes and he bummed one off someone else. The ADM stated that he believed that another resident gave resident 17 a lighter. The ADM stated he was not sure how he determined this, but the nurse did not give him a cigarette or lighter. The ADM stated that there was no staff involvement, and therefore he determined no neglect of staff attention. The ADM stated It was a normal process of wanting to go outside, there were no orders, and no smoking materials were provided by the staff. The ADM stated there was no willful harm or restriction. The ADM stated that it was an adverse event of significant proportion, but it should not be reported by the definitions of abuse. The ADM further stated that when he inquired with the ADON it was an adverse event but determined that there was no evidence based reason for abuse or neglect. The ADM stated that resident 17 could have asked for the cigarettes or the other residents gave it to him. The ADM stated that there was an injury, and they knew where it came from, the how and why. The ADM stated that for it to be reported by the abuse protocol he determined that it was not needed. The ADM stated that he believed the state agency needed to know about the incident but not through the abuse portal. 2. Resident 31 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and re-admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included but were not limited to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), sepsis, dementia, type 2 diabetes mellitus, anxiety disorder, unspecified disorder of personality and behavior, schizoaffective disorder, viral hepatitis C, glaucoma, delirium, history of malignant neoplasm, and chronic pain syndrome. On 2/7/23 resident 31's medical records were reviewed. On 3/27/2022 at 6:13 PM, resident 31's nursing progress note documented, Patient continues to be very sexually inappropriate with comments and continues to attempt and touch individuals. Patient is not easily redirected and becomes upset and calls names when asked to not continue with comments. Becomes easily upset and verbally lashes out. Will continue to educate patient on the importance of being appropriate with comments. It should be noted that review of the facility abuse investigations revealed no investigation documentation for this incident. On 2/14/23 at 1:25 PM, an interview was conducted with the Administrator (ADM). The ADM stated that he started at the facility on November 1, 2022. The ADM stated that for allegations of abuse he should notify the Ombudsman, Adult Protective Services (APS), the police department if crime or sexual abuse occurred, the resident's family, and the SA. The ADM stated that the timeframe for notification to the SA was within 2 hours of him being notified. Resident 31's progress note on 3/27/22 was read to the ADM. The ADM stated that from the nursing note it should have been brought to the attention of the ADM. The ADM stated that he might have called the police. The ADM stated that resident 31 was able to be communicated with. The ADM stated that based off the progress note this would have been an abuse investigation. The ADM stated that it should have been investigated as a possible allegation of sexual abuse. The ADM stated that the only thing that he had been notified about was that resident 31 could be verbally angry towards staff, and that the female staff get upset but no sexual overtures. 3. Resident 131 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included rheumatic tricuspid valve, chronic diastolic heart failure, dilated cardiomyopathy, heart failure, endocarditis, and history of transient ischemic attack. A silver alert was issued on 1/2/22 for resident 131. The missing resident was not reported to the State Survey Agency. Resident 131's medical record was reviewed from 2/8/23 through 2/14/23. Nursing progress notes were reviewed and revealed the following: a. On 12/12/21, a Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MOCA) was completed and resident 131 scored 19/30 which indicated mild-moderate impairment. This information was consistent with staff observation of mild impairment in problem solving, mild forgetfulness, mild disorientation, primarily to time and situation, and some difficulty completing complex tasks. b. On 12/22/21 at 9:51 PM, Resident returned from outing with family by himself. Resident very intoxicated. Laughing and happy. States he 'loves' vodka. Resident assisted to bed. bed in low position, call light within reach, all meds withheld. CNA [Certified Nursing Assistant] instructed to do hourly checks. NP [Nurse Practitioner] notified. NNO [No new orders]. c. On 12/31/21 at 12:44 AM, Sister [name removed] returned call about pt [patient] not being at facility. She had not seen him or spoke with him for a couple of days. She said she was worried and would call the police. Someone else from here was calling [name of sister], our phone conversation ended so she could answer the other line. d. On 1/6/22 at 9:50 AM, IDT (interdisciplinary team) Event Review of patient not returning from LOA (leave of absence) Event description: Pt told nurse he was going to go to Walmart and maybe to see his brother, nurse educated resident that he needs to sign out in the sign out book. Resident signed out as he had several times prior with compliant returns. Risk factors: Pt walks with walker, pt did not take scheduled medications with resident, HF [heart failure], prophylaxis antibiotics, diagnosis of HF, previous homelessness, alcohol abuse. Preventive measures: pt educated on LOA and signing out in the LOA book with destination and return time, pt has used the LOA book appropriately with multiple outings with compliant return. Root Cause: Pt chose to leave LOA and took patient belongings with him and chose not to return to the facility. New interventions: Patient was expected to return same day and did not return, floor nurse reported to administrator, SW [social worker], and patients' sister that patient checked out and has not returned to facility. Sister attempted to locate patient and unable to do so. Police were contacted to report patient has not returned to facility. MD [Medical Doctor] notified of pt absents, with new order: obtain full set VS [vital signs] upon return, assess pt condition and notify MD for further orders upon return. SW reports pt was planning a discharge to drug/alcohol program as soon as placement was available. Police came to facility and report given with face sheet and picture provided to police to attempt to locate patient safely. Sister reports to facility that pt may be doing what he does and planning to not return. Police located patient later and reports patient has all his belongings and does not want to return to facility pt wishes to remain living in homeless environment at this time. It should be noted this was documented 6 days after resident had not returned from LOA. On 2/13/23 at 2:16 PM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated when resident 131 left the facility and did not tell the staff he was leaving, but resident 131 took all his things. The DON stated that resident 131 was alert and oriented, so the staff were not afraid resident 131 would be in danger. The DON stated that resident 131 was a patient that signed out frequently in the leave of absence book. The DON stated that resident 131 signed out earlier in the day and was going to Walmart and maybe to see his brother. The DON stated when resident 131 did not return by midnight the nurse called resident 131's sister. The DON stated a message was left with the sister and the sister called back and stated that she had not seen resident 131 and the brother had not seen resident 131 either. The DON stated that she thought resident 131's sister had called the police. The DON stated when the police found resident 131 he did not want to come back to the facility. The DON stated that assessments were done on admission. The DON stated if the resident was an elopement risk the staff did not let the residents go out alone unless they were safe. The DON stated that resident 131 was alert and oriented enough to make his own choices. The DON stated that sometimes residents did not do well on the MOCA test and there for score low on cognition. The DON stated the past Licensed Clinical Social Worker (LCSW) would have been responsible for reporting to the State. On 2/14/23 at 9:40 AM, a follow-up interview was conducted with the DON. The DON stated at the time of resident 131's elopement the facility did not report to the State Agency. The DON stated that resident 131 was alert and oriented and the staff did not feel it was an elopement. The DON stated that the LCSW at the time had called the police, Adult Protective Services, and the Ombudsman. The DON stated she thought a report was submitted to the State but one was not.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Investigate Abuse (Tag F0610)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. Resident 3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included but not limited to schizoaffective disorder, P...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. Resident 3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included but not limited to schizoaffective disorder, Parkinson's disease, major depressive disorder, insomnia, cognitive communication deficit, and type 2 diabetes mellitus. Resident 3's medical records were reviewed on 2/7/23 Resident 3's progress notes revealed the following: a. Nursing note dated 12/6/22 documented as followed: rec'd [received] call from 911 dispatch stating resident called saying that she had been strangled. upon entering room, res [resident] was noted to be laying on bed, talking on the phone w/ [with] 911 dispatch. res handed phone to this nurse, confirmed that emergency response not needed. asked resident what happened, res then responded stating 'I only have 1/4 of a brain', res redirected to statement to dispatch that 'someone strangled her'. res said she was and showed this nurse her neck saying 'look at the marks'. neck assessed w/no marks/discolorations/wounds to be found. told res no marks are visible. res then said 'well then the results are negative with you and now the results are positive'. asked res if she saw someone come into the room, res replied 'no, I was sitting on my bed with my coat on and my eyes were closed'. asked res if she heard anything, res said 'no' then stated 'I don't want to talk to you anymore'. res encouraged to make needs known WCTM [will continue to monitor]. b. Nursing note dated 1/11/23 documented as followed: at 0445 [4:45 AM], this nurse rec'd call from [local police department] officer r/t [related to] res calling into dispatch stating that this nurse entered room hour prior and 'pulled or punched her in the arm and it is now fractured'. events of shift discussed w/ [local police department] officer w/ no events, hour prior resident was coming into facility after smoking outside and requested assistance by this nurse to be pushed in w/c back to room, res was assisted to door of room then res entered room alone and in stable condition and no event occurring at that time. [Local police department] officer came into bldg [building] and discussed the events w/ resident, per the officer res stated she 'now doesn't know who woke her up and hurt her arm'. res can be seen in bed lying on her side propping her head up w/ [with] the 'affected' arm. nurse from other unit came and assessed res w/ officer monitoring and found no apparent injury, no swelling, no wincing/grimacing w/ movement, no limb shortening. c. Nursing note dated 1/15/23 documented as followed: medication administrations and cares completed during this shift w/ staff having other staff members present r/t recent abuse accusations. res is compliant w/ meds/cares; tolerated well. res noted to be in pleasant mood w/ behavioral disturbances WCTM. d. Nursing note dated 1/28/23 documented as followed: noted increased behavioral disturbances during shift w/ res, res has made several statements of staff 'hitting' her then changes her statements to staff waking her up and taking her 'out there'. res reporting that she is 'blind' from 'everything people here have done to her'. res able to track movements w/ eyes during conversation. then res reports staff 'stealing money and clothes' from her. res unable to describe missing clothing items, behaviors reported to DON [Director of Nursing], grievance completed per facility policy. all cares/interactions/medications completed w/ other staff present, staff encouraged to aid resident w/ other staff present. res currently refusing to take medications as indicated, c/o [complaining of] pain; ordered PRN [as needed] APAP [tylenol] given, will f/u w/ effectiveness, refuses to have VS [vital signs] & BG [blood glucose] checked at this time, will cont to encourage compliance. e. Nursing note dated 1/29/23 documented as followed: rec'd phone call from res mother, mother reports that res called crying stating someone entered her room and 'hit her over the head', mother reassured of res's safety; staff checked on res w/ nothing [NAME], no s/sx of crying/distress, res requested snack which was given, res denies problem WCTM. The Facility Reported Incidents (FRIs) filed with the SSA were reviewed and revealed only the incident on 1/11/23 had been reported. No FRIs were located for the incidents that happened on 12/6/22 and 1/29/23. No abuse investigations were located for the following dates: 12/6/22, 1/11/23 and 1/29/23. On 12/13/23 at 12:35 PM, an interview was conducted with Registered Nurse (RN) 1. RN 1 stated resident 3 was alert and oriented to herself. RN 1 stated resident 3 experienced hallucinations and delusions. RN 1 stated resident 3 was on her own time line. RN 1 stated resident 3 made up scenarios if she was not comfortable who she was working with. RN 1 stated the ADM was notified for any instances of abuse. On 2/13/23 at 2:53 PM, a phone interview was conducted with Registered Nurse (RN) 4. RN 4 stated that resident 3 was alert and oriented to herself. RN 4 stated resident 3 experienced delusional thinking at times and tended to accuse staff of things that had not a happened. RN 4 stated the DON was notified every time they believed resident 3 had been hurt. RN 4 stated resident 3 constantly changed her stories when she was asked to expanded on what happened. RN 4 stated they always had another CNA when they had to enter resident 3's room. RN 4 said she notified the abuse coordinator and the DON for any allegations of abuse. On 02/13/23 at 2:16 PM, an interview was conducted with the ADM. The ADM stated he was the abuse coordinator and he was the one responsible for the abuse investigations. The ADM stated that resident 3 regularly called the cops or ems. The ADM stated sometimes ems did not respond right away when resident 3 called them. The ADM stated that resident 3 had a history of schizophrenia and was very paranoid. The ADM stated that resident 3 was very wishy washy; one minute resident 3 wanted to do something and then the next minute she changed her mind. The ADM stated they immediately investigated any situation where resident 3 made any accusations towards staff or of being injured. The ADM was asked what was done for resident 3 on 1/11/23 when she called the cops and he replied they had immediately investigated the situation and ruled out any abuse. The ADM stated that resident 3 had not exhibited any distress and had no physical injuries and stated that resident 3 had changed her story. The ADM was unable to provide the abuse investigation. The ADM stated they had not done a formal investigation since they had been able to rule out abuse right away. On 2/13/23 at 3:02 PM, an interview was conducted with the DON. The DON stated they always made sure that resident 3 was doing okay mentally and physically. The DON stated an investigation needed to be done every time resident 3 stated she had been injured, even if it was a hallucination or delusion she had. The DON stated they needed to take every accusation of abuse seriously and it needed to be investigated and reported. The DON stated they had done an investigation and believed they had turned it in. The DON stated staff had not notified her of what happened to resident 3 on 1/29/23. The DON stated if she had known, they would have turned in an entity report. The DON was made aware of the lack of reporting and documentation regarding abuse investigations for resident 3. Based on interview and record review it was determined, for 3 of 41 sampled residents, that the facility in response to allegations of abuse, neglect, exploitation, or mistreatment did not have evidence that all alleged violations were thoroughly investigated and the results of the investigation were reported to the State Survey Agency (SSA) within 5 working days of the incident. Specifically, an accident in which a resident sustained second degree burns when his oxygen ignited while smoking a cigarette unsupervised was not reported to the State Survey Agency (SSA), and the facility did not have evidence demonstrating that an investigation was conducted. Additionally, two residents had allegations of abuse that were not reported to the SSA, and the facility did not have evidence demonstrating that an investigation was conducted. Resident identifiers: 3, 17, and 31. Findings included: 1. Resident 17 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included but not limited to encephalopathy, type 2 diabetes mellitus with neuropathy, congestive heart failure, major depressive disorder, mild cognitive impairment, obstructive sleep apnea, hypertension, sensorineural hearing loss, and tobacco use. On 2/6/23 at 2:06 PM, an interview was conducted with resident 17. Resident 17 stated that he lit his cigarette while he had his oxygen on, and it caught on fire. Resident 17 stated that it taught him a lesson not to have the oxygen on while smoking. Resident 17 stated that at the time of the accident he did not have staff accompany him while smoking. Resident 17 stated that now staff go out with him while he smoked. Resident 17 stated that at the time of the accident he had his lighter and cigarettes with him in his room. On 1/27/23 at 12:37 PM, resident 17's incident report documented, Called by CNA [Certified Nursing Assistant] to assist a resident outside smoking on ramp outside bldg. [building]. Found [resident 17] on the ramp. Nasal cannula was on fire in residents lap and side of w/c [wheelchair] was also burning. The incident report documented burns to the right finger and right shoulder. The report documented predisposing factors as confused, gait imbalance, and impaired memory. On 1/30/23, the incident report documented that the resident was educated on assisted smoking times, supervision required, PRN [as needed] use of lozenges for smoking cessation, and that cigarettes and lighter must be kept at nurse's station. On 1/27/23, the Hospital History and Physical documented a second degree, partial thickness burns of resident 17's face. The triage note documented that resident 17 was transferred to the emergency room due to smoking a cigarette while on baseline 4 liters of oxygen per nasal cannula [NC]. The NC caught on fire and singed the tubing approximately 1.5 to 2 feet. Right sided nasal/cheek and right scapula blisters. Soot present in bilateral nares and dusting of soot to top of tongue. Patient arrived with second-degree burns to nares bilaterally, breathing was unlabored. Patient with singed nares and secondary burn to right upper lip and cheek, no evidence of oropharyngeal involvement. It should be noted that review of the facility abuse investigations revealed no investigation documentation for this incident. Review of the facility Policies on Identifying Types of Abuse and Abuse - Prohibiting revealed no documentation that addressed the facility's process for investigating abuse allegations. Both policies were last revised on 11/2015. Review of the General Orientation: Administrator on Resident Abuse documented, The facility will conduct an investigation in regard to the allegation. If an employee is accused they may be suspended during the investigation. Appropriate State and Licensing agencies will be notified and a further investigation may be conducted. The form was last revised on 6/2015. On 2/08/23 at 4:47 PM, an interview was conducted with the Administrator (ADM). The ADM stated that at the time of the accident resident 17's cigarettes were stored with the nurse. The ADM stated We don't know who he got the cigarette from. The ADM stated that when resident 17 went outside to smoke he stayed right on the landing outside the doors. The ADM stated that at the time of the accident resident 17 was not a supervised smoker. The ADM stated that he did not report the incident to the SSA. The ADM stated that he asked the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) if the incident needed to be reported, and the ADON was responsible to document all the details of the incident. The ADM stated that if the incident was not abuse then he delegated it to staff to investigate. The ADM stated that if it was abuse related, he would be the person responsible for reporting it to the SSA. The ADM stated that he assumed that the ADON documented it all and reported anything to the state if it needed to be reported. On 2/08/23 at 5:12 PM, an interview was conducted with the ADON. The ADON stated that she was present the day that the accident occurred with resident 17. The ADON stated that resident 17 burned his nose and scorched his shoulder. The ADON stated that the biggest injury was the burn to the face. The ADON stated that she did not report the incident to the SSA and was not instructed to. On 2/09/23 at 9:08 AM, a follow-up interview was conducted with the ADM. The ADM stated he was the facility abuse coordinator. The ADM stated that for any abuse investigations, the previous Social Service Worker (SSW) would take the abuse report allegations and would work them up for the initial investigation, complete a quick investigation, and then would bring it to him for review. The ADM stated that he would still be notified, but as far as the notification to agencies it did not have to be conducted by him. The ADM stated that the notification to the SSA had to be within 2 hours. The ADM stated that he looked at the burn accident with resident 17 for a possible neglect situation and determined that it was not neglect. Specifically, when it happened, he was called down and he inquired how it happened. The ADM stated that resident 17 had a wheelchair with supplemental oxygen and he was free to come and go as he wanted. The ADM stated that resident 17's cigarettes and lighter were kept at the nurse's station, and if he wanted to go out the staff should be ensuring that the oxygen was not on the wheelchair. The ADM stated that resident 17 was free to come and go and there was nothing abnormal about him going outside, nor was there an order for him not to. The ADM stated that at the time of the incident resident 17 was located right outside the back door. The ADM stated that the nurse reported that he did not have his cigarettes and he bummed one off someone else. The ADM stated that he believed that another resident gave resident 17 a lighter. The ADM stated he was not sure how he determined this, but the nurse did not give him a cigarette or lighter. The ADM stated that there was no staff involvement, and therefore he determined no neglect of staff attention. It was a normal process of wanting to go outside, there were no orders, and no smoking materials were provided by the staff. The ADM stated there was no willful harm or restriction. The ADM stated that it was an adverse event of significant proportion, but it should not be reported by the definitions of abuse. The ADM further stated that when he inquired with the ADON it was an adverse event but determined that there was no evidence-based reason for abuse or neglect. The ADM stated that resident 17 could have asked for the cigarettes or the other residents gave it to him. The ADM stated that there was an injury, and they knew where it came from, the how and why. The ADM stated that for it to be reported by the abuse protocol he determined that it was not needed. The ADM stated that he believed the state needed to know about the incident but not through the abuse portal. 2. Resident 31 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and re-admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included but were not limited to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), sepsis, dementia, type 2 diabetes mellitus, anxiety disorder, unspecified disorder of personality and behavior, schizoaffective disorder, viral hepatitis C, glaucoma, delirium, history of malignant neoplasm, and chronic pain syndrome. On 2/7/23 resident 31's medical records were reviewed. On 3/27/2022 at 6:13 PM, resident 31's nursing progress note documented, Patient continues to be very sexually inappropriate with comments and continues to attempt and touch individuals. Patient is not easily redirected and becomes upset and calls names when asked to not continue with comments. Becomes easily upset and verbally lashes out. Will continue to educate patient on the importance of being appropriate with comments. It should be noted that review of the facility abuse investigations revealed no investigation documentation for this incident. On 2/14/23 at 1:25 PM, an interview was conducted with the ADM. The ADM stated that he started at the facility on November 1, 2022. The ADM stated that for allegations of abuse he should notify the Ombudsman, Adult Protective Services (APS), the police department if crime or sexual abuse occurred, the resident's family, and the SSA. Resident 31's progress note on 3/27/22 was read to the ADM. The ADM stated that from the nursing note it should have been brought to the attention of the ADM. The ADM stated that based off the progress note this would have been an abuse investigation. The ADM stated that it should have been investigated as a possible allegation of sexual abuse. The ADM stated that the only thing that he had been notified about was that resident 31 could be verbally angry towards staff, and that the female staff get upset but no sexual overtures.
CONCERN (E)

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

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, it was determined, the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments did not accurately reflect the r...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, it was determined, the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments did not accurately reflect the resident's status. Specifically, for 5 out of 41 sampled residents, residents that had Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) level II's completed did not have the PASRR indicated on the MDS assessments. Resident identifiers: 11, 10, 16, 20, and 36. Findings included: 1. Resident 11 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included encephalopathy, hemiplegia and hemiparesis, schizoeffective disorder, major depressive disorder, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder. Resident 11's medical record was reviewed on 2/8/23. An admission MDS assessment dated [DATE], revealed that resident 11 did not have a PASRR level II. A PASRR screening dated 5/12/22, revealed that resident 11 required a PASRR level II to be completed. 2. Resident 10 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included acquired absence of right leg above knee, mononeuropathy, and major depressive disorder. Resident 10's medical record was reviewed on 2/8/23. A significant change MDS assessment dated [DATE], revealed that resident 10 did not have a PASRR level II. A PASRR level II dated 6/7/2010, and was completed on 6/14/2010, revealed that resident 10 had a medical condition Requiring the Level of Care or Scope of Services of the Nursing Facility. 3. Resident 36 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included chronic kidney disease, Traumatic subarachnoid hemorrhage, laceration, moderate protein calorie malnutrition, dysphagia, and schizoaffective disorder. Resident 36's medical record was reviewed 2/8/23. An annual MDS assessment dated [DATE], revealed that resident 36 did not have a PASRR level II. A PASRR letter of determination dated 12/27/19, revealed that resident 36 was approved for Nursing Facility Services based on the PASRR evaluation. 4. Resident 20 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included alcohol dependence, cognitive communication deficit, anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorder. Resident 20's medical record was reviewed on 2/8/23. An admission MDS assessment dated [DATE], revealed that resident 20 did not have a PASRR level II. A PASRR Letter of Determination dated 6/16/20, revealed that resident 20 was approved for Nursing Facility Services based on the PASRR evaluation. 5. Resident 16 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included wedge compression fracture of T11-T12 vertebra, major depressive disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, and adjustment disorder with depressed mood. Resident 16's medical record was reviewed on 2/8/23. An admission MDS assessment dated [DATE], revealed that resident 16 did not have a PASRR level II. A PASRR level II dated 10/24/22, was located in resident 16's medical record. On 2/8/23 at 10:00 AM, an interview was conducted with the MDS coordinator. The MDS coordinator stated resident 10 had a PASRR level II but it was not listed on the MDS. The MDS coordinator stated that the MDS system had a few glitches in the system. A follow up interview at 10:52 AM, was conducted. The MDS coordinator stated resident 11, 16, 20, and 36, should have been marked with having a level 2.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0655 (Tag F0655)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review it was determined, for 3 out of 41 sampled residents, that the facility did n...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review it was determined, for 3 out of 41 sampled residents, that the facility did not develop and implement a baseline care plan for each resident that included instructions needed to provide effective and person-centered care to meet professional standards of quality care. Specifically, residents did not have a baseline care plan developed within 48 hours of admission, and the baseline care plan did not include the minimum healthcare information necessary to properly care for the residents. Resident identifiers: 32, 64, and 78. Findings included: 1. Resident 64 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], and re-admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included dementia with behavioral disturbances, fracture of right femur, orthopedic aftercare, history of falls, long term use of anticoagulants, anxiety disorder, type 1 diabetes mellitus with neuropathy, hyperglycemia, neuralgia and neuritis, muscle weakness, mood disorder, long term use of insulin, hypertension, nicotine dependence, low back pain, and major depressive disorder. Resident 64's medical record was reviewed. Resident 64's baseline care plan was initiated on 11/13/22, five days after her admission. It was completed on 11/14/22. Nursing services triggered on the baseline care plan included pain management, Activities of daily living (ADL) assistance, diabetic care and education, skilled nursing assessment, fall prevention, anxiety management, and depression management. 2. Resident 78 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included lobar pneumonia, squamous cell carcinoma of skin, scalp and neck, basal cell carcinoma of skin, pleural effusion, dementia without behavioral, psychotic, mood or anxiety disturbance, aneurysm of pulmonary artery, chronic atrial fibrillation, long term use of anticoagulants, mild cognitive impairment, cardiomegaly, history of falling, anxiety disorder, and age related osteoporosis. Resident 78's medical record was reviewed. Resident 78's baseline care plan was initiated on 12/9/22 and completed on 12/12/22, 72 hours after his admission. Nursing services triggered included pain management, ADL assistance, skilled wound care, fall prevention, palliative care, depression management, and insomnia management. On 2/13/23 at 2:02 PM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated the admitting nurse had the responsibility of completing the baseline care plan. On 2/14/23 at 10:57 AM, a second interview was conducted with the DON. The DON stated the staff member who completed the Minimum Data Set (MDS) Coordinator obtained information about the resident's care needs within the first 48 hours. The DON stated the MDS Coordinator collected information from the individuals who had completed initial assessments on the resident, reviewed hospital assessments, interviewed the resident and staff and reviewed the documentation in the residents medical record to trigger care areas. 3. Resident 32 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), heart failure, hypertension, cerebral infarction, dysphagia, unsteadiness on feet, cognitive communication deficit, asthma, dorsalgia, pain in bilateral knees, and encounter for palliative care. On 2/06/23 at 12:21 PM, an interview was conducted with resident 32. Resident 32 stated that his hospice nurse came into the facility 2 times a week and the hospice Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) came 3 times a week to provide him showers. On 10/19/22 at 10:35 AM, resident 32's physician orders documented an order for Resident is admitting on [name of provider omitted] Hospice. On 11/4/22, resident 32's hospice plan of care documented the benefit period for hospice services as 9/30/22 through 12/28/22. On 10/19/22, resident 32's baseline care plan documented care areas for oxygen therapy, pain management and infection control. The baseline care plan did not address palliative care or hospice services. On 2/09/23 at 11:42 AM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON confirmed that resident 32 had been on hospice services since admission. On 2/14/23 at 10:54 AM, a follow-up interview was conducted with the DON. The DON stated that baseline and comprehensive care plans should include care areas for hospice or palliative care. The DON stated that she would expect palliative care to be checked on the baseline care plan, and it would help them create a comprehensive care plan for hospice. The DON stated that staff should go into the care plan and trigger a care area for hospice if its not there and then the MDS Coordinator would create the hospice care plan.
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 9 of 41 sampled residents, that the facility did not de...

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 9 of 41 sampled residents, that the facility did not develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident. Specifically, residents care plans did not address care areas such as pain, falls, smoking, and activities of daily living (ADL) assistance. Resident identifiers: 3, 4, 6, 17, 18, 24, 54, 78, and 134. Findings Included: 1. Resident 3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included but not limited to schizoaffective disorder, Parkinson's disease, major depressive disorder (MDD), insomnia, cognitive communication deficit, and type 2 diabetes mellitus (DMII). Resident 3's medical records were reviewed on 2/7/23 An Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] documented Resident 3 required a one person limited assist while ambulating throughout the facility. Resident 3's balance and transitions while walking was identified as not steady, but able to stabilize without staff assistance. It was documented that resident 3 used mobility devices such as a cane/crutch, walker, and a wheelchair. An admission Morse fall scale dated 12/29/22 documented that resident 3 had scored a 65 which made her a high fall risk. Some interventions documented included have bed in the lowest position, answer call light promptly, and document fall risk measures in the resident care plan and update as needed such as after every fall. Resident 3's care plan was reviewed and revealed a care area with a focus area stating [Resident 3] was at high risk for falls per standardized fall scale, cognitive deficits, gait/balance problems, incontinence, and psychoactive drug use. Interventions were identified and included as follows: 1. Answer call light promptly. 2. Assess assistive devices for proper fit and use. 3. Be sure bed was in lowest position and locked in place. The care plan was initiated on 10/9/20. [Note: No new care plan interventions had been added since the care plan was initiated on 10/9/20.] Resident 3's progress notes were reviewed and the following was documented about falls: a. Nursing note dated 10/4/22 stated, At 1820 [6:20 PM], this nurse rec'd [received] report of resident having fallen in hallway near other nurses' station. upon coming on scene, res [resident] was sitting in w/c [wheelchair], other LN [Licensed Nurse] and aid assessed and assisted res into w/c stating no apparent injury. when asked what happened, res refused to talk, CNA [certified nursing assistant] that witnessed event stated that res was 'running down the hall and lost her balance and fell forward onto elbows' CNA states res didn't hit head or have walker with her. res assisted into bed, still not speaking VS [vital signs] 160/95 P [pulse] 83 R [respirations] 16 T [temperature] 98.4 O2 [oxygen] 95 on ra [room air], respirations are even/unlabored, abd [abdomen] is soft/non-tender, no c/o [complaint of] pain, when asked if having pain res wouldn't speak. noted res was wearing appropriate shoes at time of event; NP [nurse practitioner] notified b. IDT (Interdisciplinary Team) event review note dated 10/7/22 documented as followed: IDT review of witnessed fall on 10/4/22 Event description: at 1820 floor nurse received report tat [that] resident fell in the hallway near another nurse's station. Upon coming on the scene resident was sitting in W/C and the other LN and aide had assessed and assisted resident into her W/C. No injuries noted. Resident was wearing appropriate footwear. Risk factors: schizophrenia, delusions, hallucinations, Parkinson disease, DMII, TBI [traumatic brain injury], MDD, psychotropic med use Preventive measures: pt [patient] had proper footwear on, pt has FWW [front wheeled walker] for assistive device, pt ambulatory with assistance Root Cause: when asked what happened the resident refused to talk, the CNA that witnessed event stated that resident was running down the fall and lost her balance when she fell forward onto elbows and belly. New interventions: PT [Physical Therapy] post fall assessment with safety education, resident reminded to use FWW for assistance, MD notified of fall no injury assessed. DON [Director of Nursing] spoke with resident she reported to her that her legs gave out on her, she is using walker and doing better. Pt reports sometimes she needs a W/C due to legs not working pt report will notify staff when this happens. c. A nurse note dated 12/29/22 stated, at 0130 [1:30 AM], this nurse rec'd [received] report from CNA of res being FOF [found on floor] in hallway near door to RR [restroom]. CNA reports that res was already assisted up from floor and helped to room. upon entering room, res was noted to be lying on the bed w/ [with] eye closed. this nurse called res by name and tapped LUE [left upper extremity] w/ no response, noted tachypneic respirations, no labor to breath. res nudged again, told res need to assess per fall event. res then sat upright in bed stating 'ok you got me, I was pretending to sleep'. res is A+O [alert and oriented] x3, PERRL [pupils equal, round, and reactive to light], handgrasp =/strong, normocephalic, no change in character of skin, when asked what happened res stated she 'tripped on [her] feet' on her way back to room from smoking. asked res if was using her walker or w/c, res wouldn't answer question. CNA unable to verify, no walker or w/c found w/ res at time of event. CNA was able to demonstrate position res was found in hallway, on knees w/ arms and forehead on floor in front of her. asked res if she hit her head when she fell, res wouldn't answer question. no discolorations/marks noted to skin on face/head. res able to move all extremities w/o [without] obvious s/sx [signs/symptoms] of pain. asked res again if she hit her head, res responded saying that she 'wont answer that' then stated she wants to be left alone. res refused to allow staff to take VS [vital signs]. neuro assessments initiated per facility fall protocol. will f/u [follow up]. d. IDT event review note dated 1/2/23 documented as followed: IDT review of unwitnessed fall on 12/29/22 Event description: At 0130 a CNA let nurse know that this resident was found on the floor in the hallway near door to RR. Risk factors: paranoid schizophrenia with baseline delusions and hallucinations. History of falling, tachycardic at times. Smoker. Unsteady on feet. Parkinsons disease, Traumatic subdural hemorrhage, DM II. Preventive measures: Pt offered assistance for ADL's and educated to use call light for assistance, pt has and has had education on FWW use and W/C use. Root Cause: Pt reports that she tripped over her feet causing her to fall, pt would not state if she used assistive device. It seems no. New interventions: NP notified of fall with no injury, res assessed with no COC [change of condition] noted. Pt refused VS to be taken and requested to be left alone, pt educated. PT post fall assessment, resident educated to use FWW or W/C for assistance with off unit walking due to high risk to fall and to prevent injury, resident verbalized understanding. A review of the resident 3's incident reports for 10/4/22 and 12/29/22 documented that resident 3 had both an unwitnessed and witnessed fall. Interventions were developed after each fall but resident 3's fall care plan had not been updated since it was initiated on 10/9/20. On 2/13/23 at 1:25 PM, an interview was conducted with Nursing Assistant (NA) 4. NA 4 stated that resident 3 used a walker and a wheelchair to ambulate. NA 4 stated resident 3 had forgotten to use her walker sometimes and also stated it depended on resident 3's mood if she used her walker or wheelchair. NA 4 stated resident 3 has had falls in the past and stated they had interventions in place. NA 4 stated they checked on resident 3 frequently and made sure her call light was within reach. NA 4 also stated they made sure resident 3 walker was easily accessible for her. On 2/13/23 at 1:39 PM, an interview was conducted with Registered Nurse (RN) 1. RN 1 stated that resident 3 had a walker but was able to ambulate without it. RN 1 stated that resident 3 also had wheelchair she used when she was weaker and unsteady. RN 1 stated to her knowledge resident 3 had not had any recent falls. RN 1 stated they checked on resident 3 frequently as an intervention for falls. RN 1 stated if a resident had a fall, the care plan should be updated. RN 1 stated the primary RN was able to update the care plan but the Director of Nursing (DON) was the one in charge of falls and updating resident care plans. On 2/13/23 at 2:50 PM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated resident falls were discussed in the morning meetings. The DON stated interventions on how to prevent future falls were discussed at these meetings. The DON stated if a resident had a fall, the care plan should be updated. The DON stated she was responsible of updating the resident's care plan after a fall. 2. Resident 6 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included but no limited to moderate protein-calorie malnutrition, dementia, history of falling, and personal history of a traumatic brain injury. On 2/6/23 at 10:11 AM, an interview was conducted with resident 6's family member (FM). The FM stated resident 6 had a few falls in the 3 months she had been here. The FM stated that resident 6 had fallen this morning and was told she had not hit her head but stated she had develop a bruise on the left side of her head. The FM stated resident 6 had also fallen getting out of bed and while she used the restroom and she also slid off of her recliner. The FM stated she was here to take care of resident 6 so staff had one less resident to worry about while the FM was in the facility. Resident 6's medical records were reviewed on 2/7/23. An admission Morse fall scale dated 11/15/22 22 documented that resident 6 had scored a 75 which made her a high fall risk. Some interventions documented included have bed in the lowest position, answer call light promptly, and document fall risk measures in the resident care plan and update as needed such as after every fall. An admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] documented resident 6 was an extensive two-person physical assist for bed mobility and transfers. It was also documented that resident 6 was an extensive one person assist with all other ADLs. Resident 6's balance and transitions while walking was identified as not steady, only able to stabilize with staff assistance. It was documented that resident 6 used a walker as a mobility device. Resident 6 had triggered a care plan for falls in the Care Area Assessment (CAA) Summary. The CAA worksheet for falls, stated [resident 6] was at risk for injuries r/t [related to] falls d/t [due to] balance problems. Assist her in completing ADLs. Proceed to care plan. Resident 6's care plan was reviewed and revealed a care area with a focus area stating [Resident 6] was at high risk for falls per standardized fall scale, confusion, gait/balance problems, vision/hearing problems. Morse fall risk score: 75 high risk. Interventions were identified and included as follows: 1. Answer call light promptly. 2. Be sure bed was in lowest position and locked in place. 3. Clean up spill immediately. 4. Continually educate the resident regarding safety issues. The care plan was initiated on 11/28/22. [ Note: no new care plan interventions had been added since the care plan was initiated on 11/28/22.] Resident 6's progress notes were reviews and the following was documented about falls: a. An IDT event review note dated 12/23/22 documented as followed: IDT review of unwitnessed fall on 12/22/22 Event description: Staff walking passed residents room and saw pt on the fall mat next to her bed on her back. Risk factors: protein-calorie malnutrition, dementia on hospice, tremors, incontinent at times, muscle spasms, pain, terminal agitation with the use of scheduled and prn [as needed] Lorazepam. TIA [transient ischemic attack], traumatic brain injury. Preventive measures: bed in low position, family with resident frequently, fall mat placed next to bed, staff monitoring. Root Cause: pt confused and rolled out of bed in low position on her back on top of fall mat. New interventions: Hospice notified of fall with need to assess resident, family notified of fall, staff education but difficult with pt mental status. Pt has s/s [signs/symptoms] of terminal agitation with new med orders given. Family educated by hospice and staff, hospice notified family needing further follow up and interventions with SW [Social Worker] /chaplain as needed. b. IDT event review note dated 12/27/22 documented as followed: IDT review of witnessed fall on 12/26/22 Event description: Resident had s/s of agitation/anxiety. Resident was sitting in her chair in her room and attempted to get up and pt fell to the floor. CNA was present and unable to get to resident prior to fall. Risk factors: protein-calorie malnutrition, dementia on hospice, tremors, incontinent at times, muscle spasms, pain, terminal agitation with the use of scheduled and prn Lorazepam. TIA, traumatic brain injury. Preventive measures: bed in low position, family with resident frequently, fall mat placed next to bed, staff monitoring. Root Cause: Pt was in her recliner in her room and was attempting to get up alone and fell to the ground pt did not hit her head. New interventions: Hospice notified of pt fall and full body assessment. Pt was agitated and needed some PRN Ativan, CNA stayed at bed side with resident 1:1 until resident was calm. Hospice and family did meet at facility and discuss new medication orders and residents' current condition, family verbalizes understanding. c. A nurse note dated 1/3/23 stated, Resident was helped to toilet by CNA. CNA was standing in room talking with patients daughter when they heard her hit the ground. She was laying on left side and was helped to sitting. This RN notified. Patient assessed. Cut above left forehead bleeding. Bleeding stopped with light pressure applied. Patient complains of pain to left leg, hip, and knee. No redness, bruising, or swelling noted. Vitals taken. BP 130/80 HR 70 O2 92 RR 16 temp 98.2. Patient oriented to self only, which is baseline. grasp weak but equal, pupils fixed. Patient helped up and back into bed. PRN morphine given. neuro checks initiated. 1500 hospice nurse notified. No new orders at this time. Will continue neuro checks. 1645 Patient walking with CNA to bathroom. Patient lost balance and is helped to the floor. No new injuries reported or noted. Patient helped up to toilet. Vitals signs still WDL (within defined limits). Will continue neuro checks. d. IDT event review note dated 1/5/23 documented as followed: IDT review of unwitnessed and assisted fall on 1/3/23 Event description: Pt was in the bathroom and sitting on toilet, daughter and aide were talking outside door when they heard a noise and she fell in bathroom. Risk factors: Hospice patient getting weaker, protein-calorie malnutrition, dementia on hospice, tremors, incontinent at times, muscle spasms, pain, terminal agitation with the use of scheduled and prn Lorazepam. TIA, traumatic brain injury. PRN morphine given for pain. Preventive measures: Pt has frequent family members with resident at all times, family educated to let staff know when they leave so we can ensure door is open and frequent monitoring, bed in lowest position, fall mat in place. Root Cause: Pt was in bathroom and fell off toilet, CNA assisting resident to restroom pt lost balance and pt was assisted to ground. New interventions: Hospice notified of fall with no new orders nurse to come assess, PRN pain medication given, staff and family education on leaving patient unattended even in the bathroom, staff and family verbalize understanding. Per the Incident reports provided by the facility and resident 6's progress notes, it was documented that resident 6 had a total of 4 falls while at the facility. Resident 6's care plan had not been updated since before her first documented fall on 12/22/22. On 2/9/23 at 11:01 AM, an interview was conducted with Registered Nurse (RN) 1. RN 1 stated resident 6 had a recent fall 2 days ago. RN 1 stated resident 6 had interventions in place to prevent falls such as a floor mat by her bed, having the bed in the lowest position and a chair alarm which notified staff when resident 6 tried to get up. RN 1 stated another intervention was they always had her door opened when her daughter was not in the room with here. 9. Resident 54 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of acute osteomyelitis, idiopathic peripheral autonomic neuropathy, venous insufficiency, disorder of thyroid, type 2 diabetes mellitus, unsteadiness on feet, non-pressure chronic ulcer of left heel and midfoot, delusional disorders, generalized anxiety disorder, unspecified dementia, and muscle weakness. On 2/7/23 at 8:55 AM an interview with resident 54 was conducted. Resident 54 stated that he had fallen at the facility a few times. Resident 54 stated that sometimes he would fall due to losing his balance when he was attempting to walk. The resident stated that he did not have any injuries from his falls besides mild knee pain. Resident 54 stated that he was sometimes able to walk without assistance, but sometimes he calls for assistance if he felt weak. On 2/8/23 the resident 54's records were reviewed. Resident 54's most recent quarterly MDS from 11/28/22 was reviewed and revealed the following: a. Bed Mobility - Supervision with setup help only. b. Transfer - Supervision with one person physical assist. c. Walk in room - Supervision with one person physical assist. d. Walk in corridor - Supervision with one person physical assist. e. Locomotion on unit (How resident moves between locations in his/her room and adjacent corridor on same floor) - Extensive assistance with one person physical assist. Resident 54's care plan was reviewed. On 5/27/22 a Fall care plan was initiated, and it was revised on 8/28/22. The focus stated [Resident] is at moderate Risk for Falls per standardized fall assessment. The goal stated, [Resident] will be free of fall through the review date was initiated on 5/27/22. The Interventions stated the following: a. Answer call lights promptly. Date initiated: 5/27/22. b. Assess assistive devices for proper fit and use. Provide instruction as needed. Check tips on walkers, canes and crutches - replace if needed. Encourage use as indicated Date initiated: 5/27/22. c. Be sure bed is in lowest position and locked in place. Date initiated: 5/27/22. d. Clean up spills immediately. Date initiated: 5/27/22. e. Continually educate the resident regarding safety issues. Date initiated: 5/27/22. On 1/30/23 resident 54's care plan had a focus area that stated, The resident has had an actual fall; unwitnessed on 1/29/23 - No injury, 1/24/23 - Witnessed fall . was initiated on 1/30/23 and revised on 2/8/23. The goal stated, The resident will resume usual activities without further incident through the review date. was initiated on 2/8/23. The interventions stated the following: a. Continue interventions on the at-risk plan Date initiated: 2/8/23. b. Educate residents to ask for staff assistance with ADLs, transfers, ambulation. Date initiated: 2/8/23. c. For no apparent acute injury, determine and address causative factors of the fall. Date initiated: 2/8/23. d. Monitor/document/report PRN x 72 MD for s/sx: pain, bruises, change in mental status, new onset: confusion sleepiness, inability to maintain posture, agitation. Date initiated 2/8/23. e. Neuro-checks x (72 HRS). Date initiated: 2/8/23. Resident 54's progress notes were reviewed. It was revealed that resident 54 had a fall on 11/24/22, 1/25/23, and 1/29/23. A progress note from 11/24/2022 3:45 PM stated, Incident Note. Note Text: Res [name omitted] had a witnessed fall at approx[approximately] 1330 [1:30 PM] while loading into car. Res states he lost his balance and fell backward out of car. Res C/O [complaint of] rt [right] knee pain post incident. MD [medical director] notified and xray ordered. xray obtained awaiting results. A progress note from 11/25/2022 at 4:00 PM stated, IDT Review: IDT review of witnessed fall on 11/24/22, Event description: resident had a witnessed fall while loading into friend's car. Risk factors: osteomyelitis to left ankle and foot with recent surgery, DM II [type 2 diabetes mellitus], venous insufficiency, wounds to feet, edema, delusional disorder, gen [generalized] anxiety disorder muscle weakness, low back pain. Preventive measures: staff assistance offered for transfers into car and out of car, pt uses walker and or w/c. Root Cause: resident states, I lost my balance while loading into car. New interventions: MD notified with new order to obtain a Xray to R [right] knee, pt [patient] educated on staff assistance for transfers for safety and fall prevention, pt [patient] verbalizes understanding. PT [physical therapy] post fall assessment. Resident 54's care plan was reviewed and it was revealed that the care plan with new interventions was not updated after resident 54 fall on 11/24/22. The care plan for falls was updated on 2/8/23, after the resident fell on 1/25/23 and 1/29/23. On 2/13/23 at 9:54 AM an interview with the DON was conducted. The DON stated that all residents' care plans should have been updated after every fall. The DON stated that she did not see an updated care plan for resident 54 when he fell on [DATE]. The DON stated that the care plan should have been updated after resident 54 fell on [DATE]. 7. Resident 24 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], and re-admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included acquired absence of right leg above knee, peripheral vascular disease, type 2 diabetes with neuropathy, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia, chronic pain, hypothyroidism, obesity, benign prostatic hyperplasia with lower urinary tract symptoms, adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood. On 2/6/23 at 1:56 PM, an interview was conducted with resident 24. Resident 24 stated he was getting at least 1 shower per week. Resident 24 stated he required assistance with mobility, picking things up off the floor, and bathing and he did not feel that he should have to beg for staff to help him. On 2/8/23 resident 24's medical record was reviewed. Resident 24's annual MDS assessment dated [DATE], revealed that resident 24 required one person physical assistance for bed mobility, transfers, dressing, toileting, personal hygiene, and bathing. A review of resident 24's care plan reveals that for care areas: a. Pressure ulcer risk- requires staff support for completing ADL's, revised 5/5/22, with no indication of what support was needed. b. Fall risk-ASSIST HIM IN COMPLETING ADLS WHILE ENCOURAGING SELF RELIANCE AND INDEPENDENCE, revised 8/27/22, with no indication of what support was needed. c. Limited Physical Mobility-Provide supportive care, assistance with mobility as needed. Document assistance as needed, initiated 4/21/21, and Encourage him to perform as many ADLs as possible and provide adaptive equipment as needed, revised on 8/31/22, with no indication of what support was needed. [Note: No care areas addressing ADLs was found that included the supportive assistance the resident required with transferring, toileting, bathing, dressing and personal hygiene.] A review of resident 24's Point of Care (POC) for bathing revealed that on 1/14/23 resident 24 required total assistance for a shower. On 1/21/23, resident 24 was provided help with transfer. On 2/2/23, resident 24 received assistance with transfer, and on 2/6/23 resident 24 received bathing help. The POC documented shower refusals on 1/12/23, 1/17/23, 1/19/23, 1/24/23, 1/28/23, and 1/31/23. A review of the shower sheets revealed that for the months of January 2023 and February 2023, resident 24 received showers on 1/11/23 and 2/13/23. No shower refusal sheets were found. A review of resident 24's progress notes revealed the following: On 12/1/22 a quarterly care conference note was held. The progress note included Resident would like to work on proper toileting. No additional information was added to the resident's care plan. On 12/28/22, Pt can get himself to bed and toilet w/o [without] assistance if he is not tired. Assist of one if feeling weak. On 1/3/23, Staff and resident reported that during a bed transfer resident hit bed frame with his left leg causing skin tear [trauma] which LN staff cleanse and applied dressing. Reassessed and noted left medial lower leg with open wound from bumping, red wound bed of 70% and 30% thin slough, irregular wound edges, redness around more than 2cm [centimeters], mild pain, draining moderate amount of serous, normal temperature noted. NP notified and clarified wound treatment order. On 1/3/23 an additional note stated, educated and encourage resident to call for assistance during transfer, also to caution during transfer to prevent bumping and prevent injuries, resident verbalizes understanding. Call light within reach, Reported to maintenance for bed frame padding. NP notified. On 1/3/23 a new order for Rocephin IM (intramuscular) 1 gram qd (daily) x 5 days was received for resident 24's wound infection. On 1/26/23 resident 24 was transferring off the toilet un-assisted and heard a pop after-which he reported right shoulder pain. The physician was notified, and a STAT x-ray was ordered. Resident 24 received Tylenol and an ice pack for discomfort. The x-ray results indicated no acute fracture of right shoulder. On 2/6/23 Pt approached this nurse and stated that earlier in the day he had scraped his leg while self-transferring from bed to chair. Abrasion cleaned and dressing applied. On 2/8/23 at 10:51 AM, an interview was conducted with Nursing Assistant (NA) 3. NA 3 stated resident 24 was a one person assist. NA 3 stated resident 24 did not refuse showers often and received them most of the time. NA 3 stated that sometimes staff had a hard time getting to everyone. NA 3 stated resident 24 was receiving showers twice per week. 8. Resident 78 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included lobar pneumonia, squamous cell carcinoma of skin, scalp and neck, basal cell carcinoma of skin, pleural effusion, dementia without behavioral, psychotic, mood or anxiety disturbance, aneurysm of pulmonary artery, chronic atrial fibrillation, long term use of anticoagulants, mild cognitive impairment, cardiomegaly, history of falling, anxiety disorder, and age related osteoporosis. On 12/10/22, resident 78 had an unwitnessed fall at 5:30 PM. Progress notes revealed that resident 78 sustained some injuries to the head, lower extremities, and inner left wrist. The progress note stated that resident 78 was found by staff and that he was attempting to transfer to the toilet without assistance. Resident 78 was noted to have confusion, unclear speech and cluttered words. Resident 78 reported being lightheaded and dizzy. Resident 78 was assessed by the nurse who then notified the Nurse Practitioner, resident's family, the DON, and the hospice service caring for resident 78. The hospice nurse instructed the facility nurse to send resident 78 to the hospital for stitches on his head. Resident 78's medical record was reviewed on 2/7/23. On 12/9/22 an admission summary located in the progress notes revealed that resident 78's primary diagnoses related to his admission was GLF [ground level fall] and PNA [pneumonia]. The summary documented that resident 78 was ambulatory with a walker/cane and had an unsteady gait and weakness. Fall assessment /interventions documented were bed in lowest position, pt educated on how to use call light and to use call light prior to attempting to transfer/ambulate. A baseline care plan started on 12/9/22 and completed on 12/12/22 revealed resident 78 required services for pain management, ADL assistance, skilled wound care, fall prevention, palliative care, anxiety, depression, and insomnia. A review of resident 78's comprehensive care plan revealed: a. The resident has dehydration or potential for fluid deficit r/t [related to] [no further information was included in the care focus]. The initiation date was 12/10/22 and included interventions of: educating the resident/family/caregiver on importance of fluid intake, and monitor vital signs as ordered/per protocol and record. Notify MD [medical doctor] of significant abnormalities. b. Nutrition: Res [resident] has inadequate oral intake RT [related to] energy imbalance. The initiation date was 12/14/22 and included interventions of: 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]. [Note: no care plan focus areas were found that covered pain management, ADL assistance, wound care, fall prevention, palliative care, anxiety, depression, or insomnia.] A review of resident 78's 5-day MDS assessments dated 12/19/22 revealed that the resident required extensive 2-person assistance with bed mobility, transferring, dressing, and toileting. Resident 78 required 1-person assistance for locomotion on the unit and walking in the corridor, as well as eating, managing personal hygiene and bathing. On 2/13/23 at 2:02 PM, an interview was conducted with the DON. The DON stated the admitting nurse was responsible to complete the baseline care plan when a resident admitted . The DON stated the MDS staff member looked at hospital assessments, staff documentation and assessments and interviewed the resident and staff to determine what should be included in the comprehensive care plan. On 2/14/23 at 10:57 AM, an additional in[TRUNCATED]
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0757 (Tag F0757)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 4. Resident 47 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included but not limited to spina bifida, type two dia...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 4. Resident 47 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included but not limited to spina bifida, type two diabetes mellitus with hyperglycemia, muscle weakness, bladder disorder, anxiety disorder, chronic pain, essential hypertension and a colostomy. Resident 47's medical record was reviewed on 2/7/23 Resident 47's care plan was reviewed and revealed a care area with a focus area stating resident has Diabetes Mellitus type 2 with hyperglycemia. Interventions were identified and included as follows: 1. Diabetes medication as ordered by doctor. Monitor/document for side effects and effectiveness. 2. Monitor/document/report PRN (as needed) any s/sx (signs and symptoms) of hyperglycemia. The care plan was initiated on initiated and revised on 10/14/22. Physician Insulin orders read as follows: a. Insulin Lispro Solution Inject as per sliding scale: . 301-999 = 11 units; for BG (blood glucose) greater than 300 give 11 u (units) and notify MD (Medical Doctor) for any additional units. Start date of 12/20/22 and a discontinue date of 1/28/23. b. Insulin Lispro Solution Inject as per sliding scale: . 301-999 = 13 units; for BG greater than 300 give 11 u and notify MD for any additional units. Start date of 1/28/23 and a discontinue date of 2/1/23; restarted on 2/1/23 and discontinued on 2/5/23. Resident 47's blood sugar summary was reviewed for January and February 2023. The following critical BS were noted: a. 1/1/23: 393 milligrams (mg)/deciLiter (dL), 585 mg/dL, 390 mg/dL, and 314 mg/dL. b. 1/2/23: 335 mg/dL, 324 mg/dL, and 339 mg/dL c. 1/3/23: 318 mg/dL, 339 mg/dL, 400 mg/dL, and 337 mg/dL d. 1/7/23: 308 mg/dL e. 1/8/23: 316 mg/dL and 336 mg/dL f. 1/9/23: 324 mg/dL g. 1/12/23: 323 mg/dL h. 1/13/23: 335 mg/dL i. 1/14/23: 350 mg/dL and 362 mg/dL j. 1/15/23: 393 mg/dL k. 1/16/23: 327 mg/dL l. 1/23/23: 322 mg/dL m. 1/24/23: 343 mg/dL and 356 mg/dL n. 1/25/23: 319 mg/dL and 358 mg/dL o. 1/27/23: 341 mg/dL and 315 mg/dL p. 1/29/23: 368 mg/dL q. 1/30/23: 382 mg/dL, 362 mg/dL, 364 mg/dL, and 377 mg/dL r. 2/1/23: 490 mg/dL s. 2/2/23: 344 mg/dL and 413 mg/dL t. 2/3/23: 321 mg/dL Resident 47's Medication Administration Record (MAR) and Treatment Administration Record (TAR) for January and February revealed that resident 47 had received the maximum amount of units ordered per the sliding scale but no additional interventions were located as well as no physician documentation was found to indicate measures were in place to decrease the residents high blood sugars. Progress notes for resident 47 were reviewed. No evidence was located to indicate that resident 47's critical blood sugar levels were reported to the physician at any time between 1/1/23 and 2/14/23 and no additional interventions were noted to help decrease the resident 47 high blood sugars. On 2/8/23 at 11:54 AM, an interview was conducted with Registered Nurse (RN) 1. RN 1 stated the nurses were they ones to check the residents blood sugars. RN 1 stated the physician would be notified on the resident blood sugars based on the parameters they had set on sliding scale order for the resident. RN 1 stated they notified the physician when a resident's blood sugar was above 400. RN 1 stated the physician was aware of resident 47's high blood sugars because they had ordered new insulin for resident 47. RN 1 stated that resident 47 was a noncompliant diabetic. RN 1 stated they normally added a progress note stating the physician was notified and what additional orders were given if the physician was notified. RN 1 was unable to located any documentation to indicate resident 47's physician was notified of his high blood sugars for the months of January and February 2023. On 2/13/23 at 3:15 PM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated that when a nurse contacted the physician, they normally added a progress note. The DON stated she was unsure if resident 47's physician was notified of his high blood sugars since there was no documentation of it. The DON stated nurses added notes in the MARs and TARs if the physician was notified or if additional things were done. The DON stated the nurses followed the orders as set forth by the provider but was unsure why there was no documentation indicating the provider had been notified. Based on interview and record review it was determined, for 4 of 41 residents sampled, that the facility did not ensure that each resident's drug regimen was free from unnecessary drugs. An unnecessary drug was any drug when used in excessive dose; or for excessive duration; or without adequate monitoring; or without adequate indication for its use; or in the presence of adverse consequences which indicated that the dose should be reduced or discontinued. Specifically, residents' medications were not administered or held per the physician ordered parameters. Resident identifier: 11, 31, 32, and 47. Findings included: 1. Resident 11 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included encephalopathy, hemiplegia and hemiparesis, type 2 diabetes mellitus, alcoholic cirrhosis, schizoaffective disorder bipolar type, major depressive disorder, alcohol induced pancreatitis, paranoid schizophrenia, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), anxiety disorder, insomnia, hyperlipidemia, atrial fibrillation, Gastro-Esophageal Reflux Disease (GERD), chronic pain, thrombocytopenia, obstructive sleep apnea, congestive heart failure, neuropathy, and repeated falls. On 2/7/23 resident 11's medical records were reviewed. Review of resident 11's physician orders revealed the following: a. Lantus SoloStar Solution Pen-injector 100 UNIT/milliliter (ml) (Insulin Glargine), Inject 45 unit subcutaneously two times a day for diabetes mellitus. Hold for blood sugar (BS) less than 120. The order was initiated on 12/2/22 and discontinued on 2/2/23. b. Lantus SoloStar Solution Pen-injector 100 UNIT/ml (Insulin Glargine), Inject 40 unit subcutaneously two times a day for diabetes mellitus. Hold for blood sugar less than 120. The order was initiated on 2/3/23. c. Humalog KwikPen Solution Pen-injector 100 UNIT/ML (Insulin Lispro (1 Unit Dial)), Inject as per sliding scale: if 0 - 70 = 0 If below 60, give juice and notify Medical Doctor (MD); 71 - 199 = 2; 200 - 250 = 7; 251 - 300 = 9; 301 - 350 = 12; 351 - 400 = 14; 401 - 450 = 16; 451 - 500 = 20 Recheck in 1 hour if over 400 and >500 and call MD, subcutaneously before meals and at bedtime for diabetes mellitus. The order was initiated on 1/19/23. d. Humalog Solution (Insulin Lispro), Inject 6 unit subcutaneously before meals for hyperglycemia. Hold for blood sugar less than 140. The order was initiated on 11/11/22. e. Propranolol HCl (hydrochloride) Tablet 20 milligram (mg), Give 1 tablet by mouth two times a day for Spastic Hemiplegia affecting left nondominant side. Hold for systolic blood pressure (SBP) less than 110 or a heart rate less than 60. The order was initiated on 10/6/22. Review of resident 11's January 2023 Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed the following: a. The Lantus 45 units was administered when it should have been held for blood sugars less than 120 on 1/8/23 at 8:00 PM (BS 92), on 1/17/23 at 8:00 PM (BS 64), on 1/20/23 at 8:00 AM (BS 101), 1/28/23 at 8:00 AM (BS 92), and on 1/31/23 at 8:00 AM (BS 119). b. The Propranolol 20 mg was administered when it should have been held for SBP less than 110 on 1/1/23 at 8:00 AM (blood pressure (BP) 87/56), on 1/1/23 at 8:00 PM (BS 87/56), on 1/4/23 at 8:00 PM (BP 100/62), on 1/5/23 at 8:00 AM and 8:00 PM (BP 108/64), on 1/11/23 at 8:00 AM (BP 96/58), and on 1/20/23 at 8:00 AM (BP 92/64). c. The Humalog 6 units was administered when it should have been held for BS less than 140 on 1/6/23 at 7:00 AM (BS 121), on 1/12/23 at 4:00 PM (BS 134), on 1/27/23 at 7:00 AM and 11:00 AM (BS 126), on 1/28/23 at 7:00 AM (BS 92), and on 1/31/23 at 7:00 AM (BS 119). d. The Humalog sliding scale was held when 2 units should have been administered on 1/20/23 at 7:30 AM (BS 101) and 4:00 PM (BS 98), and on 1/21/23 at 7:30 AM (BS 101). Review of resident 11's February 2023 MAR revealed the following: a. The Lantus 40 units was administered when it should have been held for BS less than 120 on 2/3/23 at 8:00 AM (BS 107), and on 2/4/23 at 8:00 AM (BS 118). b. The Propranolol 20 mg was administered when it should have been held for SBP less than 110 on 2/6/23 at 8:00 AM (BP 99/72). c. The Humalog 6 units was administered when it should have been held for BS less than 140 on 2/4/23 at 7:00 AM (BS 118). d. The Humalog sliding scale was held when 2 units should have been administered on 2/3/23 at 7:30 AM (BS 107). On 2/07/23 at 1:59 PM, an interview was conducted with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 4. LPN 4 stated that the nurse who was entering the order should also include any monitoring or physician ordered parameters. LPN 4 stated that blood pressure medications would have parameters for the medication to be held if the SBP was less than 110, and they would monitor the heart rate and hold if it was less than a certain number. LPN 4 stated that the parameters would pull up on the MAR, the medication should be held, and then the physician should be notified. LPN 4 stated that the nurse should enter notes to document that this was completed. LPN 4 stated that for insulin orders they would need to perform a BS check before each meal and at bedtime. LPN 4 stated that insulin orders would have parameters to hold if the BS was less than a certain number. LPN 4 stated that many of the residents were not compliant with their diet and the BS should be checked before insulin administration. LPN 4 stated that if the medication needed to be held the physician needed to be notified. LPN 4 reviewed resident 11's scheduled and sliding scale Humalog insulin orders and stated that the scheduled order for Humalog had parameters to hold for a BS less than 140, but the sliding scale stated to administer for a BS between 71 to 199. LPN 4 stated that it was confusing because the orders were conflicting. LPN 4 stated that if she believed that a medication should be administered even if it was outside of the ordered parameters, she would contact the physician and let them make that determination and then document it in the MAR progress note. On 2/09/23 at 11:24 AM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated that the licensed nurses should look at the medication parameters, and hold for the parameters. The DON stated that any anti-hypertensive medication should have the BP attached to the order so it has to be put into the MAR to close the administration out. 2. Resident 31 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and re-admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included but were not limited to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), sepsis, dementia, type 2 diabetes mellitus, anxiety disorder, unspecified disorder of personality and behavior, schizoaffective disorder, viral hepatitis C, glaucoma, delirium, history of malignant neoplasm, and chronic pain syndrome. On 2/7/23 resident 31's medical records were reviewed. Review of resident 31's physician orders revealed the following: a. Isosorbide Mononitrate Extended Release Tablet 30 MG, Give 1 tablet by mouth one time a day for hypertension. Hold for SBP less than 110. The order was initiated on 2/4/22. b. Novolog Solution 100 UNIT/ML (Insulin Aspart), Inject as per sliding scale: if 61 - 175 = 0 unit < 60 call MD; 176 - 250 = 2 units; 251 - 300 = 4 units; 301 - 400 = 6 units > 400 give 8 units and call MD, subcutaneously before meals and at bedtime related to diabetes mellitus. Notify MD if BS is less than 60 or greater than 400. c. Novolog Solution 100 UNIT/ML (Insulin Aspart), Inject 6 unit subcutaneously before meals related to diabetes mellitus. Hold for blood sugar less than 160. The order was initiated on 2/2/21. Review of resident 31's January 2023 MAR revealed the following: a. The Isosorbide 30 mg was administered when it should have been held for SBP less than 110 on 1/8/23 (BP 104/62), on 1/17/23 (BP 100/59), and on 1/19/23 (BP 102/58). b. The Novolog 6 units was administered when it should have been held for a BS less than 160 at the 7:00 AM administration time on 1/2/23 (BS 152), on 1/3/23 (BS 145), on 1/4/23 (BS 145), on 1/7/23 (BS 135), on 1/8/23 (BS 158), on 1/10/23 (BS 133), on 1/11/23 (BS 156), on 1/12/23 (BS 143), on 1/14/23 (BS 145), on 1/18/23 (BS 150), on 1/23/23 (BS 158), on 1/24/23 (BS 154), and on 1/29/23 (BS 149). c. The Novolog sliding scale was held when 6 units should have been administered on 1/11/23 at 9:00 PM for a BS of 399. Review of resident 31's February 2023 MAR revealed the following: a. The Isosorbide 30 mg was administered when it should have been held for SBP less than 110 on 2/4/23 (BP 107/64). b. The Novolog 6 units was administered when it should have been held for a BS less than 160 at the 7:00 AM administration time on 2/7/23 (BS 154) and on 2/9/23 (BS 144). 3. Resident 32 was admitted to the facility on Resident 32 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), heart failure, hypertension, cerebral infarction, dysphagia, unsteadiness on feet, cognitive communication deficit, asthma, dorsalgia, pain in bilateral knees, and encounter for palliative care. On 2/6/23 at 12:29 PM, an interview was conducted with resident 32. Resident 32 stated that he takes Metoprolol with parameters and sometimes the nurses give it to him when its outside of the parameters. Resident 32 stated that it was mostly the agency nurses that did this. On 2/7/23 resident 32's medical records were reviewed. Review of resident 32's physician orders revealed the following: a. Metoprolol Succinate Extended Release (ER) 25 MG Tablet, Give 1 tablet by mouth one time a day for hypertension. Hold for SBP greater than 110 or pulse greater than 60. The order was initiated on 12/5/22 and discontinued on 1/11/23. b. Metoprolol Succinate ER 25 MG Tablet, Give 12.5 mg by mouth one time a day for hypertension. Hold for SBP greater than 160 and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) less than 60. The order was initiated on 1/12/23 and discontinued on 2/8/23. c. Metoprolol Tartrate Tablet, Give 12.5 mg by mouth at bedtime for hypertension. Hold if SBP less than 130 or diastolic blood pressure (DBP) less than 80. The order was initiated on 2/8/23. Review of resident 32's January 2023 MAR revealed the following: a. The Metoprolol Succinate ER 25 mg tablet was held when it should have been administered per the parameters on 1/6/23 (BP 106/60). On 1/6/23 at 9:40 PM, resident 32's progress note documented, [Resident 32] states that he was not given his Metoprolol earlier today due to his vital signs and the previous nurse held his dose. He was very concerned about this and called his Hospice Nurse, [name omitted], who called us stating that she would like us to give him the Metoprolol dose based on his recent vital signs for the evening. His vitals in evening: BP 162/71, t [temperature] 97.8, pulse 73, o2 [oxygen] 90. The regular Metoprolol dose was given to patient. b. The Metoprolol Succinate ER 12.5 mg was held when it should have been administered per the parameters on 1/22/23 (BP 130/61), and on 1/27/23 (BP 101/60). c. The Metoprolol Succinate ER 12. 5 mg was administered when it should have been held per the parameters on 1/23/23 (BP 114/54) and on 1/24/23 (BP 132/54). Review of resident 32's February 2023 MAR revealed the following: a. The Metoprolol Succinate ER 12.5 mg was held when it should have been administered per the parameters on 2/2/23 (BP 120/60), on 2/4/23 (BP 104/62), and on 2/7/23 (BP 112/67). On 2/09/23 at 11:33 AM, a follow-up interview was conducted with the DON. The DON stated that the parameters on the Metoprolol Succinate ER tablet to hold for a SBP of greater than 160 or a pulse of greater than 60 was not correct and it should state SBP less than 160 and pulse less than 60. The DON stated that the Metoprolol that was held for SBP greater than 160 should have been administered. The DON stated that the nurse that takes the order was responsible for putting the hold parameters into the electronic medical records. The DON stated that usually with a new admission a second nurse would conduct an audit of the orders, but if a nurse was changing an order or adding it after admission it was not audited by a second nurse.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0775 (Tag F0775)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident 20 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which consisted of alcohol withdrawal, dysphagia, alcohol i...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident 20 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which consisted of alcohol withdrawal, dysphagia, alcohol induced pancreatitis, cirrhosis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, type 2 diabetes mellitus, congestive heart failure, cognitive communication deficit, viral hepatitis C, supraventricular tachycardia, stimulant abuse, abdominal pain, osteoporosis, hypertension, thrombocytopenia, hyperlipidemia, anxiety disorder, gastro-esophageal reflux disease, anemia, opioid abuse, sensorineural hearing loss, major depressive disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, intervertebral disc degeneration, vitiligo eye, and tobacco use. On 2/7/23, resident 20's medical records were reviewed. On 12/16/22, resident 20's physician ordered to draw labs for a Troponin and Creatine Kinase (CK) one time only for chest pain. Review of resident 20's electronic medical records revealed no laboratory report for the ordered Troponin and CK. Review of resident 20's progress notes revealed no documentation that the laboratory orders for the Troponin and CK were obtained or that the results were received and reported to the provider. On 2/13/22 at 1:15 PM, the Corporate Resource Nurse (CRN) provided the laboratory results for the Troponin and CK by email. The results did not contain any hand written notation that the reports were received and that notification was made to the provider. It should be noted that all laboratory results that were located in the resident's medical record had the date and initials of the receiving staff member and sometimes the date that the provider was informed. On 2/13/23 at 2:18 PM, an interview was conducted with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 4. LPN 4 stated that the process for ordering labs was confusing lately. LPN 4 stated that the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) was supposed to call the physician when the laboratory results came back and then follow-up with the Director of Nursing (DON). LPN 4 stated that sometimes she did not know what was reported to the doctor, or what the labs were ordered for. LPN 4 stated that she did not always see the lab results and they did not routinely get reported back to her. LPN 4 stated that if she had orders for labs she liked to check for the results the next day, but that she would not see those results unless she took responsibility and logged into the laboratory system. LPN 4 stated that the physician or Nurse Practitioner talked to the ADON or DON when they came to the facility. On 2/14/23 at 11:41 AM, an interview was conducted with the DON. The DON stated that the diagnostic results were faxed to the facility by the company. The DON stated that the Troponin and CK were processed by [local hospital name omitted]. The DON stated that she would have to check on the location of the lab results. 3. Resident 11 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included encephalopathy, hemiplegia and hemiparesis, type 2 diabetes mellitus, alcoholic cirrhosis, schizoaffective disorder bipolar type, major depressive disorder, alcohol induced pancreatitis, paranoid schizophrenia, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), anxiety disorder, insomnia, hyperlipidemia, atrial fibrillation, Gastro-Esophageal Reflux Disease (GERD), chronic pain, thrombocytopenia, obstructive sleep apnea, congestive heart failure, neuropathy, and repeated falls. On 2/7/23 resident 11's medical records were reviewed. On 12/10/22, resident 11's physician ordered a nasal swab for influenza and COVID-19. Review of resident 11's electronic medical records revealed no laboratory report for the ordered nasal swab. On 12/10/22 at 9:57 PM, the nursing progress note documented that resident 11 had reports of nasal congestion with sinus pressure and headaches. The note documented that a nasal swab was sent to test for influenza and COVID-19. On 12/11/22 at 1:57 AM, the nursing progress note documented that the Nurse Practitioner (NP) ordered to send resident 11 to the hospital for evaluation. On 12/11/22 at 6:23 AM, the nursing progress note documented that per the report from the hospital emergency room, resident 11 had tested positive for COVID-19. On 2/13/22 at 1:15 PM, the Corporate Resource Nurse (CRN) provided the laboratory results for the influenza by email. The results did not contain any hand written notation that the reports were received and that notification was made to the provider. It should be noted that all laboratory results that were located in the resident's medical record had the date and initials of the receiving staff member and sometimes the date that the provider was informed. O2/14/23 at 11:55 AM, a follow-up interview was conducted with the DON. The DON stated that sometimes diagnostic reports did not get faxed to them, but within 24 hours staff should follow-up with results of orders. The DON stated that sometimes nurses would ask the DON or ADON to follow-up with results of diagnostic tests. The DON stated that the nurses were able to look in the [local hospital] system to see the laboratory results. The DON stated that the hospital laboratory courier picked up lab samples from the facility between 4 and 5 PM, and the results showed up the next day in the system. The DON stated that the ADON followed up on any lab order results from the previous day. The DON stated that they had to print them from the hospital system and if it was not there then they had to call for the results. The DON stated that the ADON was responsible for checking on the laboratory results. Based on interview and record review, it was determined, the facility did not file in the resident's clinical record laboratory (lab) reports that were dated and contained the name and address of the testing laboratory. Specifically, for 3 out of 41 sampled residents, a resident that had a UA completed did not have the sensitivity report at the facility or filed in their medical record. In addition, a resident that had a Troponin and Creatine Kinase (CK) ordered for chest pain did not have the report at the facility or filed in their medical record, and a resident that had an influenza nasal swab ordered did not have the report at the facility or filed in their medical record. Resident identifiers: 11, 20, and 68. Findings included: 1. Resident 68 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included, but were not limited to, paraplegia incomplete, fracture of neck, spinal stenosis, extradural and subdural abscess, surgical aftercare, moderate protein-calorie malnutrition, pressure ulcer of left buttock stage 3, aneurysm of heart, mood disorder due to known physiological condition with major depressive-like episode, abrasion left ankle, reduced mobility, pressure induced deep tissue damage of right heel and left heel, pressure-induced deep tissue damage of right ankle, essential hypertension, psychoactive substance use and abuse, neurogenic bowel, neuromuscular dysfunction of bladder, and muscle spasm. Resident 68's medical record was reviewed on 2/9/23. On 12/28/22 at 5:52 PM, a Nurses Note documented Note Text: NP [Nurse Practitioner] reviewed recent lab results wn/o [with new order] to give Rocephin 1GM [gram] QD [daily] IM [intramuscular] x [times] 5 days, UA [urinalysis] w [with] C&S [culture and sensitivity], . On 12/29/22 at 4:00 AM, an Infection Note documented Note Text: Rocephin 1 gm IM started r/t [related to] possible UTI [urinary tract infection] - urine collected and sent to lab, cloudy brown. Pt [Patient] tolerated IM shot w/o [with out] pain. No s/s [signs or symptoms] adverse reaction noted. A Labs Results Report collected on 12/28/22 and reported on 12/29/22 at 9:22 AM, documented the following: [Note: A staff member noted on the report to wait for the C&S.] a. [NAME] Blood Cells, urine were greater than 30, High. b. Red Blood Cells, urine were greater than 30, High. c. Bacteria, urine 2 plus d. Mucus, urine 1 plus On 12/29/22 at 2:40 PM, a Lab Note documented Note Text: NP reviewed UA results, waiting for C&S no new orders. A Labs Results Report collected on 12/28/22 and reported on 12/30/22 at 8:58 AM, documented a Microbiology report. The result on the report was documented as gram-negative bacillus Identification and susceptibility studies to follow. [Note: A staff member documented on the form bactrim double strength, Rocephin, and florastor. Instructions for the medications were included on the form.] A laboratory Microbiology form collected on 12/28/22 and faxed to the facility on 2/13/23 at 10:53 AM, documented the following urine culture. a. Cefepime - susceptible b. Ceftazidime - susceptible c. pseudomonas aeruginosa, susceptible to Ceftazidime Avibactam d. Ciprofloxacin - resistant e. Gentamicin - susceptible f. pseudomonas aeruginosa, susceptible to Imipenem, Meropenem, piperacillin/tazobactam, and tobramycin. Resistant to levofloxacin. [Note: The susceptibility study was not available at the facility or filed in resident 68's medical record. Resident 68 was treated with two antibiotics that were not included on the susceptibility study.] On 2/14/23 at 9:40 AM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated that the facility would send labs to two different local laboratories. The DON stated that resident labs were drawn in house by staff and the courier would pick up the labs and deliver them to the laboratory. The DON stated that the turn around time on the labs was usually 48 to 72 hours. The DON was unsure if the sensitivity report for resident 68 was available for the Medical Director to review and determine which antibiotics resident 68 should be receiving.
CONCERN (E)

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

Medical Records (Tag F0842)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined, the facility failed to maintain medical records on each r...

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 failed to maintain medical records on each resident that were complete, accurately documented, readily accessible, and systematically organized. Specifically, for 3 out of 41 sampled residents, a resident with an arteriovenous (AV) fistula in his left arm had multiple blood pressure readings that were inaccurately documented as being taken with his left arm, a resident who was sent to the emergency room (ER) was missing documentation from the ER visit, and a resident that was sent to the hospital was missing hospital documentation and the tests and imaging from their medical record. Resident identifiers: 50, 64, and 78. Findings Included: 1. Resident 50 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included end stage renal disease, encounter for palliative care, holiday relief care, chronic viral hepatitis C, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, dysphagia, memory deficit following other cerebrovascular disease, dependence on renal dialysis, atherosclerotic heart disease, restless legs syndrome, nicotine dependence, panic disorder, delusional disorders, general anxiety disorder, bipolar disorder, essential hypertension, dysphagia, protein-calorie malnutrition, repeated falls, and hyperlipidemia. On 2/8/23 at 1:21 PM, an observation of resident 50 was made. Resident 50 was sitting up in his bed. Resident 50 was observed to have an AV fistula in his left forearm. Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 6 entered the room and asked resident 50 if he could take his blood pressure. Resident 50 agreed and held out his right arm. CNA 6 took his blood pressure using resident 50's right arm. On 2/8/23 at 1:23 PM, an interview with CNA 6 was conducted. CNA 6 stated that staff always take resident 50's blood pressure with his right arm because they can not take his blood pressure in his left arm due to resident 50 having an AV fistula on his left arm. A record review was conducted on 2/8/23. Resident 50 had a care plan initiated on 12/23/22, with a focus that stated, the resident needs hemodialysis r/t [related to] ESRD [end stage renal disease] attends dialysis 3x/per week. The goal initiated on 12/23/22 stated, The resident will have immediate intervention should any s/sx [signs or symptoms] of complications from dialysis occur through the review date. The resident will have no s/sx of complications from dialysis through the review date. The interventions, initiated on 12/23/22, included, do not draw blood or take B/P [blood pressure] in arm with graft . Resident 50's medical record had multiple blood pressure readings that were recorded as being taken with his left arm. a. On 1/14/23, 126/46 sitting left arm (l/arm) b. On 1/11/23, 158/80 lying l/arm c. On 1/10/23, 148/80 lying l/arm d. On 1/9/23, 150/78 lying l/arm e. On 1/6/23, 128/61 sitting l/arm f. On 1/4/23, 144/68 lying l/arm g. On 1/4/23, 122/89 lying l/arm h. On 1/3/23, 142/78 lying l/arm i. On 1/3/23, 130/70 lying l/arm j. On 1/2/23, 133/67 lying l/arm k. On 1/2/23, 142/74 lying l/arm l. On 12/28/22, 142/74 lying l/arm m. On 12/27/22, 128/68 lying l/arm n. On 12/27/22, 110/68 lying l/arm o. On 12/26/22, 121/78 lying l/arm p. On 12/24/22, 118/51 lying l/arm q. On 12/24/22, 144/78 lying l/arm On 2/8/23 at 1:26 PM, an interview with Liscensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 4 was conducted. LPN 4 stated that the staff do not take resident 50's blood pressure in his left arm because of resident 50's AV fistula. LPN 4 stated that the documentation in resident 50's medical record was incorrect, and the blood pressure readings should have all stated that it was taken with resident 50's right arm. On 2/13/23 at 9:54 AM, an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) was conducted. The DON stated that staff always take resident 50's blood pressure using resident 50's right arm. The DON stated that the documentation in resident 50's medical record was an error. 2. Resident 64 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], and re-admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included dementia with behavioral disturbances, fracture of right femur, orthopedic aftercare, history of falls, long term use of anticoagulants, anxiety disorder, type 1 diabetes mellitus with neuropathy, hyperglycemia, neuralgia and neuritis, muscle weakness, mood disorder, long term use of insulin, hypertension, nicotine dependence, low back pain, and major depressive disorder. Resident 64's medical record was reviewed. On 1/29/23 at 5:58 AM, a nurse progress note documented Note Text: Pt [patient] fof [fell on floor] in room by bed on abdomen, this nurse attempted to move pillow from between her legs and pt started screaming, unable to assess rom [range of motion] to any extremities d/t [due to] discomfort, pt unable to follow direction and difficulty answering questions, pt states she did hit her head, swelling and discoloration noted to left eye and cheek, and left hand, difficulty turning head, vs [vital sign] 97.7 [temperature], bp [blood pressure] 207/92 (pt shaking during reading) P [pulse] 82 sats [oxygen saturation] 87 on 3l [liters of oxygen], NP [Nurse Practitioner] notified and ordered to send pt to er, ems [emergency medical services] arrived at approx [approximately] 0540 [5:40 AM], vm [voice mail] left for son to call the facility. On 1/31/23 at 11:30 AM, a late entry Interdisciplinary Team review was documented in resident 64's progress notes. The note included the following: Event description: Pt fof in room by bed on abdomen, this nurse attempted to move pillow from between her legs and pt started screaming, unable to assess rom to any extremities d/t discomfort, pt unable to follow direction and difficulty answering questions. Risk factors: unspecified dementia, history of falling, muscle weakness, mood affective disorder, depression, insomnia, HTN [hypertension], DM I [diabetes mellitus type 1], anxiety disorder, use of psych [psychotropic] medications. Preventive measures: call light within reach, frequent monitoring, bed in lowest position, fall matt next to bed, door open and pt by door for frequent monitoring. Pt educated but unable to retain education long term, provide frequent reminders and assistance. Root Cause: Pt rolled out of bed onto the floor New interventions: pt states she did hit her head, swelling and discoloration noted to left eye and cheek, and left hand, difficulty turning head, vs 97.7, bp 207/92 (pt shaking during reading) P82 sats 87 on 3l, NP notified and ordered to send pt to er, ems arrived at approx 0540, vm left for son to call the facility. Resident was returned after ER evaluation. PT [physical therapy] post fall assessment, pt working with therapies. Pt treated for UTI [urinary tract infection] with abx [antibiotics]. Fluids given. [Name of Mental Health clinic] referral, referral to RNA [restorative nursing assistance]. [Note: no documentation could be found in resident 64's medical record regarding the emergency room visit on 1/29/23.] On 2/13/23, a request was made to the DON for the discharge documentation after resident 64's emergency room visit on 1/29/23. On 2/14/23 at 8:58 AM, a printed copy of the emergency room documentation from the visit on 1/29/23, was provided. The documentation was obtained from the hospital records and printed by the facility on 2/13/23 at 4:09 PM. On 2/14/23 at 9:31 AM, an interview was conducted with the DON. The DON stated if the resident did not return with documents from the hospital, the nurse on duty was responsible to call and request the documents. The DON confirmed that the date on the records provided, 2/13/23, was the date the records were obtained and that they were not previously in resident 64's medical record. 3. Resident 78 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included lobar pneumonia, squamous cell carcinoma of skin, scalp and neck, basal cell carcinoma of skin, pleural effusion, dementia without behavioral, psychotic, mood or anxiety disturbance, aneurysm of pulmonary artery, chronic atrial fibrillation, long term use of anticoagulants, mild cognitive impairment, cardiomegaly, history of falling, anxiety disorder, and age related osteoporosis. Resident 78's medical was reviewed. On 12/10/22 at 21:09 PM, a progress note documented Resident had an unwitnessed fall 12/10/22 at 1730 [5:30 PM] with some injuries to the head, BLE [bilateral lower extremities], and inner left wrist. Resident was found by faculty and staff. He was attempting to transfer to the toilet without assistance from caregivers. A&Ox1 [alert and oriented]; confusion & requires re-orientation. Requires 2 person extensive assist with bed mobility, transfers, and assistance with ADLs [Activities of daily living] .Applied kerlix dressing w [with]/coban to head, BLE, and inner left wrist to stop bleeding .speech unclear and cluttered words. Resident reports feeling light-headed and dizzy. Notified NP, family member, DON, and [name of hospice provider] [phone number provided]. Hospice notified floor nurse that patient was suppose to be sent to [name of hospital] because of 'hospice' status. Resident was sent to [name of hospital] for stitches on head. Will continue to monitor and communicate. On 12/11/22 at 12:19 AM, a progress note documented Pt returned from [hospital name] at approx. 2350 [11:50] PM with no new orders, hospital lab tests completed: APTT [activated partial thromboplastin clotting time], CBC [complete blood count] with auto diff. [differential], CMP [complete metabolic panel], serum drug screen, protime-INR [International Normalized Ratio]. Imaging tests: CT [Computed tomography] cervical spine without contrast, CT head without contrast performed x2, Ultrasound ED fast [emergency department focused assessment with sonography in trauma] exam, X-ray chest AP [anterior to posterior] only, X-ray pelvis limited. [Note: no documentation from the hospital visit or the tests and imaging were found in resident 78's medical record.] On 2/13/23, a request was made to the DON for the hospital documentation related to resident 78's emergency room visit. No records were provided.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review it was determined, for 1 out of 41 sampled residents, that the facility did no...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review it was determined, for 1 out of 41 sampled residents, that the facility did not maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections. Specifically, a Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA)was observed to pick up the oxygen tubing and nasal cannula from the floor and then offered it to the resident to place on their nose and face. Resident identifier 32. Findings included: Resident 32 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), heart failure, hypertension, cerebral infarction, dysphagia, unsteadiness on feet, cognitive communication deficit, asthma, dorsalgia, pain in bilateral knees, and encounter for palliative care. On 2/06/23 at 12:46 PM, an interview was conducted with resident 32. CNA 7 picked resident 32's oxygen tubing up off the floor, and asked resident 32 if he wanted to put it on. Resident 32 took the nasal cannula from CNA 7 and placed it on his nose. The oxygen was at 2.5 liters and the oxygen tubing was dated 2/5/23. On 2/7/23 resident 32's medical records were reviewed. On 10/20/22, resident 32 had a physician order for oxygen per nasal cannula at 2 liters per minute continuous initiated. The goal was to maintain oxygen saturations greater than 90%. The order documented to change the nasal cannula and oxygen filters on the concentrator every Sunday and as needed. On 1/25/23, resident 32's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment documented yes to COPD or chronic lung disease and yes to respiratory failure. The assessment documented yes to received oxygen therapy. On 11/2/22, resident 32 had a care plan for emphysema/COPD was initiated. The interventions identified included avoid extremes of hot and cold; give aerosol or bronchodilators as ordered, monitor/document any side effects and effectiveness; monitor difficulty breathing; remind not to push beyond endurance; monitor/document anxiety; monitor/document/report any signs and symptoms of respiratory infections; oxygen as ordered, wean as able, check room air oxygen saturation as ordered. Review of the facility Policy/Procedure for Infection Prevention and Control for Oxygen Use documented that the oxygen tubing should be changed when visibly soiled and should be kept off the floor. The policy was adopted on 10/2017. On 2/07/23 at 1:20 PM, an interview was conducted with CNA 6. CNA 6 stated that the Restorative Nurse Aide (RNA) changed the oxygen tubing every Sunday. CNA 6 stated that the tubing was changed weekly and if they were ripped or dirty. CNA 6 stated that if the nasal cannula were to fall on the floor or was found located on the floor it would need to be changed. CNA 6 stated that the floors were dirty and he did not want the nasal cannula to get bacteria on it. On 2/09/23 at 11:50 AM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated that the process for cleaning or changing respiratory equipment was that the nasal cannula was changed every Sunday by the RNA or as needed. The DON stated that examples of when the nasal cannula would need to be changed before Sunday was if the oxygen tubing was dirty or moisture was in the line. The DON stated that if the tubing was lying on the floor it should be changed prior to use. 2. On 2/9/23 at 3:29 PM, an observation was made of room [ROOM NUMBER]. There were 2 different nasal cannula with oxygen tubing on the floor in room [ROOM NUMBER]. On 2/9/23 at 3:30 PM, an interview was conducted with CNA 2. CNA 2 stated if oxygen tubing was on the floor it needed to be thrown away and replaced with new tubing. On 2/9/23 at 3:32 PM, an interview was conducted with CNA 3. CNA 3 stated if oxygen tube was on the floor then it should be replaced with new tubing. CNA 3 stated that residents in room [ROOM NUMBER] were able to pick up their oxygen tubing and apply it themselves. CNA 3 stated residents should not use oxygen tubing off the floor because it could cause infections. CNA 3 stated staff should notice if tubing is on the floor and get the resident new tubing.
MINOR (C)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Staffing Information (Tag F0732)

Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview, it was determined, the facility did not have the nurse staffing information posted. The faci...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview, it was determined, the facility did not have the nurse staffing information posted. The facility must post the following information on a daily basis: Facility name, the current date, the total number and the actual hours worked by the following categories of licensed and unlicensed nursing staff directly responsible for resident care per shift: Registered Nurse (RN), Licensed Practical Nurses (LPN), Certified Nursing Assistants, and the resident census. The facility must post the nurse staffing data on a daily basis at the beginning of each shift and maintain the posted daily nurse staffing data for a minimum of 18 months. Additionally, the information must be displayed in a prominent place readily accessible to residents and visitors. Specifically, the nurse staffing information was not completed and readily accessible to residents and visitors. Findings included: On 2/9/23 at 7:40 AM, an observation was made throughout the facility for the nurse staffing information. No information could be found. On 2/9/22 at 7:45 AM, an interview was conducted with RN 1. RN 1 was at the [NAME] nursing station, and stated she was unsure about what was being requested or what a nurse staff posting was. RN 1 stated she did not know where the nurse staffing information would be kept. The Resident Advocate (RA) was at the [NAME] nursing station also and stated she would find out where the nurse staffing information was. On 2/9/22 at 7:47 AM, an interview was conducted with LPN 1. LPN 1 was at the Quail Hollow nursing station. LPN 1 stated she thought the nurse staffing information was at the [NAME] nursing station. On 2/9/22 at 7:50 AM, an interview was conducted with RN 2. RN 2 stated she was unsure what was being requested but thought the nurse staffing information would be at the [NAME] nursing station. On 2/9/22 at 7:51 AM, an additional interview was conducted with the RA. The RA stated the member who usually filled out the nurse staffing information hours form had been sick for the past four weeks. The RA stated she obtained the form and filled it out. The RA placed the form in the front lobby area inside a glass case where it could be seen by staff and visitors. On 2/11/23 at 6:15 PM, a second interview was conducted with the RA. The RA stated the staff member who had been out sick had a stack of the nurse staffing information on her desk. The RA stated she did not know if anyone was completing the nurse staffing information in her absence. The RA stated that she asked the Administrator (ADM), and he thought the nurse staffing information was the staff schedule. On 2/13/23 at 12:12 PM, an interview was conducted with the ADM. The ADM stated nobody at the facility had been posting the nurse staffing information. The ADM stated the charge nurse at the [NAME] station would be the person to update the nurse staffing information. The ADM stated there was a staffing ratio chart to ensure that every shift was covered and he had that. On 2/13/22 at 2:02 PM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated the admissions staff had been filling out the nurse staffing information, however, that staff member had been out for four weeks. The DON stated the receptionist had been trying to fill the form out.
Jul 2021 24 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident 30 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included chronic obstructive...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident 30 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes type II, weakness, history of malignant neoplasm, chronic pain syndrome, reduced mobility, anxiety disorder and syncope. On 7/13/21 at approximately 12:30 PM, resident 30 stated that he would like to go to the store, but was unable to go because the activity staff would not take him. Resident 30 stated that he wanted to go shopping, not to have staff pick up things for him. On 7/15/21, resident 30's medical record was reviewed. Resident 30's initial review for activities was completed on 8/15/2020. Resident 30 included an interest in going on outings. An activity interview for daily and activity preferences was completed on 5/15/21 and did not assess resident 30's preferences. On 7/14/21 at 2:10 PM, an interview was conducted with Registered Nurse (RN) 1. RN 1 stated that residents who wanted to leave the facility could go with the transportation staff. RN 1 stated that he was not aware that the residents were told that scheduling with the driver was an option. On 7/15/21 at approximately 10:00 AM, an interview was conducted with the AD. The AD stated that the activities staff could not take residents due to COVID-19, and offered to pick up items for the residents. The AD stated that staff asked the residents twice weekly if they needed items from the store. On 7/15/21 at 3:40 PM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated that resident's were allowed to go to the store. The DON stated that some resident's walked or used their wheelchairs. The DON stated that the transportation staff member had taken residents to the store that wanted to go. The DON stated that sometimes he will take a few of them to the store with activities. The DON stated that the activities department should be able to take residents to the store. The DON stated that the facility staff did not take residents when COVID-19 started but have since resumed taking residents to the store. The DON stated that a lot of residents asked us to go to the store and we make arrangements. The DON stated that resident 51's wheelchair fit in the van but she did not know that resident 51 wanted to go to the store. On 7/15/21 at 11:55 AM, an interview was conducted with the Administrator. The Administrator stated that residents were allowed to leave the facility and there was a screening tool that they used to determine if a resident needed to quarantine after leaving. The Administrator stated if a resident was vaccinated then they did not have to quarantine after leaving the facility. The Administrator stated that the transportation staff member took residents to the bank or the store one on one, the resident just need to let the staff know that they wanted to go. Based on interview and record review it was determined, for 2 of 40 sample residents, that the facility did not ensure each resident exercised their rights as a resident of the facility. Specifically, residents wanted to go to the grocery store and were not provided instruction on the process. Resident identifiers: 30 and 51. Findings include: 1. Resident 51 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnose which included hemiplegia and hemiparesis, cerebral infarction, dysphagia, schizophrenia, diabetes and obesity. On 7/12/21 at 3:06 PM, an interview was conducted with resident 51. Resident 51 stated she wanted to go to the store but could not go because her wheelchair would not fit in the van. Resident 51 stated that the Activities Director (AD) went to the store with a list from her but that was not the same as being able to go to the store. On 7/12/21, the facility activities calendar was reviewed and there were no activities for residents to go to the store. On 7/15/21 at 11:37 AM, an interview was conducted with the AD. The AD stated that residents were not able to go to the store because of COVID-19. The AD stated prior to COVID-19 residents were taken to the store weekly. The AD stated that residents gave her a list of items they wanted from the store and she did their shopping. The AD stated that the van was big enough to accommodate resident 51's wheelchair. The AD stated she had talked with the Administrator about taking residents to the store. The AD sated that the State Survey Agency had not given the facility direction on being able to take residents to the store. The AD stated that the Administrator kept the facility staff up to date on new guidance provided from the state. On 7/15/21 at 12:02 PM, a follow up interview was conducted with the AD. The AD stated that she did not take residents one on one to the store. The AD stated that maybe transportation or the social worker took them but she did not.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0582 (Tag F0582)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review it was determined, for 2 of 40 sampled residents, that the facility did not inform each res...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review it was determined, for 2 of 40 sampled residents, that the facility did not inform each resident periodically during the resident's stay, of services available in the facility and of charges for those services, including any charges for services not covered under Medicare/Medicaid or by the facility's per diem rate. Specifically, a resident was not issued a Notice of Medicare Non-coverage (NOMNC) when the Medicare part A services were terminated and another resident did not have a signed copy of a NOMNC in their medical record. Resident identifiers: 128 and 129. Findings include: 1. Resident 128 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included cerebral infarction, hemiplegia, hemiparesis, memory deficit, aphasia, dysphasia, dementia, cognitive communication deficit, and encelopathy. Resident 128's medical record was reviewed on 7/14/21. Medicare services for resident 128 ended on 4/11/21. NOMNC was signed by resident 128 on 4/19/21, eight days after Medicare services had ended. Skilled Nursing Facility Advance Beneficiary Notice of Non-coverage (SNFABN) stated [name of provider] contract began 4/12/2. SNFABN form was signed by resident 128 on 4/19/21, eight days after the [name of provider] contract had begun for resident 128. 2. Resident 129 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included chronic kidney disease, acute kidney failure, dysphagia, cognitive communication deficit, need for assistance with personal care and psychomotor defect. Resident 129's medical record was reviewed on 7/14/21. The NOMNC form had resident 129's name typed at the top of the form, the signature line at the bottom of the form was left blank. A handwritten note on bottom of the NOMNC form stated Unable to find original signed copy of 2/25/21. Resident discharged on 2/27/21. There was no signature by resident 129 on the NOMNC form. On 7/15/21 at approximately 1:00 PM, an interview was conducted with Registered Nurse (RN) 1. RN 1 stated getting the NOMNC form signed was done by the nursing staff or the administrative staff. RN 1 stated there was not a set process for getting the NOMNOC signed.
CONCERN (D)

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

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident 17 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included encephalopathy, kidney disease, history of s...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident 17 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included encephalopathy, kidney disease, history of stroke, depression, and schizophrenia. Resident 17 and resident 45 had been roommates according to their medical records. Resident 45 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included paranoid schizophrenia, diabetes mellitus, history of stroke, traumatic brain injury, Parkinson's disease, depression and respiratory failure. On 7/15/21, resident 17's and 45's electronic medical records review was completed. A nursing note for resident 17 created 6/25/21 at 2:56 PM, revealed that resident 45 pushed resident 17 to the floor and was on top of her hitting her . Resident 17 stated that resident 45 beat the crap out of her for no reason. An incident report dated 6/25/21 revealed that resident 17 stated that she entered the shared room when resident 45 jumped out of bed and she just started beating on me and beat me to the floor. Resident 45 was taken to a local hospital for a psychiatric evaluation. On 6/26/2021 at 1:39 AM, a nurses note revealed that resident 45 returned from ER (emergency room) via non-emergency transport @ 2230 (10:30 PM). admitted to room [ROOM NUMBER] for the evening. Explained to pt (patient) there will be some room changes done in am, probably after 1000 when pt in room [ROOM NUMBER] discharges. Pt pjs brought to her, pt fed, meds given. Pt comfortable at this time. Per RN at [a local hospital] nothing was done for pt . No hospital information was available for resident 45's Emergency Department evaluation on 6/25/21. Resident 17 was moved to another room on Monday, 6/28/21. Resident 45 was returned to her previous room without a roommate. On 7/14/21 9:20 AM, the Medical Records staff (MRS) was interviewed. The MRS stated that resident 45 was sent back from the hospital without them doing anything. The MRS stated that there was no documentation in resident 45's record about the evaluation. The MRS stated that she was able request the report after morning meeting. On 7/14/21, two behavioral health notes were obtained for resident 45. Resident 45 met with a counselor on the following dates: a. On 6/17/21 at 1:00 PM, a note revealed resident 45 was having issues with her roommate. She mentioned she does not know why her roommate dislikes her. She mentioned she sleeps okay. She denied any paranoid thoughts or hallucinations at the moment. b. On 6/28/21 resident 45 stated I've been doin' alright. No history was obtained from staff. On 7/14/21 at 1:01 PM, resident 17 was interviewed . Resident 17 stated that she was punched repeatedly in the head, but had since worked things out with resident 45. Resident 17 stated that she was not afraid of resident 45. On 7/14/21 at 9:30 AM, the Administrator (ADM) was interviewed. The ADM stated that the IDT had talked about the interaction between resident 17 and resident 45 and had determined that it was abuse. On 7/14/21 at 10:36 AM, LPN 2 was interviewed. LPN 2 stated that when she responded to the incident with residents 17 and 45, the CNA reported that resident 17 was sitting on the floor and resident 45 was around the back of her, punching her in the head. LPN 2 reported that resident 17 was shaken up, and resident 45 was laying on her bed. LPN 2 stated that the residents were separated, and resident 45 agreed to have a behavioral health evaluation at the hospital. LPN 2 reported that resident 17 was examined and had no cuts or bruises. LPN 2 stated that the residents slept in separate rooms. LPN 2 stated that the LCSW talked with resident 45 until the ambulance arrived. On 7/14/21 at 11:18 AM, the DON was interviewed. The DON stated that the reports for abuse were handled by the LCSW and the Grievance Official (GO). The DON stated that she had attempted to have resident 45 evaluated at the Emergency Department, but they refused, stating that resident 45 had been calm since arrival. The DON stated that it was hard to believe, since resident 45 had not had a rational conversation with staff. The DON stated that resident 17 stated to the DON that she had been ambushed by resident 45. [Note: Resident 45's Minimum Data Set evaluation completed on 6/1/21 revealed no disorganized thinking, which was baseline for resident 45.] On 7/14/21 at 12:20 PM, the LCSW was interviewed. The LCSW stated that resident 45 had mental issues, but since the incident resident 45 stayed in her room. The LCSW stated that resident 45 demonstrated disorganized thinking and paranoia with delusions. The LCSW stated that resident 45 rambled, was not making sense, and seemed afraid. The LCSW stated that before the incident on 6/25/21, there had been some changes in resident 45's environment, including opening the door, cleaning resident 17's side of the room, and maintenance had attached a bumper by the back door. The LCSW stated that the noise from attaching the door was jarring to resident 45, and these things created a crisis for resident 45. The LCSW stated that after the altercation between resident 45 and resident 17, resident 45 was not able to articulate what had happened. The LCSW stated that resident 45 had been on some longstanding psychotropic medications that needed to be evaluated. The LCSW stated that a mental health counselor from a local behavioral health agency saw resident 45 the following week but resident 45 did not want to speak with the counselor. The LCSW stated that there were no new interventions put in place to protect other residents from resident 45. The LCSW stated that there was a risk that this would happen again. On 7/14/21 at 12:30, the Grievance Officer (GO) joined the conversation. The GO stated that resident 45 had some environmental triggers. The GO stated that staff had not been informed that resident 45 had environmental triggers, and there was no intervention initiated that would keep resident 45 from having another roommate. The GO stated that if resident 45 was given a roommate, they would evaluate whether or not the new roommate aggravated resident 45. The GO stated that there was no behavioral health plan for resident 45. The GO stated that staff checked on resident 45 every day but no new interventions were formalized. The GO stated that the behavioral health counselor did not want to change medications and that the nurse was talking to the Nurse Practitioner about it. The facility provided an abuse prevention policy on 7/14/21. The abuse prevention policy stated that Our residents have the right to be free from abuse, neglect, misappropriation of resident property and exploitation. This includes but is not limited to freedom from corporal punishment, involuntary seclusion, verbal, mental, sexual or physical abuse, and physical or chemical restraint not required to treat the resident's symptoms. Policy Interpretation and Implementation As part of the resident abuse prevention, the administration will: 1. Protect our residents from abuse by anyone including, but not necessarily limited to: facility staff, other residents, consultants, volunteers, staff from other agencies, family members, legal representatives, friends, visitors, or any other individual . 8. Protect residents during abuse investigations; . The Abuse Investigation and Reporting policy included the following: .The Administrator will ensure that any further potential abuse, neglect exploitation or mistreatment is prevented . Reporting 1. All alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, exploitation, or mistreatment, including injuries of an unknown source and misappropriation of property will be reported by the facility Administrator, or his/her designee, to the following persons or agencies: a. The state licensing/certification agency responsible for surveying/licensing the facility; b. The local/State Ombudsman; c. The Resident's Representative (Sponsor) of Record; d. Adult Protective Services (where state law provides jurisdiction in long-term care); e. Law enforcement officials; f. The resident's Attending Physician; and g. The facility Medical Director [Note: Law enforcement was not contacted.] Based on observation, interview and record review it was determined, for 5 of 40 sample residents, that the facility did not ensure each resident had the right to be free from abuse and neglect. Specifically, the facility did not protect residents from another resident. Resident identifiers: 14, 17, 44, 45 and 51. Findings include: 1. Resident 14 was admitted to the facility 7/12/18 and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included epilepsy and epileptic, displaced bicondylar fracture of right tibia, dysphagia, displaced comminuted fracture of shaft of right fibula, fracture of neck of left femur, cognitive communication deficit, anemia, age related osteoporosis, and history of left hip replacement. Resident 44 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included bipolar disorder, schizoaffective disorder, generalized anxiety, panic disorder, and dysphagia. On 7/12/21 at 3:06 PM, an interview was conducted with resident 51. Resident 51 stated that she had a roommate (resident 44) hit her other roommate (resident 14). Resident 51 stated that she was grateful that resident 44 was moved to another room. An observation was made of resident 14's room across the hall from resident 44's room. Resident 44 and resident 14's medical records were reviewed and revealed there were no notes regarding an incident. The Administrator provided an Initial Entity Report dated 5/26/21 at 9:30 PM. The report revealed a resident to resident altercation between resident 44 and resident 14. The final investigation report revealed that resident 14 told staff that resident 44 hit her. Resident 44 was interviewed by staff. Staff asked resident 44 if she hit resident 14 and she stated yes and that she would do it again if resident 14 touched her chair. The immediate action taken by the center was Residents were immediately separated following the incident. Staff instructed to monitor residents to ensure safety pending investigation.LCSW (Licensed Clinical Social Worker) met with resident 14 and resident 44 shortly following the incident to provide one-on-one supportive counseling and encourage healthy methods concerning conflict resolution. IDT (Interdisciplinary Team) team conducted thorough assessment and care planning for each involved resident following the incident. Prompt implementation of measures to maintain resident safety (monitoring without impeding on resident's right to privacy), meet residents' needs following the incident (ongoing assessment, counseling), and prevent further incident (separation of residents, additional staff supervision, and training of staff on residents' individualized intervention plans including identified risk factors). There were no care plans in resident 44's medical record addressing the resident to resident incident. There were no assessments, counseling or information on interventions for resident 44. There were no care plans in resident 14's medical record addressing the resident to resident incident. There were no assessments, counseling or information on interventions for resident 14. On 7/15/21 at 10:20 AM, an interview was conducted with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 4. LPN 4 stated that resident 14 and 44 were roommates and friends. LPN 4 stated she had never seen them fight. LPN 4 stated resident 44 did not like other residents to touch her stuff. LPN 4 stated she heard a rumor that resident 44 was mean to resident 14 so management separated the residents. LPN 4 stated she thought maybe the residents were fighting like little kids. On 7/15/21 at 12:59 PM, an interview was conducted with the LCSW. The LCSW stated when there was a resident to resident altercation the Director of Nursing (DON), Administrator or her were notified and discussed who would send in the initial report. The LCSW stated generally my roll is completing the investigation, starting the report and being part of the discussion regarding it with IDT. The LCSW stated that the main thing was that I did not want resident's to feel like it was a traumatic incident when investigating. The LCSW stated she wanted to keep everyone safe but also the person who did it was not overly protective as to take away rights. The LCSW stated that it was reported that resident 14 told one of the aides that her roommate had slapped her or hit her a couple of times. The LCSW stated that the Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) told her that when she asked resident 44 about it, resident 44 told the CNA that she would hit resident 14 again, if she touched her stuff. The LCSW stated that resident 44 was moved to another room. The LCSW stated that she moved resident 44 immediately since resident 44 stated she had hit resident 14 and would do it again. The LCSW stated the residents had spats between them in the past. The LCSW stated that there was a fight when resident 44 thought resident 14 had a taken her [NAME] doll. The LCSW stated that other interventions in place was monitoring by the nurses and aides to keep them apart. The LCSW stated that resident 44's husband was an issue with all the roommates at one time. The LCSW stated that there were several things that were building up to show they were unable to be roommates and it escalated to slapping. The LCSW stated We failed at protecting them from each other. The LCSW stated that she had brought up moving the resident's prior to the incident but was not supported by the other departments. The LCSW stated there should have been a care plan in each of the residents medical records regarding this incident. On 7/15/21 at 3:39 PM, an interview was conducted with the DON. The DON stated resident 14 did not like resident 44 and did not want her as a roommate. The DON stated that resident 44 hit resident 14 because resident 14 touched resident 44's chair. The DON stated that resident 44 was moved to another room. The DON stated she discussed with resident 44 to not interact with resident 14. The DON stated that a room change was discussed in an IDT prior to the incident but did not remember why. The DON stated that it might have had something to do with resident 44's husband and the roommates not liking him visiting.
CONCERN (D)

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

Investigate Abuse (Tag F0610)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review it was determined, for 2 of 40 sample residents, that in response to allegations of abuse, ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review it was determined, for 2 of 40 sample residents, that in response to allegations of abuse, exploitation, or mistreatment, the facility failed to have evidence that all alleged violations were thoroughly investigated and prevented. Specifically, there was an allegation of physical abuse that were not thoroughly investigated, was not identified as abuse in the final investigation report, and residents were not protected. Resident identifier: 17 and 45. Findings include: Resident 45 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included paranoid schizophrenia, diabetes mellitus, history of stroke, traumatic brain injury, Parkinson's disease, depression and respiratory failure. On 7/12/21 at 10:20 AM, resident 45 was interviewed. Resident 45 stated that she liked not having a roommate. Resident 45 stated that she had issues with a previous roommate. On 6/25/21 at 2:56 PM, a Nurses Note revealed that resident 45 had pushed room[mate] to the floor and was on top of her hitting her, cna (Certified Nursing Assistant) witnessed. Cna lifted [resident 45] off and [resident 45] layed in her bed. Nurse arrived with roommate on floor, saying [resident 45] beat the crap out of her for no reason, that she walked in room and was pushed to floor and punched several times. Residents separated. Reported DON (Director of Nursing) and management, [ambulance] called and Res (resident 45) to transported [a local] ER (emergency room) to be evaluated. No hospital report was available for resident 45's Emergency Department evaluation on 6/25/21. On 7/14/21 at 9:00 AM, the medical records staff (MRS) stated that the hospital did not send information with resident 45 when resident 45 returned from the hospital. A nurses note created on 6/26/21 at 1:39 AM revealed that pt (patient) returned from ER via non-emergency transport @ 2230 (11:30 PM). admitted to room [ROOM NUMBER] for the evening. Explained to pt there will be some room changes done in am, probably after 1000 . Per RN (Registered Nurse) at [local] ER nothing was done for pt . On 7/14/21 at 9:30 AM, the Administrator (ADM) was interviewed. The ADM stated that the IDT (interdisciplinary team) had talked about the interaction between resident 17 and resident 45 and had determined that it was abuse. The ADM stated that he thought he had completed all reporting requirements. On 7/14/21 at 10:36 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 2 was interviewed. LPN 2 stated that when she responded to the incident with residents 17 and 45, the CNA reported that resident 17 was sitting on the floor and resident 45 was around the back of her, punching her in the head. LPN 2 reported that resident 17 was shaken up , and resident 45 was laying on her bed. LPN 2 stated that the residents were separated, and resident 45 agreed to have a behavioral health evaluation at the hospital. LPN 2 reported that resident 17 was examined and had no cuts or bruises. LPN 2 stated that the residents slept in separate rooms. LPN 2 stated that the Licensed Clinical Social Worker (LCSW) talked with resident 45 until the ambulance arrived. On 7/14/21 at 11:18 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) was interviewed. The DON stated that the reports for abuse were handled by the LCSW and the Grievance Official (GO). The DON stated that she had attempted to have resident 45 evaluated at the Emergency Department, but they refused, stating that resident 45 had been calm since arrival at the hospital. The DON stated that it was hard to believe, since resident 45 had not had a rational conversation with staff. The DON stated that resident 17 stated to the DON that she had been ambushed by resident 45. [Note: Resident 45's Minimum Data Set evaluation completed on 6/1/21 revealed no disorganized thinking, which was baseline for resident 45.] On 7/14/21 at 12:20 PM, the LCSW was interviewed. The LCSW stated that resident 45 had mental issues, but since the incident resident 45 stayed in her room. The LCSW stated that resident 45 demonstrated disorganized thinking and paranoia with delusions. The LCSW stated that resident 45 rambled, was not making sense, and seemed afraid. The LCSW stated that before the incident on 6/25/21, there had been some changes in resident 45's environment, including opening the door, cleaning resident 17's side of the room, and maintenance had attached a bumper by the back door. The LCSW stated that the noise from attaching the door was jarring to resident 45, and these things created a crisis for resident 45. The LCSW stated that resident 45 had been on some longstanding psychotropic medications that needed to be evaluated. The LCSW stated that a mental health counselor from a local behavioral health agency saw resident 45 the following week but resident 45 did not want to speak with the counselor. The LCSW stated that she did not have discussions with resident 45 about the incident. The LCSW stated that there were no new interventions put in place to protect other residents from resident 45. The LCSW stated that there was a risk that this would happen again. On 7/14/21 at 12:30, the Grievance Officer (GO) joined the conversation. The GO stated that resident 45 had some environmental triggers. The GO stated that staff had not been informed that resident 45 had environmental triggers, and there was no intervention initiated that would keep resident 45 from having another roommate. The GO stated that if resident 45 was placed with a roommate, they would evaluate whether or not the new roommate aggravated resident 45. The GO stated that there was no behavioral health plan for resident 45. The GO stated that staff checked on resident 45 every day but no new interventions were formalized. The GO stated that the behavioral health counselor did not want to change medications and that the nurse was talking to the Nurse Practitioner about it. The facility provided an abuse prevention policy on 7/14/21. The abuse prevention policy stated that Our residents have the right to be free from abuse, neglect, misappropriation of resident property and exploitation. This includes but is not limited to freedom from corporal punishment, involuntary seclusion, verbal, mental, sexual or physical abuse, and physical or chemical restraint not required to treat the resident's symptoms. Policy Interpretation and Implementation As part of the resident abuse prevention, the administration will: 1. Protect our residents from abuse by anyone including, but not necessarily limited to: facility staff, other residents, consultants, volunteers, staff from other agencies, family members, legal representatives, friends, visitors, or any other individual . 8. Protect residents during abuse investigations; . The Abuse Investigation and Reporting policy included the following: .The Administrator will ensure that any further potential abuse, neglect exploitation or mistreatment is prevented . Reporting 1. All alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, exploitation, or mistreatment, including injuries of an unknown source and misappropriation of property will be reported by the facility Administrator, or his/her designee, to the following persons or agencies: a. The state licensing/certification agency responsible for surveying/licensing the facility; b. The local/State Ombudsman; c. The Resident's Representative (Sponsor) of Record; d. Adult Protective Services (where state law provides jurisdiction in long-term care); e. Law enforcement officials; f. The resident's Attending Physician; and g. The facility Medical Director
CONCERN (D)

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

Transfer Requirements (Tag F0622)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

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 when the facility transferred a resident the receiving health care institution or provider received contact information for the practitioner responsible for the care of the resident, resident representative information including contact information, advance directive information, comprehensive care plan goals, all other necessary information for ongoing care, and a copy of the discharge summary to ensure a safe and effective transition of care. Specifically, a resident was transferred to the hospital without any transfer or discharge paperwork. Resident identifier 5. Findings included: Resident 5 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and re-admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which consisted of sialoadenitis, hemiplegia and hemiparesis, dysphagia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic kidney disease, hepatitis A, biventricular heart failure, asthma, anemia, diabetes mellitus type 2, restless leg syndrome, chronic pain, hypothyroidism, mood disorder, hepatitis C, mitral stenosis, hypokalemia, insomnia, hypertension, rhinitis, major depressive disorder, history of pulmonary embolism, atrial-fibrillation, aortocoronary bypass graft, cardiac pacemaker, hyperlipidemia, pulmonary hypertension, cardiomyopathy, mitral valve insufficiency, gastro-esophageal reflux disease, and osteoarthritis. On 7/12/21 at 11:29 AM, an interview was conducted with resident 5. Resident 5 stated that she was hospitalized 2 to 3 weeks ago for a low blood pressure. Review of resident 5's progress notes revealed the following: a. On 6/21/2021 at 10:12 PM, the physician note documented, Late Entry: Note Text: Subjective: Patient hypotensive @ 74/46 today. she is also not feeling well. she was sent to hospital and found to have an acute UTI (urinary tract infection). b. On 6/21/2021 at 7:35 PM, the nurse's note documented, At approx (approximately) 1530 (3:30 PM) patient complained to this nurse that she felt her heart was beating fast. This nurse got a fresh set of vitals and residents BP (blood pressure) was 69/43 with a HR (heart rate) of 77. MD (medical doctor) [name omitted] was notified who gave the order to send the patient to the hospital. Patient was compliant with the order to go to the hospital. EMS (emergency medical services) was notified who arrived in facility at approx 1600 (4:00 PM) and took resident to [hospital name omitted]. This nurse called and gave report. Patient returned to facility same day at 1930 (7:30 PM). Night nurse collected report. Will update as necessary. Review of resident 5's assessments revealed no documentation of a e-interact transfer form for the transfer to the hospital on 6/21/21. No documentation could be found of any transfer/discharge paperwork in resident 5's medical records that was sent with the resident to the hospital on 6/21/21. On 7/14/21 at 11:44 AM, an interview was conducted with Registered Nurse (RN) 1. RN 1 stated that when residents were transferred to the hospital they were sent with an admission record, order summary and POLST (Physician's Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment) form. RN 1 stated that this would be documented in an e-interact transfer form in the assessments for every resident transfer. On 7/15/21 at 8:43 AM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated that with any resident transfers to the hospital the nurses were to send a copy of the resident's orders, POLST form, facesheet, and an e-interact assessment form. The DON stated that this could be documented in a progress note as all paperwork was sent.
CONCERN (D)

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

PASARR Coordination (Tag F0644)

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 sample residents, that the facility did not coordinate asses...

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 sample residents, that the facility did not coordinate assessments with the pre-admission screening and resident review (PASARR) program. Including referring all residents with newly evident or possible serious mental disorder, intellectual disability, or a related condition for level II resident review upon a significant change in status assessment. Specifically, after a resident was diagnosed with a mental illness there was no referral for a level II. Resident identifier: 35. Findings include: Resident 35 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included frontotemporal dementia, memory deficit following cerebral infarction, vascular dementia, anxiety, major depressive disorder, and bipolar disorder. Resident 35's medical record was reviewed on 7/13/2021. A review of resident 35's Pre-admission screening Application/Resident Review (PASRR) dated 4/16/2020 revealed there was no serious mental illness diagnoses. According to the form if any diagnoses where checked resident 35 needed a Level II PASRR evaluation. There were no psychiatric diagnoses written in the section titled Psychiatric Use Diagnosis or any boxes checked in the section titled Serious Mental Illness (SMI) criteria. On 7/14/21 at 11:00 AM, an interview was conducted with the Liscensed Clinical Social Worker (LCSW). The LCSW stated resident 35 did not need a PASARR level II as he had screened out before admittance to the facility. Additional information was provided on 7/19/21. The additional documentation revealed a PASSAR dated 4/16/20 same as the one reviewed in resident's medical record. The diagnoses written on the form were depression, bipolar disorder, and psychotic disorder. The diagnoses where not written on the PASSAR reviewed 7/13/21.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0655 (Tag F0655)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, it was determined, for 1 of 40 sample residents, that the facility did not develop and implement a baseline care plan for each resident that included the instructions needed to provide effective and person-centered care of the resident that meets professional standards of quality of care. Specifically, a resident did not have a baseline care plan regarding assistance with eating, therapy or dietary needs. Resident identifier: 228. Findings include: 1. Resident 228 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included osteomyelitis, diabetes, toxic encephalopathy, diabetes, dysphagia following cerebral infarction, anemia, stage 3 kidney failure, and great toe amputation. On 7/13/21 at approximately 10:00 AM, resident 228 was observed in his room. Resident 228 had his eyes closed. Resident 228's bedside table was located approximately 2 feet away from his right side. On 7/14/21 at 8:03 AM, resident 228 was observed to be laying in his bed. His breakfast tray was on his bedside table, which was approximately 2 feet away from the side of his bed. The plastic coverings were on the drinks and the dome was over the plate. A continuous observation was conducted on 7/15/21 from 8:03 AM to 9:40 AM, when Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 1 picked up resident 228's breakfast tray. CNA 1 was immediately interviewed and stated that she had offered breakfast to resident 228, but he had refused. CNA 1 stated that she did not know if resident 228 required assistance with eating. CNA 1 stated that she needed to ask the Director of Nursing (DON) about resident 228. Resident 228's baseline care plans was reviewed. Resident 228's baseline care plan had four focus areas, including: a.limited physical mobility r/t (related to) weakness, left great toe amputation. This focus was created on 7/12/21, along with 6 interventions that were initiated on 7/12/21. b. The resident has diabetes mellitus w/ (with) hyperglycemia [and] left foot diabetic infection. This focus was created on 7/12/21 and had 5 interventions that were initiated on 7/12/21. Three interventions were to monitor. c. Resident 228 has a strep pyogenes bacteremia r/t left foot diabetic infection - osteomyelitis left great toe s/p (status post) left great toe amputation. This focus was created on 7/12/21 and included 5 interventions that were initiated on 7/12/21. d. Resident 228 had an acute spontaneous intraparenchymal hemorrhage related htn (hypertension). He also has a hx (history) of CVA (cerebrovascular accident - stroke) in 2016 w/cognitive communication impairment and dysphagia. This focus was created on 7/12/21 and 9 interventions were initiated on 7/12/21. Six interventions were to monitor. According to the Medication Administration Record (MAR) and Treatment Administration Record (TAR), resident 228 also had hypertension, reflux, low thyroid, constipation, benign prostatic hypertrophy, pain, used a Foley catheter, and coughing when drinking thin liquids. On 7/10/21 at 4:39 PM, a nurses note revealed, ,admitted for Spont Hemorrhagic Para Bleed with HTn (hypertension). Has a foley to DD (down drain). Wears a brief and had an incontinent episode BM (bowel movement) on admit. Has r (right) sided weakness. Is a 2 person transfer. Had an incontinent episode of BM on admit. Has an ankle boot to r foot. Has amputation to r great toe and wound in between toes. R foot has a black blister to second toe. Has r sided deficit. Able to follow simple commands. Does not verbalize and is confused. Takes pills crushed in A/S (apple sauce). PO (by mouth) small single sips of thin liquid, 1:1 assist d/t (due to) aspir (aspiration) precautions. ST (speech therapy) for dysphagia and cognitive communication tx (treatment) . On 7/15/21 at 8:40 AM, an interview was conducted with CNA 2. CNA 2 stated that resident 228 required reminders to eat, and he did not have much appetite. CNA 2 stated that resident 228 required extensive assistance with all tasks. CNA 2 stated that resident 228 had right sided weakness, but had control of his limbs. On 7/15/21 at 1:14 PM, an interview was conducted with the Minimum Data Set (MDS) Coordinator (MDSC). The MDSC stated that she created the initial care plan for the residents. The MDSC stated that nutrition should have been included in resident 228's care plan, along with skin checks, pain management, and a fall care plan because resident 228 was a high fall risk. The MDSC stated that skin was not included in the initial care plan because resident 228 had a bandage, so it was unclear that skin should be assessed at that time. The MDSC stated that after the provider entered their orders, the MDSC would get the care areas entered. The MDSC stated that the provider did not enter the information until 7/12/21, so the initial care plan could be entered. The MDSC stated that resident 228 also required neurological interventions. The MDSC also stated that resident 228's initial goals based on admission orders were not included, along with physician orders, dietary orders, and required social services. On 7/15/21 at 1:30 PM, an interview was conducted with a Speech Language Pathologist (SLP) 1. SLP 1 stated that resident 228 required assistance when eating and SLP 1 had assisted resident 228 with lunch. SLP 1 stated that resident 228 was a good candidate for meal supplements, but did not have orders for meal supplements.
CONCERN (D)

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review it was determined, for 2 of 40 sample residents, that the facility did not ens...

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 40 sample residents, that the facility did not ensure residents received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the residents' choices. Specifically, one resident who was admitted for alcohol detoxification was drinking alcohol repeatedly without intervention and one resident who had urosepsis had a delay in treatment and required hospitalization. Resident identifiers: 40 and 43. Findings include: 1. Resident 43 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included alcohol detoxification, muscle pain, surgical history, congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), alcohol and opioid dependence, insomnia, and cirrhosis of the liver. On 1/22/21, resident 43 was referred to hospice services. On 7/12/21 at 9:30 AM, an observation was made of room [ROOM NUMBER]. A note on the door revealed that the resident was at the hospital. A CNA was interviewed and reported that the resident was resident 43. On 7/15/21, resident 43's electronic medical record review was completed. Resident 43's nursing progress notes revealed the following: a. On 5/3/21 at 1:40 PM, a nursing note revealed that resident 43 had blood work that demonstrated an Alcohol level of 104. Pt (patient) educated that alcohol isn't allowed in facility; pt verbalizes an understanding, pt agrees to random drug screening. Will refer pt to [local hospital] mental health for evaluation. b. On 5/4/21 at 4:32 PM, Pt lethargic today, afternoon pain meds held, pt urinated on self [times] 2 and sats (oxygen saturation levels) dropped to between 70's- low 80's, duoneb administered with good effect sats returned to 90%. Hospice contacted by unit manager, hospice nurse arrived and found 2 full bottles of alcohol, 2 empty bottles, 1 syringe with approx 2 cm (centimeters) green fluid, and 1 syringe with approx 3 cm clear fluid. Alcohol and syringes confiscated, syringes in sharps and alcohol to nursing management. Pt found to have small skin tear to inner aspect of right elbow, wound cleansed, Bacitracin applied and covered with dry drsg (dressing). Hospice Dr. and nursing management aware. Pt continues to be sleepy, frequent checks performed as he continues to be confused and lethargic. Continue to assess. c. On 5/4/2021 at 8:27 PM, Pt is alert and oriented. Pt is able to make needs known. Per on call hospice nurse Hospice MD (Medical Doctor) gave the following new orders: Hold all narcotics tonight. Draw blood for drug test. After blood drawn administer narcan. Collect UA (urinalysis). Blood drawn and pt stated that he was unable to void urine. Narcan administered due to low o2 sats of 78. After narcan administered pt's o2 sats increased to 92 on 2L (liters of oxygen) nasal cannula . d. On 6/21/21 at 8:30 PM, BP (blood pressure) 99/60 - 93. Did recheck prior to med admin (medication administration) - 94/56 - 93. Went in to do manual BP and found pt laying in bed, HOB (head of bed) up 90 degrees, pt head tilted back, mouth open and snoring and pt holding empty bottle of vodka in his left hand. Bottle removed, pt did not wake up. RR (respiratory rate) even and unlabored. All meds held, pt will not get narcotic admin tonight. DON (Director of Nursing) notified, will notify Hospice RN (Registered Nurse) in am. Recheck of BP 96/57-81. Will continue to monitor. e. On 6/22/21 at 8:29 AM, Patient calling out this morning stating that he did not get a pain pill all night long. Reoriented patient that he was found with an empty vodka container while he was asleep in bed and that mixing alcohol and pain medication is unsafe. patient admitted that he was drunk last night and did not pursue the subject. Patient appears moving around free from pain and discomfort. no facial grimacing or guarding observed. f. On 6/23/21 at 10:23 AM, tt (talked to) pt about his drinking alcohol and that he needs to stop consuming alcohol with the meds that are prescribed to him, let pt know that nurses will hold any medications that are dangerous for him to take when he when the nurse assesses him to be impaired, pt verbalizes understanding but states he is no longer drinking, pt told aide saw vodka bottle earlier, pt denies and I asked to look around he agreed, looked around pt room, in closet and pt unlocked drawer with no bottles found. g. On 7/1/21 at 5:47 PM, Res sleeping this am, nurse found vodka bottles in bed, [consulting] MD in and spoke to Resident. Res admitted being drunk and unhappy with his life. MD spoke with Res with options other than drinking and to be discussed further when Res [NAME]. vitals checked wnl (within normal limits), DON and hospice nurse aware. Hospice company called with request to sent a social worker and/or chaplain as suggested by [consulting] MD. Res slept most of shift and awoke for dinner. Will determine further actions with DON and MD. h. On 7/1/21 at 6:09 PM, LN (licensed nurse) on floor contacted me about [consulting doctor] visiting pt ., MD reports pt has expressed being unhappy and that pt was drunk this AM. Went into pt room to assess, pt was arousable, vitals stable, LN on floor contacted hospice for nurse assessment and social work involvement needed. Hospice nurse in facility to assess pt no new orders given, room searched by DON 3 bottles vodka found pint size 2 empty 3rd bottle a quarter full, no other bottles found. Checked on pt throughout day and continued sleeping. Hospice nurse sent in new orders on meds. Nurse held all meds this AM, narcotic meds held anytime pt appears to be altered. i. On 7/1/2021 at 8:35 PM, an incident note was created and revealed that resident 43's family member was speaking with resident 43 on the phone. Resident 43 told the family member he took an entire bottle of Benadryl in order to commit suicide. While talking on phone .pt called 911. Paramedics arrived, pt drowsy, face puffy, speech slurred but able to answer questions. Told paramedics that he took an entire bottle of Benadryl - the bottle on his table were 25 mg tabs and only had two left. Per paramedics VSS (vital signs stable). Pt transferred to [consulting hospital]. A total of 8 empty pints and 1 pint 1/2 full found in pt room today. Hospice and family notified An interdisciplinary team (IDT) meeting was held. The note revealed: IDT review of Intoxication and transfer to hospital on 7/1/21. The Event description: pt was in his bed intoxicated, DON searched pt room and found 3 vodka bottles under the pt legs under the covers, pt was arousable and vital signs stable. Risk factors: HX (history) of alcohol abuse and drug abuse, pt has PRN (as needed) oxycodone (opiates) order Q6H (every 6 hours) prn , Ativan 0.25mL (milliliters) to be given QHS (at bed time), Preventive measures: Pt has been educated on not having alcohol in the building, pt has not been leaving the building unsupervised, Pt room has been searched several times to remove alcohol and at times nothing to be found, pt educated that we will hold all narcotics if suspected to be under the influence and if pt denies he will need to provide a urine sample to ensure it is safe to give narcotics, hospice notified of pt intoxication, LN called hospice requesting assistance with chaplain and SW (social worker) from hospice. Pt has been told no one can mail him and or he cannot order OTC (over the counter) meds, alcohol or marijuana it is against policy. Pt mail given and requested pt to open mail in front of staff, pt refuses at times. Several calls to pts [family member] that is suspected to be mailing resident items. [Family member] never answer pt refuses to call [family member] with staff present. Root Cause: Pt drank pints of vodka that were found in his bed under his legs, room searched after drawers/closets no other items found. New interventions: Pt room to be searched daily for all things pt can not have, pt educated that he cannot have things in his room to seld [self] administer this is not safe. PCP (primary care physician) from [consulting hospital] in to see resident and wanted to ensure we have chaplain and SW from hospice for assistance with resident, hospice company notified of request, Hospice nurse in to assess patient, hospice notified of current hold on medications that can not mix with medications. Pt to be monitored while sleeping off current alcohol intake, pt remains arousable and stable through out day shift , night nurse notified to hold meds, will meet with resident in AM for behavior contract. Resident called 911 7/1/21 approx 2030 reporting he did take Benadryl, EMT responded, DON spoke with EMT and gave MD verbal order to transfer pt to [consulting hospital] ER for psych Eval (evaluation). On 7/2/21 at 3:47 AM, a nurses' note revealed Per RN at [consulting hospital] ER - pt is in ICU (intensive care unit) with Afib (atrial fibrillation). Keeping pt overnight r/t (related to) Benadryl OD (overdose), Alcohol intake and per pt opiate intake. On 7/14/21 at 10:37 AM, an interview was conducted with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 2. LPN 2 stated that she had found alcohol in resident 43's room on 7/1/21. LPN 2 stated that after she went into the room, the DON and Licensed Clinical Social Worker (LCSW) went into the room and the physician was in the building. LPN 2 stated that all of them were in the room, then the physician stayed in the room and talked to resident 43 for quite a while. LPN 2 stated that the family had mailed resident 43 the alcohol, benadryl and other substances. LPN 2 stated that the Grievance Officer (GO) stated that staff were unable to open resident 43's mail or search the room, but staff could remove alcohol if a resident was observed with it. LPN 2 stated that the mail was delivered to the residents by the Administrator, Receptionist, or Activities staff. On 7/14/21 at 12:20 PM, the LCSW was interviewed. The LCSW stated that she was unaware that resident 43 was found with bottles of vodka before 7/1/21 and was unaware that resident 43 was drinking alcohol again. The LCSW stated that she was aware resident 43 was sent to the hospital because they narcanned him. The LCSW stated that resident 43 had entered a drug and alcohol relapse program in August, 2020. On 7/14/21 at 12:30 PM, the Grievance Official (GO) was interviewed. The GO stated that resident 43's family was mailing him edibles and Benadryl. The GO stated that she had contacted the Ombudsman who told staff they could not interfere with resident 43 receiving his mail unopened. The GO stated that the nurse who sent resident 43 to the hospital found the alcohol bottles in resident 43's room. The GO stated that she did not know resident 43 was drinking vodka in the facility. The GO stated that when resident 43 went on hospice, they took resident 43 off a lot of his medications. The GO stated All of a sudden those meds were gone. That's when they started finding the vodka. The [consulting doctor] said that he was now under the care of the Hospice doctor so she couldn't do anything. On 7/14/21 at 1:43 PM, the Administrator (ADM) stated that if a resident was observed with alcohol, the alcohol could be removed from the resident's possession, but if the resident had other drugs, the police were contacted. The ADM stated that staff did not search rooms, but waited to see contraband in the open. On 7/14/21 at 3:00 PM, the DON was interviewed. The DON stated that resident 43 had been assessed to take his own inhalers, but no other medications. The DON stated that staff had the hospice chaplain speak with resident 43. The DON stated that the LCSW was in the IDT meetings when staff discussed resident 43 and did not know that the LCSW did not speak with resident 43. The DON stated that resident 43 had an order for 1 beer each night, but resident 43 did not want to drink beer. 2. Resident 40 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included schizophrenia, cerebral infarction, dysphagia, neuromuscular dysfunction of bladder, benign prostatic hyperplasia with lower urinary tract symptoms, and cognitive communication deficit. On 5/11/21, additional diagnoses for resident 40 included severe sepsis with septic shock. On 7/15/21, resident 40's electronic medical record review was completed. Resident 40 had a hospital discharge summary that revealed that resident 40 was admitted to the ICU with septic shock secondary to E. coli bacteremia and pyelonephritis as well as acute hypoxic respiratory failure His highest WBC (white blood count) was 30.9 which has now normalized with antibiotics He also has acute hypoxic respiratory failure which is secondary to his admission status Resident 40 also had blood in his urine. Resident 40's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed that resident 40 required extensive assistance with personal hygiene including bowel cares. On 5/5/21 at 1:41 PM, a nursing note revealed that resident 40's family member reported to the nurse that resident 40 was a little off since yesterday. Laboratory tests were ordered. On 5/6/21 at 12:45 PM, a nursing note revealed that blood was drawn for laboratory tests and urine was collected and sent to the laboratory. [Note: 23 hours had passed from the time the order was recorded to the specimens was obtained.] On 5/7/21 at 11:17 AM, a nursing note revealed that resident 40 was still in bed. The nurse assessed his abdomen and found it was distended, notified MD. Attempted to flush with 60cc (cubic centimeter syringe) wasn't able to flush. change catheter and bag with a 16french (size of catheter). urine drained got 1200 cc output belly is now soft and nontender On 5/7/21 at 12:50 PM, an order was created for resident 40 for intramuscular Ceftriaxone antibiotic for seven days. On 5/7/21 at 12:57 PM, laboratory results were entered with resident 40 having low sodium level and high WBC. Resident had an order for intramuscular Rocephin antibiotics, an IV of NS (normal saline), and an order to flush resident 40's catheter every 12 hours. On 5/7/21 at 3:22 PM, resident 40's family member stated that resident 40 would like a telephone in his room if his condition changed so he could go to the Emergency Room. On 5/7/21 at 5:12 PM, resident 40 had a BP (blood pressure) 82/46 temp 100.2 this LN obtained BP 61/42. Notified MD called ambulance Resident 40's blood pressure values were reviewed. Resident 40 had varied blood pressure readings, with low blood pressures with the systolic reading in the 80's on 4/14/21, 4/20/21, 4/30/21 and 5/4/21. On 7/15/21 at 2:14 PM, CNA 10 was interviewed. CNA 10 stated that resident 40 required catheter cares to prevent infection with E. coli from the bowel. CNA 10 stated that catheter cares were provided to resident 40 after bowel movements. On 7/15/21 at 2:20 PM, CNA 11 was interviewed. CNA 11 stated that if a resident was acting differently she reported to the nurse. CNA 11 stated that residents with catheters had problems with urinary tract infections (UTIs), so catheter care was important for the residents. CNA 11 stated that when a resident had a UTI, they acted differently than normal and the smell of the urine changed. On 7/15/21 at 2:18 PM, RN 1 was interviewed. RN 1 stated catheter cares included wiping the skin and tubing. RN 1 stated that nurses were to check for catheter patency, the color of the urine, sediment in the urine, and assess any discharge at the insertion site. RN 1 stated that with UTIs, many residents had personality changes and even altered mental status at times. RN 1 stated that signs of blood in the bag or darker urine, cloudy urine, an intense smell, any redness at the insertion site and a decrease in output could indicate infection. On 7/15/21 at 2:25 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 1 was interviewed. LPN 1 stated that he worked with resident 40 and his catheter. LPN 1 stated that resident 40 had difficulty with his catheter and his urologist was considering using a straight catheter instead of an indwelling Foley. LPN 1 stated that because of BPH, they decided that using a straight catheter with resident 40 would not work because resident 40 winced when the catheter was inserted, indicating pain. LPN 1 stated that there was no order to flush resident 40's catheter before 5/7/21. LPN 1 stated that resident 40 became slower to respond when he was sick. LPN 1 stated that resident 40's blood pressure had dropped throughout the day when he was septic. On 7/15/21 at 2:50 PM, an interview was conducted with the DON. The DON stated that the building had a problem with UTIs but was working on it.
CONCERN (D)

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review it was determined, for 2 of 40 sampled residents, the facility did not ensure...

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 40 sampled residents, the facility did not ensure that the resident environment remained as free of accident hazards as was possible and each resident received adequate supervision to prevent accidents. Specifically, a resident was not properly assessed to smoke independently and another resident was not provided adequate supervision while intoxicated and was allowed to continually leave facility unsupervised. Resident identifiers: 52 and 78. Findings include: 1. Resident 78 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included alcohol dependence with withdrawal, hematemesis, gastrointestinal hemorrhage, paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, hypokalemia, mood disorder, anxiety, major depressive disorder, and epileptic seizures. Resident 78's medical record reviewed 7/14/21. A care plan focus initiated on 12/23/2020 revealed resident 78 was at risk for falls and required assistance with activities of daily living (ADL's) r/t (related to) deconditioning, being unaware of safety needs due to alcohol withdrawal. A goal of care plan revealed the resident would be free of minor injury through the review date 7/16/2021. An intervention stated to review information on past falls and alter/remove any potential causes if possible. On 6/20/21 at 2:28 AM, a nursing progress note revealed resident 78 was not in the facility. A search was attempted, resident was not located. Facility called resident's cell phone for location, facility staff located resident and returned him to facility. Resident 78 was intoxicated with injury to the palm of his right hand. Resident refused to go to the emergency room. On 6/23/21 at 11:54 PM, a late entry physician progress note revealed resident acutely intoxicated again for the past 2 to 3 days. Vodka bottles were found in room. Resident 78 was in another relapse with ethyl alcohol (ETOH) abuse again. Right palm laceration to be cleansed, dressed and monitored for signs and symptoms of infection. On 6/25/21 at 3:34 PM, a nursing progress note revealed that resident 78 appeared to be intoxicated and the physician was notified. On 6/25/21 at 10:55 PM, a physician progress note (late entry) revealed resident continues to leave facility and was on an alcohol binge. Resident 78 was given Librium with some benefit yesterday but he had not been in his room all morning today. Resident 78 needed to be hospitalized again possibly if he worsened medically. No change to care plan or in resident monitoring were noted in medical chart. On 6/25/21, a nurse event note entered at 1:16 AM stated, at shift change (which was at 6:00 PM) resident 78 was intoxicated and had left the facility. On 6/25/21 at 11:40 PM, an incident report revealed facility was informed of resident 78's elopement by phone call received from resident 78's mother, as the resident had called his mother to tell her he was lost. Resident's mother called the police to search for resident 78. Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA)'s attempted to locate resident 78 outside of the facility with no success. On 6/26/21 at 1:16 AM, Event/alert note revealed that resident 78 had eloped. On 6/26/21 at 4:12 AM, Event/alert note revealed resident 78 returned from elopement by way of resident's son. Resident 78 was intoxicated, clothing wet, possible scrape to right elbow and dressing to right hand was filthy. On 7/14/21 at 11:41 AM, a phone interview was conducted with a resident 78's family member (FM). The FM stated the resident 78 left again to go to the liquor store and to drink. The FM called the resident 78's phone but the resident could not tell us where he was. The FM stated resident's family searched for him for hours, but the resident was not found until the next morning across town and was in bad shape. The FM stated resident 78 had urinated and defecated on himself and had an injury on his arm. The FM stated he did not talk to anyone from the facility when the resident left. On 7/15/21 at 3:07 PM, an interview was conducted with CNA 10. CNA 10 stated on 6/25/21 around 10:00 PM another CNA had asked if anyone had seen resident 78 because he was missing. CNA 10 stated that resident 78's mom was on the phone and had asked the location of resident 78, this other CNA did not know what to say because no one knew that resident 78 had left the facility. CNA 10 stated resident 78's mother was then told resident 78's was no longer in the facility. CNA 10 stated the CNA's did not call the police but some CNA's may have gone to look for the resident. On 7/15/21 at 3:15 PM, an interview was conducted with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 1. LPN 1 stated that the resident had been out drinking the nights of 6/23/21 and 6/24/21. On 6/24/21 the resident was in the facility all day shift, from 6:00 AM to 6:00 PM. LPN stated resident 78 left immediately after the day shift ended. LPN 1 stated resident 78 called his family in the night to tell them that he was lost, the facility did not know resident 78 was missing. LPN 1 stated that the resident's family called the police for help and the family located the resident. LPN 1 stated that the family brought the resident back to the facility. LPN 1 stated the physician was notified, and orders were given to send the resident to a local hospital. LPN 1 stated resident 78 was taken to a local hospital by facility transportation. LPN 1 stated resident 78 refused to stay at the local hospital and left on foot. LPN 1 stated no new measures had been put into place to keep a closer watch on resident 78 since he had started drinking again and leaving the facility. On 7/15/21 at 12:15 PM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated when a resident eloped a search was conducted, we first attempt to contact the resident, then contacted the police, DON, Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), Social Worker and called the family. The DON stated if any staff see the resident leave, the staff were to ask the resident if the resident had signed the leave of absence (LOA) book. The DON stated the LOA book had sections to fill out about where they were going, and when they were returning. The DON stated if a resident left the facility intoxicated the staff should ask the resident where they were going, assist the resident and encourage the resident to stay, or walk with the resident. The DON stated resident 78 was safe to leave the facility on his own. The DON stated if resident 78 was intoxicated when he left the facility staff should have tried to stop him, then staff should have called the police and the resident's family immediately. 2. Resident 52 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included venous insufficiency, intellectual disabilities, peripheral vascular disease, hypertension, palsy (spasm) of conjugate gaze and cellulitis. On 7/13/21 at 10:35 AM, an observation was made of resident 52. Resident 52 was observed to have a lit cigarette in his fingers. Resident 52's hand was observed to be shaking. There were no staff with residents smoking out front. On 7/15/21 at 8:29 AM, an observation was made of resident 52. Resident 52 was outside smoking in the front of the facility. Resident 52 was observed to be standing with a lit cigarette. Resident 52's hand was observed to be shaking with the cigarette. There were no staff with residents that were smoking out front. Resident 52's medical record was reviewed on 7/15/21. A Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) of 12 which revealed resident had moderately impaired cognition. The MDS further revealed resident 52 required supervision with set-up assistance with all Activities of Daily Living (ADLs). There was no care plan regarding resident 52 smoking. A care plan dated 11/17/19 and updated on 3/16/2020 revealed ADL functional status/rehab potential. The resident has an ADL self-care performance deficit r/t cognitive deficits, palsy (spaspm) (sic) of conjugate gaze. The goal revealed that the resident maintained current level of function in ADLs. An intervention developed was Nursing Rehab/restorative: Dressing/grooming program #1 daily hygiene. Staff to prompt him to get his daily hygiene kit, then cue him to complete the tasks. Complete hygiene tasks daily. A quarterly smoking assessment dated [DATE] revealed that resident 52 was a smoker. The form was not checked for Resident demonstrates impaired orientation in one or more of the following areas: Person, Place, Time. Another one not checked was Resident has a diagnosis of neuropathy or neurological impairment. That would have given resident 52 a 2 for Resident may require set-up assistance with smoking. Additional documentation section revealed Resident is independent smoker. There was no information if resident 52 was assessed for being safe to smoke independently. On 7/15/21 08:42 AM, an interview was conducted with the DON. The DON stated a smoking assessment was to evaluate if a resident was safe to smoke independently. The DON stated staff took each resident to the smoking area to evaluate if the resident was able to light the cigarette, get it out and back into the facility with using the code. The DON stated there were resident with Huntington's disease which made the resident shake and facility staff did not allow them to smoke independently. The DON stated that nurses completed the smoking assessment on admit and then yearly and if there was a change in a residents condition they were re-evaluated. The DON stated that resident's who smoke should have a care plan. The DON stated that the MDS coordinator completed the care plans. The DON stated I feel he (resident 52) is safe to smoke. The DON stated she did not know why there was no care plan. The DON stated that she thought the nurses assessed resident 52's smoking ability but but just did not mark it on the assessment.
CONCERN (D)

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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review it was determined, for 1 of 40 sampled residents, that the facility did not ensure that a resident who needed respiratory care was provided care, consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, the residents' goals and preferences. Specifically, a resident who required a Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) machine was not provided the machine. Resident identifier: 60. Findings include: Resident 60 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included paraplegia, encephalopathy, disorders of brain, respiratory failure, dysphagia, acute kidney failure, muscle weakness, post-traumatic stress disorder, neurogenic bladder, heart failure and diabetes. On 7/13/21 at 9:57 AM, an interview was conducted with resident 60. Resident 60 stated that he needed a CPAP machine and did not have one. Resident 60 stated he had not been sleeping well and would like to have a good night sleep. Resident 60 stated that he ordered his own oxygen concentrator for his electric wheelchair because he usually puts the oxygen tank between his legs in the wheelchair. An observation was made of resident 60's room and there was no CPAP machine. Resident 60's medical record was reviewed on 7/15/21. A care plan dated 4/26/21 revealed, Respiratory tx (treatment) /oxygen therapy. Resident requires PRN (as needed) oxygen therapy via NC (nasal cannula) & BIPAP (bilevel positive airway pressure) during sleep R/T (related to) CHF (congestive heart failure) [and] OSA (obstructive sleep apnea) with chronic, intermittent SOB (short of breath) [times] 3 [and] Dx (diagnosis) hypoxia, Respiratory Failure w/ (with) hypoxemia. Resident has chronic respiratory failure w/ hypoxemia. One of the goals developed was The resident will maintain normal breathing pattern as evidenced by normal respirations, normal skin color, and regular respiratory rate/pattern through the review date. An intervention developed was BIPAP/CPAP settings: Refer to M.A.R. (Medication Administration Record) for current C-PAP settings with O2 (oxygen) bleed in. A physician's order dated 6/19/21 revealed, CPAP on when in bed Q (every) PM (evening) [and] off Q AM (morning) ; O2 Bleed w/ 4lpm (liters per minute) Will start until receiving the right size equipment. The equipment will delivery (sic) to the facility by [name of medical center]. Every shift for sleep apnea. The order was on hold. According to the Treatment Administration Record (TAR) for June 2021, resident 60's CPAP was cleaned with soap and water every Sunday night. According to the TAR the machine was cleaned on 6/6/21, 6/13/21, 6/20/21 and 6/27/21. The TAR further revealed that staff documented resident had CPAP on when in bed and off in the morning 6/14/21 through 6/19/21. Another section revealed on 6/19/21 that CPAP on when in bed and off in the morning, Will start until receiving the right size equipment. The Equipment will delivery (sic) to the facility by [name of medical center] every shift for sleep apnea. The nursing staff initialed twice daily that this was completed. According to the TAR for July 2021, resident 60's CPAP machine was cleaned on July 4. The TAR further revealed that the CPAP was on hold until the right size equipment was delivered from the [name of medical center]. A nurse documented this was completed on 7/1/21 during the day. On 7/2/21 through 7/15/21 nurses documented an H which was for hold. On 7/15/21 at 9:56 AM, an interview was conducted with CNA 3. CNA 3 stated that when a resident had a CPAP machine he made sure the hoses were unkinked hoses, the mask fit properly on resident, there water was in machine and made sure the resident was comfortable. CNA 3 stated hoses were cleaned every other day with soap and water or there was a machine in the resident rooms that the hoses were put in to clean. CNA 3 stated that resident 60 had a CPAP machine but he was not sure if the machine worked. On 7/15/21 at approximately 10:00 AM, an interview was conducted with CNA 6. CNA 6 stated she helped residents set up their CPAP machines prior to bed. CNA 6 stated that the machine was cleaned with soap and water before each use. CNA 6 stated that she made sure the machine had water and wiped the mask with a bleach wipe every night before it was used. CNA 6 stated that nurses changed the tubing and the parts on the machine. On 7/15/21 at approximately 10:15 AM, an interview was conducted with CNA 4. CNA 4 stated he did not know what the cleaning process was for CPAP machines and would ask prior to cleaning. CNA 4 stated that resident 60 was not using a CPAP machine. On 7/15/21 at 10:10 AM, an interview was conducted with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 4. LPN 4 stated resident 60 did not have a CPAP. LPN 4 stated CPAP machines were cleaned in the morning with with soap and water. LPN 4 stated that water was changed when it was low. LPN 4 stated resident 60 had a CPAP during his first admission but did not have one when he was re-admitted . LPN 4 stated he was discharged to an emergency department (ED) and she talked to the ED doctor about getting a new machine. LPN 4 stated that the ED doctor told her that resident 60 refused to wear it. LPN 4 stated that the [name of medical center] provided him another one and it was uncomfortable, so he refused to wear it. LPN 4 stated that he used oxygen and breathing treatments 4 times per day. LPN 4 stated that the [name of medical center] sent a new CPAP machine to the facility for resident 60 but the facility never received the machine. On 7/15/21 at 1:09 PM, an interview was conducted with the Licensed Clinical Social Worker (LCSW). The LCSW stated that sometimes there was a waiting period to get medical equipment from [name of medical center]. The LCSW stated when a CPAP machine needed to be replacement, the nurse coordinated with the [name of medical center] to obtain it. The LCSW stated that resident 60 had been asking for a portable oxygen tank. The LCSW stated that another resident was able to get the portable oxygen tank but they were very expensive. The LCSW stated that resident 60 needed the portable oxygen tank because resident 60 carried the oxygen tank between his legs when he was using his electric wheelchair. The LCSW stated she had not heard anything about resident 60 needing a CPAP machine. On 7/15/21 03:48 PM , an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated that the [name of medical center] provided CPAP machines to the veterans at the facility. The DON stated that CPAP machines were cleaned every night. The DON stated that the she was not sure of the cleaning process. The DON stated that the night shift nurses cleaned the CPAP machines. The DON stated nurses or aides cleaned them with soap and water in a pink basin. The DON stated she was not sure if resident 60 had a CPAP machine but the [name of medical center] would have provided it. The DON stated that resident 60 had refused a CPAP machine in the past. The DON stated that something was wrong with the CPAP machine recently and it was hard to coordinate with [name of medical center] to get a new one.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0740 (Tag F0740)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review it was determined, for 2 of 40 sample residents, that the facility did not pr...

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 40 sample residents, that the facility did not provide the necessary behavioral health care and services to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being, in accordance with the comprehensive assessment and plan of care. Behavioral health encompasses a resident's whole emotional and mental well-being. Specifically, a resident who was in crisis and abused another resident was not provided behavioral health services in the facility and was not provided interventions to avoid another crisis. Resident identifiers: 17 and 45. Findings include: Resident 45 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included paranoid schizophrenia, diabetes mellitus, history of stroke, traumatic brain injury, Parkinson's disease, depression and respiratory failure. On 7/15/21, resident 45's electronic medical records review was completed. Resident 45 was moved in with a roommate on 5/11/21. A nursing note for resident 45's roommate that was created on 6/25/21 at 2:56 PM, revealed that resident 45 pushed her roommate to the floor and was on top of her hitting her . Resident 45's roommate stated that resident 45 beat the crap out of her for no reason. An incident report dated 6/25/21 revealed that resident 45's roommate stated that she entered the shared room when resident 45 jumped out of bed and she just started beating on me and beat me to the floor. Resident 45 was taken to a local hospital for a psychiatric evaluation. On 6/26/2021 at 1:39 AM, a nurses note revealed that resident 45 returned from ER (emergency room) via non-emergency transport @ 2230 (10:30 PM). admitted to room [ROOM NUMBER] for the evening. Explained to pt (patient) there will be some room changes done in am, probably after 1000 when pt in room [ROOM NUMBER] discharges Per RN at [a local hospital] nothing was done for pt . No hospital information was available for resident 45's Emergency Department evaluation on 6/25/21. Resident 45's roommate was moved to another room on Monday, 6/28/21. Resident 45 was returned to her previous room without a roommate. On 7/14/21 9:20 AM, the Medical Records staff (MRS) was interviewed. The MRS stated that resident 45 was sent back from the hospital without them doing anything. The MRS stated that there was no documentation in resident 45's record about the evaluation. The MRS stated that she could request the report after morning meeting. On 7/14/21, two behavioral health notes from an outside behavioral health provider were obtained for resident 45. Resident 45 met with a counselor on the following dates: a. On 6/17/21 at 1:00 PM, a note revealed resident 45 was having issues with her roommate. She mentioned she does not know why her roommate dislikes her. she mentioned she sleeps okay. She denied any paranoid thoughts or hallucinations at the moment. [Note: This record of resident 45 having issues with her roommate was created 7 days before resident 45 attacked her roommate, but was not obtained by the facility until 27 days later, and 19 days after the incident.] b. On 6/28/21 resident 45 stated I've been doin' alright. No history was obtained from staff. On 7/14/21 at 1:01 PM, resident 17 was interviewed . Resident 17 stated that she was punched repeatedly in the head, but had since worked things out with resident 45. Resident 17 stated that she was not afraid of resident 45. On 7/14/21 at 9:30 AM, the Administrator (ADM) was interviewed. The ADM stated that the IDT (interdisciplinary team) had talked about the interaction between resident 17 and resident 45 and had determined that it was abuse. On 7/14/21 at 10:36 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 2 was interviewed. LPN 2 stated that when she responded to the incident with residents 17 and 45, the Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) reported that resident 17 was sitting on the floor and resident 45 was around the back of her, punching her in the head. LPN 2 reported that resident 17 was shaken up, and resident 45 was laying on her bed. LPN 2 stated that the residents were separated, and resident 45 agreed to have a behavioral health evaluation at the hospital. LPN 2 reported that resident 17 was examined and had no cuts or bruises. LPN 2 stated that the residents slept in separate rooms. LPN 2 stated that the LCSW talked with resident 45 until the ambulance arrived. On 7/14/21 at 11:18 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) was interviewed. The DON stated that the reports for abuse were handled by the Licensed Clinical Social Worker (LCSW) and the Grievance Official (GO). The DON stated that she had attempted to have resident 45 evaluated at the Emergency Department, but they refused, stating that resident 45 had been calm since arrival. The DON stated that it was hard to believe, since resident 45 had not had a rational conversation with staff. The DON stated that resident 17 stated to the DON that she had been ambushed by resident 45. [Note: Resident 45's Minimum Data Set evaluation completed on 6/1/21 revealed no disorganized thinking, which was baseline for resident 45.] On 7/14/21 at 12:20 PM, the LCSW was interviewed. The LCSW stated that resident 45 had mental issues, but since the incident resident 45 stayed in her room. The LCSW stated that resident 45 demonstrated disorganized thinking and paranoia with delusions. The LCSW stated that resident 45 rambled, was not making sense, and seemed afraid. The LCSW stated that before the incident on 6/25/21, there had been some changes in resident 45's environment, including opening the door, cleaning resident 17's side of the room, and maintenance had attached a bumper by the back door. The LCSW stated that the noise from attaching the door was jarring to resident 45, and these things created a crisis for resident 45. The LCSW stated that after the altercation between resident 45 and resident 17, resident 45 was not able to articulate what had happened. The LCSW stated that resident 45 had been on some longstanding psychotropic medications that needed to be evaluated. The LCSW stated that a mental health counselor from a local behavioral health agency saw resident 45 the following week but resident 45 did not want to speak with the counselor. The LCSW stated that she had not attempted to speak with resident 45 about the incident, and there were no new interventions put in place to protect other residents from resident 45. The LCSW stated that there was a risk that this would happen again. On 7/14/21 at 12:30, the Grievance Officer (GO) joined the conversation. The GO stated that resident 45 had some environmental triggers. The GO stated that staff had not been informed that resident 45 had environmental triggers, and there was no intervention initiated that would keep resident 45 from having another roommate. The GO stated that if resident 45 was given a roommate, they would evaluate whether or not the new roommate aggravated resident 45. The GO stated that there was no behavioral health plan for resident 45. The GO stated that staff checked on resident 45 every day but no new interventions were formalized. The GO stated that the behavioral health counselor did not want to change medications and that the nurse was talking to the Nurse Practitioner about it.
CONCERN (D)

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

Medication Errors (Tag F0758)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. Resident 30 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included dementia with behav...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. Resident 30 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included dementia with behavioral disturbance, generalized muscle weakness, delerium, hypertension, chronic pain syndrome, pulmonary embolism, and history of lung cancer. On 7/15/21, resident 30's electronic medical record review was completed. Resident 30 had a physician's order for Seroquel (Quetiapine Fumerate), 12.5 mg (miligrams) twice daily. This order was initiated on 2/10/21. A black box warning had been issued by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2007 and revised in 2008 that stated WARNING: INCREASED MORTALITY IN ELDERLY PATIENTS WITH DEMENTIA See full prescribing information for complete boxed warning. Atypical antipsychotic drugs are associated with an increased risk of death (5.1). Quetiapine is not approved for elderly patients with Dementia Related Psychoses (5.1). Website: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2008/022047s013lbl.pdf Resident 30 signed a Mood Stabilizer Medication Informed Consent form on 3/11/21. The potential side effect of death was not listed on the potential adverse consequences. Nursing notes revealed the following behaviors: a. On 1/24/21 at 1:33 PM, resident 30 shouting 'Give me my [expletive] pain pill' in the hallway. Resident at nurses cart throwing cup with water at the cart stating he did not remember getting his pain medication at 0440 (4:40 AM) from nurse and should be able to get a pain pill. Resident approached nurse stating he had a hernia repair about two years ago that is causing him severe pain. Resident stated he did not want the nurse to call the doctor because they would just send him to the hospital. Resident requesting pain medication. Resident shouting he needed oxygen. CNA (Certified Nursing Assistant) found resident's canister at 8L (liters of oxygen per minute) with the NC (nasal cannula) tubing disconnected from the canister. Resident approached nurse 2 more times requesting a pain pill for his hernia. Nurse informed him she will contact MD (Medical Doctor) and DON. Resident became extremely argumentative stating, never mind just sit on your fat [expletive] and let me suffer as he went back down the hall to his room. b. On 1/30/21 at 4:57 PM, Resident has been pleasant and cooperative most of the day after given his pain meds. Very forgetful. Offered this nurse a soda. Has been out of his room and does have impulsive behavior today with other staff members but seems to get over his sudden outburst. Needs redirection, reminders and lots of attention. Tries to manipulate and has to be reminded. Acknowledges that he does forget at times and is very frustrating to him. c. On 2/5/21 at 3:08 AM, Pt (patient) attitude different. Pt came to Nurses station saying he was supposed to get pain med at 1830 (6:30 PM), I told him I could give it to him now and he turned around and headed back down the hall saying we were manipulating his life and he refused his med. Pt came back a couple of minutes later and took all his meds including pain pill. Pt. not his usual grumpy self joking with staff d. On 2/5/21 at 7:20 PM, a fall not revealed Pt found on the floor by bed. He had tried to get up to 'pee'. Pt was sitting on the floor beside the bed, mostly sitting on his r. buttocks/leg. Pt denied pain to r. hip, coccyx, ribs, arm. Later c/o (complained of) bilateral knee pain. Both legs were bent under pt when he was found. Medicated as order Pt later refused all meds, became very angry at staff and establishment. VSS (vital signs stable). e. On 2/6/2021 at 2:51 PM, a Fall Note revealed Resident has been agitated per noc (overnight) shift report since he has had an increase in his Depakote. Today has been frustrating for him. He had his am pain meds and then 6 hours later another PRN (as needed) pain med. His automatic w/c (wheelchair) would not charge and he had to use a manual self propel w/c. He tends to get out of breath when he uses it. He stayed near his room. Also, he refused his am and noon blood sugars. He has had 2 albuterol PRNs to help with his SOB (shortness of breath). This has helped him. He has been educated to use his call light for help but he tends to yell out. No other concerns at this time. f. On 2/7/21 at 12:29 AM, Pt had refused am meds per day RN. Pt mood is much better, back to his usual grumpy/jokey self. C/o (complained of) knee pain. States ribs hurt but they are ok. Having difficulty breathing this pm, used puffer as ordered which helped. Pt requesting anti anxiety med and pain cream for his knees. Meds were taken by pt. tonight g. On 2/7/21 at 3:24 AM, Pt has been yelling out constantly since about midnight. Wants water, wants more pain meds, can't breath (sic). Pt polite to this RN, but when cedar hall RN went to check on why he is hollering so much and that it is waking up and upsetting the other patients- he told that RN 'So, I am awake so they can be too'. Door has been shut to cut down the nose. h. On 2/7/21 at 4:53 AM, Pt still hollering to himself in room, talking to himself. Pt has not had any sleep tonight i. On 2/7/21 at 5:31 PM, Resident yelling throughout the day. Stayed in his room during the day. Behavior possibly related to an excess amount of albuterol nebulizer treatment throughout the night. Resident has not requested and has refused nebulizer treatments today. j. On 2/9/21 at 12:58 PM, increased agitation noted during shift r/t constipation and inability to have PRN oxy (oxycodone); MD notified w/ (with) order to change ativan to 8hr PRN for anxiety Physician's progress notes revealed the following: a. On 1/25/21, Patient hostile and agitated more so since past 2 days. He was aggressive towards nurses as well. He reports no physical symptoms and was sent to [a local hospital] ER (emergency room) yesterday where extensive [NAME] (work up) was done and negative. He came back with no new orders. He is now again upset and forgetful. He keeps stating that he is not getting his pain meds though he is being given them as ordered b. On 1/27/21 at 11:51 PM, Patient continues with episodic agitation . Anxious, slightly agitated, but at baseline . dated 2/17/21 at 7:21 PM revealed that resident 30 . is still having episodes of agitation .He is still abusive towards staff. He remains with continued behaviors shouting at care givers still. c. On 2/12/21 at 8:23 PM, Subjective: Patient continues with agitation and acute complaints of uncontrolled pain. He is forgetful and is somewhat less agitated today. Staff and therapy team report no issues. Patient is having adequate PO intake and vitals remain stable On 7/14/21 at 10:50 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 5 was interviewed. LPN 5 stated that resident 30 did not have psychosis, but had been difficult to manage at times. On 7/14/21 at 3:43 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) was interviewed. The DON stated that the physician had not provided a justification for resident 30's Seroquel order but had prescribed Seroquel for resident 30's behaviors. Based on interview and record review it was determined, for 3 out of 40 sampled residents, that the facility did not ensure that residents who have not used a psychotropic drug were not given the drug unless the medication was necessary to treat a specific condition diagnosed and documented in the clinical record, and residents do not receive psychotropic drugs pursuant to a as needed (PRN) order for greater than 14 days unless the prescribing practitioner has documented a rationale to extend the use with a documented duration for the PRN order. Additionally, an unnecessary drug was any drug when used in excessive dose (including duplicate therapy); or for excessive duration; or without adequate monitoring; or without adequate indications for its use; or in the presence of adverse consequences which indicate the dose should be reduced or discontinued; or any of these combinations. Specifically, a resident received duplicate therapy with two anti-anxiety medications and monitoring was not documented, a resident had a PRN order for Ativan that extended past 14 days without a documented rationale to extend the use, a resident had an order for an anti-psychotic medication and monitoring was not documented, and a resident was prescribed an anti-psychotic medication for dementia. Resident identifiers: 5, 30, and 182. Findings included: 1. Resident 5 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and re-admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which consisted of sialoadenitis, hemiplegia and hemiparesis, dysphagia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic kidney disease, hepatitis A, biventricular heart failure, asthma, anemia, diabetes mellitus type 2, restless leg syndrome, chronic pain, hypothyroidism, mood disorder, hepatitis C, mitral stenosis, hypokalemia, insomnia, hypertension, rhinitis, major depressive disorder, history of pulmonary embolism, atrial-fibrillation, aortocoronary bypass graft, cardiac pacemaker, hyperlipidemia, pulmonary hypertension, cardiomyopathy, mitral valve insufficiency, gastro-esophageal reflux disease, and osteoarthritis. Review of resident 5's physician orders revealed the following: a. Clonazepam tablet 0.5 milligram (mg), give 0.5 mg by mouth one time a day for anxiety. The medication was initiated on 6/14/21. b. Temazepam capsule 15 MG, give 15 mg by mouth one time a day for insomnia. The medication was initiated on 6/14/21. Review of the July 2021 Medication Administration Record (MAR) and Treatment Administration Record (TAR) revealed no documentation for monitoring for hours of sleep for the Temazepam that was indicated for insomnia. On 7/14/21 at 3:56 PM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated that the resident had severe anxiety and she was surprised that she did not have that diagnosis listed. The DON stated that resident 5 was previously on Seroquel for sleep. The DON stated that she would ask the pharmacy consultant about the duplicate therapy with the Clonazepam and Temazepam. On 7/15/21 at 8:29 AM, a follow-up interview was conducted with the DON. The DON stated that she spoke with the pharmacy consultant and the physician today and both agreed with the recommendations for the duplicate therapy. The DON stated that the new recommendations provided were to give the Clonazepam at 3:00 PM and to hold the Temazepam if resident 5 was sleepy or sedated. The DON stated that they did not want to induce withdrawal symptoms. The DON stated that there was a physician progress note with a documented diagnosis of anxiety. The DON stated that resident 5 had previously tried a lot of sleeping medications. The DON stated that they tried Melatonin, Ambien, and Trazodone for insomnia, and all of those did not provide her with enough sleep. The DON stated that resident 5 would wake up and cry and then could not get back to sleep. We have tried to find a way to handle her anxiety and find a way for her to sleep better. With the new Clonazepam and Temazepam she doesn't wake up crying and the resident isn't complaining. 2. Resident 182 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included cerebral infarction, occlusion of bilateral carotid arteries, palliative care, tremor, diabetes mellitus type 2, open angle glaucoma, macular degeneration, hearing loss, major depressive disorder, repeated falls, squamous cell carcinoma, obstructive sleep apnea, basal cell carcinoma, chronic kidney disease, pain, insomnia, hypertension, and benign prostatic hyperplasia. Review of resident 182's physician orders revealed the following: a. Ativan Solution 2 mg/milliliter (ml), give 0.25 ml by mouth every 2 hours as needed (PRN) for anxiety/agitation for 30 Days. The medication was initiated on 7/2/21. b. Quetiapine Fumarate (Seroquel) tablet 25 mg, give 1 tablet by mouth one time a day for cerebrovascular accident (CVA) with behaviors. The medication was initiated on 7/1/21. Review of the July 2021 MAR/TAR revealed no documentation for monitoring for episodes of behaviors, adverse side effects (ASE), or non pharmacological interventions for the use of the antipsychotic medication Quetiapine. Review of resident 182's medical records revealed no documentation of a physician assessment with a documented rationale for the extended use of the PRN Ativan past 14 days. On 7/14/21 at 9:36 AM, an interview was conducted with Registered Nurse (RN) 1. RN 1 stated that the monitoring for Seroquel would be for behaviors of delusions and agitation, and would be documented in the TAR. RN 1 proceeded to look up resident 182's monitoring for Seroquel and stated that they did not have any monitoring in place for the anti-psychotic in the TAR. RN 1 stated that the Seroquel was ordered by hospice for CVA with behaviors. On 7/15/21 at 11:21 AM, an interview was conducted with the DON. The DON stated that psychotropic medications have orders to monitor every shift for ASE, behaviors, and non-pharmacological interventions. The DON stated she would look in the hospice notes for a documented rationale for the extended use of the PRN order for the Ativan. The DON stated that the Seroquel did not have any monitoring in place.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0775 (Tag F0775)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review it was determined, for 1 out of 40 sample residents, that the facility did not ensure that resident's laboratory reports were filed in the clinical record. Specifically, a resident had orders for laboratory reports that were not be located in the medical records. Resident identifier 5. Findings included: Resident 5 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and re-admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which consisted of sialoadenitis, hemiplegia and hemiparesis, dysphagia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic kidney disease, hepatitis A, biventricular heart failure, asthma, anemia, diabetes mellitus type 2, restless leg syndrome, chronic pain, hypothyroidism, mood disorder, hepatitis C, mitral stenosis, hypokalemia, insomnia, hypertension, rhinitis, major depressive disorder, history of pulmonary embolism, atrial-fibrillation, aortocoronary bypass graft, cardiac pacemaker, hyperlipidemia, pulmonary hypertension, cardiomyopathy, mitral valve insufficiency, gastro-esophageal reflux disease, and osteoarthritis. On 7/13/21, resident 5's medical records were reviewed. Resident 5's physician orders revealed the following: a. On 8/28/2020 a Vanco Trough was ordered. No documentation could be found of the laboratory results for the Vanco trough on 8/28/2020 that was located in the electronic medical records. b. On 9/7/2020 a complete blood count (CBC), a comprehensive metabolic panel (CMP), magnesium level, c-reactive protein (CRP), and a erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) were ordered. No documentation could be found for the ESR results on 9/7/2020 in the electronic medical records. On 7/14/21 at 3:43 PM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated that she printed copies of the Vanco trough on 8/28/2020 and the CRP, CMP, magnesium, CBC, and ESR on 9/7/2020. The DON stated that the results were printed from the laboratory website and were not located in the facility's medical records. The laboratory results on 9/7/2020 that were in the medical records did not contain the result for the ESR, but the printed copy contained the ESR value. The DON could not explain the difference in the copy from the laboratory computer system and the copy provided to the facility.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0849 (Tag F0849)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident 182 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included cerebral infarction, occlusion of bilateral...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident 182 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included cerebral infarction, occlusion of bilateral carotid arteries, palliative care, tremor, diabetes mellitus type 2, open angle glaucoma, macular degeneration, hearing loss, major depressive disorder, repeated falls, squamous cell carcinoma, obstructive sleep apnea, basal cell carcinoma, chronic kidney disease, pain, insomnia, hypertension, and benign prostatic hyperplasia. Resident 182's medical record was reviewed on 7/13/21. On 7/8/21 resident 182's hospice care plan was recertified. The care plan documented that the resident was admitted to hospice services on 6/4/19. No other documentation was found of hospice notes in resident 182's medical records. A care plan dated 7/2/21 revealed The resident has a terminal prognosis and is on Hospice Cares. Goals included The resident's comfort will be maintained through the review date. The resident's dignity and autonomy will be maintained at highest level through the review date. The interventions included the following: a. Adjust provisions of Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) to compensate for resident's changing abilities. Encourage to participate to the extent resident wishes. b. Assess resident coping strategies and respect wishes. c. Consult with physician and social services to have hospice care for resident. d. Encourage resident to express feelings, listen with non-judgmental acceptance, compassion. e. Encourage support system of family and friends. f. Keep the environment quiet and calm. Keep linens clean, dry and wrinkle free. Keep lighting low and familiar objects near. g. Observe for s/sx of pain, administer pain medications as ordered. h. Work with hospice team to ensure spiritual, emotional, intellectual, physical, and social needs are met. i. Provide maximum comfort. On 7/14/21 at 9:36 AM, an interview was conducted with RN 1. RN 1 stated that they communicate with hospice providers by telephone, and they notify them of any changes in the resident status. The RN stated that the hospice nurse came into the facility 3 times a week and the hospice CNA came in on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays. RN 1 stated that they did not have access to the hospice notes, and only spoke to them when they came into the building. On 7/14/21 at 9:59 AM, an interview was conducted with CNA 3. CNA 3 stated that the hospice aide provided a bed bath to resident 182 three times a week. CNA 3 stated that today was the second day they had done this. On 7/15/21 at 8:26 AM, an interview was conducted with the DON. The DON stated that they had a few hospice companies that they worked with and they called the on call number to reach the nurse. The DON stated that Medical Records (MR) made sure they get all the hospice notes and that they were scanned under misc. in the electronic medical records. The DON stated that resident 182's hospice company was new to the facility and he came straight from the hospital to the facility on that service. On 7/15/21 at 11:16 AM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON) and the Grievance Officer (GO). The DON stated that MR was getting the hospice notes from the hospice company and that they were not located in resident 182's medical records. The GO stated that the notes were not in the medical records because the hospice company did not have the correct fax number for the facility. On 7/15/21 at 12:13 PM, an interview was conducted with the PCC. The PCC stated that for residents that were on hospice the hospice aide would provide a shower for them. The PCC stated that the hospice aide would not necessarily fill out a shower form, but the facility CNA would still document it in the medical records under tasks that it was completed. The PCC stated that he probably had some shower sheets for resident 182. The PCC was observed to go to the DON's office and open a cardboard box filled with rubber banded shower sheets. The PCC stated that he reviewed the shower forms to see if there were any problems with anyone not getting showers. The PCC stated that the shower sheets were not scanned into the resident's medical records, but were kept in the box for approximately a month, and then after that time he would destroy the sheets. The PCC stated that most of the time the hospice company filled out the shower sheets. We need to communicate with them to fill it out. They verbally stop at the nurses station and let us know that they provided that care. Stated that he had informed the aides and created a chart of which residents were on hospice and the days that the hospice aide provided those showers. On 7/15/21 at 1:35 PM, resident 182's hospice notes were provided by the facility by email. Review of the hospice notes documented on 7/12/21 at 1219, When I arrived, the patient is awake but confused, patient has some abrasions to the back, there was a mat on the floor. Attempted dot (sic) speak to the staff for information, the staff is not available. The nurse or med text (sic) is possibly in a meeting. The note was authored by the hospice RN. On 7/15/21 at 3:08 PM, a follow-up interview was conducted with the DON. The DON stated that she typically spoke to the hospice nurse to ask for the days the aide was scheduled to come to the facility. The DON stated that way they could chart the days that they were coming to provide cares. The hospice aide was supposed to notify the CNA when they were at the facility. With some companies we need a better way to communicate. I've asked some hospice nurses to come check in with me and see me when they get here. The DON stated that she had read the note documenting that staff were not available. That was the new hospice company. We need to work with them. Based on interview and record review it was determined, for 2 of 40 sampled residents, that the facility did not have a written agreement with hospice that was signed by an authorized representative of the hospice and authorized representative of the LTC facility before hospice care was furnished to any resident. The written agreement must set out at least the following: The services that hospice will provide; The hospice responsibilities for determining the appropriate hospice plan of care; The services the LTC facility will continue to provide based on each resident's plan of care; A communication process; including how the communication was documented between the LTC facility and the hospice provider, to ensure that the needs of the resident were addressed and met 24 hours per day. Resident identifiers: 24 and 182. Findings include: 1. Resident 24 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included nondisplaced fracture of right femur, atrial fibrillation, cerebral infarction, dementia without behavioral disturbance, muscle weakness, dysphagia and lupus. On 7/13/21 at 9:57 AM, an observation was made of resident 24. Resident 24 was observed to be agitated and yelling she was going to kill Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) 2. CNA 2 stated resident 24 did not have pressure ulcers. Resident 24's medical record was reviewed on 7/14/21. A care plan dated 5/23/21 revealed Hospice Election/Terminal Illness. The resident has a terminal prognosis and is on Hospice/Palliative Comfort Cares. Active Hospice agency elected for end-of-life transition & to provide comfort cares & palliative care measures in collaboration w/SNF (skilled nursing facility) IDT (interdisciplinary team). Goals included that The resident will be free of depression and anxiety through the review date and the resident's comfort will be maintained through the review date. The interventions included Consult with physician and Social Services to have Hospice care for resident in the facility, work cooperatively with hospice team to ensure the resident's spiritual, emotional, intellectual, physical and social needs are met. A hospice form titled RN (Registered Nurse) - Skilled Nursing Visit dated 6/18/21 revealed She has a healing unstageable wound on right buttocks and is on a hospital bed with pressure relief mattress. Wound improving somewhat per staff and aide report. No updated written documentation in resident 24's medical record. On 7/15/21 at 11:00 AM, an interview was conducted with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 4. LPN 4 stated that the hospice staff talk to her when they were in the facility. LPN 4 stated resident 24's hospice nurse came in on Thursdays. LPN 4 stated that hospice CNAs were at the facility Monday, Wednesday and Friday. LPN 4 stated she talked with hospice and there were no notes provided. On 7/15/21 at 11:04 AM, an interview was conducted with LPN 2. LPN 2 stated that hospice did not usually leave notes for the staff but always talked to them. LPN 2 stated that facility CNAs knew when hospice CNAs were to come in but she did not know how CNAs knew. LPN 2 stated that hospice verbally communicated with the facility staff. On 7/15/21 at 12:30 PM, an interview was conducted with the Patient Care Coordinator (PCC). The PCC stated that hospice staff verbally communicated with the facility staff. On 7/15/21 at 3:07 PM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated that she communicated with hospice over the phone. The DON stated that the nurses were able to call the hospice company to communicate. The DON stated the hospice nurse was to check in with the nurse at the nurses station. The DON stated that resident 24's pressure ulcer healed in May 2021. The DON stated she did not know why the hospice RN documented that resident 24 had a pressure sore.
CONCERN (E)

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review it was determined, for 8 of 40 sample residents, that the facility did not pro...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review it was determined, for 8 of 40 sample residents, that the facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment. Specifically, floors were sticky, there were stains on the carpets, bathrooms had missing base boards, fans in the hallway were soiled, a wheelchair was not clean, and there was debris in resident rooms. Resident identifiers: 13, 21, 39, 41, 44, 51, 60 and 65. Findings include: 1. On 7/12/21 at 11:53 AM, an observation was made or room [ROOM NUMBER]. There were crumbs on the floor at the end of the bed. 2. On 7/12/21 at 11:55 AM, an observation was made of room [ROOM NUMBER]. There was a black/brown substance dried on the floor at the bottom of the bed. 3. On 7/12/21 at 2:50 PM, an observation was made of a fan outside of room [ROOM NUMBER]. The fan was observed to have dried brown substance that had dripped down the front of the fan. 4. On 7/12/21 at 3:06 PM, an interview was conducted with resident 51. Resident 51's floor was sticky. Resident 51 stated that he floor was always sticky. 5. On 7/13/21 at 9:57 AM, an interview and observation was conducted with resident 60. Resident 60's room had a sticky floor and had an odor. Resident 60 stated that the floor were always sticky. Resident 60 stated that the chemical used on the floors made them sticky. 6. On 7/13/21 at 8:54 AM, an interview was conducted with resident 21. Resident 21 stated that he had holes in his sheets the sheets were see through. Resident 21 stated those sheets were newer ones. Resident 21 stated that usually all the sheets had holes in them. Resident 21 sated that his floors were sticky. An observation was made of resident 21's room and bathroom. Resident 21's sheets were observed to be threadbare with holes. Resident 21's bedroom floor was sticky. Resident 21's bathroom was observed to have a black sticky substance on the tan colored floor. There was rubber floorboard missing. There was a strong urine odor. The caulking around the toilet that was white colored had a brownish black color on it. 7. On 7/13/21 at 9:06 AM, an observation was made of room [ROOM NUMBER] A. There were crumbs at the bottom of the bed under the over bed table. 8. On 7/13/21 at 10:00 AM, an observation was made of resident 44's room. There were pieces of the flooring missing. 9. On 7/13/21 at 10:24 AM, an observation was made of room [ROOM NUMBER]. There was a liquid substance on the floor. There was an observation of room [ROOM NUMBER]. There were crumbs and debris on the floor a the foot of bed A. 10. On 7/15/21 at 2:15 PM, an observation was made of the facility carpet. There were stains on carpet outside assisted dining room. There were stains on the carpet outside of rooms 28, 29, 30, 45, 43, 37, 35, 33, 32 and 31. There were stains on the carpet in front of nurses station in the back of the facility. There were observation of a black substance dripped on floor in room [ROOM NUMBER]. There was debris and crumbs observed on floor in room [ROOM NUMBER]. 11. On 7/15/21 at 2:17 PM, an observation was made of resident 13's room. There were crumbs and debris on the floor. Resident 13's bathroom was observed to have missing paint on door jam, a brown/black substance around toilet and pipe laying on the floor with gashes in dry wall by sink. There was a large bubble in the flooring. Resident 13 stated house keeping went in the bathroom to clean but then she went in after and floor was still dirty. Resident 13 stated that the caulking and debris around the toilet was gross. There were gashes in dry wall by the bed. 12. On 7/15/21 at 2:20 PM, an observation was made of the bathroom between rooms [ROOM NUMBERS]. There were holes in the drywall in bathroom. The caulking around the toilet was discolored. There was a brown substance on the toilet seat and on the toilet. There was missing rubber trim on the floor. 13. On 7/12/21, an observation was made of resident 65's wheelchair was in the hallway. Resident 65's wheelchair was observed to have debris on the arms and footrests. Resident 65 stated that wheelchairs were not being cleaned. 14. On 7/13/21 at 10:17 AM, an observation was made of room [ROOM NUMBER]. room [ROOM NUMBER]'s floor was sticky. 15. On 7/15/21 at 2:15 PM, an observation was made of room [ROOM NUMBER]. room [ROOM NUMBER] had debris and crumbs on the floor. 16. On 7/12/21 at 10:00 AM, an observation was made of resident 39's room. Resident 39's room was observed to have a sticky floor. On 7/13/21 at 1:23 PM, additional observation was made of resident 39's room. Resident 39's room was observed to have a sticky floor in the same area as the previous observation. 17. On 7/12/21 at 2:25 PM, an observation was made of resident 41's room. Resident 41's room was observed to have a sticky floor with black substance on the floor. Trash was observed under resident 41's bed. On 7/13/21 at 8:30 AM, an additional observation was made of resident 41's room. Resident 41's room was observed to have a sticky floor with black substance on the floor in the same area as the previous observation. Trash was observed under resident 41's bed. Resident council minutes revealed on 6/14/21 that Housekeeping: Needs to do better job. Push dirt under bed instead of putting in trash. Change air filters. Wash light switches. Clean wheelchairs. On 7/15/21 at 4:38 PM, an interview was conducted with the Administrator. The Administrator stated that the corporation was working on refinancing the building to decrease the payment so that the facility could be remodeled. The Administrator stated that the carpet cleaning machine had been broken for about 6 months and had been unable to find one and purchase another one until 2 weeks ago. The Administrator stated the facility needed new flooring and the plan was to replace the flooring within the next 24 months. The Administrator stated that rooms were cleaned daily and deep cleaned monthly.
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** 7. Resident 48 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included cerebral infarction, transient cerebral isch...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 7. Resident 48 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included cerebral infarction, transient cerebral ischemic attack, type 2 diabetes, chronic pain, pulmonary embolism, dependence on enabling devices, obstructive sleep apnea, and malignant neoplasm of the thyroid gland. Resident 48's medical record was reviewed on 7/14/21. On 6/4/21 an MDS assessment was completed by staff for resident 48. The MDS indicated that resident 48 had an active diagnosis of obstructive sleep apnea. Resident 48's skilled daily full assessment completed on 6/4/21 revealed under the respiratory section that resident 48 used Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) therapy at night. Resident 48's Treatment Administration Record (TAR) and Medication Administration Record (MAR) for June 2021 was reviewed. No entry for CPAP therapy noted. TAR for July 2021, beginning on 7/3/21 not before, revealed a CPAP entry that stated, CPAP on when sleeping at night for sleep apnea. July 2021 MAR had no entry for CPAP therapy. Resident 48's care plan was reviewed. The resident's care plan did not indicate that resident 48 used CPAP therapy, nor did it address resident 48's needs with regard to his obstructive sleep apnea. On 7/15/21 at 9:16 AM, an interview was conducted with Registered Nurse (RN) 1. RN 1 stated resident 48 does have a CPAP machine and the night nurses were the ones who care for it. RN 1 stated to find out if a resident used a CPAP it might be in the orders section or care plan of the medical record. RN 1 was unable to find a CPAP entry in resident 48's care plan when RN 1 reviewed resident 48's medical record. 5. Resident 23 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included schizoaffective disorder, a history of falling, psychosis, cerebrovascular disease, psychomotor deficit, carcinoma and conversion disorder with seizures. On 7/15/21, resident 23's electronic medical record review was completed. An incident note created on 4/6/21 at 11:41 PM revealed that resident 23 had an unwitnessed fall in her room, nurse and aide heard a scream and a loud sound when ran to pt (patient) room pt was found on the floor on her back. Pt reports that she was in her W/C (wheelchair) attempting to put her legs on her bed to elevate them due to edema and pt fell backwards she reports she hit her head and she is in increased pain to her back. Pt was assessed to have no visual injuries, pt secured o the floor laying flat on her back, VS (vital signs) obtained B/P (blood pressure) 188/100 pulse 100 on other VS WNL (within normal limits), pt having increase in facial grimacing and yells out in pain. Due to assessment EMT's (Emergency Medical Technicians) contacted to transfer pt to ER (Emergency Room) for further evaluations and tests. NP (Nurse Practitioner) notified with new order to transfer pt to hospital. PT in extreme pain given 0.25mL (milliliter) morphine, pt has anxiety and refusing to go to hospital, pt educated on importance of going, Latvian 1 mg (milligram) prn (as needed) given. On 4/6/21, resident 23 was taken to a local hospital. A lumbar spine CT (Computed Tomography) scan revealed an acute superior endplate compression fracture of T12 vertebrae. On 4/7/21 at 9:51 AM, an interdisciplinary team (IDT) meeting note was created regarding the fall for resident 23 and revealed, IDT Review: IDT review of: unwitnessed fall 4/6/21 Event description: Pt was heard to scream out and loud thud sound was heard pt was found on the floor on her back in her room Risk factors: impaired balance, narcotic use, weakness, poor safety awareness Preventive measures: call light within reach, bed in lowest position Root Cause: Pt states she was in her W/C she was trying to elevate her legs on her bed while in her W/C and she tipped her W/C back to far and she fell back onto her back and back of head. New interventions: PT post fall eval w/ (with) education on safety precautions, pt education regarding w/c safety, w/c eval (evaluation) for proper fx (fix) & fit, possible need for new w/c for tilting fx [Note: Adjustments to the wheelchair, evaluation and adjustments to the wheelchair were not completed. No intervention was initiated to prevent resident 23 from tipping in her wheelchair.] A care plan for resident 23's unwitnessed fall with increased pain was initiated on 4/22/21 and included the following: a. Continue interventions on the at-risk plan. b. Due to assessment EMT's contacted to transfer pt to ER for further evaluations and tests. NP notified with new order to transfer pt to hospital. c. For no apparent acute injury, determine and address causative factors of the fall. [Note: there was an injury with increased pain.] d. Monitor/document /report PRN x 72h (hours) to MD (medical doctor) for s/sx (signs/symptoms): Pain, bruises, Change in mental status, New onset: confusion, sleepiness, inability to maintain posture, agitation. On 7/12/21 at 12:01 PM, resident 23 stated that her wheelchair was not working. On 7/14/21 at 10:05 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 5 was interviewed. LPN 5 stated that edema was not being monitored for resident 23. LPN 5 stated that resident 23 had edema, but did not have an order to measure the extent of the edema. On 7/14/21 at 3:28 PM, the MDS Coordinator (MDSC) who also updated care plans was interviewed. The MDSC stated that she received information about how to update resident 23's care plan from the IDT meeting. The MDSC stated that resident 23's wheelchair may have tipped too easily and therefore resident 23's wheelchair was evaluated by physical therapy. On 7/14/21 at 3:37 PM, the wheelchair evaluation was requested from physical therapy (PT). PT 1 stated that an assessment was not performed for resident 23's wheelchair. On 7/14/21 at 3:45 PM, an interview was conducted with the DON. The DON was unable to state why the intervention of evaluating resident 23's wheelchair was not performed by physical therapy. 6. Resident 45 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included paranoid schizophrenia, diabetes mellitus, history of stroke, traumatic brain injury, Parkinson's disease, depression and respiratory failure. On 7/15/21, resident 45's medical records review was completed. An incident report dated 6/25/21 revealed that resident 45's roommate stated that she entered the shared room with resident 45, resident 45 jumped out of bed and she just started beating on me and beat me to the floor. Resident 45 was taken to a local hospital for a psychiatric evaluation. On 6/26/2021 at 1:39 AM, a nurses note revealed that resident 45 returned from ER via non-emergency transport @ 2230 (10:30 PM). admitted to room [ROOM NUMBER] for the evening. Explained to pt there will be some room changes done in am, probably after 1000 when pt in room [ROOM NUMBER] discharges. Pt pjs brought to her, pt fed, meds given. Pt comfortable at this time. Per RN at [a local hospital] nothing was done for pt . No hospital information was available for resident 45's Emergency Department evaluation on 6/25/21. Behavioral health notes revealed that resident 45 talked with a counselor at a behavioral health institution. Records were not available for the months of June or July for resident 45. Records were requested by the Medical Records Staff (MRS) and obtained on 7/14/21. Resident 45 met with a counselor on 6/17/21 at 1:00 PM. The behavioral health note revealed that resident 45 was having issues with her roommate. She mentioned she does not know why her roommate dislikes her. she mentioned she sleeps okay. She denied any paranoid thoughts or hallucinations at the moment. Resident 45's care plan revealed that no behavioral plan was initiated by the facility. On On 7/14/21 at 12:20 PM, the LCSW was interviewed. The LCSW stated that resident 45 had mental issues, but since the incident, resident 45 stayed in her room. The LCSW stated that resident 45 demonstrated disorganized thinking and paranoia with delusions. The LCSW stated that resident 45 rambled, was not making sense, and seemed afraid. The LCSW stated that before the incident on 6/25/21, there had been some changes in resident 45's environment, including opening the door, cleaning the roommate's side of the room, and maintenance had attached a bumper by the back door. The LCSW stated that the noise from attaching the bumper was jarring to resident 45, and these things created a crisis for resident 45. The LCSW stated that there were no new interventions put in place to protect other residents from resident 45. The LCSW stated that there was a risk that this would happen again. On 7/14/21 at 12:30, the Grievance Officer (GO) joined the conversation. The GO stated that resident 45 had some environmental triggers. The GO stated that staff had not been informed that resident 45 had environmental triggers, and there was no intervention initiated that would keep resident 45 from having another roommate or perform an evaluation of another potential roommate for resident 45. The GO stated that if resident 45 had a roommate, staff would evaluate whether or not the new roommate aggravated resident 45. The GO stated that there was no behavioral health plan for resident 45. The GO stated that staff checked on resident 45 every day but no new interventions were formalized to prevent further crises. The GO stated that the behavioral health counselor did not want to change medications and that the nurse was talking to the Nurse Practitioner about it. 4. Resident 5 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and re-admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which consisted of sialoadenitis, hemiplegia and hemiparesis, dysphagia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic kidney disease, hepatitis A, biventricular heart failure, asthma, anemia, diabetes mellitus type 2, restless leg syndrome, chronic pain, hypothyroidism, mood disorder, hepatitis C, mitral stenosis, hypokalemia, insomnia, hypertension, rhinitis, major depressive disorder, history of pulmonary embolism, atrial-fibrillation, aortocoronary bypass graft, cardiac pacemaker, hyperlipidemia, pulmonary hypertension, cardiomyopathy, mitral valve insufficiency, gastro-esophageal reflux disease, and osteoarthritis. On 7/12/21 at 11:05 AM, an interview was conducted with resident 5. Resident 5 stated that she had recently had a urinary tract infection (UTI) and had received antibiotics for it. Resident 5 stated that she had developed thrush from the antibiotic use. Resident 5 stated that she was still experiencing painful urination. Review of resident 5's progress notes revealed that on 6/23/2021 at 9:18 PM, the physician note documented, Late Entry: Note Text: Subjective: Resident is currently stable and asymptomatic. Her final urine CS (culture and sensitivity) is growing Enterococcus. Full result is currently not available. She usually has VRE (vancomycin-resistant enterococcus) or MDR (multidrug resistant) UTIs from my prior experience with her previous urinary infections. Review of resident 5's care plan revealed no documentation for the most recent UTI on 6/23/21. A care plan was found for the UTI that was positive for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and was initiated on 6/10/19 and interventions were documented as resolved. A care plan was found for the UTI that was positive for extended spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL) and was initiated on 8/31/2020 and interventions were documented as resolved. On 7/15/21 at 8:51 AM, an interview was conducted with the DON. The DON stated that the MDS coordinator completed all the comprehensive care plans. The DON stated that she notified the MDS coordinator in morning meetings of any updates that needed to be made to the care plan. The DON stated that there should have been a care plan for the most recent UTI and a care plan that addressed her risk for UTIs. Based on observation, interview and record review it was determined, for 8 of 40 sampled residents, that the facility did not develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident, consistent with resident rights, that included measurable objectives and timeframe's to meet resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs that were identified in the comprehensive assessment. Specifically, a resident who smoked did not have a care plan, two residents who had an altercation with another resident did not have a care plan, a resident with a urinary tract infection (UTI) did not have a care plan, a care plan was not updated after resident sustained a fall with an injury, a resident with an altercations with another resident did not have a behavioral health care plan, and a resident with a Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) machine did not have a care plan for the use of the machine. Resident identifiers: 5, 14, 23, 44, 45, 48, 51 and 52. Findings include: 1. Resident 52 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included venous insufficiency, intellectual disabilities, peripheral vascular disease, hypertension, palsy (spasm) of conjugate gaze and cellulitis. On 7/13/21 at 10:35 AM, an observation was made of resident 52. Resident 52 was observed to have a lit cigarette in his fingers. Resident 52's hand was observed to be shaking. There was no staff supervision with residents smoking out in front of the facility. On 7/15/21 at 8:29 AM, an observation was made of resident 52. Resident 52 was outside smoking in the front of the facility. Resident 52 was observed to be standing with a lit cigarette. Resident 52's hand was observed to be shaking with the cigarette. There was no staff supervision with residents smoking out in front of the facility. Resident 52's medical record was reviewed on 7/15/21. A Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) of 12 which revealed resident had moderately impaired cognition. The MDS further revealed resident 52 required supervision with set-up assistance with all Activities of Daily Living (ADL). A quarterly smoking assessment dated [DATE] revealed that resident 52 was a smoker. The assessment scored residents based on the number of indicators that were checked marked. There was no information regarding resident 52 being assessed to safely smoke independently. There was no care plan regarding resident 52's smoking. A care plan dated 11/17/19 and updated on 3/16/2020 revealed ADL functional status/rehab potential. The resident has an ADL self-care performance deficit r/t (related to) cognitive deficits, palsy (spaspm) (sic) of conjugate gaze. The goal revealed that the resident maintained current level of function in ADLs. An intervention developed was Nursing Rehab/restorative: Dressing/grooming program #1 daily hygiene. Staff to prompt him to get his daily hygiene kit, then cue him to complete the tasks. Complete hygiene tasks daily. On 7/15/21 at 8:42 AM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated a smoking assessment was to evaluate if a resident was safe to smoke alone. The DON stated that resident's who smoke should have a care plan. The DON stated that the MDS coordinator completed the care plans. The DON stated she did not know why there was no care plan. 2. Resident 14 was admitted to the facility 7/12/18 and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included epilepsy and epileptic, displaced bicondylar fracture of right tibia, dysphagia, displaced comminuted fracture of shaft of right fibula, fracture of neck of left femur, cognitive communication deficit, anemia, age related osteoporosis, and history of left hip replacement. On 7/12/21 at 3:06 PM, an interview was conducted with resident 51. Resident 51 stated that she had a roommate (resident 44) hit her other roommate (resident 14). Resident 51 stated that she was grateful that resident 44 was moved to another room. Resident 14's medical records were reviewed and revealed there were no notes regarding an incident. The Administrator provided an Initial Entity Report dated 5/26/21 at 9:30 PM. The report revealed a resident to resident altercation between resident 44 and resident 14. The final investigation report revealed that resident 14 told staff that resident 44 hit her. The immediate action taken by the center was Residents were immediately separated following the incident. and prevent further incident (separation of residents, additional staff supervision, and training of staff on residents' individualized intervention plans including identified risk factors). There were no care plans in resident 14's medical record addressing the resident to resident incident. 3. Resident 44 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included bipolar disorder, schizoaffective disorder, generalized anxiety, panic disorder, and dysphagia. On 7/12/21 at 3:06 PM, an interview was conducted with resident 51. Resident 51 stated that she had a roommate (resident 44) hit her other roommate (resident 14). Resident 51 stated that she was grateful that resident 44 was moved to another room. Resident 44's medical records were reviewed and revealed there were no notes regarding an incident. The Administrator provided an Initial Entity Report dated 5/26/21 at 9:30 PM. The report revealed a resident to resident altercation between resident 44 and resident 14. The final investigation report revealed that resident 14 told staff that resident 44 hit her. The immediate action taken by the center was Residents were immediately separated following the incident. and prevent further incident (separation of residents, additional staff supervision, and training of staff on residents' individualized intervention plans including identified risk factors). There were no care plans in resident 44's medical record addressing the resident to resident incident. On 7/15/21 at 12:59 PM, an interview was conducted with the Licensed Clinical Social Worker (LCSW). The LCSW stated there should have been a care plan in resident 44 and resident 14's medical records regarding this incident with interventions.
CONCERN (E)

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

Incontinence Care (Tag F0690)

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 1 of 40 sampled residents, that the facility did not en...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review it was determined, for 1 of 40 sampled residents, that the facility did not ensure that a resident that had urinary incontinence, based on the resident's comprehensive assessment, received appropriate treatment and services to prevent urinary tract infections. Specifically, a resident was observed saturated with urine for over 4 hours without incontinence cares. Resident identifier: 39. Findings include: Resident 39 was admitted to the facility at 5/21/2020 with diagnoses which included morbid obesity, adult failure to thrive, diabetes, post-traumatic stress disorder, dysphagia, heart failure and irritable bowel syndrome. On 7/14/21 at 8:46 AM, an observation was made of resident 39 in the hallway outside of the activities room. Resident 39 was sitting in a wheelchair with a visibly saturated urine spot in his groin area. At 8:55 AM, an observation was made of the Director of Nursing (DON) asking resident 39 if he wanted to lay down. Resident 39 was observed to tell her no. Resident 39 was wheeled into the activity room. At 11:33 AM, resident 39 was in his wheelchair in the activities room. At 11:40 AM, resident 39 was in his room in his wheel chair with his pants wet in the groin area. At 11:58 AM, resident 39 was observed attempting to stand out of wheelchair. Resident 39 was unable to lift himself to a standing position. A urine odor was permeating out of resident 39's room. Resident 39's sweat pants were discolored in the groin area. At 12:10 PM, resident 39 wheeled himself to the hallway in a wheelchair. Resident 39's brief was observed to be bulging. At 12:14 PM, Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) 5 was observed to wheel the resident into his room and place his bedside table in front of him with a meal tray. At 12:25 PM, CNA 5 stated that residents were checked every 2 hours for incontinent episodes or to see if they need to use the bathroom. CNA 5 stated some residents desired to call for help when they need to be change but resident 39 did not call for help. CNA 5 stated if a resident was dry at 2 hours the CNAs would check the resident before another 2 hours. At 12:37 PM, resident 39 was sitting in hallway in his wheelchair. Restorative Nurse Aide (RNA) 1 walked by and did not respond to resident 39 pointing at his groin area. At 12:45 PM, resident 39 reached out for RNA 1 and pointed to his brief. RNA 1 stated just a minute. At 12:49 PM, resident 39 was wheeled to the physical therapy room by RNA 1. At 1:22 PM, RNA 1 assisted resident 39 to the Nustep machine. Resident 39 was observed to have a wet area with a bulging brief while operating the Nustep. At 1:22 PM, an interview was conducted with RNA 1. RNA 1 stated resident 39 was independent and able to change his own clothing. RNA 1 stated if she noticed a resident had an incontinent episode she would notify the CNA to change the resident. RNA 1 stated she did not notice he pointed to his brief as she walked by. RNA 1 stated she had not noticed resident 39 had a wet area near his groin. RNA 1 was observed to look and ask resident 39 if he wanted to be changed. Resident 39 stated he was not wet and did not need to be changed. Resident 39's medical record was reviewed on 7/15/21. An annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed that resident 39 was occasionally incontinent of bladder and always continent of bowel. The care area assessment revealed that urinary incontinence was care planned. A care plan dated 5/28/21 revealed, [Resident 39] is at risk for impaired skin integrity, loss of dignity and infection. Encourage him to perform as may toileting tasks as he can. Monitor for and make interventions to prevent infection. Assess bladder function and continence level as needed. Proceed to care plan. Excoriation, yeast rash and MASD (moisture associated skin damage) of pannus, scrotum, bilat (bilateral) glutteal (sic) folds. A goal was The resident will be/remain free from catheter-related trauma through review date. [Note: Resident 39 did not have a catheter.] An intervention developed was Monitor for s/sx (signs and symptoms) of discomfort on urination and frequency. CNA documentation in the tasks section of the medical record revealed that resident 39 required supervision to extensive assistance with toileting in the last 30 days. CNA documentation revealed the resident had incontinent bowel and bladder episodes in the last month. Progress notes on 7/1/21, 7/2/21, 7/3/21, 7/6/21, 7/7/21, and 7/9/21 revealed . Pt requires extensive assist with ADL's, transfers, toileting, bathing, dressing, grooming, meals, mobility, bed mobility. On 7/14/21 at 12:50 PM, an interview was conducted with LPN 3. LPN 3 stated there were no residents on a bowel and bladder program. LPN 3 stated that all residents she was caring for were either fully continent or incontinent. LPN 3 stated that resident 39 was continent during the day and incontinent at night. LPN 3 stated that resident 39 was independent with changing his clothing but needed help with his brief. LPN 3 stated that all residents were changed or taken to the bathroom after each meal. LPN 3 stated resident 39 did not notice if he was wet from an incontinent episode. LPN 3 stated CNAs needed to ask him and encourage him to use the toilet. LPN 3 stated a pull up might be a good idea for him. LPN 3 stated that progress notes revealing resident was not independent with ADLs were incorrect because it was from a night shift nurse when resident 39 required [NAME] assistance. LPN 3 stated that resident 39 was Usually wet when I come in at 6:00 AM. LPN 3 stated that resident 39 did not have skin breakdown and CNAs applied a barrier cream when they changed him. At 1:00 PM, LPN 3 stated she received clarification from the Personal Care Coordinator (PCC). LPN 3 stated that PCC stated if a resident required assistance with the brief to be pulled up or down then that would be an extensive assistance. LPN 3 confirmed that resident 39 was wet and needed to be changed. LPN 3 stated that resident 39 had been in activities all morning. On 7/14/21 at approximately 1:05 PM, a follow up interview was conducted with CNA 5. CNA 5 stated resident 39 usually used the bathroom but had episodes of incontinence. CNA 5 stated resident 39 was able to get himself out of the wheelchair onto a toilet. CNA 5 stated resident 39 did not have to be reminded to be toileted. CNA 5 stated he will ask resident 39 if he needed assistance every 2 hours. CNA 5 stated that resident 39 called when he needed assistance. At 1:30 PM, CNA 5 stated he checked resident 39 before lunch. CNA 5 stated sometimes his pants changed color and he was not wet. CNA 5 stated he noticed resident 39 was wet but did not change him. CNA 5 stated it was hard to get to all of the residents sometimes because CNAs did not always show up for their shift. CNA 5 stated that 1 CNA went to the dining room to assist with breakfast and lunch which left 1 CNA on the hall to pass trays and answer call lights. CNA 5 stated he usually did not get breaks or a lunch because there was too much to do. On 7/14/21 at 1:24 PM, an observation was made of the personal care coordinator (PCC) while he changed resident 39's soiled sweatpants and soiled brief. The PCC removed resident 39's sweatpants which were wet both on the front and back in the groin area with urine. The PCC held the sweatpants up and made the wet urine stain visible and stated, Ya, I guess they are wet. The PCC then removed resident 39's soiled pull on brief. The brief was measured to have 0.5 pounds of urine before being discarded. On 7/14/21 at 1:25 PM, an interview was conducted CNA 9. CNA 9 stated she toileted resident 39 at 10:30 AM. CNA 9 stated maybe it was 9:30 AM. CNA 9 stated she maybe checked on resident 39 while he was in activities. CNA 9 stated she did not know, after being told the resident was continually observed from 8:56 AM till 1:22 PM. CNA 9 stated she did not notice he was saturated in the groin area. CNA 9 stated that resident 39 required assistance with toileting. CNA 9 stated that Sometimes he was continent and sometimes not. CNA 9 stated residents were checked after each meal about every 2 hours. CNA 9 stated residents needed to be checked on so they did not become saturated. CNA 9 stated if a resident waited longer than 2 hours in a saturated brief, she was not sure what would happen but stated it's our job. On 7/14/21 at 3:28 PM, an interview was conducted with the DON. The DON stated if a resident was continent, staff were taking them to the bathroom and pull ups or briefs were not used. The DON stated if the resident requested incontinence supplies then they were used. The DON stated staff should offer toileting or incontinence care every 2 hours and anytime a resident calls. The DON stated that staff were to check to see if a brief needed to be changed and ask the resident, or check the color changing tab on the brief. The DON stated the risk for not checking or changing residents every 2 hours was skin breakdown, urinary tract infections, and helped with repositioning them. On 7/14/21 at 5:01 PM, a follow-up interview was conducted with the DON. The DON stated that resident 39 did not have any skin issues. The DON stated that according to the Shower sheets completed by the CNAs resident 39 had some skin issues on 7/3/21 and it cleared up after using a powder. On 7/15/21 at 3:12 PM, a follow up interview was conducted with the DON. The DON stated that resident 39 was on another hall after admission and was up standing and toileting himself. The DON stated that resident 39 currently needed assistance with a brief change. The DON stated it was unacceptable for a resident to be wet for over 4 hours.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0757 (Tag F0757)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. Resident 40 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included schizophrenia, cerebral infarction, memory d...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. Resident 40 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included schizophrenia, cerebral infarction, memory deficit, anxiety disorder, sepsis, malnutrition, supraventricular tachycardia, coagulation defect, hypotension and anemia. On 7/15/21, resident 40's electronic medical record review was completed. Resident 40's orders contained a prescription initiated on 5/19/21 for Midodrine hydrochloride, 5 milligrams, give by mouth once daily for low blood pressure, if SBP (systolic blood pressure) is under 100. The order was changed on 5/21/21 to include twice daily administration. Resident 40's Medication Administration Record (MAR) for the month of May 2021, revealed that resident 40 received Midodrine out of parameters on the following dates: a. On 5/21/21, was administered without a blood pressure recorded. b. On 5/22/21, was administered without a blood pressure recorded. c. On 5/23/21, was administered without a blood pressure recorded. d. On 5/24/21, was administered for SBP of 137. e. On 5/26/21, was administered with SBP of 106. f. On 5/27/21, was administered with SBP of 101. g. On 5/29/21, was administered with SBP of 114. h. On 5/30/21, was administered in the morning with SBP of 101. i. On 5/30/21, was administered in the afternoon with SBP of 101. Resident' 40's MAR for June, 2021 revealed that resident 40 received Midodrine out of parameters on the following dates: a. On 6/1/21, was administered with an SBP of 124. b. On 6/4/21, was administered with an SBP of 115. c. On 6/5/21, was administered with an SBP of 115. d. On 6/12/21, was administered with an SBP of 125. e. On 6/13/21, was not administered with an SBP of 91. f. On 6/16/21, was administered with an SBP of 124. g. On 6/18/21, was administered with an SBP of 126. h. On 6/22/21, was administered in the morning with an SBP of 124. i. On 6/22/21, was administered in the afternoon with an SBP of 124. j. On 6/27/21, was administered in the morning with an SBP of 101. k. On 6/27/21, was administered in the afternoon with an SBP of 110. On 7/15/21 at 9:52 AM, Registered Nurse (RN) 1 was interviewed. RN 1 stated that resident 40 received Midodrine if the SBP was less than 100, otherwise it was administered out of the doctor's order parameters. On 7/15/21 at 10:30 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) was interviewed. The DON stated that resident 40 appeared to receive the Midodrine out of the doctor's order parameters. The DON stated that the parameters were in the MAR, and flagged the nurses to not administer the medication if the blood pressure was out of parameters. Based on interview and record review it was determined, for 3 out of 35 sampled residents, that the facility did not ensure that each resident's drug regimen was free from unnecessary drugs. An unnecessary drug is any drug when used in excessive dose (including duplicate therapy); or for excessive duration; or without adequate monitoring; or without adequate indications for its use; or in the presence of adverse consequences which indicate the dose should be reduced or discontinued; or any of these combinations. Specifically, medications were not administered per the physician ordered parameters. Resident identifiers: 5, 40, and 182. Findings included: 1. Resident 5 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and re-admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which consisted of sialoadenitis, hemiplegia and hemiparesis, dysphagia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic kidney disease, hepatitis A, biventricular heart failure, asthma, anemia, diabetes mellitus type 2, restless leg syndrome, chronic pain, hypothyroidism, mood disorder, hepatitis C, mitral stenosis, hypokalemia, insomnia, hypertension, rhinitis, major depressive disorder, history of pulmonary embolism, atrial-fibrillation, aortocoronary bypass graft, cardiac pacemaker, hyperlipidemia, pulmonary hypertension, cardiomyopathy, mitral valve insufficiency, gastro-esophageal reflux disease, and osteoarthritis. Review of resident 5's physician orders revealed the following: a. Metolazone tablet 2.5 milligram (mg), give 1 tablet by mouth one time a day for edema. Give medication 30 minutes prior to Bumex otherwise the medication is ineffective. The medication was initiated on 7/7/21. b. Bumetanide tablet 1 mg, give 2 mg by mouth two times a day related to biventricular heart failure for 7 days. The medication was initiated on 7/5/21 and was discontinued on 7/12/21. c. Bumetanide tablet 1 mg, give 1 tablet by mouth two times a day for edema. The medication was initiated on 7/12/21. d. Carvedilol tablet 3.125 mg, give 3.125 mg by mouth two times a day related to hypertension. Hold for systolic blood pressure (SBP) less than (<) 110 or Pulse < 60. The medication was initiated on 5/13/2020. e. Zyvox 600 mg two times a day for urinary tract infection for 10 days. The medication was initiated on 6/23/21. Review of the July 2021 Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed that the Zyvox 600 mg was documented as administered from 7/1/21 to 7/3/21. The medication was administered for 2.5 days or 5 doses. Total doses documented as administered between June and July were 21 and not 20 as ordered. Review of the June 2021 MAR revealed the following: a. The Carvedilol was administered when it should have been held per the physician ordered parameters to hold for a SBP of < 110 on the following dates; 6/1/21 AM dose (blood pressure (BP)100/56); 6/8/21 AM dose (BP 104/50); 6/15/21 AM dose (BP 102/51); 6/15/21 PM dose (BP 102/51); 6/16/21 AM dose (BP 106/51); 6/20/21 PM dose (BP 100/60); and on 6/29/21 PM dose (BP 107/67). b. The Zyvox 600 mg was documented as administered from 6/23/21 to 6/30/21. Eight days or 16 doses were documented as administered in June. Review of the administration history report for 7/13/21 documented that the Metolazone 2.5 mg was administered at 7:10 AM and the Bumetanide 1 mg was administered at 7:11 AM. The Metolazone was not given 30 minutes prior to the Bumex as ordered. The order stated that if this was not done the medication would be ineffective. On 7/14/21 at 9:36 AM, an interview was conducted with Registered Nurse (RN) 1. RN 1 stated that the BP readings were documented in the MAR. The RN stated that for any low BP readings he would notify the physician. RN 1 stated that anything below SBP 110 or any anti-hypertensive medications with parameters he would call the physician if the BP reading was outside of the parameters and the medication had to be held. On 7/14/21 at 3:56 PM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated that the nurses should be checking a BP and pulse when administering medication with parameters to hold. The DON stated that based on the physician ordered parameters the Carvedilol should have been held. The DON confirmed that 8 doses of Zyvox were administered in June 2021 with a one time dose on 6/23/21 and then a second order for 10 days. The DON stated that she counted 21 doses administered and the order should have been to give every 12 hours for 10 days. The DON stated that according to that order resident 5 should have received 20 doses instead of 21. 2. Resident 182 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included cerebral infarction, occlusion of bilateral carotid arteries, palliative care, tremor, diabetes mellitus type 2, open angle glaucoma, macular degeneration, hearing loss, major depressive disorder, repeated falls, squamous cell carcinoma, obstructive sleep apnea, basal cell carcinoma, chronic kidney disease, pain, insomnia, hypertension, and benign prostatic hyperplasia. Review of resident 182's physician orders revealed the following: a. Lisinopril tablet 10 mg, give 10 mg by mouth one time a day for hypertension. Hold medication for SBP < 110. The medication was initiated on 7/3/21. Review of the July 2021 MAR/TAR revealed no documentation for the BP readings with the Lisinopril administration. Review of the Blood Pressure summary revealed no BP readings were documented on 7/4/21 and 7/11/21. On 7/15/21 at 11:21 AM, a follow-up interview was conducted with the DON. The DON stated that the Lisinopril administration on 7/4/21 and 7/11/21 did not have a documented BP for the medication administration, and that nurses should be checking a BP when administering a medication with parameters to hold.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview it was determined that the facility did not ensure that all drugs and biological's were label...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview it was determined that the facility did not ensure that all drugs and biological's were labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles, were stored under proper temperature controls, and included the expiration date when applicable. Specifically, multi use vials of medications were opened and available for use without a documented open date and medications were expired and still available for use. Findings included: 1. On [DATE] at 8:30 AM, the medication storage room on the Quail unit was inspected. A box of Biscolax laxative suppositories with one suppository remaining was available for use and had an expiration date of 3/2020. An opened multi use vial of Tuberculin was available for use, and did not contain an open date. An immediate interview was conducted with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 2. LPN 2 stated that the Tuberculin should have an open date documented on the vial, and they use to also have a paper to document the open dates listed on the cabinet. The LPN stated that the suppository was expired. 2. On [DATE] at approximately 8:40 AM, the medication storage room on the Cedar unit was inspected. An opened multi use vial of Tuberculin was available for use, and did not contain an open date. A Pneumococcal vaccine (Pneumovax 23) syringe was available for use with an expiration date of [DATE]. An immediate interview was conducted with LPN 3. LPN 3 stated that the Tuberculin should have an open date on it. LPN 3 stated that it was hard to tell if the date listed on the Pneumococcal syringe was the date sent by the pharmacy or the expiration date. It should be noted that the date was the manufacturer expiration date. LPN 3 stated it was still available for use, and was good for one year after what was listed on the medication. LPN 3 stated that the multi use vial of Tuberculin was good for 30 days after it was opened, but she could not determine when it was opened and therefore when it expired. LPN 3 stated that she was going to destroy both medications. 3. On [DATE] at approximately 9:00 AM, the medication storage room on the [NAME] hall was inspected. A bottle of Acetaminophen 500 milligram (mg) was available for use with an expiration date of 6/21. The medication refrigerator was inspected. The thermometer was found to be imbedded in a block of ice in the freezer section and could not be removed or read. The temperature log documented 37 degrees. An immediate interview was conducted with Registered Nurse (RN) 1. RN 1 stated that the Acetaminophen was expired. RN 1 stated that the fridge thermometer was frozen inside the fridge and he was unable to remove it and determine the temperature of the fridge. The RN stated he was unable to determine if the medication was stored at a safe temperature. On [DATE] at 10:14 AM, an interview was conducted with the DON. The DON stated that she thought the multi use vials of Tuberculin were good for 28 days, but was not sure. We haven't been using them. The DON stated that the licensed nursing staff on night shift were responsible for monitoring the fridge temperatures, and they documented it on the sheet located on the fridge. The DON was informed of the thermometer imbedded in the block of ice located inside the medication fridge. The DON stated that they just removed the thermometer that was imbedded in the block of ice and placed a new one inside. On [DATE] at 11:34 AM, a follow-up interview was conducted with the DON. The DON stated that she contacted the pharmacy consultant and determined that the medication that was located inside the fridge was safe at a temperature range of 36-46 degrees. The DON stated that they rechecked the new thermometer and it read 42 degrees and they did not need to discard any of the medication. The DON stated that none of the medication located inside the fridge was frozen.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0804 (Tag F0804)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview and record review it was determined, for 6 of 40 sampled residents, that each resident did not received food and drink that was palatable, attractive, and at a safe and...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review it was determined, for 6 of 40 sampled residents, that each resident did not received food and drink that was palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature. Specifically, residents complained of the food quality, resident council minutes revealed complaints of food quality, and a test tray revealed the food was not palatable. Resident identifiers: 50, 60, 62, 69, 76 and 278. Findings include: 1. On 7/12/21 at 12:05 PM, an observation was made of the lunch meal. The plate was observed to have a white piece of meat, white beans, white cabbage, and a cream colored bread product. There was a cookie served in a bowl. On 7/12/21 at 12:25 PM, an observation was made of the dining room. The Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) stated she was not sure what the food was when a resident asked her what the food was. 2. On 7/12/21 at 11:15 AM, an interview was conducted with resident 278. Resident 278 stated the food was inferior to other places and it was always cold. Resident 278 stated the food was not made very well and the variety was poor. 3. On 7/12/21 at 12:15 PM, an interview was conducted with resident 62. Resident 62 stated that he was not going to eat lunch. Resident 62 stated he was ordering food from outside the facility. Resident 62 stated that he ordered food at least 5 times per week because the quality of the food was not good. Resident 62 stated that he usually ordered pizza or sandwiches. 4. On 7/13/21 at 9:57 AM, an interview was conducted with resident 60. Resident 60 was observed to point his thumb down when asked how the food tasted. Resident 60 stated that the best part of the meal was the 2 cups of milk. Stated that he sends back the food and will ask for something different. 5. On 7/12/21 at 2:25 PM, an interview was conducted with resident 50. Resident 50 stated that the eggs were always ice cold and the oatmeal was barely warm today. Resident 50 stated that I don't want milk and they keep bringing it, they don't listen. Resident 50 further stated he had told the kitchen staff he did not want broccoli because he was on a blood thinner, but he kept getting it. Resident 50 stated that the cranberry juice was so tart it was almost as tart as a lemon. Resident 50 stated that his son brought him food for his small refrigerator in his room. 6. On 7/12/21 at 12:39 PM, an interview was conducted with resident 69. Resident 69 stated he was lactose intolerant and his meal ticket revealed that the resident was lactose intolerant. Resident 69 stated that he continued to receive milk. 7. On 7/13/21 at approximately 1:00 PM, an interview was conducted with resident 76. Resident 76 stated The food tastes like [expletives omitted]. Resident 76 stated he only ate egg salad sandwiches because nothing else was good from the kitchen. 8. On 7/15/21 at 12:12 PM, a test tray was requested. [NAME] 2 was observed to place food items on the tray. [NAME] 2 stated that the alternative vegetables were provided. The temperatures were obtained in degrees Fahrenheit: a. The shredded meat was 118.5. The meat had a sweet taste with a tough texture. The meat was warm to the taste. b. The mixed vegetables were 116.0. The vegetables were bland to the taste with no seasoning. The zucchini was mushy inside with a tough skin. c. The rice was 126.0. The rice had a mushy and sticky texture. d. The fruit was 71.3. The fruit was canned peaches. e. The apple juice was 50.0. The juice was cool to the taste. f. The roll was on the plate with the food. The roll was wet from the liquid on the vegetables. The roll had a gooey wet texture on half of it. 9. Resident council minutes were reviewed and revealed the following: a. On 4/5/21 at 2:00 PM, new business revealed that Food or the lack of it, I've lost 8Ibs (pounds) in last 3 weeks cause I didn't eat, over cooked broccoli and other vegie (vegetables). Another resident reported Have (a) hard time with food. b. On 6/14/21 at 2:00, new business revealed Meals (pork chop was too tough to eat today). Don't like processed food. McRib sandwich is terrible. c. On 7/5/21 at 2:00 PM, old business revealed Meals: Don't like processed food. On 7/15/21 at 2:26 PM, an interview was conducted with the Dietary Manager (DM). The DM stated she attended the resident council meetings. The DM stated that the biggest complaint residents had was that the food was bland and there was no salt. The DM stated that when residents complained of certain items she worked with the Dietitian and changed the menu.
CONCERN (E)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview it was determined that the facility did not store, prepare, distribute and serve food in acco...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview it was determined that the facility did not store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. Specifically, there was outdated and unlabeled food in the refrigerator, there were soiled areas in the kitchen, and food was transported uncovered through the hallways. Findings include: 1. On 7/12/21 at 10:30 AM, a tour of the kitchen was conducted. The following observations were made: a. There was a bin labeled sliced cheese dated 6/18 with a use by date of 6/24 in the refrigerator. b. There were individual cups with a white substances in them without a label or a date in the refrigerator. c. There were fruit cups dated 7/4 with a use by date of 7/11 in the refrigerator. d. There were 2 containers with watermelon in the refrigerator. One container had a use by date of 7/11. On the fridge a sign revealed all items must have a date and label hand written use by 3 days e. There was a steam table that had tin foil on the front of it that was held on with labels for food items. The shelf above the steam table basins was soiled under the self. There was dust and brown substance on a yellow cord that went from steam table to power box. f. The cart that contained the domes for the plates was observed to be soiled. g. There was ground cumin, light chili powder, and onion powder open to air. h. The microwave was soiled on the inside and out. i. There was food splatter on the ceiling. j. There was dust on the back of the microwave and the front was soiled. 2. On 7/12/21 at 12:05 PM, an observation was made of trays being delivered. Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 1 and CNA 3 were observed to deliver meal trays to room [ROOM NUMBER] and 31 without the cookie being covered. CNA 1 was observed to push the meal cart between rooms [ROOM NUMBERS]. CNA 1 was observed to remove a tray from the cart and walk through the hall with the cookie uncovered to room [ROOM NUMBER]. CNA 3 was observed to transport a meal tray through the hallway from outside room [ROOM NUMBER] to room [ROOM NUMBER] with the cookie uncovered. On 7/12/21 at 12:16 PM, an observation was made of lunch being delivered by CNA 5 to room [ROOM NUMBER]. There was a slice of cake on a small plate and a cookie in a small bowl, both were not covered when taken into room [ROOM NUMBER]. On 07/12/21 at 12:25 PM, an observation was made of a lunch tray delivered to room [ROOM NUMBER], a cookie in a small bowl was not covered. 3. On 7/15/21 at 1:57 PM, a follow up kitchen tour was conducted. The following was observed: a. There was a can labeled Bang that was open to air with no date. b. There was a container labeled Soy Milk. There was no open date. The soy milk had instruction to use within 7 to 10 days. [NAME] 1 stated that the soy milk had been opened. [NAME] 1 was observed to open the cap on the soy milk and drop the cap on the ground. [NAME] 1 was observed to pick up the cap and replace it on the soy milk. c. There was a dried white substance on the outside of the plate warmer. d. There was food splatter on the ceiling. e. There was a light switch under the 3 compartment sink that had an orange and red substance on it. f. The cart with the domes on it was soiled with dust and debris. g. There was dust on the back of the microwave and the front was soiled. h. There was pealing pant above the dish machine area. i. There were hard boiled eggs in a blue sack that was not labeled or dated in the refrigerator. j. There was a plastic bag with chicken strips open to air in the refrigerator. An interview was immediately conducted with [NAME] 1. [NAME] 1 stated that cooked leftovers were stored in the fridge for up to 7 days and then thrown away. [NAME] 1 stated that all foods were covered when they left the kitchen. [NAME] 1 stated that the food cart was pushed to the outside of each room and the food was delivered to each room. On 7/15/21 at 2:26 PM, an interview was conducted with the Dietary Manager (DM). The DM stated refrigerated items were thrown away after 3 days. The DM stated that the cooks were really good about cleaning out the refrigerators. The DM stated that she cleaned out the refrigerator on Friday before the weekend. The DM stated there was a new cook over the weekend that did not clean out the refrigerator. The DM stated that kitchen staff did not cover all items in the carts for the meals. The DM stated that staff delivering the food should take the cart to each room and not walk through the halls with uncovered food items. The DM stated that the tin foil was a ghetto fix because a vent above the steam table was blowing out the pilot light. The DM stated that the tin foil had been on the stream table for about a month and there was a new Maintenance Director. The DM stated that the Maintenance Director had not looked at the steam table and the vent. The DM stated the cart with the domes was to be cleaned monthly. The DM stated that the steam table was cleaned weekly. The DM stated that the microwave was cleaned daily both inside and out.
CONCERN (E)

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

Medical Records (Tag F0842)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 5. Resident 45 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included paranoid schizophrenia, diabetes mellitus, h...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 5. Resident 45 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included paranoid schizophrenia, diabetes mellitus, history of stroke, traumatic brain injury, Parkinson's disease, depression and respiratory failure. On 7/12/21 at 10:20 AM, resident 45 was interviewed. Resident 45 stated that she liked not having a roommate. Resident 45 stated that she had issues with a previous roommate. On 6/25/21 at 2:56 PM, a Nurse's Note revealed that resident 45 had pushed room[mate] to the floor and was on top of her hitting her, cna witnessed. Cna (Certified Nursing Assistant) lifted [resident 45] off and [resident 45] layed in her bed. Nurse arrived with roommate on floor, saying [resident 45] beat the crap out of her for no reason, that she walked in room and was pushed to floor and punched several times. Residents separated. Reported DON (Director of Nursing) and management, [ambulance] called and Res (resident 45) to transported [name of local hospital] ER to be evaluated. No hospital report was available for resident 45's Emergency Department evaluation on 6/25/21. On 7/14/21 at 9:00 AM, the medical records staff (MRS) stated that the hospital did not send information with resident 45 when resident 45 returned from the hospital. A nurses note created on 6/26/21 at 1:39 AM revealed that pt returned from ER via non-emergency transport @ 2230 (11:30 PM). admitted to room [ROOM NUMBER] for the evening. Explained to pt there will be some room changes done in am, probably after 1000 . Per RN at [local] ER nothing was done for pt . Resident 45 had appointments with a local behavioral health clinic. Resident 45's last two notes were not in the medical record, and were obtained by the medical records staff on 7/14/21. These records revealed two appointments: a. On 6/17/21 at 1:00 PM, a note revealed resident 45 was having issues with her roommate. She mentioned she does not know why her roommate dislikes her. She mentioned she sleeps okay. She denied any paranoid thoughts or hallucinations at the moment. [Note: This record that identified that resident 45 was having issues with her roommate was obtained on 7/14/21, though the concern was identified 8 days before resident 45 attacked her roommate.] b. On 6/28/21 resident 45 stated I've been doin' alright. No history was obtained from staff. On 7/14/21 at 10:36 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 2 was interviewed. LPN 2 stated that when she responded to the incident with residents 17 and 45, the CNA reported that resident 17 was sitting on the floor and resident 45 was around the back of her, punching her in the head. LPN 2 reported that resident 17 was shaken up, and resident 45 was laying on her bed. LPN 2 stated that the residents were separated, and resident 45 agreed to have a behavioral health evaluation at the hospital. LPN 2 reported that resident 17 was examined and had no cuts or bruises. LPN 2 stated that the residents slept in separate rooms. LPN 2 stated that the Licensed Clinical Social Worker (LCSW) talked with resident 45 until the ambulance arrived. On 7/14/21 at 11:18 AM, the DON was interviewed. The DON stated that the reports for abuse were handled by the LCSW and the Grievance Official (GO). The DON stated that she had attempted to have resident 45 evaluated at the Emergency Department, but they refused, stating that resident 45 had been calm since arrival at the hospital. The DON stated that it was hard to believe, since resident 45 had not had a rational conversation with staff. The DON stated that resident 17 stated to the DON that she had been ambushed by resident 45. On 7/14/21 at 12:20 PM, the LCSW was interviewed. The LCSW stated that resident 45 had mental issues, but since the incident resident 45 stayed in her room. The LCSW stated that resident 45 demonstrated disorganized thinking and paranoia with delusions. The LCSW stated that resident 45 rambled, was not making sense, and seemed afraid. The LCSW stated that before the incident on 6/25/21, there had been some changes in resident 45's environment, including opening the door, cleaning resident 17's side of the room, and maintenance had attached a bumper by the back door. The LCSW stated that the noise from attaching the door was jarring to resident 45, and these things created a crisis for resident 45. The LCSW stated that resident 45 had been on some longstanding psychotropic medications that needed to be evaluated. The LCSW stated that a mental health counselor from a local behavioral health agency saw resident 45 the following week but resident 45 did not want to speak with the counselor. Based on interview and record review it was determined, for 4 of 40 sampled residents, that the facility did not maintain medical records on each resident that were complete; accurately documented; readily accessible; and systematically organized. Specially, residents who were provided hospice services did not have hospice notes located in the resident's electronic medical records, resident wound documentation was not located in the electronic medical records, residents who received mental health services did not have any visit notes located in the electronic medical records, and all resident shower sheets with skin assessments were not located in the medical records. Resident identifiers: 24, 45, 60, and 182. Findings included: 1. Resident 182 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included cerebral infarction, occlusion of bilateral carotid arteries, palliative care, tremor, diabetes mellitus type 2, open angle glaucoma, macular degeneration, hearing loss, major depressive disorder, repeated falls, squamous cell carcinoma, obstructive sleep apnea, basal cell carcinoma, chronic kidney disease, pain, insomnia, hypertension, and benign prostatic hyperplasia. On 7/13/21 resident 182's medical records were reviewed. On 7/8/21 resident 182's hospice care plan was recertified. The care plan documented that the resident was admitted to hospice services on 6/4/19. No other documentation was found of hospice notes in resident 182's medical records. On 7/15/21 at 11:16 AM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON) and the Grievance Officer (GO). The DON stated that Medical Records (MR) was getting the hospice notes from the hospice company and that they were not located in resident 182's medical records. The GO stated that the notes were not in the medical records because the hospice company did not have the correct fax number for the facility. 2. On 7/15/21 at 12:13 PM, an interview was conducted with the Personal Care Coordinator (PCC). The PCC stated that for residents that were on hospice the hospice aide would provide a shower for them. The PCC stated that the hospice aide would not necessarily fill out a shower form, but the facility CNA would still document it in the medical records under tasks that it was completed. The PCC stated that he probably had some shower sheets for a requested resident. The PCC was observed to go to the DON's office and open a cardboard box filled with rubber banded shower sheets. The PCC stated that he reviewed the shower forms to see if there were any problems with anyone not getting showers. The PCC stated that the shower sheets were not scanned into the resident's medical records, but were kept in the box for approximately a month, and then after that time he would destroy the sheets. The shower sheets were observed to contained the resident name, room number and date of shower. The form also contained a skin assessment with diagram for any identified skin concerns. The form had check boxes for skin intact, bruise, skin tear, abrasion, laceration, wound, and other. There was also an area numbered 1 through 6 for site of impaired skin with room for documentation. The shower sheets were signed by the CNA and the Licensed Nurse and stated at the bottom, Please fill-out for every shower given with or without skin integrity issues. You must have a Licensed Nurse sign sheet after completing. 3. Resident 24 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included nondisplaced fracture of right femur, atrial fibrillation, cerebral infarction, dementia without behavioral disturbance, muscle weakness, dysphagia and lupus. On 7/13/21 at 9:57 AM, an observation was made of resident 24. Resident 24 was observed to be agitated and yelling she was going to kill Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) 2. CNA 2 stated resident 24 did not have pressure ulcers. Resident 24's medical record was reviewed on 7/14/21. A hospice form titled RN (Registered Nurse) - Skilled Nursing Visit revealed a hospice note dated 6/18/21. The note revealed She has a healing unstageable wound on right buttocks and is on a hospital bed with pressure relief mattress. Wound improving somewhat per staff and aide report. No other hospice notes were located in resident 24's medical record. On 7/15/21 at 11:00 AM, an interview was conducted with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 4. LPN 4 stated that the hospice staff talk to her when they were in the facility. LPN 4 stated resident 24's hospice nurse came in on Thursdays. LPN 4 stated that CNAs were at the facility Monday, Wednesday and Friday. LPN 4 stated she talked with hospice and there were no notes provided. On 7/15/21 at 11:04 AM, an interview was conducted with LPN 2. LPN 2 stated that hospice did not usually leave notes for the staff but always talked to them. LPN 2 stated that facility CNAs knew when hospice CNAs were to come in but she did not know how CNAs knew. LPN 2 stated that hospice verbally communicated with the facility staff. On 7/15/21 at 12:30 PM, an interview was conducted with the PCC. The PCC stated that hospice staff verbally communicated with the facility staff. On 7/15/21 at 3:07 PM, an interview was conducted with the DON. The DON stated that communicated with hospice over the phone. The DON stated that the nurses were able to call the hospice company to communicate. The DON stated the hospice nurse was to check in with the nurse at the nurses station. The DON stated that medical record staff usually collected hospice notes and scanned them into the medical record. The DON stated that resident 24's pressure ulcer healed in May 2021. The DON stated she did not know why the hospice RN documented that resident 24 had a pressure sore. 4. Resident 60 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included paraplegia, encephalopathy, disorders of brain, respiratory failure, dysphagia, acute kidney failure, muscle weakness, and neurogenic bladder, heart failure, post-traumatic stress disorder, and diabetes. A weekly skin assessment dated [DATE] revealed there were new skin integrity problems. The assessment revealed a skin tear to the coccyx which was a stage II pressure ulcer (PU) and measured 1 x 3 x .5 centimeters (cm). Resident 60 also had a groin rash that was a stage I PU and measured 2 x 5 x .1 cm. On 7/15/21 at 10:31 AM, an interview was conducted with LPN 4. LPN 4 stated that resident 60 was admitted with some moisture breakdown. LPN 4 stated he's never had a stage 2 PU on his coccyx. LPN 4 stated that resident 60 had some shearing to his right and left buttock in the past. LPN 4 stated she was not aware of treatments that were ordered. LPN 4 stated that the nurse that documented the skin assessment on 7/14/21 was an Agency Nurse and did not know the resident. On 7/15/21 at 10:43 AM, an interview was conducted with the Wound Nurse (WN). The WN stated resident 60 had rashes that were improving but he did not currently have a stage I or stage II pressure sore. The WN stated all wound were to be report to her, then she assessed the wounds and contacted the physician for orders. On 7/15/21 at 11:23 AM, the WN and surveyor observed resident 60's coccyx area. There were no pressure ulcers observed.
CONCERN (E)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 11. Resident 48 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included cerebral infarction, transient cerebral isc...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 11. Resident 48 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included cerebral infarction, transient cerebral ischemic attack, type 2 diabetes, chronic pain, pulmonary embolism, dependence on enabling devices, obstructive sleep apnea, and malignant neoplasm of thyroid gland. On 7/12/21 at 10:54 AM, an interview was conducted with resident 48. Resident 48 stated that he operated his CPAP machine independently at night time. Resident 48 stated that staff placed water in the machine for him and that he received new tubing from his provider every 6 months. Resident 48 stated that he brought the machine from home. Resident 48's medical record was reviewed on 7/14/21. On 6/4/21, an admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment was completed by staff for resident 48. The MDS indicated that resident 48 had an active diagnosis of obstructive sleep apnea. Resident 48's skilled daily full assessment completed on 6/4/21 revealed under the respiratory section that resident 48 used CPAP therapy at night. On 7/15/21 at 9:16 AM, an interview was conducted with RN 1. RN 1 stated the night nurses and CNA's work together to clean the CPAP machines. RN 1 stated CPAP care and maintenance was charted in the orders section of the medical record. Resident 48's Treatment Administration Record (TAR) and Medication Administration Record (MAR) for June 2021 revealed no care or maintenance orders for June. Resident 48's TAR for July 2021, beginning 7/3/21, revealed a CPAP entry that stated, CPAP on when sleeping at night for sleep apnea. July 2021 MAR had no entry for CPAP care or maintenance. There were no entries for the cleaning of resident 48's CPAP machine for June 2021 or July 2021 in the MAR or TAR. On 7/15/21 at 9:56 AM, an interview was conducted with CNA 3. CNA 3 stated that when a resident had a CPAP machine he made sure the hoses were unkinked hoses, the mask fit properly on resident, there water was in machine and made sure the resident was comfortable. CNA 3 stated hoses were cleaned every other day with soap and water or there was a machine in the resident rooms that the hoses were put in to clean. On 7/15/21 at approximately 10:00 AM, an interview was conducted with CNA 6. CNA 6 stated she helped residents set up their CPAP machines prior to bed. CNA 6 stated that the machine was cleaned with soap and water before each use. CNA 6 stated that she made sure the machine had water and wiped the mask with a bleach wipe every night before it was used. CNA 6 stated that nurses changed the tubing and the parts on the machine. On 7/15/21 at approximately 10:15 AM, an interview was conducted with CNA 4. CNA 4 stated he did not know what the cleaning process was for CPAP machines and would ask prior to cleaning. On 7/15/21 at 10:10 AM, an interview was conducted with LPN 4. LPN 4 stated CPAP machines were cleaned in the morning with with soap and water. LPN 4 stated that water was changed when it was low. On 7/15/21 at 9:29 AM, an interview was conducted with Restorative Nurse Assistant (RNA) 1. RNA 1 stated that the nurses order all of the CPAP supplies. RNA 1 stated that they do not have the supplies for the CPAP machines and do not take care of them. RNA 1 stated that they only have supplies for the regular oxygen needs. On 7/15/21 at approximately 3:30 PM, an interview was conducted with the DON. The DON stated a local medical agency supplied CPAP machines, if the resident required the use of one. The DON stated the process for cleaning the CPAP machines was for the nurses and aides to ensure the CPAP machines were cleaned every night. The DON stated she assumed the machines were cleaned with soap and water in a gray basin each night before the mask was placed on the resident, but should probably watch the nurses and aides to see how they were washing the CPAP machines. Manufacturer recommendations for CPAP cleaning are: the air tubing, mask cushion, humidifier water tub require daily cleaning. The mask frame system and mask headgear require cleaning weekly. https://www.resmed.com/en-us/sleep-apnea/cpap-parts-support/cleaning-cpap-equipment/ 12. On 7/14/21 at 2:29 PM, a hospice nurse (HN) was observed entering the facility. A resident was sitting by the front door that was locked and activated the door. The HN was observed to go to the sign in sheet and look at the sign in information without completing the sign in. The HN then looked around and walked down the East hallway without being screened. The HN was wearing a surgical mask. The HN was observed to look at the nursing station where RN 1 was talking on the telephone, and walk past the station. The HN was immediately interviewed. The HN stated that she could not see a badge on the person at the nursing station, so she was going to find another nurse to be screened. The HN stated that this was the second time she was in the building, and had been screened the first time, but was not sure if she should have waited, so she was seeking another nurse to screen, if needed. The HN was observed walking down the hall, past residents in the hallway and resident rooms, and turn the corner to the South hallway. At 2:40 PM, then HN was observed leaving the building. At 2:35 PM, RN 1 was interviewed. RN 1 stated that the receptionist was in a training and the front desk was to be manned by either the Administrator or Medical Records while the receptionist was away. At 2:35 PM, the Administrator was observed to be in his office. The medical records door was closed. At 2:51 PM, the receptionist returned briefly to her desk. The receptionist was interviewed and stated that she had informed RN 1 that she was going to be in training, but had not informed the Administrator or medical records. At 3:05 PM, the Administrator provided screening sheets for visitors. The HN's name was not on the visitor list and there was no completed COVID-19 screening sheet for the HN. Based on observation, interview and record review, it was determined, that the facility did not maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe and sanitary environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections, including properly preventing and/or containing COVID-19. Specifically, observations were made of staff entering and exiting quarantine/droplet isolation precautions rooms without the required Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) donned, staff were observed to wear washable reusable gowns throughout the facility including in the isolation rooms without changing between resident rooms, meal trays from quarantine/droplet isolation rooms were not handled separate nor identified from other meal trays, a licensed nurse was observed to clean a blood pressure cuff with a 2 by 2 alcohol prep pad, multiple staff were observed to wear their surgical mask down below the nose or mouth while in resident care areas, and a resident's Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) machine was not routinely cleaned. Resident identifier: 40 and 48. Findings include: 1. On 7/12/21 at 10:01 AM, an interview was conducted with the facility Administrator. The Administrator stated that all staff were universally wearing a surgical mask and if within 6 feet of a resident they should be wearing eye protection, either goggles or a face shield. The Administrator stated the county positivity rate was 6.1 percent. The Administrator was observed with the face mask down below the nose. 2. On 7/12/21 at 10:30 AM, an observation was made of room [ROOM NUMBER]. Stop signs were posted that stated contact precautions, gloves, gowns required. Droplet precautions signs were also posted that stated eyes and mouth must be fully covered. A PPE cart was located outside the room with disposable gowns, N95 masks, gloves, and laundry bags. The room door was open and the resident was observed in bed at the farthest point from the door, sleeping. On 7/13/21 at 8:40 AM, an observation was made of Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) 7 exiting room [ROOM NUMBER] with the breakfast meal tray. The tray was placed inside the meal cart and was not bagged. No items on the meal tray appeared to be disposable. CNA 7 was observed wearing a washable gown, a surgical mask, and goggles. room [ROOM NUMBER]'s door was open and no other PPE was observed to have been worn while inside the room. Hand hygiene was performed with Alcohol Based Hand Rub (ABHR) by CNA 7. CNA 7 was observed to enter room [ROOM NUMBER] and room [ROOM NUMBER] to gather meal trays, no hand hygiene was performed upon entrance or exit of either room. CNA 7 entered and exited room [ROOM NUMBER], and placed a milk cup into the cart. On 7/14/21 at 8:59 AM, an observation was made of CNA 3 and an unidentified staff inside room [ROOM NUMBER]. Both staff were observed wearing a surgical mask and goggles. An immediate interview was conducted with CNA 3 upon exit of room [ROOM NUMBER]. CNA 3 stated that the hospice male nurse and hospice female CNA were located inside the room. The CNA stated that the PPE that should be worn inside room [ROOM NUMBER] was a gown, gloves, goggles, and N95, and staff were to doff inside the room before exiting. CNA 3 stated that anytime anyone entered room [ROOM NUMBER] they should be wearing that PPE. On 7/14/21 at 9:19 AM, an interview was conducted with CNA 4. CNA 4 stated that the meal trays that were removed from rooms on contact/droplet precautions were to be bagged in a red biohazard bag or in a regular bag to identify them to the kitchen that they were coming from those rooms. CNA 4 stated that he bagged them before he placed them back inside the meal cart. On 7/14/21 at 9:36 AM, an interview was conducted with Registered Nurse (RN) 1. RN 1 stated anytime anyone entered room [ROOM NUMBER] they should be wearing a gown, N95 mask, goggles and gloves. On 7/14/21 at 11:53 AM, an observation was made of a visitor located inside room [ROOM NUMBER] without any PPE on. An immediate interview was conducted with RN 1. RN 1 went into room [ROOM NUMBER] to see who the visitor was and stated that it was a family member in room [ROOM NUMBER]. On 7/14/21 at 2:49 PM, a follow-up interview was conducted with RN 1. RN 1 stated that the family member was not wearing a mask earlier in the day while inside the resident room. The RN stated that he educated her on wearing a mask and CNA 8 was providing a gown now. RN 1 stated that the spouse was also not wearing a mask when they arrived and they were currently wearing one now. RN 1 stated that CNA 8 got them both gowns. RN 1 stated that the facility policy for visitors with residents on Transmission Based Precautions (TBP) was to have them wear a gown and mask and educate them on why we have them on TBP. RN 1 stated that regardless of the TBP all visitors in the building should be wearing a mask. The Director of Nursing (DON) was observed to remove the TBP signs from room [ROOM NUMBER]. The DON stated that they were taking him off of TBP because it was over today, as today was 14 days after admission. The DON also stated that they just received the resident's vaccination records and the resident was vaccinated for COVID-19. On 7/14/21 at 3:00 PM, an interview was conducted with the DON. The DON stated that if signs were posted for TBP then staff should adhere to the TBP that were listed on the signs. The DON stated that the two rooms on TBP (room [ROOM NUMBER] and room [ROOM NUMBER]) were new admissions without a known COVID vaccine at the time of admission. The DON stated that the facility Administrator or the admission nurse verified vaccination status and posted the TBP signs. The DON again stated that the staff should be following the signs that were posted. On 7/15/21 at 12:12 PM, an observation was made of the kitchen. There was a red bag with dishes in it on the dirty side of the dishmachine. The red bag was stacked on top of other dishes. On 7/15/21 at 1:57 PM, an interview was conducted with [NAME] 1. [NAME] 1 stated that all meal carts were cleaned on the outside and inside to ensure they were sanitized after each meal. [NAME] 1 stated Comet disinfecting spray was used on the carts. [NAME] 1 stated he let the sanitizer sit for 30 seconds and then wiped it off. [NAME] 1 stated that isolation rooms had all their food served on disposable dinnerware. [NAME] 1 stated if the meals were not served on disposable products then the dinnerware was returned to the kitchen in a red bag. [NAME] 1 stated I know there are a few classifying them as isolation. [NAME] 1 stated he asked the nurses when he got one back on Tuesday night that was in a red bag. [NAME] 1 stated that he had washed the dishes in the red bag after getting the all clear from the nurse. [NAME] 1 stated that there were no residents served on disposable dinnerware on 7/13/21 when he had last worked. On 7/15/21 at 2:30 PM, an interview was conducted with the Dietary Manager (DM). The DM stated that those residents that were on isolation precautions were identified on the meal tickets. The meal trays for isolation rooms were on Styrofoam and were thrown away inside the room. The DM stated if they were not disposed of inside the resident room then the tray should be bagged in a red bag and the staff knew to wash them separately. The DM stated that if the trays were not bagged and treated separately it had the potential to put everyone at risk. The staff would not be aware of it, cross contamination could occur, and COVID could spread throughout the building. On 7/14/21 at 9:59 AM, an follow up interview was conducted with CNA 4. The CNA stated that the facility process was to wear a washable gown for all resident cares. The CNA stated that since he was giving baths and providing toileting cares all day long he just kept the washable gown on, it was just easier that way. The CNA stated that he did not change his gown between resident cares, and gowns were worn throughout the building. We are supposed to do that when we change and shower someone and I do that all day so it is not worth it to keep changing. On 7/14/21 At 1:30 PM, an interview was conducted with CNA 5. CNA 5 stated that he used the cloth gown all day unless it became soiled. CNA 5 stated then he changed it before going into another resident room. CNA 5 was observed to be wearing a cloth gown. 3. On 7/12/21 at 10:59 AM, an observation was made of room [ROOM NUMBER]. Stop signs were posted that stated contact precautions, gloves and gown required. Droplet precautions were also posted that stated eyes and mouth must be fully covered. TBP were dated as beginning on 7/4/21 and scheduled to end on 7/22/21. A PPE cart was located outside of the room and contained disposable gowns, N95 mask, gloves, and laundry bags. On 7/13/21 at approximately 8:45 AM, an observation was made of CNA 7. CNA 7 entered room [ROOM NUMBER] and obtained 2 meal trays and placed them inside the meal cart located in the hallway. Neither meal tray was bagged, and no items on the meal trays appeared to be disposable. CNA 7 was observed wearing a washable gown, a surgical mask and goggles. After placing the second tray in the cart the CNA was observed to touch a passing resident (resident 40) on the leg, and informed the resident that his catheter bag needed to be emptied. The CNA instructed the resident to return to their room. The CNA was then observed to perform hand hygiene upon exit of room [ROOM NUMBER]. It should be noted that prior to entering room [ROOM NUMBER], CNA 7 had entered room [ROOM NUMBER] (also on TBP), room [ROOM NUMBER], room [ROOM NUMBER], and room [ROOM NUMBER] all with the same washable gown on. 4. On 7/12/21 at 12:00 PM, an observation was made of housekeeper 1 with their surgical mask down below the nose while on the [NAME] hallway. 5. On 7/12/21 at 12:31 PM, an observation was made of cook 2. The cook was observed to open the door to the main dining room and speak with resident 48. [NAME] 2 had their surgical mask down below their chin. 6. On 7/12/21 at 2:40 PM, an observation was made of housekeeper 1 with their surgical mask down below the nose while on the [NAME] hallway. 7. On 7/12/21 at 2:47 PM, an observation was made of the Administrator in the hallway. The Administrators nose was uncovered by the mask. The mask covered the Administrators mouth. 8. On 7/13/21 at 9:30 AM, an observation was made of the facility Administrator with the surgical mask down below the nose. 9. On 7/14/21 at 8:08 AM, an observation was made of Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 5. LPN 5 cleaned the a blood pressure cuff after use on a resident with a 2 x 2 alcohol prep swab. An immediate interview was conducted with LPN 5. LPN 5 stated that they did not know where anything was located at the facility. LPN 5 stated that they were informed when they arrived that the disinfecting wipes located in the locked medication cart were only to be used on the glucometer. 10. On 7/15/21 at 10:10 AM, an observation was made of LPN 4. LPN 4 was observed to be wearing her mask hanging from one ear and not covering the face. On 7/15/21 at 3:08 PM, an interview was conducted with the DON. The DON stated that the CNAs were wearing washable gowns since the start of COVID-19, and they were not changing the gowns between residents. The DON stated that if the resident was on TBP the staff should change gowns after care was provided. The DON stated that if the resident was not on any TBP and was vaccinated they just wear the washable gowns throughout the facility. The DON stated that if staff were providing incontinence care or a shower they would not need to change the gown between resident care. The DON stated that it was no different than just wearing scrubs. The DON stated if the resident was on TBP the staff should be following the PPE requirements for that type of TBP. The DON stated in this case staff would need to place a disposable gown over the washable gown. The DON stated that meal trays from TBP rooms should have disposable dishware and should be handed into a bag to an aide outside the room to take to the kitchen. The DON stated that the purpose of that being to separate the tray and to notify the kitchen of TBP room. The DON stated that all staff should wear an N95 mask for contact and droplet precautions, and they should not be placing it over their surgical mask. The DON stated that staff should wear their mask over their nose and mouth. The DON stated that staff should use bleach wipes to sanitize blood pressure cuffs, and the bleach wipes could be used on anything. The DON stated that there must have been some confusion with the nurse because only the Cavi wipes were for the glucometers, but bleach wipes were for everything else. Review of the facility Policy / Procedure - Infection Prevention and Control for the Novel Coronavirus documented under Personal Protective Equipment use that the facility will provide employees and visitors with access to Personal Protective Equipment as required by CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) to provide safe resident care. No guidance was noted in the facility policy related to quarantine for new admissions and the necessary TBP and required PPE to be used. The guidance was last reviewed on 7/12/21. Review of the CDC guidance on Interim Infection Prevention and Control Recommendations to Prevent SARS-CoV-2 Spread in Nursing Homes documented under Implementing Source Control Measures that source control refers to use of well-fitting cloth masks, facemasks, or respirators to cover a person's mouth and nose to prevent spread of respiratory secretions when they are breathing, talking, sneezing or coughing Because of the potential for asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic transmission, source control measures are recommended for everyone in a healthcare facility, even if they do not have symptoms of COVID-19. Additionally, Visitors and others who enter the facility . should wear a well-fitting form of source control while in the facility. The guidance further stated that facilities should have policies and procedures addressing: which PPE is required in which situations (e.g. residents with suspected or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, residents placed in quarantine). The guidance further documented under Create a Plan for Managing New Admissions and Readmissions that .all other new admissions and readmission should be placed in a 14-day quarantine, even if they have a negative test upon admission. Exceptions include residents within 3 months of a SARS-CoV-2 infection and fully vaccinated residents The guidance further stated, .PPE when caring for residents in quarantine is described in Section: Manage Residents who have had Close Contact with Someone with SARS-CoV-2 Infection., and HCP (healthcare personnel) should wear an N95 or higher-level respirator, eye protection (i.e., goggles or a face shield that covers the front and sides of the face), gloves, and gown when caring for these resident. The guidance was last updated on March 29, 2021. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/long-term-care.html
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0923 (Tag F0923)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview it was determined that the facility did not have adequate outside ventilation by means of win...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview it was determined that the facility did not have adequate outside ventilation by means of window, or mechanical ventilation, or a combination of the two. Specifically, there were odors throughout the facility during the survey. Findings include: 1. On 7/12/21 at 9:00 AM, the Northwest conference room smelled of urine. Staff moved the cloth chairs out of the room. 2. On 7/12/21 at 9:42 AM, urine odors were detected in room [ROOM NUMBER]'s bathroom. 3. On 7/12/21 at 10:10 AM, urine odors were detected in and outside of room [ROOM NUMBER]. 4. On 7/12/21 at 12:55 PM, a urine odors were detected in room [ROOM NUMBER]'s bathroom. 5. On 7/14/21 at 2:00 PM, odors were detected outside rooms 32 through 41. There was a strong urine and bowel movement odor. 6. On 7/14/21 at 4:28 PM, urine odors were detected in the [NAME] hallway from room [ROOM NUMBER] south to the center of the hall, and the center hallway from the nurses' station to room [ROOM NUMBER]. 7. On 7/14/21 at 5:21 PM, urine odors were detected in the [NAME] hallway from room [ROOM NUMBER] south to the center of the hall, and the center hallway from the nurses' station to room [ROOM NUMBER]. 8. On 7/14/21 at 5:27 PM, odors were detected outside rooms 32 through 41. There was a strong urine and bowel movement odor. 9. On 7/15/21 at 2:17 PM, urine odors were detected outside rooms [ROOM NUMBERS]. 10. On 7/15/21 at 2:15 PM, urine odors were detected in middle hallway outside rooms [ROOM NUMBERS]. On 7/15/21 at 2:30 PM, an interview was conducted with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 3. CNA 3 stated that housekeeping was not able to keep up with the odors, due to a carpet machine not working correctly for a long time, and the carpets held the smells. On 7/15/21 at 2:40 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) was interviewed. The DON stated that staff were working on managing the odors. On 7/15/21 at 4:38 PM, an interview was conducted with the Administrator. The Administrator stated that the corporation was working on refinancing the building to decrease the payment so that the facility could be remodeled. The Administrator stated that the carpet cleaning machine had been broken for about 6 months and had been unable to find one and purchase another one until 2 weeks ago.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

  • "What changes have you made since the serious inspection findings?"
  • "Why is there high staff turnover? How do you retain staff?"
  • "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
  • "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s), 2 harm violation(s), $108,807 in fines. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 56 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $108,807 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in Utah. Major compliance failures.
  • • Grade F (18/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 18/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Mt. Olympus Rehabilitation Center's CMS Rating?

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

How is Mt. Olympus Rehabilitation Center Staffed?

CMS rates Mt. Olympus Rehabilitation Center's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 65%, which is 18 percentage points above the Utah average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs.

What Have Inspectors Found at Mt. Olympus Rehabilitation Center?

State health inspectors documented 56 deficiencies at Mt. Olympus Rehabilitation Center during 2021 to 2024. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 2 that caused actual resident harm, 52 with potential for harm, and 1 minor or isolated issues. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.

Who Owns and Operates Mt. Olympus Rehabilitation Center?

Mt. Olympus Rehabilitation Center is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by CASCADES HEALTHCARE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 100 certified beds and approximately 62 residents (about 62% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in Salt Lake City, Utah.

How Does Mt. Olympus Rehabilitation Center Compare to Other Utah Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Utah, Mt. Olympus Rehabilitation Center's overall rating (3 stars) is below the state average of 3.3, staff turnover (65%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Mt. Olympus Rehabilitation Center?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What changes have been made since the serious inspection findings, and how are you preventing similar issues?" "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?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations, the facility's high staff turnover rate, and the below-average staffing rating.

Is Mt. Olympus Rehabilitation Center Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, Mt. Olympus Rehabilitation Center has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 3-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in Utah. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.

Do Nurses at Mt. Olympus Rehabilitation Center Stick Around?

Staff turnover at Mt. Olympus Rehabilitation Center is high. At 65%, the facility is 18 percentage points above the Utah average of 46%. High turnover means new staff may not know residents' individual needs, medications, or preferences. It can also be disorienting for residents, especially those with dementia who rely on familiar faces. Families should ask: What is causing the turnover? What retention programs are in place? How do you ensure care continuity during staff transitions?

Was Mt. Olympus Rehabilitation Center Ever Fined?

Mt. Olympus Rehabilitation Center has been fined $108,807 across 5 penalty actions. This is 3.2x the Utah average of $34,167. Fines at this level are uncommon and typically indicate a pattern of serious deficiencies, repeated violations, or failure to correct problems promptly. CMS reserves penalties of this magnitude for facilities that pose significant, documented risk to resident health or safety. Families should request specific documentation of what issues led to these fines and what systemic changes have been implemented.

Is Mt. Olympus Rehabilitation Center on Any Federal Watch List?

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