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.