CARLIN SPRINGS HEALTH & REHABILITATION

550 SOUTH CARLIN SPRINGS ROAD, ARLINGTON, VA 22204 (703) 379-7200
Non profit - Corporation 161 Beds HILL VALLEY HEALTHCARE Data: November 2025 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation
Trust Grade
33/100
#181 of 285 in VA
Last Inspection: July 2022

Over 2 years since last inspection. Current conditions may differ from available data.

Overview

Carlin Springs Health & Rehabilitation has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating poor performance with significant concerns. It ranks #181 out of 285 facilities in Virginia, placing it in the bottom half, and #3 out of 4 in Arlington County, meaning there is only one local option that is better. The facility is showing some improvement, with issues decreasing from 20 in 2019 to 19 in 2022, although it still has a below-average overall star rating of 2 out of 5. Staffing is a relative strength, with a turnover rate of 47%, slightly below the state average, but RN coverage is only average, which may not adequately catch issues that nursing assistants might miss. However, there are concerning incidents, such as a critical finding where staff failed to supervise residents who were smokers, including one with paraplegia, posing safety risks. Additionally, staff did not properly manage pressure ulcer prevention for two residents, leading to actual harm. On a positive note, there have been no fines reported, which suggests compliance with regulations regarding care. Families should weigh these strengths and weaknesses carefully when considering this facility for their loved ones.

Trust Score
F
33/100
In Virginia
#181/285
Bottom 37%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Better
20 → 19 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
47% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
✓ Good
No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Virginia facilities.
Skilled Nurses
○ Average
Each resident gets 30 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for Virginia. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
Violations
⚠ Watch
41 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Overall Rating
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Staff Levels
★★★★★
5.0
Care Quality
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2019: 20 issues
2022: 19 issues

The Good

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

Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.

The Bad

2-Star Overall Rating

Below Virginia average (3.0)

Below average - review inspection findings carefully

Staff Turnover: 47%

Near Virginia avg (46%)

Higher turnover may affect care consistency

Chain: HILL VALLEY HEALTHCARE

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 41 deficiencies on record

1 life-threatening 1 actual harm
Jul 2022 19 deficiencies 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on resident interview, staff interview, clinical record review and facility document review, the facility staff failed to ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on resident interview, staff interview, clinical record review and facility document review, the facility staff failed to assess and implement interventions and/or provide care and treatment for the prevention of pressure ulcers for two of 29 residents in the survey sample (Resident #100 and Resident #115). 1). Resident #100 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with a brace to the left leg in place and a deep tissue injury to the left lower leg. The facility staff failed to remove the brace for 19 days, failed to assess, monitor, implement interventions and/or treat the resident's skin/deep tissue injury. As a result, the the resident developed a 6 x 3.5 centimeter unstageable pressure ulcer, resulting in actual harm. 2.) The facility failed to ensure Resident #115's specialty mattress for pressure relief was plugged in and operating for the prevention of pressure ulcers. The findings include: 1.) The facility staff failed to remove a left leg brace for Resident #100. The resident was admitted with the brace on 07/06/22. The brace was not removed for daily skin care, skin assessments/inspections and/or treatment for 19 days. On 07/26/22 the resident's leg brace was removed and was found to have an unstageable left lower extremity open wound, measuring 6 cm (centimeters) x 3.5 cm x less than 0.1cm, 90 % necrotic tissue with 10% granulation tissue and scant serosanguinous drainage. Resident #100's diagnoses included, but were not limited to: lung cancer, COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease), anemia, lateral dislocation of left patella, spinal stenosis, high blood pressure, dependence on oxygen, and depression. The most recent MDS was an admission assessment dated [DATE]. This MDS assessed the resident with a cognitive score of 13, indicating the resident was intact for daily decision making skills. The resident was also assessed as requiring extensive assistance from at least one or two staff members for transfers, bed mobility, dressing, toileting and hygiene. The resident was assessed as requiring total assistance for bathing. This MDS documented and assessed the resident as non ambulatory during the look back period. In Section M. of this MDS (Skin Conditions. M0300. Current Number of Unhealed Pressure Ulcers/Injuries at Each Stage) it was documented the resident had one stage I, one stage II, and one stage III pressure ulcer upon admission and that all three were present upon admission. In Section M. (Skin Conditions. M0300. Current Number of Unhealed Pressure Ulcers/Injuries at Each Stage) . G. Unstageable - Deep Tissue injury: 1.) Number of unstageable pressure injuries presenting as deep tissue injury = 0 (zero) 2.) Number of these unstageable pressure injuries that were present upon admission/entry or reentry = 0 (zero). On 07/26/22 at 10:30 AM, Resident #100 was interviewed. The resident was laying in bed. The resident had a sheet partially over her body. A full leg brace was observed on the resident's left leg that was at the top of the resident's thigh and went to down to the resident's ankle. The resident was asked if she had any pressure ulcers/areas anywhere on the resident's body. The resident stated there were current pressure related areas to her sacrum. The resident was asked if she had any other pressure/skin areas of concern. The resident stated that she did not have any other skin issues to her knowledge. The resident was then asked if the staff remove the left leg brace to check the skin and to do do care. The resident stated that no one had taken the brace off since she had arrived at the facility (07/06/22). The resident stated, No one, not even therapy, no one. The resident stated that the brace was put on while she was in the hospital and that she was admitted with it to this facility on 07/06/22. The resident stated that the brace has been in place since her admission and no one has taken it off. On 07/26/22 at approximately 10:50 AM, LPN (Licensed Practical Nurse) #1 stated that the wound nurse RN (Registered Nurse) #3 would be doing the dressing change/wound care for Resident #100 today. On 07/26/22 at 10:55 AM, LPN #1 pre-medicated Resident #100 prior to the dressing change/wound care. At 11:28 AM, RN #3 (wound care nurse) and CNA (certified nursing assistant) #6 washed their hands and prepared for the dressing change/wound care for Resident #100. RN #3 stated that he is the wound care nurse and that he makes weekly rounds with the wound care NP (Nurse Practitioner) #2. RN #3 was asked how many pressure areas/wounds did this resident have. RN #3 stated, Three and counted One, Two, Three as he pointed to each area on the resident's sacral/buttock area. The resident had one pressure area on the right sacral area, one on the left sacral area and one on the left lower buttock (just above the top of the left leg brace). RN #3 completed the treatment and dressing change for the the three wounds. RN #3 was then asked if the resident had any other skin/wound concerns. The RN stated that she did not. The RN was then asked if the resident's left leg brace is removed. RN #3 stated that it (leg brace) comes off daily during care and that staff are doing daily body audits on the resident's entire body everyday. The resident nodded her head back and forth and stated, No one has removed it. RN#3 was asked for clarification, and was asked again if staff were removing the brace everyday and looking at the resident's skin under the brace everyday? RN #3 stated, Yes. RN #3 was then asked when are wound measurements and wound assessments completed. The RN stated that he (RN #3) and NP #2 make wound rounds every Thursday. The RN stated that NP #2 comes every Thursday and they make rounds together, do body audits/skin assessments, take measurements, and complete dressing changes for resident's with wounds. The RN was asked if Resident #100's left leg brace was removed last Thursday, while NP #2 was in the facility during wound rounds. RN #3 stated that he was with NP #2 last Thursday and that they had removed the resident's left leg brace and stated, Yes we took it off last week and looked at her skin. At 11:56 AM, RN #3 again stated that the brace comes off daily during care. RN #3 was asked to remove the brace for a skin observation. RN #3 removed the brace from the resident's left leg. CNA (certified nursing assistant) #6 lifted the resident's left leg to look for any skin break down/impairments. A dressing was observed on the resident's left, lower calf area. This dressing had been hidden by the resident's full leg brace. The dressing was not dated and did not have any initials to indicate when or who applied the dressing. RN #3 stated, What's this? (in regards to the dressing). The dressing was approximately a 4x4, square bordered dressing located on the resident's lower left lateral/outer calf area. RN #3 removed the dressing. The wound was observed with a large amount of black eschar, minimal slough and minimal granulation tissue. RN #3 stated, That's just an abrasion. The RN was asked if he was going to do measurements and stage the wound. The RN measured the wound (6.0 cm x 3.5 cm). RN #3 stated, This is new. The RN was asked, how could it be new if there is a dressing on it, someone must have known about it and put a dressing on it and was aware that something was there. RN #3 agreed and stated, This is the first time I've seen this. The RN was asked if this wound/dressing was present last Thursday when he and NP #2 made rounds and removed the brace. RN #3 stated, No, it was not there. RN #3 was asked what stage is this wound. RN #3 stated he wasn't sure, he would call NP #2 to discuss and he will then stage the wound. The resident's admission assessment dated [DATE], along with the resident's pressure ulcer assessments dated 07/06/22, 07/14/22, and 07/21/22 were all reviewed and did not identify any preexisting deep tissue injury/skin impairment to Resident #100's left lower leg. Resident #100's hospital Discharge summary dated [DATE] documented, .discharge diagnoses: Active problems: dislocation of left patella .no evidence of acute, displaced fracture .chronically unstable left patella with recurrent dislocation .continue knee immobilizer when out of bed, transferring or ambulating .Ok to WBAT (weight bear as tolerated) with knee immobilizer in place .#left lateral leg: Deep tissue injury: per wound care .Left lateral leg: 6 X 1.5 non blanchable purple hyperpigmentation consistent with medical device related deep tissue pressure injury with intact skin .anticipate this wound will continue to evolve .wound cleansed with saline and covered with mepilex dressing .wound orders .LLL (left lower leg) rinse with saline, pat dry, cover with mepilex. Change Every 72 hours .low air pressure redistribution mattress . The resident's physician's orders were reviewed from admission [DATE]) through present 07/26/22. A physician's order dated 07/13/22 (one week after admission) documented, .Patellar tracking stabilizer for left knee . There were no physician's orders for the left leg brace prior to this date and there were no orders regarding care and treatment related to donning and doffing the knee stabilizer (per the hospital discharge orders/instructions) or how to manage the immobilizer. The resident's MARs/TARs (medication administration/treatment administration records) were reviewed for the month of July 2022. There was nothing found on the MARs/TARs regarding a wound on the resident's left lower/lateral calf and there was no information regarding the full leg brace that was applied to the resident's left leg. A nursing note dated 07/07/2022 (Thursday) and timed for 3:49 PM documented, .admission Skin Assessment .Past Medical Hx .Bilateral Knee Pain, L-Patellar Dislocation .Left lateral leg deep tissue Pressure Injury .BRADEN: 15 Patient is at risk for skin breakdown .Alert and Oriented x 3 .Skin is warm to touch and noted as follows .R-Buttock Pressure Injury Stage III .L-Buttock Pressure Injury Stage II .L-Ischium pressure Injury Stage III .multiple bruises noted to Bilateral Upper and Lower extremities .Care Plan in place to promote healing and prevent additional ulceration and infection. Pressure redistribution surface to bed and wheelchair .Assist patient with ADL and transfers .signature of RN #3. A nursing note dated 7/8/2022 and timed for 7:30 AM documented, .Skilled Nursing Note .Alert oriented x 3 .Left patellar dislocation, leg in immobilizer and intact with WBAT . total assistance with ADL care done, resident is in bed .signature of LPN #7. A nursing noted dated 7/14/2022 and timed 4:33 PM documented, .Facility Wound Nurse and Wound Nurse Practitioner saw Resident for weekly skin assessment follow up with skin issues and Tx done .R-Buttock Pressure Injury Stage .L-Buttock Pressure Injury .Stage II .L-Ischium Pressure Injury Stage II .Recommendations: Heel offloading foam/boots .Offloading/turning and re-positioning .signature of RN #3. A progress note by NP #2 dated 7/14/2022 and timed 4:41 PM documented, .Medical Practitioner Note .NP .SNF [skilled nursing facility] rounds with facility Wound Nurse [RN #3] .pressure injury of bilateral buttock, and left ischium noted on admission by facility nurse . Patient sitting up in bed .pressure injury of right buttock .pressure injury of left buttock .pressure injury of left ischium .signature of NP #2. Further review of the resident's clinical records revealed a hospital PT (Physical Therapy) Reassessment Note dated 07/06/22 (date of resident's discharge from hospital to facility) documented, .PT Discharge Recommendations: SNF (skilled nursing facility) .LLE (left lower extremity) weight bearing as tolerated, knee immobilizer .orientation X 4 .Self-care management .education and coaching provided in the following areas .Donning /doffing and maintenance of knee immobilizer .bed mobility .education provided .safety precautions .donning/doffing and maintaining knee immobilizer .reinforce content .patient agreeable to goals and plan of care .PT discharge recommendations: SNF . The resident's current CCP (comprehensive care plan) was reviewed and documented, .alteration in musculoskeletal status .assist .to change position frequently .OT (Occupational Therapy) ADL (activities of daily living) training/adaptive equipment to improve self-care, home management training .safety procedures and/or instructions in use of assistive devices .resident has actual and potential for further skin breakdown .related to immobility .decrease/minimize skin breakdown risks .barrier cream .diet and supplements .reposition as needed .pressure redistributing device on bed/chair .provide preventative skin care routinely and as needed .assist as needed to turn and reposition .pressure ulcer at buttocks .pressure ulcer right buttock .pressure ulcer left buttock .pressure ulcer left ischium .administer treatment per physician's order .body audit daily . The resident's CCP did not identify and/or address any skin condition/impairment to the resident's left lower calf and the CCP did not identify and/or address anything regarding the resident's knee immobilizer/brace. The resident's progress notes were again reviewed. A nursing progress note dated 7/26/2022 and timed 1:15 PM (after the leg brace was removed) documented, .Skin .L-LE (Shin) Pressure Injury Unstageable noted during tx: sustained from Leg Immobilizer which should not be removed .impaired skin integrity measuring 6.0cm x 3.5cm x 0.0cm, 90% necrotic tissue and 10% granulation tissue, scant serous drainage noted .MD (Medical Doctor) notified .signature of RN #3. On 07/26/22 at 2:35 PM, Resident #100 was again observed laying in bed. The resident's brace was under her left leg, the brace was open (not fastened closed). The following day, 07/27/22 at 8:03 AM, Resident #100 was interviewed again. The resident was laying in bed on a specialty mattress. The resident again stated that no one at this facility had taken off the leg brace at anytime prior to yesterday. The resident stated that she did not remember anyone putting a bandage on that area and that must have been done at the hospital. The resident's leg brace was in place and was fastened, while the resident was laying in bed. Another review of the resident's progress notes revealed a progress note written by the wound NP (NP #2) dated 7/26/2022 (date of brace removal) and timed 11:04 PM which documented, .Medical Practitioner Note .chief complaint: left lower extremity (shin) pressure injury noted while in the hospital .Wound care was mepilex foam under a nonremovable splint placed for a left patellar dislocation .Patient was transferred .to the SNF .with the wound covered with a foam dressing and nonremovable splint. Splint was removed to assess wound .left lower extremity open wound (shin) 6cm x 3.5cm x <0.1cm 90% necrotic tissue / 10% granulation tissue scant serosanguinous drainage .Pressure ulcer of left lower extremity, unstageable .signature of NP #2. On 07/27/22 at 11:30 AM, the administrator and DON were made aware of concerns regarding Resident #100's leg brace not being removed for 19 days, the lack of assessment, interventions and/or treatment for the prevention of pressure ulcers and were made aware that the resident's specialty bed mattress had been unplugged for over six hours (the day prior on 07/26/22) without staff intervention to ensure the specialty mattress was on and operating correctly to aid in the prevention of pressure ulcers/skin impairments. The administrator and DON were asked for an interview with MD #1 and NP #2 (the resident's attending physician and NP provider). A policy was also requested at this time on wound care/pressure ulcer prevention and treatment. A policy was presented and reviewed. The policy titled, Skin Management Guidelines documented, .steps required for identification of patients at risk .of skin alterations, identify prevention techniques and interventions to assist with management of pressure injuries and skin alterations .skin alterations and pressure injuries are evaluated and documented by the licensed nurse .head to toe skin evaluation .Body Audits are completed by the licensed nurse daily for patients with pressure injuries and documented on the TAR .new findings documented in the progress note .Treatments as ordered by the medical provider .wound rounds completed weekly on pressure injuries and complex wounds . On 07/27/22 at 11:45 AM, MD #1 was interviewed. The MD stated that she knew the resident had the area on the left lower calf, but was under the impression that the wound nurse (RN #2)and the wound nurse practitioner (NP #2) were aware and taking care of the wound. The MD stated that she was unaware that there were no orders for care instructions for the brace/knee immobilizer care regarding donning/doffing. When asked if there should have been, the MD stated that staff should have taken the leg brace off to look at the resident's skin. The MD was made aware that the resident's leg brace had not been removed for 19 days and when it was (yesterday) the resident was found with a large, necrotic unstageable pressure ulcer. The MD stated that the resident was admitted with the knee immobilizer in place and that the wound care team are supposed to be doing body audits and skin checks daily. The MD was made aware of the serious concerns regarding Resident #100 with the lack of assessment, interventions, care and management of the resident's skin. The MD was made aware that there were no orders found anywhere that documented that the brace/knee immobilizer was not to removed or that it was to be kept in place at all times, and that it was actually documented the opposite. According to the hospital documentation the resident was only to wear the brace/knee immobilizer when out of bed, transferring or ambulating and that it was ok to WBAT (weight bear as tolerated) with the knee immobilizer in place; there was no documentation/orders to leave this brace on at all times or that this was a non removable brace. The MD was asked how would you evaluate a resident's skin if you didn't take off a brace to look at the skin. The MD stated that you would have to take it off to do skin assessments. The MD was made aware that as a result of facility staff not removing the brace (19 days), and not implementing the orders/instructions from the hospital (or obtaining orders) for the leg brace and/or for wound care/treatment and/or prevention that harm had actually occurred for this resident. The MD stated, I fully agree with you. A phone interview was attempted with the wound NP (NP #2) numerous times without success, response and/or comment. On 07/27/22 at 12:00 PM, the administrator and DON (director of nursing) were made aware of the above concerns in a meeting with the survey team. The administrator and DON were made aware of the serious concerns related to Resident #100 regarding the lack of assessment, care, treatment and interventions for the prevention of an unstageable pressure ulcer. The facility staff were made aware of actual harm at this time related to Resident #100. The DON stated that it was a nonremovable brace. The DON and administrator were asked for any additional information and/or documentation to evidence that claim, as the resident's entire clinical records were reviewed and there was no documentation found to evidence that the resident's brace was non removable. On 07/27/22 at 2:15 PM, the DON stated, Regardless it's always going to be there, she's had it for a long time, there was nothing we could do about it. The National Pressure Injury Advisory Panel defines an unstageable pressure injury as, .Unstageable Pressure Injury: Obscured full-thickness skin and tissue loss Full-thickness skin and tissue loss in which the extent of tissue damage within the ulcer cannot be confirmed because it is obscured by slough or eschar. If slough or eschar is removed, a Stage 3 or Stage 4 pressure injury will be revealed .(1). No further information and/or documentation was presented prior to the exit conference on 07/27/22 at 5:15 PM to evidence that the facility staff provided the resident with care and necessary treatment services, to promote healing of existing skin impairment and/or prevent new ulcers from developing. (1) NPIAP Pressure Injury Stages. National Pressure Injury Advisory Panel. 7/29/22. https://npiap.com/page/PressureInjuryStages 2. Resident #115 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included adult failure to thrive, kidney failure, gastroenteritis, Parkinson's disease, anemia, history of bladder cancer, pancreatitis, gastroesophageal reflux disease, compression fractures, obstructive uropathy and pressure ulcer with MRSA (methicillin resistant staphylococcus aureus) infection. The minimum data set (MDS) dated [DATE] assessed Resident #115 with severely impaired cognitive skills. On 7/26/22 at 11:34 a.m., Resident #115 was observed in bed. There was a control box on the bed footboard for an alternating pressure mattress. The air mattress control box was unplugged and not functioning. On 7/26/22 at 2:00 p.m., Resident #115 was observed in bed. The air mattress control box was observed unplugged and non-functioning. On 7/26/22 at 5:00 p.m., accompanied by registered nurse (RN #4) caring for Resident #115, the air mattress and control box were observed. The air mattress was unplugged and not functioning at the time of this observation. RN #4 was interviewed at this time about the air mattress. RN #4 stated the resident had a pressure ulcer on his buttock RN #4 stated the air mattress was for pressure relief and was supposed to be remain plugged in and functioning. RN #4 stated she did not know why the air mattress was unplugged. On 7/27/22 at 9:49 a.m., the licensed practical nurse unit manager (LPN #4) was interviewed about Resident #115's air mattress not plugged in and functioning on 7/26/22. LPN #4 stated the air mattress was to help with pressure relief and healing of the resident's pressure ulcer. LPN #4 stated nurses were supposed to check the functioning of the air mattress during each shift and observe for function whenever they were in the resident's room. Resident #115's clinical record documented the resident was admitted to the facility with a MRSA infected right buttock pressure ulcer. The most recent wound assessment dated [DATE] and listed the resident had a stage 3 pressure ulcer on the right buttock measuring 5.0 x 2.0 x 0.2 (length by width by depth in centimeters). Resident #115's plan of care (revised 6/30/22) documented the resident had a right buttock pressure ulcer due to impaired mobility. Interventions to promote healing included, .Pressure redistributing support surface . The National Pressure Injury Advisory Panel defines a stage 3 pressure injury as, Full-thickness loss of skin, in which adipose (fat) is visible in the ulcer and granulation tissue and epibole (rolled wound edges) are often present. Slough and/or eschar may be visible. The depth of tissue damage varies by anatomical location; areas of significant adiposity can develop deep wounds. Undermining and tunneling may occur . (1) This finding was reviewed with the administrator and director of nursing during a meeting on 7/27/22 at 12:10 p.m. (1) NPIAP Pressure Injury Stages. National Pressure Injury Advisory Panel. 7/29/22. https://npiap.com/page/PressureInjuryStages
CONCERN (D)

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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interview and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to promote dignity for one of twenty...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interview and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to promote dignity for one of twenty-nine residents in the survey sample. Resident #115 was left in a soiled gown for over two hours and had no personal clothing to wear. The findings include: Resident #115 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included adult failure to thrive, kidney failure, gastroenteritis, Parkinson's disease, anemia, history of bladder cancer, pancreatitis, gastroesophageal reflux disease, compression fractures, obstructive uropathy and pressure ulcer with MRSA (methicillin resistant staphylococcus aureus) infection. The minimum data set (MDS) dated [DATE] assessed Resident #115 with severely impaired cognitive skills and as requiring extensive assistance of one person for dressing and hygiene. On 7/26/22 at 11:34 a.m., Resident #115 was observed in bed feeding himself from a breakfast tray. The resident was wearing a hospital gown with a brown, liquid stain across the entire left chest section of the gown. On 7/26/22 at 2:00 p.m., Resident #115 was observed in bed feeding himself lunch. The resident had on the same hospital gown with a brown liquid stain across the left upper chest section of the gown. On 7/26/22 at 2:10 p.m., the certified nurses' aide (CNA #3) caring for Resident #115 was interviewed about the resident's soiled gown and clothing. CNA #3 stated she had cleaned the resident earlier this morning before breakfast. CNA #3 stated she did not serve the resident his breakfast tray or lunch tray and did not know his gown was soiled. When asked why the resident was wearing a hospital gown, CNA #3 stated the resident had no personal clothing to wear so she dressed the resident with a hospital gown. CNA #3 stated she did not know why the resident had no clothing. On 7/26/22 at 3:18 p.m., the social worker (other staff #3) assigned to Resident #115 was interviewed about the resident's clothing. The social worker stated she was not aware the resident had no personal clothing. On 7/27/22 at 9:00 a.m., the social worker stated she checked the resident's closet and he had only one outfit that included a sweatshirt and one pair of pants. The social worker stated this outfit may have been in the laundry on 7/26/22. The social worker stated she thought the resident had clothes but did not know he had only one outfit. The social worker stated the resident had been in the facility for over a month and there had been a previous care plan meeting but nobody mentioned any issues with clothing. On 7/27/22 at 9:45 a.m., the licensed practical nurse unit manager (LPN #4) was interviewed about Resident #115 left in a soiled gown and with no personal clothing. LPN #4 stated the gown should have been changed when soiled. LPN #4 stated the resident's spouse was involved with his care and he was not aware the resident had no personal clothing. Resident #115's clinical record documented a care plan conference was held on 6/30/22 with attendance by dietary, nursing and social services. The care plan note dated 6/30/22 made no mention of any issues with personal clothing and documented, .No significant changes in activities of daily living at this time . These findings were reviewed with the administrator and director of nursing during a meeting on 7/27/22 at 12:10 p.m.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0582 (Tag F0582)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on staff interview, clinical record review and facility document review, the facility staff failed to ensure two of three randomly selected residents (Resident #268 and #269), were issued a NOMN...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on staff interview, clinical record review and facility document review, the facility staff failed to ensure two of three randomly selected residents (Resident #268 and #269), were issued a NOMNC (notice of medicare non coverage) prior to discharge and failed to ensure one of three residents (Resident #270) was issued an ABN (advance beneficiary notice). Findings include: On 07/26/22 at approximately 8:00 a.m., during the entrance conference with the DON (director of nursing), the entrance conference worksheet for beneficiary notices (residents discharged within the last six months) was presented for completion. On 07/26/22 at approximately 1:00 PM, the administrator returned the completed worksheets. Three resident names were then selected randomly. The worksheets were returned to the administrator, along with three separate SNF beneficiary protection notification review forms for the three selected residents. The above information was completed and returned. Upon review, all three randomly selected residents did not have evidence of being issued the required NOMNC/ABN. Resident #268 and #269 should have been issued a NOMNC and Resident #270 should have been issued and ABN. When asked where was the required information/documentation to evidence that the appropriate beneficiary protection notices were issued for the three selected residents, the administrator stated it wasn't done. The DON stated that SW (social work) department completes these. At approximately 12:00 noon, the SW came and stated that these were not done or that she could not locate the information to evidence that they were done and stated she wasn't sure why. On 07/27/22 at approximately 12:30 PM, in a meeting with the survey team, the administrator again stated that they had not been completed for these residents. No further information and/or documentation was presented prior to the exit conference to evidence that that the three randomly selected residents were provided the required NOMNC/ABN beneficiary protection notifications.
CONCERN (D)

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations, clinical record review, and resident interview, the facility failed for one of 14 residents in the survey sample (Resident # 114) to ensure the resident had a clean, comfortable...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, clinical record review, and resident interview, the facility failed for one of 14 residents in the survey sample (Resident # 114) to ensure the resident had a clean, comfortable, and homelike environment. The toilet in the resident's room did not flush, the bath tub was dirty, and a paper towel dispenser was dirty. The findings were: Resident # 114 in the survey sample was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included insomnia, morbid obesity, post-traumatic stress disorder, chronic pain syndrome, chronic atrophic gastritis, epilepsy, major depressive disorder, hypertension, chronic migraine without aura, chronic kidney disease, gastroesophageal reflux disease, adjustment disorder with anxiety, thrombocytosis, delusional disorders, vitamin D deficiency, syncope and collapse. According to an admission nursing assessment, the resident was found to be oriented to situation, person, place, and time. NOTE: At the time of the survey, it was Resident # 114's third day in the facility. At 8:15 a.m. on 9/28/2022, an interview was conducted with the resident. During the interview, the resident stood up, walked to the small bathroom in her room and said, Come look at this. The bathroom consisted of a commode and a bath tub. The lid on the commode water tank was slightly ajar, and there were several rolls of toilet paper on the lid. There was a piece of toilet paper in the toilet bowl. Watch this, the resident said. Resident # 114 pushed the handle on the water tank down to flush the commode, but nothing happened. The resident jiggled the handle several times and attempted to flush the toilet again, but it would not flush. Resident # 114 then said, Look at the bath tub. The bath tub had a large, brown stain on the bottom of the tub. There was also several pieces of black debris on the bottom of the tub. Now look at this, the resident said, pointing to a paper towel dispenser hanging on the wall next to a small handwashing sink in an area adjacent to the bathroom. The paper towel dispenser was covered with splatters of an unknown substance on the side facing the room and on the front of the dispenser. Resident # 114 pointed to the heating/airconditioning unit, which was running and blowing warm air. I asked the nurse to turn it off, but she didn't know how to turn it off. No one knows how to turn it off. The resident then said, I asked for a pair of socks, and this is what they gave me. The resident held up a pair of used, non-skid slipper socks. I wanted a new pair, the resident said. But they told me these were clean, that they came from the laundry. At the time of the interview, the resident was not wearing any socks. The findings were discussed during a meeting at 10:00 a.m. on 9/28/2022, that included the Director of Nursing, two administrators from sister facilities, and the survey team.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0635 (Tag F0635)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on resident interview, staff interview and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to ensure one of 29 residents...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on resident interview, staff interview and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to ensure one of 29 residents (Resident #100) had physician's orders upon admission, for the immediate care and treatment of a full leg brace and for a deep tissue injury to the resident's left leg. Findings include: Resident #100's diagnoses included, but were not limited to: lung cancer, COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease), anemia, lateral dislocation of left patella, spinal stenosis, high blood pressure, dependence on oxygen, and depression. The most recent MDS was an admission assessment dated [DATE]. This MDS assessed the resident with a cognitive score of 13, indicating the resident was intact for daily decision making skills. The resident was also assessed as requiring extensive assistance from at least one or two staff members for transfers, bed mobility, dressing, toileting and hygiene. The resident was assessed as requiring total assistance for bathing. This MDS documented and assessed the resident as non ambulatory during the look back period. The resident's hospital Discharge summary dated [DATE] (date of admission to facility) documented, .discharge diagnoses: Active problems: dislocation of left patella .no evidence of acute, displaced fracture .chronically unstable left patella with recurrent dislocation .continue knee immobilizer when out of bed, transferring or ambulating .Ok to WBAT (weight bear as tolerated) with knee immobilizer in place .#left lateral leg: Deep tissue injury: per wound .Left lateral leg: 6 X 1.5 non blanchable purple hyperpigmentation consistent with medical device related deep tissue pressure injury with intact skin .anticipate this wound will continue to evolve .wound cleansed with saline and covered with mepilex dressing .LLL (left lower leg) .rinse with saline, pat dry, cover with mepilex. Change Every 72 hours .low air pressure redistribution mattress . The resident's current physician's orders were reviewed and revealed an order dated 7/13/22, for .Patellar tracking stabilizer for left knee . There were no physician's found for a brace/knee immobilizer on admission [DATE]) for Resident #100. There were no orders at all regarding care and treatment related to donning and doffing the knee stabilizer for the order written on 07/13/22 and there were no immediate care orders (other than hospital discharge orders/instructions) for the deep tissue injury to the resident's left lower leg. The resident's MARs/TARs (medication administration/treatment administration records) were reviewed for the month of July 2022. There was nothing found on the MARs/TARs regarding the resident's left leg brace/knee immobilizer and/or the resident's deep tissue injury on the left lower leg. The resident's CCP (comprehensive care plan) was reviewed and documented, .alteration in musculoskeletal status .assist .to change position frequently .OT (Occupational Therapy) ADL (activities of daily living) training/adaptive equipment to improve self-care, home management training .safety procedures and/or instructions in use of assistive devices . reposition as needed; use assistive devices as needed .pressure redistributing device on bed/chair .provide preventative skin care routinely and as needed .assist as needed to turn and reposition .body audit daily .pressure redistributing support surface .repositioning during ADL's . The resident's CCP did not identify and/or address any type of brace/knee immobilizer or a deep tissue injury for Resident #100. On 07/26/22 at 10:30 AM, Resident #100 was interviewed. The resident was laying in bed. The resident had a sheet partially over her body. A full leg brace was observed on the resident's left leg (top of thigh down to, just slightly above the resident's ankle). The resident was asked if the facility staff remove the leg brace to check the skin under the brace. The resident stated that no one had taken the brace off since she had arrived at the facility. The resident stated, she came to this facility with the full leg brace on from the hospital and that it has been in place since. At 11:56 AM, RN #3 (wound care nurse) stated that the resident's brace comes off daily during care. RN #3 stated that he and the NP (wound nurse practitioner) #2 do wound assessments/body audits weekly on Thursday and that they had seen the resident last Thursday and removed the brace and checked the residents skin. The RN was made aware that there were no orders for the brace as far as any type of direction/instruction and/or schedule for donning/doffing the resident's left leg brace. The brace was then removed by RN #3 from the resident's left leg. A dressing was observed on the resident's left, lower calf area. This dressing had been hidden by the resident's full leg brace. The dressing was not dated. RN #3 stated, What's this? (in regards to the dressing). The dressing was approximately a 4x4, square bordered dressing located on the resident's lower left lateral/outer calf area. RN #3 removed the dressing. The wound was observed with a large amount of black, minimal slough and minimal granulation tissue. RN #3 stated, That's just an abrasion. The RN was asked if he was going to do measurements and stage the wound. The RN measured the wound (6.0 cm x 3 cm). RN #3 stated, This is new. The RN was asked, how could it be new if there is a dressing on it, someone had to put a dressing on it and knew that something was there. RN #3 agreed and stated, This is the first time I've seen this. The RN was asked if this wound/dressing was present last Thursday when he and NP #2 made rounds and removed the brace. RN #3 stated, No, it was not there. RN #3 was asked what stage is this wound. RN #3 stated he wasn't sure, he would call NP #2 to discuss and he will then stage the wound. A nursing note dated 7/26/2022 and timed 1:15 PM documented, .Skin .L-LE (Shin) Pressure Injury Unstageable noted during tx: sustained from Leg Immobilizer which should not be removed .impaired skin integrity measuring 6.0cm x 3.5cm x 0.0cm, 90% necrotic tissue and 10% granulation tissue, scant serous drainage noted. No c/o of pain and distress during wound care .MD (Medical Doctor) notified and ordered to be cleansed by NSS [normal saline solution], pat dry and apply Optifoam Dressing QD [every day] .signature of RN #3. A progress note by NP #2 dated 7/26/2022 and timed 11:04 PM documented, .Medical Practitioner Note .chief complaint: left lower extremity (shin) pressure injury noted while in the hospital .Wound care was mepilex foam under a nonremovable splint placed for a left patellar dislocation .Patient was transferred .to the SNF [skilled nursing facility] .with the wound covered with a foam dressing and nonremovable splint. Splint was removed to assess wound .left lower extremity open wound (shin) 6cm x 3.5cm x <0.1cm 90% necrotic tissue / 10% granulation tissue Scant serosanguinous drainage .Pressure ulcer of left lower extremity, unstageable .signature of NP #2. On 07/27/22 at 11:30 AM, the administrator and DON were asked for the phone numbers of MD #1 and NP #2 (the resident's attending physician and NP provider). A policy was also requested at this time on wound care/pressure ulcer prevention and treatment. A policy was presented and reviewed. The policy titled, Skin Management Guidelines documented, .steps required for identification of patients at risk .of skin alterations, identify prevention techniques and interventions to assist with management of pressure injuries and skin alterations .skin alterations and pressure injuries are evaluated and documented by the licensed nurse .using the admission .evaluation .with head to toe skin evaluation .Body Audits are completed by the licensed nurse daily for patients with pressure injuries and documented on the TAR .new findings documented in the progress note .Treatments as ordered by the medical provider .wound rounds completed weekly on pressure injuries and complex wounds . On 07/27/22 at 11:45 AM, MD #1 was interviewed. The MD stated that she knew the resident had the area on the left lower calf (as she had wrote it in her admission note), but was under the impression that the wound nurse (RN #2) and the wound nurse practitioner (NP #2) were aware and taking care of the wound. The MD stated that she was unaware that there was not an order for the brace on admission with instructions for donning/doffing of the knee immobilizer. The MD was made aware that an order was found to order for the brace on 07/13/22. The MD was unsure as to why there were no orders for the deep tissue injury care and treatment (per hospital discharge orders/instructions) and/or why there were no orders regarding the brace/knee immobilizer and/or instructions for donning/doffing. When asked if there should have been, the MD stated there should have been orders and staff should have taken the leg brace off periodically to look at the resident's skin. The MD stated that the resident was admitted with the knee immobilizer and had it upon admission and was not sure about the order on 07/13/22. The MD stated that the wound care team are supposed to be doing body audits and skin checks. The MD was made aware of the serious concerns regarding Resident #100 and the unstageable pressure ulcer found on her left lower calf on 07/26/22 (the day before) that was measured at 6 cm x 3.5cm x <0.1cm 90% necrotic tissue / 10% granulation tissue with scant serosanguinous drainage. The MD was made aware that there were no orders/progress notes, etc. found anywhere that documented that this brace/knee immobilizer for Resident #100 was not supposed to be removed and/or that it was to be kept in place at all times. The MD was asked how would you evaluate a resident's skin if you don't take off a brace. The MD stated that you would have to take it off. The MD was made aware that as a result of facility staff not obtaining physician orders for immediate care and treatment of a resident with a deep tissue injury and brace/knee immobilizer (donning/doffing orders) and/or interventions implemented, the resident suffered actual harm as a result. The MD stated, I fully agree with you. A phone interview was attempted with NP #2 numerous times without success, no response or comment. On 07/27/22 at 12:00 PM, in a meeting with the survey team, the administrator and DON (director of nursing) were made aware of the above information. The administrator and DON were made aware of the serious concerns regarding Resident #100 not having immediate care orders for a brace/knee immobilizer (donning/doffing schedule) and/or not having immediate orders for the care and treatment of a deep tissue injury that subsequently progressed to an unstageable pressure ulcer as a result. The administrator and DON were made aware that the hospital discharge orders/instructions had specific orders in place for the above concerns for Resident #100, but upon admission to this facility the orders were not followed/obtained and no interventions were implemented by the facility and the resident was harmed as a result. On 07/27/22 at 2:15 PM, the DON stated, Regardless it's [pressure area] always going to be there, she's had it for a long time, nothing we could do. The DON was made aware that were no orders found anywhere to evidence that the resident's brace was not to be removed and that the hospital discharge orders/instructions gave specific orders for care upon discharge to the this facility and that this facility failed to provide care and treatment for the prevention/treatment of pressure ulcers. No further information and/or documentation was presented prior to the exit conference on 07/27/22 at 5:15 PM to evidence that the facility staff initiated immediate care orders for Resident #100 regarding the use of a leg brace/knee immobilizer or for the care and treatment of a deep tissue injury.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0645 (Tag F0645)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident #84 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included schizophreniform disorder, insomnia, type 2 diabetes, ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident #84 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included schizophreniform disorder, insomnia, type 2 diabetes, sleep apnea, hypertension, COPD, GERD, and tracheotomy. The most recent minimum data set (MDS) dated [DATE] was the annual assessment and assessed Resident #84 as cognitively intact for daily decision making with a score of 15 out 15. The MDS documented Resident #84 reported having auditory hallucinations. Under Section I - Psychiatric/Mood Disorders, the MDS documented Resident #84 with the diagnosis of schizophrenia. Resident #84 triggered in the care area assessment summary (CAAS) section of the MDS for visual, urinary incontinence, mood, falls, nutritional, pressure and psychotropic drugs. Resident #84 triggered for No PASARR II with diagnoses in the resident's care area of the long-term care software program (LTCSP). Resident #84's clinical record was reviewed on 07/27/2022. Observed on the order summary report were the following medications: Abilify Tablet 30 mg. Give 1 tablet by mouth one time a day for Schizophrenia. Order Date: 06/03/2021 and Risperdal Tablet 0.5 mg. Give 1 tablet by mouth at bedtime for mood related to Schizophrenia. Order Date: 11/14/2021. Resident #84's care plans included a focus area for Schizophreniform Disorder and included goals and interventions related to this area. During clinical record review for Resident #84, no preadmission screening and resident review (PASARR I or II) could be located. On 07/27/2022 at 12:00 p.m. during a meeting with the administrator and DON, the facility staff were asked to provide a copy of Resident #84's PASARR. On 07/27/2022 at 3:35 p.m., the DON stated the facility could not locate the a PASARR for Resident #84. On 07/27/2022 during the exit conference, the administrator stated the facility was still under the COVID 19 waivers until September 2022 and the PASARR was not required. The administrator was advised Resident #84 had been a resident of the facility since 2009 and was readmitted in 2021. No additional information was provided to the survey team prior to exit on 07/27/2022 at 5:15 p.m. Based on staff interview and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to ensure a Level I PASRR (preadmission screening and resident review) was completed upon admission for two of 29 residents, Resident #66 and Resident #84. Findings include: 1. Diagnoses for Resident #66 included: Unspecified psychosis, senile degeneration, and cerebral athrosclerosis. The most current MDS (minimum data set) was an annual assessment with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 6/15/22. Resident #66's cognitive score was a 12 indicating cognitively intact. admission date 6/8/21. In Section A1510. Level II Preadmission Screening and Resident Review [PASRR] of the current MDS was blank; none had been marked. In Section I. Active Diagnoses, Resident #66 was assessed as having psychotic disorder. During the LTCSP [long term care survey process] review for Resident #66 on 7/26/22, the resident triggered for 'no PASRR level II with a diagnosis'. On 7/26/22 Resident #66's clinical records were reviewed. Resident #66 had an active diagnosis of unspecified psychosis and was receiving medication for the diagnoses. Resident #66's clinical record also did not evidence documentation that a level 1 PASRR was completed. On 7/26/22 at 11:51 AM two social workers (other staff, OS #3 and #4) were interviewed regarding Resident #66's PASSR. OS #3 reviewed the electronic chart was was unable to find documentation of a PASSR. OS #4 verbalized she would review the paper chart. On 7/26/22 at 12:14 PM OS #4 verbalized (after reviewing the chart) the level 1 PASSR was never completed. On 7/27/22 at 12:20 PM the above finding was presented to the director of nursing and administrator. On 7/27/22 at 5:00 PM during exit conference, the administrator verbalized there was a waiver for exemption of PASSR's. The wavier was not presented to the survey team during the survey. No other information was provided prior to exit conference.
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on resident interview, staff interview and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to develop a CCP (comprehensi...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on resident interview, staff interview and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to develop a CCP (comprehensive care plan) for one of 29 residents (Resident #100) regarding a leg brace/knee immobilizer and/or deep tissue injury. Findings include: Resident #100's diagnoses included, but were not limited to: lung cancer, COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease), anemia, lateral dislocation of left patella, spinal stenosis, high blood pressure, dependence on oxygen, and depression. The most recent MDS was an admission assessment dated [DATE]. This MDS assessed the resident with a cognitive score of 13, indicating the resident was intact for daily decision making skills. The resident was also assessed as requiring extensive assistance from at least one or two staff members for transfers, bed mobility, dressing, toileting and hygiene. The resident was assessed as requiring total assistance for bathing. This MDS documented and assessed the resident as non ambulatory during the look back period. The resident's hospital Discharge summary dated [DATE] (date of admission to facility) documented, .discharge diagnoses: Active problems: dislocation of left patella .no evidence of acute, displaced fracture .chronically unstable left patella with recurrent dislocation .continue knee immobilizer when out of bed, transferring or ambulating .Ok to WBAT (weight bear as tolerated) with knee immobilizer in place .#left lateral leg: Deep tissue injury: per wound .Left lateral leg: 6 X 1.5 non blanchable purple hyperpigmentation consistent with medical device related deep tissue pressure injury with intact skin .anticipate this wound will continue to evolve .wound cleansed with saline and covered with mepilex dressing .LLL (left lower leg) .rinse with saline, pat dry, cover with mepilex. Change Every 72 hours .low air pressure redistribution mattress . The resident's current physician's orders were reviewed and revealed an order dated 7/13/22, for .Patellar tracking stabilizer for left knee . There were no physician's found for a brace/knee immobilizer on admission [DATE]) for Resident #100. There were no orders at all regarding care and treatment related to donning and doffing the knee stabilizer for the order written on 07/13/22 and there were no immediate care orders (other than hospital discharge orders/instructions) for the deep tissue injury to the resident's left lower leg. The resident's CCP (comprehensive care plan) was reviewed and documented, .alteration in musculoskeletal status .assist .to change position frequently .OT (Occupational Therapy) ADL (activities of daily living) training/adaptive equipment to improve self-care, home management training .safety procedures and/or instructions in use of assistive devices . reposition as needed; use assistive devices as needed .pressure redistributing device on bed/chair .provide preventative skin care routinely and as needed .assist as needed to turn and reposition .body audit daily .pressure redistributing support surface .repositioning during ADL's . The resident's CCP did not identify and/or address any type of brace/knee immobilizer or a deep tissue injury for Resident #100. On 07/26/22 at 10:30 AM, Resident #100 was interviewed. The resident was laying in bed. The resident had a sheet partially over her body. A full leg brace was observed on the resident's left leg (top of thigh down to, just slightly above the resident's ankle). The resident was asked if the facility staff remove the leg brace to check the skin under the brace. The resident stated that no one had taken the brace off since she had arrived at the facility. The resident stated, she came to this facility with the full leg brace on from the hospital and that it has been in place since. A nursing note dated 07/07/2022 (Thursday) and timed for 3:49 PM documented, .admission Skin Assessment .Past Medical Hx .Bilateral Knee Pain, L-Patellar Dislocation .Left lateral leg deep tissue Pressure Injury .BRADEN: 15 Patient is at risk for skin breakdown .Alert and Oriented x 3 .Skin is warm to touch and noted as follows .R-Buttock Pressure Injury Stage III .L-Buttock Pressure Injury Stage II .L-Ischium pressure Injury Stage III .multiple bruises noted to Bilateral Upper and Lower extremities .Care Plan in place to promote healing and prevent additional ulceration and infection. Pressure redistribution surface to bed and wheelchair .Assist patient with ADL and transfers .signature of RN #3. On 07/27/22 at 11:30 AM, the administrator and DON were made aware that the resident did not have a current CCP for the resident's leg brace and did not have any information regarding a deep tissue injury for Resident #100's left lower leg. A policy was presented and reviewed. The policy titled, Skin Management Guidelines documented, .steps required for identification of patients at risk .of skin alterations, identify prevention techniques and interventions to assist with management of pressure injuries and skin alterations .skin alterations and pressure injuries are evaluated and documented by the licensed nurse .using the admission .evaluation .with head to toe skin evaluation .Body Audits are completed by the licensed nurse daily for patients with pressure injuries and documented on the TAR .new findings documented in the progress note .Treatments as ordered by the medical provider .wound rounds completed weekly on pressure injuries and complex wounds . No further information and/or documentation was presented prior to the exit conference on 07/27/22 at 5:15 PM to evidence that a CCP had been developed for Resident #100 for the use of a leg brace/knee immobilizer and/or deep tissue injury.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on clinical record review and staff interview, the facility failed for one of 29 residents in the survey sample, Resident # 15, to review and revise the resident's plan of care. Resident # 15's ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on clinical record review and staff interview, the facility failed for one of 29 residents in the survey sample, Resident # 15, to review and revise the resident's plan of care. Resident # 15's care plan for Foley catheter care was not revised following the discontinuation of the catheter. The findings were: Resident # 15 in the survey sample was admitted with diagnoses that included cerebral infarction, cerebrovascular disease, right side hemiplegia, type 2 diabetes mellitus, anemia, schizophrenia, dysphagia, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, depression, aphasia, urinary retention, acute respiratory failure with hypoxia, metabolic encephalopathy, and generalized muscle weakness. According to an readmission Minimum Data Set with an Assessment Reference Date of 4/28/2022, the resident was assessed under Section C (Cognitive Patterns) as being cognitively intact, with a Summary Score of 13 out of 15. Under Section H (Bladder and Bowel), the resident was assessed as having an indwelling catheter. Resident # 15's care plan, created on 4/22/2022, included the following focus (problem), Use of indwelling urinary catheter needed due to obstruction. Review of the Progress Notes in the resident's Electronic Health Record revealed the following entries: 4/28/2022 - General Progress Note - Patient's Foley catheter was removed without difficulty. Patient informed to call staff when she needs to use the bathroom. She is informed Foley will be reinserted after 8 hours if she does not void. 4/29/2022 - General Progress Note - Bladder scan was negative for retention, 0 - 20cc (cubic centimeters). No bladder tenderness or distention day 1 post Foley removal. She is incontinent for large amount of urine. 4/30/2022 - General Progress Note - .She is day 2 post Foley removal and incontinent for large amount of yellow urine. Bladder scan is negative for residual post void At 2:20 p.m. on 7/27/2022, the Director of Nursing (DON) was asked what her expectation was regarding care plan revisions due to a change in a resident's circumstances. The DON said the care plan should be updated as changes occur.
CONCERN (D)

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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, resident interview, staff interview, and clinical record review, the facility failed to ensure showers wer...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, resident interview, staff interview, and clinical record review, the facility failed to ensure showers were being offered or provided for one of 29 resident's in the survey sample. Resident #322 was not offered a shower. The Findings Include: Diagnoses for Resident #322 included: Prostate Cancer, fractured right hip, chronic kidney disease, hematuria, and diabetes. The most current MDS (minimum data set) was an admission assessment with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 7/22/22. Resident #322's cognitive score was a 15 indicating cognitively intact. On 07/26/22 at 9:05 AM during an interview, Resident #322 was asked if he was receiving baths or showers. Resident #322 responded that he had not had a shower or bath since being admitted (admitted [DATE]) and was unaware that he was allowed to take a shower but would love to get a shower. Resident #322 did not have odor but did have a overgrowth of facial hair. On 7/26/22, review of Resident #322's clinical record documented in section G of the current MDS, Resident #322 needed physical assistance with 1 person assist for bathing. The clinical record also documented Resident #322 is scheduled showers/baths on Mondays and Thursdays on day shift. Review of Resident #322's ADL (Activity of Daily Living) shower/bathing tool, documented Resident #322 received a shower on 7/18/22 and bed baths on 7/21/22 and 7/25/22. There were no documentation on the ADL tool of showers or baths being refused. On 07/27/22 at 9:31 AM Resident #322 was again asked about receiving showers. Resident #322 verbalized he had not been offered a shower or received a shower since being at the facility and would like to take a shower and get shaved. On 07/27/22 at 9:51 AM, certified nursing assistant (CNA #1, the CNA assigned to give Resident #322 a shower on 7/21/22 and 7/25/22 but gave bed baths) was interviewed. CNA #1 said Resident #322 refused to take showers. At this time the surveyor asked Resident #322 if he had been refusing showers (CNA #1 had followed the surveyor into the Resident's room). Resident #322 verbalized that he had not been refusing showers and had not received a shower. CNA #1 then verbalized to Resident #322 he had been getting bed baths because he didn't want a shower. Resident #322 then told CNA #1 that he had not been offered a shower and had not refused a shower. Resident #322's chart was again reviewed for documentation of refusal of showers. There was no evidence that showers or baths were being refused. On 7/27/22 at 12:20 PM the above finding was presented to the director of nursing and administrator. No other information was provided prior to exit conference.
CONCERN (D)

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

Unnecessary Medications (Tag F0759)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on a medication pass and pour observation, staff interview, clinical record review and facility document review, the facil...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on a medication pass and pour observation, staff interview, clinical record review and facility document review, the facility staff failed to ensure a medication error rate of less than 5 percent. The facility had three errors out of twenty-eight opportunities, which resulted in a medication error rate of 10.7 percent. Findings include: 1. A medication pass and pour observation was conducted with RN (Registered Nurse) #3 on 09/27/22 at approximately 8:45 AM. RN #3 prepared medications for Resident #113. The RN began to prepare medications for Resident #113. The RN stated that the medication 'duloxetine 60 mg (milligrams) daily' was not going to be administered to the resident due to the medication not being on the medication cart. The RN looked at the EMAR (electronic medication administration record) and stated that the medication was ordered yesterday and that she would call the physician to notify that the medication was unavailable and notify the pharmacy to get the medication. The RN prepared 11 (eleven) separate medications. Ten of the medications were in pill form and one medication was a powder to be mixed with liquid and taken orally. The pill form medications were counted and confirmed with the nurse that 11 pills were being administered. A medication reconciliation was completed on 09/27/22 at approximately 10:00 AM. The resident had a physician's order for, but not limited to: .Lamictal 25 mg Give 1 tablet by mouth two times a day for bipolar Duloxetine capsule delayed release 60 mg Give 1 capsule by mouth one time a day for depression . The nurse did not administer the Lamictal 25 mg or the duloxetine 60 mg during the medication pass and pour observation. The resident's EMAR's were then reviewed, both medications were listed to be administered at 8:00 AM. The two medications listed above were not signed off as administered. RN #1 was interviewed on 09/27/22 at 12:30 AM. The RN stated that she thought she had given the Lamictal, but could not be sure. The RN was made aware of the pill count conducted and that 11 pills were counted and that Lamictal was not a medication written down as administered. The empty medication packages were also reviewed and did not evidence that the Lamictal had been administered. The RN stated that she called the pharmacy about the duloxetine and stated that medication was actually here at the facility and that she (RN #3) had located it later and administered the medication to the resident at approximately 11:30 or 12:00 (today). The RN stated that she knew the duloxetine medication was late, but she had called the physician and got a one time order to give it at the time she administered it. The RN was made aware that none of the medications administered during the medication pass and pour observation had been signed off as administered. The RN stated that she was backed up. The resident's physician's orders were reviewed again and there was no 'one time' order found for the duloxetine. A policy was requested on medication administration at approximately 4:15 PM. The policy documented, .To promote a culture of safety and prevent medication errors, nurses must adhere to the rights of medication administration .right medication, give the right dose, give the medication at the right time .and provide the right documentation .medication error refers to a mistake that occurs during the medication administration process .be sure to administer medications daily .medications within 2 hours of the scheduled administration time .document all medications that you administered in the resident's MAR or EMAR. If you didn't administer a medication, document the reason why, any interventions that you performed, and the resident's response to those interventions . The DON (director of nursing) and the director of clinical services and corporate nurse were made aware in a meeting with the survey team on 09/28/22. No further information and/or documentation was provided prior to the exit conference on 09/28/22. 2. A medication pass observation was conducted on 9/28/22 at 7:30 a.m. with licensed practical nurse (LPN) #2 administering medications to Resident #112. LPN #2 was observed preparing and administering the following medications to Resident #112: docusate sodium 100 mg (milligrams), fluticasone propionate 50 mcg (micrograms) one spray each nostril, lasix 20 mg, potassium chloride 10 milliequivalents, lidocaine 5% topical patch to right knee and acetaminophen 650 mg. With the administration of the oral medications, Resident #112 stated she did not see her lisinopril and that was usually included in her morning medications. LPN #2 reviewed the electronic health record and stated she had omitted the lisinopril. Resident #112 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included cerebral palsy, hypertension, hyperlipidemia and right knee effusion. The minimum data set (MDS) dated [DATE] assessed Resident #112 as cognitively intact. Resident #112's clinical record documented a physician's order dated 8/12/22 for lisinopril 20 mg once per day for treatment of hypertension. The lisinopril was scheduled to be given along with the other medicines during the morning medication pass. On 9/28/22 at 7:50 a.m., LPN #2 was interviewed about the omitted lisinopril for Resident #112. LPN #2 stated she was starting the medication pass early and the early medications were not yet highlighted on the computer screen. Regarding the lisinopril, LPN #2 stated, I just missed it. This finding was reviewed with the director of nursing and assisting administrator during a meeting on 9/28/22 at 9:50 a.m. The administrator was on leave and not present during the survey.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation and staff interview the facility staff failed to ensure expired medications were not readily available for distribution on 1 of 4 med carts reviewed and 1 of 4 med rooms reviewed....

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and staff interview the facility staff failed to ensure expired medications were not readily available for distribution on 1 of 4 med carts reviewed and 1 of 4 med rooms reviewed. Observed on the 3W (3 West) medication cart was one opened bottle of Bisacodyl with a manufacture's expiration date of 02/22 (February 2022) and observed in the refrigerator of the first floor medication room were 9 single does syringes of the Influenza vaccine with an expiration date of 06/30/22. The findings include: 1. On 07/27/22 at 9:43 a.m., a medication storage observation was conducted on the 300 unit with the unit manager (RN #5). Observed on the 3W (3 West) medication cart was an open bottle of Gericare Bisacodyl 5 mg (milligram) 100 tablet (count) with a manufacture's expiration date of 02/22 (February 2022) and a handwritten open date of 04/23/21. On 7/27/22 at 9:50 a.m., RN #5 was interviewed regarding the expired medication. RN #5 was asked how often were the medication carts checked for expired medication. RN # stated, they are normally checked at least monthly, but each nurse who comes on shift and covers the med cart should check as well. This cart was checked yesterday. I will get rid of this now. On 07/27/22 at 12:00 p.m., the above findings were discussed during a meeting with the administrator and DON. No other information was presented to the survey team prior to exit on 07/27/22 at 5:15 p.m. The facility failed to ensure expired Influenza vaccine in the medication room refrigerator on the Unit 1 (first floor) medication room. On 7/27/22 at 2:15 PM, the first floor medication room was observed with LPN (Licensed Practical Nurse) #6. In the refrigerator there were two boxes of Influenza vaccine. One box had two, 0.5 ml (milliliter) single dose syringes of Influenza vaccine that expired on 06/30/22. The other box had seven, 0.5 ml (milliliter) single dose syringes of Influenza vaccine that expired on 06/30/22. The LPN stated, I'll get rid of it right now. When exiting the medication room, the LPN left the expired influenza vaccine syringes in the medication room. At 2:20 PM, the DON (director of nursing) was asked for a policy on medication storage and expired medications. A policy titled, Storage and Expiration - dating of drugs, biologicals, syringes and needles was presented and reviewed. The policy documented, .The nursing center should ensure drugs and biologicals: Have an expiration date on the label or medication container. Have not been retrained longer than recommended by manufacturer or supplier guidelines . The administrator and DON were made aware of the above information on 07/27/22 at 12:00 noon, in a meeting with the survey team. No further information and/or documentation was presented prior to the exit conference.
CONCERN (D)

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

Medical Records (Tag F0842)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on staff interview and clinical record review, and in the coarse of a complaint investigation, the facility staff failed to ensure a complete and accurate clinical record for one of 29 residents...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on staff interview and clinical record review, and in the coarse of a complaint investigation, the facility staff failed to ensure a complete and accurate clinical record for one of 29 residents, Resident #119. This was a closed record review. The findings included: Diagnoses for Resident #119 included: fracture of left pelvis, hypertension, anxiety disorder, hyperlipidemia, arthritis, and gastric reflux. The most current MDS (minimum data set) was an admission assessment with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 3/7/22. Resident #119's cognitive score was a 15 indicating cognitively intact. Resident #119 was admitted for therapy on 3/1/22 and discharged on 3/14/22. On 7/26/22 while reviewing Resident #119's medical chart specific to a complaint allegation regarding inaccurate medical records of diagnoses and medications, the facilities diagnoses form was reviewed and documentation of a diagnoses of Chronic lymphocytic leukemia of B-cell type in remission and Hypothyroidism did not match the history and physical diagnoses from the hospital, as these diagnoses were not evident in the hospital records. Review of Resident #119's medication orders were then reviewed. Medication orders were placed for Asciminib Tablet 40 MG [milligrams] Give 2 tablet by mouth one time a day for leukemia. and Levothyroxine Sodium 75 MCG [ micrograms] Give 1 tablet by mouth in the morning for Hypothyroidism. On 7/26/22 at 2:00 PM the director of nursing (DON) was informed a complaint allegation was being looked at for Resident #119 regarding inaccurate records and medications. the DON verbalized there had been a mix up with Resident #119's medications and a investigation had been completed. On 7/27/22 The facilities investigation was reviewed and documented a concern regarding wrong medications being prescribed. A search for the hospitals after care summary (discharge summary to facility) that was transcribed by the nurses at the facility could not be found. The investigation indicated, a current medication list was faxed by Resident #119 community physician and was compared to the medications that were transcribed by the nurse. On 7/27/22 at 8:47 AM the DON was interviewed. The DON verbalized when Resident #119 was admitted from the hospital the nurses transcribe medications and diagnoses into the electronic medical record. After Resident #119 had refused some medications and Resident #119's daughter was contacted over medications that were not available and the daughter verbalizing Resident #119 was not on the medications in question an investigation was conducted. The DON said, the investigation was unable to determine if the wrong information was sent by the hospital and transcribed or if the nurse had mistakenly entered another resident's information into the facilities system as the as the original diagnoses and medication list were never found. On 7/27/22 at 12:45 PM the above information was presented to the administrator and DON. No other information was presented prior to exit conference on 7/27/22. This is a complaint deficiency.
CONCERN (E)

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interview, facility document review and clinical record review, the facility failed to follow physic...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interview, facility document review and clinical record review, the facility failed to follow physician orders for one of twenty-nine residents in the survey sample (Resident #82). Resident #82 was not administered a dose of potassium chloride as ordered by the physician. The findings include: Resident #82 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included hypokalemia, major depressive disorder, vascular dementia, hypertension, chronic kidney disease, diabetes, cerebral infarction, anemia and seizures. The minimum data set (MDS) dated [DATE] assessed Resident#82 with severely impaired cognitive skills. A medication pass observation was conducted on 7/26/22 at 10:30 a.m. with licensed practical nurse (LPN #3) administering medications to Resident #82. During this medication pass, LPN #3 stated the resident had a physician's order for potassium but she was unable to administer the potassium because there was no supply in the medication cart. LPN #3 administered the remaining medications as scheduled with the exception of potassium. LPN #3 stated she requested a refill from the pharmacy. Resident #82's clinical record documented a physician's order dated 3/7/22 for Klor-Con M20 (potassium chloride) extended release with instructions to administer three tablets each day for hypokalemia (low potassium). On 7/26/22 at 10:48 a.m., LPN #3 was interviewed about the status of Resident #82's morning potassium dose. LPN #3 stated she requested a refill and deliveries from the pharmacy usually arrived around 3:00 p.m. each day. LPN #3 stated she did not have access to the Omnicell emergency drug supply and she was not sure if the potassium was stocked in the back-up supply. When asked who had access to the emergency/back-up medications, LPN #3 stated the unit manager was able to access the drugs. On 7/26/22 at 2:00 p.m., LPN #3 stated she called the pharmacy about the potassium and there was an issue with the order. LPN #3 stated she attempted to notify the provider and was waiting for a response. On 7/26/22 at 4:41 p.m., LPN #3 was interviewed again about Resident #82's missed dose of potassium. LPN #3 stated she was still waiting on delivery of the medication from pharmacy and the resident had received no dose of potassium yet today (7/26/22). On 7/27/22 at 9:20 a.m., the unit manager (LPN #4) was interviewed about Resident #82's missed dose of potassium. LPN #4 stated potassium was included in the back-up supply of medicines and LPN #3 should have obtained the medication from the Omnicell for timely administration. LPN #4 stated if nurses failed to access the Omnicell beyond 30 days, access was denied and had to be reset. LPN #4 stated he had access to the back-up medicines but he was not aware that Resident #82 needed a dose of potassium. LPN #4 stated LPN #3 had not informed him that she was potassium was not in the medication cart. On 7/27/22 at 2:16 p.m., the director of nursing (DON) was interviewed about Resident #82's missed dose of potassium. The DON stated she did not know why LPN #3 did not retrieve the potassium from the back-up supply and administer as ordered. The DON stated the potassium was stocked and available in the Omnicell supply. The Omnicell content list (print date 7/27/22) listed 10 capsules of potassium chloride extended release 10 mEq (milliequivalents) were available in the back-up supply. This finding was reviewed with the administrator and director of nursing during a meeting on 7/27/22 at 12:10 p.m.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0691 (Tag F0691)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on clinical record review, staff interview, and resident interview, the facility failed for one of 14 residents in the survey sample (Resident # 105) to ensure the resident had physician's order...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on clinical record review, staff interview, and resident interview, the facility failed for one of 14 residents in the survey sample (Resident # 105) to ensure the resident had physician's orders for the care of a colostomy. Resident # 105 had a colostomy for at least three years without orders for colostomy care. The findings were: Resident # 105 in the survey sample was admitted with diagnoses that included peripheral vascular disease, sleep apnea, diverticulitis, chronic pain syndrome, diabetes mellitus, idiopathic peripheral autonomic neuropathy, gastroesophageal reflux disease, anemia, hyperlipidemia, morbid obesity, osteoarthritis, atherosclerotic heart disease, hypertension, glaucoma, heart failure, depressive disorder, and colostomy status. According to the most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS), a Quarterly Review with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 7/26/2022, the resident was assessed under Section C (Cognitive Patterns) as being cognitively intact, with a Summary Score of 15 out of 15. Under Section H (Bladder and Bowel) at Item H0100 - Appliances, the resident was identified as having a colostomy. Review of the current Order Summary Report in the resident's Electronic Health Record (EHR) failed to reveal any orders for the resident's use of a colostomy, including emptying and changing the collection bag, changing the wafer, checking the area around the stoma for excoriation, and checking the bag attachment at the stoma for leakage. Review of the Electronic Treatment Administration Record (ETAR), in the resident's EHR, failed to reveal any orders for the care of the resident's colostomy. Review of the Electronic Medication Administration Record (EMAR), also in the resident's EHR, failed to reveal any orders for the care of the resident's colostomy. At 8:00 a.m. on 9/28/2022, Resident # 105 was interviewed. Asked about the colostomy, the resident said he has had it for several years. Asked about who provides care for the colostomy, Resident # 105 said, Sometimes the CNA's (Certified Nursing Assistants) do it. A review of previous Minimum Data Sets produced a Quarterly Review MDS with an ARD of 10/9/2019, which identified the resident under Section H (Bladder and Bowel) as having a colostomy. The Quarterly Review MDS of 10/9/2019 was the first MDS that identified the resident as having a colostomy. At 8:10 a.m. on 9/28/2022, RN # 4 (Registered Nurse) was interviewed about colostomy care for Resident # 105. Asked when care is provided, RN # 4 said, He calls us when it needs to be checked. RN # 4 was asked how staff know what to do when caring for the resident's colostomy. When RN # 4 looked in the resident's ETAR for care instructions, she was unable to find any. They aren't any (instructions), RN # 4 said. The findings were discussed during a meeting at 10:00 a.m. on 9/28/2022, that included the Director of Nursing, two administrators from sister facilities, and the survey team. No additional information was provided prior to survey exit.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0757 (Tag F0757)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on staff interview, record review, and in the coarse of a complaint investigation, the facility failed for one of 29 resident's to ensure Resident #119 was free of unnecessary medications. Resid...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on staff interview, record review, and in the coarse of a complaint investigation, the facility failed for one of 29 resident's to ensure Resident #119 was free of unnecessary medications. Resident #119 was prescribed and given medications that was ordered in error. The Findings Include: Diagnoses for Resident #119 included: fracture of left pelvis, hypertension, anxiety disorder, hyperlipidemia, arthritis, and gastric reflux. The most current MDS (minimum data set) was an admission assessment with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 3/7/22. Resident #119's cognitive score was a 15 indicating cognitively intact. Resident #119 was admitted for therapy on 3/1/22 and discharged on 3/14/22. On 7/26/22 while reviewing Resident #119's medical chart specific to a complaint allegation regarding inaccurate medical records of diagnoses and medications ordered, the facilities diagnoses form was reviewed and documentation of a diagnoses of Chronic lymphocytic leukemia of B-cell type in remission and Hypothyroidism did not match the history and physical diagnoses from the hospital, as these diagnoses were not evident in the hospital records. Review of Resident #119's medication orders were then reviewed. Medication orders were placed for the following: Asciminib Tablet 40 MG [milligrams] Give 2 tablet by mouth one time a day for leukemia. Resident did not have a diagnoses of leukemia from hospital Levothyroxine Sodium 75 MCG [ micrograms] Give 1 tablet by mouth in the morning for Hypothyroidism. Resident did not have a diagnoses of hypothyroidism from hospital Enoxaparin Sodium 120 MG inject 120 mg subcutaneous one time a day for DVT [deep vein thrombosis]. Furosemide 20 MG Give 2 tablet by mouth one time a day every other day for hypertension. Prevastatin Sodium give 60 mg by mouth one time a day. Trazadone HCL 50 MG give 1 tablet by mouth at bedtime for insomnia. Resident #119's MAR (Medication Administration Record) was then reviewed. According to documentation of the MAR all medications were started on 3/2/22 and was reviewed through 3/15/22 (discharge of Resident #119). Is as follows: Asciminib 40 Mg, not given due to unavailable medication. Levothyroxine Sodium 75 MCG given 10 doses from 3/2/22 through 3/11/22. Enoxaparin Sodium 120 MG given 10 doses from 3/2/22/ through 3/11/22. Furosemide 20 MG given 5 doses from 3/2/22 through 3/11/22. Prevastatin Sodium give 60 MG given 10 doses from 3/2/22 through 3/11/22. Trazadone HCL 50 MG given 9 doses from 3/2/22 through 3/11/22. The hospital medication discharge summary was then reviewed and did not evidence any of the above prescribed medications as being given while at the hospital or on the hospital discharge instructions. On 7/26/22 at 2:00 PM the director of nursing (DON) was informed a complaint allegation was being looked at for Resident #119 regarding inaccurate records and medications. the DON verbalized there had been a mix up with Resident #119's medications and a investigation had been completed. On 7/27/22 The facilities investigation was reviewed and documented a concern regarding wrong medications being prescribed. A search for the hospitals after care summary (discharge summary to facility) that was transcribed by the nurses at the facility could not be found. The investigation indicated, a current medication list was faxed by Resident #119 community physician and was compared to the medications that were transcribed by the nurse. According to documentation via physician orders, Resident #119's correct medications were ordered using the list of medications from Resident #119's primary care physician, and former medications were discontinued on 3/11/22. On 7/27/22 at 8:47 AM the DON was interviewed. The DON verbalized when Resident #119 was admitted from the hospital the nurses transcribed medications and diagnoses into the electronic medical record. After Resident #119 had refused some medications and Resident #119's daughter was contacted over medications that were not available and the daughter verbalizing Resident #119 was not on the medications in question and an investigation was conducted. The DON said, the investigation was unable to determine if the wrong information was sent by the hospital and transcribed or if the nurse had mistakenly entered another resident's information into the facilities system as the the original diagnoses and medication list were never found. The DON reviewed Resident #119's MAR with the surveyor and pointed out numbers next to nurses initials and verbalized that the number meant that Resident #119 refused medications. Upon further investigation regarding a number next to a nurses initial, the number was actually part of the nurses initial (evidenced on the Staff Administration Legend.). Also progress notes did not evidence that Resident #119 had refused or questioned medications that was being given as stated in the facilities investigation. The facility did do a series of laboratory test to rule out any residual effects of the medications given. The lab results indicated no critical values. On 7/27/22 at 12:45 PM the above information was presented to the administrator and DON. No other information was presented prior to exit conference on 7/27/22. This is a complaint deficiency.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0804 (Tag F0804)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, staff interview, resident interview, and in the course of a complaint investigation, the facility staff failed to serve food that was palatable and per the resident's choice for ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, staff interview, resident interview, and in the course of a complaint investigation, the facility staff failed to serve food that was palatable and per the resident's choice for one of 29 residents. Resident #13's toast was burned, eggs were scorched, and his lunch tray on 07/27/2022 was cold. This is a complaint deficiency. The findings included: Resident #13 had the following diagnoses including but not limited to: Coronary artery disease, heart failure, pressure ulcer, diabetes mellitus, and depression. A quarterly MDS (minimum data set) with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 04/26/2022 assessed Resident #13 as cognitively intact with a summary score of 15. On 07/26/2022 at approximately 9:30 a.m. Resident #13 was observed lying in bed. His breakfast tray was on his bedside table. Three fried eggs were on his plate and two pieces of sausage. He was asked if his food was good. He stated, No, it's not. Look down there in the trash can. Observed in the trash can was two pieces of toast and a piece of sausage. He stated, That toast was browned on one side and black on the other. That sausage was hard as a rock .look at these eggs He picked up the eggs and turned them over. He stated, See that brown crust on them? .that's how they cook things here. It's not fit for a dog, and it's cold. He was asked if he would like anything else. He stated, No, I'm use to it. On 07/26/2022 at approximately 2:00 p.m., Resident #13 was interviewed regarding his lunch. He stated, I wish you could have seen it .it was some kind of beef, stringy, tough, cold .I didn't eat it. He was asked if he would like something else. He stated, Let me save you the time .when you call down to the kitchen you don't get anybody. Nobody answers the phone down there .if they do you get two pieces of bread with a little peanut butter smeared on it and some jelly .who wants that? On 07/27/2022 at approximately 10:20 a.m., the DM (dietary manager) was interviewed regarding the appearance of Resident #13's breakfast tray, and his complaints regarding the inability to get an alternate. She stated, Some of the cooks turn the toaster up to make it hotter and the toast gets darker .I'll talk to them. The above information was discussed with the DON (director of nursing) and the administrator on 07/27/2022 at approximately 12:05 p.m. On 07/27/2022 at approximately 2:00 p.m., Resident #13 was observed lying in bed with his lunch tray on the bedside table. He stated, Look at this. He pointed to his tray, This is fish, look how dry it is .it looks like they cooked it yesterday and heated it in the microwave to dry it out .this broccoli is so hard you can't even cut it and it's so cold it won't even melt the butter would you want this? The RD (registered dietician) and the DM came to the conference room at approximately 4:00 p.m., we met with (Name of Resident #13) we are addressing his concerns. No further information was obtained prior to the exit conference on 07/27/2022. This is a complaint deficiency.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0806 (Tag F0806)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interview, and facility document review the facility staff failed to ensure four of 29 residents wer...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interview, and facility document review the facility staff failed to ensure four of 29 residents were provided food substitutions per request and preferences. This is a complaint deficiency. 1. Resident #13's who chose his own menu, was not served the items requested. 2. Resident # 74 - The facility failed to honor Resident # 74's request to not be served fish. 3. Resident # 47 - The facility failed to honor Resident # 47's dislike of dark meat chicken, i.e., legs and backs. 4. Resident #17 was unable to make advanced food choices and request alternates due to no access to posted menus. Findings were: 1. Resident #13 had the following diagnoses including but not limited to: Coronary artery disease, heart failure, pressure ulcer, diabetes mellitus, and depression. A quarterly MDS (minimum data set) with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 04/26/2022 assessed Resident #13 as cognitively intact with a summary score of 15. On 07/26/2022 at approximately 2:00 p.m., Resident #13 was interviewed regarding his lunch. He stated, I wish you could have seen it .it was some kind of beef, stringy, tough, cold .I didn't eat it. He was asked if he would like something else. He stated, Let me save you the time .when you call down to the kitchen you don't get anybody. Nobody answers the phone down there .if they do you get two pieces of bread with a little peanut butter smeared on it and some jelly .who wants that? On 07/27/2022 at approximately 10:20 a.m., the DM (dietary manager) was interviewed regarding the appearance of Resident #13's breakfast tray, and his complaints regarding the inability to get an alternate. She stated, He's right, the phone is here in my office .I don't stay in here so when someone calls I don't always get the message until the next day. I have asked for another phone to be out there at the tray line so when someone calls down we can get the request. She was asked if the additional phone was in place. She stated, Not yet. She was asked about Resident #13's menu and choices/alternates. She stated, He chooses his own menu. She was asked if all residents chose their own menu. She stated, No, but the ones who are more difficult do .we don't have a list of alternates but he knows what the alternates are and he writes them on the menu when he doesn't like any of the choices. At approximately 11:30 a.m., Resident #13 was interviewed about choosing his own menu. He stated, They read it to me and they circle it. A copy of the menu and what he had chosen for lunch was discussed. He stated, Did you say squash casserole? I don't like squash or casseroles, why the h*** would I have chosen that? that's what they circled I didn't pick that. The above information was discussed with the DON (director of nursing) and the administrator on 07/27/2022 at approximately 12:05 p.m. On 07/27/2022 at approximately 2:00 p.m., Resident #13 was observed lying in bed with his lunch tray on the bedside table. He stated, Look at this. He pointed to his tray, This is fish, look how dry it is .it looks like they cooked it yesterday and heated it in the microwave to dry it out .this broccoli is so hard you can't even cut it and it's so cold it won't even melt the butter would you want this? .this isn't even what we talked about earlier .I'm supposed to have country steak and mashed potatoes .they just send you what they want. The above information was discussed with the RD (registered dietician) at approximately 3:00 p.m. She stated, We give them a list of alternates in the admission packet we meet with them and keep their likes and dislikes updated in the dietary [NAME], then it is on the tray cards. His tray cards were presented. The RD and the DM came to the conference room at approximately 4:00 p.m. The RD stated, We met with (Name of Resident #13) .he wanted us to tell you that he forgot that he circled the items on his menu .sometimes I do it, but he did this one. Also, what happened today with his lunch, the staff saw that he doesn't like gravy so they substituted the whole entree instead of just leaving off the gravy. The facility policy, FOOD PREFERENCES contained the following: Obtaining and processing information on patient food preferences helps to meet patient food requests, provides more accurate production counts and allows for preparation of alternatives. No further information was obtained prior to the exit conference on 07/27/2022. This is a complaint deficency. 4. Resident #17 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included atherosclerotic heart disease, lymphedema, anxiety, major depressive disorder, obstructive sleep apnea, congestive heart failure, gastroesophageal reflux disease, chronic pain syndrome, history of COVID-19, chronic respiratory failure and history of breast cancer. The minimum data set (MDS) dated [DATE] assessed Resident #17 as cognitively intact. On 7/26/22 at 8:08 a.m., Resident #17 was interviewed about quality of life in the facility. Resident #17 stated she had ongoing issues with meals and food. Resident #17 stated there were standing alternate food items always available but when she requested them she was told there was no answer in the kitchen. Resident #17 stated she requested extra food items for each lunch and dinner because she never knew what was on the menu. The resident stated she added a tuna sandwich or chef's salad for lunch and tuna with cottage cheese or fruit plate for dinner so she would have something she could eat without waiting in case she did not like what was served. Resident #17 described the food as horrible and unappetizing and the meats as always tough. Resident #17 stated the same food items were served over and over. Resident #17 stated she never knew what was to be served because the menus were posted on the unit and she did not get out of bed or out of her room. Resident #17 stated for residents not going out of their rooms, there were no menus provided. Resident #17 stated she had a standing order for the extra food items because she was unable to choose menu items or alternates prior to meals served. On 7/27/22 at 11:06 a.m., the dietary manager (other staff #7) and the registered dietitian (RD - other staff #5) were interviewed about Resident #17's access to menus and food selections. The RD stated a list of always available food items was provided to residents in the admission packets. The RD stated daily menus had two choices each meal and the kitchen honored the likes/dislikes as listed based upon resident preferences. The RD stated the menus were posted on each of the living units. When asked about how residents that stay in bed or in their rooms know the planned menus, the RD stated she had been at the facility a long time and nursing staff could communicate menus verbally to residents. The RD stated they attempted to provide Resident #17 foods that she liked. When asked again about Resident #17's access to menus, the RD stated the menu was posted each day right outside of her [Resident #17's] room. The RD presented a copy of Resident #17's meal ticket information. Extra item options served at breakfast included yogurt, bacon or sausage, bagel or toast, egg with cheese when available or an orange. Extra item options for lunch included yogurt, chef's salad, egg salad, tuna salad or chicken salad on rye, or dinner roll or cornbread. Extra item options for dinner included cottage cheese/fruit plate, tuna salad or rye or dinner roll or cornbread. Resident #17's clinical record documented the resident was prescribed a low sodium cardiac diet with regular texture. Resident #17's plan of care (revised 4/10/21) listed the resident was at risk of anxiety and mood problems. Interventions to minimize anxiety/mood issues included, .Offer choices to enhance sense of control . This finding was reviewed with the administrator and director of nursing during a meeting on 7/27/22 at 12:10 p.m. 2. Resident # 74 in the survey sample was admitted with diagnoses that included anemia, history of urinary tract infection, history of COVID-19, generalized weakness, history of joint replacement, cirrhosis of the liver, ataxic gait, hypothyroidism, and alcohol abuse. According to the most recent Quarterly Minimum Data Set with an Assessment Reference Date of 6/23/2022, the resident was assessed under Section C (Cognitive Patterns) as being cognitively intact with a Summary Score of 14 out of 15. During the Group Meeting at 2:30 p.m. on 7/26/2022, the discussion turned to food preferences. Resident # 74 said, I don't like fish. They keep serving me fish. I don't eat it, sometimes I just throw it away. Asked if he had told the Dietary Manager or the Dietician he didn't like fish, the resident said, Yes, I've told them several times. At 8:15 a.m. on 7/27/2022, the Dietary Manager and the Dietician were interviewed at the same time about Resident # 74's food preferences. The Dietary Manager pulled up the resident's food preferences on the computer and found that fish was not listed as a dislike. We did not know, the Dietician said. Asked how often residents are asked about their food preferences, the Dietician said residents are asked at admission about their food likes and dislikes. When asked if a resident's food preferences are updated, the Dietician said they usually ask about once a year. 3. Resident # 47 in the survey sample was admitted with diagnoses that included dementia with behavioral disturbances, congestive heart failure, hypertension, peripheral vascular disease, diabetes mellitus, hyperlipidemia, insomnia, non-Alzheimer's dementia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, atrial fibrillation, and benign prostatic hyperplasia. According to the most recent Quarterly Minimum Data Set with an Assessment Reference Date of 5/27/2022, the resident was assessed under Section C (Cognitive Patterns) as being moderately cognitively impaired with a Summary Score of 10 out of 15. During the Group Meeting at 2:30 p.m. on 7/26/2022, the resident said, They give me chicken legs. I don't like chicken legs. I'm a diabetic, I shouldn't have fried chicken. Asked if he had told the Dietary Manager or the Dietician he didn't like chicken legs, Resident # 47 said, Yes, and I keep telling them. At approximately 8:15 a.m. on 7/27/2022, the Dietary Manager and the Dietician were interviewed at the same time about Resident # 47's food preferences. The Dietary Manager pulled up the resident's food preferences on the computer and found that chicken legs were not listed as a dislike. We did not know, the Dietician said. Some people do not like dark meat like chicken legs, thighs, and the back. Resident # 74 in the survey sample was admitted with diagnoses that included anemia, history of urinary tract infection, history of COVID-19, generalized weakness, history of joint replacement, cirrhosis of the liver, ataxic gait, hypothyroidism, and alcohol abuse. According to the most recent Quarterly MDS with an ARD of 6/23/2022, the resident was assessed under Section C (Cognitive Patterns) as being cognitively intact with a Summary Score of 14 out of 15.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0809 (Tag F0809)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observations, clinical record review, resident interview, staff interview, and review of facility documents, the facility failed to serve meals in a timely manner on the East Unit. Breakfast ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, clinical record review, resident interview, staff interview, and review of facility documents, the facility failed to serve meals in a timely manner on the East Unit. Breakfast on the East Unit was not served until 9:40 a.m. on 7/26/2022. The findings were: During the orientation tour at 8:00 a.m. on 7/26/2022 on the East Unit, Resident # 15 was interviewed. The resident was her room, seated in a wheelchair. Asked if breakfast had been served, the resident said, No, it is late. It is always late. All the meals are late. Resident # 15 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included toxic encephalopathy, cerebrovascular disease, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, hyperlipidemia, non-Alzheimer's dementia, depression, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, altered mental status, and glaucoma. According to the most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 4/5/2022, the resident was assessed under Section C (Cognitive Patterns) as being cognitively intact with a Summary Score of 15 out of 15. At 8:30 a.m., 9:00 a.m., and 9:00 a.m., additional observations were made on the East Unit. During all three observations, there was no tray cart on the unit and none of the residents had been served or were eating breakfast. At 9:40 a.m. the tray cart arrived on the East Unit. The first tray off the cart at 9:43 a.m. and was taken to Resident # 15's room. During the Group Meeting at 2:30 p.m. on 7/26/2022, the residents complained of late meal service. Resident # 74, who resides on the East Unit, said meals are always late. Dinner isn't served until 7:30 or 8:00 p.m. The East Unit is the last to be served. The resident went on to say, I don't know if there isn't enough staff or what. There doesn't seem to be any reason. Resident # 74 in the survey sample was admitted with diagnoses that included anemia, history of urinary tract infection, history of COVID-19, generalized weakness, history of joint replacement, cirrhosis of the liver, ataxic gait, hypothyroidism, and alcohol abuse. According to the most recent Quarterly MDS with an ARD of 6/23/2022, the resident was assessed under Section C (Cognitive Patterns) as being cognitively intact with a Summary Score of 14 out of 15. Resident # 71, who also resides on the East Unit, also said the meals are always late and that the East Unit is always the last to be served. Resident # 71 in the survey sample was admitted with diagnoses that included gastroesophageal reflux disease, hyperlipidemia, thyroid disorder, anxiety disorder, depression, and bipolar disease. According to the most recent Annual MDS with an ARD of 6/12/2022, the resident was assessed under Section C (Cognitive Patterns) as being cognitively intact with a Summary Score of 14 out of 15. Resident # 28, who resides on a different floor, said all the meals on that floor are consistently late too. Resident # 28 in the survey sample was admitted with diagnoses that included congestive heart failure, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, hyperlipidemia, Parkinson's Disease, seizure disorder, and bipolar disease. According to the most recent Quarterly MDS with an ARD of 5/12/2022, the resident was assessed under Section C (Cognitive Patterns) as being cognitively intact with a Summary Score of 15 out of 15. At 8:15 a.m. on 7/27/2022, the Dietary Manager and the Dietician were interviewed at the same time about the late meal service. Asked why the meals are late, the Dietary Manager said, It isn't all the time, but could offer no explanation as to why meals were late. When asked if the Kitchen was fully staffed, the Dietary Manager said, We are fully staffed. The Dietary Manager went on to say, Breakfast was a little late yesterday (7/26/2022) because the cook had to stop and take the surveyor around the Kitchen. Regarding the East Unit always being last to be served, the Dietician said, East is not always last. We switch it up. The Dietician had no comment at to the late meal service.
CONCERN (E)

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

Room Equipment (Tag F0908)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, staff interview, and facility document review, the facility staff failed to ensure the dishwasher in the main kitchen was in proper working order. Wash temperatures and rinse tem...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, staff interview, and facility document review, the facility staff failed to ensure the dishwasher in the main kitchen was in proper working order. Wash temperatures and rinse temperatures were not within the manufacturer's recommended range. Findings were: On 07/26/2022 at approximately 11:10 a.m., the dishwasher area was observed while breakfast dishes were being washed. The electronic digital temperature screen was observed. The wash temp was registering 158 degrees, the rinse temp was registering 173 degrees. A message was flashing on the screen Final Rinse Temp Low. OS #8 was pulling trays of dishes out of the machine and putting them away. She was asked if she was watching the temperatures on the machine. She stated, I write what I see at the end of the washing the temperatures change all the time. A dishwasher temperature log for July was observed on a clipboard near the machine. The top of the paper contained the following: Minimum temperature for wash cycle: 150 was handwritten in. Rinse Cycle 180 was handwritten in. The form also contained the following: If temperatures were below standard, the person in charge was notified and dish machine was stopped. OS#8 was asked if she had notified the DM that the machine was flashing a message that the rinse temperature was too low. She stated, No, I write down what I see on that paper, it is up to the manager to look at it and do something if it needs to be done. She was asked again if she had noticed the flashing message on the machine. She stated, No, I did not see that. The staff member who was putting the dishes into the machine stated, When the machine was new the temp was 165 or 160 now it is old and they say 150 it use to take the trays, now we have to push them through .the machine is old. The DM was asked to come to the Dishwashing area. The temperatures were shown to her. She was asked why the wash temperature was listed as 150 degrees. She stated, That is what I was told. The machine was searched for a placard from the manufacturer to determine the required temps. On the side of the machine a silver placard was observed, Minimum wash temperature : 160 .Minimum rinse temperature: 180. This was pointed out to the DM. The temperature log for the dishwasher was observed. The temperatures were to be recorded three times per day. Out of 75 opportunities to record the temperatures, 35 were blank. The remaining 40 recordings of dishwasher temperatures had 8 readings of 160 or greater for the washing temperatures and there were four instances when the rinse temperature was not in range and for three of those both the wash temperature and the rinse temperature had not been within the minimum range. The column Below Min Temp was never checked. There was no indication that the machine had been stopped. The DM stated, I will get maintenance to check it out. On 07/27/2022 at approximately 9:30 a.m., a representative from the company that serviced the dishwashing machine was onsite. He stated the machine should be run for to get the temperatures up before any dishes were put through the machine. He stated the machine was last serviced in April by his company and they replaced parts, but his company was not contracted to do preventative maintenance. He stated, The curtains that wash the dishes are curled up and should be replaced, the element needs to be descaled. He also stated, The machine has been set to manual mode for trays to go in .it should be automatic where the machine pulls them in .consequently the machine is actually running the wash and rinse cycles at the same time which is dropping the temps. The above information was discussed with the DON (director of nursing) and the administrator on 07/27/2022 at approximately 12:05 p.m. On 07/27/2022 at approximately 2:30 p.m., the DM reported, We are still using disposable dishes .he (the service technician) ordered parts for the machine. He said we need a thermostat and he ordered new parts for the display we won't use the machine until it is fixed. No further information was obtained prior to the exit conference on 07/27/2022.
Feb 2019 20 deficiencies 1 IJ
CRITICAL (J)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, resident interview, family interview, staff interview, facility document review, clinical record review an...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, resident interview, family interview, staff interview, facility document review, clinical record review and in the course of a complaint investigation, facility staff failed to ensure two of four residents identified as smokers were assessed to determine if they were safe to smoke either independently or were at risk. The residents, one of whom was paraplegic, were observed outside without protective aprons and without direct supervision by facility staff. This was identified as Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) in the area of Quality of Care on 02/05/2019 at 5:01 p.m., with resulting SQC (substandard quality of care). The immediacy was abated on 02/05/2019 at 8:23 p.m. After removal of the immediate jeopardy on 02/07/2019 at 9:30 a.m., the Scope and Severity was lowered to Level III, Isolated. The facility staff also failed to implement interventions and supervision for the prevention of elopement, multiple falls, and falls resulting injury (Harm) for two of 32 residents, and failed to immediately respond and implement safety interventions in response to an emergency door alarm on one of seven units, the 100 unit. 1. Resident #117, a paraplegic, was not assessed to determine her ability to smoke safely and independently. Resident #117 was observed outside smoking cigarettes without a protective apron and without direct staff supervision. This resulted in the identification of Immediate Jeopardy. 2. The facility staff failed to provide adequate supervision to prevent elopement from the facility, multiple falls and falls with injury (harm) for Resident #34. Resident #34 was found in the parking lot on 05/26/2018 requiring evaluation at a local hospital, she had multiple documented falls at the facility including three incidents of harm: a fall with resulting acute proximal humeral shaft fracture on 08/11/2018; a fall on 08/18/2018 with resulting laceration above her right eyebrow requiring 13 sutures; and an acute fracture of the proximal phalanx (ring finger) that was identified on 12/02/2018. 3. The facility staff failed to implement interventions and supervision for the prevention of falls for Resident #129, which resulted in harm. Resident #129 had a fall and was sent to the hospital for evaluation, receiving five staples to the back of the head for a laceration. 4. The facility staff failed to accurately assess Resident #60's ability to smoke independently or safely without direct supervision. 5. Facility staff failed to immediately respond and implement safety interventions in response to an emergency door alarm on the 100 unit. The alarm sounded for almost 30 minutes without any response or interventions from staff members present on the unit. A charge nurse interviewed was not knowledgeable about the alarm or what actions were required in response to the alarm. Findings were: 1. Resident #117 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the following diagnoses, but not limited to: Paraplegia, acute kidney failure, hypertension, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and neuromuscular dysfunction of the bladder (requiring indwelling catheterization). A significant change MDS (minimum data set) with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 1/14/2019, assessed Resident #117 as cognitively intact, with a summary score of 15. Section J: Health Conditions, J1300 Tobacco Use was checked No. In the course of the survey process a list of residents who smoke was requested from the administrative staff. Resident #117 was identified on the list as a smoker. The clinical record was reviewed on 02/05/2019 at approximately 2:00 p.m. A smoking assessment was not observed on the electronic record. The care plan was reviewed. There were no interventions on the care plan regarding smoking. On 02/05/2019 at approximately 3:30 p.m., Resident #117 was interviewed. She was asked if she was a smoker. She stated, Yes, but I don't smoke everyday, or every smoke break .I usually just go down once a day .I went for so long without smoking because I was so sick, but I've started again . I am going out today at 4:00 [p.m.]. Resident #117 was asked where she kept her cigarettes. She stated, They are downstairs with my lighter. During the interview, Resident #117 was asked if she could move her legs or had any feeling in them. She stated, No, they said I have a clot on my spine that is causing it [paralysis] .I don't know if my legs will get better or not. At 4:00 p.m., two surveyors went to the smoking area to observe the residents. The area was located at the end of the facility outside the dining room. OS (Other Staff) #2 was standing in the dining room at the door to the smoking area. She entered a code and allowed the surveyors to walk outside. The smoking area was a covered cement patio with a locked privacy fence in front of it. The dining room door was the only entrance back inside the building and had a narrow, long window above the door knob. The window in the door was the only indoor point of visualization to the smoking area. Three residents were observed smoking. One resident was wearing an apron. OS #2 came outside and offered the other two residents an apron. Both residents declined. OS #2 went back inside the building. Resident #117 was not wearing an apron. She was sitting with her back to the door and her smoking could not be visualized from inside. The residents were talking and Resident #117 stated, My husband brought me some cigarettes, I need to bring them downstairs to the desk, I forgot them in my room. When the observation was complete, OS #2 opened the door for the surveyors to come back into the facility. She was asked what her role was. She stated, I'm here for the smoking time, but I'm not going out there .I don't smoke. A sign was observed beside the door with posted smoking times and the following sentence: Smoking aprons must be worn at all times . A copy of the facility policy was requested at 4:10 p.m. The corporate nurse and the DON (director of nursing) stated that the smoking guidelines were located in the resident admission packet. The Patient Information Handbook was reviewed. Page 3 contained the following information regarding smoking: SMOKING We believe in providing a healthy environment for you. Our center is designated as 'smoke-free.' Smoking is not permitted on the campus or may be permitted in designated area only. Smoking materials, including lighters, matches, cigarettes, and cigars, must be stored at the nurse's station. The DON was again asked if there was a facility policy regarding smoking. She stated, We are looking for it .what we have are called 'guidelines', not a policy. The SMOKING GUIDELINES included the following information: PURPOSE: To determine if a patient is an Independent Smoker or an At Risk Smoker before the patient exercises the privilege to smoke while residing within the center and to establish guidelines for all patients that desire to smoke, as well as non-smokers. GUIDELINES: - Evaluate patients that smoke utilizing the Smoking Evaluation tool either: (a) upon admission; (b) when a previous non-smoking patient takes up smoking; (c) if unsafe smoking practices are observed in a current smoker; or, (d) when a patient that smokes has a significant change in medical condition. -The Smoking Evaluation is generated from the assessment tab in [name of computer system]. -Provide education of the Smoking Guidelines to the patient, family members or responsible party and visitors that may supervise patients during smoking. Education is provided when: (a) a new patient is identified as a smoker; (b) a previous non-smoker patient takes up smoking; (c) if unsafe smoking habits are observed in a current smoker; or, (d) a patient that smokes has a significant change in medical condition. The education is documented and saved in the patient's electronic health record utilizing the Patient Education Progress Note or per state requirements -Upon completion of the evaluation, the Interdisciplinary team [IDT], including the attending physician, will make a decision whether the patient is an Independent or an At Risk Smoker. -If the patient is determined to be an Independent Smoker, the patient may smoke without assistance at center designated times. Independent Smokers must still follow smoking guidelines including, but not limited to, keeping smoking accessories in control of the center staff when not in use and smoking only in designated areas at designated times. -If the patient is determined to be an At Risk Smoker, the patient is required to wear a protective smoking vest or apron if needed and is supervised while smoking. -The IDT completes completes a comprehensive patient care plan that reflects the: -smoking evaluation outcome -smoking supervision that is necessary -type of protective smoking equipment that is needed, e.g., smoking apron or vest - education on the Smoking Guidelines and options for smoking cessation activities offered and/or provided to the patient or family members . -Direct personal supervision is provided to At Risk Smokers while smoking. Center administration provides supervision and direction to center staff responsible for providing direct supervision. Other patients cannot, under any circumstances, provide supervision for At Risk Smokers . -Any non-compliance with the smoking guidelines is addressed with the patient and family members as the non-compliant activities occur. Additional education is provided as needed and the plan of care is updated to reflect the patient's current needs . The survey team met to discuss the smoking observations, the lack of smoking assessment, care plan, and supervision for Resident #117, a paraplegic. The team determined that guidelines for Immediate Jeopardy were met. The team supervisor and the State agency were contacted for validation. The office concurred and Immediate Jeopardy was implemented at 5:01 p.m., with subsequent Substandard Quality of Care. On 02/05/2019 at 5:11 p.m., the survey team met with the administrator and the DON (director of nursing). The team leader informed them that the survey team with concurrence from the main office had implemented Immediate Jeopardy at 5:01 p.m., and SQC due to the facility's failure to assess Resident #117, a smoker with paraplegia for safe smoking. They were told that Resident #117 was observed outside smoking without a protective apron, without direct supervision, without a care plan or assessment for smoking, and that her MDS did not identify her as a smoker. The administrator was informed that a plan of removal for immediacy would need to be developed and presented to the survey team for approval before the immediacy would be abated. The facility staff presented the following five point plan of correction that was accepted by the survey team on 02/05/2019 at 8:23 p.m.: This serves as Manor Care Health Services Arlington [sic] response to the Immediate Jeopardy Notification that the center received on February 5, 2019. The facility Quality Assessment and Performance Improvement [QAPI] Committee met on February 5, 2019 to resolve the alleged failure to assess a smoking patient for smoking needs. 1. Resident [initials of Resident #117] was observed smoking without direct supervision. Further investigation also showed that the same resident does not have a smoking assessment on record, there was no care plan completion, and there was no MDS assessment completed. The resident, [initials of Resident #117], has been educated regarding the facility smoking policy. 2. The facility has completed a smoking assessment on [initials of Resident #117] today, 2/5/19. The patient's care plan has been completed to reflect her smoking status. Furthermore, a significant change in status MDS for [initials of Resident #117] has been initiated. The staff responsible for smoking supervision have been educated on direct supervision and use of apron during smoking. 3. The facility would [sic] continue to educate the entire staff on Manor Care's smoking policy. Education has begun today, 2/5/2019, and anticipated to be completed by end of day, 2/7/19. 4. The facility has completed an audit of all residents presently in the facility for smoking. No new smoker was identified above those it currently has on the smoking list. The facility will complete a smoking assessment for all new residents admitted in the facility going forward. 5. This plan of correction has been forwarded to an ad hoc QAPI committee for adoption or further recommendation. Also presented was a Staff Development Program Attendance Record with five staff listed who had received training on DIRECT SUPERVISION FOR SMOKERS. The education attached was: 1. IF ANY RESIDENT IS NOT ON THE CURRENT SMOKERS LIST AND THEY COME OUT TO SMOKE. [sic] YOU MUST STOP THEM AND NOTIFY NURSING FOR RESIDENT TO HAVE SMOKING ASSESSMENT COMPLETED TO DETERMINE THEIR SAFETY. THE SUPERVISOR OF SMOKERS WILL CHECK THE CURRENT LIST TO ENSURE ONLY THOSE RESIDENTS LISTED ARE SMOKING. 2. WHILE OBSERVING THE SMOKERS YOU WILL NEED TO MAINTAIN VISUAL CONTACT AND ENSURE RESIDENTS ARE FACING YOU. 3. WHEN INDICATED ENSURE THE RESIDENT HAS SMOKING APRON ON. 4. NURSING/DESIGNEE WILL UPDATE THE SMOKERS LIST FOR NEW ADMISSIONS AND CHANGES OF CONDITIONS AS NEEDED. Resident #117's smoking evaluation was presented and reviewed. Resident #117 was assessed by the facility as an At Risk Smoker, Requires family, friend or staff for physical support or supervision to smoke .Patient able to smoke with apron, and educated on times and need for smoking materials to be secure during non-smoking hours. On 02/07/2019, during the morning, the survey team conducted random interviews throughout the facility to ascertain that staff had received the training outlined on the plan of removal. All interviewees had been trained and were knowledgeable regarding the facility's smoking policy. The facility checklist indicated that all staff had received training as of 9:30 a.m. on 02/07/2019. No further information was obtained prior to the exit conference on 02/07/2019. 2. Resident #34 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her diagnoses included but were not limited to: Type II Diabetes Mellitus, Parkinson's disease, dementia with behavioral disturbance, major depressive disorder, and hypertension. Her admission MDS (minimum data set) with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 05/22/2018 coded Resident #34 as having impairment with both long and short term memory, and severely impaired for daily decision making skills. Resident #34 was also coded as needing limited assistance of one for walking in her room and in the corridor. Under the area Balance During Transitions and Walking (G0300) she was coded as Not steady, only able to stabilize with staff assistance in the areas of Moving from seated to standing position; Walking; turning around; moving on and off toilet; and surface-to-surface transfer. The quarterly MDS with an ARD of 11/22/2018 also coded Resident #34 as impaired with both long and short term memory, and severely impaired for daily decision making skills. She was coded as needing limited assistance of one for walking in her room and in the corridor. Under the area Balance During Transitions and Walking she was coded as Not steady, only able to stabilize with staff assistance in the areas of Moving from seated to standing position; Moving on and off toilet; and surface-to-surface transfer; and coded as Not steady, but able to stabilize without staff assistance in the areas of Walking and turning around. Resident #34's room was located at the end of the the unit on the second floor. Her room was not visible from the nurses station. On 02/05/2019 at approximately 9:15 a.m., Resident #34 was observed in her room eating breakfast. She was sitting in a chair beside her bed. Food was on the floor around her, she got up and down out of the chair and walked to a different chair in her room and then returned to the chair where her breakfast tray was located multiple times. When an interview was attempted Resident #34 spoke no English. No staff was in the vicinity to assist her. On 02/05/2019 from approximate 2:30 p.m. until 2:35 p.m., Resident #34 was observed walking around her room. She was wearing only a wander guard and a sock on her left foot. She walked back and forth from a chair in her room to her bed. She was observed to lay down in the bed, cover up and then immediately get back up. Her clothes and brief were in a pile on the floor. This surveyor walked around the third floor looking for someone to assist Resident #34; a CNA (certified nursing assistant) was located at the far end of the floor and was asked if she was working with Resident #34. She stated, No, I am on the other end. What does she need. When the situation was described the CNA went to the room to assist Resident #34. The clinical record was reviewed on 02/05/2018 at approximately 6:30 p.m. Review of the progress note section indicated that Resident #34 had a history of wandering, falls and falls with injury. The clinical record included documentation of approximately 17 falls, 2 elopements, two fractures and two lacerations requiring sutures/staples since admission to the facility. Documentation in the progress notes included the following: 05/15/2018 23:47 (11:23 p.m.) Patient present(s) with diagnosis of weakness, post status fall, deep dark bruises on her body, bruises and bumps on the forehead, red scabs to both knees, confusion, mental status change, she speaks and understands very little English . 05/16/2018 4:20 [a.m.] she is monitored frequently as she gets up unassisted and gait is unsteady . 05/17/2018 08:51 [a.m.] Resident found lying on the floor at 11:55 p.m no signs of discomfort . 05/29/2018 07:34 [a.m.] Patient is alert, stable and very confused, refuses to stay on the bed or chair, trying to get up but she does not have good gait or good balance, staff have [sic] baby siting [sic] most of the night . 05/17/2018 16:56 [4:56 p.m.] POST FALL NURSES ASSESSMENT; Resident was very combative and refused to stay sitting on her W/C [wheelchair]. Resident was put in bed to rest and few minutes later, she got up and began to walk down the hall-way to 2-west unnoticed by staff. She accidentally fell in room [number] @1:30 p.m. today .no new skin impairment . 05/23/2018 00:07 [12:07 a.m.] Patient found on the floor on her right side by 3 E [east] [not Resident #34's floor] nurses station during shift change. Staff reported she has been wandering around most of the shift .[no injury] 05/26/2018 11:45 [a.m.] Front desk paged writer and stated come down stair [sic] to see resident for Spanish Interpreter, came to front desk and saw resident with fire department, ambulance, stated they found her in Manor Care back of the parking lot .MD gave order to transfer resident to ER for evaluation . 05/26/2018 16:54 [4:54 p.m.] Resident is alert and oriented .Resident up walking independently .writer saw resident around 11:15 a.m. sitting in Longue [sic]with no distress noted .At 11:45 [a.m.] supervisor call writer stated come in front desk [sic], noted resident with fire department, ambulance, they stated they found her in back of Manor Care parking lot .send to ER . 05/26/2018 20:01 [8:01 p.m.] Patient skin reveals bruises to the lower left back, left temple and right arm possible from the reported fall on 5/23/18. She returned from ER for evaluation to rule out dehydration .[physician name] notified for wander guard for safety. 06/11/2018 17:00 [5:00 p.m.] Patient fell out of the facility on her way in for readmission. She was discharged home early at 10:00 AM with her daughter .writer was told that she [Resident #34] refused to stay at [name of facility] and returned to Manor Care .She fell at door entrance and got a cut on the back of her head .911 . 06/11/2018 22:59 [10:59 p.m.] Patient was readmitted from [hospital] .patient has stitches in her head related to fall: wounds noted on the head. One has 4 staples and the other has 1 staple . 06/21/2018 13:08 [1:08 p.m.] Resident is confused, while transferring from bed to w/c lost her balance and sat on floor . 08/11/2018 08:18 [a.m.] Resident was alert with intermittent confusion. Neurocheck was in progress send resident to emergency department to evaluate for acute proximal humeral fracture via 911 .order due to X-ray result shown [sic] fracture on the proximal hum oral shaft .[NOTE: No documentation in clinical record regarding aforementioned x-ray or fall] 08/11/2018 11:32 [a.m.] During AM care this writer was called to resident room by CNA [certified nursing assistant] stating resident right elbow appears swollen. On assessment skin warm to touch, no redness noted in skin, resident alert and verbal, s/s [signs and symptoms] of grimacing noted while touching right elbow .limited ROM [range of motion] on right extremity . 08/11/2018 12:44 [p.m.] .on call MD notified .new order given to do x-ray of shoulder 2 views . 08/11/2018 13:10 [1:10 p.m.] .spoke to RP [responsible party] that she [Resident #34] has an accident and fell from her bed. Neurochecks initiated. 08/11/2018 16:39 [4:39 p.m.] Resident fell in front of her room while ambulating to her room to use the bathroom around 2:00 p.m no apparent injury, redness noted in left side of the head, passive ROM in left upper extremity and both lower extremities within normal limits .right upper extremity has limited ROM . 08/11/2018 18:00 [6:00 p.m.] Mobile tech in X-ray done results pending. 08/11/2018 08:30 [a.m.] [Name] emergency was called to ascertain patient condition and her nurse .indicated that her doctor might discharge her back today. 08/12/2018 16:36 [4:36 p.m.] Resident arrived back from [name] ER at 3:45 p.m noted on her left upper side of the face slightly swollen with redness, right upper shoulder noted swollen, with bruising, and the right lower arm in a cast wrap with ace wrap and in sling .left fifth finger noted with old open area but dry measuring 0.5 cm X 0.5 cm, left knees noted with open area measuring 2.0 cm X 1.0 cm, below left knee noted with scabbed measuring 1.0 cm X 1.0 cm . 08/12/2018 19:58 [7:58 p.m.] .came back with diagnosis of closed fx [fracture] of right proximal humerus .During skin assessment old healing scar with scabbed [sic] noted to the back of the head, right upper shoulder at the back noted with open area measuring 1.0 cm X 1.0 cm, mid back noted with open area measuring 2.0 cm X 0.3 cm and also another tiny open area to mid back measuring 0.3 cm X 0.3 cm and at the right outer back noted with old healed scar resident pulling on her cast and sling . 08/18/2018 10:40 [a.m.] Writer [NAME] [sic] at this time to attention stating resident fell in lunch room on west side and sustained a laceration to upper right eyebrow measured 4 cm X 2 cm with large amount thick red blood from site. Ice pack applies to site .resident transferred to [hospital name] at 10.5 am {sic], report given to ER nurse. 08/18/2018 15:36 [3:36 p.m.] Resident back from the hospital .13 sutures noted intact to facial laceration .Resident in bed at this time but trying to get out of the bed . 08/21/2018 08:23 [a.m.] Patient was found sitting [on] the floor at 7:30 a.m., neurological check done and no change notice [sic] 08/21/2018 16:56 [4:56 p.m.] Loud Portuguese language heard coming from the room and this writer went to check, patient was observed lying on her right side, the right arm on the pillow. No apparent injury noted, skin assessment done, resident noted with right eye lid dark purple color, and stitches in place in right forehead close to right eye, large dark purple discoloration noted in right thigh all those from previous falls .resident was transferred with tow assist to bed, bed was in low position. 08/28/2018 01:54 [a.m.] .very combative with staff going from room to room unsteady on her feet, requires one on one monitoring to prevent falls . 09/05/2018 19:50 [7:50 p.m.] .called writer to room and resident was observed on the floor at 6:20 p.m. lying on her right side beside the entrance door. Based on observation, resident was consuming her dinner meal when she decided to got [sic] up and walk from his [sic] Mw/c and she accidentally fell to the floor at 6:30 p.m. today. Resident assessed head to toe .no new skin impairment .ROM performed .no limitations noticed except little limitation observed on her right fractured humerus from post fall recently . 09/21/2018 15:41 [3:41 p.m.] Resident was observed sitting in wheelchair at the nursing station with other residents at 2:25 p.m. This writer went to assist the aide to transfer another patient from the chair to bed, when she came out of the room this patient was observed sitting on the floor .no apparent injury observed . 09/23/2018 22:35 [10:35 p.m.] .oob to w/c sitting in front of nurses station and as soon as staff goes to attend to other resident, resident will get up from her w/c and ambulate to other resident room and nurse redirected back to her w/c . 10/06/2018 15:26 [3:26 p.m.] Resident was observed at 1:55 PM sitting on the floor in front of her room, bedside table behind her .no apparent injury .resident was last seen lying in her bed resting around 1:40 p.m . 11/17/2018 17:35 [5:35 p.m.] .at 4:10 p.m. sitting in her w/c in front of nurses station, per assign [sic] cna resident wants to stand up, her w/c was locked but the w/c moved a little bit and resident slide [sic] to the floor. Assign [sic] cna said she hold resident on one side and she try to hold resident on the other side but resident slide and sit on floor and resident head, a little bit touch on the wall .no apparent injury .do neurochecks for 24 hours if any change in mental status send resident to ER . 11/28/2018 00:07 [12:07 a.m.] Resident is alert and very confused wander into physical therapy room and lock self up in there the room several attempt patient before patient open room, skin audit done assessment done no acute distress noted . 12/02/2018 16:50 [4:50 p.m.] .resident ambulating in her room when nurse making round at the start of shift at 3:05 PM and no distress noted .staff from activity dept came and wheeled resident to activity upstairs in w/c before 3:30 p.m. Daughter visited and nurse told daughter that resident went upstairs with activity .daughter went upstairs and came down with resident and daughter brought to nurse [sic] attention of resident left 4th finger reddening and swollen. When nurse asked resident what happened resident stated I hit it somewhere 2 days ago and it pain a little .left 4th finger assessed noted swollen and reddening 4th palm noted bruising .daughter requesting x-ray . 12/03/2018 18:26 [6:26 p.m.] .x-ray results positive for acute fracture of the proximal phalanx of the ring finger .to schedule appointment with ortho . 12/08/2018 09:57 [a.m.] .resident walking in the hallway all naked. Aide working with this resident was in the shower room given [sic] shower to resident in room [number]. Writer took resident in the room, provided ADL care and dress resident . 12/08/2018 16:28 [4:28 p.m.] Writer was called to attention by another staff stating resident is sitting on the floor at west unit station .resident in upright position on floor. Head to toe assessment done, no s/s pain noted . 02/01/2019 15:32 [3:32 p.m.] Resident was observed sitting on the floor in room [number] [NOTE: not Resident #34's room], no apparent injury noted . The care plan was reviewed at approximately 7:00 p.m. and contained the following focus area: Exit seeking/elopement risk multiple attempts to leave facility related to: cognitive impairment, new admission/change of environment. Interventions listed included: Accompany to meals and scheduled activities; ALERT BRACELET; Calmly redirect; Engage in activities/tasks to keep occupied An additional focus area for: At risk for falls due to history of fall, recent fall, non steady gait, not using safe judgement D/T dementia disease process was observed on the care plan. Interventions included: Administer Calcium and Vitamin D per protocol; Administer medication per physician orders; All intervention reviewed and continue with plan of care; Bed in low position; Encourage resident to sit in front of nursing station; have commonly used articles within easy reach; Reinforce w/c safety as needed such as locking brakes; visual monitoring as resident allows; FALL RISK (FYI); Reinforce need to call for assistance. On 02/06/2019 at approximately 7:50 a.m., the DON (director of nursing) was asked for any investigations/incident reports that had been completed on Resident #34 since her admission to the facility in May 2018. The DON was also asked if the facility used bed or chair alarms. She stated, No. She was asked what the facility did to call attention to residents getting up unassisted who may fall. She stated, We make frequent rounds and care plan them for falls. At approximately 8:00 a.m., RN (registered nurse) #1, the unit manager, RN #6 and LPN (licensed practical nurse) #3 were interviewed regarding Resident #34's wandering, falls, and falls with injury. All three were asked what was done by the facility staff to prevent her falls and injuries. RN #6 stated, On nights we bring her with us. LPN #3 and RN #1 were asked what was done during day shift. LPN #3 stated, We have a care plan that we follow. Concerns were voiced to RN #1 and LPN #3 that while the survey team had been in the building, staff had not been readily available on that end of the hallway. Observations of staff being at the far end of the floor when needed was voiced. Concern over the visualization of Resident #34 were also discussed. Resident #34's room was not visible from the nursing station. LPN #3 and RN #1 were asked how often Resident #34 was observed. RN #1 stated, Yes, I see what you are saying .I am new here, I will see what we can do. At approximately 1:45 p.m., Resident #34 was sitting in her room. Her daughter was at her bedside. The daughter was interviewed regarding Resident #34's care at the facility. The topic of Resident #34's falls were discussed. The daughter stated, They talked to me just now about moving her to a room where they can see her better .my mother needs to be in a private room or she messes with other peoples things .the problem isn't her room, the problem is the staff is never down here where she is .they don't watch her .I always have to look for them when she needs something .the only time she is watched is when I am here .she can't go home with me because my home has steps, and she is less safe there. At approximately 3:20 p.m., after multiple requests, the DON presented incident reports for Resident #34 and they were reviewed. The DON was interviewed regarding staff interventions to supervise Resident #34. The first elopement of Resident #34 on 05/23/2018 when she was found lying in front of the nurse's station on a different floor was discussed. The DON stated, That's when we implemented the wander guard. The DON was informed that the wander guard was not implemented until Resident #34 was found in the back of the facility parking lot on 05/26/2018. She was asked if the wander guard should have been implemented when the resident was found on another floor of the facility after falling She stated, Yes, I would think so. Resident #34's fall with fracture, fall with laceration requiring sut[TRUNCATED]
CONCERN (D)

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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff observation and staff interview, the facility staff failed for one of 33 residents in the survey sample (Resident...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff observation and staff interview, the facility staff failed for one of 33 residents in the survey sample (Resident #119), to ensure a dignified dining experience during breakfast on 02/5/19. Staff served residents # 105 and # 16 on paper plates on the weekends without a valid reason. The findings include: Resident #119 was admitted to the facility was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. Diagnoses included gastroesophageal reflex disease (GERD), peripheral vascular disease, hypertension, hypothyroidism, hyperlipidemia, and dementia without behavioral disturbance. The most recent minimum data set (MDS) dated [DATE] assessed Resident #119 as severally cognitive impaired with a score of 04. A dining observation was conducted on the second floor during breakfast on 02/5/19 at approximately 9:00 a.m. During the observation at 9:13 a.m., Resident #119 was observed seated in the the second floor dining room alone. There were no other residents or staff members in the dining room with Resident #119. Resident #119 was observed sitting at the first table sleeping at the table. Resident #119 was not wearing a clothing protector. Resident #119's shirt was observed to have oatmeal spilled on her shirt and some on the edge of the table. Resident #119 meal ticket documented therapeutic diet as mechanical soft. Resident #119's meal tray was observed to have the following: cereal with milk poured in the cereal container, half-eaten bowl of oatmeal with the spoon inserted in the bowl, a cup of coffee, and orange juice with a straw inserted in the container. Resident #119 continued to sleep and no other residents or staff came into the dining room until prompted by this survey team member to check on the resident at 9:18 a.m. At approximately 9:20 a.m., the unit manager (LPN #1) was interviewed regarding Resident #119 being alone in the dining room. LPN #1 stated the majority of the second floor residents eat breakfast in their rooms. LPN #1 continued and stated there are a 3-4 residents who eat breakfast in the second floor dining room. LPN #1 stated one of those residents had an early morning appointment and he was not sure where the other residents were. LPN #1 was interviewed about Resident #119 being left alone in the dining room. LPN #1 stated Resident #119 should not have been left alone. LPN #1 was interviewed about Resident #119 having oatmeal wasted on her clothing and the edge of the table. LPN #1 stated this was not appropriate. LPN #1 continued and stated the certified nursing assistants and nursing staff are expected to assist with meal set-up and service. During the interview with LPN #1, LPN #1 was observed asking a second staff member identified as registered nurse (RN #1) why Resident #119 was left alone in the dining room. RN #1 stated she left Resident #119 to go and get something for another resident. These findings were reviewed with the administrator, director of nursing (DON) and corporate consultant during a meeting on 02/06/19 at 4:45 p.m. 2. Resident # 105 in the survey sample, an [AGE] year-old male, was admitted to the facility on [DATE], and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included anemia, congestive heart failure, hypertension, obstructive uropathy, depression, insomnia, atrial fibrillation, benign prostatic hyperplasia, urinary retention, [NAME] Carcinoma (a form of skin cancer), and Guillan Barre Syndrome. According to the most recent Quarterly Minimum Data Set, with an Assessment Reference Date of 1/11/19, the resident was assessed under Section C (Cognitive Patterns) as being cognitively intact, with a Summary Score of 15 out of 15. During a resident interview conducted at 9:45 a.m. on 2/5/19, the subject of food service was discussed. We get paper plates on weekends sometimes, the resident said. They don't tell the Administrator, he continued, I think they are lazy. I used to turn the paper plate upside down on the tray and send it back. Now I just send my tray back if it comes on paper. Asked what he does for food if that happens, the resident said he keeps a supply of snacks, including Cheerios. I like Cheerios, he said. 3. Resident # 16 in the survey sample, a [AGE] year-old female, was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis that included hyperlipidemia, Non-Alzheimer's dementia, and other Symbolic Dysfunctions. According to a Medicare 14-Day Minimum Data Set, with an Assessment Reference Date of 11/14/18, the resident was assessed under Section C (Cognitive Patterns) as being cognitively intact, with a Summary Score of 15 out of 15. During a resident interview conducted at 10:15 a.m. on 2/5/19, the subject of food service was discussed. Sometimes on weekends meals are on paper plates because there is not enough staff. During an end of day meeting at 4:45 p.m. on 2/6/19, that included the Administrator, Director of Nursing, Corporate Nurse Consultant, and the survey team, the use of paper plates for meals on weekends was discussed. The Administrator was specifically asked if paper plates are used on weekends. Yes, the Administrator replied. Sometimes if someone calls out and the Kitchen is short of staff. I doesn't happen very often. On 2/7/19 at 8:10 a.m., the Dietary Manager was interviewed regarding the use of paper plates on weekends. Asked if paper plates are used on weekends, the Dietary Manager offered a conflicting response from that of the Administrator. We do use paper plates, but only if there is a problem with the dishwasher, or if there is a hot water problem, he said. Asked if paper plates would be used on weekends if the Kitchen was short handed, the Dietary Manager said, No, we call people in.
CONCERN (D)

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. On 02/05/19 at 8:30 a.m., during the initial tour the drywall in room [ROOM NUMBER]-A was observed in disrepair. The wall beh...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. On 02/05/19 at 8:30 a.m., during the initial tour the drywall in room [ROOM NUMBER]-A was observed in disrepair. The wall behind the bed had a section of torn drywall, the protective vinyl wall sheet was not mounted on the wall, instead it was laying on the floor under the two wheels at the head of the resident's bed, and the co-axial cable cover was not mounted to the wall. On 02/05/19 at 8:45 a.m., the unit manager (LPN #1) was interviewed regarding the condition of the drywall, protective vinyl sheet and co-axial cable cover in room [ROOM NUMBER]-A. LPN #1 stated he was not aware of the maintenance needs in room [ROOM NUMBER]-A. LPN #1 stated the staff are supposed to use an electronic system to record work requests for the maintenance department. LPN #1 further stated sometimes staff will use the electronic system and/or they will notify the maintenance staff verbally if they see them on the unit. On 02/06/19 at 9:53 a.m., accompanied with the maintenance department manager (other staff, OS #4) the above referenced areas were observed in room [ROOM NUMBER]-A. OS #4 stated he had been working at the facility for two months and was working on trying to get things repaired. OS #4 stated he had not been notified of the the maintenance needs in room [ROOM NUMBER]-A. OS #4 stated he did not have a work order request for room [ROOM NUMBER]-A. OS #4 stated the staff does not use the electronic work order system as they should and often he finds out about maintenance needs when someone verbally tells him on the unit. These findings were reviewed with the administrator, director of nursing (DON), and corporate consultant during a meeting on 02/06/19 at 4:45 p.m. Based on observation and staff interview, the facility staff failed to ensure a safe, clean, homelike environment on two of seven living units. A mechanical lift, chair scale, and floor scale were stored in the residents' dining/activity room on the 100 unit. This room also had damage along the wall where the equipment was stored and a cabinet door in disrepair. The floor covering in room [ROOM NUMBER] was torn and loose across the entrance to the bathroom. The wall near the first bed in this room had widespread vertical scrapes with torn wallpaper. In room [ROOM NUMBER], the drywall behind the bed was in disrepair and the coaxial cable cover was not mounted to the wall. The findings include: 1. On 2/5/19 at 7:39 a.m., the dining/activity room on the 100 unit was inspected. A mechanical lift and chair scale were stored along the left wall near entrance to the room. A floor scale was positioned on the wall across from the doorway. The left wall where the lift and chair scale were stored had widespread scrapes and gouges in the drywall. A cabinet door under the microwave was hanging loose with the top hinge in disrepair. On 2/5/19 at 8:45 a.m., room [ROOM NUMBER] was observed with disrepair noted to the wall and floor at the bathroom entrance. The left wall adjacent to the first bed in this room had widespread, vertical scrapes and scratches. The vinyl floor covering in the bathroom was torn and peeling up across the threshold. Strips of white tape had been applied across the floor covering but were loose on the right edge with the floor covering unattached and torn at the corner. On 2/5/19 at 2:23 p.m., the licensed practical nurse (LPN #6) caring for residents on the 100 unit was interviewed about the dining/activity room. LPN #6 stated the room was for residents to use as needed for eating or meeting with their family or visitors. On 2/6/19 at 8:27 a.m., accompanied by the registered nurse unit manager (RN #4), the dining/activity room and room [ROOM NUMBER] were observed. RN #4 stated they planned to change the dining room to a therapy room but this transition was not yet complete. RN #4 stated the room was available for resident use if desired. RN #4 stated they had other storage areas for lifts and scales. RN #4 was not aware of the torn floor covering and wall damage in room [ROOM NUMBER]. RN #4 stated any needed repairs were supposed to be reported to maintenance with use of their computerized work order system. On 2/6/19 at 9:30 a.m., the facility's maintenance director was interviewed about the needed repairs on the 100 unit. The maintenance director stated no work orders had been entered regarding the disrepair in the dining/activity room and room [ROOM NUMBER]. The maintenance director stated any needed repairs were supposed to be entered into their computerized work order system. These findings were reviewed with the administrator and director of nursing during a meeting on 2/6/19 at 5:00 p.m.
CONCERN (D)

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

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interview and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to ensure an accurate MDS (minimum d...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interview and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to ensure an accurate MDS (minimum data set) assessment was completed for one of 33 residents in the survey sample, Resident #21. Resident #21's MDS assessment did not accurately reflect the resident's status regarding dental health. Findings include: Resident #21 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE], with the most current readmission on [DATE]. Diagnoses for Resident #21 included, but were not limited to: anemia, high blood pressure, PVD (peripheral vascular disease), renal failure dependent upon hemodialysis, DM (diabetes mellitus), depression, and bilateral AKA (above the knee amputations.) The most current full MDS (minimum data set) was an annual assessment dated [DATE], which assessed the resident as 99 cognitively, indicating the resident was unable to complete the interview; the resident was assessed with short term memory impairment with modified independence in daily decision making skills. The resident was assessed as requiring extensive assistance for most all ADL's (activities of daily living) including dressing, toileting, personal hygiene, and total dependence for bathing with one person assist. This MDS also assessed the resident in Section L. Oral/Dental Status L0200L. Dental, as having no dental issues, no pain/discomfort, no fragments, no issues with bleeding or inflamed gums, and no obvious or likely cavities/broken natural teeth. The resident was assessed as having none of the above, indicating no dental/oral cavity concerns. The resident triggered in the CAAS (care area assessment summary) on this MDS for, but not limited to: cognition ADL function and dental. On 02/05/19 at 1:45 PM, Resident #21 was observed in her room with a lunch tray in front of her. The resident stated that she was tired from dialysis. The resident was observed with missing and decayed teeth in the upper and lower mouth. The resident's CCP (comprehensive care plan) was reviewed and documented, .ADL self care deficit .assist with daily hygiene .oral care .dental or oral cavity health problem risk r/t (related to) teeth in poor condition (date initiated 05/19/18) .effective pain management .ability to eat and drink per baseline .administer medications as ordered .assist with oral hygiene as needed .refer to dentist/hygienist for evaluation/recommendations re: teeth pulled, repair of carious teeth (date initiated: 08/07/18) .report changes in oral cavity, chewing ability, S&S(signs and symptoms) of oral pain, etc . On 02/06/19 at 10:38 AM, Resident #21 was interviewed and stated that her teeth are not hurting now, but did point to the tooth/area that was hurting. The resident opened her mouth and pointed to the upper right, front area. The resident had several teeth missing, with multiple broken off teeth in the top of her mouth. The teeth present had visible decay and several, including the tooth that the resident was pointing to, were decayed and flush with the resident's gum line. On 02/06/19 at 11:24 AM, RN (registered nurse) #5, also known as the MDS coordinator, was interviewed regarding the accuracy of Resident #21's most current MDS full assessment and informed of the above observations of Resident #21. RN #5 was asked who completed the assessment. The RN stated, I did. RN #5 further stated that she would get information from the nursing notes, dietitian, and the patient; but if the patient tells us we would have to report it to the physician. RN #5 stated that her assessment is based on the diet the resident is on and what the dietitian said and if the resident has had any weight loss or any chewing/swallowing issues, and base it on the notes we have during the 7 day look back; if the nurses don't document that there are any issues, we don't document on the MDS. RN #5 was made aware that information about the resident's teeth being decayed and missing should be carried over on each MDS to accurately assess the individual, unless the dental health changes or no longer applies. RN #5 stated that they mainly go off of paper/documented notes to gather resident information. RN #5 agreed that the resident's poor dental health condition should have been, and should be, on the MDS. The DON (director of nursing) and the administrator were made aware in a meeting with the survey team on 02/06/19 at approximately 4:50 PM No further information and/or documentation was presented prior to the exit conference on 02/07/19 at 11:30 AM.
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interview, facility document review and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to develop...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interview, facility document review and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to develop a comprehensive care plan for two of 32 residents, Resident #117 and Resident #50. 1. Resident #117 did not have a comprehensive care plan to address smoking. 2. Resident #50 did not have a care plan for the use of oxygen. Findings were: 1. Resident #117 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the following diagnoses, but not limited to: Paraplegia, acute kidney failure, hypertension, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and neuromuscular dysfunction of the bladder (requiring indwelling catheterization). A significant change MDS (minimum data set) with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 1/14/2019, assessed Resident #117 as cognitively intact, with a summary score of 15. Section J: Health Conditions, J1300 Tobacco Use was checked No. In the course of the survey process a list of residents who smoke was requested from the administrative staff. Resident #117 was identified on the list as a smoker. The clinical record was reviewed on 02/05/2019 at approximately 2:00 p.m. A smoking assessment was not observed on the electronic record. The care plan was reviewed. There were no interventions on the care plan regarding smoking. On 02/05/2019 at approximately 3:30 p.m., Resident #117 was interviewed. She was asked if she was a smoker. She stated, Yes, but I don't smoke everyday, or every smoke break .I usually just go down once a day .I went for so long without smoking because I was so sick, but I've started again . I am going out today at 4:00 [p.m.]. Resident #117 was asked where she kept her cigarettes. She stated, They are downstairs with my lighter. During the interview, Resident #117 was asked if she could move her legs or had any feeling in them. She stated, No, they said I have a clot on my spine that is causing it [paralysis] .I don't know if my legs will get better or not. At 4:00 p.m., two surveyors went to the smoking area to observe the residents. Resident #117 was smoking. She was not wearing an apron. She was sitting with her back to the door and her smoking could not be visualized from inside. A copy of the facility policy was requested at 4:10 p.m. The corporate nurse and the DON (director of nursing) stated that the smoking guidelines were located in the resident admission packet. The Patient Information Handbook was reviewed. Page 3 contained the following information regarding smoking: SMOKING We believe in providing a healthy environment for you. Our center is designated as 'smoke-free.' Smoking is not permitted on the campus or may be permitted in designated area only. Smoking materials, including lighters, matches, cigarettes, and cigars, must be stored at the nurse's station. The DON was again asked if there was a facility policy regarding smoking. She stated, We are looking for it .what we have are called 'guidelines', not a policy. The SMOKING GUIDELINES included the following information: PURPOSE: To determine if a patient is an Independent Smoker or an At Risk Smoker before the patient exercises the privilege to smoke while residing within the center and to establish guidelines for all patients that desire to smoke, as well as non-smokers GUIDELINES: -The IDT (inter-disciplinary team) completes completes a comprehensive patient care plan that reflects the: -smoking evaluation outcome -smoking supervision that is necessary -type of protective smoking equipment that is needed, e.g., smoking apron or vest -education on the Smoking Guidelines and options for smoking cessation activities offered and/or provided to the patient or family members . On 02/05/2019 at 5:11 p.m., the survey team met with the administrator, the DON (director of nursing). During the meeting they were informed that Resident #117 was not care planned for smoking. The facility staff presented an updated care plan for Resident #117 on 02/05/2019 at 8:23 p.m. The new care plan contained the following: History of smoking in community smoking related to: Personal preference .Interventions: Complete smoking evaluation per facility guidelines .develop an agreed upon smoking plan; do not leave unattended while smoking; resident will use smoking apron r/t (related to) paraplegia of lower extremities . No further information was obtained prior to the exit conference on 02/07/2019. 2. Resident #50 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the following diagnoses, but not limited to: End stage renal disease with hemodialysis, depressive disorder, hypertension and COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease). An annual MDS (minimum data set) with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 12/11/2018, assessed Resident #50 as cognitively intact with a cognitive summary score of 15. On 02/05/2019 at approximately 7:55 a.m., Resident #50 was observed sitting in a chair at his bedside. He was wearing a nasal cannula with oxygen running at two liters. Resident #50 was asked about the use of oxygen. He stated, I just use it at night .I don't use it when I go out of the room or to dialysis, it helps me when I sleep. At approximately 10:15 a.m., the clinical record was reviewed. There were no interventions on the care plan for the use of oxygen. On 02/06/2019 at approximately 8:00 a.m., LPN (licensed practical nurse) #2, a unit supervisor was interviewed about the use of oxygen. She was asked if oxygen should be on a care plan if used by a resident. She stated, Yes. She was asked specifically about Resident #50's care plan. She reviewed the care plan and stated, You're right, it isn't on there. At approximately 8:30 a.m. LPN #2 came to the conference room and stated, I contacted the physician and I have updated that and I will update the care plan. Further review of the clinical record showed that Resident #50 was care planned for oxygen prior to a hospitalization in May 2018. The oxygen was removed from the care plan at the time of the hospitalization and marked as Resolved. At approximately 9:50 a.m., RN (registered nurse) #2, the MDS nurse came to the conference room. She was asked about the care plan for oxygen. She stated, Yes, it looks like when he went into the hospital the care plan area for oxygen was noted as resolved .when he came back it looks like we didn't put it back on the care plan. No further information was obtained prior to the exit conference on 02/07/2019.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0659 (Tag F0659)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interview and clinical record review, the facility staff failed, for one of 33 residents in the survey, to ensure...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interview and clinical record review, the facility staff failed, for one of 33 residents in the survey, to ensure a nurse was knowledgeable of the resident's resuscitation status. A nurse caring for Resident #101 stated the resident's resuscitation status was a DNR (do not resuscitate) when the resident was actually a full code, requiring resuscitation in case of cardiac arrest. The findings include: Resident #101 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included cerebral infarction, tachycardia, congestive heart failure, high blood pressure, deep vein thrombosis, anxiety, depression and atrial fibrillation. The minimum data set (MDS) dated [DATE] assessed Resident #101 with short and long-term memory problems and severely impaired cognitive skills. The first page of Resident #101's clinical record stored on the unit documented a Durable Do Not Resuscitate Order (DDNR) dated and signed by the physician on 1/12/19. The record documented a physician's progress note dated 1/12/19 stating, DNR signed. The resident nor the authorized representative had signed the DDNR order. Resident #101's plan of care (revised 1/11/19) listed the resident's resuscitation status as full code. On 2/6/19 at 8:05 a.m., the licensed practical nurse (LPN #7) caring for Resident #101 was interviewed about the resident's current resuscitation status. LPN #7 stated, She [Resident #101] is a DNR. When asked how she knew the code status of residents, LPN #7 went to the chart area and stated residents with a DNR order had a red sheet in the front of their chart. Resident #101's chart was reviewed at this time with no red sheet positioned at the front of the chart but the DDNR form was on file. The registered nurse unit manager (RN #4) came up at this time and stated Resident #101 was a full code because the family had not signed all the required paperwork for the do not resuscitate order. On 2/6/19 at 8:07 a.m., RN #4 was interviewed further about Resident #101's resuscitation status. RN #4 stated for those with a DNR order, a red sheet was placed in the front of the chart and nurses were supposed to look for the red sheet to know the resuscitation status of residents. On 2/6/19 at 1:50 p.m., RN #4 stated she thought LPN #7 saw the DDNR form in the front of the record and thought the resident was a DNR. These findings were reviewed with the administrator and director of nursing during a meeting on 2/6/19 at 5:00 p.m.
CONCERN (D)

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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, clinical record review, and staff interview, the facility staff failed to ensure two of 33 residents (Resi...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, clinical record review, and staff interview, the facility staff failed to ensure two of 33 residents (Resident #119 and Resident #45) were provided with care and services to carry out activities of daily living (ADL's). 1. The facility staff failed to provide Resident #119 with feeding assistance during a breakfast meal service. 2. The facility staff failed to provide Resident #45 with nail care. The findings include: 1. Resident #119 was admitted to the facility was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. Diagnoses included gastroesophageal reflex disease (GERD), peripheral vascular disease, hypertension, hypothyroidism, hyperlipidemia, and dementia without behavioral disturbance. The most recent minimum data set (MDS) dated [DATE] assessed Resident #119 as severally cognitive impaired with a score of 04. A dining observation was conducted on the second floor during breakfast on 02/5/19 at approximately 9:00 a.m. During the observation at 9:13 a.m., Resident #119 was observed seated in the the second floor dining room alone. There were no other residents or staff members in the dining room with Resident #119. Resident #119 was observed sitting at the first table sleeping at the table. Resident #119 was not wearing a clothing protector. Resident #119's shirt was observed with oatmeal spilled on her shirt, and some on the edge of the table. Resident #119 meal ticket documented a therapeutic diet as mechanical soft. Resident #119's meal tray was observed with the following: cereal with milk poured in the cereal container, half-eaten bowl of oatmeal with the spoon inserted in the bowl, a cup of coffee, and orange juice with a straw inserted in the container. Resident #119 continued to sleep and no other residents or staff came into the dining room until prompted by this surveyor to check on the resident at 9:18 a.m. On 02/05/19 at approximately 9:20 a.m., the unit manager (LPN #1) was interviewed regarding Resident #119 being alone in the dining room. LPN #1 stated the majority of the second floor residents eat breakfast in their rooms. LPN #1 stated there are a 3 to 4 residents who eat breakfast in the second floor dining room. LPN #1 stated one of those residents had an early morning appointment and he was not sure where the other residents were this morning. LPN #1 was asked about Resident #119 being left alone in the dining room. LPN #1 stated Resident #119 should not have been left alone. LPN #1 was asked about Resident #119 having oatmeal on her clothing and the edge of the table. LPN #1 stated this was not appropriate. LPN #1 stated the certified nursing assistants and nursing staff are expected to assist with meal set-up and service and someone should remain in the dining room while residents are eating meals. During the interview with LPN #1, LPN #1 was observed asking a second staff member identified as registered nurse (RN #1) why Resident #119 was left alone in the dining room. RN #1 stated she left Resident #119 to go and get something for another resident. On 2/5/19 at approximately 11:00 a.m., Resident #119's clinical record was reviewed. A review of Resident #119's physician orders documented the following: Diet - Regular diet - Mechanical Soft texture. Order Date: 11/22/2016. Start Date 11/22/2016. The most recent minimum data set (MDS) dated [DATE] under Section G, functional status assessed Resident #119 for eating as requiring supervision, with one person physical assist. A review of Resident #119's care plans documented the following: Focus - ADL Self care deficit decline in mobility, cognition. Date Initiated: 06/06/13, Revision: 08/10/18. Goal - Will receive assistance necessary to meet ADL needs. Interventions: Assist with daily hygiene, grooming, dressing, oral care and eating as needed. Focus - At risk for chewing/swallowing problems r/t (related to) edentulous. Date Initiated 05/16/2014 Revision: 08/10/18. Goal: To be able to chew/swallow with no difficulties. Interventions: Report changes in oral cavity, chewing ability, S&S (signs and symptoms) oral pain, etc. On 02/06/19 at approximately 9:30 a.m., the certified nursing assistant (CNA #1) who routinely assists Resident #119 was interviewed regarding Resident #119 needing assistance with meals. CNA #1 stated Resident #119 needs assistance and cueing during meals. CNA #1 stated Resident #119 eats more when someone assists her at meals. On 02/06/19, at approximately 9:45 a.m., RN #3 who routinely provides care for Resident #119 was interviewed regarding Resident #119 needing assistance with meals. RN #3 stated Resident #119 eats about 50-75% with assistance and encouragement from staff during all meals. RN #3 stated Resident #119 requires assistance and cueing at all meals. These findings were reviewed with the administrator, director of nursing (DON) and corporate consultant during a meeting on 02/06/19 at 4:45 p.m.2. Resident #45 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the following diagnoses, but not limited to: Cerebral infarction, Flaccid hemiplegia effecting the left (non-dominate side), hypertension, and dysphagia. A quarterly MDS (minimum data set) with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 12/04/2018, assessed Resident #45 as cognitively intact with a cognitive summary score of 14. On 02/05/2019 at approximately 8:20 a.m., Resident #45 was observed lying in bed, watching television. She was interviewed regarding life at the facility. Resident #45 stated that she had been there almost a year due to a stroke. She stated that she was unable to use her left side. The fingernails on her right hand were observed. They were long, soiled with brown debris, and yellow in color. She was asked if she was letting her nails grow. She stated, No, I would like to get them cut, they are too long. She was asked if the nails on her left hand were the same length. She stated, Yes. She used her right hand to pull her left hand from under the covers, turn it over and pry it open to show the nails on her left hand. The nails on her left hand were also long. The fingers on her left hand were contracted, pressing the long nails against the palm of her hand. Resident #45 was asked if the nails were cutting into her hand. She stated, Not yet. She was asked if she was a diabetic. She stated, No, not that I know of. She was asked who normally cut her nails for her. She stated, It's been a long time since they've been cut, I don't really remember who cut them last time or when. On 02/06/2019, LPN # 1, a unit manager was interviewed regarding nail care at the facility. He stated, Unless the patient is a diabetic, anyone, the nurses or the CNAs [certified nursing assistants] can cut them, if they are diabetic we get podiatry. He was asked how often nails were cut. He stated, As needed. He was asked specifically about Resident #45's nails. He stated, She is not a diabetic, anyone could do them. LPN #1 and this surveyor went to Resident #45's room to look at her nails. The nails on both hands had been trimmed and were filed. Resident #45 was asked when her nails were cut. She laughed and stated, Somebody must have heard us talking about them yesterday .they came in here last night and worked on them .they cut them back and filed them .they feel so much better .I was afraid to scratch an itch for fear of drawing blood. After leaving the room LPN #1 was asked who looked at the nails of residents to determine if they needed to be cut. He stated, The CNA should look every time a bath is given and provide the care then. A copy of the facility policy regarding nail care was requested from the DON (director of nursing). The policy contained the following: Purpose: To provide for personal hygiene needs and prevent infection. The policy also contained information regarding the equipment needed to perform nail care and the procedure but did not address the frequency. No further information was obtained prior to the exit conference on 02/07/2019.
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 medication pass and pour observation, staff interview, resident interview and clinical record review, the facility staf...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medication pass and pour observation, staff interview, resident interview and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to administer medications per physician order. Resident #117's Symbicort inhaler was not administered per physician orders. Findings were: Resident #117 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the following diagnoses, but not limited to: Paraplegia, acute kidney failure, hypertension, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and neuromuscular dysfunction of the bladder (requiring indwelling catheterization). A significant change MDS (minimum data set) with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 1/14/2019, assessed Resident #117 as cognitively intact, with a summary score of 15. On 02/05/2019 at approximately 8:15 a.m., a medication pass and pour observation was conducted with LPN (Licensed practical nurse) #3 on the third floor. LPN #3 prepared morning medications for Resident #117, which included but were not limited to: Spiriva 18 mcg inhaler (2 puffs), Symbicort 160-4.5 mcg (2 puffs), and other oral medications to be taken in tablet form. LPN #3 took the medication to Resident #117's room. Resident #117 was sitting up in bed watching television. Her bedside table was across her over the bed. LPN #3 placed all the medications on the bedside table. Resident #117 picked up the Symbicort inhaler and put it back down stating, I don't want to start with that one. She then took her oral medications and then used her Spiriva inhaler. She handed the Spiriva inhaler and the Symbicort inhaler back to LPN #3. He stated, Did you use this one (holding up the Symbicort)? Resident #117 nodded her head and stated, Yes, I think so. LPN #3 returned to the medication cart and put the inhalers away. LPN #3 was asked if he was through with Resident #117's medication administration. He stated, Yes. LPN #3 was informed that Resident #117 had not used her Symbicort inhaler. He removed the inhaler from the cart looked at it and returned to Resident #117's room. He stated, You didn't use your Symbicort inhaler .I know that because the numbers on the inhaler count down when you use it, they have not changed. Resident #117 stated, You're right, I picked it up first and then I set it to the side. Resident #117 used her inhaler without difficulty. No further information was obtained prior to the exit conference on 02/07/2019.
CONCERN (D)

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

Incontinence Care (Tag F0690)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interview, resident interview and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to provide care ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interview, resident interview and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to provide care and services related to a Foley catheter for one of 16 residents, Resident #116. Resident #116 did not have orders for an indwelling catheter, the catheter was not care planned, the catheter was not anchored, and when the facility staff anchored the catheter it was not done per manufacturer's recommendations. Findings were: Resident #116 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and most recently readmitted on [DATE]. His diagnoses included but were not limited to: dysphagia, chronic kidney disease, congestive heart failure, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, obstructive and reflux uropathy, and vascular dementia. A significant change MDS (minimum data set) with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 01/22/2019, assessed Resident #116 as severely impaired with a cognitive summary score of 06. On 03/26/2019 at approximately 08:05 a.m., during initial tour of the facility, Resident #116 was heard yelling out, Come here, come here. Resident #116 stated, Help me .there is something in my penis .it hurts. LPN (licensed practical nurse) #1 was at the nurses station and was asked to come to the room. Resident #116 repeated to LPN #1 my penis hurts. LPN #1 pulled the covers back on Resident #116 and stated, He has a Foley. The Foley catheter was observed exiting the side of Resident #116's brief. LPN #1 was asked if the catheter was anchored. She stated, Yes, and pointed to the tubing exiting the brief. She undid the brief and pulled it back. There was no anchor observed on Resident #116's leg. She stated, His penis is swollen. She then offered Resident #116 pain medication. The clinical record was reviewed at approximately 10:00 a.m. There were no orders on the POS (Physician order sheet) for the Foley catheter, nor were there any entries on the care plan for the catheter. At approximately 2:05 p.m. Resident #116 was observed sitting at his bedside. LPN #1 was asked if his catheter had been anchored that morning. She did not answer the question, but got up from the nurse's station and walked to a supply cart on the unit. She obtained and item and started towards Resident #116's room. She was asked if she had an anchor for the catheter. She stated, Yes. The unit manager, RN (registered nurse) #1 came down the hall to the nurse's station. She was asked if catheters should be anchored. She stated, Yes. She went to Resident #116's room. A CNA came into the room with a hoyer lift to get Resident #116 back into his bed. The unit manager and this surveyor left the room. The unit manager was asked if the catheter required physician orders. She stated, Yes. She was asked if the catheter should be on the care plan. She stated, Yes. She was informed that no physician orders had been observed on the clinical record, nor had any interventions been observed on the care plan. At approximately 2:15 p.m., Resident #116's was observed lying on his bed. His pants were pulled down. An anchor was observed on the outside of his thigh, the catheter was not attached to the anchor. The unit manager stated to LPN #1, No, it goes on the inside of his thigh. The unit manager removed the anchor and attempted to place it on the inside of Resident #116's thigh. She stated, It needs skin prep under it so it will stick. LPN #1 left the room. The unit manager looked around the room and then left stating to LPN #1 who was down the hall at a supply cart, I have one here. Both LPN #1 and the unit manager returned to the room with another anchor. The unit manager placed the anchor on Resident #116's inner thigh. She then secured the catheter by pulling the anchor ties across both the catheter tubing and the port used to inflate the Foley catheter balloon with water. The unit manager was asked if the catheter was suppose to be secured with the anchor ties over both the water port and the foley tubing. She stated, Yes. A copy of the facility policy regarding catheter care was requested and presented by the DON (director of nursing). Per the facility policy, CATHETER CARE: INDWELLING CATHETER, Equipment: .Securement device or Velcro leg strap device as ordered or clinically indicated .Procedure: Verify physician's order .secure catheter tubing to patient's leg using a securement device or Velcro leg strap as ordered and clinically indicated-prevents traction on the urethral [sic]. The DON was asked how the catheter tubing should be anchored. She stated, .I haven't been at the bedside in a long time, I need to ask. A copy of the manufacturer's instructions on the wrapper of the anchor was requested. The manufacturer's instructions on the Anchor wrapper included a diagram of the proper way to secure the catheter. Per the diagram, the anchor should only be placed across the tubing of the port used to inflate the balloon. The ADON (assistant director of nursing) was observed coming out of Resident #116's room at approximately 3:15 p.m. She was asked if she had checked the anchor. She stated, Yes. She was shown a diagram and asked where the anchor was. She stated, It is across the balloon port at the 'Y'. During an end of the day meeting on 03/26/2019 at approximately 3:55 p.m., the above information was discussed with the DON, the administrator, the regional director of operations, the ADON and the nurse consultant. No further information was obtained prior to the exit conference on 03/27/2019.
CONCERN (D)

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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident #50 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the following diagnoses, but not limited to: End stage renal disease...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident #50 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the following diagnoses, but not limited to: End stage renal disease with hemodialysis, depressive disorder, hypertension and COPD [chronic obstructive pulmonary disease]. An annual MDS (minimum data set) with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 12/11/2018, assessed Resident #50 as cognitively intact with a cognitive summary score of 15. On 02/05/2019 at approximately 7:55 a.m., Resident #50 was observed sitting in a chair at his bedside. He was wearing a nasal cannula with oxygen running at two liters. Resident #50 was asked about the use of oxygen. He stated, I just use it at night .I don't use it when I go out of the room or to dialysis, it helps me when I sleep. At approximately 10:00 a.m., the clinical record was reviewed. There was no order for the use of oxygen on the current physician order sheet. Nor were there any interventions on the care plan for the use of oxygen. On 02/06/2019 at approximately 8:00 a.m., LPN (licensed practical nurse) #2, a unit supervisor was interviewed about the use of oxygen. She was asked if a physician order was needed. She stated, Yes, we need an order. She was asked if there was a physician order for Resident #50 to use oxygen. She looked a the physician orders and stated, I don't see an order .He [Resident #50] just likes to use it .it is his preference, he doesn't use it out of the room, it is PRN {as needed]. LPN #2 was asked if that meant he didn't need a physician order. She stated, No, he should have an order. LPN #2 was asked if there were entries on the TAR (treatment administration sheet) regarding changing the oxygen tubing, water bottle, etc. She looked and said, No, but they do that on Tuesday nights. LPN #2 and this surveyor went to Resident #50's room. The water bottle was empty and not dated, the oxygen tubing and nebulizer equipment were in plastic bags and dated 02/05/2019. LPN #2 stated, They changed the tubing last night, but not the water bottle .I will get a new water bottle and contact the physician. At approximately 8:30 a.m. LPN #2 came to the conference room and stated, I contacted the physician. We have an order now for the oxygen. I have updated that and I will update the care plan. Further review of the clinical record showed that Resident #50 had a physician order and was care planned for oxygen prior to a hospitalization in May 2018. The order was not rewritten upon his return and was removed from the care plan. At approximately 9:50 a.m., RN (registered nurse) #2, the MDS nurse came to the conference room. She was asked about the care plan and the orders for oxygen. She stated, Yes, it looks like when he went into the hospital the care plan area for oxygen was noted as resolved .when he came back it looks like we didn't have an order and didn't put it back on the care plan. The facility policy for oxygen therapy was requested and received. The policy, Oxygen Administration contained the following: PROCEDURE: Verify Physician's Order .SUGGESTED DOCUMENTATION: Record in Progress Note date and time oxygen was initiated, condition necessitating oxygen use, respiratory status related to oxygen use, type of delivery, device use and flow rate of oxygen and any reassessments or other related interventions. Record oxygen administration on Treatment Administration Record. Record oxygen concentrator maintenance and oxygen device used per cent procedure. No further information was obtained prior to the exit conference on 02/07/2019. Based on observation, staff interview, clinical record review and facility document review, the facility staff failed to ensure oxygen administration was properly administered for one of 33 residents (Resident #19) and failed to obtain an oxygen order for one of 33 residents (Resident # 50). 1. The facility staff failed to administer oxygen appropriately via trach for Resident #19. 2. Resident #50 did not have a physician's order for the use of oxygen. Findings include: 1. Resident #19 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The most current readmission was on 12/13/17. Diagnoses for Resident #19 included, but were not limited to: anoxic brain injury/damage resulting in a persistent vegetative state, gastronomy tube, aphasia, anemia, high blood pressure, tracheostomy with continuous oxygen use, and intermittent asthma. The most current full MDS (minimum data set) assessment dated [DATE] documented the resident as being in a persistent vegetative state. The resident was totally dependent upon at least one staff person for all ADL's (activities of daily living). The resident was assessed on this MDS as requiring and receiving oxygen therapy, suctioning, and tracheostomy care. On 02/05/19 at 8:04 AM, Resident #19 was observed laying in bed supine, covered, with eyes open. The resident had a trach, covered by trach collar and trach mask delivering oxygen (O2). The O2 mask covering the trach had a dial with numbers ranging from 35% to 55%, with the resident's dial set at 40%. The oxygen was being delivered via portable O2 concentrator. The O2 concentrator was humidified, with O2 set at 5 liters/min, which was the maximum delivery for this machine. A wall oxygen delivery system was observed, with tubing attached, but was not connected or in use. The resident was observed several times throughout the day, with the same O2 therapy being administered as described above. Resident #19's physician's orders were reviewed and documented, .Oxygen 40% continuous via trach q [every] shift .[order date: 12/13/17] . Resident #19's CCP (comprehensive care plan) documented, .assess respiratory changes .labs as ordered .administer oxygen as per physician's order . On 02/06/19 at 11:05 AM, the resident was observed again. The resident was receiving O2 via trach collar/mask attached to a humidified, O2 concentrator. The resident's collar/mask dial was turned to 40 %, but the O2 concentrator was set to 3 L/min. On 02/06/19 at 11:15 AM, the UM (unit manager), also known as RN (registered nurse) #5 was interviewed regarding Resident #19's oxygen delivery system. The UM was asked how she or other nurses knew what percentage of oxygen the resident was supposed to get. The UM stated that the resident is supposed to get 40 % oxygen. The UM was asked to look at the O2 delivery for the resident. The resident was laying in bed supine with a trach collar/mask with O2 (as described above). The dial was pointed to 40% and had a mark above it that documented for the range of 35% to 55% the oxygen liters should be set to 6 Liters. The UM pointed to the dial and stated that the resident gets 40%. The UM was asked about the dial that indicated the oxygen should be set to 6 liters. The UM stated that she thought that was correct. The UM was then asked why the resident's oxygen concentrator was set to 3.5 liters. The UM stated that she was not sure, but would ask the floor nurse. The UM called for LPN #8 and asked about the resident's oxygen. LPN #8 stated the concentrator was not working properly and she was planning on switching out the concentrator and stated, I'll do that now. LPN #8 was asked what was wrong with the concentrator that it wasn't working correctly. LPN #8 stated that when you start the machine, you can put it on 5 liters, but it goes down by itself and must have stopped at 3.5 liters. LPN #8 was asked how long that had been happening or had been in this condition. LPN #8 stated, Probably a couple of days. LPN #8 stated that the oxygen concentrator is supposed to go to 6 liters per minute, but when you turn it on it goes down by itself. The UM stated that the O2 concentrator did not go up to 6, it only went up to 5, as indicated on the flow meter gauge and LPN #8 stated that she would get one. The UM stated to the LPN, you need one that goes higher. LPN #8 left the room and returned with another O2 concentrator that was similar, and only had a max of 5 on the flow meter gauge. LPN #8 was asked why the resident was not receiving the O2 from the wall unit that delivered O2 up to 16 LPM (liters per minute). LPN #8 stated that it was broken. LPN #8 stated that the wall mount O2 delivery system needed a humidifier. LPN #8 then stated that the wall mount works and turned the O2 wall unit on, and then stated that we don't have the humidifier bottles for it. LPN #8 was asked how long the resident had been connected to the O2 concentrator and how long had there not been a supply of humidifier bottles for the wall mount. LPN #8 stated that, it has probably been like that a couple of days and that she had been reported the lack of supplies. LPN #8 stated, We are short of supply and [name of central supply person] will get some supply. A policy on oxygen administration was requested from the DON (director of nursing) on 02/06/19 at approximately 1:30 PM. A policy was presented, titled, Oxygen Administration, which documented, .Purpose: To describe method of delivering oxygen in order to improve tissue oxygenation, reduce risk of hypoxia .portable oxygen cylinder, oxygen concentrator or wall unit oxygen source .regulator and flow meter .prefilled sterile humidifier bottle if oxygen is above 4 liters .physician's order .for oxygen wall unit, connect adapter, check for leaks .if oxygen flow rate is 4 liters per minute or less, humidification is NOT required .Use prefilled humidifier bottle .only use a simple mask with a 5 liter concentrator, all other masks require a higher concentration of oxygen .administration thorough trach collar .place collar over stoma and secure .set flow rate .high flow oxygen: follow manufacturer's instructions when using high flow oxygen delivery devices .record in progress notes .type of delivery, device used and flow rate of oxygen . On 02/06/19 at 4:50 PM, the administrator and DON were made aware of the above information in a meeting with the survey team. The DON was asked for and additional information regarding oxygen administration for resident's with a trach. On 02/07/19 at approximately 8:30 AM, the DON was again asked for any type of reference or procedure manual that a nurse may use to ensure safe and prescribed oxygen is being administered for a resident with a trach. The DON stated that all nurses are educated and instructed when they are hired, but stated that the facility does not have a reference guide or procedure manual to provide instruction for nurses to use as a quick reference to ensure correct and consistent oxygen administration facility wide. No further information and/or documentation was presented prior to the exit conference on 02/07/19 at 11:30 AM.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure expired medications were not available for use on one of five medication carts inspected. A vial of Lantus insulin, opened for m...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure expired medications were not available for use on one of five medication carts inspected. A vial of Lantus insulin, opened for more than 28 days, was available for use on a third floor medication cart. The findings include: On 2/5/19 at 3:45 p.m., accompanied by licensed practical nurse (LPN) #9, a medication cart on the third floor unit was inspected. A vial of Lantus insulin marked as opened on 12/14/18 was stored and available for use on this cart. LPN #9 was interviewed at this time about the insulin that had been opened for 52 days. LPN #9 stated he thought the insulin was to be discarded 28 days after opening. LPN #5 stated the insulin was for a current resident in the facility. The manufacturer's label on the vial of Lantus insulin was printed with instructions to discard after 28 days from initial use. On 2/6/19 at 11:00 a.m., the corporate nursing consultant was interviewed about a facility or company policy related to insulin storage. The nursing consultant stated they did not have a policy about storage or discarding of insulin. These findings were reviewed with the administrator and director of nursing during a meeting on 2/6/19 at 5:00 p.m.
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 observation, staff interview, clinical record review and facility document review, the facility staff failed to ensure ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interview, clinical record review and facility document review, the facility staff failed to ensure routine and emergency dental services for one of 33 residents in the survey sample, Resident #21. The facility did not provide routine and/or emergency dental services to Resident #21. Resident #21 had poor dental health and had not been seen by a dentist. The resident began having dental pain and was prescribed an antibiotic without being seen by a dentist and/or a physician; no followup care was provided. Findings include: Resident #21 was admitted to the facility originally on 02/28/11, with the most current readmission on [DATE]. Diagnoses for Resident #21 included, but were not limited to: anemia, high blood pressure, PVD (peripheral vascular disease), renal failure dependent upon hemodialysis, DM (diabetes mellitus), depression, and bilateral AKA (above the knee amputations.) The most current full MDS (minimum data set) was an annual assessment dated [DATE], which assessed the resident as 99 cognitively, indicating the resident was unable to complete the interview; the resident was assessed with short term memory impairment with modified independence in daily decision making skills. The resident was assessed as requiring extensive assistance for most all ADL's (activities of daily living) including dressing, toileting, personal hygiene, and total dependence for bathing with one person assist. The resident was assessed as having highly impaired vision. This MDS also assessed the resident in Section L. Oral/Dental Status L0200L. Dental: as having no dental issues, no pain/discomfort, no fragments, no issues with bleeding or inflamed gums, and no obvious or likely cavities/broken natural teeth. The resident was assessed as having none of the above, indicating no dental/oral cavity concerns. On 02/05/19 at 8:22 AM, Resident #21 was not in her room. A nurse stated the resident was at dialysis and would be gone until 11:00 or 11:30 AM. On 02/05/19 at 1:45 PM, Resident #21 was observed in her room, with a lunch tray in front of her. The resident stated that she was tired from dialysis. The resident had poor dental health, with missing and decayed teeth in the upper and lower mouth. Resident #21's clinical records were reviewed. The resident's physician's orders did not include any orders for routine or emergency dental care services or treatment. A physician's order was written on 01/21/19 for: Amoxicillin 500 mg (milligrams) TID (three times a day) X (times) 10 days for tooth pain .indications for use: tooth pain . The resident's nursing notes were revealed a nursing note dated 1/21/2019 and timed 7:40 AM which documented, .C/O [complained of] pain of her upper tooth and swollen. PRN [as needed] Tylenol was given around 6 am. [name of doctor] notified and N.O. [new order] of Amoxicillin 500 mg tab PO TID for 10 days. First dose was given from Emergency Kit . A nursing noted dated 01/21/2019 and timed 12:18 PM documented, .Patient continues on Amox 500mg PO for tooth abscess, there is no adverse reaction noted. A nursing note dated 1/23/2019 and timed 2:48 PM documented, .Patient continues on Amox 500mg PO for tooth infection, there is no adverse reaction noted, no sweeling [sic]noted on cheeks, eating without difficulty . A nursing note dated 01/24/2019 and timed 07:17 documented, .Continues on Amoxicillin tab 500 mg for tooth pain, afebrile . The resident finished the medication on 01/31/19. The resident's CCP (comprehensive care plan) was reviewed and documented, .ADL self care deficit .assist with daily hygiene .oral care .dental or oral cavity health problem risk r/t teeth in poor condition (date initiated 05/19/18) .effective pain management .ability to eat and drink per baseline .administer medications as ordered .assist with oral hygiene as needed .refer to dentist/hygienist for evaluation/recommendations re: teeth pulled, repair of carious teeth (date initiated: 08/07/18) .report changes in oral cavity, chewing ability, S&S of oral pain, etc . On 02/06/19 at 10:38 AM, Resident #21 was interviewed and stated that her teeth were not hurting now, but did point to the tooth/area that was hurting. The resident opened her mouth and pointed to the upper right, front area. The resident had several teeth missing, with multiple broken off teeth in the top of her mouth; the teeth present had visible decay and several, including the tooth that the resident was pointing to, were decayed and flush with the resident's gum line. She was asked if she had been to the dentist and the resident stated, yes. No documentation was found in the residents clinical record or electronic record that the resident had seen a dentist at all. The resident's physician's progress notes were reviewed. The physician's progress notes did not document any information regarding the resident's teeth, nor any information about being seen and/or prescribed an antibiotic for her teeth. On 02/06/19 at 8:35 AM, the UM (unit manager) was interviewed regarding Resident #21's teeth. The UM stated that the resident had seen a dentist. The UM was asked where the documentation was for that. The UM stated it should be in the nursing notes. The UM began to look. The UM again stated that the resident had been seen by a dentist, but did not want her teeth pulled. The UM was asked to present any information regarding this. No information and/or documentation was presented by the UM regarding the above. On 02/06/19 at approximately 9:30 AM, the administrator was asked for any policies on dental care for residents. A policy presented, titled Oral Hygiene and Denture Care documented, only how to brush and care for teeth and dentures. The policy did not address dental issues or concerns, either routinely or emergent. A policy presented, titled Denture Guidelines documented, dental care and dentures are the responsibility of the patient .contracted dental providers will provide emergency dental services to facility patients . This policy documented about dentures and did not specifically address dental issues and concerns with a resident's own/natural teeth. The administrator stated that this policy is for both, dentures and natural teeth. On 02/06/19 at approximately 4:20 PM, the SW (social worker) was interviewed and asked about Resident # 21. The SW stated, I don't know anything about her teeth. The SW was made aware of the above information regarding the resident' teeth and antibiotic use due to poor dental health. The SW stated that if she or the other SW had been notified they would have made the resident an appointment. The SW stated that they have a dentist that comes to the facility; that she (the resident) doesn't have to go out to see a dentist. The SW stated that nursing will keep social services up to date regarding the resident's teeth and dental concerns. The SW stated that the nurse's will call SW or the nurses may speak to the dentist while here to see someone that may not have been on the list. The SW stated that they get notes monthly from the dentist and the dentist comes in once a month. The SW was asked to look for notes or anything regarding Resident #21. The SW looked in the computer and stated that the resident was not on the list now and had not been on the list since she (SW) started working at the facility January of 2018. The SW stated that she inputs the information and that the dentist will send notes for residents seen once a month and she had not received any information at all on this resident. The SW stated that she had not received any notification for this resident's teeth. The SW stated, I'm going to add her to the list now. The SW was asked if the UM informed her (the SW) via phone or in person regarding concerns with Resident #21's teeth. The SW stated, She (the UM) called and asked about the dental list and if this resident has been on the list, but did not ask me to put the resident on the list and did not inform me that the resident was on antibiotic for dental issues. The SW stated, I genuinely had no idea. The SW stated that they (SW) are not clinical and rely on the nurses to provide information regarding residents. On 02/07/19 at 9:57 AM, the administrator, DON, and corporate nurse were asked for any additional information or documentation regarding this resident, and were made aware of the concerns with Resident #21's poor dental health, and concerns that the resident was prescribed an antibiotic for this without being seen by the physician or the physician writing a progress note. The administrator stated that the physician came in yesterday (02/06/19) and wrote a note regarding Resident #21, but he did not see her initially regarding the teeth, but did prescribe the antibiotics for the resident. No further information/documentation was presented prior to the exit conference on 02/07/19 at 11:30 AM.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0809 (Tag F0809)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, resident interview, staff interview and facility document review, the facility staff failed to ensure no m...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, resident interview, staff interview and facility document review, the facility staff failed to ensure no more than 14 hours elapsed between the evening meal and breakfast, and failed to offer a nourishing bedtime snack on one of seven units, three main. Findings were: Resident #50 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the following diagnoses, but not limited to: End stage renal disease with hemodialysis, depressive disorder, hypertension and COPD [chronic obstructive pulmonary disease]. An annual MDS (minimum data set) with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 12/11/2018, assessed Resident #50 as cognitively intact with a cognitive summary score of 15. During initial tour of the facility on 02/05/2019 at approximately 7:55 a.m., Resident #50 was observed sitting in his room. He was interviewed regarding life at the facility. During the interview, Resident #50 was asked if he was waiting on breakfast. He stated, It will be two hours before I see my breakfast. He was asked to explain. He stated, The room next to me is the last to be served, I'm next to last .I'll get my breakfast around 10:00 [a.m.], lunch will be around 2:30 [p.m.], and supper will be around 6:30 [p.m.]. This surveyor commented that there wasn't much time between lunch and supper. Resident #50 stated, No, it's not, but it's a long time between supper and breakfast. Resident #50 was asked if he was offered a bedtime snack. He stated, No, they don't offer us anything. He was asked if he knew whether or not a snack was available if he asked for it. He stated, I don't know. At approximately 10:00 a.m., Resident #50 was observed eating his breakfast. He was asked when he had gotten his tray. He stated, Just before you walked in. Resident #50 was asked if he ate all of his meals in his room. He stated, Yes. Resident #50 was asked if his food was hot. He stuck his finger into his cup of hot tea and stated, What's that tell you? The Dining Meal Times and Locations schedule that had been provided to the survey team was reviewed. The schedule listed the following times for meals on 3 main: Breakfast: 8:35 [a.m.], Lunch: 1:10 [p.m.], Dinner: 6:35 [p.m.]. At approximately 2:30 p.m., Resident #50 was observed eating his lunch. He was asked when his tray had been served. He stated, About 15 minutes ago .this is how it always is. A staff member on the floor was asked what time the trays had arrived to the unit. She stated, I'm not sure .but I know that the kitchen always has someone sign a paper when they get up here. On 02/06/2018, at approximately 8:30 a.m., the logs for the last two weeks, documenting the time of tray deliveries to the units, were requested from the dietary manager. The logs contained the following information: 1/23: Dinner Meal: 6:25 p.m. 1/24: Breakfast Meal: Not logged (the unit served prior to 3 main was delivered at 9:20 a.m.) 1/24: Dinner Meal: 6:41 p.m. 1/25: Breakfast Meal: 8:53 a.m. 1/25: Dinner Meal: 6:40 p.m. 1/26: No Log 1/27: Breakfast Meal: 9:06 a.m. 1/27: Dinner Meal: 6:40 p.m. 1/28: Breakfast Meal: 9:11 a.m. 1/28: Dinner Meal: 6:02 p.m. 1/29: No Log 1/30: Breakfast Meal: 8:59 a.m. 1/30: Dinner Meal: 6:36 p.m. 1/31: Breakfast Meal: 8:50 a.m. 1/31: Dinner Meal: 6:48 p.m. 2/01: Breakfast Meal: 9:05 a.m. 2/01: Dinner Meal: 6:11 p.m. 2/02: Breakfast Meal: 9:07 a.m. 2/02: Dinner Meal: 5:35 p.m. 2/03: Breakfast Meal: 9:35 a.m. 2/03: Dinner Meal: 6:22 p.m. 2/04: Breakfast Meal: 9:30 a.m. 2/04: Dinner Meal: 6:34 p.m. 2/05: Breakfast Meal: 9:41 a.m. 2/05: Dinner Meal: 6:27 p.m. 2/06: Breakfast Meal: 9:20 a.m. On ten different days there were greater than 14 hours between the evening meal and breakfast. The dietary manager was interviewed on 02/06/2019 at approximately 10:25 a.m. regarding meal times. He was asked why the logs were done. He stated, To show what time we get the carts to the floors. The span of greater than 14 hours between dinner and breakfast on the 3 main unit were discussed. He stated, I see that. He was asked if snacks were available to residents on the units. He stated, We send up snacks in the evening. He pointed to a chart on the wall and stated, That is what we send to each unit. Listed on the chart were the following: Animal Crackers: 2 packages Crackers: 2 packages Graham Crackers: 2 packages Oreo Cookies: 2 packages PB [peanut butter] Crackers: 2 packages SF [sugar free] Cookies: 2 packages' Chocolate Pudding: 2 cups Vanilla Pudding: 2 cups Apple: 2 each Orange: 2 each The dietary manager was asked what on the list he would consider to be a nourishing snack. He stated, Probably just the fresh fruit. He was asked what on the list could be served to a resident who was ordered a high protein renal diet (the physician prescribed diet for Resident #50). The dietary manager stated, Hmmm .probably just the crackers. Concerns were voiced to the dietary manager regarding the time span between the dinner meal and breakfast on 3 main, as well as the lack of nourishing snacks. He verbalized his understanding. No further information was obtained prior to the exit conference on 02/07/2019.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident #34 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her diagnoses included but were not limited to: Type II Diabetes Mellitu...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident #34 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her diagnoses included but were not limited to: Type II Diabetes Mellitus, Parkinson's disease, dementia with behavioral disturbance, Major depressive disorder, and hypertension. Her admission MDS (minimum data set) with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 05/22/2018 coded Resident #34 as having impairment with both long and short term memory, and severely impaired for daily decision making skills. The clinical record was reviewed on 02/05/2018 at approximately 6:30 p.m. Review of the progress note section indicated that Resident #34 had a history of wandering, falls and falls with injury. The clinical record included documentation of approximately 17 falls, 2 elopements, two fractures and two lacerations requiring sutures/staples since admission to the facility. The most recent fall was 02/01/2019. The care plan was reviewed at approximately 7:00 p.m. and contained the following focus area: Exit seeking/elopement risk multiple attempts to leave facility related to: cognitive impairment, new admission/change of environment. Interventions (revised 08/21/2018) listed included: Accompany to meals and scheduled activities; ALERT BRACELET; Calmly redirect; Engage in activities/tasks to keep occupied. An additional focus area for: At risk for falls due to history of fall, recent fall, non steady gait, not using safe judgement D/T dementia disease process was observed on the care plan. Interventions included: Administer Calcium and Vitamin D per protocol; Administer medication per physician orders; All interventions reviewed and continue with plan of care; Bed in low position; Encourage resident to sit in front of nursing station; have commonly used articles within easy reach; Reinforce w/c (wheelchair) safety as needed such as locking brakes; visual monitoring as resident allows; FALL RISK (FYI); Reinforce need to call for assistance. The care plan was not updated to include increased interventions/supervision to prevent further falls with injury. On 02/06/2019 at approximately 3:20 p.m., was interviewed regarding staff interventions to supervise Resident #34. The DON was asked if she felt the interventions on the care plan were sufficient to supervise and prevent Resident #34 from falling. She stated, We have an opportunity to increase her supervision .the care plan could be better. No further information was obtained prior to the exit conference on 02/07/2019. Based on staff interview and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to review and revise the comprehensive care plan (CCP) for the prevention of falls for two of 33 residents in the survey sample, Resident #129 and Resident #34. 1. The facility staff failed to ensure a comprehensive care plan was reviewed, revised and implemented for interventions and supervision for the prevention of falls, for Resident #129. 2. Resident #34's care plan was not reviewed and revised to included increased interventions/safety measures for her continued wandering, falls, and falls with injury. Findings include: 1. Resident #129 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses for this resident included, but were not limited to: history of cerebral infarction (stroke), high blood pressure, hemiplegia and hemiparesis affecting left non dominant side, major depression, partial right nephrostomy, renal cancer and hypothyroidism. The most recent full assessment for Resident #129 was a 14 day admission MDS (minimum data set) dated 12/26/18. This MDS documented the resident was assessed as a 14, indicating the resident was cognitively intact for daily decision making skills. Resident #129 required extensive assistance for most all ADL's (activities of daily living) including bed mobility, transfers, locomotion on and off unit, toilet use, and personal hygiene. The resident was also assessed as not steady, only able to stabilize with staff assistance for moving from seated to standing position, walking (with assist device if needed), moving on and off toilet, and surface to surface transfer (transfer between bed and chair or wheelchair), and documented as having impairment in upper and lower extremity on one side of body. This MDS assessed the resident as having one fall since admission, without injury. The resident triggered in the CAAS (care area assessment summary) of this MDS for, but not limited to: ADL function, urinary incontinence, and falls. During a complaint investigation, the complainant alleged that the resident had a fall on 12/22/18 and that the nurse who reported the fall, alleged that the resident had not called for assistance to go to the bathroom. It was further alleged that on 01/01/19 the resident had a fall while attempting to go to the bathroom without assistance and it was reported that the resident rang her call bell, but no one answered, the resident fell and struck her head on the corner of the bed, was sent out for treatment and received five staples in the back of the head. Resident #129's clinical records were reviewed and revealed the following: An admission assessment of Resident #129 dated 12/19/18 documented, .oriented to time, person, and situation .Falls: New/readmission .at risk for falls due to CVA (stroke), minimize risk for falls, encourage to transfer and change positions slowly, have commonly used articles within easy reach, reinforce need to call for assistance .Ambulation: partial/moderate assistance .Bed Mobility: partial/moderate assistance .Toileting: partial/moderate assistance .Transfer: partial/moderate assistance .ADL self care deficit .weakness related to CVA .Will receive assistance necessary to meet .needs .Assist .as needed . The resident's physician's orders were reviewed and documented, .Falls, visual impairment, left sided weakness . A PT (Physical Therapy) evaluation dated 12/20/18 documented, .CVA .resulting in left hemiplegia/weakness .left side weakness, left side neglect, poor dynamic standing balance, poor posture stability .impulsivity, poor safety awareness and high risk for falls .Precautions: .Fall .has patient fallen in last year: No .does patient feel unsteady: Yes .does patient worry about falling: Yes . An OT (Occupational Therapy) evaluation dated 12/20/18 documented, .long term goals: Patient will safely perform toileting tasks .with CGA (contact guard assist) with reduced risk for falls .Toileting: Max A (assist) .pt is alert and oriented X 3 able to follow 1 command direction .due to documented physical impairments and associated functional impairments .at risk for falls . Nursing notes were reviewed and documented that the resident had a fall on 12/22/18 at approximately 12:10 AM with no injuries. The resident was found lying on the floor next to her bed, when asked how did you get on the floor, patient stated that, when I put the wipes on the trash can I slid from bed. A nursing note dated 12/29/18 at 8:32 AM documented, .S/P (status post) fall no injury noted . A nursing note dated 12/29/18 at 8:44 PM documented, Resident is on S/P fall Day 2, neuro checks continue . A nursing note dated 01/01/19 at 9:35 PM documented, .writer found resident sitting on floor in her room .alert and oriented but after assessment writer observed blood on the back of residents head and observered (sic) small [NAME] [sic] to her head .MD (medical doctor) notified and gave order to send to ER (emergency room) .RP (responsible party) notified . On 01/02/19 at 12:25 AM, a CT report documented, .injury or trauma .Fall; fall with posterior head lac .continued evolution of large right MCA territory infarct with resolution of midline shift; no acute findings. A nursing note dated 01/02/19 at 3:50 AM, documented, .returned from [initials of hospital] .5 staples observed to the lower back of her head .bruise to left lateral thigh tender to touch ., and at 10:45 PM, .S/P fall day 2 .no changes in mental status .neuro checks in progress .reminded resident to use call light .assisted to rest room as needed . The resident's CCP (comprehensive care plan) date initiated: 12/19/18 documented, .self-care deficit assist with daily hygiene .transfer with one .weakness related to CVA .assist as necessary .unsteady gait .bed in low position .encourage to transfer and change positions slowly .provide assist to transfer and ambulate as needed .reinforce need to call for assistance . The CCP documented, date initiated 12/21/18 .attain and maintain ability to transfer self with supervision .provide one person guidance and physical assist . The CCP documented, date initiated 12/24/18 .Reinforce w/c safety .provide assist to transfer and ambulate as needed .bed in low position .assist with bed mobility .provide assistance with toileting .adjust toileting times to meet patient needs .remind and assist as needed with toileting at routine times .provide incontinence care as needed .assist to bathe/shower as needed . The facility failed to implement existing interventions for the prevention of falls and failed to implement any new interventions after the fall on 12/28/18 and the fall on 01/01/19. On 02/06/19 at approximately 4:50 PM, the DON (director of nursing) and the administrator were made aware of concerns regarding this resident and the lack of interventions after the resident had another fall and then fell sustaining an injury. The administrator stated that the resident was non compliant. The administrator and DON were asked for any information and/or documentation and was additionally asked for any investigations for this resident's falls. An investigation dated 12/22/18 and timed 12:10 AM, documented that the resident was found lying on the floor. A statement from the LPN (licensed practical nurse) documented, .around 12:10 pt [patient] was calling, upon arrival pt noted to be lying on the floor next to bed .pt was dry, call light was within reach .bed in low position . A CNA (certified nursing assistant) statement documented, .was in room [number] when nurse called for help .then saw pt on floor . An investigation dated 12/28/18 and timed 6:30 PM documented, .writer called by CNA to (room number) found resident on floor .supine .nurse asked resident [what happened] and resident stated she was trying to pick up something off the floor . A statement from the CNA documented, I went to answer (room number - room of Resident # 129) and found her lying on floor .called nurse .no injuries . An investigation dated 01/01/19 and timed 10:21 PM documented, .resident found sitting on floor in her room .blood observed to back of head from small cut .no visible signs of distress noted .writer asked resident what happened .resident alert and oriented stated she fell trying to go to bathroom .blood on back of head .apply pressure .new order to send to ER .resident stated she pressed call bell and couldn't wait she stated it was very embarrassing to have incontinence on self .resident transferred . The CCP was not reviewed or revised after the fall on 01/01/19. The DON, administrator and corporate nurse were made aware of serious concerns with this resident falling and sustaining an injury that required outside treatment and interventions and that the resident's CCP existing interventions were not implemented and no new interventions were developed to prevent falls with injury. The facility staff were made aware that the resident was documented as continent with poor safety awareness and that the resident had significant physical deficits, which made the resident a known, high fall risk. No further information and/or documentation was presented prior to the exit conference on 02/07/19 at approximately 11:30 AM, to evidence the facility staff implemented existing or developed new interventions to prevent falls (with injury) for this resident who was assessed as high risk for falls and was known to have an increased fall risk due to physical and mental impairments related to a stroke. This is a complaint deficiency.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0804 (Tag F0804)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interview, and in the coarse of a complaint investigation, the facility failed to ensure appetizing ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interview, and in the coarse of a complaint investigation, the facility failed to ensure appetizing food temperatures. The staff served food on the third floor unit that was less than appetizing in temperature. The findings include: Resident #50 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the following diagnoses, but not limited to: End stage renal disease with hemodialysis, depressive disorder, hypertension and COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease). An annual MDS (minimum data set) with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 12/11/2018, assessed Resident #50 as cognitively intact with a cognitive summary score of 15. Resident #50 interviewed on 2/5/19 at 7:55 AM, regarding food. Resident #50 stated that breakfast will not arrive until about 10:00 a.m; We are at the end of the line, the room next to me is last and I am next to last. Asked if food was hot when he got it, stated, No. On 2/6/19 at 8:50 AM, a test tray was performed for the third floor main unit as follows: At 8:50 AM, holding temperatures for confetti eggs (eggs in a casserole dish) were 174 degrees, scrambled eggs were 168 degrees, puree eggs and sausage were 180 degrees. At 9:03 AM, staff started plating food and loading the meal cart. At 9:15 AM, the last tray was put on meal cart. The temperature of the confetti eggs on the tray was 150 degrees. Holding temperature of confetti eggs on the steam table at this time was 179 degrees. At 9:17 AM, the meal cart arrived on the unit (13 meal trays were on cart, including test tray). At 9:20 AM, a certified nursing assistant (CNA) began to pass trays and setting up residents to eat. Another CNA began helping the first CNA with only 4 trays remaining to be passed to residents. At 9:40 AM, the last meal tray was served. At this time the dietary manager and this surveyor pulled the test tray and took a temperature of the food. The confetti eggs had a temperature of 116.4 degrees. This surveyor along with the dietary manager tasted the confetti eggs. The dietary manager was asked his opinion of how the eggs tasted and temperature. The dietary manager verbalized that the eggs seemed cool and could be hotter, this surveyor agreed. On 02/06/19 at 4:50 PM, during an end of day meeting, the director of nursing and administrator was made aware of the above findings. No other information was presented prior to exit conference on 2/7/19. This is a complaint deficiency.
CONCERN (E)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observations, staff interview, and review of facility policies, the facility failed to store food in a sanitary manner in the main kitchen. The findings include: The initial tour of the kitc...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, staff interview, and review of facility policies, the facility failed to store food in a sanitary manner in the main kitchen. The findings include: The initial tour of the kitchen was conducted on 02/05/19 at 7:45 a.m. A dietary aide, identified as OS#9 accompanied this surveyor during the tour. In the walk-in refrigerator was an opened pack of hot dogs laying on a flat pan. The package was not sealed or marked with an open date. OS#9 stated, I am not sure when these were opened. I was off yesterday. A stand alone refrigerator labeled Cooks Box II was observed. A metal container that contained spicy green peppers was loosely covered with plastic wrap, dated 1/29. A small plastic baggie contained chopped onion without a date and a partially cut whole onion was laying on top of this baggie without any covering or date. OS#9 went to OS#8 (the morning cook) and asked her when these items had been opened. OS#8 gave OS #9 dates. OS#9 wrote those dates on the opened, undated containers and placed them back into the refrigerator. A second stand alone refrigerator labeled Cooks Box I contained 14 individual bowls of cottage cheese that were not dated. A small container of chicken base was opened, without a proper lid. A metal container of tuna salad covered with plastic wrap was not dated. A personal lunch bag was stored in this refrigerator, along with a plastic bag of fried rice and a small styrofoam container of chinese food and several containers of different sauces. OS#9 stated, I don't know who this belongs to. It must be someone's lunch. On 02/05/19 at approximately 4:00 p.m. the DM brought requested facility policies to this surveyor. The policy, Labeling Food and Date Marking included: Types of Labels That Can Be Used 1. Plain adhesive labels can be used but information needs to be hand printed on the label. 2. Some items can be labeled by marking directly on the package, plastic wrap, disposable lid or foil covering the item. 3. An indelible pen will help prevent writing from running and fading. A wax pen writes on wet or frozen items. 4. Labeling guns with labels that have the appropriate information may be used . The DM was interviewed on 02/06/19 at 9:45 a.m The DM stated, We have a policy for outside food brought into residents, but not food brought in by employees. My expectation is there should be no employee food in the kitchen. They have a refrigerator in their break room. All opened foods in the kitchen should be sealed properly and dated with the date of opening. The Administrator and DON (director of nursing) were informed of the above during a meeting with survey team on 02/06/19 at approximately 5:00 p.m. No further information was received by the survey team prior to the exit conference on 02/07/19.
CONCERN (E)

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

Administration (Tag F0835)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on the identification of Immediate Jeopardy and Substandard Quality of Care, as well as observations and staff interviews, the facility Administrator failed to exercise due diligence in the day-...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on the identification of Immediate Jeopardy and Substandard Quality of Care, as well as observations and staff interviews, the facility Administrator failed to exercise due diligence in the day-to-day operation of the facility. The Administrator failed to ensure a paraplegic smoker was assessed for safe smoking, failed to ensure the resident was care planned for smoking, and failed to ensure the resident was supervised during smoking. In addition, door alarms in the building were sounding without a response from the staff. The Administrator failed to ensure there was a specific policy in place that provided staff with direction as to how to respond to door alarms. The findings were: 1. During the survey, a female paraplegic resident was identified as a smoker. Thorough review of the resident's clinical record revealed she had not been assessed for safe smoking. She was not identified on her most recent Minimum Data Set as using tobacco, and she had not been care planned for smoking. The resident was observed in a smoking area located outside the main Dining Room without a protective smoking apron, and smoking without direct supervision of a staff member. This resulted in the identification of Immediate Jeopardy and Substandard Quality of Care. During a review of the facility's QAA (Quality Assessment and Assurance)/QAPI (Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement) program, the Administrator was interviewed regarding resident smoking and supervision of smokers. Asked about supervision of smoker, the Administrator said, .I had no idea that the staff who were supervising them (smokers) were not out there with the smokers. Asked if he ever made random rounds to make sure staff were following the facility protocols for smoking, and if he ever observed the smoking area on those rounds, the Administrator said, No. I will be honest, I have not been out there to that area. I do go out on the floors to see if residents are receiving care, but not out to the smoking area. I assumed it (supervision) was being done per the discussion and training. 2. At 7:45 a.m. on 2/5/19, a constant ringing alarm was heard on the 100 Unit. The alarm, which could be heard throughout the unit, rang continually for 30 minutes without any response from the unit staff. At 8:14 a.m. on 2/5/19, LPN # 5 (Licensed Practical Nurse), who was later identified as the Unit Charge Nurse, was asked two times why the alarm was sounding. Each time LPN # 5 stated, Emergency. Asked a third time, LPN # 5 said, A building emergency. Asked what actions needed to be taken, LPN # 5 had no response. At 8:15 a.m., RN # 4 (Registered Nurse) joined the surveyor and LPN # 5 and said the alarm was for a fire exit door, and that the alarm was activated when someone held the door open too long. RN # 4 went to the fire exit door and entered a code on a panel next to the door deactivating the alarm. At 8:10 a.m. on 2/6/19, RN # 4 was interviewed again about the door alarm. Asked why staff members on the 100 Unit took no action in response to the alarm that sounded the previous morning. RN # 4 said the code to the door had recently been changed and the staff members were not aware of the new code. At 3:20 p.m. on 2/6/19, the Administrator was interviewed regarding expectations for staff response to door alarms. The Administrator said staff should have .checked for residents and investigated why the alarm was sounding. Asked if there was a policy giving staff direction as to how to respond to door alarms, the Administrator said he had no specific policy about alarms, only a missing person protocol. When to alarm door alarm goes off, it activates the missing person protocol, the Administrator said. The Administrator provided a copy of the Missing Residents protocol which noted in part, The Missing Resident Response Plan is intended to provide guidelines for resident accountability, searching for missing residents, and communicating with outside agencies.
CONCERN (E)

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

QAPI Program (Tag F0867)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on staff interview and facility document review, the facility staff failed to develop and implement an appropriate plan of action for an identified quality deficiency regarding smoking. The faci...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on staff interview and facility document review, the facility staff failed to develop and implement an appropriate plan of action for an identified quality deficiency regarding smoking. The facility QAA (Quality Assessment and Assurance)/QAPI (Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement) committee failed to develop and implement an appropriate plan of action for an identified deficiency with residents' smoking; the facility failed to ensure that an action plan was in place to ensure safe smoking for residents. Findings included: The administrator was interviewed 2/07/19 at 9:14 a.m. He was asked if the QAA committee had identified any problems with the smokers who should have direct supervision. He stated When I came here we put together the smoking times, had meetings with families, residents and activities. Then met with the people who be providing supervision; the expectation was they were to stay out in the smoking area with the residents. On weekends the staff are smokers and they do stay out there with them. One staff member stated they had asthma, and could they stand inside the door with door open to supervise the smokers? We stated yes, that could be done. But I had no idea the staff providing supervision were not out there with the smokers. Had I been aware that the staff who were supervising them were not out there, that certainly would have been an intervention QAA would have looked at and made recommendations on. The administrator was asked if he made random rounds to ensure staff were following protocols, specifically if the smoking area was ever observed? The administrator stated No; I will be honest .I have not been out there to that area. I do go out on the floors to see if residents are receiving care, but not out to the smoking are. I assumed it was being done per the discussion and training.
CONCERN (F)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on staff interview and facility document review, the facility staff failed to ensure policies and procedures were developed and implemented for an effective water management program for the prev...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on staff interview and facility document review, the facility staff failed to ensure policies and procedures were developed and implemented for an effective water management program for the prevention of legionella and other opportunistic pathogens in the facility's water system. Findings included: On 02/05/19 at 7:30 AM, the survey team entered the facility. Upon entry, the water fountain located on the first floor, in front of the main elevators, had a hand written sign laying on top of the fountain, that read: Out of Order-Do Not Use. On 02/05/19 at approximately 3:00 PM, the DON (director of nursing) was asked any information on the water management program. The DON stated that is the maintenance department's area. The DON later presented and binder and stated that this binder contained information regarding the water management program, but the maintenance director would have to speak to the water management program. The water management binder was reviewed and did not contain any type of facility risk assessment for the identification where legionella or other waterborne pathogens could grow and spread in the facility water system, did not include any type of control measures (physical, temperature management, disinfectant level control, visual inspections, or environmental testing for pathogens), and did not specify testing protocols and acceptable ranges for control measures, did not document results of testing and corrective actions taken when control limits are not maintained. The binder did not have policies/procedures or protocols on how the facility would manage the requirements of a water management program for prevention of legionella or other waterborne pathogens. On 02/05/19 at approximately 3:45 PM, the administrator presented a facility document, .March 1, 2018 .Water Management Program Implementation .is implementing a water management program .a hard copy of the WMPP [water management program protocol] template document, including section tabs, attachments, and program documentation requirements. The program will need to be customized for each facility, primarily to describe the building water system .after you customize the plan for your facility, please insert the text into the workbook .designed to be used a program binder to keep required documents that may be requested during survey or during a disease investigation, should one occur .each facility will create a water management team . On 02/06/18 at approximately 9:45 AM, the maintenance director was interviewed regarding information pertaining to the water management program binder for the prevention of legionella. The maintenance director stated, I don't know nothing about that. The maintenance director stated that he was new and had only been at this facility for two months. The maintenance director was asked to present any additional information and/or documentation regarding a water management program. The maintenance director was also asked at this time about the water fountain on the first floor, that was posted as non operational. The maintenance director stated that he did not have any work orders in the system regarding the water fountain and that he did not know what was wrong with it. The maintenance director was asked to provide any information regarding the water fountain, as well. On 02/05/19 at approximately 5:30 PM, the DON and administrator were made aware of the above information and were asked for assistance in obtaining any additional information regarding the water management program. The DON and administrator were asked what was wrong with the water fountain. The administrator stated, It's been broke for years and further stated that it had been broken for at least a couple of years, that he (the administrator) remembered it being broken before he ever worked here. On 02/07/18 at 7:30 AM, upon entry into the facility, the water fountain that had been non functional (with signage) was removed from the wall and was removed from the area. At approximately 9:30 AM, the administrator, DON and corporate nurse were again informed of concerns regarding the water management program. The administrator stated that he had it. The administrator was asked to present any information. At approximately 9:40 AM the administrator stated that he had requested information be faxed to the facility from an outside lab that did testing for legionella on 05/24/18. The information was presented and reviewed. No further information and/or documentation was presented prior to the exit conference on 02/07/19 at 11:30 AM, to evidence that an effective water management program was developed and implemented.
MINOR (C)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Staffing Information (Tag F0732)

Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation and staff interview, the facility staff failed to post daily nurse staffing in a visible area in the facility. Findings include: On 2/5/19 at 3:45 p.m. a tour of the facility nurs...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and staff interview, the facility staff failed to post daily nurse staffing in a visible area in the facility. Findings include: On 2/5/19 at 3:45 p.m. a tour of the facility nursing stations was conducted. There were no nurse staffing postings observed at the nurses' stations. On 2/5/19 at 4:00 p.m. the DON (director of nursing) was asked about the daily staff posting. She stated No; there's no posting for the staffing .there's a clipboard at the nurses' station as far as who is on duty . A few minutes later the DON returned to the conference room and told this surveyor I'm going to take care of that right now. The administrator, DON, and corporate consultant were informed of the above findings during an end of day meeting 2/6/19 beginning at 4:45 p.m. No further information was provided prior to the exit conference 2/7/19.
Oct 2017 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0279 (Tag F0279)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, resident interview, and staff interview, the facility staff failed for one of 24 residents in t...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, resident interview, and staff interview, the facility staff failed for one of 24 residents in the survey sample (Resident # 17) to develop a plan of care that included non-pharmacological interventions to address pain control for the resident. The findings were: Resident # 17 in the survey sample, a [AGE] year-old male, was admitted to the facility on [DATE], and most recently readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included rheumatoid arthritis, gastroesophageal reflux disease, anemia, rheumatoid lung disease, hypertension, peripheral vascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, status post right below the knee amputation, and sleep apnea. According to the most recent Minimum Data Set, with an Assessment Reference Date of 9/29/17, the resident was assessed under Section C (Cognitive Patterns) as being cognitively intact, with a Summary Score of 14 out of 15. According to Resident # 17's electronic clinical record, he takes two medications, Oxycodone 5 mg (milligrams) and Tylenol 325 mg, on an as needed basis for pain control. At 8:45 a.m. on 10/4/17, the resident was interviewed regarding his pain control. Resident # 17 said he has .a chest tube that drains fluid off my lungs that is a little tender, phantom pain on my right stump, and arthritis pain in my wrists and hands. The resident also acknowledge his use of pain medications as needed. Asked about non-pharmacological interventions to address his pain, such as warm compresses, bio-feed back, or other diversions, the resident said, They have never offered any other pain relief options. Review of the resident's care plan revealed two problems in the area of pain. The first problem, dated 8/2/17, was, Pain related to right lower extremity amputation. The goal for the problem was, Will express that pain management is within acceptable limits. The interventions for the stated problem were, Administer pain medication per physician orders; Encourage/Assist to reposition frequently to position of comfort; and, Notify physician if pain frequency/intensity is worsening or if current analgesia regimen has become ineffective. The second problem, dated 9/25/17, was, At risk for pain related to recent surgery. The goal for the second problem was, Reduce episodes of breakthrough pain. The interventions for the stated problem were, Administer pain medication per physician orders; Encourage/Assist to reposition frequently to position of comfort; and, Notify physician if pain frequency/intensity is worsening or if current analgesia regimen has become ineffective. The findings were discussed during a meeting at 9:45 a.m. on 10/4/17 that included the facility Administrator, Director of Nursing, and the survey team.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0518 (Tag F0518)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interview and facility document review, the facility failed to ensure staff members were knowledgeable of emergen...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interview and facility document review, the facility failed to ensure staff members were knowledgeable of emergency procedures. One of 8 employees interviewed were not familiar with protocols for power outage and/or fire emergencies. The findings include: On 10/03/17 at approximately 11:15 p.m., the facility was contacted by telephone to conduct interviews regarding abuse policies and emergency preparedness. CNA (Certified nursing assistant) #1 was interviewed about her role if there was a fire or power outage. CNA #1 stated that she was hired on 08/10/2017 and had not worked at the facility very long. She was asked if she had received training during orientation regarding power outages and fires. She stated that she probably did, but she had gone over a lot of information at the time of her hire. CNA #1 was asked if she knew whether or not the facility had a generator. She stated, I think we do. She was asked if she know how long it took the generator to come on in the event of a power outage, or what all was functional on generator power. She stated, I don't know. CNA #1 was asked if she knew what to do to ensure that beds were operational during a power outage. She stated, I think there is a switch or something on them to make them work. She was asked if anyone had talked to her about special plugs or red outlets. She stated, I don't know . I wasn't prepared to talk to you. CNA #1 was asked about fire drills. She stated that she had not participated in a fire drill. She was asked if she knew what her role was. She stated, I guess get the residents safe. She was asked if there was a system in place to tell her where a fire was located. She stated, I guess we look for the smoke. She then started talking to someone passing by in the hallway. She was heard to say, Hey [name]. Did you just get here? CNA #1 then stated to this surveyor, I already told you I don't know . I haven't worked here very long. Training records for CNA #1 were reviewed with the employee files. Records documented CNA #1 completed training on 08/10/2017 regarding emergency preparedness. On 10/04/17 at 8:10 a.m. the maintenance director was interviewed. He stated that during employee orientation he educated staff regarding the generator, emergency preparedness, power outages and fire protocol. He stated the timing for the generator to come on, the red plugs, what to do in a fire, all were reviewed. The DON (director of nursing) and the administrator were notified of the above information during an end of the day meeting on 10/04/2017. No further information was obtained prior to the exit conference on 10/04/2017.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

  • "What changes have you made since the serious inspection findings?"
  • "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
  • "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Virginia facilities.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s), 1 harm violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 41 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • Grade F (33/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 33/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Carlin Springs Health & Rehabilitation's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns CARLIN SPRINGS HEALTH & REHABILITATION an overall rating of 2 out of 5 stars, which is considered below average nationally. Within Virginia, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. A rating at this level reflects concerns identified through health inspections, staffing assessments, or quality measures that families should carefully consider.

How is Carlin Springs Health & Rehabilitation Staffed?

CMS rates CARLIN SPRINGS HEALTH & REHABILITATION's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 47%, compared to the Virginia average of 46%.

What Have Inspectors Found at Carlin Springs Health & Rehabilitation?

State health inspectors documented 41 deficiencies at CARLIN SPRINGS HEALTH & REHABILITATION during 2017 to 2022. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 1 that caused actual resident harm, 38 with potential for harm, and 1 minor or isolated issues. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.

Who Owns and Operates Carlin Springs Health & Rehabilitation?

CARLIN SPRINGS HEALTH & REHABILITATION is owned by a non-profit organization. Non-profit facilities reinvest revenue into operations rather than distributing to shareholders. The facility is operated by HILL VALLEY HEALTHCARE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 161 certified beds and approximately 145 residents (about 90% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in ARLINGTON, Virginia.

How Does Carlin Springs Health & Rehabilitation Compare to Other Virginia Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Virginia, CARLIN SPRINGS HEALTH & REHABILITATION's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 3.0, staff turnover (47%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (1 stars) is much below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Carlin Springs Health & Rehabilitation?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What changes have been made since the serious inspection findings, and how are you preventing similar issues?" "Can you walk me through typical staffing levels on day, evening, and night shifts?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations and the below-average staffing rating.

Is Carlin Springs Health & Rehabilitation Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, CARLIN SPRINGS HEALTH & REHABILITATION has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 2-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in Virginia. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.

Do Nurses at Carlin Springs Health & Rehabilitation Stick Around?

CARLIN SPRINGS HEALTH & REHABILITATION has a staff turnover rate of 47%, which is about average for Virginia nursing homes (state average: 46%). Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.

Was Carlin Springs Health & Rehabilitation Ever Fined?

CARLIN SPRINGS HEALTH & REHABILITATION has no federal fines on record. CMS issues fines when nursing homes fail to meet care standards or don't correct problems found during inspections. The absence of fines suggests the facility has either maintained compliance or corrected any issues before penalties were assessed. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review recent inspection reports for the full picture.

Is Carlin Springs Health & Rehabilitation on Any Federal Watch List?

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