COURTLAND REHABILITATION AND HEALTHCARE CENTER

23020 MAIN STREET, COURTLAND, VA 23837 (757) 653-0908
For profit - Individual 90 Beds YAD HEALTHCARE Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
20/100
#246 of 285 in VA
Last Inspection: March 2022

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

Overview

Courtland Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the facility's overall quality and care. Ranking #246 out of 285 nursing homes in Virginia places it in the bottom half, while it is the only option in Southampton County, meaning families have no better local alternatives. The facility is worsening, with issues increasing from 7 in 2020 to 20 in 2022. Staffing has a below-average rating of 2 out of 5 stars, with a turnover rate of 46%, which is slightly better than the state average, but this still indicates instability among staff. Although there have been no fines recorded, the facility has concerning RN coverage, being lower than 79% of Virginia facilities, which could impact the quality of care. Specific incidents of concern include a failure to administer IV fluids as ordered for a resident, leading to severe dehydration and respiratory distress, and the discovery of a new wound on another resident that was acquired in-house, indicating inadequate care. While there are some strengths, such as no fines and a decent quality measures rating of 4 out of 5, the numerous serious and potential harm issues raise significant red flags for families considering this facility.

Trust Score
F
20/100
In Virginia
#246/285
Bottom 14%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Worse
7 → 20 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
46% 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
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 20 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Virginia. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
⚠ Watch
36 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Overall Rating
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Staff Levels
★★★★☆
4.0
Care Quality
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2020: 7 issues
2022: 20 issues

The Good

  • 4-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

1-Star Overall Rating

Below Virginia average (3.0)

Significant quality concerns identified by CMS

Staff Turnover: 46%

Near Virginia avg (46%)

Higher turnover may affect care consistency

Chain: YAD HEALTHCARE

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 36 deficiencies on record

4 actual harm
Mar 2022 20 deficiencies 4 Harm
SERIOUS (G)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on complaint investigation, staff interviews, clinical record review, and facility documentation, the facility staff faile...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on complaint investigation, staff interviews, clinical record review, and facility documentation, the facility staff failed to provide the necessary care and treatment for 5 out of 44 residents (Resident #84, #64, #79, #56, and #71) in the survey sample. For Resident #84, the facility staff failed to follow the Nurse Practitioner (NP) orders to provide parenteral Intravenous (IV) fluids as ordered on 02/04/22 at approximately 10:30 a.m., to start Sodium Chloride Solution 0.9%, use 50 ml/hour intravenously (IV) x 24 hours for 2 liters for hydration which was never initiated for a resident who had a decline in oral fluids, decrease appetite and having loose stools. Resident #84 remained in the facility for 28 hours after the order was given on 02/04/22 to start IV fluids. On 02/05/22 at approximately 2:56 p.m., Resident #84 was observed in respiratory distress, unable to obtain blood pressure, and using accessory muscles for breathing. Resident #84 was transferred via 911 (emergent) to the local hospital and admitted on [DATE] with a diagnosis of severe metabolic acidosis, severe dehydration, hypothermia at 89.4 degrees, Urinary Tract Infection (UTI), and Acute Kidney Injury (suspect pre-renal due to dehydration), which constituted harm for Resident #84. For Residents #64 and #79, the facility staff failed to obtain blood sugars as ordered by the physician. For Resident #56, the facility staff failed to recognize, assess and intervene on an acute change in condition for a resident presenting with a four-pound weight gain in a week, increased edema to the resident's right leg, left arm, and face, and episodes of shortness of breath without flowing oxygen. For Resident #71, the facility staff failed to follow physician orders for the care of an IV PICC line. The findings included: 1. Resident #84 was admitted to the nursing facility on 11/10/21. The resident was discharged to the local hospital on [DATE] and did not return to the nursing facility. Diagnosis for Resident #84 included but not limited to Chronic Kidney Disease (not on dialysis) and Type II Diabetes Mellitus. The most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) was an admission assessment with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 11/17/21 coded the resident on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) an 11 of 15 indicating moderate cognitive impairment. Resident #84 was coded total dependence of one with toilet use and bathing, extensive assistance of one with bed mobility and transfer, limited assistance of one with dressing and personal hygiene, and supervision with one assist with eating Activities of Daily Living (ADL). Under section H - (Bladder and Bowel) was coded for always incontinent of bladder and bowel. The care plan created on 11/17/21 and a revision date of 01/11/22 identified Resident #84 with impaired cognitive function or impaired thought process related to an altered mental status. The goal set for the resident by the staff was that the resident will improve their current level of cognitive function through the next review on 03/09/22. One of the interventions/approaches the staff would use to accomplish this goal is to administer medications as ordered. Monitor/document for side effects and effectiveness. On 02/04/22, the Nurse Practitioner's (NP) progress revealed the following information: Resident #84 is being seen today for loose stools, decrease intake, and COVID-19. Resident #84 reports having decreased appetite and increased thirst. Under diagnosis, assessment and plan it included but was not limited to start Sodium Chloride Solution at 50 ml/hour x 2 liters. The review of Resident #84's Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed the following order: Sodium Chloride Solution 0.9%, use 50 ml/hour intravenously (IV) x 24 hours for 2 liters for hydration or clysis for 3 days, the order remains in pending confirmation. An interview was conducted with License Practical Nurse (LPN) #6 on 03/14/22 at approximately 4:12 p.m. When asked, what does it mean with an order that reads pending confirmation? The LPN stated, that the order was put in Point Click Care (PCC) but the nurse never confirmed the order, so the order was never initiated. A review of Resident #84's clinical record revealed the following documentation entered on 02/05/22 at approximately 2:56 p.m., by LPN #3. Resident #84 noted having respiratory distress, being unable to obtain blood pressure, oxygen saturation of 94% on room air, and heart rate of 102 while using accessory muscles for breathing. A new order was obtained to send to the ER for evaluation and treatment. A phone interview was conducted with Nurse Practitioner (NP) on 03/15/22 at approximately 2:08 p.m. The NP stated she assessed Resident #84 on 02/04/22 due to the staff reporting the resident was having loose stools and not eating. She said that during her discussion with the resident, he voiced to me that he was really thirsty and has no appetite. The NP said IV fluids were ordered and started on 02/04/22. The NP stated, IV fluids were ordered for hydration because Resident #84 was having loose stools and not eating She said the BMP was not ordered as STAT (now order) because I needed time for the IV fluids to hydrate the resident to help determine what further treatment was needed. The NP stated, Unfortunately, his IV fluids were never started and I was never notified. An interview was conducted with LPN#3 on 03/14/22 at approximately 1:46 p.m. The LPN was assigned to provide care and services to Resident #84 on 02/04/22 and 02/05/22 (7-3 shift), the day Resident #84 was evaluated by the NP with new orders to start IV fluids. The LPN said she remembered Resident #84 was not eating or drinking. She said the NP came in and saw Resident #84 and wrote a bunch of new orders but I was never informed that an order to start IV fluids. On 03/15/22 at approximately 9:44 a.m., a phone interview was conducted with LPN #5. The LPN was assigned to provide care and services to Resident #84 on 02/04/22 (11-7 shift). The LPN stated, I don't recall the nurse giving a report that Resident #84 had an order to start an IV to administer IV fluids. On 03/16/22 at approximately 2:53 p.m., an interview was conducted with the Regional Director of Clinical Services. The Regional Director said the nurse(s) should have activated the order in PCC and the IV fluids should have been started as ordered by the (NP). He stated, If the nurse assigned was not able to start the IV, there is always someone in house that could have started the IV. He stated clysis could have been used to hydrate the resident. A phone interview was conducted with the Medical Director on 03/17/22 at approximately 5:11 p.m., when asked if the staff should have started the fluids IV or via clysis, he replied, Absolutely, not receiving the IV fluids could have contributed to his dehydration as well as Acute Renal Failure (AFR). The Medical Director stated, The NP or I should have been notified that Resident #84's IV fluids were never started. A review of the hospital records revealed the following: Resident #84 presented in the emergency room (ER) on 02/05/22 from (name of nursing facility) for further evaluation due to lethargy. The 911 transport revealed the following: Resident serum glucose was 14. The Emergency Medical Service (EMS) placed an IV, gave glucagon and D10 and his glucose increased to 135. The ER records indicated Resident #84's rectal temperature at 89.4 degrees F (hypothermia - low body temperature) and placed on Bair Hugger for low rectal temperature. The resident's blood pressure was 89/40 (normal = 120/80). He was found to be in severe metabolic acidosis and septic shock. The urinalysis with reflex showed large leukocyte esterase, positive nitrites, and a moderate amount of blood with 3+ bacteria. The urine culture revealed more than 100,000 colonies and was positive for Kiebsiella pneumoniae. The resident had a high blood creatinine of 7.2 (0.59-1.04 = normal range). The creatinine test is a measure of how well your kidneys as performing their job of filtering waste from your blood (www.mayoclinic.org). The resident was started on IV sodium bicarbonate, given D50, and admitted to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU). Intravenous Fluids (IV), and IV antibiotic (Zyvox and Zosyn) was also started. Resident #84 is in the ICU, on a ventilator, sedated and unresponsive. The resident will need dialysis per nephrology but is pending due to his acute kidney injury. Resident #84 is being transferred to a higher level of care on 02/12/22. The resident is hemodynamically unstable for conventional hemodialysis and will benefit from continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT), which this facility doesn't provide. At the time of discharge, resident remains on a mechanical ventilator. A review of the hospital records revealed the following: Resident #84 presented in the emergency room (ER) on 02/12/22 as a transfer from the originated hospital for further evaluation due to hypoglycemia and Altered Mental Status (AMS). The resident was sent here for continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT), which the previous hospital doesn't provide. The hemodialysis catheter placement was placed and (CRRT) was started on 02/13/22. A debriefing was conducted with the Administrator, [NAME] President of Clinical Services, and Regional Director of Clinical Services on 03/17/22 at approximately 5:45 p.m., Resident #84's issues were presented again. The facility did not present any further information about the findings prior to survey exit. Definitions: -Metabolic acidosis develops when too much acid is produced in the body. It can also occur when the kidneys cannot remove enough acid from the body. Some causes of metabolic acidosis include but are not limited to severe diarrhea and severe dehydration. Treatment is aimed at the health problem causing acidosis. In some cases, sodium bicarbonate may be given to reduce the acidity of the blood. Often, you will receive lots of fluids through the vein (https://medlineplus.gov). -Dehydration occurs when you use or lose more fluid than you take in, and your body doesn't have enough water and other fluids to carry out its normal functions. If you don't replace lost fluids, you will get dehydrated. You can usually reverse mild to moderate dehydration by drinking more fluids, but severe dehydration needs immediate medical treatment. Many people, particularly older adults, don't feel thirsty until they're already dehydrated. That's why it's important to increase water intake when you're ill. Other dehydration causes include but are not limited to diarrhea and or acute diarrhea - that is, diarrhea that comes on suddenly and violently - can cause a tremendous loss of water and electrolytes in a short amount of time. Dehydration can lead to serious complications, including urinary and kidney problems. Prolonged or repeated bouts of dehydration can cause urinary tract infections, kidney stones, and even kidney failure. The only effective treatment for dehydration is to replace lost fluids and lost electrolytes. The best approach to dehydration treatment depends on age, the severity of dehydration, and its cause. Adults who are severely dehydrated should be treated by emergency personnel arriving in an ambulance or in a hospital emergency room. Salts and fluids delivered through a vein (intravenously) are absorbed quickly and speed recovery. -Hypothermia is a medical emergency that occurs when your body loses heat faster than can produce heat, causing a dangerously low body temperature. Normal body temperature is around 98.6. Hypothermia occurs as your body temperature falls below 95 degrees Fahrenheit (https://www.mayoclinic.org). -Urinary tract infection occurs when there is a compromise of host defense mechanisms and a virulent microbe adheres, multiplies, and persists in a portion of the urinary tract. Most commonly, UTIs is caused by bacteria, but fungi and viruses are possible. Urine culture and sensitivity are the gold standards for the diagnosis of bacterial UTIs (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov). -Acute Kidney Injury occurs when your kidneys suddenly become unable to filter waste products from your blood. When your kidneys lose their filtering ability, dangerous levels of waste may accumulate, and your blood's chemical makeup may get out of balance. Acute kidney failure - also called acute renal failure or acute kidney injury - develops rapidly, usually in less than a few days (https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/kidney-failure/symptoms-causes). -Sodium Chloride Solution 0.9%, solution is used to supply water and salt (sodium chloride) to the body. Sodium chloride solution may also be mixed with other medications given by injection into a vein (https://www.webmd.com/drugs). -Clysis or hypodermoclysis is a relatively safe and effective procedure in a nursing home. The use of clysis in the nursing home is an alternative to intravenous hydration. The use of clysis for short-term hydration has the potential to reduce costs and transfers to the hospital (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov). -A basic metabolic panel (BMP) is a test that measures eight different substances in your blood. It provides important information about your body's chemical balance and metabolism. Metabolism is the process of how the body uses food and energy. A BMP is used to check different body functions and processes, including kidney function, fluid and electrolyte balance, blood sugar levels, and acid and base balance (https://medlineplus.gov). -Klebiella pneumoniae is one of the bacteria most frequently causing healthcare-associated urinary tract infections (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov). -[NAME] system is a temperature management system used in a hospital or survey center to maintain a patient's core body temperature (https://www.bairhugger.com). -Mechanical ventilation is a form of life support. A mechanical ventilator is a machine that takes over the work of breathing when a person is not able to breathe enough on their own. The mechanical ventilator is also called a ventilator, respirator, or breathing machine (https://www.continued.com/resp-therapy/courses). 2. The facility staff failed to follow physician orders to obtain blood sugars as ordered by the physician. Resident #64 was admitted to the nursing facility on 11/12/21. Diagnosis for Resident #64 included but not limited to Type II Diabetes Mellitus (DM) with hyperglycemia. The current Minimum Data Set (MDS), a quarterly assessment with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 02/22/22 coded the resident with a 14 out of a possible score of 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) indicating no cognitive impairment. The MDS coded Resident #64 requiring total dependence of one with bathing, extensive assistance of one with dressing, limited assistance of one with toilet use and personal hygiene and supervision with transfer and eating for Activities of Daily Living care. Under Section N for the use of insulin injection was coded as received daily during the last 7 days. The care plan created on 11/15/21 identified Resident #64 with a diagnosis of diabetes mellitus. The goal set for the resident by the staff is to be without complications related to diabetes. Some of the interventions/approaches the staff would use to accomplish this goal is monitor/document/report as needed any signs or symptoms of hyperglycemia: increased thirst and appetite, frequent urination, weight loss, fatigue, dry skin, poor wound healing, muscle cramps, abdominal pain and acetone breath (smells fruity). During the initial tour on 03/09/22 at approximately 3:27 p.m., an interview was conducted with Resident #64 who stated, The nurses do not always check my blood sugar. The resident stated my blood sugar is to be check everyday before my meals and at bedtime. Review of Resident #64's physician orders for March 2022 revealed the following order starting on 11/15/21: check blood sugars before meals and at bedtime. Notify the physician for blood sugar less than 60 or greater than 400. 1. Review of January 2022 Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed blood sugar's were not obtained as ordered by the physician on the following days: 01/18 (before breakfast, 01/19 (at bedtime), 01/20 (before breakfast) and 01/24 (before breakfast). 2. Review of February 2022 Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed blood sugar's were not obtained as ordered by the physician on the following days: 02/04 (before breakfast), 02/07 (at bedtime), 02/17 (before breakfast, before dinner and at bedtime). An interview was conducted with the Regional Director of Clinical Services on 03/16/22 at approximately 2:53 p.m., who reviewed the documents mentioned above. He stated, the expectations is for all nurses are to obtain blood sugars as ordered by the physician. The Regional Director stated, If it's not documented, it didn't happen. A debriefing was held with the Administrator and [NAME] President of Operations on 03/17/22 at approximately 5:45 p.m., who were informed of the above findings; no further information was provided prior to exit. The policy titled: Obtaining a Fingerstick Glucose Level with a revision date of 10/11. Purpose is to obtain a blood sugar sample to determine the resident's blood glucose level. Documentation read in part: The person performing this procedure should record the following in the resident's medical record: 5. If the resident refused the procedure, the reason(s) why and the intervention taken. 6. The blood sugar results. Follow facility policies and procedure for appropriate nursing interventions regarding blood sugar results (if resident is on sliding scale coverage, and/or physician interventions is needed to adjust insulin or oral medication dosages). 4. The facility staff failed to recognize, assess and intervene on an acute change in condition for a resident presenting with a four pound weight gain in a week, increased edema to the resident's right leg, left arm and face and episodes of shortness of breath without flowing oxygen for Resident #56. Resident #56 was originally admitted to the facility 9/19/16 and readmitted [DATE] after an acute care hospital stay. The current diagnoses included; COPD, congestive heart failure (CHF), and respiratory failure with hypoxia. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment with an assessment reference date (ARD) of 2/15/22 coded the resident as completing the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) and scoring 15 out of a possible 15. This indicated Resident #56's cognitive abilities for daily decision making was intact. In section G (Physical functioning) the resident was coded as requiring total care of one person with personal hygiene, bathing, dressing, and toileting, extensive assistance of two people with bed mobility and supervision of one person after set-up with eating. Resident #56 was observed seated in a wheel chair in her room. She was wearing a slipper to the right foot and her right lowered leg was with plus two edema and redness. The resident's left arm was also with plus two edema and her face appeared fuller than it was the prior evening. The resident had a portable oxygen tank on the back of her wheel chair but it was on empty and she had a nasal cannula in her nostrils. An interview was conducted with Resident #56 in her room on 3/10/22 at approximately 2: 30 p.m. Resident #56 stated she participated in the Resident Council meeting earlier on 3/10/22 and was waiting for the nurses to put her back in bed. Resident #56 stated she felt heavy as well as a little short of breath and it troubled her for in January 2022 she was hospitalized twice for shortness of breath caused by COPD and congestive heart failure. The resident stated her doctor always told her to weigh daily and if there was a change of three pounds or more to contact the office and to be sure she monitored her intake of fluids. Resident #56 stated she asked Certified Nursing Assistant CNA) #6 to weight her on 3/10/22 and she weighed was 194.5 pounds. Resident #56 stated she's supposed to wear a TED hose to her right leg but the CNA wasn't able to locate one that morning. The resident also stated she received a fluid pill, a heart pill and oxygen to manage her breathing problems caused by COPD and congestive heart failure. The Physician's Order Summary (POS) revealed an order dated 3/1/22 which read; weekly weights to be completed one time a day every Monday related to heart failure. The resident's weight was 190.7 pounds on 3/7/22. Additional orders on the POS read; 8/25/21 Lasix Tablet 40 MG (Furosemide) Give 1 tablet by mouth two times a day for CHF. 08/17/2021- apply TED hose in AM and off in PM two times a day. 12/31/21 Oxygen 2 liters per minute by nasal cannula as needed for oxygen saturations below 92 percent. The resident's diet order dated 8/17/21 read, regular diet, regular texture, thin consistency, no added sodium; 1200 milliliters/24 hour fluid restriction. Fluid Restriction: 1200 cc (720cc with Meals and 480CC provided by Nursing) 7-3 = may give 240 cc 3-11 = may give 120 cc 11-7 = may give 120 cc. The current care plan had a problem dated 2/24/22 which read; resident has altered cardiovascular status r/t hypertension, CHF and cardiomyopathy. The goal read; the resident will be free from complications of cardiac problems through the review date. The interventions included; Assess lung and heart sounds as needed. Medications as ordered. Oxygen at 2 liters per minute via nasal cannula. Vital signs as ordered. Resident is a daily weight An interview was conducted with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #10 on 3/10/22 at approximately 4:35 p.m. LPN #10 stated the resident's portable oxygen tank was empty but she connected the resident to the concentrator and her oxygen saturation was 8 percent. LPN #10 stated she didn't assess or obtain the resident's saturation prior to attaching her tubing to the concentrator. LPN #10 didn't acknowledge the resident's shortness of breath, increased weight or edema to her extremities but she stated the resident offered no concerns. LPN #10 stated she signed off for the resident's TED hose because she relied on the CNA to apply them as ordered. An interview was also conducted with LPN #8 on 3/10/22 at approximately 5:00 p.m. LPN #8 stated the resident's weights are charted and if they flagged, other actions would be taken. An interview was also conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 3/10/22 at approximately 5:10 p.m. The DON stated the resident would be assessed and the physician/designee would be contacted for further instructions. On 3/11/22, Resident #56 was evaluated by the rounding Nurse Practitioner (NP). The NP assessment revealed the following; 3/11/22 staff reported 4.2 pounds weight gain over one week. Plus one edema to the right lower extremity with redness and warmth and fluid filled blisters and plus one edema to the left upper arm. Plan Keflex 500 milligram every twelve hours for seven days, complete blood count, basic metabolic panel, brain natriuretic peptide, chest x-ray and urinalysis and culture and sensitivity. The chest x-ray results findings dated 03/12/22 were as follows; there is cardiomegaly. There is interstitial edema. There is pulmonary venous hypertension. There is no pneumonia, mass, or adenopathy. There is no effusion. There is congestive heart failure. There is no pneumothorax. There is a right base infiltrate increased from 02/23/2022. There is no tuberculosis. On 3/12/22 a new order was received to start for Duoneb every 6 hours for SOB and/or wheezing. On 3/15/22, an order was received to start Furosemide Tablet 20 MG; Give 1 tablet by mouth one time a day for CHF for 5 Days. This was in addition to the previously ordered Lasix 40 mg two times each day. On 3/17/22 at approximately 5:45 p.m., the above findings were shared with the Administrator, VPCS and the [NAME] President of Operations (VPO). No additional information was offered and no concerns were voiced. Heart failure signs and symptoms may include: Shortness of breath with activity or when lying down, fatigue and weakness, swelling in the legs, ankles and feet, rapid or irregular heartbeat, swelling of the belly area (abdomen), very rapid weight gain from fluid buildup . (https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/heart-failure/symptoms-causes/syc-20373142). The above information was obtained 3/24/22. 5. The facility staff failed to follow physician orders for the care of a IV PICC line. Resident #71 was originally admitted to the facility 1/11/22 and readmitted [DATE] after an acute care hospital stay. The current diagnoses included; Incision and drainage of the right knee and placement of antibiotic beads. The five day Medicare Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment with an assessment reference date (ARD) of 2/28/22 coded the resident as completing the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) and scoring 15 out of a possible 15. This indicated Resident #71's cognitive abilities for daily decision making were intact. In section G (Physical functioning) the resident was coded as requiring total care of one person with bathing, extensive assistance of two people with bed mobility, extensive assistance of one person with personal hygiene, dressing, toileting limited assistance of one person with eating and limited assistance of one after set-up with eating. Resident #71 was observed sitting in a wheel chair in her room on 3/9/22 at approximately 4:45 p.m. The resident stated she had surgery to the right knee and the physician had to go back in it and clean it out because of an infection; as a result she needed to have extensive antibiotic therapy intravenously. The resident further stated some of staff act like they have no idea how to administer the antibiotic. The resident had a PICC to the right upper arm and it was dated 3/9/22. Resident #71 stated the PICC dressing was supposed to be changed 3/5/22 but it wasn't changed until 3/9/22 and it was supposed to be changed again on 3/12/22 but it was now 3/17/22 and it hadn't been changed. Resident #71 stated she was concerned the PICC site may become infected and cause a delay in her going home. The physician order summary revealed the following orders; 2/25/22 IV PICC change needleless connector on admission, weekly every day shift/ Saturday for and as needed thereafter and change after every blood draw. 2/25/22 IV-PICC Measure catheter length on admission and with each dressing change thereafter. 2/25/22 IV-PICC change transparent dressing on admission, then weekly every day shift/Saturday and as needed thereafter. 2/21/22 Ceftriaxone Sodium Solution Reconstituted 2 Grams - Use 2 gram intravenously in the evening for infection related to infection and inflammatory reaction due to internal right knee prosthesis. An interview was conducted with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #15, on 3/17/22 at approximately 1:15 p.m. LPN #15 stated she would take care of the dressing change today. On 3/17/22 at approximately 5:45 p.m., the above findings were shared with the Administrator, VPCS and the [NAME] President of Operations (VPO). The VPSC stated he had spoken to the nurse caring for Resident #71 and the dressing was to be changed today. The below information was obtained from the following web site on 3/25/22 (https://medlineplus.gov/ency/patientinstructions/000462.htm#:~:text=You%20sho uld%20change%20the%20dressing,you%20with%20the%20dressing%20change.) A dressing is a special bandage that blocks germs and keeps your catheter site dry and clean. You should change the dressing about once a week. You need to change it sooner if it becomes loose or gets wet or dirty. COMPLAINT DEFICIENCY 3. The facility staff failed to follow physician orders and obtain blood sugars for Resident #79. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] coded Resident #79 was assessed as a 15 on the BIMS assessment. A Care Plan dated 2/28/22 indicated: Potential for complications from Diabetes Mellitus diagnosis. Blood Sugar as ordered by doctor. Check all of body for breaks in skin and treat promptly as ordered by doctor. Diabetes medication as ordered by doctor. Monitor/document for side effects and effectiveness. Dietary consult for nutritional regimen and ongoing monitoring. Consult and notify doctor of any changes in diabetic medications. Inspect feet daily for open areas, sores, pressure areas, blisters, edema or redness. Monitor/document/report PRN any s/sx of hyperglycemia: increased thirst and appetite, frequent urination, weight loss, fatigue, dry skin, poor wound healing, muscle cramps, and pain, Kussmaul breathing, acetone breath (smells fruity), stupor, coma. Monitor/document/report PRN any s/sx of hypoglycemia: Sweating, Tremor, Increased heart rate (Tachycardia), Pallor, Nervousness, Confusion, slurred speech, lack of coordination, Staggering gait. Monitor/document/report PRN any s/sx of infection to any open areas: Redness, Pain, Heat, swelling or pus formation. Monitor/document/report PRN compliance with diet and document any problems. Offer substitutes for foods not eaten. Resident is at risk for injuries from falls related to history of falls, possible side effects from medications, diagnosis of Epilepsy, HTN, Diabetes Mellitus, Atrial Fib. A 01/04/2022 physician order indicated: Blood sugar check daily 4 times a day. Notify MD less 60 or greater than 400. A review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) indicated: Blood sugars were not taken at the 0600 and the hour on February 17 and 18. Blood sugars were not taken at the 1700 and 2100 hour on the 25th. Blood sugars were not taken at the 0600 hour on the 26th. Resident #79 was noted to have the following physician orders: Insulin Aspart Flexpen 100 unit/ML solution pen injector Inject as per sliding scale: if 0 - 199 = 0 units 200 -250 = 2 units 251- 300 = 4 units 301- 350 = 6 units 351- 400 = 8 units - if over 400 call MD, subcutaneously before meals and at bedtime for DM During an interview on 3/17/22 at 10:10 a.m. with the Corporate Clinical Nurse (CCN), he was asked what did the blank areas of the MAR indicate. The CCN stated that the blank areas indicated the blood sugars were not taken.
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** 2. a. Resident #26 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] after an acute care hospital stay. The resident was never b...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. a. Resident #26 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] after an acute care hospital stay. The resident was never been discharged from the facility. According to the comprehensive skin assessment dated [DATE] at 8:12 PM a new wound was found on the resident's Sacrum. Acquired in-house. With 100% slough/eschar. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment with an assessment reference date (ARD) of 1/26/22 coded the resident as completing the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) and scoring 11 out of a possible 15. This indicated that Resident #26 cognitive abilities for daily decision-making were moderately impaired. In section E (Rejection of Care) did the resident reject evaluation or care, marked O behavior not exhibited. In section G(Physical functioning) the resident was coded as requiring extensive assistance from two people with bed mobility and personal hygiene. Requiring extensive assistance of one person with dressing. Requiring total dependence of two persons with toilet use and bathing. Requires supervision with set-up help only with eating. In section M (Skin Conditions) M0150. Risk of Pressure Ulcers/Injuries. Codes as Yes. M0300. Current Number of Unhealed Pressure Ulcers/Injuries at Each Stage. Left Blank. In section M (Skin and Ulcer/Injury Treatments) M1200. Turning/repositioning program: coded as No. Pressure ulcer/injury care: coded as No. The care plan dated 2/04/22 reads: Focus: SKIN INTEGRITY: Resident has potential impairment to skin integrity r/t (relating/ to) cancer, COPD (Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease) heart failure, anemia, Foley catheter, incontinence and need for ADL (Activity of Daily Living) assistance. Goal: The resident will maintain or develop clean and intact skin by the review date. Interventions: Encourage good nutrition and hydration in order to promote healthier skin. Follow facility protocols for treatment of injury. Keep skin clean and dry. Use lotion on dry skin. Observe location, size, and treatment of skin injury. Report abnormalities, failure to heal, s/sx (signs/symptoms) of infection, maceration, etc. to MD (Medical Doctor). The care plan dated 2/04/22 reads: Focus: ADL self-care performance deficit related to Heart failure, Acute kidney failure, Malignant carcinoma of the lung, Malignant neoplasm of the brain. Goal: Resident to maintain the current level of function in (eating) through the next review date. Interventions: BATHING/SHOWERING: Check nail length and trim and clean on bath day and as necessary. Avoid scrubbing & pat dry sensitive skin. Provide a tub bath/shower at least 2 days a week. Provide a sponge bath if a tub bath/ shower cannot be tolerated. Shave and shampoo hair as needed. BED MOBILITY: Requires (Limited to extensive assistance) of (1-2) staff to turn and reposition in bed Q 2-3 hours and as necessary. PERSONAL HYGIENE: Requires (limited to extensive assistance) of (1-2) staff with personal hygiene and oral care. SKIN OBSERVATION: Observe skin for rashes, redness, open areas, scratches, cuts and bruises and report changes for prompt treatment. A review of the Braden Scale assessment for predicting pressure sore risk was completed on 1/11/22 with a score of 18 which indicates Resident #26 is at risk for pressure sore. The remainder of the admission screening was incomplete. A review of the admission screening dated 1/11/22 at 6:36 PM reads: Pressure Ulcers: Is a pressure ulcer present? No. A review of the TAR (Treatment Administration Record) for February 2022 reads: 02/09/2022 00:12 Order Summary: Santyl Ointment 250 UNIT/GM (Collagenase) Apply to sacrum topically everyday shift for wound care. A review of the TAR (Treatment Administration Record) for March 2022 reads: Sacrum: Clean with wound cleanser, apply Dakin's wet-to-dry, and cover with bordered gauze. A review of nursing notes reveal the following: On 1/11/2022 at 6:53 PM resident was admitted to the Long Term Care facility from acute care via stretcher. No distress or complaints. A comprehensive wound evaluation for all new admits was completed by the Wound Care Nurse Practitioner (WCNP) on 1/13/22 at approximately 9:47 PM. The skin evaluation reads: Patient reports no rashes or known dermatologic conditions at the time of this exam. The dermatologic evaluation reads: Patient's skin is intact with no rashes. There are no open wounds on today's comprehensive skin examination. Wound plan of care: Recommend moisturizing bilateral legs and feet for *xerosis. Plan of Care Assessment & Plan explained all necessary basic foot care aspects. Patient understands that proper foot care is key to improved health, based on patient's comorbidities proper foot care is key to promoting the health of limbs. Other elements of Patient Evaluation: Wound rounds completed and reconciled with facility wound nurse today. All questions and concerns answered for staff and patient as applicable. Staff made aware that wound rounds were completed and of any changes in treatment plan. A review of the WCNP's Tissue Analytics (TA) weekly wound assessments revealed the following: Wound evaluation dated 2/08/22 revealed that an unstageable pressure ulcer of the sacrum was acquired in house. Measurements: Length: 5.35 cm. Width: 5.73 cm LxW: 30.66 cm Depth: 0. Observations: %slough/eschar: 100.00. Wound Status: New. Drain amount: Serosanguinous. No odor. Dressing change frequency: Daily. Cleanse wound with wound cleanser. Apply Santyl dressing with bordered gauze. Pressure Reduction/Offloading: Ensure compliance with turning protocol, wedges/foam cushion for offloading, wheelchair cushion, mattress overlay, and specialty bed. A review of the WCNP's weekly wound evaluation revealed resident's wound is stable dated 2/24/22: Unstageable Sacral Pressure Ulcer measurements: Length: 5.88 cm, Width: 6.02 cm, LxW: 35.40 cm, Depth: 0. Observations: % Granulation: 30.00. %Slough/eschar: 100.00. Wound Status: Stable. Drain Amount: Serosanguinous. Odor: Malodorous. Dressing Change Frequency: Daily. Pressure Reduction/offloading: Ensure compliance with turning protocol, wedge/foam cushion for offloading, wheelchair cushion, mattress overlay, specialty bed. Cleanse wound with: Wound cleanser. Apply Dakins moist-to-dry dressings. Bordered gauze. Another review of the WCNP's weekly wound evaluation revealed that the resident's wound is improving dated 3/03/22: Unstageable Sacral Pressure Ulcer of the sacrum. Measurements: Length: 5.94 cm, Width: 5.14 cm. LxW: 30.53 cm. Depth: 0. Observations: % granulation: 20.00. % slough/eschar: 80.00. Wound Status: Improving. Drain amount: Moderate. Drain Description: Serosanguinous. Odor: No odor. Dressing change frequency: Daily. Cleanse wound with: Wound Cleanser. Dakins moist-to-dry dressings and bordered gauze. Pressure Reduction/Offloading: Ensure compliance with turning protocol, wedge/foam/cushion for offloading, wheelchair cushion, mattress overlay, specialty bed. A continued review of WCNP's weekly wound evaluation revealed that the resident had debridement of the sacrum dated 3/10/22: Sacrum unstageable pressure injury. Post (after)-debridement length (cm): 1. 63 as per ulcer noted. width (cm) 0. 96 as per ulcer noted. 100% debrided. Wound plan of care: Recommend obtaining an air mattress and applying foot protectors/heel boots. I am recommending an air mattress for pressure reduction. Plan of Care Assessment & Plan - Patient has a pressure injury; Pressure reduction and turning precautions discussed with staff at the time of visit recommended, including heel protection and pressure reduction to bony prominences. Staff educated on all aspects of care. Explained all aspects of necessary basic foot care. Patient understands that proper foot care is key to improved health, based on patient' s comorbidities proper foot care is key to promoting health of limbs. Factors Affecting Healing: Patient has frequent incontinence which can decrease healing rate of wound. Recommend providing incontinence care as needed, PRN. Increased moisture at wound site can promote poor prognosis of wound healing. Please keep wound site covered and avoid contamination with feces at all times. Other elements of Patient Evaluation: Wound rounds completed and reconciled with wound nurse today. All questions and concerns answered for staff and patient as applicable. Patient was left as requested, lowest locked position with call bell within reach, no restraints in place. Staff made aware that wound rounds were completed and of any changes in treatment plan. A review of the weekly WCNP evaluation reveals Residents wound is improving dated 3/17/22: Unstageable sacral pressure ulcer of the sacrum. Measurements: Length: 7.66 cm. Width: 5.62 cm. LxW; 43.05 cm. Observations: % granulation: 20. % slough/eschar: 80.00. Other: Apply Santyl to necrosis. Wound Stasis: Improving. Draining: Moderate. Drainage description: Serosanguinous. Odor: Malodorous. Dressing Change Frequency: Daily. Cleanse wound with: Wound Cleanser. Dressings: Santyl, Dakin's moist-to-dry. Bordered gauze. Pressure Reduction/offloading: Ensure compliance with turning protocol, wedge/foam cushion for offloading, wheelchair cushion, mattress overlay, specialty bed. On 03/11/22 at approximately 9:39 AM, an interview was conducted with Resident #26 concerning his wounds on his sacrum and lower extremities. He was asked how he got the wounds. He stated, I got it since I've been in here. His heels were observed resting on the bed. No bunny boots or heel protectors were in place. The resident's heels were not floating but resting on his bed/mattress. Surveyor received permission from the resident to observe wound care. On 3/11/22 at approximately 10:45 AM., a wound care observation was made while LPN (Licensed Practical Nurse) #2 administered wound care/treatment to the resident's sacrum. Slough and eschar were present on the wound bed with moderate serosanguinous drainage. The resident tolerated the procedure without difficulty. No issues were noted. On 03/14/22 at 2:47 PM an interview was conducted with LPN #6 concerning Resident #26. She stated, He had an admission screen Braden scale. There's an admission assessment in here (PCC/Point Click Care/ electronic medical records) but it's not complete. It should have been completed. The area on the sacrum was found on 2/09/22 as unstageable. If it's covered in slough or eschar it's unstageable because we don't know what's under it. Upon arrival, we look at the resident's skin with the Wound Care Nurse Practitioner, then weekly. If the CNA sees any issues on the resident's skin they will report it to the nurse. Since I've been looking at his wound every week it's getting better. His sacrum was debrided on 3/10/22. I normally put a note in that I rounded with her but I didn't. On 03/14/22 at 2:47 PM an interview was conducted with LPN #6 (Unit Manager) concerning Resident #26. She stated, He had an admission screening Braden scale on 1/11/22. There's an admission assessment in here [PCC/Point Click Care (electronic medical records)] but it's not complete. It should have been completed. According to LPN#6, the area on the sacrum was found on 2/08/22 as unstageable with slough and eschar. She said, If it's covered in slough or eschar it's unstageable because we don't know what's under it. Upon arrival, we look at the resident's skin with the WCNP, then weekly if any pressure ulcer/wound issues. If the CNAs see any issues on the resident's skin they should report them to the nurse. The LPN continued to say that on 3/10/22 she failed to document that she rounded with the WCNP when the sacrum pressure ulcer was debrided. On 03/15/22 at 1:35 PM an interview was conducted with the WCNP concerning Resident #26's wounds. She stated, When he first got to the facility (1/11/22) he didn't have a wound. My admission skin sweep for the resident was on 1/13/22. When the facility told me to come to look at him he was already unstageable. I initially saw him on February 8th, 2022 (sacrum). I only see it once a week. For prevention: He needs to be turned every (q) 2 hours, heels floated, heel protectors, and an air mattress. The staff says he refuses to be turned and repositioned. I have had a nurse lately that does the dressings as I'm charting. She was asked was the wound found at an advanced stage on his right lateral ankle (2/24/22)? She stated, Yes because he didn't have it on his initial skin assessment. The staff should have communicated if they saw something open, redness, and documented it. I do a skin sweep quarterly on patients that don't have wounds. Most nurses should do weekly skin assessments. A review of the nurse's notes and or skin assessments from 1/31/22 through 2/8/22 did not reveal any skin integrity issues on the sacrum. Although there were no nurse's notes from this timeframe, the WCNP, per the above interview on 3/15/22, was asked by the nursing staff to come to look at his sacrum, which was identified as unstageable. A review of the resident's care plan shows no refusal of care. A review of the resident's care plan and nurse's notes showed no refusal of care to include skin assessments, bed baths, and or incontinence care. A review of ADL documentation records for January, February, and March 2022 show no refusal of care. On 03/15/22 at approximately 2:33 PM two CNAs were observed transferring Resident #26 back to bed via Hoyer lift. The resident was placed in a supine position. CNA #7 was asked if Resident #26 wears bunny boots or heel protectors when in bed. She stated, He has a regular mattress. You would think he would have a specialty mattress because of the pressure sores. On 03/16/22 at approximately 1:39 PM., an interview was conducted with LPN (Licensed Practical Nurse) #2. Concerning Resident #26. She stated, I keep resident off his bottom, turn and reposition him every two hours. His sacral wound looks about the same as when I first interacted with him. On 03/17/22 at approximately 11:38 AM., an interview was conducted with LPN #6/Unit Manager concerning communication with the WCNP. She stated, She would normally email us a spreadsheet of everybody that we saw during wound rounds. The orders either stay the same or change, then we update orders. During the interview, LPN#6 was asked about the following recommendations that the WCNP made after completing her rounds at each assessment that included foot protectors or heel protectors, bunny boots, pressure reduction devices to bony prominences, and air mattress. The original recommendation for the air mattress for pressure reduction was made on 2/8/22. On 3/10/22 and 3/17/22 during the WCNP's wound care assessment, these recommendations were still not implemented and were reiterated in her notes. LPN #6 stated, I would consult with the facility Nurse Practitioner (OSM #1) if the WCNP gives me an order (recommendations) and I will put the orders in. It (the previous recommendations) was an oversight. On 3/17/22 at approximately 12:15 PM., an interview was conducted with [NAME] President of Operations concerning Resident #26. She stated, The skin assessments are done sporadically by nurses they are not consistent. The best time is on the shower days at least once a week. If not getting showers they should be getting the skin assessments weekly. There should be an admission assessment done to include your Braden scale. On 3/17/22 at approximately 5:45 PM a Pre-exit interview was conducted with the Administrator, The [NAME] President of Operations, and the [NAME] President of Clinical Services concerning Resident #26. The [NAME] President of Operations Stated, The DON that was here had a wound care protocol but we can't find it but will re-implement it. *(1) Xerosis-Dry skin makes the skin look and feel rough, itchy, flaky, or scaly. The location where these dry patches form vary from person to person. It's a common condition that affects people of all ages. Dry skin, also known as xerosis or xeroderma, has many causes, including cold or dry weather, sun damage, harsh soaps, and overbathing. You can do a lot on your own to improve dry skin, including moisturizing and practicing sun protection year-round. Try various products and skincare routines to find an approach that works for you. This information was taken from https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/dry-skin/symptoms-causes/syc-20353885. *(2) Unstageable pressure ulcer- Full thickness tissue loss in which the base of the ulcer is covered by slough (yellow, tan, gray, green or brown) and/or eschar (tan, brown or black) in the wound bed. Further description: Until enough slough and/or eschar is removed to expose the base of the wound, the true depth, and therefore stage, cannot be determined. Stable (dry, adherent, intact without erythema or fluctuance) eschar on the heels serves as the body's natural (biological) cover and should not be removed. National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel website at http://www.npuap.org/pr2.htm *(3) The Braden Scale for Predicting Pressure Sore Risk is a clinically validated tool that allows nurses and other health care providers to reliably score a patient/client's level of risk for developing pressure ulcers. It measures functional capabilities of the patient that contribute to either higher intensity and duration of pressure or lower tissue tolerance for pressure. Lower levels of functioning indicate higher levels of risk for pressure ulcer development .The Braden Scale is a summated rating scale made up of six subscales scored from 1-4 (1 for low level of functioning and 4 for the highest level or no impairment). Total scores range from 6-23 (one subscale is scored with values of 1-3, only). The subscales measure functional capabilities of the patient that contribute to either higher intensity and duration of pressure, or lower tissue tolerance for pressure. A lower Braden Scale Score indicates lower levels of functioning and, therefore, higher levels of risk for pressure ulcer development. This information is taken from the website https://www.nlm.nih.gov/research/umls/sourcereleasedocs/current/LNC_BRADEN *(4.) Dakin's solution is used to prevent and treat skin and tissue infections that could result from cuts, scrapes, and pressure sores. This information was obtained from: https://www.webmd.com/drugs/2/drug-62261/dakins-solution/details. *(5) SANTYL® Ointment is an FDA-approved active enzymatic therapy that continuously removes necrotic tissue from wounds at the microscopic level. This works to free the wound bed of microscopic cellular debris, allowing granulation to proceed and epithelialization to occur. (<http://www.santyl.com/about>) The facilitity's Policy: Prevention of Pressure Injuries reads: Purpose: The purpose of this procedure is to provide information regarding the identification of pressure injury risk factors and interventions for specific risk factors. Preparation: Review the resident's care plan and identify the risk factors as well as the interventions designed to reduce or eliminate those considered modifiable. Risk assessment: Assess the resident on admission (within eight hours) for existing pressure injury risk factors. Repeat the risk assessment weekly and upon any changes in condition. Skin Assessment: Conduct a comprehensive skin assessment upon (or soon after) admission, with each risk assessment, as indicated according to the resident's risk factors, and prior to discharge. Inspect the skin when performing or assisting with personal care or ADLs (Activity of Daily Living). Inspect pressure points (sacrum, heels, buttocks, coccyx etc. Wash the skin after any episodes of incontinence. Reposition resident as indicated on the care plan. Mobility/Repositioning: Reposition all residents with or at risk of pressure injuries on an individualized schedule, as determined by the interdisciplinary care team. Monitoring: Evaluate, report, and document potential changes in the skin. b. According to the comprehensive skin assessment conducted by the Wound Care Nursing Practitioner (WCNP) on 2/24/22, another pressure injury was first identified in-house on Resident #26's right lateral ankle as unstageable. The ankle was assessed by the WCNP as 100 percent (%) slough/eschar. A review of the Nursing admission Screening listed under Skin Integrity dated 1/11/2 at 6:36 PM reads Color: Normal. Temperature: Warm and Equal. Turgor: Normal. Comments: Both heels are very dry with a thick coat of yellow crust. Pressure Ulcers: Is a pressure ulcer present? No. A review of the TAR (Treatment Administration Record) reads: Right Lateral Ankle: Cleanse with wound cleaner, apply Santyl, cover with bordered gauze everyday shift for wound care. Active 2 /25/2022 7:00 AM. A review of nursing notes reveal the following: On 1/11/2022 at 6:53 PM resident was admitted to the Long Term Care facility from acute care via stretcher. No distress or complaints. A comprehensive wound evaluation for all new admits was completed by the Wound Care Nurse Practitioner (WCNP) on 1/13/22 at approximately 9:47 PM. The skin evaluation reads: Patient reports no rashes or known dermatologic conditions at the time of this exam. The dermatologic evaluation reads: Patient's skin is intact with no rashes. There are no open wounds on today's comprehensive skin examination. Wound plan of care: Recommend moisturizing bilateral legs and feet for xerosis. Plan of Care Assessment & Plan explained all necessary basic foot care aspects. Patient understands that proper foot care is key to improved health, based on patient's comorbidities proper foot care is key to promoting the health of limbs. Other elements of Patient Evaluation: Wound rounds completed and reconciled with facility wound nurse today. All questions and concerns answered for staff and patient as applicable. Staff made aware that wound rounds were completed and of any changes in treatment plan. Based on the WCNP Tissue Analytics (TA) weekly wound assessments for the sacrum pressure ulcer, on 2/24/22 a new pressure ulcer on the right lateral ankle was identified as acquired in-house. The WCNP documented this area as follows: . Unstageable. Measurements: Length: 1.56 cm, Width: 1.37 cm LXW: 2.14 cm, Depth: 0. Observations: % slough/eschar: 100.00. Treatment: Wound Cleanser daily, Santyl dressing. 3/03/22 Right Lateral Ankle: .Length: 1.24 cm, Width: 0.94 cm, LXW: 1.17 cm, Depth: 0. Observations: %slough/eschar: 100.00. Wound Status: Improving. Cleanse wound with wound cleanser daily. Santyl dressing and Bordered Gauze. 3/10/2022 Right Lateral Ankle: . Post debridement Length: 1.63 cm. Width: 0.96 cm. LXW: 1.56 cm. Depth: 0. Observations: %Slough/eschar: 100.00. Wound status: Stable. Cleanse with wound cleanser daily. Apply Santyl dressing and bordered gauze. 3/17/22 Right Lateral ankle: .Length: 1.77 cm, Width: 1.95 cm. LXW: 3.45 cm. Depth: 0. Observations: %slough/eschar: 100.00. Wound status: Stable. Cleanse daily with wound cleanser apply Santyl dressing and bordered gauze. On 03/11/22 at approximately 9:39 AM an interview was conducted with Resident #26 concerning his wounds on his sacrum and lower extremities. He was asked how he got the wounds. He stated, I got it since I've been in here. His heels were observed resting on the bed. No bunny boots or heel protectors were in place. The resident's heels were not floating but resting on his bed/mattress. Surveyor received permission from the resident to observe wound care. On 3/11/22 at approximately 10:45 AM., pressure ulcer treatment observation was made while LPN (Licensed Practical Nurse) #2 administered wound care/treatment to resident's right lateral ankle. The resident tolerated the procedure without difficulty. No issues were noted. On 03/14/22 at 2:47 PM an interview was conducted with LPN #6 (Unit Manager) concerning Resident #26. She stated, He had an admission screening Braden scale on 1/11/22. There's an admission assessment in here [PCC/Point Click Care (electronic medical records)] but it's not complete. It should have been completed. During the interview, LPN #6 said the resident had an unstageable pressure ulcer on his ankle identified on 2/24/22. If it's covered in slough or eschar it's unstageable because we don't know what's under it. She stated, Upon arrival, we look at resident's skin with the WCNP, then weekly if any pressure ulcer/wound issues. If the CNAs see any issues on resident's skin they should report them to the nurse. On 03/15/22 at 1:35 PM an interview was conducted with the WCNP concerning Resident #26's wounds. She stated, When he first got to the facility (1/11/22) he didn't have a wound. My admission skin sweep for the resident was on 1/13/22. When the facility told me to come to look at him he was already unstageable. I initially saw him on February 8th, 2022 (sacrum). I only see it once a week. For prevention: He needs to be turned every (q) 2 hours, heels floated, heel protectors, and an air mattress. The staff says he refuses to be turned and repositioned. I have had a nurse lately that does the dressings as I'm charting. She was asked was the wound found at an advanced stage on his right lateral ankle (2/24/22)? She stated, Yes because he didn't have it on his initial skin assessment. The staff should have communicated if they saw something open, redness, and documented it. I do a skin sweep quarterly on patients that don't have wounds. Most nurses should do weekly skin assessments. A review of the nurse's notes and or skin assessments from 1/31/22 through 2/24/22 did not reveal any skin integrity issues on the right lateral ankle. Although there were no nurse's notes from this timeframe, the WCNP, per the above interview on 3/15/22, discovered a new unstageable pressure ulcer to the right lateral ankle. A review of the resident's care plan and nurse's notes showed no refusal of care to include skin assessments, bed baths, and or incontinence care. A review of ADL documentation records for January, February, and March 2022 showed no refusal of care. On 03/15/22 at approximately 2:33 PM two CNAs were observed transferring Resident #26 back to bed via Hoyer lift. The resident was placed in a supine position. No bunny boots or heel protectors were placed on the resident's lower extremities. CNA #7 was asked if Resident #26 wears bunny boots or heel protectors when in bed. She stated, Therapy will let us know if he needs bunny boots, heel protectors, and float his heels. That would help with his heels, He has a regular mattress. You would think he would have a specialty mattress because of the pressure sores. On 03/16/22 at approximately 1:39 PM., an interview was conducted with LPN #2. Concerning Resident #26. She stated, I keep resident off his bottom, turn and reposition him every two hours. His sacral wound looks about the same as when I first interacted with him. His ankle requires skin prep to the right lateral side. On 03/17/22 at approximately 11:38 AM., an interview was conducted with LPN #6/Unit Manager concerning communication with the WCNP. She stated, She (WCNP) would normally email us a spreadsheet of everybody that we saw during wound rounds. The orders either stay the same or change, then we update orders. During the interview, LPN#6 was asked about the following recommendations that the WCNP made after completing her rounds at each assessment that included foot protectors or heel protectors, bunny boots, pressure reduction devices to bony prominences, and air mattress. The original recommendation for the air mattress for pressure reduction was made on 2/8/22. On 3/10/22 and 3/17/22 during the WCNP's wound care assessment, these recommendations were still not implemented and were reiterated in her notes. LPN #6 stated, I would consult with the facility Nurse Practitioner (OSM #1) if the WCNP gives me an order (recommendations) and I will put the orders in. It (the previous recommendations) was an oversight. On 3/17/22 at approximately 5:45 PM a Pre-exit interview was conducted with the Administrator, The [NAME] President of Operations, and with the [NAME] President of Clinical Services concerning Resident #26. The [NAME] President of Operations Stated, The DON that was here had a wound care protocol but we can't find it but we will re-implement it. Based on observation, staff interviews, and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to provide services to prevent pressure ulcers and promote healing for 2 of 9 Residents with pressure ulcers, the facility staff failed to properly classify, assess, and institute an appropriate treatment/care to Resident #8's pressure ulcer to the left hip to prevent deterioration to unstageable, presenting with 70 percent granulation tissue/30 percent slough (dead tissue) over four days, which constituted harm. For Resident #26, the facility staff failed to provide care and services to prevent pressure ulcer development in two areas prior to identification at an advanced stage; the sacrum with 100% slough/eschar and the right lateral ankle with 100% slough/eschar which constituted harm. The findings included: 1. Resident #8 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and was discharged from the facility for an acute care hospital stay, returning on 3/29/14. The current diagnoses included; dementia, high blood pressure, and adult failure to thrive. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment with an assessment reference date (ARD) of 12.25/21 coded the resident as completing the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) and scoring 0 out of a possible 15. This indicated that Resident #8's cognitive abilities for daily decision-making were severely impaired. In section G (Physical functioning) the resident was coded as requiring total care of two people with bed mobility, transfers, total care of one person with dressing, eating, toileting, personal hygiene, and bathing. A review of the facility's matrix revealed Resident #8 was coded for having a facility-acquired unstageable pressure ulcer. A review of the clinical record revealed a nurse progress note authored by LPN #10 on 3/8/22 at 3:05 p.m., which read; that the Wound Care Nurse Practitioner (WCNP) was noted in the facility and was made aware that the resident's left hip was worsening. The clinical record offered no evidence that Resident #8 had an opened area to the left hip and there was no assessment and/or documentation of a left hip open area. This was the first documentation of a left hip open area. An interview with LPN #10 on 3/10/22 at approximately 4:15 p.m. revealed the left hip was being treated with; normal saline, dry and apply Triple-antibiotic ointment (TAO) and a border gauze. This was the order for the left buttock scratches. The clinical record revealed a change in condition document dated 3/4/22 which identified a reopened area to the left buttock due to observed self-inflicted and witnessed scratching on more than one occasion. An order was obtained to cleanse the scratches to the left buttock open area with normal saline, dry, and apply Triple-antibiotic ointment (TAO) and a border gauze every day until healed. The left buttock scratches were documented as healed on 3/8/22. An interview was conducted with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #6 on 3/17/22 at approximately 12:05 p.m. LPN #6 stated LPN #16 stated she obtained the left buttock treatment order from the primary Nurse Practitioner (NP) for self-inflicted and witnessed scratches to the left buttock, not a pressure ulcer, just as she documented on the change in condition form The [TRUNCATED]
SERIOUS (G)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Deficiency F0694 (Tag F0694)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on complaint investigation, staff interviews, clinical record review, and facility documentation, the facility staff faile...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on complaint investigation, staff interviews, clinical record review, and facility documentation, the facility staff failed to provide the necessary care and services for 2 of out 44 residents (Resident #84 and #71) in the survey sample. For Resident #84, the facility staff failed to provide parenteral intravenous (IV) fluids as ordered by the Nurse Practitioner on 02/04/22 at approximately 10:30 a.m., to start Sodium Chloride Solution 0.9%, use 50 ml/hour intravenously (IV) x 24 hours for 2 liters for hydration which was never initiated. Resident #84 remained in the facility for 28 hours after the order was given to start IV fluids before the resident was noted as being in respiratory distress, unable to obtain blood pressure, and using his accessory muscles for breathing. Resident #84 was transferred via 911 (emergent) to the local hospital and admitted on [DATE] with main diagnoses to include severe metabolic acidosis, severe dehydration, hypothermia at 89.4 degrees, Urinary Tract Infection (UTI), and Acute Kidney Injury (suspect pre-renal due to dehydration), which constituted harm for Resident #84. For Resident #71, the facility staff failed to change the peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) dressings every seven days for site maintenance and prevention of infection. The findings included: 1. Resident #84 was admitted to the nursing facility on 11/10/21. The resident was discharged to the local hospital on [DATE] and did not return to the nursing facility. Diagnosis for Resident #84 included but not limited to Chronic Kidney Disease (not on dialysis) and Type II Diabetes Mellitus. The most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) was an admission assessment with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 11/17/21 coded the resident on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) an 11 of 15 indicating moderate cognitive impairment. Resident #84 was coded total dependence of one with toilet use and bathing, extensive assistance of one with bed mobility and transfer, limited assistance of one with dressing and personal hygiene, and supervision with one assist with eating Activities of Daily Living (ADL). Under section H - (Bladder and Bowel) was coded for always incontinent of bladder and bowel. The care plan created on 11/17/21 and a revision date of 01/11/22 identified Resident #84 with impaired cognitive function or impaired thought process related to an altered mental status. The goal set for the resident by the staff was that the resident will improve current level of cognitive function through the next review on 03/09/22. One of the interventions/approaches the staff would use to accomplish this goal is to administer medications as ordered. Monitor/document for side effects and effectiveness. On 02/04/22, the Nurse Practitioner (NP) progress revealed the following information: Resident #84 is being seen today for loose stools, decrease intake, and COVID-19. Resident #84 reports having decreased appetite and increased thirst. Under diagnosis, assessment and plan it included but was not limited to start Sodium Chloride Solution at 50 ml/hour x 2 liters. The review of Resident #84's Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed the following order: Sodium Chloride Solution 0.9%, use 50 ml/hour intravenously (IV) x 24 hours for 2 liters for hydration or clysis for 3 days, the order remains in pending confirmation. An interview was conducted with License Practical Nurse (LPN) #6 on 03/14/22 at approximately 4:12 p.m. When asked, what does it mean with an order that reads pending confirmation? The LPN stated, that the order was put Point Click Care (PCC) but the nurse never confirmed the order, so the order was never initiated. A review of Resident #84's clinical record revealed the following documentation entered on 02/05/22 at approximately 2:56 p.m., by LPN #3. Resident #84 noted having respiratory distress, being unable to obtain blood pressure, oxygen saturation of 94% on room air, and heart rate of 102 while using accessory muscles for breathing. A new order was obtained to send to the ER for evaluation and treatment. A phone interview was conducted with Nurse Practitioner (NP) on 03/15/22 at approximately 2:08 p.m. The NP stated she assessed Resident #84 on 02/04/22 due to the staff reporting the resident was having loose stools and not eating. She said that during her discussion with the resident, he voiced to me that he was really thirsty and has no appetite. The NP said IV fluids were ordered and started on 02/04/22. The NP stated, IV fluids were ordered for hydration because Resident #84 was having loose stools and not eating She said the BMP was not ordered as STAT (now order) because I needed time for the IV fluids to hydrate the resident to help determine what further treatment was needed. The NP stated, Unfortunately, his IV fluids were never started and I was never notified. An interview was conducted with LPN#3 on 03/14/22 at approximately 1:46 p.m. The LPN was assigned to provide care and services to Resident #84 on 02/04/22 and 02/05/22 (7-3 shift), the day Resident #84 was evaluated by the NP with new orders to start IV fluids. The LPN said she remembered Resident #84 was not eating or drinking. She said the NP came in and saw Resident #84 and wrote a bunch of new orders but I was never informed that an order to start IV fluids. On 03/15/22 at approximately 9:44 a.m., a phone interview was conducted with LPN #5. The LPN was assigned to provide care and services to Resident #84 on 02/04/22 (11-7 shift). The LPN stated, I don't recall the nurse giving a report that Resident #84 had an order to start an IV to administer IV fluids. On 03/16/22 at approximately 2:53 p.m., an interview was conducted with the Regional Director of Clinical Services. The Regional Director said the nurse(s) should have activated the order in PCC and the IV fluids should have been started as ordered by the (NP). He stated, If the nurse assigned was not able to start the IV, there is always someone in house that could have started the IV. He stated clysis could have been used to hydrate the resident. A phone interview was conducted with the Medical Director on 03/17/22 at approximately 5:11 p.m., when asked if the staff should have started the fluids IV or via clysis, he replied, Absolutely, not receiving the IV fluids could have contributed to his dehydration as well as Acute Renal Failure (AFR). The Medical Director stated, The NP or I should have been notified that Resident #84's IV fluids were never started. A review of the hospital records revealed the following: Resident #84 presented in the emergency room (ER) on 02/05/22 from (name of nursing facility) for further evaluation due to lethargy. The 911 transport revealed the following: Resident serum glucose was 14. The Emergency Medical Service (EMS) placed an IV, gave glucagon and D10 and his glucose increased to 135. The ER records indicated Resident #84's rectal temperature @ 89.4 degrees F (hypothermia - low body temperature) and placed on Bair Hugger for low rectal temperature. The resident's blood pressure was 89/40 (normal = 120/80). He was found to be in severe metabolic acidosis and septic shock. The urinalysis with reflex showed large leukocyte esterase, positive nitrites, and a moderate amount of blood with 3+ bacteria. The urine culture revealed more than 100,000 colonies and was positive for Kiebsiella pneumoniae. The resident had a high blood creatinine of 7.2 (0.59-1.04 = normal range). The creatinine test is a measure of how well your kidneys as performing their job of filtering waste from your blood (www.mayoclinic.org). The resident was started on IV sodium bicarbonate, given D50, and admitted to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU). Intravenous Fluids (IV), and IV antibiotic (Zyvox and Zosyn) was also started. Resident #84 is in the ICU, on a ventilator, sedated and unresponsive. The resident will need dialysis per nephrology but is pending due to his acute kidney injury. Resident #84 is being transferred to a higher level of care on 02/12/22. The resident is hemodynamically unstable for conventional hemodialysis and will benefit from continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT), which this facility doesn't provide. At the time of discharge, resident remains on a mechanical ventilator. A review of the hospital records revealed the following: Resident #84 presented in the emergency room (ER) on 02/12/22 as a transfer from the originated hospital for further evaluation due to hypoglycemia and Altered Mental Status (AMS). The resident was sent here for continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT), which the previous hospital doesn't provide. The hemodialysis catheter placement was placed and (CRRT) was started on 02/13/22. A debriefing was conducted with the Administrator, [NAME] President of Clinical Services, and Regional Director of Clinical Services on 03/17/22 at approximately 5:45 p.m., Resident #84's issues were presented again. The facility did not present any further information about the findings. Definitions: -Metabolic acidosis develops when too much acid is produced in the body. It can also occur when the kidneys cannot remove enough acid from the body. Some causes for metabolic acidosis included but not limited to severe diarrhea and severe dehydration. Treatment is aimed at the health problem causing acidosis. In some cases, sodium bicarbonate may be given to reduce the acidity of the blood. Often, you will receive lots of fluids through the vein (https://medlineplus.gov). -Dehydration occurs when you use or lose more fluid than you take in, and your body doesn't have enough water and other fluids to carry out its normal functions. If you don't replace lost fluids, you will get dehydrated. You can usually reverse mild to moderate dehydration by drinking more fluids, but severe dehydration needs immediate medical treatment. Many people, particularly older adults, don't feel thirsty until they're already dehydrated. That's why it's important to increase water intake when you're ill. Other dehydration causes include but are not limited to diarrhea and or acute diarrhea - that is, diarrhea that comes on suddenly and violently - can cause a tremendous loss of water and electrolytes in a short amount of time. Dehydration can lead to serious complications, including urinary and kidney problems. Prolonged or repeated bouts of dehydration can cause urinary tract infections, kidney stones, and even kidney failure. The only effective treatment for dehydration is to replace lost fluids and lost electrolytes. The best approach to dehydration treatment depends on age, the severity of dehydration, and its cause. Adults who are severely dehydrated should be treated by emergency personnel arriving in an ambulance or in a hospital emergency room. Salts and fluids delivered through a vein (intravenously) are absorbed quickly and speed recovery. -Hypothermia is a medical emergency that occurs when your body loses heat faster than can produce heat, causing a dangerously low body temperature. Normal body temperature is around 98.6. Hypothermia occurs as your body temperature falls below 95 degrees Fahrenheit (https://www.mayoclinic.org). -Urinary tract infection occurs when there is a compromise of host defense mechanisms and a virulent microbe adheres, multiplies, and persists in a portion of the urinary tract. Most commonly, UTI is caused by bacteria, but fungi and viruses are possible. Urine culture and sensitivity are the gold standards for the diagnosis of bacterial UTI (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov). -Acute Kidney Injury occurs when your kidneys suddenly become unable to filter waste products from your blood. When your kidneys lose their filtering ability, dangerous levels of wastes may accumulate, and your blood's chemical makeup may get out of balance. Acute kidney failure - also called acute renal failure or acute kidney injury - develops rapidly, usually in less than a few days (https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/kidney-failure/symptoms-causes). -Sodium Chloride Solution 0.9%, solution is used to supply water and salt (sodium chloride) to the body. Sodium chloride solution may also be mixed with other medications given by injection into a vein (https://www.webmd.com/drugs). -Clysis or hypodermoclysis is a relatively safe and effective procedure in a nursing home. The use of clysis in the nursing home is an alternative to intravenous hydration. The use of clysis for short-term hydration has the potential to reduce cost and transfers to the hospital (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov). -A basic metabolic panel (BMP) is a test that measures eight different substances in your blood. It provides important information about your body's chemical balance and metabolism. Metabolism is the process of how the body uses food and energy. A BMP is used to check different body functions and processes, including: kidney function, fluid and electrolyte balance, blood sugar levels, and acid and base balance (https://medlineplus.gov). -Klebiella pneumoniae is one of the bacteria most frequently causing healthcare-associated urinary tract infections (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov). -[NAME] system is a temperature management system used in a hospital or survey center to maintain a patient's core body temperature (https://www.bairhugger.com). -Mechanical ventilation is a form of life support. A mechanical ventilator is a machine that takes over the work of breathing when a person is not able to breathe enough on their own. The mechanical ventilator is also called a ventilator, respirator, or breathing machine (https://www.continued.com/resp-therapy/courses). 2. Resident #71 was originally admitted to the facility 1/11/22 and readmitted [DATE] after an acute care hospital stay. The current diagnoses included; Incision and drainage of the right knee and placement of antibiotic beads. The five day Medicare Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment with an assessment reference date (ARD) of 2/28/22 coded the resident as completing the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) and scoring 15 out of a possible 15. This indicated Resident #71's cognitive abilities for daily decision making were intact. In section G (Physical functioning) the resident was coded as requiring total care of one person with bathing, extensive assistance of two people with bed mobility, extensive assistance of one person with personal hygiene, dressing, toileting limited assistance of one person with eating and limited assistance of one after set-up with eating. Resident #71 was observed sitting in a wheel chair in her room on 3/9/22 at approximately 4:45 p.m. The resident stated she had surgery to the right knee and the physician had to go back in it and clean it out because of an infection; as a result she needed to have extensive antibiotic therapy intravenously. The resident further stated some of staff act like they have no idea how to administer the antibiotic. The resident had a PICC to the right upper arm and it was dated 3/9/22. Resident #71 stated the PICC dressing was supposed to be changed 3/5/22 but it wasn't changed until 3/9/22 and it was supposed to be changed again on 3/12/22 but it was now 3/17/22 and it hadn't been changed. Resident #71 stated she was concerned the PICC site may become infected and cause a delay in her going home. The physician order summary revealed the following orders; 2/25/22 IV PICC change needleless connector on admission, weekly every day shift/ Saturday for and as needed thereafter and change after every blood draw. 2/25/22 IV-PICC Measure catheter length on admission and with each dressing change thereafter. 2/25/22 IV-PICC change transparent dressing on admission, then weekly every day shift/Saturday and as needed thereafter. 2/21/22 Ceftriaxone Sodium Solution Reconstituted 2 Grams - Use 2 gram intravenously in the evening for infection related to infection and inflammatory reaction due to internal right knee prosthesis. An interview was conducted with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #15, on 3/17/22 at approximately 1:15 p.m. LPN #15 stated she would take care of the dressing change today. On 3/17/22 at approximately 5:45 p.m., the above findings were shared with the Administrator, VPCS and the [NAME] President of Operations (VPO). The VPSC stated he had spoken to the nurse caring for Resident #71 and the dressing was to be changed today. The below information was obtained from the following web site on 3/25/22 (https://medlineplus.gov/ency/patientinstructions/000462.htm#:~:text=You%20sho uld%20change%20the%20dressing,you%20with%20the%20dressing%20change.) A dressing is a special bandage that blocks germs and keeps your catheter site dry and clean. You should change the dressing about once a week. You need to change it sooner if it becomes loose or gets wet or dirty. COMPLAINT DEFICIENCY
SERIOUS (G)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Deficiency F0697 (Tag F0697)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on information gleaned during a complaint investigation, family interview, staff interviews, and a clinical record review,...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on information gleaned during a complaint investigation, family interview, staff interviews, and a clinical record review, the facility staff failed to admit and transcribe orders to obtain crucial pain medications for over forty-five hours to manage the pain for a resident two days post-surgery after a serious and complex lumbar fusion of the spine, resulting in severe pain which limited participation in day to day activities, the ability to sleep at night and physical decline which constituted harm for 1 of 44 residents (Resident #83), in the survey sample. The findings included: Resident #83 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE], was discharged to acute care on 11/26/21, returned to the facility on [DATE], and discharged again on 1/1/22, and succumbed on 1/4/22. The diagnoses at the time of the resident's 11/19/21 admission included; status post decompression and fusion of the lumbar spine and polymyalgia rheumatic. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment with an assessment reference date (ARD) of 11/26/21 coded the resident as completing the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) and scoring 14 out of a possible 15. This indicated Resident #83's cognitive abilities for daily decision-making were intact. In section G (Physical functioning) the resident was coded as requiring total care of one person with bathing, extensive assistance of two people with transfers, extensive assistance of one person with dressing and toileting, limited assistance of one person with bed mobility and personal hygiene, and supervision after set-up with eating. In sections J0500A and B; the resident was coded that pain made it hard to sleep at night and limited day-to-day activities. At section M1040E; the resident was coded with a surgical wound. On 3/16/22 at approximately 10:30 a.m., an interview was conducted with the resident's listed Responsible party (RP). The RP stated they were familiar with the facility under different ownership for their mother had short stays after a number of hospitalizations. The RP further stated Resident #83 chose the facility for rehabilitation after surgery to regain strength and return home. The RP stated the resident was an eighteen-wheel truck driver and looked forward to getting back in the truck. The RP also stated the night of 11/19/21, Resident #83 arrived at the facility at approximately 6:00 p.m., by stretcher from a local hospital. She stated the resident was with significant functional limitations including transfers, walking, toileting, and other activities of daily living (ADL) and back pain secondary to surgical decompression and lumbar fusion of the spine. The RP stated the unit the resident was assigned to was staffed with one nurse, no other staff, and the nurse was overwhelmed and told her she had no orders to provide care to the resident. During the interview, the RP assured the facility's nurse that wasn't accurate for she had spoken with the hospital's Discharge Planner multiple times to ensure all necessary orders and instructions were provided to the facility prior to the resident leaving the hospital because she was aware of how interruptions in service may occur if all information wasn't provided timely to the facility. The RP stated the nurse told the family upon request for pain medication that she had no orders for medications therefore she couldn't administer any medications to the resident but they could go home and get his medications and they could administer them to the resident. The RP stated that the same evening, the day of admission [DATE], Resident #83 experienced severe pain and needed to void but because of a history of voiding only in a specific position it was necessary for him to get out of bed to void and there was no one to assist the resident. It was the family who had to assist the resident to get out of bed to void. The RP stated the only service the resident received the day of admission was to receive a bedside commode, no medications, no physical assistance. The RP further said during the above interview that over the course of the first two days her brother had to come into the facility and transfer the resident to the commode because the staff wouldn't. She stated the staff's rationale was rehabilitation services hadn't assessed the resident and he was experiencing severe pain on movement. The RP stated on one occasion the resident lay in feces for four hours because he feared the pain which would be inflicted on him by staff yanking on him to clean him up, therefore the resident called for his son to come to the facility and assist him to clean up. The RP also stated on 11/20/21 the nurse staff stated it would be three to four days before the resident's pain medications would arrive to the facility, and it was a relief when they finally arrived almost two days after his admission to the facility. Review of the hospital's Discharge summary dated [DATE] included the following discharge medication orders; Percocet 5/325 milligrams; one tablet by mouth every six hours as needed for pain, Norco 7.5/325 mg; one tablet by mouth every six hours as needed, Prednisone 5mg one tablet by mouth daily and Zanaflex 4mg; one tablet by mouth three times daily as needed. A record review revealed on 11/20/21 at 10:07 a.m., (name of the on-call Nurse Practitioner) called to have a hard prescription sent to the pharmacy for Percocet. The Nurse Practitioner (NP) stated she would send an electronic prescription to the pharmacy and the resident's son was informed when he arrived at the facility. A nurse's progress note dated 11/21/21 at 5:19 p.m. revealed that Resident #83's family members were in the facility demanding to speak with the Director of Nursing because the resident wasn't receiving two medications (a steroid and an antispasmodic) instrumental in treating polymyalgia rheumatic; an inflammatory disorder that causes muscle pain, muscle stiffness, and muscle spasms in various parts of the body which could easily be treated with steroids and an antispasmodic. A progress note was also in the clinical record stating on 11/21/21 at 9:21 p.m., the on-call NP was notified that Resident #83's family desired to have the Prednisone and Zanaflex resumed but the NP deferred the orders to the order until the resident was visited by the in-house Practitioner. During the interview with the RP on 3/16/22 at approximately 10:30 a.m., the RP stated when the resident's medications arrived at the facility from the pharmacy on 11/21/21 the steroid and antispasmodic weren't included and they were the exact medications the hospital Discharge Planner was asked to ensure was included in the orders to the facility for they were required to treat the debilitating symptoms of polymyalgia rheumatic. The RP stated as a result of not receiving the steroid and antispasmodic the resident suffered additional pain, spasms and other rebound symptoms of polymyalgia rheumatic along with the pain related to the spinal surgery. The RP stated the poor care in the facility resulted in her father's unnecessary pain and physical decline. An interview was conducted with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #9 on 3/17/22 at approximately 9:52 a.m. LPN #9 stated she remembered Resident #83 and she was the nurse on duty the evening the resident arrived. She further stated the staff knew she wasn't proficient in admissions and she always worked the overnight shift to avoid admitting residents. LPN #9 stated she had never admitted a resident and the day Resident #83 arrived she was the only direct care staff on the unit; without any other nurses or Certified Nursing Assistants (CNA). LPN #9 stated the front office staff was also aware she was the only caregiver for the shift therefore they came to the unit to assist with answering call lights and providing limited care for the residents prior to going home for the night, but that was all. LPN #9 stated no one told her they were not going to admit Resident #83 to the facility and she didn't. LPN #9 stated she provided the Resident with a bedside commode and a son who was present and very involved in the resident's care assisted him to the toilet. LPN #9 also stated she was aware the resident was experiencing pain and she informed the resident's family that she had no orders to administer any medications to the resident. An interview was conducted with the facility's admission Director on 3/17/22 at approximately 2:30 p.m. The admission Director stated she doesn't have a clinical background, therefore, all clinical concerns are reviewed by the Director of Nursing prior to admissions arrival to the facility. The admission Director stated there were no specific clinical concerns with Resident #83's 11/19/21 admission therefore all of the admission documents were given to the nursing staff for the unit to the resident was to be admitted and the nursing staff didn't ask her to obtain any specific documents from the hospital's Discharge Planner and no concerns were voiced by the nursing staff. Two other staff nurses were telephoned on 3/16/22 and 3/17/22 for interviews regarding the status of Resident #83 during the 11/19/21 admission but the calls were not answered and/or returned. One of the nurses assumed care of the resident on 11/20/21 and telephoned the Nurse Practitioner for a pain medication order and the other was the nurse who opened a Braden Scale for Predicting Pressure Sore Risk assessment but didn't complete any of it or any other admission paperwork on 11/19/21. An interview was conducted on 3/17/21 at approximately 1:30 p.m., with the facility's [NAME] President of Clinical Services (VPCS). The VPCS stated he was unable to provide evidence that the resident received any type of pain management prior to 11/21/21 at 3:50 p.m. when Vicodin 5/325 milligrams (mg) was delivered and administered. The VPCS stated the pain medication Percocet 5/325 mg was included in the resident's orders on 11/19/21, as a hospital discharge medication and it was available in the facility's stat medication box, yet it wasn't withdrawn and administered to the resident and neither was the Norco administered at the time of obtaining the order for it on 11/20/21 for the 5/325 mg dose was also available in the stat box but not the 7.5/325 mg dosage. The VPCS further stated both drugs were in the stat box and could have been given. The VPCS On 3/17/22 at approximately 5:45 p.m., the above findings were shared with the Administrator, VPCS, and the [NAME] President of Operations (VPO). The VPCS stated the nurses working at the facility are competent and there is a resource book available for reference when needed therefore he was unable to explain why there was a delay in the resident's care. The VPO stated she too had reviewed the pain medication delays and felt the resident pain wasn't managed appropriately but she was unable to offer any insight into why the care wasn't provided promptly. COMPLAINT DEFICIENCY
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0553 (Tag F0553)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on resident interview, staff interviews, clinical record review and facility documentation review, the facility staff failed to invite 1 of 44 residents (Resident #64) in the survey sample to pa...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on resident interview, staff interviews, clinical record review and facility documentation review, the facility staff failed to invite 1 of 44 residents (Resident #64) in the survey sample to participate in her Person-Centered care plan meeting. The findings included: Resident #64 was admitted to the nursing facility on 11/12/21. Diagnosis for Resident #64 included but not limited to Type II diabetes. The current Minimum Data Set (MDS), a quarterly assessment with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 02/22/22 coded the resident with a 14 out of a possible score of 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) indicating no cognitive impairment. During the initial tour on 03/09/22 at approximately 3:27 p.m., an interview was conducted with Resident #64 who stated, Care plan meetings don't happen here. I was never invited nor did I receive a letter to attend a care plan meeting. An interview was conducted with the Social Worker (SW) on 03/10/22 at approximately 10:35 p.m., who stated, I invited Resident #64 to attend her care plan meeting verbally, but a care plan letter was not provided to Resident #64. The surveyor requested documentation that the resident was verbally invited to attend her person-centered care plan meeting, she replied, I can't; it was never documented. On the same day at approximately 3:00 p.m., the (SW) provided a care plan letter addressed to Resident #64 inviting her to attend her care plan meeting on 03/16/22 at approximately 11:00 a.m. An interview was conducted with the MDS Coordinator on 03/17/22 at approximately 1:00 p.m., who stated, a care plan meeting should have been held for Resident #64 by 12/02/21. A debriefing was held with the Administrator and [NAME] President of Operations on 03/17/22 at approximately 5:45 p.m., who were informed of the above findings; no further information was provided prior to exit. The facility's policy titled Care Planning - Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) - revised on 02/01/22. The policy Interpretation and Implementation read in part: 3. The resident, the resident's family and/or the resident's legal representative/guardian or surrogate are encouraged to participate in the development of and revisions to the resident's care plan. 4. The Social Services department will be responsible for inviting residents and family representative via phone, email, postage and other methods deemed practical to schedule care plan meetings. Documentation of invitations will be reflected in medical records. 5. Every effort will be made to schedule care plan meetings at the best of the day for the resident and family.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0568 (Tag F0568)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, staff and individual interviews the facility staff failed to provide one resident (Resident #37) in the ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, staff and individual interviews the facility staff failed to provide one resident (Resident #37) in the survey sample of 44 residents with a quarterly financial statement. The findings included: Resident #37 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of sequela, neuromuscular dysfunction of bladder, paraplegia, hypertension, anxiety disorder, contracture of right hip, contracture of left hip, and depression. The facility staff failed to provide Resident #37 with a quarterly financial statement. Resident #37 was noted to be his own authorized legal representative. A Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessed Resident #37 as having a Basic Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 13. In the area of Activity's of Daily Living (ADL's) this resident was assessed as requiring extensive assistance in the area of bed mobility and transfer. A Care Plan Dated: 2/11/2022 indicated: The resident needs a safe environment with: (floors free from spills and/or clutter; adequate light; a working and reachable call light, personal items within reach) The resident uses antidepressant medication r/t Depression-The resident will be free from discomfort or adverse reactions related to antidepressant therapy through the review date. Administer ANTIDEPRESSANT medications as ordered by physician. Monitor/document side effects and effectiveness Q-SHIFT. Monitor/document/report PRN adverse reactions to ANTIDEPRESSANT therapy: change in behavior/mood/cognition; hallucinations/delusions; social isolation, suicidal thoughts, withdrawal; decline in ADL ability, continence, no voiding; constipation, fecal impaction, diarrhea; gait changes, rigid muscles, balance probs, movement problems, tremors, muscle cramps, falls; dizziness/vertigo; fatigue, insomnia; appetite loss, wt loss, n/v, dry mouth, dry eyes. The resident has depression-The resident will exhibit indicators of depression, anxiety or sad mood less than daily by review date. Administer medications as ordered. Monitor/document for side effects and effectiveness. Monitor/document/report PRN any risk for harm to self: suicidal plan, past attempt at suicide, risky actions (stockpiling pills, saying goodbye to family, giving away possessions or writing a note), intentionally harmed or tried to harm self, refusing to eat or drink, refusing med or therapies, sense of hopelessness or helplessness, impaired judgment or safety awareness. Monitor/record/report to MD PRN risk for harming others: increased anger, labile mood or agitation, feels threatened by others or thoughts of harming someone, possession of weapons or objects that could be used as weapons. During the Resident Council Interview at 10:00 A.M. on 03/11/22 residents were asked if they received quarterly financial statements of their personal fund account. Resident #37 stated, he had not received a quarterly financial statement of his personal funds. During an interview with Resident #37 at 11:58 a.m. on 03/11/22, he stated, at the beginning of the month he goes and get money from his account to purchase items at the store. I do not get a statement telling me how much I have or how much I have spent. During an interview with the Business Office Manager he stated, residents are not provided with Quarterly financial statements. A facility policy indicated: Deposit of Resident Funds Policy: Resident personal funds that are held and managed by the facility will be safeguarded. The policy and procedures titled Quarterly and Discharge Statements: 1. Statements will be generated by the facility. Copies are to be made and mailed/given to the resident/authorized legal representative no less than quarterly.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0655 (Tag F0655)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. The facility staff failed to provide a written baseline care plan summary to Resident #67's representative. Resident #67 was...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. The facility staff failed to provide a written baseline care plan summary to Resident #67's representative. Resident #67 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include but not limited to Diabetes Mellitus and Depression. The most recent comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) was an admission Assessment with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 2/24/22. The Brief Interview for Mental Status for Resident #67 was coded as a 3 out of a possible 15, indicating the resident was severely cognitively impaired and incapable of daily decision making. A review of Resident #67 electronic medical record indicated the baseline care plan was completed on 2/17/22 by Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN #3). Resident #67's progress notes were reviewed but revealed no documentation that a copy of the written baseline care plan summary was provided to the patient's representative. On 3/9/22 at approximately 6:00 p.m. an interview was conducted with Resident #67 daughter who was asked if the facility provided her with a copy of the baseline care plan summary that was completed for her mother. Resident #67's daughter states, No I never received a copy of any type of care plan for mom, this is the first time hearing about it. On 3/14/22 at 1:56 p.m. a phone interview was conducted with LPN #3. LPN #3 was asked if she completed Resident #67's baseline care plan and did she provide the family with a copy of the written baseline care plan summary. LPN #3 stated, I remember doing the baseline care plan, but I'm not sure that I gave a copy to her daughter or talked to her about it. On 3/15/22 at 1:00 p.m. an interview was conducted with the [NAME] President of Clinical Services regarding Resident #67's baseline care plan summary. The [NAME] President of Clinical Services stated, I do not see a note in Name (Resident #67's) chart that the family was given a copy of the baseline care plan summary. The interdisciplinary team meets with the family and resident within the 48 hour window to go over the baseline care plan and a copy is to be given them. It should then be documented in the resident's medical record that the a copy of the baseline care plan summary was given to the resident and family. The facility policy titled Care Plans-Baseline revised 12/2016 was reviewed and is documented in part, as follows: Policy Statement: A baseline plan of care to meet the resident's immediate needs shall be developed for each resident within forty-eight ($*) hours of admission. Policy Interpretation and Implementation: 4. The resident and their representative will be provided a summary of the baseline care plan that includes, but is not limited to the following: a. The initial goals of the resident; b. A summary of the resident's medications and dietary instructions; c. Any services and treatments to be administered by the facility and personnel acting on behalf of the facility; and d. Any updated information based on the details of the comprehensive care plan, as necessary. On 3/17/22 at 2:40 p.m. an interview was conducted with the Administrator regarding Resident #67's baseline care plan summary. The Administrator stated, Based on our policy, Social Services should review the baseline care plan summary and provide a copy of the summary with the resident and family. During a pre-exit debriefing on 3/17/2 at 5:44 p.m. with the Administrator, [NAME] President of Operations and the [NAME] President of Clinical Services the above information was shared. Prior to exit no further information was shared. Based on staff interviews, and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to complete and implement the baseline care plan within 48 hours of a resident's admission and failed to provide a written baseline care plan summary to one resident representative for 2 of 44 residents (Resident #83 and #67), in the survey sample. The findings included: 1. Resident #83 was originally admitted to the facility 11/19/21, was discharged to acute care 11/26/21. The diagnoses at the time of the resident's 11/19/21 admission included; status post decompression and fusion of the lumbar spine and polymyalgia rheumatic. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment with an assessment reference date (ARD) of 11/26/21 coded the resident as completing the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) and scoring 14 out of a possible 15. This indicated Resident #83's cognitive abilities for daily decision making were intact. In section G (Physical functioning) the resident was coded as requiring total care of one person with bathing, extensive assistance of two people with transfers, extensive assistance of one person with dressing and toileting, limited assistance of one person with bed mobility and personal hygiene, and supervision after set-up with eating. In section J0500A and B; the resident was coded that pain made it hard to sleep at night and limited day to day activities. At section M1040E; the resident was coded with a surgical wound. On 3/16/22 at approximately 10:30 a.m., an interview was conducted with the resident's listed Responsible party (RP). The RP stated the resident had very specific toileting needs based on a history of urinary problems and the limitation in his physical abilities secondary to the recent back surgery and the severity of his pain. A review of Resident #83's clinical record failed to evidence a baseline care plan which was to provide instructions for the provision of effective and person-centered care to the resident. An interview was conducted with the MDS Coordinator on 3/16/22 at approximately 2:10 p.m. The MDS Coordinator stated she was unable to locate a baseline care plan for Resident #83's 11/19/21 admission. On 3/17/22 at approximately 5:45 p.m., the above findings were shared with the Administrator, VPCS and the [NAME] President of Operations (VPO). The VPCS stated development of the baseline care is a comprehensive approach by all staff to develop and implement.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, staff and resident interviews, the facility staff failed to revise the care plan for one resident, Resid...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, staff and resident interviews, the facility staff failed to revise the care plan for one resident, Resident #37, in the survey sample of 44 residents, to include interventions for this resident sharing alcohol with other residents. The findings included: Resident #37 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of sequela, neuromuscular dysfunction of bladder, paraplegia, hypertension, anxiety disorder, contracture of right hip, contracture of left hip, and depression. The facility staff failed to revise Resident #37 care plan to include interventions for sharing alcohol with other residents. A Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessed Resident #37 as having a Basic Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 13. In the area of Activity's of Daily Living (ADL's) this resident was assessed as requiring extensive assistance in the area of bed mobility and transfer. A Care Plan Dated: 2/11/2022 indicated: The resident needs a safe environment with: (floors free from spills and/or clutter; adequate light; a working and reachable call light, personal items within reach) The resident uses antidepressant medication r/t Depression-The resident will be free from discomfort or adverse reactions related to antidepressant therapy through the review date. Administer ANTIDEPRESSANT medications as ordered by physician. Monitor/document side effects and effectiveness Q-SHIFT. Monitor/document/report PRN adverse reactions to ANTIDEPRESSANT therapy: change in behavior/mood/cognition; hallucinations/delusions; social isolation, suicidal thoughts, withdrawal; decline in ADL ability, continence, no voiding; constipation, fecal impaction, diarrhea; gait changes, rigid muscles, balance probs, movement problems, tremors, muscle cramps, falls; dizziness/vertigo; fatigue, insomnia; appetite loss, wt loss, n/v, dry mouth, dry eyes. The resident has depression- The resident will exhibit indicators of depression, anxiety or sad mood less than daily by review date. Administer medications as ordered. Monitor/document for side effects and effectiveness. Monitor/document/report PRN any risk for harm to self: suicidal plan, past attempt at suicide, risky actions (stockpiling pills, saying goodbye to family, giving away possessions or writing a note), intentionally harmed or tried to harm self, refusing to eat or drink, refusing med or therapies, sense of hopelessness or helplessness, impaired judgment or safety awareness. Monitor/record/report to MD PRN risk for harming others: increased anger, labile mood or agitation, feels threatened by others or thoughts of harming someone, possession of weapons or objects that could be used as weapons. A Nursing Progress Note dated 02/19/22 at 14:33 indicated: Resident was reported by another resident and reported to staff that he was drinking alcohol. A Nursing Progress Note dated 02/17/22 at 13:17 indicated: Notified RP and Resident about care plan meeting scheduled for 02/23/2022. A Nursing Progress Note dated 02/23/22 at 13:51 indicated: Care Plan meeting: Resident and family member invited; resident did attend and sister (via) phone. Care, goals and concerns were addressed. A Nursing Progress Note dated 12/11/21 at 17:55 indicated: 50 ml empty bottle of Scotch found in residents trash. Resident admits to drinking it this evening, per staff. Hold melatonin for tonight and resume meds in AM. No behaviors exhibited from resident, monitored for change. A Nursing Progress Note dated 10/01/21 at 17:26 indicated: Spoke with family member and informed of resident going to ABC store to purchase alcohol and returning to parking lot to share with other resident. MD notified. During an interview on 03/11/22 at 14:05 PM with Resident #37, he stated, he goes over to the ABC store sometimes and purchase alcohol. Me and some of my friends we have a drink or two. During an interview on 3/11/22 at 15:00 PM with the Social Worker (SW), she stated, the facility staff is aware that Resident #37 goes over to the ABC store and purchase alcohol. The Social Worker stated they have spoken to Resident #37 and his family concerning this behavior. The SW was asked had the concerns of sharing the alcohol with other residents been addressed. The SW stated, no.
CONCERN (D)

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, medical record review, staff interviews 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 observations, medical record review, staff interviews and facility document review the facility staff failed to ensure 1 of 44 Residents (Resident #61) was provided an assistive device to prevent accidents, Resident #61. The facility staff failed to ensure Resident #61's wanderguard device was in place to prevent elopement. The findings included: Resident #61 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include but not limited to Alzheimer's Disease, Anxiety and Dementia. The most recent comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) was an admission Assessment with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 11/20/2. The Brief Interview for Mental Status for Resident #61 was coded as a 3 out of a possible 15, indicating the resident was severely cognitively impaired and incapable of daily decision making. Under Section E Behavior; E0900 Wandering-Presence and Frequency, Resident #61 was coded as a 3=Behavior of this type occurred daily. Under E1000 Wandering-Impact, Resident #61 was coded Yes=Does the wandering place the resident at significant risk of getting to a potentially dangerous place and Yes=Does the wandering significantly intrude on the privacy or activities of others. Resident #61's current Physician Orders were reviewed and are documented in part, as follows: 1. Check Wanderguard placement Q (every) shift. Start Date: 11/15/21 2. Wanderguard bracelet to alert staff of attempted elopement. Every shift for wanders. Start Date: 11/15/21 3. Wanderguard bracelet-check function weekly, every Wednesday for check function, weekly. Start Date: 11/17/21 Resident #61 admission Elopement Risk Form dated 11/15/21 was reviewed and is documented in part, as follows: Score: 7 Category: Low Risk A. Orientation: Has short or long term memory loss. C. Mobility: Is ambulatory with or without assistive devices. E. History of Elopement: Has a history of wandering. F. Wandering/Exit Seeking: Is expressing desire to go home, go to work or leave the facility. H. Comments: Wanders in facility, states he needs to go home and check on his sister, elopement risk. I. Interventions: Personal security device. Resident #61's Comprehensive Care Plan dated 11/22/21 was reviewed and is documented in part, as follows: Focus: The resident is an elopement risk/wanderer r/t (related to) wandering the facility aimlessly. Resident has previously tried to elope. Date initiated: 11/22/21. Interventions: Wanderguard as ordered. Check placement every shift. Date Initiated: 11/22/21. On 3/9/22 at 4:00 p.m. Resident #61 was observed in his room. No wanderguard device was observed on the resident's arms or legs. On 3/10/22 at 9:48 a.m. Resident #61 was observed in his room standing up looking out the window. No wanderguard device was observed on the resident's arms or legs. On 3/10/22 at 10:30 a.m. Resident #61 walked with this surveyor down the hall and through the facility front door. Upon nearing the facility front door and after passing through the door, no wanderguard alarm activated to alert the staff that the resident had exited the facility. Resident #61 was escorted back to his room by the surveyor. On 3/10/22 at 10:45 a.m. Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #6 accompanied this surveyor to Resident #61's room and was asked to show me where the resident's wanderguard device was placed. CNA #6 examined both of Resident #61's arms and legs with no wanderguard device detected. CNA #6 stated, He doesn't have his wanderguard on. I will have to let the nurse know it's missing. On 3/10/22 at 11:00 a.m. an interview was conducted with Unit Manager Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #8 regarding Resident #61's wanderguard bracelet. LPN #8 was asked if Resident #61 was supposed to have a wanderguard in place and if so why. LPN #8 stated, I have only been the Unit Manager for 2 weeks. I just checked and Name (Resident #61) is supposed to have a wanderguard in place because he is an elopement risk. The CNA just told me he didn't have one on. I have to get him a new one and put it on him. On 3/17/22 at 2:45 p.m. an interview was conducted with the Administrator regarding Resident #61 being observed without his wanderguard device. The Administrator was asked who was responsible for ensuring the wanderguard device was on the resident and what is the purpose of the device for Resident #61. The Administrator stated, The nurses are responsible to make sure the wanderguard is on the resident and functional. Name (Resident #61) is an elopement risk, the purpose is to keep him safe and from eloping from the facility. The facility policy titled Safety and Supervision of Residents revised 7/2017 was reviewed and is documented in part, as follows: Policy Statement: Our facility strives to make the environment as free from accident hazards as possible. Resident safety and supervision and assistance to prevent accidents are facility-wide priorities. Policy Interpretation and Implementation: Individualized, Resident-Centered Approach to Safety: 1. Our individualized, resident-centered approach to safety addressed safety and accident hazards for individual residents. 2. The interdisciplinary care team shall analyze information obtained from assessments and observations to identify any specific accident hazards or risks for individual residents. 3. The care team shall target interventions to reduce individual risks related to hazards in the environment, including adequate supervision and assistive devices. 4. Implementing interventions to reduce accident risks and hazards. During a pre-exit debriefing on 3/17/2 at 5:44 p.m. with the Administrator, [NAME] President of Operations and the [NAME] President of Clinical Services the above information was shared.
CONCERN (D)

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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, resident interview, staff interviews, and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to ensure a resident who receives oxygen therapy for COPD and CHF had oxygen flowing for 1 of 44 residents (Resident #56), in the survey sample. The findings included: Resident #56 was originally admitted to the facility 9/19/16 and readmitted [DATE] after an acute care hospital stay. The current diagnoses included; COPD, congestive heart failure (CHF), and respiratory failure with hypoxia. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment with an assessment reference date (ARD) of 2/15/22 coded the resident as completing the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) and scoring 15 out of a possible 15. This indicated Resident #56's cognitive abilities for daily decision making was intact. In section G (Physical functioning) the resident was coded as requiring total care of one person with personal hygiene, bathing, dressing, and toileting, extensive assistance of two people with bed mobility and supervision of one person after set-up with eating. Resident #56 was observed seated in a wheel chair in her room. She was wearing a slipper to the right foot and her right lowered leg was with plus two edema and redness. The resident's left arm was also with plus two edema and her face appeared fuller than it was the prior evening. The resident had a portable oxygen tank on the back of her wheel chair but it was on empty and she had a nasal cannula in her nostrils. An interview was conducted with Resident #56 in her room on 3/10/22 at approximately 2: 30 p.m. Resident #56 stated she participated in the Resident Council meeting earlier on 3/10/22 and was waiting for the nurses to put her back in bed. Resident #56 stated she felt heavy as well as a little short of breath and it troubled her, for in January 2022 she was hospitalized twice for shortness of breath caused by COPD and congestive heart failure (CHF). The resident stated her doctor always told her to weigh daily and if there was a change of three pounds or more to contact the office and to be sure she monitored her intake of fluids. Resident #56 stated she asked Certified Nursing Assistant CNA) #6 to weight her on 3/10/22 and she weighed was 194.5 pounds. Resident #56 stated her weight was 190.7 pounds of 3/7/22. The resident also stated she received a fluid pill, a heart pill and oxygen to manage her breathing problems caused by COPD and congestive heart failure. The Physician's Order Summary (POS) revealed the following order; 12/31/21 Oxygen 2 liters per minute by nasal cannula as needed for oxygen saturations below 92 percent. The current care plan had a problem dated 2/24/22 which read; resident has altered cardiovascular status r/t hypertension, CHF and cardiomyopathy. The goal read; the resident will be free from complications of cardiac problems through the review date. The interventions included; Assess lung and heart sounds as needed. Medications as ordered. Oxygen at 2 liters per minute via nasal cannula. Vital signs as ordered. Resident is a daily weight An interview was conducted with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #10 on 3/10/22 at approximately 4:35 p.m. LPN #10 stated the resident's portable oxygen tank was empty but she connected the resident to the concentrator and her oxygen saturation was 8 percent. LPN #10 stated she didn't assess or obtain the resident's saturation prior to attaching her tubing to the concentrator. LPN #10 didn't acknowledge the resident's shortness of breath, increased weight or edema to her extremities but she stated the resident offered no concerns. On 3/17/22 at approximately 5:45 p.m., the above findings were shared with the Administrator, VPCS and the [NAME] President of Operations (VPO). No additional information was offered and no concerns were voiced.
CONCERN (D)

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

Antibiotic Stewardship (Tag F0881)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, staff interview, clinical record review, and review of facility documents, the facility's staff failed to have an ongoing review of antibiotic stewardship and monitor the effecti...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, staff interview, clinical record review, and review of facility documents, the facility's staff failed to have an ongoing review of antibiotic stewardship and monitor the effectiveness of the resident's antibiotic therapy. The findings included: On 3/17/22 at approximately 2:30 PM an interview was conducted with ASM (Administrative Staff Member) #3 and via telephone with ASM #6 concerning the antibiotic Stewardship Program. ASM #3 stated, The DON (ASM #4) has the book with the line listings but he is no longer here. I only have the education book. An observation of the education book was made. There were no line listings for the months of January, February and March of 2022. ASM #6 stated the DON was working on the book but never finished it. On 3/17/22 at approximately 5:45 PM a Pre-exit interview was conducted with the Administrator, The [NAME] President of Operations and with the [NAME] President of Clinical Services. No comments were voiced at this time. .
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0925 (Tag F0925)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, resident and staff interview the facility staff failed to maintain an ongoing pest control program to ensu...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, resident and staff interview the facility staff failed to maintain an ongoing pest control program to ensure the facility is free of insects. The findings included: During the Resident Council meeting on 03/10/22 at 10:00 A.M. Resident #73 stated he had ants in his room. Resident #73 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 14. During an interview on 03/10/22 at 11:05 a.m with Resident #73. He stated, ants have been crawling all over the room. Observations made in Resident #73's room indicated that a 3 inch by 4 inch by one half inch deep area of the right corner of the room flooring was missing. During this observations, ants were noted to be coming in from the outside under the window and air/heating unit area. Ants were observed to be under a night stand. Ants were observed to be on the bed and covers of Resident #73 bed. Resident #73. stated, he has been fortunate that the ants had not bitten him. During an interview on 3/10/22 at 11:43 a.m. with the Maintenance Director, he stated, he was not aware of the ants but would get the pest control company out as soon as possible. A Pest Control Policy indicated: Policy Statement-Our facility shall maintain an effective pest control program. Policy Interpretation and Implementation: 1. This facility maintains an on-going pest control program to ensure that the building is kept free of insects and rodents. 5. Maintenance services assist, when appropriate and necessary, in providing pest control services.
CONCERN (E)

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

Notification of Changes (Tag F0580)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 5. For Resident #26 the facility staff failed to notify his next of kin (RP/Responsible Party/Brother) of unstageable pressure u...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 5. For Resident #26 the facility staff failed to notify his next of kin (RP/Responsible Party/Brother) of unstageable pressure ulcers located on resident's sacrum and right lateral ankle. Resident #26 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] after an acute care hospital stay. The resident has never been discharged from the facility. The current diagnoses included; Pressure Ulcer of Sacral Region, unstageable and Pressure ulcer of the Right Lateral Ankle. The quarterly revision assessment Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment with an assessment reference date (ARD) of 1/26/22 coded the resident as completing the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) and scoring 11 out of a possible 15. This indicated Resident #26 cognitive abilities for daily decision making were moderately impaired. In section G(Physical functioning) the resident was coded as requiring extensive assistance of two people with bed mobility and personal hygiene. Requiring extensive assistance of one person with dressing. Requiring total dependence of two persons with toilet use and bathing. Requires supervision with set-up help only with eating. In section M (Skin and Ulcer/Injury Treatments) M1200. Turning/repositioning program: coded as No. Pressure ulcer/injury care: coded as No. In section M (Skin Conditions) M0150. Risk of Pressure Ulcers/Injuries. Codes as Yes. M0300. Current Number of Unhealed Pressure Ulcers/Injuries at Each Stage. Left Blank. The care plan dated 2/04/22 reads: Focus: SKIN INTEGRITY: Resident has potential impairment to skin integrity r/t (relating/ to) cancer, COPD (Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease) heart failure, anemia, Foley catheter, incontinence and need for ADL (Activity of Daily Living) assistance. Goal: The resident will maintain or develop clean and intact skin by the review date. Interventions: Encourage good nutrition and hydration in order to promote healthier skin. Follow facility protocols for treatment of injury. Keep skin clean and dry. Use lotion on dry skin. Observe location, size and treatment of skin injury. Report abnormalities, failure to heal, s/sx (signs/symptoms) of infection, maceration etc. to MD (Medical Doctor). The care plan dated 2/04/22 reads: Focus: ADL self-care performance deficit related to Heart failure, Acute kidney failure, Malignant carcinoma of the lung, Malignant neoplasm of the brain. Goal: Resident to maintain current level of function in (eating) through the next review date. Interventions: BATHING/SHOWERING: Check nail length and trim and clean on bath day and as necessary. Avoid scrubbing & pat dry sensitive skin. Provide a tub bath/shower at least 2 days week. Provide a sponge bath if a tub bath/ shower cannot be tolerated. Shave and shampoo hair as needed. BED MOBILITY: Requires (Limited to extensive assistance) of (1-2) staff to turn and reposition in bed Q 2-3 hours and as necessary. PERSONAL HYGIENE: Requires (limited to extensive assistance) of (1-2) staff with personal hygiene and oral care. SKIN OBSERVATION: Observe skin for rashes, redness, open areas, scratches, cuts, bruises and report changes for prompt treatment. According to the wound evaluation dated 2/08/22 revealed that an unstageable pressure ulcer of the sacrum was acquired in house. Measurements: Length: 5.35 cm. Width: 5.73 cm LxW: 30.66 cm Depth: 0. Observations: %slough/eschar: 100.00 According to the comprehensive skin assessment dated on 2/24/2022 at 6:57 PM a new wound was found on Resident's right lateral ankle as an unstageable pressure ulcer by the wound Nurse Practitioner (NP). % slough/eschar: 100%. A review of nurses note dated 2/16/22 at 2:22 PM show that family member was called concerning labs and chest xray but did not mention that resident has an unstageable sacral ulcer unstageable pressure ulcer to right ankle. Noted: deep non productive cough. Coarse rhonchi to bilateral upper and lower lobes. Afebrile. 98% via 2L of O2. Call placed to on call provider. Orders received to obtain CBC, CMP, COVID test and chest X-Ray. Resident own RP and made aware of new orders. A review of nursing notes show no indication that Resident's family member was notified of his unstageable pressure ulcers. On 03/11/22 at approximately 9:39 AM an interview was conducted with Resident #26 concerning his wounds on his sacrum and lower extremities. He was asked how he got the wounds. He stated, I got it since I've been in here. (His Heels were observed resting on the bed. No bunny boots or heel protectors were seen. Resident's heels were not floating but resting on his bed/mattress). Surveyor received permission from resident to observe wound care today. On 3/11/22 at approximately 6:05 PM a phone call was placed to Resident #26's RP (Responsible Party/Brother) concerning Resident's pressure ulcers. He stated, He was there 3 days when I was told the facility had many cases of COVID19 in the building. I didn't know he had pressure ulcers. I talked to the nurse the other day and they didn't mention that to me. They have not called me concerning his wounds. On 03/14/22 at 2:47 PM an interview was conducted with LPN #6 concerning Resident #26. She stated. The area on the sacrum was found on 2/09/22 as an unstageable. If it's covered in slough or eschar it's unstageable because we don't know what's under it. Upon arrival, we look at resident's skin with the Wound NP, then weekly. If the CNA see any issues on resident's skin they will report it to the nurse. Since I've been looking at his wound every week it's getting better. His sacrum was debrided on 3/10/22. I normally put a note in that I rounded with her but I didn't. She was asked who was Resident #26's RP (Responsible Party) she stated, His brother is listed as his next of kin. So if anything happens to resident I would call him. Was the RP notified when the unstageable was found? (LPN #6 looking through PCC/electronic medical records). It doesn't look like it. An SBAR (Situation, Background, Assessment and Recommendation) should have been completed and notifications should have been in there. She was asked by surveyor if Resident #26's brother been notified of the unstageable pressure ulcers and notified of the debridement of his sacral ulcer? She stated, No. On 03/15/22 at 1:35 PM an interview was conducted with the Wound Nurse Practitioner (OSM) #19 concerning Resident #26's wounds. She stated, When he first got to the facility he didn't have a wound. When the facility told me to come look at him he was already unstageable. I initially saw him on February 8th, 2022. I only see it once a week. She was asked if the wound was found at an advance stage on his right lateral heel and sacrum. She stated, Yes because he didn't have it on his initial skin assessment. The staff should have communicated if they saw something open, redness and documented it. I do a skin sweep quarterly on patients that don't have wounds. Most nurses should do weekly skin assessments. On 3/17/22 at approximately 5:45 PM a Pre-exit interview was conducted with the Administrator, The [NAME] President of Operations and with the [NAME] President of Clinical Services concerning Resident #26. The [NAME] President of Operations Stated, The DON that was here had a wound care protocol but we can't find it but will re-implement it. COMPLAINT DEFICIENCY Based on a complaint investigation, resident interview, staff interviews, facility document review, and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to notify the physician and or the Resident Representative of a change in condition for 5 of 44 residents (Resident #64, #47, #88, #87 and #26) in the survey sample. For Resident #64, the facility staff failed to notify the physician of blood sugars 400 and greater. For Resident #47, the facility staff failed to notify the physician and resident representative of missed doses of an antibiotic to treat Urinary tract Infection (UTI). For Resident #88, the facility staff failed to inform the physician of the neuropsychologist recommendation to start medication (Luvox 25 mg) daily for behaviors. For Resident #87, the facility staff failed to notify the responsible party timely of an acute change of condition that required the resident to be transferred to the hospital on 2/3/22. The facility staff failed to notify Resident #26's responsible party of unstageable pressure ulcers located on resident's sacrum and right lateral ankle. The findings included: 1. The facility staff failed to follow physician orders to notify the physician if Resident #64's blood sugars were greater than 400. Resident #64 was admitted to the nursing facility on 11/12/21. Diagnosis for Resident #64 included but not limited to Type II Diabetes Mellitus (DM) with hyperglycemia. The current Minimum Data Set (MDS), a quarterly assessment with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 02/22/22 coded the resident with a 14 out of a possible score of 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) indicating no cognitive impairment. The MDS coded Resident #64 requiring total dependence of one with bathing, extensive assistance of one with dressing, limited assistance of one with toilet use and personal hygiene and supervision with transfer and eating for Activities of Daily Living care. Under Section N for the use of insulin injection was coded as received daily during the last 7 days. The care plan created on 11/15/21 identified Resident #64 with a diagnosis of DM. The goal set for the resident by the staff to have no complications related to diabetes. Some of the interventions/approaches the staff would use to accomplish this goal is monitor/document/report as needed any signs or symptoms of hyperglycemia: increased thirst and appetite, frequent urination, weight loss, fatigue, dry skin, poor wound healing, muscle cramps, abdominal pain and acetone breath (smells fruity). During the initial tour on 03/09/22 at approximately 3:27 p.m., an interview was conducted with Resident #64 who stated, I was on sliding scale insulin when I was at home but since I've been here, they have been checking my blood sugar but I'm not always receiving insulin coverage when my blood sugars are high. Review of Resident #64's physician orders for March 2022 revealed the following order starting on 11/15/21: check blood sugars before meals and at bedtime. Notify the physician for blood sugar less than 60 or greater than 400. 1. Review of November 2021 Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed blood sugar's greater than 400 on the following days with no notification to the physician: 11/26 @ 513, 11/27 @ 513 and again @ 421, 11/21 @ 433 and 11/30 @ 475. 2. Review of December 2021 (MAR) revealed blood sugar's greater than 400 on the following days with no notification to the physician: 12/08 @ 508 and 487, 12/09 @ 459 and 482, 12/13 @ 435, 483 and 409. 3. Review of January 2022 (MAR) revealed blood sugar's greater than 400 on the following days with no notification to the physician: 01/25 @ 466 and 01/26 @ 453. 4. Review of February 2022 (MAR) revealed blood sugar's greater than 400 on the following days with no notification to the physician: 02/01 @ 460 and 02/02 @ 407. An interview was conducted with the Regional Director of Clinical Services on 03/16/22 at approximately 2:53 p.m., who reviewed the documents mentioned above. He stated, the expectations is for all nurses to is follow the physician orders and to inform the physician of elevated blood sugars greater than 400 as instructed. On 03/16/22 at approximately 3:15 p.m., an interview was conducted with License Practical Nurse (LPN) #1 and the Regional Director of Clinical Services. The LPN was assigned to Resident #64 on the following days when the resident's the blood sugars were greater than 400 and the NP or physician were not notified: 11/26/21 @ 513 and 11/27/21 @ 513, 12/09/21 @459 and 12/13/21 @ 409. The nurse reviewed the documents and stated, If I did not notify the NP or the Physician of Resident #64's blood sugars greater than 400, I should have. The surveyor asked, do you see documentation that the NP or physician were notified of blood sugars greater than 400 on the days mentioned, she replied, No. A debriefing was held with the Administrator and [NAME] President of Operations on 03/17/22 at approximately 5:45 p.m., who were informed of the above findings; no further information was provided prior to exit. The policy titled: Obtaining a Fingerstick Glucose Level with a revision date of 10/11. Purpose is to obtain a blood sugar sample to determine the resident's blood glucose level. Documentation read in part: The person performing this procedure should record the following in the resident's medical record: 6. The blood sugar results. Follow facility policies and procedure for appropriate nursing interventions regarding blood sugar results (if resident is on sliding scale coverage, and/or physician interventions is needed to adjust insulin or oral medication dosages). 2. The facility staff failed to notify the physician and Resident Representative (RR) that Resident #47 missed 12 doses of his antibiotic (Zyvox) as ordered by the physician to treat a Urinary tract infection (UTI). Resident #47's Minimum Data Set (MDS - an assessment protocol) a PPS 5-day assessment with an Assessment Reference Date of 02/14/22 coded Resident #47's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) scored a 06 out of a possible score of 15 indicating severe cognitive impairment. Resident #47's Minimum Data Set (MDS - an assessment protocol) a PPS 5-day assessment with an Assessment Reference Date of 02/14/22 coded Resident #47's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) scored a 06 out of a possible score of 15 indicating severe cognitive impairment. The MDS coded Resident #47 requiring total dependence of one with dressing, personal hygiene and bathing, extensive assistance of one with bed mobility and toilet use, supervision with eating for Activities of Daily Living care. The care plan with a revision date of 03/03/22 identified Resident #47 on antibiotic therapy for UTI. The goal set for the resident by the staff was that the resident's UTI will resolve without complications. Some of the interventions/approaches the staff would use to accomplish this goal is administer antibiotic therapy as ordered and to monitor for side effects and effectiveness. During the review of Resident #47's hospital Discharge summary dated [DATE] revealed the following order: start Zyvox 500 mg tablet twice a day for 14 days for UTI. Review of Resident #47's Medication Administration Record (MAR) for March 2022 revealed the antibiotic Zyvox was not administered as ordered on the following days: 03/01/22-03/07/22. The facility provided a packing slip which revealed the medication Zyvox (28 tablets) were delivered to the nursing facility on 03/01/22. On 03/14/22 at approximately 1:00 p.m., the facility provided a copy of the facility's investigation report that indicated the following: On the evening of 02/28/22, Resident #47 was readmitted to the nursing facility with a new order for Zyvox. The pharmacy was made aware of the new order and according to the manifest, the medication Zyvox was delivered to the facility on [DATE]. According to License Practical Nurse (LPN) #1 and LPN #2, the medication was not given because it was considered unavailable and was not located in the medication cart. An interview was conducted with LPN #2 on 03/16/22 at approximately 11:45 a.m. The LPN stated, Zyvox was not given because the medication was located in another medication cart. The LPN said if I had called the pharmacy, they would have informed me that the Zyvox was delivered on 03/01/22 and Resident #47 wouldn't have missed all those doses of his antibiotic. When asked if the physician or the resident's representative were made aware that Resident #47 had missed 12 doses of his antibiotics from 03/01/22-03/07/22, she replied, No. A debriefing was held with the Administrator and [NAME] President of Operations on 03/17/22 at approximately 5:45 p.m., who were informed of the above findings; no further information was provided prior to exit. Definitions: -Zyvox is used to treat infections, including pneumonia, and infections of the skin. Zyvox is in a class of antibacterials called oxazolidinones. It works by stopping the growth of bacteria (https://medlineplus.gov/druginfo/meds). 3. The facility staff failed to inform the physician of the neuropsychologist recommendation to start medication (Luvox 25 mg) daily for behaviors. Diagnosis for Resident #88 included but not limited to major depressive disorder and Parkinson's Dementia. Resident #88's Minimum Data Set (MDS - an assessment protocol) a quarterly assessment with an Assessment Reference Date of 02/02/22 coded Resident #88's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) scored a 10 out of a possible score of 15 indicating moderate cognitive impairment. The MDS coded Resident #88 requiring total dependence of one with bathing, extensive assistance of one with bed mobility, transfer, dressing, toilet use and personal hygiene and supervision with limited assistance of one with eating for Activities of Daily Living (ADL) care. The care plan created on 09/15/20 identified Resident #88 is on an antidepressant medication related to (r/t) depression. The goal set for the resident by the staff to be free from discomfort or adverse reactions related to antidepressant therapy. Some of the interventions/approaches the staff would use to accomplish this goal is administer medications as ordered by the physician, monitor/document/report adverse reactions to antidepressant therapy: change in behavior/mood/cognition; hallucinations/delusions; social isolation, suicidal thoughts, withdrawal and decline in ADL ability. The care plan created on 09/20/19 identified Resident #88 has an alteration in neurological status r/t Parkinson's disease. The goal set for the resident by the staff is for the resident to communicate needs daily. Some of the interventions/approaches the staff would use to accomplish this goal is to give medications as ordered and monitor/document for side effects and effectiveness. On 12/07/21, a progress note entered by neuropsychologist revealed the following information: Resident #88 is being seen today because he is frequently defecating and spreading his feces around and urinating all over the place. The resident also intermittently refuse nutrition and medication. The progress note also states that Resident #88 is confused and gets physically violent with staff when trying to assist with ADL care. The recommendation is to consider Luvox 25 mg daily for major depressive disorder with psychotic features. Review of the physician Order Sheet (POS) for March 2022 and the Medication Administration Record (MAR) was reviewed from 12/21-03/22 revealed the medication Luvox 25 mg was never initiated. On 03/16/22 at approximately 3:15 p.m., an interview was conducted with the Regional Director of Clinical Services. The progress note entered by neuropsychologist on 12/07/21 and the MAR's from 12/21-03/22 were reviewed with the Regional Director of Clinical Services who acknowledge the recommendation to start Luvox 25 mg was never referred the to the resident primary physician or Nurse Practitioner for approval. A debriefing was held with the Administrator and [NAME] President of Operations on 03/17/22 at approximately 5:45 p.m., who were informed of the above findings; no further information was provided prior to exit. Definitions: -Luvox is used to treat obsessive-compulsive disorder (bothersome thoughts that won't go away and the . front of others that interferes with normal life) (https://medlineplus.gov). 4. The facility staff failed to notify Resident #87's responsible party timely of an acute change of condition that required the resident to be transferred to the hospital on 2/3/22 via 911. Resident #87 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include but not limited to Chronic Kidney Disease, Stage 5. Diabetes Mellitus, Anemia, Obesity, and Atrial Fibrillation. Resident #87 was discharged to the hospital on 2/3/22. The most recent comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) was an admission Assessment with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 1/27/22. The Brief Interview for Mental Status for Resident #87 was coded as a 15 out of a possible 15, indicating the resident was cognitively intact and capable of daily decision making. Under Section F0400 Interview for Daily Preferences Resident #87 was coded as a 1-Very Important for: How important is it to you to have your family involved in discussions about your care? Under Section M Skin Conditions Resident #87 was coded for being at risk for developing pressure ulcer/injuries. The resident was also coded as having skin tears. On 3/15/22 at 10:36 a.m. a phone interview was conducted with Resident #87's son/responsible party to discuss a complaint investigation. During the call Resident #87's son began discussing the resident being send to the hospital on 2/3/22. Resident #87's son stated, Mom was sent to the hospital on 2/3/22 because she wasn't responding. How I found out my mom was in the emergency room was from a call I received from the hospital billing department around 2 p.m. The lady on the phone asked if it was ok for the hospital to bill my mom's insurance. I asked her what were they billing for. The lady said, sir were you not aware your mother is in our emergency room. I told her that I was not aware. As soon as I hung up the phone with the hospital a nurse from the facility called me to inform me that she had sent my mom to the hospital that morning. Resident #87's Progress Notes entered by Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #3 were reviewed and are documented in part, as follows: 2/3/2022 12:06 p.m. Orders - Administration Note: hospital. 2/3/2022 14:47(2:47)p.m. Nurses Notes: Resident noted in room hard to arouse and unable to answer simple questions. Call placed to NP (Nurse Practitioner) and order given to send resident out for further evaluation. RP (responsible party) Name (son) made aware, call to ER(emergency room) charge nurse. Med (medication) orders, bed hold policy, and Care plans sent with resident. 911 was called and arrived resident taken to ED (emergency department) via stretcher accompanied by EMS(emergency medical services). Resident #87's 2/3/22 Emergency Department Record was reviewed and is documented in part, as follows: admission Information: Arrival Date/Time: 2/3/22 11:29 a.m. On 3/14/22 at 1:56 p.m. a phone interview was conducted with LPN #3. LPN #3 was asked when did she call Resident #87's responsible party after she noted a acute change in the residents condition and sent the resident to the hospital via 911. LPN #3 stated, I called the son. I don't know for sure the time, but I charted it. It couldn't have not even been more than 30 minutes after I sent her out. She went out around 11 a.m LPN #3's Nursing Note entry dated 2/3/22 at 14:47(2:47) p.m. was reviewed with the nurse. LPN #3 stated, Well that's just when I charted it. The facility policy titled Change in a Resident's Condition or Status revised 2/2021 was reviewed and is documented in part, as follows: Policy Statement: Our facility promptly notifies the resident, his or her attending physician, and the resident representative of changes in the resident's medical/mental condition and/or status. Policy Interpretation and Implementation: 4. Unless otherwise instructed by the resident, the nurse will notify the resident's representative when: b. there is a significant change in the resident's physical, mental, or psychosocial status; e. it is necessary to transfer the resident to a hospital/treatment center. On 3/17/22 at 2:50 p.m. an interview was conducted with the Administrator regarding the notification of Resident #87's representative after an acute change of condition requiring 911 transfer to the hospital on 2/3/22. The Administrator was asked when should resident representatives be notified when there is an acute change of condition and who is responsible for the notification. The Administrator stated, The family should be notified as soon as the emergency has been handled, call immediately. The nurse in charge of the emergency is who is to notify the family and document the time the family was notified. During a pre-exit debriefing on 3/17/2 at 5:44 p.m. with the Administrator, [NAME] President of Operations and the [NAME] President of Clinical Services the above information was shared. Prior to exit no further information was shared.
CONCERN (E)

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

Abuse Prevention Policies (Tag F0607)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on employee record review, facility document review and staff interviews the facility staff failed to implement their Abuse/Neglect Prevention Policy for screening of new employees. Criminal Bac...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on employee record review, facility document review and staff interviews the facility staff failed to implement their Abuse/Neglect Prevention Policy for screening of new employees. Criminal Background Checks were not obtained for 12 current employees within 30 days of their hire date, Sworn Statements were not obtained for 16 current employees upon hire, and a Nursing License was not obtained for 2 current employees upon hire. The findings included: On 3/14/22 twenty-five current employee records were reviewed. The employee record review revealed that 12 current employees did not have a Criminal Background Checks. There were also 16 current employees that had no Sworn Statements upon hire. The employee record review also revealed that Nursing Licenses for 2 current employees were not obtained. On 10/14/22 at 10:30 a.m., an interview was conducted with the Business Office Manager (BOM) regarding the current employees with missing criminal background checks, sworn statements and nursing licenses. The BOM stated, I have only been here since the end of December and have not been able to look through all of the employee records to make sure they has everything that is required. I promise it will be better the next time you come. The BOM was asked what is the importance of obtaining criminal background checks, sworn statements and licenses on new hires. The BOM stated, To make sure that we don't have anyone in the building that doesn't have a current license or has a criminal history that could harm the residents. On 3/17/22 at 2:30 p.m. an interview was conducted with the Administrator regarding the current employees without criminal background checks, sworn statements and nursing licenses. The Administrator was asked who in the facility was responsible for completing new employee records and what should be in the employee record upon hire. The Administrator stated, The Business Office Manager is responsible for ensuring all new employee records are complete at hire. The record should include the sworn statement upon hire, the criminal background check within 30 days of hire and a copy of the current nursing license upon hire. The Administrator was asked what is the importance of obtaining the documents she listed for new employees. The Administrator stated, To ensure we don't have someone with a history of abuse or violent behavior in the building taking care of the residents. Also we need to ensure the nurses are licensed to practice to also protect the residents. This procedure is in our abuse policy and we were not following it based on your findings. The facility policy titled Abuse Prevention last revised 12/2016 was reviewed and is documented in part, as follows: Policy Statement: Our residents have the right to be free from abuse, neglect, misappropriation of resident property and exploitation. This includes but is not limited to freedom from corporal punishment, involuntary seclusion, verbal, mental, sexual or physical abuse. Policy Interpretation and Implementation: As part of the resident abuse prevention, the administration will: 1. Protect our residents from abuse by anyone including, but not necessarily limited to: facility staff, other residents, consultants, volunteers, staff from other agencies, or any other individual. 2. Conduct employee background checks and will not knowingly employ or otherwise engage any individual who has: a. been found guilty of abuse, neglect, exploitation, misappropriation of property, or mistreatment by a court of law; c. a disciplinary action in effect against his or her professional license by a state licensure body as a result of abuse, neglect, exploitation, mistreatment of residents or misappropriation of resident property. 3. Develop and implement policies and procedures to aid our facility in preventing abuse, neglect or mistreatment of our residents. During a pre-exit debriefing on 3/17/2 at 5:44 p.m. with the Administrator, [NAME] President of Operations and the [NAME] President of Clinical Services the above information was shared. Prior to exit no further information was shared.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0725 (Tag F0725)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on a family interview, staff interviews, and review of facility documents, the facility staff failed to have on duty suffi...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on a family interview, staff interviews, and review of facility documents, the facility staff failed to have on duty sufficient nursing staff with the appropriate skills sets to provide nursing services during the 3:00 p.m. - 11:00 p.m., shift on 11/19/21. The findings included: Resident #83 was originally admitted to the facility 11/19/21, was discharged to acute care 11/26/21. The resident's diagnoses included status post decompression and fusion of the lumbar spine and polymyalgia rheumatic. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment with an assessment reference date (ARD) of 11/26/21 coded the resident as completing the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) and scoring 14 out of a possible 15. This indicated Resident #83's cognitive abilities for daily decision making were intact. In section G (Physical functioning) the resident was coded as requiring total care of one person with bathing, extensive assistance of two people with transfers, extensive assistance of one person with dressing and toileting, limited assistance of one person with bed mobility and personal hygiene, and supervision after set-up with eating. In section J0500A and B; the resident was coded that pain made it hard to sleep at night and limited day to day activities. At section M1040E; the resident was coded with a surgical wound. On 3/16/22 at approximately 10:30 a.m., an interview was conducted with the resident's listed Responsible party (RP). The RP stated, they were familiar with the facility under a different ownership for their mother had short stays after a number hospitalization. The RP further stated Resident #83 chose the facility for rehabilitation after surgery to regain strength and return home. The RP stated the resident was an eighteen wheel truck driver and looked forward to getting back in the truck. The RP also stated the night of 11/19/21, Resident #83 arrived to the facility at approximately 6:00 p.m., by stretcher from a local hospital. She stated the resident was with significant functional limitations including transfers, walking, toileting and other activities of daily living (ADL) and back pain secondary to surgical decompression and lumbar fusion of the spine. The RP stated the unit the resident was assigned to was staffed with one nurse, no other staff and the nurse was overwhelmed and told her she had no orders to provide care to the resident. The RP assured the facility's nurse that wasn't accurate for she had spoken with the hospital's Discharge Planner multiple times to ensure all necessary orders and instructions were provided to the facility prior to the resident leaving the hospital because she was aware of how interruptions in service may occur if all information wasn't provided timely to the facility. During the interview, the RP stated the nurse told the family upon request for pain medication that she had no orders for medications therefore she couldn't administer any medications to the resident but they could go home and get his medications and they could administer them to the resident. The RP stated that same evening, the day of admission [DATE], Resident #83 experienced severe pain and needed to void but because of a history of voiding only in a specific position it was necessary for him to get out of bed to void and there was no one to assist the resident. It was the family who had to assist the resident to get out of bed to void. The RP stated the only service the resident received the day of admission was to receive a bedside commode, no medications, no physical assistance. An interview was conducted with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #9 on 3/17/22 at approximately 9:52 a.m. LPN #9 stated she remembered Resident #83 and she was the nurse on duty the evening the resident arrived. She further stated the staff knew she wasn't proficient in admissions and she always worker the overnight shift to avoid admitting residents. LPN #9 stated she had never admitted a resident and the day Resident #83 arrived she was the only direct care staff on the unit; no other nurses or Certified Nursing Assistants (CNA). LPN #9 stated the front office staff was also aware she was the only caregiver for the shift therefore they came to the unit to assist with answering call lights, and providing limited care for the residents prior to going home for the night, but that was all. LPN #9 stated no one told her they were not going to admit Resident #83 to the facility and she didn't. LPN #9 stated she provided the Resident with a bedside commode and a son who was present and very involved in the resident's care assisted him to toilet. LPN #9 also stated she was aware the resident was experiencing pain and she informed the resident's family that she had no orders to administer any medications to the resident. An interview was conducted with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #6 on 3/14/22 at approximately 3:30 p.m. LPN #6 stated Unit B daily census ranged of 26 - 30 residents each day and appropriate staffing for the 3:00 p.m. - 11:00 p.m. shift is one licensed nurse and three Certified Nursing Assistants (CNA). LPN #6 stated having the one nurse with an admission is difficult but doable, working with two CNAs is challenging but very difficult, and having no CNAs is simply unsafe. An interview was conducted with the Staffing Coordinator on 3/14/22 at approximately 4:05 p.m. The Staffing Coordinator stated she was new to the position but based on the formula for staffing she was trained with; on the 3:00 p.m. - 11:00 p.m. shift, one nurse is scheduled and another is on duty for admissions from 3:00 p.m. - 6:00 p.m., and three CNAs. On 3/17/22 at approximately 5:45 p.m., the above findings were shared with the Administrator, VPCS and the [NAME] President of Operations (VPO). The VPCS stated the nurses working at the facility are competent and currently they are staffing an additional nurse to complete admissions making this event likely never to occur again. The VPO stated they have a nurse recruiter coming on board soon and the company has restructured nurse staff salary and benefits to increase the potential for obtaining facility staff as opposed to agency staff.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0726 (Tag F0726)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review and staff interview the facility staff failed to ensure Agency Staff completed appropriate competencies and skill sets to provide nursing related services to meet resident needs...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and staff interview the facility staff failed to ensure Agency Staff completed appropriate competencies and skill sets to provide nursing related services to meet resident needs. The findings included: A review of the facility's as work staffing schedule for the prior two weeks (February 20 through March 5th 2022) of the unannounced Medicaid/Medicare survey which started (March 09, 2022) indicated: 86 % of the direct care nursing staff were as needed agency staff. The facility utilized two separate agencies. During an interview on 03/17/2022 at 10:45 A.M. with the Corporate [NAME] President of Operations, she stated, the facility was operating on 14% company licensed nursing staff with the remaining staff from the two agencies. During an interview on 03/17/2022 at 10: 47 A.M. with the administrator she stated, the facility had a contracted agreement with two agencies for staffing. Agency staff agreement #1 was signed and dated (11/18/21). Agency staff agreement #2 was signed and dated 10/26/21. The facility was noted to have two (2) signed and dated contracted agreements for agency staffing. A review of the agency staffing contracts did not indicate that the agencies had to provide their staff competencies (training) as a part of the agreement. A random selection of 7 agency staff's competencies, which included the two agencies that facility utilized, were requested of the Administrator for review. The administrator provided to the survey team a letter signed and dated 03/17/22 regarding agency staffing competencies. The letter was noted to include the following: Nursing Competency The facility utilizes nursing staff from (named staff agency) and (named staff agency). Both agencies reported to us that they do not complete or have on file any nursing competencies. The following issues were identified where the agency staff were responsible to provide care and services to the residents in the nursing facility: The agency staff utilized by the facility failed to exhibit competencies in the skill necessary to admit a resident to the facility. During an interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #9 on 3/17/22 at approximately 9:52 a.m. LPN #9 stated she remembered Resident #83, she was the nurse on duty for the specific unit the evening the resident arrived. LPN #9 stated the staff knew she wasn't competent and had not demonstrated the ability to perform the necessary activities to safely complete an admission (writing orders, assessing a new resident, obtaining medications from the pharmacy) therefore she always worked the overnight shift to avoid admission process. LPN #9 stated no one told her they were not going to admit Resident #83 to the facility and she didn't. LPN #9 also stated she was aware the resident was experiencing pain and she informed the resident's family that she had no orders to administer any medications to the resident. As a result of LPN #9's lack of competencies to admit and transcribe orders to obtain crucial pain medications this contributed to poor outcomes for the resident. Resident #83 suffered severe pain which limited participation in day to day activities, the ability to sleep at night and resulted in physical decline . The agency staff utilized by the facility failed to exhibit competencies in the skills and techniques necessary to care for the resident's needs in the area of identifying pressure ulcers before becoming unstageable. The agency staff utilized by the facility failed to exhibit and techniques necessary to care for the resident's needs in the area of transcribing an administering parenteral Intravenous (IV) fluids The agency staff utilized by the facility failed to exhibit competencies in the skills and techniques necessary to care for the resident's needs in the area of notifying and following the physician/Nurse Practitioner (NP) orders to administer parenteral Intravenous (IV) fluids, obtain blood sugar checks as ordered and to notify when check blood sugars are greater than 400. The agency staff utilized by the facility failed to inform the physician of a progress note written by the neuropsychologist with the recommendation to start the medication (Luvox 25 mg) daily for behaviors. The agency staff utilized by the facility failed to investigate the location of a significant medication (Zyvox) for one resident whose medication was located inside another medication cart resulting in the resident not receiving his scheduled medication from 03/01/22-03/07/22. The agency staff utilized by the facility failed to exhibit competencies in the skills and techniques necessary to care for Resident 87's needs in the area of change of condition timely notification . LPN #3 failed to notify Resident #87's responsible party timely of an acute change of condition that required the resident to be transferred to the hospital on 2/3/22 via 911. The agency staff utilized by the facility failed to exhibit competencies in the skills and techniques necessary to care for Resident 67's needs in the area of baseline care plan. LPN #3 failed failed to provide a written baseline care plan summary to Resident #67's representative. No further information was provided prior to survey exit.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0760 (Tag F0760)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interviews, clinical record review and facility documentation, the facility staff failed to administer a signific...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interviews, clinical record review and facility documentation, the facility staff failed to administer a significant medication for 1 out of 44 residents (Resident #47) in the survey sample. The findings included: 1. The facility staff failed to administer 12 doses of the significant medication (Zyvox) as ordered by the physician to treat a Urinary tract infection (UTI) for Resident #47. Resident #47's Minimum Data Set (MDS - an assessment protocol) a PPS 5-day assessment with an Assessment Reference Date of 02/14/22 coded Resident #47's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) scored a 06 out of a possible score of 15 indicating severe cognitive impairment. Resident #47's Minimum Data Set (MDS - an assessment protocol) a PPS 5-day assessment with an Assessment Reference Date of 02/14/22 coded Resident #47's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) scored a 06 out of a possible score of 15 indicating severe cognitive impairment. The MDS coded Resident #47 requiring total dependence of one with dressing, personal hygiene and bathing, extensive assistance of one with bed mobility and toilet use, supervision with eating for Activities of Daily Living care. The care plan with a revision date of 03/03/22 identified Resident #47 on antibiotic therapy for UTI. The goal set for the resident by the staff was that the resident's UTI will resolve without complications. Some of the interventions/approaches the staff would use to accomplish this goal is administer antibiotic therapy as ordered and to monitor for side effects and effectiveness. During the review of Resident #47's hospital Discharge summary dated [DATE] revealed the following order: start Zyvox 500 mg tablet twice a day for 14 days for UTI. Review of Resident #47's Medication Administration Record (MAR) for March 2022 revealed the antibiotic Zyvox was not administered as ordered on the following days: 03/01/22-03/07/22. On 03/14/22 at approximately 1:00 p.m., the facility provided a copy of the facility's investigation report that indicated the following: On the evening of 02/28/22, Resident #47 was readmitted to the nursing facility with a new order for Zyvox. The pharmacy was made aware of the new order and according to the manifest, the medication Zyvox was delivered to the facility on [DATE]. According to License Practical Nurse (LPN) #1 and LPN #2, the medication was not given because it was considered unavailable and was not located in the medication cart. The facility provided a packing slip which revealed the medication Zyvox (28 tablets) were delivered to the nursing facility on 03/01/22. An interview was conducted with LPN #2 on 03/16/22 at approximately 11:45 a.m. The LPN stated, Zyvox was not given because the medication was located in another medication cart. The LPN said if I had called the pharmacy, they would have informed me that the Zyvox was delivered on 03/01/22 and Resident #47 wouldn't have missed all those doses of his antibiotic. A debriefing was held with the Administrator and [NAME] President of Operations on 03/17/22 at approximately 5:45 p.m., who were informed of the above findings; no further information was provided prior to exit. Definitions: -Zyvox is used to treat infections, including pneumonia, and infections of the skin. Zyvox is in a class of antibacterials called oxazolidinones. It works by stopping the growth of bacteria (https://medlineplus.gov/druginfo/meds).
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0868 (Tag F0868)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on staff interview, facility record review, and review of the facility's policy, the facility staff failed to consistently have the Medical Director or Designee present for 1 of 4 quarterly meet...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on staff interview, facility record review, and review of the facility's policy, the facility staff failed to consistently have the Medical Director or Designee present for 1 of 4 quarterly meetings. The findings included: An interview was conducted with the Administrator on 03/17/22 at approximately 2:10 p.m. The facility's signature sheets were reviewed for their Quality Assurance (QA) meetings held on 02/28/22, 11/05/21, 07/12/21 and 03/10/21, which revealed the Medical Director or his designee were not present for the quarterly QA meeting held on 02/28/22. A debriefing was held with the Administrator and [NAME] President of Operations on 03/17/22 at approximately 5:45 p.m., who were informed of the above findings; no further information was provided prior to exit. The facility's policy titled Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) Program with a revision date of 02/2020. Authority: The Administrator is responsible for assuring that this facility's QAPI program complies with federal, state, and local regulatory agency requirements.
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0727 (Tag F0727)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on information obtained during the Sufficient and Competent Nurse Staffing task, the facility staff failed to use the services of a Registered Nurse (RN) for at least 8 consecutive hours a day, ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on information obtained during the Sufficient and Competent Nurse Staffing task, the facility staff failed to use the services of a Registered Nurse (RN) for at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week. The findings included: A review of RN staffing for April 3, 2021 through March 13, 2022 the facility staff was unable to provide evidence that an RN provided services in the facility for at least 8 consecutive hours on 5/15/21, 5/29/21, 5/30/21, 6/27/21, 7/17/21, 7/24/21, 10/2/21, 11/27/21, 12/25/21, 1/9/22, 1/15/22, 1/16/22, 3/5/22, 3/6/22, 3/12/22 and 3/13/22. An interview was conducted with the Staffing Coordinator on 3/14/22 at approximately 4:05 p.m. The Staffing Coordinator stated she was new to the position but based on the formula for staffing she not instructed to staff a RN for at least 8 consecutive hours each day. The Staffing Coordinator stated there are few RNs other than the Director of Nursing, the Assistant Director of Nursing and maybe the MDS Coordinator who work in the facility at least 8 consecutive hours each day. On 3/17/22 at approximately 5:45 p.m., the above findings were shared with the Administrator, VPCS and the [NAME] President of Operations (VPO). The VPO stated they have a nurse recruiter coming on board soon and the company has restructured nurse staff salary and benefits to increase the potential for obtaining facility staff as opposed to agency staff enabling RN staffing at least 8 consecutive hours each day.
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0804 (Tag F0804)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observations during the tray line service, resident interview, staff interviews, and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to serve proper meat portions and mashed potatoes per re...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations during the tray line service, resident interview, staff interviews, and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to serve proper meat portions and mashed potatoes per recipe to provide person-centered determined nutritional needs based on the Registered Dietitian's assessment for 71 of 83 residents in the facility. The findings included: On 3/1/22 at approximately 12:05 p.m., an observation of the midday meal service was observed. The general meal served was 3 ounces (oz.) of ham, 1 twist of an orange, 1 ounce of pineapple sauce, herb roasted red potatoes, mashed potatoes for mechanically altered diets, garden blended vegetables, corn bread, and peach crisp. The alternate was cube steak with brown gravy, and spiral noodles. During the tray line observation on 3/1/22 at approximately 12:05 p.m., the [NAME] was asked to weigh the portion of ham slices served. The ham slice weighed between 1 oz and 1.5 oz. The [NAME] stated she cut the ham slices at over 3 ounces to account for loss of water during cooking but it never occurred the portion sizes would result in one half to one third of the size to be served. On 3/1/22 at approximately 12:45 p.m., the Dietary Manager stated the mashed potatoes were fortified; which meant they are made with half and half, dried nonfat milk and three cups of margarine. The Dietary Manager stated all residents who received mashed potatoes receives the same product, fortified mashed potatoes. The Dietary Manager stated she understood serving the fortified potatoes to all the resident wasn't what was recommended or in the best interest of all resident's who received them but going forward the two recipes would be followed and served as recommended by the RD. Review of the recipes stated the regular mashed potatoes are prepared with water, instant mashed potatoes and two cups of margarine. Also during the tray line observation the dietary staff provided containers of 6 oz of water instead of 8 oz as the tray card read. On 3/17/22 at approximately 5:45 p.m., the above findings were shared with the Administrator, VPCS and the [NAME] President of Operations (VPO). The VPO stated she was aware of the identified concerns and voiced no concerns.
Mar 2020 7 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Abuse Prevention Policies (Tag F0607)

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, it was determined that facility staf...

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, it was determined that facility staff failed to implement abuse policies and thoroughly investigate a skin injury of unknown source on two occasions for one of 44 residents in the survey sample, Resident #44. The findings include: 1. Resident #44 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included but were not limited to unspecified dementia without behavioral disturbance and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Resident #44's most recent MDS (minimum data set) assessment was a quarterly assessment with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 1/23/20. Resident #44 was coded as being severely impaired in cognitive function scoring 04 out of possible 15 on the BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status Exam). Resident #44 was coded as being totally dependent on two plus persons with bed mobility and transfers; and totally dependent on one person with dressing, toileting, personal hygiene, and bathing. Review of Resident #44's clinical record revealed that she obtained a skin tear to her right outer thigh on 11/17/19. The following nursing note was documented: Resident noted to have skin tear on right thigh .Quarter size skin tear .Cleansed skin tear, applied dressing. The following was documented on an incident report: Nursing Description: resident has a skin tear to right thigh. Patient Description: Patient unable to give Description. Immediate Action Taken: treatment order in place. clean (sic) with NS (normal saline), pat dry, apply foam dressing .Injury Type: Skin Tear .Injury Location: Right thigh (rear) . Mobility: Bedridden .Mental Status: Oriented to Person; Oriented to Place .Predisposing Environmental Factors: None .Predisposing Physiological Factors: None .Witnesses: No Witnesses found. Further review of the incident report revealed that under category Predisposing Situation Factors, nothing was documented. There was no evidence that an investigation was conducted determining the cause of her skin tear on 11/17/19. Review of Resident #44's November 2019 MAR (Medication Administration Record) revealed that a treatment was put into place for the skin tear on 11/18/19 until the area was resolved on 12/14/19. Further review of Resident #44's clinical record revealed that she obtained an abrasion to the same area (right outer thigh) on 1/29/20. The following was documented on the Skin and Wound Evaluation form: Describe: Abrasion Location: Right thigh (rear) Acquired: In -House Acquired. How long has the Wound been present? New Exact Date: 1/29/20. Wound Measurements: 1. Area 1.4 cm 2 (centimeters squared) 2. Length: 1.5 cm 3. Width: 1.4 cm .Wound Bed: Epithelial .Exudate: None .Primary Dressing: Foam. There was no evidence that an investigation was conducted determining the cause of her skin abrasion on 1/29/20. Review of Resident #44's March 2020 POS (physician order summary) revealed the following active order: Clean abrasion to right thigh with DWC, pat dry, apply border dressing until healed. every (sic) morning shift every 2 day (s) for abrasion. Review of Resident #44's ADL (Activities of Daily Living) care plan dated 9/28/14 and revised on 3/8/19 documented the following: Bed mobility: The resident uses assist bars to maximize independence with turning and repositioning .Transfer: The resident is able to transfer stand up lift and 2 people. On 3/12/20 an observation was made of Resident #44's skin alteration with LPN (Licensed Practical Nurse) #3 and LPN #2, the unit supervisor. A healing abrasion was observed to Resident #44's outer right thigh. The area had light pink tissue. The area did not appear to be pressure related. When asked when the abrasion had originally started, LPN #3 stated that it was back in November of 2019 and that she was not sure how it happened. LPN #2 stated that the DON (Director of Nursing) had found that the abrasion the second time about one month ago. LPN #2 stated that the DON had found the abrasion during skin sweeps on 3-11 shift. LPN #2 stated that they were putting a protective bandage in place at this point. Both nurses could not recall an investigation being initiated to determine the cause of her skin alterations on both occasions (11/1/19 and 1/29/20). When asked how Resident #44 transferred in and out of bed; LPN #2 stated that Resident #44 used the sit to stand lift with two staff members. LPN #2 stated that Resident #44 could not get herself in and out of bed or turn in bed by herself. On 3/12/20 at 1:50 p.m., an interview was conducted with ASM (Administrative Staff Member) #2, the DON (Director of Nursing). When asked when she first found Resident #44's skin tear or abrasion, ASM #2 stated that she was not sure, that she would have to look back at the resident's notes. ASM #2 stated that she found the area during a skin sweep (the second time around) but could not recall the date. ASM #2 stated that when she asked the nurse manager (LPN #1) about the skin area, LPN #1 had told her that Resident #44 always had that area. ASM #2 stated that she only recalled notifying the medical doctor and obtaining a physician's order. When asked the description of the skin area when found, ASM #2 stated that it looked like a place of shearing, not really a skin tear. When asked the process to determine the cause of a new skin alteration, ASM #2 stated that she would investigate the cause of any new skin areas by interviewing staff who had last worked with the resident and interview the resident to determine how it occurred. When asked if she conducted an investigation to determine the cause of the skin abrasion to Resident #44, ASM #2 stated that she didn't remember. ASM #2 stated that she was not sure how it occurred. When asked if the location (right outer thigh) was an unusual location for an abrasion or skin tear, ASM #2 stated that in her opinion it was not. ASM #2 stated that Resident #44 was totally dependent on staff for all transfers, bed mobility etc. On 3/12/20 at 2:27 p.m., further interview was conducted with LPN (Licensed Practical Nurse) #2, the unit supervisor. When asked the process when a new skin alteration is found on a resident, LPN #2 stated that an assessment would be completed, the medical doctor and family would be notified and then the skin area would be rounded on weekly. LPN #2 stated that the same process would be followed if a previous skin area was re-opened. LPN #2 stated that an investigation would also be conducted to determine the cause of the skin alteration. LPN #2 stated that the investigation was usually initiated by the DON (Director of Nursing). LPN #2 stated that it was important to determine the cause of a skin alteration so that the same skin area did not keep opening up or reoccurring. LPN #2 stated, We don't want the same thing happening again and again. LPN #2 stated that she did not think the right outer thigh was an unusual place for a skin tear or abrasion. LPN #2 stated that an investigation should have been conducted for Resident #44 so that staff knew what was causing the skin tear/abrasion. LPN #2 stated, That is something we have to look into. LPN #2 then stated that she was not sure if it was from the sit to stand lift. On 3/12/20 at 3:00 p.m., an interview was conducted with LPN #1, the unit manager and the nurse who found the skin tear on 11/1/19. When asked the process if she were to find a new skin alteration on a resident, LPN #1 stated that she would fill out an incident report, notify the medical doctor/family, revise the care plan and implement a treatment. LPN #1 then stated that she would investigate to determine how the skin alteration had occurred. LPN #1 stated that if the resident could not tell staff how the skin alteration had occurred, she would interview staff. When asked if this investigation would be documented anywhere, LPN #1 stated on a Risk Management Sheet that was in the electronic record. When asked if she was able to determine how Resident #44 obtained her skin tear on 11/1/19, LPN #1 stated that she didn't remember. LPN #1 stated that she did not recall interviewing any staff regarding her skin tear and that the resident could not tell her how it had occurred. When asked if a skin tear to the right outer thigh was an unusual place for a skin alteration, LPN #1 stated that it was not for her because she used the lift and was totally dependent on staff with ADLs (Activities of Daily Living). On 3/12/20 at 5:11 p.m., ASM #1, the Administrator and ASM #3 the Corporate Nurse Consultant were made aware of the above concerns. Facility policy titled, Abuse/Investigate/Reporting, documents in part, the following: Policy: Injuries of unknown origin (injuries not witnessed or patient cannot state what happened) will be handled the same as an allegation of mistreatment, neglect, or abuse .Any injuries of unknown origin to a patient are to be reported to a licensed nurse .A licensed nurse is responsible for completing an incident record .Investigative protocols will be immediately initiated.
CONCERN (D)

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

Investigate Abuse (Tag F0610)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interview, facility document review and clinical record review, it was determined that facility staf...

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, it was determined that facility staff failed to thoroughly investigate a skin injury of unknown source on two occasions for one of 44 residents in the survey sample, Resident #44. The findings include: Resident #44 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included but were not limited to unspecified dementia without behavioral disturbance and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Resident #44's most recent MDS (minimum data set) assessment was a quarterly assessment with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 1/23/20. Resident #44 was coded as being severely impaired in cognitive function scoring 04 out of possible 15 on the BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status Exam). Resident #44 was coded as being totally dependent on two plus persons with bed mobility and transfers; and totally dependent on one person with dressing, toileting, personal hygiene, and bathing. Review of Resident #44's clinical record revealed that she obtained a skin tear to her right outer thigh on 11/17/19. The following nursing note was documented: Resident noted to have skin tear on right thigh .Quarter size skin tear .Cleansed skin tear, applied dressing. The following was documented on an incident report: Nursing Description: resident has a skin tear to right thigh. Patient Description: Patient unable to give Description. Immediate Action Taken: treatment order in place. clean (sic) with NS (normal saline), pat dry, apply foam dressing .Injury Type: Skin Tear .Injury Location: Right thigh (rear) . Mobility: Bedridden .Mental Status: Oriented to Person; Oriented to Place .Predisposing Environmental Factors: None .Predisposing Physiological Factors: None .Witnesses: No Witnesses found. Further review of the incident report revealed that under category Predisposing Situation Factors, nothing was documented. There was no evidence that an investigation was conducted determining the cause of her skin tear on 11/17/19. Review of Resident #44's November 2019 MAR (Medication Administration Record) revealed that a treatment was put into place for the skin tear on 11/18/19 until the area was resolved on 12/14/19. Further review of Resident #44's clinical record revealed that she obtained an abrasion to the same area (right outer thigh) on 1/29/20. The following was documented on the Skin and Wound Evaluation form: Describe: Abrasion Location: Right thigh (rear) Acquired: In -House Acquired. How long has the Wound been present? New Exact Date: 1/29/20. Wound Measurements: 1. Area 1.4 cm 2 (centimeters squared) 2. Length: 1.5 cm 3. Width: 1.4 cm .Wound Bed: Epithelial .Exudate: None .Primary Dressing: Foam. There was no evidence that an investigation was conducted determining the cause of her skin abrasion on 1/29/20. Review of Resident #44's March 2020 POS (physician order summary) revealed the following active order: Clean abrasion to right thigh with DWC, pat dry, apply border dressing until healed. every (sic) morning shift every 2 day (s) for abrasion. Review of Resident #44's ADL (Activities of Daily Living) care plan dated 9/28/14 and revised on 3/8/19 documented the following: Bed mobility: The resident uses assist bars to maximize independence with turning and repositioning .Transfer: The resident is able to transfer stand up lift and 2 people. On 3/12/20 an observation was made of Resident #44's skin alteration with LPN (Licensed Practical Nurse) #3 and LPN #2, the unit supervisor. A healing abrasion was observed to Resident #44's outer right thigh. The area had light pink tissue. The area did not appear to be pressure related. When asked when the abrasion had originally started, LPN #3 stated that it was back in November of 2019 and that she was not sure how it happened. LPN #2 stated that the DON (Director of Nursing) had found that the abrasion the second time about one month ago. LPN #2 stated that the DON had found the abrasion during skin sweeps on 3-11 shift. LPN #2 stated that they were putting a protective bandage in place at this point. Both nurses could not recall an investigation being initiated to determine the cause of her skin alterations on both occasions (11/1/19 and 1/29/20). When asked how Resident #44 transferred in and out of bed; LPN #2 stated that Resident #44 used the sit to stand lift with two staff members. LPN #2 stated that Resident #44 could not get herself in and out of bed or turn in bed by herself. On 3/12/20 at 1:50 p.m., an interview was conducted with ASM (Administrative Staff Member) #2, the DON (Director of Nursing). When asked when she first found Resident #44's skin tear or abrasion, ASM #2 stated that she was not sure, that she would have to look back at the resident's notes. ASM #2 stated that she found the area during a skin sweep (the second time around) but could not recall the date. ASM #2 stated that when she asked the nurse manager (LPN #1) about the skin area, LPN #1 had told her that Resident #44 always had that area. ASM #2 stated that she only recalled notifying the medical doctor and obtaining a physician's order. When asked the description of the skin area when found, ASM #2 stated that it looked like a place of shearing, not really a skin tear. When asked the process to determine the cause of a new skin alteration, ASM #2 stated that she would investigate the cause of any new skin areas by interviewing staff who had last worked with the resident and interview the resident to determine how it occurred. When asked if she conducted an investigation to determine the cause of the skin abrasion to Resident #44, ASM #2 stated that she didn't remember. ASM #2 stated that she was not sure how it occurred. When asked if the location (right outer thigh) was an unusual location for an abrasion or skin tear, ASM #2 stated that in her opinion it was not. ASM #2 stated that Resident #44 was totally dependent on staff for all transfers, bed mobility etc. On 3/12/20 at 2:27 p.m., further interview was conducted with LPN (Licensed Practical Nurse) #2, the unit supervisor. When asked the process when a new skin alteration is found on a resident, LPN #2 stated that an assessment would be completed, the medical doctor and family would be notified and then the skin area would be rounded on weekly. LPN #2 stated that the same process would be followed if a previous skin area was re-opened. LPN #2 stated that an investigation would also be conducted to determine the cause of the skin alteration. LPN #2 stated that the investigation was usually initiated by the DON (Director of Nursing). LPN #2 stated that it was important to determine the cause of a skin alteration so that the same skin area did not keep opening up or reoccurring. LPN #2 stated, We don't want the same thing happening again and again. LPN #2 stated that she did not think the right outer thigh was an unusual place for a skin tear or abrasion. LPN #2 stated that an investigation should have been conducted for Resident #44 so that staff knew what was causing the skin tear/abrasion. LPN #2 stated, That is something we have to look into. LPN #2 then stated that she was not sure if it was from the sit to stand lift. On 3/12/20 at 3:00 p.m., an interview was conducted with LPN #1, the unit manager and the nurse who found the skin tear on 11/1/19. When asked the process if she were to find a new skin alteration on a resident, LPN #1 stated that she would fill out an incident report, notify the medical doctor/family, revise the care plan and implement a treatment. LPN #1 then stated that she would investigate to determine how the skin alteration had occurred. LPN #1 stated that if the resident could not tell staff how the skin alteration had occurred, she would interview staff. When asked if this investigation would be documented anywhere, LPN #1 stated on a Risk Management Sheet that was in the electronic record. When asked if she was able to determine how Resident #44 obtained her skin tear on 11/1/19, LPN #1 stated that she didn't remember. LPN #1 stated that she did not recall interviewing any staff regarding her skin tear and that the resident could not tell her how it had occurred. When asked if a skin tear to the right outer thigh was an unusual place for a skin alteration, LPN #1 stated that it was not for her because she used the lift and was totally dependent on staff with ADLs (Activities of Daily Living). On 3/12/20 at 5:11 p.m., ASM #1, the Administrator and ASM #3 the Corporate Nurse Consultant were made aware of the above concerns. Facility policy titled, Abuse/Investigate/Reporting, documents in part, the following: Policy: Injuries of unknown origin (injuries not witnessed or patient cannot state what happened) will be handled the same as an allegation of mistreatment, neglect, or abuse .Any injuries of unknown origin to a patient are to be reported to a licensed nurse .A licensed nurse is responsible for completing an incident record .Investigative protocols will be immediately initiated.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0658 (Tag F0658)

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 documentation review the facility staff failed to adh...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interview, clinical record review and facility documentation review the facility staff failed to adhere to accepted standards of quality for medication administration for 1 of 44 residents in the survey sample, Resident #66. The facility staff failed to ensure medications were administered as ordered and failed to observe Resident #66 ingest the ordered medications. The findings included: Resident #66 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included but were not limited to, Bipolar Disorder, Depression and Parkinson's Disease. Resident #66's Minimum Data Set (MDS-an assessment protocol) with an Assessment Reference Date of 02/27/2020 was coded with a BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status) score of 15 indicating no cognitive impairment. In addition, the Minimum Data Set coded Resident #66 as independent with personal hygiene, independent with setup help only for eating, requiring supervision of 1 for toilet use, bed mobility and transfer and total dependence of 1 for bathing. On 03/10/2020 at 11:15 a.m., Resident #66 was heard saying, I didn't get all my pills and eye drops. Resident #66 was observed holding a medication cup in her hand with pills in it. 5 pills were observed in the cup and one was red in color. The resident stated, I didn't get all my pills and eye drops because I had to go to the bathroom when the nurse came. Resident #66 stated, I will just wait for her because she has other people to give medications to. Resident #66 put her call light on. On 03/10/2020 at 11:19 a.m., Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1 entered Resident #66's room. Resident #66 was heard telling LPN #1 that she was missing medications. LPN #66 walked out of the resident's room. The Surveyor walked into the room and did not see the cup of pills. The Surveyor asked Resident #66 where the cup of pills were at and she stated, (LPN #1) took them with her. On 03/10/2020 at 12:30 p.m., an interview was conducted with Resident #66, when asked if the nurses usually leave her medications with her to take, Resident #66 stated, Yes and then I take them. Most of the nurses leave my medications with me to take and some stay and watch me take them. When I finish taking them I always let them know. On 03/10/2020 at approximately 1:00 p.m., review of Resident #66's clinical record did not evidence a physician order for the resident to self administer medications. Review of Resident #66's care plan did not evidence a care plan for the resident to self administer medications. An interview was conducted with LPN #1 on 03/10/2020 at approximately 1:00 p.m., when asked what did Resident #66 say to her when she answered her call light, LPN #1 stated, (Resident #66) told me that she was missing a pill. LPN #1 stated, I took the cup of pills from Resident #66 and gave them to the nurse. LPN #1 stated, I told the nurse that the pills were in Resident #66's room. LPN #1 stated, The nurse is an agency nurse. When asked do the nurses usually leave medications with the resident, LPN #1 stated, I don't leave pills with the resident. An interview was conducted with LPN #4, the agency nurse, on 03/10/2020 at approximately 1:30 p.m. When asked what Unit did she pass medications on today, LPN #4 stated, Unit C. When asked what times did she pass medications on the Unit today, LPN #4 stated, 9 A.M. and Noon meds (Medications). When asked if she administered medications to Resident #66 today, LPN #4 stated, Yes. When asked if she observed Resident #66 take all of her medications, LPN #4 stated, Yes. LPN #4 stated, She had to come back and get a vitamin and a Fentanyl patch. When asked if LPN #1 give her a cup of pills that belonged to Resident #66, LPN #4 stated, Not sure which patient they belonged to, they were not Resident #66's. I think they were Resident #38's. I don't remember. LPN #4 stated, I passed pills for thirty people. Resident #66 came up to the med cart and said she was missing a pill and I think it was the multivitamin. The facility policy titled General Dose Preparation and Medication Administration dated with a Revision Date of 01/01/13 was reviewed and included: 5. During medication administration, facility staff should take all measures required by facility policy and applicable law, including, but not limited to the following: 5.9 Observe the resident's consumption of the medication(s). The Administrator and Corporate Staff were informed of the finding on 03/12/2020 at approximately 5:20 p.m. When asked should the nurses observe residents take their medications, Administrator and Corporate Staff stated, Yes. The facility did not present any further information about the finding.
CONCERN (D)

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

Medication Errors (Tag F0758)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on clinical record review and staff interviews, the facility staff failed to ensure 1 of 44 residents (Resident #39), in the survey sample, did not receive as needed (PRN) Ativan for greater tha...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on clinical record review and staff interviews, the facility staff failed to ensure 1 of 44 residents (Resident #39), in the survey sample, did not receive as needed (PRN) Ativan for greater than 14 days without the physician and/or prescribing practitioner evaluating the resident for the appropriateness of continuous PRN use. The findings included: Resident #39 was originally admitted to the facility 2/25/14 and had never been discharged from the facility. The resident's diagnoses included; depression and hypertension. The significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment with an assessment reference date (ARD) of 1/17/20 coded the resident as completing the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) and scoring 12 out of a possible 15. This indicated Resident #39's cognitive abilities for daily decision making were moderately impaired. The 1/17/20, MDS assessment also revealed Resident #39 exhibited mood problems (feeling tired 7-11 days and appetite changes 2-6 days over two weeks). Review of the physician's order summary revealed an order dated 2/3/20, which read *Ativan Solution 2 milligrams/milliliter(ml); Give 0.25 ml sublingually every four hours as needed for anxiety. The 2/3/20 physician's order had no stop use date. The medication administration record revealed the Ativan 0.25 ml was administered to Resident #39 on, 3/5/20, 3/7/20, and 3/9/20, with effective results. The above findings were shared with the Administrator and two Corporate Nurse consultants. Corporate Nurse Consultant #1 stated the 2/3/20 Ativan order should have been discontinued after day 14 since the physician didn't re-evaluate its use and document to continue use. *Ativan is used to relieve anxiety. Ativan is in a class of medications called benzodiazepines. It works by slowing activity in the brain to allow for relaxation. https://medlineplus.gov/druginfo/meds/a682053.html)
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0578 (Tag F0578)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. Resident #73 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including but not limited to, chronic obstructiv...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. Resident #73 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including but not limited to, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, type 2 diabetes mellitus, morbid obesity, heart failure. Resident #73's most recent MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment was an Admissions Assessment with an ARD (Assessment Review Date) of 12/06/2019. Resident #73 was coded as being intact in cognitive function scoring 15 out of possible 15 on the BIMS (brief interview for mental status) exam. A review of Resident #73's facility business contract revealed, with the exception of a signature, the advance directive section was blank. An interview was conducted with the facility Administrator on 3/11/2020 at approximately 11:20 a.m. regarding the advance directive and was asked, where, within the medical record, is it documented that this resident was offered an opportunity to formulate an advanced directive? The Administrator responded, There are problems with the system. Normally it would be captured on the business contract but we are having some problems with the system and the only thing that is captured is the signature. These findings were reviewed with the facility Administrator, Director of Nursing and Corporate Staff during a briefing held on 3/12/2020 at approximately 5:00 p.m. There was no additional information provided. 4. For Resident #37, the facility staff failed to ensure that a copy of the residents advance directive was in the clinical record. Resident #37 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included but were not limited to, Dementia and Anxiety Disorder. Resident #37's Minimum Data Set (MDS-an assessment protocol) with an Assessment Reference Date of 01/18/2020 was coded with short-term memory problems and long-term memory problems and severely impaired cognitive skills for daily decision making. On 03/12/2020 at approximately 3:00 p.m., review of Resident #37's clinical record revealed that the resident's Responsible Party signed the Advance Directives Acknowledgement form on 09/25/2009. Review of the form revealed that the following was elected on the form by the Responsible Party: I have executed Advance Medical Directive: Living Will. Review of the form also revealed that the Responsible Party indicated that they had not provided the Healthcare Center with the original directive and had not provided the Healthcare Center with a copy verified by the Healthcare Center. On 03/12/2020 at approximately 3:50 p.m., an interview was conducted with the Administrator. When asked if the facility had a copy of Resident #37's Living Will, the Administrator stated, No. When asked what process does the facility have in place to follow up with residents and responsible parties when they state that they have an advance directive but have not brought it in, Administrator stated, We give them the option to bring it in or not. We have no follow up, they are choosing to bring it in or not. The facility policy titled Patient Self Determination Act (PSDA) dated 02/05/15 was reviewed and included: 4. If the patient indicates that he/she has an Advanced Directive, but does not have it present, the patient must be informed of the urgency to deliver the Advance Directive to the Admissions Director so that a verified copy can be placed in the patient's chart. In the interim notify the Director of Nursing that an Advance Directive according to the patient's description (Living Will, Medical Power of Attorney and/or Appointment of Anatomical gift) exists and the location of the original document according to the patient and the contents therein as described by the patient, so that a notation can be made in the patient record. The Administrator and Corporate staff were informed of the finding on 03/12/2020 at approximately 5:20 p.m. The facility did not present any further information about the finding. Based on staff interview, facility document review, and clinical record review, it was determined that facility staff failed to provide evidence that 4 of 44 residents in the survey sample, were given the opportunity to formulate an advance directive; Residents #24, #81, #73, and #37. The findings included: 1. Resident #24 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included but were not limited to muscle weakness, difficulty walking, high blood pressure and type two diabetes mellitus. Resident #24's most recent MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment was a quarterly MDS with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 12/27/19. Resident #24 was coded as being moderately impaired in cognitive function scoring 09 out of possible 15 on the BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status) exam. Review of Resident #24's March 2020 POS (physician order summary) revealed that she had an order to be a DNR (Do Not Resuscitate). This order was initiated on 9/19/19. Review of Resident #24's clinical record revealed a DDNR (Durable Do Not Resuscitate Order) signed and dated by the resident and physician on 9/11/19. Review of Resident #24's Advanced Directive Acknowledgement Form revealed that the from was blank. This form however was signed by Resident #24's RP (Responsible Party) on 9/19/19. There was no evidence that Resident #24 was given the opportunity to formulate an Advanced Directive. On 3/12/20 at 11:27 a.m., an interview was conducted with ASM (administrative staff member) #1, the facility Administrator. When asked the process for obtaining advanced directives, ASM #1 stated that upon admission, the admissions department would go through the admission contract and if the resident has an advanced directive, the staff would request that the family bring a copy for the facility. ASM #1 stated that if the resident did not have an advanced directive and wanted to formulate one, then the staff would assist with formulating one. ASM #1 stated that if the resident requested to have an advanced directive, it should be scanned into the electronic record under the miscellaneous tab. When asked why Resident #24's advanced directive was signed but blank, ASM #1 stated that there was a glitch in their computer system and that they go over the questions with the resident, but that the answers were not saving and showing up when printed. ASM #1 stated that she was working on resolving that problem. ASM #1 stated that if there was not an advanced directive under the miscellaneous tab, then the resident probably did not want to formulate one. When asked how this writer would know that the resident was offered to formulate an advanced directive, ASM #1 stated that there was no way she could provide evidence that Resident #24 was offered to formulate an advanced directive; or if the resident refused to formulate an advanced directive. When asked during an acute transfer to the hospital, how nursing staff would access advanced directives if the responses to were not saving onto the computer system, ASM #1 stated that nursing staff would just send what they could such as code status order. ASM #1 stated that if the resident had a living will, nursing staff would print that off and send with the resident also. On 3/12/20 at 5:11 p.m., ASM #1, the Administrator, ASM #3, the Corporate Nurse Consultant was made aware of the above concerns. No further information was presented prior to exit. 2. Resident #81 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included but were not limited to metabolic encephalopathy, chronic kidney disease, adult failure to thrive. Resident #81's most recent MDS (minimum data set) assessment was a quarterly MDS with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 2/27/20. Resident #81 was coded as being intact in cognitive function scoring 15 out of possible 15 on the BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status) exam. Review of Resident #81's March 2020 POS (physician order summary) revealed that she had an order to be a DNR (Do Not Resuscitate). This order was initiated on 11/21/19. Review of Resident #81's clinical record revealed a DDNR (Durable Do Not Resuscitate Order) signed and dated by the resident and physician on 10/28/19. Review of Resident #81's Advanced Directive Acknowledgement Form revealed that the from was blank. This form however was signed by Resident #81's RP (Responsible Party) on 11/21/19. There was no evidence that Resident #81 was given the opportunity to formulate an Advance Directive. On 3/12/20 at 11:27 a.m., an interview was conducted with ASM (administrative staff member) #1, the facility Administrator. When asked the process for obtaining advanced directives, ASM #1 stated that upon admission, the admissions department would go through the admission contract and if the resident has an advanced directive, the staff would request that the family bring a copy for the facility. ASM #1 stated that if the resident did not have an advanced directive and wanted to formulate one, then the staff would assist with formulating one. ASM #1 stated that if the resident requested to have an advanced directive, it should be scanned into the electronic record under the miscellaneous tab. When asked why Resident #81's advanced directive was signed but blank, ASM #1 stated that there was a glitch in their computer system and that they go over the questions with the resident, but that the answers were not saving and showing up when printed. ASM #1 stated that she was working on resolving that problem. ASM #1 stated that if their was not an advanced directive under the miscellaneous tab, then the resident probably did not want to formulate one. When asked how this writer would know that the resident was offered to formulate an advanced directive, ASM #1 stated that there was no way she could provide evidence that Resident #81 was offered to formulate an advanced directive; or if the resident refused to formulate an advanced directive. When asked during an acute transfer to the hospital, how nursing staff would access advanced directives if the responses to were not saving onto the computer system, ASM #1 stated that nursing staff would just send what they could such as code status order. ASM #1 stated that if the resident had a living will, nursing staff would print that off and send with the resident also. On 3/12/20 at 5:11 p.m., ASM #1, the Administrator, ASM #3, the Corporate Nurse Consultant was made aware of the above concerns. No further information was presented prior to exit.
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 resident interviews, family interview, staff interviews, and clinical record review, the facility's staff failed to pro...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on resident interviews, family interview, staff interviews, and clinical record review, the facility's staff failed to provide necessary care and services to 1 of 41 residents (Resident #132), in the survey sample to manage diabetes by obtaining blood sugars, and administering blood sugar medications. This failure resulted in more than minimal consequence for the resident, with blood sugar readings ranging 450 - 577 mg/dl, accompanied by chest pain which required an emergency room visit and 24 hour observation for stabilization at an acute care hospital. The findings included: Resident #132 was originally admitted to the facility 3/9/20, was sent to the hospital on 3/10/20 and returned on 3/11/20. The current diagnoses included but not limited to, long term use of insulin secondary to diabetes and diabetic ketoacidosis, vancomycin resistant urinary tract infection, heart disease including a heart attack. The admission nursing assessment dated [DATE], coded the resident as alert and oriented to person, place, time and situation, with the ability to express ideas and wants verbally and to understand what was spoken. The admission Nursing assessment also coded the resident as having intact cognition. During the initial tour on 3/10/20 at approximately 3:30 p.m., Resident #132 was observed in an isolation room, seated in a chair at the foot of the bed. The resident stated the admission to the nursing facility was to help regain strength loss during a lengthy hospital stay for cardiac complications and to (diabetic ketoacidosis) with a need to achieve better glucose control. Resident #132 further stated the facility's nurses hadn't administered any of the scheduled insulin (U-500), which is administered with breakfast and supper. The resident further stated no blood sugar checks, cardiac drugs or insulin had been administered since admission to the facility. The resident further stated Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #6 stated the on-call physician wasn't comfortable with the hospital's discharge summary sliding scale coverage insulin therefore; it was deferred to the primary physician to review the the next day. The resident also stated the last dose of scheduled U-500 insulin received was at the local hospital with breakfast on 3/9/20 and the last dose of sliding scale insulin was local hospital with lunch 3/9/20, then transportation to the nursing facility arrived at approximately 4:00 p.m. The resident further stated no blood glucose check was performed at the nursing facility and no scheduled or sliding scale insulin was administered the evening of 3/9/20. Resident #132 stated multiple calls were made to the nurse's station the morning of 3/10/20, to inform the nurse that no scheduled breakfast insulin was administered, no glucose check was performed that morning and no cardiac drugs had been administered and this was upsetting. Resident #132 stated on 3/10/20, at approximately 1:00 p.m., Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #5 stated the medication orders were not correct therefore; only the as needed sliding scale coverage insulin could be administered because that order was just received and all other admission orders were still subject to clarification before administration. Review of Resident #132's endocrinologist Discharge summary dated [DATE] at 6:10 a.m., revealed the following orders for Insulin Regular U-500 concentrated subcutaneous insulin pen: Inject 100 units with Breakfast. Insulin Regular U-500 concentrated subcutaneous insulin pen. Inject 50 with Dinner. Trulicity 1.5 mg subcutaneous injection weekly, and; one unit of Novolog for every 10mg/dl of blood sugar greater than 150 mg/dl while in rehabilitation. For blood sugars less than 150 mg/dl, no correction. Please check your blood sugars a minimum of 3-4 times daily and as needed. Call your physician if blood sugars are consistently less than 100 or greater than 200 mg/dl. For low blood sugars less than 70mg/dl take 15 grams of sugar (4 glucose tablets of 1/2 glass of orange juice or soda) check sugars 15 minutes later or every 15 minutes until sugars are above 70mg/dl. For blood sugars greater than 400 please call your endocrinologist or the Diabetes Institute, Call 911, or go to the emergency department. On 3/13/20 at approximately 3:15 p.m., the assistant admission coordinator provided this document. She stated the above orders were not included with the admission orders for the admitting nurse. Review of the admission orders by the on-call physician from 3/9/20, revealed the two above Insulin Regular U-500 concentrated orders were approved for administration in the nursing facility and the Humalog order was left for further verification by the physician the next day. An interview was conducted with LPN #5 on 3/11/20 at approximately 6:50 p.m. LPN #5 stated on 3/10/20, she was assigned to care for Resident #132. LPN #5 stated the pharmacist had telephoned the facility twice the morning of 3/10/20, attempting to clarify the admission orders they had received and that she was afraid to administer any of the ordered medications until clarifications were made. LPN #5 also stated the morning of 3/10/20 at approximately 9:00 a.m., the Unit Manager was on the phone with the Nurse Practitioner working on clarifying the resident's orders and at approximately 12:30 p.m., she was on the phone with the physician's nurse and was able to obtain orders for blood glucose finger sticks and sliding scale coverage associated with the blood glucose readings. LPN #5 stated the Unit Manager continued to clarify all other orders with the Nurse Practitioner and at approximately 1:30 p.m., they were made available to her. LPN #5 stated she obtained the resident's blood glucose finger stick around 1:15 p.m., the reading was 505. LPN #5 stated a one time order for 10 units of sliding scale coverage was obtained and administered. LPN #5 stated this information was passed on to the 3:00 p.m. through 11:00 p.m. nurse because another blood sugar check was due one hour after the sliding scale coverage was administered. (The physician's call system had no record of LPN #5's call). The Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed on 3/10/20, LPN #5 administered Humalog Kwikpen 100/units/milliliter 10 units to the resident at 4:26 p.m., based on the 1:15 p.m., blood sugar reading. As a result of the 4:26 p.m., sliding scale coverage another blood glucose check was ordered in one hour. The clinical record revealed LPN #6 obtained the residents blood sugar reading at 5:40 p.m., and the reading was 450. Another 10 units of Humalog Kwikpen 100/units/milliliter was administered with a blood glucose recheck ordered within one hour and the scheduled U-500 insulin was administered for the first time. The clinical record further revealed at 6:11 p.m., the resident's blood sugar reading was 567, another check was performed with another meter and the reading was 578 and the physician was notified. At 8:30 p.m., the on call physician ordered 5 units of Humalog Kwikpen 100/units/milliliter. The clinical record further revealed on 3/10/20 at 9:42 p.m., the resident complained of chest pain and that the blood sugar readings were too high. The resident and family member requested the resident be transferred to a local emergency room because the resident's endocrinologist had given them a written document which stated if blood sugars are greater than 400 mg/dl to call the diabetes institute, 911 or go to the emergency room. The discharge summary from the local hospital dated 3/11/20 stated the EMS blood glucose check reading was 325 mg/dl and the ER blood glucose check was 309 upon the initial assessment. An interview was conducted with the Nurse Practitioner (NP) assigned to Resident #132 while in the nursing facility on 3/13/20, at approximately 11:00 a.m. The NP stated she has been assigned to the nursing facility for two weeks and she is scheduled in the nursing facility on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays and the physician is in the facility on Wednesdays as well. The NP stated Resident #132 arrived on a Monday night therefore she didn't see the resident until after the return from the 24 observation at a local hospital. The NP stated Registered Nurse (RN) #2 contacted her at approximately 10:00 a.m., on 3/10/20, about clarifying orders. The NP read directly from her phone the following orders were discussed; no stop date for the antibiotics, Rocephin last day 3/10/20, continue Zyvox 4 more days, 2 statins, instructed RN to keep Zetia and Lipitor and discontinue Crestor and discontinue the Heparin. The NP stated no insulin orders were not discussed. She further stated she wasn't familiar with the U-500 insulin for it wasn't a common type but she was aware it is usually prescribed and adjusted by an endocrinologist. The NP further stated on 3/11/20 (time not specified) she was informed that Resident #132 was transferred to the hospital the night before. The NP stated the protocol is to call the office and the nurse in the office will notify the practitioner responsible to respond and that is what she prefers would occur. On 3/13/20 at approximately 11:30 a.m., a call was placed to the primary physician for information of the facility staff calls regarding Resident #132. The physician stated the call system in place is very costly but it was instituted to prevent practitioners from having to try to recall information relayed by direct calls. The physician also stated they have found this call system very effective. On 3/19/20 at 10:50 a.m., the physician provided the following information for calls coming from the nursing facility regarding Resident #132, 3/9/20 through 3/10/20; 3/9/20 at 8:00 p.m., a call from LPN #6 notifying the on-call of the arrival of Resident #132's admission to the facility and the name of the physician who returned the call, 3/10/20, a call from RN #2 to clarify medication orders they had issues with as well as the pharmacy concerning Resident #132 and again on 3/10/20 at 3:25 p.m., from a nurse about use of Nystatin. An interview was conducted with LPN #7 on 3/13/20 at, approximately 11:40 p.m. LPN #7 stated the procedure for admission is as follows; when report is called to the facility, determine if there are prescriptions for pain medications, the need for a prescription to accompany the resident and if any medications are ordered which are not in the stat box. Upon arrival of the resident call the practitioner, read the discharge summary to the practitioner, once the practitioner approves the orders, enter the orders into the electronic system and ensure the pharmacy received them. If it is after 5:00 PM., call the on-call pharmacist and they will make suggestions if necessary for immediate needed medications. The next two shifts reviews the new orders and verify as indicated. An interview was conducted with LPN #6 at approximately 3/13/20, at approximately 1:20 p.m. LPN #6 stated she was the nurse who admitted Resident #132 on 3/9/20. LPN #6 stated an admission could take 2-4 hours and the resident arrived approximately 5:30 p.m., the physical assessment was completed with assistance of another nurse, the resident was asked if supper had been eaten, a diet was established, food provided and the assessments were completed in the computer system. LPN #6 stated a call was received from the on-call physician at 9:30 p.m., and verification based on the hospital's discharge summary was obtained for all medications except the sliding scale insulin (Humalog) for which the on-call physician asked to have it clarified the following day. LPN #6 also stated the resident stated she should be receiving Novolog and not Humalog. LPN #6 stated the resident had 3 insulin pens in possession at the time of admission and they were given to the staff to keep. LPN #6 stated she entered the scheduled insulin prescriptions in the computer system but she was very slow entering them therefore; all other medications were entered by LPN #8 who stated she could enter them quicker. An interview was conducted with LPN #8 on 3/13/20 at approximately 3:40 p.m., LPN #8 stated all medication orders except the insulin orders were entered by her and she was unaware of any concerns with the others other than the sliding scale insulin order. LPN #8 also stated she was aware the resident had brought 3-4 insulin pens into the facility at the time of admission and they were bagged and put away. LPN #8 stated she assumed they would be used until the pharmacy medications were delivered. On 3/13/20 at approximately 1:35 p.m., the pharmacist provide the following document as orders which needed to be clarified on 3/10/20 and LPN #6 was spoken to concerning them; Acetaminophen 200 mg, Aspirin (an allergy to), Bumex (no strength), Cyclobenzaprine Hcl 5 mg (interaction seventy level 1 to Linezoid and level 3 to Tramadol), Isosorbide Dinitrate 30 mg (how often), Insulin Regular (no strength), Nitroglycerin tablets (no strength), Humalog Kwikpen 100mg/dl (before meals and bedtime) at 1:28 p.m., on 3/20/20. An interview was conducted with Resident #132's spouse on 3/13/20 at approximately 2:15 p.m., the spouse stated the rehabilitation and activity departments are superb but the nursing department is not proficient. The spouse stated the resident had called multiple times each day because the staff didn't provide explanations why finger sticks weren't performed and medications were administered. The spouse also stated on 3/10/20, at approximately 8:10 p.m., the same hospital discharge document provided the facility was provided to them and it was necessary to bring their document to the facility and give it to the staff before the resident could be transferred to the hospital for not receiving scheduled insulin from time of arrival to the facility until after 5:00 p.m., the afternoon of 3/10/20. The spouse stated since the residents admission to the nursing facility only administered the sliding scale insulin and it wasn't as prescribed by the resident's endocrinologist. On 3/13/20 at approximately 4:50 p.m., the above findings were shared with the Administrator and two Corporate Nurses. An opportunity was offered to the facility's staff to present additional information but no additional information was provided.
CONCERN (E)

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

Antibiotic Stewardship (Tag F0881)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on facility record review and staff interviews the facility staff failed to ensure implementation of an ongoing antibiotic stewardship program. The findings included: On 03/12/20 at 03:29 P.M. t...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on facility record review and staff interviews the facility staff failed to ensure implementation of an ongoing antibiotic stewardship program. The findings included: On 03/12/20 at 03:29 P.M. the infection control program and antibiotic stewardship program was reviewed from January 2019 through February 2020 with the Staff Development Coordinator. Infection Control monitoring, tracking and trending was in place however, there was no antibiotic stewardship program in place for the months of March, April, May, and June of 2019. The Staff Development Coordinator was asked where the antibiotic use monitoring protocols were for those missing months. The Staff Development Coordinator stated, I'm not sure, I only started in December 2019 and this is all I have. On 3/12/20 at 3:45 P.M. an interview was conducted with the Nurse Consultant regarding the expectations for antibiotic stewardship for the 4 missing months. The Nurse Consultant stated, I would expect for who ever is doing the tracking and trending for our infection control program to also follow through with the antibiotic stewardship program to track the organisms and proper labs and prescribed antibiotics. The facility policy titled Antibiotic Stewardship dated 6/6/2020 was reviewed and is documented in part, as follows: Policy: The Center is committed to providing quality of care through the implementation of an Antibiotic Stewardship Program (APS). The APS is designed to promote the appropriate use of antibiotics, monitoring and management of clinical antimicrobial outcomes and reduce antibiotic resistance, to the extent possible. A team of clinicians will facilitate and oversee components of the ASP. On 3/12/20 at 5:00 P.M. during a pre-exit debriefing with the Administrator, and two facility Nurse Consultants the above information was reviewed. Prior to exit no further information was provided by the facility.
Nov 2018 9 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on clinical record review, staff interviews and facility documentation review, the facility staff failed to report an allegation of abuse immediately to the Administrator, as well as the State s...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on clinical record review, staff interviews and facility documentation review, the facility staff failed to report an allegation of abuse immediately to the Administrator, as well as the State survey and certification agency for 2 of 39 residents (Resident #30 and #10) in the survey sample. 1. Resident #30 alleged his roommate had exhibited inappropriate sexual abuse behaviors towards him on 2/18/18 which was told to a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA). The nursing staff failed to inform the Administrator within two hours after the allegation was made, as well as the State survey and certification agency. 2. An allegation of verbal abuse by a staff against Resident #10 occurred on 7/22/18 which was not reported to the State certification agency after the allegation was made. The findings include: 1. Resident #30 was admitted to the nursing facility on 2/26/16 with diagnoses that included stroke and swallowing problems. The most recent Minimal Data Set (MDS) assessment was a quarterly dated 9/5/18 and coded the resident on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) with a score of 6 out of a possible score of 15 which indicated he was severely impaired in the necessary skills for daily decision making. The resident was not coded to have any mood or behavior problems. Resident #30 was coded to respond adequately to simple, direct communication and usually understood with clear speech. The resident was assessed to require extensive assistance from one staff for bed mobility, transfers and dressing. The resident was coded as totally dependent on one staff for locomotion on the unit via assistance from staff using a wheelchair, totally dependent on staff for eating, toilet use, personal hygiene and bathing. The care plan created on 2/27/18 and revised as current on 9/25/18 indicated the resident had some Activities of Daily Living (ADL) self-care deficits. The goal set for the resident by the staff included they would address the resident's basic needs and ensure he would maintain his current level of function. The approaches the staff would implement to accomplish this goal included ensuring hearing aids were in place every morning, allow the resident to make decisions about treatment regime, to provide a sense of control, encourage as much participation/interaction by the resident as much as possible during care activities, give clear explanation of all care activities prior to and as they occur during each contact, when possible negotiate as time for ADLs so that the resident can participate in decision making and return at an agreed time. A facility reported incident was forwarded to the State survey and certification agency on 2/19/18 that entailed the following information: During the rounds on the evening of 2/18/18, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) (name of CNA) noticed that (Resident #30's name) brief appeared to have been removed, he had a visible erection and he reported to her that someone touched him. (Resident #30's name) roommate has exhibited inappropriate sexual behaviors, such as public masturbation in the past. After confirming there were no visitors in their room the evening on 2/18/18, (Resident #30's name) was transferred to another room. A skin assessment was completed which did not show any impairments. An investigation is in progress. This alleged sexual assault was reported to state, responsible party, physician, law enforcement and the State survey and certification agency on 2/19/18. On 11/8/18 at 2:00 p.m., an interview was conducted with the Administrator, the Interim Director of Nursing (DON) and the Corporate Clinical Nurse. They stated they thought reporting in two hours only referred to if serious bodily harm had to occurred. They stated there was concern about the failure of the CNA to report the alleged sexual assault incident to the charge nurse and the Administrator, thus causing the alleged incident to be reported late to State agencies. The Interim Director of Nursing (IDON) stated in response to the failure to report as mandated reporters, widespread abuse, neglect and reporting education was conducted. They stated they thought the facility's policy was revised to make clear the reporting mandates and requirements regarding abuse, but after review of the policy; it was determined the policy had not been revised to include the correct required timeframe for reporting alleged abuse. The Administrator confirmed that she was not informed of the incident on 2/18/18 until the following day 2/19/18 and that the CNA should have immediately informed the charge nurse at which time she would have been made aware and reporting to State agencies would have taken place. The previous Director of Nursing's written investigative statement undated titled Notes from FRI (no date) on (Resident #30's name) indicated Resident #30's roommate had a history of public masturbating and making inappropriate comments to female staff members. The Administrator stated although the outcome of the facility's investigation of the aforementioned did not confirm sexual abuse had occurred, Resident #30's roommate was transferred to another facility due to his repeated inappropriate behaviors. The education conducted on 2/21/18 and 2/28/18 was titled Mandated Reporting of Abuse or Suspected Abuse, CNAs are to report allegations immediately to the charge nurse. Review of the education indicated the objectives of the in-service included verbalization of all types of abuse, verbalization of mandated reporting requirements, a discussion of the importance of immediately reporting allegations of abuse, verbalization of what immediate meant, identify who were mandated reporters in the facility and that the reporting was to be submitted within regulatory defined time frames. The timeframes were not specifically outlined in the education that was presented to this surveyor. The education further indicated that failure to immediately report allegations of abuse may result in potential harm to residents and is a violation of the State and Federal Mandated Reporting regulations. On 11/8/18 at 5:00 p.m., a debriefing was held with the Administrator, the Corporate Clinical Nurse and the Interim Director of Nursing. No further information was provided prior to survey exit. The facility's policy was not revised to include reporting within 2 hours alleged abuse to the Administrator and other applicable State agencies. The policy dated 11/4/16 titled Abuse/Neglect/Misappropriation/Crime Investigation and Follow Up reporting indicated serious bodily injury must be reported no later than two hours after forming the suspicion. Crimes not resulting in serious bodily injury to the patient must be reported no later than 24 hours after forming the suspicion. The Administrator will immediately (within 2 or 24 hours of knowledge of the allegation), notify the State licensure and certification agency. 2. An allegation of verbal abuse by a staff against Resident #10 occurred on 7/22/18 which was not reported to the State certification agency after the allegation was made. Resident #10 was re-admitted to the nursing facility on 9/4/18 with diagnoses that included history of falls, diabetes and high blood pressure. The most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) was a quarterly dated 9/2/18 and coded the resident with short term memory problems and moderately impaired in the skills needed for daily decision making. A facility reported incident was forwarded to the State survey and certification agency on 7/23/18 at 3:15 p.m. that entailed the following information: Visitor approached nurse (supervisor) on 7/22/18 stating he witnessed a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) yelling at a resident and pointing her finger at her face. The nurse identified the CNA as (CNA's name). The CNA was suspended pending an investigation. The follow up report to the State survey and certification agency dated 7/27/18 indicated after reviewing and obtaining statements from the staff that was on duty, it was validated from other witnesses that the CNA implicated in the verbal abuse toward Resident #10 yelled and aggressively pushed her down the hallway in her wheelchair. The CNA was terminated based on the aforementioned findings from the abuse investigation. This alleged verbal abuse was reported to the responsible party and the State survey and certification agency on 7/23/18. On 11/8/18 at 2:00 p.m., an interview was conducted with the Administrator, the Interim Director of Nursing (DON) and the Corporate Clinical Nurse. They stated they thought reporting in two hours only referred to if serious bodily harm had to occurred. The Administrator stated the alleged verbal abuse occurred on a Sunday and was reported to the nursing supervisor by a visitor on 7/22/18 and she was made aware of the incident on Monday 7/23/18. They stated they thought the facility's policy was revised to make clear the reporting mandates and requirements regarding abuse, but after review of the policy; it was determined the policy had not been revised to include the correct required timeframe for reporting alleged abuse. The facility's policy was not revised to include reporting within 2 hours alleged abuse to the Administrator and other applicable State agencies. On 11/8/18 at 5:00 p.m., a debriefing was held with the Administrator, the Corporate Clinical Nurse and the Interim Director of Nursing. No further information was provided prior to survey exit.
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Assessments (Tag F0636)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review and staff interviews the facility staff failed to complete a comprehensive assessment as require...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review and staff interviews the facility staff failed to complete a comprehensive assessment as required for 1 of 39 residents (Resident #172), in the survey sample. The facility's staff failed to complete Resident #172's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment within 14 calendar days after admission to the facility. The findings included: Resident #172 was originally admitted to the facility 10/19/18 and has never been discharged from the facility. The current diagnoses included; heart failure, kidney disease and high blood pressure. The uncompleted admission MDS assessment with an assessment reference date (ARD) of 10/31/18 coded the resident as completing the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) and scoring 11 out of a possible 15. This indicated Resident #172's cognitive abilities for daily decision making were moderately impaired. In section G (Physical functioning) the resident was coded as requiring supervision after set-up with eating, limited assistance of 1 person with bed mobility, transfers, walking, locomotion, dressing, toileting, and personal hygiene. An admission MDS assessment dated [DATE] was observed in the facility's computer system for Resident #172 and it was signed at Z0500B as completed 11/1/18. A copy was requested on 11/6/18 at 2:55 p.m., but the facility staff provided the entry MDS; the admission MDS was requested again on 11/6/18 at approximately 5:00 p.m. Upon receiving the admission MDS assessment it was completed but; sections (A, B, E, G, some of O, P, Q and S) were dated as completed on 11/2/18 instead of 11/1/18. On 11/8/18, at approximately 5:00 p.m., the above findings were shared with the Administrator, Interim Director of Nursing and two Corporate Consultants. Corporate Consultant #1 stated she would have the MDS Coordinator provide information on Resident #172's MDS. The MDS Coordinator stated on 11/8/18 at approximately 6:45 p.m., that the admission MDS was completed late for they didn't finish it until 11/2/18. At approximately 7:30 p.m. the MDS Coordinator presented a new admission MDS assessment for Resident #172 with a completion date of 11/2/18. The facility's policy titled Resident Assessment and Care Planning dated 7/3/18 read at Procedure 2; the MDS will be completed within 14 days of each ARD or within 14 days of admission. The CMS guidelines for Comprehensive Assessments are as follows: OBRA-required comprehensive assessments include the completion of both the MDS and the Care Area Assessments (CAA) process, as well as care planning. Comprehensive assessments are completed upon admission, annually, and when a significant change in a resident's status has occurred or a significant correction to a prior comprehensive assessment is required. They consist of: admission Assessment, Annual Assessment, and Significant Change in Status Assessment, and Significant Correction to Prior Comprehensive Assessment. The ARD (Item A2300) is the last day of the observation/look back period, and day 1 for purposes of counting back to determine the beginning of observation/look back periods. For example, if the ARD is set for day 14 of a resident's admission, then the beginning of the observation period for MDS items requiring a 7-day observation period would be day 8 of admission (ARD + 6 previous calendar days), while the beginning of the observation period for MDS items requiring a 14-day observation period would be day 1 of admission (ARD + 13 previous calendar days). (CMS' RAI Version 3.0 Manual, October 2018 Page 2-19).
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** Based on medical record review, facility document review and staff interviews the facility staff failed to ensure a Level I PASA...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, facility document review and staff interviews the facility staff failed to ensure a Level I PASARR (Preadmission Screening and Resident Review; a pre-admission screening for a mental disorder (MD) or intellectual disability) was completed prior to admission for 2 of 39 Residents in the survey sample, Resident #10 and #24. 1. The facility staff failed to ensure a Level I PASARR was completed prior to admission for Resident #10. 2. The facility staff failed to ensure a Level I PASARR was completed prior to admission for Resident #24 The findings included: 1. Resident #10 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses to include Anxiety Disorder and Major Depressive Disorder. The most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) was a Quarterly with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 8/14/18. The Brief Interview for Mental Status was coded as a 10 out of a possible 15 indicating Resident #10 was cognitively intact and capable of daily decision making. On 11/08/18 at approximately 10:53 AM the facility was asked for for Resident #10's PASARR that was completed prior to admission of 3/28/18 or within 30 days of admission. The Corporate Clinical Nurse stated, We can not locate any documentation to show that a level 1 PASARR was completed on the resident prior to admission or a screening was performed within 30 days of admission in the facility. The facility policy titled Level I PASARR effective date 4/25/18 was reviewed and is documented in part, as follows: POLICY: Prior to the arrival of a planned admission the Discharge Planner will collaborate with the admission Director to preview the transferring hospital's Level I PASARR (Preadmission Screening and Resident Review). On 11/8/18 at 5:00 PM a pre-exit conference was conducted with the Administrator, the Director of Nursing, the Corporate Clinical Nurse where the above information was shared. Prior to exit no further information was shared by the facility. 2. Resident #24 was a [AGE] year old admitted to the facility originally on 1/31/16 and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses to include Major Depressive Disorder and Bipolar Disorder. The most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) was a Quarterly with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 4/26/18. The Brief Interview for Mental Status was coded as a 15 out of a possible 15 indicating Resident #24 was cognitively intact and capable of daily decision making. On 11/08/18 at approximately 10:53 AM the facility was asked for for Resident #24's PASARR that was completed prior to admission of 1/31/16 or within 30 days of admission. The Corporate Clinical Nurse stated, We can not locate any documentation to show that a level 1 PASARR was completed on the resident prior to admission or a screening was performed within 30 days of admission in the facility. The facility policy titled Level I PASARR effective date 4/25/18 was reviewed and is documented in part, as follows: POLICY: Prior to the arrival of a planned admission the Discharge Planner will collaborate with the admission Director to preview the transferring hospital's Level I PASARR (Preadmission Screening and Resident Review). On 11/8/18 at 5:00 PM a pre-exit conference was conducted with the Administrator, the Director of Nursing, the Corporate Clinical Nurse where the above information was shared. Prior to exit no further information was shared by the facility.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0687 (Tag F0687)

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 a review of clinical records, the facility staff failed to ensure ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, resident interview, staff interview and a review of clinical records, the facility staff failed to ensure foot care was received for 1 of 39 residents (Resident # 44), in the survey sample. The facility staff failed to provide podiatry services for Resident # 44. The findings included: Resident # 44 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. The current diagnoses included; Unspecified Dementia, and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment with an assessment reference date (ARD) of 09/13/18 was reviewed. The staff assessment for mental status coded Resident #44 as unable to complete the interview due to short term and long term memory problems. The assessment for mental status coded the Resident's cognitive skills for daily decision making as moderately impaired decisions, poor, cues/supervision required. In section G (Physical functioning) the resident was coded as requiring extensive assistance, one person physical assistance. Staff requiring weight bearing support with eating requiring one person physical assistance. Total dependence with locomotion requiring physical assistance. Total dependence with dressing, personal hygiene and bathing requiring one person physical assistance. Total dependence with bed mobility requiring two person physical assist requiring a two personal physical assistance Total assistance with transfers, and toileting requiring two person physical assistance. In section H Bladder and Bowel, the resident was coded as always incontinent of bowel and bladder. 11/07/18 11:40 AM Resident states he requires assistance with ADLs. On 11/07/18 at 12:00 PM while Resident #44 was resting in bed, CNA #1 (Certified Nursing Assistant) and CNA # 2, assessed Resident's skin and lower extremities. Resident# 44's toenails were untrimmed, long, thick and sharp on both feet. On 11/07/18 at 4:30 PM Corporate Clinical Coordinator # 1 was approached concerning podiatry appointments for Resident # 44. She stated that she couldn't find any record of podiatry appointments for Resident # 44. On 11/08/18 at 10:45 AM a previous appointment letter was received from Corporate Clinical Coordinator # 1. The letter included that the last podiatry appointment was on 12/26/17. The SOAP note from the podiatrist office read that Resident # 44 has diagnoses for Peripheral Vascular disease, Nail dystrophy and type 2 diabetes mellitus with peripheral angiopathy without gangrene. On 11/08/18 at 11:00 AM LPN # 2 (Licensed Practical Nurse) was asked to do an ADL assessment on Resident # 44. His toenails on both feet were long, thick, sharp and untrimmed. LPN # 2 said that she thinks the podiatrist should trim Resident # 44 toenails. She stated that she will put his name on the podiatry list today. She was asked for the podiatry list at the nurse's station. LPN # 2 stated that the list hasn't been made yet. On 11/08/18 at 5:01 PM The Charge Nurse, LPN# 3 (Licensed Practical Nurse) was asked how do they determine who receives foot care/podiatry services. She states that If a nurse or CNA see that a resident need toenail care that they will trim the toenails or if a Resident is a diabetic, they will put them on the podiatry list. The Podiatry list was shown to the surveyor at 5:05 PM. The current care plan revised on 07/23/17, included that the resident has an ADL self-care deficit performance relating to Disease Process Rheumatoid Arthritis. The Care Plan Goal read: The resident will improve his current level of function in all ADLs through the review date. The Care Plan interventions read: The resident's preferred dressing/grooming routine is dressing in the AM. Bathing/Showering : Provide sponge bath when a full bath or shower cannot be tolerated. The facility Administrator was asked for a policy on Podiatry care/services and or a diabetic Foot Care Policy. The corporate Quality Assurance Nurse # 2, stated that there were no policies. On 11/08/18, at approximately 5:00 p.m. a pre-exit interview was conducted. The above findings were shared with the Administrator, Director of Nursing, Corporate Clinical Coordinator and Quality Assurance nurse. There were no comments made by the administrative staff.
CONCERN (D)

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, clinical record review, staff interviews, and review of the facility's policy, the facility staff failed ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, clinical record review, staff interviews, and review of the facility's policy, the facility staff failed to ensure a resident's assistance device to prevent accidents was in place for 1 of 39 residents (Resident #7), in the survey sample. The facility staff failed to ensure Resident #7's wander guard assistive device was on the resident on 11/7/18 and 11/8/18, as ordered and care planned to aid in preventing falls. The findings included: Resident #7 was originally admitted to the facility 10/12/16 and was last readmitted to the facility after a hospital admission 2/21/18. The current diagnoses included; protein energy malnutrition, cardiomegaly and dementia. The significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment with an assessment reference date (ARD) of 8/1/18 coded the resident as not having the ability to complete the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS). The staff interview was coded for long and short term memory problems as well as moderately impaired abilities for daily decision making. In section G (Physical functioning) the resident was coded as requiring limited assistance of 1 person with walking, extensive assistance of 2 people with bed mobility, extensive assistance of 1 person with transfers dressing, eating, toileting, personal hygiene and total care with bathing. The clinical record revealed Resident #7 had a fall 9/1/18, while repositioning, no injuries were documented. Another fall was documented 9/8/18, while the resident was in bed, again no injuries were document. In section J1900 (number of falls since prior assessment) of the 8/1/18, MDS assessment Resident #7 was coded for 2 falls without injury. The 7/12/18 significant change MDS assessment was coded the resident experienced 2 falls without injury and the 2/17/18 discharge MDS assessment revealed the resident had one fall resulting in injury. The unwitnessed fall occurred 2/17/18, and resulted in a frontal hematoma and laceration. The Physician's order summary revealed the following assistive devices were ordered to aid in fall prevention; check wander guard function every week, every day shift, every Wednesday, dated 6/30/18. Check wander prevention patient band every shift dated 10/25/18. Devices; assist bars to bed, concave mattress to bed, low bed, mats to floor, wedge use and bed against the wall. The person centered care plan dated 10/12/16 had a problem which read; The resident is at risk for falls related to dementia and blindness of the right eye. The goal read; the resident will be free of falls through the next review date 1/30/19. The interventions included; anticipate and meet the resident's needs. Encourage the resident to participate in activities that promote exercise, physical activity for strengthening and improved mobility such as all group activities. Devices; assist bars, wedges, wander guard, concave mattress, low bed, floor mats and bed against the wall, Observation of Resident #7 room revealed the concave mattress and the assist bars to the bed, a wedge was observed in a chair, the bed was low to the floor, a floor mat was observed propped against the wall and the bed was against the wall as ordered and care planned but the wander guard bracelet was not in place when the Resident was observed 11/7/18 and 11/8/18. Resident #7 was observed in the day room on unit A on 11/7/18 at approximately 2:40 p.m., a wander guard bracelet wasn't observed on the resident. Resident #7 was observed in the dining room [ROOM NUMBER]/8/18 at approximately 12:05 p.m., again a wander guard bracelet was not observed on the resident or the wheel chair. Two Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs) present in the dining room were asked if they observed a wander guard on Resident #7. Both observed the resident and touched her ankles and wrist to determine if the wander guard was present, neither located a wander guard on the resident. An interview was conducted on 11/8/18, at approximately 12:10 p.m., with CNA #2. CNA #2 stated she understood the wander guard was discontinued and it was not attached to the resident during am care and when she got her up. An interview was also conducted on 11/8/18, with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #2. LPN #2 stated she needed to review the resident's order before she could stated what was ordered. LPN #2 stated at approximately 1:00 p.m., the resident was supposed to have a wander guard on and she had applied it. Resident #7 was observed at approximately 2:40 p.m., with the wander guard on. The facility's policy titled Fall Management Program dated 2/1/15 read The Center considers all patients to be at risk for falls and provides an environment as safe as practical for all patients. The center utilizes a systems approach to a Falls Management Program that conducts multi-faceted, interdisciplinary assessments with evidence based interventions to develop individual care strategies. Fall Occurrence Immediate Responsibilities: Do not move or reposition patient until a licensed nurse has completed a physical and mental assessment. A licensed nurse will: assess, intervene, and promptly provide the necessary interventions for any patient experiencing a fall. Notify the physician, responsible party, and/or EMS (emergency medical services, as well as the Supervisor/Administrative personnel as appropriate Evaluate, monitor, and document patient response for the first 24 hours (3 consecutive shifts) post fall, include a neurological assessment if the fall was unwitnessed and/or the patient hit his/her head. For the next 48 hours a comprehensive assessment will be documented daily. A licensed nurse will review, revise, and implement interventions to the care plan based on: Post Fall Assessment findings. Review of Device Assessment. Review of Fall Risk Assessment. Follow-Up Responsibilities: The Unit Manager will review the Incident Report and post fall follow-up and communicate any necessary fall management interventions to direct caregivers. The DON will analyze and present an electronic fall tracking data findings during the QA (Quality Assurance) meeting at least quarterly. On 11/8/18 at approximately 5:00 p.m., the above findings were shared with the Administrator, Director of Nursing and two Corporate Consultants. Corporate Consultant #1 stated she was aware if the resident required use of a wander guard but if it was ordered and care planned for use, it should have been in place.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0849 (Tag F0849)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interview, clinical record review, and review of the Hospice policy; the facility staff failed to ensure the Hosp...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interview, clinical record review, and review of the Hospice policy; the facility staff failed to ensure the Hospice Agency provided resident specific information describing the provision of services for 1 of 39 residents (Resident #7), in the survey sample. The facility staff failed to ensure the Hospice Agency provided the facility staff with the Hospice recertification of the terminal illness and the most recent coordinated plan of care for Resident #7. The findings included: Resident #7 was originally admitted to the facility 10/12/16 and was last readmitted to the facility after a hospitalization on 2/21/18. The current diagnoses included; protein energy malnutrition, cardiomegaly and dementia. The significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 8/1/18 coded the resident as not having the ability to complete the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS). The staff interview was coded for long and short term memory problems as well as moderately impaired abilities for daily decision making. In section O0100K2 the resident was coded for Hospice care. In section D the resident was coded for sleep problems, tiredness and a poor appetite 7-11 days out of 14 days. In section G (Physical functioning) the resident was coded as requiring limited assistance of 1 person with walking, extensive assistance of 2 people with bed mobility, extensive assistance of 1 person with transfers dressing, eating, toileting, personal hygiene and total care with bathing. Review of the physician's order summary revealed an order dated 7/25/18 which read; Admit to Hospice Care with (name of the hospice agency). Review of the person centered care plan dated 7/26/18 was a problem which read; the resident is under hospice care related to dementia and functional decline. The goals included; the resident will be free of depression and anxiety through 1/30/19. The resident's comfort will be maintained through the review date, 1/30/19. The resident's dignity and autonomy will be maintained at the highest level through the review date, 1/30/19. The interventions included; work cooperatively with the hospice team as ordered to ensure the resident's spiritual, emotional, intellectual, physical and social needs are met. Hospice nurse and aide will visit at least weekly. Spiritual Care Coordinator will visit monthly and as needed. Notify physician and hospice agency of any changes in condition. Review of the clinical record revealed an initial hospice certification and care plan for 7/24/18 through 10/21/18. On 11/8/18 at approximately 12:15 p.m., the Administrator was asked if the hospice recertification beginning 10/22/18, and the associated care plan was available for review. The Administrator stated she would follow-up on it. The Administrator returned at approximately 4:00 p.m., with a copy of the hospice recertification covering 10/22/18 through 1/19/19. It had been faxed to the facility on [DATE] at 3:50 p.m.; and attached was a review of the care plan dated 11/8/18 at 11:30 a.m. and a note that read all of the care plan was reviewed and there were no new problems. The facility's Hospice Services policy read at 4.13.3; they will provide the facility with the following information specific to each Hospice patient residing at the facility; (i) the most recent plan of care, (ii) the hospice election form and any advanced directives, (iii) the physician's certification and recertification of the terminal illness, (iv) the names and contact information for hospice staff involved in the care of the patient, (v) instructions on how to access hospice's 24 hour on-call system, (vi) hospice medication information, and (vii) hospice physician and attending physician orders. On 11/8/18 at approximately 5:00 p.m., the above findings were shared with the Administrator, Director of Nursing and two Corporate Consultants. An opportunity was given for the facility to present additional information but none was provided.
CONCERN (E)

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

Abuse Prevention Policies (Tag F0607)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on clinical record review, staff interviews and facility documentation review, the facility staff failed to establish and implement policies and procedures that included immediately reporting al...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on clinical record review, staff interviews and facility documentation review, the facility staff failed to establish and implement policies and procedures that included immediately reporting all alleged violations of abuse to the Administrator, state agency, adult protective services and to all other required agencies within specified timeframes. Two out of 39 residents (Resident #30 and #10) in the survey sample were affected by the facility's failure to develop and implement policies to ensure alleged abuse reporting requirements were in compliance with regulatory requirements. 1. Resident #30 alleged his roommate had exhibited inappropriate sexual abuse behaviors towards him on 2/18/18 which was told to a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA). The nursing staff failed to inform the Administrator within two hours after the allegation was made, as well as the State survey and certification agency. 2. An allegation of verbal abuse by a staff against Resident #10 occurred on 7/22/18 which was not reported to the State certification agency after the allegation was made. The findings include: 1. Resident #30 was admitted to the nursing facility on 2/26/16 with diagnoses that included stroke and swallowing problems. The most recent Minimal Data Set (MDS) assessment was a quarterly dated 9/5/18 and coded the resident on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) with a score of 6 out of a possible score of 15 which indicated he was severely impaired in the necessary skills for daily decision making. The resident was not coded to have any mood or behavior problems. Resident #30 was coded to respond adequately to simple, direct communication and usually understood with clear speech. The resident was assessed to require extensive assistance from one staff for bed mobility, transfers and dressing. The resident was coded as totally dependent on one staff for locomotion on the unit via assistance from staff using a wheelchair, totally dependent on staff for eating, toilet use, personal hygiene and bathing. The care plan created on 2/27/18 and revised as current on 9/25/18 indicated the resident had some Activities of Daily Living (ADL) self-care deficits. The goal set for the resident by the staff included they would address the resident's basic needs and ensure he would maintain his current level of function. The approaches the staff would implement to accomplish this goal included ensuring hearing aids were in place every morning, allow the resident to make decisions about treatment regime, to provide a sense of control, encourage as much participation/interaction by the resident as much as possible during care activities, give clear explanation of all care activities prior to and as they occur during each contact, when possible negotiate as time for ADLs so that the resident can participate in decision making and return at an agreed time. A facility reported incident was forwarded to the State survey and certification agency on 2/19/18 that entailed the following information: During the rounds on the evening of 2/18/18, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) (name of CNA) noticed that (Resident #30's name) brief appeared to have been removed, he had a visible erection and he reported to her that someone touched him. (Resident #30's name) roommate has exhibited inappropriate sexual behaviors, such as public masturbation in the past. After confirming there were no visitors in their room the evening on 2/18/18, (Resident #30's name) was transferred to another room. A skin assessment was completed which did not show any impairments. An investigation is in progress. This alleged sexual assault was reported to state, responsible party, physician, law enforcement and the State survey and certification agency on 2/19/18. On 11/8/18 at 2:00 p.m., an interview was conducted with the Administrator, the Interim Director of Nursing (DON) and the Corporate Clinical Nurse. They stated they thought reporting in two hours only referred to if serious bodily harm had to occurred. They stated there was concern about the failure of the CNA to report the alleged sexual assault incident to the charge nurse and the Administrator, thus causing the alleged incident to be reported late to State agencies. The Interim Director of Nursing (IDON) stated in response to the failure to report as mandated reporters, widespread abuse, neglect and reporting education was conducted. They stated they thought the facility's policy was revised to make clear the reporting mandates and requirements regarding abuse, but after review of the policy; it was determined the policy had not been revised to include the correct required timeframe for reporting alleged abuse. The Administrator confirmed that she was not informed of the incident on 2/18/18 until the following day 2/19/18 and that the CNA should have immediately informed the charge nurse at which time she would have been made aware and reporting to State agencies would have taken place. The previous Director of Nursing's written investigative statement undated titled Notes from FRI (no date) on (Resident #30's name) indicated Resident #30's roommate had a history of public masturbating and making inappropriate comments to female staff members. The Administrator stated although the outcome of the facility's investigation of the aforementioned did not confirm sexual abuse had occurred, Resident #30's roommate was transferred to another facility due to his repeated inappropriate behaviors. The education conducted on 2/21/18 and 2/28/18 was titled Mandated Reporting of Abuse or Suspected Abuse, CNAs are to report allegations immediately to the charge nurse. Review of the education indicated the objectives of the in-service included verbalization of all types of abuse, verbalization of mandated reporting requirements, a discussion of the importance of immediately reporting allegations of abuse, verbalization of what immediate meant, identify who were mandated reporters in the facility and that the reporting was to be submitted within regulatory defined time frames. The timeframes were not specifically outlined in the education that was presented to this surveyor. The education further indicated that failure to immediately report allegations of abuse may result in potential harm to residents and is a violation of the State and Federal Mandated Reporting regulations. On 11/8/18 at 5:00 p.m., a debriefing was held with the Administrator, the Corporate Clinical Nurse and the Interim Director of Nursing. No further information was provided prior to survey exit. The facility's policy was not revised to include reporting within 2 hours alleged abuse to the Administrator and other applicable State agencies. The policy dated 11/4/16 titled Abuse/Neglect/Misappropriation/Crime Investigation and Follow Up reporting indicated serious bodily injury must be reported no later than two hours after forming the suspicion. Crimes not resulting in serious bodily injury to the patient must be reported no later than 24 hours after forming the suspicion. The Administrator will immediately (within 2 or 24 hours of knowledge of the allegation), notify the State licensure and certification agency. 2. An allegation of verbal abuse by a staff against Resident #10 occurred on 7/22/18 which was not reported to the State certification agency after the allegation was made. Resident #10 was re-admitted to the nursing facility on 9/4/18 with diagnoses that included history of falls, diabetes and high blood pressure. The most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) was a quarterly dated 9/2/18 and coded the resident with short term memory problems and moderately impaired in the skills needed for daily decision making. A facility reported incident was forwarded to the State survey and certification agency on 7/23/18 at 3:15 p.m. that entailed the following information: Visitor approached nurse (supervisor) on 7/22/18 stating he witnessed a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) yelling at a resident and pointing her finger at her face. The nurse identified the CNA as (CNA's name). The CNA was suspended pending an investigation. The follow up report to the State survey and certification agency dated 7/27/18 indicated after reviewing and obtaining statements from the staff that was on duty, it was validated from other witnesses that the CNA implicated in the verbal abuse toward Resident #10 yelled and aggressively pushed her down the hallway in her wheelchair. The CNA was terminated based on the aforementioned findings from the abuse investigation. This alleged verbal abuse was reported to the responsible party and the State survey and certification agency on 7/23/18. On 11/8/18 at 2:00 p.m., an interview was conducted with the Administrator, the Interim Director of Nursing (DON) and the Corporate Clinical Nurse. They stated they thought reporting in two hours only referred to if serious bodily harm had to occurred. The Administrator stated the alleged verbal abuse occurred on a Sunday and was reported to the nursing supervisor by a visitor on 7/22/18 and she was made aware of the incident on Monday 7/23/18. They stated they thought the facility's policy was revised to make clear the reporting mandates and requirements regarding abuse, but after review of the policy; it was determined the policy had not been revised to include the correct required timeframe for reporting alleged abuse. The facility's policy was not revised to include reporting within 2 hours alleged abuse to the Administrator and other applicable State agencies. On 11/8/18 at 5:00 p.m., a debriefing was held with the Administrator, the Corporate Clinical Nurse and the Interim Director of Nursing. No further information was provided prior to survey exit.
CONCERN (E)

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

Transfer Requirements (Tag F0622)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, facility document review and staff interviews the facility staff failed to convey the Individual...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, facility document review and staff interviews the facility staff failed to convey the Individual Plan Of Care upon transfer/discharge to the hospital for 6 of 39 Residents in the survey sample, Resident #60, #18, #10, #26, #122 and #7. 1. The facility staff failed to convey the Individual Plan Of Care upon transfer/discharge on [DATE] for Resident #60. 2. The facility staff failed to convey the Individual Plan Of Care upon transfer/discharge on [DATE] for Resident #18 3. The facility staff failed to convey the Individual Plan Of Care upon transfer/discharge on [DATE] for Resident #10 4. The facility staff failed to convey the Individual Plan Of Care upon transfer/discharge on [DATE] for Resident #26 5. The facility staff failed to convey the Individual Plan Of Care upon transfer/discharge on [DATE] for Resident #122 6. The facility staff failed to convey the Individual Plan Of Care upon transfer/discharge on [DATE] for Resident #7. The findings included: 1. Resident #60 is a [AGE] year old admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses to include Hypertension and Diabetes Mellitus. The most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) was a Significant Change with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 7/13/18. The Brief Interview for Mental Status was coded as 0, not attempted because the resident is rarely/never understood. Under Section C Cognitive Patterns Resident #60 was coded to have long and short term memory deficits and was severely impaired in cognition for daily decision making. While reviewing Resident #60's MDS's a Discharge Assessment-return anticipated with an ARD date of 8/1/18 was identified. Resident #60's Progress Notes were reviewed and are documented in part, as follows: 8/1/18 22:39 (10:39) P.M. Health Status Note: Resident admitted to Hospital for sepsis and ARF (acute renal failure). MD (Medical Doctor) notified. Resident #60's Hospital Discharge Summary was reviewed and is documented in part, as follows: Date of admission: Aug-01-2018 Date of discharge: Aug-05-2018 On 11/7/18 at approximately 11:45 A.M. the facility was asked for documentation to show that Resident #60's Comprehensive Plan of Care was sent with her on 8/1/18 when transferred/discharged to the hospital. The Corporate Clinical Nurse stated, We do not have any documentation to support the care plan was sent with the resident when discharged . The nurses are able to state that they send the POC (plan of care) with the resident at the time of transfer, however there is no evidence that this was done. We need to develop a system for this to occur forward. The facility policy titled Patient Transfer Form effective date 11/28/17 was reviewed and is documented in part, as follows: POLICY: A Patient Transfer Form (eINTERACT) must be sent with the patient when transporting to a hospital or acute care setting. This process will provide a format of all pertinent information regarding the patient's medical status when the patient requires additional hospital care and treatment. PROCEDURE: 3. Place a copy of the Patient Transfer Form (eInteract), copies of the current face sheet, current MAR (medication administration record), current TAR(treatment medication record), Nurses Notes for 24 hour care plan, and Physician Progress notes in the designated INTERACT envelope and send with the patient to the acute care center or hospital. On 11/8/18 at 5:00 P.M. a pre-exit conference was conducted with the Administrator, the Director of Nursing, the Corporate Clinical Nurse where the above information was shared. Prior to exit no further information was shared by the facility. 2. Resident #18 is a [AGE] year old admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses to include Hypertension and Anemia. The most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) was an Annual Assessment with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 10/16/18. The Brief Interview for Mental Status was coded as a 15 out of a possible 15 indicating Resident #18 was cognitively intact and capable of daily decision making. While reviewing Resident #18's MDS's a Discharge Assessment-return anticipated with an ARD date of 8/11/18 was identified. Resident #18's Progress Notes were reviewed and are documented in part, as follows: 8/12/18 at 11:01 A.M.: Resident was sent to ER (emergency room) and was admitted [DATE]. On 11/7/18 at approximately 11:45 A.M. the facility was asked for documentation to show that Resident #18's Comprehensive Plan of Care was sent with her on 8/11/18 when transferred/discharged the he hospital. The Corporate Clinical Nurse stated, We do not have any documentation to support the care plan was sent with the resident when discharged . The nurses are able to state that they send the POC (plan of care) with the resident at the time of transfer, however there is no evidence that this was done. We need to develop a system for this to occur forward. The facility policy titled Patient Transfer Form effective date 11/28/17 was reviewed and is documented in part, as follows: POLICY: A Patient Transfer Form (eINTERACT) must be sent with the patient when transporting to a hospital or acute care setting. This process will provide a format of all pertinent information regarding the patient's medical status when the patient requires additional hospital care and treatment. PROCEDURE: 3. Place a copy of the Patient Transfer Form (eInteract), copies of the current face sheet, current MAR (medication administration record), current TAR(treatment medication record), Nurses Notes for 24 hour care plan, and Physician Progress notes in the designated INTERACT envelope and send with the patient to the acute care center or hospital. On 11/8/18 at 5:00 P.M. a pre-exit conference was conducted with the Administrator, the Director of Nursing, the Corporate Clinical Nurse where the above information was shared. Prior to exit no further information was shared by the facility. 3. Resident #10 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses to include Diabetes Mellitus and Hypertension. The most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) was a Quarterly with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 8/14/18. The Brief Interview for Mental Status was coded as a 10 out of a possible 15 indicating Resident #10 was cognitively intact and capable of daily decision making. While reviewing Resident #10's MDS' a Discharge Assessment-return anticipated with an ARD date of 9/02/18 was identified. Resident #10's Progress Notes were reviewed and are documented in part, as follows: 9/2/18 22:03 (10:03) P.M.: Resident vomited 4 times in 30 minutes. Doctor notifies and advised to send to ER (emergency room) for evaluation. 9/2/18 22:32 (10:32) P.M.: Resident admitted with hyponatremia to hospital ruling out concussion from earlier fall. Resident #10's Hospital Discharge Summary was reviewed and is documented in part, as follows: Date of admission: Sep-02-2018 Date of discharge: Sep-04-2018 On 11/7/18 at approximately 11:45 A.M. the facility was asked for documentation to show that Resident #10's Comprehensive Plan of Care was sent with her on 9/2/18 when transferred/discharged the he hospital. The Corporate Clinical Nurse stated, We do not have any documentation to support the care plan was sent with the resident when discharged . The nurses are able to state that they send the POC(plan of care) with the resident at the time of transfer, however there is no evidence that this was done. We need to develop a system for this to occur forward. The facility policy titled Patient Transfer Form effective date 11/28/17 was reviewed and is documented in part, as follows: POLICY: A Patient Transfer Form (eINTERACT) must be sent with the patient when transporting to a hospital or acute care setting. This process will provide a format of all pertinent information regarding the patient's medical status when the patient requires additional hospital care and treatment. PROCEDURE: 3. Place a copy of the Patient Transfer Form (eInteract), copies of the current face sheet, current MAR (medication administration record), current TAR(treatment medication record), Nurses Notes for 24 hour care plan, and Physician Progress notes in the designated INTERACT envelope and send with the patient to the acute care center or hospital. On 11/8/18 at 5:00 P.M. a pre-exit conference was conducted with the Administrator, the Director of Nursing, the Corporate Clinical Nurse where the above information was shared. Prior to exit no further information was shared by the facility. 4. Resident #26 is a [AGE] year old admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses to include Congestive Heart Failure and Hypertension. The most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) was a Quarterly with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 8/28/18. The Brief Interview for Mental Status was coded as a 15 out of a possible 15 indicating Resident #26 was cognitively intact and capable of daily decision making. While reviewing Resident #26's MDS' a Discharge Assessment-return anticipated with an ARD date of 5/07/18 was identified. Resident #26's Progress Notes were reviewed and are documented in part, as follows: 5/7/18 at 15:58 (1:58) P.M.: Resident was sent to ER via stretcher with transportation drivers. 5/7/18 at 22:44 (10:44) P.M.: Per ER, resident has been admitted to hospital with Sepsis diagnosis. Resident #26's Hospital Discharge Summary was reviewed and is documented in part, as follows: admit date : [DATE] discharge date : [DATE] On 11/7/18 at approximately 11:45 A.M. the facility was asked for documentation to show that Resident #26's Comprehensive Plan of Care was sent with her on 5/7/18 when transferred/discharged the he hospital. The Corporate Clinical Nurse stated, We do not have any documentation to support the care plan was sent with the resident when discharged . The nurses are able to state that they send the POC(plan of care) with the resident at the time of transfer, however there is no evidence that this was done. We need to develop a system for this to occur forward. The facility policy titled Patient Transfer Form effective date 11/28/17 was reviewed and is documented in part, as follows: POLICY: A Patient Transfer Form (eINTERACT) must be sent with the patient when transporting to a hospital or acute care setting. This process will provide a format of all pertinent information regarding the patient's medical status when the patient requires additional hospital care and treatment. PROCEDURE: 3. Place a copy of the Patient Transfer Form (eInteract), copies of the current face sheet, current MAR (medication administration record), current TAR(treatment medication record), Nurses Notes for 24 hour care plan, and Physician Progress notes in the designated INTERACT envelope and send with the patient to the acute care center or hospital. On 11/8/18 at 5:00 P.M. a pre-exit conference was conducted with the Administrator, the Director of Nursing, the Corporate Clinical Nurse where the above information was shared. Prior to exit no further information was shared by the facility. 5. Resident #122 is a [AGE] year old admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include Diabetes Mellitus and Schizophrenia. The most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) was a Quarterly with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 2/27/18. The Brief Interview for Mental Status was coded as 0, not attempted because the resident is rarely/never understood. Under Section C Cognitive Patterns Resident #122 was coded to have long and short term memory deficits and was moderately impaired in cognition for daily decision making. While reviewing Resident #122's MDS' a Discharge Assessment-return not anticipated with an ARD date of 3/7/18 was identified. Resident #122's Progress Notes were reviewed and are documented in part, as follows: 3/7/2048 10:24 A.M.: Sent to ER via EMS (emergency medical services) to be evaluated. Resident #122's Hospital Discharge Summary was reviewed and is documented in part, as follows: Date of admission: Mar-07-2018 Date of discharge: Mar-12-2018 On 11/7/18 at approximately 11:45 P.M. the facility was asked for documentation to show that Resident #122's Comprehensive Plan of Care was sent with her on 3/7/18 when transferred/discharged the he hospital. The Corporate Clinical Nurse stated, We do not have any documentation to support the care plan was sent with the resident when discharged . The nurses are able to state that they send the POC (plan of care) with the resident at the time of transfer, however there is no evidence that this was done. We need to develop a system for this to occur forward. The facility policy titled Patient Transfer Form effective date 11/28/17 was reviewed and is documented in part, as follows: POLICY: A Patient Transfer Form (eINTERACT) must be sent with the patient when transporting to a hospital or acute care setting. This process will provide a format of all pertinent information regarding the patient's medical status when the patient requires additional hospital care and treatment. PROCEDURE: 3. Place a copy of the Patient Transfer Form (eInteract), copies of the current face sheet, current MAR (medication administration record), current TAR(treatment medication record), Nurses Notes for 24 hour care plan, and Physician Progress notes in the designated INTERACT envelope and send with the patient to the acute care center or hospital. On 11/8/18 at 5:00 P.M. a pre-exit conference was conducted with the Administrator, the Director of Nursing, the Corporate Clinical Nurse where the above information was shared. Prior to exit no further information was shared by the facility. 6. Resident #7 was originally admitted to the facility 10/12/16 and was last readmitted to the facility after a hospital admission 2/21/18. The current diagnoses included; protein energy malnutrition, cardiomegaly and dementia. The significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment with an assessment reference date (ARD) of 8/1/18 coded the resident as not having the ability to complete the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS). The staff interview was coded for long and short term memory problems as well as moderately impaired abilities for daily decision making. In section G (Physical functioning) the resident was coded as requiring limited assistance of 1 person with walking, extensive assistance of 2 people with bed mobility, extensive assistance of 1 person with transfers dressing, eating, toileting, personal hygiene and total care with bathing. Review of the discharge MDS assessment dated [DATE], revealed Resident #7 was discharged -return anticipated. Review of the clinical record revealed a Nursing Home to Hospital Transfer Form dated 2/17/18, which stated Resident #7 had a fall and was with pain at a level 5. Included on the Hospital Transfer Form was the following information; Contact information of the practitioner who was responsible for the care of the resident, Resident representative information, including contact information, Advance directive information, Treatments and devices (oxygen, implants, IVs, tubes/catheters), Precautions such as isolation or contact, Special risks such as risk for falls, elopement, bleeding, or pressure injury and/or aspiration precautions, Resident status, including baseline and current mental, behavioral, and functional status, reason for transfer, recent vital signs, some recent immunizations, and allergies. No documentation was included which stated the facility staff conveyed to the receiving providers the resident's comprehensive care plan goals at the time of discharge or as soon as possible to the actual time of transfer. On 11/8/18 at approximately 5:00 p.m., the above findings were shared with the Administrator, Director of Nursing and two Corporate Consultants. Corporate Consultant #1 stated she thinks the care plan was sent with the resident to the hospital but she has no way of proving it was sent.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0625 (Tag F0625)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, facility document review and staff interviews the facility staff failed to issue a written notic...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, facility document review and staff interviews the facility staff failed to issue a written notice of Bed-Hold upon transfer/discharge to the hospital for 6 of 39 Residents in the survey sample, Resident #60, #18, #10, #26, #122 and #7. 1. The facility staff failed to issue a written notice of Bed-Hold upon transfer/discharge on [DATE] for Resident #60. 2. The facility staff failed to issue a written notice of Bed-Hold upon transfer/discharge on [DATE] for Resident #18 3. The facility staff failed to issue a written notice of Bed-Hold upon transfer/discharge on [DATE] for Resident #10 4. The facility staff failed to issue a written notice of Bed-Hold upon transfer/discharge on [DATE] for Resident #26 5. The facility staff failed to issue a written notice of Bed-Hold upon transfer/discharge on [DATE] for Resident #122 6. The facility staff failed to issue a written notice of Bed-Hold upon transfer/discharge on [DATE] for Resident #7. The findings included: 1. Resident #60 was a [AGE] year old admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses to include Hypertension and Diabetes Mellitus. The most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) was a Significant Change with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 7/13/18. The Brief Interview for Mental Status was coded as 0, not attempted because the resident is rarely/never understood. Under Section C Cognitive Patterns Resident #60 was coded to have long and short term memory deficits and was severely impaired in cognition for daily decision making. While reviewing Resident #60's MDS's a Discharge Assessment-return anticipated with an ARD date of 8/1/18 was identified. Resident #60's Progress Notes were reviewed and are documented in part, as follows: 8/1/18 22:39 (10:39) P.M. Health Status Note: Resident admitted to Hospital for sepsis and ARF (acute renal failure). MD (Medical Doctor) notified. Resident #60's Hospital Discharge Summary was reviewed and is documented in part, as follows: Date of admission: Aug-01-2018 Date of discharge: Aug-05-2018 On 11/7/18 at approximately 11:55 A.M. the facility was asked for documentation to show that a Bed-Hold Notice was provided prior to Resident #60 being transferred to the hospital on 8/1/18. The Corporate Clinical Nurse stated, The evidence that the Bed-Hold policy was provided for the resident or responsible party is not in place for the resident. The facility policy titled Documentation-Bed Hold effective date 2/5/15 was reviewed and is documented in part, as follows: POLICY: The Admissions Director will ensure all proper documents are executed whenever a patient returns to the Health and Rehabilitation Center from a bed hold retention arrangement PROCEDURE: 1. readmitted from Bed Retention-Patients who have reserved a bed while hospitalized by way of a Voluntary Bed Retention Agreement must complete the appropriate Medicare documentation resubmission requirements. On 11/8/18 at 5:00 P.M. a pre-exit conference was conducted with the Administrator, the Director of Nursing, and the Corporate Clinical Nurse where the above information was shared. Prior to exit no further information was shared by the facility staff. 2. Resident #18 was a [AGE] year old admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses to include Hypertension and Anemia. The most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) was an Annual Assessment with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 10/16/18. The Brief Interview for Mental Status was coded as a 15 out of a possible 15 indicating Resident #18 was cognitively intact and capable of daily decision making. While reviewing Resident #18's MDS' a Discharge Assessment-return anticipated with an ARD date of 8/11/18 was identified. Resident #18's Progress Notes were reviewed and are documented in part, as follows: 8/12/18 at 11:01 A.M.: Resident was sent to ER (emergency room) and was admitted [DATE]. On 11/7/18 at approximately 11:55 A.M. the facility was asked for documentation to show that a Bed-Hold Notice was provided prior to Resident #18 being transferred to the hospital on 8/11/18. The Corporate Clinical Nurse stated, The evidence that the Bed-Hold policy was provided for the resident or responsible party is not in place for the resident. The facility policy titled Documentation-Bed Hold effective date 2/5/15 was reviewed and is documented in part, as follows: POLICY: The Admissions Director will ensure all proper documents are executed whenever a patient returns to the Health and Rehabilitation Center from a bed hold retention arrangement PROCEDURE: 1. readmitted from Bed Retention-Patients who have reserved a bed while hospitalized by way of a Voluntary Bed Retention Agreement must complete the appropriate Medicare documentation resubmission requirements. On 11/8/18 at 5:00 P.M. a pre-exit conference was conducted with the Administrator, the Director of Nursing, the Corporate Clinical Nurse where the above information was shared. Prior to exit no further information was shared by the facility staff. 3. Resident #10 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses to include Diabetes Mellitus and Hypertension. The most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) was a Quarterly with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 8/14/18. The Brief Interview for Mental Status was coded as a 10 out of a possible 15 whic indicated Resident #10 was cognitively intact and capable of daily decision making. While reviewing Resident #10's MDS' a Discharge Assessment-return anticipated with an ARD date of 9/02/18 was identified. Resident #10's Progress Notes were reviewed and are documented in part, as follows: 9/2/18 22:03 (10:03) P.M.: Resident vomited 4 times in 30 minutes. Doctor notifies and advised to send to ER (emergency room) for evaluation. 9/2/18 22:32 (10:32) P.M.: Resident admitted with hyponatremia to hospital ruling out concussion from earlier fall. Resident #10's Hospital Discharge Summary was reviewed and is documented in part, as follows: Date of admission: Sep-02-2018 Date of discharge: Sep-04-2018 On 11/7/18 at approximately 11:55 A.M. the facility was asked for documentation to show that a Bed-Hold Notice was provided prior to Resident #10 being transferred to the hospital on 9/2/18. The Corporate Clinical Nurse stated, The evidence that the Bed-Hold policy was provided for the resident or responsible party is not in place for the resident. The facility policy titled Documentation-Bed Hold effective date 2/5/15 was reviewed and is documented in part, as follows: POLICY: The Admissions Director will ensure all proper documents are executed whenever a patient returns to the Health and Rehabilitation Center from a bed hold retention arrangement PROCEDURE: 1. readmitted from Bed Retention- Patients who have reserved a bed while hospitalized by way of a Voluntary Bed Retention Agreement must complete the appropriate Medicare documentation resubmission requirements. On 11/8/18 at 5:00 P.M. a pre-exit conference was conducted with the Administrator, the Director of Nursing, the Corporate Clinical Nurse where the above information was shared. Prior to exit no further information was shared by the facility staff. 4. Resident #26 was a [AGE] year old admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses to include Congestive Heart Failure and Hypertension. The most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) was a Quarterly with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 8/28/18. The Brief Interview for Mental Status was coded as a 15 out of a possible 15 indicating Resident #26 was cognitively intact and capable of daily decision making. While reviewing Resident #26's MDS' a Discharge Assessment-return anticipated with an ARD date of 5/07/18 was identified. Resident #26's Progress Notes were reviewed and are documented in part, as follows: 5/7/18 at 15:58 (1:58) P.M.: Resident was sent to ER via stretcher with transportation drivers. 5/7/18 at 22:44 (10:44) P.M.: Per ER, resident has been admitted to hospital with Sepsis diagnosis. Resident #26's Hospital Discharge Summary was reviewed and is documented in part, as follows: admit date : [DATE] discharge date : [DATE] On 11/7/18 at approximately 11:55 A.M. the facility was asked for documentation to show that a Bed-Hold Notice was provided prior to Resident #26 being transferred to the hospital on 5/7/18. The Corporate Clinical Nurse stated, The evidence that the Bed-Hold policy was provided for the resident or responsible party is not in place for the resident. The facility policy titled Documentation-Bed Hold effective date 2/5/15 was reviewed and is documented in part, as follows: POLICY: The Admissions Director will ensure all proper documents are executed whenever a patient returns to the Health and Rehabilitation Center from a bed hold retention arrangement PROCEDURE: 1. readmitted from Bed Retention- Patients who have reserved a bed while hospitalized by way of a Voluntary Bed Retention Agreement must complete the appropriate Medicare documentation resubmission requirements. On 11/8/18 at 5:00 P.M. a pre-exit conference was conducted with the Administrator, the Director of Nursing, the Corporate Clinical Nurse where the above information was shared. Prior to exit no further information was shared by the facility staff. 5. Resident #122 was a [AGE] year old admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include Diabetes Mellitus and Schizophrenia. The most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) was a Quarterly with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 2/27/18. The Brief Interview for Mental Status was coded as 0, not attempted because the resident is rarely/never understood. Under Section C Cognitive Patterns Resident #122 was coded to have long and short term memory deficits and was moderately impaired in cognition for daily decision making. While reviewing Resident #122's MDS' a Discharge Assessment-return not anticipated with an ARD date of 3/7/18 was identified. Resident #122's Progress Notes were reviewed and documented in part, as follows: 3/7/2048 10:24 A.M.: Sent to ER via EMS (emergency medical services) to be evaluated. Resident #122's Hospital Discharge Summary was reviewed and is documented in part, as follows: Date of admission: Mar-07-2018 Date of discharge: Mar-12-2018 On 11/7/18 at approximately 11:55 A.M. the facility was asked for documentation to show that a Bed-Hold Notice was provided prior to Resident #122 being transferred to the hospital on 3/7/18. The Corporate Clinical Nurse stated, The evidence that the Bed-Hold policy was provided for the resident or responsible party is not in place for the resident. The facility policy titled Documentation-Bed Hold effective date 2/5/15 was reviewed and is documented in part, as follows: POLICY: The Admissions Director will ensure all proper documents are executed whenever a patient returns to the Health and Rehabilitation Center from a bed hold retention arrangement PROCEDURE: 1. readmitted from Bed Retention-Patients who have reserved a bed while hospitalized by way of a Voluntary Bed Retention Agreement must complete the appropriate Medicare documentation resubmission requirements. On 11/8/18 at 5:00 P.M. a pre-exit conference was conducted with the Administrator, the Director of Nursing, the Corporate Clinical Nurse where the above information was shared. Prior to exit no further information was shared by the facility. 6. Resident #7 was originally admitted to the facility 10/12/16 and was last readmitted to the facility after a hospital admission 2/21/18. The current diagnoses included; protein energy malnutrition, cardiomegaly and dementia. The significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment with an assessment reference date (ARD) of 8/1/18 coded the resident as not having the ability to complete the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS). The staff interview was coded for long and short term memory problems as well as moderately impaired abilities for daily decision making. In section G (Physical functioning) the resident was coded as requiring limited assistance of 1 person with walking, extensive assistance of 2 people with bed mobility, extensive assistance of 1 person with transfers dressing, eating, toileting, personal hygiene and total care with bathing. Review of the discharge MDS assessment dated [DATE], revealed Resident #7 was discharged -return anticipated. Review of the clinical record revealed a Nursing Home to Hospital Transfer Form dated 2/17/18, which stated Resident #7 had a fall and was with pain at a level 5. An interview was attempted with Resident #7 on 11/8/18, at approximately 12:05 p.m. The resident wasn't capable of providing information regarding the 2/17/18 discharge to the hospital The primary care physician's readmission history and physical dated 2/22/18, revealed Resident #7 had been transferred to the local acute care hospital after an unwitnessed fall resulting in a frontal hematoma and laceration but; the resident was admitted to the hospital 2/17/18, for urosepsis and a low potassium level. On 11/8/18 at approximately at 3:00 p.m., an interview was conducted with the Admission's Director. The Admission's Director stated Resident #7 wasn't offered or provided information on the facility's bed hold policy at the time of her discharge. On 11/8/18 at approximately 5:00 p.m., the above findings were shared with the Administrator, Director of Nursing and two Corporate Consultants. An opportunity was given for the facility to present additional information but none was provided.
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

  • "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: 4 harm violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 36 deficiencies on record, including 4 serious (caused harm) violations. Ask about corrective actions taken.
  • • Grade F (20/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 20/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Courtland Rehabilitation And Healthcare Center's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns COURTLAND REHABILITATION AND HEALTHCARE CENTER an overall rating of 1 out of 5 stars, which is considered much 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 Courtland Rehabilitation And Healthcare Center Staffed?

CMS rates COURTLAND REHABILITATION AND HEALTHCARE CENTER's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 46%, compared to the Virginia average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Courtland Rehabilitation And Healthcare Center?

State health inspectors documented 36 deficiencies at COURTLAND REHABILITATION AND HEALTHCARE CENTER during 2018 to 2022. These included: 4 that caused actual resident harm and 32 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.

Who Owns and Operates Courtland Rehabilitation And Healthcare Center?

COURTLAND REHABILITATION AND HEALTHCARE CENTER is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by YAD HEALTHCARE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 90 certified beds and approximately 82 residents (about 91% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in COURTLAND, Virginia.

How Does Courtland Rehabilitation And Healthcare Center Compare to Other Virginia Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Virginia, COURTLAND REHABILITATION AND HEALTHCARE CENTER's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 3.0, staff turnover (46%) 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 Courtland Rehabilitation And Healthcare Center?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "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?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?" These questions are particularly relevant given the below-average staffing rating.

Is Courtland Rehabilitation And Healthcare Center Safe?

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

Do Nurses at Courtland Rehabilitation And Healthcare Center Stick Around?

COURTLAND REHABILITATION AND HEALTHCARE CENTER has a staff turnover rate of 46%, 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 Courtland Rehabilitation And Healthcare Center Ever Fined?

COURTLAND REHABILITATION AND HEALTHCARE CENTER 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 Courtland Rehabilitation And Healthcare Center on Any Federal Watch List?

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