KENDAL AT LEXINGTON

160 KENDAL DRIVE, LEXINGTON, VA 24450 (540) 463-1910
Non profit - Corporation 60 Beds KENDAL Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
56/100
#141 of 285 in VA
Last Inspection: April 2024

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

Overview

Kendal at Lexington has a Trust Grade of C, which means it is average-neither great nor terrible. It ranks #141 out of 285 nursing homes in Virginia, placing it in the top half, but it is second out of two in Lexington City County, indicating only one local option is better. Unfortunately, the facility's trend is worsening, with issues increasing from 3 in 2023 to 15 in 2024. Staffing is a significant strength, boasting a 5/5 star rating and a turnover rate of only 30%, which is well below the state average. However, the facility has concerning fines totaling $10,033, higher than 84% of Virginia facilities, suggesting ongoing compliance issues. Specific incidents raised during inspections included a serious case where a resident fell and sustained a fracture due to a lack of staff assistance during a transfer. Additionally, the facility failed to maintain proper infection control measures during a COVID-19 outbreak, and there were multiple sanitation issues in food preparation, such as failing to label food properly and maintaining food at safe temperatures. While the strong staffing rating is encouraging, these significant weaknesses raise concerns for families considering this home for their loved ones.

Trust Score
C
56/100
In Virginia
#141/285
Top 49%
Safety Record
Moderate
Needs review
Inspections
Getting Worse
3 → 15 violations
Staff Stability
✓ Good
30% annual turnover. Excellent stability, 18 points below Virginia's 48% average. Staff who stay learn residents' needs.
Penalties
✓ Good
$10,033 in fines. Lower than most Virginia facilities. Relatively clean record.
Skilled Nurses
○ Average
Each resident gets 40 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for Virginia. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
Violations
⚠ Watch
26 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★★☆☆
3.0
Overall Rating
★★★★★
5.0
Staff Levels
★★★★☆
4.0
Care Quality
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2023: 3 issues
2024: 15 issues

The Good

  • 5-Star Staffing Rating · Excellent nurse staffing levels
  • 4-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
  • Low Staff Turnover (30%) · Staff stability means consistent care
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover is low (30%)

    18 points below Virginia average of 48%

Facility shows strength in staffing levels, quality measures, staff retention, fire safety.

The Bad

3-Star Overall Rating

Near Virginia average (3.0)

Meets federal standards, typical of most facilities

Federal Fines: $10,033

Below median ($33,413)

Minor penalties assessed

Chain: KENDAL

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 26 deficiencies on record

1 actual harm
Apr 2024 15 deficiencies 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interview, facility document review, and clinical record review, the facility failed to provide staff assistance and supervision for a safe transfer for one of sixteen residents (Resident #1), resulting in a fall with fracture (harm). The findings include: Resident #1 (R1) fell when a privately hired companion/sitter attempted to transfer R1 from the bed to a wheelchair. The private companion did not request facility staff assistance with the transfer and had no prior documented training of facility policies that prohibited private caregivers/companions from performing direct-care activities, including transfers. R1 was diagnosed with a right distal femur fracture, as a result of the fall, and required treatment with immobilization and pain medication. Resident #1 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included dementia, hypertension, osteoporosis, urinary tract infection, osteoarthritis, conjunctivitis, gastroesophageal reflux disease, and depression. The minimum data set (MDS - assessment tool), dated 2/22/24, assessed R1 with severely impaired cognitive skills and requiring extensive assistance of two staff for bed mobility and transfers. R1's clinical record documented a nursing note dated 4/20/24 stating, .Incident Time . [9:05 a.m.] . Rsd [Resident's] private caregiver was trying to transfer Rsd from bed to wheelchair without staff assistance. Rsd R [right] Knee gave out and Rsd slid from bed to floor with assistance from caregiver. Rsd c/o [complained of] R knee pain . (sic) The nursing note documented that the family and physician were notified, with the family requesting to not immediately send the R1 to the emergency room but assess the status the next morning. A nursing note on 4/21/24 documented that R1 developed increased swelling, bruising, and pain of the right leg and that R1 was sent to the emergency room for evaluation/treatment. The hospital Discharge summary dated [DATE] documented that R1 was diagnosed with a distal right femur fracture, as a result of the fall. R1 was assessed by orthopedics and treated with a knee immobilizer to be in place for 6 to 8 weeks, along with pain management. R1 was re-admitted to the facility on [DATE] with orders for bed rest with the right leg immobilized as ordered. R1 was administered pain medication due to right leg pain on 4/22/24 at 7:23 p.m. and on 4/23/24 at 8:54 a.m. with effective results. A note by the nurse manager dated 4/22/24 documented, After further investigation and discussion with staff r/t [regarding] fall on 4/20/24 it is determined to be of known cause. The fall is consistent with resident caregiver performing a transfer without assistance from staff causing Resident to fall. The fall resulted in a right femur fx [fracture] . R1's plan of care prior to the fall (revised 4/12/24) documented the resident required the extensive assistance of 1 to 2 staff persons with all transfers and use of a mechanical lift as needed. The care plan also listed the resident required extensive assistance of 1 to 2 staff persons for dressing, bed mobility, and toileting. R1's clinical record documented the resident was assessed/treated for a urinary tract infection starting on 4/8/24. Staff referred R1 for a therapy evaluation on 4/11/24 due to a decline in status and increased need for assistance with activities of daily living. R1's therapy communication form to nursing dated 4/11/24 documented a physical therapy recommendation for transfer with a Hoyer mechanical lift until the resident could stand, step and turn to use a walker. This recommendation was modified on 4/12/24 to use of a Hoyer lift as nursing deems necessary because the family did not want the resident to transition to total dependence with the lift. Therapy documented an additional communication to nursing on 4/16/24 recommending, When transferring pt [patient] 2 person, do not arm and arm unless the chair is touching the bed. On 4/22/24 at 3:25 p.m., the licensed practical nurse (LPN #1) caring for R1 on 4/20/24 was interviewed. LPN #1 stated R1 had private sitters/caregivers during the day. LPN #1 stated that on 4/20/24, the private caregiver was trying to transfer R1 from the bed to wheelchair, when the resident's knee gave out and the resident slid to the floor. LPN #1 stated there were no staff members with R1 at the time of the fall and the private caregiver had not requested or called for assistance with the resident. LPN #1 stated private companions/caregivers were not allowed to perform any resident transfers or provide direct ADL (activities of daily living) care for residents. LPN #1 stated a certified nurses' aide (CNA) had performed incontinence care with R1 earlier in the shift and that the private caregiver (other staff #3) transferred the resident without requesting or calling for assistance from staff. LPN #1 stated R1 required two people for a safe transfer as the resident had experienced a recent decline since diagnosed with a urinary tract infection. LPN #1 stated the resident had been weaker since the infection, was evaluated by therapy, and that two staff members were provided during transfers to ensure safety. LPN #1 stated again that the private caregivers were not supposed to transfer residents and thought they had received training about their role. LPN #1 stated she and two CNAs were working on R1's unit and were available on the morning of 4/20/24. On 4/22/24 at 3:35 p.m., CNA #4 that routinely cared for R1 was interviewed. CNA #4 stated R1 had required two-person assistance during the last several weeks because of weakness following an infection. CNA #4 stated being aware that R1 had a private companion/caregiver, but the private sitters were not supposed to provide direct care or transfers. CNA #4 stated that in the last month, he always had two people when transferring R1. On 4/22/24 at 3:43 p.m., CNA #5 that routinely cared for R1 was interviewed. CNA #5 stated she always used two people when transferring R1 because the resident had been weak in the last several weeks due to an infection. CNA #5 stated there had been times when she entered R1's room and the private caregiver had already assisted the resident into the wheelchair. CNA #5 stated she was not working on 4/20/24 when the resident fell. CNA #5 stated that the private companions/caregivers usually rang the call bell or verbally requested assistance when R1 needed care. On 4/23/24 at 11:35 a.m., CNA #3 that routinely cared for R1 was interviewed. CNA #3 stated only staff members were supposed to perform resident transfers. CNA #3 stated that she always used a two-person transfer with R1. CNA #3 stated R1's care guide required 1 to 2 staff persons or a lift for transfers. CNA #3 stated that the private companions/sitters were not supposed to transfer residents. On 4/23/24 at 11:56 a.m., the nurse manager (LPN #2) was interviewed about R1's fall/injury. LPN #2 stated R1 had sitters during the day. LPN #2 stated facility staff were supposed to perform all transfers with residents. LPN #2 stated that private caregivers had been instructed to use the call bell or come get staff for needed assistance with transfers. LPN #2 stated on 4/20/24, the private companion/caregiver did not request or call for assistance prior to the attempted transfer. LPN #2 stated no staff members were present at the time of the fall to make decisions and provide required assistance for a safe transfer. LPN #2 stated the CNAs knew and had previously provided the needed assistance for safe transfers for R1. LPN #2 stated the CNAs reported the resident's need for assistance increased after a urinary tract infection several weeks ago. LPN #2 stated R1 was referred to therapy in response to the decline. LPN #2 stated the private companions/sitters were supposed to be educated prior to working and should know to get staff for resident needs. On 4/23/24 at 1:51 p.m., the physical therapist (PT - other staff #2) that evaluated R1 was interviewed. The PT stated staff had reported a decline and R1 was recommended on 4/12/24 for transfers with the use of a mechanical Hoyer lift as needed. The PT stated she told the weekday private companion that she should not transfer or walk the resident by herself. The PT stated the fall/fracture occurred on a weekend (4/20/24) and was not sure if the transfer recommendations were communicated to the private caregiver that worked weekends. On 4/23/24 at 2:05 p.m., the director of nursing (DON) was interviewed about R1's fall/fracture. The DON stated private companions/caregivers were not allowed to provide direct ADL care or transfers for residents in the facility. The DON stated private caregivers were required to ring the call bell or verbally request assistance from the nurse or CNA assigned to the resident. The DON stated R1 had a recent decline due to a urinary tract infection, was evaluated by therapy and had the option for a mechanical lift transfer if needed. The DON stated nursing was providing 2-person assistance during transfers with R1 since the decline/infection to ensure safety. The private caregiver with R1 at the time of the fall on 4/20/24 was named by the DON and identified as other staff #3. The DON stated other staff #3 usually worked the weekends. The DON stated families were instructed upon admission that sitters were just companions and were not allowed to perform resident care. The DON stated the private caregivers and CNAs were instructed that companions/sitters were not to provide direct care including transfers. The DON stated on 4/20/24, R1's private caregiver (other staff #3) came in the hall and stated R1 was in the floor. The DON stated other staff #3 said the resident slid from the bed while attempting to transfer R1 from the bed to wheelchair and that other staff #3 had not asked for staff assistance. The DON stated the private caregiver (other staff #3) said that she knew she was supposed to call staff but did not because she thought she could do it. The DON stated it was the facility's policy/protocol for private sitters/caregivers to be only companions and were not to transfer residents. On 4/23/24 at 2:49 p.m., the private companion/caregiver (other staff #3) with R1 at the time of the fall was interviewed. The private companion stated that nurses or CNAs were supposed to transfer residents. The private companion stated on 4/20/24, R1 was sitting on the side of the bed getting ready to get up in the wheelchair. The private companion stated R1 started sliding and I couldn't stop her, so I let her go down. The private companion stated she went in the hall and got the nurse and CNA to come assess the resident. The private companion stated she had not asked or called for assistance from staff prior to getting the resident up on the bedside. The private companion stated she was sure the staff would have responded if she had requested their assistance. The private companion stated she was aware that only facility staff were supposed to provide direct care and transfers for residents. When asked if she had transferred the resident before without staff, the private caregiver stated she had transferred R1 to the wheelchair and taken R1 to the bathroom by herself, but this was prior to the resident's recent urinary tract infection. On 4/24/24 at 8:49 a.m., CNA #6 working on R1's unit on the morning of 4/20/24 was interviewed. CNA #6 stated the R1's weekday sitter always called for help with the resident. CNA #6 stated she did not work with the other sitter (other staff #3) very often because other staff #3 usually worked on the weekends. CNA #6 stated on 4/20/24, the private companion (other staff #3) did not ring the call bell or ask for assistance until after R1 was in the floor. On 4/24/24 at 8:57 a.m., CNA #7 working on R1's unit on the morning of 4/20/24 was interviewed. CNA #7 stated she was helping another resident when R1's private companion (other staff #3) came down the hall and said the resident was in the floor. CNA #7 stated she went to R1's room and saw the resident in the floor, parallel to the bed with her back against the nightstand. CNA #7 stated when she asked what happened, the private companion stated she did not know. CNA #7 stated the private companion did not call or ask for assistance until after R1 was in the floor. CNA #7 stated the private sitter that worked during the weekdays always called staff for transfers and ADL tasks. CNA #7 stated there had been times when the weekend sitter (other staff #3) had transferred R1 without staff assistance because R1 would be up in the wheelchair when she entered the room. CNA #7 stated she did not know why the private companion did not ask for help on the morning of 4/20/24 because she, LPN #1 and CNA #6 were on the unit. The facility's policy titled Guidelines for Companions (revised 5/30/2014) documented, It is our policy, as well as our responsibility, to meet the needs of resident while they are at [the nursing facility]. However, there may be times when residents and/or their families wish to employ companions .The role of the private duty companion is to provide fellowship and social support through activities which might include .Taking residents (in a wheelchair) to programs .Joining residents in recreational activities .Taking the resident to meals at mealtime if needed, and to assist with menu selection .enhancing grooming, manicures, hairstyling, choosing clothing, donning a sweater .Light housekeeping . This policy documented under companion guidelines, .Nursing care will be provided by [nursing facility] staff; a companion in [the nursing facility] may, with proper state approved training and physical ability, assist in the presence of staff .[In the nursing facility] a resident is not lifted or transferred without the assistance of a staff member and only if the companion has proper state approved training and is physically capable .The nursing staff is responsible for all nursing care . This policy documented all companions were required to complete an orientation that included key information such as emergency protocols, safety, infection control, resident rights and that the orientation requirements must be completed prior to the day the companion starts. The policy documented that a list of approved companions meeting the requirements was maintained and available upon request. On 4/24/24 at 8:30 a.m., the administrator and DON were interviewed about R1's private companion/caregiver (other staff #3) and any prior training/orientation regarding the private caregiver role/duties. The administrator stated R1's private companion (other staff #3) had worked with R1 in independent living, prior to her admission to skilled, but had served as companion to R1 mostly on weekends since admission to the long-term care facility. The administrator stated R1's private caregiver (other staff #3) was not included on the facility's list of approved companions. The DON stated that she found no documented training and/or orientation for R1's companion (other staff #3). The DON stated that the companion (other staff #3) had said that she completed paperwork before she started working as a sitter, but the DON stated, We don't have it. The DON stated that the companion (other staff #3) was not a CNA and had no record of any state approved training for resident care. The administrator stated the training and orientation requirements regarding the private companion's role/duties should have been completed prior to her working in the nursing home facility. On 4/24/24 at 9:30 a.m., the human resources assistant (HR - other staff #4) was interviewed about private companion/caregiver (other staff #3). The HR assistant stated that companion candidates required an orientation/training process prior to working with any residents in the long-term care facility. The HR assistant stated he did not know what happened regarding training/orientation for other staff #3. The HR assistant stated he researched back several years and found none of the required training, orientation, or annual in-services for R1's companion (other staff #3) and that other staff #3 was not on the facility's list of approved companions. These findings were reviewed with the administrator, DON and nurse manager during meetings on 4/23/24 at 4:10 p.m. and on 4/24/24 at 11:00 a.m. with no further information presented prior to the end of the survey.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0558 (Tag F0558)

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 en...

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 ensure that residents receive adequate assistance devices to prevent accidents for one resident (Resident #103- R103), in a survey sample of 18 residents. The findings included, For R103, who had two recent incidents, the facility staff failed to ensure the resident had a call bell in reach when sitting in the recliner in her room, to prevent further incidents/accidents. On 6/24/24, the facility administrator provided the survey team with a listing of residents who had recently had incidents. R103 was identified on the list to have had 2 incidents of falls on 6/20/24. On 6/25/24, a clinical record review was conducted of R103's chart. According to the nursing note dated 6/20/24 at 17:30, it read in part, Incident time: 16:30, Incident Type: Falls, Reason for Incident: CNA [certified nursing assistant] called this nurse to RR [resident room]. Rsd's [resident's] recliner back/head had tilted up in the air and the footrest was tiled toward the floor while Rsd was still in the recliner. Rsd stated she was sliding down out of the recliner toward the floor. Rsd did not hit her head. Staff actions at the time of incident; Assessment- Rsd said she was not hurt. Rsd was assisted to w/c [wheelchair] and hand grasps and ROM [range of motion] remained at baseline. VS [vital signs] 107/63 [blood pressure] 97.2 [temperature] 86 [heart rate] O2 96% RA [room air]. No observable injuries noted. Neurochecks started. RP [responsible party] notified, and MD [medical doctor] made aware via provider book notation. According to the nursing note entry dated 6/21/24 at 10:29 a.m., it read, Incident date: 6/20/24, Incident Time: 13:00 [1 p.m.]. Incident Type: Falls Reason for Incident: CNA came out of staff bathroom and stated to this nurse that the other CNA needed her in RR. This nurse followed CNA to RR, Rsd was in recliner buttocks on recliner chair, footrest elevated w/ [with] feet on footrests and CNA was standing in front of the Rsd's feet w/ CNA's legs touching Rsd's feet and CNA's left arm was on the recliner's right arm rest. CNA stated Rsd did not fall. Rsd was not hurt. Rsd was slouched in recliner. Rsd's top of back was touching recliner back. Staff actions at the time of incident: Assessment- No c/o [complaints of] pain or discomfort. No observable injuries. ROM at baseline. Management aware of incident. On 6/25/24, a review of R103's care plan was conducted. The care plan had an entry entered on 6/20/24, following the above noted incidents. The care plan read, I am at risk for falls/injury related to history of falls, high risk identified by fall risk assessments, and muscle weakness. Goal: Staff will provide interventions/approaches in collaboration with MD to help diminish my risk of falls/injury through next review. The interventions, which were all dated 6/20/24, included but were not limited to: Orient me to room and call light system. Encourage me to call for assistance as needed. Keep call light within reach, keep items within reach such has cell phone and grabber, ensure my call bell is within reach while in recliner . On 6/25/24 at 4:07 p.m., RN #1 (registered nurse) was asked to accompany the surveyor to R103's room. Upon entry, R103 was observed to be asleep in the recliner chair and significantly leaning over the left arm rest of the recliner. RN #1 performed a sternal rub to arouse the resident. RN #1 also confirmed that R103 didn't have a personal/pendant electronic transmitter (PET) necklace device [cordless alert system used to alert staff if the resident needed assistance]. When asked about the corded call bell and if R103 could reach it to call for assistance if needed, RN #1 said, not over there, it's clipped to the bed on the other side of room. RN #1 confirmed that R103 should have her call bell in reach to prevent accidents. Review of the facility policy titled, Fall Prevention Policy, was conducted. This policy read in part, . [facility name redacted] is committed to providing a safe environment for all residents by minimizing the risk of falls through a comprehensive falls prevention program. This program includes initial and ongoing assessments, individualized care plans, staff training, environmental modifications, and continuous monitoring and evaluation . 2.1 Development of Care Plan: develop a personalized fall prevention care plan based on the risk assessment findings. Include specific interventions such as: physical therapy and strength training exercises, medication review and adjustment, environmental modifications (e.g., adequate lighting, removal of trip hazards), use of assistive devices (e.g., walkers, canes), proper footwear recommendations . 2.3 Implementation and Monitoring: ensure all staff members are aware of and implement individualized care plans. Monitor the effectiveness of interventions and adjust the care plan as needed .4.2 Resident Rooms . ensure personal items and call buttons are within easy reach . On 6/25/24, during the end of day meeting, the facility administrator and director of nursing were made aware of the above findings. On 6/26/24 at 10:18 a.m., the facility administrator provided a document that read in part, Correction: a. Immediate action: the staff member responsible for the resident's care was immediately instructed to ensure the call bell/ pendant is within the resident's reach while she is sitting in the recliner. b. Immediate action: residents care plan was updated. 1. Ensure my call bell/PET is within reach while in the recliner. ii. Responsible party- added nurse. c. immediate action: an immediate audit of all residents' call bell/pendant accessibility to ensure that no other residents were similarly affected. d. Immediate action: therapy evaluation was requested for positioning. e. Staff reminder: All nursing staff will be reminded to check that residents' call bells/pendants are within reach as part of their routine checks, especially when residents are repositioned or moved The document went on to indicate other potential issues, system changes, monitoring and had a completion date of 7/3/24. No additional information was provided.
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 staff interview, facility document review and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to follow abuse prevent...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interview, facility document review and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to follow abuse prevention policies for completion of a criminal background check for a privately hired companion for one of sixteen residents in the survey sample (Resident #1). The findings include: A private companion/sitter working in the facility with Resident #1, had no prior criminal background check as required by the facility's abuse prevention policies. Resident #1 (R1) was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included dementia, hypertension, osteoporosis, urinary tract infection, osteoarthritis, conjunctivitis, gastroesophageal reflux disease, and depression. The minimum data set (MDS) dated [DATE] assessed R1 with severely impaired cognitive skills and required the extensive assistance of two people for bed mobility and transfers. R1's clinical record documented the resident fell on 4/24/24 when a privately hired companion (other staff #3) attempted to transfer the resident from bed to a wheelchair without requesting or obtaining staff assistance. The resident was diagnosed with a right femur fracture as a result of the fall. The facility's policy titled Guidelines for Companions (revised 5/30/2014) documented all companions must have a criminal background check prior to their start date. The criminal background check for R1's private companion (other staff #3) was requested. On 4/24/23 at 8:30 a.m., the administrator and director of nursing (DON) were interviewed about other staff #3's criminal background check. The administrator stated they had no criminal background check for other staff #3. The administrator stated the criminal background checks were required for all individuals prior to engagement of care/services with residents in the facility. The DON stated other staff #3 was not licensed but there should have been a criminal background check completed prior to her sitting/working with R1. On 4/24/24 at 9:30 a.m., the human resources assistant (HR - other staff #4) was interviewed about any screening or background checks for R1's private companion (other staff #3). The HR assistant stated he researched back several years and found no criminal background check for other staff #3. The HR assistant stated he did not know why other staff #3 was not screened by human resources prior to working in the facility. The facility's policy titled Abuse and Neglect (revised 12/2023) documented, [The nursing facility] strives to ensure protection of each resident's right to freedom from verbal, sexual, physical, and mental abuse, corporal punishment, and involuntary seclusion; as well as to ensure protection from neglect, chemical and physical restraints, exploitation, or misappropriation of personal property by anyone, including staff, other residents, visitors, volunteers, students, consultant, contractors, or family members .[the nursing facility] will not engage volunteers, contractors or other individuals who have not been screened through Human Resources .Potential volunteers, contractors, vendors, companions, or other individuals will be screened for a history of abuse or other barrier crimes prior to engagement of service .by the Human Resources Director/designee . This finding was reviewed with the administrator, DON and nurse manager during a meeting on 4/24/24 at 11:00 a.m. with no further information provided prior to the end of the survey.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, resident interview, staff interview, clinical record review and facility documentation review, the facility staff failed to review and revise the care plan for one resident (Resi...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, resident interview, staff interview, clinical record review and facility documentation review, the facility staff failed to review and revise the care plan for one resident (Resident #7- R7), in a survey sample of 16 residents. The findings included: For R7, the facility staff failed to review and revise the care plan to include to resident's inability to use a straw in beverages due to the risk of aspiration. On 4/22/24 at the lunch meal, R7 was observed in the dining room and was observed to have several episodes of coughing while eating. The meal/tray ticket for R7 was observed and it was noted that it indicated no straws. A straw was not being used. On 04/22/24 at 03:47 p.m., R7 was visited in their room. It was observed that R7 had a sign in the room that stated, please no straws. I am unable to use straws. R7 was asked about this and reported she can't use a straw because she gets choked. On 04/22/24 at 03:52 p.m., an interview was conducted with CNA #1 (certified nursing assistant). CNA #1 stated that R7 is being evaluated, they think with using a straw the liquid is coming up too fast, she had a speech therapy evaluation last week, they are going to do a swallow test. She [R7] knows when they come, and she tries to cover it up and say she isn't hungry so they can't watch her eat. On 4/23/24, a clinical record review was conducted of R7's chart, to include the care plan. The need to not have straws and the episodes of coughing during meals was not addressed on the care plan. On 4/23/24, during an end of day meeting, the facility administration was made aware of the above concern. On 4/23/24 at 2 p.m., an interview was conducted with RN #2 (registered nurse), who was the MDS (minimum data set/ an assessment) nurse. RN #2 explained that she reviews and revises the resident's care plans in accordance with the scheduled assessments on a quarterly basis, but acute changes in-between assessments are updated on the care plans by the nurses on the units. On 4/24/24, the facility policy titled, Care Plans was reviewed. The policy read in part, . The care plan should describe services to be furnished to attain or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being ., 8. The care plan is a living, breathing document and should be revised as often as changes and approaches are reflected in the resident's well-being . No further information was provided.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0658 (Tag F0658)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, staff interview, facility document review and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to follow professional standards of care for one of sixteen residents in the surve...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, staff interview, facility document review and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to follow professional standards of care for one of sixteen residents in the survey sample (Resident #29). The findings include: During a medication pass observation, a medication was not administered and was left in Resident #29's room. The nurse signed off the clinical record indicating administration of the medicine without witnessing that the resident took the medicine. Resident #29 had no assessed ability to safely self-administer the medication. On 4/23/24 at 8:00 a.m., licensed practical nurse (LPN #1) was observed preparing and administering medications to Resident #29 (R29). Medications prepared for R29 included Peroxyl 1.5% oral rinse, 10 milliliters (mls) in a plastic medicine cup. After oral medications were administered, LPN #1 placed the cup of Peroxyl oral rinse on the resident's sink and advised R29 that the rinse was at the sink for use after breakfast and brushing teeth. LPN #1 signed off R29's medication administration record indicating the Peroxyl oral rinse was administered. On 4/23/24 at 8:50 a.m., R29 was observed in the dining area. The cup (10 mls) of Peroxyl oral rinse was still located in the resident's room on the sink counter. R29's clinical record documented a physician's order dated 1/8/24 for Peroxyl 1.5% mucosal solution with instructions to administer twice per day (rinse for 1 minute then spit out) for treatment of ulcerated oral mucosa. R29's clinical record included no physician's order or plan of care indicating the resident was safe to self-administer this medication. On 4/23/24 at 11:30 a.m., LPN #1 was interviewed about the Peroxyl rinse left in R29's room. LPN #1 stated R29 liked to use the rinse after eating and brushing his teeth. LPN #1 stated she would not have left the mouth rinse in the room if the resident was cognitively impaired. LPN #1 stated she was not aware if the resident had a self-administration assessment. On 4/23/24 at 11:50 a.m., the nurse manager (LPN #2) was interviewed about the medication left in R29's bathroom. LPN #2 stated nurses should not leave medicines in resident rooms and should witness residents taking their medications prior to documenting the medicines as given. LPN #2 stated R29 was not assessed to self-administer the Peroxyl oral rinse and LPN #1 should have taken the rinse to the resident after breakfast and watched him use the rinse. The facility's policy titled Medication Administration & Transcription of Physicians Orders (revised 11/23) documented, .Stay with the resident until they have swallowed the medications, unless the resident has been assessed to self-administer . This finding was reviewed with the administrator, director of nursing and nurse manager during a meeting on 4/23/24 at 4:10 p.m. with no further information presented prior to the end of the survey.
CONCERN (D)

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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, resident interview, staff interview, clinical record review and facility documentation review, the facility staff failed to provide ADL (activities of daily living) assistance fo...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, resident interview, staff interview, clinical record review and facility documentation review, the facility staff failed to provide ADL (activities of daily living) assistance for a resident who was dependent on facility staff, affecting one Resident (Resident #7) in a survey sample of 16 Residents. The findings included: For Resident #7 (R7), the facility staff failed to provide assistance with oral care/brushing of teeth. On 4/22/24 at 11:59 a.m., R7 was interviewed in their room. R7 was sitting in a wheelchair at the bedside. It was observed that R7's teeth had a film on them and did not appear clean. R7 was questioned about oral care and R7 reported they had not brushed her teeth. On 4/22/24 at approximately 3:45 p.m., R7 was visited in her room again and it was noted that the teeth still had a visible film on them and R7 reported her teeth had not been brushed. On 4/22/24 at 3:54 p.m., an interview was conducted with CNA #1 (certified nursing assistant). CNA #X reported that oral care is provided daily. When asked about R7, CNA #1 reported that she had not brushed R7's teeth that morning and gave no reason as to why it had not been performed. On the afternoon of 4/23/24, interviews were conducted with CNA #2 and CNA #3. Both confirmed oral care is to be performed daily when the resident is gotten up for the day. Both also confirmed R7 requires staff to provide oral care and were unaware of a situation when R7 would refuse such care. On 4/23/24, a clinical record review was conducted of R7's chart, to include the comprehensive care plan. It was noted on the care plan that R7 required total assistance of 2 staff for personal hygiene. Review of the facility policy titled, Mouth care/oral hygiene/denture care was conducted. The policy read in part, A.) A.M. Care . 4. Position resident in chair in bathroom at sink or in chair in room. Set resident up with toothbrush, toothpaste, and basin to complete their mouth care. 5. If in bed, place in high fowlers position with towel under chin. Proceed to cleanse mouth with toothbrush, toothpaste, or special applicator, if necessary, follow up with mouth wash . C.) P.M. Care: 1. Position resident in chair in bathroom at sink or in chair in room. Set resident up with toothbrush, toothpaste, and basin to complete their mouth care. 2. Cleanse mouth with toothbrush, toothpaste, or special applicator if necessary . On 4/23/24, during an end of day meeting held at 4:30 p.m., the facility administrator and director of nursing were made aware of the above findings. On 4/24/24 at 8:10 a.m., the facility administrator reported to the survey team that R7's teeth had been brushed. No further information was provided.
CONCERN (D)

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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, staff interview, and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to provide respiratory care, consistent with professional standards of practice, for one resident (Resident...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, staff interview, and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to provide respiratory care, consistent with professional standards of practice, for one resident (Resident #187- R187) in a survey sample of 16 residents. The findings included: For R187, the facility staff failed to store the oxygen nasal cannula to prevent contamination and failed to change the tubing and humidification bottle weekly as per physician order and facility protocol. On 04/22/24 at 11:41 AM, R187 was visited in their room. R187 was lying in bed and an oxygen (O2) concentrator was observed at the bedside, not on/running. The O2 humidification bottle was dated 4/9/24, and the nasal cannula was sitting on top of the concentrator, open to air and dated 4/9/24. R187 reported they no longer use oxygen. On 04/22/24 at 03:27 PM, a clinical record review was conducted. It was noted that R187 had a physician order for 3 liters of oxygen per nasal cannula as needed to maintain oxygen saturation levels >90%. There was another order that read, change 02 tubing every Tuesday on night shift and another order read, change 02 humidifier every Tuesday on night shift. According to the electronic treatment administration record (ETAR), the order to change the O2 tubing and humidifier were both signed off as being changed on 4/16/24. On 04/22/24 at 04:01 PM, an additional observation was made and R187's O2 tubing and nasal cannula remained open to air, sitting on top of the oxygen concentrator. The tubing was dated 4/9/24 and the humidifier bottle was dated 4/9. On 04/22/24 at 04:06 PM, an interview was conducted with RN #1. RN #1 said, tubing is changed on Tues by the night shift, the water is changed as needed and it is labeled with the date, we open them. When asked how the oxygen mask and/or nasal cannula is to be stored if not in use, RN #1 said, we put it in a baggie with the room number and date, the bag is changed on Tues as well. When asked why it is important to store it in a bag when not in use, RN #1 said, to prevent contamination. RN #1 then accompanied the surveyor to R187's room and confirmed that the oxygen tubing and humidification bottle was dated 4/9/24. When asked why the clinical record ETAR would be signed off for it being changed on 4/16/24, RN #1 said that was not accurate and said, it definitely wasn't changed. I will get all of the supplies now. Review of the facility policy titled, Oxygen, Tubing, Cannula, Mask and Humidifier Care was conducted. The policy read in part, III. Procedure: A. To be completed weekly according to the eTAR . 2. Remove cannula or mask from resident. Also remove the used humidifier bottle if applicable. 4. [sic] Place used equipment in trash bag. 5. Open humidifier bottle and fill to designated level with distilled water. The bottle will be marked with staff's initials and date 7. Remove tubing and cannula or mask from sealed bag. 8. Attach new tubing to humidifier bottle ensuring that it has been labeled with staff's initials and date . C. Documentation: 1. When transcribing order of oxygen usage onto eTAR, also provide a block to record replacement of oxygen humidifier bottle. 2. Record initials on appropriate section of eTAR. On 4/23/24 at 4:30 p.m., during an end of day meeting, the facility administrator and director of nursing were notified of the above findings. No additional information was provided.
CONCERN (D)

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

Drug Regimen Review (Tag F0756)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interview, facility document review and clinical record review the facility staff failed to respond to pharmacy recommendations for 2 of 16 residents in the survey sample. (Resident # 22 and Resident # 10). The findings included: 1. The facility staff failed to respond to a pharmacist recommendation to attempt a gradual dose reduction of buspirone for Resident # 22 (R22). R22 had diagnoses that included Alzheimer's Disease, Parkinson's Disease, depression, unspecified dementia, mood disorder, and anxiety disorder. The most current minimum data set (MDS), a quarterly assessment dated [DATE] assessed R22 with severe cognitive impairment. Review of R22 clinical record documented a physician's order dated 12/27/23 for buspirone 5 mg, give 5 mg by mouth three a day as needed for generalized anxiety disorder. On 1/8/24 the physician changed the order to read, give buspirone 5 mg, give 5 mgby mouth 2 times a day for anxiety disorder. On 1/02/24 the consulting pharmacist recommended a gradual dose reduction (GDR) of buspirone. The pharmacist wrote within the first year in which a resident is admitted on a psychotropic medication or after the prescribing practitioner has initiated a psychotropic medication, the facility must attempt a GDR in two separate quarters (with at least one month between the attempts), unless clinically contraindicated. If appropriate, please consider a GDR at this time. If not, please document rationale for contraindication. No physician response was documented for this recommendation. On 4/23/24 at 3:15 PM, licensed practical nurse #2 (LPN #2), who was the unit manager was interviewed. LPN #2 provided a physician progress note dated 3/5/24 that does not address the pharmacist's recommendation for a GDR of buspirone. LPN #2 had no response as to why the GDR was not addressed. On 4/24/24 at 10:55 AM, the findings were reviewed with the facility administrator, CEO and CFO with no additional information provided. 2. The facility staff failed to respond to a pharmacist recommendation to attempt a gradual dose reduction of Diphenhydramine (used for insomnia) for Resident #10 (R10). The findings included: R10 Diagnoses for R10 included; Insomnia. The most current MDS (minimum data set) was an annual assessment with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 3/6/24. R10 was assessed with a cognitive score of 15 indicating cognitively intact. Review of R10's pharmacy medication record review (MRR) dated 1/2/24 documented: This resident is receiving Diphenhydramine for control of insomnia. This antihistamine is rarely considered the agent of choice due to its strong anticholinergic properties. Patient is also on melatonin and zolpidem and may be a duplication of therapy. Another medication review performed by the pharmacy dated 2/7/24 recommended a gradual dose reduction (GDR) for Dipehnhydramine and melatonin (both medications were being prescribed for insomnia). R10's electronic record did not indicate a response from R10's physician. Review of R10's current medications indicated R10 was ordered, Diphenhydramine 75 MG (milligrams), Melatonin 10 MG, and Zolpidem 5 MG every day for insomnia and were ordered on 3/12/23. On 4/23/24 at 1:32 PM license practical nurse (LPN #2, nurse manager) said that R10 has a recommendation for GDR for psychotropic medications. Pharmacy sends the GDR's through email to facility and facility prints the GDR to have physician review. LPN #2 said that the physician has not responded to the GDR and not sure why. On 4/23/24 at 1:37 PM the director of nursing (DON) was interviewed. The DON verbalized reaching out to previous DON regarding pharmacy medication reviews and said that the previous DON had put the medication reviews in binder, but the binder was unable to be located. On 4/23/24 at 4:11 PM, the above information was presented to the DON and administrator. On 4/24/24 the administrator presented the MEDICAL DIRECTION SERVICE AGREEMENT that read in part 3.4.11 Review consultant recommendation that affect Facility's resident care policies and procedures or the care of an individual resident; [ .] No other information was provided prior to exit conference on 4/24/24.
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 staff interview, facility document review, and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to ensure 1 of 16 residents in the survey sample were free of unnecessary medications. The fi...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on staff interview, facility document review, and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to ensure 1 of 16 residents in the survey sample were free of unnecessary medications. The findings included: The facility staff failed to attempt a pharmacy recommended gradual dose reduction of Diphenhydramine for Resident #10 (R10). The findings included: R10 Diagnoses for R10 included Insomnia. The most current MDS (minimum data set) was an annual assessment with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 3/6/24. R10 was assessed with a cognitive score of 15 out of 15, indicating cognitively intact. Review of R10's pharmacy medication record review (MRR), dated 1/2/24, documented: This resident is receiving Diphenhydramine for control of insomnia. This antihistamine is rarely considered the agent of choice due to its strong anticholinergic properties. Patient is also on melatonin and zolpidem and may be a duplication of therapy. Another MRR, performed by the pharmacy and dated 2/7/24, recommended a gradual dose reduction (GDR) for Dipehnhydramine and melatonin (both medications were being prescribed for insomnia). R10's electronic record did not indicate a response from R10's physician. Review of R10's current medications indicated R10 was ordered, Diphenhydramine 75 MG (milligrams), Melatonin 10 MG, and Zolpidem 5 MG every day for insomnia and were ordered on 3/12/23. On 4/23/24 at 1:32 PM, license practical nurse (LPN #2, nurse manager) stated that R10 has a recommendation for GDR for psychotropic medications. LPN #2 stated that the Pharmacy sends the GDRs through email to facility and facility prints the GDR to have physician review. LPN #2 said that the physician has not responded to the GDR and not sure why. On 4/23/24 at 1:37 PM, the director of nursing (DON) was interviewed. The DON verbalized reaching out to the previous DON regarding pharmacy medication reviews and said that the previous DON had put the medication reviews in a binder, but the binder was unable to be located. On 4/23/24 at 4:11 PM, the above information was presented to the DON and administrator. On 4/24/24, the administrator presented the MEDICAL DIRECTION SERVICE AGREEMENT that read in part 3.4.11 Review consultant recommendation that affect Facility's resident care policies and procedures or the care of an individual resident; [ .] No other information was provided prior to exit conference on 4/24/24.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, staff interview and facility documentation review, the facility staff failed to store medications appropriately in 1 of 2 medication storage rooms and on 1 of 2 medication carts....

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, staff interview and facility documentation review, the facility staff failed to store medications appropriately in 1 of 2 medication storage rooms and on 1 of 2 medication carts. Findings were: The facility failed to ensure that expired medications were not available for use and failed to monitor the temperature of the refrigerator where medications were stored to ensure they were maintained at an appropriate temperature. On 04/22/24 at 12:04 PM, a review was conducted of the medication storage room on the 500 unit in the presence of RN #1 (registered nurse). A bottle of Tylenol Extra Strength 500 mg tablets was noted to have an expiration date of 03/2024. RN #1 confirmed the observation and stated that the night shift is to check the room daily and remove expired items. During the above observation, the refrigerator in the 500-unit medication storage room was noted to have not had any record of temperature being checked since 4/20/24. Therefore the staff were unaware if the medications within the fridge were being maintained at an appropriate temperature. RN#1 again confirmed the observations and provided the surveyor with a copy of the log of refrigerator temperatures. RN #1 was asked about the risk of having medications that are expired and not checking the temperature of the refrigerator where medications are stored. RN #1 stated, If they are expired or not stored at the right temperature it could decrease the effectiveness of the medication or create an adverse reaction to the resident. On 4/22/24 at approximately 3:30 p.m., an inspection of the medication cart on the 400 unit was conducted with LPN #1 and LPN #2. It was noted that a bottle of stool softener/docusate sodium 100 mg, bottle with a quantity of 30 was present and unopened which had an expiration date of 03/24. The medication was available for use/administration. LPN #1 (Licensed practical nurse) and LPN #2 confirmed the observation. LPN #2 was asked what the risk of expired medications being available for administration and LPN #2 said, it may not be as effective. The facility policy for medication storage was received and reviewed. The policy did not address the storage of medications with regards to temperature control or expiration dates. On 2/23/24 at 4:30 p.m., during an end of day meeting, the Administrator and Director of Nursing were made aware of the above findings. No additional information was provided.
CONCERN (D)

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

Medical Records (Tag F0842)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, staff interview, and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to maintain an accurate clinical record for one resident (Resident #187- R187) in a survey sample of 16 res...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, staff interview, and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to maintain an accurate clinical record for one resident (Resident #187- R187) in a survey sample of 16 residents. The findings included: For R187, the facility staff failed to maintain accurate documentation with regards to when the oxygen tubing and humidification bottle was changed. On 04/22/24 at 11:41 AM, R187 was visited in their room. R187 was lying in bed and an oxygen (O2) concentrator was observed at the bedside, not on/running. The O2 humidification bottle was dated 4/9/24, and the nasal cannula was sitting on top of the concentrator, open to air and dated 4/9/24. R187 reported she doesn't use oxygen. On 04/22/24 at 03:27 PM, a clinical record review was conducted. It was noted that R187 had a physician order for 3 liters of oxygen per nasal cannula as needed to maintain oxygen saturation levels >90%. There was another order that read, change 02 tubing every Tuesday on night shift and one that read, change O2 humidifier every Tuesday on night shift. According to the electronic treatment administration record (ETAR), the order to change the O2 tubing and humidifier were signed off as being changed 4/16/24. On 04/22/24 at 04:01 PM, an additional observation was made and R187's O2 tubing and nasal cannula remained open to air, sitting on top of the oxygen concentrator. The tubing was dated 4/9/24 and the humidifier bottle was dated 4/9. On 04/22/24 at 04:06 PM, an interview was conducted with RN #1. RN #1 then accompanied the surveyor to R187's room and confirmed that the oxygen tubing and humidification bottle was dated 4/9/24. When asked why the clinical record ETAR would be signed off for it being changed on 4/16/24, RN #1 said that was not accurate and said, it definitely wasn't changed, I will get all of the supplies now. Review of the facility policy titled, Oxygen, Tubing, Cannula, Mask and Humidifier Care was conducted. The policy read in part, . C. Documentation: 1. When transcribing order of oxygen usage onto eTAR, also provide a block to record replacement of oxygen humidifier bottle. 2. Record initials on appropriate section of eTAR. On 4/23/24 at 4:30 p.m., during an end of day meeting, the facility administrator and director of nursing were notified of the above findings. No additional information was provided.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0887 (Tag F0887)

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 facility documentation review, the facility staff failed to provide educati...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interview, clinical record review and facility documentation review, the facility staff failed to provide education and offer the COVID-19 immunization, to 1 of 5 residents (Resident #34- R34) and failed to offer the spike vaccine booster for the 2023-2024 season for 5 of 5 staff sampled (LPN #1, LPN #4, Other Staff #12, CNA #3, and Admin Staff #1). The findings included: 1. For R34, the facility staff failed to provide education and offer the COVID-19 vaccine. On 4/22/24, in the afternoon, a clinical record review was conducted of R34's chart. It was noted that there was no information recorded with regards to R34's COVID immunization status. On 04/22/24 at 04:19 p.m., an interview was conducted with the facility's infection preventionist (IP). During the interview, the IP reviewed and confirmed the lack of documentation regarding R34's COVID immunization status, within the clinical record. The IP said, I can get them to pull those records for you, we would have to pull it from the VIIS (Virginia Immunization Information system) system. When asked if this information is obtained prior to a resident's admission, the IP stated that the facility administrator tracks that information. When asked about the facility's process with regards to immunizations, the IP stated, usually we, if there is a new COIVD booster, we will do a clinic through our pharmacy. With the new recommended COVID booster, we have a clinic coming up in May. We will get consent from the resident and/or their family. On 04/23/24 at 09:33 a.m., an interview was conducted with the facility administrator. The administrator stated that he tracks the resident's COVID immunization status so that he can report to the NHSN (National Healthcare Safety Network). The administrator accessed his records and noted that he had R34 listed as partially vaccinated. On 4/23/24 at approximately 10 a.m., the facility administrator reported to the survey team that R34 was not immunized for COVID-19 and there was no credible evidence that the immunization had been discussed with the resident and/or offered. On 04/23/24 at 02:24 p.m., the surveyor called and spoke with a registered pharmacist at the facility's contracted pharmacy. The pharmacist confirmed they currently had in-stock the COVID spike vaccine for 2023-2024 season and could ship it to the facility. On 4/24/24 at 10:17 a.m., the surveyor spoke with a pharmacist at the facility's contracted pharmacy. The pharmacist stated that they can get the COVID vaccine anytime and have it to the facility that afternoon or the next day following the receipt of an order. The pharmacist stated that they do not have to wait for and/or schedule an immunization clinic to receive the vaccines. On 4/24/24 at approximately 10:20 a.m., the facility administrator confirmed that R34 had not been offered COVID immunizations. The facility policy titled; Immunization of Residents was reviewed. The policy read in part, . The facility determines the immunization status of residents upon admission and encourages them to receive the vaccinations as recommended by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) for adults . The policy listed immunizations to include influenza, tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis (Tdap), and pneumococcal vaccines, but did not list or reference COVID immunizations. The FDA (Food and Drug Administration) gives information about the 2023-2024 spike vaccine on their website, accessed at:https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/coronavirus-covid-19-cber-regulated-biologics/novavax-covid-19-vaccine-adjuvanted. The guidance read, On October 3, 2023, the Food and Drug Administration amended the emergency use authorization (EUA) of Novavax COVID-19 Vaccine, Adjuvanted to include the 2023-2024 formula. The Novavax COVID-19 Vaccine, Adjuvanted, a monovalent vaccine, has been updated to include the spike protein from the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant lineage XBB.1.5 (2023-2024 formula). The Novavax COVID-19 Vaccine, Adjuvanted (Original monovalent) is no longer authorized for use in the United States. Novavax COVID-19 Vaccine, Adjuvanted (2023-2024 Formula) is authorized for use in individuals [AGE] years of age and older as follows: Individuals previously vaccinated with any COVID-19 vaccine: one dose of Novavax COVID-19 Vaccine, Adjuvanted (2023-2024 Formula) is administered at least 2 months after receipt of the last previous dose of an original monovalent (Original) or bivalent (Original and Omicron BA.4/BA.5) COVID-19 vaccine. Individuals not previously vaccinated with any COVID-19 vaccine: two doses of Novavax COVID-19 Vaccine, Adjuvanted (2023-2024 Formula) are administered three weeks apart . On 4/24/24 at approximately 10:30 a.m., the facility administrator was made aware of the above findings. No additional information was received. 2. For 5 of 5 staff sampled, the facility staff failed to provide credible evidence that education and information regarding the 2023-2024 COVID spike vaccine had been provided to the employees. On 4/23/24, a sample of 5 employees was selected for review of COVID immunizations. These employees are identified as LPN #1, LPN #4, Other Staff #12, CNA #3, and Admin #1. On 4/23/24 at 8:42 a.m., LPN #3, a nursing supervisor, assisted the surveyor with reviewing the sampled employee's health records for COVID immunization information. It was determined that the information available indicated that none of the 5 employees had received the COVID spike vaccine booster for the 2023-2024 season. On 4/23/24 at 8:55 a.m., the surveyor then went to the administrator to review the employee's vaccine information, which he had on file. The administrator had a spreadsheet that listed 3 of the 5 employees' immunization information with regards to COVID-19. LPN #4 and CNA #3 were documented as up-to-date. Other Staff #12 was documented as not fully documented. No immunization information was found for LPN #1 or Admin Staff #1. According to the spreadsheet, none of the employees had received the spike vaccine booster for the 2023-2024 season. When questioned about this, the administrator stated that the facility had held an immunization clinic in October 2023. The administrator was asked to provide any evidence of what was communicated to the facility staff regarding the spike vaccine booster. On 4/23/24 at 10:14 a.m., the facility administrator provided a copy of an email that went to 9 employees and the leadership team, which indicated that those 9 employees' had an interest in receiving the COVID vaccine and had been notified of the upcoming clinic. There was no evidence that indicated that those identified employees had attended the 10/23/23 clinic or had received the COVID vaccination. The administrator also provided a sample of a COVID vaccine consent form completed in January 2021, but stated they had not received such consents from staff for the 2023-2024 spike vaccine. The administrator went on to state that they were only able to obtain and administer the vaccine when a clinic was scheduled with the pharmacy. On 4/24/24 at 10:17 a.m., the surveyor spoke with a pharmacist at the facility's contracted pharmacy. The pharmacist stated that the pharmacy can get the COVID vaccine anytime and have it to the facility that afternoon or the next day, following the receipt of an order. The pharmacist stated that the facility does not have to wait for and/or schedule an immunization clinic to receive the vaccines. The pharmacist specifically stated that the 2023-2024 spike vaccine was in-stock and readily available. The facility policy titled, COVID Vaccination Mandate Policy, with a revision date of 03/2023, was reviewed. The policy read in part, . requires all employees, students, and volunteers to receive the COVID-19 vaccine and may also be required to receive future COVID booster vaccines. All employees and volunteers are expected to be fully vaccinated unless they have been approved for a religious or medical exemption . [facility name redacted] provides education regarding the risks and benefits of the COVID vaccine through employee meetings, posting at time clocks and through one-on-one discussions . Although COVID-19 boosters are not required at this time, [facility name redacted] is required to track whether an individual covered by this policy has elected to receive a booster . On 4/24/24 at approximately 10:30 a.m., the facility administrator was made aware of the above findings. No additional information was provided.
CONCERN (E)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interview and facility document review the facility staff failed to prepare, store, and distribute f...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interview and facility document review the facility staff failed to prepare, store, and distribute food in a sanitary manner. The finding included: The dietary staff failed to label open food with an open date and the use by date, failed to dispose of out of date products, failed to ensure metal serving pans were dry before nesting, failed to clean the grill after use, failed to clean trays in the refrigerator after spills occurred, failed to hold proper food temperatures on the steam tables on the units, and failed to ensure beard guards were worn by applicable staff. On 4/22/24 at 10:59 AM, observations were made in the main kitchen during a tour with the dietary manager (other staff #5, OS#5). During the tour of the walk-in refrigerator there was an open bag of tortilla shells with no open or expiration date, 2 bags of unopened tortilla shells out of the original box with no expiration date, 6 quarts of 2% milk that were expired (4/21/24), 3 trays with tan color sour smelling liquid on them, and 6 eggs with large cracks. The walk-in freezer had chicken fingers wrapped in plastic wrap with no open or expiration date and 5 fish (sealed in bags) that were not in the manufacturer box and expiration dates could not be located. In the main kitchen there were 3 deep serving pans wet nested, 3 loaf pans wet nested, 4 mini loaf pans wet nested. One loaf pan was found to have dry debris on the inside of the pan while nested with other pans. The grill in the main kitchen had dried debris heavily caked on the grate. Staff were also observed in the kitchen with facial hair not wearing beard guards. During the tour OS#5 was made aware of the findings and agreed that all food should be dated if open or out of the original manufacturer package, expired products should have been discarded, trays should be cleaned when spills are observed, and dishes should be clean and dry before nesting. OS#5 stated the grill had not been used since Sunday and should have been cleaned. OS#5 also stated the beard guards are to be worn if facial hair is longer than 1/8 inch. On 4/22/24 at 11:48 AM, OS#8, who was a dietary aide, was observed on the 400 unit serving residents food from a steam table. When questioned about checking food temps, OS#8 stated, temps are checked downstairs, sometimes we check up here. When requested to check temps the following were the results: corn O'Brien 158 degree F cheddar mashed potatoes 167 degree F roasted chicken 136 degree F tomato and basil soup 125 degree F steamed broccoli 162 degree F creamed corn 112 degree F meatloaf and gravy (tray empty) On 4/22/24 at 12:27 PM, the refrigerator on the 400 unit was found to have 1 unopened quart of whole milk that had expired on 4/21/24. OS #9, who was a dietary aide was made aware and discarded the product. On 4 22/24 at 12:31 PM, OS#10, who was a dietary aide, was observed on the 500 unit serving residents food from a steam table. When requested to check temps the following were the results: corn O'Brien 183 degree F cheddar mashed potatoes 184 degree F mechanical soft chicken 128 degree F roasted chicken 171 degree F tomato basil soup 190 degree F steamed broccoli 192 degree F creamed corn 178 degree F meatloaf 157 degree F gravy 178 degree F OS#10 was questioned about how often food temps are checked and stated they are checked initially downstairs, 30 minutes and in 1 hour if still serving on the unit. When questioned further regarding what temperature hot food should be OS#10 stated, it should be above 165. On 4/23/24 at 1:09 PM, OS#11, who was a dietary aide, was interviewed regarding food temperatures on the steam table and stated that temperatures are checked before bring them to the units and if still serving in 30 minutes they are rechecked. If temps are below 160, we take it downstairs to reheat. On 4/23/24 at 1:43 PM, the dietary manager OS#5 was informed of the steam table food temps from both the 400 and 500 units and responded that hot food should be at 120-140, if it falls below 120 it needs to be brought back to be reheated to 165 internal temp. The food served yesterday should have been brought back to reheat. Facility policy for Hair Restraints with effective date of 5/4/2011 was reviewed. Per the policy all kitchen staff members shall wear either a hair net or a hat at all times while performing job duties. [NAME] covers shall be worn by all staff members with facial hair while performing job duties. Facility policy for Cold Food Storage effective date 4/5/2014 was reviewed. Per the policy perishable dairy items stored for use in the [NAME] and Webster Kitchens will be checked for expiration of use by and best by dates and monitored daily for expiration thereafter. Perishable dairy items already in storage in the pantry shall be inspected daily for expiration of manufacturer's dates. Perishable items that have expired must be discarded. Facility policy for Safe Food and Beverage Temps effective last reviewed 10/2023 was reviewed. Per the policy temperature readings will be recorded prior to the food leaving the main kitchen. One hour after the food has been placed on the hot line another temperature will occur to assure that temperatures are holding. The following criteria will be monitored with the correct temperatures: a) Hot foods will be 140 degrees F or higher b) cold foods will be 41 degrees F of lower c) soup will be 180 degrees F or higher. On 4/24/24 at 10:55 AM, the administrator, director of nursing, CEO, CFO, and dietary manager were made aware of the above findings. No other 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 staff interview, clinical record review and facility documentation review, the facility staff failed to maintain an antibiotic stewardship program to monitor antibiotic use for three resident...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on staff interview, clinical record review and facility documentation review, the facility staff failed to maintain an antibiotic stewardship program to monitor antibiotic use for three residents (Resident #1- R1, Resident #34- R34, and Resident #27- R27) in a survey sample of 3 residents reviewed for antibiotic use. The findings included: On 4/23/24 at 08:48 a.m., an interview was conducted with the facility's infection preventionist (IP). The IP was asked about the antibiotic stewardship program and was asked to explain the facility's process. The IP reported that she doesn't track any infections other than COVID-19. She also reported that, we do have a PIP (performance improvement plan) in place I just created for UTIs (urinary tract infections), we are going to do education with staff on using McGreer criteria to reduce our UTI's. During the above interview the IP was asked when the PIP was developed and when they identified the deficient practice. The IP reported that it was just created last Tuesday, and the steps had not been taken/implemented yet. When the surveyor asked, if anyone is reviewing infections to determine if any specific infection criteria is met before an antibiotic is implemented/ordered. The IP stated she thought the doctor did that. The IP went on to say that it is discussed daily, and antibiotics are reviewed to ensure there is a stop date on the orders. The IP was asked to provide any evidence available for the risk meetings to show that antibiotic use is reviewed and discussed. The IP stated the DON (Director of nursing) had that information. On 4/24/24, in the morning, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON reported that she did not have any evidence of the weekly risk meetings and said it was just written in her daily planner and she shreds that information after a week or so. The DON did state that a risk progress note is entered into each resident's clinical chart during the meeting. On 4/24/24 at 10:13 a.m., the DON provided the survey team with a report generated from the electronic health record of the residents, which listed residents prescribed antibiotics during the month of April 2024. The report listed three residents (R1, R34 and R27), as having been treated for a UTI. The DON reported that she had no evidence of any risk meetings/review and/or risk progress notes for two of th three residents treated with antibiotics. The risk note provided for R34 just indicated that Keflex (an antibiotic) was prescribed for 5 days for a UTI. There was no evidence of the resident's infection being reviewed to ensure that it met criteria for treatment with an antibiotic. A review was conducted of the facility policy titled, Antibiotic Stewardship Plan, with a review/revision date of 3/23. The policy read in part, . 7. Nursing staff will be educated on appropriate assessment of residents and communication to physicians/physician extenders. The criteria for Infection Pathways are a good tool/reference for communicating appropriate information to the physicians/physician extenders. 8. Nursing staff will be educated on the McGreer Criteria for Long Term Care Surveillance, CDC [centers for disease control and prevention] recommendations and Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America and other resources, such as Leading Age and Health Quality Innovators, as appropriate . 24. The Director of Nursing will track antibiotic use and monitor adherence to evidence-based criteria, including: a. Documentation related to antibiotic selection and use, b. tracking antibiotics used to review patterns of use and determination of the impact of the antibiotic stewardship interventions, c. monitoring for clinical outcomes such as rates of C. difficile infections, antibiotic-resistant organisms or adverse drug events, d. reporting of communicable disease ., e. provide reports related to monitoring antibiotic usage and resistance data to the QAPI (quality assurance and performance improvement) committee . On 4/24/25, at approximately 10 a.m., the facility administrator was made aware of the above concerns. No further information was provided.
CONCERN (F)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interviews, clinical record review and facility documentation review, the facility staff failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections having the potential to affect residents on 2 of 2 nursing units. The findings included: 1. The facility staff failed to respond to and implement quarantine and testing measures in accordance with CDC (The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) recommendations to manage COVID-19 during an outbreak affecting 1 of 2 units. On 4/22/24 at 4:19 p.m., and again on 4/23/24 at 08:35 a.m., interviews were conducted with the facility's infection preventionist (IP). The IP stated that when they have a COVID case they start a line tracking to track exposure. The facility had a COVID outbreak that began on 3/15/24. The IP reported that they conducted staff testing on days 1, 3 and 5-7. Residents were tested on [DATE] and 3/18/24, both instances revealed additional cases of COVID-19. The IP further reported that residents were quarantined for 5 days and encouraged to wear a mask following the 5 days of isolation. The IP reported that when staff tested positive, they were tested again on days 5 and 7, and could return to work on day 7 if negative on both test but wear a mask until 10 days is over. On the afternoon of 4/23/24, the surveyor showed the IP and facility Administrator the document from CDC titled, Interim Infection Prevention and Control Recommendations for Healthcare Personnel During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic, with a revision date of March 18, 2024. Both indicated they were not familiar with the document. The surveyor offered to provide a copy, but the facility administrator stated he had obtained a copy. On 4/23/24 at 1:17 p.m., a telephone call was held with the Mitigation Specialist (MS) at the facility's local health district. The MD reported that she didn't recall having a significant conversation with the facility but did receive some line listings to report a COVID outbreak. The MS did report she had difficulty and was never able to make contact with someone at the facility to schedule an on-site visit to offer as a resource. As for specific recommendations, the MD stated that none had been given and that the expectation was that the facility would follow the CDC guidance to include a quarantine period of 10 days. On 4/23/24, clinical record reviews were conducted of a sample of residents who had tested positive for COVID-19. It was revealed that each of the residents had physician orders for droplet isolation for 5 days, with the date of positive test being day 0. On the afternoon of 4/23/24, during an end of day meeting, the facility administrator and director of nursing were made aware of the concern that the facility was not conducting testing and quarantine guidelines within the CDC recommendations. On 4/24/24, the facility administrator provided the survey team with a COVID-19 policy, which had previously been requested on several occasions but not previously received. On the morning of 4/24/24, employee timecards were reviewed which revealed that employees were permitted to return to work on day 7 following 2 negative tests and day 10 following the initial positive test if testing on day 5 or 7 were positive. On 4/24/24, the facility's policy titled, COVID-19 plan was received and reviewed. The policy did not address the duration of the quarantine period for residents or staff who test positive for COVID-19. The policy also did not address the frequency or manner in which COVID-19 testing would be conducted. The facility did provide an additional document titled, COVID Guidelines 2024, with an updated date of 3/18/24, which the IP and administrator reported they were following. This document read in part, Exposed staff, resident: wear mask for x 10 days, COVID test to be done Day 1, Day 3, Day 5. Positive Staff member: Stay home for x 7 days from when symptoms started. Test on day 5 and again on day 7 if both are negative may return to work on day 7. If staff tests positive, can return on day 10 . Positive [resident]: Isolate x 5 days, if there is a roommate, use clinical judgement on moving resident Remain isolated/wear mask around other for x 10 days . According to the CDC guidance document titled, Interim Guidance for Managing Healthcare Personnel with SARS-CoV-2 Infection or Exposure to SARS-CoV-2, Updated Sept. 23, 2022, which gives recommendations on how to handle nursing facility staff who test positive for COVID-19. The document read in part, HCP with mild to moderate illness who are not moderately to severely immunocompromised could return to work after the following criteria have been met: At least 7 days have passed since symptoms first appeared if a negative viral test is obtained within 48 hours prior to returning to work (or 10 days if testing is not performed or if a positive test at day 5-7), and At least 24 hours have passed since last fever without the use of fever-reducing medications, and Symptoms (e.g., cough, shortness of breath) have improved . Accessed online at: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/guidance-risk-assesment-hcp.html According to the CDC guidance document titled, Interim Infection Prevention and Control Recommendations for Healthcare Personnel During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic, residents who test positive for COVID-19 are to be quarantined for 10 days. If a broad-based approach to testing is conducted, testing was to continue every 3-7 days until there are no new cases for 14 days, which was not done. If testing was conducted based on exposure and contact tracing, three rounds of testing was to be performed. Accessed online at: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/infection-control-recommendations.html#print No additional information was provided. 2. The facility staff failed to maintain an infection surveillance/monitoring program. On 04/22/24 at 04:19 p.m., an interview was conducted with the facility's infection preventionist (IP). When asked about infection surveillance, the IP stated that the only infection she tracks is COVID-19. When asked to explain the purpose and benefit of infection surveillance, the IP was able to verbalize the benefit of seeing where infections are located to identify trends and breaks in infection control that may be causative factors. A review was performed of the facility policy titled, Infection Control Program, with a review date of 12/23. The policy read in part, . Surveillance: Surveillance is the ongoing, systematic collection, analysis, interpretation and dissemination of data to identify infections and infection risks, to reduce morbidity and mortality and to improve resident health status . Identification/Investigation . 6. The IP, with input from the team, will identify trends and complete investigations/root cause analyses as indicated . On 4/23/24, during an end of day meeting, the facility administrator was made aware of the above findings. No additional information was provided.
Jan 2023 3 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, staff interview and facility document review, the facility staff failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program for the spread and prevention of COVID 19 and fail...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, staff interview and facility document review, the facility staff failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program for the spread and prevention of COVID 19 and failed to ensure written policies and procedures included standard and transmission-based precautions to be followed to prevent spread of infections for COVID 19. Findings include: On 01/31/23 at approximately 8:15 AM, the nursing unit (Shenandoah) was observed. At the nurse's station was a staff member (later identified as PA (physician's assistant) #1). The staff member was wearing a surgical mask that was not covering the face, the surgical mask was looped over the staff member's left ear and was hanging down by the staff member's face. The staff member was asked for the DON (director of nursing) and/or administrator. The staff member stated that they were up front, took the mask completely off and proceeded through the double doors (exiting the Shenandoah nursing unit) to the DON's office. The staff member went into the office and came back and donned the surgical mask and went back toward the Shenandoah nursing unit. At approximately 8:20 AM, the DON was met for the entrance conference. The DON was made aware of the FIC (focused infection control) survey and was asked about COVID positive residents and what type of PPE (personal protective equipment) was requires on the units. The DON stated that they had three positive COVID cases that were isolating in their room and that they were located on the Shenandoah unit. The DON stated that everyone is wearing an N-95 on the nursing units while they have positive cases in house. The DON was asked who the staff member earlier. The DON stated that was the facility's PA. The DON was made aware of the observation on the Shenandoah unit of the PA with a surgical mask hanging off the ear, then removing the surgical mask and then donned prior to going back to the Shenandoah unit. The DON stated that everyone should be wearing an N-95 (if they are fit tested) or a surgical mask with a face shield. The DON stated that all of their staff are fit tested and should be wearing an N-95 on the units at this time. The DON was asked for infection control and COVID -19 policies and procedures, On 01/31/23 at approximately 2:00 PM, the DON stated that she had a call out to PA#1 to asked why he was not wearing an N-95. At approximately 3:00 PM, the DON stated that she contacted PA #1 via phone and that he said he just took his mask off for a minute. The DON was again made aware of the observation and was asked why wasn't the PA wearing an N-95. The facility policy on face masks documented, .During an outbreak staff are to wear N-95 masks . At approximately 3:30 PM, RN #2 was also made aware of the observation regarding PA#1. RN #2 stated, All physicians and/or practitioners are to wear what we wear, if we are in N-95's they are too. On 01/31/23 at approximately 5:45 PM, the administrator, DON and RN #2 were again made aware of concerns regarding the observation of the staff member without a mask (later identified as PA #1) being on a unit with three positive COVID-19 residents. The administrator stated that PA #1 had been educated on wearing the appropriate PPE and this was not the first time. The administrator stated that the correct PPE was also provided, but stated that the PA had not been consistently compliant regarding this and as a result would no longer be provider at this facility. No further information and/or documentation was provided prior to the exit conference on 01/31/23 at 6:00 PM.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Incontinence Care (Tag F0690)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on staff interview and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to provide care and services for a Foley catheter as ordered by the physician for one of six residents in the survey samp...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on staff interview and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to provide care and services for a Foley catheter as ordered by the physician for one of six residents in the survey sample (Resident # 1). Findings include: Resident #1 had an order to change the Foley catheter once every three weeks, but the medical device went unchanged for three months. Resident #1 was added to the survey sample as a closed record review, as there were no current residents with a catheter, Resident # 1 was admitted to the facility 2/25/22 with a readmission date of 3/11/22. Diagnoses for Resident #1 included, but were not limited to, stage 4 kidney disease, GERD, diabetes, congestive heart failure, obstructive uropathy, and history of stroke. A quarterly MDS (minimum data set) dated 6/22/22 had Resident # 1 assessed as cognitively intact for daily decision making, with a total summary score of 15/15. The clinical record was reviewed 1/31/23 beginning at approximately 10:40 a.m. A physician order dated 3/11/22 directed Change Foley Cath every month and PRN [as needed] to maintain patency and for leakage/blockage. That order was updated on 3/31/22 to Change Foley every 3 weeks and PRN. A review of the progress notes revealed the following: 4/1/22- Foley changed at urology appointment due to UTI (urinary tract infection) and blood in urine. 4/27/22- Foley changed due to rsd pulling it out. 5/10/22- Foley changed per urology order. There was no further documentation located in the clinical record about the Foley catheter until 8/8/22 which documented Removed 16 fr [french] Foley and replaced with 16 fr Foley. Resident tolerated procedure well without any difficulty A review of the TAR (treatment administration record) revealed the order was on the TAR, but there were no staff initials to indicate the Foley was changed per order. On 1/31/23 at 1:20 p.m., the DON (director of nursing), administrator, and director of quality and compliance were interviewed. The administrator stated he had been with the facility for approximately four months, and was not the administrator of record when the allegations occurred. The director of quality and compliance stated the same. The DON was interviewed about the documentation, TAR, and whether she knew if the catheter had been changed per order. The DON stated, No, the catheter was not changed as ordered; what you have seen in the record is correct; the cath was not changed from 5/10/22 until 8/8/22. In our investigation, we found that the nurse entering the order did not enter it correctly .there was no 'time code' identified for it to show up to change per the order, which meant it did not populate to the TAR to alert staff the Foley needed to be changed. A 24 hour chart check was done, but it was not identified as a problem. When the order changed from once a month to every three weeks, again no time code populated to alert the nurse the cath needed to be changed. Chart checks only look at what orders were done that day; there is no look back. We [performed a process review], and I do have a plan of correction. The plan of correction, dated 8/8/22, was reviewed, and included: Regarding other residents potentially affected: there are no other residents who have Foley catheters at this time. Systematic Changes: 1. Staff were educated to ensure that when placing order all fields are filled out. When reviewing the order to not just look at the days of the week or month ensure that a time is assigned on the left side of the MAR/TAR. 2. Staff were educated to ensure that when chart checking orders to ensure they are reviewing all fields 3. The date the Foley needs to be changed will be added to the end of the Foley catheter tube as a visual cue 4. 100% chart audits x 4 weeks 5. date of compliance 10/8/22. This deficiency was cited as past noncompliance. No further information was provided prior to the exit conference.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0886 (Tag F0886)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on staff interview and facility document review, the facility staff failed to maintain complete and accurate COVID-19 testing logs for staff with documentation of each instance of testing with r...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on staff interview and facility document review, the facility staff failed to maintain complete and accurate COVID-19 testing logs for staff with documentation of each instance of testing with results for all staff members. Findings include: A FIC (focused infection control) survey was conducted on 01/31/23. During the entrance conference on 01/31/23 at approximately 8:45 AM, the DON (director of nursing) was asked for testing logs for residents and staff members, along with COVID-19 policies and procedures. The DON stated that she and RN (Registered Nurse) #2 were the infection control preventionists. On 01/31/23 at approximately 11:00 AM, the DON presented the policies and procedures for COVID-19. The DON was again asked for all testing logs for residents and staff. On 01/31/23 at approximately 1:00 PM, the DON and RN #2 were again asked for testing logs for staff and residents. On 01/31/23 at approximately 1:30 PM, the DON presented the testing logs for residents and stated that she didn't have current testing logs for staff. The DON was asked how the facility was to track staff members testing positive for COVID-19, if they are not tested. The DON stated that the facility did test staff, but did not have all the documentation. The DON stated that she only documented the positive staff members and did not have evidence that all staff were tested. The DON was asked to present any and all documentation available regarding testing of staff members. The DON stated that she had only been tracking the positive staff members. When the DON was asked why, no direct response was given. At approximately 3:10 PM, RN #2 presented the testing logs for the residents and staff. The staff testing log only included eight staff members, all of which were positive. There was no evidence that any other staff had been tested. RN #2 stated that she was unable to find anything else with staff testing. RN #2 stated that the last evidence of tracking/testing logs for all staff was back in August and that she did not find anything from September to present to evidence that all staff were or/had been tested as required. RN #2 stated that the documentation presented, was all that could be found. The facility policy titled, COVID-19 Plan Summary of Policies and Procedures documented, .minimize exposure to respiratory pathogens and promptly identify .risk for COVID-19 .follow current testing plan regarding testing .if outbreak, assess staff exposures .any staff or resident with symptoms of COVID-19, regardless of vaccination status, should receive a viral test immediately .testing is required for new admission/readmission .facilities located in counties with substantial to high community transmission .test twice a week . The facility policy titled, Infection Control Program documented, .perform surveillance and investigation to prevent, when possible, the onset and spread of infection .prevent and control outbreaks .collecting, analyzing and providing infection data and trends to the interdisciplinary team .reports data to the administrator, medical director, and QAPI committee .infection data is reported monthly .utilizes reports to detect clusters and trends and track prevalence of infections . On 01/31/23 at approximately 5:00 PM, the administrator, DON, and RN #2 were made aware of concerns regarding the above findings and the lack of complete and accurate testing log records and documentation for staff COVID-19 testing. No further information and/or documentation was presented prior to the exit conference on 01/31/23 at 6:00 PM.
Nov 2021 4 deficiencies
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 observation, staff interview, and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to review and revise the comprehens...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interview, and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to review and revise the comprehensive care plan for one of 14 residents in the survey sample, Resident # 37. Resident # 37's care plan was not updated to include the use of anti-rollback devices on the wheelchair. Findings include: Resident # 37 was admitted to the facility 10/2/21 with diagnoses to include, but were not limited to: urinary retention, right femur fracture, COPD, GERD, high blood pressure, and gait abnormality. The most recent MDS (minimum data set) was a significant change assessment dated [DATE]. Resident # 37 was coded as having impairment in long term and short term memory, and moderately impaired in cognition. Resident # 37 was observed throughout the survey from 11/16/21-11/17/21, with anti-rollback devices applied to the back of the wheelchair. The clinical record was reviewed and the care plan for falls did not include the intervention for the anti-rollback devices. The care plan, initiated 11/11/21 included low bed, fall mats, being fitted with nonskid footwear, and adequate lighting. On 11/17/21 at 10:00 a.m. the DON (director of nursing) was interviewed about the care plan interventions. The DON stated Yes, that should have been added to his care plan. Therapy makes the recommendation, it comes to nursing and nursing should have added the intervention. The administrator, vice president of operations, and charge nurse were informed of the above findings during a meeting with facility staff 11/17/21 at 2:30 p.m. No further information was provided prior to the exit conference.
CONCERN (D)

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

Drug Regimen Review (Tag F0756)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review and staff interview, the facility staff failed to ensure a monthly pharmacy review was conducted...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review and staff interview, the facility staff failed to ensure a monthly pharmacy review was conducted for one of fourteen residents, Resident #26. There was no pharmacy review done for the month of June 2021. Findings were: Resident #26 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the following diagnoses, including but not limited to: Stroke with hemiparesis, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, major depressive disorder and dementia. The a quarterly MDS (minimum data set) assessment with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 10/20/2021, assessed Resident #26 as moderately impaired with a cognitive summary score of 11. The clinical record was reviewed on 11/17/2021 at approximately 9:30 a.m. There was no documentation in the clinical record of any pharmacy medication regimen reviews from April 2021 to the time of the survey. The DON (director of nursing) was interviewed at approximately 9:45 a.m., regarding the reviews. She looked at the electronic record and was also unable to locate the reviews. She stated she would call the pharmacy and see where they were. At approximately 9:55 a.m., the DON presented a form titled: Executive Summary of Consultant Pharmacist's Medication Regimen Review for October 2021. She stated, When we changed pharmacies this is what the new one is doing, they review everyone and if there are no recommendations they are on this list, they aren't doing an individual note on each person. If there are recommendations a note goes in the chart. Documentation for April- September was requested. At approximately 11:00 a.m., the pharmacy medication review lists were presented for April-September 2021. The second page of the forms presented was titled: Consultant Pharmacist's Medication Regimen Review: Listing of Residents Reviewed with No Recommendations. The DON stated, The second page is a list of the residents that he reviewed each month. If recommendations were made they won't be on the list and there is a separate note for them that goes to the physician. The medication regimen review did not list Resident #26. There were no recommendations in the clinical record for medication changes for her. The pharmacist was contacted at approximately 11:55 a.m., and was asked if Resident #26's medications had been reviewed in June and had there been any recommendations. He reviewed his list and stated, I don't know why she isn't on the list .I don't have anything on my end either. I didn't make any recommendations for her, but I also don't see her on the list. I don't know if it was done or not. During an end of the day meeting with the administrator and facility staff the above information was discussed. No further information was obtained prior to the exit conference on 11/17/2021.
CONCERN (E)

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interview, and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to ensure four of five emergency ex...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interview, and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to ensure four of five emergency exit doors were functioning properly; failed to ensure that one of 14 residents had a safety device correctly applied to his wheelchair, Resident # 37; and failed to ensure that physician ordered fall mats were in place for one of 14 residents, Resident #36. Findings were: 1. On 11/17/2021 at approximately 9:30 a.m., Resident #10's medical record was reviewed. Documentation in the clinical record included an elopement that had occurred on 09/08/2021. At approximately 10:00 a.m., the administrator was asked if an investigation had been completed, and if so to provide the information. At approximately 11:00 a.m., the administrator reported that there had not been an investigation regarding the incident. She stated, He went out the door at the CNA (Certified nursing assistant) desk near the dining area (400 unit). He went out into the courtyard that is an enclosed area, his wanderguard alarmed and we brought him back in. We would consider that a 'near miss' not an actual elopement but the system (the electronic health record) doesn't give us that option. LPN (licensed practical nurse) #2 who had written the note regarding the elopement was interviewed on 11/17/2021 at approximately 11:10 a.m. She stated, Yes, I remember that .Maybe his wanderguard didn't work, I don't know, but the alarm went off when he opened the door .he was outside. He was only out there a minute or two and we brought him back in. She was asked which door Resident #10 had exited and if she could demonstrate how it worked. The door was located on the side of the building. Outside the door was a sidewalk that led to an enclosed courtyard. The door was marked as Emergency Exit Only Door Can be Opened in 15 seconds Alarm will sound. She stated, He has a wanderguard, that's the alarm panel down there. She pointed to an oblong white enclosed shape. That locks the door, but if it's pushed on for 15 seconds, it's going to open. A button higher up on the wall beside the door was labeled Push to exit. She stated, You can push that to override the alarm. She was asked to open the door. She pushed the door open and the alarm did not sound. She was asked why the alarm had not sounded. She stated, I'm not sure. She was asked if there were any more Emergency Exits on that end of the hall. She stated, Yes, in the dining area. A door from the dining area to an enclosed patio was observed with the same emergency exit signage. She pushed on that door and it alarmed. An override button was observed on the wall. When LPN #2 pushed the button which was lit up and red, it turned green and she could open the door without it alarming. LPN #2 then went back to the first door and pushed the override button and pushed the door open. An alarm sounded. She stated, I think this door is wired backwards. She was asked who checked the doors for functionality. She stated, I know maintenance checks them everyday for the wanderguards. I don't know about anything else. The maintenance director, Other Staff #2 was interviewed at approximately 11:30 a.m. He went to the emergency exit door that had not alarmed. He stated, I don't know why it is unlocked. He was asked who checked the doors to ensure the alarms were working. He stated, We check them everyday to make sure the wanderguards are working .the doors can be programmed in different ways. They can be on a nighttime lock where they lock at 9:00 p.m., and unlock in the mornings. He then went to the door in the dining area, which alarmed when opened if the override button was not pressed. He stated, I think that other door is wired backwards. He was asked how long it had been like that. He stated, I don't know, I don't have a work order on it. He was asked if there were other emergency exit doors on resident units. He stated, Yes. Two emergency doors in the dining area of the 500 hallway were observed. One door was not locked and led out into an enclosed patio. He stated, This one must be on the nighttime lock .the residents have a right to go outside. The other emergency door was also not locked. That door opened up to a sidewalk that led down a hill to the parking lot of the facility. He was asked why a door that was not opening up to an enclosed area was not locked. He stated, I don't know, it doesn't make sense. The last emergency door that was observed was on the 600 unit. It was also not locked but was also not labeled as an emergency door. He stated, I don't know what is going on. This door should be labeled as an emergency exit .that's something we should be checking. At approximately 12:15 p.m. OS #2 came to the conference room. He stated, We don't check the doors to see if the emergency locks are working, we check to see if the wanderguard panel is working. Our doors lock and unlock at different times during the day. The residents have a right to go outside. He was asked if there was a policy regarding the door lock/unlock times. He stated he would check. The administrator and the DON (director of nursing) were interviewed at approximately 12:25 p.m. about the emergency exit doors. Concerns were voiced that residents with dementia or confusion without wanderguards could easily exit the building without an alarm sounding to alert staff that they were outside potentially resulting in injury to a resident. The administrator stated, The emergency exit doors should be locked and should alarm when opened .we need to be checking those doors for safety. The above information was discussed during an end of the day meeting on 11/17/2021. Concerns were voiced that four of five emergency exit doors in resident areas were not alarming when opened to alert staff that residents were outside. The administrator was asked if a policy regarding the locking and unlocking of the emergency exit doors had been located. She stated, No .when the survey is over we are going to discuss what the we should be doing with the doors. We are going to do a performance improvement plan, the doors should be locked and alarming for safety. We may need to call the (name) company back in that did our renovations and see what the problem is. No further information was obtained prior to the exit conference on 11/17/2021. 2. Resident # 37 was admitted to the facility 10/2/21 with diagnoses to include, but were not limited to: urinary retention, right femur fracture, COPD, GERD, high blood pressure, and gait abnormality. The most recent MDS (minimum data set) was a significant change assessment dated [DATE]. Resident # 37 was coded as having impairment in long term and short term memory, and moderately impaired in cognition. On 11/16/21 at 12:30 p.m. a dining observation was conducted. Resident # 37 was brought to the table for lunch by CNA (certified nursing assistant) # 1 in his wheelchair. Resident # 37 was seated at the table and immediately began propelling backwards as if leaving. Various staff called his name and asking where he was going and Resident # 37 was brought back to his place at the table. When he was brought back to the table, his wheelchair was not locked, and this behavior continued. Resident # 37's wheelchair was also observed with only one anti-rollback device applied to back of the chair. On 11/16/21 at 12:49 p.m. CNA # 1 was asked why the resident's wheelchair wasn't locked, and where the other anti-rollback device was for the wheelchair. CNA # 1 stated I don't know why the chair wasn't locked. I have no answer for that .but he can propel with his feet .I don't have an answer for why there's only one anti-rollback on the back of his [NAME], that's done by therapy. At that time, OS (other staff) # 1, an OT (occupational therapist), came into the dining room. OS # 1 was shown the back of the wheelchair, and asked about the device(s). OS # 1 stated I think staff said one fell off. I just put him in that wheelchair with the anti-rollback devices, there should be two applied. Thank you for noticing because it's my responsibility to make sure they're on there. If staff notice that, they are to alert me immediately so I can fix it. OS # 1 stated a staff member thought the other device was in the resident's room. Resident # 37's room was then observed with OS # 1, but the device was not located. OS # 1 stated as soon as Resident # 37 was finished with lunch, she would take him to the therapy room and apply the second anti-rollback device. OS # 1 further stated Resident # 37 had had some falls without injury, and this intervention was to help prevent a fall. The administrator, vice president of operations, and charge nurse were informed of the above findings during a meeting with facility staff 11/17/21 at 2:30 p.m. No further information was provided prior to the exit conference.3. Resident #36 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses for Resident #36 included: fracture of right femur secondary to fall at home, muscle weakness, joint disorder, and gait abnormality. The most current MDS (minimum data set) was an entry assessment with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 11/01/21. Resident #36 was assessed with a cognitive score of 14 indicating cognitively intact. On 11/16/21 at 2:32 PM, Resident #36 was interviewed. During the interview Resident #36 said she had fallen at home and broken her leg and was at the facility for therapy. At the time of the interview Resident #36 was laying in bed. No fall mats were observed in the resident's room. On 11/16/21 Resident #36's clinical record was reviewed. A physician's order dated 10/25/21 read Fall Mat- Continuous. Resident #36's care plan for falls was also reviewed and incuded implementation of a fall mat for Resident #36. On 11/17/21 at 9:07 AM, Resident #36 was again observed laying in bed without a fall mat. On 11/17/21 at 9:11 AM, certified nursing assistant, (CNA #2, assigned to Resident #36) was interviewed concerning fall mats being in place. CNA #2 verbalized unawareness that Resident #36 needed a fall mat. On 11/17/21 at 9:17 AM, license practical nurse (LPN #1) was interviewed regarding Resident #36's fall mat. LPN #1 observed Resident #36 without a fall mat, reviewed Resident #36's orders, and stated that Resident #36 was supposed to have a fall mat. On 11/17/21 at 2:30 PM, the above information was provided to the administrator. No other information was provided prior to exit conference on 11/17/21.
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Staffing Information (Tag F0732)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation and staff interview, the facility staff failed to post daily nurse staffing in a prominent area visible for visitors and residents in the facility. Findings include: On 11/16/21 b...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and staff interview, the facility staff failed to post daily nurse staffing in a prominent area visible for visitors and residents in the facility. Findings include: On 11/16/21 beginning at 9:00 a.m upon entrance and during initial tour of the facility, a posting of nurse staffing data was not observed. The posting was not observed on either units. On 11/17/21 beginning at 11:50 a.m. the DON(director of nursing) was asked about the nurse staffing posting. The DON stated The number of residents on the units is posted at the nursing station. he posting of which staff is working which unit is posted in the break room. At the back of each unit the DON stated, There is the posting. The postings were located behind the nursing stations in a frame. The DON was asked if she thought the information was readily accessible to visitors and residents, she stated No, probably not. The DON further stated that staffing information including which staff were working which unit was posted in the employee breakroom. The administrator, vice president of operations, and charge nurse were informed of the above findings during a meeting with facility staff 11/17/21 at 2:30 p.m. No further information was provided prior to the exit conference.
Apr 2019 4 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on a medication pass and pour observation, staff interview, and facility document review, the facility staff failed to follow a physician's order for medication administration for one of 14 residents in the survey sample, Resident #244. The facility staff failed to ensure Resident #244 was administered Miralax 17 grams per the physician's order during a medication pass and pour observation. Finding include: Resident #244 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses for this resident included, but were not limited to: Constipation, high blood pressure, osteoporosis, high cholesterol, and dry eyes. No MDS (minimum data set) information was completed for this resident at the time of the survey. During a medication pass and pour observation on 04/03/18 at 08:25 AM, LPN (Licensed Practical Nurse) # 1 prepared medications for Resident #244. The medications included, Colace 100 mg soft gel capsule (two capsules), Calcium 600 plus D 3 (600/200) (one tablet), Atenolol 25 mg (one tablet), and Artificial Tears 1/4 % (one drop in each eye/per label). LPN #1 stated that this was a new resident admitted on [DATE]. This surveyor verified with the LPN by counting, that there were a total of four pills, plus the eye drops, for a total of five medications to be administered to Resident #244. LPN #1 poured approximately 3 ounces of water in clear plastic drinking cup. LPN #1 pulled two tissues from a box, gathered the medications and eye drops and entered the resident's room. The LPN administered the medications (four pills) to the resident one by one, the resident taking a small sip of water after each pill. The resident took the last pill and the last sip of water. The resident's private sitter private stated, you almost didn't have enough water for that one. LPN #1 disposed of the plastic cup and applied gloves. LPN #1 administered one eye drop to each eye, removed her gloves and exited the room. At approximately 9:30 AM a medication reconciliation was completed for Resident #244. The resident's current physician's orders were reviewed and included an order for: Miralax 17 gram dose by mouth every 3 days . The resident's MARs (medication administration records) were then reviewed and revealed that the LPN had signed off the Miralax medication as administered. LPN #1 did not administer Miralax to Resident #244. On 04/03/19 at approximately 10:45 AM, the administrator and DON (director of nursing) were asked for a policy on medication administration. A policy was presented (Oral Medication Administration), which documented, .Verify the orders in the EMAR (electronic medication administration record) .right patient, right medication, right dosage, right route .right frequency .right duration .check when taking the container from the shelf or drawer, again before pouring the medication into the medication cup and again before returning the container to the shelf or drawer . At approximately 12:20 PM, LPN #1 was interviewed regarding the above observation. LPN #1 did not say anything. LPN #1 was asked if she could explain why the medication wasn't given, but was signed off as given. LPN #1 stated that she thought she gave it and that she was so upset and nervous, she couldn't think straight and just waned to go home. On 04/03/19 at approximately 2:00 PM, the administrator and DON were informed in a meeting with the survey team of the above finding. The DON stated, She said she gave it. The DON and administrator were made aware that the Miralax was not administered and that all of the medications were counted, including the eye drops, with the LPN to ensure accuracy of administration. No further information and/or documentation was presented prior to the exit conference on 04/04/19.
CONCERN (D)

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

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interview, facility document review and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to provide proper care and treatment of a pressure ulcer for one of 14 residents in the survey sample. Resident #94 was observed without a physician ordered dressing in place on his coccyx pressure ulcer. Nursing staff failed to follow infection control practices during a dressing application to Resident #94's pressure ulcer. No hand hygiene was performed after removal of gloves and no glove change and/or hand hygiene was performed after cleansing the wound and prior to applying a clean dressing. The findings include: Resident #94 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included left hip joint replacement, atrial fibrillation, COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease), coccyx pressure ulcer and insomnia. The minimum data set (MDS) dated [DATE] assessed Resident #94 as cognitively intact. This MDS assessed the resident as always incontinent of bowel and frequently incontinent of urine. Resident #94's clinical record documented the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a stage 2 pressure ulcer on his coccyx. The clinical record documented a physician's order dated 3/20/19 to clean the coccyx wound with wound cleanser, pat dry and apply a hydrocolloid dressing each week on Wednesday and as needed for treatment of the stage 2 pressure ulcer. The order also included instructions to trim the hydrocolloid dressing if it peeled up and documented, .trim do not pull it [dressing] off . On 4/3/19 at 10:05 a.m., accompanied by licensed practical nurse (LPN #1), a dressing change to Resident #94's coccyx pressure ulcer was observed. LPN #1 washed her hands, put on gloves then assisted the resident with transferring to bed. LPN #1 then cleansed the over-bed table with a sanitizing wipe and placed a clean field on the tabletop. LPN #1 then removed her gloves, took supplies out of a Ziploc bag, put on new gloves and then opened dressing packages and dated/initialed the hydrocolloid dressing. LPN #1 did not perform hand hygiene after removing the gloves and prior to putting on the new gloves. LPN #1 then assisted the resident to turn in bed and then pulled down his pants and incontinence brief. There was no dressing over the coccyx wound at this time. The resident had a small, linear open pressure ulcer on the coccyx area. LPN #1 stated she did not know why the wound was not covered with the prescribed dressing. LPN #1 removed her gloves, washed her hands and put on clean gloves. LPN #1 then sprayed the wound with wound cleanser and patted the wound dry with clean gauze. Without changing gloves or performing hand hygiene, LPN #1 then applied the new hydrocolloid dressing over the pressure ulcer. LPN #1 then helped the resident with clothing, discarded supplies, removed gloves and then washed her hands in the medication storage room. Resident #94's pressure ulcer was observed as a thin, linear open area on his coccyx. A registered nurse measured the pressure ulcer at the time of the observation as 0.8 x 0.2 x 0 (length by width by depth in centimeters). The wound bed was pink with no odor, swelling or drainage noted. On 4/3/19 at 10:15 a.m., LPN #1 was interviewed about the missing dressing and lack of hand hygiene and glove changes during the dressing application. LPN #1 stated she did not know why the physician ordered dressing was not in place over the wound. LPN #1 stated the resident had a current order for the hydrocolloid dressing and it was scheduled for change once per week or as needed. LPN #1 stated there was no report from the previous shift about the dressing. Concerning hand hygiene and glove changes, LPN #1 stated she thought hand hygiene was supposed to be performed anytime gloves were removed. Concerning not changing gloves after cleansing the wound and prior to application of the clean dressing, LPN #1 stated, I am at a loss for words. LPN #1 had no other response about the lack of hand hygiene and glove changes during the dressing change observation. On 4/3/19 at 11:00 a.m., the certified nurse's aide (CNA #1) caring for Resident #94 was interviewed about the missing coccyx dressing. CNA #1 stated she gave Resident #94 a bed bath this morning (4/3/19) and stated there was no dressing in place on the resident's coccyx or buttocks area. CNA #1 stated she did not report it to the nurse because she thought the dressing had been discontinued. CNA #1 stated that about a week ago she noticed the dressing was not in place on the resident's coccyx area and she reported it to the wound nurse. CNA #1 stated the wound nurse told her the dressing had been discontinued so that was why she did not mention it today (4/3/19). On 4/3/19 at 2:51 p.m., the registered nurse (RN #1) supervisor was interviewed about Resident #94's pressure ulcer. RN #1 stated she did not know why the dressing was not in place on the resident's coccyx. RN #1 stated the resident had a current order for the hydrocolloid dressing with orders for a dressing change once per week and as needed. Resident #94's plan of care (dated 4/2/19) listed the resident had a stage 2 pressure ulcer on his coccyx and was at risk of pressure ulcer development due to decreased mobility and incontinence. Interventions listed to improve/heal the pressure ulcer included cleaning the wound with cleanser, protecting affected area from contaminants, good nutrition and hydration, monitoring of pressure ulcer size/condition and teaching pressure reduction techniques. The facility's policy titled Infection Control Program (revised 6/2018) on page 6 documented, Hand washing facilities and/or antiseptic/germicidal/antibacterial hand cleanser or towelettes are readily available to staff .Employees are to wash their hands immediately after removal of gloves or other PPE [personal protective equipment] . (Sic) The facility's policy titled Non-Sterile Dressing Change (revised 6/2018) documented, The non-sterile dressing change technique will be used for all wound dressing changes .The goal is to promote healing and prevent infection in existing wound. Steps for a proper dressing change included, Wash hands and organize equipment .prepare a clean area to set up equipment .Prepare supplies needed .Write the date and nurse initials on the tape .Wash hands and don non-sterile gloves .Remove soiled dressing and dispose in trash .Clean wound with normal saline/wound cleanser, and pat area dry .Dispose of gloves, wash hands, and apply clean gloves .Apply wound healing product, as ordered by physician .Apply secondary dressing if indicated . Dispose of gloves and used materials accordingly .Wash hands .Check for dressing placement daily . The National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel (NPUAP) defines a pressure injury as, localized damage to the skin and underlying soft tissue usually over a bony prominence or related to a medical or other device. The injury can present as intact skin or an open ulcer and may be painful. The injury occurs as a result of intense and/or prolonged pressure or pressure in combination with shear . The NPUAP defines a stage 2 pressure injury as, Partial-thickness loss of skin with exposed dermis. The wound bed is viable, pink or red, moist, and may also present as an intact or ruptured serum-filled blister. Adipose (fat) is not visible and deeper tissues are not visible. Granulation tissue, slough and eschar are not present . (1) These findings were reviewed with the administrator and director of nursing during a meeting on 4/3/19 at 2:00 p.m. (1) NPUAP Pressure Injury Stages. 2016. National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel. 4/4/19. www.npuap.org/
CONCERN (D)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. During a medication pass and pour observation on 04/03/18 at 08:25 AM, LPN (Licensed Practical Nurse) #1 prepared medications...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. During a medication pass and pour observation on 04/03/18 at 08:25 AM, LPN (Licensed Practical Nurse) #1 prepared medications for Resident #244, which included two Colace 100 mg (milligram) soft gel capsules. LPN #1 entered the room and administered the pills one by one to the resident, by placing one pill in the palm of the resident's left hand, followed by a sip of water (in a cup held by the resident in the hand). LPN #1 put one Colace 100 mg pill into the resident's palm. LPN #1 prompted the resident to take the pill and the resident moved her hand and the pill fell, landing on top of the resident's bed comforter beside her. Resident #244 looked down and LPN #1 reached down with her bare hand and picked up the pill, placed it back in the resident's left hand, and instructed the resident to take the pill. Resident #244 took the medication. LPN #1 exited the room after the medication administration. LPN #1 was asked about the pill falling on the bed and about her picking up the pill with her bare hand. LPN #1 didn't say anything. LPN #1 was asked if that was a normal practice to pick a pill up with her bare hand. LPN #1 stated that she didn't know, that she had only given medications to the resident twice, and didn't know if the resident dropped her pills often. LPN #1 was asked if she thought picking up the pill with her bare hand and giving it to the resident may pose an infection control issue. LPN #1 stated, I guess it could. On 04/03/19 at approximately 10:45 AM, the administrator and DON (director of nursing) were asked for a policy on medication administration, along with anything pertaining to infection control, specifically for medication (pill) handling. At approximately 12:50 PM, the administrator stated that the facility did not have a policy specifically regarding dropping a pill. The administrator was asked what her expectation would be for dropping a pill. The administrator stated that it would depend on whether the resident's sheets were just freshly washed or just put on the bed, but would ask the DON. On 04/03/19 at approximately 2:00 PM, the administrator and DON were informed in a meeting with the survey team, that LPN #1 dropped the pill onto the resident's comforter (the bed was made) and that LPN #1 picked the pill up with her bare hand. The DON stated that the expectation would be to waste any dropped medication(s). No further information and/or documentation was presented prior to the exit conference on 04/04/19. Based on observation, staff interview, facility document review and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to follow infection control practices during a dressing application for one of 14 residents in the survey sample and failed to follow infection control protocols during a medication pass observation. 1. Resident #94 was observed without a physician ordered dressing in place on his coccyx pressure ulcer. Nursing staff failed to follow infection control practices during a dressing application to Resident #94's pressure ulcer. No hand hygiene was performed after removal of gloves and no glove change and/or hand hygiene was performed after cleansing the wound and prior to applying a clean dressing. 2. During a medication pass observation, an oral medication that dropped onto unclean bed linens, was handled by the nurse without use of gloves and then administered to a resident. The findings include: 1. Resident #94 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included left hip joint replacement, atrial fibrillation, COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease), coccyx pressure ulcer and insomnia. The minimum data set (MDS) dated [DATE] assessed Resident #94 as cognitively intact. This MDS assessed the resident as always incontinent of bowel and frequently incontinent of urine. Resident #94's clinical record documented the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a stage 2 pressure ulcer on his coccyx. The clinical record documented a physician's order dated 3/20/19 to clean the coccyx wound with wound cleanser, pat dry and apply a hydrocolloid dressing each week on Wednesday and as needed for treatment of the stage 2 pressure ulcer. The order also included instructions to trim the hydrocolloid dressing if it peeled up and documented, .trim do not pull it [dressing] off . On 4/3/19 at 10:05 a.m., accompanied by licensed practical nurse (LPN #1), a dressing change to Resident #94's coccyx pressure ulcer was observed. LPN #1 washed her hands, put on gloves then assisted the resident with transferring to bed. LPN #1 then cleansed the over-bed table with a sanitizing wipe and placed a clean field on the tabletop. LPN #1 then removed her gloves, took supplies out of a Ziploc bag, put on new gloves and then opened dressing packages and dated/initialed the hydrocolloid dressing. LPN #1 did not perform hand hygiene after removing the gloves and prior to putting on the new gloves. LPN #1 then assisted the resident to turn in bed and then pulled down his pants and incontinence brief. There was no dressing over the coccyx wound at this time. The resident had a small, linear open pressure ulcer on the coccyx area. LPN #1 stated she did not know why the wound was not covered with the prescribed dressing. LPN #1 removed her gloves, washed her hands and put on clean gloves. LPN #1 then sprayed the wound with wound cleanser and patted the wound dry with clean gauze. Without changing gloves or performing hand hygiene, LPN #1 then applied the new hydrocolloid dressing over the pressure ulcer. LPN #1 then helped the resident with clothing, discarded supplies, removed gloves and then washed her hands in the medication storage room. Resident #94's pressure ulcer was observed as a thin, linear open area on his coccyx. A registered nurse measured the pressure ulcer at the time of the observation as 0.8 x 0.2 x 0 (length by width by depth in centimeters). The wound bed was pink with no odor, swelling or drainage noted. On 4/3/19 at 10:15 a.m., LPN #1 was interviewed about the missing dressing and lack of hand hygiene and glove changes during the dressing application. LPN #1 stated she did not know why the physician ordered dressing was not in place over the wound. LPN #1 stated the resident had a current order for the hydrocolloid dressing and it was scheduled for change once per week or as needed. LPN #1 stated there was no report from the previous shift about the dressing. Concerning hand hygiene and glove changes, LPN #1 stated she thought hand hygiene was supposed to be performed anytime gloves were removed. Concerning not changing gloves after cleansing the wound and prior to application of the clean dressing, LPN #1 stated, I am at a loss for words. LPN #1 had no other response about the lack of hand hygiene and glove changes during the dressing change observation. On 4/3/19 at 11:00 a.m., the certified nurse's aide (CNA #1) caring for Resident #94 was interviewed about the missing coccyx dressing. CNA #1 stated she gave Resident #94 a bed bath this morning (4/3/19) and stated there was no dressing in place on the resident's coccyx or buttocks area. CNA #1 stated she did not report it to the nurse because she thought the dressing had been discontinued. CNA #1 stated that about a week ago she noticed the dressing was not in place on the resident's coccyx area and she reported it to the wound nurse. CNA #1 stated the wound nurse told her the dressing had been discontinued so that was why she did not mention it today (4/3/19). On 4/3/19 at 2:51 p.m., the registered nurse (RN #1) supervisor was interviewed about Resident #94's pressure ulcer. RN #1 stated she did not know why the dressing was not in place on the resident's coccyx. RN #1 stated the resident had a current order for the hydrocolloid dressing with orders for a dressing change once per week and as needed. Resident #94's plan of care (dated 4/2/19) listed the resident had a stage 2 pressure ulcer on his coccyx and was at risk of pressure ulcer development due to decreased mobility and incontinence. Interventions listed to improve/heal the pressure ulcer included cleaning the wound with cleanser, protecting affected area from contaminants, good nutrition and hydration, monitoring of pressure ulcer size/condition and teaching pressure reduction techniques. The facility's policy titled Infection Control Program (revised 6/2018) on page 6 documented, Hand washing facilities and/or antiseptic/germicidal/antibacterial hand cleanser or towelettes are readily available to staff .Employees are to wash their hands immediately after removal of gloves or other PPE [personal protective equipment] . (Sic) The facility's policy titled Non-Sterile Dressing Change (revised 6/2018) documented, The non-sterile dressing change technique will be used for all wound dressing changes .The goal is to promote healing and prevent infection in existing wound. Steps for a proper dressing change included, Wash hands and organize equipment .prepare a clean area to set up equipment .Prepare supplies needed .Write the date and nurse initials on the tape .Wash hands and don non-sterile gloves .Remove soiled dressing and dispose in trash .Clean wound with normal saline/wound cleanser, and pat area dry .Dispose of gloves, wash hands, and apply clean gloves .Apply wound healing product, as ordered by physician .Apply secondary dressing if indicated . Dispose of gloves and used materials accordingly .Wash hands .Check for dressing placement daily . The National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel (NPUAP) defines a pressure injury as, localized damage to the skin and underlying soft tissue usually over a bony prominence or related to a medical or other device. The injury can present as intact skin or an open ulcer and may be painful. The injury occurs as a result of intense and/or prolonged pressure or pressure in combination with shear . The NPUAP defines a stage 2 pressure injury as, Partial-thickness loss of skin with exposed dermis. The wound bed is viable, pink or red, moist, and may also present as an intact or ruptured serum-filled blister. Adipose (fat) is not visible and deeper tissues are not visible. Granulation tissue, slough and eschar are not present . (1) These findings were reviewed with the administrator and director of nursing during a meeting on 4/3/19 at 2:00 p.m. (1) NPUAP Pressure Injury Stages. 2016. National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel. 4/4/19. www.npuap.org/
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on resident interview, group interview, staff interview and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to invite and/or encourage participation in care plan meetings for two of 14 residents in the survey sample. Residents #3 and #23 were not invited to participate in their quarterly care plan meetings. Eight residents during the resident council group interview stated they had not been invited to participate in the quarterly care plan meetings. The findings include: 1. Resident #23 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included anemia, high blood pressure, GERD (gastroesophageal reflux disease) and depression. The minimum data set (MDS) dated [DATE] assessed Resident #23 as cognitively intact. On 4/2/19 at 3:00 p.m., Resident #23 was interviewed about quality of life and care in the facility. During this interview, Resident #23 stated she had not been invited to care plan meetings since she had been in the facility. When asked about her participation in the meetings, Resident #23 stated, I haven't heard of that [care plan meeting]. Resident #23's clinical record documented the resident's last care plan meeting was held on 2/21/19. A note dated 2/21/19 documented, IDT [interdisciplinary team] met today for annual review of [Resident #23's] care plan .Social worker will reach out to family to offer family care plan meeting . The clinical record made no mention of any advance notice to the resident or her family concerning the care plan meeting, any attempts to encourage the resident's participation in the meeting or any reason the resident's participation in the meeting was not practicable. On 4/3/19 at 1:24 p.m., the facility's social worker was interviewed about Resident #23's participation in care plan meetings. The social worker stated residents were only invited to care conferences when the families attended. The social worker stated she notified families verbally when seen at the facility or she contacted them by phone or email. The social worker stated there was no documented invitation or advance notice of the meetings sent to residents or families. The social worker stated Resident #23 was not invited and was not in attendance at the last meeting on 2/21/19. The social worker stated she tried to get in touch with the resident's family about the meeting but they did not respond to her calls. 2. Resident #3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a re-admission on [DATE]. Diagnoses for Resident #3 included COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease), atrial fibrillation, pneumonia, depression and high blood pressure. The minimum data set (MDS) dated [DATE] assessed Resident #3 with moderately impaired cognitive skills. On 4/2/19 at 3:15 p.m., Resident #3 was interviewed about quality of life and care in the facility. Resident #3 stated during this interview that she had no recall of being invited to her care plan meetings. Resident #3 stated she was not familiar with the care plan meetings and was not sure if any family members were invited or attended. Resident #3's clinical record documented the resident's last care plan meeting was held on 1/10/19. A clinical note dated 1/10/19 documented attendance at the meeting included nursing, social worker, activities, dietary and input from certified nurses' aides. The clinical record made no mention of any advance notice to the resident or a family representative concerning the care plan meeting or of any attempts to encourage the resident's participation in the meeting. On 4/3/19 at 1:30 p.m., the facility's social worker was interviewed about Resident #3's invitation and participation in the care conferences. The social worker stated Resident #3 nor a family member attended the care plan meeting on 1/10/19. The social worker stated she attempted to contact the resident's son but he was out of town. The social worker had no documentation of an invitation or advance notice to the family or resident concerning the meeting. The social worker stated residents were verbally asked to attend meetings only when the families attended. The social worker stated there was nothing documented about the resident's attendance in the clinical record. 3. An interview was conducted on 4/3/19 at 2:00 p.m. with a group of eight cognitively intact residents. During this interview, the residents were asked about their participation in quarterly care plan meetings. All of the residents stated they had not been invited to their care plan meetings. These findings were reviewed with the administrator and director of nursing during a meeting on 4/3/19 at 2:00 p.m. and on 4/4/19 at 8:30 a.m.
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
  • • 30% annual turnover. Excellent stability, 18 points below Virginia's 48% average. Staff who stay learn residents' needs.
Concerns
  • • 26 deficiencies on record, including 1 serious (caused harm) violation. Ask about corrective actions taken.
  • • $10,033 in fines. Above average for Virginia. Some compliance problems on record.
  • • Grade C (56/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Mixed indicators with Trust Score of 56/100. Visit in person and ask pointed questions.

About This Facility

What is Kendal At Lexington's CMS Rating?

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

How is Kendal At Lexington Staffed?

CMS rates KENDAL AT LEXINGTON's staffing level at 5 out of 5 stars, which is much above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 30%, compared to the Virginia average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Kendal At Lexington?

State health inspectors documented 26 deficiencies at KENDAL AT LEXINGTON during 2019 to 2024. These included: 1 that caused actual resident harm, 24 with potential for harm, and 1 minor or isolated issues. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.

Who Owns and Operates Kendal At Lexington?

KENDAL AT LEXINGTON is owned by a non-profit organization. Non-profit facilities reinvest revenue into operations rather than distributing to shareholders. The facility is operated by KENDAL, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 60 certified beds and approximately 39 residents (about 65% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in LEXINGTON, Virginia.

How Does Kendal At Lexington Compare to Other Virginia Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Virginia, KENDAL AT LEXINGTON's overall rating (3 stars) is below the state average of 3.0, staff turnover (30%) is significantly lower than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Kendal At Lexington?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "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?"

Is Kendal At Lexington Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, KENDAL AT LEXINGTON 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 3-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 Kendal At Lexington Stick Around?

Staff at KENDAL AT LEXINGTON tend to stick around. With a turnover rate of 30%, the facility is 16 percentage points below the Virginia average of 46%. Low turnover is a positive sign. It means caregivers have time to learn each resident's needs, medications, and personal preferences. Consistent staff also notice subtle changes in a resident's condition more quickly. Registered Nurse turnover is also low at 25%, meaning experienced RNs are available to handle complex medical needs.

Was Kendal At Lexington Ever Fined?

KENDAL AT LEXINGTON has been fined $10,033 across 1 penalty action. This is below the Virginia average of $33,179. While any fine indicates a compliance issue, fines under $50,000 are relatively common and typically reflect isolated problems that were subsequently corrected. Families should ask what specific issues led to these fines and confirm they've been resolved.

Is Kendal At Lexington on Any Federal Watch List?

KENDAL AT LEXINGTON 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.