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.