BIRMINGHAM GREEN

8605 CENTREVILLE ROAD, MANASSAS, VA 20110 (703) 257-0935
Government - City/county 180 Beds Independent Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
70/100
#64 of 285 in VA
Last Inspection: January 2024

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

Overview

Birmingham Green in Manassas, Virginia, has a Trust Grade of B, indicating it is a good choice among nursing homes. It ranks #64 out of 285 facilities in Virginia, placing it in the top half, and is the best option out of two in Manassas City County. The facility is improving, with the number of reported issues decreasing from 8 in 2020 to none in 2024. However, staffing is a notable weakness, rated at only 1 out of 5 stars, even though the turnover rate is impressively low at 0%. While there have been no fines, which is positive, there have been serious concerns, such as a failure to prevent pressure ulcers for one resident and a noted incident of abuse involving another resident. Overall, Birmingham Green shows promise but has some areas that need attention.

Trust Score
B
70/100
In Virginia
#64/285
Top 22%
Safety Record
Moderate
Needs review
Inspections
Getting Better
8 → 0 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
Turnover data not reported for this facility.
Penalties
✓ Good
No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Virginia facilities.
Skilled Nurses
○ Average
RN staffing data not reported for this facility.
Violations
⚠ Watch
15 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★★★☆
4.0
Overall Rating
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Staff Levels
★★★★☆
4.0
Care Quality
★★★★★
5.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2020: 8 issues
2024: 0 issues

The Good

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

Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.

The Bad

No Significant Concerns Identified

This facility shows no red flags. Among Virginia's 100 nursing homes, only 0% achieve this.

The Ugly 15 deficiencies on record

1 actual harm
Jan 2020 8 deficiencies 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

2a. For Resident #167 the facility staff failed to ensure the Resident was free from abuse from Resident #61. Resident #167 was discharged from the facility on 1/15/2020, so a closed record review wa...

Read full inspector narrative →
2a. For Resident #167 the facility staff failed to ensure the Resident was free from abuse from Resident #61. Resident #167 was discharged from the facility on 1/15/2020, so a closed record review was performed. Diagnoses for Resident #167 included but were not limited to: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, schizoaffective disorder, diabetes, hypertension, and collapsed vertebra. Resident #167's most recent MDS (minimum data set) (an assessment tool) with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 1/9/2020 was coded as an annual assessment. Resident #167 was coded as having had a BIMS (brief interview for mental status) score of 15, which indicated cognitively intact. The Resident was also coded on this assessment as having had no behavioral symptoms. Resident #167 required extensive assistance of staff for dressing, personal hygiene and bed mobility. The Resident was totally dependent upon staff for transfers, bathing and toileting. Resident #61 was an active Resident at the time of survey. Resident #61 is Spanish speaking. Diagnoses for Resident #61 included but were not limited to: personality disorder, major depressive disorder, sicca syndrome, and blindness left eye. Resident #61's most recent MDS (minimum data set) (an assessment tool) with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 11/12/2019 was coded as an annual assessment. Resident #61 was coded as having had a BIMS (brief interview for mental status) score of 15, which indicated cognitively intact. The Resident was coded as having required extensive assistance of staff for transfers, dressing, personal hygiene and toileting. On 1/29/2020 the facility staff was asked to provide all FRI's (facility reported incidents) involving Resident #61. Review of these documents revealed that on 9/25/2018 the facility staff were made aware that Resident #61 had assaulted Resident #167 on 9/24/2018. Enclosed in the investigation file was a hand-written letter, signed by Resident #167 that read, yesterday, Mon. 24, Sept. I had an altercation with [Resident #61's]. I know you know who that is. As I was entering the dining room to get a seat for Bingo, [Resident #61's] came up behind me, and started pushing my chair and assaulting me with hard blows. I was shocked. I wasn't going to sit at her table, I was just going past it. She even pulled my hair, hard, and continued hitting me! Someone pulled her away and I went on. I think you need to have a talk with her, as I was hurt with the blows and pulled hair. Thanks [Resident #167's signature]. The nursing notes in the closed record of Resident #167 revealed an entry on 9/25/2018 that read, Resident states, I was wheeling in the main dining room getting ready for bingo and [Resident #61] started pounding my back and pulled my hair and she hurt me. On 1/31/2020 at 8:50 AM an interview was conducted with the facility Administrator (Employee A) and Assistant Administrator (Employee C) in the Administrator office. When asked who wrote the hand-written letter, Employee C stated Resident #167. On 1/31/2020 at 11:53 AM, the Social Work Supervisor (Employee D) came into the conference room to discuss the incident of abuse towards Resident #167 by Resident #61. Employee D reported that Resident #167 had left the hand-written letter describing the assault under her office door. Employee D stated Resident #167 would frequently write letters when she had concerns. Employee D went on to state, [Resident #167] was pretty upset by having her hair pulled, she said it hurt her. She felt she had done nothing to provoke it. She wanted us to talk to Resident #61 and tell her it wasn't appropriate. She had no lingering pain, just at the time. She denied being fearful of her, and said she just avoided her. The facility investigation revealed that Resident #61 stated, she did hit [Resident #167's] because she took a bingo card. Further review of FRI's regarding Resident #61 revealed Resident #61 had displayed prior aggression toward other Residents prior to the assault of Resident #167. 2b. For Resident #20 the facility staff failed to ensure the Resident was free from abuse from Resident #61. Resident #20 was an active Resident of the facility at the time of survey. Diagnoses for Resident #20 included but were not limited to: Hypertension, hyperlipidemia, vascular dementia without behavioral disturbance and bilateral osteoarthritis of the knee. Resident #20's most recent MDS (minimum data set) (an assessment tool) with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 10/24/2019 was coded as a quarterly assessment. Resident #20 was coded as having had a BIMS (brief interview for mental status) score of 14, which indicated cognitively intact. The Resident was also coded on this assessment as having had no behavioral symptoms. Resident #20 required limited assistance of staff for bed mobility, dressing, toilet use, and personal hygiene. On 1/29/2020 the facility staff was asked to provide all FRI's (facility reported incidents) involving Resident #61. Review of these documents revealed that on 6/18/2019 Resident #20 came to the dining room, sat at the table, Resident #61 got upset and intentionally knocked the cup of coffee over onto Resident #20. Included in the documents the facility provided was a witness statement that read, she [Resident #20] went into the dining room and proceeded to sit at the table with [Resident #61's]. [Resident #61's] became very mad and agitated, shook the table, yelling at Resident. [Resident #20's] sat her coffee on the table and [Resident #61's] intentionally hit it and knocked it over onto [Resident #20's] lap. [Resident #20's] yelled out, you knocked over my coffee, it's hot. Facility record review also revealed a two-page hand written note dated 6/25/2019 titled Psychiatry, which read, Staff has updated me on recent events- last week throwing cup of hot coffee on another resident for no reason then laughing about it. Patient is known to me since admission and above behaviors resulting in harm to others is not new. She has never shown any remorse. When her wants/needs are not immediately met, she acts out. Resident #20 was assessed by nursing staff and not noted to have any injury as a result of Resident #61 knocking coffee into her lap. The facility had taken the temperature of the coffee prior to it leaving the kitchen and being delivered to the nursing unit. Resident #61 was presented a behavioral contract as a result of this incident, which included not eating meals at the table with other Residents. 2c. For Resident #368 the facility staff failed to ensure the Resident was free from abuse by Resident #61. Resident #368 was discharged from the facility on 12/7/19, therefore a closed record review was performed. Diagnoses for Resident #368 included but were not limited to: vascular dementia with behavioral disturbance, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic kidney disease stage 3, and major depressive disorder. Resident #368's most recent MDS (minimum data set) (an assessment tool) with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 10/10/2019 was coded as a quarterly assessment. Resident #368 was coded as having had a BIMS (brief interview for mental status) score of 4, which indicated severe cognitive impairment. The Resident was also coded on this assessment as having had no behavioral symptoms. Resident #368 required limited assistance of staff for dressing, toilet use, and bed mobility. The Resident was totally dependent upon facility staff for bathing and required extensive assistance with personal hygiene. On 1/29/2020 the facility staff was asked to provide all FRI's (facility reported incidents) involving Resident #61. Review of these documents revealed that on 5/6/18 Resident #61 started yelling at Resident #368, when Resident #368 walked over to Resident #61, Resident #61 kicked her on the leg. A witness statement was included in the documents from a staff member (not identified) who witnessed the altercation. After Resident #61 kicked Resident #368, Resident #368 hit Resident #61 with a plastic spoon and then Resident #61 grabbed the shirt of Resident #368 before staff could intervene. Resident #61 was educated as a result of this incident of abuse towards Resident #368. Following the end of day meeting held on 1/31/2020 the facility staff provided the survey team with a color coded copy of the HEAR (health, environment, approach, resident) document where they discussed interventions for Resident #61's behaviors and aggression/abuse towards other residents. Following the abuse inflicted on Resident #368 on 5/6/18, the following entry was made on this document: different seating arrangement for her to protect others- we need to protect others from her because she becomes physically violent. 2d. For Resident #95 the facility staff failed to ensure the Resident was free from abuse from Resident #61. Resident #95 was an active Resident of the facility at the time of survey. Diagnoses for Resident #95 included but were not limited to: hemiplegia, personal history of traumatic brain injury, pseudobulbar affect, anxiety disorder, and pedestrian injured in traffic accident involving unspecified motor vehicles sequela. Resident #95's most recent MDS (minimum data set) (an assessment tool) with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 12/2/2019 was coded as a quarterly assessment. Resident #95 was coded as having had a BIMS (brief interview for mental status) score of 14, which indicated cognitively intact. The Resident was also coded on this assessment as having had no behavioral symptoms. Resident #95 required extensive assistance of staff for all ADL's (activities of daily living), with the exception of bathing, in which the Resident was totally dependent upon staff. Review of nursing notes revealed an entry on 7/31/19 that indicated Resident #95 and Resident #61 were observed hitting each other. The FRI prepared by the facility staff described the incident in more detail and stated, On 7/31/19 at approximately 1:25 PM Resident #61 became physically and verbally aggressive with [Resident #95's]. [Resident #61] pushed another Resident's wheelchair out of her way but made no physical contact with the Resident. [Resident #61's] then struck [Resident #95] with her fists on his arms. This report further states that the two Residents began hitting each other and staff intervened. The community services board was contacted and recommended the facility contact the police for Resident #61's behavior. However, the facility chose not to carry out this recommendation and stated, Resident's behavior was calm immediately following the incident. Facility records revealed a letter dated 8/7/19 to Resident #61's son, with a copy being given to the Resident and other son as well. The letter stated, [facility name redacted] has determined we can no longer meet her needs. In addition, we have determined that [Resident #61's] behavioral status continues to endanger the health of other in the facility. Nursing notes revealed an entry dated 8/12/19 that read, Staff witnessed Resident getting too close to Resident #61, who yelled at him [referring to Resident #95], and both Resident's observed hitting each other on the arms. The facility investigation revealed the following details: Resident #61 was sitting at the nursing station when Resident #95 wheeled by, Resident #61 started yelling at him. Resident #95 yelled back and swung to hit Resident #61 and both started hitting each other. On 1/31/19 an interview was conducted with Resident #95 regarding the relationship with Resident #61. Resident #95 indicated they don't get along. The facility investigation file revealed that on 10/16/19 Resident #95 reported to the facility social worker there was a personality conflict between the two. Review of the facility policy titled Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation read on page 1 under the definition heading, abuse is the willful infliction of injury, unreasonable confinement, intimidation, or punishment resulting in physical harm, pain or mental anguish. Instances of abuse of all residents, irrespective of any mental or physical condition, cause physical harm, pain, or mental anguish. Willful, as used in this definition of abuse, means the individual must have acted deliberately, not that the individual must have intended to inflict injury or harm. Page 4 of this policy under the heading prevention read, [facility name redacted] will prevent verbal, mental, sexual or physical abuse. Page 5 read, [facility name redacted] will maintain protocols and procedures to identify, correct and intervene in situations in which abuse, neglect, mistreatment and/or misappropriation of resident property is more likely to occur. During an end of day meeting held on 1/30/2020 the facility Administrator, Director of Nursing and Assistant Administrator were made aware of the concerns surrounding Resident #61's behaviors towards other Residents. No further information was provided. Based on observation, staff interview, resident interview, clinical record review, and facility documentation review, the facility staff failed to ensure 8 residents were free from abuse (Residents #118, #161, #69, #120, #167, #20, #368, #95) by two residents (#50, #61) in a survey sample of 46 residents. This resulted in harm to Resident #118. The findings included; 1) For Residents #118, #69, #20, #161, and #120, the facility staff failed to ensure that they were free from abuse by Resident #50. Resident #118's diagnoses upon admission included; peripheral vascular disease, sleep apnea, hypertension, morbid obesity, and depression single episode. The Minimum Data Set assessment tool review revealed that Resident #118 was coded as having a Brief Interview of Mental Status Score of 15 out of a possible 15 points indicating no impaired cognition. The Resident was coded as requiring 1 staff member for physical assistance with all activities of daily living, with the exceptions of, eating with set up help only, and the Resident was able to self propel a wheel chair, although, slowly. Resident #50's diagnoses upon admission included; Anoxic brain damage, dementia with behavioral disturbance, diabetes, major depressive disorder single episode, and heart disease. The Minimum Data Set assessment tool review revealed that Resident #50 was coded as having a Brief Interview of Mental Status Score of unable to complete indicating severe impaired cognition. The Resident was coded as requiring staff members for physical assistance with activities of daily living, with the exceptions of locomotion off of the unit in a wheel chair, and the Resident was able to self propel a wheel chair, and was coded as needing supervision. On 1-28-2020 at 11:30 a.m., on initial tour of the facility, an observation and interview were conducted with 2 surveyors and Resident #118 in the hallway of the Resident's room. The Resident was sitting in a wheel chair. An activity was being conducted in the dining room area of the unit and Resident #118 was asked by surveyors if she would like to attend. The Resident stated no, I can't do that because (Resident #50's name) is in there and she is mean. Resident #118 was asked if Resident #50 had hurt her in the past, and she stated yes, twice, the first time she pinched me and left a big bruise on my arm, and the second time she grabbed my arms and hit me and left bruises on me. Immediately following the 1-28-2020 11:30 a.m. interview with Resident #118, an interview was conducted with Resident #50's room mate (Resident #53). The room mate stated that Resident #50 did curse and yell at her and the staff, and threatened to Kill staff, but stated that Resident #50 had not hit her, and further stated when she's like that I just stay quiet, and don't say anything, she is sick in the head, you know, you can't get mad at someone acting that way if they are sick in the head. On 1-30-2020 at 3:20 p.m., an interview was conducted with Resident #118. Two surveyors, and the Administrator were present in an open empty dining room. The Resident was asked to tell the Administrator if Resident #50 had hurt her. She stated yes . When asked how many times she had been hurt by Resident #50, she stated Twice, I told [LPN C] the first time when she pinched me, and then the nurses came and saw when she grabbed me the second time. Resident #50's clinical records and facility records were reviewed. On 7-8-19 facility investigation documents revealed Resident #50 wandered into the room of Resident #161, grabbing and hitting Resident #161 inflicting bruises. Note: Residents #161 was not able to be interviewed due to dementia. 8-6-19 Psychiatric physicians notes read Per staff acute worsening of behavior, having difficulties sleeping. Patient aggressive toward peer this morning, entered peer's room. Often sleeps during the day and awakes at night. Agitated attempted to elope during exit. Start Ativan 0.5 mg (milligrams) for PRN (as needed) aggression with risk of harm to self or others. On 8-6-19 at 3:28 p.m., facility investigation documents revealed Resident #50 wandered down the hall of Resident #118, grabbed and pinched the Resident on the elbow while Resident #118 was gazing outside from the exit door where she liked to sit, inflicting bruises. On 8-6-19 at 3:38 (nursing notes) Resident #50 wandered down the hall of Resident #118 again, and grabbed her arms inflicting bruises. The 2 Resident's rooms are on different halls. The record review showed no other instances of Resident #50 assaulting Resident #118. 8-20-19 Psychiatric physicians notes read Patient has been sleeping poorly, got almost no sleep last night. She's had more episodes of aggressive behavior toward staff and residents in the last week, and these are notably more frequent when she does not sleep well. 9-3-19 Psychiatric physicians notes read Agitated /frustrated because she's tired. She just pierced another resident with a fork for no reason .Close monitoring .as there is no medication even off label that is appropriate. On 9-3-19 facility investigation documents revealed Resident #50 was sitting at the dining table with Resident #69, and attempted to take meat off of Resident #69's plate with a fork. When Resident #69 tried to brush Resident #50's hand away from her plate, Resident #50 pierced her (per doctor's note) with the fork leaving a red mark on Resident #69. Residents #69 was not able to be interviewed due to due to extreme hearing loss and language barrier. 10-22-19 Psychiatric physicians notes read Patient seen wheeling self about loud and hostile difficult to redirect is responding well to PRN (as needed) Ativan On 10-30-19 facility investigation documents revealed while in an activity, Resident #50 grabbed and hit Resident #20 on the left arm. On 1-29-2020 at 10:00 a.m., an interview was conducted with Resident #20. The Resident was alert, oriented to person, place, and situation. She stated she did remember Resident #50 leaving bruises when she grabbed me, and I was minding my own business in my own room. She came in here. The Resident denied being afraid of Resident #50, however, did state that she stayed out away from (name) Resident #50, so she can't get ahold of me. On 12-10-19 facility investigation documents revealed Resident #50 wandered into the room of Resident #120, and when Resident #120 told her to leave Resident #50 kicked her in the shin causing pain. On 1-29-2020 at 9:30 a.m. an interview was conducted with Resident #120. The Resident was oriented to person, place, time, and situation, and was also found to be a good historian. The Resident stated that Resident #50 wandered daily, and had wandered in her room several times, taking things that belonged to Resident #120. Resident #120 stated that the time she was kicked by Resident #50, she had told her to leave her room, and that Resident #50 kicked her in her sore leg causing pain, but no other injury. Resident #120 stated that Resident #50 (name) yells, curses you out, and beats on staff and Residents both, and if Resident #50 (name) comes back in my room, there's gonna be trouble. Resident #120 was asked what kind of trouble, she stated I will kick her back. Staff interviews on 2 units (staff wished to remain anonymous due to fear of retaliation) indicated that Resident #50 had aggressive behaviors of lashing out at Residents and staff. Nursing staff stated they were told to go to urgent care by Administration if Resident #50 hurt them, and asked if they wanted to press charges, however, the staff chose not to. Staff also stated that the Resident will routinely sleep for 3 days then be up for 3 days. On 1-30-2020 after the 3:20 pm interview (see above), the Administrator joined the surveyors back in the conference room after the interview, and stated that the staff had already placed Resident #50 on 1:1 (one to one) supervision that morning, and it would continue at all times while she was out of bed. The Administrator stated that the Resident needed assistance to get out of bed, and so the only time supervision was required would be when Resident #50 was in her wheel chair. The facility policy entitled Freedom from abuse, neglect, and exploitation was reviewed and revealed at area 6 protection The facility will provide increased supervision of the alleged victim and residents. Room changes or staffing changes will occur if necessary to protect the resident(s) from the alleged perpetrator. On 1-30-2020 at the end of day debrief, the Administrator and DON were notified of the findings for Resident #118. The facility stated they had no further information to provide.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0583 (Tag F0583)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, clinical record review, and facility documentation review, the facility staff failed to ensure privacy and confidentiality of resident clinical records for 1 resident (Resident #...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, clinical record review, and facility documentation review, the facility staff failed to ensure privacy and confidentiality of resident clinical records for 1 resident (Resident #99) in a sample size of 46 residents. Findings included. For Resident #99, the facility staff left the Resident's protected health information on top of the medication cart unattended while LPN D was in a resident room at the end of a hallway rendering care to a resident. Resident #99 was admitted with diagnoses of, but not limited to; Pneumonia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, gastric hemorrhage, anemia, congestive heart failure, and stage 3 kidney disease. On 1-28-2020 during initial tour of the facility, documents were observed on a medication cart with no attendant. The documents were picked up and reviewed, revealing chest x-ray results, new physician's orders for medications with diagnoses for them, labs with diagnoses, and descriptions of blood in the Resident's sputum for Resident #99. Also found in the documents was a form with every resident name and room number on the hallway, to include diagnoses, diets, allergies, those who were fall risks, vital signs and blood sugar checks for diabetics, CPR resuscitation status, and notes about resident's activities of daily living needs. The surveyor waited at the cart for approximately 10 minutes and asked another nurse who eventually approached if he was responsible for the medication cart, and he stated no, and supplied the surveyor with the name of the nurse responsible (LPN D) Licensed Practical Nurse. LPN D finally returned to the cart and stated she had been assisting a resident and knew she should not have left the documents open and available to view. Copies of the documents were provided by her to surveyors. During the end of day debriefing on 1-29-2020 at 4:30 p.m., the Administrator, and Director of Nursing were informed of the findings. No further information was provided by the facility.
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, clinical record review, and facility documentation the facility staff failed to implement care plan for 2 Residents #3 and #147 in a survey sample of 46 Residents. The findings included: 1. For Resident #3 the facility staff failed to develop a person centered care plan to address contractures to the Left hand. Resident # 3, a [AGE] year old man, was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of but not limited to intracranial injury, cerebrovascular disease, age related osteoporosis, primary left hand contracture, right knee contracture, right ankle contracture, left ankle contracture, muscle spasm and chronic pain syndrome. On 1/28/20 at 11:00 AM, the Resident was observed in his room lying in bed with no orthotics in his Left hand which was also contracted. On 1/29/20 at 9:00 AM, the Resident was observed in his room lying in bed, Left hand contracted, and without orthotic. On 1/28/20 at approximately 2:30 PM, an interview was conducted with RN A, and she was asked if Resident #3 wore any sort of orthotics for contractures. RN A responded that he did not. On 1/29/20 review of clinical record reveal the care plan did not reflect the past use of palm guards and did not address the use of orthotics or devices for prevention or treatment of contractures. On 1/29/20 at 4:30 PM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). When asked about Resident #3 wearing orthotic for contracture she stated that she was not sure but would have PT/OT look at him. On 1/30/20, the DON submitted Interdisciplinary Therapy Data Collection Form. Excerpts from the form are as follows: Contractures - No recent changes per patient. Comments - Patient screened per nursing request for hand contractures and possible palm guards. Patient reports not liking palm guards in the past and doesn't wish to have them. Patient stated he would like to have a ball [therapy ball]. Patient will benefit from OT eval to determine appropriate orthotics. On 1/31/20 during end of day meeting the Administrator was made aware of concerns no further information was provided. 2. For Resident #147 the facility staff failed to implement the care plan for use of 2 person assistance for turning and repositioning. Resident #147 an [AGE] year old woman admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis of but not limited to Osteoporosis, Chronic Kidney Disease, Major Depressive Disorder, Cerebral Vascular Disease and adult failure to thrive. Resident #147's most recent MDS (Minimum Data Set) with ARD (Assessment Reference Date) of 12/27/19 the Resident was coded as having a BIMS (Brief Interview of Mental Status) score of 99 indicating severe cognitive impairment. Resident #147 was also coded as requiring 2 person assistance for bed mobility turning and positioning. The resident was also coded as requiring 1 person physical assistance for bathing, dressing, eating as well as locomotion on and off the unit using a wheel chair. On 1/30/2020 at 10:30 am this surveyor observed RN a performing wound care on Resident #147. The resident was in bed dressed with blanket over her. RN A gathered her supplies and placed them on the clean over bed table, on top of a disposable absorbent pad. RN A closed the door and pulled the privacy curtain before raising the bed to a comfortable working height (about waist high) RN A positioned Resident to be able to observe heel wound, right foot first. RN A then turned Resident towards the window onto her left side as to observe the sacrum area. RN A did not engage the assistance of another person. The Resident has no order for side rails on her bed and RN A was standing on the side of the bed facing the Residents back. On 1/30/20 during a clinical record review it was discovered that Resident #147's care plan read as follows: FOCUS: I am at risk for falls related to impaired cognition, impaired mobility, and impaired safety awareness. Date initiated - 7/3/19 Goal: I will not have any fall related injuries Date initiated - 7/3/19 Interventions: After care make sure resident is in center of bed not too close to edge Date initiated - 7/3/19 Provide assistance of two with bed mobility and repositioning. Date initiated - 7/3/19 On 1/30/20 at 4:34 PM an interview with the DON was conducted and she stated that the care plan was correct, Resident #147 requires 2 person physical assistance for turning and repositioning. The DON said There should have been someone standing on the other side of the bed. When asked why she replied For safety, to prevent her falling out of the bed. On 1/31/20 during end of day meeting the Administrator was made aware of concerns no further information was provided.
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 staff interview, facility documentation review and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to review and revi...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interview, facility documentation review and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to review and revise the careplan for 2 Residents (Resident #61, #24) in a survey sample of 46 Residents. The findings included: 1. The facility staff failed to review and revise the careplan for Resident #61 following 7 altercations with other Residents. Resident #61 was an active Resident at the time of survey. Resident #61 is Spanish speaking. Diagnoses for Resident #61 included but were not limited to: personality disorder, major depressive disorder, sicca syndrome, and blindness left eye. Resident #61's most recent MDS (minimum data set) (an assessment tool) with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 11/12/2019 was coded as an annual assessment. Resident #61 was coded as having had a BIMS (brief interview for mental status) score of 15, which indicated cognitively intact. The Resident was coded as having required extensive assistance of staff for transfers, dressing, personal hygiene and toileting. Review of the clinical record revealed the following incidents related to Resident #61: 1. 5/16/2018 Resident #61 yelled at Resident #368 and kicked her leg. 2. On 9/24/2018 Resident #61 assaulted Resident #167, pulled the Resident's hair and hit them. 3. On 11/3/2018 Resident #61 yelled at Resident #369 and hit them on the head, then kicked their wheelchair. 4. 6/18/2019 Resident #61 knocked coffee onto the lap of Resident #20. 5. On 7/31/2019 Resident #61 was physically and verbally aggressive with Resident #95. 6. On 8/12/2019 Resident #61 and Resident #95 had another altercation resulting in both Residents hitting each other. 7. On 10/13/2019 Resident #95 ran over Resident #61's toes with the wheelchair and Resident #61 slapped Resident #95 several times. Review of the careplan for Resident #61 revealed the following: * The behavioral careplan was initiated on 10/29/2016 * From the time of 5/16/2018-10/13/2019 (dates of the above referenced incidents) the careplan had the following intervention revisions: 1. Staff to intervene when Resident because upset and yelling [sic] when another resident sits at her table. Staff will be calm and ask resident to calm down or we need to sit at another table. Give emotional support. This was initiated 12/15/2017 and revised on 5/30/2018. 2. Minimize disruption/changes to Resident's environment and routine was initiated 5/29/2019. 3. Resident and family presented with behavioral contract with facility expectations that resident cannot hurt self or others. Also, resident presented with alternate dining choices but is no longer dining at group tables, was imitated on 8/14/2019, despite the behavioral contract being issued 6/18/2019. The facility investigation files and Behavioral Management Plan for Resident #61 revealed the facility had consulted psychiatry for Resident #61, issued a discharge notice, attempted to avoid Resident #61's contact with specific Residents, called the Community Services Board to attempt to obtain psychiatric in-patient treatment, assist Resident's with maneuvering in the dining to prevent contact, and considered a private room. However, none of these interventions were noted in the clinical record for Resident #61. On 1/31/2020 at 11:18 AM an interview was conducted with RN A. RN A was asked to describe what a careplan is and it's use. RN A stated, the careplan is when the resident and family gets with IDT (interdisciplinary team) to discuss goals and what the plan of care will be. Everyone should use them to see how they want to be called, what treatment is needed, special needs, it drives the care. RN A was asked what the importance of the careplan being current was, RN A stated, safety, satisfaction and well-being. On 1/31/2020 at 11:21 AM an interview was conducted with CNA A. She was asked if she has access to the careplan, what it is for, if she uses it, etc. CNA A stated, I do have access, right here [and showed the surveyor on the computer she was using]. It tells me what they like, don't like, resident care, splints, etc. CNA A was asked if it is important for her to use the careplan, CNA A stated, yes, I don't want to walk in not knowing what to do. I look at them everyday. On 1/31/2020 at 11:26 AM an interview was conducted with CNA B. CNA B stated, I am just prn [as needed] the careplan tells me how to transfer the Resident, what they need. CNA B was asked how often she looks at the careplan for Residents. CNA B stated, I look at it anytime I come to work, I look at the [NAME], it is important, we have to look at it day by day for what we are capable of doing for the Resident. Review of the facility policy titled Care Planning revealed the following: Each Resident will have a comprehensive, person-centered care plan developed to identify resident's care needs and goals for care. Page 3 of the policy stated, the comprehensive careplan will be reviewed and revised by the IDT after each assessment, including comprehensive and quarterly review assessments. The facility Administrator and Assistant Administrator were made aware of the facility staff's failure to review and revise the careplan for Resident #61 following incidents with other Residents during a meeting held in the Administrator's office the morning of 1/31/2019. No further information was provided. 2. For Resident #24, the facility staff failed to revise the care plan to include the ROHO wheelchair cushion. Resident #24's diagnoses included but not limited to hemiplegia and hemiparesis following unspecified cerebrovascular disease affecting right dominant side. Resident #24's most recent Minimum Data Set with an Assessment Reference Date of 10/23/2019 was coded as a significant change in status assessment. The Brief Interview for Mental Status was coded as 99 meaning an incomplete interview. Cognitive skills for Daily decision-making were coded as severely impaired. Transfers and locomotion on unit were coded as total dependence on staff. Mobility device selected was wheelchair. During the course of the survey, fall investigations for Resident #24 were requested and the facility staff provided two investigations dated 09/23/2019 and 11/10/2019. On the fall investigation document dated 09/23/2019 under the header Staff/Other Interviews it was documented that Resident #24 was calm and sitting in dining area. Under the subheader, Did you see or hear anything that may have resulted in the resident's fall?, it was documented, Yes, she slipped. Under the header Investigation Findings/Conclusions and subheader Action/Behavior/Reason for fall, it was documented Related to resident behavior possible wheelchair cushion. Under the sub-header Specific Action (s) Taken to Minimize Recurrence, it was documented, PT/OT [physical therapy/occupational therapy] to eval [evaluate] and treat, possible wheelchair cushion replacement. An excerpt of a physical therapy Treatment Encounter note dated 09/24/2019 under the header Summary of Skill documented, Pt [patient] fitted for new cushion post fall yesterday. The fall investigation dated 11/10/2019 was reviewed. Under the header Witnessed Fall it was documented, no. Under the header Staff/Other Interviews and sub-header What was the resident doing at the time of the fall? it was documented, sitting, at the dining room. [sic]. Under the header Known Risk Factors, the option poor trunk control was selected. Under the header, Environmental/Situational Conditions .that may have impacted this fall, the options Unsafe positioning in bed/chair and attempting to reach for fluid/food were selected. Under the header Investigation Findings/Conclusions and subheader Action/Behavior/Reason for fall, it was documented, Res [resident] slipped out of w/c [wheelchair] on hoyer lift sling in sitting position in front of w/c (cushion thick on chair may be cause of sliding out of wheelchair). Under the sub-header Specific Action (s) Taken to Minimize Recurrence, it was documented, PT [physical therapy] to assess w/c cushion for safety. An excerpt of an occupational therapy Treatment Encounter note dated 11/11/2019 under the header Summary of Skill documented, Pt [patient] encountered sitting in WC [wheelchair] with pt daughter at table; pt daughter noted concerns about new WC cushion firmness slippery texture of hoyer sling; OT [occupational therapy] informed daughter that gel wedge cushion and counter 2 chambered ROHO cushion ordered for trial to inc [include] pt WC positioning. Rolled towel placed at pt L [left] side in WC to inc posture. On 01/31/2020 at approximately 11:30 AM, an interview with Registered Nurse B (RN B) was conducted. When asked about Resident #24's wheelchair cushion, RN B stated that therapy staff had trialed wheelchair cushions and found that the ROHO cushion was best. When asked if she would expect to see that on the care plan, RN B stated that she would put it on the care plan so staff would know. RN B and this surveyor observed the care plan on the electronic health record. RN B confirmed there were no interventions associated with use of the ROHO wheelchair cushion as recommended by therapy. RN B stated that she would update the care plan now. On 01/31/2019 at approximately 12:00 PM, an interview with Employee E, Therapy Program Manager, was conducted. When asked about therapy recommendations for Resident #24's wheelchair cushion, Employee E stated that Resident #24 started using the ROHO cushion on 12/02/2019 and the staff was in-serviced on 01/08/2020 regarding management of ROHO cushion. Employee E provided a document dated 01/08/2020 entitled, Inservice Training Sign-In Sheet. Under the header, Topic, it was documented ROHO Cushion Management. Under the header, Training Objectives, it was documented, 1. Management of ROHO Cushion 2. Storage of pump in tx [treatment] cart or decided location 3. Schedule to check cushion pressure 1x/wk [once a week] on shower day. A physician's order dated 01/10/2020 under the header Order Summary documented, REHAB orders: check pt WC [patient wheelchair] cushion for air pressure before placing pt in WC. A copy of the updated care plan was requested and the facility provided a copy. A care plan focus initiated on 09/12/2016 entitled, AT risk for injury from falls r/t [related to] impaired mobility, hx cva [history of cerebrovascular accident] w/right [with right] side weakness/hemiparesis . was reviewed. An intervention associated with this focus initiated on 01/31/2020 documented, Resident is out of bed into wheelchair with a roho cushion. The facility staff provided a copy of their policy entitled, Care Planning. Under the header Policy Statement, it was documented, Each resident will have a comprehensive, person-centered care plan developed to identify resident's care needs and goals for care. In summary, the care plan was not revised to include the implementation of ROHO wheelchair cushion as recommended by therapy and summarized in physician's orders. On 01/31/2020 at approximately 1:00 PM, the administrator and DON were notified of findings. The DON stated that the care plan should have been updated.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0658 (Tag F0658)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interview, facility documentation review, and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to follow physician orders for 1 resident (Resident #166) in a survey sample of 46 residents. The findings included: For Resident #166, the facility staff failed to administer low blood pressure medication (Midodrine) as scheduled. Resident #166, a [AGE] year old male, was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. His diagnoses included but are not limited to Parkinson's disease, dementia, history of falls, hypotension (low blood pressure) and syncope (temporary loss of consciousness caused by a drop in blood pressure). On 01/30/2020, a clinical record review was conducted for Resident #166. Physician orders dated 1/13/2020 read, Midodrine HCl tablet, 5mg, give 1 tablet by mouth two times a day for systolic BP [the first number in a blood pressure reading] below 110, hold for systolic BP above 110. Doses were scheduled to be given at 9:00 AM and 6:00 PM every day. A Weights and Vitals Summary and a Medication Administration Audit Report for the month of January 2020 was requested and provided by facility staff. Review of these documents for Resident #166 revealed the following: 01/14/2020, time scheduled 9:00 AM and 6:00 PM, no blood pressure readings, no Midodrine administered 01/15/2020, time scheduled 9:00 AM, no blood pressure reading, no Midodrine administered On 01/31/2020 at approximately 11:30 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON, Employee B) was interviewed and stated, [Resident #166] receives Midodrine to increase his low blood pressure, a blood pressure reading is necessary to be able to assess whether or not the Midodrine should be given, I have reviewed his [Resident #166] records and found that the nurses failed to document vital signs as ordered on January 14th and 15th, [Resident #166] could experience dizziness and low blood pressure if not treated properly with the Midodrine, the doctor would not be able to review his vital signs and adjust his treatments as needed, and there is no way to validate the clinical decision that was made by the nurse with regard to administering or holding the Midodrine, we will be re-educating these nurses. Review of the facility's policy entitled, 6.0 General Dose Preparation and Medication Administration (revision date 01/01/13), under subheading Procedure, item 6.1 read, Document necessary medication administration/treatment information. On 01/31/2020 at approximately 12:45 PM, the Facility Administrator (Employee A) and Director of Nursing (Employee B) were informed and no further information was received.
CONCERN (D)

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

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 mitigate accident hazards for one resident (resident #147) in a survey sample of 46 residents. The findings included; For Resident #147 the facility staff failed to provide interventions to prevent accidents. Resident #147, an [AGE] year old woman, was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis of but not limited to Osteoporosis, Chronic Kidney Disease, Major Depressive Disorder, Cerebral Vascular Disease and adult failure to thrive. Resident 147's most recent MDS (Minimum Data Set) with ARD (Assessment Reference Date) of 12/27/19 the Resident was coded as having a BIMS (Brief Interview of Mental Status of 99 indicating severe cognitive impairment. Resident #147 was also coded as requiring 2 person assistance for bed mobility turning and positioning. The resident was also coded as recurring 1 person physical assistance for bathing, dressing, eating as well as locomotion on and off the unit using a wheel chair. On 1/30/2020 at 10:30am, this surveyor observed RN A performing wound care on Resident #147. The resident was in bed dressed with blanket over her. RN A gathered her supplies and placed them on the clean overbid table, on top of a disposable absorbent pad. RN A closed the door and pulled the privacy curtain before raising the bed to a comfortable working height (about waist high) RN A positioned Resident to be able to observe a heel wound RN A then turned Resident towards the window onto her left side as to observe the sacrum area. RN A did not engage the assistance of another person. The Resident has no order for side rails on her bed and RN A was standing on the side of the bed facing the Residents back. On 1/30/20 during clinical record review it was discovered that Resident #147's care plan read as follows: FOCUS: I am at risk for falls related to impaired cognition, impaired mobility, and impaired safety awareness. Date initiated - 7/3/19 Goal: I will not have any fall related injuries Date initiated - 7/3/19 Interventions: After care make sure resident is in center of bed not too close to edge Date initiated - 7/3/19 Provide assistance of two with bed mobility and repositioning. Date initiated - 7/3/19 On 1/30/20 at 4:34 PM an interview with the DON was conducted and she stated that the care plan was correct, Resident #147 requires 2 person physical assistance for turning and repositioning. The DON said There should have been someone standing on the other side of the bed. When asked why she replied For safety, to prevent her falling out of the bed. On 1/30/20 the Administrator was made aware of the concerns and no further information was provided.
CONCERN (D)

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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, staff interview, clinical record review, and facility documentation review, the facility staff failed to properly secure active prescriptions for controlled substances on one of ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, staff interview, clinical record review, and facility documentation review, the facility staff failed to properly secure active prescriptions for controlled substances on one of three units (neighborhoods). The findings included: On 01/30/2020 at approximately 2:20 PM, this surveyor approached the nurse's station and requested the hard chart clinical record for Resident #50. A facility nursing staff member was unable to locate the hard chart and stated she would look for it. Within approximately 10 minutes time, the facility staff confirmed the hard chart was in the MDS office and provided the hard chart to this surveyor. While reviewing Resident #50's hard chart clinical record, an active prescription dated 10/22/2019 for Lorazepam 0.5 mg (75 tablets, 4 refills) was observed in the hard chart in a plastic sleeve. The handwritten prescription contained the Resident #50's name; the physician's name, DEA number, and signature. There were no marks on the prescription to indicate it had already been filled. On 01/30/2020 at approximately 2:35 PM, an interview with Licensed Practical Nurse B (LPN B) was conducted. When asked about the process for handing of prescriptions, LPN B stated when a physician writes a prescription (from their prescription pad), the prescription gets faxed to the pharmacy and then the original prescription is placed in the pharmacy bag to go to the pharmacy. This surveyor requested to see the pharmacy bag. LPN B and this surveyor observed 2 unsealed plastic bags in a letter holder mounted on the wall behind the nurse's station. A quick glance in the bag revealed there were prescriptions for controlled substances that were not voided or marked as already being faxed to the pharmacy. When asked why it would be important to store active prescriptions in a secure (locked) area, LPN B stated So that they can't be taken to another pharmacy and filled. When shown the active prescription for Lorazepam in Resident #50's hard chart, LPN B removed the prescription from the hard chart and stated that it shouldn't be there. On 01/30/2020 at approximately 2:50 PM, the administrator and DON were notified of findings and the DON stated the prescriptions should have been locked in the med room. On 01/31/2020 at approximately 12:45 PM, the DON provided contact information for their pharmacist consultant, Employee F. The facility staff also provided a copy of all the contents of the 2 unsealed pharmacy bags. Of the 56 documents in the bags (collectively), there were 14 active prescriptions handwritten from provider prescription pads. All medications on those 14 active prescriptions were either Schedule II, IV, or V controlled substances including hydrocodone, oxycodone, lorazepam, and alprazolam. On 01/31/2020 at approximately 12:55 PM, a telephone interview with Employee F was conducted. When notified an active prescription for lorazepam was observed in a resident's hard chart and active prescriptions were located in unsealed bags at the nurse's station, Employee E stated, They should be secured. A copy of facility policy on handling of prescriptions and controlled substances was requested and the facility staff provided a copy of their policy entitled, LTC [long-term care] Facilities Receiving Pharmacy Products and Services from Pharmacy. Under the header, Applicability it was documented, This policy 4.2 sets forth procedures relating to new orders for Schedule II controlled substances. The policy did not address the secure handling of active prescriptions.
CONCERN (D)

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

Medication Errors (Tag F0758)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview clinical record review and facility documentation the facility staff failed to ensure PRN Anti Anxiety medica...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview clinical record review and facility documentation the facility staff failed to ensure PRN Anti Anxiety medication was limited to 14 days for 1 Resident (#62) in a survey sample of 46 Resident. The finding include: For Resident # 62 the facility staff failed to ensure the PRN use of Ativan was for 14 days. Resident #62 a [AGE] year old woman admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of but not limited to atrial fibrillation, anxiety disorder, diabetes, Lewy body dementia, COPD, and unspecified dementia with behavior disturbances. Most recent MDS (Minimum Data Set) with an ARD (Assessment Reference Date of 12/9/19 coded as a significant change. Resident was coded as having a BIMS (Brief Interview of Mental Status) score 0 indicating severe cognitive impairment. On 1/31/20 resident was selected for Unnecessary Medication Review and during clinical record review it was discovered that Resident # 62 had an order for PRN Lorazepam (anti-anxiety medication) that was longer than 14 days. Resident had the following orders for Lorazepam (Ativan): Lorazepam Intensol concentrate 2 MG (Milligrams) / ML (Milliliter) - Give 0.5 ml by mouth every 4 hours as needed for Anxiety Start Date - 12/1/19 - D/C Date 12/27/19 On 1/31/20 an interview was conducted with the DON who stated that she didn't know the Resident's order was for longer than 14 days. On 1/31/20 DON provided copy of the pharmacy review that read as follows: Recommendation date 12/7/19 Comment: [Resident name redacted] has a PRN order for an anxiolytic without a stop date Lorazepam [Ativan] Recommendation: It continued greater than 14 days, current regulation require that the prescriber document the indication for use, the intended duration of therapy, and the rationale for the extended time period. Rationale for Recommendation: CMS requires that PRN orders for non-antipsychotic, psychotropic drugs be limited to 14 days unless the prescriber documents the diagnosed specific condition being treated, the rationale for the extended time period and the duration of the PRN order. Physician Response: [box checked] I decline the recommendation(s) above and do not wish to implement any changes due to the reasons below. Pt under hospice care now. - [physician signature redacted] - 12/23/19 Resident #62 was placed on hospice 12/23/19. On 1/31/20 during the end of day meeting the Administrator was made aware of the concerns and no further information was provided.
Mar 2018 7 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0583 (Tag F0583)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, staff interview, and facility documentation review, the facility staff failed to ensure privacy of healthcare information for one unit (Unit Garden Hill) of three Units. The find...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, staff interview, and facility documentation review, the facility staff failed to ensure privacy of healthcare information for one unit (Unit Garden Hill) of three Units. The findings included: During Garden Hill Unit's Medication Pass Task on 2/28/18 at approximately 11:20 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #2 walked away from the medication cart C, leaving her daily assignment sheet face up on top of the medication cart. The daily assignment sheet included resident names and resident diagnoses. During the time the LPN was away from her cart, one facility staff, maintenance staff, and one visitor walked past the medication cart and had the ability to see personal health protected information. LPN #2 was interviewed on 2/28/18 at approximately 11:30 AM, and asked if she saw anything wrong with walking away from her assignment sheet with Resident protected healthcare information visible to anyone who would walk by. LPN #2 took her assignment sheet and turned it face down so no protected healthcare information was visible to anyone. She stated that she should not have left the healthcare information visible to others. When asked if she felt this was a HIPPA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability) violation, she stated, Yes. On 3/2/18 at approximately 12:15 PM, an observation was made of Garden Hill Unit's Medication Cart B. Resident Protected Healthcare Information was visible to anyone walking past the cart. The Protected Healthcare Information was the assignment sheet of LPN #5. LPN #5 informed the Unit Manager #2, that she had given the assignment sheet to the aide to write in vital signs. Garden Hill's Unit Manager #2 was asked what the expectation was for Protected Healthcare Information and she stated on 3/2/18 at approximately 12:15 PM, The information should not be left visible to others. On 3/5/18 at approximately 12:45 PM, the Acting Director of Nursing #2 was asked what her expectation was for Protected Healthcare Information. The Acting Director of Nursing #2 stated, Healthcare information should not be visible. The Facility provided education on the topic, Best Practice Tips for Med Pass on 3/1/18. LPN #2 and LPN #5's signature was included on the sign in log. The topics of this education included but were not limited to: HIPPA - information/privacy The Facility Policy and Procedure titled Reporting Unauthorized Access, Use and Disclosure of Protected Health Information (PHI) dated 5/2012 documented the following: Policy Statement The protection of resident and facility information is the responsibility of all facility personnel, including business associates. Unauthorized access, use, and/or disclosure of protected information must be reported. Incidents include, but are not limited to, the unauthorized access, use, or disclosure of the following information: Resident personal and medical information Resident names or other identifying information Any other resident or facility information that has not been publicly disclosed or has been de-identified according to established facility policy The facility administration was informed of the findings during a pre-exit briefing on 3/5/18 at approximately 3:50 PM and again during the 3/6/18 exit briefing at approximately 1:45 PM. The facility did not present any further information about the findings.
CONCERN (D)

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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident # 16 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included but not limited to: dementia with behavioral disturb...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident # 16 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included but not limited to: dementia with behavioral disturbances, hypotension, hypothyroidism, and major depressive disorder. The most recent quarterly MDS (minimum data set) assessment had an ARD (assessment reference date) of 11/24/17. Section C of the MDS assessed cognitive patterns and in Section C0500, Resident # 16 had a BIMS (brief interview for mental status) score of 3/15, which indicated severe cognitive impairment. Section G assessed functional status. In Section G0110 for J. Personal hygiene, the facility staff coded Resident #16 as 3/2, which indicated that Resident # 16 required extensive assistance with the assistance of one person for personal hygiene. According to the most recent plan of care for Resident # 16 which was reviewed and revised on 12/5/17, the facility had documented as a problem area, Resident needs limited assistance with ADL's to remain clean, neat, and free of body odors r/t (related to) cognitive deficits. Interventions included but were not limited to: PT/OT (physical therapy/occupational therapy) prn (as needed) and tx (treatment) as ordered for assist with ADLs (activities of daily living)/hygiene, transfers, and showers/ whirlpool 2 times every week to include nail care and shampoo, bed bath prn. On 2/27/18 at 2:15 pm, the surveyor observed Resident # 16 in her room sitting in her recliner watching TV. The surveyor observed long strands of grey and white hair on Resident # 16's chin. On 3/1/18 at 2:42 pm, the surveyor observed Resident # 16 sitting in the day room during activities. The surveyor observed several long grey and white chin hairs on Resident # 16's chin at that time. The surveyor asked Resident # 16 if she preferred to have chin hairs. Resident # 16 stated, No my son usually takes care of that .Do you have a razor? The surveyor responded, No but I am sure someone here has one and we will get it taken care of for you. Resident # 16 stated, I am going to become the bearded lady in the circus. Resident # 16 then asked the activity director on the unit if she had a razor and the activity director stated, No. Resident # 16 stated, I am going to become the bearded lady in the circus, it's disgusting. On 3/1/18 at 3:00 pm, the surveyor asked CNA (certified nursing assistant) #1 who was responsible for providing care for Resident # 16 and CNA #1 responded, I am. The surveyor asked CNA #1 if she could shave Resident #16. CNA #1 told the surveyor that it would have to wait until the person from 3-11 shift came on because it was 3:00. The surveyor asked CNA #1 who assisted Resident # 16 in getting dressed today and the CNA #1 stated, I did. The surveyor asked CNA #1 why she did not shave Resident #16 when she got her dressed for the day. CNA #1 stated, Honestly I am scared that I am going to cut them so I don't do it. CNA #1 stated that she would report off to the next CNA on 3-11 shift that Resident # 16 needed to be shaved. On 3/1/18 at 3:10 pm, the surveyor reported to the unit manager about the incident as stated above. The unit manager stated that CNA #1 was one of their newer employees and that she would speak with the employee and send her to staff development to receive more training. According to the facility policy and procedure for Shaving the Resident, the purpose is to promote cleanliness and provide skin care. According to the facility policy for Shaving the Resident The following documentation should be recorded in the resident's medical record: 1. The date and time that the procedure was performed. 2. The name and title of the individual(s) who performed the procedure. 3. If and how the resident participated in the procedure or any changes in the resident's ability to participate in the procedure. 4. Any problems or complaints made by the resident related to the procedure. 5. If the resident refused treatment, the reason(s) why and the intervention taken. 6. The signature and title of the person recording the data. According to the facility Nursing assistant/certified nursing assistant orientation checklist, the Skills Evaluated included but were not limited to Shaving-men & women/POC No further information regarding this issue was presented to the survey team prior to the exit conference. Based on observations, staff interview, and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to ensure 2 out of 42 residents (Resident #68 and #16) in the survey sample who were unable to independently carry out activities of daily (ADL), received necessary services to maintain grooming. 1. The facility staff failed to ensure Resident #68 was provided ADL care to include removal of excessive facial chin hair. 2. The facility staff failed to ensure Resident #16 was provided ADL care to include removal of excessive facial chin hair. Findings include: 1. Resident #68 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnosis for Resident #68 included but are not limited to dementia with behavioral disturbance. Resident #68 Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 12/21/2017 coded Resident #68 with a 03 of a total possible score of 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS), indicating severe cognitive impairment. In addition, the MDS coded Resident #68 requiring extensive assistance of one with dressing, personal hygiene and bathing. Section, E (Behavior) was not coded for rejection of care for ADL assistance. The comprehensive care plan documented Resident #68 with requiring assist with Activities of Daily Living (ADL) to include but not limited to dressing and grooming. The goal: the resident will participate in therapy and return to prior level of function. The intervention/approaches to manage goal included, require the assistance of one person with ADL's and PT (physical therapy) to evaluation and treat as indicated for unsteady gait. During the initial tour on 02/27/18 at approximately 12:45 p.m., Resident #68 was sitting in the common area on the secure unit. Resident #68 was observed with an excessive amount of chin hair. On 02/27/18 at approximately 5:10 p.m., during the medication pass and pour observation, Resident #68 remained with an excessive amount of chin hair. On 2/28/18 at approximately 9:40 a.m., Resident #68 was ambulating in the hallway, remained with an excessive amount of chair hair. An interview was conducted with CNA #1 on 02/28/18 at approximately 2:45 p.m., who stated, The resident refused her bath today and refused to be shaved. On 02/28/18 at approximaltey 2:55 p.m., an interview was conduced with the Unit Manager (UM) who stated, They were not aware of Resident #68 refusal to be shaved. The surveyor requested Resident #68's refusal care plan. On the same day at 3:20 p.m., the UM stated, We do not have a refusal care plan for ADL's to include shaving. Review of residents medical record did not reveal refusal of care for bathing or grooming. On 3/1/18 at approximately 2:00 p.m., Resident #68 was observed without facial hair to her chin. An interview was conducted with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) on 3/5/18 at approximatley 1:10 p.m., who stated, Resdient #68 not being shaved is not acceptable; this is a dignity issue. The ADON proceeded to say, Not being shaved is the same as having dirty hands. If a resident refuses care, it should be clearly documented and care planned. The facility administration was informed of the finding during a briefing on 3/05/18 at approximately 3:50 p.m. The facility did not present any further information about the findings.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0698 (Tag F0698)

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 communicate ongoing assessments ...

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 communicate ongoing assessments of 1 of 42 residents condition and monitoring for complications before and after dialysis treatments received at a certified dialysis facility. (Resident # 165.) Findings: Facility staff failed to communicate ongoing assessments for Resident #165 who attended out patient dialysis three days per week. The resident's clinical record was reviewed on 2/28/18 at 11:00 AM. Resident #165 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her diagnoses included: hypertension, peripheral vascular disease, diabetes, depression, asthma, and end stage renal disease. The latest MDS (minimum data set) assessment, dated 12/15/17, coded the resident with slight cognitive impairment. She required the assistance of nursing staff members to assist her with all the ADLS (activities of daily living) and a set-up only to eat. The resident was coded as receiving outside dialysis services. Resident # 165 CCP (comprehensive care plan), reviewed and revised on 2/7/18, documented the resident with end stage renal disease and dialysis services. The interventions included dialysis service three days a week and to check and record bruit/thrill. Report all changes to MD and dialysis center. Resident # 165's physician orders contained an order, signed and dated on 2/12/18, for outpatient dialysis services three days a week on Monday, Wednesday and Friday. The nursing progress notes contained documentation that the resident's vital signs were obtained on each dialysis day. The thrill and bruit were documented as present and the perma-cath dressing was dry and intact. No information was observed in the clinical record or in the electronic chart that contained any communication to or from the dialysis center. On 2/27/18 at 5:00 PM Resident #165 was interviewed about the facility and her trips to dialysis. The resident was asked if she took any documentation (such as a notebook) over with her from the facility to share with the dialysis clinic or if the dialysis clinic ever sent anything back to the facility staff with her. Resident #165 said she did not have anything to take with her on dialysis days, except for her bagged lunch. She said she, personally, was not transporting anything (as far as documentation) to and from the facility to dialysis and back. On 2/28/18 at 11:42 AM 02/28/18 11:42 AM, RN I was asked about dialysis communication sheets. She said they don't have/use any. RN I said the dialysis facility communicated any issues, or changes in treatment or medications to facility staff via phone. No wet/dry weights or VS (vital signs) were sent to or from the dialysis clinic to facility. RN I said any unusual changes reported by the dialysis facility would be communicated to the physician and responsible party, but an ongoing exchange of information/communication was not in place. On 02/28/18, at 1:13 PM, the surveyor spoke to the administrator about these findings. The administrator provided the nursing home dialysis contract and a draft of the latest nursing policy with respect to communication sheets on residents. The nursing home contract, signed and dated by both parties on 5/23/12, documented the Center will develop a written protocol governing specific responsibilities, policies and procedures to be used in rendering dialysis services .including but not limited to, the development of a designated resident's care plan relative to the provision of dialysis services. The facility will provide for an interchange of information useful or necessary for the care of the designated resident and will inform the center of a contact person at facility . The facility's policy and procedure for DIALYSIS included the following protocol for nursing staff members: .The intent of this policy is that the facility assures that each resident receives care and services for the provision of hemodialysis and/or peritoneal dialysis consistent with professional standards of practice including the: ~ Ongoing assessment of the resident's condition and monitoring for complications before and after dialysis treatments received at a certified dialysis facility; ~ Ongoing assessment and oversight of the resident before and after dialysis treatments; and ~ Ongoing communication and collaboration with the dialysis facility regarding dialysis care and services . The administrator also provided a copy of a blank communication sheet the nursing staff was supposed to be using for ongoing daily assessments for each dialysis visit between the facility and the dialysis clinic. The report included details for the resident's vital signs prior to the dialysis treatment and the pre and post dialysis weights from the center. The administrator told the surveyor this form had not been used to communicate daily on Resident # 165's dialysis treatment days, but it should have been. The administrator said training had been provided to staff about the ongoing use of the forms. No other information was provided prior to the survey team exit.
CONCERN (D)

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

Medication Errors (Tag F0758)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interview and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to ensure that 1 of 42 residents in the final sur...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interview and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to ensure that 1 of 42 residents in the final survey sample was free from unnecessary medications, Resident # 94. The facility staff failed to monitor the use of Seroquel according to the physician's orders for Resident # 94. The findings included: Resident # 94 is an [AGE] year-old female who as originally admitted to the facility on [DATE], with a readmission date of 12/28/2017. Diagnoses included but were not limited to: unspecified dementia with behavioral disturbance, heart failure, hyperlipidemia, and hypertension. The most recent MDS (minimum data set) assessment was a 14-day scheduled assessment with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 1/11/18. Section C of the MDS assess cognitive patterns. In Section C0500, the facility staff coded a BIMS (brief interview for mental status) score of 00/15 for Resident # 94, which indicated severe cognitive impairment. The most recent plan of care for Resident # 94 was reviewed and revised on 1/17/18. In the problem area, Resident is at risk for compromised quality of life and impaired cognition secondary to diagnosis of dementia and the disease progression. Interventions included but were not limited to Administer medications for cognition per MD (medical doctor) orders. The clinical record for Resident # 94 was reviewed on 2/27/18 at 3:54 pm. A physician's order was written on 1/24/18 for Seroquel 25 mg (milligrams) ½ tab (12.5 mg) po (by mouth) BID (twice a day) Hold for SBP (systolic blood pressure) < 100 and DBP (diastolic blood pressure) <60. On 2/28/18 at 9:15 am, the surveyor reviewed the MAR (medication administration record) for February 2018 for Resident # 94. Upon review of the MAR for February 2018, and the vital signs documented in the clinical record, the surveyor could not locate any documentation to support that the facility was monitoring the blood pressures to ensure that the Seroquel was being administered to Resident # 94 as ordered by the physician. On 2/28/18 9:39 am, the surveyor spoke with LPN #1 (licensed practical nurse) about the blood pressure parameters associated with the use of Seroquel for Resident #94. The surveyor asked LPN #1 if she assessed the blood pressure for Resident #94 prior to administering the Seroquel. LPN #1 stated Yes and showed the surveyor a piece of paper with blood pressures on it 137/86. The surveyor asked LPN #1 if she had any way to verify that the blood pressure readings were being checked daily prior to administering the medication. LPN #1 reviewed the MAR and stated No. LPN #1 stated that she would go in and update the MAR so that the documentation of the blood pressures are recorded on the MAR along with the nurses' signature. On 2/28/18 at 2:54 pm, the unit manager was made aware of the findings as stated above. No further information was provided to the survey team regarding this issue prior to the exit conference.
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 interviews and facility documentation review the facility staff failed to ensure medications were stored in a secured location, accessible to designated staff only on 1 of ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, staff interviews and facility documentation review the facility staff failed to ensure medications were stored in a secured location, accessible to designated staff only on 1 of 3 units (Unit 3 - secure unit). The facility staff left medications unsecured on top of the medication cart and the cart unlocked, when not in direct sight of the nurse. The findings include: On 02/27/18 at approximately 5:10 p.m., during the medication pass and pour observation, License Practical Nurse (LPN) #6 pulled the following blister cards of medications from her medication cart; Metaformin, Zantac, Lisiniprol and Divalproex then popped one (1) pill off each card into a clear medication cup. The LPN and surveyor walked to room (number) where the LPN administered the medication to Resident #68. The LPN and surveyor returned back to the medication cart at 5:30 p.m., and noted four (4) blister cards of medication on the top of the cart; the medications were *Metformin, *Zantac, *Lisinopril and *Divalproex. Ambulating in front of the medication were 2 residents. The LPN stated, I should have put the medication back inside the cart after I pulled them for Resident #68. *Metformin is used alone or with other medications, including insulin, to treat type 2 diabetes (condition in which the body does not use insulin normally and, therefore, cannot control the amount of sugar in the blood)(https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/007365.htm). *Zantac is used to treat ulcers; it decreases the amount of acid made in the stomach (https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/007365.htm). *Lisinopril is used alone or in combination with other medications to treat high blood pressure (https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/007365.htm). *Divalproex is used alone or with other medications to treat certain types of seizures. Divalpoex is also used to treat mania (episodes of frenzied, abnormally excited mood) in people with bipolar disorder (manic-depressive disorder; a disease that causes episodes of depression, episodes of mania, and other abnormal moods) (https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/007365.htm). An interview was conducted with the Unit Manager (UM) on 3/01/18 at approximately 9:50 a.m., who stated, The nurse should have ensured the medications were secure before she left her medication cart. On 3/5/18 at approximately 1:10 p.m., an interview was conducted with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) who stated, That is not how the nurses are educated. The medication are to be put back in the medication cart after they are pulled and the cart locked. The facility administration was informed of the finding during a briefing on 3/05/18 at approximately 3:50 p.m. The facility did not present any further information about the findings. The facility's policy: Medications - 5.3 Storage and Expiration of Medications, Biologicals, Syringes and Needles (Last revision Date: 01/01/13). -Applicability: This Policy 5.3 sets for the procedures relating to the storage and expiration dates of medications, biologicals, syringes and needles. -General Storage Procedures: 3.3 Facility should ensure that all medications and biologicals, including treatment items, are securely stored in a locked cabinet/cart or locked medication room that is inaccessible by residents and visitors.
CONCERN (E)

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

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review and staff interviews, the facility staff failed to provide the necessary preventative measu...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review and staff interviews, the facility staff failed to provide the necessary preventative measures to prevent multiple acquired pressure ulcers for one resident (#156) in the survey sample of 42 residents. The facility failed to continue previous physician orders for skillcare boots/heel manager for Resident #156 upon readmission from the hospital to the facility. Subsequently the resident developed a stage II pressure ulcer to his heel. The facility further failed to implement measures to prevent multiple toe pressure ulcers. The findings included: Resident #156 was admitted on [DATE] and re-admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #156 was admitted to the facility with the following diagnoses which included type 2 diabetes mellitus, dysphagia, cataract, protein-calorie malnutrition, anorexia, hyperglyceridemia, hypertension, anemia, chronic ischemic heart disease, gastro-exophageal reflux disease, hyperlipdemia, heart failure, overactive bladder, hypothroidism, intellectual disabilities, traumatic brain injury, dementia without behavioral disturbance, epilepsy, osteoporosis, and major depression. A Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] indicated the following: In the area of hearing, speech and vision this resident was assessed as having moderate difficulty hearing, rarely makes self understood, rarely understands others, has moderately impaired vision. In the area of Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) this resident was unable to answer questions. In the area of cognitive patterns this resident was coded as having long and short term memory problems. In the area of activities of daily living (ADL'S) this resident was assessed being total dependent in the areas of bed mobility, transfer, dressing, eating, toilet use and personal hygiene. In the area of bladder and bowel this resident was assessed as always incontinent. In the area of nutritional status this resident assessed as having a mechanically altered diet and receives a therapeutic diet. In the area of skin assessment this resident was assessed as having no risk for pressure ulcer. In the area of current number of unhealed pressure ulcers at each stage was un-assessed. In the area of healed pressure ulcers on the prior assessment this area was un-assessed. In the area of skin and ulcer treatments this resident was assessed for pressure reducing device for chair, pressure reducing device for bed and applications of ointments/medications other than feet. A revised care plan dated 10/23/17 indicated: Focus- Resident #156 is at risk for skin breakdown due to IDDM (insulin dependent diabetes mellitus), lower extremity, edema, venous stasis, history of basal cell carcinoma (removed) to left forearm impaired mobility incontinence use of Aspirin Daily. Goal: - Resident #156 risk for skin integrity impairments will be minimized this review period. Interventions- Supplements per MD orders -see MAR (medication administration record) date initiated 12/05/16. APM (alternating pressure mattress) mattress to bed date started 10/23/17. Apply lotions/creams as ordered-see TAR (treatment administration record) date initiated 12/05/16. Diabetic Management as ordered (See TAR/MAR) date initiated 12/05/16. Encourage/Assist resident to consume all fluids and meals offered on trays document meal intake daily. Float heels using skill care heel boots date initiated 12/05/16. Monitor feet daily when assisting with removing shoes for proper fit. Notify family if new shoes are needed date initiated 12/05/16. Monitor for increased s/sx (signs and symptoms) of edema, encourage to elevate lower extremities, notify MD of changes. Monitor skin daily with AM/PM incontinence Care for breach in skin integrity. Notify nursing/MD of abnormals, date initiated 12/05/16. Treatments per orders and wound nurse eval (evaluate) as needed date initiated 12/15/17. Head to toe Skin assessment weekly date initiated 12/05/16. Float heels using skillcare heel boots, date initiated 12/05/16. Focus: Alteration in Comfort: requires pain monitoring due to inability to make his pain needs known to staff. Goal - will maintain adequate level of comfort - no verbal or non verbal s/sx of pain for discomfort. Interventions-monitor for non verbal s/sx of pain guarding, tearfulness, restlessness, moaning, agitation, frowning. A physician's order dated 12/15/17 following a hospital re-admit on 12/14/17 indicated: Turn and reposition resident every 2 hours and as needed. Pressure reduction mattress to bed every shift. Weekly head to toe skin assessment. Document in progress notes and skin assessment every evening shift every thur document findings in skin assessment. A review of the orders after re-admission [DATE]) did not include previous orders to float heels using skill care heel boots or heel manager while in bed or geri chiar/wheelchair with assistance every shift. During an interview on 3/4/18 at 10:06 A.M. with the Wound Nurse and Unit Manager, both acknowledged that the order was not continued after the resident was readmitted on [DATE]. The Treatment order for December indicated: Float heels using skill care heel boots or heel manager while in bed or geri chair/wheelchair with assistance every shift, discontinue date 12/14/17. Review of a Wound Evaluation Flow Sheet identified a new pressure area as follows: Right medial heel found 1/30/18, Measurements (CM) centimeters L =3- W=3.5, Exuade -none, Wound Bed - Pain (no), Tissue type, intact fluid filled blister, Periwound - closed, surrounding tissue intact. A Guide for Wound Evaluation and Documentation form identified Pressure Ulcer- Definitions and Stages: Stage II Clinical- partial thickness loss of dermis presenting as a shallow open ulcer with a red pink wound bed, without slough. May also present as an intact or open/ruptured serum-filled blister. Further description: Presents as a shiny or dry shallow ulcer without slough or bruising. *This stage should not be used to describe skin tears, tape burns, perineal dermatitis, maceration or excoriation. *Bruising indicates suspected deep tissue injury. The January 2018 treatment order indicated: Weekly head to toe skin assessment. Document in progress notes and skin assessment every evening shift every Thur (Thursday) document findings in skin assessment. Pressure reduction mattress to bed. Remove and replace skillcare boots Q (every) shift to monitor skin integrity every shift, start date 01/30/2018. Skillcare heel Protector boots on while resident is in bed. Use with foam anti-rotation devices to elevate heels and for positioning monitor placement Q shift every shift, start date 1/30/18. A 12/19/17 Wound Progress Note signed by the Wound Nurse indicated: Feet are clear, heels are reddened but blanch, resident tends to press his heels together. Has heel manager to float heels and has had good results. A 1/29/18 Physician's Telephone order indicated: Cleanse intact blister to (R) right heel with NS (normal saline) pat dry with gauze, apply skin prep over blister surface and treat surrounding skin. Apply transparent film over area. Change Q 7 days and PRN. A 1/30/18 Physician's Telephone order indicated: Skill care heel protector boots on while resident in bed. Use with Foam anti-rotation devices to elevate heel and positioning monitor placement Q shift. Remove inplace Q shift to monitor skin integrity. A Braden Scale for predicting Pressure Sore Risk was completed on the following dates, all assessing the resident for being moderately at risk for pressure sores: 12/14/17 12/21/17 12/28/17 01/04/18 2/25/18 Facility Weekly Skin Checks indicated the following: 12/01/17 - Skin intact. 12/08/17 - Skin intact, localized scattered redness to left hip, monitoring in progress. 12/21/17 - Open area to R antecubital and L anterior shoulder. 12/28/17 - No new areas 01/04/18 - No new areas 01/12/18 - Scars to R antecubital and l shoulder 01/19/18 - Scars visible to Rt. antecubital and Lt. shoulder 01/26/18 - No new findings on the skin A review of the Facilities Shower and Bed Bath Schedule and monitoring from 12/14/17 through 02/28/18 did not indicate Resident #156 was found with pressure areas. A Pressure Ulcer Investigation dated 1/30/18 indicated: Resident name, Diagnoses and Current Pressure Ulcer Status. Location- Right med (medial) heel - Stage II. Was Risk Assessment completed prior to development of pressure ulcer? (Yes- 1/4/18). Were treatment and interventions implemented based on identified risk factors? (Yes) Does the record contain physician documentation regarding the presence of and/or change in the pressure ulcer? (this area was blank) Resident has been identified at risk for pressure ulcers related to the following factors/conditions: Urinary incontinence, poor nutrition (Dx (diagnosis) of partial malnutrition), impaired mobility, extensive assistance bed mobility and/or transfers, Has current ulcer - contracture- feet, unable to change position or shift weight in chair, Thyroid disease, diabetes, spasms, tremors, involuntary movements, Others Pulls feet together. Current Treatment and Interventions include: assist with turning/positioning, peri-care as needed, administer medications as ordered, administer nutritional supplements, encourage/provide good nutrition, encourage/provide good hydration, use of pillows or other cushioning devices, pressure relieving device in bed, weekly skin or body audits, float heels, elbow/heel protectors. Probable Causative Reasons for Development -Immobility, friction/pressure- Resident crosses clamps legs together. Recommendations: Skill care boots while in bed with anti rotator devices to further elevate heels and position legs and feet. During an interview on 3/5/18 at 3:15 P.M. with the Wound Nurse and Administrator they were asked what interventions were in place to prevent Resident #156 from rubbing his heels together. The Wound Nurse and the Administrator both stated, heel boots and a pillow to go between his legs. When asked for supporting treatment records none was presented to the survey team prior to 1/30/18. A 1/30/18 Progress note signed by the wound nurse indicated: Assessed (R) medial heel after report of blister observed on resident. Raised, intact, clear fluid filled blister measures approx. 3 X 3.5 cm, Transparent film in place. No indication of pain. Resident's feet were floated, however has been observed to clamp his feet together, pillows used to separate his legs. Placed feet in Skilcare boots to protect heels, also placed anti-rotation for positioning purposes. Primary nurse present. Further review of Facility Weekly Skin Checks indicated: 02/02/18 - No new issues scars to Rt. antecubital and Lt shoulder remain visible 02/09/18 - No new findings 02/16/18 - No new findings 02/23/18 (at 19:18 or 7:18 P.M.) - Reddened areas on toes and feet 02/23/18 (at 20:13 or 8:13 P.M.) - Reddened area on resident feet. Toes and in between toe. Especially on the right foot A wound evaluation sheet dated 2/22/18 documented: Right great toe tip - measurements - L = 0.6 - W = 0.3, Exuade - none, Wound Bed - pain (no), Tissue type (blank), Periwound - closed, surrounding tissue intact. Right 2nd toe top -measurements - L = 0.3 - W = 0.3, Exuade - none, Wound Bed - pain (no), Tissue type (blank), Periwound - closed, surrounding tissue intact. Right 3rd toe top-measurements - L = 0.2 - W = 0.4, Exuade - none, Wound bed - pain (no), Tissue type (blank), periwound -closed, surrounding tissue intact. Right inner aspect 2nd toe - measurements - L = 0.5 - W = 0.3, Exudate - none, Wound bed - pain (no), Tissue type (blank), periwound -closed, surrounding tissue intact. Right 3rd toe inner aspect - measurements - L = 0.2 - W = 0.2, Exudate - none, Wound bed - pain (no), Tissue type (blank), periwound - closed, surrounding tissue intact. Right 4th toe inner aspect, measurements - L = 0.5 - W = 0.2 -D = 4, Exudate - none, Wound bed - pain (no), Tissue type (blank), periwound - closed, surrounding tissue intact. Right 5th metatrsal head plantar, measurements - L = 2 - W = 1.5 -, Exudate - none, Wound bed - pain (no), Tissue type deep red with pale, soft center, not open. periwound - closed, surrounding tissue intact. Left great toe tip, measurements - L = 0.5 - W = 0.7, Exudate - none, Wound bed pain (no), Tissue type (blank), periwound - closed surrounding tissue intact. Left 5th metatarsal head plantar surface - L = 1.5 - W = 0.6, Exudate - none, Wound bed pain (no), Tissue type (blank), periwound - closed surrounding tissue in tact. A Pressure Ulcer Investigation Report dated 2/22/18 indicated: Resident name, Diagnoses, Current pressure ulcer status: Location: (R) great toe tip, (R) 2nd and 3rd toe tips, inter toes 2nd, 3rd and 4th, (R) 5th planter (met) head, (L) 5th met head. Was Risk Assessment completed prior to development of pressure ulcer? This area was (blank). Resident has been identified at risk for pressure ulcers related to the following factors/conditions: Urinary incontinence, poor nutrition (Dx of partial malnutrition), impaired mobility, extensive assistance bed mobility and/or transfers, Has current ulcer - contracture- feet, unable to change position or shift weight in chair, Thyroid disease, impaired immune system, spasms, tremors: Other increased CRP, protein metabolism, heart disease, anemia. Current Treatment and interventions include: assist with turning/positioning, peri-care as needed. administer medications as ordered, referral to PT (physical therapy) date 2/23 (eval position), administer treatment as ordered, administer nutritional supplements (mal absorbed), encourage/provide good hydration, pressure relieving device in chair, apply protective barrier cream. ensure appropriate fitting shoes. use of pillows or other cushioning's devices, pressure relieving device in bed (on extended bed), weekly skin or body audits, float heels (heel magr.(manager) skillcare boots), assist with transfers, weekly wound assessment, monitor labs, encourage rest periods to break sitting for long periods of time. Probable causative reasons for development: Change in medical condition, immobility, disease process, poor tissue, friction/pressure, poor protein malnutrition, acute illness. The Wound Nurse was asked during an interview on 3/5/18 at 3:15 P.M. what caused Resident #156 wounds on his toes and inner toe areas? The Wound Nurse stated, he had some new tennis shoes that staff put on him. The Wound Nurse was asked if Resident #156 had been assessed for proper fitting of the tennis shoes prior to staff placing the tennis shoes on Resident #156? The Wound Nurse stated, No. A Progress Note dated 2/22/18 indicated: Resident slides down in the bed and frequently has to be repositioned up in the bed. Extension is on bed but resident still slides down at times. Maintenance in to make adjustments and add to padding. Brackets on the APM (mattress) motor are hard and fold over footboard of bed- toes may have come in contact with the brackets as well as feet on the foot board. PT consulted to evaluate position in the wheelchair, including foot position. Resident repositioned using soft pillows. The Wound Nurse was asked during an interview on 3/5/18 at 3:50 P.M. how long would it take for the blisters and deep tissue injuries (DTI) to develop? The Wound Nurse stated, about one hour given his compromised state of health. A deep tissue injury is defined by the National Pressure Ulcer Staging System (NPUAP) as purple or maroon localized area of discolored intact skin or blood-filled blister due to damage of underlying soft tissue from pressure and/or shear. Resident #156 was observed for wound care on 3/1/18 at 9:12 A.M. Physician orders included: Avoid tennis shoes and tight socks. May wear his soft slippers or large non-skid socks when OOB. Padded foot board. Cleanse intact blister to right heel with NSS, pat dry with gauze, apply skin prep over blister surface and to surrounding skin. Apply transparent film dressing. Change every 7 days and PRN if loose. Skin care heel protector boots on while resident is in bed. Use with foam anti-rotation devices to elevate heels and for position monitor placement Q shift. Observed wound care. Nurse assessed bilateral feet and toes. Transparent film intact to R heel. Pressure areas on toes and feet are stable. Sensitivity with cleaning feet and toes. Cleaned and dried, applied skin prep feet and lower legs moisturized. Boots reapplied with anti-rotation foams, resident positioned in bed for breakfast. APM functioning, padding on the footboard intact. Bed low. A facility Timeline for Resident #156 Pressure Sores indicated the following: 12/11/17: Went to hospital for further evaluation and treatment due to altered mental status. 12/14/17: Returned to the facility with antibiotic for sepsis/acute cystitis without hematuria. He also came with blister on his right antecubital, left hand/left thigh bruise, and reddened spotted areas on his stomach. 1/30/18: observed with stage 2 right heel (blister) Interventions: Skilcare boots with anti-rotation device for positioning Remove and replace skilcare boots Q shift to monitor skin integrity Apply skin prep with transparent film dressing and change every 7 days and PRN Continuation of protein supplement Continuation of APM mattress Continuation of extended bed 2/22/18: Observed with several areas of discoloration on toes and forefeet 2/23/18: Right great toe, 2nd toe, 3rd toe, 4th toe, with DTI not open Interventions: Continue Skilcare boots with anti-rotation device for positioning Avoid tennis shoes and tight socks. May wear his soft slippers or large non-skid socks when OOB (out of bed) every shift Monitor toes and feet Q shift Padded foot board Place foot cradle to foot of bed to protect toe tips from weight of linens (discontinued 2/26/18) Continuation of protein supplement Continuation of APM mattress Continuation of extended bed. A facility Pressure Sore Prevention Policy no date available indicated: Policy: It is the philosophy of the facility to prevent pressure ulcers. Residents will receive care and services in a manner to promote skin integrity. Residents will receive early identification, prompt evaluation and treatment of pressure ulcers and any other problematic skin conditions. Residents with problematic skin conditions will be provided care to support the healing process and prevent infection. Procedure: 1. Each resident will have a risk assessment (Braden Scale) completed upon admission or readmission by a licensed nurse. 2. A reassessment will be completed with each OBRA MDS assessment 3. Each resident will have a weekly skin assessment completed by a licensed nurse to assure timely identification and treatment of areas. Residents with a Braden Score of 14 (moderate risk) or below (high risk) will receive preventive care. Residents with scores above 14 may have preventive care initiated as warranted by assessment. Identify and promptly institute risk reduction strategies in accordance with protocol and other preventive actions as indicated. Plan #1 Score 15-18 or Moderate risk 13-14 1. Turn and reposition every 2 hours if mobility is impaired 2. float heel intermittently 3. Monitor skin daily during personal care 4. Provide prompt incontinence care if incontinent 5. Apply moisturizer to skin daily 6. Monitor PO intake, Dietary Consult every quarter and PRN 7. Apply pressure reducing mattress and wheelchair pressure reduction cushion 8. Weekly skin assessment. No further information was provided prior to exit.
CONCERN (E)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. Resident #68 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnosis for Resident #68 included but are not limited to *Type II Diab...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. Resident #68 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnosis for Resident #68 included but are not limited to *Type II Diabetes. Resident #68 Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 12/21/2017 coded Resident #68 with a 03 of a total possible score of 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS), indicating severe cognitive impairment. *Diabetes Mellitus Type II is a lifelong (chronic) disease in which there is a high level of sugar (glucose) in the blood (https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/007365.htm). On 02/27/18 at approximately 5:10 p.m., during the medication pass and pour observation, License Practical Nurse (LPN) #6 removed an alcohol pad, 2 x 2 gauze, a lancet, a test strip and *glucometer from a blue caddy basket containing items to test blood sugars and insulin syringes. The glucometer was wiped down using a *Sani Cloth Wipe prior to using the glucometer. LPN #6 went into Resident #68's room then proceeded to clean resident's finger with an alcohol pad, pricked her finger with the lancet, inserted the test strip into the glucometer to obtain the blood sugar. After obtaining blood for blood sugar, LPN #6 returned to the medication cart, placed the glucometer back into the blue caddy basket without disinfecting the glucometer. The surveyor asked if the glucometer machine should have been cleaned after use, the LPN stated, Yes, I just forgot. The surveyor asked, Should you have washed your hands before and after doing a blood sugar check the nurse replied, Yes. The surveyor asked, What is the purpose of washing your hands and cleaning the glucometer before and after use: the LPN stated, To prevent the potential spread of infection between residents. *Glucometer is a device that uses a small drop of blood to measure your blood sugar level. Some glucose meters measure a drop of blood taken from your finger using a special lancet device (https://www.drugs.com/cg/how-to-check-your-blood-sugar-aftercare-instructions.html). *Sani Cloth Disposable Wipes is a disinfectant for use on hard, non-porous surfaces and patient care equipment (www.medline.com). On 3/01/18 at approximately 9:50 a.m., an interview was conducted with Unit Manager (UM) who stated, The glucometer should be cleaned before and after use and the nurse should have washed her hands before and after the blood sugar check on Resident #68. An interview was conducted with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) on 3/5/18 at approximately 1:10 p.m., who stated, I expect for the nurses to clean the glucometer before and after the use and to wash their hands before and after any resident care. The facility administration was informed of the finding during a briefing on 3/05/18 at approximately 3:50 p.m. The facility did not present any further information about the findings. The facility's policy: Blood Glucose Monitoring (Last revision date 3/1/18). -After care induced but not limited to: Cleanse the glucose meter between resident tests. -Procedure: Clean/disinfect meter after each use. Hand Hygiene (Last revision date 8/30/17) -Policy statement: This facility considers hand hygiene the primary means to prevent the spread of infection. -Purpose of Handwashing/Hand Hygiene: All personnel shall follow the handwashing/hand hygiene procedures to help prevent the spread of infections to other personnel, residents, and visitors. -When to Wash hands: Employees must actively was their hands for at least twenty (20) seconds using antimicrobial or non-antimicrobial soap and water under the following conditions; (Hand sanitizer may be used when indicated up to 5 times, the Hand Washing Protocol) to include but not limited to: *Before and after direct resident contact. *Before and after performing any invasive procedure (e.g., finger stick, blood sampling). *After removing gloves or aprons. -Use of Gloves: The use of gloves does not replace handwashing/hand hygiene. Policy and Procedure (Standard Precautions) revision date 12/4/17. Policy statement: Standard Precautions will be used in the care of all residents regardless of their diagnosis, or suspected or confirmed infection status. Standard Precautions presume that all blood, bloody fluids, secretions, and excretions (except seat), non-intact skin and mucous membranes may contain transmissible infectious agents. Based on observation, resident interview, staff interview, facility documentation review, and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to provde a sanitary environment to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable disease and infection. 1. The facility staff failed to ensure the glucometer was sanitized prior and after use for (Resident #79) of 42 Residents in the survey sample. 2. The facility staff failed to ensure a fish bowl was cleaned in a designated dirty area to reduce the potential for cross contamination. 3. The facility staff failed to clean and disinfect glucometer after use and implement appropriate hand hygiene after performing a blood sugar check on Resident #68. The findings included: 1. Resident #79 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses for Resident #79 included but are not limited to Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. Resident #79's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (an assessment protocol) with an Assessment Reference Date of 10/3/17 coded Resident #79 as scoring a 15 out of a possible 15 on the BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status) indicating no cognitive impairment. Resident #79 was completely dependent on 2 staff for bed mobility, transfers, dressing, toilet use and personal hygiene. The Comprehensive Person Centered Care Plan dated 10/11/16 identified the resident required blood sugar monitoring. The goal was glucose will remain at a level so treatment is not required outside of established parameters. One intervention included: monitor blood glucoses per Medical Doctor Orders. The Physician order dated 8/31/17 included: Novolog Flexpen 100 ml (milliliters) Unit inject as per sliding scale: if 300 to 350 inject 2 units if 351 to 400 inject 4 units 400 plus inject 6 units in addition to regular dose subcutaneously before meals and at bedtime. The Physician order dated 12/12/17 included: Novolog PenFill Solution Cartridge 100 unit/ml Inject 32 units subcutaneously with meals for diabetes give 32 units of Novolog flexpen with meals On 2/28/18 During Medication Pass at approximately 11:20 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #2 was observed leaving the medication cart of Garden Hill to obtain the glucometer caddy. Upon return to the resident's room she proceeded to obtain Resident #79's glucometer with a glucometer intended for shared use. Upon completion the LPN returned the glucometer to the glucometer caddy. The Glucometer was not cleaned or sanitized prior to returning it to the Glucometer caddy. The LPN was asked on 2/28/18 at approximately 11:20 AM, if she cleaned and sanitized the glucometer prior to bringing it to the Resident's room. The LPN stated No, I didn't, I thought I only did that when I finished. The Acting Director of Nurses was asked on 3/5/18 at approximately 3:50 PM what her expectation was regarding cleaning of the glucometer. The Acting Director of Nurses stated that the glucometer was to be cleaned prior and after each use. The Acting Director of Nurses was asked if there was a difference in cleaning and sanitizing the glucometer. She stated, Yes, it is to be done per the manufacture's recommendations. The Facility Policy titled, Blood Glucose Monitoring with a revision date of 3/1/18 documented the following: Consult manufacturer's instructions for the use of the blood glucose meter. On 3/5/18 at approximately 4:15 PM, the Acting Director of Nurses #2, provided the Glucometer's Manufacturer's Recommendations. The Manufacturer's Recommendations documented the following from the Assure Prism User Instruction Manual dated 11/2015: Assure Prism Any disinfectant product with the EPA registration number listed on the table may be used on the device. A list of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) registered disinfectants effective against HIV, Hepatitis C, and Hepatitis B virus can be found at the following website: http://www.epa.gov/oppad001list_d_hepatitisbhiv.pdf Cleaning and Disinfecting Procedures: Note: Two disposable wipes will be needed for each cleaning and disinfecting procedure: one wipe for cleaning and a second wipe for disinfecting. On 03/05/18 at 01:12 PM the acting DON #2, was interviewed. When asked the expectation for performing a glucometer to avoid the risk of obtaining bloodborne diseases, she stated her expectation is, The glucometer should be cleaned prior and after use. When asked is there a difference between cleaning and sanitizing, she stated, Yes. The Acting DON stated the sanitizer used at the facility was PDI Super Sani-Cloth Germicidal Disposable wipe. This wipe was included on the Assure Prism's manufacturer's recommendations. The Center for Disease Control (CDC) website: https://www.cdc.gov/injectionsafety/blood-glucose-monitoring.html documented the following: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has become increasingly concerned about the risks for transmitting hepatitis B virus (HBV) and other infectious diseases during assisted blood glucose (blood sugar) monitoring and insulin administration. Blood glucose meters are devices that measure blood glucose levels. Whenever possible, blood glucose meters should be assigned to an individual person and not be shared. If blood glucose meters must be shared, the device should be cleaned and disinfected after every use, per manufacturer's instructions, to prevent carry-over of blood and infectious agents. If the manufacturer does not specify how the device should be cleaned and disinfected then it should not be shared. Unsafe Practices during Blood Glucose Monitoring and Insulin Administration An underappreciated risk of blood glucose testing is the opportunity for exposure to bloodborne viruses (HBV, hepatitis C virus, and HIV) through contaminated equipment and supplies if devices used for testing and/or insulin administration (e.g., blood glucose meters, fingerstick devices, insulin pens) are shared. Outbreaks of hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection associated with blood glucose monitoring have been identified with increasing regularity, particularly in long-term care settings, such as nursing homes and assisted living facilities, where residents often require assistance with monitoring of blood glucose levels and/or insulin administration. In the last 10 years, alone, there have been at least 15 outbreaks of HBV infection associated with providers failing to follow basic principles of infection control when assisting with blood glucose monitoring. Due to under-reporting and under recognition of acute infection, the number of outbreaks due to unsafe diabetes care practices identified to date are likely an underestimate. Although the majority of these outbreaks have been reported in long-term care settings, the risk of infection is present in any setting where blood glucose monitoring equipment is shared or those assisting with blood glucose monitoring and/or insulin administration fail to follow basic principles of infection control. For example, at a health fair in New Mexico in 2010, dozens of attendees were potentially exposed to bloodborne viruses when fingerstick devices were inappropriately reused for multiple persons to conduct diabetes screening. Additionally, at a hospital in Texas in 2009, more than 2,000 persons were notified and recommended to undergo testing for bloodborne viruses after individual insulin pens were used for multiple persons. Unsafe practices during assisted monitoring of blood glucose and insulin administration that have contributed to transmission of HBV or have put persons at risk for infection include: Using fingerstick devices for more than one person Using a blood glucose meter for more than one person without cleaning and disinfecting it in between uses Using insulin pens for more than one person Failing to change gloves and perform hand hygiene between fingerstick procedures Best Practices for Assisted Blood Glucose Monitoring and Insulin Administration The following are infection control recommendations that anyone who performs or assists with blood glucose monitoring and /or insulin administration should review to assure they are not placing themselves or persons in their care at risk. These recommendations apply not only to licensed healthcare facilities but also to any setting where fingerstick procedures are performed and/or insulin is administered, including assisted living or residential care facilities, clinics, health fairs, shelters, detention facilities, schools, and [NAME]. Protection from bloodborne viruses and other infections is a basic requirement and expectation anywhere healthcare is provided. 2. On 3/2/18 at approximately 12:45 PM, during the Task of Medication Storage and Labeling on Cardinal Heights Unit's Medication Storage Room, a gallon jug of opened and dated distilled water was observed. LPN #7 stated the gallon jug of distilled water was used for a Resident's humidifier and also used to clean the Unit's fish bowl. The fish bowl was observed on 3/2/18 at approximately 12:50 PM, sitting on a shelf in the Unit's dayroom area. On 3/5/18 at approximately 12:45 PM, the Acting Director of Nurses #2 was asked if she saw a problem using a jug of distilled water for a resident's humidifier and to clean the fish tank. The Acting Director of Nurses stated, Absolutely, there would be a possibility of contamination. A few minutes later, the Acting Director of Nurses #2 brought the Unit Manager LPN #1 to explain how the fish bowl is cleaned. LPN #2 stated that only herself and one other nurse LPN #2 clean the fish bowl. LPN #1 stated the fish bowl is approximately a gallon sized bowl. LPN #1 states that she always obtains a new gallon of distilled water to use when she cleans the fish bowl. LPN #1 states she discards any water that is not used as it shouldn't be used for anything other than the fish bowl. LPN #2 stated that she cleans the fish bowl when the Unit Manager LPN #1 is unavailable to do so. LPN #2 stated that she obtains a new jug of distilled water that the Unit Manager LPN #1 leaves for her. LPN #2 stated that she also throws out any unused water after cleaning the fish bowl in the Medication Room of Unit Cardinal Heights. LPN #2 was asked if she cleans up after cleaning the fish bowl and she stated she sanitizes the counter in the Medication Room. The Unit Manager LPN #1 stated she also uses the Medication Room to clean the fish bowl. When asked why the soiled utility room is not used to clean the fish bowl, the Unit Manager LPN #1 stated that there is no counter space in the soiled utility room. On 3/5/18 at approximately 3:50 PM, the Acting Director of Nursing was asked if it would be an expectation to clean a soiled bed pan in the Medication room and she stated, Absolutely not. Then the Acting Director of Nursing was asked if the fish bowl should be cleaned in the Medication room, and she stated that the fish bowl should be cleaned in a designated dirty area to not potentially cross contaminate the clean items in the medication room from possible splatter that may occur from cleaning the fish bowl. The Acting Director of Nursing also stated, that it would not be the facility's expectation to clean the fish bowl in the medication room even if the counter top was sanitized after use. On 3/6/18 at approximately 1:30 PM, the Administrator was asked if there was any policy on cleaning a fish bowl. She stated that a fish bowl was acquired when the facility adopted the [NAME] Way Alternative. She stated the mission of the [NAME] Way Alternative was to improve the well-being of Elders and those who care for them by transforming the communities in which they live and work. The Administrator stated that the Vision of the program was to eliminate loneliness, helplessness, and boredom. The Administrator showed a 2009 Training Manual for the [NAME] Alternative and it documented the following: The training manual documented that opportunities included but are not limited to: Other Pets Chicken [NAME], birdfeeders, fish tank The training manual did not include any recommendations for cleaning of fish bowls. The Center for Disease Control (CDC) website (https://www.cdc.gov/healthypets/pets/fish.html) documented the following: Like all animals, fish may carry germs that make people sick. These germs can also contaminate the water in which fish live. Cleaning and maintaining your aquarium Be aware that fish and their aquariums may carry germs. ?Wash your hands before and after cleaning or maintaining the aquarium or aquarium water. Plan to wear gloves when working with rough rocks or spiny fish to avoid injury. If you have any cuts or wounds on your hands, wear Pink gloved hands and cleaning brush. gloves or wait until your wounds are fully healed before working with your fish or aquarium water to avoid possible infection. Avoid cleaning fish aquariums in areas where people with weak immune systems may be affected. The most common diseases associated with aquarium fish that can cause human illness are: Aeromonas is a type of bacteria that is commonly found in fresh water ponds and aquariums. This germ can cause disease in fish and amphibians. Aeromonas can cause discoloration of the limbs of amphibians and fins of fish. It can also cause internal bleeding in these aquatic animals. People can become infected through open wounds or by drinking contaminated water. Young children and adults with weak immune systems are most commonly affected and may have diarrhea or blood infections. Mycobacterium marinum is a type of bacteria that causes disease in fish, reptiles, and amphibians. This germ is found in fresh water ponds and aquariums. It is spread to people and animals through contaminated aquarium water. The most common sign of infection is development of a skin infection. In very rare cases, the bacteria can spread throughout the body systems. Infections progress slowly and may get better on their own. In some instances, antibiotics and surgical wound treatments are required to prevent deep infection. Salmonella is a type of bacteria that spreads to people and animals through contaminated food or contact with the stool or habitat of certain animals, including fish. People infected with Salmonella might have diarrhea, vomiting, fever, or abdominal cramps. Infants, elderly persons, and those with weakened immune systems are more likely than others to develop severe illness. Streptococcus iniae is a type of bacteria that causes serious disease in fish. People, especially those with open skin abrasions or scrapes, could get infected by Streptococcus iniae bacteria while handling fish or cleaning aquariums. Affected people usually develop a skin infection at the site of open cuts or scrapes. Though rare, more serious illness can happen in people with weakened immune systems. People can become infected through open wounds or by drinking contaminated water. Young children and adults with weak immune systems are most commonly affected and may have diarrhea or blood infections. Medline Plus website (https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/004008.htm) documented the following: Your immune system helps protect your body from foreign or harmful substances. Examples are bacteria, viruses, toxins, cancer cells, and blood or tissues from another person. The immune system makes cells and antibodies that destroy these harmful substances. AGING CHANGES AND THEIR EFFECTS ON THE IMMUNE SYSTEM As you grow older, your immune system does not work as well. The following immune system changes may occur: The immune system becomes slower to respond. This increases your risk of getting sick. The facility administration was informed of the findings during a pre-exit briefing on 3/5/18 at approximately 3:50 PM and again during the 3/6/18 exit briefing at approximately 1:45 PM. The facility did not present any further information about the findings.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

  • "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
  • "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Virginia facilities.
Concerns
  • • 15 deficiencies on record, including 1 serious (caused harm) violation. Ask about corrective actions taken.
Bottom line: Mixed indicators with Trust Score of 70/100. Visit in person and ask pointed questions.

About This Facility

What is Birmingham Green's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns BIRMINGHAM GREEN an overall rating of 4 out of 5 stars, which is considered above average nationally. Within Virginia, this rating places the facility higher than 99% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This rating reflects solid performance across the metrics CMS uses to evaluate nursing home quality.

How is Birmingham Green Staffed?

CMS rates BIRMINGHAM GREEN's staffing level at 1 out of 5 stars, which is much below average compared to other nursing homes.

What Have Inspectors Found at Birmingham Green?

State health inspectors documented 15 deficiencies at BIRMINGHAM GREEN during 2018 to 2020. These included: 1 that caused actual resident harm and 14 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.

Who Owns and Operates Birmingham Green?

BIRMINGHAM GREEN is owned by a government entity. Government-operated facilities are typically run by state, county, or municipal agencies. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 180 certified beds and approximately 164 residents (about 91% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in MANASSAS, Virginia.

How Does Birmingham Green Compare to Other Virginia Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Virginia, BIRMINGHAM GREEN's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 3.0 and health inspection rating (5 stars) is much above the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Birmingham Green?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "Can you walk me through typical staffing levels on day, evening, and night shifts?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?" These questions are particularly relevant given the below-average staffing rating.

Is Birmingham Green Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, BIRMINGHAM GREEN 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 4-star overall rating and ranks #1 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 Birmingham Green Stick Around?

BIRMINGHAM GREEN has not reported staff turnover data to CMS. Staff turnover matters because consistent caregivers learn residents' individual needs, medications, and preferences. When staff frequently change, this institutional knowledge is lost. Families should ask the facility directly about their staff retention rates and average employee tenure.

Was Birmingham Green Ever Fined?

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

Is Birmingham Green on Any Federal Watch List?

BIRMINGHAM GREEN 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.