HERITAGE HALL-RICH CREEK

120 OLD VIRGINIA AVENUE, RICH CREEK, VA 24147 (540) 726-2328
For profit - Limited Liability company 120 Beds HERITAGE HALL Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
75/100
#86 of 285 in VA
Last Inspection: March 2024

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

Overview

Heritage Hall-Rich Creek has a Trust Grade of B, indicating it is a good choice with solid care quality. It ranks #86 out of 285 facilities in Virginia, placing it in the top half, and is the only option in Giles County. However, the facility's trend is worsening, with issues increasing from 2 in 2021 to 10 in 2024. Staffing is a concern here, rated 2 out of 5 stars, with a turnover rate of 39%, which is better than the state average of 48% but still indicates some instability. Key incidents included inadequate sanitization of food preparation surfaces, insufficient staffing that led to inconsistent dining services, and unsecured medications that could pose risks for residents. While there are strengths, such as no fines reported, families should be aware of the staffing challenges and recent trends in care quality.

Trust Score
B
75/100
In Virginia
#86/285
Top 30%
Safety Record
Low Risk
No red flags
Inspections
Getting Worse
2 → 10 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
39% turnover. Near Virginia's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
Penalties
✓ Good
No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Virginia facilities.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 23 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Virginia. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
⚠ Watch
20 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★★★☆
4.0
Overall Rating
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Staff Levels
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Care Quality
★★★★☆
4.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2021: 2 issues
2024: 10 issues

The Good

  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover below average (39%)

    9 points below Virginia average of 48%

Facility shows strength in fire safety.

The Bad

Staff Turnover: 39%

Near Virginia avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

Chain: HERITAGE HALL

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 20 deficiencies on record

Mar 2024 10 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interview and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to ensure a minimum data set (MDS) assessment acc...

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 a minimum data set (MDS) assessment accurately reflected the resident's status for 1 of 23 residents in the survey sample, Resident #53. The findings included: For Resident #53, the facility staff coded the resident's side rails on the 1/17/24 MDS as a restraint when they were being used as an enabler for positioning. Resident #53's diagnosis list indicated diagnoses, which included, but not limited to Hemiplegia and Hemiparesis following Cerebral Infarction, Dementia, Generalized Muscle Weakness, Dysphagia, Aphasia, Other Specified Interstitial Pulmonary Diseases, and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. The most recent minimum data set (MDS) with an assessment reference date (ARD) of 1/17/24 assigned the resident a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) summary score of 6 out of 15 indicating the resident was severely cognitively impaired. Resident #53 was coded as requiring supervision or touching assistance only with eating, and substantial/maximal assistance with rolling from left to right and moving from a lying position to a sitting position. Resident #53's current comprehensive person-centered care plan included a focus area stating in part that the resident required assistance for all activities of daily living related to weakness from a cerebral vascular accident (stroke) with an intervention dated 1/30/24 for ½ side rails at the head of bed to aid in turning and repositioning. Resident #53's clinical record included a Bed Rail assessment dated [DATE] which documented bilateral side rails were indicated and would serve as an enabler to promote independence. Resident #53's provider orders included an order dated 9/13/23 stating the resident May have ½ side rails at head of bed to aid in turning and repositioning per resident request. Resident is able to voluntarily reposition safely and use side rail controls. The resident's most recent MDS with an ARD of 1/17/24 coded the use of the bed rails as a daily restraint. On 3/13/24 at 9:53 AM, surveyor spoke with licensed practical nurse (LPN) #1 who stated Resident #53's side rails were not being used as a restraint and the coding was done in error. LPN #1 stated a modification should have been done and they will modify the MDS now. On 3/13/24 at 4:03 PM, the survey team met with the Administrator, Director of Nursing, Assistant Director of Nursing, Regional Nurse Consultant, and Regional MDS Staff and discussed the concern of Resident #53's inaccurate MDS. No further information regarding this concern was presented to the survey team prior to the exit conference on 3/14/24.
CONCERN (D)

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

2. For Resident #88, the facility staff failed to administer the IV antibiotic Ciprofloxacin per the providers orders. The provider ordered 112 doses of the antibiotic the resident received 111. Resi...

Read full inspector narrative →
2. For Resident #88, the facility staff failed to administer the IV antibiotic Ciprofloxacin per the providers orders. The provider ordered 112 doses of the antibiotic the resident received 111. Resident #88's diagnoses included, but were not limited to, rhadomyolysis, dementia, and stage 4 pressure ulcer of the sacral region. Section C (cognitive patterns) of Resident #88's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 02/07/24 included a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 0 out of a possible 15 points. Resident #88's comprehensive care plan included the focus area at risk for skin impairment related to impaired physical mobility, and incontinence, is being treated for a Stage 4 to sacral area. Interventions included administer medications per current order. Resident #88's clinical record included an order for the antibiotic Ciprofloxacin 400 mg intravenously every morning and at bedtime for wound infection for 112 Administrations via picc line. The order date for this medication was documented as 01/12/24. On 01/12/24 Registered Nurse (RN) #2 documented a progress note that read in part, Ciprofloxacin .intravenously every morning and at bedtime for wound infection for 112 Administrations .Awaiting medication to be sent from pharmacy. MD [medical doctor] and RP [responsible party] made aware. A review of the clinical record revealed that Resident #88 received 38 doses of the Ciprofloxacin in January, 58 doses in February, and 15 doses in March for a total of 111 doses. On 03/13/24 at 11:17 a.m., the Director of Nursing (DON) and Nurse Consultant were made aware of the issue regarding Resident #88's antibiotic. On 03/13/24 at 4:00 p.m., during an end of the day meeting with the administrative staff the issue with the missing dose of the antibiotic was reviewed. No further information regarding this issue was provided to the survey team prior to the exit conference. Based on staff interviews, facility document review, and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to follow medical provider medication orders for two (2) of 23 sampled residents (Resident #88 and Resident #100). The findings include: 1. The facility staff failed to provide Resident #100's medications as ordered by the medical provider. Resident #100's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 2/18/24, was signed as completed on 2/20/24. Resident #100 was assessed as able to make self understood and as able to understand others. Resident #100's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) summary score was documented as a 14 out of 15; this indicated intact and/or borderline cognition. Resident #100 was assessed as requiring assistance with toileting hygiene, dressing, and bathing. Resident #100's medication administration records (MARs) indicated the following medications had not been provided for the 9:00 a.m. dose on 2/4/24 and on 2/6/24: - cyanocobalamin 500 mcg tablet, - folic acid 1 mg tablet, - Lasix 40 mg tablet, - multivitamin tablet, - sitagliptin 100 mg tablet, - spironolactone 25 mg tablet, - thiamine 100 mg tablet, - ferrous sulfate 325 mg tablet, - rifaximin 550 mg tablet, - lactulose 10 GM orally, and - midodrine 5 mg tablet. The documented reason these medications were not provided was that the resident was (a)bsent from home without meds. Resident #100 was out of the facility for dialysis at the time the aforementioned medications were scheduled to be administered. Resident #100's care plan included the intervention to administer ordered medications for the following focus areas: nutrition/dehydration/fluid maintenance, respiratory, dialysis, and cardiac/vascular. The facility's policy titled Administering Medications (with a revised date of December 2012) indicated: - Medications shall be administered in a safe and timely manner, and as prescribed. - Medications must be administered within one (1) hour of their prescribed time . This policy did not provide guidance to address when medications were scheduled to be administered when a resident is out of the facility for a dialysis treatment. On 3/13/24 at 3:45 p.m., the Director of Nursing (DON) reported the facility staff had an hour window before and after the medications were scheduled for the medications to be given. On 3/14/24 at 8:25 a.m., the DON reported the once-a-day medications could have been scheduled to be administered outside of the resident's dialysis times. On 3/13/24 at 4:03 p.m., the survey team met with the facility's Administrator, Director of Nursing, Assistant Director of Nursing, Nurse Consultant, and Regional MDS Nurse. During this meeting, the failure of the facility's staff to administer Resident #100's medical provider ordered medications was discussed.
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 staff interview, clinical record review, and facility document review, the facility staff failed to ensure medications were available for administration for 1 of 20 current residents, Residen...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on staff interview, clinical record review, and facility document review, the facility staff failed to ensure medications were available for administration for 1 of 20 current residents, Resident #29. The findings included: The facility staff failed to ensure the antibiotic Doxycycline was available for administration. Resident #29's diagnoses included, but were not limited to, methicillin resistant staphylococcus aureus infection (MRSA), history of urinary tract infection, and aphasia. Section C (cognitive patterns) of Resident #29's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 01/03/24 included a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 0 out of a possible 15 points. Resident #29's clinical record included a provider order for the antibiotic Hyclate Oral Tablet 100 MG (Doxycycline Hyclate), give1 tablet two times a day for MRSA until 04/20/2024. A review of Resident #29's medication administration record for March 2024 revealed that for March 11, 2024, for both doses Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #4 documented a 5 for the administration of the Doxycycline. Per the MAR a 5=hold see progress note. When reviewing the progress notes the surveyor was unable to determine what the code of 5 represented. On 03/13/24 at 12:00 p.m., during an interview with LPN #4 this staff stated the medication was not available for administration and was not available in the stat box (cubex). On 03/13/24 at 4:00 p.m., during an end of the day meeting with the administrative staff the issue with the antibiotic not being administered on 03/11/24 was reviewed. On 03/14/24 at 8:10 a.m., the Director of Nursing provided the survey team with a copy of their policy regarding ordering medications from the pharmacy provider. This policy read in part, .The provider pharmacy is contacted if an emergency arises requiring immediate pharmacist consultation regarding medications ordered and needed prior to the next scheduled pharmacy delivery . On 03/14/24 at 9:23 a.m., during an interview with LPN #2 this staff stated the physician was in yesterday, was made aware of the missed day of antibiotics and the antibiotic was extended for 1 day to make up for the missed doses. No further information regarding this issue was provided to the survey team prior to the exit conference.
CONCERN (D)

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

Drug Regimen Review (Tag F0756)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on staff interview, clinical record review and facility document review, the facility staff failed to act upon a medication regimen review for 1 of 23 residents in the survey sample, resident #9...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on staff interview, clinical record review and facility document review, the facility staff failed to act upon a medication regimen review for 1 of 23 residents in the survey sample, resident #95. The findings include: For resident # 95, the facility staff failed to act upon a physician approved pharmacist recommendation, generated by the December 11, 2023 medication regimen review. Resident # 95 's diagnoses included but were not limited to, unspecified dementia, unspecified mood disorder, major depressive disorder, psychotic disturbance, and anxiety. Resident # 95's significant change minimum data set (MDS), with an assessment reference date (ARD) of 2/28/24, assigned the resident a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score of 4, indicating severe cognitive impairment. Resident # 95 was also coded as refusing care and wandering during the look back period. Surveyor reviewed Resident # 95's pharmacy drug regimen review dated 12/11/23 which read in part, This resident is receiving the atypical antipsychotic GEODAN (Ziprasidone) which carries a risk to cause adverse metabolic effects. Please consider checking a fasting lipid panel, fasting plasma glucose and A1C, at baseline, 3 months post initiation, and annually to monitor for potential adverse effects. Additionally, monitoring BMI and waste circumference is recommended at baseline, 1 month, 2 month, 3 month, 6 month, and then annually for all patients on atypical antipsychotics. The medical director had checked that they agreed with the recommendation and had signed the form. They did not date the form when they signed it. During further review of the clinical record this surveyor noted that Geodan therapy was initiated 11/27/23. The above lab work was obtained 1/15/24, more than a month after the recommendation was made and less than 3 months post initiation of therapy. Surveyor was unable to locate any waste circumference measurements in the record and only one note made 2/15/24 by the Registered Dietician (RD) addressing BMI, which was documented that day to be 26. On 3/14/24 at 9:46 AM this surveyor interviewed Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) # 3, who is also the Unit Manager. When asked about the December 11, 2023 recommedation, they stated, yes, I remember this. Let me see what I can find. LPN # 3 returned at 10:43 AM and stated that there was only the 1/15/24 lab. I think when I looked at it, I just saw the part about 3 months. They indicated that there were no measurements of waste circumference done and that the RD had made notes about the BMI. This surveyor explained that there was only one note done February 15, 2024 that addressed the BMI located in the record, but I would look at other notes if they were able to produce them. On 3/14/24 at 10:57 AM this surveyor asked the Director of Nursing (DON) and the Regional Nurse Consultant for a policy regarding Medication Regimen Reviews. The Director of Nursing produced several policies. The first one entitled, Medication Utilization and Prescribing- Clinical Protocol with a revision date of December 2012, read in part, under the heading, Cause Identification, #3, The consultant pharmacist should use the monthly and interim drug regimen review to help identify potentially problematic medications. Under the heading Treatment/Management, # 3 The consultant pharmacist will advise the physician and staff about options to address medication-related issues such as food-drug interactions, effects of medication combinations, and drug-disease interactions. The next policy entitled, Psychoactive Medication with a created date of 3/14/24 read in part, Each resident's drug regimen will be evaluated and monitored by various members of the health care team as specified in this policy, to assure the regimen is free from unnecessary drugs i.e. excessive dose/duplicative therapy, for excessive duration, without adequate monitoring, without adequate indications for use or in the presence of adverse consequences which indicate the does should be reduced or discontinued or any combinations of these reasons. Under the heading Therapeutic Documentation # D. The consultant pharmacist will notify the Director of Nursing Services (DON) in writing of recommendations on a monthly basis. The DON will follow up with the physician as appropriate. A third policy entitled, Organization Aspects Consultant Pharmacist Services Provider Requirements read in part, Y. Provide a report of activities, findings and recommendations to the administrator and the director of nursing on a monthly basis. This includes a consolidation report of all resident reviews, and a summation of monthly findings. A copy of the monthly report will also be maintained by they pharmacy for reference. Individual resident recommendations are provided to prescribers, the facility's medical director and the director of nursing upon completion or following MRR. On 3/14/24 at 12:03 PM the survey team met with the Administrator, Director of Nursing, Regional Nurse Consultant, Assistant Director of Nursing and the Regional MDS Coordinator. This concern was discussed at that time. No further information was provided to the survey team prior to the exit conference.
CONCERN (D)

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

Unnecessary Medications (Tag F0759)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, staff interview, and clinical record review facility staff failed to maintain a medication error rate less than 5% during medication pour and pass observation. The surveyor obser...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, staff interview, and clinical record review facility staff failed to maintain a medication error rate less than 5% during medication pour and pass observation. The surveyor observed medication pour and pass. On 3/13/2024, the surveyor watched three nurses pass medications to six residents for a combined total of 26 opportunities. Nurses' technique and hand hygiene were appropriate to the task. At 8:26 AM, the surveyor observed LPN #7 prepare morning medications for Resident #66. The resident had a physician order for a Lidoderm external patch 5% apply to posterior neck in the morning for pain. The nurse stated there was no tape on the medication cart, so would return to apply the patch later, after some tape had been found. Later in the day (2PM), LPN #7 informed the surveyor the resident had left the building for an appointment and a hold order was entered for the Lidoderm patch. The surveyor counted the Lidoderm patch as medication omission number one. At 8:35 AM, the surveyor observed LPN #7 prepare morning medications for Resident #11. The resident had physician orders for ICaps MV Oral Tablet (multiple vitamins with minerals) Give 1 tablet by mouth one time daily and cholecalciferol oral capsule 125 mcg Give 1 tablet by mouth one time daily. Neither medication was in the medication cart. The nurse stated she would check the storage room later for the 2 medications. Later in the day (2PM), LPN #7 informed the surveyor the medications were not in the storage room earlier, so a hold order had been entered. The surveyor counted these as medication omissions numbers two and three. The administrator, director of nursing, and assistant director of nursing were notified of the concern during a summary meeting on 3/13/2024.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0810 (Tag F0810)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, resident interview, staff interview, clinical record review, and facility document review, the facility staff failed to provide special eating equipment for 1 of 23 residents in ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, resident interview, staff interview, clinical record review, and facility document review, the facility staff failed to provide special eating equipment for 1 of 23 residents in the survey sample, Resident #8. The findings include: For Resident #8 (R8), the facility failed to utilize a two (2) handled cup with lid and straw for fluids on 3/12/24 and 3/13/24. R8's diagnosis list indicated diagnoses, which included, but not limited to muscle wasting and atrophy at multiple sites and cerebrovascular accident (stroke). On the most recent MDS (minimum data set) assessment with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 12/27/23, R8 was coded as 10/15 on the BIMS (brief interview for mental status) indicating moderately impaired cognition for making daily decisions. She was coded as having functional limitations in range of motion to both upper extremities. R8 was also coded as requiring supervision or touching assistance with eating. On 3/12/24 at 1:25 PM, surveyor observed R8 sitting in wheelchair. Both hands were observed to be closed tightly. R8 stated, she has shaky hands She stated her cup is sometimes placed in a coffee cup to help her be able to take a drink better. On 3/13/24 at 8:16 AM, surveyor observed R8 sitting up in bed. She was drinking from a carton of milk with a straw. Surveyor asked R8 if a 2 handled cup was on her breakfast tray, she said, no. On 3/13/24 at 12:56 PM, surveyor observed R8 eating lunch. The tray was not observed to contain a 2 handled cup. Surveyor read tray-ticket and tray-ticket revealed, Feeding Assistance Devices 2 handled cup (with) w/lid and straw. A review of R8's clinical record revealed the following: A physician's order dated 9/7/23 with a start date of 10/1/23: Regular Diet Mechanical Soft w/(with) Pureed Meats .2 (two) handled cup (with) w/lid & straw . A Nutrition Care Area Assessment-Quarterly, dated 12/22/23, revealed in part: .C. Adaptive Devices, 2 (two) handled cup (with) w/lid and straw . A review of R8's current comprehensive care plan dated 12/22/23 revealed, in part: Provide and serve diet as ordered. On 3/13/24 at 1:22 PM, surveyor interviewed the dietary manager (DM), and asked the process for providing adaptive equipment to the residents. DM stated when adaptive equipment comes back to the kitchen, the dietary department washes it. Surveyor asked DM about R8's adaptive equipment and DM stated she (R8) is to get built-up utensils and 2 handled cup. Surveyor informed DM that R8 did not have the cup for the past two meal observations. DM stated she would look into it. On 03/13/24 at 4:03 PM, administrator, assistant director of nursing, director of nursing, regional nurse consultant, and regional MDS (minimum data set) nurse were informed of this concern. A review of the policy, Assistive Devices and Equipment, revealed in part: .1. Certain devices and equipment that assist with resident .independence are provided for residents. These may include (but are not limited to): a. specialized eating utensils and equipment .3. Recommendations for the use of devices and equipment are based on comprehensive assessment . No further information regarding this concern was presented to the survey team prior to the exit conference on 3/14/24.
CONCERN (D)

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

Medical Records (Tag F0842)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

2. For Resident #8, the facility staff failed to accurately document a physician's order for a LUE (left upper extremity) splint. The findings included: Surveyor made observations of Resident #8 (R8) ...

Read full inspector narrative →
2. For Resident #8, the facility staff failed to accurately document a physician's order for a LUE (left upper extremity) splint. The findings included: Surveyor made observations of Resident #8 (R8) on 3/12/24 and on 3/13/24. A splint was not visible on her left hand. Two blue splints were observed on R8's nightstand. A physician's order dated 1/8/24, revealed, RESTORATIVE NURSING PROGRAM- . (LUE splints 6 hours daily) 6 times per week. On 3/13/24 at 11:14 AM, surveyor interviewed licensed practical nurse #5 (LPN#5), who informed surveyor that she (R8), is to wear it (splint) every day for six hours. On 3/13/24 at 11:35 AM, surveyor interviewed certified nursing assistant #3 (CNA#3) and asked how often R8 is to wear splint. CNA#3 stated six days per week for six hours a day. CNA#3 stated she (R8) usually wears it from 9 am to 11 am. On 3/13/24 at 3:42 PM, surveyor interviewed assistant director of nursing (ADON). ADON agreed splint was to be worn six days per week for six hours per day. Surveyor informed ADON that CNA#3 stated R8 only wears the splint from 9 am to 11 am. On 03/13/24 at 4:03 PM, administrator, assistant director of nursing, director of nursing, regional nurse consultant, and regional MDS (minimum data set) nurse were informed of this concern. On 3/14/24 at 8:35 AM, ADON brought surveyor a new physician order for R8 dated 3/14/24. ADON informed surveyor the previous order had been entered wrong and it should have read, up to six hours. A review of the physician's order dated 3/14/24, revealed, Restorative Nursing Program .(LUE splints up to 6 (six) hours daily) 6 (six) times per week. ADON brought surveyor a Restorative Nursing Program Plan for R8 dated, 2/9/23 that revealed, .splint wearing up to 6 (six) hours to LUE (left upper extremity). A review of the policy, Medication Orders, revealed in part: .Recording Orders .6. Treatment Orders-when recording treatment orders, specify the treatment, frequency, and duration of the treatment. No further information regarding this concern was presented to the survey team prior to the exit conference on 3/14/24. Based on staff interview and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to maintain a complete and accurate clinical record for 2 of 20 current residents, Resident #11 and #8. The findings included: 1. Resident #11's Durable Do Not Resuscitate (DDNR) was incomplete. Section #1 and #2 were left blank. Resident #11's diagnoses included, but were not limited to, hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction, dysphagia, muscle wasting and atrophy, anxiety, and depression. Section C (cognitive patterns) of Resident #11's annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 02/07/24 included a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 11 out of a possible 15 points. Resident #11's clinical record included a DDNR dated for 02/13/23. Section #1 and #2 were incomplete. Section 1 of the DDNR read in part, I further certify [must check 1 or 2]: 1. The patient is CAPABLE of making an informed decision . 2. The patient is INCAPABLE of making an informed decision . The boxes beside #1 and #2 were blank. Section 2 read If you checked 2 above, check A, B, or C below: The three boxes below were blank. On 03/14/24 at 4:00 p.m., during an end of the day meeting with the administrative staff the incomplete DDNR was reviewed. No further information regarding this issue was provided to the survey team prior to the exit conference.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0725 (Tag F0725)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, resident interview, staff interview, and facility document review, the facility staff failed to ensure they had sufficient staff to attain the highest practicable well-being. The...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, resident interview, staff interview, and facility document review, the facility staff failed to ensure they had sufficient staff to attain the highest practicable well-being. The dining room was not being utilized for breakfast and was not used consistently at the evening meal due to staffing issues on 2 of 3 Units, Unit 1 and Unit 2. The findings included: The facility staff were not utilizing the dining room at breakfast and did not consistently use the dining room for the evening meal due to staffing issues. On 03/12/24 at 1:20 p.m., during an interview with Resident #11 this resident stated the facility did not use the dining room on Sunday morning's and sometimes it was not used because the facility did not have enough help. On 03/12/24 at 1:50 p.m., during an interview with the Administrator this staff stated that sometimes they had to close the dining room in the evenings if they did not have enough help, but it did not happen as much as it previously did. On 03/13/24 at 10:05 a.m., during an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) this staff stated the dining room was not utilized at breakfast the residents eat breakfast in their rooms, and it has always been that way. On 03/13/24 2:40 p.m., during an interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #6 this staff stated they did not use the dining room for breakfast. On 03/13/24 at 2:45 p.m., during an interview with Certified Nursing Assistant (C.N.A.) #4 this staff stated they did not use the dining room in the mornings and did not always use it in the evening. C.N.A. #4 stated some of the residents had stated they would use the dining room if it was available. On 03/13/24 at 2:50 p.m., during an interview with Resident #66 this resident stated the dining room was not used in the morning and the facility wouldn't have enough staff to use it. Resident #66 then stated when the dining room is closed later in the day they did not always know until the last thing, they would be in the dining room and then they had to pick everything up and take it to their room. On 03/13/24 at 4:00 p.m., during an end of the day meeting with the administrative staff the Administrator stated staffing has improved, they have never used the dining room for breakfast and when they tried, they had a low turnout. On 03/14/24 at 8:40 a.m., during an interview with Resident #21 this resident stated that they would use the dining room if it was open for breakfast, they did use the sitting room where they took other residents that required feeding assistance. Resident #21 stated the dining room had more light, was bigger, and more people could join in. On 03/14/24 at 11:20 a.m., the DON provided the survey team with a copy of a policy titled, Food Production. This policy read in part, The dietary department will provide accurate, efficient and consistent meal service .in a pleasant atmosphere .Nursing staff will be assigned to assist in the dining areas at all times . The facility dining room for Unit 1 and Unit 2 was not observed to be used for breakfast during the survey. No further information regarding this issue was provided to the survey team prior to the exit conference.
MINOR (C)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0847 (Tag F0847)

Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents

Based on staff interviews, facility document review, and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to ensure the facility's arbitration agreement addressed residents' right to rescind the agre...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on staff interviews, facility document review, and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to ensure the facility's arbitration agreement addressed residents' right to rescind the agreement within 30 calendar days of signing the agreement. The findings include: The facility's AGREEMENT TO ARBITRATE document did not address residents' right to rescind the agreement within 30 calendar days of signing the agreement. Review of the facility's AGREEMENT TO ARBITRATE document failed to reveal explicit language addressing residents' and/or residents' representatives' right to rescind the agreement within 30 calendar days of signing it. (A signed AGREEMENT TO ARBITRATE document for one (1) of the sampled residents was provided to the survey team.) On 3/13/24 at 9:24 a.m., the facility's Admissions Director reported they did not see language, in the document, addressing the right to rescind within 30 days of signing the facility's AGREEMENT TO ARBITRATE document. The Admissions Director reported the right to rescind within 30 days of signing the AGREEMENT TO ARBITRATE document is discussed when it is signed but isn't documented. The facility's Arbitration Policy (with an effective date of 10/24/22) included the following statement: Admissions personnel must explain to the Resident [sic] or their personal representative that if they sign the agreement, they have the explicit right to rescind the agreement within 30 calendar days of signing it. On 3/13/24 at 4:03 p.m., the survey team met with the facility's Administrator, Director of Nursing, Assistant Director of Nursing, Nurse Consultant, and Regional MDS (Minimum Data Set) Nurse. During this meeting, the failure of the facility's AGREEMENT TO ARBITRATE document to explicitly include information about the right to rescind the agreement within 30 calendar days of signing it was discussed.
MINOR (C)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0848 (Tag F0848)

Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents

Based on staff interviews, facility document review, and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to ensure the facility's arbitration agreement addressed the selection of a venue that would ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on staff interviews, facility document review, and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to ensure the facility's arbitration agreement addressed the selection of a venue that would be convenient to both parties. The findings include: The facility's AGREEMENT TO ARBITRATE document did not address the selection of a venue. (A signed AGREEMENT TO ARBITRATE document for one (1) of the sampled residents was provided to the survey team.) On 3/13/24 at 10:38 a.m., the surveyor discussed the facility's AGREEMENT TO ARBITRATE document with the facility's Administrator and Admissions Director. The Admissions Director confirmed the agreement did not address selecting the location. The Administrator and Admissions Director reported the plan would be for a mutually agreed upon location to be selected. The facility's Arbitration Policy (with an effective date of 10/24/22) did not address the selection of a location. On 3/13/24 at 4:03 p.m., the survey team met with the facility's Administrator, Director of Nursing, Assistant Director of Nursing, Nurse Consultant, and Regional MDS (Minimum Data Set) Nurse. During this meeting, the failure of the facility's AGREEMENT TO ARBITRATE document to address the selection of a location was discussed.
Dec 2021 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, staff interview and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure medication/drugs were secured to prevent residents from potentially gaining access to them. This had the...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, staff interview and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure medication/drugs were secured to prevent residents from potentially gaining access to them. This had the potential to affect 49 ambulatory residents in the facility with a census of 113. Findings include: On 12/06/21 at 4:00 PM a large (gallon size) white bag with medications marked Omnicare Pharmacy was sitting on the floor behind the nursing station. The top of the bag was sealed shut except for a three-inch portion large enough for the surveyor to get her hand in the bag. The bag remained behind the nursing station with no staff present from 4:00 PM through 4:26 PM. On 12/06/21 at 4:26 PM a pharmacy employee arrived to pick the bag of medications up and three Licensed Practical Nurses (LPNs)1, LPN2, and LPN3 arrived at the nursing station to assist with giving the pharmacy employee the medications. Each of the LPNs verified the medications were behind the nursing station unlocked and with no staff present to supervise them. At 4:28 PM LPN1 and LPN3 stated the medications should have been locked in the medication storage room until the pharmacist arrived. The nursing station was located between Units A, B, and C and was open to the corridor on both ends of the nursing station. At 4:30 PM LPN2 provided a list of medications that were in the bag. Review of the medications revealed the bag contained 30 Mirtazapine (anti-depressant) F/C 15 milligrams (mg) tablets, 60 Trazadone (anti-depressant/sedative) 50 mg HCL tablets, 90 Omeprazole (for heartburn) 20 mg capsules, 23 Pantoprazole (for heartburn) Sodium tablets, and 13 Methenamine (for urinary tract infections) Hippurate 1-gram (gm)tablets. All the tablets were in blister packs. Review of the Storage of Medications policy with a revision date of April 2007 revealed it is the facility policy to keep all drugs and biologicals locked when not in use. A list of residents who were ambulatory, cognitively impaired and wander was requested from the Administrator. On 12/06/21 at 5:15 PM the Administrator provided a resident census sheet with the residents who were ambulatory, wanderers, cognitively impaired on Unit A, Unit B, and Unit C, on the 100 and 200 halls. Review of the list revealed the facility identified 49 ambulatory residents, of the 49 residents, five residents were identified as wanderers and seven residents were identified as having impaired cognition.
CONCERN (F)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, staff interview, and review of the manufacturer's instructions for the sanitizer, the facility failed to maintain the sanitizing solution used to sanitize food preparation counte...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, staff interview, and review of the manufacturer's instructions for the sanitizer, the facility failed to maintain the sanitizing solution used to sanitize food preparation counters and work surfaces at a level to effectively sanitize surfaces in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. This had the potential to affect 112 of the 113 residents of the facility who receive food from the dietary department. The facility identified one resident who received nothing by mouth. Findings include: On 12/06/21 at 11:15 AM observation in the kitchen revealed there was a red container of sanitizing solution with a wiping cloth inside. The solution measured 50 parts per million (ppm) of Oasis 146 Multi-Quat Sanitizer. The Dietary Director verified the sanitizer was too low and stated it should have been between 150 to 400 ppm. On 12/08/21 at 10:45 AM observation of the Assistant Dietary Director obtaining the sanitizing level of the wiping cloth container of sanitizer, and it measured less than 50 ppm. She verified it was not strong enough to sanitize the food contact surfaces. Just prior to the solution being measured Dietary Employee (DE) 4 was observed using the wiping cloth from the container to wipe off the food counter. At 10:45 PM she stated she was using the solution to clean and sanitize the food preparation counters. The manufacturer's instructions for the Eco Lab Oasis 146 Multi-Quat Sanitizer revealed the sanitizer should be 150 to 400 ppm to sanitize food contact surfaces.
Jan 2019 8 deficiencies
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, clinical record review, staff interview, observation, resident interview, and facility document review, the facility s...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on, clinical record review, staff interview, observation, resident interview, and facility document review, the facility staff failed to ensure a hazard free environment for 1 of 29 residents, Resident #36. The findings included: The facility staff failed to ensure a hazard free environment while transferring Resident #36. Resident #36 sustained a skin tear to the left lower leg during a transfer from the wheelchair to the bed. Resident #36 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included, but were not limited to, fracture of unspecified tarsal bone of left foot, Alzheimer's disease, cognitive communication deficit, hypertension, unsteadiness on feet, depression, and atrial fibrillation. Section C (cognitive patterns) of Resident #36's most recent comprehensive MDS (minimum data set) assessment with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 11/25/18 included a BIMS (brief interview for mental status) summary score of 10 out of a possible 15 points. Section G (functional status) had been coded to indicate extensive assistance with two persons physical assist (3/3) for transfer. Resident #36's comprehensive care plan included the focus area: ADL (activities of daily living) Function: Resident requires assistance from staff for daily ADL care ., has interventions that included but were not limited to, Encourage Resident to participate in ADL care as tolerated. The surveyor interviewed Resident #36 on 01/24/19 9:05 am. Resident #36 stated The CNA (certified nursing assistant) was trying to put me to bed and she did something that made the blood run out. It's been there for a month. The surveyor spoke to RN (registered nurse) #1 on 01/24/19 10:39 am. RN #1 voiced that Resident #36 acquired a laceration while being transferred to the bed from wheel chair. RN #1 stated, The foot rest on the wheel chair swung around and caught her left leg. The foot rest are off her wheel chair now. On 01/25/19 at 11:35am, the surveyor interviewed CNA #1 via phone. CNA #1 stated, Resident #36's wheelchair was locked. Resident #36 was assisted to standing and I was using the gait belt per policy. Resident #36 is a one person assist per CNA care plan. Resident #36 was standing with the back of her legs up against the wheelchair. Resident #36's blanket was wrapped around leg rest of wheelchair. She started shaking the wheelchair to loosen the blanket. When the blanket came loose the leg rest swung in, hitting Resident #36 in the left leg causing a skin tear. CNA #1 voiced that she sat Resident #36 on her bed and provided pressure to the wound with a clean towel. CNA #1 called the nurse to evaluate Resident #36 and provide treatment. CNA #1 stated I forgot to take the leg rest off of the wheelchair, but I didn't realize it until Resident #36 was standing to be transferred. I didn't want to leave her standing unsupported or lay the leg rest in the floor as that could be a potential hazard. CNA #1 voiced that she typically transfers Resident #36 without any issue. The surveyor reviewed a facility document titled Resident Incident Report, under the section titled Incident Witness Statement read in part: I was assisting Resident into the bed when the chair got stuck on her bed and blanket. Resident started to tug on her chair while I was holding her up and the chair had gotten free. That's when the leg of the wheelchair came around and knocked into her leg. Resident belted out a loud scream and when I checked her leg she had blood coming out and her leg had a deep skin tear. So I called for the LPN. I held a rag around the wound until the LPN arrived. The foretold statement was signed by CNA #1 and dated 12/15/18. The surveyor reviewed Resident #36's clinical record on 01/28/19 at 10:49am. A nursing note dated 12/15/18 at 10:14pm documented by LPN (licensed practical nurse) #1 read in part: 7:20 pm called to Resident's room. CNA was assisting Resident to bed. Her leg got caught on wheelchair. Place on left leg about 4 inches long and at one point an inch wide, ¼ inch deep. Bleeding from area. Pressure applied to stop bleeding. Steri-strips used to pull area together and triple antibiotic ointment applied. 4x4 applied and wrapped. Resting in bed. Took pain pill and all meds without difficulty .Doctor and responsible party (son) notified. Call light in reach. LPN #1 documented a nursing note dated 12/21/18 at 4:30pm that read in part: New order from doctor received to send Resident to ER (emergency room) for evaluation of wound . ED (emergency department) summary dated 12/21/18 read in part under diagnoses: Skin tear to left lower leg without complication under instructions of ED Summary it read in part: . skin tear though painful does not appear infected All labs fine .x-ray shows no deep infection . RN #2 documented a nursing note dated 12/22/18 at 1:13am that read in part: Resident returned back to facility .Orders received from doctor to start Norco 5/325 every 8 hours as needed .He also wants facility's wound care nurse to follow up on wound care . The administrative team was made aware of the above findings on 01/25/19 at 1:57pm. No further information regarding this issue was provided to the survey team prior to the exit conference on 01/28/19.
CONCERN (D)

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

Incontinence Care (Tag F0690)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. For Resident #69 the facility staff failed to ensure Foley catheter tubing was anchored. Resident #69 was admitted to the fac...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. For Resident #69 the facility staff failed to ensure Foley catheter tubing was anchored. Resident #69 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included but not limited to chronic diastolic (congestive) heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and chronic respiratory failure. The most recent MDS (minimum data set) with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 12/10/18 coded the Resident 11 of 15 in section C, cognitive patterns. Resident #69's CCP (comprehensive care plan) was reviewed and contained a focus area of Urinary incontinence/foley catheter: Resident at risk for UTI (urinary tract infection) related to chronic foley catheter placement . Interventions included but were not limited to, Provide foley catheter care every shift and as needed. Resident #69's clinical record was reviewed on 01/28/18. It contained a physician's order summary which read in part, Provide foley catheter care every shift and as needed . Resident #69 was observed by the surveyor on 01/23/19 at approximately 1:13 pm. Resident was resting in bed. Surveyor asked Resident #69 if her catheter was anchored. Resident #69 pulled back her sheets and stated No. The surveyor observed the catheter tubing not anchored and was positioned across Resident #69's right thigh. The concern of the Foley catheter not being anchored was discussed with the administrative team during a meeting on 01/24/19 at approximately 4:36pm. The surveyor asked director of nursing (DON) if she expects urinary catheters to be anchored. The DON stated Yes. The surveyor requested a policy on catheter care at this time. The administrator provided the surveyor with said policy titled Catheter Care, Urinary on 01/25/19. This policy read in part under sectioned titled Steps in the Procedure18. Secure catheter utilizing a leg band. No further information was provided prior to exit. Based on observation, staff interview, facility document review and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to provide appropriate treatment and services for care of a resident with a clinically justified indwelling catheter when the indwelling Foley catheters were not anchored for 3 of 29 residents (Resident #104, Resident #34, and Resident #69). The findings included: 1. The facility staff failed to anchor Resident #104's indwelling Foley catheter. The clinical record of Resident #104 was reviewed 1/23/19 through 1/28/19. Resident #104 was admitted to the facility 12/10/18 and readmitted [DATE] with diagnoses that included but not limited to hypokalemia, dementia with behavioral disturbances, atrial fibrillation, restlessness and agitation, insomnia, infected left femur fracture, metabolic encephalopathy, urinary tract infection, and hypertension. Resident #104's significant change minimum data set (MDS) assessment with an assessment reference date (ARD) of 1/9/19 assessed the resident with a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) as 4/15. Section H Bladder and Bowel was coded for an indwelling catheter (H0100) and urinary continence (H0300) was coded as 9=not rated-resident had a catheter (indwelling, condom), urinary ostomy, or no urine output for entire 7 days. Current comprehensive care plan initiated 1/10/19 identified urinary incontinency/Foley catheter. Resident is at risk for UTIs (urinary tract infections) r/t (related to) Foley placement. Approaches: change Foley catheter every month and as needed (prn), monitor for changes in urine. The January 2019 physician orders read Change 16 F (16 French) Foley catheter month (every month). The surveyor observed Resident #104 on 1/23/19 at 2:37 p.m. Resident #104 was in bed. The surveyor observed a Foley drainage bag attached to the bed frame. Resident #104 was being attended to by licensed practical nurse #1. L.P.N. #1 asked if indwelling Foley catheters were anchored. L.P.N. #1 stated, They are supposed to be. When L.P.N. #1 checked the Foley for anchorage, the Foley was not anchored. L.P.N. #1 stated she would get a leg strap. The surveyor observed Resident #104 again on 1/24/19 at 8:36 a.m. Resident #104 was in bed. Licensed practical nurse #2 was attending to the resident. Foley catheter was observed to be unanchored. L.P.N. #2 stated Foleys were supposed to be anchor. The surveyor and L.P.N. # attempted to view the size of the Foley catheter. The only readable number was 10 ml (milliliter). The January 2019 physician orders did not have a bulb size identified in the physician order. The surveyor informed the administrator, the director of nursing and the corporate registered of the above concern and requested the facility policy on Foley catheter care during the end of the day meeting on 1/24/19 at 4:14 p.m. The surveyor asked the DON if she would expect the staff to anchor indwelling Foley catheters. The DON stated she would expect staff to anchor Foleys. The surveyor reviewed the facility policy titled Catheter Care, Urinary on 1/25/19. The policy read in part 2. Ensure that the catheters remains secured with a leg strap to reduce friction and movement at the insertion site. (Catheter tubing should be strapped to the resident's inner thigh.) No further information was provided prior to the exit conference on 1/28/19. 2. The facility staff failed to anchor Resident #34's indwelling Foley catheter. The clinical record of Resident #34 was reviewed 1/23/19 through 1/28/19. Resident #34 was admitted to the facility 8/23/18 with diagnoses that included but not limited to multiple rib fractures, hyperglycemia, chronic kidney disease, chronic diastolic heart failure, urine retention, hypothyroidism, anemia, hypertension, and benign prostatic hypertrophy. Resident #34's quarterly minimum data set (MDS) assessment with an assessment reference date (ARD) of 11/21/18 assessed the resident with a BIMS (brief interview for mental status) as 13/15. Section H Bladder and Bowel was coded for an indwelling catheter (H0100) and urinary continence (H0300) was coded as 9=not rated-resident had a catheter (indwelling, condom), urinary ostomy, or no urine output for entire 7 days. The January 2019 physician orders read Change 18 F (French) Foley catheter q month (every month). The order did not contain the bulb size of the Foley catheter. The surveyor interviewed Resident #34 on 1/24/19 at 9:58 a.m. The resident was asked if the staff used a strap to hold the catheter to the leg. The resident stated he didn't think it was strapped. Certified nursing assistant #1 was attending to the resident's roommate and was asked to check for anchorage. C.N.A. #1 stated Foleys were supposed to be anchored. When checked, C.N. A. #1 stated the catheter was not anchored but they're supposed to be. The surveyor informed the administrator, the director of nursing, and the corporate registered nurse in the end of the day meeting on 1/24/19 at 4:14 p.m. The surveyor asked the DON if she would expect the staff to anchor indwelling Foley catheters. The DON stated she would expect staff to anchor Foleys. The surveyor reviewed the facility policy titled Catheter Care, Urinary on 1/25/19. The policy read in part 2. Ensure that the catheters remains secured with a leg strap to reduce friction and movement at the insertion site. (Catheter tubing should be strapped to the resident's inner thigh.) No further information was provided prior to the exit conference on 1/28/19.
CONCERN (D)

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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. The facility staff failed to store a nebulizer mask in a plastic bag for Resident #108. Resident #108 was admitted to the fac...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. The facility staff failed to store a nebulizer mask in a plastic bag for Resident #108. Resident #108 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the following diagnoses of, but not limited to stroke, anxiety disorder and depression. On the quarterly MDS (Minimum Data Set) with an ARD (Assessment Reference Date) of 1/15/19, the resident was coded as having a BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status) score of 12 out of a possible score of 15. Resident #108 was also coded as requiring limited supervision of 1 staff member for dressing, extensive assistance of 1 staff member for personal hygiene and being totally dependent on 1 staff member for bathing. During the initial tour of the facility on 1/23/19 at 12:33 pm, the surveyor observed Resident #108's nebulizer mask sitting on the table bedside of the bed. The mask was not stored in a plastic bag. The surveyor went back into the resident's room on 1/24/19 at approximately 11 am at which time the surveyor observed the nebulizer mask being stored in a plastic bag. At 4:15 pm on 1/24/19, the surveyor notified the administrative team of the above findings. The director of nursing stated, That mask should be stored in a plastic bag when not in use by the resident. The surveyor requested a copy of the policy concerning storage of a nebulizer mask when not in use. On 1/25/19 at 11 am, the surveyor was provided a copy of the facility's policy titled Departmental (Respiratory Therapy) Prevention of Infection. The policy read in part, .Store the circuit in plastic bag, marked with date and resident's name, between uses . No further findings were provided to the surveyor prior to the exit conference on 1/28/19. Based on observation, staff interview, facility document review and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to provide respiratory care and services in accordance with professional standards of care, the resident's care plan and the resident's choice for 3 of 29 residents (Resident #37, Resident #108, and Resident #25). The findings included: 1. The facility staff failed to ensure the physician ordered oxygen amount was delivered to Resident #37 and failed to change the oxygen tubing weekly. The clinical record of Resident #37 was reviewed 1/23/19 through 1/28/19. Resident #37 was admitted to the facility 8/11/18 and readmitted [DATE]. Diagnoses included but were not limited to fracture of right tibia, end stage renal disease, candida stomatitis, renal dialysis dependence, type 2 diabetes mellitus, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, anemia, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, chronic pain, and gastro-esophageal reflux disease. Resident #37's quarterly minimum data set (MDS) assessment with an assessment reference date (ARD) of 1/23/19 assessed the resident with a BIMS (brief interview for mental status) as 15/15. Section O Special Treatments, Procedures, and Programs was coded for oxygen use. Resident #37's current comprehensive care plan identified respiratory as a problem with an onset date of 1/24/19. Resident #37 was at risk for respiratory complications related to COPD and allergies. The resident wears O2 at 2 L/M (liters per minute) at all times. Approaches: Administer meds (medications) as ordered, O2 per MD (medical doctor) order, monitor O2 sats (saturation levels) q shift (every shift), monitor for respiratory complications, monitor lung sounds qshift, and notify MD prn (as needed). The surveyor observed Resident #37 on 1/23/19 4:01 PM. Resident #37 was in bed with oxygen via nasal cannula at 3 liters. The oxygen tubing had a pink sticker that was dated 1/12/19. The surveyor observed Resident #37 again on 1/24/19 at 9:21 a.m. Resident #37 was in bed and finishing breakfast. O2 was at 3 liters and the tubing was dated 1/12/19 The surveyor interviewed licensed practical nurse #3 what oxygen amount was ordered for Resident #37. L.P.N. #3 stated Resident #37 was supposed to have 2 liters. L.P.N. #2 observed the oxygen at 3 liters/nc and changed the liter amount to 2. The surveyor reviewed the December 2018 physician's orders. The oxygen order dated 10/9/18 read O2 via NC (nasal cannula) @ 2L/M (liters per minute) continuous. The surveyor informed the administrator, the director of nursing and the corporate registered nurse of the above concern during the end of the day meeting on 1/24/19 at 4:14 p.m. The surveyor requested the facility policy on respiratory care. The surveyor reviewed the facility policy titled Respiratory Therapy-Prevention of Infection on 1/25/19. The policy read in part Infection Control Considerations Related to Oxygen Administration 7. Change the oxygen cannulae and tubing every seven (7) days, or as needed. No further information was provided prior to the exit conference on 1/28/19. 2. The facility staff failed to ensure Resident #25 received the amount of oxygen ordered by the physician and failed to date oxygen tubing. The clinical record of Resident #25 was reviewed 1/23/19 through 1/28/19. Resident #25 was admitted to the facility 2/10/18 and readmitted [DATE] with diagnoses that included but not limited to acute and chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia, hypothyroidism, hypercholesterolemia, major depressive disorder, hypertension, acute bronchitis, repeated falls, hyperlipidemia, pressure ulcer stage 2 right buttock, and discitis. Resident #25's quarterly minimum data set (MDS) assessment with an assessment reference date (ARD) of 11/21/18 assessed the resident with a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) as 15/15. Section O Special Treatments, Procedures, and Programs was coded for oxygen use. Resident #25's current comprehensive care plan initiated 11/23/18 identified the resident to be at risk for respiratory complications related to hx (history) of CHF (congestive heart failure), neb (nebulizer) treatments daily, wears O2 (oxygen) at all times and 1500 fluid restriction. Approaches: Administer meds (medications) per MD (medical doctor) order. The December 2018 physician's orders read O2 2l (liters) nasal cannula continuous. The surveyor observed Resident #25 during the initial tour on 1/23/19 beginning at 12:26 p.m. Resident #25 was in bed. An oxygen concentrator was sitting to the left side of the bed and the amount of oxygen was set at 1 and ½ liters. There was no date on the oxygen tubing. The surveyor observed Resident #25 again on 1/23/19 at 2:41 p.m. Resident #25 was in bed with oxygen via the concentrator set on 1 and ½ liters. No date was observed on the oxygen tubing. The surveyor observed Resident #25 on 1/24/19 at 9:09 a.m. Resident #25 was in bed and eating breakfast. The oxygen concentrator was on 1 and ½ liters. No date was observed on the oxygen tubing. The surveyor informed licensed practical nurse #3 of the above observation at 9:30 a.m. L.P.N #3 observed the liter of oxygen setting and moved the concentrator to 2. L.P.N. #3 was asked if the nasal cannula was changed weekly. L.P.N. #3 stated usually done on 11-7 shift. The surveyor informed the administrator, the director of nursing and the corporate registered nurse of the above observation during the end of the day meeting on 1/24/19 at 4:14 p.m. The surveyor requested the facility policy on respiratory care. The surveyor reviewed the facility policy titled Respiratory Therapy-Prevention of Infection on 1/25/19. The policy read in part Infection Control Considerations Related to Oxygen Administration 7. Change the oxygen cannulae and tubing every seven (7) days, or as needed. No further information was provided prior to the exit conference on 1/28/19.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation and staff interview, the facility staff failed to discard expired medications on 1 of 3 medication carts inspected. On 1/25/19 at 11:00 AM, the surveyor checked the medication car...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and staff interview, the facility staff failed to discard expired medications on 1 of 3 medication carts inspected. On 1/25/19 at 11:00 AM, the surveyor checked the medication cart on Side 2 for expired medications. The surveyor found 3 containers of artificial tears with expiration date 12/2018. The containers were labeled with the names of 3 unsampled residents. Medication administration records indicated that the 3 residents had received the medications daily in the 24 days after the expiration date. The nurse was informed of the concern and pulled the eye drops from the cart and went to the supply room for replacements. The director of nursing and administrator were notified of the issue on 1/25/19.
CONCERN (D)

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

Medical Records (Tag F0842)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interview, facility document review, and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to maintain a complete and accurate clinical record for 1 of 29 residents (Resident #117). The findings included: The facility staff failed to ensure a registered nurse documented when Resident #117 was pronounced dead. The clinical record of Resident #117 was reviewed [DATE]. Resident #117 was admitted to the facility [DATE] and expired [DATE]. Diagnoses included but were not limited to Alzheimer's disease, heart failure, atrial fibrillation, atherosclerotic heart disease, chronic kidney disease, hypertension, type 2 diabetes mellitus, hyperlipidemia, insomnia, anxiety, major depressive disorder, and gastrointestinal hemorrhage. Resident #117's quarterly minimum data set (MDS) assessment with an assessment reference date (ARD) of [DATE] assessed the resident with a brief interview for mental status as 0/15. The departmental note dated [DATE] 6:34 a.m. read Upon rounding, resident was observed in bed with no respirations, no apical pulse, no blood pressure, no oxygen saturation. Her skin is cool to touch and model (sic) up to her legs and hands. RN (registered nurse) notified and comfirmed (sic) findings time of death 01613. Notified RP (responsible party) and Dr. (Doctor). RP stated to send body to ____ (name of nursing home omitted). Signed by licensed practical nurse #4. The surveyor was unable to locate documentation by the registered nurse of Resident #117's death in the clinical record. The surveyor informed the director of nursing (DON) of the above issue on [DATE] at 11:56 a.m. The DON was unable to locate documentation by the RN of Resident #117's death. The DON stated she would expect staff especially the RN on duty when Resident #117 expired to document their findings. The surveyor requested the facility policy on documentation from the director of nursing on [DATE]. The surveyor reviewed the facility policy titled Charting and Documentation on [DATE]. The policy read in part 2. The following information is to be documented in the resident medical record: d. Changes in the resident's condition. No further information was provided prior to the e exit conference on [DATE].
MINOR (C)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Transfer Requirements (Tag F0622)

Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interview, facility document review and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to provide the receiving provider with the appropriate information to include basis for the transfer, contact information of the practitioner responsible for the care of the resident, resident representative information including contact information, Advanced Directive information, all special instructions or precautions for ongoing care, comprehensive care plan goals, and all other necessary information including a copy of the resident's discharge summary and failed to document information provided to the receiving provider for 10 of 29 residents (Resident #267, Resident #104, Resident #83, Resident #90, Resident #36, Resident #115, Resident #218, Resident #19, Resident #25, and Resident #69). The findings included: 1. The facility staff failed to provide the receiving provider with information for on-going care when Resident #104 was transferred to the hospital. The clinical record of Resident #104 was reviewed 1/23/19 through 1/28/19. Resident #104 was admitted to the facility 12/10/18 and readmitted [DATE] with diagnoses that included but not limited to hypokalemia, dementia with behavioral disturbances, atrial fibrillation, restlessness and agitation, insomnia, infected left femur fracture, metabolic encephalopathy, urinary tract infection, and hypertension. Resident #104's significant change minimum data set (MDS) assessment with an assessment reference date (ARD) of 1/9/19 assessed the resident with a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) as 4/15. The departmental note dated 12/19/18 at 2:18 p.m. read in part She is leaving facility at this time for direct admit to RGH (name of hospital omitted). Transported via (name of ambulance service omitted) and two attendants. The departmental notes were reviewed on 1/24/19. The 12/19/18 5:32 p.m. departmental note read, RGH (name of hospital) nurse called and wanted to know why resident was there. She did not get a report from this facility as to why. They do have a bed and she is been admitted (sic) at this time. The clinical record had no documentation of contact information, what information was provided to the hospital, advanced directive information, resident representative contact information, contact information from the facility, transfer form, comprehensive careplan goals sent, or any special instructions or bed hold offer. The surveyor informed the administrator, the director of nursing and the corporate registered nurse of the above concern during the end of the day meeting on 1/24/19 at 4:14 p.m. The survey team asked what information was provided when residents are transferred to the hospital. The director of nursing stated the face sheet and the medication administration record (MAR). The DON stated the facility was just beginning to work on a form called Interact but had to be completed. The surveyor requested the facility policy on transfers/discharges. The director of nursing provided the surveyor with the policy titled Bed-Holds and Returns on 1/25/19. The policy read in part Prior to transfers and therapeutic leaves, residents or resident representatives will be informed in writing of the bed-hold and return policy. The director of nursing did not provide a policy for transfers/discharges prior to the exit conference on 1/28/19. 2. The facility staff failed to provide Resident #90's transfer/discharge information to the receiving provider when transferred to the hospital on [DATE] and 11/4/18. The clinical record of Resident #90 was reviewed 1/23/19 through 1/28/19. Resident #61 was admitted to the facility 3/13/17 and readmitted [DATE] and 11/7/18 with diagnoses that included but not limited to vascular dementia without behavioral disturbances, type 2 diabetes mellitus, hypothyroidism, cervical disc disorder, right femur intertrochanteric fracture, osteoporosis, gastro-esophageal reflux disease, contusion of scalp, chronic diastolic heart failure, cerebral infarction, dysphagia, major depressive disorder, polyneuropathy, anemia, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia. Resident #90's significant change in assessment minimum data set (MDS) assessment with an assessment reference date (ARD) of 1/2/19 assessed the resident with a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) as 7/15. A telephone order dated 10/29/18 read May send resident to ER (emergency room) for eval (evaluation) & treat (treatment). The surveyor reviewed the departmental note dated 10/29/18 10:44 p.m. The note read in part: Late Entry: This nurse was called to therapy gym. Resident was found in floor on right side. Resident stated she had lost her balance and fell to the floor. Upon assessment resident stated she had pain in her right hip and right side of her head on a pain scale of 4 out of 10. Right side of head had hematoma present. Resident was assisted to wheelchair and to her room. MD (medical doctor) notified (name omitted) concerned of resident on Coumadin with the fall and wanted resident to be sent to ER (name omitted). Transport arrived at 1820 (6:20 p.m.) and resident left via stretcher. Departmental note dated 10/30/18 10:44 a.m. read in part Resident admitted to hospital. A second physician order dated 11/4/18 read May send out to ER (name omitted) for eval & tx (treatment) due to increased confusion, combativeness, trying to harm self and decreased O2 (oxygen) sat (saturation). The surveyor reviewed the departmental note dated 11/4/18 6:46 p.m. The note read Late entry 6p.m. Resident noted to have increased confusion with big change in personality. She has been very combative to staff this shift. Resident can normally hold a normal conversation, but cannot at this time. She began doing things to herself, such as, pulling her own hair, bending fingers backwards while looking at staff and stating look here, I'm going to tell them you did this. You are going to be accused of it. This is not normal behavior for this resident. This nurse sent to ER for eval and tx. Physician aware and RP (responsible party) agrees with this nurses decision and is meeting resident at hospital. The clinical record did not have documentation of resident information provided to the receiving provider of the advanced directive, contact information of the resident representative or contact information of the sending facility, comprehensive care plan goals, discharge summary/transfer form, or special instructions for care or bed hold offer. The surveyor informed the director of nursing of the above information not found in the clinical record for either of Resident #61's transfers to the emergency room and subsequent admissions to the hospital on [DATE] and 11/4/18 on 1/27/19 at 3:55 p.m. The director of nursing stated the only information sent with the resident was the face sheet and the medication administration record (MAR). The surveyor informed the administrator, the director of nursing and the corporate registered nurse of the above concern during the end of the day meeting on 1/24/19 at 4:14 p.m. The survey team asked what information was provided when residents are transferred to the hospital. The director of nursing stated the face sheet and the medication administration record (MAR). The DON stated the facility was just beginning to work on a form called Interact but had to be completed. The surveyor requested the facility policy on transfers/discharges. The director of nursing provided the surveyor with the policy titled Bed-Holds and Returns on 1/25/19. The policy read in part Prior to transfers and therapeutic leaves, residents or resident representatives will be informed in writing of the bed-hold and return policy. The director of nursing did not provide a policy for transfers/discharges prior to the exit conference on 1/28/19. 3. The facility staff failed to provide transfer/discharge information to the receiving provider when Resident #218 was transferred to the hospital. The clinical record of Resident #218 was reviewed 1/23/19 through 1/28/19. Resident #218 was admitted to the facility 4/6/18 and readmitted [DATE] with diagnoses that included but not limited to acute osteomyelitis, sepsis, cellulitis of right lower limb and chronic respiratory failure with hypercapnia. Resident #218's admission minimum data set (MDS) assessment with an assessment reference date (ARD) of 1/14/19 assessed the resident with a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) as 15/15. The clinical record revealed three emergency room visits with two requiring hospitalizations. Resident #218 was sent to the emergency room on [DATE] for abdominal pain and constipation. There was documentation that a report was called to the emergency room but no further evidence of what information was provided to the receiving provider. The clinical record revealed Resident #218 was admitted to the hospital 1/4/19 as evidenced by the physician discharge summary for 1/4/19-1/7/19. The departmental note dated 1/4/19 at 3:43 a.m. read Resident left facility via wheelchair with son at 3:40 a.m. to go to an appointment. No skin issues or distress noted. The departmental note dated 1/4/19 at 11:44 a.m. read Resident continues to be out of facility. The departmental note dated 1/4/19 at 10:44 p.m. read Resident remains OOF (out of facility) at hospital. None of the notes dated 1/4/19 detail information sent to the receiving provider when the resident did not return to the facility on 1/4/19. The clinical record revealed Resident #218 was admitted to the hospital 1/18/19-1/21/19 for acute kidney injury. The departmental note dated 1/18/19 at 1:53 p.m. read in part Resident complains of feeling bad. Could not state exactly what her complaints were more specifically. Did state she was having double vision and that her vision was wavey. MD (medical doctor-name omitted) notified. Telephone order received to send patient to ER (emergency room) for evaluation and treatment of complaints. The departmental note dated 1/18/19 at 2:24 p.m. read EMS (emergency medical services) notified for transport to the ED (emergency department), report called to ED (name omitted). The departmental note dated 1/19/19 at 10:32 a.m. read in part Resident was admitted [DATE] for acute kidney injury. None of the transfers/discharges/hospitalizations had documentation in the clinical record of information provided to the receiving provider-contact information of the practitioner, contact information of the resident representative, transfer form, advanced directive, comprehensive care plan goals, or any pertinent information pertaining to the ongoing care of the resident or offer of bed-hold information. The survey team met with the administrator, the director of nursing (DON), and the corporate registered nurse on 1/24/19 at 4:14 p.m. and informed them of the required information sent to the hospital when a resident was transferred. The DON stated a face sheet and a medication administration record (MAR). The DON stated the facility was just beginning to work on a form called Interact but had to be completed. The surveyor requested the facility policy on transfers/discharges. The director of nursing provided the surveyor with the policy titled Bed-Holds and Returns on 1/25/19. The policy read in part Prior to transfers and therapeutic leaves, residents or resident representatives will be informed in writing of the bed-hold and return policy. The director of nursing did not provide a policy for transfers/discharges prior to the exit conference on 1/28/19. 4. The facility staff failed to provide transfer/discharge information to the receiving provider when Resident #25 was sent to the hospital 1/11/19. The clinical record of Resident #25 was reviewed 1/23/19 through 1/28/19. Resident #25 was admitted to the facility 2/10/18 and readmitted [DATE] with diagnoses that included but not limited to acute and chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia, hypothyroidism, hypercholesterolemia, major depressive disorder, hypertension, acute bronchitis, repeated falls, hyperlipidemia, pressure ulcer stage 2 right buttock, and discitis. Resident #25's quarterly minimum data set (MDS) assessment with an assessment reference date (ARD) of 11/21/18 assessed the resident with a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) as 15/15. The clinical record revealed a telephone order dated 1/11/19 that read May send out to ER (emergency room) (name of hospital omitted) for eval (evaluation)/tx (treatment) d/t (due to) fall & c/o (complaints of) pain. The surveyor reviewed the 1/11/19 6:07 p.m. departmental note. The note read in part: @1728 (5:28 p.m.) staff stated that resident was in the floor. Resident was observed to be laying on his left side on the left side of the bed. Blood was coming from resident's head and left forearm. Pressure was held onto (sic) bleeding areas. 911 was called for transport. Resident stated that his left hip, left shoulder and head was hurting. Unable to do neuro checks due to resident's refusal. MD (medical doctor) and RP (responsible party) aware. Rescue squad arrived x3 attendants. Resident was assisted onto the stretcher x3 attendants and 2 employees. Resident left the facility at this time. Report was called to ER (emergency room) (name omitted). The departmental note failed to have evidence of information sent with Resident #25 when the resident was transferred to the hospital-no transfer form/discharge form, contact information, resident representative contact information, comprehensive care plan goals, advanced directive, or any pertinent tests or bed hold information. The survey team had discussed the concerns with transfer/discharges and information sent with residents in the end of the day meeting on 1/24/19 at 4:14 p.m. with the administrator, the director of nursing (DON) and the corporate registered nurse. The DON stated information sent with the resident when transferred included the face sheet and the medication administration record. No further information was provided prior to the exit conference on 1/28/19. 5. There were six other residents who were transferred to hospitals and the facility staff failed to provide information to the receiving providers. Those residents were identified as Resident #267, Resident #83, Resident #36, Resident #115, Resident #19, and Resident #69. The survey team met with the administrator, the director of nursing (DON) and the corporate registered nurse on 1/24/19 at 4:14 p.m. and during the meeting asked what information was provided to the receiving provider when transferred to the hospital. The DON stated the face sheet and the medication administration record were sent. The DON stated the facility was just beginning to work on paperwork to be sent with residents when they are transferred to the hospital. The DON stated the facility was reviewing a form called Interact for transfers. No further information was provided prior to the exit conference on 1/28/19.
MINOR (C)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Transfer Notice (Tag F0623)

Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interview, facility document review and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to provide written notice of transfer/discharge to include the effective date of transfer or discharge; the location to which the resident is transferred or discharged ; a statement of the resident's appeal rights, including the name, address (mailing and email), and telephone number of the entity which receives such requests; and information on how to obtain an appeal form and assistance in completing the form and submitting the appeal hearing request; the name, address (mailing and email) and telephone number of the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman and documentation in the medical record that the notice was sent to the Ombudsman for 10 of 29 residents (Resident #287, Resident #104, Resident #83, Resident #90, Resident #36, Resident #115, Resident #218, Resident #19, Resident #25, and Resident #69). The findings included: 1. The facility staff failed to provide written notice of transfer to the resident and the resident representative when Resident #104 was transferred to the hospital and failed to document in the medical record ombudsman notification. The clinical record of Resident #104 was reviewed 1/23/19 through 1/28/19. Resident #104 was admitted to the facility 12/10/18 and readmitted [DATE] with diagnoses that included but not limited to hypokalemia, dementia with behavioral disturbances, atrial fibrillation, restlessness and agitation, insomnia, infected left femur fracture, metabolic encephalopathy, urinary tract infection, and hypertension. Resident #104's significant change minimum data set (MDS) assessment with an assessment reference date (ARD) of 1/9/19 assessed the resident with a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) as 4/15. The departmental note dated 12/19/18 at 2:18 p.m. read in part She is leaving facility at this time for direct admit to RGH (name of hospital omitted). Transported via (name of ambulance service omitted) and two attendants. The departmental notes were reviewed on 1/24/19. The 12/19/18 5:32 p.m. departmental note read, RGH (name of hospital) nurse called and wanted to know why resident was there. She did not get a report from this facility as to why. They do have a bed and she is been admitted (sic) at this time. The clinical record had no documentation that the written notice of transfer was given to the resident and the resident representative and there was no ombudsman notification documented in the clinical record. The surveyor informed the administrator, the director of nursing and the corporate registered nurse of the above concern during the end of the day meeting on 1/24/19 at 4:14 p.m. The survey team asked what information was provided when residents are transferred to the hospital. The director of nursing stated the face sheet and the medication administration record (MAR). The DON stated the facility was just beginning to work on a form called Interact but had to be completed. The surveyor requested the facility policy on transfers/discharges. The director of nursing provided the surveyor with the policy titled Bed-Holds and Returns on 1/25/19. The policy read in part Prior to transfers and therapeutic leaves, residents or resident representatives will be informed in writing of the bed-hold and return policy. The director of nursing did not provide a policy for transfers/discharges prior to the exit conference on 1/28/19. 2. The facility staff failed to provide written notice of transfer to the resident and the resident representative when Resident #90 was transferred to the hospital on [DATE] and 11/4/18 and failed to document in the medical record ombudsman notification. The clinical record of Resident #90 was reviewed 1/23/19 through 1/28/19. Resident #90 was admitted to the facility 3/13/17 and readmitted [DATE] and 11/7/18 with diagnoses that included but not limited to vascular dementia without behavioral disturbances, type 2 diabetes mellitus, hypothyroidism, cervical disc disorder, right femur intertrochanteric fracture, osteoporosis, gastro-esophageal reflux disease, contusion of scalp, chronic diastolic heart failure, cerebral infarction, dysphagia, major depressive disorder, polyneuropathy, anemia, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia. Resident #90's significant change in assessment minimum data set (MDS) assessment with an assessment reference date (ARD) of 1/2/19 assessed the resident with a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) as 7/15. A telephone order dated 10/29/18 read May send resident to ER (emergency room) for eval (evaluation) & treat (treatment). The surveyor reviewed the departmental note dated 10/29/18 10:44 p.m. The note read in part: Late Entry: This nurse was called to therapy gym. Resident was found in floor on right side. Resident stated she had lost her balance and fell to the floor. Upon assessment resident stated she had pain in her right hip and right side of her head on a pain scale of 4 out of 10. Right side of head had hematoma present. Resident was assisted to wheelchair and to her room. MD (medical doctor) notified (name omitted) concerned of resident on Coumadin with the fall and wanted resident to be sent to ER (name omitted). Transport arrived at 1820 (6:20 p.m.) and resident left via stretcher. Departmental note dated 10/30/18 10:44 a.m. read in part Resident admitted to hospital. A second physician order dated 11/4/18 read May send out to ER (name omitted) for eval & tx (treatment) due to increased confusion, combativeness, trying to harm self and decreased O2 (oxygen) sat (saturation). The surveyor reviewed the departmental note dated 11/4/18 6:46 p.m. The note read Late entry 6 p.m. Resident noted to have increased confusion with big change in personality. She has been very combative to staff this shift. Resident can normally hold a normal conversation, but cannot at this time. She began doing things to herself, such as, pulling her own hair, bending fingers backwards while looking at staff and stating look here, I'm going to tell them you did this. You are going to be accused of it. This is not normal behavior for this resident. This nurse sent to ER for eval and tx. Physician aware and RP (responsible party) agrees with this nurses decision and is meeting resident at hospital. The clinical record had no documentation that the written notice of transfer was given to the resident and the resident representative and there was no ombudsman notification documented in the clinical record. The surveyor informed the director of nursing of the above information not found in the clinical record for either of Resident #90's transfers to the emergency room and subsequent admissions to the hospital on [DATE] and 11/4/18 on 1/27/19 at 3:55 p.m. The director of nursing stated the only information sent with the resident was the face sheet and the medication administration record (MAR). The surveyor informed the administrator, the director of nursing and the corporate registered nurse of the above concern during the end of the day meeting on 1/24/19 at 4:14 p.m. The survey team asked what information was provided when residents are transferred to the hospital. The director of nursing stated the face sheet and the medication administration record (MAR). The DON stated the facility was just beginning to work on a form called Interact but had to be completed. The surveyor requested the facility policy on transfers/discharges. The director of nursing provided the surveyor with the policy titled Bed-Holds and Returns on 1/25/19. The policy read in part Prior to transfers and therapeutic leaves, residents or resident representatives will be informed in writing of the bed-hold and return policy. The director of nursing did not provide a policy for transfers/discharges prior to the exit conference on 1/28/19. 3. The facility staff failed to provide written notice of transfer to the resident and resident representative and failed to document ombudsman notification in the clinical record when Resident #218 was transferred to the hospital. The clinical record of Resident #218 was reviewed 1/23/19 through 1/28/19. Resident #218 was admitted to the facility 4/6/18 and readmitted [DATE] with diagnoses that included but not limited to acute osteomyelitis, sepsis, cellulitis of right lower limb and chronic respiratory failure with hypercapnia. Resident #218's admission minimum data set (MDS) assessment with an assessment reference date (ARD) of 1/14/19 assessed the resident with a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) as 15/15. The clinical record revealed three emergency room visits with two requiring hospitalizations. Resident #218 was sent to the emergency room on [DATE] for abdominal pain and constipation. There was documentation that a report was called to the emergency room but no further evidence of what information was provided to the receiving provider. The clinical record had no documentation that the written notice of transfer was given to the resident and the resident representative on 11/24/18 and there was no ombudsman notification documented in the clinical record. The clinical record revealed Resident #218 was admitted to the hospital 1/4/19 as evidenced by the physician discharge summary for 1/4/19-1/7/19. The departmental note dated 1/4/19 at 3:43 a.m. read Resident left facility via wheelchair with son at 3:40 a.m. to go to an appointment. No skin issues or distress noted. The departmental note dated 1/4/19 at 11:44 a.m. read Resident continues to be out of facility. The departmental note dated 1/4/19 at 10:44 p.m. read Resident remains OOF (out of facility) at hospital. The clinical record had no documentation that the written notice of transfer was given to the resident and the resident representative on 1/4/19 and there was no ombudsman notification documented in the clinical record. The clinical record revealed Resident #218 was admitted to the hospital 1/18/19-1/21/19 for acute kidney injury. The departmental note dated 1/18/19 at 1:53 p.m. read in part Resident complains of feeling bad. Could not state exactly what her complaints were more specifically. Did state she was having double vision and that her vision was wavey. MD (medical doctor-name omitted) notified. Telephone order received to send patient to ER (emergency room) for evaluation and treatment of complaints. The departmental note dated 1/18/19 at 2:24 p.m. read EMS (emergency medical services) notified for transport to the ED (emergency department), report called to ED (name omitted). The departmental note dated 1/19/19 at 10:32 a.m. read in part Resident was admitted [DATE] for acute kidney injury. The clinical record had no documentation that the written notice of transfer was given to the resident and the resident representative and there was no ombudsman notification documented in the clinical record. The survey team met with the administrator, the director of nursing (DON), and the corporate registered nurse on 1/24/19 at 4:14 p.m. and informed them of the required information sent to the hospital when a resident was transferred. The DON stated only a face sheet and a medication administration record (MAR) are sent. The DON stated the facility was just beginning to work on a form called Interact but had to be completed. The surveyor requested the facility policy on transfers/discharges. The director of nursing provided the surveyor with the policy titled Bed-Holds and Returns on 1/25/19. The policy read in part Prior to transfers and therapeutic leaves, residents or resident representatives will be informed in writing of the bed-hold and return policy. The director of nursing did not provide a policy for transfers/discharges prior to the exit conference on 1/28/19. 4. The facility staff failed to provide written transfer/discharge information to the resident and resident representative and failed to document ombudsman notification in the clinical record when Resident #25 was sent to the hospital 1/11/19. The clinical record of Resident #25 was reviewed 1/23/19 through 1/28/19. Resident #25 was admitted to the facility 2/10/18 and readmitted [DATE] with diagnoses that included but not limited to acute and chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia, hypothyroidism, hypercholesterolemia, major depressive disorder, hypertension, acute bronchitis, repeated falls, hyperlipidemia, pressure ulcer stage 2 right buttock, and discitis. Resident #25's quarterly minimum data set (MDS) assessment with an assessment reference date (ARD) of 11/21/18 assessed the resident with a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) as 15/15. The clinical record revealed a telephone order dated 1/11/19 that read May send out to ER (emergency room) (name of hospital omitted) for eval (evaluation)/tx (treatment) d/t (due to) fall & c/o (complaints of) pain. The surveyor reviewed the 1/11/19 6:07 p.m. departmental note. The note read in part: @1728 (5:28 p.m.) staff stated that resident was in the floor. Resident was observed to be laying on his left side on the left side of the bed. Blood was coming from resident's head and left forearm. Pressure was held onto (sic) bleeding areas. 911 was called for transport. Resident stated that his left hip, left shoulder and head was hurting. Unable to do neuro checks due to resident's refusal. MD (medical doctor) and RP (responsible party) aware. Rescue squad arrived x3 attendants. Resident was assisted onto the stretcher x3 attendants and 2 employees. Resident left the facility at this time. Report was called to ER (emergency room) (name omitted). The departmental note failed to have evidence that written notice of transfer/discharge information was provided to the resident and resident representative when Resident #25 was transferred to the hospital and there was no documentation of ombudsman notification found in the clinical record. The survey team had discussed the concerns with transfer/discharges and information sent with residents in the end of the day meeting on 1/24/19 at 4:14 p.m. with the administrator, the director of nursing (DON) and the corporate registered nurse. The DON stated information sent with the resident when transferred included the face sheet and the medication administration record. No further information was provided prior to the exit conference on 1/28/19. 5. There were six other residents who were transferred to hospitals and the facility staff failed to provide written notice of transfer/discharge to the resident and the resident representative and failed to document ombudsman notification in the clinical record. Those residents were identified as Resident #267, Resident #83, Resident #36, Resident #115, Resident #19, and Resident #69. The survey team met with the administrator, the director of nursing (DON) and the corporate registered nurse on 1/24/19 at 4:14 p.m. and during the meeting asked what information was provided to the receiving provider when transferred to the hospital. The DON stated the face sheet and the medication administration record were sent. The DON stated the facility does not give the resident and resident representative written notice of transfer/discharge. The DON stated the facility was reviewing a form called Interact for transfers. No further information was provided prior to the exit conference on 1/28/19.
MINOR (C)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0625 (Tag F0625)

Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interview, facility document review and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to provide to the resident and the resident representative at the time of transfer/discharge written notice which specifies the duration of the bed-hold policy for 8 of 29 residents (Resident #104, Resident #83, Resident #90, Resident #36, Resident #115, Resident #218, Resident #25 and Resident #69). The findings included: 1. The facility staff failed to provide Resident #104 and the resident representative written information about bed-hold when the resident was transferred to the hospital 12/19/18. The clinical record of Resident #104 was reviewed 1/23/19 through 1/28/19. Resident #104 was admitted to the facility 12/10/18 and readmitted [DATE] with diagnoses that included but not limited to hypokalemia, dementia with behavioral disturbances, atrial fibrillation, restlessness and agitation, insomnia, infected left femur fracture, metabolic encephalopathy, urinary tract infection, and hypertension. Resident #104's significant change minimum data set (MDS) assessment with an assessment reference date (ARD) of 1/9/19 assessed the resident with a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) as 4/15. The departmental note dated 12/19/18 at 2:18 p.m. read in part She is leaving facility at this time for direct admit to RGH (name of hospital omitted). Transported via (name of ambulance service omitted) and two attendants. The departmental notes were reviewed on 1/24/19. The 12/19/18 5:32 p.m. departmental note read, RGH (name of hospital) nurse called and wanted to know why resident was there. She did not get a report from this facility as to why. They do have a bed and she is been admitted (sic) at this time. The clinical record had no documentation that a bed hold was offered to the resident and the resident representative prior to transfer to the hospital on [DATE]. The surveyor informed the administrator, the director of nursing and the corporate registered nurse of the above concern during the end of the day meeting on 1/24/19 at 4:14 p.m. The survey team asked what information was provided when residents are transferred to the hospital. The director of nursing stated the face sheet and the medication administration record (MAR). The DON stated the nurses usually offer a bed hold when the residents are transferred. The DON was asked if this information should be documented in the clinical record. The DON stated the nurses should document when bed holds are offered in the clinical record. The director of nursing provided the surveyor with the policy titled Bed-Holds and Returns on 1/25/19. The policy read in part Prior to transfers and therapeutic leaves, residents or resident representatives will be informed in writing of the bed-hold and return policy. No further information was provided prior to the exit conference on 1/28/19. 2. The facility staff failed to provide Resident #90 and the resident representative written bed hold information when the resident was transferred to the hospital on [DATE] and 11/4/18. The clinical record of Resident #90 was reviewed 1/23/19 through 1/28/19. Resident #90 was admitted to the facility 3/13/17 and readmitted [DATE] and 11/7/18 with diagnoses that included but not limited to vascular dementia without behavioral disturbances, type 2 diabetes mellitus, hypothyroidism, cervical disc disorder, right femur intertrochanteric fracture, osteoporosis, gastro-esophageal reflux disease, contusion of scalp, chronic diastolic heart failure, cerebral infarction, dysphagia, major depressive disorder, polyneuropathy, anemia, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia. Resident #90's significant change in assessment minimum data set (MDS) assessment with an assessment reference date (ARD) of 1/2/19 assessed the resident with a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) as 7/15. A telephone order dated 10/29/18 read May send resident to ER (emergency room) for eval (evaluation) & treat (treatment). The surveyor reviewed the departmental note dated 10/29/18 10:44 p.m. The note read in part: Late Entry: This nurse was called to therapy gym. Resident was found in floor on right side. Resident stated she had lost her balance and fell to the floor. Upon assessment resident stated she had pain in her right hip and right side of her head on a pain scale of 4 out of 10. Right side of head had hematoma present. Resident was assisted to wheelchair and to her room. MD (medical doctor) notified (name omitted) concerned of resident on Coumadin with the fall and wanted resident to be sent to ER (name omitted). Transport arrived at 1820 (6:20 p.m.) and resident left via stretcher. Departmental note dated 10/30/18 10:44 a.m. read in part Resident admitted to hospital. A second physician order dated 11/4/18 read May send out to ER (name omitted) for eval & tx (treatment) due to increased confusion, combativeness, trying to harm self and decreased O2 (oxygen) sat (saturation). The surveyor reviewed the departmental note dated 11/4/18 6:46 p.m. The note read Late entry 6p.m. Resident noted to have increased confusion with big change in personality. She has been very combative to staff this shift. Resident can normally hold a normal conversation, but cannot at this time. She began doing things to herself, such as, pulling her own hair, bending fingers backwards while looking at staff and stating look here, I'm going to tell them you did this. You are going to be accused of it. This is not normal behavior for this resident. This nurse sent to ER for eval and tx. Physician aware and RP (responsible party) agrees with this nurses decision and is meeting resident at hospital. The clinical record did not have documentation that written notice of bed hold information was provided to the resident and the resident representative when Resident #90 was transferred to the hospital 10/29/18 or 11/4/18. The surveyor informed the director of nursing of the above information not found in the clinical record for either of Resident #90's transfers to the emergency room and subsequent admissions to the hospital on [DATE] and 11/4/18 on 1/27/19 at 3:55 p.m. The director of nursing stated the only information sent with the resident was the face sheet and the medication administration record (MAR). The surveyor informed the administrator, the director of nursing and the corporate registered nurse of the above concern during the end of the day meeting on 1/24/19 at 4:14 p.m. The survey team asked what information was provided when residents are transferred to the hospital. The director of nursing stated the face sheet and the medication administration record (MAR). The DON stated the nurses usually offer a bed hold when the residents are transferred. The DON was asked if this information should be documented in the clinical record. The DON stated the nurses should document when bed holds are offered in the clinical record. The director of nursing provided the surveyor with the policy titled Bed-Holds and Returns on 1/25/19. The policy read in part Prior to transfers and therapeutic leaves, residents or resident representatives will be informed in writing of the bed-hold and return policy. No further information was provided prior to the exit conference on 1/28/19. 3. The facility staff failed to provide Resident #218 and the resident representative written information about bed-hold when the resident was transferred to the hospital 11/24/18, 1/4/19, and 1/18/19. The clinical record of Resident #218 was reviewed 1/23/19 through 1/28/19. Resident #218 was admitted to the facility 4/6/18 and readmitted [DATE] with diagnoses that included but not limited to acute osteomyelitis, sepsis, cellulitis of right lower limb and chronic respiratory failure with hypercapnia. Resident #218's admission minimum data set (MDS) assessment with an assessment reference date (ARD) of 1/14/19 assessed the resident with a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) as 15/15. The clinical record revealed three emergency room visits with two requiring hospitalizations. Resident #218 was sent to the emergency room on [DATE] for abdominal pain and constipation. There was documentation that a report was called to the emergency room but no further evidence of what information was provided to the receiving provider or that the resident and the resident representative was offered a bed hold when transferred. The clinical record revealed Resident #218 was admitted to the hospital 1/4/19 as evidenced by the physician discharge summary for 1/4/19-1/7/19. The departmental note dated 1/4/19 at 3:43 a.m. read Resident left facility via wheelchair with son at 3:40 a.m. to go to an appointment. No skin issues or distress noted. The departmental note dated 1/4/19 at 11:44 a.m. read Resident continues to be out of facility. The departmental note dated 1/4/19 at 10:44 p.m. read Resident remains OOF (out of facility) at hospital. None of the notes dated 1/4/19 detail information sent to the receiving provider when the resident did not return to the facility on 1/4/19 or information about bed holds was offered to the resident and the resident representative. The surveyor interviewed Resident #218 on 1/23/19 at 3:37 p.m. The resident stated she thought she was informed about bed-holds. The clinical record revealed Resident #218 was admitted to the hospital 1/18/19-1/21/19 for acute kidney injury. The departmental note dated 1/18/19 at 1:53 p.m. read in part Resident complains of feeling bad. Could not state exactly what her complaints were more specifically. Did state she was having double vision and that her vision was wavey. MD (medical doctor-name omitted) notified. Telephone order received to send patient to ER (emergency room) for evaluation and treatment of complaints. The departmental note dated 1/18/19 at 2:24 p.m. read EMS (emergency medical services) notified for transport to the ED (emergency department), report called to ED (name omitted). The departmental note dated 1/19/19 at 10:32 a.m. read in part Resident was admitted [DATE] for acute kidney injury. The surveyor was unable to locate documentation in the clinical record of bed-hold. The surveyor informed the administrator, the director of nursing and the corporate registered nurse of the above concern during the end of the day meeting on 1/24/19 at 4:14 p.m. The survey team asked what information was provided when residents are transferred to the hospital. The director of nursing stated the face sheet and the medication administration record (MAR). The DON stated the nurses usually offer a bed hold when the residents are transferred. The DON was asked if this information should be documented in the clinical record. The DON stated the nurses should document when bed holds are offered in the clinical record. The director of nursing provided the surveyor with the policy titled Bed-Holds and Returns on 1/25/19. The policy read in part Prior to transfers and therapeutic leaves, residents or resident representatives will be informed in writing of the bed-hold and return policy. No further information was provided prior to the exit conference on 1/28/19. 4. The facility staff failed to provide Resident #25 and the resident representative written information about bed-hold when the resident was transferred to the hospital 1/11/19. The clinical record of Resident #25 was reviewed 1/23/19 through 1/28/19. Resident #25 was admitted to the facility 2/10/18 and readmitted [DATE] with diagnoses that included but not limited to acute and chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia, hypothyroidism, hypercholesterolemia, major depressive disorder, hypertension, acute bronchitis, repeated falls, hyperlipidemia, pressure ulcer stage 2 right buttock, and discitis. Resident #25's quarterly minimum data set (MDS) assessment with an assessment reference date (ARD) of 11/21/18 assessed the resident with a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) as 15/15. The clinical record revealed a telephone order dated 1/11/19 that read May send out to ER (emergency room) (name of hospital omitted) for eval (evaluation)/tx (treatment) d/t (due to) fall & c/o (complaints of) pain. The surveyor reviewed the 1/11/19 6:07 p.m. departmental note. The note read in part: @1728 (5:28 p.m.) staff stated that resident was in the floor. Resident was observed to be laying on his left side on the left side of the bed. Blood was coming from resident's head and left forearm. Pressure was held onto (sic) bleeding areas. 911 was called for transport. Resident stated that his left hip, left shoulder and head was hurting. Unable to do neuro checks due to resident's refusal. MD (medical doctor) and RP (responsible party) aware. Rescue squad arrived x3 attendants. Resident was assisted onto the stretcher x3 attendants and 2 employees. Resident left the facility at this time. Report was called to ER (emergency room) (name omitted). The departmental note failed to have evidence of information that Resident #25 bed hold information was offered to the resident and the resident representative. The surveyor informed the administrator, the director of nursing and the corporate registered nurse of the above concern during the end of the day meeting on 1/24/19 at 4:14 p.m. The survey team asked what information was provided when residents are transferred to the hospital. The director of nursing stated the face sheet and the medication administration record (MAR). The DON stated the nurses usually offer a bed hold when the residents are transferred. The DON was asked if this information should be documented in the clinical record. The DON stated the nurses should document when bed holds are offered in the clinical record. No further information was provided prior to the exit conference on 1/28/19. 5. There were four other residents who were transferred to hospitals and the facility staff failed to provide written bed hold information to the resident and the resident representative. Those residents were identified as Resident #83, Resident #36, Resident #115, and Resident #69. The survey team met with the administrator, the director of nursing (DON) and the corporate registered nurse on 1/24/19 at 4:14 p.m. and during the meeting asked what information was provided to the receiving provider when transferred to the hospital. The DON stated the face sheet and the medication administration record were sent. The DON stated the nurses usually offer a bed hold when the residents are transferred. The DON was asked if this information should be documented in the clinical record. The DON stated the nurses should document when bed holds are offered in the clinical record. The director of nursing provided the surveyor with the policy titled Bed-Holds and Returns on 1/25/19. The policy read in part Prior to transfers and therapeutic leaves, residents or resident representatives will be informed in writing of the bed-hold and return policy. No further information was provided prior to the exit conference on 1/28/19.
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 major safety red flags. No abuse findings, life-threatening violations, or SFF status.
  • • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Virginia facilities.
  • • 39% turnover. Below Virginia's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
Concerns
  • • 20 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
Bottom line: Generally positive indicators. Standard due diligence and a personal visit recommended.

About This Facility

What is Heritage Hall-Rich Creek's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns HERITAGE HALL-RICH CREEK 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 Heritage Hall-Rich Creek Staffed?

CMS rates HERITAGE HALL-RICH CREEK's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 39%, compared to the Virginia average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Heritage Hall-Rich Creek?

State health inspectors documented 20 deficiencies at HERITAGE HALL-RICH CREEK during 2019 to 2024. These included: 15 with potential for harm and 5 minor or isolated issues.

Who Owns and Operates Heritage Hall-Rich Creek?

HERITAGE HALL-RICH CREEK is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by HERITAGE HALL, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 120 certified beds and approximately 99 residents (about 82% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in RICH CREEK, Virginia.

How Does Heritage Hall-Rich Creek Compare to Other Virginia Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Virginia, HERITAGE HALL-RICH CREEK's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 3.0, staff turnover (39%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Heritage Hall-Rich Creek?

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 Heritage Hall-Rich Creek Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, HERITAGE HALL-RICH CREEK 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 Heritage Hall-Rich Creek Stick Around?

HERITAGE HALL-RICH CREEK has a staff turnover rate of 39%, which is about average for Virginia nursing homes (state average: 46%). Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.

Was Heritage Hall-Rich Creek Ever Fined?

HERITAGE HALL-RICH CREEK 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 Heritage Hall-Rich Creek on Any Federal Watch List?

HERITAGE HALL-RICH CREEK 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.