LAKEWOOD MANOR

1900 LAUDERDALE DRIVE, RICHMOND, VA 23238 (804) 740-2900
Non profit - Corporation 96 Beds Independent Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
55/100
#142 of 285 in VA
Last Inspection: June 2023

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

Overview

Lakewood Manor in Richmond, Virginia has a Trust Grade of C, which means it is average and ranks in the middle of the pack for nursing homes. It is positioned #142 out of 285 facilities in the state and #2 out of 3 in Goochland County, indicating it is in the top half of Virginia nursing homes. The facility is improving, having decreased issues from 15 in 2021 to only 3 in 2023. Staffing is a strength, receiving a 4 out of 5-star rating with a turnover rate of 31%, which is significantly better than the state average of 48%, meaning staff are more likely to stay long-term and build relationships with residents. While there have been no fines recorded, which is positive, there have been some concerning incidents. For example, the facility failed to complete necessary nutritional assessments for residents, which could lead to unaddressed weight loss. Additionally, there were issues with food safety, such as unlabeled and undated food items in the kitchen and unsanitary conditions in food preparation areas, which could potentially affect the health of all residents. Overall, while there are strengths in staffing and a positive trend in issues, families should be aware of the facility's past challenges with nutrition and food safety.

Trust Score
C
55/100
In Virginia
#142/285
Top 49%
Safety Record
Moderate
Needs review
Inspections
Getting Better
15 → 3 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
31% 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
✓ Good
Each resident gets 42 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for Virginia. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
Violations
⚠ Watch
22 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★★☆☆
3.0
Overall Rating
★★★★☆
4.0
Staff Levels
★★★☆☆
3.0
Care Quality
★★★☆☆
3.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2021: 15 issues
2023: 3 issues

The Good

  • 4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average nurse staffing levels
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover below average (31%)

    17 points below Virginia average of 48%

Facility shows strength in staffing levels.

The Bad

3-Star Overall Rating

Near Virginia average (3.0)

Meets federal standards, typical of most facilities

Staff Turnover: 31%

15pts below Virginia avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

The Ugly 22 deficiencies on record

1 actual harm
Jun 2023 3 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0658 (Tag F0658)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, clinical record review and facility documentation the facility staff failed to provide services as outlined in the comprehensive care plan that meet professional stand...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, clinical record review and facility documentation the facility staff failed to provide services as outlined in the comprehensive care plan that meet professional standards of quality for 1 Resident (#50) in a survey sample of 33 Residents. The findings included: For Resident #50 the facility staff failed to accurately transcribe the Registered Dietician and the Wound Care Physician's orders. On 6/21/23 a review of the clinical record of Resident #50 was conducted. Excerpts from the dietician notes are as follows: 12/20/22 at 1:18 PM - Sig change for new wound. Please refer to [Registered Dietician name redacted] regarding new wound. Prostat was added daily x 4 weeks. Recommend adding zinc and vitamin c for healing as well. Resident # 50 was seen by the wound specialist on 12/21/23 who made the following notes: Recommendations: Off-load wound. Reposition per facility protocol. Group 2 mattress; Gel cushion to chair, incontinence protocol with brief check and house barrier ointment applies q shift and prn. Vitamin C 500 mg twice daily, Zinc sulphate 220 mg PO daily for 14 days. On 12/21/22 the following orders were put in INCORRECTLY. Vitamin C 500 mg tablet (Ascorbic acid) -500 mg by mouth every day for wound healing. stop date 1/21/23 [The order should have been twice daily] Zinc 50 mg by mouth every day for wound healing stop date 1/21/23 [The order should have been 220 mg.] Prostat 30 ml po q day to supplement X 4 weeks. stop date 12/29/23. [The stop date should have been 1/26/23] On 6/22/23 at approximately 11:00 AM an interview was conducted with Employee J who stated that she had seen the wound and made recommendations to the dietician and the wound care specialist. The error was in the transcription of the orders from the dietician and the wound care specialist regarding the Prostat and the Vitamin C and Zinc orders. The orders were later corrected on 3/16/23 and the appropriate vitamins and supplements were given in the correct amounts. According to the website for the National Institutes of Health following the 5 Rights of Medication Administration can aid in avoiding medication errors. The National Institutes of health website - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK560654/ 'Right patient' - ascertaining that a patient being treated is, in fact, the correct recipient for whom medication was prescribed. 'Right drug' - ensuring that the medication to be administered is identical to the drug name that was prescribed. 'Right Route' - Medications can be given to patients in many different ways, all of which vary in the time it takes to absorb the chemical, time it takes for the drug to act, and potential side-effects based on the mode of administration. 'Right time' - administering medications at a time that was intended by the prescriber. Often, certain drugs have specific intervals or window periods during which another dose should be given to maintain a therapeutic effect or level. 'Right dose' - Incorrect dosage, conversion of units, and incorrect substance concentration are prevalent modalities of medication administration error. On 6/23/23 during the end of day meeting, the Administrator was made aware and no further information was provided.
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, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to keep the kitchen's ice machine, electric mixer, manual can opener, food preparation pans, and a kitchen drawer which...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to keep the kitchen's ice machine, electric mixer, manual can opener, food preparation pans, and a kitchen drawer which housed food preparation equipment clean; failed to cover and date stored foods; and keep the second-floor service kitchen's ice machine clean. This failure had the potential to affect all 84 residents who consumed food prepared from the facility's kitchen. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Sanitation, dated 01/01/23, revealed, Policy: The food service area shall be maintained in a clean and sanitary manner. 2. All utensils, counters, shelves, and equipment shall be kept clean and maintained in good repair .12. Ice machines and ice storage containers will be drained, cleaned, and sanitized per manufacturer's instructions and facility policy. Review of the facility's policy titled, Food Receiving and Storage, dated 01/01/23, revealed, All foods stored in refrigeration or freezer will be covered, labeled, and dated (use by date). 1. Observation during the initial kitchen inspection on 06/20/23 from 12:35 PM to 1:05 PM, with the facility's Administrator present, revealed the following unclean stored and ready for use food preparation equipment: a. The interior of the kitchen's large ice machine had brown and pink colored substance that could be wiped away with a paper towel. b. The kitchen's large electric mixer had dried food substances on the mixer's metal guard, underside of the mixer's head and the mixer's base. c. A kitchen drawer, with food preparation equipment stored inside had food debris and crumbs. d. The kitchen's manual can opener was attached to a food preparation table had accumulated sticky substances on its blade and metal table base attachment. e. Eight of 10 food preparation pans, stacked tightly together and ready for use, had accumulated moisture on their interior surface. Three of these pans had food residues on their interior surface. During an interview on 06/20/23 at 1:05 PM, the Administrator confirmed the kitchen's ice maker, electric mixer, manual can opener, food preparation pans and a drawer housing food preparation equipment were not clean. The Administrator stated food preparation equipment should be kept clean by staff. 2. Observation during the initial kitchen inspection on 06/20/23 from 12:35 PM to 1:05 PM, with the Administrator present, revealed the following concerns with food storage: a. Observation of food stored in the kitchen's walk-in freezer revealed a large bag of hush puppies and a large bag of potato crisps were stored opened. b. Observation of food stored in the kitchen's walk-in refrigerator revealed the following previously opened foods were not dated: a gallon container of mayonnaise, a gallon container of light raspberry dressing, a gallon container of poppy seed dressing and a gallon container of cocktail sauce. During an interview on 06/20/23 at 1:05 PM, the Administrator stated food should be dated when opened and completely closed when stored by staff. 3. Observation of the second-floor service kitchen, with the Dining Service Manager (DSM) present, on 06/22/23 at 12:10 PM revealed the interior of the kitchen's ice machine had black colored substance. The black colored substance could be wiped away with a paper towel. During an interview on 06/22/23 at 12:10 PM, the DSM stated the second-floor kitchen's ice machine should be kept clean by staff.
MINOR (C)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0577 (Tag F0577)

Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, and interview, the facility failed to make the results of their most recent survey conducted by Federal or State surveyors accessible for residents, family members, and legal rep...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, and interview, the facility failed to make the results of their most recent survey conducted by Federal or State surveyors accessible for residents, family members, and legal representatives of residents to review. This failure had the potential to affect all 84 residents who resided in the facility. Findings include: A group interview was conducted on 06/21/23 at 1:30 PM with eleven residents whom the facility identified as reliable historians. During the meeting, eleven of the eleven residents (Resident (R)5, R7, R19, R30, R32, R41, R51, R54, R58, R190, and R191) who participated were unaware where the facility's previous survey results conducted by Federal and State surveyors could be located and reviewed in the facility. An observation on 06/21/23 from 3:15 PM to 3:45 PM of the facility's first, second, and third floors revealed the facility's previous survey results could not be located and there was no posted information which notified residents, family members, and legal representatives of residents where the facility's previous survey results could be located and reviewed without having to ask a staff member. An observation on 06/23/23 from 12:15 PM to 12:35 PM of the facility's first, second, and third floors, with the Administrator, revealed the facility's previous survey results could not be located in the facility. Additionally, no posted information was observed in the facility which notified residents, family members, and legal representatives of residents where the survey results could be located and reviewed without having to ask a staff member. During an interview on 06/23/23 at 12:35 PM, the Administrator confirmed the facility's prior survey results could not be located in the facility at this time and he would ask staff to continue to try to find them. The Administrator stated the facility's prior survey results were previously placed in a notebook and kept on the first floor for review. Since the facility's first floor was currently undergoing construction a staff member may have moved the survey results notebook to a different location. During an interview on 06/23/23 at 12:50 PM, the facility's Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), stated she found the notebook which contained the facility's prior survey results. The ADON stated the notebook was found on a shelf on the facility's third floor.
Apr 2021 15 deficiencies 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Deficiency F0692 (Tag F0692)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, interviews, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to address unplanned significant weight l...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, interviews, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to address unplanned significant weight loss; and ensured a comprehensive nutritional assessment was completed upon admission to maintain acceptable parameters of nutritional status for two of seven residents reviewed for nutrition (Resident (R) 83 and R13). This failure had the potential to affect other residents to not receive timely nutritional interventions. Findings include: 1. Review of R83's undated Face Sheet, located in the resident's Electronic Medical Record (EMR), indicated R83 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included type two diabetes mellitus (DM2), anemia, and fracture of right pubis. Review of R83's hospital Discharge Summary, dated 03/10/21 located in the hard copy of the medical record, indicated R83 had a right pelvic fracture, was to receive conservative treatment for the fracture, and had a weight of 135 pounds. Review of R83's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an assessment reference date (ARD) of 03/17/21, located in the resident's EMR under the MDS tab, indicated R83 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 7 out of 15, which indicated the resident had severe cognitive impairment. Continued review of R83's MDS revealed the resident required supervision with set up for eating, had no oral or dental issues, and no weight loss. Review of R83's Comprehensive Care Plan, located in the resident's EMR under the care plan tab, revealed the resident had a Nutrition Care Plan related to potential for risk for altered nutritional status and/or weight loss related to DM2. The Care Plan initiated on 03/11/21 documented: dietary consult with Registered Dietician (RD) as indicated to assess nutritional plan, monitor weights, report significant changes in weight to physician and RD as indicated, and document refusal or percentage consumed. Review of R83's weight located in the EMR under the Vital Signs/Weight tab revealed on 03/15/21, the resident weighed 141.4 pounds. Review of the Monthly Charting Flow Sheet, dated 03/11/21 to 03/18/21, located in the resident's EMR under the CNA Documentation tab, documented R83 consumed 76% to 100% for five meals, 51% to 75% for eight meals, and 26% to 50% for four meals. Continued review revealed there was no documentation for four meals. Review of R83's Comprehensive Nutritional Care Area Assessment, dated 03/18/21, located in the resident's EMR under the Dietician tab, documented R83 had a score of 4 that did not indicate a nutritional issue. Continued review of the Nutritional Assessment revealed no documented evidence under the dietary risk items that R83 sometimes ate less than 75%. Review of the Registered Dietician's Note, dated 03/18/21, located under the Interdisciplinary note tab of the EMR documented R83 was 61 inches tall, 141.4 pounds, and was overweight. The RD note stated R83 received a heart healthy diet and consumed 76 % of her meals on average since admission. The RD note indicated the nursing staff stated her appetite is fair, and she is able to self-feed successfully. Review of R83's weight located in the EMR under the Vital Signs/Weight tab dated 03/22/21, indicated the resident weighed 131.4 pounds, which was a 7.07 % weight loss. On 04/01/21 at 6:30 PM the Assistant Director of Nurses (ADON) and the Surveyor reviewed R83's meal percentages dated 03/11/21 to 03/18/21. The ADON stated the meal percentage record was the only place where meal percentages were documented. The ADON stated there was no way of knowing how much R83 consumed on the days where no meal percentage was recorded. The ADON stated if there was a plus or minus of five pound in a resident's weight, the nurse directed the staff member to obtain another weight the same day. The ADON stated if the reweigh variance was valid, a referral was made to the RD, who would make recommendations. The ADON stated she could not recall if she asked the Restorative Certified Nurse Assistant (RCNA) to obtain a reweigh on R83. The ADON stated no reweigh was obtained on R83 and no referral to the RD was initiated. Review of the Monthly Charting Flow Sheet, dated 03/19/21 to 03/26/21, located in the resident's EMR under the CNA documentation tab, documented R83 consumed 76% to 100% for nine meals, 51% to 75% for two meals, and 26% to 50% for nine meals. Continued review revealed there was no documentation for four meals. Review of the Monthly charting Flow Sheet dated 03/27/21 to 03/31/21, located in the resident's EMR under the CNA documentation tab, documented R83 consumed 51% to 75% for four meals, 26% to 50% for two meals, and there was no documentation for nine meals. There were no days R83 consumed 76% to 100 % of her meals. On 04/01/21 at 6:30 PM the ADON stated she was not able to determine how much food R83 consumed on the days where no meal percentage was documented. On 03/31/21, the Surveyor asked the ADON to obtain a weight on R83. The weight dated 03/31/21 was 125.6 pounds, which was a 11.17% weight loss in 16 days. On 04/01/21 at 11:45 AM Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 91, stated RCNA126 usually obtained the weights on residents; however, sometimes the CNAs obtained the weights. LPN91 stated after obtaining the resident's weight, RCNA126 or the CNA would enter the weight into the computer. LPN91 stated if the resident's weight were a plus or minus of five pounds or more from the last weight, the RCNA or the CNA would obtain another weight and a nurse would verify the weight. LPN91 stated if the variance was verified, she reported the weight loss or weight gain to the ADON, who reported the issue to the RD. On 04/01/21 at 11:54 AM LPN61 stated the RCNA usually obtained weights on residents and reports a variance of plus or minus 5 pounds to her. LPN61 stated the resident is then reweighed and she verifies the weight. LPN61 stated if the weight variance is verified, she reports the weight issue to the ADON. LPN61 stated R83 ate independently, had no coughing or issues with eating and she was not aware of any weight loss issues until 03/31/21. On 04/01/21 at 11:50 AM RCNA126 stated she usually obtained the weights on residents, unless she had a resident assignment. RCNA126 stated after obtaining a resident's weight, she entered the resident's weight into the computer. RCNA126 stated if the resident's weight was a plus or minus of five pounds, she reweighed the resident and have the nurse verify the reweigh. Interview on 04/01/21 at 11:40 AM with CNA44 revealed when she weighed a resident, she entered the resident's weight into the computer. CNA44 stated if there was a difference of a plus or minus of 10 pounds, she reweighed the resident, entered the weight into the computer and then notified the ADON that there was a significant weight change. Interview on 04/01/21 at 12:01 PM with CNA20 revealed the RCNA usually was the one who weighed the residents. CNA20 stated if the RCNA was assigned an assignment, the CNA was responsible for obtaining the weight. CNA20 stated she reports the weight to the nurse and if a reweigh was needed, she reweighed the resident. CNA20 also stated she does not have the nurse verify the weight if a resident was reweighted. Continued interview on 04/01/21 at 6:30 PM, the ADON stated there were computer issues on 03/29/21 and 03/30/21 and the Charting/Flow Sheets were printed out for each resident for the staff to manually document each residents' meal percentages. The ADON and the Surveyor reviewed the meal percentages for both days and although other information regarding R83 was documented, there was no meal percentages documented for the breakfast and lunch meals. The ADON stated the physician and family member were not notified regarding R83's weight loss and additional interventions were not initiated until 03/31/21. The ADON stated R83 had significant weight loss and the facility did not follow their policy. Review of the Monthly Charting Flow Sheet, dated 04/01/21, documented R83 consumed 51% to 75% for breakfast and 0 to 25 % for lunch. On 04/01/21 at 9:58 AM, the Registered Dietitian (RD) stated although she had not observed R83 eating a meal, the staff reported R83 had a good appetite and reported no eating concerns. The RD stated she based meal consumption of a resident on talking with the resident and staff and meal percentage documentation. The RD stated she was not aware of the missing meal percentages on the Monthly Charting Flow sheet. The RD also stated a resident who did not consume at least 75% of meals would be noted on the Comprehensive Nutritional Care Assessment, which could increase a resident's risk for nutritional issues. The RD stated although R83 had a shocking unexplained significant weight loss, she was not below her ideal body weight. The RD stated interventions for R83's weight loss were not initiated until the reweigh was obtained on 03/31/21. Review of the facility's policy titled, Weight Management dated March 2021, documented .a reweigh will be obtained for any weight change of plus or minus five pounds from the previous weight unless other parameters have been ordered by the physician. All reweighs will be obtained immediately. The reweigh process will be visualized by a licensed nurse. The physician and the resident or resident representative will be notified by the resident's nurse of any significant unexpected and or unplanned weight changes . 2. R13. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an ARD date of 01/11/21 revealed the resident was holding food in her mouth and coughing or choking while eating; no height and weight was obtained. Review of the Care Plan dated 01/05/21 revealed the resident had a potential risk for altered nutritional status and/or weight loss related to Parkinson's disease with a goal to consume 50% of her meals and plans dated 01/05/21 for a dietary consult with RD as indicated to assess nutritional status and monitor weights as indicated; report significant changes in weight to MD, RD as indicated. Review of physician's orders dated 01/10/21 revealed the resident had mechanical soft heart healthy diet, with thin liquids ordered and on 02/15/21 a regular diet with thin liquids. Review of the Comprehensive Nutritional Care Area Assessment dated 01/12/21 revealed the resident had diagnoses of Parkinson's, dementia, depression/anxiety, and hypothyroidism, noted the resident had no recent labs, and no weights recorded d/t [due to] COVID precautions and resident confusion .Weight and height is unknown due to not coming from a hospital, COVID precautions and resident confusion. The form documented the resident was on a Heart Healthy, mechanical soft diet and was eating an average of 49% of her meals and noted swallowing difficulties were noted by the speech language pathologist. R13's Nutritional Assessment was not person-centered and incomplete and omitted information regarding the resident's caloric needs and nutritional requirements based on height weight, lab values and accepted nutritional parameters. In addition, there were no further Nutritional Assessments in the resident Electronic Medical Record (EMR0 or chart located in the nurse's station. Review of the resident's weights revealed on 01/15/21 the resident weighed 123.1 pounds (lbs.), on 01/19/21 the resident weighed 119.00 lbs, on 02/02/21 the resident weighed 119.4 lbs, and on 03/03/21 the resident weighed 115.4 lbs that represented a 6.18% weight loss since admission. During an interview on 04/01/21 at 10:17 AM, the Registered dietician (RD) acknowledged that the Comprehensive Nutritional Assessment requires completion by the resident's admission ARD date and this was not accomplished for this resident. The RD stated the facility did not have an admission height and weight because the resident was a direct admission from the Assisted Living Facility (ALF) on campus. The RD sated that the facility was in full lockdown because of COVID precautions and the resident's weight was obtained as soon as possible; she provided no explanation for not completing the nutritional assessment. Review of the facility policy titled Nutritional Assessment developed 01/07 and revised on 04/01/21 directs that a complete and comprehensive nutritional assessment is conducted for each Health Care resident and that a plan of care is implemented to address any impairment or alterations in that person's nutritional status. The Registered Dietitian conducts this evaluation with assistance and input from dietary personnel.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0582 (Tag F0582)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview, record review, and review of the facility's policy, the facility failed to ensure the Resident Representative (RR) for one of three residents reviewed (Resident (R)81) was provided...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview, record review, and review of the facility's policy, the facility failed to ensure the Resident Representative (RR) for one of three residents reviewed (Resident (R)81) was provided the Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC) at least 48-hours prior to the cessation of services. R81 was notified on 03/24/21 that their skilled services would end on 03/25/21. This failure had the potential for residents and/or their representatives not being informed of potential available services and fees for those services, or the advisement of the ability to appeal the Resident's discharge from Medicare Part A benefits. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Advance Beneficiary Notice, revised 02/2020, showed: Purpose Specific Procedures / Requirements: 1. General Guidelines There are two types of required notices: NOMNC - Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage is issued when traditional Medicare or Managed Care plans are ending in the SNF. Notice is only issued if there are days remaining under the covered stay. ABN - Advance Beneficiary Notice is issued only with traditional Medicare and is issued if the resident will continue to receive services in the SNF as a long-term resident but is no longer going to be covered under the Medicare benefit. Notice is issued only if there are days remaining under the covered stay. Issuance of notices: NOMNC - must be issued at least 2 calendar days prior to the last covered day of services. Social worker will issue the NOMNC to the resident or resident representative. If the notice is not issued in person, the social worker will notify the resident representative via telephone and document the conversation. The notice will then be delivered to the resident representative via mail or email per their preference. If the resident is not able to receive the NOMNC, and the resident representative cannot be reached via telephone, the NOMNC will be sent to the resident representative via Certified Mail to the address on record. ABN notice will also be issued to the resident when applicable, or the resident representative Review of R81's undated Profile Face Sheet, located in the resident's electronic medical record (EMR) under the face sheet tab, showed a current admission date to the facility of 03/12/21. Review of R81's Physician Order, located in the resident's EMR under the orders tab, revealed the resident had medical diagnoses that included aspiration pneumonia, Crohns disease and atrial fibrillation. The Physician Orders also showed orders for Physical therapy, Occupational therapy, and Speech therapy to evaluate and treat as needed. Review of R81's NOMNC showed, The effective date coverage of your current skilled services will end: 3/25/21 on page one, and the signature of the Patient or Resident Representative on page two was dated 3.24.2021. In an interview on 03/31/21 at 5:04 PM, the Administrator reviewed the dates of R81's NOMNC and confirmed it was not the 48 hours' notice as required. In an interview on 03/31/21 at 5:27 PM, the Social Worker (MSW) reviewed R81's NOMNC and stated, I wasn't the social worker and can't find any documentation as to the contact, so it appears they received it 24 hours prior.
CONCERN (D)

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

Abuse Prevention Policies (Tag F0607)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed ensure the facility's abuse policy was followed for one of 22 sampled residents (Resident (R) 21). This includes completing a thorough inves...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed ensure the facility's abuse policy was followed for one of 22 sampled residents (Resident (R) 21). This includes completing a thorough investigation and reporting an injury of unknown origin. This deficient practice had the potential to affect all residents of the facility. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled Abuse revised on 11/2020 directs the facility will maintain systems to ensure that alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, exploitation or mistreatment, including injuries of unknow source and misappropriation of resident property, are reported immediately, but no later than 2 hours after the allegation is made, if the events that cause the allegation involve abuse or result in serious bodily injury .immediately report all alleged violations involving neglect, abuse, including injuries of unknown source, mistreatment .to the administrator or his or her designee .Designated staff will immediately review and investigate all allegation or observations of abuse The results of all investigations are to be communicated to the administrator or his or her designated representative and other officials in accordance with State law, including the State Survey Agency, within 5 working days of the incident. During an interview on 04/01/21, the Director of Nursing (DON) acknowledged that the Fall Investigation dated 08/05/20 was the facility's official investigation for the broken wrist, the facility had no other documented interviews or investigations of the occurrence. The DON also stated the incident was not reported to the State Agency. Refer to F610
CONCERN (D)

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

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interviews, policy review, and record reviews the facility failed to report an injury of unknown origin to the State Agency for one of six sampled residents reviewed for accidents (Resident (...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interviews, policy review, and record reviews the facility failed to report an injury of unknown origin to the State Agency for one of six sampled residents reviewed for accidents (Resident (R) 21). On 08/04/20, R21 sustained a fracture to her left wrist and the injury was determined to be an injury of unknown origin; however, this was never reported to the State Agency. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled Abuse revised on 11/2020 directs the facility will maintain systems to ensure that alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, exploitation or mistreatment, including injuries of unknow source and misappropriation of resident property, are reported immediately, but no later than 2 hours after the allegation is made, if the events that cause the allegation involve abuse or result in serious bodily injury .The results of all investigations are to be communicated to the administrator or his or her designated representative and other officials in accordance with State law, including the State Survey Agency, within 5 working days of the incident. During an interview on 04/01/21, the Director of Nursing (DON) acknowledged that the Fall Investigation dated 08/05/20 related to R21's broken wrist, was not reported to the State Agency. Refer to F610
CONCERN (D)

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

Investigate Abuse (Tag F0610)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, facility policy review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a thorough investigation was c...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, facility policy review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a thorough investigation was completed for an injury of unknow origin for one of six residents reviewed for accidents (Resident (R) 21). On 08/04/20, R21 received a fracture to her left wrist; however, the cause of the fracture was not known. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled Abuse, revised on 11/2020 directs the facility will . maintain systems to ensure that injuries of unknow source .Designated staff will immediately review and investigate . Review of the Profile Face Sheet located in the resident's hard copy medical record, revealed R21was originally admitted on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. Review of the Diagnosis/Procedure form dated 01/18/21 in the EMR revealed the resident had an intertrochanteric fracture and right pelvic fracture. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an ARD date of 06/30/20 revealed the resident had a Brief Interview Mental Status (BIMS) score of six, indicating severe cognitive impairment and that the resident had one or more falls in the month prior to admission. Review of an Incident Investigation Report, in the interdisciplinary notes in the EMR dated 08/05/20 documented Investigation: Nurse from 3-11 [3:00 PM -11:00PM shift] on 8/4/20 stated the resident hit her hand on the walker last evening, no fall was reported to her .L [left] wrist .xray [sic] today after MD evaluated .positive for fracture of the left wrist. Review of a Fall Investigation, dated 08/05/20 provided by the Administrator from the facility's Administrative files, revealed res [resident] stated she had a fall and was put back to bed, this was unwitnessed by staff. One interview was documented from as follows: 8/5/20 Call w/ [Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) 12] Spoke with CNA [12] regarding disposition of [R21] on 8/4/20. CNA stated she gave the resident a shower in the spa room and helped her back to her room .she checked on during shift and resident in bed. CNA never saw resident on floor, nor did resident tell her that she fell. There were no other staff statements and no resident statemetns documented on the 08/05/20 Fall Investigation for R21 During an interview on 04/01/21 at 5:00 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) acknowledged that the Fall Investigation dated 08/05/20 was the facility's official investigation for the broken wrist, the facility had no other documented interviews or investigations of the occurrence.
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 observation, record review, staff interview, and review of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Residen...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, staff interview, and review of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Version 3.0 Manual, the facility failed to ensure that the assessment accurately reflect the resident's status for two of 22 residents (Resident (R) 81 & R78). Review of the residents' comprehensive assessments revealed the residents were not accurately assessed for existing problems. This deficient practice has the potential to affect all residents in the facility. Findings include: 1. Review of CMS's RAI Version 3.0 Manual Section M1040D directs that Open Lesion(s) Other than Ulcers, Rashes, Cuts, Open lesions that develop as part of a disease or condition and are not coded elsewhere on the MDS [Minimum Data Set], such as wounds, boils, cysts, and vesicles, should be coded in this item. Review of R81's Profile Face Sheet in the electronic Medical Record (EMR) under the face sheet tab, revealed the resident was originally admitted [DATE] with a current admission date of 03/12/21. Review of R81's Skin Evaluation Form, dated 01/12/21, documented the resident had a head wound that measure 1.6-centimeter (cm) length x 1.2 cm width x 0.1 cm depth noted open area with small drainage. There were no other Skin Evaluation Forms for the scalp wound in the resident's medical records. During an initial observation of R81 on 03/29/21 at 11:11 AM the surveyor noted that the resident had a wound covered with eschar (dead tissue, usually black or brown in color), approximately the size of a half dollar with eschar and a reddened perimeter and no exudate (wound drainage). During the time of the observation, R81 stated that he used to have problem with skin cancer. Review of R81's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an assessment reference date (ARD) of 01/12/21 and R81's quarterly MDS with and ARD of 03/16/21, located in the resident's EMR under the MDS tab, revealed lack of documentation that R81 was assessed to have a surgical wound. Review of R81's admission MDS with an ARD of 03/16/21 revealed the facility assessed the resident to have a Brief Interview for mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15 which indicated he was cognitively intact. During an interview on 04/01/21 at 9:13 AM, the Minimum Data Set Coordinator (MDS)1, acknowledged that she did not code the scalp wound on the 01/12/21 MDS or the 03/16/21 MDS because she did not think to code the surgical wound on the MDS. 2. Review of CMS's [Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services] RAI [Resident assessment Instrument] Version 3.0 Manual Section B100 directs Steps for Assessment 1. Ask direct care staff over all shifts if possible, about the resident's usual vision patterns during the 7-day look-back period (e.g., is the resident able to see newsprint, menus, greeting cards?). 2. Then ask the resident about his or her visual abilities. 3. Test the accuracy of your findings. Review of R78's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an ARD of 03/07/21 revealed the resident was assessed to have adequate vision. During an interview on 03/30/21 at 9:40 AM R78 stated he wore glasses; however, he has a visual problem with double vision for a while and has not seen an ophthalmologist within the past year due to the COVID pandemic. In addition, the resident stated staff have not asked him if he has visual problems. During an interview on 04/01/21 at 9:11 AM, MDS1 stated that to evaluate the residents' vison, she has them read from a standardized format that has different fonts that is formulated to determine their vision capabilities according to MDS guidelines. MDS1 could not recall if she specifically asked the resident if he had visual problems.
CONCERN (D)

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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, record reviews, and review of the facility's policy, the facility failed to provide activities of daily living (ADL) care for two of five residents reviewed for ADL, (Resident (R) 70 and R189). Observations revealed both residents had long white hairs on their chins, upper lips, and/or side of their face. This failure has the potential of affecting all dependent residents to not receive assistance with ADLs. Findings include: 1. Review of R70's undated Face Sheet, located in the resident's Electronic Medical Record (EMR), revealed R70 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included dementia. Review of R70's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an assessment reference date (ARD) of 03/11/21, located in the EMR under the MDS tab, indicated R70 had significant cognitive impairment, required extensive staff assistance for hygiene, was dependent on staff for personal care, and had no behaviors. Review of R70's Care Plan, located in the resident's EMR under the care plan tab, revealed related to the resident's need for assistance with ADL's related to weakness and cognitive decline included, personal hygiene will be supported for shaving with one person assist. Observations of R70 on 03/29/21 at 1:54 PM, 03/30/21 at 08:45 AM, 03/31/21 at 2:33 PM, and 04/01/21 at 8:18 AM, revealed the resident had facial hair on her chin and right side of her face. On 03/30/21 at 2:39 PM Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) 32 stated R70 was dependent on staff for shaving and personal care and was cooperative with personal care. CNA32 stated the staff were to remove R70's facial hair when observed. Observation and interview on 04/01/21 at 8:16 AM with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 91 revealed while R70 was lying in bed, LPN91 confirmed that R70 had facial hair on her chin and the sides of her face. LPN91 stated she was not sure if R70's family wanted the staff to remove R70's facial hair. Interview on 04/01/21 at 12:45 PM with Family Member (F)130 revealed sometimes R70 had facial hair that the staff did not remove timely. F130 stated she wanted R70 to look her best and wanted the facial hair removed. 2. Review of R189's undated Face Sheet, located in the resident's EMR revealed R189 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included dementia and anxiety. Review of R189's Nursing Note, dated 03/24/21, located in the EMR under the Interdisciplinary Note tab, documented R189 had independent cognitive skills for decision making, confusion, and anxiety. During rounds on R189's unit on 03/29/21 at 11:24 AM, 03/30/21 at 8:52 AM, and 03/31/21 at 5:30 PM the Surveyor observed facial hair on R189's chin and above her upper lip. On 03/31/21 at 5:30 PM, when asked, R189 stated she would like someone to remove the facial hair on her face the following day. On 04/01/21 at 9:03 AM CNA20 stated R189 was alert, had periods of confusion, and the staff had to ask her if she wanted something completed by them. CNA20 stated R189 would not ask the staff to shave her face. CNA20 stated the staff had to shave R189 when indicated. CNA20 confirmed R189 had facial hair that had not been shaved and stated R20 wanted the facial hair removed. The ADL Policy dated January 200 stated, the CNA will aid the resident with hygiene if required.
CONCERN (D)

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, staff and resident interview, and review of the facility's policy, the facility failed to e...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, staff and resident interview, and review of the facility's policy, the facility failed to ensure that residents received treatment and care in accordance with the comprehensive person-centered care plan and the residents' choices for one of 22 sampled residents (Resident (R) 81). R81 had a surgical wound on his scalp; however, the facility failed to complete weekly wound assessments. This deficient practice had the potential to place the resident at risk for complications related to wound healing. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy tiled Skin Assessment, dated 10/2017 directs If the area of skin impairment is new (no previous documentation can be located) the Charge Nurse will open up a new skin condition form and document results of the assessment, noting location of wound, wound type, etc. for each area . Each identified area of skin impairment must have a separate entry, a separate-skin condition form for each area. If multiple areas are noted in the same location of the body, complete the description box with the number of areas: example: skin tear #1 located 1 [inch] above the elbow on the inner aspect of the LUE [left upper extremity] and skin tear #2 located 3 below the elbow on the inner aspect of the LUE. Each area must have a detailed description for the location of the area. ln general, the wound nurse will care for all skin impairments that require a dressing . The physician will be contacted with assessment results and specific orders for treatment obtained. Review of R81's Review of the Profile Face Sheet in the Electronic Medical Record (EMR) revealed the resident was originally admitted [DATE] with a current admission date of 03/12/21. Review of R81's Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an assessment reference (ARD) of 03/16/21, revealed the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15, which indicated the resident was cognitively intact. Review of Hospitalist Discharge Summary dated 03/12/21, located in the resident's hard copy medical record at the nurse's station revealed that R81 had a mid-scalp wound that started on 11/26/20 due to skin cancer that was present on the hospital admission on [DATE]. Review of R81's Initial Nursing Assessment, located in the EMR dated 01/11/21, documented the resident had a wound on the scalp and left ear. Review of R81's Skin Evaluation Form located in the resident's EMR dated 01/12/21 documented the resident had a head wound that measure 1.6 centimeter (cm) length x 1.2 cm width x 0.1 cm depth noted open area with small drainage. There were no other Skin Evaluation Forms for the scalp wound in the resident's medical records. Review of R81's Interdisciplinary Notes located in the resident's EMR dated 02/24/21 revealed the Resident returned from dermatology appointment with a new order to cleanse scalp and back of left ear with daily with soap and water, pat dry and apply small amount of vaseline and non-stick dressing daily until 3/10/21. Follow up with Dermatologist in 3 weeks .will continue plan of care. Review of R81's Discharge Instructions, from the hospital located in the medical record in the nurse's station dated 03/10/21, documented the resident required treatment with mupirocin (used to treat certain skin infections) 2% ointment applied daily to the scalp and left ear for wound treatment. Review of R81's Physician's Orders, 03/12/21, located in the resident's EMR under the orders tab, dated revealed orders for Mupirocin 2% topical cream [generic] - small amount Topical Twice a day to scalp and left ear for wound treatment for skin lesion; Last Dose: 03/31/21. Review of Interdisciplinary Notes dated 03/17/21 located in the resident's EMR revealed the Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 74 performed a head-to-toe skin assessment that noted the scab to top of scalp, intact and dry. During an initial observation of R81 on 03/29/21 at 11:11 AM, the surveyor noted that the resident had a wound covered with eschar (or dead tissue usually black or brown in color) approximately the size of a half dollar with eschar and a reddened perimeter and no exudate (the material composed of serum, fibrin, and white blood cells that escapes from blood vessels into a superficial lesion or area of inflammation). During the time of the observation, R81 stated that he used to have problem with skin cancer. During an interview on 04/01/21 at 3:07 PM, LPN74, who was the facility's wound nurse, acknowledged that she should have performed weekly wound evaluations the scalp wound on top of the resident's head. During an interview on 04/01/21 at 8:11 AM, the Medical Director, who was also the resident physician acknowledged that the resident had a surgical wound on his scalp from cancer that required routine treatment. The Medical Director stated the wound nurse should have been documenting the wound characteristics, size, appearance, presence/absence of signs of infection, etc., weekly, in accordance with facility policy.
CONCERN (D)

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

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, record review and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure that one (Reside...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, record review and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure that one (Resident (R) 81) of four residents reviewed for pressure ulcers, received the physician ordered treatment, received complete incontinent care, qualified staff cleansed the wound, and was provided treatment in a correct manner. Findings include: Review of the facility's polity titled Skin Care-Pressure Ulcer Prevention and Treatment Protocol, revised on 02/2016, directs that A skin assessment will be done upon admission by the charge nurse and weekly thereafter by a licensed nurse. The assessment will establish a baseline and identify residents at risk. Preventative and/or treatment measures will be implemented as needed .If an ulcer is present on admission, or when it first occurs, it will be assessed by the licensed nurse who will complete a Skin Condition Form. A complete assessment will be completed including site, size, depth (where appropriate), drainage, odor, and condition of surrounding skin. Documentation will include notification of the physician and POA [Power of Attorney] .There will be a weekly visual assessment of each pressure ulcer by the Supervisor and/or designee. This visual assessment will include observation of site, stage, location, size, depth, exudates, odor, healing progress, condition of surrounding skin, and wound bed description .Upon initial assessment, the physician will be contacted with assessment results and specific orders for treatment obtained. There will be further physician notification with changes of condition or when treatment is not effective . Review of the facility's policy titled, Skin Care Protocol, revised on 09/2019, directs the following: lncontinent [sic]Care 1.Check for incontinence every 2-3 hours and/or as indicated 2.Cleanse perineal area with skin cleanser and/or soap and water 3.Assess the condition of the skin: a. lf intact: Use a protective ointment as a moisture barrier b. lf irritated or broken due to exposure to feces and urine, (excoriated, denuded): Use a protective cream/ointment or zinc based product Denuded Buttocks Use a cleansing agent and skin protectant; i.e.: 4-in-1 cleansing lotion, skin repair cream, dimethicone skin protectant, Nutrashield [Skin Protectant], Remedy calazime protectant paste (zinc oxide - will need MD order) Hydrocolloid dressing, i.e.: duoderm [an opaque or transparent dressing for wounds] Pressure Ulcer Treatment lf it's dead, remove it lf it's dry, moisten it lf it's wet, manage it lf there's a hole, fill it. The facility's Skin Care Protocol policy did not define which nursing discipline had the responsibility for the various skin care tasks for the skin treatments, including the physician ordered treatments for the various stages of pressure ulcer treatments. Review of R81's undated, Profile Face Sheet, located in the resident's hard copy medical record at the nurse's station, revealed the resident was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and was readmitted on date of 03/12/21 after being transferred to the hospital on [DATE]. Review of R81 Physician's Orders, dated 01/12/21, located in the resident's EMR under the orders tab, revealed orders for Calmoseptine [medication used to protect skin from wetness, urine, or stools] O.44 %-20.6 topical ointment Menthol-zinc oxide - small amount Topical Three Times a Day For outer and around the sacral wound; Last Dose: 03/09/21. Review of R81's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an assessment reference date (ARD) of 03/16/21 revealed R81 was at risk for pressure ulcers, had unhealed pressure ulcers, specifically two Stage II pressure ulcers that were not present upon admission, and one Stage 3 that was present upon admission. Review of R81's Care Plan, dated 03/12/21, located in the resident's EMR under the care plan tab, identified a problem of Skin Condition with planned interventions for nursing staff to perform a Braden Scale evaluation and to provide protectant skin barrier with each incontinence episode for CNAs and nursing staff. Review of the R81's Hospitalist Discharge Summary, dated 03/12/21, located in the resident's EMR documented the resident had a Stage II sacral decubitus [pressure ulcer] present on admission on [DATE] with recommendations to liberally apply Venelex [deodorizes and protectively covers pressure wounds (ulcers) and provides a moist wound environment] ointment every 8 hours to the sacrum (a triangular bone in the lower back formed from fused vertebrae and situated between the two hipbones of the pelvis), bilateral ischial (curved bone forming the base of each half of the pelvis), bilateral heels and any other reddened bony prominence. The discharge summary also documented the wound [Stage II pressure ulcer] on R81's sacrum was present on hospital admission. Review of R81's Physician's Orders, dated 03/12/21 located in the resident's EMR, directed orders to administer Venelex topical ointment three times a day for skin eruption. Physician order dated 03/17/21, revealed cleanse right buttock with NS [normal saline] apply foam dressing; however, the order did not direct how often this was to be completed. Physician order dated 03/23/21, revealed sacral wound NS apply Santyl (uniquely and actively debrides by cleaning necrotic tissue) Ointment cover with foam dressing QD [daily] for wound care. Review of the R81's Skin Evaluation Form located in the resident's EMR dated 03/17/21, revealed the resident had a Stage 3 pressure injury on the sacrum that measured 7.0 centimeter (cm) length (l), 6.0 cm width (w), 0.2 cm depth (d), some eschar (dead tissue), slough (dead mass of tissue) and epithelial (thin tissue forming the outer layer of a body's surface) tissue treated with Santyl and foam dressing; the surrounding skin (no measurements is red). Review of the R81's Skin Evaluation Form located in the resident's EMR dated 03/17/21 revealed the resident had a second pressure ulcer of the right buttock Stage 2 2.0 cm l, 2.0 cm w, 0.1 cm d. with red surrounding skin (no measurements). Review of the R81's Skin Evaluation Form located in the resident's EMR dated 03/23/21 revealed the resident had a third pressure ulcer area on the left buttock Stage 2 pressure injury 1.5 cm l. x 1.0 cm w x 0.1 cm d, pink wound bed epithelial tissue, no change. During a continual observation on 03/30/21 from 1:25 PM to 2:31 PM the following observations occurred. Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) 41 & CNA 25 were at R81's bedside removing his brief to providing fecal incontinence care. The resident was incontinent of a large amount of soft semi-formed light brown stool. When the CNAs removed the incontinence brief; no dressings were in the brief or on the resident's wounds on the coccyx and buttocks which indicated the resident did not receive the physician ordered barrier treatment in place. Removal of the brief also revealed stool was over the entire buttocks, including all the open wounds, which became visible as the CNA's cleansed the resident with incontinent cleansing wipes. In addition to the open wounds the resident's entire intergluteal cleft (the groove between the buttocks that runs from just below the sacrum to the perineumand scrotum) was reddened and the skin was denuded (worn away surface). As the CNAs cleansed the resident, he continued to defecate large amounts of soft semi-formed light brown stool. CNA41 placed Calmoseptine on the coccyx wound; during the observation, CNA41 stated, I always put it [Calmoseptine] on there. When she was completed and stated she had concluded incontinence care, the surveyor asked to view the resident's groins, and both were covered in liquid brown stool. CNA41, then cleansed the groins after surveyor intervention. LPN74, was in the resident's room setting up the field to perform wound care when CNA41 told the wound nurse she put cream back there. The resident continued to ooze stool and CNA41 now cleansed the coccyx and buttocks with Remedy Phytoplex No Rinse Cleanser (a cleanser that provides cleansing with a higher degree of moisturizing for use on intact, irritated, or denuded skin) and the wound nurse told the CNA41 not to put barrier cream on the coccyx wound which was now slightly bloody and had two distinct whitish yellow discolorations in the center of the wound. On 03/30/21 at 1:48 PM, LPN74 cleansed the wound with one NS gauze that was slightly bloody tinged; no other irrigation or wound cleanser was used. LPN74 then placed Santyl ointment on the resident's coccyx. During the observation, the surveyor asked the LPN74 to depress the skin on the reddened areas on the buttocks and natal cleft around the central coccyx wound area; the natal cleft areas that were deep red were not blanchable. The wound nurse then placed Calmoseptine ointment around the localized area around the coccyx wound and covered it with a kidney shaped foam dressing. The resident started oozing stool again and the resident was cleansed with foam cleanser, the soiled dressing was removed, and LPN74 repeated the NS cleanse, Santyl and Calmoseptine application and placed a clean foam dressing over the coccyx wound. For each buttock wound LPN74 cleansed the area with NS, applied Calmoseptine to the wound and covered with a foam dressing; the right buttock had a visible open wound. During an interview on 03/31/21 10:42 AM CNA41 stated R81 had chronic skin and bowel/diarrhea problems that were sometimes better, sometimes worse. CNA41 stated the facility staff taught her to placed barrier cream on all areas of skin breakdown, including open wounds, then she will inform the nurse. CNA41 stated she was aware the resident had open wounds on his buttocks that required skin treatments; however, if the treatment is off, she will go ahead and put barrier cream on the wound, knowing the nurse will do the treatment. During an interview on 04/01/21 at 7:46 AM, the Medical Director, who was also the resident's physician, stated R81 had chronic diarrhea and was followed by a gastroenterologist (physician that specializes in disorders of the stomach and intestines) and was receiving medical treatment to manage the diarrhea, with altering success. The Medical Director acknowledged that the resident had a history of pressure ulcers and stated he had not viewed the resident's skin, since it was hard for him to do this during resident evaluation, the wound nurse documents the resident's wound evaluations. The Medical Director stated that cleansing the open wounds that were contaminated with stool with NS provided adequate cleansing, and he did not believe the use of an antimicrobial solution or lavage was necessary unless the wound showed increase signs of infection, evidenced by increased redness around the wound, foul odor, purulent discharge. During an interview on 04/01/21 at 12:53 PM, LPN74 stated R81 had large amounts of stool every day that required staff to cleanse the resident. Currently the staff were using foam dressings to provide a barrier on the open wounds on the buttocks and coccyx to protect them from the frequent stooling the resident has. LPN74 stated that whoever is taking care of the resident should know that the open wounds required the use of the foam dressings and they should tell the nurse if they become soiled and required replacement; the resident should not be in a brief without them, and the CNAs should inspect the resident's groin and scrotum to make sure the stool is thoroughly cleansed form the resident's skin.
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** Based on observation, record review, staff interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure that a resident ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, staff interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure that a resident who was incontinent of bladder received appropriate treatment and services to prevent urinary tract infections and to restore continence to the extent possible for one of two residents reviewed for urinary catheters (Resident (R) 81). On 03/30/21 during incontinence care, R81's urinary catheter bag was not placed below the resident's bladder for proper urinary drainage. This deficient practice had the potential to affect all residents who had a urinary catheter. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Special Needs - Suprapubic Catheter, dated 06/2015, directs to .Always keep the bag below the bladder level to ensure good drainage . Review of the facility's policy titled, Urinary Change in Continence Catheters and Prevention of Urinary Tract Infections, dated 07/2014, directed .Securing the catheter to facilitate urine flow and to prevent the catheter from being pulled out . Review of R81's undated Profile Face Sheet, located in the resident's hard copy medical record located at the nurse's station, revealed the resident was originally admitted [DATE] with a current admission date of 03/12/21. Review of R81's Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) date of 03/16/21 revealed the resident had an indwelling catheter. Review of a Urology report dated 05/11/20 located in the medical record in the nurse's station revealed that the resident, who was a resident of the Assisted Living Facility, had a history of Benign Prostatic Hypertrophy (BPH-enlarged prostate) with urinary retention and requested a suprapubic catheter due to penile erosion, skin breakdown, and difficulty inserting a catheter. Review of Physician's Orders dated 03/14/21 located in the EMR directed Change 16 French suprapubic catheter and fill balloon with 6cc NS -ONCE and Change suprapubic catheter drainage bag and cover with a privacy bag - Once a week. Review of R81's Progress Note, located in the electronic medical record (EMR) dated 01/28/21, revealed R81 had a urine [sic] done recently which has come back positive for yeast. He has a chronic Foley catheter and remains high risk for UTIs [urinary tract infections] including yeast infections. Review of R81's Progress Note located in the EMR dated 02/25/21 revealed R81 recently admitted to the hospital with UTI. During a continual observation on 03/30/21 from 1:25PM to 2:31 PM the following observations occurred. Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) 41 & CNA25 were at R81's bedside providing fecal incontinence care. The residents foley bag remained on the bed until 1:47 PM when CNA41 emptied the foley bag of 700 cc of urine and hung the bag on the bed frame below the resident. During an interview on 03/31/21 at 10:42 AM CNA41 stated that she left the Foley bag on the bed because she did not want to drop it or leave it on the floor, and she was also having difficulty hooking it on the bed frame. CNA41 also stated she was taught to hook the foley bag on the side of the bed below the resident's body. During an interview on 04/01/21 at 5:00 PM the Director of Nursing (DON) acknowledged that foley [indwelling catheter] bags were to remain in a dependent position and not placed on the bed during incontinent care.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0694 (Tag F0694)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, staff interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure the intravenous (IV) dressings were changed as ordered by the physician and failed to ensure the resident's Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter (PICC) was flushed for one of one resident reviewed for parenteral fluids (Resident (R) 66). This deficient practice had the potential to cause infection at the IV insertion site. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Special Needs: IV [intravenous] CVAD [Central Venous Access Device] PICC, dated 11/2016, directs that PICC= Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter - inserted in the arm with tip in the SVC [Superior Vena Cava] . Dressing changes for PICC's. Dressing changes are weekly .Inspect the site for -s/s [signs and symptoms] of infection, sutures/anchor (if needed) in place, catheter has not been pulled outward .Potential Complications with PICC's .Bleeding from the site .Bruising at the insertion site .inflammation, edema, tenderness above the site .Mechanical Phlebitis .Air Embolism. Review of the facility's policy titled, Special Needs: Intravenous Therapy, revised 02/2017, directs Dressing change every 7 days. Apply sterile 2x2 gauze dressing or transparent dressing and date .On IV dressing, record date, time, device, site, and nurse initials, time, device and size, type of dressing applied, insertion site, resident tolerance of procedure and sign .Document in Intravenous Flow Sheet all fluid and tubing changes during IV therapy. Review of R66's Profile Face Sheet, located in the resident's electronic medical record (EMR) under the face sheet tab, revealed R66 was admitted on [DATE]. Review of R66's Progress Notes dated 03/03/21, from the hospital located in the resident's hard copy medical record in the nurse's station, directed Post Discharge PICC and Antibiotic Orders for the resident's diagnosis of septic wrist due to a cat bite. Continued review included directions for Ceftriaxone (antibiotic) of 2 Grams IV (Intravenous) through 03/26/21 and routine PICC (peripherally inserted central catheter) Care including PRN (as needed) catheter flow management. Review of R66's hospital PICC Placement Note, dated 03/04/21, located in the resident's EMR revealed that a single lumen PICC line was inserted .internal Catheter Total Length:42 (cm) at 0 cm. with care instructions to Flush lumen as Follows: Intermittent Medication: Flush before and after each medication with 10 ml [milliliter] NS [normal saline]. Unused Ports: Flush every 8 hours with 10 ml NS. TPN Ports: Flush every 24 hours with 20 ml NS prior to hanging new bag. Dressing Change: Every 7 days, and PRN using sterile technique if integrity of dressing is compromised. Review of the R66's Care Plan, located in the resident's EMR under the care plan tab, revealed the resident was care planned for antibiotic administration via PICC line for cellulitis of the right wrist wound with an intervention to notify the physician of changes in the wound or IV site. Review of R66's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an assessment reference date (ARD) of 03/10/21, revealed the resident was assessed to have a wound infection and was receiving IV antibiotic medications. Review of R66's History and Physical, dated 03/05/21, located in the resident's EMR, documented Septic right wrist status post IND [incision and drainage) IV ceftriaxone (an antibiotic used to treat infections), Pain management, and wound care with plans to continue all current prescription medication and monitor. Review of R66's Physician's Orders dated 03/08/21, located in the resident's EMR, directed PICC flushes - Flush with 10 ml NS before and after antibiotic Every day For IV flushes. Continued review of the resident's physician orders revealed no orders for PICC flushes prior to 03/08/21. Review of R66's Medication Record dated March 2021, located in the resident's EMR, revealed from 03/05/21 to 03/26/21 staff administered Ceftriaxone 2 GM IV once daily for right arm cellulitis; the end date was 03/27/21. Review of R66's Medication Record, dated March 2021, located in the resident's EMR, revealed from 03/08/21 to 03/26/21 staff administered PICC flushes- flush with 10 ml NS before and after antibiotic every day. Continued review of the Medication Record revealed no documented evidence the resident's PICC line was flushed on 03/05/21, 03/06/21, 03/07/21, 03/27/21 03/28/21, and 03/29/21. During an observation on 03/31/21 at 12:21 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 69 attempted to flush the PICC with a prefilled 10 cc [cubic centimeter] NS syringe. The PICC line was in the residents left arm and had a transparent dressing that was loosened at the bottom dated 03/18/21. During the observation LPN69 acknowledged that the dressing was dated 03/18/21 and stated the dressing was supposed to be changed every 3 days to evaluate the insertion site and check for signs of infection. LPN69 could not flush the PICC line and stated there was resistance in the line. During an additional observation on 03/31/21 at 12:34 PM, the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) attempted to flush the PICC line. The ADON exercised the resident's arm a bit and told LPN69 to get a warm washcloth. At 12:37 PM the ADON did not get a blood return and began pushing the NS flush injecting several cc in the line and stopped when the surveyor inquired if she was getting resistance in the line. The ADON replied yes, stating she did not know why it was not working, because it worked yesterday. During an interview on 04/01/21 at 7:54 AM, the Medical Director, who was the resident's physician, stated nursing staff was expected to monitor the PICC line to make sure there was no discharge, no signs of infection, and to maintain patency (being unobstructed) of the PICC line. The Medical Director stated the PICC line should be flushed after antibiotic administration The Medical Director also stated the nursing staff should never flush against resistance because it could cause a localized reaction.
CONCERN (D)

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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, record reviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to clean and air-dry nebulize...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, record reviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to clean and air-dry nebulizer equipment between uses for one of 22 sampled residents (Resident (R) 81). This failure had the potential to cause pulmonary infections for the 14 residents in the facility that receive nebulizer treatments. Findings include: Review of R81's undated Face Sheet, located in the resident's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) Face Sheet revealed R81 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE] with medical diagnoses that included pneumonia. Review of R81's physician Orders, located in the EMR under the physician orders tab revealed a physician's order, dated 03/15/21, for DuoNeb (inhalation solution) nebulizer treatments three times a day for pneumonia. Observation on 03/30/21 at 1:05 PM, during R81's nebulizer breathing treatment, revealed a nebulizer at R81's bedside and breathing treatment medication cup, tubing, and mask were out of the plastic bag, connected, and sitting on top of the nebulizer machine. Continued observation revealed Registered Nurse (RN) 90 picked up the mask/med cup apparatus, opened the medication cup, added the DuoNeb, closed the cup, placed the mask over R81's nose and mouth, and started the machine. At 1:20 PM, RN90 turned off the nebulizer machine, removed the mask from R81's nose/mouth, and placed the mask with the medication cup/tubing attached into a plastic bag on top of the nebulizer machine, without cleaning/ rinsing the cup and mask. During an interview on 03/30/21 at 1:20 PM RN90 was asked what the facility's procedure was for storing and maintaining nebulizer equipment. RN90 stated I rinse the nebulizer equipment with tap water, prior to the treatment. RN90 stated after the treatment, I place the equipment in the plastic bag and wash my hands. RN90 acknowledged she did not wash/rinse the nebulizer equipment after the medication administration on 03/30/21. On 03/31/21 at 9:32 AM Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 91 stated she rinses the nebulizer equipment, except for the tubing with hot water after each use and air dries the equipment, prior to placing the equipment back in the plastic bag. Review of the facility policy titled, Administering Inhaled Medications revised September 2020, stated: .after all medication is gone from nebulizer cup, turn machine off, rinse out cup, leave to air dry, place equipment on pad to dry, and once dry, place back in bag. Review of the American Association of Respiratory Care, A Guide To Aerosol Delivery Devices for Respiratory Therapists, 4th Edition (https://www.aarc.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/aerosol_guide_rt.pdf) revealed .Nebulizers: .nebulizers should be cleaned after every treatment. A study showed that 73% of nebulizers were contaminated with microorganisms and 30% had potentially pathogenic bacteria .The longer a dirty nebulizer sits and is allowed to dry, the harder it is to thoroughly clean. Rinsing and washing the nebulizer immediately after each treatment can go a long way in reducing infection risk .Table 19: Cleaning After Each Use: Wash hands before handling equipment. Disassemble parts after every treatment. Remove the tubing from the compressor and set it aside. The tubing should not be washed or rinsed. Rinse the nebulizer cup and mouthpiece with either sterile water or distilled water. Shake off excess water. Air dry on an absorbent towel. Store the nebulizer cup in a zippered plastic bag. On 03/31/21 at 2:47 PM, the Infection Preventionist (IP) stated the nurse was to rinse the mouthpiece, mask, and cup with soap and water in the bathroom after each treatment, air dry, and place in the plastic bag when dry. The IP stated LPN91 did not clean or rinse the nebulizer equipment per the facility policy and LPN91 did not have the correct information for cleaning/rinsing nebulizer equipment per the facility policy.
CONCERN (D)

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

Medication Errors (Tag F0758)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure that one of five sampl...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure that one of five sampled residents reviewed for unnecessary medications were free from unnecessary medications (Resident (R) 67). R67 was ordered an antipsychotic medication; however, the facility failed to monitor for side effects of the medication; and failed to monitor for specific behaviors related to the indication of use for the medication. This failure had the potential to affect any resident who received an antipsychotic medication. Findings include: Review of R67's undated Face Sheet, located in the resident's electronic medical record (EMR), under the face sheet tab, revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of R67's Diagnoses, located in the resident's EMR under the diagnoses/procedure tab the resident's diagnoses included vascular dementia without behaviors, senile degeneration of the brain, anxiety disorder, and major depressive disorder. Review of R67's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an assessment reference date (ARD) of 03/11/21 and found under the MDS tab in the resident's EMR, revealed R67 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of three out of 15, which indicated the resident was severely cognitively impaired. The MDS also revealed the resident was assessed to not have exhibited any behaviors. The MDS revealed R67 had received antipsychotic medication 6 of 7 days since admission. Review of R67's Physician's Order, dated 03/05/21, located under the orders tab in the resident's EMR, revealed the resident was ordered Haloperidol (an antipsychotic medication) 0.5 mg tablet by mouth, to be given every night at for psychosis. The physician's order did not include to monitor for side effects of the antipsychotic, or to monitor for behaviors related to psychosis. Review of R67's Medication Administration Record (MAR), dated March 2021, provided by the Director of Nursing (DON), revealed R67 received the physician ordered Haloperidol 0.5 mg tablet by mouth at 9:00 PM every night from 03/05/21 through 03/18/21. Review of R67's Physician's Order, dated 03/19/21, located under the MDS tab of the resident's EMR, revealed the resident's Haloperidol was increased to 1mg tablet, to be given by mouth every night for psychosis. The physician's order did not include to monitor for side effects of the antipsychotic, or to monitor for behaviors related to psychosis. Continued review of R67's MAR, dated March 2021, revealed R67 received Haloperidol 1 mg tablet by mouth at 9:00 PM every night from 03/19/21 through 03/30/21. Observation on 03/30/21 at 8:55 AM, revealed R67 was observed in his room in his recliner, dressed and well groomed, waiting for eating assistance. No behaviors were observed. Observation on 03/30/21 at 10:51 AM, revealed R67 was in his room in a wheelchair in front of the television. No behavior concerns were observed. Observation on 03/31/21 at 8:42 AM, revealed R67 was observed sitting in the wheelchair at his over the bed table, eating breakfast. No behaviors were observed. Review of the facility's policy titled, MEDICATION MONITORING PSYCHOTROPIC MONITORING, dated 06/21/2017 revealed, .Each resident receiving a psychotropic agent is monitored for: a. Episodes of behavior being treated and/or manifestations(s) of the disordered thought process b. Adverse reactions and side effects .1. Unnecessary drugs are defined as any drug when used: .without adequate monitoring . Review of the facility's policy titled, Psychoactive Medication use and Behavior and side Effect Monitoring, dated 9/2020 revealed, .A. Nursing staff will document the resident's symptoms and behaviors and attempt to determine causes for the symptoms and/or behaviors . On 3/31/2021 at 3:24 PM an interview with the DON revealed there had been no monitoring of Haloperidol side effects and there had been no behavior tracking for the use Haloperidol for R67. The DON indicated the facility should have behavior tracking on all residents who take antipsychotic medications. On 3/31/2021 at 3:25 PM an interview with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) revealed there had been no monitoring of Haloperidol side effects and there had been no behavior tracking for the use of Haloperidol for R67. The ADON indicated the facility should have obtained an order from the physician for monitoring side effects and for tracking behaviors. The ADON indicated the resident had been admitted to the facility on hospice and had been prescribed Haloperidol while living at home prior to being admitted to the facility. The ADON also indicated the resident had not demonstrated any concerning behaviors while in the facility.
CONCERN (D)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure one newly admitted res...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure one newly admitted resident (Resident (R)189) out of eight newly admitted residents reviewed for isolation was placed in isolation with Transmission Based Precautions (TBP) for 14 days per the facility's policy. This failure had the potential to spread possible infections to other residents and staff of the facility. The findings include: Review of R189's undated Face Sheet, located in the resident's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) revealed R189 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of R189's Physician Orders, located in the EMR under the Physician Orders tab, did not include an order for isolation. Review of R189's Comprehensive Care Plan, located in the resident's EMR under the care plan tab, revealed the resident was care planned for Risk for Exposure to and/or Transmission of Covid-19 Care Plan dated 03/23/21 and included: monitor for signs/symptoms of respiratory infection (i.e. (new or change in cough, fever, sore throat, shortness of breath) on admission and twice per day, monitor resident's temperature and oxygen saturation (oxygen SATs) levels twice daily, and provide face mask if the resident must leave the room for medically necessary transfer out of the facility. Observation on 03/30/21 at 11:00 AM, revealed R189 was being pushed in a wheelchair by a family member to the elevator. Continued observation revealed R189, and the family member were going outside to visit, and both wore a surgical mask; however, no other Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) were being utilized. Review of R189's Temperature and oxygen SATs located in the EMR under the Vital Sign tab, dated 03/23/21 to 03/31/21 indicated R189 had no elevated temperature or respiratory issues. Observation on 03/31/21 at 1:35 PM on R189's unit revealed Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) 20 exit R189's room wearing a surgical mask. The Surveyor observed R189 also wearing a surgical mask. Continued observation revealed there was no signage outside of R189's room to indicate the resident was on isolation with TBP. Interview on 03/31/21 1:36 PM CNA20 stated she wore only a surgical mask when she entered R189's room. CNA20 stated R189 was no longer on precautions. Review of the facility Covid-19 Transmission Based Droplet Precaution Isolation policy dated 10/20/20 stated .resident's chart must reflect a physician's order to include type of isolation. Isolation precautions should be discontinued if the resident is asymptomatic after 14 days and discussed with physician to place an order for discontinuation of the isolation. Healthcare workers will use a N95 when entering the COVID-19 isolation room, wear eye protection (goggles) or facial protection (facial shield), wear a clean, non-sterile, long sleeve gown, use gloves, and ensure door to room is closed . On 03/31/21 at 2:47 PM the Infection Preventionist (IP) stated when a resident was admitted from the hospital, the staff obtained a physician order for isolation droplet precautions for 14 days. The IP stated after 14 days, if the resident was asymptomatic, the staff obtained a physician order to discontinue the isolation precautions. The IP stated on 03/23/21 the staff placed R189 on isolation precautions for 14 days. The IP stated the staff did not obtain a physician order per the facility policy. The IP stated on 03/25/21, R189's family member took her out of the facility to receive her second dose of the Covid vaccine. The IP stated, in error, the staff discontinued isolation precautions when she returned to the facility on [DATE] and did not discuss discontinuation of isolation with the Physician. The IP stated the staff continued to monitor R189 for signs of Covid-19 or an infection and R189 had no infection symptoms. The IP stated on 03/31/21, after review of the facility policy, a physician order was obtained to initiate isolation precautions for R189 per the facility policy.
CONCERN (E)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure foods were stored and served under safe and sa...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure foods were stored and served under safe and sanitary conditions. Observations on 03/29/21 of the 200-floor kitchen revealed unlabeled and undated foods in the refrigerator. Additionally, observations during the 200-floor meal service on 03/29/21, revealed drinking glasses and dining plates were not handled in a sanitary manor. This deficient practice had the potential to affect 45 of 45 residents who were served meals from the 200-floor kitchen. Findings include: 1. On 03/29/21 at 9:05 AM, during a kitchen observation in the 200-floor kitchen, the following was noted in the refrigerator: 18 individual salads in 6 oz [ounce] Styrofoam bowls were on a large tray, three blueberry pies, one large stainless-steel bowl with salad, and 24 single serving 2 oz ketchup containers. None of the items listed were labeled with date or time of preparation nor expiration dates. In an interview on 03/29/21 at 9:05 AM, with Dietary Aide (DA) 128, DA 128 revealed the 18 individual salads, three blueberry pies, the large salad in the stainless-steel bowl and the 24 2 oz ketchup containers should have been labeled with the date of preparation and expiration date. DA128 revealed prepared foods were delivered to the 200-floor kitchen from the main kitchen on the first floor. DA128 stated that all foods should be labeled with the date and time they were made and an expiration date. DA128 also stated she did not know why the items in the refrigerator were not labeled. 2. On 03/29/21 from 12:22 PM to 12:50 PM during a dining observation in the 200-floor dining room, the following was observed: DA128 was in the dining room at the food service window preparing plates and drinks for room trays. DA128 was wearing gloves and grasped a glass of cranberry juice over the top of the glass contaminating the rim of the glass. DA128 then handled plates to place on the delivery cart for resident room trays. DA128 grasped a second glass of cranberry juice from the top at the rim of the glass and placed it on the delivery cart for resident room trays. DA128 then grabbed the hem of her shirt and pulled it down in several areas, then went back to grasping glasses by the rim to place them on the room tray cart for a total of 9 glasses of cranberry juice and 2 glasses of apple juice. DA128 then dropped a packet of crackers on the floor, picked them up, and threw them in the trash, then returned to the serving window. DA128 the, served prepared plates of food to residents who were eating in the dining room. She served 3 plates to residents while holding the plates with her right thumb hooked over the rim of the plates, potentially contaminating the food. DA 128 never changed gloves nor washed her hands during this observation. An interview on 03/29/21 at 9:12 AM, the Registered Dietician (RD) indicated staff should never grasp glasses from the top, but rather on the side, to prevent contaminating the rim of the glass. She further indicated plates should never be handled with the thumb hooked over the edge, but rather should be held from the bottom of the plate only. The RD indicated the facility's policy called for handwashing at the start of meal service and any time the person serving the meal had contaminated their hands. The RD stated if a person serving the meal contaminated their gloves, they should change their gloves and wash their hands in between the glove change. An interview on 04//01/21 at 9:53 AM, the Director of Dining Services (DDS), revealed drinking glasses were to be grasped around the side, and never over the rim, and plates should always be served from the bottom and the thumb should never be hooked over the edge of the plate. On 03/29/21 at 2:00 PM, the DDS provided a binder entitled, FOOD SAFETY MANUAL, and indicated this was the what the facility used for kitchen and dining policy. Review of the manual revealed, .Section 3.5 titled LABELING. Ensure all items are properly labeled with the required information. Items to Label. Ensure all food items are labeled. Be especially cautious to label all food items [NAME] are: Not kept in their original containers, including condiments (e.g., salad dressing, ketchup, etc.) . Label information. Each label must contain the following information: Product name (or common name or identifying description), Use-by date, Date the product was prepared or opened, Time prepared and team member initials where applicable .Section 2.3 HANDWASHING .Required .Immediately before starting work, wash hands and exposed portions of arms. Rewash after the following activities .Touching hair, face and body .touching clothing or aprons .Touching anything else that ay contaminate hand (e.g., dirty equipment, work surfaces, phones or cloths .
Aug 2018 4 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0658 (Tag F0658)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interview, facility documentation review, and clinical record review, the facility staff failed, for 1 resident of 29 residents (Resident #66) to document the administration of medication. For Resident #66, the facility staff failed to document the administration of medications for Depression, and Bowel Management. The Findings Included: Resident #66 was a [AGE] year old, admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #66's diagnoses included constipation, depression, and age-related physical debility. The Minimal Data Set, which was a Quarterly Assessment with an Assessment Reference Date of 7/12/18 coded her as having a Brief Interview of Mental Status Score of 6, indicating severe cognitive impairment. On 8/15/18 at 9:00 A.M. an observation was conducted of Resident #66 who was asleep in her room. On 8/15/18 a review was conducted of Resident #66's clinical record, revealing the following signed physician orders: 1. 6/1/18 - Senna 8.6 MG Tablet By Mouth 4 Times Daily 2. 6/1/18 - Zoloft 100 MG Tablet By Mouth Once Daily Resident #66's Medication Administration Record (MAR) was reviewed. The following medications were not documented as having been administered: 1. Senna 6/18/18 at 5:00 P.M. 2. Zoloft 6/18/18 at 5:00 P.M. Resident #66's Care Plan read, 4/24/18. Resident is on psychotropic medication related to depression. Administer medications as ordered. On 8/15/18 a review was conducted of facility documentation, revealing a Med -Pass Procedure dated 8/7/12. It read, Medications will be administered by legally authorized and trained persons in accordance to applicable State, Local and federal laws and consistent with accepted standards of practice. After administering medications, sign off the medications on the MAR. On 8/16/18 at 9:40 A.M. an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (Administration B). When asked about the importance of documenting the administration of medications, she stated that it should be done immediately after being administered. In addition, she stated that if the resident refuses to take the medication, that the nurse should make a second attempt within 30 minutes, and document the reason the medication wasn't administered on the MAR and in the Nursing Notes. On 8/16/18 a review of the nursing notes was conducted, revealing that there were no nursing notes written on 6/18/18. On 8/16/18 at 11:00 A.M. the facility Administrator (Administration A) was informed of the findings. No further information was received.
CONCERN (D)

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

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, resident and staff interview, facility documentation and clinical record review, and in the course of a co...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, resident and staff interview, facility documentation and clinical record review, and in the course of a complaint investigation, the facility staff failed for one Resident (Resident #18) in a survey sample of 29 residents, to ensure physician ordered pressure relieving boots were in place. The findings Included: Resident #18 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included: Congestive heart failure, urinary obstruction and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Resident #18's most recent MDS (minimum data set) with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 5-17-18 was coded as a quarterly assessment. Resident #18 was coded as having a BIMS (brief interview of mental status) of 15 out of a possible 15, or no cognitive impairment. Resident #18 was also coded as requiring extensive to total assistance of one to two staff members to perform activities of daily living such as mobility and toileting. There were no pressure ulcers during the seven day lookback. On 8/14/18 at 12:49 PM, Resident #18 was observed in the dining room wearing skin protectors on legs, no heel protectors were in place. A review of clinical record revealed the left heel wound healed 6-4-18. The resident had an active order for pressure relieving boots on both feet when OOB (out of bed). On 8/15/18 at 09:30 AM, Resident # 18 was observed up in the wheelchair in his room. A CNA (certified nursing assistant) removed gripper socks, both heels were intact without redness. Skin protectors on arms and legs but no heel boots were on. 08/16/18 08:46 AM , Review of the TAR's (treatment administration orders) revealed two conflicting orders: one is for Heel boots or slipper socks as tolerated, written on 10-20-17. The other order is for Pressure relieving boots when out of bed to both feet-three times a day for preventative. Both orders were being signed off daily on the TAR. On 8/16/18 at 09:09 AM, RN (registered nurse) was questioned about the preventative measures for the resident's heels. The RN stated, We do boots, use skin prep on heels and elevate his legs. When shown the two different orders, the RN stated, That [pointing to using pressure relieving boots when out of bed] is the one we go by. On 08/16/18 at 09:13 AM, an interview was conducted with the private sitter who is a CNA (certified nursing assistant). She stated, Wound care said his wound was healed; we don't have to use it. On 8-16-18 at approximately 12:30 PM, the DON (director of nursing) stated, We talked to the resident and he said the boots were horribly uncomfortable and we are going to look into alternatives.
CONCERN (D)

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

Medication Errors (Tag F0758)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interview and clinical record review the facility staff failed to ensure 2 residents (Resident #81, ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interview and clinical record review the facility staff failed to ensure 2 residents (Resident #81, 68) of 29 residents in the survey sample were free from unnecessary psychotropic medications. 1. For Resident #81, a stop date was not indicated on the PRN (as needed) Lorazepam. 2. For Resident #68, a stop date was not indicated on the PRN (as needed) Lorazepam. The findings included: 1. For Resident #81, a stop date was not indicated on the PRN (as needed) Lorazepam (Ativan). Resident #81, an [AGE] year old, was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included coronary artery disease, rheumatoid arthritis, depression and anxiety. The most recent Minimum Data Set assessment was a comprehensive assessment with an assessment reference date of 7/26/18. The resident had Brief Interview of Mental Status score of 3 indicating severe cognitive impairment. She required extensive assistance with activities of daily living. Resident #81 had a physician order dated 3/10/18 for Lorazepam 2 milligram (mg)/ milliliter oral concentrate Administer 1 mg every hour as needed (prn) for anxiety/restlessness. If no relief after 2 doses call hospice. The order did not include a stop date. According to the August 2018 Medication Administration Record, Resident #81 was administered the prn Lorazepam on eight occasions. The most recent psychiatric consult was requested from the Director of Nursing (DON) at the end of day meeting on 8/15/18. The following day, a handwritten note was provided that read No psych consult on Hospice since [DATE]. On 8/16/18 at 12:00 p.m., it was reviewed with the DON and the Administrator that the prn psychotropic medication order did not include a stop date. No further information was provided. 2. For Resident #68, a stop date was not indicated on the PRN (as needed) Lorazepam (Ativan). Resident #68, an [AGE] year old, was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included dysphagia, pain, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, anxiety disorder, depression, and dementia. The most recent Minimum Data Set assessment was a quarterly assessment with an assessment reference date of 7/19/18. The resident had Brief Interview of Mental Status score of 15 indicating severe cognitive impairment. She required limited assistance with activities of daily living. Resident #68 had a physician order dated 1/30/17 for Lorazepam 1 milligram (mg) tablet by mouth every 4 hours as needed (prn) for comfort/ restlessness/ short of breath. The order did not include a stop date. According to the August 2018 Medication Administration Record, Resident #68 was administered the prn Lorazepam on nine occasions with eight of the administration occasions documented as Neg for effectiveness. The monthly medication regimen reviews were reviewed. On the review dated of 6/4/18 the pharmacist wrote need stop date on prn ativan. The most recent psychiatric consult was requested from the Director of Nursing (DON) at the end of day meeting on 8/15/18. A consult note dated 6/6/18 read Anxiety is currently managed with Xanax and breakthrough anxiety symptoms are managed with as needed Ativan. Continue to provide structured activities for patient and redirect and set limits during times of increased anxiety. On 8/16/18 at 12:00 p.m., it was reviewed with the DON and the Administrator that the prn psychotropic medication order did not include a stop date. The DON was asked to verify that the entry Neg on the Medication Administration Record indicated that the medication had a negative effect, meaning it was not helpful to the resident. The DON agreed that the Neg meant negative effect. The DON was asked to provide the nursing notes for the month of August 2018. The effectiveness of the prn Lorazepam was documented in the nursing notes as follows: 8/1/18 minimal effect 8/6/18 effective 8/7/18 somewhat effective 8/8/18 effective 8/9/18 minimal effect 8/10/18 effectiveness not documented 8/11/18 medicated x2 this shift with minimal effect 8/12/18 effective No further information was provided.
CONCERN (D)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, staff interview, and facility documentation review the facility staff failed to perform hand hygiene between two residents during medication administration. LPN (licensed practic...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, staff interview, and facility documentation review the facility staff failed to perform hand hygiene between two residents during medication administration. LPN (licensed practical nurse) A did not perform hand hygiene between Resident #80 and Resident #39 and Resident #45. The findings included: On 08/15/18 at 7:45 AM, Medication pass was observed for three residents. After preparing and administering medications for Resident #80, the LPN (licensed practical nurse-A) did not clean her hands. After preparing and administering medications to Resident #39, the LPN (A) did not clean her hands prior to administering medications to Resident #45. Review of the facility's policy on Hand washing technique revealed: Wash hands before pouring medications and after passing medications. On 8/16/18 at 10:24 AM An interview was conducted with the facility Infection Control nurse (RN-registered nurse-B) was conducted. She stated, Handwashing, we can use hand sanitizer or wash hands if contact with fluids, etc. Monthly audits are performed without any issues. On 8-16-18 at 12:30 PM, the facility Administrator and DON (director of nursing) were notified of above findings.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

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

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Virginia facilities.
  • • 31% turnover. Below Virginia's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
Concerns
  • • 22 deficiencies on record, including 1 serious (caused harm) violation. Ask about corrective actions taken.
  • • Grade C (55/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Mixed indicators with Trust Score of 55/100. Visit in person and ask pointed questions.

About This Facility

What is Lakewood Manor's CMS Rating?

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

How is Lakewood Manor Staffed?

CMS rates LAKEWOOD MANOR's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 31%, compared to the Virginia average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Lakewood Manor?

State health inspectors documented 22 deficiencies at LAKEWOOD MANOR during 2018 to 2023. These included: 1 that caused actual resident harm, 20 with potential for harm, and 1 minor or isolated issues. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.

Who Owns and Operates Lakewood Manor?

LAKEWOOD MANOR is owned by a non-profit organization. Non-profit facilities reinvest revenue into operations rather than distributing to shareholders. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 96 certified beds and approximately 86 residents (about 90% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in RICHMOND, Virginia.

How Does Lakewood Manor Compare to Other Virginia Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Virginia, LAKEWOOD MANOR's overall rating (3 stars) is below the state average of 3.0, staff turnover (31%) is significantly lower than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Lakewood Manor?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?"

Is Lakewood Manor Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, LAKEWOOD MANOR has a clean safety record: no substantiated abuse findings (meaning no confirmed cases of resident harm), no Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death), and is not on the Special Focus Facility watch list (a federal program monitoring the lowest-performing 1% of nursing homes). The facility has a 3-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in Virginia. While no facility is perfect, families should still ask about staff-to-resident ratios and recent inspection results during their visit.

Do Nurses at Lakewood Manor Stick Around?

LAKEWOOD MANOR has a staff turnover rate of 31%, 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 Lakewood Manor Ever Fined?

LAKEWOOD MANOR 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 Lakewood Manor on Any Federal Watch List?

LAKEWOOD MANOR 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.