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 .