CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Grievances
(Tag F0585)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on resident interview, staff interview, clinical record review and facility document review, it was determined that the facility staff failed to act upon a reported grievance for a missing perso...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on resident interview, staff interview, clinical record review and facility document review, it was determined that the facility staff failed to act upon a reported grievance for a missing personal item for one of 33 residents in the survey sample, Resident #32 (R32).
The findings include:
The facility staff failed to respond to a known grievance regarding a missing Prevalon boot (boot to keep the heel lifted off the bed, wick moisture and keep the foot and ankle in place) in a timely manner for R32.
R32 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included but were not limited to paraplegia and chronic ulcer of left calf.
On the most recent MDS (minimum data set), a quarterly assessment with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 5/20/2022, the resident scored 15 out of 15 on the BIMS (brief interview for mental status), indicating the resident was cognitively intact for making daily decisions. Section G documented R32 requiring extensive assistance of two or more persons for transfers, personal hygiene and extensive assistance of one person for dressing. Section G documented R32 using a wheelchair and having functional limitations in range of motion in both lower extremities. Section G further documented R32 being dependent on staff for putting on/taking off footwear.
On 7/19/2022 at 12:59 p.m., an interview was conducted with R32. R32 stated that they had special boots with a hard bottom that they were supposed to wear but the pair they had were worn out and would not fasten anymore. R32 stated that the supply clerk had ordered replacement boots for them but they had never received them. R32 stated that physical therapy had re-evaluated them and recommended they wear the boots for the supply clerk to order another pair. R32 stated that they had not worn the boots in about six months because the ones they had were worn and did not work. R32 stated that when they checked the status of the order for the new boots they were told that they had already received them. R32 stated that they had reported that they did not have the replacement pair that was ordered to the social worker and the physical therapist but no one had followed up with them.
Review of the facility grievances from 12/20/2020 to the present were reviewed, there were no grievances for R32 related to the missing Prevalon Boots.
The comprehensive care plan for R32 documented in part, [Name of R32] has an ADL (activities of daily living) self-care performance deficit r/t (related to) Impaired balance, Limited Mobility, Limited ROM (range of motion), Paraplegia. Date Initiated: 01/20/2021 . The care plan further documented, [Name of R32] is at risk for skin breakdown r/t disease process: paraplegia, anxiety, complicated UTI (urinary tract infection), Afib (atrial fibrillation), PVD (peripheral vascular disease), impaired mobility, fragile skin, incontinence of bowel, suprapubic catheter, hx (history) of altered skin integrity: scarring: sacrum, right shoulder, Date Initiated: 06/26/2021. Revision on: 03/24/2022 . Under Interventions it documented in part, .Prevalon boots to bilateral feet as needed. Date Initiated: 03/14/2022 .
The physician orders for R32 documented in part, Order Date: 4/5/2022. Prevalon boots to bilateral feet as needed, check skin integrity Q (every) shift .
On 7/20/2022 at 3:33 p.m., an interview was conducted with OSM (other staff member) #11, central supply. OSM #11 stated that Prevalon boots were ordered through the therapy department. OSM #11 stated that after therapy evaluated and determined the need for the boots they would come to her and ask her to order them. OSM #11 stated that they remembered OSM #13, the director of rehab requesting them to order the boots for R32. OSM #11 stated that they had ordered the boots, they arrived and they delivered them to physical therapy who would provide them to the resident. OSM #11 stated that the facility would replace worn boots as long as they were approved by therapy for the resident. OSM #11 stated that it had been a couple of months since the new boots for R32 had arrived and been delivered to therapy.
On 7/20/2022 at 4:05 p.m., an interview was conducted with OSM #13, the director of rehab, physical therapy assistant. OSM #13 stated that R32 had reported that their Prevalon boot was broken and they had requested OSM #11 to order a new one. OSM #13 stated that a new left boot had come in and they had provided it to R32. OSM #13 stated that recently R32 had reported to them that they had never received the boot. OSM #13 stated that they did not remember reporting the grievance to the social worker. OSM #13 stated that the facility process was to file a grievance for missing items and report it during the stand up meetings. OSM #13 stated that the grievance would be investigated by the social worker to try to resolve it.
On 7/20/2022 at 4:22 p.m., an interview was conducted with OSM #12, social services assistant and OSM #3, the director of social services. OSM #3 stated that they had received a grievance regarding a missing boot for R32 and that it was in the grievance book provided on entry for the survey. OSM #3 was made aware that a grievance was not found in the grievance book, and stated that they would check the book again and their office to find it. OSM #3 stated that it was reported about 3 weeks ago and they sometimes give missing items a little more time because they show up out of no where. OSM #3 stated that if the boot was not found they would replace it.
On 7/20/2022 at approximately 4:30 p.m., OSM #11, central supply provided a copy of a purchase order dated 3/25/2022 for a SoftProAmbulating AFO Boot. OSM #11 stated that 3/25/2022 was when the boot was ordered for R32.
The facility policy Clinical Guideline-Complaint Grievance dated 11/30/2014 documented in part, .The intent of this guideline is to support each resident's right to voice grievances (e.g., those about treatment, care, management of funds, lost clothing, or violation of rights) and to assure that after receiving a complaint/grievance, the center actively seeks a resolution and keeps the resident appropriately apprised of its progress toward resolution. Prompt efforts by the center to resolve grievances the resident may have, including those with respect to the behavior of other residents .The resident should have reasonable expectations of care and services and the center should address those expectations in a timely, reasonable, and consistent manner .An employee receiving a complaint/grievance from a resident, family member and/or visitor shall initiate a Complaint/Grievance Form or electronic equivalent .Original grievance forms are then submitted to the Grievance Officer /designee for further action .The grievance follow-up should be completed in a reasonable time frame; this should not exceed 14 days .The individual voicing the grievance shall receive follow up communication with the resolution, a copy of the grievance resolution will be provided to the resident upon request .
On 7/21/2022 at approximately 9:45 a.m., ASM (administrative staff member) #1, the executive director, ASM #2, the director of nursing and ASM #3, the regional director of clinical services were made aware of the concern.
No further information was presented prior to exit.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Assessments
(Tag F0636)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on staff interview, facility document review and clinical record review, it was determined the facility staff failed to complete a comprehensive assessment with a change in ADL (activity of dail...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on staff interview, facility document review and clinical record review, it was determined the facility staff failed to complete a comprehensive assessment with a change in ADL (activity of daily living) status for one of 33 residents in the survey sample, Resident #25 (R25).
The findings include:
On the most recent MDS (minimum data set) assessment, a quarterly assessment, with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 5/22/2022, the resident scored a 10 out of 15 on the BIMS (brief interview for mental status) score, indicating the resident is moderately cognitively impaired for making daily decisions. In Section G - Functional Status, the resident was coded as requiring extensive assistance of one staff member physical assistance for moving in the bed, transfers, moving on the unit, dressing, toileting, personal hygiene and bathing. The resident was coded as requiring supervision with one staff member physical assistance for eating.
The MDS prior to the 5/22/2022, an annual assessment, with an ARD of 2/10/2022, the resident scored a 10 out of 15 on the BIMS score, indicating the resident is moderately cognitively impaired for making daily decisions. In Section G - Functional Status, R25 was coded as being independent with set up assistance only for moving in the bed, transfers, eating and personal hygiene. The resident was coded as requiring limited assistance of one staff member for toileting. The activity of moving on the unit, only occurred once with no assistance from the staff. The activity of moving off the unit, only occurred once and required set up assistance from the staff.
An interview was conducted with RN (registered nurse) #2, the MDS coordinator, on 7/20/2022 at 3:25 p.m. RN #2 was asked to review the two MDS assessments documented above. RN #2 requested to look into it and get back to the survey team. RN #2 returned and stated that the granddaughter was trying to find placement closer to her and that did not occur. RN #2 stated that had caused a bit of depression. RN #2 was asked to explain why a significant change assessment was not completed when there was a decline in the resident's functional status. RN #2 was also asked to provide any therapy consults for this decline in condition.
On 7/20/2022 at 4:01 p.m. RN #2 stated there was no therapy screen done. When asked why a significant change assessment was not completed, RN #2 stated she could not answer that. When asked if a significant change assessment and a referral to therapy should have been completed due to the decline in the resident's functional status, RN #2 stated, I believe it was an oversight. It should have been a significant change assessment completed.
The RAI (resident assessment instrument) manual, documented in part, A significant change is a major decline or improvement in a resident's status that: 1. Will not normally resolve itself without intervention by staff or by implementing standard disease-related clinical interventions, the decline is not considered self-limiting; 2. Impacts more than one area of the resident's health status; and 3. Requires interdisciplinary review and/or revision of the care plan.
ASM (administrative staff member) #1, the executive director, ASM #2, the director of nursing, and ASM #3 the director of clinical services were made aware of the above concern on 7/20/2022 at 5:23 p.m.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Assessment Accuracy
(Tag F0641)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interview, resident interview, facility document review and clinical record review, it was determined the facilit...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interview, resident interview, facility document review and clinical record review, it was determined the facility staff failed to provide an accurate assessment for one of 33 residents, Resident #37.
The facility staff failed to complete an accurate MDS (minimum data set); annual assessment for Resident #37.
The findings include:
Resident #37 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis that included but were not limited to: end stage renal disease, diabetes mellitus, heart failure and encephalopathy.
The most recent MDS (minimum data set) assessment, a quarterly assessment, with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 5/21/22, coded the resident as scoring a 14 out of 15 on the BIMS (brief interview for mental status) score, indicating the resident was cognitively intact. A review of the MDS Section G-functional status coded the resident as requiring extensive assistance for bed mobility, transfer, dressing, hygiene and bathing; supervision for locomotion and independence for eating. Section O-special procedures/treatments coded the resident as dialysis no.
A review of the comprehensive care plan dated 2/26/22, which revealed, FOCUS: The resident is on Hemodialysis via Left arterial-venous Fistula related to End Stage Renal Disease. Transferred to hospital for clogged AV shunt 6/27/22. INTERVENTIONS: Communicate with dialysis facility as needed. Dialysis 3 times/week: Tuesday, Thursday & Saturday.
A review of physician orders, dated 10/21/20, revealed the following, Dialysis three times a week, Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday @ 10:30AM-3:15PM.
An interview was conducted on 7/20/22 at 2:07 PM with RN (registered nurse) #2, the MDS coordinator. When asked to review the MDS Section O for Resident #37, RN #2 stated, The MDS, that should not be coded as 'no', she is a dialysis resident and has been for years. I coded this myself. I will do a modification now. When asked what standard is followed for completion of a MDS, RN #2 stated, We follow the RAI (resident assessment instrument).
On 7/20/22 at approximately 5:30 PM, ASM (administrative staff member) #1, the administrator, ASM #2, the director of nursing and ASM #3, the regional director of clinical services were made aware of the findings.
A review of the facility's policy MDS dated 11/2014, reveals the following, The center conducts initial and periodic standardized, comprehensive and reproducible assessments no less than every three months for each resident including, but not limited to, the collection of data regarding functional status, strengths, weaknesses and preferences using the federal and/or state required RAI. Procedure: Each person completing a section or portion of a section of the MDS signs the Attestation Statement indicating its accuracy.
No further information was provided prior to exit.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0660
(Tag F0660)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on resident interview, staff interview, clinical record review and facility document review, it was determined that the fa...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on resident interview, staff interview, clinical record review and facility document review, it was determined that the facility staff failed to actively assist one of 33 residents in the survey sample with discharge planning for a resident requested discharge, Resident #32 (R32).
The findings include:
The facility staff failed to actively participate when requested by R32 to coordinate a discharge from the facility.
R32 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included but were not limited to paraplegia.
On the most recent MDS (minimum data set), a quarterly assessment with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 5/20/2022, the resident scored 15 out of 15 on the BIMS (brief interview for mental status), indicating the resident was cognitively intact for making daily decisions. Section G documented R32 using a wheelchair and having functional limitations in range of motion in both lower extremities.
On 7/19/2022 at 12:59 p.m., an interview was conducted with R32. R32 stated that they were paralyzed and used a manual wheelchair every day. R32 stated that they had been trying to discharge from the facility but were not getting assistance from the facility staff. R32 stated that they were told that the resident or the residents family had to arrange for a discharge if they wanted to leave. R32 stated that the social worker had provided them phone numbers to the VA (veterans administration) facilities in the area for them to call and try to get transferred to but they had not been able to speak to anyone. R32 stated that they felt that the facility staff would have better access to reach the other facilities than they did and should not just give them numbers to call. R32 stated that they would eventually like to discharge to the community into an apartment with an aide to help them after getting more specialized rehab services than what they had received at the facility. R32 stated that they had advised the facility staff that they wanted to discharge from the facility because they felt that they did not need to be in a long term care facility. R32 stated that when they asked the social worker to assist them in discharging them from the facility they were told that it was their job to keep them there, not to send them out when they were making money off of them.
The comprehensive care plan for R32 documented in part, [Name of R32 wishes to be discharged to another facility that has the rehab machines that can assist him walk again. Date Initiated: 02/09/2021. Revision on: 04/13/2022. Under Interventions it documented in part, Establish a pre-discharge plan with the resident/resident's representative/caregivers and evaluate progress and revise plan as needed. Date Initiated: 02/09/2021 . The care plan further documented, [Name of R32] has an ADL (activities of daily living) self-care performance deficit r/t (related to) Impaired balance, Limited Mobility, Limited ROM (range of motion), Paraplegia. Date Initiated: 01/20/2021 .
The progress notes for R32 documented in part,
- 1/26/2022 14:47 (2:47 p.m.) Social Service Progress Note. [Name of R32] wanting to be transferred to another facility that has specific rehab equipment that he thinks will benefit him on his spinal cord. Social service again shared with him that long term care facilities do not have the equipment that he desires.
- 1/26/2022 15:09 (3:09 p.m.) Social Service Progress Note. Note Text: Resident was giving the telephone number and contact at the Veteran's Administration- [Name of VA Center]. That information is [Phone number]. Writer did call as well and left a voicemail for [Name of intake specialist].
- 2/17/2022 09:52 (9:52 a.m.) Social Service Progress Note. Note Text: Resident was given information again to the Veterans Administration [Name of VA Center]. The reason is because he lost the original sheet of paper that was given to him prior to his recent hospitalization. Resident was encouraged to make to call and speak to the intake department for long term care admission as well as rehab. Resident continues want to try to walk again with the assistance of special equipment that most LTC (long term care) do not have but possibly the Veterans Administration have.
- 2/23/2022 13:50 (1:50 p.m.) Social Service Progress Note. Note Text: Writer asked resident if he got in touch with the Va. Administration - [Name of VA Center]. He stated that he has left messages with admissions but did not receive a call back. Writer encouraged him to ask the telephone operator to page the contact on the PA (public address) system instead.
- 3/18/2022 12:21 (12:21 p.m.) Social Service Progress Note. Note Text: Resident was asked by the SSD (social service director) if he was able to reach the intake coordinator of the [Name of VA Center]. He stated that he has not been successful in reaching anyone in that department and has left messages for a return call, in which he never received any. Writer called the intake department and had to leave a message as well.
- 4/7/2022 13:55 (1:55 p.m.) Social Service Progress Note. Writer spoke with resident today to see if he has follow through on his request to discharge from the facility into a Veterans Administration Center. He stated that he is working on it but the persons that he is contacting are not returning his calls.
- 4/11/2022 13:19 (1:19 p.m.) Note Text: Care plan/IDT (interdisciplinary team) team met to discuss residents plan of care, resident attended. [Name of R32] is alert and oriented x3 (person, place and time) and requires limited to extensive assist with ADL's . He is a full code, would like to transfer to a VA facility for therapy services . Discussed residents desire to transfer to another facility and the requirements and expectations of him regarding this transition, resident agreed and acknowledged understanding. Staff will continue with the current plan of care.
- 4/22/2022 11:10 (11:10 a.m.) Social Service Progress Note. Writer spoke with resident today to see if he has follow through on his request to discharge from the facility into a Veterans Administration Center. Writer has given some information of some facility that the resident can contact.
- 6/8/2022 13:36 (1:36 p.m.) Note Text: Care plan/IDT team met to discuss the residents plan of care, resident attended . Emergency contacts remain the same, he is a full code, d/c (discharge) plan is to transfer to another facility . Resident request for therapy eval (evaluation) d/t (due to) decline in functional status, referral submitted. Staff will continue with the current plan of care.
- 7/14/2022 14:40 (2:40 p.m.) Social Service Progress Note. Note Text: Social Service met resident to review everything in pertaining his transfer to a Veteran Health administration centers for some specific therapy machine to help him walk again. Resident reported that he does not want to go to a nursing home that does not have the therapy machine he is looking for. Writer has given resident some VA administration center which he can verify if they have that specific therapy machine he is looking for before the transfer process can start. Writer has given resident some facility and contacts to call and verify if they have the machine he is looking for.
- 7/14/2022 15:15 (3:15 p.m.) Social Service Progress Note. Note Text: Writer has given resident the below Veterans Health centers to call and verify if they have the therapy machine he is looking for to help him walk again before the transfer process. VETERANS HEALTH CENTERS FOR [Name of R32] [Name and phone numbers of five Veterans Centers].
On 7/20/2022 at 3:43 p.m., an interview was conducted with OSM (other staff member) #3, the director of social services. OSM #3 stated that R32 came from an assisted living facility to the building and had unrealistic expectations about their recovery. OSM #3 stated that R32 had requested to be discharged to a facility with specialized equipment that would help them to walk. OSM #3 stated that they did not have that type of equipment at the facility and they had recommended the VA systems for R32. OSM #3 stated that the facility policy was that a resident who wanted to leave would find placement themselves but they had been providing phone numbers to them. OSM #3 stated that R32 did not want to transfer to another long term care facility because they did not have the equipment they wanted and the plan currently was for them to remain long term care.
On 7/20/2022 at 4:05 p.m., an interview was conducted with OSM #13, the director of rehab, PTA (physical therapy assistant). OSM #13 stated that R32 received physical and occupational therapy when they were first admitted to the facility. OSM #13 stated that R32's main goal was to walk again which was not realistic and that had been communicated to them by the facility staff and the physician. OSM #13 stated that they had suggested to R32 that they go to a spinal cord specialist and they had discharged them when they were able to transfer using a sliding board with assistance from staff. OSM #13 stated that initially they had attempted to use the standing frame equipment with R32 but they were unable to bear any weight. OSM #13 stated that they attempted the parallel bars with R32 but did not feel that it was safe with the level of paraplegia they had.
On 7/20/2022 at 4:22 p.m., an interview was conducted with OSM #12, social services assistant and OSM #3, the director of social services. OSM #3 stated that they had reached out to the veterans administration in January of 2022 but had not heard back from them regarding R32. OSM #3 stated that at times R32 would fabricate things. OSM #3 stated that when a client wanted to leave the facility they were the ones who were to help in finding the placement. OSM #3 stated that this month they had provided R32 with additional veterans administration facility phone numbers to call. OSM #3 stated that the facility was collecting money from R32 and why would they want to give it away.
On 7/21/2022 at 7:50 a.m., an interview was conducted with ASM (administrative staff member) #1, the executive director. ASM #1 stated that as long as the facility was aware of a resident's request for discharge the expectation was for the facility staff to plan for discharge. ASM #1 stated that they would not expect the resident to arrange their discharge themselves.
The facility policy, Discharge Planning dated 11/30/2014, documented in part, Policy: To evaluate the resident's health status and formulate the best plan of discharge for each resident. Discharge planning begins the day of admission. The process involves the resident and family, Care Management/Social Services and other members of the clinical team .
On 7/21/2022 at approximately 9:45 a.m., ASM (administrative staff member) #1, the executive director, ASM #2, the director of nursing and ASM #3, the regional director of clinical services were made aware of the concern.
No further information was presented prior to exit.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0676
(Tag F0676)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on staff interview and clinical record review, it was determined the facility staff failed to assess for a decline in functional status for one of 33 residents in the survey sample, Resident #25...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on staff interview and clinical record review, it was determined the facility staff failed to assess for a decline in functional status for one of 33 residents in the survey sample, Resident #25 (R25).
The findings include:
On the most recent MDS (minimum data set) assessment, a quarterly assessment, with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 5/22/2022, the resident scored a 10 out of 15 on the BIMS (brief interview for mental status) score, indicating the resident was moderately cognitively impaired for making daily decisions. In Section G - Functional Status, the resident was coded as requiring extensive assistance of one staff member physical assistance for moving in the bed, transfers, moving on the unit, dressing, toileting, personal hygiene and bathing. The resident was coded as requiring supervision with one staff member physical assistance for eating.
The MDS prior to the 5/22/2022, an annual assessment, with an ARD of 2/10/2022, the resident scored a 10 out of 15 on the BIMS score, indicating the resident was moderately cognitively impaired for making daily decisions. In Section G - Functional Status, R25 was coded as being independent with set up assistance only for moving in the bed, transfers, eating and personal hygiene. The resident was coded as requiring limited assistance of one staff member for toileting. The activity of moving on the unit, only occurred once with no assistance from the staff. The activity of moving off the unit, only occurred once and required set up assistance from the staff.
The comprehensive care plan dated, 2/26/2021, documented in part, Focus: (R25) supervision-limited assist for most ADLs (activities of daily living). The Interventions documented in part, PT (physical therapy) & OT (occupational therapy) evaluate and treat as ordered.
An interview was conducted with RN (registered nurse) #2, the MDS coordinator, on 7/20/2022 at 3:25 p.m. RN #2 was asked to review the two MDS assessments documented above. RN #2 requested to look into it and get back to the survey team. RN #2 returned and stated that the granddaughter was trying to find placement closer to her and that did not occur. RN #2 stated that had caused a bit of depression. RN #2 was asked to explain why a significant change assessment was not completed when there was a decline in the resident's functional status. RN #2 was also asked to provide any therapy consults for this decline in condition.
On 7/20/2022 at 4:01 p.m. RN #2 stated there was no therapy screen done. When asked why a significant change assessment was not completed, RN #2 stated she could not answer that. When asked if a significant change assessment and a referral to therapy should have been completed due to the decline in the resident's functional status, RN #2 stated, I believe it was an oversight. It should have been a significant change assessment completed and a therapy screen should have been completed.
An interview was conducted with OSM (other staff member) #12, the director of therapy, on 7/20/2022 at 4:19 p.m. When asked the process for the therapy department to screen residents that are in need of therapy, OSM #12 stated that (RN #2) normally sends her a list of resident to screen when she completes the MDS assessments. When asked if she had screened R25 since his 5/22/2022 MDS assessment, OSM #12 stated she had last screened the resident is January of this year (2022). When asked if therapy has worked with him since the MDS assessment, OSM #12 stated, no.
ASM (administrative staff member) #1, the executive director, ASM #2, the director of nursing, and ASM #3 the director of clinical services were made aware of the above concern on 7/20/2022 at 5:23 p.m.
On 7/21/2022 at 11:41 a.m. ASM #1 stated the facility did not have a policy on addressing a resident's decline in functional status.
No further information was obtained prior to exit.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
ADL Care
(Tag F0677)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on resident interview, staff interview, clinical record review and facility document review, it was determined that the facility staff failed to provide ADL (activities of daily living) care to ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on resident interview, staff interview, clinical record review and facility document review, it was determined that the facility staff failed to provide ADL (activities of daily living) care to dependent residents per resident choice for 2 of 33 residents in the survey sample, Resident #32 (R32) and Resident #22 (R22).
The findings include:
1. The facility staff failed to provide showers per resident choice/preference to R32.
On the most recent MDS (minimum data set), a quarterly assessment with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 5/20/2022, the resident scored 15 out of 15 on the BIMS (brief interview for mental status), indicating the resident was cognitively intact for making daily decisions. Section G documented R32 requiring extensive assistance of two or more persons for transfers, personal hygiene and extensive assistance of one person for dressing. Section G documented R32 being totally dependent on one person for bathing.
On 7/19/2022 at 12:59 p.m., an interview was conducted with R32. R32 stated that they had to ask the staff for showers and that they were not offered. R32 stated that they had not had a shower since they had been readmitted to the facility in March of 2022. R32 stated that the CNA's (certified nursing assistants) gave them bed baths and did not offer a shower. R32 stated that they had purchased a special lift pad that had a mesh bottom for the shower but it had never been used. R32 stated that the CNA's told them that they did not have a shower chair when they asked for a shower. R32 stated that they would like to take a shower because a bed bath was not the same.
The comprehensive care plan for R32 documented in part, [Name of R32] has an ADL (activities of daily living) self-care performance deficit r/t (related to) Impaired balance, Limited Mobility, Limited ROM (range of motion), Paraplegia. Date Initiated: 01/20/2021 . The care plan further documented, The resident does not cooperate with care (shower) r/t (related to) Personal choice Refuses to use shower sling Date Initiated: 03/15/2022. Under Interventions it documented in part, Allow the resident to make decisions about treatment regime, to provide sense of control. Date Initiated: 03/15/2022 .
The shower documentation for R32 dated 5/1/2022-5/31/2022 documented in part, Showers on Tuesday and Friday 3-11 shift (3:00 p.m.-11:00 p.m.). It documented a shower was not completed on 5/3/2022 and 5/10/2022.
The shower documentation for R32 dated 6/1/2022-6/30/2022 documented in part, Showers on Tuesday and Friday 3-11 shift. It documented a shower was not completed on 6/3/2022, 6/7/2022 and 6/28/2022.
The progress notes for R32 failed to evidence documentation of refusal of the showers on the dates listed above.
On 7/20/2022 at 2:31 p.m., an interview was conducted with RN (registered nurse) #4. RN #4 stated that showers were administered to residents twice a week and per the residents choice. RN #4 stated that a schedule was kept at the nurses station for the CNA's to know which residents were to get showers each day on each shift. RN #4 stated that R32's showers were scheduled on Tuesdays and Fridays on the 3-11 shift. RN #4 stated that they were not aware of R32 ever refusing showers or not getting showers as scheduled.
On 7/20/2022 at 2:47 p.m., an interview was conducted with LPN (licensed practical nurse) #1. LPN #1 stated that showers were completed twice a week per the shower schedule kept at the nurses station. LPN #1 stated that there were two shower rooms on the unit. An observation was conducted with LPN #1 of two shower rooms on the unit. Both shower rooms were observed to be empty with a shower stretcher, two shower chairs and a shower bench in one shower room and two shower chairs in the other. LPN #1 stated that they were not aware of any shortages of shower chairs reported.
On 7/20/2022 at 4:05 p.m., an interview was conducted with OSM (other staff member) #13, the director of rehab, PTA (physical therapy assistant). OSM #13 stated that they had worked with R32 in the past. OSM #13 stated that they had discharged R32 when they were able to transfer using a sliding board with assistance. OSM #13 stated that occupational therapy had worked with R32 to use a shower bench but they were not stable enough to do this so they had assisted them to use a shower chair with a cut out in the bottom. OSM #13 stated that R32 required one person to assist them because they had spasms in the legs and needed to use either a shower chair or a shower bed. OSM #13 stated that R32 had agreed to use the shower chair so they had ordered a sling with a cut out to use with the shower chair.
On 7/20/2022 at 4:39 p.m., an interview was conducted with CNA (certified nursing assistant) #7. CNA #7 stated that they had a shower schedule in a book at the nurses station which showed them which residents received showers each day and each shift. CNA #7 stated that R32 received showers on the day shift. CNA #7 stated that A beds had showers on the morning shift and B beds had showers on the evening shift. CNA #7 stated that R32 used a sliding board to transfer with assistance of one staff member. CNA #7 stated that they had never seen R32 take a shower on the evening shift when they worked.
On 7/21/2022 at 8:47 a.m., an interview was conducted with CNA #2. CNA #2 stated that residents received showers twice a week. CNA #2 stated that they worked with R32 on day shift and they received showers then. CNA #2 stated that R32 had never refused a shower that they were aware of. CNA #2 stated that when they assisted R32 to shower they assisted them to transfer to a shower chair. CNA #2 stated that they did not use a mechanical lift for R32 because they were able to transfer themselves with assistance of one person. CNA #2 stated that R32 was stable when in shower chair and was able to assist in the showering process. CNA #2 reviewed R32's shower documentation for 5/1/2022-5/31/2022 and 6/1/2022-6/30/2022 and stated that the dates listed above documented a shower was not given. CNA #2 stated that there should be a note saying why a shower was not given.
The facility policy Bathing/showering dated 11/30/2014 documented in part, Policy: Assistance with showering and bathing will be provided at least twice a week and PRN (as needed) to cleanse and refresh the resident. The resident shall be asked on admission to establish a frequency schedule for bathing. This schedule will take precedence over the twice a week and PRN cleansing. The resident's frequency and preferences for bathing will be reviewed at least quarterly during care conference .
On 7/21/2022 at approximately 9:45 a.m., ASM (administrative staff member) #1, the executive director, ASM #2, the director of nursing and ASM #3, the regional director of clinical services were made aware of the concern.
No further information was presented prior to exit.
2. The facility staff failed to provide showers per resident choice/preference to R22.
On the most recent MDS (minimum data set), a quarterly assessment with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 5/5/2022, the resident scored 15 out of 15 on the BIMS (brief interview for mental status), indicating the resident is cognitively intact for making daily decisions. Section G documented R22 requiring supervision of one person for transfers, personal hygiene and dressing. Section G documented R22 requiring physical help in part of bathing from one person.
On 7/19/2022 at 1:57 p.m., an interview was conducted with R22. A shower chair was observed in R22's room. R22 stated that they had purchased the shower chair for their personal use because the chairs at the facility were too small for them. R22 stated that they had called their insurance case manager last week to report that they were not receiving their showers twice a week as scheduled. R22 stated that they received a shower once every three weeks on average and would like them more often. R22 stated that their showers were supposed to be every Wednesday and Saturday but were not offered or given. R22 stated that some of the staff were great and would take extra steps to make sure that they got their shower but some did not care.
The comprehensive care plan for R22 documented in part, The resident does not cooperate with care (shower) r/t (related to) Personal choice
Date Initiated: 04/20/2022. Under Interventions it documented in part, Allow the resident to make decisions about treatment regime [sic], to provide sense of control. Date Initiated: 04/20/2022 and Provide resident with opportunities for choice during care provision. Date Initiated: 04/20/2022. The care plan further documented, [Name of R22] is supervision with ADL (activities of daily living) selfcare performance Date Initiated: 05/02/2022. Under Interventions it documented in part, BATHING/SHOWERING: Provide sponge bath when a full bath or shower cannot be tolerated. Per resident requested schedule and routine Date Initiated: 05/02/2022 .
The shower documentation for R22 dated 5/1/2022-5/31/2022 documented in part, Showers on Wednesday and Saturday 3-11 shift (3:00 p.m.-11:00 p.m.). It documented a shower not completed on 5/7/2022 and 5/11/2022.
The shower documentation for R22 dated 6/1/2022-6/30/2022 documented in part, Showers on Wednesday and Saturday 3-11 shift. It documented a shower not completed on 6/8/2022 and 6/11/2022. On 6/18/2022, 6/22/2022 and 6/25/2022 the documentation area for showering was observed to be blank.
The shower documentation for R22 dated 7/1/2022-7/31/2022 documented in part, Showers on Wednesday and Saturday 3-11 shift. It documented a shower not completed on 7/6/2022, 7/9/2022 and 7/13/2022.
The progress notes for R22 failed to evidence documentation of shower refusals on the dates listed above.
On 7/20/2022 at 2:47 p.m., an interview was conducted with LPN (licensed practical nurse) #1. LPN #1 stated that showers were completed twice a week per the shower schedule kept at the nurses station. LPN #1 stated that there were two shower rooms on the unit. LPN #1 stated that R22 had their own shower chair they used. LPN #1 stated that CNA's reported if a resident refused their shower and they talked to the resident to see if they still refused. LPN #1 stated if the resident still refused the shower it was documented in the progress notes.
On 7/21/2022 at 8:47 a.m., an interview was conducted with CNA (certified nursing assistant) #2. CNA #2 stated that residents received showers twice a week. CNA #2 stated that they did not work with R22. CNA #2 stated that showers were given according to the shower schedule and documented in the computer. CNA #2 stated that if a resident refused their shower they informed the nurse and documented it in the medical record. CNA #2 reviewed the shower documentation for 5/1/2022-5/31/2022, 6/1/2022-6/30/2022 and 7/1/2022-7/31/2022 for R22 and stated that the dates listed above documented a shower was not given. CNA #2 stated that they should only document when a shower was given and they could not say that a shower was given if the documentation was blank. CNA #2 stated that there should be a note saying why a shower was not given.
On 7/21/2022 at approximately 9:45 a.m., ASM (administrative staff member) #1, the executive director, ASM #2, the director of nursing and ASM #3, the regional director of clinical services were made aware of the concern.
No further information was presented prior to exit.
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 observation, staff interview, facility document review and clinical record review, it was determined the facility staff...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interview, facility document review and clinical record review, it was determined the facility staff failed to administer oxygen per the physician order for one of 33 residents in the survey sample, Resident #94 (R94).
The findings include:
On the most recent MDS (minimum data set) assessment, an annual assessment, with an assessment reference date of 7/7/2022, the resident was not coded for cognition. In the nurse's notes it was documented the resident refused to answer the questions. In Section O - Special Treatments, Procedures and Programs, the resident was not coded as using oxygen.
Observation was made of R94 on 7/19/2022 at approximately 12:00 p.m. R94 was in the bed with the oxygen on via a nasal cannula. The oxygen concentrator was set with the bottom of the black ball sitting on the 1.5 line and the top of the ball on the 2.0 line.
A second observation was made on 7/20/2022 at 2:48 p.m. The oxygen was in use via nasal cannula. The oxygen concentrator was set with the top of the ball sitting just under the black line for 2.0. LPN (licensed practical nurse) # 2, was asked to read the oxygen concentrator, LPN #2 stated the oxygen was set at 1.5. When asked how to read the oxygen concentrator, LPN #2 stated the line should be at the top of the ball. LPN #2 reset the oxygen so the top of the ball was touching the 2.0 line.
The physician order dated 9/10/2020, documented, Oxygen at 2 LPM (liters per minute) via nasal cannula continuously.
The comprehensive care plan dated 1/3/2020, documented in part, Focus: (R94) is on oxygen therapy r/t (related to) altered respiratory status. The Interventions documented in part, Oxygen as ordered.
The manufacturer's instructions for the oxygen concentrator, documented in part, NOTE: To properly read the flowmeter, locate the prescribed flowrate line on the flowmeter. Next, turn the flow knob until the ball rises to the line. Now, center the ball on the L/min line prescribed.
The facility policy documented in part, Review physician's order .Attach administration device to flowmeter or humidifier/nebulizer outlet .Start O2 (Oxygen) flowrate at the prescribed liter flow or appropriate flow for administration device.
According to Fundamentals of Nursing, [NAME] and [NAME], 6th edition, page 1122, Oxygen should be treated as a drug. It has dangerous side effects, such as atelectasis or oxygen toxicity. As with any drug, the dosage or concentration of oxygen should be continuously monitored. The nurse should routinely check the physician's orders to verify that the client is receiving the prescribed oxygen concentration. The six rights of medication administration also pertain to oxygen administration.
ASM (administrative staff member) #1, the executive director, ASM #2, the director of nursing, and ASM #3 the director of clinical services were made aware of the above concern on 7/20/2022 at 5:23 p.m.
No further information was provided prior to exit.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0745
(Tag F0745)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on resident interview, staff interview, clinical record review and facility document review, it was determined that the fa...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on resident interview, staff interview, clinical record review and facility document review, it was determined that the facility staff failed to provide medically related social services to one of 33 residents in the survey sample, Resident #32 (R32).
The findings include:
The facility staff failed to actively assist R32 in coordinating a resident requested discharge from the facility.
R32 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included but were not limited to paraplegia.
On the most recent MDS (minimum data set), a quarterly assessment with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 5/20/2022, the resident scored 15 out of 15 on the BIMS (brief interview for mental status), indicating the resident was cognitively intact for making daily decisions. Section G documented R32 using a wheelchair and having functional limitations in range of motion in both lower extremities.
On 7/19/2022 at 12:59 p.m., an interview was conducted with R32. R32 stated that they were paralyzed and used a manual wheelchair every day. R32 stated that they had been trying to discharge from the facility but were not getting assistance from the facility staff. R32 stated that they were told that the resident or the residents family had to arrange for a discharge if they wanted to leave. R32 stated that the social worker had provided them phone numbers to the VA (veterans administration) facilities in the area for them to call and try to get transferred to but they had not been able to speak to anyone. R32 stated that they felt that the facility staff would have better access to reach the other facilities than they did and should not just give them numbers to call. R32 stated that they would eventually like to discharge to the community into an apartment with an aide to help them after getting more specialized rehab services than what they had received at the facility. R32 stated that they had advised the facility staff that they wanted to discharge from the facility because they felt that they did not need to be in a long term care facility. R32 stated that when they asked the social worker to assist them in discharging them from the facility they were told that it was their job to keep them there, not to send them out when they were making money off of them.
The comprehensive care plan for R32 documented in part, [Name of R32 wishes to be discharged to another facility that has the rehab machines that can assist him walk again. Date Initiated: 02/09/2021. Revision on: 04/13/2022. Under Interventions it documented in part, Establish a pre-discharge plan with the resident/resident's representative/caregivers and evaluate progress and revise plan as needed. Date Initiated: 02/09/2021 .
The progress notes for R32 documented in part,
- 1/26/2022 14:47 (2:47 p.m.) Social Service Progress Note. [Name of R32] wanting to be transferred to another facility that has specific rehab equipment that he thinks will benefit him on his spinal cord. Social service again shared with him that long term care facilities do not have the equipment that he desires.
- 1/26/2022 15:09 (3:09 p.m.) Social Service Progress Note. Note Text: Resident was giving the telephone number and contact at the Veteran's Administration- [Name of VA Center]. That information is [Phone number]. Writer did call as well and left a voicemail for [Name of intake specialist].
- 2/17/2022 09:52 (9:52 a.m.) Social Service Progress Note. Note Text: Resident was given information again to the Veterans Administration [Name of VA Center]. The reason is because he lost the original sheet of paper that was given to him prior to his recent hospitalization. Resident was encouraged to make to call and speak to the intake department for long term care admission as well as rehab. Resident continues want to try to walk again with the assistance of special equipment that most LTC (long term care) do not have but possibly the Veterans Administration have.
- 2/23/2022 13:50 (1:50 p.m.) Social Service Progress Note. Note Text: Writer asked resident if he got in touch with the Va. Administration - [Name of VA Center]. He stated that he has left messages with admissions but did not receive a call back. Writer encouraged him to ask the telephone operator to page the contact on the PA (public address) system instead.
- 3/18/2022 12:21 (12:21 p.m.) Social Service Progress Note. Note Text: Resident was asked by the SSD (social service director) if he was able to reach the intake coordinator of the [Name of VA Center]. He stated that he has not been successful in reaching anyone in that department and has left messages for a return call, in which he never received any. Writer called the intake department and had to leave a message as well.
- 4/7/2022 13:55 (1:55 p.m.) Social Service Progress Note. Writer spoke with resident today to see if he has follow through on his request to discharge from the facility into a Veterans Administration Center. He stated that he is working on it but the persons that he is contacting are not returning his calls.
- 4/11/2022 13:19 (1:19 p.m.) Note Text: Care plan/IDT (interdisciplinary team) team met to discuss residents plan of care, resident attended. [Name of R32] is alert and oriented x3 (person, place and time) and requires limited to extensive assist with ADL's . He is a full code, would like to transfer to a VA facility for therapy services . Discussed residents desire to transfer to another facility and the requirements and expectations of him regarding this transition, resident agreed and acknowledged understanding. Staff will continue with the current plan of care.
- 4/22/2022 11:10 (11:10 a.m.) Social Service Progress Note. Writer spoke with resident today to see if he has follow through on his request to discharge from the facility into a Veterans Administration Center. Writer has given some information of some facility that the resident can contact.
- 6/8/2022 13:36 (1:36 p.m.) Note Text: Care plan/IDT team met to discuss the residents plan of care, resident attended . Emergency contacts remain the same, he is a full code, d/c (discharge) plan is to transfer to another facility . Resident request for therapy eval (evaluation) d/t (due to) decline in functional status, referral submitted. Staff will continue with the current plan of care.
- 7/14/2022 14:40 (2:40 p.m.) Social Service Progress Note. Note Text: Social Service met resident to review everything in pertaining his transfer to a Veteran Health administration centers for some specific therapy machine to help him walk again. Resident reported that he does not want to go to a nursing home that does not have the therapy machine he is looking for. Writer has given resident some VA administration center which he can verify if they have that specific therapy machine he is looking for before the transfer process can start. Writer has given resident some facility and contacts to call and verify if they have the machine he is looking for.
- 7/14/2022 15:15 (3:15 p.m.) Social Service Progress Note. Note Text: Writer has given resident the below Veterans Health centers to call and verify if they have the therapy machine he is looking for to help him walk again before the transfer process. VETERANS HEALTH CENTERS FOR [Name of R32] [Name and phone numbers of five Veterans Centers].
On 7/20/2022 at 3:43 p.m., an interview was conducted with OSM (other staff member) #3, the director of social services. OSM #3 stated that R32 came from an assisted living facility to the building and had unrealistic expectations about their recovery. OSM #3 stated that R32 had requested to be discharged to a facility with specialized equipment that would help them to walk. OSM #3 stated that they did not have that type of equipment at the facility and they had recommended the VA systems for R32. OSM #3 stated that the facility policy was that a resident who wanted to leave would find placement themselves but they had been providing phone numbers to them to call. OSM #3 stated that R32 did not want to transfer to another long term care facility because they did not have the equipment they wanted and the plan currently was for them to remain long term care.
On 7/20/2022 at 4:05 p.m., an interview was conducted with OSM #13, the director of rehab, PTA (physical therapy assistant). OSM #13 stated that R32 received physical and occupational therapy when they were first admitted to the facility. OSM #13 stated that R32's main goal was to walk again which was not realistic and that had been communicated to them by the facility staff and the physician. OSM #13 stated that they had suggested to R32 that they go to a spinal cord specialist and they had discharged them when they were able to transfer using a sliding board with assistance from staff.
OSM #13 stated that initially they had attempted to use the standing frame equipment with R32 but they were unable to bear any weight. OSM #13 stated that they attempted the parallel bars with R32 but did not feel that it was safe with the level of paraplegia they had.
On 7/20/2022 at 4:22 p.m., an interview was conducted with OSM #12, social services assistant and OSM #3, the director of social services. OSM #3 stated that they had reached out to the veterans administration in January of 2022 but had not heard back from them regarding R32. OSM #3 stated that at times R32 would fabricate things. OSM #3 stated that when a client wanted to leave the facility they were the ones who were to help in finding the placement. OSM #3 stated that this month they had provided R32 with additional veterans administration facility phone numbers to call. OSM #3 stated that the facility was collecting money from R32 and why would they want to give it away.
On 7/21/2022 at 7:50 a.m., an interview was conducted with ASM (administrative staff member) #1, the executive director. ASM #1 stated that as long as the facility was aware of a resident's request for discharge the expectation was for the facility staff to plan for discharge. ASM #1 stated that they would not expect the resident to arrange their discharge themselves.
The facility job description Manager of Social Services documented in part, .Duties and Responsibilities .6. Provide/arrange for social work services as indicated by resident/family needs .12. Act as a liaison between the facility and the community .
The facility policy, Discharge Planning dated 11/30/2014, documented in part, Policy: To evaluate the resident's health status and formulate the best plan of discharge for each resident. Discharge planning begins the day of admission. The process involves the resident and family, Care Management/Social Services and other members of the clinical team .
The facility policy, Social Services dated 11/30/2014, documented in part, Policy: Medically-related social services will be provided to attain or maintain the highest practical physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident .Social Service personnel will identify the medically related social and emotional needs of residents and their families and provide for those needs by: .g. Identifying and seeking ways to support a resident's individual needs and preferences .k. Finding options that meet the physical and emotional needs of each resident .
On 7/21/2022 at approximately 9:45 a.m., ASM (administrative staff member) #1, the executive director, ASM #2, the director of nursing and ASM #3, the regional director of clinical services were made aware of the concern.
No further information was presented prior to exit.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0804
(Tag F0804)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, resident interview, staff interview, facility document review, and clinical record review, it was determined that the facility staff failed to serve food at palatable taste and t...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, resident interview, staff interview, facility document review, and clinical record review, it was determined that the facility staff failed to serve food at palatable taste and temperature for 3 of 33 residents in the survey sample, Residents #49 (R49), #28 (R28), #41 (R41).
The facility staff failed to serve food at a palatable taste and temperature at lunch on 7/19/22.
The findings include:
1. On the most recent MDS (minimum data set), a quarterly assessment with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 6/10/22, R49 was coded as being cognitively intact for making daily decisions, having scored 14 out of 15 on the BIMS (brief interview for mental status). On 7/19/22 at 1:01 p.m., an interview was conducted with R49. The resident stated the facility food was lousy, cold, and not good.
2. On the most recent MDS, an annual assessment with an ARD of 5/12/22, R28 was coded as being cognitively intact for making daily decisions, having scored 13 of 15 on the BIMS. On 7/19/22 at 11:45 a.m., R28 stated the food was not good, both in taste and temperature.
3. On the most recent MDS, a quarterly assessment with an ARD of 5/30/2022, R41 was coded as cognitively intact for making daily decisions, having scored 15 out of 15 on the BIMS. On 7/20/2022 at 8:45 a.m. an interview was conducted with R41. R41 stated that the food served was normally cold when they received it, and it did not taste very good.
On 7/19/22 at 1:25 p.m., OSM (other staff member) #1, the dietary manager, took the holding temperature of the baked pasta. The temperature was 173 (degrees Fahrenheit). OSM #1 failed to obtain the holding temperatures for any other food on the tray service line.
On 7/19/22 at 2:19 p.m., a test tray was requested. The tray was made and left the unit on the cart at 2:22 p.m. The food on the tray was tested for taste and temperature at 2:30 p.m., after the final tray had been served to residents. The temperatures of the food were as follows (all Fahrenheit): pureed vegetables 116, pureed bread 117, mashed potatoes 121, pureed baked pasta 118, baked ziti 150, and broccoli 115. The pureed bread had a paste-like texture, and did not taste like bread. With the exception of the regular baked pasta, all the food lacked the warmth to be palatable. OSM #2, the dietary manager from a sister facility, who had taken the food temperatures and tasted the food on the tray, stated: I think it's warm. But it's not a hot lunch. And that does not taste like bread. She explained that this quality of food is not the facility's norm. She explained that the facility has had significant staff turnover, is short staffed, and that OSM #1 does not have a great deal of experience.
On 7/20/22 at 5:17 p.m., ASM (administrative staff member) #1, the executive director, ASM #2, the director of nursing, and ASM #3, the regional director of clinical services, were informed of these concerns.
A review of the facility policy, Food Temperatures, revealed, in part: Food temperatures are monitored at critical control points to ensure safety and acceptability.
No further information was provided prior to exit.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Resident Rights
(Tag F0550)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, staff interview, and facility document review, it was determined that the facility staff failed to preserve resident dignity when serving meals in one of one facility kitchen. Th...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, staff interview, and facility document review, it was determined that the facility staff failed to preserve resident dignity when serving meals in one of one facility kitchen. The facility staff served the 7/19/22 lunch meal on disposable Styrofoam containers for all residents, and gave disposable eating utensils to the final seven residents served from the tray line.
The findings include:
On 7/19/22 at 1:29 p.m., OSM (other staff member) #1, the dietary manager, was observed as he served all resident lunches from the tray line in the facility's only kitchen. OSM #1 served each and every meal on a disposable Styrofoam container. The food was placed on one side of the container, and the other side of the container was folded over to create a cover. Two stacks of facility dishware were observed in a dish cart adjacent to the tray line. Additionally, the last seven Styrofoam containers served were paired with disposable plastic eating utensils. OSM #1 stated: I don't know where the [stainless steel] forks are going. We just don't have enough for everybody.
On 7/19/22 at 1:46 p.m., OSM #2, the dietary manager at a sister facility, who had also observed the lunch tray line service, was interviewed. She stated OSM #1 was serving on Styrofoam because they are short staffed. She stated if the facility staff did not serve on disposable dishware, there is no way they would ever be able to turn the dishware around on time to get the dinner meal out at a decent time. She stated there was not enough staff at the facility to wash the dishware. When asked if serving the residents on disposable dishware for staff convenience promoted a sense of resident dignity, she said it did not.
On 7/20/22 at 5:17 p.m., ASM (administrative staff member) #1, the executive director, ASM #2, the director of nursing, and ASM #3, the regional director of clinical services, were informed of these concerns.
A review of the facility policy, Resident Rights, revealed, in part: A resident shall be treated with dignity and respect.
No further information was provided prior to exit.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0583
(Tag F0583)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interview, facility document review and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to maintai...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interview, facility document review and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to maintain confidentiality of residents' medical records for 4 of 33 residents in the survey sample, Residents #7, #88, #25 and #96.
The findings include:
1. The facility staff failed to maintain confidentiality of Resident #7's (R7) durable DNR (do not resuscitate) order. The order was posted on the wall in R7's room.
On the most recent MDS (minimum data set), a quarterly assessment with an ARD (assessment reference date) of [DATE], the resident's cognitive skills for daily decision making was coded as severely impaired.
On [DATE] at 2:46 p.m., an observation of R7's room was conducted. The resident's durable DNR order was posted on the wall behind the resident's bed. The order documented R7's name, the date the form was signed and the following: I, the undersigned, state that I have a [NAME] fide physician/patient relationship with the patient named above. I have certified in the patient's medical record that he/she or a person authorized to consent on the patient's behalf has directed that life-prolonging procedures be withheld or withdrawn in the event of cardiac or respiratory arrest .I hereby direct any and all qualified health care personnel, commencing on the effective date noted above, to withhold cardiopulmonary resuscitation (cardiac compression, endotracheal intubation and other advanced airway management, artificial ventilation, defibrillation, and related procedures) from the patient in the event of the patient's cardiac or respiratory arrest. I further direct such personnel to provide the patient other medical interventions, such as intravenous fluids, oxygen, or other therapies deemed necessary to provide comfort care or alleviate pain .
On [DATE] at 3:24 p.m., an interview was conducted with LPN (licensed practical nurse) #4. LPN #4 stated the purpose of a DNR order is to alert nurses to not initiate CPR (cardiopulmonary resuscitation) on a resident if there is an emergency where CPR is needed. LPN #4 stated a DNR order contains confidential information and she usually gets the DNR from the chart. LPN #4 stated she didn't know who made the decision to place residents' DNR orders on the wall in residents' rooms but she would find out. On [DATE] at 4:01 p.m., another interview was conducted with LPN #4. LPN #4 stated that during the time of COVID, some residents were rapidly declining so the former executive director made the decision to post DNR orders on the wall in residents' rooms so nurses would know when to withhold CPR. LPN #4 stated a confidential document should not be posted on the wall in residents' rooms.
On [DATE] at 5:37 p.m., ASM (administrative staff member) #1 (the executive director) and ASM #2 (the director of nursing) were made aware of the above concern.
The facility policy titled, Clinical/Medical Records documented, Information contained in the resident's clinical record, regardless of the form or storage method, is considered confidential. The Center has the property right to the clinical record, but the resident has the protected right of information.
No further information was presented prior to exit.
2. The facility staff failed to maintain confidentiality of Resident #88's (R88) durable DNR (do not resuscitate) order. The order was posted on the wall in R88's room.
On the most recent MDS (minimum data set), a quarterly assessment with an ARD (assessment reference date) of [DATE], the resident scored 12 out of 15 on the BIMS (brief interview for mental status), indicating the resident was moderately cognitively impaired for making daily decisions.
On [DATE] at 2:44 p.m., an observation of R88's room was conducted. The resident's durable DNR order was posted on the wall behind the resident's bed. The order documented R88's name, the date the form was signed and the following: I, the undersigned, state that I have a [NAME] fide physician/patient relationship with the patient named above. I have certified in the patient's medical record that he/she or a person authorized to consent on the patient's behalf has directed that life-prolonging procedures be withheld or withdrawn in the event of cardiac or respiratory arrest .I hereby direct any and all qualified health care personnel, commencing on the effective date noted above, to withhold cardiopulmonary resuscitation (cardiac compression, endotracheal intubation and other advanced airway management, artificial ventilation, defibrillation, and related procedures) from the patient in the event of the patient's cardiac or respiratory arrest. I further direct such personnel to provide the patient other medical interventions, such as intravenous fluids, oxygen, or other therapies deemed necessary to provide comfort care or alleviate pain .
On [DATE] at 3:24 p.m., an interview was conducted with LPN (licensed practical nurse) #4. LPN #4 stated the purpose of a DNR order is to alert nurses to not initiate CPR (cardiopulmonary resuscitation) on a resident if there is an emergency where CPR is needed. LPN #4 stated a DNR order contains confidential information and she usually gets the DNR from the chart. LPN #4 stated she didn't know who made the decision to place residents' DNR orders on the wall in residents' rooms but she would find out. On [DATE] at 4:01 p.m., another interview was conducted with LPN #4. LPN #4 stated that during the time of COVID, some residents were rapidly declining so the former executive director made the decision to post DNR orders on the wall in residents' rooms so nurses would know when to withhold CPR. LPN #4 stated a confidential document should not be posted on the wall in residents' rooms.
On [DATE] at 5:37 p.m., ASM (administrative staff member) #1 (the executive director) and ASM #2 (the director of nursing) were made aware of the above concern.
No further information was presented prior to exit.
3. The facility staff failed to maintain confidentiality of medical information for Resident #25 (R25). The facility had posted on the wall behind the resident's bed, a DDNR (durable do not resuscitate) form.
On the most recent MDS (minimum data set) assessment, a quarterly assessment, with an assessment reference date of [DATE], the resident scored a 10 out of 15 on the BIMS (brief interview for mental status) score, indicating the resident was moderately cognitively impaired for making daily decisions.
Observation was made of R25's room on [DATE] at approximately 12:50 p.m. A DDNR form was posted above the bed in a plastic sleeve.
A second observation was made on [DATE] 9:15 a.m. the DDNR form was still posted above the resident's bed. The order documented R25's name, the date the form was signed and the following: I, the undersigned, state that I have a [NAME] fide physician/patient relationship with the patient named above. I have certified in the patient's medical record that he/she or a person authorized to consent on the patient's behalf has directed that life-prolonging procedures be withheld or withdrawn in the event of cardiac or respiratory arrest .I hereby direct any and all qualified health care personnel, commencing on the effective date noted above, to withhold cardiopulmonary resuscitation (cardiac compression, endotracheal intubation and other advanced airway management, artificial ventilation, defibrillation, and related procedures) from the patient in the event of the patient's cardiac or respiratory arrest. I further direct such personnel to provide the patient other medical interventions, such as intravenous fluids, oxygen, or other therapies deemed necessary to provide comfort care or alleviate pain .
The comprehensive care plan dated [DATE] documented in part, Focus: (R25) wishes to be DNR (do not resuscitate).
The physician order dated [DATE], documented, Do NOT resuscitate.
On [DATE] at 3:24 p.m., an interview was conducted with LPN (licensed practical nurse) #4. LPN #4 stated the purpose of a DNR order is to alert nurses to not initiate CPR (cardiopulmonary resuscitation) on a resident if there is an emergency where CPR is needed. LPN #4 stated a DNR order contains confidential information and she usually gets the DNR from the chart. LPN #4 stated she didn't know who made the decision to place residents' DNR orders on the wall in residents' rooms but she would find out. On [DATE] at 4:01 p.m., another interview was conducted with LPN #4. LPN #4 stated that during the time of COVID, some residents were rapidly declining so the former executive director made the decision to post DNR orders on the wall in residents' rooms so nurses would know when to withhold CPR. LPN #4 stated a confidential document should not be posted on the wall in residents' rooms.
ASM (administrative staff member) #1, the executive director, ASM #2, the director of nursing, and ASM #3 the director of clinical services were made aware of the above concern on [DATE] at 5:23 p.m.
No further information was provided prior to exit.
4. The facility staff failed to maintain confidentiality of medical information for Resident #96 (R96). The facility had posted on the wall behind the resident's bed, a DDNR (durable do not resuscitate) form.
On the most recent MDS (minimum data set) assessment, a quarterly assessment, with an assessment reference date of [DATE], the resident scored a 12 out of 15 on the BIMS (brief interview for mental status) score, indicating the resident was moderately cognitively impaired for making daily decisions.
Observation was made of R96's room on [DATE] at approximately 12:45 p.m. A DDNR form was posted above the bed in a plastic sleeve.
A second observation was made on [DATE] 10:18 a.m. The DDNR form was still posted above the resident's bed. The order documented R96's name, the date the form was signed and the following: I, the undersigned, state that I have a [NAME] fide physician/patient relationship with the patient named above. I have certified in the patient's medical record that he/she or a person authorized to consent on the patient's behalf has directed that life-prolonging procedures be withheld or withdrawn in the event of cardiac or respiratory arrest .I hereby direct any and all qualified health care personnel, commencing on the effective date noted above, to withhold cardiopulmonary resuscitation (cardiac compression, endotracheal intubation and other advanced airway management, artificial ventilation, defibrillation, and related procedures) from the patient in the event of the patient's cardiac or respiratory arrest. I further direct such personnel to provide the patient other medical interventions, such as intravenous fluids, oxygen, or other therapies deemed necessary to provide comfort care or alleviate pain .
The physician order dated [DATE], documented, Do NOT resuscitate.
The comprehensive care plan dated, [DATE], does not address the resident's status for resuscitation.
On [DATE] at 3:24 p.m., an interview was conducted with LPN (licensed practical nurse) #4. LPN #4 stated the purpose of a DNR order is to alert nurses to not initiate CPR (cardiopulmonary resuscitation) on a resident if there is an emergency where CPR is needed. LPN #4 stated a DNR order contains confidential information and she usually gets the DNR from the chart. LPN #4 stated she didn't know who made the decision to place residents' DNR orders on the wall in residents' rooms but she would find out. On [DATE] at 4:01 p.m., another interview was conducted with LPN #4. LPN #4 stated that during the time of COVID, some residents were rapidly declining so the former executive director made the decision to post DNR orders on the wall in residents' rooms so nurses would know when to withhold CPR. LPN #4 stated a confidential document should not be posted on the wall in residents' rooms.
ASM (administrative staff member) #1, the executive director, ASM #2, the director of nursing, and ASM #3 the director of clinical services were made aware of the above concern on [DATE] at 5:23 p.m.
No further information was provided prior to exit.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Transfer Requirements
(Tag F0622)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interview, clinical record review, facility document review and in the course of a complaint investigation, it wa...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interview, clinical record review, facility document review and in the course of a complaint investigation, it was determined the facility staff failed to provide evidence that all required information was provided to the hospital staff when 4 out of 33 residents in the survey sample were transferred to the hospital; Residents #37, #40, #350 and #1.
The findings include:
1. The facility staff failed to evidence provision of required resident information to a receiving facility at the time of discharge for Resident #37. Resident #37 was transferred to the hospital on 6/27/22.
Resident #37 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis that included but were not limited to: end stage renal disease, diabetes mellitus, heart failure and encephalopathy.
The most recent MDS (minimum data set) assessment, a quarterly assessment, with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 5/21/22, coded the resident as scoring a 14 out of 15 on the BIMS (brief interview for mental status) score, indicating the resident was cognitively intact. A review of the MDS Section G-functional status coded the resident as requiring extensive assistance for bed mobility, transfer, dressing, hygiene and bathing; supervision for locomotion and independence for eating. Section O-special procedures/treatments coded the resident as dialysis no.
A review of the comprehensive care plan dated 2/26/22, which revealed, FOCUS: The resident is on Hemodialysis via Left arterial-venous Fistula related to End Stage Renal Disease. Transferred to hospital for clogged AV shunt 6/27/22. INTERVENTIONS: Communicate with dialysis facility as needed. Dialysis 3 times/week: Tuesday, Thursday & Saturday.
Further review of the clinical record failed to evidence any documentation of any documents; medication list, resident information and care plan goals, having been sent to the hospital upon transfer.
A review of the facilities Acute Care Transfer Document Checklist (INTERACT version 4.0 tool), Copies of Documents sent with Resident/Patient (check all that apply): dated 2014 transfer form are enclosed 3.face sheet 4.current medication list or current MAR (medication administration record) 5.SBAR (Situation, Background, Assessment, and Recommendation) and/or other change in condition progress includes the following:
Documents recommended to accompany resident/patient: 1.Resident/Patient transfer form 2.Personal belongings identified on resident/patient note if completed 6.Advance Directives 7.Advance Care Orders.
Send these documents if available: 1.most recent history and physical 2.recent hospital discharge summary 3.recent MD/NP/PA (physician/nurse practitioner/physician assistant) and Specialist orders 4.Flow sheets 5.relevant lab results 6.relevant x-rays and other diagnostic test results 7.SNF/NF (skilled nursing facility/nursing facility) capabilities checklist. EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT: Please ensure that these documents are forwarded to the hospital unit if this resident/patient is admitted .
This checklist was on the front of an envelope which is to contain the forms and includes a tear off front page which reveals, Tear off front page to keep with the resident's medical record.
An interview was conducted on 7/20/22 at 9:30 AM with LPN (licensed practical nurse) #3. When asked what information is provided to the hospital upon transfer of a resident, LPN #3 stated, I'll get you a sample of what we send with the resident to the acute care facility. It is a transfer document checklist and we tear off the top copy, it should go to medical records.
An interview was conducted on 7/20/22 at 2:12 PM, with OSM (other staff member) #6, the medical records coordinator. When asked if she has copies of the transfer document checklist, and shown the transfer document checklist, OSM #6 stated, No we do not get a copy of that for the medical records. I do not know what they do with it. I bet they send all of it to the hospital with the resident.
On 7/20/22 at approximately 5:30 PM, ASM (administrative staff member) #1, the administrator, ASM #2, the director of nursing and ASM #3, the regional director of clinical services were made aware of the findings. ASM #1 asked what top form and was shown the transfer document checklist envelop with the tear off front page.
A review of the facilities Transfer/Discharge Notification and Right to Appeal policy dated 9/2017, revealed the following: Contents of the Notice: The written notice must include the following:
The reason for transfer or discharge; The effective date of transfer or discharge; The location to which the resident is transferred or discharged ; A statement of the resident's appeal rights including the name, address (mailing and email), and telephone number of the entity which receives such request; and information on how to obtain an appeal form and assistance in completing the form and submitting the appeal hearing request; The name, address (mailing and email) and telephone number of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman. Orientation for Transfer or discharge: The Center must provide and document sufficient preparation and orientation, in a form and manner that the resident understands, to ensure safe and orderly transfer or discharge.
No further information was provided prior to exit.
2. The facility staff failed to evidence provision of required resident information to a receiving facility at the time of discharge for Resident #40. Resident #40 was transferred to the hospital on 3/22/22, 4/1/22, 4/12/22 and 4/26/22.
Resident #40 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis that included but were not limited to: hemiplegia, hemiparesis, diabetes mellitus and cerebrovascular disease.
The most recent MDS (minimum data set) assessment, a quarterly assessment, with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 5/28/22, coded the resident as scoring a 14 out of 15 on the BIMS (brief interview for mental status) score, indicating the resident was cognitively intact. A review of the MDS Section G-functional status coded the resident as requiring extensive assistance for bed mobility, transfer, dressing and hygiene; supervision for eating and total dependence for bathing.
Further review of the clinical record failed to evidence any documentation of any documents; medication list, resident information and care plan goals, having been sent to the hospital upon transfer.
A review of the comprehensive care plan dated 2/19/22, which revealed, FOCUS: The resident has (chronic) pain related to Depression, Diabetes, and back pain. ER evaluation related to pain per resident's request 3/22/22. ER evaluation related to pain per residents request 4/1/2022. 4/12 sent to ER for unrelieved pain per resident. 4/15 medication adjustment related to unrelieved pain. 4/26/22 Sent to ER for chest pain. INTERVENTIONS: Evaluate the effectiveness of pain interventions (q shift) Review for compliance, alleviating of symptoms, dosing schedules and resident satisfaction with results, impact on functional ability and impact on cognition.
A review of the facilities Acute Care Transfer Document Checklist (INTERACT version 4.0 tool), Copies of Documents sent with Resident/Patient (check all that apply): dated 2014 transfer form are enclosed 3.face sheet 4.current medication list or current MAR (medication administration record) 5.SBAR (Situation, Background, Assessment, and Recommendation) and/or other change in condition progress includes the following:
Documents recommended to accompany resident/patient: 1.Resident/Patient transfer form 2.Personal belongings identified on resident/patient note if completed 6.Advance Directives 7.Advance Care Orders.
Send these documents if available: 1.most recent history and physical 2.recent hospital discharge summary 3.recent MD/NP/PA (physician/nurse practitioner/physician assistant) and Specialist orders 4.Flow sheets 5.relevant lab results 6.relevant x-rays and other diagnostic test results 7.SNF/NF (skilled nursing facility/nursing facility) capabilities checklist. EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT: Please ensure that these documents are forwarded to the hospital unit if this resident/patient is admitted .
This checklist was on the front of an envelope which is to contain the forms and includes a tear off front page which reveals, Tear off front page to keep with the resident's medical record.
An interview was conducted on 7/20/22 at 9:30 AM with LPN (licensed practical nurse) #3. When asked what information is provided to the hospital upon transfer of a resident, LPN #3 stated, I'll get you a sample of what we send with the resident to the acute care facility. It is a transfer document checklist and we tear off the top copy, it should go to medical records.
An interview was conducted on 7/20/22 at 2:12 PM, with OSM (other staff member) #6, the medical records coordinator. When asked if she has copies of the transfer document checklist, and shown the transfer document checklist, OSM #6 stated, No we do not get a copy of that for the medical records. I do not know what they do with it. I bet they send all of it to the hospital with the resident.
On 7/20/22 at approximately 5:30 PM, ASM (administrative staff member) #1, the administrator, ASM #2, the director of nursing and ASM #3, the regional director of clinical services were made aware of the findings. ASM #1 asked what top form and shown the transfer document checklist envelop with the tear off front page.
A review of the facilities Transfer/Discharge Notification and Right to Appeal policy dated 9/2017, revealed the following: Contents of the Notice: The written notice must include the following:
The reason for transfer or discharge; The effective date of transfer or discharge; The location to which the resident is transferred or discharged ; A statement of the resident's appeal rights including the name, address (mailing and email), and telephone number of the entity which receives such request; and information on how to obtain an appeal form and assistance in completing the form and submitting the appeal hearing request; The name, address (mailing and email) and telephone number of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman. Orientation for Transfer or discharge: The Center must provide and document sufficient preparation and orientation, in a form and manner that the resident understands, to ensure safe and orderly transfer or discharge.
No further information was provided prior to exit.
3. The facility staff failed to evidence provision of required resident information to a receiving facility at the time of discharge for Resident #350. Resident #350 was transferred to the hospital on 1/11/22.
Resident #350 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis that included but were not limited to: atrial fibrillation, hypertension and coronary artery disease.
The most recent MDS (minimum data set) assessment, a 5 day Medicare assessment, with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 12/6/21, coded the resident as scoring a 10 out of 15 on the BIMS (brief interview for mental status) score, indicating the resident was moderately cognitively impaired. A review of the MDS Section G-functional status coded the resident as requiring extensive assistance for bed mobility, transfer, dressing and hygiene; supervision for eating and total dependence for bathing.
Further review of the clinical record failed to evidence any documentation of any documents; medication list, resident information and care plan goals, having been sent to the hospital upon transfer.
A review of the comprehensive care plan dated 12/18/21, which revealed, FOCUS: The resident has an ADL (activities daily living) self-care performance deficit related to limited mobility and stroke. INTERVENTIONS: Provide assist with all ADLs. A second focus dated 12/30/21, which revealed FOCUS: The resident does not cooperate with care related to adjustment to nursing home, personal choice: refuses medication and refuses to allow staff to change soiled dressing and brief, refusing shower, refused medication prior to wound care and refuses to be turned and repositioned by staff. INTERVENTIONS: Allow the resident to make decisions about treatment regime to provide a sense of control. If possible, negotiate a time for ADLs so that the resident participates in the decision making process.
A review of the facilities Acute Care Transfer Document Checklist (INTERACT version 4.0 tool), Copies of Documents sent with Resident/Patient (check all that apply): dated 2014 transfer form are enclosed 3.face sheet 4.current medication list or current MAR (medication administration record) 5.SBAR (Situation, Background, Assessment, and Recommendation) and/or other change in condition progress includes the following:
Documents recommended to accompany resident/patient: 1.Resident/Patient transfer form 2.Personal belongings identified on resident/patient note if completed 6.Advance Directives 7.Advance Care Orders.
Send these documents if available: 1.most recent history and physical 2.recent hospital discharge summary 3.recent MD/NP/PA (physician/nurse practitioner/physician assistant) and Specialist orders 4.Flow sheets 5.relevant lab results 6.relevant x-rays and other diagnostic test results 7.SNF/NF (skilled nursing facility/nursing facility) capabilities checklist. EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT: Please ensure that these documents are forwarded to the hospital unit if this resident/patient is admitted .
This checklist was on the front of an envelope which is to contain the forms and includes a tear off front page which reveals, Tear off front page to keep with the resident's medical record.
An interview was conducted on 7/20/22 at 9:30 AM with LPN (licensed practical nurse) #3. When asked what information is provided to the hospital upon transfer of a resident, LPN #3 stated, I'll get you a sample of what we send with the resident to the acute care facility. It is a transfer document checklist and we tear off the top copy, it should go to medical records.
An interview was conducted on 7/20/22 at 2:12 PM, with OSM (other staff member) #6, the medical records coordinator. When asked if she has copies of the transfer document checklist, and shown the transfer document checklist, OSM #6 stated, No we do not get a copy of that for the medical records. I do not know what they do with it. I bet they send all of it to the hospital with the resident.
On 7/20/22 at approximately 5:30 PM, ASM (administrative staff member) #1, the administrator, ASM #2, the director of nursing and ASM #3, the regional director of clinical services were made aware of the findings. ASM #1 asked what top form and shown the transfer document checklist envelop with the tear off front page.
A review of the facilities Transfer/Discharge Notification and Right to Appeal policy dated 9/2017, revealed the following: Contents of the Notice: The written notice must include the following:
The reason for transfer or discharge; The effective date of transfer or discharge; The location to which the resident is transferred or discharged ; A statement of the resident's appeal rights including the name, address (mailing and email), and telephone number of the entity which receives such request; and information on how to obtain an appeal form and assistance in completing the form and submitting the appeal hearing request; The name, address (mailing and email) and telephone number of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman. Orientation for Transfer or discharge: The Center must provide and document sufficient preparation and orientation, in a form and manner that the resident understands, to ensure safe and orderly transfer or discharge.
No further information was provided prior to exit.4. The facility staff failed to provide the required documents to the receiving facility for a transfer to the hospital on 5/4/2022 for Resident #1 (R1).
On the most recent MDS (minimum data set) assessment, an annual assessment, with an assessment reference date of 7/7/2022, the resident was coded as having both short and long term memory difficulties.
The Change In Condition form dated 5/4/2022 at 12:35 p.m. documented in part, On arrival at the facility, report received from the outgoing nurse, rounds done, treatment nurse went to Resident room to do (their) treatment and observed resident twitching and jerging (sic) she alerted writer, writer rush to the room vs done 132/94 (blood pressure),90 (heart rate),98.0 (temperature) o2 (oxygen) sat (saturation) 88- 90. MD (medical doctor) notified. The form further documented, new order in place to transfer resident to hospital ER (emergency room) via 911 (emergency ambulance service). At 0720 (7:20 a.m.) 911 call, at 0730 (7:30 a.m.) 911 arrived at the facility, at 0745, 911 left the facility with the resident via stretcher. Report given to KD (initials of) the ER nurse, RP (responsible party) made aware resident sister in law and brother.
Further review of the clinical record failed to evidence any documentation of any documents; medication list, resident information and care plan goals, having been sent to the hospital upon transfer.
A request was made on 7/20/2022 at approximately 12:30 p.m. for the documents. As of 7/21/2022 at 10:00 a.m. the facility did not provide any further documentation of the documents sent to the hospital with the resident.
An interview was conducted with LPN (licensed practical nurse) #5 on 7/21/2022 at 7:40 a.m. When asked what documents the nurses send to the hospital when a resident is transferred, LPN #5 stated they send the face sheet, care plan, SBAR (change in condition form), an infection control sheet that includes immunization status, medication list and bed hold notice. When asked where that is documented, LPN #5 stated in the clinical record and on the envelope with the resident's information in it. When asked if she tore off the first copy of the multiple copies on the envelope to keep at the facility, LPN #5 stated she did not remember tearing anything off.
ASM (administrative staff member) #1, the executive director, ASM #2, the director of nursing, and ASM #3 the director of clinical services were made aware of the above concern on 7/21/2022 at 10:00 a.m.
No further information was provided prior to exit.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Transfer Notice
(Tag F0623)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interview, clinical record review and facility document review, it was determined the facility staff failed to pr...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interview, clinical record review and facility document review, it was determined the facility staff failed to provide evidence of written RP (responsible party) and/or ombudsman notification was provided for 4 of 33 residents, Residents #37, #40, #29 and #1.
The findings include:
1. The facility staff failed to evidence provision of written RP notification was provided for Resident #37. Resident #37 was transferred to the hospital on 6/27/22.
Resident #37 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis that included but were not limited to: end stage renal disease, diabetes mellitus, heart failure and encephalopathy.
The most recent MDS (minimum data set) assessment, a quarterly assessment, with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 5/21/22, coded the resident as scoring a 14 out of 15 on the BIMS (brief interview for mental status) score, indicating the resident was cognitively intact. A review of the MDS Section G-functional status coded the resident as requiring extensive assistance for bed mobility, transfer, dressing, hygiene and bathing; supervision for locomotion and independence for eating. Section O-special procedures/treatments coded the resident as dialysis no.
A review of the comprehensive care plan dated 2/26/22, which revealed, FOCUS: The resident is on Hemodialysis via Left arterial-venous Fistula related to End Stage Renal Disease. Transferred to hospital for clogged AV shunt 6/27/22. INTERVENTIONS: Communicate with dialysis facility as needed. Dialysis 3 times/week: Tuesday, Thursday & Saturday.
An interview was conducted on 7/20/22 at 7:45 AM with LPN (licensed practical nurse) #3. When asked what evidence of RP or ombudsman notification is provided upon transfer of a resident to the hospital, LPN #3 stated, we call the family, the doctor and do not know that we send anything to them. We do not do anything with the ombudsman.
An interview was conducted on 7/20/22 at 2:33 PM with OSM (other staff member) #3, the director of social services. When asked what evidence of RP or ombudsman notification is provided upon transfer of a resident to the hospital, OSM #3 stated, the ombudsman notification is by your chair for your residents.
An interview was conducted on 7/21/22 at 7:41 AM, with LPN #5. When asked what evidence of RP or ombudsman notification is provided upon transfer of a resident to the hospital, LPN #3 stated, we call the family, we do not give them anything in writing. We do not do anything with the ombudsman.
On 7/20/22 at approximately 5:30 PM, ASM (administrative staff member) #1, the administrator, ASM #2, the director of nursing and ASM #3, the regional director of clinical services were made aware of the findings.
A review of the facility's policy Family Notification dated 11/2014, revealed the following, All significant family contact will be documented. This should include discussion of transfer, discharges, problem with care or roommate, significant changes in family support systems, etc.
No further information was provided prior to exit.
2. The facility staff failed to evidence provision of written RP notification was provided for Resident #40. Resident #40 was transferred to the hospital on 3/22/22, 4/1/22, 4/12/22 and 4/26/22.
Resident #40 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis that included but were not limited to: hemiplegia, hemiparesis, diabetes mellitus and cerebrovascular disease.
The most recent MDS (minimum data set) assessment, a quarterly assessment, with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 5/28/22, coded the resident as scoring a 14 out of 15 on the BIMS (brief interview for mental status) score, indicating the resident was cognitively intact. A review of the MDS Section G-functional status coded the resident as requiring extensive assistance for bed mobility, transfer, dressing and hygiene; supervision for eating and total dependence for bathing.
A review of the comprehensive care plan dated 2/19/22, which revealed, FOCUS: The resident has (chronic) pain related to Depression, Diabetes, and back pain. ER evaluation related to pain per resident's request 3/22/22. ER evaluation related to pain per residents request 4/1/2022. 4/12 sent to ER for unrelieved pain per resident. 4/15 medication adjustment related to unrelieved pain. 4/26/22 Sent to ER for chest pain. INTERVENTIONS: Evaluate the effectiveness of pain interventions (q shift) Review for compliance, alleviating of symptoms, dosing schedules and resident satisfaction with results, impact on functional ability and impact on cognition.
An interview was conducted on 7/20/22 at 7:45 AM with LPN (licensed practical nurse) #3. When asked what evidence of RP or ombudsman notification is provided upon transfer of a resident to the hospital, LPN #3 stated, we call the family, the doctor and do not know that we send anything to them. We do not do anything with the ombudsman.
An interview was conducted on 7/20/22 at 2:33 PM with OSM (other staff member) #3, the director of social services. When asked what evidence of RP or ombudsman notification is provided upon transfer of a resident to the hospital, OSM #3 stated, the ombudsman notification is by your chair for your residents.
An interview was conducted on 7/21/22 at 7:41 AM, with LPN #5. When asked what evidence of RP or ombudsman notification is provided upon transfer of a resident to the hospital, LPN #3 stated, we call the family, we do not give them anything in writing. We do not do anything with the ombudsman.
On 7/20/22 at approximately 5:30 PM, ASM (administrative staff member) #1, the administrator, ASM #2, the director of nursing and ASM #3, the regional director of clinical services were made aware of the findings.
A review of the facility's policy Family Notification dated 11/2014, revealed the following, All significant family contact will be documented. This should include discussion of transfer, discharges, problem with care or roommate, significant changes in family support systems, etc.
No further information was provided prior to exit.
3. The facility staff failed to provide the resident and/or responsible party with a written notification for the reason for transfer to the hospital on 5/4/2022 for Resident #1 (R1).
On the most recent MDS (minimum data set) assessment, an annual assessment, with an assessment reference date of 7/7/2022, the resident was coded as having both short and long term memory difficulties.
The Change In Condition form dated 5/4/2022 at 12:35 p.m. documented in part, On arrival at the facility, report received from the outgoing nurse, rounds done, treatment nurse went to Resident room to do (their) treatment and observed resident twitching and jerging (sic) she alerted writer, writer rush to the room vs done 132/94 (blood pressure),90 (heart rate),98.0 (temperature) o2 (oxygen) sat (saturation) 88- 90. MD (medical doctor) notified. The form further documented, new order in place to transfer resident to hospital ER (emergency room) via 911 (emergency ambulance service). At 0720 (7:20 a.m.) 911 call, at 0730 (7:30 a.m.) 911 arrived at the facility, at 0745, 911 left the facility with the resident via stretcher. Report given to KD (initials of) the ER nurse, RP (responsible party) made aware resident sister in law and brother.
Further review of the clinical record failed to evidence any documentation of a written notification to the resident and/or responsible party for the reason for the transfer to the hospital.
A request was made on 7/20/2022 at approximately 12:30 p.m. for the documentation of a written notification.
On 7/21/22 8:34 a.m., OSM (other staff member) # 3, the social worker. OSM # 3 presented a form, Virginia Involuntary Transfer/Discharge Notice. with R1's name. The form documented the resident's name, date of transfer and an X was documented next to: The facility can no longer meet the resident's medical needs. OSM # 3 stated, they don't give the Transfer/Discharge form to the resident and/or RP (responsible party), they use this form to notify the ombudsman.
ASM (administrative staff member) #1, the executive director, ASM #2, the director of nursing, and ASM #3 the director of clinical services were made aware of the above concern on 7/21/2022 at 10:00 a.m.
No further information was provided prior to exit.
4. The facility staff failed to provide the resident and/or responsible party with a written notification for the reason for the transfer to the hospital on 7/18/2022 for Resident #29 (R29).
On the most recent MDS (minimum data set) assessment, a quarterly assessment, with an assessment reference date of 7/15/2022, the resident scored a 12 out of 15 on the BIMS (brief interview for mental status) score, indicating the resident is moderately cognitively impaired for making daily decisions.
The nurse's note dated 7/18/2022 at 2:31 p.m. documented, Patient c/o (complained of) chest pain around 11:40am. MD (medical doctor) was notified. Order received to send Patient to ER for further evaluation via 911. 911 was called and came in around 11:48am. Medication list, care plan, transfer form, face sheet, recent labs advance directive and bed hold policy for were given to paramedics. Report was called in to (name of Charge Nurse). Emergency contact (name of emergency contact) is oriented to the transfer.
Further review of the clinical record failed to evidence any documentation of a written notification to the resident and/or responsible party for the reason for the transfer to the hospital.
A request was made on 7/20/2022 at approximately 12:30 p.m. for the documentation of the written notification.
On 7/21/22 8:34 a.m., OSM (other staff member) # 3, the social worker. OSM # 3 presented a form, Virginia Involuntary Transfer/Discharge Notice. with R29's name. The form documented the resident's name, date of transfer and an X was documented next to: The facility can no longer meet the resident's medical needs. OSM # 3 stated, they don't give the Transfer/Discharge form to the resident and/or RP (responsible party), they use this form to notify the ombudsman. OSM #3 stated, R29 was their own RP so we wouldn't call anyone. This form would not be given to resident.
ASM (administrative staff member) #1, the executive director, ASM #2, the director of nursing, and ASM #3 the director of clinical services were made aware of the above concern on 7/21/2022 at 10:00 a.m.
No further information was provided prior to exit.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0625
(Tag F0625)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interview, clinical record review and facility document review, it was determined the facility staff failed to pr...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interview, clinical record review and facility document review, it was determined the facility staff failed to provide evidence that bed hold notification was provided when 3 out of 33 residents in the survey sample were transferred to the hospital; Residents #37, #40 and #1.
The findings include:
1. The facility staff failed to evidence provision of bed hold notification for Resident #37. Resident #37 was transferred to the hospital on 6/27/22.
Resident #37 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis that included but were not limited to: end stage renal disease, diabetes mellitus, heart failure and encephalopathy.
The most recent MDS (minimum data set) assessment, a quarterly assessment, with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 5/21/22, coded the resident as scoring a 14 out of 15 on the BIMS (brief interview for mental status) score, indicating the resident was cognitively intact. A review of the MDS Section G-functional status coded the resident as requiring extensive assistance for bed mobility, transfer, dressing, hygiene and bathing; supervision for locomotion and independence for eating. Section O-special procedures/treatments coded the resident as dialysis no.
An interview was conducted on 7/20/22 at 7:45 AM with LPN (licensed practical nurse) #3. When asked if a bed hold is provided upon transfer of a resident to the hospital, LPN #3 stated, we send a bed hold. When asked if there is any evidence of the bed hold, LPN #3 stated, maybe medical records has it.
An interview was conducted on 7/20/22 at 2:12 PM with OSM (other staff member) #6, the medical records coordinator. When asked what evidence of bed hold there was in the medical records, OSM #6 stated there is not bed hold for those residents.
On 7/20/22 at approximately 5:30 PM, ASM (administrative staff member) #1, the administrator, ASM #2, the director of nursing and ASM #3, the regional director of clinical services were made aware of the findings. ASM #1 and ASM #2 verified there was not bed hold evidence for this resident.
A review of the facility's Bed Hold policy dated 11/2017, which revealed, Resident or Resident Representative will be notified on admission, and at the time of transfer (to the hospital or therapeutic leave) of the bed hold policies, according to Federal and/or State requirements.
No further information was provided prior to exit.
2. The facility staff failed to evidence provision of bed hold notification for Resident #40. Resident #40 was transferred to the hospital on 3/22/22, 4/1/22, 4/12/22 and 4/26/22.
Resident #40 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis that included but were not limited to: hemiplegia, hemiparesis, diabetes mellitus and cerebrovascular disease.
The most recent MDS (minimum data set) assessment, a quarterly assessment, with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 5/28/22, coded the resident as scoring a 14 out of 15 on the BIMS (brief interview for mental status) score, indicating the resident was cognitively intact. A review of the MDS Section G-functional status coded the resident as requiring extensive assistance for bed mobility, transfer, dressing and hygiene; supervision for eating and total dependence for bathing.
An interview was conducted on 7/20/22 at 7:45 AM with LPN (licensed practical nurse) #3. When asked if a bed hold is provided upon transfer of a resident to the hospital, LPN #3 stated, we send a bed hold. When asked if there is any evidence of the bed hold, LPN #3 stated, maybe medical records has it.
An interview was conducted on 7/20/22 at 2:12 PM with OSM (other staff member) #6, the medical records coordinator. When asked what evidence of bed hold there was in the medical records, OSM #6 stated, there is not bed hold for those residents.
On 7/20/22 at approximately 5:30 PM, ASM (administrative staff member) #1, the administrator, ASM #2, the director of nursing and ASM #3, the regional director of clinical services were made aware of the findings. ASM #1 and ASM #2 verified there was not bed hold evidence for this resident.
A review of the facility's Bed Hold policy dated 11/2017, which revealed, Resident or Resident Representative will be notified on admission, and at the time of transfer (to the hospital or therapeutic leave) of the bed hold policies, according to Federal and/or State requirements.
No further information was provided prior to exit.3. The facility staff failed to provide a bed hold notice upon transfer to the hospital on 5/4/2022 for Resident #1 (R1).
On the most recent MDS (minimum data set) assessment, an annual assessment, with an assessment reference date of 7/7/2022, the resident was coded as having both short and long term memory difficulties.
The Change In Condition form dated 5/4/2022 at 12:35 p.m. documented in part, On arrival at the facility, report received from the outgoing nurse, rounds done, treatment nurse went to Resident room to do (their) treatment and observed resident twitching and jerging (sic) she alerted writer, writer rush to the room vs done 132/94 (blood pressure),90 (heart rate),98.0 (temperature) o2 (oxygen) sat (saturation) 88- 90. MD (medical doctor) notified. The form further documented, new order in place to transfer resident to hospital ER (emergency room) via 911 (emergency ambulance service). At 0720 (7:20 a.m.) 911 call, at 0730 (7:30 a.m.) 911 arrived at the facility, at 0745, 911 left the facility with the resident via stretcher. Report given to KD (initials of) the ER nurse, RP (responsible party) made aware resident sister in law and brother.
Further review of the clinical record failed to evidence any documentation of a bed hold notice was provided to the resident and/or responsible party upon discharge on [DATE].
A request was made on 7/20/2022 at approximately 12:30 p.m. for the documentation the bed hold notice was provided upon transfer. As of 7/21/2022 at 10:00 a.m. the facility did not provide any further documentation that a bed hold notice was provided to the resident and/or responsible party upon transfer to the hospital. ASM #1 stated they had no further information related to the bed hold notification for R1.
ASM (administrative staff member) #1, the executive director, ASM #2, the director of nursing, and ASM #3 the director of clinical services were made aware of the above concern on 7/21/2022 at 10:00 a.m.
No further information was provided prior to exit.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. The facility staff failed to implement the comprehensive care plan for dialysis care for Resident #37.
Resident #37 was admit...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. The facility staff failed to implement the comprehensive care plan for dialysis care for Resident #37.
Resident #37 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis that included but were not limited to: end stage renal disease, diabetes mellitus, heart failure and encephalopathy.
The most recent MDS (minimum data set) assessment, a quarterly assessment, with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 5/21/22, coded the resident as scoring a 14 out of 15 on the BIMS (brief interview for mental status) score, indicating the resident was cognitively intact. A review of the MDS Section G-functional status coded the resident as requiring extensive assistance for bed mobility, transfer, dressing, hygiene and bathing; supervision for locomotion and independence for eating. Section O-special procedures/treatments coded the resident as dialysis no.
A review of the comprehensive care plan dated 2/26/22, which revealed, FOCUS: The resident is on Hemodialysis via Left arterial-venous Fistula related to End Stage Renal Disease. Transferred to hospital for clogged AV shunt 6/27/22. INTERVENTIONS: Communicate with dialysis facility as needed. Dialysis 3 times/week: Tuesday, Thursday & Saturday.
A review of physician orders, dated 10/21/20, revealed the following, Dialysis three times a week, Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday @ 10:30AM-3:15PM.
A review of Resident #37's dialysis communication book revealed missing communication to the dialysis facility for 21 of 52 visits from 4/2/22-7/19/22.
An interview was conducted on 7/20/22 at 9:30 AM with LPN (licensed practical nurse) #3. When asked the purpose of the care plan, LPN #3 stated, The purpose of the care plan is to insure there are goals and interventions that are unique for that resident.
When asked what information is provided to the dialysis facility when a resident is sent for hemodialysis, LPN #3 stated, the binder is how we communicate with dialysis, their status and their condition. Important issues like labs, bruit, thrill and all basic nursing assessments. When asked if this information is not provided, is the care plan being followed, LPN #3 stated if the interventions are not implemented then the care plan is not being followed.
On 7/20/22 at approximately 5:30 PM, ASM (administrative staff member) #1, the administrator, ASM #2, the director of nursing and ASM #2, the regional director of clinical services were made aware of the findings.
A review of the facility's Plans of Care policy dated 9/2017, which revealed, Develop and implement an Individualized Person-Centered comprehensive plan of care by the Interdisciplinary Team that includes but is not limited to - the attending physician, a registered nurse with responsibility for the resident, a nurse aide with responsibility for the resident, a member of food and nutrition services staff, and other appropriate staff or professionals in disciplines as determined by the resident's needs or as requested by the resident, and, to the extent practicable, the participation of the resident and the resident's representative(s).
The Individualized Person Centered plan of care may include but is not limited to the following: Resident's strengths and needs. Services to attain or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being as required by state and federal regulatory requirements. Alternative treatments as applicable.
No further information was provided prior to exit.Based on observation, staff interview, facility document review and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to implement the comprehensive care plan for 6 of 33 residents in the survey sample, Residents #82, #88, #37, #25, #83 and #94.
The findings include:
1. The facility staff failed to implement Resident #82's (R82) comprehensive care plan for weights per physician's order.
On the most recent MDS (minimum data set), a quarterly assessment with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 6/30/22, the resident scored 9 out of 15 on the BIMS (brief interview for mental status), indicating the resident was moderately cognitively impaired for making daily decisions.
R82's comprehensive care plan dated 10/2/18 documented, (R82) is at risk for alteration ineffective breathing patterns and cardiovascular status due to: CHF (congestive heart failure) .weights as ordered . A review of R82's clinical record revealed a physician's order dated 6/3/22 for daily weights. Further review of R82's clinical record only revealed weights for the following dates: 6/7/22, 7/6/22 and 7/16/22.
On 7/20/22 at 3:24 p.m., an interview was conducted with LPN (licensed practical nurse) #4. LPN #4 stated the purpose of obtaining daily weights is to monitor residents who are losing weight, residents who are gaining too much weight and residents who have CHF. LPN #4 stated the order for daily weights should appear on the MAR (medication administration record) or TAR (treatment administration record). LPN #4 stated the CNAs (certified nursing assistants) obtain daily weights then the nurses document the weights on the MAR or TAR.
No weights were documented on R82's June 2022 or July 2022 MARs or TARs.
On 7/20/22 at 4:01 p.m., another interview was conducted with LPN #4. LPN #4 stated the purpose of the care plan is to know the status and current condition of the residents. LPN #4 stated nurses can ensure they are implementing residents' care plans by reviewing the care plans.
On 7/20/22 at 5:37 p.m., ASM (administrative staff member) #1 (the executive director) and ASM #2 (the director of nursing) were made aware of the above concern.
The facility policy titled, Plans of Care documented, Develop and implement an Individualized Person-Centered comprehensive plan of care by the Interdisciplinary Team .
No further information was presented prior to exit.
2. The facility staff failed to implement Resident #88's (R88) comprehensive care plan for daily weights.
On the most recent MDS (minimum data set), a quarterly assessment with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 7/3/22, the resident scored 12 out of 15 on the BIMS (brief interview for mental status), indicating the resident is moderately cognitively impaired for making daily decisions.
A review of R88's clinical record revealed a physician's order dated 6/3/22 for daily weights for CHF (congestive heart failure). R88's comprehensive care plan dated 6/6/22 documented, The resident has Congestive Heart Failure .daily weught (sic) . Further review of R88's clinical record only revealed weights for the following dates: 6/7/22 and 7/6/22.
On 7/20/22 at 3:24 p.m., an interview was conducted with LPN (licensed practical nurse) #4. LPN #4 stated the purpose of obtaining daily weights is to monitor residents who are losing weight, residents who are gaining too much weight and residents who have CHF. LPN #4 stated the order for daily weights should appear on the MAR (medication administration record) or TAR (treatment administration record). LPN #4 stated the CNAs (certified nursing assistants) obtain daily weights then the nurses document the weights on the MAR or TAR.
No weights were documented on R88's June 2022 or July 2022 MARs or TARs.
On 7/20/22 at 4:01 p.m., another interview was conducted with LPN #4. LPN #4 stated the purpose of the care plan is to know the status and current condition of the residents. LPN #4 stated nurses can ensure they are implementing residents' care plans by reviewing the care plans.
On 7/20/22 at 5:37 p.m., ASM (administrative staff member) #1 (the executive director) and ASM #2 (the director of nursing) were made aware of the above concern.
No further information was presented prior to exit.
4. The facility staff failed to implement the comprehensive care plan to have therapy evaluate Resident #25 (R25).
On the most recent MDS (minimum data set) assessment, a quarterly assessment, with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 5/22/2022, the resident scored a 10 out of 15 on the BIMS (brief interview for mental status) score, indicating the resident is moderately cognitively impaired for making daily decisions. In Section G - Functional Status, the resident was coded as requiring extensive assistance of one staff member physical assistance for moving in the bed, transfers, moving on the unit, dressing, toileting, personal hygiene and bathing. The resident was coded as requiring supervision with one staff member physical assistance for eating.
The MDS prior to the 5/22/2022, an annual assessment, with an ARD of 2/10/2022, the resident scored a 10 out of 15 on the BIMS score, indicating the resident is moderately cognitively impaired for making daily decisions. In Section G - Functional Status, R25 was coded as being independent with set up assistance only for moving in the bed, transfers, eating and personal hygiene. The resident was coded as requiring limited assistance of one staff member for toileting. The activity of moving on the unit, only occurred once with no assistance from the staff. The activity of moving off the unit, only occurred once and required set up assistance from the staff.
The comprehensive care plan dated, 2/26/2021, documented in part, Focus: (R25) supervision-limited assist for most ADLs (activities of daily living). The Interventions documented in part, PT (physical therapy) & OT (occupational therapy) evaluate and treat as ordered.
On 7/20/2022 at 2:48 p.m. an interview was conducted with LPN (licensed practical nurse) # 2. When asked if the care plan states an intervention and the intervention is not followed, is that implementing the care plan, LPN #2 stated, no.
An interview was conducted with RN (registered nurse) #2, the MDS coordinator, on 7/20/2022 at 3:25 p.m. When asked to provide any therapy consults for the decline in the resident's functional status, RN # 2 stated she would get back to the survey team.
On 7/20/2022 at 4:01 p.m. RN #2 stated there was no therapy screen done. RN #2 stated, I believe it was an oversight. It should have been a significant change assessment completed and a therapy screen should have been completed.
An interview was conducted with OSM (other staff member) #12, the director of therapy, on 7/20/2022 at 4:19 p.m. When asked the process for the therapy department to screen residents that are in need of therapy, OSM #12 stated that (RN #2) normally sends her a list of resident to screen when she completes the MDS assessments. When asked if she had screened R25 since his 5/22/2022 MDS assessment, OSM #12 stated she had last screened the resident is January of this year (2022). When asked if therapy has worked with him since the MDS assessment, OSM #12 stated, no.
ASM (administrative staff member) #1, the executive director, ASM #2, the director of nursing, and ASM #3 the director of clinical services were made aware of the above concern on 7/20/2022 at 5:23 p.m.
No further information was provided prior to exit.
5. The facility staff failed to implement the comprehensive care plan to work cooperatively with the hospice team for Resident #83 (R83).
On the most recent MDS (minimum data set) assessment, a significant change assessment, with an assessment reference date of 7/1/2022, the resident scored a 6 out of 15 on the BIMS (brief interview for mental status) score, indicating the resident was severely cognitively impaired for making daily decisions. In Section O - Special Treatments, Procedures and Programs, the resident was not coded as being on hospice.
The comprehensive care plan dated, 6/21/2022, documented in part, The resident has a terminal prognosis r/t (related to) admission to (name of hospice) DX: Alzheimer's. The Interventions documented in part, Work cooperatively with hospice team to ensure the resident's spiritual, emotional, intellectual, physical and social needs are met.
The physician order dated, 6/21/2022, documented, Resident admitted to (name of hospice) DX (diagnosis) - Alzheimer's. Call (name of hospice) (phone number of hospice) with any questions, concerns or change in condition.
Review of the clinical record failed to evidence documentation or notes from the hospice company.
A request was made on 7/20/2022 at approximately 11:00 a.m. for the hospice care notes.
On 7/21/2022 at 7:46 a.m. copies of Client Coordination Note Report for 6/22/2022, 7/4/2022 and 7/14/2022 were provided by ASM (administrative staff member) #1, the executive director. The fax information on the tops of the notes was dated 7/20/2022 at 4:55 p.m. When asked where these notes came from, ASM #1 stated he would have to ask the DON (director of nursing) were he obtained them from.
On 7/20/2022 at 2:48 p.m. an interview was conducted with LPN (licensed practical nurse) # 2. When asked if the care plan states an intervention and the intervention is not followed, is that implementing the care plan, LPN #2 stated, no.
On 7/21/2022 at 7:56 a.m. an interview was conducted with ASM #2, the director of nursing. When asked where the above notes were obtained from, ASM #2 stated the hospice emailed them to him last night. When asked if they should have already been in the record, ASM #2 stated, yes. When asked the process for maintaining the hospice notes in the facility, ASM #2 stated the hospice fax the notes to medical records and then they scan them in. When asked should there be communication between the hospice and the facility, ASM #2 stated the facility staff catch them while there are here, or we call them, and they speak with the physician. ASM #2 stated when the hospice staff come in they speak with us. When asked where the documentation of these conversations and the coordination of care is, ASM #2 failed to answer.
On 7/21/2022 at 8:47 a.m. an interview was conducted with OSM (other staff member) # 6, the medical records staff member. When asked how hospice note are put in the clinical record, OSM #6 stated, To be honest, I have never scanned them, they don't give me notes. I see them in the charts. All the doctor's email or fax me their notes and I scan them in. When asked about (the name of the hospice company caring for R83, OSM #6 stated, she had never scanned any hospice notes. OSM #6 stated the DON and she were talking on working on a process to obtain those records.
ASM #1, the executive director, ASM #2, the director of nursing, and ASM #3 the director of clinical services, were made aware of the above concern on 7/21/2022 at 10:00 a.m.
No further information was provided prior to exit.
6. The facility staff failed to implement the comprehensive care plan to administer oxygen as ordered for Resident #94 (R94).
On the most recent MDS (minimum data set) assessment, an annual assessment, with an assessment reference date of 7/7/2022, the resident was not coded for cognitive. In the nurse's notes it is documented the resident refused to answer the questions. In Section O - Special Treatments, Procedures and Programs, the resident was not coded as using oxygen.
The comprehensive care plan dated 1/3/2020, documented in part, Focus: (R94) is on oxygen therapy r/t (related to) altered respiratory status. The Interventions documented in part, Oxygen as ordered.
The physician order dated 9/10/2020, documented, Oxygen at 2 LPM (liters per minute) via nasal cannula continuously.
Observation was made of R94 on 7/19/2022 at approximately 12:00 p.m. R94 was in the bed with the oxygen on via a nasal cannula. The oxygen concentrator was set with the bottom of the black ball sitting on the 1.5 line and the top of the ball on the 2.0 line.
A second observation was made on 7/20/2022 at 2:48 p.m. The oxygen was in use via nasal cannula. The oxygen concentrator was set with the top of the ball sitting just under the black line for 2.0. LPN (licensed practical nurse) # 2, was asked to read the oxygen concentrator, LPN #2 stated the oxygen was set at 1.5. When asked how to read the oxygen concentrator, LPN #2 stated the line should be at the top of the ball. LPN #2 reset the oxygen so the top of the ball was touching the 2.0 line. When asked if the care plan states to administer oxygen as ordered and it's not being given per the physician order, is that implementing the care plan, LPN #2 stated, no.
ASM (administrative staff member) #1, the executive director, ASM #2, the director of nursing, and ASM #3 the director of clinical services were made aware of the above concern on 7/20/2022 at 5:23 p.m.
No further information was provided prior to exit.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interview, facility document review and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to provide care and ser...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interview, facility document review and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to provide care and services in accordance with professional standards of practice and comprehensive care plan for 4 of 33 residents in the survey sample, Residents #82, #88, #83 and #19.
The findings include:
1. The facility staff failed to obtain Resident's #82 (R82) daily weights per the physician's orders.
On the most recent MDS (minimum data set), a quarterly assessment with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 6/30/22, the resident scored 9 out of 15 on the BIMS (brief interview for mental status), indicating the resident was moderately cognitively impaired for making daily decisions.
R82's comprehensive care plan dated 10/2/18 documented, (R82) is at risk for alteration ineffective breathing patterns and cardiovascular status due to: CHF (congestive heart failure) .weights as ordered . A review of R82's clinical record revealed a physician's order dated 6/3/22 for daily weights. Further review of R82's clinical record only revealed weights for the following dates: 6/7/22, 7/6/22 and 7/16/22.
On 7/20/22 at 3:24 p.m., an interview was conducted with LPN (licensed practical nurse) #4. LPN #4 stated the purpose of obtaining daily weights is to monitor residents who are losing weight, residents who are gaining too much weight and residents who have CHF. LPN #4 stated the order for daily weights should appear on the MAR (medication administration record) or TAR (treatment administration record). LPN #4 stated the CNAs (certified nursing assistants) obtain daily weights then the nurses document the weights on the MAR or TAR.
No weights were documented on R82's June 2022 or July 2022 MARs or TARs.
On 7/20/22 at 5:37 p.m., ASM (administrative staff member) #1 (the executive director) and ASM #2 (the director of nursing) were made aware of the above concern.
The facility policy titled, Physician Orders documented, The order will be repeated back to the physician, PA (physician assistant) or ARNP (advanced registered nurse practitioner) for his/her verbal confirmation. The order is transcribed to all appropriate areas of the electronic health record (eMar/eTAR) .
On 7/20/22 at 5:40 p.m., ASM #1 was asked to provide the facility standard of practice for obtaining weights, CHF and following physician's orders. On 7/21/22 at 7:45 A.M., ASM #1 presented an excerpt from Clinical Nursing Skills & Techniques 9th Edition by [NAME], [NAME] A. [NAME] and [NAME] R. [NAME] regarding oral nutrition. The excerpt documented steps for how to obtain a weight for a nutritional screening. The excerpt failed to document specific information regarding the above concern.
No further information was presented prior to exit.
2. The facility staff failed to obtain Resident's #88 (R88) daily weights per the physician's orders.
On the most recent MDS (minimum data set), a quarterly assessment with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 7/3/22, the resident scored 12 out of 15 on the BIMS (brief interview for mental status), indicating the resident is moderately cognitively impaired for making daily decisions.
A review of R88's clinical record revealed a physician's order dated 6/3/22 for daily weights for CHF (congestive heart failure). R88's comprehensive care plan dated 6/6/22 documented, The resident has Congestive Heart Failure .daily weught (sic) . Further review of R88's clinical record only revealed weights for the following dates: 6/7/22 and 7/6/22.
On 7/20/22 at 3:24 p.m., an interview was conducted with LPN (licensed practical nurse) #4. LPN #4 stated the purpose of obtaining daily weights is to monitor residents who are losing weight, residents who are gaining too much weight and residents who have CHF. LPN #4 stated the order for daily weights should appear on the MAR (medication administration record) or TAR (treatment administration record). LPN #4 stated the CNAs (certified nursing assistants) obtain daily weights then the nurses document the weights on the MAR or TAR.
No weights were documented on R88's June 2022 or July 2022 MARs or TARs.
On 7/20/22 at 5:37 p.m., ASM (administrative staff member) #1 (the executive director) and ASM #2 (the director of nursing) were made aware of the above concern.
No further information was presented prior to exit.3. The facility staff failed to evidence coordination of hospice services with the facility for Resident #83 (R83).
On the most recent MDS (minimum data set) assessment, a significant change assessment, with an assessment reference date of 7/1/2022, the resident scored a 6 out of 15 on the BIMS (brief interview for mental status) score, indicating the resident was severely cognitively impaired for making daily decisions. In Section O - Special Treatments, Procedures and Programs, the resident was not coded as being on hospice.
The physician order dated, 6/21/2022, documented, Resident admitted to (name of hospice) DX (diagnosis) - Alzheimer's. Call (name of hospice) (phone number of hospice) with any questions, concerns or change n condition.
Review of the clinical record failed to evidence documentation or notes from the hospice company.
The comprehensive care plan dated, 6/21/2022, documented in part, The resident has a terminal prognosis r/t (related to) admission to (name of hospice) DX: Alzheimers. The Interventions documented in part, Work cooperatively with hospice team to ensure the resident's spiritual, emotional, intellectual, physical and social needs are met.
A request was made on 7/20/2022 at approximately 11:00 a.m. for the hospice care notes.
On 7/21/2022 at 7:46 a.m. copies of Client Coordination Note Report for 6/22/2022, 7/4/2022 and 7/14/2022 were provided by ASM (administrative staff member) #1, the executive director. The fax information on the tops of the notes was dated 7/20/2022 at 4:55 p.m. When asked where these notes came from, ASM #1 stated he would have to ask the DON (director of nursing) were he obtained them from.
On 7/21/2022 at 7:56 a.m. an interview was conducted with ASM #2, the director of nursing. When asked where the above notes were obtained from, ASM #2 stated the hospice emailed them to him last night. When asked if they should have already been in the record, ASM #2 stated, yes. When asked the process for maintaining the hospice notes in the facility, ASM #2 stated the hospice fax the notes to medical records and then they scan them in. When asked should there be communication between the hospice and the facility, ASM #2 stated the facility staff catch them while there are here, or we call them, and they speak with the physician. ASM #2 stated when the hospice staff come in they speak with us. When asked where is the documentation of these conversations and the coordination of care, ASM #2 failed to answer.
On 7/21/2022 at 8:47 a.m. an interview was conducted with OSM (other staff member) # 6, the medical records staff member. When asked how hospice note are put in the clinical record, OSM #6 stated, To be honest, I have never scanned them, they don't give me notes. I see them in the charts. All the doctor's email or fax me their notes and I scan them in. When asked about (the name of the hospice company caring for R83, OSM #6 stated, she had never scanned any hospice notes. OSM #6 stated the DON and she were talking on working on a process to obtain those records.
The facility policy, Hospice Care documented in part, To ensure continuity of care between the center and the hospice provider, the Director of Nursing will designate a clinical member of the interdisciplinary team to work with the hospice included the following: Coordination of the care plan process between the hospice and the center. Communication with hospice representative, hospice medical director, and the patient/patient's attending physician to ensure coordination of care. Ensure the following information is obtained from the hospice: most recent hospice plan of care .The center will ensure the care plan includes the most current hospice plan of care and the center's plan to attain or maintain the patient/resident's highest practicable physical, mental and psychosocial well-being.
ASM #1, the executive director, ASM #2, the director of nursing, and ASM #3 the director of clinical services, were made aware of the above concern on 7/21/2022 at 10:00 a.m.
No further information was provided prior to exit.
4. The facility staff failed to evidence coordination of hospice services with the facility for Resident #19 (R19).
On the most recent MDS (minimum data set) assessment, a quarterly assessment, with an assessment reference date of 5/6/2022, the resident scored a zero out of 15 on the BIMS (brief interview for mental status) score, indicating the resident was severely cognitively impaired for making daily decisions. In Section O - Special Treatments, Procedures and Programs, the resident was coded as receiving hospice care services.
The physician order dated 8/18/2021, documented, Admit to (name of hospice) routine home care with terminal diagnosis of senile degeneration of the brain. Call (name of hospice and phone number) for any questions, concerns or change in condition.
Review of the clinical record failed to evidence documentation or notes from the hospice company.
The comprehensive care plan dated, 2/15/2022, documented in part, Focus: (R19) has a terminal prognosis r/t (related to) declining health - (Name of hospice company).
A request was made on 7/20/2022 at approximately 11:00 a.m. for the hospice care notes.
On 7/21/2022 at 7:46 a.m. copies of Client Coordination Note Report for 6/23/2022, 6/30/2022, 7/7/2022 and 7/14/2022 were provided by ASM (administrative staff member) #1, the executive director. The fax information on the tops of the notes was dated 7/20/2022 at 4:55 p.m. When asked where these notes came from, ASM #1 stated he would have to ask the DON (director of nursing) were he obtained them from.
On 7/21/2022 at 7:56 a.m. an interview was conducted with ASM #2, the director of nursing. When asked where the above notes were obtained from, ASM #2 stated the hospice emailed them to him last night. When asked if they should have already been in the record, ASM #2 stated, yes. When asked the process for maintaining the hospice notes in the facility, ASM #2 stated the hospice fax the notes to medical records and then they scan them in. When asked should there be communication between the hospice and the facility, ASM #2 stated the facility staff catch them while there are here, or we call them, and they speak with the physician. ASM #2 stated when the hospice staff come in they speak with us. When asked where the documentation of these conversations and the coordination of care is, ASM #2 failed to answer.
On 7/21/2022 at 8:47 a.m. an interview was conducted with OSM (other staff member) # 6, the medical records staff member. When asked how hospice note are put in the clinical record, OSM #6 stated, To be honest, I have never scanned them, they don't give me notes. I see them in the charts. All the doctor's email or fax me their notes and I scan them in. When asked about (the name of the hospice company caring for R83, OSM #6 stated, she had never scanned any hospice notes. OSM #6 stated the DON and she were talking on working on a process to obtain those records. When asked where notes from hospice were for R19 were as the resident was on hospice since 8/2022, OSM #6 stated, They are not in her hard chart.
ASM #1, the executive director, ASM #2, the director of nursing, and ASM #3 the director of clinical services, were made aware of the above concern on 7/21/2022 at 10:00 a.m.
No further information was provided prior to exit.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0698
(Tag F0698)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interview, resident interview, clinical record review and facility document review, it was determined the facilit...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interview, resident interview, clinical record review and facility document review, it was determined the facility staff failed to provide dialysis care and services for one of 33 residents in the survey sample, Resident #37.
The findings include:
The facility failed to provide communication to the dialysis facility for 7 of 13 visits in April 2022, 8 of 13 visits in May 2022, 3 of 10 visits in June 2022 and 3 of 5 visits in July 2022.
Resident #37 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis that included but were not limited to: end stage renal disease, diabetes mellitus, heart failure and encephalopathy.
The most recent MDS (minimum data set) assessment, a quarterly assessment, with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 5/21/22, coded the resident as scoring a 14 out of 15 on the BIMS (brief interview for mental status) score, indicating the resident was cognitively intact. A review of the MDS Section G-functional status coded the resident as requiring extensive assistance for bed mobility, transfer, dressing, hygiene and bathing; supervision for locomotion and independence for eating. Section O-special procedures/treatments coded the resident as dialysis no.
A review of the comprehensive care plan dated 2/26/22 revealed, FOCUS: The resident is on Hemodialysis via Left arterial-venous Fistula related to End Stage Renal Disease. Transferred to hospital for clogged AV shunt 6/27/22. INTERVENTIONS: Communicate with dialysis facility as needed. Dialysis 3 times/week: Tuesday, Thursday & Saturday.
A review of physician orders, dated 10/21/20, revealed the following, Dialysis three times a week, Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday @ 10:30AM-3:15PM.
A review of Resident #37's dialysis communication book revealed missing communication to the dialysis facility for 21 of 52 visits from 4/2/22-7/19/22.
An interview was conducted on 7/20/22 at 9:15 AM with Resident #37. When asked if she takes her dialysis communication book with her to the dialysis center, Resident #37 stated, Yes, I take the book with me.
An interview was conducted on 7/20/22 at 9:30 AM with LPN (licensed practical nurse) #3. When asked what information is provided to the dialysis facility when a resident is sent for hemodialysis, LPN #3 stated, It is how we communicate with dialysis, their status and their condition. Important issues like labs, bruit, thrill and all basic nursing assessments.
A review of the dialysis contract on 7/20/22 at 8:00 AM, revealed the following, Review of dialysis contract: Facility shall ensure that all appropriate medical, social, administrative and other information accompany all designated residents at the time of transfer to the center. This information, shall include but is not limited to, where appropriate the following:
1. Designated resident's name, address, DOB and SS#
2. Name/address/phone number of next of kin
3. Appropriate medical records including history of resident's illness, including labs and x-ray findings
4. Treatment presently being provided to the designated resident, including medications and any changes in a patient's condition, change of medication, diet or fluid intake
5. Any other information that will facilitate the adequate coordination of care and reasonably determined by center
On 7/20/22 at approximately 5:30 PM, ASM (administrative staff member) #1, the administrator, ASM #2, the director of nursing and ASM #3, the regional director of clinical services were made aware of the findings.
On 7/21/22 at 9:45 AM, ASM #2, the director of nursing, confirmed that no additional dialysis communication forms were found.
A review of the facility's Coordination of Hemodialysis Services dated 11/2014, revealed the following, Residents requiring an outside ESRD facility will have services coordinated by the facility. There will be communication between the facility and the ESRD facility regarding the resident. The facility will establish a Dialysis Agreement/Arrangement if there are any residents requiring Dialysis Services. The agreement shall include how the residents care is to be managed.
Procedure:
1. The Dialysis Communication form will be initiated by the facility for any resident going to an ESRD center for hemodialysis.
2. Nursing will collect and complete the information regarding the resident to send to the ESRD Center.
No further information was provided prior to exit.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0802
(Tag F0802)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, staff interview, and facility document review, it was determined the facility staff failed to maintain sufficient dietary staff to meet the needs of the residents at the lunch me...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, staff interview, and facility document review, it was determined the facility staff failed to maintain sufficient dietary staff to meet the needs of the residents at the lunch meal on 7/19/22 in one of one facility kitchens. There was insufficient staff from the dietary department working at lunch on 7/19/22, resulting in residents' not receiving lunch at a time compatible with community standards, and resulting in residents being served on disposable dishes.
The findings include:
On 7/19/22 at 11:24 a.m., initial observation of the kitchen revealed OSM (other staff member) #1, the dietary manager, washing dishes from breakfast in the facility dish room.
On 7/19/22 at 12:49 p.m., OSM #2, the dietary manager from a sister facility, had arrived in the kitchen, and was encouraging OSM #1. When asked if lunch was being served on time, and at a time compatible to when residents would normally be served lunch in the community, she stated: No there's a delay. She stated she was not sure what time lunch would start. She stated the delay was due to lack of staffing. She stated OSM #1 was having to do it all today. She stated the breakfast meal had been late because OSM #1 had to prep, cook, serve, and clean it up. She stated OSM #1 then had to prep, cook, and serve the lunch meal. Two dietary assistants were present in the kitchen waiting to take the trays to the floors. They did not assist in preparation or serving of the food.
On 7/19/22 at 1:25 p.m., OSM #1 began to serve resident lunches from the tray line in the facility's only kitchen. OSM #1 served all the meals on a disposable Styrofoam container. The food was placed on one side of the container, and the other side of the container was folded over to create a cover. Two stacks of facility dishware were observed in a dish cart adjacent to the tray line.
On 7/19/22 at 1:46 p.m., OSM #2, who had also observed the lunch tray line service, was interviewed. She stated OSM #1 was serving on Styrofoam because they are short staffed. She stated if the facility staff did not serve on disposable dishware, there is no way they would ever be able to turn the dishware around on time to get the dinner meal out at a decent time. She stated there was not enough staff at the facility to wash the dishware.
On 7/20/22 at 5:17 p.m., ASM (administrative staff member) #1, the executive director, ASM #2, the director of nursing, and ASM #3, the regional director of clinical services, were informed of these concerns.
A review of the facility policy, Department Staffing, revealed, in part: The Dining Services department will employ sufficient staff with appropriate competencies and skill sets to carry out the functions of food and nutrition services in a manner that is safe and effective .Adequate staffing will be provided to prepare and serve palatable, attractive, nutritionally adequate meals, at proper temperatures, at appropriate times, and to support proper sanitary techniques being utilized.
No further information was provided prior to exit.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0809
(Tag F0809)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based observation, staff interview, and facility document review, it was determined that the facility staff failed to serve a meal at a time compatible with community standards in one of one facility ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based observation, staff interview, and facility document review, it was determined that the facility staff failed to serve a meal at a time compatible with community standards in one of one facility kitchens. The facility staff did not begin to serve the lunch meal on 7/19/22 until 1:25 p.m. The final resident tray was not distributed until 2:30 p.m.
The findings include:
On 7/19/22 at 11:24 a.m., initial observation of the kitchen revealed OSM (other staff member) #1, the dietary manager, washing dishes from breakfast in the facility dish room. At this time, no cooked lunch items were visible in the ovens, steam table, or the steamer.
On 7/19/22 at 12:49 p.m., a follow up observation was made of the kitchen. OSM #2, the dietary manager from a sister facility, had arrived in the kitchen, and was encouraging OSM #1 as he worked to prepare baked pasta, steamed broccoli, salad, bread, and pureed food for lunch. When asked if lunch was being served on time, and at a time compatible to when residents would normally be served lunch in the community, OSM #2 stated: No there's a delay. She stated she was not sure what time lunch would start. She stated the delay was due to lack of staffing. She stated OSM #1 was having to do it all today. She stated the breakfast meal had been late because OSM #1 had to prep, cook, serve, and clean it up. She stated OSM #1 then had to prep, cook, and serve the lunch meal. Two dietary assistants were present in the kitchen waiting to take the trays to the floors. They did not assist in preparation or serving of the food.
On 7/19/22 at 12:55 p.m., OSM #1 took the temperature of the baked pasta. The temperature (120 degrees Fahrenheit) did not meet safety standards. The pasta was returned to the oven. At 1:07 p.m. and at 1:23 p.m., this process was repeated with the same result. At 1:25 p.m., the temperature of the baked pasta was 173, and lunch service began. At 2:22 p.m., the last resident tray was served and placed on the transport cart, and was delivered to the unit. The last resident lunch tray was served at 2:30 p.m.
On 7/20/22 at 5:17 p.m., ASM (administrative staff member) #1, the executive director, ASM #2, the director of nursing, and ASM #3, the regional director of clinical services, were informed of these concerns.
A review of the policy, Frequency of Meals, revealed, in part: At least three daily meals will be provided, at regular times comparable to normal mealtimes in the community.
No further information was provided prior to exit.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, staff interview, and facility document review, it was determined that the facility staff failed to store, prepare, and serve food in a sanitary manner in one of one facility kitc...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, staff interview, and facility document review, it was determined that the facility staff failed to store, prepare, and serve food in a sanitary manner in one of one facility kitchens. The cook's refrigerator had two opened, unlabeled items. The stove top and convection oven were dirty. OSM (other staff member) #1, the dietary manager, failed to take the holding temperatures of hot, perishable foods on the tray lines prior to serving them on 7/19/22. Trays for individual resident meals were wet nesting, and a dietary staff member used the same drying towel to dry all of them.
The findings include:
On 7/19/22 at 11:24 a.m., initial observation of the kitchen revealed OSM (other staff member) #1, the dietary manager, washing dishes from breakfast in the facility dish room. Initial observation of the kitchen revealed a dirty stove top. The stove contained heavy amounts of debris on the stove top and in the wells of the burners. Some of the debris was burned on; some of the debris was greasy; some of the debris was composed of particles of old food; some of the debris was the consistency of ash. The convection oven doors contained caked-on, burned-on grease, and the walls and bottom of the convection oven contained debris including particles of food and baked-on grease. OSM #1 stated both the stove top and the convection oven were available for use. The cook's refrigerator contained a square pan of grape jelly and a square pan of pineapple tidbits that were open and unlabeled.
On 7/19/22 at 12:49 p.m., OSM #2, the dietary manager from a sister facility, had arrived in the kitchen. On 7/19/22 at 12:55 p.m., OSM #1 took the temperature of the baked pasta. The temperature (120 degrees Fahrenheit) did not meet safety standards. OSM #1 stated he did not believe the food thermometer was working properly. The pasta was returned to the oven. OSM #2 stated she would have a working thermometer in the facility kitchen soon. At 1:07 p.m. and at 1:23 p.m., this process was repeated with the same result. OSM #1 was asked how he had taken temperatures of the breakfast foods that morning without a working thermometer. OSM #1 admitted he had not taken temperatures of the breakfast food. The new thermometer arrived in the kitchen at 1:24 p.m. At 1:25 p.m., the temperature of the baked pasta was 173, and lunch service began. OSM #1 did not take holding temperatures of any other hot, perishable food on the tray line, including steamed broccoli, white rice, pureed vegetables, pureed bread, and pureed baked pasta. OSM #1 served resident trays including each of the hot foods listed above. As the lunch service continued, OSM #10, an unidentified member of the dietary staff, was observed wiping water from each individual resident's tray before placing the tray on the tray line. The trays were wet nested, and OSM #10 used the same white towel to dry all the wet trays.
On 7/19/22 at 1:46 p.m., OSM #2, who had also observed the lunch tray line service, was interviewed. She stated OSM #1 should have taken the temperatures of all hot, perishable items on the steam table. She stated he was so overwhelmed he must have just forgotten. She stated the stove and oven were both dirty, and should have been cleaned at least daily. She stated the trays should not have been wet nested, and she instructed OSM #10 to use a new disposable towel to dry each tray before placing it on the tray line. She stated OSM #1 is very new to the position of dietary manager, and had only been employed since December. She stated he received the promotion to dietary manager by attrition, and clearly needed additional training and support.
On 7/20/22 at 5:17 p.m., ASM (administrative staff member) #1, the executive director, ASM #2, the director of nursing, and ASM #3, the regional director of clinical services, were informed of these concerns.
A review of the facility policy, Food Temperatures, revealed, in part: Food temperatures are monitored at all critical control points to ensure safety and acceptability .The cook is responsible for checking food temperatures when items are removed from the oven, prior to the beginning of service, and 6 hours after removal from the steam table .The Director of Dining Services is responsible for monitoring temperatures to ensure foods are cooked to the proper internal temperature, held and served at the correct temperature .Hot foods must be 135 degrees Fahrenheit or above when leaving the serving area .Temperatures on the serving line will be taken by the cook approximately 10 minutes before the start of tray service.
A review of the facility policy, Warewashing, revealed, in part: All dishware, serviceware, and utensils will be cleaned and sanitized after each use .All dishware will be air dried and properly stored.
A review of the facility policy, Food Production/Preparation, revealed, in part: Ground or pureed food must be reheated to 165 degrees after preparation.
A review of the policy, Safety - Dietary, revealed, in part: All oven, stoves, and steam tables are allowed to cool before they are cleaned.
A review of the facility policy, Food Storage: Cold Foods, revealed, in part: All foods will be stored wrapped or in covered containers, labeled and dated, and arranged in a manner to prevent cross contamination.
No further information was provided prior to exit.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0947
(Tag F0947)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on staff interview and facility document review, it was determined that the facility staff failed to evidence required annual continuing education (in-service) hours for five of five CNA (certif...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on staff interview and facility document review, it was determined that the facility staff failed to evidence required annual continuing education (in-service) hours for five of five CNA (certified nursing assistant) records reviewed, CNAs #2, #3, #4, #5, and #6.
For CNAs #2, #3, #4, and #5, the facility provided no evidence of dementia training in the past year.
For CNA #6, the facility provided no evidence of dementia or abuse training in the past year.
The findings include:
On 7/19/22 at 4:59 p.m., OSM (other staff member) #5, the human resources director, was given a list of five CNAs for whom evidence of annual continuing education (in-services) was needed.
On 7/20/22 at 3:38 p.m., OSM #5 provided continuing education transcripts for CNAs #2, #3, #4, and #5. She did not provide any transcripts for CNA #6. For CNAs #2, #3, #4, and #5, there was no evidence of any annual training in dementia. For CNA #6, there was no evidence of any annual abuse or dementia training. OSM #5 stated she had been told about a waiver which relieved the facility staff of any annual training requirements. She stated she began her job in January 2022, and at that time, she began asking for documentation of continuing education that had been done. She stated the facility had access to a computer-based initial and annual staff training, but many of the facility staff members did not know how to access it. She stated she is in the process of getting all facility employees oriented to the computer-based training program, and of getting employees up to date in all training areas.
On 7/20/22 at 5:17 p.m., ASM (administrative staff member) #1, the executive director, ASM #2, the director of nursing, and ASM #3, the regional director of clinical services, were informed of these concerns.
A review of the facility policy, In-Service Training - General, revealed, in part: Employees will be provided in-service training on required topics on an annual basis .The Executive Director, Director of Clinical Services/Designee will be responsible for assigning, coordinating, and monitoring education and in-service training .Required education .may include a combination of requirements based on Federal, State and/or local regulations .In-service Training will be documented and recorded.
No further information was provided prior to exit.
MINOR
(C)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Deficiency F0574
(Tag F0574)
Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to provide the email address of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman, in the posted information on the wall by the elevators on the ground, first ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to provide the email address of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman, in the posted information on the wall by the elevators on the ground, first and second floors.
The findings include:
On 7/19/22 at 2:30 PM, this surveyor reviewed the information posted on the wall by the elevators on the ground, first and second floors. It was observed that the information included the mailing address and phone number of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman but was missing the email address.
On 7/20/22 at 7:00 AM, RN (registered nurse) #1 confirmed the email address was not included in the information posted on the wall.
On 7/20/22 at approximately 5:30 PM, ASM (administrative staff member) #1, the administrator, ASM #2, the director of nursing and ASM #3, the regional director of clinical services were made aware of the findings.
No further information was provided prior to exit.