BELMONT BAY REHABILITATION AND HEALTHCARE CENTER

14906 RICHMOND HIGHWAY, WOODBRIDGE, VA 22191 (703) 491-6167
For profit - Limited Liability company 120 Beds MARQUIS HEALTH SERVICES Data: November 2025 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation
Trust Grade
51/100
#123 of 285 in VA
Last Inspection: June 2024

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

Overview

Belmont Bay Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center has received a Trust Grade of C, indicating they are average compared to other facilities, which means they are neither great nor terrible. They rank #123 out of 285 in Virginia, placing them in the top half of state facilities, but only #3 out of 4 in Prince William County, suggesting limited local options. The facility is improving, with issues decreasing from 22 in 2022 to 15 in 2024. Staffing is a strength, with a turnover rate of 23%, significantly lower than Virginia's average of 48%, and they have good RN coverage, exceeding 81% of state facilities. However, the facility has concerning fines totaling $12,834, which is higher than 78% of Virginia facilities, raising flags about compliance. Specific incidents from inspections show some weaknesses. For example, staff failed to assess a resident's safety regarding smoking, despite their care plan needing updates. Additionally, there were issues with food service, including serving unpalatable meals and not following the prescribed menu, which raises concerns about meal quality and nutritional care. Overall, while there are strengths in staffing and improvement in compliance, families should be aware of the concerning incidents and fines.

Trust Score
C
51/100
In Virginia
#123/285
Top 43%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Better
22 → 15 violations
Staff Stability
✓ Good
23% annual turnover. Excellent stability, 25 points below Virginia's 48% average. Staff who stay learn residents' needs.
Penalties
○ Average
$12,834 in fines. Higher than 73% of Virginia facilities. Some compliance issues.
Skilled Nurses
✓ Good
Each resident gets 42 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for Virginia. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
Violations
⚠ Watch
53 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★★☆☆
3.0
Overall Rating
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Staff Levels
★★★★★
5.0
Care Quality
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2022: 22 issues
2024: 15 issues

The Good

  • 5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
  • Low Staff Turnover (23%) · Staff stability means consistent care
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover is low (23%)

    25 points below Virginia average of 48%

Facility shows strength in quality measures, staff retention, fire safety.

The Bad

3-Star Overall Rating

Near Virginia average (3.0)

Meets federal standards, typical of most facilities

Federal Fines: $12,834

Below median ($33,413)

Minor penalties assessed

Chain: MARQUIS HEALTH SERVICES

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 53 deficiencies on record

1 life-threatening
Jun 2024 15 deficiencies 1 IJ
CRITICAL (J)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

3. For Resident #45 (R45), the facility staff failed to assess the resident for safe independent smoking. Resident #45 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included but were not limited t...

Read full inspector narrative →
3. For Resident #45 (R45), the facility staff failed to assess the resident for safe independent smoking. Resident #45 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included but were not limited to cerebral infarction (1) and diabetes mellitus (2). The most recent MDS (minimum data set) assessment, an annual assessment, with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 5/13/2024, the resident scored 13 out of 15 on the BIMS (brief interview for mental status), indicating the resident was cognitively intact for making daily decisions. A review of the MDS documented no tobacco use. The comprehensive care plan documented in part, The resident is a smoker. Resident educated on facilities nonsmoking policy. Date Initiated: 07/22/2022. Under Interventions it documented in part, .Instruct resident about the facility policy on smoking: locations, times, safety concerns. Date Initiated: 07/22/2022 . Review of the clinical record documented a smoking safety evaluation dated 1/13/2024 and 4/13/2024 which documented in part, .Does the resident currently smoke or vape? No. On 6/5/2024 at approximately 2:02 p.m., an interview was conducted with OSM (other staff member) #11, receptionist. When asked to describe the facility's procedure for residents who smoke, OSM #11 stated that she kept the resident's smoking materials, cigarettes, lighters and /or vape pens, in a locked file cabinet in the facility's business office. She stated that when a resident wanted to smoke, they came to the front desk (receptionist's desk in the facility lobby) and she gave the resident(s) their cigarettes, lighters and /or vape pens and when the resident came back into the facility she took the smoking items back and locked them in the cabinet. When asked if she knew the residents in the facility who smoked, OSM #11 stated (Name of three additional residents and Name of R45). On 6/5/2024 at approximately 2:53 p.m., an interview was conducted with OSM #12, activities director. When asked to describe the facility's procedure for residents who smoke, OSM #12 stated that the residents obtained and left their smoking materials at the receptionist's desk. When asked if she knew the residents in the facility who smoked, OSM #12 stated (Name of three other residents and Name of R45). On 6/6/2024 at 10:40 a.m., an interview was conducted with RN (registered nurse) #2. When asked who completed smoking assessments for residents, RN #2 stated the social worker and nursing staff. When asked when they were completed, RN #2 stated they were completed on admission, quarterly and if a resident desired to smoke. RN #2 further stated that the admissions office could ask questions regarding smoking upon admission. On 6/5/2024 at 3:15 p.m., 4:07 p.m. and 5:43 p.m. interviews were attempted with R45 however they were not available. No smoking materials were visible in the residents room. On 6/6/2024 at 8:50 a.m., an interview was conducted with R45 in their room. R45 stated that they had smoked for a few years and smoked when they had a craving. R45 stated that their smoking materials were stored at the front at the nurses station and they picked them up and smoked in front of the building and turned them back in afterwards. No smoking materials were visible in the resident room or on R45's person. On 6/6/2024 at approximately12:14 p.m., ASM (administrative staff member) #1, the administrator, ASM #3, the regional vice president of operations, ASM #5, the regional director of case management, ASM #6, the regional nurse consultant, ASM #8, regional director of social services, ASM #9, regional nurse consultant, and ASM #10, director of risk management, were made aware of the findings. No further information was provided prior to exit. Reference: (1) cerebrovascular disease, infarction or accident A stroke. When blood flow to a part of the brain stops. A stroke is sometimes called a brain attack. If blood flow is cut off for longer than a few seconds, the brain cannot get nutrients and oxygen. Brain cells can die, causing lasting damage. This information was obtained from the website: https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/000726.htm . (2) diabetes mellitus A chronic disease in which the body cannot regulate the amount of sugar in the blood. This information was obtained from the website: https://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001214.htm. Based on observation, resident interview, staff interview, clinical record review and facility document review, the facility staff failed to provide assessments and supervision for smoking for three of 50 residents in the survey sample, Residents #80, (R80), R85 and R45. For R80, the facility staff failed to ensure that smoking materials were not stored in the resident's room. For R85 and R45, the facility staff failed to conduct a safety assessment for smoking. The facility's deficient practice placed the facility's residents at risk for burns, fire, and respiratory distress. This resulted in a determination of Immediate Jeopardy (IJ), cited at a level J. After Immediate Jeopardy was removed, the scope and severity were lowered to a level 2 (two) isolated, D. The findings include: For R80, the facility staff failed to safely secure a cigarette lighter and a vape pen (1). On the most recent MDS (minimum data set), a quarterly assessment with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 04/12/2024, R80 scored 15 out of 15 on the BIMS (brief interview for mental status), indicating R80 was cognitively intact for making daily decisions. On 06/05/20/2024 at approximately 8:50 a.m., an interview was conducted with R80 in her room. When asked if she smoked R80 stated that she uses a vape pen and smoked cigarettes. When asked where the vape pen, lighter and cigarettes were stored R80 reached under the pillow on her bed and showed the surveyor a vape pen. She then opened the seat on her rolling walker, reached in and pulled out a cigarette lighter and showed it to the surveyor. When asked about cigarettes, R80 point to a large clothing bag next to the bed and stated she kept her cigarettes in the bag. R80 stated she did not have any cigarettes at the time. R80 further asked the surveyor not to inform the administrator that she had retained her smoking materials. The comprehensive care plan for R80 dated 11/23/2023 documented in part Focus. I smoke r/t (related to) cigarette use. Date Initiated: 10/11/2023. Under Interventions/Tasks it documented, Educate me on the adverse effects of nicotine use as well as the importance, benefits, and available methods of smoking cessation. Nicotine patch. Date Initiated: 04/17/2024. I have been provided with education on e-cigarette/vaporizer safety, including battery and charger safety. Reinforce as needed. Date Initiated: 06/05/2024. I may smoke safely with supervision. Date Initiated: 11/22/2023. I need to smoke in backyard area and not patio. Date Initiated: 11/22/2023. I understand that for my safety, the facility will store my nicotine products and my lighter. Date Initiated: 10/11/2023. The facility's admission Agreement for R80 documented in part, Smoking: The Center will comply with state and federal law as it pertains to smoking. The safety of Patients and employees is the Center's first priority. Patients agree to follow the Center's smoking policy (a copy which has been provided to them). Each Patient wishing to smoke will be evaluated for safety purposes. If permitted to smoke, the Patient understands that he/she will be allowed to smoke in designated areas at designated times. The Patient understands that he or she will not be permitted to retain smoking materials in their personal possession or room. Further review of the document revealed it was signed by R80 on 10/25/2022. The facility's Smoking Safety Evaluation for R80 dated 04/17/2024 documented in part, 1. Does the resident currently smoke or vape? Yes. 2. Method of nicotine consumption? a. cigarette. 3. How frequently does the resident smoke or vape? Daily .16. Evaluation Generated Care Plan Interventions: I understand that for my safety, the facility will store my nicotine products and my lighter. The Health Status Note for R80 dated 04/17/2024 documented in part, A Nicotine patch was re-offered to the resident. Resident stated that she wants to remain a cigarette smoker. The Nursing Assistant Director of Nursing explained that (Name of Facility) is a non-smoking facility but the facility will continue to find a way to accommodate the resident cigarette smoking needs while the facility social workers continue working to find another placement for the resident. Smoking schedules were already arranged with the resident. Education was provided to the resident on the health risks associated with cigarette smoking and the rights of the resident to continue being a smoker. Resident is her own responsible party with a Bims score of 15 and verbalised [sic] understanding of the education provided. All the interventions put in place by the facility to accommodate the resident's desire to smoke cigarettes while in the facility were explained to the resident and the resident verbalised [sic] understanding. Resident stated that she doesn't need a smoking apron, cigarette holder, flameless lighter or any other special equipment to smoke cigarettes. The attending physician, (Name of Physician) made aware of the resident's intention to continue smoking cigarettes. The Assistant Director of Nursing also provided emotional support to the resident. The Psychological Note for R80 dated 04/22/2024 documented in part, Plan: The Resident was advised not to use drugs in or around the facility and not to distribute unauthorized items to other residents. The Social Service Note for R80 dated 05/01/2024 documented, SW (social worker) spoke with the resident's mother about the resident's plans to be discharged as she stated that she will be leaving the facility to live at an address that she refuses to give to the SW. She is moving with a friend/man since this is a non-smoking facility. The resident stated that she wants to be able to smoke and do what she wants to do. On 06/05/2024 at 10:19 a.m., ASM (administrative staff member) #1, administrator, ASM #2, director of nursing, and ASM #3, regional VP of operations, were notified of Immediate Jeopardy (IJ). On 6/5/24 at 12:57 p.m., an interview was conducted with CNA (certified nursing assistant) #3. When asked to describe the facility's smoking policy CNA #3 stated that smoking was not allowed. When asked where smoking materials are stored if a resident does smoke CNA #3 stated that she never had it happen but would go to management if she saw anything. When asked if she found smoking materials in a resident's room CNA #3 stated she would take the items to the supervisor. When asked what would happen if a resident had smoking materials in their room CNA #3 stated that due to the danger to the rest of the residents it could cause a fire, putting the roommate in danger. When asked what was the likelihood that could happen CNA #3 stated it could happen. On 6/5/24 at 12:58 p.m., an interview was conducted with LPN (licensed practical nurse) #6 regarding resident smoking. She stated that the policy was there was no smoking. When asked that if a resident did smoke, where are smoking materials maintained? She stated that they would be kept at the front desk or by activities. When asked what she would do if she found a resident to have smoking materials on them or in their room, she stated she would remove the materials, report it to the supervisor and document it. When asked what could happen if the resident has those materials in their room, she stated that the resident could start a fire. When asked what was the likelihood that could happen, she stated very likely. On 6/5/24 at 1:00 p.m., an interview was conducted with LPN #3 regarding resident smoking. When asked to describe the facility's smoking policy LPN #3 stated the facility used to allow smoking but now is smoke free. When asked where smoking materials are stored if a resident does smoke LPN #3 stated they are at the front desk, the receptionist desk. When asked if she found smoking materials in a resident's room LPN #3 stated she Normally I report it to my immediate supervisor. When asked what would happen if a resident had smoking materials in their room LPN #3 stated there is a chance of catching on fire. When asked what was the likelihood that could happen LPN #3 stated it's a small chance but it it's higher if there is oxygen in use. On 6/5/24 at 1:00 p.m. LPN #7 was interviewed regarding resident smoking. She stated that the policy was that the facility was a non-smoking facility. When asked that if a resident did smoke, where are smoking materials maintained? She stated that they would be kept at the front desk or by activities. When asked what she would do if she found a resident to have smoking materials on them or in their room, she stated that she would let the supervisor know and educate the resident that it is not safe to keep the materials, especially a lighter. When asked what could happen if the resident has those materials in their room, she stated that it is a danger to them and the facility as a whole. She stated that there is a risk of fire. When asked what was the likelihood that could happen, she stated it was a great risk that it could happen. On 06/05/24 at 1:03 p.m., an interview was conducted with CNA #2 regarding resident smoking. When asked to describe the facility's smoking policy CNA #2 stated the facility is a no smoking zone and no one is supposed to smoke at the facility especially on the floor. When asked where smoking materials are stored if a resident does smoke CNA #2 stated the activities director keeps the smoking materials. When asked if she found smoking materials in a resident's room CNA #2 stated she would report it to her supervisor. When asked what would happen if a resident had smoking materials in their room CNA #2 stated there is a possibility of a fire. When asked what was the likelihood that a fire could happen CNA #2 stated it's likely. On 6/5/24 at 1:05 p.m. CNA #6 was interviewed regarding resident smoking. She stated that the policy was there is no smoking. When asked that if a resident did smoke, where are smoking materials maintained? She stated maybe with the nurse. When asked what she would do if she found a resident to have smoking materials on them or in their room, she stated she would report it to the supervisor. When asked what could happen if the resident has those materials in their room, she stated that they could start a fire. When asked what was the likelihood that could happen, she stated that it was a big likelihood that something could happen. On 06/05/2024 at approximately 1:05 p.m., an interview was conducted with OSM (other staff member) 9, director of social services. When asked to describe the facility's procedure for residents who smoke OSM #9 stated the facility was a non-smoking facility. She stated that for residents who smoked and wanted to quit the facility would provide them with a nicotine patch the help them stop smoking, for the residents who did not want to stop smoking, the facility would conduct a care plan meeting to try and persuade the resident to stop and would also try to find a facility that allowed residents to smoke and transfer them if a facility was available. She further stated that if the resident was at the facility and smoked, a CNA (certified nursing assistant) would accompany the resident outside of the facility, off facility property, behind the facility to smoke. OSM #9 stated that the facility had schedule smoking times three times a day. When asked where the resident's smoking materials were stored, she stated that that the smoking materials were kept at the receptionist's desk. When asked if she was aware that R80 smoked cigarettes and used a vape pen and stored a lighter and vape pen in her room OSM #9 stated no. When asked if there was the likelihood of an adverse effect of a resident keeping their smoking materials on their person or in their room, she stated it is likely that the resident could start a fire. On 06/05/24 at 1:06 p.m., an interview was conducted with CNA #4 regarding resident smoking. When asked to describe the facility's smoking policy CNA #2 stated the facility is a non-smoking building no residents or staff can smoke. When asked where smoking materials are stored if a resident does smoke CNA #4 stated she did not know. When asked if she found smoking materials in a resident's room CNA #4 stated she would report it to her supervisor. When asked what would happen if a resident had smoking materials in their room CNA #4 stated some residents on oxygen and there's a chance of fire. When asked what was the likelihood that a fire could happen CNA #4 stated it's a high possibility if someone is caught smoking in the facility. On 06/05/2024 at approximately 1:20 p.m., an interview was conducted with OSM (other staff member) 10, social services assistant. When asked to describe the facility's procedure for residents who smoke OSM #10 stated the facility was a non-smoking facility and had not seen any residents smoking. When asked if she was aware that R80 smoked cigarettes and used a vape pen and stored a lighter and vape pen in her room OSM #10 stated no. When asked if there was the likelihood of an adverse effect of a resident keeping their smoking materials on their person or in their room, she stated it is likely that the resident could start a fire. On 06/05/2024 at approximately 1:47 p.m., an interview was conducted with RN (registered nurse) #1. When asked to describe the facility's procedure for residents who smoke RN #1 stated the facility was a non-smoking facility but if a resident is identified as someone who smokes they try to encourage them to quit and offer the resident a nicotine patch to help the resident stop smoking. RN #1 further stated that if the resident wants to continue smoking, the staff keep the resident's smoking materials, and the resident is allowed to smoke off the facility grounds. When asked where the resident's smoking materials were stored RN #1 stated he did not know. On 06/05/2024 at approximately 2:02 p.m., an interview was conducted with OSM (other staff member) #11, receptionist. When asked to describe the facility's procedure for residents who smoke OSM #11 stated she keeps all the resident's smoking materials, cigarettes, lighters and /or vape pens, in a locked file cabinet in the facility's business office. She stated that when a resident wants to smoke, they come to the front desk (receptionist's desk in the facility lobby) and OSM #11 give the resident(s) their cigarettes, lighters and /or vape pens and when the resident(s) come back into the facility she takes the smoking items back and locks them in the cabinet. When asked if she knew the residents in the facility who smoked, OSM #11 stated (Name of R80, Name of R85, Name of R114 and Name of R45). When asked if she was aware of any residents who kept their smoking materials on their person or in their room, she stated no. When asked if there was the likelihood of an adverse effect of a resident keeping their smoking materials on their person or in their room, she stated that it is likely that the resident could share cigarettes or vape pens with other residents or likely of injury and a fire. On 06/05/2024 at 2:16 p.m., the Immediacy Plan was Accepted. The plan documented, 1. Smoking paraphernalia will be removed from the room of resident #80. 2. BIMS assessment to be completed to determine resident's cognitive state as it relates to comprehension of facility smoking policy. 3. Smoking safety evaluation to be completed for resident #80. 4. Resident to be reeducated on facility smoking policy. 5. Resident to be reeducated on the location of designated smoking areas. 6.A head-to-toe skin assessment will be conducted on resident #80 and variances will be reported to the physician. 7. Facility staff will be educated on community smoking policy. In addition to designated smoking areas. Items on the above checklist will be completed by 3:00 pm June 05, 2024. On 06/05/2024 at approximately 2:53 p.m., an interview was conducted with OSM #14, activities director. When asked to describe the facility's procedure for residents who smoke OSM #14 stated she stated the residents would obtain and leave their smoking materials at the receptionist's desk. When asked if she knew the residents in the facility who smoked, OSM #14 stated (Name of R80, Name of R85, Name of R114 and Name of R45). When asked if she was aware of any residents who kept their smoking materials on their person or in their room, she stated no. When asked if there was the likelihood of an adverse effect of a resident keeping their smoking materials on their person or in their room, she stated that it is likely that another resident could take the smoking materials from the resident's room or likely of injury and a fire. After multiple resubmissions, the facility presented the following IJ removal plan was accepted on 06/06/2024 at 8:00 a.m. Plan for Removal: 1.Resident #80 had a smoking re-evaluation on 6/5/24 by the licensed nurse for her ability to smoke safely and handle smoking materials. At that time the resident was also re-educated on the facility's smoking policy to include location of the designated smoking area, the storage of the smoking materials and approved smoking times. Resident #80 was offered a patch for smoking cessation which she declined. A skin evaluation was also completed by the licensed nurse with no new findings. The resident physician was also made aware of the findings of the evaluation, with no new orders noted at this time. The resident's care plan was also updated to include permission for safety rounds to validate that smoking materials are not on her person or in the resident's room. Completed 6/5/2024. 2. BIMS assessment to be completed to determine resident's cognitive state as it relates to comprehension of facility smoking policy. Completed 6/5/2024. 3. Licensed Nursing Home Administrator/designees with permission completed interviews, a visual audit and/or a search of current resident rooms for smoking materials. Any variances will be removed with the resident's knowledge for safe keeping and the resident re-educated. The physician and/ or psychosocial services will be updated as indicated. 4. Immediate Actions/Education: Nursing Administration completed an audit of current residents to validate smoking evaluations were completed and accurate per policy. Any identified variances were immediately corrected, and evaluation was completed. Completed 6/5/2024. Adhoc Resident council meeting conducted on 6/5/24 to review the facility smoking policy. Completed 6/5/24. Administrator sent an email to resident representatives on the facility smoking policy. Completed 6/5/2024. Voice friend sent to all facility staff regarding the smoking policy, designated smoking areas. Completed 6/5/2024. All Staff will be educated on smoking policy, designated smoking area, and storage of the smoking materials and approved smoking times. 36% completed 6/5/2024 and 100% completed by 6/6/2024 at 10AM. Staff will not be able to work until they are educated on smoking policy, designated smoking area, and approved smoking times. 36% completed 6/5/2024 and 100% completed by 6/6/24 at 10AM. All Staff will be educated in visually inspecting rooms during care and in-room visits for the presence of smoking material on the resident's person or at the bedside and the reporting requirements. Staff noting any variances will immediately report to the charge nurse and physician for follow-up. 36% completed 6/5/2024 and 100% completed by 6/6/2024 10AM. Resident #80 has an updated trauma-informed care evaluation and care plan mapping the pathway for individualized psychosocial care. 6/5/2024. Social Service designee will review current residents who smoke and / or have a history of non-compliance with smoking materials to validate that residents identified with similar concerns have been evaluated and care plans up to date and implemented. Resident rooms reviewed for Oxygen in use signs. Completed 6/5/2024. 5. Ongoing Compliance will be monitored by: 9/5/2024: General environment observation will be accessed during routine care delivery or ambassador rounds; such as the closets, bedside tables, and drawers for smoking materials daily for one week, then three times a week for 3 weeks, weekly for 4 weeks then monthly for one month. Any variance will be reported to the Supervisor on duty for immediate follow-up and then to the Administrator. Review of PCC smoking evaluation for new admissions and readmissions for completion, compliance and patterns/trends in resident responses or capabilities five days a week for three months. Any variance will be reported to the RN Supervisor on duty for immediate follow-up. The Administrator will be responsible for the execution and implementation of this abatement plan. The facility policy Smoking Policy - Residents documented, Policy Statement. This facility has established and maintains safe resident smoking practices. Policy Interpretation and Implementation. 1. Prior to, and upon admission, residents are informed of the facility smoking policy, including designated smoking areas, and the extent to which the facility can accommodate their smoking or non-smoking preferences. 2. Smoking is only permitted in designated resident smoking areas, which are located outside of the building. 3. Approved area for smoking location: Back left section of patio area. 4. Smoking permitted in the approved location at the following times: 9:30 am, 1:30 pm, 6:30 pm. 5. Smoking is not allowed inside the facility under any circumstances. 6. Residents approved to smoke will have all materials (lighters, cigarettes, e-cigarettes) stored at the front desk of the facility. All items will be returned to the receptionist for storage upon completion of smoking activities. Smoking materials will be stored in a locked drawer at the receptionist's desk. Residents will be required to sign all materials in/out for tracking purposes. 7. Electronic cigarettes and smokeless tobacco are permitted in designated areas only. 8. Oxygen use is prohibited in smoking areas. 9. Metal containers, with self-closing cover devices, are available in smoking areas. 10. Ashtrays are emptied only into designated receptacles. 11. Resident smoking status is evaluated upon admission. If a smoker, the evaluation includes: a. current level of tobacco consumption; b. method of tobacco consumption (traditional cigarettes; electronic cigarettes; pipe, etc.); c. desire to quit smoking; and d. ability to smoke safely with or without supervision (per a completed Safe Smoking Evaluation). 12. The staff consults with the attending physician and the director of nursing services (DNS) to determine if safety restrictions need to be placed on a resident's smoking privileges based on the Safe Smoking Evaluation. 13. A resident's ability to smoke safely is re-evaluated quarterly, upon a significant change (physical or cognitive) and as determined by the staff. 14. Any smoking-related privileges, restrictions, and concerns (for example, need for close monitoring) are noted on the care plan, and all personnel caring for the resident shall be alerted to these issues. 15. The facility may impose smoking restrictions on a resident at any time if it is determined that the resident cannot smoke safely with the available levels of support and supervision. 16. Any resident with smoking privileges requiring monitoring shall have the direct supervision of a staff member. 17. Residents are not permitted to give smoking items to other residents. 18. Staff members and volunteer workers are not permitted to purchase and/or provide any smoking items for residents. 19. This facility maintains the right to confiscate smoking items found in violation of our smoking policies. 20. Confiscated resident property is itemized and ultimately returned to the resident, or his or her legal representative. 21. If the facility policy changes to one that prohibits smoking (including electronic cigarettes), residents who are currently allowed to smoke will be provided an area to smoke which maintains the quality of life and safety for smoking residents, while considering the health and well-being of non-smoking residents. 22. Residents admitted after the Tobacco-Free Environment policy is adopted are informed of the policy on admission. Electronic Cigarettes 23. Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes, vapes) are not considered smoking devices with respect to the risk of ignition, but they are considered a risk for residents related to: a. potential health effects for the smoker, such as respiratory illness or lung injury which may present with symptoms of breathing difficulty, shortness of breath, chest pain, mild to moderate gastrointestinal illness, fever or fatigue; b. second-hand aerosol exposure; c. nicotine overdose by ingestion or contact with the skin; and d. explosion or fire caused by the battery. 24. To prevent accidents associated with e-cigarettes and to respect the rights of resident who do not want to be exposed to second-hand aerosol, residents are permitted to use e-cigarettes with supervision and in designated smoking areas only. 25. Residents who wish to use e-cigarettes are assessed for their ability to safely handle the devices (including batteries and refill cartridges) on an individual basis. 26.Residents who wish to use e-cigarettes are instructed on battery safety and tips to avoid battery explosions per FDA recommendations. Instruction specific to e-cigarette safety is documented in the resident care plan. On 06/06/2024 at 10:10 a.m., the survey team, through observations, interviews, and documentation review, verified the removal plan had been fully implemented by the facility. On 06/06/2024 at 11:45 a.m., ASM #1, the administrator, was informed the removal plan had been verified and the IJ had been removed. No further information was provided prior to exit. 2. For Resident #85 (R85), the facility staff failed to complete a smoking assessment on a resident who upon interview, stated he was a smoker. An interview was conducted with R85 on 6/5/24 at 2:30 p.m. When asked if he smoked, R85 stated he smokes a little bit. R85 was asked where he smokes, R85 stated he goes across the street at the doctor's office. Where do you keep your smoking materials, R85 stated he keeps them on himself. A second interview was conducted with R85 on 6/5/24 at 2:45 p.m. When asked if he smokes, R85 stated he likes to smoke around 9:30 a.m., before dinner and then before they lock up the front doors. When asked if his smoking materials were on his person, he stated they were not on him but are nearby. This writer explained the danger to others if they would get a hold of the lighter, R85 stated, Yes, there are many people in here that you wouldn't want to get a hold of a lighter. When asked where he smokes, R85 stated he goes up the hill to the doctor's office. He further stated that they told him there was a designated smoking spot but thinks it's somewhere in the back parking lot. On most recent MDS (minimum data set) assessment, a quarterly assessment, with an assessment reference date of 5/2/24, the resident scored a 15 out of 15 on the BIMS (brief interview for mental status) score, indicating the resident was not cognitively impaired for making daily decisions. The admission assessment, dated, 1/24/24 documented in part, Smoking Safety Evaluation: History of Smoking - Does the resident currently smoke or vape? No. Further review of the clinical record failed to evidence any smoking assessments completed after 1/24/24. Review of the progress notes from 1/24/24 to 6/5/24, failed to [TRUNCATED]
CONCERN (D)

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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, staff interview, and facility document review, the facility staff failed to maintain a resident's dignity for two of 50 residents in the survey sample, Resident #50 and Resident ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, staff interview, and facility document review, the facility staff failed to maintain a resident's dignity for two of 50 residents in the survey sample, Resident #50 and Resident #73. The findings include: 1. For Resident #50 (R50), the facility staff failed to treat the staff in a dignified manner when they did not serve him lunch at the same time as his roommate, Resident #23 (R23). R50 refused to be interviewed during the survey. On 6/3/23 at 1:15 p.m., R50 was observed sitting beside his bed in his wheelchair. He was staring absently to the right side of the room, where R23 sat in a wheelchair. R23 was eating his lunch. R50's lunch tray was observed on top of his chest of drawers, with all containers covered and full. At 1:32 p.m., R23 had finished eating his lunch; R50's tray was still on top of the chest of drawers. At 1:48 p.m., a staff member went into the room, put R50's tray on his overbed table, and began to feed R50. On 6/4/24 at 3:33 p.m., LPN (licensed practical nurse) #1 and CNA (certified nursing assistant) #1 were interviewed. When asked the process for distributing meal trays when one resident can feed himself and the roommate requires feeding, CNA #1 stated there really is no formal process. She stated the staff distributes the trays as they are arranged in the meal cart that comes from the kitchen. If a resident needs to be fed, the staff put the tray for that resident in the room, then feed the resident when the staff member gets to it. When asked if it promotes a dependent resident's dignity to have to wait until after his roommate has finished a meal before the dependent resident has the opportunity to eat, LPN #1 stated: No. I wouldn't want that. On 6/4/23 at 4:47 p.m., ASM (administrative staff member) #1, the administrator, ASM #2, the director of nursing, and ASM #3, the regional vice president of operations, were informed of these concerns. A review of the facility policy, Dignity, revealed, in part: Each resident shall be cared for in a manner that promotes and enhances his or her sense of well-being, level of satisfaction with life, and feelings of self-worth and self-esteem .Residents are treated with dignity and respect at all times. No further information was provided prior to exit. 2. For R73, the facility staff failed to uphold the resident's dignity by cleaning his fingernails. R73 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included but were not limited to hemiparesis (1) and hemiplegia (2). On the most recent MDS (minimum data set), an admission assessment with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 03/09/2024, the resident scored 12 out of 15 on the BIMS (brief interview for mental status), indicating R73 was moderately impaired of cognition for making daily decisions. Under Section GG Functional Abilities and Goals. Subsection I. Personal Hygiene. The ability to maintain personal hygiene, including combing hair, shaving, applying makeup, washing/drying face and hands (excludes baths, showers, and oral hygiene) it coded R73 as 01(zero-one)- Dependent - Helper does ALL of the effort. Resident does none of the effort to complete the activity. Or, the assistance of 2 or more helpers is required for the resident to complete the activity. On 06/03/24 at approximately 2:06 p.m., an observation of R73's fingernails on the right -hand wear observed with dirt under the nails. On 06/04/24 at approximately 8:50 a.m., an observation of R73's fingernails on the right -hand wear observed with dirt under the nails. On 06/04/24 at approximately 12:00 p.m., an observation of R73's fingernails on the right-hand wear observed with dirt under the nails. The facility's ADL (activities of daily living) tracking sheets for R73 dated June 2024 documented in part, - Personal Hygiene. The ability to maintain personal hygiene, including combing hair, shaving, applying makeup, washing/drying face and hands (excludes baths, showers, and oral hygiene). 01- Dependent - Helper does ALL of the effort. Resident does none of the effort to complete the activity. Or, the assistance of 2 or more helpers is required for the resident to complete the activity. Further review of the ADL sheet coded R73 zero-one (01) on 06/03/2024 and 06/04/2024 during the 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. shift, indicating R73's fingernails were cleaned. The facility's progress notes for R73 dated 06/01/2024 through 06/05/2024 failed to evidence documentation of ADL refusal. On 06/04/2024 at approximately 1:38 p.m., an interview was conducted with CNA (certified nursing assistant) #7. When asked to describe the procedure for providing ADL (activities of daily living) care for a resident CNA #7 stated ADL care is done every day and it included bed bath, brushing teeth, providing mouth wash, if male resident, shaving them, brushing/combing their hair, trimming and cleaning their finger nails if needed, change their brief, gown or assisting them with dressing, changing the bedding, washing their face and hands and assisting them with toileting if needed. When asked if she was assigned to provide ADL care to R73 on 06/03/2024 CNA #7 stated yes. When asked if resident's hands were washed before each meal CNA #7 stated yes. After observing R73's fingernails, CNA #7 stated R73's fingernails were dirty and needed cleaning. After informed of the observations of R73's fingernails as stated above CNA #7 was asked if it was dignified for R73 to have dirty fingernails. CNA #7 stated it was not dignified. 06/04/2024 at approximately 1:50 p.m., an interview was conducted with R73. When asked how it made him feel not having his fingernails cleaned R73 sated he felt dirty. When asked if he was able to clean his own fingernails R73 stated no. The facility's policy Dignity documented in part, Policy Statement: Each resident shall be cared for in a manner that promotes and enhances his or her sense of well-being, level of satisfaction with life, and feelings of self-worth and self-esteem. Policy Interpretation and Implementation. 5. When assisting with care, residents are supported in exercising their rights. For example, residents are groomed as they wish to be groomed (hair styles, nails, facial hair, etc.) . On 06/06/2024 at approximately 12:14 ASM (administrative staff member) #1, administrator, ASM #2, director of nursing, ASM #3, regional vice president of operations, ASM #4, director of infection prevention, ASM #5, regional director of case management, and ASM #6, regional nurse consultant, ASM #8, regional director of social services, and ASM #9, regional nurse consultant, were made aware of the above findings. No further information was provided prior to exit. References: (1) Paralysis is the loss of muscle function in part of your body. This information was obtained from the website: https://medlineplus.gov/paralysis.html. (2) Paralysis is the loss of muscle function in part of your body. Paralysis can be complete or partial. It can occur on one or both sides of your body. It can also occur in just one area, or it can be widespread This information was obtained from the website: https://medlineplus.gov/paralysis.html.
CONCERN (D)

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, resident interview, staff interview, facility document, and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to maintain a clean, home-like environment for one of 50 residents i...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, resident interview, staff interview, facility document, and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to maintain a clean, home-like environment for one of 50 residents in the survey sample, Resident #23. The findings include: For Resident #23 (R23), the facility failed to maintain a home-like environment in the bathroom, where a hole in the dry wall surrounded the toilet pipe, multiple tiles were chipped of the baseboard, the floor was stained, and the bathroom had a strong urine odor. On 6/3/24 at 3:58 p.m., R23 was interviewed. He stated he had concerns about the cleanliness of his bathroom. In the bathroom, four tiles had chipped off from the baseboard area, and were lying beside the back of the toilet. The tile floor was stained with dark areas, especially in the four corners. There was a circular hole in the drywall surrounding the area where the toilet piping went into the wall behind the toilet. There was a strong smell of old urine. When asked if he felt the condition of the bathroom contributed to a home-like environment for him, he stated it did not. On 6/4/24 at 3:33 p.m., OSM (other staff member) #7, the environmental services manager, and OSM #8, the maintenance director, were interviewed. OSM #7 stated the housekeepers clean each room daily. He stated the room cleaning includes sanitizing the bathroom high-touch surfaces and mopping the floor. OSM #8 stated he inspects several rooms each day, but does not go into each room daily. He stated if there are maintenance needs, the staff members enter maintenance requests into the maintenance software, and his staff completes the repairs. OSMs #7 and #8 observed R23's bathroom with the surveyor. OSM #7 stated the stains on the bathroom floor will not come clean, and the bathroom did not smell clean. OSM #8 stated he had not seen the condition of the drywall behind the toilet before. Both agreed that the bathroom was not a home-like environment. On 6/4/23 at 4:47 p.m., ASM (administrative staff member) #1, the administrator, ASM #2, the director of nursing, and ASM #3, the regional vice president of operations, were informed of these concerns. A review of the facility policy, Homelike Environment, revealed, in part: The facility staff and management minimizes, to the extent possible, the characteristics of the facility that reflect a depersonalized, institutional setting. These characteristics include .institutional odors. No further information was provided prior to exit.
CONCERN (D)

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

Transfer Notice (Tag F0623)

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 provide a written notification upon transfer for one of 50 residents in th...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on staff interview, facility document review and clinical record review, it was determined the facility staff failed to provide a written notification upon transfer for one of 50 residents in the survey sample, Resident #27. The findings include: The nurse's note dated, 3/23/24 at 3:49 p.m., documented in part, Resident noted with left sided facial droop, resident c/o (complained of) left facial side numbness. VS (vital signs) done. PA (physician assistant) gave order to send to hospital for stroke, resident is own RP (responsible party). Review of the scanned documents, sent to the hospital with the resident, failed to evidence a written notification was provided to the resident upon transfer. A request was made for the evidence of the written notification on 6/4/24 at 12:21 p.m. On 6/4/24 at 4:50 p.m. ASM (administrative staff member) #3, regional vice president of operations, stated they did not have the written notification. An interview was conducted with RN (registered nurse) #2 on 6/5/24 at 10:40 a.m. When asked when a resident is transferred to the hospital what documents are sent with the resident, RN #2 stated, the face sheet, medication list, progress note, physician history and physical, code status, care plan goals, and written notice of transfer. The facility policy, Transfer or Discharge, Facility-Initiated documented in part. 4. Notice of Transfer is provided to the resident and representative as soon as practicable before the transfer and to the long-term care (LTC) ombudsman when practicable (e.g., in a monthly list of residents that includes all notice content requirements). ASM #1, the administrator, ASM #2, the director of nursing, ASM #3, ASM #4, regional director of infection prevention, ASM #5, regional director of case management, and ASM #6, regional nurse consultant, were made aware of the above concern on 6/4/24 at 4:55 p.m. No further information was provided prior to exit.
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, clinical record review and facility document review, it was determined that the facility staff failed ...

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 that the facility staff failed to ensure accurate MDS assessments for one of 50 residents in the survey sample; Resident #79. The findings include: For Resident #79, the facility staff failed to accurately code the admission MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment dated [DATE] regarding the administration of insulin. The 4/13/24 admission MDS assessment was coded as the resident being on insulin, having received seven insulin injections during the seven day look back period. The resident was not on any prescribed insulin. A review of the above MDS assessments revealed the following: In Section N - Medications, was documented, Record the number of days that injections of any type were received during the last 7 days or since admission/entry or reentry if less than 7 days. In the box was typed 7 for seven days. The next part, Insulin documented, Insulin injections - Record the number of days that insulin injections were received during the last 7 days or since admission/entry or reentry if less than 7 days. In the box was typed 7 for seven injections of insulin. A review of the clinical record failed to reveal any evidence that the resident had a diagnosis of diabetes or ever had any orders for insulin. On 6/04/24 at 2:27 PM, an interview was conducted with LPN #2 (Licensed Practical Nurse), the MDS nurse. She stated that the MDS was miscoded and that the resident was not and had not been on any insulin. A review of the RAI Manual (Resident Assessment Instrument) dated October 1, 2023, on page 1-4 was documented, The RAI process has multiple regulatory requirements. Federal regulations .require that (1) the assessment accurately reflects the resident's status . The facility policy, Comprehensive Assessments was reviewed. This policy documented, 1. The facility conducts comprehensive, accurate, standardized, reproducible assessments of each resident's functional capacity using the Resident Assessment Instrument specified by CMS . On 6/4/24 at 4:47 PM, ASM #1 (Administrative Staff Member) the Administrator, ASM #2 the Director of Nursing and ASM #3 the Regional Director of Operations were made aware of the findings. No other information was provided by the end of the survey.
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, staff interview, clinical record review, it was determined that the facility staff failed to follow the comprehensive care plan for three of 50 residents in the survey sample, Re...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, staff interview, clinical record review, it was determined that the facility staff failed to follow the comprehensive care plan for three of 50 residents in the survey sample, Residents #73 (R73), R413 and R80. The findings include: 1.For R73, the facility staff failed to follow the comprehensive care plan to keep fingernails clean. R73 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included but were not limited to: hemiparesis (1) and hemiplegia (2). On the most recent MDS (minimum data set), an admission assessment with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 03/09/2024, the resident scored 12 out of 15 on the BIMS (brief interview for mental status), indicating R73 was moderately impaired of cognition for making daily decisions. Under Section GG Functional Abilities and Goals. Subsection I. Personal Hygiene. The ability to maintain personal hygiene, including combing hair, shaving, applying makeup, washing/drying face and hands (excludes baths, showers, and oral hygiene) it coded R73 as 01(zero-one)- Dependent - Helper does ALL of the effort. Resident does none of the effort to complete the activity. Or, the assistance of 2 or more helpers is required for the resident to complete the activity. On 06/03/24 at approximately 2:06 p.m., an observation of R73's fingernails on the right -hand wear observed with dirt under the nails. On 06/04/24 at approximately 8:50 a.m., an observation of R73's fingernails on the right -hand wear observed with dirt under the nails. On 06/04/24 at approximately 12:00 p.m., an observation of R73's fingernails on the right-hand wear observed with dirt under the nails. The comprehensive care plan for R73 dated 12/02/2023 documented in part, Focus. (Name of R73) has ADL Self Care Performance Deficit r/t (related to) muscle wasting and atrophy, secondary to CVA (stroke) with left side weakness. Date Initiated: 12/02/2023. Under Interventions/Tasks it documented in part, (R73) required extensive to total assistance of 1-2 (one to two) staff members for all ADDL care. Date Initiated: 12/31/2023. The facility's ADL tracking sheets for R73 dated June 2024 documented in part, - Personal Hygiene. The ability to maintain personal hygiene, including combing hair, shaving, applying makeup, washing/drying face and hands (excludes baths, showers, and oral hygiene). 01- Dependent - Helper does ALL of the effort. Resident does none of the effort to complete the activity. Or, the assistance of 2 or more helpers is required for the resident to complete the activity. Further review of the ADL sheet coded R73 zero-one (01) on 06/03/2024 and 06/04/2024 during the 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. shift, indicating R73's fingernails were cleaned. The facility's progress notes for R73 dated 06/01/2024 through 06/05/2024 failed to evidence documentation of R73 refusing ADL care. On 06/04/2024 at approximately 1:38 p.m., an interview was conducted with CNA (certified nursing assistant) #2. When asked to describe the procedure for providing ADL (activities of daily living) care for a resident CNA #2 stated ADL care is done every day and it included bed bath, brushing teeth, providing mouth wash, if male resident, shaving them, brushing/combing their hair, trimming and cleaning their finger nails if needed, change their brief, gown or assisting them with dressing, changing the bedding, washing their face and hands and assisting them with toileting if needed. When asked if she was assigned to provide ADL care to R73 on 06/03/2024 CNA #2 stated yes. When asked if resident's hands were washed before each meal CNA #2 stated yes. After observing R73's fingernails, CNA #2 stated R73's fingernails were dirty and needed cleaning. 06/04/2024 at approximately 1:50 p.m., an interview was conducted with R73. When asked if he was able to clean his own fingernails R73 stated no. On 06/06/2024 at approximately 10:50 a.m., an interview was conducted with LPN (licensed practical nurse) #4. When asked about the purpose of a resident's care plan she stated that it tells how to take care of the resident. When asked if the care plan was followed if the if R73's fingernails were not being cleaned LPN #4 stated no. On 06/06/2024 at approximately 12:14 ASM (administrative staff member) #1, administrator, ASM #2, director of nursing, ASM #3, regional vice president of operations, ASM #4, director of infection prevention, ASM #5, regional director of case management, and ASM #6, regional nurse consultant, ASM #8, regional director of social services, and ASM #9, regional nurse consultant, were made aware of the above findings. No further information was provided prior to exit. References: (1) Paralysis is the loss of muscle function in part of your body. This information was obtained from the website: https://medlineplus.gov/paralysis.html. (2) Paralysis is the loss of muscle function in part of your body. Paralysis can be complete or partial. It can occur on one or both sides of your body. It can also occur in just one area, or it can be widespread This information was obtained from the website: https://medlineplus.gov/paralysis.html. 2. For (R413), the facility staff failed to follow the comprehensive care plan for the administration of oxygen according to the physician's orders. R413 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included but were not limited to respiratory failure (1). R413's MDS (minimum data set) assessment was in process at the time of the survey, therefore R413's data was not available. The facility's Admission/readmission Evaluation dated 05/24/2024 for R413 documented in part, A. Cognitive/Neurological. 1. Mental Status: a. Alert. 2. Oriented to: a. Person, b. Place, c. Time, d. Situation. On 06/04/2024 at approximately 8:12 a.m., an observation of R413revealed they were lying in bed receiving oxygen by nasal cannula. An observation of the flow meter on the oxygen concentrator revealed an oxygen flow rate between two-and-a-half and three liters per minute. On 06/05/24 at approximately 7:34 a.m., an observation of R413 revealed they were lying in bed receiving oxygen by nasal cannula. An observation of the flow meter on the oxygen concentrator revealed an oxygen flow rate between two and two-and-a-half liters per minute. The physician's order for R413 documented in part, Oxygen at 3L/ (three liters per) minute via (by) nasal cannula. every shift for SOB (shortness of breath). Order Date: 06/02/2024. Start Date: 06/02/2024. The comprehensive care plan for R413 dated 06/03/2024 documented in part, Focus. (Name of R413) has altered respiratory status r/t (related to) COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease), respiratory failure, CHF (congestive heart failure). Date Initiated: 06/03/2024. Under Interventions/Tasks it documented in part Administer oxygen as ordered. Date Initiated: 06/03/202. On 06/04/2024 at approximately 1:55 p.m., an interview was conducted with LPN (licensed practical nurse) #4. When asked how she reads the flow meter on a resident's oxygen concentrator to determine the amount of oxygen a resident receives, LPN #4 stated that the float ball in the oxygen flow meter is either on or below the liter line. When asked to clarify how to read the flow meter LPN #4 stated that she was not sure where the float ball should be in the flow meter. The service manual for R413's oxygen concentrator by (Name of Manufacturer) documented in part, 1. Turn the flowrate knob to the setting prescribed by your physician or therapist. 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 (liter per minute) line prescribed. On 06/06/2024 at approximately 10:50 a.m., an interview was conducted with LPN (licensed practical nurse) #4. When asked about the purpose of a resident's care plan she stated that it tells how to take care of the resident. When asked if the care plan was followed if the if the oxygen was not set according to the physician's orders LPN #4 stated no. On 06/06/2024 at approximately 12:14 ASM (administrative staff member) #1, administrator, ASM #2, director of nursing, ASM #3, regional vice president of operations, ASM #4, director of infection prevention, ASM #5, regional director of case management, and ASM #6, regional nurse consultant, ASM #8, regional director of social services, and ASM #9, regional nurse consultant, were made aware of the above findings. No further information was provided prior to exit. 3. For (R80), the facility staff failed to follow the comprehensive care plan for the safe storge of smoking materials. R80 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included but were not limited to PTSD (post traumatic stress disorder) (1). On the most recent MDS (minimum data set), a quarterly assessment with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 04/12/2024, R80 scored 15 out of 15 on the BIMS (brief interview for mental status), indicating R80 was cognitively intact for making daily decisions. On 06/05/20/2024 at approximately 8:50 a.m., an interview was conducted with R80 in her room. When asked if she smoked R80 stated that she uses a vape pen and smoked cigarettes. When asked where the vape pen, lighter and cigarettes were stored R80 reached under the pillow on her bed and showed the surveyor a vape pen. She then opened the seat on her rolling walker, reached in and pulled out a cigarette lighter and showed it to the surveyor. When asked about cigarettes, R80 point to a large clothing bag next to the bed and stated she kept her cigarettes in the bag. R80 stated she did not have any cigarettes at the time. The facility's Smoking Safety Evaluation for R80 dated 04/17/2024 documented in part, 16. Evaluation Generated Care Plan Interventions: I understand that for my safety, the facility will store my nicotine products and my lighter. The comprehensive care plan for R80 dated 11/23/2023 documented in part Focus. I smoke r/t (related to) cigarette use. Date Initiated: 10/11/2023. Under Interventions/Tasks it documented, Educate me on the adverse effects of nicotine use as well as the importance, benefits, and available methods of smoking cessation. Nicotine patch. Date Initiated: 04/17/2024. I have been provided with education on e-cigarette/vaporizer safety, including battery and charger safety. Reinforce as needed. Date Initiated: 06/05/2024. I may smoke safely with supervision. Date Initiated: 11/22/2023. I need to smoke in backyard area and not patio. Date Initiated: 11/22/2023. I understand that for my safety, the facility will store my nicotine products and my lighter. Date Initiated: 10/11/2023. On 06/06/2024 at approximately 10:50 a.m., an interview was conducted with LPN (licensed practical nurse) #4. When asked about the purpose of a resident's care plan she stated that it tells how to take care of the resident. When asked if the care plan was followed if R80 stored smoking materials in her room, LPN #4 stated no. On 06/06/2024 at approximately 12:14 ASM (administrative staff member) #1, administrator, ASM #2, director of nursing, ASM #3, regional vice president of operations, ASM #4, director of infection prevention, ASM #5, regional director of case management, and ASM #6, regional nurse consultant, ASM #8, regional director of social services, and ASM #9, regional nurse consultant, were made aware of the above findings. No further information was provided 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 observation, resident interview, staff interview, clinical record review, it was determined that the facility staff failed to provide ADL(activities of daily living) care for one of 50 reside...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, resident interview, staff interview, clinical record review, it was determined that the facility staff failed to provide ADL(activities of daily living) care for one of 50 residents in the survey sample, Resident #73 (R73). For R73, the facility staff failed to clean his fingernails. R73 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included but were not limited to: hemiparesis (1) and hemiplegia (2). On the most recent MDS (minimum data set), an admission assessment with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 03/09/2024, the resident scored 12 out of 15 on the BIMS (brief interview for mental status), indicating R73 was moderately impaired of cognition for making daily decisions. Under Section GG Functional Abilities and Goals. Subsection I. Personal Hygiene. The ability to maintain personal hygiene, including combing hair, shaving, applying makeup, washing/drying face and hands (excludes baths, showers, and oral hygiene) it coded R73 as 01(zero-one)- Dependent - Helper does ALL of the effort. Resident does none of the effort to complete the activity. Or, the assistance of 2 or more helpers is required for the resident to complete the activity. On 06/03/24 at approximately 2:06 p.m., an observation of R73's fingernails on the right -hand wear observed with dirt under the nails. On 06/04/24 at approximately 8:50 a.m., an observation of R73's fingernails on the right -hand wear observed with dirt under the nails. On 06/04/24 at approximately 12:00 p.m., an observation of R73's fingernails on the right-hand wear observed with dirt under the nails. The facility's ADL tracking sheets for R73 dated June 2024 documented in part, - Personal Hygiene. The ability to maintain personal hygiene, including combing hair, shaving, applying makeup, washing/drying face and hands (excludes baths, showers, and oral hygiene). 01- Dependent - Helper does ALL of the effort. Resident does none of the effort to complete the activity. Or, the assistance of 2 or more helpers is required for the resident to complete the activity. Further review of the ADL sheet coded R73 zero-one (01) on 06/03/2024 and 06/04/2024 during the 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. shift, indicating R73's fingernails were cleaned. The facility's progress notes for R73 dated 06/01/2024 through 06/05/2024 failed to evidence documentation of R73 refusing ADL care. On 06/04/2024 at approximately 1:38 p.m., an interview was conducted with CNA (certified nursing assistant) #7. When asked to describe the procedure for providing ADL (activities of daily living) care for a resident CNA #7 stated ADL care is done every day and it included bed bath, brushing teeth, providing mouth wash, if male resident, shaving them, brushing/combing their hair, trimming and cleaning their finger nails if needed, change their brief, gown or assisting them with dressing, changing the bedding, washing their face and hands and assisting them with toileting if needed. When asked if she was assigned to provide ADL care to R73 on 06/03/2024 CNA #7 stated yes. When asked if resident's hands were washed before each meal CNA #7 stated yes. After observing R73's fingernails, CNA #7 stated R73's fingernails were dirty and needed cleaning. 06/04/2024 at approximately 1:50 p.m., an interview was conducted with R73. When asked how it made him feel not having his fingernails cleaned R73 sated he felt dirty. When asked if he was able to clean his own fingernails R73 stated no. The facility's policy Activities of Daily Living (ADLs), Supporting documented in part, Policy Statement: Residents who are unable to carry out activities of daily living independently will receive the services necessary to maintain good nutrition, grooming and personal and oral hygiene. 2. Appropriate care and services will be provided for residents who are unable to carry out ADLs independently, with the consent of the resident and in accordance with the plan of care, including appropriate support and assistance with: a. hygiene (bathing, dressing, grooming, and oral care). On 06/06/2024 at approximately 12:14 ASM (administrative staff member) #1, administrator, ASM #2, director of nursing, ASM #3, regional vice president of operations, ASM #4, director of infection prevention, ASM #5, regional director of case management, and ASM #6, regional nurse consultant, ASM #8, regional director of social services, and ASM #9, regional nurse consultant, were made aware of the above findings. No further information was provided prior to exit. References: (1) Paralysis is the loss of muscle function in part of your body. This information was obtained from the website: https://medlineplus.gov/paralysis.html. (2) Paralysis is the loss of muscle function in part of your body. Paralysis can be complete or partial. It can occur on one or both sides of your body. It can also occur in just one area, or it can be widespread This information was obtained from the website: https://medlineplus.gov/paralysis.html.
CONCERN (D)

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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, staff interview, clinical record review, and facility document review, it was determined that facility staff failed to provide respiratory care and services for one of 50 residen...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, staff interview, clinical record review, and facility document review, it was determined that facility staff failed to provide respiratory care and services for one of 50 residents in the survey sample, Resident #413. For (R413), the facility staff failed to maintain the oxygen flow rate at three liters per minute according to the physician's orders. R413 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included but were not limited to respiratory failure (1). R413's MDS (minimum data set) assessment was in process at the time of the survey, therefore R413's data was not available. The facility's Admission/readmission Evaluation dated 05/24/2024 for R413 documented in part, A. Cognitive/Neurological. 1. Mental Status: a. Alert. 2. Oriented to: a. Person, b. Place, c. Time, d. Situation. On 06/04/2024 at approximately 8:12 a.m., an observation of R413revealed they were lying in bed receiving oxygen by nasal cannula. An observation of the flow meter on the oxygen concentrator revealed an oxygen flow rate between two-and-a-half and three liters per minute. On 06/05/24 at approximately 7:34 a.m., an observation of R413 revealed they were lying in bed receiving oxygen by nasal cannula. An observation of the flow meter on the oxygen concentrator revealed an oxygen flow rate between two and two-and-a-half liters per minute. The physician's order for R413 documented in part, Oxygen at 3L/ (three liters per) minute via (by) nasal cannula. every shift for SOB (shortness of breath). Order Date: 06/02/2024. Start Date: 06/02/2024. The comprehensive care plan for R413 dated 06/03/2024 documented in part, Focus. (Name of R413) has altered respiratory status r/t (related to) COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease), respiratory failure, CHF (congestive heart failure). Date Initiated: 06/03/2024. Under Interventions/Tasks it documented in part Administer oxygen as ordered. Date Initiated: 06/03/202. On 06/04/2024 at approximately 1:55 p.m., an interview was conducted with LPN (licensed practical nurse) #4. When asked how she reads the flow meter on a resident's oxygen concentrator to determine the amount of oxygen a resident receives, LPN #4 stated that the float ball in the oxygen flow meter is either on or below the liter line. When asked to clarify how to read the flow meter LPN #4 stated that she was not sure where the float ball should be in the flow meter. The service manual for R413's oxygen concentrator by (Name of Manufacturer) documented in part, 1. Turn the flowrate knob to the setting prescribed by your physician or therapist. 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 (liter per minute) line prescribed. On 06/06/2024 at approximately 12:14 ASM (administrative staff member) #1, administrator, ASM #2, director of nursing, ASM #3, regional vice president of operations, ASM #4, director of infection prevention, ASM #5, regional director of case management, and ASM #6, regional nurse consultant, ASM #8, regional director of social services, and ASM #9, regional nurse consultant, were made aware of the above findings. No further information was provided prior to exit. References: (1) When not enough oxygen passes from your lungs into your blood. This information was obtained from the website: https://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/respiratoryfailure.html.
CONCERN (D)

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

Medical Records (Tag F0842)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interview, clinical record review and facility document review, it was determined that the facility staff failed ...

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 that the facility staff failed to ensure a complete and accurate clinical record for one of 50 residents in the survey sample; Resident #79. The findings include: For Resident #79, the facility staff failed to ensure an accurate clinical record. The facility staff developed a comprehensive care plan for a diagnosis of diabetes. The resident was not diabetic. A review of the admission MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment dated [DATE] regarding the administration of insulin coded as the resident being on insulin, having received seven insulin injections during the seven day look back period. The resident was not on any prescribed insulin. In Section N - Medications, was documented, Record the number of days that injections of any type were received during the last 7 days or since admission/entry or reentry if less than 7 days. In the box was typed 7 for seven days. The next part, Insulin documented, Insulin injections - Record the number of days that insulin injections were received during the last 7 days or since admission/entry or reentry if less than 7 days. In the box was typed 7 for seven injections of insulin. A review of the clinical record failed to reveal any evidence that the resident had a diagnosis of diabetes or ever had any orders for insulin. A review of the comprehensive care plan revealed one dated 4/22/24 for (Resident #79) has DX (diagnosis) Diabetes Mellitus. Interventions included one dated 4/22/24 for Diabetes medication as ordered by doctor. Monitor and document side effects and effectiveness. The resident was not on any diabetic medication. Another intervention dated 4/22/24 documented, Monitor glucose as ordered. The resident did not have an order to monitor glucose because she did not have diabetes. On 6/04/24 at 2:27 PM, an interview was conducted with LPN #2 (Licensed Practical Nurse), the MDS nurse. She stated that the clinical record was not accurate because the resident should not have been care planned for diabetes as the resident was not diabetic. The facility policy Charting and Documentation was reviewed. This policy documented, .3. Documentation in the medical record will be objective (not opinionated or speculative), complete, and accurate On 6/4/24 at 4:47 PM, ASM #1 (Administrative Staff Member) the Administrator, ASM #2 the Director of Nursing and ASM #3 the Regional Director of Operations were made aware of the findings. No other information was provided by the end of the survey.
CONCERN (D)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, staff interview and facility document review, it was determined that the facility staff failed to follow infection control practices during the medication administration for one ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, staff interview and facility document review, it was determined that the facility staff failed to follow infection control practices during the medication administration for one of six residents in the medication administration observation, Resident #32 (R32). For R32, the facility staff failed to dispose of medications that were spilled out onto the top of the medication cart and were administered. On 06/04/2024 at approximately at approximately 8:04 a.m., an observation of LPN (licensed practical nurse) #7 during the medication pass was conducted. Observations of PLN #7 revealed she removed six medication bubble packs for R32 from the middle drawer of the medication cart and placed them on top of the medication cart. After verifying then medications with the eMAR (electronic medication administration record), LPN #7 obtained a small plastic medication cup from the end of the medication cart and placed it in front her on the top of the medication cart next the stack of bubble packs for R32. LPN #7 dispensed one-50mg (milligram) pill of hydralazine (1) and one-20mg pill of furosemide (2). As LPN #7 was moving the medication bubble packs, the medication cup containing the hydralazine and furosemide pills onto the top of the medication cart. LPN #7 obtained a plastic spoon, scooped up the two pills and placed them back in the medication cup. She proceeded to put R32's remaining medications into the same cup and administer them to R32. Further observation revealed R32 ingesting all the medications that LPN #7 placed into the medication cup. On 06/04/2024 at approximately 12:30 p.m., an interview was conducted with LPN #7 regarding the administration of the medications to R32 that spilled onto the medication cart. LPN #1 stated she recalled picking up the pills, putting back in the medication cup and administering them to R32. LPN #7 stated that she should have discarded the pills that spilled out of the medication cup because the top of the medication cart was not 100% clean and the medication could have been contaminated. The facility's policy Administering Medications documented in part, 25. Staff follows established facility infection control procedures (e.g., handwashing, antiseptic technique, gloves, isolation precautions, etc.) for the administration of medications, as applicable. On 06/04/2024 at approximately 4:50 p.m., ASM (administrative staff member) #1, administrator, ASM #2, director of nursing, ASM #3, regional vice president of operations, ASM #4, director of infection prevention, ASM #5, regional director of case management, and ASM #6, regional nurse consultant, were made aware of the above findings. No further information was provided prior to exit. References: (1) Used to treat high blood pressure. Hydralazine is in a class of medications called vasodilators. It works by relaxing the blood vessels so that blood can flow more easily through the body. This information was obtained from the website: https://medlineplus.gov/druginfo/meds/a682246.html. (2) Used to treat edema (fluid retention; excess fluid held in body tissues) caused by various medical problems, including heart, kidney, and liver disease. This information was obtained from the website: Furosemide: MedlinePlus Drug Information
CONCERN (E)

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

Menu Adequacy (Tag F0803)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, staff interview, and facility document review, the facility staff failed to follow the prescribed menu in one of one kitchen. The findings include: On 6/3/24 at 4:41 p.m., observ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, staff interview, and facility document review, the facility staff failed to follow the prescribed menu in one of one kitchen. The findings include: On 6/3/24 at 4:41 p.m., observation was made of tray line service for the dinner meal. After reviewing the menu, the observation revealed there was no garden pasta salad. Instead, the pasta salad consisted only of pasta, and included no vegetables. There was no seasonal soup available for residents. There was no lettuce or tomatoes available for resident sandwiches. Approximately two-thirds of the way through the meal service, the facility ran out of croissants, and served white bread; and ran out of tomato and onion salad, and served tossed salad. On 6/3/24 at 1:27 p.m., OSM (other staff member) #1, the regional food services director, and OSM #6, a regional dietary manager, were interviewed. OSM #1 stated the cook should print daily production sheets at least 24 hours in advance. That way, if any items from the menu are missing, the facility staff have the opportunity to get them. He stated the facility cook was not aware that the pasta salad recipe called for vegetables. OSM #1 stated the facility dietary manager had not printed the shopping list for the week, and had run out of some items such as the croissants. OSM #6 stated the prescribed menu should always be followed. On 6/4/23 at 4:47 p.m., ASM (administrative staff member) #1, the administrator, ASM #2, the director of nursing, and ASM #3, the regional vice president of operations, were informed of these concerns. A review of the facility policy, Menus, revealed, in part: Menu cycles will include standardized recipes .Menus will be served as written, unless a substitution is provided in response to preference, unavailability of an item, or a special meal. No further information was provided prior to exit.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0804 (Tag F0804)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, staff interview, and facility document review, the facility staff failed to serve palatable food in one of one kitchen. The findings include: On 6/3/24 at 5:15 p.m., a test tray ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, staff interview, and facility document review, the facility staff failed to serve palatable food in one of one kitchen. The findings include: On 6/3/24 at 5:15 p.m., a test tray was requested at the conclusion of dinner service. Two surveyors and OSM (other staff member) #1, the regional food services director, tested all the food served to residents. The pureed tomato and onion salad, and the pureed egg salad, had no flavor, and were sticky in texture. OSM #1 agreed these two items were not appetizing or palatable. On 6/3/24 at 1:27 p.m., OSM (other staff member) #1, the regional food services director, and OSM #6, a regional dietary manager, were interviewed. OSM #1 stated the cook should taste all of the food before serving it to any residents. On 6/4/23 at 4:47 p.m., ASM (administrative staff member) #1, the administrator, ASM #2, the director of nursing, and ASM #3, the regional vice president of operations, were informed of these concerns. A review of the facility policy, Food: Quality and Palatability, revealed, in part: The Dining Services Director and Cook(s) are responsible for food preparation .Food will be prepared by methods that conserve nutritive value, flavor, and appearance. Food will be palatable, attractive, and served at a safe and appetizing temperature. No further information was provided prior to exit.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0805 (Tag F0805)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, staff interview, facility document review, and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to serve food at the consistency ordered by the physician for one of 50 residents...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, staff interview, facility document review, and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to serve food at the consistency ordered by the physician for one of 50 residents in the survey sample, Resident #26. The findings include: For Resident #26 (R26), the facility staff served the resident a plate of pureed food, instead of food at a regular texture, as ordered by the physician. On 6/3/24 at 1:08 p.m., R26 was observed sitting up in his bed with the overbed table across the bed; the overbed table contained R26's meal tray. The meal tray contained spaghetti noodles and tomato sauce. R26 had spaghetti noodles in multiple places on his shirt. He was observed attempting to feed himself the spaghetti, but spilled it onto his shirt. He stated he did not really care for spaghetti, and asked if the surveyor could get him something else to eat. The facility staff was alerted of the resident's request. At 1:31 p.m., R26 was observed sitting up in his bed with a new meal tray. The meal tray contained three different types of pureed food. Neither the resident nor the surveyor could identify what the food was. A review of R26's clinical record revealed the following order dated 3/15/24: Consistent Carbohydrate / NAS (no added salt) diet Level 4- Regular texture, Thin consistency. On 6/3/24 at 1:27 p.m., OSM (other staff member) #1, the regional food services director, and OSM #6, a regional dietary manager, were interviewed. OSM #1 stated a resident should be served the consistency of food that has been ordered by the physician. He stated a pureed diet is a downgrade of consistency, and requires a physician order to change. On 6/4/23 at 4:47 p.m., ASM (administrative staff member) #1, the administrator, ASM #2, the director of nursing, and ASM #3, the regional vice president of operations, were informed of these concerns. A review of the facility policy, Meal Distribution, revealed, in part: The nursing staff will be responsible for verifying meal accuracy. No further information was provided prior to exit.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0806 (Tag F0806)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, staff interview, facility document review, and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to serve food according to a resident's preference for four of 50 residents in th...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, staff interview, facility document review, and clinical record review, the facility staff failed to serve food according to a resident's preference for four of 50 residents in the survey sample, Residents #4, #22, #66, and #68 The findings include: For Residents #4, #22, #66, and #68, the facility failed to serve what the residents had chosen for the dinner meal on 6/3/24. On 6/3/24 at 4:41 p.m., observation was made of tray line service for the dinner meal. For Resident #4, the resident's meal ticket indicated the resident wanted tomato and onion salad, savory summer soup, egg salad on a croissant, and lettuce and tomato for the sandwich. The resident's dinner tray instead contained a tossed salad, chicken noodle soup, no lettuce and tomato, and egg salad on white bread. For Resident #22, the resident's meal ticket indicated the resident wanted tomato and onion salad, lettuce and tomato for his sandwich, and two servings of ice cream. The resident's dinner tray instead contained marinated green beans, no lettuce and tomato, and only one serving of ice cream. For Resident #66, the resident's meal ticket indicated the resident wanted garden pasta salad, and lettuce and tomato for his sandwich. The resident's dinner tray instead contained plain pasta salad (with no vegetables), and no lettuce and tomato for the sandwich. For Resident #67, the resident's meal ticket indicated the resident wanted tomato and onion salad, and lettuce and tomato for his sandwich. The resident's dinner tray instead contained marinated green beans, and no lettuce and tomato for the sandwich. On 6/3/24 at 1:27 p.m., OSM (other staff member) #1, the regional food services director, and OSM #6, a regional dietary manager, were interviewed. OSM #6 stated someone should be stationed at the end of the serving line to double check the trays to make sure resident preferences are honored. She stated she always encourages staff to read the meal ticket from top to bottom, and to make sure the food on the tray matches the meal ticket. On 6/4/23 at 4:47 p.m., ASM (administrative staff member) #1, the administrator, ASM #2, the director of nursing, and ASM #3, the regional vice president of operations, were informed of these concerns. A review of the facility policy, Dining and Food Preferences, revealed, in part: The individual tray assembly ticket will identify all food items appropriate for the resident .based on .preferences. A review of the facility policy, Meal Distribution, revealed, in part: All meals will be assembled in accordance with the individualized diet order, plan of care, and preferences. 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, the facility staff failed to store and serve food in a sanitary manner in one of one facility kitchen. The findings include: On 6/3...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, staff interview, and facility document review, the facility staff failed to store and serve food in a sanitary manner in one of one facility kitchen. The findings include: On 6/3/24 at 11:15 a.m., initial observation was made in the kitchen. The walk in refrigerator contained one bottle of pancake syrup, one package of sliced turkey, one package of unsliced turkey, and one package of ham that were all open but undated. The smaller cook's refrigerator contained two bottles of ketchup, one container of relish, and one jar of applesauce that were all open but undated. On 6/3/24 at 4:41 p.m., observation was made of tray line service for the dinner meal. OSM #3, the cook, was wearing gloves. With gloves on, he touched contaminated surfaces including serving utensil handles, the steam table surface, the cutting board, and the outside of plastic bags which held croisants. He then used the same gloves to grasp potato chips and touch the croissants as he served resident plates. OSM #5, a dietary aide, also wore gloves. With gloves on, he touched contaminated surfaces including the meal trays, the serving line, and meal carts. He then used the same gloves to grasp the end of eating utensils that would be in contact with residents' mouths. On 6/3/24 at 1:27 p.m., OSM (other staff member) #1, the regional food services director, and OSM #6, a regional dietary manager, were interviewed. OSM #1 stated all items should have an in, date, an out date, and a label indicating the open date. He stated items that remain open and unused can become contaminated. He stated it is important to know when items have been opened in order to either use them or discard them before they risk contamination. OSM #6 stated no dirty gloved hand should ever touch a resident's food or silverwear. On 6/4/23 at 4:47 p.m., ASM (administrative staff member) #1, the administrator, ASM #2, the director of nursing, and ASM #3, the regional vice president of operations, were informed of these concerns. A review of the facility policy, Food Storage: Cold Foods, revealed, in part: All foods will be stored wrapped or in covered containers, lageled and dated, and arranged in a manner to prevent cross contamination. A review of the facility policy, Food: Preparation, revealed, in part: All staff will practice proper hand washing techniques and glove use .Dining Services staff will be responsible for food preparation procedures that avoid contamination by potentially harmful .contamination. No further information was provided prior to exit.
Jul 2022 22 deficiencies
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.
Mar 2020 16 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

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 that facility staf...

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 that facility staff failed to promote resident dignity for two of 41 residents in the survey sample, Residents # 82 and # 43. During the lunch meal service on 3/3/2020 Resident #82 and #43, did not receive their meal for approximately 19 minutes, after staff served the five other residents seated at the same table, and the residents were eating their meals. The findings include: Resident # 82 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included but were not limited to: heart failure and swallowing difficulties. Resident # 82's most recent MDS (minimum data set), a quarterly assessment with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 02/14/2020, coded Resident # 82 as scoring a 15 on the brief interview for mental status (BIMS) of a score of 0 - 15, 15 - being cognitively intact for making daily decisions. Resident # 82 was coded as requiring supervision and assistance with setup for eating. Resident # 43 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included but were not limited to: altered mental status and aphasia [1]. Resident # 43's most recent MDS (minimum data set), a quarterly assessment with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 01/10/2020, coded Resident # 43 as scoring a three on the brief interview for mental status (BIMS) of a score of 0 - 15, three - being severely impaired of cognition for making daily decisions. Resident # 43 was coded as independent and requiring assistance with setup for eating. On 03/03/2020 at 1:10 p.m., an observation of the lunch meal was conducted in the facility's first floor dayroom. Observation of the room revealed a long table in the center of the room with seven residents at the table for lunch. At 1:12 p.m., a ladder rack of lunch trays was brought to the room. Five of the seven residents seated at the table received lunch trays. Further observation revealed two staff members preparing the resident's meals by cutting their food if necessary, opening containers, uncovering cups, providing appropriate utensils and providing assistance to residents who required it. Observation of Resident # 82 and # 43, who did not receive a meal tray, revealed that they were seated at the table without anything to eat or drink while the other five residents began eating independently or with assistance. At 1:25 p.m., Resident # 82 and # 43 were provided something to drink; a period of 13 minutes had passed since the other residents started eating. At 1:31 p.m., 19 minutes later, two lunch trays were brought to the room for Resident # 82 and # 43. On 03/03/20 at 2:37 p.m., an interview was conducted with CNA [certified nursing assistant] # 3. When asked about serving meals to residents seated at the same table, CNA # 3 stated, Everyone should be served at the same time. When asked about Resident # 82 and # 43 not receiving their meals at the same time as the other residents seated at the table, CNA # 3 stated that it had never happened before. When asked why it was important to serve all the residents at the same time that were seated at the table, CNA # 3 stated, It could make them feel bed. On 03/03/20 at 4:15 p.m., an interview was conducted with OSM [other staff member] # 2, dietary manager. When asked about Resident # 82 and # 43 not receiving their lunch meals at the same time other resident were served at the same table, OSM # 2 stated, It's a dignity issue. You don't want someone eating and someone else watching. You want to ensure they don't seem like they are isolated. On 03/04/2020 at approximately 4:13 p.m., an interview was conducted with Resident # 82, regarding how they felt when their lunch meal was not served as the same time as other residents seated at the same table, Resident # 82 stated that they could not remember it. On 03/04/2020 at approximately 4:14 p.m., an interview with Resident # 43 could not conducted due to their low cognitive status. The facility's policy Resident's Rights and Responsibilities documented in part, To be treated in a manner and in an environment that maintains or enhances your dignity, and respect in full recognition of your individuality and privacy. On 03/05 at 10:44 a.m., an interview was conducted with ASM [administrative staff member] # 3, regional coordinator of nursing services. When asked what standards of practice the nursing staff follow ASM # 3 stated that they follow [NAME] & [NAME] and their policies. On 03/03/2020 at 5:20 p.m., ASM # 1, executive director, ASM # 2, director of nursing and ASM # 3, regional coordinator of nursing services, were informed of the above findings. No further information was provided prior to exit. References: [1] A disorder caused by damage to the parts of the brain that control language. It can make it hard for you to read, write, and say what you mean to say). This information was obtained from the website: https://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/aphasia.html
CONCERN (D)

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

Notification of Changes (Tag F0580)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interview, clinical record review, and facility document review, it was determined that the facility staff failed...

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 that the facility staff failed to immediately notify and consult the physician for a change in condition, for one of 41 residents in the survey sample, Resident #93. The facility staff identified an unstageable wound on Resident #93's left heel on 11/19/19, and failed to immediately notify and consult the physician and wound care nurse about the wound and treatment initiated, until 11/22/19. The findings include: A review of the facility policy, Notification of Change in Condition documented, The nurse to notify the attending physician and Resident Representative when there is a(n): *Accident, *Significant change in the patient/resident's physical, mental, or psychosocial status, *Need to alter treatment significantly . Resident #93 was admitted on [DATE]; diagnoses include but are not limited to peripheral vascular disease, stricture of artery, occlusion and stenosis of right and left carotid arteries, stroke, and atherosclerosis of bilateral legs. The quarterly MDS (Minimum Data Set) with an ARD (Assessment Reference Date) of 1/28/20 coded the resident as being severely impaired in ability to make daily life decisions. The resident was coded as requiring total care for bathing, toileting, and eating; extensive assistance for bed mobility, dressing, and hygiene; and was incontinent of bowel and bladder. A review of the clinical record revealed a weekly skin assessment dated [DATE], which included outline figure drawings of the front and back of a human body. On the back drawing, the left heel area was circled and the word unstageable was written next to it. LPN (Licensed Practical Nurse) #6 signed the assessment. Further review of the clinical record failed to reveal any notes, orders, assessments, wound description, physician, family, or wound nurse notification until 11/22/19. On 3/04/20 at 6:04 PM, in an interview with LPN #6, when asked what was done about the wound once she identified it on 11/19/19, LPN #6 stated, Treatment was already in progress. There was a treatment order in place for that already. A review of the November 2019 MAR/TAR (Medication Administration Record/Treatment Administration Record) and physician orders was conducted with LPN #6 and revealed there were no previous orders or treatments in place for the heel or evidence of any heel wound prior to 11/19/19. LPN #6 stated that what was documented (the notation of an unstageable heel wound on skin assessment dated [DATE]) was not her handwriting even though she validated it was her signature on the assessment. LPN #6 stated, I looked at her skin and I did not see any area on her heel on that day. I did not write that (unstageable). LPN #6 stated, When we find an area, we do an SBAR (Situation-Background-Assessment-Recommendation), an incident report, call the doctor, call the family. LPN's are not supposed to stage a wound. When asked what is documented about a wound, she stated, Document on the wound, that there is a wound or open area, and the site, measurements, if there is any drainage, describe the wound, color. A skin assessment dated [DATE] was reviewed. This assessment was written and signed by RN #6 (Registered Nurse), the wound care nurse. This assessment also documented an unstageable wound identified on the left heel. Further review of the clinical record revealed an SBAR (Situation, Background, Appearance, Review) note dated 1/22/19 by RN #6. This note documented the identification of a pressure ulcer as an unstageable, physician notification and initiation of treatment of skin prep and foam dressing daily. A nurse's note dated 11/22/19, by RN #6 documented, Resident has an unstageable pressure ulcer to the left heel. I informed residents nurse, floor supervisor, MD (medical doctor), RP (responsible party) and DON (Director of Nursing). SBAR, incident report, care plan, wound sheet and treatment orders have been written. Treatment consists of cleansing wound and skin prep daily. Will continue to monitor. A Pressure Ulcer Record report was started on 11/22/19 by RN #6, and documented the left heel wound as unstageable with black eschar with measurements of 1.5x1.6x0 (in centimeters). On 3/05/20 at 11:08 AM, an interview was conducted with RN #6. RN #6 stated that she was in a meeting on 11/22/19 and we were going over the weekly skin assessments and I was asked if I was notified that the resident had a wound, and I said no, and I went upstairs to check her heel because it was marked on the skin sheet for the 19th. I went upstairs, checked her heel, and saw that she, (Resident #93) did have a pressure ulcer to her heel and I came back and told them she did have a wound on her heel. I was asked how did I not know, and I said that there are no treatments ordered and there was nothing in the 24-hour report saying that there was a change in the skin condition. On 3/05/20 at 11:29 AM, in an interview with CNA #4 (Certified Nursing Assistant), CNA #4 stated she had been working with resident since she was moved to the unit (10/24/19). She stated she normally works with the resident on the evening shift. When asked about bathing, CNA #4 stated that all bathing - showers, bed baths, and partial baths, include the feet. CNA #4 stated, I look at her feet for change of skin condition. She stated she did not recall when she first saw a change in condition of the left heel. CNA #4 stated, It was a small black spot on the heel. I reported it to the nurse. The first time I saw it, it was black. A review of the CNA documentation logs for bathing revealed the resident had either bed baths or partial baths each day in the days preceding the 19th. There was no evidence in the clinical record of any CNA's reporting a change in skin condition identified during the baths. On 3/05/20 at 12:15 PM, in an interview with LPN #2, when asked about the process staff follows for assessing residents' skin, LPN #2 stated, We have a weekly assessment for checking the skin. I like to do mine in the morning when the CNA gets the residents ready. We check for redness, bruises, or any open areas, or edema, anything new. LPN #2 was asked about the process staff follows if something new is identified, LPN #2 stated, Right away let the unit manager know, call the MD (medical doctor), get a new order, let family know, let the wound nurse know. CNA #4 stated, Document it in the weekly skin assessment book for the date I find it, on the resident chart in a nurse's note, and an incident report, SBAR, care plan. A review of the comprehensive care plan revealed one for (Resident #93) has Peripheral Vascular Disease [PVD] and included the interventions, Monitor the extremities for s/sx (signs and symptoms) of injury, infection or ulcers and Monitor/document/report PRN (as-needed) any s/sx of skin problems related to PVD: Redness, Edema, Blistering, Itching, Burning, Bruises, Cuts, other skin lesions. On 3/5/20 at approximately 1:30 PM, ASM #1 (Administrative Staff Member, the Executive Director), ASM #2 (Director of Nursing) and ASM #3 (Regional Coordinator of Nursing Services) were made aware of the findings. No further information was provided by the end of the survey.
CONCERN (D)

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

Abuse Prevention Policies (Tag F0607)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**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 im...

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 implement the facility abuse policy for reporting an allegation of abuse for one of 41 residents in the survey sample, Resident #89. Resident #89 alleged a CNA (certified nursing assistant) had abused him causing a scratch on the left elbow that was bleeding on 2/21/2020 at 5:30 a.m. The facility staff did not report the allegation to the State Agency until 2/21/20 at 11:21 AM, approximately five hours and fifty-one minutes after the alleged abuse occurred. The findings include: Resident #89 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included but were not limited to: Parkinson's disease (slowly progressive neurological disorder) (1), congestive heart failure (abnormal condition characterized by circulatory congestion and retention of salt and water by the kidneys (2), dementia (progressive state of mental decline, memory function and judgement) (3). Resident #89's most recent MDS (minimum data set) assessment, a quarterly assessment, with an assessment reference date of 10/25/19, coded the resident as scoring 15 out of 15 on the BIMS (brief interview for mental status) score, indicating the resident was cognitively intact. The resident was coded as requiring extensive assistance in bed mobility, transfers, dressing, locomotion on unit, toileting and personal hygiene; supervision in eating. The facility policy, Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation & Misappropriation dated 11/28/17, documented in part, Patients of the Center have the legal right to be free from verbal, sexual, mental and physical abuse. Obligated to report such information immediately, but no later than two hours after the allegation is made, if the events that cause the allegation involve abuse or result in serious bodily injury. A Facility Reported Incident (FRI) dated 2/21/20, documented in part, Incident date: 2/21/20. Resident's involved (name of Resident #89). Injuries: Scratch on left elbow and knee scab. Incident type: Allegation of abuse/mistreatment. Describe incident: (name of Resident #89) has made allegation of abuse against a CNA (certified nursing assistant) while she was performing care. The FRI per witness statement occurred at 5:30 AM on 2/21/20, and documented it was faxed on 2/21/20 at 11:21 AM) to the State Agency (Virginia Department of Health-Office Licensure / Certification), five hours and fifty-one minutes after the alleged abuse. A nurse's progress note in Resident #89's clinical record dated 2/21/20, at 5:30 AM, documented in part, While assisting resident, he became verbally and physically abuse towards staff, he scratched CNA. Afterward he was noted to have bleeding from right upper extremity and right lower extremity. Physician was notified, areas cleaned with bacitracin and dressing applied. Resident stated, [I might have injured the aide, but I don't care because she grabbed me first.] A review of the comprehensive care plan dated 9/16/19, documented in part, Focus: Behaviors of poor impulse control and difficulty adjusting to new environment as evidenced by being physically aggressive towards staff. The Interventions documented and dated 9/16/19, Analyze times of day, places, circumstances, triggers and what de-escalates behavior. Assess and address for contributing sensory deficits. When resident becomes agitated, guide away from source of distress, engage calmly in conversation; If response is aggressive, staff to walk away calmly and approach later. An interview was conducted on 3/4/20 at 8:00 AM with Resident #89. When asked if he remembered the event on 2/21/20, Resident #89 stated, Yes, the aide was rough with me getting me out of bed to the wheelchair. She grabbed me and my knee hit the wheelchair. I did not have my hearing aids in so maybe I did not hear what she was saying. I grabbed her back. An interview was conducted on 3/5/20 at 7:59 AM with RN (registered nurse) #2, when asked what is abuse, RN #2 stated, Abuse is physical, verbal, sexual, hitting/scratching, mental. When asked about the process staff follows for an allegation of abuse, RN #2 stated, I would report to the supervisor right away, the director of nursing and to the executive director. I would inform the physician, and RP (responsible party). An interview was conducted on 3/4/20 at 3:50 PM with ASM (administrative staff member) #2, the director of nursing. When asked the period for reporting abuse allegations to the State Agency, ASM #2 stated, We report within two hours. ASM #1, the administrator, ASM #2, the director of nursing and ASM #3, the regional coordinator for nursing services, were made aware of the above concern on 3/4/20 at 6:40 PM. No further information was provided prior to exit. References: (1) Barron's Dictionary of Medical Terms for the Non-Medical Reader, 5th edition, Rothenberg and [NAME], page 435. (2) Barron's Dictionary of Medical Terms for the Non-Medical Reader, 5th edition, Rothenberg and [NAME], page 133. (3) Barron's Dictionary of Medical Terms for the Non-Medical Reader, 5th edition, Rothenberg and [NAME], page 154.
CONCERN (D)

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

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**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 re...

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 report an allegation of abuse in a timely manner for one of 41 residents in the survey sample, Resident #89. On 2/21/2020 at 5:30 a.m., Resident #89 alleged a CNA (certified nursing assistant) had abused him causing a scratch on the left elbow that was bleeding, and was not reported to the State Agency until 2/21/20 at 11:21 AM, five hours and fifty-one minutes after the alleged abuse occurred. The findings include: Resident #89 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included but were not limited to: Parkinson's disease (slowly progressive neurological disorder) (1), congestive heart failure (abnormal condition characterized by circulatory congestion and retention of salt and water by the kidneys (2), dementia (progressive state of mental decline, memory function and judgement) (3). Resident #89's most recent MDS (minimum data set) assessment, a quarterly assessment, with an assessment reference date of 10/25/19, coded the resident as scoring 15 out of 15 on the BIMS (brief interview for mental status) score, indicating the resident was cognitively intact. The resident was coded as requiring extensive assistance in bed mobility, transfers, dressing, locomotion on unit, toileting and personal hygiene; supervision in eating. A Facility Reported Incident (FRI) dated 2/21/20, documented in part, Incident date: 2/21/20. Resident's involved (name of Resident #89). Injuries: Scratch on left elbow and knee scab. Incident type: Allegation of abuse/mistreatment. Describe incident: (name of Resident #89) has made allegation of abuse against a CNA (certified nursing assistant) while she was performing care. FRI per witness statement occurred at 5:30 AM on 2/21/20, and documented it was faxed on 2/21/20 at 11:21 AM) to the State Agency (Virginia Department of Health-Office Licensure / Certification), five hours and fifty-one minutes after the alleged abuse A nurse's progress note in Resident #89's clinical record dated 2/21/20, at 5:30 AM, documented in part, While assisting resident, he became verbally and physically abuse towards staff, he scratched CNA. Afterward he was noted to have bleeding from right upper extremity and right lower extremity. Physician was notified, areas cleaned with bacitracin and dressing applied. Resident stated, [I might have injured the aide, but I don't care because she grabbed me first.] A review of the comprehensive care plan dated 9/16/19, documented in part, Focus: Behaviors of poor impulse control and difficulty adjusting to new environment as evidenced by being physically aggressive towards staff. The Interventions documented and dated 9/16/19, Analyze times of day, places, circumstances, triggers and what de-escalates behavior. Assess and address for contributing sensory deficits. When resident becomes agitated, guide away from source of distress, engage calmly in conversation; If response is aggressive, staff to walk away calmly and approach later. An interview was conducted on 3/4/20 at 8:00 AM with Resident #89. When asked if he remembered the event on 2/21/20, Resident #89 stated, Yes, the aide was rough with me getting me out of bed to the wheelchair. She grabbed me and my knee hit the wheelchair. I did not have my hearing aids in so maybe I did not hear what she was saying. I grabbed her back. An interview was conducted on 3/5/20 at 7:59 AM with RN (registered nurse) #2, when asked what is abuse, RN #2 stated, Abuse is physical, verbal, sexual, hitting/scratching, mental. When asked about the process staff follows for an allegation of abuse, RN #2 stated, I would report to the supervisor right away, the director of nursing and to the executive director. I would inform the physician, and RP (responsible party). An interview was conducted on 3/4/20 at 3:50 PM with ASM (administrative staff member) #2, the director of nursing. When asked the period for reporting abuse allegations to the State Agency, ASM #2 stated, We report within two hours. The facility policy, Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation & Misappropriation dated 11/28/17, documented in part, Patients of the Center have the legal right to be free from verbal, sexual, mental and physical abuse. Obligated to report such information immediately, but no later than two hours after the allegation is made, if the events that cause the allegation involve abuse or result in serious bodily injury. ASM #1, the administrator, ASM #2, the director of nursing and ASM #3, the regional coordinator for nursing services, were made aware of the above concern on 3/4/20 at 6:40 PM. No further information was provided prior to exit. References: (1) Barron's Dictionary of Medical Terms for the Non-Medical Reader, 5th edition, Rothenberg and [NAME], page 435. (2) Barron's Dictionary of Medical Terms for the Non-Medical Reader, 5th edition, Rothenberg and [NAME], page 133. (3) Barron's Dictionary of Medical Terms for the Non-Medical Reader, 5th edition, Rothenberg and [NAME], page 154.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0645 (Tag F0645)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**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 ev...

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 evidence an accurate PASARR (preadmission screening and resident review) screening for one of 41 residents in the survey sample, Resident #69. The facility failed to ensure an accurate PASARR was completed upon admission for Resident #69. The findings include: Resident #69 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #69's diagnoses included but were not limited to: dementia (progressive state of mental decline, memory function and judgement) (1), bipolar disorder (mental disorder characterized by mania and depression) (2), psychosis (mental disorder with detachment from reality and impaired perceptions and thinking) (3). Resident #69's most recent MDS (minimum data set) assessment, a quarterly assessment, with an assessment reference date of 2/6/20, coded the resident as scoring 99 out of 15 on the BIMS (brief interview for mental status) score, indicating the resident was unable to complete the interview. MDS Section G- Functional Status: coded the resident as requiring extensive assistance in dressing, eating, toilet use, personal hygiene and bathing; limited assistance with bed mobility, walking in room/corridor and supervision with transfers. A review of Resident #69's clinical record revealed the resident's PASARR was completed prior to admission on [DATE]. The PASARR Question #2 Does the individual have a current serious mental illness was incorrectly coded for Resident #69 as No. On 3/4/20 at 2:30 PM and interview was conducted by telephone with OSM (other staff member) #1, the care liaison/admissions coordinator. When asked if Resident #69's diagnosis of bipolar disorder and psychosis were considered serious mental illnesses, OSM #1 stated, Yes, they are both serious mental illnesses. When asked why the PASARR Question #2 Does the individual have a current serious mental illness was coded as No, OSM #1 stated, If it is coded that way, it is incorrect and I will revise the form. The facility policy, Pre-admission Screening for Serious Mental Illness and Intellectually Disabled Individuals, dated 9/17, documented in part, It is the responsibility of the center to assess and assure that the appropriate pre-admission screenings, are conducted and results obtained prior to admission. ASM #1, the administrator, ASM #2, the director of nursing and ASM #3, the regional coordinator for nursing services, were made aware of the above concern on 3/4/20 at 6:40 PM. No further information was provided prior to exit. References: (1) Barron's Dictionary of Medical Terms for the Non-Medical Reader, 5th edition, Rothenberg and [NAME], page 154. (2) Barron's Dictionary of Medical Terms for the Non-Medical Reader, 5th edition, Rothenberg and [NAME], page 133. (3) Barron's Dictionary of Medical Terms for the Non-Medical Reader, 5th edition, Rothenberg and [NAME], page 480.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0655 (Tag F0655)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interview and facility document review, it was determined the facility staff failed to develop a baseline care pl...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interview and facility document review, it was determined the facility staff failed to develop a baseline care plan for one of 41 residents in the survey sample, Resident #348. The facility failed to develop a baseline care plan to include and address the care of Resident #348's PICC (peripherally inserted central catheter). The findings include: Resident #348 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #348's diagnoses that included but are not limited to: cellulitis (inflammation of tissue) (1), diabetes mellitus (altered glucose metabolism caused by the inability of insulin to function normally in the body) (2) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (chronic non-reversible lung disease) (3). Resident #348's most recent MDS (minimum data set) assessment, an admission assessment, with an assessment reference date of 2/21/20, coded the resident as scoring 13 out of 15 on the BIMS (brief interview for mental status) score, indicating the resident was cognitively intact. A review of Resident #348's baseline care plan dated 2/21/20 failed to document the presence or care of Resident #348's PICC line. The baseline care plan, 'Infection' section documented in part, Right foot/heel infection. A review of the physician orders dated 2/21/20, documented in part, Vancomycin (antibiotic) 1 gram in 250 milliliters of sodium chloride: activate and mix, infuse over 90 minutes. A review of the physician orders dated 2/26/20, documented in part, Change PICC line dressing to left arm every week on 7:00 AM-3:00 PM shift, every Thursday. An interview was conducted on 3/3/20 at 5:03 PM with LPN (licensed practical nurse) #1. When asked the purpose of the PICC line, LPN #1 stated, The PICC is in place to deliver antibiotics for a longer period of time. When asked the purpose of the care plan, LPN #1 stated, The care plan is based on the needs of the resident. It is where we document our actions based on orders and resident needs. ASM #1, the administrator, ASM #2, the director of nursing and ASM #3, the regional coordinator for nursing services, were made aware of the above concern on 3/4/20 at 6:40 PM. The facility's Plans of Care policy dated 9/25/17, documents in part, Develop and implement an individualized person-centered baseline care plan within 48 hours of admission that includes, but not limited to, initial goals based on the admission orders, physician orders, dietary orders and therapy/social services. No further information was provided prior to exit. References: (1) Barron's Dictionary of Medical Terms for the Non-Medical Reader, 5th edition, Rothenberg and [NAME], page 108. (2) Barron's Dictionary of Medical Terms for the Non-Medical Reader, 5th edition, Rothenberg and [NAME], page 160. (3) Barron's Dictionary of Medical Terms for the Non-Medical Reader, 5th edition, Rothenberg and [NAME], page 120.
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to ensure a complete and accurate...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to ensure a complete and accurate medical record for one of 41 residents in the survey sample, Resident # 7. The facility staff failed to document the percentage of food eaten at meals for Resident #7. The findings include: Resident # 7 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included but were not limited to swallowing difficulties, amnesia, and adult failure to thrive. Resident # 7's most recent MDS (minimum data set), a quarterly assessment with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 02/27/2020, coded Resident # 7 as scoring a 12 on the brief interview for mental status (BIMS) of a score of 0 - 15, 12 - being moderately impaired of cognition for making daily decisions. Resident # 7 was coded as independent and requiring assistance with setup for eating. Section K Swallowing/Nutritional Status coded Resident # 7 under K0300 Weight Loss, 2 [two] Yes, not on physician-prescribed weight-loss regimen. The comprehensive care plan for Resident # 7 with a revision date of 10/08/19 documented in part, Focus. [Resident # 7] has potential nutritional imbalance and risk for wt. [weight] fluctuation r/t [related to] Depression, Hx [history] of CVA [cerebral vascular accident] w/ [with] residual deficit and limited assist with weakness. Revision on 10/09/2018. Under Interventions it documented in part, Provide, serve diet as ordered. Monitor intake and record q [every] meal. Date Initiated: 10/09/2018. The facility's ADL [activities of daily living] record for Resident # 7 dated February 2020 documented, ADL - Eating Meal Percentage. 0900 [9:00 a.m.] Day, 1300 [1:00 p.m.], Day, 1800 [6:00 p.m.] Evening. Further review of the ADL record failed to evidence documentation of meal percentages at 9:00 a.m. on the following dates: 02/01/2020, 02/03/2020 through 02/11/2020, 02/14/2020, 02/16/2020 through 02/23/2020, 02/25/2020 through 02/29/2020; The ADL record failed to evidence documentation of meal percentages at 1:00 p.m., on the following dates: 02/01/2020, 02/03/2020 through 02/12/2020, 02/14/2020, 02/16/2020 through 02/23/2020, 02/25/2020 through 02/29/2020, and at 6:00 p.m. on 02/04/2020, 02/09/2020, 02/18/2020, 02/23/2020 and on 02/28/2020. The facility's ADL record for Resident # 7 dated March 2020 documented, ADL - Eating Meal Percentage. 0900 Day, 1300 Day, 1800 Evening. Further review of the ADL record failed to evidence documentation of meal percentages at 9:00 a.m. on 03/02/2020 through 03/04/2020; at 1:00 p.m. on 03/02/2020 through 03/04/2020 and at 6:00 p.m. on 03/03/2020. On 03/04/20 at 4:34 p.m., an interview was conducted with ASM [administrative staff member] # 2, director of nursing. When asked why it was important to document the amount of food a resident consumes at each meal, ASM # 2 stated to be able to track the amount of intake. After reviewing the missing documentation on the ADL record for Resident # 7 dated February and March 2020 for the dates listed above, ASM # 2 stated they would not be able to determine how much the resident is eating at her meals or any type of weight loss trend, (for Resident #7). On 03/05/2020 at 10:44 a.m., an interview was conducted with ASM [administrative staff member] # 3, regional coordinator of nursing services. When asked what standards of practice the nursing staff follow ASM # 3 stated that they follow [NAME] & [NAME] and their policies. [NAME] and [NAME]'s Fundamentals of Nursing, 6th edition, page 477, reveals the following information: Documentation is anything written or printed that is relied on as record or proof for authorized persons. Documentation within a client medical record is a vital aspect of nursing practice. Nursing documentation must be accurate, comprehensive, and flexible enough to retrieve critical data, maintain continuity of care, track client outcomes, and reflect current standards of nursing practice. Information in the client record provides a detailed account of the level of quality of care delivered to the clients. On 03/04/2020 at 6:40 p.m., ASM # 1, executive director, ASM # 2, director of nursing and ASM # 3, regional coordinator of nursing services, were informed of the above findings.
CONCERN (D)

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interview, facility document review and clinical record review, it was determined that facility staf...

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 that facility staff failed to provide treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice, and the comprehensive person-centered care plan for two of 41 residents in the survey sample, (Residents # 4 and Resident #7). The facility staff failed to ensure Resident #4 received only nectar-thickened liquids per the physician orders. On 3/3/2020 during the lunch meal CNA (certified nursing assistant) # 3, was observed providing Resident # 4 two sips thin consistency juice by use of a straw. The facility staff failed to administer Mighty House Shake [liquid dietary supplement] to Resident # 7 according to the physician order. The findings include: 1. Resident # 4 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included but were not limited to: aphasia [1] and swallowing difficulties. Resident # 4's most recent MDS (minimum data set), a quarterly assessment with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 02/27/2020, coded Resident # 4 as scoring a three on the brief interview for mental status (BIMS) of a score of 0 - 15, three - being severely impaired of cognition for making daily decisions. Resident # 4 was coded as requiring extensive assistance of one staff member for eating. Section K Swallowing/Nutritional Status coded Resident # 4 as having a Mechanically altered diet - require change in texture of food or liquids (e.g., pureed foods, thickened liquids). On 03/03/2020 at 1:10 p.m., an observation of the lunch meal was conducted on the facility's first floor dayroom. Observations of Resident # 4 revealed they were sitting in their wheelchair at the table and CNA [certified nursing assistant] # 3 seated next to them. Observation of Resident # 4's lunch tray revealed that it contained pureed consistency food, thickened coffee and a cup of thin juice. Observation of CNA # 3 revealed they were feeding Resident # 4 their food and providing sips of liquids. Further observation of CNA # 3 revealed they gave Resident # 4 two sips of their thin consistency juice by use of a straw. The speech therapy swallowing assessment for Resident # 4 dated 02/10/2020 documented in part, Precautions Include: Pureed diet with Nectar thickened liquids. The facility's dietary meal ticket for Resident # 4 documented in part, Coffee or Tea. Nectar Thickened. The comprehensive care plan for Resident # 4 with a revision date of 12/09/2019 documented in part, Focus. [Resident # 4] is at risk for fluid imbalance & [and] dehydration r/t [related to] Dysphagia [swallowing difficulties] & Advanced Dementia. Revision on: 12/09/2019. Under Interventions it documented in part, Provide NECTAR thickened liquids as ordered. Revision on: 8/28/2019. On 03/03/20 at 2:37 p.m., an interview was conducted with CNA [certified nursing assistant] # 3. When asked about serving Resident # 4 thin consistency liquid during lunch CNA # 3 stated that Resident # 4 was suppose to have nectar thick liquids. When asked if Resident # 4's meal ticket documented the consistency for Resident # 4's liquids they stated yes. When asked why Resident # 4 was taking thickened liquids CNA # 3 stated, Because she has difficulty swallowing. On 03/05/2020 at 10:44 a.m., an interview was conducted with ASM [administrative staff member] # 3, regional coordinator of nursing services. When asked what standards of practice the nursing staff follow ASM # 3 stated that they follow [NAME] & [NAME] and their policies. In Fundamentals of Nursing 6th edition, 2005; [NAME] A. [NAME] and [NAME]; Mosby, Inc; Page 419. The physician is responsible for directing medical treatment. Nurses are obligated to follow physician's orders unless they believe the orders are in error or would harm clients. On 03/03/2020 at 5:20 p.m., ASM # 1, executive director, ASM # 2, director of nursing and ASM # 3, regional coordinator of nursing services, were informed of the above findings. No further information was provided prior to exit. References: [1] A disorder caused by damage to the parts of the brain that control language. It can make it hard for you to read, write, and say what you mean to say) This information was obtained from the website: https://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/aphasia.html 2. Resident # 7 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included but were not limited to swallowing difficulties, amnesia, and adult failure to thrive. Resident # 7's most recent MDS (minimum data set), a quarterly assessment with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 02/27/2020, coded Resident # 7 as scoring a 12 on the brief interview for mental status (BIMS) of a score of 0 - 15, 12 - being moderately impaired of cognition for making daily decisions. Resident # 7 was coded as independent and requiring assistance with setup for eating. Section K Swallowing/Nutritional Status coded Resident # 7 under K0300 Weight Loss, 2 [two] Yes, not on physician-prescribed weight-loss regimen. The comprehensive care plan for Resident # 7 with a revision date of 10/08/19 documented in part, Focus. [Resident # 7] has potential nutritional imbalance and risk for wt [weight] fluctuation r/t [related to] Depression, Hx [history] of CVA [cerebral vascular accident] w/ [with] residual deficit and limited assist with weakness. Revision on 10/09/2018. Under Interventions, it documented in part, Provide, serve diet as ordered. Monitor intake and record q [every] meal. Date Initiated: 10/09/2018. The POS [physician order sheet] for Resident # 7 dated March 2020 documented in part, 02/23/20. Mighty House Shake 3x/day [three times a day] with meals. The facility's MAR [medication administration record] dated February 2020 for Resident # 7 documented the above physician's order. Further review of the MAR failed to evidence documentation of the administration of Mighty Shakes on 02/25/20 at 12:00 p.m. and at 5:00 p.m., on 02/26/2020 at 8:00 a.m., 12:00 p.m. and at 5:00 p.m., and on 02/28/2020 at 8:00 a.m., 12:00 p.m. and at 5:00 p.m. On 03/04/20 at 4:34 p.m., an interview was conducted with ASM [administrative staff member] # 2, director of nursing. After reviewing, the physician's order and Resident # 7's MAR dated February 2020 for the missing documentation on the dates and times listed above, ASM # 2 stated that the physician's order should be followed and that Resident # 7 could not have been getting the supplement if it was not documented. On 03/05/2020 at 10:44 a.m., an interview was conducted with ASM [administrative staff member] # 3, regional coordinator of nursing services. When asked what standards of practice the facility follows, ASM # 3 stated that they follow [NAME] & [NAME] and their policies. [NAME] and [NAME]'s Fundamentals of Nursing, 6th edition, page 477, reveals the following information: Documentation is anything written or printed that is relied on as record or proof for authorized persons. Documentation within a client medical record is a vital aspect of nursing practice. Nursing documentation must be accurate, comprehensive, and flexible enough to retrieve critical data, maintain continuity of care, track client outcomes, and reflect current standards of nursing practice. Information in the client record provides a detailed account of the level of quality of care delivered to the clients. On 03/05/2020 at 8:15 a.m., ASM # 1, executive director, and ASM # 3, regional coordinator of nursing services, were informed of the above findings.
CONCERN (D)

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

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, 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 provide care and services for the prevention and treatment of pressure injuries for two of 41 residents in the survey sample, Residents #80 and #93. For Resident #93 the facility staff failed to provide care and services for the treatment of a pressure wound once identified, for 3 days. On 11/19/19, the facility staff identified an unstageable wound on the left heel. The physician and wound care nurse were not notified of the wound and treatment was not initiated until 11/22/19. The facility staff failed to transcribe a physician order for Resident #80's bilateral knee braces accurately to the TAR (treatment administration record), as a result staff failed to ensure Resident #80's bilateral knee braces were kept open while the resident was in bed to prevent the development of a pressure injury. The findings include: 1. Resident #93 was admitted on [DATE]. Diagnoses include but are not limited to peripheral vascular disease, stricture of artery, occlusion and stenosis of right and left carotid arteries, stroke, and atherosclerosis of bilateral legs. The quarterly MDS (Minimum Data Set) with an ARD (Assessment Reference Date) of 1/28/20 coded the resident as being severely impaired in ability to make daily life decisions. Resident #93 was coded as requiring total care for bathing, toileting, and eating; extensive assistance for bed mobility, dressing, and hygiene; and was incontinent of bowel and bladder. A review of the clinical record revealed a weekly skin assessment dated [DATE], which included outline figure drawings of the front and back of a human body. On the back drawing, the left heel area was circled and the word unstageable was written next to it. LPN #6 signed the assessment (Licensed Practical Nurse). Further review of the clinical record failed to reveal any notes, orders, assessments, wound description, physician, family, or wound nurse notification until 11/22/19. On 3/04/20 at 6:04 PM, in an interview with LPN #6, when asked what was done about the wound once she identified it on 11/19/19, LPN #6 stated, Treatment was already in progress. There was a treatment order in place for that already. A review of the November 2019 MAR/TAR (Medication Administration Record/Treatment Administration Record) and physician orders was conducted with LPN #6 and revealed there were no previous orders or treatments in place for the heel or evidence of any heel wound prior to 11/19/19. LPN #6 stated that what was documented (the notation of an unstageable heel wound on skin assessment dated [DATE]) was not her handwriting even though she validated it was her signature on the assessment. LPN #6 stated, I looked at her skin and I did not see any area on her heel on that day. I did not write that (unstageable). LPN #6 stated, When we find an area, we do an SBAR (Situation-Background-Assessment-Recommendation), an incident report, call the doctor, call the family. LPN's are not supposed to stage a wound. When asked what is documented about a wound, she stated, Document on the wound, that there is a wound or open area, and the site, measurements, if there is any drainage, describe the wound, color. A skin assessment dated [DATE] was reviewed. This assessment was written and signed by RN #6 (Registered Nurse) the wound care nurse. This assessment also documented an unstageable wound identified on the left heel. Further review of the clinical record revealed an SBAR note dated 11/22/19 by RN #6. This note documented the identification of an unstageable pressure ulcer, physician notification of the wound, and the initiation of treatment of skin prep and foam dressing daily. A nurse's note dated 11/22/19 by RN #6 documented, Resident has an unstageable pressure ulcer to the left heel. I informed residents nurse, floor supervisor, MD (medical doctor), RP (responsible party) and DON (Director of Nursing). SBAR, incident report, care plan, wound sheet and treatment orders have been written. Treatment consists of cleansing wound and skin prep daily. Will continue to monitor. A Pressure Ulcer Record report was started on 11/22/19 by RN #6, and documented the left heel wound as unstageable with black eschar with measurements of 1.5x1.6x0 (in centimeters). On 3/05/20 at 11:08 AM, an interview was conducted with RN #6. RN #6 stated that she was in a meeting on 11/22/19 and we were going over the weekly skin assessments and I was asked if I was notified that the resident had a wound, and I said no, and I went upstairs to check her heel because it was marked on the skin sheet for the 19th. I went upstairs, checked her heel, and saw that she, (Resident #49) did have a pressure ulcer to her heel and I came back and told them she did have a wound on her heel. I was asked how did I not know, and I said that there are no treatments ordered and there was nothing in the 24-hour report saying that there was a change in the skin condition. On 3/05/20 at 11:08 AM, an interview was conducted with RN #6. She stated that she was in a meeting on 11/22/19 and we were going over the weekly skin assessments and I was asked if I was notified that the resident had a wound, and I said no, and I went upstairs to check her heel because it was marked on the skin sheet for the 19th. I went upstairs, checked her heel, and saw that she did have a pressure ulcer to her heel and I came back and told them she did have a wound on her heel. I was asked how I did not know (about the wound), I said that there were no treatments ordered and there was nothing in the 24-hour report saying that there was a change in the skin condition. RN # 6 stated, Then we did a skin sweep. I wrote a treatment order for her [Resident #93], which was the skin prep, and to float heels (a review of the orders revealed this order was put in place). After a while of doing the skin prep, the wound was stable but I wanted the wound doctor to look at it. I don't recall when that was. He started seeing her wound and we changed the treatments based on what he said. In the meeting (of 11/22/19) we were discussing the wound sheet. To my knowledge before the wound she was being turned and repositioned at least on my shift (day shift), I don't know about other shifts. She had a specialty mattress and repositioning because she does not move as often. On 3/05/20 at 11:29 AM, in an interview with CNA #4 (Certified Nursing Assistant), she stated she had been working with Resident # 93 since she was moved to the unit (10/24/19). She stated she normally works with the resident on the evening shift. CNA #4 stated the resident [Resident # 93] cannot reposition herself in bed. CNA #4 stated, We reposition her. She stated the resident was being repositioned every 2 hours in October and November 2019. CNA #4 stated she was floating the heels on pillows. She stated that the resident now has a blue foam floating device for floating her heels that was initiated maybe 3 months ago. This device was observed when the resident was in bed throughout the survey. CNA #4 stated, She was in boots before (pressure relieving boots). CNA #4 stated, (Resident #93) has been using the heel boots since she came to the unit. When asked about bathing, CNA #4 stated that all bathing - showers, bed baths and partial baths include the feet. CNA #4 stated, I look at her feet for change of skin condition. CNA #4 stated she did not recall when she first saw a change in condition of the left heel. CAN #4 stated, It was a small black spot on the heel. I reported it to the nurse. The first time I saw it, it was black. When asked if the resident was compliant with interventions, sCNA #4 stated, She (Resident #93) is compliant with interventions, does not complain. A review of the CNA documentation logs for bathing revealed the resident had either bed baths or partial baths each day in the days preceding the 19th. There was no evidence in the clinical record of any CNA's reporting a change in skin condition identified during the baths. A review of the wound care, physician notes revealed his initial evaluation of the wound was on 1/21/20. This note documented the wound as having an etiology of pressure, staging as unstageable, tissue type of eschar, dressing type as skin prep daily, and wound size of 1.5 cm (centimeters) x 1.7 cm x 0 cm. Subsequent wound care, physician notes were reviewed and the most recent note available, dated 2/25/20, documented the wound as 1.1x0.6x0.1 with 100% granulated tissue. On 3/05/20 at 11:36 AM with ASM #4 (Administrative Staff Member, the Wound Care Physician), he stated that the wound was more arterial / vascular than pressure. She has PVD (peripheral vascular disease). Lack of blood flow is her biggest issue. On 3/05/20 at 12:15 PM, in an interview with LPN #2, when asked about the process staff follows for assessing resident's skin, LPN #2 stated, We have a weekly assessment for checking the skin. I like to do mine in the morning when the CNA gets the residents ready. We check for redness, bruises, or any open areas, or edema, anything new. When asked about the process staff follows if something new is identified, LPN #2 stated, Right away let the unit manager know, call the MD (medical doctor), get a new order, let family know, let the wound nurse know. LPN #2 further stated, Document it in the weekly skin assessment book for the date I find it, on the resident chart in a nurse's note, and an incident report, SBAR, care plan. A review of the comprehensive care plan revealed one for (Resident #93) has Peripheral Vascular Disease and included the interventions, Monitor the extremities for s/sx (signs and symptoms) of injury, infection or ulcers and Monitor/document/report PRN (as-needed) any s/sx of skin problems related to PVD: Redness, Edema, Blistering, Itching, Burning, Bruises, Cuts, other skin lesions. A review of the facility policy, Clinical Guideline Skin & Wound documented, Licensed Nurse to report changes in skin integrity to the physician/practitioner and resident/responsible party and document in the medical record. On 3/5/20 at approximately 1:30 PM, ASM #1 (Administrative Staff Member, the Executive Director), ASM #2 (Director of Nursing) and ASM #3 (Regional Coordinator of Nursing Services) were made aware of the findings. No further information was provided by the end of the survey. 2. Resident #80 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a recent readmission on [DATE] with diagnoses that included but were not limited to end stage renal disease requiring hemodialysis (a procedure used in toxic conditions and renal [kidney] failure, in which wastes and impurities are removed from the blood by a special machine) (1), peripheral vascular disease (any abnormal condition, including atherosclerosis, affecting blood vessels outside the heart) (2), diabetes and bilateral tibia plateau fractures. The most recent MDS (minimum data set) assessment, a significant change assessment, with an assessment reference date of 2/12/2020 coded the resident as scoring a 15 on the BIMS (brief interview for mental status) score, indicating the resident was cognitively intact to make daily decisions. The resident was coded as requiring extensive assistance of one or more staff members for all of her activities of daily living except eating in which she was independent after set up assistance was provided. The Skin Evaluation dated 2/24/2020 documented the resident had bruises on the bilateral knees. The orthopedic consult dated 2/25/2020 documented, NWB (non weight bearing). 2. Braces knee applied bilat (bilaterally) - skin precautions to prevent skin breakdown - may keep open when in bed. A nurse's note dated 2/25/2020 at 4:00 p.m. documented in part, Resident returned from the orthopedic appt (appointment) with new orders of NWB on BLE (bilateral lower extremities), brace knee applied bilaterally - skin precaution to prevent skin breakdown. May keep open when in bed. The February TAR (treatment administration record) documented, 2/5/2020 - Apply knee immobilizer to bil (bilateral) knees at all times. May remove to assess skin integrity. This was signed off every day in the month of February. The TAR also documented, 2/25/2020 - Braces knee applied bilaterally; Skin precautions to prevent skin breakdown. May keep open when in bed. Next to this was handwritten, Duplicate Order. A line was documented across the page and nothing was signed off. The March 2020 TAR documented, Apply immobilizer to bilateral knees at all times - may remove to assess skin integrity. It was signed off as completed every shift from 3/1/2020 through 3/4/2020. The order dated 2/25/2020 did not appear on the March TAR. The nurse's notes of 2/26/2020, 2/27/2020 and 2/28/2020 did not document the use of the bilateral braces. A nurse's note dated 2/29/2020 at 12:30 p.m. documented in part, Braces on. The nurse's note of 2/29/2020 at 6:00 p.m. documented in part, Braces kept in place. The nurse's note of 3/1/2020 failed to evidence documentation regarding the braces. The nurse's note dated, 3/2/2020 at 6:50 a.m. documented in part, Bilateral knee immobilizer in place. The SBAR (Situation Background Appearance and Review) form dated 3/2/2020 at 10:50 a.m. documented in part, Open area to (R) (right) lateral knee. The Pressure Injury Record dated 3/2/2020 documented in part, Present on admission - a check mark was documented next to no. Location: (R) lateral knee. Measurements: 0.8 x 0.5 x 0.1 cm (centimeters) The wound bed was documented as being eschar (a scab or crust that forms on the skin after a burn) (3). The wound bed color was documented as yellow. The comprehensive care plan dated,3/2/2020 documented in part, Focus: (Resident #80) has a pressure ulcer to the right lateral knee r/t (related to) knee brace being too tight. The Interventions documented in part, Educate resident/family of causative factors and measures to prevent skin injury. Keep skin clean and dry. Use lotion on dry skin. Do not apply on site of injury. Knee brace will be kept open while resident is in bed per request. Knee brace will be fasten to dialysis treatment and transfers. An interview was conducted with RN (registered nurse) # 6, the wound nurse, on 3/4/2020 at 3:31 p.m. When asked how she was made aware of the pressure injury on Resident #80's right lateral knee, RN #6 stated the physical therapist was in the room and getting her ready for dialysis. She called me into the room. The wound was observed to be red around the wound bed. The wound bed itself had yellow slough, half was yellow and half was granulated tissue. She stated she had coded it as unstageable. RN #6 stated she had completed the SBAR, updated the care plan, notified the doctor for treatment order and she completed the treatment that day. When asked when she had observed the resident's legs prior to 3/2/2020, RN #6 stated she had seen them on the previous Friday. When asked if she had noticed anything abnormal on Friday, RN #6 stated no. When asked how often is her skin to be checked, RN #6 stated, daily. When asked if there was any documentation of her assessing the skin on Friday, RN #6 stated, No, I just signed off the TAR. I didn't write a nurse's note. Observation of the resident's wound was conducted on 3/4/2020 at 4:36 p.m. The resident has just returned from dialysis and the wound nurse was changing her dressing for the day. The wound itself had yellow slough covering the wound, the area around the wound was noted to be red. An interview was conducted with LPN (licensed practical nurse) #3, the nurse who cared for Resident #80 over the weekend, on 3/4/2020 at 4:52 p.m. When asked what should be done with a resident who has braces on both legs, LPN #3 stated they would normally assess the skin integrity, open the braces and check the skin. When asked if she observed the resident's skin over the past weekend, LPN #3 stated she did not assess the skin as the wound nurse looked at it over the weekend. Verified with LPN #3 that she did not look at the resident's skin over Saturday or Sunday, LPN #3 stated that was correct. An interview was conducted with RN #6 on 3/4/2020 at 4:59 p.m. When asked if she worked the past weekend, RN #6 stated she did not work weekends. An interview was conducted with RN #7, a nurse that worked with Resident #80 over the weekend before the wound was found. When asked if she opened the braces and observed the skin of Resident #80's legs, RN #7 stated the wound nurse does it over the weekend. RN #7 stated the resident sometimes closes them herself. When asked if she observed the skin this weekend, RN #7 stated she only looked to see if the braces were open. She further stated her problem is that she did not document about the braces being open and the care given but it was given by the wound nurse. An interview was conducted with administrative staff member (ASM) #1, the executive director, on 3/4/2020 at 6:45 p.m. When asked who the wound care nurse on the weekends was, ASM #1 stated he was the supervisor and does the treatments on the weekend. When asked if he is a wound care nurse, ASM #1 stated he was not, he just does the treatments. An interview was conducted with RN #5 on 3/5/2020 at 9:48 a.m. When asked if he had looked at Resident #80's skin under her braces over the weekend, RN #5 stated he had taken off the braces and looked at the skin. When asked if he saw anything unusual, RN #5 stated, No, Ma'am. When asked where he documented the skin check under the braces, RN #5 stated he signed if off on the TAR. The TAR for February and March 2020 was reviewed. There were nurse's signatures for all three shifts over the weekend for the skin checks. A request was made for a policy on caring for a resident with braces on 3/5/2020 at approximately 10:00 a.m. On 03/05 at 10:44 a.m., an interview was conducted with ASM # 3, the regional coordinator of nursing services. When asked what standards of practice the nursing staff follow ASM # 3 stated that they follow [NAME] & [NAME] and their policies. On 3/5/2020 at 11:20 a.m. ASM #3, the regional coordinator of nursing services, informed this surveyor that the facility did not have a policy on the care of a resident with orthopedic braces. She did present a copy of a page out of a reference book that documented, Skin - Step: orthopedic and positioning devices such as cast, neck collars and splints. The Rationale - Applied devices have potential to cause pressure to underlying and adjacent skin and tissue. Documented under the strategies to Prevent Medical and Immobilization Device-Related Pressure Injuries, Orthopedic device - All areas where device comes im contact with patient's skin and tissues. Prevention Strategies - When possible and not contraindicated, inspect under the device. (4) ASM #1, the executive director, ASM #2, the director of nursing and ASM #3, the regional coordinator of nursing services were made aware of the above concern. No further information was obtained prior to exit. (1) Barron's Dictionary of Medical Terms for the Non-Medical Reader, 5th edition, Rothenberg and [NAME], page 266. (2) Barron's Dictionary of Medical Terms for the Non-Medical Reader, 5th edition, Rothenberg and [NAME], page 447. The wound (3) Barron's Dictionary of Medical Terms for the Non-Medical Reader, 5th edition, Rothenberg and [NAME], page 207. (4) Clinical Nursing Skills & Techniques, 9th edition, [NAME] and [NAME], page 999.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interview, and facility document review, it was determined that facility staff failed to ensure a PP...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interview, and facility document review, it was determined that facility staff failed to ensure a PPD [purified protein derivative] [1] vial was dated when opened and an expired PPD vial were not available for use in one of one medication storage rooms inspected, second floor medication room. The findings include: On 03/05/20 at 8:36 a.m., an observation of the facility's medication room on the second floor was conducted with RN [registered nurse] # 3. Upon entering the medication room, a small refrigerator was observed under the counter on the left side of the room. Observation of the inside of the refrigerator revealed a small red plastic tray containing two multi-dose vials of PPD that were available for use. When asked if the vials of PPD were opened, RN # 3 stated yes. Observation of the first vial failed to evidence an open date. The second opened vial of PPD documented an open date of 1/28/2020. When asked about the first vial of PPD not having an open date, RN # 3 observed the box containing the vial and the vial itself and confirmed that there was not an open date documented on either the vial or the box. RN # 3 further stated that it should have been dated when it was opened. When asked about the second vial of PPD with an open date of 1/28/2020, RN # 3 stated that it was only good for 28 or 30 days after opening and that, it had expired and immediately removed the vials of PPD from the medication room. On 03/05/2020 at approximately 9:35 a.m., an interview was conducted with RN # 4. When asked to describe the procedure staff follows when opening a multi-dose vial of PPD, RN # 4 stated, Date it when you open it and store it in the refrigerator. When asked why it was important to date the multi-dose vial when it was opened, RN # 4 stated, For expiration purposes. When asked if the medication rooms are inspected for expired medications, RN # 4 stated that were inspected monthly. On 03/05/2020 at 12:15 p.m., an interview was conducted with ASM [administrative staff member] # 2, director of nursing. When asked how they make sure expired biological are not stored and available for use in the medication rooms, ASM # 2 stated, We follow our policy. The facility's policy 5.3 Storage and Expiration of Medications, Biologicals, Syringes and needles documented in part, 4. Facility should ensure that medications and biologicals that: (1); have an expired date on the label (2) have been retained longer than recommended by manufacturer or supplier guidelines; or (3) have been contaminated or deteriorated, are stored separate from other medications until destroyed or returned to the pharmacy or supplier. 5. Once any medication or biological package is opened, Facility should follow manufacturer/supplier guidelines with respect to expiration dates for opened medications. Facility staff should record the date opened on the medication container when the medication has a shortened expiration date once opened. On 03/05/2020 at 10:44 a.m., an interview was conducted with ASM [administrative staff member] # 3, regional coordinator of nursing services. When asked what standards of practice the nursing staff follow ASM # 3 stated that they follow [NAME] & [NAME] and their policies. On 03/03/2020 at 12:15 p.m., ASM # 1, executive director, ASM # 2, director of nursing and ASM # 3, regional coordinator of nursing services, were informed of the above findings. No further information was provided prior to exit. References: [1]PPD skin test is a method used to diagnose silent (latent) tuberculosis (TB) infection. This information was obtained from the website: https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/003839.htm.
CONCERN (D)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interview, facility document review and clinical record review, it was determined that facility staf...

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 that facility staff failed to implement infection control practices for one of 41 residents in the survey sample, Residents # 4. During the lunch meal observation on 3/3/2020, CNA (certified nursing assistant) #3 was not observed sanitizing or washing their hands while after assisting a resident with their meal and before they resumed assisting Resident #4 with their meal. The findings include: Resident # 4 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included but were not limited to: aphasia [1] and swallowing difficulties. Resident # 4's most recent MDS (minimum data set), a quarterly assessment with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 02/27/2020, coded Resident # 4 as scoring a three on the brief interview for mental status (BIMS) of a score of 0 - 15, three - being severely impaired of cognition for making daily decisions. Resident # 4 was coded as requiring extensive assistance of one staff member for eating. Section K Swallowing/Nutritional Status coded Resident # 4 as having a Mechanically altered diet - require change in texture of food or liquids (e.g., pureed foods, thickened liquids). On 03/03/2020 at 1:10 p.m., an observation of the lunch meal was conducted on the facility's first floor dayroom. Observations of Resident # 4 revealed the resident was sitting in a wheelchair at the table with CNA [certified nursing assistant] # 3 was seated next to them. Observation of Resident # 4's lunch tray revealed that it contained pureed consistency food, thickened coffee and a cup of thin juice. Observation of CNA # 3 revealed they were feeding Resident # 4 their food and providing sips of liquids. Further observation of CNA # 3, revealed that during the course of the meal, CNA # 3 turned to another resident on their right side, picked up the resident's cup of juice with their right hand, and assisted the resident in taking a sip. CNA #3 then turned back to Resident # 4, picked up Resident # 4's cup with their right hand, and assisted Resident # 4 in taking a sip. CNA # 3 not observed washing their hands or using sanitizer on their hands between assisting each resident. On 03/03/20 at 2:37 p.m., an interview was conducted with CNA [certified nursing assistant] # 3. When asked about washing or sanitizing their hands when serving Resident # 4, after assisting another resident, CNA # 3 stated that they should have sanitized their hands after assisting the other resident On 03/05/2020 at 10:44 a.m., an interview was conducted with ASM [administrative staff member] # 3, regional coordinator of nursing services. When asked what standards of practice the facility follows, ASM # 3 stated that they follow [NAME] & [NAME] and their policies. On 03/03/2020 at 5:20 p.m., ASM # 1, executive director, ASM # 2, director of nursing and ASM # 3, regional coordinator of nursing services, were informed of the above findings. No further information was provided prior to exit. References: [1] A disorder caused by damage to the parts of the brain that control language. It can make it hard for you to read, write, and say what you mean to say). This information was obtained from the website: https://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/aphasia.html
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0658 (Tag F0658)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident #55 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included but were not limited to: chronic obstructive...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident #55 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included but were not limited to: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (chronic non-reversible lung disease) (1), rheumatoid arthritis (chronic destructive disease characterized by joint inflammation) (2) and carotid artery stenosis (abnormal narrowing of one or both of the main arteries that supply the brain) (3). The most recent MDS (minimum data set) assessment, a quarterly assessment, with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 2/28/20, coded the resident as scoring a 15 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 toileting, supervision for eating and independent for bed mobility, dressing, personal hygiene, walking in room and locomotion on/off unit. A physician order dated 2/19/20 documented, Oxycodone [used to treat moderate to severe pain] (4) tablet 5 milligram every three hours as needed for pain. A physician order dated 2/21/20 documented, Tylenol [used to treat pain and fever] (5) 650 milligram every six hours for pain management. A physician order dated 2/21/20 documented, Morphine sulfate [used to treat moderate to severe pain] (6) 15 milligram tablet every four hours as needed for pain. The February 2020 MAR (medication administration record), for Resident #55 documented the above physicians orders for the medications. The medications were administered to the resident on the following dates and times for the pain level ratings as follows: Oxycodone 5 milligram: 2/22/20 at 04:00 AM - pain level - 8 2/22/20 at 10:00 AM - pain level - 7 2/22/20 at 2:00 PM- pain level - 7 2/22/20 at 6:00 PM- pain level - 7 2/22/20 at 10:00 PM- pain level - 7 2/23/20 at 10:00 AM- pain level - 7 2/23/20 at 2:00 PM- pain level - 7 2/23/20 at 6:00 PM- pain level - 7 2/23/20 at 10:00 PM- pain level - 7 2/24/20 at 5:00 AM- pain level - 8 2/24/20 at 9:00 AM- pain level - 10 2/24/20 at 4:00 PM- pain level - 7 2/24/20 at 7:00 PM- pain level - 7 2/24/20 at 10:00 PM- pain level - 8 2/25/20 at 1:00 AM- pain level - 7 2/25/20 at 1:00 PM- pain level - 7 2/25/20 at 6:00 PM- pain level - 7 2/25/20 at 9:00 PM- pain level - 7 2/26/20 at 2:00 AM- pain level - 7 2/26/20 at 6:00 AM- pain level - 7 2/26/20 at 5:30 PM- pain level - 6 2/26/20 at 9:30 PM- pain level - 7 2/27/20 at 9:00 AM- pain level - 7 2/27/20 at 1:45 PM- pain level - 7 2/27/20 at 5:30 PM- pain level - 7 2/27/20 at 9:00 PM- pain level - 7 2/28/20 at 9:30 AM- pain level - 7 2/28/20 at 5:30 PM- pain level - 7 2/28/20 at 10:00 AM- pain level - 7 2/29/20 at 12:00 AM- pain level - 8 2/29/20 at 5:30 PM- pain level - 7 2/29/20 at 6:00 PM- pain level - 7 Morphine sulfate 15 milligram: 2/21/20 at 9:00 AM - pain level - 8 2/21/20 at 1:00 PM - pain level - 7 The resident's pain level, location and effectiveness were documented and non-pharmacological interventions were documented prior to administration of the medication. The March 2020 MAR (medication administration record), for Resident #55 documented the above physicians orders for the medications. The medications were administered to the resident on the following dates and times for the pain level ratings as follows: Oxycodone 5 milligram: 3/1/20 at 5:00 AM- pain level - 7 3/1/20 at 1:00 PM- pain level - 7 3/1/20 at 4:15 PM- pain level - 8 3/2/20 at 1:00 PM- pain level - 7 3/2/20 at 5:00 PM- pain level - 7 3/2/20 at 10:00 PM- pain level - 7 3/3/20 at 10:30 AM- pain level - 5 3/3/20 at 4:50 PM- pain level - 8 3/3/20 at 9:30 PM- pain level - 5 3/4/20 at 1:30 PM- pain level - 7 Morphine sulfate 15 milligram: 3/1/20 at 8:30 AM- pain level - 8 3/2/20 at 8:45 AM- pain level - 8 3/2/20 at 9:00 PM- pain level - 7 3/4/20 at 00:30 AM- pain level - 8 The resident's pain level, location and effectiveness were documented and non-pharmacological interventions were documented prior to administration of medications. The baseline care plan dated 2/20/20, documented in part, Problem: Pain- Will maintain comfort to highest degree possible. The Interventions dated 2/20/20, documented, Monitor for pain. Administer pain medications as ordered. Non-drug interventions. Eliminate or reduce causative factors. The physician progress note dated, 2/21/20 at 10:30 AM, documented in part, Patient assessed and evaluated. Pain medications were reviewed, continue as ordered. On 3/3/20 at 5:03 PM, LPN (licensed practical nurse) #1 was observed administering pain medication to Resident #55. An interview was conducted with LPN #1, when asked Resident #55's pain level, LPN #1 stated, It is an 8. LPN #1 was asked how staff determined which pain medication should be administered, LPN #1 stated, She has been on pain medications for a long time, so she knows which one to ask for. When asked if her pain medication orders gave parameters for administration, LPN #1 stated, No, these do not have parameters but we use mild, moderate and severe for pain levels. When asked if it within nursing scope of practice to decide which pain medications to administer, LPN #1 stated, No, it is not within our scope to decide which pain medication to give. I will clarify these orders. An interview was conducted on 3/3/20 at 5:10 PM with ASM #2, the director of nursing. When asked if the nursing scope of practice permitted nurses to determine which pain medication to administer, ASM #2 stated, No, we should clarify the physician orders. An interview was conducted with ASM #3, the regional coordinator of nursing services on 3/5/20 at 10:44 AM. When asked what standards of practice the facility follows, ASM # 3 stated, We follow our policies and [NAME] & [NAME]. ASM #1, the administrator, ASM #2, the director of nursing and ASM #3, the regional coordinator for nursing services, were made aware of the above concern on 3/4/20 at 6:40 PM. The facility's Physician Orders policy dated 8/22/17, documents in part, admission orders: Information received from the referring facility to be reviewed and transcribed to the physician order form. The attending physician reviews and confirms the orders. According to Fundamentals of Nursing, 6th edition [NAME] and [NAME], 2005, page 846, A medication order is required for any medication to be administered by a nurse. If the medication order in incomplete, the nurse should inform the prescriber and ensure completeness before carrying out any medication order. No further information was provided prior to exit. References: (1) Barron's Dictionary of Medical Terms for the Non-Medical Reader, 7th edition, Rothenberg and [NAME], page 120. (2) Barron Dictionary of Medical Terms, 7th edition, Rothenberg and Kaplan, page 507. (3) Barron's Dictionary of Medical Terms for the Non-Medical Reader, 7th edition, Rothenberg and [NAME], page 103/541. (4) 2009 [NAME] Pocket Drug Guide for Nurses, Wolters Kluwer, page 448. (5) 2009 [NAME] Pocket Drug Guide for Nurses, Wolters Kluwer, page 4. (6) 2009 [NAME] Pocket Drug Guide for Nurses, Wolters Kluwer, page 253. Based on staff interview, facility document review, and clinical record review, it was determined the facility staff failed to follow professional standards of practice for two of 41 residents in the survey sample, Residents #80 and #55. The facility staff failed to transcribe a physician order for Resident #80's bilateral knee braces accurately to the TAR (treatment administration record). The facility staff failed to clarify multiple as needed pain medication orders for Resident #55 to determine when and which medication to administer based on pain level parameters. The findings include: 1. Resident #80 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]; with a recent readmission on [DATE] with diagnoses that included but were not limited to end stage renal disease requiring hemodialysis [a procedure used in toxic conditions and renal [kidney] failure, in which wastes and impurities are removed from the blood by a special machine.] (1), peripheral vascular disease [any abnormal condition, including atherosclerosis, affecting blood vessels outside the heart.] (2), diabetes and bilateral tibia plateau fractures. The most recent MDS (minimum data set) assessment, a significant change assessment, with an assessment reference date of 2/12/2020 coded the resident as scoring a 15 on the BIMS (brief interview for mental status) score, indicating the resident was cognitively intact to make daily decisions. The resident was coded as requiring extensive assistance of one or more staff members for all of her activities of daily living except eating in which she was coded as independent after set up assistance was provided. The orthopedic consult dated 2/25/2020 documented, NWB (non-weight-bearing). 2. Braces knee applied bilat (bilaterally) - skin precautions to prevent skin breakdown - may keep open when in bed. The above orders were documented in the clinical record as physician orders. The February TAR (treatment administration record) documented, 2/5/2020 - Apply knee immobilizer to bil (bilateral) knees at all times. May remove to assess skin integrity. This was signed off every day in the month of February. The TAR also documented, 2/25/2020 - Braces knee applied bilaterally; Skin precautions to prevent skin breakdown. May keep open when in bed. Next to this was handwritten, Duplicate Order. A line was documented across the page and nothing was signed off. The March 2020 TAR documented, Apply immobilizer to bilateral knees at all times - may remove to assess skin integrity. It was signed off as completed every shift from 3/1/2020 through 3/4/2020. The order dated 2/25/2020 did not appear on the March TAR. On 03/05/2020 at 10:44 a.m., an interview was conducted with ASM (administrative staff member) # 3, the regional coordinator of nursing services. When asked what standards of practice the facility follows, ASM # 3 stated that they follow [NAME] & [NAME] and their policies. An interview was conducted with LPN (licensed practical nurse) #2 on 3/5/2020 at 12:15 p.m. The above order from the orthopedist and the February and March TARs were reviewed with LPN #2. When asked if the orders are the same orders, LPN #2 stated, No, they are two different devices. An interview was conducted with RN (registered nurse) #3, the MDS nurse, on 3/5/2020 at 12:44 p.m. The above orders from the orthopedist and the February and March 2020 TARs were reviewed with RN #3. When asked if the two orders are for the same thing, RN #3 stated, They are not the same orders. They are two different orders. When asked if this is a transcription error, RN #3 stated, Yes, I would say so. The facility policy, Physician Orders documented in part, The order is transcribed to all appropriate areas (MAR [mediation administration record] TAR, etc.) or electronic equivalent. The nurse or a designated unit secretary writes the prescriber's complete order on the appropriate medication form, the MAR .When transcribing orders, the nurse should be sure that names, dosages and symbols are legible . A registered nurse checks all transcribed orders against the original order for accuracy and thoroughness.(3) ASM #1, the executive director, ASM #2, the director of nursing and ASM #3, the regional coordinator of nursing services were made aware of the above concern. No further information was obtained prior to exit. (1) Barron's Dictionary of Medical Terms for the Non-Medical Reader, 5th edition, Rothenberg and [NAME], page 266. (2) Barron's Dictionary of Medical Terms for the Non-Medical Reader, 5th edition, Rothenberg and [NAME], page 447. (3) Fundamentals of Nursing 6th edition; [NAME] and [NAME], page 846
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 serve food in a sanitary manner. During the lunch meal on 3/3/2020, OSM (other s...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, staff interview and facility document review, it was determined that the facility staff failed to serve food in a sanitary manner. During the lunch meal on 3/3/2020, OSM (other staff member) #4, a dietary aide, was observed plating food for resident trays. OSM #4 touched multiple items while wearing gloves and then wearing the same gloves touched the food contact, surface area of plates, and grabbed dinner rolls with his hand, placing one on each plate, wearing the same gloves. The findings include: On 3/3/20 at 11:46 AM, an inspection of the tray line service was conducted of the lunch meal. The preparation of the meal trays began at 12:27 PM. The following was observed: OSM #4 (Other Staff Member, dietary aide) was at the steam table, plating the food for each tray. He had gloves on, however; he was noted to be touching multiple items in his vicinity including serving spoon handles, the surface of the steam table, and the handles of a wheeled cart on which plates were stacked at his left side, contaminating his gloves. As he obtained each plate from the cart, he had his thumb on the food contact, surface area, of the rim of the plate. In addition, after plating the food items from the steam table, he reached to another cart at his right side, which contained a tray of dinner rolls. He grabbed each dinner roll with his hand and placed one on each plate, wearing the same contaminated gloves. On 3/03/20 at 4:01 PM, an interview was conducted with OSM #2, the dietary manager. When asked about the observations of thumbs on the plates and handling of the dinner rolls, OSM #2 stated, Staff should not have their thumbs on the plates and should be using tongs for the rolls. A review of the facility policy, Meal Distribution documented, Proper food handling techniques to prevent contamination and temperature maintenance controls will be used for point-of-service dining. On 3/4/20 at 6:40 PM, ASM #1 (Administrative Staff Member, the Executive Director), ASM #2 (Director of Nursing) and ASM #3 (Regional Coordinator of Nursing Services) were made aware of the findings. No further information was provided by the end of the survey.
CONCERN (E)

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

Medical Records (Tag F0842)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to ensure a complete and accurate...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to ensure a complete and accurate medical record for one of 41 residents in the survey sample, Resident # 7. The facility staff failed to document the percentage of food eaten by Resident #7 at meals. The findings include: Resident # 7 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included but were not limited to swallowing difficulties, amnesia, and adult failure to thrive. Resident # 7's most recent MDS (minimum data set), a quarterly assessment with an ARD (assessment reference date) of 02/27/2020, coded Resident # 7 as scoring a 12 on the brief interview for mental status (BIMS) of a score of 0 - 15, 12 - being moderately impaired of cognition for making daily decisions. Resident # 7 was coded as independent and requiring assistance with setup for eating. Section K Swallowing/Nutritional Status coded Resident # 7 under K0300 Weight Loss, 2 [two] Yes, not on physician-prescribed weight-loss regimen. The comprehensive care plan for Resident # 7 with a revision date of 10/08/19 documented in part, Focus. [Resident # 7] has potential nutritional imbalance and risk for wt [weight] fluctuation r/t [related to] Depression, Hx [history] of CVA [cerebral vascular accident] w/ [with] residual deficit and limited assist with weakness. Revision on 10/09/2018. Under Interventions, it documented in part, Provide, serve diet as ordered. Monitor intake and record q [every] meal. Date Initiated: 10/09/2018. The facility's ADL [activities of daily living] record for Resident # 7 dated February 2020 documented, ADL - Eating Meal Percentage. 0900 [9:00 a.m.] Day, 1300 [1:00 p.m.] Day, 1800 [6:00 p.m.] Evening. Further review of the ADL record failed to evidence documentation of meal percentages at 9:00 a.m. on: 02/01/2020, 02/03/2020 through 02/11/2020, 02/14/2020, 02/16/2020 through 02/23/2020, 02/25/2020 through 02/29/2020; Further review of the ADL record failed to evidence documentation of meal percentages at 1:00 p.m. on: 02/01/2020, 02/03/2020 through 02/12/2020, 02/14/2020, 02/16/2020 through 02/23/2020, 02/25/2020 through 02/29/2020. The ADL record failed to evidence documentation of meal percentages at 6:00 p.m. on 02/04/2020, 02/09/2020, 02/18/2020, and 02/23/2020 and on 02/28/2020. The facility's ADL record for Resident # 7 dated March 2020 documented, ADL - Eating Meal Percentage. 0900 Day, 1300 Day, 1800 Evening. Further review of the ADL record failed to evidence documentation of meal percentages at 9:00 a.m. on 03/02/2020 through 03/04/2020, at 1:00 p.m. on 03/02/2020 through 03/04/2020 and at 6:00 p.m. on 03/03/2020. On 03/04/20 at 4:34 p.m., an interview was conducted with ASM [administrative staff member] # 2, director of nursing. When asked why it was important to document the amount of food a resident consumes at each meal ASM # 2 stated to be able to track the amount of intake. After reviewing the missing documentation on the ADL record for Resident # 7 dated February and March 2020 for the dates listed above, ASM # 2 stated that they are unable to determine, how much the resident is eating at her meals or any type of trend for weight loss. On 03/05/2020 at 10:44 a.m., an interview was conducted with ASM [administrative staff member] # 3, regional coordinator of nursing services. When asked what standards of practice the nursing staff follow ASM # 3 stated that they follow [NAME] & [NAME] and their policies. [NAME] and [NAME]'s Fundamentals of Nursing, 6th edition, page 477, reveals the following information: Documentation is anything written or printed that is relied on as record or proof for authorized persons. Documentation within a client medical record is a vital aspect of nursing practice. Nursing documentation must be accurate, comprehensive, and flexible enough to retrieve critical data, maintain continuity of care, track client outcomes, and reflect current standards of nursing practice. Information in the client record provides a detailed account of the level of quality of care delivered to the clients. On 03/04/2020 at 6:40 p.m., ASM # 1, executive director, ASM # 2, director of nursing and ASM # 3, regional coordinator of nursing services, were informed of the above findings. No further information was provided prior to exit.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0925 (Tag F0925)

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 ensure the kitchen area was free of pests. Two flies were observed flying in th...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, staff interview, and facility document review, it was determined that the facility staff failed to ensure the kitchen area was free of pests. Two flies were observed flying in the area where dishes were stored on racks for air-drying, and a fly was observed flying around the area of the steam table where the lunch meal foods was already set up but were covered. The findings include: On 3/3/20 at 10:15 AM, an initial kitchen inspection was conducted. Two flies were observed flying in the area where dishes were stored on racks for air-drying, located between the dishwashing area and a storage area across the aisle from the dishwashing area. On 3/3/20 at 12:24 PM, an inspection of the tray line service was conducted of the lunch meal. A fly was observed flying around the area of the steam table where the lunch meal foods was already set up but were covered. A review of the pest control company visits for December 2019, January 2020, and February 2020 revealed a visit dated 2/18/20 which documented, Targeted Pests: Flies, Miscellaneous flies, Other, Fats, Oil, Greases. Area: Kitchen. Equipment used: Aerosol Linear Feet. Comments: Treated the drains. On 3/03/20 at 4:01 PM, an interview was conducted with OSM (other staff member) #2, the dietary manager. When asked about the flies, OSM #2 stated, We have pest control come out and treat the brand new filter system. We have to keep the drain in the floor by the juice station clean and dry at all times, if not it causes the flies to come. A review of the Pest Control policy documented, A program will be established for the control of insects and rodents for the Dining Services department. 1. The Dining Services Director coordinates with the Director of Maintenance to arrange pest control services on a monthly basis, or as needed. 2. All food preparation, service and storage areas will be monitored regularly for any signs of pest/vermin. The center staff will be notified immediately of any concerns. 3. Where applicable, bulk foods will be removed from their original packaging and stored in containers with tight fitting lids. A review of the facility policy, Meal Distribution did not document anything regarding preventing pests in the kitchen area. On 3/4/20 at 6:40 PM, ASM #1 (Administrative Staff Member, the Executive Director), ASM #2 (Director of Nursing) and ASM #3 (Regional Coordinator of Nursing Services) were made aware of the findings. No further information was provided by the end of the survey.
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0804 (Tag F0804)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, staff interview and facility document review, it was determined that the facility staff failed to serve food at palatable temperatures for meal enjoyment during the lunch meal se...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, staff interview and facility document review, it was determined that the facility staff failed to serve food at palatable temperatures for meal enjoyment during the lunch meal service on 3/3/2020. The findings include: On 3/3/20 at 11:46 AM, an inspection of the tray line service was conducted of the lunch meal. Temperatures of the lunch meal were obtained at the steam table as follows, by OSM #2 (Other Staff Member, the dietary manager), using a facility thermometer: - Mashed potatoes 169 degrees Fahrenheit (F). - Puree green beans 178 degrees - Puree pork 171 degrees - [NAME] 203 degrees - Pork loin 189 degrees - Mechanical pork 186 degrees - [NAME] beans 183 degrees On 3/3/20 at 2:15 PM, a test tray was conducted of the lunch meal with OSM #2. The following temperatures were obtained by OSM #2 using a facility thermometer: - Mashed potatoes 134 degrees Fahrenheit (F). This was a 35-degree drop in temperature. - Puree green beans 137 degrees F. This was a 41-degree drop in temperature. - Puree pork 127 degrees F. This was a 44-degree drop in temperature. - [NAME] was 128 degrees F. This was a 75-degree drop in temperature. - Pork loin 121 degrees F. This was a 68-degree drop in temperature. - Mechanical pork 125 degrees F. This was a 61-degree drop in temperature. The [NAME] beans temperature was 114 degrees F. This was a 69-degree drop in temperature. On 3/3/20 at 2:15 PM, the above food items were taste tested with 2 surveyors and OSM #2. All agreed that the pureed items and mashed potatoes were ok, but none of the other items were at temperatures palatable for meal enjoyment. On 3/03/20 at 4:01 PM, an interview was conducted with OSM #2. When asked about meal temperatures, OSM #2 stated, I understand. People don't want a lukewarm meal. On 3/04/20 at 10:30 AM, a group interview was conducted of five current facility residents. The resident consensus was that food is cold when served in their room. A review of the facility policy, Meal Distribution documented, Meals are transported to the dining locations in a manner that ensures proper temperature maintenance On 3/4/20 at 6:40 PM, ASM #1 (Administrative Staff Member, the Executive Director), ASM #2 (Director of Nursing) and ASM #3 (Regional Coordinator of Nursing Services) were made aware of the findings. No further information was provided by the end of the survey.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

  • "What changes have you made since the serious inspection findings?"
  • "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
  • "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • 23% annual turnover. Excellent stability, 25 points below Virginia's 48% average. Staff who stay learn residents' needs.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 53 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $12,834 in fines. Above average for Virginia. Some compliance problems on record.
  • • Grade C (51/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Mixed indicators with Trust Score of 51/100. Visit in person and ask pointed questions.

About This Facility

What is Belmont Bay Rehabilitation And Healthcare Center's CMS Rating?

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

How is Belmont Bay Rehabilitation And Healthcare Center Staffed?

CMS rates BELMONT BAY REHABILITATION AND HEALTHCARE CENTER's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 23%, compared to the Virginia average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Belmont Bay Rehabilitation And Healthcare Center?

State health inspectors documented 53 deficiencies at BELMONT BAY REHABILITATION AND HEALTHCARE CENTER during 2020 to 2024. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 50 with potential for harm, and 2 minor or isolated issues. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.

Who Owns and Operates Belmont Bay Rehabilitation And Healthcare Center?

BELMONT BAY REHABILITATION AND HEALTHCARE CENTER is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by MARQUIS HEALTH SERVICES, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 120 certified beds and approximately 109 residents (about 91% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in WOODBRIDGE, Virginia.

How Does Belmont Bay Rehabilitation And Healthcare Center Compare to Other Virginia Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Virginia, BELMONT BAY REHABILITATION AND HEALTHCARE CENTER's overall rating (3 stars) is below the state average of 3.0, staff turnover (23%) is significantly lower than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Belmont Bay Rehabilitation And Healthcare Center?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What changes have been made since the serious inspection findings, and how are you preventing similar issues?" "Can you walk me through typical staffing levels on day, evening, and night shifts?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations and the below-average staffing rating.

Is Belmont Bay Rehabilitation And Healthcare Center Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, BELMONT BAY REHABILITATION AND HEALTHCARE CENTER has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 3-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in Virginia. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.

Do Nurses at Belmont Bay Rehabilitation And Healthcare Center Stick Around?

Staff at BELMONT BAY REHABILITATION AND HEALTHCARE CENTER tend to stick around. With a turnover rate of 23%, the facility is 23 percentage points below the Virginia average of 46%. Low turnover is a positive sign. It means caregivers have time to learn each resident's needs, medications, and personal preferences. Consistent staff also notice subtle changes in a resident's condition more quickly.

Was Belmont Bay Rehabilitation And Healthcare Center Ever Fined?

BELMONT BAY REHABILITATION AND HEALTHCARE CENTER has been fined $12,834 across 1 penalty action. This is below the Virginia average of $33,207. While any fine indicates a compliance issue, fines under $50,000 are relatively common and typically reflect isolated problems that were subsequently corrected. Families should ask what specific issues led to these fines and confirm they've been resolved.

Is Belmont Bay Rehabilitation And Healthcare Center on Any Federal Watch List?

BELMONT BAY REHABILITATION AND HEALTHCARE CENTER is not on any federal watch list. The most significant is the Special Focus Facility (SFF) program, which identifies the bottom 1% of nursing homes nationally based on persistent, serious quality problems. Not being on this list means the facility has avoided the pattern of deficiencies that triggers enhanced federal oversight. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review the facility's inspection history directly.