Colville Health and Rehabilitation of Cascadia

1000 EAST ELEP STREET, COLVILLE, WA 99114 (509) 684-2573
For profit - Corporation 92 Beds CASCADIA HEALTHCARE Data: November 2025 2 Immediate Jeopardy citations
Trust Grade
0/100
#171 of 190 in WA
Last Inspection: May 2025

Inspected within the last 6 months. Data reflects current conditions.

Overview

Colville Health and Rehabilitation of Cascadia has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating a poor standard of care with significant concerns. They rank #171 out of 190 facilities in Washington, placing them in the bottom half, and #2 out of 2 in Stevens County, meaning there is only one other local option that is better. The facility is worsening, with issues increasing from 16 in 2024 to 30 in 2025. Staffing is a weakness here, rated 2 out of 5 stars with a concerning 74% turnover rate, which is much higher than the state average. Notably, there have been critical incidents, including failure to address resident-to-resident abuse and inadequate supervision leading to repeated falls and serious injuries for multiple residents.

Trust Score
F
0/100
In Washington
#171/190
Bottom 10%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Worse
16 → 30 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
74% turnover. Very high, 26 points above average. Constant new faces learning your loved one's needs.
Penalties
✓ Good
$18,723 in fines. Lower than most Washington facilities. Relatively clean record.
Skilled Nurses
○ Average
Each resident gets 38 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for Washington. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
Violations
⚠ Watch
52 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Overall Rating
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Staff Levels
★★★☆☆
3.0
Care Quality
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 16 issues
2025: 30 issues

The Good

  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record

Facility shows strength in fire safety.

The Bad

1-Star Overall Rating

Below Washington average (3.2)

Significant quality concerns identified by CMS

Staff Turnover: 74%

27pts above Washington avg (46%)

Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity

Federal Fines: $18,723

Below median ($33,413)

Minor penalties assessed

Chain: CASCADIA HEALTHCARE

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

Staff turnover is very high (74%)

26 points above Washington average of 48%

The Ugly 52 deficiencies on record

2 life-threatening 4 actual harm
May 2025 30 deficiencies 2 IJ (1 facility-wide)
CRITICAL (K)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Someone could have died · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** <Resident 50> Review of a 04/07/2025 quarterly assessment showed Resident 50 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with medi...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** <Resident 50> Review of a 04/07/2025 quarterly assessment showed Resident 50 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with medically complex conditions, to include dementia, repeated falls, and impaired vision. This assessment showed the resident had moderately impaired cognition, required supervision or touching assistance from the staff for ADLs (Activities of Daily Living) and experienced falls since their admission to the facility or their prior assessment. The assessment showed Resident 50 was always continent of bowel and bladder and was not on a toileting program. In an observation on 05/15/25 at 8:36 AM, Resident 50 was seated in their wheelchair, eating their breakfast in front of a small table against the wall. The call light was approximately five feet away from the resident, clipped to its own cord attached to the wall above the bed. Signage on the opposite wall showed instructions that said, Play it safe. Use your call light for help. An interview and observation on 05/12/2025 at 10:55 AM showed Resident 50 in bed and stated, I fall quite frequently. I have progressive palsy (loss or reduction of movement in a part of the body, often accompanied by shaking or trembling) and they've gone over things that I do that cause the falls like how I turn and so forth. The resident said they had fallen five times since admission to the facility. Review of Resident 50's 11/04/2024 care plan showed the staff identified the resident fell because of dementia, an unsteady walk, leaning forward in their wheelchair to pick items up from the floor and transferring from bed or wheelchair unassisted. The care plan showed the 04/05/2024 goal of the resident will be free of fall related injuries. The care plan informed the staff Resident 50 required assistance for transfers. The care plan showed that on the day of admission, 04/05/2024, the staff added the following interventions, Provide direct supervision while resident is toileting, Reinforce safety awareness: use call light, lock brakes on chair before transferring. When rising from a lying position, sit/rest at edge of the bed at least 10 seconds before transferring, Respond to resident requests timely. Anticipate needs. Keep call light and bedside table items within reach. On 12/01/2024, the staff added, Pharmacist to review medications quarterly and prn when falls occur to address fall risk side effects. Develop plan with risks and benefits as indicated. On 01/06/2025, the staff added, will get ice cream if [the resident] does not have a fall in 30 days. On 02/05/2025, the staff added, Resident agreed to wear pull ups at night for urine urgency. On 04/21/2025, the staff added, make sure to help remind [resident] to position the wheelchair at a 45-degree angle facing the bed, so that [the resident] can still reach the arm rests and make small steps, and travel a shorter distance, to decrease risk of falls. On 05/08/2025, the staff added, Educate resident to call out for help and to wait for assistance as it is [their] preference not to use the call light. Review of a toileting care plan initiated on 04/05/2024 showed Resident 50 was continent of urine and required assistance to the bathroom. The care plan informed the staff on 04/05/2024 the resident, manages toileting and incontinent episodes and assist with maintaining supplies as needed and to toilet the resident with morning and afternoon cares, before meals, at bedtime and as needed. On 01/14/2024, the care plan instructed the staff to place a stack of washcloths on bedside table for resident use. On 01/28/2025, the care plan instructed the staff to help the resident use the urinal by lowering their pants to their knees, tuck folded washcloth under penis (Keep stack on bedside table), and Wait a minute before removing cloth until dribbling stops. A 04/05/2024 ADLs care plan showed on 05/13/2024, it instructed the staff to complete Frequent rounding with the 4P's to help anticipate resident needs. Help keep room free from clutter. The 4P's stand for: Pain, Position, Placement, and Personal Needs. This approach may be used by anyone who entered a resident room for any reason to help prevent falls and developed a culture that checked in with the resident and addressed their needs at different times of the day. Review of progress notes from 04/05/2024 to 05/17/2025 showed staff identified Resident 50 fell frequently, was impulsive, forgetful to use their call light, and self-transferred in and out of bed or wheelchair. Documentation showed the staff continued to ask the resident to use the call light or call for help even though it was identified Resident 50 was impulsive and does not call for help/assistance with transfers or mobility and transfers without use of call light. Sometimes will yell help when is about to fall or needs help. Requires frequent reminders. Review of the progress notes showed Resident 50 fell 36 times (4/30/2024, 05/03/2024, 05/06/2024, 05/09/2024, 05/11/2024, 05/17/2024, 05/22/2024, 06/04/2024, 06/14/2024, 07/18/2024, 08/01/2024, 08/26/2024, 09/20/2024, 10/27/2024, 11/04/2024, 11/11/2024, 12/16/2024, 01/12/2025, 01/19/2025, 01/25/2025, 02/02/2025, 02/14/2025, 02/16/2025, 03/04/2025, 03/07/2025, 03/25/2025, 03/26/2025, 03/26/2025, 04/03/2025, 04/19/2025, 04/24/2025, twice on 05/03/2025, 05/05/2025, 05/14/2025, and 05/17/2025) from 04/05/2024 to 05/17/2025. Review of the electronic medical record from 04/05/2024 to 05/17/2025 showed Resident 50 experienced injuries of varying severity related to 36 falls that included abrasions (05/09/2025, 05/11/2024, 06/14/2024, 07/18/2024, 08/01/2024, 11/11/2024), contusions (an injury to soft tissue that causes bleeding beneath the skin, usually without breaking the skin itself, 08/01/2024, 08/26/2024, 11/11/2024, 03/27/2025), lacerations (08/01/2024, 08/26/2024, 02/02/2025) closed head injuries (08/01/2024, 03/27/2025), swelling to right side of forehead (10/27/2024), skin tears (03/04/2027, 03/07/2025, 04/20/2025), and multiple transfers to the Emergency Department (08/01/2024, 02/02/2025, 05/07/2025). Review of progress notes and investigative review documents associated with the falls showed no documentation the facility evaluated why previous interventions were ineffective and revised or developed interventions accordingly or developed effective interventions to compensate for Resident 50's forgetfulness and impulsiveness, like increased supervision or monitoring of the resident to intercept self-transfers to complete their ADLs. Facility reviews of the falls showed the staff continued to ask of Resident 50 to request assistance by using the call light and ultimately to call out for help, both repeatedly failed interventions. The facility investigations of the falls failed to show the facility considered what actually prompted the resident to self-transfer and effectively address the root-cause of the falls which precluded the staff from anticipating the resident's needs differently. The investigative reviews repeated interventions already established on Resident 50's day of admission and shortly thereafter to address the continued falls and did not determine how the interventions failed to prevent falls and their associated injuries. The investigations and their conclusions did not define for the staff what frequent checks or rounding of the resident entailed or show how staff supervision of the resident changed. Record review showed 10 of the 36 falls were related to Resident 50's toileting needs. The care plan showed no revision of the toileting program to effectively anticipate this ADL which required staff assistance. No documentation was located to show the facility requested a review by the pharmacist as instructed in the care plan. Investigative reviews associated with the 09/20/2024, 10/27/2024, 11/04/2024, 11/11/2024 falls showed the facility concluded the resident desires to fall and maintain their independence even if that means [they are] going to fall. Resident 50 fell another 20 times after 11/11/2024. In an interview on 05/20/2025 at 9:58 AM, Staff R, Nursing Assistant - Registered, stated they were formally re-assigned to Resident 50 for the first time on 05/20/2025 after their shift had already started but had assisted another aide with the resident on a previous occasion during training. Staff R stated they obtained information on resident care by getting report from the nurse and shift to shift report from another aide. When asked if Resident 50 had any falls, Staff R stated, Not that I'm aware of. Staff R stated they thought Resident 50 transferred in or out of bed or wheelchair because they needed to, use the rest room and they transferred, Either before or after lunch. Staff R stated that a resident who was cognitively impaired, impulsive, and showed they were not receptive to reminders or signage would require supervision of, every 15 minutes checks. In an interview on 05/20/2025 at 8:10 AM, Staff M, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), stated Resident 50 experienced several falls, doesn't call for help, will self-transfer, eyesight is very poor. Staff M stated the resident, can't seem to get his feet situated, sometimes [they] will step on one foot with the other and loses balance and flops back, does not sit down, rarely calls for help. Staff M indicated the resident's poor balance, impaired vision, poor body mechanics, and no safety awareness placed them at risk for falls. Staff M stated Resident 50 had no pattern when they self-transferred out of bed or wheelchair but that the staff, try to get in there before breakfast, before meals, because [the resident] likes to sit up for [their] meals. Staff M said that even though they parked their medication cart by Resident 50's room so they could hear the resident when they moved around, and staff made frequent checks and placed the wheelchair by the bed to prevent the resident from falling, it did not help decrease or prevent Resident 50's falls. Staff M stated they felt there was not enough staff to monitor the resident to make sure they did not fall when trying to transfer out of bed or the wheelchair. Staff M stated they did not think an increase in supervision was attempted by the facility to prevent Resident 50 from falling and that even with frequent checks Resident 50 fell. Staff M stated, It's hard to be there when you don't have enough staff. In an interview on 05/20/2025 at 8:40 AM, Staff S, Occupational Therapist, stated they wanted to be notified immediately if fall interventions were not effective, If that's what we are working on. Staff S stated they were unaware Resident 50 fell 36 times but knew the resident fell, a lot of times because they did not listen, was forgetful and impulsive. Staff S stated that impulsivity and decreased safety awareness were the main reasons for Resident 50's fall occurrences. When asked if increased supervision was attempted to help decrease falls or prevent Resident 50 from falling, Staff S stated, I know the aides were checking on [the resident] regularly. We haven't done that before. Staff S stated that staff could try 10-minute interval checks on the resident and concluded the signage on the wall was ineffective in preventing Resident 50 from falling. In an interview on 05/20/2025 at 8:20 AM, Staff T, Therapy Director, stated that they wanted to be notified when a resident fell at the time of occurrence or anytime there is a problem. Staff T stated they identified when interventions were suitable for a resident at risk for falls, Through the assessment process. Sometimes it's trial and error. Staff T explained that because of Resident 50's progressing palsy, they were going to lose the ability to sequence events, experience vision loss, and become increasingly dizzy. Staff T said Resident 50 did not want to wait for help to go to the bathroom because they were afraid of experiencing incontinence. When asked at what point was a recommendation made to increase and define the type of supervision required to help prevent falls and associated injuries, Staff T stated, We have discussed that and talked about if a different room would help but right now [the resident] is close to the door and we all pass by. Staff T stated to prevent falls for a resident who was cognitively impaired, impulsive, and not receptive to reminders or signage, the resident required, more frequent checks, asking every two hours if they need to go to the bathroom. Staff T stated, With somebody like [Resident 50], I would almost like to go back to the sensor pad pressure alarm because it will sound off when the resident is moving, and staff can be there to help [the resident]. To have a 1:1 on [Resident 50] would be super costly. Staff T stated, I don't think there's a trend to Resident 50's falls. The above findings were shared in a joint interview on 05/20/2025 at 10:21 AM with Staff B Director of Nursing, and Staff C, Clinical Resource Nurse. Both staff acknowledged the ineffective fall prevention interventions in Resident 50's care plan. Staff C acknowledged the consistently inadequate reviews of the falls that failed to determine what truly prompted Resident 50 to self-transfer, along with staff misperception of the resident's ability to recall or process information. When asked if the facility effectively supervised Resident 50 to prevent falls and their associated injuries, Staff B answered, No. When asked if the facility attempted to increase supervision of the resident Staff C answered, No and that doing so could have possibly prevented Resident 50 from falling. On 05/22/25 at 12:23 PM, Staff M (the nurse assigned to Resident 50) was observed walking past the resident's room with another staff. Resident 50 was observed by the surveyor standing up from the wheelchair next to their bed and transfer to the bed holding on to the grab bar to the left side, placing themselves on the bed, with the call light underneath them. Resident 50 admitted they self-transferred and said, No, I don't want to fall, then pulled the bed linens over themselves. Observation directly outside of Resident 50's room showed a clipboard on the handrail with a form titled Resident Monitoring Tool. The form showed Resident 50 was on 15-minute checks but no documentation the staff checked on the resident on or around 11:30 AM, 11:45 AM, 12:00 PM, or 12:15 PM. Review of progress notes between 05/21/2025 and 05/22/2025 showed that despite the 15 minute checks, the staff continued to identify Resident 50 self-transferred to the bathroom both with assist and unattended, does not call for help nor has called out loud for help, found several times already up in [their] wheel chair, Nurse is alerted outside of room doorway, when the bathroom door bangs into the room door that this resident is on the move . able to sit up and get out of bed & into wheel chair very quietly without being heard . TV volume up relatively high that also hinders the sounds of [their] movement. Another 05/21/2025 note showed, Continues to self-transfer quietly without staff noticing despite being moved closer to nurses station. Attempt to redirect and instruct on use of call light without effect. Cart nurse unable to stand at doorway or next to doorway for long periods of time to monitor resident as other residents need meds [medications]/cares as well. Another 05/21/2025 note showed, Resident was up again at this time, while this nurse was documenting previous note, noises/crashes were heard from [their] room and resident again was found seated in [their] wheelchair not 7 minutes from prior use of bathroom and was assisted to bed at that time . Another 05/21/2025 note showed, Resident is impulsive and transfers without use of call light. Sometimes will yell help when [they are] about to fall or needs help. Requires frequent reminders and observation. Resident has limited safety awareness and poor vision. Stiff/rigid body mechanics makes transfers difficult as well as bending at the hips/low back to sit . often times flops backwards into wheelchair. In an interview on 05/22/2025 at 12:35 PM, Staff M stated Resident 50 self-transferred, Last night, even with the 15-minute checks. Staff M stated they felt the 15-minute checks were ineffective as the resident did not call for help, I could be standing right here and will not always hear [them]. Staff M stated they did not tell anybody about the failed 15-minute checks, that they should have reported the failed intervention, Right away. I'll do it right now. The above findings were shared with Staff A (Administrator), Staff B, Staff C, and Staff Q (Director of Clinical Services) on 05/22/2025 at 1:12 PM. Staff C said they ensured interventions were effective by making observations of the staff and resident and reviewing the progress notes. Staff B stated they expected the staff to alert them of failed fall prevention interventions, As soon as they know it's not working. <Resident 60> Review of a 05/01/2025 admission assessment showed Resident 60 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of a stroke, orthostatic hypotension (when the blood pressure drops when you sit or stand up), and diabetes. This assessment showed the resident had intact cognition, was dependent on the staff for toileting hygiene, required partial to substantial assistance for transfers, and used a wheelchair for mobility. The staff assessed Resident 60 was frequently incontinent of urine and always continent of bowel and had no toileting program. The assessment showed Resident 60 had no falls prior to admission but fell since admission to the facility. Review of a 04/25/2025 progress note showed the staff identified Resident 60 required extensive assistance with transfers and ADLs, Left sided weakness secondary to CVA [cerebrovascular accident, a stroke]. A 04/26/2025 note showed the resident, Has left sided weakness. Requires 2 person assist for transfers, bed mobility and toileting. Review of Resident 60's care plan showed 04/25/2025 instructions to the staff to provide assistance of 1 or more person for toilet transfers going to the right side with the use of the grab bar, that Resident 60 required constant verbal cues for sequencing and left sided neglect. The interventions also asked the staff to, Stay with patient when on toilet to decrease risk of falls, and Respond to resident requests timely. Anticipate needs. Keep call light and bedside table items within reach. Review of a 04/27/2025 progress note showed when the nurses walked down the hallway to administer medication to another resident, they heard Resident 60 yelling for help. The resident was found lying on their left side with their upper body under the edge of the bed. No injuries were sustained from this fall. The progress notes showed, Interventions placed were to encourage resident to use call light for assistance, frequent bathroom checks and bed to remain in lowest position. Review of 04/28/2025 care plan intervention showed the resident was totally dependent on staff when transferred by two or more staff in a mechanical lift and used the bed pan for toileting. Review of 04/29/2025 care plan intervention showed the staff placed a Call don't fall sign in Resident 60's room and the staff was asked to Monitor resident position in bed or wheelchair for safety upon entry and exit from room and with rounding. Anticipate resident needs. Review of a 05/03/2025 progress note showed a staff member assisted Resident 60 to the toilet per resident request and that the resident asked the aide to step out for privacy. The aide stepped out and was standing outside the door when the resident reached for wipes on their wheelchair and because of left sided weakness fell on [their] left side hitting [their] left orbital [eye socket] area. The note showed the nurse applied an ice pack to Resident 60's face, educated staff not to leave the resident unattended, and called the provider who gave orders to transfer Resident 60 to the hospital. Review of a 05/03/2025 Incident Note showed the fall resulted in a left orbital fracture (a break in one or more of the bones surrounding the eye socket). Nursing interventions included, Educated staff not to leave [resident] unattended, an intervention which was in place on 04/25/2025 (Stay with patient when on toilet to decrease risk of falls), two days prior to the fall. Review of investigative documents associated with the fall of 05/03/2025 showed Resident 60 was sent to the hospital secondary to being on an anticoagulant (a blood thinner) and acknowledged the fall resulted in a fracture of the left orbital area. The investigation concluded Resident 60 did not use the call light to request assistance and attempted to use their affected side to reach for an item within the reach of their unaffected side, which caused the resident to fall off the toilet. The investigation documented staff followed the care plan at the time of the incident. The facility made a change to the care plan to have therapy assess for safe toileting techniques. The above findings were shared with Staff B and C on 05/22/2025 at 9:03 AM. Staff B acknowledged the staff did not follow the 04/25/2025 care plan instruction to, Stay with patient when on toilet to decrease risk of falls and did not determine why the intervention failed to be implemented. When asked if staff not following the care plan placed Resident 60 at risk of a fall and a fracture, Staff B said, Yes. Staff C stated their expectation was to have the nursing assistant speak with the resident and let them know it is for their safety they must stay with the resident and if the encouragement is not successful, to get assistance from the nurse, not leave the resident alone. Review of 05/08/2025 care plan interventions showed to make a referral for therapy to screen the resident for safe toileting technique. Review of a 05/14/2025 progress note showed that staff reported they had run over the resident's leg when transporting resident down the hallway. The incident was described as the resident's left foot came off the wheelchair footrest (for the user's foot to rest on), the aide did not notice and rolled the wheelchair over Resident 60's left foot. The nurse then completed an assessment and found Resident 60's left leg with visible swelling, complaints of pain to the knee, calf and thigh, and a bruised area to a swollen ankle. A small and dry abrasion was also assessed to the left calf,. The progress note showed the resident denied being hurt and told the nurse, My leg hurts all the time. Review of a 05/15/2025 progress note showed the staff assessed Resident 60 to be in uncontrollable pain, swelling to left ankle, a bruise with a superficial scratch to the back of resident's left calf. Resident 60 stated repeatedly, I want to go to the hospital. The staff transferred Resident 60 to the local emergency department. Review of another 05/15/2025 progress note showed the staff notified Staff B in the morning that an aide, ran over resident's foot yesterday at 4pm and resident is now complaining of pain, swelling, and bruising. Review of a 05/17/2025 and 05/18/2025 progress notes showed, Resident has a new distal end of left fibula [calf bone] fracture with a boot in place. The note showed that Resident 60 previously managed pain with Tylenol (a pain killer used to treat mild to moderate pain) but due to the increase in pain, resident received an oxycodone [a pain killer used to treat severe pain] which has helped with [their] pain. A 05/18/2025 care plan intervention showed, Assess and anticipate resident's needs: food, thirst. toileting needs, comfort level, body positioning, pain etc. [etcetera]. Review of a 05/20/2025 Provider Note showed Resident 60, was supposed to discharge on [DATE] [sic] however patient ended up getting [their] right ankle fractured a day before [their] discharge. The provider stated the fracture was due to an accident when the nursing assistant tried to roll the resident out and thought that the resident's wheelchair was just stuck on the floor mat that they use for patient protection for falls before realizing it was the resident's foot. In an interview on 05/21/2025 at 3:07 PM, Staff V (NA) stated Resident 60 was not known to refuse staff presence when they used the bathroom. Staff V recalled Resident 60's, left side was really weak. The staff stated the wheelchair had a footrest for the left foot and an arm rest for left arm placement. Staff V said the footrest properly supported the left leg, did not observe issues with the left leg falling off the footrest, and the resident used the right leg to propel themselves in the wheelchair. Review of investigative documents associated with the 05/14/2025 wheelchair incident showed the facility determined Resident 60's left foot fell off the foot pedal during transport unbeknownst to the aide. It showed that when the aide and resident were going through the resident room's doorway, the residents foot became lodged between the door and the wheelchair, the aide did not know the foot was caught, pushed three times due to the resistance, and ran over the left foot. The investigation concluded it was an accident. Review of the investigation showed no documentation the facility ascertained why Resident 60's leg fell off the footrest meant to support the resident's leg during wheelchair use. Additionally, the investigation showed no documentation the facility asked why the 04/29/2025 intervention to, Monitor resident position in bed or wheelchair for safety upon entry and exit from room and with rounding failed. The above findings were shared with Staff B and C on 05/22/2025 at 9:14 AM. Staff C stated the investigation did not show the facility considered or determined how Resident 60's leg fell off the footrest to prevent recurrence or additional injury and should have. Staff B answered No when asked if the facility provided education to the staff on how to keep residents limbs safe when propelling them in their wheelchair after the incident happened. Staff B acknowledged the facility did not but should have determined how the intervention that directed the staff to monitor the resident position in wheelchair for safety upon entry and exit from the room failed. SUBSTANCE USE DISORDER <Resident 49> According to the 04/22/2025 quarterly assessment, Resident 49 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including medically complex conditions and nicotine dependence. Resident 49 had moderate cognitive impairment and was able to clearly verbalize their needs. Review of the 03/21/2024 hospital and physical showed Resident 49 had a substance use disorder to include alcohol, methamphetamine (meth, powerful addictive illegal substance), and opioids (medications used to treat moderate to severe pain). The notes further showed Resident 49 reported using meth a week prior, alcohol two weeks prior to their hospitalization and voiced interest in substance use treatment. Review of the 04/03/2024 psychosocial evaluation showed Resident 49 was identified as having a substance use disorder, comments documented as smoking meth. The assessment further showed Resident 49 had been had been clean from drugs for 3 weeks. No documentation was found to show Resident 49 was assessed for potential risks associated with the SUD. Review of the 04/19/2024 behavioral care plan showed Resident 49 had the potential to exhibit disruptive, risky, self-destructive behaviors and instructed staff to allow Resident 49 time to adjust, divert attention, and assist with finances. The care plan identified Resident 49 as having had a drug and alcohol addiction in the past. No documentation was found that addressed potential risks associated with the SUD such as brining substances into the facility. Review of Staff Z, Medical Doctor, provider progress notes showed the following: - 10/22/2024 Resident 49 was persistently requesting a shot or 2 of whiskey. The note documented Resident 49 suffered from alcoholism, whiskey was not a good idea, and Resident 49 was advised against alcohol use. - 12/04/2024 Resident 49 wanted Scotch. The note further showed I told [Resident 49] I would allow 1.5 [ounces] of scotch daily. The provider ordered scotch at night as needed. Review of January 2025 through May 2025 nursing progress notes showed: - 02/09/2025 Resident 49 was up all night, did not sleep all night. - 02/10/2025 Resident 49 received a delivery, staff observed a bottle of [NAME] in the bag. Resident 49 was reminded the provider ordered an allotment of [NAME] once daily at bedtime. Resident 49 hesitantly gave staff a bottle of Crown Royal. - 02/12/2025 Resident 49 becoming more and more forgetful. - 02/20/2025 Resident 49 was again awake all night. - 02/26/2025 Resident 49 was obsessed with wanting their as needed liquor allotment, boundaries established for liquor consumption. - 02/28/2025 Resident 49 was observed smoking behind the facility dumpster. Resident 49 became belligerent when redirected by staff. - 03/04/2025 Resident 49 returned from to the facility with the feeling of bugs crawling on their skin and altered mentation. Meth use is suspected. - 03/05/2025 Resident 49 refused to cooperate with a urine drug screen. - 03/09/2025 Resident 49 was observed to have uncontrollable movements similar to a tic with their hand moving above their head in a repetitive motion along with the lower extremities, unable to be still. - 03/27/2025 Resident 49 opiates were stopped related to worries of surreptitious drug use. - 04/16/2025 Resident 49 continues to occasionally try to sneak some alcohol. - 05/11/2025 an empty bottle of [NAME] Vodka was found hidden in Resident 49's wheelchair after they were assisted to bed. Addition review of Staff Z, Medical Doctor, provider notes showed the following: - 02/15/2025 Resident 49 had a bottle of scotch delivered and was drinking it through the night. The note further showed Resident 49 experienced insomnia partly due to drinking alcohol. - 03/04/2025 Resident 49 returned to the facility from an outing with reports of bugs crawling on them and an altered mental status. Resident 49 refused to cooperate with a urine drug screen. Meth use is suspected. - 03/27/2025 Resident 49's opiates were stopped related to uncertainty of drug use and delay with cooperating with a urine drug screen. We are worried about surreptitious drug use. In an interview on 05/21/2025 at 1:59 PM, Staff K, NA, was unsure what a SUD was but nurses would assess residents for potential risks associated with SUDs as a nursing assistant they just monitored the residents. In an interview on 05/21/2025 at 2:44 PM, Staff M, LPN, explained what a SUD was and potential signs and/or symptoms of substance abuse. Staff M was unsure of the facility process for deal[TRUNCATED]
CRITICAL (L)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

Someone could have died · This affected most or all residents

⚠️ Facility-wide issue

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to identify, report, protect, assess and prevent a patter...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to identify, report, protect, assess and prevent a pattern of resident-to-resident verbal and physical abuse. This included identifying a known pattern of aggressive behaviors by Residents 19. Abusive behaviors identified by staff included hitting, punching, kicking, ramming into other residents with a wheelchair (w/c), verbal abuse, threats and intimidation of other residents. The facility failed to recognize these instances as abuse, analyze the circumstances of these abusive behaviors, or implement plans for prevention or recurrence of abuse for 11 of 12 sampled residents (Resident 19, 31, 49, 21, 43, 27, 37, 33, 45, 3, and 41), reviewed for abuse. Failure to recognize, analyze, and act upon multiple incidents of resident-to-resident altercations as abuse and provide adequate supervision and care planning with effective interventions placed all 61 residents at risk of serious injury or harm and represented an immediate jeopardy (IJ). 13 residents experienced fear when they were subjected to repeated unpredictable outbursts of verbal abuse and actual physical injuries such as coffee thrown on them, grabbing, scratching, punching, kicking, and skin tears. On 05/20/2025 at 5:40 PM, the facility was notified of the identified IJ related to F600 CFR §483.12 (a)(1) Freedom from Abuse and Neglect. Onsite verification by surveyors on 05/23/2025 at 10:25 AM showed, the facility removed the immediacy by reviewing Resident 19's medications and placing Resident 19 on one to one (1:1) supervision until lower level of care was determined to be appropriate. The survey team verified the facility educated all staff to the abuse prevention policies and procedures. All residents were interviewed to determine feeling safe and secure in the facility. Findings included . Review of the facility policy titled, Preventing Abuse revised August 2023 showed, the facility would identify, correct, and intervene in situations in which abuse, neglect and/or misappropriation of resident property was more likely to occur. Staff were to observe residents, visitors and staff to identify inappropriate behaviors and deploy sufficient staff on each shift to meet the needs of the residents. The policy instructed staff to assess, care plan and monitor residents who exhibited behaviors which might lead to conflict such as verbally aggressive behaviors such as screaming, cursing, intimidating, or demanding behaviors and physically aggressive behaviors such as hitting, kicking, grabbing, scratching, biting, pushing, wandering, rummaging, threatening gestures, or throwing objects. Review of the facility policy titled, Identification and Investigation of Abuse, Neglect, Misappropriation, and Injuries of Unknown Origin revised August 2023 showed, the facility reviewed reports of grievances, complaints, and allegations of abuse, neglect, injuries of unknown injury to identify a pattern or isolated incidents. The policy instructed staff to determine a root cause of any incident and evaluate the resident for signs of negative psychosocial impact of the incident to include fear of a person or place or extreme changes in behavior. The facility was to protect all residents from physical and psychosocial harm during and after the investigation by responding immediately to protect the alleged victim and provided increased supervision of the alleged victim and other residents as indicated. Staff were to immediately report all incidents and allegations of abuse to the CEO or designee, the State Survey Agency, and Law Enforcement if a crime was suspected. Once an incident was reported it was to be thoroughly investigated within five working days by conducting resident and staff interviews, determine root cause of the incident and implement corrective action to immediately address safety issues, updated care planned interventions based on the investigation findings, and complete staff training as indicated. According to the 04/10/2025 quarterly assessment, Resident 19 had severe cognitive impairment with inattention and disorganized thinking. The assessment further showed Resident 19 exhibited worsening verbal and physical behaviors directed towards others that significantly interfered with Resident 19's care, participation in activities or social events, placed others at significant risk for physical injury, significantly intruded on the privacy or activity of others and significantly disrupted care or the living environment. Review of the facility October 2024 through May 2025 incident report tracking log showed Resident 19 was involved in 11 resident-to-resident altercations with 10 different peers (Resident 31, 49, 21, 43, 27, 37, 33, 45, 3, and 41) on the following dates: 10/16/2024, 11/07/2024, 01/11/2025, 01/13/2025, 02/10/2025, 02/27/2025, 03/08/2025, 04/04/2025, 04/11/2025, 04/25/2025, and 05/10/2025. Review of the facility resident-to-resident incident reports showed the following: - 10/16/2024- Resident 19 allegedly struck Resident 27 on the hand with a spoon while in the dining room - 11/07/2024- Resident 33 threw coffee on Resident 19 in the dining room - 01/11/2025- Resident 19 randomly grabbed, kicked, and shook Resident 3's walker as they walked down the hall - 01/13/2025- Resident 19 yelled, grabbed at, and stopped Resident 41 from entering the dining room. The incident included a 01/13/2025 staff statement that showed Resident 19 continued to escalate with anger trying to grab and hit anyone close to [them]. - 02/10/2025- Resident 19 grabbed at Resident 31. Resident 19 called Resident 31 a fucking asshole! and grabbed Resident 31's shirt neck collar. Resident 31 open handedly slapped Resident 19 in the face. - 02/27/2025- Resident 19 was self-propelling their WC and spontaneously grabbed, hit, scratched, and kicked at Resident 49. Resident 49 sustained a scratch that bled and required first aide. Resident 49 did not know why Resident 19 attacked them. Root cause of incident was identified as Resident 19 was agitated and within close proximity of another resident. - 03/08/2025- Resident 19 was yelling and hitting at Resident 43 and Resident 21. The incident included a 03/08/2025 statement where Resident 21 was asked if they felt safe in the facility. Resident 21 replied Yes, but if [Resident 19] comes back I will be scared to death. - 04/04/2025- Resident 19 yelled at Resident 37 to remove their hat when sitting at the dining room table. After the meal, at the nurses' station, Resident 19 continued to yell at Resident 37 and allegedly ran over Resident 37's toes with their WC. - 04/11/2025- Resident 19 unprovoked began to punch Resident 45 with a closed fist, in the hallways, as Resident 45 rolled past Resident 19. - 04/25/2025- Resident 19 had a second physical altercation with Resident 31, in the dining room, with staff present but who did not observe the altercation. Resident 19 and Resident 31 grabbed and hit at each other. Resident 31 sustained a skin tear to their arm. - 05/10/2025- Resident 19 had a third verbal and physical altercation with Resident 31. Resident 31 yelled I am going to kill you! Residents 19 and 31 were observed grabbing and hitting each other. Resident 31 sustained a scratch to the back of their hand and Resident 19 sustained a scratch to the tip of their nose. Review of the 09/10/2024 self-care deficit care plan showed Resident 19 was able to self-propel their wheelchair (WC) independently. The 10/17/2024 care plan showed Resident 19 had potential to yell and strike out at other residents related to dementia and poor impulse control. Interventions included to assess and anticipate Resident 19's needs, give positive feedback, frequent safety checks when out of bed, reapproached with different staff when agitated, and maintain a consistent routine. On 11/01/2024 Resident 19 was placed on 15-minute safety checks around the clock, on 03/27/2025 a basket of favorite things was placed at the nurses' station for Resident 19 to rummage through, and on 04/28/2025 Resident 19 was to be in staff's direct line of sight when in the dining room for meals. Review of the 03/25/2025 Staff Z, Medical Doctor, progress note showed Resident 19 was started on Zyprexa (antipsychotic, medication that affect the mind, emotions and behaviors) for dementia with agitation. Resident 19's became less aggressive without sedation, more interactive, and pleasant while on Zyprexa and was a danger to others without it. Review of 04/15/2025 Staff Z, provider progress note showed Resident 19's wheeled themselves around the facility, would be calm for extended periods then violently attack other residents who irritated [them]. Resident 19 was off of Zyprexa as state insists on GDRs [Gradual Dose Reductions, when antipsychotic medication was gradually, slowly and carefully reduced to find the lowest effective therapeutic dose to prevent unnecessary medication use]. Additional record review showed Resident 19's Zyprexa was decreased and discontinued on 04/01/2025. Review of October 2024 through May 2025 nursing progress notes the following: - 10/16/2024 Resident 19 was witnessed hitting another resident during dinner. Resident 19 was involved in two different resident-to-resident altercations with two different peers. - 10/24/2024 Resident 19 yelled at peer as they walked down the hall. - 10/27/2024 Resident 19 was started on 15-minute safety checks while awake related to yelling, arguing, and hitting other residents without combativeness. - 10/28/2024 Resident 19 wandered the into others' rooms rummaging through their belongings. - 11/08/2024 Resident 19 yelled out and banged on the wall for two and a half hours, from 2 PM until 4:30 PM. - 11/28/2024 Resident 19 loudly and persistently yelled at their roommate. Resident 19's roommate did not answer, to avoid aggravating Resident 19 further. - 12/06/2024 Resident 19 yelled and argued with the resident in room [ROOM NUMBER] B related to use of the shared bathroom. - 12/16/2024 Resident 19 exhibited yelling and aggressive behaviors towards staff and other residents. Resident 19 was independent with WC mobility, impulsive, and destructive to property. - 12/18/2024 Resident 19 yelled out through the night shift. Resident 19's roommate along with other facility residents complained about the disruptive behavior and interrupted sleep. - 01/01/2025 Resident 19 was extremely agitated and upset while they self-propelled their WC down the hall yelling at other residents and staff, confronting the resident in room [ROOM NUMBER] A. - 01/11/2025 Resident 19 attacked Resident 3 as they walked down the hall. - 01/13/2025 Resident 19 aggressively grabbed at a male peer, causing them to cry. - 01/14/2025 Resident 19 tore their room apart by throwing water, knocking furniture over, throwing clothing and blankets around, while a roommate remained in the room. - 01/26/2025 Resident 19 was approached and confronted by Resident B. Resident B yelled at Resident 19 I am tired of you yelling all the time. Resident 19 hit Resident B in the face. - 02/10/2025 Resident 19 and 31 were involved in a physical altercation. Resident 31 open handedly slapped Resident 19 face. - 02/11/2025 Resident 19 was in a foul mood as they repeatedly propelled up and down the hall. The resident in room 35 A reported experiencing a run in with Resident 19. The resident in 35 A reported Resident 19 yelled at them and called them stupid. - 02/15/2025 Resident 19 was angry much of the time and got into fights with other residents. - 02/19/2025 Resident 19 was visibly upset and grabbed Resident 4's arm and would not let go. - 02/25/2025 Resident 19 was agitated, aggressive, yelled, and screamed out as they self-propelled down the hall, calling peers names such as whores. Numerous residents on the unit were upset by Resident 19's behaviors and began cursing at Resident 19. - 02/27/2025 Resident 19 was involved in a resident-to-resident altercation with Resident 49. - 02/28/2025 Resident 19 threw water on a peer and attempted to go after them. - 04/04/2025 Resident 19 displayed violent behaviors towards another resident after the evening meal. - 04/11/2025 Resident 19 quickly became upset, yelled, and hit Resident 45 with a closed fist. - 04/15/2025 Resident 19 will be calm for extended periods then will violently attack other residents who have irritated [them]. - 04/22/2025 Resident 19 screamed and yelled for about 4 hours. - 04/25/2025 Resident 19 was involved in a second resident-to-resident altercation with Resident 31. - 04/29/2025 Resident 19 was self-propelling their WC up and down hallways throughout the facility and continues with random acts of boisterous yelling/calling out which mimics the call of Tarzan, often times startling other resident's and staff. - 05/10/2025 Resident 19 was involved in a third resident-to-resident altercation with Resident 31. Eight additional facility incident report investigations for resident-to-resident altercations involving Resident 19, not identified on the facility accident and incident log, on the following dates 10/28/2024, 11/28/2024, 12/06/2024, 01/01/2025, 01/26/2025, 02/11/2025, 02/19/2025, and 02/25/2025 were requested on 05/19/2025 at 5:22 AM, from Staff A, Administrator. Only one of the eight requested incident investigation was provided, 01/26/20205. Review of the facility census as of 05/12/2025 showed Resident 19, 31, 49, 21, 43, 27, 37, 33, 45, 3, and 41 continued to resided at the facility. During observation on 05/12/2025 at 11:12 AM, Resident 19 was sitting in their WC, with a scab to the tip of their nose approximately the size of a pencil eraser, yelling out . Resident 19 self-propelled their WC down the hall. Similar observations were made at 11:16 AM, 11:27 AM, 2:05 PM, and 3:40 PM. In an interview on 05/13/2025 at 10:44 AM, Resident 49 stated Resident 19 used to grab and hit me. Resident 49 explained Resident 19 wandered the halls all day and night looking for trouble, their behavior flipped easily, and Resident 19 goes around beating up people here. During observation on 05/13/2025 at 11:41 AM, Resident 19 self-propelled down the hall and yelled out. Another resident yelled back for Resident 19 to be quiet! In an interview with the resident council on 05/14/2025 at 10:25 AM, stated Resident 19 wandered, was disruptive, and aggressive towards others. The council explained Resident 19 was spontaneous, unpredictable, with quickly fluctuating behaviors and could be smiling and friendly one minute then flying off the handle at residents and staff then next minute. The council voiced feeling unsafe due to Resident 19's continued behaviors. During observation on 05/15/2025 at 2:18 PM, Resident 19 was heard yelling out, resembling Tarzan, from the conference room. Resident 19 was observed at the opposite end of the hall, approximately 10 resident rooms, two offices, a dining room, and nurses station down the hall. In an interview on 05/16/2025 at 11:18 AM, Resident 4's representative stated Resident 19 targeted and threatened Resident 4. The representative explained they observed Resident 19 wander up and down the halls yelling. Review of Resident 4's medical record showed Resident 19 followed and chased Resident 4. Resident 4 alleged Resident 19 bruised their arm on 02/28/2025. In an interview on 05/19/2025 at 4:06 AM, Staff I, Registered Nurse, stated it was difficult to manage resident behaviors on night shift. Staff I explained Resident 19 yelled out at times and the behavior bothered other residents. Staff I acknowledged Resident 19's behaviors placed them at risk for harm or abuse. Staff I further stated Resident 19 had been involved in numerous resident-to-resident altercations even while on 15-minute safety check monitoring. In an interview on 05/19/2025 at 8:00 AM, Staff E, Social Service Coordinator, stated resident behaviors were tracked by nursing staff via nursing progress notes, social services and the provider would be notified of odd or abnormal behaviors so additional follow up could be done. Staff E further stated allegations of potential abuse were investigated by conducting resident and staff interviews to get a broader picture of the incident. Staff E was asked if instances of resident-to-resident altercations were considered abuse. Staff E explained if there was physical contact then yes that was definitely an allegation of abuse but instances of yelling back and forth were not considered potential abuse unless the yelling involved threats. Staff E stated Resident 19's mood and behaviors could quickly randomly fluctuate and escalate to the point of being too ramped up to calm down. Staff E explained Resident 19 enjoyed to self-propel their WC up and down the hall but that could create resident-to-resident altercations because Resident 19 would get upset when peers were in the way and lashed out physically. Staff E was asked if any residents voiced concerns over Resident 19's behaviors. Staff E stated Resident 4 would often be irritated with Resident 19. Resident 4 would look out into the hall, if they saw Resident 19, they would ask staff to escort them to the therapy gym to avoid interacting with Resident 19. Staff E acknowledged Resident 19's behaviors placed them and others at risk for abuse and Resident 19 was involved in the most resident-to-resident altercations. Staff E explained Resident 19 had been involved in resident-to-resident altercations even while on 15-minute safety check monitoring because Resident 19 was mobile, and it was difficult to anticipate what would trigger them. Staff E acknowledged staff should protect residents from abuse. In an interview on 05/19/2025 at 8:55 AM, with Staff B, Director of Nursing, and Staff C, Clinical Resource Nurse. Staff B reviewed Resident 19's medical record. Staff B acknowledged Resident 19 enjoyed self-propelling their WC throughout the facility, had quickly fluctuating verbally and physically aggressive behaviors towards others that placed them at risk for abuse. Resident 19 was involved in numerous verbal and physical resident-to-resident altercations even while on 15-minute safety checks. Staff B explained if a resident exhibited physical behaviors towards others it was reported, investigated, and addressed as potential abuse but verbally aggressive behaviors were documented and monitored per the facility behavior monitoring policy as behaviors experienced. Staff B acknowledged the facility had not been addressing verbally aggressive altercations as potential verbal abuse and should have. Staff B further stated the facility had not protected residents from abuse. In an interview on 05/23/2025 at 9:36 AM, Staff A, Administrator, stated they expected staff to identify, monitor, investigate, report, and protect residents from abuse, as required. Reference WAC 388-97-0640 (1) Refer to F725 for additional information.
SERIOUS (G)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Deficiency F0760 (Tag F0760)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** <Anticoagulant> <Resident 61> Review of a 04/27/2025 admission assessment showed Resident 61 admitted to the facilit...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** <Anticoagulant> <Resident 61> Review of a 04/27/2025 admission assessment showed Resident 61 admitted to the facility on [DATE], was assessed as cognitively intact, and had the diagnosis of diabetes with long term use of insulin and atrial fibrillation (an irregular heart rhythm). This assessment showed Resident 61 received an anticoagulant (a blood thinner) and insulin. Review of an April 2025 MAR showed an order to administer Xarelto (an anticoagulant) every evening. The MAR showed NA or Medication Not Available on 04/24/2025. Review of a 04/24/2025 eMAR Note showed the reason the medication was not available was because the Medication [was] back ordered [,] spoke with [pharmacy]. Review of a pharmacy inventory list for the emergency medication stock in the facility showed the Xarelto was available. Review of the progress notes showed no documentation of what the staff did to procure the anticoagulant or notified the provider of the missed dose. The above findings were shared with Staff B on 05/16/2025 at 9:05 AM. Staff B stated that Xarelto was available in the emergency medication stock and that the nurse should have called the provider and let them know the medication was not given or missed. Staff B stated the facility monitored for missed medication doses by pulling a daily report from the electronic medical record and reviewed medication errors in the daily clinical meeting. When asked if the facility identified and addressed why the staff failed to administer the Xarelto to Resident 61, Staff B stated, they completed a risk management review if the drug could cause harm, to include a drug like Xarelto. When asked if the facility completed a review on the missed high alert drug dose, Staff B stated, For that one, nope. <Other> Review of a pharmaceutical package insert showed Ozempic was an injectable medication that when used along with diet and exercise helped improve glycemic (blood sugar) control and reduced the risk of major adverse cardiovascular (heart) events in individuals with diabetes. Following the dosing schedule was essential for the medication to work correctly. If a dose was missed, it should be administered as soon as possible within five days after the missed dose. If more than five days had passed, the missed dose should be skipped and the next dose administered on the regularly scheduled day. Review of Resident 61's April and May 2025 Medication Administration Record (MAR) showed an order for the staff to administer an injection of Ozempic every Friday. The scheduled doses for 04/25/2025, 05/02/2025, and 05/09/2025 were marked as NN or Other/See Nurse Notes. Review of the progress notes for 04/25/2025 showed no documentation why the staff did not administer the Ozempic. Review of a 04/29/2025 provider note showed, Ozempic daily and Continue Ozempic. Review of a 05/02/2025 electronic MAR (eMAR) Note showed the staff did not administer the Ozempic because the medication was still, On order, that Staff N, Resident Care Manager, was aware, and pharmacy needed permission from the facility to bill the facility for the medication before dispensing it. The note showed Staff B had the required paperwork to authorize billing to the facility. Review of a 05/06/2025 provider note showed, Ozempic daily. Review of a 05/09/2025 eMAR Note showed that on the scheduled third weekly dose, the staff administered the Ozempic for the first time since admission to the facility. In an interview on 05/16/2025 at 8:58 AM, Staff B, Director of Nursing, said, I know there was like a discussion about [the resident] bringing in [their] medication from [previous community living setting]. I think [the resident] told us not to order it or [they were] gonna' bring it and [they] didn't bring it in, and we didn't pay for it. Staff B acknowledged the staff did not administer Resident 61 the Ozempic as ordered on 04/29/2025 and 05/02/2025 and constituted medication errors. Reference WAC 388-97-1060 (3)(k)(iii). Refer to F684 for additional information. Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure medications were administered as prescribed for 2 of 6 sampled residents (Residents 34 and 61) reviewed for medication administration. Resident 34 received an injection of Lantus insulin (a type of insulin used to treat high blood sugar that provided a consistent level of insulin over a 24-hour period and mimicked the body's natural insulin production) that was 7.2 times their prescribed dose that was ordered for a different resident (Resident 42). Resident 34 experienced harm when they had an extended period of symptomatic hypoglycemia (extremely low blood sugar) that required administration of rescue medications on five different occasions to normalize their blood sugar level and symptoms. Additionally, Resident 61 did not receive their ordered doses of a blood thinner and an injectable medication that managed weight and blood sugar which placed the resident at risk for unintended health consequences. Findings included . The ISMP, or the Institute for Safe Medication Practices, is a recognized leading authority in medication safety information. It is dedicated to preventing medication errors and promoting safe medication practices. According to the ISMP, insulin and anticoagulants (blood thinners) are considered high alert medications. High alert medications are drugs that bear a heightened risk of causing significant harm to the resident when they are used in error. The consequences of an error can be devastating to residents. <Insulin> <Resident 34> The 04/08/2025 admission assessment documented Resident 34 had diagnoses that included diabetes, and end-stage kidney disease dependent on dialysis (use of a machine to filter toxins from the body when the kidneys no longer functioned). Resident 34 was cognitively intact and received insulin injections (medications that lowered blood sugar levels) daily. During an initial interview on 05/13/2025 at 10:18 AM, Resident 34 was observed seated on the edge of their bed. Their half-eaten breakfast tray remained on their overbed table. The resident was alert, pointed to a container of orange juice and stated normally they were supposed to limit their fluids but were given orange juice because they were given too much insulin that morning. A review of the record documented the following: The 04/02/2025 care plan showed Resident 34 had diabetes. Staff were instructed to administer diabetes medications as ordered by the provider, monitor for effectiveness and side effects, monitor/record/report to the provider signs or symptoms of hypoglycemia (low blood sugar) to include sweating, tremors, fast heart rate, pale skin color, confusion, or slurred speech. If hypoglycemic, defined as a blood sugar level below 70 milligrams per deciliter (mg/dl), staff were to treat according to the hypoglycemic protocol, document the treatment, interventions, symptoms, and assessment in the progress notes. Resident 34 had the following provider orders: -04/02/2025 check finger stick blood sugar level before meals and at bedtime. If blood sugar is below 70 mg/dl, initiate hypoglycemic protocol and notify the provider. -04/02/2025 hypoglycemic protocol-if able to take oral, give 15 grams (gm) of fast acting carbohydrates, recheck blood sugar in 15 minutes. If still less than 70mg/dl, give another 15 gm fast acting carbohydrate. Recheck blood sugar in 15 minutes. If still less than 70 notify the provider. Once above 70mg/dl, give a protein snack or assist to next meal. Document intervention on the Medication Administration Record (MAR) as follows: J=4 ounces of fruit juice, S=4 ounces of soda, C=6 saltine crackers, G=tube of glucose gel. May repeat in 15 minutes. -04/02/2025 Glucagon (fast acting sugar solution) HypoPen injector, inject 1mg as needed for blood sugar less than 70mg/dl and unable to swallow. Recheck in 15 minutes. If no improvement, notify the MD immediately. -04/15/2025 Lantus (long acting, effect lasted 24 hours) insulin, inject 10 units at bedtime. -04/15/2025 Humalog (fast acting, short duration of effect) insulin, inject 3 units before meals. -05/13/2025 at 11:00 AM check fingerstick blood sugar every hour for 12 hours for diabetic monitoring. -05/14/2025 at 6:00 AM alert charting; Lantus 72 units given, monitor for signs/symptoms of hypoglycemia, document a health status note if side effects occur. 72 units was given instead of 10 units = 7.2 times the prescribed dose of lantus. Significant medication error. A review of nursing progress notes documented the following events: A late nursing entry progress note effective 05/13/2025 at 10:42 AM documented the Medical Director was notified of the occurrence at 10:32 AM. At 11:06 PM, Resident 34's blood sugar result was 80. The resident ate shrimp with cocktail sauce. On 05/14/2025 at 12:03 AM, Resident 34's blood sugar result was 109. There were no signs of hypoglycemia. At 1:02 AM, the blood sugar result was 103, with no signs of hypoglycemia. At 2:04 AM, the blood sugar result was 85. The resident was given half of a peanut butter and jelly sandwich and had no signs of hypoglycemia. At 2:41 AM, the resident had not eaten the sandwich and stated they felt stuffed. At 3:27 AM, the blood sugar result was 83 and there were no signs of hypoglycemia. At 4:24 AM, the on-call provider was notified that the blood sugar level was 70 and Resident 34 was having difficulty taking anything orally other than juice. Instructions were given to give the glucagon injection if the blood sugar dropped below 70. At 6:11 AM, Resident 34's blood sugar was 64, and the resident was given the rescue glucagon injection. On 05/14/2025 at 12:59 PM, a progress note documented alert charting regarding Lantus 72 units given. No adverse drug reaction from the Lantus administration, the resident awakened easily, ate breakfast, and went to dialysis at 9:30 AM. The note documented the blood sugar levels had been within normal limits even though rescue glucagon had been administered. On 05/14/2025 at 3:23 PM, a progress note documented the registered nurse (RN) from dialysis called and notified the facility that Resident 34's blood sugar was 50 earlier, the resident was given a dose of rescue glucagon gel, and the blood sugar came up to 91. The blood sugar then dropped to 38 (a critical level). More glucagon gel was administered, and the blood sugar came up to 89. On arrival back to the facility, Resident 34's blood sugar was 48 and the charge nurse attended to the resident. Resident 34 was pale and sweating and was given another injection of glucagon and two packets of sugar. At 3:39 PM, Resident 34 was given another packet of sugar for a blood sugar of 62. The resident reported they ate only yogurt from their sack lunch at dialysis. On 05/14/2025 at 9:34 PM, the progress note documented the resident had no adverse drug reaction from the 72 units of Lantus given the day prior. The blood sugars ranged from 48 to 299 and the resident ate well. Resident 34 was given their own scheduled bed time dose of Lantus 10 units for the blood sugar result of 299. Monitoring continued. The progress notes did not document any further review with the provider of blood sugars results or notification the resident had received rescue medications four times thus far. On 05/15/2025 at 4:40 AM, the progress notes documented the nursing assistant notified the nurse that Resident 34 had abnormal behavior and mumbled their words. The resident was sweating and lethargic and unable to swallow and had little response. Resident 34's blood sugar was 36, and glucagon was injected at this time. At 5:05 AM, the repeat blood sugar was 72. The resident reported they had not eaten dinner before bed, only Cheetos. The provider, Director of Nursing, and Resident Care Manager were notified. On 05/19/2025, Staff O, Nurse Practitioner (NP), documented Resident 34 was seen for a Federally Mandated Visit. When evaluated, the resident was in bed, sleepy but agreeable to the visit. The resident reported adequate appetite, denied pain, and had been started on an antibiotic for a urinary tract infection. There was no mention in the progress note that the resident had been symptomatic with low blood sugar levels the days prior. A review of the May 2025 MAR did not show documentation of the administration of glucose gel per the hypoglycemic protocol, or the rescue injections of glucagon. A 05/13/2025 at 8:00 AM incident report documented Resident 34 was given 72 units of Lantus intended for another resident. The provider had been notified, and staff were instructed to check blood sugar levels every hour for 12 hours and hold Resident 34's scheduled insulin. The incident report documented that on 05/14/2025, the post-incident review was completed. Findings noted that during the morning medication pass, Resident 34 was to receive 10 units of Lantus while a different resident was to receive 72 units of insulin. Staff P, Licensed Practical Nurse, recently licensed, was orienting and worked in tandem with Staff L, RN. They simultaneously checked blood sugars and prepared medications for multiple residents. Staff P was handed a pre-drawn insulin syringe, became confused and administered 72 units of Lantus to the wrong resident. It was recommended that both Staff P and Staff L be provided with education regarding the rights of medication administration. The investigation packet included a Cascadia Healthcare Medication Administration-Oral competency checklist. The form instructed one on the correct procedure for administering medications to include comparing the medication label with the MAR to ensure the right medication was given, preparing medications for one resident at a time, ensuring the right resident by checking the resident's name, photo, and asking the resident to identify themselves, and checking to ensure the right dose by checking the medication label and the order. Staff B, Director of Nursing initialed that Staff P had been satisfactorily reviewed regarding ensuring the right resident, right medication, right dose, right route, right time, in the appropriate form, with the right documentation, right rationale and right response. The form was signed and dated by Staff P on 05/19/2025. On 05/15/2025 at 8:39 AM, Resident 34 was observed in bed covered in blankets. The resident looked pale and appeared tired. Resident 34 stated they did not know how low their blood sugar had been during the night, but was aware they had been talking and did not make sense. Resident 34 stated that when their blood sugar dropped down so low, they felt like they were going to die. Resident 34 stated they currently had a headache, and they did not understand why their blood sugar levels were all over the place. On 05/16/2025 at 9:09 AM, Resident 34 was observed seated on the edge of their bed. They were dressed, groomed, had color in their cheeks, and were more animated than the prior observation. Resident 34 stated they felt much better and ate well. They stated they had been afraid to go to sleep the night prior because they thought if they did, they were going to die. They stated they caught themselves dozing off and snapped awake then felt anxious. During an interview on 05/19/2025 at 6:14 AM, Staff L, RN, stated in the beginning of their shift on 05/13/2025, they instructed Staff P that they would prepare medications for Resident 42 and Staff P was to stay right by their side. Staff L was to hand the medication to Staff P, then go with Staff P and observe Staff P give medications to Resident 42 because the facility residents did not wear identification bracelets. Staff L stated they prepared the medications for Resident 42, handed them to Staff P, and stated they would meet Staff P in the resident's room. Staff L stated they closed their laptop and looked at the narcotic sign out book, then went in Resident 42's room. Staff L did not see Staff P in the room and saw that Staff P had gone in the room next door. Staff L stated when they went in Resident 34's room, Staff P had already finished injecting Resident 42's insulin into Resident 34. Staff L stopped Staff P before any other pills were administered. Staff L stated they discussed resident identification, but Staff P was flustered so they focused on the management of Resident 34 for hypoglycemia and Staff P did not give any other medications after that. Staff L stated they should have gone in the room with Staff P to give the medications. They stated they had not been given a checklist to verify Staff P's competencies while they were oriented. Staff P was unsure what on-boarding Staff P had received when they began their employment. Staff P was not aware Resident 34 required the use of rescue medications five times and agreed the resident had been harmed. During an interview on 05/20/2025 at 11:34 AM, Staff P stated they had worked for the facility for about one month and they had just received their LPN license recently. Staff P stated their orientation to the facility included filling out paperwork, instructions on how to don and doff personal protective equipment and hand hygiene. Staff P stated there had been a recent skills fair, and staff read information from a poster board then signed that they had read it. Staff P stated they had not been given a medication competency checklist until after they had given Resident 34 the wrong insulin. Staff P stated they had been told that the best way to learn who the residents were was to work as a nursing assistant and so they mainly worked obtaining blood sugars and vital signs instead of learning the role as an LPN. Staff P stated on the morning of the medication error, they had checked the blood sugars for both Resident 42 and Resident 34. Staff P stated Staff L prepared the medications for Resident 42 and handed them to Staff P. They had taken Resident 34's blood sugar last, so took the medications to Resident 34 and gave Resident 34 the insulin intended for Resident 42. They became distraught after the medication error and intended to submit their letter of resignation after the surveyor interview was concluded. During an interview on 05/21/2025 at 2:38 PM with Staff D, Resident Care Manager (RCM), and Staff N, RCM, Staff D stated the RCMs each took a hall and watched staff nurses pass medications from start to finish. They stated each nurse completed the competency yearly and signed a form. Staff N and Staff D stated they had been made aware of the insulin error right away, right after Staff P and Staff L had notified the provider. When asked if they had considered sending Resident 34 to the emergency room or having a provider see the resident, Staff N stated they notified the provider, gave the glucagon and did closer monitoring and they were able to manage the resident. Staff N stated if they had given the glucagon and the resident did not improve or if the resident had become unconscious, they would have sent the resident to the hospital. Staff N stated they had just recently gone over a document, 10 Rights for Safe Medication Administration with the nursing staff and provided the staff a copy, which included ensuring the resident and the right dose. Staff D stated they expected staff to document all medications including rescue medications to be documented in the MAR. During an interview on 05/22/2025 at 2:24 PM, Staff O, NP, stated they had been notified through their on-call service that Resident 34 had been given someone else's insulin. Staff O stated they examined the resident on 05/19/2025 for staff reports of symptoms of a urinary tract infection but had not been notified that Resident 34 had required rescue medications 5 different times. They agreed the resident might need to be hospitalized to stabilize their blood sugar. Staff O stated they expected to be notified when a resident had blood sugars in the 30's and required rescue medications. They said waiting until a resident was unconscious before sending them to the emergency room was too late.
SERIOUS (H)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Deficiency F0725 (Tag F0725)

A resident was harmed · This affected multiple residents

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to consistently ensure the facility had enough staff to provide adequate supervision and safe care according to the facility acuity (the level of severity of residents' illnesses, physical, mental, and cognitive limitations, and conditions) and/or care plans for 3 of 7 sampled residents (Resident 19, 50, and 60), reviewed for falls. Resident 19 experienced harm from repeated falls as evidenced by a dislocated hip on 09/12/2024, a right femur (leg bone) fracture on 01/14/2025, and a back fracture on 03/03/2025. Resident 60 experienced harm when they fell three times and sustained a fracture to their eye socket and left lower leg. Resident 50 experienced harm when they fell a total of 36 times from 04/04/2024 to 05/17/2025 and experienced a range of injuries, to include hospital transfers for their treatment. Additionally, the facility failed to identify, report, protect, assess and d provide staff supervision to prevent a pattern of resident-to-resident verbal and physical abuse by Residents 19 towards 10 different peers (Resident 31, 49, 21, 43, 27, 37, 33, 45, 3, and 41). These failures placed residents at risk for further repeat serious injuries such as fractures, repeat abuse, potentially avoidable accidents and diminished quality of life. Findings included . Review of the facility assessment reviewed May 2025 showed, the facility provided care to residents who required assistance with activities of daily living such as toileting, transfers, ambulation and fall prevention. The assessment further showed facility staffing included nurse managers, licensed nurses, nursing assistants, and ancillary department staffing. Staffing levels were determined by acuity and regulatory requirements that met the minimum staffing requirements. Staffing was reviewed daily to ensure appropriate staffing ratios to meet requirements and acuity level of current resident population which consisted of residents that may require additional staff to help mitigate falls and manage behaviors. The facility utilized staffing agencies to meet the facility staffing goals and additional staffing efforts were coordinated under the facility Quality Assurance and Performance Program (QAPI) via a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP). <Resident 19> According to the 04/10/2025 quarterly assessment, Resident 19 had severe cognitive impairment with inattention and disorganized thinking. The assessment further showed Resident 19 exhibited worsening verbal and physical behaviors directed towards others that significantly interfered with Resident 19's care, participation in activities or social events, placed others at significant risk for physical injury, significantly intruded on the privacy or activity of others and significantly disrupted care or the living environment. Resident 19 sustained two or more non-injury falls since their admission. RESIDENT-TO-RESIDENT ALTERCATIONS Review of the facility October 2024 through May 2025 incident report tracking log showed Resident 19 was involved in 11 resident-to-resident altercations with 10 different peers (Resident 31, 49, 21, 43, 27, 37, 33, 45, 3, and 41) on the following dates: 10/16/2024, 11/07/2024, 01/11/2025, 01/13/2025, 02/10/2025, 02/27/2025, 03/08/2025, 04/04/2025, 04/11/2025, 04/25/2025, and 05/10/2025. Review of the 09/10/2024 self-care deficit care plan showed Resident 19 was able to self-propel their wheelchair (WC) independently. The 10/17/2024 care plan showed Resident 19 had potential to yell and strike out at other residents related to dementia and poor impulse control. Interventions included to assess and anticipate Resident 19's needs, give positive feedback, frequent safety checks when out of bed, reapproached with different staff when agitated, and maintain a consistent routine. On 11/01/2024 Resident 19 was placed on 15-minute safety checks around the clock. Additional review showed Resident 19 was involved in repeat resident-to-resident altercations while on 15-minute safety check monitoring. Review of the facility resident-to-resident incident reports showed the following: - 10/16/2024- Resident 19 allegedly struck Resident 27 on the hand with a spoon while in the dining room - 11/07/2024- Resident 33 threw coffee on Resident 19 in the dining room - 01/11/2025- Resident 19 randomly grabbed, kicked, and shook Resident 3's walker as they walked down the hall - 01/13/2025- Resident 19 yelled, grabbed at, and stopped Resident 41 from entering the dining room. - 02/10/2025- Resident 19 grabbed at Resident 31. Resident 19 called Resident 31 a fucking asshole! and grabbed Resident 31's neck collar. Resident 31 open handedly slapped Resident 19 in the face. - 02/27/2025- Resident 19 was self-propelling their WC and spontaneously grabbed, hit, scratched, and kicked at Resident 49. Resident 49 sustained a scratch that bled and required first aide. Resident 49 did not know why Resident 19 attacked them. Root cause of incident was identified as Resident 19 was agitated and within close proximity of another resident. - 03/08/2025- Resident 19 was yelling and hitting at Resident 43 and Resident 21. - 04/04/2025- Resident 19 yelled at Resident 37 to remove their hat when sitting at the dining room table. After the meal, at the nurses' station, Resident 19 continued to yell at Resident 37 and allegedly ran over Resident 37's toes with their WC. - 04/11/2025- Resident 19 unprovoked began to punch Resident 45 with a closed fist, in the hallway, as Resident 45 rolled past Resident 19. - 04/25/2025- Resident 19 had a second physical altercation with Resident 31, in the dining room, with staff present but who did not observe the altercation. Resident 19 and Resident 31 grabbed and hit at each other. Resident 31 sustained a skin tear to their arm. - 05/10/2025- Resident 19 had a third verbal and physical altercation with Resident 31. Resident 31 yelled I am going to kill you! Residents 19 and 31 were observed grabbing and hitting each other. Resident 31 sustained a scratch to the back of their hand and Resident 19 sustained a scratch to the tip of their nose. FALLS Review of the 09/10/2025 hospital discharge summary showed Resident 19 sustained a fall that resulted in a right hip fracture. Resident 19's right hip was surgically repaired, and they discharged to the facility. Review of the facility September 2024 through May 2025 incident report tracking log showed Resident 19 sustained 15 falls on the following dates: 09/12/2024, 10/10/2024, 10/16/2024, 10/25/2024, 10/30/2024, 11/20/2024, 12/10/2024, 12/19/2024, 12/23/2024, 01/14/2025, two falls 03/07/2025, 03/22/2025, 05/02/2025, and on 05/12/2025. Review of the facility fall incident reports showed the following: - 09/12/2024 Resident 19 fell near their bed when self-transferring to the bathroom and was transported to the hospital for evaluation related to right hip pain. Resident 19's recently surgically repaired hip was displaced and required sedation to reinsert the hip. - 10/10/2024 Resident 19 fell while self-toileting and reached down to pull up their pants. - 10/16/2024 Resident 19 fell at the nurses' station reaching for an item out of reach. Resident 19 sustained a skin tear to their right hand. - 10/25/2024 Resident 19 fell when attempting to make their bed and their wheelchair (WC) rolled away. - 10/30/2024 Resident 19 fell when they stood up in the dining room and their WC rolled away. - 11/20/2024 Resident 19 fell when they attempted to self-transfer into bed. - 12/10/2024 Resident 19 slid off the toilet and hit their head on the wall. - 12/19/2024 Resident 19 fell next to their closet and sustained a left-hand skin tear. - 12/23/2024 Resident 19 ambulated out of the bathroom using their roommate's walker - 01/14/2025 Resident 19 again fell reaching for an item out of reach while at the nurses' station. Resident 19 sustained a right femur peri-prosthetic (around the artificially replaced hip) fracture that required surgical repair. - 03/07/2025 at 4 AM Resident 19 fell out of bed on the opposite side of the fall mat. All interventions in place continue current care plan, and frequent rounding. - 03/07/2025 at 5:45 PM Resident 19 again fell out of bed. - 03/22/2025 Resident 19 was found on the floor in their room again on the opposite side of fall mat. - 05/02/2025 Resident 19 was on the floor in their room. - 05/12/2025 Resident 19 was on the floor next to their bed. Review of the 01/23/2025 falls care plan showed Resident 19 was at risk for falls related to confusion, history of falls, and poor safety awareness. Interventions instructed staff to keep the door to the room open, reinforce safety awareness, maintain the floor free of clutter, and monitor for injuries when falls were sustained. A 11/21/2024 intervention showed Resident 19 was to have a fall mat on the exit side of the bed, 12/23/2024 a call for assistance sign was placed in the room, 12/31/2024 encourage Resident 19 to use the bathroom before and after meals, 03/03/2025 Resident has the right to fall, and 05/13/2025 perimeter mattress was added to define the edges of the bed. Additional record review showed care plan interventions were not reviewed and/or revised each time Resident 19 sustained a fall. Review of the 09/12/2024 hospital after visit summary showed Resident 19 right hip was dislocated and was given sedation to reinsert the hip back into the socket. Review of the 01/21/2025 hospital discharge summary showed Resident 19 sustained a per-prosthetic right femur fracture which required surgical intervention for repair. Review of the 03/03/2025 Computed Tomography (CT, medical imaging that create detailed images of the inside of the body) imaging showed Resident 19 fell out of their WC which resulted in back and hip pain. The imaging results showed a significant back fracture likely acute [new onset] given the history of fall and tenderness. <Resident 60> According to the 05/01/2025 admission assessment, Resident 60 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of a stroke, orthostatic hypotension (when the blood pressure drops when you sit or stand up), and diabetes. This assessment further showed Resident 60 had intact cognition, was dependent on the staff for toileting hygiene, required partial to substantial assistance for transfers, and used a wheelchair for mobility. The assessment showed Resident 60 had no falls prior to admission but fell since admission to the facility. Review of Resident 60's 04/25/2025 care plan showed staff were to respond to requests timely, keep frequently used items within reach, provide assistance of one or more staff for toilet transfers related to Resident 60 required constant verbal cues for sequencing, and for staff to stay with Resident 60 when on toilet to decrease risk of falls. Review of May 2025 nursing progress note showed a staff member assisted Resident 60 to the toilet on 05/03/2025 per resident request and that the resident asked the nursing assistant (NA) to step out for privacy. The aide stepped out and was standing outside the door when the resident reached for wipes on their wheelchair and because of left sided weakness fell on [their] left side hitting [their] left orbital [eye socket] area. The note showed the nurse applied an ice pack to Resident 60's face, educated staff not to leave the resident unattended, and called the provider who gave orders to transfer Resident 60 to the hospital. On 05/14/2025 staff reported they had run over Resident 60's leg when transporting resident down the hallway. The incident was described as the resident's left foot came off the wheelchair footrest (for the user's foot to rest on), the aide did not notice and rolled the wheelchair over Resident 60's left foot. The nurse then completed an assessment and found Resident 60's left leg with visible swelling, complaints of pain to the knee, calf and thigh, and a bruised area to a swollen ankle. On 05/15/2025 Resident 60 was assessed to be in uncontrollable pain, swelling to left ankle, and a bruise with a superficial scratch to the back of resident's left calf. Resident 60 stated repeatedly, I want to go to the hospital. The staff transferred Resident 60 to the local emergency department. Review of the facility fall incident reports showed the following: -05/03/2025 Resident 60 fell while on the toilet which resulted in a left orbital fracture (a break in one or more of the bones surrounding the eye socket). Nursing interventions included, Educated staff not to leave [resident] unattended, an intervention which was in place on 04/25/2025 (Stay with patient when on toilet to decrease risk of falls), two days prior to the fall. -05/21/2025 Resident 60's left foot fell off the foot pedal during transport unbeknownst to the aide. The aide and resident were going through the resident room's doorway, the residents foot became lodged between the door and the wheelchair, the aide did not know the foot was caught, pushed three times due to the resistance, and ran over the left foot. The investigation concluded it was an accident that resulted in a new distal end of left fibula [calf bone] fracture. <Resident 50> According to the 04/07/2025 quarterly assessment, Resident 50 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with medically complex conditions, to include dementia, repeated falls, and impaired vision. This assessment showed the resident had moderately impaired cognition, required supervision or touching assistance from the staff for ADLs and experienced falls since their admission to the facility or their prior assessment. During observation and interview on 05/12/2025 at 10:55 AM Resident 50 was in bed and stated, I fall quite frequently. I have progressive palsy (loss or reduction of movement in a part of the body, often accompanied by shaking or trembling) and they've gone over things that I do that cause the falls like how I turn and so forth. Review of nursing progress notes from 04/05/2024 to 05/17/2025 showed the staff identified Resident 50 fell frequently, was impulsive and forgetful to use their call light, and self-transferred in and out of bed or wheelchair. documentation showed that staff continued to ask the resident to use the call light or call for help evenh it was identified that Resident 50 was impulsive and does not call for help/assistance with transfers or mobility and transfers without use of call light. Sometimes will yell help when is about to fall or needs help. Requires frequent reminders. The notes further showed Resident 50 fell 36 times (4/30/2024, 05/03/2024, 05/06/2024, 05/09/2024, 05/11/2024, 05/17/2024, 05/22/2024, 06/04/2024, 06/14/2024, 07/18/2024, 08/01/2024, 08/26/2024, 09/20/2024, 10/27/2024, 11/04/2024, 11/11/2024, 12/16/2024, 01/12/2025, 01/19/2025, 01/25/2025, 02/02/2025, 02/14/2025, 02/16/2025, 03/04/2025, 03/07/2025, 03/25/2025, 03/26/2025, 03/26/2025, 04/03/2025, 04/19/2025, 04/24/2025, twice on 05/3/2025, 05/05/2025, 05/14/2025, and 05/17/2025) from 04/05/2024 to 05/17/2025. Review of Resident 50's 11/04/2024 care plan showed the staff identified they had impaired mobility with actual falls due to dementia, unsteady walking, leaning forward in their wheelchair to pick items up from the floor and transferring self from bed or wheelchair. The care plan instructed staff on Resident 50 required assistance for transfers. The care plan showed that on the day of admission, 04/05/2024, the staff added the following interventions: provide direct supervision while resident is toileting, reinforce safety awareness: use call light, lock brakes on chair before transferring, utilize device. When rising from a lying position, sit/rest at edge of the bed at least 10 seconds before transferring, respond to resident requests timely, anticipate their needs, keep call light and bedside table items within reach. On 12/01/2024 pharmacist to review medications quarterly and prn when falls occur to address fall risk side effects. Develop plan with risks and benefits as indicated. On 01/06/2025 Resident 50 would get ice cream if they did fall in 30 days. On 02/05/2025 Resident 50 agreed to wear pull ups at night for urine urgency. On 04/21/2025 make sure to help remind [resident] to position the wheelchair at a 45-degree angle facing the bed, so that [the resident] can still reach the arm rests and make small steps, and travel a shorter distance, to decrease risk of falls. On 05/08/2025 Educate resident to call out for help and to wait for assistance as it is [their] preference not to use the call light. Additional record review showed care plan interventions were not reviewed and/or revised each time Resident 50 sustained a fall. Review of the medical record from 04/05/2024 to 05/17/2025 showed Resident 50 experienced injuries of varying severity related to the 36 falls that included abrasions (05/09/2025, 05/11/2024, 06/14/2024, 07/18/2024, 08/01/2024, 11/11/2024), contusions (an injury to soft tissue that causes bleeding beneath the skin, usually without breaking the skin itself; 08/01/2024, 08/26/2024, 11/11/2024, 03/27/2025), lacerations (08/01/2024, 08/26/2024, 02/02/2025) closed head injuries (08/01/2024, 03/27/2025), swelling to right side of forehead (10/27/2024), skin tears (03/04/2027, 03/07/2025, 04/20/2025), and transfers to the Emergency Department (08/01/2024, 02/02/2025, 05/07/2025). Review of November 2024 through April 2025 grievance log showed grievances related to excessively long call light wait times on 11/06/2024, 03/02/2025, 03/20/2025, and 04/01/2025. In an interview on 05/14/2025 at 10:26 AM, the Resident Council stated the facility did not have sufficient staff. The Council explained they experienced excessively long call light wait times, staff did not answer call lights during mealtimes, so residents had to wait until the meal was over or have an incontinent episode if they needed to toilet during mealtimes, waiting up to an hour to have their call light answered. A resident's spouse in attendance of the meeting, acknowledged they often toileted their spouse to help direct care staff because staff were too busy with other residents and there is not enough staff. The Council again stated, the facility is severely undermanned. In an interview on 05/19/2025 at 4:06 AM, Staff I, Registered Nurse, stated the facility did not have enough staff. Staff I explained they worked night shift and was lucky if they worked with two-three nursing assistants. Staff I further stated it was difficult to manager behaviors on night shift, if a resident needed one:one (1:1) monitoring, they would have to pull a nursing assistant off the floor to provide the needed increased monitoring which left the floor short so I take a section. In an interview on 05/20/2025 at 11:37 AM, Staff P, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), stated they were a full-time LPN. Staff P explained the facility was short staffed and routinely worked as a NA three out of five workdays. In an interview on 05/22/2025 at 3:01 PM, Staff D, Resident Care Manager, stated staffing levels were based on census. Staff D explained the facility cared for residents that required two staff assist, were dependent on staff assistance, used mechanical lifts to transfer which required two staff for use, were high fall risks, and exhibited behaviors. Staff D further stated the facility attempted to staff four NAs for both day and evening shifts and two NAs for night shift, but that was not enough staff. The facility utilized agency staffing daily but Staff D continued to hear residents and family's voice concerns over lack of staffing. Staff D acknowledged some falls and resident-to-resident altercations could have been prevented if the facility had more staff. During an interview and record review on 05/22/2025 at 3:12 PM, Staff X, Staffing Coordinator, stated the facility utilized a staffing level guide based on census and the minimum staffing requirements to staff the facility, as instructed. Staff X explained the form was reassessed quarterly by management, we count heads [residents] not acuity. Staff X provided a copy of the staffing guide. Review of the staffing guide provided showed a graph with columns for 1) census, 2) day shift nurses, NA, and restorative NA numbers, 3) evening shift nurse and NA staffing numbers, and 4) night shift nurse and NA staffing numbers. Staff X further stated they were also an NA, often worked the floor to help out due to short staffing, and had not had a full weekend off in a month. Staff X acknowledged staff had voiced staffing concerns, we are struggling, we are having a rough time with staffing. In an interview on 05/22/2025 at 3:43 PM, Staff B, Director of Nursing, stated the facility utilized a staffing guide based on the minimum staffing standards that was reassessed daily with census and acuity. Staff B stated they expected the facility to be staffed with sufficient staff to provide adequate care to the facility residents based on their plans of care. In an interview on 05/23/2025 at 9:36 AM, Staff A, Administrator, stated they expected the facility to have adequate staffing coverage to meet the needs of the facility resident population. Reference WAC 388-97-1080 (1), 1090 (1) Refer to F600, F689, F726, and F727 for additional information.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0583 (Tag F0583)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review the facility failed to maintain financial information in a secure manner to prevent unauthorized access for 1 of 2 sampled residents (Resident 49), reviewed for pe...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to maintain financial information in a secure manner to prevent unauthorized access for 1 of 2 sampled residents (Resident 49), reviewed for personal property. This failure placed residents at risk of misappropriation, financial exploitation and diminished quality of life. Findings included . According to the 04/22/2025 quarterly assessment, Resident 49 had moderate cognitive impairment and was able to clearly verbalize their needs. Review of the 04/19/2024 care plan showed Resident 49 was impulsive and utilized the services of a payee (an appointed person to manage finances when an individual was unable to do so). The care plan showed Resident 49 was inclined to send money to their family, but it was not in Resident 49's best interest. Additional record review found a front and back color copy of a bank card with four numbers handwritten below the card, scanned into Resident 49's electronic clinical health record accessible to any nursing staff with access to the health record. In an interview on 05/22/2025 at 8:37 AM, Staff E, Social Services Coordinator, stated residents could keep bank cards on their person, if they chose to. Staff E explained a bank card was considered a valuable that was at high risk to be lost or stolen by others and should be stored securely to prevent unintended access. Staff E reviewed the color copy of the bank card and acknowledged the handwritten numbers was Resident 49's pin number and should not have been scanned into the health record like it was. In an interview on 05/22/2025 at 9:35 AM, Staff B, Director of Nursing, stated bank cards should be stored securely to prevent unintended access related to the high risk for potential misappropriation. In an interview on 05/23/2025 at 9:36 AM, Staff A, Administrator, stated they expected staff to maintain and store bank card information in a manner to prevent access by unauthorized individuals. Reference WAC 388-97-0360, 0500 (1)
CONCERN (D)

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure a homelike and safe environment and equipment that was in good...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure a homelike and safe environment and equipment that was in good repair for 2 of 2 halls and 2 residents (Resident 36 and 50). Failure to ensure floor tiles were replaced, the ends of metal wheelchair brake extenders were covered, and room walls and base board heater paint were intact, placed the residents at risk of injury and a diminished quality of life. Findings included . <Resident 36> An observation of Resident 36's room (room [ROOM NUMBER]) on 05/13/2025 at 12:28 PM showed the wall behind the resident's bed was gouged and dented from the headboard. The baseboard between the resident's bed in the room was scuffed with the paint peeling off. <Resident 50> An observation of Resident 50's wheelchair on 05/12/2025 at 10:52 AM showed bilateral metal wheelchair brake extenders with no rubber protectors on the tip. Rubber protectors served to cover the metal end and prevent injury. <B Unit> An observation on 05/13/2025 at 12:28 PM of the floor near room [ROOM NUMBER] in front of the exit door, showed broken tiles with some patches missing, and others cracked. A rug was observed in front of the tiles. <Special Care Unit> An observation on 05/13/2025 at 1:28 PM between rooms [ROOM NUMBERS] showed a broken or gouged tile area of approximately 3 inches by 1 ½ inches with a depth of about 1/10 of an inch. The above findings were shared with Staff W, Maintenance Director, in an observation and interview on 05/22/2025 at 8:22 AM. Staff W stated they completed monthly checks on all the wheelchairs in the facility and if unable to address a wheelchair repair issue they collaborated with the therapy department to coordinate with a wheelchair vendor. Staff W stated they did not know of the missing protectors for Resident 50's wheelchair brake extenders and said they needed to be covered to prevent an injury like a skin tear. In the continued interview on 05/22/2025 at 8:22 AM, Staff W made the following comment about the broken and missing tiles on B Unit, We are aware of stuff like this. That's why we have the carpets here. It will be repaired. In the continued interview on 05/22/2025 at 8:22 AM, Staff W made the following comment about the broken tiles in the Special Care Unit, That one I will have to fix right away. In the continued interview on 05/22/2025 at 8:22 AM, Staff W stated they did not have a schedule to check on room conditions but that room [ROOM NUMBER], is on the list to be remodeled. The scheduled remodeling was contingent on the room being vacant of residents. Staff W stated, Management is aware. Reference WAC 388-97-0880.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0605 (Tag F0605)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure a resident was not administered as needed injectable antipsychotics (medication that affected the brain, emotions, or behaviors) unle...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure a resident was not administered as needed injectable antipsychotics (medication that affected the brain, emotions, or behaviors) unless the medication was necessary to treat a specific condition documented in the clinical record for 1 of 6 sampled residents (Resident 19), reviewed for unnecessary medications. This failure placed residents at risk of side-effects from the medications, unnecessary chemical restraints, and a diminished quality of life. Findings included . According to the 04/10/2025 quarterly assessment, Resident 19 had severe cognitive impairment with inattention and disorganized thinking. The assessment further showed Resident 19 exhibited worsening verbal and physical behaviors directed towards others that significantly interfered with Resident 19's care, participation in activities or social events, placed others at significant risk for physical injury, significantly intruded on the privacy or activity of others and significantly disrupted care or the living environment. Review of October 2024 through March 2025 nursing progress notes showed Resident 19 exhibited verbally and physically aggressive behaviors towards others, loudly and persistently yelled, banged on walls, rummaged, was argumentative, impulsive, wandered, and was involved in recurrent resident-to-resident altercations. On 02/28/2025 Resident 19 threw water on a peer and attempted to go after them. Resident 19 had increased agitation, attempted to hit or kick staff as they walked by and required three staff to redirect Resident 19 to prevent resident to resident altercations. Resident 19 was transported to the emergency room for evaluation of their combative behaviors. A 03/01/2025 note at 5:21 AM showed Resident 19 slept without yelling or outbursts observed. At 7:08 AM, Resident 19 was administered a medication for nausea. A 4:25 PM note showed Resident yelling out through out day. 1:1 activities provided by writer as well as po [oral] fluids offered through out shift. Resident complaining of generalized discomfort, unable to identify cause. Review of the 02/28/2025 hospital after visit summary showed Resident 19 was seen for confusion and delirium (temporary confusion and disorientation). Resident 19 was given an oral antipsychotic while at the hospital and prescribed injectable Haldol (antipsychotic medication) as needed every four hours for agitation and delirium upon discharge. Review of provider orders showed a 02/28/2025 order for Resident 19 to be administered injectable Haldol every four hours as needed for agitation and delirium. Review of the March 2025 Medication Administration Record showed Resident 19 was administered injectable Haldol on 03/01/2025 at 3:21 PM with behavior observed marked as NO and effective results. Additional record review showed insufficient documentation to justify the administration of the injectable antipsychotic to treat a medical symptom. A 03/25/2025 progress note by Staff Z, Medical Doctor, showed Resident 19 struck a resident and was sent to the hospital emergency department. The hospital ordered an injectable antipsychotic but we don't do that here. In an interview on 05/22/2025 at 10:48 AM, Staff N, Resident Care Manager, explained as needed antipsychotic medications were limited to a 14-day period and required an adequate diagnoses for use because they should not be administered for something inappropriate with appropriate documentation in the medical record. Staff N further stated the facility did not utilize as needed injectable antipsychotics like Haldol. Staff N reviewed Resident 19's medical record. Staff N acknowledged Resident 19 was administered injectable Haldol on 03/01/2025 but there was poor documentation to justify the use. In an interview on 05/22/2025 at 11:02 AM, Staff B, Director of Nursing, stated they facility tried to limit orders for as needed antipsychotics. Staff B explained if as needed antipsychotics were used, there should be detailed behavior notes and justification for use in the medical record. Staff B reviewed Resident 19's medical record. Staff B acknowledged the 03/01/2025 documentation in Resident 19's medical record was not sufficient to justify or warrant administration of as needed injectable Haldol. In an interview on 05/23/2025 at 9:36 AM, Staff A, Administrator, stated they expected staff to adequately document if and/or when an as needed antipsychotic was administered. Reference WAC 388-97-0620 (1)(a)
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0699 (Tag F0699)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review the facility failed to identify, assess, and address potential signs and/or symptoms of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) for 1 of 8 sampled residents (Residen...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to identify, assess, and address potential signs and/or symptoms of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) for 1 of 8 sampled residents (Resident 19), reviewed for mood and behavior. This failure placed residents at risk of re-traumatization, unmet behavioral health needs, and diminished quality of life. Findings included . According to the website www.mayoclinic.org Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) was a mental health condition that could develop after witnessing or being part of an extremely stressful or terrifying event. Symptoms could include flashbacks (feelings that the traumatic event was occurring again), nightmares (repeated disturbing dreams), intrusive thoughts, severe anxiety, avoidance (not wanting to think or talk about a traumatic event), changes in mood or thinking and physical and emotional reactions. These symptoms last more than one month, cause major problems in social or work situations and affect how well a person gets along with others. Review of the facility policy titled, Behavioral Health Services revised April 2025 showed the facility provided appropriate behavioral health services to residents identified through their individualized comprehensive assessment as needing support with their emotional well-being to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental and psychosocial well-being. The policy further showed behavioral health encompassed a resident's whole emotional and mental well-being, which included the prevention and treatment of mental health, substance use disorders, and trauma or PTSDs. Trauma informed care was defined as approached to care that treated the whole person, taking into account past trauma and the resulting coping mechanisms when attempting to understand behaviors and treat the resident. The policy showed residents would be monitored and assessed for signs and/or symptoms of withdrawal from substance use, depression, adjustment difficulties, history of trauma, and PTSD symptoms which may include flashbacks or disturbing dreams, extreme discontentment, or emotional and behavioral expressions of distress such as outbursts of anger, irritability, or hostility. The interdisciplinary team was to identify reversible and treatable causes and address them promptly. The policy instructed staff to complete training related to communication, interpersonal skills, trauma informed care, and mental health and social service needs to gain the knowledge and skill sets to effectively interact with residents. According to the 04/10/2025 quarterly assessment, Resident 19 had diagnoses including dementia, depression, and violent behavior. The assessment further showed Resident 19 had severe cognitive impairment with inattention and disorganized thinking. Resident 19 exhibited worsening verbal and physical behaviors directed towards others that significantly interfered with Resident 19's care, participation in activities or social events, placed others at significant risk for physical injury, significantly intruded on the privacy or activity of others and significantly disrupted care or the living environment. Review of the 10/17/2024 behavioral care plan showed Resident 19 had the potential to demonstrate yelling and striking out at others related to dementia and poor impulse control. The care plan instructed staff to get Resident 19 up in their wheelchair (WC) if they yelled out in their sleep, utilize a sound machine while in bed, perform 15-minute safety checks, and assist Resident 19 through congested areas because they triggered aggression. Review of the 09/10/2025 clinical admission evaluation showed Resident 19 had a history of behaviors, was confused, and did not want to talk about trauma. Review of the 09/12/2025 psychosocial evaluation showed Resident 19 had not experienced significant traumatic events with a comment written as Resident 19 said life is what it is. A summary at the end of the assessment showed Resident 19 was a Navy Veteran without any family support. Review of September 2024 through April 2025 nursing progress notes showed the following: - 09/12/2024 Resident 19 was restless in bed at times, calling and yelling out. - 09/18/2024 at 4:15 AM, Resident 19 yelled out and banged on wall, would close eyes and pretend to sleep - 09/20/2024 at 1:15 AM, Resident 19 yelled out through the night - 11/08/2024 Resident 19 was observed yelling out between 2:00 PM and 4:30 PM - 11/09/2024 Resident 19 continued to have distressing outbursts when in bed and pounds on the wall. - 11/16/2025 at 5:25 AM, Resident 19 was observed yelling and banging on the walls throughout NOC [night 10 PM through 6 AM] shift. - 12/15/2024 at 4:23 AM, Resident 19 yelled and screamed throughout entire shift. - 12/18/2024 at 4:24 AM, Resident 19 was awake and yelling out most all shift. - 12/27/2024 at 4:30 AM, Resident 19 was yelling out all night. Will not stop. - 12/28/2024 Resident 19 slept most of the night but started screaming when they were still sleeping and Resident 19 did not realize they were screaming. - 12/31/2024 at 5:55 AM, Resident 19 was awake all-night yelling and screaming, would not calm themselves, would not awaken and continued screaming while sleeping. - 01/07/2025 at 5:14 AM, Resident 19 was yelling and screaming 4-5 hours during the night. Unable to calm [themselves]. - 01/12/2025 at 6:42 AM, Resident 19 slept entire shift but woke up yelling at approximately 4:30 AM. - 01/13/2025 at 4:31 AM, Resident 19 yelled out all night, no interventions could calm them down. - 02/03/2025 Resident 19 woke up yelling continuously. - 02/06/2025 Resident 19 went to bed and did not experience any night terrors. - 03/13/2025 at 4:43 AM, Resident 19 yelled out for about 1 hour. - 03/15/2025 Resident 19 yelled and screamed out from 4:50 AM until 5:05 AM. - 03/16/2025 Resident 19 yelled and screamed out from 03/15/2025 11:30 PM until 03/16/2025 2:45 AM, over 3 hours. - 04/09/2025 Resident 19 began yelling out at approximately 6:30 AM. Resident 19 was in laying in bed with their eyes closed. When asked what was wrong, Resident 19 replied I was having a bad dream. - 04/13/2025 Resident 19 yelled out from 2:22 AM until 2:55 AM, remained in bed the entire time, and eventually went back to sleep. - 04/22/2025 at 5:37 AM, Resident 19 screamed and yelled for about 4 hours. In an interview on 05/19/2025 at 4:16 AM, Staff J, Nursing Assistant, stated Resident 19 experienced uncontrollable yelling, had woken up from being asleep yelling but it was my understanding [Resident 19] has PTSD. In an interview on 05/19/2025 at 8:00 AM, Staff E, Social Services Coordinator, reviewed Resident 19's medical record. Staff E stated Resident 19 experienced unpredictable and uncontrollable behaviors at times, and it was difficult to anticipate what would trigger their behaviors. Staff E further stated if Resident 19 did not sleep well, their behaviors would be worse the following day. Staff E acknowledged they had not received much training on trauma informed care. Staff E further acknowledged Resident 19 was a veteran, but they had not been assessed for potential signs and/or symptoms of PTSD and no interventions had been attempted to address recurrent nightmares experienced. In an interview on 05/19/2025 at 8:55 AM, Staff B, Director of Nursing, reviewed Resident 19's medical record. Staff B acknowledged Resident 19 was a veteran but the facility had not attempted to assess or address potential signs and/or symptoms of PTSD such as yelling at night during sleep or nightmares experienced. In an interview on 05/23/2025 at 9:36 AM, Staff A, stated they expected staff to receive adequate training in order to have adequate skills and competencies to meet the needs of the facility resident population. No associated WAC Refer to F600, F725, and F726 for additional information.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure medications were labeled in accordance with accepted professional standards and expired medications were removed from i...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure medications were labeled in accordance with accepted professional standards and expired medications were removed from inventory. Specifically, insulin pens were not labeled with the date opened in one of two medication carts, and expired Bisacodyl suppositories (a medication to treat constipation) were found in one of two medication carts and the only medication room. This failed practice placed residents at risk of receiving expired medications, that may not have been fully effective. Findings included . According to Medscape.com, insulin pens must be discarded 28 days after opened. The facility policy titled Medication Management, revised 10/15/2022, documented medications were to be discarded by the expiration date or earlier. <Rehab Medication Cart> During an inspection of the Rehab medication cart on 05/21/2025 at 12:31 PM, the following was noted: 1) An opened Lantus (a long-acting insulin) pen for Resident 47, without a date of when the pen was opened. 2) An opened Novolog (a fast-acting insulin) pen for Resident 54, without a date of when the pen was opened. 3) Three Bisacodyl suppositories, with an expiration date of 01/2025 (4 months ago.) During a concurrent interview, Staff G, Registered Nurse, RN stated that if they came across any expired medications when passing meds, they would discard them. Staff G then discarded the insulin pens and the suppositories. Staff G stated they thought a nurse went through the carts periodically to check for expired meds. During an interview on 05/21/2025 at 3:26 PM, Staff H, RN stated the usual practice was to mark the date when the insulin pen was opened, so staff knew to discard them after 30 days. Additionally, Staff H stated they would not give medications that had expired. A review of Resident 47's medical record documented they received Lantus daily since 04/07/2025. A review of Resident 54's medical record documented they received Novolog as needed starting on 04/15/2025. The Medication Administration Record (MAR) showed it was given 12 times in May of 2025. <Medication Room> During an inspection of the facility medication room with Staff F, Resident Care Manager, RCM, observed an opened box of Bisacodyl suppositories that expired on 04/2025 (last month). Staff F stated their expectation was that expired medications should be discarded so they were not inadvertently given, and that insulin pens should be dated when first opened, so they could be discarded after 28 days. Reference: WAC 388-97-1300(2)
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0552 (Tag F0552)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to inform residents and/or their representatives about their right to ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to inform residents and/or their representatives about their right to have their bed held while hospitalized for 2 of 4 sampled residents (Residents 51 and 19), reviewed for hospitalizations. This failure precluded the residents and/or their representatives to participate in decisions regarding their right to return to the same facility upon hospital return, and the right to know how much the facility would charge for holding their bed. Findings included . Review of a revised April 2025 facility policy titled Bed-Hold Readmission showed, the facility issued two notices related to bed-hold policies. The first notice was given well in advance of any transfers such as information in the admission packet, and the second notice provided to the resident and/or the resident representative at the time of transfer to the hospital, or in cases of emergency transfer, within 24 hours of transfer. <Resident 51> Review of a 05/04/2025 admission assessment showed Resident 51 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with medically complex conditions. The assessment showed the resident had moderate cognitive impairment. Additional review of the medical record showed Resident 51 was their own responsible party. Review of a April 2025 nursing progress note showed on 04/30/2025 Resident 51 re-admitted from the hospital. The note prior to 04/30/2025 was 04/24/2025 but showed no documentation of a change in condition or reason for hospital transfer. Review of a Census List showed Resident 51 went to the hospital on [DATE]. Additional review of the medical record showed there was no information that showed why Resident 51 was transferred to the hospital and no documentation was found to show staff informed the resident and/or their representative of their right to hold their bed at the time of or shortly after the 04/25/2025 hospital transfer. Further review of a May 2025 nursing progress notes showed on 05/11/2025 Resident 51 experienced a change in condition after a fall and required a transfer to the hospital. Additional review of the medical record showed no documentation staff informed the resident and/or their representative of their right to hold their bed at the time of or shortly after the 05/11/2025 hospital transfer. The above findings were shared with Staff N, Resident Care Manager (RCM), on 05/15/2025 at 8:56 AM. Staff N confirmed there was no documentation staff informed Resident 51 and/or their representative of their right to hold their bed or provided Resident 51 a notice of bed hold policy at the time of transfers to the hospital and it should have been offered and documented, as required. <Resident 19> According to the 04/10/2025 quarterly assessment, Resident 19 had severe cognitive impairment with inattention and disorganized thinking. The assessment further showed Resident 19 exhibited worsening verbal and physical behaviors directed towards others that significantly interfered with Resident 19's care, participation in activities or social events, placed others at significant risk for physical injury, significantly intruded on the privacy or activity of others and significantly disrupted care or the living environment. Review of after visit hospital summaries showed Resident 19 was transferred to the hospital on [DATE], 01/13/2025, 02/26/2025, 02/28/2025, 03/03/2025, and 03/08/2025 for various reasons. Review of September 2024 through April 2025 nursing progress notes showed the following: -01/14/2025 Resident 19 was transferred to the hospital after they sustained a fall. No documentation was found to show staff informed Resident 19 and/or their representative of their right to hold their bed or reviewed the bed hold policy at time of hospital transfer. -02/28/2025 Resident 19 was transferred to the hospital related to increased agitation. No documentation was found to show staff informed Resident 19 and/or their representative of their right to hold their bed or reviewed the bed hold policy at time of hospital transfer. -03/03/2025 Resident 19 was hospitalized . No documentation was found to show staff informed Resident 19 and/or their representative of their right to hold their bed or reviewed the bed hold policy at time of hospital transfer. -04/11/2025 Resident 19 was transferred to the hospital related to combative behaviors towards staff. No documentation was found to show staff informed Resident 19 and/or their representative of their right to hold their bed or reviewed the bed hold policy at time of hospital transfer. Review of December 2024 through March 2025 provider progress notes showed Resident 19 was transferred to the hospital on [DATE] after they sustained a fall with a femur fracture, on 03/03/2025 after they sustained a fall out of their wheelchair, and on 03/25/2025 after they were involved in a resident-to-resident altercation. Additional review showed no documentation to show staff informed Resident 19 and/or their representative of their right to hold their bed or reviewed the bed hold policy at time of hospital transfer. Review of the 04/11/2025 emergent transfer assessment showed Resident 19 was transferred to the hospital for agitation and violent behaviors. Additional review showed no documentation staff informed Resident 19 and/or their representative of the notice of their right to hold their bed or reviewed the bed hold policy at time of hospital transfer. In an interview on 05/22/2025 at 10:56 AM, Staff D, RCM, reviewed Resident 19's medical record. Staff D acknowledged staff should document they informed residents and/or their representative of their right to hold their bed or provided a notice of bed hold policy at time of hospital transfer. In an interview on 05/22/2025 at 10:56 AM, Staff B, Director of Nursing, stated if a resident was transferred to the hospital, they expected staff to document they informed the resident and/or their representative of their right to hold their bed or provided a notice of bed hold policy at time of hospital transfer. In an interview on 05/23/2025 at 9:36 AM, Staff A, Administrator, stated if and/or when a resident was transferred to the hospital, they expected staff to document they informed the resident and/or their representative of their right to hold their bed or provided the a notice of bed hold policy. Reference WAC 388-97-0300(3)(a), -0260, -1020(4)(a-b).
CONCERN (E)

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

Abuse Prevention Policies (Tag F0607)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on interview and record review the facility failed to repeatedly implement the facility abuse prevention policy to include identification of potential instances of abuse, reporting allegations t...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to repeatedly implement the facility abuse prevention policy to include identification of potential instances of abuse, reporting allegations to the State Survey Agency as required, thoroughly investigate allegations, review interventions for effectiveness, revise interventions as needed, and communicate, coordinate, review, and track allegations of abuse through the Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) program for 1 of 11 sampled resident (Resident 19), reviewed for abuse. This failure placed residents at risk of abuse, psychosocial harm, and diminished quality of life. Findings included . Review of the facility policy titled, Preventing Abuse revised August 2023 showed, the facility would identify, correct, and intervene in situations in which abuse, neglect and/or misappropriation of resident property was more likely to occur. Staff were to observe residents, visitors and staff to identify inappropriate behaviors and deploy sufficient staff on each shift to meet the needs of the residents. The policy instructed staff to assess, care plan and monitor residents who exhibited behaviors which might lead to conflict such as verbally aggressive behaviors such as screaming, cursing, intimidating, or demanding behaviors and physically aggressive behaviors such as hitting, kicking, grabbing, scratching, biting, pushing, wandering, rummaging, threatening gestures, or throwing objects. Review of the facility policy titled, Identification and Investigation of Abuse, Neglect, Misappropriation, and Injuries of Unknown Origin revised August 2023 showed, the facility reviewed reports of grievances, complaints, and allegations of abuse, neglect, injuries of unknown injury to identify a pattern or isolated incidents. The policy instructed staff to determine a root cause of any incident and evaluate the resident for signs of negative psychosocial impact of the incident to include fear of a person or place or extreme changes in behavior. The facility was to protect all residents from physical and psychosocial harm during and after the investigation by responding immediately to protect the alleged victim and provide increased supervision of the alleged victim and other residents as indicated. Staff were to immediately report all incidents and allegations of abuse to the CEO or designee, the State Survey Agency, and Law Enforcement if a crime was suspected. Once an incident was reported it was to be thoroughly investigated within five working days by conducting resident and staff interviews, determine root cause of the incident and implement corrective action to immediately address safety issues, updated care planned interventions based on the investigation findings, and complete staff training as indicated. According to the 04/10/2025 quarterly assessment, Resident 19 had severe cognitive impairment with inattention and disorganized thinking. The assessment further showed Resident 19 exhibited worsening verbal and physical behaviors directed towards others that significantly interfered with Resident 19's care, participation in activities or social events, placed others at significant risk for physical injury, significantly intruded on the privacy or activity of others and significantly disrupted care or the living environment. Review of the facility October 2024 through May 2025 incident report tracking log showed Resident 19 was involved in 11 resident-to-resident altercations with 10 different peers (Resident 31, 49, 21, 43, 27, 37, 33, 45, 3, and 41) on the following dates: 10/16/2024, 11/07/2024, 01/11/2025, 01/13/2025, 02/10/2025, 02/27/2025, 03/08/2025, 04/04/2025, 04/11/2025, 04/25/2025, and 05/10/2025. Review of the facility resident-to-resident incident report investigations showed the following: -10/16/2024 contained only one statement, no other staff or resident interviews were included, and no documentation was found to show abuse or neglect was ruled out. -02/10/2025 (first altercation with Resident 31) contained only one statement, no other staff or resident interviews were included. -02/27/2025 contained only one statement, no other staff or resident interviews were included. Root cause was determined to be Resident 19 was agitated and within close proximity of another resident. The care plans were updated as indicated. Abuse and neglect was ruled out related to care plans being followed. Additional record review of Resident 19's care plan showed no documentation interventions were revised or new interventions implemented as indicated. -03/08/2025 Resident 19 initiated physical aggression towards Resident 21 and 43. The investigation did not contain staff or other resident interviews. Abuse and neglect was ruled out related to care plans being followed and incident occurred within line of site of staff. Resident 21 was educated to avoid Resident 19 and request staff remove Resident 19 from the vicinity. Resident 19's care plan was again updated as indicated. Additional record review of Resident 19's care plan showed no documentation interventions were revised or new interventions implemented as indicated. -04/04/2025 contained only one statement, no other staff or resident interviews were included, and no documentation was found to show abuse or neglect was ruled out. Root cause was determined to be Resident 19 had severe cognitive impairment with unknown situational comprehension. Resident 19 continued on 15-minute safety checks and the facility was refraining from adding 1 on 1 staff with [Resident 19] as it is believed this will cause further agitation. Care plan updated as indicated. Additional record review of Resident 19's care plan showed no documentation interventions were revised or new interventions implemented as indicated. -04/11/2025 Resident 19 initiated physical aggression toward Resident 45. The investigation contained no resident or staff interviews. Resident 45 was educated to avoid Resident 19 and not wear their headphones in the hallway. Abuse and neglect was ruled out because the care plan was being followed. Resident 19's care plan updated as indicated. -04/25/2025 (second altercation with Resident 31) while in the dining room with staff present but who did not observe the incident. The investigation contained no resident or staff interviews. Abuse and neglect was ruled out because the care plan was being followed. Resident 19's care plan updated to be within line of site of staff while in the dining room. -05/10/2025 (third altercation with Resident 31) while near the nurses' station. The investigation contained two staff statements but no other resident interviews. Resident 31 was provided television headphones. Root cause was not established, and abuse and neglect was not ruled out. The provider reviewed Resident 19's medical record on 05/16/2025, six days after the incident occurred, and made recommendations for blood work and recommended adding a vitamin. Additional record review of Resident 19's care plan showed no documentation interventions were revised or new interventions implemented. Review of the 09/10/2024 self-care deficit care plan showed Resident 19 was able to self-propel their wheelchair (WC) independently. The 10/17/2024 care plan showed Resident 19 had potential to yell and strike out at other residents related to dementia and poor impulse control. Interventions included to assess and anticipate Resident 19's needs, give positive feedback, frequent safety checks when out of bed, reapproached with different staff when agitated, and maintain a consistent routine. On 11/01/2024 Resident 19 was placed on 15-minute safety checks around the clock, on 03/27/2025 a basket of favorite things was placed at the nurses' station for Resident 19 to rummage through, and on 04/28/2025 Resident 19 was to be in staff's direct line of sight when in the dining room for meals. Additional record review showed the facility did not re-evaluate interventions for effectiveness, modify interventions or implement new interventions to prevent recurrence of resident-to-resident altercations each time a resident-to-resident altercation occurred. Review of October 2024 through February 2025 nursing progress notes showed Resident 19 was involved in eight additional resident-to-resident altercations on the following dates 10/28/2024, 11/28/2024, 12/06/2024, 01/01/2025, 01/26/2025, 02/11/2025, 02/19/2025, and 02/25/2025 not identified on the facility accident and incident log, not reported to the State Survey Agency, or investigated, as required. The incident investigations were requested on 05/19/2025 at 5:22 AM, from Staff A, Administrator. Only one of the eight requested incident investigation was provided, 01/26/2025. Review of the October 2024 through April 2025 QAPI committee minutes showed the following: -10/29/2024 No documentation found to show allegations of abuse, investigations, and corrective action was tracked by QAPI to ensure a thorough investigation was conducted, ensure residents were protected, an analysis was conducted as to why the situation occurred, review of risk factors contributing to abuse, and if there was a need for systemic action to be taken. -01/21/2025 The facility self-reported three allegations that were unsubstantiated. -04/30/2025 No documentation found to show allegations of abuse, investigations, and corrective action was tracked by QAPI to ensure a thorough investigation was conducted, ensure residents were protected, an analysis was conducted as to why the situation occurred, review of risk factors contributing to abuse, and if there was a need for systemic action to be taken. In an interview on 05/14/2025 at 10:25 AM, the resident council stated Resident 19 wandered, was disruptive, and aggressive towards others. The council explained Resident 19 was spontaneous, unpredictable, with quickly fluctuating behaviors and could be smiling and friendly one minute then flying off the handle at residents and staff the next minute. The council voiced feeling unsafe due to Resident 19's continued behaviors. In an interview on 05/19/2025 at 8:00 AM, Staff E, Social Service Coordinator, stated resident behaviors were tracked by nursing staff via nursing progress notes, social services and the provider would be notified of odd or abnormal behaviors so additional follow up could be done. Staff E further stated allegations of potential abuse were investigated by conducting resident and staff interviews to get a broader picture of the incident. Staff E was asked if instances of resident-to-resident altercations were considered abuse. Staff E explained if there was physical contact then yes that was definitely an allegation of abuse but instances of yelling back and forth were not considered potential abuse unless the yelling involved threats. Staff E stated Resident 19's mood and behaviors could quickly randomly fluctuate and escalate to the point of being too ramped up to calm down. Staff E explained Resident 19 enjoyed to self-propel their WC up and down the hall but that could create resident-to-resident altercations because Resident 19 would get upset when peers were in the way and lashed out physically. Staff E acknowledged Resident 19's behaviors placed them and others at risk for abuse and unfortunately Resident 19 was involved in the most resident-to-resident altercations. Staff E explained Resident 19 had been involved in resident-to-resident altercations even while on 15-minute safety check monitoring because Resident 19 was mobile, and it was difficult to anticipate what would trigger them. Staff E acknowledged staff should protect residents from abuse. In an interview on 05/19/2025 at 8:55 AM, with Staff B, Director of Nursing, and Staff C, Clinical Resource Nurse. Staff B reviewed Resident 19's medical record. Staff B acknowledged Resident 19 enjoyed self-propelling their WC throughout the facility, had quickly fluctuating verbally and physically aggressive behaviors towards others that placed them at risk for abuse. Resident 19 was involved in numerous verbal and physical resident-to-resident altercations even while on 15-minute safety checks. Staff B explained if a resident exhibited physical behaviors towards others it was reported, investigated, and addressed as potential abuse but verbally aggressive behaviors were documented and monitored per the facility behavior monitoring policy as behaviors experienced. Staff B acknowledged the facility had not been addressing verbally aggressive altercations as potential verbal abuse and should have. Staff B further acknowledged the facility had not protected residents from abuse. In an interview on 05/23/2025 at 9:36 AM, Staff A, Administrator, stated they expected staff to implement the facility's abuse prevention policy and identify, monitor, investigate, report, and protect residents from abuse, as required. Reference WAC 388-97-0640 (2) Refer to F600, F725, F867, and F865 for additional information.
CONCERN (E)

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

PASARR Coordination (Tag F0644)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to coordinate with the State designated authority to ensu...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to coordinate with the State designated authority to ensure residents with a mental disorder received integrated care based on their needs for 3 of 7 sampled residents (Residents 34, 37, and 40) reviewed for Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR, a two part screening; Level I determined presence of a Severe Mental Illness, SMI, or Developmental Disability and if present required a Level II evaluation by a specialized evaluator to determine if nursing home placement was the appropriate level of care, and what behavioral health or other community services were recommended. A Level II was required to be completed prior to nursing home admission.) Specifically, the facility failed to ensure Resident 34's PASSR level II recommendations were implemented, Resident 40's Level II evaluation was completed timely, and Resident 37's Level I screening was not completed correctly prior to admission. These failures placed the residents at risk of decline in their psycho-social needs or inability to benefit from all services they were entitled to. Findings included . <Resident 34> The 04/08/2025 admission assessment documented Resident 34 had diagnoses that included anxiety, alcohol dependence, and history of other behavioral disorders. The resident was cognitively intact and made decision regarding their healthcare. A review of the record documented Resident 34 transferred to the facility from a nursing facility located in a neighboring county to be closer to family. A PASRR Level II Behavioral Health Notice of Determination completed on 02/14/2025 documented Resident 34 had a mental health diagnosis and may benefit from specialized behavioral health services. Upon further review of the record, there were no orders for a behavioral health referral and no behavioral health provider evaluations or progress notes. During an interview on 05/16/2025 at 9:09 AM, Resident 34 stated they wanted to get well and regain the ability to walk. Resident 34 stated they knew they would have to work hard because they were an alcoholic and addict and without support, it was easy for them to go back to their old ways, and Resident 34 stated they did not want to do that. <Resident 40> The 03/26/2025 quarterly assessment documented Resident 40 had diagnoses that included delusions (persistent belief in false thoughts in spite of contrary evidence) and major depression with psychotic symptoms (a disconnection from reality). Resident 40 was moderately cognitively impaired and took antipsychotic and antidepressant medications daily. A review of the record documented Resident 40 admitted to the facility 12/15 2022 from a neighboring state. The 12/16/2022 PASRR Level I screening indicated no Level II evaluation was necessary at that time. A 04/21/2024 Physician Assistant (PA) progress note documented Resident 40 was still delusional despite an increase in their antipsychotic medication. There were no recommendations for a behavioral health referral or changes to the resident plan of care. A new PASRR Level I was completed on 05/08/2024, indicated the resident had SMI, and a Level II evaluation was indicated related to behaviors of self-isolation, delusions and hallucinations. The Level I was submitted to the State evaluator agency. A review of Staff E, Social Services Coordinator progress notes documented the PASRR Level II request was resent on 05/08/2024. Resident 40 continued to have delusions, distressing hallucinations and dreams. In early December 2024, Staff E called the PASRR evaluator and was told they were back logged and concentrated on hospital patient evaluations first. There were no other progress notes that indicated the status of the Level II evaluation request was followed up on. During an interview on 05/19/2025 at 6:48 AM, Staff E stated they resubmitted a PASRR screening for Resident 40 in May of 2024. They stated if they had not heard back from the evaluators, they sent an email, and the evaluators had been good about answering. Staff E stated they had not reached out to the evaluators regarding Resident 40 since December of 2024, and acknowledged this was not timely. Staff E stated Resident 37 had Level II behavioral health recommendations but had not followed up and acknowledged Resident 37 had not been referred to any behavioral health services. <Resident 37> A record review documented Resident 37 was admitted on [DATE]. A 04/23/2025 quarterly assessment documented Resident 37 had diagnoses that included lung cancer and depression. Resident 37 was cognitively impaired, had a depression evaluation (PHQ9) score of 14 related to feeling bad about themselves, having little energy, having little pleasure or interest in doing things and feeling down. Resident 37 took an antidepressant medication daily. A Level I PASRR dated 01/14/2025 incorrectly documented Resident 37 had no SMI and a Level II evaluation was not indicated. During an interview on 05/12/2025 at 3:28 PM, Resident 37's spouse stated Resident 37 took antidepressant medicine and had been taking it for years because of depression. During an interview on 05/20/2025 at 2:07 PM, Staff E, Social Services Coordinator, stated PASRRs were reviewed by them and the admission nurse upon admission to ensure they were completed correctly. Staff E was unaware that Resident 37's PASRR Level I screening showed no SMI. Staff E stated Resident 37 began having behaviors in February 2025 so a request for a Level II evaluation was completed and submitted. Staff E agreed the Level II should have been completed prior to Resident 37's admission related to their history of depression. Reference: WAC 388-97-1915(4) Refer to F740 for additional information.
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** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure services provided consistently and routinely me...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure services provided consistently and routinely met professional standards of practice for 2 of 4 sampled residents (Resident 51 and 19), reviewed for hospitalizations. Specifically, the facility failed to repeatedly ensure resident hospital transfer documentation was completed as required to include the basis for hospital transfer, specific resident needs unable to be met by the facility, facility attempts to meet the needs, services available at the receiving facility to meet needs, and what information was conveyed to the receiving provider. This failure placed residents at risk of potential delays in emergent hospital treatment, unmet care needs, and potential complications. Findings included . Review of the facility policy titled, Documentation of Resident Health Status Needs and Services revised October 2022 showed, staff were to document in a resident's medical record as soon as the encounter concluded to ensure accurate recall of the data. The medical record must contain an accurate representation of the actual experiences of the resident and include enough information to provide a picture of the resident's progress including their response to treatments and/or services, and changes in their condition, plan of care goals, objectives and/or interventions. The policy instructed staff to record pertinent resident data that may include change of condition, infection, illness, actions taken, provider and family notifications, consultations, any unusual or abnormal outcomes, decline in activities of daily living, events and accidents and communications with others regarding the resident. The American Nurses Association (ANA) is a national professional organization that represents the interests of registered nurses in the United States and sets and promotes high standards of nursing practice to ensure quality and ethical care for patients. The ANA developed the document, Nursing: Scope and Standards of Practice, with its fourth edition released in 2021. The resource informs and guides nurses in providing safe, quality, and competent patient care. The resource outlined and described 18 standards of practice for nursing professionals to follow. Review of the Nursing: Scope and Standards of Practice resource showed the first six standards included: 1. Assessment: effectively collect data and resident information that is relative to their condition or situation. 2. Diagnosis: analyze the data gathered during the assessment phrase, to determine potential or actual diagnoses. 3. Outcomes Identification: effectively predict outcomes for the resident. 4. Planning: After identifying a diagnosis and outcomes, develop a plan or strategy to attain the best possible outcome for the resident in need. 5. Implementation: Implement the identified plan. This may be done by coordinating care for the residents, such as administering treatment, or implementing/following provider orders. 6. Evaluation: After implementation, a nurse must monitor and evaluate the patient's progress towards the expected outcome or health goals. <Resident 51> Review of a 05/04/2025 admission assessment showed Resident 51 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with medically complex conditions to include cancer, high blood pressure, and the presence of a pacemaker (a small, battery-powered device that is surgically implanted to help control the heart's rhythm). The assessment showed the resident had moderate cognitive impairment. Additional review of the record showed Resident 51 had two designated Emergency Contacts. Review of a 04/30/2025 progress note showed Resident 51 re-admitted from the hospital. The note prior to 04/30/2025 was documented on 04/24/2025 and showed no change in condition. Review of a Census List showed Resident 51 went to the hospital on [DATE]. Additional review of the record showed no information that showed how the nurses assessed Resident 51 and the result of their assessment, what care needs were identified prior to the transfer, discussed the transfer with the resident and addressed their concerns, the reason for the resident's subsequent transfer to the hospital, that the provider or emergency contacts were notified, or what information was conveyed to the receiving hospital. The above findings were shared with Staff N, Resident Care Manager (RCM), on 05/15/2025 at 8:56 AM. Staff N said they expected the nurse to document information relevant to hospital transfers on the Emergent Transfer form. The Emergent Transfer form showed documents sent to the receiving hospital at the time of transfer including an assessment of the resident in a Resident Transfer Form (Evaluation or InterAct) and who was notified of the transfer event. Staff N stated there should be a progress note that detailed the account of the circumstances that led to Resident 51's transfer to the hospital, to include how the nursing process was applied to show an assessment of the resident, looking at the information gathered during the assessment phase, determining what could be causing the change in condition, and notifying the provider based on the likely outcome of the assessment. <Resident 19> According to the 04/10/2025 quarterly assessment, Resident 19 had severe cognitive impairment with inattention and disorganized thinking. The assessment further showed Resident 19 exhibited worsening verbal and physical behaviors directed towards others that significantly interfered with Resident 19's care, participation in activities or social events, placed others at significant risk for physical injury, significantly intruded on the privacy or activity of others and significantly disrupted care or the living environment. Review of after visit hospital summaries showed Resident 19 was transferred to the hospital on [DATE], 01/13/2025, 02/26/2025, 02/28/2025, 03/03/2025, and 03/08/2025 for various reasons. Review of September 2024 through April 2025 nursing progress notes showed the following: -01/14/2025 Resident 19 was transferred to the hospital after they sustained a fall. No documentation was found to show the specific resident needs the facility was unable to meet, facility attempts to meet the needs, services available at the receiving facility to meet needs, and what information was conveyed to the receiving provider. -03/03/2025 Resident 19 was hospitalized . No documentation was found to show the specific resident needs the facility was unable to meet, facility attempts to meet the needs, services available at the receiving facility to meet needs, and what information was conveyed to the receiving provider. -04/11/2025 Resident 19 was transferred to the hospital related to combative behaviors towards staff. No documentation was found to show services available at the receiving facility to meet needs, and what information was conveyed to the receiving provider. Review of December 2024 through March 2025 provider progress notes showed Resident 19 was transferred to the hospital on [DATE] after they sustained a fall with a femur fracture, on 03/03/2025 after they sustained a fall out of their wheelchair, and on 03/25/2025 after they were involved in a resident-to-resident altercation. Additional review showed no documentation the required information was conveyed to the hospital. Review of the 04/11/2025 emergent transfer assessment showed Resident 19 was transferred to the hospital for agitation and violent behaviors, documentation showed all the required information was not conveyed to the receiving facility. In an interview on 05/22/2025 at 10:56 AM, Staff D, RCM, reviewed Resident 19's medical record. Staff D acknowledged omissions in documentation related to hospital transfers. Staff D acknowledged staff should document the reason for hospital transfer and the information conveyed to the hospital which shows the nursing process and professional standards of practice. In an interview on 05/22/2025 at 11:07 AM, Staff B, Director of Nursing, stated if a resident was transferred to the hospital, they expected staff to document information conveyed to the hospital, as required. In an interview on 05/23/2025 at 9:36 AM, Staff A, Administrator, stated they expected staff to document information conveyed to the hospital when transfers to hospital occur, as required. Reference WAC 388-97-1620(2)(b)(i)(ii),(6)(b)(i). Refer to F552 and F745 for additional information.
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** <Resident 61> Review of a 04/27/2025 admission assessment showed Resident 61 admitted to the facility on [DATE], was asses...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** <Resident 61> Review of a 04/27/2025 admission assessment showed Resident 61 admitted to the facility on [DATE], was assessed as cognitively intact, and had the diagnosis of diabetes. Review of Resident 61's April and May 2025 Medication Administration Record (MAR) showed the staff administered insulin to the resident. The MAR instructed the nurses to check the resident's blood sugar before meals and at bedtime and to notify the provider if the blood sugar was greater than 300 and follow their instruction. Review of the April 2025 MAR showed the staff obtained blood sugars above 300 on 04/21/2025 at 4:30 PM at 401, 04/21/2025 at 8:00 PM at 401, 04/28/2025 at 8:00 PM at 315, and 04/30/2025 at 4:30 PM at 322. Additionally, no blood sugar measurements were recorded as obtained on 04/25/2025 at 8:00 PM. Review of the progress notes showed no documentation why the staff did not obtain the blood sugar on 04/25/2025 or that they notified the provider as ordered to obtain further instructions for the management of the elevated blood sugars. Review of the May 2025 MAR showed the staff obtained blood sugars above 300 on 05/10/2025 at 8:00 PM at 338. Additionally, no blood sugar measurements were recorded as obtained on 05/02/2025 at 8:00 PM. Review of the progress notes showed no documentation why the staff did not obtain the blood sugar on 05/02/2025 or that they notified the provider as ordered to obtain further instructions for the management of the elevated blood sugar. The above findings were reviewed with Staff C, Clinical Resource Nurse, on 05/16/25 at 9:57 AM. Staff C acknowledged the elevated blood sugars, the missing blood sugar measurements, and confirmed there was no documentation in the medical record that showed the nurses notified the provider of the elevated blood sugars above 300 as ordered. Reference WAC 388-97-1060 (1) Refer to F760 for additional information. Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the staff notified the provider for 3 of 3 sampled residents (Resident 34, 40 and 61) reviewed for change in condition. Specifically, the staff failed to notify the provider when Resident 34 experienced extremely low blood sugars, Resident 40 experienced significantly low blood pressures (BP), and Resident 61 experienced elevated blood sugars. This failure precluded the provider's involvement in coordinating care and placed the residents at risk of further adverse or deteriorating clinical outcome. Findings included . The 11/28/2017 facility policy Resident Change of Condition documented that upon recognition of a potentially life-threatening condition or significant change in status, the nurse was to communicate with other health care providers. The physician was to be informed at the time of the event as soon as possible. Notification should occur immediately if any symptom, sign or apparent distress is sudden in onset, or a marked change in relation to usual symptoms and signs or unrelieved by measures already prescribed. In addition to others, staff were to document the resident assessment, care provided, physician response, orders, and resident status and response. <Resident 34> The 04/08/2025 admission assessment documented Resident 34 had diagnoses that included end-stage kidney disease dependent on dialysis (a mechanical way of ridding the body of toxins when the kidneys no longer functioned) and diabetes. Resident 34 was cognitively intact and received daily insulin injections. The 04/02/2025 Diabetes Care Plan instructed staff to consult with the Registered Dietician regarding dietary restrictions and compliance with nutritional regimen as indicated, administer diabetic medications as ordered and monitor for side effects. If hyperglycemic (a blood sugar level greater than 300 milligrams per deciliter, mg/dl) follow insulin medication orders or contact the provider and follow orders. If hypoglycemic (a blood sugar level less than 70mg/dl) treat according to the hypoglycemic protocol. Document the treatment, interventions, symptoms and assessment in progress notes. Resident 34 had the following provider orders: -04/02/2025 check fingerstick blood sugar levels before meals and at bedtime. If result is below 70mg/dl, initiate hypoglycemic protocol and notify the provider. If greater than 400mg/dl, notify the provider and follow directives. -04/02/2025 hypoglycemic protocol-if able to take oral, give 15mg fast-acting carbohydrate (a type of nutrition that contains sugar), recheck blood sugar in 15 minutes. If still less than 70, give another 15gm fast acting carbohydrate. Recheck in 15 minutes. If still less than 70mg/dl, notify the provider. Once above 70mg/dl, give a protein snack or assist to next meal. -04/02/2025 glucagon (a type of sugar) pen-type auto injector, inject 1mg as needed for blood sugar less than 70mg/dl and the resident is unable to swallow. Recheck in 15 minutes. If no improvement, notify the MD immediately. May repeat the process. On 05/06/2025 at 8:37 AM, Staff M, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), documented Resident 34 had a fingerstick blood sugar level of 46 and required two doses of fast-acting oral glucose gel (per the hypoglycemic protocol). At 8:49 AM, the resident moaned, groaned, was very lethargic, drifted off to sleep, then briefly woke to call out for water or help. Resident 34 stated at that time, I do not want to die. The progress note also documented Resident 34 had a low oxygen saturation level of 86% (normal level ranges from 95 to 100% on room air) while receiving supplemental oxygen at 2 liters (L). This required the supplemental oxygen to be increased to 3L. The Resident Care Manager was notified, and Staff M documented they would recheck the resident's blood sugar in 10 minutes. There was no documentation that the blood sugar level was rechecked, that the resident's oxygenation status was rechecked, or that the provider was notified of the resident's condition. The May 2025 Medication Administration record (MAR) had no documentation of the administration of the fast-acting glucose gel. Furthermore, Staff M's progress notes documented that at 11:27 AM, Resident 34 refused all oral medications. At 12:17 PM, the resident was ill with Norovirus and ate and drank poorly. At 12:36 PM, the resident's blood sugar was 118 mg/dl. The resident had large loose foul-smelling diarrhea. The resident continued to require extra supplemental oxygen for levels that hovered around 88-90%, and their oxygen levels dropped if the resident talked. The resident slept for long intervals, then moaned and groaned when awake and stated they did not want to die. The progress note did not document that the provider was notified. <Resident 40> The 03/26/2025 quarterly assessment documented Resident 40 had diagnoses that included stroke and high blood pressure. Resident 40 was moderately cognitively impaired and was dependent on staff for most of their activities of daily living. The 01/04/2023 stroke care plan instructed staff to give medications as ordered, monitor and document side effects and effectiveness, and obtain vital signs (heart rate, blood pressure, respirations or temperature, for example) per protocol, and document and advise the provider of abnormal findings. A review of the May 2025 Medication Administration Record documented Resident 40 required alert charting for gastroenteritis beginning 05/05/2025 and discontinued on 05/10/2025. Staff were to document signs and symptoms, if symptoms improved or worsened, vital signs, adverse side effects if antibiotics had been ordered every shift for monitoring. Further review of the MAR documented a blood pressure of 88/60 (extremely low) on 05/06/2025, 05/07/2025, and 05/08/2025. On 05/09/2025, blood pressures of 92/64 and 90/60 were recorded. Medication Resident 40 took for managing their high blood pressure met parameters and was held on 05/07/2025 and 05/08/2025. A 05/05/2025 at 1:05 AM nursing progress note documented the resident slept when checked, and their blood pressure was recorded as 142/64. At 2:42 PM, the resident had nausea and was given anti-nausea medication. There were no other progress notes until 05/09/2025 that documented the nausea/vomiting/diarrhea alert charting was discontinued. There were no progress notes that documented assessments of the resident when their blood pressure results were low, and no note that documented the provider was notified. During an interview on 05/22/2025 at 11:50 AM, Staff M, LPN, reviewed the blood pressures of 88/60 that Staff M had entered on the MAR. They stated they did not remember talking to any providers about the low blood pressures and stated Resident 40 did not normally run low and this would have indicated a change for the resident. Staff M stated if Resident 40 had been ill, the low blood pressures could indicate the resident was dehydrated and they would want the provider to know. Staff M stated they took care of Resident 34 on 05/06/2025. The resident was not eating, and medications were held. Staff M stated they thought they spoke to the Nurse Practitioner but was unable to see where that had been documented. Staff M stated any vital signs that were out of the normal range was to be reported to the provider and this was not done and should have been. Staff M acknowledged they also did not document the administration of the fast-acting glucose gel and should have. During an interview on 05/22/2025 at 2:24 PM, Staff O, Nurse Practitioner, stated when a resident was sick and had abnormal vital signs, it could signal that they were dehydrated or might require a visit to the emergency room and they would want to be notified of low blood sugars and low blood pressures.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0726 (Tag F0726)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement a system to evaluate staff competencies in skills and techniques related to diabetes management, medication administr...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement a system to evaluate staff competencies in skills and techniques related to diabetes management, medication administration, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Substance Use Disorders (SUD), Gradual Dose Reductions (GDR), trauma informed care, fall management, or incident root cause analysis to ensure staff provided necessary care and responded to each resident's individualized needs for 8 of 10 sampled staff (Staff P, L, AA, BB, CC, DD, EE, and FF), reviewed for nursing services. This failure placed residents at risk of receiving care from inadequately trained and/or underqualified care staff, unmet care needs, and diminished quality of life. Findings included . Review of the facility assessment reviewed May 2025 showed, the facility provided care to residents who were diabetic, received blood thinners, had histories of SUD, trauma/PTSD, anxiety, cognitive impairment, and other medical conditions related to mental health. The facility provided person-centered/directed care by building relationships, providing emotional and mental well-being support, support helpful coping mechanisms, determining resident preferences and routines and incorporating the information into the care planning process. The assessment further showed staff competencies were completed during new employee orientation for new hires. Staff received the mandatory 12 hours of required topic training and as needed training conducted when the need was identified. <Staff P> Review of Staff P's, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), personnel file showed they were hired on 04/17/2025. Review of Staff P's training records showed no training or competency documentation related to diabetes management, medication administration, PTSD (a mental health condition that could develop after witnessing or being part of an extremely stressful or terrifying event), SUD, GDR [when psychotropics (medications that affect the brain, feelings, and emotions) were slowly and carefully decreased to find the lowest effective therapeutic dose to prevent unnecessary medication use], trauma informed care, fall management, or incident root cause analysis. In an interview on 05/20/2025 at 11:37 AM, Staff P, LPN, acknowledged they did not receive adequate training and did not have their skills and/or competencies assessed. <Staff L> Review of Staff L's, Registered Nurse, personnel file showed they were hired on 03/31/2025. Review of Staff L's training records showed no training or competency documentation related to diabetes management, medication administration, PTSD, SUD, GDRs, trauma informed care, fall management, or incident root cause analysis. <Staff AA> Review of Staff AA's, LPN, personnel file showed they were hired on 11/14/2024. Review of Staff AA's training records showed no training or competency documentation related to diabetes management, medication administration, PTSD, SUD, GDRs, trauma informed care, fall management, or incident root cause analysis. <Staff BB> Review of Staff BB's, LPN, personnel file showed they were hired on 08/01/2022. Review of Staff BB's training records showed no training or competency documentation related to diabetes management, medication administration, PTSD, SUD, GDRs, trauma informed care, fall management, or incident root cause analysis. <Staff CC> Review of Staff CC's, Nursing Assistant (NA), personnel file showed they were hired on 03/12/2024. Review of Staff CC's training records showed no training or competency documentation related to PTSD, SUD, GDRs, trauma informed care or fall management. <Staff DD> Review of Staff DD's, NA, personnel file showed they were hired on 04/16/2024. Review of Staff DD's training records showed no training or competency documentation related to PTSD, SUD, GDRs, trauma informed care or fall management. <Staff EE> Review of Staff EE's, NA, personnel file showed they were hired on 03/18/2025. Review of Staff EE's training records showed no training or competency documentation related to PTSD, SUD, GDRs, trauma informed care or fall management. <Staff FF> Review of Staff FF's, NA, personnel file showed they were hired on 08/01/2022. Staff FF's training records showed no training or competency documentation related to PTSD, SUD, GDRs, trauma informed care or fall management. In an interview on 05/22/2025 at 3:01 PM, Staff D, Resident Care Manager, stated if they received any training related to PTSD, SUD, trauma informed care, or GDRs, documentation would be located in the computerized training record files. In an interview on 05/22/2025 at 3:43 PM, with Staff B, Director of Nursing, and Staff C, Clinical Resource Nurse. Staff B explained the facility reviewed staff competencies by holding a skills fair and utilized a computerized training system to complete annual trainings, as required. Staff B and C were asked if staff received training on PTSD, SUD, GDR, or trauma informed care. Staff C was unsure and would follow-up. In a follow-up interview on 05/22/2025 at 4:12 PM, Staff C, acknowledged the facility had no documentation staff received training on PTSD, SUD, GDR, or trauma informed care. In an interview on 05/23/2025 at 9:36 AM, Staff A, Administrator, stated they expected staff to receive adequate training in order to have adequate skills and competencies to meet the needs of the facility resident population. Reference WAC 388-97-1080 (1), 1090 (1) Refer to F600, F605, F684, F689, F699, F740, F760, F941, F944, and F946 for additional information.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0740 (Tag F0740)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure behavioral health services were provided for 2 ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure behavioral health services were provided for 2 of 3 sampled residents (Residents 34 and 40), reviewed for mood and behavior. This failure created risk for residents to experience a decline in their psychosocial well-being. Findings included . <Resident 34> The [DATE] admission assessment documented Resident 34 had diagnoses that included end-stage kidney disease dependent on dialysis (a mechanical way of ridding a body of toxins when the kidneys no longer function), diabetes, and alcohol dependence. Resident 34 was cognitively intact, made their own decisions regarding their care, had no behaviors and did not reject their care. A Level II Behavioral Health Preadmission Screen and Resident Review (PASRR, a screening completed prior to skilled nursing facility admissions that determined a need for behavioral health services for residents) Notice of Determination dated [DATE] documented Resident 34 had a mental health diagnosis, met requirements for nursing facility level of care, and may benefit from specialized behavioral health services. At the time of the record review on [DATE] at 12:12 PM, the Level II PASRR Psychiatric Evaluation Summary, a document that detailed a resident's specific behavioral health needs and recommendations, was not included in Resident 34's electronic medical record (EMR). The [DATE] provider History and Physical documented Resident 34 had transferred to the facility from a nursing facility in an adjacent county, had been non-compliant with their dialysis and medications and continued their non-compliance at the facility. The resident had a social history of alcohol and illicit drug use and provided vague answers when interviewed by the provider. The [DATE] care plan documented Resident 34 had a history of substance abuse. Staff were instructed to set clear expectations with the resident, discuss with the resident and their family any issues that may lead to substance abuse/misuse, and if the resident appeared intoxicated or under the influence remove them from involvement with other residents. On [DATE], the care plan was updated to include Resident 34 exhibited potential mood disturbance, anger, and irritability and verbal abuse toward staff. Staff were instructed to analyze the circumstances and triggers and what de-escalated the behavior and document, assess the resident's coping skills and support system. The care plan did not include goals and interventions developed related to Resident 34's behavioral health needs. A review of nursing progress notes from [DATE] to [DATE] documented Resident 34 became overloaded with fluid easily and was argumentative and belligerent with staff when staff did not provide the resident with extra drinks that were not part of the resident's diet and fluid care plan. Resident 34 refused to go to their scheduled dialysis sessions, refused to follow dietary restrictions, and refused medications to control their blood sugar levels and yelled and swore at staff when they attempted to encourage compliance. The progress notes did not include documentation that the resident was offered any behavioral health referrals or support related to their anger, irritability and non-compliance. Further review of progress notes documented that on [DATE], Resident 34 received a large dose of long-acting insulin (medication used to control blood sugar levels in diabetes management) that was ordered for a different resident. Between [DATE] and [DATE], Resident 34 developed symptoms of extremely low blood sugar, became pale, lethargic, sweaty, and had altered levels of consciousness. Resident 34 required emergent administrations of rescue medications five different times during that time period. On [DATE] at 8:39 AM, Resident 34 was observed lying in bed. The resident had eaten breakfast and appeared tired and pale. Resident 34 stated they did not know how low their blood sugar had become during the night but remembered they had been talking and not making sense. They stated when their blood sugar went down so low they felt like they were going to die. On [DATE] at 9:09 AM, Resident 34 was observed seated on the edge of their bed. Resident 34 stated they felt much better that morning, but had been afraid to go to sleep the night before because they thought they would not wake up if they did. The resident stated they would catch themself dozing off, then startle awake and felt like they could not breathe and became anxious. Resident 34 stated they wanted to get better, be able to walk again and get rid of using oxygen so they could get on a kidney organ donor list. Resident 34 stated they knew they would have to work hard and needed support because they were an alcoholic and addict. They stated that without support it was easy for them to go back to their old ways, and they did not want to do that. Resident 34 stated they knew a couple of missionaries in the area and was going to see if they would visit the resident. During an interview on [DATE] at 6:48 AM, Staff E, Social Services Coordinator, stated they were aware Resident 34 had a Level II PASRR determination but had not received a copy of the Psychiatric Evaluation Summary. Staff E thought the summary was needed before behavioral health services were implemented so Resident 34 had not been referred for services. Staff E stated they had not discussed alcohol dependence with Resident 34 and was not aware Resident 34 made statements regarding returning to old ways and needing support. Staff E stated the facility was in the process of changing behavioral health providers. Their current provider did not come to the building in person, only did visits remotely through an online internet forum. Staff E stated the resident's history and refusals of care and medications could have been a flag that they needed behavioral health services. On [DATE] at 12:20 PM, Resident 34 was not in their room. The resident's bed was made and two bags of personal belongings were packed and on the bed. Upon inquiry, Staff A, Administrator, stated Resident 34 had left the faciity on [DATE] at approximately 8:00 PM, had not signed out, and left with a man that staff were not familiar with in an older Suburban-type vehicle. The resident had not returned yet, and their family and the police had been notified. Staff A stated on [DATE] at 4:30 PM, Resident 34 had left with the same gentleman without signing out but had returned on their own at 11:00 PM. Staff A stated they had called the dialysis center and were notified the resident had not shown up for their dialysis session and Staff A was waiting for an update from the police. At 2:25 PM, Staff A stated the police notified the facility the resident was with a friend and knew the resident's location. A review of additional progress notes documented Resident 34 left the faciity on [DATE] at approximately 8:00 PM and had not signed out. Staff B, Director of Nursing, was notified on [DATE] at 1:00 AM that Resident 34 had not returned to the facility. A decision was made to wait until morning to see if the resident returned. It was further documented that Resident 34 returned to the facility on [DATE] at 4:45 PM and smelled of marijuana. The resident was placed on alert charting for withdrawal symptoms after a family member's statement that Resident 34 became agitated when they came down from drinking. The resident denied drinking or drug use, but agreed to a toxicology screen and blood work at dialysis and a make-up dialysis session was scheduled for [DATE]. During an interview on [DATE] at 10:51 AM with Staff A, Administrator, Staff B, Director of Nursing, Staff C, Clinical Resource Nurse, and Staff Q, Director of Clinical Services, Staff C stated the facility's behavioral health team was changing beginning [DATE] and Resident 34 was on the list to be seen by the providers. When asked, Staff B stated they had not followed up yet to see if there were any results from Resident 34's toxicology blood work. <Resident 40> Review of the record documented Resident 40 admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The [DATE] quarterly assessment documented Resident 40 had diagnoses that included stroke, major depressive disorder with psychotic (loss of contact with reality) symptoms and delusional (a false belief despite evidence to the contrary) disorder. The resident had moderate cognitive impairment, socially isolated often, felt bad about themselves, depressed and hopeless, had little energy, sleep disturbances and little interest or pleasure doing things half or most days. Resident 40 was dependent on staff for most activities of daily living and took an antipsychotic, antianxiety and antidepressant medication daily. The [DATE] care plan documented Resident 40 had potential to exhibit behaviors related to a history of stroke and delusions. Staff were instructed to assist the resident to develop more appropriate methods of coping and interacting, encourage to express feelings, explain all procedures, the resident did not like to be reminded of realty and believed they had snakes and pet dogs in their room, allow them to be happy with their hallucinations, PASRR level II request faxed to the state assessor. On [DATE], the care plan was updated to include help redirect the resident when they are having hallucinations, had seen a telehealth counselor at their previous facility. Social Services to assist the resident in communicating with a counselor. On [DATE], the care plan was updated to include monitor behavior episodes and attempt to determine the underlying cause and document the behaviors. A Level I PASRR completed on [DATE] documented a Level II psychiatric evaluation to determine behavioral health needs was indicated. There was no Level II assessment in the resident's EMR. A [DATE] Physician Assistant progress note documented Resident 40 was still delusional despite an increase in their antipsychotic medication. A repeat Level I PASRR completed on [DATE] documented Resident 40 had serious mental illness, and a Level II psychiatric evaluation was indicated. The form documented the resident self-isolated, refused care, and had hallucinations and delusions. Resident 40's care plan did not have additional goals or interventions developed related to their ongoing psych-social needs or behavioral health concerns related to ongoing distressing delusions, self-isolation and hallucinations. A review of Staff E, Social Services Coordinator, progress notes documented that in May of 2024, a request for a Level II PASRR behavioral health evaluation was resubmitted as Resident 40 continued to have delusions and distressing hallucinations and dreams. Facility provider progress notes dated [DATE] and [DATE] did not mention Resident 40's mental health needs or any changes to their behavioral health careplan. From 05/2024 to 12/2024, there were no behavioral health referrals or behavioral health provider progress notes in Resident 40's EMR. A further review of Staff E progress notes documented in early December of 2024, the State PASRR evaluator was called in follow up, and notified Staff E that the evaluators were backlogged and were concentrating on hospital residents first. On [DATE], Staff E asked Resident 40 if they wanted a session with the facility psychiatric provider via a telehealth conference and Resident 40 declined. On [DATE], Resident 40 stated they felt better, were adopting 14 children and would then have 19 children total with their famous multi-billionaire fiancé. On [DATE], Resident 40 cried uncontrollably, stated their son died in a car accident. The following day, Resident 40 stated the car accident was a dream. A [DATE] quarterly long term care (LTC) Case Management Summary documented Resident 40 took antipsychotic medications and no gradual dose reduction (GDR) was recommended so their symptoms did not worsen. The care plan was not updated to include behavioral health interventions to provide the resident relief from distressing symptoms of their delusions. On [DATE], further Staff E progress notes documented a gradual dose reduction of Resident 40's antipsychotic medications was contraindicated because of risk of worsening long-term psychiatric symptoms. A [DATE] Nurse Practitioner annual wellness progress note documented no specialist referrals were necessary or appropriate at this time. On [DATE] at 10:03 AM, Resident 40 was observed lying in their bed. The privacy curtain was pulled so that the resident was unable to be viewed from the door. There was a bar over their head to assist them to move in bed, and a wheelchair was across the room, not in use. The resident had a very flat (void of expression) affect. When asked how they were doing, Resident 40 asked How much time do you have, then declined to elaborate. They stated they did not use their wheelchair, and did not like to leave their room. The resident was observed in bed with the privacy curtain pulled on [DATE] at 9:02 AM and 4:15 PM, and [DATE] at 8:20 AM. During an interview on [DATE] at 6:48 AM, Staff E stated Resident 40 came to their facility from the neighboring state and they resubmitted Resident 40's PASRR evaluation in May of 2024. Staff E stated they were aware regulations regarding PASRR referrals had changed in 07/2024 and was told by the evaluators they did not need to resubmit new evaluation requests for all the residents. The recommendation was for resident PASRRs be reviewed when there were care conferences and resubmitted at that time if needed. Staff E stated they followed up with the evaluators regarding Resident 40 in December of 2024, but had not reached out since. Staff E stated Resident 40 had been attending teleconference behavioral health sessions at their previous facility but had not done any after their admission. Staff E stated their current provider only did teleconference sessions, which Resident 40 declined. Resident 40 did not want to leave their room and the facility had no providers that came in person to the facility so Resident 40 did not get counseling services. Staff E stated Resident 40 continued to have delusions so staff tried to re-enforce the happier ones because the resident did not like their perception of reality challenged. Staff E stated some of Resident 40's delusions were distressing to the resident and were potentially harmful psychologically. They stated they believed a counselor was the best one to help Resident 40 navigate their mental illness. During an interview on [DATE] at 03:17 PM, Staff D, Resident Care Manager, stated Resident 40 still had many active delusions but had declined teleconference sessions with the facility's current provider. Staff D confirmed the facility currently had no providers that came to the facility in person and the facility was working to obtain more behavioral health providers. Staff D stated Staff E usually developed the care plans regarding residents social-behavioral needs, but nursing was able to add to a care plan if they identified an area of concern. Staff D stated they expected to see elements of behavioral health incorporated in to Resident 37's care plan, and acknowledged they should be looking for those elements when the initial comprehensive admission assessment was completed. During a follow-up interview on [DATE] at 3:52 PM, Staff E stated care plans were to be reviewed and if interventions were not effective others should be implemented. Staff E stated when the LTC case management care conferences were held, that was a time that care plans could be updated and the updates could be completed by them or nursing. Staff E stated the facility had intended to have meetings every Tuesday to ensure care plans were reviewed timely but those had not happened. Reference: WAC 388-97-(1060)(3)(e) Also see F644 related to PASRR evaluations
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0745 (Tag F0745)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure appropriate medically related social services were provided ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure appropriate medically related social services were provided to meet residents' needs at the time of transfer to the hospital or discharge to the community. Specifically, Social Services failed to ensure the basis for discharge was supported by documentation in the medical record for 1 of 4 sample residents (Resident 4), reviewed for discharge. This failure placed the resident at risk of placement in an unsuitable environment, increased risk of harm, and psychological distress. Additionally, Social Services failed to notify the Office of the State Long-Term Care (LTC) Ombudsman (an advocate for residents of nursing homes who protect and promote the resident rights under federal and state law and regulations) of 37 transfers to the hospital for 5 of 5 months (January, February, March, April and May 2025) reviewed. Failure to notify the Ombudsman of hospital transfers, precluded the Ombudsman from effectively advocating for the residents' rights and ensuring the residents were not being unfairly or improperly discharged or transferred. Findings included . Review of the facility policy titled, Discharge Planning Process revised April 2025 showed, the interdisciplinary team (IDT), including the resident and resident advocate, identify the discharge needs of each resident to develop interventions to meet the needs the resident's discharge goals and needs to ensure a smooth and safe transition form the facility to the post-discharge setting. Discharge planning began at admission ad was based on the resident's assessment, goals for care, desire to be discharged , and the resident's capacity for discharge. Discharge planning included procedures for determining the resident was discharged to a location that safely met their needs and preferences. For residents who desired to discharge to a location that was determined to not be feasible, the medical record must contain information about who made the decision and the rationale for the decision. The policy further showed discharge planning included identifying changes in the resident's condition, which may have an impact on the discharge plan, warranting revision to interventions. The IDT was to consider caregiver's availability and the resident's or caregiver's capacity and capability to perform required care, as part of the identification of discharge needs process. The IDT was to timely document basis on the resident needs, and document in the clinical record the evaluation of the resident's discharge needs, the discharge plan, and discussions with the resident and/or the resident's advocate. BASIS FOR DISCHARGE Review of a 02/04/2025 quarterly assessment showed Resident 4 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with medically complex conditions, to include Parkinson's disease (a progressive neurological disorder) seizures (sudden brief disruptive brain activity), anxiety, depression and chronic pain. The assessment further showed Resident 4 was cognitively intact, was dependent on staff assistance for bathing, required substantial/maximal assistance for bed mobility and transfers, and set-up or clean up assistance for other Activities of Daily Living (ADLs). Resident 4 had no indicators of depression or behaviors that interfered with their care or affected the well-being of other residents and no behavior changes from the previous assessment. The assessment showed no active discharge planning was occurring for the resident to return to the community and the resident did not want to talk to someone about the possibility of leaving this facility and returning to live and receive services in the community. Review of the diagnosis list showed Resident 4 had the absence of the right leg above the knee, or amputation. Review of a 10/30/2024 care plan showed Resident 4 previously lived in an apartment locally but planned to remain in the facility until they were fitted for a prosthetic (a device designed to replace a missing part of the body), their wound healed and could get an apartment in the area with care givers. The care plan showed Resident 4 was unable to reside at home due to [their] inability to attend to [their] ADL's and [their] multiple medical conditions. The care plan also showed the facility would establish a pre-discharge plan with resident/resident advocate, evaluate progress, and revise the plan as details were determined. Review of a 12/18/2024 Social Service progress note showed, Rural resources helped Resident 4 fill out apartment applications for apartments in nearby towns and re-iterated that the resident desired to have caregivers in the community after they were fitted with a prosthesis. Review of a 02/28/2025 behavior progress note showed staff interviewed Resident 4 about the accusation they made that another facility resident (Resident 19) bruised their right forearm and adamantly insisted the bruise was not from a recent fall but from Resident 19, that they had voiced concerns about. The note documented Resident 4 was not a good historian and had fixated on this other resident 'assaulting' [them]. Resident 4 made the staff aware Resident 19 targeted them by following and chasing them. Review of Resident 19's nursing progress notes showed that on 02/19/2025 Resident 19, visibly upset, met Resident 4 in the hallway while propelling their wheelchairs near Staff E's, Social Services Coordinator, office. Resident 19 grabbed Resident 4's long sleeve shirt and did not want to let go and told Resident 4, I do not like you. Resident 4 answered, [Resident 19] always does this. Staff E then came out of [their] office and pried [Resident 19's] hands off [Resident 4's] clothing. When Staff E asked Resident 19 why they grabbed Resident 4, Resident 19 told Staff E because Resident 4, is alive. The progress note showed, No staff saw who started the res-to-res [resident to resident] altercation but that Resident 4 was known to dislike and confront dementia residents. Further review of Resident 4's progress notes showed on 04/09/2025 a care conference was held; the facility issued a 30-day notice to Resident 4 as they were independent in their ADLs and the last day at the facility would be 05/08/2025. The note further showed Resident 4, has been struggling to live peacefully with residents that have dementia. Other residents' behaviors caused Resident 4 to have verbal and physical outbursts towards them. Resident 4 was educated on ignoring the dementia residents as they pass by, but Resident 4 challenged them directly. Resident 4 struggled with anger issues and Resident 4's representative would find the resident housing in a month or Resident 4 would move in with the representative locally. Additional record review showed no documentation Resident 4 was involved in any resident-to-resident altercations or displayed behavior that endangered their safety or of other individuals in the facility. Review of the 04/09/2025 Nursing Home Transfer or Discharge Notice showed the reason for Resident 4's discharge was because, the safety of other individuals in this facility is endangered due to the status of the resident. The form showed Resident 4 and a former Administrator of the facility signed the notice. Review of the September 2024 through May 2025 facility incident reporting log showed no entries Resident 4 was involved in any resident-to-resident altercations or displayed behavior that endangered their safety or the safety of other individuals in the facility, contrary to the basis for discharge in the 04/09/2025 Nursing Home Transfer or Discharge Notice given to the resident. Review of the March 2025 through May 2025 Treatment Administration Record (TAR) showed an order that instructed the staff to, Monitor and document all behaviors! such as accusations, anxiety, verbal behaviors and physical behaviors towards staff or other residents. The TAR showed the nurses documented their initials and either a + or a - symbol. In an interview on 05/23/2025 at 8:41 AM, Staff LL, LPN, stated the - symbol in the TAR meant no behavior was identified and the + meant a behavior occurred. Additionally, Staff LL stated when the nurse chose the + symbol, it prompted a narrative box wherein an explanation of the behavior observed was to be documented. Additional review of the TAR showed Resident 4 did not exhibit behaviors from 03/09/2025 through 05/07/2025. Review of a 04/17/2025 Mental Health Provider progress note showed Resident 4, discussed interpersonal challenges [they] experienced with other residents at the facility, particularly [Resident 19]. The note showed Resident 4 told the provider they were asked to leave the facility due to [their] behavior and use of language towards other residents. The client described [their] emotional reactions to the behaviors of other resident [and] expressed feelings of frustration, anger, and helplessness. The client also shared feelings of regret and remorse for [their] own actions that resulted in [the] discharge from the facility. Review of a 05/07/2025 Discharge Note showed the facility discharged Resident 4 to live in a tiny home outside of [the representative's] house. Resident 4 discharged at wheelchair level due to their leg amputation and with no mention or status of obtaining the prosthetic. Review of an associated 05/07/2025 Planned Discharge Summary showed the Reason(s) for Discharge was Condition Improved, contrary to the basis for discharge in the 04/09/2025 Nursing Home Transfer or Discharge Notice given to the resident. In an interview on 05/15/2025 at 2:15 PM with Resident 4's former roommate, Resident 36 stated they lived with Resident 4 for a Couple of months. Resident 36 stated they never felt afraid of Resident 4. Resident 36 said Resident 4 tried to stay away from Resident 19 and did not witness Resident 4 exhibit verbal or physical aggression towards Resident 19. In an interview on 05/16/2025 at 11:18 AM, Resident 4's representative stated Resident 4 was discharged from the facility, because they don't want [the resident] there. The Resident Representative (RR) further stated they were told by Staff E that Resident 4, was cussing out everybody and was pretty much independent and they're gonna' release [the resident]. It was a total surprise [Resident 4] was being released, came out of left field there. The RR stated Resident 4 informed them Resident 19, was coming after [Resident 4] and there were other issues too [of] other clients going through [their] room and taking stuff. The RR further added Resident 4 also informed them Resident 19 made threats to Resident 4 and they were not used to dealing with that type of confrontation from another resident. The RR said, It all came to a head in the discharge notice. They never shared this stuff with us. We were very disappointed. [The facility] didn't keep us in the loop. Then we get a special meeting that they are discharging [Resident 4] so now we are building a tiny house in our backyard. We had 30 days to build this. The RR said Resident 4 was not independent and required a caregiver. In an interview on 05/19/2025 at 4:24 AM, Staff OO, Agency NA, said they were familiar with Resident 4. Staff OO explained if a resident showed concerning behaviors, they would document the behavior in the electronic medical record and, we also write a witness statement and give it to the nurse. Staff OO described Resident 4's behaviors as, making allegations of abuse towards staff and asking for requests repeatedly. Staff OO stated Resident 4 displayed no mood outbursts, did not know of any behaviors that placed the resident or other residents at risk for harm or endangerment, resident-to-resident altercations, or of other resident concerns against Resident 4. In an interview on 05/21/2025 at 9:15 AM, Staff K, Nursing Assistant (NA), stated Resident 4's behaviors consisted of, snooty or rude remarks, and did not yell at or was physically aggressive towards other residents nor did their mood deteriorate or escalate throughout their stay at the facility. Staff K said Resident 4's mood or behaviors did not place themselves or other residents at risk of verbal or physical abuse and was unaware if other residents voiced concerns about Resident 4's mood or behavior or incidents of resident-to-resident altercations. In an interview on 05/21/2025 at 9:38 AM, Staff M, Licensed Practical Nurse, stated Resident 4 was wheelchair bound, had an amputated leg, and did not place others at risk for harm. Staff M stated Resident 4 became irritated when they had to maneuver their wheelchair through the room to get to their bed by the window. Staff M did not recall Resident 4 was involved in any verbal or physical resident-to-resident altercations. The above findings were shared with Staff E on 05/23/2025 at 8:29 AM. Staff E stated Resident 4 was discharged from the facility as, It was a combination of effects. We gave [Resident 4] a 30-day notice because of [their] behaviors. Staff E said Resident 4 was, egging them [other residents] on. When asked to reconcile the medical record with the reason for discharge in the 04/09/2025 Transfer or Discharge Notice given to Resident 4, Staff E stated, Nursing and CNAs [Nursing Assistants] potentially didn't document [Resident 4's] behaviors very well. Staff E acknowledged the medical record did not show how Resident 4's presence in the facility endangered the safety or health of others, nor support a discharge from the facility. OMBUDSMAN NOTIFICATION On 05/15/2025 at 3:28 PM, the Survey team requested documentation that showed residents who experienced a transfer to the hospital between January 2025 through May 2025. Review of the discharge report provided by the facility showed a total of 37 transfers to the hospital occurred between 01/01/2025 and 05/16/2025. Review of a facility Ombudsman Notification History Report from 11/20/2024 through 04/30/2025 showed no inclusion of the 37 transfers to the hospital. The facility only notified the Ombudsman of planned discharges to the community or another level of care. The above findings were shared with Staff E on 05/16/2025 at 1:21 PM. Staff E stated they were responsible for notifying the Ombudsman monthly of normal discharge from the facility and for 30 day notices we fax it right away on that date. Staff E stated, As far as I know we don't need to notify the Ombudsman [for hospital transfers]. We haven't been trained on that. I did not know that. Staff E acknowledged they did not notify the Ombudsman of hospital transfers as, It was not the practice. In an interview on 05/23/2025 at 9:36 AM, Staff A, Administrator, stated they expected the Ombudsman to be notified of hospital transfers. Reference WAC 388-97-0960 (1). Refer to F600, and F699 for additional information.
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, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure staff performed the required hand hygiene (HH) during meal service for 1 of 2 dining rooms (DR) observed. This failure ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure staff performed the required hand hygiene (HH) during meal service for 1 of 2 dining rooms (DR) observed. This failure placed the residents at risk for foodborne illnesses. Findings included . An observation on 05/12/2025 at 12:23 PM showed Staff KK, Agency Nursing Assistant (NA), placed clothing protectors on nine residents. During the application of the clothing protectors, Staff KK touched the residents' hair, neck, or clothing. No HH was observed between residents. Staff KK proceeded to the take a bag of clothing protectors and placed it on a counter behind the DR's entry door closest to the kitchen. Staff KK then walked out then right back in from the other entry door (farthest from the kitchen), touched a male resident in a wheelchair (wc) and walked out of the DR without completing HH. Staff KK then returned to the DR, went over to a female resident, touched their wc and left arm, went over to attend to another resident's request for Kleenex, went to get the Kleenex on the counter and did not complete HH. Staff KK left the DR, then returned with a male resident at 12:29 PM and situated the resident at a DR table and did not complete HH. Staff KK then moved the male resident to another table, locked their wc brakes, completed no HH, went to a female resident at another table, applied the clothing protector around their neck, touched their wc, completed HH then stepped out of the DR. On 05/12/2025 at 12:33 PM, Staff E, Social Services Director, brought in a female resident in their wc to the DR. Staff E then went to another table where another female resident was seated, and with no HH completed in between touching a wc and a resident, touched the other female resident's wc. Staff E then completed HH. On 05/12/2025 at 12:45 PM, Staff Y, Nursing Assistant, walked inside the DR, got a meal tray from the tray cart, took the tray to a male resident, then pushed upwards their beanie-like hat, took a glass of milk off the tray and poured it into an adaptive cup, screwed the cup's lid on tightly, then removed the lunch plate and placed it on the table. Staff Y then touched their hat again, then their chin, and then completed HH. On 05/12/2025 at 12:48 PM, Staff KK returned to the dining room with a surgical mask below their nose. Staff KK went to get a clothing protector and placed it around a female resident, served them milk, locked their wc brakes, and poured water in an adaptive cup. While attempting to encourage the female resident to eat their lunch, Staff KK picked up a spoon, then touched the resident's right shoulder, then stepped away, and exited the DR. Staff KK returned to the DR and assisted with a fluid spill at a table nearby, wiped down the table, then went to another table. Staff KK did not complete HH and picked up a cup of milk and gave it to the female resident they were encouraging to eat prior to leaving the DR. Staff KK picked up a spoon and fed the female resident, put their hands in their pockets and walked to another table, then back to the female resident's table, and continued to feed them. Staff KK touched their thighs and kept offering food and fluids to the female resident with no HH completed. In an interview on 05/15/2025 at 9:42 AM, Staff R, NAR - Registered, stated HH was completed, before and after and if we make contact with anything. Staff R acknowledged that placing clothing protectors placed staff at risk of touching the resident's hair, neck, or clothing and required HH between residents. Staff R stated HH was required after touching a resident, wc, or staff/resident clothing. In an interview on 05/15/2025 at 9:45 AM, Staff K, NA, stated HH was required after touching a resident, wc, or staff/resident clothing. In an interview on 05/15/2025 at 10:00 AM, Staff Y stated, We all have to wash hands and sanitize hands before touching food. We make sure we don't touch the food or plates. Staff Y stated they completed HH, Before and after feeding the resident, acknowledged that placing a clothing protector on a resident put them at risk for touching the resident's hair, neck, or clothing and required HH. Staff Y stated HH was required after touching a resident, wc, or staff/resident clothing. Reference WAC 388-97-1100 (3), -2980. .
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0837 (Tag F0837)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on interview and record review, the governing body acted with disregard to the well-being of the residents of the facility; by not providing adequate oversight and monitoring of the appointed Co...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the governing body acted with disregard to the well-being of the residents of the facility; by not providing adequate oversight and monitoring of the appointed Corporate Officers/Administrator and/or the Director of Nursing. Failure to identify potential incidents of abuse, provide adequate nursing staff to supervise residents and complete care timely, provide mental health services, administer medications as prescribed, address and follow up timely on identified concerns, and implement appropriate infection control measures created multiple situations that caused harm to residents, and two separate situations of an immediate jeopardy (IJ: a situation that had occurred that could result in harm, serious injury and/or death). related to abuse and accident hazards. Findings included . Refer to F600 CFR 483.12, Freedom from Abuse and Neglect The governing body failed to identify, report and assess a pattern of abuse related to resident-to-resident altercations by Resident 19. In addition, the governing body failed to identify, assess or implement interventions for potential incidents of abuse for Residents 31, 49, 21, 43, 27, 37, 33, 45, 3, and 41. These failures created an IJ situation. Refer to F689 CFR 483.25, Accident Hazards and Supervision/Devices The governing body failed to ensure there was adequate supervision to prevent accidents related to falls, which led to substantial injuries to Residents 19, 50, and 60. These failures resulted in harm to the residents and created an IJ situation. Refer to F 725, CFR 483.35, (a) Sufficient Nursing Staff The governing body failed to ensure the Administrator effectively and efficiently provided adequate nursing staff to ensure care and services were provided to residents timely and to keep residents free from falls and injuries. This failure caused harm to Residents 19, 50, and 60. Refer to F760, CFR 483.45, Residents are free of any significant medication errors The governing body failed to ensure medications were administered as prescribed to avoid significant medication errors for Residents 34 and 61. This failure resulted in harm to Resident 34. Refer to F880, 483.80, Infection Control The governing body failed to ensure the facility's infection control program was implemented appropriately and the proper measures were taken to prevent the spread of a contagious disease which caused illness to 27 of 61 residents and 33 staff members. REPEAT CITATIONS: In addition, Administration failed to ensure that previous citation's corrective measures were maintained and sustainable as evidenced by the following citations being repeated: - Refer to F689 CFR 483.25, Accident Hazards and Supervision/Devices, cited on 05/16/2024 and 05/25/2024. - Refer to F880, 483.80, Infection Control, cited on 05/16/2024 In an interview on 05/22/2025 from 10:53 AM to 11:17 AM, the following above concerns were discussed with Staff Q, Director of Clinical Services and Staff PP, Regional Director. During the interview, both Staff Q and Staff PP stated they were aware of issues concerning Resident 19 with regards to resident-to-resident altercations, but were not aware of the other concerns that the survey team had identified. Staff PP stated they had been aware of communication issues prior to the survey teams arrival at the facility and recent changes to the Administration and Clinical Resource Nurse positions had been made. Staff Q stated they were not aware of the depth of the identified issues until being informed by the survey team. Reference: WAC 388-97-1620 (2)(c)
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0887 (Tag F0887)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain minimum documentation that staff were educated regarding risks and benefits of the COVID-19 (a viral illness that caused fever, di...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain minimum documentation that staff were educated regarding risks and benefits of the COVID-19 (a viral illness that caused fever, difficulty breathing or possibly death) vaccine, were offered the vaccine, and the COVID-19 vaccine status of the staff as required for 1 of 1 staff reviewed. This failure placed staff and residents at risk of and exposure to illness from COVID-19. Findings included . The revised 08/01/2023 facility policy COVID-19 Vaccination for Residents and Staff documented staff were educated of the risks and benefits associated with the COVID-19 vaccine so they could make an informed decision regarding immunization. Education and re-education was documented in the employee file. Staff have the opportunity to accept or refuse a vaccine or booster and may change their decision at any time. During an interview on 05/22/25 at 4:09 PM, Staff F, Infection Preventionist, Licensed Practical Nurse, was asked if they were the one that kept track of staff COVID vaccinations. Staff F stated the facility did offer the COVID vaccines the year prior but referred the surveyor to Staff QQ, Human Resources, and thought Staff QQ kept track of staff vaccines. During an interview on 05/23/2025 at 09:48 AM, with Staff QQ and Staff RR, Business Office Manager, Staff QQ stated they offered a COVID-19 to new employees only and was unsure who offered the staff vaccines when boosters came out or yearly. They would only have a form in a new employee's file and was unsure if nursing had records of all employees COVID vaccination statuses. A request was made to observe Staff RR's employee file. Staff RR stated when the COVID vaccines first came out they were offered the vaccine but had not been offered one in several years. A review of the employee file had forms dated from the year 2020 that documented Staff RR had declined the COVID vaccine. Staff RR stated they did not get vaccines and did not sign a declination each year that documented they had been educated regarding the risks/benefits of COVID vaccines. During a follow-up interview on 05/23/2025 at 10:10 AM, Staff F stated they began working in Infection Prevention for the facility in February of 2025 and the position had been vacant prior to that but was unsure for how long. Staff F was able to locate on the facility computer an Excel spreadsheet that documented staff COVID vaccinations, but the documentation had not been updated since 2023. Reference: WAC 388-97-1320(1)
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0944 (Tag F0944)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the mandatory Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) training was provided as required for 10 of 10 sampled staff (Sta...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the mandatory Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) training was provided as required for 10 of 10 sampled staff (Staff P, L, AA, R, BB, K, CC, DD, EE, and FF) reviewed for training requirements. This failure placed all residents at risk for unmet care needs and a diminished quality of life. Findings included . Review of the facility's 05/08/2025 QAPI plan showed the facility had a process in place to recognize, assess, and implement steps to improve the quality of life, care and services at the facility, however, the plan did not specify or include the type of training the staff would receive or how often training would occur. Review of the following employee files found no documentation that showed the facility provided the mandatory QAPI training: - Staff P, Licensed Practical Nurse - Staff L, Registered Nurse - Staff AA, Licensed Practical Nurse - Staff R, Nursing Assistant, Registered - Staff BB, Licensed Practical Nurse - Staff K, Nursing Assistant - Staff CC, Nursing Assistant - Staff DD, Nursing Assistant - Staff EE, Nursing Assistant - Staff FF, Nursing Assistant In an interview on 05/21/2025 at 1:49 PM, documentation was requested from Staff A, Administrator, that showed the facility provided the mandatory QAPI training. In an interview on 05/23/2025 at 9:36 AM, Staff A stated they expected staff to receive adequate training in order to have adequate skills and competencies to meet the needs of the facility resident population. On 05/23/2025 at 10:39 AM, Staff A was again asked for the mandatory QAPI training, and by the conclusion of the survey at 1:15 PM, no documentation had been received. No Associated WAC. .
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0946 (Tag F0946)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the mandatory Compliance and Ethics training was provided as required for 9 of 10 sampled staff (Staff P, L, AA, R, BB, K, CC, DD, E...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the mandatory Compliance and Ethics training was provided as required for 9 of 10 sampled staff (Staff P, L, AA, R, BB, K, CC, DD, EE, and FF) reviewed for training requirements. This failure placed all residents at risk for unmet care needs and a diminished quality of life. Review of the following employee files found no documentation that showed the mandatory Compliance and Ethics training had been provided: - Staff P, Licensed Practical Nurse - Staff L, Registered Nurse - Staff AA, Licensed Practical Nurse - Staff R, Nursing Assistant, registered - Staff K, Nursing Assistant - Staff CC, Nursing Assistant - Staff DD, Nursing Assistant - Staff EE, Nursing Assistant - Staff FF, Nursing Assistant In an interview on 05/21/2025 at 1:49 PM, documentation was requested from Staff A, Administrator, that showed the facility had provided the mandatory Compliance and Ethics training. In an interview on 05/23/2025 at 9:36 AM, Staff A, stated they expected staff to receive adequate training in order to have adequate skills and competencies to meet the needs of the facility resident population On 05/23/2025 at 10:39 AM, Staff A was again asked for the trainings, and by the conclusion of the survey at 1:15 PM, no documentation had been received. Reference WAC: 388-97-1680(2)(c)
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0727 (Tag F0727)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure a Registered Nurse (RN) was on duty a minimum of eight consecutive hours a day, seven days a week, as required. This failure placed a...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure a Registered Nurse (RN) was on duty a minimum of eight consecutive hours a day, seven days a week, as required. This failure placed all residents at risk of lack of RN oversight for care provided, unmet care needs, and a diminished quality of life. Findings included . A review of the 30-day Staffing Pattern from 04/12/2025 through 05/12/2025 showed there was no RN on duty a minimum of eight hours a day, as required, for the following dates: 04/12/2025, 04/19/2025, 04/26/2025, 05/08/2025, and 05/10/2025. In an interview on 05/22/2025 at 11:35 AM, Staff M, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), acknowledged they had worked without an RN on duty. Staff M explained most LPNs can handle most of the same things as an RN but the facility contacted the Director of Nursing as needed, when there was no RN on duty. In an interview on 05/22/2025 at 3:00 PM, Staff D, Resident Care Manager, acknowledged there had been days without an RN on duty but they were on-call in case of emergencies. In an interview on 05/22/2025 at 3:12 PM, Staff X, Staffing Coordinator, reviewed the 30-Day staffing pattern. Staff X acknowledged some days had no RN on duty. Staff X stated, getting RN coverage is hard. Staff X explained they notified the Staff B, Director of Nursing, when unable to staff RN coverage, as required. In an interview on 05/22/2025 at 3:43 PM, Staff B reviewed the 30-Day staffing pattern. Staff B acknowledged some days did not have RN coverage, as required. Staff B further stated they expected staff to schedule an RN on duty, as required. In an interview on 05/23/2025 at 9:36 AM, Staff A, Administrator, stated they expected staff to schedule an RN on duty, as required. Reference WAC 388-97-1080 (3)(a) Refer to F725, F600, F689, F867 for additional information.
CONCERN (F)

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

Administration (Tag F0835)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility administration failed to effectively use its resources to maintain facility compliance with Federal regulatory requirements to ensure p...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility administration failed to effectively use its resources to maintain facility compliance with Federal regulatory requirements to ensure potential situations of abuse were identified and proper measures were taken for 11 of 12 sampled residents (Residents 19, 31, 49, 21, 43, 27 37, 33, 45, and 3) reviewed for abuse, provide adequate nursing staff to supervise residents and complete care timely for 3 of 7 sampled residents (Residents 19, 50, and 60) reviewed for falls, provide behavioral and/or mental health services for 2 of 8 sampled residents (Resident 34 and 40) reviewed for mood and behavior, administer medications as prescribed for 2 of 6 sampled residents (Residents 34 and 61) reviewed for medication administration, and implement appropriate infection control measures for 3 of 3 nursing units reviewed for infection control. In addition, the Administration failed to effectively utilize their Quality Assurance and Improvement Program (QAPI) to address and follow up timely on identified concerns. These failures created multiple situations that caused harm to residents, and two separate situations of an immediate jeopardy (IJ: a situation that had occurred that could result in harm, serious injury and/or death). related to abuse and accident hazards. Findings included . Refer to F600 CFR 483.12, Freedom from Abuse and Neglect Administration failed to identify, report and assess a pattern of abuse related to resident-to-resident altercations by Resident 19. In addition, Administration failed to identify, assess or implement interventions for potential incidents of abuse for Residents 31, 49, 21, 43, 27, 37, 33, 45, 3, and 41. These failures created an IJ situation. Refer to F689 CFR 483.25, Accident Hazards and Supervision/Devices Administration failed to ensure there was adequate supervision to prevent accidents related to falls, which led to substantial injuries to Residents 19, 50, and 60. These failures resulted in harm to the residents and created an IJ situation. Refer to F 725, CFR 483.35, Sufficient Nursing Staff Administration failed to provide adequate nursing staff to ensure care and services were provided to residents timely and to keep residents free from falls and injuries. This failure caused harm to Residents 19, 50, and 60. Refer to F760, CFR 483.45, Residents are free of any significant medication errors Administration failed to ensure medications were administered as prescribed to avoid significant medication errors for Residents 34 and 61. This failure resulted in harm to Resident 34. Refer to F880, 483.80, Infection Control Administration failed to ensure the facility's infection control program was implemented according to acceptable standards of infection control practices to prevent and stop the spread of a contagious disease which caused illness to 27 of 61 residents and 33 staff members. REPEAT CITATIONS: Administration failed to ensure that previous citation's corrective measures were maintained and sustainable as evidenced by the following citations being repeated: - Refer to F689 CFR 483.25, Accident Hazards and Supervision/Devices, cited on 05/16/2024 and 05/25/2024. - Refer to F880, 483.80, Infection Control, cited on 05/16/2024 In an interview on 05/22/2025 from 10:53 AM to 11:17 AM, the following above concerns were discussed with Staff Q, Director of Clinical Services and Staff PP, Regional Director. During the interview, Staff PP stated they were aware of communication issues prior to the survey team's arrival at the facility and stated that the previous Administrator had not addressed some concerns, as a result, a new Administrator was hired around the beginning of this month (May 2025). Both Staff Q and Staff PP stated they were aware of issues concerning Resident 19 with regards to resident-to-resident altercations, but were not aware of the other concerns that the survey team had identified. Staff Q stated they were not aware of the depth of the identified issues until being informed by the survey team. Reference WAC: 388-97-1620(1)
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0865 (Tag F0865)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to develop, implement and maintain an effective, comprehensive, data-driven Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) program that ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to develop, implement and maintain an effective, comprehensive, data-driven Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) program that identified deficiencies, implemented good faith efforts for corrective actions, and evaluated implemented corrective actions or performance improvement activities for effectiveness. The facility's QAPI program failed to timely recognize already compromised care and services that resulted in a potential for a pattern of resident harm. Findings included . Review of the facility policy titled, Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) revised April 2024 showed, the facility monitored quality deficiencies related to facility operations and practices causing negative outcomes through the QAPI process. The QAPI committee served as a preventative function by reviewing and improving facility systems and took actions toward enhancing quality of care and quality of life for facility residents. The QAPI framework was established through five elements: 1) design and scope, 2) governance and leadership, 3) feedback, data systems and monitoring, 4) Performance Improvement Projects (PIPs), and 5) systematic analysis and systemic action. The committee was to meet monthly to identify performance improvement opportunities through tracking and trending of data that necessitated quality assessment and assurance activities against state and national benchmarks. The QAPI committee was to prioritize action plans and evaluate effectiveness of the process improvement activities. The policy included a list of potentially preventable events the facility may monitor including various high-risk medication use to include blood thinners and diabetes medications, care events such as falls, elopements, instances of abuse, neglect or misappropriation and infection such as respiratory infections and infectious diarrhea. The facility QAPI committee reported routinely to the governing body. Review of the facility QAPI Plan dated May 2025 showed the governing body appointed the facility executive director/administrator responsible for management of the facility and reported to and was accountable to the governing body. The governing body was responsible for the development and implementation of the QAPI program by identifying and prioritizing problems based on performance indicator data, ensure corrective actions address gaps in systems, evaluate effectiveness of corrective actions, and set clear expectations for safety, quality, rights, choices, and respect. The facility utilized a web-based application that allowed the governing body and Quality Assessment and Assurance (QAA) committee to access and view virtually all of an organization's QAPI activity including quality assessments, facility QAPI self-assessment, care area investigations, PIPs, and detailed reporting. Review of the July 2024 through April 2025 QAPI Committee minutes showed the following: - 07/21/2024 the facility experienced 25 falls, six falls were repeat falls, no falls with major injury identified. The facility identified one medication error. Staffing challenges with the need for more nursing staff. No PIPS in place. - 10/29/2024 the facility again experienced 25 falls, six falls were repeat falls, no falls with major injury identified. The facility identified one medication error. Staffing challenges with the need for more nursing staff. No PIPS in place. - 01/21/2025 the facility experienced 39 falls, 18 were repeat falls, no falls with major injury identified. Summary of fall trends showed frequent fallers were identified and corrective action was documented as implement fall meetings. The facility identified six medication errors, no trend or corrective action documented. Staffing challenges with the need for more therapy staff to perform timely evaluations. No PIPS in place. - 04/30/2025 the facility experienced 24 falls in April, with two residents sustaining repeat falls, and 1 fall with fracture. Summary of fall trends showed no tracking or trending. No documentation of tracking or trending for medication errors or staffing was found. No PIPs in place. Review of the September 2025 through May 2025 facility accident and incident tracking log showed the documentation did not meet the minimum required information to include date and time of the incident, nature of occurrence, incident location, incident findings, actions taken, if the State abuse reporting hotline was notified of the incident and by whom to easily track and trend facility incidents. Additional review showed some residents were involved in recurrent verbal and physical resident-to-resident altercations and sustained repeat falls that resulted in hospitalization and numerous fractures. In an interview on 05/23/2025 at 11:34 AM, with Staff A, Administrator, Staff B, Director of Nursing, and Staff C, Clinical Resource Nurse. Staff C stated QAPI collected data through the facility clinical stand-up meeting where falls, infections, and grievances were reviewed. Staff A explained QAPI prioritized identified concerns based on trends and negative trends, implementing PIPs when needed. Staff B stated the facility had two current PIPs in place, one for care planning and the second related to falls which was implemented approximately November 2024 and consisted of implementation of a fall meeting. When Staff B was asked about the effectiveness of the falls PIP, Staff B replied, the PIP is going to be drastically revised. Reference WAC 388-97-1760 (1)(2) Refer to F600, F689, F725, F760, F867, F868, F835, and F837 for additional information.
CONCERN (F)

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

QAPI Program (Tag F0867)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain a Quality Assessment and Assurance Program (QAA) that identified deficiencies and implemented appropriate preventative or correcti...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain a Quality Assessment and Assurance Program (QAA) that identified deficiencies and implemented appropriate preventative or corrective actions. The facility's QAA program failed to timely recognize already compromised care and services that resulted in a potential for a pattern of resident harm. Findings included . Review of the facility policy titled, Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) revised April 2024 showed, the facility monitored quality deficiencies related to facility operations and practices causing negative outcomes through the QAPI process. The QAPI committee served as a preventative function by reviewing and improving facility systems and took actions toward enhancing quality of care and quality of life for facility residents. The QAPI framework was established through five elements: 1) design and scope, 2) governance and leadership, 3) feedback, data systems and monitoring, 4) Performance Improvement Projects (PIPs), and 5) systematic analysis and systemic action. The committee was to meet monthly to identify performance improvement opportunities through tracking and trending of data that necessitated quality assessment and assurance activities against state and national benchmarks. The QAPI committee was to prioritize action plans and evaluate effectiveness of the process improvement activities. The policy included a list of potentially preventable events the facility may monitor including various high-risk medication use to include blood thinners and diabetes medications, care events such as falls, elopements, instances of abuse, neglect or misappropriation and infection such as respiratory infections and infectious diarrhea. The facility QAPI committee reported routinely to the governing body. During the unannounced Recertification Survey conducted from 05/12/2025 to 05/23/2025, the following areas of deficiency were identified by the survey team: Free from Abuse and Neglect (Please refer to F600 for additional information): The facility failed to identify, report, protect, assess and prevent a pattern of resident-to-resident verbal and physical abuse. This included identifying a known pattern of aggressive behaviors by Residents 19. Abusive behaviors identified by staff included hitting, punching, kicking, ramming into other residents with a wheelchair (w/c), verbal abuse, threats and intimidation of other residents. The facility failed to recognize these instances as abuse, analyze the circumstances of these abusive behaviors, or implement plans for prevention or recurrence of abuse. Failure to recognize, analyze, and act upon multiple incidents of resident-to-resident altercations as abuse and provide adequate supervision and care planning with effective interventions placed all residents at risk of serious injury or harm and represented an immediate jeopardy (IJ) that was called on 05/20/2025. Specifically, residents expressed fear when they were subjected to repeat unpredictable outbursts of verbal abuse and actual physical injuries such as coffee thrown on them, grabbing, scratching, slapping, punching, kicking, and skin tears. Quality of Care (Please refer to F684 for additional information): The facility failed to ensure the staff notified the provider for 3 of 3 sampled residents (Resident 34, 40 and 61) reviewed for change in condition. Specifically, the staff failed to notify the provider when Resident 34 experienced extremely low blood sugars, Resident 40 experienced significantly low blood pressures (BP), and Resident 61 experienced elevated blood sugars. This failure precluded the provider's involvement in coordinating care and placed the residents at risk of further adverse or deteriorating clinical outcome. Free Of Accident Hazards/Supervision/Devices (Please refer to F689 for additional information): The facility failed to provide effective monitoring and supervision and implement adequate interventions to prevent Resident 19, Resident 50, and Resident 60 from falling and experiencing adverse and injurious sequalae related to falls, to include transfers to the hospital. Specifically, Resident 19 sustained repeated harm because of falls as evidenced by a dislocated hip on 09/12/2024, a right femur (leg bone) fracture on 01/14/2025, and a back fracture on 03/03/2025. Resident 50 fell a total of 36 times from 04/04/2024 to 05/17/2025 and experienced a range of injuries, to include hospital transfers for their treatment. Additionally, Resident 60 fell three times and experienced a fracture to their eye socket and left lower leg. These failures placed the residents at risk for further repeat serious injuries such as fractures, disability, or death and represented an immediate jeopardy (IJ) that was called on 05/20/2025. In addition, the facility failed to assess, evaluate, and implement interventions for potential risks associated with substance use disorders (SUD) for 1 of 3 sampled residents (Resident 49), reviewed for SUD. Behavioral Health Services (Please refer to F740 for additional information): The facility failed to ensure behavioral health services were provided for 2 of 8 sampled residents (Residents 34 and 40), reviewed for mood and behavior. This failure created risk for residents to experience a decline in their psychosocial well-being. Residents are Free of Significant Medication Errors (Please refer to F760 for additional information): The facility failed to ensure medications were administered as prescribed for 2 of 6 sampled residents (Residents 34 and 61), reviewed for medication administration. Resident 34 received an injection of Lantus insulin (a type of insulin used to treat high blood sugar that provided a consistent level of insulin over a 24-hour period and mimicked the body's natural insulin production) ordered for a different resident. Additionally, Resident 34 received the wrong dose of medication used to decrease diarrhea, and Resident 61 did not receive doses of a blood thinner and an injectable medication that managed weight and blood sugar. This failure caused harm to Resident 34 when they experienced an extended period of symptomatic hypoglycemia (extremely low blood sugar) and required administration of rescue medications on five different occasions and created the potential for unintended health consequences for the residents. Infection Prevention and Control (Please Refer to F880 for additional information): The facility failed to maintain an effective infection control program that identified, reported, and controlled the spread of communicable diseases for residents and staff during a Norovirus [a highly contagious gastro-intestinal (GI, affected the stomach and intestines) virus that caused nausea, vomiting and diarrhea] outbreak and to implement . Basic infection prevention interventions that included enhanced barrier precautions, transmission-based precautions, prompt reporting of a laboratory confirmed Norovirus outbreak to the State Survey Agency and local health departments, and exclusion of staff members from work according to the recommended standards. These failures facilitated a Norovirus the outbreak which spread to all 3 of 3 nursing units and 27 of 61 residents and 33 staff members and placed residents at risk for potential unintended health consequences, and the potential spread of other infectious diseases or organisms resistant to antibiotics. Sufficent Staffing (Please refer to F725 for additional information): The facility failed to repeatedly ensure the facility had enough staff to provide care according to the facility acuity (the level of severity of residents' illnesses, physical, mental, and cognitive limitations, and conditions) and/or care plans for 3 of 7 sampled residents (Resident 19, 50, and 60), reviewed for falls. Specifically, Resident 19 sustained repeated harm because of falls as evidenced by a dislocated hip on 09/12/2024, a right femur (leg bone) fracture on 01/14/2025, and a back fracture on 03/03/2025. Resident 50 fell a total of 36 times from 04/04/2024 to 05/17/2025 and experienced a range of injuries, to include hospital transfers for their treatment. Resident 60 fell three times and experienced a fracture to their eye socket and left lower leg. Additionally, the facility failed to identify, report, protect, assess and prevent a pattern of resident-to-resident verbal and physical abuse by Residents 19 towards 10 different peers (Resident 31, 49, 21, 43, 27, 37, 33, 45, 3, and 41). Abusive behaviors identified by staff included hitting, punching, kicking, ramming into other residents with a wheelchair (w/c), verbal abuse, threats and intimidation of other residents. These failures placed all residents at risk for further repeat serious injuries such as fractures, repeat abuse, potentially avoidable accidents and diminished quality of life. QAPI Program/Plan, Disclosure/Good Faith Attempt (Please Refer to F865 for additional information): The facility failed to develop, implement and maintain an effective, comprehensive, data-driven Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) program that identified deficiencies, implemented good faith efforts for corrective actions, and evaluated implemented corrective actions or performance improvement activities for effectiveness. The facility's QAPI program failed to timely recognize already compromised care and services that resulted in a potential for a pattern of resident harm. QAA Committee (Please Refer to F868 for additional information): The facility failed to maintain a Quality Assessment and Assurance (QAA) committee that met at least quarterly and included the Infection Preventionist who was a required member of the QAA committee. This failure minimized the effectiveness of the interdisciplinary QAA team ' s ability to identify processes and outcomes related to infection control practices and disease management. Additionally, this failure resulted in 27 of 61 residents and 33 staff members contracted Norovirus (highly contagious, gastrointestinal (GI), infectious illness that caused nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea). In an interview on 05/23/2025 at 11:34 AM, with Staff A, Administrator, Staff B, Director of Nursing, Staff C, Clinical Resource Nurse, and Staff Q, Director of Clinical Services, the above areas of concern were reviewed. Staff B acknowledged the facility was aware of the concerns identified by the survey team, but no corrective action had been attempted except for falls. Staff B explained a PIP for falls was initiated which included conducting weekly fall meetings, but it was not effective and needed to be drastically revised. Staff Q stated there was a change in the facility Administrator and Resource Nurse May 1, 2025. Summary The current facility QAA/QAPI process failed to identify critical areas of care that were ultimately elevated to the level of harm and immediate Jeopardy (IJ). The DNS and the Administrator stated the QAPI process needed to be revised, however, this showed the facility QAA/QAPI process evidently failed to provide early detection of these concerns. Reference WAC 388-97-1760 (1)(2)
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0868 (Tag F0868)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on interview and record review the facility failed to maintain a Quality Assessment and Assurance (QAA) committee that met at least quarterly and included the Infection Preventionist who was a r...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to maintain a Quality Assessment and Assurance (QAA) committee that met at least quarterly and included the Infection Preventionist who was a required member of the QAA committee. This failure minimized the effectiveness of the interdisciplinary QAA team ' s ability to identify processes and outcomes related to infection control practices and disease management. Additionally, this failure resulted in 27 of 61 residents and 33 staff members contracted Norovirus (highly contagious, gastrointestinal (GI), infectious illness that caused nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea). Findings included . Review of the facility policy titled, Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) revised April 2024 showed, the facility monitored quality deficiencies related to facility operations and practices causing negative outcomes through the QAPI process. The QAPI committee served as a preventative function by reviewing and improving facility systems and took actions toward enhancing quality of care and quality of life for facility residents. The committee was to consist of the Administrator, Director of Nursing, a physician, the infection preventionist, and three additional facility staff responsible for direct resident care and services. Review of the July 2024 through April 2025 QAPI Committee Minutes showed the following: - 07/21/2024 No input from the Infection Preventionist related to infection prevention and control data. The signature section for committee participants showed no documentation the Infection Preventionist attended the meeting, as required. - 10/29/2024 a soft tissue infection trend was identified, no other infection prevention and control data was found. The signature section for committee participants showed no documentation the Infection Preventionist attended the meeting, as required. - 01/21/2025 No input from the Infection Preventionist related to infection prevention and control data. The signature section for committee participants showed no documentation the Infection Preventionist attended the meeting, as required. - 04/30/2025 No input from the Infection Preventionist related to infection prevention and control data. The signature section for committee participants showed no documentation the Infection Preventionist attended the meeting, as required. Review of the facility GI outbreak line listing showed the facility identified a Norovirus outbreak on 05/03/2025. The outbreak included 24 residents and 25 staff who experienced GI symptoms. In an interview on 05/22/2025 at 4:09 PM, Staff F, Infection Preventionist, stated the QAPI committee met quarterly. Staff F acknowledged they were not monitoring any infection control practices for trends, did not have any infection control Performance Improvement Projects and had not participated in any QAPI meetings as of that date. Reference: WAC 97-388-1760(1)(2) Refer to F867, F865, and F880 for additional information.
CONCERN (F)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain an effective infection control program that identified, reported, and controlled the spread of communicable diseases ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain an effective infection control program that identified, reported, and controlled the spread of communicable diseases for residents and staff during a Norovirus [a highly contagious gastro-intestinal (GI, affected the stomach and intestines) virus that caused nausea, vomiting and diarrhea] outbreak and to implement basic infection prevention interventions that included enhanced barrier precautions, transmission-based precautions, prompt reporting of a laboratory confirmed Norovirus outbreak to the State Survey Agency and local health departments, and exclusion of staff members from work according to the recommended standards. These failures facilitated a Norovirus the outbreak which spread to all 3 of 3 nursing units and 27 of 61 residents (Residents 50, 11, 40, 38, 43, 51, 19, 59, 46, 63, 28, 21, 41, 37, 23, 47, 67, 48, 34, 6, 32, 33, 3, 22, 20, 35, and 5) and 33 of 86 staff members (CC, JJ, Y, SS, J, AA, TT, UU, VV, A, F, WW, LL, GG, K, EE, G, D, N, FF, XX, U, YY, ZZ, AAA, II, RR, BBB, E, CCC, DDD, EEE, and FFF) and placed residents at risk for potential for unintended health consequences, and the potential spread of other infectious diseases or organisms resistant to antibiotics. Findings included . The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) 2007 Guideline for Isolation Precautions: Preventing Transmission of Infectious Agents in Healthcare Settings, updated September 2024 and retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/infection-control/hcp/isolation-precautions/index.html documented facilities were to implement contact + standard precautions for a minimum of 48 hours after the resolution of symptoms or to control institutional outbreaks. Standard precautions were based on the principle that all blood, body fluids and secretions may contain infectious agents, and included the use of hand hygiene, and donning (to put on) personal protective equipment (PPE) to include gowns, gloves, masks and eye protection if exposure could be anticipated, such as by splashes for example. Contact precautions prevented transmission of organisms spread by direct or indirect contact with the patient or their environment. Healthcare personnel were to don a gown and gloves when entering a room to care for a resident on contact precautions and discard the PPE before exiting the room. The CDC 2011 Norovirus Prevention and Control Guidelines for Healthcare Settings retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/infection-control/hcp/norovirus-guidelines/index.html recommended ill staff be excluded from work for a minimum of 48 hours after the resolution of symptoms. The CDC 07/12/2002 Implementation of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE, gloves, disposable gowns, eye protection or masks, for example) Use in Nursing Homes to Prevent Spread of Multidrug-resistant Organisms retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/long-term-care-facilities/hcp/prevent-mdro/ppe.html recommended the use of Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) as an infection control intervention. EBP recommended the use of gown and gloves during high contact resident care activities when Contact Precautions did not apply for residents with wounds or indwelling medical devices, such as feeding tubes or catheters. High contact care activities included dressing, bathing/showering, transferring, changing linens, providing hygiene, wound care and assisting with toileting. Review of the facility policy titled, Transmission-Based Precautions Conventional Plan dated April 2024, documented the Infection Preventionist was to be notified of the suspected infectious or contagious disease and surveillance was to be initiated. Transmission-based precautions were to be initiated, to include placing and maintaining an adequate supply of appropriate PPE at the resident room door and posting the appropriate precaution notice in a visible location outside the room. EBP was recommended for use high contact care activities in resident rooms where residents had wounds, indwelling medical devices, central lines, urinary catheters, feeding tubes or colonization with multi-drug resistant organisms and was intended for the resident entire length of stay unless the device was removed or the wound healed. Contact precautions were required upon identification of a positive culture or report of a diagnosis that required isolation. Staff were to immediately post corresponding precaution notices visibly outside the room. Gown and gloves were required upon entry to the resident's room. Residents were to be removed from transmission based precautions 24 hours after they no longer had symptoms or per disease specific directives, whichever was longer. <Norovirus Outbreak/EBP Precautions> On 05/12/2025 at 9:32 AM, a recertification survey commenced at the facility. Upon entry, Staff A, Administrator, stated there were no residents on isolation at that time but there had been residents isolated the week prior for suspicion of Norovirus. On 05/12/25 at 10:23 AM, the door to Resident 41's room had a red stop sign on the door and a yellow bag that hung on the doorframe that contained PPE. An unidentified male Nursing Assistant (NA) was observed entering the room and donned a pair of disposable gloves only. The signage on the door did not document what type of isolation was in place, only to ask the nurse before the room was entered. On 05/12/2025 at 11:23 AM, Resident 63 was observed in bed. An indwelling urinary catheter (a tube inserted into the bladder that allowed urine to drain) hung from the right side of their bed and the resident said it would eventually be removed when they became strong enough to go to the bathroom. The entry to the resident's room entry had no signage to instruct the staff that EBP was indicated or what PPE was to be worn during resident care. On 05/12/2025 at 11:28 AM, a SPECIAL DROPLET/CONTACT PRECAUTION signage was posted on the outside of Resident 58's room door, at eye level. The signage instructed persons to perform hand hygiene and wear a N95 respirator (a mask that filtered out organisms coughed into the air), eye protection, gloves, and a gown prior to room entry. Staff Y, NA, was observed entering Resident 58's room and did not perform hand hygiene or don PPE, as instructed on the posted sign. Staff Y approached Resident 58 in bed, pulled down their covers, adjusted Resident 58's feet then recovered them with their blankets. At 11:31 AM, Staff Y exited Resident 58's room. When asked about the isolation sign posted on Resident 58's room door, Staff Y stated they were not sure why the signage was there but acknowledged they should have donned PPE as instructed on the posted signage. On 05/12/2025 at 3:28 PM, Resident 54's entry had EBP signage on top of a PPE cart, but also a sign for Contact Precautions on the wall above the PPE cart. As the Surveyor donned PPE as required for Contact Precautions, Staff AA, Licensed Practical Nurse, approached and told the Surveyor that PPE for Contact Precautions was not required unless wound care was going to be completed. When asked what precautions Resident 54 was on, whether Contact or EBP, Staff AA said, EBP but if wound care then Contact. Upon entering Resident 54's room, the resident was observed in bed, with a dressing over an intravenous (IV, into the vein) line to their upper left arm dated 05/09/2025. The resident confirmed the IV line was for antibiotic administration twice a day. On 05/13/2025 at 8:48 AM, Resident 34 was observed eating breakfast in their room. They reported they had dialysis (medical procedure that removed waste and excess fluid from the blood when the kidneys were unable to do so) three times a week and had a dressing visible over a dialysis port (surgically created blood access to be used during dialysis treatments) on their chest. There was no signage at the entrance to the resident's room that notified staff that EBP precautions were indicated, and there was no PPE cart at the entrance for staff use. On 05/13/2025 at 8:56 AM, Resident 20 was observed sleeping in their bed. The resident had tube feeding formula (nutrition provided through a tube inserted into one's abdomen when one is unable to eat or swallow) that hung on an infusion pump. A large syringe used to insert liquid medications manually into the abdominal tube was on the resident's overbed table. There was no signage at the entrance to the resident's room notifying staff that EBP precautions were indicated and there was no PPE cart at the entrance for staff use. On 05/14/2025 at 8:32 AM, Resident 54's entry continued to have signage for both EBP and Contact Precautions remaining on the PPE cart and on the wall above the PPE cart respectively. On 05/14/2025 at 8:47 AM, the SPECIAL DROPLET/CONTACT PRECAUTION signage remained posted on Resident 58's room door. Staff HH, NA, was observed entering Resident 58's room and did not don PPE or perform hand hygiene as instructed and asked Resident 58 if they wanted to get up for breakfast. At 9:00 AM, an unidentified female staff entered Resident 58's room, without performing hand hygiene or donning PPE, and placed a breakfast tray on the bedside table. At 9:03 AM, Staff HH put on a pair of gloves without performing hand hygiene but did not put on a gown, N95, or eye protection and began to assist Resident 58 eat their breakfast. On 05/14/25 09:06 AM, Resident 5 was observed from the door of their room. The resident was in bed, unkempt and had a pink basin on the bed beside next to them. Resident 5 stated, You don't want to come close. I am sick. The resident stated the day prior, they had come down with that bug that was going around. Resident 5 then began retching into the basin after, they stated they were unable to keep even water down. There was no Contact Isolation signage at the entry to the resident's room, and no PPE cart near the room for staff use. On 05/14/2025 at 9:32 AM, review of the State Agency incident reporting application had no intakes from the facility for a GI or suspected Norovirus outbreak. A copy of the line list of residents ill with GI symptoms was requested at 9:47 AM. On 05/14/25 at 10:16 AM, Staff F, Infection Prevention, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), provided the list of residents affected by the GI outbreak. Staff F stated the first case was identified on 05/03/2025, and the last case was on 05/06/2025 so the outbreak resolved at that time. They stated stool samples were sent out on 05/03/2025 and resulted positive by culture for Norovirus four days later. Staff F stated most residents were ill for only 24 hours and the outbreak affected 24 residents, plus staff. Staff F stated they had become ill as well and had instructed staff they were able to return to work if they were free of fever or symptoms for 24 hours. Staff F stated they called the local health department three times, and was told Norovirus was not reportable to the county or the state and offered no guidance on managing the outbreak. A list of staff who were part of the outbreak was requested at this time. A review of the Resident outbreak line list documented Resident 37 had an onset of symptoms on 05/02/2025 and was the first case of 24 on the list. No other residents were added to the list after 05/06/2025. Resident 20 was not included on the line list but had documented illness, and Residents 5 and 35 became ill during the course of the survey. A review of the staff outbreak line list documented 14 staff (CC, JJ, Y, SS, J, AA, TT, LL, D, N, CCC, DDD, EEE, and FFF) became ill on 05/04/2025, three staff (WW, EE, BBB) became ill on 05/09/2025, and 33 staff in total became ill. On 05/14/2025 at 11:11 AM, Resident 20 was awake and resting in bed. The tube feeding pump remained in the room. Resident 20 stated they had been ill the week prior with diarrhea for four days but felt better. There was still no signage for EBP at the room's entrance. Across the hall, there was no EBP signage or PPE cart observed at the entrance to Resident 34's room. When reviewed, Resident 20 was not included on the outbreak line list. On 05/14/2025 at 4:15 PM, Resident 5 was observed from the entry to their room. Resident 5 stated they felt worse than they had earlier in the day and had vomited a large amount. The resident sipped water. There was no Contact precautions signage or PPE cart at the entrance to the resident's room. On 05/15/2025 at 9:17 AM, Resident 5 was observed and stated they were no longer vomiting or having diarrhea. They stated they were able to sip water now. There was no Contact precautions signage or PPE cart at the resident's entrance. On 05/15/2025 at 9:20 AM, the entries to Resident 20 and Resident 34's rooms had no EBP signage or PPE cart present. On 05/15/2025 at 9:25 AM, abbreviated record reviews were completed for the residents included in the Norovirus outbreak and it was confirmed that none of the residents required hospitalization related to GI symptoms. A review of Resident 40's record documented the resident had diagnoses that included stroke and depression with psychotic symptoms. From 05/05/2025 to 05/10/2025, the resident was placed on alert charting related to GI illness. A review of the May 2025 medication administration record documented the resident's vital signs were monitored related to the GI illness. On 05/06/2025, 05/07/2025, and 05/08/2025, blood pressures of 88/60 (extremely low, normal average BP 120/80) were recorded. On 05/09/2025, a blood pressure of 92/60 was recorded. There were no progress notes that documented if the resident had symptoms as a result of the low blood pressures, or that the provider had been notified of the low blood pressures. Resident 40 shared a room with Resident 5. During an interview on 05/15/2025 at 10:10 AM, the Community Health Specialist at the local county health department stated they had not been notified of the Norovirus outbreak at the facility and outbreak reporting was required. They stated their department assisted facilities during outbreaks by providing guidance on how long residents were to remain on isolation and recommended that staff be excluded from work for 48 hours after their symptoms resolved. They stated they followed the CDC guidance regarding Norovirus. During an interview on 05/15/2025 at 10:31 AM, Staff M, LPN, acknowledged they had been on the medication cart and passed medications on 05/14/2025 to Resident 5. They stated they had received recent education regarding hand hygiene, and how to manage residents that were actively ill. Staff M stated they did not know how many residents had been ill during the outbreak, but stated they were aware two residents had become ill since the week prior. They stated Resident 35 had vomited and had a high fever that started on 05/14/2025. Staff M stated they knew how to tell if a resident was ill because there was a PPE cart in the hall and there was usually signage on the resident's door. Staff M stated Resident 5 should have had Contact precaution signage on their door but there was none. Staff M stated staff told the Resident Care Managers (RCM) when a resident was ill, and the RCMs obtained the PPE carts and hung up the signage, but that any staff could do those things. Staff M had not told Staff F that Resident 5 had been vomiting, but thought Staff F was probably aware. Staff M was unsure if Staff F was aware that Resident 35 was now ill as well. During an interview on 05/15/2025 at 10:41 AM, Staff G, Registered Nurse (RN), stated they became ill with Norovirus and, was home for two days. Staff G stated the facility instructed them they could return to work when free from nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, or fever for 24 hours. During an interview on 05/15/2025 at 10:53 AM, Resident 5 stated while they had been sick, none of the staff had worn gowns when they helped take care of them. Resident 5 stated some staff sometimes wore gloves. During observation and interview on 05/15/2025 at 10:55 AM, Staff LL, LPN, stated they had gotten sick during the Norovirus outbreak. They stated they did not have to call in because they happened to be sick on their two days off. Staff LL stated they were able to tell what residents were sick because there would be a sign on their door and a PPE cart. Staff LL had not been told that Resident 5 was ill but had been told about Resident 35. At this time, the entry to Resident 35's room is observed with the surveyor, and there was no PPE cart or Contact precautions sign present. When asked how staff were made aware of resident illness, Staff LL stated they were told in report, or there might be an alert on the dashboard in the electronic medical record. Staff LL looked at the dashboard and saw there was an alert for Resident 35 on the dashboard, but none for Resident 5. Staff LL stated if the correct PPE was not worn, staff could spread illness to other residents and residents were vulnerable. On 05/15/2025 at 11:09 AM, a cart of PPE was now observed at the entry to Resident 35's room, however, there was still no Contact precautions sign. During an interview on 05/15/2025 at 11:10 AM, Staff F, Infection Prevention LPN, stated they had just been made aware that two residents were sick. They were aware that Resident 35 had vomited but had not been told that Resident 5 had been vomiting all day on 05/14/2025 and they were going to investigate why they were not informed. Staff F stated there was a difference between Contact precautions and EBP. Residents with wounds, tubes or drains were to require EBP. Staff F was not aware that Residents 20 and 34 had no signage indicating staff should use EBP. Staff F stated they usually made rounds to ensure the appropriate signage was in use when indicated but had not been able to complete their rounds that week. Staff F stated staff were instructed that they had to be free of Norovirus symptoms for 24 hours before they were to return to work. They had been keeping track of those employees that were ill but stopped after they got to about 25 staff because no one was reporting staff illnesses to them. Staff F stated they had notified the local health department both by phone and by email of their outbreak but was unaware the State Survey Agency was also supposed to be notified. Staff F stated they expected staff to wear the appropriate PPE, wash their hands, and notify them if residents were ill. They stated residents who have Norovirus could become dehydrated (body loses more fluids than were taken in), have electrolyte (body minerals) imbalances, or worse, could even die. On 05/15/2025 at 1:44 PM, an email correspondence was provided that documented Staff F contacted the State Department of Health on 05/12/2025 at 9:51AM, ten days after the first case of Norovirus was identified. The Department of Health recommended the facility contact their local health department. On 05/16/25 at 8:49 AM, observations of the nursing units were made. Resident 35's room had a white facility made EBP sign at the entry to their door. This was covered with a red stop sign that instructed persons to ask the nurse before entering. This was instead of a Contact precautions sign indicated because of the resident's GI illness. Resident 34 had a white facility made EBP sign at the entry to their room. Resident 20 continued to have no EBP signage. Resident 5 had no Contact precautions signage or PPE cart at their room and was still within the 48-hour window of their symptoms having resolved. There was one PPE cart in the entire hall, and this was positioned at the entry of Resident 35's room. During observation and interview on 05/16/2025 at 10:06 AM, Staff Y was observed entering Resident 58's room with an unidentified NA. A Special Droplet/Contact precaution sign was at the entrance of the room. Neither staff donned PPE. Staff Y exited the room and picked up an incontinence pad and re-entered the room. Upon exiting the room, Staff Y was asked if PPE was required at entrance to Resident 58's room, and Staff Y went to ask for clarification. Staff Y returned then stated they were to don PPE only if they provided care to the resident, but since they only took a tray in the room, it was not required. During an interview on 05/16/2025 at 10:34 AM with Staff A, Administrator, Staff C, Clinical Resource Nurse, and Staff MM, Regional Director. Staff C stated they had currently taken over infection control duties related to the continued Norovirus outbreak. Staff C stated care plans had been updated, orders for precautions had been entered, and signage was being hung at that time. Staff A stated they had been made aware of the outbreak when the first case was identified, and stated they assumed Staff F had also been notified and each morning in report, the outbreak and those residents that became ill were discussed. Staff C confirmed that staff who became ill should have been excluded from work for 48 hours after their symptoms resolved and confirmed that staff were to don PPE at any time a room on Contact precautions was entered. Staff C stated they had talked with the local health department on 05/15/2025 and the outbreak had now been reported and if Staff F or any of the RCMs were unaware of a Resident becoming ill, it indicated a problem with the facility communication regarding the outbreak. Staff MM stated the use of non-standardized precaution signage contributed to staff confusion regarding Contact precautions and EBP and stated if staff had to hunt for PPE supplies, they would not use them. Staff MM agreed that breaches in infection control practices could contribute to the spread of Norovirus. During an observation of medication administration and interview on 05/19/2025 at 7:31 AM, Staff BB, LPN, dispensed medications for Resident 5. A Contact precaution sign was now posted at the entrance to their room. Staff BB donned a pair of gloves without performing hand hygiene and entered the room and pulled the privacy curtain partially open. The posted signage with verbiage that instructed staff to don gloves and a gown prior to room entry was pointed out to Staff BB. Staff BB stated the contact precautions were for Resident 5's roommate, by the window, not for Resident 5., but they would seek clarification from Staff F. When asked what PPE Staff BB was to don when they passed medication to Resident 5, they slowly read the Contact precaution signage then donned the PPE as instructed on the sign. On 05/19/2025 at 9:55 AM, Staff DD, NA, was observed aiding Resident 5. The Contact precautions sign remained on the entrance to the room. Staff DD had no PPE on. During an interview on 05/20/25 at 12:23 PM, Staff NN, agency LPN, stated during the Norovirus outbreak they were instructed to work on 05/15/2025 when they were sick and had a fever. Staff NN showed a text message thread on their personal cell phone and had documented their fever of 101.3 degrees Fahrenheit with a picture of a thermometer. Staff NN stated they took acetaminophen (over-the-counter medication) to reduce their fever, arrived at the facility at 3:30 PM on 05/15/2025, and worked a double shift. Staff NN stated they had 05/16/2025 off. They worked a partial shift on 05/17/2025, but was still sick, so went to the hospital and had an evaluation. Staff NN provided a copy of their hospital after-visit summary which documented Staff NN was diagnosed with gastroenteritis (GI illness). During an interview on 05/22/2025 at 2:24 PM, Staff O, Nurse Practitioner, after review of CDC Norovirus guidelines, stated they would not expect a staff member with a fever to work. Staff O stated they were new to the facility and had seen Resident 40 once. They stated they had not been notified of any low blood pressures and in their professional opinion, any resident that had been ill with nausea, vomiting, diarrhea and a low blood pressures of 88/60 would require notification to the provider for concerns of dehydration. During an interview on 05/23/2025 at 10:51 AM with Staff A, Staff B, Director of Nursing, Staff C, and Staff Q, Regional Director of Clinical Services. Staff B acknowledged staff were to be excluded from work for 48 hours after Norovirus symptoms resolved. <Infection Prevention Annual Policy Review> A review of the facility Infection Prevention program policies revealed the following: -The policy titled, Transmission-based Precautions Conventional Plan had a revision date of 04/02/2024. -The policy titled, Surveillance of Healthcare Associated Infection was revised 09/10/2020. -The policy titled, Antibiotic Stewardship was revised 10/15/2022. -The policy titled, Employee Influenza Immunizations had a release date of 10/01/2027. -The policy titled, Influenza Program was revised on 08/01/2023. -The policy titled, Pneumococcal Program was revised on 05/31/2023. -The policy titled, COVID Vaccination for Residents and Staff was revised on 08/01/2023. During an interview on 05/23/2025 at 10:10 AM, Staff F stated they were unsure who was responsible for reviewing the infection prevention policies. They stated they thought the corporate office reviewed them. Staff F stated the policies they had been given were dated from late 2024 so they believed the policies were reviewed yearly. Reference WAC 388-97-1320 (1)(a)(2)(b-c) Refer to F684 for additional information.
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0919 (Tag F0919)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview the facility failed to maintain a resident call light system that was functionable and audibl...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview the facility failed to maintain a resident call light system that was functionable and audible, as required. This failure placed all facility residents at risk of potentially avoidable accidents, unmet care needs, and diminished quality of life. Findings included . During observation on 05/12/2025 at 12:16 PM, a call light was visibly lit up above a resident room but not audible in the hallway. Similar observations were made at 12:36 PM, on 05/13/2025 at 8:23 AM, 8:38 AM, 10:13 AM, and 12:47 PM, and on 05/19/2025 at 4:09 AM. During an observation on 05/12/2025 at 12:46 PM, the call light indicator board at the nurses' station showed one or more resident room call lights were lit up as activated but not audible in the hallway. Similar observations were made at 3:30 PM, on 05/13/2025 at 8:40 AM, 10:14 AM, 10:41 AM, 11:41 AM, 1:27 PM, on 05/14/2025 at 8:37 AM, on 05/15/2025 at 8:42 AM and 2:22 PM, on 05/16/2025 at 8:35 AM, on 05/19/2025 at 4:30 AM and 4:49 AM. In an interview on 05/14/2025 at 10:26 AM, the Resident Council stated they experienced excessively long call light wait times, sometimes waiting up to an hour. The Council acknowledged the call lights do not make a sound at all. During an observation and interview on 05/20/2025 at 9:57 AM, Staff K, Nursing Assistant, stated the facility had been having issues with call light audibility. Staff K walked to room [ROOM NUMBER] and activated the call light, the light lit up outside the room, but no sound was audible from the hallway. When the surveyor and Staff K looked down the hall attempting to visualize activated call lights outside of the resident rooms, brown speaker appearing boxes were observed intermittently placed throughout the hallway, adjacent to the call light placement, obscuring visibility of some call lights. Staff K acknowledged some call lights were blocked from view when in the hall or at the nurses' station related to speaker box placement. Staff K further acknowledged the call lights were not audible when activated. During an observation and interview on 05/20/2025 at 10:14 AM, the call lights were observed down the hall with Staff L, Registered Nurse, who explained the brown boxes that obscured visibility of some call lights was an overhead paging system. Staff L acknowledged the call lights had not been audible in over a year. During an observation and interview on 05/20/2025 at 10:19 AM, Staff W, Maintenance Director, stated our call light system is horrible. Staff W explained the annunciator, portion of the system that made call lights audible, constantly shorts out and goes out. The surveyor and Staff W walked down to the call light indicator board at the nurses' station, the call lights for room [ROOM NUMBER] and 32 were lit up on the board as activated but no sound was heard. Staff W pointed out a low click emitted from the indicator board. Staff W explained the click was the annunciator, when a call light was activated, the annunciator would typically click and trigger the call light audible beeping but it froze again and was not allowing the call lights to be audible when activated. During a follow-up interview on 05/20/2025 at 10:44 AM, Staff W explained they did monthly facility rounds to check for needed repairs, but staff would typically enter a maintenance work order if items or equipment were in disrepair. Staff W acknowledged they had not received a work order for the non-audible call light system and had not implemented more frequent rounding to ensure the call light system was functioning appropriately, as required. During a follow-up observation and interview on 05/20/2025 at 10:51 AM, Staff W stated they fixed the annunciator and the call lights were audible again. Staff W pointed out a single intermittent beep heard in the hallway; no call light was observed visibly on above a room door. The Surveyor and Staff W again walked down to the call light indicator board at the nurses' station, no resident room lights were lit up as activated but the single intermittent beep was still audible. Staff W was asked to turn on a resident room call light. Staff W activated the call light in room [ROOM NUMBER], the light lit up above the room door but there was no audible change in the frequency of the single intermittent beep, the beep was the same if a call light had been activated or not. In an interview on 05/23/2025 at 9:36 AM, Staff A, Administrator, stated they expected staff to ensure the resident call light system was visible, audible, and in working order, as required. Reference WAC 388-97-2280 (1)(a) Refer to F 689 for additional information.
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0941 (Tag F0941)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure direct care staff were provided the mandatory effective communication training for 10 of 10 sampled staff (Staff P, L, AA, R, BB, K,...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure direct care staff were provided the mandatory effective communication training for 10 of 10 sampled staff (Staff P, L, AA, R, BB, K, CC, DD, EE, and FF) reviewed for communication training. This failure placed all residents at risk of unmet care needs and diminished quality of life. Findings included . Review of the following employee files found no documentation that showed effective communication training had been provided as required: - Staff P, Licensed Practical Nurse - Staff L, Registered Nurse - Staff AA, Licensed Practical Nurse - Staff R, Nursing Assistant, registered - Staff BB, Licensed Practical Nurse - Staff K, Nursing Assistant - Staff CC, Nursing Assistant - Staff DD, Nursing Assistant - Staff EE, Nursing Assistant - Staff FF, Nursing Assistant In an interview on 05/22/2025 at 4:12 PM, Staff C, Clinical Resource Nurse, stated the previous Administrator did a lunch and learn meeting with the staff for effective communication training, but there was no signature sheet, and they were unable to find any documentation that showed the trainings had been completed. In an interview on 05/23/2025 at 9:36 AM, Staff A, stated they expected staff to receive adequate training in order to have adequate skills and competencies to meet the needs of the facility resident population. Reference WAC: 388-97-1680
Jul 2024 1 deficiency
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to consistently provide showers for 4 of 5 sampled residents (Resident 1, 2, 3, 4), reviewed for bathing. This failure placed residents at ris...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to consistently provide showers for 4 of 5 sampled residents (Resident 1, 2, 3, 4), reviewed for bathing. This failure placed residents at risk for poor hygiene and a diminished quality of life. Findings included . <Resident 1> Review of a facility assessment, dated 06/16/2024, showed Resident 1 had diagnoses which included a disorder of movement and muscle tone. The resident was able to make their needs known. Resident 1 was dependent on staff for showers. According to Resident 1's care plan, dated 01/21/2020, Resident 1 was an extensive assist for showers and preferred two showers per week. It was noted the resident would sometimes resist showers and for staff to encourage the resident to shower and notify the nurse if they continued to refuse. Review of shower records from 06/17/2024 to 07/17/2024 showed Resident 1 had refused showers on 06/26/2024, 07/03/2024 and 07/13/2024. The resident had a shower on 07/16/2024, one shower in a month. Review of nurse progress notes from 06/17/2024 to 07/17/204 showed no documentation the resident refused their showers or they were reapproached and/or encouraged to have a shower. <Resident 2> Review of a facility assessment, dated 06/18/2024, showed Resident 2 had diagnoses which included seizures. The resident was able to make their needs known. Resident 2 required maximum assist with showers. According to Resident 2's care plan, dated 07/21/2020, Resident 2 preferred showers. The care plan did not specify the number of showers the resident preferred. Review of shower records from 06/17/2024 to 07/17/2024 showed Resident 2 had refused a shower on 06/28/2024 and received a shower on 07/04/2024 and 07/14/2024, two showers in a month. <Resident 3> Review of a facility assessment, dated 06/25/2024, showed Resident 3 had diagnoses which included intellectual disabilities. The resident was able to make their needs known. Resident 3 required set up assist with showers. According to Resident 3's care plan, dated 03/31/2023, Resident 3 was a full person assist with showers. The resident required a shower chair for safety. There care plan did not specify the number of showers the resident preferred. Review of shower records from 06/17/2024 to 07/17/2024 showed Resident 3 had a shower on 06/18/2024, 06/25/2024 and 07/02/2024, a shower once a week. The resident's next shower was 10 days later on 07/12/2024. <Resident 4> Review of the facility assessment, dated 05/15/2024, showed Resident 4 had diagnoses which included Alzheimer's Disease. The resident had difficulty making their needs known. Resident 4 required maximum assist with showers. According to Resident 4's care plan, dated 03/15/2022, Resident 4 preferred showers twice a week. Review of shower records from 06/17/2024 to 07/17/2024 showed Resident 4 had a shower on 07/01/2024 and 07/14/2024, two showers in a month. During an interview on 07/17/2024 at 1:05 PM, Staff D, Nursing Assistant (CNA), stated they filled in as the shower aide part of the time since there was no longer a shower aide. Staff D stated if a resident refused a shower, they would reapproach the resident twice. If they continued to refuse then a refusal form was filled out and the resident would be offered a bed bath. On 07/17/2024 at 1:26 PM, Staff A, Resident Care Manager (RCM), stated residents received showers twice a week, unless they preferred a different schedule. At times, the shower aide would get pulled to the floor if there was not enough CNA's. If the shower aide was pulled to the floor, the residents that hadn't received showers would be rescheduled for the next day. If a resident refused a shower, then a refusal form would be filled out and they would have their shower rescheduled. On 07/17/2024 at 1:38 PM, Staff B, Staffing Coordinator, stated since they no longer had their shower aide a CNA was assisting with showers three days a week. Staff B stated they tried to find CNA's to do showers on the weekends as well. On 07/17/2024 at 1:50 PM, Staff C, Administrator, confirmed the residents did not consistently receive their showers. Staff C stated the facility had identified it as a problem and were working on finding shower aides. Reference: WAC 388-97-1060(2)(c)
Jun 2024 1 deficiency 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure 1 of 3 residents (Resident 1), reviewed for accidents, was free from injury. Resident 1 experienced harm when they were transferred...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure 1 of 3 residents (Resident 1), reviewed for accidents, was free from injury. Resident 1 experienced harm when they were transferred in a sit to stand (designed to assist patients who have some mobility but need help to rise from a sitting position) by staff, the resident's arm sling got caught and wrapped around their neck causing them to become unresponsive; staff left the resident unattended in the lift to get help, the resident fell out of the lift, and was found on the floor. This failure placed the residents at risk for falls and serious injury Findings included . Review of a facility assessment, dated 04/01/2024, showed Resident 1 had diagnoses to include heart disease and Diabetes. The resident was able to make their needs known, required maximum assistance with bed mobility and was dependent with transfers. The resident used a sit to stand lift to be transferred. Review of the facility investigation, dated 06/10/2024, showed Resident 1 requested to use the bathroom. Staff A, Nursing Assistant, put the resident in the sit to stand lift to transfer them to the commode. The resident had a sling on their left arm. The resident was raised in the lift and stated their neck hurt. Resident 1's face then went red, they let go of the handles on the lift, and was hanging by the sling, unresponsive. Staff A went out to the hall to get help and heard the resident fall to the floor. Staff entered the room, the resident was on the floor, and remained unresponsive. Staff called 911 and sent the resident to the hospital. Review of hospital records, dated 06/10/2024, showed Resident 1 arrived at the hospital alert and oriented. The resident was able to explain what occurred prior to passing out at the facility. There were abrasive areas on the resident's neck, but staff were unable to determine if it was from the sling or a rash. The resident had no complaints of pain. It was documented that the resident had a strangulation event at the nursing facility due to being placed in a device to be transferred, their sling got caught in the lift, which went around the resident's neck. The resident was left alone in the room while staff got help and when staff entered the room, the resident was on the floor and unresponsive. During an interview on 06/25/2024 at 2:00 PM, Staff B, Resident Care Manager (RCM) and Staff C, RCM stated the staff member that completed the investigation no longer worked at the facility. Staff B and C stated Resident 1 was sent out to the hospital, the facility was not aware the sling had gone around the resident's neck until the hospital called with report. Resident 1 was evaluated by therapy after the incident and was changed to Hoyer lift (a lift for a person to be lifted and transferred with minimal physical effort). Reference: WAC 388-97-1060(3)(g)
May 2024 11 deficiencies
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** <Resident 20> Per the 04/07/2024 Significant Change of Condition assessment, Resident 20 returned to the facility from the...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** <Resident 20> Per the 04/07/2024 Significant Change of Condition assessment, Resident 20 returned to the facility from the hospital on [DATE] following a below the knee amputation (BKA) of the left leg and had additional diagnoses which included anxiety, and a psychotic disorder. On 05/08/2024 at 11:41 AM, Resident 20 was observed lying on their bed. They stated they had no concerns and declined further interview. Review of Resident 20's record documented a level 1 PASARR had been completed on 01/06/2019 by the hospital prior to the 01/09/2019 facility admit date . No PASARR was found related to Resident 20's 04/07/2024 significant change of condition. In an interview on 05/16/2024 at 3:00 PM, Staff E confirmed that Resident 20 needed a new Level I PASARR completed since they had a significant change of condition. Reference: WAC 388-97-1915 (1)(2)(a-c) Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure 2 of 6 sample residents (10, 20), reviewed for Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) [an assessment completed prior to admission into a skilled nursing facility to determine whether a resident with a diagnosis of a serious mental illness needed specialized mental health services] was completed accurately and if indicated, a referral for additional screening had been made. This failure placed the residents at risk for inappropriate placement and/or not receiving timely and necessary services to meet mental health care needs. Findings included . <Resident 10> Per the 03/31/2024 admission assessment, Resident 10 admitted to the facility from the hospital and had diagnoses which included depression and schizophrenia (a chronic, severe mental disorder that affected the way a person thought, acted, expressed emotions, and perceived reality). On 05/08/2024 at 10:45 AM, Resident 10 was observed sitting in their wheelchair in their room watching television. Resident 10 stated they were at the facility for wound care and were very happy with the care from the staff. A review of Resident 10's record on 05/09/2024 at 10:43 AM, found the hospital had completed a Level I PASARR on 03/27/2024, prior to the resident's admission to the facility. The PASARR documented a Level II PASARR (a more in-depth screening assessment, to identify if specialized mental health services were needed), was not required since Resident 10 met the guidelines for an exempted hospital stay (being admitted to the facility directly from the hospital after receiving acute inpatient care, and an expected length of stay at the facility being 30 days or less). A progress note on 04/11/2024 at 9:48 AM, by Staff E, Social Services, documented the resident desired to reside at the facility due to living remotely and not being able to obtain caregivers or home health assistance. Additional record review found no documentation that an updated level I PASARR had been completed as of 05/09/2024, 42 days since the resident had admitted to the facility, and 12 days past the time frame for the exempted hospital stay. In an interview on 05/10/2024 at 11:19 AM, Staff E confirmed that Resident 10 would need a new Level I PASARR completed since they had been at the facility longer than the expected 30 days.
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 interview and record review, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive person-centered care plan, to address a resident with wounds for 1 of 3 sample residents (33), whose care plans wer...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive person-centered care plan, to address a resident with wounds for 1 of 3 sample residents (33), whose care plans were reviewed. This failure placed the resident at risk for unmet care needs. Findings included . Per the 04/03/2024 significant change in condition assessment, Resident 33 had diagnoses which included peripheral vascular disease (a circulatory condition in which narrowed blood vessels reduce blood flow to the limbs), congestive heart failure (a condition that occurs when the heart can't pump enough blood to meet the body's needs), diabetes (a condition in which the body has trouble controlling blood sugar and using it for energy) and was at risk for skin breakdown. A review of Resident 33's skin evaluations documented the following: - 03/28/2024, the resident had an open area on their left buttock. - 04/09/2024, the resident had an open area to their right lower leg - 04/12/2024, the resident had a blister to their left leg. Review of Resident 33's care plan dated 12/12/2023, documented they had a care plan for alteration in skin/tissue integrity related to the need for assistance, dialysis and diabetes. The care plan also documented they had actual skin breakdown to their lower extremities. The care plan instructed nursing staff to do weekly skin assessments, but no other interventions for wound care or preventative measures were implemented for the legs and buttock wound. In an interview on 05/16/2024 at 2:02 PM, Staff B, Resident Care Manager, stated the care plan should have included the wound on Resident 33's buttock and interventions for wound healing. Reference: WAC 388-97-1020(1), (2)(a)(b)
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, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide assistance during mealtimes for 1 of 1 sampled resident (16), reviewed for activities of daily living. This failure p...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide assistance during mealtimes for 1 of 1 sampled resident (16), reviewed for activities of daily living. This failure placed the resident at risk for decreased food and fluid intake, and possible unintended weight loss. Findings included . The 03/02/2024 significant change assessment documented Resident 16 was severely cognitively impaired, delusional and had Alzheimer's dementia (a decline in mental ability severe enough to interfere with daily life). In addition, the assessment also documented the resident required partial to moderate assistance from staff for eating. The 03/26/2024 nutritional care plan documented Resident 16 was at risk for nutritional problems related to Alzheimer's dementia. The care plan instructed staff that Resident 16 required supervision, set-up assistance, and cueing at mealtimes to facilitate food and fluid intake. On 05/08/2024 at 12:38 PM, Resident 16 was observed sitting in their wheelchair near the front entrance of the dining room facing the wall, perpendicular to and away from all other residents (whom were sitting at round tables). The resident had bowls of food and cups full of liquid sitting on their lunch tray. Resident 16 grabbed a bowl of food and dumped it on the tray table, spilling it on to their clothes, and onto the floor. Resident 16 then poured liquid from their cup into another bowl of food and continued to pour the rest of the liquid onto the tray table, which spilled over onto the floor. There were several staff members present in the room and nobody intervened to assist Resident 16. At 12:41 PM, Staff E, Social Services Director, cleaned the food and fluids off the resident, tray table and the floor. After cleaning the resident, neither Staff E nor any of the other staff present offered assistance or cueing to Resident 16 to eat their meal. At 12:51 PM, Resident 16 began to make repetitive nonsensical speech. Staff E asked the resident if they were hungry. The resident did not initially respond and started fidgeting with items left on their tray table, but after a few minutes, stated, no, to Staff E. No staff assisted or cued the resident to eat during the entire observation of the noon meal, and review of the meal monitor for 05/08/2024 documented the only food intake for Resident 16 was during dinner. On 05/13/2024 at 9:04 AM, Resident 16 was observed sitting in their wheelchair in the main dining room during breakfast. The resident's breakfast included the following items: a cup of water, a cup of a chocolate nutritional supplement, a bowl full of eggs, a mug of hot cereal. No staff was located near the resident. At 9:05 AM, Staff V, Registered Nurse, came into the dining room and administered medications to Resident 16. Staff V provided the resident hand over assistance with drinking the chocolate supplement and intermittently mixed the residual of medications in the same cup with a spoon. The resident drank 100% of the liquids from the cup and Staff V exited the dining room at 9:07 AM. At 9:14 AM, the resident still had not taken any bites of food and backed their wheelchair slightly away from their tray. The only liquid the resident consumed was the liquids received during medication administration by Staff V. At 9:16 AM, staff picked up meal trays and assisted other residents out of the dining room. Resident 16 further backed away from their tray and at this time Staff E asked the resident if they wanted more eggs. The resident looked at Staff E and smiled and then Staff E walked away from the resident without providing any assistance. At 9:19 AM the resident maneuvered their wheelchair to the opposite side of the dining room and left their meal untouched. No staff were observed to have assisted or cued the resident to eat during the meal. During an interview on 05/16/2024 at 12:27 PM, Staff S, Nursing Assistant, stated Resident 16 required extensive assistance to eat and was aware of the interventions documented in the care plan. Per Staff S, the resident would get distracted during their meals and one staff member should be there to help redirect them during meals, and offer other food items, including supplements if the resident refused to eat. Staff S also stated that the resident's meals and supplements were monitored, and the amounts consumed were documented. In an interview on 05/16/2024 at 12:44 PM, Staff T, Registered Dietician, stated Resident 16 was at risk for a nutritional decline due to advancing Alzheimer's disease and that the resident required more assistance with meals now. During an interview on 05/16/2024 at 1:47 PM, the observations of Resident 16 during the breakfast and lunch meal were discussed with Staff M, Registered Care Manager. Staff M stated the expectation was that residents were supervised, assisted and cued to eat if the residents allowed it. Reference: WAC 388-97-1060(2)(c)
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0679 (Tag F0679)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of two sample residents (15) reviewed for activities, was engaged in meaningful activities that met their interests...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of two sample residents (15) reviewed for activities, was engaged in meaningful activities that met their interests. Failure to engage the resident in meaningful activities placed the resident at risk for boredom and diminished quality of life. Findings included Review of the 02/10/2024 comprehensive assessment showed Resident 15 had severe cognitive impairment, was unable to direct their care, and had diagnoses which included dementia and failure to thrive. The assessment showed the resident was dependent with care, including transport in their wheelchair. A staff assessment of activity preferences documented that Resident 15 enjoyed listening to music. Review of the 08/25/2022 care plan showed Resident 15 was dependent on staff for meeting all emotional, intellectual, physical, and social needs. Activity interventions included people watching, sensory stimulation, and music. The following continuous observations were made: On 05/09/2024, from 9:44 AM to 12:12 PM, Resident 15 was awake, sitting up in wheelchair in darkened room facing curtain covered window. No television or radio was on in room. No one entered the room or interacted with the resident during this time. On 05/10/2024 at 10:10 AM, Resident 15 was awake and sitting up in wheelchair in a darkened room. At 11:00 AM, Resident 15 was pushed in their wheelchair to a music program; the resident was seated behind and away from other residents during the activity. The music activity ended at 11:30 AM and Resident 15 remained in the same position and location until 12:15 PM when a staff member pushed the resident in their wheelchair into the dining room for the lunch meal but did not interact with the resident. No one interacted with Resident 15 until 12:45 PM when a staff member sat down beside the resident and talked to them and assisted them with eating lunch. On 05/13/2024 at 9:32 AM, Resident 15 was awake sitting up in their wheelchair in a darkened room facing the window. No television or radio was on in the room. At 10:09 AM, Staff BB, activity aide, entered the resident's room and invited Resident 15's roommate to a music activity but did not interact with or invite Resident 15 to the music program. No one interacted with Resident 15 until 10:49 AM when Staff K, Nursing Assistant, entered Resident 15's room and stated they were going to lay the resident down. Review of facility May 2024 activity calendar showed a sensory activity at 9:30 AM on 05/09/2024, 05/10/2024, and 05/13/2024. In an interview on 05/10/2024 at 10:08 AM, Staff Z, Activity Director, stated the sensory activity was resident specific and the residents who wanted to attend either came on their own or let the staff know and they brought them down. In an interview on 05/16/2024 at 2:35 PM Staff AA, Nursing Assistant, stated Resident 15 was a full assist and the staff had to get them up and take them in their wheelchair to activities. When asked if something should have been provided when resident was sitting alone in their room, Staff AA replied yes, and stated they should have opened the curtains, offered television or music, and/or provided personal care such as applying lotion to the resident. In an interview on 05/16/2024 at 2:45 PM, Staff Z, Activity Director, stated Resident 15's program of activities consisted of sensory activities. They stated Resident 15 was nonverbal, and the staff brought them to anything they could watch or listen to, and they applied lotion to the resident. When asked how regularly Resident 15 participated, Staff Z stated during weekly sensory visits and weekly rounds by the activity staff. Staff Z stated Resident 15 should have attended sensory group if they were up in their wheelchair. When asked why resident 15 wasn't invited/included in the music activity on 5/13/2024 Staff Z stated they should have been included. In an interview on 05/16/2024 at 3:27 PM, with Staff C, Resident Care Manager (RCM), they stated two-hour rounding was done for residents that sit alone in their room and it was totally inappropriate for Resident 15 to have been sitting in a dark room with curtains pulled for two hours. Reference: WAC 483.24(c)(1) -0940 (1)
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

<Resident 37> Per the 02/18/2024 quarterly assessment, Resident 37 was able to make their needs know and required moderate to substantial assistance with toileting. Review of the May 2024 Medic...

Read full inspector narrative →
<Resident 37> Per the 02/18/2024 quarterly assessment, Resident 37 was able to make their needs know and required moderate to substantial assistance with toileting. Review of the May 2024 Medication Administration Record (MAR) documented on 05/16/2023, the physician had ordered a laxative (Milk of Magnesia) to be given if the resident had not had a BM in 48 hours, and if there still was no BM by the next shift, an additional laxative (Dulcolax suppository) was to be given, and if no BM by the next shift, an additional laxative (Fleets enema) was to be given. On 07/05/2023 a laxative (MiraLax) was ordered to be given every 24 hours as needed for constipation. Review of the bowel records from 03/14/2024 through 05/14/2024, showed Resident 37 had no BM's from 03/14/2024 through 03/16/2024 (three days), 04/16/2024 through 04/21/2024 (six days), and from 04/25/2024 through 04/27/2024 (three days). Additional review of the MARS for March 2024 through May 2024, documented the resident had not received the bowel medication as ordered during the above time frames, and no documentation was found in Resident 37's record that stated the reason for the omissions. In an interview on 05/16/2024 at 1:31 PM, Staff M, Resident Care Manager, confirmed Resident 37 did not have a BM on the above dates and the bowel protocol should have been followed. Reference: WAC 388-97-1060 (1) <Resident 33> Per the 04/03/2024 significant change in condition assessment, Resident 33 had moderate cognitive impairments and required partial to moderate assistance with toileting. Review of the care plan dated 12/12/2023 documented the resident had chronic pain and instructed nursing staff to implement appropriate bowel management when opiates were ordered per the physician's orders. Review of the May 2024 Medication Administration Record (MAR) documented on 03/28/2024, the physician had ordered a laxative (Milk of Magnesia) to be given if the resident had not had a BM in 48 hours, and if there still was no BM by the next shift, an additional laxative (Dulcolax suppository) was to be given, and if no BM by the next shift, an additional laxative (Fleets enema) was to be given. Review of the bowel records from 02/16/2024 through 05/13/2024, showed Resident 33 had no BM's from 02/16/2024 through 02/18/2024 (three days), 02/23/2024 through 02/25/2024 (three days), and from 04/18/2024 through 04/22/2024 (five days). Additional review of the MARS for February 2024 through May 2024, documented the resident had not received the bowel medication as ordered during the above time frames, and no documentation was found in Resident 33's record that stated the reason for the omissions. In an interview on 05/16/2024 at 2:02 PM, Staff M, Resident Care Manager, confirmed Resident 33 did not have a BM on the above dates and the bowel protocol should have been followed. Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide effective bowel management for 2 of 3 residents (26, 37), reviewed for constipation. These failures placed residents at risk of unmet care needs and resulted in an emergency room visit for Resident 26, for further medical treatment. Findings included . According to an undated Bowel Protocol policy, staff was to initiate the following if a resident did not have a bowel movement (BM) in 72 hours: 1) Give Milk of Magnesia (MOM) or Miralax (types of laxatives, given by mouth) on evening shift. 2) Administer a suppository (laxative medication inserted into the rectum) on night shift 3) Administer an enema (liquid laxative medication, instilled into the rectum) on day shift. <Resident 26> According to an admission assessment, dated 05/01/2024, Resident 26 had diagnoses which included diabetes and septicemia (a life-threatening infection.) The resident was able to make decisions regarding their care. In addition, Resident 26 was incontinent of bowel and required maximum staff assistance with positioning and toileting. Resident 26's admission orders, dated 04/25/2024, included MOM, Miralax, Dulcolax suppository and Fleets enema, with parameters for administration, to be given as needed. A review of Resident 26's Bowel Function Reports for April and May, 2024, showed no BM was documented until 05/02/2024 (seven days after admission to the facility.) A further review of the medical record showed that no bowel medications were offered, given or refused during that time. Resident 26's Bowel Function Report for May, 2024, showed that there was not another BM documented until 05/12/2024, 10 days later. A review of Resident 26's Medication Administration Record (MAR) for May, 2024 documented that MOM was given on 05/09/2024 at 12:26 PM and 05/10/2024 at 10:09 AM. The MAR further documented that Miralax was given on 05/11/2024 at 4:51 AM. No suppositories or enema's were given. A review of the progress notes documented No BM in 48 hours, see BM's on 05/08/2024, 05/09/2024, and 05/10/2024. No entries on the MAR or progress notes documented that any bowel interventions or other medications were offered or refused. A nursing progress note, dated 05/12/2024 at 3:30 AM, documented that the resident had not had a BM and complained of discomfort. The resident was sent to the hospital, returned at breakfast and had an extra large BM. During an interview on 05/14/2024 at 3:30 PM, Resident 26 stated that they got really plugged up and went to the hospital where they were given something up my butt to get things moving. They further stated that they had a BM every day since and felt a lot better. During an interview on 05/15/2024 at 8:41 AM, Staff Q, Registered Nurse (RN) stated that they got a printed report sheet at the beginning of their shift, that showed if a resident had no BM for a certain amount of time and the steps for each shift to take. During an interview on 05/15/2024 at 9:38 AM, Staff O, NA, stated that the NA's charted when residents had a BM. They further stated that if there was nothing charted in the bowel function record, they assumed that they didn't have a BM because if it wasn't charted, it wasn't done. During an interview on 05/15/2024 at 10:40 AM, Staff R, RN stated they got a printout of residents that have gone two or three days without a BM, to follow up on. During an interview on 05/15/2024 at 3:40 PM, Staff B, Director of Nursing (DON), clarified that their expectation was for the NA's to chart the residents BM's, and for the nurses to follow up with interventions. They stated they were unsure why the facility bowel protocol had not been followed, and this did not meet the their standard of care for bowel management. Reference: WAC 388-97-1060(1)
CONCERN (D)

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide adequate supervision and assess a resident for smoking safety for 1 of 2 sampled resident (37), reviewed for accident...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide adequate supervision and assess a resident for smoking safety for 1 of 2 sampled resident (37), reviewed for accidents. Findings included: The 02/20/2024 quarterly assessment documented Resident 37 was able to make decisions regarding their care, had diagnoses which included stroke, which resulted in weakness and paralysis on their right side. In addition, the assessment documented the resident required set-up to substantial/maximal assistance from staff to complete activities of daily living. On 05/09/2024 at 1:02 PM, Resident 37 was observed smoking, using the left hand. While smoking, Resident 37 dropped a lit cigarette, and it rolled down by their foot. Resident 6 picked up the cigarette and handed it back to them. Resident 37 took a puff of the cigarette and dropped it again. The cigarette rolled down the front of their sweatshirt and onto their right sleeve and then bounced onto the left thigh area of their sweatpants. Resident 37 then picked up the cigarette and continued smoking. The resident was not wearing a smoking apron at the time of the incident. On 05/09/2024 at 2:01 PM, Resident 37 was observed to have a burn hole in the upper left thigh area of their sweatpants with no visible burn to the skin in that area. Residual cigarette ashes were present on the front of their sweatshirt and the right lower sleeve. During an interview on 05/09/2024 at 2:20 PM, Resident 6 confirmed that they picked up Resident 37's cigarette and handed it back to them. Resident 6 stated that Resident 37 had difficulties using their left hand and had dropped their cigarette in the past. During an observation on 05/09/2024 at 3:10 PM, Resident 37 attempted to light their cigarette and it fell out of their mouth and onto the front of their sweatshirt. They picked the cigarette up, placed it in their mouth again and lit it. The resident was not wearing a smoking apron. Review of the 09/01/2022 smoking care plan documented Resident 37 was independent with smoking but required assistance from staff to get to the smoking area. In addition, nursing staff were instructed to complete a smoking assessment quarterly, annually and with any change of condition that affected the ability to smoke. A review of the smoking assessments documented the last smoking assessment had been completed on 08/18/2023. No other documentation was found to show a smoking assessment had been completed quarterly or annually as directed in the care plan. On 05/09/2024 at 4:21 PM, Staff A, Administrator and Staff B, Director of Nursing were informed of the observations of Resident 37 smoking and concern expressed for their safety while smoking independently. When informed of the date of the last smoking assessment for Resident 37, Staff B stated they wanted the residents to be safe and all residents who smoke would be assessed immediately and interventions implemented for Resident 37. During an interview on 05/16/2024 at 1:31 PM, Staff M, Resident Care Manager, confirmed that Resident 37 should have had a more recent smoking assessment. Reference: WAC 388-97-1060 (3)(g) 1060
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0697 (Tag F0697)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide needed pain management for 1 of 3 sampled residents (6), reviewed for pain. This failure placed residents at risk of uncontrolled p...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide needed pain management for 1 of 3 sampled residents (6), reviewed for pain. This failure placed residents at risk of uncontrolled pain and a diminished quality of life. Findings included . According to the 03/29/2024 quarterly assessment, Resident 6 was admitted with diagnoses which included osteoarthritis, migraines and chronic pain syndrome and was able to make their needs known. Additionally, the assessment documented the resident had pain frequently that would impact their sleep and day to day activities. In an interview on 05/08/2024 at 3:37 PM, Resident 6 stated they had been out of their Hydrocodone 5 milligram (mg) tablets (a narcotic used to treat pain) for about three days and was not offered anything else for pain relief. The resident stated they were told by nursing staff that there was nothing else they could do. A review of the Medication Administration Records for May 2024, documented physician orders for acetaminophen (Tylenol) every four hours as needed (PRN) for pain, Hydrocodone 10/325 mg routinely three times per day and Hydrocodone 5/325 mg daily PRN for migraine pain. The records documented Resident 6 had received their scheduled Hydrocodone 10 mg/325 mg, but had not received the PRN Hydrocodone 5/325 mg from 05/06/2024 through 05/08/2024. The records documented on the evening of 05/08/2024 the resident had pain rated as a four (on a scale of 1-10, with 10 being the worst) and had not received any Tylenol and no non-medication interventions were offered during that time. The progress notes for May 2024, documented no communication with the physician, related to Resident 6 not having their PRN pain medication. In an interview on 05/16/2024 at 2:18 PM, Staff M, Resident Care Manager, verified Resident 6 had been out of their Hydrocodone 5/325mg PRN pain medication from 05/06/2024 through 05/10/2024 and the physician should have been notified. Reference: WAC 388-97-1060(1)
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0698 (Tag F0698)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review the facility failed to consistently collaborate care with the dialysis center, and accurately monitor the fluid restriction for 1 of 1 sampled resident (33) review...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to consistently collaborate care with the dialysis center, and accurately monitor the fluid restriction for 1 of 1 sampled resident (33) reviewed for dialysis care. These failures placed residents at risk of unrecognized complications, unmet care needs and a diminished quality of life. Findings included . Review of the Long Term Care Facility Outpatient Dialysis Services Coordination Agreement, between the facility and the dialysis center dated 10/15/2022, documented there should be documentation of collaboration of care and communication between the long-term care facility and the dialysis center. According to the 04/03/2024 significant change in condition assessment, Resident 33 had a diagnosis of end stage renal disease (kidneys stop working and are not able to remove waste or extra water from the blood) and was dependent on dialysis. Resident 33 was able to make their needs known. The 12/21/2023 dialysis care plan instructed nursing staff to send the Dialysis Communication form to the dialysis clinic for each visit attended by the resident and to ensure the form was returned with them. Per Resident 33's record, the following dates did not have the Dialysis Communication form filled out by the dialysis clinic: 01/22/2024, 01/31/2024, 02/02/2024, 02/05/2024, 02/19/2024, 03/04/2024, 03/06/2024, 03/08/2024, 03/11/2024, 03/13/2024, and 03/15/2024. No documentation was found in the resident's record regarding the incomplete documentation. A review of the provider orders documented on 02/08/2024, the resident was on a 1000 milliliter (ml) fluid restriction. The fluid restriction instructed nursing to provide 200 ml's on day shift, 100 ml's on evening shift, 100 ml's on night shift and night shift was to calculate the amount of fluids the resident had received in a 24 hour period. Per the May 2024 Medication Administration Record (MAR), Resident 33 had an order dated 03/28/2024 that instructed nursing staff to provide the above amount of fluid. The MAR also documented on 04/08/2024, the nursing staff needed to provide 100 ml's of fluid on day shift, 100 ml's on evening shift and 80 ml's on night shift. The nursing staff signed for each fluid restriction, although the amount of fluids were different on each order. Per the May 2024 MAR, the day shift recorded five days in which the amount of fluids given was 100 ml's, all other days ranged from 60 ml's to 360 ml's. The evening shift recorded five days in which the amount of fluids given was 100 ml's, all other days ranged from 60 ml's to 300 ml's. The night shift recorded ten days in which the amount of fluids given was 80 ml's, all other days ranged from 50 ml's to 100 ml's. In an interview on 05/16/2024 at 2:02 PM, Staff M, Resident Care Manager stated they were unsure of which fluid restriction was followed by the nursing staff and night shift was responsible for calculating the amount of fluids consumed for the day. Staff M stated the dialysis communication forms were faxed and sent with the resident to dialysis. Staff M added the expectation was the forms would have been returned timely or follow up with the dialysis clinic should have occurred and this was important for the collaboration of care. Reference WAC 388-97-1900 (1), (6)(a-c)
CONCERN (D)

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

Drug Regimen Review (Tag F0756)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure recommendations from the pharmacist were addressed in a timely manner, for 1 of 5 sample residents (30), reviewed for unnecessary me...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure recommendations from the pharmacist were addressed in a timely manner, for 1 of 5 sample residents (30), reviewed for unnecessary medications. These failures placed residents at risk for receiving an inaccurate dosing of medication, adverse side effects, and the risk of receiving a medication longer than medically necessary. Findings included . The Consultant Pharmacy Report, dated 01/2024, documented Resident 30 received Peridex mouth wash and it was recommended the resident should not brush their teeth, rinse mouth, eat or drink following the rinse to be added to the Medication Administration Record (MAR). The same recommendation was made for 02/2024 and again for 03/2024. A review of Resident 30's record showed no response from the provider or nursing regarding the recommendation until 03/04/2024 (two months after the recommendation was made). In an interview on 05/16/2024 at 10:38 AM, Staff C, Resident Care Manager, stated the pharmacy recommendations were received and if it pertained to nursing, the nurse managers would add the orders to the MAR. Staff C verified the order for the Peridex should have been completed in a timely manner, and thought they had a week to do so. Reference: WAC 1300 (4)(c)
CONCERN (D)

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

Unnecessary Medications (Tag F0759)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a medication error rate of less than 5 percent for 2 of 4 sampled residents (2, 9), observed during medication pass. S...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a medication error rate of less than 5 percent for 2 of 4 sampled residents (2, 9), observed during medication pass. Specifically, 2 errors were made during 27 medication administration opportunities, resulting in an error rate of 7.41 percent. Errors in medication administration placed residents at potential risk for not receiving the full therapeutic effect of the medication. Findings included . According to Medscape.com, the warnings section for both Brimonidine Eye Drops and Refresh Eye Drops shows to wait five minutes between instilling eye drops, if more than one product is administered. <Resident 2> During an observation on 05/15/2024 at 7:22 AM, Staff R, Registered Nurse (RN) prepared medications for Resident 2. The resident had two different eye drop medications ordered, Brimonidine (medication to treat elevated pressure in the eye) one drop in the left eye, and Refresh eye drops (lubricant, for dry eyes), two drops to each eye. Staff R administered the Brimonidine eye drops, then immediately administered the Refresh eye drops. Staff R did not wait the minimum of five minutes between administration of different eye medications. During an interview on 05/15/2024 at 7:50 AM, following the observation, Staff R acknowledged that they should have waited five minutes in between eye drops. <Resident 9> During an observation on 05/15/2024 at 7:41 AM, Staff Q, RN, administered a Multivitamin with Minerals, one tablet, with the rest of the Resident 9's morning pills. During an observation and interview on 05/15/2024 at 8:41 AM, this surveyor looked at the order in the electronic medical record (EMR) with Staff Q, which showed Multivitamin with Folic Acid 400 micrograms (mcg) once a day. Staff Q then compared it to the bottle of Multivitamin with Minerals, that was given. Staff Q acknowledged that Folic Acid was not listed as an ingredient on the bottle, and they should have looked for another bottle with the Folic Acid. Staff Q stated they understood why it was a medication error. Reference: WAC 388-97-1060(3)(k)(ii)
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 and interview, the facility failed to ensure appropriate hand hygiene was performed during the meal service for 1 of 2 dining rooms. These failures placed the residents at risk fo...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure appropriate hand hygiene was performed during the meal service for 1 of 2 dining rooms. These failures placed the residents at risk for infections and unmet care needs. Findings included . During a lunch observation on 05/08/2024 at 12:22 PM in the assisted dining room, Staff W, Admissions Coordinator, prepared coffee for the residents, touched their straws with bare hands, touched the tablecloth and clothing protectors, adjusted a resident's glasses, and served another cup of coffee without performing hand hygiene in between. In an observation at 12:25 PM, Staff W gave a cleansing wipe to a resident to wash their hands, passed a tray, touched a resident's clothing protector, and without hand hygiene being performed, opened food items for a resident and passed another tray. During an observation on 05/08/2024 at 12:34 PM, Staff W was assisting four residents to eat at the same table. Staff W rubbed the arm of a resident to wake them up and gave them bites of food. Staff W touched the resident's wheel on their wheelchair, and without hand hygiene being performed, gave another resident bites of their food. In an observation on 05/08/2024 at 12:38 PM, Staff X, Nursing Assistant, moved a chair, fixed a resident's clothing protector, and without hand hygiene being performed, gave another resident drinks of their fluid and bites of their food. During an observation on 05/08/2024 at 12:55 PM, Staff U, Nursing Assistant, picked up unclean dishes and without hand hygiene being performed, grabbed clean wash cloths and assisted residents to wash their hands and faces. In an interview on 05/08/2024 at 1:09 PM, Staff X stated hand hygiene was performed prior to passing trays and feeding residents. Staff X added they should have performed hand hygiene prior to feeding the resident and after they had touched things to prevent the spread of germs. In an interview on 05/08/2024 at 1:13 PM, Staff U stated hand hygiene was performed before and after each meal tray was passed and when touching things. Staff U added they should have sanitized their hands prior to washing the resident's hands and faces. In an interview on 05/08/2024 at 1:16 PM, Staff W stated hand hygiene was performed upon entering the dining room, between meal trays being passed, before and after resident's hands were washed and after touching things. Staff W added they should have sanitized their hands after touching the items mentioned above to prevent cross contamination. In an interview on 05/16/2024 at 5:24 PM, with Staff A, Administrator and Staff B, Director of Nursing, observations of the lack of hand hygiene during meal service was discussed. Reference: WAC 388-97-1320 (1)(c)
Apr 2024 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Staffing Data (Tag F0851)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that direct care staffing information was correctly electronically submitted to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that direct care staffing information was correctly electronically submitted to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), for Quarter 3 of 2023, reviewed for Payroll Based Journal (PBJ mandatory reporting of staffing information based on payroll data) submission. This failure caused the CMS to have inaccurate data related to nursing home staffing levels and had the potential to impact resident care and services. Findings included . Review of the Certification and Survey Provider Enhanced Reports (CASPER) Payroll-Based Journal Staffing Data Report showed the facility reported data for Quarter 3, 2023 (July 1, 2023, through September 31, 2023), at a level lower than required by mandated staffing levels. During an interview on 03/20/2024 at 11:05 AM, Staff A, Administrator, stated the Human Resource (HR) Manager was responsible for submitting the PBJ information. The HR Manager confirmed the numbers submitted for Quarter 3, 2023 as those in the CASPER. Staff A stated the facility had not added Registered Dietician hours to the numbers, so submitted them for recalculation of the total hours. Reference: WAC 388-97-1090(1)(2)(3)
Apr 2024 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Incontinence Care (Tag F0690)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to follow physician orders for 2 of 3 sampled residents (Resident 1 and 2), reviewed for urinary catheters (a tube inserted in the bladder tha...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to follow physician orders for 2 of 3 sampled residents (Resident 1 and 2), reviewed for urinary catheters (a tube inserted in the bladder that allowed urine to drain). This failure placed the residents at risk for possible urinary tract infections (UTI's). Findings included . Review of the facility policy Indwelling Catheters, revised on 04/12/2022, showed urinary catheters and drainage bags were to be changed as necessary or unless specified by a physician's order. <Resident 1> According to the facility assessment, dated 01/30/2024, Resident 1 had diagnoses to include a stroke. Resident 1 was able to make their needs known and had a urinary catheter. Review of Resident 1's care plan, dated 01/24/2024, showed the resident was to have their catheter changed as ordered by the physician and/or changed as needed for infection or obstruction. The resident was to be monitored for signs and symptoms of a UTI. Review of provider progress notes showed Resident 1 was seen by a urologist (a provider that specializes in care of the kidneys, ureters and bladder) on 02/12/2024. The urologist ordered the resident's catheter to be changed every 4 weeks. Resident 1's Treatment Administration Record (TAR) for February, March, and April 2024 showed an order for staff to change the resident's catheter as needed. The TAR did not show the physician's 02/12/2024 had been added to change the catheter every 4 weeks and no documentation the catheter was changed from February to April 2024. <Resident 2> According to the facility assessment, dated 03/25/2024, Resident 2 had diagnoses to include kidney disease. Resident 2 was severely impaired cognitively and had a urinary catheter. Review of Resident 2's care plan, dated 12/15/2023, showed the resident was to have their urinary catheter changed according to physician orders or as needed for blockage/leaking. The resident was to be monitored for signs or symptoms of a UTI. On 03/25/2024 Resident 2 was sent to the hospital. The resident was diagnosed with a UTI related to the urinary catheter. Discharge instructions showed the catheter was to be changed every month. Resident 2's TAR for February, March, and April 2024 showed an order for staff to change the resident's catheter as needed. The TAR did not show the hospital orders had been added to change the catheter each month and no documentation to show the catheter had been changed. During an interview on 04/09/2024 at 1:15 PM, Staff A, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) stated residents with catheters usually had them changed as needed for infection or leakage. If a resident returned from an outside physician appointment or the hospital, the Resident Care Managers (RCM's) would receive a packet from the visit and add any new orders in the electronic system. If the RCM's weren't there, the floor staff would review and input the information. On 04/09/2024 at 2:40 PM, Staff B, Registered Nurse (RN), stated a urinary catheter was changed based on the physician's order and if no specific order was changed per the facility policy. On 04/09/2024 at 2:30 PM, Staff C, Director of Nursing, confirmed the orders should have been added to the resident's TAR. Reference: WAC 388-97-1060(3)(c)
Jan 2024 1 deficiency 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure 1 of 3 sampled residents (Resident 1), reviewed for accidents, was free from injury. Resident 1 was transferred by a Ho...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure 1 of 3 sampled residents (Resident 1), reviewed for accidents, was free from injury. Resident 1 was transferred by a Hoyer lift (a power lift using a sling) independently by Staff B, Nursing Assistant. The Hoyer sling was improperly placed which caused Resident 1 to slide down during the transfer and their arms were pulled upward. Resident 1 experienced harm when they had pain and was sent to the hospital for evaluation where it was determined they sustained a fracture of their left arm. This constituted a Past Non-Compliance (the facility was not in compliance at the time the situation occurred; however, there was sufficient evidence that the facility corrected the non-compliance after it was identified) at harm. The facility immediately educated and completed traning by 12/04/2023 Staff B and all staff on the proper use of Hoyer lifts, emphasizing safe Hoyer lifts require two employees, along with skill and competency check offs. The facility was notified of the past non-compliance on 01/10/2024. Findings included . Review of a facility assessment, dated 12/05/2023, showed Resident 1 had diagnoses to include a disorder of movement and muscle tone. The resident was able to make their needs known. Per the assessment, Resident 1 was dependent for Activities of Daily Living (ADL's). Review of the resident's bedside plan of care, dated 01/05/2024, showed Resident 1 transferred with a Hoyer lift and two staff. Review of a progress note, dated 12/01/2024, showed Staff A, Registered Nurse (RN), was called to Resident 1's room. Staff B used a Hoyer lift to transfer the resident from their wheelchair to bed. When the Hoyer was elevated, Resident 1's body slid down the lift sheet which pulled their left arm in an upward motion. Staff A conducted an assessment and the resident complained of pain to the left arm/shoulder. Staff A could not perform Range of Motion (ROM) due to pain and was sent to the hospital. Review of the facility's event summary report, dated 12/07/2024, showed Staff B completed rounds and found Resident 1 required assistance with toilet hygiene. Staff B put Resident 1 in a Hoyer lift sling and began to transfer the resident to their bed. Resident 1 slid down the lift sheet and their left arm was pulled in an upward motion. Resident 1 was sent to the hospital and had sustained a fracture of their arm. The conclusion of the incident showed Staff B attempted the transfer independently, the Hoyer sling was improperly positioned below the resident's shoulder which caused the resident to slide down during the transfer. During an interview on 01/10/2024 at 11:16 AM, Staff C, Nursing Assistant, stated they would review resident bedside care plans to determine their transfer status. Staff C stated Hoyer lifts always required two staff members to use. Staff C stated they had recently received re-education on Hoyer lift use. On 01/10/2024 at 11:24 AM, Staff D, Nursing Assistant, was observed using the Hoyer lift for a resident being transferred from the bed to their wheelchair. Staff D had the resident roll side to side to place the sling underneath them and connected the sling to the Hoyer. Staff D stated they were getting a second staff member and used a facility radio to ask for assistance. A second staff member came into the room. The resident was instructed to cross their arms while the Hoyer was being lifted. The resident was properly transferred to their wheelchair. During an interview on 01/10/2024 at 11:45 PM, Staff F, Director of Nursing, stated they were notified of the incident and immediately went to the facility. Staff B had explained to Staff F they had called for assistance with the Hoyer and no one came. Staff B proceeded to transfer Resident 1 by themselves. Staff B was educated on Hoyer use, with return demonstration, and was suspended pending the investigation. Staff F educated other staff working that shift and proceeded to educate the remainder of the staff. This was a Past Non-Compliance at harm level and is no longer outstanding. Reference: WAC 388-97-1060(3)(g)
May 2023 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0760 (Tag F0760)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure 1 of 3 sampled residents (Resident 1), reviewe...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure 1 of 3 sampled residents (Resident 1), reviewed for medication administration, was free from a significant medication error. Failure to follow the physician's orders for a blood thinning medication placed Resident 1 at risk for bleeding. Findings included . Review of the [DATE] assessment showed the resident was readmitted to the facility on [DATE] from the hospital. Resident 1 had diagnoses to include blood clots in both lungs and heart strain. Per the assessment, the resident had impaired decision-making. On [DATE] at 1:25 PM, Resident 1 was sitting in their recliner near their bed. The resident did not recall getting extra doses of the blood thinning medication. The resident had no concerns with their care at the facility. A progress note by Staff A, Director of Nursing (DNS), dated [DATE], showed at 11:05 AM that day, a nursing assistant heard a crash in the bathroom, opened the bathroom door and found Resident 1 on the floor. Immediately the nurse, Staff A, was notified and Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) was initiated. Resident 1 was admitted to the hospital with blood clots in both lungs and right sided heart strain. Review of admission orders, dated [DATE], showed Resident 1 was to take Eliquis (a blood thinning medication) 10.0 milligrams (mg) twice a day for 7 days, and 5.0 mg twice a day thereafter. Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) for [DATE] showed the order written on the MAR was to give Eliquis 10.0 mg twice a day for 7 days and in addition, give 5.0 mg twice a day. Therefore, the resident received 15.0 mg twice a day, for a total of 30.0 mg, instead of the 10.0 mg twice a day - for a total of 20.0 mg, as ordered. Review of the [DATE] facility investigation by Staff B, Resident Care Manager (RCM), showed the orders were discovered to have been wrongly transcribed in the MAR. The physician was notified, new orders were received, and Resident 1 was monitored for bleeding. During an interview on [DATE] at 2:00 PM, Staff C, RCM, and Staff B, RCM, were interviewed. Staff C stated medical records or human resources would put the resident's admission orders into the system, and a nurse would review them for accuracy. If they were not available, one of the RCM's would input the orders. For Resident 1, Staff C stated they had incorrectly placed the order in the computer. Reference: WAC 388-97-1060 (3)(k)(iii)
Feb 2023 5 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Resident 32 According to the quarterly assessment dated [DATE], Resident 32 was admitted with diagnoses which included Parkinson...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Resident 32 According to the quarterly assessment dated [DATE], Resident 32 was admitted with diagnoses which included Parkinson's disease and dementia, and required total assistance from one staff to complete activities of daily living, such as grooming. On 01/29/2023 at 10:39 AM, Resident 32 was observed lying in their bed with long nasal hair. The nasal hair extended approximately a half inch out of their nose. Subsequent observations of Resident 32 on 01/29/2023 at 3:26 PM, 01/31/2023 at 3:01 PM, and on 02/01/2023 at 11:31 AM, again showed they had visible protruding nasal hair. In an interview on 02/02/2023 at 9:18 AM with Staff F, Nursing Assistant (NA), they stated that shaving was completed on shower days, and they did not offer to remove nasal hair. Staff F reported that Resident 32 required total assistance for grooming. In an interview on 02/02/2023 at 9:19 AM Staff G, Registered Nurse (RN), stated that the hairstylist took care of nasal and ear hair, and the resident care manager made the referral to have that done. In an interview on 02/02/2023 at 9:21 AM with Staff H, Resident Care Manager (RCM), they stated that they did not know who would remove nasal hair, and thought it would be the person giving the shower. In an interview on 02/02/2023 at 3:58 PM with Staff I, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), they stated that removal of nasal hair would be addressed during bathing. They stated that the hairstylist did not remove nasal hair. They additionally added that this would be a dignity issue for the resident. In an interview on 02/02/2023 at 4:02 PM, with Resident 32, they stated that a man had come in and clipped their nose hair. The resident also stated that if they were able to see the long nasal hair it would have bothered them. They additionally added that when living at home they cut their nasal hair. Reference: WAC 388-97-1060 (2)(c) Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide activities of daily living (ADLs) services for 2 of 5 sampled residents (7, 32), reviewed for dependence on staff for care. Resident 7 was not supervised or cued during oral care and had large amounts of food debris stuck on their dentures, and Resident 32 was not provided grooming for long, thick nasal hairs. These failures placed the residents at risk for a decreased quality of life. Findings included: Resident 7 Resident 7's record and 01/16/2023 assessment showed diagnoses including stroke with difficult speaking and swallowing. The assessment also showed Resident 7 was severely cognitively impaired and required supervision of one staff for their activities of daily living (ADLs) including personal hygiene. The 01/22/2020 comprehensive care plan showed the resident had oral/dental health problems, and was to be supervised and cued for oral care. On 02/02/2023, the Nursing Assistant (NA) tasks documentation for Resident 7's oral care self performance were reviewed for the previous 30 days. There were 22 entries that documented the resident was independent (no staff oversight at any time, no set up or physical help from staff), and 26 entries that documented the resident required supervision (oversight, encouragement or cueing, set up help only). There were no documented refusals of oral care. Resident 7 was observed to have dark colored oral secretions around the edges of their lips and large amounts of food debris stuck on the front of their upper dentures on the following dates: - 01/29/2023 at 3:54 PM, while ambulating in the hall with their walker; - 01/31/2023 at 1:40 PM in the common area by the nursing station; - 02/01/2023 at 8:50 AM, while seated in their room before eating their breakfast; and - 02/02/2023 at 9:12 AM, while lying in their bed. During an interview on 02/02/2023 at 4:41 PM Staff C, NA, stated that at night, the resident brushed their own teeth. Staff C stated they thought the resident had dentures on the top and bottom, and the resident did the care for them on their own. During an interview on 02/03/2023 at 11:52 AM, Staff D, NA, stated the resident had a denture cup they soaked their teeth in at night. Per Staff D, the resident brushed their own teeth if they had their supplies setup for them, and stated the resident was to have their dentures put in the cup in the evening, and brushed in the morning and given back to the resident. Staff D stated the resident was independent for their cares and maybe that needed changed but they were unsure who to tell; they would probably tell the nurse. On 02/03/2023 at 12:55 PM, Staff E, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) Resident Care Manager, stated oral care was to be done twice a day - in the morning and before bed. Resident 7's care plan showed the resident required supervision with verbal cues. Staff were to ensure Resident 7 was set up for oral care and were to cue the resident if necessary. Per Staff E, Resident 7 was resistant some days, but if care was refused it was to be documented.
CONCERN (D)

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the resident environment was free of accident hazards by implementing a system for securing and storing hazardous pote...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the resident environment was free of accident hazards by implementing a system for securing and storing hazardous potentially toxic chemicals in an area in 2 of 2 shower rooms (1 & 2), 1 of 2 soiled utility rooms (1), and the boiler room. This failure placed residents at risk for avoidable injury. Findings included . The 11/28/2019 revised Resident's Environment Policy showed the facility would ensure materials that posed a hazard to residents would be identified and properly secured to prevent unauthorized access, including chemicals used by the facility staff in the course of their duties (housekeeping chemicals), chemicals or other materials brought into the facility by staff or visitors, and drugs/therapeutic agents. An observation on 01/29/2023 at 3:01 PM showed an unoccupied, unattended shower room (1) on the B-wing with the door unlocked, and without a locking mechanism on the door handle. A sign on the outside of the door said, Keep door closed and LOCKED at all times. Inside the shower room was a plastic storage cabinet affixed to the wall. The right cabinet door had a lock on the bottom left corner, and the key was in the lock, in the unlocked position, and the door cracked open. Inside the cabinet were three different hazardous chemicals used for disinfection and sanitation. There were no residents in the area. On 01/29/2023 at 4:34 PM, Staff A, Administrator, opened the unlocked door to the same shower room. The shower room was unattended and no residents were in the area. Staff A was able to open the cabinet on the wall and observed the unsecured hazardous chemicals. Staff A stated the key to the locking cabinet should not be stored in the lock, and the chemicals should be securely stored. An observation on 01/29/2023 at 3:13 PM showed the unoccupied, unattended, and unsecured soiled utility room on the A-wing with an unlocked cabinet. The cabinet door was propped open and contained a hazardous chemical used for cleaning bathrooms. There were no residents in the area at the time. In a 02/03/2023 12:30 PM interview, Staff A stated the hazardous chemical should be in a secured storage cabinet, not behind an unlocked door and in an unlocked cabinet. An observation on 01/29/2023 at 3:20 PM of the unoccupied, unsecured, and unattended shower room (2) on the A-wing showed two unsecured spray bottles that contained a pink liquid hazardous chemical used for disinfection of surfaces. There were no residents in the area. On 01/29/2023 at 4:43 PM, Staff F, Nursing Assistant (NA), stated they used the pink disinfectant spray found in that shower room to sanitize the shower chairs after each use. Staff F stated housekeeping staff filled the spray bottles with the chemicals. Staff F also stated there was no way to secure the hazardous chemicals in that shower room. In a 01/29/2023 4:55 PM observation, Staff B, Director of Nursing Services (DNS), confirmed the door to the shower room (2) was not locked, and Staff B was able to easily reach the two chemicals. Staff B stated the chemicals should be stored in a locked cabinet, and could be dangerous to residents if they were able to access them. There were no residents in the area. On 01/29/2023 at 5:05 PM, Staff R, Housekeeping Manager, stated they refilled the chemicals from the wall dispenser in the secured housekeeping closet as needed and when stored in patient care areas, and the chemicals should be locked in a secured storage area where residents could not access the chemicals. A review of the 09/10/2019 revised Safety Data Sheet (SDS) for the hazardous chemicals in shower room (2) showed the product could cause severe skin burns and serious eye damage and to store locked up. Boiler Room A 01/29/2023 3:34 PM observation showed the door to the boiler room was unlocked, and the boiler room was unoccupied and unattended. On the floor just inside the room were multiple bottles of hazardous chemicals. The boiler room was not in a patient care area, and there were no residents observed in the vicinity. In a 01/29/2023 3:36 PM interview, Staff P, Maintenance Director, stated when they unlocked the boiler room door with their key, the button on the other side of the doorknob unlocks. In order to lock the door before leaving the room, they must turn the button on the inside knob to the lock position before closing the door. Staff P stated [they] must have forgot to turn the button when they closed the door the last time they left the boiler room. Staff P stated the boiler room door should always be locked when not attended by staff. No residents were in the area. REFERENCE: WAC 388-97-2320(1)(c)(iii), -3240(1)(2).
CONCERN (D)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure resident's food was stored and served in a sanitary manner and in accordance with professional standards for food serv...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure resident's food was stored and served in a sanitary manner and in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. The failure to ensure 1 of 1 nourishment unit refrigerators was free of expired, unlabeled, and undated food products, and failure to ensure staff performed adequate hand hygiene during resident meal assistance placed residents at risk for unsavory food, food-borne illness, and communicable disease. Findings included . Meal Service Observations The facility's revised 02/22/2022 Hand Hygiene policy showed staff would perform hand hygiene using soap and water or alcohol-based hand rub before handling food, and before touching another resident's utensils when helping multiple residents with meals. An observation on 01/29/2023 at 12:22 PM showed Staff L, Nursing Assistant (NA), touched the inside lip of a resident's specialized scoop plate with an ungloved hand while they were being served. An observation on 01/29/2023 at 12:54 PM showed Staff K, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), picked up the spoon of a resident [they] stood next to, fed the resident a bite of food, put the spoon down, and without performing hand hygiene, picked up the spoon of another resident who had just got done using the utensil, and fed that resident a bite of food. Staff K put the spoon down, and without performing hand hygiene, went back to the first resident they were assisting, picked up that spoon and fed the resident a bite of food. Staff K again put that utensil down, did not perform hand hygiene, and walked out of the room. An observation on 02/03/2023 at 12:15 PM showed Staff H, Registered Nurse (RN), Infection Control Preventionist (IP), assisted a resident with a bite of food with the resident's utensil, put the utensil down, did not perform hand hygiene, picked up the utensil of another resident, and fed that resident a bite of food. In a 02/03/2023 8:52 AM interview, Staff H stated staff were expected to perform hand hygiene using either soap and water or using alcohol-based hand rub between residents during meal service, especially if staff were touching the resident's utensils, and staff should not touch surfaces the resident's food may encounter (like cup rims, ends of straws, inside lip of plates, eating surface of utensils). Food Storage According to the facility's 11/28/2017 Resident Personal Food policy, any food brought into the facility that was not going to be immediately consumed would be placed in the nourishment refrigerator or freezer and labeled with: the resident's name, received date, and use-by-date. The policy showed the foods would be discarded on the use-by-date. Most food brought in by families were considered leftovers, and would be labeled with a three-day use-by-date. An observation of the nourishment refrigerator in the dining room on 01/29/2023 at 12:15 PM showed: an opened milk product labeled with a resident's name, an open date of 1/25 and a manufacturer expiration date of 01/28/2023; a bag of pepperoni sticks with no resident name and the date 1/27, but it did not specify if it was the received date or the use-by-date; an opened bag of chips with no name, received date, or use-by-date; a container of thickened orange juice with the open date of 9/1, a statement by the manufacturer that read Refrigerate after opening and use within 14 days of opening, and a manufacturer expiration date 01/01/2023; a container of a milk product labeled with a resident's name and a date of 1/3/23, and a statement on the carton which showed the product should be consumed and or discarded 14 days after opened; another milk product labeled with a resident's name, unopened, and a manufacturer expiration date of 01/20/2023; a coffee creamer product with no resident's name, a date of 1/3, and a manufacturer statement to use within 14 days of opening; a nutritional drink brought by a family member, labeled with a resident's name, an open date of 1/20/23, and a manufacturer expiration date of 01/25/2023; a facility nutritional health supplement with no resident's name, no date it was pulled from the freezer, or use-by-date. In a 01/29/2023 12:20 PM interview, Staff Q (Dietary Manager), stated when they pulled the nutritional health supplements from the freezer to thaw in the refrigerator, they wrote the freezer pull date on the case, and they were to be used within 14 days. Staff Q stated they do not put the use-by-date on each individual carton, and stated there was no sure way to tell if the carton of nutritional health supplement found in the nourishment refrigerator was past the 14-day use-by-date recommended by the manufacturer. At 12:30 PM, Staff Q said it was the responsibility of dietary staff to routinely clean and monitor the refrigerator, including ensuring resident food products were labeled with a name, an open date (or received date), a use-by-date, and were not past the manufacturer's expiration date. Otherwise, the food in the refrigerator should be discarded after three days. Staff Q said they had a system for the monitoring of refrigerator food storage, but it was not implemented appropriately and should have been. REFERENCE: WAC 388-97-1100 (3). .
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0919 (Tag F0919)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the resident nurse call light system was funct...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the resident nurse call light system was functional and accessible in toilet and bathing rooms. The failure to ensure nurse call pull cords were no more than six inches from the floor in 5 of 7 sampled resident bathrooms (Rooms 42, 43, 45, 46, 14) and 2 of 2 shower rooms (1, 2), as well as to ensure the same 2 shower rooms had both a visible nurse call light outside the room and a functioning audible alert sound that could be heard in a centralized care area, placed residents at risk for unmet care needs and a delay of staff assistance in the event of an emergency. Findings included . Policy According to the facility's 11/28/2017 Resident Room Requirements policy, the facility would ensure resident rooms would be adequately equipped to allow residents to call for staff assistance through a communication system which relayed the call directly to a staff member or to a centralized staff work area. Review of the facility's preventative maintenance procedure and Nurse Call Systems Logbook marked done on-time by Staff P, Maintenance Director on 01/19/2023, showed six steps to the monthly nurse call system preventative maintenance and testing procedure which included: Step 2) Check all devices transmitting to, and received from the nurse call system, to include pullcords, pendants, and pagers. Repair as necessary; Step 3) Check all cords in bathrooms and shower rooms and ensure the end of the nurse call pull cord is no more than 6 (six inches) from the floor. Repair as necessary. Per review, the Logbook did not include the audit system to show the call lights that were evaluated or showed that each light was inspected using the six-step facility inspection process. Shower Rooms An observation on 01/29/2023 at 3:24 PM in the shower room (2) showed a nurse call box on the wall, with a red tab that said EMERGENCY. Connected to the red emergency tab was a pull cord, wrapped around the nurse call box three times, and the end of the pull cord was 38 inches from the floor. When the pull cord was pulled to trigger the emergency nurse call alert, it would not trigger because it was wrapped around the box. A 02/03/2023 12:40 PM observation of the function of the same shower room emergency nurse call showed the ceiling light in the hallway outside the door did not have a light fixture. The nurse call was audible at the nurses station, but no light to indicate to staff the request for help was coming from that shower room. At 12:42 PM, a staff member in the hallway outside of the shower room stated they were trying to find out what resident had called for help and said they heard the audible alarm, but did not see a light indicating where the call was coming from. An observation on 02/03/2023 at 12:43 PM of the emergency nurse call in the other shower room (1) showed the emergency call cord closest to the shower wrapped around a fixture attached to the wall, later identified as a manual alarm device. The end of the emergency pull cord was 58 inches from the ground and was not operational, because it was wrapped around the manual alarm device. When the button on the manual alarm device was pressed, no sound came out. When the emergency call switch was triggered, there was a visible light outside the shower room, but no audible alarm sounding at the nurses station. In a 02/03/2023 12:45 PM interview, Staff A, Administrator, stated the emergency pull cords should never be wrapped around a fixture which would disable the operation of the emergency nurse call system. The nurse call system should be consistent with a visible light and audible sound, to notify staff where the help was needed, and confirmed their current nurse call system in both shower rooms did not have both audible and/or visible nurse call system components, but should have. Resident Bathrooms A 02/03/2023 1:12 PM observation of the bathroom call light in room [ROOM NUMBER] showed the distance from the end of the nurse call pull cord to the floor was 11.5 inches, confirmed by Staff S, Admissions Director. A 02/03/2023 1:15 PM observation of the bathroom call light in room [ROOM NUMBER] showed the distance from the end of the nurse call pull cord to the floor was 14.5 inches. A 02/03/2023 1:18 PM observation of the bathroom call light in room [ROOM NUMBER] showed the distance from the end of the nurse call pull cord to the floor was seven inches. A 02/03/2023 1:20 PM observation of the bathroom call light in room [ROOM NUMBER] showed the distance from the end of the nurse call pull cord to the floor was 10 inches. A 02/03/2023 1:24 PM observation of the bathroom call light in room [ROOM NUMBER] showed the end of the nurse call pull cord was tied around the transfer bar, and the distance from the end of the cord to the floor was 28 inches, confirmed by Staff T, Nursing Assistant (NA). In a 02/03/2023 1:29 PM interview, Staff P, Maintenance Director, stated the end of the nurse call pull cord should be no more than six inches from the floor, so if a resident fell, they could reach the pull cord. Review of the facility Maintenance Work History Report for the past 12 months showed the nurse call systems test was completed on-time by Staff P on 01/19/2023, but there were no repairs documented. The nurse call systems test conducted on 12/08/2022 showed repairs that were conducted including bulb replacements and rewiring of two lights. In the past 12 months, there were no documented corrective actions to repair the nurse call pull cord lengths or identified concerns for nurse call pull cords wrapped around fixtures and non-functional. In a 02/03/2023 1:29 PM interview, Staff P stated they performed monthly maintenance audits of the nurse call system, and documented them in their web-based software program. Staff P stated they go room-to-room checking each call light, but they did not have a formal system to help document their audit of each preventative maintenance procedure for each call light checked, and to keep track of needed repairs or corrective actions required. Staff P stated they did not know how they overlooked so many pull cord lengths more than six inches from the ground, cords wrapped around fixtures, the missing nurse call light for shower room (2), and the audible nurse call function in shower room (1). Staff P stated nurse call light cords should never be wrapped around bars or fixtures that could interfere with the function and accessibility of the emergency nurse call system, and all nurse call system components should function the same with both audible and visible light alerts. Staff P stated these problems should have been identified and corrected during their monthly preventative maintenance audits but were not. REFERENCE: WAC 388-97-2280(1)(b)(c)(2). .
CONCERN (E)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program that provided a safe and sanitary environment, and helped prevent the sp...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program that provided a safe and sanitary environment, and helped prevent the spread of communicable diseases such as COVID-19 (a highly infectious virus that causes respiratory illness, possible difficulty breathing, pneumonia, hospitalization, or death) for 6 of 13 residents (17, 22, 18, 25, 37, 42), assisted during a meal service. In addition, the facility failed to ensure hand hygiene was completed and gloves were changed between clean and dirty tasks for 2 of 2 sampled residents (35, 18), reviewed for incontinence care and toileting. This failure to correctly use personal protective equipment (PPE-masks and gloves), and to complete hand hygiene, placed residents at risk for infectious diseases, potential serious infections, and a decreased quality of life. Findings included . PPE/Policy: According to the 11/03/2022 Washington State Department of Health Guidance Update, healthcare settings were required to follow the Washington State Secretary of Health Mask Order 20-03. This order included an enforceable policy requiring everyone who entered a healthcare facility must always wear a mask, with few exceptions. The revised 10/15/2022 facility Management of Coronavirus COVID-19 policy showed the facility would wear masks in accordance with Centers for Disease Control (CDC) guidance. According to the CDC 09/08/2022 updated Masks and Respirators guidance, procedure masks should be worn with a proper fit over the nose, mouth, and chin to prevent leaks (by pinching the nose wire over the bridge of the nose). Procedure masks should not be worn if there were gaps around the sides of the face or nose. For a better fit, the user could use a fitter/brace, knot-and-tuck ear loops where they join at the edge of the mask or use masks that attach behind the neck and head with either elastic bands or ties (instead of ear loops). An observation on 01/29/2023 at 10:29 AM, showed Staff J, Registered Nurse (RN), wore a procedure mask with the ear straps broken off on the bottom part of the mask, and tied behind their head. The bottom part of the mask created a large gap around the sides of Staff J's face. On 01/29/2023 at 11:46 AM, Staff K, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), wore a procedure mask with the top part of the mask positioned below the tip of the nose; their nose was completely exposed during an interview. Staff K put the top of the mask in the proper place after the interview began, but immediately after the conversation ended, manually put the top of the mask back down below the nose. Observations in the assisted dining room on 01/29/2023 at 12:09 PM and 12:55 PM showed Staff K assisted multiple residents with their meal, within six feet of the residents, and without the top of their procedure mask properly covering their nose. A 01/29/2023 12:34 PM observation in the dining room showed Staff L, Nursing Assistant (NA), feeding a resident, within six feet of the resident, and the top of their procedure mask was positioned below the tip of their nose, exposing the entire nose. During a dining observation on 01/29/2023 at 12:53 PM, Staff H, RN, Infection Preventionist (IP), assisted a resident with their meal, seated less than six feet from the resident, with their procedure mask below their nose. At 12:54 PM, Staff H sat by a different resident, less than six feet from them, with their procedure mask worn improperly below the nose. A 01/30/2023 1:56 PM observation showed Staff H walking in front of the nurse's station, in the hallway where residents congregated to watch television, with no procedure mask on. Staff H did not acknowledge or recognize [they] did not have a mask on while in a resident care area. In a 02/03/2023 8:35 AM interview, Staff A, Administrator, stated if a staff member was within six feet of a resident or another staff member, they should have a procedure mask on. In a 01/31/2023 2:40 PM interview, Staff M, NA, wore a procedure mask, with the top of the mask positioned below the tip of their nose, with the entire nose exposed. In a 02/03/2023 8:37 AM interview, Staff H stated it was inappropriate for staff to wear their mask below their nose; the mask should cover both their nose and their mouth, including when they assisted residents with meal service. A 02/03/2023 9:23 AM observation showed Staff K, Licensed Practical Nurse, leaving a resident's room after administering medication. Staff K wore a procedure mask positioned below their nose, with the entire nose exposed. In a 02/03/2023 9:23 AM interview, Staff K stated staff were expected to always wear a procedure mask while in patient care areas and within six feet of residents. Per Staff K, staff should have the mask positioned appropriately with the top part of the mask over the bridge of the nose and pinched to fit the form of the person's nose and keep the mask in place. As Staff K explained their expectations, they readjusted their own mask by pulling it up over their nose. Staff K stated there was no reason a staff member should ever wear a procedure mask below the nose, and not have both their mouth and nose covered. Staff K stated it was important to wear the mask correctly to help stop transmission of communicable diseases. In a 02/03/2023 8:35 AM interview with Staff A and Staff H, Staff A, Administrator, stated the facility followed the current mask mandate order and all staff were expected to have their mask on, properly positioned, and only removed for the purpose of eating or drinking. If staff were in an office with their mask removed, they should be six or more feet apart. In a 02/03/2023 2:04 PM interview, Staff H stated staff were required to wear procedure masks when in patient care areas and it was not acceptable to have the mask positioned below the user's nose. Staff H stated when staff were in their offices, the surgical masks could be removed if they were socially distanced (six feet or more apart) from other staff. Staff H stated if a resident entered the office of a staff member who did not have their mask on, the staff member should put the mask back on. Staff H stated they conducted trainings on the use of PPE, assessed staff competencies regarding mask usage, and posted signage around the facility to provide staff with reminders regarding how to prevent transmission of COVID-19. Staff H stated it was important to ensure staff compliance with masking and PPE use to protect the residents/staff/visitors and prevent the spread of infections. Hand Hygiene Policy: The facility's revised 02/11/2022 Hand Hygiene policy showed hand hygiene was the single most important procedure for preventing the spread of infection. Alcohol-based hand rub (i.e., hand sanitizer) could be used for routine decontamination of hands in most clinical situations, except after caring for residents with infectious diarrhea, after using the restroom, before eating, or when visibly soiled. Some of the opportunities for hand hygiene included: before putting on and after removing gloves, before entering a patient's room, before providing personal care, after any contact with surfaces in the resident's immediate vicinity, after leaving the resident's room, and after assisting residents with toileting. Staff were required to change gloves and perform hand hygiene during resident care if moving from a contaminated body site to a clean body site. Resident 35 During a 01/31/2023 2:38 PM observation of toileting assistance provided to Resident 35, Staff N, NA, failed to remove their contaminated gloves and perform hand hygiene after cleaning a soiled area of the body. Wearing the same contaminated gloves, Staff N opened the resident's closet to get a clean incontinent brief, opened the nightstand drawer to retrieve a care product, placed the clean incontinence brief on Resident 35, assisted another NA with situating Resident 35 in bed, covered the resident with their clean blankets, adjusted the resident's pillow, then lowered the bed height using the bed remote control. At 2:43 PM, wearing the same contaminated gloves they wore during toileting assistance, Staff N moved the mechanical transfer lift, touching the lift handles. Staff N then removed their contaminated gloves, and without performing hand hygiene, adjusted their procedure mask on their face. Staff N did not disinfect any of the surfaces they touched while wearing the contaminated gloves. Resident 18 A 02/02/2023 10:05 AM observation of toileting assistance provided to Resident 18 by Staff O, Nursing Assistant, showed after the completion of personal care of the soiled part of the body, Staff O removed their contaminated gloves, but did not perform hand hygiene or put on a clean pair of gloves before securing the incontinent brief. Staff O then transferred the resident into their wheelchair, touching multiple surface areas of the wheelchair without performing hand hygiene. In a 02/03/2023 8:56 AM interview, Staff O stated gloves should always be removed after personal incontinence care or moving from a dirty part of the body to a clean part of the body. Staff O stated they should always perform hand hygiene after removal or between glove changes, and don clean gloves before completing their tasks. Staff O stated the only hand sanitizer dispensers were located in the hallways; there were no hand sanitizer dispensers available in the resident rooms when needed during patient care tasks. Staff O stated it would be ideal to have hand sanitizer dispensers available in every room to efficiently perform hand hygiene upon entering each room, between care tasks, and when leaving the room. On 02/03/2023 at 8:52 AM Staff H, RN/Infection Preventionist, stated it was their expectation when staff provided toileting assistance or personal care that they removed their contaminated gloves when moving from a dirty area of the body to a clean area of the body, and to perform hand hygiene before putting on a clean pair of gloves by either using hand sanitizer or washing their hands with soap and water. REFERENCE WAC: 388-97-1320 (1) (a-c)
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?"
  • "What safeguards are in place to prevent abuse and neglect?"
  • "Why is there high staff turnover? How do you retain staff?"
  • "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
  • "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: Federal abuse finding, 2 life-threatening violation(s), Special Focus Facility, 4 harm violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 52 deficiencies on record, including 2 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $18,723 in fines. Above average for Washington. Some compliance problems on record.
  • • Grade F (0/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: This facility has a substantiated abuse finding. Extreme caution advised. Explore alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Colville Health And Rehabilitation Of Cascadia's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns Colville Health and Rehabilitation of Cascadia an overall rating of 1 out of 5 stars, which is considered much below average nationally. Within Washington, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. A rating at this level reflects concerns identified through health inspections, staffing assessments, or quality measures that families should carefully consider.

How is Colville Health And Rehabilitation Of Cascadia Staffed?

CMS rates Colville Health and Rehabilitation of Cascadia's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 74%, which is 27 percentage points above the Washington average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs. RN turnover specifically is 75%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.

What Have Inspectors Found at Colville Health And Rehabilitation Of Cascadia?

State health inspectors documented 52 deficiencies at Colville Health and Rehabilitation of Cascadia during 2023 to 2025. These included: 2 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 4 that caused actual resident harm, and 46 with potential for harm. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.

Who Owns and Operates Colville Health And Rehabilitation Of Cascadia?

Colville Health and Rehabilitation of Cascadia 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 CASCADIA HEALTHCARE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 92 certified beds and approximately 58 residents (about 63% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in COLVILLE, Washington.

How Does Colville Health And Rehabilitation Of Cascadia Compare to Other Washington Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Washington, Colville Health and Rehabilitation of Cascadia's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 3.2, staff turnover (74%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (1 stars) is much below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Colville Health And Rehabilitation Of Cascadia?

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?" "What safeguards and monitoring systems are in place to protect residents from abuse or neglect?" "How do you ensure continuity of care given staff turnover, and what is your staff retention strategy?" "Can you walk me through typical staffing levels on day, evening, and night shifts?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations, the substantiated abuse finding on record, the facility's high staff turnover rate, and the below-average staffing rating.

Is Colville Health And Rehabilitation Of Cascadia Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, Colville Health and Rehabilitation of Cascadia has documented safety concerns. The facility has 1 substantiated abuse finding (meaning confirmed case of resident harm by staff or other residents). Inspectors have issued 2 Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility is currently on the Special Focus Facility watch list (a federal program monitoring the lowest-performing 1% of nursing homes nationwide). The facility has a 1-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in Washington. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.

Do Nurses at Colville Health And Rehabilitation Of Cascadia Stick Around?

Staff turnover at Colville Health and Rehabilitation of Cascadia is high. At 74%, the facility is 27 percentage points above the Washington average of 46%. Registered Nurse turnover is particularly concerning at 75%. RNs handle complex medical decisions and coordinate care — frequent RN changes can directly impact care quality. High turnover means new staff may not know residents' individual needs, medications, or preferences. It can also be disorienting for residents, especially those with dementia who rely on familiar faces. Families should ask: What is causing the turnover? What retention programs are in place? How do you ensure care continuity during staff transitions?

Was Colville Health And Rehabilitation Of Cascadia Ever Fined?

Colville Health and Rehabilitation of Cascadia has been fined $18,723 across 2 penalty actions. This is below the Washington average of $33,266. 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 Colville Health And Rehabilitation Of Cascadia on Any Federal Watch List?

Colville Health and Rehabilitation of Cascadia is currently an SFF Candidate, meaning CMS has identified it as potentially qualifying for the Special Focus Facility watch list. SFF Candidates have a history of serious deficiencies but haven't yet reached the threshold for full SFF designation. The facility is being monitored more closely — if problems continue, it may be added to the official watch list. Families should ask what the facility is doing to address the issues that led to this status.