CRITICAL
(J)
Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Someone could have died · 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 hazardous chemicals were secured on three of s...
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 hazardous chemicals were secured on three of six units including the secured Dementia Unit (South). These failures placed cognitively impaired resident's unsecured access to hazardous chemicals. The failure to safely secure hazardous chemicals caused an unsafe environment and placed residents at risk for serious injury, impairment, or death from ingestion of inappropriate substances.
An Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) was called on 05/17/2022 at 4:49 PM. The IJ was removed on 05/23/2022 at 2:47 PM, after chemicals were secured and staff was educated on the dangers of unsecured chemicals.
Findings included .
According to the Safety Data Sheet (SDS), revised 07/22/2020, identified the Q.T. Plus, a disinfectant/cleaner as a dangerous combustible liquid that causes respiratory and skin sensitization, severe skin burns and eye damage, and blindness could result. The hazards included that Q.T. Plus may cause an allergic skin reaction, allergy, asthma symptoms or breathing difficulties if inhaled. The SDS directed staff to store the Q.T. Plus in a well-ventilated place or wear a respirator, store locked up and do not eat or drink when using. The SDS included a warning to store the disinfectant/cleaner in the original container in areas inaccessible to children.
<SOUTH UNIT>
In an observation on 05/16/2022 at 9:30 AM, the PPE (Personal Protective Equipment) cart outside of room [ROOM NUMBER] had a container of Hydrogen Peroxide wipes on top of the cart. The wipes were at wheelchair height and accessible to wandering residents in the secured dementia unit. The label read Keep Out of Reach of Children (KOROC).
In an observation on 05/16/2022 at 9:38 AM, there was a Sani hand sanitizer wipes container on top of PPE cart outside room [ROOM NUMBER], containing 70% alcohol. The label showed, if swallowed, get medical help, or contact the Poison Control Center Immediately, the label stated KOROC. At this time, there were two residents observed wandering the halls independently without assistive devices.
In an observation on 05/16/2022 at 10:37 AM, 11:00 AM, 11:47 AM, 12:15 PM, 2:35 PM and 3:20 PM, the Sani hand sanitizer wipes remained on top of the PPE cart outside of room [ROOM NUMBER].
In an observation on 05/16/2022 at 10:37 AM, a container of Sani hand sanitizer wipes remained on top of the PPE cart outside of room [ROOM NUMBER].
In an observation on 05/16/2022 at 11:47 AM, a container of Sani hand sanitizer wipes remained on top of the PPE cart outside of room [ROOM NUMBER]. There was one unidentified resident observed nearby wandering in unit with staff accompanying them.
In an observation on 05/16/2022 at 12:15 PM, a container of Sani hand sanitizer wipes remained on top of the PPE cart outside of room [ROOM NUMBER].
In an observation on 05/16/2022 at 2:35 PM, a container Sani hand sanitizer wipes remained on top of PPE cart outside of room [ROOM NUMBER].
In an observation on 05/16/2022 at 3:20 PM, Sani hand sanitizer wipes container remained on the top of PPE cart outside of room [ROOM NUMBER].
In an observation and interview on 05/17/2022 at 12:39 PM, Staff M, Housekeeper, left the housekeeping cart unattended to go into the South pantry without their cart. On top of the cart was a one-gallon bucket with a side label indicating it was Q.T. Plus by [NAME]. The lid over the chemicals showed Shoppers Value Strawberry Swirl Ice Cream. Resident 102 was observed to wander out of their room in front of the housekeeping cart. There were no staff present. Review of Resident 102's, 04/29/2022 Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, showed the resident had severe cognitive impairment and wandering behaviors. The resident was ambulatory and required supervision and used no assistive devices. When Staff M returned to their housekeeping cart at 12:44 AM, they were asked about the unsecured chemicals. Staff M stated it contained Q.T., a cleaner and they always left it on their cart as it was used to clean high touch areas. Staff M stated they were unable to get a new container of Q.T. and needed a lid so they replaced it with the strawberry ice cream one. Staff M stated most of the residents stayed away from their housekeeping cart except (Resident 42). Staff M stated they had to keep Resident 42 away from their cart and mop bucket. Review of Resident 42's 03/28/2022 Quarterly MDS assessment, showed severe cognitive impairment and wandering behaviors that put the resident at risk for physical illness or injury. The resident was able to self-propel around the unit in their wheelchair.
In an observation on 05/17/2022 at 12:48 PM, Staff M left their housekeeping cart once again to go out of the secure unit, leaving the Q.T. Plus chemicals unattended. Resident 102 had wandered back into their room and then wandered out of their room again in front of the unsecured chemicals.
In a continuous observation on 05/17/2022 at 12:55 PM, seven minutes later, Staff M returned to the unit with a new QT Plus label to put on the top of the chemicals. Staff M stated Staff X, Environmental Services, was going to get the housekeeping staff new Q.T. Plus containers.
In a similar observation on 05/17/2022 at 1:03 PM and 1:10 PM, Staff M, left their housekeeping cart with unsecured unattended chemicals on top of the cart while two residents wandered on the unit near the cart without direct supervision.
Review of a requested dementia unit audit of cognitive status, and ambulatory status was received on 05/17/2022 at 3:28 PM, revealed there were twenty-five residents with significant cognitive impairment on the South unit. Thirteen of the twenty-five residents were able to ambulate, and nine residents could self-propel in their wheelchair and would have access to unsecured chemicals.
An Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) was called on 05/17/2022 at 4:49 PM.
In an observation on 05/20/2022 at 11:51 AM, Resident 87 was up in their wheelchair in their room. A container of Sani hand sanitizer wipes was located at the sink. Staff K, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), was informed there were unsecured chemicals at the resident's sink. Staff K stated they would let the aide know.
<NORTH>
In an observation on 05/16/2022 at 10:01 AM, there were two medication cups containing an unknown white substance on the nightstand of Resident 74.
In an observation on 05/16/2022 at 11:50 AM, the treatment cart on the North B hallway had Clorox Hydrogen Peroxide Wipes and Sani Cloths containers unsecured and accessible to residents.
In an observation on 05/16/2022 at 12:03 PM, there was a jar of Tri-Derma pain reliever cream and a bottle of antifungal powder unsecured on Resident 7's bedside table. The bottles contained the warning of KOROC.
<CENTRAL>
In an observation on 05/16/2022 at 9:34 AM, the PPE cart outside room [ROOM NUMBER] had Hydrogen Peroxide wipes on top of the cart.
In an observation on 05/17/2022 at 1:41 PM, there was a container labeled Germicidal on the unattended housekeeping cart in the hall between rooms [ROOM NUMBERS].
In an observation on 05/17/2022 at 2:44 PM, Clorox Wipes were on top of the isolation cart outside room [ROOM NUMBER].
On 05/18/2022 at 9:10 AM, there was an in-service posted at the South nurse's station dated 05/17/2022 that showed, Do not leave chemicals unattended. All chemicals must be secured inside the housekeeping cart and or inside the PPE drawers, including disinfectant wipes, hand sanitizers, and chemicals with a label keep out of children. Carts must be locked at all times when unattended including housekeeping carts. PPE bin drawers must be closed after removing an item.
In an observation on 05/20/2022 at 9:31 AM, Clorox Hydrogen Peroxide wipes were left unattended on top of housekeeping cart outside room [ROOM NUMBER]. The housekeeper was in the room mopping. There were six residents with cognitive impairment seated nearby.
In an observation on 05/20/2022 at 9:33 AM, Staff L, Nursing Assistant Certified (NAC), walked past the housekeeping cart with the unsecured Clorox Wipes on top of the cart. At 9:34 AM, Staff K and Staff L walked past the wipes. At 9:37 AM, Staff K threw a medication cup into the housekeeping cart garbage bin and walked past without securing the chemicals.
In an observation on 05/20/2022 at 9:40 AM, Staff N, Housekeeper, was asked about the unsecured and unattended Clorox Wipes located on top of their cart while they were in a room mopping. They stated chemicals should have been locked up.
In an interview on 05/23/2022 at 1:52 PM, Staff M, Housekeeper stated they had been in serviced on chemical security and they were not to use ice cream containers for chemical storage.
In an interview on 05/25/2022 at 3:15 PM, the Director of Nursing Services (DNS) stated the facility did not have a chemical security or storage policy
In an interview on 05/26/2022 at 10:45 AM, Staff B, Nurse Manager, stated the expectation was to secure chemicals and to be alert to residents on the unit and, look out for staff to ensure chemicals were locked up.
In a joint interview on 05/17/2022 at 4:49 PM, the Administrator, DNS, and Staff A, Assistant Director of Nursing Services (ADNS), were notified of the identified failure to secure hazardous chemicals, labeled with the warning, Keep out of the reach of children in the South, secured dementia unit and on the North and Central resident hallways. They were informed one resident was observed wandering by the unsecured chemicals covered with a strawberry ice cream lid and staff confirmed another resident (42) had tried to get into their housekeeping cart and mop bucket. Of immediate concern, was the South unit was comprised of twenty-five residents with significant cognitive impairment, thirteen of which could walk around the unit while nine were able to self-propel in their wheelchair. The DNS stated that the health department had advised them to have the wipes accessible for use.
In an interview on 05/25/2022 at 3:15 PM, the DNS stated the facility had no policy for securing chemicals.
Reference: (WAC) 387-97-1060(3)(g)
CRITICAL
(K)
Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Someone could have died · 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 the staff were compliant with Infection Prevent...
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 staff were compliant with Infection Prevention and Control Guidelines and standards of practice for four of six Units. The facility failed to ensure oversight and implementation of their Infection Prevention and Control Program during a Coronavirus Disease 2019 (an infectious disease-causing respiratory illness with symptoms including cough, fever, new or worsening malaise [a general feeling of discomfort/uneasiness], headache, dizziness, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, loss of taste or smell, and in severe cases difficulty breathing that could result in severe impairment or death) outbreak. The facility failed to ensure the staff appropriately used personal protective equipment (PPE), failed to ensure the staff cleaned and disinfected reusable medical equipment, failed to ensure appropriate hand hygiene practices were followed, failed to ensure Transmission Based Precautions (TBP) were implemented with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) positive residents, and failed to ensure appropriate handling of a urinary catheter bag in accordance with infection control standards of practice. The COVID-19 outbreak at the facility, had a result of 35 residents test positive, 35 staff members test positives, and the death of three residents (110, 113, 114). These failures placed all residents, visitors, and staff at risk for potential exposure to COVID-19, other infections and increased the likelihood of serious harm or death, which constituted an Immediate Jeopardy (IJ).
On [DATE] at 3:01 PM, the facility was notified of an IJ at CFR 483.80 (a)(2)(iii) F880 related to the facility's failure to implement proper use of PPE for COVID-19 positive residents, and incomplete education to facility staff on PPE use during a COVID-19 facility outbreak.
The facility removed the immediacy and was validated on [DATE] at 11:30 AM by implementing a removal plan with staff education on proper use of PPE, disinfection protocol for face shields, proper use of N95 (form of breathing respirator), appropriate hand hygiene protocol, and appropriate TBP procedures for COVID-19 positive residents. Written education and return demonstration training was provided to all staff.
Findings include .
RESIDENT 110
Resident 110 admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnosis to include heart failure.
Review of the facility admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], showed the resident had not received Hospice Services, did not require supplemental oxygen, and had received physical and occupational therapy.
Review of the Documentation Survey Report v2 (Report of the residents' functional abilities) for [DATE] showed the resident was consuming 51% - 75% of their meals independently, participated in activities daily, had a stable blood pressure, body temperature, and oxygen saturation level and did not require supplemental oxygen.
Review of the facility progress note dated [DATE] at 9:14 AM, showed the resident had tested positive for the COVID-19 virus.
Review of the facility progress note dated [DATE] at 3:23 PM, showed the resident was in respiratory distress with oxygen saturation (level of oxygen in the blood) levels below baseline, and required supplemental oxygen via nasal tubing (tubing delivering oxygen into the nose).
Review of the facility progress note dated [DATE] at 3:39 PM, showed the resident was unresponsive, with labored breathing, the resident's oxygen saturation levels were below baseline, and they required supplemental oxygen via a facial mask (breathing mask that delivers oxygen to the nose and mouth at the same time). The resident had a heart rate that was elevated above baseline and provider (doctor) was notified.
Review of the facility progress note dated [DATE] at 5:25 PM, showed the residents wife wanted the resident to be sent to the hospital, the Emergency Medical Technicians (EMT) were contacted via 911 and the resident was sent to the hospital.
Review of an email communication dated [DATE] at 12:03 PM, from the Director of Nursing Services (DNS) stated Resident 110 passed away on [DATE] at the hospital.
RESIDENT 113
Resident 113 admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnosis to include diabetes and kidney disease.
Review of the facility Quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE], showed the resident had intact cognition, had not received supplemental oxygen, and did not require hospice services. The resident was able to transfer with the supervision of one person, ambulated (walked) with no assisted device, and needed supervision for eating and toilet use.
Review of the facility progress note dated [DATE] at 9:16 AM, showed the resident had tested positive for the COVID-19 virus.
Review of the facility progress note dated [DATE] at 2:00 PM, showed the resident had a poor appetite.
Review of the facility progress note dated [DATE] at 7:52 AM, showed the resident had been found in sitting in a chair in the bathroom not feeling well, appeared to have labored breathing and sweating.
Review of the facility progress note dated [DATE] at 10:00 PM, showed the resident had difficulty walking, appeared weak to the nurse, and had labored breathing.
Review of the facility progress note dated [DATE] at 7:24 AM, showed that at 11:40 PM the night before, the resident had a blueish color to their nail beds, labored breathing above their normal baseline. The resident continued to have labored breathing throughout the shift per the nurse. At 4:00 AM on [DATE], the resident was found to have no vital signs and was pronounced dead.
RESIDENT 114
Resident 114 admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnosis to include fracture to the back with surgical repair.
Review of the facility admission MDS assessment dated [DATE], showed the resident had intact cognition, had not received supplemental oxygen, and did not require hospice services. The resident was able to ambulate with the assist of one person using a walker and ate meals with set up assist.
Review of the facility progress note dated [DATE] at 8:46 PM, showed the resident had tested positive for COVID-19 virus.
Review of the facility progress note dated [DATE] at 11:25 PM, the resident had complained of a cough and was producing thick yellow sputum and reported a sore throat.
Review of the facility progress note dated [DATE] at 1:37 PM, the resident reported a cough, with greenish colored sputum.
Review of the facility progress note dated [DATE] at 10:23 AM, the resident had an elevated body temperature above base line, blood pressure was below their normal baseline, had an increased heart rate, increased respirations, and required supplemental oxygen.
Review of the facility progress note dated [DATE] at 1:48 PM, resident was declared deceased at 10:42 AM.
<Personal Protection Equipment>
Review of Center for Disease Control (CDC) policy titled, Interim Infection Prevention and Control Recommendations for Healthcare Personnel During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic, updated February 2, 2022, stated:
- Residents with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 requires a National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) approved respirator as PPE and should be removed and discarded after the patient care encounter and a new one should be placed on; and
- Source control and physical distancing (when physical distancing is feasible and will not interfere with provision of care) are recommended for everyone in a healthcare setting including residents.
Review of CDC policy titled, How to use your N95 Respirator, updated [DATE]th, 2022, showed the N95 respirator must fit snug against the face, with no gaps or items in the way. Do not crisscross the straps ensure the straps lay flat and are not twisted. In the event there are gaps or improper use of straps the N95 respirator was not worn correctly and was not an effective respirator for use with COVID-19 positive residents.
Review of the CDC policy titled, Strategies for Optimizing the Supply of Eye Protection, updated [DATE], ensured appropriate cleaning and disinfection after each use if reusable face shields or goggles are used.
Review of the facility policy titled, Novel Coronavirus Prevention and Response, dated [DATE], stated staff are educated on proper use of personal protective equipment for standard, contact, droplet, and airborne precautions, including eye protection.
In a continuous observation on [DATE] at 2:29 PM, Staff G, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), was observed to enter room [ROOM NUMBER], a known COVID-19 positive resident room wearing a surgical mask underneath a N95, eye protection, gown, and gloves. Staff G then exited the room removing gloves, and gown and discarded into the waste basket. Staff G performed hand hygiene with alcohol-based hand gel (ABHG) and proceeded back to their medication cart down the hall. Staff G did not change their N95 after a resident encounter with a COVID-19 positive resident and did not disinfect their eye protection.
In an interview on [DATE] at 2:35 PM, Staff G confirmed that the resident in room [ROOM NUMBER] was positive with COVID-19. Staff G stated they had not had any education regarding disposing of their N95 after resident encounters with COVID-19 and replacing with a new N95. Staff G stated they had not had any education on proper use of the eye protection and were unaware they were to disinfect they eye protection after they provided care to a COVID-19 positive resident.
Staff G stated they thought they were providing themselves extra precaution by applying a surgical mask under their N95. Staff G confirmed they were providing care with COVID-19 positive and negative residents.
In an observation on [DATE] at 3:06 PM, Staff Z, Registered Nurse (RN), was observed to exit a resident room wearing their eye wear on top of their head. Staff Z continued to wear eye protection on top of their head while they assisted a resident in the hallway apply their surgical mask to their face, adjust the resident's jacket and push the resident in the wheelchair down to the nurse's station.
In an interview on [DATE] at 3:17 PM, Staff Z continued to wear the eye wear on top of their head during the interview. Staff Z stated they were to always wear eye protection with all resident encounters. Staff Z never acknowledged they had their eye wear on ineffectively.
In an observation on [DATE] at 1:39 PM, Staff O, LPN, was observed to provide closed contact care to a resident in room [ROOM NUMBER]. The signage outside of the room indicated aerosol contact precautions. Staff O was observed to exit the room and remove their gloves and gown, performed hand hygiene with ABHG and walk down the hallway and place a lunch lid at the nurse's station. Staff O did not remove their N95 and replace with a clean one. Staff O did not disinfect their eye protection.
In an interview on [DATE] at 1:41 PM, Staff O confirmed the resident in room [ROOM NUMBER] was COVID-19 positive. Staff O stated they were the nurse for both COVID-19 positive residents and negative residents. Staff O stated they were supposed to discard their N95 anytime they were in close contact with a COVID-19 positive resident and replace with a new one. Staff O stated they were supposed to disinfect their eye protection anytime they were in close contact with a COVID-19 positive resident. Staff O stated I guess I forgot when asked why they did not replace their N95 or why they did not disinfect their eyewear after caring for the COVID-19 positive resident in room [ROOM NUMBER].
In an observation on [DATE] at 9:11 AM, Staff AA, Physical Therapy Assistant (PTA), was observed in a COVID-19 positive residents' room with the door open. Staff AA was observed to be less than 6 feet from the resident while assisting with therapy exercises with the resident and was wearing a gown, gloves, eye wear and a surgical mask.
In an interview on [DATE] at 9:19 AM, Staff AA stated they were instructed to wear a N95 respirator for all COVID-19 positive residents. Staff AA stated the reason for only having a surgical mask on was I forgot this time, I thought I was already wearing one.
In an observation on [DATE] at 12:57 PM, Staff L, Nursing Assistant Certified (NAC), was observed exiting the room of a COVID-19 positive resident. Staff L was observed to not remove their N95 when they removed their PPE, Staff L did not replace their N95 after providing care to a COVID-19 positive resident.
In an observation and interview on [DATE]at 9:06 AM, Staff DD, NAC, was observed to enter a COVID-19 positive room to provide care not wearing a N95 respirator. Staff DD, then exited the room, removed the mask, and placed another one on their face. Staff DD stated they were unaware they were not wearing a N95 as the PPE bin outside of the COVID-19 positive room was stocked with those type of masks.
In an observation on [DATE] at 11:40 AM in the South Unit common room there were seventeen residents sitting and only one resident was wearing a surgical mask. Eight of the residents were seated closely together within one to two feet apart. Staff were observed to walk past the residents and did not make efforts to have residents wear a mask.
In an observation on [DATE] at 9:11 AM, Resident 50 was observed to not be wearing any source control (face mask) and was observed to be coughing repeatedly and wiping their runny nose with bare hand. Resident 89 was seated less than six feet away.
In an observation on [DATE] at 11:01 AM, Staff B, Nurse Manager (NM), was observed to enter a COVID-19 positive resident room with their N95 straps were crisscrossed which is incorrect placement. Staff B then exited the COVID-19 positive room and placed a new N95 on with the straps worn incorrectly.
In an observation on [DATE] at 11:41 AM, Resident 50 was observed to not be wearing any source control (face mask) and was observed to be coughing repeatedly and wiping their runny nose with bare hand. Resident 89 was seated less than six feet away.
In an observation on [DATE] at 1:20 PM, there were sixteen residents sitting in the common area on the South unit with no source control. There were six residents seated closely together with in one to two feet apart. Staff were observed to walk past the residents and did not make efforts to have residents wear mask.
In an observation on [DATE] at 2:14 PM, Resident 50 was observed in the common area of South Unit coughing and wiped their runny nose with a bare hand.
In an interview on [DATE] at 8:50 AM, the DNS entered the South Unit and reported that Resident 50 was now positive for COVID-19 virus.
<Hand Hygiene>
In a review of facility document titled, Glove Use, dated [DATE] stated:
- Perform hand hygiene prior to placing gloves on;
- Hand hygiene is to be performed immediately after removing gloves;
- Gloves are to be changed if they are damaged, soiled following a task, moving from a soiled body site to clean; and
- Reference procedures from the CDC.
In a review of facility policy titled, Infection Control and Prevention, updated [DATE], stated hand hygiene shall be performed in accordance with the facility established hand hygiene procedures.
In a review of the CDC policy titled, Hand Hygiene Guidance, reviewed [DATE], stated Healthcare personnel should use an alcohol-based hand rub or wash with soap and water for the following clinical indications:
- Immediately before touching a patient;
- Before moving from work on a soiled body site to a clean body site on the same patient;
- After touching a patient or the patient's immediate environment;
- After contact with blood, body fluids, or contaminated surfaces; and
- Immediately after glove removal.
In an observation on [DATE] at 2:38 PM, Staff G was observed to exit a COVID-19 positive resident room, at 2:39 PM they touched the front of their N95 and lifted it away from their face and pulled out the surgical mask underneath the N95. Staff G discarded the surgical mask into the garbage, adjusted their N95 by touching the front of the mask. Staff G did not perform hand hygiene, reached into their shirt pocket, retrieved keys, and unlocked the medication cart.
In an observation on [DATE] at 2:54 PM, Staff FF, NAC, was observed to perform incontinent care on a resident. Staff FF performed hand hygiene and placed gloves on their hands and prepared wash clothes to clean resident. Staff FF then approached the resident removed blankets, pants, and opened the resident's adult incontinent brief. Staff FF then stated they needed more items and placed the soiled front of adult incontinent brief over the resident's private area, walked away from the bed, touched the privacy curtain, and went to sink to grab trash bags and more wash clothes. Staff FF did not remove their gloves and did not perform any hand hygiene. Staff FF then reapproached the resident and began to clean the front private area, then tucked the soiled adult incontinent brief under resident and rolled resident on to their side. Staff FF cleaned the backside of the resident where stool was present on the incontinent brief. Staff FF then stated they needed more washcloths, left resident exposed, removed gloves, and grabbed more wash clothes and clean clothes out of the closet. Staff FF did not perform hand hygiene and placed new gloves on. Staff FF returned to finish cleaning the resident, applied a new clean brief and clean pants. Staff F then covered the resident, performed hand hygiene, and went to obtain clean linens to change the bedding.
In an interview on [DATE] at 3:38 PM, Staff FF stated they did not perform hand hygiene properly and stated they knew better. Staff FF did not offer a reason as to why they did not perform hand hygiene effectively.
<Transmission Based Precautions>
Review of the facility isolation sign for Transmission Based Precautions (TBP), titled Aerosol Contact Precautions, undated, stated directions for TBP for COVID-19 positive residents. The sign instructed healthcare workers to keep the door closed.
In an observation on [DATE] at 9:40 AM, room [ROOM NUMBER] had visible aerosol contact isolation instructions posted on the door. Resident 99 was visible in room, the door to the room was open.
In an observation on [DATE] at 9:52 AM, staff were observed to walk past the room [ROOM NUMBER], and the door was open.
In an observation on [DATE] at 11:30 AM, room [ROOM NUMBER] had visible aerosol contact isolation instructions posted on the door. Resident 99 was visible in room, and the door to the room was open.
In an observation on [DATE] at 10:32 AM, the room [ROOM NUMBER] had visible aerosol contact isolation instructions posted on the door. Resident 99 was visible in room, and the door to the room was open.
<Universal Medical Equipment>
Review of the facility policy titled, Novel Coronavirus Prevention and Response, dated [DATE] stated that all non-dedicated medical equipment used for a resident, needs to be cleaned and disinfected before use on another resident.
In an observation and interview on [DATE] at 3:06 PM, Staff Z was observed to exit a resident room with a vitals machine cart (which included a blood pressure cuff, thermometer, oximeter, which tests the amount of oxygen in the blood), they walked to the nurse's station with the cart documented in a red binder, then plugged the vitals cart into the electrical outlet on the wall. Staff Z stated the process for reusable medical equipment was to wipe them down with the disinfectant wipes. Staff Z stated they only wiped the vitals cart down with a paper towel in the room and did not offer a reason why they did not follow policy.
<Catheter Care>
Review of the facility policy titled, Urinary Indwelling Catheters, dated [DATE], sated Indwelling urinary catheters (urethral or suprapubic) will be utilized in accordance with current standards of practice, with interventions to prevent complications to the extent possible.
Maintain resident dignity by covering the urinary bag.
In an observation on [DATE] at 9:42 AM, Resident 67's catheter bag was visible lying on the ground. The resident was unable to state when the last time the staff were in to care for their catheter bag.
In observations on [DATE] at 2:12 PM and [DATE] at 10:30 AM, Resident 31's catheter was not covered under the wheelchair (w/c) and was dragging along the ground with dependent loops. The tubing was close to being caught in the wheels of the w/c.
In an observation on [DATE] at 12:44 PM, Resident 79's catheter bag was three quarters full, and bag was attached to bed at head level with no privacy bag.
In an observation on [DATE] at 8:54 AM, Resident 79's catheter bag was visible lying on the ground, part of the bag was under the wheels of the over the bed table. The resident was unable to state when the last time the staff were in to care for their catheter bag.
In an observation on [DATE] at 9:14 AM, Resident 79's catheter bag was attached to the bed, no privacy bag visible.
In an observation on [DATE] at 10:59 AM, Resident 79's catheter bag was attached to the bed, no privacy bag visible.
In an interview on [DATE] at 1:30 PM, Staff A, Assistant Director of Nursing/Infection Prevention, stated that during an outbreak they try to encourage residents to wear surgical mask and stay in their rooms as it was an ongoing process all the time. The expectation was staff were disinfecting their eye wear after they care for a resident who has tested positive for COVID-19, and all universal equipment such as vitals carts should be wiped and disinfected after every use regardless of COVID-19 status. Staff A stated that they educate staff on infection control practices at general orientation, and then do competency checks, rounding and on the spot education. Staff A stated they attempt to educate on hand hygiene quarterly. Staff A did not offer a reason as to why staff were not disinfecting their eye wear, changing out their N95, not performing hand hygiene, and disinfection of equipment.
In an interview on [DATE] at 2:10 PM, Staff GG, Staff Development Coordinator (SDC), stated they conduct general orientation once a month, but this month was cancelled due to the annual survey. They stated seven staff members were scheduled to attend, and they have already started working in their respected departments.
Review of facility documentation packet for newly hired employees provided by the facility on [DATE] at 2:20 PM, had no documentation related to infection control prevention and procedures.
The facility failed to ensure staff were wearing the appropriate PPE with working with COVID-19 positive residents, failure to properly disinfect eye protection after contact with a COVID-19 positive resident, there was failure by staff to perform proper hand hygiene during and after care of residents, failure to properly disinfect universal equipment after direct contact with a resident, and failure to ensure appropriate placement of a urinary catheter bag in accordance with infection control standards of practice. These breaches in infection prevention and control practices led to the spread of COVID-19 virus throughout the facility that subsequently led to the outbreak of 35 residents with COVID-19, which resulted in the hospitalization of Resident 110, and the death of Resident 110, Resident 113, and Resident 114.
Reference WAC 388-97-1320 (1)(a)(c)(5)(c)(e)
SERIOUS
(G)
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Free from Abuse/Neglect
(Tag F0600)
A resident was harmed · 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 that residents were free from abuse for one of...
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 that residents were free from abuse for one of three sampled residents (109) reviewed for abuse. This failure placed residents at risk of being abused and the facility not identifying the potential for vulnerable residents being abused. This caused harm to Resident 109 when staff physically and forcibly removed their hands, fingers from an over the bed table as Resident 109 attempted to keep hold of it.
Findings included .
Review of facility policy titled Abuse, neglect, abandonment, financial exploitation and misappropriation of resident property, revised January 2017, policy purpose stated to ensure prevention, protection, prompt reporting and interventions in response to alleged, suspected or witnessed abuse/neglect/exploitation, misappropriation of resident property and injuries of unknown sources. The policy definition of abuse is willful infliction of injury, unreasonable confinement, intimidation, or punishment on a vulnerable adult with resulting physical harm or pain or mental anguish. This also includes inappropriate and/or unauthorized photographing/recording of a resident which may demean or humiliate the resident.
Resident 109 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with most recent admission [DATE], and had diagnoses that included dementia, epilepsy (seizure disorder), depression, repeated falls, and Parkinson's disease (Central nervous system disease that affects movement, including tremors). The Minimum Data Set (MDS), an assessment of care needs, dated 05/09/2022, indicated the resident had memory issues, with inattention (lack of attention/distraction) and disorganized thinking. The MDS showed the resident required extensive assistance with activities of daily living (ADL's) including bed mobility, dressing, toileting, transfers, personal hygiene, and bathing.
Review of the resident's care plan showed interventions that included the resident needed 1:1 supervision when restless, agitated, or exhibited unsafe behavior. The care plan directed the staff to seat the resident at the activity table with hot chocolate, cookies, and a snack. Staff were to anticipate the resident's needs, provide physical and verbal cues to alleviate the resident's anxiety and to reapproach when indicated.
In an observation on 05/17/2022 at 12:18 PM, Resident 109 was awake, in their wheelchair slightly tilted back in the common area of the secure unit, rolling their over the bedside table back and forth in front of their wheelchair, holding on to it with both hands.
In a continuous observation on 05/17/2022 at 12:38 PM, Resident 109 was continuing to roll their over the bedside table back and forth in front of them, while seated in their wheelchair in the units common area. Resident 109 raised their left hand to staff as they walked by. Three staff members were observed to walk by the resident and did not acknowledge the resident. At 12:47 PM Staff O, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), moved the resident's wheelchair slightly in the common area as they were holding on to the over bedside table in front of the resident. Staff O was observed to forcefully remove the resident's hands from the over the bedside table multiple times.
On 05/17/2022 at 1:50 PM, the Administrator was informed of the observation regarding Staff O and Resident 109.
In an interview on 05/20/2022 at 11:40 AM, Staff K, LPN, stated that they try to lay the resident down in their room when they were waving their arms, attempting to grab at staff or attempting to get up from their wheelchair. Staff K stated that the resident did not like to be alone.
In an interview on 05/20/2022 at 1:23 PM with Staff EE, Nursing Assistant Certified, stated that interventions were in place for Resident 109 if they were reaching out, restless, or agitated. We have access to fidget toys, snacks, cookies, hot chocolate, and one to one interaction.
On 05/24/2022 at 01:33 PM the surveyor demonstrated to the Director of Nursing Services and Staff A how Staff O forcibly removed the resident's hands and fingers from the over the bedside table.
WAC Reference 388-97-0640(1)
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Notification of Changes
(Tag F0580)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure proper notification to responsible parties and healthcare pr...
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 proper notification to responsible parties and healthcare provider for one of four residents (106) reviewed for nutrition. This failure placed Resident 106 at risk for continued weight loss and unmet nutritional needs.
Findings included .
Resident 106 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses of dementia, malnutrition and dysphagia (trouble swallowing). On 03/29/2022, the resident weighed 108.8 pounds. On 05/10/2022, the resident weighed 99.2 pounds which was an 8.82% weight loss in six weeks.
Review of Resident 106's care plan showed that resident required set up assistance only and encouragement with meals. The care plan showed that resident had an easy to chew diet with thin liquids, and may have cookies, crackers, sandwiches, toast, cake, bread and peanut butter.
Review of Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioner (ARNP) note dated 04/19/2022 and 04/26/2022, showed no documentation of notification of change or weight loss.
In an interview on 05/26/2022 at 10:35 AM, Staff B, Registered Nurse (RN) stated that we do notify the resident's provider about weight loss. Staff B stated that they have notified the resident's responsible parties and the resident's provider. Documentation of notification was not found in the resident's medical records.
Reviewed documentation with Staff B on 05/26/2022 at 11:54 AM, related to notification of the resident's weight loss. A progress note dated 04/12/2022 at 10:51 AM, showed the provider was given an update on the resident's appetite, no weight notification was documented. A progress note dated 04/26/2022 at 10:47 AM, showed the provider was given an update on the resident's appetite, no weight notification documented.
WAC 388-97-0320 (1)(c)
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0582
(Tag F0582)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide the required beneficiary notices for one of three residents...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide the required beneficiary notices for one of three residents (162) reviewed for liability notices. This failure placed the residents at risk of not being fully informed of the potential cost of continued services.
Findings included .
Resident 162 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis to include Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Diasease (chronic respiratory condition causing difficulty breathing).
Review of the resident's clinical record revealed their Medicare part A coverage start date was 03/31/2022 and the last covered day of part A services was on 04/16/2022.
The Skilled Nursing Facility Advance Beneficiary Notice of Non-Coverage (SNF ABN )was not signed by resident or representative, the form was blank.
In an interview with Staff E, Social Services Director, on 05/17/22 at 12:42PM, they acknowledged the form was not filled out as required.
Reference WAC 388-97-0300 (1)(e)
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Investigate Abuse
(Tag F0610)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to thoroughly investigate an allegation of abuse for one of three resid...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to thoroughly investigate an allegation of abuse for one of three residents (109) reviewed for abuse. Failure to conduct a thorough investigation related to abuse placed vulnerable residents at increased risk for abuse, neglect, psychosocial harm, and a decreased quality of life.
Findings included .
Review of facility policy titled, Abuse, neglect, abandonment, financial exploitation and misappropriation of resident property, revised January 2017, policy purpose stated to ensure prevention, protection, prompt reporting and interventions in response to alleged, suspected or witnessed abuse/neglect/exploitation. The purpose statement of investigation is to determine if abuse, neglect, occurred to determine how to prevent further occurrences. The critical components of any investigation are the timeliness of the initiation of the investigation, the thoroughness of the investigation, and the objectivity of the investigator. Phase One: Initial investigation states to interview and document statement of witnesses, including assigned caregiver, caregivers in immediate area, remote or potential witnesses, such as visitors, family, roommates, and the alleged perpetrator.
Resident 109 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with most recent admission [DATE], and had diagnoses that included dementia, epilepsy (seizure disorder), depression, repeated falls, and Parkinson's disease (central nervous system disease that affects movement, including tremors). Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS), an assessment dated [DATE], indicated the resident had memory issues, with inattention (lack of attention/distraction) and disorganized thinking. The MDS showed the resident required extensive assistance with activities of daily living (ADL's) including bed mobility, dressing, toileting, transfers, personal hygiene, and bathing.
During an observation on 05/17/2022 at 12:38 PM, Resident 109 was continuing to roll his over the bedside table back and forth in front of him while seated in wheelchair. He raises his left hand to staff as they walk by. 3 staff have walked by and not acknowledge resident. At 12:47 PM, Staff O, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) moved resident in his w/c, and then forcibly removes resident's hands/fingers from their over the bedside table.
Review of the incident report completed on 05/19/2022 by Staff A, Assistant Director of Nursing Services (ADNS), showed that the facility was unable to substantiate any 'intentional' abuse/neglect, and the findings were that the incident was reasonably related to the resident's condition. Review of Staff O's statement stated that they did not recall the event. There were no statements from any possible witnesses. There were no statements from any staff that have worked with Staff O. In-Service completed on 05/17/2022, titled Dealing with behaviors of residents' with dementia for 7 staff, not including Staff O.
In an interview on 05/23/22 at 02:57 PM, with the Administrator and Direct of Nursing Services about the incident report that was completed, findings were marked as 'reasonably related to condition ', meaning that the incident was reasonable due to the resident's diagnoses, which would focus on resident and not on Staff O's actions. There was no documentation about possible staff burn out. There were no witness statements from any staff working in the South unit on that day or any day of working with Staff O. The incident report does not state what Staff O was to be in-serviced on prior to returning to work with vulnerable residents.
No other information was provided.
WAC 388-97-0640 (6)(a)(b)
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0637
(Tag F0637)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to identify a significant change and complete a timely Significant Chan...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to identify a significant change and complete a timely Significant Change in Status Assessment (SCSA) within the required 14-day timeframe for one of four (7) residents reviewed for Activities of Daily Living (ADL) and Bowel and Bladder Management. Failure to complete the SCSA timely placed the resident at risk for unmet care needs, decreased quality of care and diminished quality of life.
Findings included .
Review of the Long-Term Care Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) 3.0 User's Manual, Version 1.17.1, dated October 2019, stated a Significant Change in Status Assessment must be completed no later than 14 days from the Assessment Reference Date and no later than 14 days from the determination date of the significant change in status. (For purpose of this section, a significant change means a major decline in status that will not normally resolve itself without further intervention by staff or by implementing standard disease-related clinical interventions, that has an impact on more than one area of a resident's health status).
Resident 7 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis to include obesity, depression, and osteoarthritis (disease of the joints).
Review of the resident's Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment from 06/01/2021, 08/30/2021, 11/16/2021, and 02/14/2022 showed the resident had following decline:
Activities of Daily Living (ADL) Walking:
-06/01/2021, the admission Assessment showed the resident required one-person extensive assistance with a walker to walk in the corridor on the unit;
- 08/30/2021, the Quarterly Assessment showed walk in corridor on unit activity did not occur, which was a decline/change in condition; and
- 11/16/2021, the Quarterly Assessment showed walk in corridor on unit activity did not occur which was a decline/change in condition; and
- 02/14/2022, the Quarterly Assessment showed walk in corridor on unit activity did not occur which was a decline/change in condition.
Bladder and Bowel:
- 06/01/2021, the admission Assessment showed the resident was frequently incontinent of urine with no toileting program, and always continent of bowel;
- 08/30/2021, the Quarterly Assessment showed the resident was always incontinent of urine with no toileting program, and occasional incontinence of bowel with no bowel program in place, which was a decline/change in condition;
- 11/16/2021, the Quarterly Assessment showed the resident was always incontinent of urine with no toileting program, which was a decline/change in condition; and
- 02/14/2022, the Quarterly Assessment showed the resident was always incontinent of urine with no toileting program, always incontinent of bowel with no bowel program in place, which was a decline/change in condition.
Review of Resident 7's care plan on 05/26/2022, showed the resident required either a bedside commode with the assistance of a lifting device or a bed pan for toileting. The ADL for walking was not addressed in the care plan.
In an interview on 05/16/2022 at 10:29 PM, the resident stated they wished they could get out of bed like they used to and walk, all they ever do now was lie in bed.
In an interview on 05/19/2022 at 11:10 AM, Staff JJ, Nursing Assistance Certified (NAC), stated the resident was walking with a walker when they admitted to the facility but has not done that in a long time.
In an interview on 05/19/2022 at 1:19 PM, the resident stated when they admitted a year ago, they were walking, they could go into the restroom and use the toilet. Resident 7 stated the facility had them sit in a wheelchair all the time, and they just stopped walking and could not get up anymore.
In an interview on 05/23/2022 at 9:12 AM, the resident stated they must have a bowel movement in their pants now since they could not get to a toilet, they were unable to walk to the restroom anymore.
In an interview on 05/26/2022 at 8:02 AM, Staff C, Nurse Manager (NM), stated they did not do a significant change as they just expected the resident to decline.
In a follow-up interview on 05/26/2022 at 8:43 AM, Staff C defined a significant change would be a decline in two or more areas assessed on the MDS.
In an interview on 05/26/2022 at 11:03 AM, the Director of Nursing Services (DNS) stated the nurse managers were responsible for completing the admission, annual, quarterly and any significant change MDS for all long-term care residents. The DNS stated the NM is responsible for bringing any changes with their residents to their daily clinical meetings so they could discuss any changes that may need to occur with a resident's plan of care. The DNS stated if there was a decline, they follow the RAI manual, place the resident on alert charting and complete a SCSA. The DNS confirmed that Resident 7 should have been assessed for a decline and an SCSA should have been completed.
Reference: (WAC) 388-97-1000(3)(b)
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Assessment Accuracy
(Tag F0641)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure the assessments completed for 2 of 8 residents (...
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 assessments completed for 2 of 8 residents (84, and 109) related to skin conditions and treatments were accurate. The failed practice placed residents at risk for ineffective, inaccurate care plan interventions and reimbursement to the facility for services not provided.
Findings included:
According to the Long-Term Care Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) 3.0 User's Manual, Version 1.17.1, dated October 2019, (a guide to accurately complete the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment), the Skin and Ulcer Treatment of Turning/Repositioning Program included a consistent program for changing the resident's position and realigning the body. A Program was defined as a specific approach that was organized, planned, documented, monitored, and evaluated based on an assessment of the resident's needs. Progress notes, assessments, and other documentation should support that the turning/repositioning program was monitored and reassessed to determine the effectiveness of the intervention.
RESIDENT 84
Resident 84 admitted [DATE] with dementia with behavioral disturbance, anxiety, major depressive disorder, cognitive communication deficit and spine disorders.
According to the 05/02/2022 Significant change MDS, Resident 84 had a unstageable (wound covered in non viable tissue), unhealed pressure ulcer (wound caused by pressure or friction) and was on a turning and repositioning program.
In an observation on 05/20/2022 at 9:32 AM until 11:31 AM, the resident was up in their wheelchair by the nurse manager office. At 11:31 AM, the resident was up in their wheelchair in the same location without any repositioning attempts. The resident stated they had been up too long. The resident was observed up in their wheelchair on all observations.
Review of the clinical record failed to show progress notes, assessments, and other documentation to support that the turning/repositioning program was monitored and reassessed to determine the effectiveness of the intervention.
RESIDENT 109
Resident 109 admitted to the facility on [DATE], with most recent admission [DATE] and had diagnoses that included dementia, epilepsy (seizure disorder), depression, repeated falls, and Parkinson's disease (Central nervous system disease that affects movement, including tremors).
Review of the MDS, dated [DATE], indicated that resident had memory issues, with inattention and disorganized thinking. The MDS showed that the resident required extensive assist with activities of daily living (ADL's) and is at risk for developing pressure ulcers. The MDS assessments dated 11/15/2021, 02/15/2022, and 05/09/2022 showed that the resident was on a turning and repositioning program.
Review of resident's care plan showed no turning or repositioning program interventions.
In an interview on 05/25/2022 at 2:41 PM, Staff K, Licensed Practical Nurse, stated Resident 109 was not on a turning or repositioning schedule and that staff just knew they should reposition residents. Staff K was unaware of anyone in the South unit being on a turning and repositioning schedule.
In an interview on 05/26/2022 at 10:40 AM, Staff B, Nurse Manager, stated the MDS and CAA assessment were completed by her for the South unit. Staff B stated they were unaware of the required turning and repositioning components for MDS coding.
No additional information was provided.
Reference: (WAC) 388-97-1000 (1)(b)(d)
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Pressure Ulcer Prevention
(Tag F0686)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide care and services to prevent pressure ulcers (...
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 provide care and services to prevent pressure ulcers (PU's) for one of three residents (84) reviewed for PU's (also known as a pressure injury). The facility failed to implement a turning/repositioning program for a resident with advances age, decreased mobility and incontinence caused potential harm to Resident 84 who admitted with no PU's and developed two PU's to both hips which deteriorated to an unstageable PU and stage III PU. Resident 84 did not receive preventative measures including pressure relief to prevent the PU development in a high-risk resident on two occasions nor assist with repositioning assistance and encouragement to prevent and resolve acquired pressure areas. Facility failure placed other residents at risk for the development of a PU.
Findings included .
The National Pressure Ulcer (also known as a pressure injury [PI]) Advisory Panel (NPUAP) Pressure Injury (Ulcer) definition and stages included:
- A pressure injury (PI) was a localized damage to the skin and/or underlying soft tissue usually over a bony prominence or related to a medical or other device. The injury can present as intact skin or an open ulcer and may be painful. The injury occurred as a result of intense and/or prolonged pressure or pressure in combination with shear. The tolerance of soft tissue for pressure and shear may also be affected by microclimate, nutrition, perfusion, co-morbidities, and condition of the soft tissue;
- A Stage 2 PI was partial-thickness skin loss with exposed dermis. The wound bed was viable, pink, or red, moist, and may also present as an intact or ruptured serum-filled blister. These injuries commonly result from adverse microclimate and shear in the skin over the pelvis and shear in the heel; and
- An unstageable PI was obscured full-thickness skin and tissue loss, full-thickness skin, and tissue loss in which the extent of tissue damage within the ulcer cannot be confirmed because it was obscured by slough or eschar (non-viable tissue covering the wound bed) (the eschar was dry, adherent, and intact without redness).
The NPUAP (2017), Educational and Clinical Resources and PI Prevention Points, advises to inspect the skin at least daily for signs of pressure injury, assess pressure points, reposition all individuals at risk for pressure injury based on support surfaces and individual preference.
The Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Manual defined the stage of a pressure ulcer (PU) as followed:
- A stage II PI (ulcer) was described as a partial thickness loss of the skin;
- A stage III PI (ulcer) was described as a full thickness loss of the skin;
- An unstageable PI (ulcer) was a full thickness skin and tissue loss was obscured by slough (non-viable tissue) or eschar (dead or devitalized tissue); and
- A Deep Tissue Injury (DTI) was described as intact or non-intact skin with localized area of persistent non-blanchable deep red, maroon, or purple discoloration.
RESIDENT 84
Resident 84 admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses to include advanced age, heart disease, peripheral vascular disease, limited physical mobility related to dementia, spinal stenosis, right knee osteoarthritis, protein calorie malnutrition and chronic back pain.
Review of the hospital records revealed the resident was discharged with no PU's present.
Review of the facility admission skin /wound note on 07/16/2021 at 10:39 PM, showed the skin assessment was completed. Skin was intact all over and there were no PU's or open areas were identified on the admit assessment .
Review of the admission Braden Scale for Predicting Pressure Sore Risk (an assessment tool to determine a resident's risk for developing PU's), dated 07/16/2021, revealed the resident was at risk for PU's.
Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment on 07/23/2021, showed the resident was at risk for developing PU's/injuries and had no unhealed PU's/injuries. The resident was not on a turning/repositioning program or nutrition intervention to manage skin problems. The resident did not reject care. The Care Area Assessment (CAA) revealed the resident was at risk for PU's due to decreased mobility, incontinence, required assistance with bed mobility, peri care, advanced age, and fragile skin.
In an interview on 05/16/2022 at 3:05 PM, Resident 84 stated they had two very painful sores on their hips where their skin broke down. The resident stated they were not here when I came here. The resident stated the wounds almost healed once and someone looked at them every other day. The resident said they were agreeable to repositioning and did not refuse care.
Review of the facility matrix (a document provided by the facility to identify pertinent care categories) on 05/17/2022, incorrectly showed the facility had no facility acquired PU's.
According to their Quarterly MDS assessment, dated 01/10/2022, they had occasional incontinence of bladder and bowel. Resident 84 required extensive assistance with bed mobility, transfers, dressing, toilet use and personal hygiene, had no pressure ulcers or injuries but was at risk for developing PU's, and had pressure reducing devices for bed and chair, and a turning/repositioning program in place. The resident did reject care in the past 4-6 days. The assessment showed the resident had developed one unstageable PU due to presence of slough and or eschar in the wound bed, which was not present on admission.
Review of the Braden Scale for Predicting Pressure Sore Risk, dated 01/10/2022, showed the resident was assessed to be at risk for PU's.
Review of the [NAME] (directives for nursing assistants), print date 05/17/2022, revealed the resident had a pressure reduction cushion for chair/wheelchair issues on 03/25/2022 and to ensure placement. There was no mention of skin at risk or a pressure reducing mattress, they required one-person extensive assistance with turning side to side in bed. There were no directives on when to turn or reposition.
Review of the resident's care plan, print date 05/17/2022, revealed the following:
- the resident has a history of pressure injury to the left trochanter (hip) related to impaired mobility and occasional incontinences initiated on 11/02/2021.
- resident prefers also prefers to lay on their left side despite encouragement to alternate. Recommended for wound healing is to have resident limit time in her wheelchair to out of bed for meals only, not greater than 1 hour at a time, however resident preference is to be out of bed throughout the day, socializing, self-propelling about unit, participating in activities.
-Resident requests to use toilet every 1 hour and is 1 person assist on/off the toilet so is changing position/offloading pressure frequently while out of bed in their wheelchair
- Resident currently has an unstageable pressure injury ulcer to their right trochanter.
Review of the nursing progress notes on 10/29/2021 showed the resident complained of left hip pain and upon assessment, a pressure ulcer to the left hip had developed, measuring 3 centimeters (cm) by 2.5 cm with white slough in it and red edges.
Review of the nursing progress notes on 10/30/2021 showed new orders were received for a low air loss air mattress, Rojo cushion in the wheelchair, daily dressing changes and a health shake three times daily for nutritional supplement.
Review of a skin/wound note on 11/05/2021 at 8:36 AM showed the resident was seen by the wound provider two days prior. The ARNP completed wound debridement and the wound was deemed unstageable due to slough at the wound base. The wound measured 2.5 cm by 2.7 cm with 100% slough in the wound base.
Review of a skin/wound note on 11/12/2021 at 3:15 PM showed the resident was seen by the wound provider and the wound was now deteriorated to a stage IV with muscle exposed.
Review of a skin/wound note on 11/18/2021 at 12:15 PM showed the wound was warm and red and the resident was on antibiotics for a wound infection.
Review of skin wound note on 11/18/2021 at 3:16 PM, showed the wound increase in size to 3.2 cm by 3.6 cm by 0.1 cm. Wound bed was 90% slough.
Review of skin wound note on 12/02/2021 at 3:12 PM, showed the wound measured 2.8 cm by 2.9 cm by 0.1 cm. Wound bed was 90% slough.
Review of skin wound note on 12/09/2021 at 12:13 PM, showed the wound measured 2.0 cm by 1.2 cm by 0.1 cm. Wound bed was 90% slough.
Review of skin wound note on 12/16/2021 at 1:37 PM, showed the wound measured 2.8 cm by 2.9 cm by 0.1 cm. Wound bed was 90% slough.
Review of skin wound note on 01/13/2022 at 11:15 AM, showed the wound measured 1.3 cm by 1.2 cm by 0.1 cm. Wound bed was 60% slough.
Review of skin wound note on 02/03/2022 at 11:05 PM, showed the wound worsened and measured 1.5 cm by 1.2 cm by 0.2 cm. Wound bed was 40% slough.
Review of skin wound note on 03/03/2022 at 12:25 PM, showed the wound measured 1.2 cm by 1.2 cm by 0.2 cm. Wound bed was 50% slough.
Review of skin wound note on 03/28/2022 at 9:48 AM, showed the left trochanter wound has closed and they would continue monitoring weekly during skin assessments.
Review of a nursing progress note on 04/19/2022 at 9:23 AM showed the resident complained of both hips hurting. Upon assessment, a right trochanter pressure ulcer was visualized measuring 3 cm by 3.5 cm by 0.1 cm with red induration around the wound and 100% slough. The resident was referred to the wound healing service and an air mattress was to be provided.
Review of the nursing progress note on 04/29/2022 at 1:01 PM, showed the resident had been seen by the wound healing provider on 04/27/2022. Current wound measurements were 2.1 cm by 1 cm by 0.1 cm with 30% slough.
Review of the nursing progress note on 05/05/2022 at 12:07 PM, showed the resident had been seen by the wound healing provider on 05/04/2022. Current wound measurements were 1.6 cm by 0.8 cm by 0.1 cm with 30% slough.
Review of the nursing progress note on 05/12/2022 at 4:40 PM, showed the resident had been seen by the wound healing provider on 05/11/2022. Current wound measurements were 1 cm by 0.5 cm by 0.1 cm with 30% slough.
In observation on 05/17/2022 at 9:33 AM, the resident was assisted in their wheelchair to an area by nurse manager office. At 10:52 AM, the resident remained in the same location with no attempts to reposition. At 12:29 PM, 1:57 PM and 3:18 PM, the resident remained in the same location without any repositioning. The resident was observed up in their wheelchair on all observations.
In an observation on 05/18/2022 at 9:02 AM through 9:49 AM, the resident was asleep in their wheelchair in front of the nurse manager office. At 12:46 PM until 1:18 PM the resident sat in their wheelchair. At 1:48 PM the resident was in the same position and location by the nurse manager office and was observed to keep raising their hand to summons staff attention. Staff was unaware and not nearby. The resident was observed up in their wheelchair on all observations.
In an observation on 05/19/2022 at 10:34 AM, the resident was up in their wheelchair self-propelling around the unit. At 1:17 PM, they stated they ate lunch in their wheelchair. At 3:34 PM, the resident was crying and talking to Resident 99, stating, Can I talk to you? Can I talk to you? How do I get my clothes? The resident was observed up in their wheelchair on all observations.
In an observation on 05/20/2022 at 9:32 AM until 11:31 AM, the resident was up in their wheelchair by the nurse manager office. At 11:31 AM, the resident was up in their wheelchair in the same location without any repositioning attempts. The resident stated they had been up too long. The resident was observed up in their wheelchair on all observations.
In a continuous observation on 05/23/2022 at 8:57 AM until 11:32 AM, the resident was in their wheelchair by nurse manager's office with no repositioning efforts. At 1:14 PM until 1:57 PM, the resident was asleep in their wheelchair by the nurse manger office. The resident was observed up in their wheelchair on all observations.
In observations on 05/24/2022 at 9:35 AM, 10:23 AM, 11:24 AM and 1:13 PM, the resident was asleep in their wheelchair by the nurse manager office with no observations of repositioning. The resident was observed up in their wheelchair on all observations.
Review of the nursing progress note on 05/24/2022 at 5:00 PM, showed the resident had been seen by the wound healing provider on 05/18/2022. Current wound measurements were 0.1 cm by 0.1 cm by 0 cm with 0% slough.
In an interview and observation of wound care on 05/25/2022 at 2:22 PM, revealed the right trochanter pressure ulcer had closed. Staff UU, LPN was informed that the resident was not observed to be in bed or out of their wheelchair all days of survey until this observation at this surveyor's request.
In an interview on 05/26/2022 at 9:22 AM, Staff A, Assistant Director of Nursing stated there was no investigation for the stage III pressure ulcer that developed in the facility on 04/19/2022. Staff A stated the facility did an investigation for the left hip pressure ulcer that developed 10/29/2021. Staff A stated they would initiate an investigation now and in-service staff. Staff A was informed that the resident had only been observed in their bed on one occasion during the wound care observation yesterday. There were no observations of staff attempts to reposition or encourage the resident to lie down. Further, during day shift staff interview, the resident is often up in their wheelchair asleep when they arrive at work at 6 AM. Staff A was informed there was not documentation the resident refused to reposition in the progress notes. Staff A stated that the resident did not like to lay down for long periods of time. Staff A acknowledged more preventative measures could be taken to prevent pressure ulcers.
In an interview on 05/26/2022 at 11:11 AM, Staff B, Nurse Manager stated the resident offloads their pressure and moved very well. Staff B acknowledged the care plan was conflicting and did direct staff to limit the residents time out of bed for meals and limit the time to one hour. Staff B coded the resident as having a turning and repositioning program on the MDS and stated they were unaware of the specific documentation it entailed.
Review of the April 2022 and May 2022 Nursing Assistant (NA) documentation showed no documentation the resident refused any care.
Review of the progress notes beginning 01/01/2022 show the resident did not refuse care or repositioning.
Reference: (WAC) 388-97-1060 (3)(b)
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Incontinence Care
(Tag F0690)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure one of two (79) residents reviewed for urinary ...
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 one of two (79) residents reviewed for urinary catheters received the necessary care and services to achieve their optimal level of urinary function. Failure to identify the reason for a resident's urinary catheter, lack of documentation to support why an indwelling catheter was replaced and a trial void order was not completed. This failure placed residents at risk for discomfort and complications related to catheter use and a diminished quality of life.
Findings include .
Review of the facility policy titled, Urinary Indwelling Catheters, dated 06/18/2020 stated any resident that admits with a urinary catheter will be assessed for removal as soon as possible . the resident and representative will be included in the discussion about indications, potential benefits, and risk .use of the urinary catheter will be in accordance with the physician orders.
Review of the resident's admissions orders dated 04/21/2022 from the local Hospital in the same city, stated a voiding trial (a process where the catheter is removed, and the resident's bladder volume is assessed after each time they empty their bladder), to be completed at the facility on 04/27/2022.
Resident 79 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis to include malnutrition, and pain. The admission Minimum Date Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], showed the resident had intact cognition. A Care Area Assessment (CAA) triggered for urinary catheter, with documentation for a referral to the physician to assess if the resident could have the indwelling catheter removed for a voiding trial.
Review of the facility progress note dated 04/28/2022 at 7:57 AM, a nurse noted the resident's catheter was causing them pain, the urine in the bag was cloudy and the resident had low urine output. The progress notes by the nurse on the floor, showed that they decided to replace the urinary catheter for the resident.
Review of the facility progress note dated 04/29/2022 at 12:58 PM, Staff C, Nurse Manager (NM), documented that the Nurse Practitioner would like to delay a voiding trial until after the resident had their neurological consult.
Review of the facility progress note dated 05/04/2022 at 3:42 PM, Staff RR, Health Unit Coordinator (HUC), documented the resident, and the family would not like to pursue the neurology consult at this time.
In an observation and interview on 05/16/2022 at 1:57 PM, the resident's urinary catheter was visible on the side of the bed. The resident stated they had the indwelling catheter since they admitted to the facility from the hospital.
In an interview on 05/18/2022 at 12:48 PM, Collateral Contact (CC)1, stated the hospital placed the urinary catheter as the resident was not able to get out of bed, and I guess they just left it in. CC1 stated no one at the facility had discussed with them or the resident the indwelling urinary catheter indication, or when it would be removed.
Review of the resident's care plan on 05/19/2022 showed the facility was to report to the physician if there was cloudy urine, pain, or no output. The care plan did not address a plan to attempt a trial void of the urinary catheter and remove the indwelling urinary catheter.
Review of the resident's Electronic Medication Administration Record and Treatment Administration Record on 05/19/2022, showed no order for a trial void for the indwelling urinary catheter was ordered or completed. There were no orders to replace the urinary catheter on 04/28/2022 related to the pain, cloudy urine, and low output which the nurse documented they had changed the indwelling catheter.
Review of the resident's progress notes on 05/19/2022, showed no physician notification that the resident had experienced pain, cloudy urine, and low output with their indwelling urinary catheter on 04/28/2022 where a nurse had changed the urinary catheter. There was no documentation that a voiding trial of the indwelling urinary catheter was completed after the resident declined the neurology consult.
In an interview on 05/23/2022 at 10:05 AM, Staff C stated they did not know the indication for the urinary catheter for Resident 79. Staff C confirmed there was no follow-up with the resident, family, or physician after they chose to not go to the neurology consult. Staff C was unaware of the discharge order from the hospital to attempt a voiding trial on 04/27/2022. Staff C confirmed the nurse that replaced the urinary catheter on 04/28/2022 should have contacted the physician and obtained orders. Staff C stated they were focused on discharging the resident and overlooked the indwelling urinary catheter.
In an interview on 05/26/2022 at 11:08 AM, Director of Nursing Services (DNS) stated if a resident admitted with a indwelling urinary catheter, they ensure there was an indication for use, and that they had all the orders to treat and care for the urinary catheter. If the resident does not have those, they would obtain a referral to a Urologist. The DNS stated there must be an order to replace a catheter, and if there was no order the nurse would need to contact the physician and obtain one. The DNS confirmed that Resident 79 should have had a trial void, that there should have been follow up after the resident and family chose not to pursue neurology, and that the nurse should never have replaced the catheter without notification and order from a physician.
Reference: WAC 388-97-1060(3)(c)
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0692
(Tag F0692)
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 accurate weights were obtained to identify and m...
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 accurate weights were obtained to identify and mitigate weight loss for one of two residents deemed at risk for malnutrition (Resident 56) reviewed for nutrition. This failure placed Resident 56 at potential risk for medical complications and a diminished quality of life.
Findings included .
Resident 56 admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses to include Alzheimer's disease, diabetes, gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD), cardiac and kidney disease.
Review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS-a required assessment tool) dated 05/12/2022, showed that the resident required extensive/one-person physical assistance to eat. The assessment showed the resident did not have weight loss.
Review of the resident's nutrition care plan developed on 10/26/2021 showed the resident had a nutritional problem related to their advanced age, a therapeutic diet, a BMI (body mass index) high (protective), poor dentition (teeth), a history of hyponatremia (low sodium level) related to excessive water intake, a variable intake with behaviors, a self-feeding deficit, a past medical history of Coronavirus 2019, Alzheimer's, dementia, adult failure to thrive, and diabetes. The goal was for the resident to maintain adequate nutritional status as evidenced by maintaining their weight with no significant weight change and no significant weight loss from 120 pounds. The staff were directed to monitor/record/report to MD (physician) as needed any signs of malnutrition: Emaciation (a wasting of the muscle and tissue), significant weight loss of 3 pounds in 1 week, or greater than 5% in 1 month, greater than 7.5% in 3 months, and greater than 10% in 6 months. The facility was to provide and serve supplements and fortified foods as ordered and recommended by the Registered Dietician (RD) and accepted by the resident; to include sugar free Health shake's twice daily, whole milk with meals and fortified foods with meals. The resident needed a calm, quiet setting at mealtimes with adequate eating time and preferred to consume meals in their room.
Review of the resident's physician orders dated 04/28/2021 showed the resident was to receive no concentrated sweets, and a regular diet. The Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA) showed the resident was at risk for malnutrition and was present on their admission to the facility. The orders directed staff to check the resident's weight weekly on Tuesdays before breakfast.
Review of the most recent MNA on 04/08/2022 showed the resident remained at risk for malnutrition. The assessment was completed based on a weight that was obtained on 03/22/2022 at 125.0 pounds. The MNA directed staff to use the most recent weight.
Review of the clinical record showed the following recorded weights:
05/25/2022 13:59
109.8 lbs. (pounds)
04/26/2022 13:59
119.4 lbs.
04/19/2022 13:37
125.0 lbs.
04/12/2022 13:59
123.0 lbs.
03/22/2022 09:43
125.0 lbs.
03/15/2022 10:03
122.6 lbs.
03/08/2022 13:59
123.2 lbs.
Review of the weight log in Point Click Care (PCC, electronic medical record) showed the weights were not obtained as ordered on 03/29/2022, 04/05/2022, 05/03/2022, 05/10/2022, 05/17/2022, and 05/24/2022.
Review of the 30-day meal monitor look back showed:
- Resident refused 14 meals
- Resident ate 0-25%= 19 meals
- Resident ate 26-50%= 17 meals
- Resident 51-75%= 15 meals
- Resident ate 76-100%=17 meals
In an observation on 05/16/2022 at 12:42 PM, Resident 56's lunch tray was delivered unopened. At 12:47 PM the resident was observed trying to brush their teeth with their clothing protector. At 12:50 PM, the resident stood up and went down the hall. Their food was untouched.
Review of the 05/17/2022 quarterly nutrition assessment directed staff to:
- Continue the diet as ordered
- Continue the fortified foods at all meals, whole milk all meals, peanut butter and jelly sandwich with all meals
- Recommend increasing the sugar free Health shakes to three times a day from twice daily
- Continue no bedside water pitcher related to history of hyponatremia and drinking excessive amounts of water
- Requested a current weight
- One person to assist with feeding as needed
- Consideration to update their labs
Goal: no significant weight loss from 120 pounds, to strive for no significant weigh changes, and for the RD to follow up as needed per facility protocol.
In a continuous observation on 05/18/2022 at 12:48 PM, the resident was in the common area, eating in a very fast pace, spitting into their food on their plate then spitting on the floor, and grabbing the salad from a bowl with their fingers. At 12:58 PM, the resident was observed to rub their right leg and then stated pain, better, no poop. There was a pile of food observed on both sides of the recliner where the resident was seated that they had spit out, and there was no staff present to assist them with their meal.
In an observation on 05/19/2022 at 8:51 AM through 10:06 AM, the resident was asleep on the couch in the common area. They did not eat breakfast.
In an observation on 05/20/2022 at 7:36 AM and 11:40 AM, the resident was in bed asleep. There was no meal tray or fluids present at bedside.
In an observation on 05/23/2022 at 8:58 AM, 9:54 AM, 10:30 AM, 11:35 AM, and 1:24 PM, the resident was in their bed asleep with their knees drawn up. There was no meal tray or fluids present at bedside.
In an observation on 05/24/2022 at 8:40 AM, 10:14 AM, 11:13 AM, the resident was in their bed asleep on their back. There was no meal tray or fluids present at bedside.
In an observation on 05/25/2022 at 8:47 AM, 9:46 AM, 10:52 AM the resident was in their bed asleep. There was no meal tray or fluids present at bedside.
In a continuous observation on 05/25/2022 at 12:08 PM, the resident was sitting at the table by nurse's station. Their family member was present and had brought them soup and bread sticks from a local Italian restaurant. The family member was visiting and was observed to encourage the resident to eat. The family member stated Mom you need to eat; you have lost too much weight. Take some more bites. The resident was observed to only eat a few bites. The resident was appeared restless and got up from the meal. At 12:30 PM, the facility lunch arrived on the unit. The resident did not receive their lunch tray, a staff member stated they had already eaten.
In an interview on 05/25/2022 at 1:44 PM, Staff TT, Nursing Assistant Certified (NAC), stated that Resident 56 eats about 25% of their meals and would drink the milk shakes when offered. A weight was requested. Staff TT stated the current weight for the residents was 109.8 pounds obtained while standing. Staff TT stated the weight loss could be a result of the resident walking a lot, as they were always walking.
In an interview on 05/25/2022 at 2:10 PM, Staff K, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), stated Resident 56 would not eat. Staff K stated they were unsure if it was a resident behavior but the resident throws or would not take their food. Staff K stated that the resident does enjoy strawberry and chocolate shakes and peanut butter and jelly (PB & J) sandwiches. Staff K stated they believed the resident received PB & J sandwiches on the evening shift. Staff K stated that the resident was eating less and will not eat more.
In an observation on 05/26/2022 at 9:00 AM and 11:03 AM, the resident was in their bed asleep. There was no meal tray or fluids present at bedside.
In an interview on 05/26/2022 at 11:03 AM, Staff B Nurse Manager stated the nurse should ensure there were accurate weekly weights obtained. Staff B stated they could see the resident had lost weight since their fall with fracture. Staff B stated the resident was restless, would not sit and eat, and was resistive to staff helping them. They stated they told the doctor the resident was not eating like they had, and their behaviors were worse. Staff B was informed there was weeks where there were no weight recorded in the weight section of PCC (electronic medical record). Staff B was informed Staff K, LPN documented 119.4 pounds on the treatment administration record (TAR) on 04/26/2022, 05/03/2022 and 05/10/2022 and the weight today was 109.8 pounds, a significant weight loss of 8.04% or 9.6 pounds in 30 days. Staff B stated they questioned the accuracy of the exact same weight on the TAR and that the resident could not have lost that much weight in one week.
Reference WAC 388-97-1060 (3)(h)
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the Licensed Pharmacist's monthly Medication Regimen Review ...
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 the Licensed Pharmacist's monthly Medication Regimen Review (MRRs) recommendations were reviewed and implemented timely for one of six sampled residents (100) whose medication regimens were reviewed. This failure resulted in an uncorrected transcription error for Resident 100, placing the resident at risk for receiving an incorrect dose of a cardiac medication.
Findings included .
Resident 100 admitted on [DATE] as a short stay resident.
Review of the consultant Pharmacist Medication Regimen Review dated 05/10/2022, provided by the facility showed a list of residents who were reviewed by the consultant pharmacist and who had no recommendations. Resident 100 was not on the provided list which would indicate there were recommendations, which were not found with the information provided and not found during review of the resident record.
In an interview on 05/23/2022 at 3:00 PM, Staff A, Assistant Director of Nursing, stated they had a stack of pharmacy recommendations on their desk and they would look to see if there was something for Resident 100.
In an interview on 05/24/2022 at 11:00 AM, Staff A stated they had found the recommendation for Resident 100 and it showed a question about the resident's Carvedilol (a cardiac medication). The original order stated 0.5 tabs (tablets) of the Carvedilol, and the pharmacy noticed that PCC (the electronic medical record) read 0.5mg (milligrams) instead and stated to update the dose and correct to 0.5 tabs. Staff A stated they were trying to rule out a medication error and were hoping to find the medication card or have the pharmacy confirm what was dispensed. Staff A stated the pharmacy got the original order, so they believed the medication card was correct with 0.5 tablets.
Review of the admission medication orders showed, Carvedilol Tablet 12.5 mg and give 0.5 tab (tablet) by mouth two times a day for Hypertension (0.5 tab = 6.25 mg).
Review of the Medication Administration Record on 05/23/2022 at 9:54 AM, confirmed that the order had been transcribed incorrectly into the electronic medical record on 04/27/2022 showing 0.5 mg rather than 0.5 tab (tablet) which had been identified by the consultant pharmacist but not reviewed and acted upon by the facility.
Reference (WAC) 388-97-1300 (3)(a),(4)(c )
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medication Errors
(Tag F0758)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure two of five residents (84 and 87) were free from unnecessar...
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 two of five residents (84 and 87) were free from unnecessary psychotropic medications (drugs that affect brain activities associated with mental processes and behavior) as required. The facility failed to ensure appropriate indication and provide documented evidence of clinical rationale for the administration of psychotropic medications. This failure placed the resident at risk for potential medication related side effects.
Findings included .
As referenced in the Food and Drugs/Drug (FDA) Safety Information, anti-psychotic medications have serious side effects and can be especially dangerous for elderly residents. The use of anti-psychotic medications without an adequate rationale, or for the sole purpose of limiting or controlling expressions or indications of distress without first identifying the cause, there was little chance that they would be effective, and they commonly cause complications such as movement disorders, falls with injury, stroke, and increased risk of death. The FDA Boxed Warning, which accompanied, second-generation anti-psychotics stated, Elderly patients with dementia-related psychosis treated with atypical anti-psychotic drugs are at an increased risk of death.
A review of the facility policy titled, Psychotropic Medications, dated 10/11/2019, showed that the purpose of this policy was to ensure that the facilities interdisciplinary team works with the resident's provider to ensure appropriate use, evaluation and monitoring.
RESIDENT 84
Resident 84 admitted [DATE] with diagnoses to include dementia with behavioral disturbance, depression and anxiety. Resident 84 had no cognitive impairment.
A review of the physician's orders included an order for Risperdal (an anti-psychotic medication) twice daily for dementia with behavioral disturbance, an inappropriate indication for the anti-psychotic drug class.
The resident's target behaviors/symptoms included delusions only.
RESIDENT 87
Resident 87 admitted [DATE] with diagnoses to include vascular dementia with behavioral disturbance. Resident 87 had severe cognitive impairment.
A review of the physician's orders included an order for Risperdal at twice daily for dementia with behavioral disturbance, an inappropriate indication for the anti-psychotic drug class.
The resident's target behaviors/symptoms included yelling, hitting, biting, or throwing objects.
In an interview on 05/26/2022 at 11:29 AM, Staff B, Nurse Manager, was made aware of the concern related to the lack of appropriate indication for Resident 84 and 87's psychotropic medications. Staff B stated they were informed by the pharmacist that they needed to have dementia with behaviors as the diagnosis for psychotropics. Staff B stated Resident 84 experienced delusions and Resident 87 had psychosis.
Reference WAC 388-97-1060 (3)(k)(i)
.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0887
(Tag F0887)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure two of five residents (20 and 105) was offered the Coronaviru...
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 two of five residents (20 and 105) was offered the Coronavirus 2019 (an infectious disease-causing respiratory illness with symptoms including cough, fever, new or worsening malaise [a general feeling of discomfort/uneasiness], headache, dizziness, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, loss of taste or smell, and in severe cases difficulty breathing that could result in severe impairment or death) vaccination and failed to ensure documentation in the resident's medical record and had education on the benefits and potential risk associated with Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19). These failed practices placed the residents at risk of COVID-19 infection and placed residents at risk for not having their medical records reflect complete and/or accurate information to be considered when making a medical decision.
Finding included .
RESIDENT 20
Resident 20 admitted to the facility on [DATE], according to the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], showed the resident had moderate cognitive impairment. Resident 20 was unvaccinated for COVID-19.
Review of the resident's medical record showed the COVID-19 vaccine was not offered to the resident until 05/03/2022. The resident or resident representative was not educated on the benefits and potential risk associated with COVID-19 upon admission.
RESIDENT 105
Resident 105 admitted to the facility on [DATE], according to the Quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE], showed the resident had moderate cognitive impairment. Resident 105 was unvaccinated for COVID-19.
Review of the resident's medical record showed the COVID-19 vaccine was not offered to the resident until 05/09/2022. The resident or resident representative was not educated on the benefits and potential risk associated with COVID-19 upon admission.
Review of the facility online reporting system showed the facility had COVID-19 positive residents and staff throughout the year.
In an interview on 05/16/2022 at 2:35 PM, Staff G Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), had worked the North Unit where Resident 20, and Resident 105 resided. Staff G stated there had been COVID-19 positive residents on that unit.
In a joint interview on 05/25/2022 at 1:30 PM, the Director of Nursing Services (DNS) and Staff A, Assistant Director of Nursing Services/Infection Control (ADNS/IP), stated that the admission nurse had the responsibility to screen residents upon admission for their vaccination status. They assessed to see which one the resident may need, or if a booster was required, they review the risk and benefits of the vaccine and obtained a consent. If one was not required on admission, the Nurse Manager for that unit will do the follow up and tracking. If it were a COVID-19 vaccine, usually the DNS would be notified, as the DNS ordered and tracked those.
In an interview on 05/25/2022 at 3:58 PM, Staff A did not offer a reason as to why the COVID-19 vaccine consent, offer of the vaccination, and education was not completed for Resident 20 and 105 upon admission to the facility.
WAC Reference 388-97-1780 (2)(b)(d)
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Resident Rights
(Tag F0550)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview the facility failed to ensure residents were treated with respect and dignity when disposable...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview the facility failed to ensure residents were treated with respect and dignity when disposable dishware was being used for meals on three of six units (North, Southeast and South) during an outbreak of Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) (an infectious disease-causing respiratory illness with symptoms including cough, fever, new or worsening malaise [a general feeling of discomfort/uneasiness], headache, dizziness, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, loss of taste or smell, and in severe cases difficulty breathing that could result in severe impairment or death). The facility was providing some residents with regular dishes and silverware while other residents received disposable picnic style dishes, take-out boxes, Styrofoam cups and plastic silverware. This had the potential to result in residents feeling further isolation and discrimination related to their illness.
Findings included .
In an observation and interview on 05/16/2022 at 11:24 AM, Staff VV, Nursing Assistance Certified (NAC), was observed to deliver a lunch tray to room [ROOM NUMBER]. The tray was composed of a Styrofoam container that contained the meal, and Styrofoam cups filled with liquid for drinks. Staff VV stated that the dining room was closed because of the ongoing COVID-19 outbreak. Staff VV stated the resident in the room [ROOM NUMBER] was not on any infectious disease isolation.
In an observation on 05/16/2022 at 11:33 AM, Resident 15's lunch tray was observed to have a Styrofoam container that contained the meal, and Styrofoam cups filled with liquid for drinks. Resident 15 was not on any isolation precautions.
In an observation on 05/16/2022 at 11:34 AM, Resident 7's lunch tray was observed to have a Styrofoam container that contained the meal, and Styrofoam cups filled with liquid for drinks. Resident 7 was not on any isolation precautions.
In an observation on 05/16/2022 at 11:37 AM, Resident 40's lunch tray was observed to have a Styrofoam container that contained the meal, and Styrofoam cups filled with liquid for drinks. Resident 40 was not on any isolation precautions.
In an observation on 05/16/2022 at 11:42 AM, the meal cart that was delivered to the North Unit contained lunch trays for that unit. All the trays had Styrofoam containers that contained the meal and there was only Styrofoam cups on the cart that the staff used to pour liquids into for drinks. There was only one resident on that unit on isolation precautions out of 27 residents on the unit.
In an interview on 05/16/2022 at 12:03 PM, Resident 7 stated they do not like the Styrofoam containers or cups as it made it difficult to eat, and they spilled the cups. They stated that the plastic silverware does not work very well with cutting the food and they had been hiding a real fork in their room to use with their meals.
In an observation and interview on 05/16/2022 at 12:43 PM, the tray cart in the Southeast unit had a combination of disposable and regular dishes on the lunch trays. Staff U, NAC, stated the residents on isolation were supposed to have the disposable dishes but also stated some residents who were off isolation were still getting the disposable dishes.
In an observation on 05/16/2022 at 12:48 PM, Resident 4 stated the Styrofoam was horrible, and they did not like it. When they got their coffee, they could not hold the cup as they squeezed the coffee all over themselves.
In an observation on 05/16/2022 at 2:52 PM, Resident 84, stated I can hardly get a fork or spoon to my mouth. Then they make me use plastic silverware and it is very hard to do and I feel like they are cheap. I am paying for it. The food comes in a Styrofoam container. I don't like it.
In an interview on 05/17/2022 at 10:59 AM, Resident 7 stated that when the food was served in the Styrofoam container it was usually cold.
In an observation on 05/20/2022 at 7:50 AM, Staff JJ, NAC, and Staff VV were observed to deliver breakfast trays to residents using Styrofoam cups for the liquid drinks. There were no residents on this unit that were on isolation precautions currently.
In an interview on 05/20/2022 at 1:35 PM, the Administrator stated there should not be any disposable dishes being delivered. They stated this had been clarified with their health department and should no longer be happening. When told that staff had also been utilizing Styrofoam cups due to reportedly not having enough regular cups the Administrator stated that should not be an issue but would have to look into it.
Reference: (WAC) 388-97-0180 (2)
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Grievances
(Tag F0585)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure documentation regarding resident grievances were completed and maintained in accordance with the requirements for eight of nine resid...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure documentation regarding resident grievances were completed and maintained in accordance with the requirements for eight of nine residents (2, 3, 15, 51, 60, 70, 88 and 97) reviewed for resolution of grievances. The facility failed to implement their grievance process to thoroughly document specific issues and ensure all grievances were properly logged, investigated, and documented. These failures to oversee the grievance process and track grievances through to their conclusions placed residents at risk for delayed or incomplete resolution, impaired quality of life, and placed them at risk for undetected abuse and/or neglect.
Findings included .
Review of a facility policy titled, Grievance Policy and Procedure for Residents, with a revision date of 01/2018, showed the facility strives to provide the highest quality of care and ensure the rights of all residents receiving our services. It is important for us to know as soon as possible about any concerns or grievance you may have. A grievance was defined as any written or verbal concern by a resident or his/her representative regarding care or other resident right issue. The grievance policy stated the facility used a Resident/Family grievance form and the facility named grievance official would record the following:
- The date the grievance was received;
- A summary of the grievance;
- Steps taken to investigate the grievance;
- Summary of the pertinent findings or conclusions;
- A statement whether the grievance was confirmed or not;
- Any corrective action taken or to be taken by the facility; and
- The date the written decision, if requested, was provided to the resident/representative.
The policy stated the facility would keep documents demonstrating the results of all grievances to be maintained a minimum of 3 years from the date of the issuance of the grievance. The policy stated a copy of their grievance policy will be provided to any resident who requested it. The facility Grievance Officials name and contact information will be posted in prominent locations throughout the facility and listed on the Resident/Family Grievance Form.
The grievance policy and box were located to the right of the reception area. There were not multiple locations in which a grievance could be made.
Review of the grievance log on 05/25/2022, showed beginning 06/01/2021, there had been no grievances in the facility since 03/24/2022. There were 15 total grievances logged for the period of eleven months.
Review of the Facility Assessment reviewed on 09/01/2021, showed the facility average census was 100.
During resident council on 05/18/2022 at 2:07 PM, nine residents were asked if they knew how to file a grievance. Of the nine residents, Resident 4 was the only resident who responded they knew how to report a grievance. Resident 4 stated the grievance process had been discussed at resident council, but it had been a couple of years ago.
In an interview on 05/24/2022 at 1:08 PM, Staff L, Nursing Assistant Certified, stated for grievances or missing clothes they went to the nurse on duty and report it, so it gets to a supervisor. They stated they thought there was a paper to fill out, but they could not locate one or state where they were kept.
In an interview on 05/25/2022 at 2:10 PM, Staff K, Licensed Practical Nurse, stated they tried to take care of resident grievances right away. Staff K stated they could get a form from the social worker.
In an interview on 05/26/2022 at 10:47 AM, Staff B, Nurse Manager, stated the first thing they tried to do was resolve grievances. Staff B stated there was a form they used. Staff B was unable to locate the form and left the unit to obtain the grievance form. They stated the grievance forms should be located on all units.
During an interview on 05/26/2022 at 9:28 AM, the Administrator was informed residents and staff did not know how to file a grievance. They stated resident concerns with food should be a grievance. The Administrator stated the facility had shown a good faith effort to correct identified concerns.
Reference (WAC) 388-97-0460
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** RESIDENT 7
Resident 7 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis to include obesity, depression, and osteoarthritis (dise...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** RESIDENT 7
Resident 7 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis to include obesity, depression, and osteoarthritis (disease of the joints).
Review of the Annual MDS assessment dated [DATE] showed that the resident had intact cognition and was dependent on staff to get out of bed. The resident stated it was very important for them to do their favorite activities, and somewhat important to participate in religious services or practices. The CAA triggered for activities stated the resident preferred to pursue activities independently and visits with roommate/husband. There was no documentation to address how religious services would be incorporated into the resident's care plan. The CAA for mood triggered with a note that stated resident is unable to participate in activities due to leg pain, no follow-up was completed or how this would be addressed, and pain was not triggered as a result to this assessment.
Review of the resident's care plan with a print date of 05/18/2022, showed the resident was independent with their religious pursuit, and enjoyed spending time with their roommate/husband. The care plan did not address how the resident would independently attend or participate in religious activities when the resident was dependent on staff for transfers out of bed. The care plan showed the resident had a self-care deficit related to the pain in knee and shoulder. The care plan did not address any non-pharma logical interventions for pain, or that the resident had been visiting a Pain Clinic for injections into knee and shoulder.
In an interview on 05/25/2022 at 12:50 PM, Staff C, Nurse Manager (NM), stated they were responsible for completing the MDS and updated the care plan accordingly. Staff C stated they were unaware of why the resident had not been to the pain clinic and stated the family had managed the appointments. Staff C stated they just waited to hear from the family, they did not initiate or track the appointments. Staff C confirmed that was not addressed in the care plan.
In an interview on 05/26/2022 at 11:03 AM, Director of Nursing (DNS) stated the NM are responsible for the MDS and care plan for the long-term care residents at the facility. The DNS stated that the care plan should have been addressed to reflect the CAA's that were triggered on the MDS.
Reference: (WAC) 388-97-1020 (2)a
RESIDENT 95
Resident 95 admitted [DATE] with diagnoses which included stroke with left sided weakness. The resident's left arm was flaccid (limp, lacked muscle tone) as a result of the stroke.
Review of the admission MDS assessment dated [DATE], showed the resident had a limitation in upper extremity range of motion on one side and required extensive assistance with activities of daily living (ADLs). The CAA for ADLs identified contractures (shortening and hardening of muscles, tendons or other tissue, often leading to deformity and rigidity of joints) as a potential complication of limited mobility. The CAA stated the facility would proceed to care planning and the resident was being treated by skilled therapies.
Review of the Occupational Therapy assessment dated [DATE], showed the resident's left upper extremity range of motion was impaired and stated passive range of motion (PROM) only indicating the resident was unable to perform the activity actively and staff would need to perform range of motion for the resident.
In an interview on 05/20/2022 at 10:53 AM, Staff Q, Physical Therapist, stated that after a therapy evaluation they provided a copy of recommendations to the Resident Care Manager (RCM). The RCM or Nursing entered and updated the care plans or and exercise programs.
Record review on 05/16/2022 showed there was no directive in the care plan showing that PROM was set up to be completed for the resident.
Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement comprehensive, person-centered care plans to meet the needs of five of five residents (84, 87, 89, 95 and 7) reviewed for care plans. This failure placed residents at risk of not receiving the appropriate care and services and at risk of pain, immobility, necessary care and services and a diminished quality of life.
Findings included .
Review of the facility's policy titled, Comprehensive Care Plans, dated 03/02/2020, showed the care planning process is to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan (means to focus on the resident as the focus of control and support the resident in making their own choices and having control over their daily lives) for each resident within 21 days admission. All Care Assessment Areas (CAA's) triggered by the Minimum Data Set, (MDS, assessment of care needs) will be considered in developing the plan of care. The facility's rationale for deciding whether to proceed with care planning will be evidenced in the clinical record.
RESIDENT 84
Resident 84 admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses to include dementia with behavioral disturbance. According to the 05/02/2022 Significant Change in Status MDS assessment, the resident received an antipsychotic (a medication to treat psychosis or other mental health conditions), antianxiety and antidepressant medications daily.
Review of the resident's care plan, print date 05/25/2022, revealed the resident had no non-pharmacological interventions for their psychotropic (medications that affect mood and/or behavior) medications on their care plan.
Review of the 05/02/2022 CAA's on 05/26/2022 for Cognitive Loss/Dementia, ADL Functional/Rehabilitation potential, urinary incontinence and indwelling catheter, Psychosocial Well-Being, Mood State, Behavioral Symptoms, Falls, Pressure Ulcers, and Psychotropic Drug Use were blank and should have been completed on or before 05/16/2022.
RESIDENT 87
Review of the facility's policy titled, Use of Pacemaker, dated 11/01/2018, showed the documentation of the pacemaker will be placed in the resident's chart and part of their permanent record. Pacemaker checks will be performed as ordered by a physician and all immediate care staff will be aware the resident has a pacemaker.
Resident 87 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include heart failure and an irregular heart rhythm. According to the Quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE], they received an anti-psychotic medication daily.
Review of the resident's care plan, print date 05/25/2022, revealed the resident had no non-pharmacological interventions on their care plan for their anti-psychotic use. Further, the resident had a pacemaker but did not include the make/model, checks or cardiologist information.
Review of the resident's clinical record revealed there was no record of pacemaker information, or a pacemaker check being completed or scheduled.
Review of the admission CAA on 05/03/2022, showed the resident triggered for Cognitive loss/dementia, and behaviors. The Cognitive Loss CAA included the resident had a diagnosis of dementia and was alert to self only and exhibited short term memory deficits. There was no supporting documentation added for items being checked. There was no description of the impact of this problem/need on the resident nor rationale for the care plan decision.
Review of the Behavioral CAA dated 05/03/2022, showed the resident had wandered four times this observation period on the unit. There was no supporting documentation added for items being checked. There was no description of the impact of this problem/need on the resident nor rationale for care plan decision.
RESIDENT 89
Resident 89 admitted [DATE] with a diagnosis of dementia.
The Cognitive Loss CAA revealed the resident had a diagnosis of dementia without behaviors. The CAA showed the resident had cognitive deficits in short/long term memory and problem solving. The observable characteristics included one line that revealed the resident does not speak very good English.
There was no supporting documentation added for items being checked. There was no description of the impact of this problem/need on the resident nor rationale for the care plan decision.
The care plan lacked cultural preferences.
In an interview on 05/26/2022 at 10:40 AM, Staff B, Nurse Manager, stated they were responsible for the MDS assessments and care planning. Staff B was informed the care plans for Resident 84, 87 and 89 lacked individualized care.
In an interview on 05/26/2022 at 11:10 AM Staff B, Nurse Manager, was asked about the care plan for the pacemaker. Staff B stated the resident was fairly new and they still needed to get all the pacemaker information on the care plan.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0657
(Tag F0657)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** RESIDENT 7
Resident 7 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis to include morbid obesity, atrial fibrillation (disorder...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** RESIDENT 7
Resident 7 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis to include morbid obesity, atrial fibrillation (disorder that results in an abnormal heartrate), and heart disease.
Review of the physician orders showed an order for [NAME] hose (special sock to help swelling of legs) to right lower leg, to be placed on in the morning and removed at bedtime every day for edema (swelling) with a start date of 06/29/2021.
Review of the resident's care plan showed the resident had a focus for the use of diuretic therapy (process to reduce edema) related to their heart failure. The care plan did not reflect that a [NAME] hose should be placed on the right lower leg every day to reduce edema.
In all the observations on 05/18/2022, 05/19/2022, 05/20/2022, 05/23/2022, 05/24/2022, and 05/25/2022 the resident was not wearing a [NAME] hose to the right lower leg.
Reference: (WAC) 388-97-1020 (2)(a)
RESIDENT 13
Resident 13 had been a resident of the facility since 06/23/2018. The Annual MDS assessment, dated 02/22/2022, showed that Resident 13 did not speak and was rarely understood. The MDS showed that Resident 13 was dependent on staff for moving in bed, transferring to wheelchair, and locomotion once in the wheelchair.
Review of Resident 13's activity care plan, revised date 03/15/2021, showed to remind the resident that they may leave the activity at any time and did not have to stay for the entire activity, explain the importance of social interaction, and to encourage participation by inviting them to activities of interest.
During an interview on 05/24/2022 at 9:39 AM, Staff Y, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), stated that Resident 13 would say one word on a rare occasion, otherwise they could not communicate.
During an interview on 05/25/2022 at 10:30 AM, Staff I, Director of Activity, stated that Resident 13 was not able to ask to leave activities or understand the importance of social interaction. Staff I stated Resident 13's care plan was not appropriate to their current abilities and that it needed to be revised.
RESIDENT 76
Resident 76 was a long-term resident with diagnosis to include stroke, dementia (affects memory and problem-solving ability) and depression.
Review of the Annual MDS assessment, dated 02/24/2022, showed that the resident was physically abusive to others on 1-3 days, verbally abusive on 4-6 days, and had other inappropriate behaviors on 4-6 days of the seven-day observation period.
Review of Resident 76's [NAME] (directions for care givers to provide care) on 05/23/2022 showed that there were no interventions to use when Resident 76 was physically or verbally abusive to staff.
Review of Resident 76's Behavior care plan, revised date 02/24/2022, did not list any non-pharmacological interventions to attempt when resident was upset or displaying inappropriate behaviors.
During an interview on 05/24/2022 at 10:56 AM, Staff E, Director of Social Services, stated that staff could calm Resident 76 by calling the son in law or offering them a book to read. Staff E acknowledged that the care plan and [NAME] did not have interventions listed for staff to attempt when resident was displaying mood or behavior problems.
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to review and revise care plans for four of six residents (84, 13, 76, and 7) reviewed for care planning. These failures placed the residents at risk for unmet care needs, adverse health effects and a diminished quality of life.
Findings included .
Review of the facility's policy titled, Comprehensive Care Plans, dated 03/02/2020, showed the care plan will be reviewed and revised by the interdisciplinary team after each comprehensive and quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS, assessment of care needs)
The policy did not include when care plan revisions are indicated.
RESIDENT 84
Resident 84 admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses to include dementia with behavioral disturbance, major depressive disorder, anxiety and protein calorie malnutrition.
According to the 05/02/2022 Significant Change MDS she had other behavioral symptoms not directed towards others such as verbal/vocal symptoms like screaming, disruptive sounds daily.
Review of the physician's orders showed an order on 03/23/2022 to encourage fluids for urinary tract infection (UTI) prevention with a goal of over 1500 cubic centimeters (cc) a day.
Review of the care plan showed there was no hydration care plan or intervention to provide fluids with a goal of 1500 cc daily.
On 10/14/2021 a Level II Preadmission Screen and Resident Review (PASRR) significant change assessment was completed. The PASRR evaluator included recommendations for the nursing staff as follows;
* Be sure not to rush the resident and allow them to be as safely independent as they can be. Being able to do some things themselves is very important to them;
* Help keep their day structured in hopes they may sleep through the night (one instance of being up and dressed at 2 AM). Keep nighttime noises and interruptions to a minimum.
*Consult with resident's daughter to provide suggestions and insight into mood and behaviors, as well as history of medication successes and failures;
* Consider chaplain visits, as resident stated what keep them going in life is just knowing the lord.
The specialty recommendations and interventions were not added to the care plan to assist staff in their approach for Resident 84.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
ADL Care
(Tag F0677)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** RESIDENT 7
Resident 7 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis to include morbid obesity, depression, and osteoarthriti...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** RESIDENT 7
Resident 7 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis to include morbid obesity, depression, and osteoarthritis (disease of the joints).
Review of the Annual MDS assessment dated [DATE], stated that bathing did not occur during the seven days look back period.
Review of the care plan printed on 05/18/2022, stated that the resident required extensive assistance by two staff members with transfers to the shower chair and one-person extensive assist with showering weekly and as necessary. Staff were instructed to provide a sponge bath when a full bath or shower could not be tolerated.
Review of the bathing documentation report from 03/01/2022 through 05/24/2022, showed the resident had received six showers in the last three months. The resident had two bathing entries on 03/11/2022, and 03/18/2022 with no documented refusals. The resident had three bathing entries on 04/01/2022, 04/22/2022, and 04/29/2022 and one documented refusal. The resident had one bathing entry on 05/20/2022 and no documented refusals.
In an interview on 05/19/2022 at 11:26 AM, Staff JJ, Nursing Assistant Certified (NAC), stated the NAC that was assigned to the resident was responsible for their shower. The shower would show up on the electronic chart Point of Care (POC) for the NAC if they were due for a shower that shift. Staff JJ stated if the shower was missed, they were expected to try and do the shower the next day. Staff JJ was unsure who was responsible for tracking the missed shower.
In an interview on 05/24/2022 at 1:30 PM, Staff LL, Nursing Aid Register (NAR), stated that Resident 7 really enjoyed their shower and never refused when offered.
Reference (WAC) 388-97-1060(2)(c)
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to provide assistance with activities of daily living to include personal hygiene and bathing for four of eight dependent residents (7, 56, 84, and 89), reviewed for activities of daily living (ADL's). Facility failure to provide the resident's, who was dependent on staff for assistance with grooming, and showers placed the resident and others at risk for embarrassment, poor hygiene, unmet care needs and a diminished quality of life.
Findings included .
Review of the facility's policy titled, Standards of Care, dated 05/07/2014, directed the Nursing Assistant's (NAs) to provide oral care during morning and evening care, shave the residents as needed during daily morning care and provide a shower or bed bath weekly according to the schedule.
RESIDENT 84
Resident 84 admitted to the facility on [DATE] and required assistance from staff for bathing.
Review of the Significant Change Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 05/02/2022, showed they required one person assistance with oral care and extensive assistance for bathing. They did not reject care.
Review of the care plan did not include the resident's preference for bathing or shaving.
Review of the bathing documentation beginning 02/02/2022, showed:
-no showers between 02/05/2022 and 02/19/2022, a period of 13 days;
-no showers between 04/01/2022 and 04/14/2022, a period of 14 days;
-no showers between 05/05/2022 and 05/14/2022, a period of 9 days; and
-no showers between 05/16/2022 and 05/26/2022, a period of 10 days.
In an interview on 05/16/2022 at 2:47 PM, Resident 84 stated it had been three weeks since they had a shower, or their hair washed. Yesterday, Sunday I told my daughter that, and that night I got a shampoo and shower. That will probably be the last I get. It used to be bathed at least every week. The time before this I asked for one and they very reluctantly gave me a shower. It is awful, (crying) and blowing her nose on a hard napkin out of the wallpaper towel dispenser. At 2:52 PM, Resident 84 stated, I haven't had my teeth brushed in months. There is a funny feeling in my mouth. I just keep thinking I will die and then I won't have teeth to worry about. All the teeth in my mouth are all my own. There was a dry toothbrush and toothpaste located at the sink. The resident showed this surveyor white caked substance on their upper and lower teeth. Their mouth was dry. They stated, I cannot brush on my own. I have weakness, I can hardly get a fork or spoon to my mouth. The resident was observed to have numerous 1/8-inch white chin hairs.
In an observation on 05/17/2022 At 12:29 PM, the resident had white caked matter on their upper and lower teeth. The white chin hairs remained.
In an observation on 05/18/2022 At 9:02 AM, the resident had white caked matter on their upper and lower teeth. The white chin hairs remained.
In an observation on 05/19/2022 At 10:207 AM, the resident had white caked matter on their upper and lower teeth. The white chin hairs remained.
In an observation on 05/20/2022 At 11:31 AM, the resident had white caked matter on their upper and lower teeth. The white chin hairs remained.
In an observation on 05/23/2022 At 9:51 AM, the resident had white caked matter on their upper and lower teeth. The white chin hairs remained.
In an interview on 05/23/2022 at 2:09 PM, Staff QQ, NAC, stated Resident 84 needed help brushing their teeth for it to be an effective job. They stated most residents received showers weekly.
RESIDENT 89
Resident 89 admitted to the facility on [DATE] and required assistance from staff for bathing.
Review of the Annual MDS assessment, dated 05/02/2022, showed they required total assistance for bathing. They did not reject care.
Review of the current care plan showed the resident was to have a weekly shower.
Review of the bathing documentation beginning 02/02/2022, showed:
-no showers between 02/10/2022 and 02/20/2022, a period of 9 days;
-no shower between 03/17/2022 and 03/26/2022, a period of 9 days; and
-no showers between 04/27/2022 and 05/01/2022, a period of 16 days.
RESIDENT 56
Resident 56 admitted to the facility on [DATE] and was dependent on staff for all care.
Review of the Quarterly MDS assessment, dated 05/13/2022, showed they required extensive assistance for bathing.
Review of the care plan showed the resident preferred weekly showers.
Review of the bathing documentation beginning 02/02/2022, showed:
-no showers between 02/10/0222 and 02/18/2022, a period of 13 days;
-no showers between 03/25/2022 and 04/08/2022, a period of 15 days; and
-no shower between 04/15/2022 and 04/29/2022, a period of 13 days.
In an interview on 05/25/2022 at 2:10 PM, Staff K, Licensed Practical Nurse, stated showers are provided weekly and if the resident wants them two times a week, they can provide that.
In an interview on 05/26/2022 at 10:47 AM, Staff B, Nurse Manager, stated the goal was for residents to allow the facility to provide oral care and there were challenges with oral care. Staff B stated Resident 84 could do her own oral care with set up. Staff B acknowledged the resident had chin hair this morning.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0679
(Tag F0679)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** RESIDENT 7
Resident 7 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis to include morbid obesity, depression, and osteoarthriti...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** RESIDENT 7
Resident 7 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis to include morbid obesity, depression, and osteoarthritis (disease of the joints).
Review of the Annual MDS assessment dated [DATE], showed that the resident had an intact cognition and was dependent on staff to get out of bed. The resident stated it was very important for them to do their favorite activities, and somewhat important to participate in religious services or practices.
Review of the resident's care plan with a print date of 05/18/2022 showed resident was independent with their religious pursuit, and the resident enjoyed spending time with their roommate/husband. The care plan did not address how the resident would independently attend or participate in religious activities when the resident was dependent on staff for transfers out of bed.
Review of the Pastoral Care progress notes from 05/24/2021 to 05/24/2022 showed the last visit was on 11/16/2021 where the resident stated they were interested in Sunday worship.
In an interview on 05/16/2022 at 10:29 AM, Resident 7 was lying in bed stated church was extremely important to them, they chose this facility as they had church services, and chaplains available. The resident stated they were unable to get out of bed, and they have not attended church in over three weeks, it made them feel sad. The resident stated their roommate/husband does not really talk anymore so they just lie in bed all day.
In an interview on 05/25/2022 at 9:57 AM, Staff I stated they bring the resident magazines, but did not want to bother them. Staff I was unaware there had not been an updated activity assessment and stated it must have been missed. Staff I stated they were unaware that the resident's mood had been affected by their lack of participation in activities, and that they had a desire for more assistance with their religious pursuits.
In an interview on 05/26/2022 at 8:59 AM, Staff QQ, Chaplin, stated they visited with Resident 7 when they first admitted a year ago but had not offered any religious services to them for a long time. Staff QQ was unable to state exactly why the visits had stopped.
Reference WAC 388-97-940 (1)
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure five of five residents (7, 13, 56, 89, and 84) reviewed for activities received an ongoing program of activities to meet the individual resident's interests and leisure needs. Failure to provide activities that meet the needs of the residents placed them at risk for diminished quality of life.
Findings included .
Review of a facility policy titled, Activities, dated 01/03/2020, showed that activities will be designed with the intent to:
- Enhance the resident's sense of well-being, belonging, usefulness;
- Promote or enhance cognition (memory, judgement, problem solving); and
- Promote self-esteem, dignity, pleasure, and comfort.
RESIDENT 13
Resident 13 has been a resident of the facility since 06/23/2018. The Minimum Data Set (MDS, an assessment of resident care needs), dated 02/22/2022, showed that the resident did not speak and was rarely understood. The MDS showed that Resident 13 was dependent on staff for moving in bed, transferring to wheelchair (w/c), and locomotion once in the w/c.
During an observation on 05/16/2022 at 11:15 AM, Resident 13 was sitting in their w/c, in their room with their eyes open. The resident was facing across the room where a TV was mounted at eye level on the wall and there was a train picture to the right of the TV. There were no other pictures or decorations on the wall. The TV was not on. There was a radio on the nightstand behind Resident 13, but it was not on.
During an observation on 05/17/2022 at 10:49 AM, Resident 13 was lying on their bed with their eyes open, facing the wall with the TV. The TV was not on and there was no music on in the room. This was also observed on 05/17/2022 at 2:51 PM and 05/18/2022 at 2:14 PM.
During an observation on 05/23/2022 at 12:29 PM, Resident 13 was sitting in their w/c beside their bed with their eyes open, facing the TV, but the TV was not on.
During an observation on 05/23/2022 at 3:01 PM, Resident 13 was lying in bed on their right side with their eyes open. Resident 13 was facing the bathroom sink. The TV and radio were not on.
During an observation on 05/24/2022 at 9:47 AM, Resident 13 was lying on their bed with their eyes open, facing the TV. The TV was not on and there was no music on in the room.
During an observation on 05/24/2022 at 1:26 PM, Resident 13 was sitting in the w/c at their bedside with their eyes open, facing the TV. The TV was not on and there was no music on in the room.
During an observation on 05/25/2022 at 9:46 AM, Resident 13 was sitting in the w/c and was looking at the ceiling of their room. The TV was not on and there was no music on in the room.
Review of Resident 13's activity care plan, revised date 03/15/2021, showed that Resident 13 liked listening to music and watching football, basketball, and baseball on TV.
During an interview on 05/24/2022 at 9:07 AM, Staff BB, Nursing Assistant Certified (NAC), stated that they have not seen Resident 13 involved in any activities or go to any out of room activities. Staff BB stated that they have not seen the TV on in the room for Resident 13.
During an interview on 05/25/2022 at 10:30 AM, Staff I, Director of Activity, stated that looking at a wall with only a picture and a TV that was not turned on would not be adequate stimulation for a reasonable person and acknowledged that they could improve Resident 13's activity programming. RESIDENT 56
Resident 56 admitted on [DATE]. The Quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE], showed that the resident had impaired vision and was sometimes understood. The MDS showed that Resident 56 was able to ambulate (walk) with staff assistance and being able to do their favorite activities was very important.
During an observation on 05/17/2022 at 10:56 AM, Resident 56 was sitting in a recliner in the common area (large communal area in the middle in front of the nurse's station) with their eyes open. The resident was facing across the room from the TV.
During an observation on 05/19/2022 at 8:51 AM, Resident 56 was asleep with their knees drawn up, on the loveseat in front of the nurse manager's office while other residents ate breakfast nearby. At 10:06 AM, the resident remained asleep on the loveseat.
During observation on 05/24/2022 at 11:50 AM, the resident was sitting on the loveseat in the common area, rolling up her right pant leg. At 11:55 AM, the resident was sitting down in the common area playing with the NAC's gait belt. At 1:06 PM, the resident was sitting in another recliner in the common area. At 1:34 PM staff attempted to put a mask on the resident, but they were resistive. There were no observations of meaningful activities.
RESIDENT 84
Resident 84 admitted on [DATE]. Review of the Significant Change MDS assessment dated [DATE], showed that the resident was cognitively intact, able to understand and was understood. The MDS showed that Resident 84 was able to self-propel in the unit in their wheelchair (w/c). The MDS showed being able to do their favorite activities and attend religious activities was somewhat important.
Review of the resident's PASRR (pre admission screen and resident review) dated 10/14/2021, showed the resident stated just knowing the lord kept them going. The evaluation revealed the resident enjoyed bingo and had previously enjoyed reading.
In an interview on 05/16/2022 at 2:46 PM, Resident 84 stated they used to attend activities but were no longer interested. They stated, That artwork is nothing to me I don't care. I do not watch TV or listen to music. I sit and stare into space and I hope the lord comes and I can see my sister.
In observation on 05/17/2022 at 9:33 AM, the resident was assisted in their w/c to an area by the nurse manager's office. At 10:52 AM, the resident remained in the same location with no activity items present and away from the TV. At 12:29 PM, the resident remained in the same location and stated, Are you going to see me later? At 1:57 PM and 3:18 PM, the resident remained in the same location without any activity items or ability to see the TV.
In an observation on 05/18/2022 at 9:02 AM through 9:49 AM, the resident was asleep in their w/c in front of the nurse manager's office. At 12:46 PM until 1:18 PM, the resident remained in the same location with their head down and their untouched lunch in front of them. At 1:48 PM, the resident returned from the beauty salon to the same location by the nurse manager's office and was observed to keep raising their hand to summons staff attention. Staff were unaware and not nearby.
In an observation on 05/19/2022 at 10:34 AM, the resident was up in their w/c self-propelling around the unit. At 1:17 PM, they stated they ate lunch and did not know what to do. At 3:34 PM, the resident was crying and talking to Resident 99, stating, Can I talk to you? Can I talk to you? How do I get my clothes?
In an observation on 05/20/2022 at 9:32 AM, the resident was up in their w/c by the nurse manager's office, the TV was out of view. At 11:31 AM, the resident was up in their w/c in the same location without activity items present. They commented they had been up too long.
In a continuous observation on 05/23/2022 at 8:57 AM until 11:30 AM, the resident was in their w/c by the nurse manager's office with no meaningful activity. At 11:32 AM, Staff I was sitting with them reminiscing about their childhood home. The resident was engaged and smiling. At 1:14 PM until 1:57 PM, the resident was observed asleep in their w/c by the nurse manger's office.
In observations on 05/24/2022 at 9:35 AM, 10:23 AM, 11:24 AM and 1:13 PM, the resident was asleep in their w/c by the nurse manager's office with no meaningful activities.
RESIDENT 89
Resident 89 admitted on [DATE]. The Annual MDS assessment dated [DATE], showed that the resident was sometimes understood. The MDS showed that Resident 89 required staff assistance in their w/c. The MDS showed being able to do their favorite activities was very important.
In an observation on 05/17/2022 at 10:53 AM and 11:18 AM, Resident 89 was asleep with their head on the overbed table in the common area. At 11:24 AM, they woke up and had no activity items present. At 12:25 PM, they were in the same location, leaned over on their overbed table with their right hand on her forehead. At 3:16 PM, they remained in the same location with their clothing protector on from lunch and no activity items present.
In an observation on 05/18/2022 at 9:11 AM, Resident 89 was up in their w/c facing the nurse's station with their barely touched breakfast in front of them. Music was playing on their iPad, which distracted them from their meal. At 9:47 AM, the resident was asleep in the same location and the iPad was still playing.
In observations on 05/19/2022 at 8:51 AM, 9:04 AM, 10:07 AM, 10:37 AM, 1:17 PM, 3:19 PM and 3:34 PM, the resident was in the common area in their w/c with no activity items present.
In an observation on 05/20/2022 at 9:31 AM, the resident was awake in their w/c in the common area with no activity items present. At 9:54 AM, they were asleep with their head down on the overbed table and an iPad had been placed on the table. At 11:30 AM, they were awake in the same location. A movie was playing but they were not interested. At 11:32 AM, the resident stood up. Their gait was unsteady, and they were holding a clothing protector. With concern the resident was about to fall, this surveyor summoned Staff TT, NAC, who then ran to help them. Staff TT assisted the resident back into their w/c. Staff TT stated the resident needed to go to the bathroom. At 11:37 AM, the resident was assisted to the bathroom.
In an observation on 05/23/2022 at 8:56 AM, Resident 89 was sitting in their w/c in the common area, music was on the TV. At 9:23 AM, the resident was in the same location asleep on the overbed table with their right hand on their forehead. At 9:51 AM, the resident was in the same location and an iPad had been placed in front of them. At 10:42 AM, the resident was asleep in a recliner. At 11:39 AM, the resident was in the hall in their w/c. There were no meaningful activities observed until 1:18 PM, they were in the hall with their left hand on their head on the overbed table watching the iPad. At 1:54 PM, the resident was restless and stood up and walked two feet from their w/c. Staff were not present. Staff EE, NAC, was alerted and came and assisted the resident to the bathroom.
In an interview on 05/23/2022 at 2:20 PM, Staff EE was asked about acitivities for Resident 89. Staff EE stated the Resident 89 did not understand any English. Staff EE commented the resident's roommate (Resident 90) did not like Resident 89 and did not like them to be in their room at all.
In an observation on 05/24/2022 at 8:47 AM, Resident 89 was in a recliner eating breakfast. The TV was on, but the volume was down, and it was inaudible. There were two other residents in the common area and one on the couch. At 9:39 AM, Resident 89 was sitting in the same location with no items on the overbed table except water and orange juice. They were playing with their surgical mask in their hands. There was no meaningful activities or items present. At 9:42 AM, the resident looked over and smiled then stood up unsteadily and grabbed the over bed table to walk. At 10:22 AM, the resident was slumped down in the recliner with a nonnative language magazine. At 10:45 AM, the resident was trying to get up from the recliner with the footrests out. Their weight was on the footrest and the recliner was pitching forward. There were no staff in the area. The resident was about to fall so called out to Staff K, Licensed Practical Nurse, at their cart who summoned help for the resident. At 11:00 AM, the resident was up in their w/c scratching their head with no activity items present on their overbed table. At 11:25 AM, the resident was facing away from the TV, the reached out to grab another resident. There were no staff around. At 2:03 PM, the resident was in bed but awake. The TV was off and there were no reading materials or iPad present. They were staring at the wall.
In an observation on 05/25/2022 at 10:54 AM, Resident 89 was in bed with no activity items present. At 12:12 PM, Resident 89 was in bed with delivered lunch. At 2:01 PM, the resident remained in bed. The iPad had a are you still watching? warning on it.
In an observation on 05/26/2022 at 8:03 AM, Resident 89 was in their room in their w/c awake. There was no music, TV or reading materials present.
In an interview on 05/26/2022 at 10:53 AM, Staff B, Nurse Manager, stated they had had at least one activity staff member on the unit and that most residents in the unit had advanced dementia.
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 83
Resident 83 admitted [DATE] and was alert and oriented.
In an interview on 05/16/2022 at 4:18 PM, Resident 83 state...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** RESIDENT 83
Resident 83 admitted [DATE] and was alert and oriented.
In an interview on 05/16/2022 at 4:18 PM, Resident 83 stated they had been having diarrhea (loose stools) for weeks. They stated they did not like to leave their room because they were embarrassed at having uncontrollable diarrhea.
Review of the resident record dated 04/21/2022, showed the resident received MiraLax Powder (a laxative) daily. The nurse was to hold the medication if the resident was having loose stools.
Review of bowel documentation showed loose stools charted in the system on 05/15/2022.
In a follow up interview on 05/18/2022 at 1:20 PM, the resident stated they had diarrhea for days, not just one day, but stated it was getting better now that they finally stopped one of their medications.
powder laxative was charted as administered daily until 05/18/2022 when it was placed on hold for three days. The medication was not held as ordered when the resident had loose stools.
In an interview on 05/24/2022 at 1:07 PM, Staff NN, Nurse Manager, stated the resident did have an increase in loose stools which may have been related to a new medication. The laxative should have been held according to the physician's orders and acknowledged it had not been held until several days later which may have contributed to additional days the resident unnecessarily experienced that symptom.
<MEDICATION SAFETY>
Review of the facility policy titled: Medication Administration-General Guidelines updated January 2018, showed the facility identified the FIVE RIGHTS of medication administration as: the right resident, the right drug, the right dose, the right route, and the right time. A triple check process was stated to be expected while administering medications which included comparing the medication label against the medication record prior to dispensing.
RESIDENT 100
Resident 100 admitted on [DATE] as a short stay resident.
Review of the admission medication orders showed the resident received Carvedilol Tablet (a heat medication) 12.5 mg (milligram), give 0.5 tab (tablet) by mouth two times a day for Hypertension (0.5 tab = 6.25 mg).
Review of the Medication Administration Record on 05/23/2022 at 9:54 AM, showed that the Carvedilol order had been transcribed incorrectly into the electronic medical record on 04/27/2022, showing to administer the resident 0.5 mg rather than 0.5 tab (tablet).
The error was determined to have been an error of transcription on admission [DATE] and was not identified by facility nursing staff during daily medication administration. The error was identified during the routine consultant pharmacist review on 05/10/2022, but not followed up on by the facility.
In an interview 05/24/2022 at 11:30 AM, Staff II, Nurse Manager, stated that the admission nurse did the data entry for new admissions and a second nurse confirmed the information. Staff A stated this was a transcription error and then the nurses did not identify the discrepancy during medication administration. Staff II stated the resident's provider had noted the discrepancy when reviewing the discharge orders on 05/20/2022, and the resident's record was corrected at that time prior to the orders being faxed to the resident's community pharmacy. The nurses were signing as having administered the 0.5mg, and Staff A and Staff II stated that after reviewing the error with the floor nurses, they stated that the floor nurses were administering based on the order instructions on the medication card and not checking the card against the order in the electronic record which was not proper nursing practice for medication administration including the five rights.
Reference (WAC) 388-97-1060(3)(k)
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure treatment and care was provided in accordance with professional standards of practice for three of four residents (83, 84 and100) reviewed for bowel management and medication review. These failures placed residents at risk for potential harm or adverse events related to constipation or diarrhea and medication errors.
Findings included .
<BOWEL MANAGEMENT>
Review of the facility's undated 24-hour bowel protocol, directed nursing staff as follows:
-If the resident did not have a bowel movement (BM) for 6 shifts, the Day/Eve (evening) shift will offer prune juice to these residents;
- If the resident did not have a BM for 9 shifts, the Eve shift will give Magnesium Hydroxide (a laxative); and
- If the resident did not have a BM in 12 shifts, the NOC (night) shift will give an ordered suppository no earlier than 5:00 AM.
RESIDENT 84
Resident 84 admitted on [DATE] with diagnosis to include constipation.
Review of the Significant Change MDS (Minimum Data Set, an assessment of care needs), dated 05/02/2022, showed the resident was not on a toileting program to manage the resident's bowel continence.
In an interview on 05/16/2022 at 2:58 PM, Resident 84 stated there were constipated because of not getting enough water to drink.
In an observation and interview on 05/19/2022 at 1:17 PM, Resident 84 was up in their wheelchair and stated they were trying to have a BM. They said they had prune juice earlier. There were no fluids present on their overbed table.
Review of the resident's care plan initiated on 08/25/2021, directed staff to review the resident's bowel records with them and have trusted staff talk to them to allay their fears and anxiety/fixation/preservation on their bowels.
Review of the resident's May 2022 physician orders showed the resident received two low dose daily laxatives and the facility bowel management program as needed.
Review of the resident's bowel monitor showed the resident had no BM from 05/16/2022 at 9:08 PM until 05/20/2022 at 11:14 AM (10 shifts).
Review of the May 2022 Medication Administation Records (MAR) showed the resident did not receive their Docusate Sodium or Senna Tablet (laxatives) on 05/17/2022 day shift as ordered by the physician.
Review of the bowel monitor from 05/21/2022 9:39 PM showed they had no BM until 05/25/2022 at 9:59 PM (11 shifts).
Review of the May 2022 MAR showed the resident received Bisacodyl suppository on 05/26/2022 at 5:37 AM, after having a BM on 05/25/2022 at 9:59 AM.
In an interview on 05/26/2022 at 11:09 AM, Staff B, Nurse Manager, stated that the resident was on Tylenol with Codeine, which was a medication that was constipating. Staff B acknowledged the resident was fixated on their BM's, struggled with constipation, and could benefit from a different routine regimen.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0943
(Tag F0943)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure five of six staff (Staff Z, FF, LL, MM, and OO) had effective education regarding the procedures for reporting potential incidents o...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure five of six staff (Staff Z, FF, LL, MM, and OO) had effective education regarding the procedures for reporting potential incidents of abuse and/or neglect. This failure placed the residents at risk for a lack of intervention in response to allegations of abuse and/or neglect, as well as a lack of identifying and preventing abuse and/or neglect of residents.
Findings included .
Review of the Washington State document titled, Nursing Home Guidelines, The Purple Book dated October 2015 stated that under state law a mandated reporter includes but not limited to an employee of a facility .for purposes of reporting abuse, abandonment, neglect, financial exploitation, sexual assault, and physical assault, a nursing home employee (mandated reporter) is required to make a report if there is reason to believe an incident had occurred.
Review of the facility policy titled, Abuse, Neglect, Abandonment, Financial Exploitation and Misappropriation of Resident Property, revised January 2017, stated all new employees are trained on Abuse and Neglect policy and procedure during New Employee Orientation, and are re-in-serviced annually .All staff shall report all occurrences/allegations of abuse, neglect, mistreatment, abandonment, financial exploitation, and misappropriation of resident property and injuries of unknown source to appropriate supervisor and agencies in accordance with the state law . all employees are mandated reporters.
In an interview on 05/23/2022 at 1:36 PM, Staff LL, Nursing Aid Registered (NAR), had a hire date of 01/04/2022. Staff LL was unable to state how or who to report a potential abuse situation. Staff LL was not familiar with the term mandated reporter and replied, I am new this is my first job as a NAR, and I have only been here five months I am still trying to figure it out. When asked where they would locate the State Reporting Hotline number, Staff LL said, can I Google it?.
In an interview on 05/23/2022 at 2:25 PM, Staff FF, Nursing Assistant Certified (NAC), had a hire date of 08/05/2015. Staff FF could not recall the last time they had Abuse and Neglect training. Staff FF stated in the event of an allegation of abuse or neglect they would notify the nurse on the medication cart and complete a facility incident report. Staff FF required prompting as to their duty as a mandated reporter.
Review of the facility abuse and neglect training on 05/24/2022 at 9:54 AM, showed Staff OO, Registered Nurse (RN), had a hire date of 03/31/2022. Review of the employee file showed that Staff OO had not completed abuse and neglect training as they had missed the orientation in April of 2022.
In an interview on 05/24/2022 at 10:00 AM, Staff PP, Administrative Staff, verified that Staff OO had been working on the floor with residents since the hire date and had not had training in Abuse and Neglect.
In an interview on 05/24/2022 at 2:20 PM, Staff Z, RN, had a hire date of 12/27/2021. Staff Z stated if there was an allegation of abuse or neglect, they were to notify the Nurse Manager regardless of the time of the day. Staff Z stated they do not report to the State Reporting Hotline, the managers took care of that.
In an interview on 05/24/2022 at 2:32 PM, Staff MM, NAC, had a hire date of 06/02/2012. Staff MM stated if there was an allegation of abuse or neglect, they were to report to the floor nurse or the Nurse Manager. Staff MM stated they do not call the State Reporting Hotline.
In an interview on 05/25/2022 at 12:50 PM, Staff C, Nurse Manager (NM), had a hire date of 09/04/2009. Staff C stated the NAC's do not report to the State Reporting Hotline, that was the duty of the NM.
In an interview on 05/25/2022 at 2:10 PM, Staff GG, Staff Development Coordinator (SDC), stated they review Abuse and Neglect during General Orientation. Staff GG stated they have had to cancel this month due to annual survey. Staff GG stated the seven staff members that were scheduled to attend had already been working the floor, and that most of the new hired staff work before they go through general orientation. Staff GG stated part of their role was to ensure staff were competent with the facility's policies and procedures, they stated they had not been able to complete this task for the last few months.
In an interview on 05/26/2022 at 9:52 AM, Director of Nursing Services (DNS) stated the expectation in the facility was every employee was a mandated reporter and was responsible for reporting incidents of abuse and neglect.
Reference: (WAC) 388-97-0640 (2)(b)
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0688
(Tag F0688)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** RESIDENT 7
Resident 7 admitted to the facility 05/24/2021 with diagnosis to include obesity, depression, and osteoarthritis (dis...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** RESIDENT 7
Resident 7 admitted to the facility 05/24/2021 with diagnosis to include obesity, depression, and osteoarthritis (disease of the joint). The Annual MDS assessment dated [DATE], showed that the resident had intact cognition.
Review of the AROM program started 09/05/2021, directed staff to perform a specific BUE strengthening exercise program six times a week.
Review of the AROM program started 09/05/2021, directed staff to perform a specific lower extremity strengthening exercise program six times a week.
Review of the Documentation Survey Report dated 03/01/2022 through 05/24/2022 showed the resident had received services as follows:
-In March - the program was offered 20 times and participated 13 times;
- In April - the program was offered ten times and participated six times; and
- In May - the program was offered four times and participated once.
In an interview on 05/26/2022 at 8:32 AM, Staff KK, Nursing Assistant Certified/Restorative Aid, stated Resident 7 would usually always participate if they (the restorative staff) were able to do the program. Staff KK stated they were pulled to assist with direct care on the floor, so they were unable to complete the restorative program daily.
Reference: (WAC) 388-97-1060 (3)(d)(m)
RESIDENT 6
Resident 6 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses to include dementia, depression, history of falls, and diabetes.
Review of Quarterly MDS dated [DATE], showed that Resident 6 was cognitively impaired, with inattention and disorganized thinking and required extensive assist of one to two staff for activities of daily living (ADL).
Review of Restorative Evaluations, dated 02/18/2022 and 05/18/2022, showed that the resident had advanced dementia and needed more assistance with reminding them what needed done and more physical assistance with performing ADL's correctly and safely. Daily passive exercises help to prevent contractures (stiffening of joints). No changes were made to their restorative program, with a plan to review in 90 days. The evaluation did not state what areas the resident required more assistance with their ADL's.
Review of the April 2022 V2 Survey Report, showed that Resident 6 was to receive PROM exercises; 10 repetitions of slow gentle stretches to right and left lower extremities six times per week. Resident 6 was to receive moist heat to both of their shoulders for 10 minutes and PROM exercises to both of their upper extremities. Documentation showed that the resident received exercises for arms and legs 10 out of 30 days.
Review of the May 2022 V2 Survey Report, printed on 05/18/2022, showed that Resident 6 received PROM to upper and lower extremities two days and refused two days out of 18 days.
In an interview on 05/25/2022 with Staff SS, Registered Nurse (RN)/Director of Restorative services, stated that the restorative aides (RA's) were being pulled to work the floor, the RA's were no longer scheduled as RA due to the struggle with staffing for the last six to eight months. ADL programs were completed by the NAC's (who worked on the floor).
In an interview on 05/26/2022 at 10:35 AM, Staff B, RN, stated that the RA's keep getting pulled to the floor to work, so RA programs have not been happening. We also have residents who refuse, and Staff B tried to add gentle Range of Motion to the resident's care plan to be completed by the NAC's during cares.
Resident 97
Resident 97 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include stroke, arthritis, and chronic respiratory problems.
Review of a restorative evaluation, dated 02/07/2022, showed that Resident 97 valued exercise and wanted to complete their restorative program every day. The evaluation showed one of the goals was for Resident 97 to walk 170 feet in the hallway daily.
Review of the April 2022 V2 Survey Report (documentation of care provided by staff), showed that Resident 97 was to walk one-two times a day and that they were to perform upper extremity (arm) and lower extremity (leg) exercises six times a week. The documentation showed that Resident 97 walked 17 of the 30 days in April and completed exercises 10 of the 30 days.
Review of the May 2022 V2 Survey Report, from 05/01-05/24/2022, showed that Resident 97 continued on the same restorative program of walking one-two times a day and arm and leg exercises six times a week. The documentation showed that Resident 97 walked 12 of the 24 days and completed exercises seven of the 24 days.
During an interview on 05/16/2022 at 11:10 AM, Resident 97 stated that they would like to discharge to an assisted living facility but would need to get stronger before that would be possible. Resident 97 stated that their son had to come and walk with them on the weekend because the staff were shorthanded and did not have time.
During an interview on 5/17/2022 at 10:47 AM, Staff KK, Nursing assistant Certified (NAC), stated that they were a restorative aide, but they had been pulled from those tasks to do resident care. Staff KK stated that in April 2022, they were pulled half of their scheduled days and in May 2022, they were pull more than half of their scheduled days.
During an interview on 5/24/2022 at 9:55 AM, Staff F, Nurse Manager, stated that Resident 97's restorative program was scheduled daily but the restorative aide gets pulled to the floor when they do not have enough staff.
RESIDENT 59
Resident 59's most recent admission was on 04/04/2022 with diagnosis that included heart failure, kidney failure, respiratory problems and pneumonia.
Review of a Physical Therapy (PT) Discharge summary, dated [DATE], showed that Resident 59 was discontinued from PT services and was to be set up on a restorative maintenance program.
In an interview on 05/16/2022 at 1:54 PM, Resident 59 stated they were to be on a restorative program but did not walk often enough.
Review of May 2022 V2 Summary report, showed no documentation of Resident 59 having a restorative program in place.
In an interview on 5/24/2022 at 9:55 AM, Staff F stated that they never received a recommendation for a restorative program from therapy for Resident 59.
In an interview on 5/25/2022 at 11:40 AM, Staff Q, Physical Therapist, reported that they thought a restorative program for Resident 59 was recommended upon discharge from services, but would have to check.
In an email interview on 05/27/2022 at 6:21 PM, Staff Q reported that they were not able to find documentation of a restorative program that was recommended upon discharge of PT services, and they had completed a recommendation today.
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure seven of eight (6, 7, 59, 84, 89, 95 and 97) residents reviewed for Range of Motion (ROM) identified with decreased ROM, received appropriate treatment and services to increase ROM and/or prevent further decrease in ROM. This failure placed the residents at risk for further decline in their ROM. The facility failed to ensure a functional restorative program/system was in place to ensure that all the residents who had treatment/services for ROM were to prevent avoidable reduction in their ROM and/or mobility, to increase their ROM and/or mobility, or to maintain their ROM and/or mobility and that the residents attained their highest practicable level of function.
Findings included .
RESIDENT 95
Resident 95 admitted [DATE] with diagnoses which included a stroke with left sided weakness. The resident's left arm was flaccid (part of the body that hangs loosely or limply) as a result of the stroke.
Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], showed the resident had a limitation in their upper extremity ROM on one side of their body and required extensive assistance with Activities of Daily Living (ADLs). The care area assessment (CAA), for ADLs, identified contractures (shortening and hardening of muscles, tendons or other tissue, often leading to deformity and rigidity of joints) as a potential complication of limited mobility. The CAA stated the facility would proceed to care planning and the resident was being treated by skilled therapies.
Review of the Occupational Therapy assessment dated [DATE], showed the resident's left upper extremity ROM was impaired and stated passive range of motion (PROM) only indicating the resident was unable to perform the activity actively and staff would need to perform ROM for the resident. The plan further stated the resident would need a left-hand edema (swelling) glove, subluxation brace, a resting hand splint, caregiver training on positioning and to maintain skin integrity.
There was no therapy, restorative or nursing program or plan in the record showing that PROM was set up to be completed for the resident.
In an observation on 05/16/2022 at 12:31 PM, the resident was sitting up in a wheelchair (w/c) their arm was dangling over the w/c arm. The resident's family member was present and was observed to pick up the resident's arm and place it back on the w/c arm rest. The resident stated it was their floppy arm. There was no noted arm support, no observed gloves, braces, splints on the resident or visible in their room.
Observations on 05/18/2022 at 1:59 PM, 05/19/2022 at 1:24 PM, 05/19/2022 at 3:27 PM, 05/20/2022 at 11:56 AM, and 05/23/2022 at 9:03 AM showed the resident with no noted arm support, and no observed gloves, splints, or braces.
In an interview on 05/20/2022 at 10:05 AM, Staff U, Certified Nursing Assistant (NAC), stated they did not do anything with Resident 95's left arm or hand. Staff U stated there was no glove or splint that they were aware of, and the only thing they did was to place Resident 95's arm on a pillow.
In an interview on 05/25/2022 at 10:34 AM, Staff W, Registered Nurse, stated nursing did positioning for Resident 95, such as a pillow under their arm or under their knees but there was no splints, braces or nursing programs for Resident 95's arm.
In an interview on 05/25/2022 at 10:45 AM, Staff T, NAC, stated the only thing they did for Resident 95 was to have a rolled towel or pillow and could put that under their arm. Staff T stated as an NAC they could do ROM but they were not doing that for Resident 95. Staff T stated there were restorative aids who would do that and did not know if Resident 95 was on a program or not.
In an interview on 05/20/2022 at 11:45 AM, Staff S, Certified Occupational Therapy Assistant, stated they worked with Resident 95 on self-feeding, upper body dressing, and they needed extensive assistance. Staff S stated they were not aware of a recommendation for PROM, splint/brace, or edema glove adding that none of those things were included in Resident 95's treatment goals. Staff S stated they did not know if Resident 95 was supposed to have those things or not.
In an interview on 05/25/2022 at 1:40 PM, Staff R, Occupational Therapist, stated they were the primary therapist for Resident 95. They stated that Resident 95 should be receiving PROM six days per week, and that they could use a restorative program for that. Staff R added that the resident initially had some edema to the left hand, but now does not so an edema glove was not indicated but the resident could use a brace for sure as they had some increased tone in their arm. Staff R stated they would add the PROM restorative program right away and stated they needed to provide more direction to their assistants but would have expected them to know and look for those things. Staff R stated Resident 95 would be re-evaluated to re-assess tone and need for equipment.
RESIDENT 84
Resident 84 admitted to the facility 07/21/2021 with diagnoses to include chronic back pain, right knee osteoarthritis (disease of the joint), depression, and anxiety. The Significant Change MDS assessment dated [DATE], showed that the resident had intact cognition.
Review of the Active Range of Motion (AROM) program started 08/12/2021, directed staff to perform a specific strengthening exercise regimen to both of the resident's lower extremities six times a week.
Review of the AROM bilateral (both) upper extremity (BUE) strengthening exercise program started on 08/12/2021, directed staff to perform a specific BUE strengthening exercises six times a week.
Review of the Documentation Survey Report dated 03/01/2022 through 05/26/2022, showed the resident had received services as follows:
-In March - the program was offered 13 times and participated seven times;
- In April - the program was offered four times and participated twice; and
- As of May 26, 2022 - the program was offered five participated none.
In an interview on 05/25/2022 at 11:42 AM, Staff SS, Registered Nurse (RN)/Restorative Nurse, stated they recently assessed Resident 84's restorative program. They stated the resident was supposed to receive a ROM program to both their upper and lower extremities daily. Staff SS acknowledged the resident did not receive the restorative program as ordered.
RESIDENT 89
Resident 89 admitted to the facility 07/15/2021 with diagnoses to include osteoarthritis to both knees, knee pain and osteoporosis. The Quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE], showed that the resident had severe cognitive impairment.
Review of the ambulation program started 08/02/2021 directed staff to assist the resident on a daily walk on the unit with a goal of 180 feet or as tolerated with CGA (Contact Guard Assist) using a front wheeled walker (FWW) with a wheelchair following. There was no documentation that the program had been completed.
Review of the AROM BUE strengthening exercise program started 08/02/2021, directed staff to perform a specific BUE strengthening exercises six times a week.
Review of the Documentation Survey Report dated 03/01/2022 through 05/26/2022 showed the resident had received services as follows:
-In March - the program was offered 22 times and participated 12 times;
- In April - the program was offered 22 times and participated four times; and
- In May - the program was offered nine times and participated three times.
In an interview on 05/25/2022 at 11:42 AM, Staff SS stated Resident 89 used to do their RA program at the same times as their husband but now that the resident moved to the other unit it was difficult to get them to participate in the program. Staff SS stated the restorative aides were being pulled to the floor every day. They stated they only had RA on two days recently and there were few RA staff who would work their shift on the floor then stay to work after to do some restorative programs. Staff SS stated they did not have the staff available to do the programs. They stated that it used to be the RA staff were scheduled to do their RA duties but pulled to work the floor but now they were not even on the schedule. They were just scheduled straight to the floor. Staff SS stated they had repeatedly communicated to administration that restorative programs were not being performed and residents were at risk for a decline in their abilities and function. Staff SS stated overall, residents were struggling with their programs as there were residents who were once able to do active ROM but now had to do passive ROM as they were no longer even able to do active ROM. Staff SS further stated, that the residents were not used to doing their programs since they were not consistently provided so they were slower at the tasks so they do not get as much out of their program as they could if they received it as ordered.
In an interview on 05/26/2022 at 11:01 AM, Staff B, Nurse Manager, stated the restorative department was challenged and they did not get to do their programs. Staff B stated ROM exercises were missed. Staff B stated they had a care plan for gentle ROM with cares for the most dependent residents on the south unit which was most of the residents who reside there. Staff B stated if there were holes (blanks) in the documentation they were not getting their programs.
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
In an observation on 05/16/2022 at 10:17AM, the resident refrigerator inside the pantry on the North unit had a sticky orange substance on the bottom shelf and the inside front of the refrigerator. Th...
Read full inspector narrative →
In an observation on 05/16/2022 at 10:17AM, the resident refrigerator inside the pantry on the North unit had a sticky orange substance on the bottom shelf and the inside front of the refrigerator. There was also a container of yogurt with an expiration date of 05/14/2022. Staff J, Licensed Practical Nurse, checked the yogurt and verified it was expired and that it needed to be discarded.
In an observation and interview on 05/17/2022 at 10:12 AM, Staff C, Nurse manager, stated that the orange sticky substance was from a spill and that it needed to be cleaned up.
MEAL SERVICE
During an observation on 05/20/2022 at 7:29 AM, a three-shelf cart (beverage cart) without sides or doors was noted sitting in the hallway on North B Hall. The top shelf of the cart had plastic cups of pre-poured orange juice, apple juice, water, a milk and a red juice. None of the filled cups had lids on them.
During an observation on 05/20/2022 at 7:50 AM, the meal cart for North B Hall arrived on the floor and was placed beside the cart with the cups of beverages without lids on them.
On 05/20/2022 at 7:56 AM, Staff F, Nurse Manager, was observed carrying a tray with cups of beverages without lids to a room that was 20 feet away from the beverage cart.
During an observation on 05/20/2022 at 7:58 AM, Staff P, Restorative Aide, was observed carrying a tray with cups of beverages without lids to a room that was 40 feet away from beverage cart.
In an interview on 05/20/2022 at 8:18 AM, Staff H, Nursing Assistant Certified, reported that they do not use lids on beverages during delivery of meal trays.
In an interview on 05/20/2022 at 8:19 AM, Staff F stated that they do not have any lids to cover the cups while doing meal pass.
Reference WAC 388-97-1100(3)
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure food was Stored, prepared, and distributed in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. Failure to ensure food was stored and distributed in a manner which prevents cross contamination in 1 of 1 walk-in refrigerators, 1 of 5 unit refrigerators and 1 of 2 meal delivery observations placed residents at risk for food borne illness.
Findings included .
FOOD STORAGE
According to the Partnership for Food Safety Education. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.fightbac.org.
Cross-contamination means the transfer of harmful substances or disease-causing microorganisms to food by hands, food contact surfaces, sponges, cloth towels, or utensils which are not cleaned after touching raw food, and then touch ready-to-eat foods. Cross-contamination can also occur when raw food touches or drips onto cooked or ready-to-eat foods.
In an observation on 05/16/2022 at 9:12 AM of the large walk-in refrigerator in the kitchen with Staff D, Director of Dietary, there were two large metal tubs of thawing meat labeled Wednesday lunch on the middle shelf of a larger metal rack style shelf. The lower shelf directly under the large metal tubs contained a large box labeled lettuce and a large box labeled celery. The items were in drip proof containers but were not stored in a manner that prevented potential cross contamination.
In an interview on 05/16/2022 at 9:27 AM, Staff D, Director of Dietary, stated that should not be in there like that, stating that the usual staff were out sick but that all the dietary staff know better. Staff D stated I saw that and sent someone in to fix that.
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Safe Environment
(Tag F0921)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation and interview the facility failed to ensure a safe and sanitary environment in the kitchen. Failing to recognize and address areas of potential mold on the ceiling placed all resi...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interview the facility failed to ensure a safe and sanitary environment in the kitchen. Failing to recognize and address areas of potential mold on the ceiling placed all residents at risk for health effects of exposure.
Findings included .
In an observation on 05/16/2022 at 2:59 PM, in the far corner of the kitchen above the dishwashing area there was a 2-foot triangular area of black spotted matter and an additional 2-foot linear area on the ceiling tiles consistent with mold growth. There was a stack of trays vertically drying and a rack of coffee mugs in a plastic drying rack below the area.
In an interview on 05/16/2022 at 3:10 PM, Staff D, Director of Dietary, stated that Maintenance came in and did routine checks and when asked to explain the area of black spotted matter on the ceiling, Staff D stated it was steam dirt. Staff D could not further explain what steam dirt was. This had to be brought to the attention of Staff D as a potential area of mold growth. Maintenance was paged but did not respond, so it was requested that the Administrator come to observe the area. Staff D stated there was a schedule for routine and deep cleaning but could not state how long the area may have been present or why it had not yet been identified or addressed.
In an interview on 05/16/2022 at 3:58 PM, the Administrator acknowledged the observed area stating that the ceiling area would be assessed and treated or replaced as needed. The Administrator further stated they would re-wash dishes in the area.
In a follow up interview on 05/16/2022 at 5:00 PM, the Administrator stated they had assessed and cleaned the area with bleach solution according to recommendations and ensured there were no additional issues. Disposable dishes had been used temporarily as the area was above the dishwashing area.
In a follow up observation on 05/17/2022 at 9:00 AM, there were no remaining black spotted areas. A faint grey shadow was noted at one corner where previous black spotted area had been.
In an interview on 05/25/2022 at 1:14 PM, Staff X, Environmental Services, stated Maintenance, in fact, did not do routine checks in the kitchen, stating the kitchen did their own rounds and deep cleaning and it was their responsibility to notify Maintenance of requests or concerns in the computer system or by phone if there was a more urgent matter. Staff X stated they had not been notified of an issue with the ceiling in the kitchen until 05/16/2022, and stated it had now been cleaned up with bleach and painted with a blocker made for moisture prone areas.
The facility failed to have a system in place to identify and address issues such as the development of potentially unhealthy mold growth in their kitchen which had the potential to cause allergic type reactions or respiratory illness in vulnerable residents.
Reference (WAC) 388-97-3220(1)
MINOR
(C)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Staffing Information
(Tag F0732)
Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure nurse staffing information postings were current, accurate, and posted in four of six prominent locations. These failur...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure nurse staffing information postings were current, accurate, and posted in four of six prominent locations. These failures placed residents and visitors at risk for not being fully informed of current nurse staffing levels and resident census information.
Findings included .
In an observation on 05/23/2022 at 8:52 AM, the South unit staff posting was for 05/22/2022.
In an observation on 05/24/2022 at 8:20 AM, the reception area staff posting was for 05/22/2022.
In an observation on 05/24/2022 at 10:05 AM and 4:12 PM, the South unit staff posting was for 05/22/2022.
In an observation on 05/26/2022 at 7:40 AM, the reception area posting was for 05/25/2022.
In an observation on 05/26/2022 at 8:00 AM and 10:31 AM, the South unit posting was for 05/25/2022.
The staffing pattern was located at reception and in the South (secure dementia unit). The staffing pattern was not posted on all of six units.
In an interview on 05/26/2022 at 10:50 AM, Staff B, Nurse Manager, stated the staffing posting is to be revised each shift. They stated the South unit was considered a separate entry, so it was posted at reception and also there. Staff B acknowledged the staff posting was not at wheelchair height and that the facility units were very spread out.
Reference: No associated WAC reference.
.