BETHANY AT SILVER LAKE

2235 LAKE HEIGHTS DRIVE, EVERETT, WA 98208 (425) 338-3000
Non profit - Church related 151 Beds Independent Data: November 2025 2 Immediate Jeopardy citations
Trust Grade
26/100
#4 of 190 in WA
Last Inspection: December 2024

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

Overview

Bethany at Silver Lake has a Trust Grade of F, which indicates significant concerns-this is the lowest rating and suggests serious issues with care. The facility ranks #4 out of 190 in Washington, placing it in the top half of nursing homes statewide, and it is the top-ranked facility among 16 in Snohomish County. Although the number of reported issues is improving, decreasing from 22 in 2023 to 7 in 2024, the facility has a concerning total of 55 deficiencies, including critical issues related to infection control and resident safety. Staffing is a weakness, with a rating of only 2 out of 5 stars and a turnover rate of 53%, which is higher than the state average, indicating instability among staff. Serious incidents have been reported, such as a failure to secure hazardous chemicals, which put cognitively impaired residents at risk, and a lack of measures to prevent sexual abuse among residents with cognitive deficits, which raises significant safety concerns.

Trust Score
F
26/100
In Washington
#4/190
Top 2%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Better
22 → 7 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
53% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
○ Average
$130,758 in fines. Higher than 63% of Washington facilities. Some compliance issues.
Skilled Nurses
✓ Good
Each resident gets 54 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for Washington. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
Violations
⚠ Watch
55 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★★★★
5.0
Overall Rating
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Staff Levels
★★★★★
5.0
Care Quality
★★★★☆
4.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2023: 22 issues
2024: 7 issues

The Good

  • 5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record

Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.

The Bad

Staff Turnover: 53%

Near Washington avg (46%)

Higher turnover may affect care consistency

Federal Fines: $130,758

Well above median ($33,413)

Significant penalties indicating serious issues

The Ugly 55 deficiencies on record

2 life-threatening 3 actual harm
Dec 2024 6 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0561 (Tag F0561)

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 accommodate resident preferences for 3 of 5 sampled res...

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 accommodate resident preferences for 3 of 5 sampled residents (Resident 508, 35, and 92) regarding important daily routines and health care. The failure of the facility to honor resident choice placed residents at risk for a diminished quality of life. Findings included . <RESIDENT 508> Resident 508 admitted to the facility on [DATE]. In an interview on 12/16/2024 at 10:26 AM, Resident 508 stated they preferred not to be awakened at 6:00 AM. Resident 508 stated they had told the nurses not to come in and they did not want breakfast, but the staff kept coming in and waking them up. Review of Resident 508's choice assessment, dated 12/14/2024, showed Resident 508 preferred to get up at 8:00 AM. Review a progress note dated 12/16/2024 at 1:45 PM, showed Resident 508 was angry for being woken up in the morning, and they refused vitals (blood pressure and heart rate) checked, breakfast, blood sugar check (checks sugar level in blood) and weight. Review of a progress note dated 12/17/2024 at 12:06 PM showed Resident 508 refused blood sugar check at 7:00 AM and refused their breakfast. Review of a progress note dated 12/18/2024 at 7:22 AM, showed Resident 508 refused having their blood sugar checked. In an interview on 12/18/2024 at 10:56 AM, Staff J, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), stated Resident 508 had refused their blood sugar check and insulin at 7:00 AM on 12/16/2024-12/18/2024 because they did not want to be woke up before 8:00 AM. Staff J stated they reported this to the nurse practitioner on 12/17/2024. Review of a facility form, titled, Nurse Practitioner non urgent communication log, showed the provider had been notified of Resident 508's preference to not be woke up before 8:00 AM and had morning medications scheduled at 7:00 AM. The form showed the provider had responded on 12/16/2024 to change AM (morning) medications to be administered after 8 AM. Review of Resident 508's Medication Administration Record (MAR), dated December 2024, showed the morning medications were still ordered to be administered at 7:00 AM. In an interview on 12/18/2024 at 1:55 PM, Staff H, Registered Nurse (RN)/Nurse Manger, stated that they were not aware of Resident 508's preference because they had not done a care conference yet. Staff H stated the responses on the nurse practitioner non urgent communication log were supposed to be implemented within 24 hours. Staff H stated Resident 508's orders had not yet changed since the provider's 12/16/2024 response. <RESIDENT 35> Resident 35 admitted to the facility on [DATE]. According to the Minimum Data Set (MDS-assessment tool) assessment, dated 12/06/2024, the resident was cognitively intact. In an interview on 12/16/2024 at 2:32PM, Resident 35 stated they preferred more frequent showers or bed baths. Resident 35 stated they did not have a shower last week because they preferred female aides. There were only two young male aides working on their scheduled shower day. Review of Resident 35's shower task record, print date 12/17/2024, showed during the last 30 days the resident had received one shower on 12/14/2024. Staff documented not applicable for shower tasks on 11/19/2024, 12/05/2024 and 12/12/2024. Review of a facility form titled, Central Shower Schedule, copied on 12/18/2024, showed Resident 35 was scheduled for showers once a week on Thursday evenings. Review of a progress note dated 12/12/2024 at 03:44 PM, showed Resident 35 refused to take a shower with a male caregiver they preferred to shower with a female aide and the resident was scheduled to have a shower the next day. There was no documentation that Resident 35 was offered a shower with female caregivers on the following day. Reviewed of Resident 35's care plan, dated 12/16/2024, showed no documentation of Resident 35's preference for female caregiver with showers. In an interview on 12/18/2024 at 11:23 AM, Staff J, stated residents were assigned for showers once a week based on what room the resident was in, and staff do not ask residents about their shower preferences. In an interview on 12/18/2024 at 1:11 PM, Staff K, Social Service Director, stated nursing staff oversaw obtaining shower preferences. Social services would not ask for preferences unless the resident brought them up themselves during the care conferences. In an interview on 12/18/2024 at 1:45 PM, Staff H, stated nurses should chart resident refused instead of not applicable on the documentation of shower task records. Staff H stated nurses should offer the shower the next day if resident refused due to no female caregiver. Staff H stated they were not aware of Resident 35's preference to have more frequent showers. Staff H reviewed the shower documentation for the last 30 days for Resident 35 and agreed it showed Resident 35 had received one shower on 12/14/2024 and did not receive showers as scheduled. In an interview on 12/18/2024 at 2:09 PM, Staff B, Interim Director of Nursing (DNS), stated staff were to determine the reason why Resident 35 refused their shower and should offer a shower the following day to accommodate the residents shower needs. <RESIDENT 92> Resident 92 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. In an interview on 12/16/2024 at 10:33 AM, Resident 92 stated scheduled showers are once a week. Resident 92 stated when they refuse to shower, they are not given a choice to have a shower at another time or with assistance from a female aide during the week. During an interview on 12/19/2024 at 2:15 PM, Staff H, RN/Nurse Manager, stated when residents are admitted , they are given a sheet of paper about their choices, and are able to document their preferences. If a resident refused to shower, the shower aid should ask why and tell the nurse manager and social worker. Record review of documentation on the 'Documented Survey Report V2 (documentation of care provided by staff), dated November 2024, showed that Resident 92 received one shower in November. Refer to WAC 388-97-0900(1)
CONCERN (D)

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

Grievances (Tag F0585)

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 promptly report and document resident grievances for 1 of 3 sampled...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to promptly report and document resident grievances for 1 of 3 sampled residents (Resident 35) reviewed for grievance resolution. The failure of staff to initiate resident grievances resulted in delays in grievance resolution and an extended period where a resident went without their missing property and placed residents at risk for frustration and diminished quality of life. Findings included . Review of the facility policy, titled, Grievance Policy and Procedure for Residents, revised date of June 2022, showed any employee that is informed of a grievance by a resident will immediately initiate the procedures for resolution of a grievance. Resident 35 admitted to the facility on [DATE]. According to the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS-an assessment tool) assessment, dated 12/06/2024, the resident was cognitively intact. In an interview on 12/16/2024 at 2:34 PM, Resident 35 stated they were missing a left-hand arthritis glove, and it had been missing for one week, and they had told everyone about it. Resident 35 stated the gloves provided comfort for their hands. Review of the facility grievance logs for 07/16/2024 through 12/16/2024 showed no grievances were logged for Resident 35. In an interview on 12/17/2024 at 2:00 PM, Staff L, Occupational Therapist, stated Resident 35 had arthritis gloves but one was missing since about one week ago. In an interview on 12/18/2024 at 1:11 PM, Staff K, Social Service Director, stated they had received the grievance form for Resident 35 on 12/17/2024 and they were not aware the arthritis glove had been missing for one week. Staff K stated everyone in the facility could complete the grievance form when the resident reported their missing items. In a follow up interview on 12/18/2024 at 2:24 PM, Staff L stated they had not completed a grievance form when Resident 35 reported missing the arthritis glove. Staff L stated Resident 35 had told a lot of people, including aides, they had lost their glove one week ago. In an interview on 12/18/2024 at 1:45 PM, Staff H, Registered Nurse/Nurse Manager, stated Resident 35 lost their arthritis glove one week ago. Staff H stated the person with knowledge of the missing glove should have completed the grievance form immediately. Refer to WAC 388-97-0460(2)
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0658 (Tag F0658)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure 1 of 1 resident (Resident 82) reviewed for blo...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure 1 of 1 resident (Resident 82) reviewed for blood sugar (BS) monitoring received BS checks per standards of practice/care. This failure exposed residents to an increased risk of inaccurate insulin administration and the potential for decreased blood sugar. Finding Included . A review of the facility policy, titled Timely Administration of Insulin, dated June 2020, stated that insulin administration will be coordinated with mealtimes and snacks. Resident 82 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include diabetes type 2 (a chronic disease that occurs when the sugar level in the blood stream was too high.) In an observation and interview on 12/19/2024 at 12:56 PM, Staff Q, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) assessed Resident 82's BS after they had eaten their lunch. Staff Q then administered sliding-scale (an insulin prescription that adjusts the amount of insulin a person receives based on their blood sugar level) insulin (medication injected into the skin to help regulate blood sugar levels) to the resident. Staff Q stated they needed to administer Resident 82's insulin and nothing more. Record review of Resident 82's Medication Administration Record (MAR) for December 2024 showed six units (measurement for insulin) of insulin was administered on 12/19/2024, based on their sliding scale BS level of 292. In an interview on 12/19/2024 at 2:10 PM Staff R, LPN, stated Resident 82's sliding scale insulin needed to be administered even after they had eaten, and the provider would not need to be notified. In an interview on 12/19/2024 at 2:20 PM, Staff E, Registered Nurse (RN)/Nurse Manager, stated when a resident had their BS taken after they had eaten, the nurse was to notify and obtain guidance from the provider. In an Interview on 12/19/2024 at 2:45 PM, Staff B, Director of Nursing Services (DNS), stated the provider should be notified and asked for guidance if a BS was checked after a meal. In an interview on 12/19/2024 at 3:00 PM, Staff C, RN/Nurse Manager, stated when a BS was taken after a resident had eaten, then the sliding scale insulin would be administered, and a note placed in the resident record to show the BS was taken after the meal. Refer to WAC 388-97-1620(2)(b)(ii)
CONCERN (D)

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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to provide respiratory care consistent with professional ...

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 respiratory care consistent with professional standards of practice for 1 of 2 sampled residents (Resident 40) reviewed for respiratory care. Failure to follow provider's orders for oxygen (O2) therapy placed the resident at risk for unmet needs, potential negative outcomes and a diminished quality of life. Findings included . Review of the facility policy titled, Oxygen Administration, undated, showed oxygen would be administered to resident's who needed it, consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive care plan and the resident's goals and preferences. The explanation and guidelines outlined in the policy showed oxygen was administered under orders of a physician. Resident 40 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included heart failure and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD-progressive lung disease that limits airflow and makes it difficult to breath). On 12/16/2024 at 1:51 PM, Resident 40 was observed lying in their bed. Resident 40 was wearing a nasal cannula (a thin flexible tube that goes around the head and into the nose that administers oxygen) which was attached to the oxygen concentrator. The concentrator was set to administer 4 liters per minute of oxygen (lpm). On 12/17/2024 at 2:38 PM, Resident 40 was observed lying in their bed on their back, the head of the bed slightly elevated. Observed the oxygen concentrator setting at 4 lpm. Review of Resident 40's Medication Administration Record (MAR) for December 2024, showed they had a physician order to apply oxygen, per nasal cannula, at 2 lpm to keep oxygen saturations (a measurement of the amount of oxygen in the blood) greater than or equal to 88-92 percent as needed. Review of Resident 40's care plan revised on 08/11/2023, showed oxygen settings included O2 by use of nasal prongs at 2 lpm as needed to keep O2 saturations above 88-92 percent. In an interview on 12/17/ 2024 at 3:15 PM, Staff D, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) stated the process for residents on O2 included checking their O2 saturations and changing the tubing every Monday. When asked how the settings on the concentrator are determined, Staff D stated they follow the physician orders. Staff D stated the concentrator settings are checked every time they go into the room. Staff D stated Resident 40 had a physician order for O2 as needed at 2 lpm. Staff D stated Resident 40 always wore their oxygen, they always wanted to use it and it was usuaslly set at 2 lpm. Staff D stated they could not find an order for Resident 40's oxygen use. On 12/17/2024 at 3:20 PM, Staff D entered Resident 40's room and checked the setting on the concentrato, stated the concentrator was set at 4 lpm. Staff D adjusted the concentrator settings from 4 lpm to 2 lpm . In an interview on 12/17/2024 at 3:24 PM Staff C, Registered Nurse/Nurse Manager, stated O2 settings should be checked each time a nurse enters a resident's room, but at minimum each shift. Staff C stated Resident 40 has a physician order for O2 use at 2 lpm as needed, but the resident wanted to use it all the time. Refer to WAC 388-97-1060(3)(j)(vi)
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0655 (Tag F0655)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** <RESIDENT 35> Resident 35 admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of the Baseline Care plan form showed a section for ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** <RESIDENT 35> Resident 35 admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of the Baseline Care plan form showed a section for staff that had completed the base line care plan. There was a signature by Staff N, dated 10/16/2024, no other disciplines had completed the baseline care plan. The section showed the baseline care plan was reviewed with the resident and/or representative and the space where a copy had been provided to the resident was blank. Review of Resident 35's Electronic Health Record (EHR) showed no documentation that a written summary of the baseline care plan was provided to the resident or their representative. <RESIDENT 508> Resident 508 admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of the Baseline Care plan form showed a section for staff that had completed the base line care plan. There was a signature by Staff K, Social Service Director, dated 12/16/2024, no other disciplines had completed the baseline care plan. The section showed the baseline care plan was reviewed with the resident and/or representative and the space where a copy had been provided to the resident was blank. Review of Resident 508's EHR, showed no documentation that a written summary of the baseline care plan was provided to the resident or their representative. In an interview on 12/18/2024 at 1:55 PM, Staff H, RN/NM, stated the admission nurse initiated the baseline care plan and the baseline care plan should be done within 48 hours. Staff H stated it was social service's responsibility to set up a meeting with the family which also included nursing and therapy departments. In an interview on 12/18/2024 at 2:09 PM, Staff B, Interim Director of Nursing, stated whomever the nurse was that completed the admission should be the one to put the baseline care plan information together within 24 hours. The admission nurse should discuss with the resident their basic care, including pain, skin, Activity of daily living (ADL) .as much as possible. Staff B stated the baseline care plan should be printed and provided and have residents or representatives sign. The signed copy of the baseline care plan should be scanned into the EHR. Staff B stated a brief care conference should be held within 24 hours and should include social service, nursing and a therapist. Staff B replied they did not see documentation that Resident 28, 86, 35 or 508 had reviewed their baseline care plan with facility staff. Refer to WAC 388-97-1020(3)(4)(b) Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to provide 4 of 5 residents (Resident 28, 86, 35, 508) with a summary of their baseline care plan. This failure placed residents at risk of not being informed of their initial plan for delivery of care and services and placed them at risk for unmet needs and possible complications. Findings included . Review of a facility policy, titled, Baseline Care Plan, dated 02/05/2020, showed the base line care plan: - Be developed within 48 hours of a resident's admission, - Admitting nurse shall gather information from hospital information, physician orders and discussion with the resident, - A written summary of the baseline care plan will be provided to the resident, - The written summary will be signed by the resident and included in the medical record. <RESIDENT 28> Resident 28 re-admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of Resident 28's baseline care plan form showed which staff had completed the base line care plan. There was a signature by Staff N, Social Service Assistant and Staff O, Licensed Practical Nurse, dated 08/30/2024. The section that showed the baseline care plan had been reviewed with the resident and/or representative and the space where a copy had been provided to the resident were both blank. <RESIDENT 86> Resident 86 admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of Resident 86's Baseline Care plan form showed which staff had completed the base line care plan. There was a signature by Staff E, Registered Nurse (RN)/nurse manager (NM), on 10/23/2024. There was a signature by Staff N, dated 10/28/2024, five days after admission. The section showed the baseline care plan was reviewed with the resident and/or representative and the space where a copy had been provided to the resident was blank.
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** <DISCHARGE PLANNING> Resident 75 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include bilateral (both) below the ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** <DISCHARGE PLANNING> Resident 75 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include bilateral (both) below the knee amputation. According to the quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE], resident was cognitively intact. In an interview on 12/16/2024 at 2:12 PM, Resident 75 stated their goal was to return to the community. They stated no one at the facility had discussed their discharge plan with them. In a review of Resident 75's care plan on 12/19/2024 showed no focus area for discharge planning. In a joint interview on 12/19/2024 at 1:49 PM, Staff N, Social Services Assistant and Staff S, Social Services, Staff S reported they had not discussed discharge planning with Resident 75. Staff N reported they spoke with DSHS (Department of Social and Human Services) case manager in April 2024 when they admitted to the facility and had not followed-up on a plan since then. During an interview on 12/19/2024 at 2:45 PM, Staff B, Interim Director of Nursing Services (DNS), stated social services were responsible for resident discharge planning.Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to review and revise care plans for 1 of 2 sampled residents (Resident 69) reviewed for activities of daily living (ADLs), 1 of 1 sampled residents (Resident 75) reviewed for discharge planning, 1 of 2 sampled residents (Resident 9) reviewed for communication, 1 of 4 sampled residents (Resident 18) reviewed for dementia care, 1 of 1 sampled residents (Resident 40) reviewed for dental services, and 1 of 1 sampled residents (Resident 83) reviewed for urinary management. These failures placed the residents at risk for lack of consistent interventions, unmet care needs, adverse health effects, and a diminished quality of life. Findings include . Review of the facility policy titled, Comprehensive Care Plans, dated February 2023, showed that the facility will develop and implement a comprehensive person centered care plan for all residents, consistent with resident rights, that include measurable objectives and timeframes to meet the needs, comprehensive care plan will be revised and reviewed by the interdisciplinary team after each comprehensive and quarterly assessment, objectives will be used to monitor the residents progress, and alternate interventions will be documented as needed. <DEMENTIA CARE> Resident 18 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include Alzheimer's Dementia (a progressive disease that destroys memory and other important mental functions). According to the quarterly Minimum Date Set (MDS- an assessment tool) assessment dated [DATE], Resident 18 had severely impaired cognition. In a record review on 12/17/2024, Resident 18's care plan under focus revised 09/09/2022, showed that Resident 18 and Power of Attorney (POA) wished the resident to remain on the memory care unit at the facility and only be asked about returning to the community on comprehensive assessments. The facility no longer has a memory care unit. In a record review on 12/17/2024, Resident 18's care plan under focus stated resident was high risk for falls related to history of recurrent falls and unaware of safety needs, revised on 06/05/2024. Under the intervention it showed Resident 18 required a fall mat to the left side of the bed (door side), this was revised 09/05/2023, a four Wheeled [NAME] (4WW) at bedside and in common areas to remind resident to use it, this was revised on 1/01/2023. In an observation on 12/17/2024 at 1:30 PM, Resident 18 was in bed with eyes closed, no floor mat on the floor and did not see a 4WW in the room. In an interview on 12/18/2024 at 1:58 PM, Staff F, Nursing Assistant Certified (NAC), stated that Resident 18 was total assist with all their care needs. Staff F stated that resident had not walked since they started working at the facility and had not used floor mat on the floor when resident was in bed. In an interview on 12/19/2024 at 9:55 AM with Staff G, NAC, stated that Resident 18 required total assist with their care needs. Staff G stated resident no longer walked and does not use 4WW. They also stated that they don't place the floor mat on the floor when resident was in bed. In an interview on 12/19/2024 at 2:00 PM Staff E, Registered Nurse (RN)/ Nurse Manager (NM) stated that when there were changes or updates on resident's care, they were required to update the care plan as soon as possible. Otherwise, they review care plans quarterly and yearly. They were unsure why Resident 18's care plan was not updated. In an observation on 12/19/2024 at 2:15 PM, Resident 18 was in bed asleep, no floor mat and did not see a 4WW in the room. <ACTIVITIES DAILY LIVING> Resident 69 admitted to the facility on [DATE]. According to the quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE], resident was cognitively intact. In an interview on 12/16/2024 at 10:12 AM, Resident 69 stated that the staff brings their dinner and place it on their table and leave without waking resident up. In a record review with a print date 12/17/2024, Resident 69's care plan under intervention for Restorative showed, NAC Restorative Aide (RA) Program: Eating/Swallowing Program; set up, assure upright for meals, remains upright 20-30 minutes after meals, cues/assist to eat/drink slowly, to take small bites/sips, to swallow before taking another bite/sip, to alternate liquids, solids, temps, textures, to take on bite/sip at a time. Monitor for food pocketing and safe swallow. Notify LN if frequently coughs, monitor intake, provide meal replace for poor intake per protocol. Document total # minutes with eating program throughout shift. Date initiated was 08/18/2023. In an observation on 12/17/2024 at 12:42 PM, Resident 69 was observed lying on their bed with their lunch tray on their table with half drank milk and an empty bowl. In interview on 12/18/2024 at 10:45 AM, Staff I, Restorative Assistant (RA) stated that they had not assisted Resident 69 with meals and resident was not on Eating/Swallowing Program. In an interview on 12/18/2024 at 1:30 PM, Staff E stated that Resident 69 was no longer on Restorative Feeding Program and that they would update the care plan.<DENTAL> Resident 40 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included heart failure and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD-progressive lung disease that limits airflow and makes it difficult to breath). In an observation and interview on 12/16/2024 at 1:32 PM Resident 40 stated they needed to get their teeth pulled so they could get dentures. Resident 40 was observed to have several missing teeth, two lower teeth and no upper teeth. In a review of Resident 40's care plan dated 11/28/2022 showed resident did not want to have dentures and did not want their diet changed. In a review of Resident 40's admission Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] showed the resident had mouth or facial pain, discomfort or difficulty with chewing. In a review of Resident 40's Annual MDS dated [DATE] showed resident had no mouth or facial pain, discomfort or difficulty with chewing. In an interview on 12/19/2024 at 1:19 PM Staff C, RN/NM stated residents are offered dental services at admission and as needed. Staff C stated residents are re-offered services when it was determined they had any dental problems or pain. Staff C stated they did not know the last time dental services were discussed with Resident 40. <COMMUNICATION> Resident 9 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included stoke, hearing loss, and diabetes mellitus 2 (disease characterized by elevated levels of blood glucose (or blood sugar), which leads over time to serious damage to the heart, blood vessels, eyes, kidneys and nerves). In an interview and observation on 12/16/2024 at 2:37 PM, Resident 9 was in their room laying in their bed. When attempted to speak with Resident 9, they pointed to a white board/dry erase board, sitting on their bed side table and stated the pen did not work. A new dry erase pen was provided from Staff C, RN/Nurse Manager. Review of Resident 9's progress notes from 12/01/2024 through 12/18/2024 showed they frequently refused use of their hearing aids. No other information was provided about the reason for the refusals. Review of Resident 9's care plan dated 07/29/2024 showed they had a communication problem related to a hearing deficit and just obtained hearing aids. The goals for Resident 9 included they would be able to make their needs and wants known by verbal communication and tolerate wearing their hearing aids throughout the day. Resident 9 would be assisted daily with placement of their hearing aids in the morning and removal at the night. There was no intervention in Resident 9's care plan regarding the use of a dry erase board for communication. In an interview on 12/19/2024 at 9:27 AM, Staff P NAC stated they know how to care for a resident by reviewing the care plan, information provided to them from the nurse or other aides. In an interview on 12/19/24 01:23 PM, Staff C stated Resident 9 was able to communicate if speaking directly in front of them. Staff C stated the resident used the dry erase board infrequently, did not know how the dry erase board was implemented. Staff C stated the resident had hearing aids and heard just fine with them, but often declined to wear them because they heard more than what they wanted. <URINARY> Resident 83 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included stroke and heart failure. Review of Resident 83's care plan dated 12/05/2024 showed the resident had bladder incontinence related to their disease process and was at risk for infections, skin breakdown and was being treated for a urinary tract infection. The goals on Resident 83's care plan included no skin breakdown and resolution of a urinary tract infection. Interventions included changing the resident every two hours and as needed in addition to establishing a voiding pattern. Review of Resident 83's electronic medical record showed no information about establishing a voiding pattern. In an interview on 12/19/2024 at 1:25 PM Staff C stated updating care plans was a process that includes the interdisciplinary team. Staff C stated the care plan for Resident 83 needed to be updated as they were beyond finding a pattern to voiding given Resident 83 was incontinent of urine. In a joint interview on 12/20/2024 at 10:48 AM, Staff A, Administrator and Staff B, Interim DNS both stated they were unaware of the concerns with implementation and revision of resident's comprehensive care plans. Refer to WAC 388-97-1020(5)(b)
May 2024 1 deficiency 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

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 interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure 2 of 2 sampled residents (Residents 1 and 2), who resided o...

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 2 of 2 sampled residents (Residents 1 and 2), who resided on a secured Special Care Unit (SCU), were free from sexual abuse. Resident 2 experienced pyshcosocial harm in the form of emotional distress, applying the reasonable person approach, when the facility failed to prevent sexual activity between two residents with cognitive deficits who were unable to consent to sexual relations. This failure placed all residents on the unit at risk of unwanted sexual contact, injury and psychological harm. Findings included . Review of an undated facility policy, titled, Special Care Unit, showed the unit provided a safe environment for independent ambulation or wheelchair mobility for residents with poor safety judgement such as a resident who wandered into other resident's rooms. Review of a facility policy, titled, SCU Admission, Transfer, Discharge, revised date 10/11/2021, showed the unit was intended to provide a structured and secure environment for residents with dementia (a condition with impairment of memory and decision-making ability). Review of the State Operations Manual, Appendix PP - Guidance to Surveyors for Long Term Care Facilities, revised 02/03/2023, showed sexual abuse, is defined as non-consensual sexual contact of any type with a resident. <RESIDENT 1> Resident 1 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis of dementia. Review of the census tab in the electronic record showed Resident 1 resided in the South unit (SCU) from 04/03/2024-04/17/2024. The resident was moved to the SCU due to wandering/elopement behaviors. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set, (MDS, assessment of resident's abilities and medical conditions), dated 03/19/2024, showed Resident 1 had a BIMS (cognitive function test) score of four which meant they had severe cognitive impairment and required supervision to propel their wheelchair and walk 10 feet. Review of Resident 1's current care plan, showed a focus area for altered thought processes initiated on 03/23/2024 with an intervention of cue, reorient and supervise as needed. There was a focus area for Behavior problem of hypersexuality-asking others to have sex with them initiated on 04/29/2024 with an intervention for 1:1 monitoring that was initiated on 04/29/2024. Review of a progress note, dated 04/17/2024 at 11:20 PM, showed Resident 1 was moved to the North Unit (a non-secure unit) from the South unit (SCU) at 3:00 PM. The nurse documented the resident was forgetful and confused. During an interview on, 04/22/2024 at 3:57 PM, Resident 1 was observed sitting in their wheelchair in the hallway outside of their room and an interview was attempted. Resident 1 was not able to give any details about an incident with Resident 2 and stated they did not know why they had been moved from the previous unit (SCU). Review of a progress note, dated 04/22/2024 at 10:30 AM, showed Resident 1 was in another resident's room and told staff that the other resident was their sister. Review of a progress note, dated 04/25/2024 at 10:30 AM, showed Resident 1 came to the activity office several times, raised their eyebrows, and told the staff member hello gorgeous. When the staff member told Resident 1 that was not appropriate communication, Resident 1 swore at the staff member and left the office. Review of a progress note, dated 04/29/2024 at 2:39 PM, showed Resident 1 asked staff if they had sex with someone would that get them kicked out of here (facility). This was reported to the administrator and the resident was then placed on 1:1 monitoring. Review of a behavioral health services note, dated 04/29/2024, showed that Resident 1's immediate recall was impaired (remembered zero of three items,) and that their judgement and insight were limited. The note showed they recommended close monitoring of behaviors. <RESIDENT 2> Resident 2 admitted to the facility on [DATE] and resided on the SCU. Resident 2 had a diagnosis of dementia. Review of the Quarterly MDS assessment, dated 03/22/2204, showed Resident 2 had severe cognitive impairment and was rarely understood. Review of Resident 2's current care plan showed a focus area of wandering, initiated on 10/11/2023, and impaired cognitive function with impaired decision making, initiated on 09/30/2023. The care plan was updated on 04/17/2024 with the addition of disrobing to the focus area and interventions of redirect, assist with clothing, and provide privacy when behavior occurs was added to the care plan on 04/18/2024. During an interview on 04/22/2024 at 4:10 PM, Staff F, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)/Nurse manager, stated Resident 2 liked to hold hands with others. During an interview on 04/22/2024 at 4:16 PM, Staff G, LPN, stated that Resident 2 sometimes would hold other peoples' hands. During an interview on, 04/22/2024 at 4:34 PM, Resident2 was observed lying in bed with no clothes covering their legs and pants were noted on the floor at the bedside. An interview was attempted but Resident 2 was not able to give any details about an incident with Resident 1. Resident 2 shrugged their shoulders to one question and stated I don't know to another. <SEXUAL ABUSE> Review of a facility risk management system document, labeled other, dated 04/16/2024, showed Resident 1 was found in Resident 2's bed and both residents were naked. Review of a witness statement included with the risk management system document showed Staff C, hospitality aide, found both residents in bed together. Staff C had documented that Resident 1 had reported they had the hots for (Resident 2) earlier. The statement showed Staff C observed Resident 1 providing oral sex to Resident 2. Review of Resident 2's progress note, dated 04/16/2024 at 8:20 PM, showed Resident 2 was in their bed with another resident and they were both naked. The note showed Resident 2 was tearful for a short while after the incident. During an interview on 4/22/2024 at 4:16 PM, Staff D, Registered Nurse (RN), stated they entered Resident 2's room after Staff C reported the two residents were naked in bed together. Staff D stated Resident 1 was putting on their clothes and reported it was all their (Resident 1's) fault. Staff D stated Resident 2 was capable of disrobing and getting into bed without assistance. Staff D stated they were in the hallway near Resident 2's room when the incident occurred but had their back to that room, so they did not see Resident 1 enter the room. During an interview on 04/29/2024 at 3:47 PM, Staff C stated they had gone to check on Resident 1 and they were not in their room. Staff C stated they looked for the resident and found them in Resident 2's room. Staff C stated they observed both residents were naked. Resident 2 was lying in bed and Resident 1 was hunched over Resident 2, providing oral sex. During an interview on 04/29/2024 at 4:22 PM, Staff E, Assistant Director of Nursing Services/ RN, stated both Resident 1 and Resident 2 were cognitively impaired and not able to consent to sexual activity. Staff E stated that Resident 1 had been seen by a behavioral health professional and they reported Resident 1 did not have the cognitive ability to not attempt sexual behavior with other residents, so Resident 1 was placed on 1:1 monitoring. Refer to WAC 388-97-0640 (1)
Oct 2023 21 deficiencies 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

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 provide necessary treatment and services to prevent t...

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 necessary treatment and services to prevent the occurrence of avoidable Pressure Ulcer/Pressure Injury (PU/PI) for 1 of 4 sampled residents (Resident 32) who was admitted without a PU/PI and had multiple co-morbidities with an increased risk for PU/PI development. Resident 32 experienced harm when they developed a Stage 3 (defined as full thickness loss of tissue) PU/PI to the resident's coccyx (tailbone region). The facility did not document refusals to reposition, or recognize the need to evaluate/modify the interventions to prevent a PU/PI when Resident 32 was non-compliant with repositioning. Thes failures placed other residents at risk for developing PU/PI's, medical complications, and unmet care needs. Findings include . Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS), an assessment tool, 3.0 Resident Assessment Instrument manual, dated 2019, shows a PU defined as a localized injury to the skin and/or underlying tissue, usually over a bony prominence, because of intense and/or prolonged pressure or pressure in combination with shear. The PU/PI can present as intact skin or an open ulcer and may be painful. A stage 3 PU is defined as full thickness tissue loss, subcutaneous fat may be visible, but bone, tendon or muscle is not exposed. Slough (non-viable [dead] tissue) may be present but does not obscure the depth of tissue loss. Review of the facility policy titled, Skin Integrity - Skin Tears and Pressure Injury, undated states that the facility will manage in accordance with professional standards of practice to prevent PU/PI. The attending physician will assume responsibility for the overall care and treatment of the residents wound, with referral to wound care specialist. The facility will notify the attending physician of the progression of the wound or lack of healing. The interventions will be modified in the resident's plan of care if the resident is non-compliant. Resident 32 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including depression, heart failure, and low nutritional levels (had low potassium and magnesium levels in their blood). Review of the admission MDS Assessment, dated 09/23/2023 showed Resident 32 had a moderate cognition impairment, had no refusal of care, required extensive assist from one person for bed mobility, transfers, ambulation, toilet use and personal hygiene. The resident was always incontinent (no voluntary control) of bowel and bladder. The resident admitted without a PU/PI and was deemed at risk to develop a PU/PI, interventions were to be a reduction mattress (a mattress to evenly disperse body weight) and topical ointment (prescribed ointment applied directly to the skin). Review of the Braden Assessments (pressure ulcer assessment tool) for Resident 32, dated 09/15/2023, 09/18/2023, 09/26/2023, and 10/4/2023 placed the resident at risk for development of a PU/PI. Review of the nutritional assessment for Resident 32, dated 09/15/2023 showed the resident was deemed malnourished. Review of Resident 32's care plan with a focus, dated 09/28/2023 showed the resident had potential for development of a PU/PI related to dehydration, decreased mobility, incontinence, malnutrition, and depression. Interventions included administer treatment and monitor effectiveness, educate on repositioning, follow facility policy and procedures for prevention/treatment of skin breakdown, if the resident refused care the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) was to determine alternative methods to gain compliance, and document the alternatives. Review of Resident 32's skin evaluation, dated 09/26/2023 showed the residents coccyx area was red in color. Review of Resident 32's skin evaluation, dated 10/04/2023 showed the resident's coccyx area had an open area that measured 1.6 centimeters (cm) in length by 0.8 cm wide. The evaluation stated the resident laid supine (on their back) only. Review of Resident 32's progress note, dated 10/04/2023 at 9:38 PM, showed the resident's had developed an open area to their coccyx. Review of Resident 32's care plan with a focus, dated 10/05/2023 showed the resident had an actual PU/PI with interventions for a pressure reduction mattress for the bed. Review of Resident 32's progress note, dated 10/20/2023 at 7:27 PM, showed the open area to the coccyx measured 1.7cm in length by 0.5cm wide by 0.1cm in depth. Review of the Resident 32's medical records dated 10/04/2023 - 10/20/2023, showed no documentation that the open area to the coccyx had been monitored, or whether the interventions put in place were effective. Review of Resident 32's physician orders, showed on order, dated 10/05/2023, instructed the nurse to clean the coccyx wound, apply a prescription wound treatment and cover with a secured dressing as needed. Review of Resident 32's nursing notes or Treatment Administration Record (TAR) or electronic medical record (EMR), showed no documentation the as needed dressing had been implemented. Review of Resident 32's physician orders, showed on order, dated 10/07/2023, instructed nursing to cleanse the coccyx wound, apply prescription wound treatment and cover with a secure dressing every Wednesday and Saturday. Review of Resident 32's EMR, from 10/04/2023 through 10/26/2023, showed no assessment of the effectiveness of the wound treatment. Review of Resident 32's physician orders, showed an order, dated 10/20/2023, showed a referral to the wound care specialist. In an observation on 10/25/2023 at 9:23 AM, and 3:28 PM, Resident 32 was observed lying on an air mattress on their backside in bed where their wound was located. Resident 32 was not interviewable. In an observation and interview on 10/25/2023 at 1:22 PM, Collateral Contact (CC) 4, Physician Assistant for the wound care specialist, was at Resident 32's bedside to assess the coccyx area wound. CC4 stated they were going to surgically debride (remove dead tissue) from the wound. CC4 stated the wound was a Stage 3, and it appeared the resident had not been repositioning from lying on their back. Review of Resident 32's wound care specialist note, dated 10/25/2023, showed that the nursing had reported the resident had a PU/PI to the coccyx. The note stated wound has had delayed wound closure likely secondary to poor repositioning from lying on their back. The resident was encouraged to rotate sides every two hours. In an observation on 10/26/2023 at 8:40 AM, and 9:32 AM, Resident 32 was observed lying on their back in bed. In an observation on 10/27/2023 at 8:05 AM, 10:32 AM, and 1:07 PM, Resident 32 was observed lying on their back in bed. In an interview on 10/27/2023 at 10:37 AM, Staff J, Nursing Assistant Certified (NAC), stated Resident 32 would refuse to reposition off their back. Staff J was unaware that the resident had a PU/PI to their coccyx area. In an observation on 10/30/2023 at 8:58 AM, 10:22 AM, 12:14 PM, and 2:51 PM, and 10/31/2023 at 9:08 AM, Resident 32 was observed lying on their backside in bed where their wound was located. In an interview on 10/31/2023 at 9:20 AM, Staff M, NAC, stated they had tried to place pillows under Resident 32 to reposition them, but they will refuse and throw the pillows on the ground. Staff M stated they did not document refusals of care, only verbalized to the nurse. In an interview on 10/31/2023 at 9:27 AM, Staff N, NAC/Restorative Aide (RA) stated they tried to place pillows on Resident 32's side to reposition them, but they refuse all the time. Staff N stated when a resident refused care, they were instructed to inform the nurse, they can also chart in the electronic record as well. In an interview on 10/31/2023 at 9:31 AM, Staff O, Licensed Practice Nurse (LPN) stated Resident 32 required encouragement to reposition. Staff O stated they were not consistent about documentation of resident refusal of care/treatment. In an interview on 10/31/2023 at 9:36 AM, Staff L, Registered Nurse (RN)/Nurse Manager stated they notified the provider on 10/04/2023 when they first discovered the open area to the coccyx. Staff L was unaware if the provider had assessed the open area. Staff L stated they had tried to encourage the resident to reposition on of their back. Staff L was asked what was done when the resident continued to refuse the interventions in place, Staff L did not provide an answer. In an interview on 10/31/2023 at 10:00 AM, CC2, Nurse Practitioner (NP), stated they were aware the resident had an open area to the coccyx. CC2 stated they had not discussed the status of the wound, or the ineffectiveness of the interventions that had been in place with the facility. CC2 stated they were aware that the wound care specialist had been in to assess and that the wound was a Stage 3 PU/PI. In an interview on 10/31/2023 at 12:56 PM, Staff B, Director of Nursing Services (DNS) stated that all residents are assessed for potential skin breakdown when they are admitted to the facility. A Braden Assessment was completed, and based on the results of that interventions were put into place. Staff B stated they discussed all skin issues on a weekly basis, that was documented in the resident's medical record. Staff B stated the expectation was that if the wound had worsened the provider would be notified and modifications to the plan of care should occur. Staff B was asked if Resident 32's interventions were discussed and if there was any collaboration with the provider on the plan of care for the wound, Staff B did not offer any information. Refer to WAC 388-97-1060(3)(b) .
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0558 (Tag F0558)

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 residents had access to their call lights for ...

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 residents had access to their call lights for 2 of 3 sample residents (Resident 75 and 94), reviewed for quality of life. This failure placed residents at risk of unmet care needs and diminished quality of life. Findings included . <RESIDENT 75> Resident 75 admitted to the facility on [DATE], most recently readmitted on [DATE], diagnoses included hypertension (high blood pressure), atrial fibrillation (an irregular and often very rapid heart rhythm), and weakness. Review of Resident 75's care plan, dated 04/18/2022, showed the resident had a deficit in their ability to care for themselves related to weakness and was at risk for falls. Interventions included to encourage Resident 75 to use their call light for assistance and to have their call light within reach. In an observation and interview on 10/25/2023 at 11:21 AM, Resident 75's call light was observed on the floor. Resident 75 stated they would like a glass of cold ice water. There was no pitcher or water observed in Resident 75's room. In a continuous observation on 10/27/2023 beginning at 9:04 AM until 9:58 AM, Resident 75's call light was observed on the ground next to their bed, out of their reach. In an interview on 10/27/2023 at 9:58 AM Staff Y, Registered Nurse (RN)/Nurse Manager, stated staff should be checking on residents all the time. Staff Y stated they did not know how long Resident 75 had been without their call light, noticed the call light on the floor right away, and placed it within Resident 75's reach. <RESIDENT 94> Resident 94 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses included congestive heart failure (condition in which the heart doesn't pump blood as efficiently as it should), weakness, and osteoarthritis (a degenerative joint disease, in which the tissues in the joint break down over time) of the right knee. Review of Resident 94's care plan, dated 04/18/2023, showed Resident 94 had a history of not remembering to use their call light and was at risk for falls. The intervention noted was to ensure the call light was within reach, encourage the resident to use their call light, and to place frequently used items within the resident's reach to include the call light. In a continuous observation on 10/27/2023 starting at 9:08 AM Resident 94's call light was on the ground next to their bed on the right side. At 9:45 AM observed Staff AA, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), enter Resident 94's room and then exited. Resident 94's call light remained on the floor. At 10:07 AM Staff Z, Certified Nursing Assistant, entered Resident 94's room and upon exiting stated that the resident's call light was on the floor and placed it within their reach. Refer to WAC 387-97-0860 (2) .
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 implement their abuse/neglect policy and procedure to thoroughly in...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to implement their abuse/neglect policy and procedure to thoroughly investigate injuries of unknown source for potential abuse/neglect for 2 of 4 residents (Resident 57 and 75) reviewed. Failure to thoroughly investigate injuries of unknown source placed residents at risk for continued abuse/neglect. Findings included . Review of the facility policy titled, Policy and Procedure Abuse, Neglect, Abandonment, Financial Exploitation and Misappropriation of Resident Property, dated January 2017, showed the facility will ensure that all alleged violations involving abuse, mistreatment, neglect, exploitation, misappropriation of resident property, and injuries of unknown sources are reported immediately to appropriate agencies in accordance with federal and state law. <RESIDENT 57> Resident 57 admitted to the facility on [DATE], and most recently readmitted on [DATE], with diagnosis to include Alzheimer's disease (a progressive disease that destroys memory and other important mental functions). Review of Resident 57's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS-an assessment tool) assessment, dated 09/18/2023, showed the resident had moderate cognitive impairment. Review of Resident 57's progress note, dated 06/21/2023, showed the resident was found to have a band aid on their toe, which was removed, and started to bleed. The note indicated the skin under the resident's toenail had been nicked. The note indicated the resident had been seen by a podiatrist on 06/20/2023. Review of an incident report, dated 06/22/2023, showed Resident 57 was found to have a band aid on the end of their right third toe. The incident report showed the resident was interviewed and they were unaware of how the injury occurred. Review of Resident 57's podiatry progress note, dated 06/23/2023, showed the resident was seen by a podiatrist, but there was no notation the resident's skin had been nicked or that a band aid had been applied. In an interview on 10/31/2023 at 11:42 AM, Staff B, Director of Nursing Services (DNS), stated they completed Resident 57's incident report and recalled having a conversation with the podiatrist. Staff B stated they were unaware of the date discrepancy related to the podiatrist note. Staff B stated the podiatrist report would not have been attached to the incident report if the facility had not received it by that date, and they had finished the report. Staff B stated all incident reports should be ruling out potential abuse and neglect. Staff B stated Resident 57 was alert, and they would be able to tell the staff if something had happened to them. Staff B stated they planned on making sure all pertaining documents were attached to the incident reports and the findings were more complete. <RESIDENT 75> Resident 75 admitted to the facility on [DATE], and had most recently readmitted on [DATE], with diagnosis to include dementia (impaired ability to remember, think, or make decisions that interfered with doing everyday activities). Review of Resident 75's Quarterly MDS assessment, dated 10/16/2023, showed the resident had moderate cognitive impairment. Review of Resident 75's incident report, dated 9/25/2023, showed the resident had a bruise to their right forearm. The incident report described Resident 75 as having moderately impaired cognition. The incident report showed Resident 75 was interviewed and did not know how the bruising occurred. The incident report did not show how abuse and/or neglect was ruled out. The incident report lacked any witness statements, staff statements, and other resident interviews. In an interview on 10/31/2023 at 11:42 AM, Staff B stated all incident reports should be ruling out potential abuse and neglect. Staff B stated they planned on making sure that all pertaining documents were attached to the incident reports and the findings were more complete. Refer to WAC 388-97-0640(6)(a) .
CONCERN (D)

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

Transfer Notice (Tag F0623)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** <RESIDENT 6> Resident 6 admitted to the facility on [DATE], most recently admitted on [DATE] diagnoses include paroxysmal ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** <RESIDENT 6> Resident 6 admitted to the facility on [DATE], most recently admitted on [DATE] diagnoses include paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (occurs when a rapid, erratic heart rate begins suddenly and then stops on its own), encephalopathy (damage or disease that affects the brain), and unspecified dementia (mild memory disturbance due to known physiological condition). In a review of Resident 6's progress note, dated 07/09/2023, showed the resident was sent to the emergency room related to a tachycardia (irregular heart rhythm). Resident 6 was admitted to the hospital. In a review of Resident 6's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) progress note, dated 07/12/2023, showed Resident 6's family member was contacted regarding a bed hold, three days after the resident was transferred to the hospital. In an interview on 10/31/2023 at 9:56, AM Staff U, SSA, stated that nursing staff was is responsible for providing a discharge/transfer notice to a resident or their designated representative. Staff U stated that they could not locate a discharge/transfer notice for Resident 6 in their EMR. Refer to WAC 388-97-1020(2)(a-d) Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide a written notice of transfer to the resident and/or the resident's representative describing the reason for transfer for 2 of 2 sampled residents (Residents 48 and 6) reviewed for transfer notifications regarding hospitalization. This failed practice disallowed the residents and/or their representative an opportunity to fully understand the rationale and resident rights associated with the discharges. Findings included . <RESIDENT 48> Resident 48 was admitted to the facility originally on 06/24/2021 and then again on 08/22/2022 following hospitalization. Review of Resident 48's medical records showed the resident transferred to the hospital on [DATE] related to acute changes in their medical status. The medical record did not show documentation that a written notice of transfer and discharge was provided to Resident 48, their representative, and to the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman. In an interview on 10/31/2023 at 9:40 AM Staff F, Social Service Assistant (SSA), was unable to find documentation a written notice of transfer and discharge was provided to Resident 48, their representative and to the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0625 (Tag F0625)

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 a bed hold notice in writing at the time of transfer to the...

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 a bed hold notice in writing at the time of transfer to the hospital or within 24 hours of transfer to the hospital for 1 of 2 residents (Resident 48) reviewed for hospitalizations. This failed practice placed residents at risk for lack of knowledge regarding the right to hold their beds while they were at the hospital. Findings included . A review of Resident 48's nursing progress notes and admission/discharge history notes, showed the resident discharged from facility to the hospital on [DATE] and returned to the facility on [DATE]. Review of Resident 48's medical records revealed no documentation the resident or the resident's representative had been provided with a written bed hold notification at time of discharge or within 24 hours of discharge. In an interview on 10/31/2023 at 9:12 AM, Staff L, Registered Nurse/Resident Care Manager, stated the nurse sending a resident to the hospital was responsible to notify the resident and/or the resident's representative and complete a bed hold policy agreement assessment at the time of discharge. Staff L stated social service was to follow up the next day with the resident or their representative. Staff L stated Resident 48 was sent to the hospital on [DATE] and no bed hold had been completed. In an interview on 10/31/2023 at 9:40 AM, Staff F, Social Service Assistant, stated a social service staff member usually followed up with the resident's representative the day after discharge, if the resident has not returned from the hospital. Staff F stated there was no documentation a bed hold was completed for Resident 48. Refer to WAC 388-97-0120 (4)(a-c) .
CONCERN (D)

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

PASARR Coordination (Tag F0644)

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 complete an updated Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PA...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to complete an updated Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR - a screening tool used to determine if a person has an intellectual disability or has indicators for serious mental illness) for 1 of 5 residents (Resident 73) reviewed for PASRR accuracy who required a Level II evaluation (Level II evaluation - more in depth mental health evaluation than the screening PASRR) due to a new mental health diagnosis. This failed practice placed the resident at risk of not receiving specialized mental health services, for unidentified needs, and for a decrease in their quality of life. Findings included . Review of the facility policy titled Resident Assessment - Coordinator with PASRR Program, undated, showed that any resident that shows newly evident or a possible mental health disorder would be referred promptly to the state mental health authority for a Level II resident review. Resident 73 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include a major depression disorder. Review of Resident 73's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) (MDS - an assessment tool) assessment, dated 04/19/2021, showed Resident 73 had severe cognitive impairment and an active diagnosis of depression. Review of Resident 73's clinical record showed the resident had a diagnosis of vascular dementia (vascular dementia - changes to memory, thinking, and behavior resulting from conditions that affect the blood vessels) since 10/01/2022, and they had a diagnosis of psychosis (psychosis - when a person perceives or interprets reality in a very different way from the people around them) since 10/17/2022. Review of Resident 73's medical records showed a PASRR form, dated 04/06/2021, for a Level I (Level I - initial PASRR screening form/tool). The resident was determined to not qualify for a Level II at that time, due to no indicators or diagnosis of psychosis. The medical records showed no update was sent to the mental health authority for a Level II when the resident had a change in behavior and when they were given a diagnosis of psychosis. In an interview on 10/31/2023 at 10:28 AM, Staff F, Social Service Assistant, stated when a resident was admitted to the facility, they reviewed the PASRR for accuracy. Staff F stated if a resident was to obtain a new mental health diagnosis, have new behaviors, or start on a new psychotropic medication (medications administered to treat mental health disorders) they would resubmit the PASRR for review. Staff F was unable to offer any information as to why Resident 73's PASRR was not reviewed or resubmitted to the mental health authority for additional review. In an interview on 10/31/2023 at 12:56 PM, Staff A, Administrator, stated they were unaware that Resident 73 had not had their PASRR reviewed or resubmitted. Staff A stated they met monthly to review psychotropic medications, and the PASRR was not an item that had been discussed for the residents. Refer to WAC 388-97-1975(9) .
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** <RESIDENT 32> Resident 32 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including depression, diabetes, and low nutrit...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** <RESIDENT 32> Resident 32 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including depression, diabetes, and low nutritional levels (had low potassium and magnesium levels in their blood). Review of Resident 32's admission nutritional assessment, dated 09/15/2023, showed the resident's admission weight to be 100.2 pounds (lbs.), had a moderate decrease in food intake, and had a weight loss of greater than 6.6 lbs. in the last three months. The assessment determined the resident was malnourished. Review of the admission MDS assessment, dated 09/23/2023, showed Resident 32 had moderate cognitive impairment and had no refusals of care. Review of Resident 32's care plan, dated 09/25/2023, showed the resident had a nutritional problem. Interventions were diet as ordered and for the registered dietician to follow. The care plan was not resident-centered and individualized. In an interview on 10/30/2023 at 9:58 AM, Staff K, RN, stated the nurse manager would usually be the one to update the care plan. Staff K stated if there was an issue in the moment that it needed to be added immediately, they notify the nurse manager right away to add it on. In an interview on 10/30/2023 at 12:50 PM, Staff L, RN/Nurse Manager, stated when a resident first admitted to the facility, the MDS nurse would start the care plan, and then they would check the care plan quarterly to ensure accuracy. Staff L stated Resident 32 had been refusing meals when they first admitted due to the admission diet order, they made some changes and completed a risk and benefits assessment with the resident and their power of attorney. Staff L stated the resident preferred chicken noodle soup with every meal. Staff L was asked to review the resident's nutritional care plan and they stated it was not resident-centered or individualized for Resident 32. In an interview on 10/31/2023 at 12:56 PM, Staff A said the expectation was the care plans were resident-centered and updated. Refer to WAC 388-97-1020(1)(2)(a) Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement comprehensive, person-centered care plans to meet the needs of 2 of 4 residents (Resident 86 and 32) reviewed for care planning. This failure placed residents at risk for weight loss, inadequate tube feeding (a flexible tube placed into the stomach to help get nutrition when a person was unable to eat) management, unmanaged pain, not honoring resident's preferences, not receiving necessary care and services, and a diminished quality of life. Findings included . Review of the facility's policy titled, Comprehensive Care Plans, dated February 2023, showed the care planning process is to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan (a 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 of admission. All Care Assessment Areas (CAA - a systematic process to interpret the triggered information from the MDS assessment to assess the potential problem and determine if the area should be care planned) triggered by the Minimum Data Set assessment (MDS - an assessment tool), 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 86> Resident 86 admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses to include stroke with dysphagia (difficulty swallowing). According to the 10/02/2023 admission MDS assessment, the resident received 25% or less nutrition through a feeding tube and was on a mechanically altered diet (foods are mechanically altered by whipping, blending, grinding, chopping, or mashing so that they are easy to chew and swallow.) The resident had moderate pain and received pain medications as needed along with non-medication interventions for pain. Review of the 10/02/2023 pain CAA's, showed Resident 86 stated they had chronic right hip pain. The feeding tube CAA showed the resident was able to tolerate oral nutrition with a mechanically altered minced and moist diet. In an interview on 10/24/2023 at 2:05 PM, Resident 86 stated to help relieve their pain they used topical pain medication and Tylenol, but it was not going to be enough. The resident stated they wanted to talk to the social service again as they had wanted the tube feeding only temporarily and they didn't want to live like this. Review of a social service progress note, dated 10/24/2023 at 2:52 PM, showed Resident 86 reported they would like to go on hospice services. The resident did not want to continue receiving nourishment and wanted to be comfortable and felt it was time to start on hospice. Review of Resident 86's care plan, print date 10/25/2023, showed the resident had a G-tube (type of feeding tube). The interventions directed nurses to check for tube placement and gastric contents/residual volume (residual volume - volume of gastric contents in the stomach) per facility protocol. Hold tube feeding if greater than (SPECIFY) cubic centimeter (cc) aspirate (drawn up contents). There was no volume specified. The care plan showed the resident prefers care (FREQ/TIME) and did not specify the frequency or time. The care plan did not include the resident's goals and desires to be off the tube feeding. The pain care plan did not specify where the pain was located or include the resident's goals for pain relief. In a joint interview on 10/30/2023 at 2:45 PM, Staff E, Registered Nurse (RN), said the nurses on the floor did not revise the care plans. Staff A, Administrator, said the Director of Nursing Services (DNS), Assistant DNS and unit managers were responsible for the care planning.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** <RESIDENT 57> Resident 57 admitted to the facility on [DATE], and most recently had readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses to...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** <RESIDENT 57> Resident 57 admitted to the facility on [DATE], and most recently had readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses to include Alzheimer's Disease (progressive disease that destroys memory and other important mental functions) and peripheral vascular disease (a disease of the blood vessels). Review of Resident 57's progress notes, dated 03/22/2023, showed they were seen by a wound care specialist and the plan of care was updated for them to wear a Skil-Care Heel Boot (a type of heel protector boot that relieved pressure) on their right lower extremity when in bed. Review of Resident 57's TAR for June 2023 showed they had an order for a Skil-Care Heel Lift Boot that directed the nursing staff to assure that Resident 57 had the boot on while in bed every shift for protection. The order was started on 03/22/2023 and discontinued 06/26/2023. Review of Resident 57's care plan, dated 07/05/2023, showed they had ulcers of the right anterior, posterior, and lateral lower leg. One of the interventions included the resident wearing a Skil-Care Heel Boot on their right foot while in bed for protection. Review of Resident 57's wound care progress note, dated 08/30/2023, showed there was no order or recommendation for them to use a Skil-Care Heel Boot to their right foot. Review of Resident 57's [NAME] (a resident-specific guide for nursing assistants to provide care) showed that nursing assistants were to assure the resident had a Skil-Care Heel Lift Boot on their right foot while in bed for protection. In observations on 10/26/2023 at 9:02 AM, 10/26/2023 at 4:05 PM, and 10/27/2023 at 9:06 AM, Resident 57's was observed to be in bed with only a yellow non-skid sock on their right foot. There was no Skil-Care Heel Lift Boot on their right foot. In an interview on 10/31/2023 at 12:05 PM, Staff Y, RN, stated Resident 57 had wound care to their right lower leg three times a week. Staff Y stated the resident was no longer being seen by the wound healing specialists due to the resident being on hospice services. Staff Y stated the interventions to address their wound on their right lower extremity were offloading, repositioning, and ongoing wound care three times a week. Staff Y stated that the Skil-Care Heel Lift Boot was discontinued a long time ago and should have been removed from the resident's care plan. Staff Y stated they would be updating the care plan right then. Refer to WAC 388-97-1020 (2)(a) Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to review and revise care plans for 2 of 5 residents (Resident 53 and 57) 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 policy titled Comprehensive Care Plans, dated February 2023, showed the care plan will be reviewed and revised by the interdisciplinary team after each comprehensive and quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS - an assessment tool) assessment. The policy did not include care plan revisions for changes in the residents' conditions. <RESIDENT 53> Resident 53 admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses to include a stroke resulting in left side weakness and paralysis. Review of Resident 53's admission MDS assessment, dated 10/16/2023, showed the resident had an indwelling catheter (a tube inserted into the urinary bladder to drain urine). Review of Resident 53's treatment administration records (TAR) for October 2023, showed the catheter was removed on 10/25/2023 and the staff were to measure post void residual (PVR - amount of urine remaining in the bladder after a person urinates) every shift for three days and notify the provider if the amount was greater than 350 cubic centimeters (CC). Review of Resident 53's care plan, dated 10/27/2023, showed the resident had an indwelling catheter related to skin breakdown. The care plan was not revised to include the discontinuation of the catheter or the new orders to measure for PVR. In an interview on 10/27/2023 at 12:00 PM, Resident 53 stated they were thankful their catheter had been removed. In an interview on 10/30/2023 at 1:00 PM, Staff D, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)/Nurse Manager stated anyone could revise the care plans. In a joint interview on 10/30/2023 at 2:45 PM, Staff E, Registered Nurse (RN), said the nurses on the floor did not revise the care plans. Staff A, Administrator, said the Director of Nursing Services (DNS), the Assistant DNS and unit managers were responsible for the care planning. In an interview on 10/31/2023 at 12:56 PM, Staff A said the expectation was that care plans were revised when there were changes.
CONCERN (D)

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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure oral hygiene was performed for 1 of 1 resident...

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 oral hygiene was performed for 1 of 1 resident (Resident 33) reviewed for Activities of Daily Living (ADLs). This failure placed the resident at risk for poor oral hygiene, dental complications, decreased self-esteem, and diminished quality of life. Findings included . Resident 33 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include Alzheimer's Disease (progressive disease that destroys memory and other important mental functions). Review of Resident 33's care plan, dated 07/11/2023, showed the resident had their own teeth and required total assistance with oral care. Review of Resident 33's Documentation Survey Report v2 (a comprehensive report that detailed cares provided for a resident) for October 2023, showed Resident 33's oral hygiene was not completed on 10/11/2023 day and evening shift. On 10/15/2023 Resident 33 was noted to be independent with their oral hygiene. In an interview on 10/24/2023 at 11:23 AM, Collateral Contact 5 (CC5), (Resident 33's Power of Attorney), stated they did not know if staff were brushing Resident 33's teeth. CC5 stated when Resident 33 was residing at home, they were unaware of what a toothbrush was or how to use it. Observation on 10/26/2023 at 8:57 AM, observed Resident 33 in their bed with the head of the bed elevated and they were observed with discolored front teeth with white debris in between them. There was no toothbrush at either sink within the room or in Resident 33's closet. In an interview on 10/30/2023 at 10:07 AM Staff Y, Registered Nurse (RN), stated the resident's teeth were to be brushed daily, every morning before breakfast. Staff Y stated Resident 33 was fully dependent on staff to meet all their needs. In a joint interview and observation on 10/31/2023 at 9:09 AM, Staff DD, Nursing Assistant Certified (NAC), stated the resident was dependent on staff to meet their needs. When asked about the location of Resident 33's toothbrush, Staff DD looked throughout Resident 33's closet, bathroom, and eventually uncovered a toothbrush in the drawer of the bedside table under several pieces of paper. Staff DD stated Staff CC, NAC, was the aide assigned to Resident 33 and they would know where to find Resident 33's oral care items. Staff CC, NAC, stated they brushed Resident 33's teeth daily, after breakfast, when they worked. Staff CC stated Resident 33's oral hygiene supplies were in a kidney basin, which they were unable to locate after looking in the closet, bathroom, and Resident 33's side of the room. Staff CC stated when they had a day off and returned, they were unable to find the kidney basin with Resident 33's oral hygiene supplies. In an interview on 10/31/2023 at 9:45 AM, Staff CC stated they had located the kidney basin with Resident 33's oral hygiene supplies, and it had been found with the roommate's belongings. Refer to WAC 388-97-1060 (2)(c)
CONCERN (D)

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** <LABORATORY RESULTS> RESIDENT 28 Resident 28 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include bipolar diso...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** <LABORATORY RESULTS> RESIDENT 28 Resident 28 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include bipolar disorder (mood disorder with episodes of mania-depression), anxiety, and depression. Review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS - an assessment tool) assessment, dated 08/03/2023, showed Resident 28 had severe cognitive impairment. Review of Resident 28's physician order, dated 10/18/2021, showed a laboratory (lab) order to have the residents comprehensive metabolic panel (CMP a test that measures 14 different substances in the blood) to be drawn every six months in October and April. Review of Resident 28's electronic medical record and electronic treatment record (EMAR/ETAR) since admission on [DATE], showed no record a CMP had been drawn for the resident. RESIDENT 73 Resident 73 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include psychosis (a severe mental condition in which thought, and emotions are so affected that contact is lost with external reality), dementia (a mental disorder in which a person loses the ability to think, remember, learn, make decisions, and solve problems), and depression. Review of the Quarterly MDS assessment, dated 08/15/2023, showed Resident 73 had severe cognitive impairment. Review of Resident 73's physician order, dated 06/14/2023, showed an order for a lipid (fat compound stored in our blood cells) panel test, A1c test (blood test that shows blood sugar level of time), and Vitamin D level lab draw. The order read to be done once a year starting on 08/01/2023. Review of Resident 73's EMAR/ETAR for 08/01/2023 through 10/30/2023, showed no record the labs had been done. In an interview on 10/30/2023 at 12:50 PM, Staff L, Registered Nurse/Nurse Manager, stated the labs orders would usually be placed on the EMAR/ETAR for the nurse to sign off on. Staff L stated they would investigate if Resident 28 and Resident 73 had their labs completed. In an interview 10/31/2023 at 9:36 AM, Staff L stated there were no record the labs order had been completed for Resident 28 and Resident 73. In an interview on 10/31/2023 at 12:56 PM, Staff B, Director of Nursing Services, stated the expectation was labs were completed as orders and was unaware the labs had not been done for Resident 28 and Resident 73. No additional information was provided. Refer to WAC 388-97-1060(1)(3)(k) Based on interview and record review the facility failed to thoroughly provide professional standards of care and services for 2 of 5 residents (Resident 28 and 73) reviewed for unnecessary medications and 1 of 1 resident (Resident 86) reviewed for medication management. The facility failed to obtain laboratory samples per physician orders, and to recognize low blood pressure (BP) results, reassess abnormal BP values, and notify the provider of abnormal findings. This failed practice placed residents at risk for medication complications, and a diminished quality of life. Findings included . Review of the facility's policy titled, Vital Signs, dated 2021, showed licensed nurses were responsible for knowing the usual range of a residents vital signs, analyzing, and interpreting routine vital signs, and notifying the physician of abnormal findings. <MEDICATION MANAGEMENT> Resident 86 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with cardiac diagnoses to include hypertension (high b/p) and vascular disease (disease of the blood vessels). Review of Resident 86's 09/25/2023 through 10/29/2023 physician's orders directed the nurses to give amlodipine, lisinopril and hydrochlorothiazide (three medications used to treat hypertension) daily and hold the medication if the systolic blood pressure (SBP- the first number, called systolic blood pressure, measures the pressure in your blood vessels when your heart beats) was less than 100. Review of Resident 86's Medication Administration Records (MARs) from 09/25/2023 until 10/29/2023, showed the following BP results pertaining to the cardiac medication administration and the medications were not held per the physician orders: - On 09/26/2023, the BP was 112/44. - On 09/27/2023, the BP was 116/40. - On 09/29/2023, the BP was 135/38. - On 10/02/2023, the BP was 128/39, - On 10/04/2023, the BP was 153/47. - On 10/05/2023, the BP was 133/46. - On 10/07/2023, the BP was 118/40. - On 10/08/2023, the BP was 128/38. - On 10/13/2023, the BP was 126/43. - On 10/15/2023, the BP was 134/36. - On 10/18/2023, the BP was 136/48. - On 10/19/2023, the BP was 128/46. - On 10/20/2023, the MAR showed NA (not applicable) for the medication but there were no documented vital signs or documentation as to why the BP was not assessed. - On 10/22/2023, the BP was 111/43. - On 10/23/2023, the BP was 126/40. - On 10/24/2023, the BP was 134/40. - On 10/27/2023, the BP was 122/40. - On 10/28/2023, the BP was 112/38. - On 10/29/2023, the BP was 108/38. Review of Resident 86's medical record showed no further assessment or evidence that vital signs were re-assessed. There was no documentation or physician notification when the diastolic blood pressure readings were low. In an interview on 10/30/2023 at 12:17 PM, Collateral Contact 2 (CC2), Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioner, stated it was their expectation nurses held BP if the systolic was under 100 and diastolic was less than 60. CC 2 said they did not review all the vital signs on their visits and expected the nurses to inform them of held doses or trends. CC2 looked at the BP recorded since admission and said it would have been reasonable to hold those doses and let them review the readings. CC2 said they would now decrease one of the medications. CC2 said the nurses had not informed them of the low diastolic readings. In an interview on 10/30/2023 at 12:30 PM, Staff G, Nursing Assistant Registered (NAR), stated they took BP's using an automatic cuff. They stated if the systolic was over 145, they would take the BP manually. They said they would report abnormal readings to the nurse. In an interview on 10/30/2023 at 12:43 PM, Staff D, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)/Nurse Manager, reviewed Resident 86's BP's since admission. Staff D said they were unaware of the diastolic BP's in the 30's and 40's. They stated they would expect the nurse to recheck the BP and notify the provider of the low diastolic readings. In an interview on 10/30/2023 at 12:55 PM, Staff E, Registered Nurse (RN), stated the providers did not set parameters for the diastolic readings. Staff E said they would recheck the BP if there was a low BP's. Staff E said they tried to go back and document the new BP. they would recheck the BP if there was a low BP's.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0688 (Tag F0688)

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 services were provided to maintain, increase, ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure services were provided to maintain, increase, and/or prevent further decrease in range of motion for 1 of 1 resident (Resident 100) reviewed for limited range of motion. This failure placed the resident at risk for a decline in their functional ability and their quality of life. Findings included . Review of a facility policy titled Restorative Nursing Documentation, undated, showed the facility was to maintain complete, accurate, and organized documentation of restorative treatments and the response to those treatments. Resident 100 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include Rhabdomyolysis (damaged muscles that release protein into the blood), a fall at home, and a failure to thrive (a term used to describe broad declines in multiple areas to include weight loss, decreased appetite, poor nutrition, and inactivity). Review of Resident 100's admission Minimum Data Set assessment (an assessment tool), dated 08/25/2023, showed the resident had moderate cognitive impairment and required extensive staff assistance for activities of daily living. Review of Resident 100's care plan, dated 09/22/2023, showed the resident had a nursing restorative program that included ambulation six to seven days a week and Nustep (bicycle) six to seven days a week. Review of Resident 100's restorative documentation from 09/22/2023 through 09/30/2023 showed there were six days without services being performed. Review of documentation from 10/01/2023 through 10/30/2023 showed there were 18 days without services being performed. In an interview on 10/24/2023 at 3:26 PM, Resident 100 stated they had not been receiving restorative therapy. The resident stated they wanted to participate in restorative to be able to discharge home. In an interview on 10/30/2023 at 12:55 PM, Staff V, Restorative Assistant, stated they were frequently pulled to work the floor related to staffing shortages. Staff V stated when restorative assistant staff were pulled to the floor, residents did not receive restorative services as scheduled. Staff V stated Resident 100 was not receiving restorative services as ordered. Staff V stated Resident 100 was more alert when they received restorative services consistently. In an interview on 10/30/2023 at 1:04 PM, Staff R, Licensed Practical Nurse/Restorative Nurse, acknowledged that Resident 100 was not receiving restorative services consistently. In an interview on 10/31/2023 at 12:38 PM, Staff B, Director of Nursing Services, stated the expectation was for residents to receive restorative services as ordered. Refer to (WAC) 388-97-1060 (3)(d) .
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** <RESIDENT 33> Resident 33 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include Alzheimer's Disease (progressive di...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** <RESIDENT 33> Resident 33 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include Alzheimer's Disease (progressive disease that destroys memory and other important mental functions). Review of Resident 33's discharge orders, dated 06/27/2023, showed Resident 33 was ordered to have a urology consult prior to removal of their catheter due to multiple failed attempts at removal. In an interview on 10/24/2023 at 11:26 AM, Collateral Contact 5 (CC5), Resident 33's Power of Attorney, reported that Resident 33 had a catheter placed in the hospital, had started medication to assist them in emptying their bladder, and had asked several times to have the catheter removed. Review of Resident 33's progress notes, dated 10/25/2023, showed Staff Y, Registered Nurse (RN)/NM, had spoken to CC5 regarding removal of Resident 33's catheter for a voiding trial. Staff Y had to get an order from Resident 33's provider and would discontinue the catheter in the evening. In an interview on 10/30/2023 at 10:00 AM, Staff Y said that Resident 33 had a catheter since they admitted . Staff Y stated that CC5 had asked twice about having Resident 33's catheter removed for a voiding trial. Staff Y stated they were unaware of any orders related to Resident 33's catheter at admission. Staff Y stated that Resident 33 had not seen a urologist prior to removal of their catheter. No other information was provided. <RESIDENT 67> Resident 67 originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and most recently admitted following hospitalization from 07/30/2023 - 08/14/2023 with diagnoses to include a urinary tract infection) and the presence of indwelling urinary catheter. Review of Resident 67's Significant Change MDS assessment, dated 08/21/2023, showed the resident had severe cognitive impairment, required extensive assist with bed mobility, toilet use, and personal hygiene, and had an indwelling urinary catheter. Review of the urinary catheter Care Area Assessment did not show a rationale or medical justification for the use of the urinary catheter. Review of Resident 67's catheter physician orders, dated 08/14/2023, showed orders for the type, size, and management of care of the catheter and urine collection bag. The orders did not include the indications for use of the catheter. Review of the hospital Discharge summary, dated [DATE], did not show the indications for use of the urinary catheter. The orders did include an order to monitor for urinary output and to notify the physician for urinary output 250 cc (cubic centimeter) or less in 8 hours. Review of Resident 67's care plan, dated 10/29/2023, showed the urinary catheter was used for fluid volume overload and to track urinary output. There was no documentation the risks and benefits of the use of the catheter were discussed with the resident or their representative. Review of Resident 67's urinary output documentation from 10/01/2023 - 10/30/2023 showed documentation there were 15 shifts (8 hour periods) in which the resident's urinary output was 250 cc or less. Review of the resident's records showed no documentation the physician was notified of those 15 shifts. In an interview on 10/30/2023 at 2:09 PM, Collateral Contact 6, Resident 67's representative, stated the use of the urinary catheter was discussed with Hospice at the hospital and it was decided to keep the urinary catheter in place for comfort. In an interview on 10/31/2023 at 10:08 AM, Staff S, RN/NM, reviewed Resident 67's records and stated they were unable to show documentation the physician was notified of the episodes when the resident's urinary output was less than 250cc in a shift, or documentation the facility had counseled the resident or their representative of the risks and benefits of use of catheter. Refer to WAC 388-97-1060(3)(c) Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure 3 of 3 (Resident 53, 33, and 67) residents reviewed for urinary catheters (flexible tubes inserted into the bladder to drain urine) received the necessary care and services to achieve their optimal level of urinary function. Failure to identify the reason for a resident's treatment with a urinary catheter, to maintain documentation to support why an indwelling catheter was replaced and a trial void order was not completed as ordered, there was a lack of documentation why the physician was not notified per their physician order when there was a low urinary output, and there was a failure to documentation the facility had counseled the resident/representative of the risks and benefits of a urinary catheter. These failures placed residents at risk for infection, pain, discomfort, bleeding, and complications related to urinary catheter use, and a diminished quality of life. Findings included . Review of the facility policy titled, Urinary Indwelling Catheters, undated, showed an indwelling urinary catheter would be utilized only when a resident's clinical condition demonstrated the catheterization was necessary. Any resident that admitted with a urinary catheter would be assessed for removal as soon as possible . the resident and representative would be included in the discussion about indications, potential benefits, and risk .use of the urinary catheter would be in accordance with physician orders. <RESIDENT 53> Resident 53 admitted on [DATE] with a diagnosis of stroke affecting their left non-dominant side. The resident did not have a diagnosis or indications for having the urinary catheter. According to the 10/16/2023 admission Minimum Data Set (MDS -an assessment tool) assessment, Resident 53 had an indwelling catheter. Review of the Care Area Assessment (CAA - a systematic process to interpret the triggered information from the MDS assessment to assess the potential problem and determine if the area should be care planned) for urinary catheter use showed the resident triggered for risk of a Moisture Associated Skin Disorder related to an indwelling Catheter. The resident admitted with a fungal rash and inverse psoriasis. The resident was incontinent of bowel and bladder over a year at baseline. Review of the clinical record showed no documentation of medical justification/rationale for Resident 53's catheter. In an interview and observation on 10/25/2023 at 8:56 AM, Resident 53 was sitting in their wheelchair at bedside. Staff I, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), responded to the resident's call light. Resident 53 asked Staff I when can I get this catheter out? Staff I said they would see when they could get rid of it. The resident stated it was very uncomfortable sitting with this catheter in. Resident 53 said the catheter had been in since the hospital and they didn't know why. Staff I said they did not know why the catheter was in. Staff I said one of the providers would be there today and they would ask them about discontinuing the catheter. The resident said they have never had a problem urinating. Review of Resident 53's treatment administration records (TAR) for October 2023, showed the catheter was removed on 10/25/2023 and the staff were to measure post-void residual (PVR - amount of urine that remained in the bladder after urinating) every shift for three days and notify the provider if the amount was greater than 350 cubic centimeters (CC). Review of Resident 53's care plan, dated 10/27/2023, showed the resident had an indwelling catheter related to skin breakdown. The care plan was not revised to include the discontinuation of the catheter or the new orders to measure for PVR. In an interview on 10/27/2023 at 12:00 PM, Resident 53 stated they were thankful the catheter had been removed. In an interview on 10/30/2023 at 1:00 PM, Staff D, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)/Nurse Manager (NM), said they noted on Resident 53's admission they did not have urinary retention or other indications for indwelling catheter use. Staff D said the hospital discharge summary documented the catheter was in place for a rash and the resident had said the rash was chronic. Staff D said they questioned Collateral Contact 3, Physician, about the lack of indications for the catheter and they were finally able to discontinue it.
CONCERN (D)

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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure 1 of 1 resident (Resident 32) reviewed for resp...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure 1 of 1 resident (Resident 32) reviewed for respiratory care and services were provided care consistent with professional standards of practice. The facility failed to ensure the resident received oxygen as it was prescribed by the physician and failed to ensure oxygen (O2) administration tubing was appropriately maintained, changed regularly, and dated. This failure placed residents at risk for contaminated care equipment, not receiving physician ordered services, unmet care needs and a diminished quality of life. Findings included . Review of the facility policy titled, Oxygen Administration, undated, showed oxygen is administered under orders of a physician. Staff were to monitor ongoing assessment of the residents' oxygen use and notify if there is a need for changes. Oxygen tubing is changed weekly and as needed if it became soiled or contaminated. Staff were to initial and date the tubing. When oxygen tubing was not in use, it is stored in a pouch. Resident 32 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including respiratory failure, heart failure, and pneumonia (infection of the lungs). Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS - an assessment tool) assessment, dated 09/23/2023, showed Resident 32 had moderate cognitive impairment, had no refusal of care, required extensive assist from one person for bed mobility, transfers, ambulation, toilet use and personal hygiene. Review of Resident 32's physician orders showed included following: - Apply O2 (per nasal tubing - a tube from an O2 machine to nose) at two to four liters per minute continuously to keep the resident's oxygen saturation levels above or equal to 90 percent (%), start date 09/15/2023. - Change and date the oxygen tubing twice a month, every two weeks on Friday night, start date 09/15/2023. Review of Resident 32's care plan showed a focus area, dated 09/16/2023, the resident was on supplemental O2 related to pneumonia, and they had trouble breathing. Interventions included to encourage the resident to position themselves every two hours to promote lung movement, give prescribed medication as ordered by the physician, ensure the resident had the head of the bed elevated at least 30 degrees to improve breathing, and O2 rate at two to four liters continuously through a nasal tube. Observation on 10/24/2023 at 9:54 AM, and 10/25/2023 at 9:23 AM, 3:28 AM, Resident 32 was observed lying flat in bed. The resident was not wearing the O2, and the tubing was observed to be lying on the floor, undated. The O2 concentrator O2 concentrator (a medical device that provides pure O2) machine was running. Observation on 10/25/2023 at 10:34 AM, Resident 32 was observed in the activity room not wearing any supplemental O2. Observation on 10/26/2023 at 8:40 AM, and 9:32 AM, Resident 32 was observed lying flat in bed. The resident was not wearing the O2, and the tubing was observed to be lying on the floor, undated. The O2 concentrator machine was running. Observation on 10/26/2023 at 11:38 AM, and 1:35 PM, Resident 32 was observed in the activity room not wearing any supplemental O2. Observation on 10/27/2023 at 8:05 AM, 10:32 AM, and 1:07 PM, Resident 32 was observed lying flat in bed. The resident was not wearing the O2, and the tubing was observed to be lying on the floor, undated. The O2 concentrator machine was running. In an interview on 10/27/2023 at 10:37 AM, Staff J, Nursing Assistant Certified (NAC), stated Resident 32 was supposed to always be wearing the supplemental O2 and the machine should be on. If the resident refused care, they would notify the nurse. Observation on 10/30/2023 at 8:58 AM, 10:22 AM, 12:14 PM, and 2:51 PM, Resident 32 was lying flat in bed, O2 tubing was lying at the head of the bed not on the resident and the concentrator was off. In an interview on 10/30/2023 at 9:58 AM, Staff K, Registered Nurse (RN), stated Resident 32 sometimes would wear their supplemental O2. Staff K stated if the tubing had been on the floor the staff were supposed to switch it out for a new one and date the tubing accordingly. In an interview on 10/30/2023 at 12:50 PM, Staff L, RN/Nurse Manager, stated Resident 32 required supplemental O2 continuously as their saturation levels would decrease quickly without it. Staff L stated if the tubing had been on the floor the staff were supposed to switch it out for a new one and date the tubing accordingly. In an interview on 10/31/2023 at 12:56 PM, Staff B, Director of Nursing Services, was unaware Resident 32 had not received their supplemental O2 as prescribed by the physician, and the tubing had been on the floor and undated. Refer to WAC 388-97-1060(3)(j)(vi) .
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** <RESIDENT 310> Resident 310 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include fractured rib, heart failure ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** <RESIDENT 310> Resident 310 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include fractured rib, heart failure and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) (constriction of airways and difficulty or discomfort breathing). Review of Resident 310's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) did not show an acceptable diagnosis for the use of Seroquel (anti-psychotic medication). Review of Resident 310's Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR - a federally required screening of all individuals who has both an Intellectual Disability (ID) or Related Condition (RC) and a serious mental illness (SMI) prior to admission to a Medicaid-certified nursing facility or a significant change of condition) form, dated 10/12/2023, showed the resident did not have a diagnosis of SMI, psychotic, mood, anxiety, delusional or personality disorders. Review of Resident 310's October 2023 Medication Administration Record (MAR), showed the resident had orders for Seroquel 25 milligrams (mg) in the afternoon to prevent agitation, initiated 10/13/2023 and Seroquel 25 mg every six hours as needed for agitation/anxiety, initiated 10/13/2023. Review of Resident 310's MRR, dated 10/23/2023, showed the pharmacist recommended changes to the Seroquel medication order, stated that prevent agitation was not an acceptable diagnosis for the use of Seroquel. The facility provider signed and dated the recommendation on 10/23/2023 at 11:50 PM with the box checked physician notified-no new suggestions. In an interview on 10/31/2023 at 11:04 AM, Staff F, Social Services Assistant (SSA), stated they reviewed the chart and the diagnoses for all residents admitted to the facility. Staff F stated they would be able to tell if a resident was on psychotropic medications even without a diagnosis as it shows up on their EMR dashboard alerts. Requested any documentation related to Resident 310's diagnoses for use of the antipsychotic medication Seroquel. None was provided. In an interview on 10/31/2023 at 2:42 PM, Staff B, Director of Nursing Services (DNS), stated they would expect a more appropriate diagnosis for Resident 310's use of Seroquel. Staff B stated they were unsure why the provider would not use an acceptable diagnosis after they reviewed the MRR dated 10/12/2023 with suggestion to have an acceptable diagnosis for use of Seroquel. Staff B was unable to locate any documentation from the provider as to why they did not follow the pharmacy recommendations. <RESIDENT 14> Resident 14 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include respiratory failure, heart failure, and dementia. Review of Resident 14's PASRR evaluation, dated 09/29/2023, showed the resident had received risperidone (antipsychotic medication) nightly for sundowning (state of confusion in the late afternoon lasting into the night). Review of Resident 14's MRR, dated 10/04/2023, showed the pharmacist suggested to change the diagnosis used for the scheduled medication risperidone or to discontinue use. The facility provider checked the box that showed no new suggestions after provider notification, signed on 10/04/2023. Review of Resident 14's October 2023 MAR showed that Risperidone was initiated on 09/30/2023, with a diagnosis of toxic encephalopathy, dementia, discontinued on 10/03/2023. Risperidone new order started on 10/04/2023 with the same diagnoses, discontinued on 10/12/2023. Risperidone new order started on 10/12/2023 showed a diagnosis of psychosis, delusional thinking, and hallucinations. In an interview on 10/31/2023 at 11:04 AM, Staff F stated they were unaware of Resident 14's diagnosis for use of Risperidone. Staff F stated that they would look at the Residents' diagnoses and provide any further information. In an interview on 10/31/2023 at 2:42 PM, Staff B stated they were unaware of why there was no follow up on Resident 14's pharmacy recommendation from 10/04/2023 to include an appropriate diagnosis for use of scheduled risperidone. Staff B stated that they do not understand why a provider would not do something as simple as change a diagnosis. Staff B was unable to locate provider documentation for rationalization of why they did not follow pharmacy recommendations. Refer to WAC 388-97-1300 (4)(c) Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide an adequate rationale for not following pharmacist recommendations for 3 of 5 residents (Resident 86, 310, and 14) reviewed for unnecessary medications. This failure placed the residents at risk for experiencing the use of unnecessary medications and a potential diminished quality of life. Findings included . <RESIDENT 86> Review of the pharmacy consultant Medication Regimen Review (MRR), dated 10/12/2023, showed a request to evaluate citalopram hydrobromide (a medication used to treat depression) due to the off label/non-Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved indication mood disorder being used. The pharmacist requested clarification if Resident 86 had a diagnosis of depression, or the medication was being used off label as mood disorder. Collateral Contact 2 (CC2), Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioner (ARNP), circled used off label for mood disorder. CC2 signed the pharmacist recommendation on 10/18/2023 as agree but did not include a written rationale for the off-label use of citalopram. In an interview on 10/30/2023 at 12:43 PM, Staff D, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)/Nurse Manager (NM), reviewed Resident 86's consult and said they were unsure of why the provider did not include a rationale for their decision. In an interview on 10/30/2023 at 12:17 PM, CC2 said they were informed from the pharmacist citalopram cannot be used for mood disorder, but they disagreed. CC2 said they did not know if Resident 86 had a diagnosis of depression, but it would take some research.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0811 (Tag F0811)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure cognitively impaired residents were fed by assistants that were properly trained for 2 of 4 sampled staff (Staff W and...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure cognitively impaired residents were fed by assistants that were properly trained for 2 of 4 sampled staff (Staff W and Staff X) observed providing feeding assistance to residents (Resident 26 and 28). This failure placed residents at risk of choking and aspiration (inhalation of food or fluid into the lungs) and a diminished quality of life. Findings included . In the entrance conference meeting on 10/24/2023 at 8:58 AM, Staff A, Administrator, stated they did not have any paid feeding assistants in the facility. <STAFF W> Review of Staff W's employee record showed they were hired on 03/16/2020. Staff W was currently employed as an activity assistant, and there was no record the staff had been trained as a paid feeding assistant. Review of Resident 26's Minimum Data Set (MDS - an assessment too) assessment, dated 10/11/2023, showed the resident had severe cognitive impairment. Review of Resident 26's nutritional assessment, dated 10/04/2023, showed the resident had an altered diet due to difficulty chewing with meals. In an observation in the memory care unit on 10/26/2023 at 12:12 PM, Staff W was observed to sit at the table with Resident 26. Staff W was observed to physically assist the resident to eat by holding the spoon, gathering food onto the spoon, and placing the food into the resident's mouth. Staff W was observed to continue to assist the resident to eat their lunch for 15 minutes. In an interview on 10/26/2023 at 1:36 PM, Staff W stated they had worked in the activity department for about six months, and previously drove the facility van. Staff W stated they primary worked in the memory care unit and would occasionally assist the residents eat their meals. Staff W stated they had not participated in a paid feeding assistant program or had any training/education at the facility regarding feeding residents. Staff W stated they were not a Nursing Assistant Certified (NAC). <STAFF X> Review of Staff X's employee record showed they were hired on 07/09/2012. Staff X was currently employed as the Activity Director, and there was no record the staff had been trained as a paid feeding assistant. In an observation in the memory care unit on 10/26/2023 at 12:04 PM, Staff X was observed to sit at the table with Resident 28. Staff X was observed to physically assist the resident to eat by holding the spoon, gathering food onto the spoon, and placing the food into the resident's mouth. Staff X was observed to assist the resident to eat their lunch for 10 minutes. Review of Resident 28's MDS assessment, dated 08/03/2023, showed the resident had severe cognitive impairment. Review of Resident 28's medical records showed their diet was downgraded to a puree (smooth) diet per the speech evaluation dated 09/21/2023. The resident had difficulty chewing and coughing with meals. In an interview on 10/26/2023 at 1:51 PM, Staff X stated they had not participated in a paid feeding assistant program or had any training/education at the facility regarding feeding residents. Staff X stated they were not a NAC. In an interview on 10/26/2023 at 1:51 PM, Staff A confirmed the facility did not have a paid feeding assistant program. Staff A stated they had no policy on feeding residents. Staff A stated they were unaware of non-certified/licensed staff were assisting residents with swallowing and chewing deficits to eat at mealtime. Staff A stated their expectation was only certified or licensed staff should be feeding residents. Refer to WAC 388-97-1060 .
CONCERN (D)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to store food in accordance with professional standards for food service...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to store food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety for 1 of 4 nutrition refrigerators/freezers (North Hall) reviewed for food storage. Failure to label foods with dates they were opened or discard dates, and discard expired food, placed residents at risk for food-borne illness. Findings included . Observation on 10/24/2023 at 10:10 AM, the North Hall Pantry Refrigerator/Freezer a sign on the refrigerator stated: Attention Staff -When a resident has food brought in, it must have their name on it. I will throw it away otherwise. All food will be thrown out after three days unless it has a manufacturer date on it, like yogurt or cheese sticks etc. All other items regardless of where it came from can only be in the fridge for 3 days. After 3 days, I toss out foods and put any container in the sink to be picked up. Only the resident's foods are allowed to be in the fridge. NO Staff food or drinks. Observation on 10/24/2023 at 10:10 AM, the North Hall Pantry of the refrigerator/freezer there were multiple expired food items observed: - A plastic baggie of [NAME] bell cheese with an expiration date of 09/13/2023. - A bottle of Hershey's chocolate syrup with no open or discard date labeled and expired on 07/2023. - A bottle of Pure Leaf Sweet Tea was opened without an open or discard date. - A gallon of milk was opened without an open or discard date. - A container of Darigold cottage cheese was opened without an open or discard date and expired on 09/21/2023. - Three small plastic containers of thickened orange juice with an expiration date of 09/11/2023. - The shelves to the refrigerator were covered in a black/brown discoloration throughout the shelves, and the freezer contained debris of unknown source and human hair. In an interview on 10/24/2023 at 10:31 AM, Staff DD, Certified Nursing Assistant (NAC), stated the food in the refrigerator was to have the name and date on it and if not, the kitchen staff would throw it away. Staff DD stated the kitchen staff usually checked the refrigerator and freezer daily. In an interview on 10/24/2023 at 10:35 AM, Staff II, Dietary Manager, stated the kitchen staff and the nursing aides were responsible for removing expired food, dating food with an open or discard dates, and discarding expired foods. Staff II stated the expired thickened orange juice was placed in the refrigerator from the kitchen and should have been discarded. Staff II stated food items should have dates on them when they were opened. Refer to WAC 388-97-1100(3) .
CONCERN (D)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** <RESIDENT 116> Resident 116 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including diabetes, macular degeneration (an...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** <RESIDENT 116> Resident 116 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including diabetes, macular degeneration (an eye disease that causes vision loss), ocular hypertension (high blood pressure in the eye) and glaucoma (an eye disease that can cause loss of vision). Review of the Minimum Data Set (an assessment tool) assessment, dated 10/17/2023, showed Resident 116 had minimal cognitive impairment and required staff assistance with activities of daily living. Observation on 10/27/2023 at 8:25 AM, Staff Q, Registered Nurse (RN), was observed performing a blood glucose check (measurement of the amount of sugar in the blood), administered insulin by injection, and administered eye drops to Resident 116. Staff Q did not perform hand hygiene or don (apply) clean gloves after performed a blood glucose check, administered an insulin injection, and prior to administering the eye drops to the resident. In an interview on 10/27/2023 at 8:45 AM, Staff Q stated they should have removed their gloves and performed hand hygiene prior to administering Resident 116's eye drops. In an interview on 10/31/2023 at 12:38 PM, Staff B, Director of Nursing Services, stated hand hygiene needed to be done after removing soiled gloves and prior to applying clean gloves. Staff B stated Staff Q should have removed their gloves, performed hand hygiene, and applied clean gloves prior to administering the eye drops to Resident 116. Refer to WAC 388-97-1320 (1)(c) Based on observation, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to follow infection control standards during medication administration for 1 of 5 residents (Resident 116) observed for medication administration, and 1 of 1 residents (Resident 67) observed during care of a urinary catheter (a tube inserted into the bladder to drain urine.) This failure placed residents at risk for developing infections and for experiencing a decreased quality of life. Finding included . <RESIDENT 67> Resident 67 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and most recently following hospitalization on 08/14/2023 with diagnoses to include heart disease/failure, urinary tract infection and presence of an indwelling urinary catheter (is a hollow, partially flexible tube that collects urine from the bladder and leads to a drainage bag). In an observation and interview on 10/23/2023 at 1:05 PM, Staff FF, Nursing Assistant Certified (NAC), was observed providing catheter care (washing the external portion of catheter and insertion site) for Resident 67. Staff FF was observed to complete catheter care and bowel incontinent (loss of voluntary control) care. Staff FF removed their soiled gloves and donned (placed on) new gloves. Staff FF did not wash their hands or perform hand hygiene after removing their soiled gloves and prior to applying a new pair of gloves. Staff FF stated they just put clean gloves on after cleaning the resident and before assisting the resident with putting on a clean brief.
CONCERN (E)

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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

<SOUTH DINING ROOM> Observation on 10/24/2023 at 12:01 PM, the staff were observed to serve Resident 52, and Resident 105 their lunch. The residents food and drinks were not removed from the ser...

Read full inspector narrative →
<SOUTH DINING ROOM> Observation on 10/24/2023 at 12:01 PM, the staff were observed to serve Resident 52, and Resident 105 their lunch. The residents food and drinks were not removed from the serving tray for the dining experience. Observation on 10/24/2023 at 12:02 PM, the staff were observed to serve Resident 65, Resident 28 and Resident 16 their lunch. The residents food and drinks were not removed from the serving tray for the dining experience. Observation on 10/24/2023 at 12:03 PM, the staff were observed to serve Resident 80 their lunch without removing their food and drinks from the serving tray. Resident 77 lunch arrived at 12:07, four minutes later. The resident's food and drinks were not removed from the serving tray for the dining experience. In a continuous observation on 10/24/2023 at 12:05 PM, the staff were observed to serve Resident 26, Resident 33, Resident 17, and Resident 38 their lunch. The resident's food and drinks were not removed from the serving tray for the dining experience. Resident 26 was observed to have their head tucked into their shirt, their food was sitting placed in front of them, uncovered and untouched. At 12:16 PM, staff was observed to verbally tell Resident 26 to eat their lunch, Resident 26 did not respond. At 12:21 PM, 16 minutes after their food had been delivered, staff were observed to stand over Resident 26 and provide physical assistance to the resident to eat one bite of food then the staff walked away. At 12:27 PM, a staff member sat down next to Resident 26 and provided physical assistant to the resident to eat their lunch, 22 minutes after their food was placed in front of them. Observation on 10/26/2023 at 11:51 AM, the staff were observed to serve Resident 38 and Resident 17 their lunch. There were two other residents (Resident 33 and Resident 26) that sat at the same table, they were not served their lunch till 11:57, six minutes after the first tray was delivered. In a continuous observation on 10/26/2023 at 11:51 AM, the staff were observed to serve Resident 65 their lunch to their table. Resident 73 was sitting at the table with Resident 65. Resident 73 then moved in their wheelchair over to the food cart full of trays and stated to staff where is mine? Resident 73 then moved in their wheelchair back to the table and leaned over at Resident 65, pointed at the food, and stated, I want some of that, it looks good. At 11:55 AM, Resident 73 lunch was placed in front of them, four minutes later. In an interview on 10/26/2023 at 1:28 PM, Staff P, Activity Assistant, stated they assist with meal delivery at times. Staff P stated they try to pass to one table at a time, but they were not always able to. In an interview on 10/30/2023 at 9:58 AM, Staff K, RN, stated they pass the trays to the residents as they were stacked in the meal cart when it was delivered. In an interview on 10/30/2023 at 12:50 PM, Staff L, RN/Nurse Manager, stated the expectation in the dining room was all residents at the same table were served their meal at the same time. All items on the meal tray should be removed and placed on the table. In an interview on 10/31/2023 at 12:56 PM, Staff A, Administrator, stated the management team was unaware the staff had been not removing the food items off the tray during meal service. Staff A stated they were also unaware residents were not served one table at a time. Staff A stated the expectation was, staff were to serve one table at a time, with food and drinks removed from the serving tray. Refer to WAC 388-97-0860 (1)(a) Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide a dignified and homelike dining experience in 2 of 3 (Southeast and South) dining rooms during 3 of 3 dining observations for dignity. These failures placed residents at risk for feelings of frustration, diminished self-worth, embarrassment, and a potential decline in nutritional status. Findings included . <SOUTHEAST DINING ROOM> Observation on 10/24/2023 at 11:37 AM, Resident 101's meal tray was served. The resident's tablemates, Resident 76, and Resident 33, were observed to watch Resident 101 eat until their lunch arrived at 11:43 PM, six minutes later. The resident's food and drinks were not removed from the serving tray for the dining experience. Observation on 10/27/2023 at 11:28 AM, trays were delivered to the unit. Resident 33's meal was served at 11:30 AM, followed by their tablemates Resident 76's at 11:34 AM and Resident 1's meal at 11:35 AM. At the same table Resident 101 was staring at their tablemates eating and inquiring as to where their food was. Collateral Contact 1 (CC1), Resident 101's, significant other, commented that maybe the facility had put them (Resident 101) on a diet. Resident 101's lunch was delivered at 11:37 AM. Resident 101's food and drinks were not removed from their serving tray for the dining experience. Observation on 10/30/2023 at 11:37 AM, Resident 117's lunch was served. Resident 101 was seated at the table and watching Resident 117 eat until their tray was delivered at 11:41 AM. Resident 101's food and drinks were not removed from the serving tray for the dining experience. In an interview on 10/30/2023 at 12:30 PM, Staff G, Nurse's Aide Registered (NAR), said they leave the plates and cups on the tray during meals unless the resident requested otherwise. Staff G said they served the meals in the order of the meal cart arrangement. In an interview on 10/30/2023 at 2:45 PM, Staff E, Registered Nurse (RN), said they always served the meals on the tray and kept them on the tray so that resident's would know whose food was who's. Staff E said they tried to serve meals to the table at the same time, so others were not waiting and watching others eat.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0578 (Tag F0578)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** <RESIDENT 100> Resident 100 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Rhabdomyolysis (damaged muscles th...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** <RESIDENT 100> Resident 100 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Rhabdomyolysis (damaged muscles that release protein into the blood) and falls at home. Review of the resident's admission MDS assessment, dated 08/25/2023, showed the resident had moderate cognitive impairment. Review of Resident 100's medical record on 10/24/2023, showed no documentation of AD's. Review of Resident 100's progress notes, showed no documentation of staff discussing AD's with the resident. In an interview on 10/30/2023 at 9:20 AM, Staff T, Medical Records, stated there was no advanced directive in Resident 100's medical record. In an interview on 10/30/2023 at 9:56 PM, Staff U stated Resident 100 does not have an AD. Staff U stated resident 100 had declined an AD and stated there was no documentation in the resident's record. Refer to WAC 388-97-0280(3)(a)(c)(i) <RESIDENT 75> Resident 75 admitted to the facility on [DATE], most recently readmitted on [DATE], diagnoses included hypertension (high blood pressure), atrial fibrillation (an irregular and often very rapid heart rhythm), and weakness. In a review of Resident 75's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) on 10/24/2023, showed the resident had a Power of Attorney (POA) for finances on file. In an interview on 10/26/2023 at 2:32 PM, Staff U, SSA, stated Resident 75 had an advanced directive on file and stated it was a POLST (Physician Orders for Life Sustaining Treatment). Staff U stated Resident 75 had a POA, was able to locate the financial POA, but not the healthcare POA. In an interview on 10/26/2023 at 3:29 PM, Staff U provided a copy of Resident 75's POLST and an admission document describing AD's. Staff U stated they were unable to locate the POA document for healthcare and they would follow up with Resident 75's family to obtain the document. <RESIDENT 6> Resident 6 admitted to the facility on [DATE], most recently admitted on [DATE] diagnoses include paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (occurs when a rapid, erratic heart rate begins suddenly and then stops on its own), encephalopathy (damage or disease that affects the brain), and unspecified dementia (mild memory disturbance due to known physiological condition). In an interview on 10/26/2023 at 2:32 PM, Staff U stated Resident 6 had an advanced directive on file and that was a POLST. Staff U stated Resident 6 had a POA but was unable to locate the document. In an interview at 10/26/2023 at 3:56 PM, Staff U provided the POA document for Resident 6. In an interview on 10/27/2023 at 12:46 PM, Staff U stated they received the POA document the day prior (10/26/2023) after requesting it from Resident 6's family member. <RESIDENT 32> Resident 32 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including depression and heart failure. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS - an assessment tool) assessment, dated 09/23/2023, showed Resident 32 had moderate cognitive impairment. Review of Resident 32's admission paperwork, dated 10/10/2023, stated the resident's family member was their durable power of attorney (DPOA). Review of Resident 32's medical record on 10/27/2023, showed no record of a DPOA that was on file. Review of Resident 32's progress note, dated 09/24/2023, showed Staff F, Social Service Assistant (SSA), documented they had no DPOA on file and would follow up. In an interview on 10/27/2023 at 10:30 AM, Staff F stated they had not followed up with the family member regarding the DPOA paperwork. Staff F stated they possibly had discussed that in the care conference but was unsure as there was no documentation of the conversation. In an interview on 10/31/2023 at 12:56 PM, Staff A stated they were unaware that the AD's had not been obtained for Resident 32. Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to obtain, provide, and/or assist with completing Advance Directives (AD's) for 5 of 12 sampled residents (Residents 160, 32, 75, 6 and 100) reviewed for AD's. This failure placed residents at risk for losing their right to have their healthcare preferences and/or decisions honored. Findings included . <RESIDENT 160> Resident 160 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis including aftercare following left leg amputation. Resident 160's profile information records showed the resident was self- responsible in making their own decisions. Review of Resident 160's records on 10/25/23 and 10/31/2023, showed no documentation of AD's. Review of email received on 10/31/2023 at 12:02 PM, Staff A, Administrator, indicated Resident 160's admission paperwork had not yet been completed that included information regarding AD's.
CONCERN (E)

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

Medication Errors (Tag F0758)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** <RESIDENT 73> Resident 73 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include psychosis (a severe mental cond...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** <RESIDENT 73> Resident 73 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include psychosis (a severe mental condition in which thought, and emotions are so affected that contact is lost with external reality), vascular dementia, and depression. Review of the Quarterly MDS Assessment, dated 08/15/2023, showed Resident 73 had severe cognitive impairment. Review of Resident 73's electronic medical record and electronic treatment record (EMAR/ETAR) showed the resident had the following physician orders: - Risperdal twice a day for psychosis, start date 02/14/2022. - Depakote Extended Release (mood stabilizer medication that treats a mood disorder with episodes of mania-depression) twice a day for vascular dementia with agitation (inappropriate diagnoses), start date 12/15/2021. Review of Resident 73's care plan on 10/30/2023, showed the resident was taking psychotropic medications, did not reflect the actual prescribed anti-psychotic and mood stabilizer with specific signs and symptoms, and interventions to prevent specific disorders. Review of Resident 73's medical record showed the resident had not been offered a gradual dose reduction (GDR is the stepwise tapering of a dose to determine if symptoms, conditions, or risks can be managed by a lower dose or if the dose or medication can be discontinued) for their Depakote since 12/15/2021. The resident had received the Depakote for vascular dementia with behavioral disturbance. In an interview on 10/30/2023 at 12:50 PM, Staff L, RN/MN, stated they were unaware vascular dementia was an inappropriate diagnosis for use of Depakote. In an interview on 10/31/2023 at 9:36 AM, Staff L stated there was never a GDR completed for Resident 73's Depakote. In a joint interview on 10/31/2023 at 12:56 PM, Staff C, Assistant Director of Nursing Services (ADNS), stated they meet monthly to review psychotropic medications. The residents were reviewed on the quarterly MDS schedule, as well as any new admits, and any residents with recent behavioral changes. Staff A, Administrator, and Staff B stated they were unaware Resident 73 had an invalid diagnosis for use with Depakote, and there had been no GDR offered. Refer to WAC 388-97-1060(3)(k)(i)(4) <RESIDENT 14> Resident 14 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include respiratory failure (condition that occurs when the lungs cannot get enough oxygen into the blood), heart failure, and dementia (a mental disorder in which a person loses the ability to think, remember, learn, make decisions, and solve problems). Review of Resident 14's provider orders showed that they were prescribed risperidone (antipsychotic medication) 0.25 milligrams (mg) every night at bedtime, initiated 09/30/2023. Review of Resident 14's October 2023 MAR, showed there was a medication side effects (s/e) monitor for the antipsychotic medication, initiated 10/02/2023, and nurses were to document every shift a 'y' for yes if any s/e's were observed and to chart using the 'other, see nurses notes' and provide documentation. Nurses were to document 'n' for no if no s/e's were observed. Resident 14's antipsychotic medication s/e monitor had no place to document 'y' or 'n' and there was a checkmark for all documentation. There were no instructions documented related to a checkmark. <RESIDENT 83> Resident 83 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include dementia without behavioral disturbance, and an infection after surgery to remove their gallbladder (organ beneath the liver in which bile is stored). Review of Resident 83's provider orders showed they were prescribed quetiapine (antipsychotic medication) 25 mg every night for psychosis, initiated 08/24/2023, and mirtazapine (antidepressant medication) 7.5 mg every night at bedtime. Review of Resident 83's 08/01/2023 through 10/31/2023 MAR's, showed there was a medication s/e's monitor for the use antipsychotic medication, initiated 08/27/2023, and a monitor for s/e's for the use of the antidepressant medication, initiated on 09/09/2023. Side effect monitor orders showed nurses were to document every shift a 'y' for yes if any s/e's were observed and to chart using the 'other, see nurses notes' and provide documentation. Nurses were to document 'n' for no if no s/e's were observed. Resident 14's MAR had no place to document 'y' or 'n' and there was a checkmark for all documentation. There were no instructions indicating what a checkmark meant. In an interview on 10/31/2023 at 2:42 PM, Staff B, Director of Nursing Services (DNS), stated their expectations were that all psychotropic medications required monitors would have all components, including the supplementary documentation. Staff B stated the admission nurse and NM's should be a safety net to catch all components of the orders were implemented and documented correctly. Staff B stated the directions to document 'y' or 'n' were in the order, so there should be corresponding documentationto catch all components of the orders were implemented and documented correctly. Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure 4 of 5 residents (Resident 86, 14, 83, and 73) were free of unnecessary drugs due to: 1) lack of specific target behavior monitoring, 2) not obtaining the monthly orthostatic vital signs, 3) not developing and implementing non-medical behavioral interventions, and 4) not having appropriate indication, documentation, and goals for use of psychotropic medications. These failures placed residents at risk for receiving unnecessary medications and for experiencing medication-related adverse side effects. Findings included . Review of the Food and Drugs/Drug (FDA) Safety Information reference, 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. Review of the facility policy titled, Use of Psychotropic Medication, revised 2023, showed the residents were not to be given psychotropic drugs unless the medication is necessary to treat a specific condition as diagnosed and documented in the clinical record, and the medication is beneficial to the resident, as demonstrated by monitoring and documentation of the resident's response to the medication. Review of Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) document titled, Atypical Antipsychotic Medications: Use in Adults, dated 2015, showed vascular dementia was not a qualified diagnosis for use of mood stabilizers and anti-psychotic medications. <RESIDENT 86> Resident 86 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include stroke with dysphagia (difficulty swallowing). Review of the admission PHQ-9 (an assessment for depression) assessment, dated 10/02/2023, showed the resident had a severity score of 12 indicative of moderate depression. The resident had no diagnosis of depression. Review of Resident 86's 09/25/2023 through 10/31/2023 Medication Administration Records (MARs), revealed the resident received the citalopram hydrobromide daily for a mood disorder. Review of Resident 86's Order Summary Report, for active orders as of 10/30/2023, revealed there was an order for citalopram hydrobromide to be administered daily for a mood disorder. There was an order beginning 09/25/2023 to check the resident's Orthostatic Blood Pressures (b/p's), lying, sitting, and standing, once monthly on the 25th of the month, and to document the b/p's under the vital signs tab in Point Click Care (electronic health record). On 10/30/2023, a review of blood pressure documentation in Point Click Care, revealed no orthostatic b/p's were done in September or October 2023. There was no documentation Resident 86 refused to do orthostatic b/p's on or around September or October 25th. In an interview on 10/30/2023 at 11:16 AM, Staff F, Social Services Assistant, stated Resident 86 was on Celexa (citalopram) for maybe pain. Staff F said they completed the PHQ-9 assessment on the resident that indicated a 12 which was moderate depression. Staff F said the process was to inform the nurse manager of the results, but they were unsure if they had done that. In an interview on 10/30/2023 at 12:17 PM, Collateral Contact 2 (CC2), Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioner (ARNP), stated they were not informed of Resident 86's PHQ-9 assessment results. When asked what the diagnosis was for the use of citalopram, CC2 said they would have to go through the resident's records to see why they prescribed the medication. In an interview on 10/30/2023 at 12:43 PM, Staff D, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)/Nurse Manager (NM), said they thought Resident 86 was on Cymbalta (a different anti-depressant). Staff D said the pharmacist had questioned the lack of a depression diagnosis. Staff D commented the resident did cry at times. Staff D said the facility had psychotropic medication meetings, but they did not always attend them. In an interview on 10/30/2023 at 2:11 PM, Resident 86 stated they were sleepy and didn't want to live any longer and had elected hospice services. The resident stated they had been on Celexa (citalopram) long before hospitalization for depression. They stated their provider had put them on the medication to make them feel better, but it didn't work. In an interview on 10/30/2023 at 2:45 PM, Staff E, Registered Nurse (RN), stated Resident 86 could be tearful and they were on citalopram imagined to be for depression.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to monitor the medication refrigerator temperatures and ensure medications were stored in the medication room refrigerator under ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to monitor the medication refrigerator temperatures and ensure medications were stored in the medication room refrigerator under proper temperature controls in 2 of 3 (Central/South and Southeast) medication refrigerator observed. This failure placed residents at risk for receiving compromised or ineffective vaccines and medications with unknown potency. Findings included . In an observation on 10/26/2023 at 1:31 PM, the thermometer in the shared Central/South medication room's refrigerator temperature was 48 degrees Fahrenheit (F). The refrigerator contained vaccines, resident medications, and over the counter medications. The refrigerator temperature form showed temperatures should range from 36 degrees F to 46 degrees F with instructions to notify maintenance if recorded temperatures are above or below range on 2 sequential readings 30 minutes apart. Review of the shared Central/South Unit medication room refrigerator temperature log, dated 10/01/2023 through 10/26/2023, showed 20 missing readings with 10 out of range temperatures for the night shift and 7 missing readings with three out of range for the evening shift. Staff EE, Licensed Practical Nurse/admission Nurse, confirmed vaccinations were stored in the refrigerator. Staff EE stated the refrigerator required documentation of refrigerator temperatures two times daily and the missing documentation on the temperature log. In an observation and interview on 10/26/23 at 2:18 PM, the medication refrigerator on the Southeast Unit was observed to contain vaccines and resident medications. Review of the Southeast Unit medication refrigerator temperature log dated 10/01/2023 through 10/26/2023, showed seven missing readings for the evening shift. Staff E, Registered Nurse, stated the nurse on shift was responsible for documenting refrigerator temperatures and stated there were instructions on the temperature log for temperatures that were out of range. In an interview 10/26/2023 at 1:51 PM, Staff B, Director of Nursing Services, stated all medication refrigerator temperature logs should be completed. Staff B stated the nurse on shift was responsible for documenting refrigerator temperatures and the nurse managers should be reviewing documentation for completion. Staff B stated the vaccinations and medications may be compromised. Refer to WAC 388-97-1300 (2) .
Jul 2023 1 deficiency
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Medical Records (Tag F0842)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure staff documented completely on behavior flowsheets for 3 of ...

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 staff documented completely on behavior flowsheets for 3 of 3 residents (Resident 1, 2, and 3) reviewed for Resident-to-Resident altercations. Failure to have complete data on behavior flowsheets could cause incorrect and/or inadequate assessments of resident behaviors and medication effectiveness. Findings included . <RESIDENT 1> Resident 1 had admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident 1 had diagnoses to include dementia (impacts memory and decision making) with agitation, psychosis (condition that results in difficulties determining what is real and what is not real) and depression. Review of Resident 1's May 2023 behavior flow sheet, showed staff were to monitor for: 1- refusing care or meals and 2- verbal or physical aggression. The behavior flowsheet had a space for day, evening, and night, to document if behaviors were noted during the shift. The monitor for refusing care or meals had two blanks under the evening shift and 25 blanks under the night shift. The monitor for verbal or physical aggression had two blanks under the evening shift 25 blanks under the night shift. Review of Resident 1's June 2023 behavior flow sheet, showed the monitor for refusing care or meals had two blanks under the evening shift and 24 blanks under the night shift. The monitor for verbal or physical aggression had two blanks under the evening shift and 24 blanks on the night shift. <RESIDENT 2> Resident 2 had admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident had a diagnosis of dementia with agitation. Review of Resident 2's May 2023 behavior flow sheet, showed staff were to monitor for: 1- refusing therapy or meals, 2- sexually inappropriate comments, and 3- delusions (misinterpreting sounds or visions). The behavior flowsheet had a space for day, evening, and night shift to document behaviors. There were four blanks on the evening shift and 25 blanks on the night shift for each behavior being monitored. Review of Resident 2's June 2023 behavior flow sheet, showed the same behaviors were being monitored. Each behavior area had two blanks on the evening shift and 24 blanks on the night shift. <RESIDENT 3> Resident 3 had admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident had a diagnoses to include dementia, psychosis, and depression. Review of Resident 3's May 2023 behavior flow sheet, showed staff were to monitor for: 1- agitation/ delusions/paranoia, 2- wandering, and 3- depression/ anxiety. The behavior flowsheet had a space for day, evening, and night shift to document behaviors. There were two blanks on the evening shift and 25 blanks on the evening shift for each behavior being monitored. Review of Resident 3's June 2023 behavior flow sheet, showed the same behaviors were being monitored. Each behavior area had two blanks on the evening shift and 24 blanks on the night shift. During an interview on 07/06/2023 at 2:34 PM, Staff A, Director of Nursing Services, stated the behavior flow sheets should be documented on every shift, or three times a day. Staff A verified that the flowsheets had several blanks for Residents 1, 2, and 3; and the nurses should have documented each shift. WAC Reference 388-97-1720 (1)(a)(i)
May 2022 26 deficiencies 2 IJ (1 affecting multiple)
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. .
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

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

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 2 life-threatening violation(s), 3 harm violation(s), $130,758 in fines. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 55 deficiencies on record, including 2 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $130,758 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in Washington. Major compliance failures.
  • • Grade F (26/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 26/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Bethany At Silver Lake's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns BETHANY AT SILVER LAKE an overall rating of 5 out of 5 stars, which is considered much above average nationally. Within Washington, this rating places the facility higher than 99% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This rating reflects solid performance across the metrics CMS uses to evaluate nursing home quality.

How is Bethany At Silver Lake Staffed?

CMS rates BETHANY AT SILVER LAKE's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 53%, compared to the Washington average of 46%.

What Have Inspectors Found at Bethany At Silver Lake?

State health inspectors documented 55 deficiencies at BETHANY AT SILVER LAKE during 2022 to 2024. These included: 2 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 3 that caused actual resident harm, 49 with potential for harm, and 1 minor or isolated issues. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.

Who Owns and Operates Bethany At Silver Lake?

BETHANY AT SILVER LAKE is owned by a non-profit organization. Non-profit facilities reinvest revenue into operations rather than distributing to shareholders. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 151 certified beds and approximately 113 residents (about 75% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in EVERETT, Washington.

How Does Bethany At Silver Lake Compare to Other Washington Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Washington, BETHANY AT SILVER LAKE's overall rating (5 stars) is above the state average of 3.2, staff turnover (53%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Bethany At Silver Lake?

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

Is Bethany At Silver Lake Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, BETHANY AT SILVER LAKE has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 2 Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 5-star overall rating and ranks #1 of 100 nursing homes in Washington. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.

Do Nurses at Bethany At Silver Lake Stick Around?

BETHANY AT SILVER LAKE has a staff turnover rate of 53%, which is 7 percentage points above the Washington average of 46%. Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.

Was Bethany At Silver Lake Ever Fined?

BETHANY AT SILVER LAKE has been fined $130,758 across 3 penalty actions. This is 3.8x the Washington average of $34,386. Fines at this level are uncommon and typically indicate a pattern of serious deficiencies, repeated violations, or failure to correct problems promptly. CMS reserves penalties of this magnitude for facilities that pose significant, documented risk to resident health or safety. Families should request specific documentation of what issues led to these fines and what systemic changes have been implemented.

Is Bethany At Silver Lake on Any Federal Watch List?

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