CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Resident Rights
(Tag F0550)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide care and services in a dignified manner for 1 (Resident 19) of 5 residents reviewed for dignity, and 1 (Resident 45) o...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide care and services in a dignified manner for 1 (Resident 19) of 5 residents reviewed for dignity, and 1 (Resident 45) of 3 residents reviewed for catheters. Failure to provide catheter care and toileting assistance in a manner that preserved resident dignity left residents at risk for feelings of diminished self-worth and a diminished quality of life.
Findings included .
Resident 19
According to the 10/13/2021 Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS, an assessment tool), Resident 19 had diagnoses including osteoarthritis of both knees and hips, morbid obesity, Type II Diabetes Mellitus, and major depressive disorder. The MDS assessed Resident 19 to require one-person supervision for toileting, to not be on a toileting program, and to be occasionally incontinent of bowel and bladder.
Review of toileting records from 10/08/2021 to 11/06/2021 showed Resident 19 was incontinent on 27 of 30 days during that period. Further record review revealed that Resident 19 was not on a fluid restriction.
According to a 06/24/2021 progress note, Resident 19 took a lot of bedtime medication to promote sleep and this is very effective but most nights, patient awakens in the middle the night having wet . bed. [Resident 19] has come to accept this as just something [they have] to live with.
An 08/26/2021 progress note stated . made follow up with resident regarding [their] conversation with SW [social work] per resident feeling sad [related to] bed wetting at nighttime . 'I feel like I'm the only one doing this thing . and makes me sad'.
A 10/29/2021 care conference progress note stated Resident 19 was concerned about bed wetting. Feels embarrassed about it.
In an interview on 11/01/2021 at 12:42 PM, Resident 19 stated that they were tired of waking up each morning in a urine-soaked bed, and explained that while they able to manage toileting during the day, they slept too deeply to know to use the toilet, adding it's not that I am lazy . if they helped me set an alarm on my phone, I would be fine - I don't know how to do it.
In an interview on 11/03/2021 at 08:20 AM, Staff N (Certified Nursing Assistant - CNA) stated that Resident 19 needed to have their linens changed every morning due to incontinence and that sometimes they needed new linens more than once per night.
In an interview on 11/08/2021 at 10:54 AM, Staff O (Resident Care Manager - RCM) stated that Resident 19 was not on a toileting program because they were able to communicate their need to use the bathroom. Staff O clarified that Resident 19 was not able to communicate that need while sleeping. Staff O confirmed that nightly incontinence embarrassed Resident 19 and that less episodes of incontinence would reduce the resident's embarrassment.
Resident 45
Resident 45's 09/22/2021 admission MDS showed the resident required extensive assistance with Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) and was able to make needs known to staff.
Review of the current physician orders showed Resident 45 required a foley catheter (flexible tube placed in the bladder to drain urine) while a leg fracture was healing.
Observations on 11/01/2021 at 08:45 AM, 11/02/2021 at 09:16 AM, 11/03/2021 at 11:25 AM, and 11/04/2021 at 1:29 PM, showed Resident 45's catheter bag attached to the bed frame on the right side of the bed without a dignity bag in place.
In an interview on 11/04/2021 at 1:29 PM, Staff R, Registered Nurse (RN) indicated it was the expectation that residents with urinary catheters have dignity bags in place.
REFERENCE: WAC 388-97-0180(1-4)
.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0569
(Tag F0569)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure funds were reimbursed to the state Office of Financial Recovery (OFR), within 30 days of resident discharge or death, for 2 (Residen...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure funds were reimbursed to the state Office of Financial Recovery (OFR), within 30 days of resident discharge or death, for 2 (Residents 119 & 121) of 3 discharged residents reviewed. This failure caused delays in reconciling resident accounts, per the required process.
Additionally, the facility failed to notify 4 (Residents 4, 39, 52, & 25) of 7 residents reviewed, who were Medicaid recipients, when their personal fund account balances reached $1800 (i.e. within $200 of the $2,000 resource limit beneficiaries could possess, without their Medicaid coverage being impacted). This failure placed residents at risk for personal financial liability for their care.
Findings included .
OFR Fund Disbursement
Resident 121
Record review Resident 121 passed away on 05/02/2021. Review of trust records showed a balance of $1318.85, which was not transferred to the OFR until 08/10/2021, three months after discharge.
Resident 119
Record review showed Resident 119 passed away on 02/18/2021, but review of trust records showed the balance of $30.00 wasn't dispersed to the OFR until 06/08/2021, more than three months after discharge.
Notice of Medicaid Balances
Record review showed the following residents with associated balances (minus any stimulus monies received in the past 12 months) as of 10/31/2021: Resident 4 - $3758.16; Resident 39 -$3088.93, Resident 52 - $2924.49, and Resident 25 - $3427.60.
In an interview on 11/08/2021 at 8:50 AM, Staff T (Business Office Manager) stated no notices were provided to these residents because they were informed by corporate there was a waiver for these notices. No such waiver existed. Failure to provide letters/notices detracted from resident's/family's ability to act on spend downs or allow the opportunity to spend the money over the course of the year.
REFERENCE: WAC 388-97-0340(4)(5).
.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0570
(Tag F0570)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure 22 of 31 residents who had a Trust Account with the facility had their funds covered by a surety bond. This failure placed residents...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure 22 of 31 residents who had a Trust Account with the facility had their funds covered by a surety bond. This failure placed residents at risk to be unable to recover their money in the event of loss of funds from their account.
Findings included .
Review of the facility's surety bond, dated 03/19/2021, showed a term coverage from 03/19/2021 through 03/19/2024 of $25,000. Review of the facility reconciled trust showed a balance of 28,118.08.
In an interview on 11/08/2021 at 2:17 PM Staff T (Business Office Manager) stated, Yes, the surety bond should be more than the amount in trust.
REFERENCE: WAC 388-97-0340(6).
.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0578
(Tag F0578)
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 address required documentation for advanced directives, including P...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to address required documentation for advanced directives, including Power of Attorney documents, for 3 (Residents 67, 3, & 9) of 10 residents reviewed for Advanced Directives (ADs). These failures placed the residents at risk of losing their right to have their stated preferences/decisions regarding end-of-life care followed.
Findings included .
Resident 67
Resident 67 admitted to the facility on [DATE] and according to the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS - an assessment tool), was assessed with severe cognitive impairment.
In an interview on 11/02/2021 at 10:21 AM, Resident 67's family member stated they, jointly with another family member, were POA (Power of Attorney, a designated decision maker for healthcare and/or financial decisions). This family member indicated they signed all the admission paperwork as the POA, but no facility staff member ever requested the POA documents.
Record review showed admission forms dated 10/08/2021 signed by the referenced family member which indicated, POA.
In an interview on 11/04/2021 at 10:50 AM, Staff E (Director of Social Services), reported the evidence of POA, usually comes in on the hospital paperwork and then in the care conference it would be reviewed. When asked where Resident 67's POA documentation was, Staff E stated, It is not noted that he has a POA. Staff E confirmed staff did not, but should have, obtained POA paperwork on admission.
Resident 3
According to the 10/18/2021 Quarterly MDS Resident 3 admitted to the facility on [DATE] and was assessed as rarely understood sometimes able to understands others, with unclear speech and short and long-term memory problems. Additionally, the resident was assessed with severely impaired decision-making skills and medical diagnoses including schizophrenia and cerebral vascular accident (bleeding in the brain).
Review of the resident's facesheet showed Resident 3 was their own responsible party and three family members were listed, one as an emergency contact #2 and the others had no contact type assigned.
The resident's 07/29/2019 Advanced Directive Care Plan (CP) showed that the resident had no POA and that staff provided the resident with education on what an AD is and how to obtain an AD. The CP further stated the facility was awaiting the resident's choice on an AD and that the resident believed they had an AD.
Review of the Resident's medical record revealed no documentation of an AD or documentation the facility followed up with the resident about believing they had an AD.
During an interview on 11/08/2021 at 11:00 AM Staff E (Social Services Director) stated that if a resident appeared confused the facility would reach out to the family regarding POA and AD. Staff E confirmed the resident did not have a POA or AD and stated POA information was sent to the family and would be addressed at the next care conference.
Resident 9
According to the 08/12/2021 Quarterly MDS the resident admitted to the facility on [DATE] and was assessed with moderately impaired cognition, clear speech and usually understood and able to understand conversation. This MDS showed the resident had diagnoses including Alzheimer's dementia.
Review of the resident's facesheet showed the resident's family member was listed as #1 emergency contact and care conference participant.
The resident's 11/12/2018 Advanced Directive CP, showed that the resident had a living will and a designated Healthcare Agent. The CP was updated on 08/22/2020 and showed the resident did not have an advanced directive and that Resident 9 told the facility that a family member was their POA.
Review of the medical record showed no follow up from the facility to obtain or determine who is the resident's POA. Review of the medical record showed no AD.
A 05/17/2021 Social Services progress note showed a family member was planning to obtain POA for Resident 9. Further review revealed no follow up from the facility and no documentation of POA or AD.
In an interview on 11/08/2021 at 11:00 AM Staff E acknowledged the facility did not address AD or POA paperwork and stated that the resident's family member was sent POA information, and it would be addressed at the next care conference.
REFERENCE: WAC 388-97-0280(3)(a)(c)(i-ii), 388-97-0300(1)(b).
.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0583
(Tag F0583)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation and interview the facility failed to provide personal privacy when staff failed to knock and/or wait for permission when entering residents' (Resident 35& 6) room. This failure pl...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interview the facility failed to provide personal privacy when staff failed to knock and/or wait for permission when entering residents' (Resident 35& 6) room. This failure placed the residents at risk for feelings of decreased sense of privacy, and disrespect.
Findings included .
Resident 35
According to the 09/14/2021 Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS- an assessment tool) the resident was assessed as cognitively intact and their preference of having a private phone call was very important.
In an interview on 11/02/2021 at 10:02 AM Resident 35 stated that a housekeeper will just walk in the room without knocking. [We] have told them on several occasions to please knock before entering but they still do it. Resident 35 stated they were concerned the housekeeper might walk in while the resident is getting undressed.
On 11/03/2021 at 10:10 AM Staff P (Housekeeping Aide) was observed entering a resident's room without knocking or announcing themselves before entering. Similar observations of Staff P entering resident rooms without knocking or announcing self before entering on 11/03/2021 at 10:35 AM and 10:49 AM.
Resident 6
According to the 08/06/2021 Quarterly MDS, the resident was assessed to be cognitively intact and their preference of having a private phone call was very important.
During an interview on 11/02/2021 at 10:06 AM Resident 6 stated that staff will walk right in the room, even if there is a sign on the door that states they were in a private meeting.
In an interview on 11/10/2021 at 10:20 AM Staff O (RCM-Resident Care Manager) stated they would expect all staff to knock and announce self before entering the residents' rooms.
REFERENCE: WAC 388-97-0360(1)
.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Safe Environment
(Tag F0584)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure linens were in adequate condition, hallways were free from scr...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure linens were in adequate condition, hallways were free from scrapes, door frame trim was well maintained, wall paneling was securely fastened, and windows were maintained in good condition. These failures left residents at risk for a diminished quality of life and a less than homelike environment.
Findings included .
Linens
Resident 67
Observations on 11/03/2021 at 8:59 AM showed Resident 67 lying in bed, with multiple holes noted in the resident's fitted sheets. Observations on 11/03/21 at 10:11 AM revealed two holes at the top right of the fitted sheet, clearly visible by resident's head, approximately 3 inches by 1/2 inch (irregular) and a smaller 1 by 1 inch hole. All visible portions of the sheet were worn thin with the ability to discern the mattress was a blue color. At 10:25 AM on the same day, Staff F (Minimum Data Set - an assessment tool- Coordinator) confirmed the sheets had holes and should be replaced.
Similar observations of thin fitted sheets with small holes in the upper right quadrant, were noted on 11/10/2021 at 1:11 PM.
Resident 170
Observations on 11/05/2021 at 9:11 AM showed Resident 170 lying in bed, the resident's fitted sheet was noted to be thin with multiple small dime sized holes next to the resident's right shoulder and two similarly sized holes to the left of the resident's pillow.
Walls and Doorways
On 11/02/2021 at 09:36 AM, the white wall paneling inside room [ROOM NUMBER] was observed to be peeling from the wall, with trim missing. There was warping observed to the top of the panel where it had detached from the wall.
On 11/09/2021 at 10:17 AM, the plastic trim on the base of the right side of the outer door frame to room [ROOM NUMBER] was observed to have shattered. The broken trim created a sharp edge along the lower 6 inches, and exposed powder blue paint underneath the current gray/brown finish.
On 11/09/2021 at 10:19 AM, an 8-inch-long scrape that exposed drywall was observed on the wall of Wild [NAME] Unit hallway between the doorways to rooms [ROOM NUMBERS]. At 11/09/2021 at 10:21 AM, the wall outside room [ROOM NUMBER] was observed to have 3-foot-long section of paint scraped away, just above black rubber trim connecting the wall to the flooring.
In an interview on 11/09/2021 at 01:02 PM, Staff II (Maintenance Director) acknowledged the wall scrapes, broken trim and paneling in room [ROOM NUMBER], and stated they needed attention.
Windows
On 11/09/2021 at 10:22 AM, the window frame to the left of the emergency exit at the end of Wild [NAME] Blvd. unit was observed to have an inbuilt metal vents at the top. The vents were observed to be caked in dust and grime. The vents had pieces of partially detached duct tape hanging from the side of the frame. The adhesive side of the duct tape also had an accumulation of debris. The window screen was also observed to have accumulated considerable debris. The windowsill was observed to have a layer of black debris.
In an interview on 11/09/2021 at 01:05 PM, Staff II stated it was necessary to tape the vents closed in the winter because they could not otherwise be prevented from opening when the wind blew. Taping the vent closed prevented drafts from happening and prevented more debris from outside into the building. Staff II stated that window and vent needed attention and that they would ask housekeeping to clean it.
REFERENCE: WAC 388-97-0880
.
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** Resident 419
In a 10/29/2021 MDS, Resident 419 was assessed as cognitively intact.
In an interview and observation on 11/04/202...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Resident 419
In a 10/29/2021 MDS, Resident 419 was assessed as cognitively intact.
In an interview and observation on 11/04/2021 at 10:25 AM, Resident 419 stated to Staff V (RCM) that two staff mistreated them while providing care. Staff V asked Resident 419 what happened, when it happened and which staff were involved.
In a follow-up interview on 11/05/2021 at 10:47 AM, Staff V stated they spoke to the two accused caregivers that morning when they came to work. Staff V stated when the caregivers were interviewed, they stated the resident is fragile and denied being rough with the resident when obtaining a weight. Staff V stated the caregivers worked at the facility for a long time and Staff V knew they did not do anything to hurt Resident 419. Staff V stated an investigation was not initiated and the Administrator and Director of Nursing were not notified of the allegation against the caregivers.
In an interview on 11/05/2021 at 11:00 AM Staff C and Staff A (Administrator) stated they were not informed of the allegation until 11/05/2021 just before the interview. Staff A stated the caregivers were suspended from work and an investigation was being started. Staff C and Staff A stated when an allegation of abuse is received, they are expected to immediately report to the administrator and the state hotline. Staff C and Staff A stated the reporting and investigation was not completed immediately when the allegation was reported to Staff V.
In an interview on 11/08/2021 at 12:08 PM, Resident 419 stated that no staff came to discuss the allegation after it was reported the day before. Resident 419 stated what happened: The two caregivers were vicious. When I came in the door to go to my bed, I was told that was not where I was supposed to go, it was wrong. I got on the bed, and they got on each side of me and manhandled me. I did not feel good, I was scared, and I told them to stop, and that God was watching them. I stayed in that room for the night and came to this room the next day. No one has come to talk to me about what happened.
On 11/09/2021 at 1:55 PM Staff B (Administrator in Training) provided the completed investigation documents. Upon review, there was no documentation to support staff interviewed Resident 419 to gather more specific information.
In an interview on 11/09/2021 at 2:10 PM Staff A stated the investigation was done. Staff A stated Resident 419 was not re-interviewed as part of the abuse investigation. When asked how abuse was ruled out for Resident 419 since the resident was not interviewed, Staff A stated, abuse was not ruled out because the interview with Resident 419 was not done.
WAC: REFERENCE 388-97-0640(6)(a)(b)
Resident 35
According to the 09/14/2021 Quarterly MDS the resident was assessed as cognitively intact and able to understand and be understood.
During an interview on 11/02/2021 at 10:03 AM Resident 45 stated they were having issues with a staff member on night shift who is rude, unpleasant and acts like it is an inconvenience to take care of them. Resident 45 reported the staff member to the charge nurse.
Review of a 10/31/2021 nursing progress note showed that the resident was asking for the name of the night shift certified nursing assistant (CNA). The note showed Staff responded by asking why (the resident) needed to know the name of the CNA. The resident replied that the CNA was rude to them. The progress note showed the Resident Care Manager (RCM) was notified.
In an interview on 11/05/2021 at 9:04 AM, Staff O (RCM) stated they were out of the facility during that time and were not aware of the incident involving Resident 35.
During an interview on 11/05/2021 at 10:15 AM, Staff L (RCM/Infection Preventionist) stated no incidents were reported to them.
Review of the October 2021 Incident Log and Grievance Log showed no incidents logged for Resident 35 and their complaints of the rude CNA.
In an interview on 11/09/2021 at 1:27 PM, Staff C stated they were not aware of the incident with Resident 35 and an investigation should have been launched to determine what happened. Staff C acknowledged an incident report was not done but should have been.
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to thoroughly investigate allegations of abuse and timely report incidents to the administrator and the state agency. Failure to thoroughly investigate and report abuse for 2 of 3 residents (Resident 10 & 35) reviewed for abuse and one supplemental resident (Resident 419), detracted from the facility's ability to identify abuse, and put measures in place to protect residents from recurrent abuse.
Resident 10
Resident 10 admitted to the facility on [DATE] and according to the 08/13/2021 admission MDS was assessed with moderate cognitive impairment.
In an interview on 11/01/2021 at 10:33 AM Resident 10 indicated they felt abused when handled roughly by staff. Resident 10 stated, To get control of me they grab my leg, I think they do it on purpose .It's when they are cleaning me and trying to turn me over, I scream bloody murder, there is my torso to turn me, you don't have to grab my hip . This issue was immediately reported to facility staff.
According to the 11/08/2021 investigation document, Resident [10] was seen by the orthopedic surgeon regarding ongoing pain. The orthopedic surgeon obtained an x-ray of the left hip and notified resident that their hip repair is displaced .the surgeon explained to resident there isn't any amount of pain medication regimen that will make the pain go away.
Included as part of the investigation were interviews with 10 residents, none of whom resided on the same unit as Resident 10. When asked, in an interview on 11/09/2021 at 8:36 AM, how the investigation ruled out Resident 10's direct care staff were rough when the other residents interviewed did not have the same caregivers, Staff C (Director of Nursing) stated they didn't realize all the residents interviewed were on a different unit stating, We should have interviews from [Resident 10's] unit.
The investigation included the statement Staff pre-medicated resident before turning. Record review showed no direction or interventions regarding pre-medicating prior to turning the resident. In an interview on 11/09/2021 at 8:36 AM, Staff C was asked to provide documentation to support staff pre-medicated Resident 10 prior to turning. No information was provided.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Assessments
(Tag F0636)
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 comprehensive assessments contained complete an...
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 comprehensive assessments contained complete and accurate information for 2 (Residents 171 & 170) of 5 newly admitted and 1 supplemental (Resident 53) residents which placed the residents at risk for not receiving services to support each resident's highest practicable level of wellbeing.
Findings included .
Resident 171
Resident 171 admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of the 10/29/2021 admission Minimum Data Set (MDS - an assessment tool) on 11/08/2021 showed it was not complete.
In an interview on 11/08/2021 at 7:41 AM, Staff D (MDS Coordinator - Licensed Practical Nurse) stated the MDS was due, but not completed, on 11/03/2021. Staff D indicated they completed their part of the assessment the previous week but could not sign the MDS off as complete because they were not a Registered Nurse. Staff D stated that Staff C (Director of Nursing) was responsible for, but had not, signed off on the MDS being completed.
Resident 170
Record review showed Resident 170 admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of the 11/04/2021 admission MDS on 11/08/2021 showed the assessment was not signed off by a Registered Nurse as complete.
In an interview on 11/08/2021 at 7:40 AM, Staff D confirmed the MDS was overdue and stated the admission MDS was due to be completed on 11/07/2021.
Resident 53
Similar findings were identified for Resident 53, who admitted to the facility on [DATE], whose admission MDS was due on 07/21/2021, but was not completed until 07/30/2021.
REFERENCE: WAC 388-97-1000(b)(c)(ii).
.
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** Resident 12
According to the 08/04/2021 Quarterly MDS, Resident 12 admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses includin...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Resident 12
According to the 08/04/2021 Quarterly MDS, Resident 12 admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses including schizoaffective disorder, depression and psychotic disorder.
Record review revealed a Level II PASRR was completed for Resident 12 on 05/04/2016. This Level II PASRR recommended Resident 12 receive care in a nursing facility and stated that a follow-up review evaluation was not required unless significant change in mental or physical conditions occurs.
According to the 02/11/2021 Significant Change MDS, Resident 12 was assessed to experience delusions and hallucinations and to frequently have behaviors that significantly impacted their care and their ability to participate in activities and social interaction. Resident 12's behaviors where also assessed to significantly intrude on the privacy or activity of others and significantly disrupt the care or living environment. The 02/11/2021 MDS assessed that over all, Resident 12's behavior had worsened.
In an interview on 11/08/2021 at 09:48 AM , Staff E (SSD) stated they were not working at the facility at the time of Resident 12's 2/11/2021 Significant Change MDS, but they would have sought re-evaluation at that time and confirmed that no re-evaluation occurred at that time.
REFERENCE: WAC 388-97-1915 (4)
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to coordinate Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) Level II assessments and/or ensure the evaluators recommendations were incorporated into the plan of care and implemented for 2 (Resident 47 & 12) of 3 residents reviewed for Level II PASRRs. This failure placed residents at risk for unmet mental health needs and support, and a decreased quality of life.
Findings included .
Resident 47
According to a 03/01/2019 PASRR level 2 evaluation and determination, Resident 47 had an intellectual disability or related condition and required specialized services. Record review showed Resident 47 was receiving periodic Level 2 PASRR follow-up evaluations to assess the treatment plan and revise if neccessary.
According to the 09/21/2020 PASRR follow-up and treatment plan The current goal is to find sensory stimulation for [Resident 47]. According to the treatment plan staff were to provide the resident with a weighted blanket during times of increased anxiety, provide music for Resident 47 to listen too, and continue the Follow your Nose sensory game, in staff would assist resident to smell scented containers.
Additionally, the evaluator recommended an Assistive Technology (AT) specialist to work with the resident's mother to identify methods to stimulate the resident, and to evaluate for the use of a communication device.
Review of Resident 47's current Physician's orders (PO) showed the following orders: a 04/26/2019 order for Weighted blanket as needed for increased anxiety/agitation. Apply for 20-30 min at a time. Check resident during treatment; and a 03/12/2020 order for a restorative nursing program, Follow your nose have resident smell various scents for 5-10 seconds, observe for signs of interest or dislike (grunting, grinding, avoiding) do 4-8 scents per session.
Observations on 11/02/21 at 10:31 AM, 11/04/2021 at 9:47 AM and 1:59 PM, 11/05/2021 8:39 AM, 10:13 AM and 1:19 PM, revealed Resident 47 up in a tilt-in-space wheelchair, no music was heard in the resident's room, no headphones were observed in place, nor was a weighted blanket observed in use or present in the resident's room.
Review of Resident 47's restorative programs showed the resident had range of motion programs and a splint program. There was no indication facility staff were providing the follow your nose program as ordered. Nor was there any documentation found about the results of the AT specialists evaluation or any recommendations that were made.
In an interview on 11/10/2021 at 8:17 AM, when asked about the location of Resident 47's weighted blanket, the provision of the resident's Follow your Nose restorative program, and what recommendations the AT specialist made Staff C (Director of Nursing) indicated they were unfamiliar with the resident's level 2 treatment plan and was not aware of the AT specialist evaluation, the weighted blanket, or the follow your nose restorative program. Documentation was requested to support Resident 47's treatment plan was being implemented, but no further information was provided.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0655
(Tag F0655)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed for 4 (Residents 171, 170, 10, & 419) of 8 recently admitted residents...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed for 4 (Residents 171, 170, 10, & 419) of 8 recently admitted residents reviewed, to develop baseline care plans to ensure continuity of care and/or to provide residents and their representative with a summary of their baseline care plan. This failure resulted in residents not being informed of their initial plan for delivery of care and services and placed residents at risk for unmet needs and possible complications.
Findings included:
Resident 171
Resident 171 admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of the 10/29/2021 admission Minimum Data Set (MDS - an assessment tool) showed the resident was assessed as cognitively intact.
In an interview on 11/01/2021 at 12:07 PM, Resident 171 indicated they did not recall being given a copy of a Baseline Care Plan (BCP) and was not asked for input about their plan of care.
In an interview on 11/08/2021 at 7:56 AM Staff E (Social Services Director) confirmed Resident 171 did not receive a baseline care plan.
Resident 170
Record review showed Resident 170 admitted to the facility on [DATE]. According to the 11/04/2021 admission MDS the resident was assessed as cognitively intact.
In an interview on 11/03/2021 at 10:08 AM, Resident 170 stated they did not receive a copy of their CP and did not recall talking to staff about their plan of care.
In an interview on 11/08/2021 at 7:56 AM Staff E confirmed Resident 171 did not receive a BCP. Similar findings were identified for Resident 10, whom Staff E also confirmed did not receive a baseline care plan.
Resident 419
According to a 10/29/2021 admission MDS, Resident 419 was re-admitted to the facility on [DATE] and assessed as cognitively intact, able to make their own decisions, able to understand conversation.
An observation on 11/04/2021 at 10:25 AM showed the resident lying in bed. In an interview at this time, the resident stated no copy of a BCP was provided to them since admission.
A review of records for Resident 419 showed no BCP in effect from admission to 10/29/2021 which would direct staff on the care needs of Resident 419.
In an interview on 11/04/2021 at 9:42 AM, Staff E verified there was no BCP in the record for Resident 419. Staff E stated a care conference to review the BCP should have been completed within the first couple of days of admission.
REFERENCE: WAC 388-97-1020(3).
.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0658
(Tag F0658)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure services provided met professional standards of practice for 4 (Residents 38, 9, 12 & 25) of 24 residents whose records were reviewe...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure services provided met professional standards of practice for 4 (Residents 38, 9, 12 & 25) of 24 residents whose records were reviewed. Nursing staff's failure to accurately complete fall risk assessments, to accurately record progress notes, and implement and/or clarify physician's orders, placed residents at risk for unmet care needs and potential negative outcomes.
Findings included .
Resident 38
Review of Resident 38's Physician's orders (POs) showed a 07/01/2021 order for Milk of Magnesia (MOM) 30 milliliters (mls), administer at bedtime of the third day without a bowel movement (BM), as needed for constipation.
Review of the September Medication Administration Record (MAR) showed Resident 38 received MOM on 09/20/2021 at 12:12 P.M. However, according to the September 2021 bowel flowsheet Resident 38 had a large BM on 09/18/2021, indicating the facility nurse administered the MOM on the 2nd day of no BM, rather than the 3rd day as ordered.
In an interview on 11/10/2021 at 8:03 AM, when asked if nursing administered the MOM in accordance with the PO Staff C (Director of Nursing - DON) stated, No.
Additionally, Resident 38 had a 02/08/2021 order for Miralax (a laxative) every eight hours as needed for constipation. The order did not include any objective criteria as to when the medication should be utilized (e.g., 2 days of no BM, before MOM, after MOM, with MOM etc.)
In an interview on 11/10/2021 at 8:03 AM, when asked if the Miralax should be administered before, after or concomitantly with the MOM, and how a nurse would know, Staff C stated that the order needed to be clarified.
Resident 9
According to the 08/12/2021 Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS - an assessment tool) the resident had diagnoses including hypothyroidism (low thyroid function), dementia and renal insufficiency.
Review of the PO's showed a 07/02/2019 order for Levothyroxine 100 mcg (micrograms) daily for hypothyroidism. This medication was scheduled to be given at 4 PM.
Review of the August 2021, September 2021 and October 2021 MAR showed Resident 9 received Levothyroxine at 4 PM along with Cilostazol (a vasodilator used to treat problems with blood flow), Gabapentin (a pain medication for nerve pain), Omega -3 (a heart health supplement), and Sodium Bicarbonate (used to treat acid reflux disorders).
In an interview on 11/09/2021 at 1:27 PM, when asked if there were special parameters for Levothyroxine administration, Staff C replied they would have to look it up. According to the drug handbook, Levothyroxine should be given on an empty stomach, preferably half an hour to an hour before breakfast. Staff C agreed the wrong time was initiated for the medication.
Inaccurate Evaluations
Resident 12
According to the 08/14/2021 Quarterly MDS, Resident 12 had diagnoses including atrial fibrillation, hypertension (high blood pressure), orthostatic hypotension (a condition where blood pressure drops rapidly when a person sits/stands up), arthritis, asthma and type II Diabetes Mellitus, and required extensive one-person assistance with toileting and locomotion. The MDS assessed Resident 12 to have impaired vision and identified Resident 12 with multiple falls with injuries since the previous Quarterly MDS completed 05/14/2021. The MDS assessed Resident 12 to be occasionally incontinent of bladder and frequently incontinent of bowel.
The facility completed a Fall Evaluation for Resident 12 on 10/30/2021. Resident 12's 10/30/2021 Fall Evaluation failed to identify Resident 12 was visually impaired and noted Resident 12 to be independent and continent with toileting. The assessment did not identify Resident 12 to have any cardiovascular diagnoses and failed to note Resident 12's arthritis diagnosis.
In an interview on 11/05/2021 at 9:48 AM, Staff O (Resident Care Manager - RCM) stated that Fall Evaluations are used to assess residents' risk for falling and that it was important for them to be accurate. Staff O stated Resident 12's 10/30/2021 Fall Evaluation was inaccurate.
Resident 25
Similar findings for Resident 25. According to the 9/6/2021 Quarterly MDS, Resident 12 had impaired vision and diagnoses including hypertension and coronary artery disease. The MDS assessed Resident 12 to use both a walker and a wheelchair for mobility.
Review of Resident 12's 08/31/2021 Fall Evaluation revealed the evaluation: did not identify Resident 12 to be visually impaired; did not identify Resident 12's hypertension or coronary artery disease diagnoses; did not identify Resident 12's use of adaptive devices for locomotion.
REFERENCE: WAC 388-97-1620(2)(b)(i)(ii), (6)(b)(i)
.
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** Resident 419
According to the 10/29/2021 admission MDS, Resident 419 was admitted on [DATE]. Resident 419 was assessed as cognit...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Resident 419
According to the 10/29/2021 admission MDS, Resident 419 was admitted on [DATE]. Resident 419 was assessed as cognitively intact, able to understand others, be understood and had multiple diagnoses including stroke (brain bleed) with left side paralysis (loss of ability to move), left upper and left lower extremity contractures (permanent stiffening of joints), and peripheral vascular disease (a blood circulation disorder). The resident was assessed to be at risk for pressure injuries and per the MDS had interventions in place to prevent pressure injuries.
The 10/21/2021 CP interventions showed to elevate heels, apply a soft moon boot to the left foot, use a draw sheet or lifting device to move resident, and use caution with transfers and bed mobility. On 10/25/202 an intervention was added to float heels in bed to offload pressure to skin.
A 10/28/2021 Braden assessment showed Resident 419 was assessed as high risk for pressure ulcers and had a problem with friction and sheer. The resident was assessed to frequently slid down in bed or chair and required frequent repositioning with maximum assistance. The assessment showed spasticity (abnormal muscle tightness), contractures, and skin agitation lead to almost constant friction. Interventions implemented on the Braden assessment added a specialty mattress.
Left Lateral Foot
A 10/25/2021 communication to the physician requested a referral to the wound specialist for eschar (black dead tissue in a wound) on the left heel. A 10/28/2021 PO showed a referral to the wound care specialist for left heel eschar.
An 11/01/2021 Wound Specialist assessment showed a left lateral foot wound diagnosed as a pressure-induced deep tissue injury (DTI) measuring 8.0 cm x 1.5 cm and directed staff to provide pressure relief, reposition and offload pressure to the left lateral foot.
On 11/01/2021 at 12:25 PM, Resident 419 was observed in bed lying on the left side with contracted joints in their left hip, knee, shoulder, elbow, hand, and fingers. Their feet were not elevated on pillows and resident was not wearing a moon boot. Resident 419 stated, I cannot turn on my own, there is nothing to hold on to, I cannot move my left side, so I need help. No bedrails or extra pillows were observed in the room to assist with positioning. A moon boot was observed in the top dresser drawer. Similar findings on 11/02/2021 at 9:02 AM.
In an interview on 11/02/2021 at 9:10 AM, Staff S (Certified Nursing Assistant) stated Resident 419 needed two people to move and reposition them in bed and the resident could only move their right arm. When asked if the resident was to have feet on pillows and wear the moon boot, Staff S stated, yes.
On 11/02/2021 at 11:40 AM Resident 419 was observed in bed, lying on the left side, not wearing a moon boot on left foot and no pillows elevating feet. The moon boot was still in the drawer. On 11/03/2021 at 9:40 AM showed resident 419 lying on left side pillow under left knee and not wearing moon boot.
An observation on 11/04/2021 at 10:12 AM, Resident 419 was in bed lying on left side with no pillows elevating feet, wearing the moon boot on left foot. Resident 419 stated the left hip was sore and the wound appeared worse when they just changed the bandage.
An observation and interview on 11/04/2021 at 8:58 AM, showed Staff V (RCM-Resident Care Manager) was doing wound care and stated the left side of the foot was black with eschar. Staff V stated the Physician Assistant/ Wound Specialist diagnosed the wound on the lateral left foot on 11/01/2021 as a pressure-related deep tissue injury.
Left Hip
A 11/02/2021 communication to the physician showed a request for an air mattress for a wound on the right hip and three eschars on the left outer lateral foot.
An 11/03/2021 Weekly wound evaluation showed a new wound on the left hip described as a pressure ulcer open area with slough, stage III (Stage 3 full thickness wound), measuring 1.2 cm (centimeter) x 0.8 cm with redness on the surrounding skin that was painful.
An observation and interview on 11/04/2021 at 8:58 AM, showed Staff V (RCM) removed the bandage on the left hip. The hip wound was filled with slough (white dead tissue), obscuring the base of the wound, and the skin around the wound was pink and was non-blanchable. Staff V stated the hip wound was called a skin tear on admission and it was healed on 11/01/2021. Staff V stated, now on 11/04/2021 it is a stage III pressure ulcer measuring 1.2 cm x 0.8 cm covered in slough.
In an interview on 11/04/20201 at 11:27 AM, Staff R (Registered Nurse) stated they observed the hip wound that morning covered in slough and was measured 1.2 cm x 0.8 cm. The left foot DTI was eschar but was not measured. Staff R reviewed the wound specialist document in the EMR and verified on 11/01/2021 the physician assistant, a wound care specialist, diagnosed the left hip wound as a stage III pressure sore and the left lateral foot as an unstageable pressure-related deep tissue injury.
In an observation and interview on 11/04/2021 at 9:15 AM, Staff V placed a soft blue moon boot to the resident's left foot after wound care. Staff V acknowledge the CP directed the moon boot to be on the left foot. When Staff V was told of the observations on 11/01/2021 to 11/03/2021 when the resident was not wearing the boot, Staff V stated it should have been on the resident's left foot.
Left Heel
In an interview and observation on 11/04/2021 at 8:58 AM, Staff V removed the moon boot and described the left heel as soft, mushy, red, and slow to blanch. On observation, blanching was not observed when Staff V pressed on the heel redness.
In an interview on 11/04/20201 at 11:27 AM, Staff R stated that during wound care that morning they observed the left heel was red, non-blanchable and soft, but the skin was intact. Staff R stated the heel was not red and mushy on 11/03/2021 during wound care.
In an interview on 11/05/20210 at 12:30 PM, Staff C stated that the medical director for the wound care company was coming and wanted to explain the diagnosis of all Resident 419's wounds were related to arterial stenosis (abnormal narrowing in blood vessel), and they were stasis wounds, not pressure ulcers. Staff C acknowledged the moon boot and elevating the feet to prevent pressure should have been implemented to prevent pressure injury. Staff C acknowledged the documentation on the weekly wound evaluations and the physician assistant/wound specialist showed wound classification was pressure related DTI on the left foot and pressure related stage III ulcer on the left hip.
In an interview on 11/05/2021 at 12:47 PM the wound care team stated the previous diagnosis of the wounds as pressure related DTI on the left foot and stage III ulcer on left hip were incorrect. The team stated upon further review of the resident's past diagnostic studies from the vascular consult in September 2021, showed these wounds were unavoidable arterial stasis ulcers from severely impaired blood flow to the legs. The medical director provided a new diagnosis of ischemic limb disease (severe blocked arteries in legs), The wound team revised their documentation to show arterial cause instead of pressure cause for the wound development in the foot, hip, and heel.
In an interview on 11/05/2021 at 1:38 PM, Staff C reviewed the interventions for the soft moon boot and elevating feet to offload pressure, Staff C stated, those interventions were on the CP updated 11/05/2021. When asked about the care plan in place from admission on [DATE] to revision on 11/03/2021 Staff C stated the care plan had not been updated for the new admission. Staff C confirmed a baseline care plan was not developed to address the resident's new care needs on re-admission.
A final interview 11/09/2021 at 8:45 AM, Staff C stated Resident 419 did not have the updated diagnosis and care plan from the vascular appointment in September 2021 that showed severe stenosis of the left leg arteries. Staff C verified the new information from the vascular consult was not on care plan and there were no new interventions from the to prevent skin breakdown to Resident 419's left foot, heel and hip.
REFERENCE: WAC 388-97-1060(1)
Resident 3
According to the 10/18/2021 Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS- an assessment tool) the resident had severe cognitive impairment, unclear speech, was rarely understood and only sometimes understands.
Edema Monitoring
On 11/01/2021 at 11:21 AM the resident was observed with 3+ pitting edema to their bi-lateral lower extremities (LE's). Similar observations on 11/03/2021 at 9:42 AM, 11/05/2021 at 8:57 AM, and 11/08/2021 at 10:36 AM.
Review of the Careplan (CP) revised on 04/10/2020 indicated the resident had the potential for fluid volume overload. Interventions included to monitor, report and document any signs or symptoms of edema.
Review of POs showed no order to monitor edema.
In an interview on 11/09/2021 at 1:27 PM Staff C stated edema should be monitored and the facility uses a pitting scale to assess edema, any changes should be documented and reported to the Physician.
Non-Pressure Skin
On 11/03/2021 at 9:42 AM a small abrasion was observed to the residents forehead.
Review of a 10/29/2021 nursing progress notes showed the resident had a fall and sustained an abrasion to the right forehead and right elbow.
Review of PO's revealed no order to monitor or treat abrasions.
In an interview on 11/09/2021 at 1:27 PM Staff C confirmed there was no order in the resident's record and stated they would expect monitoring and a treatment for an abrasion.
Resident 118
Resident 118 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and according to the 10/29/2021 admission MDS had multiple complex diagnoses including fractures to both lower legs. This assessment showed Resident 118 was assessed to require extensive physical assistance from staff for bed mobility, dressing and personal hygiene.
Record review showed Resident 118 had a physician order dated 10/22/2021 that directed staff to continue the cast on the right lower extremity and to remain non-weight bearing until 11/03/2021. Resident 118 had an additional order dated 10/22/2021 for weight bearing as tolerated while in the boot for the left lower extremity and was okay to take the boot off in bed.
Observation on 11/01/2021 at 9:31 AM, Resident 118 was in bed with two leg braces sitting on chair in room. Resident 118 did not have any leg braces on lower extremities. Similar observations on 11/01/2021 at 11:58 PM were made of Resident 118 sitting up in wheelchair in room without braces to lower extremities.
Review of hospital records dated 10/22/2021, directed staff to make an appointment with orthopedic surgeon for follow up and evaluation as soon as possible for a visit in two weeks.
In an interview on 11/05/2021 at 10:40 AM, Staff PP (Resident Transport) stated Resident 118 had no appointments currently scheduled and that they had the paperwork to schedule orthopedic surgery appointment but stated, It's too far away, there is no ride. Staff PP indicated they had not reached out to the family or other staff to assist with scheduling the appointment. Staff PP stated they would call the provider today and request a closer referral.
In an interview on 11/08/2021 at 1:38 PM, Staff C stated staff should be following physician orders in regards to applying braces to extremities and should have, but did not schedule follow up orthopedic surgery appointment promptly as ordered for Resident 118.
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure 5 (Residents 38, 30, 118, 3 & 419) of 24 residents reviewed, received the necessary care and services in accordance with professional standards of practice, and/or the comprehensive person-centered care plan. The facility failed to ensure residents received services they were assessed to require related to bowel management, non-pressure skin issues, edema monitoring and orthopedics care. These failures placed residents at risk for a decline in medical status and quality of life, related to unmet care needs.
Findings included .
Resident 38
Review of Resident 38's current physician orders (POs) showed the resident had the following bowel management orders: Milk of Magnesia (MOM) administer at bedtime of the third day with no bowel movement (BM) as needed (PRN); Bisacodyl suppository PRN if no BM for three days; and Fleets oil enema as needed if no BM for four days.
Review of Resident 30's bowel flowsheet showed Resident 38 went 3 or more days without a BM on the following occasions: 08/18/2021- 08/20/2021 (3 days); 08/25/2021- 08/28/2021 (4 days); and 08/30/2021- 09/02/2021 (4 days).
Review of Resident 38's August and September 2021 Medication Administration Records (MAR) showed facility nurses did not administer MOM as ordered, any of the above three occasions.
During an interview 11/10/2021 at 8:03 AM, Staff C (Director of Nursing) acknowledged on 08/20/2021, 08/27/2021 and 09/01/2021 facility nurses should have administered MOM as ordered, but failed to do so.
Resident 30
Review of Resident 30's current POs showed the resident had the following 06/03/2019 bowel management orders: Milk of Magnesia (MOM) as needed (PRN) if no BM for two days; Bisacodyl suppository PRN if no BM for three days; and Fleets oil enema as needed if no BM for four days.
Review of the Resident 30's bowel flowsheet showed the resident had a BM on 08/28/2021 at 8:05 AM and did not have another BM until 08/31/2021 at 7:00 PM, greater than three days later. Review of the August 2021 MAR showed facility staff failed to administer MOM after two days without a BM as ordered.
During an interview on 11/10/2021 at 8:03 AM, Staff C acknowledged nursing failed to administer MOM after two days with no BM as ordered.
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 ensure on-going assessments and documentation, and pre...
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 on-going assessments and documentation, and prevention of pressure ulcers consistent with professional standards of practice for 3 (Resident 10, 67, & 118) of 13 residents reviewed for positioning. Failure to assess and monitor pressure ulcers and implement preventative measures, such as positioning, placed residents at risk for deterioration in skin condition.
Findings included .
Resident 118
Resident 118 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. According to the 10/29/2021 admission MDS was assessed to require extensive physical assistance with bed mobility and was at risk of developing pressure ulcers. The Care Area Assessment (CAA) related to this MDS, showed Resident 118 had ongoing pressure ulcer risk and the resident's skin integrity would be monitored weekly with care provided by licensed nurse.
In an interview on 11/01/2021 at 12:26 PM, Resident 118 stated they had an open wound to their bottom and reported they got it from being in bed too long.
Record review showed the 10/22/2021 admission Skin Evaluation for Resident 118 identified an open area to the coccyx and according to the 10/22/2021 Initial Wound Evaluation was assessed as a Stage III Pressure Ulcer.
Review of Resident 118's care plan (CP) identified the resident had a pressure injury, a venous/ status ulcer (a wound on the lower leg caused by abnormal or damaged veins) and had the potential for skin impairment. These CP's directed staff to monitor dressing, document location of wound, and do weekly treatment documentation to include measurement of each area of skin breakdown's width, length, depth, type of tissue and exudate.
Record review showed no further documentation after 10/22/2021 regarding the status of Resident 118's pressure ulcer or overall skin condition until 11/04/2021, when survey staff requested skin assessment with staff.
Observation of Resident 118's skin on 11/04/2021 at 10:01 AM, revealed open area to coccyx was resolved. During an interview at this time, Staff M (Registered Nurse) stated the bilateral buttocks and coccyx wounds healed already, and they were going to contact the doctor to update them.
In an interview on 11/08/2021 at 1:15 PM, Staff C (Director of Nursing) stated their expectation was that staff should be documenting weekly skin assessments on all residents. Staff C indicated that if a resident has an open area identified, that it is measured, assessed, and documented with further monitoring every week. Staff C confirmed staff failed to document further assessments for Resident 118.
Resident 10
Resident 10 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and according to the 08/13/2021 admission MDS the resident was assessed with multiple medically complex diagnoses including stroke with paralysis, fractures with multiple other traumas, heart and kidney disease. This assessment indicated the resident required extensive two-person assistance with bed mobility and was at risk for the development of pressure ulcers.
According to CP documents dated 08/16/2021 the resident was identified with potential for pressure injury with interventions including elevate feet when sitting up in chair to help prevent dependent edema. The 08/16/2021 CP identified the potential for impairment to skin integrity with interventions which included elevate heels.
Observations on 11/01/2021 at 10:35 AM, 11/02/2021 at 8:25 AM, 11/02/2021 at 12:40 PM, 11/03/21 at 9:02 AM and 1:04 PM, 11/04/2021 at 8:28 AM, 11/05/2021 at 7:50 AM and 9:22 AM showed resident 10 lying in bed, the left foot rotated laterally flat on the mattress with neither foot elevated and no supporting pillow in evidence.
During an observation on 11/08/2021 at 10:28 AM Staff B confirmed Resident 10 was lying in bed with heels/feet not elevated. Staff B indicated staff should have elevated the resident's heels as directed in the plan of care.
Resident 67
Resident 67 admitted to the facility on [DATE] and according to the 10/15/2021 admission MDS had multiple medically complex diagnosis including stroke, diabetes, dementia and heart disease. This assessment showed the resident was at risk for the development of pressure ulcers.
According to CP documents dated 10/18/2021 the resident was identified with potential for pressure injury. The 10/18/2021 dated CP identified the potential for impairment to skin integrity with interventions which included heel elevation.
Observations on 11/01/2021 at 10:25 AM, 11/02/2021 at 7:50 AM, 11/02/2021 at 1:55 PM, 11/03/21 at 7:45 AM and 10:00 AM, showed Resident 67 lying in bed without elevation of feet.
During an observation/assessment on 11/03/2021 at 10:25 AM, Staff D (MDS Coordinator) confirmed Resident 67 was lying in bed without benefit of heel elevation. Staff D was noted to retrieve a blue wedge from a chair and elevate the resident's feet. In an interview at that time, Staff D indicated staff should, but did not, elevate the resident's heels while in bed.
REFERENCE: WAC 388-97-1060(3)(b)
.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
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 emergency exits were alarmed; ensure appropria...
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 emergency exits were alarmed; ensure appropriate safety measures to prevent a fall were implemented for 1 (Resident 12) of residents reviewed for falls, and 1 supplemental resident (Resident 30). These failures left residents at risk for elopement, for avoidable falls and potential injury.
Findings included .
Facility
On 11/03/2021 at 10:12 AM, the key coded and alarmed emergency exit door at the end of the Catsablanca hallway, appeared to be partially open. Closer inspection revealed that someone had input the key code, opened the door, placed an empty oxygen cannister dolly in the threshold to keep the door propped open, and turned off the door alarm (which required a key) to prevent it from sounding. For the next five minutes the door remained propped open with no facility staff observed in the immediate area.
On 11/03/21 at 10:17 AM, Staff II (Maintenance Director) was observed entering through the emergency exit with Resident 38 and indicated he had propped the door open while taking Resident 38 out for a scheduled smoking session.
In an interview on 11/03/21 10:19 AM, when queried about the purpose of the keypad and alarm on the emergency exit door. Staff II stated that it was to keep homeless people from entering the building, as well as preventing and/or alerting staff to resident attempts to elope.
In an interview on 11/03/2021 at 11:12 AM, Staff B (Administrator in Training), acknowledged that there were residents in the building that were assessed as wander risks and indicated the emergency exit door should not be propped open, especially if not under direct supervision.
Resident 12
According to the 08/14/2021 Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS - an assessment tool) Resident 12 had diagnoses including spinal stenosis, orthostatic hypotension, arthritis and severe obesity, and had two or more falls since their previous MDS on 05/14/2021.
According to the facility's Resident Incident Log, Resident 12 had falls on 05/27/2021, 06/02/2021, 06/08/2021 and 07/06/2021. The fall on 05/27/2021 resulted in bruising to Resident 12's left knee. Resident 12's knee was re-injured during the 6/2/2021 fall.
The facility completed Fall Evaluations for Resident 12 on 07/05/2021, 08/13/2021 and 10/30/2021. The 07/05/2021 and 08/13/2021 Fall Evaluations assessed Resident 12 to be at risk for falls. The 10/30/2021 Fall Evaluation assessed Resident 12 to no longer be at risk for falls.
In an interview on 11/05/2021 at 09:48 AM, Staff O (Resident Care Manager - RCM) stated that the 10/30/2021 Fall Evaluation was inaccurate as it did not capture Resident 12's visual impairment, incontinence or arthritis and cardiovascular diagnoses.
According to the 07/07/2017 resident at risk for falls . Care Plan (CP), Resident 12 had the potential for bleeding after a fall due to their anticoagulant medication usage. The CP included the 02/11/2021 intervention Fall Mat next to bed.
Review of Resident 12's [NAME] (care instructions for nursing aides) printed 11/17/2021 revealed that the Safety section included directions for a Fall Mat next to bed.
On 11/04/2021 at 10:30 AM, Resident 12 was observed in bed. No fall mat was placed by the bed.
11/04/21 12:17 PM in bed with no fall mat in place. An examination of Resident 12's room revealed that no fall mat was available in the room.
In an interview on 11/05/2021 at 06:01 AM, Staff BB (Licensed Practical Nurse - LPN) stated Resident 12 can be a little wobbly. Staff BB stated Resident 12 did not use a fall mat and did not have one in their room.
In an interview on 11/05/2021 at 09:48 AM, Staff O (RCM) stated they were unsure if Resident 12 still required the fall mats, and that the facility had not reassessed their effectiveness before removal from Resident 12's room.
Resident 30
Resident 30 admitted to the facility on [DATE]. According to the 08/03/2021 Significant change MDS, the resident had severe cognitive impairment, was dependent on staff for transfers, and had fallen once since the previous assessment.
Review of the facility incident log showed Resident 30 had a fall on 06/07/2021. Review of the investigation showed the resident had Rolled out of bed and sustained a laceration to the right eyebrow. One intervention which was implemented at that time was a fall mat to decrease the risk for injury.
A [Resident 30] is at risk for falls . CP, revised 08/11/2021, directed staff to ensure a fall mat was in place to the left side of the bed.
Observations on 11/02/2021 at 10:57 AM and 11/04/2021 at 12:05 PM revealed the resident sitting up in a tilt-in-space wheelchair, a fall mat was observed folded up leaning against the wall to the right of the television. On 11/05/2021 at 5:43 AM Resident 30 was observed lying in bed with eyes closed, a fall mat was again observed folded up and leaning against the wall to the right of the television, no fall mat was present on the floor to the left side of the bed as CP'ed. Similar observations (of the fall mat folded up against the wall) were made on 11/05/2021 at 12:06 PM and 11/08/2021 at 12:40 PM.
During an observation/interview on 12/08/2021 at 1:13 PM, Staff O (RCM) confirmed that the resident's fall mat was folded up and leaning against the wall to the right of the television.
On 11/10/2021 at 5:51 AM, Resident 38 was again observed lying in bed with eyes closed without a fall mat on the floor to the left of the bed. The fall mat was again observed folded up and leaning against the wall to the right of the television.
In an interview on 11/10/2021 at 7:43 AM Staff C (Director of Nursing) stated when the resident is in bed, staff should place the fall to the left side of the bed as care planned.
REFERENCE: WAC 388-97-1060(3)(g)
.
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 19
According to the 10/13/2021 Annual MDS, Resident 19 required one-person supervision for toileting and was assessed t...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Resident 19
According to the 10/13/2021 Annual MDS, Resident 19 required one-person supervision for toileting and was assessed to be occasionally incontinent of bowel and bladder and was not on a toileting program.
Review of Resident 19's toileting records revealed the resident was incontinent of bladder on 38 occasions between 10/08/2021 and 11/06/2021.
According to the ADL [activities of daily living] self-care performance deficit CP, Resident 19 uses the toilet independently and prefers urinal kept in reach at bedside -Empty, rinse et [sic] replace PRN.
According to the 10/05/2021 Bowel and Bladder Screener, Resident 19 was assessed to be a good candidate for [bladder] retraining.
Record review revealed a 06/24/2021 progress note that stated, Patient takes a lot of bedtime medication to promote sleep and this is very effective but most nights, patient awakens in the middle the night having wet his bed . He wears a brief, but this is not really containing the urine and he ends up needing to have a linen change in the middle of the night. He has come to accept this as just something he has to live with.
In an interview on 11/01/2021 at 12:37 PM, Resident 19 stated that they were incontinent nightly, adding I wonder if they care; I am on all these medications. In the same interview at 12:42 PM, Resident 12 explained that while they were able to manage toileting during the day without accidents, they had incontinence nightly because they slept so heavily. Resident 12 expressed frustration that they did not receive assistance prior to their predictable nightly incontinence. If they helped me set an alarm on my phone, I would be fine. I don't know how to do it.
In an interview on 11/08/2021 at 10:54 AM, Staff O (Resident Care Manager) stated that Resident 19 was not on a toileting program because they could communicate their toileting needs and clarified that this was only true when the resident was awake.
Lack of Catheter Strap
Resident 45
Resident 45's 09/22/2021, admission MDS, showed the resident required extensive assistance with Activities of Daily Living. Review of current physician orders showed Resident 45 utilized a foley catheter (flexible tube placed in the bladder to drain urine).
Record review revealed Resident 45 had no care plan (CP) directing staff to anchor or secure the catheter to prevent excessive tension on the catheter.
Multiple observations on 11/01/2021 at 8:45 AM, 11/02/2021 at 9:16 AM, 11/03/2021 at 11:25 AM, and 11/04/2021 at 1:29 PM, showed Resident 45's catheter bag attached to the bed frame on the right side of the bed and catheter tubing was not secured with a catheter strap.
In an interview on 11/02/2020 at 9:29 AM, Resident 45 revealed that the facility did not provide a catheter strap since admission.
In a joint observation and interview on 11/04/2021 at 9:26 AM, Staff R (Registered Nurse) observed Resident 45 was in bed, catheter bag attached to the bed frame on the right side of the bed, and no catheter strap was in place. Staff R confirmed the resident didn't, but should, have a catheter strap. Staff R indicated the nursing assistants were responsible to apply catheter straps to residents and notify nurses if the strap was missing or needed to be replaced.
In an interview on 11/04/2021 at about 1:35 PM, Staff C indicated they expected nurses to care plan all catheters and ensure interventions of care were implemented. Staff C further indicated both nurses and nursing assistant were responsible to ensure catheter straps were in place.
REFERENCE: WAC 388-97-1060(3)(c).
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident who was incontinent of bladder received appropriate treatment and services to restore continence to the extent possible for 2 (Residents 10 & 19) of 4 residents reviewed for urinary incontinence. Failure to comprehensively assess the causes of incontinence and provide treatment and services to restore bladder function placed this resident at risk for continued decline in urinary function, skin issues, and embarrassment.
Additionally, the facility failed to anchor the Foley catheter in place with a secure device for 1 (45) of 2 residents reviewed for use and care of a catheter (a flexible tube inserted into the bladder to drain urine) This failed practice placed residents with catheters at risk for accidental dislodgement of the catheter, trauma to the bladder and urethra, and bladder neck.
Finding included .
Review of facility Catheter Care Policy revised September 2014, revealed Ensure that the catheter remains secured with leg strap to reduce friction and movement at the insertion site.
Resident 10
Resident 10 admitted to the facility on [DATE] and according to the 08/13/2021 admission Minimum Data Set) (MDS - an assessment tool) was assessed with moderate cognitive impairment, required extensive two person assistance with toileting and transfers, and was always incontinent of urine.
According to the Incontinence Care Area Assessment related to this MDS, staff determined the resident had incontinence of bowel and bladder and did not consistently alert staff of these needs. Staff did not assess the type of incontinence or what caused the resident to be incontinent. Staff documented, Incontinence appears to be her baseline. Briefs are worn for dignity purposes.
In an interview on 11/01/2021 at 10:38 AM, Resident 10 stated they are incontinent of both bowel and bladder, stating they know when they have to go, but can't because of movement difficulties with their left leg. the resident stated they were interested in using a fracture pan stating, I used it in the hospital and it worked. In an interview on 11/03/2021 at 9:04 AM Resident 10 stated, Most of the time I can tell if I have to go (to the bathroom), sometimes I can't control it but sometimes I can.
Record review showed no bladder/bowel assessment was performed for Resident 10.
In an interview on 11/08/2021 at 11:36 AM Staff C (Director of Nursing) confirmed staff should have but did not complete a bowel / bladder assessment for Resident 10 upon admission. Staff B stated these assessments were necessary to to see if [they] has painful, frequency .if [they are] able to get up and go on [their] own. Staff B stated it was important to determine what type of incontinence the resident had so staff could provide interventions stating, if you have a resident who can report [the need to toilet] I would expect them to offer a bedpan.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0698
(Tag F0698)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one (35) of two residents reviewed for dialysis, received consistent ongoing assessments and monitoring of resident's condition, con...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one (35) of two residents reviewed for dialysis, received consistent ongoing assessments and monitoring of resident's condition, consistent with current standards of practice, after dialysis treatments. Additionally, failure to ensure resident received doctor ordered medications on dialysis days. These failures placed the resident at risk for developing unidentified medical complications and potential non-therapeutic levels of medications.
Findings included .
According to the facility's 05/17/2021 Dialysis Policy, the facility will provide ongoing assessment of the resident's condition and monitoring for complications before and after dialysis treatments, and the facility will ensure that the physicians order (PO) for dialysis includes any medication administration or withholding of specific medications prior to dialysis.
Resident 35
Coordination of Care with the Dialysis Center
According to the 09/14/2021 Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS- an assessment tool) the resident was assessed to be cognitively intact with diagnoses of End Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) and received dialysis (process of purifying the blood of a person whose kidneys don't work) services.
Record review revealed a 07/03/2021 PO for Dialysis Treatments every Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday. A 07/02/2021 PO directed staff to Complete the Dialysis Post Assessment form after the resident returns from dialysis and ensure the resident returns from dialysis with the Pre-Dialysis Assessment and Communication Form, review and to follow up as indicated. Call Dialysis center if the pre-dialysis assessment form is not returned with the resident.
Review of the medical record showed a Pre Dialysis Assessment and communication form that was filled out by the facility and sent with the resident to dialysis. The dialysis center was responsible for completing a section of this form to include the type of access (a dialysis port or fistula), condition of the access site, if the dressing to the access site was changed, pre and post dialysis vital signs, any PO's or labs ordered, and any additional comments or instructions to the facility. According to the PO this form was to be returned with the resident and if it was not sent with the resident the facility staff were expected to call the dialysis center to obtain the form.
Review of Resident 35's Pre and Post Dialysis Assessments for July 2021 showed the resident received dialysis 13 times and the dialysis center completed their section of the Pre Dialysis Assessment form a total of 4 times. Review of Pre and Post Dialysis Assessments for August 2021 showed the resident received dialysis 12 times and the dialysis center completed their section of the Pre Dialysis Assessment form a total of 5 times. Review of Pre and Post Dialysis Assessments for September 2021 showed the resident received dialysis 13 times and the dialysis center completed their section of the Pre Dialysis Assessment form a total of 9 times. Review of Pre and Post Dialysis Assessments for October 2021 showed the resident received dialysis 8 times and the dialysis center complotted their section of the Pre Dialysis Assessment form a total of 6 times.
Review of the nursing progress notes showed no indication the facility staff made attempts to obtain the Pre Dialysis Assessment Forms on the dates that it was not sent back with the resident.
In an interview on 11/09/2021 at 1:27 PM Staff C (Director of Nursing) stated they would expect the forms to be completed and if they weren't for the staff to call the dialysis center for the form/information as directed by the PO. Staff C acknowledged the assessments were not complete and the facility staff did not obtain the information from the dialysis center.
Medications
Review of Residents 35's October 2021 Medication Administration Record (MAR) showed the resident had 14 medications scheduled to be given at 8:00 AM. The 14 medications included heart health supplements, vitamins, antidepressant, antianxiety, bowel care and scheduled pain medications.
A 07/23/2021 PO showed where the resident received Dialysis services and included that the resident was picked up at 5:15 AM and returned from Dialysis at 11:45 AM. The PO did not direct staff of any medication administration or withholding prior to dialysis.
Review of the October 2021 MAR showed on 10/07, 10/09, 10/12, 10/14, 10/16, 10/19, 10/21, 10/23, 10/26, 10/28 and 10/30/2021 Nursing staff documented either 1 (absent from facility without medications), or 9 (see progress notes). Review of the MAR progress notes showed the medication scheduled at 8:00 AM was not given on those days because the resident was at dialysis.
Similar findings for the September 2021 and August 2021 MAR.
Review of the record revealed no indication the facility contacted or consulted with the Physician about medications being missed on dialysis days and the potential for non-therapeutic levels related to not consistently taking medications due to being scheduled during dialysis times.
In an interview on 11/09/2021 at 1:27 PM Staff C (Director of Nursing) stated they were not aware the resident did not receive 8:00 AM medications on dialysis days. Staff C would expect staff to clarify with the Physician and potentially send medications with the resident to dialysis because they are capable of self-administering medications.
WAC: REFERENCE 388-97-1900(1), (6), (a-c)
.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0744
(Tag F0744)
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 appropriate treatment and services for dementia were provided...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure appropriate treatment and services for dementia were provided to 1 of 2 (Resident 44) residents reviewed for antipsychotic use with a diagnosis of dementia. Failure to assess, plan and implement interventions to address resident specific care needs placed residents at risk for unmet needs.
Additionally, the facility failed to ensure appropriate use of an antipsychotic was used for identified behavior and after non-medication interventions were used. This placed Resident 44 at risk for unnecessary medication use with potential adverse effects.
Findings included .
The 09/21/2021 admission Minimum Data Set (MDS-an assessment tool) showed Resident 44 admitted to the facility on [DATE], was cognitively impaired, and was sometimes understood and sometimes understood others. The MDS showed diagnoses of Alzheimer's Disease and Dementia and was administered an antipsychotic medication for 6 days in the lookback period. The MDS showed Resident 44 had no behaviors including refusal of care, delirium, hallucinations, wandering, or behaviors directed toward others.
Target Behavior (TB) Monitoring
A review of Resident 44's 09/16/2021 physician order (PO's) showed Quetiapine (an antipsychotic medication used to treat impaired thoughts and emotions) was prescribed for dementia with behaviors. The care plan (CP) showed TBs were pacing, wandering, disrobing, inappropriate response to verbal communication, violence, and aggression towards others.
A review of Resident 44's behavior monitoring record, for September, October, and November 2021, showed TBs of verbal threatening, physical hitting, yelling, hallucinations, paranoia, delusions, and other behaviors. The TBs on the CP and the monitoring record did not match.
In an interview on 11/09/2021 at 8:25 AM, Staff E (Social Services Director) stated Resident 44 was not assessed for resident specific TBs as the behaviors listed in the care plan were computer generated. Staff E stated the care plan and TB monitoring did not match and TBs were not individualized for Resident 44.
Antipsychotic Use
Review of the 09/16/2021 admission PO from the hospital showed Quetiapine was prescribed daily at bedtime for the diagnosis of Late-Onset Alzheimer's disease without behavioral disturbance. A 09/16/2021 PO showed Quetiapine was prescribed for the diagnosis of Alzheimer's Dementia with behavioral disturbance, sundowning (restless, agitated confused behavior that starts as daylight fades).
The 09/16/2021 informed consent document for Resident 44 showed sundowning behavior as the indicated use for Quetiapine. Review of the September, October, and November 2021 behavior monitoring record showed no daily monitoring for sundowning or monitoring for sleep patterns.
Review of a 10/08/2021 PO and correlating practitioner note showed Quetiapine was discontinued since the resident did not have behaviors. According to a 10/26/2021 PO, Quetiapine as needed (PRN) at bedtime was restarted with a new diagnosis of insomnia.
In an interview on 11/09/2021 at 8:45 AM, Staff C stated Resident 44 did not have a sleep monitor and one was required for administration of medications for insomnia. Staff C stated dementia and insomnia were not appropriate diagnoses for the use of Quetiapine, and should not have been administered to Resident 44.
Non-Medication Interventions
The 09/16/2021 care plan showed a list of non-medication interventions including calm reassurance, quiet environment, maintain routine and caregivers. A review of the September, October and November 2021 behavior monitor record showed only one behavior of combativeness and one provision of a non-medication intervention on 10/07/2021 which was effective without medication administered. No other documentation of behaviors or non-medication interventions were on the monitoring records.
A 10/26/2021 PO showed Quetiapine as needed (PRN) for 14 days with a diagnosis of insomnia. The PO instructed staff to give last if agitation is not improved at night. The medication was given six times between 10/26/2021 and 11/07/2021. There were no identified behaviors or non-pharmaceutical interventions documented as attempted prior to the administration of the Quetiapine.
In an interview on 11/09/2021 at 8:45 AM, Staff C (Director of Nursing) stated Quetiapine PRN for insomnia was not an appropriate diagnosis. Staff C stated there was no individualized behaviors assessed and no non-medication interventions used before giving Quetiapine PRN. Staff C stated non-medication interventions are required to be tried before each PRN medication administration and were not attempted for Resident 44.
REFERENCE: WAC 388-97-1040(1) (a-c).
.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
East Medication Room
Observations of the East Medication Room with Staff M on 11/01/2021 at 1:07 PM showed a full box 144 Total of skin protectant ointment with Vitamins A and D which expired 9/2021. ...
Read full inspector narrative →
East Medication Room
Observations of the East Medication Room with Staff M on 11/01/2021 at 1:07 PM showed a full box 144 Total of skin protectant ointment with Vitamins A and D which expired 9/2021. In an interview at that time, Staff M stated, I will take it out, it has to be thrown out.
Observation with Staff R (Registered Nurse), of the East Medication room on 11/01/2021 at 1:18 PM showed an Intravenous (a needle inserted into a vein to administer medications or fluids) dressing tray kit which expired 8/2021. In an interview at that time, Staff R stated this should not be in the medication room because it was expired.
Also noted in the East medication room were medications for Resident 122 who discharged from the facility over six months prior on 04/17/2021. A hypodermoclysis (a method of administering fluid for hydration in the skin) kit was identified for Resident 123, who discharged from the facility on 01/04/2021. According to Staff R, these medications should be, but were not, removed from the medication room upon discharge.
Also noted were 15 syringes of house supply 10 ml (milliliters) of heparin flushes which expired 8/2021. Observations showed a drawer with more than 20, 10 ml syringes which expired 6/2021. Staff R stated at this time medications should be discarded when they expire and that the night shift nurse was responsible to identify the expired medications and send them back to the pharmacy.
REFERENCE: WAC 388-97-1300(1)(b)(ii), (c)(ii-iv), (2).
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure expired medications and biologicals were disposed of timely, and that medications were not dated when opened, for 1 of 2 medication rooms and 1 of 3 medication carts reviewed. This failure detracted from staff's ability to determine if these medications were expired.
Findings included .
Collectible Court Medication Cart
Observation of the Collectible Court medication cart on 11/01/2021 at 11:41 AM showed a house supply medication of an anti-inflammatory and an antifungal medication for Resident 172 which was open and not dated as open. According to an interview at this time, Staff M (Registered Nurse), stated the medications should be dated when opened. Also noted during this observation was a steroidal nasal inhaler for Resident 10 which was dated as opened on 09/14/2021. At time of observation Staff M stated, This is expired, I will throw it out . An arthritis pain medication for Resident 67 was noted during observation with the following dates 10/05/21, 10/07/21, and 10/29/2021. An interview at the time of observation, when asked which of these dates was the open date, Staff M stated, I am not sure.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Laboratory Services
(Tag F0770)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to obtain laboratory (lab) services to meet the needs of one (Resident 38) of six residents reviewed for lab services. Failure to obtain physi...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to obtain laboratory (lab) services to meet the needs of one (Resident 38) of six residents reviewed for lab services. Failure to obtain physician ordered diagnostic testing for residents who were assessed to require such services, placed the residents at risk for delayed identification and treatment of underlying health conditions and potential negative outcomes.
Findings included .
According to the facility's 05/14/2021 Provision of Physician Ordered Services policy, the facility will maintain a schedule of diagnostic tests (laboratory and radiology) in accordance with the physician's orders. Documentation of diagnostic tests, the results, and date/time of Physician notification will be maintained in the resident's clinical record.
Resident 38
Review of Resident 38's Physician Orders (POs), showed a 05/14/2020 order for a HgbA1c [a blood test that measures the glycated (chemically linked by sugar) form of hemoglobin to obtain the three-month average of blood sugar] to be drawn every three months.
Record review showed the most recent HgbA1c in Resident 38's record was drawn on 06/14/2021, approximately five months prior. There was no documentation found to indicate why a HgbA1c was not drawn every 3 months as ordered.
In an interview on 11/09/2021 at 8:17 AM, Staff C (Director of Nursing), acknowledged the resident had a current order for HgbA1c to be drawn every 3 months. When asked if there was any indication or documentation to support that a HgbA1c had been performed since 06/14/2021 Staff C stated, No, I don't see one .
REFERENCE: WAC 388-97-1620(2)(b)(i)
.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Dental Services
(Tag F0791)
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 prompt dental services were provided for 2 (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 ensure prompt dental services were provided for 2 (Residents 10 & 67) of 5 residents reviewed for dental services. This failure placed the residents at risk for unmet dental needs, and a diminished quality of life.
Findings included .
Resident 10
Resident 10 admitted to the facility on [DATE] and according to the 08/13/2021 admission Minimum Data Set (MDS - an assessment tool) the resident was cognitively intact and assessed to require extensive two person assistance with personal hygiene and bathing. This assessment showed the resident demonstrated no rejection of care and had no dental issues.
In an interview on 11/01/2021 at 10:37 AM, Resident 10 stated, I want to see a dentist, I would be willing to go to a dentist because my teeth hurt. I have some broken teeth (gestured to lower left and right jaw). The resident stated at this time that she admitted to the facility with at least one broken tooth and their dental status deteriorated since admission. Observations at this time showed the resident did have broken and what appeared to be carious teeth.
According to the 08/16/2021 Potential Alteration in dentition and/or oral hygiene [related to] natural teeth, missing some Care Plan (CP), the resident's goal was to maintain teeth in good repair with a listed intervention of Refer to dentist/dental hygienist for evaluation and recommendations.
In an interview on 11/03/2021 at 8:50 AM, Staff E (Social Services Director) confirmed Resident 10 was not on the list to be seen by the dentist.
According to the 08/13/2021 Nutrition Evaluation, staff did not identify Resident 10 had any missing teeth. The 10/26/2021 Nutrition Evaluation, showed Resident 10 was identified with difficulties chewing and missing teeth.
During observations on 11/08/2021 at 10:28 AM Staff C (Director of Nursing) confirmed Resident 10 had broken teeth, stating, Broken molar lower right side .gums didn't look dry .has a broken front tooth .I am surprised [they've] not been seen by dental . At this time, Staff C indicated Resident 10 should have been referred for dental services.
Resident 67
Resident 67 admitted to the facility on [DATE] and according to the 10/15/2021 admission MDS was assessed as cognitively impaired and had no dental problems.
According to CP documents dated 10/18/2021 the resident had potential alteration in dentition and/or oral hygiene the resident's goal was to maintain teeth in good repair with a listed intervention of Refer to dentist/dental hygienist for evaluation and recommendations and monitor oral hygiene provision intermittently.
Observations on 11/02/2021 at 8:50 AM showed Resident 67 had multiple carious and missing teeth.
In an interview on 11/02/2021 at 9:31 AM the resident's family member stated, [They] really need[s] to see a dentist and indicated there was at least one tooth that needed extraction.
In an interview on 11/03/2021 at 8:50 AM, Staff E confirmed Resident 10 was not on the list to be seen by the dentist.
During an observation on 11/03/2021 at 10:25 AM, Staff D (MDS Coordinator) confirmed Resident 67 had, definitely multiple carious teeth. After performing an oral exam, Staff D indicated Resident 67 should be seen by a dentist.
REFERENCE: WAC 388-97-1060(1), (3)(j)(vii).
.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0561
(Tag F0561)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Resident 118
Resident 118 admitted to the facility on [DATE]. According to the 10/29/2021 admission MDS Resident 118 was assesse...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Resident 118
Resident 118 admitted to the facility on [DATE]. According to the 10/29/2021 admission MDS Resident 118 was assessed with clear speech, able to understand and be understood in conversation, and indicated it was very important to them to choose between a bed bath and shower.
In an interview on 11/01/2021 at 12:06 PM, Resident 118 stated I get bed baths, but I prefer showers. Resident 118 stated they did not receive a shower since admission to the facility.
According to an undated [NAME], Resident 118 was scheduled for bathing on Monday and Thursday. Review of Resident 118's bathing records showed facility staff did not provide the resident any showers and was provided bed baths since admission.
In an interview on 11/04/2021 at 9:27 AM, Staff U (Certified Nursing Assistant) stated if a resident can get out of bed staff will take them to the shower room, otherwise staff do bed baths. At the time of the interview, Staff U was filling up a basin at sink to give Resident 118 a bed bath and confirmed Resident 118 was not offered a shower.
In an interview on 11/08/2021 at 1:38 PM, Staff C stated the expectation is that staff should be assisting residents with showers per the resident's preference twice weekly.
REFERENCE: WAC 388-97-0900(1)-(4).
Resident 54
According to the 09/30/2021 Annual MDS, Resident 54 was assessed as cognitively intact and able to understand and be understand in conversation. This assessment showed it was very important to choose between a tub bath, shower, bed bath or sponge bath.
In an interview on 11/02/2021 at 11:17 AM, Resident 54 indicated they preferred at least two showers weekly.
According to undated [NAME] documents, staff were directed, Bathing/ Showering: The resident is extensive assist of one to provide bath/shower every Wednesday and Saturday and as needed.
Review of 30 days of bathing records showed Resident 54 received one bed bath and one sponge bath. Staff failed to provide bathing on six of eight bathing opportunities.
Resident 24
The 09/30/2021 admission MDS showed Resident 24 was cognitively intact, and able to understand and be understand in conversation. This assessment showed it was very important to choose between a tub bath, shower, bed bath or sponge bath.
In an interview on 11/02/2021 at 10:45 AM, Resident 24 stated, I prefer at least two showers weekly.
According to undated [NAME] documents, staff were directed, Bathing/ Showering: The resident is extensive assist of one to provide bath/shower every Monday and Thursday in the morning.
Review of 30 days of bathing records showed Resident 24 received only four bed baths and no showers. Facility staff failed to provide four of eight scheduled baths.
In an interview on 11/08/2021 at 1:46 PM, Staff C stated all residents should be bathed twice a week and confirmed that Residents 54 and 24 were not provided showers according to resident preferences.
Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to allow 6 (Residents 10, 67, 171, 54, 24, & 118) of 7 sample reviewed for choices, the right to make choices regarding important daily routines and health care, including accommodating preferences for the frequency and/or type of bathing. The facility's failure to accommodate resident choice placed these residents at risk for a diminished quality of life.
Findings included .
Resident 10
Resident 10 admitted to the facility on [DATE] and according to the 08/13/2021 admission Minimum Data Set (MDS - an assessment tool) the resident was assessed with moderate cognitive impairment, clear speech, and able to understand and be understood in conversation. This assessment showed it was very important for the resident to choose between a tub bath, shower, bed bath or sponge bath.
In an interview on 11/01/2021 at 10:32 AM, Resident 10 stated they would like two bed baths a week, but received, maybe one a week.
According to the [NAME] (undated directions to staff for resident care), staff were informed, Bathing Prefers: Tuesday & Friday Evening. According to bathing records from 10/11/2021 through 11/07/2021, the resident received only one bed bath on 10/18/2021.
In an interview on 11/08/2021 at 10:38 AM, Staff C (Director of Nursing), after reviewing bathing records, confirmed Resident 10's preferences of being bathed twice a week, were not honored.
Resident 67
Resident 67 admitted to the facility on [DATE] and according to the 10/15/2021 admission MDS was assessed as cognitively impaired and sometimes understood and sometimes able to understand conversation.
In an interview on 11/02/2021 at 9:17 AM, Resident 67's family member stated, I think [they] would prefer a bath .
According to the Activity assessment dated [DATE], Resident 67 preferred baths in the evenings. According to undated [NAME] documents, staff were directed, Bathing (Prefers: SPECIFY).
In an interview on 11/03/2021 at 11:58 AM, Staff J, (Activity Director) indicated resident preferences for bathing were obtained during the Activity Assessments, and should be, but were not, transcribed to resident's care plans.
Review of bathing records on 11/03/2021 showed Resident 67 received showers on 10/18/2021, 10/25/21, and 11/01/2021.
In an interview on 11/03/2021 at 12:46 PM, Staff C stated all residents should be bathed twice a week and confirmed the Care Plan did not reflect Resident 67's preference of a bath. Staff C confirmed Resident 67 did not receive their stated preferred bathing type and did not receive bathing twice a week.
Resident 171
Resident 171 admitted to the facility on [DATE] and according to the 10/29/2021 admission MDS was assessed as cognitively intact, and able to understand and be understand in conversation. This assessment showed it was very important to choose between a tub bath, shower, bed bath or sponge bath.
In an interview on 11/01/2021 at 12:13 PM, Resident 171 stated, I prefer a shower, I only got a wash up once since admission. I mean I cleaned up with a washcloth, but I need a shower.
According to the 10/27/2021 Activity Assessment Resident 171 preferred showers. According to the undated [NAME], Bathing (Prefers: SPECIFY).
Record review on 11/03/2021 showed staff documented Resident 171 received one bed bath since admission on [DATE].
In an interview on 11/03/2021 at 12:35 PM Staff C indicated the [NAME] should, but did not, reflect the resident's assessed bathing preference and confirmed the resident did not, but should have, received a shower prior to 11/03/2021, 13 days after admission.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0582
(Tag F0582)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide a Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC) for 3 (Residents 218, 66 & 32) of 3 residents, and Skilled Nursing Facility Advance Benef...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide a Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC) for 3 (Residents 218, 66 & 32) of 3 residents, and Skilled Nursing Facility Advance Beneficiary Notices (ABN) for 2 (Residents 66 & 32) of 2 residents reviewed who required them. These failures placed residents at risk of not being informed of their appeal rights prior to the end of Medicare covered services and did not uphold their right to make informed choices about further treatment or services, as required by the Medicare Program.
Findings included .
Resident 218
Record review showed Resident 218 started Medicare part A services on 07/22/2021. According to information provided by the facility on the Beneficiary Notice, BN worksheet, Resident 218's last covered day (LCD) was 08/03/2021.
During an interview on 11/04/2021 at 2:15 PM, when asked for Resident 218's NOMNC Staff B (Administrator in Training), stated, I can't find it.
Resident 66
Record review showed Resident 66 started Medicare part A services on 05/23/2021. According to information provided by the facility on the BN worksheet, Resident 66 had a LCD of 06/24/2021, and remained in the facility after the skilled services ended.
During an interview on 11/04/2021 at 2:15 PM, Staff B stated, I couldn't find a NOMNC. Staff B provided an ABN, but acknowledged it was not signed by Resident 66.
Resident 32
Record review showed Resident 32 started Medicare part A services on 05/05/2021. According to information provided by the facility on the Beneficiary Notice, BN worksheet, Resident 32 had a LCD of 05/21/2021, and remained in the facility after the skilled services ended.
On 11/04/2021 at 2:15 PM, Staff B provided a signed NOMNC with an identified LCD of 05/21/2021 and a signed ABN. Review of the NOMNC showed the date the NOMNC was presented to the resident and the date the resident signed were left blank. Review of the ABN showed similar findings, although the resident signed an ABN, the form had no date on it. In an interview at that time Staff B acknowledged that in the absence of dates, it could not be determined if the NOMNC and ABN were provided prior to the LCD as required.
REFERENCE: WAC 388-97-0300(1)(e)
.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0625
(Tag F0625)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY**
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure a system which at the time of transfer of a resident for hos...
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 a system which at the time of transfer of a resident for hospitalization or therapeutic leave, the resident and/or the resident representative received written notice which specified the duration of the bed-hold policy for 4 (Residents 54, 268, 61 & 10) of 7 residents reviewed for hospitalization.
Findings included .
Resident 54
Resident 54 admitted to the facility on [DATE]. According to a 10/07/2021 Discharge Minimum Data Set (MDS - an assessment tool), the resident was discharged to an acute care hospital on [DATE], Return anticipated. Resident 54 re-admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Similarly, a 10/21/2021 Discharge MDS showed Resident 54 discharged to to an acute care hospital, Return anticipated. Resident 54 re-admitted to the facility on [DATE]
Record review revealed no indication Resident 54 was provided bed hold information for the two occasion they discharged to hospital.
Resident 268
Resident 268 admitted to the facility on [DATE]. According to a 11/01/2021 Nursing progress notes, Resident was admitted to the hospital from an Orthopedic appointment.
Record review revealed no indication Resident 268 was provided information regarding the bed hold policy for discharge to hospital.
On 11/08/2021 at 1:50 PM, Staff C (Director of Nursing) acknowledged the above finding and revealed discharge nurses are responsible to provide bed hold notification and document on progress notes.
Resident 61
Record review showed Resident 61 admitted to the facility on [DATE]. According to a 10/07/2021 Discharge MDS, the resident was discharged to an acute care hospital on [DATE], Return anticipated. Resident 54 re-admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Record review revealed no evidence bed hold information was conveyed to the resident, or the resident's representative.
In an interview on 11/09/2021 at 12:07 PM, Staff B (Administrator in Training) stated the facility did not have a process for the bed hold requirement and confirmed Resident 61 was not provided the required bed hold information.
Resident 10
Record review showed Resident 10 admitted to the facility on [DATE]. According to progress notes the resident was transferred to the hospital on [DATE]. Record review showed no indication Resident 10 received any bed hold notification.
In an interview on 11/09/2021 at 3:10 PM, Staff B was requested to provide information to support bed hold information was provided at the time of transfer. No information was provided.
REFERENCE: WAC 388-97-0120(4).
.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Assessment Accuracy
(Tag F0641)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Resident 419
According to the 10/29/2021 admission MDS, Resident 419 had no broken natural teeth or cavities or dentures. In an ...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Resident 419
According to the 10/29/2021 admission MDS, Resident 419 had no broken natural teeth or cavities or dentures. In an interview on 11/01/2021 at 12:25 PM Resident 419 stated they had no top teeth and wore a top denture and the bottom teeth were broken and had cavities. Resident 419 stated the top denture was lost.
In an interview 11/10/2021 at 10:00 AM, Staff D stated there must be a mistake on the assessment and dental area was overlooked. Staff D stated the 10/29/2021 MDS was incorrect.
The 10/29/2021 admission MDS showed the primary medical condition for admission was right side Metatarsalgia (pain in the ball of foot). The discharge summary from the hospital on [DATE] showed the admitting diagnosis was ground level fall and acute encephalopathy (change in mental status).
In an interview 11/10/2021 at 10:00 AM, Staff C confirmed the admitting diagnosis was fall and encephalopathy, the MDS was incorrect.
The 10/29/2021 admission MDS showed Resident 419 had one unstageable pressure ulcer present on admission and was receiving pressure ulcer care. Review of the 10/21/2021 nursing admission skin assessment showed no pressure ulcers were present on admission.
In an interview on 11/05/2021 at 11:00 AM, Staff C stated Resident 419 had no PUs on admission on [DATE].
The 10/29/2021 admission MDS showed Resident 419 needed extensive assistance of two staff for dressing. The 10/24/2021 nursing functional assessment showed resident was assessed as dependent for dressing.
The 10/29/2021 admission MDS showed Resident 419 was not showered or bathed during the evaluation period and showed the resident refused. Resident 419's October 2021 shower documentation does not show Resident 419 was offered or refused a shower or bath between admission on [DATE] and MDS assessment 10/29/2021.
In an interview 11/09/2021 at 8:45 AM, Staff C reviewed Resident 419's 10/29/2021 MDS. Staff C stated the areas of pressure ulcer, activities of daily living and diagnosis were incorrect since they were based on the prior admission. Staff C stated MDS assessments were expected to be correct based on the resident's current status, and further stated these MDS areas were incorrect.
Refer to F677 ADL Care Provided to Dependent Residents.
Refer to F725 Sufficient Nurse Staffing.
REFERENCE: WAC 388-97-1000(1)(b).
Resident 9
According to the 04/01/2021 Annual MDS, the 05/13/2021 Quarterly MDS and the 08/12/2021 Quarterly MDS Resident 9 was receiving Dialysis while a resident at the facility with a diagnosis of Stage IV Kidney Disease.
The 08/18/2021 CP showed Resident [9] has renal insufficiency related to Stage 5 chronic kidney disease and on hendiadys.
During an interview on 11/05/2021 at 9:04 AM, Staff O (Resident Care Manager) stated the resident did not start dialysis and was not sure if they ever received dialysis due to the fistula needing to be repaired. Staff O stated if a resident is on Dialysis the run sheets (weight and medication information from the Dialysis Center) will be located in the documents.
Further review of the resident's record showed no Dialysis run sheets. Dialysis run sheets were requested. None were provided.
In an interview on 11/10/2021 at 9:23 AM, Staff D stated they completed the 08/12/2021 MDS and got the dialysis information from the progress notes. A progress note from 08/07/2021 showed resident 9 is going to start dialysis but is still pending. Staff D stated the resident was not getting dialysis and the MDS was not correct.
Resident 3
According to the 10/18/2021 Quarterly MDS Resident 3 did not reject care.
In an interview on 11/03/2021 at 10:55 AM, Staff K (Licensed Practical Nurse) stated the resident won't wear a gown or get dressed for the day and won't get up in the wheelchair because they refuse to.
During an interview on 11/03/2021 at 12:35 PM with Resident 3's Representative, they stated Resident 35 refused to get dressed or up in their wheelchair for a long time and it had being going on for a while.
In an interview on 11/10/2021 at 10:28 AM, Staff X (Social Services Assistant) stated they are responsible for completing the behavior part of the MDS. When asked how they determined Resident 3 did not reject care, Staff X stated they look at two weeks' worth of progress notes and they did not see any refusals of care. Staff X stated that if the resident refused care and it was documented they did not refuse care, then the MDS would not reflect the resident's current behaviors.
Resident 118
Resident 118 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and according to the 10/29/2021 admission MDS was assessed with moderate cognitive impairment. This assessment indicated staff were unable to examine oral/ dental status and did not indicate Resident 118 had any difficulty with chewing or any skin conditions.
In an interview on 11/01/2021 at 9:45 AM, Resident 118 reported they have a hard time chewing food due to only having a few teeth on different sides of their mouth. Observations at this time revealed Resident 118 had only four upper teeth to left side and three-four teeth to lower right side. In an interview on 11/01/2021 at 12:17 PM, Resident 118 stated they would really like to get partials and see a dentist.
According to the Nutritional Evaluation assessment dated [DATE], Resident 118 complained of difficulty chewing related to missing teeth and requests softer food/cut up meat and would even try puree vegetables.
Review of physician orders dated 10/22/2021 gave directions for regular texture diet was revised on 10/28/2021 with the additional information for puree vegetables, cut up meat for ease of chew.
In an interview on 11/10/2021 at 8:45 AM, Staff D stated apparently I didn't see it when asked regarding Resident 118 being identified as having difficulty with chewing.
According to the 10/29/2021 admission MDS, Resident 118 was assessed with no unhealed pressure ulcers. Record review showed the 10/22/2021 admission Evaluation for Resident 118 identified an open area to the coccyx and according to the 10/22/2021 Initial Wound Evaluation was assessed with a Stage III Pressure Ulcer.
In an interview on 11/10/2021 at 8:40 AM, Staff V stated Resident 118 did admit with a pressure sore and that it was still present over a week later. Staff V stated, it is now resolved.
In an interview on 11/10/2021 at 8:47 AM, Staff D stated the pressure ulcer was missed on the MDS.
Resident 38
According to the 09/17/2021 Quarterly MDS, the resident had no difficulty hearing in normal conversation and did not use hearing aids.
A 09/11/2018 [Resident 38] has hearing deficits care plan (CP), directed staff to face the resident when speaking, use clear and steady speech and tone, and ensure Resident 38 was wearing left and right hearing aids.
During an interview on 11/09/2021 at 8:17 AM, when asked about the discrepancy between Resident 38's hearing deficit CP and the MDS, Staff C stated that the MDS was incorrectly coded.
According to the 09/17/2021 Quarterly MDS, Resident 38 had a diagnosis of anxiety, but received no antianxiety medication during the assessment period.
Review of the September 2021 Medication Administration Record (MAR) showed Resident 38 had a 08/26/2020 order for Buspar (an antianxiety medication) three times daily, for anxiety. According to the MAR Resident 38 received Buspar on seven of seven days during the assessment period.
During an interview on 11/08/2021 at 1:59 PM, when asked if the MDS was correctly coded Staff D stated, No.
According to the 09/17/2021 Quarterly MDS, Resident 38 had delusions during the assessment period. However, record review showed no documentation to support the resident had any delusions during the assessment period.
In an interview at 2:07 PM, when asked for documentation to support Resident 38 experienced delusions during the assessment period Staff X (Social Services Aide), stated, I can't find it.
According to the 09/17/2021 Quarterly MDS, the resident was cognitively intact, able to be understood and understood others, and did not use tobacco.
Review of the Preferences . section of the MDS (In which staff are directed to interview the resident about preferences, unless the resident is deemed too cognitively impaired to participate) showed staff documented the resident was rarely/never understood, thus, the interview should not be conducted.
On 11/01/2021 at 8:37 AM, Staff B provided a list of residents who smoke. Although the building had transitioned to non-smoking, one resident (Resident 38) was grandfathered in.
The 06/03/2021 CP showed Resident 38 is a smoker and was provided supervised smoking four times a day.
During an interview on 11/08/2021 at 1:59 PM, Staff D stated that the MDS was inaccurately coded for tobacco use, and acknowledged preferences interview was not conducted as required.
Resident 30
Resident 30 admitted to the facility on [DATE]. According to the 09/09/2021 Quarterly MDS, the resident had one or more unhealed pressure ulcers (PU).
Record review showed a 07/08/2021 podiatry consult, which identified open areas to the resident's bilateral ankles. According to a 08/02/2021 wound care note, Resident 30 had a stage III (full thickness) PUs to the right and left ankles. On 08/02/2021 the stage III PU to left ankle was assessed to be resolved. On 08/30/2021, three days prior to the assessment period, a wound care note assessed that Resident 30's stage III PU to the right ankle resolved.
In an interview on 11/10/2021 at 7:53 AM, Staff C stated that Resident 30's PUs were healed prior to the assessment period and should not have been coded on the MDS.
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to accurately assess 9 of 14 residents (Resident 10, 67, 170, 3, 38, 30, 9, 118, & 419), reviewed for accurate Minimum Data Set (MDS- an assessment tool). Failure to ensure accurate assessments placed residents at risk for unidentified and/or unmet needs.
Resident 10
Resident 10 admitted to the facility on [DATE] and according to the 08/13/2021 admission Minimum Data Set (MDS - an assessment tool) the resident was assessed as cognitively intact with no impairment of lower extremity range of motion (ROM). The associated Care Area Assessment for Functional/Rehabilitation Potential indicated the resident required assistance due to a stroke (brain bleed) with left sided paralysis and a left hip fracture.
In an interview on 11/01/2021 at 10:37 AM, Resident 10 stated they experienced a stroke (brain bleed) and couldn't move their left arm or leg. Observations at this time showed the resident had to use their right foot to move their left foot.
In an interview on 11/05/2021 at 9:18 AM, Staff W (Restorative Aide) stated Resident 10 can't lift [their] left hand and . cannot lift it (left leg).
In an interview on 11/05/2021 at 9:34 AM Staff C (Director of Nursing) stated the MDS was incorrect, and the resident did have lower extremity ROM limitations.
Resident 67
Resident 67 admitted to the facility on [DATE] and according to the 10/15/2021 admission MDS was assessed as cognitively impaired and had no dental problems,
Observations on 11/02/2021 at 8:50 AM showed Resident 67 had multiple carious and missing teeth.
In an interview on 11/02/2021 at 9:31 AM the resident's family member stated, [Resident 67] really need[ed] to see a dentist and stated there was at least one tooth that needed extraction.
During an observation on 11/03/2021 at 10:25 AM, Staff D (MDS Coordinator) confirmed Resident 67 definitely has multiple carious teeth. After performing an oral exam, Staff D reported the admission MDS was incorrect and did not reflect the resident's carious teeth.
Resident 170
Resident 170 admitted to the facility on [DATE] and according to the 11/04/2021 admission MDS was assessed with no refusal of care.
In an interview on 11/02/2021 at 8:36 AM, Resident 170 stated they refused to use their CPAP (Continuous positive airway pressure, used to treat obstructive sleep apnea).
Review of 11/01/2021 progress notes indicated the resident refused the use of the CPAP. Multiple entries on the October and November 2021 Medication Administration Records showed the resident refused the use of the CPAP.
In an interview on 11/08/2021 at 7:56 AM Staff E (Social Service Director) stated the MDS should, but did not, reflected the refusals.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0645
(Tag F0645)
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 Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) assessme...
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 Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) assessments were accurately completed prior to, or upon admission to the facility, for 5 (Residents 67, 25, 35, 44, & 22) of 9 and two (Residents 61 & 419) supplemental residents reviewed for PASRRs. This failure had the potential to place residents at risk for inappropriate placement and/or not receiving timely and necessary services to meet their mental health care needs.
Findings included .
Resident 67
Resident 67 admitted to the facility on [DATE] and according to the 10/15/2021 admission Minimum Data Set (MDS an assessment tool) was assessed with severe cognitive impairment and multiple medically complex diagnoses, including bipolar disorder.
Record review showed a PASRR dated 10/05/2021 which reflected the resident's bipolar disorder but the section for Service Needs was not completed. The box indicating, No Level II evaluation indicated was not checked.
In an interview on 11/05/2021 at 8:16 AM Staff E (Social Services Director (SSD) stated that both Admissions and Social Services should review the PASRR for completion and accuracy upon admission and indicated this PASRR was incomplete.
Resident 25
According to the 09/06/2021 Quarterly MDS, Resident 25 admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses including psychotic disorder and schizophrenia.
Record review revealed a 07/20/2020 Level I PASRR that stated Resident 25 was to be admitted to the facility as an exempted hospital discharge, meaning that a Level II PASRR was not required as the attending physician assessed Resident 25 was unlikely to require more than 30 days at the facility. The PASRR further stated that re-evaluation must occur if Resident 25 did not discharge the facility as anticipated. No other PASRR evaluations were found in Resident 25's record and the resident did not discharge after 30 days, as anticipated.
In an interview on 11/08/2021 at 09:51 AM, Staff E confirmed that there was no additional PASRR documentation and stated that they did not work at the facility at that time but that Resident 25 should have been re-evaluated for PASRR services after 30 days of placement at the facility.
Resident 35
According to the 09/14/2021 Quarterly MDS, the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses including anxiety disorder, depression and a psychotic disorder.
Record review showed no documentation of a PASRR from resident's admission on [DATE].
In an interview on 11/08/2021 at 11:00 AM Staff E stated the resident did not have a PASRR completed before or upon admission and would expect it to be done at that time.
Resident 44
According to the 09/21/2021 admission MDS, Resident 44 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had a diagnosis of depression and administered antidepressant medications.
A review of records showed Resident 44 did not have a PASRR Level I assessment sent from the hospital on admission. The facility also did not complete a PASRR Level I at the time of admission to determine mental health needs during Resident 44's rehab stay.
In an interview on 11/04/2021 at 9:42 AM, Staff E stated Resident 44 did not have a PASRR from the hospital, had a diagnosis of depression and the facility did not complete a PASRR, which should have been completed.
Resident 61
According to the 10/10/2021 admission MDS, Resident 61 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had a diagnosis of depression and administered antidepressant medications.
The PASRR dated 09/27/2021, completed by the hospital, showed no serious mental illness indicators with no Level II evaluation indicated. A review of the medical record showed no other PASRR completed by the facility to correct the form and determine the mental health needs during Resident 61's rehab stay.
In an interview on 11/04/2021 at 9:42 AM, Staff E stated the hospital PASRR was incorrect, and the facility did not make a new form with the correct information to assess the mental health needs of Resident 61. Staff E stated, a new, corrected PASRR should have been completed.
Resident 419
According to the 10/29/2021 admission MDS, Resident 419 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had a diagnosis of depression and administered antidepressant medications.
The PASRR dated 10/21/2021, completed by the hospital, showed no serious mental illness indicators with no level 2 evaluation indicated. A review of the medical record showed no other PASRR completed by the facility to correct the form and determine the mental health needs during Resident 419's rehabilitation stay.
In an interview on 11/04/2021 at 9:42 AM, Staff E stated the hospital PASRR was incorrect, and the facility did not complete a new form with the correct information to assess the mental health needs of Resident 419. Staff E stated, a new, corrected PASRR should have been completed.
Resident 22
According to a 07/31/2021 Quarterly MDS, Resident 22 had diagnoses of anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and was administered antianxiety and antidepressant medications.
A psychiatrist evaluation was completed on 7/16/2020 which diagnosed Resident 22 with Major Depression, Anxiety Disorder, PTSD, Agoraphobia (fear of crowded or public places) with panic attacks and Nightmare Disorder (sleep disorder with frequent nightmares). Resident 22's medical record showed no updated PASRR for the new diagnoses from the psychiatrist.
In an interview on 11/04/2021 at 9:42 AM, Staff E stated a new PASRR was not created in July 2020 and would have indicated a Level II evaluation was required. Staff E stated the Level II evaluation would have given the facility care plan directions specific to Resident 22's mental illness care, including behavior interventions appropriate for Resident 22's mental illnesses.
REFERENCE: WAC 388-97-1915(1)(2)(a-c).
.
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** Participation in Care Planning
Regulations state, to the extent practicable, the participation of the resident and the resident'...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Participation in Care Planning
Regulations state, to the extent practicable, the participation of the resident and the resident's representative(s). An explanation must be included in a resident's medical record if the participation of the resident and their resident representative is determined not practicable for the development of the resident's care plan.
Resident 10
In an interview on 11/01/2021 at 11:57 AM Resident 10 stated they did not recall having a meeting with different disciplines to discuss the care planning process.
In an interview on 11/05/2021 at 9:55 AM Staff E (Social Service Director) indicated they were recently hired, and that Care Conferences (CC) were not done previously. Staff E stated, I am setting up care conferences, I have been doing them since the middle of October for the resident's who haven't had them in a very long time.
In an interview on 11/08/2021 at 7:54 AM, Staff E indicated Resident 10 had a CC scheduled, but was not yet provided. At this time, Staff E confirmed no CCs were provided for Residents 67 (admitted on [DATE]), 170 (admitted on [DATE]) or 171 (admitted on [DATE]).
Resident 25
In an interview on 11/02/2021 at 9:33 AM, Resident 25 stated they had not regularly participated in care planning with the facility, adding that the facility had previously sought their input but not for a long time.
Record review revealed the last documented Care Plan Conference for Resident 25 occurred on 04/27/2021.
In an interview on 11/05/2021 at 09:40 AM, Staff E confirmed that staff should have, but did not, elicit input from Resident 25 regarding the development and revision of care plans since 04/27/2021.
Resident 419
Similar findings were identified for Resident 419, who was re-admitted to the facility on [DATE]. In an interview 11/02/2021 at 11:16 AM, Resident 419 stated they did not participate in CP development.
In an interview on 11/04/2021 at 9:42 AM, Staff E confirmed facility staff did not include resident participation in the discussion of CP development for Resident 419.
Resident 61
Resident 61 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. In an interview 11/02/2021 at 9:41 AM, Resident 61 stated they did not recall staff eliciting their input regarding their care needs.
In an interview on 11/04/2021 at 9:42 AM, Staff E, stated facility staff did not include resident participation in the discussion of care plan development for Resident 61.
Resident 3
According to the 10/18/2021 Quarterly MDS the Resident 3 was assessed with severe cognitive impairment, unclear speech, rarely made self understood and sometimes could understand. Resident 3 had diagnoses including schizophrenia, stroke (bleeding in the brain), and diabetes.
Record review of a Behavior Issue CP, revised on 10/26/2021 showed the resident had behavior issues of sobbing, crying, restless, agitation and frustration when not understood, related to their stroke, schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.
On 11/01/2021 at 11:21 AM, Resident 3 was observed in their bed with no gown or clothes on. Similar findings on 11/01/2021 at 1:15 PM, 11/02/2021 at 9:32 AM, 11/03/2021 at 9:42 AM, 11/04/2021 at 9:48 AM and 11/05/2021 at 8:57 AM.
In an interview on 11/03/2021 at 10:55 AM Staff K (Licensed Practical Nurse) stated the resident refuses to get dressed or get up into the wheelchair, they won't even wear a gown.
During an interview on 11/10/2021 at 9:43 AM Staff OO (Certified Nurse Assistant) stated the resident almost always refuses to get up or get dressed.
In an interview on 11/05/2021 at 9:04 AM Staff O (RCM) stated the resident does not like to get out of bed or wear a gown or clothes. I am not sure why they do that, might be part of their behaviors. Staff O acknowledged the CP did not, but should, reflect the resident's behavior of refusals.
According to the 10/182021 Quarterly MDS the resident received hospice services. Review of a Terminal Prognosis CP, revised on 11/02/2021, showed the resident's goal was to maintain comfort. An intervention listed showed work cooperatively with the hospice team to ensure the resident's spiritual, emotional, intellectual, physical and social needs are met.
In an interview on 11/09/2021 at 1:27 PM, when asked about coordination with hospice, Staff C stated staff should, but did not, integrate this information in the CP.
Resident 9
According to the 08/12/2021 Quarterly MDS the resident was assessed with severe cognitive impairment, clear speech, usually understood and usually understands. Resident 9 had diagnoses including chronic kidney disease (CKD), diabetes and dementia.
Record review of a Renal Insufficiency related to CKD Stage 4 on hemodialysis CP revised on 08/18/2021 showed the resident was on hemodialysis (purifying the blood of a person whose kidneys are not working normally).
On 11/01/2021 at 11:00 AM Resident 9 was observed with a dialysis fistula (a connection between an artery and vein for dialysis access) to their left arm.
In an interview on 11/01/2021 at 12:41 PM Staff K stated the resident has not started dialysis yet but they did get a fistula done.
On 11/05/2021 at 10:55 AM, Dialysis run sheets (documentation from dialysis center on pre and post weight) was requested from medical records and none was provided.
During an interview on 11/05/2021 at 9:04 AM, Staff O stated that Resident 9 is not on dialysis and they are not aware the resident ever had a dialysis treatment. Staff O reviewed the CP and acknowledged the CP incorrectly showed the resident was on hemodialysis. Staff O further stated the CP did not reflect the current plan of care.
Resident 118
Resident 118 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and according to the 10/29/2021 admission MDS was assessed with moderate cognitive impairment and able to understand and be understood in conversation.
In an interview 11/01/2021 at 12:26 PM, Resident 118 stated they had an open wound to their bottom and reported they got it from being in bed too long.
Record review showed the 10/22/2021 admission Evaluation identified an open area to the coccyx and according to the 10/22/2021 Initial Wound Evaluation was assessed as a Stage III Pressure Ulcer.
According to a 10/24/2021 pressure injury CP, The resident has (SPECIFY) pressure injury (SPECIFY LOCATION) or potential for pressure injury development r/t. A listed intervention included, Monitor dressing (SPECIFY FREQ) to ensure it is intact and adhering.
Observations on 11/03/2021 at 1:04 PM revealed no open area to Resident 118's backside. In an interview at this time, Staff M (Registered Nurse) stated the open area had resolved.
According to the 10/29/2201 admission MDS Resident 118 was assessed to require the use of Oxygen therapy. Review of the 10/23/2021 altered respiratory status CP, Resident 118 had interventions that included, OXYGEN SETTINGS: O2 via SPECIFYY: nasal prongs/ mask) @ (SPECIFY) L (SPECIFY FREQ.) Humidified (SPECIFY).
In an interview on 11/08/2021 at 1:15 PM, Staff C confirmed staff failed to complete and revise the CP's, add specifications and include only the interventions that are applicable to the resident. Staff C stated they would expect the CP to accurately reflect the residents condition.
Resident 18
Resident 18 was re-admitted to the facility on [DATE] and according to the 08/27/2021 Annual MDS was assessed to require extensive assistance with bed mobility, transfers and locomotion on and off the unit. This MDS identified Resident 18 received Restorative Nursing Programs.
According to a POs dated 10/06/2020, Resident 18 had a restorative ambulation program that was later discontinued on 02/24/2021 due to being assessed as unsafe. Review of a physical mobility CP revised on 09/01/2021, showed Resident 18 was still on a restorative ambulation program and directed staff to assist Resident 18 with a front wheeled walker, gait belt with wheelchair to follow, for a distance of 100 feet, with minimal/ limited assistance.
In an interview on 11/08/2021 at 1:20 PM, Staff C confirmed Resident 18 was no longer on the restorative ambulation program and indicated staff should, but did not update and revise CP with changes.
Resident 14
According to the 08/17/2021 Annual MDS, Resident 14 had diagnoses including hemiplegia/hemiparesis (paralysis of one side) following a cerebral infarction (bleeding in the brain), Non-Alzheimer's (vascular) dementia, dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), and quadriplegia (paralysis of all four limbs). This MDS showed Resident 14 had severely impaired cognition and required total assistance with eating. The MDS assessed Resident 14 to require nutrition via feeding tube (a tube inserted into the stomach through which nutrition is infused).
Record review revealed a 09/26/2017 Physician's Order (PO) stating not to give Resident 14 anything by mouth, and an 08/18/2021 PO that stated to suction secretion as needed for increase[d] salivation. Record review of Resident 14's comprehensive care plan showed no suctioning care plan.
On 11/01/2021 at 01:37 PM a suctioning machine was observed on an over-the-bed table in Resident 14's room.
In an interview on 11/09/2021 at 11:11 AM, Staff C confirmed that Resident 14 required suctioning. Staff C stated that Resident 14 should have, but did not, have a suctioning care plan.
Resident 19
According to the 10/13/2021 Annual MDS, Resident 19 admitted to the facility on [DATE], and had diagnoses including bilateral osteoporosis (bone degeneration) of the hip and knee. The MDS showed Resident 19 regularly used anticoagulant medications.
Review of Resident 19's record revealed a 11/19/2020 PO for Apixaban (an anticoagulant). Resident 19 also had a 11/20/2020 PO to monitor for adverse reactions to anticoagulant medication including blood in the stool or urine, severe bruising, prolonged nosebleeds, bleeding gums, coffee-ground like matter in vomit, unusual headaches, sudden severe back pain and difficulty breathing or chest pain.
Review of Resident 19's comprehensive care plan revealed facility staff had not developed a CP to address anticoagulant use and adverse side effects.
In an interview on 11/08/2021 at 1:02 PM, Staff O (RCM) confirmed that Resident 19 did not, but should have, an anticoagulant CP.
Resident 25
Record review revealed a resident is at risk for falls CP dated 07/27/2020. This CP stated Resident 25's goal was Side effects of (SPECIFY: psychoactive drugs, antihypertensives etc.) contributing to (SPECIFY: gait disturbance, balance disturbance, syncope, movement disorders) and increasing the resident's fall risk will be reduced by the review date. The goal did not list a specific drug(s) or a specific fall risk.
Resident 30
Review of a .has delirium (an acute, transient condition associated with fever, intoxication, and certain other physical disorders, characterized by symptoms such as confusion, disorientation, agitation, and hallucinations) or an acute confusional episode related to dementia . CP, initiated on 07/10/2019, and directed staff to monitor for, record and report new onset of signs and symptoms of delirium.
In an interview on 11/09/2021 at 1:49 PM, when queried about Resident 30 having delirium or an acute confusional state for greater than two years, Staff C indicated the CP was inaccurate and needed to be updated.
According to the .has episodes of delusional thoughts, as evidenced by seeing a dog in her room that keeps her up at night CP, revised 08/11/2021, the resident sees a dog in her room that is not present.
In an interview on 11/09/2021 at 1:49 PM, when asked if seeing something that is not there is a delusion Staff C stated, No and acknowledged that would be a hallucination, and indicated the CP was inaccurate.
A The resident has potential for impairment to skin integrity . CP revised 08/11/2021, had a goal of Resident will not sustain a thermal burn injury related to hot beverage consumption . Review of the interventions showed no direction or instruction to staff about the resident's ability to handle hot beverages, whether cups should be lidded, etc. No interventions were developed in relation to the stated goal.
In an interview on 11/09/2021 at 1:49 PM, Staff C acknowledged no interventions were developed or listed that addressed the goal of not sustaining any thermal burns.
Review of the .uses antipsychotic medications related to dementia with behavioral disturbances CP, revised 08/11/2021, showed the target behaviors (TBs) the antipsychotic was used to treat, were not identified.
Review of the .uses antidepressant medication related to major depressive disorder CP, revised 08/11/2021, showed the target behaviors (TBs) the antidepressant medication was used to treat, were not identified.
Review of the The resident uses antianxiety medications related to anxiety disorder CP, revised 08/11/2021, showed the facility staff failed to identify the TBs the antianxiety medication was used to treat.
In an interview on 11/09/2021 at 1:49 PM, Staff C stated that Resident 30's CPs, should be personalized and include the resident specific TBs for psychotropic medications, and acknowledged Resident 30's were not.
Resident 47
According to the 09/21/2020 PASRR (Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review) follow-up and treatment plan The current goal is to find sensory stimulation for [Resident 47]. According to the treatment plan, staff were to provide the resident with a weighted blanket during times of increased anxiety, provide music for Resident 47 to listen to, and continue the Follow your Nose sensory game, in which staff would assist resident to smell scented containers.
Review of Resident 47's PASRR Level II CP, revised 09/01/2021, showed no indication that the resident enjoyed listening to music, had a weighted blanket that could be used when resident was demonstrating signs and symptoms of increasing anxiety, or that the resident had a Follow your Nose olfactory stimulation program.
In an interview on 11/10/2021 at 8:03 AM, Staff C indicated the Level II PASRR CP should match the resident's level two PASRR treatment plan and acknowledged it did not.
REFERENCE: WAC 388-97-1020 (2)(a-f), (4)(c)(i-ii), (4)(b), (5)(b).
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure resident care plans (CPs) were accurately reviewed and revised to reflect current resident needs, for 14 (Residents 171, 10, 67, 14, 19, 25, 118, 18, 3, 9, 30, 38, 47, & 19) of 28 residents whose CPs were reviewed. Additionally, facility staff failed to ensure the participation of the resident and the resident's representative(s) in the development of care plans for 7 (Residents 10, 67, 170, 171, 25, 419 & 61) of 25 residents reviewed. These failure placed the residents at risk for unmet care needs and dissatisfaction with care.
Findings included .
Resident 171
Resident 171 admitted to the facility on [DATE] and according to the 10/29/2021 admission Minimum Data Set (MDS - an assessment tool) was assessed as cognitively intact, and able to understand and be understand in conversation.
In an interview on 11/01/2021 at 12:13 PM, Resident 171 stated, I prefer a shower, I only got a wash up once since admission. I mean I cleaned up with a washcloth, but I need a shower.
According to the 10/25/2021 Impaired psychosocial well-being Care Plan (CP), Resident 171 was referred to by another resident's name and indicated the resident's emotional status could be impacted by non-smoking policies. In an interview on 11/08/2021 at 10:00 AM, Staff C (Director of Nursing) identified the name listed was incorrect and stated, That's wrong, I can fix it. Staff C stated the resident did not smoke and the non-smoking policy wouldn't impact Resident 171.
According to the 10/28/2021 Trauma CP, the resident's goal was all future will be avoided. In an interview on 11/08/2021 at 10:00 AM, Staff C was unable to explain what this meant and it should be clarified.
According to a 10/27/2021 social needs CP, The resident is (SPECIFY: independent/dependent on staff etc.) for meeting emotional, intellectual, physical an social needs r/t [related to] (if dependent). A listed intervention included, The resident likes the following independent activities: (SPECIFY). In an interview on 11/08/2021 at 10:00 AM, Staff C indicated staff should, but did not, complete the CP.
A 10/28/2021 discharge care plan included goals of The resident will demonstrate correct administration of medications/treatments but there were no interventions related to this goal. In an interview on 11/08/2021 at 10:00 AM, Staff C indicated it was possible the goal was not applicable, but if it was, there should be related interventions.
The 10/22/2021 swallowing problem CP included interventions of, alternate small bites and sips. Use a teaspoon for eating. Do not use straws and check mouth after meal for pocketed food and debris. Observation of the lunch meal on 11/04/2021 at 12:40 PM showed Resident 171 eating in their room, independently with a fork. A styrofoam water cup was noted with a straw. The resident stated at this time that no staff checked their mouth after any meals.
In an interview on 11/08/2021 at 10:00 AM, Staff C stated these interventions were not applicable to Resident 171 and that staff may have just selected these standard interventions from the computer.
A 10/31/2021 CP indicated the resident had potential for impairment to skin integrity r/t. In an interview on 11/08/2021 at 10:00 AM, Staff C confirmed staff failed to complete the CP.
Resident 10
Resident 10 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and according to the 08/13/2021 admission MDS the resident was assessed with mild cognitive impairment and was able to be understood and usually understand conversation.
Observations on each day of the survey showed Resident 10 lying in bed. In an interview on 11/01/2021 at 11:57 AM, Resident 10 stated they choose not to get out of bed, transfer or be turned because the movement caused pain.
According to an Advanced Directives CP dated 10/07/2021, interventions included, [Resident] has now stated [they] doesn't want to see or talk to [Spouse] anymore. In an interview on 11/08/2021 at 11:04 AM Staff C indicated the resident had an APS (Adult Protective Service) case against their spouse, who was now regularly visiting the resident. Staff C stated, It [CP] needs to be updated.
According to an 08/16/2021 CP the resident had limited physical mobility with a goal of Rsd [Resident] will be able to self propel short distances by end of part A stay. In an interview on 11/08/2021 at 11:04 AM Staff C indicated this goal was not realistic at this time because the resident was bed bound.
A CP dated 08/16/2021 indicated The resident is resistive to care such as turning, getting OOB [out of bed] with a goal of resident will cooperate with care through next review. In an interview on 11/08/2021 at 11:04 AM Staff C confirmed the resident's resistance to turning and movement was directly related to pain and the CP should, but did not, include goals and interventions related to the resident's pain as it related to resistance.
A CP dated 10/08/2021 indicated the resident was at risk for potential behavior alterations due to diagnoses of depression and anxiety with a goal of, resident will have no evidence of behavior issues by review date. The CP gave no indication of what behavior issues the resident had or how the resident demonstrated those behaviors. In an interview on 11/08/2021 at 11:04 AM, Staff C indicated the CP should specify what behaviors staff should monitor.
Interventions for an 08/16/2021 communication CP listed an intervention directing staff to monitor/ document resident's ability to .attend. In an interview on 11/08/2021 at 11:04 AM Staff C stated the CP was incomplete and isn't specific as to ability to attend what.
A 08/16/2021 CP indicated the resident was at risk for falls related to gait/ balance problems. In an interview on 11/08/2021 at 11:04 AM Staff C stated the resident did not demonstrate any gait, she's non weight bearing and stays in bed.
A 09/02/2021 CP indicated the resident had a Urinary Tract Infection (UTI). In an interview on 11/08/2021 at 11:04 AM, Staff C stated staff should, but did not, update the CP when the UTI resolved.
A 08/16/2021 CP showed the resident had an alteration in musculoskeletal status related to a left hand contracture. The only goal listed was the resident will remain free from pain or discomfort . There were no interventions relating to the noted contracture. In an interview on 11/08/2021 at 11:04 AM Staff C indicated the goals should include prevention of worsening of the contracture with listed interventions to meet that goal.
A 10/17/2021 CP indicated the resident uses anti-anxiety medications related to . In an interview on 11/08/2021 at 11:04 AM Staff C stated the CP was incomplete.
According to interventions for an 08/06/2021 nutrition CP, staff were instructed, Do not give resident forks/ knife on tray give 2 spoons. In an interview on 11/08/2021 at 11:24 AM Staff C stated they were unaware of why the resident did not receive a knife or fork stating, The care plan should say why we're doing it.
In an interview on 11/08/2021 at 11:24 AM Staff C indicated that staff were using a cookie cutter approach with care plans and staff needed to ensure CPs were individualized and current.
Resident 67
Resident 67 admitted to the facility on [DATE] and according to the 10/15/2021 admission MDS was assessed with cognitive impairment and multiple medically complex diagnoses, including Gastric Esophageal Reflux Diseases (GERD - A chronic digestive disease where the liquid content of the stomach refluxes into the esophagus, the tube connecting the mouth and stomach).
A 10/18/2021 GERD CP showed interventions of Avoid overeating. Provide small frequent meals rather than 3 large ones. Alternate food with sips of fluids. Avoid foods or beverages that tend to irritate esophageal lining, i.e. alcohol, chocolate, caffeine, acidic or spicy foods, fired or fatty foods. Record review showed no orders for more than the facility scheduled three meals a day.
In an interview on 11/05/2021 at 9:50 AM, Staff V (Resident Care Manager- RCM) indicated the interventions for GERD did not match the physician ordered diet stating, We are not doing this [interventions].
Review of a 10/06/2021 CP showed the resident required the use of psychotropic medications related to Bipolar disorder (a mental illness characterized by extreme mood swings). The listed goal was to avoid side effects of the medication but did not list any goals as to the effectiveness of the medication. In an interview on 11/05/2021 at 9:50 AM, Staff V stated the CP should list the behaviors the resident demonstrated and goals related to the use of the psychotropic medications.
The 10/07/2021 swallowing problem CP included interventions of alternate small bites and sips. Use a teaspoon for eating. Do not use straws and check mouth after meal for pocketed food and debris.: Observation of the lunch meal on 11/03/2021 at 12:41 PM showed Resident 67 receiving assistance with the meal in their room. Staff was feeding the resident with a fork. A styrofoam water cup was noted with a straw on the resident's dresser. Upon completion of the meal, staff was observed to remove the resident's clothing protector and tray, but did not check the resident's mouth for debris.
In an interview on 11/05/2021 at 9:50 AM, Staff V indicated they weren't certain if the CP interventions were accurate, but If it's in the CP, it should be followed. In an interview on 11/05/2021 at 11:40 AM, Staff H (Speech Language Pathologist) indicated Resident 67 could use a straw.
According to the undated [NAME] (directions to staff regarding how to provide care), staff documented Bathing (Prefers: SPECIFY). In an interview on 11/05/2021 at 9:50 AM, Staff V stated staff did not, but should have, specified what the resident's bathing preferences were.
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** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide assistance with Activities of Daily Living (AD...
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 assistance with Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) for 6 (Residents 10, 67, 118, 37, 3 & 419) of 13 sampled residents reviewed for ADLs. Facility staff's failure to consistently provide assistance with bathing, nail care, toileting and oral care for residents dependent on staff for assistance, placed residents at risk for poor hygiene, diminished self-image, embarrassment and decreased quality of life.
Findings included .
According to the 05/13/2021 facility policy on ADLs, the facility will provide a maintenance and restorative program to assist the resident in achieving and maintaining the highest practicable outcome based on the comprehensive assessment. The policy indicated a resident who is unable to carry out activities of daily living will receive the necessary services to maintain good nutrition, grooming, and personal and oral hygiene. This policy also stated the facility will maintain individual objectives of the care plan (CP) and periodic review and evaluation.
Resident 10
Resident 10 admitted to the facility on [DATE] and according to the 08/13/2021 admission Minimum Data Set (MDS - an assessment tool) the resident was assessed to require extensive two-person assistance with bed mobility, dressing, toilet use, personal hygiene, and bathing. This assessment showed the resident demonstrated no rejection of care.
In an interview on 11/01/2021 at 10:32 AM, Resident 10 stated, I am not capable of bathing myself. I have one bed bath a week. I'd like to have one at least twice a week; it's pretty bad when you can smell yourself. That's not good; that means other people can smell you too. The resident at this time was observed lying in bed, with greasy hair.
According to bathing records the resident was scheduled for bathing on Tuesday and Friday evenings. According to bathing records from 10/11/2021 through 11/07/2021, Resident 10 received one bed bath on 10/18/2021.
Resident 67
According to the 10/15/2021 admission MDS, Resident 67 admitted to the facility on [DATE] and was assessed as cognitively impaired and required extensive two-person assistance for transfers, bed mobility, and bathing, and one-person extensive assist for personal hygiene
Observations on 11/02/2021 at 8:55 AM showed Resident 67's fingernails were long and heavily soiled on the right hand (dark debris), mildly soiled on the left hand, with white debris noted in the gumline and swollen gums. At that time there were no noted oral care supplies by the sink, in the bathroom, at the bedside or on the dresser. Similar observations were noted at 1:25 PM on 11/02/2021 and at 8:40 AM on 11/03/2021.
During an observation on 11/03/2021 at 10:25 AM, Staff D (MDS coordinator) noted the resident's fingernails, .need cutting and are dirty. Upon reviewing the resident's toenails, Staff D stated, you've got some long toenails . I think [they] needs to see a podiatrist. At this time, Staff D confirmed Resident 67 had carious teeth and enflamed gums. A search of the resident's room, including bedside stand and dresser, revealed no oral care equipment. Staff D indicated it did not look like oral care was provided recently.
Resident 118
According to the 10/29/2021 admission MDS, Resident 118 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and was assessed to require extensive physical assistance with bed mobility, toileting, and personal hygiene.
In an interview on 11/01/2021 at 12:22 PM, when asked about toileting, Resident 118 stated, I use diapers now. Resident 118 indicated they try to remember to put on the call light when they need assistance with toileting but reports they do not always make it in time. Resident was unable to recall how frequently staff come in to assist them with toileting.
According to the 10/25/2021 facility Bowel and Bladder Screener, Resident 118 was assessed as a Candidate for Schedule toileting (timed voiding). Review of Resident 118's CP, showed an intervention dated 10/25/2021 that directed staff to place Resident 118 on a toileting program.
In an interview on 11/03/2021 at 12:42 PM, Staff U (Certified Nursing Assistant - CNA) stated they only go in and change Resident 118 when they are incontinent and offer them a bedpan if they request it. Staff U was unaware if Resident 118 was on a toileting program. In an interview on 11/05/2021 at 9:40 AM Staff Z (Registered Nurse - RN) did not identify Resident 118 when listing all the residents on the unit that were on a toileting program.
In an interview on 11/08/2021 at 1:30 PM, Staff C (Director of Nursing), stated their expectation was that facility staff would offer and assist residents with toileting at least every two hours to get them on a routine that may reduce incontinence episodes. When asked if staff were offering the toileting program to Resident 118 as directed, Staff C reviewed Resident 118's records and stated that it did not appear they were.
Resident 37
Resident 37 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and according to the 09/16/2021 Annual MDS was assessed to require total dependence on staff for bathing. This assessment showed the resident demonstrated no rejection of care.
Review of Resident 37's CP on 11/04/2021 showed Resident has an ADL self-care performance deficit and directed staff to give resident a shower whenever she asks, and that the resident does not follow a bathing schedule.
According to the facility bathing schedule, Resident 37 was scheduled for bathing on Tuesday and Friday evenings. According to bathing records reviewed on 11/04/2021, Resident 37 only received one shower in the past 30 days. Staff documented the resident refused showers on five occasions and that it was Not Applicable on seven occasions. Review of the behavior monitoring by the nurse's aides on 11/04/2021, revealed staff documented Resident 37 had no rejection of care over the past 30 days.
In an interview on 11/08/2021 at 8:22 AM, Staff C stated their expectation is that staff continue to offer bathing twice weekly and if refusals occur, they should be reported to them for follow up. Staff C confirmed Resident 37 only received one shower in the past 30 days and that staff should have but did not follow up as expected.
Resident 3
Communication
According to the 10/18/2021 Quarterly MDS the resident was assessed to have unclear speech, to be rarely understood and to sometimes understand. The MDS assessed Resident 3 to have disruptive behaviors not directed towards others, and to have diagnoses including cerebral vascular accident (stroke) with aphasia (inability to comprehend or formulate language because of damage to specific brain regions), bipolar disorder and schizophrenia.
Review of the Communication Problem related to aphasia, slurred speech, often sounds like bah bah bah bah CP revised on 10/26/2021 showed the resident was rarely or never understood, was easily frustrated or angry when not understood and directed staff to use signs and gestures to anticipate the resident's needs.
Review of the [NAME] (a quick reference for nursing staff) showed a Communication Section that directed staff to encourage Resident 3 to express their feelings through communication board, facial expressions or gestures.
On 11/01/2021 at 1:15 PM Resident 3 was observed yelling out Hey! multiple times and pointing their finger with their left hand. Similar observations on 11/04/2021 at 12:20 PM, 11/05/2021 at 11:26 AM and 11/08/2021 at 2:23 PM. No communication board or communication cards/ pictures were observed in the resident's room.
In an interview on 11/10/2021 at 9:43 AM, Staff OO (CNA) stated that staff had to guess the resident needs and that Resident 3 got easily frustrated when staff did not understand what they need. Staff OO stated they believed a communication board or pictures of needs (toilet, pain, food) would help staff communicate better with the resident.
During a duo interview on 11/10/2021 at 10:14 AM with Staff O (Resident Care Manager - RCM) and Staff K (Licensed Practical Nurse) stated that the resident had poor vision so they would require large print or large pictures so they could see it but agreed it could be helpful to communicate with the resident.
Oral Care
According to the 10/18/2021 Quarterly MDS the resident was assessed to require one-person extensive assistance with personal hygiene and was dependent on staff for bathing.
Review of a Potential alteration in oral hygiene related to natural teeth with some teeth missing CP revised on 08/05/2021 directed staff to assist resident in proper teeth brushing.
On 11/02/2021 at 9:32 AM Resident 3 was observed with natural teeth, some teeth missing. Resident 3's teeth were unclean with debris in between teeth. Resident 3 was asked if staff assist with teeth brushing and resident responded no. A toothbrush and toothpaste was observed unopened on the bedside table.
On 11/03/2021 at 9:42 AM Resident 3 was observed lying in bed, with the toothbrush and toothpaste still unopened at the bedside. Resident 3's teeth were not to be brushed, with white debris and particles in between multiple teeth.
On 11/04/2021 at 9:48 AM two toothbrushes and three tubes of toothpaste were observed in the resident top dresser drawer.
On 11/05/2021 at 8:57 AM Resident 3 replied no, when asked if staff assisted with teeth brushing.
On 11/08/2021 at 10:36 AM Resident 3 was observed with whitish particles in between their teeth, which were not brushed.
In an interview on 11/10/2021 at 9:43 AM Staff OO stated that if staff set the resident up they would brush their own teeth, but they would not allow staff to help them.
During an interview on 11/09/2021 at 1:27 PM Staff C stated they expected oral care to be completed every morning, after each meal and at night for the resident. If the resident refused oral care they expected staff to re-approach the resident, educate the resident on risks and benefits, document and write a progress note, as well as notify the Physician.
Resident 419
According to a 10/29/2021 admission MDS, Resident 419 was re-admitted to the facility on [DATE], was assessed to be cognitively intact, make their own decisions and make their needs known. Resident 419 was assessed to need assistance with oral hygiene and was dependent for bathing.
Showers not Provided
In an interview and observation on 11/01/2021 at 12:25 PM, Resident 419 stated they had not had a bath since re-admission on [DATE]. Resident 419 was wearing a brief and a hospital gown. The skin on Resident 419's arms and legs was dry and flaking with skin flakes observed on their sheets. Resident 419's hair was unbrushed and matted, and the fingernails on their left hand were long.
Review of Resident 419's shower documentation for October and November 2021 showed no shower was provided between 10/21/2021 and 11/2/2021. The CP showed showers were scheduled on Mondays and Thursdays. The shower schedule showed showers were scheduled on Wednesdays and Saturdays.
In an interview on 11/04/2021 at 10:15 AM Staff V (RCM), reviewed the shower documentation and confirmed a shower was not offered or provided to Resident 419 between 10/21/2021 and 11/2/2021.
Oral Care not Provided
In an interview and observation on 11/01/2021 at 12:25 PM, Resident 419 stated they had not brushed their teeth since moving rooms on 10/29/2021. The inside of Resident 419's mouth was observed with white film on their tongue and the roof of their mouth, and the surface of their lower teeth had food debris. There was a new, unused toothbrush and toothpaste in the top dresser drawer.
In an interview on 11/02/2021 at 9:02 AM, Staff S (CNA) stated the care instructions showed Resident 419 needed assistance with oral care and total assistance with showering. Staff S stated shower days were Wednesday and Saturday evenings.
In an interview and observation on 11/02/2021 at 11:05 AM, Resident 419 stated they still had not received any oral care. Resident 419 stated their belongings were still in another room in the facility. A toothbrush and toothpaste were still observed unused in the dresser drawer. Resident 419 said they would ask staff for assistance to brush their teeth.
In an observation on 11/04/2021 at 10:25 AM, Resident 419 told Staff R (RN) they did not receive any oral care since 10/29/2021. Staff R asked Staff S about oral care and was told it would be done after lunch. Staff S looked at the care instructions on the tablet on the wall and there were no directions to the caregivers to assist Resident 419 to brush their teeth.
In an interview on 11/05/2021 at 11:00 AM, Staff C stated the CP for Resident 419 was currently closed and being updated for new admission. Staff C stated it is expected the CP is followed and oral care is provided per the CP. When asked if a CP was in place and available for staff between 11/03/2021 to 11/05/2021 Staff C said, No.
In an observation on 11/08/2021 at 12:08 PM, Resident 419 moved their tongue around in their mouth and stated they had not brushed their teeth for days and needed to brush their teeth. There was a white film on the surface of the tongue and debris on the lower teeth and dried saliva-like fluid on the chin below the mouth. The new toothbrush and toothpaste were in the top drawer of the dresser, the toothbrush was dry, and the paste was not squeezed.
On 11/08/20201 at 12:08 PM, Staff R and Staff S, both verified the toothbrush and paste were unused and there were no other oral care supplies in the room or bathroom. Staff R and Staff S confirmed oral care had not been done if the toothbrush and paste had not been used. Staff R stated oral care is supposed to be done at least daily.
REFERENCE: WAC 388-97-1060(2)(c).
.
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** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure 4 (Residents 67, 25, 3 & 118) of 9 sample resid...
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 4 (Residents 67, 25, 3 & 118) of 9 sample residents, and 1 supplemental resident (Resident 13), reviewed for activities received meaningful activities to meet their leisure and psychosocial goals. This failure placed residents at risk for diminished quality of life.
Findings included .
Resident 67
Resident 67 admitted to the facility on [DATE] and according to the 10/15/2021 admission Minimum Data Set (MDS an assessment tool) was assessed as cognitively impaired, sometimes understands and sometimes understood conversations. This MDS showed the resident indicated it was very important to keep up with the news, somewhat important to do things with groups of people and very important to do favorite activities and go outside to get fresh air when the weather is good.
In an interview on 11/02/2021 at 9:20 AM the resident's family member stated they enjoyed country and blue grass music. The family member indicated they were not aware if the resident was offered or participated in activities and stated, I think [they] would enjoy getting out and seeing other people and having the phone has Pandora [a music application] but I don't know if they help [them] with that.
In an interview on 11/02/2021 at 10:56 AM, Resident 67 indicated they enjoyed music and would like a tape player.
The 10/13/2021 Activity Assessment confirmed a past interest in big band and country music. According to this assessment, Resident 67 was assessed as interested in participating in activities while in the facility, preferring small groups and one-to-one activities. The resident was identified as wishing to go on outings and liking independent activities. Staff assessed that activities did not need to be modified to accommodate cognitive deficits, and the resident had no limitations or special needs to participate in activities but did require assistance to get to activities. Staff identified a past interest in painting with past and current interest in outings and football. Television was identified as a past and current interest for comedy, drama, movies and the news. Staff documented, (Resident) prefers independent activities of leisure, but will observe group activities of choice.
Care Plan documents dated 10/27/2021 showed, The resident has little or no activity involvement, he prefers in-room activities of leisure and observing groups of interest. Interventions included, The resident needs a variety of activity types and locations to maintain interests and The resident needs assistance/escort to activity functions. Establish and record the resident's prior level of activity involvement and interests by talking with the resident, caregivers, and family on admission and as necessary. A 10/18/2021 falls CP directed staff to Encourage the resident to participate in activities that promote exercise, physical activity for strengthening and improved mobility.
Observations of the room on 11/01/2021, 11/02/2021, 11/03/2021, and 11/04/2021 showed no radio or mechanism to play music and no readily available individual activities (puzzles, reading or drawing material).
Review of activity records showed the resident did not participate in any group activities as identified in the activity assessment. Of the 27 days reviewed, staff documented the resident had resting/relaxing on five days, TV on 12 days, reading on two days and a walk/stroll on one day.
In an interview on 11/05/2021 at approximately 1:40 PM, Staff J (Activities Supervisor) indicated Resident 67 had a radio in their room. Observations at that time showed no radio in the resident's room. Staff J stated that an Activity Pack was provided to the resident which included coloring activities. The referenced Activity Pack was found stacked under some papers on the resident's bedside stand. No coloring utensils were noted.
In an interview on 11/05/2021 at approximately 1:40 PM, when asked about Resident 67's lack of activities offered, Staff J indicated they believed the activity assistant offered activities but the resident refused. Staff J was asked to provide documentation to support the resident was offered activities according to the assessments and care plans. No information was provided.
Resident 25
In an interview on 11/02/2021 at 09:23 AM, Resident 25 stated that they had some dissatisfaction with the activities program they were provided. I wanted to play bingo and I can't get there by myself. They said they would come get me, but they never do.
Review of Resident 25's Group Activities participation record showed no invitations by facility staff to participate in bingo over the 30 days from 10/07/2021 to 11/05/2021. A review of Resident 25's progress notes revealed no invitations or refusals to participate in bingo.
A review of the facility's October and November Activities Calendars revealed bingo was offered to residents every Tuesday and Thursday afternoon at 2:00 PM. In an interview on 11/05/2021 at 11:15 AM, Resident 25 stated that they had not been invited to bingo on the previous Tuesday and Thursday.
Review of Resident 25's Electronic Health Record (EHR) revealed the last time Resident 25's activities interests were assessed was 04/21/2021.
In an interview on 11/05/2021 at 11:26 AM, Staff J stated that residents' activity interests should be assessed quarterly because their needs and interests in activities can change over time. Staff J did not provide any record of bingo being offered to or refused by Resident 25.
Resident 118
According to the 10/29/2021 admission MDS, Resident 118 admitted to the facility on [DATE] and was assessed to require two-person physical assistance for bed mobility and transfers. This MDS assessed Resident 118 with clear speech, able to understand and be understood in conversation, and showed the resident indicated it was very important to them to do things with groups of people and do their favorite activities.
Review of the 10/29/2201 Activities Assessment identified that Resident 118 prefers to participate in activities while in the facility, prefers to participate in small and large groups, and likes independent activities. Staff documented the resident will, need assistance to go to and from activities of interest and that Resident 118 was interested in group activities (i.e., Bingo, coffee social).
In an interview on 11/01/2021 at 12:05 PM, Resident 118 stated they would like to go to activities and enjoyed bingo, puzzles, and needlepoint. In an interview on 11/02/2021 at 10:09 AM, when asked if they have been to any activities, Resident 118 stated they would love to go to bingo if they can get me up in wheelchair.
Observations on 11/03/2021 at 10:05 AM revealed residents gathered in the dining room during an activity. Observation on 11/03/2021 at 10:10 AM showed Resident 118 was in their room in bed. In an interview at this time Resident 118 stated they were not invited to attend the activity.
Record review on 11/03/2021 showed Resident 118 did not have a CP regarding activities. Review of activity records on 11/06/2021 showed Resident 118 did not participate in any group activities as they indicated they were interested in.
In an interview on 11/08/2021 at 11:37 AM, Staff J stated there was not, but should have been an activities CP in place prior to 11/04/2021. Staff J stated Resident 118 had not been invited or assisted to activities as identified in the activity assessment.
Resident 3
According to the 10/18/2021 Quarterly MDS the resident was assessed to have severe cognitive impairment, unclear speech, rarely understood and sometimes understands others. The MDS showed the resident preferred listening to music, doing things with groups of people, participating in favorite activities and spending time outdoors.
In an interview on 11/03/2021 at 12:35 PM Resident 3's family member indicated the resident loves music, especially gospel and old quartet bands, and that the resident was a very artistic person who enjoyed the piano, drawing, artwork, old movies and being outside.
Resident 3's CP included an Activity deficit as evidenced by CVA (Cerebral Vascular Accident) with left sided weakness, bi-polar schizophrenic, depression and limited verbal expression CP revised on 07/04/2020 with a goal to participate two times a week. Interventions included the resident's interest in playing the piano, old time horror movies, plants/[NAME], cooking, being outdoors, singing, old time quartet and gospel music.
Review of Activity Participation showed on 10/25/2021 staff spent 5 minutes talking and reminiscing with the resident and on 10/27/2021 activity staff spent 5 minutes with the resident for refreshments and snacks. No activity participation was documented as offered or refused from 10/28/21-11/03/2021.
On 11/01/2021 at 11:21 AM, and 1:15 PM the resident was observed laying in their bed with the television on. Similar observations were made on 11/02/2021 at 9:32 AM and 1:20 PM, on 11/03/2021 at 9:42 AM and 2:12 PM, on 11/04/2021 at 9:48 AM and 11:54 PM, 11/05/2021 at 8:57 AM and 11:29 AM. No radio or music playing devices were observed in the room.
In an interview on 11/05/2021 at 12:42 PM Staff J stated the activity department drops off a daily chronicle and does one-on-one visits with the resident. Staff J further stated this is the first week the facility resumed group activities. When asked if group activities were appropriate for a resident who refused to get up, Staff J replied they were not. When asked about music, as identified on the CP, Staff J stated that a radio might be appropriate for a resident who enjoyed music and confirmed the resident did not have a radio in the room or a sign in the room to direct staff which television channels were the music channels.
Resident 13
During the Resident Council meeting on 11/04/2021 at 10:22 AM, Resident 13 asked why some residents can go outside to smoke when the residents who don't smoke weren't permitted to go outside.
According to the 04/25/2021 Resident is at risk for impaired psychosocial well-being . Care Plan (CP), Resident 13 was at risk of impaired psychosocial wellbeing due to COVID-19 restrictions required at that time and identified lack of access to outside activities as a cause.
Record review revealed a 07/08/2021 progress note that stated Resident 13 enjoys being outside and spending time with other people.
In an interview on 11/08/2021 at 12:30 PM, Staff J stated currently there was no program in the facility allowing residents who did not smoke the opportunity to access the outdoors. Staff J added that the lack of access to outdoor activities could diminish Resident 13's quality of life.
REFERENCE: WAC 88-97-0940 (1)
.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0685
(Tag F0685)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents received necessary treatment and serv...
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 received necessary treatment and services to maintain vision for 3 (Residents 10, 30 & 25) of 4 residents reviewed for vision and hearing. Failure to ensure residents had their vision reassessed or received assistance with the use of corrective lenses left residents at risk for unmet needs and diminished quality of life.
Findings included .
Resident 10
Resident 10 admitted to the facility on [DATE] and according to the 08/13/2021 admission MDS was assessed with cognitive impairment and impaired vision but no corrective lenses. According to the Care Area Assessment associated with this MDS staff documented, During interview, rsd [resident] was not able to demonstrate the ability to read normal newspaper size print .Goal is for rsd to maintain optimal level of quality of life despite visual disturbance. Will proceed to plan of care.
In an interview on 11/01/2021 at 10:35 AM Resident 10 indicated they had problems with vision and hadn't seen an eye doctor for a long time.
According to Care Plan (CP) documents dated 08/16/2021 the resident was identified with impaired visual function with an intervention of arrange consultation with eye care practitioner as required.
In an interview on 11/08/2021 at 11:04 AM Staff B (Director of Nursing) was asked if the resident's vision impairment was related to glaucoma (disease impacting vision), cataracts (disease impacting vision) or normal aging process. Staff B indicated they were not aware of what caused the resident's impaired vision and stated that based on record review staff should have, but did not, refer Resident 10 to the optometrist.
Resident 25
According to the 09/06/2021 Quarterly MDS, Resident 25 had diagnoses including Diabetes Mellitus (DM) and was assessed with impaired vision and no corrective lenses.
In an interview on 11/02/2021 at 09:40 AM, Resident 25 stated that they once had, but no longer had glasses for vision and stated that they did not go to an eye appointment since admitting to the facility.
Record review revealed a 07/24/2020 PO that stated May have dental, vision & eye health, hearing, and podiatry consults as needed.
A 06/23/2021 provider progress note stated Eye exam referral if needed. A 09/17/2021 provider progress note stated Eye exam referral if needed.
A review of Resident 25's comprehensive CP revealed a 07/28/2021 The resident has potential for impaired
visual function r/t DM CP that stated, resident has potential for impaired visual function r/t DM and included Arrange consultation with eye care practitioner as required.
In an interview on 11/08/2021 at 12:59 PM, Staff O (Resident Care Manager - RCM) stated they did not see any evidence in Resident 25's record that the facility had made a referral for an eye examination for Resident 25. I don't see any notes. Let me check with Medical Records . No further documentation was provided.
Resident 30
Resident 30 admitted to the facility on [DATE]. According to the 05/05/2021 Annual MDS, the resident had highly impaired vision with the use of corrective lenses. However, the 08/03/2021 Significant change MDS and 09/09/2021 Quarterly MDSs, assessed the resident had highly impaired vision and no corrective lenses/glasses.
Review of the Activities of Daily Living care plan (CP), revised 08/11/2021, showed the following intervention Glasses, assist with cleaning, placement, removal et [and] storage.
Record review showed a 04/01/2021 optometry consultation that indicated the reason for referral was to check cataracts .husband requests glasses for [patient]. Under Plan the optometrist indicated new glasses would be ordered.
Resident 30 was observed sitting up in a tilt-in-space wheelchair, facing the television (which was on) without glasses in place on the following occasions: 11/02/2021 at 10:57 AM; 11/04/2021 at 12:05 PM; 11/05/2021 at 12:16 PM, (prescription glasses were noted in the top drawer of the three-drawer chest to the left side of the resident's bed); and 11/08/2021 at 12:40 PM.
During an interview on 11/08/2021 at 1:09 PM when asked what should occur for a resident who required glasses but cannot independently put them on Staff O (Resident Care Manager) stated, When the resident is up in the chair, the aide should put their glasses on.
On 11/08/2021 at 1:14 PM Staff O observed Resident 30 in the room up in a tilt-in-space wheelchair facing the television without any glasses in place. Staff O then indicated the resident did not wear glasses. Upon request Staff O checked Resident 30's top drawer and confirmed the presence of prescription glasses. After reviewing the resident optometry consult and CP Staff O confirmed staff should've been applying Resident 30's glasses each day but failed to do so.
REFERENCE: WAC 388-97-1060(3)(a)
.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0688
(Tag F0688)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Resident 9
According to the 08/12/2021 Quarterly MDS the resident was assesed with multiple medically complex diagnoses. Residen...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Resident 9
According to the 08/12/2021 Quarterly MDS the resident was assesed with multiple medically complex diagnoses. Resident 9 required supervision for bed mobility and dressing and was independent with transfers and locomotion on and off the unit. The MDS identified the resident was receiving a AROM Restorative Nursing Program.
Review of the PO's showed a 09/28/2020 order for BLE AROM and instructed staff to do ankle pumps on the right side, knee extension, hip stretches 10-15 repetitions, 3-5 times a week.
Review of the Restorative Nursing Program Flow Records from September 2021 and October 2021 revealed the staff did not provide or offer Resident 9's RP .
Resident 30
Resident 30 admitted to the facility on [DATE]. According to the 09/09/2021 Quarterly MDS, the resident had severe cognitive impairment, required extensive assistance with most ADLs, and received AROM restorative services on six of seven days during the assessment period.
Review of the ADL self care care deficit CP, revised 08/11/2021, showed direction to provide a Restorative Nursing Program: BLE Active assisted ROM- ankle pumps; knee flexion; hip flexion; hip abduction/adduction; bridging. 10 repetitions 3-5X weekly; and Restorative Nursing/Rehab Program: BUE AAROM shoulder flexion; shoulder abduction; horizontal shoulder adduction; elbow flexion/extension; supination/pronation, wrist flexion/extension; finger flexion/extension. 15-20 repetitions 3-5X weekly.
In an interview on 11/04/2021 at 12:33 PM, when asked who determined if a resident would receive their restorative program 3, 4 or 5 times a week, when a program was written as 3-5 times a week Staff C stated, it would be dependent on the resident's tolerance. Staff C then clarified that the program should be offered 5 times a week, and if a resident refuses it would be documented, if it becomes clear a resident can only tolerate 3 times a week, the program would be rewritten as 3 times a week.
Review of Resident 30's September 2021 Restorative flowsheets showed a upper extremity (UE ) and lower exctremity (LE) PROM program, was offered/ provided on only 13 of 21 scheduled days. For four of the days staff wrote that there was no restorative aide.
Review of the October 2021 Restorative flowsheet showed a UE and LE PROM program was offered/provided
on only 9 of 25 days.
Resident 47
Resident 47 admitted on [DATE]. According to the 09/23/2021 Quarterly MDS, the resident had severe cognitive impairment and received restorative nursing PROM and splint programs on six of seven days during the assessment period.
Review of Resident 47's November 2021 POs showed the resident was to receive: 1) PROM of bilateral lower extremities 1) Hip flexion / extension 2) Hip abduction / adduction 3) Knee flexion / extension 4) Ankle dorsal flexion /plantar flexion Once A Day; 2) PROM of bilateral upper extremities 1) Shoulder flexion / extension 2) Shoulder abduction / adduction 3) Elbow flexion / extension 4) Wrist / Finger flexion / extension Once A Day; 3) Comfy Splint to Left hand & Wrist 4-6 hours during day time. Apply splint to Left hand & Wrist check skin & nails for any skin issues pre and post splint use; 4) Follow your nose Kit Have resident smell various scents for 5-10 seconds, observe for signs of interest or dislike (grunting, grinding, Avoiding) do 4-8 scents per session.
Review of Resident #47's October 2021 restorative flowsheets showed the resident was offered/ provided a splint and PROM program (the flowsheet did not specify whether the PROM was for the UEs or LE's) on only 18 of 31 days, rather than daily as ordered. According to the flowsheet the Follow your nose program was not provided at all.
Resident 38
Similar findings were noted for Resident 38, who according to the 09/17/2021 Quarterly MDS, was cognitively intact, required supervision to limited assistance with activities of daily living (ADLs), and received an active ROM restorative program on one of seven days during the assessment period.
According to the ADL self care CP, revised 08/24/2021, the resident was to receive: BLE PROM: Repetitions 15-30; Hip Flexion/Extension Knee Flexion/Extension Ankle Plantar flexion/Dorsi flexion; Hip Abduction/Adduction; AROM BLE: leg extension, marching, toe raise, heel raise, foot press, knees out, knees in; and BUE AROM: front raise, upright row, bicep curls, overhead press, triceps extension. 10-15 repetitions 3-5X weekly.
Review of the October 2021 Restorative flowsheets showed Resident 38 was only offered/ provided PROM to bilateral LEs on 15 of the 21 scheduled days. Additionally, there was no indication the BUE AROM: was provided at all.
Record review showed no assessment or documentation by the Restorative Nurse indicating if and/ or why Resident 38 no longer received the UE AROM program.
In an interview on 11/05/2021 at 9:46 AM, Staff F (Restorative Aide, RA) shared that the facility currently had two restorative aides scheduled Monday -Friday on day shift. Per Staff F there was suppose to be a weekend RA but the position opened up a couple of months ago and hadn't been filled yet. When asked why resident's CP'd programs did not match the programs that were being performed Staff F indicated the RAs used to meet with the restorative nurse monthly or more frequently to update programs and discuss resident tolerance/ participation, but currently there was not a Restorative Nurse. When asked why the programs were not provided at the frequency the resident's were assessed to require Staff F indicated that RAs get pulled to the floor if the building is short staffed, which inhibits their ability to complete the restorative programs.
In an interview on 11/09/2021 at 1:52 PM, Staff C stated the facility did not currently have a Restorative Nurse and acknowledged that initial, quarterly and discharge restorative assessments were not being completed as required. After reviewing the above discussed restorative flowsheets Staff C confirmed residents were not consistently provided their restorative programs at the frequency they were assessed to require.
REFERENCE: WAC 388-97-1060(3)(d).
Resident 18
Resident 18 was re-admitted to the facility on [DATE]. According to the 08/27/2021 Annual MDS, Resident 18 was assessed with multiple medically complex diagnoses including stroke with left sided paralysis and was assessed to require extensive assistance with bed mobility, transfers, and locomotion on and off the unit. This MDS identified Resident 18 was receiving AROM Restorative Nursing Programs.
Review of physician orders dated 11/06/2021 directed staff to provide a RP that included, AROM BUE and AROM BLE 10-15 repetitions three to five times weekly.
Review of the facility October 2021 RP documents showed directions for ROM both hands, PROM both feet. According to Resident 18's individual RP documents for the months of July, August, September, and October 2021, showed staff documented they were providing PROM W/C [wheelchair] for the resident's restorative program.
Review of September and October 2021 RP documents revealed staff did not provide Resident 18's restorative program three to five times weekly as directed by physician.
In an interview on 11/08/2021 at 1:20 PM, Staff C stated the restorative program for Resident 18 was unclear and indicated the correct RP should have been done at least three times weekly as ordered.
In an interview on 11/04/2021 at 11:45 AM, Staff C stated the facility was working on fixing the restorative program as staff were having drops in communication. Staff C confirmed the restorative programs were inconsistently reviewed and assessed prior to last week. Resident 14
According to the 08/18/2021 Annual MDS, Resident 12 had diagnoses including left-sided Hemiplegia and hemiparesis (one sided paralysis) following cerebral infarction (bleed in the brain), functional quadriplegia (paralysis of four limbs) and vascular dementia. The MDS showed Resident 14 received restorative nursing services for PROM and splint assistance.
Resident 14's POs included the following 11/23/2020 order for restorative services: Splint/Brace Program: Presplinting care: Bilateral hands and bilateral elbow . 5-7x weekly for 6-8 hours or as tolerated.
Review of Resident 14's restorative flowsheets showed Resident 14 received splint/brace restorative care four times a week from 09/01/2021 to 10/21/2021 and three times from 10/22/2021 to 10/28/2021. Record review showed the resident did not receive the RA program 5-7 times per week as ordered.
In an interview on 11/09/2021 at 9:55 AM, Staff F (Restorative Aide) stated they were needed to work the floor sometimes and were then unable to provide their assigned restorative duties.
Resident 25
According to the 09/06/2021 Quarterly MDS, Resident had diagnoses including generalized muscle weakness.
Resident 25 POs included a Nursing Restorative/Rehab Program: Ambulation/walking - 150-200 feet in the hallway using FWW 3-5X weekly; Nursing Restorative/Rehab Program: BLE [Bilateral Lower Extremity] AROM - hip adduction/abduction, glute sets, ankle pumps, calf strength, knee flexion. 10-15 repetitions 3-5X weekly; Restorative Nursing/Rehab Program: BUE [Bilateral Upper Extremity] AROM, bilateral shoulder (stretches four ways), bicep curls, tricep (stretches and stretches) rotation as tolerated. 15 repetitions. Use red theraband, 3-5X weekly
Review of Resident 25's restorative flowsheets showed Resident 25 received restorative services twice between 09/01/2021 and 09/07/2021, twice between 09/15/2021 and 09/21/2021, once between 10/01/2021 and 10/07/2021, and twice between 10/08/2021 and 10/14/2021, rather than the 3-5 times weekly as ordered.
In an interview on 11/09/2021 at 9:50 AM, Staff W stated they were not always able to complete their restorative assignments as they, get pulled to the floor.
Resident 19
According to the 10/13/2021 Annual MDS, Resident 19 had diagnoses including osteoporosis (bone degeneration) effecting knees and hips on both sides.
Resident 19 had the following POs: Restorative Nursing: Ambulation Program: Ambulate using two wheeled walker with supervision 160 ft 3-5x/week.; Restorative Nursing: AROM BUE shoulder extension/flexion, adduction/abduction. Chest Press diagonal pulls. Bicep curls, Tricep Extensions. Use Red Therabands. 10-15 Reps. 3-5x/week.
Review of Resident 19's restorative flowsheets showed Resident 19 received restorative services twice from 09/01/2021 to 09/07/2021, twice from 09/15/2021 to 09/21/2021, twice from 10/01/2021 to 10/07/2021, and twice from 10/08/2021 to 10/14/2021, rather than the 3-5 times per week ordered.
In an interview on 11/18/2021 at 10:50 AM, Staff C confirmed that there were six weeks in September and October 2021 where Resident 19 did not receive their restorative services as ordered. Staff C explained there were some additional notations on the back of the October 2021 paperwork that stated Resident 19 was unavailable on one occasion due to a medical appointment and refused restorative services on one occasion due to fatigue, once due to dizziness and three times due to pain. Staff C stated they expected restorative aides to report to nursing when a resident refused services as it might indicate that the resident's restorative needs should be reassessed. Staff C stated that Resident 19 had not been reassessed.
Resident 45
Resident 45 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with Physician Orders (POs) for PT and OT. Review of OT notes dated 09/25/2021 showed, educated on importance of therapy to exercise functional performance. Reviewed bilateral upper extremities TheraBand (an elastic band for strength building) exercises. Blue TheraBand order pending.
In an interview on 11/01/2021 at 9:48 AM, Resident 45 revealed that they requested the TheraBand for self exercises and never received it.
Review of OT notes dated 09/28/2021 showed Patient (Pt) is still waiting for side rail for rolling, therapist followed administrator for side rail and TheraBand.
In an interview on 11/08/2021, Staff H (Director of Therapy Services) confirmed Resident 45 was discharged from the PT/OT programs on 10/02/2021 and no restorative program was initiated. When asked about the resident's TheraBand, staff H, stated I emailed the administrator to order them but I have not received them.
In an interview on 11/08/2021 at 12:03 PM, Staff B (Administrator in Training), acknowledged the facility failed to provide resident with the TheraBand for self exercises.
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure 10 (Residents 10, 45, 14, 25, 19, 18, 9, 30, 38, & 47) of 11 residents reviewed for Restorative Nursing Services received the services as they were assessed to require. These failures placed residents at risk for decline in Range of Motion (ROM), a reduction in mobility, increased dependence on staff and decreased quality of life.
Findings included .
Resident 10
Resident 10 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and according to the 08/13/2021 admission Minimum Data Set (MDS - an assessment tool), the resident was assessed with multiple medically complex diagnoses including stroke (bleeding in the brain) with paralysis, fractures with multiple other traumas, heart and kidney disease. This assessment indicated the resident required Occupational Therapy (OT) and Physical Therapy (PT).
In an interview on 11/01/2021 at 10:32 AM, Resident 10 stated they did not receive ROM, but did have a contracted finger/and to left no movement of left side. At this time, the resident was observed to gesture to their left arm stating, I can't move my arm or my leg. The resident was observed at this time with what appeared to be contracted left fingers, curled inward toward the palm.
According to a Restorative Program (RP) dated 09/22/2021, staff were to provide PROM (Passive ROM) to the Left Lower Extremity (LLE) and knee and ankle as tolerated and AROM (Active ROM) to the right hip, knee and ankle as tolerated. Staff were directed that this program should be done three to six times a week.
According to an RP dated 09/27/2021 staff were directed to provide a hand roll splint to the left hand 5-6 hours a day to the left hand and perform PROM to the left hand and wrist prior to splint application.
Review of October 2021 RP documents, staff provided PROM to the left hand prior to splint application on four days of the month and applied the splint as directed on three days of the month. Staff documented the ROM to the LLE knee and ankle was done on three days of the month. While staff documented the resident refused the program due to complaints of pain on 10/01/2021, 10/05/2021, 10/13/2021 and 10/15/2021, staff failed to document any interventions or offer the program for the recommended three to six days a week. There was no indication staff provided the RP for the Right Lower Extremity (RLE) as directed by the 09/22/2021 RP.
Review of November 2021 RP documents showed directions to staff to provide ROM as tolerated, free weights shoulder flexion / extension adduction ROM right hand and PROM left hand. There was no direction to staff as to how many days a week this program should occur. There was no direction to apply the left hand roll splint, there was no indication of where the free weight instructions came from, and no indication staff were to perform the previously identified ROM to the right lower extremity.
In an interview on 11/05/2021 at 9:18 AM, Staff W (Restorative Aide) stated that someone had changed the program starting in November, and now they didn't implement the hand roll splint because it was no longer a part of the program. Staff W stated they never did ROM for lower left leg, just the left arm.
According to physician orders dated 10/24/2021: Restorative Nursing Program: As Tolerated Shoulder (stretching exercises), Chest Press, Internal extension, Rotation, Bicep Curls, wrist flex/extent one time a day for Restorative Nursing with three pound free weight.
Record review showed no indication the resident was no longer assessed to require the left hand roll splint and no indication the RP was changed or amended.
In an interview on 11/04/21 11:47 AM Staff C (Director of Nursing) was asked to provide information to support why Resident 10 did not receive the RP as originally directed by the September 2021 RP documents, why the resident's hand roll splint was discontinued and where the 10/24/2021 physician orders for previously unassessed RP came from. No information was provided.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0692
(Tag F0692)
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 four (10, 9, 45 & 54) of 7 residents reviewed for nutrition m...
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 four (10, 9, 45 & 54) of 7 residents reviewed for nutrition maintained acceptable parameters of nutritional status. Failure to ensure consistent, timely weights, identify significant weight changes, and notify interested parties placed the residents at risk for delayed identification of interventions for continued weight loss.
Findings included .
Resident 10
According to the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS an assessment tool) dated 08/13/2021, Resident 10 was assessed to weigh 216 lbs (pounds) and had no dental or chewing problems.
According to the Care Area Assessment associated with the admission MDS, Resident 10 received a therapeutic diet related directly to the diabetic diagnosis and Rsd [resident] weight is monitored often. Facility RD [Registered Dietician] has evaluated with recommendations in place, RD remains available. Goal is for weight to remain stable, no s/sx [sign or symptoms] of dehydration. Will proceed to plans of care.
In an interview on 11/01/2021 at 10:51 AM Resident 10 stated, I go days without eating 'cause I don't like the food, it's not appetizing. The resident indicated that they had just eaten oatmeal for breakfast, but nothing else because I don't like the food.
In an interview on 11/03/2021 at 9:09 AM Resident 10 was observed lying in bed on their back. The resident stated, They weren't doing weights because it was hurting. They said it wasn't necessary to get weights here because they get it at my doctors .I go to my orthopedic doctor once a month.
Review of weight records showed the resident was assessed to weigh 221 pounds (lbs) on 08/04/2021 and 215.6 lbs on 08/05/2021.
A dietary /nutrition note dated 08/31/2021 showed, Weight follow up: Staff unable to obtain current weight .Res has been started on low dose Remeron for appetite stimulant. will cont [continue] to monitor for current weight & improved appetite.
In an interview on 11/08/21 10:47 AM, when asked if a weight loss was identified on the 9/24/2021 weight (from 215.6 to 200.3 lbs) should the weight be reassessed, Staff C (Director of Nursing) replied, yes, and when they saw that big of a discrepancy, they should have re-weighed the same day
Record review showed there were no further weights after 08/05/2021 until over 6 weeks later when the resident was assessed to weigh 200.3 lbs on 09/24/2021.
A dietary progress note dated 09/30/2021 showed a weight warning that the resident was identified to weigh 200.3 lbs on 09/24/2021, which reflected a 7.1% (15.3 lbs) and a 9.4% (20.7 lb) wt loss from previous weights. Staff documented, reviewed res weights. Current weight is questionable for accuracy. Resident has not allowed weight since admit. Weight loss would be beneficial related to obesity. [oral intake] varies 50-100%, avg [average] 75%. [Their] [oral] is not likely to support wt loss of current magnitude. Res having problem today and is being sent to ER. Will follow when res returns.
Record review showed the resident was not admitted to the hospital on [DATE] and remained in the facility until a hospital visit on 10/18/2021, with a readmission on [DATE]. Progress notes showed there was no RD note from 09/30/2021 until 11/4/2021 despite the identified significant weight loss and plan to follow when resident returns.
Review of weight records showed subsequent weights where the resident weighted 197.4 on 10/01/2021 and 197.6 lbs on 10/29/2021.
In an interview on 11/08/2021 at 10:47 AM, when asked about the delayed RD visit in the face of an identified wt loss, Staff C (Director of Nursing) reported that facility staff should have, but did not, follow the resident between 09/30/2021 and 11/04/2021.
In an interview on 11/08/2021 at 10:47 AM, Staff C indicated residents should be weighted for three days in a row after admission, then weekly for three weeks, then monthly if assessed as stable. When asked why no weights were obtained between 10/01/2021 and 10/29/2021, and 08/05/2021 and 09/24/2021, Staff C suggested Resident 10 might have refused weights. Staff B stated, When someone refuses a weight the aide is supposed to notify the nurse, the nurse is supposed to go in and find out why we didn't get it (weight) and see what we can do to get the weight. We are supposed to document this. Staff C confirmed staff did not obtain or monitor Resident 10's weights in a consistent manner, and that RD intervention was not timely given identified weight loss.
Staff C was asked to provide information to support facility staff attempted and failed to obtain Resident 10's weights. No information was provided.
Resident 9
According to the 08/12/2021 Quarterly MDS the resident was assessed with moderate cognitive impairment and usually able to understand and be understood.
Review of the Nutrition Care Plan (CP) revised on 08/18/2021 directed staff to monitor weight as indicated.
A 06/15/2020 Physicians Order (PO) directed staff to weigh the resident every Monday.
Review of Resident 9's weights revealed on 07/13/2021 the resident weighed 196 lbs and thirteen days later on 07/26/2021 the resident weighed 177.8 lbs. A difference of -9.9% or loss of 18.2 lbs.
Review of the progress notes showed no indication the resident was re-weighed, or the Physician or Dietitian was informed of the resident's weight loss.
In an interview on 11/09/2021 at 1:27 PM Staff C stated if a resident had a weight change, they would expect the resident to be re-weighed the next day and the Physician and Dietitian to be notified. Staff C confirmed that did not occur for Resident 9 as they would expect.
Resident 45
Resident 45's 09/22/2021, admission MDS, showed the resident required extensive assistance with Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) and was able to make needs known to staff.
Review of Resident 45's weights showed his weight was documented as 591 lbs on 09/17/2021 using a mechanical lift. Review of Resident 45's Hospital discharge record showed a weight 491 lbs on 09/13/2021. (20% significant weight gain in four days). Review of the progress notes for that date showed no evaluation of the weight difference.
In an interview on 11/05/2021 at 12:15 PM, Staff FF (Dietician) confirmed Resident 45's significant weight gain in four days and indicated that the resident's weight was not accurate and should be addressed. Staff FF further stated the expectation of any weight more than 3 lbs, the resident would need to be re-weighed and dietician and attending physician notified.
Resident 54
Resident 54's 09/30/2021 Annual MDS, showed the resident was assessed as cognitively intact, able to understand and be understand in conversation.
Review of the resident's CP revised on 09/24/2021 indicated Resident 54 had a potential fluid volume overload related to kidney failure and intervention included were to notify the physician of any weight gain.
Review of Resident 54's weights showed a weight was documented as 203 lbs on 09/11/2021 using a manual scale. On 09/14/2021, Resident's weight was 215 lbs. (a 12 lbs weight gain in 3 days). Review of the progress notes for that date showed no evaluation of the weight difference.
In an interview on 11/05/2021 at 12:15 PM, Staff FF confirmed Resident 54's significant weight gain in three days and the weight change was not addressed.
In an interview on 10/08/2021 at 11:46 AM, Staff C stated if a resident has a weight change, the resident should be re-weighed, the doctor notified, and referred to dietician with changes. When asked when the re-weigh should be done for residents 45 and 54, Staff B stated the expectation is the weight should be retaken the next day.
REFERENCE: WAC 388-97-1060(3)(h)
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0725
(Tag F0725)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to have sufficient staff to provide and supervise care as evidenced by information provided by seven (Residents 171, 45, 10, 170,...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to have sufficient staff to provide and supervise care as evidenced by information provided by seven (Residents 171, 45, 10, 170, 25, 54 and 419) of 18 residents interviewed. The facility had insufficient staff to ensure residents received assistance with restorative services (Residents 25, 19 & 10), Activities of Daily Living (ADL) including showers, care plans, required assessments, and identified preferences for bathing. These failures placed residents at risk for unmet care needs and negative outcomes.
Findings included .
Resident Interviews
Resident 171
In an interview on 11/01/2021 at 12:27 PM, Resident 171 stated they had waited over an hour for assistance and had had a toileting accident as a result.
Resident 45
In an interview on 11/01/2021 at 12:18 PM, Resident 45 stated it can take up to one hour to receive assistance after using their call light on night shift.
Resident 10
In an interview on 11/01/2021 at 11:00 AM, Resident 10 stated the facility did not have aqueduct staffing and expressed concern for what happened when staff took breaks. Resident 10 stated they sometimes had to wait 30-45 minutes, and added if I'm choking to death, I am going to die.
Resident 170
In an interview on 11/01/2021 at 01:25 PM, Resident 170 stated sometimes it took half an hour to receive assistance and that this could cause them to have toileting accidents.
Resident 25
In an interview on 11/02/2021 at 09:32 AM, Resident 25 stated it could take up to an hour at to receive assistance.
Resident 54
In an interview on 11/02/2021 at 08:38 AM, Resident 54 stated that at nighttime, it took longer than 30 minutes to get help.
Resident 419
In an interview on 11/02/2021 at 9:10 AM, Resident 419 stated there is not enough staff to help brush their teeth and take a bath.
Restorative
According to Restorative Nursing Records for Resident 25, 19 and 10 a Restorative Aide (RA) was not available to provide restorative services on four occasions in September 2021 and on seven occasions in October 2021. In an interview on 11/09/2021 at 9:51 AM, Staff F (RA) stated they were not always able to provide restorative services as they were needed on the floor. In an interview on 11/05/2021 at 9:22 AM, when asked if they were unable to complete their RA due to staffing missus, Staff W (RA) stated, Sometimes I get pulled to the floor, it depends, sometimes once a week, sometimes twice a week .
In an interview on 11/10/2021 at 11:04 AM, Staff C (Director of Nursing) confirmed RAs were sometimes pulled from their duties to work the floor.
Staff Interviews
In an interview on 11/09/2021 at 8:45 AM, Staff C stated there was only one MDS (Minimum Data Set - an assessment tool) nurse. The MDS nurse had the responsibility to assess residents in person, complete the MDS accurately, create and revise resident care plans and coordinate with the team for significant changes in resident condition.
In an interview on 11/09/2021 at 1:55 PM, Staff A (Administrator) stated they were aware of the MDS nurse only working two days a week and the staff was shared with another facility. Staff A confirmed they did not know the accuracy of MDSs, and timeliness of care plans was affected by only having an MDS nurse for two days a week.
In an interview on 11/10/2021 at 10:00 AM, Staff D (MDS Nurse) stated they were the only person scheduling and completing MDS assessments and only worked in the facility two days a week. Staff D stated they had to shorten the assessment time with the resident to get them done and has missed things which made the assessment inaccurate. Staff D stated they used to manage the MDSs and care plans of the residents in one facility and was able to manage with accuracy and timeliness and good communication. Staff D stated they do the best they can to manage two buildings and often must work excessive hours to get as much done as possible.
In an interview on 11/10/2021 at 11:04 AM, Staff C (Director of Nursing) indicated everyone had a nursing staffing problem and that they pull the Resident Care Managers (RCMs) to work the floor, so the floor wasn't short. When asked if RCMs were able to complete their supervisory duties when they are pulled to the floor, Staff C stated, sometimes. At this time Staff C confirmed restorative aides were sometimes pulled to the floor.
Refer to:
F-636 Comprehensive Assessments and Timing
F-641 Accuracy of Assessments
F-561 Self Determination
F-677 ADL Care Provided for Dependent Residents
F-688 Increase/Prevent Decrease in ROM/Mobility
REFERENCE: WAC 388-97-1080(1), 1090(1).
.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Drug Regimen Review
(Tag F0756)
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 a licensed pharmacist's monthly Medication Regimen Reviews (...
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 a licensed pharmacist's monthly Medication Regimen Reviews (MRRs) were added to resident records and that recommendations were reviewed and incorporated for 6 (Residents 10, 3, 35, 44, 22, & 30) of 8 and 5 (Residents 67, 9, 38, 47 & 19) supplemental residents whose medication regimens were reviewed. This failure placed residents at risk for delays in necessary medication changes, at risk for adverse side effects and at risk of receiving medications without required pharmacist oversight.
Findings included .
Resident 10
Resident 10 admitted to the facility on [DATE] and according to the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS - an assessment tool) had diagnoses including anxiety disorder and depression and received antidepressants on all days of the assessment period.
Record review showed a Pharmacy MRR dated 08/18/2021 which indicated the resident was on three different antidepressants and CMS [Centers for Medicare / Medicaid Services] guidelines require risk versus benefit assessment for patient on two or more antidepressants as simultaneous use may increase risk of side effects such as serotonin syndrome.
Record review showed the provider reviewed the recommendation and implemented a dose reduction of one of the antidepressants 22 days after the MRR was performed.
Record review on 11/03/2021 showed no indication a MRR was performed in September 2021 or October 2021.
In an interview on 11/03/2021 at 8:50 AM, Staff C (Director of Nursing) was asked to provide documentation to support MRRs were performed each month. Staff C subsequently provided blank MRRs showing reviews were performed but were not acted upon. On 11/05/2021 Staff C provided two MRRs, signed on 11/04/2021 and 11/05/2021, respectively.
In an interview on 11/04/2021 at 9:56 AM, Staff C stated, We get the report within 24 hours, we give it to the ARNP (Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioner) and request them back within 24 hours. There is a hang up getting it back from the ARNP. Staff C indicated these MRRs was not responded to timely.
Resident 3
According to the 10/18/2021 Quarterly MDS, Resident 3 had severe cognitive impairment and diagnoses including depression, bipolar and schizophrenia.
Review of the resident's clinical record on 11/09/2021 showed no indication an MRR was completed in April 2021, May 2021, June 2021, September 2021, or October 2021. In an interview on 11/09/2021 at 1:27 PM Staff C stated resident records should reflect pharmacy reviews were completed.
Facility staff subsequently provided a 10/19/2021 MMR which directed staff to do a trial Gradual Dose Reduction (GDR) for Seroquel (an antipsychotic medication). This MMR was noted by the physician, who agreed to the recommendation, on 10/31/2021. Review of the Physicians Orders (PO's) showed the recommendation was noted or implemented by nursing, until 11/12/2021, three weeks after the MMR and 12 days after approved by the physician.
In an interview on 11/09/2021 at 1:27 PM Staff C stated they would expect MRR's to be completed monthly and recommendations to be carried out timely.
Resident 35
According to the 09/14/2021 Quarterly MDS the resident was cognitively intact and had diagnoses including anxiety, depression, and psychosis.
Review of the resident's clinical record showed no indication an MRR was completed in May 2021.
A 06/16/2021 MRR recommended to discontinue one of two acid reflux medications. The provider agreed to discontinue one of the acid reflux medications and signed the MRR on 06/24/2021. The order was carried out and the medication discontinued on 08/04/2021, over 30 days after the MRR recommendation.
A 08/18/2021 MMR recommended to assess the risk verses benefits of the resident being on two anti-depressant medications. The provider responded on 09/09/2021 and the facility staff did not note or implement the recommendations until 10/29/2021, over 60 days after the MRR recommendation.
A 09/21/2021 MRR recommenced to clarify the diagnosis for an antipsychotic medication. The provider wrote Attempt GDR this week on 10/27/2021, more than 30 days after the recommendation was made. Facility staff signed off on the recommendation on 10/29/2021. Review of the resident's clinical record showed no indication the MMR recommendations were ever implemented.
In an interview on 11/10/2021 at 9:59 AM Staff O (Resident Care Manager - RCM) acknowledged the MRR's were signed by the provider after 30 days and stated it should not take that long. When asked what the 09/21/2021 gradual dose reduction was, Staff O stated they needed to clarify the order because there was no direction for the dosage change. Staff O stated staff should, but did not, clarify the recommendation at the time it was noted.
Resident 44
A record review showed a MRR dated 10/18/2021 which recommended a GDR of Trazodone (an antidepressant) used for sleep. The document showed there was an interdisciplinary review that recommended a dose reduction. The physician did not sign the document until 11/01/2021, 13 days later. The Medication Administration Record (MAR) showed the dose reduction was implemented on 11/04/2021, 16 days after the recommendation.
Resident 22
Record review showed an MRR dated 10/20/2021 which recommended a GDR of Quetiapine (an antipsychotic) that was prescribed for off label use for dementia. There was no document in the resident record that the GDR was addressed and signed by the physician. The signed review document for Resident 22 was requested on 11/08/2021 and 11/09/2021. No document showing the GDR was addressed and signed by the physician was provided.
In an interview on 11/09/2021 at 8:45 AM, Staff C provided the physician-signed recommendation for Resident 44 and a document for Resident 22 with no physician response or signature. Staff C stated all pharmacy recommendations are expected to be provided to the physician and implemented in a timely manner, and that these recommendations were not implemented timely.
Resident 47
Review of the resident's clinical record showed no indication MRRs were completed for May 2021, June 2021, July 2021, August 2021 or September 2021.
During an interview on 11/10/2021 at 8:03 AM, Staff C was asked for documentation to support MRR were completed as required, no further information was provided.
Resident 67
Resident 67 admitted to the facility on [DATE] and according to the 10/15/2021 admission MDS had diagnoses of bipolar disorder and dementia, demonstrated no behaviors and no rejection of care and received antipsychotic and antidepressant medications on each day of the assessment period.
According to an MRR dated 10/20/2021 the pharmacist identified the resident received an as needed (PRN) antipsychotic medication and CMS guidelines changes implemented November 28, 2017, state that PRN orders of antipsychotic medications are limited to 14 days. These orders cannot be renewed unless patient is physically evaluated by a provider for the appropriateness of the medication.
The 10/20/2021 MRR was not noted until 11/04/2021 with orders to discontinue the PRN antipsychotic medication. Similar findings were identified for a second MRR dated 10/20/2021 which recommended discontinuation of a PRN psychoactive medication which was addressed by the provider on 11/04/2021.
In an interview on 11/10/2021 at 9:20 AM, Staff C indicated these reports were not acted upon timely.
Resident 9
According to the 08/12/2021 Quarterly MDS the resident has severe cognitive impairment and had diagnoses including diabetes, chronic kidney disease and hypothyroidism (low thyroid function).
Review of the resident's clinical record on 11/09/2021 showed no indication an MRR was completed in January 2021, February 2021, April 2021, August 2021, September 2021, and October 2021.
A 06/16/2021 MRR directed staff to discontinue Resident 9's evening dose of insulin. The provider signed off the order on 07/01/2021 and the order was not changed until 07/02/2021, two weeks after the MRR was made.
In an interview on 11/09/2021 at 1:27 PM Staff C stated they would expect MRR's to be completed monthly and recommendations to be carried out timely.
Resident 38
Resident 38 admitted to the facility on [DATE]. According to the 09/17/2021 Quarterly MDS, the resident was cognitively intact, had diagnoses of anxiety disorder, depression, and psychotic disorder, but received no psychotropic medications.
Record review showed an 08/18/2021 MRR which indicated the resident had received Buspar (an anti-anxiety medication) since 08/26/2020, Depakote (anti-seizure medication used as a mood stabilizer) since 10/01/2020, and recently had Seroquel (an anti-psychotic) discontinued on 07/02/2021. Per the report, an 08/17 2021 psychotropic meeting note indicated the resident had hallucinations and the interdisciplinary team recommended re-starting the Seroquel and asked the physician if they were in agreement.
Review of the MMR showed it was not noted by the physician until 09/22/2021, over a month later.
Additionally, a 11/05/2020 MMR with a recommendation to perform a GDR of the resident's Depakote. Review of the report showed it was not signed by the Physician until 12/03/2020, four weeks later.
During an interview on 11/10/2021 at 8:03 AM, Staff C acknowledged facility staff failed to ensure the reports/recommendations were acted upon in a timely manner.
Resident 30
Resident 30 admitted to the facility on [DATE]. According to the 08/03/2021 Significant Change MDS, the resident had severe cognitive impairment, and diagnoses of anxiety, depression and dementia with behaviors.
Review of the resident's clinical record showed no indication MRRs were completed in April 2021, June 2021, or August 2021. A 12/07/2020 MRR was found in the record with a recommendation to consider discontinuing the resident's Quetiapine. Review of the report showed no indication the recommendation was forwarded to the Physician as the signature line and date remained blank.
During an interview on 11/10/2021 at 8:03 AM, Staff C stated the MRR with a recommendation should have been accepted or declined by the Physician and signed. Any documentation to support monthly MRRs had been completed was requested, but no further information was provided.
Resident 19
Similar findings were made for Resident 19 whose record revealed no MRRs evident for July or September 2021. At 1:20 PM on 11/10/2021, Staff C was asked to provide any other evidence of MRRs for Resident 19. Staff C produced a 09/20/2021 document that stated Resident 19's MRR was conducted for September and the pharmacist had no recommendations. No evidence of a July 2021 MRR was provided.
REFERENCE: WAC 388-97-1020(1), (2)(a)(b).
.
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 12
According to the 08/14/2021 Quarterly MDS, Resident 12 had diagnoses including schizophrenia/schizoaffective disorde...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Resident 12
According to the 08/14/2021 Quarterly MDS, Resident 12 had diagnoses including schizophrenia/schizoaffective disorder.
According to the November 2021 MAR, Resident 12 was prescribed Fluphenazine, Depakote and Olanzapine for schizoaffective disorder. For each medication, nursing staff were instructed to monitor for the effectiveness of non-drug interventions. The non-drug interventions for each medication were identical, written as Record interventions and outcome. Interventions: 1 - Calm reassurance, 2 - Counseling by Mental Health Services, 3 - Custom Intervention, 4 - Empathy, 5 - Involvement in decision making as possible, 6 - Maintenance of daily routine and caregivers as possible, 7 - Massage, 8 - Quiet environment, 9 - Social Services visits/intervention, 10 - Other. These non-drug interventions were noted to be identical to Resident 10's non-drug interventions.
In an interview on 11/04/2021 at 11:35 AM, Staff C stated that Resident 12's non-pharm interventions were not individualized.
REFERENCE: WAC 388-97-1060(3)(k)(i)
Resident 38
Resident 38 admitted to the facility on [DATE]. According to the 09/17/2021 Quarterly MDS, the resident was cognitively intact, had diagnoses of depression and psychotic disorder, demonstrated verbal behaviors directed towards other on 1-3 days, rejected care on 1-3 days, but received no psychotropic medication during the assessment period.
Review of Resident 38's POs showed a 10/30/2020 order for Depakote (anti-seizure medication , frequently utilized as a mood stabilizer) 625 mg twice daily at 8:00 AM and 8:00 PM and a 10/01/2020 for Depakote 500 mg daily at 1:00 PM for a diagnosis of traumatic brain injury (TBI). Additionally, the resident had a 08/26/2020 order for Buspar (an antianxiety medication) 5 mg three times a day for anxiety.
Review of Resident 38's monitors showed staff were monitoring for ASE's related to the use of mood stabilizer medication. The Resident's TBs related to the use of Depakote were identified as - Behavior presents danger to self, behavior resulting in functional decline, Combative with care (NOT refusing
care), Inconsolable crying, Violent behavior, Agitated behavior, Mood lability/swings, Depression, and Other, see progress note.
According to the October 2021 behavior monitor the resident's TBs for the use of Buspar were identified as- Repetitive questions/verbalizations, Expressing unrealistic fears, Repetitive health complaints, Repetitive anxious, complaints/concerns, Recurrent statements of impending doom, Tremor/trembling, Obsessive over-concern, Other, see progress note.
According to a 02/02/2021 MMR, the resident was on Buspar three times daily since 08/26/2020 for anxiety. The pharmacist recommended performing a GDR of the Buspar unless contraindicated. The rationale for the recommendation was that Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) guidelines required that A GDR be attempted in two separate quarters during the first year; then annually thereafter, unless contraindicated.
Review of the report showed the provider declined the GDR. Under the section Please provide CMS REQUIRED patient specific rationale describing why a GDR attempt is likely to impair function or cause psychiatric instability in this individual, the provider documented the patient was clinically stable and a GDR will likely cause psychiatric instability and exacerbate an underlying medical condition. The provider failed to document a resident specific rationale why a GDR was likely to to cause impaired function or psychiatric instability as directed.
Review of the behavior monitors for November and December 2020 and January 2021 showed that in those 92 days Resident 38 had no anxiety TBs documented for the 92 day period
According to the 02/09/2021 PMQR, the resident received Buspar and did not demonstrate any new symptom/behaviors. The assessment identified the resident's TBs as anxiety and the interdisciplinary team assessed that a GDR was NOT clinically contraindicated.
In an interview on 11/09/2021 at 1:47 PM, Staff C confirmed Resident 38 had no documented TBs for the use of Buspar in the preceding three months and that the provider failed to specific rationale why a GDR was likely to to cause impaired function or psychiatric instability as directed.
Additionally, record review showed the facility had not performed a PMQR for Resident 38 since 03/09/2021, greater than 8 months prior.
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure 3 (Residents 30, 35 & 45) of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications and 4 supplemental (Residents 10, 67, 38 & 12) residents were free from unnecessary psychotropic drugs. Facility staff failure to: adequately monitor, attempt gradual dose reductions (GDRs) ensure adequate indications for use, or implement non drug interventions prior to the use of as needed psychotropic medication use, placed residents at risk to receive unnecessary medications and/or adverse side effects.
Findings included .
According to the 05/14/2021 Gradual Dose Reduction of Psychotropic Drugs policy, Opportunities during the care process to consider whether the medications should be continued, reduced, discontinued, or otherwise modified include: During the monthly medication regimen review by the pharmacist. When the physician or prescribing practitioner evaluates the resident's progress. During the quarterly MDS review by the interdisciplinary team.
Resident 30
Resident 30 admitted to the facility on [DATE]. According to the 09/09/2021 Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS an assessment tool), the resident had severe cognitive impairment, rarely or never understands or was understood, had diagnoses of anxiety disorder, depression and dementia with behaviors and received antidepressant, antianxiety and antipsychotic medication on all days of the assessment period.
Record review showed a 01/09/2021 Monthly Regimen Review (MRR, monthly review of medication regimen) which stated Resident 30 had a failed GDR of Clonazepam in November 2020. Review of a 11/05/2020 MMR showed a recommendation to decrease Resident 30's Clonazepam from 1 milligram (mg) to 0.75 mg daily. The recommendation was accepted by the Physician on 11/09/2020.
Review of Resident 30's Physician's orders (PO) showed on 11/10/2020 the resident's Clonazepam was decreased to 0.75 mg daily. However, according to the MAR the resident only received the decrease dose on 11/10/2020 and 11/11/2020. On 11/12/2020 an order was received to start Clonazepam 1 mg daily the dose the resident was receiving prior to the GDR.
Record review showed the following nurses notes 11/10/2020 at 2:46 PM Is on alert for decrease Clonazepam to 0.75 mg, no ASE (adverse side effects) noted but they continue humming most of the morning, and 11/11/2020 7:26 AM On alert for decreased of Clonazepam to 0.75 mg with no ASE noted slept good during the night. will continue to monitor.
A 11/12/2020 provider note stated, Per pharmacy recommendations, Clonazepam has been GDR down to 0.75 mg every afternoon. However, according to floor nurse, patient has had increased behaviors and agitation since GDR. Patient does not seem to tolerate GDR and will be titrated back up to 1 mg every afternoon. Patient is at lowest effective dose of Clonazepam.
Review of the November 2020 behavior monitors showed the resident's identified Target Behaviors (TBs) for the use of Clonazepam were agitation, angry, screaming/yelling, humming, seeing things that are not there, talking in sleep. Review of the documentation showed facility staff documented on day shift on 11/10/2020 and 11/11/2020 that Resident 30 was observed humming greater than one time. No behaviors were documented for evening or night shift.
When the behaviors documented on 11/10/2020 and 11/11/2020 were compared with documented behaviors in November 2020 prior to the GDR, no increase in behaviors was noted. On 11/02/2020, 11/04/2020, 11/05/2020 day shift staff documented the resident was angry greater than one time, and on 11/07/2020 and 11/08/2020 staff documented the resident was observed Humming greater than one time on day shift. Additionally, on 11/2/2020- 11/05/2020, 11/07/2020 and 11/08/2020 (prior to the GDR) staff documented Resident 30 was combative with care. On 11/10/2020 and 11/11/2020, the days the resident received the decreased dose of Clonazepam, no combativeness with care was documented.
During an interview on 11/09/2020 at 1:53 PM, Staff C (Director of Nursing) acknowledged that according to the behavior monitors, Resident 30 did not demonstrate an increase in TBs after the GDR of the Clonazepam, thus, there was no indication to deem the decrease in Clonazepam a failed GDR and increase the dose to 1 mg daily.
Review of Resident 30's Psychotropic Medication Quarterly Reviews (PMQR) showed one had not been completed 03/09/2021, greater than 8 months prior.
In an interview on 11/10/2020 at 8:13 AM, Staff C indicated it was the expectation that PMQRs were completed quarterly, but acknowledged for Resident 30 it did not occur.
Resident 35
According to the 09/14/2021 Quarterly MDS the resident was assessed as cognitively intact with diagnoses of anxiety, depression and psychotic disorder. The resident utilized anti-depressants, anti-anxiety and anti-psychotic medications during each day of the assessment period.
A 10/06/2021 careplan (CP) showed the resident had potential alterations in behaviors related to their mental health diagnoses of depression, anxiety and psychosis. An intervention directed staff to monitor the resident for any adverse side effects (ASE) related to the medications and to monitor the resident's behaviors.
Review of the October 2021 Physicians Orders (PO's) showed the resident used Seroquel (an antipsychotic) twice daily for unspecified psychosis and major depressive disorder, used Hydroxyzine (an antihistamine) and Buspar (an antianxiety) daily for anxiety and utilized Trazodone (an antidepressant) and Melatonin (a supplement) for insomnia.
Seroquel
A 10/06/2021 CP showed the resident used psychotropic medications for psychosis. An intervention directed staff to review behaviors and interventions, and to monitor the resident for ASE. The CP did not address specific TB's for the resident's psychosis.
Review of the October 2021 PO's showed no psychosis TB or ASE monitoring for Resident 35 related to taking an anti-psychotic [Seroquel] medication.
Review of the clinical record indicated the facility did not review any behaviors for the resident as no documentation was found.
In an interview on 11/09/2021 at 1:27 PM Staff C stated they would expect ASE and TB monitoring for a resident taking anti-psychotics. Staff C confirmed no ASE or behavior monitoring was present for Resident 35.
Hydroxyzine & Buspar
A 08/24/2021 CP showed the resident used anti-anxiety medications for anxiety. An intervention directed staff to monitor for side effects and effectiveness.
Review of the PO's showed the resident started taking Hydroxyzine nightly for anxiety on 05/11/2021. An additional order for Hydroxyzine three times weekly for anxiety was placed on 10/02/2021. A 08/27/2021 PO showed the resident was started on Buspar twice daily for anxiety.
Review of the resident's clinical record showed a consent for Hydroxyzine signed and dated on 11/02/2021, almost six moths after the resident started taking the medication. Additionally, there was no TB or ASE monitoring for the resident receiving antianxiety medications.
In an interview on 11/09/2021 at 1:27 PM Staff C stated they would expect ASE and target behavior monitoring for a resident taking anti-anxiety medication. Staff C would expect the consent signed before the medication is given so the resident is aware and informed of possible risks and benefits of medication.
Trazodone and Melatonin
Review of the resident's clinical record showed no CP for insomnia. A pain CP revised on 09/22/2021 directed staff to observe and report any changes in residents sleep patterns.
Review of the PO's showed a 05/11/2021 order for Trazodone nightly for depression. On 09/02/2021 the PO for Trazodone was increased and diagnoses indicated were for insomnia and worsening depression. A 08/26/2021 PO showed Melatonin nightly for insomnia.
Review of the residents clinical record showed no indication of sleep or ASE monitoring.
In an interview on 11/09/2021 at 1:27 PM Staff C stated that a resident on a sedative for insomnia should have an PO, consent, sleep monitoring, a CP, and alert monitoring. Staff C confirmed Resident 35 had no sleep or ASE monitoring and they indicated there should be. Staff C stated they would want the pharmacist to consult with the Physician to determine if both medications are appropriate. Staff C stated the pharmacist and Physician have not been consulted on this.
Resident 45
Resident 45 admitted to the facility on [DATE] and according to the 09/23/20-21 admission MDS had diagnoses of Depression and Anxiety Disorder and required the use of antidepressant and anti-anxiety medications on each day of the assessment period.
Review of October 2021 MAR showed Resident 45 received regularly scheduled Buspirone (anti-anxiety medication) twice a day.
October 2021 MAR showed new orders dated 10/29/2021 for Clonazepam every evening and morning as needed for 14 days. According to the October and November MARs the resident received the PRN antianxiety medication on 23 occasions during this 14 day period. Review of behavior monitor documents showed the resident demonstrated no TBs loosely associated with anxiety and received no non drug interventions prior to the administration of PRN anti-anxiety medications.
According to the November 2021 MAR, when instructed to administer Clonazepam, in the morning Nursing staff incorrectly administered the Clonazepam order on 11/01/2021 at 7:08 PM and on 11/10/2021 at 7:45 PM, after the morning dose was administered. Administration of these medications were outside physician ordered parameters and unnecessary.
Resident 10
Resident 10 admitted to the facility on [DATE] and according to the MDS had diagnoses including anxiety disorder and depression and received antidepressants on all days of the assessment period. According to this MDS, staff assessed the resident demonstrated no behaviors and no refusals during the assessment period.
According to the Care Area Assessment (CAA) associated with the admission MDS, the resident reported having thoughts they would be better off dead or hurting themselves in some way and denied having any plans. Staff indicated the resident expressed that pain had some effect in this thought. This CAA did not mention anxiety.
According to August 2021 MAR, the resident admitted with orders for the following psychotropic medications Duloxetine (antidepressant), Sertarline (antidepressant), Trazadone (antidepressant) for sleep at bedtime. Melatonin was initiated on 08/24/2021 for insomnia. Remeron (antidepressant) was started on 08/30/2021 as an appetite stimulant.
According to August 2021 behavior monitors, the resident demonstrated making negative statements, persistent crying /tearful \ness and repetitive health complaints.
In an interview on 11/03/2021 at 9:13 AM the resident indicated they were not aware they received an antianxiety medication stating, I thought my doctor took me off it. The resident stated they cried, made negative statements, and complained about being in pain.
According to provider notes dated 10/15/2021, NP [Nurse Practitioner] reviewed patient's case with nurse and patient appears to be having anxiety in anticipating pain or having pain. Record review showed subsequent orders for Buspirone (benzodiazipine) 5 mg (milligrams) three times a day for anxiety, Baclofen for muscle spasms three times a day, and Hydroxyzine as needed for anxiety on 10/15/2021.
Review of October 2021 target behavior records showed no increase or change in the resident's behaviors.
Progress notes dated 10/15/2021 showed, Resident was crying for pain and pain med[ication] Percocet [narcotic pain medication ] was given. outcome was effective.
Provider notes dated 10/16/2021 showed Call received from . member of the nursing staff. Reports that patient is continuing to have hallucinations and having increased confusion. The resident has had this issue since they were started on Baclofen 5 mg 3 times a day. However they also started on Hydroxyzine at the same time. The Hydroxyzine has been discontinued. They were instructed to continue to monitor and continue to give the Baclofen. However, patient continues to have hallucinations and has been throwing things. Would like to discontinue Baclofen at this time due to adverse side effects.
Facility staff did not consider the Buspirone was started at the same time as the Baclofen and Hydroxyzine.
In an interview on 11/04/21 11:40 AM Staff C was asked to provide documentation to support why the resident, who did not admit to the facility utilizing antianxiety medications, now required them. Staff C provided documentation to support the resident experienced pain and had no significant changes in demonstrated behaviors in October 2021.
Record review showed facility staff at the time of admission, identified the following depressive TBs for Resident 10: Staff were instructed to record the behavior code and number of episodes: 0 - No behaviors exhibited; 1 - Making negative statements; 2 - Persistent anger w/ self/others; 3 - Self-deprecation; 4 - Repetitive health complaints; 5 - Hypersomnia (excessive sleepiness); 6 - Sad, pained, worried facial expressions; 7 - Persistent crying/tearfulness; 8 - Withdrawal from previously enjoyed activities; 9 - Verbal expression of sadness; 10 - Verbal expression of wanting to die; 11 - Poor grooming/hygiene; 12 - Other, see progress note.
According to August 2021 MAR, staff identified the following non-drug interventions: interventions: 1 - Calm reassurance; 2 - Counseling by Mental Health Services; 3 - Custom Intervention; 4 - Empathy 5 - Involvement in decision making as possible; 6 - Maintenance of daily routine and caregivers as possible; 7 - Massage; 8 - Quiet environment; 9 - Social Services visits/intervention and 10 - Other, see progress notes.
In an interview on 11/04/2021 at 11:40 AM Staff C reviewed the records of three other residents who all had the same identical TBs and non-drug interventions. In an interview on 11/04/2021 at 11:25 AM Staff C confirmed the system for individualized TB and interventions was not consistently implemented and both the TBs and interventions should be individualized.
Resident 67
Resident 67 admitted to the facility on [DATE] and according to the 10/15/2021 admission MDS had diagnoses of Bipolar disorder and dementia, demonstrated no behaviors and no rejection of care and received antipsychotic and antidepressant medications on each day of the assessment period.
According to the October 2021 MAR Resident 67 admitted to the facility with orders for Quetiapine (an antipsychotic) 100 mg at bedtime for Bipolar disorder and Sertraline (an antidepressant) each day for depression.
Record review showed no indication facility staff identified or monitored any TBs the resident demonstrated which required the use of either of these medications.
In an interview on 11/04/21 at 7:57 AM Staff E (Social Services Director) confirmed staff did not, but should have, implemented monitoring of identified TBs or individualized non-drug interactions identified for these medications.
According to the antipsychotic consent form for the Quetiapine, the resident received this medication for Dementia with Behavioral disturbances.
According to the October 2021 MAR, the resident admitted to the facility with orders for PRN (as needed) Quetiapine as needed for agitation. Record review showed the resident received this medication on 10/26/2021 and 10/27/2021 without benefit of non-drug interventions prior to their administration.
In an interview on 11/04/2021 at 8:04 AM, Staff E indicated PRN antipsychotic medications, should be only 14 days with no exceptions. Staff E explained if the prescribing practitioner wished to write a new order for the PRN antipsychotic, they must first evaluate the resident. Staff E confirmed this did not occur for Resident 67 and that staff should have, but did not, implement non drug interventions prior to administration of the PRN Quetiapine.
Hospital discharge records gave no associated diagnosis for the regularly scheduled Quetiapine and indicate the PRN Quetiapine was for agitation. In an interview on 11/04/2021 at 8:12 AM when asked where it was determined the resident required the antipsychotic for Bipolar disorder, Staff E stated, I do not see anything about Bipolar. When asked if agitation was an adequate indication for use of a PRN antipsychotic, Staff E replied, It is 100% is not a reason .
According to the October 2021 MAR, Resident 67 had orders for Trazodone as needed for sleep at bedtime. According to this document facility staff administered this medication on 10/10/2021 at 7:36 PM and on 10/13/2021. Record review showed no non drug interventions were attempted prior to the administration of this medication.
In an interview on 11/04/21 at 7:57 AM Staff E confirmed the resident received PRN trazadone without evidence of non drug interventions stating, I don't see any, there should be [non-drug interventions].
According to the Trazadone consent dated 10/06/2021, the resident required the Trazadone to treat dementia with behavioral disturbance for the identified behavior of withdrawal, refusing care, refusing to do anything.
In an interview on 11/04/21 at 7:57 AM Staff E confirmed staff should have, but did not implement a sleep monitor. Staff E indicated staff would be unable to determine if the medication was effective without monitoring its intended effects and stated the Resident Care Managers were responsible to implement the sleep monitors. Staff E also indicated the diagnosis for the Trazadone (sleep) in the order should, but did not, match the diagnosis on the consent. Staff E elaborated that refusing care was a resident right, not a reason to administer medications.
Review of Medication Administration Records (MARs) showed the resident was started on Melatonin on 10/29/2021 each evening for insomnia. Record review showed no indication facility staff monitored the resident's sleep, either amount or quality of sleep or identified or attempted non-drug interventions to enhance the resident's sleep.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0805
(Tag F0805)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Therapeutic Diets
According to the facility Week 1 Tuesday Diet Spreadsheet lunch for residents on a Consistent Carbohydrate Die...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Therapeutic Diets
According to the facility Week 1 Tuesday Diet Spreadsheet lunch for residents on a Consistent Carbohydrate Diet (CCD- a diet in which carbohydrates are limited) should receive Pork Roast. Residents on a regular diet should receive [NAME] Pork Roast, which consisted of pork with an apple glaze.
Resident 26
According to the 09/06/2021 Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS an assessment tool) the resident had diagnoses including diabetes and received a therapeutic diet. Review of Physicians Orders (PO) showed a 08/18/2021 order for CCD with regular texture.
Observations of lunch tray line on 11/09/2021 from 11:15 AM to 12:15 PM reveled Resident 26 was served 3 oz (ounces) of [NAME] Roast Pork, which included an apple glaze.
Resident 118
According to the 10/29/2021 admission MDS the resident had diagnoses including diabetes and received a therapeutic diet that was mechanically altered (change in texture). Review of PO's showed a 10/29/2021 order for CCD with dysphagia ground texture.
Observations of tray line on 11/09/2021 from 11:15 AM to 12:15 PM revealed Resident 118 was served 3 oz of [NAME] Roast Pork, which included an apple glaze and was not mechanically altered to a ground texture as per the PO.
Resident 38
According to the 09/17/2021 Quarterly MDS the resident had diagnoses including diabetes and received a therapeutic diet. Review of PO's showed a 08/31/2021 order for CCD with regular texture.
Observations of tray line on 11/09/2021 from 11:15 AM to 12:15 PM revealed Resident 38 was served 3 oz of [NAME] Roast Pork, which included an apple glaze.
Resident 9
According to the 08/12/2021 Quarterly MDS the resident had diagnoses including diabetes and received a therapeutic diet. Review of PO's showed a 05/13/2021 order for Renal Diet, CCD, small portions and regular texture.
Observations of tray line on 11/09/2021 from 11:15 AM to 12:15 PM revealed Resident 9 was served 3 oz of [NAME] Roast Pork, which included an apple glaze.
Resident 23
According to the 09/02/2021 Annual MDS the resident had diagnoses including stroke and did not receive a therapeutic diet. Review of PO's showed a 9/09/2021 order for CCD with regular texture. Review of the resident's medical diagnoses showed on 01/31/2020 Pre-diabetes was added.
Observations of tray line on 11/09/2021 from 11:15 AM to 12:15 PM revealed Resident 23 was served 3 oz of [NAME] Roast Pork, which included an apple glaze.
Similar findings observed for Residents 62, 53, 51, 8 & 59, who required a CCD diet and should have received Pork Roast but received [NAME] Pork Roast instead.
In an interview on 11/10/2021 at 7:30 AM Staff Q (Dietary Department Manager) stated that residents on a CCD should have received regular pork roast, not [NAME] Pork Roast with apple glaze.
Fortified Diets
According to the Week 1 Tuesday facility Diet Spreadsheet Fortified Enhanced foods it directed staff to follow the consistency of the diet ordered and offer a minimum of one fortified food item, unless otherwise directed.
Resident 37
According to the 09/16/2021 Annual MDS the resident had diagnoses including protein- calorie malnutrition and received a therapeutic and mechanically altered diet. Review of the PO's showed a 02/02/2021 order for No added salt (NAS) diet with puree texture and fortified foods.
Observations of tray line on 11/09/2021 from 11:15 AM to 12:15 PM revealed Resident 37 received a glass of milk. The milk served to Resident 37 was without a label. Other pre-poured milk had a NF (Non-Fat) written on the top lid.
Resident 31
According to the 09/10/2021 Annual MDS the resident had diagnoses including protein-calorie malnutrition and received a therapeutic and mechanically altered diet. Review of the PO's showed a 11/01/2019 order for NAS, dysphagia ground texture, large portions and fortified foods.
Observations of tray line on 11/09/2021 from 11:15 AM to 12:15 PM revealed Resident 31 received a glass of milk. The milk served to Resident 31 was observed without a label.
Resident 418
According to the 10/22/2021 admission MDS the resident had diagnoses including protein-calorie malnutrition and received a mechanically altered diet. Review of PO's showed a 10/14/2021 order for Regular diet, mechanical soft texture and fortified foods.
Observations of tray line on 11/09/2021 from 11:15 AM to 12:15 PM revealed Resident 418 received a glass of milk. The milk served to Resident 418 was observed to not be labeled.
Resident 170
Similar findings for Resident 170.
Resident 67
Similar findings for Resident 67.
In an interview on 11/09/2021 at 11:45 AM Staff FF (Dietary Aide) when asked what NF stood for, they replied non-fat milk. When asked about the other milks, they stated those are 2% milk, we are out of whole milk today so they will get 2% milk.
In an interview on 11/10/2021 at 7:30 AM Staff Q when asked what a Fortified meal means, they replied that more calories will be added, like extra butter and whole milk. Staff Q was asked if the facility was out of whole milk on 11/09/2021 for lunch service and confirmed the facility did not have whole milk available for residents. If they did the milk would have been labeled with a W.
Palatable Food
Resident 22
An observation and interview on 11/01/2021 at 8:50 AM showed Resident 22 sleeping in bed and the breakfast tray was sitting on the bedside table in the middle of the room out of the reach of the resident. At 11:30 AM Resident 22 was sitting in the wheelchair at the bedside table eating breakfast. On interview, Resident 22 stated the eggs, and the hot cereal was cold. Resident 22 stated they did not ask for the food to be heated or ask for a fresh tray of food.
An observation and interview on 11/02/2021 at 8:39 AM showed Resident 22 sleeping in bed and the breakfast tray was sitting on the bedside table out of reach of the resident. At 10:16 AM, Resident 22 was sitting in the wheelchair and eating breakfast. Resident 22 stated the food was not hot and continued to eat the rest of the meal.
An observation and interview on 11/04/2021 at 10:37 AM, Resident 22 was sitting in the w/c at the bedside table, watching the news and had just started to eat breakfast. The plate contained scrambled eggs, bacon, a sweet roll, a cup of oatmeal and a glass of milk. The resident stated the eggs and cereal were not hot and the milk was not cold.
In an interview on 11/04/2021 at 10:50 AM Staff Q (Dining Services Manager) stated the staff should not leave food in the resident's room if they are not ready to eat it because it will get cold. Staff Q stated the staff should send the tray back to the kitchen to hold for the resident and serve hot when they are ready. Staff Q stated that Resident 22's breakfast was served at 8:30 AM and when Staff Q looked at the food, confirmed it was cold and should not have been served.
REFERENCE: WAC 388-97-1100(1), -1220.
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to serve foods in the appropriate nutritive content as prescribed by a physician to support the resident's treatment plan for 10 (26, 118, 38, 9, 23, 37, 31, 418, 170, 67) of 25 residents reviewed who required specialty diets and 1 (22) supplemental resident reviewed for Palatability. The failure to ensure the menus clearly reflected the needs of residents in accordance with established national guidelines, specifically Controlled Carbohydrate diets & Fortified foods, and ensure food was palatable placed residents at risk for alteration in nutrition and metabolic imbalances.
Findings included .
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure cookware, silverware, dishes and serving areas were clean and sanitized in accordance with professional standards for food service saf...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure cookware, silverware, dishes and serving areas were clean and sanitized in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. Facility staff failed to identify during testing of their low temperature dishwasher (after each meal), that 9 of the previous 10 tests performed showed the dishwasher did not reach the minimum temperature (temp) of 120 degrees Fahrenheit (dF) during the wash and/or rinse cycles, or that the sanitizer (Chlorine) concentration failed to meet the minimum required concentration of 50 ppm (parts per million). Additionally, staff failed use sanitizer to clean contaminated surfaces on the serving table and failed to change gloves when required. The failure to ensure cookware, utensils, dishes and serving table surfaces were clean and sanitized placed residents at risk for food-borne illness.
Findings included .
On 11/09/2021 at 9:12 AM, during an observation of the facility's dietary department, Staff DD (Dietary Manager) stated that the facility utilized a low temp dishwasher. (A low temp dishwashing system still uses heat but not in the same degree that a high temp dishwashing system requires. The low temperature system highly relies on detergents, solutions, and chemicals for successful sanitation.
According to the facility's undated quick reference guide for their low temp dishwasher, the temperature must reach 120-140 dF during the wash and rinse cycles, and proper sanitizer concentration must be reached. On 11/09/2021 at 11:23 AM, Staff DD confirmed the sanitizer used in the dishwasher was chlorine, which required a minimum concentration of 50 ppm. Observation of the Dishmachine Temperature Log showed staff were provided space to record the results of one test load per meal. Staff were to record the wash and rinse temperatures and the chlorine concentration (sanitizer). Direction at the bottom of the form read REPORT TEMPERATURES THAT ARE NOT IN APPROPRIATE RANGES TO THE SUPERVISOR.
On 11/09/2021 at 9:25 AM, Staff HH (Dietary Aide) was handling the dishwashing duties. Upon request, Staff HH tested a dishwasher load to determine the wash and rinse temperatures and the sanitizer concentration with the following results: Wash Temp -100 dF; Rinse Temp- 112 dF; and a Sanitizer Concentration of 0 (The test strip failed to show any change in color). After obtaining these results Staff HH let the dishwashing cycle finish, then proceeded to move the dishes from the dishwasher to the clean section to dry prior to reuse. Staff HH did not notify the Supervisor that minimum temperature and sanitizer concentration were not met.
Additionally, review of the November 2021 Dishmachine Temperature Log showed from breakfast on 11/06/2021 through breakfast on 11/09/2021 (10 meals), facility staff documented that the wash and/or rinse temps and/or sanitizer concentration, had failed to meet the minimum temp or sanitizer concentration for 9 of the previous 10 dishwasher tests.
During an interview on 11/09/2021 at 9:37 AM, Staff DD explained if a staff member tested a dishwasher load and the minimum threshold for wash/rinse temp or sanitizer concentration was not met, the staff member should notify the Dietary Supervisor (Staff DD). Staff DD then stated the supervisor would then troubleshoot, and/or contact maintenance or the manufacturer as indicated. When asked if she had been notified of any dishwasher tests where the minimum wash temp, rinse temp, or sanitizer concentration was not met Staff DD stated, No. After reviewing the previous 10 dishwasher tests, Staff DD confirmed that nine of the 10 tests had at least one component that failed to meet the minimum threshold. Staff DD stated, They should have told me, and then instructed the kitchen staff to use disposable tableware and utensils for the lunch meal.
On 11/09/2021 at 9:41 AM, Staff II (Maintenance Director) removed a red plastic container of detergent from under the dishwasher and stated that it was empty. Additionally, Staff II traced the clear plastic tubing (which connected the container of chlorine to the dishwasher) from the dishwasher to the chlorine container and found that the tubing was severed, which prevented the sanitizer from reaching the dishwasher.
During observation of the lunch tray line on 11/09/2021 at 11:15 AM, Staff HH was observed with a handheld spray nozzle, spraying down the dirty side of the dishwashing area. While spraying the area, the stream of water struck dirty dishes in the sink resulting in a multitude of droplets being deflected onto the serving table. Staff FF (Dietary Cook) who was present, failed to take any action.
On 09/11/2021 at 11:20 AM, when asked what should be done about the large amount of contaminated water droplets on the serving table, Staff FF, who was gloved, grabbed a handful of napkins, and wiped the droplets off of the serving table, discarded the napkins into the trash and proceeded to wait for tray line to begin. Staff FF did not use any sanitizer to clean the area or change gloves.
On 11/09/2021 at 11:23 AM, when informed about Staff FF's actions, Staff DD stated Staff FF should have wiped the serving table down with a sanitizer-soaked rag, removed and discarded the gloves, performed hand hygiene, and then reapplied new gloves.
REFERENCE: WAC 388-97-1100(3)
.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0825
(Tag F0825)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Resident 61
Resident 61 admitted to the facility on [DATE] for rehabilitation following hospitalization for an acute infection i...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Resident 61
Resident 61 admitted to the facility on [DATE] for rehabilitation following hospitalization for an acute infection in the blood and a stroke (brain bleed). The 10/04/2021 hospital discharge summary showed continued PT and OT at the skilled nursing facility after discharge.
In an observation and interview on 11/02/2021 at 9:22 AM, Resident 61 was lying in bed. The bed did not have side rails. The resident was unable to move in bed when asked. Resident 61 stated I need two people to help me move in bed and I have not been out of bed since I got here. Resident 61 stated they sat on the edge of the bed a couple times but did not have therapy in over a week.
A record review showed a 10/04/2021 physician order for PT and OT evaluation and treatment. The PT evaluation was completed 10/06/2021 and showed a clarification order to continue skilled PT five times per week for four weeks.
A review of the October and November 2021 PT treatment schedule showed Resident 61 received 4 out of 5 days of treatment on week 1, 4 out of 5 treatments on week 2 with one refusal day, 2 out of 5 treatments on week 3 with 1 refusal day and no treatment days on week 4 with 2 refusals. Resident 61's last PT treatment was on 10/21/2021 of week 3 after admission.
Similar findings for Resident 419 who did not receive PT or OT as prescribed by the physician.
In an interview on 11/08/2021 at 10:15 AM, Staff H stated the contracted therapy group does not have designated therapists to this facility and there is not a regular schedule, most therapists come after business hours. Staff H stated there is not enough therapists or hours provided to cover the amount of therapy time needed for residents. Staff H stated residents are not being scheduled therapy because there is no therapy staff available.
In an interview on 11/09/2021 at 1:55 PM, Staff A (administrator) and Staff B (Administrator in Training) acknowledged they were both aware of the therapy staffing shortage and residents were not getting therapy as prescribed by the physician.
REFERENCE: WAC 388-97-1280(1)(a-b), (3)(a-b).
Resident 118
Resident 118 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and according to the 10/29/2021 admission MDS was assessed with multiple medically complex diagnoses including fractures to both lower legs. This assessment indicated Resident 118 required OT and PT.
In an interview on 11/01/2021 at 9:31 AM, Resident 118 stated they were admitted to the facility because they broke both legs and needed therapy. Resident 118 reported they have not been getting the therapy they thought they were going to receive.
Review of a physician's order (PO) dated 10/22/2021 directed staff to obtain PT and OT evaluation and treatment.
Record review showed staff completed an OT evaluation two days after admission on [DATE]. This evaluation assessed Resident 118 to require OT therapy five times per week. Review of OT notes revealed Resident 118 only received OT therapy after the evaluation once the first week on 10/28/2021, and only four times the second week on 11/02/2021, 11/03/2021, 11/04/2021 and 11/06/2021. Staff failed to provide OT therapy to Resident 118 five times per week as they were assessed to require.
Review of records showed staff did not initiate the PT evaluation on Resident 118 until 10/27/2021, a full five days after admission.
In an interview on 11/08/2021 at 2:15 PM, Staff H (Therapy Director) stated staff should have but did not provide Resident 118 OT five times a week as ordered. Staff H indicated therapy evaluations should be completed within 42-72 hours after orders are obtained and confirmed Resident 118 did not receive PT evaluation timely.
Resident 45
Resident 45 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with physican orders for PT and OT. Record review showed the PT and OT evaluation was not initiated until 09/21/2021, 6 days after admission.
In an interview on 11/01/2021 at 09:48 AM, Resident 45 stated that they had not received any therapy services since admission.
In an interview on 11/05/2021 at 12:45 PM, Staff H (Director of Therapy Services) stated they did not know why the PT and OT evaluattions were delayed for 6 days, they were not the director at the time. Staff H confirmed that Resident 45 was discharged from PT and OT programs on 10/02/2021 and Staff H did not know if the resident was notified.
In an interview on 11/08/2021 at 12:03 PM, Staff B (Administrator in Training) confirmed the facility failed to provide timely PT and OT services and did not communicate thee discharge from therapy services with the resident. The expectations were to communicate with the resident about any changes made in their care.
Based on observation, interview and record reveiw the facility failed to ensure specialized rehabilitative services were provided as determined by the physician's order for 6 (61, 419, 67, 171, 45, & 118) of 9 residents reviewed for therapy services. This failure prevented residents from attaining, maintaining or restoring their highest practicable level of physical, mental, functional and psycho-social well-being.
Findings included .
Resident 67
According to the 10/15/2021 admission Minimum Data Set (MDS-an assessment tool) Resident 67 admitted to the facility on [DATE] and was assessed with cognitive impairment.
In an interview on 11/02/2021 at 9:45 AM, the resident's representative stated, I am not sure how much rehab he's getting, I don't expect miracles but I would like to know that he's doing it or not .
Review of an OT (Occupational Therapy) evaluation dated 10/08/2021, showed Resident 67 was assessed to require OT five days a week. In an interview on 11/05/2021 at 11:42 AM, Staff H (Director of Rehabilitation Services) stated there was no Physician Order (PO) for OT five times per week.
According to OT documents, services were provided on 10/14/2021, 10/15/2021, 10/18/2021, 10/19/2012, 10/20/2021, 10/21/2021, 10/22/2021, 10/27/2021, 10/28/2021, 10/29/2021, 10/30/2021, and 11/04/2021.
Record review showed OT staff did not enter the services notes for any of the services provided from 10/22/2021 through 11/03/2021.
In an interview on 11/05/2021 at 11:42 AM, Staff H stated at lease one therapy evaluation should be done within 48 hours of admission, and the second evaluation within 72 horus of admission. Staff H stated, the skilled services should start immediately after the evaluation.
Similar findings showed a delay in physical therapy (PT) services. The PT evaluation was completed on 10/08/2021 but services were not initiated until 10/11/2021, a delay of 3 days after evaluation.
When asked, in an interview on 11/05/2021 at 11:42 AM, if the resident received OT five times a week Staff H stated Resident 67 received three of five days on the week of 10/22/2021. Staff H confirmed the resident received OT 3 days each for the two weeks reviewed. According to Staff H, scheduling services was not the problem, the inability to provide OT services was related to a lack staffing.
In an interview on 11/05/2021 at 11:42 AM, Staff H confirmed the documents were not present and the therapists are expected to make their notes on the date of service.
Resident 171
Resident 171 admitted to the facility on [DATE] and according to the 10/29/2021 admission MDS was assessed as cognitively intact, and able to understand and be understood in conversation. This assessment showed the resident received OT on four and PT on three of the seven days of the assessment period.
In an interview on 11/01/2021 at 2:18 PM, Resident 171 stated they received, one good therapy session but was not sure how much therapy was suppose to be provided.
In an interview on 11/05/2021 at 12:18 PM, Staff H stated there was a five day delay for the PT evaluation stating, Unfortunately, that's another staffing thing, my PT only works four hours Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, [they] are on call . Staff H confirmed at this time Resident 171 did not consistently receive PT and OT five times a week because of staffing issues.
In an interview on 11/05/2021 at 12:25 PM, Staff H also confirmed no OT was obtained for the OT therapy for Resident 171 and OT staff did not timely document services provided.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0868
(Tag F0868)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain a Quality Assessment and Assurance (QAA) committee that met at least quarterly and included the required participants. This failur...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain a Quality Assessment and Assurance (QAA) committee that met at least quarterly and included the required participants. This failure put residents at risk for unmet care needs due to ongoing non-compliance with federal regulations and detracted from the interdisciplinary effectiveness of the team.
Findings included .
According to the revised 09/01/2021 facility Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) policy, the QAPI program included the establishment of a QAA Committee consisting of a minimum of the Director of Nursing Services, or Administrator or designee, the Medical Director, or their designee, at least three other members of the facility staff at least one of who must be the administrator, owner, a board member or other individual in a leadership role, and the Infection Preventionist. The policy indicates the committee must meet at least quarterly and develop and implement appropriate plans of action to correct identified quality deficiencies.
In an interview on 11/09/2021 at 12:01 PM, Staff B (Administrator in training), stated the facility recently re-started their QAPI meetings in September 2021. Staff B indicated prior to September 2021, the facility failed to have QAPI meetings at least quarterly since January 2021.
Review of QAPI sign-in documentation dated 09/10/2021 showed the Medical Director, Administrator, Infection Preventionist, and Director of Nursing were not present. Review of undated QAPI sign-in documentation for October 2021 showed the Medical Director and Administrator were not present for their QAPI meeting.
In an interview on 11/09/2021 at 12:10 PM, Staff B indicated they invited the Medical Director to come to the QAPI meetings but stated they did not attended since December 2020. Staff A (Administrator) confirmed the facility did not meet the requirements for the required members of the QAA Committee.
REFERENCE: WAC 388-97-1760(1)(2).
.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0886
(Tag F0886)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure COVID-19 testing was ordered by a physician, the test sample was documented as collected, and the results of the test was located in ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure COVID-19 testing was ordered by a physician, the test sample was documented as collected, and the results of the test was located in the medical record for 12 of 13 (44, 61, 54, 22, 419, 35, 45, 12, 19, 25, 3 & 14) residents reviewed for COVID-19 testing.
Findings included
In an interview on 11/04/2021 at 9:06 AM Staff L (Infection Prevention Nurse) stated residents were tested for COVID-19 on 11/03/2021. The 11/03/2021 resident testing log showed 76 residents were tested.
Resident 44
Review of Resident 44's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) showed no physician order for COVID-19 testing, no documentation of test sample collection on 11/03/2021 and no results of the COVID-19 test results. Resident 44 was listed with a negative test result on the COVID-19 testing log for 11/03/2021.
Similar findings for Resident 61 & 54 showed no physician order for testing, no documentation of test collection and no test result in the EMR.
Resident 22
Review of Resident 22's EMR showed a 02/18/2021 physician order for COVID testing as needed. The record showed no documentation of test sample collection on 11/03/2021 and no results of the COVID-19 test results. Resident 22 was listed with a negative test result on the COVID-19 testing log for 11/03/2021.
Similar findings for Resident 419, 35 & 45 showed no documentation of test collection and no test results in the EMR.
Residents 12, 19, 25, 3 & 14 did not have the 11/03/2021 COVID-19 test results in their EMR.
During an interview 11/10/2021 at 9:30 AM Staff L stated testing was completed and documented in a log kept in an office. Staff L stated the collection of the swab, and the result of the test were not documented in the resident's medical record. Staff L stated the order, sample collection and results were not in the resident's EMR as required.
REFERENCE: WAC 388-97-1720(2)(l)
.