BELMONT HEALTHCARE CENTER

506 RIVERVIEW ROAD, BELMONT, WV 26134 (304) 665-2065
For profit - Limited Liability company 68 Beds COMMUNICARE HEALTH Data: November 2025 2 Immediate Jeopardy citations
Trust Grade
0/100
#62 of 122 in WV
Last Inspection: October 2024

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

Overview

Belmont Healthcare Center has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about its operations and care quality. With a state rank of #62 out of 122 facilities in West Virginia, they fall in the bottom half, and they are the only option available in Pleasants County. The facility's performance is worsening, with an increase in issues from 13 in 2022 to 15 in 2024, highlighting ongoing problems. Staffing is a major concern, with a low rating of 1 out of 5 stars and a troubling turnover rate of 73%, which is much higher than the state average. Additionally, they've incurred $251,207 in fines, which is alarming and suggests serious compliance issues, while RN coverage is average, meaning they may not catch all the problems that occur. Specific incidents noted by inspectors include a resident being left in soiled conditions for over an hour after requesting assistance and a failure to properly assess and address a resident's psychosocial wellbeing after a traumatic event. There were also serious concerns regarding a resident's respiratory care, as oxygen levels were not maintained as ordered, leading to a dangerous situation. While the facility has some average health inspection scores, the serious deficiencies and troubling trends make it a risky choice for families seeking care for their loved ones.

Trust Score
F
0/100
In West Virginia
#62/122
Top 50%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Worse
13 → 15 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
73% turnover. Very high, 25 points above average. Constant new faces learning your loved one's needs.
Penalties
⚠ Watch
$251,207 in fines. Higher than 89% of West Virginia facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
Skilled Nurses
○ Average
Each resident gets 33 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for West Virginia. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
Violations
⚠ Watch
44 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Overall Rating
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Staff Levels
★★★☆☆
3.0
Care Quality
★★★☆☆
3.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2022: 13 issues
2024: 15 issues

The Good

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

Facility shows strength in fire safety.

The Bad

2-Star Overall Rating

Below West Virginia average (2.7)

Below average - review inspection findings carefully

Staff Turnover: 73%

26pts above West Virginia avg (46%)

Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity

Federal Fines: $251,207

Well above median ($33,413)

Significant penalties indicating serious issues

Chain: COMMUNICARE HEALTH

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

Staff turnover is very high (73%)

25 points above West Virginia average of 48%

The Ugly 44 deficiencies on record

2 life-threatening 1 actual harm
Oct 2024 5 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Medical Records (Tag F0842)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

. Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to maintain a correct capacity form for Resident #23 and failed to correctly document dates and times of neurochecks for Resident #13....

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to maintain a correct capacity form for Resident #23 and failed to correctly document dates and times of neurochecks for Resident #13. Resident identifiers: #23 and #13. Census: 60 Findings included: a) Resident #23 A review of Resident #23's records on 10/21/24 at 7:18 PM revealed the following: Physician's Determination of Capacity Form dated 06/05/24 documented the resident did not have capacity to make his own medical decisions with duration being long term due to inability to process information and disorientation caused by a cerebral vascular accident. Physician's Determination of Capacity Form dated 8/30/24 expressed the resident had capacity to make his own medical decisions and was signed by only one physician. During an interview with the Administrator on 10/22/24 at 12:05 PM she acknowledged her understanding in order to restore capacity to a resident who has been deemed incapacitated you must have 2 (two) physician's signatures. She acknowledged, there was only one signature for Resident #23 to restore capacity but the physician had planned to re-evaluate as it was done in error and does not believe resident to have capacity to make his own medical decisions. She also acknowledge that resident's care plan had been updated to state that resident had capacity when it should not have been. b) Resident #13 A review of Resident #13's medical record found Resident #13's neurological assessments dated 09/09/24 had incorrect dates and signature times documented. On 10/23/24 at 1:05 PM, during an Interview with the Director of Nursing, #23, she acknowledged the signatures and dates in the documentation of the neuro checks for Resident #13's fall on 09/09/24 were incorrect.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0919 (Tag F0919)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure that residents had a means of contacting their caregivers through a call system that was accessible to them while in their bed, or oth...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure that residents had a means of contacting their caregivers through a call system that was accessible to them while in their bed, or other sleeping accommodations within their room. Resident Identifiers: #46 and #38. Facility Census: 60. Findings included: a) Resident #46 During an interview with Resident #46 on 10/21/24 at approximately 1:51 PM, the resident stated she needed to speak to a staff member. She looked around and was unable to locate her call light. Resident then stated, I'll wait for someone to come. Upon being notified the resident needed help, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #51 arrived and confirmed the call light was on the floor below the resident's bed, and inaccessible to the resident. LPN #51 confirmed that the call light was out of the reach of the resident and stated, Well that is a problem! LPN #51 then retrieved the call light and placed it next to the resident, and attended to the resident's needs. b) Resident #38 An observation of Resident #38 on 10/21/24 at 1:45 pm, found the reisdents call light was not within the residents reach. An interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #9, at 1:48 pm on 10/21/24, confirmed Resident # 38 was unable to reach his call light.
CONCERN (E)

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review and staff interview the facility failed to ensure professional standards of practice were followed in regards to completing neurological assessments following a fall. This was t...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and staff interview the facility failed to ensure professional standards of practice were followed in regards to completing neurological assessments following a fall. This was true for one (1) of 25 residents reviewed during the long term are survey process. Resident Identifier: Resident #13. Facility Census: 60. Findings included: a) Resident #13 A review of Resident #13's medical records found the resident suffered a fall on 07/08/24, 09/20/24, and 10/19/24. After each fall neurological assessments were indicated and initiated. However, these neurological assessments were not completed as required. During an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 10/23/24 at 1:05 PM, she acknowledged the neurological assessments were incomplete after the falls dated 07/08/2024, 09/20/2024, and 10/19/2024 .
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 staff interviews, the facility failed to store, prepare, and serve food in a safe and sanitary manner by not removing dented cans from service. This was a random opportunity f...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and staff interviews, the facility failed to store, prepare, and serve food in a safe and sanitary manner by not removing dented cans from service. This was a random opportunity for discovery. This has the potential to affect more than a limited number of residents. Facility census: 60. Findings include: A) Dented cans At approximately 11:50 AM on 10/21/24, during a tour of the kitchen, three (3) dented cans were placed on the shelf alongside cans intended for service. Two (2) cans contained corn and one (1) can contained sliced peaches. At approximately 11:53 AM on 10/21/24, Culinary Aide (CA) #38, stated they were the cook for the day due to the Dietary Manager (DM) being out of the facility, and acknowledged the dents in the cans, and they should have been removed from the shelves with the other cans meant for service.
CONCERN (E)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

. Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to maintain effective infection control practices in the laundry room. Additionally, facility staff failed to adhere to infection control poli...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to maintain effective infection control practices in the laundry room. Additionally, facility staff failed to adhere to infection control policies and protocols while providing catheter care. Resident Identifier: #44. Facility Census: 60. Findings included: a) Laundry Room During an inspection of the laundry room with Executive Director (ED) #6 on 10/22/24, at approximately 3:55 PM, discarded mop heads with a brown substance on them, were observed in the laundry sink. Additionally, several towels with brown stains were observed on top of a bin near the sink. Multiple covered, empty bins, for storing soiled items were available and lined up against the opposite wall. ED #6 confirmed soiled items should not be in the sink, or on top of the bins. The presence of uncovered soiled items increases the risk of contamination for all items in the laundry room. b) Resident #44 Catheter care for Resident #44 was observed on 10/23/24 at approximately 1:12 PM. This surveyor had requested Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #9's presence during the procedure. LPN #9 introduced Nurse Aide (NA) #53, and stated catheter care would be performed by NA #53. Resident #44 was under Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP), and the sign outside the resident's room noted this. NA #53 entered Resident #44's room wearing gloves but did not don additional personal protective equipment (PPE) or perform hand hygiene before proceeding. She closed the room door and pulled a screen to provide privacy for the resident. NA #53 informed the resident she would be performing catheter care, and then proceeded to undo the resident's brief. Without changing her gloves or performing hand hygiene, NA #53 gathered her supplies and began the procedure. She used moistened soapy towels to clean the catheter from the meatus forward. As she continued, she discarded each used towel on the floor. After she finished cleaning the catheter, she re-fastened the resident's brief, collected the soiled towels from the floor, and placed them in a trash bag. Once the procedure was complete, NA #53 again failed to discard her gloves or perform hand hygiene. She then went on to empty the catheter bag, and measured the volume of urine, still without changing her gloves or performing hand hygiene. LPN #9 expressed her shock at NA #53's failure to adhere to infection prevention protocols. She confirmed NA #53 did not follow the facility's EBP policy, or infection control procedures. LPN #9 mentioned she would take a moment to speak with NA #53 and provide a 'teachable moment' as soon as she exited the resident's room. The facility's Director of Nursing (DON) was unavailable for an interview. However, ED #6 confirmed on 10/23/24, at approximately 5:16 PM, LPN #9 had informed her about NA #53's failure to follow infection control protocols during catheter care.
May 2024 10 deficiencies 2 IJ (1 affecting multiple)
CRITICAL (J) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Deficiency F0742 (Tag F0742)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and resident and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure the psychosocial wellbeing of a resident was met following a traumatic event, due to failing to follow up with Re...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and resident and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure the psychosocial wellbeing of a resident was met following a traumatic event, due to failing to follow up with Resident #1 to assess her psychosocial wellbeing and make necessary referrals for Resident #1 to maintain her psychosocial wellbeing. Multiple incidents took place in which Resident #2 was physically abusive to other residents in the facility. The facility failed to take necessary action to prevent further abuse. This created an immediate jeopardy situation. Resident identifiers: #1,and #2. Facility census: 65 Findings included: a) Resident #1 On 05/20/24 at approximately 11:30 am, a record review was conducted of a facility reported incident dated 03/28/24. During review it was determined Resident #2 entered Resident #1's room between 9:30 PM and 10:00 PM. Resident #2 told Resident #1 she was going to, leave my house one way or another. Resident #2 then proceeded to place a blanket over Resident #1's face and attempted to smother her. Resident #2 then grabbed a towel, stating, If that's not good enough, I'll use this and placed a towel over Resident #1's face as well. Resident #1 was heard screaming by a Nurse Aide who came into the room to intervene. The Nurse Aide escorted Resident #2 out of the room. The Licensed Social Worker stated referrals were made for a psychiatric facility for Resident #2 and they were accepted. One on one supervision was put into place, and Resident #2 was care planned for behaviors. The facility made an offer to Resident #1 to move to another room or to put a stop sign at her door. Resident #1 chose to stay in the room and put a stop sign up. On 05/20/24 at approximately 11:53 AM, an interview was conducted with Resident #1 regarding the incident from 03/28/24. Resident #1 stated She tried to kill me. She took a blanket and a towel and put it over my face and tried to smother me with it. If I didn't have this oxygen on, I would be dead. I fought and fought her for 10-15 minutes while she held the blanket and towel over my face. The only thing that kept me alive was this oxygen. She told me I was gonna leave her house, one way or another, and I didn't ' t know what she meant at first, but once she started, I knew she meant I was going to die. They were supposed to have her on one on one after that, but there was a new nurse here that no one told, and I looked up and she was taking the stop sign down off my door to try and come back in my room again. She went into another woman's room after she went in mine, while she was supposed to be on one on one and no one was with her, and that woman can't speak up for herself. It still makes me very upset. Resident #1 was asked if they were afraid, to which she stated Very much so. I am very much afraid of her, I can't get up and move, I have to be lifted out of bed, so yes, I am very fearful that she will come back in here and do it again. Resident #1 was asked if she had voiced these concerns to facility staff, to which she stated Yes, and they tell me they won't let her come in here. Resident #2 resided next door to Resident #1, which Resident #1 stated, That makes me even more afraid that it will happen again. Every time she walks by my room, she looks in here and says she needs to talk to me. At approximately 12:00 PM on 05/20/24, a record review was conducted of progress notes pertaining to the facility's response to the incident on 03/28/24. Progress notes are typed as written, with resident names replaced with identifiers: 03/29/24 at 12:57 PM- SW (Social Worker) spoke with resident regarding the incident that happened the previous night. Resident #1 admits the incident scared her. SW offered her the opportunity to switch rooms so her room would not be as close to Resident #2. Resident #1 declined the invitation. She said she likes her room and wants to stay there. SW offered to have a stop gate put up on her door to deter other residents from coming in her room. Resident #1 said she would like that. SW inquired how Resident #1 is feeling regarding the incident. Resident #1 said as of right now she isn't having any anxiety or fears related to the incident. SW encouraged her to call on her is (sp) she does or if she needs anything. There were no further progress notes or follow-up visits regarding the incident. On 05/20/24 at approximately 1:07 PM, an interview was conducted with the Licensed Social Worker (LSW) regarding the incident. The LSW stated the facility offered Resident #1 to move rooms or put a stop sign on the door. The LSW stated there was not an attempt to move Resident #2 farther away from Resident #1, nor were there conversations had with the Medical Power of Attorney for Resident #2 concerning a move. The LSW was asked if there had been follow up interviews conducted with Resident #1 since the incident and if the resident felt safe. The LSW stated, I have talked to her a few times. When asked about documentation concerning the follow up interviews with Resident #1, the LSW stated it could be found in Point Click Care (PCC). Upon review, the only note in PCC regarding a follow up for Resident #1 was on 03/29/24, the day after the incident occurred. The state agency (SA) determined these failures caused Resident #1 to suffer psychosocial harm. Due to the facility's failure to follow up with Resident #1, proper services were unable to be provided to the resident after an instance of abuse, causing further psychosocial harm. This placed the resident in an Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) situation. The facility was first notified of the IJ at 3:40 PM on 05/20/24. The SA received the Plan of Correction (POC) at 5:49 PM on 05/20/24. The SA accepted the POC at 5:49 PM on 05/20/24. The plan of correction stated: Resident #2 will be put on 1:1 supervision 24hr/d (day) effective immediately on 05/20/24. Resident #2 will be moved to another private room on the opposite hallway from Resident #1 on 05/20/24. Social Worker will visit Resident #1 on 05/20/24 to assess the resident's psychosocial well-being and continue to do so every morning 5d/week until the resident, Social Worker and psychologist deem a change in level of care is required. Psychologist (name) will visit Resident #1 this week and continue recommended scheduled follow up visits until the resident and psychologist deem a change in the level of care is required. Resident #2 will be issued a 30-day discharge notice on 05/20/24. 1:1 education will be provided to staff that provide 1:1 service to residents. After notification of the IJ the facility intervened, and the following progress notes were made by the social worker. 05/20/24 at 04:58 PM- SW spoke with resident after being informed that she has been feeling anxious and fearful regarding the incident that had happened between her and Resident #2. SW was not award(sp) that Resident #1 had been feeling anxious and fearful. Resident #1 said that she has been holding it inside because she doesn't like to complain. SW assured her that reporting her fear and anxiety is not complaining. Resident #1 said that she is very anxious and fearful and isn't able to sleep at night. She said that she has been sleeping during the day. SW asked Resident #1 if she would be interested in talking to the psychologist and taking medication for the anxiety. She said that she would. SW informed Resident #1 That Resident #2 was being moved and would no longer be her neighbor. Resident #1 expressed relief and said she hope(sp) that she will now be able to sleep at night. 05/21/24 at 08:02 AM- SW spoke with resident this morning to see how she is feeling. Resident #1 said that she slept better last night knowing Resident #2 was no longer next door to her. Resident #1 said she is feeling less fearful and stressed today. At approximately 10:13 AM on 05/21/24, a follow up interview was conducted with Resident #1 after the IJ was issued, and plan of correction accepted. Resident #1 was asked if anyone from the facility met with her regarding the incident. Resident #1 stated the Social Worker had been to her room and met with her and got everything situated. Resident #1 mentioned Resident #2 had been moved and stated, Thank you for looking into that, last night was the first time I have been able to sleep during the night in months. The IJ was abated on 05/21/24 at 10:46 AM.
CRITICAL (K) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

Someone could have died · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** b) Resident # 64 On 05/20/24 at 12:00 PM a record review of the facility reported incident dated 04/01/24 was performed. During ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** b) Resident # 64 On 05/20/24 at 12:00 PM a record review of the facility reported incident dated 04/01/24 was performed. During the review, it was noted that on 04/01/24 at approximately 12:00 PM, Resident #64 was in the facility dining room. She requested to be taken back to her room stating she needed to have a bowel movement. Employee #56 reported she took Resident #64 down the hall to Employee #70. Employee #56 informed Employee #70 that Resident #64 wanted to be put in bed and placed on the bed pan to have a bowel movement. Employee #56 stated that Employee #70 stated she would, get her. Employee #56 reported that she also informed Employee #71 and that Employee #71 also stated she would get her. At approximately 1:30 PM, Employees #57 and #42 went into give Resident #64 a bath, at which time it was noted Resident #64 had the lift pad under her and was noted to have stool on her. Employees #57 and #71 reported to facility staff their findings. It was also noted during the review of the facility reported incident in the 5 (five) day, that the facility had substantiated the allegation of neglect for Resident #64. On 05/20/24 at 03:13 PM an interview with facility Social Worker (SW) was conducted. The SW acknowledged that the facility substantiated neglect in the investigation. Based on record review, observation, resident and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure that residents were free from physical abuse. Multiple incidents took place in which Resident #2 was physically abusive to other residents in the facility. The facility failed to take necessary action to prevent further abuse. This created an immediate jeopardy sitaution for more than an isolated number of residents. Resident identifiers: #1,# 2, #3,# 4, #57. Facility census: 65. Findings included: a) On 05/20/24 at approximately 11:30 AM, a record review was conducted of a facility reported incident dated 03/15/24. During review, it was determined Resident #2 was witnessed by facility staff hitting another resident in the face during an argument in the hallway. The Licensed Social Worker confirmed in the report that Resident #2 was trying to move Resident #3's wheelchair and an argument started. Two nurse aides witnessed Resident #2 strike Resident #3 in the face. The residents were then separated and redirected. Further record review revealed a facility reported incident dated 03/26/24. During review, it was determined Resident #2 got into an argument in the dining room with Resident #4. During the argument, Resident #2 swung her cane and hit Resident #4 in the stomach. The Licensed Social Worker confirmed the residents were separated, redirected, and a one-on-one talk was provided to the residents. A review of facility reported incident (FRI) dated 03/28/24 determined Resident #2 entered Resident #1's room between 9:30 PM and 10:00 PM. Resident #2 told Resident #1 she was going to, leave my house one way or another. Resident #2 then proceeded to place a blanket over Resident #1's face and attempted to smother her. Resident #2 then grabbed a towel, stating If that's not good enough, I 'll use this and placed a towel over Resident #1's face. Resident #1 was heard screaming by a Nurse Aide who came into the room to intervene. The Nurse Aide escorted Resident #2 out of the room. The Licensed Social Worker stated referrals were made for a psychiatric facility for Resident #2 and they were accepted. One on one supervision was put into place, and Resident #2 was care planned for behaviors. A facility reported incident dated 05/17/24 revealed Resident #2 slapped Resident #57. This incident was currently under investigation. On 05/20/24 at approximately 11:30 AM, a record review of orders for Resident #2 was conducted. During the review, it was noted Resident #2 had orders for one-on-one supervision beginning on 05/20/24 with a start time of 6:00 PM. One on one supervisions were ordered to take place between 12:00 PM and 8:00 PM. On 05/20/24 at approximately 11:45 AM, during a tour of the facility, two surveyors witnessed Resident #1 in her room with no one on one supervision. On 05/20/24 at approximately 11:53 AM, an interview was conducted with Resident #1 regarding the incident from 03/28/24. Resident #1 stated, She tried to kill me. She took a blanket and a towel and put it over my face and tried to smother me with it. If I didn't have this oxygen on, I would be dead. I fought and fought her for 10-15 minutes while she held the blanket and towel over my face. The only thing that kept me alive was this oxygen. She told me, I was gonna leave her house, one way or another, and I didn't know what she meant at first, but once she started, I knew she meant I was going to die. They were supposed to have her on one on one after that, but there was a new nurse here that no one told, and I looked up and she was taking the stop sign down off my door to try and come back in my room again. She went into another woman's room after she went in mine, while she was supposed to be on one on one and no one was with her. And that woman can't speak up for herself. It still makes me very upset. Resident #1 was asked if they were afraid, to which she stated, Very much so. I am very much afraid of her, I can't get up and move, I have to be lifted out of bed, so yes, I am very fearful that she will come back in here and do it again. Resident #1 was asked if she had voiced these concerns to facility staff, to which she stated, Yes, and they tell me they won't let her come in here. Resident #2 resides next door to Resident #1. Resident #1 stated, That makes me even more afraid that it will happen again. Every time she walks by my room she looks in here and says she needs to talk to me. Resident #1 stated she had trouble sleeping at night, knowing Resident #2 is in the room beside her. On 05/20/24 at approximately 12:30 PM a review of progress notes for Resident #2 from 01/27/24 through 05/20/24 revealed: 01/28/24 at 5:05 PM - Resident having more confusion noted this evening with sun downing. Easily agitated. Worried over her two small dogs and getting home to them. Redirected by staff with distractions. 01/29/24 at 6:06 PM- Resident (sp) became agitated around time of shift changed (sp). Resident was walking around facility going in and out of other residents rooms taking items that did not belong to her. Resident was shouting I am working with the FBI government and I am here to watch of of you. Resident was not able to be redirected at first. Several attempts were made to try and redirect resident with food, drink, comfort, distraction, walking. Resident was adamant that she did not want any of that, she was insistant(sp) that we all get out of her house. Resident then struck staff member in the face and stated get out of my way why can't you just leave me in here (in another residents room). That staff person walked out of the room to try and deescalate (sp) the situation. Nurse then was able to redirect resident out of the room and in to the hallway. Resident then grabbed the nurse by the arms and scratched stating get away from me. Resident then started walking down the hallway with a staff member following behind to ensure safetyof (sp) resident. At this point to keep staff and resdient(sp) safe a close eye was kept on resident at all times for duration of shift. Resident continued to have behaviors throughout the shift but was able to be redirected. 01/30/24 at 3:56 PM- This nurse spoke with resident MPOA (medical power of attorney) regarding recent behaviors to staff and sundowning. Discussed medication changes and POA in agreement. This nurse notified MPOA that resident roommate has voiced being scared of resident, MPOA agreed he is fine with room change if needed. 01/31/24 at 10:09 PM- Res was wandering into other reside4nts (sp) rooms yelling in the hallway at staff to get out of her house. Res is refusing to use her walker. Res smacked me across the face twice and tried biting me when I tried to redirect her away from pulling the fire alarm. I walked along side res in the halls and she was grabbing anything she could pick up and throwing it. Res would yell out anytime I asked her to not go into another res room. Multiple staff tried to redirect res. Res refused a snack & to sit in living room area by nurses station. Res was walked backed to her room per staff & laid back down. 02/01/24 at 10:32 AM- Resident upset wanting everyone out of her home walking down hallways yelling and throwing items. Resident hitting staff and attempted to pull fire alarm. Resident unable to be redirected. 02/01/24 at 5:24 PM- After supper meal resident wanders back from dining room location. She has sun downing behaviors. She is unable to locate her room and doesn't recognize her surroundings. She is very intrusive in and out of other resident's rooms and beds. She was drinking other patients water from pitcher that was then replaced. She becomes very verbally agitated. She took a swing towards staff trying to assist her to her own room. She curses at them very loudly. She upset roommate due to her cursing. She was relocated to lounge and given distractions with short success only. She yells I just want to get the hell out of her and go home! Offered to watch movie, NO, Magazines given as a distraction at this time. 02/05/24 at 6:27 AM- late entry for 2/4/24 at 1800 resident yelling and cussing at roommate, residents seperated(sp) and roommate stated she was afraid to stay in that room. Roommate stated that this resident has been throwing things at roommate and yelling at screaming at her, states the roommate stated she was going to hit her with her cane. On call nurse manager(sp) notified. Roommate moved to room [ROOM NUMBER] for the night. Roommates POA aware. 03/15/24 at 2:27 PM- LATE ENTRY- Resident observed attempting to propel another res. In her wheelchair, when co res asked her to stop, this res begun to yell and tell co res she owned the place, then they both begun to yell at each other then the both struck out at each other landing strikes to faces. Res were immediately separated and re-directed. No injuries noted to either resident. All parties made aware. 03/26/24 12:49 PM- IDT follow up Type of incident: resident on resident What was happening at the time: Resident was in dining room and started swinging her cane. Another resident asked her to stop. This resident started insisting her husband owned her place. The second resident argued with her. This resident supposedly hit second resident in stomach with cane. 03/28/24 10:48 PM- notification:resident attempted to smother another resident. Confused, escalating behaviors. 03/28/24 11:00 PM- Resident had incident this evening where she would ask staff who they were, how they got in her house, who hired them and what company they work for. Resident didn't 't understand she was in the nursing home she thought she was in her own home. Resident tookher(sp) quad cane and hit the med cart with it and then tried hitting this nurse. Staff member was able to talk to resident and get her to calm down. CNA was able to get resident back to her own room and lay down in bed. Spoke with telehealth provider [provider name] to obtain order to send resident out for evaluation. 03/29/24 at 12:00 AM- What was happening at the time: Resident had incident this evening where she would ask staff whoable(sp) to talk to resident and get her to calm down. CNA came to me later and reported that resident was in another residents room and tried to smother resident with a blanket and then with a towel. CNA was able to get resident back to her own room and lay down in bed. Spoke with telehealth provider [provider name] to obtain order to send resident out for evaluation. Root cause of incident: Dementia, impaired cognitive functioning, resident wanders aimlessly throughout the facility, resident believes she owns the facility and becomes irritated when residents and staff will not leave. 04/15/24 at 6:40 PM- the resident was observed by two aides smacking another resident in the mouth on blue hall. The resident seemed frustrated because of the other resident yelling out. Both of the resident (sp) were separated. The resident then went to her room. No injuries observed. No signs of pain. Md has been notified and a vm was left for poa. Orders are to place resident back on 1:1 supervision. No further changes at this time. 04/20/24 at 3:32 AM- Resident up/out of room, yelling at CNA, cursing. Aggressive behavior. Started to enter another residents room with this nurse intervening and redirecting back to room. Very irritable and anxious. Asking Where's Steve What the hell are you all doing in my house? Redirected, reassured resident. Assisted resident back to bed, offered food and fluids. Calmed. Currently lying quietly in bed with 1-1 supervision continued. 05/17/24 at 4:48 PM- Resident had altercation with another resident. Resident 's (sp) separated. MD, DON, Administrator notified. Order placed for 1:1 from 12p-8pm At approximately 12:50 PM on 05/21/24, a record review was conducted of Resident #2's care plan. The care plan focus for behaviors reads as follows: The resident has a behavior problem. Patient with sundowners. Patient believes at times that other residents are looking at her or in her home. Patient noted to hit staff and yelling out to get out of her house. Patient noted to go in other patient's rooms and drink out of other resident's water pitcher. Behaviors of throwing items and screaming at others. Resident to close her door and place furniture in front of the door to block anyone from coming in. Resident noted to have delusions, believing she owns the facility. Resident known to comment on the race of caregivers. It was discovered during review of the care plan that Resident #2 was not care planned for aggressive or abusive behaviors towards other residents in the facility, only staff, despite multiple incidents involving Resident #2 and other residents. On 05/20/24 at approximately 1:07 PM, an interview was conducted with the Licensed Social Worker (LSW) regarding the incident. The LSW stated the facility offered Resident #1 to move rooms or put a stop sign on the door. The LSW states there was not an attempt to move Resident #2 further away from Resident #1, nor were there conversations had with the Medical Power of Attorney for Resident #2 concerning a move. The LSW was asked if there had been follow up interviews conducted with Resident #1 since the incident and if the resident felt safe. The LSW stated., I have talked to her a few times. When asked about documentation concerning the follow up interviews with Resident #1, the LSW stated they could be found in Point Click Care (PCC). Upon review, the only note in PCC regarding a follow up for Resident #1 was on 03/29/24, the day after the incident occurred. The state agency (SA) determined these failures caused the victims of Resident #2's abuse to suffer physical and psychosocial harm. Due to the facility's failure to follow up with the victims of Resident #2's abuse, proper services were unable to be provided to the victims after an instance of abuse. This caused further psychosocial harm. Not only did these failures harm the victims of Resident #2's abuse, but it also placed them and at risk of serious harm/death. This was due to the facility's failure to put proper interventions in place to ensure Resident #2 would not abuse other residents in the future. This placed more than a limited number of residents in an Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) situation. The facility was first notified of the IJ at 3:40 PM on 05/20/24. The State Agency (SA) received the Plan of Correction (POC) at 5:49 PM on 05/20/24. The SA accepted the POC at 5:49 PM on 05/20/24. The abatement time was 10:46 AM on 5/21/24. The plan of correction included the following: Resident #2 is immediately placed back on 24 hours a day one-on-one supervision. Resident #2 is being moved away from Resident #1 effective 05/20/24. The center will issue a 30-day discharge immediately for Resident #2. Dr. (name) (psychologist) has been contacted to see Resident #2 this week for further evaluation. 1:1 education will be provided to staff that provide 1:1 services to residents. After the IJ was removed, a deficient practice remained at a scope and severity of D, due to incontinence care for Resident #64.
SERIOUS (G) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

Based on resident facility record review, medical record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure that a resident's respiratory care was provided consistent with professional standar...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on resident facility record review, medical record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure that a resident's respiratory care was provided consistent with professional standards of practice. A resident's oxygen concentrator was set at a lower liter than ordered. This was a random opportunity for discover identified during a complaint survey. Resident identifier: #66. Facility census: 65. Findings included: a) Resident #66 On 05/20/24 at approximately 7:00 PM during a record review of the facility reported incident involving the allegation of neglect on 04/12/24 for Resident #66, it was identified that the daughter of Resident #66 found the resident lying flat in bed, lethargic and difficult to arouse. It further stated he was ordered 6L (six liters) of continuous oxygen but was only on 3L (three liters) and the facility had a 5L (5 liter) concentrator at his bedside and a 10L (ten liter) concentrator was required to supply the 6L as ordered. On 05/20/24 at approximately 7:30 PM during a record review of the facility investigation and supportive documentation, it was identified that the medical record from the discharging facility identified Resident #66 to be on 3L of oxygen but the orders received by the facility did not include an order for the oxygen. It was further identified that the Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #23 that had taken the report from the discharging facility, stated the 6L of oxygen was what she was told. LPN #23 stated the CNA's had prepared the room and the paramedics that brought Resident #66 had transferred him to the concentrator in the room. She stated she was not aware that he was not on a high enough level (Liter) of oxygen. A review of the Treatment Administration Record (TAR) from 03/05/24 through 03/31/24 identified that the Humidified oxygen at six (6) via NC (nasal canula) continuous every shift for hypoxia was being checked off by the nursing staff that the oxygen was set at 6L. During this time frame, and the oxygen saturation levels were documented to range between 93-98. In reviewing the April Medical Administration Record (MAR) the oxygen levels continued to range from 90-97. On 05/21/24 at approximately 3:00 PM, in reviewing the incident, the Administrator provided a written summarization of the investigation the facility completed. This summarization included a header for Corrective Actions stating- Neglect was substantiated because we failed to follow a doctor's order. The following corrective actions have been put in place: 1. All concentrators were immediately audited for accuracy of rate with no other issues identified. 2. Nursing Staff educated about the need to confirm the accuracy of oxygen orders and equipment upon admission. 3. Nursing management staff educated about the need to not only review resident chart/documentation upon admission but the need to inspect all equipment in use/needs. 4. Nursing management following new process to ensure correct equipment is present in residents' rooms upon admission. 5. The resident was educated about the risks and consequences of lowering the Head of Bed (HOB) with advanced COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) and care planned for this behavior. 6. Oxygen concentrators and their rates are monitored multiple times per week by the MDS (Minimum Data Set) nurse. On 05/21/24 at approximately 3:00 PM during this review with the Administrator the immediate concentrator audit referenced in the facility summarization was identified to have been completed, the education with the resident (and daughter) about the risks and consequences of lowering the Head of Bed (HOB) with advanced COPD and the care planned behavior was identified to have been completed. The ongoing monitoring of the oxygen concentrators was also identified. Further review of the education that was provided during an in-service training dated 04/17/24 with the Program Title/Content stating- Nurse is to clarify correct level of O2 (oxygen) requirement upon getting report and ensure order is correct. Nurse is set up O2 concentrator in room, apply to resident. Checking correct level set on concentrator/tank. CNA's (Certified Nursing Assistants) are never to adjust O2 (oxygen) levels. The following staff members were identified to have not completed the educations as required: * Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #45 * Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #72 * Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #32 * Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #25 On 05/21/24 at approximately 3:05 PM, during the interview with the Administrator she agreed the education had not been completed.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** a) Resident #64 On 05/20/24 at 2:23 PM an interview with Resident #64 was conducted. While in Resident #64's room, a beeping sou...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** a) Resident #64 On 05/20/24 at 2:23 PM an interview with Resident #64 was conducted. While in Resident #64's room, a beeping sound was noted, a small machine was noted to be on her bedside table, upon observation it was noted to be a FreeStyleLibre blood glucose monitor. The Surveyor questioned Resident #64 about this, she responded, I don't even know where they have that thing on me. The Surveyor told Resident #64 she would get her nurse to help her with it. On 05/20/24 at 2:27 PM Employee #89 was walking down the hallway. The Surveyor asked him if he was Resident #64's nurse, to which he responded, Yes. The Surveyor told him the FreeStyle Libre was alarming HIGH. The Surveyor asked him if Resident #64 monitored her own blood sugar. Employee #89 responded, No, I check her blood sugar, I guess it's just there for convenience. On 05/20/24 at 4:05 PM a review of Resident #64's care plan was performed. Resident #64's care plan noted the following text: Focus: Resident prefers to self-manage a continuous glucose monitoring device. Goal: Resident will be able to safely manage own device. Interventions: 1. Assist resident if, the resident doesn't have the app or the ability to work the application on their cell phone, the licensed nurse must perform a manual finger stick glucose to obtain a blood sugar reading. 2. Complete the self-mange of device portion of the Self-administration of medication Evaluation 3. Monitor every shift and evaluate resident is managing device appropriately. On 5/21/24 at 10:45 AM an interview was conducted with the Administrator and Director of Nursing (DON). The facilities Regional [NAME] President (RVP) was present for the interview. During this interview the DON acknowledged the nurse uses the reading from the FreeStyle Libre and not a finger stick daily. The DON stated, The nurse will obtain a fingerstick if the FreeStyle Libre reads HI or LOW. The DON also acknowledged the care plan was incorrect. b) Resident #2 On 05/20/24 at approximately 11:30 AM, a record review was conducted of a facility reported incident dated 03/15/24. During review, it was determined Resident #2 was witnessed by facility staff hitting another resident in the face during an argument in the hallway. The Licensed Social Worker confirmed in the report that Resident #2 was trying to move Resident #3's wheelchair and an argument started. Two nurse aides witnessed Resident #2 strike Resident #3 in the face. The residents were then separated and redirected. Further record review revealed a facility reported incident dated 03/26/24. During review, it was determined Resident #2 got into an argument in the dining room with Resident #4. During the argument, Resident #2 swung her cane and hit Resident #4 in the stomach. The Licensed Social Worker confirmed the residents were separated, redirected, and a one-on-one talk was provided to the residents. A record review dated 03/28/24 of a facility reported incident dated 03/28/24 determined Resident #2 entered Resident #1' s room between 9:30 PM and 10:00 PM. Resident #2 told Resident #1 she was going to, leave my house one way or another. Resident #2 then proceeded to place a blanket over Resident #1's face and attempted to smother her. Resident #2 then grabbed a towel, stating If that's not good enough, I 'll use this and placed a towel over Resident #1's face. Resident #1 was heard screaming by a Nurse Aide who came into the room to intervene. The Nurse Aide escorted Resident #2 out of the room. The Licensed Social Worker stated referrals were made for a psychiatric facility for Resident #2 and they were accepted. One on one supervision was put into place, and Resident #2 was care planned for behaviors. The facility made an offer to Resident #1 to move to another room or to put a stop sign at her door. Resident #1 chose to stay in the room and put a stop sign up. A facility reported incident dated 05/17/24 revealed Resident #2 slapped Resident #57. This incident was currently under investigation. On 05/20/24 at approximately 11:30 AM, a record review of orders for Resident #2 was conducted. During the review, it was noted Resident #2 had orders for one on one supervision beginning on 05/20/24 with a start time of 6:00 PM. One on one supervisions were ordered to take place between 12:00 PM and 8:00 PM. On 05/20/24 at approximately 12:30 PM a review of progress notes for Resident #2 from 01/27/24 through 05/20/24 revealed: 01/28/24 at 5:05 PM - Resident having more confusion noted this evening with sun downing. Easily agitated. Worried over her two small dogs and getting home to them. Redirected by staff with distractions. 01/29/24 at 6:06 PM- Resident (sp) became agitated around time of shift changed (sp). Resident was walking around facility going in and out of other residents rooms taking items that did not belong to her. Resident was shouting I am working with the FBI government and I am here to watch of of you. Resident was not able to be redirected at first. Several attempts were made to try and redirect resident with food, drink, comfort, distraction, walking. Resident was adamant that she did not want any of that, she was insistant(sp) that we all get out of her house. Resident then struck staff member in the face and stated get out of my way why can't you just leave me in here (in another residents room). That staff person walked out of the room to try and deescalate (sp) the situation. Nurse then was able to redirect resident out of the room and in to the hallway. Resident then grabbed the nurse by the arms and scratched stating get away from me. Resident then started walking down the hallway with a staff member following behind to ensure safetyof (sp) resident. At this point to keep staff and resdient(sp) safe a close eye was kept on resident at all times for duration of shift. Resident continued to have behaviors throughout the shift but was able to be redirected. 01/30/24 at 3:56 PM- This nurse spoke with resident MPOA (medical power of attroney) regarding recent behaviors to staff and sundowning. Discussed medication changes and POA in agreement. This nurse notified MPOA that resident roommate has voiced being scared of resident, MPOA agreed he is fine with room change if needed. 01/31/24 at 10:09 PM- Res was wandering into other reside4nts (sp) rooms yelling in the hallway at staff to get out of her house. Res is refusing to use her walker. Res smacked me across the face twice and tried biting me when I tried to redirect her away from pulling the fire alarm. I walked along side res in the halls and she was grabbing anything she could pick up and throwing it. Res would yell out anytime I asked her to not go into another res room. Multiple staff tried to redirect res. Res refused a snack & to sit in living room area by nurses station. Res was walked backed to her room per staff & laid back down. 02/01/24 at 10:32 AM- Resident upset wanting everyone out of her home walking down hallways yelling and throwing items. Resident hitting staff and attempted to pull fire alarm. Resident unable to be redirected. 02/01/24 at 5:24 PM- After supper meal resident wanders back from dining room location. She has sun downing behaviors. She is unable to locate her room and doesn't recognize her surroundings. She is very intrusive in and out of other resident's rooms and beds. She was drinking other patients water from pitcher that was then replaced. She becomes very verbally agitated. She took a swing towards staff trying to assist her to her own room. She curses at them very loudly. She upset roommate due to her cursing. She was relocated to lounge and given distractions with short success only. She yells I just want to get the hell out of her and go home! Offered to watch movie, NO, Magazines given as a distraction at this time. 02/05/24 at 6:27 AM- late entry for 2/4/24 at 1800 resident yelling and cussing at roommate, residents seperated(sp) and roommate stated she was afraid to stay in that room. Roommate stated that this resident has been throwing things at roommate and yelling at screaming at her, states the roommate stated she was going to hit her with her cane. On call nurse manager(sp) notified. Roommate moved to room [ROOM NUMBER] for the night. Roommates POA aware. 03/15/24 at 2:27 PM- LATE ENTRY- Resident observed attempting to propel another res. In her wheelchair, when co res asked her to stop, this res begun to yell and tell co res she owned the place, then they both begun to yell at each other then the both struck out at each other landing strikes to faces. Res were immediately separated and re-directed. No injuries noted to either resident. All parties made aware. 03/26/24 12:49 PM- IDT follow up Type of incident: resident on resident What was happening at the time: Resident was in dining room and started swinging her cane. Another resident asked her to stop. This resident started insisting her husband owned her place. The second resident argued with her. This resident supposedly hit second resident in stomach with cane. 03/28/24 10:48 PM- notification:resident attempted to smother another resident. Confused, escalating behaviors. 03/28/24 11:00 PM- Resident had incident this evening where she would ask staff who they were, how they got in her house, who hired them and what company they work for. Resident didn 't understand she was in the nursing home she thought she was in her own home. Resident tookher(sp) quad cane and hit the med cart with it and then tried hitting this nurse. Staff member was able to talk to resident and get her to calm down. CNA was able to get resident back to her own room and lay down in bed. Spoke with telehealth provider [provider name] to obtain order to send resident out for evaluation. 03/29/24 at 12:00 AM- What was happening at the time: Resident had incident this evening where she would ask staff whoable(sp) to talk to resident and get her to calm down. CNA came to me later and reported that resident was in another residents room and tried to smother resident with a blanket and then with a towel. CNA was able to get resident back to her own room and lay down in bed. Spoke with telehealth provider [provider name] to obtain order to send resident out for evaluation. Root cause of incident: Dementia, impaired cognitive functioning, resident wanders aimlessly throughout the facility, resident believes she owns the facility and becomes irritated when residents and staff will not leave. 04/15/24 at 6:40 PM- the resident was observed by two aides smacking another resident in the mouth on blue hall. The resident seemed frustrated because of the other resident yelling out. Both of the resident (sp) were separated. The resident then went to her room. No injuries observed. No signs of pain. Md has been notified and a vm was left for poa. Orders are to place resident back on 1:1 supervision. No further changes at this time. 04/20/24 at 3:32 AM- Resident up/out of room, yelling at CNA, cursing. Aggressive behavior. Started to enter another residents room with this nurse intervening and redirecting back to room. Very irritable and anxious. Asking Where's Steve What the hell are you all doing in my house? Redirected, reassured resident. Assisted resident back to bed, offered food and fluids. Calmed. Currently lying quietly in bed with 1-1 supervision continued. 05/17/24 at 4:48 PM- Resident had altercation with another resident. Resident 's (sp) separated. MD, DON, Administrator notified. Order placed for 1:1 from 12p-8pm At approximately 12:50 PM on 05/21/24, a record review was conducted of Resident #2 's care plan. The care plan focus for behaviors reads as follows: The resident has a behavior problem. Patient with sundowners. Patient believes at times that other residents are looking at her or in her home. Patient noted to hit staff and yelling out to get out of her house. Patient noted to go in other patient 's rooms and drink out of other resident's water pitcher. Behaviors of throwing items and screaming at others. Resident to close her door and place furniture in front of the door to block anyone from coming in. Resident noted to have delusions, believing she owns the facility. Resident known to comment on the race of caregivers. It was discovered during review of the care plan that Resident #2 was not care planned for aggressive or abusive behaviors towards other residents in the facility, only staff, despite multiple incidents involving Resident #2 and other residents. On 05/20/24 at approximately 11:53 AM, an interview was conducted with Resident #1 regarding the incident from 03/28/24. Resident #1 stated, She tried to kill me. She took a blanket and a towel, and put it over my face and tried to smother me with it. If I didn't have this oxygen on, I would be dead. I fought and fought her for 10-15 minutes while she held the blanket and towel over my face. The only thing that kept me alive was this oxygen. She told me I was gonna leave her house, one way or another, and I didn't know what she meant at first, but once she started, I knew she meant I was going to die. They were supposed to have her on one on one after that, but there was a new nurse here that no one told, and I looked up and she was taking the stop sign down off of my door to try and come back in my room again. She went into another woman's room after she went in mine, while she was supposed to be on one on one and no one was with her. And that woman can't speak up for herself. It still makes me very upset. Resident #1 was asked if they were afraid, to which she stated, Very much so. I am very much afraid of her, I can't get up and move, I have to be lifted out of bed, so yes, I am very fearful that she will come back in here and do it again. Resident #1 was asked if she had voiced these concerns to facility staff, to which she stated, Yes, and they tell me they won't let her come in here. Resident #2 resides next door to Resident #1. Resident #1 stated, That makes me even more afraid that it will happen again. Every time she walks by my room she looks in here and says she needs to talk to me. Resident #1 stated she had trouble sleeping at night, knowing Resident #2 is in the room beside her. On 05/20/24 at approximately 1:07 PM, an interview was conducted with the Licensed Social Worker (LSW) regarding the incident. The LSW stated the facility offered Resident #1 to move rooms or put a stop sign on the door. The LSW states there was not an attempt to move Resident #2 farther away from Resident #1, nor were there conversations had with the Medical Power of Attorney for Resident #2 concerning a move. The LSW was asked if there had been follow up interviews conducted with Resident #1 since the incident and if the resident felt safe. The LSW stated., I have talked to her a few times. When asked about documentation concerning the follow up interviews with Resident #1, the LSW stated they could be found in Point Click Care (PCC). Upon review, the only note in PCC regarding a follow up for Resident #1 was on 03/29/24, the day after the incident occurred. At approximately 2:00 PM on 05/21/24, an interview was conducted with the Medical Records Coordinator (MRC) regarding Resident #2's care plan. The MRC acknowledged Resident #2 was not care planned for resident-to-resident interactions. At approximately 02:00 PM on 05/21/24, an interview was conducted with the Medical Records Coordinator (MRC) regarding Resident #2's care plan. The MRC acknowledged Resident #2 was not care planned for resident-to-resident interactions. Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to revise care plans for one (1) of six (6) residents. Resident #64's care plan was not revised to reflect the resident's ability to use the FreeStyle Libre blood glucose monitoring system. Resident #2's care plan was not revised to reflect her aggression toward other residents. Resident identifiers: #64, #2. Facility census: 65. Findings included:
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0680 (Tag F0680)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and staff interview the facility failed to ensure the activities program was directed by a qualified professional who is a qualified therapeutic recreation specialist or an acti...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and staff interview the facility failed to ensure the activities program was directed by a qualified professional who is a qualified therapeutic recreation specialist or an activities professional who is licensed. This was identified during the extended survey process of the complaint survey. This has the potential to affect a limited number of residents. Identifier: Recreational Director (RD) #60. Census: 65. Findings included: a) On 05/21/24 at approximately 2:30 PM a request to review the Recreational Director (RD) #60's license. This request was made during the facility extended survey process. RD #60 stated she was not yet licensed but was currently in class to obtain her license through the National Certification Council for Activity Professionals. She stated the program had a practicum, and that the Administrator was her preceptor. She further stated that no one was overseeing her work or signing off on it. Record review for the activity preference for Resident #2 revealed it was completed and signed off by RD #60. During an interview with the Administrator, on 05/21/24 at approximately 4:25 PM, the Administrator stated she was not aware of the required licensing qualifications for the position. She further stated she was not aware the activity assessments had to be completed by a qualified therapeutic recreation specialist or an activities professional who was licensed.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Medical Records (Tag F0842)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to maintain accurate medical records as it pertained to behavior monitoring for Resident #1. Resident identifier: 2. Facility census: 65...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to maintain accurate medical records as it pertained to behavior monitoring for Resident #1. Resident identifier: 2. Facility census: 65. Findings include: A) Record Review On 05/20/24 at approximately 12:30 PM a review of progress notes for Resident #2 were reviewed as they pertained to behaviors exhibited by Resident #1. The following progress note from 04/20/24 typed as written: 04/20/24 at 3:32 AM - Resident up/out of room, yelling at CNA, cursing. Aggressive behavior. Started to enter another resident's room with this nurse intervening and redirecting back to room. Very irritable and anxious. Asking 'Where's Steve? What the hell are you all doing in my house?' Redirected, reassured resident. Assisted resident back to bed, offered food and fluids. Calmed. Currently lying quietly in bed with 1-1 supervision continued. At approximately 10:00 AM on 05/21/24 a review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) and behavior monitoring task sheet for Resident #1 was reviewed. According to the MAR and behavior monitoring task sheet, there were no behaviors documented for 04/20/24, despite there being a progress note detailing behaviors exhibited by Resident #2. According to the MAR and behavior monitoring for 05/17/24, there were no behaviors noted for that day, despite the resident being involved in the following altercation: 05/17/24 at 4:48 PM- Resident had altercation with another resident. Resident's (sp) separated. MD, DON, Administrator notified. Order placed for 1:1 from 12p-8pm (Resident #1 slapped Resident #57 on 05/17/24). At approximately 12:10 PM on 05/21/24, the Administrator was made aware of, and acknowledged the discrepancies between the progress notes, MAR and behavioral monitoring task sheet.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Room Equipment (Tag F0908)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on medical record review, observation and staff interviews the facility failed to ensure the patient care equipment was in safe operating condition. A concentrator was identified to have overhea...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on medical record review, observation and staff interviews the facility failed to ensure the patient care equipment was in safe operating condition. A concentrator was identified to have overheated and not working for a resident. This was true of one (1) of three (3) residents with oxygen concentrators in use and was identified during the complaint survey. This had the ability to affect a limited number of residents. Resident identifier: #34. Facility census: 65. Findings included: a) On 05/21/24 at approximately 11:15 AM during a medical record review of Resident #34, the resident's oxygen order and care plan identified the oxygen level of 3L (three Liters). An observation of the concentrator in use for Resident #34 was completed at approximately 11:22 AM on 05/21/24. During this time, it was identified that the concentrator oxygen level was at 2. During an interview with the Licensed Practical Nurse #95 she acknowledged the concentrator was reading 2L (two Liters) and that it should be at 3L. She began adjusting the dial, but the concentrator would not adjust up or down with the liters of oxygen. On 05/21/24 at approximately 11:24 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) was asked at this time by LPN #95 to get a new concentrator. The DON provided the concentrator and assisted LPN #95 to ensure the new concentrator was working properly at 3L. On 05/21/24 at 11:59 AM during an interview with the DON the audit being completed for the oxygen concentrators in use for 05/21/24 was provided. This audit did identify the concentrator for Resident #34 was checked at 7:00 AM and was noted to be accurate at 3L of oxygen at this time. The DON stated at this time that the concentrator was not working properly, and a new concentrator was provided. On 05/21/24 at approximately 12:30 PM the Director of Plant Maintenance (DPM) #30 provided an email picture of a concentrator with a handwritten label that read broken placed on it and a Check O2 Plus oxygen analyzer by Invacare being held out from the concentrator that reads 94.7% / 3.7 LPM (Liters Per Minute). DPM #30 stated they had serviced the concentrator unit that was removed from Resident #34's room, and it had determined it had overheated due to being too close to the curtain in the resident's room. She further stated that this did not allow the concentrator to ventilate properly, causing it to overheat. DPM #30 agreed that the unit was not working properly at the time of the incident.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Abuse Prevention Policies (Tag F0607)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

a) Resident #64 On 05/20/24 at 11:30 AM a review of the facility reported incident dated 04/01/24 was performed. It was noted that on 04/01/24 at approximately 12:00 PM, Resident #64 was in the facili...

Read full inspector narrative →
a) Resident #64 On 05/20/24 at 11:30 AM a review of the facility reported incident dated 04/01/24 was performed. It was noted that on 04/01/24 at approximately 12:00 PM, Resident #64 was in the facility dining room, she requested to be taken back to her room stating she needed to have a bowel movement. Employee #56 reports that she took Resident #64 down the hall to Employee #70. Employee #56 informed Employee #70 that Resident #64 wanted to be put in bed and placed on the bed pan to have a bowel movement. Employee #56 states that Employee #70 stated she would get her. Employee #56 reports that she also informed Employee #71 and that Employee #71 also stated she would get her. At approximately 01:30 PM, Employees #57 and #42 went into give Resident #64 a bath, at which time it was noted Resident #64 had the lift pad under her and was noted to have stool on her. Employees #57 and #71 reported to facility staff their findings at this time and an investigation was initiated. It was noted that 6 (six) employees were named in the investigation. Statements were present for 3 (three) employees, Employees #57, #65 and #71. Including the 3 (three) statements present there was noted to be a single sheet of paper with 5 (five) paragraphs. The paragraphs began with the sentence, Social Worker (SW) interviewed. Of these 5 (five) paragraphs it was noted that 3 (three) employees, Employees #70, #65 and #71 and 2 (two) Resident's, Resident #64 and #8 were listed to have been interviewed by the SW. The paper was dated 04/01/24 and was signed by the SW. These interviews were noted to lack how the statement was obtained, the employee and resident signatures, and the date and time each was obtained. On 05/20/24 at 03:13 PM An interview with the SW was conducted. During the interview, the SW acknowledged that the single sheet of paper containing the 5 (five) paragraphs were interviews she conducted with the named employees and residents. The SW also acknowledged she was unsure how the statements were obtained stating, They were possibly phone interviews, perhaps I spoke with them in person, I don't know. When asked who Resident #64's assigned CNA was on 04/01/24 at the time the incident occurred, the SW replied, I am not sure who was assigned, I assume it was Employee #71. The SW acknowledged that she did not interview other resident's on this assignment or have skin checks performed on them. The SW also acknowledged that the facility substantiated neglect in the investigation. The SW was then asked to provide the assignment sheet from that date and time. On 05/20/24 at 4:15 PM the assignment sheet for the incident was provided by the SW. After review of assignment sheet for 04/01/24, it was noted that Employee #25 was Resident #64's assigned CNA. The SW acknowledged that Employee #71 was not Resident #64's assigned CNA at the time of the incident. When asked for the statement obtained from Employee #25, the SW acknowledged that she had not obtained a statement from Employee #25. On 05/20/24 at approximately 08:37 PM, a review of the facility policy, [NAME] Virginia Abuse, Neglect and Misappropriation Policy was performed and the following text on page 13: Statements will be obtained from staff related to the incident, including victim, person reporting incident, accused perpetrator and witnesses. The statements will be made in writing, signed, and dated at the time it is written. Supervisors may write the statement for a person giving a statement about the incident to them and the person giving the statement must sign and date, or a third party may witness the statements. On 5/21/24 at 10:45 AM an interview was conducted with the Administrator and Director of Nursing (DON). The facilities Regional [NAME] President (RVP) was also present for the interview. The Administrator was asked to review the investigation packet. The Administrator confirmed there was not a statement from Employee #25, who was Resident #64's assigned CNA at the time of the incident. The Administrator was presented the single sheet containing multiple statements signed only by the SW, not by the individuals from whom the statements were obtained. The Administrator stated, This is a copy of the SW's statement, not individual statements obtained from the employees and resident's involved. The Surveyor then explained to the Administrator that the SW acknowledged on 05/20/24 that this was individual statements she obtained from the employees and residents listed. The RVP then asked if the SW could be brought into the room to participate The SW then entered the interview. The SW confirmed these were statements she obtained from the staff and resident's listed, not her statement. The SW also confirmed she had not obtained a statement from Employee #25. The Administrator then acknowledged each individual employee and resident should have signed and the way the SW wrote them was not in compliance with their policy. Based on record review and staff interview the facility failed to implement written policies and procedures that ensured investigations into allegations of abuse and neglect were thoroughly investigated. This failed practice was true for 1 (one) of 6 (six) investigations reviewed. Resident identifiers: #64. Facility census: 64. Findings included:
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Investigate Abuse (Tag F0610)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

a) Resident #64 On 05/20/24 at 11:30 AM a review of the FRI complaint and investigation was performed. It was noted that on 04/01/24 at approximately 12:00 PM, Resident #64 was in the facility dining ...

Read full inspector narrative →
a) Resident #64 On 05/20/24 at 11:30 AM a review of the FRI complaint and investigation was performed. It was noted that on 04/01/24 at approximately 12:00 PM, Resident #64 was in the facility dining room, she requested to be taken back to her room stating she needed to have a bowel movement. Employee #56 reported she took Resident #64 down the hall to Employee #70. Employee #56 informed Employee #70 that Resident #64 wanted to be put in bed and placed on the bed pan to have a bowel movement. Employee #56 stated that Employee #70 said she would get her. Employee #56 reports that she also informed Employee #71 that Employee #70 also stated she would get her. At approximately 1:30 PM, Employees #57 and #42 went into give Resident #64 a bath, at which time it was noted Resident #64 had the lift pad under her and was noted to have stool on her. Employees #57 and #71 reported to facility staff their findings at this time and an investigation was initiated. 6 (six) employees were named in the investigation. Statements were present for 3 (three) employees, Employees #57, #65 and #71. Including the 3 (three) statements present there was noted to be a single sheet of paper with 5 (five) paragraphs. The paragraphs began with the sentence, Social Worker (SW) interviewed. Of these 5 (five) paragraphs it was noted that 3 (three) employees, Employees #70, #65 and #71 and 2 (two) Resident's, Resident #64 and #8 were listed to have been interviewed by the SW. The paper was dated 04/01/24 and was signed by the SW. These interviews were noted to lack how the statement was obtained, the employee and resident signatures, and the date and time each was obtained. On 05/20/24 at 03:13 PM An interview with the SW was conducted. During the interview, the SW acknowledged that the single sheet of paper containing the 5 (five) paragraphs were interviews she conducted with the named employees and residents. The SW also acknowledged she was unsure how the statements were obtained stating, They were possibly phone interviews, perhaps I spoke with them in person, I don't know. When asked who Resident #64's assigned CNA was on 04/01/24 at the time the incident occurred, the SW replied, I am not sure who was assigned, I assume it was Employee #71. The SW acknowledged that she did not interview other resident's on this assignment or have skin checks performed on them. The SW also acknowledged that the facility substantiated neglect in the investigation. The SW was then asked to provide the assignment sheet from that date and time. On 05/20/24 at 04:15 PM the assignment sheet for the incident was provided by the SW. After review of assignment sheet for 04/01/24, it was noted that Employee #25 was Resident #64's assigned CNA. The SW acknowledged that Employee #71 was not Resident #64's assigned CNA at the time of the incident. When asked for the statement obtained from Employee #25, the SW acknowledged that she had not obtained a statement from Employee #25. On 05/20/24 at approximately 08:37 PM, a review of the facility policy, [NAME] Virginia Abuse, Neglect and Misappropriation Policy was performed noting the following text on page 13: d. Statements will be obtained from staff related to the incident, including victim, person reporting incident, accused perpetrator and witnesses The statements will be made in writing, signed, and dated at the time it is written. Supervisors may write the statement for a person giving a statement about the incident to them and the person giving the statement must sign and date, or a third party may witness the statements. On 5/21/24 at 10:45 AM an interview was conducted with the Administrator and Director of Nursing (DON), the facilities Regional [NAME] President (RVP) was also present for the interview. The Administrator was asked to review the investigation packet. The Administrator confirmed there was not a statement from Employee #25, who was the Resident #64's assigned CNA at the time of the incident. The Administrator was presented the single sheet containing multiple statements signed only by the SW, not by the individuals from whom the statements were obtained. The Administrator stated, This is a copy of the SW's statement, not individual statements obtained from the employees and resident's involved. The surveyor then explained to the Administrator that the SW acknowledged on 05/20/24 this was individual statements that she obtained from the employees and residents listed. The RVP then asked if the SW could be brought into the room to participate in the interview. The SW then entered the interview. The SW confirmed these were statements she obtained from the staff and resident's listed. The SW also confirmed she had not obtained a statement from Employee #25. The Administrator then acknowledged each individual employee and resident should have signed and that they way the SW wrote them was not in compliance with their policy. Based on record review, staff interview and the facility policy and procedure, the facility failed to provide evidence that all alleged violations were thoroughly investigated and that corrective action was taken. Witness statements and staff education was not thoroughly completed. This was true for one (1) of five (5) facility reported incidents reviewed during the complaint survey. Resident identifier: #64. Census: 65.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

QAPI Program (Tag F0867)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review and staff interview the facility failed to implement written Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) polices and procedures for data collection and monitoring inclu...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and staff interview the facility failed to implement written Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) polices and procedures for data collection and monitoring including adverse event monitoring. This failed practice was true for 6 (six) of 6 (six) investigations reviewed. Resident identifiers: Resident #64, #66. Facility census: 65. Findings included: a) Resident #64 On 05/20/24 at approximately 08:37 PM, a review of the facility policy, [NAME] Virginia Abuse, Neglect and Misappropriation Policy was performed noting the following text on page 19: All investigations of abuse, neglect and misappropriation will be reviewed by the QAPI committee. The committee will determine if the investigation is complete and if the action taken has resolved the issue or if a performance improvement plan is needed. On 05/21/24 at approximately 12:00 PM, a review of the facility policy, QAPI (Quality Assurance Performance Improvement) Plan was performed noting the following text on page 5 (five). ii. The facility will track, investigate and monitor adverse events that must be investigated every time they occur, and action plans will be implemented to prevent recurrence. On 05/21/24 at approximately 01:07 PM, the DON provided a single sheet of paper containing occurrence no. 1188387 and note ID #3866090. On 5/21/24 at 01:33 PM an interview conducted with the Administrator. The Administrator was usable to provide documentation that the policy and procedure from facility policies West Virginia Abuse, Neglect and Misappropriation and facility policy QAPI (Quality Assurance Performance Improvement) Plan had occurred during the facility QAPI meetings. stating We didn't do an AD HOC on Resident #64. Are you asking me if we look at every incident to make sure everything is in it that it says in that policy? No I don't. We don't make a note. We talk about it. Facility Administrator acknowledged that she does not review all incidents/reportables to make sure they are following the policy and procedure including the process for the investigation to ensure all required documentation is present. Facility Administrator also acknowledged there is no QAPI meeting documentation related to reviewing them. b) Resident #66 On 05/21/24 at approximately 03:10 PM during an interview with the Administrator, of the statements that was gathered by the Social Worker (SW) for the facility reported incident occurring on 04/12/24 and involving Resident #66. The statements gathered were referenced to the facility policy and procedure for the Abuse, Neglect, and Misappropriation process identified on page 13; Statements will be obtained from staff related to the incident, including victim, person reporting incident, accused perpetrator and witness.; The statement(s) will be made in writing, signed, and dated at the time it is written. 1. Supervisors may write the statement for a person giving a statement about the incident to them and the person giving the statement must sign and date it, or a third party may witness the statements. On 05/21/24 at approximately 03:15 PM the statements gathered by the SW identified the following discrepancies and were reviewed with the Administrator; * Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #79 completed a had written witness statement on 04/12/24 (date of event), this statement was signed and dated at the time it was given. Below the statement, an additional statement is identified to have been dated 04/15/24 by the Social Worker (SW) #13 for LPN #79 statement. This statement was not signed and dated by LPN #79. No third party witness signature was identified. * LPN #79 typed an additional witness statement. No signature or date was identified for LPN #79. * Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #25 completed a hand written witness statement on 04/12/24 (date of event), this statement was signed and dated at the time it was given. Below the statement, an additional statement is identified to have been obtained by SW #13 for CNA #25. This statement was not signed or dated by CNA #25. No third party witness signature was identified. * SW #13 completed a phone interview with LPN #23, This statement was not signed or dated by LPN #23. No third party witness signature was identified. * SW #13 completed a phone interview with CNA #80, This statement was not signed or dated by CNA #80. No third party witness signature was identified. * SW #13 completed a phone interview with CNA #69, This statement was not signed or dated by CNA #69. No third party witness signature was identified. On 5/21/24 at 01:33 PM an interview conducted with the Administrator. The Administrator was usable to provide documentation that the policy and procedure from facility policies West Virginia Abuse, Neglect and Misappropriation and facility policy QAPI (Quality Assurance Performance Improvement) Plan had occurred during the facility QAPI meetings. stating We didn't do an AD HOC on Resident #64. Are you asking me if we look at every incident to make sure everything is in it that it says in that policy? No I don't. We don't make a note. We talk about it. Facility Administrator acknowledged that she does not review all incidents/reportables to make sure they are following the policy and procedure including the process for the investigation to ensure all required documentation is present. Facility Administrator also acknowledged there is no QAPI meeting documentation related to reviewing them. During this interview with the Administrator on 05/21/24 at approximately 03:15 PM, the Administrator agreed that the signatures and dates were not obtained for the witness statements as required. She further agreed that she does not review all incidents/reportable's to make sure they are following the policy and procedure for a complete and thorough investigation.
Oct 2022 13 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

. Based on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure care was provided in a manner to promote the resident's dignity. A sign was posted in Resident #46's room noting direction for...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure care was provided in a manner to promote the resident's dignity. A sign was posted in Resident #46's room noting direction for care or treatment. This failed practice was based on a random opportunity for discovery and had the potential to effect more than a limited number of residents. Resident identifier: Resident #46. Facility census: 61 Findings included: a) Resident #46 An observation, on 10/17/22 at 11:45 AM, revealed a sign posted on the wall, above the resident's chair in Resident #46's room. The sign read as follows: When (Resident #46) is in chair do not let her have the remote. She will put herself on the floor. Put her in her chair and hide the remote. An interview, with Registered Nurse (RN) #65, on 10/17/22 at 11:48 AM, verified no sign should be above the resident's chair, showing resident information and stated it should be removed .
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 medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to complete an accurate comprehensive assessment for t...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** . Based on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to complete an accurate comprehensive assessment for two (2) of two (2) residents reviewed for Hospice. Resident identifiers: #38 and #44. Facility census: 61. Findings included: a) Resident #38 Review of the medical revealed Resident (R) #38 is on Hospice services for end of life care. The annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 09/09/22 is incorrectly coded as no under section J1400. The Resident Assessment Instruction Manual states: Code 1, yes: if the medical record includes physician documentation: 1) that the resident is terminally ill; or 2) the resident is receiving hospice services. During an interview on 10/19/22 at 12:45 PM, Registered Nurse (RN) MDS Coordinator #65 confirmed R#38's annual MDS assessment dated [DATE] was incorrectly coded under section J1400. b) Resident #44 On 10/19/22 at 10:00 AM, a record review was completed for Resident #44. The Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], under Section O entitled Special Treatments, Procedures and Program did not indicate the resident was receiving hospice services. A review of the current physician's orders did indicate Resident #44 was under hospice services since 05/06/21. The Care Plan also addresses the focus area of currently receiving hospice care due to a diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). An interview with Registered Nurse (RN) MDS Coordinator #65 confirmed the annual MDS dated [DATE] was incorrect regarding hospice services. The RN MDS Coordinator #65 stated that's a mistake .I'll fix it. No further information was obtained during the long-term survey process. .
CONCERN (D)

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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

. Based on observation, record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure residents unable to carry out activities of daily living (ADLs) received necessary services in the areas of dr...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on observation, record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure residents unable to carry out activities of daily living (ADLs) received necessary services in the areas of dressing and personal hygiene. This was true for nine (9) of 20 residents reviewed under the care area of activities of daily living during the long-term care survey process. Resident identifiers: #1, #47, #31, #112, #28, #27, #22 and #8. Facility census: 61. a) Resident #1 On 10/18/22 at 8:55 AM, an interview with Resident #1 was completed. Resident #1 stated I'm supposed to get my showers Monday, Wednesday and Fridays .There was a new girl and she didn't know anything about it. She said we don't give showers on evening shift anymore. On 10/18/22 at 3:24 PM, an interview with the Administrator regarding the shower schedule was held. The Administrator stated, they can have showers whenever they request them .we do showers on evening shift .here is a copy of the new shower schedule .we will go talk to her and if she wants a shower she can have one. A review of the new shower schedule dated 10/17/22 was reviewed. Resident #1 is scheduled for showers on Monday, Wednesday and Friday evenings. On 10/19/22 at 1:30 PM, Corporate Nurse #88 was notified and confirmed the shower was not given. Corporate Nurse #88 stated, We do give showers on evening shift but they weren't done. On 10/19/22 at 3:00 PM, Resident #1 stated, I did get a shower yesterday before dinner. No further information was obtained during the long-term survey process. b) Shower Schedule Upon further review of the shower schedule, on 10/19/22 at 1:00 PM, the following residents did not receive their showers on 10/17/22 evening shift: --Resident #47 --Resident #31 --Resident #112 --Resident #28 --Resident #27 --Resident #22 --Resident #8 On 10/19/22 at 1:30 PM, Corporate Nurse #88 was notified and confirmed the showers were not given. Corporate Nurse #88 stated, We do give showers on evening shift but they weren't done. No further information was obtained during the long-term survey process. b) Resident #57 On 10/18/22 at 12:45 PM, Resident #57 was observed seated in her wheelchair in dining room. Resident #57 had accidentally dropped the ingredients of her soft taco in her lap and on the floor in front of her wheelchair. Multiple clumps of food were in resident's lap. A second observation was made on 10/18/22 at 4:15 PM. Resident #57 was seated in her wheelchair beside her bed. She was still wearing the same pants from earlier in the day. Food stains were openly visible on both upper thighs of resident's pants. The Director of Nursing (DON) also observed resident's stained pants. A record review, completed on 10/18/22 at 8:04 PM, revealed the following details: -A Physician Determination of Capacity reflected Resident #57 lacks capacity. The physician indicated the resident has short-term memory loss, disorientation, and an inability to process information. -A Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, with an assessment reference date of 10/06/22, reflected a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 6. A BIMS score of 6 indicates an individual is severely cognitively impaired. -The Quarterly MDS reflected Resident #57 is dependent on staff for mobility [the ability to move or be moved freely and easily] to and from the dining room. -The Quarterly MDS also reflected Resident #57 is dependent on staff for changing clothing. During an interview, on 10/19/22 at 8:35 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) agreed Resident #57 is dependent on staff for Activities of Daily Living (ADL). Using the reasonable person concept, the DON agreed nursing staff should honor resident's right to dignity and help resident change her soiled clothing even if Resident #57 does not make the request herself. .
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

. Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to provide the necessary treatment and services to promote healing of pressure ulcer. This failed practice was true for one (1) of fou...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to provide the necessary treatment and services to promote healing of pressure ulcer. This failed practice was true for one (1) of four (4) residents reviewed for pressure ulcer care. Resident identifier: #55. Facility census: 61. Findings included: a) Resident #55 A record review, completed on 10/18/22 at 7:54 PM, found the following physician order, Cleanse right heel unstageable pressure ulcer with wound cleanser. Apply Silver Hydrogel to wound bed, no sting skin prep to peri wound. Cover with dry dressing. Change qd [every day]. Every day shift for Wound Care. Diabetic Ulcer. The physician order had a start date of 10/02/2022. Review of the October 2022 Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed the following dates that were left blank: -10/15/22 -10/17/22 -10/18/22 During an interview, on 10/19/22 at 8:45 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed the three (3) above dates on the October 2022 MAR were left blank and undocumented. The DON further stated all nurses are trained to document accurately in the MAR and are educated that undocumented means undone. .
CONCERN (D)

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

Tube Feeding (Tag F0693)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

. Based on record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident who was fed by enteral means received the appropriate treatment and services to restore, if possible, oral eatin...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident who was fed by enteral means received the appropriate treatment and services to restore, if possible, oral eating skills and prevent complications of enteral feeding. The facilty failed to ensure the residual amounts were obtained in accordance with the physician's orders. This was true for one (1) of two (2) residents reviewed who was receiving a tube feeding during the Long Term Care Survey Process. (LTCSP). Resident identifier: #111. Facility census: 61. Findings included: a) Resident #111 A record review, for Resident #111, showed a physician's order, dated 10/16/22, for staff to check for residual daily , every shift, before reconnection of the tube feed and note any amount in milliliters (ml). If the residual was greater than 100 ml, staff were to hold the feeding for one (1) hour and recheck. If residual remained greater than 100 ml , the staff were to notify the physician. Further record review, showed no evidence the residual was being checked every day, during every shift, in order to have knowledge if the amount of residual obtained should be brought to the physician's attention, in accordance with the current order, dated 10/16/22. An interview, with Registered Nurse (RN) # 88, on 10/19/22 at 10:10 AM, verified there was no evidence staff had obtained the residual every shift, every day, in accordance with the physician's order and added; there would be no way to know if the residual was to the amount that physician's notification would be required. An interview, with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), on 10/19/22 at 10:20 AM, confirmed the residuals were to be documented on the Medication Administration Record (MAR) and there had been no place created to document the results of the residual amounts obtained in the electronic medical record per facilty procedure. The ADON verified, at this time, evidence of residual amounts being checked could not be found. .
CONCERN (D)

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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

. Based on observation, record review and staff interview, the facility failed to provide oxygen therapy in accordance with professional standards and practices. The facility failed to ensure the flow...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on observation, record review and staff interview, the facility failed to provide oxygen therapy in accordance with professional standards and practices. The facility failed to ensure the flow rate of oxygen was administered in accordance with physician's orders. This failed practice was true for one (1) of two (2) residents receiving oxygen therapy, reviewed during the Long Term Care Survey Process (LTCSP). Resident identifier: Resident #111. Facility census: 61. Findings included: a) Resident #111 A record review for Resident #111, showed a physician's order, dated 10/16/2022, for the resident to receive oxygen therapy at a flow rate of two (2) liters per minute (L/min), related to a diagnosis of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. An observation, on 10/17/22 at 12:50 PM, revealed the oxygen was being administered to Resident #111 at a rate of 1.5 L/min. An interview, with Registered Nurse (RN) #65, on 10/17/22 at 12:53 PM, confirmed Resident #111 was receiving oxygen at 1.5 L/min and verified the oxygen was not being administered in accordance with physician's orders. RN #65 verified at this time, the physician's order was written for the oxygen to be provided at two (2) L/min. .
CONCERN (D)

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

Garbage Disposal (Tag F0814)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

. Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to keep waste properly contained when the dumpster was overfilled and uncovered. This failure had the potential to result in unpleasant odors ...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to keep waste properly contained when the dumpster was overfilled and uncovered. This failure had the potential to result in unpleasant odors and harboring of pests. Facility census: 61. Findings included: A review of the food code by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), dated 2017, section 5-501.113 indicated outside receptacles must have tight-fitting lids or covers. a) Dumpster During an observation on 10/17/22 at 10:35 AM, the dumpster was overfilled. Garbage bags were observed approximately 12 inches above the top edge of the dumpster. The lid was flipped behind the dumpster. During an interview with the Dietary Services Supervisor (DSS) on 10/17/22 at 10:37 AM, the DSS acknowledged the dumpster was overflowing and the lid was not closed. He went on to state, All staff use this dumpster for disposal of garbage. I will also address this with the Director of Housekeeping. .
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** . Based on medical record review and staff interview, the facility staff failed to accurately complete comprehensive assessments...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** . Based on medical record review and staff interview, the facility staff failed to accurately complete comprehensive assessments reflecting Hospice services and anticoagulants. This is true for two (2) of two (2) residents reviewed for Hospice and two (2) of two (2) residents reviewed for inaccurate assessments. Resident identifiers: #38, #44 and #46. Facility census: 61. Findings included: a) Resident #38 1. Hospice A review of the medical record revealed Resident (R) #38 was on Hospice services for end of life care. The annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 09/09/22 was incorrectly coded as no under section J1400. The Resident Assessment Instruction Manual states: Code 1, yes: if the medical record includes physician documentation: 1) that the resident is terminally ill; or 2) the resident is receiving hospice services. During an interview on 10/19/22 at 12:45 PM, RN MDS Coordinator #65 confirmed R#38's annual MDS assessment dated [DATE] was incorrectly coded under section J1400. 2. Anticoagulant therapy A review of the medical record revealed R #38's annual MDS assessment with an ARD of 09/09/22 notes the resident received an anticoagulant drug during the seven days reviewed under section N0410E. The medical record and physician orders lack any information indicating R #38 received an anticoagulant during this assessment look back period. During an interview on 10/18/22 at 11:05 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #86 confirmed R #38 was not receiving an anticoagulant. LPN #86 acknowledged R #38's annual MDS was incorrectly coded for anticoagulant use in section N0410E. b) Resident #44 On 10/19/22 at 10:00 AM, a record review was completed for Resident #44. The Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], under Section O entitled Special Treatments, Procedures and Program did not indicate the resident was receiving hospice services. A review of the current physician's orders did indicate Resident #44 was under hospice services since 05/06/21. The Care Plan also addresses the focus area of currently receiving hospice care due to a diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). An interview with Registered Nurse (RN) MDS Coordinator #65 confirmed the annual MDS dated [DATE] was incorrect regarding hospice services. The RN MDS Coordinator #65 stated that's a mistake .I'll fix it. No further information was obtained during the long-term survey process. c. Resident #46 A record review for Resident#46 showed a completed Minimal Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], under Section N. (Medications) to include documentation the resident had received anticoagulant therapy in the past seven (7) days. Further review of the medical record for Resident #46, showed no evidence the resident had received anticoagulant therapy in the past seven (7) days and no order was identified for discontinued use of an anticoagulant medication. An interview, with Registered Nurse (RN) #88, on 10/18/22 at 11:08 AM , revealed staff had coded a medication incorrectly as an anticoagulant on the MDS dated [DATE]. An interview with the RN MDS Coordinator #65, on 10/18/22 at 02:21 PM ,confirmed the MDS, dated , 09/16/22 was documented in error. The MDS had been coded with a medication, thought to be an anticoagulant and should not have been coded that way. .
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0725 (Tag F0725)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** . Based on deficiencies cited, resident interviews, record reviews, and review of the facility assessment, the facility failed t...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** . Based on deficiencies cited, resident interviews, record reviews, and review of the facility assessment, the facility failed to ensure sufficient qualified nursing staff were available at all times to provide nursing and related services to meet the residents' needs safely and in a manner that promoted resident rights, physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. Facility census: 61. Findings Included: a) Citations During the facility's long-term care survey the following citations are cross referenced for F725: -See F550 Resident Rights / Exercise of Rights -See F0641 Accuracy of Assessments -See F0677 ADL Care Provided for Dependent Residents -See F0693 Tube Feeding Management -See F0695 Respiratory Care -See F0761 Label / Store Drugs and Biologicals -See F842 Accurate Medical Record -See F0880 Infection Prevention and Control b) Resident Interviews During an interview on 10/17/22 at 12:02 PM, Resident #12 stated, At times they get short, they have call offs, and care is late at times. Observation on 10/17/22 at11:38 AM, found Resident #26 had a urinal on his bedside stand that was 1/2 full. Resident #26 stated, They have not emptied it yet. The aides are frequently working double duty and always multi-tasking. They need more help. During an interview on 10/17/22 at 1:14 PM, Resident #44 stated, We don't get the help that is needed. I am speaking on behalf of all residents. c) Resident Council Minutes A review of resident council minutes, on 10/19/22 at11:56 AM, reflected the following concerns: -In the 11/02/21 resident council meeting, residents stated night shift needs more CNAs [certified nursing assistants]. -In the 01/04/22 resident council meeting, residents stated night shift needs more CNAs and Nurses. One resident stated she had a problem getting ready for resident council meeting. -In the 02/01/22 resident council meeting, residents reported multiple concerns: 1. Restorative therapy needs more help. Sometimes they get pulled to the floor. 2. A resident stated she was only getting one shower a week. 3. Another resident questioned who oversees CNAs and what they do. She felt like people are not doing their jobs 4. Residents reported not getting their shirts changed when they are soiled. -In the 04/05/22 resident council meeting, a resident stated she doesn't know about her appointments in advance. -In the 05/03/22 resident council meeting, it was reported that CNAs were not passing snacks for everyone. Residents reported they were not getting bed baths or their showers when assigned. -In the 07/11/22 resident council meeting, the Administrator stated she decided to get rid of restorative due to staffing until staffing issues have been resolved. d) Review of the Facility Assessment and Record Review The facility assessment had an annual review date of 10/14/22. The facility assessment (used to determine resources necessary to care for facility residents), documented a bed capacity of 68 with an average daily census of 57-64. The facility's staffing plan outlined the following staffing would be necessary to ensure sufficient staff to meet the needs of the residents at any given time: LPN Nurses - 59 per day per budget C.N.A. - 142 per day per budget Restorative Aides (Aides that implement individual programs under the guidance of Therapist - 252 weekly Review of the Daily Time Detail by Department on weekends revealed the following dates where LPN staffing did NOT follow the facility's staffing plan of 59 hours per budget day as detailed in their facility assessment: Saturday, 07/02/22 - 48 hours Sunday, 07/03/22 - 47.50 hours Saturday, 08/20/22 - 48.75 hours Sunday, 08/21/22 - 49.25 hours Saturday, 09/10/22 - 53.25 hours Sunday, 09/11/22 - 54.25 hours e) Interview with Administrator During an interview, on 10/19/22 at 1:09 PM, the Administrator acknowledged the facility has not had an operational Restorative Program since July 2022. It was explained that the facility lacked key administrative staff (the Director of Nursing, the Social Worker, the Infection Preventionist, the Staff Educator) and there simply was not enough administrative oversight to successfully run such a program. The Administrator did acknowledge that prior to pausing the Restorative Program, the restorative aides were being pulled to work the floor when the facility was short. The Administrator acknowledged the need for the Restorative Program remains under the staffing plan in the facility assessment. The Administrator acknowledged that the CNA to provide showers was pulled to work the floor on 10/18/22 and as a result, several residents did not receive their scheduled shower. Additionally, the Administrator acknowledged the facility's wound care Nurse was pulled to work a medicine cart due to staffing issues. On 10/19/22 at 1:18 PM, the Administrator stated the facility has not had enough key staff to do consistent monitoring of some of the concerns that have been [NAME] up by residents in resident council. admitted ly, some of it has gone to the wayside. It does needs addressed and we are now moving in that direction. .
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

. Based on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure drugs and biologicals, used in the facility, were stored and administered in accordance with current accepted professional pra...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure drugs and biologicals, used in the facility, were stored and administered in accordance with current accepted professional practices to ensure the safety and efficacy of medications administered. Medications stored in one (1) of two (2) medication carts inspected, had medication that was being administered after the manufacturer use by date. Temperatures were not obtained for the medication room refrigerator to ensure proper storage of medications requiring refrigeration. This practice had the potential to affect more than a limited number of residents. Resident Identifier: Resident #1. Facility census: 61. Findings included: a) Medication cart An observation of the Blue Hall medication cart , on 10/18/22 at 08:49 AM, revealed a Humalog insulin quick pen for Resident #1. Further observation revealed the insulin pen had a date of 09/17/22 written on the outside of the pen. An interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) # 26, on 10/18/22 at 09:07 AM, verified the date of 09/17/22 was the date the Humalog Insulin pen was opened and put into use. LPN # 26 , stated the pen would be able to be used for 60 days but was not exactly sure if that was correct and would have check on that. An interview, with Director of Nursing (DON), on 10/18/22 at 09:09 AM, verified the policy for insulin pens was that Humalog pens were to be discarded after 28 days of use and confirmed the insulin pen administered to Resident #1 had been used past the 28 day period according to manufacturers' instruction. b) Medication room An observation of the medication room , with the DON and LPN # 24, revealed temperature logs for the refrigerated medications showed no temperature readings, for the medication and vaccine refrigerators, documented for the afternoon reading on 10/10/22 . An interview, with LPN #24, on 10/18/22 at 12:20 PM, confirmed the temperatures were not documented on 10/10/22 for afternoon temperature check and confirmed there were medications in both refrigerators requiring storage at a certain temperature LPN # 24 stated further , during the interview, she forgot to take the temperatures for that time frame. .
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0804 (Tag F0804)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

. Based on observation, policy review, and staff interview, the facility failed to serve food that was palatable and at an accurate temperature. This failed practice had the potential to affect more t...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on observation, policy review, and staff interview, the facility failed to serve food that was palatable and at an accurate temperature. This failed practice had the potential to affect more than an isolated number of residents. Facility census 61. Findings Included: A review of the facility policy entitled HCSG 016 Food: Preparation with an effective date of 05/2014 and revision date of 09/2017 stated: .13. All foods will be held at appropriate temperatures, greater than 135 degrees F (Fahrenheit) (or as state regulation requires) for hot holding, and less than 41 degrees F for cold food holding . a) Tray Line On 10/18/22 at 11:25 AM, Food Services Director #56 obtained temperatures from the tray line prior to the meal service. The following foods did meet the temperature guidelines: --puree corn 96.0 degrees F --cottage cheese 45.3 degrees F --shredded cheese 44.7 degrees F During an interview on 10/18/22 at 11:55 AM, the Food Services Director #56 confirmed the temperatures were incorrect. We will get this corrected immediately. b) Lunch Tray Temperature On 10/18/22 at 12:35 PM, temperatures were obtained on the lunch tray for Resident #19. The following temperatures were obtained by the Food Services Director #56 using his thermometer: --Chicken taco 107.0 degrees F --corn 111.0 degrees F --puree pears 73.0 degrees F --milk 41.6 degrees F During an interview with the Food Services Director #56 on 1018/22 at 12:45 PM, acknowledged the temperature was incorrect. We will get this corrected. No further information was obtained during the long term survey process. .
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 staff interview, the facility failed to store food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. The facility failed to label and date food items that w...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to store food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. The facility failed to label and date food items that were opened. The facility also failed to accrue dishwasher, refrigerator, freezer and resident refrigerator temperature logs. This failed practice had the potential to affect more than a limited number of residents who are served food from the kitchen. Facility census: 61. Findings included: a) Kitchen Tour On the initial tour of the kitchen on 10/17/22 at 10:45 AM, the following food was found in the walk-in refrigerator in a Ziploc baggies with the date but were not labeled: --Angel Food Cake --American [NAME] Cheese Also, on 10/17/22 10:49 AM, the following food was found in the walk-in refrigerator labeled but not dated: --An opened bag of hash browns --An open bag of ravioli --An open bag of chicken tenders. The Food Services Director #56 confirmed the above items should have been labeled and dated once they were opened. b) Resident Pantry A review of the facility policy titled Use and Storage of Food Brought in by Family or Visitors with the revision date of 05/03/21 found the following: .2. All food items that are already prepared by family or visitor brought in must be labeled with the content and dated . On 10/18/22 at approximately at 12:20 PM, a tour of the resident pantry was completed. The following food items were found with no name or date: --two (2) boxes of uncrustable peanut butter sandwiches for Resident #37 with no date found --one (1) box of Neapolitan ice cream with no name or date found On 10/18/22 at 12:28 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed the food items were not labeled with the resident's name or date. c) Resident Pantry Refrigerator Temperatures On 10/18/22 at approximately 12:20 PM, a tour of the resident pantry was completed. The refrigerator and freezer temperatures were reviewed. The review found the refrigerator and freezer temperatures were incomplete for the following dates: --10/06/22 evenings --10/07/22 evenings --10/08/22 evenings --10/12/22 evenings --10/13/22 evenings --10/14/22 evenings --10/15/22 evenings --10/17/22 evenings On 10/18/22 at 12:28 PM, the DON confirmed the refrigerator and freezer temperatures were incomplete. No further information was obtained during the long term survey process. d) Walk-in Freezer Temperature Log On 10/18/22 at approximately 12:00 PM, observation of the kitchen found the walk-in freezer temperature logs were incomplete. The temperature logs were incomplete for the following dates: --10/15/22 evenings --10/16/22 evenings On 10/18/22 at 12:05 PM, the Dietary Services Director #56 confirmed the dates for the walk-in freezer log were incomplete. e) Dishwasher Temperature Logs On 10/18/22 at approximately 12:00 PM, observation of the kitchen found the dishwasher temperature logs were incomplete. The temperature logs were incomplete for the following dates: --08/31/22 dinner --09/01/22 dinner --09/02/22 dinner --09/03/22 dinner --09/05/22 dinner --09/07/22 dinner --09/08/22 dinner --09/09/22 dinner --09/10/22 dinner --09/12/22 dinner --09/14/22 dinner --09/15/22 dinner --09/16/22 dinner --09/21/22 dinner --09/22/22 lunch --09/23/22 dinner --09/26/22 dinner --09/27/22 dinner --09/29/22 breakfast --09/29/22 lunch On 10/18/22 at 12:05 PM, the Dietary Services Director #56 confirmed the dates for the dishwasher logs was incomplete. No further information was obtained during the long term survey process. .
CONCERN (E)

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

Medical Records (Tag F0842)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

. Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to maintain an accurate medical record for one three (3) of 20 sample residents reviewed during the Long-Term Care Survey process. Res...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to maintain an accurate medical record for one three (3) of 20 sample residents reviewed during the Long-Term Care Survey process. Resident identifiers: #48, #111, and #20. Facility census: 61. Findings included: a) Resident #48 An electronic medical record review, completed on 10/17/22 at 1:38 PM, revealed the following details: -A hospice discharge form, dated 09/02/22, providing resident/resident's representative a notice of non-coverage and stating that hospice services were ending. -A Physician Order for Scope of Treatment (POST) Form was on file. The second page of the POST form noted, Patient is enrolled in hospice. During an interview, on 10/18/22 at 2:05 PM, the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) acknowledged the POST form was not accurate and needed updated. b) Resident #20 An electronic medical record review, completed on 10/18/22 at 9:22 PM, revealed the following physician order: Every day and evening shift, check for residual q shift [every shift] and note any amount in ml (milliliters). If residual is >100 ml, hold feeding for one (1) hour and recheck. If residual remains >100 ml notify MD. A subsequent review of the October 2022 Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed the following dates that a residual greater than 100 ml was documented: -On 10/12/22, a residual was documented as 237 ml -On 10/15/22, a residual was documented as 175 ml There was no evidence of a residual recheck being completed after an hour. During an interview, on 10/19/22 at 10:19 AM, the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) reported the numbers 237 ml and 175 ml were documented in error. The ADON explained, The nurse on duty had erroneously documented the amount of tube feeding Resident #48 was given, not the resident's residual. The resident's residuals were zero. c) Resident # 111 A record review, for Resident #111, showed a progress note, dated 10/17/22, with the resident's weight documented as 88 pounds ( lbs). A dietary assessment note, completed on 10/18/22, also showed the residents admission weight to be 88 lbs. A review of the Comprehensive Nutritional Assessment, completed by the Dietician on 10/18/22, showed the weight, that was entered on Resident #111's assessment, as the resident's weight of 184.6 lbs. An interview with Registered Nurse (RN) #88, on 10/19/22 at 10:10 AM, revealed the nutritional assessment showed an inaccurate weight of 184.6 lbs and verified the progress note written for Resident # 111 had the correct weight documented as 88 lbs. At this time, RN #88 contacted the Dietician by phone at 10:16 AM on 10/19/22. The Dietician verified the weight was incorrect on the assessment and added the assessment was locked and could not be changed. Additionally, the Dietician verified there was no addendum note written to clarify the inaccuracy of the documented weight on the nutritional assessment. The Dietician stated the weight that had been entered in the assessment was the weight of another resident. .
Jul 2021 16 deficiencies
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 during medical treatments for one (1) of two (2) residents observed for treatments. Resident identifier: Resident ...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to provide personal privacy during medical treatments for one (1) of two (2) residents observed for treatments. Resident identifier: Resident #19 Facility census: 66. Findings included: During treatment observations, on 07/28/21 at 9:54 AM, Registered Nurse (RN) #57 prepared supplies to perform a treatment for Resident #19 outside the resident's door. Resident #19's bed could be observed from the door way or when walking up the hallway. RN #57 entered the room with the treatment supplies prepared a work area on the resident's bedside table and completed the treatment . RN #57 failed to close the resident's door or pull the curtain to provide privacy nor was Resident #57 asked her preference. An interview, on 07/28/21 at 10:15 AM, with RN #57 revealed privacy was not provided to Resident #19 during the treatment and should have been. RN #57 stated further, she did not realize it until the treatment was completed. .
CONCERN (D)

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

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

. Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure all alleged violations involving verbal abuse were reported, not later than 24 hours of the event that caused the allegation...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure all alleged violations involving verbal abuse were reported, not later than 24 hours of the event that caused the allegation to appropriate state agencies as required. This had the potential to cause more than minimal harm. This was a random opportunity for discovery and a deficient practice identified during complaint investigation. Resident identifier: #10. Facility census: 66. Findings included: a) Resident #10 On 07/28/21 at 11:42 AM, a review of the facility's Grievance/Complaint log for May 2021 found a grievance/complaint form dated 05/24/21 filed by Resident #10. The individual designated to act on this concern was not specifically identified. The grievance form was signed by the former Administrator. The description of the complaint revealed aides are yelling/demanding for her [Resident #10] to get out of bed. Resident #10 stated she needs the aides help and not screamed at every day. When the unidentified staff member spoke with Resident #10, the resident stated nurse aides talk like drill sergeants. A review of the facility's Compliance with Reporting Allegations of Abuse/Neglect/Exploitation policy with the revision date of 02/01/2019 stated an alleged violation is a situation or occurrence that is observed or reported by staff, resident, relative, visitor or others but has not yet been investigated and, if verified, could be noncompliance with the Federal requirements related to mistreatment, exploitation, neglect, or abuse, including injuries of unknown source, and misappropriation of resident property. The policy also states the Director of Nursing Services (DON), CEO/Administrator, or designee will notify the appropriate agencies immediately: as soon soon as possible, but no later than 24 hours after discovery of the incident. An interview with the interim DON, on 07/28/21 at 12:00 PM, established she was the staff member who spoke with Resident #10, completed the grievance form, and sent to the previous Administrator for review and signature. The interim DON acknowledged Resident #10's grievance/complaint should have been considered an allegation of verbal abuse thereby making the allegation reportable to the appropriate state agencies. The interim DON confirmed the facility had failed to report this as an allegation of verbal abuse. At 12:05 PM on 07/28/21, the Administrator recognized the oversight and reported the facility would report the allegation immediately. .
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0625 (Tag F0625)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** . Based on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to provide evidence a bed hold notification was given ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** . Based on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to provide evidence a bed hold notification was given to a resident or the resident's representative before being transferred to an acute care hospital. This was true for one (1) of three (3) residents reviewed for the care area of hospitalization during the long-term care survey. Resident: Resident #12. Facility census: 66. Findings included: a) Resident #12 A medical record review was completed on 07/27/21 at 2:30 PM. Resident #12 was transferred/discharged to the hospital on [DATE]. There was no evidence the facility had provided the resident or resident's representatives a bed hold notification at the time of the transfer/discharge. In an interview on 07/27/21 at 2:40 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse #86 reported all residents transferring to the hospital are sent with a Bed Hold Notice and carbon copies of the Bed Hold Notice go to the Business Office. The Director of the Business Office, on 07/27/21 at 3:10 PM, reported she was unable to locate the carbon copy of the Bed Hold Notice for Resident #12 and acknowledged the facility had no evidence the Notice was provided. .
CONCERN (D)

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

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

. Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to accurately complete section G (Eating) status of the Minimum Data Set (MDS). This is true for one (1) of twenty-one (21) reviewed d...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to accurately complete section G (Eating) status of the Minimum Data Set (MDS). This is true for one (1) of twenty-one (21) reviewed during the Long-Term Care Survey Process (LTCSP). Resident identifier: #57. Facility census: 66. Findings included: a) Resident #57 A dining observation on 07/26/21 at 12:28 PM of Resident #57 sitting up in her room in a wheelchair, with her noon meal sitting in front of her. Resident #57 was not eating at this time. A second observation on 07/26/21 at 12:46 PM found, Resident #57 being assisted with her noon meal. A review of Resident #57's care plan revealed: Assistance with meals. According to the MDS assessment for Resident #57, with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 07/09/21. Section G for question H. (Eating) was assessed for: -- 1. Self-Performance 0. (No set up or physical help from staff.) -- 2. Support 2. (One-person physical support.) An interview on 07/27/21 at 2:09 PM with the ADON verified the MDS section G was incorrect and contradictory for eating. The ADON stated that she would have the MDS Nurse amend this section of the 07/09/21 MDS. .
CONCERN (D)

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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

. Based on a random observation, record review, resident and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident who required assistance or was unable to perform activities of daily living durin...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on a random observation, record review, resident and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident who required assistance or was unable to perform activities of daily living during dining, received necessary care to enable the resident to eat meals independently. This was found true for Resident #10. Facility census: 66. Findings included: During an observation, on 07/27/21 at 8:11 AM, Resident #10 was lying at the edge of the bed with her breakfast tray uncovered and unable to reach it. An interview with Resident #10, on 07/27/21 at 8:11 AM, revealed she needed assistance to sit up and was unable to reach the tray . She further stated that staff said they would be back to assist her and no one had returned. On 07/27/21 at 8:15 AM, the surveyor requested Resident #10 to activate the call system, which Resident #10 did without difficulty. Nursing Assistant (NA) #84 responded and verified the resident could not sit up by herself and required assistance. NA #84 further stated Resident #10 should have been assisted to a positron to eat at the time the tray was delivered and confirmed it had not been done. A record review noted a Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 04/28/21. Under Section G, Activity of Daily living (ADLs) self performance with eating required supervision and assistance of one (1) and under Section GG, Resident #10 was assessed as requiring assistance with moving from a lying to sitting on side of bed. A review of the resident centered care plan, dated 06/07/21, noted Resident #10 to require assistance with ADLs due to decreased functional mobility and weakness. An interview, on 07/27/21 at 2:08 PM, with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON ), verified Resident #10 should have been assisted to be positioned when the tray was delivered and further stated it was an over sight she was not. .
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0685 (Tag F0685)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

. Based on a random opportunity for discovery, through record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents requiring assuasive devices for hearing are in good working or...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on a random opportunity for discovery, through record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents requiring assuasive devices for hearing are in good working order. This was true for Resident #19. Census: 66. Findings included: a) Resident #19 During tour, on 07/26/21 at 10:30 AM, Resident #19 expressed a concern she was unable to use her hearing aids due to the batteries being dead. In addition Resident #19 stated that when she had complained to staff about the batteries being dead, she was told there were no available replacement batteries. Resident #19 expressed this had been going on for approximately a month after she initially complained. During the Resident Council Meeting, on 07/27/21 at 10:00 AM, Resident #19 expressed she was unable to hear all that was being addressed due to not having hearing aids. On 07/27/21 at 4:08 PM, surveyor requested LPN # 76 to check Resident #19's hearing aides to determine if they were in working order. LPN #76 verified both hearing aide batteries were dead. When asked about the availability of batteries in the facility, LPN #76 retrieved batteries from the medication room and replaced the batteries in Resident #19's hearing aides at 4:17 PM. and returned the hearing aides to the resident. At this time LPN # 76 confirmed both hearing aides were now working. LPN # 76 could not determine when the last check or replacement of the batteries had occurred. A record review noted Resident #19 had a Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an assessment reference date of 05/18/21 in which the Resident was assessed under Section C, to have Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 14. Under Section B, Resident #19 was assessed as being highly impaired defined as absence of useful hearing and hearing appliances were used. A review of the resident centered comprehensive care plan, dated 06/10/21, noted Resident #19 was noted to have the potential for a communication problem due to the resident having hearing problems and had hearing aids. The care plan noted She is able to hear fine when wearing hearing aids. and addressed bilateral hearing aids are in med cart and the resident was to be assisted with insertion of hearing aids in am and removal at bedtime. The care plan addressed scheduling the resident for a hearing consult as needed or ordered and to monitor the hearing aides for need for battery change and provide as needed. An interview with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) on 07/28/21 revealed there was no evidence staff had monitored the functioning of the hearing aide batteries because there was no where it was being documented, It was further stated, Resident #19 had expressed a concern of not hearing well with the left hearing aid after the batteries had been replaced on 07/27/21. There was no evidence provided by the facility to show the last date the hearing aid batteries had been replaced. An interview with the Corporate Nurse on 07/28/21 at 9:08 AM, revealed batteries were available in the facility and provided a receipt of batteries ordered and available. In addition the Corporate Nurse stated the facility was in a transition and there were a lot of inexperienced people here. .
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0691 (Tag F0691)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

. Based on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to provide colostomy care to a resident according to professional standards of practice. The facility allowed unauthorized staff to prov...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to provide colostomy care to a resident according to professional standards of practice. The facility allowed unauthorized staff to provide ostomy care to a resident with a colostomy. The failed practice was true for one (1) of one (1) Residents reviewed for colostomy care. Resident identifier: #56. Facility census: 66. Findings included: A policy titled, Pouch Changes- Colostomy, Ureteostomy, and Ileostomy with revised date 05/03/21 was reviewed, on 07/27/21 at 3:00 PM. The policy stated, Ostomy care will be provided by licensed nurses under the orders of the attending physician. The order should include type of ostomy, frequency of pouch change, and type of equipment. a) Resident #56 An observation during the initial tour, on 07/26/21 at 11:20 AM, revealed Resident # 56 grimacing and moaning. An immediate interview with Resident #56, on 07/26/21 at 11:20 AM, stated, please help me it hurts my colostomy needs attention. Resident #56 stated the colostomy was hurting really bad. An observation, on 07/26/21 at 11:22 AM, revealed Nurse Aid (NA) #54 provided colostomy care and emptied colostomy bag. NA #54 was observed discarding a bag of feces from Resident #54's colostomy. An interview with NA #54, on 07/26/21 at 11:25 AM, confirmed colostomy care was completed and stated, Resident #56 had lumpy feces with gas which occurred frequently. An interview with Corporate Nurse (CN), on 07/27/21 at 3:30 PM, revealed NA's are not permitted to provide colostomy care in this facility per facility policy. CN confirmed, the ostomy care was provided by an agency staff who may have not know NA's were not permitted to provide ostomy care. An interview with Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), on 07/27/21 at 3:31 PM, revealed I see the problem NA's may be able to provide colostomy care in some [NAME] Virginia facilities but according to this facility's policy NA's are not permitted to provide ostomy care. .
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0697 (Tag F0697)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

. Based on record review and staff interview, facility failed to provide pain management services in accordance with professional standards of practice. The facility failed to provide pain medication ...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on record review and staff interview, facility failed to provide pain management services in accordance with professional standards of practice. The facility failed to provide pain medication to a resident based on a physician order. This was a random opportunity for discovery. Resident identifier: #162. Facility census: 66. Findings included: a) Resident #162 An interview with Resident #162, on 07/26/21 at 1:18 PM, revealed, the facility provided pain medication for eye pain. Resident #162 was unaware of what pain medication was provided. A record review, on 07/27/21 at 11:00 AM, revealed a care plan focus that stated, risk for pain diagnosis of Zoster ocular disease. Further record review, on 07/27/21 at 11:05 AM, revealed the July 2021 Medication Administration Record (MAR) stated, Tramadol HCl Tablet 50 milligrams (mg). Give 1 tablet by mouth every six (6)hours as needed for pain between 6-10 on pain scale related to ZOSTER WITHOUT COMPLICATIONS. The MAR revealed on 07/24/21 at 9:25 PM Tramadol was provided to Resident #162 with a pain level of five (5). An interview with Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), on 07/27/21 at 11:50 AM, confirmed Resident # 162 was incorrectly provided Tramadol at a pain level of five (5) when physician order stated to give Tramadol 50 mg for pain level between six (6)-10. .
CONCERN (D)

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

Medication Errors (Tag F0758)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

. Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to evaluate a resident for a gradual dosage reduction (GDR) for a psychotropic medication originally prescribed to treat unspecified p...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to evaluate a resident for a gradual dosage reduction (GDR) for a psychotropic medication originally prescribed to treat unspecified psychosis. Symptoms subsided but the resident remained drowsy and inactive. This was true for one (1) of five (5) residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. Resident identifier: #57. Facility census: 66. Findings included: a) Resident #57 A medical record review for Resident #57 found, physician orders as follows: -- Zyprexa Tablet 5 MG (milligrams) -Give 1 tablet by mouth at bedtime for AEB: Hallucinations, Picking/itching skin related to dx of unspecified psychosis. Monitor for Side Effects (S/E), 1 = side effects present-notify MD, 2 = no side effects noted. Give 2.5 mg tablet with 5 mg tablet to equal 7.5 mg with the order date 07/17/21. -- Zyprexa Tablet 2.5 MG - Give 1 tablet by mouth at bedtime for AEB: Hallucinations, Picking/itching skin related to dx of unspecified psychosis Monitor for S/E, 1 = side effects present-notify MD, 2 = no side effects noted. Give 2.5 mg tablet with 5 mg tablet to equal 7.5 mg. A continued review revealed the original physician order for Zyprexa 7.5 mg daily with a start date of 10/16/19. A review of the behavior log revealed Resident #57 exhibited no behaviors in the months of May, June or July 2021. During an interview on 07/28/21 at 1:19 PM with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), she stated that they did a time change on Resident #57's Zyprexa 7.5 mg on 06/16/21 from 8:00 AM to bedtime because Resident #57 seemed sedated and was sleeping through the day. A review of Resident #57's physician orders revealed, the time change for Zyprexa 7.5 mg from daily to bedtime with a start of 06/18/21. A review of the Psychotropic & Sedative/Hypnotic Utilization Log revealed, Resident #57's Zyprexa (Olanzapine) 7.5 mg with an original order date 10/16/19 had never had a GDR attempted. An interview on 07/28/21 at 2:09 PM with the ADON confirmed GDRs where not attempted for Resident #57's Zyprexa. No further information was provided prior to the end of the survey on 07/28/21 at 4:00 PM. .
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

. Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure all drugs and biological's used by the facility were stored in accordance with currently accepted professional standards for proper ...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure all drugs and biological's used by the facility were stored in accordance with currently accepted professional standards for proper temperature control for medications stored in the medication room. This practice had the potential to affect a limited number of residents. Census: 66. Findings included: a) Temperature of medications A review of Policy and Procedure for Medication Storage, Revision date of 05/03/21, noted all medications were to be stored in designated areas which are sufficient to ensure proper sanitation, temperature, light, ventilation, moisture control, segregation and security. An observation of the medication room on 07/27/21 at 04:21 PM revealed the following: -Iota ophthalmic solution was stored at a refrigerator temperature of 34 degrees Fahrenheit when the manufacturer's storage instructions were to refrigerate at 36 to 46 degrees Fahrenheit. An interview, on 07/27/21 at 4:21 PM, with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #76, verified the temperature of the refrigerator to be 34 degrees Fahrenheit and confirmed it was too cold for the Iota medication to be kept in. - one box of Oxymoron liquid was stored at a refrigerator temperature of 34 degrees Fahrenheit when the manufacturer's instructions were to store the medication at 59 degrees Fahrenheit. An interview, on 07/27/21 at 4:21 PM, with LPN #76 verified the temperature of the refrigerator to be 34 degrees Fahrenheit and confirmed it was too cold for the medication to be kept in. - Four (4) containers of liquid Latvian were stored at the temperature of 34 degrees Fahrenheit when the medication was to be stored between 36-46 Fahrenheit. An interview, on 07/27/21 at 4:21 PM, with LPN #76 verified the temperature of the refrigerator was 34 degrees Fahrenheit and verified the Latvian was being stored in to cold of a temperature. - Three (3) containers of liquid Roanoke was being stored in the refrigerator with a temperature of 34 degrees Fahrenheit when the manufacturer's direction was to store the medication at a temperature of 68 degrees to 77 degrees Fahrenheit. An interview, on 07/27/21 at 4:21 PM, with LPN #76 verified the temperature of the refrigerator was 34 degrees Fahrenheit and verified the Roxanol liquid was being stored in to cold of a temperature. An additional interview, with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), on 7/28/21 at 8:18 AM, verified the medications were not properly stored in accordance with the manufacturer's direction or the facility's policy for storing medications. .
CONCERN (D)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

. Based on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to complete refrigerator temperatures in accordance with professional standards for food service safety related to storage. This has the...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to complete refrigerator temperatures in accordance with professional standards for food service safety related to storage. This has the ability to affect a limited number of residents. Facility census: 66. Findings included: a) Kitchen During the initial kitchen tour on 07/26/21 at 10:21 AM an observation of the walk-in refrigerator temperature log found the 07/25/21 evening temperature and the 07/26/21 morning temperature was not completed on the log at this time. A continued tour on 07/26/21 at 10:25 AM found a staff drink with no name or date in the free-standing refrigerator. On 07/26/21 at 10:35 AM during an interview with the Dietary Manager (DM) verified the walk-in refrigerator temperatures should have been completed and no staff food or drinks should be in any refrigerator, where resident food or drinks are stored. The staff drink was removed from the resident refrigerator at this time. On 07/27/21 at 3:45 PM the findings were discussed with the Administrator. .
CONCERN (E)

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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

. c) Resident #34 A review of Resident Council minutes, spanning 01/01/21 through 06/30/21, was completed on 07/26/21 at 9:36 PM. The February 2021 Resident Council minutes reflected Resident #34 repo...

Read full inspector narrative →
. c) Resident #34 A review of Resident Council minutes, spanning 01/01/21 through 06/30/21, was completed on 07/26/21 at 9:36 PM. The February 2021 Resident Council minutes reflected Resident #34 reported aides will not knock before entering the bathroom when she is in there. The Nursing department's written follow-up to Resident #34's concern was attached to the February 2021 Resident Council's minutes and noted: [Resident #34's First name's beginning initial and Resident #34's last name]'s issues addressed. During a Resident Council meeting on 07/27/21 at 10:00 AM, Resident #34 stated although the issue about staff not knocking on her bathroom door has improved, she felt her privacy had been violated and was a dignity issue for her. Resident #34 explained she uses a sign for her bathroom door that indicates when the bathroom is in use. Resident #34 reported the other day around 7:30 PM, she was in the restroom and the sign was up indicating the bathroom was in use. Resident #34 stated she heard an unidentified Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) knock on the bathroom door and responded she was in the bathroom. The unidentified CNA then opened the door stating she needed to enter because she needed a wet washcloth to care for Resident #34's roommate. Resident #34 stated she found it to be very disrespectful for the unidentified CNA not to wait for her to finish and was a dignity issue for her not to have privacy while in the restroom. Resident #34's concern was discussed in an interview with the interim Director of Nursing (DON) on 07/28/21 at 7:50 AM. The interim DON acknowledged that although the unidentified CNA did take the time to knock on Resident #34's bathroom door, she failed to respect Resident #34's privacy by immediately entering the bathroom instead of waiting for Resident #34 to be finished in the restroom. Based on a resident council meeting, resident council minutes and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide residents with respect and a dignified existence. The facility failed to provide residents respect when staff continue to cuss and show negative behavior in the facility. The facility failed to provide respect to an independent resident in the bathroom by opening the door and using the sink while the resident used the bathroom. The failed practice was a random opportunity for discovery. Resident identifiers: #21, #54 and #34. Facility census 66. Finding included: a) Resident #21 An interview with Resident #21, on 07/26/21 at 11:00 AM, revealed negative staff behavior and rudeness. Resident #21 stated that this concern was reported to the previous Director of Nursing (DON) and the previous Administrator in late June. Resident #21 revealed nothing changed. Resident #21 stated the concern of staff rudeness was even addressed in resident council meetings and the negative staff behavior continues. A review of the 06/01/21 Resident Council minutes, on 07/28/21 at 8:00 AM, revealed Resident #21 addressed a concern that Nursing Aides (NA) can be rude. Follow up from the Resident council meeting stated education during 2:00 PM huddles with aides included tone and behaviors with residents. An interview with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), on 07/28/21 at 11:45 AM, revealed, education with the constant turn over in educators unfortunately is a hit and miss. The ADON stated, I do not have any evidence such as a sign in sheet for who attended the education provided to the NA's about rude behavior in June 2021 because it was like a quick reference reminder to them. The ADON stated that usually a grievance would be written for investigation, however one was not written for this complaint. b) Resident #54 An interview with Resident #54, on 07/26/21 at 3:25 PM, revealed NA #77 used a lot of profanity loudly in the middle of the night. Resident #54 stated that NA #77 continually said the words F--- You and G-- D--- throughout the night loudly so it is hard not to hear this profanity. Resident #54 stated that profanity occurred a lot in the facility. Resident #54 stated sadly the other night another unknown NA was over heard cussing with NA #77. Resident #54 stated profanity used in the facility was very disrespectful and her parents did not raise her to talk that like. Resident #54 stated, the concern was addressed with the previous DON but the negative behavior with the NA's continued. A review of May 2021 through July 2021 complaint logs and reportable's, on 07/26/21 at 3:40 PM, revealed no concerns or reportable's completed related to staff rudeness concerns. An interview with Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), on 07/28/21 at 11:45 AM, revealed, education with the constant turn over in educators unfortunately is a hit and miss. ADON stated, I do not have any evidence such as a sign in sheet for who attended the education provided to the NA's about rude behavior in June 2021 because it was like a quick reference reminder to them. ADON stated that usually a grievance would be written for investigation however one was not written for this complaint. .
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0578 (Tag F0578)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** . Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure four (4) of 21 residents reviewed during the long-te...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** . Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure four (4) of 21 residents reviewed during the long-term care survey process had a physician order for the Scope of Treatment (POST) form completed correctly per directions specified by the [NAME] Virginia Center for End-of-Life Care in conjunction with the [NAME] Virginia Health Care Decisions Act (16-30-1). The POST forms left sections blank. Resident identifiers: Residents #53, #55, #60, and #8. Facility census: 66. Findings included: a) Resident #53 A medical record review, completed on [DATE] at 1:07 PM, found POST form on Resident #53's medical chart. Additionally, there was a scanned copy of Resident #53's Medical Power of Attorney (MPOA) paperwork in the electronic medical record. A Physician Determination of Capacity was completed on [DATE] reflecting that Resident #53 lacked capacity to make medical decisions. Section E of the POST form was left blank. In 2002, the POST form was incorporated into the [NAME] Virginia Health Care Decisions Act, which was enacted to ensure that a patient's right to self-determination in healthcare decisions be communicated and protected (16-30-2). The directions for completing Section E of the POST form, compiled by the [NAME] Virginia Center for End-of-Life, stated for situations when the person loses or has lost decision-making capacity, the name, address, and phone number of the person legally authorized to make healthcare decisions for the incapacitated person are to be listed on the lines marked Name/Address/Phone. On [DATE] at 1:02 PM, the interim Director of Nursing (DON) acknowledged Section E of the POST form was left blank and the form should be updated to reflect the MPOA's name, address, and phone number. b) Resident #55 A medical record review, completed on [DATE] at 1:27 PM, found a POST form on Resident #55's medical chart. Additionally, there was a scanned copy of Resident #55's Medical Power of Attorney (MPOA) paperwork in the electronic medical record. A Physician Determination of Capacity form dated [DATE] which denoted Resident #55 lacked capacity to make medical decisions was also scanned into the resident's electronic medical record. Section E of the POST form was left blank. In 2002, the POST form was incorporated into the [NAME] Virginia Health Care Decisions Act, which was enacted to ensure that a patient's right to self-determination in healthcare decisions be communicated and protected (16-30-2). The directions for completing Section E of the POST form, compiled by the [NAME] Virginia Center for End-of-Life, state for situations when the person loses or has lost decision-making capacity, the name, address, and phone number of the person legally authorized to make healthcare decisions for the incapacitated person are to be listed on the lines marked Name/Address/Phone. On [DATE] at 1:06 PM, the interim DON acknowledged Section E of the POST form was left blank and the form should be updated to reflect the MPOA's name, address, and phone number c) Resident #60 A medical record review, completed on [DATE] at 1:21 PM, found a POST form on Resident #60's medical chart. Section A denoted in the event Resident #60 had no pulse and was not breathing, Resident #60 desired Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR). Under Section B entitled: MEDICAL INTERVENTIONS: Person has pulse and is breathing the selection Limited Additional Interventions was chosen. In 2002, the POST form was incorporated into the [NAME] Virginia Health Care Decisions Act, which was enacted to ensure that a patient's right to self-determination in healthcare decisions be communicated and protected (16-30-2). The directions for completing the POST form, compiled by the [NAME] Virginia Center for End-of-Life, explain contradictory POST form orders exist if Section A is marked CPR and Section B is marked Limited Additional Interventions. The guidance further explains contradictory orders may confuse healthcare providers and prevent patients from receiving the care they desire at the end of their lives. On [DATE] at 1:08 PM, the interim DON acknowledged the POST form had contradictory orders and needed to be updated. d) Resident #8 A record review on [DATE], revealed section C- medical administered fluids and nutrition on Resident #8's active Physician Order for Scope of Treatment Form (POST Form) was not completed. The IV fluids for the trial period was not completed with a time frame. During an interview on [DATE] at 2:09 PM with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), she confirmed Resident #8's section C on the POST form was incomplete. An interview on [DATE] at 2:10 PM with the Social Services Director revealed, Resident #8's POST Form was re-done to reflect the Residents Advanced Directive wishes. .
CONCERN (E)

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

Transfer Notice (Tag F0623)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** . b) Resident #12 A medical record review was completed on 07/27/21 at 2:30 PM. There was no evidence the facility had provided ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** . b) Resident #12 A medical record review was completed on 07/27/21 at 2:30 PM. There was no evidence the facility had provided a written Notice of Transfer/Discharge to Resident #12 or their representative for an acute hospital transfer/discharge on [DATE]. In an interview on 07/27/21 at 2:40 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #86 reported all residents transferring to the hospital are sent with a Notice of Transfer/Discharge and carbon copies of the Notice of Transfer/Discharge go to the Business Office. The Director of the Business Office, on 07/27/21 at 3:10 PM, reported she was unable to locate the carbon copy of the Notice of Transfer/Discharge for Resident #12 and acknowledged the facility had no evidence it was provided to Resident #12 or their representative. Interview with Social Worker #47, on 07/27/21 at 3:50 PM, revealed she only notifies the state long-term care Ombudsman if a resident is discharged to home or transfers to another facility. Social Worker #47 stated she does not notify the Ombudsman when a resident transfers to the hospital. On 07/27/21 at 4:00 PM, the Administrator acknowledged there was an issue with the Notice of Transfer/Discharge not being shared with the Ombudsman if a resident is sent to the hospital. c) Resident #53 A medical record review was completed on 07/26/21 at 12:58 PM. There was no evidence the facility had provided a written Notice of Transfer/Discharge for Resident #53 to the long-term care Ombudsman for an acute hospital transfer/discharge on [DATE]. Interview with Social Worker #47, on 07/27/21 at 3:50 PM, revealed she only notifies the state long-term care Ombudsman if a resident is discharged to home or transfers to another facility. Social Worker #47 stated she does not notify the Ombudsman when a resident transfers to the hospital. On 07/27/21 at 4:00 PM, the Administrator acknowledged there was an issue with the Notice of Transfer/Discharge not being shared with the Ombudsman if a resident is sent to the hospital. Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to provide a Notice of Discharge to the Office of the State Long Term Care (LTC) Ombudsman during transfers. This was true for three (3) of three (3) hospitalizations reviewed. Resident identifiers: #24, #12 and #53. Facility Census 66. Findings included: a) Resident #24 During the initial tour and interview on 07/26/21 at 12:55 PM Resident #24 stated that she has been sent to the hospital three (3) times in the last month. On 07/27/21 a medical record review revealed, Resident #24 was transferred to the hospital on [DATE], 07/12/12 and 07/19/21. During an interview with Social Services Director (SSD) on 07/27/21 at 4:02 PM, the SSD verified the Notice of Discharge was not sent to the LTC Ombudsman. She stated that the facility staff was unaware this was required to send notifications to the State LTC Ombudsman for hospital transfers. .
CONCERN (E)

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** . Based on observation, record review, resident council meeting, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure residents re...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** . Based on observation, record review, resident council meeting, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure residents received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice. This was true for ten (10) of 21 sampled residents reviewed during the long-term care survey process. Resident identifiers: Residents #8, #10, #17, #19, #21, #27, #34, #40, #57 and #58. Facility census: 66. Findings included: a) Resident Council Quality of Care Concern A review of Resident Council Minutes was completed on [DATE] at 9:36 PM. The following concerns were identified: -Resident Council minutes from [DATE] document Resident #17 reported staff do not return when he asks them to find something out for him. -Resident Council minutes from [DATE] document Resident #40 reported when he needs to go to the bathroom some of the aides will say they need to get help and never come back at times. Additionally, Resident #20 reported nursing staff will say they will be back and do not come back for a long time, or not at all. On [DATE] at 10:00 AM, a Resident Council Meeting was held during the annual long-term care survey process. Residents #8, #10, #17, #19, #21, #27, and #34stated they do not always get the help and care they need without waiting a long time. All seven (7) residents confirmed call lights will be answered by certified nursing assistants (CNAs) asking what they need. Many times, CNAs will state things like they need to go get extra help or they will be back shortly, but oftentimes they do not return at all. All seven (7) residents agreed this has been an ongoing issue that has been reported but continues to happen despite the facility's reassurance the issue has been addressed with staff. b) Resident #58 A medical record review was completed on [DATE] at 12:37 PM. -The electronic medical record revealed a DNRCC [Do Not Resuscitate Comfort Care] physician order dated [DATE]. - 2017 Physician Order for Scope of Treatment (POST) Form on Resident #58's chart revealed resident was to be considered DNR [Do Not Resuscitate] and limited additional interventions were to be given. Further direction listed on the POST form under limited additional interventions included: Transfer to hospital if indicated. Avoid intensive care unit. Treatment Plan: Hospitalize for routine medical treatment. During an interview, on [DATE] at 12:51 PM, the interim Director of Nursing (DON), confirmed the DNRCC order was a medical abbreviation for Do Not Resuscitate Comfort Measures. The interim DON acknowledged if this order was followed, Resident #58 would not be sent to the hospital. The interim DON acknowledged the POST Form, which was an expression of Resident #58's wishes indicated LIMITED ADDITIONAL INTERVENTIONS, which did include transfer to hospital if indicated. The interim DON recognized the two orders are incongruent and stated the physician order for DNRCC [Do not Resuscitate Comfort Care] needed to be changed to respect Resident #58's expressed wishes to be transferred to the hospital if indicated. c) Resident #8 A medical record review revealed a Physicians order of Full Code (All resuscitation procedures will be provided to keep them alive.) with a start date [DATE]. A review of Resident #8's care plan revealed the following: Focus: Full Code: Resident's resuscitation status is RESUSCITATE revision date of [DATE]. Goals associated with this problem included Resident's wishes will be honored through next review. Created on [DATE]. Interventions included: If resident is found to be without pulse or breathing, immediately call 911 and begin CPR. Once CPR has been imitated, continue until EMS arrives and takes over. Date initiated [DATE]. A continued review of Resident #8's medical record found an active Physician Order for Scope of Treatment Form (POST Form) with section A. marked Do Not Attempt Resuscitation. On [DATE] at 2:09 PM an interview with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) verified the POST form and physician order were contradictory. She stated that the facility failed to update the physicians orders with the correct code status. She stated that this would be corrected immediately. d) Resident #57 A review of R #57's physician orders, revealed the order: Zyprexa Tablet 5 MG -Give 1 tablet by mouth at bedtime for AEB: Hallucinations, Picking/itching skin. Monitor for Side Effects (S/E), 1 = side effects present-notify MD, 2 = no side effects noted. Give 2.5mg tablet with 5mg tablet to equal 7.5mg with the order date of [DATE]. A review of R #57's medication administration record, the S/E were as follows: --[DATE], An X was in the box for the S/E and a check mark in the administered box, the chart code check mark =Administered. There were no corresponding progress notes. --[DATE], An X was in the box for the S/E and a check mark in the administered box, the chart code check mark =Administered. There were no corresponding progress notes. --[DATE], An X was in the box for the S/E and a check mark in the administered box, the chart code check mark =Administered. There were no corresponding progress notes. --[DATE], An X was in the box for the S/E and a check mark in the administered box, the chart code check mark =Administered. There were no corresponding progress notes. Further review of the record found these orders were not implemented by the facility as directed by the physician. Zyprexa Tablet 2.5 MG - Give 1 tablet by mouth at bedtime for AEB: Hallucinations, Picking/itching skin. Monitor for S/E, 1 = side effects present-notify MD, 2 = no side effects noted. Give 2.5mg tablet with 5mg tablet to equal 7.5mg. A review of R #57's medication administration record, the S/E were as follows: --[DATE], An X was in the box for the S/E and a check mark in the administered box, the chart code check mark =Administered. There were no corresponding progress notes. --[DATE], An X was in the box for the S/E and a check mark in the administered box, the chart code check mark =Administered. There were no corresponding progress notes. --[DATE], An X was in the box for the S/E and a check mark in the administered box, the chart code check mark =Administered. There were no corresponding progress notes. --[DATE], An X was in the box for the S/E and a check mark in the administered box, the chart code check mark =Administered. There were no corresponding progress notes. Further review of the record found these orders were not implemented by the facility as directed by the physician. An interview on [DATE] at 2:09 PM with the ADON confirmed the S/E's where not completed. She stated that she is unsure of why they were not completed. e) Resident #19 A record review noted Resident #19 had a Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of [DATE]. Under Section C, the resident was assessed to have a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) of 14. The MDS noted under Section L, Dental Status, there were no issues. Health conditions included osteoarthritis and diabetic neuropathy in which Resident #19 was receiving routine pain management as noted on the resident centered care plan with an initiation date of [DATE]. According to the current resident centered care plan dated [DATE] Resident #19 had oral or dental problems or was at risk for dental problems. A review of facility documentation, noted the resident had been seen by a dentist on [DATE] in which the dental visit documentation showed the periodontal diagnosis was healthy with a call back in twelve (12) months. Further record review, showed on [DATE] at 8:31 AM, Resident #19 was complaining of a left side lower toothache. Documentation showed pain medication was provided, however, there was no evidence staff assessed the complaint other than providing medication. Prior to this time, Resident #19 had received routine dental care but had no complaints of dental pain . On [DATE], a progress note by the Nurse Practitioner entered at 10:23 AM noted the resident had tooth pain noted on routine examination . An interview on [DATE] at 1:24 PM, with the ADON, revealed staff had assessed pain level and responsed to the pain with only medication on [DATE], but not the complaint of the toothache. An interview with the Corporate Nurse, on [DATE] at 2:01 PM, revealed there was no evidence of an assessment being done for the complaint of a lower toothache at the time the resident had complained of her mouth hurting. The Corporate Nurse stated further there is inconsistencies with staff and no assessment of the problem was found. On [DATE] at 12:30 PM, a follow up interview with the Social Worker, revealed she had made Resident #19 an appointment with an Oral Surgeon. .
CONCERN (E)

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

QAPI Program (Tag F0867)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

. Based on interviews, facility documentation and resident council minutes, the facility failed to identify, develop and implement appropriate plans of action to correct identified quality deficiencie...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on interviews, facility documentation and resident council minutes, the facility failed to identify, develop and implement appropriate plans of action to correct identified quality deficiencies. The facility failed to correct continued resident concerns of negative staff behavior. The failed practice has the potential to affect more than a limited number of residents. Facility census 66. Finding included: a) Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI ) An interview with Resident #21, on 07/26/21 at 11:00 AM, revealed negative staff behavior and rudeness. Resident # 21 stated that this concern was reported to the previous Director of Nursing (DON) and the previous Administrator in late June. Resident #21 revealed nothing changed. Resident # 21 stated the concern of staff rudeness was even addressed in resident council meeting the negative staff behavior continues. An interview with Resident #34, on 07/25/21 at 1:50 PM, revealed NA #77 talked to her rudely and said, did you drink that damn f---ing thing referred to the water pitcher. Resident #34 stated, she did not complete an incident report as she did not want to cause more trouble. Resident #34 stated, if other residents complain about staff in resident council she would have no problem sharing this incident but resident council had not met since the incident occurred. An interview with Resident #54, on 07/26/21 at 3:25 PM, revealed NA #77 used a lot of profanity loudly in the middle of the night. Resident #54 stated that NA #77 continually said the words F--- You and G-- D--- throughout the night loudly so it was hard not to hear the profanity. Resident #54 stated profanity occurred a lot in the facility. Resident #54 stated sadly the other night another unknown NA was over heard cussing at NA #77. Resident #54 stated profanity used in the facility was very disrespectful and her parents did not raise her to talk that like. Resident #54 stated, the concern was addressed with the previous DON but the negative behavior with the NA's continued. A review of May 2021 through July 2021 complaint logs and reportables, on 07/26/21 at 3:40 PM, revealed no concerns or reportables completed related to staff cussing and negative behavior. Facility education documentation was reviewed, on 07/27/21 at 7:00 PM, revealed two (2) continued education related to staff communication and behavior with residents and coworkers over a period of time. 1. A facility training on 04/13/20 titled, Treating coworkers with dignity and respect covered topics such as : - As healthcare workers we are all going through a stressful time. How we treat each other can make and break us now. - We must treat our co-workers with dignity and respect. Remember our words and actions can affect everyone around us. - Please be kind. 2. A facility training on 07/19/21 titled, Speaking to Residents. Be mindful of tone and verbiage. There was no content provided for this training however eight (8) Nurse Aides (NA) signed the sign-in sheet. A review of 06/01/21 Resident Council minutes, on 07/28/21 at 8:00 AM, revealed Resident #21 addressed a concern that Nursing Aides (NA) can be rude. Follow up from the Resident council meeting stated education during 2:00 PM huddles with Aides included tone and behaviors with residents. An Interview with the Corporate Nurse (CN), on 07/28/21 at 9:08 AM, revealed the QAPI team works on what was known needs corrected. CN stated QAPI Team was not aware of concerns related to night staff being loud and rudeness of staff was not brought to QAPI. CN was not aware of certain resident council concerns and complaints about the rudeness of staff. CN stated, apparently all issues have not been brought to QAPI because of all the changes in administration. An interview with Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), on 07/28/21 at 11:45 AM, revealed, education with the constant turn over in educators unfortunately was a hit and miss. The ADON stated, I do not have any evidence such as a sign in sheet for who attended the education provided to the NA's about rude behavior in June 2021 because it was just a quick reference reminder to them. The ADON stated usually a grievance would be written for investigation, however nothing was not written for this complaint. The ADON agreed behavior and communication of staff to residents and coworkers appeared to be an ongoing issue. .
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

  • "What changes have you made since the serious inspection findings?"
  • "Why is there high staff turnover? How do you retain staff?"
  • "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
  • "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 2 life-threatening violation(s), 1 harm violation(s), $251,207 in fines. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 44 deficiencies on record, including 2 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $251,207 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in West Virginia. Major compliance failures.
  • • Grade F (0/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 0/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Belmont Healthcare Center's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns BELMONT HEALTHCARE CENTER an overall rating of 2 out of 5 stars, which is considered below average nationally. Within West Virginia, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. A rating at this level reflects concerns identified through health inspections, staffing assessments, or quality measures that families should carefully consider.

How is Belmont Healthcare Center Staffed?

CMS rates BELMONT HEALTHCARE CENTER's staffing level at 1 out of 5 stars, which is much below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 73%, which is 26 percentage points above the West Virginia average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs. RN turnover specifically is 80%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.

What Have Inspectors Found at Belmont Healthcare Center?

State health inspectors documented 44 deficiencies at BELMONT HEALTHCARE CENTER during 2021 to 2024. These included: 2 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 1 that caused actual resident harm, and 41 with potential for harm. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.

Who Owns and Operates Belmont Healthcare Center?

BELMONT HEALTHCARE CENTER is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by COMMUNICARE HEALTH, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 68 certified beds and approximately 63 residents (about 93% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in BELMONT, West Virginia.

How Does Belmont Healthcare Center Compare to Other West Virginia Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in West Virginia, BELMONT HEALTHCARE CENTER's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 2.7, staff turnover (73%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Belmont Healthcare Center?

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

Is Belmont Healthcare Center Safe?

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

Do Nurses at Belmont Healthcare Center Stick Around?

Staff turnover at BELMONT HEALTHCARE CENTER is high. At 73%, the facility is 26 percentage points above the West Virginia average of 46%. Registered Nurse turnover is particularly concerning at 80%. RNs handle complex medical decisions and coordinate care — frequent RN changes can directly impact care quality. High turnover means new staff may not know residents' individual needs, medications, or preferences. It can also be disorienting for residents, especially those with dementia who rely on familiar faces. Families should ask: What is causing the turnover? What retention programs are in place? How do you ensure care continuity during staff transitions?

Was Belmont Healthcare Center Ever Fined?

BELMONT HEALTHCARE CENTER has been fined $251,207 across 1 penalty action. This is 7.1x the West Virginia average of $35,591. Fines at this level are uncommon and typically indicate a pattern of serious deficiencies, repeated violations, or failure to correct problems promptly. CMS reserves penalties of this magnitude for facilities that pose significant, documented risk to resident health or safety. Families should request specific documentation of what issues led to these fines and what systemic changes have been implemented.

Is Belmont Healthcare Center on Any Federal Watch List?

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