ROSEWOOD CENTER

8 ROSE STREET, GRAFTON, WV 26354 (304) 265-0095
For profit - Corporation 69 Beds GENESIS HEALTHCARE Data: November 2025 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation
Trust Grade
23/100
#86 of 122 in WV
Last Inspection: February 2025

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

Overview

Rosewood Center in Grafton, West Virginia has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the quality of care provided. It ranks #86 out of 122 facilities in the state, placing it in the bottom half, and is the second out of two options in Taylor County, meaning only one local alternative is available. The facility's trend is worsening, with issues increasing from 4 in 2024 to 33 in 2025. Staffing is a relative strength with a turnover rate of 37%, which is below the state average, but the overall staffing rating is only 2 out of 5 stars. However, the facility has faced serious issues, including a critical incident where CPR was delayed for a resident who was unresponsive, and a serious case where a resident in severe pain from a pressure ulcer did not receive timely pain management. These findings highlight both staffing stability and serious care deficiencies that families should consider.

Trust Score
F
23/100
In West Virginia
#86/122
Bottom 30%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Worse
4 → 33 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
37% turnover. Near West Virginia's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
Penalties
✓ Good
$54,759 in fines. Lower than most West Virginia facilities. Relatively clean record.
Skilled Nurses
○ Average
Each resident gets 34 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
76 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Overall Rating
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Staff Levels
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Care Quality
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 4 issues
2025: 33 issues

The Good

  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover below average (37%)

    11 points below West Virginia average of 48%

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: 37%

Near West Virginia avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

Federal Fines: $54,759

Above median ($33,413)

Moderate penalties - review what triggered them

Chain: GENESIS HEALTHCARE

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 76 deficiencies on record

1 life-threatening 1 actual harm
Feb 2025 33 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 resident interview and observation, the facility failed to promote dignity by not serving residents who reside in the same room their meals at the same time. Resident identifier: #20. Facilit...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on resident interview and observation, the facility failed to promote dignity by not serving residents who reside in the same room their meals at the same time. Resident identifier: #20. Facility census: 64. Findings included: a) Resident #20 On 02/18/25 at 12:35 PM, Resident #20 and roommate were observed in their rooms during the lunch meal. Resident #20's roommate had been served a meal and was eating. Resident #20 was being visited by her husband. On 2/18/2025 at 1:05 PM Resident #20's husband was opening resident's food tray in her room. He reported that she was never served a tray, and he had to ask staff to get her one. He stated that the meatball sandwich served had mushy bread and was too hot as if it had been microwaved. Resident # 20 reported that she was just going to eat the meatballs out of the inside of the sandwich. Resident #20's husband reported that he asked why his wife was not served her meal at the same time as her roommate and replied they did not know.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0552 (Tag F0552)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to inform the resident of the reason they were receiving hospice car...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to inform the resident of the reason they were receiving hospice care. This was true for one (1) of eight (8) residents interviewed. Resident identifier: 40. Facility census: 64. Findings include: a) Resident #40 During an interview, on 02/25/25, at approximately 1:10 PM, Resident #40 stated that hospice nurses visited him regularly. When asked why he was receiving hospice care, he expressed that he did not know what hospice was. He mentioned that he believed the hospice nurses visited everyone at the facility. The resident further stated that he was unaware of the specific hospice services being provided to him, saying, The staff bring me my medications and meals; otherwise, I take care of everything by myself. A record review conducted on 02/25/25, at 1:55 PM revealed that the resident had been admitted to the facility on [DATE]. He had been discharged from the hospital after an acute hospitalization for sepsis due to a urinary tract infection. The physician's admitting note dated 11/08/24 stated the resident had an acute hospitalization from 10/31/24 - 11/08/24 for concerns of sepsis secondary to a urinary tract infection. following: The overall recommendation was that the patient lacked decision-making capacity and likely had advancing dementia. Hospice was consulted as an in-patient as well, and family was agreeable for discharge to a long-term care facility on hospice due to severe dementia. He was deemed stable for discharge on [DATE]. This was the date he was admitted to the facility. Further record review revealed that hospice documents were signed by resident's Medical Power of Attorney (MPOA) on 11/08/24. The admitting diagnosis for hospice was documented as coronary artery disease (CAD). A Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) evaluation was conducted on 02/10/25 at 2:52 PM by the Director of Social Services (DSS) 7. The results state the following: N Adv - BIMS Summary score: 15.0 An interview with the DSS #7 on 02/18/25 at approximately 11:55 AM revealed that Resident #40's cognition is intact. During an interview with Administrator #10 on 02/25/25, at approximately 1:35 PM, it was noted that the resident was unaware he was on hospice care and did not understand the meaning of hospice. In response, the Administrator mentioned that the hospice nurses typically do a good job of explaining their services to the residents. In an interview with the DON, on 02/25/25 at approximately 2:05 PM, upon being asked why Resident #40 was on hospice, she stated that she would have to check resident's record. After checking the record, the DON stated that Resident #40 was on hospice because of a diagnosis of Coronary Artery Disease. Upon being informed that the resident did not understand why he was receiving hospice services, DON stated that the hospice nurses were usually very good at explaining their services to the resident. A review of the resident's Care Plan on 02/25/25 at approximately 12:00 PM revealed the following: A review of the hospice record on 02/24/25, at approximately 1:30 PM, revealed no documentation that hospice services were explained to the resident.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0553 (Tag F0553)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interview, the facility did not notify or include the resident in the planning of their care. This included the right to be involved in the planning process, the right to re...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility did not notify or include the resident in the planning of their care. This included the right to be involved in the planning process, the right to request meetings, and the right to ask for revisions to their care plan. Resident identifier: #40. Facility census: 64. Findings include: a) Resident #40 During an interview, on 02/18/25 at approximately 11:18 AM, the resident stated he wanted to have his status re-evaluated. He stated his physician had documented that he did not have the capacity to make medical decisions. The resident stated he had requested a meeting with the facility staff. During an interview with the Director of Social Services (DSS) #7 on 02/18/25, at approximately 11:55 AM, she was notified that Resident #40 wanted his capacity evaluated. DSS #7 stated it was a difficult situation because Resident #40's Brief Interview for Mental Status conducted on 02/10/25 had revealed Resident #40's cognition was intact. However, the resident's physician still had some reservations about the resident's ability to care for himself. Record review on 02/19/25 at approximately 12:45 PM revealed the interdisciplinary team had conducted a Care Plan meeting with the resident's MPOA on 02/19/25 at 11:37 AM. The facility had not notified, or invited, the resident to the care plan meeting. A review of the resident's Care Plan on 02/19/25 at approximately 1:00 PM revealed the following the resident would be involved in the care planning process. During an interview with DSS #7 on 02/19/25 at approximately 1:30 PM, she confirmed she had not notified the resident of the care plan meeting. SW stated that the person who usually sent out the notifications was no longer at the facility, and the resident had not been notified. During an interview with Physician #81 on 02/24/25 at approximately 11:00 PM, this surveyor notified the physician that Resident #40 was requesting a capacity evaluation to be conducted by another physician. Physician #81 was agreeable to the request and stated that he would notify the facility to schedule a consultation for the resident at the VA hospital.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0561 (Tag F0561)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on the interview and record review, the facility failed to assess the resident's potential for independent ambulation, and failed to provide him with the assistance necessary to accomplish his c...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on the interview and record review, the facility failed to assess the resident's potential for independent ambulation, and failed to provide him with the assistance necessary to accomplish his choices. The resident has a right to make choices about aspects of his or her life in the facility that are significant to the resident. Resident identifier: #22. Facility Census: 64. Findings include: a) Resident #22 During an interview on 02/19/25 at approximately 11:11 AM, the resident stated he wanted to ambulate. He further stated that he had attempted to ambulate by walking behind his wheelchair, but staff stop him and ask him to sit in his wheelchair. Resident further stated if there was any reason why he was not allowed to ambulate by himself, he would like to be evaluated by occupational therapy. Record review on 02/19/25 at approximately 12:15 PM, revealed the resident had been on hospice since 11/11/24. Hospice was renewed on 02/01/24 with a diagnosis of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease (ASCVD) Further record review on 02/19/25 at approximately 12:15 PM revealed the following notes: A care plan note on 02/05/25 stated it was important for the resident to have the opportunity to engage in daily routines. The resident would have opportunities to make decisions/choices related to and for self-directed involvement in meangingul acitivies. An update to the care plan revealed the resident was classified as independent with no restrictions on 02/11/25, as revealed the following note: However, the resident stated that he was still restricted when attempting to ambulate by himself. During an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) #27 on 02/19/25 at approximately 1:11 PM, DON stated that the resident had no restrictions. During an interview with the Director of Occupational Therapy (DOT) #52 on 02/19/25, she stated residents on hospice were not normally referred to the therapy department for services. However, DOT #52 stated that since the resident was requesting therapy, she would evaluate the resident for services. On 02/24/25, at approximately 9:45 AM, DOT #52 confirmed she had evaluated resident #22 and submitted a request for approval of services.
CONCERN (D)

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment. Resident #1's room was not in good repair. This was true for one (1) of 3...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment. Resident #1's room was not in good repair. This was true for one (1) of 32 residents reviewed during the long term care survey process. Room identifier: 210-A. Resident identifier: #1. Facility census: 64. Findings included: a) Resident #1 During an observation, on 02/18/25 at 3:43 PM, Resident #1's wall was observed on the right side with multiple drywall patches. One (1) large patch was approximately the size of a basketball. Three (3) smaller patches were also on the wall beside residents bed. When glancing at the right corner of the wall, it was observed that there was a crack measuring approximately 6 to 8 in length. Additionally, the right wall, when entering residents room, had nine (9) square drywall patches which were approximately 3 x 3 inches in size. This particular wall had a collection of resident's artwork, pictures, and personal items on display. Resident #1 enjoyed showing Surveyor her possessions and discussing each one with great pride. b) On 02/19/25 at 2:26 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated painting and caulking was needed in the corner of the room and that she would also add the need to paint over the drywall patches to the maintenance work order system.
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

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 allegations of resident-to-resident abuse were reported within two (2) hours to the appropriate state agencies. The failure to...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure allegations of resident-to-resident abuse were reported within two (2) hours to the appropriate state agencies. The failure to make a timely report was true for one (1) of nine (9) sampled resident-to-resident altercations involving abuse that were reviewed during the Long-Term Care Survey Process as well as complaint investigations. Resident identifiers: #54, #216. Facility census: 64. Findings included: a) A record review, completed on 02/19/25 at 7:15 PM, revealed there was a resident-to-resident altercation on 12/01/24 at 4:15 PM involving Resident #54 and Resident #216. The record reflected the facility notified the Office of Health Facility Licensure and Certification (OHFLAC) on 12/01/24 at 4:46 PM. However, the facility did not notify Adult Protective Services (APS) until two (2) days later, on 12/03/24 at 10:36 AM. During an interview on 02/24/25 at 3:45 PM, the former Interim Administrator acknowledged there was no evidence APS had been notified within the mandated two (2) hour window and that it appeared it had been sent two (2) days after the incident. The former Interim Administrator (FIA), This happened over a weekend. When I noticed I couldn't find the original confirmation, I resent it.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to revise the care plan regarding the amount of assistance needed for activities of daily living (ADLs) for Resident #45. This was true ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to revise the care plan regarding the amount of assistance needed for activities of daily living (ADLs) for Resident #45. This was true for one (1) of five (5) residents reviewed under the care area of activities. Resident identifier: #45. Facility Census: 64. Findings include: a) Resident #45 On 02/20/25 at 11:03 AM, a record review was completed for Resident #45. The record review found under the care plan focus area of risk for decreased ability to perform ADLs (activities of daily living) in bathing, dressing .related to limited mobility. The intervention listed was, provide with partial/moderate assist for bathing as needed. However, the Minimum Data Set (MDS) quarterly dated 01/02/25 listed the resident needed substantial/maximal assistance for bathing. An interview was held with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 02/20/25 at 2:10 PM. The DON stated, the care plan is incorrect .the MDS is correct. regarding assistance needed for bathing.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0676 (Tag F0676)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to assess the resident's potential for independent ambulation, and to ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to assess the resident's potential for independent ambulation, and to ensure that appropriate treatments and services could be provided to maximize the resident's functional abilities. Resident Identifier: #22. Facility Census: 64. Findings Include: a) Resident #22 During an interview on 02/19/25 at approximately 11:11 AM, the resident stated that he wanted to ambulate. He further stated that he has attempted to ambulate by walking behind his wheelchair, but staff stop him and ask him to sit in his wheelchair. Resident further stated that if there was any reason why he was not allowed to ambulate by himself, He would like to be evaluated by occupational therapy. Record review on 02/19/25 at approximately 12:15 PM, revealed resident has been on hospice since 11/11/24. Renewed on 02/01/24 with a diagnosis of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease (ASCVD) Further record review on 02/19/25 at approximately 12:15 PM revealed the following notes: A nursing note on 01/14/25 at 1:05 AM: A Lift Transfer Evaluation was completed today. Suggested Turning/Repositioning Needs: requires at least 2 staff with Repositioning Device. Suggested Lift/Transfer Needs: Total Lift Divided Leg Sling. Indicate Sling Size and Color: blue split leg. On 1/15/25 a note by Physician #81: Date of Service: 2025-01-15 Visit Type: History physical Details: Chief complaint: Weakness Deconditioning ADL Deficits COVID-19 History of present illness: [Resident] is a [AGE] year-old male after an acute hospitalization who presents to the Rosewood Center in [NAME], [NAME] Virginia, JW [NAME] Memorial Hospital in Morgantown, [NAME] Virginia, from 1/11/2025 through 1/14/2025 due to COVID-19 viremia. Due to the residents' underlying dementia, most of the HPI has been derived from collateral nursing staff, family, and chart review. Resident originally presented to [NAME] as his caregiver and spouse are infected with COVID-19 and unable to care for him at this time. He is currently on hospice with the care of his family at home. Hospitalization is grossly unremarkable. Deemed stable for discharge on [DATE], he discharged to the Rosewood Center in [NAME], [NAME] Virginia for respite care until his caregivers are able to resume hospice care at home. Care plan notes on 02/05/25 which stated the following: FOCUS While in the facility [Resident] states that it is important that he has the opportunity to engage in daily routines that are meaningful relative to their preferences. Date Initiated: 01/18/2025 Created on: 01/18/2025 Created by: Recreation Director #23 Revision on: 01/18/2025 Revision by: Recreation Director #23 Resident/Patient requires assistance/is dependent for ADL care in bathing, grooming, personal hygiene, dressing, eating, bed mobility, transfer, locomotion, toileting related to: Limited mobility Date Initiated: 02/05/2025 Created on: 02/05/2025 Revision on: 02/11/2025 Revision by: RN #33 GOAL: Resident will have opportunities to make decisions/choices related to/for self-directed involvement in meaningful activities Date Initiated: 01/18/2025 Created on: 01/18/2025 Created by: Recreation Director #23 Target Date: 04/20/2025 Residents/Patients ADL care needs will be anticipated and met throughout the next review period. Date Initiated: 02/05/2025 Created on: 02/05/2025 Created by: RN #71 Target Date: 04/20/2025 An update to the care plan revealed that resident was classified as independent with no restrictions on 02/11/25, as revealed in the following note: LIFT STATUS: Independent with no device Date Initiated: 02/11/2025 Created on: 02/11/2025 Created by: RN #33 The resident stated that he was still restricted when attempting to ambulate by himself, but no services have been offered to facilitate his independence. During an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 02/19/25 at approximately 1:11 PM, DON stated that the resident has no restrictions. During an interview with the Director of Occupational Therapy (DOT) #52 on 02/19/25, she stated that residents on hospice were not normally referred to the therapy department for services. However, DOT #52 stated that since the resident was requesting therapy, she would evaluate the resident for services. On 02/24/25, at approximately 9:45 AM, DOT #52 confirmed that she had evaluated resident #22 and submitted a request for approval of services.
CONCERN (D)

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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and staff interview, the facility failed to provide activities of daily living for a depende...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and staff interview, the facility failed to provide activities of daily living for a dependent resident (Resident #45). This was true for one (1) of five (5) residents reviewed under the care area of activities of daily living. Resident identifier: #45. Facility Census: 64. Findings include: a) Resident #45 On 02/18/25 at 12:00 PM, an initial interview was held with Resident #45. Upon entering the resident's room, a foul smell of body odor was noted. A review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] indicated the resident required substantial/maximal assistance needed for bathing. On 02/20/25 at 11:03 AM, a review of bathing under the tasks tab from 01/01/25 through 02/20/25 was completed. The review found the resident went multiple days without any form of bathing. The following list indicates the timeframe: --01/02/25 shower --01/06/25 bed bath (four days) --01/09/25 shower (three days) --01/13/25 bed bath (four days) --01/23/25 shower (ten days) --01/27/25 shower (four days) --01/28/25 shower (one day) --02/08/25 shower (eleven days) --02/10/25 bed bath (two days) --02/14/25 shower (four days) --02/15/25 shower (one day) --02/20/25 no documentation (five days) The review found there were no refusals by the resident noted. On 02/20/25 at 11:15 AM, the resident was in the activities room. The resident continued to appear disheveled. On 02/20/25 at 2:10 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) was notified and confirmed the resident did not have any further documentation regarding ADLs during this timeframe.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0685 (Tag F0685)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

b) Resident #219 On 02/25/25 at 9:15 AM, a record review for Resident #219 was completed. The review found the following progress note dated 08/21/24 at 11:06 PM stated, resident states his glasses h...

Read full inspector narrative →
b) Resident #219 On 02/25/25 at 9:15 AM, a record review for Resident #219 was completed. The review found the following progress note dated 08/21/24 at 11:06 PM stated, resident states his glasses have come up missing, will continue to look for them and pass on to oncoming shift for them to pass on also. will ask laundry also. An additional progress note dated 08/23/24 at 12:01 AM stated, Resident still has not found his glasses, will pass on to oncoming shift to keep looking and to ask housekeeping and laundry . The review, also, found no vision services were provided or scheduled for the resident. An interview was held with the Interim Administrator (IA) #10 on 02/25/25 at approximately 1:30 PM. IA #10 stated, We don't have a grievance/concern regarding lost glasses .I didn't know about the lost glasses. Based on observation, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to provide hearing, and vision care for two (2) residents. Resident Identifiers: #40, #219. Facility Census: 64. Findings include: a) Resident #40 During an interview, on 02/18/25 at approximately 11:05 PM, Resident #40 stated that he was having difficulty hearing. Resident #40 was observed wearing hearing aids. The resident stated that his hearing aids were not working well, and that he had mentioned it to staff. He stated that the staff was aware that his hearing aids were faulty, and they spoke loudly to ensure they were heard. RN # 74 on 02/18/25 at approximately 12:02 PM confirmed the resident wore hearing aids but was unable to hear well. She stated that at times, his hearing was better. A review of the resident's Care Plan revealed he would benefit from hearing aids due to hearing loss. This plan was created on 11/10/24. On 02/18/25 at approximately 2:16 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) was made aware that the resident was having difficulty hearing. DON stated that she would schedule the resident for an evaluation of his hearing aids at the VA hospital. NHA Regulatory Compliance Advisor #76 on 02/24/25 at 1:15 PM confirmed the resident has been scheduled at the VA for 03/04/25
CONCERN (D)

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure an environment that was free from accident hazards over which the facility had control. This was true for one (1...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure an environment that was free from accident hazards over which the facility had control. This was true for one (1) of 32 residents reviewed in the annual Long-Term Care Survey Process. Resident identifier: #1. Facility census: 64. Findings included: a) Resident #1 Observation in Resident #1's room, on 02/18/2025 at 11:30 AM, found an opened box containing a 2.5 fluid oz. bottle of maximum strength Aspercreme with Lidocaine in Resident #1's bathroom. Resident #1 stated, The Nurse told me it would help my back pain. A subsequent record review revealed there was no physician order stating that Resident #1 could administer her own medication. Nor was there a physician order for the Aspercreme with Lidocaine which had been in the resident's possession. Review of the MSDS revealed the following information: -This product is not meant for oral consumption or for ophthalmic use. -Inhalation: May cause irritation of nose and throat -Ingestion: May be harmful if swallowed -Skin Contact: May cause slight irritation. -Eye Contact: Will cause irritation to the eyes During an interview, on 02/19/25 at 2:26 PM, the DON verified the Aspercreme with Lidocaine was in resident's room with no supporting physician orders and stated it should be removed from the resident's room.
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, the facility failed to ensure that pain management was provided in a manner consistent with professional standards of practice. This was true for one (1) of...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure that pain management was provided in a manner consistent with professional standards of practice. This was true for one (1) of two (2) residents reviewed under the pain pathway during the Long-Term Care Survey Process. Resident identifier: #19. Facility census: 64. Findings included: a) Resident #19 A record review, completed on 02/19/25 at 1:49 PM, revealed the following order for Resident #19: -Norco Oral Tablet 10-325 MG (Hydrocodone-Acetaminophen) *Controlled Drug* Give 1 tablet by mouth every 6 hours as needed for Pain scale 5-10. Review of the Medication Administration Record for December 2024 revealed the following details: -On December 4, 2024, on the afternoon shift Resident #19's pain level was rated as 0. Norco was administered. -On December 6, 2024, on the day shift Resident #19's pain level was rated as 0. Norco was administered. -On December 16, 2024, on the day shift Resident #19's pain level was rated as 2. Norco was administered. -On December 19, 2024, on the day shift Resident #19's pain level was rated as 3. Norco was administered. During an interview on 02/19/25 at 3:20 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated that Norco should not have been given outside the parameters of the physician's order.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0699 (Tag F0699)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure care and services, in addition to professional standards to address the needs of a trauma/post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure care and services, in addition to professional standards to address the needs of a trauma/post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)survivor for Resident #27. This is true for one (1) of four (4) residents reviewed under the care area of mood and behavior. Resident identifier: #27. Facility Census: 64. Findings include: a) Resident #27 On 02/18/25 at 12:30 PM, an initial interview was attempted with Resident #27. The resident appeared to be sleeping. An observation was made of the mirror at the shared sink in the resident's room being covered with paper. At this time, the roommate, Resident #43 stated, They did that for him .he thinks people are coming through the mirror and the window after him. Multiple attempts were made to interview the resident. The final attempt was made on 02/19/25 at approximately 9:30 AM. The resident was non-interviewable with garbled speech. On 02/19/25 at 12:14 PM, an interview was held with the Director of Rehabilitation Services (DORS) #52. DORS #52 was present in the room to offer physical therapy to the resident. DORS #52 stated, The resident has PTSD and thinks someone is coming after him (mirror covered at shared sink) and sometimes the windows too. On 02/19/25 at 12:25 PM, the following focus area was found on the care plan, (First Name of resident) exhibits or is at risk for distressed/fluctuating mood symptoms related to: Sadness/depression caused by changes affecting relationships/personal loss/ functional changes, hx. (history of PTSD). On 02/19/25 at 1:00 PM, an interview was held with the Corporate Registered Nurse (CRN) #79. CRN #79 stated, We couldn't find any information on PTSD in the record. On 02/20/25 at 8:52 AM, the Administrator confirmed there was nothing documented in the record regarding a diagnosis of PTSD. Therefore, the resident was care planned for the diagnosis of PTSD and had symptoms but there was no documentation to confirm the diagnosis. The resident was not receiving any type of services or counseling for PTSD and the behaviors per the medical record.
CONCERN (D)

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

Staffing Information (Tag F0732)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

The facility failed to ensure the daily nursing posting was completed accurately for three (3) days throughout the long-term care survey process. This was a random opportunity for discovery. Facility ...

Read full inspector narrative →
The facility failed to ensure the daily nursing posting was completed accurately for three (3) days throughout the long-term care survey process. This was a random opportunity for discovery. Facility census: 63. Findings included: a) An observation on 02/18/25 and 02/19/25 of the facility posted staffing data, found the required resident census was not documented. Also, the posting was printed on 02/12/25 with no changes to the scheduled staff levels. A review of posted staffing data found on 07/07/24, 8/18/24, 9/22/24, 12/21/24, 12/22/24, 01/24/25 and 01/25/25, the posting was printed prior to the date of posting with no changes to the scheduled staff levels. During an interview on 02/22/25 at 10:08 AM the Interim Administrator verified the census was not documented and the staffing levels were not updated to reflect accurate levels.
CONCERN (D)

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

Dental Services (Tag F0791)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure routine dental care was provided for Resident #219. Th...

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 routine dental care was provided for Resident #219. This was true for one (1) of one (1) residents reviewed under the care area of dental services. Resident Identifier: #219. Facility Census: 64. Findings include: a) Resident #219 On 02/24/25 at 7:20 PM, a record review was completed for Resident #219. The review found the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The clinical admission was completed on 07/11/24 under section EENT (Eye, Ear, Nose, Throat) group which documented the resident was edentulous. A progress note dated 09/18/24 during a regulatory visit with the facility physician stated, He says that he met with a VA (Veteran's Administration) representative earlier today about getting dentures . On 02/25/25 at 11:48 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) acknowledged there were no appointments scheduled regarding the resident's dental issues.
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, the facility failed to provide an accurate and complete record regarding anticoagulation therapy for Resident #220. This was true for one (1) of one (1) residents reviewed unde...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, the facility failed to provide an accurate and complete record regarding anticoagulation therapy for Resident #220. This was true for one (1) of one (1) residents reviewed under the care area of anticoagulation. Resident Identifier: #220. Facility Census: 64. Findings Include: a) Resident #220 On 02/19/25 at 2:20 PM, a record review was completed for Resident #220. The review found a physician's order dated 02/18/25 for Warfarin (Coumadin) 3mg (milligrams) by mouth in the evening. The physician's order did not list a diagnosis for the use of Warfarin. On 02/19/25 at 3:15 PM, the Administrator confirmed the physician's order did not include a diagnosis for the use of the medication.
CONCERN (D)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations and staff interviews, the facility failed to establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary and comfortable environment. ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations and staff interviews, the facility failed to establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary and comfortable environment. This practice affected one (1) of three (3) residents reviewed for urinary catheters. Resident identifier #59. Facility census: 63. Findings included: a) Resident #59 An observation on 02/18/25 at 12:03 PM found, Resident #59 In a low bed with the catheter bag laying directly on the floor. A second observation on 02/18/25 at 2:12 PM found, Resident #59 in a low bed with the catheter bag laying directly on the floor. A third observation on 02/18/25 at 3:23 PM found, Resident #59 In a low bed with the catheter bag laying directly on the floor. No receptacle/barrier was in the room. During an interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #74, on 02/18/25 at 3:28 PM, verified the catheter bag was on the floor. LPN #74 stated that a catheter bag should never touch the floor. At this time, LPN #74 sent a nurse aide to retrieve a receptacle to place the catheter bag in.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0572 (Tag F0572)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on review of the resident council minutes, resident council meeting, and staff interview, the facility failed to inform residents both orally and in writing in a language that the residents unde...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on review of the resident council minutes, resident council meeting, and staff interview, the facility failed to inform residents both orally and in writing in a language that the residents understood of their rights and all rules and regulations governing resident conduct and responsibilities on a yearly basis. Resident identifiers: #9, #18, #22, #26, #31, #38, #40, #48, and #51. Census: 64. Findings included: a) On 02/19/25 at 10:38 AM, a review of the past 12 months of Resident Council meeting minutes was completed. Resident rights were not listed in the discussions during the Resident Council meeting minutes. During a Resident Council meeting, on 02/20/25 at 11:00 AM, the residents stated resident rights were not talked about during previous meetings. They could not remember staff discussing them in any fashion since the day of admission. During an interview on 02/20/25 at 11:55 AM, the Director of Social Services (DoSS) the DoSS stated, other than upon admission, she had not discussed resident rights with the residents since she started this facility as a social worker and was not aware of it being done prior to her employment. d) During an interview on 02/20/2024 at 12:00 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) acknowledged she had worked in the facility for multiple years and did not remember staff members discussing rights with the residents.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0577 (Tag F0577)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on the resident council meeting, observation, and staff interviews, the facility failed to post notice of the availability of the most recent survey results in areas of the facility that were pr...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on the resident council meeting, observation, and staff interviews, the facility failed to post notice of the availability of the most recent survey results in areas of the facility that were prominent and accessible to the public. This was a random opportunity for discovery. Facility census: 64. Findings included: a) During the resident council meeting on 02/19/2024 at 11:00 AM, the residents stated they were unaware they had the right to see the most recent state survey results and did not know where the results were in the building. During a facility walk-through on 02/20/25 at 12:30 PM, it was observed that the facility did not post signage regarding the availability of the most recent survey results. During an interview on 02/20/25 at approximately 12:38 PM, the former Interim Administrator (FIA) acknowledged the absence of a posted notice regarding the availability of the most recent survey results for residents and/or visitors to review.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0582 (Tag F0582)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to provide the required Skilled Nursing Facility Advanced Beneficiary Notice of Non-Coverage (SNF ABN) form to two (2) of two (2) reside...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to provide the required Skilled Nursing Facility Advanced Beneficiary Notice of Non-Coverage (SNF ABN) form to two (2) of two (2) residents reviewed during the annual survey process. Additionally, the facility failed to provide the required Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC) letter to one (1) of two (2) residents reviewed during the annual survey process. This failure placed residents at risk of not being informed of their rights prior to the end of Medicare Part A covered services. Resident identifiers: #218, #317, and #318. Facility census: 64. Findings Included: a) SNF ABN On 02/19/25 at 2:15 PM, a review was completed regarding the beneficiary protection notification liability notices given for two (2) residents who remained at the facility. - Resident #218 began Medicare Part A skilled services on 09/05/24. The last covered day of Part A service was 10/16/24. There was no evidence that a SNF ABN form was provided. - Resident #317 began Medicare Part A skilled services on 10/17/24. The last covered day of Part A service was 10/22/24. There was no evidence that a SNF ABN form was provided. In an interview on 02/19/25 at 2:55 PM, the Interim Administrator confirmed the facility could not provide evidence a SNF ABN form was given to residents # 218 and # 317 who had remained in the facility. b) NOMNC On 02/19/25 at 2:15 PM, a review was completed regarding the beneficiary protection notification liability notices given for the following resident: - Resident #318 began Medicare Part A skilled services on 01/17/22. The last covered day of Part A service was 02/05/25. There was no evidence that a NOMNC form was provided. In an interview on 02/20/25 at approximately 10:30 AM, the Interim Administrator stated the facility was unable to provide verification the NOMNC form was given to Resident #318.
CONCERN (E)

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

Grievances (Tag F0585)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on resident interview, observation, and staff interview, the facility failed to notify residents individually or through postings in prominent locations throughout the facility of the right to f...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on resident interview, observation, and staff interview, the facility failed to notify residents individually or through postings in prominent locations throughout the facility of the right to file grievances orally (meaning spoken) or in writing; the right to file grievances anonymously; the contact information of the grievance official with whom a grievance can be filed, that is, his or her name, business address (mailing and email) and business. This was a random opportunity for discovery. Resident identifiers: #9, #18, #22, #26, #31, #32, #38, #40, #48, and #51. Facility census: 64. Findings included: a) During a resident council meeting, on 02/19/25 at 11:00 AM, the residents stated they knew they were able to file a grievance with the social worker, but did not know how or where to file an anonymous grievance or complaint. During a facility walk-through with the Administrator, on 02/20/25 at approximately 12:30 PM, the Administrator acknowledged there were no grievance forms available nor were there any posted signs stating residents were able to file a grievance anonymously. b) On 02/20/25 at approximately 12:30 PM, During an interview/walk through with the facility Administrator, She acknowledged there weren't any posted signs where residents were able to file a grievance anonymously.
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

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from resident-to-resident abuse. This was true for six (6) of six (6) facility reported incidents reviewed...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from resident-to-resident abuse. This was true for six (6) of six (6) facility reported incidents reviewed. Resident identifiers: #54, #30, #216, #48, #218, #32, and #12. Facility census: 64. Findings included: a) A record review, completed 02/19/25 at 6:30 PM, revealed there was a resident-to-resident altercation on 11/27/24 at 12:00 PM. The facility reportable and investigation revealed that staff observed Resident #54 pushing Resident #30 in his wheelchair down the hallway. Resident #54 aggressively shoved the wheelchair forward causing Resident #30 to fall to the floor. Resident #30 had an abrasion on his head and some skin tears on his right hand. A record review, completed on 02/19/25 at 7:15 PM, revealed there was a resident-to-resident altercation on 12/01/24 at 4:15 PM. The facility reportable and investigation revealed that staff were notified by the family of Resident #216 that Resident #54 was yelling at them and becoming hostile while they were trying to visit. Resident #54 began making verbal threats when staff attempted to redirect. A record review, completed on 02/19/25 at 8:04 PM, revealed there was a resident-to-resident altercation on 12/10/24 at 4:30 PM. The facility reportable and investigation revealed staff reported that Resident #54 was trying to hit Resident #48. Resident #48 reported Resident #54 threatened to kill him. Resident #48 reported he blocked the hits with his arm. Resident #48 had red marks on his arm where Resident #54 grabbed him and hit him. The two residents were separated. Resident #48 was assessed for emotional/physical injury. The resident had red marks on his arm but did not require medical intervention. Resident #48 denied any emotional harm. A record review, completed on 02/20/25 at 4:38 PM, revealed there was a resident-to-resident altercation on 12/26/24 at 4:30 PM. The facility reportable and investigation revealed staff reported the nurse on duty heard staff telling Resident #54 to stop hitting. When the nurse walked into the hall, Resident #48 was asked about what happened and he stated that Resident #54 was already upset and came up to him and hit him on the right shoulder. The residents were separated, and Resident #48 was assessed for injuries. The resident's shoulder was red from the blow but did not require medical attention. Resident #48 denied any emotional harm. A record review, completed on 02/20/25 at 5:07 PM, revealed there was a resident-to-resident altercation on 12/28/24 at 1:19 PM. The facility reportable and investigation revealed staff reported Resident #54 was in the dining room for the communal lunch program. There were approximately 6-7 resident remaining in the dining room at the time of the incident. The Activities Assistant was about 20 feet away from Resident #54 when Resident #218 returned to the dining room. Resident #54 got up and walked over to Resident #218 and kicked him in the right shin. The Activities Assistant immediately removed the victim from the dining room and asked for Nurse Aide assistance with Resident #54 and he was redirected. Resident #218 was assessed for injuries and no injuries were noted. Both residents were started on a change in condition to continue to monitor. A record review, completed on 02/24/25 at 7:27 PM, revealed there was a resident-to-resident altercation on 02/11/24 at 6:35 PM. The facility reportable and investigation revealed staff reported Resident #54 hit Resident #32 on the head while in the hallway. The residents were immediately separated. A head-to-toe assessment was completed on Resident #32. He denied pain or injury. Resident #54 then went further up the hallway and started to hit Resident #12, but his son intervened and prevented it from happening. Resident #54 was redirected by staff. During an interview on 02/24/25 at 3:45 PM, the former Interim Administrator (FIA) acknowledged Resident #54 had experienced numerous resident-to-resident altercations which had been substantiated by the facility as either verbal or physical abuse.
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

Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to complete their self-identified corrective action which was intended to protect residents following an investigation into a resident-t...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to complete their self-identified corrective action which was intended to protect residents following an investigation into a resident-to-resident physical altercation that was verified as abuse. The facility failed to oversee the complete implementation of staff being retrained on the facility's 1:1 Supervision policy. This failed practice had the potential to affect more than a limited number of residents in the building. Facility Census: 64 Findings included: a) Resident #54 A record review, completed on 02/20/25 at 5:07 PM, revealed there was a physical resident-to-resident altercation on 12/28/24 at 1:19 PM. The facility reportable and investigation revealed staff reported Resident #54 was in the dining room for the communal lunch program. There were approximately 6-7 resident remaining in the dining room at the time of the incident. The Activities Assistant was about 20 feet away from Resident #54 when Resident #218 returned to the dining room. Resident #54 got up and walked over to Resident #218 and kicked him in the right shin. The Activities Assistant immediately removed the victim from the dining room and asked for Nurse Aide (NA) assistance with Resident #54 and he was redirected. Resident #54 had been placed on 1:1 observation due to a previously reported incident on 12/26/24 with a different resident. Throughout their investigation process, the facility identified the need to retrain staff on the 1:1 Supervision policy because there had been a communication breakdown when the assigned NA had gone on break. Resident #54 ended up in the dining room without 1:1 supervision for the 12/28/24 resident-to-resident incident. Review of the facilities credible evidence for training staff revealed the following staff members had not been retrained on the 1:1 Supervision policy: -Nurse Aide (NA) #17 -Registered Nurse (RN) #27 -NA #16 -NA #29 -NA #9 -NA #6 -RN #36 -MDS Nurse #25 -Director of Social Services -RN #51 -NA#60 -LPN #59 -NA #42 -NA #56 -RN #71 -NA #55 During an interview on 02/24/25 at 3:45 PM, the former Interim Administrator (FIA) stated the facility shared what they had found regarding the staff re-education. The FIA stated there had been a binder that had evidence of all staff receiving the training, but it could not be found. It was acknowledged that the above-mentioned staff had not received the re-training regarding the facility's 1:1 Supervision policy and they had all been assigned 1:1 Supervision of Resident #54 since the 12/28/24 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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** f) Resident #42 Observation of resident #42 throughout the long-term survey found that he stayed in bed all the time. A review...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** f) Resident #42 Observation of resident #42 throughout the long-term survey found that he stayed in bed all the time. A review of Resident #42's care plan revealed that it was not Person centered. Focus: (Name) exhibits or is at risk for limited and/or meaningful engagement related to: Cognitive loss/dementia. Created on: 01/04/2025 Goal: Resident with cognitive impairment will consistently respond and attend to stimuli as evidenced by reaching,grasping, turning in direction of the stimulus, vocalizing, gazing at stimulus, positional changes during sensory programs. Created on: 01/04/2025. Interventions: --Provide resident/patient with opportunities for choice during care/activities to provide a sense of control. Created on: 01/04/2025. --Present opportunities for resident/patient to interact with other residents/patients to share unique skills or knowledge. Created on: 01/04/2025. --Establish a relationship with resident/patient using one-to-one interventions, informal conversations and/or small groups to foster resident/patient trust and an environment where resident/patient feels comfortable expressing interests and participating in activity. Created on: 01/04/2025 --Encourage family/friend's support and involvement in facility-based activities and Opportunities. Created on: 01/04/2025 During an interview on 02/25/25 at 10:10 AM the Activities Director stated that Resident #42 needed one-on-one activities because he doesn't come out of his room. During an Interview on 02/25/25 @ 3:13 PM the Regulatory Compliance Advisor (RCA) verified the care plan did not reflect individualized care planning. d) Resident #54 Resident-to-Resident Physical Abuse Involving Resident #54 and Resident #30 A record review, completed 02/19/25 at 6:30 PM, revealed there was a resident-to-resident altercation on 11/27/24 at 12:00 PM. The facility reportable and investigation revealed that staff observed Resident #54 pushing Resident #30 in his wheelchair down the hallway. Resident #54 aggressively shoved the wheelchair forward causing Resident #30 to fall to the floor. Resident #30 had an abrasion on his head and some skin tears on his right hand. A record review, completed on 02/19/25 at 8:04 PM, revealed there was a resident-to-resident altercation on 12/10/24 at 4:30 PM. The facility reportable and investigation revealed staff reported that Resident #54 was trying to hit Resident #48. Resident #48 reported Resident #54 threatened to kill him. Resident #48 reported he blocked the hits with his arm. Resident #48 had red marks on his arm where Resident #54 grabbed him and hit him. The two residents were separated. Resident #48 was assessed for emotional/physical injury. The resident had red marks on his arm but did not require medical intervention. Resident #48 denied any emotional harm. A record review, completed on 02/20/25 at 4:38 PM, revealed there was a resident-to-resident altercation on 12/26/24 at 4:30 PM. The facility reportable and investigation revealed staff reported the nurse on duty heard staff telling Resident #54 to stop hitting. When the nurse walked into the hall, Resident #48 was asked about what happened and he stated that Resident #54 was already upset and came up to him and hit him on the right shoulder. The residents were separated, and Resident #48 was assessed for injuries. The resident's shoulder was red from the blow but did not require medical attention. Resident #48 denied any emotional harm. A record review, completed on 02/20/25 at 5:07 PM, revealed there was a resident-to-resident altercation on 12/28/24 at 1:19 PM. The facility reportable and investigation revealed staff reported Resident #54 was in the dining room for the communal lunch program. There were approximately 6-7 resident remaining in the dining room at the time of the incident. The Activities Assistant was about 20 feet away from Resident #54 when Resident #218 returned to the dining room. Resident #54 got up and walked over to Resident #218 and kicked him in the right shin. The Activities Assistant immediately removed the victim from the dining room and asked for Nurse Aide assistance with Resident #54 and he was redirected. Resident #218 was assessed for injuries and no injuries were noted. Both residents were started on a change in condition to continue to monitor. A record review, completed on 02/24/25 at 7:27 PM, revealed there was a resident-to-resident altercation on 02/11/24 at 6:35 PM. The facility reportable and investigation revealed staff reported Resident #54 hit Resident #32 on the head while in the hallway. The residents were immediately separated. A head-to-toe assessment was completed on Resident #32. He denied pain or injury. Resident #54 then went further up the hallway and started to hit Resident #12, but his son intervened and prevented it from happening. Resident #54 was redirected by staff. Review of Resident #54's care plan, completed on 02/24/25 at 2:00 PM, revealed that the care plan did not reflect resident's history of physically aggressive behaviors. During an interview on 02/24/25 at 3:40 PM, the Corporate Clinical Advisor #80 confirmed that Resident #54's care plan did not include the fact that resident had a history of being physically aggressive with other residents. Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to develop and/or implement a comprehensive care plan regarding Resident #219's activities preferences, weights, and dental issues, Resident #220 anticoagulation therapy, Resident #42's behavior and side effect monitoring of medications as well as activities, Resident #8's leave of absence and Resident #54's physical behavior. This is true for (5) five of 32 residents reviewed during the survey process. Resident identifiers: #219, #220, #42, #8 and #54. and Facility census: 64. Findings include: a) Resident #219 On 02/19/25 at 10:00 AM, a record review was completed for Resident #219. The review found the care plan was not developed under the risk for limited engagement related to diagnosis of major depression, prostate cancer, anemia, morbid obesity. (Typed as written.) The following interventions under this focus area were: --I like to participate in (blank) with groups of people. --I am of (blank) faith and would like to participate in religious services/practices such as (blank) --I would benefit from accommodations for visual impairments by using audio books/books on tape, some to read to them, large print materials, magnifier/telescope glasses, and/or others (blank) On 02/19/25 at 3:07 PM, the Administrator was notified and confirmed the care plan had not been completed under this focus area. The record review found the resident was noted with significant weight loss. Under the focus area of Resident is at nutritional risk: related to rectal cancer and altered skin integrity. The intervention weigh monthly and alert dietician and physician of any significant loss or gain, was not implemented due to no weight being noted for 09/2024 in the record. On 02/25/25 at approximately 1:00 PM, the Regulatory Compliance Advisor #76 was notified and confirmed there was no documented weight for 09/2024. The review found the care plan had not been developed regarding dental issues. The resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The clinical admission was completed on 07/11/24 under section EENT (Eye, Ear, Nose, Throat) group acknowledged the resident was edentulous. A progress note dated 09/18/24 during a regulatory visit with the facility physician stated, He says that he met with a VA (Veteran's Administration) representative earlier today about getting dentures . On 02/25/25 at 11:48 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) acknowledged no routine dental care was scheduled or provided during the resident's stay at the facility. b) Resident #220 On 02/19/25 at 11:30 AM, a record review was completed. The review found the care plan had not been developed regarding anticoagulation therapy. The goal was written as, Resident will not exhibit sign/symptoms of bleeding x (times) (blank) days. on 02/19/25 at 3:07 PM, the Administrator was notified and confirmed the care plan had not been completed. c) Resident #42 On 02/25/25 at 10:10 AM, a record review was completed. The review found the care plan had not been developed regarding monitoring of side effects and behaviors for a resident receiving psychotropic medications. The resident was currently prescribed Depakote, Trazodone, Ativan and Zoloft. On 02/25/25 at 3:05 PM, the DON was notified and confirmed the side effect and behavior monitoring was not on the care plan. e) Resident #8. On 02/25/25 at 01:55 PM, Resident #8 was observed entering the facility through the side door with a bag of snacks while using his electric wheelchair. Resident #8 reported that he leaves the facility when he wants to and has to sign in and out with the nurses. He stated he often uses his wheelchair to travel the approximate half a mile to the gas station to get snacks. On 02/25/25 at 2:00 an Interview with Director of Nursing (DON) #27 revealed that resident has a sign in/sign out sheet at the nurses station. She acknowledged that is was not in his care plan to address leaving the facility on his wheelchair. She reported that she did not know where he went when he left the facility. When asked about the missing signatures and times on the sign in/sign out sheet, DON replied that nursing must have forgotten to fill those in when Resident #8 returned. On 02/25/25 at approximately 2:15 PM a review of resident's records included: -Review of sign in/sign out sheet labeled Release of Responsibility for leave of Absence revealed the following dates for this year. 1/7/25 Resident #8 signed out at 10:00 with no sign in signature or time. 1/8/25 Resident #8 signed out at 9:04 with no sign in signature. 1/8/25 Resident #8 signed out at 4:45 PM with no sign in signature or time for return. 1/14/25 was dated with time of 7:23 AM with no in or out signature. 1/18/25 Resident #8 at 5:15 signed out and signature to sign in 5:25 PM. 1/20/25 at 7:38 Resident #8 signed out and no signature or time to sign back in. 2/6/25 at 14:20 Resident #8 signed out with no sign in signature or time to of return. 2/25/25 at 12:54 Resident #8 signed out with no return signature or time - Review of Capacity Statement revealed that he has capacity to make his own decisions. -Review of of care plan did not include leaves of absence taken by resident. -Review of physician orders revealed Resident #8 may leave center unaccompanied: utilizing transportation method of their choice, arranged by center, and private vehicle dated 12/27/2024.
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 they provided care to facility residents based on their comprehensive assessment and that residents received treatment and care...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and staff interview the facility failed to ensure they provided care to facility residents based on their comprehensive assessment and that residents received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards, a comprehensive care plan and the resident's choices for three (3) of 32 residents. The facility failed to follow physician's orders regarding medication administration, weight orders, and medical appointments for Resident #129, correct diagnosis for an antipsychotic medication for Resident #42 and Resident #7's choice to be placed in bed. Resident identifiers: #219, #42 and #7. Facility Census: 64. Findings Include: a) Resident #219 On 02/25/25 at 10:48 AM, a record review was completed regarding medication administration and treatments. The review of the 07/24 through 10/24 documentation found multiple wholes on the medication and treatment administration records for 08/24. The following medications/treatments were not administered as ordered: --Fingerstick blood glucose twice daily for diabetes mellitus--08/07/24 6:00 AM --Normal saline 0.9% 10 ml (milliliter) flush for PICC (peripheral inserted central catheter) line maintenance--08/08/24 day shift --Synthroid 150 mcg (microgram) daily for hypothyroidism--08/07/24 6:00 AM --Sodium Bicarbonate 650 mg (milligram) one tablet three times daily supplement--08/07/24 6:00 AM --Volatren External Gel 1% apply to top of feet every 6 (six) hours for foot pain-- 08/07/24 6:00 AM The following treatments were not completed as ordered: --Perform indwelling catheter care every shift--08/07/24 evening shift --Miconazole powder apply to groin and skin folds every shift for yeast--08/07/24 evening shift --Cleanse buttocks with soap and water, apply dry gauze, cover with ABD pad--08/07/24 evening shift --Cleanse right buttock puncture sites with drains with soap and water, dry surrounding skin, apply dry incontinent pad under resident, every shift for drain site care--08/07/24 evening shift --Cleanse left inner groin with soap and water, light pack with wet to dry dressing, cover with ABD pad every shift for surgical wound--08/07/24 evening shift On 02/25/25 at approximately 2:00 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed the physician's orders for medication administration and treatments were not followed as ordered. On 02/24/25 09:28 AM, a record review was completed regarding nutrition. The review found a physician's order dated 07/11/24 to weigh monthly. The physician's order to weigh monthly was not followed; no documentation of a weight for 09/2024 was found. On 02/25/25 at approximately 1:30 PM, the Regulatory Compliance Advisor #76 confirmed there was no documentation of a weight for 09/2024. On 02/25/25 at 10:48 AM, a record review was completed for Resident #219. The review found the physician's orders for outside appointments were not followed. The rescheduled outside appointments did not have a new physician's order nor a progress note with a reason the outside medical appointments were not kept. The following list the physician's orders of the appointments and when the resident actually attended the appointment: --07/25/24 10:00 AM for laboratory tests and a nephrology appointment (changed to 08/12/24 with no documented reason) --08/14/24 10:00 AM for the wound clinic (canceled no documented reason) --09/05/24 9:30 AM for an oncology appointment (changed to 10/03/24 with no documented reason) --09/06/24 7:15 AM for PET scan (changed to 09/17/24 with no documented reason) On 02/25/25 at 9:38 AM, the DON was interviewed. The DON stated, The transportation was contracted with (Name of Ambulance company). Sometimes they couldn't transport, sometimes the resident rescheduled himself .we couldn't transport the resident in the facility van because he was a large man. Sometimes if (Name of Ambulance company) had an emergency they wouldn't transport .I can't tell you what happened on each appointment. b) Resident #42 On 02/25/25 at 10:00 AM, a record review was completed for Resident #42 regarding unnecessary medications. At this time, the monthly pharmacy reviews and recommendations found multiple recommendations to add the appropriate diagnosis to the antipsychotic medication Seroquel. The 04/03/24, 08/30/24, 10/14/24, 10/28/24 and 12/19/24 monthly review listed the same recommendations. The correct diagnosis (dementia with behaviors) listed by the pharmacist was noted on the 12/19/24 review. The physician's order diagnosis was listed as anxiety and behaviors. On 02/25/26 at 11:48 AM, the DON acknowledged the correct diagnosis was not added. The DON stated, Maybe because he went in and out of the facility and it was correct one time and all the others it was incorrect. c) Resident #7 During a brief interview on 02/18/25 at approximately 1:53 PM, the resident was observed in his bed, watching TV. The resident was on oxygen therapy, and a covered Foley catheter bag was observed hooked to the foot of the resident's bed. Resident stated that he is unable to transfer by himself. He stated that he does not participate in activities due to this reason. He prefers to spend his time watching TV or talking to his family. A review of the resident's care plan revealed he required a mechanical lift. The resident was again observed on 02/19/25 at approximately 8:55 AM sitting in a recliner by his bed. The resident asked RN #74, who was administering medications to his roommate, if he could be moved back into his bed. RN #74 stated that she would notify the nursing assistants to move him back. At approximately 10:35 AM, Resident #7 was observed, still in his recliner. Upon being asked whether anyone had come around to move him to his bed, the resident stated that he was still waiting. Upon being questioned as to why the resident had not been moved, RN #74 stated that it was possibly because the nursing assistants knew that Resident #7 was scheduled for therapy at 11:30 AM, During an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 02/19/25 at approximately 10:55 AM, it was brought to the DON's attention that Resident #7 had requested to be moved from his recliner back to his bed approximately two (2) hours ago. Upon being notified that the resident was still in his recliner at 10:55 AM, waiting to be moved the DON confirmed that the resident should have been transferred to his bed when he requested it. Further observation at approximately 11:18 AM revealed the resident in his bed, watching TV.
CONCERN (E)

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

Menu Adequacy (Tag F0803)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, record review and staff and resident interview, the facility failed to ensure they followed the recipe for the meal served. This had the potential to affect more than isolated nu...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review and staff and resident interview, the facility failed to ensure they followed the recipe for the meal served. This had the potential to affect more than isolated number of residents. Facility census: 64. Findings included: a) Observation of food served on 02/20/25 at 12:35 revealed tuna melt served was an open faced piece of bread with toasted tuna and a slice of cheese. A review of recipe for Tuna Melt Sandwich Corporate Recipe # 4560 on 02/20/25 at approximately 12:43 PM included the following: Ingredients- Fish, tuna, chunk light, in water, can or pouch Mayonnaise, Heavy, Bulk Bread, White, Sliced Tomato, Red, Ripe, Fresh Cheese, American, Sliced Procedure- 1. Combine tuna and mayonnaise. 2. Slice tomato into 6-8 slice. 3. Preheat oven to 350 degrees Fahrenheit. Arrange bread in a single layer on a sheet pan sprayed with food release. 4. Spread a #12 (twelve) scoop of tuna mixture on each slice of bread. Top with (2) two tomato slice and (1) one cheese slice. 5. Place assembled melts in oven until cheese is fully melted. - During an interview with DM #68 on 2/20/25 at 12:45 PM, DM reported that they did not put the tomato on the tuna melts because they ran out.
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 and interviews the facility failed to provide food that was appetizing and appealing to residents. This issue had the potential to affect more than an isolated number of residents...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interviews the facility failed to provide food that was appetizing and appealing to residents. This issue had the potential to affect more than an isolated number of residents. Resident identifiers: #55 and #20. Facility census: 64. Findings included: a) Resident #20 On 02/18/25 at 1:05 PM Resident #20 was eating lunch and reported that the sandwich was mushy and microwaved. Observation by the surveyor revealed the food was unappealing. The bread was observed as mushy upon being served. b) Resident #55 On 02/18/25 at 02:29 PM Resident #55's daughter reported the food had been served and reported the food had been horrible. The daughter said, We wasn't even sure what some of it was. On 2/20/25 at 12:20 PM the kitchen supplied a test food tray of the following: Tuna Melt French Fries Mandarin oranges or Chicken Tenders French Fries Mandarin Oranges The survey team observed the Tuna Melt to be unappealing, appearing dry missing the tomato as stated in the faility's recipe.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0809 (Tag F0809)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on staff and resident interview and resident council meeting interview, the facility failed to offer bedtime snacks to all residents. Resident identifiers: #51 and #35. Facility census: 64. Fin...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on staff and resident interview and resident council meeting interview, the facility failed to offer bedtime snacks to all residents. Resident identifiers: #51 and #35. Facility census: 64. Findings included: a) Resident #51 On 02/18/25 03:20 PM during an interview with Resident #51, she reported residents are not offered evening snacks but staff will get them one if they ask for it. On 02/18/25 3:30 PM during an interview with resident #35, she reported that residents are not offered evening snacks unless they have them ordered. Observation of nutrition room at nurses station on 02/18/25 at approximately 1:30 PM revealed the following food items available to all residents: -One loaf of bread -four single serving bags of potato chips -an unopened box of fudge round lunch cakes. -Coffee -A pitcher of Kool-Aid - Individually wrapped condiments. During Resident Council meeting held on 02/20/25 at 11:00 AM the council expressed concern that bedtime snack is not offered - residents stated snacks have to be asked for not offered. An interview with Nurse Aide (NA) #21 was held on 02/24/25 at 1:00 PM. NA #21 reported that the kitchen brings snacks for residents who are ordered by the physician and staff will pass them out. She stated that there are snacks available to all other residents if they ask for them.
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 wear hair covers in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. This has the ability to affect all residents that ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and staff interviews, the facility failed to wear hair covers in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. This has the ability to affect all residents that get their nutrition from the kitchen. Facility census: 63. Findings Included: a) Kitchen An observation on 02/19/25 at about 3:35 PM found the Cook/Aide #53 preparing resident drinks without a beard covering. During an interview 02/19/25 at about 3:35 PM, Cook/Aide #53 verified a beard net should be in place. At this time, he put a beard net on. b)The facility failed to wear hair nets during meal preparation. During observation of food preparation on 02/18/25 at 11:12 AM Kitchen aide #200 was observed with her hair not fully contained in her hair net. This was brought to the attention of the District Manager #68 who acknowledged and directed KA #200 to readjust her hair net. c) The kitchen failed to properly store and dispose of food in the walk-in refrigerator. During initial kitchen visit on 02/18/25 at 11:42 AM observed a large vat of prepared tea sitting in the floor of the walk in refrigerator. It was acknowledged by DM who immediately picked it up. A bag of diced potatoes with a use by date of 02/16/25 was also stored in the refrigerator and two pitchers of prepared kool-aid with a use by date of 02/17/25, these were disposed of by the DM. d) The kitchen failed to properly use gloves while preparing food on 02/18/25 at 11:55 AM. DM #68 was observed taking off her gloves and throwing them on the counter where food was being prepared. DM #68 acknowledged the proper practice would be to place the gloved in the trash when they are taken off.
CONCERN (E)

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

Garbage Disposal (Tag F0814)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to properly contain kitchen waste in kitchen waste receptacles. This practice had the potential to affect more than an isolated number of ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to properly contain kitchen waste in kitchen waste receptacles. This practice had the potential to affect more than an isolated number of residents. Facility census: 64. Findings included: a) Initial tour and observation of the kitchen area on 02/18/25 at 11:50 AM, revealed a large kitchen trash can overflowing with lid unable to fit and trash spilling into the kitchen floor. The surveyor observed the trash can at the hand washing sink. This can had trash spilling out of the top of container and on the floor. b) An interview was held on 02/18/25 at 11:55 AM with District Manager (DM) #68 who acknowledged the trash should have been contained and emptied from the receptacle.
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

Deficiency F0865 (Tag F0865)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to incorporate an effective pest control program. This has the potential to affect all residents residing in the facility. Faci...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to incorporate an effective pest control program. This has the potential to affect all residents residing in the facility. Facility census: 63. Findings included: a) A review of an exterminator report dated 11/19/24 revealed findings of cockroaches in the kitchen area. During an interview with the Maintenance Director (MD) on 02/19/25 at about 3:20 PM the MD revealed no exterminator had serviced the facility since 11/19/24. The MD stated the maintenance department has been trying to exterminate the roaches with boric acid in the remodeled walls. During an interview the Account Manager (AM) #39 on 02/19/25 at about 3:40 PM AM #39 stated he observed roaches in the kitchen area two (2) days prior. A pest control company serviced the facility on 02/20/25 and returned on 02/26/25 for weekly treatments.
CONCERN (E)

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0921)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a safe and homelike environment regarding packaged termi...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a safe and homelike environment regarding packaged terminal air conditioner (PTAC). This has the potential to affect all residents living in the facility. Room Numbers: #104, #210, #118, #123, #124. Facility census: 63. Findings include: a) An observation in room [ROOM NUMBER], on 02/24/25 at 12:35 PM, revealed lent, dirt and debris in the packaged terminal air conditioner (PTAC) units. When the filter was removed from the unit, it was observed to be old, torn and covered with thick lint. A continued sample review of rooms #210, #200, #118, #123 and #124 found the PTAC unit filters were old, torn and covered with thick lint. During an interview, on 02/25/25 at 1:12 PM, the Maintenance Director confirmed the PTAC units had not been cleaned or had the filter changed. He also stated they had not been following a cleaning schedule for cleaning PTAC units.
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

Deficiency F0925 (Tag F0925)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to incorporate an effective pest control program. This had the potential to affect all residents residing in the facility. Faci...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to incorporate an effective pest control program. This had the potential to affect all residents residing in the facility. Facility census: 63. Findings included: a) A review of the exterminator report dated 11/19/24 revealed findings of cockroaches in the kitchen area. An interview with the Maintenance Director (MD) on 02/19/25 at about 3:20 PM revealed no exterminator had serviced the facility since 11/19/24. MD stated the maintenance department had been trying to exterminate the roaches with boric acid in the remodeled walls. During an interview with Account Manager (AM) #39 on 02/19/25 at about 3:40 PM AM #39 stated that he observed roaches in the kitchen area two (2) days prior. A pest control company serviced the facility on 02/20/25 and returned on 02/26/25 for weekly treatments. During the 02/26/25 treatment period an interview was conducted with the exterminator. He confirmed there were issues with roaches in the kitchen and service hall areas.
Sept 2024 4 deficiencies 1 IJ
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 F0678 (Tag F0678)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, facility reported incident review, and staff interview the facility delayed initiating Cardiopulmonary R...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, facility reported incident review, and staff interview the facility delayed initiating Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) to Resident #63 after staff identified he did not have a heart beat or breath sounds but was still warm to the touch. The residents record contained no documentation to indicate if he did or did not want to have CPR. The standard of care is when there is an absence of an advance directive CPR should be given. Resident #63 was found unresponsive with no pulse or respirations by facility staff at approximately 6:45 am on [DATE]. CPR was no initiated until 7:19 am which was approximately 34 minutes after he was round unresponsive with no pulse or respirations. The emergency medical squad arrived at 7:30 am and assumed care of the code. They received authorization to call the time of death around 7:55 am on [DATE]. The state agency on [DATE] entered the facility to initiate an investigation into this situation which was self-reported by the facility. On [DATE] the SA determined on [DATE] an immediate jeopardy (IJ) situation was present in the facility. The facility initiated a plan of correction on [DATE] and completed their plan as of [DATE]. Therefore, this IJ will be cited as past noncompliance with a start date of [DATE] and an end date of [DATE]. This was true for one (1) of eight (8) residents who expired at the facility from [DATE] to [DATE]. Resident identifier: #63. Facility Census: 62. Findings included: On [DATE] the state agency received a five (5) day follow-up report regarding an incident that took place on [DATE] involving Resident #63. The five (5) day follow-up report read as follows: [DATE] FIVE DAY FOLLOW UP REPORT Alleged Perpetrator: (First and Last Name of RN #2), RN Alleged Victim: (First and Last Name of Resident #63) , resident On [DATE], (First name of Resident #63) was found unresponsive with no pulse or respirations by staff around 6:45 AM. (First and last name of Resident #63) was admitted to (Name of Facility on [DATE] for a skilled stay. His pertinent diagnoses include: noninfective gastroenteritis and colitis, unspecified; diarrhea, unspecified; enterocolitis due to clostridium difficile, not specified as recurrent; type 2 diabetes mellitus without complications; gastrostomy status; dysphagia, unspecified; malignant neoplasm of esophagus, unspecified; ulcer of esophagus with bleeding; and hypoglycemia, unspecified. (First name of Resident #63) scored an 11/15 on his most recent BIMS on [DATE]. His level of staff assistance varied from partial to dependent assistance for bathing, bed mobility, dressing, hygiene, and transfers. (First name of RN #2) reported she administered 30 mL of water through (First name of Resident #63)'s peg tube around 0530. He refused the Jevity 1.5 feeding citing complaints of feeling full. She advised he was pleasant and talkative, and denied being in any distress or discomfort. She reportedly obtained a finger stick at 6 AM of 124. The documented fingerstick is listed at 117. Based on statements obtained from all staff working on [DATE], (First name of Resident #63) was found unresponsive by a CNA while completing her round upon entering his room around 0645. The description she provided indicated that he wasn't breathing, his eyes and mouth were open. At this time, (First name of Resident #63) was still warm to touch per her statement. She ran to the door and called for the registered nurse, (First and last name of RN #2). Upon being informed that Mr. (Last name of Resident #63) was not responsive, (First and last name of RN #2) entered the room and completed an assessment. She was unable to discern a heartbeat, or breath sounds with her stethoscope. She was also unable to locate a pulse. She notified the physician and attempted to contact the patient's next of kin. The oncoming shift of nurses arrived at the center around 7 AM and started receiving report from (First name of RN #2) . Upon hearing that the patient had passed away, (First and last name of RN #3), RN asked (First name of RN #2) if she knew what his code status was and (First name of RN #2) replied I don't know but it isn't going to do him much good now. (First name of RN #2) advised she wasn't doing anything until I talk to (First name of the Director of Nursing (DON). (First and last name of the DON) , RN, DON spoke with staff at the center around 0719 and instructed them to begin CPR and call 911 and advised them the center was running an active code. (Name of Local emergency squad) arrived at the center around 0730 and assumed care of the code. They received authorization to call the time of death around 0755. The facility completed an audit on [DATE] for all residents to ensure they had a code status listed in the Physician Orders. Re-educations was provided by the DON/Designee to all licensed nurses to ensure if there is no order for code status in the resident chart; the resident is considered a full code and CPR is to be initiated and documented on the CPR/AED flowsheet with a posttest to validate understanding. Any licensed nurses not available during this time frame will be provided re-education, including post-test upon the beginning of the next shift to work. New licensed nurses will be provided education, including post-test during orientation by the DON/designee. The Unit Managers/designee will monitor starting on [DATE] new admission/readmissions and/or change in resident advance directives order to ensure the resident has an order for code status. The Nurse Practice Educator/designee will conduct mock code drills starting on [DATE] daily across all shifts for 3 days, then weekly for 2 weeks, then monthly for 3 months and randomly thereafter. Results of monitors will be reported by the DON/designee monthly to the Quality Improvement Committee (QIC) for any additional follow-up and/or in-servicing until the issue is resolved; then randomly thereafter as determined by the QIC committee. (First and last name of RN #2) was suspended pending investigation. An initial report was made to the WV RN Board. Neglect will be substantiated due to the delay in care. (First Name of Resident #2) has been terminated effective [DATE]. The state agency initiated an on - site investigation into this facility reported incident on [DATE]. During the investigation the reportable incident was reviewed and the above referenced Five (5) day follow-up was contained in the reportable. There were staff statements which supported the statements in the five day follow- up report. The following are the staff statements which were contained in the reportable record which was provided to the surveyor: Statement from Registered Nurse (RN) #3 (typed as written) dated [DATE]: After clocking into my shift at 7am [DATE], I approached the nurses station where the night nurse (first and last name of RN #2), RN was sitting at her computer charting. I gathered my materials form shift and a report sheet. The nurse then said to me Mr. (Last name of Resident #63) just passed away. I asked the nurse when, and she stated probably between 6:30-6:45 am because he was still warm. I then asked if he was a DNR of Full Code. She stated, I don't know, but it isn't going to do him much good now. I'm not doing anything until I talk to (First name of the DON). I then explained to her that his POST form should have been verified upon discovering he was unresponsive and that vital signs have ceased, and if no POST form was available we should have began CPR and attempted to contact MPOA. I then immediately searched the resident's chart for a POST form, which was not available and called a code blue. (Initials of RN #2), RN then called the DON (First and Last name of the DON), RN while dayshift staff members responded to the code. Upon entering the room, resident was observed to be laying flat in bed, warm to touch, and Pale in color. Vital signs ceased. CPR was initiated by (First and last name of RN #7), RN while (First and last name of Nurse Aide (NA) #10), CNA obtained an AED, and I began pulling needed supplies from the crash cart. Once other staff members responded to assist, I went to the nurses station where, (Initials of RN #2), RN was sitting at her computer and asked her if she had called 911. She then picked up the phone and dialed 911. I began printing appropriate paperwork needed for EMS to give them upon arrival. EMS responded and entered the facility. As they approached the resident's room, I gave them the needed documents and report on the patient. When asked when the last time the resident was seen stable, (Initials of RN #2), RN responded with around 3am when she flushed his PEG tube with water and that was the last time she had laid eyes on the resident. As I assisted EMS and staff wit the code, I obtained a FS (finger stick) on the resident due to HX (history of) DM (Diabetes Mellitus) and the FS read 42. EMS staff asked when the last FS was obtained, and I then asked (initials of RN #2), RN because the resident had an order for 6am FS. She responded with 127. I obtained the history from both glucometers and could not find a FS reading 127 and the last FS obtained from the A hall glucometer was timed shortly after 1am. I then called the DON and attempted to reach the president's wife/emergency contact. I explained to the wife that the resident's vitals had ceased, and we were actively running a code with EMS. Due to not having a signed POST form on file and having to perform CPR I then asked the wife whether she wished for us to continue with CPR and she responded with yes. While speaking with the wife, EMS staff had called time of death. At this time the DON had arrived to the resident's room and spoke with EMS staff. I then assisted staff and EMS with transferring the patient back to the bed and cleaning him up. I went back up to the nurses station where (Initials of RN #2), RN was still sitting at her computer charting . She then said to me, I don't care if I get fired, I have a job at (Initials of Local Hospital). Statement from RN #7 dated [DATE] (typed as written) : I arrived to the facility at 7:03 (AM) and proceeded to the nurses station to receive a report from the off going nurse of A hall. She proceeded to give me report after having made the statement that they had found a patient expired in his bed prior to my arrival. She had stated that she was waiting on the DON to call her back to find out what she wanted to do . During that time while she was waiting for the phone call she was giving me report on A hall patients and about 5 minutes later she received the phone call from and individual I assumed was either the DON, Aministrator, or MD (Medical Doctor). It was while she was on the phone call that I became aware that the patient did not of a DNR. Promptly after that statement made by the off going nurse, she instructed me to head down to the patients room and start CPR. Staff were alerted of the Code Blue, announced by, (First and last name of RN #3), and everyone immediately responded to the code. Upon reaching the patients room, I quickly performed a rapid assessment and determined the patient was indeed unresponsive and I started CPR/compression. AED pads were applied after the first round of compression/during ventilation. Compressions and ventilation were not interrupted during this transition. CPR had been underway for about 8-10 round of compressions/2 AED rhythm checks before EMS had arrived with no shockable rhythm found. Once EMS arrived they assumed care and took over CPR and compressions vis mechanical compressions unit. This statement is to the best of my knowledge and I am unable to provide any more exact times than what is contained in this statement. Statement from RN #2 dated [DATE] (typed as written): Regarding (First and Last Name of Resident #63) This nurse rounded on this resident at 0530 (5:30 am) in room (Room number redacted to maintain confidentiality). He allowed me to give him 30 ml of water through his peg tube but refused his jevity 1.5 cal feeding c/o of feeling full. He was pleasant, talkative, and denied being in any distress or discomfort. I performed his 6 am finger stick which was 124. We talked for a about fie more minutes about the importance of keeping hydrated and I left his room. The resident was stable at this time. Sometime later was notified by the NA making her rounds that this resident appeared to not be breathing. I entered the room with my stethoscope at 0645 (6:45 am) and found Mr. (Last name of Resident #63) unresponsive and not breathing. I was unable to discern a heartbeat or pulse. I found no mottling or any other areas of concern to the residents body. Dr. (last name of the attending physician) was notified at 0705 (7:05 am) at which time he told me he was on his way to the (Name of Facility). I attempted to call the resident wife but was unable to talk with her personally. I brought up the residents documents online but was unable to find a POST form that documented his wishes regarding end of life care. I immediately called my DON and recounted the above events. (Name of local EMS Service) was notified at 0726 (7:26 am) that we were actively starting CPR in lieu of no advance directives. Crash care was brought to the door of the residents room and the AED was utilized while awaiting the emergency squad. (Initials of Local EMS service) arrived at 0737 (7:37 am) and took over care of Mr. (Last name of resident #63) at this time. These statements are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection. Statement from Nurse Aide (NA) #17 this statement is not dated (Typed as written): I was maken [sic] our last round go to (first and last name of Resident #63) room I turn on light and see he wasn't breathen [sic} his eyes and mouth were open. I ran to the door and yelled for the nurse , (First name of RN #2). She came in also (First Name of Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #16) and (First name of NA #21) came in the nurse (First name of RN #2) listen to him breathe and said he was gone, we touch him and he was still warm. She said he hasn't been gone too long and she said something about his tube feeding that he was full up to or to full not sure she left. (First name of NA #21) and I washed him up. We was about done and (First Name of NA #18) came in and asked if we needed help. She help us put the flat sheet under him we got done and left next thing I new [sic] (First name of RN #3) asked (First name of NA #10) to help her because we half [sic] to do CPR on him. Coed [sic] blue. When I got to the room (First Name of RN #7) and (First name of Na #10) was doing CPR on him. (Nick Name of Activity Director) out of activities was In there too. I left and told them I would wait on the ambulance. Time I got to the door they was here and I showed them the way. Statement from NA #10 dated [DATE] (Typed as written): This morning Friday [DATE], upon arriving at the nurses station to get shift report and begin my day. I asked (First name of NA in Training #23) where the rest of the staff was. She informed me that (NA #17) was performing post-mortem care on Mr. (Last name of Resident #63). I went to his door, Room (room number redacted to maintain confidentiality), and knocked on his door to see if (First name of NA #17) needed any assistance as I was under the impression she was in the room by herself. After learning (First and Last Name of NA #21) was also in the room, I collected my necessary materials for my shift and began filling the ice chest go a water pass in the nutrition room. After coming out of the nutrition room, I overheard discussion as to whether or not Mr. (Last name of Resident #63) was a full code or a DNR and went behind the desk at the nurse's station to see if I could be of any help. (First and Last Name of RN #2), RN was sitting at the computer and stated, I don't know if he is full code or not but it wont do him any good now. (First and Last Name of RN #3) , RN replied with, Do we have a signed POST form stating yes or no? With no reply from (First name of RN #2), (First Name of RN #3) walked over to the computer and began to see if he had one scanned into his chart and I pulled his paper chart off of the shelf and began to flip through finding no POST form. (First name of RN #2) then made the comment that was not doing anything until she talked to (First Name of the DON), the DON. I then walked down B hall and began my day with ice water pass while I waited for further instructions as to what was happening. (First and last Name of NA #18) and I got shift report from (First and Last name of NA #21) and began an Ice pass. We made it about ¾ of the way down the hallway when, (First name of RN #3) called code blue. I went to (First name of NA #18) and told her there was a code blue in room (Room number redacted to maintain confidentiality). I observed (First name of RN #3) and (First and last name of RN #7) retrieving the crash cart and oxygen tank from the clean utility room so I got the AED and made my way to Room (Room Number redacted to maintain confidentiality). Upon arriving to the room, (First name if RN #7) was adjusting the bed to an appropriate lever for CPR and (First Name of RN #3) obtained necessary materials from the crash cart. I then opened the AED and followed prompts while (First Name of RN #7) began compressions. ( First Name of RN #3) then received a phone call from (First Name of DON) so she handed me the ambu bag and told me she would be right back. I went to the head of the bed, connected the oxygen to the bag and began giving the resident rescue breaths in accordance with the guidelines of CPR. While assisting in the code, I observed the resident being pale and warm to the touch. I continued aiding in CPR switching off between providing Rescue breaths and performing compressions until (Initials of local emergency squad) arrived on scene. I then followed orders of the medics as they took over the code. We lowered the resident to the floor to provide more adequate CPR and EMS attached the LUCAS machine. Once they no longer needed my assistance, I went back to B hall to finish the ICE water pass. After we completed the ice pass, I put the supplies away and went back to Room (Room number redacted to protect confidentiality) where I found (First name of RN #2) talking to the medics while they performed the code. While I was in the room the female medic asked what time was he last seen alive, when (First name of RN #2) replied with around 3 am I flushed is peg tube with 30 cc of water and he declined his feed and pain pill at that time. Resident was talking and was free of pan at that time. I asked the medics I they needed any further assistance to which they replied no and I left the room to pass breakfast trays. After passing the trays I noticed squad was still here so again I went to the room to see if they were in need of any assistance to which the female medic told me no but asked if I knew what time he was found to which I replied I was not on shift yet but I believe it was sometime between 0630 and 0700 Se expressed gratitude for my honesty as she could not get a straightforward answer from the night shift nurse. That was the end of our interactions, and I went back to b hall. Statement from NA #18 this statement does not have a date (typed as written): I came in this morning and the new girl asked me If I was a nurse or an aide. I told her aide she said they're down there in (Room number redacted to maintain confidentiality) cleaning him up and they might need help. So I went down and ask [sic] them if they needed help. They [sic] 2 aides said can you help roll him so I did and I helped put a sheet under him. We then covered him up. I went back down B hall. Oh yea I forgot he was still warm. I also tried to close his mouth which it wouldn't close. My self and (First name of NA #10) went to pass water down b hall then (First name of NA #10 said that (First name of RN #3) called Code Blue but told her Code Blue so we went down to (Room number redacted to maintain confidentiality) (First name of NA #10) grabbed the AED and put pads on his chest and her and (First Name of RN #7) started doing compressions. (First Name of RN #3) called 911. Ambulance Came and they took the man off the bed and place him in the floor and proceeded to continue CPR After Ambulance came I came out of room I was just standing there. Statement from LPN #16 dated [DATE] (typed as written): On [DATE] at 645 am this nurse pulled scheduled medications and tube feed for Room (Room number redacted to maintain confidentiality). Upon entering room, resident was repositioned blood pressure obtained and tube fed site was cleaned and dressing applied. While administering meds and tube fed this nurse heard someone say something but could not make out what was said. Then heard someone say he's gone. As soon as feeding syringe was empty, I capped feeding tube and went to check. I entered room (room number redacted to maintain confidentiality) and CNA stated he's gone. Resident noted to be very pale with mouth open. Turned to get the other nurse who was walking into room. Returned to Room (room number redacted to maintain confidentiality) to ensure no medications were left unattended. Statement from NA #19 dated [DATE] (typed as written): We checked resident in (room number redacted to maintain confidentiality) around 330/400 (am) he was not wet an no BM, he couldn't find his TV remote so we helped him find it (in his bed) and I talked to him a little about watching, The wheel of fortune and asked if he was okay and needed anything else, he said he was fine and we left the room. Statement from Activity Director #20 dated [DATE] (typed as written): On Friday Morning I was in activity room and I heard them call a code blue. When I gotin the room a nurse was in there performing CPR and A SNA was using ambu bag giving breaths. I asked if the nurse needed a break at this time and the nurse and CNA just switched jobs and when I notice CAN getting tired I jumped in and did one round of compressions and then the squad came and took over. Resident was not responsive to CPR. When I got in the room he was pale in color. Statement from NA #21 dated [DATE] (typed as written): We had been in room (room number redacted to maintain confidentiality) between 3:30 am and 4:00 am. Resident was dry and ok. Was talking about watching Wheel of Fortune. That room was the last one to check on the 5 am round. (First name of NA #17) had gowned up and went in ahead of me. She came to the door and said we need a nurse Upon entering the room the resident had a waxy color and did not appear to be breathing but was warm to the touch. (First name of RN #2) entered the room just after me with a stethoscope. She listened to him and checked for a pulse and told us he was gone. (First name of NA #17) and I started cleaning him up and (First Name of NA #18) came in to help us finish him up. The final two statements in the investigation were from NA #12 and NA #15 both of whom stated they had no interaction with the resident until after the code was over and they helped to get the resident back into the bed. A review of the medical record for Resident #63 found there was no documentation in his medical record pertaining to this incident. The only documentation in the record to indicate the resident had expired was a death in facility minimum data set with an assessment reference date of [DATE] and four (4) e-mar notes which indicated, PT (patient) expired as a reason why the medication was not administered. An interview with the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) at 9:04 am on [DATE] confirmed there was no documentation in the medical record regarding this incident. She indicated they found that during the end of their investigation. Their training does incorporate making sure the code and the steps of the code are documented in the medical record. Further review of the medical record found Resident #63's care plan was void of any information pertaining to his code status. There was not a physician order or a Physician order for Scope of Treatment (POST) form in the record. An interview with the Nursing Home administrator on the afternoon of [DATE] confirmed there was no post for or code status order. She stated, it is usually addressed by the admitting nurse, but they missed his and there was not one. The facility initiated a plan of correction on [DATE] which read as follows: F678 Resident #(First and last initial of Resident #63) no longer resides in the facility. All residents of the facility have the potential to be affected. The Director of Nursing (DON/Designee) conducted an audit on [DATE] for all residents to ensure all residents had a code status listed in the Physician Orders. The DON conducted an audit on [DATE] for all licensed nursing staff including any non licensed nursing personnel to validate their current Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) certification with corrective action immediately upon discovery. Re-education was provided by the DON/Designee to all licensed nurses on [DATE] to ensure if there is no order for code status in the resident chart the resident is considered a full code and CPR to be initiated and documented on the CPR/AED flow sheet with a posttest to validate understanding. Any licensed nurses not available during this time frame will be provided re-education, including post test during orientation by the DON/Designee. The unit managers (UM)/designee will monitor starting [DATE] new admission/readmissions and/or change in resident advance directives order to ensure the resident has an order for code status and the CPR/AED flowsheet is utilized for all CPR daily for 2 weeks including weekends and holidays, then five times a week for four (4) weeks , then three (3) times a week for 4 weeks then randomly thereafter. The nurse Practice Educator (NPE)/designee will conduct mock code drill starting [DATE] daily across all shifts X 3 days, then weekly for 2 weeks , then monthly for 3 months, then randomly thereafter. Results of monitors will be reported by the Director of Nursing (DON)/designee monthly to the Quality Improvement Committee (QIC) for any additional follow up and or in servicing until the issue is resolved, then randomly thereafter as determined by the QIC committee. An interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) around 10:00 am on [DATE] confirmed she and the nurse practice educator (NPE) conduct the mock CPR drills she explained the process as follows: We take the CPR dummy to different places in the facility and have the staff run a code. She stated, we observe to make sure they are completing all steps of the CPR process correctly and that everyone is knowledgeable about what they need to do an when. She stated, if we identify staff that may need a little extra help we will focus the next drill on them to ensure they are getting the training they need. Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #4, LPN #5, and LPN #6 were interviewed on [DATE] and [DATE] they were knowledgeable about the education they received and were able to accurately describe the steps they would follow in initiating or not initiating CPR. They were asked questions about different scenarios and was able to accurately answer all questions. A review of the training and audits provided by the facility found all the training and audits they mentioned in their Plan of correction were completed with the last trainings taking place on [DATE]. The audits remain ongoing to ensure continued compliance. Any nurses who have not been educated have not worked since the incident and will be educated when they return to work. All residents who expired in the facility from [DATE] were reviewed. There were eight (8) total including Resident #63. Resident #64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69 and 70. The seven (7) residents excluding Resident #63 all had orders for Do Not Resuscitate: New admissions the facility was also reviewed to ensure there were no issues with the code status and/or orders for such. The Findings of the review are below: -- Resident #6 admitted on [DATE] is a full code and it is identified accurately throughout her medical record. --Resident #11 admitted on [DATE] is a DNR which was established by the facility on [DATE] and is identified accurately throughout the medical record. -- Resident #12 admitted on [DATE] is a DNR which was established by the facility on [DATE] and is identified accurately throughout the medical record. -- Resident #16 admitted on [DATE] is a full code and it is identified accurately throughout his medical record. -- Resident #25 admitted on [DATE] is a full code and it is identified accurately throughout her medical record. --Resident #34 admitted on [DATE] is a full code and it is identified accurately throughout his medical record. -- Resident #40 admitted on [DATE] is a DNR and this is identified accurately throughout her medical record. -- Resident #50 was admitted on [DATE] and is a full code and it is identified accurately throughout her medical record. -- Resident #59 was admitted on [DATE] and is a full code and it is identified accurately throughout her medical record. All CPR certifications were reviewed by the SA and all licensed nursing staff have current CPR certifications. All posttests completed by the facility was also reviewed and all staff had completed the training and the post test.
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 F0730 (Tag F0730)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and staff interview the facility failed to ensure Nurse Aide (NA) # 14 had a performance evaluation completed every 12 months as required. This was true for one (1) of five (5) ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and staff interview the facility failed to ensure Nurse Aide (NA) # 14 had a performance evaluation completed every 12 months as required. This was true for one (1) of five (5) nurse aide files reviewed. This failed practice had the potential to effect more than isolated number of residents. Staff identifier: NA # 14 Facility Census: 62. Findings include: a) NA # 14 On 09/11/24 in the early afternoon the employee file for NA #14 was requested. N #14's hire date was 02/08/22. As part of the request her 12-month performance evaluation was requested. When the facility provided the employee file there was no performance evaluation found. The performance evaluation was again requested from Clinical Advisor #22. Later in the afternoon Clinical Advisor #22 returned and stated they did not have an up-to-date performance evaluation for NA #14. She stated, The DON was on leave, and this was missed.
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

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, facility reported incident review, and staff interview the facility failed to ensure the resident record...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, facility reported incident review, and staff interview the facility failed to ensure the resident record was complete and accurate. Resident #63 expired at the facility on [DATE] and cardiopulmonary resuscitation was initiated but failed. The medical record contained no information regarding the events of [DATE]. Resident identifier: #63. Facility Census: 62. Findings include: a) Resident #63 On [DATE] the state agency received a five (5) day follow-up report regarding and incident that took place on [DATE] involving Resident #63. The five (5) day follow-up report read as follows: [DATE] FIVE DAY FOLLOW UP REPORT Alleged Perpetrator: (First and Last Name of RN #2), RN Alleged Victim: (First and Last Name of Resident #63) , resident On [DATE], (First name of Resident #63) was found unresponsive with no pulse or respirations by staff around 6:45 AM. (First and last name of Resident #63) was admitted to (Name of Facility on [DATE] for a skilled stay. His pertinent diagnoses include: noninfective gastroenteritis and colitis, unspecified; diarrhea, unspecified; enterocolitis due to clostridium difficile, not specified as recurrent; type 2 diabetes mellitus without complications; gastrostomy status; dysphagia, unspecified; malignant neoplasm of esophagus, unspecified; ulcer of esophagus with bleeding; and hypoglycemia, unspecified. (First name of Resident #63) scored an 11/15 on his most recent BIMS on [DATE]. His level of staff assistance varied from partial to dependent assistance for bathing, bed mobility, dressing, hygiene, and transfers. (First name of RN #2) reported she administered 30 mL of water through (First name of Resident #63)'s peg tube around 0530. He refused the Jevity 1.5 feeding citing complaints of feeling full. She advised he was pleasant and talkative, and denied being in any distress or discomfort. She reportedly obtained a finger stick at 6 AM of 124. The documented fingerstick is listed at 117. Based on statements obtained from all staff working on [DATE], (First name of Resident #63) was found unresponsive by a CNA while completing her round upon entering his room around 0645. The description she provided indicated that he wasn't breathing, his eyes and mouth were open. At this time, (First name of Resident #63) was still warm to touch per her statement. She ran to the door and called for the registered nurse, (First and last name of RN #2). Upon being informed that Mr. (Last name of Resident #63) was not responsive, (First and last name of RN #2) entered the room and completed an assessment. She was unable to discern a heartbeat or breath sounds with her stethoscope. She was also unable to locate a pulse. She notified the physician and attempted to contact the patient's next of kin. The oncoming shift of nurses arrived at the center around 7 AM and started receiving report from (First name of RN #2) . Upon hearing that the patient had passed away, (First and last name of RN #3), RN asked (First name of RN #2) if she knew what his code status was and (First name of RN #2) replied I don't know but it isn't going to do him much good now. (First name of RN #2) advised she wasn't doing anything until I talk to (First name of the Director of Nursing (DON). (First and last name of the DON) , RN, DON spoke with staff at the center around 0719 and instructed them to begin CPR and call 911 and advised them the center was running an active code. (Name of Local emergency squad) arrived at the center around 0730 and assumed care of the code. They received authorization to call the time of death around 0755. The facility completed an audit on [DATE] for all residents to ensure they had a code status listed in the Physician Orders. Re-educations was provided by the DON/Designee to all licensed nurses to ensure if there is no order for code status in the resident chart; the resident is considered a full code and CPR is to be initiated and documented on the CPR/AED flowsheet with a posttest to validate understanding. Any licensed nurses not available during this time frame will be provided re-education, including post-test upon the beginning of the next shift to work. New licensed nurses will be provided education, including post-test during orientation by the DON/designee. The Unit Managers/designee will monitor starting on [DATE] new admission/readmissions and/or change in resident advance directives order to ensure the resident has an order for code status. The Nurse Practice Educator/designee will conduct mock code drills starting on [DATE] daily across all shifts for 3 days, then weekly for 2 weeks, then monthly for 3 months and randomly thereafter. Results of monitors will be reported by the DON/designee monthly to the Quality Improvement Committee (QIC) for any additional follow-up and/or in-servicing until the issue is resolved; then randomly thereafter as determined by the QIC committee. (First and last name of RN #2) was suspended pending investigation. An initial report was made to the WV RN Board. Neglect will be substantiated due to the delay in care. (First Name of Resident #2) has been terminated effective [DATE]. The state agency initiated an on - site investigation into this facility reported incident on [DATE]. During the investigation the reportable incident was reviewed and the above referenced Five (5) day follow-up was contained in the reportable. There were staff statements which supported the statements in the five day follow- up report. A review of the medical record for Resident #63 found there was no documentation in his medical record pertaining to this incident. The only documentation in the record to indicate the resident had expired was a death in facility minimum data set with an assessment reference date of [DATE] and four (4) e-mar notes which indicated, PT (patient) expired as a reason why the medication was not administered. An interview with the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) at 9:04 am on [DATE] confirmed there was no documentation in the medical record regarding this incident. She indicated they found that during the end of their investigation. Further review of the medical record found Resident #63's care plan was void of any information pertaining to his code status. There was not a physician order or a Physician order for Scope of Treatment (POST) form in the record. An interview with the Nursing Home administrator on the afternoon of [DATE] confirmed there was no post for or code status order. She stated, it is usually addressed by the admitting nurse, but they missed his and there was not one.
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

Deficiency F0943 (Tag F0943)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review and staff interview the facility failed to ensure the staff abuse and neglect training contained training related dementia management and resident abuse prevention. This was tru...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and staff interview the facility failed to ensure the staff abuse and neglect training contained training related dementia management and resident abuse prevention. This was true for five (5) of five (5) nurse aides reviewed. This failed practice had the potential to affect more than an isolated number of residents. Nurse Aide (NA) Identifiers: #10, #11, #12, #13, and #14. Facility Census: 62. Findings Include: a) Abuse Training Review A review of the following nurse aides personnel record found the following: -- NA #10 had a hire date of 03/23/22. Her training record was reviewed from 01/01/23 until 12/31/24. This review found she had the following abuse training: Protecting residents from assault and abuse for a total of 40 minutes. A review of the learning objectives for this training found it was void of any specific training related to dementia management and resident abuse prevention. -- NA # 11 had a hire date of 06/04/00. Her training record was reviewed from 01/01/23 until 12/31/24. This review found she had the following abuse training: Protecting residents from assault and abuse for a total of 40 minutes. A review of the learning objectives for this training found it was void of any specific training related to dementia management and resident abuse prevention. -- NA #12 had a hire date of 08/23/16. Her training record was reviewed from 01/01/23 until 12/31/24. This review found she had the following abuse training: Protecting residents from assault and abuse for a total of 40 minutes. A review of the learning objectives for this training found it was void of any specific training related to dementia management and resident abuse prevention. -- NA #13 had a hire date of 07/02/18. Her training record was reviewed from 01/01/23 until 12/31/24. This review found she had the following abuse training: Protecting residents from assault and abuse for a total of 40 minutes. A review of the learning objectives for this training found it was void of any specific training related to dementia management and resident abuse prevention. -- NA #14 had a hire date of 02/08/22. Her training record was reviewed from 01/01/23 until 12/31/24. This review found she had the following abuse training: Protecting residents from assault and abuse for a total of 40 minutes. A review of the learning objectives for this training found it was void of any specific training related to dementia management and resident abuse prevention. This was confirmed with Clinical Advisor #22 and assisting Nursing Home Administrator #24 on 09/11/24 at 4:49 PM.
Feb 2023 19 deficiencies 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Deficiency F0697 (Tag F0697)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

. Based on observation, record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to assess and treat Resident #210's pain stemming from an unstageable pressure ulcer to his left heel resulting in actua...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on observation, record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to assess and treat Resident #210's pain stemming from an unstageable pressure ulcer to his left heel resulting in actual physical and psychosocial harm. The resident rated his pain as a 8 (very strong pain) on 01/30/23. The surveyor notified the resident's nurse of his pain. The resident again rated his pain as a 10 (worst pain possible) on 02/01/23 during his pressure ulcer treatment. The facility failed to provide any pain medication on 01/30/23 despite surveyor intervention. Pain medication was not provided until the surveyor again alerted staff on 02/01/23. The facility failed to monitor the effectiveness of the pain medication administered within one (1) hour after administration on 02/01/23. This practice caused unnecessary suffering for the resident. This was true for one (1) of two (2) residents reviewed for the care area of pain. Resident identifier: #210. Facility census: 64. Findings included: a) Resident #210 During initial screening on 01/30/23 at 12:16 PM, Resident #210 stated he had pain level of 8 on a 1-10 pain scale with 10 being the worst. Resident indicated it was in his left heel, it hurt him all the time as he lifted his leg up and stated, It hurts bad, it's too far gone now to do anything. Surveyor informed Resident's nurse, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #44 that Resident was reporting pain. LPN #44 stated she would check into it. Record review on 02/01/23 at 10:00 AM showed an order to cleanse Left heel with wound cleanser and apply skin prep to unstageable pressure injury every shift. No orders for pain medication or pain assessment were present. Observation on 02/01/23 at 10:40 showed Resident #210 to be holding his left leg in the air, cradled by his hands for support, up off the mattress of his bed when surveyor and RN #54 entered the room for wound care. Resident stated, It hurts, can't stand to lay it down and wiggled his left foot. As RN #54 initiated wound care and gently wiped the left heel with wound cleaner, the Resident jerked his heel out of RN #54's hand and yelled oh, oh I can't stand that it hurts. When RN #54 resumed wound care, Resident #210 grunted, the Resident's face turned red, and he grimaced with his jaw clinched. RN #54 stated, No denying that's painful. Resident #210 was asked by Surveyor for a pain level on a 1-10 pain scale with 10 being the worst, and he replied Ten. Resident #210 stated no one had done anything for the pain, and he needed to get out of there because he had pain medication at home he could take. RN #54 was asked if the Resident had been medicated for pain prior to wound care and RN #54 stated' No I don't think he has an order for pain medication. He [resident #210] done this yesterday when I was working on his heel, and I just thought he was ticklish. On 02/01/23 at 10:56 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) and Administrator were informed of the Resident #210's complaint of severe pain during wound care. The Administrator stated, Ok the doctor is here today I'll let him know. The DON then stated, He does not have anything ordered for pain? He was very sick when he came here. On 02/02/23 at 1:57 PM LPN #44 was asked if the doctor was able to address the resident's pain? LPN #44 stated that she just sent that script over to pharmacy so she can now pull that from the Omnicell. LPN #44 further stated, I was just in there, he said he was feeling ok. On 02/01/23 at 2:00 PM Resident #210 stated they still had not gave him anything for pain, and the heel still hurts bad. Resident stated Pain level 8 on a 1-10 pain scale with 10 being the worst. On 02/01/23 at 2:03 PM, when the surveyor exited the Resident's room, LPN #44 yelled down the hallway, I'm getting it now. LPN #44 then stated, I just clarified that order, and I can get it out of the Omnicell. He [resident #210] said he wasn't having pain. Surveyor Reported to LPN #44 that Resident's pain level was just reported as an 8 out of 10 and Resident begged, Please see if they can give me something. On 02/01/23 at 3:00 PM record review showed Pain medication was administered at 2:44 PM by LPN #44. Medication Administration note stated, Ultram Oral Tablet 50 MG Give 50 mg via G-Tube every 8 hours as needed for Pain. Resident rates pain 8/10. Ultram given per order. Will continue to monitor. Record review on 02/01/23 at 3:05 PM showed an order for Ultram Oral Tablet 50 MG (Tramadol HCl), Controlled Drug, give 50 mg via G-Tube every 8 hours as needed for Pain was entered by LPN #44 at 2:00 PM on 02/01/23. Record review indicated as of 4:52 PM on 02/01/23, the pain assessment to monitor the effectiveness of the PRN (as needed) pain medication that was administered to Resident #210 on 02/01/23 at 2:44 PM had not been completed. During an interview on 02/01/23 at 4:55 PM, the DON verified PRN pain medication should be monitored for effectiveness within one hour of administration. The DON agreed Resident #210's pain should have been better managed and not let go that long before intervention. .
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0561 (Tag F0561)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

. Based on resident interview, staff interview and record review the facility failed to ensure one (1) of two (2) residents reviewed for the care area of choices was afforded the opportunity to exerci...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on resident interview, staff interview and record review the facility failed to ensure one (1) of two (2) residents reviewed for the care area of choices was afforded the opportunity to exercise her autonomy regarding those things that are important in her life, specifically health care options/decisions. Resident identifier: #4. Facility census: 64 Findings included: a) Resident #4 An interview with the resident on 01/30/23 at 12:20 PM, found the facility does not tell her when her medications are ordered, changed, or discontinued. The resident stated she has blood pressure issues and needs her medication. Record review found documentation from the physician on 07/31/21, determining the resident has capacity to make her own medical decisions and has remained so throughout her stay at the facility. The resident was admitted to the facility with a Guardian/Conservator in place, appointing WV DHHR as the resident's Guardian and the Sheriff as the resident's Conservator. A Discontinuance of Conservator was filed on March 14, 2022, removing the Sheriff from the Conservatorship, allowing the resident to make her own financial decisions. Physician encounter dated 12/9/22 noted, .Psychiatric: Patient able to correctly answer the date, who the president is, the current location, and my name. She is aware why she is at facility. She can even tell me most of the medications she takes on a daily basis. She currently exhibits decision making capacity. Plan: Patient seen today for capacity evaluation. She clearly exhibits decision making capacity. Capacity evaluation paperwork completed and updated today. Advanced care planning: I spent 20 minutes face-to-face today with (Resident's Name) discussing her care plan . 1/24/23 1:33 PM, Nurse Practitioner (NP) #72 encounter note states, .Advance Care Planning Hx: Per (physician's name) the patient has the capacity for medical decision making. Discussed advanced care planning/end of life care with the patient. Reviewed her chronic conditions and overall prognosis . Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON), Administrator, and Social Worker (SW) on 1/31/23 at 3:48 PM, discussed findings in the electronic record documents section, that the physician deemed the resident to have medical capacity as of 07/31/21. DON, Administrator, and SW confirmed the resident has capacity. DON stated that the doctor can't take away her guardianship. DON says she called and talked to the DHHR worker and the worker was supposed to come in and talk to them but she never showed up. The DON could not provide documentation of this conversation. The DON stated that the NP discussed the resident's care with the patient on 01/24/2023. The SW , DON, and Administrator confirmed that only one physician had evaluated the resident's capacity since admission to the facility and that there had not been any efforts made for a second physician to evaluate the resident's capacity. On 02/01/23 at 10:30 AM an interview with SW and DON concluded that DON had emailed the DHHR worker yesterday, and the Ombudsman in hopes for assistance with this situation. Prior to surveyor involvement, there is no evidence that the facility made any effort to assist the resident in getting the second physician capacity determination in order to fully regain her medical capacity, nor had the facility made an effort to assist the resident in petitioning the court for guardian discontinuance. .
CONCERN (D)

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

Transfer Notice (Tag F0623)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** . b) Resident #25 Record review found the resident was transferred to the hospital on [DATE]. 01/26/2023 3:40 am- General Note:...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** . b) Resident #25 Record review found the resident was transferred to the hospital on [DATE]. 01/26/2023 3:40 am- General Note: Found resident unresponsive in room. (Name of on call physician) contacted and ordered to send resident to (name of hospital) ER (emergency room) for eval (evaluation.) Message left for (name of family), emergency contact. Report called into (name of hospital). The resident returned to the facility on [DATE]. The medical record contained no evidence the facility sent a copy of the transfer/bed hold notice to a representative of the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman. On 02/01/23 at 12:07 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed she had no verification the ombudsman was notified of the transfer and discharge to the hospital on [DATE]. Based on resident interview, record review and staff interview, the facility failed to notify the ombudsman when the facility discharged Resident #40 and Resident #25 to the hospital. This was true for two (2) of four (4) residents reviewed for the care area of hospitalization. Resident identifiers: #40 and #25. Facility census: 64. Findings included: a) Resident #40 On 01/30/23 at 12:51 PM, the resident said he was recently admitted to the hospital for pneumonia. Record review found the resident was transferred to the hospital on [DATE]. 10/30/2022 11:41 General Note: MD (medical director) ordered to send resident to (name of hospital) ER (emergency room) for eval (evaluation.) Message left for (name of family), emergency contact. Report called into (name of hospital) ER (name of hospital employee), and to EMS. Appropriate transfer documentation completed. The resident returned to the facility on [DATE]. On 01/31/23 at 1:07 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed she had no verification the ombudsman was notified of the transfer and discharge to the hospital on [DATE]. An email at 1:46 PM on 01/31/23 with the ombudsman verified no information has been received regarding transfers to the hospital. On 02/01/23 at 11:04 AM, the DON said, I have contacted the ombudsman to see how they want discharges reported. .
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** . b) Resident #24 Record review found the resident was transferred to the hospital on [DATE]. 01/26/2023 3:40 am- General Note:...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** . b) Resident #24 Record review found the resident was transferred to the hospital on [DATE]. 01/26/2023 3:40 am- General Note: Found resident unresponsive in room. (Name of on call physician) contacted and ordered to send resident to (name of hospital) ER (emergency room) for eval (evaluation.) Message left for (name of family), emergency contact. Report called into (name of hospital). The resident returned to the facility on [DATE]. The facility failed to notify the resident and the resident's representative(s) of the bed hold agreement. On 02/01/23 at 12:07 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed the resident and the representative was not notified of the bed hold agreement when discharged to the hospital on [DATE]. She verified the notification was blank. Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure Resident's #40 and #25 received notice of the bed hold agreement when sent to the hospital. This was true for two (2) of four (4) residents discharged to the hospital. Resident identifiers: #40 and #25. Facility census: 64. Findings included: a) Resident #40 On 01/30/23 at 12:51 PM, the resident said he was recently admitted to the hospital for pneumonia. Record review found the resident was transferred to the hospital on [DATE]. 10/30/2022 11:41 General Note: MD (medical director) ordered to send resident to (name of hospital) ER (emergency room) for eval (evaluation.) Message left for (name of family), emergency contact. Report called into (name of hospital) ER (name of hospital employee), and to EMS. Appropriate transfer documentation completed. The resident returned to the facility on [DATE]. On 01/31/23 at 3:35 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed she had no verification a bed hold agreement was ever provided or sent with the resident when he was discharged to the hospital. .
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 medical record review and staff interview the facility failed to complete an accurate minimum data set (MDS) assessment of one (1) of twenty MDS assessments reviewed during the investigatio...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on medical record review and staff interview the facility failed to complete an accurate minimum data set (MDS) assessment of one (1) of twenty MDS assessments reviewed during the investigation process of the survey. The medication section of the MDS assessment for Resident #14, was not coded to include the date of last gradual drug reduction (GDR) for Zyprexa noted on 06/24/22. Resident identifier: #14. Facility census: 64. Findings include: a) Resident #14 During a medical record review found an annual comprehensive MDS assessment for Resident #14 with an assessment reference date (ARD) of 06/28/22 revealed the section for Medications for date of last GDR was blank. Further medical record review found a GDR for Zyprexa was approved by the attending physician on 06/24/22. In an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON), on 02/01/23 at 11:15 am, she verified the MDS section for Medications did not have the date of last GDR of 06/24/22. .
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

. Based on record review, staff interview, and resident interview, the facility failed to ensure two (2) of two (2) residents reviewed for area of care plan during the long-term care survey process ha...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on record review, staff interview, and resident interview, the facility failed to ensure two (2) of two (2) residents reviewed for area of care plan during the long-term care survey process had the opportunity to participate in the development, review, and revision of his/her care plan. Resident Identifiers #40 and #13. Facility census 64. Findings included: a) Resident #40 Resident interview on 01/30/23 at 11:55 AM, found the resident said he had not heard of a care plan meeting and had never attended any care plan meeting. When the surveyor explained what a care plan meeting was, he again said he had never attended one and no one had ever invited him to one. Record review found the resident's physician determined the resident has capacity to make his own medical decisions on 10/08/21. On 01/31/23 at 12:48 PM, the Social Worker (SW) and Minimal Data Set (MDS) Coordinator were asked where to find documentation noting residents were invited and participated in their care planning process. The SW did not have a response, only looked over to the MDS Coordinator who said the documentation should be in a social service note or care plan meeting note. The MDS Coordinator asked the SW where she documented it, and the SW did not respond. The Surveyor asked if the facility used sign in sheets for attendance, and the SW responded, no. The Surveyor asked how the facility invites residents/responsible parties to care plan meetings? The MDS Coordinator stated, email. The Surveyor then asked how a capacitated resident would be invited to their own care plan meeting? The SW responded, Residents would be invited in person. The SW said she would look for proof of care plan meetings and let the surveyor know. At 12:57 PM on 01/31/23, during an interview with the SW and Director of Nursing (DON), the SW stated she was not able to locate any Care Plan Meeting notes. The SW stated she has not had a care plan meeting for any resident since she started in August of 2022. The SW said that she did not know it was her job, because at her previous place of employment she was not responsible for that. The Surveyor asked who else would be responsible for inviting patients/families to their quarterly care plan meeting? The DON responded it has been the Social Worker's responsibility. Further record review found no documentation the resident participated in his care planning. There were at least two (2) opportunities since August of 2022 when the resident should have been invited to and participated in care planning: A significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 11/07/22 and a significant change MDS with an ARD of 08/11/22. On 01/31/23 at 3:58 PM, the Administrator was notified of the above findings. At the close of the survey no further information was provided to verify the alert and oriented resident participated in his care planning process. b) Resident #13 Resident interview conducted on 01/30/23 at 11:55 AM, found the resident said she never heard of a care plan meeting and had never attended any care plan meeting. When the surveyor explained what a care plan meeting was, she again said she has never heard of one. Record review determined on 10/08/21, the resident's physician determined the resident has capacity to make her own medical decisions. On 01/31/23 at 12:48 PM, the SW and MDS Coordinator were asked where to find documentation noting residents were invited and participated in their care planning process. The SW did not have a response, only looked over to the MDS Coordinator who said the documentation should be in a social service note or care plan meeting note. The MDS Coordinator asked the SW where she documented it, and the SW did not respond. The Surveyor asked if the facility used sign in sheets for attendance, and the SW responded, no. The Surveyor asked how the facility invites residents/responsible parties to care plan meetings? The MDS Coordinator stated, email. The Surveyor then asked how a capacitated resident would be invited to their own care plan meeting? The SW responded Residents would be invited in person. The SW said she would look for proof of care plan meetings and let the surveyor know. At 12:57 PM on 01/31/23, during an interview with the SW and DON, the SW stated she was not able to locate any Care Plan Meeting notes. SW stated she had not had a care plan meeting for any resident since she started in August of 2022. The SW said that she did not know it was her job, because at her previous place of employment she was not responsible for that. The Surveyor asked who else would be responsible for inviting patients/families to their quarterly care plan meeting? The DON responded it has been the Social Worker's responsibility. Further record review found no documentation the resident participated in her care planning. There were at least two (3) opportunities since August of 2022 when the resident should have been invited to and participated in care planning: A quarterly MDS with an ARD of 09/06/22. An annual MDS with an ARD of 11/28/22. A quarterly MDS with an ARD of 01/17/23 On 01/31/23 at 3:58 PM, the Administrator was notified of the above findings. At the close of the survey no further information was provided to verify the alert and oriented resident participated in her care planning process. .
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 observation, record review and staff and family interview, the facility failed to ensure the head of the bed was at an appropriate level during continuous tube feeding administration for Re...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on observation, record review and staff and family interview, the facility failed to ensure the head of the bed was at an appropriate level during continuous tube feeding administration for Resident #210. This was a random opportunity for discovery. Resident identifier: #210. Facility census: 64. Findings included: a) Observation Observation on 02/01/23 at 10:40 AM showed Resident #210 to be lying flat in bed while continuous tube feeding was being administered at 65 ml hour. Registered Nurse (RN) #54 grabbed the bed control from between the head on the wall raised the head of the bed to a 45-degree angle. RN#54 verified the head of the bed was not in an appropriate position for the tube feeding to be administered. b) Record Review Record review showed an order for Enteral Feed every shift for supplemental feed. Jevity 1.5 CAL to be administered continuous via Pump 65ML per hour. Start Date 01/27/2023. Record review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Enteral Feeding: Administration by Pump, revised date 02/01/23, showed in step #6 to elevate head of bed to 30 - 45 degrees or sit resident up in bed or chair while administering tube feeding. c) Staff interview During an interview on 02/01/23 at 10:50 AM Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #44 stated she was in Resident's room around 10:00 AM because the resident's wife had called and said something was wrong with his tube feeding. Surveyor asked LPN #44 if she raised the head of the bed at that time and she stated, Oh no, I didn't raise it, I think it was ok I didn't pay much attention. On 02/01/23 at 10:56 AM the DON was asked if the head of bed should have been elevated during tube feeding? The DON replied, Yes, why was it not? The DON was informed of the observation made by the Surveyor at 10:40 AM of the Resident lying flat in bed while tube feeding was running and the DON stated, They know better than that. d) Family Interview During a family interview on 02/01/23 at 11:29 AM, Resident #210's emergency contact (EC) stated she had called the facility this morning around 10:00 AM and told the nurse to go back and check it again today because the Resident had just called her again from his cell phone and said something just wasn't right. The EC stated no one had called her back, hoped everything was ok. .
CONCERN (D)

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

Drug Regimen Review (Tag F0756)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

. Based on record review and staff interview the facility failed to ensure the consulting pharmacist's recommendations were answered in a timely manner for Resident #14 and additionally, the Director ...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on record review and staff interview the facility failed to ensure the consulting pharmacist's recommendations were answered in a timely manner for Resident #14 and additionally, the Director of Nursing (DON) failed to ensure a gradual dose reduction (GDR) for Resident #14 in a timely manner after the attending physician had approved the GDR. This was true for one (1) of five (5) residents reviewed for the care area of unnecessary medications during the Long Term Care Survey Process (LTCSP). Resident Identifier: #14. Facility Census: 64. Findings included: a) Resident #14 A review of Resident #14's medical record found a consultant pharmacist recommendation issued on 06/20/22. This recommended Zyprexa be reduced and/or discontinued. The attending physician agreed on 06/24/22 for the Zyprexa to be reduced. The medication was not reduced until 07/20/22. Further medical record review found a pharmacist consultant report issued on 10/25/22. This recommendation was not addressed until 12/06/22; this was after the consultant pharmacist next medication regimen review (MRR) on 11/30/22. Review of the facility's policy titled Medication Regimen Review effective date 12/01/07 and revised on 03/03/20. This policy reads as follows: If an irregularity does not require urgent action but should be addressed before the consultant pharmacist's next monthly MRR . An interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) at 11:00 a.m. on 02/01/23 confirmed Resident #14's GDR approved by the attending physician on 06/24/22 was not completed until 07/20/22. Additionally, she confirmed the pharmacist recommendations issued on 10/25/22, was not addressed until 12/06/22; which was after the next month's MRR on 11/30/22. .
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 ensure Resident #14's drug regimen was free from unnecessary antipsychotic medications. The attending Physician agreed to do a grad...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure Resident #14's drug regimen was free from unnecessary antipsychotic medications. The attending Physician agreed to do a gradual dose reduction (GDR) for Resident #14's Zyprexa on/or about 06/24/22, this medication was not reduced until 07/20/22. This was true for one (1) of five (5) residents reviewed for the care area of unnecessary medications. Resident Identifier: #14. Facility Census: 64. Findings include: a) Resident #14 A review of Resident #14's medical record found a pharmacy consultation report date issued was 06/20/2022. This recommended a possible GDR for Zyprexa of five (5) milligrams (mg) daily for treatment of schizophrenia. The physician responded to this recommendation on 06/24/22 and replied to reduce Zyprexa to 2.5 mg daily. Further review of the medical record found the Zyprexa was not reduced until until 07/20/22. Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) found the resident had received Zyprexa 5 mg daily from 06/24/22 through 07/20/22 daily. An interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) at 10:30 a.m. on 02/01/23 confirmed the Zyprexa should have been reduced on 06/24/22. She confirmed the Zyprexa was not reduced until 07/20/22. .
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 ensure foods were stored in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. This had the potential to affect a limited...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on observation and staff interview the facility failed to ensure foods were stored in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. This had the potential to affect a limited number of residents. Facility census 64. Findings included: a) tour of the kitchen On 01/30/23 at 11:25 AM, the first tour of the kitchen found a half empty bucket of sherbet in the walk in freezer. There was no date to indicate when the sherbet was opened. This finding was verified with the Cooperate Kitchen Manager. .
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 ensure one (1) of 20 residents reviewed, for the care area of advance directives, had a Physician Orders for Scope of Treatment (PO...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure one (1) of 20 residents reviewed, for the care area of advance directives, had a Physician Orders for Scope of Treatment (POST) that was accurate and complete. Resident identifier: #9. Facility census: 64. Findings included: a) Resident #9 Record review found a POST form completed on 03/07/17. Section E requiring Advance Directive (Living Will or Medical Power of Attorney), Organ and Tissue Documentation of Gift, Court-appointed Guardian, Health Care Surrogate Selection, and the name, address, and phone number of the MPOA/Surrogate/Court-appointed Guardian/Parent of Minor Contact Information was not completed. Policy review of Using the POST form 2016 Edition regarding Section E states: .This section includes a list of documents including advance directives to which the person completing the form may have referred for guidance. They include a living will, medical power of attorney form, organ and tissue document of gift, court-appointed guardian, and healthcare surrogate selection form. 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. Healthcare providers are to review a patient ' s advance directives at the time of POST completion. Revise advance directives as necessary for consistency with POST orders . 01/31/23 at 3:42 PM, the above findings were discussed and confirmed with the Social Worker (SW), Director of Nursing (DON), and the Administrator. .
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 staff interview, the facility failed to ensure the call system was accessible to one (1) of 20 residents reviewed during the long term care survey process. This was a random...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure the call system was accessible to one (1) of 20 residents reviewed during the long term care survey process. This was a random opportunity for discovery. Resident identifier: #35. Facility census: 64. Findings included: a) Resident #35 Observation at 11:35 AM on 01/30/23 with nurse aide (NA) #39 found the resident was in bed sleeping. The call light was not within reach of the resident. NA #39 was asked to locate the Resident's call system. NA #39 found the call light on the floor, under the resident's bed and placed the call light within the resident's reach. Review of the resident's care plan found the resident is able to use her call light when needed: Focus: Resident is at further risk for falls: s/p (status post) fall with lumbar fracture The goal associated with the problem: Resident will have no fall related injury through next review. Interventions included: Provide resident/caregiver education for safe techniques (including when to use call light) of transferring from wheelchair to bed Place call light within reach while in bed or close proximity to the bed. On 01/31/23 at 4:12 PM, the observation was discussed with the Social Worker (SW), Director of Nursing (DON), and Administrator. Surveyors notified them of the call light not being accessible, and that staff #39 corrected the issue at the surveyor's request. .
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

. d) Resident #24 Record review found the resident is receiving Hospice services for chronic medical conditions. Diagnoses included: PVD, History (HX) of Cardiac Ischemia, HX of alcohol dependance, H...

Read full inspector narrative →
. d) Resident #24 Record review found the resident is receiving Hospice services for chronic medical conditions. Diagnoses included: PVD, History (HX) of Cardiac Ischemia, HX of alcohol dependance, HX of tobacco dependance, hypertension, atrial fibrillation, and Cerebral infarction. A review of the medical records for Resident #24 revealed the following information: The facility uses a system called Swift, this a program using a camera to measure and document all wounds. On 01/31/23, Registered Nurse 54 stated the facility began using the SWIFT on 09/29/22. In addition, the facility staff do weekly skin checks. Record review found the facility documented the resident had an Arterial wound on his right foot, 2nd digit. Date: 12/01/22 Location: Right foot, 2nd digit (second toe) New- Age unknown Acquired: In-House Acquired Length: 9.66 cm Width: 7.64 cm The picture of the foot observed by the surveyor on the morning of 01/31/23 revealed all five (5) toes on the right foot including the front portion of the foot, were black in color. The facility failed to mention any of the other toes other than the 2nd toe. Observation of the wound care with RN #54 began on 02/01/23 at 10:56 AM: RN #54 removed a tan colored; elastic shelve covering the lower right leg and half of the right foot. The physician's order was to cleanse the 2nd toe with wound cleanser and to paint with betadine. Leave open to air to prevent more skin break down. (There was no order for the elastic shelve covering the lower right leg and half of the resident's foot.) It was observed that all five toes were black in color. RN #54 painted the black areas of all the toes with betadine (the betadine was a prepackaged individual application with a medicated cotton swab). At this point RN #54 failed to cleanse the area with wound cleanser and pat dry as the orders state. While observing the wound care for Resident # 24 on 02/01/23 at 10:56 AM, by Registered Nurse (RN) #54, it was discovered there were other areas of concern that RN #54 did not make note of it as being new wounds. These areas were: * Three (3) opened areas on the right knee. One was black in color about 2 cm in length and width. two (2) opens wounds appeared to red and 2 cm in length and 1 cm in width. * An opened area on the back the right lower leg, this wound was bleeding. *Three opens areas on the front top of the left foot. These areas were open and bleeding. *On the right foot inner side between the two documented open wounds was a deep purple area about 7 cm in length and 4 cm in width. *On the inner right ankle was a deep purple area about 2cm by 2 cm. At the time of the wound care, these areas were pointed out to RN #54. RN #54 said he would let the wound care doctor know. On 02/01/23 at 1:10 PM, Administrator and Director of nursing (DON) was informed of the above findings. All the resident's toes were black, not just the 2nd toe and RN #54 did not follow the physician's orders for treatment. On 01/31/23 at 1:06 PM, the DON said wound assessments are under the skin V4. Observations of the wound assessments found the following: -1/30/2023 Skin Check. - V 4 Complete Skin Check no new skin issues. -1/23/2023 Skin Check. - V 4 Complete Skin Check no new skin issues. -1/16/2023 Skin Check. - V 4 Complete Skin Check no new skin issues. -1/9/2023 Skin Check. - V 4 Complete Skin Check Yes right elbow -1/2/2023 Skin Check. - V 4 Complete Skin Check no new skin issues. -12/26/2022 Skin Check. - V 4 Complete Skin Check no new skin issues. -12/19/2022 Skin Check. - V 4 Complete Skin Check no new skin issues. -12/12/2022 Skin Check. - V 4 Complete Skin Check no new skin issues. -12/5/2022 Skin Check. - V 4 Complete Skin Check no new skin issues. -11/28/2022 Skin Check. - V 4 Complete Skin Check no new skin issues. -11/21/2022 Skin Check. - V 4 Complete Skin Check no new skin issues. -11/14/2022 Skin Check. - V 4 Complete Skin Check no new skin issues. -11/7/2022 Skin Check. - V 4 Complete Skin Check no new skin issues. -10/31/2022 Skin Check. - V 4 Complete Skin Check no new skin issues. -10/24/2022 Skin Check. - V 4 Complete Skin Check yes MASD on buttock -10/17/2022 Skin Check. - V 4 Complete Skin Check no new skin issues. -10/10/2022 Skin Check. - V 4 Complete Skin Check Yes new right toes and ankle -10/3/2022 Skin Check. - V 4 Complete Skin Check no new skin issues. - 09/26/22 Skin Check. -V4 Complete Skin Check no new skin issues Review of the wound assessments found the areas to the right toes were discovered on 10/10/22. Noted there was no note made to correlate with the black toes. This finding was confirmed with Director of Nursing at 12:50 PM, on 02/01/23. During an interview with RN #54 on 02/01/23 at 12:54 PM, RN #54 was asked, how is it made known to him who has a new skin problem? He stated, the nurses do weekly skin checks. He was asked who does the re-evaluations every week. Rn #54 said he normally does; however, he was not at work for two weeks for personal reasons. He was asked if someone else was able to do the re-evaluations in his absents? He said, yes Licensed practical Nurse (LPN)#49 was shown how to use the SWIFT system. RN #54 confirmed there was no re-evaluations using the SWIFT system which takes a picture and measures the wounds, from 01/13/23 to 01/31/23. During the interview with RN #54 on 02/01/23 at 12:54 PM, he was asked when did the facility first start using the 'SWIFT system? RN #54 stated on 09/29/22. RN #54 was asked why were the photos of the toes were not started as soon as they were found on 10/10/22. The RN noted the area to the 2nd toe started on 12/01/22. RN #54 shook his head to indicate, no. The toes on the right foot were mentioned by the previous attending Physician on 10/21/22. The physician described as cold to touch swollen and discolored purple and black. However, the photos and documenting of sizes was not started until 12/01/22, which RN #54 staged as unknown. The following are physician notes from the electronic chart. Date of Service: 10/21/2022 Visit Type: Follow-up Chief Complaint / Nature of Presenting Problem: Patient seen today for routine follow-up on his chronic medical conditions. History of Present Illness: Patient seen for follow up on his chronic medical conditions. Patient has been showing overall decline since last visit. Has developed right foot necrotic areas. He has been seen by WCP #80 who is managing his wounds. DHHR at this time would like to pursue further investigation of patient's wounds despite him being in poor health and having an overall poor prognosis due to his history of CAD, CVD, HTN, Afib. No recent fevers, chills, nausea/vomiting. Currently on Tylenol for pain. Past medical History significant for: #1 HLD - chronic/stable - Lipitor recently d/c' d due to his overall poor prognosis and declined overall status. Fracture of parietal bone Olecranon fracture Patient is unable to participate in ROS due to his largely nonverbal status and baseline confusion. No acute distress or discomfort. * Toes of the right foot remain cold to the touch. Arterial wound to plantar surface of the 3rd toe tip increased in size. Wound is round, well circumscribed, and deep purple in color. Skin remains intact. Arterial wound to the plantar surface of the 2nd toe tip is increased in size. Wound is round, well circumscribed, and deep purple in color. Skin remains intact. Large arterial wound noted to the great toe of the right foot is increased in size. Wound extends from tip of toe around to the plantar surface including the bunion area. Wound is deep purple/black in color. Skin remains intact. Skin on the plantar surface below the toes is beginning to turn purple in color. Right lateral malleolus with arterial wound. Wound is round, well circumscribed, and deep purple in color. Skin remains intact. e-signed by (named the previous Facility attending Physician) During an interview with LPN #49 on 02/01/23 at 1:10 PM, she was asked if she did the re-evaluations for the weeks of 01/16/23 and 01/23/23. LPN#49 said, No those are done on Fridays, and I work Monday thru Thursday. During an interview on 02/01/23 at 1:54 PM, the DON confirmed there was no documentation of the wounds for two weeks and no documentation for the wounds from the initial discovery of the wounds, as well as no treatments done on any of the wounds on 01/04/23 and 01/17/23 as noted on the TAR (treatment authorization request). On 02/01/23 at 3:52 PM, after surveyor intervention, RN #54 provided a printed report from the Wound Care Physician (WCP) #80. This visit was Telemedicine, done with RN #54 showing WCP #80 the wounds via tablet. The findings from the WCP #80, dated, 02/01/23 are as follows: *Wound #2 Right great toe Etiology: Arterial Tissue type: 100% Eschar Wound Size: (length x Width x Depth) 7 cm x 7 cm x 0 Treatment: apply Betadine-Once a day *Wound #1 Right Ankle Etiology: Arterial Tissue type: 80% Gran, 20 % Eschar Wound Size: (length x Width x Depth) 8cm x 2.7 cm x 0.3 cm. Exudate Amount: small Exudate type: Serous Peri wound: Texture: edema, denuded Color: Rubor, dyspigmented Moisture: Moist Treatment Plan: Apply Ag Alginate-Once a day gauze island with border. Wound #4 right heel Etiology: Arterial Tissue type: 100% Eschar Wound Size: (length x Width x Depth) 9 cm x 9 cm x 0 Treatment: apply Betadine-Once a day *Wound #6 Right foot lateral Etiology: Arterial Tissue type: 100% Eschar Wound Size: (length x Width x Depth) 7 cm x 27 cm x 0 Treatment: apply Betadine-Once a day *Wound #8 right knee (new wound identified by Surveyor) Etiology: Arterial Progress: Initial exam Tissue type: 10% Eschar/90% Epithelization Wound Size: (length x Width x Depth) 9 cm x 5 cm x 0.1 Treatment: apply Betadine-Once a day *Wound #9 Foot left lateral Etiology: Trauma Progress: Initial exam Wound Size: (length x Width x Depth) 4 cm x 1.3 cm x 0 Treatment: apply skin prep-once a day No further information was provided before the close of the survey. b) Resident #37 Observation of Resident #37's medication administration on 01/31.23 at 11:42 am with Employee #44, a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), newly hired. Employee # 48, LPN was to be providing training for the newly hired nurse. Review of Resident #37's physician orders, Medication Administration Record (MAR), and Medication Administration Audit Report (MAAR) found the following medications were administered outside of the time frame of one hour before or one hour after the physician order times. The following medications were administered outside of the timeframe: -Amiodarone 100 milligram (mg), Metoprolol 50 mg, Norvasc 10 mg and Senokot 8.6-50 mg- scheduled time was 10:00 am. Time administered was 11:47 am- (47 minutes late) On 02/01/23 at 10:15 AM, the DON verified Resident #37's medication's were administered late. c) Resident #21 Observation of Resident #21's medication administration on 01/31.23 at 11:52 am with Employee #44, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), newly hired. Employee # 48, LPN was to be providing training for the newly hired nurse. Review of Resident #21's physician orders, Medication Administration Record (MAR), and Medication Administration Audit Report (MAAR) found the following medications were administered outside of the time frame of one hour before or one hour after the physician order times. The following medications were administered outside of the timeframe: -Folic acid 1000 mcg- scheduled time was 9:00 am- administered time was 11:57 am- (1 hour and 57 minutes late). -Norco 5-325 mg, Potassium 10 meq, Senokot 8.6-50 mg, Lasix 20 mg, Aspirin 81 mg, Metoprolol 25 mg, and Famotidine 20 mg- scheduled time was 10:00 am- administered time was 11:57 am. (57 minutes late) On 02/01/23 at 10:15 AM, the DON verified Resident #21's medication's were administered late. Based on record review and staff interview the facility failed to ensure residents receive treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the residents' choices. The facility failed to provide Resident #13 with a medication ordered before meal time. For Resident's #37 and #21, medications were not administered in a timely manner. In addition, the facility failed to identify and treat skin conditions for Resident #24. Resident identifiers: #13, #37, #21, and #24. Facility census: 64. Findings included: a) Resident #13 On 01/30/23 at 11:57 AM, the resident said she had stomach pain every day. Record review found the resident's physician documented the resident had capacity to make medical decisions on 10/08/22. Observation of the resident at 11:30 AM on 01/31/23, found the resident was in her room eating lunch. Over half of the meal tray had been consumed. Review of the resident's current physicians orders found, Carafate Oral Tablet 1 GM (gram) (Sucralfate.) Give 1 tablet by mouth before meals and at bedtime for gastric -Start Date 12/28/2022 at 9:00 PM. For a diagnosis of Gastric Ulcer, Unspecified as acute or chronic, without Hemorrhage or perforation. At 11:35 AM on 01/31/23, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #44 reviewed the medication administration record (MAR) and confirmed the resident's medication had not been administered before her noon meal as ordered. The MAR had not been initialed to verify the medication was administered. On 01/31/23 at 11:38 AM, the above observations were discussed with the Director of Nursing (DON.) On 01/31/23 at 4:06 PM, the Administrator was informed of the above observations. No further information was provided to verify the medication, Carafate was provided before the resident's noon meal on 01/31/23. .
CONCERN (E)

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

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** . d) Resident #24 Record review found the resident is receiving Hospice services for chronic medical conditions. Diagnoses incl...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** . d) Resident #24 Record review found the resident is receiving Hospice services for chronic medical conditions. Diagnoses included: PVD, History (HX) of Cardiac Ischemia, HX of alcohol dependance, HX of tobacco dependence, hypertension, atrial fibrillation, and Cerebral infarction. A review of the medical records for Resident #24 revealed the following information: The facility uses a system called Swift, this a program using a camera to measure and document wounds. Registered Nurse 54 stated the facility began using the SWIFT on 09/29/22. In addition, the facility staff do weekly skin checks. Record review found (7) documented wounds, only one wound was documented as a pressure ulcer: A Stage II pressure ulcer Location: left elbow Length: 1.54 cm width: 0.79 cm deepest Point: 0.1 cm In addition, the resident was noted to have a MASD-IAD (moist associated skin damage-Incontinence-associated dermatitis) Location: Sacrum New- Age Unknown Acquired: In-House Acquired Length: 4.21 cm Width: 1.93 cm The picture was of a bony area of the buttock, showing an opened skin area with rounded sides. The surrounding skin was dark in color. Observation of wound care began with RN #54 on 02/01/23 at 10:56 AM: RN #54 wiped the bedside tabletop with disinfectant, placed a clear plastic bag over the tabletop and used hand sanitizer, then replaced his gloves. RN #54 opened a skin prep and applied to the left elbow. The physician ordered treatment: Apply sure prep to scabbed area to left elbow every day shifts. At 11:00 AM RN #54 removed the barrier on the table and told Resident # 24, ok we are all done. RN #54 was reminded all the wounds needed to be observed. RN #54 said. Oh well I have to get the stuff. The bedside table was wiped again, and a clear plastic bag was placed over the tabletop. RN #54 used hand sanitizer and replaced his gloves. Treatments were observed to arterial wounds. RN #54 began cleaning up the tabletop and telling Resident # 24 he was finished again at 11:32 AM on 02/01/23. RN #54 was reminded Resident # 24 still had a wound on the sacrum. The bedside table was set-up for the third time on 02/01/23 at 11:39 AM, by RN #54. RN #54 provided treatment to the Stage II pressure ulcer on the elbow, five (5) separate Arterial wounds to the Residents feet and toes, and the area to the sacrum all without washing his hands. RN #54 used only hand sanitizer and changed his gloves prior to each treatment. Treatment of the sacrum: RN #54 removed the brief, and it was revealed Resident # 24 had dried feces visible between the intergluteal clef. RN #54 did not cleanse the fecal matter before continuing with the wound treatment for wound #5 (Sacrum) called MASD-IAD. The physician's order for treatment: Cleanse wound to buttocks with wound cleanser or normal saline. Pat dry. Apply skin prep to peri wound skin. Apply thin layer of z-guard to the wound bed. Cover with dry dressing. Change every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. Every day shift every Mon, Wed, Fri AND as needed if dressing is no longer clean, dry and intact. Observation of the sacrum area found RN #54 applied only a thin layer of Z-guard to the area and covered the area with a dry dressing. The buttocks were not cleaned with wound cleanser or normal saline. Skin prep was not applied to the area. The surveyor from there were five (5) opened areas on the buttock region. On the upper right buttock - three (3) areas that were not documented. Visually it was noted there was two (2) opened areas about 2 cm by 2.5 cm and 2 cm by 2 cm close by with a purple area just above these two opened areas measuring about 2 cm by 2 cm. The only wound the facility had documented on was on the left side of the sacrum, however there were two more. One below the one on the left, open with rounded edges and red beefy wound beds, measuring about 3 cm length and 3 cm wide. There was also an opened area on the right side of the sacrum, measuring about 2 cm long and 3 cm wide, with round edges, and a red wound bed. The skin on the buttock was dark red. At the time of the wound care, these areas were pointed out to RN #54. RN #54 said he would let the wound care doctor know. RN #54 appeared to be upset and asked are you (this surveyor) going to watch me put a brief back on the resident too! It was explained the RN #54 this surveyor was waiting to see when or if he was going to address fact that there was feces on the buttock of Resident #24 the whole time, he was doing the wound care. RN #54 chuckled and said, Well you better eyes then I do. On 02/01/23 at 1:10 PM, Administrator and Director of nursing (DON) was informed of the above findings. The unwillingness to do all the wounds, lack of washing his hands, not providing hygiene care when Resident #24 had a bowl movement prior to performing wound care, not following the physician's orders for the treatment of wounds and the newly identified wounds found by the surveyor. On 01/31/23 at 1:06 PM, the DON said wound assessments are under the skin V4 -1/30/2023 Skin Check. - V 4 Complete Skin Check no new skin issues. -1/23/2023 Skin Check. - V 4 Complete Skin Check no new skin issues. -1/16/2023 Skin Check. - V 4 Complete Skin Check no new skin issues. -1/9/2023 Skin Check. - V 4 Complete Skin Check Yes right elbow -10/24/2022 Skin Check. - V 4 Complete Skin Check yes MASD on buttock During an interview with RN #54 on 02/01/23 at 12:54 PM, RN #54 was asked, how is it made known to him who has a new skin problem? He stated, the nurses do weekly skin checks. He was asked who does the re-evaluations every week. RN #54 said he normally does; however, he was not at work for two weeks for personal reasons. He was asked if someone else was able to do the re-evaluations in his absents? He said, yes Licensed practical Nurse (LPN)#49 was shown how to use the SWIFT system. RN #54 confirmed there was no re-evaluations using the SWIFT system which takes a picture and measures the wounds, from 01/13/23 to 01/31/23. During the interview with RN #54 on 02/01/23 at 12:54 PM, he was asked when did the facility first start using the 'SWIFT system? RN #54 stated on 09/29/22. RN #54 was asked why were the photos of the following wounds not started as soon as they were found? RN #54 shook his head to indicate no. During an interview with LPN #49 on 02/01/23 at 1:10 PM, she was asked if she did the re-evaluations for the weeks of 01/16/23 and 01/23/23. LPN#49 said, No those are done on Fridays, and I work Monday thru Thursday. During an interview on 02/01/23 at 1:54 PM, the DON confirmed there was no documentation regarding Staging, measurements, and description completed on the MSDS and the Stage II to the elbow from 01/16/23 to 01/23/23. In addition, the DON confirmed treatments to the areas were not provided on 01/04/23 and 01/17/23 as noted on the TAR (treatment authorization request). On 02/01/23 at 3:52 PM, RN #54 provided a printed copy from the wound care physician (WCP) #80. This visit was a telemedicine, done with RN #54 showing the WCP #80 the wounds via tablet. Two (2) new pressure ulcers were identified by the WCP. *Wound to left Heel Etiology: Pressure Stage: Unstageable Tissue type: 100% Eschar Wound Size: (length x Width x Depth) 3.5 cm x 6.3 cm x 0 Treatment: apply skin prep - Once a day And the new wound discovered by the surveyor was now identified as a Deep tissue injury. Progress: Deteriorating Tissue type: 50% Gran/50%epithelizaion Wound Size: (length x Width x Depth) 5 cm x 5 cm x 0.1. Exudate amount: small Exudate type: Serous Treatment: apply house barrier cream-once a day gauze island with border- once a day Resident #24 currently has three (3) documented pressure injuries. One on the left elbow not mentioned by WCP #80, one on the left heel, one on the sacral area. The WCP failed to provide documentation and any treatments on the new area's to the sacrum found by the surveyor during observations of the treatment on the sacrum. No further information was provided by the close of the survey. Based on observation, staff interview, record review and resident interview, the facility failed to ensure residents with pressure ulcers received the routine necessary treatment and services, consistent with professional standards of practice, to promote healing, prevent infection and prevent new ulcers from developing for four (4) of four (4) residents reviewed for the care area of pressure ulcers. Resident identifiers: #210 #27, #111 and #24. Facility census: 64. Findings included: a) Resident #210 During initial screening 01/30/23 12:16 PM Resident stated he had pain level of 8 on a 1 -10 pain sale. Resident stated his left heel was throbbing and hurting. Residents heel protector boot was noted to be lying on the floor at the foot of his bed. Certified Nurse Aide #38 verified heel protector boot was laying on floor and the Resident's left heel was resting directly on the mattress. Record review showed Resident #210 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 14 as indicated on the admission assessment with an ARD date of 01/26/23. Registered Nurse #15 verified the BIMs score of 14 was correct and the Resident has full capacity. Review of the care plan found the following: Focus: Resident has actual skin breakdown related to decreased activity , limited mobility, recent surgery. Unstageable to Left heel Date Initiated: 01/25/2023. Goal: At risk Goal: Resident will remain free of skin tear and/or bruising of unknown origin through next review Date Initiated: 01/25/2023. Intervention: Off Load left heel while in bed with heel protector as resident tolerates. Resident will remove boot and request staff to replace it if it becomes bothersome. Date Initiated: 01/29/2023. Review of admission Assessment completed on 01/24/23 documented Resident #210 had a black/discolored left heel and scar on the right side of neck. Record review showed an order to cleanse left heel with wound cleanser and apply skin prep to unstageable pressure injury every shift. Start date of order was 01/29/23. Resident was admitted to facility on 01/24/23, and no orders to treat the pressure ulcer on the left heel were put into place until 01/29/23. No additional orders to prevent or protect the pressure ulcer on the left heel were in place. Record reviewed indicated no wound evaluation assessment or measurements had been completed of the Resident's left heel within 24 hours of admission. Resident was admitted on [DATE], and first wound assessment wasn't done until 01/30/23 by the wound care doctor. Observation on 02/01/23 at 10:40 showed Resident #210 to be holding his left leg in the air, cradled by his hands for support, up off the mattress of his bed when surveyor and RN #54 entered the room for wound care. Resident stated, It hurts, can't stand to lay it down and wiggled his left foot. As RN #54 initiated wound care and gently wiped the left heel with wound cleaner, the Resident jerked his heel out of RN #54's hand and yelled oh, oh I can't stand that it hurts. When RN #54 resumed wound care Resident #210 grunted, the Resident's face turned red, and he grimaced with his jaw clinched. RN #54 stated, No denying that's painful. Resident #210 was asked by Surveyor for a pain level on a 1-10 pain scale with 10 being the worst, and he replied Ten. Resident #210 stated no one had done anything for the pain, and he needed to get out of there because he had pain medication at home he could take. RN #54 was asked if the Resident had been medicated for pain prior to wound care and RN #54 stated' No I don't think he has an order for pain medication. He [resident #210] done this yesterday when I was working on his heel, and I just thought he was ticklish. RN #54 was asked why no measurements of the left heel wound had been taken since admission and RN #54 stated, I was trying to get other things situated yesterday when I came back from being off and honestly, I just haven't had time to do it. RN #54 further clarified Resident #210 was admitted while he was off, and he was not working in the facility last week to get the measurements done. No heel protector boot was in place at the time of the wound care observation and was found lying on top the Resident's wardrobe. RN #54 stated he would make sure the heel was floated and apply the heel protector after he repositioned the Resident. On 02/01/23 at 10:56 AM the DON was asked what protocol was for physicians assessing wounds upon admission and DON stated they had a wound care doctor that came every other week and takes care of all wounds. DON was asked if no one sees the wounds until the wound care doctor can be at the facility? The DON replied, Yea I guess, but there is an order in there for wound care though. The Administrator then stated, Well I think the wound care doctor was here Monday. During a family interview on 02/01/23 at 11:29 AM, Resident #210's emergency contact (EC) stated she was unaware of the pressure ulcer on Resident #210's left heel and stated, Oh my, no wonder he can't walk! I was just there over the weekend, and no one said anything about it. The EC further stated the Resident had metal hardware in his heel from a previous surgery and that probably wasn't helping the situation out any. During an interview on 02/01/23 at 1:12 PM Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #49 verified the wound evaluation for Resident #210's left heel should have been completed and measurements taken last week within 24 hours of admission. b) Resident #27 During observation of wound care on 2/01/23 at 10:12 PM, the designated Wound Care Nurse, Register Nurse (RN) #54 stated, I do all wounds Monday through Friday. We [facility staff] are to do weekly wound assessments with measurements. This [Resident #27's pressure ulcer to left elbow] didn't look that way a couple weeks ago, it's gotten worse. I was off from January 17th thorough January 27th so I can't vouch for what happened with the wounds during that time frame. Record review showed an active order to cleanse the wound to the left elbow with normal saline or wound cleanser, pat dry, cover with calcium alginate and cover with dry dressing, every day shift and as needed change if dressing is not clean, dry and intact. Start date 01/30/23. Record review showed a wound evaluation dated 01/13/23 for the (in house acquired) pressure ulcer on the left elbow to have the following wound measurements: Area 0.45 cm, Length 0.89 cm, Width 0.7 cm, Deepest Point less than 0.1 cm. Record review showed a wound evaluation dated 01/31/23 for the (in house acquired) pressure ulcer on the left elbow to have the following wound measurements: Area 7.72 cm, Length 2.96 cm, Width 3.56 cm, Deepest Point 0.1 cm. This indicated worsening condition with an overall increase in area of 7.27 cm from the last documented wound evaluation. Record review indicated Wound Evaluations with measurements were not completed for the Resident's pressure ulcer on his left elbow for the two-week time frame (from 01/15/23 through 01/28/23) when the wound had worsened and increased in size. Please note this is the specified time frame the designated wound care nurse RN# 54 verified he was off and not working in the facility. On 02/01/23 at 11:58 the Director of Nursing (DON) stated I do not have access to the wound care documentation on (name of the wound management company ) wound management site from the wound care doctor, only [RN #54's name] does. The DON further stated, I guess our back up wound nurse [Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #49's name] done the wound care in the absence of wound care nurse RN #54, she is the only other one that has access to the 'Swift' medical program we use. The DON stated the wound care evaluations with measurements are to be done weekly, and the facility has been using the 'Swift' system for wound documentation since September of 2022. The DON also confirmed she does not have access for use of the 'Swift' wound care program being used by nursing staff for assessments. The Swift Medical technology program is a digital wound care App based program used to capture wound care information by waving the smartphone above the injured site and is also able to determine measurements of the injury. The technology captures wound images and collects automatic measurements without the doctor or nurse having to touch the wound. During an interview on 02/01/23 at 1:12 PM Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #49 stated she did the ordered wound treatments while the primary wound nurse was off, however she does not have access to the 'Swift' system and was never trained to use it for wound evaluations. Therefore, LPN #49 stated she did not measure or complete any wound evaluations, she just done the basic ordered treatments. LPN #49 stated a wound assessment with measurements should be completed weekly, but she only works Monday through Thursday and they [facility wound nurse] only does wound pictures with measurements on Fridays. LPN #49 stated she called the Doctor and got a new order for Resident #27's elbow while RN #50 was off because it was looking bad and the doctor ordered metihoney (medical honey hastens healing of wounds through its anti-inflammatory effects) on 01/26/23. Record review showed the wound care order to cleanse wound to left elbow with wound cleanser, apply [NAME] prep wound edges and apply medihoney. Cover with dry dressing every day shift and as needed if dressing is no longer clean, dry and intact. Start date was 01/26/23 as LPN #49 indicated and discontinued on 01/30/23. On 02/01/23 at 12:35 PM the DON was shown the wound evaluations dated 01/13/23 and 01/31/23 for Resident #27's elbow that documented the worsening pressure ulcer. The DON was asked why no wound evaluations were completed for two weeks in the absence of the designated wound care nurse RN #54? The DON replied, Yea I see what you mean, that looks bad. I guess no one did them because he [RN #54's name] is the only one that normally does them. c) Resident #111 The Resident was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] with primary diagnosis of end-stage renal disease requiring hemodialysis three (3) times weekly and adrenal insufficiency. The Resident was transferred to local emergency room on [DATE] and admitted to hospital for treatment of adrenal insufficiency, weakness, hypotension and altered mental status. Review of clinical notes written on 01/23/23 by the wound care specialist found the following; Wound #1- Etiology- friction and shearing, complicated by moisture. Location- Left medial, right buttocks. Undermining/tunneling- none noted upon current assessment. Wound bed- red/pink granulation tissue. Wound edges- smooth. Peri-wound- skin intact and erythematous. Drainage type/amount- Scant amount of serosanguinous. Odor absents. (Picture present in notes). Recommended treatment: Cleanse wound #1 with mild soap and water and cover with a foam border dressing daily and prn (whenever needed). Wound #2-left lower leg- chronic venous insufficiency. (Picture present in notes). Treatment recommended- Unna boots every three (3) days. Resident readmitted to the facility on [DATE] with the above-mentioned wounds and treatments. Review of Resident #111's Nursing Documentation completed on 01/26/23 at 11:38 PM, by Employee #1, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) read: Resident admitted to the facility for therapy, wound care and hemodialysis. Skin injury/wound type: pressure area on coccyx area. No measurements and/or staging. Unna boots intact Additional review of Resident #111's Nursing Documentation completed on 01/27/23 at 7:36 PM, by Employee #46, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) read: Resident admitted to the facility for therapy, wound care and hemodialysis. Skin injury/wound type: pressure area on coccyx area. No measurements and/or staging. Unna boots intact No treatment orders for the coccyx area and/or Unna boots noted. Observation of Resident #111's coccyx area on 02/01/23 at 9:00 am, accompanied by Employee #55, Registered Nurse, Team Lead- Skin Health, found two (2) open areas noted on the left intergluteal cleft with large area of discoloration on both buttocks. The Resident complained of pain in her buttock area. There was no description, type and/or measurements of the coccyx wound and/or left lower leg completed by the end of survey. On 02/01/23 at 11:15 am the DON verified the residents wounds were documented on the hospital records and also two (2) LPNs had noted wound on coccyx and Unna boots were intact on readmission to the facility. She also acknowledged a RN had not evaluated the resident since readmission and no orders could be found for the wound care of pressure ulcer on coccyx and no order for Unna boots on lower extremities for treatment of chronic venous insufficiency. .
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0698 (Tag F0698)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

. Based on medical record review and staff interview the facility failed to provide appropriate before and after hemodialysis care and services. This was true for one (1) of one (1) reviewed for end-s...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on medical record review and staff interview the facility failed to provide appropriate before and after hemodialysis care and services. This was true for one (1) of one (1) reviewed for end-stage renal disease requiring hemodialysis. This had the potential to affect all residents receiving hemodialysis services. Resident identifier: #111. Facility census: 64. Findings included: a) Resident #111 a.1. Hemodialysis access: A review of the Hemodialysis Communication Book for Resident #111 revealed four (4) of nine (9) incomplete Hemodialysis Communication Records. The records provided no evaluations of the dialysis access site (permcath in right chest) before and after the hemodialysis treatment on 01/04/23, 01/09/23, 01/11/23 and 01/30/23. a.2 Smooth edged clamps: The facility failed to maintain two (2) smooth edged clamps with patient at all times. Observation on 12/30/23 at 1:30 PM found no smooth edge clamps at bedside noted. Confirmed by Employee #2, a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN). Observation on 12/31/23 at 10:00 am, found resident in bed with no smooth edge clamps noted at bedside. Resident stated, they used to be above my head on the wall but not there now. LPN #2 confirmed the smooth edge clamps not at bedside. Review of policy Dialysis: Hemodialysis (HD)- External Catheter Evaluation an Sd Maintenance, effective date: 07/01/01 and revision date:12/01/21 read: .2. Maintain two smooth edge clamps with patient at all times. 2.1 Smooth edge clamps must be placed at the bedside at time of admission. 2.2 Smooth edged clamps are to be attached to the patient's clothing during transport to and from dialysis facility or for any appointment (s) outside the Nursing Center. 2.3 If patient is mobile throughout the Center, smooth edged clamps must be attached to patient's clothing at all times . a3. Blood pressure: The facility failed to follow physician orders for Do not take blood pressure or intravenous sticks in left arm, save for potential fistula placement. On the following dates and times blood pressure was obtained from the left arm: -01/05/23 at 6:15 am -01/06/23 at 8:45 am, 6:37 PM, and 8:59 PM. -01/07/23 at 9:12 am, and 10:15 PM -01/08/23 at 8:24 am -01/09/23 at 9:40 am, and 10:54 am. -01/10/23 at 10:00 am, and 5:46 PM -01/12/23 at 2:07 PM, and 6:58 PM -01/13/23 at 8:18 am, and 10:27 PM -01/14/23 at 8:27 am, and 9:50 PM -01/15/23 at 8:52 am, and 9:48 PM -01/16/23 at 9:36 am -01/17/23 at 6:33 am -01/18/23 at 9:08 am, and 11:24 am -01/19/23 at 12:00 PM -01/20/23 at 9:57 am -01/21/23 at 9:33 am -01/28/23 at 12:43 am -01/29/23 at 9:40 am -01/31/23 at 10:05 am During an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 02/01/23 at 12:45 PM, she confirmed on the above-mentioned dates the dialysis communications did not address the resident's dialysis access before and after dialysis treatment. She also confirmed the above-mentioned dates and times the blood pressures were obtained in left arm. She was unaware the smooth blue clamps were not at bedside on 01/30/23 and 01/31/23. LPN #2 and the resident confirmed they were not at bedside on these two (2) dates. .
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0726 (Tag F0726)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** . Based on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure nursing staff had the competencies and skill sets nece...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** . Based on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure nursing staff had the competencies and skill sets necessary to provide nursing and related services to meet the residents needs safely and in a manner that promotes each resident's rights, physical, mental and psychosocial well-being. The facility failed to ensure staff administered medication as directed (before meals) and timely (within one hour before or one hour after scheduled times). Staff failed to identify and follow physician orders for skin conditions (non-pressure). Additionally, the staff failed to assess, identify and treat pressure ulcers per professional standards. Resident identifiers: #13, #37, #21, #24, #27, #210, and #111. Facility census: 64. Findings include: I) Quality of care issues a) Resident #13 On 01/30/23 at 11:57 AM, the resident said she had stomach pain every day. Record review found the resident's physician documented the resident had capacity to make medical decisions on 10/08/22. Observation of the resident at 11:30 AM on 01/31/23, found the resident was in her room eating lunch. Over half of the meal tray had been consumed. Review of the resident's current physicians orders found, Carafate Oral Tablet 1 GM (gram) (Sucralfate.) Give 1 tablet by mouth before meals and at bedtime for gastric -Start Date 12/28/2022 at 9:00 PM. For a diagnosis of Gastric Ulcer, Unspecified as acute or chronic, without Hemorrhage or perforation. At 11:35 AM on 01/31/23, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #44 reviewed the medication administration record (MAR) and confirmed the resident's medication had not been administered before her noon meal as ordered. The MAR had not been initialed to verify the medication was administered. On 01/31/23 at 11:38 AM, the above observations were discussed with the Director of Nursing (DON.) On 01/31/23 at 4:06 PM, the Administrator was informed of the above observations. No further information was provided to verify the medication, Carafate was provided before the resident's noon meal on 01/31/23. b) Resident #37 Observation of Resident #37's medication administration on 01/31.23 at 11:42 am with Employee #44, a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), newly hired. Employee # 48, LPN was to be providing training for the newly hired nurse. Review of Resident #37's physician orders, Medication Administration Record (MAR), and Medication Administration Audit Report (MAAR) found the following medications were administered outside of the time frame of one hour before or one hour after the physician order times. The following medications were administered outside of the timeframe: -Amiodarone 100 milligram (mg), Metoprolol 50 mg, Norvasc 10 mg and Senokot 8.6-50 mg- scheduled time was 10:00 am. Time administered was 11:47 am- (47 minutes late) On 02/01/23 at 10:15 AM, the DON verified Resident #37's medication's were administered late. c) Resident #21 Observation of Resident #21's medication administration on 01/31.23 at 11:52 am with Employee #44, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), newly hired. Employee # 48, LPN was to be providing training for the newly hired nurse. Review of Resident #21's physician orders, Medication Administration Record (MAR), and Medication Administration Audit Report (MAAR) found the following medications were administered outside of the time frame of one hour before or one hour after the physician order times. The following medications were administered outside of the timeframe: -Folic acid 1000 mcg- scheduled time was 9:00 am- administered time was 11:57 am- (1 hour and 57 minutes late). -Norco 5-325 mg, Potassium 10 meq, Senokot 8.6-50 mg, Lasix 20 mg, Aspirin 81 mg, Metoprolol 25 mg, and Famotidine 20 mg- scheduled time was 10:00 am- administered time was 11:57 am. (57 minutes late) On 02/01/23 at 10:15 AM, the DON verified Resident #21's medication's were administered late. d) Resident #24 Record review found the resident is receiving Hospice services for chronic medical conditions. Diagnoses included: PVD, History (HX) of Cardiac Ischemia, HX of alcohol dependance, HX of tobacco dependance, hypertension, atrial fibrillation, and Cerebral infarction. A review of the medical records for Resident #24 revealed the following information: The facility uses a system called Swift, this a program using a camera to measure and document all wounds. On 01/31/23, Registered Nurse 54 stated the facility began using the SWIFT on 09/29/22. In addition, the facility staff do weekly skin checks. Record review found the facility documented the resident had an Arterial wound on his right foot, 2nd digit. Date: 12/01/22 Location: Right foot, 2nd digit (second toe) New- Age unknown Acquired: In-House Acquired Length: 9.66 cm Width: 7.64 cm The picture of the foot observed by the surveyor on the morning of 01/31/23 revealed all five (5) toes on the right foot including the front portion of the foot, were black in color. The facility failed to mention any of the other toes other than the 2nd toe. Observation of the wound care with RN #54 began on 02/01/23 at 10:56 AM: RN #54 removed a tan colored; elastic shelve covering the lower right leg and half of the right foot. The physician's order was to cleanse the 2nd toe with wound cleanser and to paint with betadine. Leave open to air to prevent more skin break down. (There was no order for the elastic shelve covering the lower right leg and half of the resident's foot.) It was observed that all five toes were black in color. RN #54 painted the black areas of all the toes with betadine (the betadine was a prepackaged individual application with a medicated cotton swab). At this point RN #54 failed to cleanse the area with wound cleanser and pat dry as the orders state. While observing the wound care for Resident # 24 on 02/01/23 at 10:56 AM, by Registered Nurse (RN) #54, it was discovered there were other areas of concern that RN #54 did not make note of it as being new wounds. These areas were: * Three (3) opened areas on the right knee. One was black in color about 2 cm in length and width. two (2) opens wounds appeared to red and 2 cm in length and 1 cm in width. * An opened area on the back the right lower leg, this wound was bleeding. *Three opens areas on the front top of the left foot. These areas were open and bleeding. *On the right foot inner side between the two documented open wounds was a deep purple area about 7 cm in length and 4 cm in width. *On the inner right ankle was a deep purple area about 2cm by 2 cm. At the time of the wound care, these areas were pointed out to RN #54. RN #54 said he would let the wound care doctor know. On 02/01/23 at 1:10 PM, Administrator and Director of nursing (DON) was informed of the above findings. All the resident's toes were black, not just the 2nd toe and RN #54 did not follow the physician's orders for treatment. On 01/31/23 at 1:06 PM, the DON said wound assessments are under the skin V4. Observations of the wound assessments found the following: -1/30/2023 Skin Check. - V 4 Complete Skin Check no new skin issues. -1/23/2023 Skin Check. - V 4 Complete Skin Check no new skin issues. -1/16/2023 Skin Check. - V 4 Complete Skin Check no new skin issues. -1/9/2023 Skin Check. - V 4 Complete Skin Check Yes right elbow -1/2/2023 Skin Check. - V 4 Complete Skin Check no new skin issues. -12/26/2022 Skin Check. - V 4 Complete Skin Check no new skin issues. -12/19/2022 Skin Check. - V 4 Complete Skin Check no new skin issues. -12/12/2022 Skin Check. - V 4 Complete Skin Check no new skin issues. -12/5/2022 Skin Check. - V 4 Complete Skin Check no new skin issues. -11/28/2022 Skin Check. - V 4 Complete Skin Check no new skin issues. -11/21/2022 Skin Check. - V 4 Complete Skin Check no new skin issues. -11/14/2022 Skin Check. - V 4 Complete Skin Check no new skin issues. -11/7/2022 Skin Check. - V 4 Complete Skin Check no new skin issues. -10/31/2022 Skin Check. - V 4 Complete Skin Check no new skin issues. -10/24/2022 Skin Check. - V 4 Complete Skin Check yes MASD on buttock -10/17/2022 Skin Check. - V 4 Complete Skin Check no new skin issues. -10/10/2022 Skin Check. - V 4 Complete Skin Check Yes new right toes and ankle -10/3/2022 Skin Check. - V 4 Complete Skin Check no new skin issues. - 09/26/22 Skin Check. -V4 Complete Skin Check no new skin issues Review of the wound assessments found the areas to the right toes were discovered on 10/10/22. Noted there was no note made to correlate with the black toes. This finding was confirmed with Director of Nursing at 12:50 PM, on 02/01/23. During an interview with RN #54 on 02/01/23 at 12:54 PM, RN #54 was asked, how is it made known to him who has a new skin problem? He stated, the nurses do weekly skin checks. He was asked who does the re-evaluations every week. Rn #54 said he normally does; however, he was not at work for two weeks for personal reasons. He was asked if someone else was able to do the re-evaluations in his absents? He said, yes Licensed practical Nurse (LPN)#49 was shown how to use the SWIFT system. RN #54 confirmed there was no re-evaluations using the SWIFT system which takes a picture and measures the wounds, from 01/13/23 to 01/31/23. During the interview with RN #54 on 02/01/23 at 12:54 PM, he was asked when did the facility first start using the 'SWIFT system? RN #54 stated on 09/29/22. RN #54 was asked why were the photos of the toes were not started as soon as they were found on 10/10/22. The RN noted the area to the 2nd toe started on 12/01/22. RN #54 shook his head to indicate, no. The toes on the right foot were mentioned by the previous attending Physician on 10/21/22. The physician described as cold to touch swollen and discolored purple and black. However, the photos and documenting of sizes was not started until 12/01/22, which RN #54 staged as unknown. The following are physician notes from the electronic chart. Date of Service: 10/21/2022 Visit Type: Follow-up Chief Complaint / Nature of Presenting Problem: Patient seen today for routine follow-up on his chronic medical conditions. History of Present Illness: Patient seen for follow up on his chronic medical conditions. Patient has been showing overall decline since last visit. Has developed right foot necrotic areas. He has been seen by WCP #80 who is managing his wounds. DHHR at this time would like to pursue further investigation of patient's wounds despite him being in poor health and having an overall poor prognosis due to his history of CAD, CVD, HTN, Afib. No recent fevers, chills, nausea/vomiting. Currently on Tylenol for pain. Past medical History significant for: #1 HLD - chronic/stable - Lipitor recently d/c' d due to his overall poor prognosis and declined overall status. Fracture of parietal bone Olecranon fracture Patient is unable to participate in ROS due to his largely nonverbal status and baseline confusion. No acute distress or discomfort. * Toes of the right foot remain cold to the touch. Arterial wound to plantar surface of the 3rd toe tip increased in size. Wound is round, well circumscribed, and deep purple in color. Skin remains intact. Arterial wound to the plantar surface of the 2nd toe tip is increased in size. Wound is round, well circumscribed, and deep purple in color. Skin remains intact. Large arterial wound noted to the great toe of the right foot is increased in size. Wound extends from tip of toe around to the plantar surface including the bunion area. Wound is deep purple/black in color. Skin remains intact. Skin on the plantar surface below the toes is beginning to turn purple in color. Right lateral malleolus with arterial wound. Wound is round, well circumscribed, and deep purple in color. Skin remains intact. e-signed by (named the previous Facility attending Physician) During an interview with LPN #49 on 02/01/23 at 1:10 PM, she was asked if she did the re-evaluations for the weeks of 01/16/23 and 01/23/23. LPN#49 said, No those are done on Fridays, and I work Monday thru Thursday. During an interview on 02/01/23 at 1:54 PM, the DON confirmed there was no documentation of the wounds for two weeks and no documentation for the wounds from the initial discovery of the wounds, as well as no treatments done on any of the wounds on 01/04/23 and 01/17/23 as noted on the TAR (treatment authorization request). On 02/01/23 at 3:52 PM, after surveyor intervention, RN #54 provided a printed report from the Wound Care Physician (WCP) #80. This visit was Telemedicine, done with RN #54 showing WCP #80 the wounds via tablet. The findings from the WCP #80, dated, 02/01/23 are as follows: *Wound #2 Right great toe Etiology: Arterial Tissue type: 100% Eschar Wound Size: (length x Width x Depth) 7 cm x 7 cm x 0 Treatment: apply Betadine-Once a day *Wound #1 Right Ankle Etiology: Arterial Tissue type: 80% Gran, 20 % Eschar Wound Size: (length x Width x Depth) 8cm x 2.7 cm x 0.3 cm. Exudate Amount: small Exudate type: Serous Peri wound: Texture: edema, denuded Color: Rubor, dyspigmented Moisture: Moist Treatment Plan: Apply Ag Alginate-Once a day gauze island with border. Wound #4 right heel Etiology: Arterial Tissue type: 100% Eschar Wound Size: (length x Width x Depth) 9 cm x 9 cm x 0 Treatment: apply Betadine-Once a day *Wound #6 Right foot lateral Etiology: Arterial Tissue type: 100% Eschar Wound Size: (length x Width x Depth) 7 cm x 27 cm x 0 Treatment: apply Betadine-Once a day *Wound #8 right knee (new wound identified by Surveyor) Etiology: Arterial Progress: Initial exam Tissue type: 10% Eschar/90% Epithelization Wound Size: (length x Width x Depth) 9 cm x 5 cm x 0.1 Treatment: apply Betadine-Once a day *Wound #9 Foot left lateral Etiology: Trauma Progress: Initial exam Wound Size: (length x Width x Depth) 4 cm x 1.3 cm x 0 Treatment: apply skin prep-once a day No further information was provided before the close of the survey. II) Pressure ulcers a) Resident #210 During initial screening 01/30/23 12:16 PM Resident stated he had pain level of 8 on a 1 -10 pain sale. Resident stated his left heel was throbbing and hurting. Residents heel protector boot was noted to be lying on the floor at the foot of his bed. Certified Nurse Aide #38 verified heel protector boot was laying on floor and the Resident's left heel was resting directly on the mattress. Record review showed Resident #210 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 14 as indicated on the admission assessment with an ARD date of 01/26/23. Registered Nurse #15 verified the BIMs score of 14 was correct and the Resident has full capacity. Review of the care plan found the following: Focus: Resident has actual skin breakdown related to decreased activity , limited mobility, recent surgery. Unstageable to Left heel Date Initiated: 01/25/2023. Goal: At risk Goal: Resident will remain free of skin tear and/or bruising of unknown origin through next review Date Initiated: 01/25/2023. Intervention: Off Load left heel while in bed with heel protector as resident tolerates. Resident will remove boot and request staff to replace it if it becomes bothersome. Date Initiated: 01/29/2023. Review of admission Assessment completed on 01/24/23 documented Resident #210 had a black/discolored left heel and scar on the right side of neck. Record review showed an order to cleanse left heel with wound cleanser and apply skin prep to unstageable pressure injury every shift. Start date of order was 01/29/23. Resident was admitted to facility on 01/24/23, and no orders to treat the pressure ulcer on the left heel were put into place until 01/29/23. No additional orders to prevent or protect the pressure ulcer on the left heel were in place. Record reviewed indicated no wound evaluation assessment or measurements had been completed of the Resident's left heel within 24 hours of admission. Resident was admitted on [DATE], and first wound assessment wasn't done until 01/30/23 by the wound care doctor. Observation on 02/01/23 at 10:40 showed Resident #210 to be holding his left leg in the air, cradled by his hands for support, up off the mattress of his bed when surveyor and RN #54 entered the room for wound care. Resident stated, It hurts, can't stand to lay it down and wiggled his left foot. As RN #54 initiated wound care and gently wiped the left heel with wound cleaner, the Resident jerked his heel out of RN #54's hand and yelled oh, oh I can't stand that it hurts. When RN #54 resumed wound care Resident #210 grunted, the Resident's face turned red, and he grimaced with his jaw clinched. RN #54 stated, No denying that's painful. Resident #210 was asked by Surveyor for a pain level on a 1-10 pain scale with 10 being the worst, and he replied Ten. Resident #210 stated no one had done anything for the pain, and he needed to get out of there because he had pain medication at home he could take. RN #54 was asked if the Resident had been medicated for pain prior to wound care and RN #54 stated' No I don't think he has an order for pain medication. He [resident #210] done this yesterday when I was working on his heel, and I just thought he was ticklish. RN #54 was asked why no measurements of the left heel wound had been taken since admission and RN #54 stated, I was trying to get other things situated yesterday when I came back from being off and honestly, I just haven't had time to do it. RN #54 further clarified Resident #210 was admitted while he was off, and he was not working in the facility last week to get the measurements done. No heel protector boot was in place at the time of the wound care observation and was found lying on top the Resident's wardrobe. RN #54 stated he would make sure the heel was floated and apply the heel protector after he repositioned the Resident. On 02/01/23 at 10:56 AM the DON was asked what protocol was for physicians assessing wounds upon admission and DON stated they had a wound care doctor that came every other week and takes care of all wounds. DON was asked if no one sees the wounds until the wound care doctor can be at the facility? The DON replied, Yea I guess, but there is an order in there for wound care though. The Administrator then stated, Well I think the wound care doctor was here Monday. During a family interview on 02/01/23 at 11:29 AM, Resident #210's emergency contact (EC) stated she was unaware of the pressure ulcer on Resident #210's left heel and stated, Oh my, no wonder he can't walk! I was just there over the weekend, and no one said anything about it. The EC further stated the Resident had metal hardware in his heel from a previous surgery and that probably wasn't helping the situation out any. During an interview on 02/01/23 at 1:12 PM Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #49 verified the wound evaluation for Resident #210's left heel should have been completed and measurements taken last week within 24 hours of admission. b) Resident #27 During observation of wound care on 2/01/23 at 10:12 PM, the designated Wound Care Nurse, Register Nurse (RN) #54 stated, I do all wounds Monday through Friday. We [facility staff] are to do weekly wound assessments with measurements. This [Resident #27's pressure ulcer to left elbow] didn't look that way a couple weeks ago, it's gotten worse. I was off from January 17th thorough January 27th so I can't vouch for what happened with the wounds during that time frame. Record review showed an active order to cleanse the wound to the left elbow with normal saline or wound cleanser, pat dry, cover with calcium alginate and cover with dry dressing, every day shift and as needed change if dressing is not clean, dry and intact. Start date 01/30/23. Record review showed a wound evaluation dated 01/13/23 for the (in house acquired) pressure ulcer on the left elbow to have the following wound measurements: Area 0.45 cm, Length 0.89 cm, Width 0.7 cm, Deepest Point less than 0.1 cm. Record review showed a wound evaluation dated 01/31/23 for the (in house acquired) pressure ulcer on the left elbow to have the following wound measurements: Area 7.72 cm, Length 2.96 cm, Width 3.56 cm, Deepest Point 0.1 cm. This indicated worsening condition with an overall increase in area of 7.27 cm from the last documented wound evaluation. Record review indicated Wound Evaluations with measurements were not completed for the Resident's pressure ulcer on his left elbow for the two-week time frame (from 01/15/23 through 01/28/23) when the wound had worsened and increased in size. Please note this is the specified time frame the designated wound care nurse RN# 54 verified he was off and not working in the facility. On 02/01/23 at 11:58 the Director of Nursing (DON) stated I do not have access to the wound care documentation on (name of the wound management company ) wound management site from the wound care doctor, only [RN #54's name] does. The DON further stated, I guess our back up wound nurse [Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #49's name] done the wound care in the absence of wound care nurse RN #54, she is the only other one that has access to the 'Swift' medical program we use. The DON stated the wound care evaluations with measurements are to be done weekly, and the facility has been using the 'Swift' system for wound documentation since September of 2022. The DON also confirmed she does not have access for use of the 'Swift' wound care program being used by nursing staff for assessments. The Swift Medical technology program is a digital wound care App based program used to capture wound care information by waving the smartphone above the injured site and is also able to determine measurements of the injury. The technology captures wound images and collects automatic measurements without the doctor or nurse having to touch the wound. During an interview on 02/01/23 at 1:12 PM Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #49 stated she did the ordered wound treatments while the primary wound nurse was off, however she does not have access to the 'Swift' system and was never trained to use it for wound evaluations. Therefore, LPN #49 stated she did not measure or complete any wound evaluations, she just done the basic ordered treatments. LPN #49 stated a wound assessment with measurements should be completed weekly, but she only works Monday through Thursday and they [facility wound nurse] only does wound pictures with measurements on Fridays. LPN #49 stated she called the Doctor and got a new order for Resident #27's elbow while RN #50 was off because it was looking bad and the doctor ordered metihoney (medical honey hastens healing of wounds through its anti-inflammatory effects) on 01/26/23. Record review showed the wound care order to cleanse wound to left elbow with wound cleanser, apply [NAME] prep wound edges and apply medihoney. Cover with dry dressing every day shift and as needed if dressing is no longer clean, dry and intact. Start date was 01/26/23 as LPN #49 indicated and discontinued on 01/30/23. On 02/01/23 at 12:35 PM the DON was shown the wound evaluations dated 01/13/23 and 01/31/23 for Resident #27's elbow that documented the worsening pressure ulcer. The DON was asked why no wound evaluations were completed for two weeks in the absence of the designated wound care nurse RN #54? The DON replied, Yea I see what you mean, that looks bad. I guess no one did them because he [RN #54's name] is the only one that normally does them. c) Resident #111 The Resident was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] with primary diagnosis of end-stage renal disease requiring hemodialysis three (3) times weekly and adrenal insufficiency. The Resident was transferred to local emergency room on [DATE] and admitted to hospital for treatment of adrenal insufficiency, weakness, hypotension and altered mental status. Review of clinical notes written on 01/23/23 by the wound care specialist found the following; Wound #1- Etiology- friction and shearing, complicated by moisture. Location- Left medial, right buttocks. Undermining/tunnelling- none noted upon current assessment. Wound bed- red/pink granulation tissue. Wound edges- smooth. Peri-wound- skin intact and erythematous. Drainage type/amount- Scant amount of serosanguinous. Odor absents. (Picture present in notes). Recommended treatment: Cleanse wound #1 with mild soap and water and cover with a foam border dressing daily and prn (whenever needed). Wound #2-left lower leg- chronic venous insufficiency. (Picture present in notes). Treatment recommended- Unna boots every three (3) days. Resident readmitted to the facility on [DATE] with the above-mentioned wounds and treatments. Review of Resident #111's Nursing Documentation completed on 01/26/23 at 11:38 pm, by Employee #1, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) read: Resident admitted to the facility for therapy, wound care and hemodialysis. Skin injury/wound type: pressure area on coccyx area. No measurements and/or staging. Unna boots intact Additional review of Resident #111's Nursing Documentation completed on 01/27/23 at 7:36 pm, by Employee #46, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) read: Resident admitted to the facility for therapy, wound care and hemodialysis. Skin injury/wound type: pressure area on coccyx area. No measurements and/or staging. Unna boots intact No treatment orders for the coccyx area and/or Unna boots noted. Observation of Resident #111's coccyx area on 02/01/23 at 9:00 am, accompanied by Employee #55, Registered Nurse, Team Lead- Skin Health, found two (2) open areas noted on the left intergluteal cleft with large area of discoloration on both buttocks. The Resident complained of pain in her buttock area. There was no description, type and/or measurements of the coccyx wound and/or left lower leg completed by the end of survey. On 02/01/23 at 11:15 am the DON verified the residents wounds were documented on the hospital records and also two (2) LPNs had noted wound on coccyx and Unna boots were intact on readmission to the facility. She also acknowledged a RN had not evaluated the resident since readmission and no orders could be found for the wound care of pressure ulcer on coccyx and no order for Unna boots on lower extremities for treatment of chronic venous insufficiency. d) Resident #24 A review of the medical records for Resident #24 revealed the following information: The facility uses a system called Swift, this a program using a camera to measure and document wounds. Registered Nurse 54 stated the facility began using the SWIFT on 09/29/22. In addition, the facility staff do weekly skin checks. Record review found (7) documented wounds, only one wound was documented as a pressure ulcer: A Stage II pressure ulcer Location: left elbow Length: 1.54 cm width: 0.79 cm deepest Point: 0.1 cm In addition, the resident was noted to have a MASD-IAD (moist associated skin damage-Incontinence-associated dermatitis) Location: Sacrum
CONCERN (E)

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

QAPI Program (Tag F0867)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** . Based on observation, record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure systems were in place to ensure the ca...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** . Based on observation, record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure systems were in place to ensure the care and services it delivers meet acceptable standards of quality in accordance with recognized standards of practice. The facility's Quality Assessment and Assurance committee failed to identify pressure ulcers that were not identified/assessed, measured and treated. This had the potential to affect more than a minimal number of residents at the facility. Facility census: 64. Findings included: I) Pressure ulcers a) Resident #210 During initial screening 01/30/23 12:16 PM Resident stated he had pain level of 8 on a 1 -10 pain sale. Resident stated his left heel was throbbing and hurting. Residents heel protector boot was noted to be lying on the floor at the foot of his bed. Certified Nurse Aide #38 verified heel protector boot was laying on floor and the Resident's left heel was resting directly on the mattress. Record review showed Resident #210 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 14 as indicated on the admission assessment with an ARD date of 01/26/23. Registered Nurse #15 verified the BIMs score of 14 was correct and the Resident has full capacity. Review of the care plan found the following: Focus: Resident has actual skin breakdown related to decreased activity , limited mobility, recent surgery. Unstageable to Left heel Date Initiated: 01/25/2023. Goal: At risk Goal: Resident will remain free of skin tear and/or bruising of unknown origin through next review Date Initiated: 01/25/2023. Intervention: Off Load left heel while in bed with heel protector as resident tolerates. Resident will remove boot and request staff to replace it if it becomes bothersome. Date Initiated: 01/29/2023. Review of admission Assessment completed on 01/24/23 documented Resident #210 had a black/discolored left heel and scar on the right side of neck. Record review showed an order to cleanse left heel with wound cleanser and apply skin prep to unstageable pressure injury every shift. Start date of order was 01/29/23. Resident was admitted to facility on 01/24/23, and no orders to treat the pressure ulcer on the left heel were put into place until 01/29/23. No additional orders to prevent or protect the pressure ulcer on the left heel were in place. Record reviewed indicated no wound evaluation assessment or measurements had been completed of the Resident's left heel within 24 hours of admission. Resident was admitted on [DATE], and first wound assessment wasn't done until 01/30/23 by the wound care doctor. Observation on 02/01/23 at 10:40 showed Resident #210 to be holding his left leg in the air, cradled by his hands for support, up off the mattress of his bed when surveyor and RN #54 entered the room for wound care. Resident stated, It hurts, can't stand to lay it down and wiggled his left foot. As RN #54 initiated wound care and gently wiped the left heel with wound cleaner, the Resident jerked his heel out of RN #54's hand and yelled oh, oh I can't stand that it hurts. When RN #54 resumed wound care Resident #210 grunted, the Resident's face turned red, and he grimaced with his jaw clinched. RN #54 stated, No denying that's painful. Resident #210 was asked by Surveyor for a pain level on a 1-10 pain scale with 10 being the worst, and he replied Ten. Resident #210 stated no one had done anything for the pain, and he needed to get out of there because he had pain medication at home he could take. RN #54 was asked if the Resident had been medicated for pain prior to wound care and RN #54 stated' No I don't think he has an order for pain medication. He [resident #210] done this yesterday when I was working on his heel, and I just thought he was ticklish. RN #54 was asked why no measurements of the left heel wound had been taken since admission and RN #54 stated, I was trying to get other things situated yesterday when I came back from being off and honestly, I just haven't had time to do it. RN #54 further clarified Resident #210 was admitted while he was off, and he was not working in the facility last week to get the measurements done. No heel protector boot was in place at the time of the wound care observation and was found lying on top the Resident's wardrobe. RN #54 stated he would make sure the heel was floated and apply the heel protector after he repositioned the Resident. On 02/01/23 at 10:56 AM the DON was asked what protocol was for physicians assessing wounds upon admission and DON stated they had a wound care doctor that came every other week and takes care of all wounds. DON was asked if no one sees the wounds until the wound care doctor can be at the facility? The DON replied, Yea I guess, but there is an order in there for wound care though. The Administrator then stated, Well I think the wound care doctor was here Monday. During a family interview on 02/01/23 at 11:29 AM, Resident #210's emergency contact (EC) stated she was unaware of the pressure ulcer on Resident #210's left heel and stated, Oh my, no wonder he can't walk! I was just there over the weekend, and no one said anything about it. The EC further stated the Resident had metal hardware in his heel from a previous surgery and that probably wasn't helping the situation out any. During an interview on 02/01/23 at 1:12 PM Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #49 verified the wound evaluation for Resident #210's left heel should have been completed and measurements taken last week within 24 hours of admission. b) Resident #27 During observation of wound care on 2/01/23 at 10:12 PM, the designated Wound Care Nurse, Register Nurse (RN) #54 stated, I do all wounds Monday through Friday. We [facility staff] are to do weekly wound assessments with measurements. This [Resident #27's pressure ulcer to left elbow] didn't look that way a couple weeks ago, it's gotten worse. I was off from January 17th thorough January 27th so I can't vouch for what happened with the wounds during that time frame. Record review showed an active order to cleanse the wound to the left elbow with normal saline or wound cleanser, pat dry, cover with calcium alginate and cover with dry dressing, every day shift and as needed change if dressing is not clean, dry and intact. Start date 01/30/23. Record review showed a wound evaluation dated 01/13/23 for the (in house acquired) pressure ulcer on the left elbow to have the following wound measurements: Area 0.45 cm, Length 0.89 cm, Width 0.7 cm, Deepest Point less than 0.1 cm. Record review showed a wound evaluation dated 01/31/23 for the (in house acquired) pressure ulcer on the left elbow to have the following wound measurements: Area 7.72 cm, Length 2.96 cm, Width 3.56 cm, Deepest Point 0.1 cm. This indicated worsening condition with an overall increase in area of 7.27 cm from the last documented wound evaluation. Record review indicated Wound Evaluations with measurements were not completed for the Resident's pressure ulcer on his left elbow for the two-week time frame (from 01/15/23 through 01/28/23) when the wound had worsened and increased in size. Please note this is the specified time frame the designated wound care nurse RN# 54 verified he was off and not working in the facility. On 02/01/23 at 11:58 the Director of Nursing (DON) stated I do not have access to the wound care documentation on (name of the wound management company ) wound management site from the wound care doctor, only [RN #54's name] does. The DON further stated, I guess our back up wound nurse [Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #49's name] done the wound care in the absence of wound care nurse RN #54, she is the only other one that has access to the 'Swift' medical program we use. The DON stated the wound care evaluations with measurements are to be done weekly, and the facility has been using the 'Swift' system for wound documentation since September of 2022. The DON also confirmed she does not have access for use of the 'Swift' wound care program being used by nursing staff for assessments. The Swift Medical technology program is a digital wound care App based program used to capture wound care information by waving the smartphone above the injured site and is also able to determine measurements of the injury. The technology captures wound images and collects automatic measurements without the doctor or nurse having to touch the wound. During an interview on 02/01/23 at 1:12 PM Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #49 stated she did the ordered wound treatments while the primary wound nurse was off, however she does not have access to the 'Swift' system and was never trained to use it for wound evaluations. Therefore, LPN #49 stated she did not measure or complete any wound evaluations, she just done the basic ordered treatments. LPN #49 stated a wound assessment with measurements should be completed weekly, but she only works Monday through Thursday and they [facility wound nurse] only does wound pictures with measurements on Fridays. LPN #49 stated she called the Doctor and got a new order for Resident #27's elbow while RN #50 was off because it was looking bad and the doctor ordered metihoney (medical honey hastens healing of wounds through its anti-inflammatory effects) on 01/26/23. Record review showed the wound care order to cleanse wound to left elbow with wound cleanser, apply [NAME] prep wound edges and apply medihoney. Cover with dry dressing every day shift and as needed if dressing is no longer clean, dry and intact. Start date was 01/26/23 as LPN #49 indicated and discontinued on 01/30/23. On 02/01/23 at 12:35 PM the DON was shown the wound evaluations dated 01/13/23 and 01/31/23 for Resident #27's elbow that documented the worsening pressure ulcer. The DON was asked why no wound evaluations were completed for two weeks in the absence of the designated wound care nurse RN #54? The DON replied, Yea I see what you mean, that looks bad. I guess no one did them because he [RN #54's name] is the only one that normally does them. c) Resident #111 The Resident was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] with primary diagnosis of end-stage renal disease requiring hemodialysis three (3) times weekly and adrenal insufficiency. The Resident was transferred to local emergency room on [DATE] and admitted to hospital for treatment of adrenal insufficiency, weakness, hypotension and altered mental status. Review of clinical notes written on 01/23/23 by the wound care specialist found the following; Wound #1- Etiology- friction and shearing, complicated by moisture. Location- Left medial, right buttocks. Undermining/tunneling- none noted upon current assessment. Wound bed- red/pink granulation tissue. Wound edges- smooth. Peri-wound- skin intact and erythematous. Drainage type/amount- Scant amount of serosanguinous. Odor absents. (Picture present in notes). Recommended treatment: Cleanse wound #1 with mild soap and water and cover with a foam border dressing daily and prn (whenever needed). Wound #2-left lower leg- chronic venous insufficiency. (Picture present in notes). Treatment recommended- Unna boots every three (3) days. Resident readmitted to the facility on [DATE] with the above-mentioned wounds and treatments. Review of Resident #111's Nursing Documentation completed on 01/26/23 at 11:38 pm, by Employee #1, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) read: Resident admitted to the facility for therapy, wound care and hemodialysis. Skin injury/wound type: pressure area on coccyx area. No measurements and/or staging. Unna boots intact Additional review of Resident #111's Nursing Documentation completed on 01/27/23 at 7:36 pm, by Employee #46, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) read: Resident admitted to the facility for therapy, wound care and hemodialysis. Skin injury/wound type: pressure area on coccyx area. No measurements and/or staging. Unna boots intact No treatment orders for the coccyx area and/or Unna boots noted. Observation of Resident #111's coccyx area on 02/01/23 at 9:00 am, accompanied by Employee #55, Registered Nurse, Team Lead- Skin Health, found two (2) open areas noted on the left intergluteal cleft with large area of discoloration on both buttocks. The Resident complained of pain in her buttock area. There was no description, type and/or measurements of the coccyx wound and/or left lower leg completed by the end of survey. On 02/01/23 at 11:15 am the DON verified the residents wounds were documented on the hospital records and also two (2) LPNs had noted wound on coccyx and Unna boots were intact on readmission to the facility. She also acknowledged a RN had not evaluated the resident since readmission and no orders could be found for the wound care of pressure ulcer on coccyx and no order for Unna boots on lower extremities for treatment of chronic venous insufficiency. d) Resident #24 A review of the medical records for Resident #24 revealed the following information: The facility uses a system called Swift, this a program using a camera to measure and document wounds. Registered Nurse 54 stated the facility began using the SWIFT on 09/29/22. In addition, the facility staff do weekly skin checks. Record review found (7) documented wounds, only one wound was documented as a pressure ulcer: A Stage II pressure ulcer Location: left elbow Length: 1.54 cm width: 0.79 cm deepest Point: 0.1 cm In addition, the resident was noted to have a MASD-IAD (moist associated skin damage-Incontinence-associated dermatitis) Location: Sacrum New- Age Unknown Acquired: In-House Acquired Length: 4.21 cm Width: 1.93 cm The picture was of a bony area of the buttock, showing an opened skin area with rounded sides. The surrounding skin was dark in color. Observation of wound care began with RN #54 on 02/01/23 at 10:56 AM: RN #54 wiped the bedside tabletop with disinfectant, placed a clear plastic bag over the tabletop and used hand sanitizer, then replaced his gloves. RN #54 opened a skin prep and applied to the left elbow. The physician ordered treatment: Apply sure prep to scabbed area to left elbow every day shifts. At 11:00 AM RN #54 removed the barrier on the table and told Resident # 24, ok we are all done. RN #54 was reminded all the wounds needed to be observed. RN #54 said. Oh well I have to get the stuff. The bedside table was wiped again, and a clear plastic bag was placed over the tabletop. RN #54 used hand sanitizer and replaced his gloves. Treatments were observed to arterial wounds. RN #54 began cleaning up the tabletop and telling Resident # 24 he was finished again at 11:32 AM on 02/01/23. RN #54 was reminded Resident # 24 still had a wound on the sacrum. The bedside table was set-up for the third time on 02/01/23 at 11:39 AM, by RN #54. RN #54 provided treatment to the Stage II pressure ulcer on the elbow, five (5) separate Arterial wounds to the Residents feet and toes, and the area to the sacrum all without washing his hands. RN #54 used only hand sanitizer and changed his gloves prior to each treatment. Treatment of the sacrum: RN #54 removed the brief, and it was revealed Resident # 24 had dried feces visible between the intergluteal clef. RN #54 did not cleanse the fecal matter before continuing with the wound treatment for wound #5 (Sacrum) called MASD-IAD. The physician's order for treatment: Cleanse wound to buttocks with wound cleanser or normal saline. Pat dry. Apply skin prep to peri wound skin. Apply thin layer of z-guard to the wound bed. Cover with dry dressing. Change every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. Every day shift every Mon, Wed, Fri AND as needed if dressing is no longer clean, dry and intact. Observation of the sacrum area found RN #54 applied only a thin layer of Z-guard to the area and covered the area with a dry dressing. The buttocks were not cleaned with wound cleanser or normal saline. Skin prep was not applied to the area. The surveyor from there were five (5) opened areas on the buttock region. On the upper right buttock - three (3) areas that were not documented. Visually it was noted there was two (2) opened areas about 2 cm by 2.5 cm and 2 cm by 2 cm close by with a purple area just above these two opened areas measuring about 2 cm by 2 cm. The only wound the facility had documented on was on the left side of the sacrum, however there were two more. One below the one on the left, open with rounded edges and red beefy wound beds, measuring about 3 cm length and 3 cm wide. There was also an opened area on the right side of the sacrum, measuring about 2 cm long and 3 cm wide, with round edges, and a red wound bed. The skin on the buttock was dark red. At the time of the wound care, these areas were pointed out to RN #54. RN #54 said he would let the wound care doctor know. RN #54 appeared to be upset and asked are you (this surveyor) going to watch me put a brief back on the resident too! It was explained the RN #54 this surveyor was waiting to see when or if he was going to address fact that there was feces on the buttock of Resident #24 the whole time, he was doing the wound care. RN #54 chuckled and said, Well you better eyes then I do. On 02/01/23 at 1:10 PM, Administrator and Director of nursing (DON) was informed of the above findings. The unwillingness to do all the wounds, lack of washing his hands, not providing hygiene care when Resident #24 had a bowl movement prior to performing wound care, not following the physician's orders for the treatment of wounds and the newly identified wounds found by the surveyor. On 01/31/23 at 1:06 PM, the DON said wound assessments are under the skin V4 -1/30/2023 Skin Check. - V 4 Complete Skin Check no new skin issues. -1/23/2023 Skin Check. - V 4 Complete Skin Check no new skin issues. -1/16/2023 Skin Check. - V 4 Complete Skin Check no new skin issues. -1/9/2023 Skin Check. - V 4 Complete Skin Check Yes right elbow -10/24/2022 Skin Check. - V 4 Complete Skin Check yes MASD on buttock During an interview with RN #54 on 02/01/23 at 12:54 PM, RN #54 was asked, how is it made known to him who has a new skin problem? He stated, the nurses do weekly skin checks. He was asked who does the re-evaluations every week. RN #54 said he normally does; however, he was not at work for two weeks for personal reasons. He was asked if someone else was able to do the re-evaluations in his absents? He said, yes Licensed practical Nurse (LPN)#49 was shown how to use the SWIFT system. RN #54 confirmed there was no re-evaluations using the SWIFT system which takes a picture and measures the wounds, from 01/13/23 to 01/31/23. During the interview with RN #54 on 02/01/23 at 12:54 PM, he was asked when did the facility first start using the 'SWIFT system? RN #54 stated on 09/29/22. RN #54 was asked why were the photos of the following wounds not started as soon as they were found? RN #54 shook his head to indicate no. During an interview with LPN #49 on 02/01/23 at 1:10 PM, she was asked if she did the re-evaluations for the weeks of 01/16/23 and 01/23/23. LPN#49 said, No those are done on Fridays, and I work Monday thru Thursday. During an interview on 02/01/23 at 1:54 PM, the DON confirmed there was no documentation regarding Staging, measurements, and description completed on the MSDS and the Stage II to the elbow from 01/16/23 to 01/23/23. In addition, the DON confirmed treatments to the areas were not provided on 01/04/23 and 01/17/23 as noted on the TAR (treatment authorization request). On 02/01/23 at 3:52 PM, RN #54 provided a printed copy from the wound care physician (WCP) #80. This visit was a telemedicine, done with RN #54 showing the WCP #80 the wounds via tablet. Two (2) new pressure ulcers were identified by the WCP. *Wound to left Heel Etiology: Pressure Stage: Unstageable Tissue type: 100% Eschar Wound Size: (length x Width x Depth) 3.5 cm x 6.3 cm x 0 Treatment: apply skin prep - Once a day And the new wound discovered by the surveyor was now identified as a Deep tissue injury. Progress: Deteriorating Tissue type: 50% Gran/50%epithelizaion Wound Size: (length x Width x Depth) 5 cm x 5 cm x 0.1. Exudate amount: small Exudate type: Serous Treatment: apply house barrier cream-once a day gauze island with border- once a day Resident #24 currently has three (3) documented pressure injuries. One on the left elbow not mentioned by WCP #80, one on the left heel, one on the sacral area. The WCP failed to provide documentation and any treatments on the new area's to the sacrum found by the surveyor during observations of the treatment on the sacrum. No further information was provided by the close of the survey II) Interview with Administrator and Director of Nursing On 02/01/23 at 1:57 PM, the DON said the facility only looks at the percentages of residents with pressure ulcers at the QA&A meetings. The DON could not confirm the QA&A committee actually looks at the pressure areas to determine if current pressure ulcers were documented, staged, measured, described and treated. When asked how the committee would know about the pressure ulcers if the facility does not stage and describe the areas when pressure ulcers developed? The administrator said she was recently hired and she confirmed no QA&A meetings had been held since she was hired so she could not comment on the issue. No information was provided to confirm the QA&A committee was aware of or developed and implemented appropriate plans of action to correct the issues found with pressure ulcers. .
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0868 (Tag F0868)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

. Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure the Quality Assessment and Assurance (QA&A) committee consisted of the required members. The infection preventionist was not...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure the Quality Assessment and Assurance (QA&A) committee consisted of the required members. The infection preventionist was not present for the QA&A meetings during the first and second quarter of 2022. Facility census: 64. Findings included: a) Attendance at QA&A meetings Review of the signed attendance records of facility staff members who attended the quarterly QA&A meetings for 2022 found the infection preventionist did not attend any meetings held during the first and second quarter (January, February, March, April, May, and June) of 2022. On 02/01/23 at 1:57 PM, the Administrator and the Director of Nursing confirmed the infection preventionist did not attend any QA&A meetings for the first and second quarters in 2022. .
MINOR (C)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Staffing Information (Tag F0732)

Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents

. Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure an accurate staff posting with the total number of staff and the actual hours worked by licensed and unlicensed nursing staf...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure an accurate staff posting with the total number of staff and the actual hours worked by licensed and unlicensed nursing staff directly responsible for resident care per shift. This was true for ten (10) out of 14 days reviewed from 09/04/22 through 09/17/22 and seven (7) of fourteen (14) reviewed from 01/15/23 through 01/28/23. Facility census 64. Findings included: a) Staff Posting A review of the staff posting revealed, on following dates, nursing staff had worked less hours than what was posted: Period of 09/04/22 through 09/17/22: -09/04/22, posted hours-2.35. actual hours per patient daily (HPPD) was 2.16. -09/05/22, posted hours-2.69. actual HPPD was 2.55. -09/06/22, posted hours-2.48. actual HPPD was 2.37. -09/08/22, posted hours-2.80. actual HPPD was 2.59. -09/09/22, posted hours-2.61. actual HPPD was 2.37. -09/10/22, posted hours-2.69. actual HPPD was 2.28. -09/14/22, posted hours-2.92. actual HPPD was 2.78. -09/15/22, posted hours-2.90. actual HPPD was 2.61. -09/16/22, posted hours-2.61. actual HPPD was 2.36. -09/17/22, posted hours-2.32. actual HPPD was 2.07. Period of 01/15/23 through 01/28/23: -01/17/23, posted hours- 3.05. actual HPPD was 2.86. -01/18/23, posted hours- 3.29. actual HPPD was 2.97. -01/19/23, posted hours- 3.42. actual HPPD was 2.89. -01/22/23, posted hours- 2.75. actual HPPD was 2.66. -01/23/23, posted hours- 3.26. actual HPPD was 3.00. -01/24/23, posted hours- 3.40. actual HPPD was 2.88. -01/25/23, posted hours- 3.19. actual HPPD was 2.78. On 02/01/23 at 1:20 PM, the Administrator stated, the facility needed to develop a plan for correcting the postings on every shift. A brief interview with Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed the above hours posted were more than what was actually worked by nursing staff. .
Oct 2021 20 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0558 (Tag F0558)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

. Based on observation, resident interview and staff interview, the facility failed to provide proper eating utensils for residents. This was discovered during a meal observation, when Resident #25 wa...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on observation, resident interview and staff interview, the facility failed to provide proper eating utensils for residents. This was discovered during a meal observation, when Resident #25 was trying to cut food with flimsy plastic flatware. This had the potential to affect all residents eating their meals with plastic flatware. Resident identifier: #25 Facility census: 64 Findings included: a) Resident #25 In an interview with Resident #25 on 10/18/21 at 1:15 PM, this resident reported he was having a difficult time cutting up the chicken patty with the flimsy plastic knife and fork. He also reported he had not had real silverware to use for some time. In an interview with the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) on 10/18/21 at 1:22 PM, found residents were using plastic flatware, because there was not enough silverware for all residents. The NHA later purchased silverware from a local store for residents to use. .
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 staff interview, the facility failed to secure and keep confidential residents personal and medical information. The facility failed to safe guard private information that w...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to secure and keep confidential residents personal and medical information. The facility failed to safe guard private information that was placed in a clear acrylic wall file holder outside an office located in the middle of the residents hallway. This was a random opportunity for discovery. Facililty census: 64. Findings included: a) Identifiable Patient Information Visible On 10/20/21 at 8:35 AM, a random observation for discovery found a 2-pocket clear acrylic wall file holder mounted outside of the Assistant Director of Nursing's (ADON) door. The lower file holder pocket had papers with identifiable patient information for approximately fifteen (15) residents. The Administrator identified the forms as individualized patient Therapy Evaluations/Notes that had been signed by the physician. The Administrator noted that the ADON had a private mailbox up front where these forms should have been dropped off in order to keep them secure and confidential. .
CONCERN (D)

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

Transfer Requirements (Tag F0622)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** . Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to document all relevant information was provided to the recei...

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 document all relevant information was provided to the receiving hospital upon transfer. For Resident #55, there is no evidence the critical and abnormal laboratory results were communicated to the hospital Emergency Department upon transfer. Resident identifier: #55. Facility census: 64. Findings included: a) Resident #55 A review of Resident #55's medical record revealed the laboratory reported a critical abnormal laboratory test result to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #55's procalcitonin (PCT) level was 19.13. According to the laboratory report, a normal procalcitonin was below 0.5 and a level over 2.0 was associated with a high risk for progression to severe sepsis or septic shock. The following day, the decision was made to transfer Resident #55 to the Emergency Department for evaluation. The Hospital Transfer Form gave the reason for transfer as Abnormal Other lab value or study (describe). However, the abnormal laboratory value was not described. During an interview on 10/19/21 at 2:48 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) verified the Hospital Transfer Form did not specify the specific abnormal laboratory value that necessitated the hospital transfer. No further information was provided through the completion of the survey. .
CONCERN (D)

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

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** . Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to assess pressure ulcers in a timely manner. This failed prac...

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 assess pressure ulcers in a timely manner. This failed practice had the potential to affect one (1) of two (2) residents reviewed for the care area of pressure ulcers. Resident identifier: #55. Facility census: 64. Findings included: a) Resident #55 Review of Resident #55's medical records revealed he had been transferred to the hospital 09/16/21 and returned to the facility on [DATE]. The progress note written on 09/20/21 at 9:30 PM stated, Resident arrived at this facility .Skin check complete with two blisters present, one on each lower inner leg. No other skin issues noted . Further assessments of the pressure ulcers were made on 09/24/21. The left pressure ulcer was noted to be stage II, measuring 0.5 centimeters (cm) by 0.5 cm. The right pressure ulcer was noted to be unstageable, measuring 2.0 cm by 2.0 cm. During an interview on 10/20/21 at 12:10 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed assessments and measurements of Resident #55's pressure ulcers were not performed until 09/24/21, four (4) days after the resident was admitted with the pressure ulcers. No further information was provided through the completion of the survey. .
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0688 (Tag F0688)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

. Based on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to provide bilateral palm guards or rolled washcloths at all for bilateral hand contractures. This was a random opportunity for discover...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to provide bilateral palm guards or rolled washcloths at all for bilateral hand contractures. This was a random opportunity for discovery. Resident Identifier #26. Facility Census: 64. Findings included: a) Resident #26 An observation on 10/18/21 at 1:13 PM found, Resident #26 had bilateral hand contractures with no hand protection in place. A review of Resident #26's medical record revealed, a Physicians order as follows: --Bilateral palm guards or rolled washcloths on at all times, should be removed during ADL's and skin check & hygiene completed daily with an order date 08/17/21. A second observation on 10/19/21 at 11:10 AM found, Resident #26 did not have bilateral palm protectors in place. On 10/19/21 at 11:10 AM during an interview with Licenses Practical Nurse (LPN) #71 confirmed Resident #26 did not have palm protectors in place. The Administrator and Director of Nursing (DON) were aware of the findings, no other information was obtained prior to the end of the survey on 10/20/21 at 3:30 PM. .
CONCERN (D)

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

. Based on observation and interview, the facility did not ensure the resident's environment was free from accident hazards related to exposed wires of the bed remote control. This was a random opport...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on observation and interview, the facility did not ensure the resident's environment was free from accident hazards related to exposed wires of the bed remote control. This was a random opportunity for discovery. Resident identifier: #20. Facility census: 64. Findings Included: a) Resident #20 During the initial tour on 10/18/21 at 1:20 PM, found Resident #20's bed remote controller had exposed wires which posed a potential electrical shock to the resident. An interview on 10/18/21 at 1:25 PM, with the visiting Administrator confirmed the wires were exposed. He removed the bed controller at this time. The visiting Administrator replaced the remote bed controller. .
CONCERN (D)

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

Incontinence Care (Tag F0690)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

. Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide services to provide appropriate nephrostomy care for one (1) of one (1) resident's reviewed for catheter care. A physician's orde...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide services to provide appropriate nephrostomy care for one (1) of one (1) resident's reviewed for catheter care. A physician's order was not followed. Resident identifier: #29. Facility census: 64. Findings included: a) Resident #29 Review of Resident #29's medical record on 10/19/21 at 8:22 AM, showed the following physicians order: -- Monitor right and left nephrostomy tube sites for s/s[signs and symptoms] of infection. Document output every shift related to DISPLACEMENT OF NEPHROSTOMY CATHETER with a start date 09/07/21. A review of R #29's treatment administration record (TAR): --09/10/21 shift 11:00PM to 7:00AM, Left Cubic Centimeter (Lcc) output box was blank, Right Cubic Centimeter (Rcc) output box left blank, and chart code check marked =Administered box left blank. There are no corresponding progress notes. --09/21/21 shift 7:00 AM to 3:00 PM, Left Cubic Centimeter (Lcc) output box was blank, Right Cubic Centimeter (Rcc) output box left blank, and chart code check mark =Administered box left blank. There are no corresponding progress notes. --09/23/21 shift 3:00 PM to11:00 PM, Left Cubic Centimeter (Lcc) output box was blank, Right Cubic Centimeter (Rcc) output box left blank, and chart code check mark =Administered box left blank. There are no corresponding progress notes. --09/28/21 shift 3:00 PM to11:00 PM, Left Cubic Centimeter (Lcc) output box was blank, Right Cubic Centimeter (Rcc) output box left blank, and chart code check mark =Administered box left blank. There are no corresponding progress notes. --10/15/21 shift 7:00 AM to 3:00 PM, Left Cubic Centimeter (Lcc) output box was blank, Right Cubic Centimeter (Rcc) output box left blank, and chart code check mark =Administered box left blank. There are no corresponding progress notes. --10/15/21 shift 3:00 PM to11:00 PM, Left Cubic Centimeter (Lcc) output box was blank, Right Cubic Centimeter (Rcc) output box left blank, and chart code check mark =Administered box left blank. There are no corresponding progress notes. --10/17/21 shift 7:00 AM to 3:00 PM, Left Cubic Centimeter (Lcc) output box was blank, Right Cubic Centimeter (Rcc) output box left blank, and chart code check mark =Administered box left blank. There are no corresponding progress notes. During an interview on 10/20/21 at 8:15 AM, the Director of Nursing stated that Resident #29's treatment log for documenting the output from the nephrostomy tube was not completed as ordered by the physician .
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0710 (Tag F0710)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

. Based on staff interviews and record reviews, the facility did not ensure timely notification to the physician of Resident's significant weight loss. This was true for three (3) of six (6) resident'...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on staff interviews and record reviews, the facility did not ensure timely notification to the physician of Resident's significant weight loss. This was true for three (3) of six (6) resident's reviewed for weight loss. Resident identifiers: R #19, R #34, and R #45. Facility census: 64. Findings included: Record review of the facility's policy titled, Weights and Heights, revision dated 06/01/21, showed the licensed nurse will notify the physician and dietitian of a significant weight change. Document notification of physician and dietitian in the Weight Change Progress Note. a) Resident #19 A medical record review on 10/18/21 at 2:24 PM revealed, significant weight loss. Resident #19 weighed 160.6 pounds (LBS.) on 08/18/21 and weighed 148.8 LBS. on 10/02/21 equaling a 7.35% weight loss. Resident #19's Weight log showed: --10/02/21 5:48 148.8 LBS. --09/29/21 9:43 149.0 LBS. --09/01/21 4:08 151.6 LBS. --08/18/21 7:37 160.6 LBS. --08/18/21 3:27 160.6 LBS. --07/29/21 4:40 160.6 LBS. A further review on 10/18/21 of Resident #19's medical record found a Nutritional Assessment completed on 09/07/21 noting a significant weight loss of 5.6 % in one (1) month from 07/29/21: 160.6 LBS. through 09/01/2: 151.6 LBS. Subsequent review of the resident's medical record showed it did not contain evidence of Resident #19's physician being notified of the significant weight loss. During an interview on 10/20/21 at 1:12 PM with the Director of Nursing (DON), she confirmed the physician was not notified of a significant weight loss for Resident #19. b) Resident #45 During a medical record review on 10/19/21 for Resident #45, revealed a significant weight loss of 16 pounds. On 09/01/21 the resident weighed 182 pounds and on 10/02/21 weighed 166 pounds. There was no evidence indicating the physician had been notified of the significant weight loss. In an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 10/19/21 at 2:10 PM, reported the physician had not been notified of the significant weight loss for Resident #45. c) Resident #34 Review of Resident #34's medical records revealed on 09/02/21, the resident weighed 182 pounds. On 10/02/21, the resident weighed 168 pounds. This was a -7.69 % weight loss in one (1) month, which is considered a significant weight loss. A review of the medical record found no evidence that the resident's physician was notified of the resident's significant weight loss on 10/02/21. On 10/20/21 at 12:53 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) verified there was no evidence that Resident #34's physician was notified of the resident's significant weight loss on 10/02/21. No further information was provided through the completion of the survey. d) Policy review The facility's policy entitled Weights and Heights with an effective date of 06/01/21 and revision date of 06/01/21 stated that a significant weight change is defined as 5% in one (1) month or 10% in six (6) months. The policy also stated that, in the event of significant weight loss, the physician would be notified and the notification would be documented in the Weight Change Progress Note. .
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0713 (Tag F0713)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

. Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure the provision of physician services 24 hours a day, in case of emergency. This failed practice had the potential to affect o...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure the provision of physician services 24 hours a day, in case of emergency. This failed practice had the potential to affect one (1) of three (3) residents revealed for the care area of hospitalization. Resident identifier: #55. Facility census: 64. Findings included: a) Resident #55 Review of Resident #55's medical records showed a note written on 09/16/21 at 1:31 AM, that stated, Resident had labs drawed [sic] previous with results being critical placed call with doctor [name redacted] at 11pm with no answer than [sic] called don [director of nursing] explain labs and told her [doctor's name redacted] was called with no answer she said to wait until he called back so waiting on return call. (Typed as written.) Review of Resident #55's laboratory test results from 09/15/21 showed the resident's procalcitonin (PCT) level was 19.13. According to the laboratory report, a normal procalcitonin was below 0.5 and a level over 2.0 was associated with a high risk for progression to severe sepsis or septic shock. Additionally, the resident's white blood cell (WBC) count was elevated with a result of 27.4. A normal WBC count was between 4.5-11.5. The resident's estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate (GFR), which measured kidney function, was also low with a result of 19. A normal GFR is over 60. The next progress note was written on 09/16/21 at 6:47 AM, and stated, Spoke with doctor [name redacted] stated for resident to have a ua [urinalysis] this morning 1 liter of normal saline every 12 hours at 125/hr to start zithromax 500 daily for 5 days and dexamethazome 3 mg via IV [intravenous] bid [twice a day] orders noted. (Typed as written.) The next progress note was written on 09/16/21 at 8:10 AM, and stated, EMS [emergency medical services] here to transport resident to [hospital name redacted] ED [emergency department]. There is no documentation of what had occurred since the note at 6:47 AM. According to the hospital documentation, Resident #55, who had previously been diagnosed with COVID-19 at the nursing home facility, was admitted to an observation bed for evaluation and treatment. The resident was started on intravenous fluids and intravenous antibiotics. The GFR improved significantly and the elevated white blood cell count resolved. The final diagnoses were urosepsis and acute kidney injury. He returned to the nursing home facility on 09/20/21 on oral antibiotics. During an interview on 10/19/21 at 2:48 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed the physician did not respond to the 09/15/21 11:00 PM telephone call until 09/16/21 at 6:00 AM. The DON confirmed this physician was the only medical provider who received calls regarding residents and stated that sometimes it takes a while for the physician to call back. .
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, medical record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure medications were stored and labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles. An ...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on observation, medical record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure medications were stored and labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles. An open multi-dose vial of Tuberculin purified protein derivative (Aplisol) located in the medication room refrigerator was first accessed more than 30 days ago. This was a random opportunity for discovery. Facility census: 64. Findings included: a) Medication Storage and Labeling During investigation of the medication preparation room refrigerator on 10/20/21 at 12:41 PM , a multi-dose vial of tuberculin purified protein derivative (Aplisol) was noted to have an opening date of 07/23/21. The opening date was written on the vial in ink. Tuberculin purified protein derivative is given by injection to aid in the diagnosis of tuberculosis. License Practical Nurse #43 stated that she did not know when the vial should have been discarded. After reviewing the Aplisol package insert, which stated that vials in use for more than 30 days should be discarded, LPN #43 agreed the Aplisol should have been discarded 30 days after opening. No further information was provided through the completion of the survey. .
CONCERN (D)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** . Based on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to store and prepare foods in a safe and sanitary manner. During...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** . Based on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to store and prepare foods in a safe and sanitary manner. During the kitchen tour discovered salad bowls and specialized cups were stored in dirty containers. This had the potential to affect a limited number of residents receiving nourishment from the kitchen. Facility census: 64 Findings included: a) Kitchen tour During the kitchen tour on 10/18/21 at 12:05 PM, discovered clear salad bowls and specialized drinking cup were stored in dirty containers. In an interview with the Dietary Manager (DM) on 10/18/21 at 12:05 PM, verified the containers housing the clear salad bowls and the [NAME] speciality cups were unclean. .
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 medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a complete and accurate medical record. Specifically, a physician's orders were not obtained, and wrong weights were...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a complete and accurate medical record. Specifically, a physician's orders were not obtained, and wrong weights were recorded. This practice affected two (2) of 18 residents reviewed during the Long-Term Care Survey Process (LTCSP). Resident identifier #19, and #49. Facility census: # 64. Findings included: a) Resident #19 An observation on 10/18/21 at 11:31 AM, found Resident #19 (R #19) sitting in a wheelchair (w/c) in the hallway with a wander guard alarm in place around his ankle. A review of the Resident #19's medical record on 10/19/21 revealed a progress note dated 10/13/21: --Resident exited C wing emergency door. Resident was seen by the Director of Nursing (DON) and brought back in. Did not leave her sight. Further review found an elopement evaluation was completed 10/14/21. (Transcribed as written.) Subsequent medical record review on 10/19/21, showed no active order for a wander elopement device or placement checks. On 10/19/21 at 12:58 PM, the findings were discussed with the DON. She verified Resident #19 had a wander-guard in place without an active order. No further information was provided prior to the exit of the annual survey on 10/29/21 at 3:30 PM. b) Resident #49 During a medical record review on 10/19/21, discovered Resident #49 was weighed on 10/02/21 and weighed 139 pounds and when weighed again on 10/11/21 the weight was 163 pounds. In an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 10/19/21 at 11:35 AM, explained the weight of 163 pounds documented on 10/11/21 for Resident #49 was an incorrect weight. The weight recorded on 10/11/21 was the weight of his roommate. Resident #49 was weighed again on 10/19/21 and his weight was 140. .
CONCERN (D)

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

QAPI Program (Tag F0867)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

. Based on review of the Quality Assessment and Assurance (QAA) attendance sheets and staff interview the facility failed to ensure the required committee members attended the QAA quarterly meetings. ...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on review of the Quality Assessment and Assurance (QAA) attendance sheets and staff interview the facility failed to ensure the required committee members attended the QAA quarterly meetings. It was discovered during the Long Term Care Survey Process (LTCSP) the Medical Director was not present for the last quarterly meeting. Facility census: 64. Findings included: a) Quality Assessment and Assurance attendance for required members A review of the Quality Assessment and Assurance attendance sheets on 10/20/21, revealed the Medical Director had not attended the last quarterly meeting for July, August or September, 2021. In an interview with the Nursing Home Administrator on 10/20/21 at 2:00 PM, verified the Medical Director had not attended the last quarterly QAA meeting. .
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0578 (Tag F0578)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

. Based on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident's Physician's Order for Scope of Treatment (POST) form conveying end of life wishes was complete. This wa...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident's Physician's Order for Scope of Treatment (POST) form conveying end of life wishes was complete. This was true for three (3) of 18 residents reviewed during the long-term care survey process. Resident identifiers: #34, #20, #36. Facility census: 64. Findings included: a) Resident #34 Review of Resident #34's medical records revealed a POST form signed and dated by the physician on 11/16/18. The POST form had been signed by the resident's Health Care Surrogate (HCS) but not dated. Additionally, the name and signature of the person preparing the form, along with the date prepared, was not completed. Resident #34 also had a HCS selection, and this was not documented on the form. During an interview on 10/19/21 at 1:11 PM, the Licensed Social Worker (LSW) verified the Resident #34's POST form had not been completed. No further information was provided through the completion of the survey. b) Resident #20 Record review on 10/18/21 at 3:16 PM, revealed the section for Patient Information, Section D - (Discussed with) and Section E (Patient/Resident Preferences as a Guide for this POST Form)- on Resident #20's active Physician Order for Scope of Treatment Form (POST Form) was not completed. During an interview, on 10/19/21 at 1:02 PM with the Social Worker, he confirmed Resident #20's POST form section E and D was incomplete. c) Resident #36 A medical record review on 10/19/21 for Resident #36, revealed a POST form had not been signed or dated by the preparer. In an interview with the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) on 10/19/21 at 1:55 PM, verified the POST form for Resident #36 had not been signed or dated by the preparer. .
CONCERN (E)

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

Notification of Changes (Tag F0580)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

. c) Resident #19 Record review of the facility's policy titled, Weights and Heights, revision date 06/01/21, showed the licensed nurse will notify the Family/Healthcare decision maker of the weight c...

Read full inspector narrative →
. c) Resident #19 Record review of the facility's policy titled, Weights and Heights, revision date 06/01/21, showed the licensed nurse will notify the Family/Healthcare decision maker of the weight change and dietitian recommendations. Family notification will be documented. A medical record review on 10/18/21 at 2:24 PM revealed, significant weight loss. Resident #19 weighed 160.6 pounds (LBS.) on 08/18/21 and weighed 148.8 LBS. on 10/02/21 equaling a 7.35% weight loss. A further review on 10/18/21 of Resident #19's medical record found a Nutritional Assessment completed on 09/07/21 noted a significant weight loss of 5.6 % in one (1) month 07/29/21:from 160.6 LBS. through 09/01/21 to 151.6 LBS. A subsequent review of the resident's medical record showed no evidence of Resident #19's representative being notified of a significant weight loss. During an interview on 10/20/21 at 1:12 PM with the DON, she confirmed the family representative was not notified of a significant weight loss for Resident #19. b) Resident #34 Review of Resident #34's medical records revealed on 09/02/2021, the resident weighed 182 pounds. On 10/02/2021, the resident weighed 168 pounds. This was a -7.69 % weight loss in one (1) month, which is considered a significant weight loss. Resident #34 did not have capacity. The medical records did not document the resident's representative was notified of the resident's significant weight loss on 10/02/21. On 10/20/21 at 1:18 PM, the DON verified there was no evidence Resident #34's representative was notified of the resident's significant weight loss on 10/02/21. No further information was provided through the completion of the survey. Based on medical record reviews and staff interviews, the facility failed to notify the resident's representative when there was a change in condition. This was discovered for three (3) of six (6) residents reviewed for the care area of nutrition during the Long Term Care Survey Process (LTCSP). The resident representatives for Residents #45, #34, and #19 were not notified when weight loss occurred. Resident identifiers: #45, #34 and #19 Facility census: 64. Findings included: a) Resident #45 During a medical record review on 10/19/21 for Resident #45, revealed a significant weight loss of 16 pounds. On 09/01/21 the resident weighed 182 pounds and on 10/02/21 weighed 166 pounds. There was no evidence indicating the resident representative had been notified of the weight loss. In an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 10/19/21 at 2:10 PM, confirmed the resident representative had not been notified of the significant weight loss for Resident #45. .
CONCERN (E)

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** . Based on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a clean, comfortable, safe, and homelike environment. ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** . Based on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a clean, comfortable, safe, and homelike environment. room [ROOM NUMBER] had a door with several chunks missing from the middle to lower hinges leaving large areas of splintering wood. room [ROOM NUMBER] had a television (TV) which was not connected to cable stored on the floor. room [ROOM NUMBER] had a packaged terminal air conditioner (PTAC) unit vent noted to have dirt and debris in it. The cover was dislodged on the PTAC unit in room [ROOM NUMBER]. These were random opportunities for discovery. Identifiers: room [ROOM NUMBER], room [ROOM NUMBER], room [ROOM NUMBER], and room [ROOM NUMBER]. Facility Census: 64. Findings included: a) room [ROOM NUMBER] Observation on 10/20/21 at 8:15 AM found the door to room [ROOM NUMBER] had several chunks missing from the middle to lower hinges leaving large areas of splintering wood. The resident in the B bed was independently mobile in a wheelchair. The splintered area aligned with the height of the resident in the wheelchair when passing through the doorway which could lead to a possible skin tear from the splintering wood. The Administrator acknowledged the splintering wood on the damaged door and agreed it could pose as a risk for injury to any resident mobile in a wheelchair. The Administrator stated the door would be replaced. b) room [ROOM NUMBER] An observation, on 10/18/21 at 11:54 AM, found a television stored on the floor in room [ROOM NUMBER]. Resident #262 reported a family member had brought the television in four (4) or five (5) days ago and they [Resident #262 and roommate] were waiting on the staff to connect it to cable. A brief record review was completed and found Resident #262 had capacity. Resident #262's care plan stated resident found it important to have the opportunity to engage in daily routines that are meaningful. To watch TV/movies was listed as something Resident #262 liked to do. The Social Worker, on 10/18/21 at 1:38 PM, stated the Director of Maintenance would be responsible for connecting the TV to cable. The Social Worker also stated requests like that would be mentioned in morning meeting. When asked if the Director of Maintenance had been made aware of the request for room [ROOM NUMBER], the Social Worker stated the Administrator would have access to the work order system and could answer. On 10/18/21 at 1:45 PM, the Administrator reported the Social Worker had spoken to her this morning about going to Walmart in order to purchase a television stand so the TV could be between the two (2) residents in room [ROOM NUMBER]. The Administrator confirmed a work order had been put in this morning (10/18/21) to connect the TV. Observation on 10/19/21 at 8:15 AM, found the television still on the floor in room [ROOM NUMBER] and not connected to cable. The Administrator, on 10/19/21 at 9:30 AM, acknowledged the facility failed to safe-guard Resident #262's television from accidental damage by allowing it to sit on the floor for approximately four (4) to five (5) days and stated she would immediately address the need to connect the television to cable. c) room [ROOM NUMBER] During the initial tour of the facility on 10/18/21 at 11:55 AM, the Packaged Terminal Air Conditioner (PTAC) vent in room [ROOM NUMBER] was noted to have dirt and debris in it. This was shown to the Administrator on 10/18/21 at 2:12 PM, who verified the vent needed cleaning. She stated she would have all vents in the facility checked and cleaned. No further information was provided through the completion of the survey. d) room [ROOM NUMBER] An observation, on 10/18/21 at 12:55 PM, of room [ROOM NUMBER] revealed, the packaged terminal air conditioner (PTAC) unit's cover was falling off. During an interview on 10/18/21 at 1:00 PM with Resident #21, he stated that the cover was falling off the PTAC unit when he was moved to this room, and he wasn't going to fix it. An interview, on 10/20/21 at 12:58 PM, with Maintenance Director confirmed the cover to the unit needed fixed. The Maintenance Director fixed the unit at this time. .
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** . Based on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to provide evidence a resident/resident's representati...

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 resident/resident's representative was provided a written Notice of Transfer for a total of four (4) hospitalizations out of three (3) records reviewed for hospitalization. The facility also failed to notify the Long-Term Care Ombudsman for three (3) of the four (4) hospitalizations. This had the potential to affect more than a limited number of residents being transferred or discharged . Resident identifiers: #56, #19, and #55. Facility census: 64. Findings included: a) Resident #56 A medical record review was completed on 10/19/21 at 2:19 PM. The record review revealed Resident #56 was transferred to the hospital on [DATE]. The record did not reflect the resident/resident's representative was provided a Notice of Transfer. During an interview on 10/19/21 at 2:40 PM, the Social Worker reported the nurses complete the Notice of Transfer/Discharge and a copy should be filed under the miscellaneous tab on each resident's chart, or if not there, perhaps medical records may have the copy. The Coordinator of Medical Records, on 10/19/21 at 2:45 PM, reported there was not a Notice of Transfer filed in the medical records office for Resident #56, noting for a resident still living in the facility, it should be on the chart at the nurse's station. A second record review was completed on 10/19/21 at 2:56 PM. The Notice of Transfer was not found on Resident #56's chart. Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #71 and LPN #44 were interviewed. Both LPN's reported, as part of their job duties, they do transfer residents to the hospital and completed the necessary paperwork that goes with each resident. Both LPN #71 and LPN #44 stated they have never completed the written Notice of Transfer/Discharge form for any resident being transferred to the hospital or verbally discussed its contents with a resident or resident representative. On 10/20/21 at 11:55 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) and Administrator acknowledged the facility failed to provide a written Notice of Transfer for Resident #56. b) Resident #19 Record review on 10/18/21 at 2:27 PM, revealed resident #19 was discharged to the hospital on [DATE] and 09/22/21. Subsequent review of the Resident #19's medical record showed no evidence the Notice of Transfer or Discharge was provided to the Resident Representative, or the Ombudsman was notified of the discharges on 08/04/21 or 09/22/21. During an interview on 10/20/21 at 9:34 AM the Director of Nursing (DON) stated that the Social Worker fills out the Notice of Transfer or Discharge for all transfers. On 10/20/21 at 10:34 AM during an interview the Social Worker verified, there was no evidence the Notice of Transfer or Discharge was completed and provided to the Resident's Representative for the discharges on 08/04/21 or 09/22/21. The Social Worker also confirmed the Ombudsmen was not notified of the discharges on 08/04/21 or 09/22/21. c) Resident #55 A review of Resident #55's medical records revealed the resident was transferred to the hospital on [DATE]. The resident remained in the hospital until 09/20/21. On 10/20/21 at 10:04 AM, the Licensed Social Worker (LSW) provided a list of residents who were discharged or transferred to the hospital in September 2021. Resident #55 was on the list. A facsimile transmittal sheet to the state ombudsman dated 10/01/21 accompanied the list. However, there was no transmission confirmation sheet to document the list was sent by the facility and received by the ombudsman. The LSW stated he could not locate the facsimile transmission confirmation sheet. Additionally, during an interview on 10/20/21 at 11:42 AM, the LSW stated no written notice of transfer was provided to Resident #55's representative after the discharge to the hospital on [DATE]. No further information was provided through the completion of the survey. .
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, staff interview, and observation, the facility failed to ensure residents receive treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice. Physician's orders...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on record review, staff interview, and observation, the facility failed to ensure residents receive treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice. Physician's orders were not followed for Residents #6, #55, and #10. For Resident #34, supplemental protein was discontinued due to erroneous information. This failed practice had the potential to affect four (4) of 18 residents reviewed in the long-term care survey process. Resident identifiers: #6, #55, #34, #10. Facility census: 64. Findings included: a) Resident #6 Review of Resident #6's medical records revealed an order written 03/23/21 for Floor mat to right side of bed, while in bed r/t [related to] falls. On 10/18/21 at 2:00 PM, Resident #6 was observed to be lying in bed. The resident did not have a floor mat to the right side of the bed. On 10/18/21 at 2:12 PM, the Administrator verified Resident #6 had an order for a floor mat, but was not currently in place. No further information was provided through the completion of the survey. b) Resident #55 Review of Resident #55's medical orders showed an order written on 09/21/21 that stated, HYPOGLYCEMIA PROTOCOL Administration of rapid absorbed simple carbohydrate such as 4 oz [ounces] juice or 5-6 oz regular soda per pt [patient] routine. Administer every 15 minutes as needed for BG [blood glucose] less than 60 or ordered parameter, symptomatic or asymptomatic, but conscious and able to swallow. Repeat as needed. Repeat per protocol. Additionally, the facility's hypoglycemia protocol for asymptomatic low blood glucose routine check less than 70 or other physician ordered low parameter stated, in addition to the above, for vital signs to be taken and the blood glucose level to be rechecked in 10-15 minutes. Resident #55 had an order for his blood glucose level to be checked four times a day. On 10/16/21 at 7:00 AM, the medical records show the resident's blood glucose level was 57. Although this level was less than 60, there is no documentation a snack was given, vital signs were taken, and the blood glucose level was rechecked. During an interview on 10/19/21 at 3:22 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed there was no indication the hypoglycemic protocol was followed on 10/16/21 at 7:00 AM when Resident #55's blood glucose level was less than 60. No further information was provided through the completion of the survey. c) Resident #34 Review of Resident #34's medical records showed the resident had a stage III pressure ulcer to the right hip and an unstageable pressure ulcer to the left hip. The resident had a sacral pressure ulcer resolved on 08/16/21. A note written by the dietician on 10/04/21 stated, .Stage III sacrum & R [right] hip and unstageable L [left] hip resolved 8/16/21 .Liq Pro [liquid protein] 30 ml [milliliters] bid [two times a day] w/ [with] 57% consumption per MAR [medication administration record] w/ refusals of all 9 PM doses. With skin alterations now resolved, suggest d/c [discontinuation] . Increased protein intake is associated with better healing of pressure ulcers. A review of Resident #34's MAR showed the liquid protein was discontinued on 10/06/21. During an interview on 10/20/21 at 12:53 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) verified Resident #34 still had two (2) pressure ulcers. When shown the dietician note written on 10/04/21, the DON stated that she thought someone would have caught the error and the liquid protein would not have been discontinued. However, the DON acknowledged the liquid protein was discontinued on 10/06/21. No further information was provided through the completion of the survey. d) Resident #10 An observation, on 10/18/21 at 2:00 PM, revealed significant bruising on Resident #10's right hand and arm. Bruising completely covered from the knuckle to the wrist of Resident #10's hand. Resident #10's right arm, from the wrist to the elbow, had four (4) various bruises ranging in size from the size a quarter to the size of a fifty cent piece. A brief medical record review, on 10/18/21 at 2:08 PM, revealed an order for geri-sleeves daily to hands and arms for protection. LPN # 71 confirmed Resident #10 did not have geri-sleeves on. .
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 medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to help prevent the development and transmissio...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections. Hand hygiene was not performed or offered to residents before the meal. Additionally, during medication administration, a barrier was not placed between the resident's bedside table and a box containing a multi-dose medication bottle to be returned to the medication cart. These were random opportunities for discovery. Resident identifiers: #60, #53, #28, #8. Facility census: 64. Findings included: a) Residents #60, #53, #28. On 10/18/21 at 12:16 PM, Nursing Assistant (NA) #51 was observed delivering a lunch tray to Resident #60. The resident was awoken and repositioned in bed. Resident hand hygiene was not offered or performed. The resident did not have a sanitary hand wipe on the meal tray. On 10/18/21 at 12:19 PM, NA #51 was observed delivering a lunch tray to Resident #53. NA #51 was observed putting creamer and seasoning packets from the cart onto the resident's tray. A sanitary hand wipe was not placed on the resident's tray. Resident hand hygiene was not offered or performed. On 10/18/21 at 12:23 PM, NA #51 was observed delivering a lunch tray to Resident #28. Resident hand hygiene was not offered or performed. The resident did not have a sanitary hand wipe on the meal tray. On 10/18/21 at 12:25 PM, NA #51 was asked about performing resident hand hygiene before meals. NA #51 stated that there were hand wipes on the cart that can be used. She obtained a bag of individual sanitary hand wipes from the cart with drinks and seasonings. She stated she would start placing them on the resident's trays. No further information was provided through the completion of the survey. b) Resident #8 On 10/19/21 at 8:02 AM Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #71 was observed preparing and administering Resident #8's medications. Resident #8 was ordered Flonase, a nasal spray. LPN #71 took the box containing the bottle of nasal spray into Resident #8's room. While the resident's oral medications were being administered, LPN #71 placed the Flonase box directly onto the resident's bedside table without using a barrier. After administration, LPN #8 took the Flonase box out of the room and placed it directly on the top of the medication cart before returning it to the medication cart drawer. LPN #71 was informed that placing the medication box directly on the resident's bedside table without a barrier, such as a paper towel, could transfer infectious agents from the bedside table to the medication cart. LPN #71 stated she understood. No further information was provided through the completion of the survey. .
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0727 (Tag F0727)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

. Based on review of the staff schedules for Registered Nurse (RN) coverage and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure RN coverage eight (8) consecutive hours a day, seven (7) days a week. Thi...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on review of the staff schedules for Registered Nurse (RN) coverage and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure RN coverage eight (8) consecutive hours a day, seven (7) days a week. This had the potential to affect all residents at the facility. Facility census: 64. Review of the staffing schedules for RN coverage found three (3) occasions when RN coverage did not occur eight (8) consecutive hours a day: 10/06/21 - RN Coverage was 4.50 Hours 10/12/21 - RN Coverage was 4 Hours 10/14/21 - RN Coverage was 4 Hours On 10/19/21 at 1:45 PM, the Administrator and Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed the facility did not have RN coverage for eight (8) consecutive hours on 10/06/21, 10/12/21, and 10/14/21. .
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

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

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • 37% turnover. Below West Virginia's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s), 1 harm violation(s), $54,759 in fines. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 76 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $54,759 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in West Virginia. Major compliance failures.
  • • Grade F (23/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 23/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Rosewood Center's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns ROSEWOOD 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 Rosewood Center Staffed?

CMS rates ROSEWOOD CENTER's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 37%, compared to the West Virginia average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Rosewood Center?

State health inspectors documented 76 deficiencies at ROSEWOOD CENTER during 2021 to 2025. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 1 that caused actual resident harm, 73 with potential for harm, and 1 minor or isolated issues. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.

Who Owns and Operates Rosewood Center?

ROSEWOOD 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 GENESIS HEALTHCARE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 69 certified beds and approximately 63 residents (about 91% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in GRAFTON, West Virginia.

How Does Rosewood Center Compare to Other West Virginia Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in West Virginia, ROSEWOOD CENTER's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 2.7, staff turnover (37%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Rosewood 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?" "Can you walk me through typical staffing levels on day, evening, and night shifts?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations and the below-average staffing rating.

Is Rosewood Center Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, ROSEWOOD CENTER has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation (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 Rosewood Center Stick Around?

ROSEWOOD CENTER has a staff turnover rate of 37%, which is about average for West Virginia nursing homes (state average: 46%). Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.

Was Rosewood Center Ever Fined?

ROSEWOOD CENTER has been fined $54,759 across 2 penalty actions. This is above the West Virginia average of $33,626. Fines in this range indicate compliance issues significant enough for CMS to impose meaningful financial consequences. Common causes include delayed correction of deficiencies, repeat violations, or care failures affecting resident safety. Families should ask facility leadership what changes have been made since these penalties.

Is Rosewood Center on Any Federal Watch List?

ROSEWOOD 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.