SUMMERS HEALTHCARE CENTER

198 JOHN COOK NURSING HOME ROAD, HINTON, WV 25951 (304) 466-0332
For profit - Corporation 120 Beds COMMUNICARE HEALTH Data: November 2025 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation
Trust Grade
13/100
#117 of 122 in WV
Last Inspection: October 2023

Over 2 years since last inspection. Current conditions may differ from available data.

Overview

Summers Healthcare Center has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns and a poor reputation among nursing homes. It ranks #117 out of 122 facilities in West Virginia, placing it in the bottom half of all state facilities, and is the second option in Summers County, with only one local alternative being better. Although the facility is showing improvement, with issues decreasing from 35 in 2023 to 13 in 2025, it still faces serious challenges, including a critical finding related to infection control during a COVID-19 outbreak. Staffing is below average with a rating of 2 out of 5 stars and a turnover rate of 49%, suggesting instability among staff. Specific incidents include a failure to properly monitor and treat residents' changing conditions, leading to serious health complications, and a failure to implement adequate pain management protocols, resulting in actual harm to residents. Overall, while there are some signs of improvement, families should be cautious due to the facility's poor ratings and serious past deficiencies.

Trust Score
F
13/100
In West Virginia
#117/122
Bottom 5%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Better
35 → 13 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
49% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
○ Average
$35,277 in fines. Higher than 73% of West Virginia facilities. Some compliance issues.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 29 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for West Virginia. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
⚠ Watch
60 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Overall Rating
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Staff Levels
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Care Quality
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2023: 35 issues
2025: 13 issues

The Good

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

Facility shows strength in fire safety.

The Bad

1-Star Overall Rating

Below West Virginia average (2.7)

Significant quality concerns identified by CMS

Staff Turnover: 49%

Near West Virginia avg (46%)

Higher turnover may affect care consistency

Federal Fines: $35,277

Above median ($33,413)

Moderate penalties - review what triggered them

Chain: COMMUNICARE HEALTH

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 60 deficiencies on record

1 life-threatening 2 actual harm
Aug 2025 13 deficiencies 2 Harm
SERIOUS (H) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

A resident was harmed · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, interview, and observation, the facility failed to provide the necessary care and services to recognize ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, interview, and observation, the facility failed to provide the necessary care and services to recognize and treat changes in condition, follow physician's orders for medication parameters, document medication administration, and provide food in the correct form.Resident #93 suffered actual harm after the facility failed to identify and timely treat a change in condition resulting in the resident being hospitalized with Respiratory Failure, Urinary Tract Infection , and Aspiration Pneumonia. Resident #110 suffered actual harm at the facility when she died of a food bolus when she was given hamburger at the facility despite having an order for nothing by mouth. Even though the facility did not serve the resident the meal they failed to protect the resident from others providing her with food. This deficient practice was identified for 10 of 30 sampled residents (Residents #93, #109, #8, #9, #110, #107, #17, #112, #1, and #85). Facility Census: 102 a) Resident #85 A review of Resident #85's medical record on 08/18/25 found the following physician orders: -- ANTIPSYCHOTIC side effect monitoring list #2 not limited to: insomnia, confusion. Akathisia: restlessness, pacing, inability to sit still, anxiety, sleep disturbances. Tardive dyskinesia: lip smacking/chewing, abnormal tongue movement, spasmodic movement of the arms/legs, rocking/swaying, blood abnormalities, sore throat, seizures, photosensitivity. --MOOD STABILIZER Side effect monitoring: Hives, a rash, fever, or swollen glands. Signs of [NAME]-[NAME] syndrome, which causes dangerous sores on the mucous membranes of the mouth, nose, genitals, and eyelids. Confusion. Slurred speech. Nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. Trembling. Increased thirst and increased need to urinate. Weight gain in the first few months of use. Drowsiness. --ANTIPSYCHOTIC side effect monitoring list #1: Dystonia: torticollis(stiffness of neck), Anticholinegic symptoms:Dry Mouth, blurred vision, constipation, urinary retention. Hypotension, Sedation/drowsiness, increased falls/dizziness, Cardiac abnormalities(tachycardia, bradycardia, irregular H.R; NMS). Anxiety/agitation, blurred vision, sweating/rashes, headache, urinary retention/hesitancy,pseudoparkinsonism: cogwheel rigidity, bradykinesia, tremors, appetite change/weight change. --ANTIDEPRESSANT side effect monitoring not limited to: Dystonia: torticollis(stiffness of neck),Anticholinegic symptoms: Dry Mouth, blurred vision,constipation, urinary retention.Hypotension, Sedation/drowsiness,increased falls/dizziness,Cardiac abnormalities(tachycardia, bradycardia, irregular H.R; NMS).Anxiety/agitation, blurred vision, sweating/rashes, headache, urinary retention/hesitancy, weakness,tremors,appetite change/weight change,insomnia,confusion,tardive dyskinesia, suicidal ideations --ANTIANXIETY side effect monitoring but not limited to: Dystonia: torticollis(stiffness of neck), Anticholinegic symptoms: Dry Mouth, blurred vision, constipation, urinary retention. Hypotension, Sedation/drowsiness, increased falls/dizziness, Cardiac abnormalities (tachycardia, bradycardia, irregular H.R; NMS). Anxiety/agitation, blurred vision, sweating/rashes, headache, urinary retention/hesitancy. Weakness, hangover effect. -- Lantus Subcutaneous Solution 100 Units /ML In ject 10 ML subcutaneously in the morning. -- Fasting blood sugar every day in the morning. Further review of the Medication Administration Record for the months of 06/2025, 07/2025, and 08/2025 found the following occasions when the aforementioned physician orders were not followed: On the following dates and times the side effect monitoring was not completed: 05/05/25, 05/06/25, 05/11/25 Day shift 06/26/25 day shift. 07/15/25 on day shift. 07/18/25, 07/19/25, 07/20/25 evening shift. On 06/23/25 the fasting blood sugar was not obtained nor was his insulin administered according to the MAR. On 08/18/25 the residents blood sugar was obtained and was 94. The nurse held the residents insulin despite not having a physician's order to do so. An interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) at 12:30 pm on 08/18/25 confirmed the above findings and no further information was provided. b) Resident #107 Resident #107 had diagnoses of a recent myocardial infarction, atherosclerotic heart disease, diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney disease, hypertensive heart disease, and chronic obstructive heart disease. On 08/16/25 at 11:48 AM, the on-call telemedicine physician service assessed Resident #107 due to the nurse's report that the resident had swelling of the face and legs. The resident was not experiencing shortness of breath or chest pain. The resident's vital signs and oxygen saturation were within normal limits. The nurse reported the resident's lung sounds were clear bilaterally. The on-call physician's plan was as follows: - Order a comprehensive metabolic panel (CMP), complete blood count (CBC) with differential, and a B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) to assess for heart failure. - Elevate lower extremities to manage edema.- Monitor fluid status carefully to avoid dehydration.- Order a chest X-ray to assess for pulmonary congestion.The patient was to remain in the facility for continued monitoring and management of her fluid status and renal function. Nursing staff were to continue elevating the resident's legs and monitoring for any changes in condition. On 08/16/25 at 6:43 PM, the on-call provider evaluated the resident's laboratory testing results and determined the patient is stable with improved laboratory results and no significant change in symptoms that would necessitate altering the current treatment plan. The provider noted the chest x-ray was pending. The resident was described as having faint wheezing upon expiration. The plan was as follows: - Continue current medications, including Lasix 20 milligrams (mg) twice daily - Daily weights to monitor for fluid retention, with notification if weight gain exceeds two (2) pounds (lbs) - Schedule chest x-ray for Monday - Inpatient provider to evaluate the patient on Monday - Monitor and report and worsening symptoms The x-ray was obtained on Sunday, 08/17/25. The report at 12:48 PM showed bilateral lower lobe infiltrates. A handwritten note on the report stated, Calling [on-call service] 08/17/25 at 1:14 PM. The report was signed by the facility's medical director on 08/18/25. A nursing note written on 8/17/2025 at 12:54 PM stated the chest x-ray results showed bilateral lower lobe infiltrates. The note stated the on-call service would be notified. A nursing note written on 8/17/2025 at 1:41 PM stated the resident's medical power of attorney (MPOA) was notified regarding the resident's x-ray results and that the on-call service planned to order antibiotics for pneumonia. A nursing note written on 08/17/25 at 2:59 PM stated the facility was waiting for an order for antibiotics to be placed. A nursing note written on 08/17/25 at 7:02 PM stated the on-call service was messaged. The note also stated there were no new orders as of yet and the facility was awaiting an antibiotic order for the resident. Nursing notes showed the on-call service had been re-called on 08/17/25 at 7:14 PM and nursing was waiting for a response. A follow-up progress note was written by the on-call service on 08/19/25 at 11:52 PM. The resident's chest x-ray was not mentioned in the progress note. The plan was as follows: - Reinforce importance of Thrombo-Embolic Deterrent (TED) hose - Monitor daily weights and report any rapid increases - Continue Lasix as prescribed, but review with nephrology due to end-stage renal disease (ESRD) status - Monitor for symptoms of decompensation (shortness of breath, orthopnea, chest pain, rapid weight gain) - Continue close monitoring due to elevated BNP - Monitor labs and electrolytes as indicated for chronic kidney disease and ESRD - Avoid nephrotoxic medications - Encourage mobility as tolerated to reduce risk of further edema - Monitor for skin breakdown in edematous areas A nursing note written 8/20/2025 at 7:00 AM stated, Resident dyspneic, audible wheeze, O2 sats < 50%. Placed on NRB [non-rebreather oxygen]. Call to [on-call service] waiting in queue. [MPOA's name] aware and requested resident sent to [hospital]. On 08/20/2025 at 10:46 AM, the Director of Nursing stated the facility's physician does not see acutely-ill residents and did not see Resident #107. She stated nursing staff had reached out to the on-call service to inquire about treatment for the lung infiltrates identified on the chest x-ray. However, the on-call service did not respond. The DON stated the resident was receiving a broad spectrum antibiotic for Clostridium difficile (C. Diff) infection. The resident's physician's orders showed she was receiving the antibiotic Vancomycin orally. According an on-line article published by the National Institutes of Health titled Vancomycin, although oral Vancomycin is effective to treat C. Diff infections, Vancomycin has poor oral bioavailability and is typically administered intravenously to treat most infections. No futher information was provided through the completion of the survey process. c) Resident #112 Review of Resident #112's physician's orders showed an order written on 08/04/25 for Midodrine, 5 milligrams (mg) by mouth, three (3) times a day for hypotension. The medication was to be held for blood pressure readings greater than 110. Review of Resident #112's Medication Administration Record (MAR) for August 2025 showed Midodrine had been administered on three (3) occasions when the resident's blood pressure was greater than 110. These occasions were as follows: - 08/05/25 at 12:00 PM, when the resident's blood pressure was126/74. - 08/05/25 at 4:00 PM, when the resident's blood pressure was 118/64. - 08/12/25 at 12:00 PM, when the resident's blood pressure was 112/65. On 08/13/2025 at 2:00 PM, the Director of Nursing confirmed Resident #112's Midodrine had been administered when the blood pressure was greater than 110. d) Resident #17 Review of Resident #17's physician's orders showed an order written on 07/28/25 for Midodrine, 5 milligrams (mg) by mouth, three (3) times a day for hypotension. The medication was to be held for systolic blood pressure readings greater than 110. Review of Resident #17''s Medication Administration Record (MAR) for July 2025 showed Midodrine had been administered on two (2) occasions when the resident's blood pressure was greater than 110. These occasions were as follows: - 07/28/25 at 5:00 PM, when the resident's blood pressure was112/70. - 07/29/25 at 8:00 AM, when the resident's blood pressure was114/72. Review of Resident #17''s Medication Administration Record (MAR) for August 2025 showed Midodrine had been administered on three (3) occasions when the resident's blood pressure was greater than 110. These occasions were as follows: - 08/05/25 at 8:00 AM, when the resident's blood pressure was113/68. - 08/05/25 at 5:00 PM, when the resident's blood pressure was129/74. - 08/12/25 at 12:00 PM, when the resident's blood pressure was114/75 On 08/13/2025 at 2:00 PM, the DON Director of Nursing confirmed Resident #17's Midodrine had been administered when the systolic blood pressure was greater than 110. e) Resident #17 Review of Resident #17's physician's orders showed an order written on 01/24/25 for gabapentin (Neurontin) 600 mg, three (3) times a day for pain. Review of Resident #17's controlled substance administration record for January 2025 showed two (2) occasions when gabapentin had been dispensed four (4) times instead of the three (3) times ordered by the physician. On 01/26/25, gabapentin was dispensed at 5:20 AM, 9:44 AM, 12:10 PM, and 8:30 PM. The Medication Administration Record (MAR) showed the resident received gabapentin three (3) times a day as ordered. On 01/29/25, gabapentin was dispensed at 5:30 AM, 9:31 AM, 12:04 PM, and 9:04 PM. The Medication Administration Record (MAR) showed the resident received gabapentin three (3) times a day as ordered. On 08/19/2025 at 5:28 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed the gabapentin discrepancies. She stated the resident received four (4) doses of gabapentin on those days but had no explanation as to why this occurred. f) Resident #1 Review of Resident #1's physician's orders showed an order written on 10/17/24 for gabapentin (Neurontin) 300 mg, three (3) times a day for neuropathy. Review of Resident #1's controlled substance administration record for January 2025 showed one (1) occasion when gabapentin had been dispensed four (4) times instead of the three (3) times ordered by the physician. On 01/07/25, gabapentin was dispensed at 6:05 AM, 8:36AM, 2:00 PM, and 9:20 PM. The Medication Administration Record (MAR) showed the resident received gabapentin three (3) times a day as ordered. On 08/19/2025 at 5:28 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed the gabapentin discrepancy. She stated the resident received four (4) doses of gabapentin on those days but had no explanation as to why this occurred. g) Resident #93 Record review completed on 08/19/25 revealed the following notes a nursing note dated 08/01/25 at 05:58 AM showed staff documented the resident’s urine output from the Foley catheter was thick, mucous-like, and dark golden in color. No evidence of physician notification or further assessment was documented. A behavior note dated 08/04/25 at 06:01 AM showed the resident was screaming out during the shift. The resident was repositioned and provided fluids; however, no additional assessment or physician notification was documented. A behavior note dated 08/08/25 at 05:46 AM showed the resident yelled aloud for the majority of the shift. The documentation reflected “all needs were met” with redirection, snacks, and fluids offered, but no assessment for pain, infection, or other medical issues was documented. On 08/09/25 at 10:05 AM, the resident was noted to have labored shallow respirations, decreased alertness, and oxygen saturation of 68% with oxygen in place. A PRN Duoneb treatment was given without improvement. The nurse practitioner was notified, and an order was received to send the resident to the ER. On 08/09/25 at 14:43 PM, hospital staff reported the resident was on a ventilator and diagnosed with respiratory failure, urinary tract infection, and aspiration pneumonia. Interview 08/18/2025 10:47 AM during an interview the Director of nursing stated she could not find where the doctor was notified The facility’s failure to assess and notify the physician when the resident presented with abnormal urinary output and repeated episodes of yelling and distress delayed treatment and resulted in the resident requiring hospitalization for respiratory failure, UTI, and aspiration pneumonia h) Resident #9 Record review completed on 08/14/29 revealed the following blood sugar 7/10/2025 17:22401.0 mg/dL An interview was conducted with Unit Manager #41 on 08/14/25 at 10:00 AM regarding notifying the Doctor for blood sugars, she stated if below 60 or above 400. On 08/18/2025 at 10:47 AM an interview with the director of nursing was completed, when asked to provide more information of what was done for Resident #9 having a blood sugar of 401 the DON stated I find where the doctor was notified, i can only look back f16 days in the secure messaging system, the nurse should have completed a progress note after contacting the doctor, i can't find anything else. i) Resident #8 08/19/2025 5:30 PM resident #48 states he's had no medication for hemorrhoids for the past two months AN interview on 08/20/25 at 9:30 AM with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)#16 stated (I offer him the cream I think he gets every six (6) hours, and showed this surveyor the tube of cream with Resident #8's name on it. Record review completed on 08/20/25 of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) and Treatment Administration Record (TAR) for the month of July and August revealed no documentation that Resident #8 had got had any hemorrhoid cream Interview with the director of nursing was completed on 08/20/25 at 11:00AM when asked to provide more supporting documentation that resident#8 did get the hemorrhoid cream for rectum, she stated I can not provide that, it was not documented on the MAR or TAR. j) Resident #110 On 06/13/25 at 10:40 PM, an initial reporting of allegations was reported to the Office of Health Facility Licensure and Certification. The description of the allegation was as follows: Resident [#110] was coded by facility staff. CPR [cardiopulmonary resuscitation] and AED [automated external defibrillator] administered. EMS [emergency medical services] arrived at 8:45 PM to transport resident while still performing CPR. Call back from facility by paramedic at 9:18 PM to inform facility that resident has 2 quarter [NAME] [size] pieces of hamburger extracted from throat. The steps taken immediately to ensure the alleged victim was protected was to place the alleged perpetrator on 1:1 observation by staff. The five (5) day follow up investigation as follows: Resident [#110] was coded by staff. CPR and AED was administered. EMS arrived to transport resident to the hospital. Alleged perpetrator [#61] was immediately placed on 1:1 observation by staff. A statement was obtained from [Resident #61] (alleged perpetrator). PTSD [post traumatic stress disorder] screening has been completed with alleged perpetrator, with no adverse outcomes reported at this time. Nursing assignment sheets have been reviewed. PCC [point click care] documentation has been reviewed to ensure that residents dietary order for NPO was in and correct. Dietary tickets were reviewed and confirmed to ensure resident did not receive a ticket. Statements obtained from all nursing staff on shift at the time of the incident occurred. Interviews verified no tray was observed with [Resident #110]. Statements were obtained from the dietary staff that was bringing the trays to the floors. Interviews verified that no tray was prepared. Statements have been collected from all staff that have been completing 1:1 observation with alleged perpetrator following this incident. A statement was obtained from resident [#35] who is alert and oriented x 3, that was in the room speaking with the alleged perpetrator when this incident occurred. Resident [#35] stated that she did not witness anyone feed [#110] . After a complete investigation, this incident has been found to not be verified. After reviewing statements obtained from staff, no one observed any staff, resident's roommate, or visitors feeding or attempting to feed Resident [#110]. Alleged perpetrator adamantly denies that she attempted to feed the alleged victim at anytime. Resident [#35] also reports that they did not witness anyone attempt to feed the alleged victim prior to this incident. All witness statements support [Resident #61] and [Resident #35] statements of no one was seen feeding [Resident #110]. Due to the incident being found to be not verified, no further actions will be taken by the facility. According to the death certificate, the death injury occurred on 06/13/25 at 8:28 PM. The cause of death was choked on food bolus. Resident #110 had experienced a stroke and had an order to receive nothing by mouth (NPO). She received all her nutrition via enteral feeding. A speech therapy evaluation completed on 06/13/2025, documented the resident had profound/absent swallowing abilities, with little to no attempts to initiate/participate and profound global aphasia with no verbalizations or voicing noted during the assessment. A physical therapy evaluation completed on 06/13/2026, documented Clinical Impression stated, Patient is very weak, is bed bound, unable to sit or stand, needs a lot of assistance with bed mobility, is at risk for falls and is very limited with her mobility and independence. Resident #61's meal ticket was reviewed. She had received meatloaf the evening of 06/13/2025. This information was not included in the facility's investigation of the matter. Resident #35's statement was as follows: I was in the room talking to [Resident #61] when [Resident #110] was having trouble breathing. The nurses and aides started working on her and I left the room at that time. I did not try to feed [Resident #110] anything and I did not see [Resident #61] try to feed her anything. I was not in or near her room at dinner time. I did not see a food tray in the room when I was in there. Resident #61 stated on 06/13/25, I did not help her eat dinner but she was hungry. No one helped her eat dinner. Is she dead? She is dead, isn't she? She died, didn't she? Resident #61 stated on 06/17/25, She did not tell me that she was hungry. She had not ate anything in two days. No one tried to feed her, so she had to be hungry. I did not try to feed her. No one told me she was NPO. Resident #61 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of fourteen (14) and was determined to not have capacity. On 08/12/2025 at approximately 03:00 PM, the Administrator and Director of Nursing were interviewed by the State Surveyor concerning a Facility Reported Incident concerning Resident #110 and #61 on 06/13/2025. The Administrator reported the resident’s oxygen saturations decreased and she was sent to the hospital. The Director of Nursing (DON) reported, generally they contact physician when oxygen saturations decrease. Following the report from the hospital, the Administrator reported Resident #61 was placed on 1:1 observation because we weren’t 100% sure she didn’t provide any food by mouth. The Administrator stated, the investigation led to the conclusion a meal was not served and that they could not solidly conclude Resident #61 did it. The Administrator reported the was no follow-up education for other NPO residents. The Administrator reported she was unsure of the follow-up for the incident until she looked at the Facility Reported Incident. On 08/12/2025 at 04:25 PM, the Administrator reported they brought before the Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) committee review of NPO residents to be with like residents (NPO) or residents that take their meals in the dining room. There was no education outlined for residents with modified diets in the QAPI plan.
SERIOUS (H) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Deficiency F0697 (Tag F0697)

A resident was harmed · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review, staff interview and resident interview the facility failed to assess, monitor and treat pain in accordance with professional standards of treatment. For Resident #85 this resul...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, staff interview and resident interview the facility failed to assess, monitor and treat pain in accordance with professional standards of treatment. For Resident #85 this resulted in actual harm because the nurse assessed him as having pain but failed to treat the residents pain with non pharmacological or pharmacological interventions both of which he had physician orders for. The nurse further failed to assess the pain for location or duration and never notified the physician or the residents increased pain. For Resident #104 the resident an increase in pain upon movement and transfers. Though the facility treated her pain and increased her pain medications they failed to assess the cause of the pain which was later identified at two (2) fractures. For Resident #73 the resident reported to the nurse he was experiencing numbness and tingling in his toe amputation site the physician was notified and indicated he would address the next day but failed to do so and the resident continued to suffer tingling and pain in the site. These failures affected three (3) of eight (8) sampled residents reviewed for the care area of pain during the long term care survey process. Resident Identifiers: #85, #104 and #73. Facility census: 102. Findings Include: a) Resident #85 A review of Resident #85's medical record found the following physician orders related to pain: -- Non Pharmacological Interventions: 1. Attempt Repositioning. 2. Encourage Rest Periods. 3. Dim lighting in the room. 4. Check for well fitting clothing and shoes as needed. Order effective date 04/20/25 and current at the time of this review. -- Pain level q (every shift) (1-3 mild) (4-7 moderate) (8-10 severe) pain 1-3 with no PRN (As needed): contact practitioner, greater than or equal to 4 with no PRN or PRN not effective or new onset pain contact practitioner. Document non-pharmacological pain intervention prior to PRN pain medication administration. Order effective date 04/21/25 and current at the time of this review. -- Tylenol Oral Tablet 325 MG give 650 MG by mouth every 6 hours as needed for pain. This order had an effective date of 01/30/25 and was discontinues on 05/16/25 when an new Tylenol order was entered. -- Acetaminophen Extra strength oral tablet 500 mg Give 2 tablets by mouth every eight (8) hours as needed for pain. Order effective date 05/16/25 and current at the time of this review. A review of the medication administration records for the months of 05/2025, 06/2025, 07/2025 and 08/2025 found the following occasions when Registered Nurse (RN) #44 documented the resident was experiencing pain but provided no interventions to treat the pain nor did she contact the practitioner about the resident experiencing pain. Day Shift: --05/05/25 pain score of 5. -- 05/06/25 pain score of 5. -- 05/11/25 pain score of 10. -- 05/14/25 pain score of 8. -- 05/23/25 pain score of 2. -- 05/29/25 pain score of 2. -- 06/07/25 pain score of 2. -- 06/16/24 pain score of 3. -- 06/17/24 pain score of 3. --06/23/25 pain score of 2. -- 07/04/25 pain score of 1. -- 07/05/25 pain score of 8. -- 07/10/25 pain score of 2. -- 07/20/25 pain score of 3. -- 07/21/25 pain score of 2. -- 07/28/25 pain score of 8. -- 07/29/25 pain score of 3. -- 08/01/25 pain score of 3. -- 08/06/25 pain score of 3. -- 08/07/25 pain score of 3. Nigh Shift: -- 07/29/25 pain score of 3. Further review of the MAR's for this time period found the non- pharmacological interventions nor the PRN pain medications was never provided by RN #44. A review of the progress notes found no indication the physician was notified of the residents reports of pain. During an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) in the afternoon of 08/20/25 she confirmed there was no further information she could provide related to Resident #85's complaints of pain. b) Resident #104 On 08/18/25 at 9:00 AM, a review of Resident #104’s medical record revealed: 07/25/25 1:32 PM: Resident received Oxycodone-acetaminophen 5-325 mg tablet PRN for pain. Documentation reflected the medication was effective. 07/25/25 5:18 PM: Physician ordered Oxycodone HCL oral solution 5 mg/5ml, 7.5 mL four times daily for pain. Documentation noted the medication was awaiting arrival from the pharmacy. 07/25/25 8:00 PM: Nursing note documented resident was nonresponsive to verbal/tactile stimuli and unable to take medications. 07/25/25 10:00 PM: CNA found resident without respirations or pulse. Resident pronounced deceased at 10:00 PM. The last documented effective pain medication was at 1:32 PM on 07/25/25, approximately 8.5 hours before the resident’s death. Interview with LPN #78 (08/18/25 at 3:00 PM):LPN stated “we don’t have liquid Oxycodone in the e-box for pain, we do have liquid morphine available.” Interview with Director of Nursing (08/19/25 at 11:20 AM): The DON confirmed the physician should have been notified that the ordered Oxycodone solution was not available in the emergency box. The DON stated the physician could have given an order for morphine, which was available in the emergency box. The facility failed to notify the physician when the ordered Oxycodone solution was unavailable and failed to obtain an alternative pain management order despite the availability of liquid morphine. c) Resident #73 During an interview on 08/11/2025 at 2:38 PM, Resident #73 stated that he received pain medications every six (6) hours for pain at the site of a left great toe amputation. He stated the pain medication was effective but sometimes he had pain in between pain medication administration. He stated he believed he was having phantom pain at the amputation site. A nursing note written on 8/17/2025 at 2:13 PM stated, Resident approached this nurse and stated he is having some numbness and tingling in his left foot. He also states he has been getting strangled on food and drink during meals. He states that it does not happen during every meal, but it is becoming more of an issue for him. [Physician] notified of these new issues. Orders obtained: ST [speech therapy] eval [evaluation] and treat. He stated he will address the numbness and tingling tomorrow when he comes in. Orders noted. Resident has capacity and is aware. On 08/18/25 at 4:36 PM, Resident #73 confirmed he was having numbness and tingling at his amputation site. He stated he had not been seen by the physician today. On 08/20/2025 at 10:55 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated there was no documentation the physician had evaluated or prescribed treatment for the resident's numbness and tingling after the resident had reported it on 08/17/25.
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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

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 implement Resident #33's care plan in regards to weights and R...

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 implement Resident #33's care plan in regards to weights and Resident #85's care plan in regards to pain management. This was true for two (2) of 37 sampled residents reviewed during the long term care process. Resident Identifier: #33 and #85. Facility Census #102. Findings Include: a) Resident #33 A review of Resident 33's medical record on 08/11/25 found the following focus statement on the care plan: -- Resident with potential for altered nutrition status/nutrition related problems d/t diabetes obesity vitamin d deficiency, need for vitamin supplements, c/o heartburn w. nausea at times. He has the potential for weight fluctuations r/t kidney failur w/HD. Planned weight loss program r/t scheduled paracentesis. The goal associated with this practice statement read as follows: Resident will maintain adequate nutritional status through review dates as evidenced by consuming 75% of meals. The interventions related to this focus statement included: -- No facility weights unless patient in a readmission. Use only dialysis post weights. This intervention was added to the care plan on 11/21/23. A review of Resident #33's weights contained in the electronic medical record from 02/01/25 through current found the resident was weighed by the facility on the following days: -- 02/09/25 -- 02/10/25 -- 02/14/25-- 02/16/25 -- 02/18/25 -- 02/22/25 -- 02/23/25 -- 03/01/25 -- 03/08/25 -- 03/22/25 -- 04/05/25 -- 04/19/25 -- 05/17/25 -- 05/31/25 -- 06/14/25 -- 07/12/25 -- 07/19/25 and-- 07/29/25. An interview with the Corporate Registered Nurse (CRN) in the afternoon of 08/13/25 confirmed the resident care plan had not been implemented. b) Resident #85 1) Pain Management A review of Resident #85's care plan found the following focus statement: The resident c/o pain r/t impaired mobility, low back pain, headache Date Initiated: 07/31/2024 Revision on: 04/21/2025. The goal associated with this care plan read as follows: Resident will be able to verbalize relief of pain, through target date Date Initiated: 07/31/2024 Target Date: 10/20/2025 Interventions included: Administer non-pharmacological interventions 1.attempt repositioning 2. encourage rest period 3. dim lighting in room [ROOM NUMBER]. check for well fitting clothing and shoes Date Initiated: 07/31/2024 Revision on: 04/21/2025 NS CNA ACST SS TPM Complete pain assessment on admission / re-admission, quarterly, significant change, and PRN. Date Initiated: 07/31/2024 NS Follow Physician orders for complaint of pain Date Initiated: 07/31/2024 NS Monitor for adverse side effects to pain medication: change in mental status, NS delirium, falling, constipation, anorexia, excessive drowsiness Date Initiated: 04/21/2025 Observe for pain every shift. Date Initiated: 07/31/2024 NS Pain level Q shift (1-3 mild) (4-7 moderate) (8-10 severe) pain of 1-3 with no prn: contact practitioner, >= 4 with no prn or prn non-effective or new onset pain: contact practitioner. Document non-pharmacological pain intervention prior to PRN pain medication administration. Date Initiated: 05/05/2025 NUR Provide medication per orders. Monitor for s/sx of side effects. Evaluate effectiveness of medication. Date Initiated: 08/16/2024 Revision on: 07/21/2025 A review of Resident #85's medical record found the following physician orders related to pain: -- Non Pharmacological Interventions: 1. Attempt Repositioning. 2. Encourage Rest Periods. 3. Dim lighting in the room. 4. Check for well fitting clothing and shoes as needed. Order effective date 04/20/25 and current at the time of this review. -- Pain level q (every shift) (1-3 mild) (4-7 moderate) (8-10 severe) pain 1-3 with no PRN (As needed): contact practitioner, greater than or equal to 4 with no PRN or PRN not effective or new onset pain contact practitioner. Document non-pharmacological pain intervention prior to PRN pain medication administration. Order effective date 04/21/25 and current at the time of this review. -- Tylenol Oral Tablet 325 MG give 650 MG by mouth every 6 hours as needed for pain. This order had an effective date of 01/30/25 and was discontinues on 05/16/25 when an new Tylenol order was entered. -- Acetaminophen Extra strength oral tablet 500 mg Give 2 tablets by mouth every eight (8) hours as needed for pain. Order effective date 05/16/25 and current at the time of this review. A review of the medication administration records for the months of 05/2025, 06/2025, 07/2025 and 08/2025 found the following occasions when Registered Nurse (RN) #44 documented the resident was experiencing pain but provided no interventions to treat the pain nor did she contact the practitioner about the resident experiencing pain. Day Shift: --05/05/25 pain score of 5. -- 05/06/25 pain score of 5.-- 05/11/25 pain score of 10. -- 05/14/25 pain score of 8. -- 05/23/25 pain score of 2. -- 05/29/25 pain score of 2. -- 06/07/25 pain score of 2. -- 06/16/24 pain score of 3. -- 06/17/24 pain score of 3. --06/23/25 pain score of 2. -- 07/04/25 pain score of 1. -- 07/05/25 pain score of 8. -- 07/10/25 pain score of 2. -- 07/20/25 pain score of 3. -- 07/21/25 pain score of 2. -- 07/28/25 pain score of 8. -- 07/29/25 pain score of 3. -- 08/01/25 pain score of 3. -- 08/06/25 pain score of 3. -- 08/07/25 pain score of 3. Nigh Shift: -- 07/29/25 pain score of 3. Further review of the MAR's for this time period found the non- pharmacological interventions nor the PRN pain medications was never provided by RN #44. A review of the progress notes found no indication the physician was notified of the residents reports of pain. During an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) in the afternoon of 08/20/25 she confirmed there was no further information she could provide related to Resident #85's complaints of pain. She agreed the care plan had not been implemented in regards to pain management.
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 F0805 (Tag F0805)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, record review, and staff interview the facility failed to ensure residents were served food prepared in a form designed to meet their individual needs. Resident identifier: #82. ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, and staff interview the facility failed to ensure residents were served food prepared in a form designed to meet their individual needs. Resident identifier: #82. Facility census: 102. Findings included:a) Resident #82On 08/14/25 during an observation of the noontime meal on the d-hall of the facility found Resident #82 was served regular spaghetti, regular sliced zucchini, and a regular slice of bread. Nurse Aide #82 stated she wanted to confirm with the kitchen that he had the right thing because he usually has pureed. Regional Dietary Manager #155 then presented to the hallway. He was asked to confirm the resident's diet was correct. He viewed the tray and stated it was okay to serve the resident the meal provided on his tray. The resident's diet order was for Dysphagia Mechanical Soft Texture.During an interview and observation on 08/14/25 with Resident #82 revealed an un- eaten tray containing spaghetti un-cut noodles with meat sauce over the top and a bowl of round zucchini, when asked how was his lunch he said Sh*t, I cant eat that They know I don't have any f**k**g teeth. I was supposed to get tomato soup. Further observation of the tray ticket revealed tomato soup was marked out with a black marker. On 08/14/2025 at 12:55 PM, a test tray containing spaghetti with meat sauce, parmesan baked zucchini, garlic bread and ice cream, was provided to the state surveyors. The zucchini was not prepared per the recipe. The zucchini was not baked, but was boiled. The zucchini was sliced with seeds and skins. Today's zucchini was sliced into one (1) to two (2) inch pieces in width (as measured with a ruler by the state surveyor) and boiled. The zucchini was judged to be bitter, tough, hard to chew, watery, stringy and rubbery by the state surveyors and was unable to be mashed with a fork. Recipe provided by the Regional Dietary Manager was for seasoned, baked zucchini.On 08/14/2025, the menu/recipe called for Zucchini, Parmesan Baked (fresh). The zucchini served to the residents and the state surveyors was boiled without flavor/spices added. Corporate Recipe Number 1462 listed the ingredients and procedures as follow: Amount 24 lb - Squash, Zucchini, Fresh1 1/3 Tbsp. - Spice, Pepper, Black , Ground2 Cup - oil, Olive, Blend1/1/2 Qt - Cheese, Parmesan, Grated1 Cup - Garlic, Minced/Chopped, In Water Procedures:1. Wash, cut ends, wash and slice squash into 1 inch slices.2. Toss lightly with olive oil and pepper.3. Combine the parmesan cheese and minced/chopped garlic. Mix and sprinkle over the zucchini.4. Bake at 400'F for about 15 minutes or until the zucchini are tender and the cheese is browned. On 08/14/2025 at approximately 01:30 PM, the state surveyor Interviewed [NAME] #38 who reported there was no parmesan and stated, We did not have it. and the zucchini was not baked. On 08/14/2025, the state surveyor interviewed [NAME] #138 concerning diet menus and [NAME] #138 replied they don't use menus and stated, I didn't know we had a recipe. [NAME] #138 reported they don't use recipes. When asked what they use to determine consistencies, [NAME] #138 reported the Regional Dietary Manager (RDM) checks it.Regional Dietary Manager #155 reported they use the National Dysphagia Diet (NDD) guidelines and provided the NDD guidelines for a Dysphagia Mechanical Soft Diet which stated, Vegetables: Foods to Avoid: other fibrous or rubbery vegetables and Any pieces larger than 1/2 in size.A Diet Manual Addendum was provided to the state surveyors dated 07/15/2025. The addendum stated: Healthcare Services Group (HCSG) has agreed to implement a diet consistency framework that supports the following diets:-Dysphagia Advanced - ground meats-Dysphagia Mechanical Soft - ground meats-Chopped Vegetables - is approximately 1.5 cm or approximately the size of a dime or approximately the size of the width of a fork.On 08/18/2025 at 01:30 PM, Director of Nursing reviewed the addendum and stated, Mechanical soft diets would be a softer ground meat and would get chopped vegetables, but went to ask dietician for clarification. The Registered Dietician stated, vegetables are usually chopped for mechanical soft.On 08/18/2025 at 02:05 PM, the Regional Registered Dietician reported diets are based on the diet guide and the guide aligns with the tray tickets. The Regional Registered Dietician reported the diet guides are based on the NDD. The Regional Registered Dietician reported she would reach out to corporate for alignment of menus and NDD guidelines.
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 F0806 (Tag F0806)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based upon record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure residents were served food in accordance to their preferences and intolerances. This was found to be true for three (3) of ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based upon record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure residents were served food in accordance to their preferences and intolerances. This was found to be true for three (3) of thirteen (13) residents reviewed during the annual survey process. Resident identifiers: #10, #83, #7. Facility census: 102. a) Resident #83 On 08/11/2025 at 01:13 PM, Resident #83 did not receive his Frozen Nutritional Supplement as printed on the resident's tray card in bold print. Nurse Aide (NA) #58 confirmed the resident did not receive his supplement that date. NA #58 went to the kitchen and got the supplement for the resident following state surveyor intervention. b) Resident #7 On 08/11/2025 at 11:42 AM, during the initial resident interview, Resident #7 reported she was allergic to fish and had asked for the alternate sandwich. The daily newsletter the resident's received this date stated: Lunch: Fish on a Bun was being served this date and Always Available items were: Ham & Cheese Sandwich, Turkey & Cheese Sandwich, Bologna & Cheese. The resident was told there was no lunchmeat. The resident reported she then requested cottage cheese and fruit for lunch. The resident did not receive cottage cheese and fruit on her tray at lunch. The resident received chicken strips as observed on the resident's tray by the state surveyor. The Alternate Menu provided to the state surveyor listed the alternates as follows: PB&J Sandwich Ham Sandwich Turkey Sandwich Bologna Sandwich Chef Salad On 08/11/2025 the morning resident communication stated, Always Available: Ham & Cheese Sandwich, Turkey & Cheese Sandwich, Bologna & Cheese. At 12:08 AM, Activity Leaders #72 and #80 confirmed, the kitchen was out of lunch meat the last couple of days. c) Resident #10 On 08/13/2025 at approximately 10:00 AM, an interview was held with the resident. When asked about how his food was here at the facility, the resident responded, The food is lousy. It takes like crap. I didn't even eat my dinner last night. I ordered the ground beef macaroni and cheese casserole. But, it was pork instead of beef, and I do not like pork. When asked if he had told anyone at the facility that he does not like pork, he stated, yes, several times. When asked if he had asked for a substitute, he stated he just had a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. A document in the Resident's medical record identified as Diet History/Food Preferences dated 09/30/24, stated the Resident's favorite meal is dinner, and he likes cold cereal and dislikes pork. A review of the resident's dinner dining ticket for 08/11/25, shows the resident received cheesy ham and macaroni casserole. The Regional Dietary Manager #155 was asked about this substitution on 08/14/25 mid-afternoon. The Regional Dietary Manager stated the previous Dietary Director and several of the dietary staff had walked out on Friday (08/08/25). The Dietary Manager had failed to place the Friday food order for the facility, and he had to make an emergency food order on Sunday. Therefore, they were out of several things, and had been having to substitute menu items based on what they had available. The Regional Dietary Director confirmed they had substituted ham for beef in the macaroni casserole by providing a copy of the Menu Substitution Log.
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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review, observation and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a dignified dining experience by providing plastic silverware to residents during meals and failed to announce/kn...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, observation and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a dignified dining experience by providing plastic silverware to residents during meals and failed to announce/knock on the door before entering a resident's room. This failed policy had the potential to affect more than a limited number of resident's. Resident Identifier : #20. Facility census: 102. Findings included: a) On 08/11/2025 at 11:52 AM, the Dining Room observation was initiated by the state surveyor. Nineteen (19) out of twenty residents (20) in the main dining room were served their lunch meal with plastic silverware. On 08/11/2025 at 12:40 PM, Registered Nurse (RN) #81 stated, not usually when asked if they use plastic silverware. The Employee Life Cycle Manager stated, I was told by the kitchen they ran out of clean silverware. On 08/13/2025 at 1:25 PM, plastic silverware was observed to be placed on the resident trays going to the last halls. [NAME] #138 stated they were out of regular silverware and would have to use plastic. [NAME] #137 stated, it was too late to wrap (regular silverware) because it was not washed in time. [NAME] #138 stated that the delivery truck came on Monday and delivered silverware. At 1:26 PM, when brought to the attention of staff by state surveyor, plastic silverware was removed from the trays and regular silverware was bagged during tray line and placed on the remaining trays. The Regional Dietary Manager #155 educated the kitchen staff on plastic silverware being a resident dignity issue. On 08/12/25 at 1:42 PM, during an interview with Resident #20, Nurse Aide (NA) #39 opened the door to the resident’s room while talking to another resident. NA#39 then turned, saw the surveyor in the room, and closed the door without knocking or announcing themselves prior to entry. During an interview on 08/14/25 at 1:55 PM with Unit Manager #41, when asked about the incident, the Unit Manager stated: “No, she should have knocked, I will talk to her about it now. A record review of the facility’s Policies and Standard Procedures dated 08/14/25 revealed the following under Procedure, Section B – “When providing care” “i. Knock before entering the resident room if the door is closed – Wait for answer.” “ii. If no answer, knock a second time before entering and announce your entrance.” The facility failed to follow its policy and ensure resident privacy and dignity when staff entered Resident #20’s room without knocking.
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

Menu Adequacy (Tag F0803)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, record review, staff interview and resident interview, the facility failed to ensure menus were followed and distributed and residents received the foods they wanted/ordered. Thi...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, staff interview and resident interview, the facility failed to ensure menus were followed and distributed and residents received the foods they wanted/ordered. This failed practice had the potential to affect more than a limited number of residents. Resident identifier: #112. Facility Census: 102 Findings included: a) On 08/11/2025 the morning resident communication stated, Always Available: Ham & Cheese Sandwich, Turkey & Cheese Sandwich, Bologna & Cheese. At 12:08 AM, Activity Leaders #72 and #80 confirmed, the kitchen was out of lunch meat the last couple of days. On 08/13/2025, the lunch menu stated: chicken tenders, green beans, mashed potatoes, rolls and ice cream. At 1:00 PM, the kitchen ran out of chicken tenders during the tray line. The Regional Dietary Manager contacted the Registered Dietician and and substituted chicken patties. During the wait for the chicken patties to bake, two staff members came into the kitchen to request more chicken tenders. At 1:15 PM, another staff member came in the kitchen to request eight (8) chicken tenders for a resident waiting on his tray and a yogurt. [NAME] # 138 stated they were out of yogurt. On 08/13/2025, Regional Dietary Manager #155 confirmed there was no lunch meat until the delivery truck arrived on Monday, 08/11/2025. On 08/14/2025, the menu/recipe called for Zucchini, Parmesan Baked (fresh). The zucchini served and tasted by the state surveyors was boiled without flavor/spices added. Corporate Recipe Number 1462 listed the ingredients and procedures as follow: Amount 24 lb - Squash, Zucchini, Fresh 1 1/3 Tbsp. - Spice, Pepper, Black , Ground 2 Cup - oil, Olive, Blend 1/1/2 Qt - Cheese, Parmesan, Grated 1 Cup - Garlic, Minced/Chopped, In Water Procedures: 1. Wash, cut ends, wash and slice squash into 1 inch slices. 2. Toss lightly with olive oil and pepper. 3. Combine the parmesan cheese and minced/chopped garlic. Mix and sprinkle over the zucchini. 4. Bake at 400'F for about 15 minutes or until the zucchini are tender and the cheese is browned. On 08/14/2025 at approximately 1:30 PM, the state surveyor Interviewed [NAME] #38 who reported there was no parmesan and stated, We did not have it. and the zucchini was not baked. [NAME] #38 reported, I didn't know we had recipes. b) Resident #112 During an interview on 08/11/2025 at 11:33 AM, Resident #112 stated, the food sucks, but did not elaborate. On 08/14/2025 at 12:04 PM, Resident #112 was observed eating lunch in his room. He stated he did not like spaghetti, which was on the menu for the day. He stated he received two (2) peanut butter sandwiches but ,I'm getting tired of peanut butter. Review of the resident's tray ticket showed he was to get double fruit portions for lunch and dinner. The tray ticket also stated he was to get one (1) garlic bread, one (1) vanilla ice cream, coffee or tea and whole milk. PBJS w/ chips was also hand-written on the tray ticket. Observation of the resident's tray showed he had received the following: two (2) peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, chips, one (1) fruit cocktail cup, a carton of milk, and a hot beverage. He also had a bowl with a lid. When the resident opened the bowl, it was found to have a piece of garlic bread in it. The resident did not have the ice cream that was indicated on the ticket. He also did not have the double fruit portions that were indicated on the ticket. The resident stated he liked fruit and ice cream and would eat them if provided. On 08/14/2025 at 12:17 PM, the Administrator confirmed the resident had not received double portions of fruit or vanilla ice cream. The resident stated he would like to have them. The Administrator stated she would get them for the resident.
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 F0804 (Tag F0804)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observations, staff interview and resident interview, the facility failed to ensure food was prepared by methods that conserve nutritive value, flavor, and appearance and provide food that is...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, staff interview and resident interview, the facility failed to ensure food was prepared by methods that conserve nutritive value, flavor, and appearance and provide food that is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature. This failed practice had the potential to affect more than a limited number of residents. Resident Identifiers: #35, #20, #112, and #115. Facility Census: 112. a) Resident #115 During an interview with Resident #115 on 08/11/25 at 12:17 pm he stated, the food was not good. He indicated it was always ice cold when he got it. He stated he never gets what supposed to be on the menu it is always different and not as good as what is on the menu. b) On 08/14/2025 at 12:55 PM, a test tray containing spaghetti with meat sauce, parmesan baked zucchini, garlic bread and ice cream, was provided to the state surveyors. The zucchini was not prepared per the recipe. The zucchini was not baked, but was boiled. The zucchini was sliced with seeds and skins. The zucchini was judged by state surveyors to be bitter, tough, hard to chew, watery, stringy and rubbery by the state surveyors and was unable to be mashed with a fork. Recipe provided by the Regional Dietary Manager #155 was for seasoned, baked zucchini. On 08/14/2025, the menu/recipe called for Zucchini, Parmesan Baked (fresh). Corporate Recipe Number 1462 listed the ingredients and procedures as follow: Amount 24 lb - Squash, Zucchini, Fresh 1 1/3 Tbsp. - Spice, Pepper, Black , Ground 2 Cup - oil, Olive, Blend 1/1/2 Qt - Cheese, Parmesan, Grated 1 Cup - Garlic, Minced/Chopped, In Water Procedures: 1. Wash, cut ends, wash and slice squash into 1 inch slices. 2. Toss lightly with olive oil and pepper. 3. Combine the parmesan cheese and minced/chopped garlic. Mix and sprinkle over the zucchini. 4. Bake at 400'F for about 15 minutes or until the zucchini are tender and the cheese is browned. On 08/14/2025 at approximately 01:30 PM, the state surveyor Interviewed [NAME] #38 who reported there was no parmesan and stated, We did not have it. and the zucchini was not baked. On 08/14/2025, the state surveyor interviewed [NAME] #138 concerning diet menus and [NAME] #138 replied they don't use menus and stated I didn't know we had a recipe. [NAME] #138 reported they don't use recipes. When asked what they use to determine consistencies, [NAME] #138 reported the Regional Dietary Manager (RDM) checks it. The Garlic Bread was judged to be tough on the outside edges. Last tray from cart temped by DM #158, new tray requested for the resident - had to make more puree secondary to being out. On 08/18/25 at 12:52 PM, the temperatures of the last tray served on D hall were confirmed and taken by Dietary Manager #158. The temperatures were as follows for the puree tray: Carrots 111 degrees Pot Pie 109 degrees Bread 107 degrees Pudding 75 degrees On 08/11/2025 at 12:21 PM, during the initial screening process, Resident #35 reported the food served was cold and tough. She reported there was an argument in the kitchen yesterday and they did not get their ordered food. The resident also stated, the food is cold because they leave it out there (indicating the hallway) and do not deliver until late. c) Resident #112 During an interview on 08/11/2025 at 11:33 AM, Resident #112 stated, The food sucks, but did not elaborate. Upon further questioning, the resident stated he always ate in his room and the food was not always hot when he received his tray. d) Resident #20 An interview on 08/11/2025 at 3:00 PM with Resident #20 who stated, The food is horrible, and they do not give you enough. We don't get to choose something different because they never have what is on the alternate. I am supposed to get 2 eggs bacon and a slice of toast for breakfast. However, I do not always get them even though that's what my ticket says. Resident #20 continued to say, And whatever we do get is served cold.
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 F0809 (Tag F0809)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review, observation, resident interview and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure meals were provided at regular times for the residents and failed to ensure a resident receiv...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, observation, resident interview and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure meals were provided at regular times for the residents and failed to ensure a resident received breakfast and lunch on his dialysis days. This failed practice had the potential to affect more that a limited number of residents. Resident Identifier: #33. Facility Census: 102. b) Resident #33 During an interview with Resident #3 on 08/11/25 at 3:22 PM the resident stated, the facility does not consistently send him a lunch to dialysis he stated sometimes the aide will make him one but it is not very often. A review of Resident #33's medical record found a physician's order which read as follows: DIalysis services provided by (Name of Dialysis Center) at (Address of Dialysis Center) phone number (Phone number of dialysis Center) EMS (Emergency Medical Services) to transport Pick up time 5:45 am. Scheduled on Tuesday, Thursday an Saturday chair time 6:45 am. Schedule is subject ot change weekly. Send a bagged breakfast and lunch to go with and come back from dialysis every day shift for kidney failure. During an Interview with the Corporate Registered Nurse at 2:00 PM on 08/13/25, she stated they initial on the Treatment Administration Record (TAR) that Resident #33 takes a lunch with him. She stated, we believe he is eating it before he goes. An interview with Dietary Staff #44 in the late afternoon of 08/13/25 she stated they send Resident #33 a bagged lunch. When asked if he gets one (1) or 2 (two) meals sent with him she stated, We only send one for lunch. The Director of Nursing (DON) was notified of this interview with the kitchen staff later in the afternoon of 0813/25. No further information was provided. The facility provided a schedule of mealtimes to the state surveyor. The meal times were listed as follows: Breakfast :7:30-8:30 Lunch: 11:20-12:30 Dinner: 5:30-6:30 On 08/13/2025 at 1:45 PM, the last ray was delivered on 'D hall and food temperatures were taken by the Regional Dietary Manager #155. On 08/18/2025 at 12:14 PM, resident lunch trays from the halls were brought to the main dining room and placed on a cart. At 12:52 PM , the last tray from the cart was served and Dietary Manger #158 tested the pureed tray temperatures. On 08/19/2025 at 12:46 PM, tray service for the main dining room was initiated. At 1:15 PM, Nurse Aide (NA) #31 confirmed the kitchen sent out the trays and didn't have enough pears and reported the kitchen was going to send them out later.
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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, staff interview and observation, the facility failed to ensure food was stored in accordance with profes...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, staff interview and observation, the facility failed to ensure food was stored in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. This failed practice had the potential to affect more than a limited number of residents. FACILITY:FACILITY. Facility Census: 102Findings included: a) The facility's policy and procedure for Receiving and Storage of Food stated, Date the food packages and store them properly. when receiving items, Dry Foods - Store opened packages in closed, labeled containers. and Frozen Food - tightly wrap open bags and boxes to prevent freezer burn. The facility's policy and procedure for Storage of Resident Food included: Daily monitoring for refrigerated storage duration and discard of any food item that may have been stored for >7 days. Regional Dietary Manager #155 confirmed dating for opened items was seven (7) days for thickened liquids and food items. b) On 08/11/2025 at 10:18 AM, the kitchen investigation was initiated with Regional Dietary Manager (RDM) #155. The following items were found: b1) Imperial Thickened Liquid - Lemon Water - opened and no use by date.b2) [NAME] Spaghetti not sealed with no use by date. RDM #155 stated, I'll just discard these. b3) Pancake Syrup - opened and no use by date b4) Frozen green beans - not labeled and no use by date.b5) Chicken pot pie mix - not labeled or dated. c) On 08/13/2025 at 09:05 AM, LPN # 16 confirmed the following items in the nourishment pantry for C and D Halls: c1) Simply Thick Easy Mix - opened and no use by date.c2) Foldgers Classic Roast Instant Coffee - Opened and not dated.c3) [NAME] Whole Grain Bread - opened and not sealed. d) On 08/13/2025 at 09:15 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) # 79 confirmed the following items in the nourishment pantry for A and B Halls: d1) Talenti Dairy Free Sorbetto - opened and not dated.d2) Nestle Cookie Dough Ice Cream by Toll House - opened and not dated.d3) [NAME] Deluxe Chocolate Ice Cream - opened and not dated.d4) Great Value Sweet Relish - opened and not dated.d5) Hidden Valley Ranch Dressing - opened and dated 05/19/2025-05/21/2025.d6) Thickened Sweetened Tea with Lemon Flavor -opened with no use by date.d7) LiquaCel - dated 7/23 - no use by date.d8) Powerade - opened and no use by date.d9) Simply Thick Easy Mix - opened and no use by date.
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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, record review, and staff the facility failed to establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program designed toprovide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environmen...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, and staff the facility failed to establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program designed toprovide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections. Transmission based precautions were not followed for two (2) of three (3) residents reviewed for transmission based precautions. Proper hand hygiene was not performed for one (1) of two (2) dressing change observations. Resident Identifiers: #43 and #107. Facility census: 102. Findings included:a) Resident #43 The facility's skills checklist for competency titled Uncomplicated Dressing Change, with no implementation date given, stated to remove perform hand hygiene after removing soiled gloves and donning additional gloves. The facility's policy and procedure titled Standard Precautions, with no implementation date given, stated to perform hand hygiene when moving from a contaminated body site to a clean body site. An example given was when performing perineal care and then performing a dressing change. On 08/13/2025 at 3:32 PM, observation was made of Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #16 performing Resident #43's pressure ulcer dressing changes. The Infection Preventionist was assisting with positioning of the resident. LPN #16 removed the dressing on the resident's left trochanter pressure ulcer. He changed gloves but did not perform hand hygiene. He then cleansed the wound and changed gloves again without performing hand hygiene. After applying the new dressing, LPN #16 again changed gloves without performing hand hygiene. The resident was incontinent of stool. LPN #16 performed incontinent care with wet wipes and changed the resident's brief. Following this, he changed gloves but did not perform hand hygiene. LPN #16 then changed the dressing on the resident's left ischium. He changed gloves after removing the old dressing and after cleansing the wound. However, he did not perform hand hygiene. Following the completion of the left ischium dressing change, LPN #16 removed his gloves a final time and performed hand hygiene using hand sanitizer. When questioned, LPN #16 acknowledged he did not perform hand hygiene when changing gloves during the dressing changes and after incontinence care. No further information was provided through the completion of the survey process. Review of Resident #43's physician's orders showed an order written on 08/19/25 for contact isolation for extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL) infection of the urinary tract. Prior to this, the resident was on enhanced barrier precautions due to having an indwelling urinary catheter and wounds with dressings. Outside the resident's room was a sign stating the resident was in contact precautions and staff must gown and glove at the door. On 08/20/2025 at 9:00 AM, Nursing Assistant (NA) #109 was observed feeding Resident #43 in the resident's room. NA #109 was sitting in a chair beside the resident's bed and not wearing a gown or gloves. When questioned, NA #109 stated she didn't know the resident was now in contact isolation. She said she didn't notice the sign change from enhanced barrier precautions to contact isolation. b) Resident #107 Review of Resident #107's physician's orders showed an order written on 08/08/25 for contact isolation and enteric precautions due to Clostridioides difficile or C diff. Outside the resident's room was a sign stating the resident was in contact enteric precautions and staff must gown and glove at the door. The sign also stated to clean hands with sanitizer when entering the room and wash with soap and water upon leaving the room. (Because C. diff forms spores that are resistant to hand sanitizer, soap and water is a more effective method of hand hygiene.) On 08/19/25 at approximately 1:00 PM, NA #82 was observed taking Resident #107's lunch tray into the room. NA #82 was not wearing a gown or gloves. While she was in the resident's room, NA #82 set up Resident #107's meal tray,. While in the room, she also touched the resident's shoulder, wheelchair, and the resident's bed control. Upon leaving the room, NA #82 did not wash her hands with soap and water. Instead, she used hand sanitizer located in the hallway. When questioned, NA #82 stated the precautions only applied to resident care, not to tray delivery. On 08/19/2025 at 2:04 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed contact enteric precautions applied to all staff entering Resident #107's room.
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 F0883 (Tag F0883)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to provide influenza and pneumococcal vaccines within accepted standards of practice. The facility failed to retain documentation that r...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to provide influenza and pneumococcal vaccines within accepted standards of practice. The facility failed to retain documentation that residents or their resident representatives received education regarding the vaccines and failed to retain documentation as to whether the vaccines were accepted or refused. These deficient practices had the potential to affect three (3) of five (5) residents reviewed for the care area of influenza and pneumococcal immunizations. Resident Identifiers: #20, #33, #107. Facility census: 102.Findings Included: Policy ReviewThe facility's policy titled Resident Immunization Overview with no implementation or revision date given stated the resident or resident party will be asked to accept or decline influenza and pneumococcal vaccinations by completing the influenza and pneumococcal consent or declination forms. a) Resident #20Review of Resident #20's medical record showed an immunization report that stated the resident received influenza vaccination on 10/22/24. However, the resident's record did not contain a vaccination consent or refusal form which would have contained information that the resident or resident representative were informed of the benefits and potential side effects of the immunization and whether the vaccination was accepted or refused. b) Resident #33 Review of Resident #33's medical record showed an immunization report that stated the resident received influenza vaccination on 10/08/24. However, the resident's record did not contain an influenza vaccination consent or refusal form which would have contained information that the resident or resident representative were informed of the benefits and potential side effects of the immunization and whether the vaccination was accepted or refused. Review of Resident #33's medical record showed an immunization report that stated the resident refused pneumococcal vaccination. However, the resident's record did not contain a pneumococcal vaccination consent or refusal form which would have contained information that the resident or resident representative were informed of the benefits and potential side effects of the immunization and whether the vaccination was accepted or refused. c) Resident #107 Review of Resident #107's medical record showed an immunization report that stated the resident refused pneumococcal vaccination. However, the resident's record did not contain a pneumococcal vaccination consent or refusal form which would have contained information that the resident or resident representative were informed of the benefits and potential side effects of the immunization and whether the vaccination was accepted or refused. On 08/13/2025 at 9:29 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated they do not have these immunization consents or refusals. She stated the prior Infection Preventionist's immunization consents and refusals could not be located.
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, record review, staff interview and resident interview, the facility failed to ensure food preparation/food service areas and resident rooms were free from visible signs of insect...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, staff interview and resident interview, the facility failed to ensure food preparation/food service areas and resident rooms were free from visible signs of insects. This failed practice had the potential to affect more than a limited number of residents: Resident identifiers: #26 and #112. Facility Census:102 Findings included: On 08/14/25 at 9:45 AM, the administrator reported there was a Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) for flies with increased services added bi-weekly May-October. Three (3) large fly lights were installed at 2 exit doors to courtyard and main facility entrance. The Administrator reported there was no specific policy and procedure for pest control. On 08/13/25 at 9:55 AM, a fly was observed in the dishwasher area. At 12:25 PM, a fly was in the kitchen area around the food service area, near plates and food, and tray line. [NAME] #137 confirmed there was a fly in the area and stated, Yes, he targets me. On 08/20/25 at 11:36 AM, during the initial interview process, Resident #26 stated, I'm alright if the fly goes away. The resident reported, A nurse came in and killed four (4) of them. The resident stated he had been looking for the fly swatter he kept in his room. d) Resident #112 During an interview on 08/11/2025 at 11:32 AM, Resident #112 was noted to have a flyswatter on his overbed table. He stated the flyswatter was for the flies that were always in his room. Two (2) flies were noted in his room at that time.
Oct 2023 22 deficiencies 1 IJ (1 facility-wide)
CRITICAL (L) 📢 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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Someone could have died · This affected most or all residents

⚠️ Facility-wide issue

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and staff interview the facility failed to establish and maintain an infection prevention a...

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 establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections, during a confirmed COVID 19 outbreak. This failure to protect the residents from the spread of COVID 19, resulted into an Immediate jeopardy with the potential to cause illness and/or death to the residents who reside in the facility. Facility census: 111. Findings included: a) Upon entrance to the facility on [DATE] at 10:45 AM, the survey team was told by Assistant Business Office Worker #14 the facility was not currently in a COVID-19 outbreak. On 10/25/23 at 12:07 PM, the Surveyor entered an employee restroom. A sign on the back of the restroom door stated, Employee Covid rapid testing will continue Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays until 10/28/23. If another positive case occurs the date will extend. Please remember to test if you are working those days; (Typed as written.) The sign was signed by the Infection Preventionist (IP). According to the COVID-19 staff line listing provided by the IP, the following staff members tested positive for COVID-19 by rapid Point of Care (POC) testing: Nursing Assistant (NA) #89 tested positive on 09/30/23. The staff member had worked in the facility that day. Registered Nurse (RN) #91 tested positive on 09/30/23. RN #91 had worked from 6:56 AM to 8:06 PM, before becoming symptomatic with a runny nose, cough, congestion, and fatigue and testing positive for COVID-19. NA #50 tested positive on 10/02/23. The staff member had not worked in the facility that day. Housekeeper #65 tested positive on 10/06/23. The staff member had not worked in the facility that day. The staff member had worked two (2) days prior to testing positive. Housekeeper #91 tested positive on 10/13/23. The staff member had not worked in the facility that day. The staff member had worked two (2) days prior to testing positive. NA #45 tested positive on 10/20/23. NA #45 had worked from 6:05AM to 11:08 PM before becoming symptomatic with cough and shortness of breath and testing positive for COVID-19. During a follow-up interview on 10/25/23 at 1:45 PM, the DON and IP confirmed no staff members had been wearing masks. The DON and IP confirmed no signage had been placed at the facility door to indicate the facility had an outbreak of COVID-19. It was also confirmed that residents had not been tested. On 10/23/23, 10/24/23 and the morning and afternoon of 10/25/23 no staff members were observed wearing masks. The survey team was not advised to wear masks. b) According to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines titled, Interim Infection Prevention and Control Recommendations for Healthcare Personnel During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic updated 05/08/23. Asymptomatic patients with close contact with someone with COVID 19 infection should have a series of three viral tests for COVID 19 infection. Testing is recommended immediately (but not earlier than 24 hours after the exposure) and, if negative, again 48 hours after the first negative test and, if negative, again 48 hours after the second negative test. This will typically be at day 1 (where day of exposure is day 0), day 3, and day 5. c) Additionally, the CDC guidelines of 05/08/23, states the source control (or masks) should be worn, those residing or working on a unit or area of the facility experiencing a COVID 19 or other outbreak of respiratory infection; universal use of source control could be discontinued as a mitigation measure once the outbreak is over (e.g., no new cases of COVID 19 infection have been identified for 14 days). d) The facilities policy titled Criteria for COVID-19 Requirements with effective date 10/11/21 and most recent revision 05/11/23 stated in part as follows: Source control should be worn by employees who are being tested as part of outbreak testing. The definition of a COVID-19 outbreak is when a single new case of Covid-19 occurs among residents or staff. Ensure all who enter the facility are aware of the recommended Infection Prevention Control (IPC) practices in the facility. Post signs and visuals at the entrance, lobby, elevators, break rooms, therapy, activity rooms, and on the units that include instructions about the current infection prevention and control recommendations (when to use source control and hand hygiene). Residents who have been exposed to a positive person with COVID 19 and is asymptomatic, will be tested immediately (not earlier than 24 hours). If the tests are negative, repeat in 48 hours (testing should be done day one (1), day three (3) and day five (5)). e) The facility was first notified of the Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) at 3:23 PM, on 10/25/23. The state agency (SA) received the Plan of Correction (POC) at 4:45 PM on 10/25/23. The SA accepted the POC on10/25/23 at 5:47 PM. On 10/25/23 at 5:50 PM, a tour of the facility was started and noted all staff were wearing a mask. Interviews with the staff found they were informed of being in a COVID 19 outbreak and must wear their mask always covering their nose and mouth. f) On 10/25/23 the Nursing Home Administrator and Director of Nursing implemented the following plan: 1.Upon discovery of alleged deficiency, door signage was placed at 2:30 PM to indicate facility outbreak of COVID-19. Health Department notified at 2:00 PM on 10/25/2023 of outbreak status. All facility residents to immediately be tested by nursing staff to ensure no further positive COVID 19 cases. Facility to begin notification to all residents/responsible parties of positive COVID cases amongst employees. All staff to immediately begin wearing masks thru 11/4/23. Staff will continue to test until 11/4/23. If further positive cases are identified, masking and testing will continue. PPE made available at front entrance of facility for any visitor wishing to utilize it. 2. All residents have the potential to be affected by this alleged deficient practice. 3. Immediate written education provided to all on duty staff. Education will be provided to all staff prior to start of next shift. 4. DNS or designee will audit any positive staff or resident to ensure COVID 19 policies are followed in their entirety 5 times a week for 8 weeks and then randomly thereafter to ensure compliance with plan of correction. DNS or designee will report audit findings to the QA committee monthly for review and revision of plan and/or educational requirements to ensure future compliance. g) On 10/26/23 at 8:00 AM, the Administrator provided employee signed in-services, containing information on COVID 19 outbreak and mask use. Also, all staff were provided with a copy of the COVID 19 policy. h) The SA observed for the implementation of the POC and the IJ was abated on 10/26/23 at 9:08 AM. Post abatement the deficiency was reduced to scope and severity of F. i) Resident #70 During observation of Resident #70's room on 10/23/23 at 1:19 PM, no signage of any kind was noted at the entrance to the resident's room or on the resident's door. Review of Resident #70's physician's orders showed an order written on 09/28/23 for contact isolation precautions for Vancomycin-resistant Enterococci infection of the knee. On 10/23/23 at 1:55 PM, the Director of Nursing confirmed Resident #70 was in contact isolation precautions, but the resident's room did not have signage to communicate this to staff and others. j) Resident #70 - appropriate personal protective equipment On 10/25/23 at 11:55 AM, Social Services Designee #128 was noted to be speaking to Resident #70 in her room. She was wearing no personal protective equipment such as gown and gloves. k) Resident #70's room had a sign on the door, which read as follows: Stop Contact Precautions Everyone Must: Clean their hands, including before entering and when leaving the room. Providers and Staff Must Also: Put on gloves before room entry. Discard gloves before room exit. Put on gown before room entry. Discard gown before room exit. l) On 10/26/23 at 11:59 PM, Social Services Designee #128 left Resident #70's room. Social Services Designee #128 stated had been reviewing the care plan with the resident. She stated she did not know the resident was in contact isolation precautions and she did not see the contact isolation sign on the resident's door. m) Resident #167 - contact precautions signage During observation of Resident #167's room on 10/23/23 at 2:36 PM, no signage of any kind was noted at the entrance to the resident's room or on the resident's door. Review of Resident #167's physician's orders showed an order written on 10/20/23 for contact isolation precautions for Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in the foot. On 10/23/23 at 2:48 PM, the Director of Nursing confirmed Resident #167 was in contact isolation precautions, but the resident's room did not have signage to communicate this to staff and others. n) Resident #167 - appropriate personal protective equipment On 10/25/23 at 12:09 AM, Nursing Assistant (NA) #40 was noted to be in Resident #167's room, standing outside the bathroom in the resident's room. She was wearing no personal protective equipment such as gown and gloves. o) Resident #167's room had a sign on the door, which read as follows: Stop Contact Precautions Everyone Must: Clean their hands, including before entering and when leaving the room. Providers and Staff Must Also: Put on gloves before room entry. Discard gloves before room exit. Put on gown before room entry. Discard gown before room exit. p) NA #40 left the resident's room on 10/25/23 at 12:15 PM. NA #40 stated she had been assisting Resident #167 in the bathroom. She stated she did not know the resident was in contact isolation precautions and she did not see the contact isolation sign on the resident's door. q) laundry room On 10/26/23 at 9:15 AM, a tour of the laundry room with Director of Plant Maintenance (DPM) #76. DPM #76 confirmed using a paper towel at the bottom of the door, that the airflow was going from the soiled laundry room to the clean laundry room. DPM #76 stated his exhaust fan in the soiled room must not be working properly. On 10/26/23 at 12:03 PM, the Administrator was informed of the above findings. r) During a dining observation, on A Hall on 10/24/23 beginning at 11:53 AM, the observation revealed the lunch trays arrived at 11:54 AM. Nurse Aide (NA) # 35 were observed passing two (2) noon meal trays. During the observations hand hygiene was not offered to the residents prior to receiving their noon meal. NA # 50 was observed passing two (2) noon meal trays. During the observations hand hygiene was not offered to the residents prior to receiving the noon meal. This surveyor intervened and inquired about hand hygiene. During an interview, on 10/24/23 at 12:00 PM, NA #35 stated no hand hygiene was performed prior to the meal being served. During an interview, on 10/24/23 at 12:00 PM, NA #50 stated no hand hygiene was performed prior to the meal being served. Hand sanitizer wipes were not placed on the meal trays. There were no hand sanitizer bottles observed near the serving areas. During an interview, on 10/25/23 at 11:04 AM, the DON was made aware of the above situation. She stated, We hand wipes for the residents. I do not why they are not utilizing them.
CONCERN (D)

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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to provide a dignified dining experience for Resident #70. This was a random opportunity for discovery. Resident identifier: #70. Facility...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to provide a dignified dining experience for Resident #70. This was a random opportunity for discovery. Resident identifier: #70. Facility census: 111. Findings included: a) Resident #70 On 10/25/23 at 12:04 PM, Resident #88 was served lunch in her room. Her roommate, Resident #70, was in the room but was not served lunch at that time. On 10/25/23 at 12:29 PM, the tray pass for the hallway had been completed. Resident #70 had not been served lunch. During an interview, on 10/25/23 at 12:29 PM, Nursing Assistant (NA) #40 stated after passing trays, she checked the rooms to make sure everyone was served and then obtains additional trays as needed. She stated Resident #70's tray had been delivered to the dining room because she usually ate there. She stated she would obtain a lunch tray for the resident. Resident #70 was served lunch in her room on 10/25/25 at 12:37 PM. Her roommate, Resident #88, had finished eating lunch by this time.
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 honor the choices of the residents in the care area of showers and/or baths. This failed practice was true for on...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on Resident interview, staff interview and record review. The facility failed to honor the choices of the residents in the care area of showers and/or baths. This failed practice was true for one (1) out of three residents (3) reviewed for choices. Resident identifier: # 36. Facility census: 111. Findings included: a) Resident #36 On 10/23/23 at 1:04 PM, Resident # 36 said if she was not feeling good or not ready for a shower when the aides want to give her a shower, she did not get one later when she asks for one. Resident #36 said they told her they are too busy. Resident #36 stated she prefers to shower in the evenings. A review of the facility documents found Resident #36's was scheduled for showers on Monday and Thursday nights. On 10/24/23 at 3:26 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) provided a facility form called the, POC Responses History. Review of this form showed that in the last 30 days, Resident #36 had one (1) shower on 10/04/23 at 1:17 PM and two (2) bed baths on 10/05/23 and 10/09/23. On 10/24/23 at 3:45 PM, DON agreed that Resident #36 was not receiving showers according to her choices. On 10/25/23 at 2:24 PM, the DON stated she discovered the lack of showers was due to a boil water advisory on 10/03/23, 10/04/23 and 10/05/23. However, the only shower Resident #36 received was on 10/04/23.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0582 (Tag F0582)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review and staff interview the facility failed to provide the Skilled Nursing Facility Advanced Benefici...

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 the Skilled Nursing Facility Advanced Beneficiary Notice (SNF ABN 9CMS-10055) to beneficiaries and/or beneficiary's representatives. This failed practice was true for one (1) of three (3) residents reviewed. Resident identifiers: Resident #318. Facility Census: 111. Findings included: a) Resident #318 Record review on 10/24/23 at 3:30 PM for Resident #318 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #318 was receiving skilled services for therapy and the payor source was Medicare. Further record review revealed Medicare Part A Skilled Services Episode start date was 04/14/23. The last covered day of Part A services was 06/14/23. During an interview, on 10/24/23 at 4:24 PM, the Administrator stated the notice of Medicare Non-coverage was not initiated. She acknowledged the forms should have been provided to the beneficiary and/or the representative.
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. Room C6 privacy curtain was soiled, and Resident #79's personal fan neede...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment. Room C6 privacy curtain was soiled, and Resident #79's personal fan needed to be cleaned. Resident identifier: Resident #79. Facility Census: 111 Findings included: a) Room C-6 Privacy Curtain The initial tour, on 10/23/23 at 12:40 PM, revealed the privacy curtain in Room #C-6 was soiled. During another observation, on 10/24/23 at 2:08 PM, the privacy curtain in Room #C-6 was still soiled. During another observation on 10/25/23 at 8:37 AM, the privacy curtain in Room #C-6 was still soiled. During an interview on 10/25/23 at 3:46 PM, Director of Plant Maintenance #76 acknowledged the curtain was soiled and needed to be changed. b) Resident #79 During the initial tour of facility on 10/23/23 at 12:58 PM, Resident #79's fan was impacted with dirt and dust build up. During another observation on 10/24/23 2:09 PM, Resident #79's fan was still not cleaned. During an observation on 10/25/23 at 8:41 AM, Resident #79's continued to be impacted with dust build up. During an interview, on 10/25/23 at 3:44 PM, Director of Plant Maintenance #76 acknowledged Resident #79's fan needed cleaned because it was full of dust. He stated the housekeepers were to check the fan daily and clean as needed.
CONCERN (D)

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

MDS Data Transmission (Tag F0640)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on medical record review and staff interviews the facility failed to correctly code resident discharge in the Minimum Data Sets (MDS) for one (1) of three (3) sampled residents reviewed for clos...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on medical record review and staff interviews the facility failed to correctly code resident discharge in the Minimum Data Sets (MDS) for one (1) of three (3) sampled residents reviewed for closed records. Resident #115's MDS was inaccurate in discharge status. Resident identifier: #115. Facility census: 111 Findings included: a) Resident #115 A medical record review on 10/24/23 at 10:33 AM for Resident #115 revealed a discharge MDS had been coded as an acute care hospital discharge for Resident # 115, who was discharged to home on 9/01/23. Further review of the discharge summary recapitulation of stay WV-V9 section B. Social Services 2. Discharge location/address: Daughters Residents/Daughters name Medical Power of Attorney (MPOA) and address listed. Further review of Minimum Data Set (MDS) revealed a MDS with ARD date of 09/01/23 Section A titled Identification Information, Section A2100 titled discharged Status was coded 03 Acute Hospital. During an interview, on 10/24/23 02:35 PM, the Administrator stated Resident # 115's discharge plan was to go home upon admission. The administrator further acknowledged the MDS was coded incorrectly as being discharged to acute care. She stated she had already discussed this with the MDS staff, and the staff was aware.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0675 (Tag F0675)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on resident interview, observation, record review, and staff interview. The facility failed to ensure resident received the necessary care and services to attain or maintain the highest practica...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on resident interview, observation, record review, and staff interview. The facility failed to ensure resident received the necessary care and services to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being, consistent with the resident's comprehensive assessment and plan of care. Resident identifier: #218. Facility census 111. Findings included: a) Resident #218 Medical Record review revealed Resident #218 had capacity determination dated 09/01/23. The resident was deemed to have capacity. On 10/23/23 at 2:00 PM Resident #218 was observed eating his lunch in his room. He was sitting in a wheelchair and had a clear plastic bag partially under his shirt. There was a foul odor of bowel movement in his room. Resident #218 was asked about the care he receives. He said, well it is not so good. He lifted the plastic bag away from his body. Which revealed a large amount of brown smashed and partly dyed feces covering his abdomen. He stated he had been waiting for someone to clean him for two (2) to three (3) hours. He went on to say he was also hungry, so he was trying to eat also, so that is why he put a plastic bag over it. Resident #218 stated that since noon yesterday this colostomy bag has come off three (3) times and he is sick of it. He went on to say he had had the colostomy bag for little more than a year now. He also stated that the nurses are so rushed they do not take the time to allow his skin to dry before applying a new one, so of course the colostomy bag does not stick. On 10/23/23 at 4:00 PM Resident #218 was in the dining room for activities. A follow up question about how long after we had spoken, did it take for someone to assist him to get cleaned. Resident #218 said it was about another 30 to 45 minutes later. On 10/24/23 at 9:00 AM Administrator and Director of Nursing were informed of the incident with the colostomy and Resident #218. The Administrator reported on 10/24/23 at 10:43 AM the Social Worked # 128 was interviewing staff about the incident. The administrator also stated the Nurse Aide (NA) #116 was suspended pending investigation. Facility forms immediate reporting, read Resident #218 stated that a Nurse Aide did not clean ostomy when he requested. He stated that he had to wait two (2) to three (3) hours to be cleaned up. NA #116 wrote a statement claiming she offered to change Resident #218 at 8:00 AM and again at 11:30 AM and Resident #218 refused. She then went on to say she reported this to the nurse. A review of nursing notes did not find any notes for the day of the incident. NA #116 also wrote that while she was in the dining room another NA #43 told her she answered the call light for Resident #218 at approximately 11:00 AM. NA #43 stated she found Resident #218 in the bathroom laying in his own lap. NA #43 stated he had something brown on his shirt and was told by the resident it was chocolate. NA #35 wrote a statement on 10/25/23 but did not out a time frame on when the event occurred. NA #35 she did clean Resident #218 up because his colostomy bag busted, and he had some feces on him.
CONCERN (D)

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure residents received treatment and care in...

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 residents received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice. This deficient practice had the potential to affect one (1) of 24 residents in the long-term care survey sample. The facility failed to monitor Resident #96's blood pressure. Resident identifier: #96. Facility census: 111. Findings included: a) Resident #96 Review of Resident #96's medical records showed the resident was transferred to the hospital on [DATE] for altered mental status. The resident's blood pressure was noted to be 204/100 prior to the hospital transfer. Resident #96's diagnoses at the hospital included hypertensive emergency. Review of Resident #96's medications at time of the hospital transfer on 08/08/23 showed the hospital was receiving the following antihypertensive medications: - Cozaar (losartan potassium) 50 mg, one (1) time a day. The resident had been receiving this medication since 10/29/22. - Metoprolol titrate, 25 mg, two (2) times a day. The resident had been receiving this medication since 10/07/22. Review of Resident #96's blood pressure summary showed prior to her 08/08/23 hospitalization, the resident's last blood pressure check was obtained on 04/09/23. At that time, her blood pressure was within normal limits, with a reading of 132/72. During an interview on 10/24/23, the Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed there was no documentation that Resident #96's blood pressure had been obtained between 04/09/23 and 08/08/23. The DON stated the facility had no policy to obtain routine vital signs, including blood pressure, for residents. She stated a new policy to obtain routine vital signs had been approved and would be implemented soon.
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, resident interview and staff interview the facility failed to ensure the resident environment remains as free of accident hazards as is possible. This failed practice was a rando...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, resident interview and staff interview the facility failed to ensure the resident environment remains as free of accident hazards as is possible. This failed practice was a random opportunity for discovery, medication in residents' room. This had the potential to affect a limited number of residents that currently reside at the facility. Resident identified: #218. Facility census 111. Findings included: a) Resident #218 On 10/23/23 at approximately 2:00 PM Resident #218 showed this surveyor a tube of prescription medication, that was laying on his bed. He said he received it from a hospital he was in. He said the cream was for his legs and toe. The The name on the tube of medication was Mupirocin topical cream (used for infected traumatic skin lesions due to specific bacteria). The medication was observed laying on his bed with the supplies for his colostomy. On 10/23/23 at 3:58 PM, it was noted Resident #218 was not in his room and the door was open, which revealed the tube of medication still laying on the bottom of his bed. Registered Nurse (RN) #69 was asked at the time above to verify the medication on the bed. RN #69 removed the tube of medication at this time. RN #69 asked if the medication was not supposed to be in his room. She was asked to report the found medication to her Director of Nursing (DON). On 10/23/23 at 4:30 PM DON stated that she had no idea there was medication in the room of Resident #218. DON confirmed Resident #218 did not have an order to self-medicate.
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 observation and staff interview the facility failed to ensure residents received catheter care at a professional standard of practice. This was a random opportunity for discovery, and had the...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and staff interview the facility failed to ensure residents received catheter care at a professional standard of practice. This was a random opportunity for discovery, and had the potential to affect one resident. Resident identifier: #46. Facility census 111. Findings included: a) Resident #46 Resident #46 was observed on 10/23/23 at 1:45 PM laying in the bed under a blanket and her indwelling foley catheter was hanging under her wheelchair approximately two feet from the bed. On 10/23/23 at 1:47 PM, Nurse Aide #116 was asked about the catheter being left on the wheelchair. NA #116 said, Resident #46 probably transferred herself and done that. At this same time NA #18 said, No, I put Resident #46 back to bed and I forgot to move her foley catheter bag to the bed. Director of Nursing (DON) was informed of the above findings on 10/23/23 at 4:00 PM. The DON stated she had re-educated NA #18.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0691 (Tag F0691)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on Resident interview, observation, record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to provide colostomy care with the current professional standards of care. This was true for one (1) o...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on Resident interview, observation, record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to provide colostomy care with the current professional standards of care. This was true for one (1) out of one (1) reviewed for colostomy care. Resident identifier: Resident #218. Facility census 111. Findings included: a) Resident #218 Record review revealed Resident #218 had been deemed to have capacity as of 09/01/23. On 10/23/23 at 2:00 PM Resident #218 was observed eating his lunch in his room. He was sitting in a wheelchair and had a clear plastic bag partially under his shirt. There was a foul odor of bowel movement in his room. Resident #218 was asked about the care he receives. He said, well it is not so good. He lifted the plastic bag away from his body. Which revealed a large amount of brown smashed and partly dyed feces covering his abdomen. He stated he had been waiting for someone to clean him for two (2) to three (3) hours. He went on to say he was also hungry, so he was trying to eat also, so that is why he put a plastic bag over it. Resident #218 stated that since noon yesterday this colostomy bag had come off three (3) times and he was sick of it. He went on to say he had had the colostomy bag for little more than a year now. He also stated that the nurses are so rushed they do not take the time to allow his skin to dry before applying a new one, so of course the colostomy bag did not stick. On 10/23/23 at 4:00 PM Resident #218 was in the dining room for activities. The Surveyor followed up with a question to the resident about how long after we had spoken, did it take for someone to assist him to get cleaned. Resident #218 said it was about another 30 to 45 minutes later. On 10/24/23 at 9:00 AM Administrator and Director of Nursing were informed of the incident with the colostomy and Resident #218. The Administrator reported on 10/24/23 at 10:43 AM that Social Worked #28 was interviewing staff about the incident. The administrator also stated the Nurse Aide (NA) #116 was suspended pending investigation. Facility forms for immediate reporting revealed that Resident #218 stated a Nurse Aide did not clean ostomy when he requested. He stated that he had to wait two (2) to three (3) hours to be cleaned up. NA #116 wrote a statement claiming she offered to change Resident #218 at 8:00 AM and again at 11:30 AM and Resident #218 refused. She then went on to say she reported this to the nurse. A review of nursing notes did not find any notes for the day related to the incident. NA #116 also wrote that while she was in the dining room NA #43 told her she answered the call light for Resident #218 at approximately 11:00 AM. NA #43 stated she found Resident #218 in the bathroom. NA #43 stated he had something brown on his shirt and was told by the resident it was chocolate.
CONCERN (D)

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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, medical record review and staff interview the facility failed to provide necessary respiratory care and services. This is true for one (1) of one (1) residents reviewed for the r...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, medical record review and staff interview the facility failed to provide necessary respiratory care and services. This is true for one (1) of one (1) residents reviewed for the respiratory care area. Resident #85 was not receiving his oxygen therapy at the prescribed rate. Resident identifier: #85. Facility Census: 111 Findings included: a) Resident #85 During an observation on 10/23/23 at 12:40 PM, Resident #85's oxygen flow rate was between two (2) and two and half (2.5) liter/minute (l/m) via nasal cannula. During an observation, on 10/23/23 at 3:15 PM, Resident #85 was seen standing in his doorway. Resident #85 could be heard from the hallway by two Surveyors gasping for breath and wheezing. During an interview, on 10/23/23 at 3:21 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #98 stated Resident #85's name gets up often and the resident does wheeze often due to not wearing his oxygen. This surveyor asked LPN #98, Have you seen Resident #85 with his oxygen off today. No response was given. LPN #98 kept telling the Resident to breathe through his nose. LPN #98 stated he has episodes like this all the time. On 10/23/23 at 3:29 PM, LPN #98 acknowledged Resident #85 was receiving his oxygen at two (2) l/m. After reviewing Resident #85's orders verified the physician orders for oxygen was four (4) m/l. During a record review, on 10/24/23 at 8:37 PM, Resident #85's medical records were void of any documentation in the care plans of resident removing oxygen while in his room. During an interview on 10/25/23 at 11:08 AM, the DON acknowledge the order was for four (4)liters and Resident #85 should have received it.
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 F0810 (Tag F0810)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, staff interview and medical record review the facility failed to provide a two (2) handled spouted cup for a resident at meal time. This was a random opportunity for discovery. R...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, staff interview and medical record review the facility failed to provide a two (2) handled spouted cup for a resident at meal time. This was a random opportunity for discovery. Resident identifier: Resident #101. Facility Census: 111. Findings included: a) Resident #101 During a Main Dining room observation beginning on 10/24/23 at 12:20 PM, Resident #101 was drinking red colored liquid from a regular plastic glass. Further observation at 12:37 PM, the resident's lunch meal tray was served to Resident #101, which had a two (2) handled spouted cup for the liquids. Further observation at 12:48 PM, Nurse Aide (NA) #116 was assisting Resident #101 with her liquids from a regular cup. During a interview at 12:50 PM, NA #116 acknowledged Resident #101 drinks was to be a two handled spouted cup. During a medical review, on 10/24/23 at 1:34 PM, Resident #101's medical records revealed a physician order dated 08/09/23 Regular diet, Regular texture, regular Consistency, 2 (two) handled cup with lid on all meal trays. During an interview on 10/25/23 at 11:04 AM, the Director of Nursing (DoN) was informed of the above situation.
CONCERN (D)

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** c) Resident #116 A medical record review 10/25/23 at 4:00 PM Resident # 116 revealed the resident was admitted on [DATE] and isc...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** c) Resident #116 A medical record review 10/25/23 at 4:00 PM Resident # 116 revealed the resident was admitted on [DATE] and ischarged on 9/29/23. A review of the resident capacity form revealed the form was signed and dated by the physician on 10/07/23. During interview on 10/25/23 06:55 PM with Director of Nursing (DON), DON acknowledged Resident #116 discharged on 9/29/23 and the capacity was completed on 10/07/23. Based on observation, record review, resident interview and staff interviews the facility failed to ensure accurate and complete identifying information on a medical record. This was true for three (3) of 24 in reviewed for the Long-Term Care Survey Process (LTCSP) and one (1) of three (3) reviewed for closed record. Resident identifiers: #101, #168 and #116. Facility Census: 111. Findings included: a) Resident #101 During a dining room observation, on 10/24/23 12:46 PM, Resident #101's noon meal tray was laying in front of her not eaten. Nurse Aide (NA) #116 asked Resident #101, Are you going to eat lunch? Resident #101 shook her head no. NA #116 offered Resident #101 a yogurt and assisted feeding her the yogurt. During an interview, on 10/24/23 at 12:50 PM, NA #116 stated Resident #101 was not eating her lunch, so I offered her yogurt and fed her. During a record review on 10/25/23 at 9:15 AM Resident # 101's medical record revealed a task titled: amount eaten: 10/24/23 at 4:08 PM coded 51%-75% was documented. Task titled: Task Substitute Accepted coded response not required Task titled: Amount of Substitute accepted: coded response not required. During an interview, on 10/25/23 at 11:04 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) acknowledged the documentation was inaccurate. It should have been documented as refusal of the meal and the resident was offered a substitute. c) Resident #168 Review of Resident #168's medical records showed an order written on 10/19/23 for lamotrigine (Lamictal), 25 milligrams (mg), orally, one (1) time a day for health maintenance. During an interview on 10/24/23 at 2:25 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) was informed health maintenance was not an appropriate indication for this medication. During an interview on 10/25/23 at 3:41 PM, the DON stated Resident #168 was receiving lamotrigine for depression, and the order was revised to reflect this.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0558 (Tag F0558)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review, resident interview, and staff interview, the facility failed to provide reasonable accommodation of resident needs and preferences for Resident #25. This is true for one (1) of...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, resident interview, and staff interview, the facility failed to provide reasonable accommodation of resident needs and preferences for Resident #25. This is true for one (1) of one (1) residents reviewed during the survey process. Resident Identifier: #25. Facility Census:111. Findings include: A) Resident #25 Record review on 10/24/23 at approximately 11:00 AM, indicated that Resident #25 had an order for a reacher to be always at the bedside. It was also indicated that a reacher was care planned to be within reach, always, due to the resident being a fall risk, attempting to lean out of their bed and wheelchair to reach for items. On 10/24/23 at approximately 11:38 AM, an interview with Nursing Aide (NA) #35 revealed Resident #25 was supposed to have a reacher in their room and that it was there. NA #35 said they did not know where it was due to Resident #25 putting things where she wants them. On 10/24/23 at approximately 11:40 AM, during an interview with Resident #25, the resident said they did not have a reacher due to it getting up and walking out of their room. Resident #25 stated that there have not been any reachers present in the room since the last room move. Resident #25 said, it has been months since I've had one. It was observed that no reachers were within reach or present in the room. NA #35 was asked to come into the room and confirmed there was not a reacher within reach of Resident #25, nor was there one in the room.
CONCERN (E)

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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, resident interview, family interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident who was unable to carry out activities of daily living received the necessary se...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, resident interview, family interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident who was unable to carry out activities of daily living received the necessary services to maintain good nutrition, grooming, and personal hygiene. This deficient practice had the potential to affect one (1) of three (3) residents reviewed for the care area of activities of daily living. Resident identifier: #84 Facility census: 111. Findings included: a) Resident #84 During an interview on 10/23/23 at 2:04 PM, Resident #84's wife stated she did not think the resident received showers as scheduled. She stated she thought this because the resident's hair had been greasy on occasions. Review of facility's shower schedule showed the resident was scheduled to receive showers on Mondays and Thursdays. Resident #84's shower documentation for the past 30 days showed the resident did not receive a shower on Thursday, 10/12/23. The resident had received showers on Monday, 10/09/23, and Monday, 10/16/23. No bed baths were documented for the past 30 days. During an interview on 10/25/23 at 09:19 AM, the Director of Nursing confirmed Resident #84 had not received bathing activities from 10/10/23 to 10/15/23.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0679 (Tag F0679)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** d) Resident #35 On 10/23/23 at approximately 04:03 PM, Resident #35 was observed sitting in the hallway outside of his room, slu...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** d) Resident #35 On 10/23/23 at approximately 04:03 PM, Resident #35 was observed sitting in the hallway outside of his room, slumped down in his wheelchair, without access to call light, visible from the nurses station. This was a random opportunity for discovery. Registered Nurse (RN) #69, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #79, and the Administrator witnessed. Resident #35 had been in this position since approximately 3:25 PM. On 10/23/23 at approximately 04:26 PM, Interview with Nurse Aide (NA) #116 revealed that she had moved Resident #35 outside of his room after activities around 1:10 PM. NA #116 states the resident likes to sit out in the hallway after activities and was checked on multiple times between approximately 1:10 PM and now. However, Resident #35 remained in the hallway, slumped down in the wheelchair, without access to a call light. 10/26/23 10:00 AM Record review indicates that the Activities Department documented Resident # 35 participated in Hydrate and Motivate at 3:45 PM on 10/23/23. At this time, Resident # 35 was still slumped over in his wheelchair in the hallway. 10/26/23 10:00 AM Record review indicated that the Activities Department documented Resident # 35 participated in Hydrate and Motivate at 3:45 PM on 10/23/23. At this time, Resident # 35 was still slumped over in his wheelchair in the hallway. Record Review also indicated that resident was taken to Bingo at 4:22 PM on 10/23/23. Review of Resident #35's activities assessment indicated that the resident has no interest in Bingo. Further review revealed that Resident #35 Really enjoys sitting outside (typed as written). Activities documentation revealed that Resident # 35 had been taken to Bingo on more than one occasion and has not been outside. 10/26/23 10:40 AM Interview with Activities Director (AD) #21 confirmed that Resident # 35 has not been taken outside, or invited to be taken outside, despite his preferences. Resident #35's activities preferences were reviewed with AD #21 and she confirmed that the resident will be invited to go outside in the courtyard, per his preferences, when the weather is nice. Based on observation, record review and staff interview, the facility failed to implement an ongoing resident centered activities program designed to meet the interest of and support the physical, mental and psychosocial well-being of each resident. This practice was found true for four (4) of four (4) Residents reviewed for the Activity Care Area. Resident Identifiers: Resident #69, #86, #66, and #35. Facility Census:111. Findings included: a) Resident #69 During the initial tour of the facility on 10/23/23 at 12:25 PM, Resident #69 was sitting in a wheelchair in his room. An observation revealed Resident #69 was talking to something on the other side of the room. During the interview Resident #69 continued to look at the other side of the room, talking. He stated, You see that board right there? And continued to talk towards the other side of the room. This surveyor looked at the board he was pointing at It was his room mate's bedside table behind the privacy curtain. I informed him it was a bedside table and he stated No, it's a board. Resident #69's room was dark, no Television (TV) or music stimulation. There was a radio on the dresser not being utilized. During another observation on 10/23/23 at 4:10 PM, Resident #69 was yelling, this surveyor observed no TV or other stimulation was being provided. Further observations made on 10/24/23, Resident #69 sitting in his dark room, yelling, with no stimulation being provided. During a record review on 10/24/23 at 9:10 PM, Resident #69's medical record revealed a Activity Preferences Interview dated 09/15/23 stated the following: Section titled: Activity Pursuit Patterns: Resident Activity were listed as follows: -music/watching TV/watching movies/radio -enjoys talking/conversing with peers -Additional Information: He is dependent on staff for activities, cognitive stimulation. He likes to people watch and attend group parties. A further medical record review revealed the following care plan: Focus Statement: (Resident's name) is dependent on staff for activities, cognitive stimulation, social interaction due to physical limitation from a CVA (stroke). Goals associated with this focus read as follows: Patient will maintain involvement in cognitive stimulation, social activities as desired through review date. Invention included Provide 1:1 visits PRN (as needed) (Resident's name) enjoys coming to the activity room to visit with staff and peers and listen to music (Resident's name) enjoys Rock n Roll music (Resident's name) enjoys watching TV. Some of his favorites include westerns, NCIS and Gunsmoke. Further record review revealed Resident #69's activity participation record was void of any documentation of participation in watching TV, going to the activity room, visiting with peers and/or listening to music. A Resident Birthday party was held on 10/25/23 at 2:00 PM, the activity record was void of any documentation of Resident #69 attending and/or refusing. During another observation made on 10/25/23 at 2:15 PM, Resident #69 was sitting in the hallway, yelling. Another observation, made on 10/25/23 at 5:40 PM, revealed Resident #69 was sitting in his room eating the dinner meal with no lights on or TV/radio for stimulation. During an interview, on 10/26/23 at 10:21 AM, Activity Director (AD) #21 stated Resident #69's name enjoys talking to other residents in the pool room. The staff are supposed to be assisting him in his room turning on his TV and/or his radio. The AD #21 acknowledged Resident #69 was not invited or attending the birthday party. She also acknowledged that Resident #69 was not provided with enough activities to meet his physical, mental or psychosocial well being. The Administrator immediately agreed with the AD. b) Resident #86 During the initial tour of the facility on 10/23/23 at 12:32 PM, Resident #86 was asked a few questions, Resident was unable to answer the questions, just whispered, barely able to lift his head. Resident #86 was lying in the bed, there was no TV/music or other sensory stimulation provided in the room. During a record review on 10/24/23 at 11:15 AM, Resident # 86's medical record revealed an admitting diagnosis of Malignant Neoplasm of Colon. Resident is on comfort care measures, awaiting hospice acceptance. During an observation on 10/24/23 at 12:32 PM, the Resident was lying in bed with no sensory stimulation being provided. During a record review on 10/24/23 at 8:13 PM, Resident #86's medical record revealed a Activity Preferences Interview dated 09/28/23 stated the following: Section titled: Activity Pursuit Patterns: Resident Activity were listed as follows: -cards, [NAME], old maid and bingo -reading magazines and newspaper -music/watching TV/watching movies/radio -keeping up with news -spending time outdoors -enjoys talking/conversing with peers -birthday parties -Additional Information: He likes to talk to people about hunting and fishing. He likes to watch TV. A further medical record review revealed the following care plan: Focus Statement: Resident will participate in activity of choice through review date. Goals associated with this focus read as follows: Resident will accept/participate in 1:1 visits. Invention included Provide 1:1 in room visits if unable to attend out of room activities Provide activity materials of interest, library books, word puzzles, magazines. Further record review revealed Resident #'s activity participation record was void of any documentation of participation in watching TV, reading and/or 1:1 visits. The activity participation record was void of any documenting for the date of 10/23/23. Other observations made on 10/24/23 and 10/25/23 there was no sensory stimulation being provided. During an interview on 10/26/23 at 10:26 AM the AD stated I don't know much about (Resident #86's name). He is a new fellow, I am not sure what the staff are doing with him. He doesn't come out of his room just watches TV. The AD was asked Do you know he is on comfort measures only? The AD stated I did not know that.The Administrator immediately stated he is a very ill man. The AD was asked why has no sensory stimulation been provided to this resident on comfort measures? The AD stated I don't know that either. The AD #21 acknowledged Resident #86 was not provided with enough activities to meet his physical, mental or psychosocial well being while on comfort measures. The Administrator immediately agreed with the AD. During an observation on 10/26/23 at 11:21 AM after surveyor intervention Resident # 86 continued to have no stimulation with music and/or TV in his room. c) Resident #66 During an interview on 10/23/23 at 3:00 PM Resident #66 stated,I was not invited to go to church, no one came and told me now I have missed it. During a review of the monthly activity calendar revealed on 10/23/23 a religious program at 2:00 PM. During a record review on 10/24/23 at 8:23 PM, Resident #66's medical record revealed a Activity Preferences Interview dated 09/108/23 stated the following: Section titled: Activity Pursuit Patterns: Resident Activity were listed as follows: -cards, bingo, games -reading -arts and crafts -music/watching TV/watching movies/radio -keeping up with the news -religious activities -enjoys talking/conversing with peers -parties and special events -Additional Information: He is enjoys coming out to special event, church services and bingo. A further medical record review revealed the following care plan: Focus Statement: (Resident's name) is self directed in and out room daily per preference. Goals associated with this focus read as follows: Patient will remain self directed in and out of room daily through next review. Invention included (Resident's name) enjoys reading his bible. He also enjoys church services at the facility. (Resident's name) enjoys special events and bingo. Invite, encourage and praise all activity involvement. During a review of the monthly activity calendar revealed religious programs were held on the following dates in October: -10/01 -10/03 -10/06 -1008 -10/09 -10/10 -10/13 -10/17 -10/20 -10/23 -10/24 Resident #66 was void any documentation for attending and/or invited on following days: -10/08 -10/09 -10/10 -10/17 -10/23 During a review of the monthly activity calendar revealed Bingo was held on the following dates in October: -10/01 -10/05 -10/06 -10/07 -10/12 -10/13 -10/14 -10/15 -10/19 -10/20 -10/21 -10/22 Resident #66 was void any documentation for attending and/or invited on following days: -10/01 -10/05 -10/06 -10/07 -10/08 -10/12 -10/13 -10/15 -10/19 -10/21 -10/22 During an interview on 10/26/23 at 10:31 AM the AD was asked, How do you invite the residents to the activities? The AD stated, We go around and ask the resident that likes attend that certain activity. The AD was asked Do you invite (Resident #66's name) to attend? the AD stated we provide him with a calendar in his room so it knows its on the calendar. The AD was asked to review the care plan that read the following interventions (Resident's name) enjoys reading his bible. He also enjoys church services at the facility. (Resident's name) enjoys special events and bingo. Invite, encourage and praise all activity involvement. The AD stated Sometimes he refuses to attend the activities. The Ad was asked How do you know if he refuses or even invited? The AD stated, It should be documented. After a review of the activity participation record the AD acknowledged it was void of documenting of inviting, refusing or participating.
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, record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure that all nursing staff possess the compe...

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 that all nursing staff possess 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. This deficient practice had the potential to affect more than an isolated number of residents residing in the building. Resident identifiers: #218, #96, #46, #101, #70, and #167. Facility census: 111. Findings included: a) Resident #218 Medical record review revealed Resident #218 had capacity with a determination form dated 09/01/23. On 10/23/23 at 2:00 PM Resident #218 was observed eating his lunch in his room. He was sitting in a wheelchair and had a clear plastic bag partially under his shirt. There was a foul odor of bowel movement in his room. Resident #218 was asked about the care he receives. He said, well it is not so good. He lifted the plastic bag away from his body. Which revealed a large amount of brown smashed and partly dyed feces covering his abdomen. He stated he had been waiting for someone to clean him for two (2) to three (3) hours. He went on to say he was also hungry, so he was trying to eat also, so that is why he put a plastic bag over it. Resident #218 stated that since noon yesterday this colostomy bag has come off three (3) times and he is sick of it. He went on to say he had had the colostomy bag for little more than a year now. He also stated that the nurses are so rushed they do not take the time to allow his skin to dry before applying a new one, so of course the colostomy bag does not stick. On 10/23/23 at 4:00 PM Resident #218 was in the dining room for activities. A follow up question about how long after we had spoken, did it take for someone to assist him to get cleaned. Resident #218 said it was about another 30 to 45 minutes later. On 10/24/23 at 9:00 AM Administrator and Director of Nursing were informed of the incident with the colostomy and Resident #218. The Administrator reported on 10/24/23 at 10:43 AM the Social Worked # 128 was interviewing staff about the incident. The administrator also stated the Nurse Aide (NA) #116 was suspended pending investigation. Facility forms immediate reporting, read Resident #218 stated that a Nurse Aide did not clean ostomy when he requested. He stated that he had to wait two (2) to three (3) hours to be cleaned up. NA #116 wrote a statement claiming she offered to change Resident #218 at 8:00 AM and again at 11:30 AM and Resident #218 refused. She then went on to say she reported this to the nurse. A review of nursing notes did not find any notes for the day of the incident. NA #116 aslo wrote that while she was in the dining room another NA #43 told her she answered the call light for Resident #218 at approximately 11:00 AM. NA #43 stated she found Resident #218 in the bathroom laying in his own lap. NA #43 stated he had something brown on his shirt and was told by the resident it was chocolate. NA #35 wrote a statement on 10/25/23 but did not out a time frame on when the event occurred. NA #35 she did clean Resident #218 up because his colostomy bag busted, and he had some feces on him. b) Resident #96 Review of Resident #96's medical records showed the resident was transferred to the hospital on [DATE] for altered mental status. The resident's blood pressure was noted to be 204/100 prior to the hospital transfer. Resident #96's diagnoses at the hospital included hypertensive emergency. Review of Resident #96's medications at time of the hospital transfer on 08/08/23 showed the hospital was receiving the following antihypertensive medications: - Cozaar (losartan potassium) 50 mg, one (1) time a day. The resident had been receiving this medication since 10/29/22. - Metoprolol titrate, 25 mg, two (2) times a day. The resident had been receiving this medication since 10/07/22. Review of Resident #96's blood pressure summary showed prior to her 08/08/23 hospitalization, the resident's last blood pressure check was obtained on 04/09/23. At that time, her blood pressure was within normal limits, with a reading of 132/72. During an interview on 10/24/23, the Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed there was no documentation that Resident #96's blood pressure had been obtained between 04/09/23 and 08/08/23. The DON stated the facility had no policy to obtain routine vital signs, including blood pressure, for residents. She stated a new policy to obtain routine vital signs had been approved and would be implemented soon. c) Resident #46 Resident #46 was observed on 10/23/23 at 1:45 PM laying in the bed under a blanket and her indwelling foley catheter was hanging under her wheelchair approximately two feet from the bed. On 10/23/23 at 1:47 PM, Nurse Aide #116 was asked about the catheter being left on the wheelchair. NA #116 said, Resident #46 probably transferred herself and done that. At this same time NA #18 said, No, I put Resident #46 back to bed and I forgot to move her foley catheter bag to the bed. Director of Nursing (DON) was informed of the above findings on 10/23/23 at 4:00 PM. The DON stated she had re-educated NA #18. d) Resident #101 During a Main Dining room observation beginning on 10/24/23 at 12:20 PM, Resident #101 was drinking red colored liquid from a regular plastic glass. Further observation at 12:37 PM, the resident's lunch meal tray was served to Resident #101, which had a two (2) handled spouted cup for the liquids. Further observation at 12:48 PM, Nurse Aide (NA) #116 was assisting Resident #101 with her liquids from a regular cup. During a interview at 12:50 PM, NA #116 acknowledged Resident #101 drinks was to be a two handled spouted cup. During a medical review, on 10/24/23 at 1:34 PM, Resident #101's medical records revealed a physician order dated 08/09/23 Regular diet, Regular texture, regular Consistency, 2 (two) handled cup with lid on all meal trays. During an interview on 10/25/23 at 11:04 AM, the Director of Nursing (DoN) was informed of the above situation. e) During a dining observation, on A Hall on 10/24/23 beginning at 11:53 AM, the observation revealed the lunch trays arrived at 11:54 AM. Nurse Aide (NA) # 35 were observed passing two (2) noon meal trays. During the observations hand hygiene was not offered to the residents prior to receiving their noon meal. NA # 50 was observed passing two (2) noon meal trays. During the observations hand hygiene was not offered to the residents prior to receiving the noon meal. This surveyor intervened and inquired about hand hygiene. During an interview, on 10/24/23 at 12:00 PM, NA #35 stated no hand hygiene was performed prior to the meal being served. During an interview, on 10/24/23 at 12:00 PM, NA #50 stated no hand hygiene was performed prior to the meal being served. Hand sanitizer wipes were not placed on the meal trays. There were no hand sanitizer bottles observed near the serving areas. During an interview, on 10/25/23 at 11:04 AM, the DON was made aware of the above situation. She stated, We hand wipes for the residents. I do not why they are not utilizing them. f) Upon entrance to the facility on [DATE] at 10:45 AM, the survey team was told by Assistant Business Office Worker #14 the facility was not currently in a COVID-19 outbreak. On 10/25/23 at 12:07 PM, Surveyor #49650 entered an employee restroom. A sign on the back of the restroom door stated, Employee Covid rapid testing will continue Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays until 10/28/23. If another positive case occurs the date will extend. Please remember to test if you are working those days; (Typed as written.) The sign was signed by the Infection Preventionist (IP). According to the COVID-19 staff line listing provided by the IP, the following staff members tested positive for COVID-19 by rapid Point of Care (POC) testing: Nursing Assistant (NA) #89 tested positive on 09/30/23. The staff member had worked in the facility that day. Registered Nurse (RN) #91 tested positive on 09/30/23. RN #91 had worked from 6:56 AM to 8:06 PM, before becoming symptomatic with a runny nose, cough, congestion, and fatigue and testing positive for COVID-19. NA #50 tested positive on 10/02/23. The staff member had not worked in the facility that day. Housekeeper #65 tested positive on 10/06/23. The staff member had not worked in the facility that day. The staff member had worked two (2) days prior to testing positive. Housekeeper #91 tested positive on 10/13/23. The staff member had not worked in the facility that day. The staff member had worked two (2) days prior to testing positive. NA #45 tested positive on 10/20/23. NA #45 had worked from 6:05AM to 11:08 PM before becoming symptomatic with cough and shortness of breath and testing positive for COVID-19. During a follow-up interview on 10/25/23 at 1:45 PM, the DON and IP confirmed no staff members had been wearing masks. The DON and IP confirmed no signage had been placed at the facility door to indicate the facility had an outbreak of COVID-19. It was also confirmed that residents had not been tested. On 10/23/23, 10/24/23 and the morning and afternoon of 10/25/23 no staff members were observed wearing masks. The survey team was not advised to wear masks. According to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines titled, Interim Infection Prevention and Control Recommendations for Healthcare Personnel During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic updated 05/08/23. Asymptomatic patients with close contact with someone with COVID 19 infection should have a series of three viral tests for COVID 19 infection. Testing is recommended immediately (but not earlier than 24 hours after the exposure) and, if negative, again 48 hours after the first negative test and, if negative, again 48 hours after the second negative test. This will typically be at day 1 (where day of exposure is day 0), day 3, and day 5. Additionally, the CDC guidelines of 05/08/23, states the source control (or masks) should be worn, those residing or working on a unit or area of the facility experiencing a COVID 19 or other outbreak of respiratory infection; universal use of source control could be discontinued as a mitigation measure once the outbreak is over (e.g., no new cases of COVID 19 infection have been identified for 14 days). The facilities policy titled Criteria for COVID-19 Requirements with effective date 10/11/21 and most recent revision 05/11/23 stated in part as follows: Source control should be worn by employees who are being tested as part of outbreak testing. The definition of a COVID-19 outbreak is when a single new case of Covid-19 occurs among residents or staff. Ensure all who enter the facility are aware of the recommended Infection Prevention Control (IPC) practices in the facility. Post signs and visuals at the entrance, lobby, elevators, break rooms, therapy, activity rooms, and on the units that include instructions about the current infection prevention and control recommendations (when to use source control and hand hygiene). Residents who have been exposed to a positive person with COVID 19 and is asymptomatic, will be tested immediately (not earlier than 24 hours). If the tests are negative, repeat in 48 hours (testing should be done day one (1), day three (3) and day five (5)). The facility was first notified of the Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) at 3:23 PM, on 10/25/23. The state agency (SA) received the Plan of Correction (POC) at 4:45 PM on 10/25/23. The SA accepted the POC on10/25/23 at 5:47 PM. On 10/25/23 at 5:50 PM, a tour of the facility was started and noted all staff were wearing a mask. Interviews with the staff found they were informed of being in a COVID 19 outbreak and must wear their mask always covering their nose and mouth. On 10/25/23 the Nursing Home Administrator and Director of Nursing implemented the following plan: 1.Upon discovery of alleged deficiency, door signage was placed at 2:30 PM to indicate facility outbreak of COVID-19. Health Department notified at 2:00 PM on 10/25/2023 of outbreak status. All facility residents to immediately be tested by nursing staff to ensure no further positive COVID 19 cases. Facility to begin notification to all residents/responsible parties of positive COVID cases amongst employees. All staff to immediately begin wearing masks thru 11/4/23. Staff will continue to test until 11/4/23. If further positive cases are identified, masking and testing will continue. PPE made available at front entrance of facility for any visitor wishing to utilize it. 2. All residents have the potential to be affected by this alleged deficient practice. 3. Immediate written education provided to all on duty staff. Education will be provided to all staff prior to start of next shift. 4. DNS or designee will audit any positive staff or resident to ensure COVID 19 policies are followed in their entirety 5 times a week for 8 weeks and then randomly thereafter to ensure compliance with plan of correction. DNS or designee will report audit findings to the QA committee monthly for review and revision of plan and/or educational requirements to ensure future compliance. On 10/26/23 at 8:00 AM, the Administrator provided employee signed in-services, containing information on COVID 19 outbreak and mask use. Also, all staff were provided with a copy of the COVID 19 policy. The SA observed for the implementation of the POC and the IJ was abated on 10/26/23 at 9:08 AM. Post abatement the deficiency was reduced to scope and severity of G. g) Resident #70 During observation of Resident #70's room on 10/23/23 at 1:19 PM, no signage of any kind was noted at the entrance to the resident's room or on the resident's door. Review of Resident #70's physician's orders showed an order written on 09/28/23 for contact isolation precautions for Vancomycin-resistant Enterococci infection of the knee. On 10/23/23 at 1:55 PM, the Director of Nursing confirmed Resident #70 was in contact isolation precautions, but the resident's room did not have signage to communicate this to staff and others. h) Resident #70 - appropriate personal protective equipment On 10/25/23 at 11:55 AM, Social Services Designee #128 was noted to be speaking to Resident #70 in her room. She was wearing no personal protective equipment such as gown and gloves. Resident #70's room had a sign on the door, which read as follows: Stop Contact Precautions Everyone Must: Clean their hands, including before entering and when leaving the room. Providers and Staff Must Also: Put on gloves before room entry. Discard gloves before room exit. Put on gown before room entry. Discard gown before room exit. On 10/26/23 at 11:59 PM, Social Services Designee #128 left Resident #70's room. Social Services Designee #128 stated had been reviewing the care plan with the resident. She stated she did not know the resident was in contact isolation precautions and she did not see the contact isolation sign on the resident's door. i) Resident #167 - contact precautions signage During observation of Resident #167's room on 10/23/23 at 2:36 PM, no signage of any kind was noted at the entrance to the resident's room or on the resident's door. Review of Resident #167's physician's orders showed an order written on 10/20/23 for contact isolation precautions for Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in the foot. On 10/23/23 at 2:48 PM, the Director of Nursing confirmed Resident #167 was in contact isolation precautions, but the resident's room did not have signage to communicate this to staff and others. j) Resident #167 - appropriate personal protective equipment On 10/25/23 at 12:09 AM, Nursing Assistant (NA) #40 was noted to be in Resident #167's room, standing outside the bathroom in the resident's room. She was wearing no personal protective equipment such as gown and gloves. Resident #167's room had a sign on the door, which read as follows: Stop Contact Precautions Everyone Must: Clean their hands, including before entering and when leaving the room. Providers and Staff Must Also: Put on gloves before room entry. Discard gloves before room exit. Put on gown before room entry. Discard gown before room exit. NA #40 left the resident's room on 10/25/23 at 12:15 PM. NA #40 stated she had been assisting Resident #167 in the bathroom. She stated she did not know the resident was in contact isolation precautions and she did not see the contact isolation sign on the resident's door.
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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, policy review and staff interview the facility failed to store food in accordance with professional standards for food safety. The facility failed to label and date food items th...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, policy review and staff interview the facility failed to store food in accordance with professional standards for food safety. The facility failed to label and date food items that were open and failed to dispose of expired food items. Unsanitary and unclean areas were discovered. The facility failed to store utensils and serve drinks in a sanitary manner. This failed practice had the potential to affect all residents currently receiving nourishment from the facility's kitchen and the resident's refrigerator. Facility Census:111 Findings Included: A review of the facility policy titled: Storage of Resident Food with a effective date of 01/19/21 read as follows: Procedure: .II .E. Staff will date the container when food or beverages are brought into the facility and discard food when non-safe. F. Frozen foods must be stored and keep frozen III. The dietary staff will monitor refrigerator for food safety and reserve the right to dispose of expired, unsafe foods. .D. The dietary staff will monitor refrigerator storage areas for Resident's food monitoring for outdated, unsafe or otherwise food unfit for consumption. a) Dish Room During the initial tour of the kitchen with the Culinary Director (CD) on 10/23/23 beginning at 11:23 AM, it was revealed the dish room had dark gray/black substance on the wall close to the pipes going towards the dish machine. An immediate interview with CD, acknowledged the walls need to be cleaned and sanitized from the debris. b) Walk-in Refrigerator During the initial tour of the kitchen with the CD on 10/23/23 beginning at 11:23 AM, the walk-in refrigerator revealed 18- eight (8) ounce cartons of whole milk with an manufactured expiration date of 10/19/23. An immediate interview with the CD acknowledged the items were out of date and indicated they needed to be discarded. c) Nourishment Room During the tour of A/B nourishment room with CD on 10/23/23 at 11:30 AM, the refrigerator/freezer revealed the following: -two (2) plastic containers of food with no Resident's name and/or not dated -one (1) blueberry yogurt with a manufactured expiration date of 10/13/23 -one (1) strawberry yogurt with a manufactured expiration date of 10/11/23 -a box frozen mashed cauliflower with no Resident's name and/or not dated -a box frozen microwave pizza with no Resident's name and/or not dated -a box of frozen chicken taquitos with no Resident's name and/or not dated -a box of frozen turkey dinner with no Resident's name and/or not dated -two boxed frozen chicken pot pies with no Resident's name and/or not dated -one frozen hot pocket with no Resident's name and/or not dated During an immediate interview with the CD, the CD acknowledged the failure to label food items with a resident's name, Date Opened and/or Use by Date. Also indicated the item needed to be discarded because they were not labeled. d) Utensils A tour of the kitchen with the CD on 10/24/23 beginning at 11:43 AM, revealed the utensils were not stored in a sanitary manner, all scoops and serving utensils were stored scooped side up. An immediate interview with the CD acknowledged the failure to store utensils in a sanitary manner. e) Dining room During a Main Dining room observation on 10/24/23 at 12:20 PM, Nurse Aide (NA) #116 was serving resident drinks by holding them at the rim of the glass. An immediate interview Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #79 acknowledged the drinks were not being served in a sanitary manner. She stated, I will have the Aide get those resident new drinks.
CONCERN (E)

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

Antibiotic Stewardship (Tag F0881)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to inaccurate establish and maintain complete and accurate surv...

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 inaccurate establish and maintain complete and accurate surveillance and line listing. This failed practice had the potential to affect more than a limited number of residents who currently reside in the facility. Resident identifiers: #67, #167, and #70. Facility census 111. Findings included: a) Resident #67 A review of the line listing provided of the facility's Infection Preventionist (IP) found Resident #67 was admitted on [DATE] with a diagnosis of (ESBL) stands for Extended Spectrum Beta-Lactamase. Beta-lactamases in the urine and receiving Merrem (an antibiotic used for infections) Intravenously (IV) treatment for the Multidrug-resistant organisms (MDRO) infection. On the line listing provided it was marked type of isolation: No isolation required. A review of the active orders for Resident #67 found an order for Contact precautions for ESBL on 10/21/23. Interview with IP on 10/27/23 at 10:15 AM, agreed it was inaccurate and states Resident #67 was placed in isolation on 09/24/23, but it was not documented as such. b) Resident #167 A review of the line listing provided of the facility's Infection Preventionist (IP) found Resident #167 was documented as having a skin infection on the right foot. It was listed he was admitted on [DATE] and onset of 09/20/23. - Type of infection: other - Acquired: community -Site: skin. -Symptoms: was blank. -Diagnostics: no diagnostics. -Organism: blank -Treatment: Mupirocin and Doxycycline for infection. -Microbial time out: blank. -Prophylactic treatment: no. -Type of isolation: no isolation required. A review of the medical records for Resident #167 found an order to be placed in Contact Isolation for Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) on 10/20/23. A review of the line listing with the IP on 10/27/23 at 10:23 AM found the following: -On a different line listing Resident #167 was listed as being in Contact isolation, however, it was not on the listing what type of organism it was or the date the isolation started. IP agreed the line listing was incomplete and inaccurate. c) Resident #70 A review of the medical record found Resident #70 was diagnosed with Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococci (VRE) in the knee following a joint replacement. Resident #70 is currently receiving antibiotic treatment of Tigecycline IV, started on 09/28/23. On 10/27/23 at 10:25 AM a review of the line listing with the facility IP found the following: - No organism listed: blank, -No diagnostics, - Type of Isolation: No isolation required. The facility IP agreed the information on the line listings provided were incomplete and inaccurate. No additional information was provided by the conclusion of this survey.
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

Room Equipment (Tag F0908)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation and staff interviews the facility failed to maintain equipment in safe operating conditions. The ice machine did not have a one-inch air gap for drainage. This failed practice had...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and staff interviews the facility failed to maintain equipment in safe operating conditions. The ice machine did not have a one-inch air gap for drainage. This failed practice had the potential to affect all residents currently receiving nutrition from the facility kitchen. Facility Census: 111. Findings included: a) Ice Machine A tour of the kitchen, on 10/24/23 beginning at 11:34 AM, with the Culinary Director (CD) revealed the ice machine water drain was touching the floor drain without a one (1) inch gap allowing for the potential for contaminants to enter the line and travel to the ice machine. During an immediate interview, the CD acknowledged the water drain was touching the floor drain without a one (1) inch gap. During an interview, on 10/24/23 at 1:38 PM, with Director of Plant Maintenance #76, he stated the company that installed the new ice machine last year was supposed to leave the one (1) inch air gap. The Director of Plant Maintenance said, I don't guess they did. It will be fixed in about two minutes.
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 and staff interviews the facility failed to maintain an environment free from flies. This practice had the potential to affect more than a limited number of residents residing in ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and staff interviews the facility failed to maintain an environment free from flies. This practice had the potential to affect more than a limited number of residents residing in the facility. Facility Census: 111. Findings included: a) Flies in Kitchen An initial tour of the kitchen, with the Culinary Director (CD), beginning on 10/23/23 at 11:23 AM observation of flies in the kitchen. During an immediate interview [NAME] #101 stated the flies were not as bad as they were before. During the tour on 10/23/23 steam table food temperatures were being obtained by the CD. A fly landed on a pan of biscuits being served with the noon meal. The CD acknowledged the fly landing on the pan of biscuits. The CD also indicated the biscuits needed to be discarded. During an interview, on 10/24/23 at 1:51 PM, the Corporate Dietary Manager stated, there is a fly issue, they have been pouring chemicals down the drains at night. We have a pest specialist monthly. During an interview, on 10/25/23 at 9:56 AM, the Administrator stated, We have ordered the bug lights, but they are on backorder. I will check to see if there is still a backorder, I have not checked in about two weeks. I will let you know. Prior to the exit of the survey no other information was provided.
Aug 2023 6 deficiencies
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

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

. Based on staff interview and record review the facility failed to capture information and accurately enter it into the Minimum Data Set (MDS). This failed practice was true for one (1) out of three ...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on staff interview and record review the facility failed to capture information and accurately enter it into the Minimum Data Set (MDS). This failed practice was true for one (1) out of three (3) residents reviewed for MDS accuracy. Resident identifier: #32. Facility census 110. Findings included: a) Resident #32 A document titled, Internal Med History and Physical dated 10/19/22, from a local hospital, which was sent with the resident on admission. Revealed the following information: Social history: Resident #32 admits to physical and emotional abuse by her mother, record reports a history of sexual abuse and was raped at the age of 16. Quit school at the age of 16. A review of the MDS found no one had documented Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). On a reentry MDS completed on 06/26/23 in section I Psychiatric/Mood disorder I5700 was checked for Anxiety. I5800 was checked for Depression. I6100 for PTSD was not checked. The statement below is written as recorded by Registered Nurse #104, on 08/04/23: (Called resident #32 by last name) asked me to come speak with her in private. Alleged that (called the male resident by his first name), Grabbed my tits 3 times and asked me to go to his room so he could suck them. I asked the resident if anyone had seen this and if she told him to stop. (Called Resident #32 again by her last name) says nobody seen and she told him to stop three times. She kept repeating I feel like I was raped again. On 08/09/23 at 7:30 PM the AP wrote a note in the electronic chart as follows: This note is written about an encounter that occurred 08/04/23. While I was in the nursing home, I was asked by a nurse to come to the social services office. When I arrived (Resident #32 by Mrs and last name) was In the room with Social Service #32 and three (3) other nurses. Mrs. (called Resident #32 by last name) was crying. I asked her what was wrong. She relates (called the male resident) was going out to smoke the same time she was. He came over and grabbed her breast and wanted her to come back to his room so he could suck them. She relates no one was around. She also relates he would look around to make sure nobody was watching. She relates she went out to smoke and after went out to smoke, then she came in to tell us about this incident. Patient related she had been violated before and this incident caused her to become more upset and have more anxiety. She denied any injury that occurred during this incident, except that she was upset about it. We talked about her going to get help since she was depressed. And she decided to have an extra nerve pill and she would go lay down. We did discuss with her that she needed to have a buddy system when she was going out to smoke since she was fearful of the (male resident). She has a resident that is female that is on her floor, and she could go with her so she would feel more comfortable. She was pleased with that idea. Patient was alert and oriented. After this conversation occurred the patient did go back to her room. She was given her extra dose of Valium. I checked on her in about 15 minutes she was up walking around in her room calmly. And further signs of depression or anxiety were noted. Social Services had noted they had more conversations with Resident #32 and she would tell them this incident made her feel like she was raped again. On 08/31/23 at 12:05 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) and Administrator agreed Resident should have been coded in the MDS for having PTSD. .
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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

. Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to develop an accurate and resident-centered care plan in the area of dialysis for one (1) of three (3) residents reviewed for the car...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to develop an accurate and resident-centered care plan in the area of dialysis for one (1) of three (3) residents reviewed for the care area of dialysis. in addition the facility failed to ensure Resident # 43's and Resident #109's care plan regarding an indwelling catheter was implemented. This was true for two (2) of three (3) residents reviewed for wound care during the complaint survey. Resident identifier: #53, #43 and #109. Facility census: 110. Findings included: a) Resident #53 Review of Resident #53's medical records showed the resident received dialysis treatment through an arteriovenous (AV) fistula located in her left upper arm. The resident had an order for no intravenous needle sticks or blood pressures to be obtained in her left arm. Resident #53's comprehensive care plan had the following interventions for the focus of dialysis treatments: - Hemodialysis - AV fistula: Do not complete blood draws / blood pressure in same arm as AV fistula. (Blood draws / Blood Pressure should be taken in Left upper arm.) Listen for bruit and thrill. Do not remove dressing applied by dialysis center. Date Initiated: 07/24/2023. - Hemodialysis - Port: If port is located in arm, do not complete blood draws / blood pressure in same arm. (Blood draws / blood pressure should be taken in Left upper arm.) Do not remove dressing applied by dialysis center. Date Initiated: 07/24/2023. - No intravenous needle sticks or blood pressure in left arm. Date Initiated: 08/21/2023. During an interview on 08/31/23 at 8:35 AM, Minimum Data Set (MDS) Nurse #53 acknowledged Resident #67 did not have a hemodialysis port. She also acknowledged the care plan intervention stating blood draws and blood pressure should be taken in the left upper arm was incorrect. MDS Nurse #53 stated she would revise the care plan. b) Resident #43 On 08/31/23 at 8:43 AM an observation of wound care with Registered Nurse #133, found there was not a secure device being used for Resident #43's catheter (a secure device is used to prevent the indwelling foley catheter from being accidentally removed and causing tissue damage). RN #133 verified there was not a secure device. A review of Resident #43's care plan found the following intervention for Resident #43 regarding the catheter: a secure device in place at all times. c) Resident #109 On 08/31/23 at 8:55 AM an observation of wound care with Registered Nurse #109, found there was not a secure device being used for Resident #109's catheter (a secure device is used to prevent the indwelling foley catheter from being accidentally removed and causing tissue damage). RN #133 verified there was not a secure device. A review of Resident #109's care plan found the following intervention for Resident #109 regarding the catheter: a secure device in place at all times.
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

Incontinence Care (Tag F0690)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

. Based on observation, record review and staff interview the facility failed to provide care for an indwelling foley catheter to meet the professional standards of care. This failed practice was true...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on observation, record review and staff interview the facility failed to provide care for an indwelling foley catheter to meet the professional standards of care. This failed practice was true for two (2) out three (3) residents reviewed for wound care. Resident Identifiers: #43 and #109. Facility census 110. Findings included: a) Resident #43 On 08/31/23 at 8:43 AM, an observation of wound care with Registered Nurse #133, found there was not a secure device being used (a secure device is used to prevent the indwelling foley catheter from being accidentally removed and causing tissue damage). RN #133 verified there was not a secure device. b) Resident #109 During an observation of wound care on 08/31/23 at 8:55 AM. It was noticed Resident #109 had an indwelling foley catheter. RN #133 agreed the secure device was not applied in the correct manner and could not prevent accidental removal or tension on the catheter. .
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 F0698 (Tag F0698)

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 provide dialysis services in accordance with professional s...

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 provide dialysis services in accordance with professional standards of practice. This deficient practice had the potential to affect two (2) of three (3) residents reviewed for the care area of dialysis. Resident identifiers: #28 and #101. Facility census: 110. Findings included: a1) Resident #28 - post-dialysis assessment Review of Resident #28's medical records showed he received dialysis treatments on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays. When the resident returned to the facility from dialysis, a post-dialysis assessment form was completed by a facility nurse. The post-dialysis assessment form contained an assessment of the resident's vital signs and the resident's dialysis access device. No post-dialysis assessment could be located in the Resident #28's medical records for 08/26/23. During an interview on 08/31/23 at 10:15 AM, the Director of Nursing acknowledged that Resident #28 did not have a post-dialysis form completed upon return to the facility on [DATE]. a2) Resident #28 - post dialysis weight Review of Resident #28's physician's orders showed the following order written on 11/13/21, Document dry weight (post-dialysis weight) provided by dialysis center weekly on Saturdays. The resident's medical records contained an assessment dated [DATE] from the dialysis center which included the resident's post-dialysis weight. However, the weight had not been documented in Resident #28's weights and vitals summary in his medical record. During an interview on 08/31/23 at 10:15 AM, the Director of Nursing acknowledged that Resident #28's post-dialysis weight from the dialysis facility was not recorded in the weights and vitals summary on 08/26/23. b) Resident #101 Review of Resident #101's medical records showed the resident received dialysis treatments through a Permacath access device. A Permacath is a catheter located in the resident's chest. A Permacath is covered with a dressing, which must be monitored to ensure it is dry and intact to prevent infection or damage to the catheter. Review of Resident #101's physician's orders showed an order written on 01/22/23 to monitor catheter site every shift. This order was discontinued on 08/11/23. A new order to monitor the catheter site every shift was not given until 08/30/23. From 08/12/23 to 08/30/23, there was no documentation that Resident #101's Permacath dressing was monitored every shift. During an interview on 08/31/23 at 10:15 AM, the Director of Nursing acknowledged that Resident #101's Permacath dressing was monitored every shift from 08/12/23 to 08/30/23. .
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 F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

. Based on observations, record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to store medications in accordance with currently accepted principles. Two (2) of three (3) refrigerators containing me...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on observations, record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to store medications in accordance with currently accepted principles. Two (2) of three (3) refrigerators containing medications did not have temperatures recorded twice a day. This deficient practice had the potential to affect more than a limited number of residents. Facility census: 110. Findings included: a) Medication room for hallway CD On 08/30/23 at 12:07PM an observation of the medication room for Hallway CD was made with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #109. The medication room had two refrigerators to store medications. Posted on the refrigerator doors was a log to record temperatures twice daily. According to the log, temperatures have not been recorded for the following dates and times: -08/17/23 morning -08/21/23 evening -08/22/23 morning -08/25/23 evening -08/26/23 morning -08/27/23 morning LPN #109 acknowledged refrigerator temperatures were not recorded for the above referenced dates and times. b) Medication room for hallway AB On 08/30/23 at 12:10PM an observation of the medication room for Hallway AB was made with LPN #103. The medication room had one refrigerator to store medications. Posted on the refrigerator door was a log to record temperatures twice daily. According to the log, temperatures have not been recorded for the following dates and times: -08/17/23 morning -08/17/23 evening -08/18/23 morning -08/18/23 evening -08/19/23 morning -08/20/23 morning -08/21/23 evening -08/22/23 evening -08/23/23 morning -08/24/23 morning -08/26/23 evening -08/27/23 morning -08/27/23 evening -08/28/23 morning -08/28/23 evening -08/29/23 morning LPN #103 acknowledged refrigerator temperatures were not recorded for the above referenced dates and times. .
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 observations and staff interview, the facility failed to maintain an effective pest control program to ensure the facility was free of pests. This was a random opportunity for discovery tha...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on observations and staff interview, the facility failed to maintain an effective pest control program to ensure the facility was free of pests. This was a random opportunity for discovery that had the potential to affect all residents residing in the facility. Facility census: 110. Findings included: a) Kitchen During a tour of the kitchen on 8/30/23 at 11:59 AM with Maintenance Technician #23, a cart full of dirty dishes was observed located by the door going into the kitchen. The were numerous flies around this cart. On 08/30/23 Maintenance Technician #23 acknowledged the presence of flies in that area. .
Jun 2023 7 deficiencies
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

Abuse Prevention Policies (Tag F0607)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

. Based on record review and staff interview the facility failed to implement their abuse policy by reporting all allegations of abuse and or neglect to appropriate state agencies within the appropria...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on record review and staff interview the facility failed to implement their abuse policy by reporting all allegations of abuse and or neglect to appropriate state agencies within the appropriate time frames. This was true for two (2) residents #50 and #43 and was randomly discovered during a complaint survey. Resident identifiers: #43 and #50. Facility Census: 113. Findings included: a) A review of the facility's policy titled, Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation with an effective date of 08/23/22 found the following in regards to reporting of alleged allegations of abuse and/or neglect: 7. The facility shall ensure immediate reporting of all alleged violation to the administrator, state agency, adult protective services and to all other required agencies .within specified timeframe's . b) Resident #43 A review of Resident #43's medical record on 06/27/23 found the following nursing progress note typed as written: 06/9/2023 2:41 PM, Behavior Note: Note Text: Pt (Patient) heard yelling from hallway. UCN (Unit Charge Nurse) responded to call light being on at this time. Pt yelling at daughter due to having daughters cell phone and not giving wanting to give it back; daughter visibility upset and loud with mother. Attempted redirection without success. Daughter grabbed cell phone from mothers hand at this time. Daughter came to desk after mother calmed down asking if we could take her off of psych medication to see if it would calm her down any; UCN let her know the change of coming back to facility this am maybe cause of agitation and discontinuing medication probable wouldn't calm her down. Daughter voiced understanding and stated she was going home at this time. A review of the reportable incident log found it void of an entry to indicate this incident had been reported to the required state agencies. An interview with Social Worker #64 on 06/27/23 at 2:07 PM confirmed this incident was not reported nor investigated as an allegation of abuse perpertrated by Resident #43's daughter. She indicated she did not know the extent of the incident and did not followup with staff to obtain more information. c) Resident #50 On 06/27/23 the reportable incidents were reviewed. During this review it was discovered on 01/20/23 Resident #125 was seen with his hands in the pants of Resident #50. This occurred at 8:15 PM and was witnessed by staff who intervened and separated the residents. A review of Resident #50's medical record found she was not capacitated to make medical decisions and suffered from confusion. A further review of the reportable incident found the incident was not reported until 01/21/23 at 8:40 am. This was 12 and a half hours after the incident. According to regulation any occurrence of sexual abuse should be reported within two (2) hours of the incident. An interview with Social Worker #35 on 06/28/23 at 10:40 am, confirmed this incident of sexual abuse was not reported timely as required. She stated, I reported as soon as I found out, but nursing should have reported it within two (2) hours. .
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

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

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 a discharge return anticipated Minimum Data Set (MDS)...

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 a discharge return anticipated Minimum Data Set (MDS) was complete and accurate. This was a random opportunity for discovery during a complaint survey and was only true for Resident # 122. Resident identifier: #122. Facility Census: 113. Findings included: a) Resident #122 A review of Resident #122's medical record on 06/27/28 found the resident was readmitted to the facility on [DATE] and later that day he was sent back out to the hospital. A further review of the medical record found the resident never returned to the facility after the discharge on [DATE]. A review of the MDSs for Resident #122 found a discharge return anticipated MDS with an assessment reference date (ARD) of 05/10/23. This MDS was reviewed and found under section A2000. discharge date the date of 05/10/23 was entered. Under section A2300. Assessment Reference Date the date 05/10/23. An interview with the MDS Registered Nurse (RN) #47 at 12:08 pm on 06/27/23 confirmed the discharge date and assessment reference date of 05/10/23 was incorrect. She indicated it needs to be changed to 04/10/23 because this was the day the resident was discharged from the facility and he has not returned. .
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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

. Based on record review and staff interview the facility failed to ensure Resident #122 had a comprehensive care plan which accurately reflected his behavioral status. Resident had several instances ...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on record review and staff interview the facility failed to ensure Resident #122 had a comprehensive care plan which accurately reflected his behavioral status. Resident had several instances where he had struck other residents. This behavior was not addressed on his care plan. This was a random opportunity for discovery during a complaint survey and was true for Resident #122. Resident identifier: #122. Facility Census: 113. Findings Included: a) Resident #122 A review of Resident #122's medical record on 06/27/23 found Resident #122 had physically hit or laid hands on other residents on the following occasions: -- 04/18/22 -- 05/07/22 -- 05/12/22 -- 05/13/22 -- 08/20/22 -- 09/03/22 -- 10/16/22 -- 01/09/23 -- 02/14/23 -- 03/12/23 -- 03/15/23 -- 03/20/23 -- 03/29/23 and -- 04/10/23 A review of Resident #122's care plan found the care plan was void of any focus statements, goals, or interventions related to Resident #122's physically abusive behaviors toward other residents. An interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 06/28/23 at 10:54 PM confirmed Resident #122 had demonstrated physically abusive behaviors toward other residents during the course of his stay. She was asked to review the care plan to determine if these behaviors were addressed on the care plan. The DON confirmed the care plan did not contain anything pertaining to Resident #122's physically abusive behaviors toward other residents. .
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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

. Based on record review and staff interview the facility failed to ensure Resident #43 who suffered a fall was assessed and or monitored after the fall to ensure no complications of the fall arose. I...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on record review and staff interview the facility failed to ensure Resident #43 who suffered a fall was assessed and or monitored after the fall to ensure no complications of the fall arose. In addition for Resident #129, the facility failed to assess and monitor after the wrong intravenously antibiotic was administered to ensure no significant side effects occurred. This was a random opportunity for discovery during a complaint survey and was true for Resident #43 and Resident #129. Resident identifiers: #43 and #129. Facility Census: 113. Findings included: a) Resident #43 On 06/27/23 all incident reports relating to Resident #43 was requested as part of a compliant investigation. In the afternoon of 06/27/23 the Director of Nursing (DON) provided one (1) incident report and confirmed this was the only incident related to Resident #43. A review of the incident report found Resident #43 was observed sliding from her wheelchair by a staff member on 06/21/23. A review of the medical record found no mention of the fall Resident #43's on 06/21/23. There was no nursing notes or any other evidence the facility monitored the resident after the fall for the period of five (5) days which is there standard of practice. There was a nursing note on 06/25/23 which indicated the residents left hand was bruised and swollen. The facility ordered an x-ray of the wrist but never indicated this bruise could have resulted from her fall four days earlier. An interview with the DON on 06/27/23 at 3:30 PM confirmed the nurses did not follow up after Resident #43's fall and there was no documentation to suggest they completed the follow up observations and monitoring as they should. When asked how many days the nurses were supposed to monitor for bruising or injuries she stated, We do it for five (5) days and they should write a note each day about it. b) Resident #129 Review of Resident #129's medication error report found the resident received the wrong intravenously antibiotic on 08/02/22 at 10:00 pm. Resident was administered Vancomycin 1000 milligram (MG) instead of Vabomere two (2) grams. Review of Resident #129's physician orders on 08/02/22 was as follows: --Vancomycin 1,000 mg intravenously in am for treatment of post-surgical left hip infection. --Vabomere 2 grams intravenously every eight (8) hours for left hip prosthetic joint infection. Review of nurse's progress notes remained silent concerning the above-mentioned medication error. During an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 06/27/23 at 12:30 PM. She confirmed the medication error and follow-up assessment was not documented in nurses' notes. She further stated, I would expect the nurses to document and assess the resident for at least 48 hours status post a medication error. She also showed this surveyor the resident did have Vancomycin held on 08/03/22 as well as close monitoring of labs but none was documented in the nurses' notes. .
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

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** . Based on record review and Staff interview the facility failed to report all allegations of abuse and or neglect to appropriat...

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 report all allegations of abuse and or neglect to appropriate stated agencies and within the appropriate time frames. This was true for three(3) residents #10 , #50 and #43 and was randomly discovered during a complaint survey. Resident Identifiers: #43, #10 and #50. Facility Census: 113. Findings included: A) Resident #43 A review of Resident #43's medical record on 06/27/23 found the following nursing progress note typed as written: 06/9/2023 2:41 PM, Behavior Note: Note Text: Pt (Patient) heard yelling from hallway. UCN (Unit Charge Nurse) responded to call light being on at this time. Pt yelling at daughter due to having daughters cell phone and not giving wanting to give it back; daughter visibility upset and loud with mother. Attempted redirection without success. Daughter grabbed cell phone from mothers hand at this time. Daughter came to desk after mother calmed down asking if we could take her off of psych medication to see if it would calm her down any; UCN let her know the change of coming back to facility this am maybe cause of agitation and discontinuing medication probable wouldn't calm her down. Daughter voiced understanding and stated she was going home at this time. A review of the reportable incident log found it void of an entry to indicate this incident had been reported to the required state agencies. An interview with Social Worker #64 on 06/27/23 at 2:07 PM confirmed this incident was not reported nor investigated as an allegation of abuse perpertrated by Resident #43's daughter. She indicated she did not know the extent of the incident and did not followup with staff to obtain more information. b) Resident #50 1. Sexual Abuse allgation On 06/27/23 the reportable incidents were reviewed. During this review it was discovered on 01/20/23 Resident #125 was seen with his hands in the pants of Resident #50. This occurred at 8:15 PM and was witnessed by staff who intervened and separated the residents. A review of Resident #50's medical record found she was not capacitated to make medical decisions and suffered from confusion. A further review of the reportable incident found the incident was not reported until 01/21/23 at 8:40 am. This was 12 and a half hours after the incident. According to regulation any occurrence of sexual abuse should be reported within two (2) hours of the incident. An interview with Social Worker #35 on 06/28/23 at 10:40 AM confirmed this incident of sexual abuse was not reported timely as required. She stated, I reported as soon as I found out, but nursing should have reported it within two (2) hours. 2. Serious Bodily Injury Review of Resident # 50's progress notes on 06/10/23 at 4:45 pm, revealed the resident had a witnessed fall and was sent to the emergency room for evaluation of a laceration to left temple. Review of the emergency room report revealed the resident was treated for a minor head injury without loss of consciousness and laceration on face (left temple) requiring five (5) sutures. During an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) and the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) on 06/27/23 at 1:50 PM, both agreed this incident of a fall with significant injury was not reported within the two (2) hour timeframe as required. The facility was aware of the significant injuries when the resident returned from the hospital on [DATE]. This fall with significant injury was not reported until 06/21/23. c) Resident #10 A review of the Resident #10's nurse progress notes, on 06/27/23, revealed the following tyed as written: 04/15/23 at 11:40 AM, the resident was observed laying on the floor on her left side. Repositioned the resident to her back. Neurological checks initiated and vital signs taken. Performed range of motion (ROM) exercise to left arm and the resident indicated pain. ROM to bilateral lower extremities performed with no indication of pain. Skin checked revealed a laceration to lower lip. Further review of the record found the Resident was transferred to a local emergency for evaluation and treatment. The resident returned to the facility at 12:44 AM with an emergency room report showing a fracture of the right upper end of the humerus and facial laceration which was treated with tissue adhesive wound care. Review of Resident #10's immediate reporting form showed the incident occurred at 11:40 AM on 04/15/23. The report was not sent until 04/17/23 at 12:40 PM. During an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) and the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) on 06/27/23 at 1:50 PM, both agreed this incident of an unwitnessed fall with significant injury was not reported within the two (2) hour timeframe as required. The facility was aware of the significant injuries when the resident returned from the hospital on [DATE] at 12:44 AM. .
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

Transfer Notice (Tag F0623)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

. Based on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to provide a written notice to the resident and/or the resident's representative of the transfer or discharge and the reasons ...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to provide a written notice to the resident and/or the resident's representative of the transfer or discharge and the reasons for the move in writing and in a language and manner they understand. This deficient practice was true for all residents transferred and/or discharged after 04/28/23. Resident identifiers: #115, #74, #124, #123, #117, #118, #119, #120, and #121. Facility census: 113 The findings include: a) Transfers and Discharges: The facility had the following transfers to an acute care facility: -- Resident #115- transferred on 06/21/23. (sent from an appointment) --Resident #74- transferred on 06/24/23. --Resident #124- transferred on 06/05/23 --Resident #123- transferred on 06/12/23 When the above-mention residents were transferred out of the facility they were provided with the following form and reads as follows: Date, Name of Facility, Resident Name, reason for acute transfer. Contents as written: Your bed will be held during the time needed for a facility representative to contact you or your responsible party to discuss the number of bed hold days you may have. You or your responsible party can then decide whether you want the facility to continue to hold your bed. The resident and/or resident's representative have the right to request an impartial hearing, to be held at the facility, regarding the discharge and transfer. Details of your appeal rights will be provided by a facility representative as soon as practical following this acute transfer. Your bed will be held during this time. The facility had the following discharges from the facility: Resident #117 - discharged on 05/26/23 to home. Resident #118- discharged on 06/09/23 to home. Resident #119- discharged on 06/13/23 to home. Resident #120- discharged on 06/23/23 to home. Resident #121- discharged on 05/19/23 to home No evidence found to ensure the facility sent a copy to a representative of the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman for all transfers and discharges from the facility. The notice did not contain the location to which the resident is transferred or discharged , a statement of the resident's appeal rights, including the name, address (mailing and email), and telephone number of the entity which receives such requests, information on how to obtain an appeal form and assistance in completing the form and submitting the appeal hearing request, the name, address (mailing and email) and telephone number of the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman and for nursing facility residents with intellectual and developmental disabilities or related disabilities, the mailing and email address and telephone number of the agency responsible for the protection and advocacy of individuals with developmental disabilities established under Part C of the a Developmental Disabilities Assistance and [NAME] of Rights Act of 2000, and for nursing facility residents with a mental disorder or related disabilities, the mailing and email address and telephone number of the agency responsible for the protection and advocacy of individuals with a mental disorder established under the Protection and Advocacy for Mentally Ill Individuals Act. On 06/26/23 at 3:30 PM an interview was held with the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) and the Director of Nursing (DON). This interview confirmed on review of the above-mention resident was transferred and/or discharged from the facility and the notice given to the residents and/or responsible parties failed to provide them with their rights to appeal and the phone, email, and address of these entities. They also agreed there was no evidence the representative of the office of the state long term care Ombudsman was notified of the transfers and/or discharges from the facility. .
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 F0625 (Tag F0625)

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 a notice to a resident being transferred to...

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 a notice to a resident being transferred to a hospital or on therapeutic leaveResident identifiers: #115, #74, #124, #116, and #123. Facility census: 113. Findings included: a) Residents #115, #74, #124, #116, and #123. The facility had the following transfers to an acute care facility. --Resident #115- transferred on 06/21/23. (sent from an appointment) --Resident #74- transferred on 06/24/23. --Resident #124- transferred on 06/05/23 --Resident #123- transferred on 06/12/23 --Resident #116- [NAME]- transferred on 12/29/22 Review of the above-mentioned residents' medical records found no indication a Behold policy was provided to the resident and/or the resident's representatives. On 06/26/23 at 3:30 PM an interview was held with the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) and the Director of Nursing (DON), they agreed on review of the above- mentioned residents' medical records there was no evidence a written bed hold policy was provided to the residents and/or residents representative as required. .
Apr 2022 7 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

. Based on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to provide Resident #74 with a dignified dining experience. Resident #74 was not served his meals in the traditional dinnerware that was...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to provide Resident #74 with a dignified dining experience. Resident #74 was not served his meals in the traditional dinnerware that was provided to all other residents in the facility. This was a random opportunity for discovery and had the potential to affect a limited number of residents that currently reside at the facility. Resident identifiers: Resident #74. Facility census: 82. Findings included: a) Resident #74 During the initial tour of the facility on 04/11/22 at 12:05 PM, Resident #74 was provided his lunch meal in a Styrofoam container, all other resident's on C hall was provided traditional dinnerware. During an interview on 04/11/22 at 12:08 PM with Dietary Service Supervisor(DSS) #54 stated I am not sure why he receives a Styrofoam tray I will look at his orders and care plans. During an interview on 04/11/22 at 12:54 PM, Certified Nursing Assistant #19 stated he always gets the Styrofoam tray for all his meals. During an interview on 04/11/22 at 1:04 PM DSS #54 stated there is no orders or care plan for the Styrofoam tray. He had behaviors a few years ago and would throw and break things. No need to lie about it. A medical record review on 04/11/22 the Minimum Data Set with an Assessment Reference Date of 03/16/22 revealed Resident #74's Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) of 14 which indicates the resident is cognitively intact. .
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 resident's care plan when a change occurred. This deficient practice had the potential to affect one (1) of 20 residents...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to revise the resident's care plan when a change occurred. This deficient practice had the potential to affect one (1) of 20 residents reviewed during the long-term care survey process. Resident identifier: #39. Facility census: 82. Findings included: a) Resident #39 Review of Resident #39's medical records showed on 10/03/21, the resident weighed 134 lbs. On 04/03/22, the resident weighed 109 pounds. This was a 19% weight loss in 6 months. Further review of the resident's records showed the weight loss had occurred while the resident was in the hospital. A nutritional assessment performed on 2/23/22 stated the resident's ideal body weight was 127-153 pounds. Resident #39's comprehensive care plan had a focus related to potential nutritional problems. On 11/07/21, the following goal was initiated: Patient will comply with recommended diet for weight reduction daily through review date. The goal was revised on 04/05/22. During an interview on 04/12/22 at 1:24 PM, Registered Nurse (RN) #118 agreed a goal of weight loss was not appropriate for Resident #39. No further information was provided through the completion of the survey process. .
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 medical record review, observation, and staff interview the facility failed to ensure appropriate treatment and care for a urinary catheter drainage bag. This was discovered for one (1) of ...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on medical record review, observation, and staff interview the facility failed to ensure appropriate treatment and care for a urinary catheter drainage bag. This was discovered for one (1) of one (1) residents reviewed for the care area of urinary catheters during the Long Term Care Survey Process. The bedside urinary catheter drainage bag for Resident #18 was not positioned properly under her wheelchair, which allowed the catheter drainage bag to come in contact with the floor. Resident identifier: #18 Facility census: 82 Findings included: a) Resident #18 During an observation on 4/12/22 at 12:20 PM, it was discovered Resident #18's bedside urinary catheter drainage bag was not attached properly to her wheelchair, which allowed for the catheter bag to touch the floor. An observation by the Nursing Coordinator on 04/12/22 at 12:27 PM, verified the urinary catheter drainage bag, under Resident #18's wheelchair was touching the floor. .
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0698 (Tag F0698)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

. Based on observation and staff interview the facility failed to ensure residents who require dialysis receive services, consistent with professional standards of practice. The facility failed to hav...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on observation and staff interview the facility failed to ensure residents who require dialysis receive services, consistent with professional standards of practice. The facility failed to have a dialysis emergency kit available at bedside. This was discovered for one (1) of (1) one resident reviewed for the care area of dialysis during the Long Term Care Survey Process Resident Identifier # 50. Facility Census: 82 Findings Included: a) Resident # 50 On 04/12/22 at 9:10 AM, observations found no emergency equipment at Resident # 50's bedside who uses a Peracath for dialysis access. On 04/12/22 at 9:16 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) # 101 confirmed Resident # 50 uses a Permacath for dialysis. LPN # 101 also confirmed no emergency kit was available at the bedside of Resident # 50. LPN #101 stated No, there are no clamps at bedside. On 04/12/22 at 9:21 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) and Administrator acknowledged there was not an emergency kit or a set of clamps at the bedside of Resident #50. The DON stated she would call the dialysis facility and get hemodialysis clamps sent over today. .
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0804 (Tag F0804)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

. Based on observation, staff interview and resident interview, the facility failed to serve food that was palatable and at a safe and appetizing temperature. The failed practice had the potential to ...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on observation, staff interview and resident interview, the facility failed to serve food that was palatable and at a safe and appetizing temperature. The failed practice had the potential to affect a limited number of residents currently receiving nutrition from the facility's kitchen. Resident Identifier: Resident # 8. Facility Census: 82 Findings Included: A) Resident #8 During an interview 04/12/22 at 8:30 AM Resident #8 stated the food is always cold. On 04/12/22 at 12:06 PM, temperatures were obtained on the lunch meal tray for Resident #4 (Resident #4's tray was selected because it was the last tray to be served) at the time of service. The following temperatures were obtained by the Dietary Services Supervisor (DSS) #54 using his thermometer: --Brown Beans: 146 degrees Fahrenheit (F) --Green Beans: 123 degrees F --Ham with gravy: 113 degrees F --Diced Potatoes: 115.5 degrees F --Peaches: 28.8 degree F During an interview on 04/12/22 at 12:07 DSS #54 stated the hot food temperatures are suppose to be 120 degrees or greater and the cold food should be less than 50 degrees. A review of the temperatures listed in the food safety guidelines used by the facility dated 03/01/18 revealed: .Cold foods: Less than 41 degrees F Hot foods: 135 degrees F or higher . During an interview on 04/12/22 at 1:07 PM the DSS stated these temperatures on the guidelines are the danger zone temperatures not for the point of service for the trays on the floor. During an interview on 04/12/22 at 1:40 PM DSS stated we follow the state guidelines, there is no policy. .
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0849 (Tag F0849)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

. Based on medical record review and staff interview the facility failed to ensure a resident's care plan included a description of the care and services to be provided by hospice and the facility. Th...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on medical record review and staff interview the facility failed to ensure a resident's care plan included a description of the care and services to be provided by hospice and the facility. This was discovered for one (1) of one (1) residents reviewed for the care area of hospice services during the Long Term Care Survey Process. The care plan for Resident #2 did not specify care and services to be provided by hospice or the facility. Resident identifier: #2 Facility census: 82 Findings included: a) Resident #2 During a medical record review on 04/12/22 for Resident #2, it revealed the care plan did not include care or services to be provided by hospice and the facility. In an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 04/12/22 at 10:45 AM, she verified the care plan for Resident #2 did not specify care and services to be provided by hospice or facility staff. .
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 Resident Council interview, observations and staff interview, the facility failed to display the most recent State inspection in a readily accessible area frequented by residents. It was di...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on Resident Council interview, observations and staff interview, the facility failed to display the most recent State inspection in a readily accessible area frequented by residents. It was discovered the State inspections were placed in an area too high for residents to reach. This had the potential to affect more than a limited number of residents. Facility census: 82 Findings included: a) State inspection postings During the Resident Council meeting on 04/13/22 at 9:30 AM, it was reported the State inspection survey results were located on the B hallway. An observation on 04/13/22 at 9:50 AM, revealed the State survey results were in wall pockets at two (2) locations on the B hallway, one (1) at the Director of Nursing office and the other at the Social Services office. Both locations were observed to have the State inspection survey results placed too high on the walls for residents in a wheelchair to reach. In an interview with the Nursing Home Administrator on 04/13/22 at 10:45 AM, verified the State survey results were placed too high on the walls, and were not accessible to residents in a wheelchair. .
Mar 2021 5 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0582 (Tag F0582)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

. Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure one (1) of three (3) residents reviewed for the facility task of Beneficiary Protection Notice received the required notific...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure one (1) of three (3) residents reviewed for the facility task of Beneficiary Protection Notice received the required notification before termination of Medicare Part A services. Resident identifier: #14. Facility census: 75. Findings included: a) Resident #14 On 03/09/21 at 2:38 PM, Registered Nurse Assessment Coordinator, RNAC #52 confirmed Resident #14 began receiving Medicare, Part A services on 09/03/20. On 11/13/20, the Residents Health Care Surrogate (HCS) was notified, by the facility, Medicare Part A services would end on 11/16/20, because the Resident had reached a maximum level of functioning. The facility provided the HCS with a Notice to Medicare Provider Non-coverage (NOMNC), form CMS-10123. RNAC #14 confirmed Resident #14 did not receive a Skilled Nursing Facility Advanced Beneficiary Notice (SNFABN), form CMS-10055. Form 10055 informs the beneficiary of his or her potential liability for payment. Both forms are required to be provided to the resident or resident representative before a Residents Medicare Part A services are terminated. On 03/09/21 at 2:57 PM, the administrator stated a new employee was issuing the letters of Medicare non-coverage and was unfamiliar with the process. .
CONCERN (D)

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

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** . Based on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed report an unwitnessed fall which resulted in serious b...

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 report an unwitnessed fall which resulted in serious body injury ( fracture of both femur and pelvis) to the appropriate state entity. This is true for one (1) of three (3) residents reviewed for accident/falls. Resident identifier: #51. Facility census: 75. Findings included: a) Resident #51 Review of Resident #51's medical records found this [AGE] year-old female had an unwitnessed fall on 07/12/20. Incident report review found the staff, at 7:35 pm heard the patient yelling. When the staff entered the room the patient was sitting in floor with her back against the bed and left leg straight out and right leg slightly bent to the side. Patient told staff that her mother told her to do it. When this nurse asked the resident it she said she was dreaming. Description of injuries: Right side of back, a red area measuring 10 centimeters (cm) in length and 2.5 cm in width and two (2) bruises to the left wrist area measuring 1.5 cm in length and 1.5 cm in width. Resident returned to bed and voiced some complaints of pain in right knee area. Nurse Practitioner (NP) notified and x-rays ordered. Review of the medical records for Resident #51 from her hospital stay from 07/13/20 through 07/22/21 found on top of pages states there is 55 pages although pages 1, 2 and 42 through 55 was missing. When administrator was asked on 03/10/21 about the missing pages, she said we are unable to locate the other pages. Review of page 38 reads, X-ray of right femur- there is evidence of a subtrochanteric spiral fracture of the right proximal femur with mild displacement. and X-ray of left femur-there is evidence of slightly displaced subtrochanteric spiral fracture of the left proximal femur. On 07/14/20 (on page 30) the resident had surgery to repair bilateral subtrochanteric femur fractures. Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) and the Director of Nursing (DON) were interviewed on 03/09/21 at 2:30 pm. During this interview they were asked about the unwitnessed fall that resulted in bilateral fractures of femur requiring surgical intervention. When asked about the description of the incident on 07/12/20, they both stated, it was unwitnessed but we felt it was not abuse. The staff determined she was in a low height bed and just rolled out of bed. According to the nurses notes and the hospital records the resident was unable to explain what had occurred. They further stated due to medication her bones were brittle, although no physician documentation of this could not be found. No further information was provided prior to exit. .
CONCERN (D)

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

Safe Transfer (Tag F0626)

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 a resident was permitted to return to the facility. ...

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 a resident was permitted to return to the facility. Resident #80 received a 30-day notice of discharge from the facility. The resident appealed the discharge notice. During the appeal process the facility transferred the resident to the hospital. The facility did not permit the resident to return while the appeal was pending. This was true for one (1) of two (2) residents reviewed for the care area of hospitalizations. Resident identifier: #80. Facility census: 75. Findings included: a) Resident #80 Record review found a 59 - year - old resident admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Active diagnosis included: Personal history of adult psychological abuse, anxiety disorder, hypertension, Type 2 diabetes mellitus with hyperglycemia, post traumatic stress disorder, major depression, single episode, and problem related to unspecified psychosocial circumstances. The Resident is alert and oriented and has capacity to make medical decisions. On 07/02/2020 the facility issued a 30 - day notice of discharge to the resident. The discharge directed the resident would be discharged to home on [DATE]. The reason for the discharge was, The resident's needs cannot be met by the facility. The appropriate state agencies were notified of the discharge. The discharge notice was given to the resident by Social Worker (SW) #3 on 07/02/20. The SW note dated 07/02/20: Social Services Progress Note: Accompanied other social worker to give resident her 30 Day Discharge Notice (see file for copy). When the other SW handed (Name of Resident) the notice, she asked, what is this? and added,that's what we have been waiting for. (Name of Resident) asked what happens when the day gets here and she has no where to go. We assured her we will help try to find a place for her to go. SW's plan to make referrals to other facilities and also resident has a home and referrals for in-home service providers could be made to help her return to her home. Resident will be given time to think about her options and then we will proceed as appropriate. Hopefully she will participate in her discharge planning and allow us to help her. According to information contained in a decision from the State Hearing Officer, the resident appealed the discharge on [DATE]. On 08/12/20, a mental hygiene petition for probable cause for involuntary hospitalization was initiated by the facility. This court found probable cause to believe the resident is likely to cause serious harm to him/her self and/or others. The resident was transported to a local hospital with a psychiatric unit for an evaluation. The local hospital contacted the nursing home within 48 hours to say the resident was able to return to the nursing home. An interview with a confidential informant on 03/09/21, revealed the facility physician stated that she would continue to be the resident's doctor until after the Hearing. On August 14, 2020, the facility informed the local hospital staff that they do not have a doctor for the resident and will not take her back. As of 03/10/21, the facility has not admitted the resident. The resident has remained at the same local hospital since 08/12/20. The Regional Ombudsman, Regional Supervisor Ombudsman, the nursing home administrator, and facility physician attended a hearing convened on 08/20/20 by the State Board Of Review. The copy of the decision from the Hearing Officer was dated 09/15/20. The hearing officer determined, .It is the decision of the State Hearing Officer to REVERSE the proposal of (name of nursing home) to discharge the Resident. On 03/09/21 at 7:57 AM, the current facility administrator stated she was not the administrator of record when the resident received the discharge notice or when the hearing was held. The administrator stated the facility has appealed the Hearing Officers decision to reverse the discharge. The case remains in litigation. She stated the facility's position is that they can not provide care for the resident because the Resident does not want the facility physician to be her doctor. The facility has been unable to find an attending physician to provide care to the Resident. According to the guidance to surveyors at F 626 the intent of the regulation is: To ensure that facilities develop and implement policies that address bed-hold and return to the facility for all residents. Specifically, residents who are hospitalized or on therapeutic leave are allowed to return for skilled nursing or nursing facility care or services. In situations where the facility intends to discharge the resident, the facility must comply with Transfer and Discharge Requirements at §483.15(c), and the resident must be permitted to return and resume residence in the facility while an appeal is pending. Resident #80 received a facility initiated 30 - day notice of discharge on [DATE]. The Resident appealed the decision on 7/23/20. On 08/12/20 the facility filed a mental hygiene petition. The mental hygiene commissioner ordered the resident to be evaluated at a local hospital. The resident was evaluated within 48 hours and the local hospital felt the resident could return to the facility. On 09/15/20 the State Hearing Officer reversed the facility's 30 day notice of discharge. As of 03/10/21 the Resident remains at the local hospital. .
CONCERN (D)

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

. Based on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure residents received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice. The facility failed to ...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure residents received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice. The facility failed to follow the physician's orders for monthly laboratory testing for one (1) of five (5) residents reviewed for the care area of unnecessary medications. Resident identifier: #41. Facility census: 75. Findings included: a) Resident #41 Review of Resident #41's medical records revealed a physician's order written on 06/12/20 for complete blood count (CBC) laboratory testing to be performed every 28 days. Laboratory reports revealed CBC laboratory testing was performed on 11/23/20 and 01/18/21. No CBC laboratory testing for December 2020, was located in Resident #41's medical records. During an interview on 03/09/21 on 10:56 am, Registered Nurse (RN) #54 stated she was unable to locate a CBC laboratory report for Resident #41 in December 2020. During an interview on 03/10/21 at 7:58 am, the administrator confirmed Resident #41 did not have a CBC laboratory test performed in December 2020. No further information was provided through the completion of the survey process. .
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0775 (Tag F0775)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

. Based on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure laboratory reports were filed in the resident's clinical record for one (1) of three (3) residents reviewed for the ...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure laboratory reports were filed in the resident's clinical record for one (1) of three (3) residents reviewed for the care area of nutrition. Resident identifier: #35. Facility census: 75. Findings included: a) Resident #35 Review of Resident #35's medical records revealed the resident had a physician's order written on 11/30/20 for complete blood count (CBC), basic metabolic panel (BMP), and B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) laboratory testing every 28 days. The resident's clinical record contained CBC, BMP, and BNP laboratory results obtained on 01/25/21. No CBC, BMP, and BNP laboratory results for February 2021, were filed in Resident #35's clinical record. During an interview on 03/09/21 at 12:24 PM, the administrator provided CBC, BMP, and BNP laboratory results obtained on 02/22/21. The administrator stated she obtained the results from the laboratory. She confirmed Resident #35's CBC, BMP, and BNP laboratory results obtained on 02/22/21 were not in the resident's clinical record. No further information was provided through the completion of the survey process. .
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

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

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s), 2 harm violation(s), $35,277 in fines. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 60 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $35,277 in fines. Higher than 94% of West Virginia facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
  • • Grade F (13/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 13/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Summers Healthcare Center's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns SUMMERS HEALTHCARE CENTER an overall rating of 1 out of 5 stars, which is considered much 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 Summers Healthcare Center Staffed?

CMS rates SUMMERS HEALTHCARE CENTER's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 49%, compared to the West Virginia average of 46%. RN turnover specifically is 56%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.

What Have Inspectors Found at Summers Healthcare Center?

State health inspectors documented 60 deficiencies at SUMMERS HEALTHCARE CENTER during 2021 to 2025. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 2 that caused actual resident harm, and 57 with potential for harm. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.

Who Owns and Operates Summers Healthcare Center?

SUMMERS HEALTHCARE CENTER is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by COMMUNICARE HEALTH, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 120 certified beds and approximately 110 residents (about 92% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in HINTON, West Virginia.

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

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in West Virginia, SUMMERS HEALTHCARE CENTER's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 2.7, staff turnover (49%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (1 stars) is much below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Summers Healthcare Center?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What changes have been made since the serious inspection findings, and how are you preventing similar issues?" "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 Summers Healthcare Center Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, SUMMERS HEALTHCARE 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 1-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 Summers Healthcare Center Stick Around?

SUMMERS HEALTHCARE CENTER has a staff turnover rate of 49%, 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 Summers Healthcare Center Ever Fined?

SUMMERS HEALTHCARE CENTER has been fined $35,277 across 1 penalty action. The West Virginia average is $33,432. While any fine indicates a compliance issue, fines under $50,000 are relatively common and typically reflect isolated problems that were subsequently corrected. Families should ask what specific issues led to these fines and confirm they've been resolved.

Is Summers Healthcare Center on Any Federal Watch List?

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