GRAND VIEW CARE CTR

620 GRANDVIEW AVE, BLAIR, WI 54616 (608) 989-2511
Non profit - Corporation 50 Beds Independent Data: November 2025 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation
Trust Grade
0/100
#281 of 321 in WI
Last Inspection: April 2025

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

Overview

Grand View Care Center has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating poor quality and significant concerns regarding care. They rank #281 out of 321 facilities in Wisconsin, placing them in the bottom half of state rankings, and #5 out of 5 in Trempealeau County, meaning there are no better local options. The facility is worsening, with issues increasing from 7 in 2024 to 11 in 2025. While staffing has a good rating of 4 out of 5 stars, the turnover rate is concerning at 64%, significantly higher than the state average. Of note, the center has racked up $90,900 in fines, which is higher than 88% of Wisconsin facilities, suggesting repeated compliance problems. Additionally, there have been serious incidents where residents were not adequately protected from pressure injuries and falls, with one resident suffering a severe injury requiring staples due to a fall that could have been prevented. Overall, while staffing is a relative strength, the facility has multiple critical and serious shortcomings that families should consider.

Trust Score
F
0/100
In Wisconsin
#281/321
Bottom 13%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Worse
7 → 11 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
64% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
⚠ Watch
$90,900 in fines. Higher than 77% of Wisconsin facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
Skilled Nurses
○ Average
Each resident gets 38 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for Wisconsin. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
Violations
⚠ Watch
31 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Overall Rating
★★★★☆
4.0
Staff Levels
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Care Quality
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 7 issues
2025: 11 issues

The Good

  • 4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average nurse staffing levels
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record

Facility shows strength in staffing levels, fire safety.

The Bad

1-Star Overall Rating

Below Wisconsin average (3.0)

Significant quality concerns identified by CMS

Staff Turnover: 64%

18pts above Wisconsin avg (46%)

Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity

Federal Fines: $90,900

Well above median ($33,413)

Moderate penalties - review what triggered them

Staff turnover is elevated (64%)

16 points above Wisconsin average of 48%

The Ugly 31 deficiencies on record

1 life-threatening 3 actual harm
Apr 2025 5 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility did not ensure resident environment remains as free of accident ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility did not ensure resident environment remains as free of accident hazards as is possible and each resident receives adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents for 1 of 4 residents (R23) reviewed. R23 was left unattended while connected to mechanical lift equipment. This is evidenced by: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Safety Information guidance provided in Kwik points Patient Lifts Safety Guide, states in part: Do not leave patient unattended while in lift. Never keep patient suspended in sling for more than a few minutes. Facility policy titled, Lifting Machine, using a Portable, dated 2024, states in part: .#3. To transfer a resident from a bed to a chair, you should: v. Remain with the resident until he or she is comfortable and free of any adverse effects from the transfer . R23 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including cerebral vascular accident with hemiplegia, atrial fibrillation, hypertension, arthritis, and depression. R23's most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 02/19/25, indicated that R23 has a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 9/15, which means moderate cognitive impairment that requires cues and supervision and R23 is dependent with assist for chair to bed transfers. On 4/15/25 at 10:05 AM, Surveyor observed R23 in his room by himself in Hoyer lift sling connected to Hoyer lift, but it was not raised. R23 was covered up with towels. About 30 seconds after entering R23's room, CNA C came in and reported to R23 he is having a shower today. CNA C was just waiting for another CNA to help transfer R23. Surveyor asked CNA C what the normal process is for transferring R23 in the Hoyer lift. CNA C stated CNA C always uses 2 people to transfer via Hoyer Lift. On 04/17/25 at 7:51 AM, Surveyor observed Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) G walking from R23's room. CNA G walked down 300 hall to nurses' station between 300 hall and 500 hall. CNA G stood around looking for assistance and then saw CNA C. CNA G asked CNA C for assistance transferring R23. Surveyor walked to the end of 300 hall where R23 is located, which is about 9 rooms down the hall away from the beginning of 300 hall. Surveyor observed R23 connected to the Hoyer lift lying in bed. Surveyor did not see any staff in R23's room. Surveyor waited outside R23's door. On 04/17/25 at 7:53 AM, Surveyor observed CNA G walk down hallway with CNA C and both CNAs went into R23's room to transfer R23. On 04/17/25 at 11:42 AM, Surveyor interviewed CNA G regarding observation. Surveyor asked CNA G why R23 was left unattended in his room while attached to the mechanical lift. CNA G indicated that CNA G only left R23 for a moment while CNA G went to get help to transfer R23 from bed to wheelchair. Surveyor asked CNA G if it is the normal process to keep R23 connected to the lift with the sling, walk out of R23's room and down the hallway leaving R23 unattended in a mechanical lift. CNA G indicated that CNA G should have just waited before connecting R23 to the mechanical lift until CNA G got help from another coworker. On 04/17/25 at 12:36 PM, Surveyor interviewed CNA C and asked if it is the normal process to keep R23 connected to the Hoyer lift with the sling and walk away, out of R23's room down the hallway leaving R23 unattended in a mechanical lift. CNA C indicated that CNA C should have just waited before connecting R23 to the mechanical lift until CNA C got help from another coworker. CNA C indicated it is not ok to leave residents unattended in mechanical lift. On 04/17/25 at 11:56 AM, Surveyor interviewed Director of Nursing (DON) B regarding observation and mechanical lift safety. Surveyor asked DON B if it would be an acceptable practice for staff to leave residents unattended while connected to lift equipment. DON B stated that other than an emergent situation, staff would be expected to stay with a resident while lift equipment is being used. Surveyor informed DON B of the two observations of R23 being left unattended while attached to the lift machine. DON B stated staff are to not leave any residents strapped in a mechanical lift alone.
CONCERN (D)

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

Incontinence Care (Tag F0690)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility did not ensure residents (R) with indwelling Foley catheters received care an...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility did not ensure residents (R) with indwelling Foley catheters received care and treatment consistent with professional standards of practice to prevent complications or urinary tract infections from the catheter, for 1 of 2 residents (R28) reviewed with a Foley catheter. R28's Foley catheter was changed on a routine schedule without clinical indications and not following professional standards of practice. This is evidenced by: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC), Guideline for prevention of catheter-associated urinary tract infections 2009, read in part: E. Changing indwelling catheters or drainage bags at routine, fixed intervals is not recommended. Rather, it is suggested to change catheters and drainage bags based on clinical indications such as infection, obstruction, or when the closed system is compromised. Facility policy titled, Catheter Care, Urinary, dated 2025, states in part: The purpose of this procedure is to prevent catheter-associated urinary tract infections .Changing indwelling catheters or drainage bags at routine, fixed intervals is not recommended. Rather, it is suggested to change catheters and drainage bags based on clinical indications such as infection, obstruction, or when the closed system is compromised. R28 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with pertinent diagnoses of malignant neoplasm of the prostate and urinary retention. R28's physician orders: 02/15/24 change indwelling Foley catheter as needed 14 French coude catheter; fill with 10 cc of sterile water (can use 16 French with 10 cc balloon if needed) as needed. 12/04/24 change indwelling Foley catheter 14 French coude catheter; fill with 10 cc of sterile water every 90 days. Record review did not identify physician rationale or clinical indications for the need to change the Foley catheter every 90 days. On 04/15/25 at 8:34 AM, Surveyor observed R28 with urinary catheter. Leg bag was secured to right lower leg. No concerns or signs/symptoms of infection observed. On 04/17/25 at 2:25 PM, Surveyor interviewed Director of Nursing (DON) B regarding rationale for R28's scheduled Foley catheter change. DON B stated that R28's original order was to change the catheter every 30 days, and the provider was contacted to have the order changed to as needed. DON B stated the provider revised the order to have the Foley changed every 90 days. DON B stated recognition that this order did not follow facility policy nor current recommendations, but the provider wanted it scheduled anyway. DON B was unable to provide the provider's rationale for having this order in place.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0697 (Tag F0697)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to adequately assess and provide necessary care and services to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical wellbeing for 1 of 12 residents (R28) reviewed for pain management. R28 did not have an individualized pain assessment completed to monitor, assess, and evaluate for efficacy for pain management. This is evidenced by: Facility policy titled, Pain Assessment and Management, dated 2019, states in part: The purpose of this procedure are to help the staff identify pain in the resident, and to develop interventions that are consistent with the resident's goals and needs and that address the underlying causes of pain. General Guidelines 2. Pain management is defined as the process of alleviating the resident's pain to a level that is acceptable to the resident and is based on his or her clinical condition and established treatment goals. 3. Pain management is a multidisciplinary care process that includes the following: a. Assessing the potential for pain; b. Effectively recognizing the presence of pain; c. Identifying characteristics of pain; d. Addressing the underlying causes of pain; e. Developing and implementing approaches to pain management; f. Identifying and using specific strategies for different levels and sources of pain; g. Monitoring for the effectiveness of interventions; and h. Modifying approaches as necessary . 6. Assess the resident's pain and consequences of pain at least each shift for acute pain or significant changes in levels of chronic pain and at least weekly in stable chronic pain. R28 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with pertinent diagnoses of malignant neoplasm of the prostate, osteoarthritis, and rheumatoid arthritis. R28's most recent quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 02/19/25, noted a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15/15, indicating cognition intact, makes self understood and understands others. MDS noted R28 received scheduled pain medications. R28's care plan, dated 02/19/25, with a target date of 05/19/25, states: R28 has rheumatoid arthritis with joint and shoulder pain. Interventions include asking if R28 hurts, reminding R28 to take medicine, and encourage R28 to walk. Goals include maintain R28's pain at an acceptable level. Surveyor was unable to locate R28's acceptable pain level noted in the care plan. R28's physician orders: 12/1/23 acetaminophen 500 mg; 2 tabs three times daily for pain 7/17/24 diclofenac sodium 1% gel topical apply 2 g to skin 4 times daily to left knee and left shoulder four times daily for arthritis 7/23/24 hydroxychloroquine sulfate 200 mg tab daily for arthritis 10/7/24 methotrexate sodium 2.5 mg tab 3 tab 1x/wk Monday for RA 11/25/24 Humira pen (adalimumab 40 mg/0.4 ml pen sub-Q for arthritis Surveyor reviewed R28's medication administration record (MAR) and noted that administration of pain medications did not include pain assessment prior to administration and did not include a pain assessment after administration to evaluate for efficacy. R28's most pain assessment, dated 04/15/25, noted 3/10 mild pain to left shoulder; worst pain experienced over last 5 days was 5/10. -Of note: pain assessment did not include characteristics of pain, underlying cause of pain, or acceptable level of pain. Surveyor was unable to locate documentation of pain assessments, monitoring for changes in R28's chronic pain. On 04/15/25 at 8:49 AM, Surveyor observed R28 seated in recliner in room, grimacing while repositioning self in seat. Surveyor asked R28 if he was having pain. R28 began to cry and stated he is in pain all of the time because of his rheumatoid arthritis. Surveyor asked R28 if the facility was helping with pain control. R28 stated the nurses give him his medications, but that they don't help much. Surveyor asked R28 to rate his current pain. R28 stated it was 8/10 and is that level most of the time in his joints with his hands and shoulders being the worst. R28 described the pain as achy and that it makes moving very difficult. On 04/17/25 at 1:27 PM, Surveyor interviewed Director of Nursing (DON) B regarding pain management. DON B stated each resident should be assessed for pain to include characteristics of pain, location, duration, number rating of pain (if able) before and after pain medication administration, and resident's tolerable level of pain. Surveyor asked DON B why these assessments were not documented for R28. DON B stated DON B is aware this is not being completed and is in the process of auditing residents' pain assessments. DON B stated plans of re-educating staff on pain management assessments once audits are completed. DON B did not provide Surveyor documentation of this process currently in place at time of survey.
CONCERN (D)

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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility did not ensure a system of records of receipt and disposition of all controlled drugs in sufficient detail to enable an accurate reconci...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility did not ensure a system of records of receipt and disposition of all controlled drugs in sufficient detail to enable an accurate reconciliation. Facility did not determine that drug records are in order and that an account of all controlled drugs is maintained and periodically reconciled. This has the potential to affect all 44 residents in the facility. Findings include: Facility policy titled, Storage of Medications, dated 2012 reviewed on, states in part, .#7. Compartments (including, but not limited to, drawers, cabinets, rooms, refrigerators, carts, and boxes) containing drugs and biologicals shall be locked when not in use, and trays or carts used to transport such items shall not be left unattended if open or otherwise potentially available to others . Facility policy titled, Controlled Substance policy and procedure, dated 03/27/25, states in part, .Shift count: #3. D. If the controlled substance count does not match, then: i. The oncoming nurse does NOT co-sign the count until the reconciliation has been completed. ii. The outgoing nurse does NOT leave the facility until the medication is accounted for and the reconciliation is completed . Reconciliation 4. If the controlled substance is not found or accounted for, the nurses must immediately notify Director of Nursing or designee . On 04/17/25 at 8:05 AM, Surveyor toured medication storage room with Registered Nurse (RN) F. Surveyor observed Tramadol, located in a metal box on top of counter in medication storage room, which was unlocked and opened. Surveyor asked RN F what the metal box was located on counter. RN F indicated the metal box is full of medications that we can sign out if we need to utilize the medications for residents, if they run out of their supply of medications. Surveyor reviewed list and noted Alprazolam 0.5mg, Clonazepam 0.5mg, Lorazepam 0.5mg, and Tramadol 50mg was in the metal box opened and not locked. Surveyor asked RN F if the controlled medications located in the metal box should be locked. RN F indicated that if there are any controlled medications in the metal box those are to be locked separately. On 04/17/25 at 11:25 AM, Surveyor interviewed Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) D and asked if LPN D could open metal contingency box and let Surveyor count how many controlled substance tabs are in the unlocked metal box. LPN D confirmed that Alprazolam 0.5mg had 5 tabs, Clonazepam 0.5mg had 4 tabs, Lorazepam 0.5mg had 7 tabs, and Tramadol 50mg had 4 tabs located in the unlocked metal box in medication storage room. LPN D indicated that Alprazolam 0.5mg, Clonazepam 0.5mg, Lorazepam 0.5mg, and Tramadol 50mg should not be in the contingency metal box. LPN D indicated that all controlled medications are to be placed in a lock box somewhere in the medication storage room. Surveyor asked LPN D how the facility monitors the supply coming in and going out for controlled medications. Surveyor asked LPN D if staff sign out the controlled substance and what the supply amount is left in the metal box. LPN D indicated that if staff need to use a medication for a resident out of the contingency metal box, staff will fill out a slip of the medication and who it is being administered to. LPN D indicated that staff do not track what the supply was when the medication came into building from pharmacy and how many are remaining after taking a medication out for administration. On 04/17/25 at 11:53 AM, Surveyor interviewed Director of Nursing (DON) B and asked expectation for the facility to monitor the supply coming in and going out for the contingency controlled medications in the metal box. DON B indicated staff do not track what the supply is for the controlled medication coming in and how many are remaining after taking a medication out for administration in the contingency metal box. DON B indicated that DON B was unaware that controlled substances were being stored in the unlocked contingency metal box in the medication storage room. On 04/17/25 at 1:58 PM, Surveyor interviewed DON B once again and asked for DON B to explain the process for reconciliation of controlled medications. DON B admitted to the process not working well. DON B indicated that RN E gets flags in the computer system when there is a discrepancy. DON B indicated that an email chimes to RN E and then RN E will investigate and correct the discrepancy. DON B showed Surveyor examples of the medication reconciliation process that's currently being used. Surveyor indicated to DON B that Surveyor found multiple discrepancies on the reconciliation log for R7's Lorazepam that does not have a correction attached to the count. DON B indicated that Surveyor would need to speak with RN E for additional information. On 04/17/25 at 2:09 PM, Surveyor interviewed RN E and asked about reconciliation of controlled medications. RN E indicated the process starts with two nurses counting medications when they come on shift. Ultimately, nurses are verifying that medication count is correct from the previous shift. Then, if there is a discrepancy it is the obligation of the nurses on the floor to figure out the discrepancy and fix the count before leaving nurse's shifts. Once there is a reconciliation of narcotics entered in the computer system, a message will populate to RN E and RN E then reviews it and signs if the discrepancy was fixed accurately. Messages are also forwarded to DON B for review. Surveyor asked RN E if RN E physically reviews the controlled medications count that was off to confirm the issue was fixed and accurate. RN E indicated that RN E does not do that for every single discrepancy that nurses reconcile, but RN E does fill out a paper for those said items. Surveyor asked RN E to review the discrepancies for R7 with Lorazepam that was last filled and delivered to facility on 01/06/25. Surveyor noted to RN E that on the reconciliation log: On 01/06/25, the amount to start was 30ml. On 01/07/25, 0.25ml was given, with amount ending 29.75ml. On 01/07/25, another dose of 0.25ml was given, with amount ending 29.50ml. On 01/08/25, 0.25ml was given, with amount ending 29.25ml. On 01/08/25, another 0.25ml was given, with amount ending 29 ml. On 01/11/25, no amount was given, but amount ending in 14.75 ml was counted and signed off. On 01/13/25, no amount was given, but amount ending in 30 ml was counted and signed off. RN E indicated that those discrepancies were not noticed or reviewed and unsure why it occurred. Surveyor asked RN E if any of those discrepancies chimed an email in the computer system for RN E to review and correct. RN E indicated those discrepancies did not come across as a notification. Surveyor asked if RN E's process is accurate in depicting possible discrepancies in controlled medication use. RN E indicated the system is not working for the facility at this time.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview, the facility did not ensure drugs and biologicals were stored and labeled in accordance with...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview, the facility did not ensure drugs and biologicals were stored and labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles, for 4 of 5 residents (R) reviewed (R1, R24, R27, R7). -Facility did not have open date labels on controlled medications that had been opened and were located in the medication storage room refrigerator for 3 of 4 residents (R) reviewed. (R1, R24, and R27) -Observation of R7's Lorazepam, which expired on [DATE], still located in medication storage room in unlocked refrigerator. Findings include: Facility policy titled, Storage of Medications, dated 2012, states in part, .#7. Compartments (including, but not limited to, drawers, cabinets, rooms, refrigerators, carts, and boxes) containing drugs and biologicals shall be locked when not in use, and trays or carts used to transport such items shall not be left unattended if open or otherwise potentially available to others . On [DATE] at 8:05 AM, Surveyor toured medication storage room with Registered Nurse (RN) F. RN F opened refrigerator located in the medication storage room, and Surveyor observed Lorazepam 2mg/ml bottles for (R24, R1, R7, and R27) sitting on first shelf in refrigerator. Surveyor did not observe the Lorazepam locked in fridge. Surveyor asked RN F if the refrigerator is lockable or if there is a box located in the refrigerator that Lorazepam is locked in. RN F indicated the refrigerator does not lock and there is not a locked box in the refrigerator. Surveyor observed R1, R24, and R27 did not have labels of date opened or resident identifier on Lorazepam bottles that were opened. Surveyor observed R7's Lorazepam expired on [DATE] and was located in the refrigerator in the medication storage room. Surveyor asked RN F if R7's Lorazepam is still being used and what is the process for destructing an expired medication. RN F indicated that R7's Lorazepam probably should have been discarded by now and that RN F can destruct the appropriate way with two licensed personnel. On [DATE] at 9:31 AM, Surveyor interviewed Director of Nursing (DON) B and asked expectation of storage of controlled substances referring to Lorazepam being stored in the refrigerator in the medication storage room. DON B indicated that Lorazepam is in the refrigerator in medication storage room. Surveyor asked DON B if the refrigerator was locked in the medication storage room or if there was a locked box in the refrigerator. DON B indicated the refrigerator is not locked and did not realize Lorazepam needed to be double locked. Surveyor asked DON B what the expectation is for labeling resident identifiers and open date for R1, R24, and R27's bottles of Lorazepam once opened. DON B indicated expectation is that an open label is applied once Lorazepam is opened to have the date opened and expired date on label. DON B indicated that all medications are to have resident identifier on the bottle as well. Surveyor asked DON B's expectation of destruction of R7's Lorazepam expired on [DATE] still located in the refrigerator in the medication storage room. DON B indicated that R7's expired Lorazepam should have been discarded right away by two licensed personnel.
Feb 2025 6 deficiencies 1 IJ
CRITICAL (J) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility did not ensure residents received the necessary treatment and se...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility did not ensure residents received the necessary treatment and services consistent with professional standards, to prevent pressure injuries (PI) from developing and promote healing for 2 of 2 residents (R1 and R2) reviewed for PIs. R1 was admitted to the facility without a PI and was assessed to be at risk for PI development. The facility failed to implement robust interventions to prevent PI development, did not assess or stage the PI weekly and did not update care plan interventions timely. R1 developed a facility acquired PI that worsened to a stage 4. The facility's failure to complete weekly comprehensive PI assessments, offer alternate repositioning schedules, update the care plan and implement interventions for R1 created a finding of immediate jeopardy that began on 01/09/25. Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) A was notified of the immediate jeopardy on 02/13/25 at 12:30 PM. The immediate jeopardy was removed on 02/19/25; however, the deficient practice continues at a scope/severity level D (potential for harm/isolated) as they continue to implement their interventions for residents at risk for PIs and as evidenced by the following example. R2 was admitted to the facility without a PI and was assessed to be at risk for PI development. The facility failed to complete comprehensive assessments, and did not offer alternative interventions or educate R2 on risks and benefits when R2 refused repositioning. R2 developed two deep tissue injuries (DTI) on the right and left buttock on 9/12/24; on 9/20/24 six PIs are identified. The multiple PIs worsened to one unstageable PI with undermining. This is evidenced by: Guidelines from the National Pressure Injury Advisory Panel (NPIAP) Quick Reference Guide 2019 indicate in part: 2.1 Conduct a comprehensive skin and tissue assessment for all individuals at risk of pressure injuries: As soon as possible after admission/transfer to the health care service .5.1 Reposition all individuals with or at risk of pressure injuries on an individualized schedule, unless contraindicated .5.5 Reposition the individual in such a way that optimal offloading of all bony prominences and maximum redistribution of pressure is achieved . NPIAP Classification Unstageable Pressure injury: Obscured full thickness skin and tissue loss. Full-thickness skin and tissue loss in which the extent of tissue damage within the ulcer cannot be confirmed because it is obscured by slough or eschar. If slough or eschar is removed, a Stage 3 or Stage 4 pressure injury will be revealed . Example 1 R1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of osteoarthritis right knee, right shoulder, anxiety disorder, major depression, chronic kidney disease stage 3a, and anemia. There was no evidence that R1 had a PI upon admission. Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], an admission assessment, documented brief interview status (BIMS) score of 13 meaning R1 is cognitively intact. R1 has impairment to one side of the upper extremities and both sides of the lower extremities. R1 requires maximum assist from staff for upper body dressing, personal hygiene, transfers and is dependent on staff for toileting, showers, lower body dressing and transfers. R1 had no behaviors of rejection of cares. R1 is at risk for PI and has no PI present on admission. R1's pain is frequent and rated at 8/10. Progress notes documented on 08/01/24 skin problems: Bordered foam removed from coccyx. Previous open area healed. All skin intact. On 08/01/24, an order for Juven supplement 1 packet with 8 oz of water b.i.d. (twice a day) for wound healing. On 08/01/24, the facility completed a Braden pressure injury risk assessment with a score of 17, indicating R1 is at mild risk for skin breakdown. On 08/11/24, a progress note for skin problems; bordered foam to coccyx restarted as area is starting to break down again. Resident denies pain to area. Pressure relief cushion in w/c and recliner. The facility did not complete a comprehensive assessment of the area to include description of the PI, stage of the PI, and measurements. On 08/21/24, a weekly skin assessment documented, Resident was in bathroom when CNA (Certified Nursing Assistant) called this writer to assess coccyx area. Length 1.7 cm, Width 0.9 cm, Tissue Type: Area appears as skin breakdown from top layer of tissue. Area is slightly moist, dressing was not intact. Wound tissue: Dark pink, slightly moist, edges defined. Physician was notified. Of note, this assessment is 10 days after the first PI was noted and the facility did not stage the PI or update the care plan with new PI interventions. Facility did not complete a weekly skin assessment on 08/28/24 to include all components of a comprehensive PI assessment. On 09/06/24, a weekly skin assessment documented 1.7 cm by 1 cm and depth appears to have cratered in, skin around site appears to be 0.3 cm higher than middle of wound bed. Wound bed appears to be covered with greater than 75% pale yellow slough with small amount of sero-sanguineous drainage. Physician was notified. Continue to observe and reposition. Note at this time the PI would be at a stage 3 or higher with slough to the wound bed. On 09/06/24, new treatment order to cleanse coccyx area wound, place collagen to fit wound bed, and cover with bordered foam daily AM. On 09/08/24, a skin problem note documented measurements of 2 cm by 2.5 cm by 0.6 cm at the deepest area, but wound bed is covered with yellow slough. Small amount brown/yellow drainage and no odor. Area cleansed, collagen applied with bordered foam. Education again with resident on moving and walking. Of note, this PI has increased in size. On 09/12/24, a late entry weekly skin assessment. Measurements of 2.6 cm by 2.8 cm by 0.4 cm, small hole like area with yellow slough. Moderate amount of pale yellow drainage. Per Gentell wound specialist recommendation, continue collagen to wound bed and into hole like area of wound, cover with super absorbent dressing daily. Resident refuses to lay down to offload pressure from coccyx during the day, prefers to sit in the recliner. Has an equa-gel cushion now in recliner. Encouraged resident to lay down during the day. Of note, this is the first time R1 has seen a wound specialist. On 09/18/24, a weekly skin assessment measurements 2.7 cm by 2.5 cm by 1.5 cm with slough. Wound bed appears as a crater, from what can be visualized that is not covered in pale yellow moist slough less than 90%. Small amount of serous drainage noted to old dressing. Resident was strongly encouraged to stay in bed to stay off of site, but resident is adamant that she needs to sit up. Physician was notified. On 09/26/24, weekly skin assessment measurements 2 cm by 2.5 cm by 1.5 cm with pale yellow slough and moist pink tissue noted at wound bed. Physician was notified, continue to observe, repositioned, infection control RN (Registered Nurse) replaced current cushion (equa-gel) with a taller equa-gel cushion that is 2.5 tall to give more support for offloading pressure. On 10/04/24, a skin problem note documented wound rounds were done with Gentell wound specialist on 10/03/24. Coccyx stage 3 measurements 2.7 cm by 2 cm by 0.8 cm with granulation tissue. Pressure relieving interventions in place, recently added to her recliner was a Equagel Protector cushion 2.5, air mattress with pump (this was added on 08/29/24), repositioning every 2 hours as resident allows, and use of wedges and pillows. She also takes Juven BID in AM/PM to promote wound healing. Collagen packed into wound bed and covered with a super absorbent dressing and all sides secured with silicone tape. Education has been provided to resident by this writer on the importance of repositioning. Of note, the positioning schedule of every 2 hours added on 10/4/24 is not current standard of practice for repositioning with a PI on the coccyx. On 10/03/24, a new treatment order to cleanse coccyx area, pack a 2x2 collagen (folding) into wound bed, skin prep to intact surround skin, cover with a super absorbent dressing, and secure all edges of dressing with silicone tape to prevent stool from undermining dressing every three days and as needed AM. The facility did not complete a weekly skin assessment that covers a comprehensive assessment of a PI on 10/11/24. On 10/18/24, skin problem note documented measurements of 2 cm by 2.4 cm by 0.9 cm with slough. Undermining present from 9 o'clock - 1 o'clock of wound bed measuring 1.5 cm at this time. Small amount of light gray-yellow drainage noted. Informed resident the area is not improving and needs to offload pressure from site. Physician was notified. Of note, this PI has now worsened with undermining and the facility has not staged the PI since first identified and did not add new PI interventions to the care plan when the PI is worsening. On 10/25/24, weekly skin assessment measurements of 2 cm by 2.1 cm by 1 cm with pale white-yellow slough at base of wound. Undermining 9 o'clock - 1 o'clock of wound bed measuring 1.5 cm. Small amount of serosanguineous drainage noted. Treatment hydraferra blue dressing to fit wound bed, skin prep to surrounding area and cover with absorbent dressing and secure with silicone tape. Physician was notified. Added to care plan to use pillow in recliner to offload pressure from coccyx while in chair. Of note, using a pillow will compress and would not be an effective offloading device. Again, the facility did not stage the PI. Consistently staging the PI is important in determining if interventions are successful or if interventions need to be altered. On 10/25/24, a new treatment order. Remove old dressing to coccyx area, including old hydra-[NAME] blue dressing at wound bed. Cleanse wound with wound cleanser. Use cotton tipped applicator to rub very inner edges at surface of wound as intervention to epibole effect. Cut new hydra-[NAME] blue dressing to fit wound bed, re-hydrating it with normal saline and squeezing out the excess. Place on wound bed base. Place skin prep to intact surround skin, cover with a super absorbent dressing, and secure all edges of dressing with silicone tape to prevent stool from undermining dressing every three days and as needed. Care plan dated 11/08/24 documented, I didn't meet my goal because: has area to the coccyx that is being treated as current area open with slough 2cm by 2.1cm and depth 1cm in size on coccyx My goal remains appropriate. Continue my goal for 3 months. 01/21/25 I need to reposition frequently and reminders to reposition often, to keep pressure off of the coccyx area. I need my aides to help me with hygiene and general skin care .help me reposition at least every 1-2 hours while I'm in bed help me reposition at least every 1 hour when I'm in a chair and not to sleep in my chair .Goal Time: Three months. (08/29/24 air mattress with pump, 09/28/24 Equagel Protector cushion - 2 .5 to w/c and recliner, (Equagel cushion is adequate for all stages) 10/25/24 use pillow at either side (one or the other) while in recliner to offload pressure from coccyx area, 01/09/25 limit time in recliner and do not sleep in recliner, off load pressure to the wound on coccyx follow up with wound clinic as needed. Of note, this is the first care plan related to skin integrity. On 11/01/24, a new order for Med Pass 2.0 a food supplement to be given at AM and PM. Of note, this is the last updated nutritional intervention for R1. On 11/10/24, a weekly skin assessment measurements 2.2 cm by 2.1 cm by 0.9 cm with white/yellow slough, undermining remains measuring 1.5 cm. small amount of brown drainage noted. There was no evidence that staff documented the stage of the PI during this assessment. The physician was not updated with the increase in size. On 11/15/24, a weekly skin assessment measurements 2 cm by 1.9 cm by 1.1 cm with white/pale yellow slough at center, undermining noted to approximately 11 o'clock measuring 1.4 cm. Small amount of pale yellow drainage. Physician was notified. Resident encouraged to off load pressure from site by laying on sides, even when in recliner to try and offload pressure. Of note, the PI is worsening with undermining and drainage. New PI interventions are not added to the care plan to promote healing. On 11/21/24, a weekly skin assessment measurements 2.1 cm by 1.9 cm by 0.9 cm with scattered white-pale slough near center. Undermining continues to the 11 o'clock area measuring 1.1 cm. Small amount of pale yellow-tan drainage. Physician was notified. Resident encouraged to reposition. On 11/27/24, a weekly skin assessment measurements 2 cm by 1 cm by 1.4 cm with 50% granulation tissue and 50% pale yellow-white slough. Undermining noted slightly at edges of wound longest at 12 o'clock with 1 cm. Physician was notified. On 11/27/24, new treatment change to dry blue foam dressing to fit wound bed. On 12/3/24, a late entry for 10/31/24, a skin problem note documented measurements of 1.5 cm by 1 cm by 1 cm with 80% slough. On 12/05/24, a weekly skin assessment measurements 1.9 cm by 1.1 cm by 1.1 cm with pale yellow slough marbled throughout wound. Undermining continues at approximately 12 o'clock with approximately 1.1 cm in length. Small-moderate amount of serous drainage. No odor. Physician was notified. Resident educated to reposition and off-loading. On 12/11/24, a weekly skin assessment measurements 1.9 cm by 1.1 cm by 1.0 cm with light amount of pale white-yellow slough marbled throughout wound bed. Undermining remains at 12 o'clock with approximately 1 cm in length. Small-moderate amount of serous drainage. Physician was notified. Resident encouraged to rest and reposition. The facility did not complete a weekly skin assessment on 12/18/24. On 12/27/24, a weekly skin assessment measurements 1.8 cm by 1.1 cm by 0.7 cm with pale yellow slough marbled throughout. Undermining remains at 12 o'clock area at approximately 1.5 cm in length. Moderate amount of light tan serous drainage. Resident encouraged to reposition. On 12/31/24, a new order for Acetaminophen 650 mg daily prn for pain. This order was discontinued on 02/11/25. On 01/03/25, a weekly skin assessment measurements 1.9 cm by 1.1 cm by 2.1 cm with 75% slough that is pale yellow to shades of green to area at 9 o'clock with tan-brown color. Peri wound is noted to be reddened and inflamed. Resident states area is sore. A foul odor is noted. Undermining approximately 1.5 cm noted at 12 o'clock. Message left for provider. Of note, the PI is showing signs of infection and increased undermining, no new interventions were added to the care plan. On 01/03/25, new order for antibiotic Keflex 500 mg daily for 7 days for wound infection. No culture of the wound was obtained. On 01/03/25, a new treatment order. Remove old dressing to coccyx area. Cleanse wound with wound cleanser, wound should be thoroughly flushed, removing foreign material and dead tissue. After soaking 4x4 gauze in 20-30 ml Dakins solution, squeeze excess solution from gauze so that it is not dripping, gently pack into all wound bed area. Ensure Dakins soaked gauze is not touching any healthy tissue, only wound tissue. Cover wound area with absorbent dressing, ensuring all wound pockets are crevices are covered. Apply silicone tape to dressing edges to prevent stool from undermining dressing bid AM and PM. On 01/03/25, Nurse Practitioner placed a wound consult order. On 01/09/25, a late entry for 01/08/25 weekly wound assessment. Measurements 2.2 cm by 1.1 cm by 1.5 cm. Wound bed noted to be more red vs slough. No odor today. Undermining ranging in varying lengths form 9 o'clock to 1 o'clock, with longest depth at 1.5 cm. Treatment of Dakins wet to dry dressing BID. Resident stated area is tender. Physician notified. Resident encouraged to offload pressure from site. On 01/09/25, a new order Tramadol HCL 50 mg stat for pain going to wound clinic for wound, having pain in wound. On 01/09/25, a wound center new patient progress note documented in part: She reports that she does have pain around the coccyx area where the wound is. She reports that she has significant musculoskeletal pain, and that lying on her right side is generally more uncomfortable than lying on the left side. She spends most of the day in a recliner, including napping at times. Impression: Pressure Ulcer - Stage IV Deep, but clean wound to fascia overlying sacrum. No exposed, rough bone. Wound likely consequence from prolonged time up in recliner, limited mobility and pain with osteoarthritis. On the MDS, dated [DATE], a significant change assessment, R1 had no behaviors of rejections of cares provided by staff. R1 is dependent on staff assistance for bed mobility. R1 requires maximum assistance from staff for transfers. MDS documented R1 is at risk for PI and has a non-healed stage 4 PI. The facility did not complete a weekly wound assessment on 01/16/25. On 01/17/25, new treatment order. Remove old dressing to coccyx area. Cleanse wound with wound cleanser, wound should be thoroughly flushed, removing foreign material and dead tissue. Loosely pack wound with calcium alginate Silver and cover daily AM. On 01/25/25, a weekly wound assessment measurements 2.0 cm by 1.1 cm by 1.5 cm with some white to yellow slough at the base of the wound. No odor noted. Undermining from 9 o'clock to 1 o'clock with longest depth of 1.5 cm. Treatment of Calcium alginate with silver. Resident did not complain of pain. On 01/31/25, a weekly wound assessment measurements 2 cm by 1.6 cm by 1.5 cm with 10% white-yellow slough to wound base. Undermining continues at 12 o'clock with approximately 3 cm of depth. Note PI has increased in size. Undermining from 9 o'clock to 3 o'clock with varying length with 12 o'clock is the longest. Treatment changed to hydroferra blue foam packed to fit in wound bed. Resident had no c/o pain. Physician notified. Resident encouraged to reposition. Message sent out to staff to educate on importance of changing the dressing when there is breakthrough drainage noted or if the dressing is not sealed/intact at the edges. On 02/05/25, a new treatment order. Remove old dressing to coccyx area. Cleanse wound with wound cleanser, wound should be thoroughly flushed, removing foreign material and dead tissue. Loosely pack wound with blue foam so that it touches wound bed and walls, cover with absorbent dressing daily and prn. On 02/07/25, a weekly wound assessment measurements 2.1 cm by 1.0 cm by 1.3 cm with granulation tissue and no slough noted. Periwound is pink, maceration noted to the 3 o'clock to 5 o'clock area at wound edges. Undermining from 11 o'clock to about 3 o'clock with longest/deepest measurement of approximately 3.2 cm with yellow-tan serous drainage. Note the PI undermining has increased in size. No odor. Physician notified. Resident encouraged to rest, reposition. Of note, the facility does not stage the PI from the time first observed on 8/11/24 through 02/07/25, to determine worsening. On 02/11/25, a new order for Acetaminophen 650 mg daily prn for pain. On 02/11/25 at 11:27 a.m., Surveyor observed R1 lying in bed with a pillow under right side of lower back to buttocks. R1 is not offloaded of the coccyx area. On 02/12/25, a new order for Tramadol HCL 75 mg t.i.d. 6:00 a.m., 12:00 p.m., 6:00 p.m. for pain. On 02/12/25 at 10:52 a.m., Surveyor observed wound care. The wound observed to be a stage 4 with undermining. The wound bed had very minimal slough with the wound bed beefy red. On 02/12/25 at 11:54 a.m., Surveyor interviewed R1 about the wound and repositioning. R1 stated she has pain and asked if she could move. Resident was just transferred to recliner for lunch. R1 stated every 2 hours but she does have pain and would like to be positioned in another position. On 02/12/25 at 2:50 p.m., Surveyor observed R1 in bed with head of bed elevated slightly and had a wedge cushion placed on R1's back right side. The wedge cushion was positioned from mid back to distal buttocks. At 2:53 p.m., Surveyor asked Director of Nursing (DON) B to assess R1's positioning and asked if the coccyx area is offloaded to be able to insert hand between resident and wedge without touching R1. DON B inserted her hand and stated R1 was not off loaded. On 02/12/25 at 11:58 a.m., Surveyor interviewed Nurse Practitioner (NP) I asking if the wound was avoidable. NP I indicated in a sense it is avoidable and also unavoidable as the resident does not want to reposition and has been educated and the family also educated numerous times. Surveyor asked if there were any medical indications that would make the resident at risk for further decline in skin and healing. NP I indicated there is no medical issues to cause decline to make it unavoidable. R1 has lost weight per resident wishes as her diet before coming to the facility was very poor and now she is getting a balanced diet. On 02/13/25 at 9:50 a.m., Surveyor interviewed NHA A about the air mattress. NHA A indicated the mattress for R1 is rated up to a stage 3 pressure injury. Of note, the air mattress on R1's bed was appropriate for up to a stage 3 PI. However, the wound clinic staged R1's PI as a stage 4. There is no indication the mattress was changed to provide additional pressure relief. The failure to ensure that nurses and CNAs had the appropriate training and knowledge to prevent and care for pressure injuries created a finding of immediate jeopardy for R1. The immediacy was removed on 02/21/25 when the facility completed the following: 1. Full facility skin assessment sweep completed by facility nursing leadership. Wound Care Consultant (Gentell) rounded on 2/14/25 for residents with areas of wound concerns all but one resident who was out for a procedure. Wound Consultant returns Thursday 2/20/25. First wound rounds is Tuesday 2/18/2025 at 10am. 2. Full facility Braden Scale Sweep competed by nursing leadership. 3. Interventions put in place based on Braden scale score. 4. All care plans for residents with any skin concerns reviewed for appropriate interventions and updated. 5. For all pressure injuries identified or current, review each resident's nutrition, appetites, weights, blood sugar, hydration competed by nursing leadership to make sure appropriate interventions are in place for those residents. 6. Inventory of all mattresses and cushions that residents utilize and identify the stages for each. Changes made to these to make sure they are appropriate for the needs of the residents. 7. Get a Alternating Air Mattress ordered that supports up to a Stage IV wound. - Ordered 2/17/2025, ETA 2-3 days. 8. Obtain mattress and cushion information from manufacturer or supplier to make sure they meet the correct needs of the residents. 9. Hydration assessments on residents whom are identified for Pressure Ulcers. 10. Training for RNs and LPNs was initiated on 2/15/2025, to be complete by 02/21/25. -admission Checklist and re-admission Checklist and implementing a base-line care plan for skin break down interventions based on the Braden Scale. -Wound assessments, staging, types of ulcers, and documentation provided by Nursing Leadership. -Implementation of wound rounds and the responsibilities of the floor nurses related to this, notifications for MD, RN, and POAs. -New pressure ulcer checklist, the expectations of assessment, notifications, and documentation. -Completing Braden Scale assessments correctly. Education on interventions that need to be put in place based off of the Braden Scale Score. 11. Training of RN, LPN, and CNAs -On positioning devices, mattresses, and cushion to ensure they know the correct item needed based on residents' pressure ulcer. -Positioning and repositioning. How to do it correctly and appropriate timing of repositioning including documentation of refusals and acceptance. -Intake documentation policy for meal and fluid intakes and snacks. 12. Implement weekly Wound Rounds to be completed on Tuesday Mornings at 10am. Team will consist of Wound Nurse, DON, MDS Coordinator, Infection Preventionist, Floor Nurse, and CNA. working with resident as needed. During these rounds wounds will be assessed and measured. Current care plan will be brought with to rounds. Teams will assess that all listed interventions are in place, cushions, mattress, repositioning, no kinked tubing, proper inflation of cushion if needed. After round assessment the nursing leadership team and culinary manager will meet to review the care plan, review all interventions are appropriate and initiate new interventions. Team will also review Braden scales, hydration, appetites, supplements, and current treatment orders for appropriateness and to initiate new interventions. Will also review nursing and CNA documentation for accuracy and that it is completed. Update admission and re-admission checklist to clarify the expectations upon admission for the Skin assessment, braden scale, and interventions implemented in the baseline care plan. Implement checklist for nursing to use when a new skin concern; pressure or ulcer area. (Not for skin tears or abrasions). The checklist will have all assessment and interventions that should be considered or put in place when a new area is indicated to make sure that proper assessment and interventions are put in place immediately. The checklist will then be given to DON to review. Checklist will also have examples of interventions that can be put in place. Implement new documentation for meals, fluids, and snacks. Implement provider and resident representative being updated weekly after wound rounds with current wound measurements and wound assessment. Update policy and procedures related to skin, wounds, Braden scales, and repositioning Monitoring, audits, Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement Plan DON or designee will receive new pressure ulcer checklist to review. Skin Care interventions will be reviewed during wound round assessments and meeting. Skin documentation will be reviewed for accuracy during this meeting and education provided to staff if inaccuracies are noted during monitoring. Audits will be completed to review braden scale assessment, wound documentation, dressing competencies, care plans, and resident repositioning. - Nursing Leadership will conduct audits daily for 2 weeks, weekly for 8 weeks, and monthly for 3 months of residents with pressure injuries. QAPI will review all residents with wounds monthly for 1 year. QA will review all resident with wounds quarterly for 1 year and review/update skin care policies as needed. Facility Assessment will be updated related to any wound resident care requirements. The deficient practice continues at a scope/severity of D (potential for harm/isolated) as evidenced by: Example 2 R2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with hospice care starting on 08/30/24. R2's diagnoses include dementia with psychotic disturbance, chronic pain syndrome, urinary incontinence, severe protein-calorie malnutrition, cerebral infraction with residual deficits, Alzheimer's disease, anxiety, and major depressive disorder. The MDS, dated [DATE], an admission assessment, documented a BIMS score of 6 out of 15, meaning severe cognitive impairment. R2 has physical and verbal behaviors and rejection of cares. R2 requires maximum assistance of staff for eating, oral care, bed mobility and transfers. R2 is dependent on staff for toileting hygiene, showers, and personal hygiene. R2 has physical impairments to one side of upper and lower extremities. R2 is at risk for PI and has no open PI. On 09/06/24, the facility completed a Braden pressure injury risk assessment with a score of 17, indicating R2 is at mild risk for skin breakdown. Physician orders Orders on 08/29/24 for meal supplement of Ensure vanilla with all meals, acetaminophen 650 mg three times a day for pain, gabapentin 100 mg daily in AM for left hand pain, gabapentin 300 mg daily at bedtime for left hand pain. Orders on 08/31/24 for methadone HCL 15 mg three times a day for chronic pain. Orders on 09/16/24 for lidocaine 4% patch to lower back 12 hours on and 12 hours off. Orders on 10/10/24 an order for Juven a nutritional supplement packet by mouth b.i.d. (twice a day) AM and HS for wound healing. Orders on 12/17/24 Morphine Sulfate 20 mg solution by mouth 1 ml / 20 mg every hour for pain and dyspnea (for end of life). The care plan, revised dated 12/03/24, read, I have the potential to have a skin injury .interventions (pressure relieving mattress with pump, use pillows and wedge to reposition me, encourage resident to adhere to repositing care, plan, providing education on the importance of preventing further skin breakdown, turn and reposition resident at least every 2 hours while in bed - as she allows) (10/04/24 Equagel protector cushion - 2.5 to recliner/wheelchair) (10/14/24 Encourage resident to wear podus boot to left foot while in bed for left heel redness as she allows) (10/25/24 Side to side positioning when in bed as resident allows, educate resident on importance of offloading from coccyx.) On 09/12/24, a skin problem note documented a late entry for 09/11/24. Deep dark red-purple area of tissue noted to left inner buttock, as well as right inner buttock. Left site measure 5 cm x 5 cm. has round edges and is purple like in color at inner most area. Outer area is dark red, neither area blanches upon touch. Right site (right buttock) noted to be dark red in color, does not blanch upon touch and measures 1.5 cm x 1.5 cm. No open areas present at this time. Resident has been noncompliant with repositioning since admission, and likes to sit/lay flat on back/buttocks while in bed. Does have air mattress, will ask hospice to bring their own as well as any repositioning tools . applied Lantiseptic and strict offloading of area encouraged. Provider NP updated, No New Orders. Hospice nurse updated. Floor nurse to update POA. DON updated, as well. The facility did not complete a comprehensive PI assessment. Of note, an air mattress was in place on 09/12/24. NPIAP definition of a Deep Tissue Injury: Persistent non-blanchable deep red, maroon or purple discoloration Intact or non-intact skin with localized area of persistent non-blanchable deep red, maroon, purple discoloration or epidermal separation revealing a dark wound bed or blood filled blister. Pain and temperature change often precede skin color changes. Discoloration may appear differently in darkly pigmented skin. This injury results from intense and/or prolonged pressure and shear forces at the bone-muscle interface. The wound may evolve rapidly to reveal the actual extent of tissue injury, or may resolve without tissue loss. If necrotic tissue, subcutaneous tissue, granulation tissue, fascia, muscle or other underlying structures are visible, this indicates a full thickness pressure injury (Unstageable, Stage 3 or Stage 4). Of note, the above skin description on 9/12/24 meets the NPIAP definition for a DTI. The facility did not stage the wound when first noted on 9/12/24. On 09/20/24, a weekly skin assessment: Note this assessment was 2 days late. Left inner buttock measurements 3.5 cm by 0.5 cm, closed scabbed over, no drainage, dark red-purple in color. Lower spine, center above sacral area measurements 1.5 cm by 1.8 cm, closed area is dark pink tissue, non-blanching. Bordered foam for protection to be changed every 3 days. Left upper buttock to coccyx measurements 5 cm by 7 cm, skin is red and non-blanching upon touch. Left of sacrum, redness non-blanching measurements 3.5 cm by 2.5 cm closed. Right of sacrum measurements 5 cm by 4 cm closed and non-blanching. Right of sacrum below large area measurement 2.5 cm by 1.5 cm closed.
SERIOUS (G) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility did not ensure the resident environment remained as free of acc...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility did not ensure the resident environment remained as free of accidents as possible for 1 of 3 residents (R7) reviewed for accidents. R7 has a history of falls and has had 8 falls since admission. On 01/27/25, the facility failed to ensure that R7's fall interventions were in place resulting in R7 having a fall with injury requiring staples to the head, as well as a skin tear. This is cited at actual harm. Findings: The facility's Fall - Clinical Protocol policy dated 04/03/23 states in part, Assessment and Recognition 1. As part of the initial assessment, the physician will help identify individuals with a history of falls and risk factors for subsequent falling. a. Staff will ask the resident and the caregiver or family about a history of falling. b. The staff and physician should document in the medical record a history of one or more recent falls. c. While many falls are isolated individual incidents, a significant proportion occur among a few residents/patients. Those individuals may have a treatable medical disorder or functional disturbance as the underlying cause . Cause Identification: For an individual who has fallen, staff will complete root cause analysis. a. Causes refer to factors that are associated with or that directly result in a fall; for example, a balance problem caused by an old or recent stroke. b. Often, multiple factors in varying degrees contribute to a falling problem . Treatment/Management: 1. Based on the preceding assessment, the staff and physician will identify pertinent interventions to try to prevent subsequent falls and to address risks of serious consequences of falling . 2. If underlying causes cannot be readily identified or corrected, staff will try various relevant interventions, based on assessment of the nature or category of falling, until falling reduces or stops or until a reason is identified for its continuation (for example, if the individual continues to try to get up and walk without waiting for assistance). R7 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of end-stage Alzheimer's disease and on hospice. R7's most recent minimum data set (MDS) dated [DATE] indicated that R7 did not have a fall in the last month and had five falls in the last 2-6 months. R7 has a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of 3 out of 15, indicating severe cognitive impairment. R7 requires setup/cleanup assistance with eating, requires substantial/maximum assistance with oral hygiene, toileting hygiene, upper and lower body dressing, and personal hygiene, and R7 is dependent on staff for putting on and taking off footwear. R7 walks 10, 50, and 150 feet with substantial/maximum assistance of staff. R7 requires partial/moderate assistance with rolling left to right, sit to lying, lying to sitting and sit to stand. R7 requires substantial/maximum assistance with toileting and chair/bed-to-chair transfers. R7 is occasionally incontinent of urine and always continent of bowel. Fall Risk Assessment for R7 completed on 06/05/24 shows a score of 18 indicating R7 was at risk for falling. Assessment indicates R7 has decreased awareness, poor recall and judgement for mental factors. Fall Risk Assessment for R7 completed on 09/05/24 shows a score of 25 indicating R7 was at a risk for falls. Assessment indicates R7 has decreased awareness, poor recall and judgment for mental factors. Fall Risk Assessment completed on 11/20/24 shows a score of 17 indicating R7 was at a risk for falls. Assessment indicates R7 has decreased awareness, poor recall and judgement for mental factors. R7's fall care plan was initiated on 06/04/24. Interventions included, I need my aides to make sure my important items are within my reach, give me non-skid footwear, so I don't slip, make sure my hearing aids are in and are working, remind me to wear my glasses, encourage me to use assistance, report signs that I am in pain to my nurse. Falls investigation are as follows, in part: On 06/09/24 at 8:58 PM, witnessed fall while transferring resident. Injury of skin tear to the left elbow. Immediate intervention put into place: Education provided to staff regarding transfers and making sure shoes are tied prior to standing resident. On 06/19/24 at 7:55 PM, unwitnessed fall. Skin tear to left elbow reopened. Immediate interventions put into place: Offer recliner after supper until bedtime. On 07/17/24 at 4:25 PM, witnessed fall. Has complaints of right elbow and right hip pain. Immediate intervention put into place: Reinforce to resident following each transfer that resident should not attempt to walk alone without walker. On 08/25/24 at 11:00 PM, unwitnessed fall. Hematoma to posterior head. Immediate interventions put into place: Remind resident to call for help before getting up. Place signs around room and on walker to call for help before getting up. On 09/16/24 at 1:15 PM, unwitnessed fall. Abrasion to the back of the head. Immediate interventions put into place: Bell placed on walker to alert staff when resident is moving. On 12/08/24 at 7:00 AM, witnessed fall. Laceration to left elbow and a red bump the size of a quarter to middle back of the head. Immediate interventions put into place: Hospice to adjust medication times to not wake resident for medications (per daughter). On 12/11/24 at 5:53 PM, unwitnessed fall. Irregular shaped, dark blue/purple bruising to right temple area. Immediate intervention put into place: When up in the circle she is in her wheelchair. On 01/27/25 at 7:25 AM, unwitnessed fall. Laceration/hematoma to right side of head. Educated staff on ensuring resident is wearing gripper socks at times when she is not wearing shoes. Of note: R7's fall care plan initiated on 06/04/24 indicates R7 is to have non-skid footwear. This was again listed as an intervention in all care plan revisions and following the fall on 01/27/25 when R7 was noted to not have the intervention in place at time of the fall. On 01/27/25, incident report findings: Date 01/27/25, Time 7:25 AM, Incident type: fall-unwitnessed leading to laceration. Location: Nurses station Activity at the time: Resident was seen by writer sleeping in the recliner chair 5 minutes prior to the fall. Equipment involved: recliner chair. Possible cause: Resident possibly tried to get up without assistance (she does this very often). Resident was barefoot as well. Mental state: normal for resident. Injury: laceration/hematoma to right side of head (W [sic] large amount of blood), a cut to left hand, and skin tear/bruising to R. First aid: immediately applied, transferred to emergency room. On 01/27/25, emergency room record findings: Physical examination: .HEENT: head is normocephalic, she has an inch and a half laceration to the mid scalp that is approximately 4 mm deep . Medical Decision Making: .emergency room Evaluation: Upon arrival to the ER patient is hemodynamically stable. Her skin tear and scalp lacerations were cleansed with copious amounts of chlorhexidine and saline. For her skin tear, some bacitracin applied and a sterile clean dressing place. Her scalp laceration was stapled. Sick [sic] staples were placed, patient tolerated procedure well. After stapling, good hemostasis obtained. Some bacitracin was then applied. I did obtain a head CT and cervical CT which were both negative. Cervical collar was then removed, and her neck cleared. Impression: The primary encounter diagnosis was accidental fall, initial encounter. A diagnosis of laceration of scalp, initial encounter was also pertinent to this visit. Of note: R7 did not have care planned intervention in place, non-skid footwear, not on at time of the fall on 01/27/25 that resulted in a head laceration requiring six staples. On 02/12/25 at 11:21 AM, Surveyor interviewed Director of Nursing (DON) B. Surveyor informed DON B that the root cause for the fall dated 01/27/25 was the resident tried to get up without assistance and resident was barefoot as well. Surveyor asked DON B what the facility did after this fall. DON B replied, The staff were reeducated on the use of gripper socks when the resident was not wearing shoes. On 02/12/25 at 2:00 PM, Surveyor asked DON B for a copy of any education provided to staff following fall investigation from 1/27/25. DON B replied, We had a 'Fall Huddle' and this was verbal education given based on the appropriate intervention. Surveyor asked DON B, Do you believe that staff education should have been given and documented instead of a 'Fall Huddle'? DON B replied, No, in this case I think that the last 24 hours of staff that worked with this resident should have been talked to to make sure that they were aware of what went wrong. On 02/12/25 at 12:50 PM, Surveyor asked Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) E, If this resident's care plan was to make sure the resident had on non-skid footwear and [R7] was barefoot when the fall took place, was the care plan followed? CNA E replied, No it wasn't. On 02/12/25 at 12:51 PM, Surveyor asked CNA D, If this resident's care plan was to make sure the resident had on non-skid footwear and [R7] was barefoot when the fall took place, was the care plan followed? CNA D replied, No it wasn't. On 02/12/25 at 12:52 PM, Surveyor asked Registered Nurse (RN) C, If this resident's care plan was to make sure the resident had on non-skid footwear and [R7] was barefoot when the fall took place, was the care plan followed? RN C replied, The staff followed the care plan, but she most likely took off her nonskid footwear. On 02/12/25 at 12:59 PM, Surveyor asked DON B, If this resident's care plan was to make sure the resident had on non-skid footwear and [R7] was barefoot when the fall took place, was the care plan followed? DON B replied, No, at that time we were not following the care plan. The facility failed to ensure that R7's care planned interventions were in place to prevent falls resulting in R7 having a fall with scalp laceration that required staples.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility did not ensure that all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, exploita...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility did not ensure that all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, exploitation or mistreatment, including injuries of unknown source and misappropriation of resident property, are reported immediately, but not later than 2 hours after the allegation is made, if the events that cause the allegation involve abuse or result in serious bodily injury, or not later than 24 hours if the events that cause the allegation do not involve abuse and do not result in serious bodily injury, to the administrator of the facility and to other officials (including to the State Survey Agency and adult protective services where state law provides for jurisdiction in long-term care facilities) in accordance with State law for 1 of 1 incidents reviewed. R10 alleged being physically abused by Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) J on 02/09/25 at 11:00 PM. This was not reported to the state until 02/11/25 at 2:55 PM. This is evidenced by: Review of facility's policy titled Abuse, Neglect, and Misappropriation dated 04/02/23 read in part, All alleged violation involving abuse, neglect .are reported immediately to the State Agency, but not later than two (2) hours after the allegation is made, if the events that cause the allegation involve abuse . R10 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction affecting right side, anxiety, and depression. R10's annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] recorded a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of 12, which indicates moderate cognitive impairment. On 02/11/25 at 5:45 PM, Surveyor interviewed R10 asking if staff have ever physically abused R10. R10 indicated there was a time I was thrown against the wall. R10 reported to the nurse of the incident. R10 denied having any injuries. R10 could not recall who the staff was and could not remember when the incident occurred. R10 could not recall the specifics to the incident. A facility self report indicates that on 02/09/25 at 11:00 PM, R10 reported to Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) K that CNA J banged R10's head against the wall during cares. LPN K assessed R10 and did not note any bruising, discoloration, or injuries. R10 denied any pain. LPN K reported immediately to Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) A and Director of Nursing (DON) B. Then LPN K sent CNA J home until the investigation was complete. CNA J reported R10 was verbally abusing CNA J when providing R10 cares. CNA J claimed R10's head did not hit the wall and believes there was a pillow between R10 and the wall. On 02/11/25 at 9:00 AM., Surveyor interviewed NHA A about reporting of the allegation of abuse. NHA A indicated staff reported immediately, within the two hours, to NHA A and DON B and assessed R10 who was found to have no injuries. NHA A went on to say, R10 has a history of not liking certain staff and making derogatory statements of minority staff. NHA A indicated it was determined the allegation of abuse did not occur, and R10 may have hit head on wall when rolled, but there was no injury to conclude R10's head hit the wall. NHA A determined this was not a willful act or an intentional act by CNA J and was not reported to the State agency as abuse. Surveyor asked NHA A if this was determined within the first 2 hours of R10 reporting. NHA A indicated it was not determined within the first 2 hours.
CONCERN (F) 📢 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 F0944 (Tag F0944)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on interview and record review, the facility did not ensure staff received Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) program training. This practice had the potential to affect all 43 res...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility did not ensure staff received Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) program training. This practice had the potential to affect all 43 residents in the facility. The facility did not provide any staff with required training on the facility's QAPI plan. This is evidenced by: The facility's Quality Assurance & Performance Improvement Plan, dated 01/2024, states in part: Staff Training and Orientation In order for caregivers to become and remain proficient with quality improvement tools and techniques, QAPI principles and staff responsibilities related to QAPI, and ongoing quality improvement will also be included in orientation for all new employees. In order to become and remain proficient with quality improvement tools and techniques all staff will participate in ongoing annual QAPI training . On 02/25/25, Surveyor reviewed the facility's new orientation and annual education completed with staff. Surveyor observed no training identified as QAPI education. On 02/25/25 at 1:54 AM, Surveyor interviewed Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) A regarding QAPI training. NHA A stated the facility currently did not have QAPI education included in new orientation or annual education for all employees. NHA A stated this was identified as a missing piece of education needed for all staff and would be working on creating a new orientation and annual QAPI training program.
MINOR (C) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0895 (Tag F0895)

Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility did not develop a compliance and ethics program that has been reasonably desi...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility did not develop a compliance and ethics program that has been reasonably designed, implemented, and enforced so that it is likely to be effective in preventing and detecting criminal, civil, and administrative violations under the Act and promote quality of care. This has the potential to affect all 43 residents. Findings include: On 02/25/25, Surveyor reviewed the facility assessment dated [DATE] and revised on 02/20/24. The facility assessment does not include ethics and compliance training. On 02/25/25 at 2:00 p.m., Surveyor interviewed Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) A and asked if the facility had an ethics and compliance program. NHA A stated she knew the facility needed a program, but due to other issues/priorities that arose, this was put aside and never implemented.
MINOR (C) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0946 (Tag F0946)

Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility did not set forth an effective way to communicate the program's standards, po...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility did not set forth an effective way to communicate the program's standards, policies, and procedures through a training program or in another practical manner which explains the requirements under the program. This has the potential to affect all 43 residents. Findings include: On 02/25/25, Surveyor reviewed the facility assessment dated [DATE] and revised on 02/20/24. The facility assessment does not include ethics and compliance training. On 02/25/25, Surveyor reviewed three Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) training records, and two licensed staff training records. CNA M, CNA N, CNA O, Registered Nurse (RN) H, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) K did not receive ethics and compliance training. On 02/25/25 at 2:00 p.m., Surveyor interviewed Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) A and asked if the facility had an ethics and compliance program and how they effectively communicate the program's standards, policies, and procedures through a training program NHA A stated she knew the facility needed a program, but due to other issues/priorities that arose, this was put aside. NHA A acknowledged there is no training.
Jan 2024 7 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility did not ensure 1 of 12 (R3) residents reviewed for comprehensive...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility did not ensure 1 of 12 (R3) residents reviewed for comprehensive care plans had a developed care plan specific to the resident. This is evidenced by: The facility policy, entitled Care Plans - Comprehensive, states: An individualized comprehensive care plan that includes measurable objectives and timetables to meet the resident's medical, nursing, mental and psychological needs is developed for each resident .Each resident's comprehensive care plan is designed to: a. Incorporate identified problem areas; b. Incorporate risk factors associated with identified problems . On 1/23/24, Surveyor reviewed R3's medical record. R3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including, but not limited to diabetes and colitis due to Clostridioides difficile (C-diff). Review of R3's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 12/13/23, included the diagnosis of diabetes and colitis due to C-diff. Review of R3's care plan indicated there was nothing written concerning diabetes nor colitis due to C- diff. Review of R3's nursing progress notes indicated R3 was admitted to the facility with the diagnosis of diabetes. During the months of May, June and July of 2023, R3 had high and low blood sugars needing intervention. R3 was first diagnosed with C-diff on 9/07/23. On 1/22/24 at 7:07 AM, Surveyor observed a sign on R3's door for droplet precautions and Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) outside of R3's room. Surveyor asked Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) L why R3 was on droplet precautions. LPN L said R3 was on precautions for C-diff. On 1/23/24, Surveyor asked Director of Nursing (DON) B for the diabetes care plan for R3. DON B provided R3's care plan for diabetes that was created on this day (1/23/24). On 1/24/24 at 12:17 PM, Surveyor interviewed DON B concerning R3's care plan lacking information for the diagnosis of diabetes and C-diff. DON B said R3 should have these items included in the care plan to help guide resident care.
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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and interviews, the facility did not ensure that 1 of 4 sampled residents, (R) R19, who are ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and interviews, the facility did not ensure that 1 of 4 sampled residents, (R) R19, who are unable to carry out activities of daily living, receive the necessary services to maintain good nutrition, grooming, and personal and oral hygiene. This is evidenced by: The facility policy entitled: Repositioning, states in part .1. Repositioning is a common, effective intervention for preventing skin breakdown, promoting circulation, and providing pressure relief. 3. repositioning is critical for a resident who is immobile or dependent upon staff for repositioning. R19 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and placed on hospice for end-of-life care on 08/29/23 related to decline in status related to a diagnosis of atherosclerotic heart disease. R19's most recent comprehensive assessment was a significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 08/23/23, which indicated that R19 is dependent for all Activities of Daily Living (ADL), totally incontinent of bowel and bladder, requires substantial to maximum assist for repositioning and is at risk for skin breakdown. R19's current care plan, dated 10/26/23, states: Prompt me to reposition often in bed and w/c. Encourage resident to lay down between meals - if resident refused reposition every 2 hours. On 01/22/24, Surveyor continuously observed R19 and noted the following: On 01/22/24 at 7:23 AM, Surveyor observed R19 being transferred to Broda chair after receiving morning cares and placed in front of the TV in R19's room. On 01/22/24 at 8:19 AM, Surveyor observed R19 brought to the dining room by staff without repositioning or toileting conducted. On 01/22/24 at 9:31 AM, Surveyor observed R19 brought back to R19's room and placed in front of the TV, without repositioning or toileting being offered or provided. On 01/22/24 at 10:37 AM, Surveyor observed R19 still sitting up in the reclining wheelchair watching TV; no staff entered room to reposition or conduct toileting needs. On 01/22/24 at 11:27 PM, Surveyor observed R19 visiting with family in R19's room; no staff entered room to reposition or conduct toileting needs. On 01/22/24 at 12:08 PM, Surveyor observed R19 taken to the dining room by a staff member, without repositioning or toileting being offered or provided. On 01/22/24 at 1:09 PM, Surveyor observed R19 brought back from the dining room and placed in R19's room and placed in front of the television. On 01/22/24 at 1:32 PM, Surveyor observed Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) H transfer R19 to bed, wherein a urine soaked brief and reddened buttocks were noted. On 01/22/24 at 1:32 PM, CNA H confirmed noted redness of buttocks to Surveyor. On 01/22/24 at 3:35 PM, Surveyor interviewed Director of Nursing (DON) B, regarding observation of R19 sitting in chair for 6 hours without repositioning and incontinence care. DON B stated R19 is currently on hospice and the expectation would be R19 to be repositioned and provided incontinence cares at least every 2 hours.
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 observation, interview and record review, the facility did not ensure 1 of 2 sampled residents (R) R39 received treatment and care in accordance with standards of practice when R39 was not gi...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility did not ensure 1 of 2 sampled residents (R) R39 received treatment and care in accordance with standards of practice when R39 was not given medication as ordered. This is evidenced by: The facility policy, entitled Physician Medication Orders states: Medications shall be administered only upon the written order of a person duly licensed and authorized to prescribe such medication in this state. On 01/05/24, R39 was seen by urologist related to bladder urgency. The urologist ordered a laxative Polyethylene glycol 17 grams/dose powder oral in am. If not 1 bowel movement (BM) per day give additional 17grams at night related to findings of constipation and enlarged prostate. On 01/23/24, Surveyor reviewed R39's medication record which showed between 01/06/24 and 01/23/24, R39 did not have a bowel movement on 8 out of the 18 days (01/07/24; 01/10/24; 01/12/24; 01/13/24; 01/14/24; 01/16/24; 01/18/24; and 01/19/24) and did not receive the extra dose of prescribed polyethylene glycol at night. On 01/23/24 at 2:29 PM, Surveyor interviewed Director of Nursing (DON) B regarding order for polyethylene not given at bedtime on dates of no BM per urologist's order. DON B confirmed the medication record did not show R39 receiving the polyethylene at bedtime per physician order.
CONCERN (D)

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

Incontinence Care (Tag F0690)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews and record reviews, the facility did not ensure 1 of 1 residents (R) reviewed with a suprapubi...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews and record reviews, the facility did not ensure 1 of 1 residents (R) reviewed with a suprapubic catheters (R3) received appropriate treatment and services for the catheter. This is evidenced by: On 1/23/24, Surveyor reviewed R3's medical record. R3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses included, but not limited to benign prostatic hyperplasia, supra pubic catheter, prostate abscess, and urinary retention. Review of R3's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 12/13/23, included indwelling catheter. Review of R3's care plan indicated .I have a supra pubic catheter .I need my nurses to care for my catheter and change catheter . R3 had a suprapubic catheter placed on 7/10/23 due to retention and prostate abscess. Review of R3's urology note dated 8/16/23 stated, Under the order and the supervision of the Urologist. The patient is here for a routine suprapubic catheter change .The patient is scheduled for Q [every] 4 weeks SP [suprapubic] catheter changes to be done at nursing home . R3's suprapubic catheter was changed during hospitalization from 9/7/23 - 9/18/23 for the month of September. On 10/16/23, R3's catheter was changed at the facility. There was no documentation that R3's suprapubic catheter was changed for the months of November and December. On 1/18/24, R3's catheter was changed at the facility. The original order for changing the suprapubic catheter every 4 weeks was entered in August when first ordered. The provider did not change the order. The facility should have changed R3's suprapubic catheter for the months of November and December. On 1/24/24 at 12:17 PM, Surveyor interviewed the Director of Nursing (DON) B concerning why R3's suprapubic catheter changes that were ordered to be changed at the facility were not completed in November and December. DON B said due to the way the order was entered, it was not showing up in the treatment administration record (TAR) to be completed as a task. Therefore the catheter did not get changed as ordered.
CONCERN (D)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation and interview, staff did not perform sanitizing of durable medical equipment to prevent the spread of infection when warranted between 3 of 3 residents (R) (R11, R20, R21). This i...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interview, staff did not perform sanitizing of durable medical equipment to prevent the spread of infection when warranted between 3 of 3 residents (R) (R11, R20, R21). This is evidenced by: The facility policy entitled: Cleaning and Disinfection of Environmental surfaces states in part .8. Equipment (EZ stand, lifts, etc.) used for multiple residents will be disinfected between residents. On 01/24/24 at 8:32 AM, Surveyor observed Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) C remove the EZ stand lift out of R21's room after transferring R21 to a wheelchair. CNA C then took the lift to R20's room to transfer R20 to the wheelchair. CNA C then placed the EZ stand lift into the hallway cubby. Sanitizing of the lift before, between residents or after use was not observed by Surveyor. On 01/24/24 at 8:52 AM, Surveyor observed CNA C take the Hoyer lift from middle of the hallway to R11's room and transferred R11 into the wheelchair. Sanitizing of the lift before, during or after use was not observed by the Surveyor. On 01/24/24 at 9:47 at AM, Surveyor interviewed CNA C regarding observation of no sanitization of lifts prior to, between or after utilizing. CNA C confirmed sanitization was not conducted during any time utilizing the mechanical lifts. CNA C stated that sanitizing wipes are available on the lifts to use. CNA stated facility expectation would be for the lifts to be sanitized between residents. On 01/24/24 at 10:07 AM, Surveyor interviewed Director of Nursing (DON) B who stated expectation would be to sanitize before use, after use or between residents. DON B stated there is sanitizer in bags attached to lifts for staff to use.
CONCERN (F)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility did not maintain a safe and sanitary environment in which food is prepared, stored, and distributed. Sanitization testing was not record...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility did not maintain a safe and sanitary environment in which food is prepared, stored, and distributed. Sanitization testing was not recorded, dishwashing temperatures were not recorded, and refrigerator temperature logs were not recorded. This has the potential to affect all 45 residents who reside in the facility. This is evidenced by: The facility policy, entitled Dishwashing Machine Use, states: .A dietary personal will check the dishwashing machine for proper concentrations of sanitizer after filling the dishwashing machine and every day to reach 160 degrees F using Chem Strips .The operator will check temperatures using the machine gauge with each dishwashing machine cycle, and will record the results in a facility approved log . On 1/21/24 at 9:45 AM, Surveyor observed during the initial tour of the kitchen that there was no documentation that the staff test the sanitization levels of the chemicals used in the buckets and sink water. Surveyor asked [NAME] K if they test the sanitation levels for these. [NAME] K said they do test the sanitizer levels. Surveyor asked [NAME] K if they document that this was completed. [NAME] K said they do not have a log to document this was completed. Dishwasher used at the facility was a high temperature dish washing machine. Observation of the dishwasher temperature log hanging in the dishwash room contained missing logs. Surveyor asked [NAME] K about the missing logs, and she said they should be filled out at each mealtime every day. [NAME] K said they also send a temp gauge in the machine to test the temps. This also had missing logs. On 1/22/24 at 8:34 AM, Surveyor asked Dietary Aide (DA) J about testing the sanitization levels of the chemicals used in the buckets and sink water. DA J said we do this daily to make sure the sanitizing solution was still good to use. Surveyor asked DA J if they document this somewhere to know that it was completed and within the parameters for the sanitizing solution. DA J said no, we do not write it down. On 1/22/24 at 1:15 PM, Surveyor asked Dietary Manager (DM) I about when they test the sanitization levels of the chemicals used in the buckets and sink water. DM I said each time they are filled up with water, they are tested. Surveyor asked DM I how do you know the testing was completed. DM I said I take the staff's word that it was completed. We do not have a log to document when it was completed. Surveyor asked DM I when the dishwasher temperature log documentation should be filled out. DM I said after each meal service and the log for the irreversible temperature monitoring device needed to be completed each morning. Both logs had missing documentation. Surveyor asked DM I to see the prior month's documentation for the dishwasher temperature logs. Upon review, there were missing documentation on these months as well. DM I said she will educate staff to fill these out along with creating sanitization logs. Surveyor asked if there had been any food borne illness at the facility and she said no. On 1/22/24 at 1:45 PM, Surveyor spoke with Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) A concerning the missing temperature logs for the dishwasher and no sanitizing logs for sanitizing buckets and sinks. NHA A said DM I had talked with her about this. The dietician will be here tomorrow to help with education training for the staff. Example 2 The facility's policy titled, Refrigerators and Freezers revised 8/2016, states in part, .2. Monthly tracking sheets for all refrigerators and freezers will be posted to record temperatures. 3. Monthly tracking sheets will include temperature, initials, and action taken. The last column will be completed only if temperatures are not acceptable. 4. Food Service Supervisors or designated employees will check and record refrigerator and freezer temperatures daily with first opening and at closing in the evening . On 01/22/24 at 1:00 PM, Surveyor observed the temperature log located on the refrigerator in the family room dining missing temperatures logged: December 9th-14th, 17, 21st-24th, and 28th. January 2nd and 13th. On 01/22/24 at 1:50 PM, Surveyor interviewed Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) D. Surveyor asked LPN D, Who is responsible for logging the refrigerator temperatures on the unit? LPN D replied, That is the night shift nursing staff's responsibility. On 01/22/24 at 1:52 PM, Surveyor interviewed Director of Nursing (DON) B. Surveyor asked DON B, Who do you expect to log the temperatures for the refrigerators on the unit? DON B replied, The night shift nursing staff would do this. On 01/22/24 at 1:54 PM, Surveyor interviewed Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) A. Surveyor asked NHA A, Who is responsible for logging the refrigerator temperatures on the unit? The NHA A replied, That is the nursing staff's job on the night shift.
MINOR (C)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Staffing Information (Tag F0732)

Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility staff postings did not accurately reflect the census, or the actual hours worked by licensed and unlicensed staff on a daily basis. This...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility staff postings did not accurately reflect the census, or the actual hours worked by licensed and unlicensed staff on a daily basis. This has the potential to affect all 45 residents that reside in the facility. This is evidenced by: On entrance to the facility, Surveyor requested staff posting information. Review of staff postings from 12/21/23- 01/21/23 noted the census number listed on all sheets read 50. Surveyor was told the census was 45 during the entrance conference. Observation of the staff posting on 01/21/23, the day of entrance, revealed the posting indicated the census was 50. On 01/22/24 at 10:45 AM, Surveyor interviewed Scheduler M who completes the postings. Surveyor asked how Scheduler M completes the postings. Scheduler M relayed the following process. Scheduler M stated that she fills out the sheets every 2 weeks and posts them on the bulletin board. Scheduler M said the facility is licensed for 50 so that is what she puts as the census, and then looks at the number of hours that is scheduled for CNAs, medication aides, hospitality aides and nurses, and writes that information in. Surveyor asked if anyone updates these postings after they are posted. Scheduler M stated that she is the only one to make adjustments to them. Scheduler M stated that when she puts up the two weeks of sheets, she takes down the previous 2 weeks and then compares them to the daily sheets with the actual schedule of who worked in order to correct them. Scheduler M indicated they are usually different hours from when they are first posted compared to what actually happened. Scheduler M stated she puts slashes through the inaccurate numbers and corrects the numbers, then adds them to her binder for storage in her office. When asked about today's census and the census for the past month, Scheduler M stated she was unaware of the census, and someone else has a report with the actual census on it. On 01/22/24 at 11:09 AM, Scheduler M provided a print out of the census over the last month. Surveyor reviewed the census data and noted it has not been 50 in the past month. Review of the licensed and unlicensed nurse staffing data for the past month had multiple areas crossed out and new hours were written in on each day of the postings. The postings were corrected prior to Scheduler M placing the postings in her binder. The actual postings that were posted for residents to see were not accurate. Surveyor asked Scheduler M for a policy and procedure the facility may have for completing the staff postings. Scheduler M responded a short time later, that the facility does not have a policy and procedure on postings - how to do them or when to do them.
Nov 2023 2 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

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 interview and record review, the facility failed to develop and/or implement policies and procedures for ensuring the r...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to develop and/or implement policies and procedures for ensuring the reporting of a reasonable suspicion of a crime in accordance with section 1150B of the Act when an injury of unknown source, was not reported immediately but not later than 2 hours after the allegation is made, to the administrator of the facility and to other officials (including to the State Survey Agency and adult protective services where state law provides for jurisdiction in long-term care facilities) in accordance with State law for 1 of 1 injury of unknown origin reviewed. (Resident R3) R3 was found to have an injury of unknown origin, bruising on her breast and hip. This was not reported to the state survey agency or law enforcement within 2 hours. This is evidenced by: The facility policy entitled Abuse, Neglect and Misappropriation dated 04/02/23, states in part; all alleged violations including abuse, neglect, exploitation, or mistreatment, including injuries of unknown source, misappropriation of resident property and resident to resident altercations are reported immediately to the state agency but not later than two hours after the allegation is made, if the events that cause the allegation involve abuse or results in serious bodily injury and not later than 24 hours if the events that cause the allegation do not involve abuse and do not result in serious bodily injury to the administrator of the facility and to other officials, including the state survey agency and law enforcement. R3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including cerebral infarct dementia, bone cancer, depression, and falls. R3's quarterly minimum data set (MDS) dated [DATE] recorded a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 12, which indicates moderate cognitive impairment. Review of R3's medical record revealed a fall on 09/25/23 which resulted in no injury. Documentation shows no bruising following R3's 09/25/23 fall through October 3. Review of R3's medical record revealed that on 10/15/23 R3 was noted to have a dark purple bruise to her right hip that was 10 centimeters by 11 centimeters, and a bruise to the left breast 4.5 centimeters by 7 centimeters. R3 was also documented as having increased weakness, swelling was noted to the lateral hip, resident was noted to state ow with transfers and was noted to require multiple staff to assist with transfers. When asked about what happened R3 responded, I don't know. R3 was transferred to the hospital for a change in condition, increased confusion, bruise to right hip unknown etiology, and increased weakness. On 11/09/23 at 2:45 PM, Surveyor requested the facility's investigation into the injury of unknown origin from Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) A. A short time later NHA A responded that she had been on vacation through the 15th and when the bruises were discussed they were attributed to a fall, which NHA A assumed occurred during her vacation. NHA A added, when reviewing things now the closest fall occurred on 09/25/23. NHA stated, We can't attribute it to that, so Director of Nursing (DON) B was going to look through fall reports to see if R3 had a fall closer to the time of the bruising being discovered. On 11/09/23 at 4:30 PM, NHA A stated that no further information was found relating to the cause of the bruises. Surveyor asked if the bruising was an injury of unknown origin. NHA A responded yes, and that it should have been reported to the state according to the facility's policy.
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

Investigate Abuse (Tag F0610)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility did not thoroughly investigate an injury of unknown origin for 1 of 1 injury ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility did not thoroughly investigate an injury of unknown origin for 1 of 1 injury of unknown origin reviewed. R3 was found to have an injury of unknown origin, bruising on her breast and hip. This was not thoroughly investigated. This is evidenced by: The facility policy entitled Abuse, Neglect and Misappropriation dated 04/02/23, states in part; all alleged violations including . injuries of unknown source .will be investigated. Injuries of Unknown Source: The source of the injury was not observed by any person, the source of the injury could not be explained by the resident, and the injury is suspicious because of: i. The extent of the injury, or ii. The location of the injury (e.g., the injury is located in an area not generally vulnerable to trauma). The facility policy entitled, Bruises dated 2011, states in part; C.N.A. investigations for the last 24 hours. R3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including cerebral infarct dementia, atherosclerosis, hypertension, bone cancer, depression, falls, and insomnia. R3's quarterly minimum data set (MDS) dated [DATE] recorded a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) of 12, which indicates moderate cognitive impairment. Review of R3's medical record revealed a fall on 09/25/23 which resulted in no injury. Documentation shows no bruising following R3's 09/25/23 fall through October 3, 2023. Review of R3's medical record revealed that on 10/15/23 R3 was noted to have a dark purple bruise to her right hip that was 10 centimeters by 11 centimeters, and a bruise to the left breast 4.5 centimeters by 7 centimeters. R3 was also documented as having increased weakness, swelling was noted to the lateral hip, resident was noted to state ow with transfers and was noted to require multiple staff to assist with transfers. When asked about what happened R3 responded, I don't know. R3 was transferred to the hospital for a change in condition, increased confusion, bruise to right hip unknown etiology and increased weakness. On 11/09/23 at 2:45 PM, Surveyor requested the facility's investigation into the injury of unknown origin from Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) A. A short time later NHA A responded that she had been on vacation through the 15th and when the bruises were discussed they were attributed to a fall, which NHA A assumed occurred during her vacation. NHA A added, when reviewing things now, the closest fall occurred on 09/25/23. NHA stated, We can't attribute it to that, so Director of Nursing (DON) B was going to look through fall reports to see if R3 had a fall closer to the time of the bruising being discovered. On 11/09/23 at 4:30 PM, NHA A provided a copy of the shift-to-shift report book that is dated 10/10/23 which stated, Left breast sm bruise and a CNA statement which states, Bruise was there Thursday evening when I got to work at 2 PM thought it was already reported, resident never complained of pain or discomfort. This statement does not state which bruise, the size of bruise, or the location of the bruise. This is the only CNA statement which was provided. NHA A stated that no further information was found relating to an investigation regarding the bruises.
May 2023 1 deficiency
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

Grievances (Tag F0585)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interviews and grievance record review, the facility did not ensure grievances were investigated and resolved in accordance with facility policy for 1 Resident (R) R3 of 1 resident. The facil...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interviews and grievance record review, the facility did not ensure grievances were investigated and resolved in accordance with facility policy for 1 Resident (R) R3 of 1 resident. The facility did not document, investigate, and follow up with R3 when R3 reported not receiving assistance with peri care. Findings include: The facility policy, entitled Grievances/Complaint dated 2017, states: Grievances and/or complaints may be submitted orally or in writing. It also reads in part upon receipt Social Services will investigate the allegations and submit it to the Administrator not more than 5 days of receiving. On 05/31/23, Surveyor reviewed the April Resident Council meeting minutes. It was documented that R3 said, not being washed up in the am and pm, isn't always being done. Surveyor reviewed the facility's grievance file which did not contain R3's grievance. On 05/31/23 at about 2:48 PM, Surveyor interviewed the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) A and asked if there was any documentation or follow up from the grievance. NHA A indicated they would see what they could find. On 05/31/23 at about 3:54 PM, Surveyor met with NHA A and the Director of Nursing (DON) B and asked if they were able to find any documentation or follow-up and they both indicated there was nothing they could find.
Mar 2023 6 deficiencies 2 Harm
SERIOUS (G) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to protect a resident from verbal and physical abuse by a Certified Nu...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to protect a resident from verbal and physical abuse by a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) and the facility failed to protect a resident from a physical abuse during a resident to resident altercation which resulted in injury for 2 of 3 residents reviewed (R1 and R3). R1 was on the floor when a staff person saw another staff person kick the resident with the toe of her shoe and state, Get up fat boy. R1 suffered physical and verbal abuse. R3 was walking towards R1, who was having behaviors. R1 threw their walker, striking R3's walker causing it to tip over and R3 fell to the ground and sustained a laceration and bruising. R3 sustained physical abuse from another resident. This is evidenced by: 1.) R1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including dementia, morbid obesity, major depressive disorder, falls, age related macular degeneration, Type 2 diabetes mellitus. R1's admission minimum data set (MDS) dated [DATE] recorded a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) of 4, which indicates severe cognitive impairment. R1 is not able to be interviewed, due to the severe cognitive issues. A facility self report indicates that on 02/18/23 at 12:30 PM, R1 was on the floor, and CNA D witnessed CNA C kick R1 in the upper buttocks/lower back with the toe of her shoe and state, Get up fat boy, pissy pants. Interview with CNA D on 03/09/23 at 3:22 PM. CNA D stated that as she entered the room, R1 and CNA C were already verbally going back and forth. CNA D stated that at first she thought that R1 was just having behaviors, as he is known to verbally act out. Then she realized this was something different. CNA D stated that she witnessed CNA C kick R1 at least three times with the toe of her shoe and state, Get up fat boy, at least twice. R1 stated to CNA D, Get her the hell out of here, she's mean. CNA D stated that she told CNA C to go, and that she had it under control. At which time CNA C kicked R1 once more with the toe of her shoe in the lower back/upper buttocks and then left the room. The facility self-report also states that CNA C laughed as she did this. CNA D stated that she immediately reported the incident of verbal and physical abuse to the LPN on duty, as soon as she got R1 cleaned up and settled in bed. The facility did not protect R1 from being physically and verbally abused. R1 cognitively can't recall or express the level of psychosocial harm from this event. The reasonable person concept is utilized in this situation. Any person being kicked and verbally abused by a staff member when vulnerable, would have fear and a sense of humiliation from this event. 2.) R3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including dementia, depressive disorder, osteoporosis, hypothyroidism, and chronic kidney disease. R3's MDS dated [DATE] recorded a BIMS of 10 which indicates moderately impaired cognition. A facility self report indicates that on 03/08/23 at 6:30 PM, R1 was lowered to the floor for safety reasons due to being combative and resistive. R1 was also making noises at the time. R3 was in the area and walked with a walker closer to R1, attempting to see what was going on, due to the noises. R1 then threw their walker at R3, which struck R3's walker causing R3 to lose her balance and fall. R3 struck their head causing a small laceration, and bruising. Interview at 9 AM on 03/14/23, with nursing home administrator (NHA) A. NHA A stated that she had reviewed the resident to resident incident between R1 and R3. NHA A stated that R1 willfully threw his walker at R1, possibly attempting to get R3 to back away, and as a result of that action R3 fell causing R3 a physical injury and pain. The facility did not protect R3 from being physically abused by another resident.
SERIOUS (G) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility did not ensure that all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, exploita...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility did not ensure that all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, exploitation or mistreatment, including injuries of unknown source and misappropriation of resident property, are reported immediately, but not later than 2 hours after the allegation is made, if the events that cause the allegation involve abuse or result in serious bodily injury, or not later than 24 hours if the events that cause the allegation do not involve abuse and do not result in serious bodily injury, to the administrator of the facility and to other officials (including to the State Survey Agency and adult protective services where state law provides for jurisdiction in long-term care facilities) in accordance with State law for 2 of 2 incidents reviewed. R1 was verbally and physically abused by CNA C on 02/18/23 at 12:30 PM. This was not reported to the state until 02/20/23 at 1:45 PM and was not reported to law enforcement until 03/13/23. R1 was involved in a resident to resident incident which involved harm to R3 on 03/08/23. This was not reported to the state as of 3/13/23, or to law enforcement. This is evidenced by: 1.) R1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including dementia, morbid obesity, major depressive disorder, falls, age related macular degeneration, Type 2 diabetes mellitus. R1's admission minimum data set (MDS) dated [DATE] recorded a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) of 4, which indicates severe cognitive impairment. R1 is not able to be interviewed, due to the severe cognitive issues. A facility self report indicates that on 02/18/23 at 12:30 PM, R1 was on the floor, and CNA D witnessed CNA C kick R1 in the upper buttocks/lower back with the toe of her shoe and state, Get up fat boy, pissy pants. Interview with CNA D on 03/09/23 at 3:22 PM. CNA D stated that as she entered the room, R1 and CNA C were already verbally going back and forth. CNA D stated that at first she thought that R1 was just having behaviors, as he is known to verbally act out. Then she realized this was something different. CNA D stated that she witnessed CNA C kick R1 at least three times with the toe of her shoe and state, Get up fat boy, at least twice. R1 stated to CNA D, Get her the hell out of here, she's mean. CNA D stated that she told CNA C to go, and that she had it under control. At which time, CNA C kicked R1 once more with the toe of her shoe in the lower back/upper buttocks and then left the room. The facility self-report also states that CNA C laughed as she did this. CNA D stated that she immediately reported the incident of verbal and physical abuse to the LPN on duty, as soon as she got R1 cleaned up and settled in bed. The facility self report indicates that the above incident occurred on 02/18/23 at 12:30 PM. The facility self report was not submitted to the state until 02/20/23. The facility did not report the incident of abuse of R1 to law enforcement until 03/13/23. The surveyor observed a law enforcement officer responding to the facility and meeting with the NHA to discuss the incident, 23 days after it occured. 2.) R3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including dementia, depressive disorder, osteoporosis, hypothyroidism, and chronic kidney disease. R3's MDS dated [DATE] recorded a BIMs of 10 which indicates moderately impaired cognition. A facility self report indicates that on 03/08/23 at 6:30 PM, R1 was lowered to the floor for safety reasons due to being combative and resistive. R1 was also making noises at the time. R3 was in the area and walked with a walker closer to R1, attempting to see what was going on, due to the noises. R1 then threw their walker at R3, which struck R3's walker causing R3 to lose her balance and fall. R3 struck their head causing a small laceration, and bruising. Interview at 9 AM on 03/14/23, with nursing home administrator (NHA) A, who stated that she had reviewed the resident to resident incident between R1 and R3. NHA A stated she had not self reported the resident to resident incident when it occurred, but then after further review, she decided she should report it. NHA A stated that R1 willfully threw his walker at R3, possibly attempting to get R3 to back away, and as a result of that action R3 fell, causing R3 a physical injury and pain so she decided to self report the incident to the state on 03/13/23 at 4:21 PM, 5 days after the incident occurred. The facility did not report the incident of resident to resident abuse to law enforcement. Interview with the NHA revealed that as of 4 PM on 03/13/23, the facility had not reported the incident to law enforcement.
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

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure that 3 of 3 sampled residents (R1, R2, and R3) received trea...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure that 3 of 3 sampled residents (R1, R2, and R3) received treatment and care in accordance with the professional standards of practice. The facility has not developed a policy and procedure for assessing physical, intellectual, emotional, social, and spiritual needs as appropriate. R1 experienced an incident of abuse and was not thoroughly assessed R2 fell from bed striking her head causing a laceration, and bruising. R2 was not assessed by an RN until hours after the incident, and this was not documented within the medical record. R3 experienced a resident to resident incident which resulted in a fall with a head injury at 6:30 PM on 03/09/23. Progress notes reveal that there was no RN assessment until a note dated 03/09/23 at 9 AM. The facility has no policy and procedures for assessments. This is evidenced by: 1.) R1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including dementia, morbid obesity, major depressive disorder, falls, age related macular degeneration, Type 2 diabetes mellitus. R1's admission minimum data set (MDS) dated [DATE] recorded a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) of 4, which indicates severe cognitive impairment. R1 is not able to be interviewed, due to the severe cognitive issues. A facility self report indicates that on 02/18/23 at 12:30 PM, R1 was on the floor, and CNA D witnessed CNA C kick R1 in the upper buttocks/lower back with the toe of her shoe and state, Get up fat boy, pissy pants. Progress notes regarding the incident do not reveal any assessment of R1's bodily area where the resident was kicked on 02/18/23. A progress note on 02/20/23 states RN assessment complete. Resident has had no complaints of pain reported by CNA today. Will continue to monitor per policy for fall. Agree with LPN assessment. This assessment 2 days after the incident still does not document on the area of R1's skin where he was kicked. 2.) R2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including dementia, depression, osteoarthritis, hypertension, and rheumatoid arthritis. R2's quarterly MDS dated [DATE] recorded a BIMS of 9, which indicates moderately impaired cognition. R2's progress noted dated 02/18/23 at 4:13 AM indicates that at 3 AM, was found lying on her left side with her left arm under her and the tray table over top of her. R2 had an unwitnessed fall from bed which resulted in a laceration to the left side of her head that measured 1.5 cm by 1 cm and that her right inner forearm was red and bruised, and that her left elbow had a small dime sized bruise/scratch noted. Neuro assessment initiated, pupils equal round and react to light. the note states that the wound to head was cleansed and steri strips were applied with a coverlet. This was documented by LPN H who was the nurse on duty at the time. This documentation does not mention if information related to pain was asked about or considered at the time. Interview on 03/09/23 at 3:22 PM with CNA D who stated the she worked with R2 on the morning of 02/18/23 and responded to R2's room to assist her in getting ready for the day. CNA D stated that R2 was in bed and her head and hair were matted with blood, that no steri strips were in place, and that R2 complained of pain and had difficulty moving her arm. CNA D stated she reported this to LPN H who came in, cleansed the area and put things in place at that time. CNA D stated that she wasn't sure of the exact time the LPN did this but that she came in to work that day at 6 AM so it was after that. On 03/13/23 at 3:14 PM, Surveyor interviewed Director of Nursing (DON) B, who stated that she had been notified of the fall that R2 had on the morning of 02/18/23 at 7:30 AM and that she agreed with LPN H at the time, that R2 needed an X-ray of her arm. Review of R2's medical record does not reveal information about R2 having pain in her arm which required an x-ray, it does not reveal a thorough assessment by a registered nurse, nor does it document that the DON was consulted in the matter. 3.) R3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including dementia, depressive disorder, osteoporosis, hypothyroidism, and chronic kidney disease. R3's MDS dated [DATE] recorded a BIMs of 10 which indicates moderately impaired cognition. A facility self report indicates that on 03/08/23 at 6:30 PM, R1 was lowered to the floor for safety reasons due to being combative and resistive. R1 was also making noises at the time. R3 was in the area and walked with a walker closer to R1, attempting to see what was going on, due to the noises. R1 then threw their walker at R3, which struck R3's walker causing R3 to lose her balance and fall. R3 struck their head causing a small laceration, and bruising. A facility self report reveals that on 03/08/23 at 6:30 PM, R3 was involved in a resident to resident incident which resulted in her falling and resulted in small laceration to her head. Review of R3's progress noted revealed that Neuro assessments were initiated, at the time of the event and were normal. The medical record does not reveal if R3 was assessed for any pain at the time of the incident. A note on 03/09/23 at 9 AM indicates RN assessment. Resident able to move all extremities. Neurological checks are stable. No complaints. Steri strips intact to left head. This was completed 9 1/2 hours following the fall with a head injury. On 03/13/23 at 9 AM, Surveyor requested a facility policy and procedure in relation to assessments being completed by an RN. At 1 PM, the nursing home administrator (NHA) A stated that she was unable to find a policy related to RN assessments but that the facility would work on developing one.
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 F0727 (Tag F0727)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interview, the facility did not use the services of a registered nurse (RN) for at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week. Review of staff posting hours revealed th...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility did not use the services of a registered nurse (RN) for at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week. Review of staff posting hours revealed that the facility did not always use the services of an RN for at least 8 hours a day, for 5 of the days reviewed. This is evidenced by: Surveyor requested and reviewed staff postings which document staff hours worked for nursing staff on 03/14/23. Review of staff postings for 02/18/23, 02/19/23, 03/10/23, 03/11/23, and 03/12/23 revealed that no RN was on duty during a 24 hour period for the dates listed. Surveyor requested any evidence of an RN working on the above dates from nursing home administrator (NHA) A on 03/14/23. Interview with NHA A on 03/14/23 at 3 PM revealed that no evidence of any RNs working in the facility could be located for the above dates.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0730 (Tag F0730)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interview, the facility did not complete a performance evaluation for every nurse aide, at least once every 12 months for 2 of 5 Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs) reviewed...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility did not complete a performance evaluation for every nurse aide, at least once every 12 months for 2 of 5 Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs) reviewed. Review of performance reviews for CNA F and CNA G revealed that they did not have a performance review completed within the past year. This is evidenced by: On 03/14/23, Surveyor requested and reviewed performance evaluation records for CNAs. CNA F has worked for the facility since 2011; the last performance evaluation for CNA F was completed on 12/06/2021. CNA G has worked for the facility since/2019; the last performance evaluation for CNA G was completed on 08/30/2021. Interview with Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) A at 3 PM on 03/14/23, revealed that no other performance evaluations could be located for the above CNAs.
CONCERN (F) 📢 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 most or all residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility did not implement its policy and procedure to protect its residents following...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility did not implement its policy and procedure to protect its residents following a known incident of abuse, and facility policies and procedures were not updated to include reporting a reasonable suspicion of a crime to law enforcement. This has the potential to affect all of the facility's 49 residents. The facility did not implement its abuse policy and procedures by the following: Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) C was witnessed verbally and physically abusing R1. Following the incident, CNA C continued to work the rest of her shift with the residents residing on the 200 hall, and was called to other units to assist residents as needed, not ensuring protection of vulnerable residents from abuse. The Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) on duty did not immediately report this to the Nursing Home Administrator. The facility did not do a self report timely for 2 abuse incidents. Other staff witnessing the abuse did not step in and stop the abuse immediately. The facility did not report the abuse as a crime to law enforcement for 2 incidents that require reporting to law enforcement. The facility policies and procedures are not updated to include reporting reasonable suspicion of a crime to law enforcement. This is evidenced by The facility policy and procedures entitled Freedom from Abuse Neglect and Misappropriation of Property, which is not dated, states in part: Protect the Resident, Any person who suspects potential caregiver misconduct must immediately report the incident to his/her supervisor. If a caregiver has been named, the supervisor immediately removes the accused caregiver from the patient care area. 1.) R1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including dementia, morbid obesity, major depressive disorder, falls, age related macular degeneration, Type 2 diabetes mellitus. R1's admission minimum data set (MDS) dated [DATE] recorded a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) of 4, which indicates severe cognitive impairment. R1 is not able to be interviewed, due to the severe cognitive issues. A facility self report indicates that on 02/18/23 at 12:30 PM, R1 was on the floor, and CNA D witnessed CNA C kick R1 in the upper buttocks/lower back with the toe of her shoe and state, Get up fat boy, pissy pants. Interview with CNA D on 03/09/23 at 3:22 PM. CNA D stated that as she entered the room, R1 and CNA C were already verbally going back and forth. CNA D stated that at first she thought that R1 was just having behaviors, as he is known to verbally act out. Then she realized this was something different. CNA D stated that she witnessed CNA C kick R1 at least three times with the toe of her shoe and state, Get up fat boy, at least twice. R1 stated to CNA D, Get her the hell out of here, she's mean. CNA D stated that she told CNA C to go, and that she had it under control. At which time CNA C kicked R1 once more with the toe of her shoe in the lower back/upper buttocks and then left the room. The facility self-report states that CNA C stated, Get up fat boy, pissy pants, and laughed as she walked away. CNA D stated that she immediately reported the incident of verbal and physical abuse to LPN E, as soon as she got R1 cleaned up and settled in bed. LPN E did not implement the facility's policy and procedures and immediately remove CNA C from the resident care area. Surveyor interviewed CNA D on 3/9/23 at approximately 3:22 p.m., who admitted she did not step in between and immediately stop the abuse and protect the resident. Surveyor asked CNA D why she did not do so. CNA D expressed that she was shocked by what she was seeing and didn't react as soon as she should have. Surveyor interviewed and NHA A on 3/9/23 at approximately 4:00 p.m, and asked if LPN E had reported this to administration when the incident occurred, on Saturday. NHA A stated LPN E did not report the abuse to her immediately. The NHA stated she learned of the incident on Monday when she came in to work. On 02/18/23, following the incident of abuse which occurred at 12:30 PM, CNA C continued to work with residents on her assigned hallway, the 200 hall and was called to assist other residents as needed throughout the building until 11 PM, the end of her normal shift. The facility did not implement its policy and procedure to protect other residents during this time. The self report was not initiated until 2/20/23 per interview with the NHA on 3/9/23. The facility did not implement its policy and procedures to report the incident to the state in a timely manner on 2/18/23. On 3/13/23 at approximately 9:00 a.m., Surveyor asked the NHA if the incident had been reported to police as a crime. The NHA indicated it had not, and then reported this to police. This occurred 23 days after the abuse incident occurred. Surveyor reviewed the facility abuse policy and noted it does not include up to date information on reporting reasonable suspicion of a crime. 2.) R3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including dementia, depressive disorder, osteoporosis, hypothyroidism, and chronic kidney disease. R3's MDS dated [DATE] recorded a BIMS of 10 which indicates moderately impaired cognition. A facility self report indicates that on 03/08/23 at 6:30 PM, R1 was lowered to the floor for safety reasons due to being combative and resistive. R1 was also making noises at the time. R3 was in the area and walked with a walker closer to R1, attempting to see what was going on, due to the noises. R1 then threw their walker at R3, which struck R3's walker causing R3 to lose her balance and fall. R3 struck their head causing a small laceration, and bruising. Interview at 9 AM on 03/14/23, with nursing home administrator (NHA) A, who stated that she had reviewed the resident to resident incident between R1 and R3. NHA A stated she had not self reported the resident to resident incident when it occurred, but then after further review, she decided she should report it. NHA A stated that R1 willfully threw his walker at R3, possibly attempting to get R3 to back away, and as a result of that action R3 fell, causing R3 a physical injury and pain so she decided to self report the incident to the state on 03/13/23 at 4:21 PM, 5 days after the incident occurred. The facility did not report the incident of resident to resident abuse to law enforcement. Interview with the NHA revealed that as of 4 PM on 03/13/23, the facility had not reported the incident to law enforcement five days after the incident occurred. 3.) Surveyor requested and reviewed the facility policy and procedures on abuse and neglect which is entitled Freedom from Abuse Neglect and Misappropriation of Property, which is not dated. The surveyor noted the policy and procedures did not include the facility's responsibility to notify law enforcement of the reasonable suspicion of a crime. On 03/13/23 at 9 AM, Surveyor interviewed the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) A and asked about the facility policy on abuse and neglect, NHA A stated that the above policy is what she was able to locate about abuse and it is not dated. The policy does not include any information on reporting a reasonable suspicion of a crime to law enforcement, including reporting abuse.
Nov 2022 4 deficiencies
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 record review and interview, the facility did not ensure that a resident (R) with arterial wounds received the necessar...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility did not ensure that a resident (R) with arterial wounds received the necessary care and treatment in accordance with professional standards of practice for 1 of 1 residents reviewed (R40). R40 has a lower extremity arterial ulcer that was not assessed weekly, documentation regarding the wound did not include all assessment data including, wound bed color, size, shape, location, drainage, and condition of surrounding tissue. The size is only documented 2 times over a 3 month period. This is evidenced by: The facility policy, entitled Wound Care dated 2015, states in part: The following information should be recorded in the resident's medical record .all assessment data (i.e. wound bed color, size, drainage, etc.) obtained when inspecting the wound. R40 was admitted to the facility in June of 2022, with diagnoses including: chronic atrial fibliration, acute embolism, acute combined systolic and diastolic heart failure, cardiac pacemaker, history of [NAME] thrombosis and embolism, atherosclerotic heart disease, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Nurses notes state in part: On 09/09/22, R40's left lower leg has a light purple area noted. R stated that this happened during her appointments. Looks like a vein busted. The area is described as slightly raised, so larger bruise will probably show up soon. On 09/15/22, area on left lower lateral leg that was noted after appointment has turned into a blister. Blister is fluid filled. On 09/28/22, left lateral blister remains dark brown/black in color. It appears fluid has reabsorbed On 10/05/22, Left lower lateral leg continues to have dark brown/ black scabbing. No drainage noted. Resident describes area to be painful intermittently during the day. She describes her pain as burning. On 10/18/22, Dressing change completed to left lateral lower leg area. Dark brown scab lose and fell completely off during cleansing. No pain noted. No bleeding present. Wound bed is beefy red with areas of marbling yellow slough. Area cleansed and dressed. Wound edges pink in color. Will monitor. On 10/19/22, This am on dressing change noted that wound is beefy red but at 3 o'clock to 6 o'clock wound bed is marbled in color with some yellow slough very tender to touch, cleansed and bordered foam applied Length: 3.5 Width: 3 Depth: 0.2 cm tissue type: epithelial tissue slough, wound tissue: reddened. This is the first time the wound was measured. Staff document on the area but the area is not measured again until 11/21/22 when it is noted as being length: 3 cm Width: 1.5 cm Depth: .1 cm As of 11/30/22 there are no further assessments that include measurements of the left lower lateral leg area. On 11/30/22 at 11:03 AM, Surveyor interviewed Director of Nursing (DON) B related to R40's arterial ulcer. DON B stated that she was aware of a problem with skin assessments not being completed thoroughly or weekly as needed. DON B stated she has plans to improve the skin assessment process but she has not had time to implement them yet.
CONCERN (D)

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

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility did not implement care planned approaches for 1 of 1 residents (...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility did not implement care planned approaches for 1 of 1 residents (R150) reviewed with a pressure injury. This has the potential to delay healing of the pressure injury. The facility assessment of the pressure injury was not conducted in keeping with current standards of practice. R150 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with pressure injury to her coccyx. The facility did not reposition R150 as directed in her plan of care. The facility assessment of the pressure injury did not include at least weekly documentation of wound staging, measurements and description of the injury. This is evidenced by: On 11/29/22 at 7:01 AM, Surveyor observed R150 up in her wheelchair in the dining room/lounge area. At 8:13 AM, R150 remained up in her wheelchair for breakfast. At 8:41 AM, R150 is taken to her room and is placed in front of the window in her wheelchair. R150 remained in her wheelchair in front of her window until 9:35 AM when she is transferred to bed by Certified Nursing Assistants (CNA) C and J. Following the observation, Surveyor spoke with CNA C and J about R150's interventions to promote healing of her pressure injury and R150's usual routine for repositioning. CNA C expressed she had started her shift at 5:00 AM and R150 was her second person when had gotten up for the morning. CNA C was not certain what time she had gotten R150 up to her wheelchair on 11/29/22. CNA C further expressed she is familiar with R150 and has taken care of her since her admission. CNA C indicated it is her routine to get R150 up before breakfast and lay her down after breakfast. CNA C expressed she gets R150 up around 11:30 AM for lunch and lays her back down just before 2 pm. CNA C further expressed R150 does not get repositioned out of her wheelchair hourly and it is normal for her to be up approximately 2 and a half hours. Surveyor reviewed R150's record and noted the following: R150 was admitted on [DATE]. Her admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] notes R150 rarely understands and is rarely understood with severely impaired cognition. R150 does not reject care. R150 requires total dependence of two staff for bed mobility, transfer, dressing, toilet use, bathing and hygiene. R150 is always incontinent of bowel and bladder. Her diagnoses include dementia and sacral pressure injury and pressure injury of right and left heels. Noting 1 stage 2 pressure injury which was present on admission and 2 unstageable pressure injuries that were present on admission. Surveyor reviewed R150's care plan which notes: 11/03/22 I have fragile skin, am diabetic, cant move around well on my own I show this by: I have an existing skin injury area to my coccyx, left heel and right heel I need my nurses to reduce pressure and friction between myself and my bed or chair, elevate my heels when I am laying in bed, provide me with wound care, implement a treatment plan for my skin impairment, monitor my nutrition and hydration intake, monitor my turning and repositioning, check my skin with cares. I need my aides to help me reposition at least every 1-2 hours while I am in bed, help me reposition at least every 1 hour when I am in my chair, keep good padding around my bony areas, elevate my heels in bed, reduce pressure and friction between myself and my bed or chair , help me with hygiene and general skin care, avoid using hot water for washing and use moisturizer on my skin, use a lift sheet when moving me in bed, help me stay clean and dry, help me get up using a mechanical lift, podus boots on at tall times, bed cradle in bed, air mattress, roho cushion, broda chair on. Air mattress not on bed, cushion in w/c (wheel chair). Surveyor received and reviewed R150's Weekly Skin Assessments. Surveyor noted R150's heel pressure injuries as nearly healed. Surveyor had no concerns with R150's care planned approaches for her heal pressure injuries being implemented during the observations. Surveyor noted assessments of R150's coccyx pressure injury below: ~11/01/22 Weekly skin assessment: Location: Coccyx Length: 3 cm Width: 0.5 cm Depth: not noted wound tissue: pink drainage: light surrounding tissue: reddened, excoriated ~11/07/22 Weekly Skin Assessment Location: Upper Coccyx Length: 1.5 cm Width: 1 cm Depth: 0.1 cm wound tissue: not noted drainage: not noted surrounding tissue: not noted Location: lower coccyx Length: 3 cm Width: 1 cm Depth: 0.1 cm wound tissue: not noted drainage: not noted surrounding tissue: not noted (There are now 2 areas of pressure noted on R150's coccyx) 11/21/22 Weekly Skin Location: Coccyx Length: 2 cm Width: 1 cm Depth: superficial wound tissue: yellow slough 90% with red ring around the yellow drainage: not noted surrounding tissue: not noted Location: Right buttock crease Length: 0.5 cm Width: 1 cm Depth: superficial wound tissue: yellow slough 90% with red ring around the yellow drainage: not noted surrounding tissue: not noted (There is now notation about R150's buttock crease and only one area noted on coccyx). 11/28/22 Weekly Skin Assessment: Location: Coccyx Length: 2 cm Width: 1 cm Depth: 0.2 cm wound tissue: 100% yellow/white slough drainage: scant amount yellow/brown surrounding tissue: not noted Location: Right buttock crease Length: 0.5 cm Width: 0.7 cm Depth: not noted wound tissue: pink drainage: no drainage noted surrounding tissue: not noted On 11/29/22 at 9:53 AM, Surveyor spoke with Director of Nursing (DON) B who has been on staff six years as Registered Nurse/Charge Nurse and has been the DON since September 2022. DON B expressed she came into the DON position with very little training and has been finding issues as she delves into things. DON B further expressed it is her vision to improve the overall wound program. Improvements would include weekly comprehensive monitoring of resident wounds and review of resident care plans each week, making changes when needed. A plan has not yet been developed and action steps have not yet been put in place. R150's time up in her wheelchair should be limited. She should be one of the last to get up for meals and one of the first to be laid back down. R150 should not be up in her wheelchair no more than one hour, to promote healing of her pressure areas to her coccyx and to promote her comfort. DON B expressed R150's heel pressure injuries are almost healed and her coccyx injury is improving. DON B expressed R150 was admitted to the facility on bedrest and not able to communicate. R150 was admitted on hospice with a goal for comfort as well as keeping her wounds from becoming infected and promoting healing of her pressure injuries. Surveyor requested R150's weekly wound assessments.
CONCERN (D)

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

Medication Errors (Tag F0758)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility administered medication intended to promote sleep without a system in place t...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility administered medication intended to promote sleep without a system in place to monitor the effectiveness of the medication or care planned non-pharmacological approaches to address resident sleep disturbance affecting 2 of 2 residents (R45 and R43). R45 was prescribed Trazadone 50 mg (0.5 tablet/25 mg) nightly for insomnia. The facility did not have a system in place to monitor the effectiveness of the medication or care planned non-pharmacological approaches to promote sleep. R43 uses Trazadone and Melatonin for sleep. R43 does not have routine sleep monitoring, in relation to medication usage, or interventions to promote sleep in the care plan. This is evidenced by: Example 1 Surveyor reviewed R45's record and noted: R45 was admitted [DATE]. R45's admission Minimum Data set (MDS) dated [DATE] notes R45 understands, is understood and has cognitive impairment. R45 had behavioral symptoms of rejection of care and wandering and minimal symptoms of depression (02). R45's diagnoses include dementia, depression and insomnia. R45 takes an antidepressant. R45's physician orders included: ~10/13/22 Trazadone (antidepressant) 50 mg (0.5 tablet/25 mg) nightly for insomnia, agitation R45's Sleep assessment dated [DATE] shows R45 with sleep disturbance with intermittent sleep, wakefulness. Surveyor reviewed R45's record and found no sleep monitoring to evaluate whether the Trazadone was promoting sleep for R45. Surveyor reviewed R45's care plan and found no goal to measure the effectiveness of the medication or interventions to assist R45 with sleep. On 11/29/22 at 10:16 AM, Surveyor spoke with Director of Nursing (DON) B who verified R45 did not have a care plan with a goal to evaluate effectiveness of her sleep medication or approaches to promote sleep. DON B indicated she could not see sleep monitoring in R45's electronic record. DON B indicated she would look to see if there is sleep monitoring in place. On 11/29/22 at 11:54 AM, DON B informed the Surveyor no sleep monitoring was in place for R45. DON B explained a 7-day sleep study was conducted from 10/08/22-10/14/22 showing R45 was awake most of the night and her behaviors during the day were worsening thus the Trazadone was restarted on 10/13/22 due to the sleep disturbance. A care plan for individual approaches to promote sleep was not developed but should have been; there is no system in place to monitor effectiveness of the medication. Behavior charting does not address sleep. Example 2 Resident (R) 43 was admitted to the facility in July of 2022, and has diagnoses that include Obstructive sleep apnea, Somnolence, Major depressive disorder, hemiplagia and cramp and spasms. On 08/11/2022, R43 was prescribed Trazadone 50 MG daily for insomnia. On 09/29/2022, Melatonin 5 MG by mouth at bedtime for insomnia. Surveyor reviewed R43's medical record, looking for sleep monitoring and was unable to locate this. Review of the care plan also did not reveal any non-pharmacological interventions used for sleep. On 11/30/22 at 11:03 AM, interview with DON B revealed that she thought sleep monitoring had been completed and that she would look for and provide this. DON B also stated she was certain that R43 had difficulties with sleep as he would routinely be up during the night. On 11/30/22 at 11:45 AM, DON B provided a 7 Day Resident Sleep Study which started on 08/12/22 and was completed on 08/18/22. This document simply lists every hour whether R43 is napping, asleep or awake. This began the day after a medication for sleep was initiated, there is no analysis of R43's sleep prior to the medication being used and no documentation as to whether or not R43's sleep has improved with the medication use. DON B did also provide 3 notes that mention sleep in the past month. R43's care plan does not mention R43's goals related to sleep, any monitoring to see if he is meeting his goals, what R43 considers adequate or routine sleep, or any non-pharmacological interventions that may be used for sleep.
CONCERN (E)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility did not maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable d...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility did not maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections, such as COVID-19. During the three-day survey, staff were observed entering the rooms of Residents (R) on Droplet transmission based precautions (TBP) without putting on the proper personal protective equipment (PPE). (R35, R10, and R17) Facility staff did not offer 13 of 21 sampled and supplemental residents observed in dining rooms hand hygiene prior to eating. (R201, R39, R4, R20, R24, R12, R30, R22, R33, R11, R21, R45, and R25) Findings include: Example 1 According to CDC guidance located at: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/infection-control-recommendations.html. Health Care Personnel who enter the room of a patient with suspected or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection should adhere to Standard Precautions and use a NIOSH-approved particulate respirator with N95 filters or higher, gown, gloves, and eye protection (i.e., goggles or a face shield that covers the front and sides of the face). Facility policy entitled, Suspected/Positive Resident with COVID-19, last updated 4/11/22, stated in part: .If it is reported to you that a resident has a temperature, SOB [short of breath], respiratory symptoms .a. BEFORE going to assess the resident. Please put PPE on (Gown, surgical mask with face shield, and gloves) .4. If resident has abnormal finding on the above assessment then do the following: .Droplet precaution immediately (Gown, mask, gloves, N95 Respirator if highly suspicious of COVID-19) . On 11/29/22 at 7:11 AM, Surveyor observed signs on R35's door and on R10's door. The signs stated: Contact Precautions, See Nurse, Hand Hygiene, Gown and Glove. Surveyor observed a cart in the hallway between these two rooms with gloves, masks, Alcohol Based Hand Rub (ABHR), sanitizer wipes and a hamper with clean washable gowns. Surveyor observed Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) D enter R35's room without any PPE other than a procedure mask. At 7:15 AM, Surveyor observed CNA D exit R35's room, use ABHR and begin walking down the hall. Surveyor interviewed CNA D and asked if they were supposed to wear any additional PPE to enter R35's room. CNA D was not sure if R35 was on TBP or if they needed to wear additional PPE to enter R35's room. On 11/29/22 at 7:33 AM, Surveyor observed a sign outside R17's door that stated: Contact/Droplet precautions: See Nurse, hand hygiene, gown and glove, mask. Surveyor observed a cart outside the door with gloves, procedure masks, washable gowns, and ABHR. Surveyor interviewed Director of Nursing (DON) B, who stated R17 was just put on Contact and Droplet precautions yesterday after they were informed R17 was exposed to COVID-19. DON B stated they did an initial COVID-19 swab test yesterday that was negative, and they will repeat the test again on Wednesday. On 11/29/22 at 10:35 AM, Surveyor interviewed Registered Nurse (RN) G, who was the facility Infection Preventionist. RN G stated both R35 and R10 were on Droplet TBP for respiratory symptoms. RN G stated both residents had tested negative for COVID-19 so far, but they were on Droplet precautions due to their respiratory symptoms. RN G stated staff should be wearing gown, gloves and a mask every time they enter those rooms. RN G did not mention eye protection. According to CDC guidance for PPE use when entering a room under Droplet TBP, staff should make sure their eyes, nose, and mouth are fully covered with a procedure mask and face shield or goggles. On 11/29/22 at 12:13 PM, Surveyor interviewed CNA F about what PPE they need to wear to enter R35's and R10's rooms. CNA F stated they just follow what the sign on each door says. CNA F stated they put on a gown and gloves, and switch out their procedure mask after leaving the room. CNA F did not think eye protection was required for R35's room or R10's room. Surveyor noted the signs on both R35's and R10's doors stated Contact precautions, but RN G stated those residents were on Droplet precautions. On 11/29/22 at 12:52 PM, Surveyor observed CNA H don a gown and gloves to enter R17's room. CNA H was already wearing a procedure mask. CNA H did not put on eye protection prior to entering the room. CNA H removed the PPE and placed in the bins in the resident room prior to leaving the room. CNA H used ABHR after leaving the room and applied a clean procedure mask. Surveyor interviewed CNA H about PPE use after leaving R17's room. CNA H did not think eye protection or an N95 mask were required to enter R17's room. On 11/29/22 at 1:13 PM, Surveyor observed CNA H put on a gown and gloves to enter R35's room to take lunch trays out of the room. CNA H was already wearing a procedure mask, but did not put on eye protection. On 11/29/22 at 1:27 PM, Surveyor observed CNA F and CNA E don gown and gloves to enter R10's room to turn and provide incontinence care for R10. CNA F and CNA E were both already wearing procedure masks. They did not put eye protection on prior to entering the room. At 1:40 PM, CNA E and CNA F exited R10's room. Both CNAs had removed their PPE in the room, used ABHR and put on clean procedure masks after leaving room. On 11/29/22 at 3:30 PM, Surveyor interviewed RN G and asked what type of TBP R35 and R10 were placed under. RN G stated both residents were on Droplet precautions due to their respiratory symptoms with unknown diagnosis. Surveyor asked RN G what PPE was required for staff to enter a room in Droplet precautions. RN G stated staff should wear a gown, gloves, and procedure mask. Surveyor asked if eye protection was recommended for Droplet precautions. RN G stated staff should wear eye protection too, but they did not have eye protection available on the PPE cart by those rooms, and staff had not been wearing eye protection when entering those rooms. Surveyor informed RN G that the signs on R35's and R10's doors stated Contact precautions. RN G stated someone must have put the wrong signs up on those doors, and it should be droplet precautions. Surveyor asked what PPE was required for staff to wear for R17's room, who was on Contact and Droplet precautions due to a COVID-19 exposure. RN G stated staff should wear a gown, gloves, and mask. Surveyor asked if eye protection should be worn for that room. RN G stated yes, but staff had not been wearing eye protection for that room. Dining Observations: On 11/29/22 at 8:23 AM, Surveyor observed R201, R39, R4, R20, R24, R12, R30, and R22 in the family room dining room. Surveyor did not observe any of those residents offered hand hygiene prior to their meals being served. On 11/29/22 at 9:28 AM, Surveyor interviewed CNA I and asked if the residents in the family dining room were offered hand hygiene prior to eating their breakfast. CNA I stated they did not offer hand hygiene to those residents prior to serving breakfast. On 11/29/22 at 3:37 PM, Surveyor interviewed RN G, who functions as the facility infection preventionist. Surveyor asked what the expectation was for offering or assisting residents with hand hygiene prior to meals. RN G stated the staff was expected to offer or assist residents with hand hygiene prior to eating. Example 2 On 11/28/22 at 12:10 PM, Surveyor observed lunch on the 400 wing. At 12:16 PM, the dining cart arrived to the wing. Lunch consisted of a fish sandwich, potato wedges, coleslaw and beverages. Surveyor observed R45 seated at the table where she is served lunch. R45 picked up the potato wedges with her hands and began eating on her own. At 12:33 PM, R45 was still eating at the table. She had consumed her potato wedges and was taking bites of her fish sandwich with her hands. R45 was not offered hand hygiene before eating. Surveyor also observed R11, R25 and R33 eating their lunch with their hands. No hand hygiene was offered to any residents before eating lunch. There were 10 residents in the dining room having lunch. The other 6 residents were being assisted by staff to eat. On 11/29/22 at 8:17 AM, Surveyor again watched meal service on the 400 wing for breakfast. Residents were served french toast sticks and sausage links with their beverages. Again Surveyor observed R11, R25, R33 eating breakfast with their hands. In addition, Surveyor observed R21 holding a baby doll with one arm and taking bites of her sausage links with her other hand. At no time were residents offered hand hygiene before eating. Surveyor observed no hand wipes on tables or counters for staff to use for resident hand hygiene. There is a wall mounted gel station Surveyor observed staff using as needed. Residents were not encouraged to use the station. On 11/29/22 at 8:33 AM, Surveyor asked Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) C about resident hand hygiene before eating. CNA C expressed resident hand hygiene should be done prior to eating, there are wipes behind nurses station that could be used. CNA C further stated it is not part of staff routine to do resident hand hygiene prior to eating but should be as resident hands are probably not clean. On 11/28/22 begining at 12:19 PM in the 200/300 hall dining room, observations included R4 and R12 entering the dining room by pushing their own wheelchairs into the room, touching their tires as they did so. Each resident positioned themselves at their tables prior to their meals arriving. They were presented with their meals as they arrived and began eating independantly. Neither residents were given an opportunity to wash their hands or perform hand antisepsis prior to eating their meals.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

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

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s), 3 harm violation(s), $90,900 in fines, Payment denial on record. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 31 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $90,900 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in Wisconsin. Major compliance failures.
  • • Grade F (0/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 0/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Grand View Care Ctr's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns GRAND VIEW CARE CTR an overall rating of 1 out of 5 stars, which is considered much below average nationally. Within Wisconsin, 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 Grand View Care Ctr Staffed?

CMS rates GRAND VIEW CARE CTR's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 64%, which is 18 percentage points above the Wisconsin average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs.

What Have Inspectors Found at Grand View Care Ctr?

State health inspectors documented 31 deficiencies at GRAND VIEW CARE CTR during 2022 to 2025. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 3 that caused actual resident harm, 24 with potential for harm, and 3 minor or isolated issues. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.

Who Owns and Operates Grand View Care Ctr?

GRAND VIEW CARE CTR is owned by a non-profit organization. Non-profit facilities reinvest revenue into operations rather than distributing to shareholders. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 50 certified beds and approximately 45 residents (about 90% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in BLAIR, Wisconsin.

How Does Grand View Care Ctr Compare to Other Wisconsin Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Wisconsin, GRAND VIEW CARE CTR's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 3.0, staff turnover (64%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Grand View Care Ctr?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What changes have been made since the serious inspection findings, and how are you preventing similar issues?" "How do you ensure continuity of care given staff turnover, and what is your staff retention strategy?" "Can 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 facility's high staff turnover rate.

Is Grand View Care Ctr Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, GRAND VIEW CARE CTR 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 Wisconsin. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.

Do Nurses at Grand View Care Ctr Stick Around?

Staff turnover at GRAND VIEW CARE CTR is high. At 64%, the facility is 18 percentage points above the Wisconsin average of 46%. High turnover means new staff may not know residents' individual needs, medications, or preferences. It can also be disorienting for residents, especially those with dementia who rely on familiar faces. Families should ask: What is causing the turnover? What retention programs are in place? How do you ensure care continuity during staff transitions?

Was Grand View Care Ctr Ever Fined?

GRAND VIEW CARE CTR has been fined $90,900 across 1 penalty action. This is above the Wisconsin average of $33,988. Fines in this range indicate compliance issues significant enough for CMS to impose meaningful financial consequences. Common causes include delayed correction of deficiencies, repeat violations, or care failures affecting resident safety. Families should ask facility leadership what changes have been made since these penalties.

Is Grand View Care Ctr on Any Federal Watch List?

GRAND VIEW CARE CTR 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.