CLAIRIDGE HOUSE

1519 60TH ST, KENOSHA, WI 53140 (262) 656-7500
For profit - Corporation 87 Beds REAL PROPERTY HEALTH FACILITIES Data: November 2025 2 Immediate Jeopardy citations
Trust Grade
16/100
#194 of 321 in WI
Last Inspection: October 2024

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

Overview

Clairidge House in Kenosha, Wisconsin has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating poor performance with significant concerns about care quality. Ranking #194 out of 321 facilities in Wisconsin places it in the bottom half, although it is #2 out of 7 in Kenosha County, meaning there is only one better local option. The trend is improving, with the number of reported issues decreasing from 18 in 2023 to 9 in 2024, but the facility still faces serious deficiencies. Staffing is rated average with a turnover of 53%, which is close to the state average, but the RN coverage is concerning, being lower than 85% of Wisconsin facilities. Specific incidents include failures to monitor residents' fluid intake, leading to severe dehydration in one case, and inadequate management of pressure injuries, which resulted in a resident developing a serious stage 3 pressure injury. While the absence of fines is a positive aspect, the overall care quality raises significant red flags for prospective families.

Trust Score
F
16/100
In Wisconsin
#194/321
Bottom 40%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Better
18 → 9 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
53% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
✓ Good
No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Wisconsin facilities.
Skilled Nurses
○ Average
Each resident gets 31 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for Wisconsin. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
Violations
⚠ Watch
47 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Overall Rating
★★★☆☆
3.0
Staff Levels
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Care Quality
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2023: 18 issues
2024: 9 issues

The Good

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

Facility shows strength in fire safety.

The Bad

2-Star Overall Rating

Below Wisconsin average (3.0)

Below average - review inspection findings carefully

Staff Turnover: 53%

Near Wisconsin avg (46%)

Higher turnover may affect care consistency

Chain: REAL PROPERTY HEALTH FACILITIES

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 47 deficiencies on record

2 life-threatening 2 actual harm
Oct 2024 9 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, record review, staff interview, and review of the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Manual, the facility failed to ensure one resident out of 28 sampled residents (Resident (R...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, staff interview, and review of the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Manual, the facility failed to ensure one resident out of 28 sampled residents (Resident (R) 36) had an accurate Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment. Failure to code the MDS correctly regarding R36's feeding tube, could lead to inaccurate assessment and care planning of the resident. Findings include: Review of the RAI Manual dated 10/01/19, indicated, . information obtained should cover the same observation period as specified by the Minimum Data Set (MDS) items on the assessment and should be validated for accuracy by the IDT [interdisciplinary team] completing the assessment.'' Review of Section K of the RAI manual indicated, DEFINITIONS PARENTERAL/IV [Intravenous] FEEDING Introduction of a nutritive substance into the body by means other than the intestinal tract (e.g., subcutaneous, intravenous). FEEDING TUBE Presence of any type of tube that can deliver food/nutritional substances/ fluids directly into the gastrointestinal system. Examples include, but are not limited to, nasogastric tubes, gastrostomy tubes, jejunostomy tubes, percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tubes. Review of R36's Face Sheet under the Face Sheet tab in the electronic medical record (EMR) revealed an admission date of 02/21/24 with medical diagnosis that included Gastrostomy status [feeding tube]. Review of R36 admission MDS with and Assessment Reference Date (ARD) 02/28/24, the quarterly MDS with an ARD of 05/06/24, and the quarterly MDS with an ARD of 08/06/24, revealed Section K lacked documentation of R36's use of a feeding tube. During an interview on 10/18/24 at 12/05 PM, the MDS Coordinator confirmed R36 has had a feeding tube since admission, however, does not get any nourishment through the feeding tube. The MDS Coordinator verbalized the feeding tube should have been coded on all the MDS assessments that have been completed since his admission. The MDS Coordinator confirmed the RAI manual was used to complete the MDS forms when assessing the residents. During an interview on 10/18/24 at 10:30 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed R36 has a feeding tube, and the feeding tube should be documented in the MDS assessments.
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 observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure a resident with an ind...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure a resident with an indwelling urinary catheter had a physician's order for the use of an indwelling urinary catheter for one of two residents (R)34) reviewed for indwelling urinary catheter care. As a result of this deficient practice, the resident had the potential for harm by staff performing interventions or actions without a physician's order. Findings include: Review of R34's Face Sheet located in the electronic medical record (EMR) under the Face Sheet tab, revealed an admission date of 03/27/24 with medical diagnosis of neurogenic bladder. Observation on 10/15/24 at 3:30 PM, R34 had an urinary catheter tubing sticking out of the bottom of his pant leg, connected to a urinary collection bag. Review of R34's Care Plan under the Care Plan tab in the EMR revealed, Has Foley [indwelling urinary catheter] due to spinal cord injury with subsequent development of neurogenic bladder with the intervention to .change Foley PRN [as needed] Indwelling catheter and maintain patency of equipment . Review of R34's physician's orders in the EMR under the Physician' Orders tab revealed a physician's order dated 03/17/24 documenting Urinary Treatment: monitor urinary output. Reason for indwelling Foley: Neurogenic bladder, every shift document output with intake all shifts. Physician's orders lacked documentation of the type of indwelling catheter, diameter size and balloon size, frequency of changing the catheter and any interventions to maintain patency. Review of the physician orders dated 10/24 revealed no order for an indwelling urinary catheter. During an interview on 10/17/24 at 9:52 AM, the Minimum Data Set (MDS) Coordinator reviewed R34's physician orders and confirmed there was no physician's order for the indwelling urinary catheter and interventions for care by the nursing staff. During an interview on 10/18/24 at 10:24 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) reviewed R34's physician orders and confirmed there was no order for the indwelling urinary catheter. The DON stated that there should be an order, not just to measure and empty the collection bag. Review of the facility's policy titled Catheter Management, revised 6/24 revealed, .if an indwelling catheter is determined necessary and medically justified . Review of the facility provided textbook Clinical Nursing Skills and Techniques authored by [NAME], [NAME], [NAME] Ottendorf, and [NAME], with a copywrite date of 2022, documented on page 999, .after identifying the [resident] with two identifiers, review the residents EHR (electronic health record) health care providers orders .
CONCERN (D)

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

Tube Feeding (Tag F0693)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview, record review and policy review, the facility failed to ensure a resident with a feeding tube (gastrostomy tube) had a physician's order for the care and management of the feeding ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview, record review and policy review, the facility failed to ensure a resident with a feeding tube (gastrostomy tube) had a physician's order for the care and management of the feeding tube for one of one resident (Resident (R)36) reviewed for gastrostomy care. As a result of this deficient practice, the resident had the potential for harm by staff performing interventions or actions without a physician's order. Findings include: Review of R36's Face Sheet under the Face Sheet tab in the electronic medical record (EMR) revealed an admission date of 02/21/24 with medical diagnosis of Gastrostomy status [feeding tube]. Review of the Care Plan under the Care Plan tab in the EMR documented, Alteration in nutrition (less than body requirements) history of severe protein malnutrition, past history of significant weight loss, with recent improvement /rebound, wounds, has g-tube [gastrostomy tube] refuses to use, dysphagia [difficulty swallowing] due to a failed swallow study on 10/10/24. Review of R36's Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed for the months of June 2024 and October 2024 documented an intervention to flush tube with 120 milliliters (ml) of water via enteral tube [feeding tube] daily. Review of R36's Physician's Orders tab in the EMR lacked documentation of an order to flush the feeding tube. During an interview on 10/28/24 at 9:53 AM, Registered Nurse (RN) 2 stated that R36 has a feeding tube, and the evening shift performs the flush as listed on the MAR daily. RN2 confirmed there was no physician's order for the feeding tube to be flushed daily. During an interview on 10/18/24 at 10:30 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) reviewed R36's physician orders and confirmed there was no order for daily flushing of the feeding tube. The DON stated that there should be an order. Review of the facility's policy titled, Nutrition-Gastric Feeding Tubes, dated 01/24 revealed, Note the order in the MAR regarding tube feeding . consistent with the physician's order.
CONCERN (D)

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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure one Resident (R)41 out of three...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure one Resident (R)41 out of three residents observed with a medication in a cup on the bedside table was administered his medication when the nurse dispensed the medication. This failure had the potential to place the resident at risk for health decline. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy provided by the facility titled, Medication Administration Scheduling Guidelines dated 5/19 revealed, .the facility requires that drugs be administered by the nurse until the care planning team has the opportunity to obtain necessary information of the residents' ability to safely self-administer medication. During an observation on 10/17/24 at 9:00 AM, with Register Nurse (RN)2, R41 was in his room and a pill was in a medication cup on the resident's bedside table. RN2 asked R41 if the night shift nurse had awakened him to give his medication. R41 stated, no the nurse did not wake him up during the night to give his medication and that he had not been given any medication earlier that morning. Review of R41's Face Sheet, located under the Face Sheet tab of the electronic medical record (EMR) revealed R41 had an admission date to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of diabetes. Review of R41's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) located under the MDS tab in the EMR revealed an assessment reference date (ARD) of 08/05/24 revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of 15 out of 15 which indicated intact cognition. Review of R41's comprehensive care plan, dated 08/08/24 and located under the Care Plan tab in the EMR revealed a problem was listed for self-care deficit and one of the interventions was for administration of medication and to watch for side effects. Review of R41's Assessments tab under the Assessments tab in the EMR revealed there was no assessment done for self-administration of medication. During an interview on 10/17/24 at 9:10 AM, RN2 revealed the medication should not have been left in the room. During an interview on 10/17/24 at 10:00 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated that it was not okay for a nurse to leave any medication in a resident's room. The DON stated the nurse should witness the resident taking the medication and then sign the MAR as given. The DON revealed they have residents who have dementia and could have taken the medication and swallowed it.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review, document review, policy review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure controlled substances were under double lock for one of two medication rooms (second floor), and t...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, document review, policy review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure controlled substances were under double lock for one of two medication rooms (second floor), and that the individual controlled count sheets reflected the signatures of the nurses who had administered the narcotics to the residents for three of fourteen residents (R) 32, R37 and R24). This failure had the potential for controlled substances to be diverted. Findings include: 1. Review of the facility's policy, provided by the facility, titled Controlled Substance revised on 4/21 and reviewed on 7/24 revealed, purpose was to ensure appropriate and consistent procedures for safeguarding controlled substances are followed from delivery through the actual administration and/or destroying of medication. The policy further revealed the protocol to follow was all controlled substances will be counted by two nurses at each shift change. The ongoing nurse will count the controlled substances and the off going nurse will verify the count from the individual controlled substances count sheet and count the number of the actual controlled substances count sheet themselves to ensure that they are all in place. Both nurses will sign the individual controlled substances count sheets and the Master Controlled Substance record in the appropriate space. Both nurses will visualize the controlled substance to the count sheets. If a discrepancy is found the pharmacy, Director of Nursing (DON), Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) and the medical director are to be notified immediately, and an investigation begun. The policy further revealed, controlled substances requiring refrigeration must be double locked and count with all others. During review of the controlled substance count sheets dated 10/24 with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)2 revealed the controlled substance count sheets had missing signatures for 10/13/24 and 10/14/24 that verified the counts were correct. Review of the Master Control Substance record for October 2024 revealed 33 blanks where the number of cards should have been indicated and six blanks where a signature should have been that indicated each nurse signed off on the sheet as it was correct. Review of R32's individual count sheets for the narcotic Oxycodone 15 milligram (mg), R37's individual count sheet for the narcotic Tramadol 50 mg, and R24's individual count sheet for the narcotic Hydrocodone/APAP 5-325 mg revealed the amount of total pills on the sheet matched the numbers of pills available on the punch card. However, the individual count sheet for R32 was missing the nurse's signature on 10/15/24 who had removed the narcotic from the punch card and administered the narcotic to the resident; for R37's sheet, 10/16/24 was missing the nurse's signature and for R24's sheet, 10/16/24 was missing the nurse's signature. Review of the October 2024 Medication Administration Records (MARs) for R32, R37 and R24 revealed that there was documentation for 10/15/24, 10/15/24, and 10/16/24 that the nurse did not sign out for the narcotic on the individual count sheet, that the narcotic was administered to the resident with the nurses' initials and date and time of administration. During an interview on 10/16/24 at 12:45 PM, LPN2 revealed stated that she had not yet signed the controlled substances that she had given that morning and proceeded to sign the individual count sheets as we spoke. LPN2 stated the second shift nurse did not sign out the controlled substances they had given that night (10/15/24), so the night shift nurse put the number on the sheet, but did not sign the number and they went on and counted. LPN2 revealed she thought the second shift nurse had just forgotten to sign them out, but she did not verify that by looking at the MAR. LPN2 revealed she assumed the second shift nurse had administered it. LPN2 revealed her and the night shift nurse did not notify the DON of the discrepancy. During an interview on 10/16/2024 at 1:16 PM, the DON revealed she had not been notified that the individual controlled substance sheets for R32, R37 and R24 were missing nurses' signatures when the narcotic was administered. The DON revealed she should have been notified because an incorrect count could have indicated drug diversion. During an interview on 10/16/24 at 1:16 PM, the DON reviewed R32, R37 and R24's MARs for each controlled substance and found they were signed as given on the MAR. The DON revealed the Master Control Substance record should have been signed by the nurses coming on and going off to work and there were multiple omissions of signatures. During an interview on 10/18/24 at 10:15 AM, the stated that nurses counting the controlled substances should not assume a medication was given unless confirmation had been done. The nurses should have called the nurse who had omitted their signature and notified the DON. 2. During an observation on 10/16/24 at 1:47 PM, Registered Nurse (RN)2 unlocked the medication room door on the second floor and opened the refrigerator that was unlocked and contained Ativan. Observation revealed the lock for the refrigerator was on top of the refrigerator. RN2 walked out of the medication room without locking the refrigerator. During an observation on 10/16/24 at 1:55 PM, further revealed RN2 unlocked the medication room door and verified the refrigerator was not locked. During an interview on 10/16/24 at 1:55 PM, RN2 stated she had been in the refrigerator earlier in the shift and forgot to lock the refrigerator and that she did not lock it when we had gone in the medication room. RN2 revealed the refrigerator had Ativan stored in it and that the refrigerator should be under double lock and it was not. During an interview on 10/17/24 at 3:34 PM, the DON revealed the medication room, and the refrigerator should be under double lock and if the refrigerator was not locked then it was a single lock and that is not their policy. During an interview on 10/18/24 at 10:15 AM, the Administrator revealed controlled substances should be under double lock.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0940 (Tag F0940)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on staff interviews, record reviews, and document review, the facility failed to ensure the staff were prepared and educated for the care of one resident (Resident (R)26) with a portable infusio...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on staff interviews, record reviews, and document review, the facility failed to ensure the staff were prepared and educated for the care of one resident (Resident (R)26) with a portable infusion pump delivering chemotherapy drugs through a surgically implanted port. As a result of this deficient practice, the residents and staff had the potential for harm and/or injury due to lack of knowledge for: the care of the pump and tubing; awareness of the hazards of the chemotherapy drug and potential exposure risks with a leak or spill; and biohazard containment of a chemotherapy drug if a leak/spill did occur. Findings include: Review of R26's Face Sheet located in the electronic medical record (EMR) under the Face Sheet tab, revealed an admission date of 03/15/24 with medical diagnoses that included chronic viral hepatitis C, Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) disease, and new rectal cancer diagnosis. Review of the 24-Hour Nursing report sheet (not a part of the resident medical record) dated 10/13/24, provided by the facility, documented R26 returned from a clinic appointment at 4:57 PM with an infusion pump. The 24-hour Nursing report dated 10/14/24 documented, NOC [night] shift: no issues with chemo/pump, DAY shift: lethargic and weak from treatment of new chemo pump and PM [evening] shift: no complaints related to pump. Review of R26's Nursing progress notes dated 10/13/24 in the EMR under the Nursing Progress notes tab lacked documentation the resident returned from treatment with a new chemotherapy infusion pump. Nursing progress notes dated 10/14/24 and 10/15/24, lacked documentation of the presences of the pump. Nursing progress notes on 10/16/24 documented at 4:46 AM and 6:24 AM chemo pump intact and no issues. Nursing progress note dated 10/16/24 at 1:52 PM documented, [Physician's] office called to request order for Ambulatory pump. Request for order to list medication to be give, awaiting response. The Nursing progress note dated 10/16/24 at 3:05 PM, documented a conversation with the resident reports port was accessed this week and chemo started via pump which he had in his lap as going to radiation [appointment]. He did not know much but it was chemo. Dressing intact covering port needle, no leaking with insertion site, free of redness or swelling. Pump running-green light on .call placed to oncology clinic regarding recent access of port an infusion running. Nursing is monitoring the device and site with no abnormal findings. Have requested clinic staff to assist with clarification needed to ensure collaboration-coordination of care related to port, need to clarify what is medication infusing and management of port site-dressing/access etc. to ensure coordination and all applicable interventions are in place. Requested return call. Review of R26's Care Plan located in the EMR under the Care Plan tab revealed on 10/16/24, R26 will be receiving cancer treatments both chemo and radiation on a scheduled basis chemo via pump, continuous at facility. Has a radiation schedule with radiation and management per oncologist at radiation oncology cancer center at an acute hospital. R26 has an implanted port to left chest wall for chemo infusions. Review of physician's order provided by the facility on a separate paper dated 10/16/24 at 8:56 PM, documented, lnfu-System CADD [Continuous Ambulatory Delivery Device] Ambulatory Pump for chemotherapy treatment continuous IV [intravenous] three times a day AM [morning] PM, NOC check dressing and IV site also FOR: chemotherapy treatment Administration instructions: If dressing becomes loose, tape around it with medical tape. If any fluid leaks around it or under the dressing, stop the pump and call MD [Medical Director]. The physician's order lacked interventions for actions to treat any leaking/spill as a hazardous material and to take appropriate safety precautions. During an interview on 10/16/24 at 12:03 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 2 when asked about R26's ambulatory pump, she stated that she did not know what it was for or what was needed for the care of the pump. During an interview on 10/16/24 at 12:05 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) explained the pump's purpose was for chemo drug administration. The DON confirmed the staff had not been educated about the chemotherapy drug infusion. During an interview on 10/16/24 at 12:36 PM, the Corporate Clinical Consultant confirmed the staff had not been educated prior to R26's pump arriving at the facility and specifically the nurse caring for R26 and that LPN2 had not been educated about the pump, it's purpose, precautions to be taken [hazardous material] or interventions to implement. During an interview on 10/18/24 at 11:06 AM with the Administrator and the Corporate Clinical Consultant, they confirmed the facility assessment revised 08/06/24 did not include providing care for residents receiving on site chemotherapy drugs as the care the facility provided for the residents. The Corporate Clinical Consultant verbalized the facility was unaware of the resident with the chemotherapy infusion prior to the resident returning from the appointment. The Corporate Clinical Consultant stated the clinic did not communicate the special needs for the resident until inquiries were made by the facility. Review of the facility assessment revised 08/06/24 documented, care provided for resident who are receiving chemotherapy and radiation therapy. Under the heading Staff training/education and Competencies indicated, Staff training/education programs and competencies necessary to provide the support and care needed for our resident population.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, record review, policy review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure the residents' environment was clean, sanitary, and homelike. This had the potential to result in the ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, policy review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure the residents' environment was clean, sanitary, and homelike. This had the potential to result in the spread of infection; residents being injured as the result of a loose toilet seat; a decline in residents' self-esteem. This affected five (Resident (R) 26, R32, R23, R9, and R22) of 41 residents in the facility. Findings include: 1. On 10/15/24 at 2:57 PM; on 10/16/24 at 9:00 AM, 12:28 PM, and 3:38 PM; on 10/17/24 at 9:36 AM and 3:30 PM; and on 10/18/24 at 11:00 AM there was an unlabeled urinal on the floor of R26 and R32's bathroom and the pull cord on the bathroom call light was soiled with a brown substance. The urinal was lying on its side to the back of the toilet. On 10/17/24 at 3:30 PM the Social Service Director (SSD) verified the urinal was on the floor and the call cord was visibly soiled. On 10/28/24 at 11:00 AM the Maintenance Director verified the observation. On 10/17/24 at 9:36 AM and 3:30 PM a soiled incontinent brief with bowel movement on it was observed on the floor in R26 and R32's bathroom. On 10/17/24 at 3:30 PM the SSD verified the soiled incontinence brief was on the floor. She stated the nursing staff, or housekeeping should have cleaned it up. On 10/18/24 at 1:34 PM, Certified Nurse Aid 5 (CNA5) stated R26 uses the bathroom independently and R32 needed assistance with toileting and incontinence care. Review of R26's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 09/22/24 provided by the facility revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score was 13 out of 15 indicating he was cognitively intact. The MDS indicated R26 was independent with toilet hygiene, personal hygiene, and walking. The assessment stated he was continent of bowel and bladder. Review of R32's quarterly MDS with an ARD of 08/10/24 provided by the facility revealed the resident had a BIMS score of 14 out of 15 indicating he was cognitively intact. The MDS indicated R32 required moderate assistance with toilet hygiene, and he was occasionally incontinent with urine and frequently incontinent of bowel. 2. On 10/15/24 at 12:01 PM; 10/16/24 at 12:34 PM and 3:36 PM; on 10/17/24 at 9:40 AM and 3:30 PM; and on 10/18/24 at 11:02 AM and 2:32 PM the bathroom between R9 and R23's rooms had a strong smell of urine. The floor was visibly soiled and was sticky to the feet. There was a one-inch brown smear on the wall just across from the toilet. The call cord in the bathroom was soiled with a brown substance. On 10/17/24 at 3:30 PM the SSD verified the observations. On 10/18/24 at 11:02 PM the Maintenance Director verified the observations. On 10/18/24 at 2:32 PM CNA5 stated both R9 and R23 are capable of using the bathroom independently. Review of R23's quarterly MDS with an ARD of 09/04/24 provided by the facility revealed a BIMS score of 00 out of 15 indicating he was severely cognitively impaired. The MDS indicated R 23 was independent with walking and transfers and required supervision and verbal cues for toileting. Review of R9's quarterly MDS with an ARD of 08/14/24 provided by the facility revealed a BIMS score of 15 out of 15 indicating she was cognitively intact. The MDS indicated that she was independent with toileting hygiene, transfers, and she was frequently incontinent of urine and occasionally incontinent of bowel. She was dependent on a wheelchair for mobility. 3. On 10/15/24 at 2:08 PM R9 stated the toilet seat in the bathroom of her previous room was loose and the privacy curtain was soiled. She stated the facility moved her to the room she was currently in so they could clean the room and fix the items that needed repair. She stated once they moved her, she liked the room and chose to remain in the room they moved her to. Review of the floor plan and the census sheet revealed R22 was moved into R9's previous room. On 10/15/24 at 2:15 PM; 10/16/24 at 3:36 PM; and 10/17/24 3:30 PM, the toilet seat in R22's bathroom was loose and moved side to side, when lightly pushed. The privacy curtain was soiled in a three-foot by four-foot area along the bottom of the curtain. On 10/17/24 at 3:30 PM, the SSD verified the curtain was soiled and the toilet seat was loose. On 10/17/24 at 3:30 PM, R22 verified the curtain was soiled and the toilet seat was loose. Review of R22's significant change MDS located in the MDS tab of the electronic medical record (EMR) with an ARD of 09/03/24 revealed a BIMS score of 10 out of 15 which indicated he had moderate cognitive impairment. The MDS indicated he was independent with toilet hygiene, personal hygiene, and transferring. He utilized a wheelchair for locomotion. Review of the facility policy titled, Housekeeping-Routine (occupied) Room Cleaning dated 09/20 revealed it was the facility's policy to maintain rooms in a clean and sanitary manner. The protocol stated to complete thorough room cleaning quarterly, at move out, and as needed. The policy stated to report any defective equipment or repairs needed to your supervisor via the maintenance request book. Review of the facility policy titled Housekeeping - Toilet and Bathroom Cleaning dated 03/23 revealed it was the facility policy to maintain bathrooms in a clean and sanitary manner. The policy stated routine bathroom and toilet cleaning should occur daily. The policy stated to report any defective equipment or repairs needed to your supervisor via the maintenance request book.
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0801 (Tag F0801)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on record review, document review, and staff interview, the facility failed to designate a person to serve as the Director of Food and Nutrition Services. Failure to designate a person had the p...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, document review, and staff interview, the facility failed to designate a person to serve as the Director of Food and Nutrition Services. Failure to designate a person had the potential to result in food not being prepared, stored, or served in a sanitary manner with the potential to result in food borne illness. This had the potential to affect all 41 of 41 residents residing in the facility. Findings include: On 10/15/24 at 10:34 AM, during the initial tour of the dietary department, Cook1 and Dietary Aid (DA)1 were working in the kitchen and when asked who the Dietary Manager/Director of Food Services was they both stated they did not have one. Cook1 stated she used to be the interim supervisor until they hired one. They stated a Director of Dietary was hired and then quit and they have not had a supervisor since he left. Interview on 10/15/24 at 4:10 PM, the Corporate Clinical Consultant and the Administrator stated the facility had a consultant Dietitian who provided consulting services once a week. They stated they did not have a person designated as the Director of Food and Nutrition Services. Per interview they were actively recruiting for a Certified Dietary Manager (CDM) and were having problems finding a qualified person. The Corporate Clinical Consultant provided a document titled (name of facility) Dietary Manager Recruitment and interview with the Administrator and Corporate Clinical Consultant revealed Cook1 was designated as the interim Director of Dietary on 11/01/22 when the last CDM was terminated. They stated that they continued to advertise and interview potential candidates without any success. Per the document and review of [NAME] 1's personnel file, Cook1 was enrolled in the CMS course on 06/2023. On 05/2024, she decided not to complete the course and additional advertising was conducted. Per the report they hired a CDM on 07/15/24 and he terminated his employment on 08/23/24. The interview revealed they had not designated a Director of Food and Nutrition Services since 08/23/24 and they continued to place ads, and had interviewed two candidates in September 2024. Review of Cook1's personnel file revealed she did not meet the requirements to be designated as the Director of Food and Nutrition Services. On 10/18/24 at 10:45 AM, telephone interview was conducted with the Registered Dietitian (RD) who stated that she only does the clinical side of nutrition services and did not inspect the kitchen for potential sanitation problems. She stated she provides services about once a week and often she completes her visits virtually. Review of a list of hours she worked since 09/01/24 revealed she worked one hour on 09/07/24, two hours on 09/13/24, 3.25 hours on 09/17/24, four hours on 09/26/24, and two hours virtually via computer on 10/10/24. Review of the facility's Job Description for the Food Service Manager revealed for the Qualification section, the Food Service Manager must be a Certified Dietary Manager.
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, staff interviews and policy/procedure review, the facility failed to ensure the low temperature dishwasher sanitizer was maintained at a level required to sanitize the dishes. Fa...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, staff interviews and policy/procedure review, the facility failed to ensure the low temperature dishwasher sanitizer was maintained at a level required to sanitize the dishes. Failure to ensure the sanitizer level of the dishwasher was at the required level had the potential to result in food borne illness or the spread of infections for all 41 of 41 residents residing in the facility. Findings include: On 10/15/24 at 10:34 AM, the sanitizer in the low temperature dishwasher was checked by Dietary Aid (DA)1. The chlorine test strip did not change color indicating the chlorine sanitizer was at zero parts per million (ppm). The sanitizer was checked three times and each time the test strip did not turn colors. DA1 was asked if she tested it prior to washing the breakfast dishes and she stated she had and stated the test strip had not turned colors prior to using it to wash the breakfast dishes. On 10/15/24 at 1:05 PM, DA1 was observed running the soiled plates from the lunch meal through the dishwasher. After running two racks of dishes through the dishwasher, DA1 was asked to test the sanitizer level. DA1 used the chlorine test strip and the test strip did not change colors indicating the chlorine sanitizer was at zero ppm. DA1 continued to run the soiled dishes through the dishwasher after the sanitizer level was checked and found to be zero parts per million. On 10/15/24 at 1:06 PM the Administrator was informed the low temperature dishwasher sanitizer level was zero ppm. At 1:08 PM, the sanitizer level was checked again with the chlorine test strip and showed zero ppm. The Administrator verified it was zero ppm and informed the dietary staff to stop using the dishwasher until the problem was resolved. The Administrator stated that he expected dietary staff to test the dish machine and ensure it was the correct level of chlorine before they use it. Review of the facility policy/procedure titled, Dish Machine - Low Temperature/Chemical Status Procedure dated 1/24 stated the chlorine should be no less than 50 ppm and no greater than 100 ppm when washing the dishes. The policy stated if the temperature or chlorine ppm were not within acceptable limits fix the problem immediately and record on the temperature sheet what you did to fix the problem. If the temperature or chlorine ppm is still out of normal range, DO NOT USE the dish machine and contact maintenance or the dietary manager immediately for further action.
Nov 2023 3 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

Deficiency F0578 (Tag F0578)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility did not ensure 1 (R6) of 6 Residents was given the right to formulate their p...

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 1 (R6) of 6 Residents was given the right to formulate their preference regarding their code status and have the facility correctly reflect that preference. *R6's POLST (Provider Orders for Scope of Treatment) signed, not dated by R6 is checked for Do Not Attempt Resuscitation/DNR. On [DATE] R6 was hospitalized and returned to the facility on [DATE]. The hospital discharge summary for date of discharge [DATE] documents Code Status: Full Code. R6's medical record contained conflicting details regarding R6's code status and there is no evidence the Facility spoke with R6 regarding this conflicting code status. Findings include: The Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) or Do-Not-Resuscitate (DNR) Orders policy and procedure last revised 6/22 under protocol documents: 1. Upon admission, the licensed nurse or social worker will discuss the options, CPR or DNR and any other advance directives with the resident and/or legal representative, and receive the corresponding physician orders. The Physician Order Summary (POS) is the designated place in the medical record for staff to record/find the CPR/DNR designation for each resident. a. The POST (Provider Orders for Scope of Treatment) form (WI and IN) (Wisconsin & Indiana) and the POLST (Provider Orders for Life Sustaining Treatment (MT) form, and any other state specific forms should be completed at that time as the resident or resident representative desires. b. If CPR or DNR designation changes and a new physician order is obtained, the licensed nurse will enter into ECS (electronic charting system) physician's orders and immediately reprint a physician order summary sheet and file in the physician's order tab in the medical record. R6 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. R6 is her own person and does not have an activated power of attorney. R6's diagnoses includes encounter for aftercare following surgical amputation, right below knee amputation, sepsis, hypertension, and diabetes mellitus. The POST form located in R6's paper medical record is checked for Do Not Attempt Resuscitation/DNR. This form is signed by R6 and is not dated. Section F Signature of Physician/NP (Nurse Practitioner) has not been completed. This section documents My signature below indicates to the best of my knowledge that these orders are consistent with the patient's current medical condition and preferences. PHYSICIAN/NP SIGNATURE (required), PRINT SIGNING PHYSICIAN/NP NAME (required), & TIME AND DATE: (required). R6's physician/NP did not sign this POST form. Under the tab advanced directives in R6's electronic record dated [DATE] documents Code Status: DNR. The hospital patient discharge summary for date of discharge [DATE] documents Code Status: Full Code. The physician orders signed by nursing on [DATE] but not by the physician documents Code Status: DNR/DNI (do not resuscitate/do not intubate). The quarterly MDS (minimum data set) with an assessment reference date of [DATE] has a BIMS (brief interview mental status) score of 14 which indicates cognitively intact. On [DATE] at 9:40 a.m. Surveyor showed LPN (Licensed Practical Nurse)-I R6's POST form which was signed by R6 but not the physician. LPN-I informed Surveyor she can look at the faxes as she thought it was signed. After LPN-I looked in the computer for the fax, Surveyor asked if she was able to find the signed POST form. LPN-I replied I wasn't. Surveyor asked LPN-I who reviews the discharge summary when a Resident returns from the hospital. LPN-I informed Surveyor she does and that she reviews what occurred in the hospital. Surveyor informed LPN-I R6's Discharge summary dated [DATE] documents R6's code status as full code. Surveyor inquired if she was aware of the change in code status & whether R6 was spoken to about her code status preference. LPN-I informed Surveyor she doesn't have an answer for this. LPN-I then informed Surveyor it seems like they talked about the change and that sometimes hospital paper work differs. On [DATE] at 9:46 a.m. Surveyor asked R6 after she returned from the hospital on [DATE] does she remember any staff talking to her about her code status, whether she would like to have CPR or not. R6 replied I don't remember. On [DATE] at 10:42 a.m. Surveyor asked DON (Director of Nursing)-B who completes the POLST form with a Resident or their representative. DON-B informed Surveyor Admissions or Social Services. Surveyor asked who the admission person is. DON-B informed Surveyor it is the social worker, she does both jobs. Surveyor asked DON-B when a Resident returns from the hospital who reviews the hospital discharge summary. DON-B informed Surveyor the nurse on the floor and if she is here she will usually review it as well. Surveyor inquired who is responsible for having the physician sign the POLST form. DON-B informed Surveyor Social Services usually faxes the form to the doctor. Surveyor informed DON-B the POLST form in R6's medical record is signed by R6, not dated and not signed by the physician is checked for DNR. Surveyor informed DON-B the hospital discharge summary [DATE] documents full code. DON-B informed Surveyor she will have to look into this. DON-B did not provide Surveyor with any additional information. On [DATE] at 1:03 p.m. Surveyor asked SS (Social Service)-G if she is involved with having a Resident or their representative complete the POLST form. SS-G informed Surveyor during the admission process she explains what CPR and DNR are to determine their wishes, she makes sure she signs and the resident signs the POLST form, faxes the POLST form to the doctor so the doctor can sign and then places the signed POLST form in the front of the chart so the nurses can see it. Surveyor asked SS-G if she went over R6's POLST form with her as R6's POLST form is not dated. SS-G informed Surveyor she believes it was the social worker before her. SS-G informed Surveyor she just went over the POLST form with R6 today. Surveyor asked SS-G what prompted her to review code status with R6. SS-G informed Surveyor her boss told me to make sure to update it as there was one that didn't match the hospital. Surveyor inquired who was her boss. SS-G replied the name of NHA (Nursing Home Administrator)-A. Surveyor asked SS-G what R6 wanted her code status to be. SS-G replied full code. On [DATE] at 2:50 p.m. during the daily meeting Surveyor informed NHA-A and DON-B of the above. On [DATE] at 7:52 a.m. Surveyor was provided with SS-G's note dated [DATE] at 6:44 p.m. which documents SPOKE WITH: Resident and her son [Name] in her room this evening. Writer had a copy of a blank POLST form. Writer went over options and explained and educated resident on options. [R6's first name] said she was confused as to what her code status should be, and asked her son who was present what he thought they should do. They decided together. She would be a DNR but wanted selected treatments and cares. POLST made to reflect [R6's first name] desire and [R6's first name] signed form. She is a DNR, however she wants full treatment until she stops breathing. Does not want CPR in event of absent vital signs.
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

Notification of Changes (Tag F0580)

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 notify a Resident's representative of a new form of treatment involvin...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the Facility did not notify a Resident's representative of a new form of treatment involving a cream medication to treat scabies involving 2 (R7 and R3) of 2 Residents reviewed for notification of a representative. *R7 was diagnosed with scabies on 9/14/23 and 10/14/23 with a treatment ordered upon each occurrence. There is no indication in R7's medical record that R7's guardian was notified with each occurrence. *R3 was diagnosed with scabies on 9/17/23 and a new treatment was ordered. R3's activated Health Care Power of Attorney (HCPOA) was not notified. Findings Include: Surveyor reviewed the facility's change in Residents Condition/Status: Resident, Physician and Family/Legal Representative Notification/Consultation policy and procedure last revised 8/21 and notes the following applicable: .5. Unless otherwise instructed by the competent Resident, the Licensed Nurse will notify the Resident's family or legal representative when: d. There is a need to alter treatment significantly(ie, a need to discontinue an existing form of treatment due to adverse consequences or to commence a new form of treatment). 7. The Licensed Nurse will record in the Resident's medical record any changes in the Resident's medical condition or status. 8. The Licensed Nurse will record in the Resident's medical record the notification of the Resident, physician, and Resident's representative of the change in a Resident's condition or status. 1. R7 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of Cerebral Palsy, Essential Hypertension, and Gastro-esophageal Reflux Disease without Esophagitis. A legal guardian was appointed on 3/27/2009 due to R7 being declared incompetent. R7's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] documents R7's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score to be a 15, indicating that R7 is cognitively intact for daily decision making. On 11/27/23 at 10:33 AM, Surveyor received the facility's Scabies Outbreak Line List of Residents and Employees from Director of Nursing (DON-B). On 11/28/23 at 8:31 AM, Surveyor reviewed the line list and notes the following in regards to R7: Surveyor notes that it is documented on the line list that R7 was noted with a skin rash on 9/11/23, 9/15/23 initial treatment was started, 9/22/23 repeat treatment completed. Surveyor notes that it is documented on the line list that R7 was noted with a skin rash on 10/13/23, 10/14/23 initial treatment was started, 10/20/23 repeat treatment completed. Surveyor reviewed R7's electronic medical record (EMR) on 11/27/23 at 1:15 PM and was not able to locate any documentation that R7's legal guardian had been notified of the identified skin rash, scabies, and new treatment order on 9/11/23 and 10/13/23. On 11/28/23 at 10:13 AM, Surveyor interviewed DON-B who confirmed that R7's legal guardian should have been notified of the scabies on 9/11/23 and 10/13/23 and the new treatment order. DON-B stated documentation of this notification should be in R7's progress notes located in R7's EMR. DON-B does not recall notifying R7's legal guardian and informed Surveyor DON-B was unable to locate any documentation that R7's legal guardian was notified. On 11/28/23 at 2:47 PM, Surveyor had DON-B review a progress notes dated 9/14/23, written by DON-B that documents the following: Spoke with attending physician regarding rash that R7 has presented with and that we have a positive encrusted scabies diagnosis for another Resident who resides next to R7(shared bathroom). Facility will treatment R7 with permethrin cream 5%x1 and then shower/launder clothes/linen, etc. R7 has been placed in contact isolation immediately following notification of other Resident. R7 has been notified of the above recommendations and is in agreement and understands with no questions. Staff have been notified of the isolation/treatment procedures as well. Surveyor confirmed the progress note was written by DON-B and DON-B confirmed there is no documentation of R7's legal guardian being notified and stated guardian was probably not notified. Surveyor shared the concern at this time that R7's legal guardian had not been notified of the scabies on 9/11/23 or 10/13/23 with a new treatment. No further information was provided by the facility at this time. On 11/29/23 at 7:25 AM, Surveyor received a progress note from Administrator (NHA-A) that was written by DON-B at 7:17 PM on 11/28/23 that documents the following, notification of R7's previous skin issues requiring treatment/isolation. Guardian states was notified of the incident by writer previously and was aware of issue and has no concerns. Surveyor shared with NHA-A that R7 had 2 separate scabies with treatment on 9/11/23 and 10/13/23, the concern remains that there is no indication the facility notified the legal guardian upon each separate treatment with scabies and when this notification occurred. NHA-A acknowledges the concern at this time. 2. R3's power of attorney for healthcare was activated on 3/27/19. The quarterly MDS (minimum data set) with an assessment reference date of 9/19/23 has a BIMS (brief interview mental status) score of 3 which indicates severe cognitive impairment. The nurses note dated 9/17/23 documents [Physician's name]. Advised placed in contact isolation for rash/itching. Resident scratched open area to bilateral arms. Order for Permethrin 5% cream. This nurses note was written by LPN (Licensed Practical Nurse)-C. The physician order dated 9/18/23 documents Permethrin 5% cream topical daily AM (morning) First Date 09/19/2023 through 09/19/2023. For: Scabies. The nurses note dated 9/19/23 at 10:22 a.m. documents ACTION: on 9/14/23 Resident was noted to have a rash with c/o (complaint of) itching, IDT (interdisciplinary team) determined that Resident should be placed in strict isolation for s/s (signs/symptoms) to prevent spread of scabies, Resident was informed and verbalized understanding, staff was notified, MD (medical doctor) was contacted and treatment was ordered, Resident has remained in her room in isolation, staff aware of need for PPE (personal protective equipment). This note was written by RN (Registered Nurse)-H. RN-H is no longer employed at the Facility. Surveyor was unable to locate R3's POA (power of attorney) was notified of R3 having scabies and the treatment ordered. On 11/28/23 at 11:09 a.m. Surveyor asked DON (Director of Nursing)-B if a Resident was diagnosed with scabies and a treatment ordered would the POA be notified. DON-B informed Surveyor the POA would be notified of the current diagnosis and treatment. Surveyor asked if the nurse should document this in the Resident's medical record. DON-B replied some would, it should be. On 11/28/23 at 11:14 a.m. Surveyor spoke with LPN-C on the telephone. Surveyor read LPN-C her 9/17/23 note and inquired if she called anyone else such as the POA. LPN-C informed Surveyor she doesn't recall. Surveyor asked when she notifies a POA or family member does she document this in the progress notes. LPN-C replied yes. On 11/28/23 at 2:50 p.m. NHA (Nursing Home Administrator)-A and DON (Director of Nursing)-B were informed of the above.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0678 (Tag F0678)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the Facility did not have a system in place on how staff should respond, what staff should ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the Facility did not have a system in place on how staff should respond, what staff should do in the event of a Resident requiring cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), and ensure the necessary equipment was provided for R3's code event. This deficient practice has the potential to affect 23 Residents residing in the Facility who have determined their code status to be CPR. On [DATE] R3 had a change of condition which led to CPR being performed. LPN-E started compressions prior to checking R3's code status. LPN-E instructed CNA-F to call 911 and the other nurse, who was working on the other floor. CNA-F was unable to get through to 911 or the other nurse on the telephone. LPN-E while doing compressions used his personal cell phone to call 911. CNA-F had to take the elevator to the 2nd floor to inform RN-D there was an incident with R3. The Automated External Defibrillator (AED) which is located on either the first or 2nd floor was not brought up to the 3rd floor for R3. The Facility does not have a crash cart per se and emergency supplies are not ready for use and there is only one CPR board in the Facility. Interviews revealed some staff would use the paging system in an emergency while other staff didn't think there was a paging system. The Facility did not investigate R3's code event and was unaware CNA-F was unable to contact 911 or RN-D as she could not get through and the AED was not brought to the event. Findings include: The Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) or Do-Not-Resuscitate (DNR) orders policy and procedure last revised 6/22 documents: 5. The facility requires all licensed nurses to be CPR certified and to lead the emergency response. If there is another CPR-certified staff member present, they may assist with CPR delivery at the direction of the licensed nurse. a. The licensed nurse will verify CPR or DNR designation immediately sending another available staff person to get the medical record for the licensed nurse to check code status on the Physician Order Summary. 6. If the resident desires CPR, the facility licensed nurse will implement the following steps: a. 911: The licensed nurse will remain with the resident in arrest and will direct someone else to dial the Emergency Response Team (911), if possible. b. CPR: The licensed nurse (or other CPR-certified staff member, at the direction of the licensed nurse) will begin CPR while someone else retrieves any available CPR equipment (i.e. CPR board, ambu-bag, CPR face piece, AED (automatic external defibrillator) device, etc). c. AED: The defibrillator will be applied as soon as it arrives to the scene. The licensed nurse will follow the instructions as the defibrillator indicates until emergency personnel arrive and declare that they will assume the responsibility of maintaining life support interventions. R3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which includes depression, bipolar disease, and schizophrenia. The physician orders dated [DATE] documents code status CPR. The quarterly MDS (minimum data set) with an assessment reference date of [DATE] has a BIMS (brief interview mental status) score of 3 which indicates severe cognitive impairment. On [DATE] R3 experienced a change of condition and required CPR. The nurses note dated [DATE], late entry for [DATE] includes documentation of Writer lifted resident to stand position to perform Heimlich. Several thrusts applied and resident did not respond. At that time layed resident down on floor, checked for pulse; no pulse, not breathing. CPR was started as writer also called (20:01 pm) (8:01 p.m.) 911 on personal cell phone. CNA informed RN (Registered Nurse) on 2nd floor of incident. She arrived to assist with CPR. Shortly after EMT (emergency medical technician) arrived and took over care of resident approximately 2008 (8:08 p.m.). EMT unable to revive resident was pronounced at 2036 (8:36 p.m.) by [Physician's name]. Medical examiner arrived and removed body. Family MD (medical doctor) have been notified. Administrator and DON (Director of Nursing) notified. This note was written by LPN-E. On [DATE] at 12:30 p.m. Surveyor asked LPN (Licensed Practical Nurse)-I if there are AED machines in the Facility. LPN-I replied yes. Surveyor inquired where they are located. LPN-I informed Surveyor on the 2nd and 1st floor. On [DATE] at 12:40 p.m. Surveyor observed an AED machine on the 2nd floor located on the wall in the small alcove above the medication cart. On [DATE] at 12:47 p.m. Surveyor asked LPN-I what she would do if a CNA (Certified Nursing Assistant) informed her she didn't think a Resident was breathing or had a pulse. LPN-I informed Surveyor she would immediately get the vital machine, grab the chart to see if CPR or DNR, and assess the Resident. If no pulse and Resident was CPR she would start CPR, alert rest of staff to call 911 & get the crash cart. Surveyor inquired who would get the crash cart. LPN-I informed Surveyor the CNA and they all know where it's located and the suction machine is on the counter. Surveyor asked how she would alert the staff. LPN-I informed Surveyor she would call out and if no one showed up she would do CPR for 3 to 5 minutes and then run for help. Surveyor asked if no one came how would you get the crash cart. LPN-I informed Surveyor she would have to grab it as quickly as possible along with the cordless phone. On [DATE] at 12:54 p.m. Surveyor asked Med Tech-P what she would do if a CNA informed her she didn't think a Resident was breathing or had a pulse. Med Tech-P informed Surveyor she would go down to see if the Resident was breathing or had a pulse. She would see if the Resident was responding, check the mouth and start CPR. Med Tech-P informed Surveyor she would yell out hey you call 911, get O2 (oxygen), AED. Med Tech-P informed Surveyor they would try to work as a team. On [DATE] at 1:00 p.m. Surveyor observed an AED machine on the first floor on the wall opposite the elevators to the right of the water fountain. On [DATE] at 1:20 p.m. LPN-I unlocked the clean utility room on the 3rd floor which contains emergency supplies. Surveyor inquired if she was the only one on the floor that has the key. LPN-I explained it's a #1 key which everyone has access to. LPN-I explained this key opens this room, referring to the clean utility room, the oxygen room and bathroom. Surveyor asked if there is a crash cart. LPN-I replied no not a cart per se everything is in the room. Surveyor observed there is a suction machine on the counter but is not ready for use as there is not a suction bottle with tubing. There is an oxygen tank in this room and there is a CPR board between the wall and metal rack. Surveyor did not observe an ambu bag/resuscitation bag. At 1:27 p.m. Surveyor asked LPN-I to show Surveyor where the #1 key is located which the CNA's have access to. LPN-I showed Surveyor a basket on the counter at the nurses station but the key is not in the basket. LPN-I informed Surveyor the CNA who went home sick may have taken the key to the 2nd floor. On [DATE] at 1:28 p.m. Surveyor asked Med Tech-P to show Surveyor where their crash cart/emergency supplies are. Med Tech-P unlocked the clean utility room on the 2nd floor. Surveyor observed there is an oxygen tank with an ambu bag. Surveyor inquired about a CPR board. Med Tech-P informed Surveyor they had a board and they may have used it upstairs. Surveyor did not observe a CPR board in this room. Surveyor observed a suction machine on the counter but was not ready for use as there was no suction bottle with tubing. Med Tech-P informed Surveyor the boxes on the cart are respiratory supplies stating they used to have a resident with a trach. Med Tech-P informed Surveyor at one time the metal cart was like their crash cart that they could just grab the cart instead of grabbing things from different areas. Med Tech-P informed Surveyor maybe they used it and didn't set it back up explaining she had been on vacation. On [DATE] at 1:34 p.m. Surveyor observed a sign posted by the entrance to the dining room on the first floor which stated Emergency First Aid Kit located in the dining room left lower side cupboard. Surveyor checked this cabinet and observed a suction machine. The suction machine wasn't set up for use as there wasn't a suction bottle with tubing. There was an adult oxygen mask and a red first aid kit which contained two gait belts, nasal cannula tubing, Yankauer suction instrument, bandages, gauze, towel tape, and normal saline bullets. On [DATE] at 2:47 p.m. Surveyor interviewed LPN-E regarding the CPR event for R3. LPN-E informed Surveyor he attempted the Heimlich maneuver for R3 then layed her down, felt for a pulse, she was not breathing and started CPR. Surveyor asked LPN-E how he knew R3's code status. LPN-E informed Surveyor there was no pulse, not breathing, she passed out, layed her on her back, started compressions and told CNA-F to call the other nurse. LPN-E informed Surveyor CNA-F was having a hard time, he yelled at CNA-F to call 911 but CNA-F was having a hard time so told her to just get RN-D. LPN-E informed Surveyor CNA-F took the elevator and he was left alone doing CPR. LPN-E informed Surveyor he used his personal cell phone to call 911 and they were giving him instructions telling him to do compressions. LPN-E informed Surveyor RN-D came up, helped with compressions and then EMS came. Surveyor inquired why he had to call 911. LPN-E replied because CNA-F couldn't call 911 she was either panicking or the phone didn't work. Surveyor inquired if there is a crash cart. LPN-E replied ya, ya. Surveyor then inquired if there is an AED. LPN-E replied yes. Surveyor asked LPN-E if he had someone go get the AED. LPN-E replied I must of told CNA-F. Surveyor asked if CNA-F brought the AED. LPN-E replied we did not use the AED. Surveyor asked LPN-E if he knows how often the crash carts/emergency supplies are checked. LPN-E informed Surveyor he doesn't know how often. Surveyor inquired where a Resident's code status is. LPN-E replied in the chart. Surveyor asked in the paper or computer. LPN-E replied both but would look in the paper chart because sometimes the computer can be slow. Surveyor asked if there is a paging system to announce a code. LPN-E replied no and explained it's all by mouth, shouting. Surveyor asked LPN-E if he checked R3's medical record for her code status prior to starting compressions. LPN-E informed Surveyor when RN-D came to the floor she told him to check R3's code status. Surveyor asked LPN-E if there were any problems with the Facility's phones. LPN-E replied no, sometimes. I don't really know what happened with CNA-F. I was yelling at her. Surveyor asked if CNA-F was the only one assigned to the floor. LPN-E informed Surveyor there was another aide but she was on break. On [DATE] at 3:14 p.m. Surveyor spoke with CNA-Q to inquire if she was working when R3 required CPR. CNA-Q informed Surveyor she was here but wasn't on the floor. Surveyor inquired if there was a code announced. CNA-Q informed Surveyor she didn't think there is a paging system at the Facility. CNA-Q informed Surveyor someone came down and told them something was happening. Surveyor inquired who this was. CNA-Q informed Surveyor CNA-F. CNA-Q informed Surveyor they all jumped on the elevator and went upstairs. Surveyor inquired what she saw when she got to the 3rd floor. CNA-Q informed Surveyor LPN-E was over R3 pumping her, the phone was on speaker on the floor with 911. CNA-Q informed LPN-E worked on R3 until he couldn't then RN-D did until EMS came. On [DATE] at 3:23 p.m. Surveyor interviewed CNA-F regarding when R3 required CPR. CNA-F informed Surveyor LPN-E was doing compressions and at this time she was trying to call for help but couldn't get through. Surveyor asked if LPN-E called 911. CNA-F replied I did. Surveyor asked if she spoke with 911. CNA-F replied no he did. Surveyor asked CNA-F when she called 911 did she use the Facility phone. CNA-F replied no couldn't get through to 911 or nurse. Surveyor asked CNA-F if she used LPN-E's phone to call 911. CNA-F replied correct. Surveyor asked if RN-D came up to the floor. CNA-F replied she did. Surveyor asked CNA-F how did RN-D know to come to the floor. CNA-F informed Surveyor she went down to get her and look for AED. Surveyor asked CNA-F if she took the elevator down to the 2nd floor. CNA-F shook her head yes. CNA-F informed Surveyor when the elevator door opened she told them they need to come upstairs as R3 was choking and LPN-E was doing CPR. Surveyor asked CNA-F if she got out of the elevator. CNA-F replied believe we all went upstairs. CNA-F informed Surveyor LPN-E took a break and RN-D took over CPR. Surveyor asked CNA-F if she brought the AED machine to the 3rd floor. CNA-F replied I believe by the time we retrieved the AED the ambulance had already gotten there. Surveyor asked CNA-F how she would know there is an emergency on another floor. CNA-F informed Surveyor they would normally call. Surveyor asked if anyone asked her to get the crash cart. CNA-F informed Surveyor she wasn't sure. On [DATE] at 7:54 a.m. Surveyor asked NHA (Nursing Home Administrator)-A after R3's incident on [DATE] did they conduct an investigation. NHA-A informed Surveyor they got statements. Surveyor asked NHA-A for the Facility's complete investigation. On [DATE] at 8:04 a.m. Surveyor asked Maintenance Director-N if there is a paging system. Maintenance Director-N replied yes but we don't use it unless there is an emergency and thought it was 59. Surveyor asked if the paging system was working. Maintenance Director-N replied Oh I know it's working. On [DATE] at 8:14 a.m. Surveyor asked DON (Director of Nursing)-B if there is a crash cart policy & list of items for crash cart. DON-B informed Surveyor there is a specific policy but would look. On [DATE] at 8:37 a.m. a Surveyor interviewed RN (Registered Nurse)-J. RN-J informed Surveyor that she would check a Resident's code status by checking the physician's orders. The POLST (Provider Orders for Scope of Treatment) form is used for DNR status. The facility does have a paging system, dial 59. I don't think everyone would know this. CNAs (Certified Nursing Assistants) do not need to know the paging system and they would not know what equipment to get if the event of a code. Would instruct CNA to call 911. Would get the AED after checking code status in computer and go to the Resident room. She would call for help to get code supplies. RN-J states the AED is checked nightly by the NOC (night) nurse. On [DATE] at 8:50 a.m., a Surveyor asked CNA-K who has been employed for 25 years if there is a paging system. CNA-K responded I think its 59. On [DATE] at 8:50 a.m., a Surveyor asked CNA-L who has been employed for 8 years if there is a paging system. CNA-L responded, I don't know. On [DATE] at 8:50 a.m., a Surveyor asked CNA-M who has been employed for 32 years if there is a paging system. CNA-M responded, I don't know. On [DATE] at 9:04 a.m. Surveyor asked CNA-O if there is a paging system. CNA-O replied yes, only use it for emergencies, stopped use years ago. CNA-O then showed Surveyor, pushing 59 on the phone. On [DATE] at 9:05 a.m., CNA-M informed a Surveyor if found an unresponsive Resident, she would yell for help and put the call light on. CNA-M stated believes there are crash cart items downstairs in the dining room . I would do whatever the nurse told me to do. On [DATE] at 9:05 a.m., CNA-K stated to the Surveyor there may be CPR/Code equipment in the utility room. On [DATE] at 9:05 a.m., when a Surveyor asked CNA-L about CPR/Code equipment, CNA-L indicated she does not know where the equipment is located. On [DATE] at 9:32 a.m. Surveyor asked LPN-I if she knows how often the crash carts/emergency supplies are checked. LPN-I informed Surveyor she doesn't know. Surveyor asked LPN-I if she has ever checked. LPN-I replied not particularly. On [DATE] at 10:26 a.m. DON-B provided Surveyor with Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) or Do-Not Resuscitate (DNR) orders policy & procedure. Surveyor inquired if there is a crash cart policy or list of emergency items. DON-B replied no, not specific policy would be in there, referring to CPR/DNR policy. On [DATE] at 10:50 a.m. Surveyor asked DON-B what she would expect the nurse to do if a Resident was not breathing or without a pulse. DON-B informed Surveyor should check the code status, assess the Resident. If Resident is full code start CPR, start to delegate to do certain things, call 911, get AED, other supplies, CPR board, oxygen. Surveyor asked how would staff know to do this. DON-B stated the nurse would have to tell them. The CNA can go get the oxygen if that's what needed. Surveyor asked if there is a code announced overhead. DON-B stated there should be a code & room. As far as she knows its code & room number and someone meets the ambulance. Surveyor inquired if there are crash carts. DON-B informed Surveyor they don't have per se crash carts, have cart where supplies are kept. Surveyor inquired what would be the supplies. DON-B informed Surveyor oxygen, ambu bag, suction machine with tubing, AED, & CPR board. Surveyor asked if these supplies are on each floor. DON-B replied yes. Surveyor asked DON-B if anyone checks to see these items. DON-B replied yes, every shift. Surveyor inquired if there is a log. DON-B informed Surveyor it's on the top of the 24 hour board. Surveyor asked for the 3rd floor 24 hour boards from [DATE] to [DATE]. Surveyor asked after R3's code was there any education provided to staff. DON-B replied no. Surveyor asked DON-B if they reviewed what happened during the code. DON-B replied yes. Surveyor asked what she found out. DON-B informed Surveyor she thinks they responded in an appropriate time, attempted to do the Heimlich, and they worked as a team. DON-B informed Surveyor LPN-E called 911 from his cell phone, initiated CPR while on the phone with 911. Surveyor asked if she investigated whether the code was called overhead. DON-B replied no I did not. Surveyor asked DON-B if the AED was brought up to the 3rd floor. DON-B replied I believe so. Surveyor informed DON-B the AED was not taken upstairs. DON-B informed Surveyor the AED was on the 2nd floor where RN-D was. Surveyor asked DON-B if she knew why the AED wasn't brought up. DON-B just shrugged her shoulders. On [DATE] at 12:34 p.m. Surveyor asked DON-B if she was aware the top of the 24 hour report sheets for the emergency equipment were blank for the days Surveyor had requested. DON-B replied yes. Surveyor asked DON-B if she was aware before Surveyor asked for these reports. DON-B replied no. Surveyor noted on the top of the 24 for each shift there are three boxes for safety checklist which include suction machine, emergency oxygen, and AED status check. On [DATE] at 12:36 p.m. Surveyor spoke with RN-D on the telephone. Surveyor asked RN-D about R3 requiring CPR on [DATE]. RN-D informed Surveyor after dinner around snack time the CNA came down to get her from the elevator. RN-D informed Surveyor CNA-F told her R3 was choking upstairs, collapsed on the floor, & she got on the elevator with the CNA. RN-D informed Surveyor when she got to the floor LPN-E was doing CPR, he was getting tired so she took over and 911 was still on the phone. RN-D informed Surveyor within 3 minutes after she got to the floor rescue arrived and took over. Surveyor asked RN-D if a Resident is having a problem on the other floor how would she know. RN-D replied they don't have a paging system, they have to come and get me. RN-D also informed Surveyor there aren't any crash carts, they have parts like ambu bag but it's locked, stating precious seconds go by. RN-D informed Surveyor she talked to them, referring to Administration, about needing crash carts so they can just grab and go. Surveyor asked RN-D if anyone is responsible for checking the emergency supplies that may be needed in a code. RN-D replied no not that I'm aware of, no. Surveyor asked RN-D if the AED was brought up. RN-D replied it was not. On [DATE] at 3:10 p.m. Surveyor spoke to CNA-F again about calling 911 & RN-D. CNA-F informed Surveyor LPN-E told her to call RN-D first then 911 but the calls did not go through. Surveyor asked CNA-F when she called RN-D & 911 did she hear the phone ring. CNA-F replied I don't believe so. LPN-E had to call 911 on his phone, and she had to run down to get RN-D. Surveyor asked CNA-F if she took the elevator. CNA-F replied yes. CNA-F informed Surveyor it was very scary and traumatic. On [DATE] at 2:50 p.m. NHA (Nursing Home Administrator)-A and DON (Director of Nursing)-B were informed of the above. On [DATE] at 10:17 a.m. Surveyor asked DON-B if there has been any other codes in the building. DON-B informed Surveyor it's been a while and can't say off the top of her head when. DON-B informed Surveyor they spoke with CNA-F last night to see if she knew to dial 9 to get an outside line which she did. DON-B informed Surveyor when CNA-F dialed 9, 911 it didn't ring or anything and when CNA-F called the 2nd floor didn't do anything. DON-B informed Surveyor they also clarified it was the desk phone. Surveyor inquired if there are cordless phones. DON-B informed Surveyor they use the cordless phone mainly for residents. Surveyor asked DON-B if staff ever uses the cordless phone. DON-B replied no. Surveyor asked DON-B before yesterday had they spoke to CNA-F about calling the 2nd floor or 911. DON-B replied no as she wasn't aware before yesterday there was a problem.
Aug 2023 15 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

Deficiency F0558 (Tag F0558)

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 provide residents the right to reside and receive service...

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 provide residents the right to reside and receive services in the facility with reasonable accommodation of resident needs and preferences except when to do so would endanger the health or safety of the resident or other residents for 1 of 12 (R48) residents residing in the facility. R48 was not provided an appropriate wheelchair to allow her to get out of bed while residing in the facility. Findings include: R48 admitted to the facility on [DATE] and has diagnoses that include malignant neoplasm of endometrium, hypertension, Diabetes Mellitus Type 2, morbid obesity, asthma, urinary incontinence, shortness of breath and weakness. On 8/22/23 at 10:45 AM during initial interview with R48, Surveyor observed her lying in bed, on her back with the head of bed elevated. R48's television was on and she was wearing a gown. Surveyor asked R48 if she gets dressed and out of bed. R48 stated: Not really, I don't have a wheelchair. They usually don't get me out of bed. Surveyor asked R48 if she wanted to get out of bed. R48 stated: Well sure, I'd like to. On 8/23/23 at 8:08 AM Surveyor observed R48 lying in bed on her back with the head of bed elevated wearing a gown and yellow gripper socks. On 8/23/23 at 9:27 AM Surveyor observed R48 lying in bed on her back with the head of bed elevated wearing the same gown and yellow gripper socks. On 8/23/23 at 9:55 AM Surveyor spoke with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA)-L and asked if R48 would be getting out of bed. CNA-L reported she thinks (R48) does get up once in awhile, but it depends on her mood. Most days she want's to stay in bed, but thinks she does get up sometimes, but is not sure. On 8/24/23 at 11:11 AM Surveyor observed R48 lying in bed with the head of bed elevated, wearing a gown. R48 had not been out of bed. On 8/24/23 at 12:44 PM Surveyor spoke with Registered Nurse Manager-M. Surveyor advised of observations while on survey past 3 days that R48 has not been out of bed. RN-M stated: She don't really get up, she's too weak, I believe they think her cancer has spread and she's not able to tolerate getting up, so she stays in bed. Surveyor reviewed R48's care plan which included no documentation or interventions regarding R48 not getting out of bed due to cancer or any other reason. On 8/24/23 at 12:57 PM Surveyor spoke with Therapy Director-N and asked about R48's therapy. Therapy Director-N stated: She is so weak and tired, we don't have a proper wheelchair for her, so the facility is trying to get her a wheelchair. She reported: I've asked several times. The chair she has is a transport chair, which is not appropriate. She can only tolerate sitting on the side of the bed for 30 minutes. We haven't been able to get her up for therapy. We've been doing therapy at bedside, sitting on the edge of the bed. I've asked (Maintenance-F) several times for a wheelchair and told (Director of Nursing (DON)-B) last week. Surveyor confirmed with Therapy Director-N: So you haven't been able to do therapy because you don't have a wheelchair? Therapy Director-N stated: Exactly. There's only so much you can do in bed, and without a proper wheelchair she can't sit up. The transport chair is not appropriate. On 8/24/23 at 1:35 PM Surveyor spoke with DON-B and advised of concern R48 is not getting out of bed because she does not have a wheelchair. DON-B stated: I just found out last week. Therapy suggested a 22 inch wheelchair and we only have a 24 inch. Surveyor asked: So she hasn't gotten out of bed because she doesn't have an appropriate wheelchair? She's been here since June. DON-B stated: I just found out last week. Therapy said they've asked (Maintenance-F) several times for a wheelchair. Surveyor asked DON-B if she advised therapy of the 24 inch wheelchair that was available and tried that size. DON-B stated: Not that I'm aware. I can go get that one and see if it works. On 8/24/23 at 1:44 PM Surveyor observed DON-B leaving the elevator with a wheelchair. She stated: I have one we're going to try. On 8/24/23 at 1:59 PM Surveyor spoke with CNA-O and CNA-P who reported they both work on R48's unit. CNA-P reported R48 does not get out of bed because she is too weak. CNA-O stated: She can't sit up in that chair because it's not really a wheelchair, it's like just a chair and she can't sit in it. She went out for an appointment awhile back and came back in so much pain. Surveyor asked CNA-O and CNA-P if they were aware if anyone had tried or is trying to get R48 a wheelchair. CNA-O stated: Not that I know of. All I know is that therapy said we can't get her up in the chair in her room because it won't work for her, she can't sit up in that one. Both CNA's reported R48 does not get out of bed because she does not have a wheelchair. On 8/24/23 at 2:30 PM Surveyor advised Nursing Home Administrator (NHA)-A and DON-B of concern R48 is not able to get out of bed due to not having a wheelchair. No additional information was provided. On 8/28/23 at 8:30 AM Surveyor spoke with Therapy Director-N who reported R48 did get a wheelchair. Therapy Director-N reported she worked on Saturday and we got her up in the chair. She was able to stay up for about an hour and a half.
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 F0578 (Tag F0578)

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 provide residents the right to formulate an advance directive for 1 of...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview the facility did not provide residents the right to formulate an advance directive for 1 of 12 (R48) residents residing in the facility. R48 did not have an advanced directive or code status clearly indicated in the event of an emergency. Findings include: R48 admitted to the facility on [DATE] and has diagnoses that include malignant neoplasm of endometrium, hypertension, Diabetes Mellitus Type 2, morbid obesity, asthma, urinary incontinence, shortness of breath and weakness. The facility policy and procedure titled Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) or Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) Orders dated revised 6/22 documents (in part) . Each resident will choose between CPR or DNR designation upon admission to the nursing home. 1. Upon admission, the licensed nurse or social worker will discuss the options, CPR or DNR and any other advance directives with the resident and/or legal representative, and receive the corresponding physician orders. The Physician Order Summary (POS) is the designated place in the medical record for staff to record/find the CPR/DNR designation for each resident. b. If CPR or DNR designation changes and a new physician order is obtained, the licensed nurse will enter into ECS physician's orders and immediately reprint a physician order summary sheet and file in the physician's order tab in the medical record. 3. Choosing CPR designates that 911 will be called and [NAME]-pulmonary resuscitation and AED application will be initiated. a. CPR will only be withheld if: iii. A valid advance directive, a physician orders for life-sustaining treatment (POLST) form indicating that resuscitation is not desired, or a valid Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) order. a. The licensed nurse will verify CPR or DNR designation by immediately sending another available staff person to get the medical record for the licensed nurse to check code status on the Physician Order Summary. On [DATE] at 8:00 AM Surveyor's initial review of R48's electronic health record revealed no code status indicated and no Physician's order to indicate R48's code status. Surveyor reviewed R48's hard paper chart and located a Provider Orders for Scope of Treatment (POST) form among papers in the chart, which were not under the advanced directives tab. The form had a check mark next to Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) but the form was not dated or signed by anyone. Surveyor noted R48 was not wearing a bracelet to indicate her code status. On [DATE] at 8:45 AM Surveyor again reviewed R48's electronic health record and hard paper chart for evidence of her code status. Surveyor located a hand written note in the front of the hard chart dated [DATE] which documented: Important things to talk to your nurse about. 1) (R48's) DNR (Do Not Resuscitate) paperwork went missing from her home. Do you guys here have record of her DNR?Or does (R48) need to fill out new DNR form? Surveyor noted no paperwork under the advanced directive tab in the chart. R48's Physician orders for code status was blank. On [DATE] at 8:50 AM Surveyor spoke with Registered Nurse (RN)-Q and asked what was the procedure if she found a resident pulseless and not breathing. RN-Q reported some residents have a bracelet that will indicate their code status. Surveyor asked RN-Q what she would do if a resident was not wearing a bracelet. RN-Q reported she would go to the chart to find out their code status. Surveyor removed R48's chart from the rack and asked RN-Q where to find her code status. RN-Q turned to the advanced directives tab, found no paperwork and stated: Well, that was a good person to pick. Surveyor asked if there was no paperwork under the advanced directives, where would she look for R48's code status. RN-Q reported she would look at the physician's orders. RN-Q looked at several pages of R48's physicians orders and was not able to locate her code status. Surveyor asked RN-Q if she would look anywhere else for R48's code status. RN-Q reported she would look at the computer. RN-Q logged onto the computer and clicked advanced directives which documented: Nothing found. RN-Q stated: Well that's not good, I don't know what her code status is. On [DATE] at 10:20 AM Surveyor asked Director of Nursing (DON)-B for the facility Policy and Procedure for code status/advanced directive. On [DATE] at 10:30 AM Surveyor advised DON-B that R48 did not have her code status indicated in her medical record. DON-B stated: I know, it's in there now. Surveyor asked why her code status was not in the medical record prior. DON-B stated: It just got missed. On [DATE] at 8:58 AM Corporate Consultant-C provided Surveyor a POST form signed by the physician dated [DATE] which indicated CPR. Corporate Consultant-C stated: We found the signed form, it wasn't put in the chart. Surveyor asked where the form was found. Corporate Consultant-C stated: I don't know, it was just handed to me by (DON-B) and I was told they found it. Surveyor confirmed the form was not placed in the chart for staff to find in the event of a code and her code status was not entered on the electronic health record. Surveyor advised Corporate Consultant-C of concern R48's code status was not clearly indicated and available to staff to identify in the event of a code. Corporate Consultant-C reported she understood the concern. Surveyor advised her of the handwritten note in R48's chart which indicated R48 was a DNR. Corporate Consultant-C reported she was not aware of the paper and will clarify. On [DATE] at 2:56 PM Corporate Consultant-C reported the facility had a care planning meeting with R48's family today. R48 is to be a DNR. Corporate Consultant-C reported the POST form in R48's chart indicating CPR was not completed by her sister, it was done by a friend and left at the facility.
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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview the facility did not ensure residents the right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike en...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview the facility did not ensure residents the right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment. This deficient practice has the potential to affect 1 (R3) of 12 sampled residents. R3 was missing paint on the wall behind the headboard of the bed and there was a large circular hole in the drywall. Findings include: The facility policy, entitled, Maintenance requests, dated 1/2023, states: Purpose: To provide a central location for all staff to inform maintenance staff of maintenance requests throughout the facility and for maintenance staff to check off and date items as repairs and/or upkeep is completed. R3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that include traumatic brain injury, paraplegia, depression, and expressive language disorder. R3's Annual Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] assesses R3 as having short- and long-term memory problems. On 08/22/23, at 10:23 AM, during the initial screen of residents, Surveyor entered R3's room (room [ROOM NUMBER]). Surveyor observed the wall behind the headboard of the bed. The wall was missing paint in a area approximately 2 feet long by 5 inches wide. There was also a very large circular hole in the drywall approximately 4 feet long by 4 feet wide. On 08/23/23, at 02:54 PM, surveyor asked Housekeeping-I if she had noticed the wall damage in room [ROOM NUMBER]. Housekeeping-I stated that she was aware of the hole in the wall and that it has looked like that for about 2 months. She stated that it started off smaller and has gotten much larger. She was not quite sure what it was from, but that something hit the wall hard. On 08/24/23, at 10:56 AM, surveyor interviewed maintenance-F regarding room [ROOM NUMBER]'s wall damage. Maintenance-F stated that he was aware of the hole and explained that it started out as a few small scratches about a year ago and it's slowly been getting bigger. He stated that it is from the bed hitting the wall when resident is transferred out of bed. Surveyor and Maintenance-F both looked at the wall and resident bed together. Both observed drywall remnants on resident bed frame and floor. Maintenance-F stated that this is real big now. Maintenance-F stated that he did order drywall about a week ago so that he can start doing dry wall repairs around the facility. Surveyor asked Maintenance-F how he is notified of things that need to be repaired in the facility. He explained that there is a binder at each nurse's station and that he looks at the binder daily. On 08/24/23, at 11:09 AM, Surveyor reviewed the maintenance binder at nursing station on 3rd floor and reviewed dated entries back to 4/30/21. There is no documentation of a wall needing to be repaired in room [ROOM NUMBER]. On 08/24/23, at 02:36 PM, at the end of the day meeting with Nursing Home Administrator-A, Director of Nursing-B, Corporate Consultant-C, and Maintenance-F, Surveyor informed them of the concerns regarding the wall in R3's room (room [ROOM NUMBER]). No additional information was provided at this time.
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 record review and interview, the facility did not ensure an allegation of abuse, neglect, or misappropriation of reside...

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 an allegation of abuse, neglect, or misappropriation of resident property for 1 of two facility self-reports reviewed was reported to the State Agency within the required 24 hours. *R43 reported to the Activity Director (AD)-H on the afternoon of 6/10/23 that $40 was missing from R43's wallet. The facility started an investigation into the missing money to determine if the claim was credible before reporting this allegation to the State Agency until 6/12/23. Findings include: The facility policy, entitled, resident safety Abuse Policy, date revised 2/2022, states: Protocol: 3. REPORTING SUSPECTED VIOLATIONS: a. The supervisor on duty shall IMMEDIATELY safeguard the residents) and immediately report all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, mistreatment, exploitation, including injuries of unknown source and misappropriation of resident property to the facility administrator. The Administrator will notify the DON and/or others as appropriate. b. The administrator will report a reasonable suspicion of a crime against any individual who is a resident of, or is receiving care from the facility, to the State Agency and one or more law enforcement entities for the political subdivision in which the facility is located. c. The administrator shall report immediately, but not later than 2 hours after forming the suspicion, if the events that cause the suspicion result in serious bodily injury, or not later than 24 hours if the events that cause the suspicion do not result in serious bodily injury (see Table 1). e. All facility staff members shall 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 and the administrator will ensure reporting to other officials (including to the State Survey Agency and adult protective services where state law provides jurisdiction in long-term care facilities) in accordance with state law (see Table 1). f. The administrator shall also report the results of all investigations to other officials in accordance with state law, including to the State Survey Agency, within 5 working days of the incident, and if the alleged violation is verified appropriate corrective action must be taken. R43 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that include acute embolism and thrombosis of left popliteal vein, nontraumatic ischemic infarction of muscle of left lower leg, peripheral vascular disease and acquired absence of left leg above the knee. R43's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] assesses R43's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of 15 indicating that R43 is cognitively intact. On 08/23/23, at 08:07 AM, Surveyor was screening residents and spoke with R43. R43 shared a concern that money went missing out of their room back in late June. R43 explained that there was $48 dollars in the wallet that R43 stored in the top right drawer in the room. Two $20 dollar bills were missing and only $8 were left. R43 stated that they made Activity Director-H aware of the missing money. R43 stated that the police did come in however nothing was really done about it. R43 stated that Nursing Home Administrator (NHA)-A did speak to them about the situation, however it felt like they didn't believe R43. On 08/23/23, at 09:21 AM, Surveyor reviewed facility grievance log for June and there is a documented grievance for R43 regarding missing $40. Resolution documents grievance and self-report completed. On 08/23/23, at 10:00 AM, Surveyor reviewed a Missing Item Notification form, dated 6/10/23, completed by Activity Director (AD)-H. It documents that AD-H assisted R43 in searching the room for the money and offering to lock up the wallet in nurse med room. R43 declined that offer. There is no documentation indicating that administration was made aware of the allegation of misappropriation of resident property. On 08/23/23, at 10:41 AM, surveyor reviewed Alleged Nursing Home Resident Mistreatment, Neglect, and Abuse report dated 6/12/23. The summary of incident documents, Resident reported 6/10/23 to Activity Director they are missing 2 $20 dollar bills from their wallet in their room. Placed wallet in right top drawer next to closet. Resident states they saw money in wallet after shower about 730am. Reported they noted money missing at 2pm when he checked wallet in room. Also stated they went to store next door and used food card (from wallet) to make purchase (has no receipt) and noted $20 missing from wallet then. Resident told CNA they were out with family Saturday during the day but denied this when questioned by Activity Director. Discrepancies in details reported on 6/10/23. Staff on duty Saturday questioned, no knowledge of funds or loss. No withdrawal from trust, no trust account. No person observed entering room, no person accused. $5 bill and 3 singles remained in wallet. As of 6/12, funds not located. facility filing this report and calling KPD (Kenosha Police Department) regarding loss. Offered to safeguard wallet in safe, declined by resident. Will offer lock box. Investigation continues. Surveyor notes that this initial allegation was reported on 6/10/23 at 2:00 PM and there is a delay in reporting this allegation to the State Agency until 6/12/23 at 12:39 PM. On 08/24/23, at 08:52 AM, Surveyor interviewed AD-H who did recall the incident when R43 reported missing money. AD-H stated that it happened over a weekend. AD-H recalled that the residents story changed several times, so they were not sure if the money went missing. AD-H remembered talking with a certified nursing assistant who told her that R43 told her that R43 was out over the weekend with family. When AD-H asked the resident about going out with family R43 denied it. AD-H stated that she started a grievance and filled out a missing item form and helped R43 look through the room for the missing money. AD-H stated that she recalled telling administration that following Monday at their morning meeting. Surveyor asked AD-H why she did not call administration about the allegation and AD-H stated that R43 stopped saying the money went missing. On 08/24/23, at 12:28 PM, surveyor interviewed Nursing Home Administrator (NHA)-A about the alleged missing money. NHA-A informed Surveyor that R43 reported the incident to AD-H on 6/10/23 and then she reported it to him. NHA-A could not recall if he was contacted on the day, it was reported or not. If he was contacted, then he must have asked for additional information to be collected. NHA-A explain that he recalled that there was confusion if the resident went out with their family and perhaps spent the money then. We were unsure if it was a true allegation, so we started an investigation. Surveyor asked NHA-A if he recalled why the initial report was submitted to the State Agency on 6/12/23 when it was originally reported on 6/10/23 and he stated that we needed to verify additional information before we submitted the report. They wanted to verify that there was missing money. Surveyor explained to NHA-A concerns regarding late reporting to the State Agency when there was an allegation of misappropriation of resident property and trying to determine whether the allegation was credible before reporting the allegation. No additional information was provided at this time.
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 interviews, the facility did not ensure all allegations of abuse, mistreatment, exploitation, misappr...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews, the facility did not ensure all allegations of abuse, mistreatment, exploitation, misappropriation of property, or mistreatment were thoroughly investigated for 2 (R6 and R43) of 2 self-reports reviewed for abuse, neglect and misappropriation of property. The facility did not interview other residents to determine the scope of the potential allegations. * On 11/10/22 the facility was made aware of an alleged mistreatment and potential abuse of R6 by Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA)-J. The allegation was that the CNA patted R6's buttock during cares and stated that the can of sardines in the room smelled like pussy. An investigation was started and residents were safeguarded from this CNA. R6 was interviewed and other staff. There is no documentation of other residents interviewed as part of the thorough investigation to determine the scope of the potential allegation. * On 6/10/23, R43 reported to the facility that $40 was missing from R43's wallet. The facility did not interview other residents as part of their investigation to determine the scope of the potential allegation. Findings include: The facility policy, entitled, Resident safety Abuse Policy, date revised 2/2022, states: 9. PROCEDURE FOR INVESTIGATION: a. All alleged violations will be thoroughly investigated, and all investigations are conducted by or coordinated through facility administration. d. The supervisor will ensure that the resident(s) is/are protected from further potential abuse, neglect, exploitation or mistreatment while the investigation is in progress. e.An incident report and investigation must be completed for any violations of this policy using the facility incident report in ECS or narrative statements. (See Incidents and Accidents Policy and Incident and Investigation Report Procedure.) g. An employee suspected of violation of the Resident Safety Abuse Policy or Social Media Policy may be suspended pending investigation. i.All witnesses or involved parties will be interviewed giving their own description of the incident and will be recorded by the API Leader and/or supervisor on duty. These records will become part of the permanent investigation file. i. The QAPI Leader and/or supervisor on duty will interview the residents as well as any nursing, housekeeping, laundry, dietary, activity, or social service staff, any visitors or others who may have knowledge of the occurrence or who may have been in the vicinity at the time the incident happened. I. The Administrator will be the custodian of all documents generated during the course of the investigation. m. The facility must have evidence that all alleged violations are thoroughly investigated. 1.) R6 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that include difficultly in walking, type 2 diabetes, cirrhosis of liver, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and benign prostatic hyperplasia with lower tract symptoms. R6's Significant Change Minimum Data Set (MDS) documents a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of 9 indicating R6 is moderately cognitively impaired. R6 is assessed to require extensive assistance with two + persons physical assist for bed mobility, toilet use as total dependence and two + persons physical assist and personal hygiene as total dependence and one-person physical assist. On 08/22/23, at 10:25 AM, during the initial screen of residents, Surveyor spoke with R6. R6 stated that there was a concern about CNA-J and the way that she treated them during cares and how she spoke to them. R6 explained that he needed to be changed and called for assistance. R6 stated that CNA-J came to the room and stated that she was not going to come in the room with that smell. R6 stated that CNA-J said that a can of sardines smelled like pussy. R6 further explained that when CNA-J did come in to provide incontinence cares, CNA-J gave him a lickin and patted R6's buttock three times. R6 stated that it was reported to the Director of Nursing (DON) who told Nursing Home Administrator-A. Surveyor reviewed the grievance log for November 2022 and there is a documented grievance for R6 dated 11/10/22. Surveyor reviewed the Alleged Nursing Home Resident Mistreatment, Neglect, and Abuse Report dated 11/10/22. It documents that the Resident reported matter to his son who reported to the DON on 11/10/22. Resident interviewed by SSD (Social Services Director). Per resident, two nights ago, black CNA with tattoos and a son names [NAME] patted his butt three times during cares and said the sardines smelled like pussy. Per son, the accused is CNA-J. Investigation started. Surveyor reviewed the Misconduct Incident Report, dated 11/17/22, which included interview of R6, interview of R6 family member, interview of other staff and continued monitoring of resident. There is no documentation of any other residents interviewed to determine the scope of the alleged mistreatment by CNA-J. On 08/24/23, at 09:06 AM, Surveyor interviewed SSD-D regarding this incident. SSD-D did recall the situation and stated that she did participate in the investigation. SSD-D recalled that she did interview R6 and the resident's family member about the incident. SSD-D could not recall if she conducted any resident interviews for this investigation. On 08/24/23, at 12:44 PM, Surveyor interviewed Nursing Home Administrator (NHA)-A. NHA-A stated that the Director of Nursing (DON)-B reported the allegation to him on 11/10/22 and he immediately began the investigation and residents were safeguarded from the accused CNA. Surveyor asked if during the investigation he interviewed other residents who received care from the accused CNA? NHA-A stated that typically he would assign SSD-D or the Activity Director to interview other residents. NHA-A looked through the investigation paperwork and stated that he didn't see any resident interviews. NHA-A stated he would continue to look for any. He did state that interviewing residents would be typical practice. No additional information was provided. 2.) R43 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that include acute embolism and thrombosis of left popliteal vein, nontraumatic ischemic infarction of muscle of left lower leg, peripheral vascular disease and acquired absence of left leg above the knee. R43's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] assesses R43's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of 15 indicating that R43 is cognitively intact. On 08/23/23, at 08:07 AM, Surveyor was screening residents and spoke with R43. R43 shared a concern that money went missing out of their room back in late June. R43 explained that there was $48 dollars in the wallet that R43 stored in the top right drawer in the room. Two $20 dollar bills were missing and only $8 were left. R43 stated that they made Activity Director-H aware of the missing money. R43 stated that the police did come in however nothing was really done about it. R43 stated that Nursing Home Administrator (NHA)-A did speak to them about the situation, however it felt like they didn't believe R43. On 08/23/23, at 09:21 AM, Surveyor reviewed facility grievance log for June and there is a documented grievance for R43 regarding missing $40. Resolution documents grievance and self-report completed. On 08/23/23, at 10:00 AM, Surveyor reviewed a Missing Item Notification form, dated 6/10/23, completed by Activity Director (AD)-H. It documents that AD-H assisted R43 in searching the room for the money and offering to lock up the wallet in nurse med room. R43 declined that offer. There is no documentation indicating that administration was made aware of the allegation of misappropriation of resident property. On 08/23/23, at 10:41 AM, surveyor reviewed Alleged Nursing Home Resident Mistreatment, Neglect, and Abuse report dated 6/12/23. The summary of incident documents, Resident reported 6/10/23 to Activity Director they are missing 2 $20 dollar bills from their wallet in their room. Placed wallet in right top drawer next to closet. Resident states they saw money in wallet after shower about 730 am. Reported they noted money missing at 2 pm when he checked wallet in room. Also stated they went to store next door and used food card (from wallet) to make purchase (has no receipt) and noted $20 missing from wallet then. Resident told CNA they were out with family Saturday during the day but denied this when questioned by Activity Director. Discrepancies in details reported on 6/10/23. Staff on duty Saturday questioned, no knowledge of funds or loss. No withdrawal from trust, no trust account. No person observed entering room, no person accused. $5 bill and 3 singles remained in wallet. As of 6/12, funds not located. facility filing this report and calling KPD (Kenosha Police Department) regarding loss. Offered to safeguard wallet in safe, declined by resident. Will offer lock box. Investigation continues. Surveyor reviewed the Misconduct Incident Report dated 6/15/23 which documents the summary of the investigation. Surveyor notes that R43 was interviewed, staff working on 6/10/23 were interviewed, police were called on 6/12/23 and a safe was offered to R43. Surveyor notes that the investigation does not include any documentation of other residents interviewed. On 08/24/23, at 08:52 AM, Surveyor interviewed AD-H who did recall the incident when R43 reported missing money. AD-H stated that it happened over a weekend. AD-H recalled that the residents story changed several times, so they were not sure if the money went missing. AD-H remembered talking with a certified nursing assistant who told her that R43 told her that R43 was out over the weekend with family. When AD-H asked the resident about going out with family R43 denied it. AD-H stated that she started a grievance and filled out a missing item form and helped R43 look through the room for the missing money. AD-H stated that she recalled telling administration that following Monday at their morning meeting. Surveyor asked AD-H if she interviewed any residents, and she stated no. On 08/24/23, at 12:28 PM, surveyor interviewed Nursing Home Administrator (NHA)-A about the alleged missing money. NHA-A informed Surveyor that R43 reported the incident to AD-H on 6/10/23 and then she reported it to him. NHA-A could not recall if he was contacted on the day, it was reported or not. If he was contacted, then he must have asked for additional information to be collected. NHA-A explain that he recalled that there was confusion if the resident went out with their family and perhaps spent the money then. We were unsure if it was a true allegation, so we started an investigation. NHA-A stated that there was no cause to believe that R43 was suspicious of another resident taking the money, so I don't recall interviewing other residents. Surveyor expressed concern over the lack of thoroughness of the investigation by not interviewing other resident's. No additional information was provided at this time.
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

Transfer Requirements (Tag F0622)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility did not ensure that instructions for ongoing care were provided to the receiv...

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 instructions for ongoing care were provided to the receiving provider upon discharge and was not documented by a physician for 2 (R50 and R51) of 3 residents reviewed for discharge. *R50 was transferred to the hospital on 7/2/2023 per family request. No transfer summary including the discharge summary was provided to the hospital and the physician did not document an order to have R50 transferred to the hospital. *R51 was discharged to another skilled nursing facility on 6/1/2023 per resident request. No transfer summary including the discharge summary was provided to the receiving facility and the physician did not document an order to have R51 transferred to another facility. Findings include: The facility policy and procedure entitled Transfer and Discharge Policy dated 10/2022 states: The facility will comply with regulations regarding initiating a transfer or discharge of a resident and the accompanying documentation that must be included in the medical record. 7. Before the facility transfers or discharges a resident, the facility will notify the resident and the resident's representative of the transfer and reasons for the move in writing and in a language the resident understands. 9. The Notice of Transfer or Discharge . will include all of the following: a. The specific reason for the transfer or discharge. b. The effective date of transfer or discharge. c. The specific location (such as the name of the new provider or description and/or address if the location is a residence) to which the resident is transferred or discharged . d. An explanation on the right to appeal the transfer or discharge to the State. e. The name, address (mail and email), and telephone number of the State entity which receives such appeal hearing requests. f. Information on how to obtain an appeal form. g. Information on obtaining assistance in completing and submitting the appeal hearing request/ [sic] h. The name, address (mail and email), and phone number of the representative of the Office ot eh [sic] State Long-Term Care Ombudsman. 11. The facility shall retain a copy of the Notice of Transfer and Discharge . in the business office file. 14. The transfer or discharge of the resident will be documented in the medical record and appropriate information will be communicated to the receiving healthcare institution. 1) R50 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of nontraumatic chronic subdural hemorrhage, compression of the brain, cirrhosis of the liver with ascites, iron deficiency anemia, and hepatic encephalopathy. R50's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated R50 was severely cognitively impaired per staff and the facility assessed R50 as needing extensive assistance with bed mobility, eating, and hygiene and was total dependent on staff for dressing, toilet use, and bathing. On 6/30/2023, at 3:01 PM in the progress notes, nursing charted a call was placed to the physician regarding R50's refusal to eat and general decline. The family relayed to the physician the family's request for a feeding tube. The physician recommended talking to R50's family about hospice care. No new orders were received at that time. At 3:57 PM in the progress notes, nursing charted a discussion was had over the phone with R50's family regarding R50's change in condition and hospice election. The family stated they would discuss hospice that evening with family and would notify the nurse if they wished to elect hospice. On 7/1/2023, at 2:37 PM in the progress notes, nursing charted a discussion was had with Hospice about possible admittance. The hospice agency would contact the facility on Monday (7/3/2023) regarding releasing history and physician reports to consider hospice for R50. R50's spouse was updated. At 9:47 PM in the progress notes, nursing charted R50 did not eat dinner and had not eaten or drank for any of the meals served since R50 was admitted to the facility. R50's spouse brings in milk shakes to drink for R50 but R50 was not eating any solid foods. On 7/2/2023, at 9:19 AM in the progress notes, nursing charted R50 refused all medications. R50 was alert, tried a spoonful of medicine and refused the rest. At 11:06 AM in the progress notes, nursing charted the physician was updated at 10:55 AM on R50's change in condition: lethargic, not eating, not taking medications, and changing R50's diet to thickened liquids and mechanical soft. Hospice had been contacted and will contact R50's family on 7/3/2023. At 10:49 PM in the progress notes, nursing charted R50's family was notified of R50's jaundice, lethargy, altered mental status, and low blood pressure and R50's family requested R50 be transferred to the emergency room. R50 was transferred at 5:15 PM by ambulance. On 8/24/2023, at 10:48 AM, Surveyor requested from Nursing Home Administrator (NHA)-A R50's medical record. Surveyor reviewed R50's electronic medical record (EMR) and hard chart. Surveyor was not able to find a transfer summary or physician order regarding R50's transfer to the hospital on 7/2/2023. On 8/24/2023, at 2:36 PM at the daily exit with the facility, Surveyor shared with NHA-A, Director of Nursing (DON)-B, and Corporate Consultant (CC)-C the concern R50 did not have a physician order for the transfer to the hospital or any documentation the physician was notified of the transfer and no transfer summary was found in R50's medical record. Surveyor requested from NHA-A, DON-B, and CC-C any documentation regarding R50's transfer to the hospital. On 8/28/2023, at 8:30 AM, Surveyor shared with DON-B no physician order or transfer summary for R50 was provided that had been requested. DON-B stated DON-B would look to see what could be found. In an interview on 8/28/2023, at 10:48 AM, Surveyor asked DON-B what information is sent with a resident when they are transferred to the hospital. DON-B stated the face sheet, orders, transfer summary form, recent labs or x-rays, advanced directives, and if there is time before the resident is transported, DON-B would print up the most recent emergency room visit or hospitalization. Surveyor asked DON-B if the transfer summary would be entered into the computer and printed or if it was handwritten. DON-B stated the transfer summary is in paper form and a copy of the transfer summary is put into the resident's hard chart. Surveyor asked DON-B if DON-B was able to find the transfer summary for R50. DON-B stated DON-B had not had a chance to look for it yet. Surveyor asked DON-B if R50 had a physician order to go to the hospital or any documentation by the physician regarding the transfer to the hospital. DON-B looked in R50's EMR during the interview. DON-B stated R50 did not have an order or physician documentation related to the transfer when R50 was transferred to the hospital. No further information was provided. 2) R51 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of right pubis fracture, electrolyte and fluid balance disorders, and atherosclerosis. R51's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated R51 had moderate cognitive impairment with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 11 and the facility assessed R51 as needing supervision with bed mobility, eating, and hygiene, limited assistance with transfers, dressing, and toilet use, and extensive assistance with bathing. On 6/1/2023, at 9:22 AM in the progress notes, Social Services Director (SSD)-D charted R51 was transferred to another skilled nursing facility that day. On 6/1/2023, at 11:23 AM in the progress notes, nursing charted R51 was discharged at 9:00 AM to another nursing facility. On 8/24/2023, at 10:48 AM, Surveyor requested from Nursing Home Administrator (NHA)-A R51's medical record. Surveyor reviewed R51's electronic medical record (EMR) and hard chart. Surveyor was not able to find a transfer summary or physician order regarding R51's transfer to the receiving facility on 6/1/2023. In an interview on 8/24/2023, at 12:36 PM, SSD-D stated R51's family member was not happy with the facility stating R51 was not getting enough therapy and R51 did not like the food. SSD-D stated R51's family came in and said they were moving R51 to another facility. SSD-D stated SSD-D had been in contact with the other facility and all the appropriate paperwork for R51 must have been sent over for the other facility to have accepted R51; no documentation of discharge discussions were found in R51's EMR. Surveyor asked SSD-D if a transfer summary was sent with R51 upon discharge and was SSD-D aware of a physician order for the transfer. SSD-D stated the nurses send the paperwork and did not know what information would have been sent with R51. On 8/24/2023, at 2:36 PM at the daily exit with the facility, Surveyor shared with NHA-A, Director of Nursing (DON)-B, and Corporate Consultant (CC)-C the concern R51 did not have a physician order for the transfer to the other nursing facility or any documentation the physician was notified of the transfer and no transfer summary was found in R51's medical record. Surveyor requested from NHA-A, DON-B, and CC-C any documentation regarding R51's transfer to the other facility. On 8/28/2023, at 8:30 AM, Surveyor shared with DON-B no physician order or transfer summary for R51 was provided that had been requested. DON-B stated DON-B would look to see what could be found. On 8/28/2023, at 9:31 AM, Surveyor placed a call to the facility that R51 had transferred to regarding the information that had been provided to that facility and left a message to return the phone call. No return phone call was received. In an interview on 8/28/2023, at 10:48 AM, Surveyor asked DON-B what information is sent with a resident when they are sent to another facility. DON-B stated the face sheet, orders, transfer summary form, recent labs or x-rays, advanced directives, the most recent emergency room visit or hospitalization. Surveyor asked DON-B if the transfer summary would be entered into the computer and printed or if it was handwritten. DON-B stated the transfer summary is in paper form and a copy of the transfer summary is put into the resident's hard chart. Surveyor asked DON-B if DON-B was able to find the transfer summary for R51. DON-B stated DON-B had not had a chance to look for it yet. Surveyor asked DON-B if R51 had a physician order to be transferred or any documentation by the physician regarding the transfer to the other facility. DON-B looked in R51's EMR during the interview. DON-B stated R51 did not have an order or physician documentation when R51 was transferred to the other nursing facility. No further information was provided.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0660 (Tag F0660)

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 develop a discharge plan involving the resident, resident's represent...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility did not develop a discharge plan involving the resident, resident's representative, and interdisciplinary team to develop goals of a discharge, document referrals to appropriate entities, revise the care plan to address the changing needs of the resident, and document the evaluation of the resident's discharge needs and discharge plan for 1 (R51) of 2 residents reviewed for discharge. *R51 did not have any documentation in their medical record by any discipline of the desire to discharge to another skilled nursing facility. R51's Discharge Care Plan was not revised to incorporate R51's desire to discharge from the facility. No documentation was found that the facility assisted R51 in referring R51 to another skilled nursing facility. No documentation was found addressing an evaluation of R51's discharge needs. Findings include: The facility policy and procedure entitled Discharge Planning dated 10/2022 states: The facility will develop and implement an effective discharge planning process that focuses on the resident's discharge goals, the preparation of the resident to be an active partner and will ensure a safe and orderly transfer or discharge from the facility into the community. Whether the transfer or discharge is resident-initiated or facility-initiated, the appropriate documentation will be completed and provided as required. Procedure: 1. The Checklist for Completing the Discharge Process per Resident Tool and the Checklist for Discharge Plan Content Tool at the end of this policy, will be utilized by the interdisciplinary team (IDT) to ensure comprehensive development of a resident discharge plan, with the leadership of the Social Services Director. 2. Within 48 hours of admission, the resident will be assessed to determine his/her discharge care needs and a baseline care plan will be initiated. Within 7 days of completion of the resident CAA's, the baseline care plan will be further developed into a comprehensive plan of care (see Resident Assessment Instrument and Person-Centered Care Planning Policy). When working through the discharge planning process: a. Consider the resident's and resident representative's preferences for care. b. Determine how services will be accessed. c. Decide how care should be coordinated among multiple caregivers. d. Consider the caregiver/support person's availability and resident's or caregiver's capacity and capability to perform the required care as part of the identification of the discharge needs. 3. Develop a plan designed to ensure that the resident's care needs and wishes will be met AFTER discharge including the resident's and family/caregiver's education needs. a. Involve the resident and resident's representative in the development of the discharge plan and inform the resident and resident representative of the final plan. b. Address the resident's goals of care and treatment preferences. c. Include regular re-evaluation of the resident to identify changes that require modification to the discharge plan. d. Update the plan as needed. e. Involve the IDT in the ongoing process of developing the discharge plan. 4. Initiate and maintain collaboration between the facility and the local contact agency (LCA) to support the resident's transition to community living as applicable, including making referrals to the LCA under the process established by the State. a. Document that the resident has been asked about their interest in receiving information regarding return to the community and document any referrals to LCA or other appropriate entities. b. Update the Care Plan as appropriate in response to information received from referrals to local agencies. d. for resident's transferring to another SNF (skilled nursing facility), . assist the resident and their representative in selecting a post-acute provider by using data that includes but is not limited to SNF . standardized assessment data, data on Quality Measures, and data on resource use to the extent available and relevant to the resident's goals and treatment preferences. R51 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of right pubis fracture, electrolyte and fluid balance disorders, and atherosclerosis. R51's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated R51 had moderate cognitive impairment with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 11 and the facility assessed R51 as needing supervision with bed mobility, eating, and hygiene, limited assistance with transfers, dressing, and toilet use, and extensive assistance with bathing. On 5/22/2023 at 5:49 PM in the progress notes, Social Services Director (SSD)-D charted a late entry. SSD-D charted R51 was admitted on [DATE] from the hospital after a fall from home resulted in an acute fracture through the right superior and interior pubic ramus. SSD-D charted R51's plan was to return home where R51 lived in a first floor apartment with a family member living in the second floor apartment right above R51. R51 had six steps to enter the home. Surveyor noted SSD-D did not document when the information in the entry had been obtained. R51's Need for Coordinated Facility Discharge Planning Care Plan was initiated on 5/23/2023, eight days after admission. The goal was to have R51 be able to ambulate independently and safely inside the home and in the community. The interventions implemented at that time were: -Nurses were to obtain a discharge order at the time of discharge. -Physical Therapy was to evaluate and treat as indicated. -Occupational Therapy was to evaluate and treat as indicated. -Nurses aides were to encourage R51 to do as much for themselves as able. -Social Services was to set up a care conference with the IDT (Interdisciplinary Team), R51 and R51's family; obtain an order and set up home health services, physical, and occupational therapy at the time of discharge. -Dietary was to provide the ordered diet and determine food likes. On 6/1/2023 at 9:22 AM in the progress notes, SSD-D charted R51 was transferred to another skilled nursing facility that day. On 6/1/2023 at 11:23 AM in the progress notes, nursing charted R51 was discharged at 9:00 AM to another nursing facility. On 8/24/2023, at 10:48 AM, Surveyor requested from Nursing Home Administrator (NHA)-A R51's medical record. Surveyor reviewed R51's electronic medical record (EMR) and hard chart. Surveyor noted no documentation was written by nursing or SSD-D regarding the desire of R51 to transfer to another skilled nursing facility. R51's Discharge Planning Care Plan was not revised. No documentation was found that the facility had communicated with any skilled nursing facilities on behalf of R51 to facilitate a transfer. No documentation was found showing what information about R51 was provided to the receiving facility. No documentation was found that R51 had a Care Conference to discuss with the IDT discharge plans. Surveyor noted no Checklist for Completing the Discharge Planning Process per Resident or Checklist for Discharge Plan Content forms were in R51's EMR as per policy. In an interview on 8/24/2023, at 12:36 PM, SSD-D stated R51's family member was not happy with the facility stating R51 was not getting enough therapy and R51 did not like the food. SSD-D stated R51's family came in and said they were moving R51 to another facility. SSD-D stated SSD-D had been in contact with the other facility and discussed R51's situation with the facility. Surveyor asked SSD-D if SSD-D had sent any information about R51 to the other facility. SSD-D stated SSD-D did not have a copy of what information was sent, but all the appropriate paperwork for R51 must have been sent over for the other facility to have accepted R51. Surveyor noted no documentation of discharge discussions were found in R51's EMR. Surveyor asked SSD-D what the timeframe was from the time SSD-D knew about R51's desire to transfer and when the transfer occurred. SSD-D stated R51's family member came in one day and within a couple of days, R51 was discharged . Surveyor shared with SSD-D the concern nothing was documented in R51's chart about any communication regarding R51's preference to transfer to another facility and nothing was documented that the IDT assisted with R51's transfer request. SSD-D stated SSD-D should have documented the conversations in R51's EMR. On 8/24/2023 at 2:36 PM at the daily exit with the facility, Surveyor shared with NHA-A, Director of Nursing (DON)-B, and Corporate Consultant (CC)-C the concern R51 did not have any documentation of discharge planning, no documentation the receiving facility had been contacted prior to R51 being transferred, and R51's Discharge Planning Care Plan was not revised when R51 was no longer anticipating a discharge to home. Surveyor requested from NHA-A, DON-B, and CC-C any documentation regarding R51's transfer to the other facility. On 8/28/2023 at 8:30 AM, Surveyor shared with DON-B no transfer documentation for R51 was provided that had been requested. DON-B stated DON-B would look to see what could be found. On 8/28/2023 at 9:31 AM, Surveyor placed a call to the facility that R51 had transferred to regarding the timeline of when they were contacted about R51's potential transfer and what information had been provided to that facility. Surveyor left a message to return the phone call. No return phone call was received. On 8/28/2023 at 10:48 AM, Surveyor shared with DON-B the concerns R51 did not have any documentation prior to leaving the facility that R51 was not being discharged to home per documented discharge plan care plan goal, the Discharge Planning Care Plan was not revised when the IDT was made aware R51 wanted to transfer to another facility, and SSD-D did not document any conversations with R51 or the receiving facility to document coordination of continued care occurred from one facility to another. DON-B agreed there was no documentation in R51's medical record showing R51 was assisted in transferring to another facility or the reason for the transfer. No further information was provided.
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 F0661 (Tag F0661)

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 develop a discharge summary to include a recapitulation of the reside...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility did not develop a discharge summary to include a recapitulation of the resident's stay that includes the course of illness/treatment or therapy with a final summary of the resident's stay for 1 ( R51) of 3 residents reviewed for discharge. *R51 was discharged from the facility on 6/1/2023 to another facility and there was no documented evidence a discharge summary was completed. Findings include: R51 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of right pubis fracture, electrolyte and fluid balance disorders, and atherosclerosis. R51's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated R51 had moderate cognitive impairment with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 11 and the facility assessed R51 as needing supervision with bed mobility, eating, and hygiene, limited assistance with transfers, dressing, and toilet use, and extensive assistance with bathing. On 6/1/2023 at 9:22 AM in the progress notes, Social Services Director (SSD)-D charted R51 was transferred to another skilled nursing facility that day. On 6/1/2023 at 11:23 AM in the progress notes, nursing charted R51 was discharged at 9:00 AM to another nursing facility. On 8/24/2023 at 10:48 AM, Surveyor requested from Nursing Home Administrator (NHA)-A R51's medical record. Surveyor reviewed R51's electronic medical record (EMR) and hard chart. Surveyor was not able to find a discharge summary which would include a recapitulation of the resident's stay, a final summary of the resident's status and a medication list. On 8/24/2023 at 2:36 PM at the daily exit with the facility, Surveyor shared with NHA-A, Director of Nursing (DON)-B, and Corporate Consultant (CC)-C the concern no discharge summary was found in R51's medical record. Surveyor requested from NHA-A, DON-B, and CC-C any documentation regarding R51's discharge summary. On 8/28/2023 at 8:12 AM, DON-B and CC-C provided a form entitled admission and Discharge Summary for R51. The discharge section of the form was blank. On 8/28/2023 at 10:48 AM, Surveyor shared with DON-B the concern R50 did not have a Discharge Summary for R51's stay at the facility. DON-B agreed there was no documented Discharge Summary. No further information was provided.
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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2) On 8/23/23, at 1:15 PM, Surveyor observed the hot water faucet on the sink in R49's room. Surveyor noted the hot water handle...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2) On 8/23/23, at 1:15 PM, Surveyor observed the hot water faucet on the sink in R49's room. Surveyor noted the hot water handle had a piece missing, causing the handle to turn all the way around to allow a small stream of water. Surveyor attempted to hold her hands under the running water for 30 seconds. Surveyor noted the water was so hot, Surveyor could not keep her hands under the running water as her hands felt as though they were burning. Surveyor took temperature of the running water which read 121.8° F (Fahrenheit). On 8/23/23, at 3:01 PM, Surveyor recheck of R49's hot water temperature after running the water for 30 seconds read 123.2° F. Surveyor rechecked the water temperature with a different thermometer which read 124° F. Surveyor confirmed with R49 that he uses the sink in his room. Surveyor asked R49 if he has had any issue with the hot water temperature. R49 stated: Not that I noticed, but it would be hot enough for coffee. Review of R49's medical record revealed a diagnosis of Diabetes Mellitus Type 2 and no diagnoses of neuropathy. On 8/24/23, at 8:05 AM, Surveyor obtained hot water temperature checks of random rooms. Surveyor allowed the hot water to run for 30 seconds and obtained the following temperatures: room [ROOM NUMBER] - 117.2° F, room [ROOM NUMBER] - 103.1° F, room [ROOM NUMBER] - 115.2° F. Surveyor noted the water was not too hot as to allow Surveyor to wash her hands. The State Operations Manual documents the following times required for a 3rd degree burn to occur: 155° F -1 second, 148° F - 2 seconds, 140° F - 5 seconds, 133° F - 15 seconds, 127° F - 1 minute, 124° F - 3 minutes, 120° F - 5 minutes, 100° F - Safe Temperatures for Bathing (see Note). NOTE: Burns can occur even at water temperatures below those identified in the table, depending on an individual's condition and the length of exposure. Surveyor notes a third degree burn is a full thickness burn that destroys the outer layer of skin (epidermis) and the entire layer beneath (dermis). Third degree burns completely destroy both layers of skin including hair follicles an sweat glands and damage underlying tissue. On 8/24/23, at 9:27 AM, Surveyor asked Maintenance-F if, and how often he checks hot water temperatures in resident rooms. Maintenance-F provided Surveyor forms titled: Preventative Maintenance Checklist for the months of June, July and August 2023 which documented: Domestic water temperatures - check a different resident room/area daily and log actual temperature. NOT to exceed 110 degrees. Surveyor noted the following documentation: June temperature range from 110°-115° F, July temperature range from 113°-115° F, August temperature range from 113°-115° F. Surveyor asked Maintenance-F to explain the log. Maintenance-F stated: I check random rooms sinks and record the temperature. Surveyor advised all of the temperatures documented were above 110° F and asked why the form read Not to exceed 110 degrees. Maintenance-F stated: I don't know, I created this form 16 years ago. We have a policy on water temps of rooms, I'll find it for you. Maintenance-F provided the facility policy titled Thirty day maintenance summary revised 10/14, which documents: Daily checks: Domestic water temperatures: Check a different resident room/area daily. Log actual temperatures. Not to exceed 115 degrees. On 8/24/23, at 2:30 PM, Nursing Home Administrator (NHA)-A and Director of Nursing (DON)-B were advised of observation and concern regarding hot water temperatures. No additional information was provided. On 8/28/23, at 9:03 AM, Surveyor was provided a log of water temperatures completed on each room dated 8/24/23. Maintenance-F informed Surveyor he lowered the temperature on the mixing valve. Surveyor review of the documentation revealed the highest temperature recorded was 102.6° F. Maintenance-F reported he did not take the temperatures and is not sure what time the temperatures were taken. Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility did not ensure residents' environment were free from accident hazards and residents received adequate supervision. This was observed with 1 (R15) of 1 residents reviewed for elopement and 1 (R49) of 1 water exceeding safe temperature range. - R15 has a Legal Guardian appointed and was found to have left the facility without staff knowledge or supervision. The local police department contacted the facility to inform them R15 was located at their prior community home. The facility staff was unaware R15 had left the facility until notified by the police. - R49's room hot water temperature was above the safe temperature range for use. Findings include: The facility's policy and procedure, entitled: Resident Signing Out, dated 4/2023, documents: Purpose: All residents leaving the premises must be signed out to enable the facility to know the whereabouts of residents not on the premises. Protocol: Documenting in the medical record that a resident signing out alone is alert, oriented and safe to be outside, after giving appropriate safety information as necessary. 1.) On 08/22/23, at 10:47 AM, Surveyor spoke with R15 in their room. R15 Indicated they do not leave the facility. They are wheelchair dependent. Surveyor observes R15 has a wander guard on their left ankle. R15's medical record was reviewed by Surveyor. The Nurses Notes on 3/27/23 documented by LPN (Licensed Practical Nurse)- G indicates R15's MD (Medical Doctor) was faxed about an elopement on 3/26/23 (Sunday) for an MD update. There is no additional information about an elopement on 3/26/23. Surveyor notes R15 had a legal guardian appointed on June 13, 2022. R15's Quarterly MDS (minimum data set) assessment completed on 3/28/23 indicates a BIMS (Brief Interview of Mental Status) score of 7, which indicates severely impaired cognition. R15 is non-ambulatory and uses a wheelchair. There is no wandering behavior noted. On 2/1/23, R15 had an Elopement Assessment completed and had no noted elopement attempts. On 4/25/23, there was an Elopement Assessment completed that refers to the last assessment from 3/28/23. The Elopement Assessment on 3/28/23 indicates R15 misunderstood and thought they could go back to the group home. On 08/23/23, at 2:33 PM at the Facility Exit Meeting Surveyor requested additional information on R15's documented elopement. The facility provided their investigation. The Facility Investigation indicated on 3/26/23, R15 was observed by Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)-G to go in the elevator after lunch. At 1:55 PM the Kenosha police called the facility and indicated R15 was at their former residence (home). R15 was wearing clothes and a coat. A code alert was placed on R15's ankle upon return. R15's Guardian was at the facility upon R15's return. R15's physician was notified of the elopement next day via fax. A stranger offered R15 a ride to their house. R15 was last seen getting on the elevator at 1:20 PM and the police called the facility at 1:55 PM. Staff statements indicate behavior per usual. There were no indications R15 would leave the facility. Resident was picked up by a Samaritan in the community on 60th street (in front of facility). R15 did not have any elopement attempts before, or after, this event on 3/26/23. Surveyor notes the facility staff were not aware R15 was not on the premises until the Kenosha police called the facility to inform them of R15's whereabouts. R15 has a legal guardian appointed, is wheelchair bound and is not assessed to be safe on their own outside. On 08/24/23, at 11:00 AM, Surveyor spoke with LPN-G. LPN-G indicated R15 did not give any indication they would leave the facility. LPN-G stated they did not know R15 was even gone. R15 was moving slow and a Samaritan picked him up. LPN-G could not recall details of the event or notifying the physician the following day via fax. LPN-G stated the residents typically tell us when they are leaving and residents can go out the back smoking door. LPN-G stated all the facility exit doors have wander guard alarms on them. R15 did not have a wander guard placed until after 3/26/23. On 08/24/23, at 11:36 AM, Surveyor spoke with Receptionist-K who is positioned by the front door of the facility. Receptionist-K stated the resident sign-out sheets are on the units. Receptionist-K stated they work daytime hours Monday thru Friday, roughly 8:00 AM to 4:30 PM. Receptionist-K stated they know what residents are not allowed to leave on their own and their are wanderguard alarms on all the exit doors. Receptionist-K state there is no receptionist on weekends. Receptionist-K stated the facility would not be aware of residents without wander guards exiting through the back door. On 08/28/23, at 08:20 AM, Surveyor spoke with Social Work Director (SW)-D who was not in the facility when the elopement happened. SW-D's office is located by the back door smoking area. SW-D stated the back door is open during the day for residents that smoke. SW-D stated R15 wanted to go home and their Legal Guardian has talked about a move to a group home. SW-D stated R15 will not participate in the group home staff assessments to determine appropriate placement. SW-D stated R15 is not capable of caring for themselves and they are working on keeping R15 at the facility. On 08/28/23, at 08:50 AM, Surveyor shared the concern with Nursing Home Administrator (NHA)-A and Corporate Consultant (CC)-C as to R15's ability to leave the facility and be provided a ride by a stranger back to their prior residence and the facility staff was not aware R15 left the facility until the police called to inform them. NHA-A indicated there was no verbalized intent by R15 to leave the building. NHA-A stated R15 did talk to their Legal Guardian the morning of the elopement and there was a misunderstanding. R15 has not attempted to leave since. R15 had a wander guard placed after the event. Surveyor informed NHA-A and CC-C that R15 has a court appointed legal guardian and was not assessed to be safe outside the facility unsupervised and R15 was able to leave the building without staff knowledge until the police notified the facility of his whereabouts.
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 F0757 (Tag F0757)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interview, the facility did not ensure a resident received an antibiotic per definitions of an infection. This was observed with 1 (R32) of 1 resident's reviewed on antibiot...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility did not ensure a resident received an antibiotic per definitions of an infection. This was observed with 1 (R32) of 1 resident's reviewed on antibiotics. R32 was prescribed an antibiotic and did not have documentation to support it use. Findings include: The facility's policy and procedure Infection Prevention and Control Program, revised 8/22, was reviewed by Surveyor. Section 9. Antibiotic Stewardship includes: antibiotic prescribing will include documentation of the dose, duration( indication and rationale) and treatment site; antibiotics will not be utilized in residents with asymptomatic bacteriuria by following the protocol urinary tract infection. On 08/22/23 at 11:03 AM Surveyor spoke with R32 in their room about antibiotic use. R32 indicated they have frequent UTI's (urinary tract infection). R32 indicated they go to see the Doctor for them. R32's medical record was reviewed by Surveyor. R32 's Physician Visit paperwork on 8/3/23 indicates Cipro 500 mg for 5 days for UTI. There is no additional clinical data to support the indication for the antibiotic. R32's Medical Record does not contain documentation of an infection for the use of an antibiotic. On 08/28/23 at 8:42 AM Surveyor spoke with DON (Director of Nurses)-B who is also the facility's IP (Infection Preventionist). The facility's Surveillance for Infections were reviewed at this time. R32 was not included on the Surveillance Log for receiving antibiotics for a UTI. DON-B indicated they use McGeer's criteria and did not know why R32 was not on the log. R32 would have been on the Surveillance Log. On 08/28/23 at 11:34 AM DON-B provided Surveyor with a paper titled Infection Control Facility Action Report dated 8/28/23. This report indicates they reached out to R32 physician to request the lab work from 8/3/23 for the antibiotic. R32 received an antibiotic for a UTI that did not meet the definitions for infection.
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 F0825 (Tag F0825)

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 residents received specialized rehabilitative services of ...

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 residents received specialized rehabilitative services of physical and occupational therapy that were ordered upon admisstion to the facilty for 1 (R48) of 1 residents reviewed for rehabilitation services. R48 did not receive therapy services as ordered upon admission to the facility. Findings include: R48 admitted to the facility on [DATE] and has diagnoses that include malignant neoplasm of endometrium, hypertension, Diabetes Mellitus Type 2, morbid obesity, asthma, urinary incontinence, shortness of breath and weakness. R48's admission Physician's order dated 6/22/23 documented: PT (Physical Therapy)/OT (Occupational Therapy) eval (evaluate) and treat. R48's Physician's order dated 7/26/23 documented: PT order: PT evaluate and treat 3-5 times/week for 4 weeks to address therapeutic exercise, therapeutic activity, nm (neuromuscular) re-education, gait training, w/c (wheelchair) training, manual, group. On 8/22/23, at 10:45 AM during initial interview with R48, Surveyor observed her lying in bed, on her back with the head of bed elevated. R48's television was on and she was wearing a gown. Surveyor asked R48 if she gets dressed and out of bed. R48 stated: Not really, I don't have a wheelchair. They usually don't get me out of bed. Surveyor asked R48 if she wanted to get out of bed. R48 stated: Well sure, I'd like to. Subsequent observations while on survey (8/23/23 and 8/24/24) revealed R48 did not get out of bed for any reason, including therapy. On 8/24/23, at 12:57 PM Surveyor spoke with Therapy Director-N. She reported R48 was on caseload for PT and ST (Speech Therapy) 7/26/23 and OT was added 8/16/23. On 8/28/23, at 8:30 AM Surveyor spoke with Therapy Director-N. Surveyor asked why R48 did not receive therapy upon admission as ordered by the physician. Therapy Director-N reported it had something to do with insurance. We thought she was supposed to be hospice. No-one contacted us to let us know she was not going to be hospice, for all I knew she was hospice. Therapy Director-N stated: In July, (Director of Nursing (DON)-B) asked if we were seeing her, and I told her no. That's when we were advised R48 wasn't hospice so we picked her up at that time. Surveyor confirmed: So she didn't get therapy until July? Therapy Director-N stated: No. I'm sad to say I actually forgot about her, she never comes out of her room, so I assumed she was hospice until (DON-B) told me she wasn't. We picked her up right away after that. I don't have her actual therapy orders, but I believe she is seen by all therapies 3 times a week. We just had a care conference on 8/24/23 and her sister said the goal was for her to go to assisted living. Surveyor asked if therapy has been working on standing. Therapy Director-N stated: No, she isn't able to tolerate that at all. PT evaluation start of care dated 7/26/23 documented: Reason for referral: Patient has been referred to skilled physical therapy services due to recent decline in functional mobility since being admitted to this SNF (Skilled Nursing Facility). In addition to not receiving therapy as ordered, R48 was not gotten out of bed for any reason, including therapy as ordered due to the facility not providing an appropriate wheelchair (cross reference F558). On 8/24/23, at 1:59 PM, Surveyor spoke with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA)-O and CNA-P who both work on R48's unit. CNA-P reported R48 does not get out of bed because she is too weak. CNA-O stated: She can't sit up in that chair because it's not really a wheelchair, it's like just a chair and she can't sit in it. Surveyor asked both CNA's if they were aware if anyone had tried or is trying to get R48 a wheelchair to get up for therapy. CNA-O stated: Not that I know of. All I know is that therapy said we can't get her up in the chair in her room because it won't work for her, she can't sit up in that one. On 8/24/23, at 2:30 PM, Nursing Home Administrator (NHA)-A and Director of Nursing (DON)-B were advised of concern R48 admitted to the facility 6/22/23 and did not receive therapy as ordered until 7/26/23 when a noted decline in functional ability since admission triggered an order for physical therapy. On 8/28/23, at 1:18 PM DON-B advised Surveyor R48 was not medicare and the facility was waiting for her to admit due to insurance. DON-B stated: I believe she came with family care and we needed to submit authorization. NHA-A would have that information. DON-B stated: So, once insurance authorization was received, she was able to start therapy. On 8/28/23, at 1:37 PM DON-B provided Surveyor a form titled GRS Therapy Payer Verification/Communication Form signed and dated 6/23/23. The bottom of the form documented: Notification of intent to provide therapy services. The form documented: admission date: 6/22/23. Primary insurance is community care for R&B (room & board). Part B eligible: Yes. United American 2nd. If part B benefit, who is secondary: Ccare (community care). Straight Medicaid: No. A second GRS Therapy Payer Verification/Communication form signed and dated 7/18/23 documented: Discipline requested PT/OT. Date: 7/17/23. Part B eligible: Yes. Need community care authorization. Surveyor noted a handwritten note at the bottom of the form which documented:*never seen for therapy. Initial intake paperwork is requesting PT/OT. Surveyor asked DON-B why R48 was not seen for therapy as ordered upon admission and did not receive therapy until 7/26/23. DON-B stated: I don't know. Therapy should have submitted an authorization when she admitted . Surveyor confirmed: So she (R48) admitted on [DATE] and didn't receive therapy until 7/26/23 and there is no reason why she didn't receive therapy as ordered? DON-B stated: No. It must've gotten missed. On 8/28/23, at approximately 10:00 AM, NHA-A asked to meet with Surveyor to explain R48's therapy and insurance. NHA-A reported it is very confusing and provided paperwork and emails. NHA-A reported the facility accepted R48 out of the goodness of our heart, knowing she didn't have insurance. Surveyor reviewed R48's physician's order for PT/OT upon admission and asked why she didn't receive therapy as ordered. NHA- stated: How could we provide therapy without insurance? Surveyor advised NHA-A that R48 admitted on [DATE] with orders and therapy was not initiated until 7/26/23. Surveyor asked if R48's physician or family was notified she was not receiving therapy as ordered. NHA-A was unable to provide evidence of the notification. Surveyor advised NHA-A of the concern the facility accepted R48 to the facility with orders to receive therapy and therapy was not provided for over 1 month. NHA-A reported the facility was working hard at trying to clarify and obtain insurance so therapy could be provided. NHA-A stated: I don't expect you to understand insurance, it's very confusing. Surveyor notes R48's insurance coverage, documented by the facility upon admission identifies, R48 was eligible for for Medicare Part B coverage with community care as the secondary payer source. Medicare Part B will help pay for medically necessary outpatient physical therapy when a health care provider certifies the need. (This information is documented on the federal government website managed and paid for by the United States Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS); Medicare.gov.) No additional information was provided.
CONCERN (D)

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

Antibiotic Stewardship (Tag F0881)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interview, the facility did not ensure a resident received an antibiotic per definitions of an infection. This was observed with 1 (R32) of 1 resident's reviewed on antibiot...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility did not ensure a resident received an antibiotic per definitions of an infection. This was observed with 1 (R32) of 1 resident's reviewed on antibiotics. R32 was prescribed an antibiotic and did not have documentation to support it use. Findings include: The facility's policy and procedure Infection Prevention and Control Program , revised 8/22, was reviewed by Surveyor. Section 9. Antibiotic Stewardship includes: antibiotic prescribing will include documentation of the dose, duration( indication and rationale) and treatment site; antibiotics will not be utilized in residents with asymptomatic bacteriuria by following the protocol urinary tract infection. 1.) On 08/22/23 at 11:03 AM Surveyor spoke with R32 in their room. R32 was queried regarding antibiotic use. R32 indicated they have frequent UTI'S (urinary tract infection). R32 indicated they go to see the Doctor for them. R32 medical record was reviewed by Surveyor. R32 Physician Visit paperwork on 8/3/23 indicates Cipro 500 mg for 5 days for UTI. There is no additional clinical data to support the indication for the antibiotic. R32 Medical Record does not contain documentation of an infection for the use of an antibiotic. On 08/28/23 at 8:42 AM Surveyor spoke with DON (Director of Nurses)-B who is also the facility's IP (Infection Preventionist). The facility's Surveillance for Infections were reviewed at this time. R32 was not included on the Surveillance Log for receiving antibiotics for a UTI. DON-B indicated they use McGeer's criteria and did not know why R32 was not on the log. R32 would have been on the Surveillance Log. On 08/28/23 at 11:34 AM DON-B provided Surveyor with a paper titled Infection Control Facility Action Report dated 8/28/23. This report indicates they reached out to R32 physician to request the lab work from 8/3/23 for the antibiotic. R32 received an antibiotic for a UTI that did not meet the definitions for infection.
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 ensure that food was stored, prepared and served under sanitary conditions in 1 of 1 serving kitchens. This had the potential to...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility did not ensure that food was stored, prepared and served under sanitary conditions in 1 of 1 serving kitchens. This had the potential to affect all 48 residents currently in the facility. *Opened cereal stored in 12 QT (quart) containers did not have a date. *Expired taco meat dated 8/14/23 was observed in the main cooler. *Unit refrigerator in 3rd floor kitchenette was not monitored for appropriate temperatures and frost build-up was an inch thick on the inside back wall of refrigerator. Findings include: Food Storage The facility policy, entitled, Food Storage Standards, dated 5/2022, states: #3. Criteria for Dry Food Storage f. Working containers holding dry food or ingredients that are removed from their original packages are identified with the common name of the food, unless the food is easily recognizable such as dry pasts. g. Staff receives training on the proper dry food storage time and temperature. j. Personnel look for and follow best before dates. They also honor Store in a cool dry place or keep in the refrigerator once opened. (Note: Best before dates mean personnel must look for additional instructions on the label; best before dates also mean the item is no longer at its best quality but may still be safe to eat.) #4. Quality Assurance: b. Refrigerators are monitored daily for proper food labeling. On 08/22/23, at 10:04 AM, Surveyor was conducting the initial tour of the kitchen with Dietary Manager (DM)-E. Surveyor was in the main cooler and observed cooked ground beef in a metal container with plastic wrap on top labeled, taco meat and dated 8/14/23. During the same initial tour, Surveyor observed two plastic 12 QT (quart) containers located on the bottom shelf of the food prep counter. The two plastic containers contained cereal. The two containers were not dated or labeled. Surveyor asked Dietary Manager (DM)-E what the date on opened items indicates and she stated that the date is the date the item was made or opened and that they only keep food for 7 days. On 08/23/23, at 11:25 AM, Surveyor return to the kitchen and observed the taco meat dated 8/14/23 still in the cooler and observed four plastic 12 QT containers on the bottom shelf of the prep counter that contained different cereal. No dates or labels on the containers. On 08/23/23, at 01:37 PM, Surveyor spoke with Dietary Manager (DM)-E and inquired about the cereal containers and if open ready to eat food should be dated. DM-E stated that technically they should be however the cereal gets used up within a couple of days. Surveyor asked DM how often are items in the cooler looked through that are open and dated? DM-E stated that usually the cooler is checked daily, and food will be tossed if after the date. Surveyor informed DM of the observation of the taco meat dated 8/14/23 observed in the cooler on first and second day of survey. DM-E stated that she must have missed that. Surveyor requested policy and procedures for storage of food. Unit Refrigerator On 08/23/23, at 08:01 AM, Surveyor observed the 3rd floor kitchenette. Inside the refrigerator there is a build-up of frost about an inch thick along the entire length and width of the refrigerator. The temperature is 31 degrees Fahrenheit. The temperature dial on the inside of refrigerator is on 7 which indicates the coldest temperature. On 08/23/23, at 03:02 PM, Surveyor spoke with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)-G in the 3rd floor nurses station. LPN-G states that the refrigerator does get some build-up of frost on the inside of the refrigerator. LPN-G stated that she did defrost the refrigerator last week and cleaned the shelves. LPN-G confirmed that this was new frost build-up since then. On 08/24/23, at 10:24 AM, Surveyor interviewed Dietary Manager (DM)-E who informed Surveyor that the nursing staff and herself are responsible for monitoring the unit refrigerators. Monitoring involves taking temperatures two times a day, making sure it's clean and that items are dated and labeled. DM-E was unaware of any concerns with frost build up on the interior of the 3rd floor refrigerator. On 08/24/23, at 11:00 AM, Surveyor interviewed Maintenance-F regarding who monitors the unit refrigerators. Maintenance-F stated that kitchen staff are responsible. Surveyor and Maintenance-F opened the refrigerator on the 3rd floor located in the nurse's station. Surveyor and Maintenance-F observed the inch think frost buildup on the back wall of the refrigerator. Maintenance-F stated that frost should not be there. He was not aware of this as it was a newer refrigerator. Maintenance-F stated that he did hear several weeks ago that third shift had to defrost the unit, however he thought they were referring to the freezer portion. Maintenance-F suspects that the temperature is too low. Surveyor and Maintenance-F observed the temperature dial on 7 which is the coldest temperature. Maintenance-F turned the temperature dial down to 5. On 08/24/23, at 02:36 PM, during the end of the day meeting with Nursing Home Administrator-A, Director of Nursing-B and Corporate Consultant-C, Surveyor informed them of the concerns with the expired taco meat dated 8/14/23 observed in the cooler on day one and two of survey, cereal containers not dated, and the unit refrigerator on the 3rd floor with frost build-up. The facility did not have any concerns. No additional information was provided at this time.
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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility did not implement an effective Infection Control Program. The facility did no...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility did not implement an effective Infection Control Program. The facility did not develop an effective Water Management Plan to prevent Legionella. The facility did not maintain accurate Surveillance of infections. This had the potential to effect all 48 residents residing in the facility. -The Water Management Plan did not identify areas of risk, surveillance process, control measures, monitoring, the review process along with identified staff responsible. -The facility did not have accurate data for an effective surveillance program to prevent the spread of infection. Findings include: The facility's policy and procedure Infection-Prevention-Water Management Program (Legionella) [name of facility] dated 6/23 was reviewed by Surveyor. The Protocol indicates: 1. Water Management Program Team-The water program is overseen by the team consisting of the Infection Preventionist, Maintenance Manger, Medical Director, Facility Administrator, Risk Manager or external water entity if indicated. 2. Building Water System- how cold and hot water are supplied to the facility 3. Areas of Risk- one whirlpool room, 2 shower rooms and a dirty utility hopper with hose. 4. Surveillance Process-facility conducts quarterly review of all culture results for cases of identified Legionella. All cases of facility acquired pneumonia reviewed. 5. Review Process- The IP(Infection Preventionist) reviews surveillance reports monthly with the QAPI(Quality Assurance Plan and Improvement) Committee; the Water Management Team reviews the facility water system and program design annually and makes appropriate changes based on applicable rules. The facility's policy and procedure Infection Prevention and Control Program dated 8/22 was reviewed by Surveyor. The Protocol indicates: 2. Surveillance under d. collecting surveillance data is looking at each infection as it happens to determine cause, pattern, trend, etc. It will be utilized for timely intervention of issues. 1.) On 08/22/23 at 09:50 AM Surveyor met with NHA (Nursing Home Administrator)-A and DON(Director of Nurses)-B. The Facility Assessment, the Facility Water Management Plan and any Infection Outbreaks with Surveillance tracking was requested. The DON-B is also the facility's IP (Infection Preventionist). WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN Surveyor reviewed the Facility assessment dated [DATE]. The Facility Assessment does not identify Legionella as a potential infection. The Section for Physical Environment and Building/Plant Needs: does not indicate a Water Management Program. The Section for Persons Involved in Completing Assessments does not identify an IP or a Water Management Committee staff. Surveyor reviewed the Facility Water Management Program dated 6/23. It contained the facility's policy and procedures. It contained a map of the resident rooms on 2nd and 3rd floor and 1st floor offices and common areas. This map just indicated where there was hot or cold water. There was no other data. There was a diagram map in pencil that only showed the flow of water and possibly where it went. There was no other data on this diagram. This packet also contained a Legionella Risk assessment dated [DATE]. This assessment indicated the facility has electronic sinks/faucets and no aerators (the resident rooms are all aerators). It does not indicate any prevention, and control measures, for Legionella. The Facility's Water Management Plan does not identify staff members of the Committee, identify risk areas, identify the surveillance process, control measures with monitoring and a review process. On 08/28/23 at 08:55 AM Surveyor spoke with NHA (Nursing Home Administrator)-A and CC (Corporate Consultant)-C. The Facility Assessment and Water Management Plan was reviewed. The Facility Assessment does not include the role of the Infection Preventionist and the Water Management Committee staff. The Water Management Program facility map does not identify areas of stagnation, temperature variations, etc. to identify areas where Legionella could grow and spread. The plan does not include how to monitor control measures like visual checks, disinfectant levels and checking temperatures. It does not include information identifying stagnant areas and preventive measures. On 08/28/23 at 12:38 PM CC-C spoke with Surveyor. CC-C supplied Surveyor with a Draft of a revamping of their Water Management Program. The facility has identify dead leg areas and capped a couple of water lines on 8/2/2023. SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM CROSS REFERENCE F881 for Antibiotic Stewardship. On 08/22/23 at 09:50 AM Surveyor met with NHA (Nursing Home Administrator)-A and DON(Director of Nurses)-B. The Facility Assessment, the Facility Water Management Plan and any Infection Outbreaks with Surveillance tracking was requested. The DON-B is also the facility's IP (Infection Preventionist). NHA-A indicated the facility information regarding Outbreaks are part of QAPI [quality assurance and process improvement). NHA-A provided a Communication Summary documentation of the Outbreaks of Infection. The Scabies Outbreaks summaries were as follows: 1.) 9/21/22 had 3 residents with dermatitis. Reviewed by Medical Director and not definitely diagnosed. Was treated as if they were. They were not the same floor. Staff education provided to staff 2.) 10/17/22 had (R400) go to Dermatologist and was diagnosed with scabies. Treatment and surveillance. There has been a few other recent cases. 3.) 10/25/22 Medical Director looked at resident rashes ordered treatment of all residents. There was 8 suspected residents. (no residents identified) 4.) 11/7/22 all residents had 2nd round of treatment. 5.) 1/10/23 1 suspected case of scabies. This resident was isolated. may have been non-complainant with prior treatment. (R28 in own room). 6.) 3/31/23 1 resident treated for rash possible scabies. (R28 in their own room). On 08/24/23 at 01:34 PM Surveyor spoke with DON-B and CC-C. Surveyor requested more information related to the scabies outbreaks in the building and was provided a co-mingled surveillance log of infections. The Log did not indicate the residents identified with Scabies. There was not a surveillance log of residents with Scabies to track infections. On 08/28/23 at 08:42 AM Surveyor spoke with DON-B. DON-B indicated they review antibiotics and log them. They also log symptoms. The facility uses McGeer's for infection criteria. The facility staff will call with orders and questions. DON-B did not provide at this time a Scabies surveillance log. On 8/28/23 at 08:55 AM Surveyor spoke with NHA-A and CC-C. NHA-A indicated OSHA(Occupational Safety and Health Administration) investigated the Scabies outbreak on December 19, 2022. They did not have any concerns. The facility used a Word document for scabies tracking. NHA-A indicated they notified Public Health and the Medical Director about the Scabies. They think R400 was admitted with Scabies and was not appropriately diagnosed. No staff had any symptoms. CC-C provided a Line List for Scabies from 10/15/22 and 10/25/22. This was transferred onto a surveillance log form from the Word Document. The facility indicated Scabies was being reviewed with the QAPI process. Staff were educated and the facility followed the CDC (Centers for Disease Control) recommendations. On 08/28/23 at 11:23 AM Surveyor spoke with DON-B regarding R15's physician ordered treatment for Scabies starting 3/28/23 - 4/4/23. R15 was not on the Infection Control Surveillance log. On 08/28/23 at 12:38 PM CC-C spoke with Surveyor. CC-C indicated R28 was treated in January 2023 for a itchy rash. They put R28 in isolation precautions and was treated for Scabies. Then on April 6th R28 was actually diagnosed with dermatitis. R15 was being treated for possible Scabies. R15 should have been on the Surveillance log and R28 was not supposed to be on the Surveillance log for Scabies in March/April 2023. The Surveillance Logs were revised. The facility did not utilize an effective surveillance program for tracking and trending infections.
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

Room Equipment (Tag F0908)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, interviews and record review the facility did not maintain all mechanical, electrical, and patient care equipment in safe operating condition for 1 of 2 elevators in the facility...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interviews and record review the facility did not maintain all mechanical, electrical, and patient care equipment in safe operating condition for 1 of 2 elevators in the facility. The facility elevator, which is used by both ambulatory and wheelchair residents, was not in proper working order. While on survey, the doors to the elevator closed quickly, bumping into both Surveyor and residents, causing them to stumble and lose balance. Findings include: On 8/23/23 at 8:06 AM Surveyor noted the facility elevator (east/left side) was not working. Corporate Consultant-C reported parts have been on order for a couple of months. On 8/23/23 at 12:01 PM while entering the right (west) elevator, Surveyor turned to hold the door for an oncoming resident and visitor using a walker. The elevator door began to close abruptly, slamming into Surveyor's left side/back, causing her to stumble. Surveyor held the door open for the resident and visitor. While in the elevator, Surveyor asked if the door always closes that quickly and abruptly. The visitor reported it just started doing that a few weeks ago and last week she got slammed on the arm. On 8/23/23 at 12:22 PM while Surveyor was entering the elevator, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA)-R entered the elevator and stated: Be careful, the door closes fast. Surveyor advised she was aware, as the elevator door closed on me earlier. CNA-R stated: Yeah, I saw that. Lot's of us staff have gotten hit by it too. Surveyor asked if the elevator had closed on any residents. CNA-R stated: Well, we are usually careful and hold it open for them. On 8/23/23 at 12:27 PM Surveyor advised Director of Nursing (DON)-B of the incident involving the elevator closing abruptly onto Surveyor causing her to stumble. DON-B reported she was on the floor and heard it happen. Surveyor asked if the facility has had any incidents involving residents. DON-B reported there have been no incidents involving residents, We've had the elevator company out here and said that they would have to change a runner or something, but there was nothing they can do. On 8/23/23 at 1:42 PM Surveyor spoke with Maintenance-F who reported the left elevator has been broken for about a year. He reported the company wanted 1/2 down for parts to fix it, which the facility paid. He reported the manufacturer was still waiting for parts. Surveyor asked about the right elevator. Maintenance-F stated: Are you asking about the timing? Surveyor advised of concern regarding the elevator door closing abruptly. Maintenance-F stated: We are aware of the timing issue. Sometimes it works, sometimes it closes fast. The sensor works though to delay it from closing. Surveyor asked when the elevator was last serviced. Maintenance-F stated: Last month they were here and said it needs a new runner for the timing. We are still waiting for the part to have it fixed. Surveyor advised of concern regarding safety of residents going in and out of the elevator when the door closes quickly. Maintenance-F stated: Everyone pretty much knows they have to put their arm out across the sensor to keep it open. Maintenance-F reported he was not aware of any incidents involving the residents and the elevator. Surveyor asked for evidence of elevator service. Maintenance-F reported the elevator repair company was here in May. Surveyor received no additional information. On 8/24/23 at 8:10 AM Surveyor was waiting for the elevator on the first floor along with R26 (who ambulates independently) and R33 (who was using a walker). As the elevator door opened, R33 proceeded onto the elevator and R26 followed. The elevator door began to close, bumping into R26 on his right side causing him to stumble, it then stopped and reopened. Surveyor entered the elevator and asked R26 if the elevator had ever closed on him before. R26 stated: Oh yes, it happens all the time. It's been broken for a long time. R26 pointed to the other elevator and reported it has been broken forever. R33 nodded her head yes. Surveyor asked R33 if the elevator door had ever closed on her. R33 stated: No, but I've seen it hit other people. Surveyor asked R33 how long the elevator door has been closing so fast, to which she replied: A few weeks. On 8/24/23 at 9:58 AM Surveyor noted signs were now posted on the wall next to the elevator which read: Caution elevator door is closing quickly. On 8/24/23 at 10:38 AM Maintenance-F provided Surveyor a service log for the right elevator. The last service module entry was for 5/19/23. Maintenance-F reported he sent an email asking why they were not documenting on the form the service provided after May. Email documents: As for the west elevator, our technician diagnosed the issue and it has to do the the door operator board. Unfortunately, this door operator is obsolete, so our plan was to send the board out for repair after we get the east elevator working. Paperwork documents: 7/21/23 call out. Customer: Running, no overtime. Doors close very fast. They open but close quickly. Customer thinks switch is bad. (Maintenance-F) called on 7/21/23 reporting operating problem with the west passenger. When we arrived on 7/24 at 9:14 AM the unit was running with a door operation problem. We checked the operation of the door operator. Upon leaving at 12:41 PM we left the elevator in service. On 8/24/23 at 10:07 AM Nursing Home Administrator (NHA)-A provided paperwork regarding the elevator. NHA-A reported The west elevator (the one that's working) needs a part to be replaced and needs to be removed, so if we do that we won't have a working elevator at all. NHA-A provided email and paperwork from elevator company for review. Surveyor noted the repair invoice proposal dated 5/12/23 documents information regarding the east elevator (the one that is not working). There was no mention of the west elevator. On 8/24/23 at 2:30 PM NHA-A and DON-B were advised of concern the facility was aware of the elevator door closing abruptly on residents and visitors which could potentially cause injury. No interventions were implemented until after Surveyor identified concern and then the facility posted signs to warn residents and staff. No additional information was provided. On 8/28/23 at 11:26 AM Surveyor noted a progress note entered in R18's medical record: Late entry for 8/25/23. Spoke with resident regarding elevator. Resident stated he was injured by the elevator BUE (bilateral upper extremity). Resident stated I don't know what day and I don't know why I didn't report it. BUE assessed chest and back were examined, no apparent injuries, no injuries noted, no redness, no bruising, or wounds. Baseline ROM (range of motion) in BUE shoulders, elbows, wrists, and fingers. Educated resident to inform nurse for any future injuries of any type. Also re-educated resident that the elevator door has been closing quickly and if you just press the button to go up or down before it closes it will reopen and if continues to have problems with the elevator ask for assistance.
May 2022 20 deficiencies 2 IJ
CRITICAL (J)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Notification of Changes (Tag F0580)

Someone could have died · 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 staff promptly consulted with a physician when residents ...

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 staff promptly consulted with a physician when residents experienced significant changes of condition. This was observed with 3 (R36, R40 and R32) of 12 residents reviewed. * R36 is dependent on staff for fluid and meal intakes. R36 also was on a scheduled diuretic, 20mg of Lasix each day for edema. On 11/10/21, R36 experienced a change in condition. R36 ate only 25% at each meal and took in approximately 120 cc fluid at each meal. Charting on the 24- hour board indicates she was somewhat lethargic. There was no consultation with the physician regarding R36's lethargy, decreased intake and for facility to get direction as to whether they should continue to administer Lasix considering R36's poor intake. The physician indicated staff should have made contact. On 11/11/21, R36 ate only 25% at each meal and took in a total of 489 cc's for all 3 meals combined. On 11/12/21, R36 did not eat supper. On 11/13/21, Resident did not eat breakfast or lunch and ate 25% supper. On 11/14/21, nothing is recorded for intake. The 24-hour board indicated R36 was not herself that she is lethargic and barely opens her eyes. No one consulted with the physician. On 11/15/21, R36 was hospitalized via 911 when staff found her unresponsive. On 11/15/21, R36 admitted into the hospital for severe dehydration that required aggressive fluid resuscitation in the emergency room. R36 was diagnosed with hypovolemic shock and severe dehydration. R36 remained hospitalized until 11/23/21 when she return to the facility. The facility's failure to consult with the physician regarding R36's lethargy, decreased intakes and for failing to get direction as to wether they should continue administering lasix considering R36's poor intake created a finding of immediate jeopardy that began on 11/10/21. Surveyor notified Director of Nursing (DON)-B and [NAME] President (VP)-U of the Immediate Jeopardy on 4/19/22 at 11:00 AM. The immediate jeopardy was removed on 4/19/22 and continues at a scope and severity level of D (potential for more than minimal harm that is not immediate jeopardy, pattern) as the facility continues to implement and monitor the immediate jeopardy removal plan and as evidenced by the following noncompliance; *R40 physician was not notified of resident refusing wound treatments. *R32 physician was not notified regarding a burn wound on their leg. Findings include: The facility's policy and procedures for Physician Notification revised 1/22 was reviewed by Surveyor. The policy identifies immediate notification and non-immediate notification. The Immediate notification column under Infection includes changes in ability to perform activity of daily living; intake of food or fluids; increasing confusion or lethargy. The immediate notification definition is: A physician should be informed and consulted at the time the event occurs (but no later then 1 hour after the condition is identified) directly or via an electronic or telephone system. 1. R36's medical record was reviewed by Surveyor. R36 has an activated POA (Power of Attorney) and requires total assist from staff. R36's Annual MDS (minimum data set) assessment completed 9/10/21 indicates severe cognitive impairment; requires extensive assist of 1 for eating. R36's meal/fluid intake reports were reviewed for November 2021. They indicate the following: -11/7/21 Breakfast 75%/fluids 240 cc; Dinner 50%/fluids 360 cc; Supper 50%/fluids 360 cc -11/8/21 Breakfast 75%/fluids 120 cc; Dinner 50%/fluids 300 cc; Supper 50%/fluids 360 cc. -11/9/21 Breakfast 50%//fluids 120 cc; Dinner 25%/fluids 240 cc; Supper 50%/fluids 290 cc. -11/10/21 Breakfast 25%/fluids 120 cc; Dinner 25%/fluids 120 cc; Supper 25%/fluids 120 cc. -11/11/21 Breakfast 25%/fluids 240 cc; Dinner 25%/fluids 120 cc; Supper 25%/fluids 100 cc. -11/12/21 Breakfast 25%/fluids 240 cc; Dinner 25%/fluids 120 cc; Supper 0%/fluids 120 cc. -11/13/21 Breakfast 0%/fluids 60 cc; Dinner 0%/fluids 100 cc; Supper 25 %/fluids 200 cc. -11/14/21 indicates Hospital (R36 did not go to the hospital until mid morning on 11/15/21) R36 received Lasix 40 mg a day for diuresis. This was administered November 1st up to the 15th when R36 went out to the hospital. The facility's 24 hour report sheets were reviewed for this this time period which reflected; On 11/10/21 AM shift it indicates R36 is somewhat lethargic and vital signs are stable. There is no documentation the physician was consulted with regarding R36's change in condition, with noted lethargy, decreased intake and consultation regarding continued use of R36's diuretic. The night shift documentation up to 11/13/21 AM shift documents R36 is not themselves. There is no documentation the physician was consulted with regarding R36's change in condition, not being themselves, noted lethargy of 11/10/21, decreased intake and consultation regarding R36's diuretic Then the next notation is on 11/14/21 AM shift that indicates R36 is not themselves; doesn't eat well; barely opens their eyes; speech is soft; please evaluate R36. There is no documentation the physician was consulted with regarding R36's change in condition, decreased intake and for consultation regarding R36's diuretic R36 nurses note on 11/15/21 at 11:01 AM indicates R36 had hypertension with change in condition, increase in lethargy, and loss of appetite over the weekend. 911 was called for transport to the emergency room. R36's Hospital note on 11/15/21 indicates an assessment of hypovolemic shock with concern for sepsis. R36 presented to emergency room with lethargy for 2 days. R36 meets the criteria for hypothermia, hypotensive and concern for septic shock. R36 was unresponsive to 3 liters of fluid administered in the emergency room. They will administer an additional 1 liter of fluids. R36 also had a femoral line placed in the emergency room if R36 did not respond to fluid resuscitation and pressors (to raise blood pressure). R36 did start to respond after receiving 4 liters of fluid in the emergency room. R36 was significantly uremic with a BUN (blood urea nitrogen) of 117. Upon further chart review R36 appeared to be more lethargic the past several days with decreased intakes. R36 was transferred to a different hospital for further management. R36 remained in the hospital from [DATE]- 11/23/21. On 04/18/22 at 10:43 AM Surveyor spoke with MD-P (Medical Doctor). MD-P indicated the staff usually call me with changes. If there is no documentation they called me then it was not done. MD-P interventions would be on a patient-to-patient basis. On 04/18/22 at 10:58 AM Surveyor spoke with DON-B regarding changes in condition with intake monitoring. DON B stated they should have contacted the physician with changes. They would follow the COC (Change of Condition) parameters the policy and procedure. The Nurses should be reviewing the fluid/appetite intake on a daily basis and discuss if there is any concerns. The policy directs the process for intakes and when to notify the physician. DON-B has no additional information. The facility's failure to promptly consult with the physician about R36's lethargy and decreased intake and for failing to get direction as to whether they should continue to administer Lasix considering R36's poor intake delayed medical intervention and created a reasonable likelihood for serious harm, thus creating a finding of Immediate Jeopardy. On 4/19/22, the immediate jeopardy was removed when the facility implemented the following; 1. All resident records were reviewed to identify any other residents with a change of condition not previously identified and if found completed notification to MD and implemented interventions. Director of Nursing and MDS coordinator reviewed all nurses' notes and 24- hour reports for the past 7 days to identify any other residents requiring monitoring or MD notification of any change of condition. All resident nutritional assessments will be reviewed or updated. 2. The facility management reviewed the facility Resident Change in Condition and Physician Notification policies. On 4/19/22, the facility DON and MDS Coordinator reviewed the policies and procedures for nutrition and hydration monitoring and change of condition. 3. The facility policy on physician notifications and change of condition policies were reviewed to ensure which information will be communicated to the MD related to changes in change in condition. The facility does use an SBAR (Situation, Background, Assessment, Recommendation) tool to be completed with each change in condition to allow for a thorough and documented assessment and communication between the facility and MD. 4. All facility nurses have been retrained on change of condition and notification policies. Prior to working the next scheduled shift, staff were: * Re-educated on change of condition, fluid and nutrition monitoring policies and process and physician notification policies and parameters. * Educated on resident specific care plans and nurse orders for fluid and nutritional monitoring documentation. * Educated on the specific Care Plan MD notification parameters for these residents including changes in condition. * Educated on change of condition policies and documentation requirements. * All nursing staff and the Interdisciplinary Team were educated on monitoring and reporting of change of condition of all residents. * Management nurses will be educated on monitoring of nurses' documentation of nutrition, hydration and physician notification. 5. The facility will review facility implementation of the plan via the facility QAPI (Quality Assurance Performance Improvement) committee. The survey also identified noncompliance at the level of potential for more than minimal harm that is not immediate jeopardy, as evidenced by the following: 3. R40 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and discharged [DATE]. Diagnoses include hypertension, factitious disorder imposed on self, seizures, personality disorder, nontraumatic subarachnoid hemorrhage, lymphedema, and nondisplaced segmental fracture of shaft of left tibia. The nurses note dated 11/19/21 documents, skin problems: has open lesion(s) present in past 7 days location: abdomen length: 24.0 cm (centimeter), width: 9.0 cm depth 0.2 cm, tissue type 90% granulation tissue 10% slough, drainage heavy exudate serous sang (sanguineous) no odor present action: will continue to monitor and assess weekly general skin condition: skin problems: open area location: left and right lower leg comments: writer attempted to complete tx (treatment) and measure wound when resident refused and requested pain tx be administered prior to BLE (bilateral lower extremity) tx, no c/o (complaint of) pain during abdominal tx, floor nurse notified and tx scheduled to be completed this shift will continue to monitor. The nurses note dated 11/20/21 documents behavior 11/19/21 refused dressing changes to bi-feet; today 11/20/21 refuses again but eventually allowed tx. The nurses note dated 11/21/21 under comments documents writer completed abdominal treatment without incident or c/o pain, resident refused to have bilateral leg dressings completed due to potential pain resident does have scheduled analgesic and PRN (as needed) analgesic every 8 hours. resident stated I do not want anyone else to do my dressing, but a nurse practioner; writer explained to resident that the orders provided does not state it needs to be completed by NP, resident has hx of non compliance with wound care, risk and benefit counseling provided on infection control and importance of adhering to MD (medical doctor) order, no change in decision writer respected resident's wishes and notified the floor nurse and DON (Director of Nursing) of the above, will continue to monitor. The nurses note dated 12/1/21 documents skin problems: open area location: to abdomen and bilateral anterior shins, teaching done: risk and benefit counseling provided to resident in regards to allowing staff nurses to complete wound treatments on scheduled days. resident voiced understanding. comments: will continue to monitor. behavior: resident argumentative with writer in regards MD order for ACE wraps to BLE, resident demanding writer use the 2 step wrap system copy of MD orders for wound care provided to resident and order explained. after multiple attempts to redirect resident was cooperative with the ACE bandage per MD order. will continue to monitor. The nurses note dated 12/6/21 documents offered to do treatments that are ordered for bil-lower legs and abd'l (abdominal) area, but she's been refusing them and also refuses them today. The nurses note dated 12/7/21 documents Continues to refuse dressing changes to wounds despite [NAME] efforts to persuade. Surveyor reviewed R40's November and December 2021 TAR (Treatment Administration Record) and noted: The skin treatment: soak soiled abdominal wound dressing with copious amount of NS (normal saline) and take care in removing, cleanse with Puracyn Plus or wound cleanser leave solution to wound bed, for 3-5 minutes or as long as tolerated, do not wipe off, pat dry with gauze, apply skin sealant to peri wound, apply petroleum impregnated gauze to wound bed, f/b (followed by) calcium alginate with silver over gauze, cover with ABD (abdomen), secure with secure with tape changed every other day. R40 refused the treatment on 11/26, 11/30 is not initiated as being completed, and 12/6 refused. The skin treatment: Cleanse open area to left lower leg with Puracyn Plus or equivalent wound cleanser, leave solution to wound bed, for 3-5 minutes or as long as tolerated, do not wipe off, pat dry with gauze, apply skin sealant to peri wound, apply petroleum infused gauze to wound bed, f/b (followed by) Calcium Alginate AG, cover with ABD, secure with Kerlix, wrap with ace wrap, change every other day. On 11/19, 11/21, 11/23 R40 refused her treatments, 11/24 is not initialed as being completed, 11/26 refused, 11/28 & 11/30 is not initialed as being completed and refused on 12/6. The skin treatment: Cleanse open area to right lower leg with Puracyn Plus or equivalent wound cleanser, leave solution to wound bed, for 3-5 minutes or as long as tolerated, do not wipe off, pat dry with gauze, apply skin sealant to peri wound, apply petroleum infused gauze to wound bed, f/b Calcium Alginate AG, cover with ABD, secure with kerlix, wrap with ace wrap, change every other day. The treatment was not completed on 11/19, 11/21, 11/23, 11/24 is not initialed as being completed, 11/26 refused, 11/28 & 11/30 are not initialed as being completed, not completed on 12/4, & refused 12/6. On 4/18/22 at 9:19 a.m. Surveyor asked MDS (Minimum Data Set)/Wound RN (Registered Nurse)-G when would a Resident's physician be notified of refusals. MDS/Wound RN-G informed Surveyor she would have to check the policy. Surveyor informed MDS/Wound RN-G R40 had multiple treatment refusals and Surveyor was unable to locate when the physician was notified of the refusals. On 4/18/22 at 10:48 a.m. Surveyor spoke with MD (Medical Doctor)-P on the telephone regarding R40. Surveyor informed MD-P R40 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] & discharged on 12/8/21. R40 was admitted with bilateral open areas to her lower extremity and abdominal wound. Surveyor informed MD-P Surveyor had noted multiple refusals and asked MD-P if he was notified of R40's refusals. MD-P stated to be totally honest do not recall. MD-P explained a lot of times he goes in to examine patient and they don't want to see him because they want to go smoke. MD-P informed Surveyor he has 7 jobs and can't deny or confirm he was notified. On 4/18/22 at 11:18 a.m. Surveyor asked MDS/Wound RN-G if she was able to locate when R40's physician was notified of her refusals. MDS/Wound RN-G informed Surveyor she is still looking for the physician's notification. On 4/18/22 at 11:22 a.m. Surveyor informed DON (Director of Nursing)-B of Surveyor's concern regarding R40's physician not being notified of her treatment refusals. DON-B informed Surveyor MDS/Wound RN-G is looking into this. On 4/19/22 at 7:40 a.m. Surveyor asked MDS/Wound RN-G if she was able to find any information when the physician was notified regarding refusal of treatments. MDS/Wound RN-G informed Surveyor they are still looking. On 4/19/22 at 8:08 a.m. Surveyor asked DON-B if she was able to locate when R40's physician was notified of R40's treatment refusals. DON-B replied not exactly sure, I don't think so but let me check with [MDS/Wound RN-G]. DON-B then went to MDS/Wound RN-G's office, returned and stated no. 4. R32 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and the quarterly MDS (Minimum Data Set) dated 1/26/22 indicates R32 has cognitive impairment, is dependent with bed mobility, transfers, locomotion on and off the unit, and has mobility issues with his upper and lower extremities. The nurses note dated 4/10/22 indicate open area on left knee. 1 by 0.5 granulation tissue no drainage or odor. Applied dressing to left knee. The nurses note does not indicate R32's physician and POA (power of attorney) were notified. The MAR (Medication Administration Record) and physician orders indicate no new orders for the open area. The nurses note dated 4/11/22 indicate New area has second or third degree burn (s) .superior to left anterior knee 1.0 cm by 0.5 cm by <0.1 cm UTA (unable to assess) wound bed to 100% dry tan exudate in place. Area circular in shape. resident stated I didn't mean to burn myself. The incident investigation dated 4/11/22 indicate writer discovered area of skin impairment at time of assessment. Other causal factors: resident smokes primarily with daughter. Physician and POA notified. The April 2022 MAR indicates on 4/11/22 an order was obtained to Cleanse open area to left anterior knee with NS (normal saline) pat dry apply skin sealant to periwound apply silvadene ointment to wound bed topical daily f/b (followed by) dry gauze secure with kerlix AM On 4/13/22 at 3:30 p.m. during the daily exit meeting with Director of Nursing (DON) B, Wound Nurse G and Nursing Home Adminstrator (NHA) A, Surveyor asked how did R32 burn himself with a cigarette when R32 is dependent and cognitively impaired. Wound Nurse G stated R32 goes out to smoke with daughter when she visits. Wound Nurse G stated R32's daughter is not sure how the burn happened. R32's POA stated R32 doses off while smoking. On 4/14/22 at 10:02 AM Surveyor interviewed Wound Nurse G. Surveyor asked if R32's physician was notified and orders obtained. Wound Nurse G stated when she came in on 4/11/22 she discovered the cigarette burn and obtained orders for treatment from the physician. Surveyor asked if R32 POA was made aware of R32's burn on 4/10/22 and Wound Nurse G stated R32's POA was made aware of the burn on 4/11/22. On 4/14/22 at 3:30 p.m. during the daily exit meeting with DON B, Wound Nurse G and NHA A, Surveyor explained the concern R32 sustained a cigarette burn on 4/10/22 while he was outside with his daughter and R32's physician and POA were not made aware of it until 4/11/22. A treatment for the burn was not obtained until 4/11/22. As of 4/18/22, Wound Nurse G had no additional information.
CRITICAL (J)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Deficiency F0692 (Tag F0692)

Someone could have died · 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 residents' fluid intakes were assessed or monito...

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 residents' fluid intakes were assessed or monitored. This was observed with 3 (R36, R33 and R31) of 3 residents reviewed for hydration concerns. *R36 is dependent on staff for meal and fluid intakes. R36 was sent out to the hospital via 911 on 11/15/21 for severe dehydration and required aggressive fluid resuscitation. On 11/10/21, R36 started experiencing a change in condition becoming more lethargic with decreased intake. The facility did not involve the dietitian for reassessment of R36's food and fluid intake in order to develop an individualized care plan to ensure hydration. The facility continued giving R36 a Lasix (diuretic) even though R36's fluid intake was less then usual and did not monitor R36's fluid intake. The facility does not have a system to monitor and assess fluid needs and ensure residents receive adequate fluids. *R33 is dependent on staff for meal and fluid intakes, along with supplemental gastronomy tube. R33 was sent to the hospital via 911 on 7/17/21 for severe dehydration and required aggressive fluid resuscitation. The facility does not have a system to monitor and assess fluid needs or to ensure adequate intake. Upon R33's return to the facility on 7/23/21, the hospital discharge summary orders stated if R33 eats less then 70% of their meal, R33 required 1 can of ensure. The facility was not monitoring R33's intake in order to determine if R33 was to receive the 1 can of ensure if consuming less than 70%. The facility's failure to involve the registered dietitian in assessing residents needs and developing individualized plans to ensure proper hydration, its failure to monitor intake for R36 or R33, both of whom are dependent on staff for eating, its failure to ensure each resident received proper nutrition and hydration to ensure hydration and health and its failure to intervene when intake was less then usual created a finding of immediate jeopardy that began on 11/10/21. Surveyor notified DON-B (Director of Nurses) and VP-U (Vice President) of the immediate jeopardy on 4/19/21 at 11:00 AM. The immediate jeopardy was removed on 4/19/22, however, the deficient practice continues at a scope and severity level of D (potential for more than minimal harm that is not immediate jeopardy, isolated) as the facility continues to implement and monitor the immediate jeopardy removal plan and as evidenced by the following noncompliance; * R31's mechanically altered diet care plan includes recording intake every shift. R31's nutritional assessment indicates R31's daily caloric needs is between 2413 to 2815 and total daily fluid intake is 2011 to 2413. The facility is not documenting and monitoring R31's intake every shift, by not consistently completing R31's intakes. R31's last annual dietary assessment was September 2020 and not done annually as indicated by the Registered Dietitian. Findings include: The facility's policy and procedure for Hydration Management dated 12/20 was reviewed by Surveyor. The policy indicates hydration management will be accomplished through an individualized plan to promote adequate hydration based on risk factor identification and assessment and to determine if intake and/or monitoring is indicated. The procedures include the following: -the nurse will complete the Dehydration/Fluid Balance Assessment under the nurse charting tab upon admission, quarterly and with significant changes. -The dietary manager or registered dietician will compare the resident's current monitored intake to their calculated need and make adjustments to food/fluids as necessary. -Fluids will be provided consistently throughout the day: approximately 75-80% at meals, 20-25% delivered during non-meal times The facility's policy and procedure for Intake and/or Output Monitoring dated 5/18 was reviewed by Surveyor. The policy indicates to obtain accurate daily totals of resident fluid intake as indicated. The procedures include: -intake and output is initiated by the Hydration Management policy. -The daily intake is calculated on the night shift. In the event of any 24 hour period a resident has less then 75% of their identified fluid needs consumed, the 24 hour report will be noted for appropriate intervention or follow-up. Nutrition Care Process (NCP) According t the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, the Nutrition Care Process is a systematic method to providing high-quality nutrition care. It was published as part of the Nutrition Care Model. Use of the NCP does not mean that all clients get the same care; the process provides a framework for the RDN (Registered Dietician) to customize care, taking into account the client's needs and values and using the best evidence available to make decisions. Other disciplines in healthcare, including nurses, physical therapists and occupational therapists have adopted care processes specific to their discipline. In 2003, the Academy's House of Delegates adopted the NCP in an effort to provide dietetics and nutrition professionals with a framework for critical thinking and decision-making. Use of the NCP can lead to more efficient and effective care, nutrition research, and greater recognition of the role of nutrition and dietetic professionals in all care settings. The Nutrition Care Process consists of distinct, interrelated steps: * Nutrition Assessment and Reassessment: The RDN collects and documents evidence such as food or nutrition-related history; biochemical data, medical tests and procedures; anthropometric measurements, nutrition-focused physical findings and client history. * Nutrition Diagnosis: Data collected during the nutrition assessment guides the RDN in selection of the appropriate nutrition diagnosis(es) (i.e., naming specific problems) terms. * Nutrition Intervention: The RDN then selects the nutrition intervention(s) that will be directed to the root cause (or etiology) of the nutrition problem(s) and/or aimed at alleviating the signs and symptoms of each diagnosis. * Nutrition Monitoring/Evaluation: The final step of the process is monitoring and evaluation, which the RDN uses to determine if the client has achieved, or is making progress toward, the planned goals. 1. On 04/11/22 at 10:16 AM Surveyor observed R36 in bed awake. There was no water next to the bed or in R36's room. R36 indicated they wanted water. On 04/11/22 at 01:32 PM Surveyor observed R36 in bed. There was no water visible near the bed. R36's medical record was reviewed by Surveyor. R36's Annual MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment, dated 9/10/21, indicates a BIMS (brief interview of mental status) of 2 indicating severe cognitive impairment; eating is an extensive assist of 1 staff. The Quarterly MDS assessment completed on 3/15/22 indicates a 0 for BIMS (severely impaired); eats with supervision; impairment of bilateral lower extremities; 2 staff for bed mobility. R36 had a hospital stay from 11/15/21 to 11/23/21; per the nurses note on 11/17/21 R36 was sent out to hospital on [DATE] at 11:00 AM. R36 transferred (to the hospital) due to high blood pressure, lethargy and loss of appetite over the weekend. MD (Medical Doctor) and POA (Power of Attorney) aware of transfer. This was a 911 call. Resident returned to the facility on [DATE]. R36's Hospital note on 11/15/21 indicates an assessment of hypovolemic shock with concern for sepsis. R36 presented to emergency room with lethargy for 2 days. R36 meets the criteria for hypothermia, hypotension and concern for septic shock. R36 was unresponsive to 3 liters of fluid administered in the emergency room. They will administer an additional 1 liter of fluids. R33 also had a femoral line placed in the emergency room if R36 did not respond to fluid resuscitation and pressors (to raise blood pressure). R36 did start to respond after receiving 4 liters of fluid in the emergency room. R36 was significantly uremic with a BUN (blood urea nitrogen) of 117. Upon further chart review R36 appeared to be more lethargic the past several days with decreased intakes. R36 was transferred to a different hospital for further management. R36 remained in the hospital from [DATE]- 11/23/21. R36 nutritional note on 11/23/21 indicates R36 was reviewed for weight gain. The nutritional note does not address fluid status. The previous note is a review from 8/17/21, which does not address fluid needs and did not contain any calculated fluid in the last 2 years. The last assessment dated [DATE] documents R36 needs 2613 ML fluid needs a day. There is no other comprehensive assessment after 10/10/2019 regarding R36's individualized fluid needs. R36' meal/fluid intake reports were reviewed for November 2021. They indicate the following: -11/07/21 Breakfast 75%/fluids 240 cc; Dinner 50 %/fluids 360 cc; Supper 50%/fluids 360 cc -11/08/21 Breakfast 75%/fluids 120 cc; Dinner 50%/fluids 300 cc; Supper 50%/fluids 360 cc. -11/09/21 Breakfast 50%//fluids 120 cc; Dinner 25%/240 cc; Supper 50%/fluids 290 cc. -11/10/21 Breakfast 25%/fluids 120 cc; Dinner 25%/fluids 120 cc; Supper 25%/fluids 120 cc. -11/11/21 Breakfast 25%/fluids 240 cc; Dinner 25%/fluids 120 cc; Supper 25%/fluids 100 cc. -11/12/21 Breakfast 25%/fluids 240 cc; Dinner 25%/fluids 120 cc; Supper 0%/fluids 120 cc. -11/13/21 Breakfast 0%/fluids 60 cc; Dinner 0%/fluids 100 cc; Supper 25 %/fluids 200 cc. -11/14/21 indicates Hospital (R36 did not go to the hospital until mid morning on 11/15/21). There is no current assessed fluid need, thus no way of knowing if fluid intake is meeting R36's need and, if not, how much fluid intake is below assessed need. If R36 still needed 2613 ml fluid each day, fluid intake was 63-86% less than need per day from 11/07 to 11/14/21. R36 weights were recorded as: -09/09/21 190# -10/26/21 202# -11/09/21 230# -11/23/21 233# -12/16/21 199# -12/20/21 199# R36's medical record does not indicate the physician, or the RD, was called with change in intakes. R36 received Lasix 40 mg daily for diuresis from November 1 through November 15, 2022. R36 receieved the Lasix, scheduled diuretic for edema that was administered when fluid intake was minimal. There is no documentation that the RD was notified about R36's low intake and diuretic use. There is no a RD assessment that incorporates medications that could lead to risks of dehydration. R36's medical record does not contain any comprehensive fluid assessment after, or before, 11/15/21 hospital stay for dehydration other than the 10/10/2019 assessment documenting R needed 2613 ML fluids per day, with no indication of R36's fluids being monitored. On 04/18/22 at 12:23 PM Surveyor observed R36 in bed with meal tray set-up in R36's room. R36 has 1 glass of water (6 ounce cup), mashed potatoes, chopped chicken creamed corn and sherbet. R36 was attempting to eat their sherbert with a spoon, however R36 does not have use of their other hand to hold items in place. R36 was scooting the sherbet cup around the meal tray. R36 had a large mug of water on the nightstand and not in reach. Surveyor noted R36 cannot pick up an item to drink on their own. On 04/18/22 at 01:21 PM spoke with DM-K regarding meal tickets. R36' meal ticket shows water as the only beverage for lunch and dinner. DM-K stated they provide preference at meals of juice. DM-K talks with staff regarding if a resident refuses a certain beverage they will not put it on their tray. They have Milk, juice, coffee and water. The meal ticket indicates just the beverage and no amount of fluid. DM-K reported there is no way to put fluid ounces on ticket. DM-K stated residents drink all day long. DM-K stated for meal service we just give them these amounts: Breakfast 240 cc; 160 cc lunch and 240 cc for dinner. Between breakfast and lunch we send out a large mug of 500 cc of ice water. Have never done fluid ounces for meals. DM-K stated she does not know each resident's daily fluid needs. Surveyor noted DM-K does not incorporate an individuals fluid needs on the meal ticket to ensure adequate amounts of fluid are provided. On 04/18/22 at 3:08 PM at the Exit meeting with DON-B and VP-U Surveyor shared concerns with fluid monitoring and assessed daily fluid needs. 2. On 04/11/22 at 09:42 AM Surveyor observed R33 in their room. R33 had a covered cup with straw with water on a overbed table in front of them. On 04/11/22 at 12:03 PM Surveyor observed R33 in a Broda chair in their room eating a pureed diet independently with the same covered cup and straw. On 04/18/22 at 09:05 AM Surveyor observed R33 up in a Broda chair in the lounge area on unit. R33 had a bowl of possibly hot cereal in front of them and a large beverage cup with a lid and straw. R33 was not eating or drinking at this time. R33's medical record was reviewed by Surveyor. R33 has a facility acquired stage 4 pressure injury and receives tube feeding based on appetite consumption. R33 has an activated POA (Power of Attorney) and is dependent on staff for ADL's (activity of daily living). R33 is a full code status. R33's medical record included a hospital visit from 7/17/21 - 7/23/21. The Hospital Discharge Summary indicates R33 had Dehydration with acute kidney injury with elevated creatnine and was treated with fluid hydration as per shock protocol. R33 has suspected shock upon admission and treatment for shock was given and electrolyte abnormality. The hospital course indicates R33 was admitted from the facility severely dehydrated from reduced oral intake with an elevated creatinine. R33 was hypotensive and received fluid boluses. R33 had severe sepsis with septic shock. R33 was also diagnosed with a severe right renal hydroureteronephrosis secondary to a 8 mm calculus. R33 was also anemic. The Discharge orders include if R33 eats less then 70% of their meal they require 1 can of ensure; flushes of 150 cc 4 times a day through PEG (percutaneous endoscopic gastronomy) tube regardless. The Hospital History and Physical from 7/17/21 indicates R33 presented to the emergency room with altered mental status and largely non-verbal (has aphasia) so can nod. The Assessment includes severe sepsis with septic shock with a treatment to continue aggressive fluid resuscitation. The nursing home staff noted R33 to be less alert and hypotensive. The EMS (emergency medical service) reported on arrival to the facility R33 was somnolent, protecting their airway and hypotensive. R33 received 700 ml bolus prior to arrival at the emergency room from EMS. R33's fluid intake for meals in June and July 2021 were blank. The April 2022 intake only has the 1st and 2nd day fully documented. The rest of the days did not have 24 hour documented intakes. There is no documentation to indicate R33's daily fluid needs. April 1st and 2nd indicates 340 cc total for all 3 meal times a day. On 7/23/21 there is an MD order after R33's hospital stay. The order indicates to flush the gastronomy tube with 150 ml of water 4 times a day; and if R33 eats over 75% to hold Osmolite 1.5 355 ML feeding 3 times a day. The Medical record did not contain any meal intakes, fluid flushes or fluid intakes for July 2021. There was no documentation that resident's intake was being assessed to determine intake needs prior to hospitalization. There is no physician notification due to no ongoing monitoring of R33's intakes to identify a change before becoming severely dehydrated. On 04/18/22 at 10:07 AM Surveyor spoke with RD-Q (Registered Dietician) who indicated a comprehensive nutritional assessment is completed annually and on admission. These are kept in the yellow department notes in the electronic record. RD-Q indicated staff will let me know if someone isn't eating/drinking. The nurses look at the intake reports, if RD-Q was told of a concern they would do a full evaluation. RD-Q indicated they would want to be aware of concerns to monitor weight with extra fluids. RD-Q indicated they were not made aware of concerns if there is no assessment note. RD-Q is not made aware of resident hospital stays and indicated it would be nice if they were made aware. R33's medical record did not contain a comprehensive nutritional assessment related to dehydration. R33's weight documentation indicated: -6/17/21 172# -6/22/21 174# -7/06/21 188# -8/04/21 166# -9/23/21 is 168#/166# On 04/18/22 at 10:37 AM, Surveyor spoke with DM-K (Dietary Manager) who reported the RD does all the assessment. On 04/18/22 at 10:43 AM, Surveyor spoke with MD-P (Medical Doctor) who stated staff usually call me with changes, If there is no documentation they called me then it was not done. MD-P's interventions would be on a patient to patient basis. On 04/18/22 at 10:58 AM, Surveyor spoke with DON (Director of Nursing)-B regarding changes in condition with intake monitoring who stated they should have contacted the physician with changes. They would follow the COC (Change of Condition) parameters the policy and procedure. The Nurses should be reviewing the fluid/appetite intake on a daily basis and discuss if there is any concerns. The policy directs the process for intakes and when to notify the physician. DON-B has no additional information. On 04/18/22 at 12:14 PM Surveyor spoke with LPN-R (Licensed Practical Nurse) who indicated if there is a reason to look at intakes they do. They usually are monitored with new admission residents. The 3rd floor Intake Binder with intake forms were reviewed. All the resident intake sheets are blank for April 8 -11 and the fluid intakes are not calculated. On 04/18/22 at 12:18 PM Surveyor spoke with CNA-S (Certified Nursing Assistant)who reported they will put in intakes on certain people and not everyone. CNA-S did not elaborate on who was on intakes. They will let the nurse know if someone doesn't have any intake. On 04/18/22 at 12:22 PM Surveyor spoke with CNA-T who reported they document all their resident's intake and lets the Nurse know if someone refuses. On 04/18/22 at 01:21 PM Surveyor spoke with DM-K regarding meal tickets. DM-K stated they provide preference at meals of juice. DM-K talks with staff regarding if a resident refuses a certain beverage they will not put it on their tray. They have milk, juice, coffee and water. Meal tickets indicate just the beverage and no amount of fluid. DM-K stated there is no way to put fluid ounces on ticket. DM-K reported residents drink all day long. MD-K stated for meal service we just give them these amounts: Breakfast 240 cc; 160 cc lunch and 240 cc for dinner. Between breakfast and lunch we send out a large mug of 500 cc of ice water. DM-K stated she has never calculated fluid ounces for meals. DM -K does not know an individuals daily fluid needs. and does not incorporate the fluid needs on the meal ticket. On 04/18/22 at 3:08 PM at the Exit meeting with DON-B and VP-U Surveyor shared concerns with fluid monitoring and assessed daily fluid needs. The facility's failure to involve the registered dietitian in assessing the resident's needs and developing individualized plans to ensure proper hydration, its failure to monitor and assess intake and its failure to ensure each resident received proper nutrition and hydration created a reasonable likelihood for serious harm occurring (both residents were hospitalized via 911 with severe dehydration), thus leading to a finding of immediate jeopardy. On 4/19/22, the immediate jeopardy was removed what the facility implemented the following; * On 4/19/22 the contracted Registered Dietitian calculated fluid needs for residents R36 and R33. * A comprehensive nutritional assessment identifying individual parameters of nutritional status has been completed for R36 and R33. * Both residents' medication administration sheets were updated to include total daily fluid needs to ensure ongoing monitoring. * Care plans have been updated with nutritional interventions and meal consumption records implemented. * All Interdisciplinary Team members and nurses have or will be educated before their next worked shift on the interventions and the monitoring required. * The facility Registered Dietitian was re-educated on Policy and Procedure for completion of a comprehensive nutritional assessment on 4-19-22. * The facility has reviewed all other resident records to ensure completion of a comprehensive nutritional assessment on all residents and will identify residents that are nutritionally at risk and at risk for dehydration and updated care plans. * The facility has implemented the procedures to monitor food and fluid intake for residents found to be at nutritional risk and risk for dehydration. * The facility will summarize food and fluid intake for residents when found to be at risk, notify MD and implement interventions. * The facility has identified individual resident nutritional preferences and nutritional requirements that need to be provided at each meal. * The facility will review the facility implementation of the plan via the facility Quality Assurance Performance Improvement committee. The survey also identified noncompliance at the level of potential for more than minimal harm that is not immediate jeopardy, as evidenced by the following; 3. R31 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that include end stage renal disease, anoxic brain damage, hypertension and diabetes mellitus. The quarterly MDS (Minimum Data Set) with an assessment reference date of 1/26/22 documents a BIMS (brief interview mental status) score of 5 which indicates severe impairment. R31 is coded as requiring extensive assistance with one person physical assist for eating. The need for mechanically altered diet care plan dated 12/7/2018 includes an approach dated 2/27/19 of Nurse Aide--Record intake every shift. Feed all meals Elevate head of bed Explain foods served. dietary supplement per MD (Medical Doctor) order. weekly weights., 5/22/19 of Nurse Aide--Record intake every shift Feed all meals Elevate head of bed Explain foods served. weekly weight. and 9/11/19 of Nurse Aide-- Record intake every shift Feed all meals Elevate head of bed Explain foods served. On 4/18/22 Surveyor reviewed R31's nutritional assessment and noted the last annual nutritional assessment is dated 9/8/20. Total calories are documented as 2413-2815 kcal (kilocalorie)/day based on 30-35kcal/kg (kilogram) CBW (current body weight), total protein 104--120 gPro/day (gram protein per day) based on 2.3-1.5 gPro/KG CBS and total fluids 2011-2413 ml/day (milliliters per day) based on 25-30 ml/kg CBW Under comments documents [resident] due for his annual review. Spoke with dietitian at dialysis for collaboration of care. Diet is Mechanical soft, double protein; Regular diet OK with family. Recent death of significant other and decrease in appetite. Overall intakes are still fair. Receives Novasource (strawberry) 250 ml q (every) dialysis treatment and enjoys this and drinks it well . On 4/18/22 at 12:12 p.m. Surveyor asked CNA (Certified Nursing Assistant)-I if they record the amount of fluids Residents consume. CNA-I replied certain ones we do. Surveyor asked CNA-I how she is aware which Residents need to have their fluids monitored. CNA-I informed Surveyor if therapy or the nurse lets them know and thinks R31 is the only one. CNA-I then showed Surveyor the appetite book. On 4/18/22 at 12:14 p.m. Surveyor reviewed R31's April 2022 intake record and noted the following: Breakfast fluids 4/1 leave of absence, 4/2 240 cc (cubic centimeters), 4/3 to 4/10 are blank, 4/11 360cc, and 4/12 to 4/17 are blank. Dinner (lunch) fluids 4/1 leave of absence, 4/2 240 cc, 4/3 to 4/10 are blank, 4/11 OOP (out on pass) and 4/12 to 4/17 are blank. Supper fluids 4/1 240 cc, 4/2 240 cc, 4/3 is blank, 4/4 240 cc, 4/5 120 cc, 4/6 240 cc, 4/7 240 cc, 4/8 240 cc, 4/9 240 cc, 4/10 & 4/11 are blank, 4/12 240 cc, 4/13 & 4/14 R (refused), 4/15 240 cc, and 4/16 & 4/17 are blank. On 4/19/22 at 8:16 a.m. Surveyor spoke with RD (Registered Dietitian)-Q and inquired when does she complete nutritional assessments to determine a Resident's fluid and caloric intake. RD-Q informed Surveyor they should be done annually when the Resident has an annual MDS. Surveyor inquired about R31's fluid requirements. RD-Q informed Surveyor R31 receives dialysis and the dialysis center will let her know about fluids, his dry weight is a good indicator of whether R31 would need to be placed on a fluid restriction which he has not had to be placed on. RD-Q informed Surveyor she usually speaks to dialysis about once a quarter at least and then informed Surveyor she spoke with dialysis on 3/24/22, 2/25/22, 1/13/22, & 12/16/21, then stated usually once a month. Surveyor asked RD-Q when the last time an annual assessment was completed to determine R31's fluid needs. RD-Q replied September 2020 was the last annual assessment. Surveyor asked RD-Q if she reviews the Resident intake binder as Surveyor had noted multiple days when R31's fluids were not recorded. RD-Q informed Surveyor she rely's on staff to let her know as Surveyor had mentioned there are holes. RD-Q informed Surveyor the nurses review the intake and she speaks to the nurses and CNAs to see if there is anyone with decreased intake they want her to take a peek at. RD-Q stated that's how I know who is high risk. On 4/18/22 at 3:10 p.m. VP (Vice President)-U, DON (Director of Nursing)-B and MDS/Wound RN (Registered Nurse)-G were informed of the above.
SERIOUS (G)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

A resident was harmed · 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 ensure the prevention, and healing of pressure injuries....

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 ensure the prevention, and healing of pressure injuries. This was discovered in 2 (R33 and R2) of 3 residents reviewed with pressure injuries. * R33 developed a fissure above the sacrum on 3/24/21. There was no further assessment of this area until 4/22 and 4/29/21. On 5/13/21, the fissure became larger and the MD was contacted for new treatment. On 6/10/21 the assessment indicated slough in fissure. On 7/17/21, R33 was admitted to the hospital where it was noted upon admission, R33 had a stage 3 pressure injury on the sacrum. The facility had not identified the fissure as a stage 3 pressure injury. Upon readmission from the hospital on 7/23/22, the facility did not notify the physician of the hospital discharge wound treatment recommendations for the use of 2 X 2 with Dakins, cover with wet to dry keep frequently turned. The facility continued to use the treatment to apply Santyl ointment until 7/29/21. There was no wound assessment of R33's stage 3 pressure injury upon readmission on [DATE], even though the hospital identified R33 as having a stage 3 pressure injury. On 10/4/21, the sacrum pressure injury was noted to be larger and deeper and on 10/7/21 the pressure injury was noted to have declined with tunneling. There was no MD consultation or change in R33's care plan with the deterioration of the wound. On 10/14/21 slough was noted in the wound with no MD consultation. On 10/27/21, the MD progress note indicated the wound is declining, encourage nutrition and continue with wound specialist. On 10/28/21, the pressure injury assessment indicated the area was noted to be a stage 4, with no MD consultation, no notification of the POA and no care plan revisions. The physician did not see R33's pressure injury. On 4/13/22, during a dressing change surveyor noted no date on the dressing. R33's care plan was not revised timely as the wound deteriorated. On 4/18/22, R33 was observed seated on a gel cushion when according to RN-G R33 is not to have a cushion with the Broda chair. Additionally RN-G indicated the removal of heel boots from R33's care plan. * R2 is a risk for pressure injuries. A weekly wound assessment for 3/31/22 indicates R2 had a suspected deep tissue injury to the left lateral foot. This weekly wound assessment for 3/31/22 was conducted 6 days after the podiatrist discovered the area on 3/25/22. On 4/12, 4/13 and 4/14/22, Surveyor observed R2 in bed with heels resting directly on the mattress. The facility did not implement the floating of R2's heels prior to the development of the suspected deep tissue injury. Findings include: The facility's policy and procedure for Skin Care Management dated 8/21 was reviewed by Surveyor. The policy indicates to provide skin care to residents that include assessment, prevention of skin breakdown, and management of pressure injury and other skin integrity concerns. The procedures include: A skin and body assessment form will be completed with admission; readmission; significant change in condition; acuity and alterations in skin. 1. On 04/11/22 at 09:43 AM Surveyor observed R33 sitting in a Broda chair in their room. R33 has gripper socks on with pillow under feet. R33 has a seat cushion in the Broda chair. On 4/11/22 at 12:15 PM Surveyor observed R33 eating their pureed lunch in their room. R33 was sitting in a Broda chair and had a seat cushion. On 04/13/22 at 08:03 AM Surveyor observed R33 in bed watching T.V. There was an air mattress on the bed. R33 was laying on their back. R33's medical record was reviewed as R33 had developed a facility acquired stage 4 pressure injury on the sacrum. R33 has a plan of care for skin impairment starting on 10/15/19. The identified concerns with correlating interventions; On 11/1/19 the interventions are; To use a lift sheet, Reposition every 2 hours, Float heels off bed. On 12/9/2020 R33 was identified as having a stage 2 ulcer to coccyx and ulcer to right heel with no corresponding revisions to the care plan. On 2/25/21 the interventions indicate to ensure the Convertible Alternating pressure mattress is on; Broda chair; elevate heels; prevalon boots to feet at all times. R33's Quarterly MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment completed 6/13/21 indicates at risk for pressure injury and no current pressure injuries. R33 requires total assist from staff for bed mobility/positioning. The Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) documented 00 indicating R33 was not able to complete the interview. The Quarterly MDS assessment completed on 9/10/21 indicates 1 stage 3 pressure injury and total assist from staff for bed mobility/ positioning. R33 has an activated POA (Power of Attorney) for healthcare. The Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) documented 00 indicating R33 was not able to complete the interview. The wound assessments were reviewed. A Wound/Skin assessments dated 3/24/21 indicates fissure above sacrum reopened, MD (Medical Doctor) and POA updated. measured 2 cm (centimeter) x 0.5 cm depth 0.1 cm 25% epithelial tissue. The fissure sacrum wound was not assessed again for 3 weeks, it was not assessed the week of 3/27- 4/2/22, 4/3-4/9, and 4/10-4/16/22. There were no care plan revisions when the fissure reopened. The fissure above the sacrum was not assessed again until 4/22/21 and on 4/29/21. The 4/29/21 assessment documents 0.9 cm by 0.2 cm with a depth of 0.2 cm and 100% epithelial cells. On 5/13/21 an assessment indicated the fissure became larger measuring 1.5 cm by 2.8 cm by 0.1 cm importance of offloading and MD was called for new treatment. The new treatment was for foam dressing to be changed daily rather than every 3 days. On 5/27/21 the care plan identified fissure to sacrum; blister to left anterior foot; reddened areas and pressure ulcers. There are no care planned interventions that correlate with this date. On 6/10/21 an assessment indicated slough in fissure started. On 6/17/21 the Fissure continues to the superior sacrum. On 7/4/21 a care planned intervention of a cushion in the Broda chair was added. R33 had a hospital visit from 7/17/21 - 7/23/21 for an unresponsive episode. R33 received fluids and had a stage 3 pressure injury on the sacrum. The Hospital Discharge Summary on 7/23/21 indicates cleanse sacral wound 2 x 2 with Dakin's and cover with wet to dry keep frequently turned. Upon readmission into the facility on 7/23/21, the Nurses Notes do not indicate the MD was notified of the hospital discharge wound treatment recommendations. The facility continued using the previous treatment until 7/29/21. There was no wound assessment upon readmission into the facility on 7/23/21. On 7/29/21, the facility's wound assessment indicates the fissure evolved to a stage 3 pressure injury. The change in the wound assessment to a stage 3 pressure injury correlates with a hospital stay (7/17-7/23/21). The hospital documents a stage 3 pressure injury upon admission into the hospital on 7/17/21. Surveyor noted R33's pressure injury was not assessed appropriately from a fissure that was actually a pressure injury. Upon return from the hospital stay on 7/23/21, R33 had a stage 3 pressure injury to the sacrum. The hospital discharge instructions had a treatment order. This treatment order was not relayed to the physician at the facility upon readmission on [DATE]. R33 did not have a wound assessment upon return from the hospital. The Treatment Administration Record for July 2021 has a MD order starting on 7/1/2021. This order indicates to clean fissure to buttocks with normal saline, pat dry, apply skin sealant peri-wound, apply Santyl ointment topically nickel thick to wound bed, cover with foam dressing daily until healed. This was documented as being administered, except during the hospital stay, until discontinued on 7/29/21. A new treatment order started on 7/29/21 to cleanse open area to sacrum with normal saline, pat dry, apply skin sealant to peri-wound, apply Santyl ointment topically nickel thick to wound bed only, cover with foam dressing daily. This was administered and then discontinued on 9/3/21. On 8/10/21 there is a care plan intervention to limit time up to 60 minutes during meals. Wound/Skin assessments with changes from a stage 3 to a stage 4 pressure injury were noted on the following: On 10/4/21 the wound/skin assessment indicated sacrum pressure injury is a stage 3 measuring 3.0 cm by 1.5 cm by 1.5 cm wound worse becoming larger and deeper. On 10/7/21 the wound/skin assessment indicated pressure injury declined with tunneling noted. There is no correlation with MD notification or change in plan of care. On 10/13/21 the care plan identified fissure has evolved into a pressure injury to the sacrum. On 10/13/21 an intervention of a protein supplement was added. On 10/14/21 the wound/skin assessment indicated slough in wound, no MD notification The MD progress note dated 10/27/21 indicates wound declining. Encourage nutrition and continue with wound specialist. There is an MD order for a nutritional supplement twice a day for wound healing. The MD progress note indicate stage 3 afterwards. On 10/28/21 the sacrum progressed to a stage 4 pressure injury from a stage 3 pressure injury. The medical record does not contain any care planned intervention revisions, MD or POA notifications when on 10/28/21, the wound declined to a stage 4 pressure injury. On 2/8/22 the care plan identified a fissure evolved into a pressure injury to the sacrum. On 2/11/22 an intervention of a nutritional supplement was added. On 4/12/22 the care plan identified a chronic stage 4 pressure injury to sacrum. There is no updated intervention. On 4/12/22 the care plan identified non-compliance with repositioning at times; dependent on staff for repositioning; incontinent of bowel and bladder. There are no updated interventions. On 4/13/22 at 2:02 PM RN-G provided Surveyor with the CNA (Certified Nursing Assistant) plan of care. The plan of care indicates the following for Skin Care: CCC mattress with pump. Broda chair. Float heels off bed. Offloading boots to be worn in chair. Reposition every 2 hours and as needed. Avoid direct pressure to sacrum as much as possible using slip sheet. Encourage R33 to keep the maximum amount of time in their chair to 60 minutes during meals to promote healing. For Toileting R33 is a check and change every 2 hours for incontinence of bowel and bladder. R33 is a 2 person Hoyer lift for transfers. On 04/13/22 at 01:25 PM Surveyor spoke with RN-G (Registered Nurse). RN-G indicated [R33] has declined overall in nutrition and physical activity which has contributed to the pressure injury RN-G reported [R33] does not have pain with treatment to the pressure injury. RN-G does not know why there is a cushion in the Broda chair. The Broda chair has its own pressure relief. Surveyor observed R33's pressure injury at this time with RN-G. RN-G removed the dressing from the sacrum. There was no date on the dressing. RN-G indicated they have talked with MD-P about nutrition and possible bladder catheter. RN-G indicated R33 has not had any infection in the wound. R33 has barrier cream placed around the surrounding skin. Surveyor observed the surrounding skin to appear macerated and R33 is incontinent of bladder. R33's pressure injury has not been assessed /visualized by any physician or nurse practitioner since their hospital stay from 7/17-7/23/21. RN-G indicated this area started as a fissure (the fissure was not assessed accurately as a pressure injury) and has been in communication with R33's POA . The POA indicated they want R33 managed here in the facility. R33 has limited mobility and there are struggles with moving R33 for transportation. R33's stage 4 pressure injury has no odor or drainage. During the observation of treatment, RN-G applied Santyl with a q-tip to the wound bed, followed by calcium alginate. RN-G then covered the area with a foam dressing. RN-G could not find barrier cream in the room and indicated they will find some later. RN-G indicated R33 uses a heel manager and does not wear pressure relief boots. RN-G indicated they will verify why there was a seat cushion. RN-G indicated R33 does not like to be on positioned on their side. On 04/13/22 at 02:02 PM, RN-G spoke with Surveyor who stated [R33] is not supposed to have a cushion in the Broda chair. RN-G indicated they will remove the cushion. RN-G also stated they will remove the (2/25/21) heel boots from the care plan. RN-G stated [R33] should be using the heel manager or off-loaded device. RN-G stated she would look for when the pressure injury changed to a stage 4 pressure injury and what revisions were made (to the care plan). RN-G will find out more information related to wound changes and interventions. On 4/13/22 at 3:20 PM, Surveyor shared R33's wound concerns with Administration at the facility exit meeting. On 04/14/22 at 02:29 PM Surveyor spoke with RN-G. RN-G indicated on 10/13/21 (she), spoke with Wound NP (Nurse Practitioner) about worsening of the wound, vitamins and nutritional supplements. (There is no documentation of this discussion.) RN-G indicated the plan of care was revised to avoid pressure to sacrum; monitor intakes; encourage to be up un chair for just 60 minutes for mealtimes; protein and nutritional supplement. On 04/14/22 at 10:37 AM, RN-G told Surveyor they did communicate to MD-P the stage 4 change. However, the conversation is not documented reflecting any changes in the plan of care. On 4/14/22 at 3:30 PM Surveyor shared the concerns with R33's wound with Administration at the facility exit meeting. On 04/14/22 at 03:46 PM Surveyor spoke with MD-P who reported they did not see the wound and does not recall if they knew resident had a stage 4 (pressure injury). MD-P's progress notes do not indicate a stage 4 pressure injury. MD-P did not see the pressure injury. There is an MD order on 10/26/21 to switch the nutritional supplement from Prosource to Arginaid, twice a day for wound healing. The MD progress note dated 10/27/21 indicates wound declining. Encourage nutrition and continue with wound specialist. Surveyor observed there was no indication in the record that R33 was being seen by a wound specialist. The wound assessment indicates on 10/28/21 the sacrum progressed to a stage 4 pressure injury from a stage 3 pressure injury. The medical record does not contain any intervention revisions, MD or POA notifications when wound deteriorated to a stage 4 pressure injury on 10/28/21 On 04/18/22 at 09:05 AM Surveyor observed R33 up in a Broda chair with a gel cushion on the seat. R33 also has a Hoyer sling behind R33's back while R33 was seated on the gel cushion. R33 was in the lounge area on unit. On 04/18/22 11:09 AM Surveyor spoke with DON-B (Director of Nurses) regarding R33 seat cushion in the Broda chair, R33's pressure injury concerns with the change of wound, and no care plan revisions/interventions with changes identified through the assessment. DON-B indicated the weekly wound assessments get reviewed by Corporate for interventions. The gel cushion information was provided to Surveyor. The gel cushion manufacturer indicates it is designed for users at moderate RISK for skin breakdown. On 04/18/22 at 03:27 PM, RN-G stated there should be no gel cushion in the Broda. RN-G reported the (pressure injury) area was originally assessed as a fissure. RN-G continued calling it a fissure. On 4/19/22 at 9:00 AM RN-G provided Surveyor with a fax to MD-P. The fax was dated 4/19/22 at 8:30 AM and requests a wound consult and a Foley catheter for bladder. This was just sent and no response noted from MD-P at this time. 2. R2's diagnoses includes Diabetes Mellitus, Atrial Fibrillation, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Hypertension, sleep apnea, and morbid obesity. The CNA (Certified Nursing Assistant) Assignment Sheet not dated under skin care includes Float feet off of bed with heel manager or equivalent device every shift. and DTPI (deep tissue pressure injury) to left lateral foot. The Impairment of skin integrity care plan dated 2/6/20 has the following approaches: * Assess skin condition daily and note any changes, Treat as ordered, Keep clean and dry, apply tubigrips per MD (medical doctor) order, monitor feet daily notify MD of any changes dated 2/6/20. * Assist with hygiene and general skin care, Reposition every two hours, and PRN (as needed) remove tubigrips at HS (hour sleep), elevate legs whenever possible Keep skin clean and dry, Use lift sheet when moving resident in bed dated 2/6/20 & 4/9/21. * Provide ordered diet, Offer replacement food, Determine food likes dated 2/6/20. * 1:1 visits, Encourage activity participation dated 2/6/20. * P.T. (physical therapy) Evaluate, Treat as indicated 2/6/20. * O.T (occupational therapy) Evaluate, Treat as indicated 2/6/20. * S.T. (speech therapy) Evaluate, Treat as indicated 2/6/20. * Assess skin condition daily and note any changes, Treat as ordered, Keep clean and dry, apply tubigrips per MD order, monitor feet daily notify MD of any changes skin assessment weekly due to at risk for skin breakdown due to immobility, diabetes, PVD (peripheral vascular disease), HX (history of) cellulitis Braden scale completed every quarter dated 4/9/21. * Complete tx (treatment) per MD order dated 9/17/21. * Encourage [Resident's first name] to wear shoes when in his w/c (wheelchair) dated 12/1/21 * Administer oral ABT (antibiotics) per MD order dated 2/4/22. * Encourage [Resident's first name] to elevate BLE (bilateral lower extremity) while in bed, assist in trimming finger nails on shower days and PRN dated 2/4/22. * Assist with hygiene and general skin care, Reposition every two hours, and PRN float heels off of bed, tubigrips at HS, elevate legs whenever possible Keep skin clean and dry, Use lift sheet when moving resident in bed dated 3/8/22. * Report shower refusals to nurse promptly dated 3/8/22. * Tubi grips on in am (morning) off at HS, encourage [Resident's first name] to elevate his BLE while in bed dated 4/1/22. * Complete tx per MD order, update MD of any s/s (sign/symptoms) of infection dated 4/1/22. * Float feet off of bed with heel manager or equivalent device every shift NOC (night) AM (day) PM (evening) dated 4/1/22. * Encourage to reposition every 2 hours and PRN, report refusals to nurse dated 4/12/22. The annual MDS (Minimum Data Set) with an assessment reference date of 12/28/21 documents a BIMS (brief interview mental status) score of 15 which indicates cognitively intact. R2 requires extensive assistance with two plus person physical assist for bed mobility & transfer, does not ambulate and is dependent with two plus person physical assist for toilet use. R2 is occasionally incontinent of urine and bowel. R2 is at risk for pressure injuries and is coded as not having any pressure injuries. The podiatry consult dated 3/25/22 under progress notes documents He states feet are mostly numb. Noticed a blood blister still full of blood lateral left foot I told his nurse to monitor, The weekly wound assessment dated [DATE], late entry for 3/31/22 documents Foot problem/care: **NEW AREA** Has 1+ foot problem eg. corn, callous, bunion, hammer toe, overlapping toe, pain structural problem. Suspected Deep Tissue Injury: Appearance of blood-filled blister, intact skin, Location: left lateral foot. Length: 0.5 cm (centimeters), Width: 0.5 cm, Depth <(less than) 0.1 cm, Drainage: none present clean and dry No odor present, Surrounding Tissue: edema +3, Healing process: new area discovered during podiatry visit per nurse interview, Teaching done: importance of floating feet off of bed, Skin Treatment: Receives turning/repositioning program. float heels off of bed with heel manager or equivalent. Receives application of dressings (with or without topical medications) other than to feet. Procedure done: area cleaned examined measured area off loaded from bed. Action: tx order pending. Surveyor noted this assessment is 6 days after the area was discovered during a podiatry consult on 3/25/22. The physician orders dated 4/1/22 documents skin treatment apply skin sealant to intact blood blister to right (should be left) lateral foot daily AM (day) followed by elevation of BLE (bilateral lower extremity). This order was discontinued on 4/2/22. The physician orders dated 4/2/22 documents Skin treatment: Apply skin sealant to intact blood blister to right (should be left) lateral foot three times a day AM (day) PM (evening) NOC (night) followed by elevation of BLE. The weekly wound assessment dated [DATE] documents Suspected Deep Tissue Injury: Purple/maroon colored, localized area, intact skin, Appearance of blood-filled blister, Location: left lateral foot Length: 2.0 cm, Width: 1.0 cm, Depth: <0.1 cm Tissue Type: Closed, Wound Tissue: NA (nonapplicable), Drainage: none present clean and dry No odor present, Surrounding Tissue: edema Healing Progress: no change, Description: no s/s of infection present Teaching Done: importance of diet and edema control on skin condition Skin Treatment: skin sealant applied to area q (every) shift, edema control, diabetes management Procedure Done: area cleaned examined measured Skin tx done per order Procedure Result: treatment effective. On 4/11/22 at 1:25 p.m. Surveyor reviewed the Facility's pressure injury list and noted R2 is listed for a left foot DTPI. On 4/11/22 at 2:00 p.m. Surveyor observed R2 sitting on the edge of the bed. Surveyor asked R2 if he has any skin impairments on his feet. R2 replied they said while ago had a couple of blisters but I can't see them. R2 also informed Surveyor the Podiatrist said had a couple of bumps. R2 stated I don't know why I'm not walking and I have black velcro shoes which are not on my feet. R2 informed Surveyor he has diabetes. On 4/12/22 at 11:09 a.m. Surveyor observed R2 in bed on his back with the head of the bed elevated. Surveyor observed R2 heels are resting directly on the mattress and there is not a heels up device on the bed. Surveyor asked R2 if staff ever floats his heels. R2 replied no. On 4/13/22 at 1:01 p.m. Surveyor observed R2 in bed on his back with two transfer bars up. Surveyor observed R2's heels are resting directly on the mattress and there is not a heels up device on the bed. On 4/13/22 at 1:06 p.m. Surveyor observed treatment for R2's left lateral foot pressure injury with RN (Registered Nurse)-D. RN-D with gloves on removed R2's tubi grips & gripper sock from his left lower extremity, removed her gloves, washed her hands, and placed gloves on. RN-D opened the skin prep package and applied skin prep on R2's left lateral foot pressure injury. RN-D then completed the treatment for R2's left shin stasis ulcer. At 1:12 p.m. RN-D asked R2 where his pillows are. R2 informed RN-D they are in the box. RN-D removed her gloves telling R2 the pillows are for under his feet. RN-D placed gloves on, placed R2's tubi grips and gripper sock back on and placed a pillow under R2's legs to float his heels. RN-D removed her gloves and washed her hands. On 4/13/22 at 1:18 p.m. Surveyor spoke with RN-D regarding R2's deep tissue pressure injury. RN-D informed Surveyor the blood blister was caught by the podiatrist. Surveyor asked RN-D how this area developed. RN-D informed Surveyor R2's feet lay out like a frog and assumed the pressure injury developed from the bed. RN-D informed Surveyor R2 doesn't get up very often just for showers or doctors appointments and very rarely attends activities. Surveyor asked RN-D prior to R2 developing this pressure injury were staff floating his feet. RN-D replied I don't believe so. On 4/14/22 at 7:54 a.m. Surveyor entered R2's room with RN-D to observe RN-D administer insulin to R2. Surveyor observed R2 in bed on his back. After RN-D administered R2 his insulin, Surveyor asked RN-D if Surveyor could look at R2's feet. RN-D removed the bedding off R2. Surveyor observed R2's right foot is resting directly on the pillow and the left foot is on the mattress. RN-D informed Surveyor R2 must of kick off the pillow and readjusted the pillow so R2's feet were being offloaded. On 4/14/22 at 10:54 a.m. Surveyor met with MDS/Wound RN-G to discuss R2's pressure injury. Surveyor asked MDS/Wound RN-G what should be under R2's feet when he is in bed. MDS/Wound RN-G informed Surveyor they encourage R2 to use heel manager as long as R2's feet are offloaded and elevated. Surveyor informed MDS/Wound RN-G most of the time Surveyor observed R2 sitting on the edge of his bed but when R2 was laying in bed the only time Surveyor observed anything under his feet was with RN-D when she placed a pillow. Surveyor asked MDS/Wound RN-G how did R2's pressure injury develop. MDS/Wound RN-G informed Surveyor it's the strangest thing, the podiatrist saw it, thought maybe it was from his shoes being too tight but R2 barely wears them. MDS/Wound RN-G informed Surveyor R2 denied any injury to his foot, R2 does have diabetes and he could of bumped his foot on something. MDS/Wound RN-G informed Surveyor R2 has been wearing tubi grips to help manage edema and float heels off bed when possible. Surveyor asked where Surveyor would be able to find diabetic foot checks. MDS/Wound RN-G replied on the TAR (treatment administration record). Surveyor informed MDS/Wound RN-G Surveyor did not note diabetic foot checks on R2's TAR. MDS/Wound RN-G then looked at R2's electronic record and informed Surveyor she's not seeing it. MDS/Wound RN-G stated Usually diabetics have it, I'm still shocked. On 4/18/22 at 10:35 a.m. Surveyor asked CNA (Certified Nursing Assistant)-I if she knew how R2 developed the pressure injury on his left foot. CNA-I replied I sure don't. Surveyor asked if they float R2's feet. CNA-I informed Surveyor lately they have been putting them up on a pillow. Surveyor asked if they started floating R2's feet after he developed the pressure injury. CNA-I replied yes. Surveyor asked if they were floating his feet prior. CNA-I replied no.
SERIOUS (G)

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** 2. R38's diagnoses include epilepsy, chronic atrial fibrillation, diabetes mellitus, schizophrenia, hypertension, and Parkinson'...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. R38's diagnoses include epilepsy, chronic atrial fibrillation, diabetes mellitus, schizophrenia, hypertension, and Parkinson's disease. R38's Annual MDS (minimum data set), with an assessment reference date of 1/21/22, documents a BIMS (brief interview mental status) score of 15 which indicates R38 is cognitively intact for daily decision making. R38 requires limited assistance and one person physical assist for bed mobility, transfer & toilet use. R38 requires supervision with set up only for ambulating in room and requires extensive assistance with one person physical assist for ambulating in corridor. R38 is incontinent of urine and continent of bowel. R38 is coded as not having any falls since prior assessment period. On 4/11/22, at 12:16 p.m. Surveyor observed R38 sitting in a wheelchair in his room. R38 showed Surveyor a scar on his right inner forearm. R38 informed he received this last year in May. Surveyor asked R38 what happened. R38 explained there was a piece of wood sticking out on his footboard and begged maintenance for a long time to fix it, but they said they didn't have time. R38 informed Surveyor he also asked for tape to cover the wood sticking out. R38 informed Surveyor one time he got up and ran into it and had to have stitches. R38's nurses note dated 5/8/21, documents incident type: resident reported a fall, date of incident: 5/8/21, location: resident's room; resident's condition prior: orientated; activity at the time: walking; equipment involved: wheelchair (was not using); injury: laceration; injury location: left forearm (should be right), injury; measurement: 10 cm (centimeters) x (times) 2.5 cm; first aid: DSD (dry sterile dressing) and kerlix; first aid: wrap to forearm transferred to emergency room vitals blood pressure 122/74, pulse 70, respiratory rate 18, temp (temperature) 98.0, neurochecks right hand grasp weak (r/t (related to) pain from laceration) left hand grip firm staff involved: nurse; witnesses: none R38's nurses note dated 5/8/21 documents Resident returned from ER (emergency room) accompanied by 2 paramedic staff. Hospital sutured lac (laceration) on right forearm. Has order for suture removal on 5/18/21 [name of hospital] in emergency department. Resident drowsy but able to answer/ask questions. The after visit summary from hospital dated 5/8/21 documents laceration care. R38's nurses note dated 5/8/21, includes documentation of measurements right arm of 10.0 cm, 2.5 cm, 0.1 cm well approximated with 13 sutures. R38's nurses note dated 5/11/21 includes documentation of skin problems: laceration, drainage: none present no odor present, description: no s/sx (signs/symptoms) of infection noted, sutures intact. On 4/11/22, at 12:17 p.m., Surveyor asked R38 why he doesn't have a foot board on his bed. R38 informed Surveyor maintenance took it off. Surveyor asked why they didn't give him another one. R38 informed Surveyor they were afraid something would happen because he's so tall. R38 informed Surveyor they angled his bed so he could see the TV. R38 stated to Surveyor They haven't apologized for what happened referring to the scar on his right forearm. On 4/14/22, Surveyor reviewed R38's incident investigation for date of 5/8/21 at 1:10 a.m. Under description of incident for what resident stated regarding incident I slipped on the way from the toilet. For root cause identified documents resident not using w/c (wheelchair) For resident injury/outcome documents Laceration to right forearm; resident sent to ER for possible stitches or staples to area. There is a handwritten notation attached to R38's incident investigation which documents Return from hospital, resident stated he cut arm on footboard. Maint (maintenance) immediately addressed. On 4/14/22, at 11:04 a.m., Surveyor asked MDS/Wound RN (Registered Nurse)-G if she was involved with R38's fall on 5/8/21. MDS/Wound RN-G replied no and explained she wasn't the nurse for either fall but does recall the laceration and sutures. Surveyor asked MDS/Wound RN-G how R38 received the laceration. MDS/Wound RN-G informed Surveyor R38 wasn't using his wheelchair and was walking. Surveyor asked what R38 cut his forearm on. MDS/Wound RN-G informed Surveyor she thinks it may have been the footboard. On 4/14/22, at 11:14 a.m., Surveyor asked MS (Maintenance Supervisor)-E if he was involved with R38's fall on 5/8/21. MS-E informed Surveyor R38 fell on the weekend and he wasn't here. MS-E informed Surveyor he removed the footboard because it was cracked. Surveyor asked if R38 mentioned to him his footboard had sharp edges before the fall. MS-E replied I don't recall. On 4/18/22 at 12:07 p.m. MT (Maintenance Tech)-H informed Surveyor he saw R38's footboard after the incident. MT-H informed Surveyor he didn't see anything on their log regarding R38's footboard and does walk around Resident's room. Surveyor inquired if there are any maintenance logs when Resident's beds including headboard or footboards are inspected. MT-H informed Surveyor they do a walk around the room, has glanced in R38's room and doesn't recall anything on the footboard. MT-H informed Surveyor R38 does close his door. On 4/19/22 at 9:08 a.m. Surveyor asked R38 who in maintenance he spoke to regarding his footboard. R38 informed Surveyor last night after supper MT-H came to speak to him. R38 informed Surveyor he had spoken to MS-E. R38 informed Surveyor he told MT-H a piece of wood was sticking out of the footboard and MT-H told him it was a piece of plastic. R38 stated he told MS-E every day for a week before the accident but not on the weekend as there is no maintenance here on the weekend. MS-E told him he was too busy and the day before the accident he asked MS-E for tape to do it himself but MS-E said he had to do it but was too busy. R38 informed Surveyor his right arm got in contact with the object sticking out, must of hit his head as there was blood everywhere and a gash in his skin. R38 again showed Surveyor the scar on his right inner forearm and stated his sister hasn't seen it yet. 3. R31 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that include dependence on renal dialysis, acute & chronic respiratory failure, anoxic brain damage, and schizoaffective disorder bipolar type. R31's potential for trauma-falls care plan, dated 12/1/18, includes the following approaches: * Observe, record, and report all unsafe conditions and situations, Anticipate fall times, Instruct on safety, dated 12/1/18; * Call light in reach, Toilet every 2 hours and as needed, Anticipate needs, Floor mat on floor beside bed when resident is in the bed, (the right side of bed), dated 12/1/18; * Call light in reach, Toilet every 2 hours and as needed, Anticipate needs, floor mat on both sides of [first name] bed, dated 12/12/18; * Observe, record, and report all unsafe conditions and situations, Anticipate fall times, Instruct on safety, dated 4/28/21; * Call light in reach, Toilet every 2 hours and as needed, Anticipate needs, floor mat on both sides of [first name] bed, dated 4/28/21. The last fall assessment was completed 11/30/20. The CNA (Certified Nursing Assistant) Assignment Sheet, not dated, under the safety Equipment section documents Floor mat on right side of bed in lowest position. Enabling bars on bed. R31's quarterly MDS (minimum data set), with an assessment reference date of 1/26/22, documents a BIMS (brief interview mental status) score of 5 which indicates severe impairment related to daily decision making. R31 is dependent with two plus persons for bed mobility, transfer, & toilet use and does not ambulate. R31 is always incontinent of bowel and bladder and is coded as not fallen since prior assessment period. On 4/12/22, at 11:06 a.m., Surveyor observed R31 in bed on his back with the head of the bed elevated and two transfer bars up. Surveyor observed R31's call light is on the floor and not within reach. Surveyor also observed there were no mats on the floor next to R31's bed. On 4/12/22, at 12:23 p.m,. Surveyor observed R31 in bed on his back with two transfer bars up. Surveyor observed R31's call light is now within reach. Surveyor observed there are still no mats on the floor next to R31's bed. On 4/14/22, at 8:01 a.m., Surveyor observed R31 in bed on his back with the head of the bed elevated with two transfer bars up. Surveyor did not observe a mat on the floor next to R31's bed. On 4/14/22, at 8:56 a.m., Surveyor observed R31 continues to be in bed on his back with the head of the bed elevated and two transfer bars up. Surveyor did not observe a mat on the floor next to R31's bed. On 4/14/22, at 1:30 p.m., Surveyor observed R31 in bed on his back with his eyes closed. Surveyor did not observe a mat on the floor next to R31's bed and R31's bed is not at the lowest position. On 4/14/22, at 1:32 p.m., Surveyor asked RN (Registered Nurse)-D if she knew which CNA (Certified Nursing Assistant) was assigned to R31. RN-D asked Surveyor if Surveyor needed something. Surveyor explained to RN-D Surveyor wanted to ask if R31 is suppose to have mats on the floor next to his bed. RN-D replied I believe he is. RN-D then reviewed the CNA assignment sheet, printed on 4/7/22, and informed Surveyor R31 is to have a mat on the right side of the bed, bed in lowest position and has enabling bars on the bed. At 1:34 p.m., Surveyor informed RN-D there is not a mat on the floor next to R31's bed and the bed is not at the lowest position. RN-D stated she will get right on it now. On 4/14/22, at 3:56 p.m., during the end of the day meeting Administrator-A and DON (Director of Nursing)-B were informed of the above. On 4/19/22, at 9:15 a.m., Surveyor observed R31 in bed on his back with the head of the bed up. Surveyor observed R31's bed is not at the lowest position and there is no mat on the floor next to R31's bed. Surveyor did observe a gray mat along the wall as you enter R31's room on the right side. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility did not ensure that 3 (R32, R38, R31) of Residents reviewed for accidents had adequate assistance devices and interventions in place to prevent accidents and that the environment was free of accident hazards. * R32 was assessed as being unsafe with smoking 8/25/21. On 4/10/22, R32 was outside smoking with a family member. R32 sustained a second or third degree burn to the left anterior knee. R32 stated he did not mean to burn himself. R32 was allowed t smoke without staff supervision. *On 5/8/21, R38 fell in his room sustaining a laceration that required 13 sutures. R38's interviews reveals prior to the fall he had informed maintenance about a piece of wood sticking out from bed footboard. He asked for this to be fixed or for tape to fix it himself. R38 informed Surveyor he was told they (maintenance) were too busy. There is no evidence maintenance inspected R38's footboard prior to 5/8/21. R38 received the laceration when he fell against the protruding wood on the footboard. * R31 was observed without a mat on the floor next to the bed and the bed not in the lowest position according to R31's care plan interventions. Findings include: The facility smoking policy with revised date of 6/2020, indicates: . Protocol: 1. The facility prohibits smoking and tobacco use on all company premises in order to provide and maintain a safe and healthy environment for all. a. Company premises is defined as up to the property boundaries of all facilities. *with the exception of the southeast corner of the courtyard on the east side of the building . 3. The smoke and tobacco free policy applies to: a. All areas of buildings occupied by residents and employees. b. All vehicles owned or leased by the facility. c. All visitors (customers, vendors and volunteers) on facility premises. d. All contractors and consultants and/or their employees working on facility premises. e. All residents. f. All employees, including temporary employees. g. All student interns. 5. Employees are not allowed to assist residents in smoking or chewing as they are not allowed to leave the campus property while working. Families that wish to assist residents may do so after signing the resident out on the Resident Sign Out Form and leaving campus property. 1. R32 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. R32's smoking assessment, dated 8/25/21, indicates R32 memory impaired oriented to person, has difficulty making decisions in new situations, makes decisions which are poor; requires cues and supervision when making decisions. Lights/extinguishes cigarette safely: no: someone to assist him Physically capable of managing smoking: needs assistance. Level of assistance required: needs assistance with: lighting cigarette. R32's quarterly MDS (minimum data set), dated 1/26/22, indicates R32 has cognitive impairment, is dependent with bed mobility, transfers, locomotion on and off the unit, and has mobility issues with his upper and lower extremities. R32's nurses note, dated 4/10/22, indicates open area on left knee. 1 by 0.5 granulation tissue no drainage or odor. Applied dressing to left knee. R32's nurses note, dated 4/11/22, indicates New area has second or third degree burn (s) .superior to left anterior knee 1.0 cm (centimeter) by 0.5 cm by < (less than) 0.1 cm UTA (unable to assess) wound bed to 100% dry tan exudate in place. Area circular in shape. resident stated I didn't mean to burn myself. R32's incident investigation, dated 4/11/22, indicates writer discovered area of skin impairment at time of assessment. Other causal factors: resident smokes primarily with daughter. Physician and POA (Power of Attorney) notified. R32's April 2022 MAR (medication administration record), indicates on 4/11/22 an order was obtained to Cleanse open area to left anterior knee with NS (normal saline) pat dry apply skin sealant to periwound apply silvadene ointment to wound bed topical daily f/b (followed by) dry gauze secure with kerlix AM (morning) R32's smoking assessment, dated 4/13/22, indicate: Holds cigarette safely: no; burn discovered to left anterior left, resident admits he had burned himself with a cigarette, but didn't mean to. Level of assistance required: Needs assistance with entire smoking process. Resident noted to be an unsafe smoker. The above information reviewed with NHA (Nursing Home Administrator), DON(Director of Nursing), and SSD (Social Service Director). POA is aware of findings and agrees that resident is an unsafe smoker due to his ability to fall asleep quickly and frequently. pending further investigation. On 4/13/22, at 3:30 PM, during the daily exit meeting with DON-B, Wound Nurse-G and NHA-A, Surveyor asked how R32 burned himself with a cigarette when R32 is assessed to be dependent and cognitively impaired. Wound Nurse-G stated R32 goes out to smoke with daughter when she visits. Wound Nurse-G stated R32's daughter is not sure how the burn happened. R32's POA (Power of Attorney) stated R32 doses off while smoking. On 4/14/22, at 10:02 AM, Surveyor interviewed Wound Nurse-G. Surveyor asked if the cigarette burn was assessed and treated on 4/10/22. Wound Nurse-G stated when she came in on 4/11/22 she discovered the cigarette burn and obtained orders for treatment from the physician. On 4/14/22, at 3:30 PM, during the daily exit meeting with DON B, Wound Nurse G and NHA A, Surveyor explained the concern R32 sustained a cigarette burn on 4/10/22 while he was outside with his daughter. A treatment for the burn was not obtained until 4/11/22. Surveyor also explained the concern R32 is dependent for most ADLs (activities of daily living) yet was not monitored while outside smoking. As of 4/18/22, Wound Nurse G had no additional information.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0554 (Tag F0554)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review the Facility did not ensure that 1 (R41) of 1 Residents was assessed by the interdisciplinary team to determine if it was clinically appropriate to self-administer...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review the Facility did not ensure that 1 (R41) of 1 Residents was assessed by the interdisciplinary team to determine if it was clinically appropriate to self-administer medications. R41 voiced a concern the evening nurses leave her medication when she is asleep, when she wakes she has hit the medication cup and the medication spills onto the floor. Staff interviews reveals R41's medication has been left. There is no self administration of medication assessment completed for R41 which would allow medication to be left. Findings include: The Self-Administration of Medication policy and procedure with a date revised of 2/22 under purpose documents It is the resident's right to self-administer medications if the facility interdisciplinary team has determined that the practice is safe. Under protocol documents; 1. If a resident requests to self-administer medications it is the responsibility of the interdisciplinary team to determine that it is safe for the resident to self-administer drugs before the resident may exercise that right. a. The Self-Med (medication) Admin (Administration) Assessment Folder in ECS (electronic chart system) is where the assessment will be completed for initial evaluation and on going reevaluation. R41's quarterly MDS (minimum data set) with an assessment reference date of 3/7/22 has a BIMS (brief interview mental status) score of 15 which indicates cognitively intact. Surveyor noted R41's physicians orders include Clonazepam 1 mg (milligrams) tablet with directions to give two tablets/2 mg by mouth at bedtime HS (hour sleep) for anxiety. On 4/11/22 at 10:46 a.m. Surveyor asked R41 if she has any concerns regarding her medication. R41 informed Surveyor she has a problem with nurses leaving her Clonazepam in the evening. R41 explained sometimes she is asleep when they come in with her medication so they leave the medication on her table. R41 explained she has hit the medication cup and her medication falls on the floor. On 4/12/22 at 3:52 p.m. Surveyor asked LPN (Licensed Practical Nurse)-J when administering R41's medication does she have to watch R41 take her medication or can she (LPN-J) leave the medication. LPN-J informed Surveyor she watches R41 take her medication. LPN-J informed Surveyor R41 has complained the nurses leave her medication especially the night time medication. LPN-J explained R41 likes her Clonazepam later so she will ask R41 if she will take her Clonazepam otherwise she will come back later. On 4/13/22 at 8:33 a.m. Surveyor asked LPN-Y when administering R41's medication can she leave the medication or does she watch R41 take her medication. LPN-Y replied watch her. LPN-Y informed Surveyor it has been reported to her sometimes R41 falls asleep and then will take the medication when she wakes up. Surveyor asked LPN-Y if she has heard of other nurses leaving R41's medication. LPN-Y informed Surveyor one time R41 asked the nurse to leave the medication and then R41 fell asleep. LPN-Y informed Surveyor R41 was upset because she had fallen asleep and thought it was too late to take her medication. Surveyor asked LPN-Y if there are self administration of medications assessments. LPN-Y replied yes. Surveyor asked LPN-Y if there is one for R41. LPN-Y replied I don't know for sure. On 4/13/22 at 1:23 p.m., Surveyor asked R41 if there were any concerns with receiving her medication last evening. R41 indicated there wasn't and explained the nurse came in at 9:20 p.m. which is a good time. R41 informed Surveyor other nurses come in at 7:00 p.m. and sometimes she is asleep so they will leave the medication. R41 informed Surveyor she has hit the medication cup and the medication falls on the floor. R41 informed Surveyor she likes to take her Clonazepam later in the evening. On 4/13/22 at 1:20 p.m. Surveyor asked RN-D a question. Before Surveyor could ask the question RN-D replied yes. Surveyor asked RN-D what she is saying yes to. RN-D replied pills on [R41's] bed and explained to Surveyor she has seen R41's medication in her bed. Surveyor asked RN-D when she saw this. RN-D informed Surveyor she doesn't remember the date. Surveyor asked RN-D if there a self administration of medication assessment completed for R41. RN-D informed Surveyor she would not have R41 take her medication on her own. RN-D explained because of R41's illness she wouldn't trust her to follow the regimen. Surveyor was unable to locate a self administration of medication assessment for R41 in either the electronic or paper medical record. On 4/14/22 at 9:15 a.m. Surveyor informed MDS/Wound RN-G Surveyor is unable to locate a self administration of medication assessment for R41. MDS/Wound RN-G informed Surveyor she will print it if there is one and will let Surveyor know if there isn't anything. On 4/14/22 at 9:57 a.m. MDS/Wound RN-G informed Surveyor there is not a self administration of medication assessment for R41 and she also spoke to DON (Director of Nursing)-B about it. On 4/14/22 at 10:50 a.m. Surveyor asked MDS/Wound RN-G if she has heard the evening nurses were leaving R41's medication at the bedside and this is the reason Surveyor was inquiring about an assessment. MDS/Wound RN-G replied yes and explained she heard about it and doesn't condone it. Surveyor asked if this is a frequent concern for R41. MDS/Wound RN-G informed Surveyor R41 had voiced the concern at a resident council meeting. Surveyor asked was anything done. MDS/Wound RN-G stated she followed up with [Administrator's first name] and [Director of Nursing's first name] and let them know this was happening. MDS/Wound RN-G informed Surveyor she was informed education was to be provided to the nurse. On 4/14/22 at 3:56 p.m. Surveyor informed Administrator-A and DON-B of the above.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0582 (Tag F0582)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on staff interview and record review, the facility did not ensure written notification of coverage change and the financial liability for continued stay at the facility was provided to a Residen...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on staff interview and record review, the facility did not ensure written notification of coverage change and the financial liability for continued stay at the facility was provided to a Resident (R) whose Medicare Part A benefits were ending for 2 (R12 and R22) of 3 residents reviewed for Medicare Part A notifications. The facility did not provide R12 and R22 with a Skilled Nursing Facility Advanced Beneficiary Notice of Non-coverage (SNFABN) form. The SNFABN includes information such as the care that may or may not be covered by Medicare, the estimated cost of the corresponding care that may not be covered by Medicare, and appeal rights. Findings include: Per the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Form Instructions, the SNFABN provides information to the beneficiary so that he or she can decide whether or not to get the care that may not be paid for by Medicare and assume financial responsibility. The SNFABN includes information such as the care that may or may not be covered by Medicare, the estimated cost of the corresponding care that may not be covered by Medicare, and appeal rights. Surveyor reviewed a sample of residents for Medicare Part A notifications. Surveyor noted two of three sampled residents, R12 and R22, remained at the facility following termination of Medicare Part A coverage. The facility only provided Surveyor with Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC) forms for both R12 and R22. On 4/12/22 at 10:23 AM, Surveyor interviewed Social Worker (SW)-F who indicated SW-F was responsible for sending notifications to residents of Medicare termination. SW-F explained that SW-F did not utilized SNFABN forms at the facility and confirmed that the facility did not have documentation of SNFABN provided to R12 or R22. SW-F indicated they were not trained on this process. On 04/12/22 at 03:12 PM at the facility exit meeting Surveyor shared the concerns with notices. Administrator-A did not think residents that received State funding needed a notice for out of pocket costs.
CONCERN (D)

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

Investigate Abuse (Tag F0610)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2.) On 04/11/22, at 11:26 AM, R4 reported to Surveyor they have been verbally assaulted several times by staff at the facility. ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2.) On 04/11/22, at 11:26 AM, R4 reported to Surveyor they have been verbally assaulted several times by staff at the facility. R4 stated the incident was reported to Nursing Home Administrator (NHA)-A. R4 stated he does not feel NHA-A is following up on the issues. R4 indicates MS-E (Maintenance Supervisor) has a bad attitude. R4 stated he has heard MS-E verbally assault other residents. R4 stated he had an issue with getting a TV and MS-E was involved. R4 stated he called down stairs and MS-E got on the phone and said listen you M***F***, you'll get a TV when I'm good and ready to give you one. R4 stated MS-E talked to R4 this way and SW-F (Social Worker) was present. R4 stated in front of SW-F, MS-E said, listen you M**F***, I'm not your bitch. R4 told SW-F they wanted to file a complaint and was told that NHA-A would take care of it. R4 reported residents are being made to move rooms, MS-E is cussing all the time, and upsets other residents and has made some cry. R4 stated MS-E told R4 he was going to have to move rooms. R4 stated he knows there rights and was not going to move rooms. R4 states MS-E said, grab your s** you are going down stairs. R4 is not aware of any discipline MS-E has received. R4 has not had any follow-up with facility staff in regards to his concerns. On 4/11/22, at 11:06 AM, Surveyors reported R4 allegations to DON-B (Director of Nursing). R4's Quarterly MDS (minimum data set) assessment, completed on 1/12/22, indicates a BIMS (brief interview for mental status) score of 15, indicating no cognitive impairment; R4 demonstrates occasional verbal behaviors towards others; R4 does not receive any psychotropic medications and is independent with ADL's (activity of daily living). On 4/11/22, the facility initiated a Grievance Report in regards to R4's alleged concerns with MS-E . On 4/12/2022, a facility self-report investigation was sent to the State Agency regarding the alleged incident between R4 and MS-E. On 4/12/22, at 12:50 PM, Administrator-A informed this Surveyor he is currently in the process of investigating the incident between R4 and MS-E. On 4/13/22, at 11:24 AM, this Surveyor spoke with SW-F regarding the alleged incident between R4 and MS-E. SW-F stated she know R4 does not like MS-E. SW-F stated R4 told her that he feels MS-E has not liked him from the start. SW-F stated R4 informed her that R4 feels the men that work here (at the facility) don't like him. SW-F informed Surveyor this is the first she hearing of this. On 4/14/22, 8:24 AM, Nursing Home Administrator (NHA)-A spoke with Surveyor regarding R4's allegations against MS-E. NHA-A stated R4 was relocated from a covid unit and MS-E did get a phone call regarding R4 requesting a TV. NHA-A stated MS-E did get R4 a TV. NHA-A stated I highly doubt the use of foul language to this resident is harmful. NHA-A informed this Surveyor this is the first time that I'm hearing that the incident was in front of SW-F. On 4/14/22, at 8:53 AM, this Surveyor spoke with NHA-A. NHA-A acknowledged he was made aware on 4/11/22 of an alleged incident between R4 and MS-E. NHA-A stated, he immediately did a self report and had SW-F interview R4. NHA-A reviewed records from a year and half ago for any additional information that might pertain to R4's allegation against MS-E. NHA-A stated MS-E certainly was inappropriate, however removing MS-E from the work place for an isolated incident, did not seem necessary. On 4/14/22, at 11:15 AM, this Surveyor spoke with MS-E. MS-E stated he did receive training on abuse prevention surrounding the events with R4. MS-E stated he has been working since 4/11/22 (when the facility was informed of the alleged incident between R4 and MS-E). MS-E stated he was not told of any job limitations or restrictions from resident care areas while the facility was completing their investigation. This Surveyor verified MS-E's time worked at the facility by reviewing MS-E's time sheet. This Surveyor reviewed MS-E's time sheet and verified MS-E worked at the facility during the facility investigation process. MS-E stated he was not told of any work restrictions imposed during the facility investigation process. On 4/14/22, 11:21 AM, NHA-A provided this Surveyor with a Review Employee Warning Document for MS-E, dated 4/11/22. The reason for the warning was documented as: use of profanity in workplace, inappropriate and potentially abusive. To avoid further discipline employee should have immediate abuse training with NHA and have no direct resident (1:1 contact) until further notice. No further information was provided as to why MS-E was working in patient care areas while the facility was conducting an alleged abuse investigation. Based on interview and record review the Facility did not protect Residents during 2 (R2, R4) of 2 investigations for allegations of mistreatment. * On 4/11/22 Surveyor reported an allegation of mistreatment regarding R2 to Administrator-A involving CNA (Certified Nursing Assistant)-C. CNA-C was initially removed from the Facility on 4/11/22 but was allowed to work later during the evening shift and on 4/12/22 providing Resident care while the Facility was conducting their investigation. * On 4/11/22 Surveyor reported an allegation of verbal abuse and intimidation regarding R4 to DON (Director of Nursing)-B involving MS (Maintenance Supervisor)-E. MS-E was not removed from Resident contact during the Facility's investigation. Findings include: The Resident Safety Abuse Policy with a revised date of 2/21 under procedure for investigation documents d. The supervisor will ensure that the resident(s) is/are protected from further potential abuse, neglect, exploitation or mistreatment while the investigation is in progress. 1.) R2's diagnoses includes Diabetes Mellitus, Atrial Fibrillation, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Hypertension, sleep apnea, and morbid obesity. The annual MDS (minimum data set) with an assessment reference date of 12/28/21, documents a BIMS (brief interview mental status) score of 15 which indicates R2 is cognitively intact. On 4/11/22, at 9:50 a.m., during the screening process Surveyor asked R2 if he has any concerns regarding how staff treats him. R2 informed Surveyor CNA-C is a trouble maker. Surveyor asked R2 what he means. R2 informed Surveyor CNA-C is rude and treats him like shit. R2 explained he has a bipap machine which requires distilled water and ask her to fill it up. R2 informed Surveyor, CNA-C told him to do it himself. R2 informed Surveyor he is unable as he can't walk to get the water and CNA-C told him to get a wheelchair. R2 informed Surveyor CNA-C has left him on the toilet a while back and CNA-C threatened him that she will leave him in the bathroom. R2 stated I hold it until someone else can get me. Surveyor asked how long ago this was. R2 informed Surveyor a week ago or few weeks, can't keep an eye on time. Surveyor asked R2 if he reported this to anyone. R2 informed Surveyor there was a day that a lady came up and he told her but can't remember her name. Surveyor asked if he reported this to anyone else. R2 replied no not that I remember. On 4/11/22, at 10:16 a.m., Surveyor reported R2's allegations to Administrator-A. Surveyor asked Administrator-A if this was ever reported to him prior. Administrator-A replied no and indicated this is foreign to him. Administrator-A informed Surveyor they would get on this right away. On 4/11/22, at 1:59 p.m., Surveyor asked R2 if anyone has spoken to him. R2 informed Surveyor the Administrator was here and SW (Social Worker)-F. Surveyor asked R2 if he told SW-F about CNA-C. R2 replied yes that is the second time I told her. R2 informed Surveyor he told SW-F this is the second time I'm telling you. On 4/12/22, at 7:56 a.m., while Surveyor was on R2's unit Surveyor observed CNA-C working on the unit. On 4/12/22, at 10:48 a.m., Surveyor asked SW-F if she spoke to R2 yesterday. SW-F replied I did. Surveyor asked what she spoke about. SW-F explained R2 told her a few weeks ago he asked a staff member to put water in his bipap and she said no you can do it but later did it with a [NAME]. R2 also told her she left him on the toilet a few weeks ago on a Friday for half an hour and another staff member took him off. Surveyor asked SW-F if R2 had reported this to her prior. SW-F replied no. Surveyor asked SW-F if she was sure R2 hadn't reported this prior as R2 had told Surveyor this was the second time he was reporting it to you. SW-F informed Surveyor she was 100% sure and would have immediately wrote a grievance, brought it to the Administrator and started the interview process. Surveyor asked SW-F what prompted her to speak to R2. SW-F informed Surveyor her Administrator. On 4/12/22, at 12:23 p.m. Surveyor observed CNA-C enter R31's room with a lunch tray stating I have your lunch. On 4/12/22, at 3:18 p.m., during the end of the day meeting with Administrator-A, DON (Director of Nursing)-B, and MDS/Wound RN (Registered Nurse)-G Surveyor asked why CNA-C is working on the floor with Residents. Administrator-A informed Surveyor after talking with the resident, asking more detailed questions as to what happened, [R2] denied being threatened, and they didn't have other complaints regarding CNA-C. Administrator-A informed Surveyor he thinks R2 has a dislike for CNA-C and didn't see any concrete reason to keep her off the schedule. Surveyor asked Administrator-A if they have spoken to any other Residents. Administrator-A informed Surveyor they are in the process and he gave SW-F questions to ask. Administrator-A informed Surveyor CNA-C is a long term employee and the basis of this complaint did not justify to bar her employment. Administrator-A informed Surveyor he made a decision with the team. Surveyor informed Administrator-A Surveyor is not understanding how they are protecting Residents since their investigation is not complete and they have not spoken to other Residents. On 4/13/22, at 7:54 a.m., Administrator-A informed Surveyor they took [CNA-C] back off the schedule stating they were trying to do the right thing. On 4/14/22, Surveyor reviewed CNA-C's time card and noted on 4/11/22 CNA-C punched out at 10:40 a.m. CNA-C returned and worked on 4/11/22 from 6:12 p.m. to 9:16 p.m On 4/12/22 CNA-C worked 6:23 a.m. to 10:26 a.m. and 11:05 a.m. to 2:50 p.m.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0625 (Tag F0625)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** *.) R36 medical record was reviewed by Surveyor. R36 has an activated Power of Attorney for Healthcare. The Quarterly MDS(minimu...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** *.) R36 medical record was reviewed by Surveyor. R36 has an activated Power of Attorney for Healthcare. The Quarterly MDS(minimum data set) assessment completed on 3/15/22 indicates a 0 for BIMS(brief interview of mental status), which means severe cognitive impairment. R36 was sent out to the hospital on [DATE] at 11:00 AM. R36 was transferred due to high blood pressure, lethargy and loss of appetite over the weekend. The physician and POA(Power of Attorney) aware. of transfer. This was a 911 call. R36 returned to the facility on [DATE]. On 04/13/22 at 09:44 AM Surveyor spoke with RN-G (Registered Nurse) regarding bed-hold notification documentation. RN-G indicated it is the floor nurses responsibility to send the paper work including the bed hold documents. This would be kept in the front of the resident's medical record. There is no documentation of bed-hold notification regarding R36 transfer to the hospital in the medical record. On 04/13/22 at 03:20 PM at the facility Exit meeting Surveyor shared the concerns with bed-hold notification. No further information was provided Based on interview and record review the Facility did not ensure that Residents and their representatives received the proper information regarding the bed hold policy for 3 (R38, R40 & R36) of 3 Residents that were transferred to the hospital. Findings include: The WI (Wisconsin) Bed Hold Policy revised 10/17 under protocol documents At the time of transfer for a resident for hospitalization or therapeutic leave, the facility will provide to the resident and the resident representative written notice, see WI-Bed-Hold Acknowledgement. 1.) R38's diagnoses includes seizures, schizophrenia, diabetes mellitus, and hypertension. On 4/11/22, at 12:24 p.m., R38 informed Surveyor he just got back from the hospital for pneumonia a few weeks ago. The nurses note dated 3/18/22, documents Transferred to ER (emergency room) acute care hospital [name] for evaluation chest pain, chest pain moving down left arm. The nurses note dated 3/19/22, documents Resident admitted to hospital with hypoxia and COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease). R38 was hospitalized from [DATE] to 3/22/22. On 4/13/22, at 9:44 a.m., Surveyor asked MDS (minimum data set)/Wound RN (Registered Nurse)-G who is responsible for providing a Resident or their representative with written information regarding the bed hold policy. MDS/Wound RN-G informed Surveyor it's the floor nurses responsibility to send the paper work including the bed hold. Surveyor asked MDS/Wound RN-G for the bed hold policy provided to R38 or his representative when he was hospitalized on [DATE] through 3/22/22. On 4/14/22, at 8:35 a.m., Surveyor informed DON (Director of Nursing)-B Surveyor still has not received the written bed hold policy provided to R38 or his representative when R38 was hospitalized [DATE] through 3/22/22. On 4/14/22, at 8:45 a.m., DON-B provided Surveyor with a bed hold policy and bed hold acknowledgement for R38 dated 4/13/22. Surveyor informed DON-B Surveyor was looking for the bed hold policy when R38 was discharged in March to the hospital. DON-B informed Surveyor they didn't have one so they provided R38 with the bed hold acknowledgement yesterday. 2.) R40's diagnoses includes hypertension, factitious disorder imposed on self, seizures, personality disorder, nontraumatic subarachnoid hemorrhage, lymphedema, and nondisplaced segmental fracture of shaft of left tibia. The nurses note dated 12/8/21, documents behavior: Resident called 911 to be sent to ER (emergency room) d/t (due to) wanting dressing changed to her bilateral lower extremities resident transferred: Time of transfer: 10:00 AM ER/Acute care hospital. [name of hospital] by ambulance Notification: Physician notified. Resident transferred Time of Transfer: 12:33 p.m. Transportation: by ambulance Reason: for evaluation, Admitting DX (diagnosis): Wound Care Notification: physician notified Actions: Medication list sent/ Transferred to: ER/Acute care hospital. [name of hospital]. Surveyor reviewed R40's medical record and noted in the paper record there is a blank bed hold acknowledgement form. On 4/14/22, at 9:11 a.m., Surveyor asked RN (Registered Nurse)-D when a Resident is going to the hospital are their any papers they prepare. RN-D informed Surveyor they make up a packet which consists of the physician orders, face sheet, history & physical, and advanced directives. Surveyor asked if there is anything else. RN-D informed Surveyor she believes a copy of the face sheet is given to the paramedics. Surveyor asked RN-D if she knows who provides the Resident or their representative with the written bed hold policy. RN-D informed Surveyor she believes the social worker does. On 4/18/22, at 11:22 a.m., Surveyor informed DON (Director of Nursing)-B Surveyor was not able to locate the written bed hold policy which was provided to R40 or her representative when R40 was admitted to the hospital on [DATE]. Surveyor informed DON-B during the record review Surveyor noted there is a blank bed hold acknowledgement form in R40's medical record. Surveyor was not provided with the written bed hold policy for R40.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0645 (Tag F0645)

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' Preadmission Screening (PASARR) assessments were co...

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' Preadmission Screening (PASARR) assessments were completed upon admission to the facility. This was observed with 3 (R36, R342 and R31) of 3 residents reviewed for preadmission screening assessments completed accurately . R36, R342 and R31 did not have complete and accurate Preadmission Screening (PASARR)assessments upon admission for residents diagnosed with mental disorders and/or intellectual disabilities. Findings include: On 4/12/22, at 10:56 AM, Surveyor spoke with SW-F (Social Worker) who is responsible for completing and tracking Preadmission Screening (PASARR) assessments. SW-F indicated a facility sweep was conducted last November to ensure Preadmission Screenings were in place for all residents. SW-F did not indicate why some residents did not have accurate, and complete, screenings in their medical records. 1.) R36 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with psychotropic medications prescribed and mental illness diagnosis. The PASARR (preadmission screen and resident review) was not completed correctly to include a diagnoses of a major mental illness. The required PASARR II was not completed for R36 due to the PASARR I not being completed accurately. R36's PASARR I screen was completed on 1/3/2018 and indicates R36 is not suspected of having a serious mental illness or a developmental disability. Section A. indicates R36 has received antipsychotics, anti-anxiety and mood stabilizing medications. R34's admitting diagnoses include: major depressive disorder and anxiety disorder. On 4/13/22, at 3:20 PM, this Surveyor shared the PASARR screening concerns at the facility exit meeting with Nursing Home Administrator-A and Director of Nursing-B. No further information was provided 2.) R342's medical record was reviewed by this Surveyor. R342 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] from another skilled nursing facility. R342's admitting diagnosis, to this facility on 2/25/22, is documented as a mood disorder due to known physiological condition. The R342's admission medications include an antipsychotics for dementia with behavioral disturbance; antidepressant for major depressive disorder. R342's medical record includes a PASARR (preadmission screen and resident review) I and II from a previous skilled nursing facility. The PASARR I is documented as being completed on 11/13/2019, which indicates R342 has a serious mental illness. Section A indicates only Prozac has been prescribed. R342 is not currently prescribed Prozac. The facility did not complete an updated PASARR I screen when R342 was admitted to the facility. An updated PASARR I would have correctly identify the psychotropic medication prescribed to R342. If the facility would have correctly updated R342's PASARR I screen upon admission they would have been directed to complete a PASARR II screen, which did not occur. On 4/13/22, at 11:33 AM, Surveyor spoke with SW-F. SW-F indicated she will have to do another PASARR I and II for R342. On 4/14/22, at 8:00 AM, NHA-A (Nursing Home Administrator) spoke with Surveyor and indicated R342 was transferred from another skilled nursing facility and DON-B (Director of Nurses) is looking for the last PASARR that was completed by the transferring facility. NHA-A stated a PASARR was not completed upon admission to this facility because NHA-A considered R342 a direct transfer. 3.) R31 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses which include dependence on renal dialysis, acute & chronic respiratory failure, anoxic brain damage, and schizoaffective disorder bipolar type. Physician's orders upon admission include Quetiapine Fumarate (Seroquel) 100 mg (milligrams) tablet with directions to administer 1 tablet twice a day. According to the October 2018 MAR (medication administration record) R31 started to receive this medication during the PM (evening) shift on 10/18/18. Surveyor reviewed R31's electronic & paper medical record and was unable to locate a level 1 PASARR (preadmission screen and resident review). On 4/12/22, at 10:56 a.m., Surveyor asked SW (Social Worker)-F who completes the PASARRs at the Facility. SW-F replied I do. Surveyor asked where Surveyor would be able to locate a Resident's PASARR. SW-F informed Surveyor when she started at the Facility she did an audit of Resident PASARRs. Surveyor asked what prompted her to do this. SW-F informed Surveyor she was asked by the Administrator as the Facility didn't have a social worker for a long time. SW-F informed Surveyor there were quite a few PASARRs which were not done. Surveyor informed SW-F Surveyor was unable to locate a PASARR for R31. SW-F then started looking through a stack of papers stating unfortunately she doesn't have these in alphabetical order but would find his. SW-F informed Surveyor [R31's] must of been completed and is going to ask DON (Director of Nursing)-B. Surveyor informed SW-F Surveyor would like to review R31's PASARR when it is located. On 4/12/22, at 11:22 a.m., SW-F provided Surveyor with R31's level 1 PASARR dated 10/18/18. Surveyor noted R31's level 1 PASARR was completed incorrectly for Section A as R31 is checked for The resident is not suspected of having a serious mental illness or developmental disability. Also Section A has a question regarding mental illness for medications. No is checked for the question Within the past six months, has this person received psychotropic medication(s) to treat symptoms or behaviors of a major mental disorder under the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 3rd edition, revised (DSM III-R) or DSM5 (see the above box for clarification)? If the person received psychotropic medication(s) to treat a medical condition, symptoms or behaviors that are due to a medical condition, or otherwise do not suggest the presence of a major mental illness, then provide a progress note in the person's record identifying the medication(s) and the medical reason (e.g., symptoms or behaviors) for which the medication(s) is prescribed. For example, Elavil, which is an antidepressant, may be prescribed to alleviate pain; Remeron, which is an antidepressant, may be used to increase appetite that was diminished due to a stroke. Attach a copy of progress note to this Level 1 screen. Check all applicable boxes below and check the name of the psychotropic medications the person has received within the past six months. The below list includes the trade names of commonly used psychotropic medications and is not meant to be comprehensive. Some medications are approved for multiple purposes (e.g., Paxil may be used to teat anxiety or depression; Tegretol may be used as an anticonvulsant or a mood stabilizer). Surveyor noted for Antipsychotics - Typical the box is not checked. Also use of Seroquel is not checked. On 4/12/22, at 3:45 p.m., Surveyor asked SW-F how the audit was completed. SW-F explained she took a census list and sent the list to BCS (Behavior Consulting Services) to see what PASARRs were completed. Surveyor asked SW-F if she reviewed completed PASARRs to ensure they were accurate. SW-F informed Surveyor she didn't. Surveyor informed SW-F R31's level 1 PASARR was inaccurate as R31 has a diagnoses of schizoaffective disorder bipolar type and admission orders included Seroquel which R31 received on day of admission. SW-F informed Surveyor she will submit a request for a Level 2 PASARR for R31. On 4/13/22, at 3:43 p.m., during the end of the day meeting with Administrator-A and DON-B were informed of the above. On 4/14/22 at 8:21 a.m. Surveyor was provided with a new Level 1 PASARR along with information fax to BCS on 4/13/22.
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** 3.) R36's medical record was reviewed. R36 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with an activated Power of Attorney. R36's mo...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3.) R36's medical record was reviewed. R36 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with an activated Power of Attorney. R36's most recent Quarterly MDS(minimum data set) assessment, completed on 3/15/22, indicates a score of 0 for BIMS (brief interview of mental status), which indicates severe cognitive impairment; R36 requires supervision for eating; R36 requires 2 staff assist for bed mobility. R36's most recent Comprehensive MDS assessment dated [DATE], documents a BIMS score of 2, indicating R36's has severely impaired decision making abilities; requires an extensive assist of 1 staff for eating. R36 was transferred to the hospital on [DATE] due to low fluid/food intakes and lethargy. R36 was admitted with extremely low fluid levels. R36 returned to the facility on [DATE]. A nutritional note, dated 11/23/21, indicates R36 was reviewed due to a weight gain. The nutritional progress note did not address R36's recent hospitalization related to low fluid/food intake. The nutritional progress note does not address the hospital identified fluid deficit concerns. The previous nutritional note, dated 8/17/21, does not address R36's recommended fluid requirements. R36 does not have a fluid assessment before or after R36's hospital stay which began on 11/15/21 and ended on 11/23/21. R36's fluid intake report, dated November 2021, indicates on the 11/12/21, R36 had no supper intake; on 11/13/21 R36 had no food intake for breakfast and lunch, and 25 % intake for supper. R36 has no food intake documentation on 11/14/22 for breakfast, lunch, or dinner. R36's medical record does not contain documentation of a care plan addressing R36's fluid deficit concerns. On 4/18/22, at 10:07 AM, this Surveyor spoke with RD-Q (Registered Dietitian). RD-Q indicated she completes a comprehensive assessment for residents Annually and upon Admission. RD-Q stated the facility staff will let her know if someone isn't eating/drinking. RD-Q stated the facility nurses look at the resident fluid/food intake reports. RD-Q stated if she is told of a resident intake concern she would conduct a full evaluation. RD-Q indicated she would want to be aware of intake deficits to allow for monitoring of weight variances or concerns with extra fluid. RD-Q indicated she was not made aware of eating or drinking concerns for R36 if there is no assessment note completed. RD-Q stated she is not made aware of resident hospital visits by the facility. RD-Q stated she would not have developed a plan of care for R36 if she was not made aware of fluid intake concerns. On 4/18/22, at 10:58 AM, this Surveyor spoke with DON-B regarding R36 not having a care plan related to concerns for R36's food and fluid intake. No additional care plan information provided. 2.) R41's quarterly MDS (minimum data set) with an assessment reference date of 3/7/22, documents a BIMS (brief interview mental status) score of 15 which indicates R41 is cognitively intact. R41 is dependent with two person physical assist for bed mobility & transfers and does not ambulate. On 4/11/22, at 11:13 a.m., Surveyor observed R41 in bed with two transfer bars up on each side of the bed. Surveyor asked R41 if she uses the transfer bars. R41 informed Surveyor they help her to pull herself to the right or left to help the CNAs (Certified Nursing Assistants). On 4/14/22 ,at 8:03 a.m., Surveyor observed R41 in bed on her back with the head of the bed elevated and two transfer bars up. Surveyor reviewed R41's care plans and noted the following care plans: * Self Care Deficit, dated 8/3/20. * Alteration in Thought processes, forgetfulness, dated 9/11/20. * Altered Speech pattern, dated 1/31/22. * Potential for Adjustment, impaired, dated 9/11/20. * Potential for Disruptive interaction, dated 8/3/20. * Potential for Comfort, Alteration, dated 9/11/20. * Impaired physical mobility, foot drop, dated 9/11/20. * Alteration in nutrition, dated 9/21/20. * Potential for hypertension, dated 9/11/20. * Altered Thyroid function, dated 9/11/20. * Potential for Trauma-Falls, dated 8/3/20 * Potential for Tissue integrity impairment, dated 8/3/20. * Need to evaluate potential to be discharged to less restrictive environment, dated 8/3/20. * Potential for adverse medication side effects, Potential for Tardive Dyskinesia, dated 9/11/20. Surveyor was unable to locate a care plan for R41's transfer bars. On 4/14/22, at at 3:56 p.m., Surveyor informed Administrator-A and DON (Director of Nursing)-B Surveyor is unable to locate a care plan for R41's transfer bars. Surveyor was not provided with a transfer bar care plan for R41. Based on interview and record review the facility did not ensure 3 (R12, R41 and R36) of 12 residents reviewed had a comprehensive care plan. R12 has insomnia and is prescribed melatonin at bedtime for insomnia. R12 does not have a comprehensive care plan that addresses his insomnia. R41 has transfer bars on the bed and does not have a comprehensive care plan that addresses the need for transfer bars. R36 is dependent on staff for fluid needs, was hospitalized for severe fluid deficits and receives a diuretic medication. R36 did not have a plan of care developed to meet their fluid needs Findings include: 1) R12 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of sleep apnea, blindness in right eye, type 2 diabetes and heart failure. R12's physician order dated 11/30/21, indicates R12 was prescribed melatonin 15 mg (milligrams) at bedtime for insomnia. The facility completed a sleep assessment on 4/5/22 indicating R12's need for melatonin for sleep. Surveyor reviewed R12's comprehensive care plan and did not find a care plan that addresses R12's insomnia and the use of melatonin. On 4/13/22, at 3:30 p.m., during the daily exit meeting with DON (Director of Nursing) B and NHA (Nursing Home Administrator) A, Surveyor explained R12 is using melatonin for sleep and a sleep assessment was completed but Surveyor was unable to locate a comprehensive care plan addressing R12's sleep concerns, which include insomnia. On 4/14/22, DON B provided the Surveyor with a comprehensive care plan, dated 4/13/22, for R12 that addresses his insomnia. Surveyor asked DON B if this care plan was created after the meeting on 4/13/22 and DON B stated yes it was.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0660 (Tag F0660)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on an interviews and record review, the facility did not develop, or implement an effective discharge plan for a resident....

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on an interviews and record review, the facility did not develop, or implement an effective discharge plan for a resident. This was discovered with 1 (R4) of 2 residents expressing a desire to discharge to the community. R4 expressed desire to return back to the community and there is no documentation of a discharge plan being developed or implemented. Findings include: On 4/12/22, at 7:55 AM, R4 indicated they do not want to live at the facility. R4 indicated he wanted to be more independent and move back to the community. R4's medical record was reviewed. R4 has resided in the facility since 7/9/2018, and was admitted for rehabilitation services. R4's most recent Quarterly MDS (minimum data set) assessment, completed on 12/24/21, indicates R4 does not have any cognitive impairments and requires set-up assistance for activities of daily living. R4 also administers his own medication. On 8/30/21, R4's medical record documents a social service progress: [Resident's name] would like to have his own apartment along with service as needed. R4 indicated they were interested in a assisted living place in [NAME]. R4 will have to convert to Community Care in order to move in this assisted living. With R4's permission the writer of the this note faxed over medical and financial information to the assisted living facility. The assisted living facility is going to fax writer an application to fill out with resident. R4's medical record does not contain documentation of the assisted living application status or process. There is no further documentation regarding conversations with R4 related to discharging from the facility, On 4/13/22, at 11:09 AM, this Surveyor spoke with SW-F (Social Worker) regarding R4's discharge plan. SW-F indicated R4 had changed his mind about the assisted living and wanted to move in with his girlfriend. SW-F indicated R4 now does not want to live with his girlfriend. R4 now wants to live in an apartment in Milwaukee. SW-F indicated R4 has a history of leaving apartments in bad condition and nobody wants to rent to him. SW-F has not documented any discharge conversations or planning with R4. SW-F stated she has talked with R4 about moving. SW-F recalled that there have been community resources attempting to assist, however R4 has rental issues preventing apartment residency. SW-F did not document dates of the conversations with R4 or where R4 is in the process of meeting his desired discharge goal. On 4/13/22, at 3:20 PM, this Surveyor shared the discharge planning concerns with Nursing Home Administrator-A and Director of Nursing-B at the facility exit meeting. No further information was provided.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0698 (Tag F0698)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the Facility did not provide dialysis consistent with professional standards of practice fo...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the Facility did not provide dialysis consistent with professional standards of practice for 1 (R31) of 1 Residents reviewed for dialysis. * R31's physician orders did not include monitoring of the access site until 4/12/22. R31's medical record does not include documentation of the assessment of R31's access site, monitoring for complications before and after dialysis or which arm to avoid for blood pressure. Findings include: The Dialysis Management policy and procedure last revised 11/18, under purpose documents Residents receiving end stage renal disease (ESRD) services such as hemodialysis (HD) in a certified dialysis center or peritoneal dialysis (PD) either in the nursing facility or offsite in a dialysis center will receive care and services for dialysis management according to current acceptable standards of nursing practice. The nursing facility does not provide home hemodialysis (HHD). R31 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis which includes end stage renal disease. R31 receives hemodialysis Monday, Wednesday, & Friday with a chair time of 8:45 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. R31's altered renal function care plan, dated 6/19/2019, documents approaches of * Nurses-- Administer medications as ordered, observe for side effects and effectiveness, Monitor labs, Observe void pattern, monitor for edema, Monitor weight Assess level of consciousness, monitor for changes, Assess vascular access site for complications, Report s/sx (signs/symptoms) complications dated 6/19/19 & 4/28/21; * Nurse Aide--Assist w (with) hygiene, Provide drinks per preference: enjoy juice encourage resident to wear loose clothing, dated 6/19/19 & 4/28/21; * Dietary--Provide ordered diet, R.D. (Registered Dietitian) consult, dated 6/19/19 & 4/28/21; * Activity--Encourage fluid intake, dated 6/19/19. * Nurses-- Administer medications as ordered, observe for side effects and effectiveness, Monitor labs, Observe void pattern, monitor for edema, Monitor weight Assess level of consciousness, monitor for changes, Assess vascular access site for complications, Report s/sx complications Dialysis M-W-F (Monday-Wednesday-Friday), dated 4/28/21; * Nurse Aide--Record Intake every shift, dialysis Monday, Wednesday, Friday, gets up early am (morning) for pick up at 8 am, returns around 2pm assist into bed after dialysis r/t (related to) fatigue, offer food, snack, drink upon return, dated 4/28/21. The quarterly MDS (minimum data set) with an assessment reference date of 1/26/22, documents a BIMS (brief interview mental status) score of 5 which indicates severe impairment and is checked for dialysis while a Resident. On 4/12/22, Surveyor reviewed R31's physician orders and noted the following orders related to R31's dialysis treatment. Nursing order: NOC (night) shift to complete dialysis screening form and fax to Dialysis center (number on the form) prior to pick up NOC Monday Wednesday Friday first date: 07/02/2021. Surveyor noted R31's physician orders does not include assessment of the dialysis access site or which arm to avoid for blood pressure. Surveyor reviewed R31's electronic and paper medical record including MARs (medication administration record) & TARs (treatment administration record) and was unable to locate assessment of R31's dialysis access site, monitoring for complications before and after dialysis or which arm to avoid for obtaining R31's blood pressure. Surveyor reviewed R31's dialysis binder which contains patient treatment information sheets with [name of] dialysis center. Information on this sheet includes pretreatment & post treatment weight, respiration, blood pressure, heart rate & temperature along with medications administered during treatment. On 4/12/22, at 2:17 p.m., Surveyor asked RN (Registered Nurse)-D where Surveyor would be able to locate documentation of assessment of R31's dialysis access site and monitoring for complications before & after dialysis treatment. RN-D replied I don't know. Don't think I see that in the TAR. Surveyor inquired where R31's fistula is located. RN-D replied right arm. Surveyor asked RN-D where in R31's medical record Surveyor would be able to locate which arm blood pressure should be taken. RN-D replied don't think I've ever seen that. RN-D informed Surveyor a couple months ago the dialysis center called and said no one is removing paper tape so she removed the paper tape but didn't' write an order. On 4/12/22, at 3:18 p.m., during the end of the day meeting with Administrator-A, DON (Director of Nursing)-B and MDS/Wound RN-G asked where Surveyor would be able to locate where staff are assessing R31's dialysis access site, monitoring for complications before and after dialysis or which arm to avoid for obtaining R31's blood pressure. On 4/13/22, at 9:41 a.m., Surveyor asked MDS/Wound RN-G where Surveyor would be able to locate where staff are assessing R31's dialysis access site, monitoring for complications before and after dialysis or which arm to avoid for obtaining R31's blood pressure. MDS/Wound RN-G informed Surveyor she added monitoring of R31's dialysis access site and more specific details on the care plan. MDS/Wound RN-G also informed Surveyor at their facility they chart by exception. On 4/13/22, Surveyor reviewed R31's physician orders and noted the following was added to the physician orders dated 4/12/22: Nursing Order: Monitor left arm fistula for bleeding, discomfort, or redness, abnormal swelling or purulent drainage update MD (medical doctor) as needed three times a day NOC (night) AM (morning) PM (evening) first date: 04/12/22 and MISC/WT/VITAL (miscellaneous/weight/vital) TREATMENT: Check BP (blood pressure) twice a day AM PM first date 4/12/22 avoid use of left arm where fistula is located. On 4/13/22, Surveyor noted R31's altered renal function care plan dated 6/19/2019 has been revised to include the following: * Nurses--assess fistula to left arm for patency PRN (as needed) listening for bruit and palpate for thrill, notify MD of any bleeding or s/s (signs/symptoms) of infection dated 4/12/22.
CONCERN (D)

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

Medication Errors (Tag F0758)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2.) R342 was reviewed for unnecessary medication. R342 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] on antipsychotics medications. Th...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2.) R342 was reviewed for unnecessary medication. R342 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] on antipsychotics medications. The medical record did not contain a AIMS (abnormal involuntary movement scale) assessment to determine a baseline for side effects related to antipsychotic medication use. R342 does not have any psych service consults or assessments related to the need for or monitoring Abilify. R342 is currently taking Abilify for Dementia with behavior disturbances. On 4/13/22, at 3:30 PM, at the facility exit meeting Surveyor asked DON-B (Director of Nurses) for AIMS information for R342. R342 was admitted from another skilled nursing facility, however there was no AIMS located in the medical record to determine baseline at admission to this facility. DON-B stated there was not a AIMS sent over from the discharging facility nor one completed at this facility. Based on interview and record review the facility did not ensure 2 (R1 and R342) of 5 residents on psychotropic medications received the necessary psychiatric assessment and monitoring. R1's medical record indicates R1 is administered Seroquel (antipsychotic) 50 mg (milligrams) daily for agitation. The facility is not conducting behavior monitoring regarding R1 agitation. The psychiatric note indicate R1 is having auditory hallucinations which the Seroquel assist in decreasing the hallucinations. These behaviors are not being monitored. R1 does not have side effect monitoring of Seroquel, such as an AIMS (abnormal involuntary monitoring scale). R342 is on an antipsychotic medication and does not have side effect monitoring, such as an AIMS. Findings include: 1) R1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of morbid obesity, COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease), atrial fibrillation and sleep apnea. The annual MDS (minimum data set) assessment, dated 12/24/21, indicates R1 is cognitively intact and needs supervision with transfers, hygiene, eating and dressing. It also indicates R1 is receiving antipsychotic medication. R1's medical record indicates on 8/3/21 R1 was admitted to the hospital for neurologist service for video EEG (electroencephalography) monitoring. The hospital record indicates R1 has a history of seizure disorder. The hospital record indicates R1 was discharged back to the facility with Seroquel 50 mg daily. The hospital record does not indicate the reason and/or diagnosis for the Seroquel. R1's psychiatric note, dated 9/23/21, indicates Staff reports resident has been at baseline. She continues to be angry she has a roommate & all her stuff is squeezed in 3 X # spot! she is yelling and crying about staff, them stealing and moving her things. She now states the music and noises in her head are louder and worse but had said they improved after starting Seroquel last month. Social Worker found psychotherapist through telehealth, which will hopefully start soon. The note also indicates R1 has depression and anxiety. The treatment recommendations indicate resident continued to yell at writer, did not want to take any suggestions or make any medication changes. Will not take depakote for mood. Follow up appointment 2 months. R1's psychiatric note dated 12/29/21 indicate Staff reports resident has been at baseline. When writer came into room, she immediately started yelling because people stole her belongings when she was in the hospital, How would you feel if that happened to you? It's not OK for them to take my things! She asked why writer was there if she couldn't do anything about it & why she keeps coming back because nothing ever changes, everything is always stolen from me and no one cares! Writer was told not to come back if she can't help with her missing things. The treatment recommendations indicate Once again, resident yelled at writer did not want to take any suggestions thinks writer is able to change situations not pertaining to psych visit. She did not want to make any medication changes. Since is verbally aggressive toward writer and not willing to take recommendations she will be seen as needed. R1 does not have any behavior monitoring for the use of Seroquel. R1 did not have an AIMS (side effect monitoring for antipsychotic medications) in the medical record. On 4/13/22, at 3:30 p.m., during the daily exit meeting with NHA (Nursing Home Administrator) A and DON (Director of Nursing) B, Surveyor asked if R1 had an AIMS completed. DON B stated she would look into it. Surveyor explained the concern R1 was prescribed an antipsychotic medication without clear indications for use. Surveyor explained the concern R1 was being seen by psychiatric services but psychiatric services will not being monitoring R1. Surveyor asked who will be monitoring R1 psychiatric medications. Surveyor also explained R1 does not have any behavior monitoring for the use of Seroquel. DON B stated she will get back to Surveyor with more information. On 4/14/22, at 9:41 AM, Surveyor interviewed DON B. DON B stated R1 sees a therapist weekly via zoom. Surveyor asked if the facility has notes/documentation from the therapist and DON B stated she didn't think so. Surveyor stated to DON B it would be interesting to know why R1 is accepting of talking with the therapist but not accepting of the psych NP (Nurse Practitioner). DON B agreed that it did seem interesting. Surveyor asked DON B if the facility tried to reach out to a different psychiatric NP that possibly would have a different approach with R1 and DON B stated they didn't do that. Surveyor asked who is monitoring R1's Seroquel and any dose reduction needed. DON B stated the NP can be called as needed. Surveyor asked DON B how does she know when the NP needs to be notified. DON B was unable to answer the question. As of 4/19/22 Surveyor did not receive any additional information.
CONCERN (D)

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

Unnecessary Medications (Tag F0759)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations, staff interview, and record review the Facility had a medication error rate of 28.57%. There were 8 errors in 28 opportunities. R33's G (gastrostomy) tube medication was not ind...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, staff interview, and record review the Facility had a medication error rate of 28.57%. There were 8 errors in 28 opportunities. R33's G (gastrostomy) tube medication was not individually administered through the G-tube. This resulted in 7 medication errors for R33. R142 received Benadryl at 4:05 p.m. Physician orders document R142 should receive Benadryl at 1800 (6:00 p.m.). Findings include: The General Guidelines for Administering Medication Via Entral Tube, with an effective date of May 2018, documents Each medication is administered separately to avoid interaction and clumping. The Entral tubing is flushed with at least (15 ml (milliliter)) of water between each medication to avoid physical interaction of the medications. Tablets, powders and beads (never crushed) from opened capsules, are mixed with 15-30 ml of water prior to administration via the tube 1.) On 4/12/22, at 10:21 a.m., Surveyor observed RN (Registered Nurse)-D prepare R33's G-tube medication which consisted of one tablet Anastrozole 1 mg (milligram), one tablet Folic Acid 1 mg, one tablet Calcium 600 mg & D10 mcg (micrograms), one table Vitamin D 25 mcg, one tablet B-12 250 mcg, one tablet Magnesium Oxide 400 mg, and one tablet Aspirin chewable 81 mg. Surveyor noted RN-D dispensed all the tablets into one medication cup. At 10:24 a.m., in a second medication cup, RN-D poured 30 cc (cubic centimeters) of ProSource. At 10:25 a.m., Surveyor verified with RN-D there were 7 tablets in the medication cup. After verifying the number of tablets, RN-D crushed R33's medication all together in a plastic envelope and poured the crushed medications back into the medication cup. At 10:27 a.m., RN-D poured the ProSource into a glass and added water. At 10:29 a.m., Surveyor and RN-D entered R33's room. RN-D washed her hands, placed gloves on and filled the graduate with water. RN-D poured water into the medication cup containing R33's crushed medication, checked for residual and flushed R33's G-tube with 60 cc of water. At 10:31 a.m., RN-D withdrew the medication & water into a syringe, added additional water in the medication cup and withdrew medication with water. RN-D administered R33's medication via the G-tube, flushed R33's G-tube with water, administered the ProSource, and flushed the G-Tube with 60 cc of water. At 10:35 a.m., RN-D removed her gloves and washed her hands. On 4/12/22, at 10:36 a.m., Surveyor asked RN-D why she crushed all of R33's medication together and did not administer them individually. RN-D informed Surveyor she goes by the premise that Residents who receive their medication are mixed with pudding so she does the same thing with tube feeding. RN-D stated she don't really see the necessity, may just be me. Surveyor reviewed R33's physician orders in the electronic and paper medical record signed on 2/28/22 and did not note an order indicating R33's medication can be crushed all together and administered together via the G-tube. On 4/14/22, at 10:45 a.m. Surveyor asked MDS (minimum data set)/Wound RN-G what is the expectation when nurses are administering G-tube medication. MDS/Wound RN-G informed Surveyor when the nurse comes in they are proven to be competent and function as a safe nurse, follow policies and anything that is deviated is not our standard of practice. Surveyor asked when preparing G-tube medication should they be dispensed in individual medication cups. MDS/Wound RN-G replied yes. Surveyor asked if the medication should be crushed individually and then poured back into individual medication cups. MDS/Wound RN-G replied yes and explained the medication has to be administered separately and don't use the same pouch. MDS/Wound RN-G stated we follow the guidelines and that's what we expect. Surveyor informed MDS/Wound RN-G of the observation with RN-D crushing R33's medication all together and administering the medication all together through the G-tube. This observation resulted in 7 medication errors for R33. 2.) On 4/12/22, at 3:55 p.m. Surveyor observed LPN (Licensed Practical Nurse)-J prepare R142's medication which consisted of one tablet of Senna Plus 50/8.6 mg (milligrams), one half tablet Baclofen 10 mg, and one tablet Diphendydramine (Benadryl) 25 mg into a medication cup. At 3:59 p.m., Surveyor accompanied LPN-J to the medication room where LPN-J removed one tablet of Prednisone 20 mg from contingency. LPN-J then dispensed the one tablet of Prednisone 20 mg into the medication cup. At 4:02 p.m., Surveyor verified there were four tablets in the medication cup with LPN-J. At 4:04 p.m., Surveyor entered R142's room with LPN-J. LPN-J washed her hands and R142 received his Benadryl telling LPN-J those I'll keep referring to the rest of his medication. LPN-J informed R142 she could bring the rest of his medication back, spoke with R142 about taking the rest of his medication. R142 agreed and LPN-J administered the rest of R142's medication. On 4/14/22, at 12:18 p.m., Surveyor reviewed R142's physician orders. Surveyor noted R142's physician orders include Diphendydramine hcl 25 mg table dose ordered (1 tablet/25 mg) by mouth every 6 hours 1200 (12:00 p.m.) 1800 (6:00 p.m.) 0000 (12:00 a.m.) 0600 (6:00 a.m.) first date 4/11/22 for allergic skin reaction. On 4/14/22, at 12:43 p.m., Surveyor asked MDS (minimum data set)/Wound RN (Registered Nurse)-G if a medication is ordered for 6:00 p.m. time can this medication be given. MDS/Wound RN-G informed Surveyor if the medication is ordered specifically at this time it is given a hour before or a hour after. Surveyor informed MDS/Wound RN-G of R142 Benadryl being administered at approximately 4:00 p.m. and is ordered for 6:00 p.m. This observation resulted in a medication error for R142. On 4/14/22, at 3:56 p.m., Administrator-A, DON (Director of Nursing)-B and MDS/Wound RN-G were informed of the above.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0576 (Tag F0576)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on individual and group interview, the facility does not always provide reasonable access to residents' mail. Mail that is delivered to the facility on Saturdays is not always delivered to the r...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on individual and group interview, the facility does not always provide reasonable access to residents' mail. Mail that is delivered to the facility on Saturdays is not always delivered to the residents on that same day. At times mail is sorted and then if someone is uncertain if the resident should receive the mail it is placed into an office until Monday. This affected 5 out of 5 residents in council meeting and had the potential to affect all 42 residents in the facility. Findings include: During Resident Council held on 04/12/22 at 01:30 PM, R41 and R39 report that they have not received mail on Saturdays in a very long time. R39 reported that she recalled getting mail on a Saturday but most of the time the mail sits over the weekend until Monday. R15 stated that on Saturdays the mail goes in the front office. When staff come in on Monday then the mail is delivered. R11 reported not ever receiving any mail. On 4/13/22 at 01:47 PM Surveyor interviewed the SW (Social Worker)-F who stated that the AD (Activity Director)-M delivers the mail every day. When asked if this includes Saturdays, she stated, No just Monday through Friday. On 4/13/22 at 01:51 PM Surveyor interviewed AD-M regarding the process for mail delivery. AD-M stated, NHA (Nursing Home Administrator)-A goes through the mail first then will place it in my mailbox where I will then deliver every day to the floors. AD-M reports that mail is unopened. When asked about Saturdays AD-M stated, I'm not here on Saturdays. The mailman delivers to the front and a nurse will come downstairs and will disperse it. When I was an aide, I put it under the business office door. AD-M stated she has been in the activity director position since May 2021. On 04/13/22 at 02:04 PM Surveyor interviewed RN (Registered Nurse)-D and asked if she works on Saturdays and if she was aware of how mail is delivered to residents. RN-D reported that she works every other Saturday and that if she hears the doorbell she will go down to the front and get the mail and bring it in. RN-D reports that she will deliver it if she can otherwise, she takes the mail to the office; unless it's a package. RN-D will deliver packages to residents. On 04/13/22 at 02:09 PM Surveyor interviewed LPN (Licensed Practical Nurse)-N and asked if she works on Saturdays and if she was aware of how mail is delivered to residents. LPN-N reported she does work on Saturdays but does not know the process for delivering mail to residents. On 04/13/22 at 02:12 PM Surveyor interviewed CNA (Certified Nursing Aide)-O and asked if she was aware of the mail delivers process to resident on Saturdays. CNA-O reported that she sometimes goes down to front and will deliver the mail to residents she knows who can read. Other mail she will put under the front office door. On 04/13/22 at 03:33 PM Surveyor interviewed NHA-A regarding mail delivery on Saturdays. NHA-A reported that he talked to the mail carrier about it in the past. NHA-A stated The mail carrier will not wait for staff to come to the door. So, we have not had normal delivery on Saturdays since the front door has been locked for covid screenings. When asked how long residents have not been receiving regular Saturday mail delivery he stated, I'm not sure. It's been a while. Probably since the onset of covid. Since we had to lock the doors. I am considering an alternative holding place. On 04/18/22 at 03:05 PM Surveyor requested the facility's mail policy. On 04/19/22 at 10:24 AM Surveyor went to the administrators' office where VP (Vice President)-U and DON (Director of Nursing)-B were present and requested a policy for mail. VP-U reported they do not have a mail policy other than following CMS guidelines for mail to be delivered promptly to residents within 24 hours. VP-U stated that since the onset of covid and locking of front doors that mail has not been delivered. They have contacted the post office and informed them that they are working on a solution so mail can be delivered. On 04/19/22 at 10:33 AM VP-U handed Surveyor a copy of their plan moving forward to correct mail delivery to residents on Saturdays. It states, The charge nurse on Saturday is to receive the mail, from mailbox. Which the key will be left in med room. After going through the mail, the charge nurse then hands off the mail to the lead CNA or the staff member in charge of activities for the day. Staff member will deliver mail to the residents. The remaining mail will be placed in the business office, in the administrator mailbox.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0678 (Tag F0678)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility did not ensure basic life support, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CP...

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 basic life support, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), would be available 24 hours a day, if needed for residents requesting full code status. The facility did not have an updated list of nursing staff that were current with CPR certification. The facility did not ensure a CPR certified staff member was scheduled on each shift daily. This could affect all residents who have requested to be full-code and want cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Findings include: The facility policy entitled, Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) or Do-Not-Resuscitate (DNR) Orders, dated as last revised on 1/21, documents: . 5. The facility requires all licensed nursed to be CPR certified and to lead the emergency response. If there is another CPR-certified staff member present, they may assist with CPR delivery at the direction of the licensed nurse. On [DATE], at 2:18 PM, this Surveyor interviewed Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)-N, who stated, she believes all licensed staff who work at the facility are CPR certified and can assist when a code is called. LPN-N stated the facility keeps track of all licensed staffs' CPR certification status and when the staff are due for recertification the facility will provide a class so staff can renew their certification. LPN-N stated she was aware her CPR certification had expired but she was uncertain the of the date it expired. LPN-N stated her wallet was stolen sometime ago and her CPR certification card was in the wallet. LPN-N stated the facility realized LPN-C's CPR certification had expired and the facility is going to have a CPR class on [DATE]th so she can renew her CPR certification at that time. On [DATE], at 3:59 PM, this Surveyor interviewed Nursing Home Administrator (NHA)-A. Surveyor asked NHA-A how the facility assures they have CPR certified staff on each shift. NHA-A stated all licensed staff are required to be CPR certified. NHA-A stated the facility keeps track of each licensed staff CPR certification and it is reviewed monthly. NHA-A stated they identify staff who will need to renew their CPR certification and the facility will provide a class for recertification. NHA-A stated, he would need to check to see if the facility had a specific policy related to licensed staffs' requirement to be CPR certified and monitoring of staff's CPR certification status. Surveyor requested a list of all licensed staff and their CPR certification status from NHA-A. Surveyor informed NHA-A of LPN-N's statement that her CPR certification had expired. NHA-A stated he would need to investigate how the facility assures they have CPR certified staff available on each shift. Surveyor reviewed the facility provided list of current staff employed by the facility. Surveyor also reviewed facility provided list of Licenses and Certificationsof nursing staff, with a run date and time of [DATE], at 5:28 PM EDT (Eastern Time) (4:28 PM Central Time). The facility Licensed and Certifications Report does not list LPN-N as having CPR certification, including even expired certification as LPN-N stated her status was. LPN-N is listed on the facility employee list as working Regular Full Time. LPN-W is listed on the Licenses and Certification Report as having CPR Certification with an expiration date of [DATE]. LPN-W is listed as working Casual status. LPN-X is not listed on the Licensed and Certification Report as having CPR certification. LPN-X is listed as working Casual status. DON-B stated LPN-X is no longer employed by the facility. DON-B stated LPN-X was only a casual nurse and hasn't pick up any shifts at the facility in several months. Surveyor identified LPN-X is documented on the facility provided staff schedule as having worked on [DATE] on the day shift. On [DATE], at 1:15 PM, this Surveyor interviewed Director of Nursing (DON)-B, who stated, she was aware some of the licensed staff had expired CPR Certification. DON-B stated she set up a date with a company to complete CPR training at the facility. DON-B stated if the staff are unable to attend the scheduled class, they will need to obtain CPR certification on their own. Surveyor asked DON-B when the CPR training would take place at the facility. DON-B stated she would need to look into that and would provide this Surveyor with the information. DON-B was unable to tell Surveyor when she last reviewed the Licenses and Certifications Report to identify staff with expired CPR certification. Surveyor asked DON-B how she assures the facility has CPR certified staff on every shift. DON-B stated typically she will schedule the 2 staff with expired CPR Certification with other staff that are CPR certified. Surveyor asked DON-B for a copy of the last months nursing staff schedule. On [DATE], DON-B provided this Surveyor with the nurse staffing schedule for [DATE]. On [DATE], the facility schedule documents Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA)/Medication Technician (Med Tech)-V was scheduled to work the day shift with LPN-N. LPN-N's CPR Certification expired at an unknown date. LPN-N is not listed on the facility Licenses and Certification Report as having CPR certification and LPN-N informed this Surveyor her CPR certification had expired but she wasn't sure when. DON-B stated CNA/Med Tech-V does have CPR certification. Surveyor identified CNA/Med Tech-V is not listed on the facility list of staff with CPR Certification. On [DATE], at 3:09 PM, Surveyor interviewed DON-B, who stated she would need to look into what date the facility has arranged for the CPR certification class to take place at the facility. Surveyor asked DON-B when the facility last provided a CPR certification class at the facility. DON-B stated the last class at the facility was held on [DATE]. Surveyor identified LPN-W's CPR certification had expired on [DATE]. This is before the last CPR certification class was provided at the facility. LPN-W's CPR certification has been expired for over a year. DON-B stated the staff with expired CPR certification need to attend the class arranged by the facility or seek out the certification on their own. DON-B stated she didn't know when she last reviewed the facility Licenses and Certification Report to identify which staff were current and which staff had expired CPR certification. On [DATE], at 3:33 PM, Surveyor informed DON-B, [NAME] President-U and Wound Nurse-G of the above concerns. No further information was provided.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0700 (Tag F0700)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 5.) On 04/11/22, at 10:09 AM, Surveyor observed R36 in their bed. Surveyor observed there were padded transfer bar's on each sid...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 5.) On 04/11/22, at 10:09 AM, Surveyor observed R36 in their bed. Surveyor observed there were padded transfer bar's on each side of R36's bed. On 04/11/22, at 2:58 PM, Surveyor observed R36 in their bed. Surveyor observed there were padded transfer bar's on each side of R36's bed. On 04/13/22, at 7:54 AM, Surveyor observed R36 in their bed. Surveyor observed there were padded transfer bar's on each side of R36's bed. R36's medical record was reviewed. R36 was admitted on [DATE] with a main diagnosis of cerebella stroke syndrome. The Nurse's Note on 6/17/21 indicates a bruise to their left hand - maintenance will pad bed positioning device to reduce risk of reoccurrence. R36's Annual MDS (minimum data set) assessment, dated 9/10/21, indicates severe cognitive impairment; total dependence on staff for transfers and bed mobility. R36's Quarterly MDS assessment, dated 3/1/22, documents severe cognitive impairment and total dependence on staff for bed mobility and transfers. R36's medical record did not contain an assessment for the use of transfer bars/mobility bed devices. On 4/13/22, at 3:20 PM, at the facility daily exit meeting with Nursing Home Administrator-A, and Director of Nursing-B, Surveyor shared that Surveyor was unable to locate an assessmnet for the use of the transfer bars or consents for the use of the transfer bars for R36's. On 04/14/22, at 9:38 AM, Surveyor was provided with a Resident Safety and Assistive Device Use Acknowledgement form for repositioning bars to promote mobility for R36. This Form was dated 4/13/22 and a call was placed to R36 Power of Attorney for consent. No assessment was provided. Based on observation, interview and record review the Facility did not assess the risk of entrapment and review the risk & benefits for 5 (R2, R31, R38, R41, & R36) of 5 Residents observed having bed rails. Examples of bed rails include but are not limited to side rails, bed side rails, safety rails, grab bars and assist bars. Findings include: 1.) R2's diagnoses includes chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, atrial fibrillation, diabetes mellitus, morbid obesity, and congestive heart failure. The annual MDS (minimum data set) with an assessment reference date of 12/28/2, documents a BIMS (brief interview mental status) score of 15, which indicates R2 is cognitively intact. R2 requires extensive assistance with two plus person for bed mobility & transfer and does not ambulate. Under the restraint section bed rails are coded as not being used. On 4/11/22, at 2:04 p.m,. Surveyor observed R2 laying in bed on his back with the head of the bed up. While Surveyor was speaking with R2, R2 grabbed on to the left assist/transfer bar and sat himself up. Surveyor noted there is an assist/transfer bar on each side of the bed. On 4/12/22, at 11:09 a.m., Surveyor observed R2 in bed on his back with the head of the bed elevated. Surveyor noted there are two assist/transfer bars on each side of the bed. On 4/14/22, at 7:54 a.m. Surveyor observed R2 in bed on his back wearing a C-pap machine. Surveyor noted there are two assist/transfer bars up. On 4/12/22, at 3:31 p.m., during the end of the day meeting with Administrator-A, DON (Director of Nursing)-B and MDS/Wound RN (Registered Nurse)-G Surveyor inquired where assessments could be found. Surveyor was informed it would depend on the assessment but would be under nurse charting. Surveyor informed Facility staff Surveyor was looking for a bed rail/assist bar assessment. Surveyor was informed this assessment would be in the paper chart. Surveyor reviewed R2's electronic and paper medical record and was unable to locate an assessment for R2's assist/transfer bars. On 4/13/22, at 9:40 a.m., Surveyor informed MDS/Wound RN-G Surveyor was unable to locate an assessment for R2's assist/transfer bars. On 4/14/22, at 8:22 a.m., Surveyor was provided with a Resident Safety and Assistive Device Use Acknowledgement form for R2. For recommended device documents repositioning bars and purpose for recommended device documents promote mobility. Surveyor noted this form includes the expected benefit of device and potential negative outcomes. This form was signed by R2 & MDS/Wound RN-G on 4/13/22. On 4/14/22, at 10:53 a.m., Surveyor asked MDS/Wound RN-G if there is an assessment for R2's assist/transfer bars. On 4/14/22 Surveyor was provided with R2's bed inspection form. The section to be completed by Director of Nursing, Clinical Nurse Manager or MDS Coordinator is signed by DON-B on 4/13/22. Yes is checked for the question does resident have an assessed need for a supportive device for bed mobility that is attached to the bed frame, headboard or footboard. For write-in device documents Grab/Positioning Bar(s). The question Is the supportive device assessment completed in ECS (electronic chart system) is not answered and yes is checked for for the question Is the Safety Device Use Acknowledgement signed and completed. 2.) R31's diagnoses includes end stage renal disease, anoxic brain damage, heart failure, diabetes mellitus and schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type. The quarterly MDS (minimum data set) with an assessment reference date of 1/26/22 documents a BIMS (brief interview mental status) score of 5 which indicates severe cognitive impairment. R31 is dependent with two plus person physical assist for bed mobility & transfer and does not ambulate. Under the restraint section bed rails are coded as not being used. On 4/14/22, at 8:01 a.m., Surveyor observed R31 in bed on his back with the head of the bed elevated. Surveyor observed there are two assist/transfer bars up on R31's bed. On 4/14/22, at 8:56 a.m,. Surveyor observed R31 continues to be in bed on his back with the head of the bed elevated. Surveyor observed there are two assist/transfer bars up on R31's bed. On 4/14/22, at 1:30 p.m., Surveyor observed R31 on his back with his head leaning towards the right. Surveyor observed there are two assist/transfer bars up on R31's bed. On 4/12/22, at 3:31 p.m., during the end of the day meeting with Administrator-A, DON (Director of Nursing)-B and MDS/Wound RN (Registered Nurse)-G Surveyor inquired where assessments could be found. Surveyor was informed it would depend on the assessment but would be under nurse charting. Surveyor informed Facility staff Surveyor was looking for a bed rail/assist bar assessment. Surveyor was informed this assessment would be in the paper chart. Surveyor reviewed R31's electronic and paper medical record and was unable to locate an assessment for R31's assist/transfer bars. On 4/13/22, at 9:40 a.m., Surveyor informed MDS/Wound RN-G Surveyor was unable to locate an assessment for R31's assist/transfer bars. On 4/14/22, at 8:22 a.m., Surveyor was provided with a Resident Safety and Assistive Device Use Acknowledgement form for R31. For recommended device documents repositioning bars and purpose for recommended device documents promote mobility. Surveyor noted this form includes the expected benefit of device and potential negative outcomes. This form was signed by MDS/Wound RN-G on 4/13/22. Verbal consent was provided via the telephone from R31's POA (power of attorney) on 4/13/22. The nurses note dated 4/13/22 documents Call placed to: POA [name] regarding: Safety and assistive device use acknowledgement form Result: verbal consent provided for repositioning bars on bed to promote mobility stated he would like form emailed for signature email. On 4/14/22, at 10:53 a.m., Surveyor asked MDS/Wound RN-G if there is an assessment for R31's assist/transfer bars. On 4/14/22, Surveyor was provided with R31's bed inspection form. The section to be completed by Director of Nursing, Clinical Nurse Manager or MDS Coordinator is signed by DON -B on 4/13/22. Yes is checked for the question does resident have an assessed need for a supportive device for bed mobility that is attached to the bed frame, headboard or footboard. For write-in device documents Grab/Positioning Bar(s). The question Is the supportive device assessment completed in ECS (electronic chart system) is not answered and yes is checked for for the question Is the Safety Device Use Acknowledgement signed and completed. 3.) R38's diagnoses includes epilepsy, atrial fibrillation, diabetes mellitus, schizophrenia, Parkinson's disease and hypertension. The annual MDS (minimum data set) with an assessment reference date of 1/21/22 documents a BIMS (brief interview mental status) score of 15 which indicates cognitively intact. R38 requires limited assistance with one person physical assist for bed mobility & transfer, supervision for ambulating in room and extensive assistance with one person physical assist for ambulating in the corridor. Under the restraint section bed rails are coded as not being used. On 4/11/22 at 9:42 a.m. Surveyor observed R38 in bed on his right side. Surveyor observed there are large padded assist/transfer bars up on each side of the bed. On 4/13/22 at 8:58 a.m. Surveyor observed R38 in bed on his back. Surveyor observed there are two large padded assist/transfer bars up on each side of the bed and R38's wheelchair is along the left side of the bed. On 4/12/22 at 3:31 p.m. during the end of the day meeting with Administrator-A, DON (Director of Nursing)-B and MDS/Wound RN (Registered Nurse)-G Surveyor inquired where assessments could be found. Surveyor was informed it would depend on the assessment but would be under nurse charting. Surveyor informed Facility staff Surveyor was looking for a bed rail/assist bar assessment. Surveyor was informed this assessment would be in the paper chart. Surveyor reviewed R38's electronic and paper medical record and was unable to locate an assessment for R38's assist/transfer bars. On 4/13/22 at 9:40 a.m. Surveyor informed MDS/Wound RN-G Surveyor was unable to locate an assessment for R38's assist/transfer bars. On 4/14/22 at 8:22 a.m. Surveyor was provided with a Resident Safety and Assistive Device Use Acknowledgement form for R38. For recommended device documents repositioning bars and purpose for recommended device documents promote bed mobility. Surveyor noted this form includes the expected benefit of device and potential negative outcomes. This form was signed by MDS/Wound RN-G on 4/13/22. Verbal consent was provided via the telephone from R38's POA (power of attorney) on 4/13/22. On 4/14/22 at 10:53 a.m. Surveyor asked MDS/Wound RN-G if there is an assessment for R38's assist/transfer bars. On 4/14/22 Surveyor was provided with R38's bed inspection form. The section to be completed by Director of Nursing, Clinical Nurse Manager or MDS Coordinator is signed by DON -B on 4/13/22. Yes is checked for the question does resident have an assessed need for a supportive device for bed mobility that is attached to the bed frame, headboard or footboard. For write-in device documents Grab/Positioning Bar(s). The question Is the supportive device assessment completed in ECS (electronic chart system) is not answered and yes is checked for for the question Is the Safety Device Use Acknowledgement signed and completed. 4.) R41's diagnoses includes hypertension, bipolar disease, and anxiety. The quarterly MDS (minimum data set) with an assessment reference date of 3/7/22 documents a BIMS (brief interview mental status) score of 15 which indicates cognitively intact. R41 is dependent with two plus person physical assist for bed mobility & transfer and does not ambulate. Under the restraint section bed rails are coded as not being used. On 4/11/22 at 9:47 a.m. Surveyor observed R41 in bed on her back with the head of the bed elevated with a book in her hand. Surveyor observed there is an assist/transfer bar up on each side of her bed. On 4/11/22 at 10:46 a.m. Surveyor asked R41 if she uses the assist/transfer bars on her bed. R41 informed Surveyor she uses the bars to pull herself right or left to help the CNA's (Certified Nursing Assistants). On 4/12/22 at 7:52 a.m. Surveyor observed R41 in bed on her back with the head of the bed elevated. Surveyor observed there is an assist/transfer bar up on each side of her bed. On 4/12/22 at 3:31 p.m. during the end of the day meeting with Administrator-A, DON (Director of Nursing)-B and MDS/Wound RN (Registered Nurse)-G Surveyor inquired where assessments could be found. Surveyor was informed it would depend on the assessment but would be under nurse charting. Surveyor informed Facility staff Surveyor was looking for a bed rail/assist bar assessment. Surveyor was informed this assessment would be in the paper chart. Surveyor reviewed R41's electronic and paper medical record and was unable to locate an assessment for R41's assist/transfer bars. On 4/13/22 at 9:40 a.m. Surveyor informed MDS/Wound RN-G Surveyor was unable to locate an assessment for R41's assist/transfer bars. On 4/14/22 at 8:22 a.m. Surveyor was provided with a Resident Safety and Assistive Device Use Acknowledgement form for R41. For recommended device documents repositioning bars and purpose for recommended device documents promote mobility. Surveyor noted this form includes the expected benefit of device and potential negative outcomes. This form was signed by MDS/Wound RN-G on 4/13/22. Verbal consent was provided via the telephone from R38's POA (power of attorney) on 4/13/22. The nurses note dated 4/13/22 documents Call placed to POA sister [name] regarding : safety and assistive device use acknowledgement form result verbal consent provided for repositioning bars o sic (on) bed to promote mobility. On 4/14/22 at 10:53 a.m. Surveyor asked MDS/Wound RN-G if there is an assessment for R41's assist/transfer bars. On 4/14/22 Surveyor was provided with R41's bed inspection form. The section to be completed by Director of Nursing, Clinical Nurse Manager or MDS Coordinator is signed by DON -B on 4/13/22. Yes is checked for the question does resident have an assessed need for a supportive device for bed mobility that is attached to the bed frame, headboard or footboard. For write-in device documents Grab/Positioning Bar. The question Is the supportive device assessment completed in ECS (electronic chart system) is not answered and yes is checked for for the question Is the Safety Device Use Acknowledgement signed and completed.
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 ensure that food was stored, prepared and served under sanitary conditions in 1 of 1 serving kitchens. There was no temperature ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility did not ensure that food was stored, prepared and served under sanitary conditions in 1 of 1 serving kitchens. There was no temperature monitoring, and no sanitation provided in the kitchenettes on the 2nd and 3rd floor. This had the potential to effect all 42 residents currently in the facility. *On 4/11/22, Surveyor observed 4 large cans of Pumpkin (106 oz) with a best by date of December 2019 in the facility dry food storage room. *On 4/11/22 and 4/12/22, Surveyor observed 4 black shelving units in the cooler that do not have 6 in clearance from the ground. * On 4/11/22 and 4/12/22 Surveyor observed debris under shelving, frozen to floor in freezer. * The food was not prepared to the required temperatures, nor in regulated temperature controlled equipment. * Thermometers used for temperature monitoring of food were not sanitized properly. * Food was not prepared in a appetizing manner for mechanically altered diets. * The kitchenettes on the 2nd and 3rd floor contained refrigerators with freezer that were not kept in a sanitary fashion, nor monitored for appropriate temperatures. Findings include: STORAGE The facilities food storage policy, entitled Food Storage Standards, dated 5/17 documents under section 1. Criteria for Refrigerator Storage . d. Refrigerator storage areas meet FDA (Food and Drug Administration) or state standards (i.e. 6 inches off the floor, clean, slatted shelving). On 4/11/22, at 9:35 AM, this Surveyor observed the main cooler where 4 black shelving units did not have 6 inch clearance from the floor. On 4/12/22, at 8:57 AM, this surveyor used a standard tape measure to measure the clearance from floor to base of first shelf. Shelf has 3 inch clearance from floor. Items observed being stored on the bottom shelf of the 4 shelving units are a box of onions, box of potatoes, box of grapefruit and box of eggs. On 4/12/22, at 8:59 AM, Surveyor interviewed the DM-K (Dietary Manager). Surveyor asked DM-K if the shelves were 6 inches off the floor. DM-K stated, No and that they were always like this. DM-K indicated they will get maintenance to raise the shelves. SANITARY/STORAGE for COOLERS/FREEZERS AREAS The facilities food storage policy, dated 5/17, entitled Food Storage Standards documents under section 2. Criteria for Freezer Storage . g. Freezers are cleaned and inspected on a regular basis. On 4/11/22, at 9:35 AM, this Surveyor observed the freezer with debris frozen to floor under the shelving. On 4/12/22, at 9:00 AM, this Surveyor observed the freezer with DM-K and debris was noted to be frozen to the floor under shelving. DM-K confirmed it was not clean and stated, I'd have to turn freezer off to clean it because it is frozen to floor. The facilities food storage policy, dated 5/17, entitled Food Storage Standards documents under section 3. Criteria for Dry Food Storage . h. Storage area is kept clean, secure, and is inspected regularly . j. Personnel look for and follow best before dates. They also honor Store in a cool dry place or keep in the refrigerator once opened. (Note: Best before dates mean personnel must look for additional instructions on the label; best before dates also mean the item is no longer at its best quality but may still be safe to eat.) On 4/11/22, at 9:35 AM, this Surveyor observed 4 large cans of Pumpkin (106 oz) with a best by date of December 2019. On 4/11/22, at 9:38 AM, this Surveyor informed NHA-A (Nursing Home Administrator) of the findings. Surveyor asked what the expectation is for canned food that is expired. NHA-A stated that expired food should be removed and disposed of. Surveyor then showed the Administrator the 4 large cans of Pumpkin (106 oz) in the dry food storage room. NHA-A stated, These are clearly past the expiration date,. On 4/12/22, at 8:50 AM Surveyor interviewed DM-K regarding process for storing dry food. DM-K stated they use a first in, first out process and follow expiration dates on the container. I heard about yesterday and the pumpkin cans. I don't know how that happened. On 4/18/22, at 9:09 AM, this Surveyor observed the 2nd floor kitchenette area. The freezer had a Ziploc type bag of ice and a few ice cream cups. There was no freezer thermostat. The refrigerator had a brown colored liquid in a pouring pitcher with no date or label on it. There were liquid spills in the drawers, a small Chinese takeout container unlabeled. On top of the refrigerator was a opened box of cereal, Cinnamon Toast Crunch, undated. There was no visible temperature log to verify the temperatures of the refrigerator and freezer. On 4/18/22, at 9:16 AM, this Surveyor observed the 3rd floor kitchenette. The freezer had 3 large Ziploc type bags of ice and no thermostat. The refrigerator had 2 pitchers of orange colored juice with no dates or labels. The refrigerator inside was sticky with liquid spills. There is a build-up of ice in the back of the refrigerator. The temperature is 30 degrees Fahrenheit. There is no visible temperature log for the refrigerator and freezer. On 4/18/22, at 9:26 AM, this Surveyor asked LPN-N (Licensed Practical Nurse) where the refrigerator and freezer temperature logs are kept. LPN-N showed Surveyor a binder with temperature log forms. There were a few times in April the refrigerators temperatures were recorded for the Kitchenette. There were no temperature recordings for the freezers. LPN-N did not know who was directly responsible for monitoring this, besides nursing. On 4/18/22, at 10:32 AM, this Surveyor spoke with VP-U (Vice President) regarding the kitchenettes on the unit and that temperatures are not being consistently recorded. VP-U verified the temperature's have not been consistently recorded. VP-U did tell the DM-K that this would be their department. On 4/18/22, at 10:33 AM, this Surveyor spoke with DM-K. DM-K stated they have not monitored the temperatures for the unit kitchenette refrigerators and freezers . DM-K indicated they will start doing this and thought Nursing was responsible for these areas. On 4/18/22, at 11:08 AM, DON-B (Director of Nurses) spoke with Surveyor and indicated the kitchenettes were supposed to be monitored by the kitchen staff. DON-B stated there is no specific policy and procedure. They follow what's on the bottom of the form. The bottom of the form indicates temperature ranges for a medication refrigerator. FOOD PREP/SANITIZATION The facility's policy and procedure for Cooling and Reheating Food, dated 3/22, indicates the purpose is to provide uniform procedures for correctly cooling and reheating food items to safe temperatures in an effort to prevent food-borne illness. The procedure indicates for reheating food to at least 165 degrees Fahrenheit for 15 minutes. And refers to the Food Temperature Log. The facility's policy and procedure, entitled Food Temperatures, dated 2/22, indicates the purpose is all foods will be prepared and temperatures recorded using appropriate practices and procedures to ensure safety. This policy provides guidance on properly cooking foods to required internal temperatures and taking and recording temperatures. The procedures to sanitize the thermometer between food items. The section for non-continuous cooking indicates cooled foods should be held at 41 degrees Fahrenheit and for heating it should be at least 165 degrees Fahrenheit for 15 seconds before serving it. For preparing hot foods it indicates do not use hot holding equipment to cook or reheat foods. The cooking temperatures are as follows: -Pork 145 degrees Fahrenheit for 15 seconds -Vegetables 145 degrees Fahrenheit for 15 seconds On 4/12/22, at 10:10 AM, this Surveyor observed Cook-L prepare ham for the lunch meal. The ham was cold and came from the refrigerator in slices. The ham was placed in a blender to create a mechanical soft consistency. Nothing further was added. Cook-L used a spatula to get ham out of the blender then placed the ham in a container. Cook-L then proceeded to create puree consistency ham. Cook-L placed the ham in the blender. Cook-L then added hot water for malleable puree consistency. Cook-L then placed the ham in a pan. Cook-L covered the pans of ham and placed in holding/steam device. Cook-L did not take any temperatures of the ham before placing in the blender or before placing in a steamer/cooking device. The steamer/cooking device did not have any temperature gauge, or a functioning timer. It had a switch that indicated cook. The ham was for the lunch meal on this day. There were other covered containers in the steam/cook device at this time. On 4/12/22, at 11:14 AM, this Surveyor spoke to DM-K regarding the temperature of the steam/cooking device when it does not have a temperature gauge. DM-K indicated when the food comes out of the device they take it's temperature on the tray line. DM-K indicated the steamer/cooker is pretty efficient. DM-K stated there is no temperature log for the steamer/cooking device. All the items for lunch were taken out of the steam/cooking device and brought over to the steam table in the kitchen. Cook-L started taking food temperatures. The temperatures were as follows: -Puree ham was at 129 F (Fahrenheit). Cook-L put the puree ham back in the cooking/ steamer device. -Au gratin potatoes were at 162 F; -Puree potatoes were at 132 F. Cook-L put the puree potatoes back into steamer/cooking device; -Peas were at 134 F. Cook-L placed the peas back into steamer/cooking device; -Puree peas were at 132 F. Cook-L placed the puree peas back into steamer/cooking device; -Beef Stroganoff with noodles were at 165 F. Cook-L indicated they keep any food under the safe holding temperature in the steamer/cooking device for 10 minutes. The same probe wipe used to clean the thermometer between all temperatures taken for the above food. The thermometer was not sanitized between food items. On 4/12/22, at 11:32 AM, Cook-L took the items from the steamer/cooking device and placed them back into the steam table. -Puree ham was at 141 F. Cook-L dropped the thermometer into the pea container, picked it up with ungloved fingers; -Puree potatoes were 130 F; -Puree peas were 125 F. Cook-L dropped the thermometer into pea container, picked it up with ungloved fingers, then dropped it again, and picked it up a second time with a plastic fork; -Cook-L then stirred the regular peas around with a spoon and took the temperature that read 152 F; -Cook-L indicated all the puree and ground food will be going into the oven at 350 F instead of the cooker/steamer device. This included potatoes, ham and peas. The same probe wipe used to clean the thermometer between all temperatures taken for the above food. The thermometer was not sanitized between food items. On 4/12/22, at 11:38 AM, Cook-L placed all puree food items (peas, potatoes, ham) into the oven at 350 F. On 4/12/22, at 11:44 AM, Cook-L took out the pureed items from the oven. -Puree ham was at 110 F and Cook-L placed it back into the oven; -Puree peas were at 147 F; -Puree potatoes were at 160 F. The same probe wipe used to clean the thermometer between all temperatures taken for the above food. The thermometer was not sanitized between food items. Cook-L decided to start plating up food for resident room trays. On 4/12/22, at 11:59 AM, Cook-L removed the puree ham from the oven and it was tempted at 122 F. This Surveyor observed the puree ham to appeared dried up and burnt around the edges. DM-K threw out the puree ham. DM-K took mechanical ground ham to puree. DM-K warmed up some milk in the microwave in a bowl. DM-K then added the hot milk to the ground ham in the food processor. DM-K did not measure out the milk or ham. DM-K then pureed the milk and ham together. DM-K then scooped the puree ham into a bowl and placed it in the microwave for a minute. DK-M took the temperature of the puree ham after stirring it up and it was 142 F. DM-K then placed the puree ham into the microwave for 30 seconds and retook the temperature which was 147 F. On 4/13/22, at 9:47 AM, this Surveyor spoke with DM-K. DM-K stated they do not take temperatures of the food before it goes in the steamer/cooker. DM-K stated there is not a manual for the cooking steamer machine that they are aware of. DM-K did not know the temperature of the steamer/cooker nor anything more about it. DM-K does not have a specific recipe for puree ham. DM-K stated the facility uses a generic guideline for puree food. On 4/13/22, at 3:30 PM, this Surveyor shared the above concerns at the facility exit meeting. On 4/14/22, at 9:12 AM, this Surveyor was provided a Vulcan Installation & Operation Manual - VPX Series Steamers Model VPX5 ML-126588 for the cooking/steamer device used at the facility. This is a device for steaming food, it is not a cooking device. The manual does not identify any internal cooking temperature of device because it's a steamer.
CONCERN (F)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

* On 4/12/22 from 10:21 a.m. to 10:35 a.m. Surveyor observed RN (Registered Nurse)-D prepare R33's medication, check for residual, flush R33's gastrostomy tube and administer R33's medication. During ...

Read full inspector narrative →
* On 4/12/22 from 10:21 a.m. to 10:35 a.m. Surveyor observed RN (Registered Nurse)-D prepare R33's medication, check for residual, flush R33's gastrostomy tube and administer R33's medication. During this observation RN-D's surgical mask was under RN-D's chin and was not covering her nose & mouth. * On 4/12/22 at 10:39 a.m. Surveyor observed RN-D administer R342 his medication. Surveyor observed RN-D's surgical mask is under her chin and is not covering her nose & mouth. * On 4/13/22 from 8:42 a.m. to 8:49 a.m. Surveyor observed RN-D prepare R22's medication, administer R22's oral medication, nasal spray, and inhaler. During this observation Surveyor observed RN-D was not wearing her surgical mask properly as the mask was not covering RN-D's nose. * On 4/13/22 at 11:09 a.m. Surveyor observed RN (Registered Nurse)-D at the medication cart in the hallway preparing R22's medication. Surveyor observed RN-D's surgical mask is under her chin and is not covering RN-D's nose & mouth. At 11:11 a.m. Surveyor observed RN-D administer R22's inhaler and by mouth medication. Surveyor observed RN-D's surgical mask is under her chin and is not covering RN-D's nose & mouth. On 4/13/22 at 3:43 p.m. Administrator-A, DON (Director of Nursing)-B were informed of the above and MDS/Wound RN-G were informed of the above. Based on observation, interview and record review the facility did not ensure the infection surveillance report and infection rates were accurate and RN (Registered Nurse) D was observed not wearing her PPE (Personal Protective Equipment) appropriately. This had the potential to affect all 42 residents in the facility. Findings include: 1) The facility Infection Prevention and Control Program policy with revised date of 1/20 indicate: 2. Surveillance . a. Assessment population: The scope of the infection prevention and control program will include whole-house surveillance of all residents, staff members, volunteers, visitors and contracted individuals providing services to the residents. d. Collecting surveillance data: Concurrent surveillance (looking at each infection as it happens to determine cause, pattern, trend, etc) will be utilized for timely intervention of issues. Retrospective surveillance (looking at the number of infections over a designated period of time) will be utilized to monitor overall program efficacy. The surveillance process consists of collecting data on individual cases and determining whether or not an HAI (Healthcare-Associated Infection) is present by comparing the collected data to the Surveillance Criteria for Monitoring Infections table. The data collected will come from nursing home rounds, staff reports, chart reviews, laboratory or radiology reports, treatment reviews, antibiotic usage data and clinical observations. The standardized format for data collection will be the facility Infection Control Log (ECS/electronic charting system) charting system for residents and the Infection Control Log-Employee (paper form) for all staff members. g. Analysis and reporting of surveillance data: . i. The licensed nurse will input surveillance data for residents into the Infection Control Log folder in ECS on a daily basis as the condition occurs. The IPCO (Infection Prevention and Control Officer) or designee will review the contents of this data folder daily along with the Infection Control Log-employee, and communicate any patterns or trends to the facility ICC (Infection Control Committee) during the daily facility staff meetings. iv. The IPCO will calculate the individual HAI rate for each category/sub type of infection (i.e. urinary tract infections with or without catheter, gastrointestinal, wound, etc.) so that tracking, trending and performance improvement plans can be implemented through QAPI (Quality Assurance Performance Improvement) based on findings. On 4/14/22, at 8:49 a.m. Surveyor interviewed DON B, who is the Infection Preventionist. DON B gave Surveyor a copy of the Infection Report that the nurses fill out in the electronic medical record when a resident develops an infection. DON B also gave Surveyor a hand written Infection Prevention and Control Surveillance Log along with the monthly infection rates. DON B stated she takes the information from the Infection Report and transcribes it to the paper form Infection Prevention and Control Surveillance Log. DON B stated she uses the paper form to calculate the monthly infection rates. Surveyor reviewed both the electronic Infection Report and the paper form Infection Prevention and Control Surveillance log. December 2021 Infection Report indicates on 12/19/21, R11 developed a UTI (Urinary Tract Infection)and was placed on an antibiotic. The infection report does not indicate the type of pathogen for this infection. The December 2021 Infection Prevention and Control Surveillance Log does not have R11 listed as having an infection. January 2022 Infection Report indicates on 1/31/22, R38 developed cellulitis and was placed on antibiotics. The Infection Prevention and Control Surveillance Log does not have R38 listed with an infection but it does list R292 with a skin infection (no date of infection) and prescribed an antibiotic. February 2022 Infection Report indicates on 2/25/22, R342 developed cellulitis and placed on an antibiotic. On 2/28/22, R10 was admitted to the facility with diagnosis of pneumonia and was still receiving antibiotics. The Infection Prevention and Control Surveillance Log does not have R342 and R10 listed as having infections. The February 2022 Infection Report lists R38 as having cellulitis beginning 2/1/22. The January 2022 Infection report indicates on 1/31/22 R38 was diagnosed with cellulitis not 2/1/22. Surveyor explained to DON B the discrepancies found between the Infection Reports and the Infection Prevention and Control Surveillance Log. DON B stated she understands the discrepancies but did not have an answer why there are discrepancies. Surveyor asked DON B how she calculates the monthly infection rates. DON B states she uses the information on the Infection Prevention and Control Surveillance Log to calculate the monthly infection rates. Surveyor explained the monthly infection rates are not accurate because the Infection Report and Infection Prevention and Control Surveillance Log do not correlate. DON B stated she understood the concern and had no further information.
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Transfer Notice (Tag F0623)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3.) R36's medical record was reviewed by Surveyor. R36 has an activated Power of Attorney for Healthcare. The Quarterly MDS (min...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3.) R36's medical record was reviewed by Surveyor. R36 has an activated Power of Attorney for Healthcare. The Quarterly MDS (minimum data set) assessment, completed on 3/15/22, indicates a score of 0 for BIMS (brief interview of mental status), indicating R36 has severe cognitive impairment. R36 was transferred to the hospital on [DATE], at 11:00 AM. R36 was transferred due to high blood pressure, lethargy and loss of appetite over the weekend. The physician and POA (Power of Attorney) were made aware of the transfer. R36 returned to the facility on [DATE]. This Surveyor was unable to locate documentation the facility notified the Ombudsman of R36's transfer to the hospital. On 4/13/22, at 1:28 PM, this Surveyor spoke with SW-F (Social Worker) and asked when a resident is transferred, or discharged to the hospital who notifies the Ombudsman. SW-F indicated she only notifies the Ombudsman when a resident is discharged from the facility. SW-F stated she didn't know the Ombudsman was to be notified when a resident is transferred to the hospital. On 4/13/22, at 3:20 PM, at the facility exit meeting Surveyor shared the concern the facility has not ensured the Ombudsman was notified of residents that transfer from the facility with Nursing Home Administrator-A and Director of Nursing-B. No further information was provided. Based on interview and record review, the Facility did not notify the Ombudsman of transfer/discharge for 3 (R38, R40 & R36) of 3 Residents reviewed for hospitalizations. Because the social worker was not aware that the Ombudsman was to be notified of a hospitalization, this would affect any resident who is hospitalized . Findings include: 1.) R38's diagnoses includes seizures, schizophrenia, diabetes mellitus, and hypertension. On 4/11/22, at 12:24 p.m,. R38 informed Surveyor he just gotten back from the hospital for pneumonia a few weeks ago. The nurses note dated 3/18/22 documents Transferred to ER (emergency room) acute care hospital [name] for evaluation chest pain, chest pain moving down left arm. The nurses note dated 3/19/22, documents Resident admitted to hospital with hypoxia and COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease). R38 was hospitalized from [DATE] to 3/22/22. There is no documentation that the ombudsman was informed of R38's hospitalization. 2.) R40's diagnoses include hypertension, factitious disorder imposed on self, seizures, personality disorder, nontraumatic subarachnoid hemorrhage, lymphedema, and nondisplaced segmental fracture of shaft of left tibia. The nurses note dated, 12/8/21 documents behavior: Resident called 911 to be sent to ER (emergency room) d/t (due to) wanting dressing changed to her bilateral lower extremities resident transferred: Time of transfer: 10:00 AM ER/Acute care hospital. [name of hospital] by ambulance Notification: Physician notified. Resident transferred: Time of Transfer: 12:33 p.m. Transportation: by ambulance Reason: for evaluation, Admitting DX (diagnosis): Wound Care Notification: physician notified Actions: Medication list sent/ Transferred to: ER/Acute care hospital. [name of hospital]. R40 did not return to the Facility after being hospitalized on [DATE]. There is no documentation that the ombudsman was informed of R40's hospitalization. On 4/13/22, at 1:28 p.m,. Surveyor asked SW (Social Worker)-F when a Resident is transferred or discharged to the hospital do you notify the ombudsman. SW-F replied no and explained she notifies the ombudsman when a Resident is discharged from the Facility. SW-F then showed Surveyor a notice of transfer and discharge form which SW-F informed Surveyor is sent to the Ombudsman. Surveyor noted under the reason for your discharge is that: (Check One) includes You have requested a transfer to the hospital or emergency room. Surveyor informed SW-F the notice of transfer & discharge form can be checked for You have requested a transfer to the hospital or emergency room. Surveyor asked SW-F if the Ombudsman was notified of this. SW-F replied no. Surveyor asked SW-F if there is anyone else Surveyor should speak to regarding notification to the Ombudsman. SW-F replied no and informed Surveyor she didn't know the Ombudsman was to be notified if a Resident went to the hospital. SW-F stated never heard of that.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

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

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Wisconsin facilities.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 2 life-threatening violation(s), 2 harm violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 47 deficiencies on record, including 2 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • Grade F (16/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 16/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Clairidge House's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns CLAIRIDGE HOUSE an overall rating of 2 out of 5 stars, which is considered 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 Clairidge House Staffed?

CMS rates CLAIRIDGE HOUSE's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 53%, compared to the Wisconsin average of 46%.

What Have Inspectors Found at Clairidge House?

State health inspectors documented 47 deficiencies at CLAIRIDGE HOUSE during 2022 to 2024. These included: 2 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 2 that caused actual resident harm, 42 with potential for harm, and 1 minor or isolated issues. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.

Who Owns and Operates Clairidge House?

CLAIRIDGE HOUSE is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by REAL PROPERTY HEALTH FACILITIES, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 87 certified beds and approximately 37 residents (about 43% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in KENOSHA, Wisconsin.

How Does Clairidge House Compare to Other Wisconsin Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Wisconsin, CLAIRIDGE HOUSE's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 3.0, staff turnover (53%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Clairidge House?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What changes have been made since the serious inspection findings, and how are you preventing similar issues?" "Can 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?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations.

Is Clairidge House Safe?

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

Do Nurses at Clairidge House Stick Around?

CLAIRIDGE HOUSE has a staff turnover rate of 53%, which is 7 percentage points above the Wisconsin average of 46%. Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.

Was Clairidge House Ever Fined?

CLAIRIDGE HOUSE has no federal fines on record. CMS issues fines when nursing homes fail to meet care standards or don't correct problems found during inspections. The absence of fines suggests the facility has either maintained compliance or corrected any issues before penalties were assessed. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review recent inspection reports for the full picture.

Is Clairidge House on Any Federal Watch List?

CLAIRIDGE HOUSE 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.