HOPE HEALTH AND REHAB

438 ASHFORD AVE, LOMIRA, WI 53048 (920) 269-4386
For profit - Corporation 38 Beds Independent Data: November 2025 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation
Trust Grade
58/100
#98 of 321 in WI
Last Inspection: May 2025

Inspected within the last 6 months. Data reflects current conditions.

Overview

Hope Health and Rehab in Lomira, Wisconsin has a Trust Grade of C, which means it is average and sits in the middle of the pack among nursing homes. It ranks #98 out of 321 facilities in the state, placing it in the top half, but only #6 out of 10 in Dodge County, indicating that there are better local options available. The facility's trend is worsening, with issues increasing from 2 in 2024 to 9 in 2025. Staffing is a strength, rated at 5 out of 5 stars with a turnover rate of 36%, which is lower than the state average, showing that staff are likely to stay and know the residents well. On the downside, there was a critical incident where a resident's condition deteriorated because staff failed to document symptoms and notify a doctor, leading to the resident's death. Additionally, there were concerns about food safety, including improper storage and cleanliness in the food preparation area, which could potentially affect the health of residents.

Trust Score
C
58/100
In Wisconsin
#98/321
Top 30%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Worse
2 → 9 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
36% turnover. Near Wisconsin's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
Penalties
✓ Good
No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Wisconsin facilities.
Skilled Nurses
✓ Good
Each resident gets 64 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than 97% of Wisconsin nursing homes. RNs are the most trained staff who catch health problems before they become serious.
Violations
⚠ Watch
21 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★★★☆
4.0
Overall Rating
★★★★★
5.0
Staff Levels
★★★★☆
4.0
Care Quality
★★★☆☆
3.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 2 issues
2025: 9 issues

The Good

  • 5-Star Staffing Rating · Excellent nurse staffing levels
  • 4-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover below average (36%)

    12 points below Wisconsin average of 48%

Facility shows strength in staffing levels, quality measures, fire safety.

The Bad

Staff Turnover: 36%

10pts below Wisconsin avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

The Ugly 21 deficiencies on record

1 life-threatening
May 2025 9 deficiencies 1 IJ
CRITICAL (J)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that each resident received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice (N6, Wisconsin Nurse Practice Act) for 1 of 3 residents identified in closed records review (R31). R31 presented with a change in condition (COC) on [DATE]. Facility staff did not document all R31's symptoms in R31's medical record and did not complete a thorough and ongoing RN (Registered Nurse) assessment related to the COC. R31's condition continued to decline. R31's vital signs warranted immediate MD (Medical Doctor) notification/consultation and the facility did not notify the MD. R31 continued to deteriorate and was sent to the hospital where R31 became pulseless and nonbreathing (PNB) and expired due to a critical potassium level. The facility's failure to provide care consistent with standards of practice for R31 by not documenting signs and symptoms of a change of condition in R31's medical record, not completing an RN assessment with a change of condition, not providing continued monitoring with a known change in condition, and not notifying the Physician of vital signs timely created a finding of immediate jeopardy that began on [DATE]. Surveyor notified NHA A (Nursing Home Administrator) and DON B (Director of Nursing) of the immediate jeopardy on [DATE] at 12:30 PM. The immediate jeopardy was removed and corrected on [DATE] when the facility began to implement its action plan. Evidenced by: The facility's policy titled Change in Condition, undated, includes: What is considered a change in condition? The definition of a change in condition is a sudden, clinically important deviation from a resident's baseline in physical, cognitive, behavioral, or functional domains. Clinically important means a deviation that, without intervention, may result in complications or death . Facility staff should be able to promptly identify changes that may indicate a change in health status. Once identified staff should demonstrate effective actions to address a change in condition . an RN (Registered Nurse) who is informed of a change in condition . conduct an in-depth assessment, and then call the attending practitioner . Licensed nurses: Immediately upon notification of a change in condition, no matter how minor you feel the change may be, an in-depth evaluation must be performed on the resident. The evaluation should include a physical assessment of the resident with special focus on body systems associated with the change in condition, a full set of vital signs (including blood sugar for diabetics), a review of the resident's diagnoses list/past vitals/weights/ and medications, and a review of nurse notes for the last week to see if the change has already been noted and addressed. According to the Wisconsin Nurse Practice Act, N6.03(1), An R.N. (Registered Nurse) shall utilize the nursing process in the execution of general nursing procedures in the maintenance of health, prevention of illness or care of the ill. The nursing process consists of the steps of assessment, planning, intervention, and evaluation. This standard is met through performance of each of the following steps of the nursing process: (a) Assessment. Assessment is the systematic and continual collection and analysis of data about the health status of a patient culminating in the formulation of a nursing diagnosis. (b) Planning. Planning is developing a nursing plan of care for a patient which includes goals and priorities derived from the nursing diagnosis. (c) Intervention. Intervention is the nursing action to implement the plan of care by directly administering care or by directing and supervising nursing acts delegated to L.P.N.s (Licensed Practical Nurse) or less skilled assistants. (d) Evaluation. Evaluation is the determination of a patient's progress or lack of progress toward goal achievement which may lead to modification of the nursing diagnosis. According to N6.04(1), In the performance of acts in basic patient situations, the L.P.N. shall, under the general supervision of an R.N. or the direction of a provider . (b) Provide basic nursing care. (c) Record nursing care given and report to the appropriate person changes in the condition of a patient . (e) Perform the following other acts when applicable: 1. Assist with the collection of data . Interventions to Reduce Acute Care Transfers (INTERACT) standard of practice for notice of change, indicates immediate notification to the Physician if Systolic Blood pressure (BP) > 210 mmHg, < 90 mmHg; Diastolic BP >115 mmHg; Resting pulse > 130 bpm, < 55 bpm, or >110 bpm and patient has dyspnea or palpitations. American Medical Directors Association (AMDA) Acute Change of Condition (ACOC) in the long-term care setting guidelines indicate the following: an acute change of condition (ACOC) is a sudden, clinically important deviation from a patients baseline in physical, cognitive, behavioral or functional domains. Clinically important, means a deviation that, without intervention, may result in complications or death.Blood pressure, as soon as possible after admission, establish the patients usual blood pressure (BP) range. (Normal range is approximately 100 -140mmhg (millimeters of mercury) diastolic 60-90 mmHg. A change in BP is more often a symptom than a cause of an ACOC (acute change of condition) isolated BP elevations generally are not significant. Sustained elevation in systolic pressure should trigger further assessment. A BP change alone should not trigger a call to the practitioner without additional signs or symptoms (e.g., sustained elevation, new neurological symptoms.) . R31 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including type 2 diabetes mellitus, morbid obesity, polyneuropathy (nerve disorder that affects many nerves), hypotension (low blood pressure), Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD; lung condition that causes breathing difficulty), and sleep apnea (sleep disorder where breathing stops). R31's most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) with Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of [DATE] indicates R31 is cognitively intact with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 13 out of 15. R31's MDS also indicates R31 requires staff assistance to meet his needs in toileting, showering, dressing, transferring, going from lying to sitting or sitting to lying, and rolling side to side. R31's Comprehensive Care Plan, initiated [DATE], indicates R31 transfers with two staff assisting and with a Hoyer lift. R31's Medical Record includes the following: Nurse Note and Medication Administration Record (MAR), dated [DATE] at 2:43 AM, includes simethicone given for Gi upset. (It is important to note the facility did not perform a thorough RN assessment at this time, including an abdominal assessment such as listening for bowel sounds, palpating R31's abdomen, or collecting a full set of vitals.) R31's MAR for February 2025, includes: [DATE] at 4:46 AM Simethicone given . Nurse Note, dated [DATE] at 5:00 AM, includes: Approximately 3:00 AM resident stated, I just want to take a knife to my stomach to release the gas. This was after writer had given him simethicone due to resident request for feeling gassy. Will continue to monitor. Physician Communication Form, undated, includes: Nausea - no appetite. Severe pain. Possible appendicitis? Request - Please see R31. He is in severe pain on right side . Medical Doctor Signature - (blank) (It is important to note the facility did not perform an RN assessment at this time including palpating R31's abdomen, listening for bowel sounds, collecting a full set of vitals, or evaluating R31's pain level.) R31's MAR for February 2025 includes, [DATE] at 7:45 AM Calcium Carbonate given. Nurse Note, dated [DATE] at 9:50 AM, indicates R31 has improved but still symptomatic. (It is important to note this note does not specify what symptoms R31 was experiencing and no RN assessment is documented.) Lab Report, dated [DATE], includes: Metabolic Panel: collected- [DATE] at 11:48 AM, received- [DATE] at 12:53 PM, verified [DATE] at 1:22 PM . Potassium- 5.9 mEq/L . High (normal range reference- 3.5-4.9) . Carbon Dioxide- 21 mEq/L . low (normal range reference-23-31) . BUN-39 mg/dL . High (normal range reference-6-21) . Creatinine- 1.51 mg/dL .High (normal range reference- 0.64-1.27) . BUN/Creatinine Ratio- 26 High (normal range reference- 12-20) . (Of note: Hyperkalemia (high potassium) signs and symptoms include abdominal pain, diarrhea, nausea, and vomiting.) Physician Communication Form, dated [DATE], includes: Time - (blank) . Situation- Potassium Chloride increase to 60 mEq in morning and 40 mEq in evening on [DATE]. Was on 40 mEq two times a day prior. Held Potassium Chloride on [DATE] evening and [DATE] morning per Medical Doctor. Rechecking BMP on [DATE] . Signed by Medical Doctor on [DATE]. Nurse Note, dated [DATE] at 1:45 PM, lab results showed high potassium, MD notified and gave orders to hold potassium supplement . Physician Communication Form, dated [DATE], includes: time-(Blank) . Abdominal series (x-ray) related to abdominal pain, distension, and hypoactive bowel sounds. Portable due to impaired mobility. Hold Potassium on [DATE] and [DATE] morning. Recheck BMP on [DATE]. Signed by Medical Doctor on [DATE]. Nurse Note, dated [DATE] at 1:58 PM includes: refused noon med pass due to not feeling well. Lab Report, dated [DATE], signed at 7:15 PM includes: Reason- abdominal pain, distention, hypoactive bowel sounds . Procedure- abdomen 2 views . Findings- There are multiple prominent air-filled loops of bowel throughout the abdomen and pelvis . Impressions- Prominent loops of air filled bowel throughout the abdomen and pelvis suggestive of ileus or constipation. Distal large bowel obstruction cannot be excluded. Consider CT if needed. Physician Communication Form, dated [DATE], includes: Time - (blank) . Situation - radiology results . Request - Please find attached abdominal radiology results for review . Signed by Medical Doctor on [DATE] . R31's MAR for February 2025, includes: [DATE] at 8:50 PM Ipratropium-Albuterol nebulizer treatment performed. Nurse Note, dated [DATE] at 10:05 PM, Ultrasound results came back positive for prominent loops of air filled bowel throughout abdomen and pelvis suggestive of ileus. Awaiting further instructions from MD. (It is important to note there was only an abdominal x-ray ordered and the mention of an ultrasound may be referring to the x-ray.) R31's MAR for February 2025 includes: [DATE] at 1:17 AM Ipratropium- Albuterol nebulizer treatment performed. Nurse Note, dated [DATE] at 2:43 AM, includes: New or sudden onset/change in condition: Lethargy and change in cognition . Writer observed resident with audible tracheal congestion at 8:50 PM after requesting a (nebulizer treatment) . at about 1:00 AM writer went to check on resident status and found him lethargic, clammy and mumbling words writer could not understand . pulse and oxygen saturation could not be read as fingers were cold and clammy. Blood sugar reading was 110. Several attempts were taken to obtain vitals and later read blood pressure of 145/123 right arm, 159/109 left arm . oxygen saturation at 81%, heart rate 107 . A second (nebulizer treatment) was administered for congestion and shortness of breath as well as scheduled percocet for pain. Sliding sheet was removed from underneath the resident as it was noticed to be soaked with sweat. CPAP was applied as resident had taken it off earlier. Oxygen saturation was up to 92%. Tracheal congestion reduced and resident was able to get aroused with verbal and tactile stimuli. Brief was changed and blood smear was noted on the wipes with anal pain. At 2:43 AM resident is no longer clammy or sweating and sleeping comfortably with notable chest rise and no congestion noted. Will continue to observe. (It is important to note these blood pressure readings are critically high and this nurse did not recheck them, did not call the doctor to notify on R31's vitals or R31's change in condition, and did not perform a thorough RN assessment.) R31's MAR for February 2025 includes: [DATE] at 4:46 AM Simethicone was given. R31's MAR for February 2025 includes: [DATE] at 4:58 AM Oxycodone was given. EMS Report, dated [DATE], includes: unit notified at 5:29 AM, arrived at 6:23 AM . Narrative- Emergency Services (EMS) and First Responders paged to facility for male who was in and out of consciousness but breathing. When EMS arrived on scene charge nurse stated she believed she witnessed some seizure activity, his oxygen saturation was up and down and intermittent consciousness. They had placed him on oxygen mask at 2 liters per minute prior to EMS arrival. Patient found in bed pale and cool/diaphoretic 2 touch. Gazes straight ahead with eyes, pupils 5 to 6mm (millimeters). Does blink when hand is close to face, retracts to pain but otherwise nonverbal at this time. Nursing home staff stated that abdomen especially extended ever since beginning of shift. Due to weight, Hoyer machine used to place patient on stretcher. Once inside of ambulance vital signs obtained. During transport, oxygen saturation fluctuates up and down, those circulation appears to be poor, fingers and ears cold to touch. Patient does not answer questions, makes inaudible noises occasionally but does not communicate. Due to size of patient at one point in transport, writer had to free arm for vitals and unbuckle one strap to gain access to arm. Patient then partially on writers lab and if writer would have moved, potential for falling off stretcher. Breathing rates and pulses varied throughout transport. When writer called in report to hospital, all above observations were relayed to ER (Emergency Room) staff. ER staff questioned why vitals were so all over the place and writer stated she was unaware of why this was. When pulling into garage for ER/hospital, it was noted resident started to decline. Wheeled quickly into ER, and agonal breathing started. Once on hospital bed CPR was begun by staff . chief complaint - patient nonverbal. Nursing homes states in and out of consciousness, believe some seizure like activity . dispatched two nursing home for . male . complaining of altered mental status . [DATE] at 6:08 AM Blood pressure - 76/22 right arm . opens eyes to painful stimulation . inconsistently consolable, moaning . (It is important to note the facility provided no evidence they reported to EMS the symptoms that R31 was experiencing throughout the last 24 hours including high blood pressure readings, nausea, gas pain, extended and firm abdomen, tracheal congestion, or shortness of breath. It is also important to note the facility did not provide evidence of reporting R31's received lab results being positive for prominent loops of air filled bowel throughout abdomen and pelvis suggestive of ileus or constipation . distal large bowel obstruction cannot be excluded . and the EMS Report does not capture this information in R31's history or chief complaint.) emergency room Intake Note, dated [DATE], includes: date and time of service- [DATE] at 5:42 AM . Patient coming from facility. Staff called and stated that last night patient began having labored breathing. States she gave nebulizer and patient seemed to improve. States that as the night progressed he became more restless and short of breath. States oxygen saturations were in 70's. Staff gave another nebulizer and put patient on 2 liters of oxygen per minute via nasal canula. States started to become agitated and complaining of abdominal pain. Staff gave pain medication with no relief. Patient had abdomen ultrasound yesterday suggestive of an ileus. Staff stated patient abdomen is much more distended than normal. Patient is a hoyer lift. emergency room Note, dated [DATE], includes: date and time of service- [DATE] at 6:22 AM . Patient is a . male with history of hypertension (high blood pressure), hyperlipidemia (high level of fats in the blood) , type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, obstructive sleep apnea, . presenting EMS for hypoxia and found to be pulseless and nonbreathing . Patient comes from facility where staff report he began having labored breathing last night that seemed to improve with a nebulizer treatment. States he became more short of breath and restless throughout the night with oxygen saturations in the 70s. Staff then gave another nebulizer treatment and put him on 2 liters of oxygen. He subsequently became agitated and complained of abdominal pain that was not improved with pain medication (ultrasound was done suggestive of ileus yesterday), and EMS was called. Patient continued to decompensate en route per EMS and became unresponsive with fixed gaze. As patient was wheeled into our Emergency Department, I noted the patient to be apneic and he did not have a pulse. So I started CPR (Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation) and CODE HEART was called . I was the one who discovered the patient to be in cardiac arrest. I started chest compressions myself and called a CODE HEART. Patient was difficult to bag and due to not having enough staff present for safe intubation, I inserted a #5 IGEL and patient was bagged until respiratory therapist was available to assist while continuous chest compressions were ongoing. Patient was too large . and so continuous high quality CPR was carried out throughout the code. Patient did not have IV access, IV was very difficult to obtain and so I placed the left tibial IO (intraosseous (injecting Intravenous medications directly into the bone marrow)), original IO attempt on the right was unsuccessful. Patience rhythm was PEA ((pulseless electrical activity) a form of cardiac arrest where the heart shows electrical activity but does not provide a pulse) throughout the arrest. He was noted to be [NAME] cardiac wide complex PEA. Patient ended up receiving 3 A of sodium bicarbonate, 2 A calcium chloride and a gram of magnesium . in addition to 7 mg of epinephrine throughout the code. Utilization of bedside ultrasound showed cardiac contractility midway through the code and ROSC (return of spontaneous circulation, which is the return of a pulse and blood pressure) was achieved but patient subsequently [NAME] cardiac down and had subsequent cardiac arrest shortly thereafter prompting repeat CPR and more rounds of epinephrine. We attempted pacing with some capture for a brief period however patients cardiac contractility was not sufficient enough to sustain life as so pacing was stopped and CPR was continued. VBG (Venous blood gas) noted potassium of 7.1 with very low pH . unclear whether this was a hemolyzed sample or not but given the [NAME] cardiac PEA with wide complex, my suspicion was true hyperkalemia and we treated with multiple amps of bicarbonate/calcium and magnesium . Labs were obtained showing hyperkalemia and very high white blood cell count. Given recent history of ileus, this may be severe dehydration leading to AKI (acute kidney injury) with hyperkalemia and/or sepsis however despite resuscitation, patient was without a pulse a prolonged period of time in our ED. It was deemed medically futile to attempt continued resuscitation and therefore the patient was pronounced deceased at 7:06 AM. He did not have a pulse, was not breathing. His final rhythm was bradycardiac PEA rate of 22 (agonal) . Timestamps: 6:26 AM manual compressions began . 6:27 AM code heart called overhead . 6:31 AM 1 mg epi given . 6:31 AM pause, pulse check-PEA on monitor, compressions resumed . 6:34 AM 1 mg epi given . 6:35 AM intubated . 6:36 AM pause, pulse check- PEA on monitor, compressions resumed . 6:37 AM sodium bicarb given . 6:38 AM 1 mg epi given . 6:41 AM 1 mg epi given . 6:42 AM pause, pulse check- PEA on monitor, compressions resume . 6:44 AM 1 mg epi given . 6:46 AM pause, pulse check via bedside ultrasound- ROSC obtained . 6:49 AM sodium bicarb given . 6:50 AM 1 g calcium chloride given . 6:52 AM 1 mg epi given . 6:55 AM pause, pulse check via bedside ultrasound- cardiac activity, bradycardiac, compressions resumed . 6:56 AM 1 g calcium chloride given . 6:57 AM sodium bicarb given . 6:58 AM pause, pulse check- bradycardiac agonal, compressions resumed . 7:00 AM 1 g magnesium sulfate given . 7:01 AM 1 mg epi given . 7:02 AM pause, pulse check- agonal PEA wide complex. Compressions resumed . 7:05 AM pause, pulse check- final rhythm: bradycardia PEA, agonal wide complex . 7:06 AM time of death . Diagnoses: Cardiac arrest, hyperkalemia . Nurse Note, dated [DATE] at 6:48 AM, includes: Resident was banging his hands on the wall at about 4:00 AM and was calling out Help multiple times. When writer and CNAs (Certified Nursing Assistants) arrived at his room he continued to call out for help and was incoherent. He took off his CPAP and could only answer to his name. Resident's abdomen was distended and tender on palpation and he complained of pain in his shoulders and neck. Simethicone and oxycodone was administered. Oxygen saturation dropped to 71%, 2 Liters oxygen was applied via nasal canula. 911 was then called and DON (Director of Nursing) notified. Oxygen saturation rose to 88% after oxygen was administered. EMS (Emergency Services) left with resident at 6:10 AM . Facility Timeline indicated in their action plan, dated [DATE], includes: On [DATE] at 11:00 AM CNA (Certified Nursing Assistant) attended to R31 to give him a bed bath. CNA noted that resident exclaimed in pain when she attempted to wash resident's lower right stomach area. Due to this pain, CNA opted not to wash resident's back until nurse was available for skin check so as to only roll resident once in bed. At this interaction R31 also refused lunch due to stomach pain. CNA noted this to be unusual for R31 and reported both pain and lunch refusal to nurse. (It is important to note R31's Medical Record did not contain this information. This information was collected after R31 passed (on [DATE]) while the QAPI team investigated and started a plan of correction related to R31's care.) Nurse Note, dated [DATE] at 9:15 AM, includes: Late entry for [DATE] . Writer notified of resident's complaints of abdominal pain/nausea and refusal of breakfast and lunch. Writer in to assess resident at 1:00 PM . resident verbalized generalized discomfort in abdomen. Writer auscultated bowel sounds and bowel sounds were noted to be hypoactive in all quadrants . Resident reported pain with palpation of right upper quadrant where old scar tissue is, as well as acute pain with palpation in left lower quadrant. Abdomen distended and more firm than usual for resident. Doctor updated and order for abdominal X-rays obtained. Writer also received resident's BMP (Basic metabolic panel) results at that time, and potassium was noted to be elevated at 5.9, and kidney function markedly decreased from previous labs. Doctor updated on lab results and orders received to hold potassium on [DATE] PM (med pass) and [DATE] PM (med pass), recheck BMP on [DATE], and that doctor would be in to see resident on the morning of [DATE]. Resident updated with plan and in agreement. [company name] in and X-ray completed. Results were received later in the day and showed constipation or ileus, or large bowel obstruction. Resident had change in condition overnight including restlessness vital signs all over the place . and requesting resident transfer to hospital. Writer was in agreement and resident was transferred out [DATE] early morning. Writer received notice shortly after that resident had coated and expired in the hospital. Administrator and doctor made aware. (It is important to note R31's medical record did not contain this RN assessment ([DATE] at 1:00 PM) until after his passing when a late entry was added.) Nurse Note, dated [DATE] at 9:21 AM, includes: resident was not feeling well, had bloated abdomen, pain, and nausea. Resident refused breakfast and lunch. Abdominal x-ray series ordered and performed. Resident slept on and off most of the day . On [DATE] at 4:24 PM during interview with Surveyor, ADON P (Assistant Director of Nursing) indicated a full set of vitals includes a temperature reading, pulse reading, oxygen level reading, blood pressure reading, blood sugar reading if resident is diabetic, and respiration reading. ADON P indicated an abdominal assessment should include palpating for pain and firmness, listening for bowel sounds, and a full set of vitals. ADON P indicated if a resident reports pain, the nurse should ask location of pain and intensity using the pain scale 0 to 10. ADON P indicated it is important to document findings in resident's medical record. On [DATE] at 5:17 PM during interview with Surveyor, DON B (Director of Nursing) indicated when R31 reported abdominal pain she expected the nurse to gather information about this including where the pain was located, what the intensity of the pain was, and DON B indicated she expects the nurse to record her findings in R31's medical record. DON B indicated a thorough abdominal assessment would include palpating for pain, listening to the four quadrants for bowel sounds, a full set of vitals, and a blood sugar check. DON B indicated a pain assessment would include gathering information related to where the pain is located and a pain rating. DON B indicated when R31 stated he just wanted to take a knife to his stomach to release the gas, she expected the nurse to perform an abdominal assessment and a pain assessment but this did not occur. DON B indicated the nurse that was working was let go and is no longer employed by the facility. DON B indicated she performed an RN assessment on [DATE] at 1:00 PM, but the nurse on the floor never documented this in R31's medical record and should have. DON B indicated all signs and symptoms of a change in condition should be captured in a resident's medical record, including missed or refused medications, missed or refused meals, nausea, seizure activity, firmness in abdomen, bloating, pain, abdominal distension, abnormal lab values, shortness of breath, congestion, and more. DON B indicated a blood pressure reading of 145/123 or 159/109 would be alarming and she would expect the nurse to recheck the blood pressure and if it has not changed, notify the MD. DON B indicated upon notice of R31's death the facility called together an emergency QAPI (Quality Assurance Performance Improvement) meeting where they identified deficient practice and began to put together a plan of correction. On [DATE] at 11:37 AM during interview with Surveyor, RN Q indicated she was the nurse on the floor when R31 said I just want to take a knife to my stomach to release the gas. RN Q stated she gave R31 another one of his simethicone for gas and bloating. RN Q stated, I noticed he was bloated. It was not hard. Could tell he was uncomfortable and this was not his normal. I palpated and felt he was distended and gassy, but not hard. RN Q indicated she did not remember if she took R31's vitals at this time. RN Q indicated she did notify R31's MD about a hard mass that was found on [DATE] and she did not think to notify his MD about his abdominal pain as she assumed it was all related. When asked, RN Q stated, I did not perform a full RN assessment. I received education on change in condition since this incident. I should have done an assessment and called MD N. On [DATE] at 12:23 PM during interview with Surveyor, LPN R (Licensed Practical Nurse) indicated she no longer works for the facility and she does not remember this resident. On [DATE] at 12:36 PM during interview with Surveyor, MD N (Medical Doctor/Medical Director) indicated the facility identified some concerns when they performed a look back at R31's last 48 hours, including the nurse on the floor did not perform thorough assessments until DON B performed one on [DATE], but even then it was not recorded in R31's medical record. MD N indicated the facility did not perform ongoing close monitoring as she would have expected. MD N indicated the facility did not notify her of R31's change in condition every time he developed new symptoms. MD N indicated if the facility had notified her sooner, R31 may have been sent out to the emergency room sooner, but she did not believe the outcome would have changed. MD N indicates she expects the facility to document signs and symptoms of a change in condition in R31's medical record, including missed/refused meals, missed or refused medications, pain, abdominal bloating, nausea, abdominal distention, firmness of the abdomen, seizure activity, and more. MD N indicated a full set of vitals includes a temperature. MD N indicated the facility realized they were out of compliance and began to make a plan of correction immediately. MD N indicated if a resident states he wants to take a knife to his stomach to release the gas, her expectation is the staff would perform a pain assessment to gather pain level/location/intensity and an abdominal assessment that includes palpating for pain/tenderness/firmness, listening for bowel sounds, a full set of vitals. On [DATE] at 1:07 PM during interview with Surveyor, NP O (Nurse Practitioner) indicated the week of [DATE] she was out of work status and did not take any calls regarding R31. NP O indicated when a resident presents reporting pain in the abdomen it is her expectation that the facility will perform an RN assessment, including a full set of vitals, bowel sounds, palpating the abdomen for distention and/or firmness. NP O also indicated the facility should call her or the MD with the gathered information. NP O indicated a blood pressure of 145/123 and 159/109 could be critical especially associated with other symptoms. NP O indicated it is her expectations that staff would document all signs and symptoms of a change in condition in the resident's medical record, including missed/refused medications, missed or refused meals, nausea, pain, seizure activity, mental status changes, distention, bloating, and more. NP O indicated R31 could have been sent out to the emergency room sooner and maybe the outcome could have changed, but maybe it wouldn't have because NP O stated R31 was a very unwell man. The facility's failure to assess R31 when he was experiencing a significant change in condition and failure to take appropriate action in response to the change in condition, such as documenting signs and symptoms, consulting with a physician, and providing continued monitoring created a reasonable likelihood that serious harm or death could occur and led to a finding of immediate jeopardy. The Immediate Jeopardy was removed and corrected on [DATE] when the facility completed the following: - LPN R's employment was terminated. - Vitals were taken on all residents to ensure no change in condition/need for additional assessment - Educational in-services on change in condition were provided for all clinical staff to be completed by the end of their shift for those present and prior to starting next shift for those not present - Interviewed all residents and [NAME] of Attorney regarding comfort with cares, facility responsiveness to clinical needs to ensure the facility continues to meet the resident needs to their satisfaction - DON B performed 72 hour chart review for all residents to ensure all changes in condition noted were accompanied by follow-up assessments and proper notification. - DON B organized a skills fair for nursing to ensure competence in assessments, evaluations, nursing skills, and clinical judgement - Management team revamped morning[TRUNCATED]
CONCERN (D)

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 immediately notify and consult with a resident's physician when there...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility did not immediately notify and consult with a resident's physician when there was a significant change in condition. This occurred for 1 of 16 residents (R8) reviewed for notification of change in condition. R8 had blood sugars below ordered parameter of 70 without notification of physician. Evidenced by: The facility's Physician Notification policy, dated 4/12/17, states, in part: Purpose: To provide guidance to licensed nurse as to when and how to notify a physician/practitioner of changes in resident status.Procedure: .Take into consideration: immediate notification includes any symptom, sign, or apparent discomfort that is acute or sudden in onset, and a marked changed in relation to usual symptoms and signs . Surveyor requested a blood sugar parameter policy. No policy was provided. On 4/21/25 at 10:07 AM, Surveyor interviewed R8 during resident screening. R8 stated that R8 had recently been having low blood sugars in the morning; I think it was 48 this morning. R8 admitted to the facility on [DATE] and has diagnoses that include: type 2 diabetes mellitus (a disorder which affects the body's ability to produce enough insulin or to effectively use the insulin it produces which can raise blood sugar levels); long term (current) use of insulin (a medication administered to lower blood sugar levels). R8's progress notes show a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) evaluation, dated 3/12/25, with score of 11, indicating R8 has moderate cognitive impairment. R8's physician orders include: *Insulin Lispro Injection Solution 100 unit/ml (milliliters) Inject as per sliding scale: If 0-69=0 units Notify MD/NP; .subcutaneously (under the skin) with meals for type 2 diabetes. Start date 3/6/25 *Blood glucose monitoring as needed for signs/symptoms of hypo/hyperglycemia (low or high blood sugar levels) Notify MD if less than 70 or greater than 450. Start date 3/6/25 R8's April 2025 Medication Administration Record (MAR) shows documentation of blood sugars below ordered parameter of 70 as follows: *4/10/25 8:00 AM blood sugar 62 *4/12/25 8:00 AM blood sugar 50 *4/13/25 8:00 AM blood sugar 67 *4/14/25 8:00 AM blood sugar 55 *4/15/25 8:00 AM blood sugar 49 *4/20/25 8:00 AM blood sugar 49 *4/21/25 8:00 AM blood sugar 48 R8's progress notes indicate the following: *4/10/25 9:06 AM .Provided resident with juice at 8:02 AM for a blood sugar of 47. His nurse was to follow up. Important to note: there is no progress note regarding 8:00 AM blood sugar level on 4/12/25 or 4/13/25. *4/14/25 9:05 AM .resident blood glucose this AM 55.Did call hospice as lower blood sugars are trending lately and may also need lantus adjustment. RN updated and will update doc . *4/15/25 8:02 AM .resident blood sugar this AM 49 .Hospice updated this AM, as they were yesterday. Triage nurse says she will pass on note. *4/20/25 and 4/21/25 indicate NP (Nurse Practitioner) update On 4/22/25 at 3:07 PM, Surveyor interviewed LPN J (Licensed Practical Nurse) and asked about diabetic protocols. LPN J stated blood sugars are checked, correct diet is given, monitor for high or low blood sugars, offer a snack at night, and complete foot checks daily. Surveyor asked about parameters for notification with blood sugars. LPN J stated need to report if below 70 or above 400. Surveyor asked if there is any difference in reporting if the resident is receiving hospice care. LPN J stated no, still need to notify the physician or NP and also notify hospice. On 4/22/25 at 3:58 PM, Surveyor interviewed DON B (Director of Nursing) and asked about parameters for notification of low blood sugars. DON B stated staff is expected to notify NP or physician if blood sugar is less than 70. Surveyor asked if an NP or physician was notified of each incidence of low blood sugar for R8 (4/10/25, 4/12/25, 4/13/25, 4/14/25, 4/15/25). DON B indicated that physician/NP was not updated and should have been.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0687 (Tag F0687)

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 are provided foot care and treatment, in accord...

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 are provided foot care and treatment, in accordance with professional standards of practice, including to prevent complications from the resident's medical condition(s) for 1 of 3 residents (R8) reviewed for diabetic foot checks. R8 was not provided routine diabetic foot checks. Evidenced by: The facility did not provide a policy for diabetic foot checks. R8 admitted to the facility on [DATE] and has diagnoses that include: acute osteomyelitis, left ankle and foot (infection in the bone); type 2 diabetes mellitus (a disorder which affects the body's ability to produce enough insulin or to effectively use the insulin it produces which can raise blood sugar levels); peripheral vascular disease (a condition where blood flow to the extremities, primarily legs and feet, is restricted due to narrowed or blocked blood vessels, which can lead to slowed healing of wounds). R8's progress notes show a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) evaluation, dated 3/12/25, with score of 11, indicating R8 has moderate cognitive impairment. R8's Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], Section GG indicates R8's lower extremity is Impaired on one side. R8 is dependent for toileting hygiene, transfers, lower body dressing and putting on/taking off footwear. R8's physician orders include: Diabetic foot checks one time a day. Start date 4/22/25. *Important to note that foot checks are not on the physician orders prior to 4/22/25 and R8 was admitted on [DATE]. R8's Care Plan states, in part: Focus-the resident has type 2 diabetes mellitus and uses insulin .Interventions .Inspect feet daily for open areas, sores, pressure areas, blisters, edema or redness. Date initiated 4/21/25. *Important to note that inspection of feet is not on the care plan prior to 4/21/25. On 4/22/25 at 3:07 PM, Surveyor interviewed LPN J (Licensed Practical Nurse) and asked about protocols for diabetic residents. LPN J indicated to complete nightly foot checks. Surveyor asked if nightly foot checks are documented. LPN J stated yes, by the nurse in the TAR (treatment administration record). Surveyor asked if foot checks are not listed on the TAR, would they be done. LPN J indicated LPN J cannot say for sure. On 4/22/25 at 3:58 PM, Surveyor interviewed DON B (Director of Nursing) and asked if diabetic residents receive nightly foot checks. DON B stated yes, they are documented on the TAR. Surveyor asked if R8 had foot checks nightly. DON B checked the TAR and stated that foot checks were not on R8's TAR. Surveyor asked if foot checks were completed if they are not documented. DON B stated no. Surveyor asked if R8 should have foot checks completed nightly. DON B stated yes.
CONCERN (D)

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility did not ensure each resident received adequate supervision to p...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility did not ensure each resident received adequate supervision to prevent accidents for 1 of 1 residents (R334) reviewed. R334 was observed smoking in the street, not disposing of cigarette materials properly, and not returning materials to staff after returning from smoking. Evidenced by: The facility policy, Smoking Policy, effective date 11/27/2024, included, in part: Policy: It is the policy .to not allow smoking, including e-cigarettes, vapes, cigars etc. on .property. Procedure: *No residents are permitted to smoke in the facility or on the facility property, including the facility side walk [sic], courtyard or other green spaces, driveway, parking lot, or entrances to the parking lot. *Staff will not assist residents to smoke, but will review resident safety to determine whether resident is competent to smoke independently. Residents who wish to smoke will need to be assisted by a family member, resident representative, or other loved one if deemed unable to safely smoke independently. Activated residents are not allowed to go outside alone to smoke, due to risk of moving vehicles . *Cigarettes and other smoking products will not be permitted in resident rooms and will not be kept by staff in medication carts for the resident. If a resident is discovered with smoking products they will be held by staff until a family member, resident representative, or other loved one can take them off .property. If this is not possible, the smoking products will be held by the facility if the resident is anticipated to discharge within 30 days . *When a resident wishes to go off the premise [sic] to smoke, the resident must sign out of the building . *Residents and family are required to sign out and leave the premise [sic] if they wish to smoke. There will be no smoking in the parking lot, facility side walk [sic], courtyard or other green spaces, driveway, entrances to the parking lot, or in the road. Residents and families must find a safe location to smoke that is not on the facility premise [sic] and is not in the way of traffic. R334 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that include, in part: Sepsis (a life-threatening medical emergency caused by the body's extreme response to an infection); Acute embolism and thrombosis of unspecified deep veins of left lower extremity (blood clots); Other specified forms of tremor; Alcohol dependence with withdrawal . R334's most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS), target date 4/22/25, indicates a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) of 10. Indicating that R334's cognition is moderately impaired. R334's Smoking Safety Evaluation in the Electronic Health Record (EHR) with an effective Date of 4/18/25, indicates, in part: Score: N/A Evaluation: Poor Vision or blindness and Balance problems while sitting or standing are marked Yes. All other areas are marked No. Concerns: 10. Unable to light a cigarette safely; 11. Unable to hold a cigarette safely; 12. Unable to extinguish a cigarette safely; 13. Unable to use ashtray to extinguish a cigarette. All Questions listed are marked as No. The form is signed by SW C (Social Worker). On 4/22/25 at 12:55 PM, surveyors observed R334 going outside the building. R334 was in his wheelchair, was wearing gripper socks, and proceeded down the exterior sidewalk incline (the one without rails) stopped at the bottom by the road as a [UPS] truck was coming from R334's left. R334 waited for the [UPS] truck to go by and began to cross the street. R334 was part way into street when he stopped due to pick-up truck coming from the right. R334 waited for the pick-up truck to pass and then proceeded across the street. R334 stopped in the street near the curb and turned his wheelchair around and stayed in the street to smoke. R334 was approximately 3 feet from the curb on the opposite side of the street from the facility. R334 indicated he didn't feel he was in the street as the area he was in is where cars would be parked. (Of note, there are signs that indicate no parking on this part of the side of the street.) When R334 completed his first cigarette he used his fingers to put the cigarette out and then pull off the end of the cigarette butt, dropped it on the ground, and then put the remaining portion of the cigarette butt into his jacket pocket. R334 indicated this his normal process and stated, believe me there are no burns. R334 pulled out another cigarette from pack and lit it and started smoking it. R334 was observed to flick ashes on the ground and disposed of the cigarette in the same manner as his first and put the remaining portion of the cigarette butt from the second cigarette in his pocket as well. During the observation between 1:08 PM and 1:13 PM, three vehicles were observed on the road in the opposite lane of traffic from where R334 was sitting in his wheelchair. During the observation, R334 indicated that he takes his cigarette butts back in the facility with him and flushes them down the toilet. R334 indicated the facility did not give him guidance on what to do and just told him to go across the street. R334 did indicate the first several times he came out to smoke staff came with him and he smoked in this spot then as well. Surveyor asked R334 if he gives his lighter to nurse when he gets back in the facility. R334 indicated he does return it sometimes but that there is never anyone there for me to give it to and that he is not going to wait an hour. R334 also indicated he takes as many cigarettes as he wants from the nurse and doesn't always return the ones he has left. Surveyor asked R334 if that means he has cigarettes and a lighter in his room and R334 indicated, yes. When R334 was finished he wheeled himself back across the street and back into the facility. On 4/22/25 at 1:21 PM, CNA D (Certified Nursing Assistant) was at the nurse's station when R334 was coming back into the building from smoking. CNA D spoke to R334 about his lunch. R334 did not offer to give CNA D his smoking materials nor ask CNA D where the nurse was to return them to. R334 then wheeled himself back to his room without returning cigarette materials to a staff member. On 4/22/25 at 2:08 PM, Surveyor interviewed CNA D and asked what her role is as a CNA if she is caring for a resident that smokes. CNA D indicated the cigarettes are kept in the cart and if they are able to be independent, they can get the cigarettes from the nurse and go out. Surveyor asked CNA D if residents can return their smoking materials to a CNA if the nurse is not available. CNA D indicated yes. Surveyor asked CNA D if she has been given any training to ask a resident who have come back in from smoking if they returned their supplies. CNA D indicated, no. On 4/22/25 at 1:25 PM, Surveyor interviewed SW C and informed SW C of surveyors observation of R334 putting the cigarette butts in his pocket. SW C went to R334's room and on return to her office indicated she did retrieve the cigarette butts. Surveyor proceeded to interview SW C who indicated that R334's smoking assessment was the first one she had ever completed. SW C indicated she had not received any training on performing a smoking assessment and that she felt the assessment in the facility electronic health record was pretty clear. SW C also indicated that she went out with R334 once and made the observation. Surveyor requested SW C to walk through the observation outside. SW C and surveyor went outside. SW C indicated that R334 went down the ramp (at that time he used the one with the rails) and went across the street. SW C indicated she informed him the options were to go across the street or to stay on this side of the street and go up the sidewalk past the facility driveway. SW C indicated R334 stated that it was too far to go to stay on the same side and go up the sidewalk. SW C indicated that R334 could not get up the lip of the sidewalk when he crossed the street and so stayed between the curb and the where the blacktop road starts on the small strip of cement. Surveyor showed SW C where R334 was observed smoking today and SW C indicated R334 would be considered in the street, and that this was not considered safe. Surveyor reviewed other parts of the observation and SW C indicated that it was not safe for R334 to put his cigarettes out with his hand. SW C indicated when she made her observation he put the cigarette out on the ground with his foot and was wearing shoes at that time. Surveyor asked SW C if it was safe for R334 to dispose of cigarettes in the street or if she was given guidance on this. SW C indicated no and that there was nothing in the facility electronic health record about that. Surveyor asked SW C if she informed the nurse that she had never performed a smoking assessment before. SW C indicated no and that she was just trying to help out the team. Surveyor asked SW C if she felt it was safe for R334 to put his cigarette butts in his pocket and SW C indicated, no. SW C indicated that R334 is supposed to give the lighter and cigarettes to the nurse when he comes back in. Surveyor asked SW C if she feels it is safe for R334 to have his lighter and cigarettes in his room. SW C indicated I do, knowing him, I'm not concerned, but that's our policy. Surveyor asked SW C if it would be concerning if R334 left his lighter and cigarettes laying out in the open and another resident came in and took them. SW C indicated, yes. On 4/22/25 at 1:49 PM Surveyor interviewed RN E (Registered Nurse) who indicated she has not had to complete a smoking assessment. RN E indicated she knows residents have to be assessed to be able to safely get off the premises as they are not allowed to smoke on the premises. Surveyor asked RN E if she has been given any training on how to complete a smoking assessment or how to determine if someone is safe to smoke independently. RN E indicated she knows they have to be safe to hold the cigarette, light it themselves, get off premises, and that they like them to go across the street. Surveyor asked RN E if she has been given any guidance on how residents should dispose of their cigarette since they are going off premises and don't provide a receptacle. RN E indicated she would have to get back to surveyor regarding that. Surveyor asked RN E what the process is when R334 goes out to smoke. RN E indicated R334 has to come to the nurse to get his lighter and cigarettes from the med cart. RN E indicated R334 should give them back when he comes back in but that she didn't know if they got them back from him this last time because she was on break so she has to get them from him. Surveyor asked RN what R334 should do if she is on break and if he could give his materials to another staff member. RN E indicated R334 can give them to another staff member. Surveyor asked RN E if she knows how many times R334 has not returned his smoking supplies today. RN E indicated she didn't know. Surveyor asked RN E when R334 had just went out did he come to her and get his smoking materials. RN E indicated, no, he must have had them on him because I was on break when he came back. Surveyor asked RN E how often residents should be assessed to see if they are safe to smoke independently. RN E indicates she would have to get back to surveyor on that answer. Surveyor asked RN E if R334 had ever mentioned to her that he brought his cigarette butts back into the building. RN E indicated he did not mention anything and she has not seen anything like that. Surveyor asked RN E if she would assess someone to be safe to smoke independently if they were smoking in the street, putting cigarettes out with their hand, putting butts back into their pocket and bringing them back into the building, and not returning smoking materials after. RN E indicated these would not be considered safe. On 4/22/25 at 2:28 PM, Surveyor interviewed DON B (Director of Nursing) and asked what the process is when a resident is admitted who wants to smoke? DON B indicated if they are responsible for themselves and not activated, they have that right. If they have supplies, we ask that they keep them in our med cart for safety. When they want to go out to smoke, we observe them the first time for safety to see if they can use the equipment properly, use lighter safely, extinguish safely, ash safely, and educate that they have to go off grounds, either across the street or down the sidewalk past the driveway where the employees pull in to park. As long as they are safe, they are able to go out. They need to notify us they are going out and they usually do this because they get their supplies from the nurse. DON B indicated she believes the smoking assessments are completed quarterly and with a change in condition. DON B indicated that it was her understanding R334 was observed putting his cigarette out with his hand and that is not considered safe, so she asked staff to observe him when he goes out the next time to re-do the assessment. DON B indicated she was also made aware that R334 was not going completely up on the sidewalk and so they reeducated R334 that he needs to be up on the sidewalk and not in the street. Surveyor asked DON B who should be completing the smoking assessments. DON B indicated, really anybody can do it, generally it is usually the nurse, SW C is perfectly capable, ANHA F (Assistant Nursing Home Administrator) could even do it. Doesn't have to be a licensed person. Surveyor asked DON B if the person performing the assessment should be trained. DON B indicated that she doesn't know that there is really training that needs to be done to know if someone is safe lighting a cigarette and not burning themselves. Surveyor asked if someone should assess safety in getting up and down the sidewalk, across the street and up to the sidewalk. DON B indicated she would have to defer to therapy. Surveyor asked DON B if therapy is involved in the smoking assessment. DON B indicated not specifically the smoking assessment. Surveyor asked DON B where residents dispose of their cigarettes. DON B indicated they were just discussing putting a receptacle down by the end of the building by the driveway so it's accessible to people. Surveyor and DON B went outside to review observation that was completed with R334. DON B indicated it would not be considered safe where R334 was smoking in the street, putting cigarettes out with his hands, putting butts in his pocket and bringing them back into the facility, and not returning smoking supplies. DON B indicated at this time there is no receptacle provided by the facility for smokers to dispose of cigarettes in.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0809 (Tag F0809)

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 a suitable, nourishing snack to residents who want to eat out...

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 a suitable, nourishing snack to residents who want to eat outside of scheduled meal service times for 1 of 1 resident (R8) reviewed for nightly snacks. R8 had blood sugars below ordered parameter of 70 and was not receiving a routine nightly snack. Evidenced by: The facility's Resident Diet policy, dated 1/14/25, states, in part: Purpose: To outline how the dietary department provides each member a nourishing, palatable, well-balanced diet that meets daily nutritional and special dietary needs.dining program for residents includes service of three meals per day , and a snack program. Snacks If not prohibited by the resident's diet, condition or physician order, bedtime snacks are offered routinely to all residents.Snacks will conform to the residents' therapeutic or texture modified diet. On 4/21/25 at 10:07 AM, Surveyor interviewed R8 during resident screening. R8 stated that R8 had recently been having low blood sugars in the morning; I think it was 48 this morning. R8 stated he was unsure if he was getting a snack at bedtime. R8 admitted to the facility on [DATE] and has diagnoses that include: type 2 diabetes mellitus (a disorder which affects the body's ability to produce enough insulin or to effectively use the insulin it produces which can raise blood sugar levels); long term (current) use of insulin (a medication administered to lower blood sugar levels). R8's progress notes show a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) evaluation, dated 3/12/25, with score of 11, indicating R8 has moderate cognitive impairment. R8's physician orders include: *Controlled carb diet (a diet plan which involves eating a consistent amount of carbohydrates at each meal and snack throughout the day to help stabilize blood sugar levels). Start date 3/6/25 *Insulin Glargine Solution (a long-acting insulin medication) 100 units/ml (milliliters) Inject 20 units subcutaneously (under the skin) every morning and at bedtime for diabetes. Start date 4/22/25 *Insulin Lispro Injection Solution 100 unit/ml Inject as per sliding scale: If 0-69=0 units Notify MD/NP; 70-149 units .subcutaneously with meals for type 2 diabetes. Start date 3/6/25 *Blood glucose monitoring as needed for signs/symptoms of hypo/hyperglycemia (low or high blood sugar levels) Notify MD if less than 70 or greater than 450. Start date 3/6/25 R8's April 2025 Medication Administration Record (MAR) shows documentation of blood sugars below ordered parameter of 70 as follows: *4/10/25 8:00 AM blood sugar 62 *4/12/25 8:00 AM blood sugar 50 *4/13/25 8:00 AM blood sugar 67 *4/14/25 8:00 AM blood sugar 55 *4/15/25 8:00 AM blood sugar 49 *4/20/25 8:00 AM blood sugar 49 *4/21/25 8:00 AM blood sugar 48 R8's Tasks-Nutrition Snacks shows documentation as follows for the question Did Resident take snack? *4/10/25 yes *4/18/25 yes *4/19/25 yes *4/20/25 no Important to note: in the 28 day look back for this documentation, there are no other days with documentation about a snack. On 4/22/25 at 1:23 PM, Surveyor interviewed RN E (Registered Nurse) and asked about protocols for diabetic residents. RN E stated verify orders, check blood sugars, administer insulin, monitor for low blood sugars, update provider, offer correct diet type, complete diabetic foot checks and give a nightly snack. RN E stated that snacks are documented by the CNA (Certified Nursing Assistant). On 4/22/25 at 2:58 PM, Surveyor interviewed CNA L and asked about CNA responsibilities for residents with diabetes. CNA L stated check blood sugars as directed by nurse, give diet soda rather than regular, check with the nurse prior to giving snacks, give a snack around 7:00 PM. Surveyor asked if snacks are documented. CNA L stated snacks are documented in the resident chart. On 4/22/25 at 3:58 PM, Surveyor interviewed DON B (Director of Nursing) and asked about diabetic protocols. DON B stated blood sugar checks and insulin per orders, update if blood sugars under 70 or over 400, nightly diabetic foot checks, controlled carb diet, encourage snacks that are low in sugar, offer bedtime snack that is substantial in protein for [sic] hold over of blood sugar level. Surveyor asked if R8 receives a bedtime snack nightly. DON B stated it should be offered, not sure if he accepts. Reviewed documentation of snacks. DON B confirmed there is no documentation of resident refusal of snack and stated that R8 should have a nightly snack.
CONCERN (D)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility did not establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary and comfortable environ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility did not establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infection for 1 of 1 residents (R8) reviewed for infection control with personal cares. CNA K (Certified Nursing Assistant) had a breach in infection control when performing pericare (cleansing of the genital area). Evidenced by: The facility's Standard Precautions policy, dated 4/10/24, states, in part: Purpose: The objectives of this policy is to communicate the requirements and expectations regarding the use of standard precautions to prevent the transmission of infection throughout the facility. Standard: Standard precautions are a set of infection control practices used to prevent transmission of diseases that can be acquired by contact with blood, body fluids, non-intact skin (including rashes), and mucous membranes. Standard precautions will be used when providing care to all residents, whether they appear infectious or symptomatic or not. Standard precautions apply at all times. The components of standard precautions include hand hygiene, use of PPE (Personal Protective Equipment), Hand Hygiene refers to cleaning your hands, either by washing with soap and water, or using alcohol-based hand rub. Hand hygiene will be performed: before and after contact with a resident; immediately after touching blood, body fluids, non-intact skin, mucous membranes, or contaminated items (even when gloves are worn during contact); immediately after removing gloves; . On 4/24/25 at 8:39 AM, Surveyor observed CNA K performing pericare for R8. CNA K had set up a wash basin at bedside that contained water and two wash clothes. CNA K took one wash cloth and performed frontal pericare for R8. CNA K placed the used wash cloth into the basin and took the second wash cloth to rinse the soap from the resident. CNA K placed the second wash cloth into the basin, grabbed a hand towel and dried the resident. Without removal of gloves and hand hygiene, CNA K opened the bedside cabinet drawer, removed a bottle of powder, closed the drawer, and applied powder to R8's groin. CNA K again opened the drawer and returned the powder to the drawer. Surveyor asked CNA K if a wash cloth is contaminated after performing pericare. CNA K stated yes. Surveyor asked if a contaminated wash cloth should be placed into a wash basin. CNA K stated no. Surveyor asked if gloves are contaminated after performing pericare. CNA K stated yes. Surveyor asked if the bedside cabinet drawer and powder should be touched with contaminated gloves. CNA K stated no. On 4/24/25 at 9:00 AM, Surveyor interviewed DON B and asked about infection control with pericare. DON B stated that the wash cloth is contaminated after performing frontal pericare and should not be placed into the basin. DON B stated that gloves should be removed and hand hygiene performed after pericare prior to touching other items.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0883 (Tag F0883)

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 each resident is offered a pneumococcal immunization, unless t...

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 each resident is offered a pneumococcal immunization, unless the immunization is medically contraindicated, or the resident has already been immunized for 1 of 5 residents (R7) reviewed for immunizations. R7 was not offered the pneumococcal vaccination. Evidenced by: The facility's Pneumococcal Conjugate Immunization policy, dated 4/9/24, states, in part: It is the goal of facility to reduce morbidity and mortality related to pneumonia through various measures, including by educating all residents on pneumococcal conjugate vaccination and offering the opportunity for vaccination in accordance with current Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations and CMS regulatory requirements . All residents of the facility will be educated on current CDC recommendations for pneumococcal conjugate vaccination, upon admission and annually, and will be offered the opportunity to receive immunization if they are not currently up-to-date (as determined using the Pneumococcal Vaccine Timing for Adults guidelines from the CDC), unless otherwise contraindicated . The resident or their legal representative must give consent or declination for the pneumococcal conjugate vaccination, which will be documented in the resident's record . R7 admitted to the facility on [DATE]. R7 had pneumococcal vaccinations as follows: *Prevnar 13 on 4/29/16. *Pneumovax 23 on 5/1/17. Per Pneumo Recs Vax Advisor, the recommendation for R7's age group is to give 1 dose of PCV20 or PCV21 at least 5 years after the last pneumococcal vaccine dose. There is no documentation that R7 was offered a dose of PCV20 or PCV21. On 4/23/25 at 2:40 PM, Surveyor interviewed IP I (Infection Preventionist) and DON B (Director of Nursing) and asked if R7 was up to date with pneumococcal vaccinations. DON B stated no. Surveyor asked if R7 had been offered a dose of PCV20 or PCV21. IP I and DON B stated no. DON B stated vaccination should have been offered based on guidance.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0679 (Tag F0679)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility did not provide an ongoing program of activities designed to me...

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 an ongoing program of activities designed to meet the interests and the physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident. This affects 1 sampled resident (R6) and 5 supplemental residents (R5, R15, R17, R23, R25) reviewed for activities. R5, R6, R15, R17, R23, and R25, voiced concerns during Resident Council of the facility's activity program regarding evenings and weekends. Evidenced by: The facility does not have a policy for activity programming. Example 1 On 4/22/25 at 3:00 PM, Surveyor reviewed the activity calendars from December 2024 through March 2025. The facility activity calendar for December 2024 states, in part: Fridays: handwritten on provided calendar states AA (Activity Assistant name) 4-7pm with a line through all Fridays *It's important to note calendar does not specify what AA is doing during this time. Saturdays: no activities listed Sundays: no activities listed The facility activity calendar for January 2025 states, in part: Mondays, Wednesdays, Fridays 4:00PM 1:1 visits with AA (Activity Assistant name) Saturdays: no activities listed Sundays: no group activities listed 1/5/25: 1:1 visits with AA, cards 1:30pm 1/12/25:1:1 visits with AA, Bible readings, no time written 1/19/25: 1:1 visits with AA, cards, no time written 1/26/25: 1:1 visits with AA, Bible readings, no time written Facility activity calendar for February 2025 states, in part: Saturdays: no activities listed Sundays: no activities listed No evening activities for the month were listed Facility activity calendar for March 2025 states, in part: Saturdays: no activities listed Sundays: no activities listed 3/3/25: 4:00 1:1 visits with AA 3/5/25: 4:00 1:1 visits with AA 3/7/25: 4:00 1:1 visits with AA Example 2 R5 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) with target date of 2/1/25 indicates a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15, indicating R5 is cognitively intact. On 4/22/25 at 10:00 AM, during the Resident Council Meeting with Surveyors, R5 indicated the facility does not offer activities on the evenings or weekends. R5 stated, It's dead around here on the weekends, makes our days long. R5's activity attendance shows no activity involvement on the following dates: 3/29/25 Saturday 4/5/25 Saturday 4/6/25 Sunday 4/12/25 Saturday 4/13/25 Sunday 4/19/25 Saturday 4/20/25 Sunday Example 3 R6 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The most recent MDS with target date of 4/2/25 indicates a BIMS score of 13 out of 15, indicating R6 is cognitively intact. On 4/22/25 at 10:00 AM, during the Resident Council Meeting with Surveyors, R6 indicated the facility does not offer activities on the evenings or weekends. R6's activity attendance shows no activity involvement on the following dates: 3/29/25 Saturday 4/5/25 Saturday 4/6/25 Sunday 4/12/25 Saturday 4/13/25 Sunday 4/19/25 Saturday 4/20/25 Sunday Example 4 R15 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The most recent MDS with a target date of 3/8/25 indicates a BIMS score of 13 out of 15, indicating R15 is cognitively intact. On 4/22/25 at 10:00 AM during the Resident Council Meeting with Surveyors, R15 indicated the facility does not offer activities on the evenings or weekends. R15's activity attendance shows no activity involvement on the following dates: 3/29/25 Saturday 4/5/25 Saturday 4/12/25 Saturday 4/13/25 Sunday 4/19/25 Saturday 4/20/25 Sunday Example 5 R17 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The most recent MDS with a target date of 1/24/25 indicates a BIMS score of 7 out of 15, indicating R17's cognition is severely impaired. On 4/22/25 at 10:00 AM during the Resident Council Meeting with Surveyors, R17 indicated the facility does not offer activities on the evenings or weekends. R17's activity attendance shows no activity involvement on the following dates: 3/29/25 Saturday 4/5/25 Saturday 4/12/25 Saturday 4/13/25 Sunday 4/19/25 Saturday 4/20/25 Sunday Example 6 R23 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The most recent MDS with a target date of 1/29/25 indicates a BIMS score of 6 out of 15, indicating R23's cognition is severely impaired. On 4/22/25 at 10:00 AM, during the Resident Council Meeting with Surveyors, R23 indicated the facility does not offer activities on the evenings or weekends. R23's activity attendance shows no activity involvement on the following dates: 3/29/25 Saturday 4/5/25 Saturday 4/12/25 Saturday 4/13/25 Sunday 4/19/25 Saturday 4/20/25 Sunday Example 7 R25 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The most recent MDS with a target date of 2/15/25 indicates a BIMS score of 15 out of 15, indicating R25 is cognitively intact. On 4/22/25 at 10:00 AM, during the Resident Council Meeting with Surveyors, R25 indicated the facility does not offer activities on the evenings or weekends. R25's activity attendance shows no activity involvement on the following dates: 3/29/25 Saturday 4/5/25 Saturday 4/6/25 Sunday 4/12/25 Saturday 4/13/25 Sunday 4/19/25 Saturday 4/20/25 Sunday On 4/23/25 at 8:58 AM, Surveyor interviewed AD H (Activity Director) regarding activities on the weekends and evenings. AD H indicated there has not been much for activities on weekends or evenings, but she plans to try to get some music shows scheduled in the future again. AD H stated she has a part time aide that does some evening and Sunday activities. On 4/22/25 at 10:00 AM, Surveyors conducted a Resident Council Meeting. R5, R6, R15, R17, R23, and R25 voiced concerns with the lack of weekend and evening activities. Surveyor asked what residents would like to do for activities on Saturdays and Sundays. R5, R15, R17, R23, and R25, indicated they used to wake up Sunday mornings and attend a church service with their family; they would like to have a church service on Sunday at the facility. R5, R15, R17, R23, and R25, indicated they would like to have music programs on Saturdays. R5 suggested a community play on a Saturday. On 4/23/25 at 8:58 PM, AD H indicated on the weekends there are no activities on Saturdays, stated she doesn't work on weekends, and there are one or two activities scheduled on Sunday afternoon when her part time aide can come in; these are usually one on one activities, sometimes a group. AD H indicated the evening activities with the part time aide are usually one on one activities, occasionally a group. AD H indicated music programs should be starting up again when more performers come back from going to a warmer area for the winter. On 4/23/25 around 4:00 PM, during an interview ANHA F (Assistant Nursing Home Administrator) indicated activity staff should be offering activities for residents in the evenings and on the weekends if this is what they are asking for.
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 store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. This has the pote...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility did not store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. This has the potential to affect 26 of 27 residents. Surveyor observed dust in the facility's stove hood, over open food being prepared for resident meals. Surveyor observed food to have been removed from the original packaging and not sealed or dated with an expiration date, an open date, or a use by date. Surveyor observed a box of potatoes on the floor in the dry food storage area. Evidenced by: Example 1 Facility's Cooks Weekly Cleaning Tasks sheet, undated, states in part: Sunday, Hood cleaning above stove, AM cook, take vent down run thru dishwasher. Clean all nozzles free of dust or dirt . On 4/21/25 around 9:30 AM, Surveyor and DM G (Dietary Manager) observed facility stove hood. Surveyor and DM G observed a layer of dust to be on the sprinkler pipes and the grease trap directly above the burners/food preparation area. DM G indicated there is potential for the dust to dislodge and fall into the open food and she would have staff wipe these down again. Example 2 Facility policy, entitled Food Receiving and Storage, undated, includes: all food will be dated upon stocking if taken out of its original packaging . If not in the original packaging, all food items must be labeled with the name of the contained food . On 4/21/25 around 9:20 AM, Surveyor and DM G observed an opened bag of vanilla wafers in the dry food storage area which was not labeled. This bag had been removed from the original manufacturer's box, was not sealed, and did not contain a use by or an opened date. DM G indicated she was not sure when these were opened, threw them away, and stated they should have been placed in an airtight container and labeled with an opened date or use by date. Example 3 Facility policy, entitled Food Receiving and Storage, undated, states in part: .Keep food off the floor .All food will be stored in areas protected from contamination by condensation, leakage, drainage, rodents or vermin . On 4/21/25 around 9:15 AM, during initial walk through of the facility's kitchen, Surveyor and DM G observed a box of potatoes sitting directly on the floor in the dry food storage area. DM G indicated the potatoes should not be on the floor, picked them up, and placed them on a crate.
Mar 2024 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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 each resident had a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike envir...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview, the facility did not ensure each resident had a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment or ensure housekeeping provided necessary services to maintain a sanitary, orderly, and comfortable area for 1 of 15 sampled residents (R31). R31 voiced concerns regarding the wall in her room needing to be repaired and painted. Surveyor observed R31's tan painted wall, alongside R31's bed, to have large white patched areas and some small holes where screws used to sit. Evidence by: R31 admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) with Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 1/30/24, indicates R31's speech is clear with distinct intelligible words. R31's MDS also indicates she can make herself understood with her ability to express ideas and wants verbally and nonverbally and she usually understands verbal content. R31's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score is a 7 out of 15, indicating severe cognitive impairment. On 3/14/24 at 9:17 AM, R31 voiced concerns regarding the main wall of her side of the shared bedroom. R31 stated, My walls at home do not look like this. She also stated, It has been like this since I moved in. I talk to them about it. I don't want to be fussy. I just want them to fix it. Surveyor observed the longest wall on R31's side of the shared bedroom to be painted a tan color and to have large patched white areas and 2 small holes where screws used to be. On 3/14/24 at 9:27 AM, Maintenance Man G, R31, and Surveyor observed the wall with several large, patched areas and 2 small screw holes. Maintenance Man G indicated R31 has brought this concern up at a resident council meeting and it is on his list of things to do. Maintenance Man G indicated it has been like this for a few months. R31 stated to Maintenance Man G, I would just like it painted or something. I am always looking at it. Surveyor asked R31 if the walls at her home are like this and she stated, No. On 3/18/24 at 4:06 PM, during an interview Social Worker H indicated R31 has voiced concerns regarding the wall in her bedroom at Care Plan Conferences, but Maintenance Man G has not painted it yet. Social Worker G indicated the wall has been like this since R31's admission. On 3/18/24 at 4:10 PM, during an interview DON B (Director of Nursing) indicated she is aware of R31's concern regarding the white patches and holes on R31's tan/taupe wall. DON B indicated R31's roommate does not like paint smell, and this is why the project has been put off. DON B indicated this should be painted so R31 is comfortable in her room, and it is a homelike environment.
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 store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. This has the pote...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility did not store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. This has the potential to affect all 34 residents. Surveyor observed Mighty Shakes to be in the refrigerator for more than the manufacturer's recommendations of 14 days. Surveyor observed hairlike dust moving in the air exchange, in the facility's stove hood, over open food being prepared for resident meals. Surveyor observed a dented can in circulation. Surveyor observed food to have been removed from the original packaging and not dated with an expiration date, an open date, or a use by date. Evidenced by: Example 1 Hormel Mighty Shakes manufacturer's recommendations for storage and handling, includes Store frozen. Thaw at or below 40 degrees Fahrenheit. Used thawed product within 14 days. Keep refrigerated. On 3/13/24 at 8:42 AM, Surveyor observed a half of a case of strawberry mighty shakes and 4 cartons of orange mighty shakes in the facility refrigerator. These shakes did not have a thaw date on them. DM C (Dietary Manager) provided the invoice where the strawberry shakes were delivered 2/27/24. During an interview DM C indicated she was unaware these were to be used within 14 days of being thawed. Surveyor showed DM C the manufacturer's recommendations for storage stamped on the cartons. [NAME] D and Culinary Associate E also indicated they were unaware of the manufacturer's recommendation to use within 14 days of thawing. Order confirmation, with delivery date of 2/27/24, includes: 1 case of Orange Cream Mighty Shakes and 1 case Strawberry Mighty Shakes. (It is important to note the thaw date would be 2/27/24 as these were never placed in the facility's freezer. 15 days prior to initial tour. Also, important to note the staff were unaware of the manufacturer's recommendations for use within 14 days of thawing.) Example 2 On 3/13/24 at 8:42 AM, Surveyor observed the sprinkler system, the lighting, and the vents to be covered in hairlike dust that moved as the air shifted. DM C indicated the unit is due for cleaning and will be cleaned right away. DM C and [NAME] D indicated there is potential for dust to dislodge and fall into the food being prepared. On 3/18/24 at 1:15 PM, Surveyor and [NAME] F observed facility stove hood. Surveyor and [NAME] F observed dust to be on the sprinkler pipes and the lights directly above the burners/food preparation area. [NAME] F indicated there is potential for the dust to dislodge and fall into the open food and she would wipe these down again. Example 3 Facility policy, entitled Food Receiving and Storage, undated, includes: all food will be dated upon stocking if taken out of its original packaging . If not in the original packaging, all food items must be labeled with the name of the contained food . On 3/13/24 at 8:42 AM, Surveyor observed a bag of tator tots in the facility's freezer. This bag had been removed from the original manufacturer's box and did not contain a use by or an opened date. [NAME] D, DM C, and Culinary Associate E indicated they were not sure when these were opened. Example 4 Facility policy, entitled Food Receiving and Storage, undated, includes: Any dented cans are to be put in the designated dented can area for return to the vendor . Leaking, dented, or bulging cans and spoiled food should be removed from storage promptly . On 3/13/24 at 8:42 AM, during initial walk through of the facility's kitchen, Surveyor observed a dented can of mandarin oranges in circulation. DM C indicated the staff use dented cans unless they are dented on the top or the bottom seam.
Mar 2023 3 deficiencies
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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation and staff interview, the facility did not ensure safe hot water temperatures were maintained in resident bathroom sinks, the beauty shop and a community shower room for 11 Residen...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and staff interview, the facility did not ensure safe hot water temperatures were maintained in resident bathroom sinks, the beauty shop and a community shower room for 11 Residents (R) (R1, R5, R6, R7, R8, R9, R10 R11, R12, R13 and R14) of 13 residents reviewed. Hot water temperatures in resident bathrooms on the east wing ranged from 128.3 degrees Fahrenheit (F) to 131 degrees F. Hot water temperatures in the beauty shop were documented at 132 degrees F. Hot water temperatures in the east wing community shower room were documented at 128.2 degrees F. Findings include: 1. The American Burn Association document titled Scald Injury Prevention Educators guide. A Community Fire and Burn Prevention Program Supported by the United States Fire Administration Federal Emergency Management Agency, dated April 25, 2017, contained the following information: Although scald burns can happen to anyone, young children, older adults, and people with disabilities are the most likely to incur such injuries. Both behavioral and environmental measures may be needed to protect those vulnerable to scalds because of age or disability, or because they do not have control of the hot water temperature in multi-unit residential buildings. High risk groups. Older adults, like young children, have thinner skin so hot liquids cause deeper burns with even brief exposure. Their ability to feel heat may be decreased due to certain medical conditions or medications so they may not realize water is too hot until injury has occurred. Because they have poor microcirculation, heat is removed from burned tissue rather slowly compared to younger adults. People with disabilities or special needs who may have physical, mental, or emotional challenges or require some type of assistance from caregivers are at high risk for all types of burn injuries including scalds. The disability may be permanent or temporary due to illness or injury and vary in severity from minor to total dependency on others. Sensory impairments can result in decreased sensation, especially to the hands and feet, so the person may not realize if something is too hot. Changes in a person's intellect, perception, memory, judgment, or awareness may hinder the person's ability to recognize a dangerous situation (such as a tub filled with scalding water) or respond appropriately to remove themselves from danger. While the basic principles of scald prevention apply to the general population, the additional concerns affecting these high-risk groups must be addressed. Scald injuries result in considerable pain, prolonged treatment, possible lifelong scarring, and even death. Prevention of scald injuries is always preferable to treatment and can be largely accomplished through simple changes in behavior and in the home environment Table: Time and Temperature Relationship to Severe Burns Water temperature Time for a third degree burn to occur 155o F 68o C 1 second 148o F 64o C 2 seconds 140o F 60o C 5 seconds 133o F 56o C 15 seconds 127o F 52o C 1 minute 124o F 51o C 3 minutes 120o F 48o C 5 minutes 100o F 37o C Safe temperature for bathing 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. On 3/22/23, Surveyor used the east wing visitor's bathroom sink and noted the water was hot to the touch. Surveyor experienced hand pain in less than three seconds and had to immediately remove hands and turn on the cold water faucet to reduce the temperature. Surveyor used a thermometer to obtain a temperature of the water which was 130.8 degrees F. On 3/22/23 at 1:35 PM, Surveyor expressed concern to Maintenance (MT)-I about the hot water temperature in the east wing visitor's bathroom sink. MT-I obtained a water temperature of visitor's bathroom sink which was 131.2 degrees F. On 3/22/23 at 1:40 PM, hot water samples of resident rooms and communal sinks were obtained by MT-I. Surveyor and MT-I verified residents' bathroom sinks reached the following temperatures when the water was run for approximately 15 seconds: R12's hot water was 129.7 degrees F; R11's hot water was 128.3 degrees F; R1 and R6's hot water was 131 degrees F; the hair washing sink in the beauty shop was 132 degrees F; and the east wing community shower room was 128.3 degrees F. Surveyor noted the beauty shop door was open and unlocked which allowed resident access to the beauty shop. On 3/22/23 at 1:45 PM while obtaining the hot water temperature in R1's bathroom sink, R1 stated to MT-I and Surveyor, Oh that water gets hot for sure. R1 stated R1 knew the water was hot despite the fact R1 didn't use the bathroom. R1 stated R1 was unable to use R1's bathroom and used the bathroom in the east wing community shower room. R1 stated R1 knew the water was hot, though, because R1's roommate (R6) used the sink in their shared room and staff washed R1's tubigrips in the sink every night. R1 further stated R1 knew the bathroom sink was hot for sure and indicated R6 also stated the water was too hot. R1 also stated when staff wash R1's tubigrips in the sink, staff state the water is so hot and R1 noted staff can barely put their hands in the water it is so hot. On 3/22/23 at 2:10 PM, Surveyor interviewed Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA)-F who confirmed 3 residents (R8, R14 and R11) utilize the shower room for weekly showers. CNA-F verified the shower room door is locked and requires a code to enter. CNA-F stated CNA-F was not aware of any complaints regarding hot water temperatures. On 3/22/23 at 2:17 PM, Surveyor interviewed Activities Director (AD)-E who stated AD-E uses the beauty shop for activities such as nail care and hair washing. AD-E verified AD-E used the beauty shop sink to wash R5, R7, R9, R10, R12 and R13's hair. AD-E stated the beauty shop door is usually closed and locked, but verified the door was open and unlocked during Surveyor's investigation. AD-E stated AD-E was in and out of the beauty shop throughout the day completing nail care for residents. On 3/22/23 at 3:00 PM, Surveyor interviewed MT-I who stated resident bathroom sinks with a temperature of 105 degrees F had mixing valves located at the base of the sink. MT-I stated the mixing valves are designed to blend hot water with cold water to ensure a constant, safe water temperature and can be adjusted at the base of the sink. MT-I stated a desired safe water temperature is no more than 105 degrees F. MT-I confirmed the beauty shop, east wing shower room, east wing visitor's bathroom and resident bathrooms with water temperatures above 105 degrees F do not have mixing valves on the sinks/shower. MT-I further confirmed water temperatures in resident rooms are not monitored. MT-I stated the only time water temperatures are tested or adjusted is if a resident or staff voice a concern. MT-I stated MT-I did not receive and was not aware of any staff or resident complaints regarding hot water temperatures. On 3/22/23 at 3:11 PM, Surveyor observed and MT-I confirmed the hot water gauges on the hot water heaters in the basement of the facility were set at 130 degrees F. MT-I stated the facility's water heaters were inspected on 4/8/21 and Legionella testing was conducted quarterly with the last test completed on 3/9/23. MT-I stated the facility did not have a policy for testing the water temperature in resident bathrooms or facility sinks. On 3/22/23 at 4:00 PM, Nursing Home Administrator (NHA)-A confirmed the facility did not have a policy regarding water temperature testing in resident bathroom sinks. NHA-A verified NHA-A did not receive and was not aware of any hot water temperature complaints in the beauty shop, resident rooms or community shower rooms. On 3/23/23 at 8:40 AM, Surveyor interviewed Beautician (BT)-G who stated BT-G worked for the facility for several years and worked the past year on a casual basis. BT-G verified BT-G used the beauty shop sink two weeks ago. BT-G stated BT-G did not receive any complaints regarding hot water and personally did not feel the water was too hot. BT-G further stated residents have different water temperature preferences and BT-G adjusts the water using the hot and cold faucet handles to ensure the water temperature is to the residents' liking. On 3/23/22 at 11:40 AM, Surveyor interviewed BT-H who worked for the facility for approximately one year and used the beauty shop sink the week prior. BT-H stated BT-H did not receive any resident complaints regarding the water temperature and did not feel the water was too hot.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0804 (Tag F0804)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and staff and resident interview, beverages and food served to 4 Residents (R) (R1, R2, R3, and R4) of 4 re...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and staff and resident interview, beverages and food served to 4 Residents (R) (R1, R2, R3, and R4) of 4 residents were not served at a palatable temperature. Findings include: On 3/22/23 at 11:20 AM, Surveyor interviewed R1 regarding food temperatures. R1 stated when served, the hot food is always cold. On 3/22/23 at 11:47 AM, Surveyor observed Dietary Aide (DA)-K leave the dining room with a cart that contained four resident meals. DA-K delivered R1's meal last. R1 took bites of each food and stated, the casserole (German Spaetzle and cabbage) and brat ([NAME] Banger sausage) were served warm, not hot. On 3/22/23 at 11:53 AM, Surveyor observed DA-K place drinks and meals on a cart in the dining room to deliver to residents. On 3/22/23 at 12:03 PM, Surveyor observed DA-K deliver the last glass of milk and last dish of pistachio pudding (which was refrigerated prior to lunch) to R2. Surveyor took the temperature of the milk and the pudding. The temperature of the milk was 41.9 degrees Fahrenheit (F) and the temperature of the pudding was 54.8 degrees F. DA-K verified the temperature of the milk and pudding. On 3/22/23 at 12:04 PM, Surveyor observed DA-K attempt to deliver the last plate of food to R3; however, DA-K did not deliver the plate of food to R3 because R3 was sleeping. Surveyor took the temperature of the [NAME] Banger sausage and German Spaetzle and cabbage. The temperature of the [NAME] Banger sausage was 127.4 degrees F and the temperature of the German Spaetzle and cabbage was 109.5 degrees F. DA-K verified the temperature of the [NAME] Banger sausage and the German Spaetzle and cabbage. Surveyor tasted the [NAME] Banger sausage which was lukewarm to taste. Surveyor tasted the German Spaetzle and cabbage which was cool to taste. On 3/22/23 at 12:15 PM, Surveyor interviewed R4 and R4's Family Member (FM)-L regarding food temperatures. R4 and R4's FM-L stated the food is served not hot, cool. R4 then stated the [NAME] Banger sausage and German Spaetzle and cabbage were not hot when served today.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, staff interview, and record review, the facility did not ensure food was stored and prepared in a safe and sanitary manner which had the potential to affect all 28 residents resi...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, staff interview, and record review, the facility did not ensure food was stored and prepared in a safe and sanitary manner which had the potential to affect all 28 residents residing in the facility. Food in refrigerators, coolers and the dry storage area was not labeled and/or was expired. Findings include: Culinary Manager (CM)-C verified the facility did not have separate policies and procedures regarding the kitchen and followed the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) Food Code. The FDA Food Code 2022 contains information at Section 3-501.18 Ready-to-Eat, Time/Temperature Control for Safety Food, Disposition .Date Marking: .refrigerated, ready to eat, time/temperature control for safety food prepared and held in a food establishment for more than 24 hours shall be clearly marked to indicate the date or day by which the food shall be consumed on the premises, sold, or discarded when held at a temperature and time combination of 5 degrees Celsius (C) (41 degrees Fahrenheit (F)) or less for a maximum of 7 days. The day of preparation shall be counted as Day 1. Commercially processed food open and hold cold .refrigerated, ready to eat, time/temperature control for safety food prepared and packaged by a food processing plant shall be clearly marked at the time the original container is opened in a food establishment and, if the food is held for more than 24 hours, to indicate the date or day by which the food shall be consumed on the premises, sold, or discarded, based on the temperature and time combinations specified in paragraph (A) of this section and; (1) The day the original container is opened in the food establishment shall be counted as Day 1. (2) The day or date marked by the food establishment may not exceed a manufacturer's use by date if the manufacturer determined the use by date based on food safety. On 3/22/23 at 10:20 AM, Surveyor interviewed [NAME] (CK)-D regarding deli meat used for sandwiches served to residents. CK-D stated pre-made half sandwiches are kept in the dining room resident refrigerator for residents to have as a snack. CK-D also stated bologna sandwiches are on the a la carte menu for residents to choose as an alternative to any menu item. Surveyor noted the resident refrigerator contained approximately 10 half sandwiches in closed sandwich bags that contained the date made (3/22/23) and the use by date (3/25/23). Surveyor observed turkey and bologna deli meat in the kitchen refrigerator. CK-D stated the deli meat was removed from the freezer on the morning of 3/22/23 and was defrosting in the refrigerator to be used for snack and la carte sandwiches. Surveyor and CK-D noted the turkey was not labeled with the received date, the date when put in the freezer or the date when transferred from the freezer to the refrigerator. CK-D verified the date on the turkey was the stamped manufacturer's use by date of 3/20/23. Surveyor and CK-D also noted the bologna was not labeled with the received date, the date when put in the freezer or the date when transferred from the freezer to the refrigerator. CK-D verified the date on the bologna was the stamped manufacturer's use by date of 1/29/23. CK-D stated the deli meat was frozen upon arrival, was still good for use and put the deli meat back in the refrigerator for future use. Surveyor also interviewed CK-D regarding sandwich bread. CK-D showed Surveyor the sandwich bread which was located on a shelf near the prep area. Surveyor noted two open loaves of bread that contained approximately ¼ loaf each. The bags did not contain received or open dates. Surveyor also noted an open bag of English muffins that contained two to three English muffins. The bag contained a sticker from the distributor that was labeled 2/28/23. CK-D stated the sticker date was the day the item was delivered to the facility. CK-D was unsure when the two loaves of bread on the shelf were opened. CK-D stated since the facility never has them longer than two days they do not place open dates on the bread. On 3/22/23 at 12:09 PM, Surveyor interviewed CM-C who stated when food is delivered to the facility, kitchen staff should label the items with the date they arrived. If the items stay in a box on a shelf in the dry storage area, staff should label the box with the date. CM-C stated the facility also uses distributors' date stamps to track when items arrive. CM-C verified when a food item is opened for use, staff should place an open date on the item. CM-C confirmed food that is frozen and pulled to be used and defrosted, such as deli meats, should be discarded when the manufacturer's use by date has expired.
Jan 2023 7 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Transfer Requirements (Tag F0622)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interview and record review, the facility did not maintain the required documentation to ensure a resident's disc...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interview and record review, the facility did not maintain the required documentation to ensure a resident's discharge was assessed, evaluated, and documented for 2 Residents (R) (R134 and R33) of 2 residents reviewed for discharge who were not permitted to return to the facility. R134 was transferred to the hospital on 1/10/23 due to hallucinations and suicidal ideation. R134 was not permitted to return to the facility because the facility stated they were unable to meet R134's needs. The facility was unable to provide the required regulatory documentation from R134's physician and was unable to provide documentation that showed the facility could not accept R134 back based on R134's status at the time of the request to return, not at the time of discharge. R33 was transferred to the hospital on [DATE] due to hallucinations and behaviors toward staff. R33 was not permitted to return to the facility because the facility stated they were unable to meet R33's needs. The facility was unable to provide the required regulatory documentation from R33's physician and was unable to provide documentation that showed the facility could not accept R33 back based on R33's status at the time of the request to return, not at the time of discharge. Findings include: R134 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include autistic disorder, [NAME]-Cheari syndrome (where the lower part of the brain pushes down into the spinal canal) with hydrocephalus (a build-up of fluid within the brain), dystonia (a movement disorder that causes the muscles to contract involuntarily), major depressive disorder, psychotic disorder, generalized anxiety disorder and other disorders of electrolyte and fluid imbalance. R134 had a Guardian at the time of admission. R134's care plan indicated R134 required limited +1 physical assist for movement on the unit and in the hallway (gait belt or walker) and was transferred with 1 assist and a gait belt. On 1/10/23 at approximately 10:30 AM, Surveyor observed R134 transported out of the facility on a stretcher. R134 was alert at the time of transfer. On 1/10/23 at 10:39 AM, Surveyor interviewed Social Worker (SW)-F who stated R134 resided in a group home and was hospitalized prior to admission to the facility. SW-F stated R134 used to volunteer at the facility and staff knew R134's family and wanted to help out. SW-F stated that while at home with R134's Guardian, R134 experienced weakness and other medication-related issues. R134 was admitted to the facility for short-term rehab after R134's hospital stay and was supposed to go back to the group home at the end of the week. SW-F indicated that since admission, R134's suicidal ideation and hallucinations got progressively worse to the point where R134 was sent to the hospital with the hope R134 would be admitted to the behavioral psych unit to get the help R134 needed. On 1/10/23, Surveyor reviewed R134's medical record which contained multiple entries regarding hallucinations and suicidal ideation. R134 was sent to the emergency room (ER) on 1/4/23 related to suicidal ideation, but returned to the facility the same day. Surveyor noted the following: ~1/8/23 - R134 with increased hallucinations during onset of shift. States seeing blood on the walls and spiders crawling all over. Constant 1:1 provided with redirection, folding towels, music, ambulation, relaxation techniques, PRN (as needed) medication ineffective management. R134's parents arrived at 12:30 PM to take R134 out of the building in an attempt to ease the anxiety and intermittent sadness that is present. ~1/8/23 - R134 continues to have suicidal ideation and is unable to control it. R134 called the police and a dispatch was sent to the facility before supper. Writer called Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) and requested a 1:1 for R134 who told the 1:1 they were was not helping by not sending R134 to the hospital scheduled and PRN anti-anxiety medications administered but not effective. ~1/9/23 - R134 remains 1:1. Continues to report visual hallucinations like seeing spiders and blood dripping from the wall. Continues to report desire for suicide based on voices. Fire Chief took R134 to the fire station for an outing. ~1/10/23 - R134 continues to express suicidal ideation throughout shift. This is not unusual; however, R134 began talking about new methods besides laying on train tracks. Stated plan to go outside and lay in the street for a car to hit R134. In addition to voices telling R134 to harm self, was expressing visual hallucinations stating seeing blood dripping from walls/ceiling as well as spiders crawling all over .was 1:1 all evening. Called multiple people and went with Fire Chief to watch drill exercises. Once back, negative verbalizations worsened. Ability to be distracted/redirected diminished as evening progressed .writer spoke with NHA-A who informed writer to use best nursing judgement. Writer called 911 and MD was notified. The officer who arrived stated R134 was in and out of the hospital all summer with similar threats. Officer was of the opinion that if R134 was sent out, R134 would be sent back again. Officer spent approximately 40 minutes speaking with writer and R134. Officer felt R134's risk of carrying out a plan was low, but agreed that a wanderguard was good idea as well as continuing to pursue medical options to lessen symptoms. ~1/10/23 - R134 awake at 4:00 AM. 1:1 at all times. R134 asked to call Grandma. Staff stated R134 should wait to call since it was early, but R134 was welcome to call the crisis center. Staff member assisted R134 with call to crisis center. R134 reported auditory hallucinations to kill self as well as visual hallucinations of dead bodies and blood everywhere. The crisis center instructed resident to call 911. Staff attempted to reassure R134; however, R134 was inconsolable. ~1/10/23 - R134 with increased anxiety, increased hallucinations, distress and increased suicidal ideation with plan. Resident making multiple 911 calls to Police Department and Fire Chief .crying, apologetic, very nervous. 1:1, distraction, activities and music ineffective. PRN lorazepam ineffective. Request to send to ER for clearance to admit to mental health unit. Guardian in agreement. ~1/10/23 - Sections A0310G and A0310F of R134's Discharge Minimum Data Set (MDS) indicated R134's discharge was unplanned and return not anticipated. ~1/11/23 - Writer approached this AM by Fire Chief who stated R134 call Fire Chief multiple times at approximately 11:00 PM with suicidal ideation. Writer listened to concerns. Fire Chief spoke with R134 privately. Fire Chief stated Fire Chief would devise a plan regarding R134's mental health and to ensure proper utilization of fire and police resources. It was recommended R134 be sent to ER for probable admit to mental health unit for evaluation. Social Worker (SW)-F contacted R134's Guardian. SW-F contacted County Crisis who also recommended a mental health evaluation. Between 1/10/23 and 1/12/23, Surveyor reviewed R134's hospital notes which indicated R134 had hallucinations and suicidal thoughts throughout R134's stay; however, psych felt there was no danger. Hospital psych consult notes, dated 1/2/23 (the day before R134's admission to the facility) contained the following information: ~1/2/23 - Patient verbalizes auditory hallucinations telling to kill self - cover head with pillow. Denies any exacerbation of these voices or suicidal ideation. Reports feeling safe now, despite hallucinations .verbalization of suicidal ideation noted, but no dangerousness reported. admitted to hospital on [DATE] secondary to caretakers unable to care for patient. Psychiatry saw patient on 12/27/22, but was asked to revisit secondary to verbalization of suicidal ideation and reports of auditory hallucinations which are chronic in nature and appear primarily related to loneliness. Per patient, they resolve with visitors and when patient gets out of room and around others. On 1/12/23 at 12:48 PM, Surveyor interviewed R134's Guardian (G). G-E stated at the present time, R134 was admitted to behavioral health. G-E brought R134 home from the group home for the holidays and something got messed up with R134's medication. R134 was diagnosed with serotonin syndrome (a potentially life-threatening condition that occurs when medications affect serotonin levels), was hospitalized and then had another reaction to medication that caused deterioration in R134's muscles. G-E stated R134 was going back to the group home once R134 returned to baseline. G-E stated on 1/9/23, R134 called 911 three times. When R134 arrived at the ER, R134 felt better, was no longer suicidal and did not want to stay. G-E said the behavioral health unit admission was voluntary and even though G-E informed staff G-E wanted R134 admitted , they were going to discharge R134 since R134 was no longer suicidal. The hospital told G-E the facility would not take R134 back. G-E stated R134 was upset, wanted to go back to the facility and liked it there; however, G-E understood and stated R134 was a handful and the facility did a great job with R134. G-E took R134 home. Within 2 to 3 hours, G-E took R134 back to the hospital and R134 was admitted to the behavioral psych unit. On 1/12/23 at 11:16 AM, Surveyor interviewed SW-F who stated the facility did not have the services to care for R134. SW-F stated R134 was not an AMA (against medical advice) discharge and the facility told the hospital they could not care for R134 or take R134 back. Surveyor was unable to locate the required regulatory documentation in R134's medical record from R134's physician to indicate the specific needs the facility could not meet, the facility's attempt to meet R134's needs, and the services available at the receiving facility to meet R134's needs. Surveyor was unable to locate documentation in the medical record that indicated the facility based the decision upon R134's status when R134 was ready for readmission. R33 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include psychotic disorder with hallucinations. Prior to admission, R33 presented to the Emergency Department (ED) with hallucinations and a change in mental status. R33 was R33's own decision maker at the time of the emergent transfer on 10/29/22; however, R33's Power of Attorney (POA) was activated while R33 was in the hospital. Between 1/10/23 and 1/12/23, Surveyor reviewed R33's medical record and noted R33 experienced progressively worsening hallucinations since admission: ~10/20/22 at 12:09 PM Cooperative, talking to self, saying is seeing things that are not actually there. ~10/21/22 at 12:47 PM Pleasant. Seeing people in room . ~10/21/22 at 9:54 PM Hallucinations occurred during shift 7 times, grabbing at others occurred during shift 1 time. ~10/23/22 at 9:10 PM Confusion throughout day. Some minor hallucinations, mainly seeing a dog . ~10/24/22 at 12:44 PM Many hallucinations noted. ~10/25/22 Physician Notification: Resident is agitated and hallucinating, yelling at family. ~10/26/22 at 12:52 PM Multiple hallucinations noted ~10/28/22 at 6:29 AM R33 began to have hallucinations and was given Seroquel with no effect. R33 climbing out of bed, shouting loudly at the people R33 claimed were standing in room. Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) tried to tell R33 CNA saw the people as well and CNA would tell them to leave. Redirection had no effect. R33 continued to yell and try climbing out of bed. R33 was assisted back to bed and saw people in the room. Writer tried to reassure R33 we were the only two people in the room. R33 called writer stupid on more than one occasion. When attempting to swing R33's legs back onto the bed, R33 became combative and attempted to hit staff .pattern continued for over 2 hours. ~10/28/22 at 8:27 AM, Staff reported R33 having a hallucination where R33 would place arm between the wall and the bed railing. ~ Notifications to physician: ~10/28/22 - R33 has verbal and physical outbursts toward staff. R33 has hallucinations, attempts to climb out of bed, and strikes out at staff members. ~10/28/22 at 1:12 PM Multiple hallucinations. ~10/28/22 at 10:59 PM Hallucinations noted: R33 saw a man in black suit walking down the hallway. ~10/29/22 at 3:34 AM Hallucinations occurred during shift 8 times, screaming/disruptive sounds occurred during shift 3 times. ~10/29/22 at 10:58 PM At 8:30 PM, R33 started yelling and calling for help and stated there was a dead baby under the bed. R33 asked writer to call police and would not take medications until police arrived. Writer and other CNAs tried to redirect R33 to calm and take medication. R33 knocked medication cup out of writer's hand and spilled water on self. Writer crushed medication and tried to push with syringe. R33 spat out medication. R33 calmed for 20 minutes and started yelling out again. As writer went back to R33's room, a smash was heard. The bedside lamp in R33's hands. R33 smashed the bulb on the floor and wielded the bedside lamp as a weapon, telling staff not to come into room while at the same time trying to get up from a recliner. R33 sent to ER. ~10/29/22, Sections A0310F and A0310G in R33's Discharge MDS indicated R33's discharge was unplanned and return not anticipated. ~10/30/22 at 6:32 PM, R33 sent to ER for hallucinations and violent outbursts towards staff. MD called to have POA paperwork faxed. R33 had POA activated in ER. R33 was admitted . On 1/12/23, the facility provided documentation in the form of an email. The email was dated 11/3/22 at 11:28 AM from Admissions Coordinator (AC)-C to R33's hospital case manager and stated, I am following up on (R33). After much discussion with our interdisciplinary team, we have come to the conclusion that we are not an appropriate facility for (R33) to reside at. The Hospital Case manager replied on 11/3/22 at 5:28 PM, Thank you, I will pursue other options. On 1/12/23, Surveyor was unable to locate the required regulatory physician documentation in R33's medical record that indicated the facility's attempt to meet R33's needs, the specific needs the facility could not meet, and the services available at the receiving facility to meet R33's needs. There was no indication the facility based the decision they could not meet R33's needs based upon R33's status at the time R33 was ready for readmission versus R33's status at the time of transfer. On 1/12/23 at 9:21 AM, Surveyor interviewed NHA-A and requested documentation from R134 and R33's physician that included the facility's attempt to meet R134 and R33's needs, the specific needs that the facility could not meet, and the services available at the receiving facility to meet their needs. Surveyor also asked NHA-A to provide documentation the facility based the decision not to readmit R134 and R33 based on R134 and R33's status at the time readmission was requested. NHA-A stated NHA-A was not aware of the above requirements.
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 and record review, the facility did not ensure 1 Resident (R) (R21) of 2 residents reviewed for ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility did not ensure 1 Resident (R) (R21) of 2 residents reviewed for indwelling catheters received the appropriate care and services to prevent a urinary tract infection (UTI). R21's catheter care was performed without appropriate hand hygiene. In addition, R21's catheter bag was resting on the floor uncovered. Findings include: R21 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) (enlargement of the prostate gland that can cause urination difficulty), urinary retention and UTI. R21's most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], contained a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 which indicated R21 was cognitively intact. R21 also had an indwelling catheter. On 1/12/23 at 8:20 AM, Surveyor observed R21 in bed. Surveyor noted R21's catheter bag was resting flat on the floor without a covering. Surveyor observed Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA)-I gather supplies to perform catheter care. Surveyor asked CNA-I if leaving R21's catheter bag on the floor was common practice. CNA stated No and denied knowledge of why the bag was on the floor. CNA-I then lifted the bag off the floor and attached the bag to a holding device. Surveyor observed CNA-I provide morning cares and catheter care for R21. Surveyor noted CNA-I used the same gloves and washcloths without performing hand hygiene in between and touched multiple surfaces with soiled gloves. During the observation, CNA-I changed gloves twice without performing hand hygiene and emptied R21's catheter bag into a urinal. CNA-I did not use an alcohol wipe to clean the catheter bag spout before or after emptying the bag. On 1/12/23 at 9:05 AM, Surveyor interviewed R21 regarding placement of the catheter bag. R21 indicated staff routinely emptied the bag and usually hooked the bag on R21's wheelchair. On 1/12/23 at 10:51 AM, Surveyor interviewed CNA-I who verified CNA-I did not perform hand hygiene between glove changes and touched multiple surfaces with soiled gloves. CNA-I also verified CNA-I used a dirty washcloth to clean R21's catheter tubing. Per CNA-I, hand hygiene education was completed yearly. On 1/12/23 at 11:00 AM, Surveyor interviewed Nurse Manager (NM)-J who stated hand hygiene should be performed before entering a resident's room and after dirty gloves are removed. Per NM-J, the same washcloth should not be used to perform personal hygiene and catheter care. On 1/12/23 at 9:22 AM, Surveyor interviewed Nursing Home Administrator (NHA)-A regarding hand hygiene and catheter care. NHA-A stated staff were expected to perform hand hygiene in between glove changes and before donning clean gloves. NHA-A stated hand hygiene education was completed upon hire and annually. NHA-A stated the last skills check off was completed in September of 2022.
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, interview, and record review, the facility did not provide pharmaceutical services to ensure accurate admi...

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 pharmaceutical services to ensure accurate administration of medications for 2 Residents (R) (R1 and R4) of 7 residents reviewed for medication administration. On 1/11/23, R1 did not receive scheduled AM medications in a timely manner and was administered one medication incorrectly. On 1/11/23, R4 did not receive scheduled AM medications in a timely manner. Findings include: The facility's Medication/Treatment Administration Times policy contains the following information: AM 0600 (6:00 AM) - 0930 (9:30 AM) Midday 1000 (10:00 AM) - 1330 (1:30 PM) PM 1400 (2:00 PM) - 1830 (6:30 PM) HS 1900 (7:00 PM) - 2130 (9:30 PM) NOC 2200 (10:00 PM) - 0530 (5:30 AM) 1. R1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include Parkinson's disease, hypertension (high blood pressure), orthostatic hypotension (low blood pressure when standing after sitting or lying down), atrial fibrillation (irregular/rapid heart rate) and coronary artery disease (heart disease). R1's most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 10/27/22, contained a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 which indicated R1 was cognitively intact. R1 also received Hospice services. On 1/11/23, Surveyor reviewed R1's physician orders and noted the following medications were scheduled to be administered at breakfast: -Midodrine 5 mg (milligrams) (for low blood pressure) -Furosemide 40 mg (for high blood pressure) -Miralax 17 mg (for constipation) -Ashwagandha 500 mg (provided by family) (used for supplement) -Carbidopa-Levodopa 25 mg-100 mg (for Parkinson's Disease) -K-[NAME] M20 ER (extended release) (used to prevent low potassium) -Ondansetron 4 mg (for nausea) -Senna Plus 8.6 mg-50 mg (give 2 tabs) (for constipation) On 1/11/23 at 9:45 AM, Surveyor observed LPN-H prepare and administer R1's scheduled AM medication. Surveyor observed LPN-H prepare and administered Mucuna with Ashwagandha 1500 mg instead of Ashwagandha 500 mg. LPN-H also verified R1's AM medications were administered late. On 1/11/23 at 10:07 AM, LPN-H verified the Mucuna with Ashwagandha 1500 mg bottle provided by R1's family should have been Ashwagandha 500 mg per the physician's order. 2. R4 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses to include dementia, depression, hypertension and vitamin D deficiency. R4's most recent MDS, dated [DATE], contained a BIMS score of 2 which indicated R4 was severely cognitively impaired. On 1/11/23, Surveyor reviewed R4's physician orders and noted the following medications were scheduled to be administered at breakfast: - Tamiflu 75 mg (used to treat/prevent influenza) - Senna Plus 8.6 mg -50 mg (2 tabs) (for constipation) - Sertraline 100 mg (for depression) - Loratadine 10 mg (for allergies) - Vitamin D3 25 mcg (micrograms) (2 tabs) (to treat/prevent low Vitamin D) - Preservision Eye Vitamin (for supplement) On 1/11/23 at 9:55 AM, Surveyor observed LPN-H prepare and administer R4's AM medication. On 1/11/23 at 10:07 AM, Surveyor interviewed LPN-H who confirmed R4's AM medications were administered late. On 1/11/23 at 1:51 PM, Surveyor interviewed Director of Nursing (DON)-B regarding medication administration. DON-B confirmed the facility's AM medication administration time was from 6:00 AM to 9:30 AM. DON-B stated staff were expected to administer AM medications by 9:30 AM, ensure physician orders were followed and not administer medication provided by a resident's family without ensuring the dose matched the physician's order. DON-B confirmed Mucana with Ashwagandha 1500 mg was administered instead of Ashwagandha 500 mg and stated LPN-H was asked to stop administering Mucana with Ashwagandha 1500 mg until the correct formulation was obtained.
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. R27 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include depression, anxiety, dementia with behavioral disturbanc...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. R27 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include depression, anxiety, dementia with behavioral disturbance, restlessness and agitation. R27's most recent Minimal Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], contained a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 5 which indicated R27 was cognitively impaired. From 1/11/23 to 1/12/23, Surveyor reviewed R27's medical record. R27 was prescribed Seroquel 25 mg daily. Surveyor was unable to locate an AIMS assessment in R27's medical record and the facility was unable to provide an AIMS assessment for R27. See Surveyor interview with DON-B under example 1. Based on staff interview and record review, the facility did not ensure 2 Residents (R) (R20 and R27) of 5 residents were free from unnecessary antipsychotic medication by monitoring for adverse reactions. R20 was prescribed Seroquel (an antipsychotic medication) related to delirium. R20 did not have an updated AIMS (Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale) (an assessment completed at regular intervals to monitor side effects for antipsychotic medication) assessment completed. R27 was prescribed Seroquel (used to treat major depressive disorder/behavioral disturbances). R27 did not have an AIMS assessment completed. Findings include: Antipsychotic medications come with a black box warning which is the strictest and most serious type of warning the FDA (Federal Food and Drug Administration) gives a medication. A black box warning is meant to draw attention to a medication's serious or life-threatening side effects or risks. The facility's Behavioral Management policy, with a review date of 11/14/22, contained the following information: 8. An AIMS assessment is to be completed by a licensed nurse when an antipsychotic medication is initiated. They should continue to be completed by a licensed nurse quarterly for the length of the antipsychotic medication. 1. R20 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include Alzheimer's disease, major depressive disorder and delusional disorder. R20 was followed regularly by psychiatry. Between 1/10/23 and 1/12/23, Surveyor reviewed R20's medical record. R20 was prescribed 50 mg (milligrams) of quetiapine fumarate (Seroquel) daily at HS (bedtime) for delusions. R20's last AIMS assessment was completed on 2/7/22. On 1/11/23 at 1:45 PM, Surveyor interviewed Director of Nursing (DON)-B who confirmed the facility was behind on AIMS assessments. DON-B stated staff were expected to complete AIMS assessments quarterly.
CONCERN (E)

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

Transfer Notice (Tag F0623)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interview and record review, the facility did not ensure 5 Residents (R) (R2, R20, R33, R27 and R134) of 5 reside...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interview and record review, the facility did not ensure 5 Residents (R) (R2, R20, R33, R27 and R134) of 5 residents reviewed for hospitalizations received the proper written notice of transfer to include the date of transfer, reason for transfer, appeal rights and contact information for the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman. Additionally, the facility did not inform the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman of discharges/transfers for 3 (R2, R32, and R33) of 6 sampled residents reviewed for discharges/transfers (one resident was not over the age of 60 and two residents were transferred in the current month). R2 was transferred to the emergency room (ER) on 11/25/22 with lethargy and cola-colored urine. R2 was not provided a written transfer notice. In addition, the Ombudsman was not notified of R2's transfer. R20 was transferred to the ER on [DATE] related to a change in condition. R20 was not provided a written transfer notice. In addition, the Ombudsman was not notified of R20's transfer. R33 was transferred to the ER on [DATE] related to behaviors and hallucinations. R33 was not provided a written transfer notice. In addition, the Ombudsman was not notified of R33's transfer. R27 was transferred to the ER on [DATE] related to a change in condition. R27 was not provided a written transfer notice. R134 was transferred to the ER on [DATE] related to hallucinations and suicidal ideation. R134 was not provided a written transfer notice and did not return to the facility. R32 discharged from the facility after completing a short-term rehab stay on 10/21/22. The Ombudsman was not notified of R32's discharge. Findings include: Between 1/10/23 and 1/12/23, Surveyor reviewed the following residents' medical records related to hospitalizations and discharges and noted the following: ~On 11/25/22, R2 was transferred to the hospital for cola-colored urine and lethargy on 11/25/22. ~On 1/4/23, R27 was transferred to the ER related to a new or sudden onset of a change in condition. R27 returned to the facility the same day. ~On 10/29/22, R33 was transferred to the ER and admitted due to hallucinations and aggressive behaviors toward staff. Surveyor noted R33's Power of Attorney for Healthcare was activated while R33 was in the hospital. R33 did not return to the facility. ~R32 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and was discharged from the facility on 10/21/22. ~On 9/15/22, R20 was transferred to the ER. R20 returned to the facility on 9/22/22. ~R134 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. R134 was under [AGE] years old and had a Guardian in place. R134 was transferred to the hospital on 1/10/23 due to suicidal ideation and hallucinations and did not return to the facility. On 1/11/23 at 12:21 PM, Surveyor interviewed Guardian (G)-E who stated the facility called G-E for permission to transfer R134; however, G-E did not recall a conversation with staff regarding a bed hold, transfer notice or appeal rights. On 1/11/23, Surveyor requested a copy of the written notice of transfer for R2, R20, R33, R27 and R134 related to the above hospitalizations as well as Ombudsman notification for the past 4 months. The facility was unable to provide the documentation. On 1/11/23 at 10:04 AM, Surveyor interviewed Health Unit Coordinator (HUC)-D who verified there should be a transfer notice, but thought the notices came from the admissions office. On 1/11/23 at 10:05 AM, Surveyor interviewed Admissions Coordinator (AC)-C who stated the facility did not provide a written transfer notice at the time of transfer. AC-C stated there was a Notice of Transfer listed in the admission agreement that residents acknowledged and signed upon admission to the facility. AC-C stated staff documented the transfer (the transfer location and reason) in the resident's medical record. On 1/11/23 at 1:46 PM, Surveyor further interviewed AC-C regarding Ombudsman notification. AC-C indicated Ombudsman notification was not sent since the former Admissions Coordinator left in July of 2021. On 1/12/23 at 9:21 AM, Surveyor interviewed Nursing Home Administrator (NHA)-A who stated NHA-A expected staff to provide a written transfer notice when a resident was transferred to the hospital. NHA-A also stated NHA-A expected staff to notify the Ombudsman of transfers and discharges.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0625 (Tag F0625)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interview and record review, the facility did not ensure 4 Residents (R) (R2, R20, R27 and R134) of 5 residents r...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interview and record review, the facility did not ensure 4 Residents (R) (R2, R20, R27 and R134) of 5 residents reviewed for hospitalizations received the proper bed hold notice when transferred to the hospital. R2 was transferred to the emergency room (ER) on 11/25/22 related to cola-colored urine and lethargy. R2 was not provided proper bed hold notification. R20 was transferred to the ER on [DATE] related to a change in condition. R20 was not provided proper bed hold notification. R27 was transferred to the ER on [DATE] related to a change in condition. R27 was not provided proper bed hold notification. R134 was transferred to the ER on [DATE] related to hallucinations and suicidal ideation. R134 was not provided proper bed hold notification. Findings include: Between 1/10/23 and 1/12/23, Surveyor reviewed the medical records for R2, R20, R27 and R134 and noted the following: ~R2's medical record indicated R2 was transferred to the ER on [DATE] related to cola-colored urine and lethargy. ~R20's medical record indicated R20 was transferred to the ER on [DATE] and hospitalized . R20 returned to the facility on 9/22/22. ~R27's medical record indicated R27 was transferred to the ER on [DATE] related to a new or sudden onset of change in condition. R27 returned to the facility the same day. On 1/11/23 at 1:13 PM, Surveyor interviewed Social Worker (SW)-F regarding bed hold notification for R27. SW-F stated the facility did not provide R27 a bed hold notice because the facility knew R27 would come back. ~R134 had a Guardian in place and was transferred to the ER on [DATE] due to suicidal ideation and hallucination. R134 did not return to the facility. On 1/11/23 at 11:45 AM, Surveyor interviewed SW-F regarding bed hold notification for R134. SW-F stated the facility did not provide R134 a bed hold notice because they hoped R134 would be admitted to the behavioral health unit to receive the care R134 needed. On 1/11/23 at 12:21 PM, Surveyor interviewed R134's Guardian (G-E) who stated the facility called G-E for permission to transfer R134 to the ER. G-E stated they hoped R134 would be admitted to the behavioral health unit; however, that did not occur and the hospital contacted the facility to send R134 back. The facility stated they could not take R134 back. G-E did not recall a conversation with facility staff in which bed hold notification was provided prior to R134's transfer. On 1/11/23 at 10:05 AM, Surveyor interviewed Admissions Coordinator (AC)-C who stated bed hold forms were recently redone because they did not contain accurate information. AC-C accompanied Surveyor to the nurses' station, retrieved a copy of the bed hold form and stated staff should fill out the form and provide it to residents or resident representatives upon transfer. AC-C provided a copy of the bed hold policy to Surveyor and stated residents and families signed the form upon admission. Surveyor noted the form was not offered to residents or resident representatives for each transfer. On 1/11/23 at 1:16 PM, Surveyor interviewed Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)-G who stated LPN-G worked at the facility for approximately 1 month. LPN-G stated the facility's electronic charting system contained a discharge packet that was printed when a resident was transferred to the hospital. LPN-G stated bed hold notices printed with the packet. On 1/11/23, Surveyor requested copies of the transfer packets that were sent with R134 and R20. Surveyor noted the bed hold policy was not a part of the packet. On 1/12/23 at 9:21 AM, Surveyor interviewed Nursing Home Administrator (NHA)-A who confirmed the expectation was for staff to provide bed hold information to residents/resident representatives at the time of transfer.
CONCERN (E)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 4. R21 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include heart failure, shortness of breath (SOB) and atrial fibr...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 4. R21 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include heart failure, shortness of breath (SOB) and atrial fibrillation (irregular and often very rapid heart rhythm). R21's most recent MDS, dated [DATE], contained a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 which indicated R21 was cognitively intact. In Section O: Special Treatments, Procedures and Programs of R21's MDS, bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPap)/CPAP was marked under 1. While NOT a Resident. On 1/12/23 at 8:20 AM, Surveyor observed R21 in bed with a CPAP mask on and in working order. On 1/12/23, Surveyor reviewed R21's medical record which did not contain a comprehensive resident-centered care plan for CPAP use. Surveyor noted R21's plan of care did not contain any information related to CPAP use or care of the machine. On 1/12/13, Surveyor interviewed DON-B who verified R21 did not have a care plan for CPAP use or care of the machine. DON-B stated DON-B expected the facility to have a care plan for CPAP use in R21's medical record. Based on staff interview and record review, the facility did not develop comprehensive care plans for 4 Residents (R)(R8, R3, R25, and R21) of 12 residents reviewed. R8 received Hospice services. R8's medical record did not contain a comprehensive care plan for Hospice services. R3 received Hospice services. R3's medical record did not contain a comprehensive care plan for Hospice services. R25 required dialysis. R25's medical record did not contain a comprehensive care plan for dialysis services. R21 had an order for a continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) machine (used to treat a disorder in which breathing repeatedly stops and starts during sleep). R21's medical record did not contain a comprehensive care plan related to CPAP use. Findings include: The facility's contract for Hospice services stated under e(ii): Coordination of care: Facility shall ensure that facility's plan of care for each Hospice patient reflects both the most recent Hospice plan of care and a description of the facility services furnished by the facility in accordance with its applicable regulations. 1. R8 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include dementia with behavioral disturbance, anxiety disorder, pain and Parkinson's disease. R8 was admitted to Hospice services on 7/20/22. R8's Significant Change of Condition Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment (a comprehensive assessment completed on residents at regular intervals or upon a change in condition), dated 8/1/22, indicated R8 was admitted to Hospice services. Between 1/10/23 and 1/12/23, Surveyor reviewed R8's medical record which did not contain a comprehensive Hospice plan of care. On 1/11/23 at 1:45 PM, Surveyor interviewed Director of Nursing (DON)-B who stated DON-B just realized there were no Hospice care plans for R8 and R3. DON-B confirmed DON-B expected the facility to have care plans for residents on Hospice services in the residents' medical records. 2. R3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include Alzheimer's disease, dementia and traumatic hemorrhage of cerebrum. R3's most recent MDS, dated [DATE], indicated R3 required extensive assistance of staff for transfers, bed mobility and hygiene. R3 received Hospice services. On 1/11/23, Surveyor reviewed R3's medical record which did not contain a comprehensive Hospice care plan. See interview with DON-B following example 1. 3. R25 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include end stage renal disease, hyperparathyroidism (an excess of parathyroid hormone) renal-related and diabetes. On 1/11/23, Surveyor reviewed R25's medical record which did not contain a comprehensive care plan for dialysis On 1/12/23, Surveyor interviewed Nursing Home Administrator (NHA)-A who verified R25 did not have a dialysis care plan, but should have a person-centered care plan related to dialysis services. See interview with DON-B following example 1.
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.
  • • 36% turnover. Below Wisconsin's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 21 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • Grade C (58/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Mixed indicators with Trust Score of 58/100. Visit in person and ask pointed questions.

About This Facility

What is Hope Health And Rehab's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns HOPE HEALTH AND REHAB an overall rating of 4 out of 5 stars, which is considered above average nationally. Within Wisconsin, this rating places the facility higher than 99% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This rating reflects solid performance across the metrics CMS uses to evaluate nursing home quality.

How is Hope Health And Rehab Staffed?

CMS rates HOPE HEALTH AND REHAB's staffing level at 5 out of 5 stars, which is much above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 36%, compared to the Wisconsin average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Hope Health And Rehab?

State health inspectors documented 21 deficiencies at HOPE HEALTH AND REHAB during 2023 to 2025. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death) and 20 with potential for harm. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.

Who Owns and Operates Hope Health And Rehab?

HOPE HEALTH AND REHAB is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 38 certified beds and approximately 30 residents (about 79% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in LOMIRA, Wisconsin.

How Does Hope Health And Rehab Compare to Other Wisconsin Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Wisconsin, HOPE HEALTH AND REHAB's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 3.0, staff turnover (36%) is significantly lower than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Hope Health And Rehab?

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 Hope Health And Rehab Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, HOPE HEALTH AND REHAB has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 4-star overall rating and ranks #1 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 Hope Health And Rehab Stick Around?

HOPE HEALTH AND REHAB has a staff turnover rate of 36%, which is about average for Wisconsin nursing homes (state average: 46%). Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.

Was Hope Health And Rehab Ever Fined?

HOPE HEALTH AND REHAB 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 Hope Health And Rehab on Any Federal Watch List?

HOPE HEALTH AND REHAB 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.